Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Exhibit A
FIPW A-FLA-EIS-09-01-F Federal Highway Administration Florida Division ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration` and Florida Department of Transportation Financial .Project Number: 251670-1-22-02 L.T.ID.Ivla'7701 Federal -Aid Project Number: NI-6182 (10) Interstate 395 (I-395), from the 1-95 Midtown Interchange (I-95/SR-836/I 395) ramps to MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay, in the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida The existing 1.4-mile corridor , is elevated , through the Overtown and Edgewater neighborhoods, with four through lanes and ramps for interchanges at 1-95, NE 1st Avenue, NE 2thl Avenue and US-1/Biscayne Boulevard, It is listed with the East-West Expressway (SR-836), a toll road, and with the MacArthur Causeway (US-41, SR-A1A) across Biscayne Bay. Major reconstruction, including interchanges, is proposed. The four construction alternatives include two elevated designs, a tunnel and an open cut. Submitted pursuant to 42 IJSC 43332(2Xc) and 49 t.SC 303. N /5/10 Date For additional information, contact: Aileen Boucle, AICP Linda X. A4derson' District Planning, Project>Developunent and ,: Environmental Protection Specialist Environmental Administrator ,: Federal Highway Administration Planning and Environmental Management Office 545 John Knox Road, Suite 200 Florida Department of Transportation Tallahassee, Florida.32303 1000 NW 111th Avenue, Room 6111A Telephone: g50-942-9650, x.3053 Miami, Florida 33172 Telephone: 305-470-5200 Comments must be received by the Administrator of the District Planning and Environmental Management Office at the above address: By: q ( ' / Zs/ Martin,Knopp: Division Administrator Federal. Highway Administration z,. • List of Acronyms Used TABLE OF CONTENTS RAN v.-MU SUMMARY S-1 S.1 Proposed Action S-1 S.2 Other Major Government Actions and Permits Required S-2 , , S.3 Alternatives Considered S-4 S.4 Recommended Alternative S-6 S.5 Major Environmental Impacts S-6 S.6 Areas of Controversy S-8 S.7 List of Other Government Actions Required S-8 S.8 Probable Adverse Environmental Effect§ Which Cannot Be Avoided S-9 S.9 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources S-9 S.10 Feasible Measures to Avoid or MinimizePotential Adverse Impact S-9 S.11 Short -Term Impacts versus Long -Term Environmental Benefits S-10 , 1'.0 PURPOSE AND NEET-.) FOR ACTION 1-1 1.1 System Linkage 1-1 1.2 Transportation Demand 1-7 , '''' ' ''''•'; 1.3 ' Federal, Sate, or Local Government Authority ' 1,9 1.4 Social Demands and/or Economic Development 1-10 1,5 -Modal Interrelationships ' 1-11 1.6 Capacity , 1-13 1,7 Safety -"' - g-- ' - "' ' -' ' 1-17 1,8 Structural Sufficiency . — ' - ' 1-18 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION ' 2-1 2.1 Introduction ' ' 2-1 2.2 No-Build'AlternatiVe (Alternative 1) 2-1 2.3 Transportation Systems Management 2-5 2.4 Multimodal Alternatives-. , 2-5 2.5 Florida-Intrastate4fighway System (FIHS) Master Plan 2-7 2.6 - donStruttion4lternatives - - ' '. -- '' 2-7- 2.6.1 Alternative 2 (Elevated, Ramps at Midtown Interchange) 2-7 2.6.2 ,,,Alternative 3 .(Elevated, Ramps at Miami Avenue) ' ' 240 2.6-.3 Alternative 4 (Tunnel, Ramp5§"rafMiatiii Avenue) • ' 2-10 2.6.4 .Alternative 5 (Open -Cut, Ramps at NE?1and 2nd Avenues).— 216 2,7 ' Alternatives Analysis '-- . •• • .' 2-19 . ,,. 2.7.1 Phase One Conceptual Design Analysis ' ' 2-19 2.7.2 .Phase Two: Evaluation of Conceptual Solutions - ' - - '2-21 2.7.3 Phase Three: Pre -Final Alternative AlignmenfEvaluation • • 2-21 2.7.4 Phase Four: Final Alternative Alignment Evaluation 2-23 3.0 AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT - • - - - • 3-1 3.1 Population and Community. Characteristics 3-1 3;-1,1 • Deindgraphics 3-1 • FHWA-FLA-EIS-09-01-F Federal Highway Administration Florida Division • • ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration' and Florida Department of Transportation Financial Project liumber : 251670-1-22-02 E.T.D.IVI.: 7701 Federal -Aid Project Number: NH-6182 (10) • Interstate 395 (I-395), from the 1-95 Midtown Interchange (I-95/SR-836/1-395) ramps to MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay, in the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida The existing 1A-mile corridor is elevated , through the Overtown and Edgewater neighborhoods, with four through lanes and ramps for interchanges at 1-95, NE ist Avenue, NE 21'd Avenue and US-1/Biscayne Boulevard, It is linked with the East-West Expressway (SR-836), a toll road, and with the MacArthur Causeway (US-41, SR-AIA) across Biscayne I3ay. Major reconstruction, including interchanges, is proposed. The four construction alternatives include two elevated designs, a tunnel and an open cut. Submitted pursuant to 42 TiSC 43332(2X0) and 49 TJSC 303. o • / Date <0‘,„ MartinKnopp For additional information, contact: Aileen Boucle, AICP District Planning, Project Development and Environmental Administrator Planning and Environmental Management Office Florida Department of Transportation 1000 NW 1114 Avenue, Room 6111A Miatni, Florida 33172 Telephone: 305-470-5200 Di• vision Administrator Federal, Highway Administration Linda K. Anderson Environmental Protection Specialist Federal Highway Administration 545 John Knox Road, Suite NO Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Telephone: 850-942-9650, x.3053 Comments must be received by the Administrator of the District Planning and Environmental Management Office at the above address: ny: 5.1 .izoft.) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Acronyms Used v yii. SUMMARY S-1 S.1 Proposed Action S-1 S.2 Other Major Government Actions and Permits Required S-2 S.3 Alternatives Considered S-4 S.4 Recommended Alternative S-6 S.5 Major Environmental Impacts S-6 S.6 Areas of Controversy S-8 S.7 List of Other Government Actions Required S-8 S.8 Probable Adverse Environmental Effect"s Which Cannot Be Avoided S-9 S.9 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources S-9 S.10 Feasible Measures to Avoid or Minimize Potential Adverse Impact S-9 S.11 Short -Term Impacts versus Long -Term Environmental Benefits S-10 1'.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 l' 1.1 System Linkage 1-1 1.2 Transportation Demand 1-7 1.3 Federal, .State, or Local Government Authority1'-9 1.4 Social Demands and/or Economic Development ' 1-10 15 'ModalInterrelationships ` 1-11 1.6 Capacity 1-13 1.7 :_ Safety :,.: 1-17 1.8 Structural Sufficiency 1-18 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2-1 2.2 NoBuild Alternative (Alternative 1) 2-1 2.3 Transportation Systems Management 2-5 2.4 Multimodal Alternatives 2-5 2.5 Florida:Intrastate`Highway System (FIHS) Master Plan 2-7 2.6 ` , Construction:Alternatives 2-7 2.6.1 Alternative 2 (Elevated, Ramps at Midtown Interchange) 2-7 2.6.2 _ Alternative 3 (Elevated, Ramps at Miami Avenue)' 240 16.3 Alternative 4 (Tunnel, Ramps' at Miami Avenue) 2-10 2.6.4 Alternative 5 (Open -Cut, Ramps at NE-1s` and 2nd Avenues)2-16 27 Alternatives. Analysis > .•. 2-19 2.7.1: Phase One: Conceptual Design Analysis' 2-19 2.7.2 Phase Two: Evaluation of Conceptual Solutions "2-21 2.7.3 Phase Three: Pre -Final Alternative Alignment'Evaluation .i2 21 2.7.4 Phase Four: Final Alternative Alignment Evaluation 2-23 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 3.1 3.1 Population and Community Characteristics 3-1 3.1.1 Demographics 3-1 i 3,1.2 Historical Perspective Overtown 3-4 3,1.3 Historical Perspective — Other Neighborhoods 3-7 3.1,4 Existing Community Facilities 3-9 3.2 Environmental Justice 3-15 3.3 Economic Conditions 3-15 3.4 Cultural Resources 3-17 3.4.1 Section 106 Resources 3-17 3.4.2 Section 4(f) Resources 3-22 3.5 Utilities and Railroads 3-23 3.6 Comprehensive Planning 3-24 3.7 Water Resources 3-27 3,8 Floodplains 3-27 3.9 Vegetation 3-29 3.10 Wildlife and Habitat 3-30 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1 4.1 Social and Economic Impacts 4-1 4.1.1 Community Cohesion 4-2 4.1.2 Environmental Justice 4-3 4.1.3 Community Facilities and Services 4-5 4.1.4 Land Uses 4-6 4.1.5 Utilities and Railroads 4-7 4.1.6 Relocations 4-7 4.2 Cultural and Historical Resources 4-15 4.2.1 Archaeological and Historical 4-15 4.2.2 Recreational and Parkland 4-22 4.2.3 Section 4(f) Resources 4-22 4.3 Natural and Physical Impacts 4-25 4.3.1 Pedestrian / Bicycle Facilities 4-25 4.3.2 Visual /Aesthetics 4-35 4.3.3 Air 4-35 4.3.4 Noise 4-43 4.3.5 Wetlands 4-50 4.3.6 Aquatic Preserves 4-52 4.3.7 Water Quality 4-52 4.3.8 Otitstanding`Florida Waters 4-53 4.3,9 Contamination 4-53 4.3.10 Wild and Scenic Rivers`°°` 4-61 4.3.11 Floodplains 4-61 4.3.12 Coastal Zone Consistency 4-64 4.3.13 Coastal Barrier Island Resources 4.64 4.3.14 Wildlife and Habitat 4-64 4.3.15 Essential Fish Habitat 4-66 4.3.16 Farmlands 4.67 4.3.17 Construction 4.67 4.4 Indirect and Cumulative Effects 4-76 4.5 Conclusions 4-78 5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Advance Notification 5-1 5.3 Interagency Coordination and Consultation 5-12 5.4 Public Involvement Program 5-13 5.5 Comments 5-26 5.6 Official Statements of Concurrence 5-26 5.7 Public Hearing 5-27 5.8 Agency Comments on DEIS 5-28 5.9 Commitments and Recommendations , 5-30 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1 7.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND:PERSONS-TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT 7-1 8.0 INDEX 8-1 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Correspondence APPENDIX B: Public Involvement APPENDIX C; Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Summary Report APPENDIX D: Pre -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Nan. APPENDIX E; Public Hearing Documents LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1-1 Project Vicinity Map 1-2 1-2 Project Location Map 1-3 1-3 Major Street Truck Routes to/from Port of Miami 1-8 1-4 ,Freeway Analysis (Alternative 1) 1-15 1-5 Freeway Analysis (Alternative 3) 1-16 2-1 Alternative 1, (No -Build), , 2-2 2.2, Alternative 1, (No -Build) [with Profile, Plan, Schematic] 2-3 ,2-3. Alternative 1, Existing Typical Sections Along 1,395 2-4 2-4 Alternative 2 (Ramps at Midtown Interchange) . 2-8 2-5 Alternative 2 (Ramps at Midtown Interchange).., 2-9 2-6 Alternative 3 (Ramps at Miami Avenue) 2-11 2-7 Alternative 3 (Ramps at Miami Avenue) ,..::., 2-12 2.8 Alternative 3 Proposed Typical Sections 2-13 2-9 Alternative 4 (Tunnel) 2-14 2-10 Alternative 4 (Tunnel) 2-15 2-11 Alternative 5 (Open Cut) 2-17 2-12 Alternative 5 (Open Cut) 2-18 2-13 Alternative Selection Process 2-20 iii LIST. OF FIGURES, continued 2-14 Sensitivity Analysis Results 2-25 3-1 Existing & Future Land Use Map 3-3 3-2 Schools & Day Care Centers Map 3-10 3-3 Community Facilities and Services Map 3-12 3-4 Historic Resources Map 3-19 3-5 Floodplain Map 3-28 4-1 Right -of -Way Impacts — Alternative 3 4-11 4-2 Parks in the Vicinity 4-23 4-3 Comparison of Profiles at Parks 4-24 4-4 Overtown MOT, Phase 1 Locations 4-27 4-5 Overtown MOT, Phase I Detour Scheme 4-28 4-6 Overtown MOT, Phase II Locations 4-29.. 4-7 Overtown MOT, Phase II Detour Scheme 4-30 4-8 Overtown MOT, Phase. III Locations 4-31 4-9 Overtown MOT, Phase III Detour Scheme 4-32, 4-10 Overtown MOT, Phase IV Locations 4-33 4-11 Overtown MOT, Phase IV Detour Scheme 4-34 4-12 Modeled NoiseReceiverLocations 4-45 4-13 Noise Level lsopleths 4-51, 4-14 High & Medium Risk Potential Contamination Sites Location Map 4-55 4-15 Alternative 3 MOT Phase I 4-69 4-16 Alternative 3 MOT Phase II 4-70 4-17 Alternative 3 MOT Phase III 4-71 4-18 Alternative 3 MOT Phase IV 4-72 4-19 Alternative 3 MOT Phase V , 4-73 4-20 Alternative 3 MOT Phase VI 4-74 4-21 Alternative 3 MOT Phase VII 4-75 5-1 Initial Public Comments Compendium 5-24 5-2 Final Public Comments Compendium 5-25 LIST 'OF TABLES Table Page 1-1 Causeways over Biscayne Bay 176 2-1 Evaluation of TSM Alternatives 2-6 2-2 I-395 Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Matrix . 2-22 2-3 Pre -Final Alternative Evaluation Process - 2-23 3-1 Historic Resources 3-18 4-1 Impacted Properties — Alternative 3 y, 4-12 4-2 CO Florida 2004 Traffic Data Summary 4-37 4-3 CO Florida 2004 Screening Analysis Results 4-38 4-4 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and FDOT Noise, Abatement ........ Approach Criteria (NAAC). , . 4-44 4-5 Modeled Noise Receiver. Locations and Predicted Traffic Noise Levels4-46 4-6 Potential Contamination Sites 4-56 5-1 Letters of Project Support 5-27 iv LIST OF ACRONYMS USED AACPA Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day, two-way) ADA Americans with Disability Act AN' Advance Notification (of a Project Development & Environment project) AP Aquatic Preserve (F.S. Section 258.35-258.46) ' AR/WA Advance Right -of -Way Acquisition AST aboveground storage tank BTEX benzene, toluene, ethyl -benzene and xylene CAR Contamination Assessment Report CEQ Council of Environmental Quality CE-2 Type-2 Categorical Exclusion CBD Central Business District CDMP Miami -Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan CFA Core Foraging Area (of the federally endangered wood stork) CLUC Current Land Use Category (Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser) CO carbon monoxide CRA Miami -Dade County Community Redevelopment Authority CRAS Cultural Resource Assessment Survey CSER Contamination Soteening Evaluation Report (SRI' Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan CT Census Tract (U.S. Census Bureau) dBA Decibels, A -weighted DDA Downtown Development Authority DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DERM Miami -Dade County Dept. of Environmental Resources Management • DNI, Day -night noise level E Endangered (E) species(flora or fauna) EA Environmental Assessment EA/FONSI Environmental Assessment/Finding Of No Significant Impact EFH Essential Fish Habitat — Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ERP Environmental Resources Permit ETAT Environmental Teehnical Advisory Team (member) ETDM Efficient Transportation Decision Making FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDOS Florida Department of State FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FEC Florida East Coast Railway FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal flighvvay Administration (of the U.S. DOT) FIRS Federal Intrastate Highway System FIU Florida International University FPL Florida Power and Light Company FTA Federal Transit Administration (of the U.S. DOT) FTE Florida Turnpike Enterprise (an FDOT district) FWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission GWCTL Ground Water Cleanup Target Levels HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern HEFT Homestead Extension of Florida's Turnpike/SR 91 HC hydrocarbons HOV High Occupancy Vehicle (lane) ICE indirect and cumulative effects ICW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway IRA Initial Remedial Action Report LDCA Location/Design Concept Acceptance by FHWA LOS Level of Service LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan LUAC Land Use Activity Category MDT Miami -Dade Transit MDX Miami -Dade Expressway Authority MIA Miami International Airport MIC Miami Intermodal Center MDCPS Miami -Dade County Public Schools MOP Monitoring Only Plan MOT Maintenance of Traffic MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization (of Miami -Dade County) MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxiies NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NAAC Noise Abatement Approach Criteria'' NEPA National Environmental Policy Act,` NET Neighborhood Enhancement Team (police) NFAP No Further Action Plan NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum (elevation referenced to sea level) NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration " NOV Notice of Violation NO,, oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places OFW Outstanding Florida Waters 03 ozone OCA Order for Corrective Action PAG Project Advisory Group PD&E Project Development & Environment PER Preliminary Engineering Report PIP Public Involvement Program vi PLEMO PMio POM PPM ROD Planning and Environmental Management Office small particulate matter Port of Miami parts per million Record Of Decision • 5- R/W Right -of -Way SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation quity Act: A Legacy for Users South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Site Assessment Report SAR Addendum State Clearinghouse Supplemental Draft EIS South Florida Water Management District State Historic Preservation Officer (FDOS) Strategic Intermodal System State Road Strategic Regional Policy Plan Sole Source Aquifer T Threatened (T) species (flora or fauna) TCAR Tank Closure Assessment Report , TCAR/IRAR Tank Closure Assessment & Initial Remedial Action Report Transportation Improvement Prograrn, Traffic Noise Model Total Recoverable, Petroleum, Hydrocarbons Transportation Systems Management U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of State U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Environmental; Protection Agency, U.S. Fisitand Wildlife Service UST underground,storage tank VOA volatile organic aromatics VOC •volatile organic compounds WASD Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department. WQIE Water Quality Impact Evaluation SAFMC SAR SARA SCH SDEIS SFWMD SHPO SIS SR SRPP SSA TIP TNM TRPH TSM USCG U.S. DOC U.S. DOS U.S. DOT U.S. EPA USFW S vil 5 SUMMARY S.1 PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is the reconstruction of the entire Interstate-395 (1-395) corridor, from the original terminus at the west side of the I-95/Midtown Interthange (1-95(State Road [SR]-836/1-395) to the original corridor terminus at the West Channel Bridges of US-41/MacArthur Causeway (1.4 miles). These are logical termini (Figures 1-1, 1-2, pages 1-2; 1-3). The entire 1-395 project corridor lies within the City of Miami, Miami - Dade Cotinty, Florida. 1-395 is an independent facility linking 1-95 (to the south and north), SR-836 (to the west) and the MacArthur Causeway/US-41 (to the east) over Biscayne Bay. 1-395 serves as the emergency evacuation route for the southern part of the City of Miami Beach and for Star, Hibiscus and Palm Islands: The purpOse and need for this project arise in response to the existing deficiencies -in capacity, geoinetrics and safety. The existing 1-395 has only two through lanes, and only one continuous lane; in each direction. It has both left-hand and right-hand tainps;and unexpected merges and lane drops. These deficiencies are described in Section 1 (Figure 1.:.;3, page 1-8) and are fully analyzed in the project's Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). The Begin Project point, the Midtown Interchange, is a major junction of the 1-95 corridor. This directional interchange is located approximately one mile west of Biscayne Bay. The project's eastern end is at the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway (Figure 2-2, page 2-3). The West Channel Bridges are high-level fixed spans Over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW), which replaced a mid -level drawbridge in 1999. Beyond the project's eastern terminus, the MacArthur Causeway extends eastwardly approximatelythree miles to 'Miami Beach, along the north bank of Government Cut, the Port of Miami (PON)ship channel. Several corridor options were initially considered - but after investigating the area surrounding the existing facility, it: was, determined "that the existing corridor location offers the best potential for'the fulfillment of the project's needs. Reuse of the existing Corridor has the advantages of minimizing cot, community impacts, residential and "cothrfiercial displacements, as well as avoiding or minimizing archaeological, historical and parkland impacts and contamination concerns. Reuse of the existing corridor with a slightalignnient shift to the north of the existing'faCility has the advantage of limiting the impact area to only 12 acres, most of which' is currently vacant land (Figure 4-1, page 4- 11). The slight alignment shift to the north wouldprovide the required additional space to accommodatethe Maintenande of Traffic (MOT) Plan that would provide minimum traffic and community disruptions during construction (Figures 4-15 thru 4-21, pages 4- 63 thru 4-69). This additional space would also help to address some of the project's needs (i.e., additional capacity, drainage requirements, and aesthetics Considerations). S-1 Therefore, all four of the build alternatives that were carried through the Project Development & Environment (PD&E) phase featured this northern shift. The PD&E process was developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to fully comply with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)IFhat intent is to evaluate a proposed action for any environmental impacts resulting from that action, to developand compare viable. alternative:: designs and: options, ,and to advance to; thenext phasw of, development (Design Phase) that, alternative, that; best meets the project objectives whilecausing the least amount of impact to the environment Government authority for the ,project conceptis included in the 2010-2014 Metropolitan Miami -Dade County's Transportation Improvement, Program (TIP).. that was approved' on May ,28, .2009. by the Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning, Organization (MPO). Design is funded,under Financial Management (FM) Number:251688-1: in FY 2011. This project conforms to the adopted -Miami -Dade County Long Range, Transportation Elan (LRTP). This is a priority 2 project in the 2030 LRTP and is initiated in the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) cost feasible plan.; section. in the ; 2035 LRTP update, which is planned foradoption; in October 2009. Right -of -Way and Construction Phases of this project will be, funded under. FM :Number 251668-1. All future phases of this,project are anticipated to have Federal funding. Even though construction funding.ls not identified in the TIP, fundinggenerating options will be explored. The project is ,consistent with the goals and policies of the Regional PIan for South' Florida _ and the City of Miami's Downtown Master Plan. S.2 . OTHER MAJOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. AND; PERMITS REQUIRED The proJect's. Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), Section 2 Introduction, contains Figure ,2-2;.(page 2-3), ,Projects.,in Vicinity, which illustrates thelocations of all related 'projects, under,,construction and a legend, keyed to the . figure that lists the facility, location, improvementand sources of funding for 25 roadway projects. Most of these are minor. The two most important related FDO.T projects !ocated within the study area:are: Reconstruction of SR-83,6 from approximatelyNW 17t' Avenue to I.95/ Midtown Interchange'„(Figure 1-3, page l }8) SR:83,6.,links directly to; I-395 from the. west at' the. Midtown,Interchange Both SR-836 and I 395. were,oncet included in a single PD&E study. begun, in 1993, and stopped in 199 The Class of Action was an. Environmental „Assessment (EA)..The proJect to',reconstruct ,SR 836 (with collector -distributor roadways) .has recently . been, reinitiated through a Joint Partnership Agreement (JPA) of the Miami -Dade Expressway Authority.(IMDX) and; FDOT District Six, as an EA. Note that the action to improve I-395 is in no way ,dependent upon the $R-836 project, and the SR-836 project isin no dependent upon the 1-395 project. Both can be,advanced independently, :and, each has needs clearly, independent of the other. +, Port of Miami (POIVI) Tunnel: The project to build of tunnel under Government Cut is currently entering the Design/Build Phase. Until such time that a tunnel exists, the Port Boulevard Bridge is the only vehicular entry point to the POM. S-2 Currently, the vast majority of truck traffic to and from the POM traverses I-395. Figure 1-3 (page 1-8) illustrates the truck routes to/from the POM entrance at Port Boulevard. At the Midtown Interchange, most of these trucks continue along SR- 836 to/from points west, while a small number continue on 1-95 to/from points north. Port traffic exits/enters 1-395 via the existing 1-395 ramps at lst/NE 2nd Avenues. Port traffic currently must traverse six blocks of downtown city surface streets (NE lst/NE 2nd Avenues or Biscayne Boulevard) between I-395 and NE 6th Street to the Port Boulevard Bridge. The Record of Decision (ROD) to construct the POM Tunnel was issued by FTIWA in 2001; A Design/Build/Finance/Operate contract was let in 2006, 'assuming a 35 to 50 year period for concessionaire operation to recoup the $1 billion dollar investment. The consortium headed by Bouygues Travaux Publics was selected. With the economic downturn of 2008, the consortium's financial partner was lost, and the consortium sought another financier. In December 2008, the FDOT halted the negotiations. In early April 2009, the FDOT indicated intent to reopen bidding, then on April 16, reversed this position and announced intent ` to reopen negotiations with the selected consortium. Should the tunnel `project be realized, two tunnels, each with two lanes, would pass under the Government Cut Marine channel, between the POM on Dodge Island and the MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges on Watson Island. With the two tunnels operational, POM traffic would use the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway and the tunnels. The only port traffic that Would be likely to continue to use the old Port Boulevard Bridge route over city streets' would involve certain cargo that is prohibited from tunnels (e.g., hazardous materials). With the tunnels in operation, truck traffic from the port would traverse the entire 1-395 corridor, removing most of this truck traffic from 1-395 ramps and city surface streets. In the case of only the 1-395 project being advanced, POM traffic would use the proposed Miami Avenue ramps and city surface streets. Note that the action to improve 1-395 is in no way dependent upon the POM Tunnel project, and the POM Tunnel project is in no way dependent upon the I-395 project. In fact, the reconstruction of the I-395 project is not expected to improve the traffic patterns on surface 'Streets within the APE and between I-395 and the POM. Both the I-395 project and the POM Tunnel can be advanced independently, and each 'has needs clearly independent of the 'other. Note that one local (city) funding 'source for the POM 1 Tunnel project is an element and thehM'u man plelements. which also includes two museums, a baseball gP F'. Projects by others in the °study area include: • Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts (AACPA), a public facility consisting of a symphony hall and a ballet/opera hall, plus ancillary cultural facilities, is located north of 1-395, straddling Biscayne Boulevard, between NE 2nd Avenue and North Bayshore Drive, and between NE 13th Street and NE 14th Street (Figure 2-7, page 2-12). This facility opened in 2007. Both buildings face toward 1-395, which is located 455 ft to the south. The existing 'expressway is elevated on embankment and on structure in this area, with a roadway elevation of S-3 approximately 28 ft. The proposed action would place the. two 1-395 bridges at 48 ft, but the westbound traffic would pass 22Q ft to the south and, the eastbound traffic would follow the same alignment (500,ft south) as the existing roadway. • A. IVIiarni Streetcar project proposed by the City of Miami in coordination with FDOT, to run three rotites connecting the Government.Center (NW lst Avenue, downtown),, the Miami Design. District (NE 40th Street) and the Civic Center/Health District (NW •10th Avenue). This project is intended to .benefit City of Miami residents by improving local mass transit. Streetcar routes would pass under 1-395 at NW 2nd Avenue and N1 1st Avenue., • In 2008, a major development on Watsorirlslancl was Announced by the Flagstone Property Group/ING Clarion. Elements include two hotels, residences and a marina. The proposed •development of Island Gardens on Watson Island (10.5 acres) includes luxury residence condos atop. the 43-story Shangri-La Hotel. Westin Hotels will manage, another 29-story hotel building. The marina on the west shoreline of the island will feature two main piers with 50 slips to accommodate mega -yachts ranging froth 80 ft to .over 300 ft in length. The signature gardens will be developed in partnership with Fairchild Tropical Botanical Garden, and a maritime gallery will be developed in partnership with the Historical Museum of South Florida. The investment was estimated at $600 million, and was scheduled to begin construction in 2009, (for opening in 2011); however, global financial issues appear to have delayed the project. S.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternative 1 is the No -Build Alternative (Section 2.2, Figures 2-1, 2,-2, 2-3, pages 2-2, 2- 3, 2-4). The existing corridor alignment begins in line with NW 15th Street, then curves south of NW 12th Street, then curves north of NE, 13th Street to the coastline. Corridor analysis indicated that the only viable alternative corridor would involve a shift northward, to a straighter and shorter expressway alignment • , , • Another alternative that was explored entailed the potential provision of Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements. TSM: options are usually generated to alleviate specific, traffic congestion/safety problems, or to get the maximum utilization out of the existing facility by improving operational efficiency., A total of seven TSM concepts were considered (Table 2-1, page 2-6) but ultimately were rejected because, although they bring some beneficial effects, they still maintain the existing roadway section, and thus preclude the attainment of any significant improvement in the overall project level of service. Alternatives .2, 3, 4 and 5 are the Build Alternatives. All Build Alternatives share the , same,footprint. The Build Alternatives included two elevated designs (structural bridges) and, two depressed designs (a tunnel and an open -eat). The two elevated designs were entitled: Alternative 2, Elevated with Ramps at Midtown Interchange (Figures .2-4, 2-5, S-4 pages 2-8, 2-9) and, Alternative 3, Ramps at Miami Avenue (Figures 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8, pages 2-11, 2-12, 2-13). During project development, it was determined that Alternative 2, Elevated with Ramps at Midtown Interchange, was' no longer viable, since it required construction of a related project, -which was not advanced. The other project was" FM No..4107261; New Access Ramps from NW 14th Street to and from SR-9A/I-95. 'The cumulative impacts within Overtown associated with the combination of the NW 14th Street/I-95 ramps project and the access ramps of I-395 Build Alternative.2 (within Overtown) were not acceptable to the Overtown community. In this case, additional points of access` to and from the interstate system were opposed and rejected by the affected community. Thus, through the Public Involvement process, it was determined that Alternative 2 was fatally flawed. Build Alternative 3, Ramps at Miami Avenue, was the second elevated alternative. The proposed location of the ` access ramps was east of Overtown, in a generally' vacant 'commercial area. This alternative involved considerably less right of -way (R/W) impacts and displacement to the Overtown community (Figure 4-,-page` 4-11). This alternative was the best at fulfilling the project purpose and need while minimizing the associated impacts to this minority community. It was, therefore, the best option for advancement. The two depressed designs were Alternative 4, Tunnel, Ramps at Miami Avenue (Figures 2-9, 2-10, pages 2-14, 2-15), and Alternative 5, Open: -Cut; Ramps at NE 1st and NE 2nd Avenues (Figures 2-11, 2-12, pages 2-17, 2-18). Both below -grade concepts had been promoted` by local interests for several years as a way to make the expressway disappear from view.' However, through four years of extensive' PD&E analysis, both were determined to be not viable. The costs were approximately twice that of a surface road or bridge option. Apart from, costs, the two underground designs also had major disadvantages'in`terms of more impacts to the Overtown community (e.g., environmental justice), as well as more involvement with contamination, flooding, and safety impacts, as compared to the elevated roadway concept. It was determined by FHWA and FDOT through the alternatives -evaluation process that the elevated Build Alternative 3 was the preferred design, and the only feasible construction' option This design features paired bridges that span nearly one mile between the Midtown Inter change and Bayshore Drive, with a partial interchange near the bridge's mid -point The interchange atN"Miami Avenue includes two westbound on - ramps and "two eastbound off -ramps. The proposed geometry of the two Biscayne Boulevard' "ramps ,(slip 'ramps), at the eastern terminus portion of the 1-395 corridor, remains very similar to the existing ramp' layout. The remaining viable alternatives were: • Alternative '1: No -Build Alternative. This option retains the existing roadway design, but would include minor improvements for system optimization and Traffic System Management (TSM) features (as listed in Table 2-1, page 2-6). S-5 Alternative 3: Elevated, Ramps at N Miami Avenue. Construction, of this option would begin with the westbound part of the expressway being built to the north (Figure 4-15, page 4-63), with a new N Miami Avenue Interchange replacing all •the existing ramps at, the NE •1St Avenue and NE 2nd Avenue Interchanges. The eastbound facility would then be built in place of the existing roadway. The mainlines forming most of the expressway would be elevated on two bridge structures, with a minimum of 17 ft and maximum of 33.5ft clearance over street grade. Only the ramps at N Miami Avenue involve solid embankment. One street (NE 1st Court) would be closed to, aecommodate the ramps. Another local street, NE Miami Coud, would be available for reconnection under the I-395 spans. S.4 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE, After,the DEIS was circulated, a public hearing was held to share information with the general public about the proposed 'improvements, conceptual design and alternatives under study. The detailed evaluation methodology and public input showed that Alternative 3 was the preferred option from a safety, operations, cost and multimodal standpoint. S.5 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Project implementation will include the following environmental impacts:, • Right -of -Way (Section 4.1.6, Figure 4-1, page_4-11, Table 4-1, page 4-12): Prior to the subject action. FDOT used the corridor preservation process of Advance Right -of -Way Acquisition (AR/WA) to acquire most (but not all) of the urban area needed to construct a new facility. With all build alternatives, the westbound lanes of this,facility would be constructed north of the existing fitcility, affecting ,approximately 11 acres along 14 _blocks.Therefore, all build ,options baskally had the same A/W requirements- Through the first AR/WA action, FDOT acquired the eastern three blocks near the AACPA, curtailing a proposed construction of font' 577storyt buildings at this location (APPcndix A? other project ebrrespondence,FObtlettex dated08702704). Thisfirst,,AR/WA was processed • as a Type 2 Categorical Exclusion for acquisition of 26 ,pareels, and was approvedby,F1-1W.44,. on August 30, 2004. The acquisition of this firstkoup ol parcels was corppletod by 2006.,,The second AR/WA action was processed as a Reevaluation oftho CE-2 and was approved by FHWA on Augnst 8, 2006 for •acqpisition, of another 42, parcels along 11 blocks to the west of the first three blocks. Funding is contained in Fir 2012-2013; therefore, this second group of properties has not yet been acquired: While these 68 parcels were common to all build alternatives, the individual build alternatives varied slightly in R/W needs, The specific needs of ,Build Alternative 3 involved an . additional 10 parcels (approximately 1 acre) all located‘sooth of the existing facility, in the vicinity of the N Miami Avenue ramps: These ten parcels, were not acquired through AR/WA, and do pertain to the subject EIS action. These parcels include a S-6 warehouse, a commercial site, a partial clip of an industrial site, and several vacant parcels, but do not include residential displacements. • Relocations (Section 4.1.6, Figure 4-1, page 4-11, Table 4-1, page 4-1.2): Based on the FDOT cost estimate dated July 11, 2007, ten (10) -familiesor individuals, five (5) businesses or services, one (1) special category site (former place of worship) and four (4) personal property category items (signs, etc.) will be relocated as a result of the two previous AR/WA actions for corridor preservation and the subject EIS action. FDOT Right -of -Way Section prepared a document entitled I-395 Significant Relocation Impacts dated October 24, 2007 (Appendix A). In the report section entitled Pre -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Plan were tables listing Business Impacts (five parcels) and Residential. Impacts (three parcels). Residential impacts affect ten occupied, one -bedroom apartment units in two buildings (six-plex, four -Alex), plus one vacant former apartment building. It stated that housing of last resort measures are likely to be needed for the displaced persons, but that sufficient available residential and commercial properties exist in the Overtown area. -This document, also listed five (5) business impacts, affecting 48 employees, and stated that none of the employees were residents of Overtown. It stated that suitable replacement commercial space was available. One enterprise is a manufacturer/distributor of batteries for hearing aids (25 employees). The other displaced businesses include: Broz International (restaurant equipment, 8.employees); Sheila Shine (cleaner of stainless steel, 10 employees); Overtown Food Market (3 employees); ::and, Art Gallery (2 employees). The latter three enterprises are located in Overtown. Note that the actual amount of displacements (residential and commercial) is quite small for a project of this magnitude, especiallyfor one in an urban,slocation. This is: due, in large part to the • fact that 53 of the R/W acquisitions involved parcels of land listed as vacant. The displacement of ten residential units (individuals or families) is not considered a significant impact to the Overtown community. These displaced individuals willbe afforded every benefit to assist in their relocation. • Construction: The total replacement of a major expressway, including construction of twosuspension bridges, involves large-scale impacts that are of a temporary 'nature. MOT and sequence of construction_: will be planned and scheduled so as to minimize traffic delays throughout the project. The preliminary MOT Plan developed in seven.' phases for the: preferred Build Alternative 3 is illustrated in plan view and cross section (Section 4.3.17, Figures 4-15 thru 4-21, pages 4-63 thru 4-69). First, the new westbound roadway/bridge will be constructed to the north of the existing facility, followed in several stages by removal of the existing two-way facility and construction of the eastbound roadway/bridge. The MOT includes two temporary elevated roadways; a northbound ramp structure,and an eastbound detour on fill. Also, Section 4.3.1, Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities, contains the four phases of MOT for Overtown pedestrians, with illustrations the specific locations and schemes (Figures 4-4 thru 4-11, pages 4-27'thru 4-34). S-7 The following are statements of findings: for relevant environmental impact categories: • In accordance with Executive Order 11990, wetlands were considered in developing and evaluating alternatives for the proposed action. No freshwater or saltwater wetlands are associated with this project. The nearest freshwater bodies consist of .three:, stormwater retention ponds located ,;within the Midtown Interchange which will not be affected by this project. The nearest marine habitat is Biscayne Bay, at the MacArthur Bridges approaches. The subject project's eastern terminus.. is some 350 feet inland from the shoreline. Refer to Section 4.3.5, Wetlands for additional information. • It. has been determined through consultation with local, state and :,federal water resources and floodway . management, agencies that there is, no regulatory floodway; involvement onthe proposed project and that the project .involves no floodplain development that . is incompatible , with existing floodplain management. Refer to Section 4.3.11, Floodplains for more information. • The Office of .Planning and Budget, Office of the Governor has determined that this project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Plan, Refer to Section 4.3.12, Coastal Zone Consistency for more information. S.6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY. While the preferred alternative generates minimal;: impact to the Overtown, community, this low-income, minority neighborhood remains sensitive to any large-scale action by the public sector, based on past history. The initial construction of the existing Interstate Highway System; including the 1-395 expressway ° corridor, remains, an issue of controversy among the 'current residents. Section 3.1, Population and:: Community Characteristics, contains Section 3.1.2, Historical Perspective - Overtown. The community experienced a severe, 25-year decline after World War II: A :large public housing ,project in the .:late 1960's coincided with the ; construction of the elevated expressways (I-95, I-395, SR-836)`,that are linked at•.the ,Midtown Interchange. All these actions resulted in direct social, economic and cultural impacts to the minority, low- income community. Environmental Justice is covered in both Sections 3.2 and 4.1.2. Other more recent proposals, 'such asthe rejected .proposahto.add 1-95 !ramps at NW 14th Street, have also heightened the neighborhood sensitivity to any large-scale action. There are current residents of Overtown who want recognition of past injustices, and have:: requested present day environmental justice: through avoidance of any new impacts to the social, economic and cultural fabric of this Overtown. neighborhood. However, after extensive .community: coordination, most of the: socialgroups representing Overtown haveendorsed the preferred alternative (see Appendix A [support letters}, Appendix B). S,7 LIST OF OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIONS REQUIRED: This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project. No othergovernment agency is serving as a cooperating agency. Review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency S-8 (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act — Section 1424(e) is required. An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Water Use Permit are required from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for water quality certification and the project's surface water management plans. Permits required from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) include the federally -delegated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, and possibly a Class V Deep Well Permit for management of storrnwater. Permits required from local regulatory agencies include Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management(DERM) Class :II Surface Water Management (Drainage) Permit, and Class V Dewatering Permit. As the corridor traverses a brownfield, other government actions may also be required. S.8 PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED Relocation impacts associated with the proposed action affect ten (10) individuals or families (ten apartment units in two buildings located in Overtown). Additionally, relocations will affect approximately five (5) businesses or services, one (1) special category (non-profit, place' of worship) and four (4) personal property category items (signs and/or other personal property). The church, grocery store and art 'gallery are also in Overtown. Businesses employing 33 of the 48 displaced employees' are not located within Overtown. S.9 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES While the relocation of ten individuals or families will be unavoidable, relocation assistance and payments will be provided,' as addressed in Section 4.1.6, Relocations, It was determined that sufficient available commercial properties exist in Overtown to facilitate the relocation of all ` displaced ` commercial entities. Residential displacements may involve relocation 'within` or outside of the community, and last resort housing consideration will=be provided, if necessary. Also, construction activities in the vicinity of existing drainage structures will be'in'accordance with Best Management Practices for erosion control and water quality considerations. S.10 FEASIBLE MEASURES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT Relocation assistance and payments will be provided, as defined in F.S 339.09 and Public Law 91-646, as amended by Public Law 100-17. The existing drainage system is sub- standard and will be replaced to provide stormwater treatment prior to discharge into receiving waters (Section 4.3.7, Water Quality). In this case, the affected receiving waters are located in the POM turning basin (Biscayne Bay) in front of Bicentennial Park. These waters are designated Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (Section 4.3.6) and Outstanding Florida Waters (Section 4.3.8). All applicable water quality requirements will be met. S-9 S.11 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS VERSUS LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS The; short-term impacts associated with the project that will. exist during construction operations include items such as inconvenience to.. motorists and neighbors related to detours and delays. The proposed -MOT minimizes such inconveniences (Section 4.3.17). Detailed plans to minimize pedestrian and motorist detours are described in Section 43.1. Everyeffort will .be. made to minimizethese impacts, whichare further addressed,, in Section 4.3.17. Temporary air pollution from fugitivedust and of road emissions, along with noise associated with construction operations cannot be avoided. Long-term benefits will result from the replacement of the I-395 corridor by the preferred alternative. Theseinclude the increase in capacity from two to three lanes for, through traffic that will benefit Miami Beach traffic. Safety will be improved by a reduction in the weaving of traffic and better management of cars .and trucks through lane continuity. Both the capacity and safety improvements. will benefit emergency evacuation.. With an improved: flow of traffic, urban congestion will be reduced. The reduction of congestion will result in improvements in air quality and energy, savings. The replacement of the 1.4- mile 1-395 corridorwith higher, aesthetically pleasing bridges will allow for improved utilization of land under these spans for community concepts such as street fairs, produce markets, as illustrated in Figure 2-6 (page 2-11). The project may contribute tothe redevelopment of the project study area. The potential for reconnected surface streets under the corridor will contribute to easier neighborhood access and improved community connectivity. The proposed I-395 action will provide anexpressway with improved design, capacity And safety for, managing increasing. volumes of car and truck traffic between Miami Beach and Miami. These benefits will .. apply to hurricane evacuation With, an aesthetically attractive design,the corridor would improve the experience for visitors moving between the airport and resorts, as well as providinga panoramic city/port vista from the elevated spans. An improved, I-395 would also provide benefits of greater safety to the POM mith:< . POM Tunnel S-10 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACT1ON Purpose and Need for improvements is based on a combination of substandard traffic conditions, urban planning objectives and the interaction with other planned facility improvements impacting the proposed project area. Project objectives include the study of the following issues: increase capacity to prevent existing and figure traffic congestion, improve safety by alleviating existing deficiencies, explore access issues and establish proper continuity. • , 1.1 SYSTEM LINKAGE Interstate 395 (1-395) is a 1.3-mile long eastern spur element of the elevated Interstate Highway System in the City of Miami. The project length is 1.4 miles. Figure 1-1, Project Vicinity, illustrates the surrounding Miami area, and Figure 1-2, Project Location Map, which includes map and aerial images. The western terminus of 1-395 is the west side of the Midtown Interchange (over NW 7th Avenue). This major interchange links 1-395 to both 1-95, running north -south, and to State Road 836 (SR-836), running west. Within the Midtown Interchange, 1-95 and SR- 836 each feature three lanes in each direction (six -lane capacity), while 1-395 features two lanes in each direction (four -lane capacity). The Midtown Interchange serves as a major hub for traffic of Miami,Miami Beach, the airport and the seaport. The Project End point is 350 ft west of the Biscayne Bay seawall.;At its eastern terminus, 1-395 is linked to the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway (US-41/SR- , Al A) that crosses eastward over Biscayne Bay to Miami Beach. The MacArthur Causeway features three lanes in each 'd,irection. System linkage to the local street syStem consists of three sets of on and off ramps located et NE 1- Avenue, NE 2IId Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. 1-395 has only two lanes in each direction, and has only one ditection'that is - continuous between termini:This lack of capacity is fully' described'. andTillustrated in Section 1.6 (Capacityjt., The existing Iinkage between I-395 and "three local.roadways is • less than ideal. The project objectives are to increase capacity;'improve safety; establish proper continuity, and improve acpesi. The purpose of the I-395 ifaeilityis to provide an expressway link,between D.95/SR-836 and the MacArthur Causeway, A secondary pUrpOse of 1-595 is to provide local access by ,* ramps. Two of the needs.'fUr the proposed irriprovenients are to improve capacity and , geornettics. The existing design is-essentiallY limited to two lanes, while other linking roadways (1-95. SR-836, ) all have at , leak:" three lanes (five lanes beyond the 1-1 NtJahl{dannIng11.11 1-395 PD&E Stud SR 836 PD&E Study This project extends from The NW 17 Ave: interchange to the Midtown interchange_ The main objectives include to increase capacity, reduce accidents and improve operational conditions along This segment of SR 836. 1-395 PD&E Study This project extends from the Midtown interchange to the MacArthur Bridge.The project will address the geomehic deficiencies, mobility, safety and community needs of the I-395 corridor_ PROJECT VICINITY Port of Miami Tunnel The proposed Port of Miami Tunnel will provide direct access between the Sea Port,1=395 and 1-95. will create an alternative to the Port Bridge now the only connection to the mainland, improve t+aflic safety in downtown Miami by removing cargo trucks and cruise line buses from already congested streets and facilitate ongoing and future development plans in and around downtown Miami_ FIGURE NO. 1-1 Florida Department of Transportation Page 1-2 I-395 PD&E Stud 1 5 • \ NW 54th St INTERNATIONAL 3 0 A I: RPORT , — East—VI/est xprossway rat t) •' C-5 !•'..'111;15'.;14'411.11q111,11111,11;193)11, BEGI'l PROJECT '9,0 Florida Department of Transportation Page 1.3 Midtown Interchange). Thus, the existing 1-395 lacks sufficient capacity for system, linkage, and needs improvement The poor geometries include odd lane transitions (eastbound 2-lane to 1-lane to 2-lane, westbound 2-lane to 4-lane to 3-lane to 2-lane), as well as left -lane lane -drop off -ramps in both directions and dual (left-hand and 'right- hand) on -ramps. These poor geometries reduce safety, as discussed in Section 1.7 (Safety). The purpose of the, MacArthur Causeway is to link the City of Miami with the City of Mii amBeach acroSs Biscayne Bay. The original facility was' the Collins CauseWa.y, a . , wooden bridge constructed across the bay in 1920. The MacArthur Causeway replaced • ,,,-, ' the original Collins Bridge when Government Cut was constructedAt featured a•Tnid- , . , level bascule bridge over the 'Vest Charnel. When I-395 was constructed (eerca 197,0),. it , linked directly to that bridge. That span was replaced in 1999 by the 'Current high level „ West Channel Bridges: While the 1-395 expressway and the MacArthur Causeway are linked, they are totally separate facilities, one over land and one over sea. Interstate 395 „41 . „ terminates on the mainland; MacArthur Causeway (SR-41) crosses Biscayne Bay: Ti*t..;...9.5 ii.roject.. tigirti.0();' extends from jUst west of the Midtown Interchange (SR-836/I-, . 95/I395).AO:--the;MacArthilr Causeway Bridge(s). The Midtown Interchange serves as a _'.MajOr..Inib..,,,,fer traffic to the:-POrti....doWiitown, Miami Beach and. the MIA. The Port of --', ' ..-Miaail,;,,(p0M) Tunnelpoject limits' extend from the easteM proje.0 limit of the 1-395- . . .• . : project, whichls:the western terminus.:01the West Bridges of the MacArthur Cat-PelYa.;-, . . :,. east, to Watson- Wand geross..(under) . the main channel of the -Miaii'n''Harbor, and . . terminate '-Onpodgo--Island. Alth:iu:hihejoI-3,1195±.'p,,,,.rtli:ojqe,cti, independentlalQx.„.„. ,f.6.,..0,futility from the: POM.Ttumel,,. project,. ....,., i;idtio.,,esiipdro9vi,d,,.e , a network link .t,v4ifo,r.Po)rti.torylffic„.tr aanyse.1,ing to and from up 1-95; and'SR-836vi:II;.349ep5,9.:11i4e3H9,I-5,39:wl..,.,p....:afirt,oialiiietrinc::.„:::,i,,,alit,:i.,ct 2nd Avenue/NE lsi - • - ,...3 OS also serves as 'a. link from SR-836 and L-95. to the south Miami Beach area via the AV-en.ii„.e„.s.:ainr,(1:40t4.e136,:iS.t,:0;v,:ii9ine...0)3„:11toi:s,:iitlho.eii:;,,,.:.:r.,.,d,4...,iip;iroil",witd:.,:eti.16141:10a$geTe:ieep,,!Ivliami. and Miami Beach. 14 MacArthur Causeway. 5. pleinentatE.:(4Akf410:;ljto,NP1,, „.....„.„„.. ciSttunnel t cl With• .,-.. - - - built, and 'f,11A19,,,,, .. eloti,04.,0 ,,,,. Tunnel.„..: 6., 6,,,, the riii.a S ,:0i. 6ritP. 'i, 6- 614$'4t*444, p, - , A .s 7-1e.: 'safety,' ,4'40.: . and OPP.,0409**ilf:::bprieAt• oik.40004-18torili6-4/1a6Art u :, as at.#;''I.:;40fttOS6,iinppnVOniintSareiia'-.g6iift'6'8':,iti6',.F.idMi'tiiiii4 , )#1#1:X;!-$,,,'-eiP,,,. ;,.... ...#/1/rj,-:P9),q ) :not,:OPeddePt --004:'...0.061ii$At.afi'nn.a the 1495 -; liVi9'':141*:4P9T0'*ki'4*'''4043'n:-_,,'-'esit10h6.i:00cel#103V0446‘''46,410:...to,J-30& cliiirW_'00.g';.-0411.--.6411,f0f',010'West. 160.1„.40 t:0;#61-fhO.V6?-'6no:.6-iiisict.:644nifaia;aiitt :'.. .:..:afle*Of: 0,,.0,',.lii.0 ,stotwbi..lanes to matCh 1-395. With implementation '4:ilia 1.39$ ‘. project, the iiinipas4'oapaCity gearrietries' and safety will benefit thi. t '' f fl''''' lqie:Art,- , linr,bauseWay; as ivell'aa,,tiloP-0 114;tiraffie;, but .this--irriprOVein9encPiTslrnndtues:;:esfi19tialt- to : thet'OM Tunnel. -,, Interstate 95 (SR-9A) is the principal interstate highway that runs the length of the Atlantic seaboard of the United States from Miami, Florida to Houlton, Maine. The begin point of I- 95 is three (3) miles to the south, where the southern 1-95 terminus transitions to US-1/SR- 5/South Dixiellighway, US-1 completes the Atlantic seaboard linkage; as it includes the Overseas Highway along the Florida Keys from Key West. Apart from the Midtown Interchange, the 1-95 corridor in Miami -Dade County has expressway interchanges at three other locations. To the south of the Midtown Interchange is the SR-970/DowritoWn Distributor, which runs east to SE 2r'a Avenue. To the north (1.5 miles), the next interchange links to the SR-112/AirporttExpressway (west) and'I-195/Julia Tuttle Expressway (east). In northern Miami -Dade County, 9.5 miles north of the Midtown Interchange is the Golden Glades Interchange that links I-95 to four other roadways: SR '826/I'a1r'netto Expressway (west); SR-826/Sunny Isies Boulevard '(east); US-441/SR-7 (north -south); and, Florida's Turnpike (north). The Turnpike links to the Homestead Extension of Florida's Turnpike (HEFT) at a point 3.5 miles' north of the Golden Glades, near the County line. 1-95 also has ramps to "the surface road network at 15 locations for local access linkage. These include: US 41/SR 90/Tamiam Trail/SW 8th St NW 54th St; NW 62nd St; NW 69th St; NW 79th & 81st Sts; NW 95th St; NW 103rd St; NW 119th St; NW 125th St; NW 135th St & Opa-Locka Blvd; NW 151st St; NW 183rd St; and, NE 203rd St. I-395- is directly linked to SR-836 through the Midtown Interchange. SR-836 is also known as the East-West Expressway and as the Dolphin Expressway. It is now a toll road operated by` the. Miami -Dade Expressway Authority (MDX). The segment called the East-West Expressway runs from LeJeune Road/SW 42r'd Avenue to 1-95. just to the north and west of this segment is the Miami International Airport (MIA) and next to it the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC), a massive ground transportation hub being developed by the FDOT. The MIC will provide connectivity for residents and visitors of Miami -Dade County and the south Florida region, and is expected to be completed 1y 2012, The segment of SR-836 that is called the Dolphin Expressway links westwaid,to the'Homestead'Extension of Florida's Turnpike (HEFT/SR-821). In 2007, MDX opened a western 'extension that begin -- at NW 137th Avenue and merges -into SR-836 near NW 11'1th'Avenue. A toll plaza (Open Road Tolling, SunPassonly) was added -on SR-836 near NW 97th Avenue to levy tolls to all SR- 836 traffic, including traffic from the HEFT. • SR-836 is the onlyexpresswaywithin Miami -Dade .County•that links with all three of the major north -south expressways:;the HEFT' (SR-821), the Palmetto Expressway (SR-826) and 1-95 (SR-9A). It is also the only east-westexpressway that links HEFT to Miami Beach "(via I-395 and the MacArthut:Causeway)...SR4836 provides direct access to MIA, and Miami's Civic Center/Medical Center area.: The east end of the I-395 project corridor links to the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway (US-41/SR-A1A). These bridges span the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), and were reconstructed in 1999 as high-level, fixed spans with 65 ft of vertical clearance (vc) over the ICW. Each bridge currently features three travel lanes. The POM Tunnel project will widen each bridge by adding a lane to :the south side for POM Tunnel access/egress ramps. MacArthur Causeway traverses Watson ,Island and 1-5 continues along the north bank of the Govermnent Cut (the ship: channel). of POM, .thence across the East Channel Bridges (fixed, 35 ft vc) to the City of Miami Beach, at 5th Avenue. Linkage of 1-395 with local surface roadways within the City of Miami is currently provided by three paired on/off ramps located at NE 1st Avenue, NE 2n1 Avenue. and US- 1/Biscayne Boulevard. North Bayshore Drive is also linked under I-395 by the Biscayne Boulevard ramps. There are major. geometric deficiencies with these ramps,_ With all proposed build_ alternatives; the ramps located at NE 1st Avenue, and NE 2nd Avenue would be eliminated and replaced, while the Biscayne. Boulevard ramps are proposed to remain essentially unchanged under all scenarios. Biscayne Bay and Dumfoundling:Bay separate the ,coastaland mainland populations; of Miami -Dade County, 1-395 is one of seven routes. bywhich the coastal communities of Miami .Beach are linked tothe mainland andI-95. All:. are used for. emergency evacuation. I-395 links the ;south portion. of Miami Beach with downtown Miami. The . seven (7) causeways that cross Biscayne Bay (and the ICW), linking Miami and Miami Beach are described; below in Table 1-1., Table 1-1 Causeways. Over Biscayne Bay;. Route #s • Causeway. Name Western. . Eastern # of (T = toll road) Street Link .. Street Link •. Lanes. I-395/SR41 /SR-AIA ' , MacArthur Caudeway ` 13th Street ` 5th Street 6 (no SR #) Venetian Causeway (T) 15th Street 17th Street ` 2 .I-195/SR-112 Julia Tattle -Causeway. 36th Street 41stStreet 6 SR-934 .,; J. F. Kennedy Causeway - ,79th Street ,. 71st Street 6 SR-922 , Broad Causeway (T) . ,, , 1231. Street 96`h Street 4 SR-a20 : Sunny,Isles:Boulevard K .16 `d Street. 164th Street.. ,: 6. SR-856.:: William Lehman ,Causeway 1926a Street . 19211d Street ; 6; In addition to these seven links across Biscayne Bay to Miami Beach, there are three other roadway and: one railway bridges from the mainland over Biscayne Bay to island populations; Nearest to 1-395 is the Port of Miami Bridge,,,a high-level;..fixed span, from NE- 6th .Street/Pert'Boulevard to. Dodge,Island. The railroad drawbridge is; next to. Port Boulevard. There is a•.low-level fixed bridge from:SE'8th Street to, Claughton Island, The Rickenbacker Causeway (SR-913) links to I-95 :at SE 26th;.Road, and. crosses -Biscayne Bay on a high-level fixed span to Virgiriia Key. A low-level, fixed span over Bear :Cut connects. Virginia Key to Key Biscayne. I-395 is also the main link . to the .POM, a • major regional revenue generator. As noted above, there is no, direct expressway route :to: the POM.' Virtually. all POM truck traffic travels `approximately six blocks of city surfaces streets to and from the Interstate Highway System via the 1-395 ramps at the existing interchanges (NE :1st Avenue/NE 2nd Avenue). 1-6 The POM truck routes between 1-395 and, Port Boulevard are illustrated in Figure 1-3. . Most ofthe, truck traffic leaving the POM travels westward on 1-395, passing through: thn • - Midtown Interchange to, SR-836. Only a small percentage of truck traffic leaving the POW travelsrnorthward on 1-95. The south leg of 1-95, is not used for port access, due in part to insufficient vertical clearances at two locations: Vertical clearance is sub -standard for incoming trucks under the 1-95 mainline at NW 5th Street arid also for out -going trucks at the existing I-95 northbound On -ramp at NW 3rd Avenue. Another FDOT I'D&E project, 'entitled 1-95/NW 6th Street Access Ramp to W13 SR-836, (FM No. 4112,05-1-22-01), was an effort begin in 2002 to re -direct- PON/f, truck ,traffie through downtown (and southeast Overtown) streets along NW/NE,5th and 6t, StreetS id and from 1-95 via a new on -ramp at ;NW' 6th Street to •westbound SR-836. This effort' Was abandoned due in partio strong opposition from local (Overtown) residents, who objected to the ,proposed interchange modifications, ,and in part due to opposition from the - administration of the Federal Courthouse at 301 N Miami Avenue. There are two major FDOT/Miami-Dade Count)/ projects currently being developed that relate to 1-395. These are the Miami InterModal Center (MIC) Project and thetaSi West , Corridor project The transit elements of these projects are managed by theMiami-Dade „ Transit (MDT), - and roadway elements are shared between FDOT and the Miami -Dade Expressway Authority (MDX). The MIC is currently under construction eastof MIA, and will improve system linkage for the airport by rail -based mass transit (high'sPeed rail, Tri-Rail, Metrorail): The MIC also links air and rail mass -transit with a centralized car rental center and the expressway836/1-395) network, A related project will -link the MIC to Metrorail at Earlington Heights: MDT is also managing a North Corridor Addition to Metrorail along NW 27th Avenue (tentatively -With sevennew Metrorail stations). The FDOT.received Location Design Concept Acceptance from Fi1W.4. for a FinalEI (FEIS) of the East-West Corridor in 1908. The responsibility was subsequently transferred to MDT who was preparing a Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS)`for the western portion of. the. originalconidor. This western portion East7West _Conidor project is anticipated to involve a heavy rail mass transit corridor generally along the SR-836 corridor,hciweVr, rnanypotential routes are under Consideration. According to, the East-West Corridor -Transit Master Plan, the 'ailbsequent phase of the East-West Corridor 'project would extend east - west rail transit, to- Miami Beach, using the 1-395 corridor and the MacArthur Causeway. This project is currently suspended owing to funding issues and insufficient ridership.,, 1 2 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND , Based on 2004' traffic volume data, twO-way volumes range from approximately 121,000 vehicles per day (vpd) west of the Midtown Interchange, to approximately 122,400 vpd at the approaches to the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur CaUseway. The transportation demand On the Interstate Highway System of the project areals liighand 1-7 1-395 PD&E Stud PERCENTAGE OF OUTBOUND.. PORT TRAFFIC BEGIN PROJECT PORT Y1 FA II NOTE: DDP.ERCENTAGESARE OKAY REPRESENTATIVE -OF a1AJORMOVEMENTS MAJOR STREET TRUCK ROUTES TO/FROM PORT OF MIAMI Florida Department of Transportation FIGURE NO. 1-3 Page 1-8 rising with the increase in population density of Miami and Miami Beach. Direct access to the MIA, POM, Medical/Civic Center area, Downtown Miami and Miami Beach must be improved, and underscores the importance of this expressway as a regional facility. Travel demand is expected to increase along 1-395 to levels that cannot be accommodated by mere lane additions to the existing corridor. The' existing design is not compatible with lane additions. Conversely, the proposed mass transit plans for the area, when and if realized, will eventually shift some of this corridors traffic burden to rail -based modes The proposed improvements are consistent with future transportation plans and are designed to meet future traffic demands. 1,3 FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY Government authority for the project concept is included in the 2010-2014 Metropolitan Miami -Dade Courity's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that was approved on May 28, 2009 by the Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Design is funded under Financial Management (FM) Number 251688-1 in FY 2011. This project conforms to the adopted Miami -Dade County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This is a priority 2 project in the 2030 LRTP and is initiated in the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) cost feasible plan section in the 2035 LRTP update, which 'is planned for' adoption in October 2009. Right -of -Way and Construction Phases of this project will be funded under FM` Number 251668-1. All future phases of this project are anticipated to have Federal funding. Even though construction funding is not identified in the TIP, funding generating' options will' be explored. The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Regional Plan for South Florida and the City of Miami's Downtown Master Plan. This project made use of the Advance Right -of -Way Acquisition (AR/WA), or corridor preservation, process. The AR/WA process applies to only those R/W impact areas` that are common to all build alternatives, that is, the AR/WA process can be used to secure land for construction that would be needed no matter which build alternative is subsequently selected for construction. hi areas of dynamic land development, such early action can save money and avoid later conflicts. In preparation for the subject action, the process of AR/WA was begun by FOOT in 2004 for a 3-block area located north of I-395 from NE 1" Avenue eastto North Bayshore Drive, that is, in front of the Adrienne Arsch Center for the Performing Arts (AACPA). The initial action was prepared as a Type 2 Categorical Exclusion (CE-2) that wasapproved by the FfWA on August 30, 2004. The CE-2' involved all 26 parcels of the three blocks between NE 1" Avenue' and North Bayshore Drive, including a 3-parcel municipal property. Subsequently, the AR/WA process was expanded to encompass 42 additional parcels located along 11 blocks of the north side of'the existing corridor, from west of NW 3'd Avenue to NE 1" Avenue. This AR/WA was processed as a Reevaluation of the CE-2. This Reevaluation of the CE-2 was approved by the FHWA ' on August 16, 2006 for the additional 11 blocks along on the north side of the existing corridor, from west of NW 31" Avenue (Block 1) to west of NE 1" Avenue (Block 11). The acquisition of these 42 'parcels 1-9 will be made, .Irou*oo as While tbia .previously authorized AR/WA action makes available most. of the area needed for future improvements, approximately one acre of additional right-of-way ' (RIM. is needed for. the preferred alternative, and each, of the other three, build alternatives. also have sli ghtly. different R/W needs beyond the area common toall. Tor Build Alternative 3, the. additional. R/W needs that are Pp Pcific to this alternative are described in Section, 4.1.6, Rel.o.catioiis, The additional needs associated with Build Alteniative 3 represent impacts of the subject E . IS action, not the separately ',furided AR/WA actions. Implementation of Alternative 3 entails shifting slightly northward the boundaries previously associated with five (5) of the 11 blocks to the north of 1-395 (Blocks 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. of the Reevaluation). Implementation of 'Alternative 3 also entails acquisition of parcelson the south side of 1-395, alon five (5),blocks from.the cast. side of NW I st Place to the west side of North. M i i Jami Avenue., R/W requirements will be ftirther l/4 SOCIAL DEMANDS ` .AND/OR ECONOMIC,�__---NThe; land surrounding; the 1-395 projec pqrr ��' ergoing,a considerable ampunt.,of ur4qn redevelopment.,,The project Corridor is situated very near downtown Mialmi,where thepace of growth in recent years has also been;v I high. It is at , so located on valuable coastal land,,near Biscayn,"pl, Bay,,J�argejnvestments of public and private funds have. been made to create a : culturaL focal point, , t , 1ie'AA'C'._P' construction project complements Miami'.s downtown, waterfront dev elo" siuch'as the new American Airlines Arena, Bayside Market Place, Marina. and Bayfro.nt,Park amenities and hotels. The Marquis Miami is one of several new high-rise buildings being .of Biscayne,,.Boulevard. high high7-rise towers are being. constructed in., the, vicinity of,the,, Omni retail center and Margaret Pace Park. A. large! deve nned. waterfront development includes an element of the Mi nvert Bicenterigial,Park to Museum. Park featuring science and art museums. A private, - mixM-us'e waterfront nt ,,,,dqyelopme called Island Gardens is.planned on Watson Island's west end-The.1600 parin4facing Miami, These: are alf new traffic'generators being addeq� 14. area surround' !395 pr9iect the el corridor.,.17,his, area already . has a, number of exis traffic 94 rs. he Central Business District (CBD) i's composed' of six parts: Bay ront, ; la . Ie*r, ' idtown, Goveniment Center, DuPont Plaza, and the River Quadrant. Existing traffic generators also include neighborhoods of,the Overtown/Town 'Park West. Currently, land uses include Plaza (north of the Miami includes,,severa -rise,. towers. To the . north three ' -esidential .(medium -high density), institutional, commercial, recreational, industrial, and , Bayfront,area, the POM, Miami Be-_, -, _- the _-� Civic°Center,.�~d, ,Ccmb�, bwCivic�Justice Building CauLer 'State and .Medical' ' �County 1~l0 courts. There is also the State Attorney General's office building. Medical facilities include the University of Miami -Jackson Memorial Hospitals, the ' Cedars Medical Center, the Veterans Administration Hospital and other institutes in approximately 70 buildings. Other community facilities not listed above include the new American Airlines. Arena . (on Biscayne Boulevard), the Wolfson (downtown) Campus of Miami -Dade Community College, and the Mahi Shrine Auditorium (1480 NW North River Drive). 1.5 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS The proposed project is compatible with existing and proposed multimodal (mass -transit and non -motorized) facilities. Existing rail corridors at 1-395 include the Florida East Coast Railway, Metrorail and Metromover. The FEC rail corridor is not a mass -transit facility. No plans currently exist to re -initiate passenger service. The existing double=rail freight corridor crosses at -grade under 1-395 at North Miami Avenue. The track terminates in the POM, but is no longer used. Metrorail's heavy rail commuter line crosses (at -grade) under both the southern and western legs of the Midtown Interchange. No impacts are anticipated at these existing Metrorail track crossings, Metrorail stations near 1-395 include Overtown/Arena (100 NW 6th Street), Culmer (701 NW 11tit Street), and Civic Center (1501 NW 1241 Avenue). The Metrorail system includes an elevated light -rail element, known as the Metromover, that has downtown inner and outer loops plus extensions to the south (Brickell Leg) and north (Omni Leg). The Omni Leg of the Metromover passes directly over 1-395 near the eastern terminus. The vertical clearance of Metromover is 23 ft over 1-395, which is adequate to accommodate the proposed action. At 14 11 above sea level, this underpass is the low point of the 1-395 corridor. The Metromover includes a closed station at Bicentennial Park. The existing Bicentennial Park Station abuts the eastbound on -ramp from Biscayne Boulevard to 1-395: Miami -Dade Transit currently lists Bicentennial Park Station as permanently closed. The Omni -Leg of the Metromover' includes three more commuter stations near the 1-395 project corridor, the [NE] 1 1th Street Station (1098 NE 2°d Avenue), the Omni' Station at 1455 Biscayne' Boulevard, and the terminal School Board Station (50 NE 1'5` Street). No impacts are anticipated to the , Omni' Leg of the Metroriiover, or to any other existing Metrorail and=Metromover stations along the corridor. Planned mass -transit facilities are designed to reduce the traffic demand on I-395. A major project is the MIC, under construction east of MIA. The MIC project will provide mass - transit service between the airport and a car rental hub, with connections to AmTrak (national), TriRail (regional) and Metrorail (local) rail services. The MIC brings together airport light -rail transit with heavy -rail transit, parking garages, auto rental operations, bus service, taxi service, and possibly even Miami River water taxis. A mass -transit (dedicated bus) link for cruise ship passengers :bets een the MEC and the POM was included. Eventually, there will be a rail connection to the existing Metrorail system. A new MIC Metrorail Station' will connect northeastward via new track to Metrorail's existing • Earlington Heights Station and thence the entire mass -transit system. The MIC-Earlington •Heights project is currently in the design phase. , . An FEIS was .approved by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in 1998 for a heavy -rail mass -transit corridor called. the East-West Transit Corridor. That FEIS described a commuter rail line extending from. west -central Miami -Dade County to Miami Beach (over the MacArthur Causeway). Work of the corridor's eastern segment related to the 1-395 corridor is unfunded. Design of the western segment is currently being advanced. As originally approved, the western segment of the East-West Transit Corridor would • connect Florida International University (FIU) to the MIC, and to Metrorail's Government Center Station (Flagler Street), Another mass -transit element under evaluation is the North Corridor, a northern extension (along NW 27th Avenue) from Metrorail's Martin Luther King Jr. Station at NW 621 Street to the Broward County line at NW 215th Street, tentatively with seven new rail stations. The City of Miami, in coordination with the FDOT, is proposing to build the Miami Streetcar Project. The Public Hearing for the Miami Streetcar project was held on October 18, 2006. It would run from Government Center in downtown Miami throne' the entertainment District, Wynwood/Edgewater, Midtown Miami, the Miami Design .District, Overtown and the Civic Center/Health District complex. The, streetcar is an urban rail transit circulator that will operate in existing roadways, and provide connectivity among major activity centers, commercial , and retail establishments, as well as residential communities throughout the project corridor. Three operational loops are proposed: 1 North -South Alignment runs from Government Center at NW •lst Avenue to Miami Design District at NE 40th Street • 2.,‘ West -South Alignment runs from the Civic Center/Health District along NE/NW 20th Street to Government Center at NW 1st Avenue. 3 North-West Alignment runs from Miami Design District at NE 40 Street to Civic • Center/Health District ,at NW -10 Avenue. • Non-motorizecl,modes of transport are. generally. prohibited on limited -access expressways, thus pedestnan and bicycle traffic is prohibited on the elevated 1-395 conidor. Except , for Overtown, there is limited existing ;pedestrian and bicycle circulation on local surface streets in the 1-395 study area. Sidewalks are generally present, but the usage is Minimal. The area's only recornmended. bike route runs north -south between Bicentennial Park and Margaret Pace Park, using the • Bayshore Drive aligmnent that passes under the 1-395 corridor (avoiding Biscayne Boulevard). An increase in pedestrian use is anticipated with the new AACF'A,, the Biscayne Boulevard beautification project and implementation of the 1-395 proposed reconstruction of 1,395. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation would improve with implementation of the preferred Build Alternative 3, as freedom of movement and at -grade access would be improved under the high-level bridges. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation would be impeded at the 1-12 existing bike route along Bayshore Drive with either of the depressed alternatives (Build Alternatives 4 and 5) due to the need for high floodwalls at this coastal location. 1.6 CAPACITY All traffic data used in this report are derived from the Interchange Modification Report (IMR) for this project, which is pending approval from FHWA. In 2004, the 1-395 traffic volume (two-way traffic) just east of the Midtown Interchange, near the western end of the project corridor, was 106,500 vehicles per day (vpd). At the eastern end of the project corridor, near the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway, the two-way average daily traffic was 122,400 vpd. These are link volumes (between nodes). The AM (morning) peak hour directional flow is westward, and the PM (afternoon) peak hour is in the eastward direction. According to the IMR for this project, Year 2030 future two-way traffic volumes (AADT) for No -Build Alternative were estimated to be 178,200 vpd at the west end and 145,600 at the east end. The estimates for the Year 2040 No -Build Alternative were 206,500 and 168,500, respectively. Similarly, the Year 2030 future two-way traffic volumes (AADT) for Build Alternative were estimated to be 178,000 vpd at the west end and 138,100 at the east end. The estimates for the Year 2040 Build Alternative were 206,000 and 159,500, respectively. Level of Service (LOS) is a parameter to measure highway capacity, with an LOS of "A" being the best and "F" being unacceptable, or over capacity. LOS "C" or better is the standard acceptable by FHWA for the design year of future improvements, except for certain urban areas such as this, where LOS "D" is accepted by FHWA as the best that can reasonably be achieved. The full analysis of highway capacity is contained in the project's Traffic Report and in the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). A brief summary of those results is provided graphically below. The two attached graphics of Freeway Analysis illustrate the projected LOS values for the future years 2020, 2030 and 2040 for segments of 1-395, SR-836 and I-95. Figure 1-4, Freeway Analysis (No -Build Alternative 1) describes the future capacity of the No -Build Alternative. Figure 1-5, Freeway Analysis (Build Alternative 3) describes the future capacity of the preferred Build Alternative 3. Results for the other Build Alternatives are similar. Each set of results provides LOS, density and speed for roadway segments in each direction. Comparing these two graphics allows an understanding of the benefits provided by project implementation in terms of capacity (Begin Year 2020, mid -point 2030, and Design Year 2040). 1-13 With the No -Build Alternative, the LOS is projected to have twelve (12) of 14 segments operating at LOS "C" or better in 2020„deteriorating by 2030 to eight (8) ,of 14 segments, and by 2040 to only six (6) of 14 segments at LOS "C" or better, with six (6) segments operating at LOS "F". Meanwhile, with the Build Alternative, the LOS is projected to remain at or better than "C" in all 14 segments beyond the first ten years, and until near the Design Year of 2040, by which time twelve (12) of 14 segments continue to operate at LOS "C" or better and only two (2) of the 14 segments operating at LOS "D"or worse. (This space left intentionally blank) 1-14 1-395 PD&E Study Florida Department of Transportation FIGURE NO. 1-4 Page 1-15 NycWplannin011.1105Dtlenv docsidefs 1-395 PD&E Study - FREEWAY ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE 3) FIGURE NO 1-5 Florida Department of Transportation Page 1-16 1,7 SAFETY Crash data for the corridor was collected and°analyzed in the PER for the recent five (5) year period of 2001=2005. The five year summary identified crash rates higher than the statewide per -mile average for 'similar freeways' in all five years evaluated. This trend is anticipated to worsen without project implementation. For this five-year period, the 1-395 location had 248 total crashes, including three (3) fatalities, 155 ' injuries, 90 property damage type of crashes. Minot events were not recorded:' Many of these were related to the weaving of traffic caused by ° lane drops and ramps on both sides of' through lanes: The estimated average annual cost of crashes involving injuries within the project area is 10.8 million dollars (2005 dollars), Based on the crash analysis in the PER, the most frequent type of crash was' rear -end (26%). Rear:end crashes reflect a mix of slow and fast traffic speeds, trucks and cars. Thenext most frequent types of crashes are with walls or fences (18%), followed by sideswipe (12%), and angle (8%). More crashes occurred by day (52%) than dusk/night'(46%), except for a peak of dusk/night crashes on Fridays and Saturdays. The South Beach entertainment district is a weekend trip destination. The proposed project is intended to address the numerous operational and safety deficiencies already established for the facility and should reduce both accident and injury potential. The proposed improvements should also improve response times for emergency services. The southeast Florida coastal region is recognized as one of the most hurricane -vulnerable areas of the United States. The MacArthur Causeway/I-395 corridor was identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the principal Hurricane Evacuation Route for southern Miami Beach, to be utilized for all categories of storm evacuations. The expenditure of public funds in recent years on major improvements to the adjoining MacArthur Causeway and West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway were based partially on providing capacity for the emergency evacuation of Miami Beach. The westbound lanes of this project corridor are a link in the prime evacuation route for a large population. Serviceability for hurricane evacuation is a safety consideration. Conceptually, the proposed improvements to the existing 1-395 facility, including the Midtown Interchange, should facilitate hurricane evacuation from. Miami Beach, the Bay Islands (Fisher, Star, Hibiscus, Palm and six Venetian Islands), downtown Miami, and the Bayfront area. The proposed capacity improvements would reduce evacuation times and provide better traffic flow, especially for the critical westbound emergency evacuation traffic over the MacArthur Causeway from Miami Beach and the Bay Islands. Of the build alternatives under consideration, only the elevated designs maintain an evacuation roadway elevation above floodwaters associated with a major event. Mandatory evacuation orders and road closures occur prior to flooding from actual storm events. The alternative designs featuring depressed (open cut, tunnel) . segments in this coastal location may be fatally flawed in regard to emergency evacuation. 1-17 1.8 STRUCTURAL SUFFICIENCY The seven existing I-395 bridge structures include an eastbound ramp span at NW 3rd Avenue (2,924 ft),u,,westbound span at NW 14th Street/N Miami .Avenue (3,9,59 ft): and eastbound -span at NW.14t Street/N Miami Avenue (4,014 ft), a ramp span at the. NE, 1st Avenue (184.ft), a ramp,span at NE 2nd Avenue Interchange (533ft), plus westbound and eastbound spans at Ramp "F", (each 135 .ft). All structures date from 1970 except Ramp `.`F" which,dates from 1971..The first three are currently rated structurally deficient; with the bridge -over NW 3rd Avenue having the lowest sufficiency rating (36,8); the other two are rated, 62.0. and 65.2, respectively. All spans are likely to be replaced. In addition, within the Midtown Interchange, there are another, two bridgesand six ramps. All of the existing I.395 bridges .pass, over land, not water. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), in their Advance Notification response letter of April, 20,,.2005 stated that no navigable waterway crossing is involved, and that no USCG Bridge Permit would be required. Also, no comments regarding; Navigation were .received through the, FDOT Efficient Transportation Decision Making,(ETDM) process. 1-18 1 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLI)DING PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION The I-395 project corridor crosses the City of Miami from, a Begin Point at the west side of. the Midtown Interchange (just east of NW 7d' Avenue) and runs eastward to an End Point on the mainland shoreline near the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway. Thisproject corridor is 1.4 miles in length. The 1-395 project corridor. is a component of the east coast interstate highway system. To improve the entire system, a series of related projects, both roadway and transit, are also planned or underway. 2.2 NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE; (ALTERNATIVE 1) The No -Build Alternative (Alternative 1) is the "do-nothing" or.. "no -action" option. The - No -Build Alternative will remain a viable alternative through the public hearing phase. It is used to compare the costs and benefits of implementing the proposed improvements to' those incurred by continuing to use the existing facility. 'The existing problems and concerns with the operational and capacity shortcomings of the roadway would remain-, essentially unchanged; with all of the geometric, operational and access deficiencies. The necessary continuity is lacking in the existing facility. I-395 has only two through=;` lanes in each direction, while the connecting expressways have at least 'three,- through lanes. It has only one lane: in each direction that is -continuous Croin end to end. It fails to effectively serve the access needs of the abutting land:uses, and is, inadequate in terms of existing and future capacity. Figure 2-1 (the No -Build) Alternative 1 provides features of this alternative in pictures as well as a profile view, a plan view.and a schematic diagram.. Figure 2-2, Alternative 1 illustrates both plan view and schematic diagrams of 1-395 and SR-836, with planned improvements to. SR-836 that affect:, the No -Build Alternative. Figure 2-3 illustrates three Existing Typic`:a1 Sections. The existing expressway was constructed from 1969 to 1971. By current standards, it is substandard in numerous aspects. The project; corridor was -elevated to approximately30 ft-- on embankment (fill) between North Miami' Avenue and NE 2nd Avenue, and between;. Biscayne Boulevard and the Bridges of the.ItlacArthur Causeway.: The various ramps are., generally constructed on fill. The remainder waselevated ontstructure (bridges), including the mainline from NW 3rd Avenue to North Miami Avenue, and the block between NE2" Avenue and Biseayne.Boulevard. The existing roadway clearance over the F.E.C. Railroad,. ,traeks;is 22 5'itft, and the roadway's highestelevation, near this point, is approximately 45 £t_" NO`'VD,, or _31 ft ;+above ,grade. The existing roadway right-of-way (R/W) varies considerably; and ranges in general frothapproximately 160 ft to 440 ft, apart from the Midtown :Interchange' and other areas oframps. The wide point includes recently acquired properties between the expressway and the .Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts (AACI'A). In the eastbound direction there are three on -ramps (one two-lane) and two off, rannps In the„westbound direction there are three on -ramps (one two-lane) and two off-k. ramps (one two-lane). There is a stormwater management system in the Midtown Interchange, but not in the remainder of the corridor. 2-1 This alternative assumes that no improvements along 1-395 will be implemented. The." No build Alternative entails the retainage of the existing' conditions within the project lirnitsmith its prese:nt geometric, op6ratjonai and access deficiencies.' This alternative does not meet basic traffic, safety, and community-revitalizatiOn needs. • The No -Build option remains a viable alternative, throughout the study process. 0.*1#10 Iteda* 14"4311626 Both= *tad:40Jb NW3AVE MN 14 ST EXISTING TYPICAL SECTIONS ALONG 1-395 FIGURE Na 2 Florida Department of Transportation Page 2-4 1395 PD&E Study Florida Department of Transportation EXISTING TYPICAL SECTIONS ALONG 1-395 FIGURE NQ 2-3 Page 2-4 2,3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT Should the No -build Alternative prevail, then Transportation Systems Management (TSM) minor improvement options will be evaluated. TSM options are usually generated to alleviate specific traffic congestion/safety problems, or to get the maximum utilization out of the existing facility by improving operational efficiency. These alternatives do not serve as a benchmark function but rather they insure that a wide range of realistic alternatives are considered by decision makers. Various TSM alternatives were investigated. These include: • additional mainline lane provision thru reduction in lane and shoulder widths; • conversion of lanes for exclusive HOV usewith priority access for HO vehicles; • provision of physical and operational improvements to high accident spots or segments; • provision of a ramp metering control, freeway traffic surveillance and control systems; • intersection and signalization improvement; and, sign, markings and delineation improvement. A total of seven TSM concepts were evaluated in Table 2-1. As indicated in this table, it is expected that these TSM improvements alone will not alleviate the existing corridor deficiencies, nor would any combination of them suffice to meet current and future travel demand. However, TSM concepts will be revisited for applicability during design of the preferred Build Alternative. In summary, even though some beneficial effects can be obtained through the use of low cost improvements, the overall capacity restriction of maintaining the existing roadway section precludes the attainment of any significant improvement in theoverall; project level of service: ` It is because of this fact that these TSM alterrtatives were considered to have little value in this case. Therefore, the TSM Alternative options were rejected and only major recopstniction options were considered for ,further study. As stated above, several of the proposed TSM improvements previously identified have been incorporated into the design of the major project alternatives. 2.4 MULTIMODAL ALTERNATIVES Reconstruction of 1-395 does not involve any modes of transit other than motorized vehicular use. As described above in Section 1.5, Modal Interrelationships, a 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was approved for a heavy -rail mass -transit corridor, the East — West, Transit Corridor. The eastern leg of that FEIS was described as a commuter rail line across Biscayne Bay to Miami Beach (over the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway). This eastern portion of the transit corridor that related to the I-395 corridor was subsequently postponed due to lack of funding. Should the eastern leg be re -initiated, the I-395 corridor may possibly be affected, but the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway would no longer be available for railway use. The western leg of the East — West Transit Corridor is currently being advanced with rail and bus modes. 2-5 Table 2-1 EVALUATION OF TSM ALTERNATIVES , TSM ALTERNATIVES CONSEQUENCES OF IIVIIILEMENTATION Additional mainline lane provision thru reduction in lane and shoulder widths • Would actually worsen existing deficiencies due to substandard section and ability to carry higher volumes through a highly turbulent area. • Minor gain in capacity at the expense of safety. • Will not meet future travel demand. . Converting mainline lanes for exclusive HOV use • Not compatible with system plans along the SR-836 nidor. • Will not alleviate any of the major existing deficiencies. mi Will not meet future traffic demands. Physical and operational improvements to ' high accident spots or segments • Most or all of the existing facility is a high accident location and therefore would require improvements throughout, • Major reconstruction would be the only way to significantly improve safety due to severity of deficiencies. Provide ramp metering control and priority access , (ramp bypass) for HOV's' : . . • Only applicable at local seice interchanges.. . . . .ry. ' • . • Will basically maintainvemsting deficiencies. , Freeway traffic surveillance and control systems . , . . • Some minor improvements to operations in area, however ' major existing deficiencies would remain. • Will not provide suffiCient capacity increases tomeet future travel demand. • Improved , intersections and signalization • Only slight improvements to ramp terminals -• : Will not alleviate any of the major existing deficiencies. ,Improved signing, . markings and •• delineation • Only slight improvements in guidance and possibly ' safety. Will not alleviate any of the major existing deficiencies. 2-6 2.5 FLORIDA INTRASTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM (FIHS) MASTER PLAN The subject 1-395 project corridor is an element of the Strategic,Intermodal System (SIS) and the FIHS. Typically, a Master Plan is finalized during the Planning Phase that defines a preferred design concept and the scope to be implemented for the corridor. No Master Plan was accomplished in this case. Advocacy for depressed alternative' concepts by some and for elevated design concepts by others blocked any agreement at the Planning Phase. Only through PD&E analysis was it demonstrated that the depressed alternative concepts were not cost -feasible. Also, one elevated design became fatally flawed. The preferred (elevated) design concept and scope are currently being evaluated during the PD&E Phase of project development. 2.6 CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES Based on the preceding analysis, it was determined that various major reconstruction alternatives would be developed approximately. along the existing I-395 corridor. These major reconstruction options had to consider the various components of providing a new, multilane facility with emphasis on operational characteristics, roadway geometry, safety and aesthetics. Constructability and Maintenance of "I raffic were also important. 2.6.1 Alternative 2 (Elevated, Ramps at Midtown Interchange) Figures 2-4 and 2-5, Alternative 2 (Ramps at Midtown Interchange) together provide a profile view, plan views, schematic diagram and features of this alternative in pictures. Build Alternative 2 is one of two high-level bridge designs that are very similar, but differ in access points and bridge design. Both elevated designs provide three lanes in each direction and maintain the Biscayne Boulevard Interchange. Both elevated designs entail the closure of the existing ramps (interchange) at NE 2nd Avenue and at NE 1st Avenue. Alternative 2 entails the closure of these existing ramps, to be replaced by a new interchange near the west end of the project corridor. This would allow the.deVelop rent of a much higher I-395 profile that would be less visually objectionable than the existing facility. The elimination of the existing ramps and associated embankment areas removes these existing visual obstructions, and the development of a higher profile (average 1 5 ft So 20 ft higher than the existing) also helps to decrease the existing "tunnel effect" in this •'area This- option ;•featured provision of new 'entrance ramps to westbound SR-836'and to northbound I-95_near the existing intersection of NW 14th `Street and NW 2nd Avenue, in Overtown. This alternative was based pn the assumption that there would be a new southbound I-95. off_ramp connecting to. NW 14th Street as well as two NW 14t" Street access ramps to/from south'I-95. However,: the FDOT action to create the two NW 14th 2-7 This alternative assumed the provision of new southbound 1-95 off ramp connecting tol NW 14th Street, as well as two NW 14th Street access ramps to/from south Since the 14th Street access ramps project was a vital component of this alternative and was eliminated from the MPO work prpgrarn, Alternative 2 is no- longer considered viable option. = . P. . - . 's • Potential Street Reconnections Potential Disconnected Streets Not to Scale Sat., vf Stidge RAMPSAT NW 14 ST ' 'Top ol'EVIVQ• ‘, •,„ KRIM ,PEREORNIIMART8 f l'eW:11"1; 74A,A:FaiM42M2Akft* NW 1 P1. EcAlq 2 AVE j&NW 14 ST EMBANKMENT swat AVE riErAliE NEMIAMI CT NE 2 AVE BAYStii5RE BISCAYNE DR EMBANKMENT BLIM /HA SECOND TIER LEVEL rfilE1ROMOVER 1-395 PD&E Study ;ial-Disconnected Streets ALTERNATIVE 2 (RAMPS AT MIDTOWN INTERCHANGE) Florida Department of Transportation FIGURE NO. 2-5 ••• • - ,• •,„ , . -• t . Street access ramps was not granted Location/Design Concept Acceptance (LCDA) by FHWA, due to local opposition., The intention of constructing these ramps was rolin_144-' 95 to the Bispayne,Boulevard area.throuO'NE/NW 14th Street. The Alternative 2-design does not provide any eastbound exit rah* for eastbound SR-836:.'lraffic.• Eastbound SR- 836',-traffiC-deSirngto access local streets, would divert southward. on 1795and exit via the existing I-:95/1W 8th Street-. ramp. 'Since this alternative was premised on the N • , *N'; .',f: '0'..- I. ' ' ' availability of a new, interchange, in OvelloWn, and that option has, been eliminated, Alternative 2 is fatallyflawed. "-• - i , • 2.6.2 Alternative 3 (Elevated; Ramps at Miami Avenue) • • , , Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7, Altirnative 3 (Ramps at Miami Avenue) together provide a profile view, plan views, schematic diagram and features of this' aftePiative in pictures. Figure 2-8 illustrates the Alternative 3 Proposed Typical Sections Other views of typical sections are illustrated in. Section 4, Figures 4-15 thru 4-21,(covering'Seven phases of construction). Like Alternative 2, Alternative 3 eliminates the existing ramps at NE 2nd Avenue and at NE ist Avenue. Unlike Alternative 2, this deign proposes.,a new interchange at North- (N) Miami Avenue. The three lanes in each direction will be .. • provided on paired spans between the. Midtown Interchange and BaySharoDrive. These spans will provide high elegance underneath the two spans. Thee4 new .roadWak, segments to be constructed on solid fill include only the four ramps atcMiani.r Avenue. There are also four of the existing ramps within the Midtown Interchangethatiwilf remain on fill. A new connector road withiWolanes will link westbound 1-395 traffictrafhc to both NB and SB 1-95 traffic, placing the separation between traffic streams (one stream tO:T-95 and one stream to SR-836) far in advance of the, actual interchange. Similarly, eastbound • traffic streams travel over separate ,structures past the new interchange. The new interchange, at N Miami Avenue provides on -ramps that separate corniecto i•traffic from mainhne traffic. This requires closure otl\TWMiami Court but alkiws re;comigCtion of 'NE Miami Court. Alternative 3 features all exit and entrance lainPa. These features minimize weaving, a Major weakness %the existing desigit'FOr these reasons, Alternative 3 was determined to be the. most and only feasible coricept,And,is being'adyanced for LDCA. - • • .... . , 2.6.3 Alternative .4::(Tunnel;•Ramps at Miami'Avenue) Figure 279 and Fignre-249, Alternative 4 (Twinel) together provide a profile view, plan views, Seheinatic' diagram and pictorial. features of this, subterranean design, Alternative 4 proposes a covered tunnel betWeen. North Miami Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard adjoined by two depressed roadwa 'segnients.. the tunnel bottom - would reach a depth of approximately -42 ft and would provide 23,5 ft'Of headroom. A roof thickness of ft would be required. 1-395 would be expanded to three, lanes -in each direction. A new conneetor road would link westboundI-395 traffic and , both northbound and southbound 1-95 traffic. • PROS: • Safe Pedestrian and vehicular crossings • Continuity of urban grid •Versatile useable space below highway • Vehicular & pedestrian views to the city _ , *Architectural and structural possibilities • Potential to reconnect local streets • Ramps create zones of unusable space,.: • Can be a visual barrier if low elevation • Least amount of R/W required of ail build alts. COST: $500 MILLION eet Reconnections Potential Disconnected Streets .2Avenue ` �� N tvtiaini t ouFt ? ; NE Mrami court' :_>` NW 3,WEE NW 1 PL' FECRR.'' NW2AVE &NW14ST al Street Reconnections 1...W6nti; • g P-Vffr''r'-r=*,rs'fFf z Potential Disconnected Streets NW. MiamT,Court' aqf C" • aut ALTERNATIVE 3 (RAMPS AT MIAMI AVENUE) FIGURE NO. 2-7 Florida Department of Transportation j BEGIN PROJECT PROS: .:• Safe Pedestrian and vehicular crossings • Highway becomes hidden (between North :Mlamt Avenue- , and Biscayne Boulevard) - ickeduced noise levels • Opportunity to utilize area above the highway CONS:. • Potential to,disconnect local streets • Potential flooding issues / evacuation route-. "• Conflicts with existing underground utilises • Excavate contaminated soil • No vehicular views to city • Most expensive alternative • Construction related impacts • Complex MOT required • Requires extensive RAN COST Over $1 Billion Potential Streets Reconnections S m 1.4M, Aver "tr �i�lE=8iiiamYCOurY`�=' Disconnected Streets i sEc OARRIVAL (PERFFOR ORM! GARTO ;EMBANKMENT FLOOD War I S BB.YSHORE FECRR;:' MIAMI BIEWtYNE, OR AVE NE 1 AVE BL U •, .:� �tY^ NE2AVE „> a E:C41:21IECi 1-395 POSE Study 1 Potential Streets Reconnections. fAveritta-, I: • Florida Department of Transportation i Potential Disconnected Streets I, c4c.11:"-Ki dr pi * ',,,,,,-;•• ,... IN V v, ace ,:-1..,-;-.,...,..-.:1 " Critical Existing Local Connection ALTERNATIVE 4 (RAMPS AT MIAMI AVENUE, TUNNEL) FIGURE NO, 2-1 0 Page 2-15 The adjoining depressed roadway segment to the west would begitf,at'a point between NW 1st Placeand NATlst Court, and reach the tunnel entrance at North Miami Avenue. The Florida East Coast Railway '(FEC) Railroad would be bridged over this depression, and the North Mi4nai Avenue Interchange ramps would also be contained in this depressed roadway segment, west of the tUnner. Alternative 4 would feature all left-hand exit and entrance ramps, These ramps " would drop from street level (+13 ft) to approximately -8, ft, elevation for clearance under the railroad crossing span; then rise steeply to the Midtown Interchange, witlrone ramp rising to approximately +82 ft The adjoining depressed roadway segment to the east would run from, the tunnel entrance at Biscayne Boulevard to the West Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway. A bridge would carry North Bayshore Drive over the eastern depressed roadway segment. , The 1-395 project corridor terminates at the Biscayne Bay seawall Particularly for the two depressed alternative designs, this coastal area is subject to storm surge and risk of flooding. The predicted storm surge with a Category 5 hurricane iapproaching from the southeast is between 14 and 18': feet at this location. Therefore; measures to prevent flooding (inundation) would be required. With Alternative 4, one or both tunnel entrances (open segments) would require some form of levee or seawall at elevation above the 100- year flood elevation, while WithAlternative 5, Much of the entire open cut would require a similar levee surrounding the "trench. At both ends, the roadway would need to pass over the required levee ,elevation. This defeats a prime reason for the depressed alternatives, which was to eliminate from view the obstacle between downtown and the area north of 1-395. The roadway's Capacity for emergency evacuation in the event of a hurricane would exist, since evacuation occurs before, not during, a storm event. However, with the depressed options ;massive flooding would remove the transportation facility from service for an extended period at a critical time after the storm eVent. 2.6.4 Alternative 5 (Open -Cut, Ramps atNE 1st and NE 21Id Avenues) Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12, Alternative 5 (Open Cut) together provide a profile view, plan views, :Schematic diagram and pictorial features of this ,below -grade , design.. Alternative, '51datures an open -cut solution, that is, the six -lane expressway would be located- 10 to ,20 ft below natural grade The length of this open -cut solution would be approximately ,:4;500 ft, and the width of the openeut Would range from approximately 200 to 300 ft The 1-395 mainline would be expanded to three lanes in each direction. The freeway lane configuration and ramp location of this option would be similar to the existing 1-395 c6ndition, apart from the depressed -Vertical, profile. This alternative features both right-hand and left-hand exit ramps. :Also, five of the avenues would be carried across the open cut on new bridge structures, as would the FEC Railroad. With Alternative 5 the vertical clearance at the Bayshore Drive on -ramp would be lower than that of the existing condition, and thus the southbound Bayshore Drive ramp connection to eastbound MacArthur Bridge would be eliminated. To accommodate this movement, left turns Would be allowed at the Biscayne Boulevard/NE 12th Street intersection. 2-16 PROS: *Safe Pedestrian and vehicular crossings at select locations • Reduced noise levels • Highway less visible from distance •Open space opportunity on existing highway property CONS: • Cut/severs Overtown • Vehicular views to city blocked • Crossings limited to street locations • Potential flooding issues/ evacuation route • Conflicts with existing underground utilities • Excavate contaminated soil • Requires the most R/W COST Over $750 Million Potential Streets Reconnections Potential ➢iscannected Streets NW ,Court h:>-NElRiami=court ; • B t11N2.-Drive-sue::;; xlEv;470 ntC�cwaa� Potential Streets Reconnections Florida Department of Transportation Potential Disconnected Streets t • ALTERNATIVE 5 (OPEN -CUT) • FIGURE NO. 2-12 Page 248 The issues of flood prevention and hurricane evacuation discussed above for the tunnel alternative also apply to this alternative, differing only in the area open to deluge. The open cut design would have an opening' of approximately 22 to 24 acres Note that Public Involvement and agency coordination of this project was first processed using an Advance Notification. Note that this project was also processed through the Environmental Screening Tool of the FDOT Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process. See Section 5, Comments and Coordination for more information on ETDM. References to comments that were received from the ETDM reviewing agencies are contained throughout this document. The following Section 2.7, Alternatives Analysis, provides a step-by-step narrative covering the four phases of this analysis, including a diagram of the step -wise selection process and a tabular comparison of these four Build Alternatives, elaborated in the form of an alternative evaluation matrix, 2.7. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This section provides a step-by-step narrative covering the four phases of this analysis, including a diagram of the step -wise selection process, as illustrated in Figure 2-13, Alternative Selection Process, and a tabular comparison of these four Build Alternatives, elaborated in the form of a matrix (Table 2-2, 1-395 Alternative Evaluation Matrix). This four -phase selection process was employed to properly assess all alternatives considered for the proposed improvements to 1-395. A brief discussion of each of these phases follows: 2.7.1 Phase One: Conceptual Design Analysis This initial phase entailed the analysis, of various alternative corridor options as well as the generation and: initial consideration of theeNo-Build, TSM`and various reconstruction alternatives. It should be noted that a comprehensive corridor analysis with 10 different options has been previously conducted as part ofthe original SR 836/I 395 .Pp&E Study.. A summary of the initial findings of the"previous study i included in appendices of the PER. Abutting the project area, residential land uses are present along with large institutional, commercial, industrial, and parkland areas. The existing corridor would basically maintainthe same land use patterns adjacent to the facility while other options have the potential to alter land uses and to be less compatible with the areas they would traverse. The potential number and types of residential and business displacements, and potential impacts to community services and community cohesion with alternate corridors would result in major impacts to the surrounding'cornmunity and neighborhood. The development of a new corridor could also potentially impact historical resources which abound in the area, which is one of the oldest parts of Miami. Several parklands are also located around the project area. By maintaining the existing corridor it is anticipated that involvement with Section 106 or Section 4(f) resources will be`minimal or none. Compared to the creation of a new corridor through the established urban 2-19 CONCEPTUAL. DESIGN ANALYSISiD ; NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE . - TSMA`ALTERNATIVESS - RECONSTRUCTION ' ALTERNATIVES CORRIDORANALTSIS�. EXis'tING toRRlb6i't. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ANALYSIS CONCEPTUAL CONSIDERATION OF MINOR AND MAJOR OPTIONS INCLUDING THE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR OPTIONS EVALUATION OF CONCEPTUAL SOLUTIONS, - GENERATION OF CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES WITHIN THE CHOSEN' EVALUATION OF CONCEPTUAL CORRIDOR AND SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE •= musum.to 1 ALTERNATIVE !LtalPSArnvutuWN (4lbYA1 2 ALTERNATIVE n0P3.alta�MAVE,. CGr � �.. IE4tivATEt)( 3 A TEIO 116/4PN;;,,, - (TUIN(;41 TIVE 4 ALTERNA,TIV1~ !AVG `lorl..c.,(T, 5 ,- . SOLUTIONS VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO BE FURTHER EVALUATED 0 PRE -FINAL ALTE:RNATIVE EVALUATION FURTHER REFINEMENT OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED IN THE i v PREfINAL ALTERNATIVE PREVIOUS PHASE USING A NUMERICAU DESCRIPTIVE ALTERNATIVE 1 . ALTERNATIVE f2AMPS INO;BUILI)) MIprowN.INIERC1iANGk 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 AT 1 - ' RAMPS ATMlA}M)I AVE' )ELEVATE)) ...` ALTERNATIVE RAMPS AT ROtfJEL)_ MIAMI fttE ALTERNATIVE 5 . lOPBN*CUT) '.' EVALUATION MATRIX APPROACH. FINAL ALTERNATIVE PREFERRED.. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION:. FINAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM ALTERNATIVE O P. o • 3 ,4 OFXf --%. , ►" , dd l c ALTERNATIVE SELECTION FIGURE NO. 2 Page 2.20 landscape, the re-iiseof the existing corridor is anticipated to impact; less contamination sites. • The various costs `'associated with this ,type of project . would generally be less by improving the existing facility than by providing a new "corridor alignment. Generally, the greater the amount of new construction and right -Of -way required, the greater the overall project costs. In conclusion, after' a preliminary investigation of the area surrounding the existing facility, it has been determined that theexisting corridor location offers the best potential for the fulfillment of the,iproject's needs.. The consideration for developing any major highway at a. new location is severely; limited by physical, environmental, and economic constraints. The use •of a ;majority of the existing facility's right-of-way makes the proposed improvetnents'on the existing corridorthe most reasonable choice. 2.7.2 Phase Two: Evaluation of Conceptual Solutions This phase involved:: the evaluation of the potential'eonceptual'solutions and the selection of all remaining alternatives to be further evaluated in subsequent phases. As previously stated, there are two distinct potential concepts, a'depressed section (tunnel or open -cut) and an elevated section. Four (4) alternatives were derived from these two concepts and were previously described in sections 2.6.1 through 2.6.4 ;.of this document. Only Alternative 2 was judged to be .not feasible due to the ..abandonment' by FDOT (due to strong community opposition) of a critical alternative component entailing the construction of a pair of ramps, on 1-95 at NW 14th Street. The deletion of these ramps from Alternative 2 renders this option;not feasible. 2.7.3 Phase Three:Pre Final Alternative Alignment=Evaltxaton Table 2-2, 1-395 Preliminary Alternative Evaluation Matrix, is both a numerical and descriptive matrix, `thtch illustrates, describes: and evaluates ;the features of the four (4) reconstructiol alternatives Thts,'evaluation ,involved the generation of a weighting scheme for each of the evaluation paralrretdrs, Nineteen different evaluation parameters including engineeling;:kcioaeeeeifeiniec environmental and Cost factors were used. Each parameter was assigned a.; value` ranging from 3 „ to. • 8 depending: on its degree of importance. These parameter weightings were developed: from the average of individual weighting sets prepared by Members of the consultant's team reflecting a broad range of professional backgrounds. This evaluation involves a combination •of both qualitative and quantitative values resulting in an overall score Each score. indicated on the table is the result of multiplying the judgmental analysis rating' times the relative weight for that parameter. For example, Alternative 3: under the "Access parameter was given a (-9-) . designation (judgmental value .— 0.8)" since it provides a new `ramp providing easier and.. faster access to the Downtown area. This judgment value of 0.8 was then multiplied by the relative weight of the "Access" parameter (0:0) resulttng;in an overall score of 4.8 1495 POSE SWdy ENVIRONMENTAL G SPat 34204 Paget-22 The "judgmental analysis" denotes each alternative's performance with respect to a set of pre -selected criteria or factors that are usually expressed with symbolic descriptors (e.g., ++ + 0'- -). These descriptors have associated numerical values (see legend on Table 2- 2). The better the performance of that alternative, with respect'' to each evaluation parameter, the higher the symbolic descriptor assigned to it. The total score of that alternative is the result of multiplying the symbolic descriptor value (judgmental value). times the relative weight previously assignedto the evaluation parameter. To further evaluate these alternatives, the median value was calculated among the Build Alternatives and then used to create' a cut-off point as the basis for selection of the top alternatives, as illustrated in Table 2-3, Pre -Final Alternative Alignment Evaluation Process. The resulting scores were: Alternative 3, ranked first with a score of 71.6; Alternative 4, ranked second with a score of 55.0; Alternative 2, ranked third with a score of 50.8; and, Alternative 5, ranked fourth (last) with a score of 44.8 In this case, alternatives`with a score lowerthan the cut -off -point of 53.0 (median value) will be eliminated. A score below the median indicates that thealternativedoes not have enough merit to be considered during the next evaluation phase, Alternative 2 (Ramps at Midtown Interchange Alternative) ranked third with a score of 50.8 points in thepreliminary alternative evaluation, and Alternative. 5 (Open -Cut Alternative) ranked fourth with a score of 44.8, thus being eliminated from the remainder of the selection process. Table 2-3 Pre -Final Alternative Evaluation Process Alternative #° Score Median Reason for Elimination Reason for Retention, .. Alternative 2 50.8' 53.0 ' ` Below Median Score Alternative 3 716 53.0 Above Median Score Alternative 4 55.0 ` "53.0 Above Median Score' Alternative 5 44.8 ' ` 53:0 ' ' Below Median Score 2.7.4 Phase Four: Final Alternative Alignment Evaluation' The purpose of this phase was to further screen the two top ranked alternative concepts (Alternative 3 and Alternative 4) through the use of more detailed evaluation procedures. These alternatives were further compared by using more stringent evaluation criteria and a more thorough evaluation technique through the use of a multi -objective decision making process. All factors relating to the design and location of the facility as well as information and issues relevant to the project decision were considered, including transportation improvements, socio-economic and environmental features, operational factors and engineering considerations. The core decision -making tool used for the study was a computer software, which utilizes the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) procedure. 2-23 The AHP method is based on a system of pair -wise comparisons of objectives as well as the effectiveness of each alternative in meeting the stated. objectives, F'air-wise comparisons have been technically proven to be more reliable in eliciting human judgment than, directly assigning weights. A complete description of the project evaluation criteria and AHP methodology as well as the AHP computer run results are included in the Preliminary Engineering Report. The results from the final alternative evaluation show that Alternative 3 was the top ranked alternative. This alternative was found to be generally supetior in terms of most engin.eering, environmental and socio-economic factors and is much less costly than Alternative 4. Some of the key advantages of this option include the following:, Relatively minor constructability issues and simpler Maintenance of Traffic• , requirem.ents, Provisiorrof right-hand entrance and exit ramps, facilitates driver. expectancy., • Relatively few major utility impacts and no impacts to existing FEC RR facility. • Less contamination potential due to reduced excavation requirements. • Much less floodplain encroachment than for Alternative. 4i, • Best option in terms of hurricane evacuation since it eliminates any potential flooding risks. • Best option in terms of community cohesion since' it- affords the opportunity to reconnect NW 2nd Avenue and NE Miami Court without interrupting NW 14th Street. Sensitivity analyses were then performed in order to investigate any sensitive criterion that could yield a different alternative ranking (Figure 2-13, Sensitivity Analysis Results). For, the two Build Alternatives that had above -median scores, the four main ,paratneters of the matrix (Engineering„ Environmental? Socio-economic,', and Cost were each plotted as separate cases. The initial values, were graphed across ‘vaiYing:riteria weights. The sensitivity analyses conducted indicate that ,the results were ,insensitive to reasonable changes in 'criteria weights, Since the two lines representing the alternatives never cress regardless of the weight assigned. In summary? Alternative 3 consistently ranked higher than Alternative 4 and the sensitivity analysisclearly shows ; that - the originally obtained results are insensitive to change and thus valid. 2-24 1-395 PORE Study initially assigned priority value {0:430L - - - 11111111111111111 all i- ..Aemab -3 lines cross, cross. Linesnever cross initially assigned grioaty value-- (0.200)' CASE 1.;�z _ CASE 2 ENGINEERING'; !ENVIRONMENTAL initiaayassigned. 's. priority fea70) t CASE 3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SENSIT Lidos never Cross" initially -assigned. priority vacua. 4 L120) CASE 4 COST VITY ANALYSIS RESULTS NOTE - In all (lithe four cases, alternative 3 will always be superior to alternative 4 (lines never meet) regardless of the assigned criteria values. Sensitive Criteria Changed value Resulting Valued Criteria FIGURE NO 2-14 Florida Department of Transportation Page 2-25 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 POPULATION AND COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS 3.1.1 Demographics This brief overview provides current data on population, race, ethnicity, housing, and income. Racial data describes the population as eitherwhite or black (one race only) or mixed. The ethnicity data divides the population into Hispanic and Non -Hispanic. Housing data divides the population into domicile owners and renters. The economic data describes household median income. For purposes of comparison, the same demographic profiles are provided for the larger surrounding units of the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, the State of Florida, and the United States. For the 1-395 study area, a 117-block area was defined The most current 'demographie data available 'on a block -by -block basis were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. These consist of the three Census 2000 suinmary files (SF-1, SF-2, and SF-3) and any subsequent updates. Some elements of the summary files `:are updated between the ten- year census events. Other on-line public data sources were also reviewed. The demographics study area boundaries, or the project study area's limits for demographics consist of portions of three Census Tracts: CT 34, CT 31 and CT 37.02. The western "portion of the project study area, from the western limits at the 1-95 Midtown Interchange (centerline) eastward to the midpoint at the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) corridor (or NW 1st Avenue),,are contained in CT 34 and CT 31. The Census Tract,34 unit ,(the project study area's southwest quadrant) rgns: fron�.NW 10th Street to NW' 14th Street and includes 32 blocks (# 1000 thru 1023, 2000.thru 2003,, :4000, and 4011 thru'4013). Census Tract 31 (the project study area's northwest quadrant) runs from NW 14th Street to;NW 17th Street and includes 22 blocks (# "1014 thru 1025, 2007, and 2015 thru"2023). Census. Tract 37.02 covers the eastern half of the study area, from the FEC corridor east to Biscayne Bay, and from NW/NE 9t" Street north to NE 15th _Street. It includes 63 blocks (# 1013 thru 1075). As defined, this study area covers an area approximately the - 0.5 mile wide and centered on the 1-39,5 project corridors centerline. The footprint oexisting I 39'S facility is quite wide, and the footprints of the various proposed alternatives involve alignment shifts. However, the study area extends sufficiently toinclude the potentially affected areas of nearby neighborhoods:` By this definition, the demographic study area encompasses a total of 117 census block. units, and includes portions (not all) of two Miami neighborhoods, Overtown (west) and Edgewater (east).' The neighborhood common boundary is the FEC railroad corridor. One outstanding feature of this urban study area is the high number of city blocks that, aceording;to. the 2000 census, had no inhabitants. Vacant blocks numbered 69, while only 48 of the 117 blocks in the study area had any residents:,,.The majority of the study area population resided in the 54-block Overtown portion of the study area. Fully half of the population in -the Overtown portion of the study area was concentrated in just 4 blocks 3-1 (the Town Park project). Over two-thirds of the Overtown population (68%) was concentrated in only 10 blocks. In the Overtown portion of the study area (54 blocks), there were 18 blocks that had no residents at all: Regarding the Edgewater portion of the study area, approximately three -fourths of the Edgewater resident population in 2000 was concentrated in a single block (containing the Park Place hi -rise, 778 N. Miami Avenue). Of the 63 city blocks in the Edgewater portion of the study area, only 12 had any residents, while 51 blocks had no residents at all. The total population of the defined study area (Overtown/Edgewater) was 4,147 persons, which represents 1.1% of the. City of Miami, The majority reside in Overtown. The demographic characteristics of the year 2000 population are as follows: • Race -'Black (one race only; number, %):; 3,281 79.1 %; • Race - White (one race only, number, %): 206, 5%; • Race two or more.(number, %); 660,15.9% • Ethnicity -Non-Hispanic (number; %o) 3,645, 87.9%;. • Ethnicity - Hispanic (number, %): 537,12.9%; • Owner -occupancy rate (%): 3.0%; • Renter -occupancy rate (%): 97.0%; and, • Median household income (in 1999 dollars): $13,340. For ;comparison, demographics for these same factors in the same year for the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, State of Florida and United States; respectively, were: • Population: 362,470; 2,253,362; 15,982,378; and, 281,421,906 • Race - White (one race only, %): 66.6%; 69.7%; 78%; and, 77.1% • Race Black (one race only, %): 22.3%;`20.3% 17.6%; and, 12.9% • Ethnicity - Non -Hispanic (%): 34:2%; 42.7%; 83.2%; and, 87.5%; • Ethnicity - Hispanic (%): 65.8%; 57.3%; 16.8%; and, L2 5'3 • Owner -occupancy rate (%): 34.9%; 57.8%; 70.1%; and, 66.2% • Renter -occupancy rate (%): 65.1%; 42.2%; 29.9%;and, 33.8% • Median household income (1999 $): $ 23,483; $33 035; $38,985; and, $43,318. In summary, the; demographic characteristics of this project` study ,area with an overall population of 4,147 in 2000 were as follows:: a racial make-up of 79.1 % black or African- American, plus .15.9% of at least two races, or 95.0% non -white. Owner -occupied; hot sing in this study area was 3.0%. Therefore, the study area is strongly characterized as an African -American minority neighborhood with low median:household income and minimal home ownership. Approximately half of the population was below the poverty level in 2000. Hispanic influence was minimal. The study area's 12.9% ethnic Hispanic element contrasts with the 65.8% ethnic Hispanic element for all of the City of Miami. Land uses are illustrated in Figure 3-1, Existing & Future Land Use Map. Land uses of the study area include commercial, residential and institutional, with the residential population concentrated in the western portion of the project corridor. Proposed land use changes are generally limited to the area north of the existing 1-395 corridor, plus a narrow four -block strip to the south. Land use changes are described in Section 4, 3-2 1-395 PD&E Study I NW 17 ST1 BEGIN PROJECT INE to ST I EXISTING & FUTURE LAND USE MAP VENETIAN CAUSEWAY END PROJECT ENSCAYNE SAY '- LEGEND - - :FM CONSERYATIDNIRECREATIOIR o-INOUSFRtI L FIGURE NO. 3-1 Florida Department of Transportation Page 3-3 Environmental Consequences: A noteworthy aspect of the land uses in the affected environment is the large number of vacant parcels bordering the project corridor. Apart from the areas proposed for conversion to transportation land use, any recent land use changes generally relate to the new Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts (AACPA), which was constructed over the old Sears, Roebuck & Company flagship store on Biscayne Boulevard and NW 14th Street. Study Area Neighborhoods: The Overtown neighborhood surrounds the western half of the project ,corridor. The boundaries of the Overtown neighborhood, as defined by the Overtown Partnership civic organization, are as follows: • NW 5th Street on the south • ' NW 7tn Avenue on the west • " NW 20th Street on the north (except NW 22" a Street at 1-95 to Dunbar School) • NW 1st Avenue/FEC RR corridor on the east.'' The Overtown area, as defined by the City of Miami, has slightly different boundaries, as follows: • NW 5th Street on the south to the Miami River and west to NW 11th:. Street • NW 14th Avenue on the west (at the Miami River) • SR 836 on the north (west of I-95), and • NW 21st Terrace/NW 22nd Street/NW 22nd Street on the north (east of I-95) • NW 1st Avenue/FEC RR corridor on the east. The project study area does not coincide- with the entirety of Overtown, by either of these neighborhood definitions; Overtown includes locations on both sides of the I-395/SR-836 corridor and on both sides of the 1-95 corridor. Conversely, all four legs of the Midtown Interchange are located within Overtown Overtown extends in all directions beyond the subject study area, that is, beyond the area of influence of the proposed action; The triangular area to the west, south of SR-836 and north of the Miami River, has: a population of over 3,000, and is beyond the study area. The northeast portion of Overtown, outside of the project study area, hasa population of approximately 2,400 3.1.2 Historical Perspective -. Overtown Historically, when the City of Miami was incorporated in 1896, Overtown was already theestablished neighborhood of African -American :city.residents. During the several decades of forced racial segregation, Overtown provided housingfor the "service sector" north of, or "over" downtown Miami. Through theperiod encompassing World War 1 to World War II, Overtown was the region's largest ,and most important African -American community, was nearly autonomous, and was a center of ethnic culture and enterprise. Overtown originally occupied 468 acres (0.73 sq. mi). The main commercial corridor of Overtown was. NW 3rd Avenue. A segment of NW 2nd; Avenue" was the , entertainment district. NW 7th Avenue/SR-7/ US-441was another important north -south element in commerce, traffic circulation and access. The most important cross (east -west) street was 3-4 NW 14th Street. It,was generally lined with commerce east to Biscayne Boulevard. NW 20th Street was also commercial:, Overtown had , a population , of about 30,00 m the, years between the mid-1930'a and .1950: It contained about two-thirds of the entire African -American population of Miami - Dade County. Overtown was a compact, viable, working-class community, with. an almost fully -employed labor pool and a wide variety of local services to meet the daily needs of residents. Overtown's residents typically owned their own small homes, although the housing was tightly -packed, overcrowded and poorly constructed (typically of wood). The decline of Overtown began in the early 1950's, for multiple reasons that included: ; • 13etter housing opportunities in newer African -American neighborhoods • Building code enforcement linked with speculative apartment construction • Loss of economic base, employment centers and social fabric. The opportunity to relocate into better quality housing located in newer segregated neighborhoods, such as Liberty City, Brownsville and Richmond Heights appealed to the more affluent members of this community, including home owners and shop owners. Typically, new immigrants of lesser means rented the vacated housing. A related factor in community destabilization was the aggressiv,e building code enforcement in the mid-1950's that forced removal of many housing units. Home ownership dropped precipitously. In one decade, single-family housing was nearly completely eliminated, replaced by two 'and three-story apartment buildings. Between 1949: and. 1960, in one 24-block area of Overtown, the; number of apartment buildings rose, from 22 to 552. By 1960,,the population of Overtown had dropped by nearly 10,000 residents, to around 20,000, and the number of business entities had dropped by 30 percent. After 1960.the decline of Overtown continued to accelerate, for reasons that included: • Integration and school desegregation after forced segregation was outlawed • Construction of the Interstate Highway corridors and interchange • Public housing project and other urban renewal projects In 1960, this area contained the poorest qualitythousing, fewest home owners, and lowest latid values in the county. It had :a shrinking minority population, and was. under- represented politically., Before the actuat construction of the Interstate Highway. System, the steady outward migrationof Overtown residents'and businesses was increasing. Some ties to the old neighborhood structure remained through neighborhood churches, schools and shops, but these bonds weakened as school integration and desegregation spread. Beginning in 1966, the Midtown Interchange constniction project, linlcing 1-95 with 1-395 and SR-836, demolished approximately 15 percent of Overtown and displaced several thousand people. The new 1-95 corridor occupied the NE 314 'Avenue alignment in the south, angled in a northwesterly direction to follow the NW 6th Avenue alignment. NW 3-5 ) rd Avenue and NW 3'd Avenue had been the two main streets of Overtown. The new I- 395 alignment crossed the mid -point of the eastern portion of Overtown. The largest remaining segment of Overtown was northeast of the new interchange and 1-395. Two smaller areas to the south bracketed the new 1-95 corridor from NW 5" Street to the interchange. In the late-1960's, an even larger impact occurred. Another 15 percent of Overtown's buildings were demolished for Miami's first public housing project. The area between the Midtown Interchange and NW 3' Avenue was cleared. Most of the established businesses along NW 3rd Avenue disappeared at this time. Over 7,500 residents were displaced. Many of the long-time residents who were displaced moved away to other black neighborhoods. Overtown lost 16,730 residents between 1960 and 1970, with about 12,000 of this total between 1965 arid 1970. Also, half of the commercial entities present in 1960 were not present by 1970. There was an influx of new immigrants to offset the residential loss and to occupy the housing projects, but very few neW commercial enterprises were started By 1970, the population of Overtown was about 16,000, or half what it had been in 1950. By the 1990 census, the portion of Overtown within the study area was approximately 8,000. According to the 2000 (most recent) census, the entire Overtown population was 10,029, and the population of that portion of Overtown within the project study area had dropped to 4,147 residents. Private sector investment in Overtown has been minimal since the 1970's. Public sector investment includes a federal block grant in the. 1970's that made improvements to infrastructure and helped create the Culmer Center, a mixed services shopping facility. Several other public sector redevelopment and revitalization projects to replace older housing with new low-cost housing have been funded but minimal new, low-cost housing units have actually resulted from these projects. • In the 1980's, a tax -increment -financing district for redevelopment called Park West was created in the name 'of southeat Overtown. It resulted in the 1988 construdtion of the Miami Arena (demolished in 2008), and the two Arena Tower residential buildings, both projects located east of Overtown. The construction of the Metrorail corridor in the 1980's along NW 12th Street (just south of the 1-395 Corridor) and through Overtown Pr6vided much -needed mass transit benefits but also 'farther reduced the neighborhood area in the two southern segments of Overtown.' The `. County -managed public revitaliiation efforts since the 1990's have yielded minimal improvements. More recent low-income housing projects have resulted in displacement of low-income residents but failed to provide affordable replacement housing. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) assumed control of the County -Managed housing agency in 2008. The vibrant, segregated AfriCari-American community of Overtown that existed before 1950 no longer exists. The current population is Small and generally concentratedin a public housing project. The Overtown of today has a small, low-income minority 3-6 population that lacks a viable economic base and many of the social institutions, needed to sustain a community. On; the other hand, one positive sign stems from a, recent influx of immigrants from the Caribbean Basin into the northeast Overtown neighborhood.- This infusion, along with recentefforts to direct , Community Redevelopment Authority funding to this area, is beginning to create new businesses that meet the ethnic needs, such as small groceries, restaurants and shops along NW 3rd Avenue. 3.1.3 Historical Perspective - Other Neighborhoods Apart from the Overtown neighborhood, the proposed action may directly or indirectly affect other residential neighborhoods. Historical background on these is provided below. The areasurrounding the eastern half of, the L-395 project corridor, from east of the FEC RR alignment, to. Biscayne Bay, is also considered a part of the Downtown . Miami neighborhood. Under this definition, NE 17th Terrace (by the Omni). forms the, boundary between the Downtown neighborhood and the Winwood / Edgewater neighborhood. Marquis Miami, a new high-rise condo, abuts I-395 at 1100 Biscayne Boulevard. In the first decades of Miami's history, the. Edgewater neighborhood occupied this coastal area north of the Central .Business District (CBD); and east ;of the,FEC RR corridor. As the city • grew, the. Edgewater residential neighborhood, was replaced by :commerce and industry. Relics of the early Edgewater era include the Miami Woman's Club Building on the waterfront at Margaret Pace Park (currently occupied by International Fine Arts College), the City of Miami Cemetery,, the Flagler Memorial Library and the Historic Museum of South Florida and the Caribbean. The Belcher Oil seaport and tank farms occupied,the`shoreline from 1912:to;1972, to,be replaced by Bicentennial_ Park during. the construction of I-395. The Miami ,Herald Building occupies the Biscayne Bay shoreline from 1-395 to the Venetian Causeway, .(NE.15hStreet). The Miami -Dade County School Board headquarters is located at 1450 NE 2thl Avenue. In 2006, the AACPA opened at the former site of the Sears & Roebuck, & Company flagship store. In the current decade the Edgewater . area, like downtown, has . experienced, a :boom of high-rise construction projects_that will once again provide a resident population, along Biscayne Boulevard and B.ayshore.Drrvet : In a broader sense, it is possible -that additional communities. may be affected.. by project implementation The,project's,PIP included the followinglist of communities and/or places to. consider;: ivic Center, Overtown„ Allapattah, Park West, Omni, Downtown, Bayfront and : Miami Breach These are discussed briefly below. An improved 1-395 corridor will generally. benefit all of these surrounding communities. The Civic. Center is located west of the project corridor, . north of the Miami River and SR-836, generally along NW 12th Avenue, and includes a number of judicial/civic entities, including courthouses and the State Attorney's District Offices. The adjacent Medical Center contains the University of .Miami Hospitals, Veterans Administration Hospital and. Jackson Memorial Hospital. The subject project does not directly affect this 3-7 area; however, any capacity improvement resulting from the subject project would benefit access to the Civic and Medical Centers via SR-836. Allapattah is an older residential neighborhood located' west of the Midtown Interchange and west of the Civic -Medical Center. It includes an area north of the Miami River and east of Brownsville. The subject project does not directly affect this area. Any capacity improvement resulting from the subject project would potentially benefit Allapattah. Park West is a term currently applied to one of four entertainment districts` established by the City of Miami to promote nightlife near Downtown. The area lies south of 1-395 between N Miami Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard, and is not anticipated to be affected by the proposed improvements to I-395. New ramps convenient to the area may provide a benefit to patrons. The term Park West was also applied in the 1980's to a taxing district created for southeast Overtown that was used to finance construction" in 1988 of. the Miami Arena and two residential Towers at Park West (formerly Arena Towers). These developments are actually east of the FEC corridor and the Overtown boundary. The Omni is located just north of waterfront downtown Miami and north of the Miami Herald plant. The original retail anchor was Jordan Marsh; The Omni International Mall was developed in the 19'70's to include retail, dining, Hotel and entertainment on a grand scale. Jordan Marsh and JC Penney were the anchor department stores, but both closed in the 1990's. The Raddison hotel has become a Hilton." Retail activity of the Omni Mall ceased in 1999. An art school currently occupies part of the store space; Plaza Venetia and the Marriott Hotel and Marina are located on NE 15th Street at the entrance to the Venetian Causeway. The unsuccessful 20-year effort by the Omni Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA) was ended by City of Miami' Commissioners and replaced in 2006 by a new redevelopment plan, which continues to evolve, and is currently part of the Miami Megaplan. This new Oinni CRA encompasses from 1-395 to NE 20th Street,and the FEC Railroad corridor to the Bay. Affordable housing is a key ingredient. The proposed action would benefit this area: Downtown is located north of the Miami River, between I-95 and Biscayne Bay, and extends northward to `within a few blocks of the 1-395, project corridor, along Biscayne Boulevard. Flagler Street is the central east -west roadway._ and Miami Avenue is the central north -south roadway. DuPont Plaza (SE 4th to SE 2114 Streets) is a focal point, the original "downtown". The subject project' does, not"directly affect this area. Any capacity improvement resulting from the subject project would benefit the Downtown area. The addition of a, significant feature on the landscape,' such as the proposed bridge, is anticipated to complement the "downtownpanoramic vista. Bayfront is a retail commercial and entertainment development located on the Biscayne Bay shoreline north of Downtown and south of Bicentennial Park,; consisting of Bayfront Park and ainphitheatre, Bayside Marketplace in two large venues, Bayfront Marina, and the American Airlines Arena. It also includes parking garages and open parkland. The subject project does not directly affect this area. Any capacity improvement resulting 3-8 from. the, subject project would benefit this area, which would be within the viewscapeof the proposed improvements. The City of Miami Beach (population 88,000), lies. across Biscayne Bay from the subject project. The wooden Collins Causeway opened in 1913, and the early development of Miami Beach continued through the 1920's. The Venetian Causeway and Islands (1926) replaced ,the wooden toll bridge: For the South Beach portion of Miami Beach, the MacArthur Causeway currently forms the main link to the mainland at I-395. The Venetian Causeway is a secondary link, while the Julia Tuttle Causeway/I-195 serves,the middle. portion, and another three causeways serve the northern portions of the City' of Miami_ Beach., Emergency evacuation of lower Miami Beach depends on the. MacArthur Causeway/1-395 link to 1-95 and SR 836. Currently, under normal conditions, most I-395 traffic originates or ends on Miami Beach or the Bay (Star, Paini, and Hibiscus Islands). Implementation of the proposed I-395 action, with inaproved'capacity and safety, would be beneficial for Miami Beach traffic. 3.1.4 Existing Community Facilities 3.1.4.1 Schools and Day Care Centers The schools and day care centers potentially affected by the project are listed below. These fourteen (14) units include two post- secondary units (Miami -Dade College Mitchell Wolfson New. WorldCenter Campus and New World School of the Arts), seven: (7) Miami -Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS) and five (5) private schools (see Figure 3-2, Schools & Day Care Centers Map). Numbers on this figure correspond with the listed sites provided below. Schools, (Miami -Dade County Public Schools [MDCPSJ), &. Day Care. Centers: 1, (MDCPS) P. Wheatley Elementary School - 1801 NE 1st Place 2. (MDCPS) Mirarnar Elementary School - 109 NE 19th Street 3. (MDCPS) F. Douglas Elementary School - 314 NW 12th Street` 4. (MDCPS) Booker T. Washington SeniorHigh School 1200 NW 6th Avenue 5. (MDCPS) Dunbar Elementary School - 505 NW 20th Street' 6. (MDCPS) Miami Skills Center - 50 NW,14th Street 7. (MDCPS) Lindsey Hopkins Technical Center 750 NW:20th Street 8., MDC Mitchell Wolfson,Canipus /New World Center 300 NE 2rid Ave. 9 : MDC New World School of the Arts —'25 NE 2"a Street " l0. Omni Technical School (private) -1720 NW 7th Street 1 i. PSI Institute_ of Miami (private 1440 Biscayne Blvd. 12. ATI Career Training Center (private) 1 NE 19th Street 13. Miami International School of Art & Design (private)'- 1501 N Bayshore Drive 14. St. Francis Xavier School (private) 1682 NW 4th Avenue The, resident student population is based in Overtown, and attends. schools located in the western limits of the project study area. None of the listed schools will be directly impacted by the .proposed action:` however, construction activities may temporarily affect traffic circulation patterns and/or access in the service areas of the educational institutions. Maintenance of Traffic phasing will be closely coordinated with these schools to minimize construction activities during drop-off and pick-up times. 3-9 Through close coordination with Miami -Dade County Public Schools administrators, attendance boundaries of the public schools in the study area were reviewed to determine potential conflicts. Maps of public school attendance zones are on file. Of the seven public Schools involved, the attendance zones of four schools overlap with the area that would be. affected by 1-395 reconstruction. The four public schools with attendance areas traversed by the I-395project corridor and/or the Midtown Interchange are Douglas, Dunbar, and Wheatley Elementary Schools ,and Booker T. Washington Senior High School. The attendance zones of Dunbar and Wheatley Elernentary Schools involve • considerable overlap wit,h the project conidor, as does Washington High School. The attendance zone of - Douglas Elementary School lies almost entirely South of the corridor. The attendance zone of Miramar Elementary School lies north of the conicIM and should not be affected. All other schools, public and private, draw attendance from the county at large. Continuous coordination with ,all pertinent schools in. the project area has been a primary concern since the beginning of the. project The Director of Miarni-Dade County Public Schools Facility Planning is an. active member of the Project Advisory Group (PAG), has participated in numerous project meetings, and is thus well aware of all pertinent project , details. In addition, over seven (7) meetings have been held with different school officials in the area and their valuable input and safety concerns have been instrumental in the preparation of comprehensive alternatives dealing with the- potential pedesttianTbicycle ' interface issues during construction. The MOT plans to continue to directly inform and advise all schoolvoiithin the area prior to, and: dtning the, cOnstructionphases. 3.1.4.2 Parks — The names and 'addresses of park facilities within 0.5 mi of the project corridor are illustrated on Figure 3-3, Parks Map and liked below. Numbers on this figitre, correspond with the listed sites provided below. Parks, are also covered in greater detail ill' Section 3:4.2; under Section 4(0-Resources. The Parks/Reereation Facilities are: 1. Bicentennial Park- ,107-5 Biscayne Blvd. ' 2. Theodore -Gibson Park - 401 NW 1211i Street 3. Margaret PaCe- Park ,,,BayShore Drive & NE 18th Street (six units) 4. Williams Park - 1717,NE '5th Avenue • S., Dorsey Pule- 1701 NW lst Avenue 3.1 ':(I,3 ' 'Plnces of Worship Churches, synagogues, teniples; etc., in the general study area , .,., include_the following (note that these facilities are'subject to change venue): , '• ' ' ;Greater Bethel AIVIE Church , 245 NW 8th Street' ..., , , . • St. John's Baptist Church .= 1325 NW 3rd Avenue '• ' Temple Baptist' Church '- 1723 NW 3rd Avenue , , - , , • ' Mt, Olivette Baptist Church - 1450 NW lst Court , • First Spanish Baptist Chu rch - 1790 NE 2nd Court • St. Francis Xavier Church- 1682 NW 4t1,i Avenue • First Church of Christ Science - 1836 Biscayne Boulevard • Mt. Zion baptist Church - 301 NW 9th Street • Si..John's Eakern Orthodox - 120 NE 16th Street • St. Agnes Episcopal - 1750 NW 3rd Avenue 3-11 , . or$ Th ULO2 0 EWM Agway e Trnus Community Center DI Health Cote Mcior Rd ETDM Akernafiye * Law Enktrternent soma! - Local Road orTratl at 00v ernMOOt -I, Mace of Worstip le park —1 ROIV°114 COIC Center Ottiturat CenteV myer. Cemetety Blrearn or Canal vv°:rrir 814"040,1Y A Sot lot fiervite ) Fr StatIton F6$°realiunEll 14 Concoction or Room Won A, 0ec4400t Stovev, FL ti of Trancoott rr, toophio Data TCCIVOlogh InaLPr poIt L 11114)3841mtnimy New Hope Primitive Baptist Church-1301 NW 1st Place • Temple Israel -137 NE 19th Street • Central Baptist Church - 500 NE 1st Avenue • Greater Israel Bethel Primitive Baptist Church - 160 NW 18th Street • Highland Park Baptist Church 800 NW 14th Street • Church of God in Christ - 1747 NW 3rd Avenue House of God of Nazarene Church - 1042 NW 3rd Avenue • St. Peter's Orthodox Catholic Church - 181.1 NW 4th Court • One -Way Tabernacle - 1650 NW 3rd Avenue. Only two churches are situated near the proposed corridor limits. Nearby churches located: south of the project include St. John's Baptist Church, at 1325 NW 3rd Avenue (described in Section 3.4.1), and New Hope Primitive Baptist Church1301 NW 1st Place (described in Section 4.1,6), On the north side, formerly there was an Overtown Church of Christ at 195 NW 14th Street. In 2007, this, congregation had occupied -a property designated for acquisition, and issued a.:letter of project support (Appendix A). However, in 2008, this congregationhad vacated the rented property, with no forwarding address. 3.1.4.4 Public Facilities - These include the American Airlines Arena, 601 Biscayne Boulevard, other community centers or social service agencies, and a public housing facility. The Miami Arena (801 N Miami Avenue) was built in 1988, and demolished in 2008. Public facilities may also include historical places listed in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources (Table 3.1). Town Park Village, the large public housing.facility in Overtown, is located adjacent to the northeast quadrant of the Midtown Interchange. No direct impacts to Town Park Village are anticipated; however, parcels forming narrow wedge between NW 4th Avenue and NW 3rd Avenue, south of NW 15th Street were acquired for the proposed action. These are located across from Town Park Village, which lies west of NW 4th Avenue. The three other community centers are listed below: • 'Camillus House 336 NW 5th Street • Camillus Health Concern - 336 NW 5th Street; • Omni Center 1601 Biscayne Boulevard, 3.1.4.5, Hospitals - There are no hospital/medical facilities or nursing homes along the I- 395 project corridor; however, the region's medical center is located a short distance, west, of, the Midtown Interchange and I-395. Access from I-395 (westbound) to the Medical Center area is via the SR-836 ramp at NW 12`" Avenue. The 1-395. project corridor is used as an emergency medical vehicle route from points east. The Medical Center is composed of approximately 72 buildings housing many research institutes. 3.1.4.6 Government 'Facilities Public facilities that provide community services are present in the project study area andare listed below. Thefollowinglist includes only those government facilities that 'are located along the 1395 project corridor. However, note that the region's Civic Center isnext to the Medical Center,,. west of the Midtown Interchange. 3-13 • Miami -Dade County Department ' of Human Resources Culmer/Overtown Neighborhood Center, 1600 NW 3rd Avenue • Miami -Dade County Dept of Youth & Family Development, 1460 NW 3rd Avenue • Metro -Dade Fire Station No. 2,.1901 N Miami Avenue • City of Miami Cemetery, 1800 NE 2nd Avenue • City of Miami Police Department, 400 NW 2nd Avenue • City of Miami Neighborhood Enhancement Team Service Center (NET), 1490 NW 3rd Avenue. 3.1.4.7 Libraries - Miami -Dade Public Libraries system. maintains the main library at 101 West Flagler Street. The Culmer — Overtown Branch Library is located at 350 NW 13th Street. This library location is in Theodore Gibson Park next door to Fredrick Douglass Elementary School, in the southeast quadrant of the Midtown Interchange. No impacts are anticipated. 3.1.4.8 Mass Transit - Mass Transit facilities located within the project study area include the rail -based Metrorail (heavy -rail) and Metromover (automated light -rail) systems. There is also one inter -urban bus terminal/maintenance facility. A Miami Streetcar project has been proposed for the area. The FEC Railway crosses the project corridor, but does not provide passenger service. The heavy -rail Metrorail corridor' (heading north from Downtown) runs along NW 12th parallel to I-395 between NW 1st Avenue and the Midtown Interchange, then weaves through the Midtown Interchange, passing under 1-95 and then passing over SR-836 to follow NW 12th 'Avenue. The Omni Leg of the Metromover corridor passes over 1-395 approximately 350 ft west of the Biscayne Bay shoreline (project terminus) and passes across the Herald Plaza. The bridge structure low member over I-395 is at elevation 36.1 ft, providing approximately 21 ft of vertical clearance over the 1-395 pavement. Metrorail, Metromover and bus stations are listed below: Metrorail Stations: • Overtown/Arena Station -1000 NW 6th Street • Culmer Station - 701 NW 11Street Metromover Stations: • l lth Street Station - 1098 NE, Znd Avenue s.... Bicentennial Park/AACPA Station (closed) - 1191 Biscayne Boulevard e Omni Station - 1455 Biscayne Boulevard • School Board Station - SONE 15th Street Bus Stations: + Greyhound -Trailways Bus Terminal - 99 NE 4th Street 3.1.4.9 Surface Roadways- The elevated 1-395 expressway passes over the local surface network of roadways. Where bridges .carry the expressway, the local roadways continue underneath, but. where fill pads exist, surface roads are truncated. From west to east,. the roadways passing under I-395 include: NW 3rd Avenue; NW 14`h Street; NW 2" d Avenue NW 2" Court; NW 1st Place; NW 1st Court; NW lst Avenue (FEC); NW Miami Court; North Miami Avenue; NE Miami Court NE lst Avenue; NE 2nd Avenue; Biscayne 3-14 Boulevard; and, North. Bayshore Drive. The original I-395 construction truncated NE Miami Court. Also, the intersection of NW 14th Street and NW :ri Avenue ,was later blocked by a landscaped berm on the north side of the intersection. 3.1.4.10 Communication Facilities - in the area include: • WLRN TV/Radio - 172 NE 15th Street; • WQAM Radio Antenna -1 Herald Plaza (offshore) • The Miami Herald/EI Nuevo Herald -1 Herald Plaza • Gospel Truth Newspaper -1444 Biscayne Boulevard. • Florida Shipper Magazine - 1401 Biscayne Boulevard. In sumnary, no changes are anticipated to any of the listed community public service facilities, emergency facilities, hospitals, :nursing homes, government facilities, cemetery or mass transit facilities. Long-term benefits are anticipated by the proposed operational and capacity improvements to I-395. 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE As described in Section 3,1.2, the history of Oyertowr; documents a series of impacts during the twentieth century that were disproportionately levied upon a low-income, segregated minority population neighborhood. Several of these past actions would not be allowed : under . current laws and statutes that regulate issues of infrastructure development, racial discrimination and civil rights. The Overtown that existed before World War II, with a population of 60,000 had a period of serious decline as a result, of these converging actions by the time the., original interstate highway system was constructed in 1970, when the population was down by three-quarters, to 16,000. However, a return to past conditions is not possible. With a current, population around 4,000, Overtown residents have struggled to maintain a neighborhood identity and political representation. The advent of the proposed I-395 improvements has. been carefully developed to include community involvement at every step, and the proposed action has the majority support of the community and their representatives. This majority support is based in part on the acceptance of valid, justified project need, and, in part on, the potential benefits for the community that should result from the propOSecr action, which are expected 'to outweigh the losses of R/W and ` other' envirohrriental impacts: This community support is documented in Section 5.4, Public Involveinent, ` Meetings and Public Hearing, and Appendix A, Correspondence. 3.3 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS The AACPA opened in October 2006. The $518 million' dollar investment represents a major economic impetus affecting the project study area. The AACPA is described as a world -class entertainment venue and the new focal point for metropolitan Miami that is promised to generate unique economic benefits for the city. Conceptually, it expands the downtown city northward into the formerly under-utilized area abutting the project 3-15 corridor. I-395 passes directly across the faces of the AACPA's two main buildings, the Ziff Ballet/Opera Hall and the Knight Concert Hall. The 2,200-seat Ziff Ballet/Opera Hall occupies the block between NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard,and incorporates the historic Sears Tower. The 2,000-seat Knight Concert Hall occupies the block to the east, between Biscayne Boulevard and Bayshore Drive. The AACPA currently includes 2448 parking spaces in two parking garages and three lots, Additional parking capacity is currently being developed: New high-rise residences on Biscayne Boulevard south of the AACPA include Marina Blue (60 floors), 900 Biscayne (60 floors), Ten Museum Park (50 floors) and the Marquis Miami (67 floors). Affordable housing projects include the Lofts (four. projects). The area north of the AACPA has added three luxury buildings overlooking Margaret Pace Park and the Omni. Theseprovide upscale housing for a new' population inEdgewater. Further north, the 'former Buena Vista railroad yards' have been converted to high density residential land use. The AACPA -economic impetus may include new. entertainment venues, such'as the'Karu & Y Restaurant, at 71' NW 14th Street, just west of the AACPA. The Port of Miami (POM), located on Dodge Island in Biscayne Bay, isa major economic factor in the region, and the largest containerized cargo port andcruiseship in Florida. In 2004, 'the POM` handled 9.2 t million tons of cargo and 3.5 million cruise passengers: As described earlier, almost" all cargo to and from.the seaport is transported by truck along I-395, using the NE 1st Avenue/ NE 214 Avenue Interchange ramps and local city streets to/from Port Boulevard, which meets Biscayne Boulevard at NE 6th Street, and passes "between ' the American Airlines Arena and Bayside Marketplace. Currently, most POM cargo is transported westward along SR-836 to warehouses, while a lesser amount is transported north on I-95.• Rail service to the port is very limited (currently out -of -service, formerly nocturnal/occasional). The FEC corridor passes under I-395 at NW 1St Avenue, and turns into the POM at NE 6th Street. There is a railroad drawbridge along the south side of the new Port Boulevard Bridge. The POM Tunnel project sponsors are: FHWA, FDOT, POM, City of Miami, and Miami - Dade County, including Miami -Dade Expressway Authority (MDX). The Environmental Assessment/Finding Of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) :was approved in 2000 with Record of Decision(ROD) by 'FHWA in 2001, and Reevaluations were approved =hy FHWA in 2005 and 2008. A Design/Build/Finance/Operate/Maintain-contract for the POM Tunnel project was awarded i*2007 to the coiicessionalre,,Miami Access Tunnel, a consortium of Babcock '& Brown, Bouygues, "arid` Transfield Services. Currently, coinnencernent of construction is pending (postponed by FDOT in 2009). The POM Tunnel project, if advanced; will consist" of a pair of 40-ft diameter bored tunnels to connect the Dodge Island seaport to Watson Island. New ramps will be added to widened West?`Channiel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway. Government Cut, the ship channel, has a water depth of 42 ft, and- the tunnels reach a depth of `approximately 100 ft under the Cut. It is anticipated that the majority of POM truck traffic would use the tunnels following implementation of POM tunnel service after 2010: This traffic will traverse the length of the I-395 project corridor. 3-16 In economic terms, the Midtown Interchange serves as a major hub for traffic to the Port, downtown, Miami Beach and the MIA. The POM Tunnel project limits extend from the eastern .project limit of the 1-395 project, which is -the western ;terminus of. the West Bridges: of the MacArthur Causeway, east.: to Watson Island across (under) the main channel, of the Miami Harbor, and terminate on -Dodge Island. Although the 1-395 project has independent utility from :the•POM Tunnel project,; it .does.provide, a •network. link for Port traffic traveling to and from 1-95 and SR-836 via I-395: and the I-395 interchanges at NE 2" a Avenue/NE 1st Avenue and at Biscayne Boulevard. 1-395 also serves as a link from SR-836 and I-95.to the south Miami Beach area via the MacArthur Causeway. The I-395 project is not dependent upon implementation of the POM Tunnel project,. Le:, the proposed improvements to I-395 will benefit the region whether or not the tunnel, is Wilt, and the PQM Tunnel can function whether or not improvements are made to I-395. With implementation of the 1-395 project, the resulting improvements to safety, capacity and connectivity will benefit the .current users. of the...MacArthur Causeway, as welt as Port of Miami traffic, but these improvements are not; essential to the POM Tunnel. Essentially, whether the Port -bound trucks: on 1-395 use the proposed Miami Avenue ramps .and existing Biscayne Boulevard ramps, or ,continue across .the . MacArthur Causeway ,Bridges to new tunnel: ramps, the 1-395 corridor is being proposed for improvements :to;accommodate the safety, capacity and connectivity needs of the region, including the POM,,with or Without the proposed POM Tunnel project. Note that some POM traffic will continue to use 1-395 ramps and, the local street routes to/from Port Boulevard, due to the prohibition of explosive cargo through .tunnels. These trucks will avoidthe tunnel; using the proposed N Miami Avenue ramps. or Biscayne Boulevard. ramps._ 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES; 3 41, Section;106 Resources • A -,,Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS), condricted in accordance.with the procedures contained in 36; CFR Part 800 and ,including background research and a field survey coordinated, with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), was performed for the project:, The,CRAS is available for review in the,project file at the FDOTT District VI office and, is also on file with theFlorida:;Department. of State's Master Site File Office in ,Tallahassee.: The CRAS identified 108 historic resources within. the Area. of Potential Effect (APE) (Table 3-1 and; Figure 3-4? Historic Resources. Map). As a result., of the CRAS, five sites were identified, three of which were determined listed on the National Register, of Historic Places (NRHP) and two other sites were detemined eligible. for NHRP listing. The FHWA found the resources . eligible and the SHPO concurred :with these findings in ,a letter to FHWA dated October 10, 2007. The SHPO also concurred with the finding that the FEC Railroad Corridor ,(8DA10107) would be 3-.17 `( 1 Table 3-1 Historic Resources Sears, Roebuck, and Company Building 1300 Biscayne` 8DA1109 (Sears Tower) ' Boulevard NRHP-Listed'in 1997; Locally Listed by the City of Miami in 1991 8DA1176 Fire Station No. 2 1401 N Miami Avenue NRHP-Listed in 1989; Locally Listed by the City of Miami- in 1999 8DA5127 8DA1173. 8DA1 t75' St. Johns Baptist Church 'Citizens Bank: Building 1334 N Miami Avenue 1367 N Miami :Avenue 3-18 NRHP-Listed in 1992, Locally Listed by the City of Miami in 1988 Determined NRHP Eligible by SHPO in 2007; Pending Local Listing with. the City ofMiami Determined NRFIP- Eligible :by SHPO in 1989; Locally Listed by the City of Miami in 1988 ..s. CD imitaimitsm I I , Emit % imomme-, Ologirtr— - — —Ilisiaal I III Mut Erb sr OM r' w sr_u.*n_a_esuIl 1gI •l: D J..1 ,M1n1111'aw11re I lin: ; I. _.— f,ifl !IIIIosse 111 i MA.0 ARTHUR Imom HISTORIC RESOURCES 0 EmA5127 -st. Jahn Baptist Churnh 1328 N.W. r Avenue 0 80A1173 - Rio PilerApertinsnts 1334 North Mani Avenue HISTORIC RESOURCES MAP 8DA1175 - Citizens Bank 1367 North Miami MOM. 8DM176 - Fire StaiJon No, 2 1401 Biscayne Boulevard 8DA1109.- Sears, Rcebuck & Company: 1300 Biscayne BOUIOVend FIGURE NO. 3-4 fiirther evaluated for its NRHP eligibility if future project improvements affect this resource (Appendix A). The FHWA determined there was no adverse effect to historic properties in their letter of June 16, 2008 submitting the Section 106 Effects Report to SHPO. The SHPO concurred with the finding of no adverse effect to historic properties in their response letter to FHWA of August 8, 2008 (Appendix A). 8DA1109: Sears, Roebuck and Company Buillding_/13001Biscayne Boulevard The Sears, Roebuck, and Company Building is located on the northwest corner of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 13th Street and was constructed in 1929. The Sears Building was one of the finest examples of Art Deco style architecture in Miami and embodied the distinctive features of that style as applied to a large, commercial structure (Eaton 1991:n.p.). The building, moreover, was the earliest known example of the Art Deco style in Miami -Dade County, predating the Art Deco buildings on Miami Beach by almost six years (Metropolitan Dade County 1982:133). The opening of Sears on Biscayne Boulevard marked the culmination of efforts' to establish a new shopping area for Greater Miami. The building, therefore, reflected the City's changing attitude toward commercial development in the late 1920s, brought about by the growing use of the automobile, which led to the decentralization of shopping areas. The Sears, Roebuck and Company Building was listed as a local historic site in the City of Miami in 1991 and was listed' in the NRHP in 1997. The tnajority of the original building was demolished beginning in 2000 for the new AACPA, and now only the tower remains, restored and rehabilitated as a ticket office. The SHPO has determined that this portion, however, is still considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 8DA1176: Fire Station No. 2/1401 N Miami Avenue Built in 1926, the Fire Station No. 2 is located on the northeast comer of N Miami Avenue and NE 14th Street in Miami. The irregular, two-story building has a concrete systemstruetural q' comer of the building: All fenestration iremoved and covered Exterior ornament t on includes masonry quoins that serve to highlight the corners of the' second story, and two projecting balconies embellished With decorative twisted columns over the garage bays ,typical of the Mediterranean Revival architectural style `of the period. Over "the years, a number of alterations have modified the appearance of the building, but its original design intent is visible and readily perceived. The original wooden swinging doors that provided vehicular access to the building have been replaced by metal doors and all other openings are currently enclosed. The building is architecturally significant' forbeing an excellent example of the Mediterranean Revival style retaining much of its stylistic defining elements. The building was designed by August C. Geiger, one: of the 'early well-known architects in South Florida, Fire Station No. 2 is also significant for reflecting the city's response to the growing demand for municipal services for the rapidly expanding suburbs during 3-20 Miami's Boom. Period, (Eaton 1989:n.p.). The building was, listed in the NRHP in 1989 and listed as a local historic site in the City of Miami in 1999. 8DA5127: St. John's Baptist Church/1328 NW 3 Avenue This Art Deco, church is located on the southwest corner of NW 3`d Avenue.and NW 13a` Street in the Overtown section of Miami. This rectangular church has a gabled roof that is sheathed in tiles. The front facade is distinguished by a central entrance set beneath a tower that is: flanked by a series of setbacks and capped by a pyramidal monolith. The fenestration includes elongated fixed windows, a circular window, and a tripartite arched window withengaged columns. The entrance is in three parts and is set ina masonry surround, decorated with religious iconography. The church features buff -colored brick on its exterior. The church's architectural significance is based on its unique blend. of Art Deco details and Gothic massing. Additionally,, the building is associated with one of Overtown's oldest congregations, organized in 1906. The church was constructed in 1940 and designed by McKissack & McKissack,. considered to ; be the oldest black architectural firmin the United States. The firm, under the. direction of Moses McKissack III, operated primarily. in.Tennessee and designed such buildings as Nashville's Carnegie Library, the Morris Memorial: Building for the National: Baptist Convention, and the 99th Pursuit Squadron Air,Base at Tuskegee, Alabaina..Circa 1940, Moses McKissackIII resided; in the Overtown area. St. John's Baptist, Church, is the only, known originally designed building : still extantin the area _ (Anderson and Leon 1995a:n.p,). Its eclectic style, historical associations, and lack of alteration,,:causes this church to be considered one of Overtown's most significant and visible landmarks. For these reasons, it was.: listed as a local historic site in the City of Miami in 1988 and was listed in the NRHP in 1992. 8DA1173: Rio Mar Apartments/1334 N Miami Avenue The Rio Mar Apartments, 1334,N Miami Avenue, is located between NW 13a` Street. and NW14th Street ,This 1925 seven -story building ts,.constructed in the Mediterranean Revival style. The exterior,plan is basically, rectangular, with the central mass stepped back: at, the corners beginning with': the .second story. This creates an i-shape superimposed over the rectangular. ground .floor. The masonry building rests ,on a continuous foundation, and the exterior is clad in stucco. The main roof consists of a flat roof with . -three, shaped parapets separated by slopmg rows of barrel tiie trim. The structure featurestwo piers that rise from the third story to, just below the roofline. Recently the, building, Alas been, covered with, large banners. The building is currently vacant and remains in fair condition. The .apartment building is architecturally significant for its notable Mediterranean Revival style as designed by Walter Frieling, a prominent architect who designed several areaapartment buildings (Anderson and Leon 1995b:n,p,). It is also significant within.the context of its surroundingneighborhood as,; representing urban expansion and the architectural tastes in Miami . during the 1920s., The Rio Mar Apartments has been 3-21 determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO. A local nomination for the City of Miami was prepared for the Rio Mar Apartments by Janus Research in 2003; the designation of this resource is pending. 8DA1175: Citizens Bank/1367 N Miami Avenue The Citizens Bank was designed by H. George Fink in 1925. Paired Corinthian columns and arched entrances distinguish this Neoclassical building." Its rectangular form rests on continuous concrete foundation, and its exterior is clad in stucco. Its flat roof is surfaced with built-up materials. It features stringcourse with derails and a flat parapet wall. Currently, the windows and doors of the Citizens Bank are all boarded, and the building is vacant and remains fair condition. Sited on a major intersection in the Overtown section of Miami, the prominent Citizens Bank represents a fashionable architectural trend in 1920s South Florida of classically - inspired building designs. Constructed during the Boom -Time years, this building is a reminder of a time when local architects were seeking to create a visual identity for the young city. The Citizens Bank was listed as a local historic site in the City of Miami. in 1988. It was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in 1989 (Eaton and Welcher 1985:n.p.). However, the property owner objected to listing, but the resource 'remains potentially eligible. Archaeological Sites The CRAS did not identify any archaeological sites within the APE. However, 'the eastern portion of the project corridor (NE 2"dAvenue to Biscayne Boulevard) is located within the boundaries of the Miami -Dade County Biscayne Archaeological Zone. The SHPO concurred with the CRAS' redomnaendations regarding archaeological monitoring and coordinationwith both Miami -Dade County and federally -recognized` Native American' governments prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. 3.4.2 Section 4(f) Resources While there are parks and historic resources present,‘the study area contains no Section 4(f) resources categorized as -wildlife and waterfowl refuges,' or any other category of conservation/preservation areas. There are two municipal (City of Miami) parks located at both ' ends of the existing project corridor, adjacent to the south` side, as illustrated previously in Figure 3-3. Theodore Gibson Park, 401 NW 12th Street, is located east of 1-95 and south of I-395, at the Midtown Interchange, and is bordered on the west by the existing ramp from northbound 1-95 to eastbound 1-395. Gibson Park's northern limit is NW 14th Street, but to the north of the surface street and park, the steep slope of the I-95/I-395 ramp bank is decoratively landscaped by the community through an agreement with FDOT, and is considered a local focal point. 3-22 Bicentennial Park, 1075 Biscayne, Boulevard, at its northeast corner near Biscayne Bay, abuts approximately 350 ft of I-395:.R/W. The park and the expressway: are generally separated by the Bicentennial Park Metromover Station and guideway, which is located along 880 ft of the northern limit of the park, east of Biscayne Boulevard. This closed transit facility parallels the existing I-395 eastbound on -ramp, with the elevatedguideway passing over (north) 1-395 approximately 350 ft west of the Biscayne Bay seawall. In the 1990s, during construction of the current West Channel. Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway, the. 1-395 eastbound bridge .approach to the south bridge was constructed in what was formerly: the northeast corner of Bicentennial. Park, an action that included a shift of the on -ramp and the park boundary: southward by approximately . 90 ft. Extensive remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater was required at that time, as this coastal land was formerly occupied by the Belcher Oil tank farm.. As this general area remains contaminated, any 1-395 construction involving sub -surface excavation in the area between Biscayne Boulevard and the . Biscayne Bay shoreline is anticipated to involve additional remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater. To avoid .any possible Section 4(f) involvement with this use of parkland, any related remediation.will be staged so as to avoid the park. According to the Bike Miami map promulgated by the Miami -Dade. County MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Program, the bike routes that pass under I-395 include NE 2"d Avenue (rated Less Suitable) and Biscayne Boulevard (rated Not Suitable). A segment: of North Bayshore Drive located north of the current I-395 (NE 13th Street to NE 22nd Terrace) is rated Suitable and links to the Venetian Causeway (rated Suitable). This route ends without passing under I-395, as the roadway becomes part of the 1-395 eastbound on -ramp at this point. In terms: of aesthetics, the visual presentation of the I-395 corridor, as. viewed from the surrounding areas, is merely utilitarian. The original design served to move express, traffic over- localstreets at the lowest cost. The result is unattractive, and dated, Most of the facility is elevated on support columns, resulting in low, dark, under-utilized, space: below the structures. Other roadway segments are elevated on fill with steep banks, most of which are formed by concrete slabs, or lack landscaping. One exception, .an earthen. berm on NW 14th Street by Gibson Park, has been made into a small urban landscape plot by neighbors. The;.elevated I-395 facility is viewed negatively .as, a barrier tolocal mobility. From the roadway, the traveler is affordedan urban vista over low. rooftops, but the structure width and.lateral :barriers generally lrmit,the vista. From the neighborhoods abutting the ramps of the Midtown Interchange, thereis little aesthetic appeal to the existing concrete structures. 3.5 UTILITIES AND RAILROADS The project's Preliminary: Engineering Report (PER) includes a comprehensive section on utilities, and a separate utilities assessment package is available in file at FDOT. Close coordination is. anticipated . to minimize adverse impacts due to utilities relocations. Abandoned utilities are known to be present in the 1-395 project corridor. Active utilities located within the proposed right-of-way that are anticipated to be impacted by the 1-395 project include: Florida Power and Light (FPL) electric lines; Miami -Dade Water and 3-23 Sewer Department (WASD) sanitary mains, sewer mains, water mains and lines; City of Miami Public Works Department sewer lines; TECO Gas Company (including City Gas, Peoples Gas, Florida Gas Transmission) natural gas lines; as well as telephone and communication lines of AT&T/PEA, BellSouth, Global Crossing, Level 3 Communications, Telecove, Qwest, Comcast, MCI and Sprint/Nextel. The nearest FPL power substation is located north of the I-395 corridor and east of the railway alignment at NE 20th Street. No impacts are anticipated at this FPL substation facility. One railroad line crosses under the project corridor. The FEC Railway at -grade tracks, constructed in 1896, cross under 1-395 bridges at NW 1st Avenue. The existing vertical clearance under I-395 is 22.5 feet. The former terminus of the main line railroad alignment is located several blocks due south, and is no longer used. There is aspur that runs east over a lift bridge into the POM; however, this spur has been inactive for several years. The rail alignment runs parallel the coastline, turning slightly eastward after passing north of I- 395. The Buena Vista Rail Yard, formerly an important rail terminal; lies to the north. Most of the Buena Vista Rail Yard has been converted to other urban °development. Additional commuter rail facilities in the project study area include Metrorail and Metromover. The Metrorail corridor passes through the Midtown Interchange, but south of the 1-395 ramps. It underpasses I.95 at NW 12th Street, then turns north to overpass SR-836 at NW 12th Avenue. The Metrorail corridor approaches the I-395 corridor from the south along NW 1st Avenue, turning west approximately three blocks to the south of the existing (and proposed) 1-395 project corridor. No impacts to Metrorail are anticipated. Metromover consists of driverless, rubber -tired commuter cars on elevated guideways. One Metromover guideway bridge crosses over 1-395 at the eastern project terminus, over the low point of the approaches of the two MacArthur Bridges. Existing and proposed clearance is 22 feet The Metromover system includes a station at Bicentennial Park, adjacent to the 1-395 on -ramp. This station has been closed indefinitely for other reasons. The other Metromover stations nearest I-395 are the 11 th Street Station and the Omni Station. 3.6 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING The entire 1-395 project corridor is located'' within the City of `Miarni; which has five commission districts. The Midtown Interchange and approximately the western third of the 'project corridor are located within District 5, while the remainder of the project corridor is located within District 2, which includes the entire coastal portion of the city. At the County level, the project is located within the jurisdiction of Miami -Dade County Commission District 3. At the state level, the project is located within Florida House of Representatives District 109 and within the Florida Senate Districts 35 and 39. The Miami -Dade County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) in 2003 established two Community Redevelopment Areas (also CRA). The first of these was entitled "South East Overtown/Park West CRA", which included the area as follows, • South to NW/NE 5th Street, plus a strip extending south four blocks to NW 1st 3-24 Street between NW 1st Avenue and North Miami Avenue, • West to 1-95, • North to I.395, and ,. . •.: East.to Biscayne, Boulevard. This CRA unit encompasses only the southeastern quadrant of Overtown. It includes additional areas to the east and south of Overtown, and east to Biscayne Boulevard. This CRA was designed to include an area south of 1-395 along Biscayne Boulevard and into Downtown that currently is in development. One high-rise,. Marquis Miami, abuts the project corridor at NE 11th Terrace, on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard. At least three other high rise developments are currently under construction along the west side of Biscayne Boulevard. An earlier version of this CRA was used to fund construction of the Miami Arena and Towers at Park West (800 N Miami Avenue) in 1988. Also in 2003, the Miami -Dade County CRA established the "Omni CRA' which includes the following. boundaries: • South to I-395, • West to the,FEC RR corridor (NW 1st Avenue), • North to NE 20th Terrace, and • East to Biscayne Bay. Only the southern portion, (one-third) of this, Omni CRA falls within the project study area. As with the first unit, the Omni CRA area is currently undergoing major renovation along or near Biscayne Boulevard, with several high-rise projects currently in development: or completed. It .encompasses the recently completed AACPA. It also encompasses the:Onmi, a commercial development of the 1970's. Current occupants of the Omni include a hotel and a private college, The City of Miami.is currently attempting to redefine, the Omni. CRA to include both Watson Island and Dodge Island/POM. The plan includes use . of these CRA funds to' finance . the AACPA, an art museum in Bicentennial Park, the POM Tunnel, and a baseball stadium. The combined area of these two CRAs (South East Overtown/Park West and Omni) encompass most of the subject project corridor, but does not._.include the portion of Overtown located northeast of I-395, which actually contains the publichousing project at Town Park andrnost of the.Overtown population, The. City of Miami police Department has organized Neighborhood Enhancement Teams (NET) with sub -stations in various locations: The Overtown NET Service Center office is located: at 1490 NW 3'1 Avenue, .:Miami, FL 33136 (Tel: 305-372-4550). The boundaries of the Overtown NET generally correspond to the Overtown area and are as follows: • South to NW 5th Street; • West to NW 7`h Avenue; • North to NW 22" d Street and to SR-836/Dolphin Expressway; and, • East to NW 3r`t Avenue (at NW 5th Street), and to NW .1st Avenue (to NW 20th Street): 3-25 The Miami -Dade County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Planning Section of the Planning & Zoning Department. The CDMP is a planning tool for a period' ten to twenty years into"the future, and that undergoes major revisions every five to ten years: The most recent major update was adopted on May 6, 2006. Minor revisions are a continuous process with overlapping amendment cycles each April and October. The proposed action is consistent with the Transportation element of the "CDMP,' listed under the Traffic Circulation Sub -element and also referenced under the Port of Miami sub -element in relation to the POM Tunnel project. The South Florida Regional `Planning Council, in their (May 6, 2005) response to the project's AN, supported the objectives of the project as being consistent with the goals and policies of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) for South Florida. In particular, they requested consistency with the goals and policies which address the Biscayne Aquifer, a Sole Source Aquifer (SSA), which is therein designated as a natural resource of regional significance. The US Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) provided their SSA review letter for the proposed action dated February 7, 2008 (Appendix A). With project implementation, there will be an improvement in stormwater management which should result in improved water quality. The project corridor is located over a coastal portion of the Biscayne Aquifer that has been displaced by saline water, and no longer has value as a source of potable water. The Miami Wellfield in Hialeah (west of the subject project) was first affected by salt water intrusion in 1945. The 1-395 project corridor also traverses an area designated as the Miami Brownfield. This designation indicates that remediation of soil and groundwater, contamination has been conducted to the extent practicable. Certain land uses are permitted to be built over former remediation sites.' These include transportation and non-residential developments, such as 'the AACPA. The study ` area has a century of history, including decades of industrial activities re"salting inwidespread contamination: The project, as described` in the project's AN, was found to be consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Plan by the Florida Department of `Environmental Protection (FDEP) as noted in the State Clearinghouse response letter dated June 7, 2005. This preliminary finding was contingent upon resolution of concerns 'of reviewing agencies, to be finalized during the environmental permitting phase of the project. The project connects to existing bridges and causeway that cross over coastal waters of Biscayne Bay. No shoreline is involved: Hurricane evacuation routes are designated in this Florida Coastal Management Plan. The project involves reconstruction of an existing designated hurricane evacuation route for the populous southern half of Miami Beach, one of the most important routes in the system. A capacity improvement results in improved evacuation times and safety. The project has no involvement with any Coastal Barrier Island Resources or Florida Scenic Highways. 3-26 3.7 WATER RESOURCES The topography of the coastal plain is a generally flat, with ground elevations between approximately 5 and 15 feet. Groundwater is present within a few feet of the natural ground surface throughout the project corridor. The groundwater at this location is not potable. The .1.4-mile project corridor traverses two regional drainage areas, with the western portion, from the Midtown Interchange to the FEC Railway, draining southwesterly to the Miami River, and the eastern portion of the project corridor sloping eastward to the bay. Both the river and bay receiving waters are classified as Class III Waters of the State, Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (AP) and Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Miami -Dade County does not contain any waters designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers. The project has no involvement with Navigation. Water quality in this urban project corridor is poor. As described above, the project corridor traverses an area designated as the Miami Brownfield, a designation indicating that remecliation of soil and groundwater contamination has been conducted to the extent practicable. The Biscayne Aquifer at this location has become displaced by salt water and is no longer an, important source of potable water. 3.8 FLOODPLAINS The project corridor lies within the northern portion of the Miami River basin (Miami Canal, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) C-6 and lies east (downs(ream) of the confluence with the Tainiami Canal (SFWMD C-4, C-5) basin, The Miami River crosses the coastal plain diagonally, passing under SR-836 approximately 1 mile west of the Midtown ,Interchangeand discharging into Biscayne Bay approximately 1 mile south. of the eastern, project terminus (MacArthur Bridge). The ,.high point (elevation . 15.5, ft NGVO) Corresponds with the. Atlantic ,Coastal Ridge geological formation and is, found at the FEC Railway, as.ftrerailcotridor generally was built along the coastal ridge,formation, This places the eastern half of the project corridor in an area that drains eastward to Biscayne Bay. Thc. actual low. point of the, project study area at street level (below 1-395) is approximately elevation 5 ft National Geodetic_ Vertical Datum (NGVD) at Biscayne Boulevard. The Biscayne Bay seawall cap is ,approximately elevation 9 ft NOVI). This.coastline of the City of Miami was extended seaward by fill in the early 1900's and contained the City's first marine port facilities. The study , area is drained by the existing municipal storm sewer network.. According to the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Nos. 12025C0180 J and 12025C0183 J) last revised on March 2, 1994, the project study area includes a flood -prone area based on a deluge associated with a 100-year storm (Figure 3- 5, Floodplain Map). This flood -prone area lies at the eastern half of the project corridor and is associated with the Biscayne Bay coastal plain. It includes approximately 1,650 feet fiom a point east of NE 2nd Avenue to the shoreline seawall. This area is designated as Zone AE. The base 3-27 1-395 PD&E Stud gavgimisminov,. Florida Department of Transportation Page 3-28 flood elevations are determined at .11 feet to the'south, 9 feet.alorig th.e ahgninent; and 10.:- feet`to the_ north of the alignment: While`these are special •flood hazard areas, they'are not.. lesignated by FEMA as Zone V.,or coastal flood areas With velocity hazard (wave n) actio:' here are no regulatory floodways designated for Miami -Dade County., 'The project study area also includes areas that are categorized' as' flood -prone areas,baseL., r on;�a deluge associated with a 500-year. storm." The areas covered with'iin. the 500 year flood' zone;:' include the southern portion of the Midtown' Interchange •(200 ` feet along the ` "'` eastbound" lane) and a 500-foot band that -runs parallel_ to the coastline in the area of the NE , '' lst- Avenue/NE 2"d Avenue Interchange. The landward limit -:of the 500-year flood zone lies • "between NE is Avenue and,NE 1'st Court. Approximately 25 percent of the project corridor is located within the 100-year floodplain. Additionally, another 12 percent of the project corridor is outside the 10•0-year flo•odplain; butwithin. the 500-year floodplain The remainder of the project corridor (63 percent) is' __ located, in areas above (outside of) the500-year floodplain The original construction'' of the;' elevated 1-395 corridor invofved'approximately 2,000"linear feet of; sloping fill pads, most of which encroach:on the' 100-year and 500-year floodplatr , niinunally reducing floodplain . capacity There are no freshwater wetlands -associated with the project. .The nearest freshwater bodies consist of three stornwater retention ponds located within the :Midtown• Interchange::: These are elements of the stormwater management system These_are: steep sided d. fenced, and.- are not considered to be wetlands, however, the:pernutting agencies rimy exert jurisdiction below top -of bank, should they become- nvolvcd m any.prblect action No involvement is proposed" with these; storiiawater management facilities. here are rio saltwater wetlands .associated with the project+ 'he nearest marine habitat• Ys Biscayne Bay, at the MacArthur ridges'approaehes The subject project's eastern,terixtinus: is seine �50 <feet ,inland froth `the shoreline .No significant changes axe proposed to the: bridge approaches, hich extend inland 'At the shorelue, the" eis'ting, MacArthur Bridges; ,' rise":some:20 feet above sea level: The verticat` seawali eap elevation is $, feet and. adjacent.:' waters at the toe of seawallare approximately 20 feet dehep. ,The turning bain, of the Dort of Miami occupies flits Gouernrrient Cut<'area 'fronting: Bicentenrual..Fark, Maintenance` dr dgmg ofthe turning basin was conducted in.2006 There is no transition zone (estuarine habi(at) and no shoreline habitat ;associated with the project. s .the project corridor is fully urbanized, there are no,,,natural areas present that could be affected by the, proposed action. Areas of the existing project corridor currently supporting any :;upland: vegetation consist ,of _•fill pad slopes, and the occasional roadside landscaping' associated'with developments. One of these fill pad slopes is maintained as a decorative' garden, This community plot" is locatednorth .of NE-14-. Street, on the. south side .of the. ;ramp that curves from northbound I-95 to eastbound 1-395, in the southeast quadrant of Midtown Interchange. No Farmlands are present. 3-29 3.10 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT The subject area is fully urbanized and contains no wildlife habitat. No involvement with protected species is anticipated, based on the location of the proposed action. Through coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), it was determined that the federally threatened Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals &ouperi)' could potentially inhabit or migrate through the subject area. Therefore, standard eastern indigo snake protection measures will be incorporated' into the projectif necessary. The preferred habitat of the Eastern indigo snake is dry pine flatwoods located adjacent to wetlands. This snake has been observed in a very wide range of habitats, even urban habitats. Local presence is unlikely. No other federally threatened or endangered species of flora or fauna was determined potentially present. No designated Critical Habitat of any protected species is involved. The corridor is located withina Core Foraging Area of the wood stork; however, no wetland (foraging) habitat exists. Therefore, there will be no loss of wood stork foraging habitat with the proposed action. Because the project location is within the Atlantic coast flyway, avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act may pass through during seasonal migrations, but as the area contains minimal natural habitat and no appropriate vegetative cover or forage, their occurrence is unlikely. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has jurisdiction over certain protected marine species (such as Johnson's seagrass) and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), as delegated by the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The NMFS, in response to the AN and in subsequent ETDM coordination, initially found potential impacts by the proposed project to the Biscayne Bay water column, seagrass, and mangrove habitat. In further discussion between FDOT and NMFS, including a field visit, the project's inland location was clarified and these concerns were subsequently resolved, as the proposed action has no direct involvement with the marine environment. The project is located entirely on urban uplands, and the eastern project terminus is approximately 350 ft inland of the existing seawall and West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway. The bridges are not involved. Only deepwater habitat exists at the Biscayne Bay shoreline. The existing drainage system serves both the I-395 corridor and the network of local surface streets, and has no stormwater treatment component. The common outfall of this existing drainage system releases untreated stormwater to the bay, and will be replaced. The proposed stormwater management system, as described in the PER, will meet all water quality permit requirements. Thus, implementation of the proposed 1-395 action will result in greatly improved stormwater management, leading to improved water quality in Biscayne Bay. Through coordination with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC), the FDOT determined that two state -listed birds may also possibly inhabit or migrate through the subject area. These two birds are the state endangered Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and the state threatened Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus). Both species are known to venture into urban habitats where forage is 3-30 available. As foraging habitat is lacking, these two raptor birds are also unlikely to be present. Note that the peregrine falcon population had recovered sufficiently to be federally de -listed in 1994 and is slated to be state de -listed in June 2009. The resident subspecies of kestrel is physically slightly smaller than the migratory subspecies, but otherwise indistinguishable. The migratory American kestrel is observed (common) throughout Florida between September and April. Kestrels,present during May — June are resident Southeastern American kestrels, Kestrels prefer, to nest in longleaf pine tree • cavities that they do not excavate. They typically nest in abandoned cavities of pileated woodpeckers They avoid pine plantations and hardwood forests. The loss of nesting habitat in natural pine forest communities appears to be the main factor in the decline of this subspecies. 1 3-31 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The environmental consequences section of the EIS describes in detail the impacts associated with the single remaining viable design alternativeof the proposed action (Alternative 3, Elevated, Ramps at Miami Avenue), with relevant references to . the 'three other 'alternative designs, as needed. Included in the introduction to each of the following- topies are summaries of the comments received from reviewing agencies through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process. 4.1 SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Most of the social ` and economic impacts to the study area arise from the requirements for additional R/W associated` with the proposed action, and apply to all build alternatives. The ETDM comments on `social and economic impacts included ratings of enhanced, none, and. moderate. The differences in R/W needs of the four build alternatives were 'minimal,' as all alternatives would require land use changes along most of the north side of the project corridor, as well as along a four -block section on the south side. A large number of properties affected by acquisition are currently vacant or contain unused or defunct commercial facilities. The amount of proposed residential impact is relatively low, considering the urban setting of the corridor and the area to be acquired. Within the entire study area in recent decades, only a few blocks have contained any residential population, and these are located at the west end of the project corridor in Overtown. The four new condo towers under construction on Biscayne Boulevard will add more than a thousand new residential units. Section 4.1.6, Relocations, contains a description of corridor preservation through the Advance R/W Acquisition (AR/WA) process that began in 2004 in preparation for the subject project. The Type-2 Categorical Exclusion (CE-2) and Reevaluation for AR/WA are provided on the attached CD. The table of impacted properties, while quite lengthy, actually' impacts` few residential and commercial properties that are currently in use. Approximately two-thirds of the acquisitions involve vacant parcels and empty or under-utilized commercial spaces. Apart from the displaced persons and businesses, the short-term effects of the proposed action will be felt by those that reside nearby during the period of construction, as well as by the commuter. In comparison, the long-term effects of a 'reconstructed 1-395 corridor will provide benefits to both the adjacent neighborhoods and businesses, and the motorist user of the interstate system, whether commuter or tourist The savings in time and' fuel provided by the increased capacity, the increase in motorist safety through improved design, improved aesthetics, as seen from both the surrounding ``streets and from on -board the elevated roadway, will all contribute to the health of the community at large. Together with the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts (AACPA) and multiple high-rise developments, the roadway improvements will contribute to the economic impetus of the urban area directly north of downtown Miami. Port of Miami (POM) truck traffic currently uses the 1-395 corridor, ramps and city streets for port access. Those city streets include Biscayne Boulevard, NE 2nd Avenue and NE 1st Avenue to access Port Boulevard. In a future scenario without the POM Tunnel project, port -bound traffic 4-1 will continue to use these routes, except that Miami: Avenue will replace the NE 2nd Avenue and NE 1 st Avenue ramps and routes. In a future scenario with the POM Tunnel project, this port traffic will travel through the entire project corridor and over the bridges to/from the POM Tunnels: Thevolume of POM. truok traffic on the eastern half of I-395 will be essentially the same with or, without the POM Tunnel proJect, the difference being in the amount of truck traffic using the ,ramps. The POM Tunnel„ project; includes widening of the, two West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway from three to four lanes. A pair of tunnels. under Government Cut will connect the MacArthur Causeway on Watson Island with the seaport on Dodge Island. Currently, 1-395 offers only two through lanes ineach direction along the easternportion of the project corridor, between NE lst Avenue and the MacArthur Causeway bridges, and only one continuous lane due to left-hand and; right-hand, lane drops. The proposed;: improvements to, the subject 1-395 project corridor will provide three through lanes between. the ramps at N Miami Avenue. and the eastern project terminus atthe bridges. This should benefit both truck: traffic to/from:the POM Tunnel and general motorists... The POM is a major regional economic engine. POM cargo generally moves between the port and several warehouse districts located west of the 1-395 corridor. Most of the truck traffic related to the seaport. continues .on SR-836 to/from these destinations.. Access to the Miami International Airport (MIA). is also via this (SR-836/1-395) route. Cruise ship passengers use this route between air and sea transport. The airport is of high economic importance to the regional economy. This route also serves the region's civic/judicial center, and the region's medical/health center, both centered around NW 12th Avenue and SR-836. I-395/MacArthur Causeway isone of the two hurricane evacuation routes for Miami Beach (population 88,000 in 2000). Theother is.I-195/Julia, Tuttle Causeway. While the MacArthur Causeway has three lanes ,westbound, 1-395 currently has only two lanes (see schematic diagrams of Alternative 1 in Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3). Hurricane evacuation will be improved by the; proposed lane additions. 4.1.1 Community Cohesion The original construction of the above -grade I 395 expressway impacted the surface street network, : but most surface ,connections were„ maintained ;under . the,expressway by use of overpasses. The only truncated roadway was NE Miami, Court.. With the preferred Build Alternative 3, NE Miami ,Court .can be, re -connected, but NW Miami Court will be truncated to accommodate new expressway ramps at Miami Avenue. Currently, NW Miami Court ends at the Greyhound Busmaintenance yard and links only westward to NW 13th Street. Closure of this roadway will have .minimal, if any, effect on the.. busmaintenance facility operations.. Also, neither Location is in Overtown. Thus, the proposed action maintainsthe surface roadway linkage by closing one minor roadway and opening (restoring) another. Thehigher clearances under the proposed design, will improve appearances .and utilization of the surface 'areas under the facility. Overall, the proposed access ramp design benefits community cohesion by improving. mobility. This design has minimal impacton community cohesion in Overtown, as the Miami Avenue ramps are located completely east of, and not within, Overtown. 4-2 4.1.2 Environmental Justice In accordance with the 1994 Executive Order (EO) 12898, any disproportionate adverse effect on minority and low-income populations that results from an action by any government agency must be identified and addressed. The identified' problems are to be addressed through solutions that mitigate (reduce) or eliminate the negative effects of the action. The prime concerns of the minority, low-income Overtown community, and their potential solutions, are described herein. Per EO 12898, environmental justice is to be achieved through consistent strategies that ensure meaningful participation by the affected community in the decision -making. process. Public participation is needed to find successful mitigation concepts that address the perceived problems of that affected population. With transportation projects, recommended mitigation and enhancement measures include dealing with issues affecting the community that are outside of transportation, such as safe housing, commerce and employment. Section 5.4 of this document provides full documentation of how public involvement was a key component of the project. • EO 12898 encourages any efforts to go above and beyond traditional methods of public involvement. To this end, since May 2006, the 1-395 project team developed an active Project Advisory Group, held more than 76 meetings with community stakeholders, public entities, and public officials. These are described in Section 5.4. Also, the 1-395 project team established and staffed a Community Outreach Office at 939 NW 3rd Avenue in Overtown, and provided a terminal for public use and an internet website (http://wvw.1395iniami.com) that links to the ETDM website (http://etdmpub.:l1a-etat.org/est/) where project information and documents can be viewed. The I-395 Community Outreach Office staff has provided the community with project understanding, as well as guidance on computer use and internet access, helping neighbors to review on-line listings of state employment opportunities, to compose resumes and to prepare job applications. The 1-395 Community Outreach Office staff has been instrumental in job placement of Overtown residents. Efforts to identify disproportionate impacts require an historical perspective. A full century has been summarized above in' Section ` 3.1.2, Historical Perspective - Overtown Neighborhood. Indirect impacts and cumulative effects (which are defined as past, present or future actions by others) are to be assessed both for the community at large and for the affected 'population. Indirect and cumulative impact assessments for this project are contained in Section 4.4. In 1997 the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) issued guidance to public agencies on compliance with EO 12898 on planning, impact assessment and public involvement issues. The guidance outlined processes for assessing community impacts, for developing alternatives, and for incorporating mitigation measures to alleviateany negative consequences. Environmental justice requires that the project need be well substantiated. Project need is established in Section 1. It also requires that some agreement be reached with the potentially affected population on impacts and proposed mitigation measures. Coordination is documented in Section 5 and appendices. The 1997 US DOT guidance indicates that a proposed action should 4-3 not be advanced if that proposed action, including all mitigation and enhancement efforts, continues to negatively impact a minority and low-income population to such an extent that the impactsoutweigh the project need and the project's overallsocietal benefits. The assessment of environmental justice includes a comparison of the No -Build Alternative and the proposed action in ..terms of . social, economic, environmental . and human health impacts. The No -Build Alternative is described in Section- 2.2, and the four. Build Alternatives are also described in Section 2. Section 3 describes all aspects of the affected. environment. Section 4 describes the environmental consequences of the proposed action, and mitigation for impacts. The affected population or .communities are to be provided the opportunity from the beginning to participate in determining the appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures to off -set any perceived short-term or long-term impacts to their community (Section 5.4). To this end, the US DOT in 1996 issued a booklet that serves as a guide to community impact assessment. Key components of the process include defining the study area, developing ,a .community profile (Section 3), analyzing adverse impacts to that. community (Section 4.1), and using an open, iterative process to identify potential solutions that are acceptable to all (Section 5.4 and Appendix B). The: proposed improvements to I-395 do not involvea significant amount of adverse impacts to the Overtown community. The number of residential or commercial displacements is much lower than typical for an urban interstate highway corridor. One factor that contributes to this result is the proposed alignment, which is a nearly straight line between the fixed end points, and varies minimally from the existing layout in the Overtown portion of the corridor. Another factor is the large number of currently vacant or unused commercial parcels that were present immediately north of the existing (bowed) I-395 alignment, mostly east of Overtown. Most of these parcels were acquired through the corridor.preservation process (AR/WA). The proposed action, will impact only two small apartment, buildings. (a four-plex anda six-plex) with a total of ten (10) . residential units, displacing ten individuals or families. Likewise, commercial relocations involve only five businesses that employ a total of 48 persons. The FDOT has committed to assisting the affected residential and commercial entities in finding replacement housing. Currently, there is .a .shortage of, comparable rental units; within.. the immediate.. area. If needed, last resort ,assistance will be provided for residential relocates. Regarding ,the three, displaced businesses within the. affected. Overtown .community, and: two outside _ of it, commercial space isreadily available. As of 2007,. none of the affected 48 employees of these five businesses were residents of Overtown. The proposed action is not anticipated to adversely affect access and internal circulation within the comtnunity,of Overtown. Essentially, minimal change is proposed to the existing local street network and circulation pattern within Overtown. Within Overtown, the existing street connections will be maintained under the higher bridge structures. Only minor circulation pattern changes are proposed. Currently, it is not possible to turn north from NW 14th Street onto NW 2nd Avenue, as the avenue is blocked by landscaping. Withimplementation of the preferred Build Alternative 3, this turning movement will be re-established under the .high-levelspans. This intersection location is within Overtown. 4-4 The one proposed street closure (NW Miami Court) and one potential re -opening (NE Miami Court) are both outside and east of Overtown. The project may result in re-establishment of one roadway (NE Miami Court) under the high-level overpasses, offset by the closure of NW Miami Court for ramps at N Miami Avenue. This is best illustrated in Figure 2-7. Features of the proposed action that could be considered as enhancements for the minority and low-income populations of the affected community include new bridge structures that are more elevated and superior aesthetically The vertical clearances in the corridor segment within Overtown will range from 20 ft at NW 3rd Avenue to 25 ft at the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) overpass. It is anticipated that street -level redevelopment in areas around the spans will improve the socio-economic conditions for local residents. Improving the physical appearance, and safety underneath the 1-395 structures was one of the key recommendations of the 1998 ! report "Final Report — The Historical Impacts of Transportation Projects on the Overtown Community", by Florida International University (FIU) for the Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Thus, the proposed action is anticipated to have minimal negative impacts to the minority and low-income population of Overtown. The minor relocation impacts will be properly mitigated and other aspects will be enhanced. The relocation and other community impacts do not occur to stich an extent that the impacts outweigh the project need and overall societal benefits. Therefore, the proposed action can be advanced in the interest of publie good, with a clear understanding that the current action has been designed to avoid impacts where possible, to minimize unavoidable impacts, and to enhance in every way possible, the consequences of the existing infrastructure, while providing improvements. 4.1.3 Community Facilities and Services Since 1-395 is a limited -access, elevated facility, it has minimal involvement with schools. The proposed action is not anticipated to direbtly impact any of the 14 schools listed in Section 3.1.4. Construction activities may affect the commute of some students temporarily. The coordination with school administrators established during this phase of development will be continued during later phases to assure minimal disruption of school access. It is anticipated that detours will be established for any short or long-term blockages of the local street network. These proposed detour concepts are described in Section 4.3.1, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, and the four phases are illustrated in Figures 4-2 thru 4-11 of that Subsection. The Overtown Church of Christ, 195 NW 14th Street, was located on leased property thatwas slated to be acquired through the ARIWA corridor preservation process, and faced displacement. A letter of support for the proposed action was received from the pastor and corigregatlon of the Overtown Church of Christ in 2007 (see Appendix A). Subsequently in 2008, this congregation elected to abandon the above -listed location and suspend activities until further notice. The current location or existence of this place of worship is unknown. FDOT Right -of -Way (RIW) specialists are available to assist the congregation to obtain adequate replacement place of worship facilities in the general vicinity of the original location. 4-5 No impacts are. anticipated to any of the other listed community public service facilities, libraries, emergency facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, government facilities, cemetery or mass transit facilities, Long-term benefits are anticipated by the proposed safety, operational and capacity (including hurricane evacuation) improvements to I-395. 4.1.4 Land Uses The existing 1-395 begins at the Midtown Interchange (west side). The I-395 mainline roadways extendeastward from the Midtown Interchange in line with 14th Terrace.. As the facility runs eastward between the Midtown Interchange and Biscayne Bay,, it curves southward, crossing approximately three city blocks, then levels out east of N Miami Avenue, where the mainlines are, located over NE 12th Street.. From that nadir point of the curve, it then reverses and shifts northward approximately two blocks to join the. West- Channel. Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway at NE 13th Street. The width of the expressway facility is relatively narrow in the western half, where the mainlines overpass Overtown. The facility is wider in the eastern half, due to the three sets of ramps that form the NE 1st Avenue, NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard Interchanges. All four Build Alternatives were designed to follow the existing 1-395 corridor, and all four included expansion northward of the roadway footprint in the .eastern half of the project corridor. Maintenance of traffic during reconstruction is very important, particularly as I=395 is a major hurricane. evacuation route. In order to maintain traffic capacity during phased construetion all Build Alternative concepts propose construction of the replacement : westbound roadway structures lateral to and north of the existing roadway. Only minor variations exist between the four Build Alternatives in the actual area of impact to adjacent land uses. In addition, each of the Build Alternatives involved some minor amount of R/W beyond those limits common to all four of them. The ETDM reviews of land use impacts had ratings of none and moderate. Changes in land use consist of conversion to transportation land use from commercial, residential and institutional land uses. Among the affected parcels are residential land use (multifamily, medium -low density and medium density). Most of the affected parcels are commercial land use. See Figure 3-1, Existing & Future Land Use Map. Changesin land use through acquisition, were initiated as early as possible in the process. Corridor preservation was managed through AR/WA As soon as the conceptual designs Of the alternatives were available for comparison, the area of impact common to all four Build Alternatives ,was .defined. ,The bulk of the R/W required by. the project was located north of the existing footprint andeast of the FEC Railroad, crossing, including all of the area south of NE 13th Street. between NW Miami, Court and Bayshore Drive. The common R/W needed on the north side of the existing corridor extended nearly the entire length of the project corridor, involving an area along 14 blocks, Also, the common R/W needed on the south side of the existing, corridor was limited to small strips along four (4) blocks. 4-6 4.1.5 Utilities and Railroads The project corridor passes over the FEC Railway corridor, which runs down the middle of NW 1st Avenue. The railroad has occupied this corridor for onehundred years, and was very important to the original development of both the City and the Port of Miami. This rail line has greatly diminished in importance over the years as vehicular use increased, but the line still serves the Port of Miami, Rail traffic is generally limited to hours between midnight and dawn, and is used for freight only. No passenger service remains, and the old downtown train station has been removed. Most rail service has been shifted to another rail line and to a yard located west of the airport. The vertical clearance under the existing 1-395 structures at the FEC Railway crossing is 23.5 ft (Figures 2-1, 4-3). With the preferred Build Alternative 3 (and Alternative 2), the vertical clearance will be 25 ft (Build Alternatives 4 and 5 would pass underneath the FEC corridor). With project implementation, the existing I-395 bridges would be replaced by more spans covering a wider expanse, as the four Miami Avenue ramps of the preferred (elevated) Build Alternative 3 merge with the four mainline structures at this location. Thus, the proposed I-395 overpass, with 12 lanes, will be wider than the existing structures. It is anticipated that the reconstruction of the roadway spans over the railroad corridor will be accomplished with minimal short-term impacts related to construction. Interference or delay inrail transit will be minimized. No long-term impacts are anticipated to the railroad. Close coordination will minimize adverse impacts due to construction. The first stage will involve construction of the westbound overpass, 4.1.6 Relocations The R/W acquisition area for the preferred Build Alternative 3 is generally north of the existing corridor. It includes a band of variable width that includes a narrow strip along the western half of the project corridor, between NE 3rd Avenue; and NW Miarni Court,andall thearea south of NE 13th Street, in the eastern half of the corridor: The R/W ;acquisition area also includes a narrowstrip along four blocks south of the existing corridor, from NW 1st Place to Miami Avenue. Descriptions of all potentially impacted parcels are listed below. At the time that this project was submitted for agency review through ETDM, rough estimates of R/W impacts were in the range of 22 acres. The ETDM reviewers rated these impacts as moderate. The R/W estimate was subsequently refined and. reduced, considerably, to less than 12 acres. Based on the FDOT Relocation Cost Estimate Sheet dated. July 11, 2007, residential relocations would affect approximately ten (10) families or individuals, six (6) businesses, one (1) special category unit (non-profit, place of worship), and four (4) personal property category (clips, signs and/or other personal property). The residential impacts listed in this Pre -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Plan are located within Overtown and are described below: A four -unit apartment building located at 218 NW 14th Terrace (one. bedroom, one bathroom; monthly rent $400, full occupancy). 4-7 • A six -unit apartment building located at 222 NW 14th Terrace (one bedroom, one bathroom, monthly rent $400, full occupancy). • 1360 NW 1st: Court was listed as a 12-unit apartment, building, but was vacant and gutted in 2007, and no .longer qualifies as a residential property. The business impacts listed in. this 'Pre -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Plan are described below. The first two are locatedeast of; Overtown, . while, thelatter three are located. within Overtown. According to this Pre -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Plan, none (0) of the 48 individuals listed above as employees were residents of Overtown at that time. • MicroPower Battery, Inc., Global Exports USA, Inc., located at.80 NE.13th.Street, is the maker of Hear Clear brand hearing aid batteries; with. 25 employees on site. This was considered.to..be two business entities (manufacturing, distribution), Broz International, located at 1229 N Miami Avenue, is a restaurant equipment sales and service business that had eight (8) employees as of October 30, 2007. Sheila Shine, Inc., located at°.1201 •NW ist Avenue in Overtown, produces an oil -based productusedto clean and polish stainless ,steel and chrome. Sheila Shine had ten (10) employees as of October 30, 2007.+ Overtown Food Market, located at 1433 NW 3`a Avenue, is a small corner grocery in Overtown with three (3) employees. • Art Gallery, located at 1208: NE 1st Avenue, is listed as having two (2).employees. The one 'displaced house of worship was the Overtown Church of Christ, 195 .NW 14th Street, affected equally by all alternatives. The Rev David Shanks, Minister, provided one of the four project support letters (Appendix A). This congregation vacated the rented site in'2008. The four personal property impacts relate to a warehouse affected by corner lips As soon as a 'common area (footprint) was determined for the four Build alternative designs, FDOT began the corridor preservation' process of'AR/WA, reserving approximately 65 parcels. The FDOT prepared a Type-2 Categorical Exclusion for AR/WA of 23 parcels in the three eastern blocks in front of the AACPA. This document was signed by the FHWA on August ,30, 2004. A signed copy `is'contained on the attached CD; Subsequently, the FDOT prepared a Reevaluation of that Type-2 ••Categorical Exclusion document, adding another 11 blocks and 42 parcels to the west. This Reevaluation was signed by FHWA on August 16, 2006. A signed copy is contained on the attached CD. These. documents contain the authorization for R/W acquisition of most of the area needed for construction of any of the four Build Alternatives. Each alternative varied slightly in R/W needs. Thus, the Categorical Exclusion and Reevaluation assumed much of the burden for impacts associated with the project's Land Use, R/W and Relocation: impacts. The remaining Land Use, R/W and 4-8 Relocation impacts associated with the subject project are limited to only the ten units on the south side specific to Build Alternative 3. These ten parcels amount to less than one half -acre. The initial stage of R/W acquisition involved the three blocks in front of (south of) the AACPA and south of NE 13th Street (see Appendix A, FDOT letter dated August 2, 2004 requesting $92.7 million dollars for' immediate purchase of five parcels). It included the entire block between NE ist Avenue and NE 2❑d Avenue and the entire block between Biscayne Boulevard and North Bayshore Drive. Also, the initial R/W acquisition included the southern half of the large block between NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard, south of NE 13th Street. The remainder of this block was already in public (County) ownership, and was transferred to,FDOT. The acquisition of the 23 parcels in the three eastern blocks was completed in 2006. Note that the tabular data on relocations below lists these parcels in Blocks # 16, 17, and 18, with eleven (11) of the parcels listed as "In Use". These have all been acquired by FDOT and leased back to the commercial occupants until such time as they are needed for transportation purposes. The AR/WA process for the remainder . of the parcels will be executed as funds are made available, with priority on the parcels located east of the railroad. This course of action will allow construction to begin on the westbound high-level span and associated ramps. The area between the western limits at the Midtown Interchange and the railroad crossing (in the middle), involves only minimal increase in width of the roadbed (all Build Alternatives). As the roadway crosses at an angle, that small increase in width, common to all Build Alternatives, involved 'acquisition' of several wedge-shaped parcels ' along the north side. The properties affected by R/W acquisition along the north side of'I-395 include a'total of 64 addresses, all of them common to all four Build Alternatives, and acquired for corridor preservation through the AR/WA process`(2006 Reevaluation). Most of these` 64 parcels corresponded with vacant lots. Only 12 were listed as being "In Use" prior to acquisition. These included uses such as parking lots: As the area needed along the north side for the preferred alternative was essentially the same' as for the other three alternatives, no additional properties were required for the preferred Build Alternative 3 on the north side. The only refinement in planned property acquisition on the north side' of the corridor dealt with one parcel. Only a partial acquisition was needed. This parcel, a warehouse at 29 NW 13th Street owned by the Miami -Dade County School Board, has a total area of 121,447 square ft. With Build Alternative 3, the portion' of the site to be acquired was defined as 24,300 square ft (approximately one -fifth of the site), affecting a parking lot plus a corner clip and a re -facing of the warehouse building (categorized as personal property). Along the south side' of 1-395, some R/W acquisition is needed for all four Build Alternatives, but only in the case of Alternative- 3 is R/W needed for ramps at N Miami Avenue. The ramps are situated east of Overtown, but merge areas extend to Overtown. The properties affected by R/W acquisition specifically for Build Alternative 3 are the parcels abutting the south side of 1- 395, from NW 1st Place to N Miami Avenue (four blocks). Two of these four blocks are within Overtown, and two are east of Overtown. Within Overtown, a narrow wedge will be impacted along 1-395 (Figure 4-1, Block 6), beginning at the site of the New Hope Primitive Baptist Church, 1301 NW 1st Place. In addition to R/W acquisition, a possible minor impact to the 4-9 northeast corner of the church building is anticipated; however4 this would not limit use or require relocation, and will be reviewed in the Final, Design phase. ;Vertical. clearance will increase from 20.8 ft to 22.5 ft (Figure 4-3). Widening will also impact the vacant church parcel east of the church (used for church parking),, and all of the five vacant parcels in the block to the east, between NW 1st Court and NW. V' Avenue (Block 8 on Figure 4-1). Three parcels.in Block 8 are privately owned, the others are properties of Miami -Dade County and City of Miami. Of the 12 parcels to be acquired that are located south of 1-395, eight (8) are vacant, three (3) are •common to all Build Alternatives (acquired through the Ag/WA process), and nine; (9) are specific to the preferred Build Alternative. 3. In the portion of the project corridor east of Overtown, one of the parcels to be acquired specifically for Alternative 3 is a partial acquisition of the Greyhound Bus Lines facility. at 1151 NW 1. Avenue. This, involves a 4,450 square ft wedge to be acquired from this,189,036 square ftparcel. This partial acquisition (2% of the. site) is not anticipated to negatively •,affect the,.bus maintenance facilities., The two Greyhound operations that provide service to the public are Greyhound Express Package, located at 51 NW 11th Street, and Greyhound .Bus Lines, located at 1012 NW V` Avenue. Neither of these sites will be affected by the proposed action. In total, the 1-395 reconstruction requires a total of 11.94 acres of R/W acquisition. Corridor preservation through the, AR! WA process accounted for nearly 11 acres. These have.either been acquired or will be acquired for as funds, become available. The- remaining one (1) acre of additional R/W needed to implement the preferred Build Alternative 3 with ramps at N Miami Avenue will also be acquired as funds become available. The.amount of R/W, impact east of Overtown is 10.22 acres (86%), and the R/W impact within Overtown is 1.72 acres (14%). The locations of potential R/W impacts are illustrated on Figure 4-1, Right -of -Way Impacts, Alternative 3. Also, Table 4.1., Impacted Properties - Alternative. 3 provides information regarding the properties directly affected by R/W acquisition. In Table 4.1, those properties that are not only impacted by Alternative 3 but would be affected by all alternatives, are designated as a "common" impact. Currentland use descriptionsare as definedby the Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser ;website. Parcel size is given in square feet and defined as either a full ("F") or partial ("P") acquisition, The acquisition descriptionsilisted herein are from the project!s. draft Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan, and are subject to change. Changes may also occur during the Final Design phase. Note that this list Includes three parcels that. have no addresses but .have defined areas, and five parcels with addresses .but0 ft2, or insignificant taxable areas. e , As described above, most of the parcels affected. by R/W, acquisition are categorized as commercial land use, and many of these are vacant parcels. Some 53 parcels were listed as vacant, and some contain gutted or unoccupied apartment buildings, while other parcels contain unoccupied commercial buildings or structnres. The, 53 parcels listed as vacant account for approximately 6.8 acres, or 57% of the total. For a project of this scale in an urban area, the actual amount of residential and commercial displacements is considered low. 4-10 z I-395 PD&E Study BEGKPRoJEci .74 • ..1.11•11111•11M, Florida Department of Transportation ' RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS .- ALTERNATIVE 3 • END_ PROJECT = FIGURE No, 4-1 Page 4-11 Table 4,1 IMPACTED PROPERTIES — ALTERNATIVE3 Block No. Address 1-395 Side Land .. Use" &: Description .. 'Vacant / °`In Use;` Size (t ) `& Full/Partial Co i mror /; Alt 3 only' 1 1490 NW 3 Ave North, . Municipal_P&D ..In User;. I1,630 P Common%; 2 1433 NW 3 Ave `North ` Retail' (grocery) F In Use. . `1;368 ,P ' Common 3 244 NW 14 Terr North , Commercial :' Vacant 749 F Common • 3 =222'N.W 14Terr, North, Residential_MF 6 In Use 5,600'•:F Common 3 ' 2:1.8 NW 14 Terr North` Residential MF 4; In Use :,; 4,756 F Common '• . 3 1420 NW:12 Ave ; North : Residential -MF, . :Vacant,- : 5,250 F Common t: '• 3 219 NW 14 Si North, Commercial. , ....Vacant;:, 18.--F Cern:h en 3 .1418 NW 2 Ave North: Residential MF Vacant. 2,123 "P .Common • 3 . -1406 NW 2.Ave North :' ; Residential MF Vacant... . 6,000 F Common;;;: 4 -.1:415.NW 2 Ave .North < `Corrimercial ; `' 'Vacant;. 1,490 ;P` '.Coilmoni 4 ..1.95 NW.1.4 St •; - North - Religious, (OCC) . „In Use . 5,708 F. Corot: non :.. 5 158 NW 14 St,., , " North; Retail(5th Amend) In Use .11990. P Cotiimon . , 5 1357NW 1 PI" .,North ' :,Commercial `,, `Vacant 3,590`F Common , 5 1.360 NW 1-. Ct s North Residential MF . =. View*: 3,000:,'P Comnio t: 5 1348 NW 1•Ct= North .Commercial::.-: 'Vacant'.-- . ,1,658 e.F Cornmon ,: . 6 NW 13'St (u7 1 Ct' .'South. 'ResidentialtiMF/R. -.Vacant:'> ' 4,756 =F Alt3• Qn13i, 6 '1311 NW 1.P1: ;South Religious (NI -IC) . ;'In Use •< 1,407..P Alf_ 3'Only'; Alt 3..only; '.. 6 4317 NW 1 Pi ; South Religious (NHC) _ ;Vacant';`., ' 65 -F 7 1337,NW 1'.. Ct:'.i North' "' i':COrtirne'rcial ,: t :. Vacant'\ ,. 7,000 P Common '. 7 :1>325 NW1 Ct North .: Commercial ' Vacant ,. **'0,F, .Common `=' ' 7 1332 NW 1' Ave , • 'North , : Commercial ': .:Vacant'. 4,044 .P Coininon ::;; 7 1324 NW 1 Ave ,North ' .:Commercial =Vacalit ** 0 F Common 8 'I 12 NW 13 St '.;South :>Residenitial MF . Vacant. **"')';F Alt 3 Only 8 1; 00 NW.13 St ; South ;,Resndential'MF Vacant 426 : F Alt 3' bnl 8 • 1239 NW 1 Ct:' South`, ..;Residential MF Vacant ; 302 .'P Co'r ninon 8 1241 NW 1 Ct •'South 'Residential`M ' Vacant: 1,632-P, Common 8 1236 NW 1 Ave .. , South N. dential, MF Vacant.::. 4,539 .'F ;Conirnon,: 9 29 NW 13 St :; North 'M DC;P Schools In Use; . ;24,360 _P .Common 10 1;201 NW 1r Aye. South ` ' Com Sheila Shine . Tn4Use: , 7,5251:P Alt 3 Only,; 10 75 NW'12 St South =Comrnercra'1,Lolo In Use ;'4,205: F Alt,3 Oni1y`:' 11 70 NW 13,St No•rth,' Corninercral = Vaearit_ ' 1,747 `F Common. %.;' 12 ..50 NW '13. St . ` North: • ' Com Fast .Park II Vacant 6;750 F Co Huron .- 12 ,1242 N'Mia Ct North . Corn Fast Park 11. Vacant ` 5,952 F ;Corninon :. 12 1242 N.Mia Ave North - Com Fast Park II :.,Vacant, , 6,'750 F . Common 12 . 1236 N Mia Ave ... North ' Corn Fast Park It Vacant ";6,750 F Common 12 ` 1232 N Mia Ave North Corn Fast Park II ;-:Vacant : 6,099'-F Common.:.:: - : 12 1220 N Mia Ave _North CornFast Park Il ` `- Vacant 1,081 "F Common ' 13 ' 1150 N Mia Ave South Borders CBD In Use 391 P Alt 3 Only 13 1151 NW 1 Ave South Indu (Greyhound) In Use 4,549 P Alt 3 Only 14 1241 N Mia Ave North Com (V.S. Hold) In Use 10,000 F Common 14 1229 N Mia Ave North Com (V.S. Hold) In Use 5,000 F Common 14 1225 N Mia Ave North Com/Gov't Vacant 3,457 F Common 14 1236 NE Mia Ct North Commercial Vacant 6,750 F Common 14 1230 NE Mia Ct North Commercial Vacant ', 5,000 F Common 14 1220 NE Mia Ct North Conrimercial Vacant ;`. 6,919 F Common 15 50 NE 13 St . North Commercial. Vacant ; 18,750 F Common 15 1217 NE Mia Ct North Commercial Vacant 6,250 F Common 15 49 NE 12 St North Com/Gov't Vacant ** 0 F Common 15. 53 NE 12 St.. , North Com/Gov't Vacant 633 F Common 15 63 NE 12 St North, ,Com/Gov't Vacant 1,486 F Common 15 80 NE 13 St North . ; .Com' (MicroBatt) In Use 25,000 F . Common 15 1208 NE 1 Ave North Commercial Vacant 4,704 F Common-. 15 1204 NE 1 Ave North Commercial Vacant ** 0 F Common 16 1295 NE 1 Ave North Industrial Lt Mfg In Use * .12,500 F ; Common Common 16 1227 NE 1 Ave North Commercial Vacant 6,250 F 16 1221 NE 1 Ave North Commercial Vacant 6,250 F . Common 16 NE 1 Av @ 12 St North Commercial Vacant 8,993 F Common 16 NE 1 Av @ 12 St North Commercial Vacant 4,200 F Common 16 116 NE 13 St North Commercial Vacant 4,500 . F Common 16 128 NE 13 St North ' Commercial Vacant 4,000 F Common 16 1220 NE 1 Ct North Commercial Vacant = 6,250 F Common' 16 1210 NE 1 Ct North Commercial Vacant 6,250 F Common 16. 129 NE 12 St North Commercial Vacant 4,200 F Common 16 137 NE 12 St North Residential' SF In Use * 4,250 F Cornttion 16 145 NE 12 St North Commercial Vacant 4,200' F Common 16 . 1232 NE 2 Ave North Com/Gov't In Use * 20,887 F Common 16. 1230 NE 2 Ave North Com/Gov't In Use * 9287 ` F Common 16 1200 NE 2 Ave North ' Com/Gov't Vacant 24,227 F Common Common 17 1241 NE 2 Ave. North Borders CBD In Use * 7,576 F 17 1227 NE 2 Ave.. North Borders CBD In Use * 7,00 F Common 17 1215 NE 2 Ave North B CBD/Gov't In Use * 5,286 F Common 17 1201 NE 2 Ave , North B,CBD/Gov't , In Use * 18,060 F Common 17 240 NE 13 St .. North B CBD/Gov't Vacant 44,010 F Common 17 1200 Biscayne Bd North B CBD/Gov't In Use * 19,911 F Common 17 1220 Biscayne Bd North B CBD/Gov't. . In Use * 11,000 F Common Common 18 1237 Biscayne Bd North B CBD/Gov't Vacant 6,360 F 18 444 NE 13 St North B CBD/Gov't Vacant 17,290 F.. Common 18 324 NE 13 St North B CI3D/Gov't Vacant 11,400 F Common Acquired by FDOT and eased back to occupant until further notice. ** Size listed as 0 ft2 by Property Appraiser, actual size is minimal or insignificant for taxation 4.13 According to the FDOT Pre -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Plan, currently there are sufficient available commercial properties within Overtown to facilitate the relocation of all three of the displaced commercial entities. Similarly, for the other displaced businesses located east of Overtown, the, general area contains sufficient available commercial properties. Therefore, there should be no loss of goods or services to the local community due to commercial displacements. According to the Pre -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Plan, it was determined that the current lack of affordable housing will not result in an insufficiencY of housing available for the ten residential units to be displaced. Individuals who are displaced are not required to remain in the same neighborhood, and some may choose t6 relocate to comparable neighborhoods outside of the area (see Appendix D). In order to minimize the unavoidable effects of R/W acquisition and displacement of people; the FDOT will carry out a R/W and relocation program in. accordance .with Florida Statute 339.09 and the Uniform. Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646 as amended by Public Law 100-17). The FDOT provides advance notification of impending R/W acquisition. Before acquiring R/W, all properties are appraised on the basis of Comparable sales and land use values in the area. Owners of property to be acquired will be offered and paid fair market value for their property rights. No person lawfully occupying real property will be required to move without at least '90 ,days written notice of the intended vacation date and no occupant of a residential property will be required to move until decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing is made available. "Made available" means that the affected person has either by himself obtained and has the right of possession of replacement housing, or that the Florida Department of Transportation has offered the relocatee decent, safe and sanitary housing which is within his financial means and available for immediate occupancy. At least one relocation specialist is assigned to each highway project to carry out the relocation assistance and, payments prograrn., A relocation specialist will Contact each person to be relocated to ,determine individual needs and desires,' and to provide infOrination, answer questions, and give help in finding replacement property.. Relocation 'services and payments are provided without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability; or family status. All tenants and owner -occupant displacees will receive an explanation regarding all options available to them, such as (1) varying methods of claiming reimbursement for moving expenses; (2) rental replacement housing, either private or publicly subsidized; (3) purchase of replacement housing; and (4) moving owner -occupied housing to another location. Financial assistance is available to the eligible relocatee to: 1. Reimburse the relocatee for the actual reasonable costs of moving from homes, businesses, and farm operations acquired for a highway project; ' 444 2. Make up the difference, if any, between the amount paid for the acquired dwelling and the cost of a comparable decent, safe and sanitary dwelling available on the private market; 3. Provide reimbursement of expenses, incidental to the purchase of a replacement dwelling; 4. Make payment for eligible increased interest cost resulting from having to get another mortgage at a higher interest rate. Replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and closing costs are limited to $22,500 combined total. A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or room, or to use as down payment, including closing costs, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The brochures that describe in detail the Department's relocation assistance program and Right of Way acquisition program are "Your Relocation: Residential", "Your Relocation: Business, Farms and Nonprofit Organizations", "Your Relocation: Signs" and "The Real Estate Acquisition Process". All of these brochures are distributed at all public hearings and made available upon request to any interested persons. This project has been developed in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1968. 4.2 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 4.2.1 Archaeological and Historical As described in Section 3.4, a Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) was prepared for this project. The CRAS identified five historic resources, three of which were listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and two of which were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. The following is a discussion of potential effects to each of the five NRHP- listed/eligible resdurces. 8DA1109: Sears, Roebuck and Company Building/1300 Biscayne Boulevard This structure, a tower, is located on the northwest cornet of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 13th Street. Street improvements were recently completed by the AACPA, but with 1-395, additional improvements are anticipated to include partial pavement teconstruction, milling and resurfacing, drainage improvements, an Americans' with Disability Act (ADA)-compliant signal upgrade at the Biscayne Boulevard/NE 13th Street intersection, upgrades to pavement Markings and signing, sidewalk reconstruction, and landscape improvements. Currently the tower of the former Sears, Roebuck and Company Building is located approximately 380 feet along Biscayne Boulevard from the existing closest point of the 1-395 facility, and is incorporated into the AACPA as a ticket office. With project implementation, the edge of the new bridge will be located approximately 200 feet along Biscayne Boulevard from the tower. The new 1-395 bridge will be approximately 10 ft higher than the current interstate height in front of this resource. No right-of-way is required from the Sears, Roebuck and Company Building, so this resource will not be directly affected by the improvements. 4-15 Due to the presence of the existing 1-395 facility, the extent, and distance of the new improvements in proximity to the structure, it does not appear the views to and from the building will be adversely affected. It also does not appear the aesthetics of the building will be adversely affected. This assessment of the visual and aesthetic effects is based on the current context and ssetting of the resource, which has been substantially compromised by past projects. Existing peak -hour traffic noise levels at the Sears Tower are predicted to be 69.0 dl3A. Peak design year traffic noise levels at the Sears Tower are predicted to be 69.3 dBA with 'the No - Build Alternative, and 70.5 dBA with the Build Alternative. The difference in noise levels predicted between the design year No -Build and Build Alternatives is less than 1.2 dBA in all cases at the worst -case sites considered. Thus, there is no perceptible difference between the design year alternatives and no new traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur. In addition, traffic noise levels are predicted to increase by no more than 1.6 dBA from existing levels. Thus, no substantial increase in noise levels, as defined by FDOT, is predicted to occur. Under the existing conditions, the primary source of noise at this site is a combination of traffic on the nearby surface streets and 1-395. Improvements planned with this project include realignment of the expressway and addition of travel lanes along the corridor, Traffic noise levels at this site are predicted to exceed the FDOT Noise Abatement Approach Criteria for Land Use Activity Class B (66.0 dBA) with the Build Alternative during the design year. However, the improvements proposed with the Build Alternative are predicted to result in only minor noise level increases over the No Build condition during the design year. Also, the nearby surface streets remain significant contributors to overall noise levels at these sites. Because of its distance to I-395 and the significant contribution of traffic on the local surface streets to the overall noise levels, noise abaternent at this site is not considered reasonable and feasible. No vehicular access changes or impacts are planned adjacent to the building, so the existing access will not be impacted. No existing parking will be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the building. Additionally, it does not appear that there will be impacts to the building related to traffic volumes or air quality. Upon applying the ,National Register Criteria of Effect and evaluating the improvements, 4 has been determined that; the National Register —listed Sears, Roebuck and Company Building and the characteristics that qualify, it for listing in the National Register will not be adversely affected. The building will still maintain its architectural and historical significance following the construction of these improvements, 8DA1176: Fire Station No. 2/1401 N Miami Avenue This building is located on the northeast quadrant of' the N Miami Avenue/NE 14' Street intersection, approximately two blocks north of the project improvements. The proposed reconstruction of 1-395 will involve shifting the existing freeway facility to the north, 275 feet closer to the subject site. Although I-395 will be realigned closer to the building, it will still be •located approximately 480 feet along N Miami Avenue from the construction limits, far enough to avoid any direct impacts. 4-16 No right-of-way is required from the historic property as part of the improvements. The improvements to I-395 will be constructed 12 feet higher than the current interstate height at N Miami Avenue, in the vicinity of Fire Station No. 2. At this time, the building does not appear to be occupied and its primary facade does not face the improvements. Due to the distance of the building from 1-395 and the additional buffer provided by the existing single and multi -story buildings between the facility and this resource, the views to and from the resource and its aesthetics will not be affected. Existing peak -hour traffic noise levels at the Rio Mar Apartments, which is the closest site to Fire Station #2 in which noise was tested, are predicted to be 67.2 dBA. Peak design year traffic noise levels at this site are predicted to be 68.0 dBA with the No -Build Alternative and 68.8 dBA with the Build Alternative. The difference in noise levels predicted between the design year No- Build and Build Alternatives is 0.8 dBA in all cases at the worst -case sites considered. Thus, there is no'perceptible difference between the design year alternatives and no new traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur. In addition, traffic noise levels are predicted to increase by no more than 1.6 dBA from existing levels. Thus, no substantial increase in noise levels, as defined by FDOT, is predicted to occur Under the existing conditions, the primary source of noise at this site is a combination of traffic on the nearby surface streets and 1-395. Improvements planned with this project include realignment of the expressway and addition of travel lanes along the corridor. Traffic noise levels at this site are predicted to exceed the FDOT Noise Abatement Approach Criteria for Land Use Activity Class B (66.0 dBA) with the Build Alternative during the design year. However, the improvements proposed with the Build Alternative are predicted to result in only minor noise level increases over the No Build condition during the design year. Also, the nearby surface streets remain significant contributors to overall noise levels at these sites. Because of its distance to I-395 and the significant contribution of traffic, on the local surface streets to the overall noise levels, noise abatement at this site is not considered' reasonable and feasible. No vehicular access changes or impacts are planned directly adjacent to thebuilding, ,so the existing access will not be inxpacted No parking`will be impacted in the immediate, vicinity of this building. Additionally, it does not appear that there will be impacts to the building related to traffic volumes or air quality, Upon applying the National Register Criteria of Effect and evaluating the improvements;: it has been determined that the improvements will have no adverse effect to the National :Register — listed Fire Station No. 2 and the characteristics that qualify it for listing in the National Register. The building will continue to maintain its architectural significance following the construction of the improvements. 8DA5127: St. John's Baptist Church/1328 NW 3rd Avenue This building is located on NW 3rd Avenue, south of the project corridor and east of Gibson Park. Proposed improvements to the I-395 corridor entail the total reconstruction of the existing freeway to address its numerous traffic safety and operational deficiencies. The St. John's 4-17 Baptist Church is currently located approximately 320 feet along NW ri Avenue from the closest point of the existing 1-395 facility. The church will be located approximately 300 feet along NW 31-d Avenue from the construction limits for the proposed improvements. No right-of- way is required from the St John's Baptist Church, so this resource will not be directly affected by the improvements. The improvements to 1-395 will be constructed at a height of approximately four feet higher than the current interstate height in the vicinity of the St John's Baptist Church. However, due to the relatively small increase in height, and the distance between the improvements and the building, the change to theviews to and from the building will not be adversely affected. The aesthetics of the building will not be adversely: affected. This assessment of the visual and aesthetic effects is based on the current context and setting of the resource, which has previously been comprornised by the Interstate project and demolition of surrounding historic properties. Concerns by locally interested parties have been expressed about potential effects to St John's Baptist Church from construction vibrations. The level of structure vibrations depends on the sources of vibrations, soil conditions, and susceptibility of the structure. Monitoring and control of construction vibrations will be made in compliance with safe vibration criteria. It is anticipated that any potential vibration impacts to St. John's Baptist Church associated with this construction can be avoided or minimized through design alternatives. If it is determined that a • reduction in vibrations is necessary, the following are alternative construction methods: • Avoid impact,pile-driving where possible in vibration -sensitive areas. Drilled piles or the use of a sonic or vibratory pile driver cause lower vibration levels where the geological conditions permit their use. • •Select demolition methods not involving impact, where possible. For example, sawing bridge decks in sections that, can be loaded onto trucks results in lower vibration levels than impact demolition by pavement breakers. • Avoid vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas. Existing peak -hour traffic noise levels at this church building are predicted to be 68.8 dBA. Peak design year traffic noise levels at ,the church building are predicted to be 69.9 dBA with the No - Build Alternative, and 70.1 dBA vvith,,the Build, Alternative. The difference in noise levels predicted between the design year No -Build and Build Alternatives is ,0.2 dBA in all cases at the worst -case site considered. Thus, there is no perceptible difference between the design year alternatives and no new traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur. In addition, traffic noise levels `are predicted to increase above existing levels by no more than 1.1 dBA. Thus, no substantial increase in noise levels, as defined by FDOT, is predicted to occur. Under the existing conditions, the primary source of noise at this site is a combination of traffic on the nearby surface streets and 1-395. Improvements planned with this project include realignment of the expressway and addition of travel lanes along the corridor. Traffic noise levels at this site are predicted to exceed the FDOT Noise Abatement Approach Criteria for Land Use Activity Class B (66.0 dBA) with the Build Alternative during the design year. However, • the improvements proposed with the Build Alternative are predicted to result in only minor noise 4-18 level increases over the No Build condition during the design year. Also, the nearby surface streets remain significant contributors to overall noise levels at these sites. Because of its distance to I-395 and the significant contribution of traffic on the local surface streets to the overall noise levels, noise abatement at this site is not considered reasonable and feasible. No vehicular access changes or impacts are planned directly adjacent to the building; so the existing access will not be impacted. No parking will be impacted in the immediate vicinity of this building. Additionally, it does not appear that there will be impacts to the building related to traffic volumes or air quality: Upon applying the National Register Criteria of Effect and evaluating the improvements, it has been determined that there will be no adverse effect to the National Register —listed St. John's Baptist Church and the characteristics that qualify it for listing in the National Register. The church will continue to maintain its architectural and historical' significance followingthe construction of the improvements. 8DA1173: Rio Mar Apartments/1334 N Miami Avenue The Rio Mar Apartments are located on N Miami Avenue approximately one-and-a=half blocks north of the existing I-395 facility. The proposed north alignment shift will place the new I-395 ramp at N Miami Avenue approximately 270 feet closer to the building. Although 1-395 will be realigned closer to the building, it will still be located approximately 180 feet along N Miami Avenue from the construction limits, far enough to avoid any direct impacts. The improvements to I-395 will be constructed 12 feet higher than the current interstate height at N Miami Avenue, in the vicinity of the Rio Mar Apartments. No additional right-of-way is required from the Rio Mar Apartments, so this resource will not be directly impacted by the improvements; In .recent years the building's visibility from 1-395- has been one of its defining features as its exterior walls are covered in advertising aimed at traffic on 1-395, and the building will remain. visible from I-395 with the proposed height change. However, the building's primary facade does not face the improvements: It does not appear there Will be adverse effects to the views to and from the resources or its aesthetics. The 'assessment of the visual and aesthetic effects is based on the current context and setting of the resource, which has been `substantially compromised by the past Interstate project and changes to the immediate environment. An increase in traffic is expected at the N Miami Avenue/NE` 13t" Street intersection just south of the building. This is due to the proximity of the new proposed westbound I-395 entrance ramp on N Miami Avenue. No vehicular access changes or impacts are planned directly adjacent to the building, so the existing site access will not be impacted: No parking will be impacted in the immediate vicinity of this building. Existing peak -hour traffic noise levels at this building are predicted to be 677 dBA. Peak design year traffic noise levels at the building are predicted to be 68.5 dBA with the No -Build Alternative, and 69.3 dBA with the Build Alternative. The difference in noise levels predicted between the design year No -Build and Build Alternatives is 0.8 dBA in all cases at the worst - case sites considered. Thus, there is no perceptible difference between the design year 4-19 alternatives and no new traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur, In addition, traffic noise levels are predicted to increase by, no more than 1.6 dBA; from existing levels. Thus, no substantial increase in noise .levels, as defined by FDOT,is predicted to occur. Under the existing conditions, the primary source of noise at this site is a combination of traffic on the nearby surface streets and 1-395. , Improvements: planned with this project include Traffic noise realignment of the expressway and addition.of travel lanes alongthe corridor. Tr levels at this site are predicted to exceed the.FDO.T Noise Abatement Approach Criteria for Land Use Activity Class B (66,0 dBA) with the Build Alternative during the design year. However, the improvements proposed with the Build Alternative are predicted to result in only minor noise level increases over the No Build condition during the design year. Also, the nearby surface streets remain significant contributors to overall noise levels at these sites. Because of its distance to; I-395 and the significant, contribution oftraffic on the local surface streets to the overall noise levels, noise abatement at this site is not considered reasonable and feasible. Upon applying the National Register Criteria of Effect and evaluating the improvements, it has been determined that there will be no adverse effect to the National Register -eligible Rio Mar Apartments and the characteristics that qualify it for listing in the National Register. The building will continue to maintain its architectural and historical significance following the construction of the improvements... 8DA1175: Citizens Bank/1367 N Miami Avenue. This building is located on the, southeast quadrant of the N Miami Avenue/NE 14th Street intersection, diagonally across from Fire, Station No.2 . The proposed reconstruction of 1-395 will involve shifting the existing, freeway facility to the north, 270 feet closer to the subject site. Although 1-395 will be realigned closer to the building, it will still be located approximately 340 feet along N Miami., Avenue from the; construction limits, far .enough .to avoid any direct impacts. No additional right-of-way is required. from the property as part of the improvements. The improvements to I-395 will be. constructed 12 feet higher than the current interstate height at North Miami Avenue, in the vicinity of Citizens Bank.,At this time, the building does not appear to be occupied And its primary faeadedoes not, face, the improvements. Due to the, distance of the building from I-395 and the . additional buffer provided by ,theexisting single and multi -story buildings between this resourceand the facility, the views to and from the building and its aesthetics willnot be.adversely affected .. Existing peak -hour traffic noiselevels at the Rio Mar Apartments, which is the closest site to Fire Station #2 in which noise was analyzed, are predicted to be 67.4 dBA, Peak design year traffic noise levels at this site are predicted to be 68.2 dBA with the No -Build Alternative, and 69.0 dBA with the Build Alternative. The difference in noise levels predicted between the design year No -Build and Build Alternativesis less. than 0.8 dBA in all. cases at the worst -case sites considered. Thus, there is no perceptible difference between the design year alternatives and no new traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur. In addition, traffic noise levels are predicted to increase by no more than 1,6 dBA from existing levels. Thus, no substantial increase in noise levels, as defined by FDOT, is predicted to occur. 4-20 Under the existing conditions, the primary source of noise at this site is a combination of traffic on the nearby surface streets and 1-395. Improvements planned with this project include realignment of the expressway and addition of travel lanes along the corridor,. Traffic noise levels at this site are predicted to exceed the FDOT Noise Abatement Approach Criteria for Land Use Activity Class B (66.0'dBA) with the Build Alternative during the design year. However, the improvements proposed with the Build' Alternative are predicted to result in only minor noise level increases over the No Build condition during the design year. Also, the nearby surface streets remain significant contributors to overall noise levels at these sites. Because of its distance to 1-395 and the significant contribution of traffic on the local surface streets to the overall noise levels, noise abatement at this site is not considered reasonable and feasible.' No vehicular access changes or impacts are planned directly adjacent to the building, so the existing access will not be impacted. No parking will be impacted in the immediate vicinity of this building. Additionally, it does not appear that there will be impacts to the building related to traffic volumes or air quality. Upon applying the National Register Criteria of Effect and evaluating the improvements, it has been determined that the National Register --eligible Citizens Bank and the 'characteristics that qualify it for listing in the National Register will not be adversely affected. The building will continue to maintain its architectural and historical significance following the construction of the improvements. The CRAS did not identify any 'archaeological sites within the APE, and indicated that the potential for 'archaeological sites within most of the project area was low, except for the eastern portion of the project corridor which is ,located within the boundaries of the Miami -Dade County Biscayne Archaeological Zone (Section 3.4). The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the CRAS' recommendations regarding archaeological monitoring and coordination with both Miami -Dade County and federally -recognized Native American governments prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. Through' the ETDM process, agenm cy (Environmental Technical Advisory Teaor ETAT) responses to project effects on the issue of archaeological and historic resources impacts were ranked as Moderate by both the FHWA' and SHPO: These reviews included lists of potential historic structures and other historic resources, and their respective distances from the nearest points of the existing project corridor. Through the application of the Criteria of Adverse Effect, the FHWA, in consultation with the SHPO, determined that the 'project did not constitute an adverse effect on the properties.' Based on the fact that no additional' archaeological or historical sites or properties are expected to be encountered during subsequent project development, the FHWA has determined that no other National Register properties would be impacted. The Section 106 Report letter from FHWA dated June 16, 2008 and the SHPO "no adverse effect" letter dated August 8, 2008 are contained in Appendix A. 4-21 4.2.2 Recreational and Parkland Theodore Gibson Park, located at the west end of the project corridor by the Midtown Interchange, and Bicentennial Park, located at the east end of the project corridor, on the Bay, are the only two parks adjacent to the project corridor. No direct or indirect impact is anticipated by the proposed action to either park. No other park will be affectedby the proposed action. Both of these parks are discussedin detail in Section 4.2.3, Section 4(f) Resources. 4.2.3 Section 4(f) Resources As stated in Section 4.2.2, two municipal parks are located on, the south side ofthe existing project corridor: Theodore Gibson Park (401 NW 12th Street) and Bicentennial Park (1075 Biscayne Boulevard) (Figure 4-2). Theodore Gibson Park is bounded by I-95 to the west, NW 121h Street to the south, NW 31.d Avenue to the east and NW 14th Street to the north. The existing and. proposed location of 1-3,95 is to the north ofNW 14th Street, As shown in Figure 4-2, no change in the horizontal alignment is proposed. Asshown in Figure 4-3, only minimal changes in vertical alignment will result in, no impacts to the park. Bicentennial Parkabuts the existing : Metrorail Metromover,an „elevated guideway system providing transit service to the Downtown Miami and Omni area, and serves as its northern boundary. This facility serves as a buffer between the park to the south and the existing eastbound on -ramp, from ;Biscayne Boulevard to 1-395 to the north. Under, the. proposed Build Alternative 3, noshift in horizontal alignment tothe south is plannedatt this location; however, an increase in elevation of 9 ft for 1-395 over Biscayne Boulevard is. planned (Figure 4-3), This elevation difference between the existingand planned facilities approaches zero as 1:-395 nears;N Bayshore Drive. Under the proposed improvements to Bicentennial, Park, a new service road, is beingplanned just south, of the Metromover station and to, the north ,of two new buildings which will house the Science and Art Museums. As illustrated in the right inset of Figure 42, these buildings have been oriented towards the southeast to take full advantage of the unobstructed views of the bay. The location and size of the planned new buildings .on park, property, and the presenceof the Metromover guideway and station will effectively eliminate any potential negative, visual impacts associated with the new height of the proposed 1-395 improvements. Both parks are under the jurisdiction of the City of Miami. The proposed improvements to, I-395 have been coordinated with the City. No .R/W acquisition is planned at or hear the parks. There will be no impacts to the parks. No change is planned along thepark boundaries. 1-395 is an existing facility in a .highly urbanized, environment and will continue tobe with only minor elevation changes. There will be no impairment of thefunctions or uses of either park by direct or indirect impacts. Therefore, Section 4(f) does not apply to this project. 4-22 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AT [ AYSNORE DRIVE ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THEE%ISTING ONES ONE TOTNE-AETRONOVER BRIDGE OVER 4-345AHO THE CLOSE PROMARTY TO THE MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY THE SIDENCEARDART MUSEUMS ARE ORIENTED.TOLOOK TOWARDS EISCAYNE EAY AND PROVIDE *VISUAL BARRIER BETWEEN THE PARKAND THE I3E5 FACILITY $Tk}gc Embapkment Florida Department of Transportation 4-23 Profiie View Bottom of Bridge Bottom of the Existing Bridge Top of Bridge NW 3 AVE NW '1 PL FECRR NW 2 AVE &NW14ST EMBANKMENT r �1 1 , RAMPS AT MIAMI AVE 1-395 -1 I 41 j 1 CARKIVFO t �.t IER 1 Wfl1E 1.1 r PERFORi'N6ARTS 1.. i MIAMI AVE NE 4 AVE NE MAIM CT NE 2 AVE BAYSHORE - BISCAYNE DR BLVD EMBANKMENT 1 1 =. 1 1_ 1 t SECOND TIER LEVEL METROMOVER Bicentennial Park COMPA N OF PROFILES AT PARKS FIGURE NO. 4-3 4-24 4.3 NATURAL AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS 4.3.1 Pedestrian / Bicycle Facilities For safety reasons, all modes of non -motorized transport, including bicycle and pedestrian, are prohibited on all limited -access roadways in the state, including 1-395. This will not change with project implementation. In accordance with F.S. 335.065, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are not required to be established where their establishment would be contrary to public safety. In compliance with 23 U.S.C. 109(m), non -motorized modes of transport have been considered within the proposed project. It is anticipated that the Miami -Dade County MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Program will maintain both of the existing street -level bike routes that pass under 1-395, as described earlier in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources. These are: NE 2" d Avenue (rated Less Suitable) and Biscayne Boulevard (rated Not Suitable). Currently, there are no MPO- designated bike routes in the Overtown area. The reconstruction of I-395 should improve safety conditions for bicycle use at street level. The MPO periodically reviews their ratings of bicycle routes in the County, and the study area will be reviewed following project implementation. The current rating of Less Suitable for NE 2nd Avenue will have the potential to be upgraded by the MPO, as the existing interchange ramps are to be removed and NE 2nd Avenue will'have simple intersections under the new 1-395 spans. The proposed project may result in an `attractive public area with reflecting pools under the proposed spans, and there is a related beautification project on Biscayne Boulevard. These actions may induce a review of the current Biscayne Boulevard bicycle use rating of Not Suitable: The project will not directly affect any existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The 2004 Biscayne Bay Accessibility Report by the Trust for Public Lands was commissioned by the Florida Legislature and is managed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The top priority goal of the plan is the creation of a Biscayne Bay shoreline walking and biking trail, or greenway. The shoreline to the south of I-395, including Bicentennial Park, Bayside Marketplace and Bayfront Park, currently contains these attractive greenway features, ending' at I-395. The bay shoreline from this point northward lacks a greenway. The Miami Herald;' the Omni, two hotels, a college and other private developments line the shoreline north to Margaret Pace Park. With implementation of the preferred Build Alternative 3, approximately 1 mile of the 1.4-mile project corridor will be elevated on structural bridges above the local street network. In the Overtown portion of the corridor, where existing vertical clearance under the two 1-395 spans is approximately 14 to 16 ft, the proposed vertical clearances under the spans will range from 20 to 25 ft, as illustrated in the profile view of Figure 2-6. Much of the area under low bridges is currently used as municipal parking lots. With the higher replacement' overpasses, these unattractive areas could be made more attractive, and may possibly induce more pedestrian and bicycle activity in Overtown. For example, NW 2nd Avenue will be improved under the higher spans, possibly restoring its former importance as an important community link. 4-25 No permanent roadway closures are proposed within the Overtown portion of the project corridor. However, during the construction phase of the proposed bridges, there will be several temporary interruptions of pedestrian traffic under areas of bridge, construction, Pedestrians include school children. Therefore, coordination with schools has been conducted. Temporary measures creating safe detours for pedestrians/bicyclists and vehicles will be provided as certain routes become temporarily blooked at street level for overhead I-395 construction, Overtown is the portion of the study area that generates the most pedestrian and bicycle traffic. During construction, the preservation of safety and the minimization of access disruptions are of primary concern. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis was conducted to gauge the route disruptions associated with the project construction within. Overtown. While the Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plan for complete reconstruction of the I-;395 facility involves seven construction phases, only the first four of these seven phases are expected to impact Overtown. Phased pedestrian detours for these locations were developed, and are presented herein. They included average delay times for both pedestrian and vehicles in Overtown. These were presented for public comment at the project's Alternatives Workshop, and were generally well received by the attending public. The plan for Overtown MOT is presented on the following eight figures that cover the four phases of construction that affect Overtown. During this four -phase period, a total . of eight locations will be affected by temporary detours. The roadway Segments and/or intersections in Overtown that are anticipated to require detours during atleast one phase are as follows: NW 3rd Avenue; NW 314 Avenue ® NW 14th Terrace; NW 2' Avenue ® NW 14th Street; NW 1st Place; NW 1st Place ® NW 14th, Street; NW 2nd Court @ NW 14th Street; NW 1st Court; NW lst Court NW 14 Avenue. The typical roadway closure period is either 1 I or 15 days, and the average duration is two weeks. The Phase I detour locations and durations are illustrated in Figure 4-4, and the Phase I detour schemes are illustrated in Figure 4-5. Similarly, Phases II, III and IV detour locations and, durations, and schemes, are. illustrated in Figures 4-6 through .4-11. In terms of hurricane .evacuation,,,this MOT plan entails no significant (long-term), reduction in available traffic lanes that could compromise . any evacuation or emergency needs during hurricanes. For any additional details, please refer to the PER, Section 9. The timing and duration of local roadway closures- is subject to many variables of design and bridge erection methodology, to be. further d6feloped in subsequent project phases. Therefore, the pedestrian MOT routes used by school- children that are likely to be blocked for short periods at some point in construction process may be re -defined through future public involvement efforts. During the Alternatives Workshop, a proposal was presented for public comment to construct an elevated pedestrian walkway that would pass through the Midtown Interchange, connecting the high school (southwest) and neighborhood (northeast). Through public participation, it was determined that, with minor safety improvements, the current pedestrian route along NW 14th Street remains the best option. 4-26 I-39 PP&E Shady MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC -PHASE T. CONSTRUCT REWIND TOIES TEMPORARY DEMURROADHUOLE,. MAINTAUiING 1RAFEIDAS 75. 2. CONSTRUCTNE ]wise teutiiSEC1IONEASTOF`NlAMIAV£Ati6 NEW 145 YiSCONNECi: f TO JUSTEASTOF NW:SAVE • 3. AFIERCOMPLETION 'OFESTEMPORARY DETOUR ROAD Remove EXISTINOVIS TO N81S5RAMPANDCOMPLETE: CONSTRUCTION OF HEW 1.95VISCORNECIIOUINCLUMG NEW WSTO 5B135 FLYOVER RAMR 4, MAINTAIN ESTRAFFICAS IS .. 5, DETOURWSt358OURDTRAFFICittkNEWLY CONSTRUCTEDWS135 CORRECTOR. & REMOVE TEMPORARY W8 TO Ne k% DEMUR RD. Florida Department of Transportation FORADD4TIONAL DETAILS PERDURING ID THE REQUIRED l395TRAFFIC CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION SEEPAGES 94T THROUGH9.23. EE;DETOJJRI SEE DETOUR2- SEE DETOUR 3 SEE DETOUR 4 CRITICAL WORK' LOCATION NW3AVE@14TER NW2AVEE@14ST !DETOUR I APPROX. WORK DURATION (DAYS) 15 . NW14ST@NWIPL 3 15 NWIPL 5'rtceAUconstructtonactivlt!®sauringUJsP?aseAre 98AcsaSYnorthahsWiSarlfj •395TadlitySOMA ofthamast hpanantpedesttianlbt5e 9eneratstrs (le-GRsson Pack & Rooker t WasMngtortHigh SchooOlocated on the south side of h395xittnot hedkactly.afiealed 4 1 IV 03 I39S PD&E Study we 1.4is 1" t' ,< N, \ DETOUR 1 \t 8I., (15 DAYS) sr Detour Average Additional Delay (minutes) Pedestrian' Vehicle2 3.5 2.5 2 1.5 3 0.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 4 =Hasidonapidestrian:speid of31tisec: 2=Hasedon av6ktcutarspeett of 25 mph LEGEND VEHICULAR DETOUR E— PEDESTRIAN PATH 4•- ROAD CLOSED CRITICAL WORK AREA BM UNDER CONSTRUCTION t EXISTING F tCIUTY OV4UOVVN MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (DETOUR SCHEME, PHASE I , FIGURE N4 4-5 • '.partment of Transportation 1495 PD E Study MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC .PNASE II _ • t filearouNtvautAFFiceblin6F012145ASOI PREVIOLtS PRASE; 2. CONSTRUCTIENIPORARY DETOUR ROAD FROMBIEW lieS F4SCONNECTOR "`• , FOR ADOITIONALIJETAMS PERTARING Tows SR taavitnio 13EMTOWN WERCHANGE • TO THE RECORE131-396 TRAFROCONTROL 2. AFTER.COMPLERON OF1EMPORARY VIE 13 Derout ROAD - DerouRvut-3ss muncsousumusre 836 VIANEPLY CONS-MI.4CM - ' Val.CIINNECTOR SECTION AREVIOUSLY COSPLEIEIM PHASE 6, 4. CONFLEIE MEREST OFIHE PROPOSED -Via SEC11OR FROMM. MANAVE "MINE ?MOW INTERCHANGE. 5. &MINN EBTRAffie AS M. DURUM CONSIRUCTION SEEPACES 8-17 IHROUGii 9.21 E DETOUR 1 -SEEDETOUR 2 EEDETOUR3, ,- sEEllgrouk4 Looldc4Weiimardstaft4tkirewie.ixistipglii • • : OVERTOWN MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (PHASE II) • FIGURE NO. 4-6 Florida Department of Transportation O 1495PD&E Study eartment a Transportation DETOUR 2 - {11 DAYS} DETOUR 4 (15 DAYS) Detour AverageAdditional Delay # (minutes) Pedestrian' Vehicle' 1 3:5 2.5 2 2.5 2.0 3 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 9 - Based on a pedestrian speed of3ifrsec. 2-Based on a vehicularspeed of 25 mph. LEGEND t-+ VEHICULAR DETOUR +•► PEDESTRIAN PATH ROAD CLOSED r-.1.0 CRITICAL WORK AREA SE UNDER CONSTRUCTION NEW ROAD r EXISTING FACILITY OVF . TQWN MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (DETOUR SCHEME, PHASE 11) 1-395: PD&E'Study MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC - PHASE RI 1, MAINTAIN Yet•TRAFFICA&8[PREVIOUS PHASE 2. 0014BtRUCT'TEMPCSARY DEIOUR ROAD FREW E51-395 FO NOISE M4iULNE- JUSTWESTOFNWSAVEANDAIENPORARYCORRECTION FROM THENEERX ., CONSTRUCTED WO MAEi J EEEC1 ON. TO THE =STUMM TRUC3UREiNiNE VOZNITYOFN.NLAACA 3. DETOUR EE CVL . TH NE'AII.YCCNSTRLC1ED DETOUR IACEITIES.. 4. tON8TRUCTAPORTIONOF NEW ERMA1NLL EFACq:ITYfROMJUSTWESTOFF NW SAVE TOJUSTWESTOf NE1 AVE.. S. WAIT=1A5ESTRAFPICASdS. Florida Department of Transportation f0RAD371 ormasemSPentiamo TO ECREMIRED633STRAFFIC CO MEM DURING tORSTRUCIONSEEPAGES 947111ROUGH9.23. SEEDETOUR 1 DEiCUR2 D ETDUR3 EDEFaFJR4 CRITICAL,WORK LOCATION NW3AVE NW 14ST g NW 2AVE DETOUR # 1 2 APPROX. WORK DURATION (DAYS} 11 15 =NNI1 PL 3 11 NW1CT/NWIAVE. 4 15 4-8 195 PD&E,Study • • per*SUPir*V-Tabk AverageAdditional Delay (minutes) Pedestrian' 3,5 2.5 2.5 4 2.5 Venial& 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 1 - }4seri.. a pedestrian speed onftisee. 2 'Based on a vehicular speed of 26 mph. LEGEND `4' VEHICULAR DETOUR 4,-). PEDESTRIAN PATH ROAD CLOSED. MG CRITICAL WORK AREA ME UNDER CONSTRUCTION NEW ROAD ri EXISTING FACILITY )11111.DE,OTOR)1 (11 DAYS) disioratiote • • • DETOUR 2 k 116PAYS) OVERTOWN MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (DETOUR SCHEME, PHASE III) e."1\ oartment of Transportation FIGURE NO. 4-9 1-335 PD&E, Study MAINTENANCE .OF TRAFFIC - PRASE IV T. tafkurrat W TRAFFIC PS TR PREWIOSSPRASE. 2- =mum Ea SR WS TRAFFICAS IN PREVIOUS PHASE. FoLADDinotim, Do= FERIRMING S. PROMS MVPORART CONNECTION FROM PARIIAL Etatoute SEGUIN ROLM PREVMUs Mi!kniOMOSTIRGES FACitat MAR N.MAMI TOVEREOUIRRO 1415 TRAFFIC CONTROL t DETOLIR145 ERIRAFFM VIA NEWLY CONS1RUCIE3 M4PP.E5'.00SPHR54 ^ OURINSOOMSTRUCOON SEE PAGES ER FACRITYARD WEIMDESOUR RD. 947THROUG15 841 5. CONSTRUCT THE REMAINDER OF ME MI 1.05EB CORRECTOR SWIM FROM JUST EAST OF Mit 3.MLE10 /I MARNE. SEE DETOUR 1 SEE DETOUR 2 SEE DETOUR -4.EEI:IETOUR 4 Mew looMim test Mom NW.•14 St at MX 3 Ave. TM siii:strig stioctunts • ' • • over NW St ars specialViciportaM tiecsose.orMthigh Mod: • . • • CRITICAL WORK t. APPROX. WORK DURATION LOCATION if DETOUR # (DAYS) NW 3 AVE NWICVNWIAVE t • 4 OVERTOWN MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (PHASE IV) . _ - fia 3 Et • -- FIGURE NO. 4-10 Florida Department of Transportation 9S PD&E'Study p " s,3 gement of Transportation Detour. Average Additional Delay (minutes)' 2 3 Pedestrian' 2.5 Z5 2.5 Vehicle? 1.0 1.0 3 - Based an a pedestrian speed of 3fttsea. -Based on avehicular speed of 25 mph. LEGEND +-r VEHICULAR DETOUR +4 PEDESTRIAN PATH ROAD CLOSED CRITICAL WORK AREA UNDER CONSTRUCTION . III NEW ROAD O ERTOMAINTENANCE. OF TRAFFO. bETOUR SCHEME, PHASE IV) F \ 4.3.2 Visual / Aesthetics The aesthetic effects and visual impacts of the preferred Build Alternative 3 are designed to be positive. The term `signature' has been used to.describe the bridge design. The proposed design consists of two parallel facilities that include high spans ;more ,than„ 1;200 feet long, that complement the MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges over nearby Biscayne Bay. The high arch design will lift the two roadways high over openspaces with ample green areas of lawns and blue areas of reflecting pools that beautify ' the area in front of . (south of) < the new AACPA. The proposed length between support structures also allows an open vista ofthe new Miami downtown to the south, as seenfrom the AACPA front steps. The visual effect of the bridge design on the two nearby parks will be minimal, and is anticipated to be„positive,, as the, proposed design is aesthetically better than the corridor it replaces. The western continuation of the proposed 1-395 facility, beyond the two main spans will also remain at higher than normal elevations, ranging from 20 to 30 feet of vertical clearance, to provide a sense of open space and ample vertical clearance under the sections on columns. The only segment of the elevated roadway constructed on fill will be the ramps to/from N Miami Avenue. These ramps on fill will block the view under the bridges between NW 1sc Avenue and N Miami Avenue, a distance of approximately 750 ft. The roadway segment from west of NW 3`d Avenue (Midtown Interchange) to the N Miami Avenue ramps will be constructed on columns and at higher elevation, replacing large units of existing fill roadway in Overtown. This will provide more open space and improve movement under the corridor, an aesthetic improvement. The visual effects,for the motorist on I-395 include a vista of the city from an elevated vantage (from a maximum pavement height of 51 feet) to the north or south that extends for over one mile of corridor, and can be enjoyed at any point in the journey. For the motorist proceeding to Miami Beach, this experience will be directly linked to `passage over' the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur.Causeway, with their views of Biscayne Bay and the Port of Miami and the cruise ships at dock. This vista will be followed by passage over the MacArthur Causeway at near sea level along Government Cut, across from the cruise and cargo ships in port: The overall effect should augment the visitor's enjoyment of the port city skyline and vistas. 4.3.3 Air The proposed, project has the potential to alter traffic conditions and `influence the air quality within. the proJect study area. Potential air 'quality "impacts in the area surrounding the project corridor were assessed for all viable project alternatives, including the No -Build Alternative, in accordance with applicable SHWA guidelines and guidelines contained in Chapter 16 of the Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Manual.' An Air Quality Report has been prepared for this project and is available from the FDOT District Six offices. No comments concerning air quality were received through the ETDM process or through the project's AN responses. 4-35 Sites with potential for sensitivity to changes in air quality within approximately 500 feet of the project corridor include single and multi -family homes located between I-95 and N. Miami Avenue and the following schools, parks, religious facilities and other cultural resources:. • Miami -Dade County Public Schools Miami Skills Center- 50 NW 14th Street • St Francis Xavier School (private) 1682 NW 4th Avenue • Bicentennial Park -1075 Biscayne Blvd. , • Theodore Gibson Park - 401 NW .12th Street • St. John's Baptist Church - 1325 NW 3rd Avenue • Mt. Olivette Baptist Church - 1450 NW 1st Court • St. Francis Xavier Church -1682 NW 4th Avenue • New Hope Primitive Baptist Church-1301 NW 1st Place • Miami -Dade County Department of Human Resources Culmer/Overtown Neighborhood Center, 1600 NW 3rd Avenue • Miami -Dade County Dept of Youth & Family Development, 1460 NW 3rd Avenue City` of Miami Neighborhood Enhancement Team Service Center (NET), 1490'NW 3rd Avenue. • Culmer - Overtown Branch Library is located at 350 NW 13th Street • Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami -Dade County, 1300 Biscayne Boulevard The pollutants of primary concern with roadway traffic are ozone (03), oxides of nitrogen hydrocarbons (HC), small particulate matter (PM10) and carbon monoxide (CO). Ozone, NOx, HC and PMK() are analyzed at the program level unless specific review of an individual project is requested by appropriate reviewing agencies. As of June 2005, Miami -Dade County is an area designated as Attainment, for ozone standards under the criteriaprovided in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, therefore transportation conformity no longer applies. Since CO is a localized pollutant that is emitted directly into the atmosphere by vehicles, it is analyzed for individual roadway projects where substantial changes to the traffic conditions are anticipated. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO is 35 parts per million (PPM)'for one -hour periods and.9 PPM for eight -hour periods. 4.3.3.1 Project Level NEPA Analysis Traffic -generated air quality impacts are primarily a concern near signalized intersections during peak periods when numerous vehicles areoften stopped and idling during the traffic signal's red phase: The project's worst -case intersection with the No -Build and Build Alternatives, the interchange at U.S.-1/Biscayne Boulevard, was analyzed for CO using the FDOT's CO Florida 2004 screening software. This model is used to assess the potential for air quality impacts due to roadway .traffic. The CO Florida 2004 model incorporates emission factors developed from the MOBILE6 emission factor model and the CAL3OHC2 dispersion model and includes several worst -case assumptions for traffic characteristics, meteorology and terrain. User inputs to the screening model include .project alternative; intersection type; land use type; analysis year; and, the volume and speed of peak hour traffic approaching the intersection. The 4-36 CO Florida 2004 model generates multiple default receptor locations, the number of which is dependant upon intersection type, The default receptor locations for a freeway interchange were used for this analysis. Given the local surroundings, an urban land use type was selected, which includes a background CO level of 5.0 PPM for one -hour predictions and 3.0 PPM for eight -hour predictions. In CO Florida 2004, the user inputs the traffic volumes for each approacbleg. The program automatically selects the worst -case (volume and speed) for each direction and applies that volume to both legs. The traffic data used for the CO screening analysis were derived from design hour turning movement counts provided by the project's traffic consultant for the project's build year (2020) and design year (2040), Design hour traffic volume data for the worst -case freeway/roadway legs of this intersection for the No -Build and Build Alternatives are presented in Table 4-2. TABLE 4-2 CO Florida 2004 TRAFFIC DATA SUMMARY ROADWAY ALTERNATIVE DESIGN HOUR TRAFFIC ' VOLUMES • Opening Year (2020) Design Year (2040) SPEED (MPH) 1-395 No -Build 5,195 6,954 55 Build 4,472 5,970. , 55 Biscayne Boulevard' No -Build 1,869 2,500 .35 . Build 1,838 2,459 - 35 . . , . Output from the CO Moeda 2004 model is the estimated one -hour and eight -hour CO level, in PPM, at the selected receptor" locations ; 'A project alternative that passes the CO Florida 2004 Model is not expected to result in any violations of the NAAQS for CO and is not likely ,tO have any impact on the air quality of the surrounding area, The resulting predicted,C0 levels for this analysis are presented in Table 4-3. 'The predicted worst -case one -hour CO level is 19.9 PPM during the opening year and 12.7 PPM during the project's design year. The predieteid worst - case eight -hour CO level is estimated to be 6.5 PPM during the opening year and 7.6 PPM during the project's design year 4-37 TABLE 4-3 ,CO Florida-2004 SCREENING ;•ANALYSIS .RESULTS e. ALTERNATIVE .. ...... PROJECTED ONE- HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE LEVEL (PPM) NAAQS: 35.0 PPM PROJECTED EIGHT - HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE LEVEL' (PPM) NAAQS: 9.0 PPM Opening Year (2020) Design Year (2040) Opening , Design Year Year (2020)„ I .(2040) No Build 8.0-10.9 9.0-12.7 4.8-6.5 ' 5.4-7.6 Build 8.0-10.1 8.7-11.3 4.8-6.1 I 5.2-6.8 These results of the CO screening, indicate the proposed project will not cause any exceedances of the one -hour or eight -hour NAAQS for CO. Furthermore, the project is predicted to result in marginal decreases in the CO level near this intersection. Thus, the project passes the CO screening analysis, and air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project are not expected. 4.3.3.2 Mobile -Source Air Toxics w" In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which NAAQS have been promulgated, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA} also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-madesources, including on -road mobile sources, non -road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes); area sources (e.g. dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act.. The MSATs 'are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non -road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and areemitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passesthrough the engine unburned. Other.toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air tows also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline, f The `EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has' certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued"a Final `Rule `'On Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on -highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, even with a predicted 64 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on FHWA projects, on -highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde are expected to be reduced by 57 to 65 percent. In addition, on -highway diesel PM emissions are expected to be reduced by 87 percent. As a result, EPA concluded that no additional motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards 4-38 were necessary to further control MSATs, The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section'202(1) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21 and/or the six primary MSATs. According to traffic data presented in the project's 2009'Interchange Modification Report,: Build Alternative AADT traffic volumes along the project corridor are predicted to range from slightly lower to approximately equal to the No -Build levels between the Build Year (2020) and Design Year (2040). In addition, Build Alternative traffic speeds are predicted to be higher than No - Build speeds during the same period. The Level -of -Service along 1-395 is predicted to be LOS C `or above for approximately 85 percent of the analyzed roadway segments with the Build Alternative, as opposed to less than 45 percent of the roadway segments with the No -Build AIternative. Based on these data, the project is expected to result in reduced congestion levels. For the alternatives presented in this EIS, the amount of MSATs erriitted would be proportional to the VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT of the Build Alternative is expected to be only slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases The efficiency of the roadway, reduces congestion and increases vehicle speeds. This increase in VMT would normally lead to higher overall Build Alternative MSAT emissions along the highway corridor. However this overall increase is expected to be somewhat offset by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased vehicle speeds since emissions of all` of the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases according to the 'EPA's MOBILE6.2 model. The extent to which' these speed -related emissions decreases will offset increases related to higher VMTs cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of available technical models. Becaustheestimated VMT of the No -Build and Build Alternatives are nearly the same, varying by'less'than approximately seven percent, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions between the two alternatives.' Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by 72 percent between 1999 and 2050: Local` conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover;` VMT growth rates, and local control measures:' However, the magnitude of the EPA -projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are" likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases. `The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby air quality receptors; therefore, undereach alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher with the Build Alternative than the No -Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would 'likely be most pronounced along the expanded roadway sections that would be built between NW 3rd' Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No=Build alternative cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable information in forecasting project -specific MSAT health impacts. In summary, when a highway is widened, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions, in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSAT` levels will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from 4-39 them.. However, ' on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region- wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. Unavailable. Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis The overall lack of available technical tools to enable prediction of the project -specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this EIS limits the assessment of the potential for MSAT emission: impacts due to this project to the basic analysis presented above. Due to these limitations,;the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information: Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated . exposure. Each of . these . steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determinationof the MSAT health impacts of this project. • Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key variablesdetermining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the.. project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip -based model - emission factors are projected .based on atypical. trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location :at a specific, time. -Because of this.: limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating_ speeds and levels of congestion ,likely to be present on the largest -scale .projects,: and cannot . adequately capture emissions effects of shorter length, smaller scale projectssuch as ;1-395. ,. For particulate matter,.Ethe, model results are not sensitive to, average trip, speed, although the .;other:. MSAT -.emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6,2. for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older -technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions. of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has,; identified problems with MOBILE 6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis. These deficiencies compromise the capability of, MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions., MOBILE 6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends,and performing relative analyses between, alternatives for very large projects,. but it is not sensitive enough to .capture the effects of travel changes tied .to, smaller projects or.. to predict emissions near specific roadside locations, The . EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) is developing the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) software modelto estimate emissions; for on -road and nonroad mobile sources. Although not released yet, when fully implemented, MOVES will 4-40 provide a far better solution for developing projected emissions inventories applicable to MSAT analyses. Dispersion: ` The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time; at some location within a geographic area, This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess potential health risk, The National Cooperative Highway Research' Program (NCHRP) is conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data inmost areas °for use in establishing project -specific MSAT background concentrations. • Exposure Levels and Health Effects: Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings . in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project -specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments,- particularly' because unsupportable assumptions would have °to.be;made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year, period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factorssuch as low -dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in ,health impacts between alternatives is likely to bemuch smaller than the uncertainties•associated;with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this, information, against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis. Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence . Relevant to Evaluating . the Impacts of MSATs. Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically; associated with adverse health outcomes :through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found; in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed. to 4-41 large doses. Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local, exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best Illustrate the levels of various toxicswhemaggregated to a national or State level, The EPA isin the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The ;EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects ;that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The .IRIS database is located at http://www;epa.gov/i.ris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures. • Benzene is characterized as.a known human carcinogen. • The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for anassessment of human carcinogenic potentialfor either the oral or inhalation route of exposure. • Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals. 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humansby inhalation. Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female, hamsters after inhalation exposure. • Diesel exhaust ' (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed _ in this : document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases. • Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary nancancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may, impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies, There have, been other Studies that address MSAT' health`impactsn proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization < funded rby' EPA FHWA;:: andindustry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near -roadway MSAT hot . spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, andother topics. The, final summary of the series is not expected for several years. Some ; recent studies have reported . that proximity:.: to roadways is related .to adverse health outcomes - particularly respiratory problems. These studies include: the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study -II (2000); the Sierra Club's Highway Health Hazards' (2004) that summarized 24 studies on the relationship between health and .air quality; and, the Environmental Law Institute's NEPA's Uncertaintyin the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air -Pollution from Motor Vehicles - 35 ELR 10273 (2005) including health studies cited therein: Much of this research is not specific to MSATs instead: surveying the full 4-42 spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above andenable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project. Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete ` Information to , Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of Impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health,cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between, alternatives, for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current` emissions model is not capable' of serving as a meaningfulemissions analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or• incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the human environment?' 4.3.4 Noise Through the. ETDM process, two concerns regarding potential noise impacts to residential land use were rioted by FHWA and by FDOT District 6, under their comments on the project's social effects and aesthetic effects, respectively. Their concerns were rated as Moderate. Potential traffic noise impacts in the area surrounding the project corridor were assessed for all viable project alternatives, including the 'No -Build Alternative, in accordance with Federal regulations (CFR 772) and guidelines contained in Chapter 17 of the FDOT PD&E Manual: A Noise Study Report has been prepared for,this project' and is available from the FDOT District Six offices. Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) have been developed by the FHWA for most common land use types. Noise abatement is considered in conjunction with FDOT projects where traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC are predicted to occur as a result of increased roadway' capacity or significant ' alterations to the roadway geometry. The FDOT defines "approach" as meaning within 10 dBA (decibels, A -weighted) of the NAC for each Land Use Activity Category (LUAC): The FHWA NAC and FDOT Noise Abatement Approach Criteria (NAAC) are presented in Table 4-4. Noise abatement is also considered when a substantial noise level increase is predicted to occur. A substantial noise level increase is defined by the FDOT as one where the existing noise level is predicted to be exceeded by 15 d13A or more as a result of a transportation improvement project. 4-43 TABLE 4-4 SHWA NOISE ABATEMENT. CRITERIA AND. FDOT NO SE ABATEMENT APPROACH CRITEfflA LAND USE ACTIVITY CATEGORY FRWA NAC (LAgth) FDOT NAAC (LmIth) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY A , . 57 dBA (Exterior) 56 dBA (Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qoalities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose ' 8 67 dBA (Exterior) 66 dBK(Exterior) Picnic areas, moreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, imtels, schools, elitachea, libraries, RV parks, day care centers and hospitals. C 72 dBA (Exterior) 71 dBA (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above D ' Not Defined Not Defined Undeveloped lands E 52 dBA (Interior) 51 dBA (Interior) Residences' mete's' betels' public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums , Exterior areas of approximately 335,sites including residences, parks, churches and NHRP listed or eligible historic sites were considered noise sensitive within the limits of this project. Figure 4-12 Modeled Noise Receiver Locatious, and Table 4-5 present location and noise level data for these sites., Existing noise sensitive land use within the project study area includes exterior areas at several single-family homes and many small to medium sized apartment buildings one to three stories in height. Noise sensitive land use is also found at the Town Park Village condominiums and the high-rise Marquis condominiums. In addition, two parks (Miami-Dade's Theodore Gibson Park and Bicentennial Park), three churches (one a historic site listed on the NRHP) and two other NRHP listed or eligible sites are located along the .project corridor. Traffic noise impacts were not considered at the AACPA since no noise sensitive exterior locations were found on the property, and interior noise levels were not considered due to the design of the facility so as to minimize intrusion of outdoor noise to the interior of the building. The primary sources of noise within the project area are vehicular traffic on 1-395, 1-95 and the .localroadway network. Much of the, existing I395 expressway elevated well above the adjacent noise sensitive sites. The local , roadway network provides access to the Central Business District of Miami. Aircraft traffic from Miami International Airport (MIA) passes near the downtown area on both sides of the project corridor. However, this project lies completely outside of, the latest.65 dBA day -night poise level, (DNL) contours for MIA and is not impacted by aircraft noise. Field measurements of ambient noise levels along the project corridor were performed using procedures defined in the FHWA report Measurement of Highway -Related Noise (FHWA-PD- 96,-046). Field measurements were conducted on,November 06, 2007 at two sites. One of the 4-44 0 SEUSWI= Second Row Model Receivers Florida Department of Tiansportatian • TABLE 4.5 mv.uthrx riviK, RECEIVER LOCATIONS AND PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS MODEL RECEIVER NAME • ,, ' ' LOCATION , , TYPE NUMBER ' OE NOISE SENSITIVE SITES • ") , 1 ' ..2 NEAREST STATION DISTANCE TO NEARLANE (Ni Bald/Bad AltormotIve) ' 0600 •-• " , ' • • • • ='- = ' ,- „ EXISTING (2004) TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ' (a+A) *.: DEMON YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (dEA) No•Bund (Alternative I) [land (Alternative 3) First RGw SOUTH MBE' • 111 , ' E2 150 NW I' St. + ... Park , 56+50e 310/360 . - .. 66.8 68.2 68,3 1328 NW 0 AVV, lila ' 65400 - • ("290/263. ' • ‘ 68.8 69,9 70,1 E3(a,b.c) 1190 VW rs Ave. Apt. 2,2,2 , - , 68400 ' ..12,51,100 ' , . 66.6, 67A, 71,2 684,69.2,733 67,0,68.0,70.2 E.4(a.0) 1300 NW 2m Ave. Apt. 2,2,2 '• , 69+30 . 175/150 451,65.4,70,3 662,67.2,723 64,9,66.8,69.3 E6(a,b) 1311 NW rd Avo. Apt. 10,10 `; 70)00- 140)115 - 62:3.63.8 64.1,05.5 , 62,0,64.2 ..,,.....360)t12) E7(a,b) 1326 NW 1.".11, 130214W 1,4 il. Apt, Apt. 2.2` ''' ...41 7o-tio 71+10- 6s14o , ... 7171071.56; : ' 64.4,65h - . 61:7,632 66A,674 63.1.64,9 ' 61.6,63.7 63$,64.8 - • , E8 147 NW 10Si. ChuIcI 1 ' 72+10' ' ''• ' 80/55' 69.8 , 71.7 68.8 ' E9(a,b) 140 NW 136 St. 'Apt. 4,4 . .7240 ' 155/125 68,2,68.9 70.0,70,8 68.0,69.2 = E10(3,b) 140 NW 134 St, Apt 4,4 • 73+0 • 110)70 69,3,69,9 71.2,71.8 68.4,69.2 E1l(a,b) 1228 NW I' Ct, Apt. 6,6 74420 . 241195 ' 58.1,61.8 59.9,634 58.0,61.7 . E12(8,b) 1229 NW 14 Ct. Api. 4,4 75+80 , -' 155/100, •• 58.3,62.3 - ' • 60.2,64.2 191609 E13(8,b) 1226 NW 1'Ave. 1100 Biscayne Blvd. Apt, Condo. ;- 2,2 2,2,22,2 ''76160 • '4030+80 ' '85/25 . • 68.6,69.0 72.8,72.6,72.3124.73.3,722 70.6,71,0 73.8,73.6,73,4,734,73,3,73.2 66,7,67.6 .._.... ,_.-....._. 71;7,13.0,73.8,73.7,73.8.72,7 E14(kb,e4e.t) • 90/110 BP-1 1040 Blacayna Blvd. Park 1 1032420' 385/395 64.2 64.8 64.2, 13P-2 1040 Bianyno Blvd. Patk , I . 1039+00, 70/710 58,3 58.9 593 Second Row 't. - ' , • . '' . - )1' ' " ' ' 8B1(a,b) 200 NW 13*St, , , , ,Apt. , '6,6, ' 70+00 ,, 350/325 • 62.2,643, 64.1,65.9 , 64.3,65.8 ,SE2,(a_,b) „ Sp3(2,ba) 185 NW 13' St. , Apt. 3,2 ' 70+80• -=. 265/240 , . 0,7,65.9 65.4,67.6 ('4.9,67,6 1232 NW I' PI. Apt. 110 61' 71+70 , ' .4 285n60 ' " 01.2,622,65.5 63.144.1,67.3 = 62.1,63.3,651, SE.4(1,b) 1212 NV/ l'Ave. Apt, 32 76+20 '-' .200/135' 65.1,00 67.0,68.9 .y. 64.9,0.5 ), ' SE5(a,b) •-,- First Row ‘;))1(a;) 1212 NW l'Ave, • TPV NW 0 Ct. Apt.__ Condo, L, 4,4 76460 ' 165/115 ' ----- ' ' "NORTII " 2, 160/145 ' , , ' 66,2,67.8 SIDE 57:8425 , . " . 68 2,6 59.04.8 , 65,7;05 .;,• 5903 4 ,:. • 2,2 25+60 „,..V2(a,b) TPV NW V O. 02210. 24 24+40 • ,•,t145/140 , 33.7,59,9 55.6,61.6 - 55,2,019 W3(a.b) TPV NW 0 Ct. Cando, 2,2 23190 ' 120/1202- 64.8,67,6 66.8,69.7 4 61.9,65.2 4iW4(a,b) l'INNW 0 Ct. Condo. 1,1 23420 i63/16$ :- 59,6,63.6 61.3,65.5 * 59.1,62.2 1 WS(a,b) py 10 0 Ave. Condo, 2,2 22+30 200/195 , ' . - 58.7,62.7 61.0,64.8 582;62.4 W6(6,,b) W7(a,b) 0)V NW 0 Ave. TIN NW 10 St. Condo, Condo. ,2,2 4,4 „. 21t40 '20+40 • -. 155/150 i1,,1• ' 1801175 ',.:-, ' ' ' 603,643 .. ' 59.7,63.5 63.0,66.4 .. . 61.3,050 .59.141,8 56.5,00,9 943(a,b) '4)1/ NW 10 St, Condo. 4,4 19+130 ' 210/205 ' ''' , ', .57.1.62.2 , . 58.6,639 562,61.6 W9(91) TIN NW 10 St. Condo, 3,3 , 18+80 • 150)140 • )4. .- 6E5,63.6 ' 617;65.8 62.3,64.5 -'W,10(a,b) 17,V NW 10 St. i Condo, 3,3 17+80 140/130 ' '..,... 0,964.7. 62.9,66,7 62.3,65.1 411.(+,b) .102 0,b) TPV NW IP St. Condo. 3,3 2,2 17100;„ 16+70 ' , 150/140 .__ )160/151) . ' :-61.9,64.9 '''. -, 53.K.59.6. ;'. • 63,7,66.8 553,61.3 62.8,643 54,3,60.3 TPV NW 0 Ave. Condo. W13(a,b) T,PV NW 4* Am, Condo, 2,2 161=20 ` 220)220 ' .. . . , 090,6,..,4,5, ' „ 6 t.7,66,4 61.5,64,3 W14(a b) t 1433 NW 30 Ave.' ,, t Condo. 24_ 64+20 105/35 4 ... ,: ' - 693;711,2:- • - -71,5,723 690,70.0 ',W1 5 , 233 NW 144 Tem I) - 'Apt. 2 64460 108o: "'• " . 49:5;10 ''5, ' 7 = 71.5,/2.1 694,70.2 ); wto 225 NW 140 Tow. 'Chord .- . 1, . WOO 140,190 2 ' ' , 61:6,,,,` -• .,,,, 10.4 68.8 ,..,,WI? •'.VW18 149 NW 144 Terr., $FR ' 8i11 .,„ 1 ...: • ' r 9t4o . 67+20 1600 ` Rai '1 '"•;148,2. '''' .68.3')177 = : 70.0 ._. --, : 459.9 . , 68.8 479--- 1431 Nii2" - W19 1434 NW I" PI, , SM1 : ; "2 ',.. 1 68+00 '210/140 67,5, . ').,:i.'.=, ,, : S 69.1' ' i 68,7 )'==' W20 1425 NW 1" PI, . 4,--gr ; 1 68+70 ,- ' 200/130 '67,8 "' " '' ' ;1 69.4 ., ' 4 68.9 'W2I(a,b) 1416,NW I* Ct, i ) ' to ' 70140 T' - 2601140 '67.4 : ';;'/ ' ' i 60;9 .) - '; 68.5 ,W22(0,11,2) , 1348 NW 1" Ave,•L , 6, ,64, ' 74+20 ' 135/65 6900.1,73.1 4:'" 71.3.71.8,74,8 . 69.7,70.2,71.9 .-. W23 133414. M1402 Ave, , ,„ -1124. '4 1 ', 42+00 ' 410/320 '672 -I ' , 4) 68)$ ' ' 69,3 .W24 1300 IlisenyneDNd. BBL 1 • 1034+00 420/220 , 69,0 ,').''' ' ' ' 4• 69.3 ,' '' 70.5 tiond Row • „ - _ , 8911(91)) ITV NW 10 81. Condo. , 4,4 . 17+60). 190/180 '' 574=843' '' • ; " .59.4.60. 59344=6 SW2,(8.14 SW3(a,b) 220 NW 0 St. Apt. 2,2 ) 64+90 ,270,200 • 639660 ' • ' ' 1,67.7,6112' 874.882 212 NW 0 St. Apt, , 3,8 65+20 • -, 280/210 , ' 66.9,0.9 ' =, 6/.7,68.6 . 67,2,68,3 SW4 1445 NW 24 Ave. SEA • - 3 66+70, 245/175 ' .6611 • -. = ' 47.8 66.9 ' SW5 14461,191 I" Fl. SF/1 3 67+80 -285415 •,, 64.4 • 66.1 - Ai SW6(a,b) 1437 NW I* Pl. Apt. 2,2 ' 68+80 280410 ' ' 66.5,67.5 , 68,1,69.0 ' , 68.0,69.1 Sw 7 1425 NW I" Cl. SPH 1 71+00 300430 - 66.4 •07,9 = 67.9 ii,Y80b) SW961,b) 122 TA)1414 Et. 1410 NWI; Ave. Alt, Apt. 2,2 13,13 72+00 73+30 210/140 3701300 01,0.0.8 ' ' 58.3,61,3 ' • 699,713 ' , 5975,6277 " ` 68.7.10.6 • • 60=1.60 otes: PV Town Padt VilInge, Hist, ='+ Historio Site, Apt.'. Apartment, Condo Condominium, SRI .) Single-family home • . - 4-46 measurement sites was adjacent to the Town Park Village condominiums in the northeast quadrant of the Midtown interchange; the other site was located on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard, south of I=395. Existing noise levels during eight (8) 10-minute sampling periods were found to range from 64.0 to 69.4 dBA at the measurement locations representing first -row sites and 62.9 to 68.0 dBA at locations representative of second -row sites. Site conditions and traffic data gathered during the field measurements were used to develop inputs to the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5 for computer models representative of the conditions; `present during the measurements. The TNM results of these models were compared to the noise level data collected for each field measurement sample and were found to be within the ±3.0 dBA verification limit specified in Chapter 17 of the FDOT PD&E Manual. The model inputs used to develop the verification models then formed the basis for TNM input files for the existing year conditions, and the design year (2040) No -Build Alternative and the viable build alternative. The predicted traffic noise levels for the worst -case traffic conditions for each of the project alternatives studied are presented in Table 4-5. Existing traffic noise levels in the neighborhoods along the project corridor are predicted to range from 53.7 to 73.1 dBA. During the design year, traffic noise levels with the No -Build Alternative are predicted to range from 55.3 to 74.8 dBA. These noise levels are predicted to beno more than 2.5 dBA greater than existing noise levels at ' any of the sites along the project corridor. Design year traffic noise levels with the Build Alternative are predicted to range from 54.3 to 73.8 dBA.' These levels are predicted to be no more than 2.1 dBA greater than existing noise levels and no more than 1.2 dBA greater than those of the No -Build Alternative at any of the sites along the project corridor. Of the 335 noise sensitive sites identified along the project corridor, approximately 132 sites are predicted to experience traffic noise levels equal to, or exceeding, the FDOT NAAC for LUAC B (66.0 dBA) with the Build Alternative during the. design year. Most of the sites predicted to be impacted by the Build Alternative are located between NW 3rd Avenue and N" Miami Avenue, where the greatest density of noise sensitive residences is located directly adjacent to'1-395. The predicted noise impact with the Build Alternative at Theodore Gibson Park' (Table 4-5, Receiver El) is 0.1 dBA higher than the No -Build Alternative. At the Marquis tower (Receiver E14), the average difference is less than 03` dBA No other potentially noise sensitive sites along the project corridor are predicted to experience traffic noise levels equal to, or exceeding the FDOT NAAC, or experience noise levels at least 15.0'dBA greater than existing noise levels with the Build Alternative: Although a primary source of existing traffic noise at most of the noise sensitive sites along the project corridor is vehicular traffic on 1-395, many of these` sites are also significantly affected by traffic noise from 1-95 and/or the local roadway network. Regardless of project construction, traffic noise levels throughout the project study area are predicted to increase due to higher volumes of traffic predicted as further growth and urbanization occurs in Miami -Dade County. When compared to the noise levels predicted with the No -Build Alternative, the noise levels at the noise sensitive sites closest' to I-395 `are' generally predicted to decrease with the Build Alternative due to the greater elevation of the reconstructed roadway. Noise sensitive sites located farther away from the corridor are not in the shadow of reconstructed 1-395 and are more 4-47 likely to experience increased noise levels with the Build Alternative. However, many of these sites are already predicted to experience noise levels exceeding FDOT criteria and are also subject to significant traffic noise from the local roadway network and/or 1-95. According to the traffic data prepared for the project, traffic patterns, including those of heavy trucks, through the downtown area and Overtown away from the, 1-395 corridor are not expected to change as a result of this project. Thus, noise levels in Overtown distant from the 1-395 corridor are not expected to be affected by this project. Design year traffic noise levels at the three NHRP listed or eligible sites range from 69.3 to 70,5 dBA, which represents increases of 0.2 to 1.2 dBA above the No -Build Alternative, Although all three of, these historic, sites are predicted to experience, traffic noise levels greater than the F'DOrs NAAC, each of these sites is located at least 250 feet from the 1-395 mainline and is substantially affected by traffic noise on other roadways such as 1-95, N Miami Avenue or Biscayne Boulevard. The FDOT requires that the reasonableness and feasibility of noise abatement be considered when the. NAAC is exceeded. Potential abatement measures were considered in the following. order: Traffic management measures (e.g. traffic control devices, and signing for prohibition of certain vehicle types, thne-use restriction for certain vehicle types, modified speed limits, and exclusive lane designations); • Alignment modifications; • Construction of noise barriers within the highway project's right-of-way; • Acquisition of property rights (either in fee or lesser interest) for construction of noise barriers by donation, by purchase or by condemnation; • Acquisition (by purchase or, condemnation) of right-of-way for landscaping adjacent to noise barriers and for buffer zones;,and, • Acquisition (by purchase or condemnation) of the balance, of a noise -sensitive property from which there is a taking, if acquisition , is less expensive, and disruptive than the methods shown above. Construction of permanent noise barriers within the available highway right-of-way was considered the most feasible alternative for providing,nose abatement along the project corridor. The other abatement alternatives are either clearly infeasibleor are not, applicable to :this project corridor. Given the elevation of the roadway, the only location that noise barriers could be constructed along this corridor would be at the edge -of -pavement of the elevated traffic lanes nearest the impacted sites. In order to meet NCHRP 350 Test Level 4 criteria for noise barriers in these locations, crash approved noise barrier designs approved by FDOT are currently limited to a maxiinuin height of 8 feet on structures. The FHWA's TNM model was used to develop conceptual noise barrier designs. The minimum noise level reduction (i.e., insertion loss) accepted by FDOT is 5 dBA as specified in Chapter 17 of the FDOT PD&E Manual., Three noise barriers were considered with this project to reduce traffic noise levels at the noise sensitive sites predicted to be impacted by traffic noise from the Build Alternative. These noise barriers are as follows: 4-48 Outside edge of the eastbound lanes of 1-395 between the Midtown Interchange and N. Miami Avenue.. The purpose of this noise barrier would be to reduce traffic noise levels at 59 noise sensitive sites predicted to be impacted by the Build Alternative. An 8-foot tall noise barrier was considered along the outside edge -of -pavement of this elevated segment of 1-395. This noise barrier configuration was predicted to only reduce traffic noise levels by a maximum of 1.9 dBA. No other alternative method of providing noise abatement for these impacted homes is considered feasible. Outside edge of the eastbound lanes of 1-395 from east of N. Miami Avenue, to Biscayne Boulevard. Thepurpose of this noise barrier would be to reduce traffic_ noise levels at 12 impacted condominiums in the Marquis tower. These condominiums are located above the 4h floor, at an elevation above the mainline lanes of I-395. An 8-foot tall noise barrier was considered along the edge of the eastbound lanes near these condominiums. However, given the elevation of the condominiums above the roadway, this noise barrier configuration is predicted to only reduce traffic noise levels by a maximum of 2.2 dBA. No other alternative method of providing noise abatement for these impacted` homes is considered feasible. • Outside edge of the westbound lanes of 1-395 corridor between the Midtown Interchange and N. Miami Avenue. A system of two 8-foot tall noise barriers was considered; one noise barrier along the edge of the westbound mainline lanes of I-395 and a second noise barrier along the edge of the separate westbound collector -distributor lanes and off --ramps to 1-95. The purpose of this noise barrier system would be to reduce traffic noise levels at 59 noise .sensitive sites predicted to be impacted by traffic noise from; the Build Alternative. This noise barrier configuration ispredicted to only reduce, traffic noise levels by a maximum of .3.4 dBA.. No other alternative method of providring noise abatement for these impacted homes is considered feasible. ,Due to their placement on structure as required' by the elevation of the, expressway, it was not possible to meet the FDOT's minimum noise level reduction criteria .of at, least 5 dBA with any of thenoise barriers analyzed for this project. There are: no other feasible .locations to provide noise abatement to reduce traffic noise levels from I-395. Noise abatement is also not feasible for the two NRHP-listed historic sites located north of 1-395 (1334 N Miami Avenue ard;1300 Biscayne. Boulevard), that are.; predicted tobe impacted due to, their location on local surface streets distant from the project corridor (320 ft and 220 ft, respectively). Thus, following analysis of predicted traffic noise levels, abatement alternatives, available right- of-way, safety criteria and eonstructability associated with providing noise abatement along this project corridor, it was determined that it was not possible to provide noise abatement, meeting FDOT's minimum performance criteria for any of the impacted noise sensitive sites. Therefore, based on the noise analyses performed to date, there appears to be no solution to mitigate traffic noise impacts for any of the sites predicted to be impacted by this project. For a description of construction noise impacts, please refer to Section 4.3.17, Construction. 4-49 For the purposes of coordination with local agencies on long range planning for land uses identified under LUAC B, 66 dBA LA&Iii, noise level isopleths were estimated for the Build Alternative. Thetypical 66 dBA isopleth across flat ground that does not include any abatement measures for LUAC B properties is shown in Figure 4-13 Noise Level Isopleths: • 4.3.5 'Wetlands, The proposed action has no wetland involvement. The only water bodies in or near the project corridor are not wetlands. They are the three retention ponds of the Midtown Interchange, and Biscayne Bay': The retention ponds are constructed elements of the existing stormwater management system. Biscayne Bay lies east (outside) of the project's eastern limits. Proposed&tions within the Midtown Interchange include construction of one ramp; removal of orie ramp, and temporary construction of a third ramp. The new westbound to southbound ramp will haveno involveirient with any retention pond. The removal of the existing westbound to southbound ramp will haVe no involvement with any retention pond. Also, a temporary ramp (vvestbound/tdnorthbound) is anticipated to be:constructed for early phase of the Mairitenance of Traffic Plan. It is proposed to be located along the edge of a retention pond, but is anticipated to have no involvement with that pond, and will be removed upon completion of the new permanent rainp. • - The proposed' stormwater management plan involves modification of the three retention ponds of the Midtown Interehangelo increase their storage capacity (Section 4.3.7, Water Quality). --- Through the ETDM process, agency responses to project effects on the issue of wetland impacts ranged from NoInvolvement (US:Army Com§ of Engineers, ACOE) to Minimal .(U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS), as well as Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FDEP) to Substantial (National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS). The: FDEP detennination•of level of effect was based on the retention ponds being listed as palustrine wetlands (3 acres) and the Port Of Miami turning basin (Biscayne Bay) being listed as eAuarind wetlands (10 acres),as well as the presence of seagrass ,b9N'withirf one 'Mile of the project(in BISCayne Bay):' The retention ponds are deep -and ver)i•steepided above and below the Waterline; with no littoral fringe:, and peritafri'no palustrine wetlands..The-Project terminates approximately 350 ft ;inland from. the seavh.11,o1BiScayne Bay, and has no estuarine involvement. Subsequent coordination between the 'f'DOT and NMEg' included' descriptions of theekistingdrainage system 'and, of theproposed stormwater management systenc; which alleviated the agency concerns regarditigAliseharge of untreated runoff to, Biscayne Bay (Essential Fish Habitat). A Wetland and Essential Fish Habitat 'TeehnipalMeniorandlim was prepared for this project, and is available for review at the District Sbe:'effice in Miatrii. A copy of the memorandums is included in the attached CD. The discussion Of potential ittipacfs to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is included in Section 4.3.15. 4-50 eve! Iscpieths 4.3.6 Aquatic: Preserves Through the ETDM process,• a smgle agency response to project; effects on the.iissuetof,Special. ,`. designations was registered by FHWA as ModerateTheir,concern •was for coordfnatton with the FDEP on; any potential impacts to the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (AP) As, stated above, .,the °' design, of the associated stormwater facility `will .bring the ";project into `compliance with regulations to protect the AP..'' The project is ridt located within an area designated as an•AP•The,project's eastern ter iinua is inland -some distance;(350 ft) from the Biscayne, Bay. shoreline atthe MaoArthur'Causeway West Channel bridges._Waters of Biscayne Bay, .are designated Biscayne Bay 'AP; The proposed stormwater facility design will include, at aminimum, ,the water quantttyrequirements for water quality ittipacts'as.required by Miamt-Dade County;; as defined, in Section.4 3:1. Through: the ETDM ingle` process, a sagency response to project effects on 'die issue.,of Water` .; quality Impacts was registered by FDEP as'- Moderate Their concern was the lack bt e�cisting stormwater management and the need to improve, water quality of runoff to Biscayne Bay, anAP `: and OFW Similarly, both the: NMFS and SHWA ;rioted in ETDMathe„requirement for higl e water quality standards due to`the Special Designation of Biscayne Bay as AP. Qs the existtfig • drainage.;• system, diteetly conveys untreated atormwater: from. both I 395Nand 'local roadways to Biscayne.!Bay,:ithwill be necessary to improve the drainage;,and stormwater-mariagement systemrig' of both I395 and the=affectedlocal roadways; The proposed -stormwater facility' design "will include, at a'mininium, the' tiwater.% quantity requirements for water quality impacts `as rec)ttired by.. the Miami -Dade County ,septa ;df Environmental Resources Managemeift'(DERM), as defined in,'`Mtamr=Da e.. County_> Code *of Ordinances, Chapter 24, ,, Sections 28-13 and 25 58, as w,ellras required by SF UVMD . Ciia ter 40E 4 and 401J 40 ofu62 302 F A C W��tli; t11rs4 corn mitmei t to meet all apple ible water quality standards, atpkrnwater rrianagetnentwil be` upgraded to ci rrent�standards th•rough the proposed action, resulting in water quality that',wilt benefttreceiv•ing;waters designated as A1?ti andkEFH; A 'brief below F iinma Ir a more sPecific The proposed; stormwater management' system for t 3:95 wilt '.employ.priinarly. retention/detention ponds,: and also 'swales anikdeep vyetls, Tle existing retention/detention ponces within the Midtown' Interchange wits be hiodiftecl and expanded to •.aecornrnodate ,the;, needs of'the western sub basin, and a retention/detention pond;is'proposed to be constructed below the elevated ,bridge section `Deep r?vells will be used as necessary to, dispose of the required, .water quality treatment volumes;' with excess run off routed' to the existkng positive systems.', Deep ';wells 'will; be limlted to $areas • Where' standard' treatment; methods are, not. practicable 'The '-use of exfiltration: trenches is llritited: by the area's existing groundwater containinatiori issues. Run off from'the project bridges will be'partially routed to the roadway 4-52 approaches. Another portion will be collected by bridge scuppers and discharged, either directly or through pipes, to new facilities or the local roadway drainage systems. Pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) confirmed the Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) status of the project location and issued a finding of "no significant impact" to SSA in a letter dated February 7, 2008 (Appendix A). This finding was based on full implementation of a stormwater management system in strict adherence to all applicable laws and regulations. 4.3.8 Outstanding Florida Waters The project is not located within an area designated as an Outstanding Florida Waters.. (OFW). The project's eastern terminus is inland some distance from the Biscayne Bay shoreline at the MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges. Waters of Biscayne Bay are designated Biscayne Bay AP. By virtue of this AP designation, this area also designated OFW. The project has no direct involvement with OFW. As defined above, the proposed stormwater facility design will include, at a minimum, the water quantity requirements for water quality impacts as required by the Miami -Dade County DERM and SFWMD. 4.3.9 Contamination Through the ETDM process, an agency response to project effects on the issue of contamination impaets was registered by FDEP as Moderate. Coordination with FDEP regarding brownfields was also requested by FHWA. The FDEP included comments regarding the need for a Contamination Screening Evaluation Report (CSER), the presence of existing brownfields under the project corridor, the management of possible dewatering during construction, the disposal of excavated materials as hazardous waste, and development of adequate contingency plans for this emergency evacuation route. The State of Florida has evaluated the proposed R/W and has identified potentially contaminated sites for the various proposed alternatives: Results -of this evaluation were used in the selection of the preferred alternative. When a specific alternative has been selected for implementation, a site assessment will be performed to the degree necessary to determine levels of contamination and,' if necessary, evaluate the options to remediate along with the associated costs. Resolution of problems associated with contamination will be coordinated with appropriate 'regulatory agencies and, prior to R/W acquisition, appropriate action will be taken, where applicable. In accordance with the PD&E Manual, Part 2, Chapter 22, the FDOT has identified potentially contaminated sites for the various proposed alternatives, including' all areas of proposed R/W acquisition. The CSER prepared for this 1-395 project is available for review: at the FDOT District Six office in Miami, and is included in the attached CD. This project corridor has a long history of contamination: issues, as both the uptown location and marine terminal location contained industrial operations from the earliest. years of Miami's urban development. 4-53 Results of this contamination screening evaluation were utilized in the selection of Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. The :above -grade Alternatives 2 and 3 were essentially_ equal in rank for this factor, and much less costly to remediate than the depressed designs. It was determined that both Alternative 4 (Tunnel) and Alternative. 5 (Open Cut) would entail very high costs associated with disposal of large, volumes of contaminated , soil and groundwater during subterranean construction, and would continue to involve a need for monitoring and treatment during the later operation phase. Note that the 1-395 corridor preservation process of AR/WA that preceded the subject project also included two separate, complete CSER documents. These are included in the attached CD. The Type-2 Categorical Exclusion (CE-2) that was approved by FHWA on August .30,. 2004 included a CSER support document. The scope of . this CE-2 covered R/W,acquisition of 26 parcels in a 3-block area along the .north side of the existing I-395 project corridor (southof the new AACPA) between NE. Ist Avenue, and North Bayshore Drive. The CSER in support of this CE-2 documented six (6) High risk sites, three (3) Medium risk sites, and six (6) Low risk sites. The CE-2.and CSER documents areprovided on the attached CD. In 2006, the CE-2 was followed by a Reevaluation that was approved by FHWA on August 16, 2006. The scope of the Reevaluation was expanded westward by 11 blocks (from the west side of NW 3`d Avenue to NE 1st Avenue) to include the entire 14-block area where parcels common to all four Build Alternatives were needed. This action added.42 parcels to the previous R/W acquisition list The CSER in support of the Reevaluation did not identify any High risk sites, but rated five (5) sites as Medium risk and eight (8) sites as Low risk. The Reevaluation and CSER documents are provided on the attached CD. The CSER for this 1-395 project is also provided on the attached. CD, andall three CSER documents are available for review at the FDOT District Six office in Miami. The e sites rated for contamination risk are cross-referenced within the descriptions provided below. Note that the High and Medium risk contamination sites previously assessed during the AR/WA process have been recommended for Level 2 Site Assessments where necessary. As of April 2009, the current Level :2 investigation at National Car Rental had not been completed. The CSER: prepared in, support;of.the 1-395-EIS documented 21 sites of potential contamination risk to the construction project, ratedas follows: • six (6) were rated High risk; • two (2) were rated Medium risk; • • nine.(9) were rated Low risk; and, • four (4) were rated as No risk to the project. Each of the High Risk and Medium Risk sites are illustrated below in Figure 444, Potential Contamination Sites Location Map, and numbered west to east. The 17.High,, Medium and Low Risk sitesare listed with file numbers, in Table 4-6, Potential Contamination Sites. 4-54 LEGEND: — Project Corridor At High Risk Sites RI Medium Risk Sites See Table 1 for Names and Addresses HIGH AND MEDIUMRISK POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SITES LOCATION MAP FIGURE 4-1 4 SITES otential Contamination Sites: ADDRESS DERM FDEP,# HIGH RISK SITES 1. Greyhound Bus Lines Service Center 51',NW I1th Street UT-1035 85047.70 2. National Car Rental System 3. Sears Tower ' 4. Windsor Park Southerland 5. Perfect Service Station (a.k.a. Perfect0i1) Omega/Garlick/MacArthur Garage/ Lee's-Tackle/National Exterminators) t 6. Belcher Oil Company Terminal and Tank Farm, (including• Orkin Exterminating Company,and Louis -Dominguez) MEDIUM RISK SITES 199. NE 12th Street 1300 Biscayne Boulevard 232 NE 13th'Street, '' 31'8 324, 326 328 NE lath, St, . 1237 Biscayne Blvd 1075, 1229, 1217-1299 Biseayne'Boulevard UT-I534 i. '7929, 7165 UT-427: 11'810;UT-4334, 9674 UT3886 r= 8629085; 8733391 9804477'. M 1 .Pan-American Chemical Company'5 M2. ;Vacant lot/Quick-Park Garage, Inc. 2's 1201:"NW 1st Avenue 110tNE 1st Avenue 997 IW5-1068 16870 UT-5894, • None. 9801903 LOW RISK SITES FDOT Midtown Interchange Abboud Station / Henry's Overtown Station 5 Abandoned gas station 4 Broz Internationals Miami Express Auto Center 2'5 U-Haul of Greater Miami J A&M School Bus Service 2,5 Florida Landing Gear 5 (19S/SR'836/1-395) 146: NE lst°Avenue,' 16 NW 14th Street 1300 North Miami Avenue 1295 NE I St Avenue 1000NW 1st Avenue bone None one:: None' 10604-1W5-984 None one ' orie None None;; None:- Nerie 1361 NE 1st Avenue 1236 NE`Miami Court' 1568, UTr1702,1688 None 889059 None Miami Herald 1 Previously listed as I-Tigh risk;in AR/WA CE-2 2 Previously listed as Medium risk in AR'WA 0-2,, 3 Previously listed as Low risk,,in ARJWA CE42 4 Previously listed as Medium' risk fir AR/WA Reevaluation 5 Previously listed as Low risk in ARJWA keeValuation 1 Herald Plaza 4,3.9.1 I-Iigh Risk Sites Greyhound Bus Lines Service Center;; 51-NW A 11h.Street DERIVI File Number: none; UTi 1035 FDEP 8504770 Since,1965, this site has been a large•repair facility for buses which". is operated.by Greyhound. Bus Lines Bodywork, painting, and heavy mechanical work,are perfort ed at this facility, which operates constantly. The'.site currently contains two (2) 10;000:gallon 'diesel underground storage 'tanks (USTs) and one (1) 6 000 gallon, motor oil UST located on' the northeast.; portion of, the property. The 3.7-acre site contains two shop buildings, surrounded by asphalt pavement. The facility is located 20 ft southof` the existing '1.:395`right-of-Way. Norte None. Prior to the construction of the Greyhound facility, the northwest corner.of the Greyhound site was occupied (1930s-1950s) by The Texas Company, a fuel oil distributor, and, contained several aboveground storage tanks (a potential soil: and/or groundwater contamination concern). 4-56 ) In November 1989, DERM issued a Notice to Correct• a Waste Dumping Violation to' the Greyhound Bus Lines facility regarding the dumping of motor oil into nearby storm drains and sewer systems. Until November 1990, the Greyhound facility operated eight (8) USTs. The USTs included four (4) 8,000 gallon diesel tanks, one (1) 8,000 gallon fresh motor oil tank, one (1) 4,000 gallon used antifreeze tank, one (1) 6,000 gallon waste oil tank and one (1) mineral spirits tank of unknown capacity. A February 1991 Initial Remedial Action Report (IRA) documented the removal of 600 tons of hydrocarbon -contaminated soils during excavation of the 8 USTs and subsequent installation of three (3) USTs listed above. Also, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) with secondary containment were installed within the shop buildings for waste oil and antifreeze. A hydrocarbon plume with southerly movement in the area of the former (Texas Co.)'tankfarrn was documented in a Contamination Assessment Report. (CAR) (submitted August 1991, approved by DERM March 1992). -Subsequently, a RAP was submitted in June 1992 and approved by FDEP. in August 1993. A remediation system was 'installed in September 1994, activated in October 1994 and shut down in September 1996. A Monitoring Only Plan(MOP) was approved by DERM in May 1996, and implemented in January 4997. A March 2005 Monitoring Report indicated decreasing levels of contamination for the overall site but these levels were still too high to warrant a sl<ki Further Action (NFA), and monitoring continues. This site was rated as a medium risk in the CSER supporting the Reevaluation; at, a tiine when there was no planned acquisition of the site (it was not in the common footprint). The ptoperty contains documented petroleum contamination in the groundwater. Monitoring of the plume continues. A partial acquisition of this site is planned specifically for the preferred Alternative 3, for the N. Miami Avenue ramps. The proposed partial acquisition for Alternative 3 is along the northern perimeter of the site, just east of the location of the former tank farm. Therefore, this site is assigned a High environmental risk rating. National Car Rental System, 199 NE-12'h Street DERM File Number: 7929; UT: 1534; FDEP: 8629085 This site ;Operated between 1979 and 1993 as an autotnobile rental facility with car wash, Maintenance and refueling' equipment, business office and vehicle storage. Three large USTs were installed in 1979 and removed in 1991, after'free floating product was f6und in monitoring wells. SOS were removed (800 tons) and a reniediation system operated betWeen 1996-and 1999', AS of 2004, a site assessment recommended the installation of a new remediation system to remove the remaining inEx (the aromatic hydrocarbons of benzene, 'toluene, ethyl -benzene 'and xylene) in the groundWatet. Currently, the site is being investigated by FDEP.- It Was previously rated as a high risk in the CSER of the CE-2. Therefore, this site is assigned a' High environmental risk rating. Sears Tower, 1300 Biscayne' Boulevard DERM File Number: 7165; UT:427; FDEP: 8733391 This site has an extensive history of contamination by petroleum hydrocarbons. Remediatiori has also been extensive. Some 6,224 tons of soils were removed in 2001. As of 2003, the level of contamination under the site was slightly above current groundwater standards for three poly- 4-57 aromatic hydrocarbons. No further remediation efforts are anticipated. The site was redeveloped, with the historic Sears Tower incorporated into the Ziff Ballet Opera House of the AACPA that opened in 2007. The tower site is located 400 ft north of thewestbound lanes of the existing I- 395, and with implementation (of any Build Alternative) will be situated approximately 250,ft north of 1-395.; With the preferred. Build Alternative 3, the elevation of the roadway, span at the point it passes the tower wouldbe approximately,28 ft,NGVD. Currently the status of the site is unknown. As "DDFM-Sears",f it was previously rated as, a high risk in the CSER of the CE-2. Therefore, this site is assigned a High environmental,riskrating. Windsor Park Southerland, 232 NE 13th Street DERM File Number: 11810; UT: 4334; HWR: 528 FDEP: none This site forms the northern half of the city block between NE 21'd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard, between NE :12th Street and NE 1•3th Street. The vacant lot was last used as a. staging area for the AACPA. According to a 1992 investigation by DERM, the site formerly contained.a gas station with improperly abandoned USTs. The site was purchased for the AACPA by an FPL trust fund :in.1997. FPL commissioned a Phase II Environmental Site, Assessment that concluded that UST's were stillpresent at the former gas station site. Six (6) USTs were, discovered in 1999 and removed in 2000, along with an undefined amount of soil from the excavation. The subsequent TCAR reported traces of : benzene in the remaining soilbut po- other . major contamination of surrounding, soil. According tq a SAR in., 2000,, arsenic compoundswere present on -site (east side) in levels above the criteria for residential, industrial, and commercial use. Subsequently, an undefined volume of arsenic -contaminated soil was removed -from the site. Additional remediation was requested at that time by DERM for soils to meet residential direct ;exposure goals. By2003, soil samples; showed pollutants below, those (residential) criteria? ^and a No Further Action Plan (NFAP) was approved by DERM in May 2004. It waspreviously rated as a high risk in the CSER of the. CE-2. Although this site has an approved NFAP, due to this site's past history of contamination, this site is classified as a High, risk.: Perfect Service Station (a.k.a. Perfect Oil, Omega, Garlick, MacArthur Garage, Lee's"Tackle, and National Exterminators), 318, 324, 326, 328 NE 13d' Street, 1237 Biscayne Boulevard DERM File Number: 8115; UT: 1781; FDEP: 9804477 This location istheblock south of NE 13t" Street and east of Biscayne Boulevard, which is, ..due — south of the new AACPA Knight Concert Hall. Currently? Xis .a,.paved parking lot. Information regarding several sites. is filed under one DERM number and: one, FDEP number, and begins with 1984. As theseagency, files were found, ;tgv be incomplete, for; the years prior to 1,984, other ;sources: were reviewed. According to Bresser's Cross -Index Directory,. from 1968 to 1975, Lee's Tackle, Inc, occupied then MacArthur Garage site at 324 NE,13th Street. National Exterminators was identifiedas operating at 328 NE 13th Street in.1970. A service station was in, operation from before 1965 through at least 1978 at 1237 Biscayne. Boulevard, underat least three names (Omega/Garlick/Perfect Oil). An October 1984 DERM site inspection report documented that the Perfect Service Station facility was closed and the USTs were not properly abandoned. A July 1987 file entry indicated that American Waste Oil began reusing the USTs in 1985 to store waste oil. A Notice of Violation (NOV)/Orders for Corrective Action (OCA) for USTs was issued on July 25, 1991..In September 2001 a first. Phase II site assessment: for MacArthur: Garage was submitted, and 4-58 reported excessively contaminated soils and contaminated monitoring wells. Subsequent groundwater sampling results indicated that all 'contaminants were below the Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GWCTL), except for xylenes and Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH). The contamination plume was vaguely defined. A Site Assessment Report (SAR), dated November 2001, described the location and characteristics of,the. TRPH plume. This SAR also contained a claim that the TRPH contamination had originated from the Belcher Oil site (see Belcher Oil, DERM file #9674). Subsequently, a July 2002 SAR Addendum (SARA) determined that the presence of xylene could not be attributed to the former Belcher Oil facility, and was properly attributed to the former gasoline station: A file note indicated that the UST system was removed prior to 2002, but rib' CAR was found. The xylene plume was delineated in a February 2004 SARA: The VOA plume map defined the plume as encompassing nearly all of the block between Bayshore Drive and Biscayne Boulevard, with some migration in all directions, including into°the existing FDOT ROW. The 2004 SARA outlined a plan for continuous site monitoring based on "quarterly sampling of monitoring wells and annual reports until such time as results indicate that a NFAP could be approved. DERM approved the Natural Attenuation Monitoring Plan on February 18, 2004, This site is located within the easternmost block acquired by FDOT through the AR/WA process. It was previously (in 2004) rated as a high risk in the CSER of the CE-2. There is a documented xylene plume on site, no remedial action to remove the xylene is planned, and the site is currently approved for a monitoring plan. With implementation of any build alternative, this volatile organic aromatic (VOA) plume area will be deeply excavated for roadway construction, either for major bridge supports or for a tunnel. Therefore, this site is assigned a high environmental risk rating. Belcher Oil Company Terminal and Tank Farm, 1075, 1229 and 1217-1299 Biscayne Boulevard, DERM File Number: 9674; UT: 3886; FDEP: none. This site also includes Orkin Exterminating Company, 1229 Biscayne Boulevard (rib files) and Louis•Dominguez, 1299 Biscayne Boulevard DERM File Number-8800, UT: 2773, FDEP: none. This marine terminal and oil tank farm operated from 1920-to 1966>in the present location of 1-395 and part' of Bicentennial Park. As many 'as' 39 large aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were contained in the tank farm and were used to store a variety of petroleum products. The tank farm occupied the area south of NE 13th Street. The tank farm was removed during the 1970's for the construction of 1-395 over the southern half of the tank farm. The northern half of the block Was developed into a service station and mechanical garage (see Perfect Service Station/MacArthur Garage Property, below). A 1990 site assessment revealed contamination in soil and groundwater samples. During construction of the Metrorail Metromover Station at Bicentennial Park in 1991, an underground storage tank (UST), associated piping, a large amount of free product and contaminated 'soil were removed. During the reconstruction at the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway, additional soil/groundwater contamination was discovered. In 2003, two UST's were removed from the area of Bayshore Drive and the associated tank TCAR was approved by DERM. These tanks were attributed to the Belcher Oil operation. 4-59 •Also, two other records have been added to the Belcher Oil site, due to their proximity •or overlap. Orkin Exterminating Company operated at 1229 Eiiscayne Boulevard in 1939, according to a Corridor Impact Study by WRS dated June 2000. No other information regarding this pest control business was found in agency files, and, agency files indicate that Belcher Oil operated at this address in 1939, as described above. Therefore, Orkin Exterminators is considered to be a part of the Belcher Oil site. The Louis Dominguez site was a gas station located at the southeast corner of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 13th Street, until about 1960. The site is approximately. 100 feet north of the existing 1-395, and within the proposed alignment. In September 1988, DERM inspectors found evidence that underground storage tanks were still on this site. Subsequently, six (6) empty 4,000 gallon USTs yvere excavated and removed from the site. DERM. Inspectors noted slight evidence of contamination at the time of tank removal, but analysis of a groundwater sample from the excavation revealed concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to be less than 50 ug/l. Because this site is located within a saltwater intrusion area, DERM did not require further monitoring and closed this site file in 1989. The Louis Dominguez site is considered to be a part of the Belcher Oil site. Belcher Oil was previously rated as a high, risk in the CSER, of the CE-2. This site has an extensive history of eontamination. Currently, there are active site assessments and remediation projects. Therefore, this site is assigned a High environmental risk rating. • 4.3.9.2 Medium Risk Sites Pan-American Chemical Company, 1201 NW lst Avenue DERM File Number: 997; IW5:1068; FDEP: none This facility is a single -story warehouse building (13,000 square feet) located immediately adjacent to and south of the existing=I-395 southern right-of-way line. Pan American Chemical is basically a chemical warehouse facility that has been in operation since the mid-1960's. However, their principal product, a stainless steel cleanser known as Sheila -Shine, is mixed and packaged on -site. Raw materials for this product include chloroethane, methylsahcycalate, xylenes and paraffimbased mineral oil, Of the above ingredients, on,ly xylenes are listed by, the FDEP as a regulated groundwater contaminant. Cleansers containing carbon tetrachloride (also listed by the FDEP as a regulated groundwater contaminant) were carried until 1986, when, according to DERM records for the site, they were all removed from the site and disposed as a hazardous waste. According to DERM industrial waste inspection reports, there have been no recorcledenvironmental violations or problems at this site. It was previously rated as a low risk. As of February 2005, the facility was in compliance, The commercial operation is slated for relocation. A total acquisition of the site is anticipated for all action alternatives. Even though there have been no reported environmental problems, there .is a risk that soil and/or groundwater contamination may be encountered during demolition. Because of the potential for undiscovered contamination. at the site, the environmental risk rating for this property is considered to be Medium for all alternatives. Vacant lot/Quick-Park Garage, Inc, 1101 NE 1st Avenue DERM File Number: 16870; UT: 5894; FDEP: 9801903 4-60 This site currently is a parking lot located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of NE 1 lth Street and NE 1st Avenue, or approximately 200 feet south of I-395. A service station formerly existed in the southwest corner of the property. In 1999, a total of eight (8) steel USTs were removed.' In October 1999', a Tank Closure Assessment &Initial Remedial 'Action Report (TCARIIRAR)` was submitted and documented the excavation of approximately 228 tons of petroleum -contaminated` soil: Subsequently, in June 2000 a SAR/MOP was submitted, and was approved in November 2001 As of 2003, the needed monitoring wells for the MOP were not existent. The most recent document on file is a DERM letter dated December 30 -' 2003, approving the request for an extension of time to submit the next Quarterly Status Reportfor the Natural Attenuation Plan. It was previously rated as a medium risk. There is documented contamination in the groundwater on site. In addition, remedial action to remove the contamination is on -going." Therefore, this site is assigned a Medium environmental risk rating: The project's CSER, on the attached CD, provides more detailed site histories of these High risk and Medium risk sites, as well as descriptions of Low risk and No risk sites in appendices. Additionally, Section 120 Excavation and Embankment Subarticle 120-1.2 t identified Areas of Contamination of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction will be provided in the proposed'project's construction contract 'documents.' This specification requires' that in the event that any hazardous material or 'suspected contamination is encountered during construction, or if any spills caused by construction -related activities should" occur; the contractor shall be instructed to' stop work immediately and notify the District Six' Environmental Management Office as well as the appropriate regulatory agencies for assistance. Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practical alternative to the proposed action and that all practical' measures have been included to eliminate or rninirnize all possible impactsTrom contamination involvements. 4.3.10 Wild and Scenic Rivers The subject project is 'lobate& in Miami -Dade County, a county that'does not have involvement with any designated Wild ` and Scenic Rivers Or, any rivers listed on the `Southeastern Rivers Inventory.' 4.3:11 Floodplains With the preferred elevated design of Alternative 3, the proposed project is anticipated to have no negative impact to floodplains in the project study area. The elevated design of Alternative 3 proposes high leyer structural' spans to replace most of the existing expressway roadbeds that are currently elevated 'on fill The existing' fill that falls within the floodplain represents a previous (albeit insignificant) encroachment. The replacement of fill pads by bridges on columns provides a small net benefit to 'floodplain capacity. It is in the eastern portion of the project corridor where floodplain exists, and where Alternative 3 provides net benefits. Green areas are proposed to replace fill pads, thereby; restoring and preserving natural and beneficial' floodplain values. Alternative 2 was rated equal to Alternative 3 for these factors. For'emergeney evacuation over the flood -prone coastal area, the all build alternatives would also provide an additional lane (three '4-61 lanes westbound, two continuous lanes to SR 836, two lanes to NB 1-95), an improvement in evacuation capacity. The existing low point of the 1-395 corridor occurs approximately 340 ft west of Biscayne Bay, where 1-395 passes below the bridge of theMetrorail Metromover guideway. The expressway is approximately atelevation 14 ft NGVD, and vertical clearance on 1-395 under the Metromover span is 22.1 ft. No change is proposed at this location with any of the Build Alternatives. With an elevated design, most of the 1-395 evacuation route would be safely elevated over the floodplain, reducing the risk of flooding along the project corridor, as compared with the depressed (tunnel and open cut) designs..., r ° Based on flood analysis published by SFWMD, there is a small possibility that a hurricane of Category 5 (the highest wind category) approaching from the right direction could possibly inundate this low point of 1-395. The SFWMD data indicates that a storm surge associated with a Category .5 hurricane may reach a height of between 13 ft and 18 ft above normal sea level and may extend inland beyond NE 2nd Avenue. The storm surge of such an event might reach the low point of the 1-395 mainline, defined above. However, under this same scenario of Category 5 storm conditions, the City of Miami Beach, with street elevations between 4 to 6 ft NGVD, and the MacArthur Causeway evacuation route (elevation 8 ft NGVD) would have already been inundated. Furthermore, the, evacuation process would have been completed. The hurricane evacuation process has a time factor, and evacuation routes are officially closed prior to full storm impact. There is an evacuation protocol of warning followed by voluntary and mandatory evacuation orders that would have been followed, and the populace would be, forced to evacuate coastal areas before the lower elements of the evacuation route, would be flooded. The low point of the 1-395 corridor, at 14 ft, is considerably more elevated and protected than the majority of this evacuation route across Biscayne Bay, The functionality and integrity of 1-395 for emergency evacuation is assured to support emergency evacuation within the appropriate timefraine. An _advantage of the elevated roadway design (Alternatives 2 and„3) is Ithat it would ouickly be useful for emergency response vehicles as soon as the highest floodwaters recede. The bridge structures, as well as ramps, are designed to withstand severe storm effects. The existing ramps at Biscayne Boulevard are not part of the evacuation route. Ramps are solid (elevated on Till). The ramp termini match the existing Biscayne Boulevard elevation of approximately 5 ft. No substantial change is proposed at the Biscayne Boulevard ramps. On the, other hand, the two*, depressed (tunnel, open -cut) alternative designs would involve unacceptable floodplain impacts. The open area represents a floodplain encroachment. Both, of these designs would create a,large air -filled subterranean cavity that would displace a considerable storage volume of groundwater. Both, of these designs would require above -ground retaining,walls in the flowiplain. Alternative 4 (tunnel) features one tunnel opening within a flood hazard zone AB (between the shoreline and Biscayne i3oulevarc1) and the opening would be located adjacent to Biscayne Bay, Alternative 5 (open -cut) additionally features an open surfacearea of approximately 15 acres that would be subject to direct input from rainfall. With both designs, to prevent roadway flooding from a 100-year storm event, there is a need to elevate the invert level of the opening 4-62 above the base flood elevation of 11 ft. As noted above, a storm surge of 13 ft to 18 ft is possible with a Category 5 hurricane. The perimeter of the tunnel or open -cut opening would require some form of strong seawall or dike to block storm surge inflow, unless the risk of flooding the facility is considered acceptable. A raised edge around the opening, whether to a height of"+11 'NGVVD or to a height of +13-18 ft NGVD in the area subject to storm surge, would defeat the prime objective of the depressed concepts, which was to place the facility out of sight by placing it underground. Such seawalls would be similar to the existing roadway fill pads, but would have to be more massive in terms of floodplain encroachment and in terms of aesthetics impact. Furthermore, elevating the invert level of the proposed opening would also require raising the two crossroads within the 100-year floodplain, further impactingthe floodplain. The existing ground (curb) elevations at Biscayne Boulevard at Bayshore Drive are 5 ft and 6 ft, respectively. Also,,NE 2nd Avenue, at elevation 8 ft, is within the 500-year floodplain. Thus, both depressed alternative designs would involve multiple floodplain impacts and associated costs to remedy such impacts. Build Alternative 5 (the open -cut) would involve the greatest impact to the floodplain. As 1-395 is a designated emergency evacuation route for a large population; roadway flooding and floodplain issues are very important considerations. For more complete analysis, please refer to the PER, which includes in an appendix the above -referenced SFWMD flood analysis report. In coordination with the District's Drainage Engineer it was determined that the preferred Build Alternative 3 falls into Floodplain Evaluation Category 5, for "project's on existing alignment involving replacement of drainage structures in heavily urbanized floodplains" "Floodplain Evaluation Category 5: Replacement drainage structures for this project are limited to hydraulically equivalent structures: The limitations to the hydraulic equivalency being proposed are basically due to restrictions imposed by the geometrics of design, existing development, cost feasibility, or practicability. An alternative encroachment location is not considered in this eategory since it defeats the project purpose or is economically unfeasible.' Since flooding' conditions in the project area are inherent in the topography or are a result of other outside contributing sources, and there is no practical alternative to totally eradicate flood impacts or even reduce them in any significant' amount, existing flooding will continue,} but not be increased:' The proposed `structure will be hydraulically equivalent to or greater than the existing structure, and backwater surface elevations are not expected. to increase. As a result, the project will not affect existing flood heights or floodplain limits. This project will not result in any new or increased adverse environmental impacts, There will be no significant change in the potential for interruption or termination of emergency service or emergency evacuation routes. Therefore, it has been determined that this encroachment is not significant. It has been determined, through consultation with local, state, and federal water resources and floodplain management agencies that there is no regulatory floodway involvement on the proposed 4-63 project and that the project will not support base floodplain development that is incompatible with existing floodplain management programs." 4.3.12 Coastal Zone Consistency In their Advance Notification (AN) response, the FDEP has determined that this project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Plan. The project was assigned SAI FL200504080708C. This correspondence is described in Chapter 5 and a copy of the letter dated June 7, 2005 is contained in the corresponding Appendix A. 4.3.13 Coastal Barrier Island Resources The Coastal Barrier Resource System of Florida in r1Vflatni-Dade County includes three designated units. One of these, Biscayne Bay, is listed as Unit 3,4P. The 1-395 project corridor is a mainland link in the interstate highway system between I-95 and the coastal City of Miami Beach via the MacArthur Causeway (US-41/ SR-A1A) that crosses Biscayne Bay on a man- made fill island. Miami Beach is not an island, and is not a designated unit of the Coastal Barrier Resource System. No part of Biscayne Bay Unit 34P is affected by the proposed action. Through a review of the coastal harrier resource map for Miami -Dade County, the .proposed action has no involvement with any, coastal barrier island resources. 4.3.14 Wildlife and Habitat This project has been evaluated for impacts on threatened and endangered species. A literature review was conducted to determine the potential presence of threatened or endangered, species which may inhabit the project area and 'any USFWS and/or NMFS designated "Critical Habitat" associated with any of these species. This search resulted in findings that no listed species would be affected by the proposed action. This determination was made 'after review of the project's Ad-vance Notification responses and inspection of the project study area for suitable natural habitat by FDOT District 6 and consultant biologists. In addition, the USFWS and/or NMFS were contacted ,for a list of species, and they concurred that no liisted species are in the project area. The determination was, made that the project will not impact any proposed.threatened.or endangered species, any threatened or endangered species, or affect or modify any critical habitat. A determination of "no effect" has been made, and the project is consistent with the Endangered, Species Act. A letter of concurrence by USFWS dated March 23,,2009 is contained in Appendix A. The Advance Notification (AN) for the project and circulated by the FDOT inelnded one federally listed species that could possibly inhabit or migrate through the subject area. That species was the federally threatened eastern indigo snake (Thyrnarclion cOrafs coufieri). Also, the AN included two species listed by the FWCC, namely the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), state listed as endangered (E), and the southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparveriza paulus), state listed as threatened (T). Note that the peregrine falcon is slated to be de -listed by FWCC in June 2009. The AN response from the USFWS (an email by Jay Slack dated April 21, 2005) stated: "Federally listed species were not identified on your project site." The USFWS further 4-64 recommended that the project study area be reviewed for any suitable ecological communities for listed species, and that any habitat (rest, nest, forage) suitable for migratory bird species be included in the site review (see Biological Assessment results, below). The AN response from the FWCC, as listed in the FDEP State Clearinghouse package, was "no comment", dated April 15, 2005, by Steve Lau. A subsequent conversation confirmed that this response was considered by FWCC to be concurrence. The agency Advance Notification responses and subsequent correspondence are contained in Appendix A: Through the ETDM process, agency responses to project effects on the topic of wildlife impacts were registered by USFWS and, by FWCC. Both rated the topic as Minimal. The USFWS comment referenced the wood stork (Mycteria americana) and the eastern indigo snake. The NMFS also provided an ETDM response, which is more appropriately covered under Essential Fish Habitat, Section 4.3.15 In addition to these ETDM comments on the topic of wildlife a single agency response to project effects on the topic of secondary and cumulative impacts was registered by FWCC as Minimal. Their single concern was the possible cumulative effect of the project on existing wildlife however, the project study area is not known to contain any wildlife population or potentially suitable habitat for wildlife. A Biological Assessment was prepared by FDOT to determine the possible presence of, and potential impacts to, the above listed species, other wildlife, and their critical habitat within the project vicinity, including any habitat suitable for migratory bird species. No listed species, and no other wildlife" or potential wildlife habitat were observed within the project corridor. No wood stork Core Foraging Area (CFA) will be affected. No wetland impacts are anticipated. The only standing water in the study area consists of fenced stormwater retention areas within the Midtown Interchange. These were examined as potential habitat. They lack littoral zones and have no potential as CFA. While one temporary ramp structure will be constructed on uplands near one pond, no impacts to the ponds are anticipated. The FDOT has determined that the project will "not affect" federally -listed species. The response "letter from USFWS, dated March 23, 2009, supported this FDOT determination. The USFWS noted that the project footprint occurs in highly urbanized areas, and the project will not impact wetlands or habitat suitable for federally=listed species. The project's Biological Assessment is on file at District 6 office. A copy is included with other ancillary documents, and on the attached CD. Upon review of the project's Biological Assessment, the USFWS provided FDOT a letter of concurrence dated March 23, 2009 stating that the "proposed action will "not affect" federally listed species. A copy of the concurrence letter is contained' in Appendix A. Regarding the two state listed birds, no peregrine falcons or southeastern American kestrels were observed. State de -listing of the peregrine falcon becomes effective in June 2009 (it was federally de -listed in'1994). Resident southeastern American kestrels and the common migratory American kestrels are both present in Florida during autumn, winter and spring, and cannot easily be distinguished. The resident southeastern American kestrel is slightly smaller (10-15%) but otherwise indistinguishable from the American kestrel. No kestrels were observed in the study area during summer months. Nesting occurs in late spring. Nesting habitat requires old- growth, natural longleaf pine forests with availability of nesting cavities in snags abandoned by woodpeckers. No suitable nesting habitat, and negligible foraging habitat, is present. 4-65 4.3.15 Essential Fish Habitat This project is not located within, and/or will not adversely affect, areas identified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFFI); therefore, an EFH consultation is not required. Certain federally protected species cif the marine environment are managed by the NMFS. The AN responses from the NMFS included letters from both the NMFS Division of Endangered Species and the NMFS Division of Essential Fish Habitat The ETDM responses were very similar to the AN responses. Through the ETDM process, agency responses to project effects on the issue of wildlife and habitat impacts ranged from Minimal (by USFWS and FWCC) to Substantial (by NMFS). The concerns listed by NMFS included several marine species and EFH, based on a misconception that this project included the POM Tunnel. Subsequent coordination with NMFS has also been described under ,Section 4.3.7, Water Quality. The AN response letter from the NMF$ Division of Endangered Species requested Section 7 ESA consultation regarding eight (8) listed species in the marine habitat Also, the Division of Essential Fish Habitat requested an EFH Assessment for project impacts in Biscayne Bay. • Subsequent informal communication, including a site visit by Madeline Martinez conducted in the summer- of 2006, led to a clarification for NMFS of the (terrestrial) project location and limits. The • project's eastern terminus, for construction , was • defined as approximately 350ft inland from the seawall under the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway. Therefore, the proposed action was shown to have no•direct involvement with Biscayne Bay. The NMFS requested a specific description of the existing stormwater management system to determine potential water quality impacts from stormwater runoff., Through engineering investigation, it was subsequently determined that the, existing drainage system in this area serves both 1-395 and the Intersecting surface streets of Miami, and provides no treatment of stormwater before discharging directly into Biscayne Bay through a ,submerged outfall. Thus, thp existing drainage system was found to be sub -standard, based on current water quality standards. • Project implementation will include the construction of a stormwater management system that meets , current • water _quality standards. Thus, the proposed ,improvements will be designed to eliminate the existing watcr. quality impacts to Biscayne Bay, Upon provision of the required stormwater management system, issues of past impacts to EFH, AP and OFW will be resolved The,NMFS requested that the project provide a stormwater management plan that complies with Federal and State water quality ,(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or NPDES) standards. This is a permit requirement, and will be met It will be necessary to separate the drainage systems of the interstate facility and local streets. A detailed description of the 1-395 proposed stormwater management system is contained in the PER, with additional data in the project's Water Quality Impact Evaluation. The Biological Assessment was also reviewed by the NMFS. The NMFS provided FDOT a letter of concurrence. dated April 01, 2009, with a "no, effect" determination (Appendix A). 4-66 L 4.3.16 Farmlands Through coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, it has been determined that the project area which is located in the urbanized area of Miami does not meet the definition of farmland as defined in 7 CFR 658. Therefore; the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1984 do not apply to this project. As the subject project has no involvement with farnilands, no ETDM review comments were registered in regard to farmlands. 4.3.17 Construction Construction of the roadway'rnay require excavation of unsuitable material and use of materials such as litrierock, aSPhaltic concrete, and portland cement concrete. The removal of structures and debris will, be in accordance with local and state regulation: agencies permitting this operation. The contractor 'is responsible for hiS methods of controlling pollution on haul roads, borrow pits, other material pits, and areas used for disposal of materials from the project. Temporary erosion (water quality) control features as specified in Section 104 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition, will consist of measures such as temporary grassing, sodding, mulching; sandbagging, slope drains, sediment basins, sediment checks, artificial coverings; and berths. For the residents living along 1-395, some of the materials stored for the project may be displeasing visually; however, this is a temporary condition and should pose no substantial problem in the short term. Construction activities may generate temporary increases in air pollutant emissions. Such emissions will be controlled in accordance with the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, as directed by the FDOT Project Manager. Installation of the footings for the two large spans near Bayshore Drive and Miami Avenue andthe vertical support columns for the mainline arid ramp lanesthroughout the remainder of the project corridorMay result in noise and/or vibration impacts during censtruCtion. Such impacts may also occur during general construction activities such as equipment operations and soil compaction. • Although Section-335.02 of the Florida —Statutes, eitempts 'FDOT from compliance with local noise and vibration brdinanceS,' it is FDOT's policy tb follow the requirements of local ordinances to the extent that it is reasonable. Noise and vibration impacts from on -site activities and froni-off-site activities such as traffic 'detours; haul routes ' and other off -site operations Will be controlled through in accordance with the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road arid Bridge Construction, as directed by' the FDOT Project Manager'. General specifications include noise 'screening' guidelines for stationary equipment, exhaust noise,' noise from loose equipment parts, and excessive tailgate banging. Also, noisy equipment should only be used when necessary and Should not be operated 'when not being Used. Particularly noisy construction activities should be scheduled during daytime hours. If possible, several noisy operations should be scheduled concurrently to take advantage of the fact that the combined noise levels produced may not be significantly greater than the level produced if the operations were performed separately and the overall duration of the activities will be significantly reduced. Strategies that may be employed during construction to reduce noise and vibration impacts include locating staging areas and storage yards away from noise sensitive areas where possible and screening these areas from 4-67 nearby noise sensitive areas when necessary. Haul road traffic can be routed away from areas with noise sensitive populations to reduce noise impacts associated with truck traffic. The FDOT will conduct coordination prior to and during construction that will address noise issues related to construction and how complaints from the public will be handled. Residences and other noise sensitive areas such as churches and parks along the project corridor are primarily found west of N. Miami Avenue. The Marquis Condominiums and Bicentennial Park are located along Biscayne Boulevard south of 1-395. The AACPA is located north of 1- 395 between NE 2Avenue and Bayshore Drive and will be at least 100 feet from the reconstructed westbound lanes of 1-395. The contractor will be directed to specifically adhere to Section 455-1 of the Standard Specifications regarding measurement and prevention of vibration impacts to existing structures during roadway construction where applicable. Due to its function as a performing arts center,,the AACPA is considered particularly sensitive to construction noise and vibration. Coordination between the FDOT and the appropriate administrators of this facility will occur during the, project design phase and Technical Special Provisions will., be developed for the project's contract package in order to ensure that impacts to this site are minimized. All, of the historic sites are, located at least 250 feet from the project corridor and are considered to be unlikely to be influenced by construction noise or vibration„ No other particularly sensitive sites such as hospitals, imaging centers or eye surgery centers were found along the, project corridor; however, a reassessment of the project corridor for any such sites will be performed during the project's design phase. Access to businesses will be, maintained in a practical manner as dictated by the construction phases. Best Management Practices will be implemented, in all phases in order to satisfy permit requirements and minimize secondary construction irnpacts. The project will include a Traffic Control Plan. The local news media will be, notified in advance of road closings and other activities that could excessively inconvenience , the community so that. persons conducting business in the affected area can plan travel routes in. advance. Signs will be used as appropriate to provide notice of pertinent information to the public. Signs providing the name, address, and telephone of a Department contact person will be displayed on -site to assist the ,public in obtaining immediate answers to questions and logging complaints about project activity. Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) and,sequence of construction will be planned and scheduled so as to minimize traffic delays throughout- the project A preliminary MOT Plan has been. developed , in seven phases for the preferred guild Alternative 3,:and is illustrated with plan views and cross sections in, the following seven. figures (figures 4-15 through 4-21). A more complete description of the MOT is contained,withip Section 9 of the PER. In summary, the first action will be the , construction of the new westbound roadway/bridge to the north of the existing facility. This portion of the new roadway can be constructed with a minimum of disruption to traffic (express and local), and will include new ramps to 1-95. This first action will be followed by construction of the westbound mainline link to SR-816, thenthe eastbound roadway in place of the existing facility, in several stages. The MOT includes several ,temporary detours on short roadway segments elevated on temporary structures. 4-68 LL� Florida Department off' nation WASE t' 1. CONSTRUCFHESytheio NVEMPORARf o£FOURfitl.ovaii#ntratttt, m TRAUROASSS. 2 CONSTRUCTNEW7*MAkNUNE$0000N.E4ITOFtaisARAVEANONEW046443. CONNECTOR 70 JUST EAST OF NSY3 AVE. E, AMR COMPLET30N OF NSTERPORARY DETOUR ROAD /SEE1REMOVE ArscING IONS€BSRAMPA3ffiCOMPLETECONS/MT=DERMAS VA3.:.. ‘CCNNECAONILICtuDCNGtetiviSIO03t9SFLYOVERRAMR... E. DETOUR IESBOUNDIRISTFICt9Xf7EY+R.YcousTRuCZEawaI�fi COWECTOR RE3MOYE'iBSFORz+T404,07ONB 145 DETOUR RD. ALTERNATIVE :.3w.. A NTENANCE OF TRAFFIC- PHASE 1) FIGURE NO. N0:$tucty sterkiter-:•., • COOSIP*90 ** *** ;tempos • PHASE 11 1. MAINTAINYSTRAITIC BO= FORI.BEAS @REMUS PHASE. 2. CONSTRUCTTEMPCRAWCEMIARGAWRG3ANEWWG195COMECTOR TO Va3SREOSIMMIN THENRYIUM INTERCHANGE. DErouR Imams mweicsaisevatmen 1,1k rimy mamma WS CONNECTORSECTIONPREVICUSLYCONPLETEDZN PHASEI. COMPLEtETHEREETWINE PIWPOSE0 Vat SECHONFRON N. mum ANs TOTHENDTCHMINTERCHANGE. 5. MAINTAINES TRAFFIC-1%MS. ALTERNATIVE„ 3 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC- PHASE 1 SECTINli` • FIGURE NO 4--16 vvartment of Transpo 1 , I ' L Flo t3epattment of Tr sporiatioat PRASEUI 1.,MAJNIM IS TRAFFIC AS IN PREVIOUS PHASE. 2 COHSTAUCTT'EiFORMY DENIM ROADPRUN EsiaSSTO REPASS Ma JUST VEST OFHVISAVE JDATEYFORARRCDNNECTIOUFROMTHE IEYPLY CONSTRUCTEO IkIIINLINS.SECTION TO Ii-EilOSUNGINS STRUCTURE IIO NE VIC�TYOFFLMIAHIAYE ...:.... S. DEFOIJA EB BROS TRAFFIC W lhEHEALY CONSTRUCTED-OEiWR FACERtES SCACTtTPORTIONOFNEWSMAINLINE FACILNYFROMJUSTWESFOFNN 3 AVETOJUSTWEST# NE 1 AYE. 5. MAMMY 14K Es WPM As IS. ALTERNATIVE (MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC- PHASE III) FIGURE NO. PHASE Pt Y, MAINiRIM1'r nIAFFlCAS#PR£V€OUSPHASE. 2 WAINTAEFESSR836312AFF(C AMPRENIXISPHASE: 3. PROVIDETEMPORARYCONNEC'TION FROHPAR IAA EalMENL NESECTION INEVI tPREVFOti$PHASET4EXISTU(CEBMEIltriNURN.INAM1AVE. f. DE rotaI-46 Ea TRAFFIC VI/ENEMY CONSTRUCTED ON MENEM PHABEI EBFACi SNIENDIVEWEEYOOREC tONSTINICTINERBELVNDENCIFTHENEWWESE&LONNKTERSECININ MON .ASTEASTOFNW3AVETON.M AM1AVE. ALTERNATIVE 3 (MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC- PHASE IV) apartment of Transportation 6 • t.390pg*Aidy 09 A it Florida Department of Transportation fr. Iira ria PHASE V amarramsTRAFF£CASPERMENEW mum mot 2. efamemtemayeemeeroN. Featustewirtotemscleo ISSOMISTY (DISWidiniAWMOEXISMN6 STRUCTURE JUST EASTOMMANAVE S. DETOUR MMUS= InkfARTIALLY-CONSTRUCTE0 EIMCIUTY _ {WRNS PHASES 3 MID4]AriaTEITORARY CONNUTIMSEE 2 4. AMP. CONSTRUCTMOST OF MAROC NEWEB MAINLINE SECTION Mat N. NANA*, TO aVISHtMOR. ALTERNATIVE (MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC- PHASE V) 145,01".)&E-Study • PHASE VI I. f&AINTAKWITRAFFICASPERTHENEW MAE DESIGN. 311154=1513SR-3363115.17/CASPERME NEWFWUREZIESKIN. 3. DETOUR Ea TRAFFIC COMING FROM SBitirsANEWEBFACIUTY PREVIOUSLYBUITOURINSPHASE3.CONSTRUCTREMAININGKET1ON OF THE NEWS1315510 831333C.31,3C-CVON, DEEOUREB1RAFR3033351G5ROTANavisurasouTHERNmosi TRORCtANEPREVIOUSLY813LTDISWIGNIASE4. 5. CONSMICTIREMMONGS3MINUNEPORTIONSEASUW SISCAYMBLVD. SECIVH"P ALTERNAT VE 3 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC- PHASE VI) stvaltm t of Trans Dilation 1-395 POSE Study PHASE VII t REWSVEMTEUPVIARYMOURIMil4t1MTOVACUTERCRANSE. 2 COMPLETE IIISCELLANEOUSDEMS AND °PENA/MUM LAIIES %MOUT RESTRiCTIONWEIITHE NEW FUTME DESIGN. ALTERNATIVE 3 (MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC- PHASE VII) i Florida Depattment of Transportation 4.4 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS , The assessment area for indirect and cumulative effects Oct) encompasses the "service area" of the project corridor, which,includes destinations well beyond the project limits. In this case, the City of Miami Beach forms the easternmost limit of destinations, and the prime destination of most I-395 trips, along with the bay islands- Another destination rif,traffic (cargo trucks) that travel on.the I-395 project corridor is the POM. The City of Miami neighborhoods of Overtown and Edgewater surround the 'corridor. To the .vest are the Civic_oCenter, Medical Center, MIA, numerous residential:communities arid warehouse districts. Thelinked interstate highways (1-95 and SR436) are also elements of the 1-395 "servicearea". Indirect (or secondary) effects are defined by FDOT as reasonably 'foreseeable effects that occur asa,reSult of an action, but occur later in ,00i6,0iky tqw,*01.frorn the action location. Indirect effectsinclude temporary (short-term) 00,00parieht(10iagLterm) effects. . • ; According to the defmition in the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 .CFR 1508.7), "'cumulative impact is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past; present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency • (federal'or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions." The subject project is consistentwith the goals Oct.:policies of; the Miami -Dade County Comprehensive Developthent Master Plan (cD,Mp) andr has been programmed in the Gubernatorially-approved,' 2008 Miami -Dade County ..MPQ's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long Range Transportationc.-,lan(1.4ty), as defined in Section 1.3. Therefore this action has the requisite governmental authority as required for federal actions. The possible short-term indirect ,effects to land resOurceS:, adjacent to any project corridor include: construction activities associated:With the use of heavy equipment, and sedimentation resulting from increased erosion associated with soil disturbance. All Best Management Practices (I3MPs) typically associated with road construction proleCts' will he properly implemented and maintained throughout all construction activities; 'Construction activities will be designed to minimize impacts to. adjacent lands while allowing construction to occur as well as to maintain traffic flow. Silt 'fences/curtains 'will be used,.as :tleedeclto contain, turbidity Or: sediments • generated by any soil distufbance.;'The urban nature of thisproject cOrridorniiniiniies this class of irnpacts. With. any project, the Possible long-term indirect effectsto adjacent lands include: interruption of surface water flow (flooding), alteratibus to vegetative communities outside ofthe final roadway footprint, and effects to -vvildlife in the vicinity of the corridor. None of these impacts -apply to this urban project. However, it should be noted that currently, there is no treatment of stormwater runoff in the portion of ;the 1-395 corridor, east ,of the Midtown Interchane. A Single outfall of untreated stormwater serves both the expressway and,the local City of Miami surface streets. The existing condition is sub -standard. Project implementation will include ,construction . of a stormwater treatment system 'in accordance With SFSVM1i1 standards. ,This will result in a significant improvement in water quality -and' provide a benefit to Biscayne Bay, 4-76 The proposed action, with the long and high bridge across the City of Miami and increased lanes for the POM Tunnel, is likely to be attractive and induce an increase in tourist traffic across MacArthur Causeway, to and from the City of Miami Beach. This may have an indirect result of a minor increase in traffic volume on Miami Beach roadways. However, no natural resources are anticipated to be affected, directly or indirectly. The I-395 project corridor extends from just west of the Midtown Interchange (SR-836/I-95/I- 395) to the MacArthur Causeway Bridge(s). The Midtown Interchange serves as a major hub for traffic to the Port, downtown, Miamil3each and the MIA. The POM Tunnel project limits extend from the eastern project limit of the I-395 project, which is the western terminus of the MacArthur Causeway Bridges, east to Watson lsland across the 'main channel of the Miami Harbor, and terminate on Dodge Island. Although the 1-395 project has independent utility from the POM Tunnel project, it does provide a network link for Port traffic traveling to arid from I-95 and SR-836 via 1-395 and the 1-395 interchanges at NE 2"l Avenue/NE 1st Avenue and at Biscayne Boulevard. 1-395 also serves as a link from SR-836 and 1-95 to the south Miami Beach area via the MacArthur Causeway. The 1.395 project is not dependent upon implenientation of the POM Tunnel project, i.e., the proposed improvements to`I-395 will benefit the region whether or not the tunnel is built, and the POM Tunnel can function whether or not improvements are made to 1-395. With implementation of the 1-395 project, the resulting improvements to safety, capacity and connectivity will benefit the current users of the MacArthur Causeway, as well as Port of Miami traffic, but these improvements are not essential to the POM Tunnel. Essentially, whether the Port -bound trucks on 1-395 use the proposed Miami Avenue ramps and existing Biscayne Boulevard ramps, or continue across the MacArthur Causeway Bridges, the 1-395 corridor is being proposed for improvements to accommodate the safety, capacity and connectivity needs of the region, including the POM, with or without the proposed tunnel project. Another important project is the PD&E project to the west of the 1-395 corridor, a major reconstruction of the SR-836 corridor (Figure 1-3, Freeway Analysis). In the early 1990's, when both SR-836 and 1-395 were FDOT roadways, the FDOT began a project that included reconstruction of both roadways. For various reasons, that project was halted before completion `of the PD&E Phase. Subsequently, SR-836 ownership' was transferred to the Miami -Dade Expressway Authority (MDX). Recently, the SR-836 corridor study has been' re -initiated as an MDX-FDOT Joint Partnership Agreement. The SR-836 project corridor extends from the NW 17th Avenue Interchange to the Midtown Interchange (west side). A key component of this project is to provide'Connector-Distributotroadways between the Civic/Medical Center with the I=95 corridor (Figure 1-3, Freeway Analysis). While`' the proposed actions for SR-836 are complementary to the 1-395 proposed action, both projects have their independent utility and their own logical termini. Cumulative impacts from actions other than roadway actions may include community development and urban infrastructure development projects, such as the recently completed AACPA. Also, cumulative impacts may :`include the recently formulated City of Miami Megaplan that includes a proposed art museum project in Bicentennial Park, a sports stadium, and major redevelopment all around the 1-395 study area (Omni, Watson Island, POM, etc.). 4-77 4.5 CONCLUSIONS, The socio-economic, cultural, natural and physical resources within the study area have been documented and reviewed for both the negative effects (impacts) and positive effects (benefits) of the preferred Build Alternative 3, with comparative references to the No -Build Alternative and the other three Build Alternatives. The need for the action is provided in Section 1. Section 2 outlines the step-by-step reasoning underlying the process that resulted in a preference for Build Alternative 3 and the elimination of Alternatives 2, 4 and 5. Alternative 2 had a fatal flaw related to ramps at NW 14th Street, within the Midtown Interchange., Alternative 4 (Open -Cut) and Alternative 5 (Tunnel) lboth featured subterranean designs that were both cost -prohibitive and contained fatal flaws intrinsic in the below -grade concepts (flooding, contamination, etc.). The adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed action include: Relocations/Displacements: All of the Build Alternatives analyzed would require approximately 12 or more acres of R/W to construct a new:expressway within ,the selected corridor (along the north side of the existing alignment), while maintaining traffic on 1-395. Most of the needed R/W was acquired or designated for, acquisition by FDOT ,through corridor preservation actions completed in 2004 and in 2006 The corridor preservation action included the area common to all four alternatives, or approximately, 11 of the 12 acres needed. Fortunately, this required minimal displacements (ten dwellings, five businesses),, due- to the largo number of vacant or unused properties in the corridor. The particular R/W needs of Alternative 3 related to the four ramps of the N Miami Avenue Interchange, and required, approximately one (1) acre of R/N along four blocks. In comparison, the three other build alternatives each involved more R/W and considerably more displacements in Overtown. Contamination Sites:- Six sites were rated as High ,Risk and two sites were rated as,Medium Risk to the project Two High Risksites are currently being subjected to Level 2 evaluations, Other sites are currently in the 'monitoring only' phase of remecliation. It is anticipated that the risk to the project from most of these eight sites can be further reduced prior to commencement of the construction. phase. However, the likelihood of contamination impacts to, constrnetion will remain, high in the eastern area where deep excavation is needed with any build alternative. Also, brownfields are present in the study area. • Local Traffic: A major benefit of the straight-line, design is the ability to construct much of the elevated westbound roadway with only minor interruption of traffic on the existing expressway facility, and with minimal impact on local traffic patterns at, street level. Construction of the western portion Of the facility entails more phased actions and more short-term interruptions of local traffic patterns. The proposed detours for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles in the Overtown (western) portion,,of the project corridor. (four, phases of MOT) are described and illustrated in Section 4.3.1, while the seven phases of the project MOT plan are described and illustrated in Section 4.3.17. Unavoidable detours and delays will be kept to a minimum. 4-78 Cultural Resources: Five NRHP-listed/eligible historic resources (structures) are present St. John's Baptist Church is located 320 ft south of 1-395, where the expressway will be raised slightly (4 ft), It was determined by FHWA that this elevation shift did not constitute an adverse effect to the church. Fire Station No. 2 remains vacant, replaced in 1973 by new station five blocks to the north. The old station is 480 ft north of the construction limits. The Sears Tower has been incorporated into the AACPA as a ticket window and administrative offices at the northwest corner of Biscayne Boulevard, between the two concert halls: The • Sears Tower`vvill be 200 ft north of the new I-395. Rio` Mar Apartments and Citizens Bank are both located on N Miami Avenue, south of the fire station. The new westbound lanes of I-395 will be 270 ft closer to these structures. It was determined by FHWA' that this northward shift did not constitute an adverse effect on any of the properties. In a letter dated June 16, 2008, the FHWA determined that the project did not constitute an adverse effect on these Section 106 resources, and in a letter dated August 8, 2008, the SHPO concurred (Appendix A, Other Project Correspondence). Noise7Vibration: Based on TNM analysis of 335 noise sensitive receiver locations, the existing noise levels range from 53.7 to 73.1 dBA, and the noise levels with Alternative 3 in the design year are predicted to range from 55.3 to 74.8 dBA. With Alternative 3 in the design year, noise levels are predicted to range from 54.3 to 71.9 dBA. Of the 335 noise sensitive receivers modeled, 132 sites are predicted to be impacted by traffic noise with project implementation. Almost all of these sites are currently experiencing noise levels exceeding FDOT's NAAC and would continue to do so under the Design Year No -Build scenario. The worst -case Build Alternative noise levels are predicted to be no more than 1.2 dBA greater than those of the No - Build Alternative. None of the normal solutions to mitigate noise impacts appear to be applicable to this project. Beneficial environmental consequences potentially associated with the preferred Alternative 3, and compared with other Build Alternatives, include the following: Environmental Justice: Alternative 3 involves considerably less direct impacts to Overtown than any of the other three Build Alternatives. Residential displacements are limited to ten apartment units in Overtown. Commercial displacements are few (five) and replacement commercial space is readily available. The preferred design is the result of considerable coordination with the Overtown community in the planning process during four years in the PD&E Phase. Community and Economic Redevelopment: The preferred design has the support .of the community and has the potential for improved utilization of the covered space under the higher elevated expressway structures. The potential is great for aesthetic improvements at street level in relation to the two large spans in the eastern half of the project corridor. - Water Quality: Improved stormwater treatment will be an intrinsic element of any proposed roadway improvement. Air Quality: No impact to air quality is anticipated with implementation of Alternative 3. The resultant improvement in Level of Service (LOS) is anticipated to minimize stationary queues of vehicles, which form the main source of emissions. The project alternative may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and 4-79 duration of exposures, are uncertain, and because of thisuncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be: estimated. Transportation Mobility: The addition of ramps at N Miami Avenue requires the blockage of NW ;Miami Court., In balance, thie, existing blockage by 1-395;.. of NE Miami Court ; can be eliminated and, the,, existing partial blockage, of NE 2"a,Avenue on the north side of NE 14th Street in Overtown can also be, eliminated. Both NE Miami Court ;and NW Miami Court are located outside (east) of Overtown. Itis anticipated that, new opportunities will be foundto use the street - level space along:I-395, .after ,the higher And . more open overpasses are . constructed. These features should contribute to: a safer urban environment. . Safety: The four,;new ramps of the N. Miami Avenue Interchange represent a major safety improvement over..the ramps they replace:; On the I-395, mainline, ,allof the existing left-hand ramps and drop lanes will be eliminated, and more through lanes will be provided. Weaving will be. reduced. These features will contribute to, a safer roadway system. 4-80 5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 5.1 INTRODUCTION A Public Involvement Program (PIP) has 'been developed and is being carried out as an integral part of the project. The purposeof this program isto establish and maintain communication with the public at -large and individuals and agencies concerned with the project and its potential impacts. To ensure open communication' and agency and -public input, the Department has provided early in the project process an Advance Notification (AN) package to 79 federal, state and local agencies and other interestedparties defining the project and, in cursory terms, describing anticipated issues and impacts.' In addition, in .order to expedite the project development processes, eliminate unnecessary work, and provide a substantial issue identification / problem solving effort, the Department has carried out the scoping process as required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Guidelines. Finally, in an effort to resolve all issues identified, the Department has conducted` an extensive interagency coordination and consultation effort;- and public participation process. This section of the document details the 'Department's 'program to fully identify, address, and resolve all project -related issues identified through the PIP: This project was initiated in accordance with the PD&E Manual. Meanwhile," the Department developed the Efficient Transportation Decision Making process, or 'ETDM, a collaboration of 23 federal and state agencies With °a' cornmitment to improve early coordination in the transportation planning process. This major `change -over to ETDM has been phased in by the Department, and was incorporated into the project on December 6; 2006, 20 months after project initiation.` The subject project is one of many conducted during the transition, and has been developed in accordance with this' process. This project was screened through the ETDM' Programming Screen on September 27, 2007 as ETDM #7701 in aceordance with SAFETEA-LU. The ETDM`Summary Report is in"eluded in Appendix C. The project website (http://www.1395miaini.corri).-reditects the user to the ETDM public access website. 5.2 ADVANCE NOTIFICATION' The Department, through the Advance Notification (AN) process, informed` federal, state, autonomous regional and local agencies and other interested parties of the existence of this project and its scope. The Department initiated early project coordination` on April 06, 2005, by distribution of an AN package to the Florida State Clearinghouse (SCH) in the Florida Department of Environmental' Protection. The SCH response` package' of state agency responses was dated June 7, 2005, and summarized responses of six state agencies, including' determination of consistency with the'' Florida 'Coastal 'Management Program (FCMP) and objectives of the Department of State's Bureau of Historic Preservation and Office of Environmental Policy. Individual AN packages were also sent directly by the District Six office to 74 federal, state, autonomous regional and local agencies and other interested parties. The following agencies / parties received AN packages. An asterisk (*) indicates those agencies that responded; either through the SCH 5-1 or directly to the Department's District Six office, and the date of the, response letter is also provided following the asterisk. Federal Highway Administration - Division Administrator Federal, Aviation Administration Airports District Office. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Natural Hazards Branch, Chief Federal Emergency Management Agency - Region IV, Mitigation Division, Chief Federal Railroad Administration — Region III Office, . Office of Economic Analysis, Director . ;US. Army Corps of Engineers ...Regulatory Branch, District Engineer, Jacksonville U.S:;Army Corps of Engineers -Regulatory Branch, District Engineer, Miami U.S. Coast. Guard Seventh District - Commander (oan) *04/20/05 Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation . Division,; Southeast Regional Office, Area Supervisor, Panama City *05/00/05 US. Department of Commerce - National Marine, Fisheries Service, Habitat . Conservation Division, Miami Branch. Office *05/06/05 U.S.. Department of. Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ecology & Conservation Office, Director U.S.: Department o f Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .. U S Department of Housing and Urban .Development - Regional Environmental Officer U.S. Department of Interior :- Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Responsibilities, Environmental Services Staff, Chief ; U.S. Department of Interior - Bureau . of Land Management, Eastern States Office, Director U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Field Supervisor *04/21/05 U.S. Department of Interior - National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office U.S. Department of Interior U.S Geological Survey, Environmental Affairs Program, Chief program, .,.. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection- Agency - Region IV, Groundwater Technology ,and Management Section U. S.. Senate Hon. Senator Mel Martinez U,;S. Senate Hon.. Senator Bill Neison U. S. House ofRepresentatives, District 17 Hon. Kendrick Meek. U, S,,House, of Representatives, District 18 - Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Florida House of, Representatives District 100 - Hon. Dorothy. Bendross-Mindingall. Florida Senate,, District 35 - Hon.. Gwen Margolis Florida Department of Community. , Affairs - Division of Resource Planning and Management, Director Florida Department of Community Affairs -:Division of Growth Management, Director Florida Department of Environmental Protection - Southeast District Office, Director *05/25/05: Florida Fish. and Wildlife Conservation Commission South Region, Director *04/15/05 5-2 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - Office of Environmental Services, Director Florida Department of Transportation - Central Environmental Management Office, Manager Florida Department of Transportation - District VI, Planning and Programs, Director Florida Department of Transportation - District VI, Planning and Programs, Planning Manager Florida Department of Transportation - Federal Aid Programs, Federal Aid Manager South Florida Water Management District, Executive Director * (referenced within SCH response dated 06/07/05)(7-8-05 placed call to Sylvia Cohen for letter, not received) South Florida Regional Planning Council, Executive Director *05/06/05 Miami -Dade County Aviation Department, Airport Engineer Miami -Dade County Community and Economic Development Department, Director Miami -Dade County Community and Economic Development Department, Historic Preservation Division Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, Director Miami -Dade County Expressway Authority, Executive Director Miami -Dade County Fire and Rescue, Director Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization, Director Miami -Dade County Office of Emergency Management, Director *04/12/05 Miami -Dade County Office of Public Transportation Management, Executive Director Miami -Dade County Citizens Independent Transportation Trust, Director Miami -Dade County Parks and Reoreation Department, Director • Miami -Dade County Planning and Zoning Department, Director * 08/02/05 Miami -Dade County Police Department, Director Miami -Dade County Public Schools, Chief Business Officer Miami -Dade County Public Works Department, Director Miami -Dade County Transit Agency, Director Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department, Director Miami -Dade County, Office of the Mayor - Hon: Carlos A. Alvarez Miami -Dade County Manager - George M. Burgess Miami -Dade County Commission, District 3 - Hon. Barbara Carey -Schuler CityofMiami, Offiee'of the Mayor Hon. Manuel A. Diaz City of Miami, City Manager's Office — City Manager Joe Arriola City of Miarni; Commissioner = Hon. Johnny L Winton City of Miami, Fire Rescue, Fire Chief City of Miami, Historic Preservation, Preservation Officer City of Miami, Commtmity Development, Director City of Miami, Economic Development, Director City of Miami, Parking Authority, Director City of Miami, Parks & Recreation Department, Interim Director City of Miami, Public Works Department, Director City of Miami, Police Department, Chief of Police Neighborhood Enhancement Team (I\1.E.T.), Downtown / Brickell Office Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), Chair Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Director 5-3 Performing Arts Center Foundation of Greater Miami, Executive Director Stated below are the pertinent comments from the agencies which responded to the Advance Notification. The letters of these agencies are contained in Appendix A. 1.) U.S. Coast Guard - Seventh District - Commander (oan) (AN response letter dated April 20, 2005) COMMENT: Based on the project description, no navigable waterway crossings are involved. "If the project is federally funded, no USCG permit would be required, regardless." If no federal funding is involved, and a navigable waterway crossing is involved, then a USCG permit would be required. Permit applications are available on-line, and a contact was provided., RESPONSE: No navigable waterway crossings are involved. The project ties, into the West Channel Bridges of the MacAtthur Causeway (fixed, 56 ft vertical clearance). The project's eastern terminus is on land. 2.) U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries , Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Southeast Regional Office, Area Supervisor, Panama City (AN response letter dated May 6, 2005) COMMENT: Federally listed species under NMFS jurisdiction may occur within: the proposed project area (Biscayne Bay). Six sea turtle species, one fish and one seagrass (with Critical Habitat) were listed. Concern was expressed that untreated stormwater runoff into Biscayne Bay may occur, impacting the marine environment. Coordination on the proposed stormwater management system will be required, The NMFS may require a biological assessment /, evaluation (BA/BE) including an effects analysis and final effects determinations on listed species. Ms. Madelyn T. Martinez is the assigned consulting biologist for both endangered species assessment (ESA) and EFH. RESPONSE: The project is located over urbanized uplands, not over marine ,fiabitat. The existing elevated expressway is proposed to ,be replaced in essentially the same location, and the proposed stormwater management system will he designed to meet or exceed federal, state and local standards , of water quality. This represents an improvement over the existing design. An on -site meeting was held (FDOT-NMFS) to clarify the project scope and location, and to resolve prior agency concerns for endangered species and seagrass Critical Habitat. 3.) U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Miami Branch Office (AN response letter dated May 6, 2005) COMMENT: Concern was expressed that untreated stormwater runoff may flow into areas of Biscayne Bay that are designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) as Essential Fish Habitat, (EFH) and a habitat area of particular 5-4 concern (HAPC), impacting the marine environment. NMFS requests for review a stormwater management plan that meets NPDES standards and an EFH assessment. Ms. Madelyn T. Martinez was the assigned consulting biologist for both ESA and EFJ'I at that time (later replaced by Mr. Brandon Howard). RESPONSE: The project is located •over urbanized uplands, not over marine habitat. The existing elevated expressway is proposed to be replaced in essentially the same location, and the proposed stormwater management system will be designed to 'meet or exceed federal, state and local standards of water quality.' This represents an improvement over the existing design. An on -site meeting was held (FDOT-NMFS) to clarify the project scope and location, and to resolve prior agency concerns for EFH and HAPC. • 4.) U.S. Department Of Interior — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Field Supervisor (AN response letter dated April 21, 2005) • COMMENT: Based On a review of the USFWS GIS database, federally listed species were not identified on the subject project site. Computer links to lists (by county) of endangered and threatened species, and to lists of migratory birds were provided. For questions, contactMr. John Wrublik at 772-562-3909i extension 282. As no state - listed species were listed in the AN, contact with the Florida FWCC (at 772-778- 5094) was recommended by IJSFWS. RESPONSE: Based on agency coordination and other sources, the FDOT determined that it was not appropriate to include the eastern indigo Snake, or any other federally protected species, as potentially inhabiting or passing through the project corridor study area. In this case, agency coordination included the related 1-395 Advance Parcel Acquisition (AR/WA), with letters dated May 14, 2004 and June 3, 2004 (USFWS Service Log No.: 4- f-04-TA-7544). Also, see BA concurrence letter dated March 23, 2009 from USFWS in Appendix A. As described in Section434' 'coordination with the FWCC confirmed that it was not necessary to include either 'the two state -protected birds as being potentially affected by the proposed aCtion. The peregrine falcon was subsequently delisted,, y•f t I 5.) Florida Department ofEnvironniental Protection — Office of Intergovernmental Pioy:ains, Florida State Clearinghouse, Director (Cover letter dated June 7,2005) and, 6.) Florida Department of Environmental Protection Southeast District Office, Director (AN response memorandum dated May 25, 2005) COMMENT 1 The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Office of Intergovernmental Programs determined the project to be consistent with the • Florida Coastal Zone Management Plan and the local comprehensive plan. This office further noted that their earlier comments provided on July 9, 2004 for the 1-395 Advance Parcel Acquisition (SAI# FL200405186252C) would also apply to this project. 5-5 RESPONSE: The FDEP, .Office of Intergovernmental Programs, has reiterated that the project was consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Plan and the local comprehensive plan.. Concern for potentially contaminated materials was noted, and the old petroleum tank farm (Belcher Oil Company) was specifically referenced. This letter was dated; July 12, 2004 and contained . all the State Clearinghouse interagency correspondence„ The tank farm was,, evaluated as. part of the Contamination Screening Evaluation Report for that project, and is again evaluated for the subject project. COMMENT 2: "Tunnel construction would require extensive permitting that should be evaluated by the appropriate DEP section," The project corridor traverses a designated"Brownfields" area. Contacts were provided for FDEP and Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DER y1) Brownfields Coordinators and two Brownfields websites were listed. RESPONSE: Contamination.: concerns related to.. the two depressed alternatives (tunnel, open cut) were . factored into the fatal , flaw, .analysis; that resulted in the decision to terminate further evaluation of these two design concepts. The risks associated: with elevated concepts, including the one remaining, concept under considerations are far less than with, depressed, or tunnel, concepts. Foundations for the east end of the paired spans would be located near North Bayshore Drive in a Brownfields area. The existing ramps of the Biscayne Boulevard Interchange would :remain_ essentially unchanged, and .the mainline roadways between these ramps would ',nearly match the ,existing, horizontal and vertical alignments, limiting potential involvement with the forrnerBelcher Oil Company site, ., COMMENT 3: A Contamination Screening, Evaluation Report, (CSER). will be performed. Reference was made to Section 120, ;Subarticle 120 -1 2,of the SSRBC. Copies of the CSER. should be . supplied to the<;DEP, SE Region, Waste Cleanup Section "In addition please be advised:; that records shqw that the Belcher Oil Company operated a petroleum -bulk terminal.. facility from .1920 until 1967 at the southeast corner of the MacArthur Causeway land Biscayne Boulevard apparently where much of 1-395 and its ramps exist today. (see attachment). Therefore, special coordination needs:.: to_ occur- between:. the..Miamt-Dade County Department .: of Environmental Resources Management and the FDOT to address the :contamination issues, ". RESPONSE: A CSER was, prepared in .conjunction with the related I-395 Advance Parcel Acquisition (Categorical Exclusion Type 2) and subsequently updated in relation to the. Reevaluation of that Advance Parcel Acquisition. As stated in the response to comment 2, the existing rampsof the Biscayne Boulevard Interchange would,remain essentially unchanged,; and the mainline roadways between theseramps would nearly match the existing horizontal._ and vertical, alignments, limiting potential involvement with the former Belcher Oil Company site. However, the foundations for the east end of the paired spans would be located near North Bayshore Drive in a 5-6 location included within the former Belcher Oil Company site: The risks of involvement with contamination 'issues `have been fully evaluated, and have affected the alternatives selection process. The FDOT will coordinate closely with FDEP and DERM on contamination issues through the design and construction phases of the project. COMMENT 4: The CSER should outline specific procedures should any form of contamination be encountered during construction, The CSER should place emphasis on research into historic land uses, including areas designated for storrnwater management. RESPONSE: These objectives ' have been developed. The FDOT` has specific procedures should any form of contamination` be encountered during construction, and has the mechanisms in place to mobilize .emergency and remedial response actions. COMMENT 5: Notification of DERM and FDEP is required in the event any contamination is detected. Several revised rules and one new rule all took effect on April 17, 2005 that affect assessment, cleanup and notification. These rules were listed. RESPONSE: The FDOT has updated standard operating ' procedures for contamination to be in full compliance with the latest edition of rules, and has established lines of communication to maintain this concurrency. COMMENT 6: Procedures regarding groundwater monitoring wells were listed. RESPONSE: The FDOT will utilize the most updated set of procedures regarding groundwater monitoring wells in effect at such time that these are used in connection with the subject project. COMMENT 7: Dewatering should be avoided in contaminated areas. Anydewatering activities require permits/approval from South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Water Use Section and coordination with DERM. RESPONSE: As described above, it is anticipated that bridge support 'structures for the paired spans will be placed in areas with known contamination, including the former Belcher Oil Company site. Based on conceptual renderings, the length of each of the two large spans 'will exceed 2,000 feet, and each span will involve two main points of support. Both bridges will require deep foundations and will likely involve dewatering in areas with some history of contamination. The remainder of the mainline structures (west of the large spans) will be supported on multiple vertical columns, also potentially involving dewatering The FDOT will coordinate closely with FDEP and DERM for permitting on any dewatering activities through the design and construction phases of the project. 5-7 COMMENT 8: Any construction debris must be characterized (as hazardous or non- hazardqus),for disposal, and handled' 62-730 or 62- 701, FA,C.. RESPONSE: The FDOT's contractor will be obligated to comply with all applicable laws, rules and guidelines established to manage both hazardous or non -hazardous construction debris.,: COMMENT 9:,Staging areas should be planned for safety., Contingency Plans should be formulated in the event of a natural disaster or hazardous incident. RESPONSE: The,project corridor is the hurricane evacuation route for the southern half of Miami .Beach. In light of this condition„ a maintenance of traffic plan in five phases has been developed, and will be further refined during the design phase, to assure safe emergency evacuation. In this coastal area, full consideration of risks from storm events and natural causes include contingency plans. The results of analysis have limited viable build alternatives to an elevated design that is likely to require less staging area and less need for contingency plans than the depressed designs that were dropped., 7.) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) — South Region, Director (AN response letter dated April..15, 2005), COMMENT: No comment (Steve Lau) RESPONSE: It, was stated by the; agencyrepresentative that the issuance .of.,a "no comment" response by this agency signifies that no additional written correspondence will be. forthcoming, as the.. action was _deemed to havee no.involvement withspecies of concern to this agency. Follow-up coordination included discussion related to the issue of potential need to include certain birds, such as the kestrel, that occasionally can be found in urban habitats. This coordination was not project -specific, but covered several urban,,corridors,including expressways. 8.) South Florida Water. Management District, Executive Director (AN response letter not received, but the salient comments were referenced within SCH i response dated June 7; 2005) (CES placed a call to, Sylvia Cohen for a copy- of the actual letter on 7-8-05). COMMENT: The project will require an Environmental Resources Permit (ERP). In addition, a Water Use Permit may be required for dewatering activities pursuant to Rule 40E-20, F.A.C. RESPONSE: See response to FDEP Comment 7, above, regarding dewatering: 9.) South Florida Regional Planning Council, Executive Director (AN response letter dated May 6, 2005) 5-8 COMMENT: The project should be consistent with the gdals and policies of the Miami and the Miami -Dade County comprehensive plan and their corresponding land development regulations. Staff recommends that impacts to natural systems be minimized; the extent of sensitive wildlife and vegetative communities be determined; and protection and/or mitigation of disturbed habitat be required. RESPONSE: Upon review of the project description of the AN, the project was found by FDEP, Office of Intergovernmental Programs, (State ` Clearinghouse) to be consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Plan and the local comprehensive plan. Final determination of this consistency will be made during the permitting process (in design phase). 10.)Miami-Dade County Department of Planning & Zoning, Director Diane O'Quinn Williams (AN response [County Clearinghouse] letter dated August 2, 2005) COMMENT 1: This Department (P&Z) acted as the clearinghouse for county agencies, and summarized all county agency concerns related to this project. The County MPO's Adopted 2005 and 2015 Land Use Plan and CDMP show the subject roadway as an eight -lane facility and as a State Principal Arterial located within an urban infill area. Future land uses include three: Residential (high density of 50-123 dwelling units per gross acre), Business and Office, and Industrial and Office. Conceptual project ` design must consider aesthetically pleasing pedestrian and vehicular corridors beneath the expressway, to enhance public usage around the AACPA and Bicentennial Park. Objectives of the CDMP include connectivity at street level, and safe, efficient management of traffic flow. The project was found to be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the CDMP. In the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the project is contained in Priority II (2010-2015) and Priority III (2015-2020) schedules. RESPONSE: The conceptual design fulfills all of the objectives, guidelines and criteria of the CDMP, and includes many features that advance these objectives. COMMENT 2: The Metropolitan. Planning Organization (MPO): Bicycle/Pedestrian program requests improvements in pedestrian connectivity beneath the 1-395 project corridor. A Baywalk is proposed along .Biscayne Bay between Margaret Pace Park (NE 15th Street) and south to the proposed Miami River Riverwalk. A pedestrian connection at the waterfront, passing under the MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges, is requested. RESPONSE: It is anticipated that ten roadways (avenues, courts, places) will connect to the local street network under I=395, increasing local connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. Two or three large reflecting pools are planned for the area under the pair of large spans. Large green areas are planned for the remainder of the area under the pair of large spans. The project limits do not include the waterfront area under the MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges. Only milling and 5-9 resurfacing are proposed in the 300 feet west of the existing bridge approach. Also, the existing Biscayne Boulevard ramps will remain without, reconstruction. Therefore, the subject, project: will not include the addition of a pedestrian underpass in the area east of North Bayshore Drive: COMMENT. 3:. Close coordination during construction is requested with Miami -Dade Transit in regard to any local road closures, as there are currently several Metrobus route: potentially affected by detours or delays. These include 55 buses per hour (peak hour) on Biscayne Boulevard, and 15.each on NE lst and 2nd Avenues, respectively. RESPONSE: The FDOT will maintain close. coordination :with Miami -Dade Transit (MDT). Temporary roadway closures will be kept to a minimum. COMMENT 4: DERM, requested: close coordination with Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (WASD). onutilities relocation impacts. DERM has enforcement responsibilities in areas of stormwater management, hazardous waste, tree preservation, and air quality preservation. - RESPONSE: Coordination with WASD on utilities has begun during the current project phase, and inventories have been compiled. Coordination with WASD will intensify during the design phase.. COMMENT 5: Other Miami -Dade County agency comments include the. following: • The Public. Works Department found the project ;included in the TIP,, LRTP and CDMP. • The Aviation Department found the project compatible with operations at Miami International Airport (MIA). • The. Parks & Recreation Department-: found the project ,.would; not impact any parks. • The Fire -Rescue Department had no objection to the project, and identified fire stations. RESPONSE: Should the project scope change in a manner that affects any of these agency comments, notice will be,provided. No response required. 1 I.) Miami -Dade County Office of Emergency Management, Director (AN response letter dated April 12, 2005) COMMENT: 1-395 is an evacuation route for Miami -Dade County. The following concerns were listed: • That the aforementioned evacuation route can be returned to their current vehicle capacity, in the event of an evacuation [during construction]; and • That upon project completion, there is no reduction in vehicle capacity of the aforementioned evacuation route. 5-10 RESPONSE: The current vehicle capacity of the subject project facility is limited by the existing design of two mainline lanes in each direction, and at the Midtown Interchange, there is only one lane in each of two directions for evacuationpurposes (westbound -to -westbound, westbound -to -northbound). The MacArthur Causeway, including the West Channel Bridge, has three through lanes westbound. One of these three lanes becomes the off -ramp to Biscayne 'Boulevard. The on -ramp at NE 1st Avenue is the only access point forlocal'Miami traffic wishing to evacuate via 1-395. The general objective of the Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plan for 1-395 is to provide two mainline lanes in each direction at all times, to match current capacity. A five -phase MOT plan has been developed that meets that objective. The local access point will be moved from the on -rat p at NE lst Avenue to a new on -ramp at North Miami Avenue, with westbound -to -northbound movement provided in phase 1 of the MOT. Upon project implementation,' there will be two continuous lanes westbound, and there will be two westbound on -ramps at North Miami Avenue for local access, one of which will have two lanes (westbound -to -westbound). The preferred design elevates the travel lanes to a greater height over the floodplain, as compared to the existing expressway. 12.) Mianti-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management Assistant Director (AN response memorandum of May 26,.2005 attached to County Clearinghouse, Planning &Zoning Department letter dated August 2, 2005) 13.) Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator (AN response memorandum of July 28, 2005 , attached to County Clearinghouse, Planning & Zoning Department letter dated August 2, 2005) 14.) Miami -Dade County Aviation Department Noise and Environmental Planning, Manager (AN response memorandum of July 28, 2005 attached to County Clearinghouse, Planning & Zoning Department letter dated August 2, 2005). 15.) Miami -Dade County Park :;and ` Recreation Department, Planning and Development, Assistant Director (AN response memorandum of July 20,-2005 attached to County Clearinghouse, Planning & Zoning Department letter dated August 2, 2005) 16.) Miami -Dade County Public Works Department, Highway Division, Chief (AN response memorandum of July 29, 2005 attached to County Clearinghouse, Planning :.& Zoning Department letter dated August 2, 2005) 17.) Miami -Dade County Fire Rescue Department, Supervisor (AN response memorandums of July 28, 2005 attached to County Clearinghouse, Planning & Zoning Department letter dated August 2, 2005) 18.) Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department, Planning; Innovation, & Compliance, Assistant Director (AN response memorandum of July 29, 2005 attached to County Clearinghouse, Planning & Zoning Department letter dated August 2 2005) 5-11 5.3 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION The current project is not the first attempt to provide improvements to 1-395 In 1992, the FDOT began a PD&E phase study that included the 1-395 prpject corridor and an approximately equal length segment of the. SR-836/East-West Expressway, with the I- 95/Midtown Interchange in the middle of the project corridor, That project's begin point was SR-836 at NW 17th Avenue. The end point (MacArthur Bridges)was the same as in the current study. The. Class of Action was an Environmental Assessment. (EA). That PD&E Study was stopped in 1996 before selecting a preferred build alternative design, and without Location/Design Concept Acceptance (LDCA) by the FHWA. Reasons for not advancing the project to the subsequent phases of Final Design and Construetion included: • Failed to address urban design components • Unresolved community issues • Lack of funding In the intervening years, ownership of the SR-836 expressway corridor was transferred from FDOT to Miami -Dade Expressway Authority (MDX). A new westward extension has since been added to SR-836 (June 2007), and the entire expressway, from the new terminus at SW 137th Aventie to 1-95, has been converted to a tolled (SunPass) roadvvay facility. Recently, a Joint Participation Agreement (TPA)%was developed between •the FDOT and MDX to have FDOT re -initiate the SR-836 PD&E study in 2007. Following inception of the PD&E Phase in May 2004; and •prior to beginning the public phase of the PIP in early 2006, a considerable amount of interagency coordination was conducted by the FDOT project team with elected officials and administrators of the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County and other interested parties. The City and the County had both independently. considered a variety of concepts to replace or inodify the 1-395 project corridor. The city and county had entertained proposals by others for projects to remove or reduce 1-395 from the city skyline, based on very preliminary engineering and cost analysis of depressed (below -grade or underground) designs. These were not, studies conducted within the rigorous engineering guidelines of the-FDOT/FHWA. Subsequently, FDOT re -initiated funding for a PD&E engineering analysis of various alternative designs, including one, open -cut trench design, two tunnel dsigns, at ground designs and elevated designs. These were.reduced to four alternatives, With four Build Alternatives equally advanced through the PD&E evaluation process, the FDOT project team met on various occasions with elected officials andadministrators of the City of Miami and Miami -Dade County and other interested parties to compare and consider the alternatives. The more thorough analysis brought to light the pros and cons of the different concepts and designs. Through this process, cost estimates were refined and many ramifications of certain designs were made rnore obvious. As, a result, certain • pre -conceived notions were replaced by factual comparisons on an equal footing, providing a basis for selection of a preferred alternative. 5-12 Agency Scopirng Meeting An agency scoping meeting for this project was held at the FDOT District VI Auditorium on February 2, 2006 with FDOT and project consultant personnel present. Attendees representing Federal, State and County entities, including environmental permit and review agencies, included the following: Federal Agencies/Elected Officials: Anthony Williams, representing the Honorable Representative Carrie Meek, District 17 Florida Congressional District. State Agencies: Florida Department of Transportation, District VI personnel: Vilma Croft, P.E.; Monica Diez, P.E.; M. Aslant Khan, P.E.; Rene de Huelbes, P.E.; John Dovel, P.E.;Marjorie Bixby; Susanne Travis; and, Maribel Lena. FDOT's Project Consultants and Sub -Consultants: Raul Driggs, P.E.; RobertLinares, P.E,; Carlos Rodriguez, E.I.; Julieta Rivero, E.I.; Kevin Mullen; and, Bobbie Mumford: Miami -Dade County 'Agencies: Delfin Molins, Miami -Dade County PWD. City of Miami Agencies: Craig Dunn, Fire'Department; Glen Don Hall, City of Miami; Yanei Crespo, Off -Street Parking; Lt. C. Suarez, Police; Abraham Bachtiar, Public Works Department. As a result of the scoping meeting and to better define and address the concerns of Federal and State environmental permit and review agencies, numerous contacts were made in the form of correspondence, telephone contacts, and informal meetings. Provided below is a chronology of coordination meetings which have taken place on the project to meet the concerns identified at the scoping meeting and other subsequent meetings. Note that meetings with elected officials and their representatives are listed belowinthe Public Involvement Program section Documentation of this coordination is found in Appendix B of the EIS in the form of correspondence or is available in the project file in the form of minutes of the various meetings. The Department will not make a final decision on the proposed action or any alternative until a public hearing has been held on this project and all comments received have been taken into consideration. Note that the ETDM process complements the scoping process. 5.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Another key aspect of the Public Involvement Program (PIP) of this. project has included numerous meetings with interested parties other than the Federal and State environmental permit and review agencies. These include elected public officials, representatives of public agencies, and citizen's interest groups of many kinds. It should be noted that even though the project traverses a predominantly English speaking , area (see demographic breakdown in Section 3.1.1 on page 3-2) Limited English Proficiency (LEP) considerations were taken into account. Present at all meetings and presentations were Spanish speaking project staff. The full record of all PIP project coordination meetings with elected public officials, public agency representatives and citizen's interest groups is contained in Appendix B - 5-13 Public Involvement Program. That record is in the form of a 53-page spreadsheet entitled "Public Involvement — Meetings with Public Officials -Stakeholders". The four column headings of the PIP spreadsheet are as., follows: Public Entity/Official/Stakeholder, Meeting Date/Location, Contact. Person, and ,Issues. The Issues column is the largest, and provides summaries of the topics discussed ineach ,of these meetings. This chronology of coordination meetings covers a three-year period of public involvement between May 8, 2006 and August 24, 2009. Provided below is a list of coordination meetings:which have taken place on, the project to meet the concerns of all interested parties (other than review, and permitting agencies). The summary of Public Involvement Meetings with Public Officials and Stakeholders. provided below is organized to provide the nameand title of attendees, the meeting clay, date and start; time of each meeting. As. noted earlier, the specific, .issues discussed are contained in the 53-page document. in Appendix B. In overview,the.-vast majority of the discussions were, focused . on. the : relative merits of the elevated and depressed construction alternatives, and the direct. impacts on the affected communities resulting from potential implementation of these designs.. Public Entity/Official/Stakeholder, Attendee(s), Title(s), Meeting Day, Date and Time Commissioner Bruno Barreiro, Miami -Dade Board of County Commissioners, District 5 Monday, May 8, 2006 1.0 30, a.m,. Miami -Dade County Public Schools, Facilities Planning: Vivian Villamil, Director Monday, May 8, 2006, 12:30 p.m. Miami -Dade County Public Schools, Facilities Planning: Ivan M, Rodriguez; R.A. Wednesday; May 24, 2006, 9:30 a.m. . • Vice Mayor Richard Steinberg, City of Miami Beach, Thursday, May 18, 2006, 10:00 a.m. • Commissioner Audrey Edmonson, Miami -Dade Board of.County Commissioners, "District 3 Friday,,May 19 2006 4:30:p.m: • State Rep. Dan Gelber, Florida House of Representatives, 106t' District Monday, May 22, 2006, 1:00 p.m. • Commissioner Johnny L, Winton, City of Miami Commission, District 2 Tuesday, May 23 2006. 10:00 a:m, City of Miat i Beach: Fred H. Beckmann, P.E , Director, Public Works/ Operations Department; and, Fernando A. Vasquez, P.E.; City Engineer; Public Works Department Wednesday,'May 24, 2006, 1 1:0'0 a.m. • ' Mayor David Dermer, City of Miami Beach Wednesday, May 24, 2006, 11:30 a.m: • Chairman Agustin J. Barrera, Miami -Dade County School Board/District 6 Wednesday, May 31, 2006, 10:30 a.m. • Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones, City of Miami Commission, District 5 and Clarence E. Woods, Senior Advisor -Economic Development and Housing 5-14 Tuesday, June 6, 2006, 11:45 a.m. • Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce: Jeff Bridges, Senior Vice President - Operations & Strategic Initiatives Tuesday, June 6, 2006, 1:00 p.m. • Overtown Empowerment Assembly Neighborhood Association: Irby McKnight, Chairman; and, Overtown Chamber of Commerce, William Amaya, President, Monday; June 19, 2006, 9:00 a.m. • State Senator Gwendolyn Margolis, Florida Senate, 35th District Tuesday, August 8', 2006, 11:00 a,m. • State Rep. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall, Florida House of Representatives, 109th District, and Cedric McMinn, Legislative Assistant Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 1:00 p.m. • Omni Advisory Board, Fred Joseph, President Thursday, August 10, 2006, 11:00 a.m. • • Overtown Advisory Board, Del Bryan, President Friday, August 11, 10:30 a.m. • St John Community Development Corporation (CDC), David Alexander, Executive Director Tuesday, August 15, 2006, 3:00 p.m. • Town Park Village No. 1 Association Executive Committee: Lillian Slater, President; J.R. Wear, CEO-Presidio Realty, Inc.; and, Florida Real Estate Broker Emmanuel Onabanjo Tuesday, August 15, 2006, 6:00 p.m. • Miami Parking System / Offstreet Parking Authority: Arthur Noriega, Executive Director Monday, August 21, 2006, 10:00 a.m. • City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Frank Rollason, Director; and,' James H. Villacorta; Interim -Director Monday, August 21, 2006, 11:00 a.m. • U.S. Congressman Kendrick Meek, 17th District, U.S. House of Representatives, and Anthony Williams, District Director-Miarni for Congressman Meek Friday, August 25, 2006, 9:30 a.m. • Carnival Center for the Performing Arts.: Jarret M. Haynes, Chief Operating Officer • Friday, August 25, 2006, 11:00 a.m. • Downtown Miami Partnership: Josie Correa, Executive Director; and, Robert Geitner Friday, August 25, 20b6 2:00 p.m. • Bayfront Park Management Trust (Bicentennial Park): Tim Schmand, Executive Director Friday, August 25, 2006, 3:30 p.m. • State Senator Larcenia Bullard, Florida Senate, 39th District Thursday, September 7, 2006, 11:00 a.m. 5-15 546 Friday, February'2;2007, 12 p.m. • Field Review of I-395 Corridor with Constituents: Jackie Bell, New Washington Heights CDC; Anthony Cutlet, Jobs Program advocate; Charles Cutler, Veterans Services advocate; Lydia Ross, Mt. Zion Baptist Church; Cecelia Stewart, Overtown Oversight Board; and, Rev. Willie Williams; Overtown Merchants Assn. Friday, February 9, 2007, 11:00 a.m. • Dunbar Elementary School, Marie Destin, Principal, Eric Proctor, Counselor' Thursday, February 15, 2007, 10:00 a.m. • Phyllis Wheatley Elementary School': Deloise B. Brown, Principal Thursday; February 15, 2007, 11:30 a.m. • . St. Francis Xavier Catholic School: Stefiuk Chania, Principal; Jorge Rodriguez, Vice Principal; and, Father John Madigan, 0.M.I., Pastor, St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church Wednesday, February 21, 2007,'9:30 a.m. • Booker T. Washington Senior High School: Dr. Rosann Sidener; Principal Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 11:00 a.m. • Frederick Douglass'Elementary School:` Cathleen McGinnis, Principal' Wednesday, February 21, 200712:`30 p.m Outreach Office Briefing with. Constituents: Rev. David Shanks, Pastor, Overtown Church of Christ (1gS NW 14 Street); Rev. Errol James, Pastor Christ Church of the Living'God (225 NW 14 Terrace) (also' owner of 5-unit apartment building at 222 NW 14 Terrace); and, Valarie James Friday, February 23, 2007, 11:30,a.m.' • Outreach Office Briefing with Constituents (continuation of 2/23/07 meeting): Rev. David Shanks, Pastor, Ovetrtown`Church of Christ; Pastor Elder D.C. Ingraham, New Hope Primitive Baptist Church (1301 NW 1st Place),'Eula L. Anglita, New Hope Church; David Alexander, St John Community Development Corporation (CDC) in,Overtown; Neil Hall, Past President AIA; Moihit Soni and,`11:W. Lochner, Inc: Tuesday, February' 27, 2007, 11 a.m. • Entities of Common Interests,(downtown Miami -Miami Beachbusiness-cultural leaders): Tim Schniand,'Bayfron `Park Managernent'`Trust; Carol Cutt, Bayfront Park Marketing Director; Robert Weinreli, City of Miami Manager's Office; Leo Zabezhinsky Dov/ntown Development'A iWority; Claudia Vill'ar, Carnival Center for Performing Arts,, and, other C ty`of Miami employees Thirsday, March 15, 2007, 10 a.6.-12 p.na. • ' Booker ,T. Washington Senior High School's Educational Excellence Scholastic Advisory Council: Anthony Jennings, Chairperson; David Brown,`M.D.; Rosann Sidener, Principal; Clinton Brown; Michael Friedman, former State legislator; Other council members, Charles Johnson, BTW Alumni Association; John Glover, BTW Alumni Association; James Hunt, BTW Alumni Association; and, former Principal, Dr. Brewster." Thursday, March 15, 2007, 4 p.m. • Overtown Community Oversight Board: Cecelia Stewart, Chairperson; Charles Cutler, Overtown resident; Gary L. Moore, Comcast; Theresa Matiias; Miami 5-17 Beach; Cassaundra Wims, Overtown resident; Nicole Wild, North Miami Beach; Emanuel Washington, Sr., ivliramar; ,Rosa Green, Overtown resident; and, Francisco de la Paz,. Southwest section resident, Thursday, March 15, 2007, 6:00 p.m. • State Representative Luis R. Garcia, Florida. House of Representatives, 107th District. (Telephone discussion with Matthew Monica, Chief of Staff) (unspecified date, late March, 2007) • Community Image Advisory Board (CIAB), Miami -Dade Commissioner Dennis C. Moss, Chair, Alice Robertson, Project Manager Tuesday, March 27, 2007,;10 a.m.-12 p.m.. • Outreach Office Briefing with Constituents: Rev. John Cox of St. Francis Xavier Church; Mr. Edenburg, resident; Barbara Henry, Miami-Dade,Community Action Agency, Overtown-CulmerCenter; Francis Jackson, Town Park Plaza South; Eddie Lewis, NBPA-POC; Rudy Lorenzo, Econo-Meat & Fish Market; Cheryl Pestaine, New Horizons Community: Mental Health Center, Overtown Office; Denise Perry, Power U; Marie Wims, Town Park Plaza South. Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 3 p.m. • HistoricOvertownFolklife District Improvement Association; Philip Bacon, The Collins Center; Dorothy Fields, The Black Archives/Lyric. Theater" Tuesday, April 12, 2007, 6 p.m. • Booker T. Washington Alumni Association Meeting (approkimately40 alumni present) ,Roberta Daniels,, Chairperson; Janies :Hunt, ,Clement Minnis, speakers Thursday, April 19, 2001, 6 p.m. • Outreach Office Briefing with Property Owners: Benjamin J. Brown of 218 NW 14th Terrace; Mr. Henry of 1437 NW 3rd Avenue; attorney of Shannon Kearns; Jeff Kluger,.,Omni area property owner; Attorney Brian Patehen; Attorney John Scurtis,_ 1201.NE 1st Avenue; Ms, Shoshana, 175 NW 14th Street Thursday, Aprii 26, 2007, 11 a.m, • , Outreach Office Briefing with Property Owners Elliot Alexander, Micro Brewery; Rev. David Shanks, Overtown Church of Christ,, Mrs Shanks; Vivian Villaamil, Miami -Dade Public Schools, Facilities Management Monday May 16, 2007, 6 p.m. Bert Gonzalez, Chief of Staff for City of Miami Commissioner MarcSarnoff Friday, May, 18, 2007, 12:45 p m. Outreach:Office MeetingWith Constituents: Olga Zamora, City of Miami; Rev, David Shanks, Overtown,Church of Christ; Steven Carroll, StevCar Enterprises; Hobie Owiyie, 11 Way Corporation; Charles .Cutler, Veterans Employment Transition; Sahiha Nelson, Linda J. Perkins,& Louise Jones,,Urgent, Inc:;. Marvin Weeks,Timbuktu Art; Della Pitts, Regions Bank; James Forbes, Forbes Photography; Constance.Collins, Lotus House; Regina Lowe Smith; BTW Sr HS; and residents HomMiie Lewis, Rev, Shoshana, and;Thomas Jordan, Attorney. Wednesday, July'18, 2007, 11 a.m... • Community Action Agency Board Meeting; Julie Edwards, Interim Executive Director and Board Members Dr. William Zubkoff, Richard Brown-Morilla, James Fayson, Nathaniel Green, Dr. Joyce Price and Curtis Roberson. Monday, October 15, 2007, 4 p.m. 5-18 • . Overtown Community Oversight Board Meeting: Cecelia Stewart, Chairperson; Charles Cutler, Rosa Green, Marquita Forsett, Theresa Matias, Francisco de la Paz, Cassaundra Wims, and Stephanie Van Vark, Overtown NET Office. Thursday, October 18, 2007, 6 p.m. • Outreach Office Meeting with Constituents: Mia Battle, Habitat for Humanity; Jackie Bell, New Washington Heights CDC; James White, Harbor House Residential Center; Demas Jackson, Jackson Soul Food Restaurant; Ayman Jadallah, Brown Food Market; Lawrence Moore, Moore's Grocery; Leroy Jones, NANA; Stephanie Van Vark, Overtown NET Office; Dashawn Watkins, ACES; Wilmar Saint-Preux, Public Allies; Alossa Gaipni; Michael Hardin; Theophilus Keaton; Earl Robinson; George Sanchez; and, Louis Willis. Thursday, October 25, 2007, 12 p.m. • St. John Community Development Corporation (CDC), BOD: Nelson Adams, M.D., Chair, David Alexander, Executive Director. Stlohn CDC. Saturday, February 16, 2008, 9:00 a.m. • Venetian Causeway Neighborhood Alliance, BOD: Barbara Bisno, President. 1000 Venetian Way, East Lobby. Tuesday, February 20, 2008, 7:30 p.m. • Bayfront Park Management Trust, BOD: Tim Schmand, Executive Director. Monday, February 25, 2008, 12:00 p.m. • City of Miami, City Manager, Asst. Manager, Asst. Transportation Coordinator: Peter Hernandez, Manager, Ofelia Perez, Manager's Secretary. City Hall. Monday, February 25, 2008, 3:30 p.m. • Upper Eastside Miami Council, Inc., Robert Flanders, Past President and PAG Member. City of Miami Legion Memorial Park. Monday, February 25, 2008, 6:00 p.m • Palm -Hibiscus -Star Islands Association, Inc., Annual BOD Meeting: Todd Tragash, PAG Member, Tim Rose, Executive Director. Islands Assoc. Club. Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 7:30 p.m, • Overtown Youth Center, BOD Carla Penn, Director, Al Dotson, BOD Chair, Lisa Joseph, Marketing & Development. Overtown Youth Center. Monday, March 10, 2008, 8:30 a.m. • ' St. John CDC, BOD: David Alexander, Executive Director, Susan Kelly, Assistant: St John CDC. Monday, March 10, 2008, 10:30 a.m. • Miami -Dade County Public Schools: Vivian Villamil, MDCPS Facilities Director, Regina Lowe -Smith, Principal of BTWHS. Booker T. Washington Senior High School. Monday, March 17, 2008, 9:00 a.m. • Entities of Common Interest Tim Schmand, Executive Director of Bayfront Park Management Trust. Bayfront Park Management Trust Offices. Thursday,March 20, 2008, 10:00 a.m. • St. John CDC Presentation on economic development initiatives to multiple city and county Community and Economic Development offices, FDOT, CRA, etc.' at Offices of City of Miami CRA: David Alexander, Executive Director of St: John CDC. CRA Office. 5-19 Wednesday, April 8, 2008, 10:30 a.m. • Mt. Zion Developments, Inc.: Rev. Ralph M. Ross, Pastor of Historic Mt. Zion Baptist. Church, Don D. Patterson, Executive Director, Mt. Zion Developments, Inc. Historic Mt. Zion Church. Tuesday, May 20, 2008,.1:00 p.tn. • City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA):. Clarence Woods, Assistant CRA Director, Chelsea Arscott, CRA Strategic, Planning, Priscilla Kelsey, CRA Assistant Agenda Coordinator. FDOT Outreach Office. Thursday, July 16, 2009, 10:00 a.m. * FDOT Outreach Office, Morning Session: James Bush III, Florida State Representative, District;109; Community residents, citizens, property owners. FDOT Outreach Office. Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 11:00 a.m. • FDOT Outreach Office, Afternoon Session: Community residents, citizens, property owners. FDOT Outreach Office. Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 2:00 p.m. • St. John CDC: David Alexander, Executive Director, Phil Young, St John CDC Counsel. Wednesday,.Ju1y, 29, 2009, 10:00, a.m. • FDOT Outreach Office, Morning Session: Community residents, citizens, property owners. FDOT Outreach Office.. Wednesday,,July 29, 2009, 11:00 a.m. • FDOT Outreach Office, Morning Session: Community residents, citizens, property owners. FDOTOutreach Office. Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 11:00 a.m. • FDOT Outreach Office, Afternoon Session: Community residents, citizens, property.. owners. FDOT Outreach Office.. . Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 2:00 p.m. • Commissioner Audrey Edmonson, Miami -Dade. Board of County Commissioners, District 3, Gerard:Philippeaux, Director of Public Affairs, Karen Davis, Constituent Services. Miamt-Dade Commission Office, District 3. Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 2:00 p.m.V • State; Senator Frederica,S. Wilson, Florida. Senate, 33rd District, Angela Lane, Chief of Staff, Patricia Lightfoot, Legislative Assistant, Shaquita Rahming, Legislative Assistant. Senator Wilson's Office. Monday, August 24, 2009 11:30 a.m. Community Outreach Office The PIP included the special measure of opening an FDOT Community Outreach Office in an Overtown storefront, located at 939 NW 3`d Avenue, Miami, FL 33136. This office opened. on December 6, 2006, and has had' a large number of visitors since then. The telephone number for this storefront office is 305-374-4271, and the email address is: F.DOTfieidoffice®bellsouth.net.'The Community Outreach Office's two staff members under the direction of B. Mumford & Co. are also local residents. Monthly reports are 5-20 provided to the Project Manager. Office hours are from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays. The staff has canvassed the neighborhood to invite businesses and individuals to visit the outreach office and keep informed as to progress on the I-395 project. The staff has gone out into the Overtown community to conduct surveys. This office maintains displays of the existing and proposed alternative designs, renditions of design concepts, information on right-of-way acquisition actions, FDOT R/W brochures, listings of pending meetings, project newsletters, etc. This easily -accessible storefront meeting place also is equipped to provide video, multi -media (Power -Point) presentations that have been used in public meetings. Hotline A telephone contact hotline, (305) 374-4271, was established to receive inquiries or comments from the general public,' In addition, the public can request any additional project information (e.g, newsletters, fact sheets) through the hotline. Again, a log of all callers with their stated opinions, concerns and information requests is kept on file. This hotline is staffed by the Community Outreach Office in Overtown. Internet Website The PIP included the creation of an internet website at (http://www.1395miarni.com) for the benefit of the general public: This website guides the public user to the FDOT Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) website (http://etdmpub fla- etat.org/est/) for ETDM Project # 7701 that describes the project alternatives and project effects. It also contains , the comments received from reviewing and commenting agencies. This project (ETDM #7701) was first posted on the ETDM public website on December 6, 2006. Project Advisory Group A Project Advisory Group (PAG) for the FDOT 1-395 project was organized by the project's public involvement coordinator, Bobbie Mumford of B. Mumford & Company. The PAG is a committee of diverse community interests along the project corridor which was convened for the purpose of providing project direction and advising the engineering team during the' study period: Persons or entities invited as PAG members included 20 members or member organizations. The list of PAG members, including replacements, is contained in Appendix B of this document. PAG meetings were held at the offices of the Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), 49 NW 5fh Street, Miami, Florida 33128. Meetings to date were held on October 16, 2006, February 13, 2007, ApriI 25, ` 2007, November 13, 2007 and June 23, 2009. Also attending 'the PAG meetings were FDOT and consultant staff. Meeting Summaries of PAG meetings are contained in Appendix B.'The key topics of these meetings were the comparisons of four design concepts, efforts to reach a consensus regarding selection of a preferred alternative, and consensus to eliminate from further consideration the two depressed design concepts. 5-21 Public Alternatives Workshop The Public Alternatives Workshop forthis project was held at the Culmer Center in Overtown on May _24, 2007, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. The format was informal, with FDOT representatives, including the FDOT. Right -of -Way staff, onhand to, discuss individually with the community the five project alternatives on display. The displays illustrated, the No -Build Alternative, the two elevated concepts, Build Alternatives 2 and 3, and the two depressed concepts, Alternative 4 (tunnel) and Alternative 5 (open -cut). Multiple sets of poster -board presentations of the alternatives on aerials were available for examination. The meeting was well attended, with a total of 80 individuals listed on the sign -in sheets. Comment sheets were collected during and - after the event from a total of 25, of the individuals who attended the workshop. Written comments included numerous references to the Overtown communityimpacts dueto the original 1960's construction of the I-95 and 1-395/SR-836 corridors and,in particular, the effect of placing the Midtown Interchange over what had. been the hub of Overtown. Comments by a total of 27 individuals are recorded in Appendix B. Eleven (11) of the commentaries indicated a preference for no additional R/W impacts from 1-395 in the Overtown area, and for no improvements (Alternative 1). Eleven (11) of the commentaries indicated a preference for the Build Alternative 3,,generaily because this elevated design involved the least amount of R/W impact in the Overtown areaand features ramps at North Miami Avenue, east of the neighborhood: The elevated Build Alternative 2, which features expressway ramps ,connecting with NW 14th Street in Overtown, wasnot supported by anyone whoprovided writtencomments, but many of the written comments included a rejection of this concept. It should be noted that _a separate but related FDOT proposal to provide two ramps between NW 14th Street and I- 95 had previously been rejected by this community, and had been dropped from further consideration by FDOT. The strong reaction in opposition to Build Alternative 2 was expressed by. both .those favoring no action (the No. -Build Alternative) and by many of those, who favoredthe elevated Build Alternative 3..: Of, the. 25 respondents, two (2) . expressed their favorfor the tunnel concept of Build Alternative 4. One (1) of these two also. felt that BuildAlternative 5 (open -cut). was equal to Alternative 4, and ,wanted the tally for both combined ,together. These respondents expressed opposition to all expressways and interchanges in the . urban setting, particularly elevated structures. Their preference was for investment in mass transit rather than;roadway improvements.: Also, one respondent from. the Public Alternatives, Workshop indicated no design preference, but asked that the signs announcing the public alternatives workshop be rephrased to replace the term "public involvement" with "Overtown Community involvement" to indicate the attention being given by FDOT to this community. A schedule of actual and anticipated project milestones is provided, below: 5-22 December 16, 2004 • April 5, 2005 • May 24, 2007 • June 25, 2009 • September 7, 2009:. • August 25, 2009 • December 1, 2009 • December 15, 2009. • December<15, 2009 • January 15, 2010 • Location/Design Concept Acceptance (Anticipated) February 14, 2010 • Begin Design Phase (Anticipated) FY 2010/2011 • R/W Acquisition (Antic'ipated) FY 2012/2013 • Begin Construction Phase (Anticipated) FY 2019/2020 Notice of Intent (Actual) Advance Notification (Actual) Public Alternatives Workshop (Actual) DEIS Approval by FHWA (Actual) DEIS Notice of Availability (Actual), Public Hearing (Actual) FDOT Submittal of FEIS to FHWA (Actual) FI1WA Approval of FEIS; (Anticipated) FHWA. Draft Record of Decision (Anticipated) FEIS Notice of Availability (Anticipated) The following section provides more detail Ion the process that was carried" out to assure public involvement, and tabulated results of that process. The eleven =steps followed in the adopted PIP are as follows: 1. Research project background 2. Determine purpose of PIP' 3. Define the affected communities 4. Identify the stakeholders or audience 5. Determine an outreach approach 6. Assemble a PI task team 7. Determine a schedule, of activities 8. Collect and analyze public comments 9. Documentation synthesis 10. Monitor, the outreach activities 11. Document the results As a result of the comprehensive public; involvement .effort; a turnaround: in community • consensus has been documented.` By tlie'tinie.the project was developed'for a Public Hearing, some 15 comm>nity representative organizations had provided letters of support",. (Section 5.5, Comments). A comparison of attrtudes�°regarding project• nnplementation • taken early in the" PIP andagain„late in the Pll' illustrate how the community consensus changed from opposition to support.`, `This information is p'resentcd in two graphics, Figure 5-1,.Initial Public.Connments Compendk n , and -Figure 5 2;`'Final.Public'; Comments Compendinin. The: information is summarized below. Among 16 elected public officials polled, the preferred 'design was initially favored by only six (6), with another four (4) in favor of irnprovemcnts, but not a specific: alternative. The preferred design was later favored' by eleven (11), with another three (3) in favor; of improvements, but not a specific alternative. Thus, 14 of 16 elected ;public officials have become project supporters. 1-395 PD&E Study F%'-.^7.-717047 MY.`41P27 ,,;-"FirMWOR a ."V‘firo3". St t.,..,..,.. "d -"'''. "IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - Hilll 1111+1111111111111111M11111111111IIIIMMIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIII AV.' Ft Stelabent IWO Beech) NW= MUM IIIIIIIREHNIMIIIII MN MIll 2=3=2:1111•1111011 I NMI 111111111R1111111111111111111MINIMIIIIIIII Rep.a.G.a., am auummumminimmumummammm mu imiloys EMEMMENUMMEMMINUMM ME ======mmum lRRommommilmummemmmummm mm School HeareChra.A.Racera II. MENU 11111111111111=111111111111111111111111111Thfill111 MIMI l'il # II MOM IIIIMIHNIIIIIIIII TIMM MI EIEZZIIIIIIIIEIHIIIHIRIIHIIII 111111111111111 RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Rep. Dorothy Bendcoss•Arueuege MC 11111111111111111111 NI 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 MIZ:23=MIN NEM 11111111111111111•11 1111111111111111111111111111111101111111111111111M111111111 322=3;3===11111M,11111 0,11.111111111111111111111111111111111111 II AM MUM ErfIfi 1111,IIIP 1111111111111•11 MEM MIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 311:1111111111111 imirm Immo mmumum mom im =:immaimmia Immommommomminummommum orercr=s Immisammosinmiamanminum NNE 1,17*-747 -1147,42"M Ceewo.le.Seernossfeoes ,1,2.;Eatia.L.4katft Initial Public Comments Compendium Florida Department of Transportation pas FIGURE NO. 5-1 Page 5-24 1-395 PD&E Study astunimmummummismomasumii aussaossmom 11111111111111111111111111111111 MN WO ===sissmi RIME/ smommummummaramm 111111$111111111111111111111111MIMMUMM111111111111 all """1.1111=1 1111111911111•111 MINIIIMIIIMME111111MR NM Ess =1.1111111111111 UNE 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 issimummimumniammanss Ri°""m""""mgmmost UMW III 1111111MINE• IIMUIF1111111111111111111 - MIME 011111111111MINE rrn"""r""'"11•11 111111111107111111111 IMO maimsmommunm =mum tam sommul assammonmsmumum CitY fr,nf CRA - amiss ssmammummas• us am ntrmr imaim ammosm moo mum ar=3=mmonfmus sumumss man • ===smmmsams uss Emus imaamMummissommommassmassim ra==ammas sisaminummammussusums Ems morn. Bruno grarteins 5.5.-tim4770 J.,g4 t-tal 0E1 4WigarM,' • .""TrZ" 4,7g5 iTkkf.A.ILM-0.14M ilk•1 etty,,0,,grAA IT,r7.412,WWWW1 rwe- "PI r-MT9i79, Final Public Comments Compendium Florida Department of Transportation FIGURE NO. 5-2 Page 5-25 • For the area west of ,the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) corridor, Le..Overtown; some 27 community representatives were initially polled, In the Overtown community the • preferred design was initiallY, favored by Only three (3), with another.twO-(2)"in fayor'pf improvements, ,but not a specific alternative The preferred design was later, favored by 22 of the 27 'stakeholder repreSentatives. Four. of the five remaining representatives were, listed as undecided, and..onlY one remained on record as opposed to any Change; Forthe':'area--east of the FEC corridor, i.e. Edgewater/Downtown, 12 cothinunity, representatives were initially polled In this community the preferred design was initiafly favored by foitr.,(4); opposed by three (3), with another three (3) undecided on a specific alternativeThe preferred design. was later favored,. by 10 of the '12 stalcehoIder representative One (1) remained in favor of improvements, but not specific alternative and one (1) remained on record as in favor of a'depressed design,' • In addition,. wrurining-tally of over 500 comment' sheets submitted indicate that nearly 65% of the :affected cOmMunity supports the preferred Build Alternative 3 This large numbei, of cOminerits is proof that the project has successfully incorporated,theoencerhs; the productive ideas; and aspirations of the affected communities into the:final:outcome, • 5.5 COMMENTS : • Table $71,..teiters of ProjectSuppert. lists the entities, brganizatibhs ot bliSineSses That represent the majority opinion ofthe Overtown community and that have'shbMitted letters or comments to FDOT in support of the preferred Build Alternative 3. Six of the referenced letters (*) in support of the proposed action are contained in Appendix A. 5.6 OFFICIAL STATEMENTS OF CONCURRENCE '• • . . • Official statements of concurrence by Municipal; county, state and/or federalagenelesi-are anticipated following the project's Public Hearing,,. Apart sfroin:: the, :aboVe;-.4eferericed.;:,', Florida Senator's; letter dated October13; 2008, no.'offibial Stateinents' oh the, PrO15,Osed,;:' action were received 'Prior to the Public Hearin Table S-I LETTERS OF PROJECT SUPPORT ORGANIZATION or BUSINESS REPRESENTED BY ADDRESS Mt. Zion Baptist Church* Pastor Ralph Ross 301 NW 9th Street Overtown Church of Christ* Pastor David Shanks 185 NW 14th Street Temple Missionary Baptist Church Pastor Glenroy Deveaux 1737 NW 3rd Avenue St. Agnes Episcopal Church Father L.M. Barry 1750 NW 3rd Avenue Miami -Dade Empowerment Trust* Irby McKnight 1600 NW 3rd Avenue Overtown Chamber of Commerce* William Amaya 201 NW 20th Street Roots in the City Dr. Marvin Dunn 1600 NW 3rd Avenue Veterans Employment Transition Service Charles Cutler, 6116 NW 7th Avenue Bame Development Corp. Don Patterson 245 NW 8th Street Just Right Barber Shop Willie Williams 1133 NW 3rd Avenue Jackson Soul Food Restaurant Shirlene Ingraham 950 NW 3rd Avenue Econo Meat, and Fish Supermarket Ruby Lorenzo 1327 NW 3rd Avenue Green and Fort Barber Shop Jacob Kelly 1219 NW 3rd Avenue Two Guys Restaurant Shirley Meadows 1205 NW 3rd Avenue Brown Food Market Ayman Jadallah 712 NW 5th Avenue Miami -Dade College, Wolfson Campus* Dr. Rolando Montoya, Pres. 1301 NE rd Avenue Florida Senate, 39'h District, Senator* Hon; Larcenia J. Bullard 8603 S. Dixie Hwy, S-304 5.7 PUBLIC HEARING The Public Hearing for this project was held at the Historic Lyric Theater in Overtown on August 25, 2009, from 6:00 to 8:35 p.m. The format was formal. FDOT representatives, including the FDOT Right -of -Way staff, were on hand to discuss individually with the community the five project alternatives on display prior to and following .the formal presentation. The displays and the formal power -point presentation illustrated the No - Build Alternative, the two elevated concepts, Build Alternatives 2 and 3, and the two depressed concepts, AltematiVe4_(tunnel) and Alternative 5 (open -cut). The meeting was Well attended, with a total of 153 individuals (118 citizens and 35 staff) listed on the sign - in 8heets, Twenty-nine (9) speakers expressed their opinion towar&the project during the formal presentation. Theircomments and concerns are outlined in a table included in Appendix E. The majority Of the speakers were in favor of Alternative 3. oNumerous comments also included references tO the Overtown community impacts due to the original 1960's construction of the 1-95 and I-395/SR-836 corridors and, in particular, the effect of placing the Midtowh Interchange over what had been the hub of Overtown. Written comments were also collected prior to and during the event and for a 10-day comment period following the public hearing for a total of 17 written comments. The majority of these comments were in favor of Alternative 3. Some comments included references to concerns regarding maintenance under the proposed bridge, maintenance of traffic plans and the aesthetics of the proposed bridge. The transcript from the Public Hearing and a 5-27 table summarizing the comments ,from the 29 speakers as ' well as the 17 written comments are recorded in Appendix E. 5.8 AGENCY COMMENTS ON DEIS Stated below are the pertinent comments from the agency that responded to the DEIS.. The letter from the U.S. EPA is contained in Appendix A. 1.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (DEIS comments letter dated September 8, 2009) COMMENT 1: Concern was expressed regarding the shortage of comparable rental units within the immediate area for the residential relocates. RESPONSE: The Pre -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Plan was recently updated to reflect the current market conditions. The plan determined that there are sufficient affordable housing options available for the ten (10) residential units to be displaced COMMENT 2: A recommendation .was' made to continue the on -going public involvement program throughout ,the planning, design and construction phases of the project. RESPONSE: This ongoing public involvement program will continue to occur throughout the subsequent project phases. COMMENT 3: The DEIS did not include anadequate eualuation'of the impacts of air toxics (MSAT) emissions on nearby, :population. centers and sensitive populations given the magnitude of the existing and proposed project and the proximity,,. to local schools. :RESPONSE: Miami -Dade, County, is :currently in: attainment for all of thepollutants for . which National Ambient Air Quality Standards, have been. promulgated. The FHWA mandated air quality analysis for the project demonstrated that no ,potential adverse air quality impacts would be caused by construction of the Build Alternative. While project, level analysis of MSATs is not required under the NEPA process; as currently administered by FHWA, the FDOT has provideila qualitative. assessment of MSATs in, Section 4.3.3.2. of the FEIS. For informational purposes we have also included in this section, a listing of nearby, sites potentially sensitive to MSATs. A more detailed quantitative analysis of potential project related environmental and health impacts due to MSATs is encumbered by :significant technical shortcomings and/or .uncertain science that prevents a meaningful determination of project level MSAT levels and impacts... COMMENT 4: EPA recommends, that the Final EIS :includea detailed inventory_ of air toxics emissions (including diesel emissions) from both stationary and mobile 5-28 sources that serve the facility, including the locomotives, switchers, tractors, and support equipment, etc. It should also include a screeninglevel evaluationof the potential impacts on these emissions on neighboring populations. RESPONSE: A detailed inventory of air toxics emissions is not required under the NEPA process as currently administered by FHWA. Miami -Dade County currently in attainment for all of the pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been promulgated. In addition, the FHWA mandated air quality analysis for the project demonstrated that no potential adverse air quality impacts would be caused by construction of the Build Alternative. Please see section 4.3.3 .1 of the FEIS. COMMENT 5: Noise and MSAT emissions from heavy "truck and vehicular traffic are areas of environmental and public health concern, particularly in close proximity of school zones. The existing facility already adversely impacts these two areas and the proposed upgrades to' the facility may exacerbate these issues. In recognition of these concerns, EPA recommends that FDOT employ air monitors to monitor pollutant levels near school grounds -during construction and post construction. RESPONSE: Project level analysis of MSATs is not required under the. NEPA process as currently administered by FHWA. `Please see "Sections 43, 4.4' and 4.17; Air quality, Noise and Construction, respectively in the FEIS. Traffic noise impacts were analyzed in accordance with 23CFR772. Exterior traffic: -noise in the project study area- is predicted to increase by levels we'll below the threshold that humans are able to perceive changes in 'noise"level recognized by the FHWA'(3 dBA). In addition, national research has shown that noise sensitive sites greater than 500 feet 'from a project, as is the case with the schools, do not experience project generated noise levels above the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria: Given the-minimal§changes to traffic patterns' near schools and the area's attainment status for all of the NAAQS, local -site air monitoring related to this project is not'eonsidered necessary: COMMENT 6: EPA recommendsthat the final EIS consider the following'strategies to minimize these i»ipacts including,::: • Providing or installing soundproof materials for the classrooms: • Working with`.'' schools to schedule ` outdoor activities at 3the k'school when vehicular traffic is the lowest. • Examining •Where fresh air intakes for the school are located; 'and filtering air intake to the extent feasible to minimize intake of these particulates °into the school's heating and air conditioning systems, as well as filtering within the HVAC system (should MSAT's pose an issue). RESPONSE: In accordance with the NEPA process for FHWA projects, all required analysis were conducted and it was determined that no impacts are expected to occur at the nearby schools as a result of the proposed action. 'Please see Sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.17; Air quality, Noise and Construction, respectively in the FEIS. 5-29 COMMENT 7:•A recommendation was made to consider the indirect impacts of any future mass transit projects that may •impact the project area in the FEES. RESPONSE: As stated in Section 1.5 — Modal Interrelationships, the proposed project is compatible with existing and proposed multimodal (mass -transit and non - motorized) facilities. Existing rail corridors at 1-395 include the Florida East Coast Railway, Metrorail and Metromover. The FEC rail corridor is not a mass -transit facility. No immediate plans currently exist to re -initiate passenger service. However, the South Florida East Coast Corridor (SFECC) Transit Analysis Study, a feasibility study, is on -going to develop and analyze alternatives that potentially integrate passenger and freight transport along the SFECC, which is centered along the existing FEC rail., corridor. The existing double - rail freight corridor crosses at -grade under 1-395 at North Miami Avenue. The SFECC Transit Analysis Study may include a station or stations in the Dye:town community, in the vicinity of 1-395. However, the proposed new location of access ramp(s) to/from 1-395 at N. Miami Avenue will result in less traffic on local streets as related to the potential new station or stations compared to the location of the existing ' access ramps on N.B. 2nd Avenue, Therefore; at this time there is minimal and/or no indirect impact from the SFECC Transit Analysis Study. COMMENT 8;, Concern was expressed that the stormwater system be able to effectively manage the flow of runoff •without adversely affecting.: any existing contaminant plumes which could degrade groundwater quality. RESPONSE: The FDOT has committed to incorporating stormwater management , features into the project design to mitigate for water quality impacts., During the design phase, a're-evaluation of contamination concerns will be conducted based on the specifie'drainage design prepared for this project The re-evaluation will include a review of the federal, state and local agency databases to identify the status of previously reported contaminantsources as well , as identify any ,new , potential sources. Based on the results of the re-evaluation„ a .„Level II 'Contamination Assessment may be required to determine, the extent of existing contamination within the project.corridot if,deerned necessary by the Contamination Impact Coordinator. The type and location of the proposed stormwater management features will be assessed for potential involvement with existing contamination sources. The project design engineer will be directed to modify any stormwater feature ,so as not to affect any existing contaminant plumes. • 5.9 COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • In order to minimize the impacts of this project to the human environment, the Department is committed to the following measures: 5-30 • To minimize the adverse effects on air and noise quality from construction activities, the contractor will adhere to air quality and noise provisions of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition, as well as appropriate Best Management Practices. • The contractor shall dispose of all oil, chemicals, fuel, etc., in an acceptable manner according to local, state, and Federal regulations and shall not dump these contaminants on the ground or in sinkholes, canals, or borrow lakes. Appropriate Best Management Practices will be used during the construction phase for erosion control and water quality in order to obtain Chapter 62-25, F.A.C. compliance. In addition, the contractor will adhere to the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition. • The Department will maintain continuous coordination with the adjacent project communities in order to facilitate their awareness of pertinent issues as the project advances forward into design and construction: • Adequate pedestrian and bicycle connectivity shall be maintained during all phases of construction' in order to maximize' safety and 'minimize delays and disruptions. The construction sequencing' plan will also address pedestrian safety, especially in the context of the large student population surrounding the project. • The roadway vertical clearance along I-395 should have a minimum of 19 feet in the area west of the FEC rail corridor and a minimum of 25 feet east of the FFC. rail, corridor. • A minimum distance of 150 feet between the eastbound and westbound bridges will be provided along NE 15t Avenue. • A minimum of 200 feet will be provided between the AACPA and the I-395 westbound bridge. • A minimum of 225 feet column span length will be provided. • Due to the provision of higher structures, the potential to reconnect NW 2nd Avenue and NE Miami Court under the proposed I-395 facility in order to re- establish and facilitate local street linkage in Overtown will be further explored. • Maintain and enhance system continuity between the SR 836/1-95 facility on the west and the MacArthur Causeway on the east. • Potential construction vibration impacts will be further evaluated during the future phases of this project. 5-31 The Department will: develop Technical Special Provisions (TSPs), for work that willoccur adjacent to the AACPA in order to minimize construction impacts to this noise and vibration -sensitive site. The Department corrunits to providing a `signature' bridge design. • The Department will provide aesthetics enhancements (e.g, landscaping) in order to help maximize the total integration of the project with the adjacent community. The Department will review the need to provide a Limited Access fence underneath the proposed' structure • Address all functionally obsolete and structurally deficient structures within the project. • Maintain hurricane evacuation capacity from. Miami Beach, the Bay Islands and the adjacent bayfront area during construction phase. Addressall existing geometric, access, operational and safety deficiencies to reduce the number of crashes along the interstate. Stormwater management features to mitigate for water quality impacts will be incorporated. A re-evaluation of contamination concerns will be conducted prior to right-of-way acquisition, if necessary, and/or during the design phase if deemed necessary by the Contamination Impact Coordinator. 5-32 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Greg Williams, P.E. District Transportation Engineer Monica Gourdine Program Operations Team Leader Acting District Transportation Engineer George B. Hadley Environmental Programs Coordinator Linda Anderson Environmental Specialist Cathy Kendall, Environmental Specialist B.S. degree in Civil Engineering 20 years experience B.S. degree in Civil Engineering 16 years experience in Civil Engineering, design and programming B.S. degree in Civil Engineering 27 years experience in environmental analysis and documentation B.S. and M.S. degrees in Biology 3 years experience with FHWA in environmental analysis and documentation B.S. and M.S. degrees in Urban and Regional Planning 17 years experience in environmental analysis and documentation FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Vilma Croft, P.E. Engineering Project Manager Catherine Owen Environmental Manager Xavier Pagan Environmental' Specialist B.S. degree in Civil Engineering 24 years experience in transportation engineering analysis and engineering document preparation -, B.S. and M.S. degrees in Biology 17 years experience in environmental analysis and environmental document preparation B.S. and M.S. degrees in Biology 7 years experience in environmental analysis and environmental document preparation 6-1 Robert Linares, P.E. Project Manager Raul Driggs, P.E. Engineering Quality Control CONSULTANT FIRMS METRIC ENGINEERING B.S. degree in Civil Engineering 9 years experience B.S., M.S., Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering ,41 years experience Carlos Rodriguez, E.I. B.S. degree in Civil Engineering Project Engineer 4 years experience Julieta Rivero, E.I. B.S. degree in Civil Engineering Project Engineer 2 years experience CONSULTING ENGINEERING & SCIENCE Jeffry H. Marcus, V.P.... Quality Control, Administration, Kevin Mullen Environmental Scientist Tim Ogle... Noise Specialist..- Air Quality Specialist. Nicole Carter Environmental Scientist. Daniel Dmiczak Contamination Specialist B.A., Ph.D. degrees in Biology 31 years experience in environmental analysis and environmental document preparation B.S., M.S. degrees in Biology 28_ years,. experience anenvironmental analysis and environmental document preparation B.S., M.S. degrees in Env. Engineering 18 years experience in noise and air quality analysis and environmental document preparation B.S., M.S. degrees in ;Marine Biology 11 years experience in environmental analysis and environmental document preparation B.A. degree in Environmental Studies 8 years experience in contamination analysis and environmental document preparation 6-2 B. MUMFORD & COMPANY Bobbie Mumford, President Public Involvement Alonzo B. Mumford, Assistant P. Mgr Public Involvement Jodi M. Porter, V.P. • Public Involvement Martha G. Miller Outreach Office Manager Betty Hall Outreach Office Staff B.A. degree in English, certifications 18 years experience in public involvement as principal of this consulting firm M.S. degree in Public Administration B.S. degree in History Education 30 years experience in public involvement M.Ed. degree in Education B.S. degree in Accounting • 10 years experience in public involvement • B.S. degree in Political Science 10 years experience in public involvement High School diploma 4 years experience in public involvement 6-3 ", 4 7.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT FEDERAL AGENCIES Advisory Council on Historic Preservation - Office of Cultural Resources Preservation Colorado State University The Libraries, Documents. Librarian Federal Aviation Administration - Airports,District Office Federal Aviation Administration - Regional Director Federal Emergency Management Agency - Associate General Counsel for Insurance and Mitigation Federal Emergency Management Agency - Natural Hazards Branch, Chief Federal Railroad Administration - Office. of Economic Analysis, Director, U.S. Array Corps of Engineers -- Regulatory Branch, District Engineer U.S. Coast Guard - Commander (obr) -Eighth District U.S. Coast Guard_- Commander (oan)•- Seventh District U.S. Department, of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service, State Conservationist U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service - Habitat Conservation Division U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service - Southeast Regional Office U.S. Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Center for Environmental Health and Injury Control U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - Regional Environmental Officer U.S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Indian Affairs - Office of Trust Responsibilities U.S. Department of Interior -Bureau of Land Management - Eastern States Office U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville Ecological Services Office, Field Supervisor U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Ecological Services Office, Field Supervisor U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, Field Supervisor U.S. Department of Interior - National Park Service - Southeast Regional Office U.S. Department of Interior - Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Director U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Geological Survey Chief U.S. Department of State - Office of Environment, Health and Natural Resources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Federal Activities, NEPA Compliance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, Ground Water Drinking Water Board 7-1 STATE AGENCIES Florida Department of Environmental Protection — Florida State Clearinghouse Florida Department of Community Affairs Florida Department of Health Florida Department of State - Division of Historical Resources Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission LOCAL AGENCIES City of Miami Police Department Miami -Dade County Planning Department Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization South Florida Regional Planning Council South Florida Water Management District, Executive Director 7-2 8.0 INDEX Advance Notification 5-1 Aesthetics .. 4-35 Air Quality 4-35 Alternatives No -Build Alternative (No -Project; No -Action) (Alternative 1) Alternative 2 (Elevated, Ramps at Midtown Interchange.) Alternative 3 (Elevated, Ramps at Miami Avenue) Alternative 4 (Tunnel, Ramps at Miami Avenue) Alternative 5 (Open -Cut, Ramps at NE 1st and 2°a Avenues) Aquatic Preserves Archaeological Bicycle Facilities Capacity Coastal Barrier Island Resources „ s•„ Coastal Zone Consistency Community Issues_ Comprehensive Planning Concurrence Construction Contamination Cultural Resources Economic Conditions Essential Fish Habitat Farmlands Floodplains Florida Intrastate Highway System (FII-IS) Master Plan Government Authority Historical Interagency Coordination and Consultation Land Uses .2-1. 2-1 2-7 2-10 2-10 2-16. 4-52 3-17,,4-15, 4-25 1-13 4-64 4-64 4-2 3-24 5-26 4-67 4-53 3-17, 4-15 3-15 4-66 4-67 3-27, 4-61 2-7 1-9 3-17, 4-15 5-12 3-2, 4-6 Modal Inter -relationships 1-11 Multimodal Alternatives 2-5 Noise......... 4-43 Outstanding Florida Waters 4-53 Parks 4-22 Pedestrian Facilities 4-25 Population and Community Characteristics 3-1 Public Involvement, Public Meetings 5-13 Public Hearing 5-13, 5-27 Railroads 4-7 Recreational 4-22 Relocations 4-7 Safety Alternatives 1-17 Social Demands and/or Economic Development 1-10 8-1 Structural Sufficiency 1-18 System Linkage 1-1 Transportation Demand 1-7 Transportation Systems Management 2-5 Utilities 3-23, 4-7 Vegetation 3-29 Visual 4-35 Water Resources 3-27 Water Quality 4-52 Wetlands 4-50 Wild and Scenic Rivers 4-61 Wildlife and Habitat 3-30, 4-64 8-2 1 • •, r 1 • � 1 1 , ' 1 1 1i11 'Jo nusfl boy RRNOR t 1 Iir 1 1, ' District Six Briv%ironmental Management Office • food N,W. 111 th Avenue, Room 6111 ' , lvfiami Florida' 33172 , ':April 6,12001 • 11 .Lauren P. Milligan, BnvironmentatCoftsulta nt Florida State Clearinghouse Florida. Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 47 ;Tallahassee, Florida.32399-3000 ' Dear Ms. Milligan: , 'Florida Department of T#din. partatian Ir 1000' Northwest 111 th Avenut Miami, Ftotida 331.72i5800 JOSEM REU SBCRIE'1'A RY Subject; Advance Notification , Ttrterstate 395 (1-395) From: 1-95 (Midtown Interchange) • • ' To: MacArthur Causeway West Channel,Bridges at Biscayne Bay Financial Management No.: 251670-1-22-02. . Federal Aid Project No.: NH-6182 (10). ' County: Miami -Dade The attached Advance Notification package is forwarded to your office for processing through hppropriate State agencies in accordance with Executive Order 95-359. Distribution to local and Federal agencies is being made as noted.. Although more specificcomments will be solicited : during, , he permit coordination process,, we request that permitting and, permit reviewing agencies. review the attached information and furnish us with whatever general comments they consider pertinentat this time, This is a Federal -aid action and the Florida Department of Transportation, in consultation with the: Federal Highway: Administration, will determine what degree of environmental doc'umentatlon will be necessary.. The determination will be based upon in-house • environmental evaluations and comments received through coordination with other agencies, Please provide a consistency review for this project in accordance with the State's Coastal. Zone Management Program, in addition, please review this improvement's consistency, to the maximum extent feasible, with the approved Comprehensive plan of the local government jurisdictions pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, www,doC,state,fl.us REorevo PAPER 1' I r• . i • Florida State Clearinghouse $. 1 April 6, 2005 ' . . . , . •t ,•, 1 • . , Page 2 .. . , 1 , „ ., . . 1 • t ' . We are looking forward to receiving you comments on the . projef within 45 .days.' . , .. Should additional review time' be reqxred; a written 'request for arl extensiop 'of time . , must be submitte.id tq our office within the 11'1410,06-day comment period. . , . .. t . • 60 L I , , Your comments spoUld be addressed to: , ' ; . . . . .. , . I. AlicocO I. Bravo, P.E. . 4 District Enviromnental Manag44ent Eng-firer . . • Florida Department ofIlranapprtatiori, r 41 . District, Environmental Maliagement Office ' 1 ' 100QN.W. 11,1th Avenue, Room 6111. I .• MiarniFlo'rida 33172 i , ; , . l• • : . .1 , ' ... J l' , Your expeditious handling of this,noticecwill be appreciated. 1 , 11 .1 if . I 1 I Sincerely, 0 • crA)-tA, ,e,„4„At,6 Alice N. Bravo, P.E.. District Enviromnpntal Management Engineer • I . Attachment cc: -. . • t Federal Highway Administration . Division Administrator - Federal Aviation AdministratiOn Airports'Distnet Office 7 Federal Emergency ManagementAgencii - Natural Hazards Brandt, Chief FederathitiergeneyManagenietit Agency * R6gion IV, Mitigation Division, Chief Federal Railroad Administration Region 111 OfP.oe, Office of Economic .Analysis, Director • • , • , Array Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Branch, District Engineer, Jacksonville 7 U.S. Army Corps of Ehgineers Regulatory Branch, District Engineer, Miami 9 1,7.S.,P0ast Guard ,•• Seventh District Commander (oan) • - :i‘ • U.S. Deportment 1t Ooinmerce National ' Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservatith Dvsioi, SoUtheastRegional'Office, Area Supervisor, Panama City Department of Comiteree National Marine Fisheries - Service, Habitat ConserVation Division, Miami Branch Office ti 13,8, Department of Commeree - National °Conic and Atmospheric Administration, Ecology & Conservation Office, Director 0 S, Department of Health and Human Services - Centersfor Disease Control and PreventiOn t 7 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - Regional Environmental Officer. • 1 '' F .1 • ,, '1 ,Flori'da'State Clearinghouse , i, .1 , ' • i , t\pril 6, 2001 1 ' . . 1 , 1 I Page 3 1 , 1 ,I ,, ,. , , y 1 1 t 1 1 iq U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, .Office of Trust Responsibilities, ,• , 1,', , 1l3nvironmental Services Staff, Chief . , 4 :,; 1 S ►'; U.1,S. Dejiartm,ent of Interior - Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office, Director • 1 ' it, UtS. DeHartmenc of interior -.Fish acid Wildlife Service, field upei•'vi or '' 'r vU,S. Dartinent of iiterior - National Perk'Service, Southeast P.egiopal.:Office Ii1. ,, ,ep '.� ,t fi,J.S, Deparlrnent of Interior » U.S Geological 'Survey;, Environmeit'al Affairs program, 1 , Chief ' , I 1 . ' iri U S,.Envii'onmental Protection Agency - Region IVfr Regional Administrator e . IMJ,S.' environmental Protection Agency - Region TV, Groundwater Teohnolog jr and • ,Management Section ' xi U S; Senate': lion. Senator. Mel Martinet ' 1 11 H. S. Senate - Hon, Senator Bill Nelson • 1 ,i`(J, S. }limp of Representatives, District 17 - Hon. Kendrick Zvleek ' U. S. House of Representatives, District 18 - Hon, Maria Ros-Lehtinen . : ' , v(Fldxida House of Representatives, District 109 Hon, Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall 411' Florida penate, District 35 - Hon, Gwen Margolis • Z'Florida Department of Community Affairs Division of Resource Planning and Management, Director zg Florida Department of Coinmunity,A£fairs , Division. of Growth Management, Director, ' ern Florida Departi'nent of Environmental Protection - Southeast District Office, Director to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission — South Region;, Director . 3r Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - Office of Environmental 'Services, 1, Director ' II -Florida Department' of Transportation - Central Environmental, Management Office, Manager s FF1orida Department of Transportation - District VI, Planning and Programs, Director PPFlorida Department of Transportation - District VI, .Planning and Programs, Planning Manager t c Florida Department of Transportation - Federal Aid Programs, Federal, Aid Manager 74' South Florida Water Management District, Executive Director 11 South Florida Regional planning Council, Executive, Director ?a Miami -Dade County Aviation Department; Airport Engineer 3y Miami -Dade County Community and Economic Development Department, Director y.7 Miami -Dade County Community and Economic Development Department, Historic Preservation Division U ► Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, Director v z Miami -Dade County Expressway Authority, Executive Director ur Miami -Dade County Fire and Rescue; Director vy Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization,, Director yr Miami -Dade County Office of Emergency Management, Director w. Miami -Dade County Citizens Independent Transportation Trust, Director ti z Miami -Dade Comity parks and Recreation Department, Director y 4 Miami -Dade County Planning and Zoning Department, • Director t' • t . • Florida State Clearingiouse • . , • , t .• •• ).- t s • April 6, 2005 . • Page 4 , . . 1 ' ,1 • , • • • , . . • iI . • . 1 1 '-ii Miarni-Dade County Police Department, Director , • . . .. • i , • 4 4 C.4 Miami -Dade County Public Schools;chief Eusiness Officer, . . • , !• f; Miarni-Dade CountylPiiblic Wdrks Deparbnent, Direct& , • ' c'sMiarni-Dade County Transit 'Agency, Direcfor, Si Miami -Dade Coiinty,Watel'and Sewei Department, Director , . • • • a , I 1 C4 Miami -Dade County; Office of the Mayor,- Hon, Carlos A. Alvarez . • • • • , slMiami-Dade County Planaget- George M. I3urgesp ' • . ' r i . . t 1, • • : ' nlvliaini-ljade County Cprnmission, District 3 - Hon. Barbra•Carq-Schuler 0 Miami -Dade Ccuntyaowmission,District 5 - Hon. Emil'? A.,Barre#o • I ' 1 / i OCity of Miami, Office of the Mayor - Honi Manuel A, pip .s'i City of Mianii, City Manager',0 Office - City Manager Joe &Aida • toCity of Miaini, Coftimiishiner, District 2 - Hon, Johnxiy,L. Winton i '.' • • vi City of Miami, CommNsioner, District 5 r Him. Jeffrey Alien . .. •• oCity of Miami, Comrnissiond, Districtil - }fon. Angel Gonzalez ' ,.. • ,. • • (Icily of Miami, Fire Rescue, Fire Chief t• ', 1,1City of Miami, Historic Preservation, Preshrvation Officer • i1City of Miami, Community Development, Director • 41City ofMiami, Economic Development, Director OCity of Miami, Parking Authority, Director , • 14 City of Ivliami, Parks & Recreation Department, Interim Director 15 City of Miami, Public Works Departnidit,' Director. ik, City ofMiami, Police Department, Chief of Police • • it N.E.T., Downtown / Brickell Office ' 11, Community Redevelopment Agency, Chair is Downtown Development Authority, Director ri'Performing Arts Center Foundation of Greater Miami, Executive Director • . . . 0 I k I I, I, 1 . II , k 1 STATiE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF:TRANSPORTATION. 1 . ADVANCE NOTIFICATION TACT SlIkEET . • . . . . 1 I 1.,* Need for the procet: • 0 , . . , ., 1 d . The existing 1-395 fability has many sivOcant deflcienbe gr upe eied that can into three general 1 ' categories as 161lowa: geometric deficiencies such aisubstandard,sections, poor vertical and horizontal ' alignments as well 48 insufficient sight ,distanees and vertical clearances; operational deficiencies II 1 ipcludiOg inadequatci projected levels of service, evere weaving problems and violation of operational i featdrea stich as lanebalance, route/lane continuity and basic 'limber 6f laap, and safety deficiencies . 6onisidting of accitlenf and injury rates that are consistently higher than the state average for similar type 1 . faeilities,' The existing two-way daily volumes are in the range of 130,000 vehicles per day (vpd)t and . . 1 ' the current Level of Service (LOS) is rated ,asi'LOSp. Current and future development is anticipatbdte pudh the average daily traffic volume to approximately160,000 by 2025, which will bring the entire . corridor to LOS F unless capacity improvements are undertaken This corridor is subject to higher than average volumes of havy truck traffic, as ground transportation to and from the Port of Miami is routed I through 1-395' and the Midtovvn Interchange to all points north and west. . . . . . Major urban renewal projects sponsoredbythe City of Mialni are Greater Miami (PAC), a new Gateway Park (at NE,'13''' Street between NW 2' Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard), redevelopment of Bicentennial Park, and beautification of Biscayne Boulevard. Also, associated private -sector ventures 'include proposals for mixed -use, high.ripe developinents on both sides of the I•;395 condor. ' .t , • , . 111 ' , The proposed project has been found consiStent with the Department. of Community Affairs appreved Miami -Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP)) as amended 1, • • (required Under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes) and with the CDMP thittigh the DCA's review of the tentative Work Program pursuant to Section.339,135(4)(f), Florida Statutes. The project is consistent with theapproved comprehensive Long Range Transportation Plan of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the loe4 gubernatorially-approved 2004 Miami -Dade MPO Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The project is consistent with the State Implementation Plan (ST) for. areas of ozone non -attainment .' In addition, the improvement is part of an MPO-approved Congestion Management Systern (CMS) and is contained in a federally -approved confonning TIP, 2. Description of the Project: Interstate 395 (WO) is an elevated expresswaithat traverses approximately 1,2 iniles in the City of Miam Thel-395 project corridor begins at the Midtown Interchange (I-95/SR-836/1-395), located just north, of downtown Miami, and runs eastward to BiscaynaBay. The 1-395 project corridor ends at the MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges (pee Project Location Map). In order to address the previously stated needs, the proposed project will involve potcntial realignment, capacity and geometric improvements that will require major reconstraction, Several solutions will be explored, including elevated, tunnel, and open-eut options, as well as urban design concepts geared towards .the development dim aesthetically pleasing pedestrian and vehictila,r friendly corridor. These improvements could require modifications of the I-95/Midtown Interchange and the I-395 Interchange' ramps at NE 1't Avenue; NE 214 Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. • . . • . l . I I I , 1 ,I Other related FDOT projects Include: The additron of trio 1.95, ramps at NW 14th Street (FIV1# 4107261); Improvementalong Biscayne Bouleveril from NE 5,111 to 13, Streets (FM# 2498352); and , I . ) the Port of 1Vliami Tunnel project at Watson Island' 071v111 2'511664, , ' . I' ' • k , 3. Environmental Informatinnt,, . . . , 11 a. -Land :Uses: The wropoSed k395- project corridor between 1-95 , and Biscayne Bay is, located , irrimediately north of the downtown business 'center and ;plases.through.Residentia4 ,Cornn&ercial, Institutional.- and industrialiland uses... The study.area wad first developed as-'reSidential land ue oi • . century ago as•OvertoN1/2-11 4nd has,,,heen through seVeral ionovatioriLTheland, uses south' ofthe I.,3951 project Corridor, from the Midtown • Interchange eastward -include': Medittrxi-high kitensity Residential (Overtown); Business.84:Office;:anthinstitutional8c.'PublaFadlity(Bieentennial Park): The land uses north of the 1.395project corridor, fronr,the!MidlOWri InterchangeedetWard include: Mediumlligh density Residential (OvertOWn)j Itichistriat and Office;.:andoilusiness and:Office, The Miami .}1ereld, central plant 710 !boated 411..the'111,scayne.Bayshoreline, andnorth' of the project,corridor's eastern!, terminus'. • With the current construction °Me -Performing Arts Center aitAC)-ofbreaterMiatut and the adjacent Gateway Park, parts ofthe'forrnerBuOndss and Office land use area on thoilieithsid0,0 '17,395 " have been 'changed to Institution' al S4 Public Facility land uses., A few properties along the north side of 1-395:,havebeen..acquirod, for Transportation:land use when thesubjectproject, is ir4lemented:, . . b. Wetlands:: .No wetlands are present There are Sitonnwatet detentionponds within!' the klidtoWn Interchangeat. the,projecVs western .terminua.. These are @ossified.. is Other °tithe:State, not jurisdictionalwetlands. The project's eastern tehninualson land:.Thenearbyaiscayne.Eay shoreline consists of vertical seawalls and is not classified as jurisdietion'al wetlands. , , C. Floodplainsi According teFederatErnergenv,Managerneint Ageriey(PEMA)FloOd.InSuranee Rate. Map (FIRM); C.InnintimityPanels12625C01801, and 12025C01831;„ (both reVi sed,,March 2,: 1994), there • is a small -portion OftheMidlowninterchange along the NW „leStreet alignment that is the floodplain:(ZOneX) of the Seybold:Canal.drainage arca, The remainder ativiintereherige , and a large area Stiribtairig:the interchange are outside the 500 yoar fleet:104in. PrOccedlngeastward,;;.,., the 500-year floOdplainofBisearieBaydrainagebegins,east of.NE 1 ,Avernte..The area situatedviithin-: ' the .100-year floodplain -inns -from -east ofNE 2' :Avenue, to Biscayne Bay. This .coastatflood pz)ne. is designated Zone AR, ,with the base flood:elevation d.eteirnined•-at,9.f4,,There. isno:•involvement- with • regulatory floodways in Miami -Dade County. d. Wikilite and 1:labitat: The following species are listed by either theUS. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).,orthe Merida. Fish and ',Wildlife. Conservation ,Commission,(FWC), asendangered4E).'.or threatened (T),.and-COtapessiblyinhabit ormigrate through the subject areaStatus : • • . FWS/FWC Peregrine,falcon (Falco peregrinus) [••• / E] Southeastern Anierican.kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) • - • [-IT} Eastern indigo snake-fDlyrnarchon ,corals couperi) • • (VT]. The .subject -area ialtillynrbanized and contains no, wildlife habitat, No involvement with protected. species. is anticipated, due to the spopeand location -oldie proposed action. .A,Biolegieal.,Assessment will be conducted in order to determine thepoesible presence of, and, potential to, theab.Ove 2 It ,1 ' • listed species, Other wildlife, and their critical habitat withinto Project vicinity. • • e ' ; Outsca4flingillorida Waters: None, • •1 '•,1 a . t ,, , f. :Aquatic Pregerves1 None , , . 4 , , , II 1 ' . I ,, g. Coastal ZoIue•Chnsisteney Determination is Required: Yes, ''5 CFR 930) . . ' t , , .1 h. Cultural Resources: According to a revi* of the Florida Mager Site File database and (3IS information; 20 previouslyrecorded historre resources weraiidentified vi/ithin the proposed project 40:tinor.'Thio inpules two NRHP-listed resources, the Sears.Roebuck rind Company Tower, 13,00 EnscaynelBoulevard otono9), and St, Johits Baptist Church, .1328 NW 3'.' Avenue (8DA5127); and four NRHP-eligible resources, the Dr. Williain Chapnian House, 526 NW 13th Street (8DA2584); 147 NW 13"' Street (8DA5879), 219 NW 14th Terrace (8DA5862), 471(1 1413 NW 14 Place (8DA5864). There are nri previously recorded historic bridges, cemeteries, or arcliaeologicall sites within 200 ft of the section of 1,-395 from1Midtown Interchange to Biscayne Bay, A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey will be condtteted, I , t 4 # , • i. Coastal Barrier Resources: None, • I .1 lc J. Contandnation: A preliminary hazardous materials Survey identified approximately 54 potential contamination sites, Three of these were known petroleum contamination sites, such as gas stationS: A ' Contamination Screening Evalnation will be cominCted. , ' t , 1 ecctio4120 Excavation and Embankment -Subarticle 120.1.2 Unidentified'Areas oftontrunination of . , t the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction is provided in the project's construction contract doeuments. This specification requires that in the event that any hazardous material or suspected Contamination iS encountered during constructien, °ill any spills cansed by'Construction. related materials should occur, the contractor shall be instructed to stop work immediately and notify the District Six Environmental Management Office as well as the appropriate regidatory agencies for assistance. In case of a chemical spill on the roadway, the FpOT maintOna a contract for emergency response and remediation on any of the State roads, In additiori, local, first response agencies such as the Miami -Dade County Fire Department and Miami -Dade County DePartinent of EnvironMental Resources Management (DERM) have established emergency response,mechanisms, which are put into immediate action in the event of a chemical spill Ir. Sole Source Aquifer: lvlianii-Dade County is underlain by the Biscayne Aqvifer, the solo source of potable water for most of southeastern Florida, The Biscayne Aquifer will not be affected, as the aquifer under the project corridor is saline. Salt water intrusion under coastal areas of Miami -Dade County tesulted from development and drainage/flood control projects. Potable water in this county is supplied principally from the Northwest VVellfield and the West Wellfield, however, the nearest wellfield to the I.395 project corridor consists of the old combined wellfields of Preston -Hialeah and Miami Springs, (Upper and Lower). The nearest edge of the established Protection Area of this combined Welifield is located four miles West of the subject project) near Miami International Airport at Lawrie Road. The old wellfields of Preston -Hi aleah and Miami Springs remain inuse, but are pumped at greatly reduced 3 't - • .4 „ rates. ' i II 1 The proposed stormwater facility designwill inolude,.at an inimmi�, the water quantityr4cniirements for the water quality impadis as required by Chapter 24,`Section 24 58'of the Miatni-Dade County dodo,' The Miami -Dade County requirements meet or exceed the S,tate Of Florida_ water quality' and Water. quantity requirements.. Therefore, the proposed storthwatee treatment measures Will assul e maintenance of water quality within, the proposed project area, ' i ' •' • ' • f` ; , 1; Noise:: A ti affic noise anglysis will be conducted in accordance with Chapter 17, Part 2, of ihePD&�'i 1 Manual. The corridor.6or}t4ins, noise sensitive rpceivers in areas oeresidential land use:and'the PAC, II including the .fhaws Gateway i'ax'k. The noise analysis will identify nearby noise sensitive sites, and'if noise impacts are 4identifiedi noise..' abatetnent''Will �be + onsiderecl for reasonableness and ' feasibility,.Foliowing completion of the'noise analysis; an`ap;propriate Noise Study Report will be prepared. 1 ni..t tlaer Comments:. Water quality impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation during constmetiof activities will be controlled in cco'rdance with FDEP's`National Pollntnnt> iscliargo Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, the latest edition ofFDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and through the use of Best Management Practices, including tetnporary+ erosion control features, The 1-395 project corridor crosses overr active railroad tracks of the Florida East Coast Railroad (RC) at N V+I 13t Avenue. The project corridor also croSies,'tinder a spur line (the Ornni Leg) ofMetroraiPs liglit rail Metroxnover at a point near the eastern project terminus:Alai, there is aMetromover station located at Bicentennial Park, adjacent to the project; corridor. A segment of the Metrorail main line is located between NW 12`h Street and NW 13`Street, and runs parallel toga segment of the 1-395• corridor. 4. '1V'avigable Waterway Crossing? [ ] Yes [X] No Permits Required;; Permits anticipated to be required for the project include: SouthSoith.Plerida WaterMUnagement District (SFW1v1D)t Environmental Resource Pernut'(ERP) Florida Department ofEnvironmeztalPi< tectioz (FDEP): - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit 4 DASD�UAD MUM /.-395 FROM: Midtown Interchange (1-95/5R-836/I-395) TO: MacArthur: Causeway West Channel Bridges FCpya� FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT NUMBER 251670-1 04 FEDERAL AID PROJECT NUMBER: NH-6182-(/0) y4 M/AMI -DAOE COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 1 APPLICATIQH r Olt FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2: DATE SUBMITTED � f ✓, •O:S Applicant ' , FM No. 2518701 I 1. 7YP OF SUBMISSION: Application ra ,Construction 13 Non -Construction Pre•appitcallan ' @ Construction 'I CINon•Copstruatlan 3. DATE RECEIVED 13Y STA E , ` , ' 1 • ' • I . State Applicatlon9dentitie} 1 l • , ' A: DATE RECEIVED IV FEDERAL. /AGENCY, • , Federal ldenllfler ' • , • , ' 5. APPLICANT INFORMATION 1 I , I ,. 1 i ,Legal Name: • 11i , , • Florida Department ortation A p , � Organizational Unit: II • • Da art one: Ot1�co o� Design. , Organizational DUNS: • ' ' ' 1' Dlvlslon:l 1. I , Address: 7 Name and•t'tephone numperof person to be contacted on r• ilallers' Involving this application (give area cods) - ; • 1 , f Street: • , Itl • i ' 1, • 1 I , ONSuwannee •Street , , Prefix: . II First Name:, Alice ' 4 . , City: Taliahaseee , u. 1 ' 1 Middle Ndl�r e 1 , ' . N " • .1. County:, �. 1. '. Leon• B Vo ainei , 1 , I atd' Fiodda 2 p Co}i ` tt 32399900 • Suffix:88tt P,E. , I , Country: . . USA 1 ' 1 Erna: , eltce.brevolgido! stele.tl.us; - . 1 • 0. EMPLOYER IDEENTIFII�CAATION •NUMBER (EIN): r 1 • ® "l"J l�1�lJlJ® i, Phone Number (give eracode); 300.470.0200 ' Fax Number (give eree code) 306470.0200 , 11 S: TYPE OF APPLICATION: 0. P) New H Continuation ID Revision • If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(ris) , (Seeback of form for descdplion of lettere.) Other (specify) ' Y. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (See back of form for jplIcr;tlon Types) 1• A. State ` r Other (specify) • 0 NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY: , U S. Department of Transportation , 10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE TITLE (Name of program): Highway Planning and Construction 1 NUMBER; ' ' 1, •1 11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT: FM I4p,:2ti10701 i>' 1• Interstate 390 (l-390) . From I-@SJMtdtown interchange MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay , ®n0 ^ o � , <I2, AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (CIUJes, Counfles, Slates, via):To Miami -Dade County, Florida 13."PROPOSED PROJECT, 14 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: Start Date: 04/05 Ending Date: 0407":• a Applicant' • • i b. Project 17 and 18 la, ESTIMATED FUNDING; /itt) V ORDER APPLICATIONSUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE' PROCESS? a. Federal $ 0Q �4ty� pp0 '„ I, ©DO, ODY) t7i3U 3 0Vos."j THIS PREAPPLICATIONIAPPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 +, PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON .. DATE: 111,5".45'— b, No. all PRO4RAM IS NOT COVERED BY E. 0,12372 ri OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW b: Appiloant $ o, Slate $ d: l 4cal $ W e. Other $ W f Program Income $ . " 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? Yes If "Yes" attach an explanation, No 9 TOTAL $ uu 500). O.ddj Ud0 ,a // DOOj OAV/ OUo 10. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATIQN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE: ATTACHED ASSURANCES THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED. - p. Authorized•Renrese ietive Prefix First Name -Middle Name- N. Last Name Bravo Suffix P,E. b: Title District Environmental Management Engineer o. Telephone Number (give area code) 305, 470.5200 J. StuEof Author' Representative par hyv,S e. Dateigned s$tao (2 a nU Standard Fotm 4241Rev.9.20051 PrevlouEitioable Authorized for Local Reor&Iijctton Prescribed by OMB Craular A-102 1 ADVANCE NOTIFICATION CORRESPONDENCE Advance Notification (AN) for I.395 was circulated to 75 entities by FDOT on April 6, 2005,, The 15 AN Responses are listed below and scanned copies of the correspondence are contained on an enclosed CD. Responses (Date, Number of Pages, Format) Federal Agencies 1. U.S. Coast Guard, Seventh District, Commander (oan) (04/20/05, 1 page letter) 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Southeast Regional Office, Area Supervisor, Panama City (05/06/05, 2 page letter) 3. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Miami Branch Office (05/06/05, 2 page letter) 4. .U.S..Department '`of Interior,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Field Supervisor (04/21/05, 2 page draft letter) State Agencies 5, Florida Department of .Environmental protection, Office of Intergoverninental Prograrns, Florida State Clearinghouse, Director (06/07/05,'10 pages) including 2 page co+ier letter, letters, interoffice memoranda, or dated references on checklist to AN responses from: Florida Departnient of Environmental mental Protection;,. , Southeast District Office, Director (05/25/05,.3 page letter:)` Florida Fish and 'Wildlife Conservation Commission, South Region, Director (04/15/05,. referenced within SCH response) South Florida Water Management District; Executive Director (Note: letter not received, only referenced within SCH response dated 06/07/05, follow-up request made on 7/08/05 to Sylvia Cohen, SFWMD Tor this letter, .no response received) South Florida Regional Planning Council, Executive Director (05/06/05, 3 page letter) Department of State, Bureau of Historic Preservation, Deputy SHPO for Survey and Registration (04/14/05, referenced within SCH response) Local Agencies 6. 'Miami -Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning, Director (08/02/05) as County Clearinghouse (4 page letter) 7. Miami -Dade County Office: of Emergency Management, Director (04/12/05, 1 page letter) 8. Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, Assistant Director (05/18/05., 2 page memo) 9. Miami -Dade County . Park and Recreation Department, Planning and Development, Assistant Director (07/20/05, 1 page memo) 10.,Miami-Dade County MPO, Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator (07/28/05, :1, page memo) 11. Miami -Dade County Aviation Department, Noise and Environmental Planning, Manager (07/28/05, 1 page memo, not applicable) 12. Miami -Dade County 'Fire Rescue Department, Supervisor (07/28/05, 1 page memo) 13, Miami -Dade County Public Works Department, Highway Division, Chief (07/29/05, 1 page memo) 14. Miami -Dade County Water and. Sewer l<Department, "Assistant Director for Planning, Innovation & Compliance (07/29/05, 2 page email memo) 15, Miami -Dade County Transit (MDT), no signature, (08/05/05, 2 page memo) U.S. Department of Homeland Security United States Coast Guard Commander 909 SE 1" Ave. Ste 432 Seventh Coast Guard District Mang, FL 33131.3050 • Staff Symbol:(°W) Phone: (305)415,0747 Fax: (3.05)415-0763 Erna: wlate@d7,uscg.rnil • 16591 s , April 20 2005 .1 Ms. Aiken Bravo, P.B. District Environmental Management Bngineer Florida Department ofTransPortatiou District Environmental Management Office 1000 NW 111"' Ave, Roorn 6111 Miami, FL 33172 Dear Ms, Bravo: :.- - r------------itaiscEivED - ' APR 2.2 2005 I ?%7 "T r s2 ORT AT ION I am responding to your Advance Notification Interstate 395 (1-395) from 1-95 to MacArthur Causeway dated April 6, 2005. If this project is federally funded, the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), as outlined in 23 CFR 650,805, has the responsibility to determine if a USCG permit is required, Based on your letter which indicates no navigable waterway crossings are involved, no USCG penult would be required, regardless. If federal funds are not utilized in this project, and the project crossed navigable waters of the United States, then a Coast Guard bridge permit is required for the project. The Coast Guard Bridge Permit Application Guide is available at http://vvww.useganil/hq/g-o/g-optig-opt,htin, Please submit permit application as outlined in enclosure (1) with original 8 1/2" X il" permit plans showing the project vicinity, and existing and proposed bridge structures, in plan, elevation and section views. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please caU.Mr. Gwin Tate at (305) 415-6747, Regards; W. &YIN TAIT 111 Associate Bridge Management Specialist U.S. Coast Guard By direction •t 17 s* 0,4,4 es. viit 4 'Nrcol • Ms. Alice Bravo, P.E. District Project Devolopsnent and Environment Engineer FlOrida DePartment Of Transportation, DiStrict 6 'District Environmental Management Office 1000 NW I 1 I" Avenue, Room 6111 Miami, Florida 33172 Dear 1V1s, Bram UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP DOlyi19)EFica National Oceania and Atm.opherlo AdrnIniaUtablbn NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 263 13' Aventic,South St, Petersburg, Florida 33701 (727) 824-5317 FAX 820300 http://sero.nmrs.nosia,gov tvlay 6, 2005 1-1/SEA47•:NINI gc IV D MENLO- MAY 13: 20115 r TRANSPORtAtiON This is in response 4) the Florida, Departinent Of Transportation (FIDOT) advance notification letter dated April 6, 2005, reqUeiting cormAetna and agency coordination regarding the proposed I-395,Road Improvement Pmject from 1•,9.5 to the:MacArthur Causeway West-Channe.1 lrtdpcs: at Biscayne Bay (FIN: 251670.1.22-02) in Miami -Dade CoUnty, Florida. This response is provided as infOrinat technical talsistance and Coordination with FLJOT:i.ind is not intended to take the plea of formal cornrnents or consultation as required under.the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (ESA) (16 U.S.(1 15,31 et seq). Based on the information provided in your letter, our site visit on April 29, 2005, and available Information, the following federally: liSted ape-cies, that me under purview of the National Marine Fisheries Service (N1v1FS).May occur -within- the proposed project area: Turtles green sea turtle (Chelonla notelets) — threatened green sea turtle breeding: population in Florida (C. mydem) -endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Ereintoeholys imbricate) - endangered Komp's ridley sea,ttirtle (Lepidochelys ketnpli) - endangered leatherbitek sea turtle perochebis orkicea)— endangered .loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) threatened .olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivaceet)— threatened Fish Stnalkopth; sawfish pectinata) —endangered *Y., s;da—vi.a-,;•',Ascrk :('-f• ":1'...1t. • •'1•'‘.9' . , • ' • • ' !':"...rz.:14.1:1:•:•:!';'=.•:i. (pc; t:s.',..tt!f•t'io:::.)..-cl :..1,1,Yr.•' )4%. . ' . ,o14n c•n,. ',.S... 'e•Naa.,.• v..'.1/4.4.• 1,t.;•o.h4zlA•-"jo••'h,•..q-,. .•a,.. in''...i'4',,- - t.•.te:.",rt tho.:Jir.•aYrt., Lan•,... ..;;,6itrv.. 4 ... . . ... , • *.• • ' •. ,•,..•,!s• • .r;i0,.-.!:,./. ,:y ''.1: ;1:1" ' . , - f ii in Etddition, designated,critical habitat for Johnson's serigMss (H. johnsonii) (65. PR 17786) lc occup within the project arett.. ie .... b Since indirect impact's of the project (c.s., discharge of untreated storrnwater runoff into ,.. il Biscayne Bay) may potentiallyaffect federally listed speeies, 'continued informal discussion of technical issues or initiation of informal consultation, ptirsuant to section 7 of the ESA, may be needed during the Project. Development andEnvironment Study and pormitting.stage. 'lilts will t.i -enatne that resource protection and conservation measures that are needed to avoid and minimize i: impactsto federally listed Species in the project area are implemented. .,: if Finally, you should be awe that the proposed project may need to undergo biological .: ,.. . i ' - " -asSessment/evaluation (BAJBE) once the lead federal action agency is daterrained..-The.BN}3.- , II should ineltide a complete detailed project .description of the -purpose, construction activities, • ).: til resource conservation and protected measures, and information.on federally listed species (i.e.. • A.. biologje0 surveys, maps, relevant data from scientific ,journals, etc.). In addition, an effects... ... _ sc analysia should be inclnded in the BA/BB, which identifies the direct and indirect effects of.the • . it• g proposed project as well as the 'final effects determination on listed species (i.e., no effect, may. •,.: affect; but not likely to adversely affect; or may adversely affect). 1.. i; I Thank yen for the opportunity to pfoVide these cornments. If youhave any question a regarding :.! this response or if additional informationiis.:needekpleasecontaa Ms. ;Wel yn.T. Martine.4..81 ,. ii tf the above address,:telephone number (727) 824,5329,•FAX number (727) 824-5300, or:by email.. ..1. :' Madelyn,Martinez@nomeov. _ She.is also the EFRoonsulting biologist tor this -project. Sincerely, C.--acktal Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D. Southeast Regional Administrator ec: COE, Miami EPA, Region IV PIMA PWS, 'Vero Beach SPW,VII) P/SER3 Norton/Hawk P/SER47 Livergood P/SER47 Martinez UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMEI-CE National Oceania and Atmaspherta Administeat Ion NATIONAL tvMARtt'JE VIGHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regi'attl Office 263 13'h Avenue South St,:Fgti�;:sliurg,.T lcyti,tlit.33701 Ms.. Alice Bravo, P.E. District Project Development and Environment Engineer Florida ID part neat of Transportation, District 6 District Environmental. Management Office 1..000 NW 111th Avenue, Room 6111 Miami, Florida 33172 .Dear Ms, Bravo: MAY S 20E15 i t TRANSPORTATION •:.:Ilhi. Roma This is in response to the Advance Notification (AN). forthe proposed I-395 Road improvement Project from 1-95 to the MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay (FIN. 251670-1-22-02) in the Miami-Dade•County, Florida. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NiMFS) has reviewed the information provided in the AN forthe. proposed project. According to AN; lacustrine and palustrine open -water habitats (start —water detention pond and canals) itre present within the project area. In addition, the casters termin s of the project area is in close proximity to Biscayne Bay. Based on the information provided in your letter and our site visit on April 29, 2005, alteration of existing stormwater detention ponds and caattls is of concern since this work could impact: areas in Biscayne Bay that are designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) by the South; Atlantic Fishery lvianagement Council (SAFMC). Additionally, Biscayne Bay has been designated by the SAFMC as a habitat area of particular concern (HAPC). HAPCs are subsets of EFH that are rare,. particularly susceptible to human -induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Detailed infot'rnation on federally managed species and their RPM is provided in the 1998 amendment of the Pishery2vTanagement Plans for SAFMC. border to evaluate the potential impacts to EFH, NMFS requests that the following information be provided for our review as the project progresses into the Project Development and Environment Study stage and into permitting and implementation: 1) A stormwater management plan which assures that all surface water runoff from the new innpervious surface (roadway) will be properly treated and disposal of in accordance with state and federal (NPDES) standards. 2) As needed, an EFH assessment that includes a description of the proposed action; an„ • analysis 'af anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action on BPI-1, federally managed species; and associated species by life history stage; and the Florida Department of Transportation's views regarding the effects of the proposed project on EFH. . We appreciate the opportunity to provide. these con»nents. Please direct related questions or comments to the attention of Ms. Madelyn T. Martinez at the above address, telephone number (727) 8.24-5329, FAX number (727) s24-5oo, or ernail at lvladelvn:Martittez@netia.gov. She is. also ESA conStiltirq.bitilogist for this project, co: COE Miami - EPA Region IV FHWA FWS Vero !leach SFWMD P/SER3 NortonWSER47 Li vergood F/SER47 Martinez • .1 . „ . Sincerely, • miles M. Croom Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat conservation Division • ) April 21, 2005 •Alice Bravo Service Log No.: 4-1-05-PL-11732 Date Received: April I2,2Q05 Project: Interstate 395 Improvements County; Miami -Dade Dear Ms, Bravo: Thank you for your letter dated April 6, 2005, in which you requested the Fish and Wildlife Services (Service) technical assistance for the project referenced above. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of constructing improvements to Interstate 395 from the Midtown Interchange to the MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges, The improvements have not been currently determined but may consist of redesigning the existing roadway and adding new interchanges to the existing roadway. The purpose of the project is to improve traffic movement and increase safety. The project is located in Miami -Dade County, Florida. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The Service has reviewed its Geographic Information System (GIS) database for recorded locations Of federally listed threatened and endangered species on or adjacent to your project, The GIS database is a compilation of data received from several sources, Federally listed species were not identified on your project site, The Service has not conducted a site inspection to verify species occurrence or validate the GIS results. However, we assume listed species occur in suitable ecological communities and reconunend site surveys to determine the presence or absence of listed species. Ecological communities suitable for listed species can be found in the speeies accounts in the South Florida Multi -Species Recovery Plan, This document is available on the internet at littp://verobertelaws.gov/Programs/Recovery/ esvb-recovery.html. Alice Bravo Page.2 We .have also provided for yourconsideration.two computer links: (1) http://verobeaeh.frvs.gov/ Programs/1'eixnits/Section7.html and (2) http://tnigratorybirds.fws.gov/. The first link is a table of specie$ by county: in south Florida that,are protected as either threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 its amended (87 Stat. 884; 16 U,S,C. 1531 et seq. ). The table does not include State -listed species, Please contact the. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission at 772 77875094 to 'identifypotential State4isted species occur:ring in the vicinity of your project. The second link provides information on species the Service is required to protect and conserve under other authorities, such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended (48 Stat. 401; 16 1/..S.C. 661 et seq,) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (40 Stat, 755;.16 U.S.C. 701 et seq.). A. varietyofhabitats in south Florida occasionally provlde'resting feedings and nesting sites for a variety of -migratory bird species, As a public trust resource, inigratory.bids must be. taken.iuto consideration during project planning and design. Thank you for the opportunity to continent. If you have any questions, please contact John Wrublik. at 772-562-3909, extension 282. Sincerely yours, James J. Slack Field Supervisor South Florida Ecological Services Office cc: DEP, West Palm Beach, Florida: >> EPA, West Palm. Beach, Florida FWC, Fero Beach, Florida job Bush Governor ;! Department of Environmental Protection Marjory Sioneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 323994000 June 7, 2005 Ms, Alice N. Bravo, P.E. District Environmental Management Engineer District Six Environmental Management Office Florida Departtnent of Transportation 1000 NAV. 111'1! Avenue, Room 6111 Miatni, Florida 33172-5800 REceiVnito 10.E.P4.0. JUN 75 2005 DEPT, OP T8ANSPORTATION 111i4 Secretary ••• RE: Department of -Transportation -- Advance Notification -- 1-395 ti;c4t4044i) MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay, Firtan4f114: Attiffent No, 251670-1- 22-02 —IVliarni.Dade County, Florida, SAI # FL200504080708C Dear Ms, Bravo: . ;.4`. 11W ItilY;t) The Florida State Clearinghouse, pursuant PsOltiential Executive Order 12372, Gubernatorial Executive. Order 95-359, the Coased MROManagernent Act, 16 1.I.S‘C. §§ 1451- 1464, as amended; orate National Environmentariroloy Mt, 42 U,S.C. §§ 4321, 4331-4335, 4341-4347, as amended, has coordinated a regii,i of the referenced advance notification. 1,4,4 The Florida Department of Erivh0kgptal Protection (DEP) Southeast District'Office notes that one of the Solution's prepesedqafffikonstruetionYwould requite extensive permitting that should be, evaluated by the appTpAge 1?FPor South Florida Water Management Districtoffice. This project falls within a Bro fitlik0ea(s) and work in this area must be coordinated with the Miami-DadeCtinnty'Departnrttnvironnietital Resources Management an4DEP'sDistrrof Brownfields Coordinator. DEP it4 'legs that copieS"ofthe.Contantifiation Screening Evaluation • report be submitted to th00Arict Waste Cleanup Section in West Palm Beach. Depending on the findings of the CorttattNittWereffillig Eiltillldn'and the proximity to known contaminated sites, projects invglvirtiVatering" should be discouraged, since there is ft potential to spread contamination tel)r1:yo(Oss, uncontaminated areas and affect contamination receptors, site workers and the public, got 1ittjher information, please refer to the enclosed DEP memorandum and contact Mr, Paul Wiefzi461..0, *este Cleanup Supervisor, at (561) 681,6677, In qdtidn, DEP notes that this project ocours adjacent to the Biscayne Bay Aquatic) Preseriieideslinated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) and afforded a high level of pt•otection under Rftives 18-18, 62-4,242(2) and 62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code (F,A.C.). Every effort shetild be made to maximize the treatment of stormWater runoff front the proposed highway improvements project, as area stormwater ultimately discharges to the bay. We recommend that the PD&E study include an evaluation of existing storniwater treatment adequacy and details on the "More Protection, Less Process" Primed on recycled paper. A-5 • • The South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) notes that. should be consistent with the goals and policies of the. Cityof Miami comprehensive plans and corresponding land development regale impacts to natural systems be minimized; the extent of sensitive. Art communities be determined; and protection and/or mitigation c d stated In the. Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) for South the SRPP for the goals and policies which address the Bisgl a natural resource of regional significance: gr Ms, Alice N. Bravo, P.E. June 7, 2005 Page 2 of 2 future stormwater treatment facilities. The permit applicant may be required to demonstrate that the proposed stormwater system meets the design and performance criteria established for the treatment and attenuation of discharges to OFWs, pursuant to rule 40E 4, RAC., and the SFW Basis of Review fors ERP Applications, Any proposed impacts to the bay should also be ! '`;, coordinated with the DEP Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas and the.Biscayne.`_' Aquatic Preserve staff. }` The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) states that this require an Environmental Resource Permit, In addition, a Water Use Permitm: dewatering activities pursuant to Rule 40E-20, � $f•,,?,. or�vlll uired for tegposed project ade County ecomniends that hd vegetative.. rlied habitat be required as SPRIT also refers FDOT to fifer,designated in the SRPP ass • Based on the Information contained in th v a eE'notificntion and the enclosed state agency comments, the state has no objections to ai d n of federal funds for thesubject project and, therefore, the fiinding award is consistent ithlfile. lorida.Coastal Management Program (FCMP). The applicant isrequired, howeeve. r dress the concerns identified by.DEP, SkiVV L?, and SFRPC staff prior to project itnptem'e II The states continued concurrence with the project will be based, in part, .oft the asolution of issues identified during this: arid subsequent reviews, The state's fi a p a ence of the project's consistency with the_PCMP will be determined during the envirp i op rrnitting stage, �yuis�+ Thank you for the opTT regarding thisletter,.' please contd.t SBM/sjc .. EnciosnfOs to review the proposed project; Ifyou. have questions s. Sylvia Cohen at (850) 245 2182. Sincerel yo Sally B. Mann, Director Office of Intergovernmental Programs cc: Mr. Tim dray,; DEP, Southeast District Mr. Jim Golden, SFWIv1D Ms. Christina`Miskis, SFRPC Florida. , Department of Environmentil Protection `Nom Protection, Less Amass" • • ...•••••• •••4 • .t.',..4••;•eq.'',0•;•.$$)•.`1,Fi.•$.$$$‘4,•01$.11•74•1.ittr.,4;•$,•:± It•Yi$.° JP $ ,;' :•• •••••••••,•• '.„ Project InfOhnation Project: ' • FL200604080708C 06/08/2006 . .. ..,. Comments , , ,. , . Letter Due: • • , 06/07/2006 Description: : , ,•'' ' , " ' , ', . ' ' • ' :' ' ' "' : ' . ..•: . , , • . . •• . . . , DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -ADVANCE NOTIFICATION -1-396 FROM 1-95 TO MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY WEST CHANNEL BRIDGES AT BISCAYNE BAY - FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT N0,1251670-1-22-02 - MIAMI- , DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA, ..'• „—;,••_• , . • !‘eYvvull us' • ' DOT .1496 FROM 1-95 TO MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY WEST CHANNEL BRIDGES. MIAMI DADE , CFDA #; $:, . . , . . Agency mil en SOUTH FL RFC - SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL . The pitied should he consistent with the goats and poitcles of the Mleml and Miarnmada,County,cornprehens.lva,plan and their corresponding land development regulations. Staff recommends that Impacts to natural systeind be:Minirelzed; the extent of sensitive wIldlife and vegetative communities be deternilned; and protection mid/or mitigation of disturbed habitat . be required. — - - . MIAMI-DADE - ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY UNIT . OFFICE orpouv AND BUDGET; ENvinoNmeNTAL POLICY,UNIT No Comment. COMMUNITY AFMIRS - FLORIDA.DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FISH and WILDLIFE COMMISSION . FLORIOA'FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION. NoCctOtigNT BY 5.17061,10'4/45/05 :, . • . : • . . • . .-,.• .. L ... • ._•,•,_ , -:'..2i:.,•,„ ,_, ..,.... , - . STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE NO cOrtunentiCarsisterrt ' ,,A6,,- ...' ' . . - , i '.. ... -. = , '• , . ', • , - - --,,, . . , ' ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTIORi. FLORIDA- DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;..,,-,:: DEP Southeast bishitt 'office notes that One Of the soh:Wiens prOPosed(tunnal oonatrtiction)'Wouldreeulre extensive ' r • Pai)Tlitting that should ba,evaluated by the appropriate DEP or SFWMD office. This project falls within a Otownflelds erea(s), and woricln this. areaintrat'ne Coordinated with the ideinT-Dade County'bERMinid DEP'S Ellatrict'OrownRelds daardinator. DEP requests that CopleS of the OntarninatIort Screening Evaluationteport be submitted to. Its Waste- Cleanup Sarin in the West F,laint Beach office. Depending (Ai* 6ndings of the:ContaratnatIon.Screentng Evaluationand the proximity to known Coeterninatecl sites, projects Involidng 'ageWiterine'should he dIsceidagerf; sates there Is a potentiallOSPreadtentOtillieUort to prevloirilY unContantinated areas end effect Coritaneration'retepterstalte workers and the public.:Por further infOrmation, please refer to the enclosed DEP memorandum:and contact Mr. Paul Wlerzbicid, Waste Cteanop.SuperVisor,. at (561) 601- 604 in addition,. DEP notes that this Object *OM in/near the Elscayne.Bay Aquatic Preserve, 'designated Outstanding Monde Waters (OFW) and afforded it high level of. pretettlen under Rules 18-18, 62-4.2442) and 62-.302,760;,TIOrida Administrative Code (F.A.C,). Every effort should be made to Maximize. the treatment of Stormwater runoff from the PiPPosod highway construction Improvements project, as area.stormyvaterultimately discharges to the bay. We recommend that the PIXE study include en evaluation of existing stormwater treatment atie4decy and details on the future stormWater treatraent facilities. The permit applicant nay 06 taRulf0 to cientenstrate that the proposed storniwater sYstein Mots the design and .performance criteria established for the treatment and attenuation of discharges to OFWs, pursuant to rule 400, 4,.P,A.C., and the SFWMD Oasis of Review for ERP Applkations, Any pronosed'Impacts to the bay should alSo be.coordlnated with CAMA Discane Bay *mate Preserve staff. —.-- ....** ......... , • • , 4. ... I SOUTH FLORIDA WMD • SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT — * irys_preject will regirlre an Environmental Resource 'Permit (ERP ) (rem the SFWMD. _ M,enctorandtint. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Sylvia J. Cohen, Senior Management Analyst Office of Intergovernmental Programs FROM: Paul A. AVierzhicki, Pa., Waste Cleanup Supervisor Sou.theast District DATE: May 25, 2005 l'ROJECT: Department of Transportation — Advance Notification -1,1-395 front 1-95 to MacArthur, Causeway West Channel litridges.atBiseaYne,it!,.#:. Financoel Managetuent No. 251670-14242— Miami -Dade Corny, klorida. SAX FL200504080708C 1...have'reviewed the document from the Office of Intergovernmental FrOgrigns'atiii have the ;.' followingebnirtiente,:Within the scope 0100-LWtisto_iCleanupSection:,: 1. I previously'cOmmented on the same or shnilar overall project on July 9, 2004 (please see SA1 it 1?L200405102524 2. According to the information submitted, the referencedproject potential realigrunent, capacity and geomptrip.improyement. that will require major reconstruction. Several so1ution will be oviorod,-ineluding.eleVatetktoOndaatlopen.Oltloigiohk us well as urban design:concepts geared towards the development ofan aeithetieitilypleasingpedeStrian and vehicular friendly corridor. -These:inPiriVernents.e6044equire.:ModifiCationS'Of the 1-95 / • Midtown Intereintuge and the 1-395 hterichange ramps at NE to AvoRo; NW,2nd.A.i/erMe and .•Discayne„DoUloyard.1.!.r.gost;08*00q,:pros varies, but tivStjUlofed*hetWeen$3,00,,000,009 and $1,000 000 000. Tunnel construction Would. require 6tteriiiVOUernilidikihtit should be evaituitedby the appropriate DUP section. Firther,it,ajeatsthata inajertiortion•or all of the project fallsyrithin.4,:lviiiina-Paikco4rityarCity414444eislatatpd.913romilifiel0;aka(s). Coordination with thoso offices should be made early in tho projcct.Arl*pt4te-IW-ti delegation agreetnent with the:Mi - a e.f, ep ment ofnv ronmen OSOUTOOSrManagement d • —4rt . „ mgp-o fbr Drown.ictds.otopioogetriattift 4„00:._90000Ntk vidminIstrativeCodi P.OE, with :DgitM.. i.s a centaet.for the -..1.riWraol0,:ppOr.04:0001-0*305/372,67Q9):.:Mr. Lee -1opfer!,• PM; (telephone 11581- 6616) is. the DER Southeast DistriOtia:14iOhiAelilki0),010ihaior. U0Ofot internet *0$1$',Iivthis regard May, be found. at .http://WWw4dep4tateittus/waste/categories/brownfieldsidefaulti htm and,,littnil/WwW.rnianiidadel4OVidortn/progranisibrownfieldiesn , . . 3. Section 3 Jof th0 rePort states that a Conttunination'Screening Evaluation. (similar to Phase 1 and Phao II Audits) would to be condtIcted atong the proposed rights -of -way in considering the proximity to potential petroleum and hazardous material htmdlint facilities* The • A, IVicmorandum SAT #i T+L200504080708C Page 2 of 3 document states that a preliminary hazardous materials survey identified 'approxiniately5,4 potential contamination sites. Three of these were known petroleum contamination sites, such as gas stations. Reference is made to Section 120 Excavation and Embankment — Subarticle 120- 1.2 Unidentified Areas of Contamination of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Constriction is provided in the project's construction contract do cttux entsr 'T'his`specifcation requires that in the eventthat any hazardous material or suspected contamination: is encountered during construction, of if any spill caused by construction related materials should occur, the eontractor shall be instructed to stop work immediately and notify the PDOT District Six Environmental Management Office as well as the appropriate regulatory agencies for assistance. If the screening evaluations utilize reasonably current file data, or establish new data points to identify potential soil and groundwater contamination areas, the data should be acceptable for use in the Screening Evaluations. Copies of the screening evaluations should be supplied to the Department's Southeast District office, Waste Cleanup Section. In a"dillt%ri, please be adv1seq that records show that the Belcher Oil Company operated a petroleum bulk terminal facility fro,,t1.92O until 1967 at the Southe ist Corner of the MacArthur Cttusew,ay. and Biscayne Boulevard apparently where witch of t $'95 and dis ramps exist today. (see attachment). There ore s eclat con (Nation needs t occur between the Mlattad 17arre Court De artmepl ofEnvironrenlal Resources MauaRemeut and the FLOT to address the conlantination issues. 4. The Contamination Screening Evaluations should outline specific procedures that would be followed by the applicant in the event drums, Wastes, tanks or potentially contaminated soils are encounteredduring construction, Special attention should be made in the screening evaluation to historical land uses (such as solid waste disposal) that may have an affect on the proposed project, including storm water retention and treatment areas. 5. In the event contamination is detected during construction, DEP and DERM need to be notified and the EDOT may need to address the problem through additional assessment and/or remediation activities,. Please note that revisions to Chapters 62-770, 62-782, 62.785, 62-777, F.A.C,, and a new rule, Chapter 62-780, EA, G;, ail involving contamination assessment and cleanup along with other notification requirements, took effect on April 17, 2005. 6, Groundwater monitoring wells (and possibly water production wells) are likely present at/near project corridors. ,Arrangements need to be made to properly abandon (in accordance with Chapter 62-532, PA. a) and or replace any wells that may be destroyed or damaged during construction. These wells may also be used to gather data for the Contamination Screening Evaluation reports. 7. Depending on the .findings of the Contamination Screening Evaluations and the proximity to known contaminated sites, projects involving "dewatering' should be discouraged, since there is a potential to spread contamination to previously uncontaminated areas and affect contamination receptors, site workers and the public. Dewatering projects would require Memorandum SAT # FL200504080708C Page 3 of 3 permits/approval from the South Florida; Water Management District, .Water Use Section grid coordination with DERM. 8, Any land clearing or construction debris must be characterized for proper disposal. Potentially hazardous materials must be properly managed in accordance with. Chapter 62-730, .. F.A.C, In addition, anysolid wastes orother non -hazardous debrfs Must be managed in accordance. with Chapter -02-701,'FA..0 9. Staging areas, with controlled access,; should be planned in order to safely store raw material paints, adhesives, fltels, solvents, lubricating oils, etc, that will;bs used during , construction. All containers need to be properly labeled. The project nianagers:sbould,consider, developing written construction Contingency. Plans in the elrentof a natural disaster, spill, fire or. environmental release of hazardousmaterials.. stored I. handled for the project construction. Thank you for the chance to Comment, Paul Alan Wierzbicld,:P.G: Waste Cleanup SuperVis&r DEP Southeast. District 400 North Congress. Ayenue, Suite 200_ West Palm Heach, FL 334Q1 Telephone; 561/681-6677,.Suncom 226-6677 Fax: 561/681-6770, Suncora 226,6770 South Florida Regional Planning Council May 6, 2005 RECEIVED MAY) 12005 DIP / OLGA Ms. Lauren lvlilligan Florida State Clearinghouse Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3908 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, PI, 32399 RE: Sal?;PC 4105,0422, SAX #'T;9.006(1011O7O8C,, ^ Advance Notification, Potential realignnent, capacity and geometric improvententar to1-395;.Project Development & Environment Study (from 1-95 to MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges), Florida Department of Transportation, Miami -Dade County, Dear" Ms, Milligan We have reviewed the abode -referenced permitapplication and have the fallowing comments: a The project should be consistent with .the goals and policies of the Miami and Miaiiu-Lade County comprehensive plans and their corresponding land development regulations, It is'irnportant for tha applicant to coordinate permits with all governments of jurisdiction, e Staff recommends that, if thh permit is granted, 1) impacts to the iiattiral systems be rir,imiaed to the greatest extent feasible and 2) the permit grantor determine" the extent of sensitive wildlife and vegetative communities in the vicinity of the project And'requlre protection and or mitigation of disturbed habitat. This will assist in reducing the cumitiatfve impacts to tietive plants and animals, wetlands and deep water habitat and"'fislierles; that the goals and policies of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SRPP) seek to protect, • The project is located over the Biscayne Aquifer, a natural resonirco of )regional significance designated in the. SRPP. The goals and policies of .the SIRPP, in particular those indicated below, should be observed when making decisions regarding this project: Goal 4 Enhance the ucQinoxrtic and .environmental sustainability of the Regionby ensuring the adequacy of its public facilities and services. Policies 4,1 Public facility and service providers should give priority to the construction, maintenance, or reconstruction of public facilities needed to serve existing "development most effectively and to the elimination of any infrastructure deficiencies which would impede redevelopment.. 42 Optimize theservice area and facility size of public facilities' in the Region and direct future: development andredevelopment first to areas served by existing infrastructure, 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (954) 985-4416; State (800) 905-441e SunCom 478-4416, FAX (954) 985-4417, Sun Com FAX 473, 4417 small: s.fadmin(a sfrpc,00m, website: www.sfrpc.com /�.c) Ms, Laufer Milligan May 3, 2005 rage • 4.3 Utilize the existing infrastructure capacity of regional facilities to the maximum extent consistent with applicable level of service.(LOS) standards before encouraging theexpansion of facilities or the development of new capacity. Coal 7 Protect, conserve, and enhance the Region's water resources, Policies 7.5: • . . Implement stormwater quantity and quality level of service standards consistent with those recommended by the South Florida Water Management District. 7,6 Ensure that the recharge potential of the property is not reduced as a result of a proposed modification in the existing uses by incorporation ofopen space, .pervious areas, and impervious areas in ratios which are based upon analysis of on -site recharge needs. 7,7 Require all inappropriate inputs into Natural Resources of Regional. Significance to be eliminated through such means as redirection:of offending outfflle, treatment improvements,. or retrofitting options• 7.9 Restore and improve water quality throughout the system by: a. requiring stormwater treatmentand management; b, protectingwetlands, native uplands, and identified aquifer recharge areas; and c. 'implementing best management practices, such as utilization of low phosphorus fertilizers. Goal 8 Erthartee, the Region's mobility, efficiency, safety, quality of life, and economic health 'through improvements to road, port, and public transportation ltifrastructure. Policies 8;1 Maintain the > orida Intrastate Highway System, other state roads, local roadways, and public transportation systems to preserve the Region's' investment in infrastructure, support` daily use and needs, enhance, the -Region's global competitiveness and economic health, increase safety, ensure emergency access and response, and provide for evacuation purposes 8:2 Reduce the utilization. of the Florida, Interstate Highway System and other components of the regional road system for short, local trips,. ,,Goal 11 Encourage and support the implementation of development proposals that conserve the.Region's natural resources, rural and ngricult traliands, green infrastruclure,andt • utilize existing and planned infrastructure in urban areas; • enhance the utilization of regional transportation systems; • ineorporate mixed-land.useFdevelopinents; • recycle.existing developed sites; and • provide for the -preservation of historic sites. Policy 11.10 Decisions regarding the, location, rate, and intensity of proposed development shall be based on the existing or progran nted capacity of infrastructure and support'services or on capacity which will be programmed to serve that proposed development; in addition, consideration should be given to the impact of infrastructure and support services on natural resources, Ms. Lauren Milligan M:ay3, 2005 Page 3 Goal . . 14 Preserve, protect, and restore Natural Resources of Regional Significance. Policy 14,4 Direct land uses that are not consistent with the protection and maintenance of natural resource values:, away from Natural Resources Of Regional Significance, adjacent buffer areas, and other nnt}iral resource areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We would appreciate being kept infornned on the"progress of this project, Please do not hesitate to call if you have any quesHons or comments. Sincere y, 4CM-4. Plc' Lynn Everett -Lee Land Use lxansportation Program Manager LE /kal. cc Oiai e.O'Quinn Williams, Mlami=Dade County P&Z Tyr. Susan Markley, Miami -Dade County PERM COUNTY: MIAMI-DADE RECEIVED Pail 't Z005 01P l OLGA MESSAGE: DATE: 4/8/2005 COMMENTS DUE DATE: 5/8/2005 CLEARANCE DUE DATE; 6/7/2005 SAI#: FL20050408070aC REFER TO: FL200405186252C STATE AGENCIES COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION' FISH and WILDLIFE COMMISSION X STATE WATER MNGIVINT. DISTRICTS SOUTH VCORIDA WMD OPB POLICY UNIT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY UNIT , The attached document requires a Coastal Zone Mnnagentcut ActIFiorida yz'oject Description,: Coastal Management Programconsistency evaluation and is categorized as.onc of the following: X Federal Assistance to Slate or Local Comment. (15 CFR 930, Subpart F), Agencies are required to evaluate the consistency of the nctivtty, _ 'Direct Federal Activity (IS CFR 930, Subpuri C), Federal Agencies are required to Walsh n conSisteney determination for the Slates, consuereace or 1 objection. _ Outer Continental Shelf/Coloration, Development orProducltonActtvIUes • (15 CFR930, Subpart tz). Operators are required to provide a consistency corftticaIion for state cencurrencejobJcctton, _ Pectoral Licensing or Permitting Activity (Is au 930, Subpart D), Such projects will only bo evaluated for consistency When there Is not an anategous WO license or permlt. RPCS&LOCI ' GOYS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' T•_�...... } ADVANCB.NOTIFICATION 1-395 FROM 1-95 TO MA,CARTHUIt. CAUsEWA.Y WEST CHANNEL BR I,DGBS AT BISCAYNE IMY - FINANCIAL Iv1ANAGEMENT NO,: 2$1670.1.22-02-1vIIAtvII- i DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. To: Florida State Clearinghouse EO. I2372/NEPA Federal Consistency AGENCY CONTACT AND COORDINATOR (SCI-I) No Comment/Consistent 3900 COMMONWEALTH BOULEVARD MS-47 to No Comment TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-3000 • r Comment Attached LI Consistent/Comments Attached TI3LBPHONE: (850) 245-2161 Inconsistent/Comments Attached FAX: (850) 245-21.90 CJ Not Apjtlicablt; rl Not Applicable From: Division/Bureau: Reviewer: Date: 4//3/ps-- C., 21/t_et 4-i -o5- Aedefi-e— FLORIDA DB'A.RTMBNT OP STATE Kart S. Browning Secretary of State DIVISION OP HISTORICAL RF SOURCES Mr. David C..Gibbs Federal Highway Adrriinistration 545 7ohn Kna;t Road,, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32303 RE D}TR Project File Number;. 2008.5099 Received by MR; June 20, 2008 Project; 1-395 from the. Midtown Interchange (19S/SR 836/1-395) to Biscayne Bay County; Miami -Dade Dear Mr. Gibbs;' Our office receivedand reviewed the above referenced project in accordance with Section 106 of. the National Historic Preservation. Act of 1966 as amended, 36 CFR Part.800; Protection of Historic Properties, and Chapter 267, Florida Statutes. It is the responsibility of the State Historic Preservation Officer to advise and assist,;appropriate, Federal and State agencies in carving ottt'their historic preservation responsibililies; to cooperate with agencies to ensure tliat'historio properties are taken into consideration at all levels of planning and development; and to consult with -the appropriate agencies in accordance with the NatiortaalistoricPreservatton Act of 1966'as•amended, on undertakings that may affect historic; properties and the ootitent and sufficiency of any plans developed to protect, manage, or to reduce or mitigate harm to such ro erttes;. p p ,.. l3ased on the information provided, our 'office concurs that the project will have no adverse effect' on the five r'esotiroes`within the area of potential effect that are listed in,oreligible for listing in the National Register, of Hiatorie Places These include St:John 's Bcipttst Church (8DA5127), Fire Station #2 (8DA1176), Citizens Bank (8)5A1175); Aid Mar Apartments (8DA1173),,and Sears, Rpebuck,'and'Company Building (8DA1109). If you have any questions, please contaet.S1ierrjt Anderson, Architeotural Historian, Transportation Compliance RevieW'Program, by email sandersort©a dos;stite fl.us or°at 850«245-6432. Frederick l', C aske, Director, and State Historic Preservation Officer XC Catherine Owen, FDOT, District 6 August 8,2008 500 S. Aronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32 99-02$0 • http://wwW.itheritage.com Cl Dlractor's Office t1 Archaeologicat:Regearch tS rhetoric Freeervation (850) 245.6300 • PAX 2457443.6 (850) 245.6444 • FAX: 245.4452 (850) 245.6533 * VA)0.245-6437 : 08/0,4/06 FRI 10:38 FAX 3063762500 MIAMht ADE Alin I» II au4u Akonda rtnmdinailnn Anllna! ServiN Mt In •PuizllfPlicSS: Aud;I and Mannecmnit't kryleOF' Aviniinrs RutklinR Q. itijn}j Codre Cumpttancn guslyeSy pevofup :Ant Capil 1 Imprwcmpms enntiruarnn Cgnadtpau4n I:ItISchW infkytndfuthunspurralTonTwo Cnmmisxinn On;lhltf end ?OAK h Ig Communicaltpns ccruminItyncg?ri Agopty Community & ft.YMOMIC Pavtinpmunt COannunirr Rtlatiom CopSumrServlca, Coriecpons s Iteitabtplatron Vitt ratAffairs Ercalbrts Einotprnry o.lanots•nu:nt CmNigyoy 11441uns FmpbwolniaY Trim Eptipll57Tetlinuipyy Seivlera Eiivlrnnmhnwt',:Cdnvrctn MPAETOMOAt frirEmpluymenlPmritwi� sman�+e timRp:nm Cunsm, StNi Mri1Inrstmdnn ras,pr a rnkinvitton flr triOel a :'" HouiingAgeht,y HousIn6 Haance Auitlonly (inn mn Sntv,r gi Imiki tt i ReviewPa.el' • Initlnopnnal 11'41e CnilKptltim' .. 'Itiv nikrAtu;ImonTCantri.;t,' Mcdlca:Fetnminar <, t+ . MoiraMtym: AcI Lion• . Molsop Bien Plaontlre UsgapiEapc is Rule tind RWoo tion Planning find 2nnin$ Polito Prm:unvnent T,InnnRumunt PinpettyApiiwiwr ruble library Syilein Pthltr• Wnrkt Sufe't4v10kti4tkewd Mkt Seopull ;finfld.Waatn iilmmrme.ni 5Iiateek: EtuitnOs M,ila&irlwnl Town Motto law Ta t rorceon tirbsn, Economic Reyilalizalion Viaedya Muieyym And 4M(terd: wale g 5".AMr DADE PLAN DEV RUG 12 FL r4002 Department of Planning and zoning Stephela P. Clark CenIdr 111 NW 1st Street • Suite 1210 MIatnit Florida 331 28.102 T 305-.37S-2800 tiiFatnidede.Sov August 2, 2005 Ms, Alice N. Bravo, P.E. DistrictEnvironmental ManagementEngilneer District Environmental Management Offioe Florida Department of Transportation 1000 N.W. 111thAvenue, Room 6111A Miami, Florida 33172 Dear Ms. Bravo: Re: Advance Notification Review — interstate 395 (I-39.5) From 1-95 (Midtown Interchange) to MacArthur Causeway West of Channel Bridge at Biscayne Bay Fit)anclfti Management No.:251670-1-22-02 In accordance with this department's resp.onsibiilty, for .review, evaluation and ,coordination of proposals that iriiplemenOocal plans, staff:.. of .Minini-Dade County, has revlewod. the Advance Notification for the above -referenced project and offer the following cmmMopts. The project, lntersate 395 (1-395), is an elevated expressway, that. transverses approximately 1.2 miles in the Ctty of Miami, from ',interstate 95(1-05) to:MaoArthvr Causeway west of Channel Bridge at Biscayne.. Bay,. Currently, this roadway ,facility ie,a six -lane limited access facility functionaliy. cias&ified as_.a-State principal Arterial. This roadway Is.,orle .of three, oorridora,.providing access to and�fr ••o:rn Mfarn! B.eacht The proposed. project will involve :potential realignment, eapaoity•anrl geornetrio improvements that wl`,require major reconstruction of the roadway facility. .Several soltatloi s will be • explored, including elevated, tunnel and open -cut options_ These irnpravernents oouid require modifications of the 1-95 Midtown interohange and 1-395 Interchange ramps at NB 191 Avenue, NE 2' Avenue: and Biscayne Boulevard. The County's Adopted 2005 and 2015 Land Use Plan map shows the subject roadway seginent' as a Major Roadway (3 or more (anes), and the Gomprehehsfve Development Master Nen (CDMP) Traffic Circulation Subeiement Figure' 1, Planned Year 2015 Roadway Network, shows the subjec , roadway as a .eight lane facility, Also, CDMP Traffic C1rcutatbn 8uiVieVorit,f!i 'ur'e 2(Abtaa',9i.f unctionaI 04/9.5/0$ FRI 1008 PAX 3063762500 DADE PLAN DU RE G 12 FL ra00A Alice N. Bravo August 2, 2005 Page -2- Classification -,.1996, depicts the facility as g State Principal Arterial. The proposed project is inside the Urban InfillArea (111A) In the CRY Of Miarni, Future land use designations aliong 1-395 are primarily High Density Residential, Business grid Office and Nimble! arid Office. High Density Residential category :permits between 60 and 123 dwelling unitt per gross are Business and Office •category aboomrriodates the fill( range of soles and service activities, and Industrial and Office allows for Industries, Manufacturing operations, warehouses, Oleo buildings, wholesale showroom, Merchandise marts and similar uses: North of the corridor along Biscayne, BouleVard is the Miami Performing Arts Center (PAC),'Whioh is currently under conStrUction: This Center will house the Ballet and ,Opera House and the Syrriphorty Hall. South of the corridor also along bisdayne pay Js Bicentennial Park. in order to stimulate and enhance pedestrian activities along this corridor and around the PAC and Bicentennial Park the design of this roadway facility must consider an urban designconcept geared toward the development of an aesthetically pleating pedestrian and vehicular cOrrlder• The 6DMP Guidelines for Urban Form establish a generalized pattern for loaatIon of -different uses and interconnecting network and Vehicular and pedestrian enovernents. Pedestrian and Vehicular traffic network should serve as physical links between rieighberhoodS, With multiple points et access between neighborhoods, Pedestrian circulation Shall be' provided between' all public places through connectivity of roadways constructed with sideWalks and supplemented by pedestrian paths (Land Use Element pp. 1-20.2 and 1121), Policy 2A of the COMP Larwl Use Elerrient end Policy 40 of the Traffic Oltculation • Stibelerrient re'quire-the COunty to previde services and facilities and the allocation of financial resources for services and fealties first to serve areas within the Urban Development Boundary (0D8). The Subjeet 'readway ri,rolect is located within the Urban Infill Area. Also,' Traffic' Circulation Subeleinent ObjeCtive 3 And Policies' $A 'and' .3B provide for the County tj eiriphatize safe end efficient management of the traffic flow, assure provision of adequate, properly designed and safe transportation system that will alleviate hazardous conditions. . , The ODMP reqUiree the County 10 revIeW:rodWay'deSigns end proposedChangPs.ss May be necessary to better' accommodate projected vehicular and non-vehlcular MOVeMent In The oorridor6. Based 'Volt 'relevant =MP policies and Land Usa Plan map provisions; this departMent finds the subject roadway project consistent with the goals, Objectives and jieilioloo of the 0DIVIP, The Metropolitan Planning OrganIZatiOn's (MPO) 2006 Transportation Improvernent Program (TIP), lists a project along SR 836/1-395 from interstate 95 te MacArthur . . Causeway Bridge 'for' Preliminary Engineering .(PE) of interchanga improvements in fiscal year 2007.2008. Also, the 2030 Long Range Transportation. Plan lists d-projeot along SR 836/1-395 from 1-05 to MacArthur Causeway for Interchange Improvements 08105/05 FRI 10:30 FAX 3053752990 Alice N. Bravo August 2, 2005 Page 3 DAPE PLAN DEV REG 12 FL. k4094 • as a Priority li and priority III projects. Priority II projects are improvements planned to be funded between 2010 and 2015, and Priority III projects are.improVements planned to be funded between 2015 and 2020. David Henderson the County's Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator, has indicated that I- , 398, crosses over several surface street and the proposed Baywaik along the intraooaltal Waterway. ConneotivitY of the street network crossing I-395 should be maintained or enhanced with SpeolE,11 emphasis given to pedesirlan Movement above , or below the reconfigured I-395, The City of Mlatri is developing a Baywalls along Biscayne Bay from Margate Pace Park at NE l 16 Street to the Mouth of the im•erni th River and is proposed to cross underneath 113,$5. :Therefore, Mr, Henderson is requesting that this connection along the water edge be incorporated Into the roadway deign. Mlarni-Dade Transit .(ivibT)i has Indicated that although there is ourrently ne transit service on 1-305, 'several lvietrobus routes:May be affected during .tho. constructian ef the proposed project, Presently, on average 55 buseS per hour travel north and south ofE)icayilp poopvar,4 arid 15 buss per hour tr4V,e-iH NE 29d.. Avenue (nOrthiiOund): and :North Miami (southbound) Aventies,. respectively; -.during, _peak • periods..': 'All these routes wilt he. impacted during:..the construction :Phase of this project. MDT has no.objections to this projeet; hoWever, staff la„requesting coordination With MDT during the planning ,and. •censtructlen stages of the. subject projeet: , - The Department of Environmental Resource Manag'enient (DERM) also reviewed the information submitted concerntria the subject proposal and found that the,.proposed project Islocated withln the hillarni,pade•y.Vater ‘arid,$ewer Department..(W8P) servidearee.',•DRIVIiarecenimending•that:the Florida Department 911.rariSPOrtation (FDOT),cOriteet:.,theseOtilitieSIn order to coordinate any water:Wei*: that may I?e required(d•uring,OonstrUCtion phase. Please refer.to tho, memorandum attaOhed- for reitifretnentS„,regarding stormwetpr mallagement, IJOand air ardous waste, tree. 00'0114/ preSerOtion:.., Finally, the Miami:•Dacie,Public Work Department upon reVIeW•of the project has determined that this project isourrentlyincluded.in the. IYIPVs. 2006 TIP andthe.1?ng Range Trentliertation Plan -to • the.'1?ear the MiarrOade Nottori Department deterniined that the project would be cornpRtOle. with the .operations"of the 1\410:1rli InteniatioriaI - Airport; the • Mlarril-Dade,park and IRecreation. Department also determined that the-Pr,ojeot shoulcl have he direot. Impactson current county Perk properties or projects; and the Miami -Dade fire 'ReSokte Department (MDFRD) Identified.„Station30, Port of Miami, located at ••11..ti.. Port 13oulevard, and Station 42, Pleherisland, Iodated at :65,Fisher Island Drive In the vicinity Of)-39.5. However,gt the stage of inipreyernehtproceSS MDFRD has determined:That.the department has , no objection to the proPoSed,fr*ct. 08./0))706 FRI 1.009 VAX 3052762600 UDR PLAN DRY REG 12 FL 0005 Alice N. Bravo August 2, 2005 Page 4 Enclosed for your information and. consideration •are copies of all the specific comments provided by the Mlami-Dade County Departments, If you have any questions regarding these specific comments, please contact the appropriate departments directly. Sincerely, Diane O'OuinnWilliarns ' Director DOQW:SB:MRW:NS Enclosures co; • Jeffrey R. Bunting, Chief, Aircraft Noise and Environmental Planning, Aviation Department Maria Garcia, Chief, Transit Planning Division, Miami -Dade Transit Gaspar Miranda, Chief, Highway Division, Public Works Department W. Howard Gregg, Assistant Director, Park and Recreation Department Jose Gonzalez, Assistant Director, Department of Environmental Resource Management David Henderson, 13icycle/Pedestrian Coorciinator, Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning OrganizatiOn • Jacqueline De Diego, Supervisor, Miteni-Dado Fire Rescue Department 0:1My Documants\Advanc0 Notifteations1s1.399 1.9$ MacArthur 09wy_08022005.doc MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; FLORIDA April 12, 2005 Alice N. Bravo, P.E. District Environmental Management Engineer Florida Department of Transportation District Environmental ManagementOffice 1000.N.W,111t A.venne, Room, 6111 Miami, Florida 33172 Dear Ms. Bravo; OFFICE OF :THE COUNTY MANAGER OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 0300 N.W. 41 STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33178-2814 (305) 468-5400 FAX (305) 468-5401 A EC:..^!aWeb APR 22 .2005 IN_... ,. �ORTATION . 114,,, Subject: Advance Notification Interstate 395 (I-395) From:1-95 (Midtown Interchange) To; MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay Financial Management No.; 251670-1-22=.02 County; Miami -Dade The IVlianu-Dade County Office of Emergency Management'(OEM) has reviewed the Advance Notification Package for this project. This project will affect the following evacuation route for Minnu- Dade County;1395, Additionallyy the MAW -Dade County Comprehensive B:mergeney Management Plan has identified the route as a primary evacuation route, Due to the direct effect on an evacuation route, the OEM would like to highlight the following concerns; • That the aforementioned evacuation route can be returned to their current vehicle capacity, in the event of an evacuation; and • That upon project completion, there is no reduction in vehicle capacity of the aforementioned evacuation route. Thank you for allowing us to comment on this project. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Jonathan Lord of the OEM at (305) 468-5414 or jonathan.iord@miamidade,,gov. Since Carlo . Castillo Director CC: Mark lt, Werner, Chief, Metropolitan Planning Section, M-D Dept. of Planning and Zoning Jonathan Lord, Emergency Management Coordinator, M-D Office. of Emergency Management 08/05/05 FR1 13:37 FAX 3063762660 Date: To: Frern: subject. May 18, 2006 Mark Woerner, Chief Metropolitan Planning S.eotion Department of Planning and zoning DADE PLAN DBV REG 12 FL Y. Jose Gonzalez, P.E., Assistant Direotor Environmental Resources Management FPOT Advanced. Notification Roadway. Improvements to 1-395 from 1-95 to. Mao Arthur Causeway The Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) has reviewed the information Submitted concerning the subject proposal and offers the following comments; Water and Sewer: The proposed road construction is; located within the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (MCWASD) water and ` sealer franchised service area, The Florida Department ` of Transportation (FOOT) Is advised to contactsaid utility in order to Coordinate any water or sewer work that may be required during the construction phase. Additionally, timetables concerning new water or sewer line Installations should also be obtained, Memorandum (AY 2 62005. rAN NINafilloN StorrnwIter Manacremertt: The project would require an Environmental Resource Permit to be Issued by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMO) for the .construction of a, surface water management system,. If this system is designed with an emergency overflow into the Biscayne Bay,> a Class II Permit will be required. An on -site retention system for the 10-year storm shall be utilized as first priority for the disposal of stormwater runoff. An on -site retention system combined with emergency overflow outtali may be Used as, an alternative, provided that the first inch of runoff from the applicable design storm Is treated prior to overflew. Drainage exfiitration trenchesshall not be located In contaminated areas. If contamination Is found, e Class VI permit might be required for the construotion of the drainage system. Drainage inlets shall be equipped With pollution control baffles prior to disposal to groundwater or surface water. Outten pipes that are 18 inches or larger shall be equipped with manatee protection grates, A Class V Permit Issued by GERM shall be required for any temporary dewatering work during construction. Hazardous Waste; The following Is a list of DERM permitted sites and records of current or historical contamination assessment or rem.edlatlon issues. No solid waste Bites were identified within The project boundary. Permit Permit # 1W6 IW UT 2007 UT 6894 1063 ass . Name Pan American Chemical Greyhound linest_lno. Employees. Overload Vacant Lot Folio 0181860091240, 0181360590010 013136009 640 0131360160310 Contaminattnn No Yes No Yes Type of Contamination , Petroleum Petroleum 08/00/05 PRI 13:3# FAX 3053752580 DADE PLAN DEV REG 12 PL PO.CfrAdvaneed Notification Roadway Intpievemonts to 1-30 from 1-9.5 to Mee Anhui' Causeway egt9P.Z. UT _1834 National Car Fleas! Systems, Inc. 0132310250090 Yes Petroleum. UT 3886 MDTA Bicentenial 0141370390010 ,..1............,....... . Yes Plum UT .505f MDWS Purnp Station 412 0141$70390010 Yes Petroleum _ IW5 8119 MDWS Pump Station 412 0141370390010 No UT 1781 Perfect Service Station 0132310200120 Yes ' Petroleum IW 39 Miami Herald PublishingCo, 010281045(3010 No UT: 2708 Miami Herald Publishing Co. 0132310450010 • No Wetlands; There are not jurisdictional freshwater wetlands. within the project corridor. Therefore, a Class IV Permit for work In wetlands will not be required. Permits from. the Army Corps .of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protootton and the South Florida Water Management District may be required for tha proposed project, The Florida Department of TranspOrtation Is advised to contact:tilos° agencies in order to obtain pertinent Information regarding permitting requirements. TreEI Preservation: • The or/ilea corridor contains tree resources,. Section 2449 of the Cada requires the preservation of tree resources, A tillami,Dade County tree removal permit is required prior to the removal or relocation Of any trees. A tree survey showing all the tree resources on site will be required priori° reviewing the tree removal permit application. The Florida Department of Trensportaffon is advised to contact DEFIM staff for permitting procedures and requirements prior to development of construction and landscaping plans. Air Quality Preservation: Fugitive dust emissions should he minimized during all construction phases. In summary. the above information la offered concerning DEM requirements, it is recommended that actual deign development be closely coordinated,through this 'office to ,Inture ,compliance with all applicable. Oode requirements. • 08/00/09 Fra 1339 FAX 3053762600 'DADS PLAN. p8V REG 12 FL Date; To: From: Subject: Memorandum July 20, 2005 Mark R. Woemer, Chief Metropolitan Planning Section Department of Planning and Zoning W. Howard Gregg, Assistant Dire Planning and Development Park and Recreation Departme klvanCe Notification Review Interstate 395 from 1-95 to MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay By MIAMIMADE COUNTY JUL 2 7 2005 juf mactIttreafflom The above -mentioned projeot, Involving improvements to Interstate $95 frorn 1-96 to MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at BisOyne Bay will not significantly impact this Department's facilities or operations. cc: Barbara Falsey, Chief, Planning and Research Divislon Qoos 08/06/05 Fill 1338 FAX 3063752500 DADE PLAN DEV Rgq. 12 FL V1004 MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Woollier, Chief o ,P1 g Section, DP&Z FROM: en CrS011 Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator ni-DadodPO W...111.1•IM•Iowr.r.e0000mobr.r....wn, DATE: July 2$, 2005 SI.JBJCT: Advance Notification: Interstate 395 from 1-95 to MacArthur Causeway FM101670-1-22-02 Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject project. 1-195 is a limited access facility and not open to bicyclists or PedoStrians. However, 1-395 oroses over sOveral surface streets a.nd the proposed Baywalk along the Intracoastal Waterway. Connectivity of the street network crossing 1-395 should be maintained or enhanced with special cxuphasia given to pedestrian movement above or below the reconZgured 1-395. The City of Miami is developing a Baywalk along Biscayne Bay from Margaret Pace Park at NE 15 St to the mouth of the Miami River and is proposed to cross underneath 1-395. This corknection along the water's edge should bts incorporated into the roadway design. ' Please call me at 305-375-1647 if you have any questions. 1 08/06/06 FRI 1308 FAX 3063762600 ) 05(FRI) 1S:04 To FROM DADR-PLAN »BV RFC 12 FL AIRCRAFT 1401SE/POR PLANNING MaTk rt, 'Romer Chief 'Metropolitan Planning Section Department of Planning & ming Jeffrey R. Buntin Manager ofAiroraft mse and Environmental Planning Aviation Department TEL:305 869 3908 P.001 1)A'M: SUillJEOT: •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• July 28, 2005 Advance, Notification Review 'NW leStreet Right -of -Way Acquisition From NW 114th Ave. & SR, $26 FMNo.: 414731-.1 ThiS IZSpOritiS to yOtir memo dated l'uly 6, 2005 requesting oornneata 00neellaing the Florida Department of etranapoxtation'a proposed naquipition of roultiplo parcels of real property along NW 74th Street, between NW 110 Avenue and State Road 826 (Palmetto Exprcsswasr). Upon :review it was determined that this project would be compatible with operations from Mime International Airport Therefore, the Miation Department. dooS ,aot ohleet to this proj net Should you have any citieationv, please contact rao at (305) 876-0569. JR1a/rb , ow Brum Drain, Assistant Aviation Director for Operations • NJt • M ••• ' , • • • JUL 2 5 20(15 $AigeRom V8/06/05 FRI 1438 FAX 0064752560 . DADE PLAN DEV REG 12 FL ADY.ANCED NOTIFICATION PROJECT TITLE: - Interstate 395 (1-395) From1-95 (Midtown Interchange) to Me,Artbur Causeway Weft Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay. - - FM No.: 251670-1-22-02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Interstate 395 (1695) io aii elevated e)quesaway that traverses approximately 1.2 miles in tlia- City of ivliarni. The 1-396 project corridor begins at the Midtown Interchange (1-95/SR836/1-195), located just north downtown 'Miami, and runs eastward to Biscayne:Bay. The I 3 95`project collider end at the MacArthur causewayWest chennel, BridgeS','! ` The proposed, projeet involve potential, realignment, capacity and geometric imProvement.s that will recinire ratIjor reconstructiow Several solutions will bo explexert, thgluding eievatecil tl1tne4 and °Pea - cm, options, as well as urban design concepts geared towards the development of an aesthetieally Pleasing pcdestrhul and vehicular friendly eorridor. Those inaprovements could require modifications of the I-95/1VlidtoWn Interchange and the 1-395 Interchange ramps at NE 1 Avenue acid Biscayne Blvd. NEED FOR PROJECT: Advance Notification: 1,395 frOM (Midtown Tinerc1jttn80) to Wombat causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay. The existing 1-395 facility has many significant deficiencies that can be grouped into three general categories as follows: geometric deficiencies such as substandard sections, poor vertioal and horizontal alignments as well as insaMoient sight distances and vertical olearances; operational deficiencies including illadequate projected levels of service, severe weaving prOlenas and violation of operational feature such as lane 'balance, route/lane' continuity and basic number .of laneS, and safety deficiencies consisting of accident and injury rates that are consistently higher than. the state average for similar type faeilities. The existing two-way daily volumes are hi the range of 130,000 vehicles per day (vpd), and the 'current Level of Service (LOS) Is rated as LOS D. Current and future development is anticipated to poll the average daily traffic volume to approximately 160,000 by 2025 , which will bring the entire corridor to LOS P unless capacity improvements are undertaken. This corridor is subject to higher than average vohnues of heavy truok traffic, as ground transportation to mid from the Port of Miami is routed through 1-396 and the IvIldtovvri Interchange to all points north and west, ooe 04/65/0d PRI 13:30 FAX 3053752660 r. . TRANSIT SERVICE: DADS FLAN IEV REG 12 FL 0007 Although there is currently Xlo transit servicc, traveling on I-395; several Metrobus routes 'nay be affooted during the contnuction period. Presently,ou average of 5,5 buses per hour (north and southbound) use Biscayne Blvd in the vicinity of the project during tilnpeek periods. Also) an average of 15 buses per hour use NE 2" Avenue (northbound) and N. Miami Avenues (snuthbound) respeetively. It is estimated that by FY 200k, these number Of buses will be in the area 01'59 buseS an Biscayne Blvd., 11 buss na NB 214 Avenue, and 22 buses onN Miami Avenue hourly during the peals periods. MDT COMMENTS/ 'RECOMMENDATION: . MDT has no objections to this project; however, close . . coordination with MDT during the planning and construction stages is required, Advance Notification: 1-395 &Qui 1-95 (hildtown Interchange) to MacArthur Causeway West Channel lirldges it Biscayne Bay, 2 4$/.05/05 FRI 13;39 FAX. 3063752560 DAD FLAN DEV REC 12 I<L OQ1.0 Rug 02 05 1Qs48a MDFR 786 331 5259 p.3 Bate; July 20, .2005 To Mark R. Woerner, Chief Metropolitan Planning Seoticm DePartrnent of Planning and Zoning From: Jacqueline Da Diego,Supervisor Planning Section Miami -Dade Fire Rescue Department Subject: ,, Memorandum 1'h'L'll!!1}M�iAM�4e interstate 305 (1.305) front-95 (Midtown Interchange) to MacArthur Causeway West Channel. Bridges at Biscayne flay • The subject. corridor project, interstate 395 (1-395) as welt as the required modifications of the t- 95 Midtown Interchange and 1-395 interchange ramps atNE 14t Avenue, NE 2"d Avenue and. f3iscayne Boulevard fall under' `the Jurisdiction of the Fire Rescue Department of the City of Miami. However, the Miami -Dade Fire Rescue Department has provided services of Mutual Aid inside the areas in the vicinity of the projected improvements. This servloe has been rendered from Station 2, located at 6460 N.W 27 Avenue, equipped with a Rescue and a 50' Squrt BLS and staffed by 7 Firefighters. Travel time for Life Threatening Emergencies (LTE) has been in the rang of a to minutes based on fiscal years 2002 and 2003 calls. It is estimated that the mutual aide arrival time to the abovernenttoned area during the reconstruction years will average an additional 1 to 2 minutes. Furtherrnorp, Station 39, Port ,of Miami,. located at 1.124 Port Boulevard and Station 42, Fisher island, located at 65 Fisher island Drive are in the vicinity of 1-395. Atthis stage of the project the Miami -Dade Fire Rescue Department has no objection to the traffic flow improvements provided by the reconstruction planned for interstate 395 and adjacent roads. a 1 00/05/00. FRI 1330 FAX 305370500 DADE FLAN DRY REG 12 FL 0009 Memorandum M4' Date; To: Mark Woe g Chief Metro. • it larinl Depa Plan onlr%9 From: Gesp r da, P.E., hief Highway • sion PUblloW s Department Subject: Advance NotlficatiOn Review Interstate 395 (I-395) from 1-95 (Midtown Interehange) to MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay FM No.: 251670.1-22.02 'Tay 29 , 2005 The Public Works Department (PWD) has reviewed your recent request regarding the Advance Notification for the subject preJeot and would Ilke to provide the following comments: - The 2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes a project along SR 836/1-395 frorn east of 1-95 to MacArthur Causeway Bridge (Description: Interchange (Minor), FOOT #2616881, Section Al — Page 72 of 149). Also, the 2080 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Includes a project along SR 830/1-395 from east of 1-95 to MacArthur Causeway (Description: Modify Interchange — Improvements. Listed as Priority 11 and Priority Ill). I. Also, please be advised that the pWD, in the 2006 TIP, has Included projects along the following roadways that may impact the subject area: Project: NW 14 Street from NW 10 Avenue to 1-95 Description: Widen to 3 lades and resurface Status: Construction estimated to begin In FY 07.08. Project : Na 2 Avenue from NE 14 Street to NE 12 Street Description: Reconstruct 4 lanes to include Milling and resurfaoing, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalk and lighting Status: Design and construction by FOOT, We appreciate the opportunity to revieW this matter, If you have any questiens., please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Javier Heredla, P.E., Section Head, Highway Planning et (305) 375-.1901. cc: Leandro Ora, Assistant Chief, FlIghwayDIVIsion Javier Heredia, P.5,, Section Head, Highway 'Planning Delfin Molins, E,1„ Project Manager, HighWay Planning. 08/05105 PRI 1340 PAX 3053752500 Somoza, Napoleon. (DP&Z) DADE PLAN DEV REG 12 FL , la011 Page 1 of 2 From: Woerner, Mark (DP&Z) Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 1047 AM To: Somoza, Napoleon (DP&Z) Subject: FW: FDOT Advance Notification for 1-395 Napoleon, FYI re WASD comments on above project - Mark R, Woerner, AICP, Chief Metropolitan Planning Section Mlaml-Dado County Department of Planning and Zoning 305-376-2035 www.miarnidade.gov/planzone/' Veliverin6f Excellence Every Day" --Original Message -- From: Goldenberg, Bertha M. (WASD) Sent: Friday, July 29, 2065 424 PM To; Weenier, Mark (DF&Z) (mwoerneremiamidade,gov) Cc: Valdes, Marta A. (WASD) (MAVALDernlamiciade.gov) Subject; FW; FDOT Advance Notification fOr 1-395 Mork: See MDWASD comments below on the subject Bertha M. Goldenberg, P,E, Assistant Director. .• Planning, Innovation, & CoMpliance Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department 786-552-8126 ralarrudade.gov "Delivering Excellence Every Day" From: Arrebola, s,htente (WASD) Sent: Friday, July zg, 2005 3:27 PM • To: Goldenberg, Bertha M. (WASD); Wells, Bonnie P. (VVAso) cc: VaideS, Marla A. (WASD); Ballesteros, Rafael]. (WASD); Rodas, Paul D. (WASD) Subject; RE: FDOT Advance Notification fOr 1-395 • A f41 Bertha: The area affected by the above referenced prOject contains a large concentration of water and sewer Infreptr00tUrO, inolUdIn9 same major transmission mains and sewer Interceptors. More specifically, there is a 36" transniission main serving the southern end of MIAMI iSeach that runs parallel to 1-395 at the eastern end of it, and crosses the bay along the MacArthur Causeway, Alsothera Is a 72u interceptor running atong Biscayne Boulevard that connects to PS 2 on Bicentennial Park. Any major work in these pram will impact the Department's infrastructure. As such the Department needs to be consulted and kept informed, well in advance, 8/1/2005 0$/0008 PRI 13:40 FAX 3053.752660 DADS PLAN Di't RBO 1012 Page 2 of 2' of the design alternatives so that vital infrastructure can be adequately protected, end any relocation and!Qr improvements identified,,budgeted and scheduled in a timely fashion, , More detailed comments will be forwarded to your and any of the interested parties as the UDD More thoroughly .evacuates this projects, and more speclflc'detaits..for:sama are provided. Thanks" Vince - Prow doldenber9, Bertha. M, (WASD) Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 1:19 PM To: Wells, aonnie P. (WASD), Arrebola, Vicente (WASD) (AR BV2@miamtdade.gev) Ccr Valdes, Maria A. (WASD) (MAVALD@miamidnde,gav) Subjects: PDOT Advance. Notification for 1-395 Bonnie and VInoe, see•attached link for subject: 1S09Q1Qj6\Admin)straton Shores\AD piC\PLANNINOPIenning SearnlE igt'1FDOtA$ Interstate .,95.f 115098101s1Administratlan :$hares\AD PiC1PLANNtNG1PIannina.8edUan\FDQ uk » I-305 DZ MQmc,pdf Elerthn NL Goldenberg, P.E. • Assistant, Director PIenning, Innovation, & Compliance Mi'arni-Dside: Water and sewer Department 'lag, 552-81.2(S mlamidade.gov ''pelivieftng Excel lottt°,EirGYyDay" 1 8/1120105 OTHER PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE Letters: of support of the project from citizens and groups. Five (5) letters are contained herein and on CD in one file entitled "139$ Support Letters.p.df ': The Historic Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church Miami -Dade College, Wolfson Campus .'OVertown Church of Christ Overtown Chamber of Commerce Miami -Dade Empowerment Trust, Overtown Neighborhood Assembly The Honorable Larcenia J.. Bullard, Florida Senate, project support letter dated October 13, 2008 (1 p.) (I395supportfienator Bullard I01308.pdf) FDOT District Six request to (3). Secretaries for R/W funding (08/02/04) (1 page) FDOT Significant Relocation. linpacts (report), Pre -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Plan (10/24/07) (report cover plus 2-page plan) USEPAA. Sole Source Aquifer response letter (02/07/08) (2 pages) FHWA effects .letter.to SHPO (06/16/08) (3 pages) (FHWA effects to SHPO junes08.pd f) SHPO effects concurrence letter (08/08/08) (1 page) (SHPO no adverse effects 080808,pdf) USFW.S wildlife concurrence letter to FDOT (03/23/09) (2 pages) NMFS wildlife concurrence letter to FDOT (04/01/09) (2 pages) USEPA continents on DEIS (09/08/09) FDOT responses to USEPA comments on DENS (11/18/09) Q ize C 7 fit/,�,4944GG C %t/G te4a4 ZG1/4 afialdeMeN7 0041'1- /2e o% 30I N. W. 9th Street • Miami, Florida 33136 Office (305) 379-4147 • Fax (305) 374.3733 • E-mail us at: histo ic@bellsouth:net: Dr. Ralph M. Ross Pastor/Teacher Lydia Koss Administrative Secretary Leonard A. Dunpnson, ir. Assistant Putor Lawrence L. Rothel Pastoral Associate Jessie Quinn Deaconess Linda Rogers Trustees Annetta Brantley Treasurer Vanessa Burke Financial Secretary. Thelma Pestay ceteodian Vilma Croft; PE;, Project Manager Florida Department of Transportation 1000 NW 11."4.' Avenue Room 6111A, Miami, Florida 33172 Dear Ms. Croft: January,28, 2008 E : n.s %�. JAN. 3 0 2008 DISTRICT it PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL This is to register support of the " I-395 PD&E Study'' and project. „K The needs for such a stCkly and project are quite evident. FDOT'has identified those needs and.aelineated them with great clarity In the "Project Informational Handout.'' Thank you so much. May your workin this regard serve the needs of our people and our community. Sincerely, Reverend br, Ralph M. Ross, Pastor/Teacher Office of the Campus President 300 N.B. Second Avenue, Suite 001 Maud, Florida 33132.2297 Offices (305) 237:3310 Fax (305) 237-3724 e.inplit rolattdo.montoya@mdc.edsi Miami Dade College •Rolando Montoya Campus Piwiderit Wolfson Campus January 28, 2008 Ms, Vilma Croft, P.E. Florida. Departinent of Transportation 1000 N.W. 111 Avenue, District VI Miami, Florida 33172 Dear Ms. Croft: RECEIVED FEB 0 4 2008 OISTRJOf 6 , PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2FFICE On behalf of the Wolfson Campus of Miami Dade College, 1 take this opportunity, to express our support of the 1-395 Development and Environment StudyProject, For many years, Downtown Miami and the Overtown Community have had to endure increasing traffic challenges as a result of the current configuration of 1-395 including, but not limited to, pedestrian safety, traffic congestion, parking, and connectivity to Downtown streets. The 116W 1-395 project proposed alternatives will serve to alleviate some of these issues. If the project is approved, the new geometric configurations of the lanes vvill contribute to increased traffic safety, The system will extend connectivity to I-95, State Road 836, the Florida Turnpike and local streets. Also, with the advent of new condominium units in the Downtovvn area, an improved 1-395 will facilitate the evacuation of the area in case Of flri emergency, We support the study project as an opportunity to confirm the multiple benefits that the improvements will bring to our canwus and surrounding community. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me at (305) 237-7600, Sincerel Dr, Rolando Montoya Wolfson, Campus President Miami Dade College DAVID SHANKS Minister ELDERS MARCUS DRINSON DAVID SHANKS DEACONS ETHRO JOHNSON a V. VVALKEFI MINISTER Of MUSIC IICHARD JACKSON Overtown Church of Christ 185 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida< 33138 (305) 371-2555 October 9, 2007 Mrs, Vilma Croft, PI., Project Manager Florida Department of Transportation 1000 N,W, 111 Avenue, Room 6103 Miami, Florida 33172 Dear Mrs.. Croft: This is in regards to the 1-395 Project in the Overtown area of Miami, Florida, The congregation of our Church, the Overtown Church of Christ, is in support of the I- 395 Project We prefer the Elevated Option, which you call Alternative 3. With the Elevated Option, we can have parking spaces for the businesses and parks underneath the Exireasway. Our Church building is located on property which you need to acquire from Attorney Thomas Jordan. We are hopeful of reaching agreement with the Transportation Department on relocatiOn assistance, financial assistance and church assistance. To improve anything, we must have change; Our Churoh has been here for 22 years, but we favor what YoU are doing to improve the cerninunity, • ' We thank you for inviting us to participate in the planning meetings for this improVement Sincerely, Rev. David Shanks Minister A CHRIST. CENTERED, HEAVEN • BORN, MISSION - MINDED, CHURCH. _ — , 01/.14:, OW911 • , , eyclotozv;. cos4i2/2,q?J7E workt,..0 toe'etheV.to.st.00ed February 7th,•2008 Vilma. Croft, P.E,, Project Manager Florida Department of Transportation WOO N,W. Il 1 Ave,nite, Room 6111A Ivliatni, Florida 33172 socotcl of ptrotort wittlam A. Avrtakswpreskievt.t who meKvi..teht-Vice rrestticint Jo hkv P4t-Treasurer Wattavtomivt‘stasecretaru Dear Ms. Croft: This letter is in support of the Florida Department'of Transportation's 1-395 Roadway Improvement Project in Miami, „ , Florida, with the preferred Alternative 3 for an Elevated Option. An elevated expressway in Miami's OVertown at NW 3' Avenue Would provide the opportunity for a higher bridge at the NW 14th Street interseetiOn, Right now, the structure is low and,dark;twould also reopen NW 2' Avenue which has been dosed since 1-395 was first constructed, Lastly, the higher expressway should,hopefully open up more safe and secure spaces along both NW 3rd Avenue and NW 2" Avenue for businesses to locate. We need this economic 'benefit for the ,Overtovvn community, We believethat this project wilt be more of an advantage, than a disadvantage to Overlown. If more information is necessary, please contact us. Sincerely, William President Irbzei ent John Pe 12,61. iiw20111•Stre0, FI, 331—V- yec,,355.y-oyj overtownehamberofeommerce@yahOoiom surer Willi A. r son PreaVVE6 FE8 1 2 2608 PLAtkloNgti.DISAATINNI?AcipOettMEtrfAL -"" er ent Trust fay Pro,Oss OVERTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSEMBLY BUILDING D CULMER. OVERTOWN_IIEIGHBORHOOD, SC. 1600 NW 31"' AVENUE MIAlvII, FL. 33136 January 29, 2008 Ms. Vilma Croft, P.E. Project Manager Florida Department of Transportation District VI 1000 NW 111 Avenue, Room 6103 Miami, Fl, 33172 Dear MS, Croft; - • < This letter is supporting the 1-395 Project in, Overtown. Overtown Neighborhood Assembly voted on behalf of the community to support the Elevated Alternative, Our I3oard members from the,cornmunity still 'supports elevating 1-395 in Overtown. Atythingshert,of this Will be a disappointment to our Historical CominunitY. 1-95, displacement of trizire"that 400 businesses and 40;000 residents is stitt a sore place in our hearts. .."WteCrOft, We ivonianbiwanttorctum to the hea4 ache of the paSt;.We havehadieveral community meetings on this issuer And feel like I?DOT will do -thetright thing by Historical Overtown. Thank You,. Sin ely rby M. eKnight, hai !Ilan Overto Neighborhood Asse ly • SENATOR LARCENIA J, BULLARD Nth Dlslrlol T'HE FLAFIDA SENATE Taltalieemie4 Flettik 0209911.00 October 13, 2008 Ous Pogo, District Six Secretary Florida Department of Transportation 1000NW 111 Avenue Miami, FL33172 ROODIV FDOT-D OCT 2120 t IST stOttiAtreSWNW, F ftSFF1I irr„grgtiSt9.11-1,4f:,4:1,',e.' /4-8tpt) rta \r .d�i I'a o 2 r prlalbna dues on Pre z .. dupe ofP+n aa r MIIrry 11roan'ot IO CUdty neapnal 0 Rgqut4uon , Hule9 "land o ndat Dear Mx. Pogo:* 1 pray this letter Ands yotl In. great health and certainly -In pleasant spirits: I am Writing to you regarding the TI395 Pr) & E_StUdy and the 'concerns that lily constituents in, Ovcrtown have exnressed to me. Residents have not recovozcd front* initial construction of 1nterstates 95 and 395,;which destroyed the entire community, Hundreds Lost homes, businesses, and weredisplaced, Thus, the residonts aro somewhat apprehensive about tliis..project because of Its potential to destroy this distressed corn ntinity further: Of the flea (a) Rolla Alternatives, Alternative 3 is, tiro most practical optlolt that works best for the cornlnunity at large. Alternative 3 would. ` 1, Require the least °amount of land, 2, Make'at least two bIocks of land available t'or redevelopment (housing, retail,-et0,) if the ..bridge is raised. - Reconnect -NW 2° MVenne, 4, Create a welt lit underpass., which will prevent, hoMtiloSS $,eking rafugo in places ns d lttgeioii i as a highway underpass. I appreciate any feedback you can provide so that, .may brief my constituents and calm the tears that so many of them have regarding this study. If you'have any questi¢ne or c'ancerns, contact my office at '(305) 668-7344. CO: urconla J, OW d, ,3 7h.District StephanieC.Kepoleuses,Secretory of7Yaiupo►tatton xi0,0.T Audrey 13dntondmn, County CoalmIsstotter Mtolseiio$po we•Jonos, C1ry Cennutsstoner MathaO.MUI r,Cntoutuutltytnvolvrtne,rtCoordI,rt-0.1).C.R REPLY TO: t r 06oe Sown 011<lo F.110hwny, Sulfa 004, Miami, Flodtta 33143 .t3a6) 068.7344 cl 210 Sonata 01dC Building, 404 South Monroe Street, Tellabasaee, Ftorkts132300.1100 (060) 407412/ Semite'sWobsito; www,paonntagov LISA °t ILTON Provident of the Senate Provident Pro Tampere KEN PRUITT JED BUSH GOVERNOR • Florida Department of Transportation Office of the District Secretary District Six 100D 1stW 1 1th Avenue Miami, Florida 33172 (305)470-$197 August 2, 2004 Assistant Secretary Thibault Assistant Secretary Clary Assistant Secretary Llort 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 57 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 JOSE ADREU • SEtitETA RY Re: t-395 Advance RJW Acquisition Proposal Enclosed for your review 'and action is a District VI request' for Advance RJW Acquisition funding for 1395, The application is to -purchase, in advance, three sites totaling 5 parcels at a cost of 02.7 M. This action willallow the Department to purchase these sites prior to the planning and constriction of 4 high' rise buildings (57 stories each). Construction of these high rise buildings would make the Right' ofWay acquisitton for this project cost prohibitive and thus cause the Department to fail to meet its commitment to Improve this highly traveled corridor. I, hereby certify . 64. the information included In this proposal has been verified. In order to expedite the purchase of this previously mentioned R/W, we.,,request that action be taken on this application on, or before September 1, 2004. If you altould have any questions, or, need additional information, please contact the Departments Project Manager, Ms; Vilma Croft, P E at;:,;(305) 470-5240, SC 429-5240 or vihria.croftadot,statell.us, or myself. Thank' Yeu in adVattee fbr 'Your cansideration of this proposal, • Sincerely; John Martin z, P.E District VI Secretary Enclosures: Checklist Form co: Kenneth M. Towcimak, Director, Right of Way- 4 copies Henry Lewis, Manager, Work Program Development and Operations- I copy www.dot.steteil.us ® tCYCLgo pAPErt UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 AT(.ANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 February 7., 2008 Mr. Kevin;.P. Mullen . Cansulting;l ngineering & Science, INC. 10700 N. Kendall Driver Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33176 Subject: Sole Source Aquifer Review for,1-3g5; From .1-95 (Midtown Interchange) to MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay, Miami -Dade, Florida FAP# NIT-6182 (10) Dear Mr. Mullen: The U.S. Environmental. Protections Agency, (EPA),. Region 4; has received your request to assess the above referenced project and:we have reviewed it pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The assessment is to determine if the project lies within the bouindaries (recharge and streaniflow source zones) of an EPA designated Sole. Source Aquifer (SSA); and to determine if the project poses potential, adverse health or environniental:impacts,. A sole source aquifer is the sole or principal, water source for a designated area. If the aquifer is contaminated, there would be a significant hazard to public health and: an economic burden for those using the aquifer to tap into and deliver drinking water from another water source, The project has been determined to lie inside the designated boundaries of the Biscayne Aquifer., if proper, protection measures are followed, this project is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to the aquifer, However, the contamination sites pose a human health and ettvirontnental concern, Additional comments are provided and should be incorporated into the project design as a measure of pollution prevention and source water protection, Regulatory groups within the EPA responsible for administering other programs may provide additional comments at their own discretion and under separate cover. Additional comments According to the project description, approximately 54 potential contamination sites have been identified, EPA should be contacted following the contamination screening evaluation with specific information on theextcnt to which those sitesmay impact the current drinking water weilfields, We also request information on the'ithpact of this project on contaminant mobility into the Biscayne aquifer. The project manager must work _with EPA and State Waste Programs: to solicit project design comments and, ifneeded, reniediation measures. Internet Address (URI) a http://www,epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable a Printed with Vegetable 00 Based Inks.bn Recycled Paper (Mlnlmum sn% eostconsurnet) Stormwater controls have been Included in the proposed project and should be implemented to adequately' handle the additional stormwater discharge and maintain water quality controls. State and county'environrnental offices should be contacted to address proper drainage, stormwater designs and to obtain all needed permits. Best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control tnentioned in the notification documents are expected to be followed. Emergency response plans should be updatedas needed and response staff should be properly trained to handle accidental or intentional spills. The project manager should contact Florida Department of Environmental Protection to obtain a -copy of any local Wellhead Protection Plans, and the plans should be followed as they relate to this project to protect these sensitive zones, The project coordinators should also coordinate with State and local environmental offices concerning proper removal and disposal of all construction debris. All best management practices for erosion acid sedimentation central are expected to be followed,. All findings of "no significant impact" are based on EPAs' understanding and expectation that those responsible for the project will strictly adhere to all Federal; State and local government permits, ordinances, planning, designs and construction operations. The project manager is also expected to Monitor. progress and maintain protection measures following project 'completion to protect the integrity of the aquifer. Thank you for, your concern with the environmental impacts of this project.if you have any questions, please contact Alanna Conley at404-562-•.9443. Sincerely, at le llington; ief Ground Water and UIC Sectio tit US Doporiment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mr. rrederick Gaske, Director Division of Historical Resources State tiistorical Preservation Officer SOO South Bronough Sheet Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Attn: Ms. Sherry A,nderson Dear Mr. Oaske: (A' 8(5'4 'John Knox oad, Suits 200 Tallahassee, Florida 3230 FLDIVISION c • Juno 16, 2008 (860) 042-9650 Rupty In -To' 11PO.F1., (.305 Erfom1)(tteimilotilion. IN% /51671)1.20U FAi0( WS-1. (40Z) i trilami.13otie Enclosed please find it Section 106 Documentation and Determination of Effeets report for the above-. refereneed Environmental impact Statement project. 1.395 is an elevated eXpressway that extends approximately 1.2 miles front just west grille Midtown Interchange to Biscayne Bay. Thc existing 1.395 facility has many significant deficiencies, including geometric (e.g., poor vortical/horizontal alignments, insufficient sight distances); operational(Q g, inadequate projected levels of serviecoevereveaving problems); and safety (e.g., accident/injury rates consistently higher than the state avemge, heavy truck traffic), Project objectives incladethe following; increasing capacity to prevent existing and future traffic congestion; improving safbty by alleviating existing deficiencies; addressing access issues; and establishing proper confinuity. Various niter -natives have been evaluated, including 0,18.ated, tunnel, and opon-cut alternatives, as well as urban design concepts with.tlit goal of developing a more aesthetiCally pleasing pedestrian and vehicular friendly corridor, The following resources were identified in tho Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) es being listed in or eligible for listing in the iVational Regi,ver of Historic Places (MO: • ,S7. John Baptist Church//328N1V,r,dArenue opAsi27)- OW listed • Fire Stationt12/1401 N Miami Avenue (81):11170 —IMP listed' Citizens Vonld1367 kflami Avenue (8A4117.5) eligible for listing by SaPO Rio Mar Apartments/1334 Nltliantblyoue (81)4//74)- eligible for listing by SHP° Seam, Roeintek and Company Buildine300 Mseayne Roulevarel 69b41109) NR111! listed • The FHAVA transmitted the CRAS to the State 1114orie Preservation Officer (SHP()) on August 29, 2007, and the SHP° subsequently concurred with these findings on October 10 2007 (Dfift Project Vile No. 2007-7185). Tho following is a sutrunary of the project's proposed improvements for the Elevated Fil:,17Way Alternative (Alternative 3), as well as anticipated affects to each or the five significant resources: St Johttil Baptist <:'Itureh't$28 Avintue 6c. 0,451227 This resource is located south of and 320 feet Oval the closest point of -395, and will be located AMERICAN ECONOMY 2 Mr. 'Frederick Poke, , Director June 16, 200E approximately 300 feet along NW are Avenue from the construction limits. The t395 itnpr vements will be constructed at n height of approximately four feat higher than the eurrertt interstate height in the ;vicinity ofthe chureh. Remover, due to the relatively small increase; in height, and the distance between the iniprovernents and the building, the change; to the views to and from the building will no be adversely affected.. it also does not appear that the aesthetics of the building will be adversely affected. If applicable, potential vibration impacts during construction can bo avoided or minimized via alternative construction methods. Also, no traffic noise impacts or air quality Minuets arc anticipated, the existing vehicular access as well as parking will not be impacted, and no right-of-«'nv (ROW) acquisition is required fiont this prpperty. J'fre,S`tcttlotr 12/1401 N Miami Avenue (81)41176): This resource is located two blocks north of 1-395, and the reconstructed t-395 vAllbc sltittetl approximately 275 feet closer; however, J 395 will still be located approximately 480 feet along North Miami Avenue from the construction limits, The 1-395 improvements will be eonstiuotod 12 feet than the current interstate hctght in the vicinity of the building, Doe to the distance between the improvements and the building, and the barer provided by existing building between 1-395 and the resource, the views to and from the building as well as its aesthetics will not bo affected. Also, no traffic noiya impacts or fir quality impacts are anticipated, (ht. sin vehicular aeeess as Well as parking Will notbe impacted, and no ROW acquisition is required front this_property. Pt. izens Bank/1367 J T *atilt it flt'eiwc (81141175); 1 Ins resourcc is located ttwo bliicks north of I-3h i; and the rccotistret ted 1-395 wilt ha shifted apt roxinnately 270 feet closer; sill I'be located approximately 340 tot along Nt rth Miarni Avenue'fioni the can'straction limits, The 1,3;95 iiniprovcnients will be eonstructed 12 feet higher than, the Current interstate height in the vicinity ditto building 1-1owcver,•due to the dist<oned betiveert the improvements and the building, and tho'buffer provided lay cxisting;bttiidings betWec i l-395''and the i`cscurce, the vicars to and from, the 'bi building:as tvrell as its aesthetics will not be affected. Also, no'trnfdo uni:;eirrrpactsorair clnrailtyimpacts areanticipated dmexistingvehictiiiiraccessas,wcdles-parking'Will not be Impacted, and no ROW acquisition is required from this property. Rio Mir ,ri1.'crrt ncnts/1J 4 V 1Pitit; ri t1vrnua (DA1173) This resource is located one-and-u-h.ilf'blocks north oftaps, and the reconstructed 1-395 will be shifted aappraxiimatety 270'feet closer;.huwever, f 395 will still bo bottled approximately 1.80 feet along north Miami Avenue froiat tlto cortgtrtictiott limits... ha 1-395' rnapiovcincnts svlil b'e" constructed` 12 feet higher than the current ilia i�statte height in the vicinity of the building. thAvever, .the views to and from the balloting asWeil as its uesthC C.9 wt?? not be unlveiscly affected. Atsci, Vno tiiftie noi;:e iittpacts or air quality impacts are anticipated, the existing vehicular 8CCCSS its well as parking Will not be impacted, and no 13.O\V acquisition is required from this property. Rotibiick, bract'Co»rptmy BBuilrling/1301013rs lo. ie 1101(levurtl (MAI109)` This resource (of which only the historic tower remains) is located 380 feet north oft-3Q5, zinc the reconstructed 1-395 will be located approximately 200 feet along Biscayne Boulevard front the eonstriietion limits. The 1-395 improvements wilt be constructed 10,5 feet higher than the entreat interstate: height in'the t iciti'tty of the build rg. Uuc to tht distance between the improvements and the resources, the view;; to and from the.buiIding and its aesthetics will not be adversely affected. Also, no traffic mist impacts or air quality imparts are anticipated, the existingVehicular access as well as parking will not be impacted; and no ROW acquisition is required from this property, 3 Mr, Frederick Gaske, Director June 16, 2008 Upon evaluating the Elevated Freeway Alternative, the Federal Highway Administration has determined that there will be no adverse effeet on the five resources and the characteristics that qualify thorn for listing In the MUM. The current 1-395 facility is an elevated 3ireeture, Despite the current setting and context &the significant historic resources with the elevated facility in the Vicinity, these significant historic resources were listed or determined eligible for inclusion in the NIUIP. The improvements to the 1.395 facility may involve an havens° in the height of thefacility and/or move the facility closer to the resources, but those changes will not affect the resources to suoh a degree that they are no longer considered eligible for the NRIIP, Therefore, based on information provided in the Section 106 Documentation and Determination of Effects Report, a concurrence of "no adverse effect" to the five resources is requested. This information is being provided in accordance with tho provisions of the Nationalllistorie Preservation At of 1966, as amended, which are iniplernented by the procedures contained in 36 Part 800, as.ainended, as Welt as the provisions contained in the revised F,S. Chapter 267. If you have any questions regarding the subject project, please contact Ms, Cathy 'Kendall, (850) 942.9650, ext. 3012. Sincerely yours, /s/ Karen 13runelle For: David C. Gibbs, Acting Division Administrator linolosure(s) cc: Aileen Boucle, MCP, FDOT D6 Ms. Carolyn Isynart FrxYr Cal° FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OP STATE Kurt S. Browning Secretar ► of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Mr. David C. Gibbs Federal Highway Administration 545 John Knox Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32303 REi DHR Project File Numbers 2008.5099 Received by DIM: ` June 20, 2008 Project 1395 from the Midtown Interchange (I-95/SR 836/1-395) to Biscayne Bay County: Miami -Dade ugust 8, 2008 Dear Mr. Gibbs: Our office received and reviewed the above referencedprojeot in accordance with. Section.106 of the National Historic Preservation Mt of 1966 as amended, 36 CPR. Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties, and Chapter 267, Florida Statutes. It is the responsibility of the State Historic. Preservation Officer to advise and assist, as appropriate, Federal and State agencies in carrying out their historie'preservation responsibilities; to cooperate with agencies to ensure that historic propertiesare taken into consideration at all levels of planning and development; and to consult with the appropriate agencies in.accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act: of 1966 as amended,on undertakings that may affect historic properties and the content and sufficiency of any plans developed to protect, manage, or to reduce or mitigate hann to such properties. Based on the information provided, our office concurs that the project will have no adverse effect on the five resources within the area of potential effect that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, These include St. John's Baptist Church (8DA5,127),. Fire Station #2 (8DA1176), Citizens Bank (8DA1175), Rio Mar Apartments (8DA1173), and Sears, Roebuck, and Company Building (8DA1109). If you have any questions, please contact Sherry Anderson, Architectural Historian, Transportation Compliance Review Program, by email sanderson@dos.state f t� .u, s or at 850 245.6432. Sincerely, "*k•-ca4 Frederick P, Gaske, Director, and State Historic Preservation Officer XC: Catherine Owen, FDOT, District 6 500 S. Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399.0250 • hops!/www.iiheritage,com d Directoes Office b Archaeological Research tiHtotorte PreaervaHon (850) 246.6300 e PAX 245.6436 (850) 245.4444 • 1AX: 2454452 (650) 245-6353 . PAX 245.6457 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE south Merida Eeotoplteal Services Office 1339 20 . Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960; March 23, 2009 Xavier Pagan Florida Department of Transportation 1000 Northwest1 i 1`t' Avenue, Room 611.1A Miami, Florida 33172 Service Federal Activity Code: Service Consultation Code: •13 tte Received Project: County; rICr .N.A N N VI ONMENYAL MAN NTOFFICU 4I420-2009«PA-0277 , 41420.2009 I;0197 ivlartth 10; 2009 Interstate 3395 frbnn interstate 95 to MacArthur Causowway Miami�Dade Dear Mx. Pagan: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your email dated March 10,.2009, and — other information submitted by the Florida Department of Transportation (MOT), on behalf of the,Federal Highway Administration, for the project referenced above. This letter is submitted in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 07 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C.1'553'1'et Seg.). '' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The FDOT is proposing improvements to Interstate 395 from Interstate :95 to the west channel bridges of MacArthur Causeway, The improvements will include: construction of three new elevated lanes on paired spans within the center of the corridor; the closure of the existing ramps at Northeast 2nd Avenue and-atNE1st Avenue; the construction of a new interchange at North Miami Avenue; and construction of a new two-lane colleotor-distributor road to link westbound Interstate 395 •tl;affic to Interstate 95. All work will occur within the existing road right -of wwy and wetlands *111 tiot bv'1mpae,ted, The prujeei sit•is:iovateti lot Miapit-Fade.Couaty, Florida, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES • The FDOT has determined the project will "not affect" federally-listed,species. The Service notes the project footprint occurs in highly urbanized areas, and the project will not' impact wetlands or habitat suitable for federally -listed species, The Service supports this determination, This letter fulfills the requirements of'section .7 of the Act and further action is not required. If modifications are made to the project, if additional infortnatioxtinvolving potential effects to listed species becomes' available, or if a new speciesis listed, relnitiation of consultation may be n*cessary; , . .. ;• - . • • TAKE Pi 1DE` INAM ERICA v ' Xavier Pagan Page 2 Thank you for allowing us to provide these comments and for your cooperation and effort in protecting federally listed species. If you have any qUeStions regarding this project, please contadt John Wrublik at 772-562-3909, extension 282. Sincerely yours, Paul Souza Field Supervisor SoutlrFlorida Ecological Services Office FWC, Tallahassee, Florida (Mary Atm Poole, lane Chabre, Traci Wallace) electronic only UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic .and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 26313th Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505 (727) 824-5317; FAX (727) 824.5300 littp://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ April 1, 2009 F/SBR4:BH/pw (Sent via Bleetronie Mail) Jeffry Marcus, Vice President: Consulting Engineering & Science, Inc, 10700 North Kendall Drive, Suite 400 :Miami, Florida 33176 Dear, Mr, Marcus; NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the environmental documentation submitted to us via email on March 5, 2009. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is evaluating capacity improvements to Interstate 395 from its intersection with Interstate 95 (Mid -town Interchange) to the MacArthur Causeway stopping 340 feet west of the seawall at Biscayne Bay, On May 6,.2005, NMFS provided continents about this project after attending the Agency Kick -Off Meeting (FIN. 251670.1-22.02), and on June 27,,2006, NMFS provided comments through FDOT's .Environmental Screening Tool (BTDM-7701). At the time, one of the project alternatives would involve in -water work — specifically, a tunnel under Biscayne Bay and this tunnel was the focus of our comments. Your correspondence indicates that the project would no longer involve in -water work, no improvements to the MacArthur Causeway, and no construction of a tunnel. Based on the new Information, we find that the proposed work would not directly impact essential fish habitat(PH) or federally managed fishery species. Accordingly, we have no comments or recommendations to provide under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation..and.Management Act.( .1,,104-297). However, should additional information or subsequent project modifications indicate that impacts to NOAA trust resources would occur, we may elect to provide BFH conservation recommendations to address those changes. We are not aware of any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat Under the purview of NMFS that occur within the project area. However, it should be noted that a "no effect" determination tnust.be made by the action agency and the reasoning underlying the determination should be documented in a project rite. Please coordinate closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for other species listed under the Endangered Species Act.that may require consultation. • We appreciate the opportunity to. provide these comments, Questions should be directed to the attention of Mr, Brandon Howard in our West Palm Beach Field Office, which is co -located with the US Environmental Protection Agency at USBPA, 400 North Congress Avenue, Suite 120, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, He also may be reached by telephone at (561) 616-8880 extension 210, or by email at Brandon.Howard@noaa.gov. cc: CES, Miami (jmarcus cesmiami,corn) FDOT, Miami (Lillian,Costa@dot.state.fl.us) COE, Palm Beach Gardens (Gaxettlips@usace.army,mil) EPA, West Palm Beach (Miedema.Ron(gepa,gov) FINS, Vero (John_Wrublik@fws.gov) MEM F/SER47, Karazsia, Howard : . • - 2 - Sincerely, / for Miles M. Croom Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division Pao10 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4. ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER. 61 FOR$YTHSTREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA soso3.es6a September $, 2009; Mr. George B. Hadley Environmental Programs Coordinator Federal Highway Administration 545 John Knox Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Subject: Interstate 395, Miami -Dade County, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEB) Federal Aid Projeet No, NH-6182 (10) Financial Project Number: 251670-1-22-02 FHWA-FL-EIS-09-0 1-D CEQ#: 20090245; ERP#: FHW-E40828-FL Dear. Mr. Hadley: Thank you for your interagency coordination efforts on a proposed project, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participated in a site visit on August 14, 2009, provided agency sole source aquifer seeping comments on February 7, 2008. Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), EPA Region 4 has evaluated the consequences of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) proposal to upgrade and reconstruct Interstate 395 (I.395), in Miami -Dade County, Florida. The project involves major upgrades to the existing interstate that include new ramps,., The interstate is linked with the East-West Expressway (SR 832), a. toll road, and with the MacArthur Causeway across the Biscayne Bay; The proposed project examines five alternatives, including a no build, two elevated bridges, a tunnel and an open cut. The two elevated designs; Alternative 2, Elevated with Ramps at Midtown Interchange; and, Alternative 3, Ramps at:Ivliami Avenue. The two depressed designs were Alternative 4, Tunnel, Ramps at Miami Avenue; and Alternative 5, Open -Cut, Ramps at NE 1st and NE 2ad Avenues. The elevated Build Alternative 3 was identified as the pieferred'alternative, This design features paired bridges that span nearly one mile between the Midtown Interchange and Bayshore Drive, with a partial interchange near the bridge's mid -paint. The interchange at N Miami Avenue includes two westbound on -ramps and two eastbound off -ramps. The proposed geometry of the two Biscayne Botulevard ramps(slip ramps), at the 'eastern terminus portion of the 1-395 corridor, are similar to the existing ramp layout. Internet Address (URL) • http;//wwirinope.gov Hocycledrpacyclable . Primed with Vegetable 011 Based inks on f acyc od Pepar (Mlnlmuni 30 /. Paslconsuinor) Enclosed are comments on the DEIS: EPA commends 1~AOT'S public involvement efforts. However, given the magnitude of the historical adverse impacts to minority and/or; low-iocon:e communities within the project area (e.g; Overtown), public outreach should be continued and additional efforts should be made to mitigate for localized project impacts. Based on our review of the DEIS, EPA assigned a rating of "EC-2" to the document. Our review has identified a number of environmental concerns (e.g,, air quality and ahildren'.s health) with the need for some additional. information. Thank youfor the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. If you have questions on our comments or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Maher Budeir at (404) 562-9514 or budeir..tnaher@epa.gov or Ntale Kajumba for environmental justice concerns at (404) 562-9620 or kajumba.ntale@epa.gov . • Sincerely, einz J. Mueller, Ch • f NEPA Program Office Office of Policy and Management Enclosure 1: Comments :on the 1-395 DEIS ec: Aileen Boucle; A.LC.P,,1' DOT, District 6 2 9/8/2009 Enclosure 1: EPA Detailed Comments Interstate 395, Miami -Dade County, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Based on our review of the DEIS, EPA's Ornery environmental concerns are related to mobile source air toxics, noiso, and relocation impacts to low income and minority populations. •In additien, EPA hes concerns regarding the potential for impacts to children's health due to the close proxiinitY to several schools along the proposed alignment. Environmental Justice and Community Impacts: The Interstate 395 study area includes denaographic information from portions of three Census Tracts: CT 34, CT 31. and CT 37.02 and 117 census blocks. The study area is approximately 0.5 Mile wide and contains portions of two Miami neighborhoods: Overtown (weat) and Edgewater (east). Residents occupy 48 of the 117 blocks examined in the DEIS. The project area predominately includes environmental justice populations (low-income and minority populations). According to the DEIS, demographic characteristics Of the study area (Overtown/Edgewater) from Census 2000 are as follows:* • Population: 4,147 persons • • 95% minority population o 79,1% black or AfricSn-Arnorican , • o 15,9% at least two races, , • Median household income: $13,340 o Approx.,baff of the population lives below poverty' • • Renter-occUpancy rate: 97.0% o Minimal homeownership The existing corridor is elevated through the Overtown andEdgewater . neighborhoods„ with four through lanes and ramps for interchanges at 1-95, NE ls' Avenue, NE 2'.'d Avenue and US-1 Biscayne Boulevard. EPA commends FDOT's efforts to conduct a robust socioeccnornic analysis that includes a historical examination of the Overtown neighborhood and the devastating impacts that various potieies'ahit development projects have had on this comMunity, The traditional African-Arnerican community was established prior to the incorporation able City of Miaini in 1896, and between the 1930's and 1950 Contained a population Otabout30,000 people. This area contained about twci-thirds of the entire African -American population in Miami -Dade. According to the DEIS, these numbers declined significantly after this period for several reasons including: • Better housing opportunities * building code enforcements • loss of economic base Page 1 of 4 9/8/2009 • construction Of Interstate highway corridors • public housing projects and urban • integration and school desegregation The proposed project displaces two apartment complexes: (a four-plex and a six-plex) with a total of ten (10) residential units, displacing ten individuals or fax/inks: five businesses will also be displaced which employ a total of 48 persons and one church --the Overtown Church of Christ. According to the DEIS;there is a shortage of comparable rental units within. the, inuinediate area (page'474),EPA notes that if needed, last resort assistance will be provided for residential rekicateeS,. On the other hand, commercial space is readily available for the businesses that will be displaced, and the congregation that attended the church has already vacated the property. EPA is concerned about traffic noise impacts and potential abatement measures (see children's health section below reduction strategies) for the area neighborhoods, particularly local schools. According to the DEM. the primary source Ofnoise within the project area is vehicular traffic on I-395„ I-95.;and:the local roadway network. FDOT conducted a noise study and targeted Sensitive land uses within the Project area such as single-family homes, small to medium sized apartinent buildings and OindOminitima. There are also two parks in theorna the Miamitpade Theodore Gibson Park and Bicentennial Park, and three ehurehei. FDOT current bridge design may improve conditions for the 'community associated with the existing bridge Strueture. The current bridge structure is expansive and its vertical clearance within Overtown is very low resulting in large areas of dark unusable space. The new bridge structures are more elevated and superior aesthetically. The vertical clearances in the corridor segment within Overtown Will range from 20 ft at NW 3rd Avenue to 25 ft at the Florida East Coast Railway (FEc) tiverpass, It is anticipated that street -level redevelopment in areas around the Vans niay improve the scieio- eoonornie conditions for local residents. Improving the Physical appearance and safety underneath the 1-395 structures was one of the key recominetidationS of the 1998 report "Final Report — The Historical Impacts of TranSpettationProjeets on the Overtown Community", by Florida International University (FIU) for the Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning;Organizatiom(MPO); Public involvement: • . EPA notes and corninenili FOOT and FHWA's efforts to ensure that an effective' public involvement strategywasiMPletnenW,on this project. 1...e004.; Projects proposed in this area have' not been supported by area residents due the level of community impacts and Mistrustfrotirthe impacts of historical polio* and projects. According to the PEIS, initially public aliciali and Community repiiseatafiVes generally supported the alternative with the least right-of-way impacts, the no build or Alternative 3. flowover, following an effective outreach strategy that included public workshops, the formation and implementation of a public advisory group for I-395, the opening of the FDOT Community Outreach Office in an Overtown storefront, and establishment of a telephone hotline and project websitei most public officials and community representatives appear to support the preferred alternative. EPA Page 2 ef'il 9/8/n09 participated in site visit that included the Community Outreach center. Information regarding the project description, large aerial maps of the project area and proposed design, public comment logs, videos and brochures tibout the prOject, pubIc Meetings; and local jobs postings and a computer are available to both visitors and local residents. EPA tecontmends that these efforts should continue throughout the planning, design and construction of the project. Mobile Source Air Toxics: While EPA understands that the projectis located near the Biscayne Bay and Atlantic Ocean which helps to reduce air qnality issues and the area is currently in attainment Of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards; The DEIS did not include an adequate evaluation of the impacts of air taxies (MSAT) emissions =nearby population centers and sensitive populations given the magnitude of the existing and proposed project and the proximity to local schools. EPA recominends that the Final EISinclude a detailed inventory of air toxics emissions (including diesel emissions) from both stationary and mobile sources that serve the facility, including the locomotives, switchers, tractors, and support equipinent, etc. It should also include a screening level evaluation of the potential impacts of these emissions on neighboring populations, The screening level evaluation could be conducted using the approach described in EPA's Air ToxicsRisis Assessment Reference Library (ATRA Library). We refer FDOT to the ATRA Library, Volume 1 Seetion 3.3.3 for further details (http://epa.govittnifera/risk atra inain html) The evaluation should include a description of the recent literature concerning the impact of air texics emissions on near -roadway receptors, ineluding sensitive receptors such as children, The evaluation should also describe themethods that will be used to mitigate any unavoidable emissions and impaets, Children's tlegIthlAir Quality andliloise There are fourteen schools or trainingeenters in the project area inclu,ding two postsecondary units (Miami -Dade College Mitchell Wolfson New World Center Campus and New World School of the Arts),. seven (7) Miami -Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS) and five (5) private schools. Most of the student schools Are located in Overtown. According to the DEIS, the construction activities may temporarily affect traffic circulation patterns and/or access in the service areas of the educational institutions, but maintenance of traffic:phasing will be closely coordinated with these schools to minimize construction activities during drop-off and pick-up times. Noise and MSAT emissions from heavy truck and vehicular traffic are areas of environmental and public health concern, particularly in close proximity of school zones. The existing facility already adversely impacts these two areas and the proposed upgrades to the facility may exacerbate these issues, In recognition of these concerns, EPA recommends that FDQT employ aimonitors to monitor pollutant levels near school grounds during construction and post construetion, Monitoring may help to identify any potential issues. Heavy diesel traffic near schools is likely to increase diesel emissions in the immediate area of the school, and thereby Pag6 3 of 4 1 9/8/2009 increase the .students' exposure to diesel particulate matter. In addition, noise from the vehicular traffic can impede learning if the noise penetrates into the Classrooms, Section 3.1,4:;of the DEIS'states that the project will not directly impact any of the area schools. However, it is unclear what the localized MSAT.impacts are for children and whether truck and vehicular trafttc, and noise associated with I-395 impact schhoel classes._If Se, }tow will these impacts be mitigated? EPA recommends that the final' EIS consider the following strategies to minimize these impacts including; • Providing or installing soundproof materials for the classrooms • 'Working with schopls to schedule outdoor activities at the. school when vehicular traffic. is.lovest Examining where fresh air intakes for the school are located, and filteringair intake to the,ektcnt feasible to minimize intake of these particulates into the • school''s heating and air conditroning.systems, las well as filtering within the HVAC system (should MSAT's pose an,tssue}; Indirect and Cumulative Effects:` The DEIS mentionss existing -transit systems,. However, other future. planned. transit studies such as the South .Florida East Cost Corridor can potentially>impact the area of study m terms oftraffio flow and level of'service. These., potential projects will impact the effectiveness' of this proposedproject. EPA recommends that,the final EIS consider, the indirectimpects of any' future mass transit projects' that may impact the project area, Water Qualify and Contaminated Sites: Section 4,3,7 states that stormwater facility design will Include the water quality requirements as required by Miami,Dade Department of Environmental Management, `in Section 43.9, several sites of high risk. andLmediurn risk for subsurface contaxninatton • were • identified with groundwater plumes of different contaminants, kneeds to be demonstrated that the stormwatur system can ,Manage the flow of the runoff effectively without adversely impacting thecontamlriant transport in the subsurface and without - further Mobilizing hzing `contaminants to further degrade groundwater quality:. This, should be addressed in the final EIS, Page: 4 of 4 1 Revised 1tn8t/009 Ii OT's proposed responses to EPA. comments on..1-395 DEIS (EPA letter dated September 8,'2009) COMMENT 1: Concern was expressed regarding the shortage of comparable rental mats within the immediate area for the residential relocates. RESPONSE:. The Pre. -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Plan was recently updated to refieet the current Market conditions. The plan determined that there are sufficient affordable .housing options available for the ten (10) residential units to be displaced. COMMENT 2: A' 'recommendation was ' made to continue the on -going ' public involvement program throughout the planning, design and construction phases of the project: RESPONSE: This ongoing, public involvement program will continue to occur throughout the subsequent project phases. COMMENT 3 The DEIS did not include an adequate evaluation of the.: impacts of air taxies (MSAT) emissions on nearby population centers and sensitive populations given the magnitude of the existing and proposed projectand the proximity to local.schodls. RESPONSE: Miami -Dade County is currentiy:itx attainment for all of the pollutants for which National Ambient Aia:. Quality Standards have been promulgated. The FHWA. mandated air quality analysis for the project demonstrated that no potential adverse air quality impacts would becaused by .construction of the Build Alternative.:. While project level analysis of MSATs is not 'required' under the NEPA process: 'as currently administered by PIMA,. the FDOT'.has provided a qualitative assessment of MSATs in Section 4,3,3,2 of the FEIS. For informational -pu poses We have also included in this section a listing of nearby sites potentially sensitive to MSATs. A more detailed quantitative.analysia of potential projeet`related environmental and health impacts due to MSATs is encu`mbei•ed by 'significant` technical shortcomings and/or uncertain science. that prevents a' Meaningful' determination of project .level MSAT levels and inapt cts. COMMENT 4: EPA recommends that the Final EIS include: a detailed inventory of air toxic.? emissions (includlrzg diesel emissions) from both 'Stationary and mobile sources that serve the facility, `including the locomotives; switclzers; tractors, and suPpod equipment, etc. It should also include a screening level evaluation of the potential rlrlpacts ort-these emissions on rzeighboi.ingpopzrlations RESPONSE: A detailed inventory of air toxics emissions is not required under the NEPA process as currently administered by 1 HWA. Miami -Dade county is currently in attainment for all of the pollutants for which National Ambient Aix Quality Standards have been promulgated,` In addition, the FHWA mandated air quality analysis for the 2 project demonstrated that no potential adverse air quality impacts. would be. caused by construction of the. Build Alternative. Please see. section 4.3,3 .1 of the FEIS. .COMMENT .5: Noise .and MSAT emissions from. heavy truck and vehicular traffic are areas of environmental cold public health concern, particularly in close proximity of school zones. The existing facility already adversely impacts these two areas and the proposed .upgrades to the facility may exacerbate•these issues: recognition, ,of these concerns, EPA recommends that FD. QT.einploy ctir inortitar s to monitor pollutant level near school grounds during construction attd post construction. RESPONSE: "Project level, analysis. of MSATs is not required under the NEPA process as currently adrriin.istered by,FHWA. Please see Sections 4.3, 4.4 a d 4,17; Air quality, Noise and Construction, respectively in the FEIS. Traffic noise impacts were analyzed iti accordance with 23CFR772..Exterior .traffic noise in the. project study area, is predicted to increase by levels well below the threshold that humans are able to perceive changes, in noise level recognized by the FHWA (3 dBA). In addition, national research lias shown that noise sensitive sites greater than 500 feet from a, project, as is the case With :the schools, do, not, experience project generatednoise levels above the FHWA;::Noise Abatement Criteria. Given the minimal changes to traffic, patterns near schools and the area's attainment status for all of the NAAQS, local -site air monitoring related to this project is not considerednecessary,. COMMENT 6: EPA recanntrends that the final EIS consider the. following strategies to mininmize these impacts including. • Providing or installing soundproof materials for Mc ,classrooms, • Working with . schools. to schedule; outdoor activities.att the School when vehiculartraffi`c is the lowest, • Examining tvhere.ft•esh air;,intakes fat .the schootare located,; and poring air intake to: the extent feasible to:; minimize , intake ,of _ these particulates into the school's.. heating and• air conditioning:. systems, as well , as Poring within the HVAC system (should MSAT's pose an issue).:, RESPONSE:. I i accotdance.;w;ith the:NEPA process. for. FHW'A. projects, all .required analysis were conducted and it was determined that•no Impacts are expected to occur: at the nearby, schools as a result; of the proposed action:. Please see Sections; 4 3r 4.4 and 4.17; Air quality, Noise and Constriction, respectively in the FEIS. COMMENT 7: A recommendation was made to. consider the Iiadn ect impacts of any future MOSS transit projects that may impact the project area in the F., IS RESPONSE: As stated in Section.1.5 Modal Interrelatieriships,, the proposed project is compatible with existingand proposed niultiniodal (mass -transit and non -motorized) facilities: Existing rail corridors at I-395 include the Florida East Coast Railway, Metrorail. and Metromover. :TheFEC rail cot7•idor4is not a mass -transit facility,. No immediate plans currently, exist, to re -initiate passenger service. However, the South Florida East Coast Corridor (SFECC) 3 Transit Analysis Study, a feasibility study, is .on -going to develop .and analyze alternatives: that potentially integrate passenger and freight transport along the. SFECC, which is centered along the existing FEC rail corridor. The existing double -rail freight corridor crosses at -grade. under 1-395 at North Miami Avenue, The SFECC Transit Analysis Study may include a station or stations in the Overtown conlnntnity, in the vicinity of I-395. However, the proposed new location. of access ramp(s) to/front I-395 at Ni Miami Avenue will result in less traffic on local streets as related to the potential new station or stations compared to the location of the existing access ramps on N.E. 2nd Avenue. Therefore, at this time there is minimal .and/or no indirect impact from. the SFECC Transit Analysis Study. COMMENT 8: Concert: was expressed that the stor,twater'sysle:r: be able to'effectiveiy • manage the flow of runoff without adversely affecting any existing contaminant plumes which could degrade groundwater quality. RESPONSE: The FDOT has coininitted to incorporating stonnwater management features into the project design to 'mitigate for water quality impacts.. During the design phase; .a re-evaluation of .contamination concerns will be conducted based on the speoific drainage design prepared for this project. The re-evaluation will include a review of the federal, state and local agency databases to identify the status pf previously reported contaminant. sources as' well as identify any new potential sources. Based on the results of the re-evaluation, a Level 1i Contamination Assessment may be required to determine the extent of existing contamination within the project corridor if deemed necessary by the Contamination Impact Coordinator. The type and location of the proposed stortnwater management features will be assessed for potential involvement with existing contamination sources. The project design engineer Will be directed to modify any storrnwater feature so as not to affect any existing contaminant plumes, APPENDIX )3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM` PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP (PAG) MEMBERSHIP: Persons or entities invited as FAG members included 20 members or Member organizations. Based on attendee lists of the first two meetings,: the 19. PAG attending members and their member organizations were as follows: Jeff Bridges, Greater Miami Clamber• of Commerce (initial PAG Chair); Cecilia Stewart, Overtown Corirnunity Oversight Board (PAG Chaim); • (vacant), Miami -Dade Commissioner Audrey Edrnansbn appointee; Clarence Woods, Miami Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones appointee;, Basil Binns II, Miami Commissioner LindaHaskins' appointee; Jose.Gell, Bayfront.Park Management. Trust;;. 'Vivian Villaamil,.Miami-Dade,Co-Linty Public Schools, Facilities M.anagenient , Judy Scluiielzer/Gerry Guarch, Miami Dade College; .Nick Kadivar/Fred Beckmann, City .of Miami Beach; Robert Geitner; Downtown .Miami Partnership; Arthttr Noriega, Miami Parking.Authority; Fred and Linda Joseph, Omni Advisory Board; Dr.Dorothy Fields; Historic Overtown FolklifeDistrict Improvement Association; Todd Tragash,. Paint Hibiscus Star Island Association; Bill Anderson, Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau; William.Amaya, Overtown Chamber of Commerce; Del Bryan, Overtown Advisory Board; Dana Nottingham; Miami Downtown bevelopnient Authority; and, _ James •Villaeorta,.Miami Community Redevelopment, Agency. Subsequent PAG member additions and deletions (as of November 13, 2007): Rana Brown, Sr. VP, Greater Miami 'Chamber of Commerce Mirerie Charles, St. Agnes Homeowners. Association (Overtown) Teroa Hebert, COO, Adrienne A..rnst Center of the Performing Arts Rev, David Shanks, Miami -Dade Connnissioner Bruno A. Barrei o's appointee is pending Miami -Dade Commissioner Audrey Edniunsori's new appointee is pending DATES OF PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP (PAG)MEETINGS: October 16, 20Q6 February 13, 2007 April 25, 2007 November 13, 2007 June 23, 2009 SUMMARIES, OF MINUTES OF PAG MEETINGS (attached and on CD): I-;395 PAO Meeting sumniary 1A16.2006.doe • 1-395 PAG meeting sumMarY2.13.2007;doe 1-395 PAO meeting summary 4.25,2007,dec 1-395,PAO meeting summary 11.13.2007:doe' 1-395 PAG Meeting summary 6.3,2009 doe MEETINGS WITH. PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND STAKEHOLDERS (attached and on CD) Approximately 97 meetings with publici Officials and/or stakeholders, meeting times and loeations;attendees, contact idorniation and sunnnaries of issues discussed are provided. • •• • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 1.396 PD&E STUDY Project Development and Environment Study Kickoff Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting October 16, 2006 Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 49 NW 5th Street Miami, Florida 331128 Meeting Summary Staff and PAG Introductions The meeting was officially convened at 6:20 pm by the project public involvement coordinator, Bobbie Murnford of B Mumford & Company, who acknowledged the FDOT Project Manager Vilma Croft, Vilma Croft welcomed the project group and thanked them for serving on this important committee. Consulting staff introductions followed with Raul Driggs, Robert Linares, Carlos Rodriguez and Julieta Rivera of Metric Engineering Inc; Jeff Marcus, 'CES; and A.B. Murnford and Marcia Saunders, B Mumford & Company, PAG member introductions included those present: Jeff Bridges, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce; Richard Miller, Miami -Dade Commissioner Audrey Ednionson appointee; Vivian Villaamil, Miami -Dade County. Public Schools; ,Judy Schnielzer'; Miami Dade College; Nick Kaclivar, City of Miami Beach; Robert Geitner, Downtown Miami Partnership; Arthur Noriega, Miami Parking Authority; Fred and Linda Joseph, .Ornril 'Advisory Board; Dr, Dorothy Fields; Historic Overtown Folklife District Improvement Association; Todd Teagaih, PatinHibiscus Star Island Association; Bill Anderson, Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau: Del Bryan, Overtown Advisory Board; Clarence Woods,. Miami Cornenissioner Michelle Spence - Jones appointee; and Dana Nottingham, Miami Downtown Developnient Authority, Others who arrived at the end of the meeting were: James Villacorta, Miami Community Redevelopment Agency, and Basil Binns 11, Miami Commissioner Linda Haskins appointee. A total of 17 of the 20 members/member organizations attended. ' PAG Objectives The Project Advisory Group's purpose and structure were provided by Bobbie' Mumford ‘) (statements attached and rnade available to members), She also discussed FDOT's commitment to community involvement. Project Status The PD&E project process, status and overview were presented by the consulting Project Manager Robert Linares, Metric Engineering Inc. (PowerPoint presentation made available to members). Linares challenged the group to identify perhaps two (2) alternatives with which they could move forward and provide much greater detail. Linares provided a historical project and perspective, .public involvement far-reaching process, the five (6) alternatives from safety and capacity needs, environmental Issues, various impacts, social and economic issues, financial analysis being part of the .project, and the urban design firm of EDAW involvement in the process. Action Items. The Project Advisory Group by consensus: > Selected its Chairperson —Jeff Bridge, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce > Agreed on Tuesdays and 6 p.m., as the preferred meeting day and time • Maximum meeting time limited to two (2) hours > An average of 4 to 6 meetings a year > The urban planners, EDAW, will present at the next meeting • Next meeting most likely to be held in December 2006 Committee Feedback, Issues & Concerns > Requested a digital .profile of the alternatives and elevations, of how the alternatives connect to the ground and for abetter perspective of the alternatives > Social impacts may be created from land acquisition '• - > How much property will be acquired and from where >. Should resolve, property acquisition issues first Does FDOT have imminent dcirnain'rights > Need a development and/or economic consultant to address environmental justice issues > May consider coordinating With urban designers who are working onthe City of Miami's Master Development Plan . > Some potential development expectations are being discussed for new land which will be created by the various alternatives > Must -be sensitive to potential land usages .• >` The land being created still is public (Ana and belongs to FOOT i.e. with the Open Cut Alternative, we're Only`talking about three (3) blocks • FDo-r,Qansuggest what happens on the available land, such as parks development, passive usages, parking lots • There is an .offset on cost if property is released to developers • • Need to more specifically, from a community standpoint, identify benefits of the alternatives, especially if the alternative is a .raised structure > Model the alternatives so that the public and private sectors can have clarity and a sense of responsibility on the benefits and land usages > Modified alternatives to deal with previous issues of Overtown > Si. John Church should be removed as example of Historic Resources, since it is on the National Register, and there could be a misleading representation The meeting was adjourned at about 7:50 p,m. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 1-395 PD&E STUDY Project Development and Environment Study Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting February 13, 2007 Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 49 NW 5th Street Miami, Florida 33128 Meeting Summary Opening and Introductions The meeting was officially convened at 6:15 pm by Jeff Bridges, chairperson of the FDOT 395 Project Advisory Group (PAG). In chairing the meeting, he first called for self - introductions of those present. PAG Member introductions included: Jeff Bridges, Greeter ,Miami Chamber of Commerce; Vivian Villaarnil, Miami -Dade County Public Schools; Gerry Guarch, Miami Dade College; Fred Beckmann, City of Miami Beach; Robert Geitner, Downtown Miami Partnership; Fred Joseph, Omni Advisory Board; Todd Tragash, PaIM Hibiscus Star Island Association; Del Bryan, Overtown: 'Advisory Board; Clarence Woods, representing Miami Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones; Dana Nottingham, Miami Downtown : Development Authority; Jose Gell,,Bayfront Park Management Trust; Cecelia Stewart, Overtown ComMunity Oversight Board; James Villacorta, Miami Community Redevelopment Agency; and William Amaya, Overtown Chamber of Commerce. FDOT. staff and consultants present were; Vilma Croft, Project Manager; Robert Linares, Carlos Rodriguez and Julieta River° of Metric Engineering Inc; Cesar Garcia -Pons, EDAW Urban Planners; and Bobbie Mumford and A.B. Mumford, B Mumford &Company. Project Status An update report on the activities of the Community Outreach office in Overtown was provided by Community Liaison Bobbie Mumford, who further introduced the outreach staff, Betty Hall and Martha Miller, The report acknowledged the official opening of the office on December 6, 2006, and some 60 inquiries into the office between that date and this PAG meeting of February 13, 2007, A comprehensive PowerPoint presentation of urban design concepts for the 1-395 project from the perspectives of facility structure and communities was presented by Cesat Garcia - Pons of EDAW Urban Planners. The presentation highlighted goals, strategies, design precepts and implementation ideas for an acceptable urban transportation improvement. Action Items The Project Advisory Group by consensus: ➢ The EDAW PowerPoint presentation should be e-mailed to allcommittee members for their furtherreview, or:a CD/video mailed. • .Do drawings of conceptual urban designs for the community ina fold out. Committee Feedback, Issues. &Concerns ➢ FDOT needs to reach out to the community with Jobs relatedto the 1-395 project. D• It was suggested that FDOT was not prepared to address community issues at the opening of the outreach office; �'-➢ ,The FDOT bridge near the town of Moore Haven and U.S. 27 Highway is a nice signature bridge which design 'should be considered for l 395., A,. The signature bridge design In Boston should also be considered; ➢ Can the new 1.395 facility;be built without tearing down anything? ➢ Thought the new 1-395 alignment would be built in stages, so as to maintain right of ways. ➢ Can we rebuild the roadway without major disruptions? Two schools would. be.impacted with the elevated option, and during construction. the pedestrian traffic) on 14th Street wilt be impacted. We should tryto improve: the interchange, and get rid of actual barriers, especially where the connections tie in. • What are some of the comparable' cities;''arid how do they compare to Miami,` as it relates to, urban density and urban design? Should we consider cities like Patis, 'Rome, Chicago and New York .to Miami's urban situation? Under„ the, overpass, has. FOOT,` should test' soil' for'environmental hazards and contamination? : • :, • Would like to have geotechnical studies performed before we try to build a,glamorous new. structure,, ➢ The land mass connecting under the overpass near 14th ° Street is dark and gloomy, and very unappealing. ➢ The acquisitions you say are mostly east of the Florida East Coast (FEC) tracks,, and displacements. in Overtown would be minimized with the elevated option. ➢ As we travel north and south, thefacility splits? • How many lanes will the new structure have? Two continuous lanes and up to three continuous lanes in both directions with exits on right tide, instead of in the middle. and to the left, ➢ With the 19 feet widening of existing roadway, how much are you going to disrupt usage during conatruction? • By 2013, we could have 17,000 new residents in Omni area, plus a new Florida Marlins baseball stadium. 2 > What is the actual construction tirnetable, 2-1/2 to 3 years? What is the anticipated starting construction date? Seven or eight years from now? • Is funding for the project In place? Part of itis?, > Since the project started with a needs assessment with capacity as a concern, what alternative best fits this need? > Where are the ramps? The ramps should be put at one location, wherever the most viable location is. What is the elevation of the ramps? > The existing elevated structure is about 16 feet,and you are proposing a height of 30 to 34 feet, • Are these graphics (from the PowerPoint) available on a website? > The conceptual dravvings showing the utilization of land under the new structure, are these real viable and doable solutions for the community? > The Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) is trying to move its boundaries east to the Port of Miami. This could mean that diesel trucks and even the heavy truck load in and out of the Port will be going tinder clean, new 1-395 columns. How can the columns be designed for ideal maintenance? This maintenance of columns under the highway is very important fel. people looking down from their condos, > The issue is do we want an elevated highway or a depressed highway. • The CRA can provide funding for some community facilities, but under state law, we are not allowed to maintain them. Recommendations for Addressing Community > When we are communicating this project to the public, you must show these urban designs as intent, only. The story must be believable. You should show FDOT's role, public sector involvement and prospective private sector participation. > You must create - clarity and accoUntability. State_ what can be realistically accomplished, Concepts must be realistic. > Identify who Will assume certain roles for development; identify scopes and roles for various parts of the development > Take such assignments into consideration, now. > Be clear with community on development expectations and possible opportunities, recognizing that you are FDOT. > This project has a lot of issues and details, select five or six important pointsito focus on with community. The meeting Was adjourned at about 7;50 p,m. 3 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 1-396 PD&E STUDY Project Development and Envfronrnent Study Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting April 25, 2007 Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 49 NW 8th Street Miami, Florida 33128 Meetinci Sunimary Opening and Introductions The meeting was officially convened at about 6:18 pm by Jeff Bridges, chairperson of the FDOT 1-395 Project Advisory Group (PAG) In chairing the meeting,he. first called for self - introductions of those present and acknowledged new members who introduced thernselves: ReV. Milton Broomfield, Pastor of Greater Bethel AIVIE Church, and James Hunt and Clem Minnis, both representing Booker T. Washington Alumni Assaciation. Other' PAG member introductions included: Jeff Bridges, Greeter Miami Chamber of Commerce; Gerry Guarch, Miami Dade College; Fernando Vazquez, City of Miami: Beach; Robert Geitner, Downtown Miami partnership; Fred Joseph, Omni Advisory Board;- Clarence Woods, representing Miami Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones; Dana Nottingham, Miami Downtown Development Authority; Cecilia Stewart; OvertownCornmunity Oversight Board; Janies'Villecortl,` MlarriittomMunity Redevelopment Agency; Jarret Haynes, Carnival Center for the Performing Arts; H. Bert Gonzalez, representing City Of Miami Commissioner Marc 'Sarncjif.OWrict 2; 6rid Del Bryan, Poinciana -Village Condo Association. FDOT staff and consultants present were: Vilma Croft, Project Manager; Robert Linares (Consulting Project Manager), Carlos Rodriguez and Julieta Rivero of Metric Engineering Inc; Cesar Garcia -Pons, EDAW Urban Planners; Jeff Marcus and David Peterson of CES, Inc.; Betty Hall and Martha Miller, FOOT Community Outreach Office; and Bobbie Mumford and A.B. Mumford, B Mumford & Company, Project Status Public Involvement A public involvement report was provided by Community Liaison Bobbie Mumford. The report acknowledged some 47 meetings held with stakeholders to -date, six outreach office briefings and field review with constituents, upcoming briefing sessions with property owners and the Public Alternatives Workshop in May. 1. Project DeVelopment and Environment A modified PowerPoint presentation including detailed right of way impacts was presented by Robert Linaresof Metric Engineering. The presentation also focused- on the conirneroial financial analysis effort, urban 'design irriplementation plan and costs, and FOOT environmental testing: Action Items The Project Advisory Group by consensus vote: > Agreed to move forward with the most viable alternative as, Alternative 3 — Elevated/Miami Avenue (Motioned by Fred Joseph, seconded by Jarret Haynes > Agreed to leave in as an alternative, Alternative 1 — No Build ➢• Eliminated Alternative 4 — Tunnel and Alternative 5 — Open -Cut Note: Alternative 2 was removed from study by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Committee Feedback, Issues & Concerns. • Because of the existingfunding gap and the potential to have a high cost, should we considera. public -private partnership? • Why is this project a priority, with no funds for funding the project? • How does this 1-395 Tunnel project impact with the Port of Miami Tunnel project? What is its status? • Is there a point when we give a recommendation on the most viable alternative? ➢ If you look at the three (3) build options, there's only one (1) alternative with the least impacts, Tess right of way impacts, ,less cost, greater ability to be aesthetically pleasing. That's the Elevated option...and then there's the No Build option. • Why are we keeping the Open -Cut and Tunnel options In the study? We only have one option on the table (the Elevated), The other options should be thrown out. > We have a $500million dollar option and a $1 billion dollar option. • What can we really do with thespace underneath the Elevated option? ➢ Where are you talking about putting the ramps, at NE' 1 St Avenue/NE 2Pd Avenue? > Is there any potential for recovery of land to finance this project? Recovered land may pay for this project. Miami Beach will have to deal with increased traffic. One alternative minimizes Miami Beach traffic and another increases it, An issue could be the back and flow traffic to Miami Beach. ➢ What about building on top of Tunnel option? It's reasonable to find a balance. > Let me tell you why the Booker T. Washington School Alumni Association and other community people are concerned. Their concerns date back to 1963 when 1-95 was built disrupting the pillars of Overtown. That was 40 years ago. Now 45 years later, here you come with another project which will impact the east and west sides of 1.=395. If you don't have the money, why are you moving ahead? If you cut off the thru way corridors of Overtown, you are going to divide the community again, by blocking off streets. 2 ➢ Let's talk about Impacts to the community roads, environmental ,impacts, what happens -to the :sohoolsand students- walking to schools during construction period, and other related impacts: • I have people from the Omni area asking us to select an alternative. ➢ There's only one alternative which does not adversely affect the community;. that is Alternative 3. Alternative 3 can get a. consensus. The meeting was adjourned at about 7:25 p.m. 3. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 1-395 PD&E STUDY Project Development and Environment Study Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting November 13, 2007 Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 49 NW 5th Street Miami, Florida 33128 Meeting Summary Opening and Introductions The meeting was officially convened at about 620 pm by Jeff Bridges, chairperson of the FDOT 1-395 Project Advisory Group (PAG). In chairing the meeting, he first called for self - introductions of those present. PAG member introductions included; Jeff Bridges, Seeman Holtz; Gerry Guarch, Miami Dade College; Todd Tragash, representing City of Miami Beach; Robert Geitner, Downtown Miami Partnership; Dana Nottingham, Miami Downtown Development Authority; James Villacorta and Jessica Pacheco, Esq., Miami Community Redevelopment Agency; Terea Hebert, Carnival Center for the Performing Arts; H. Bert Gonzalez, representing City Of Miami Commissioner Mare Sarnoff—District 2; Vivian Villaamil, Miami -Dade County Public Schools; Mike Robinson, 'Miami -Dade County Public ,Schools; Jack Hart, Booker T. Washington Senior High School; James Hunt, Booker T. Washington Alumni Association; Kelsey R. Dorsett, V- 21; Rose Thomas and Lenzie Thomas, Funland; and Del Bryan, Poinciana Village Condo Association. FDOT staff and consultants present were: Bayo Coker, FDOT; 'Vilma Croft, FDOT Project Manager; Robert Linares (Consulting Project Manager), Carlos Rodriguez and Gabriel Delgado of Metric Engineering Inc; Cesar Garcia -Pons, EDAW Urban Planners; Kevin Mullen of CES, Inc.; Betty Hall, FOOT,Community Outreach Office; and Bobbie Mumford, Joy Ashby and A.B. Mumford, 13 Mumford & Company. Project Status Public Involvement A public involvement report was provided by Community Liaison Bobbie Mumford. The report highlighted the Public Alternatives Workshop, community outreach sessions, appeal for letters of support from the community for the project, and an upcoming project public hearing. Project Development and Environment Metric Engineering along with EDAW urban planners made a presentation and engaged in a project discussion on highway maintenance of traffic during construction, local Overtown vehicular and pedestrian maintenance of traffic plan, and potential use of space underneath expressway facility. Action Items The Project Advisory Group asked FDOT and consultants to provide the following: Right-of-way process and procedures > Renderings of development suggestions for underneath the overpass > An animated 3-D Presentation of the project Committee Feedback, Issues & Concerns > When will the project get started, 2013 at the -earliest? • How high will the bridges be, about 25 to 30 feet? • Would it be a permanent structure? > With the ramp and stairs, what will be the protection on the walkway such as fencing, or concrete barrier walls that could be 10 to 12 feet in width? • What are.the existing 1-395 elevations? > What about the cars coming down from the ramps and how they may affect children - pedestrian traffic? • There .has been a longtime needfor this structure to be made better for traffic. > Will you design be aesthetically welcomed? > .1 am assuming that this:. committee (PAG) will make a project recommendation or you have made a recommendation?' The timeline for construction, how long will t be or does it depend on how the funding'is released? • Our business is at NW 14thTerr"ace and 3rd"Avenue (Funland), "how will the cars -and people walking be re-routed during construction? • So the traffic; in" this area will be rerouted around to 1$t Place? p 1 hope the design and construction will' be' More accurate, :especially as it relates; to building a walkway underneath the bridges. > Yau'lkneed to be very carefulas: to: how' you re-route the students walking to school during construction. If you move these children to far out, parents -will be given the option of withdrawing their children from the schools (in Overtown) and sending their to another school. For instance', students withdrawn from Rooker T.Washington Senior High School they'd send their kids to Miami High, Miami Beach High or Miami -Jackson. • FDOT is going to have a tremendous impact for the Overtown community. > If you put in the walkway, you are sending people away from the community. • Will the new roadway provide for any additional traffic lanes? • You say we gain one continuous lane east boundonly and two continuous lanes both Ways will be the basic operation of the roadway. > At NW 14th Street and 2nd Avenue, you're talking about a parking lot. > FDOT needs to do something about developing all of the vacant land underneath the expressway, like affordable housing, 2 Committee Feedback, Issues & Concerns > Mr, James Hunt of the Booker T. Washington Alumni Association stated that he is totally against the project. altogether, > I (Kelsey Dorsett) am asking you to re -ignite Overtown stores like the Performing Arts Center area, the Civic Center area and the design district have been reinvented. We don't want Overtown to be the hole in the donut Conceptually, let's take the economics of this projectinto consideration.. Bring the economics back into the community. The Community Redevelopment Agency .(CRA) has a plan streetscape project currently. We need commercial activity underneaththe bridges; it would work well In fulfilling what Overtown used to be. l love the rendering of the park - how it's nice and clean, .but what's need. in Overtown are businesses. How can we ensure the Bridge Overpass happens * that either we have a No Build, if not the Elevated option? • What is the use of space underneath the expressway? Why is the underpass area gated — for security reasons? • What other type of options do you .have `for underneath the expressway? Can the area be used for parking? • We assume you are not buying the property that makes the turn by the Overtown Shopping Center (at NW and Avenue, north of 14th Street). > Are you reviewing (real estate) comparables to attract commercial companies for building underneath the expressway? • Is there a project similar to this where people can go see it? > We'd like to see proposed activity in the streets of Overtown and economically viable models from other areas. The possibilities for development seem unlimited: • What about the mass transit section between Miami and Miami Beach? • There* are people from Overtown in the Transition Program who are looking for jobs, but they have felonies. Can they apply for State of Florida and County job openings? Can you give jobs to felons? • FDOT may have a community credibility problem in termsof hiring people from the community to work on the building of this project > We need to look at contractual opportunities, and since the project is far off let's involve a work structure for Booker T. Washington School students. • In terms of contractors not being in j compliance, to hecomrnuni kind Sear Search retribution yourlegislation ta k�r T put in p lace? You need to look at benefits Y bring about some economic viability and put retail under the expressway, > As a contrnittee (PAG), where are we going? The 1-395 corridor is decaying and antiquated. What happens if the No Build is the preferred alternative? Closing Comment from FDOT's Bayo Coker: FDOT looks to you as community leaders. So .our credibility is .with you. Please understand that FDOT has limitations. However, we are trying to do everything we can -- to hire and recruit, as you talked about in the future. There are things; we can make opportunities of. But keep in mind that this is a roadway project. More dialogue with the community as we continue will be good for us. The meeting was adjourned at about 745 p.m. 2' Florida Department of TransportatiOn '(FDOT) IM395 PD&E STUDY Project Development and Environment Study Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting June 23, 2009 Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 49 NW 5th Street Miami Florida 33128 Meeting Summary • • • Opening and Introductions • The meeting was officially convened at about 6:15 pm by Fred Joseph, vice -chairperson of the FDOT 1-395 Project Advisory Group (PAG). In chairing the meeting, he, first called for self- introdUCtiOns ofthose present. PAG member introductions included: Fred Joseph, Omni Advisory .Board; Todd Tragash; representing City of Miami Beach; Javier Betancourt, Miami Downtown Development Authority, James Villacorta and Clarence Woods, Miami Community Redevelopment Agency; Vivian Villaarnil, Miami -Dade County .Public Schools; Kelsey:. R. Dorsett, Vision721; Don D. Patterson, Mt. Zion Developments, Incorporated; Timothy Schmancl, Bayfrobt Park Management Trust, Willie Newkirk and Carlton ,Newkirki-IVIinique Properties; Henry E. Jones, St. John Community Development Corporation;:and.Charles Cutler,VETS, Inc. rDoT,„ staff and consultants present were: Dat-Huynh; .FD.QT;:Vila.,erpft, 1-395 Project Manager, Javier Bustamente, FDOT;: Diego Rivadepeira,1°-FOOT;., Pablo Oreico, FOOT; • Jeannine''Gasloride, • FDOT: Carlos Rodriguez, Robert 'Gutierrez and Gabriela Garcia of Metric Engineering Inc; 'Cesar Garcia -Pons, EDAW Urban Planners; Jeff Marcus of CES, inc:; Willy ROdriguez, 'GSA Group, Betty Hall, FDOT Community Outreach Office; and Bobbie Mumford, B MumfOrd& Company. Action Items The 1-395 Project Advisory Group (PAG) provided unanimous consensus for the f011owing: » Naming Fred Joseph, PAG Chair and Naming Don D. Patterson, PAG Vice -Chair Considering that the former PAG chairperson Jeff Bridges had not been reachable and that Fred Joseph was currently serving as vice chair. A The video in PowerPoint presentation format will be forwarded to all PAG members Project Statue Project Development and Environment . . Metric Engineering began a video presentation which evolved into a discussion illuminating on these points: > The project's background and history which dates, back to 1992 with FOOT reinstatement study effort; in 2004 D Project process including public involvement, engineering analysis and environmental analysis > Project description and project needs depicting future corridor capacity, structural, safety, evacuation and lane drop-offs and weaving deficiencies > The public involvement process highlighted by upcoming 'public hearing before September 2009 which culminates a series of community outreach initiatives including 150 presentations to elected officials, community feeders and interest greUps;opening of outreach office in project area; five PAG meeting; and Alternatives Public Workshop. > Letters of Support from the community for the Elevated Alternative > Engineering analysis of the five alternatives Considered:' > Alternative 1 — No Build - does not meet basic traffic and safety needs, and does not address any community revitalization needs (no cost) > Alternative .2 — Ramps at NW 14th Street project Was removed from the Metropolitan Transportation Organization's work program due to neighborhood opposition > Alternative 3 — Elevated/Miami Avenue ramps safe pedestrian and vehicular crossings and views to the city, .continuity of urban grid, versatile useable space below highway, architectural and structural possibilities, potential to reconnect local streets. (Costet $580 million) > Alternative. 4 — Tunnel Pros for safe pedestrian and' vehicular crossings," as well as opportunity to utilize, area above highway, but potential 'to further disconnect major thoroughfare in Miami's Overtown community along with other significant cons (Cost at $1 billion) - > Alternative 6 Open-qut — Analysis as above, but cause for potential flooding; ,as well (Cost at over $800 million) > The "Highest Ranked" engineering suitable option is Alternative 3 because it addresses basic traffic and safety needs, partially reoriliectS local streets in, Overtown; integrates buildings into highway structure, signature design and bridge; OPen space opportunity under highway > Interim FOOT projects are underway to provide bridge repair, landscaping and enhancement funds Key environmental issues were studiod with conclusions of no impacts or minimal' impacts to natural resources such as Biscayne Bay, physical resources and social -economic resources > Schedule of actual and anticipated milestones On I.-396 were provided from. the project's inception in 2004 to Fiscal Year 2020 • DEIS Statement has been submitted to Federal Highway Administration, and next major submittal will follow this year's public hearing 2 Committee Feedback, Issues & Concerns ➢ Given time delay between milestones, can we get Federal Stimulus rnbnies to keep project moving > During construction p,hase;, Booker T. ,Washington Senior High School woulci be greatly impacted. is there a maintenance of trafficplan developed between Miami -Dade Schools and FDOT? • Alternative 3 ,'does;'impact the. School Board's old Miami Skills Center site, has the School Board taken any official action on that? Won't that property be affectedwidening and realigning the highway at that. point? ➢ All properties associated with right of way remain FDOT properties? • Will FDOT place fencing,. around: the commercial spaces and park areas on property they own? • Usage of open space property underneath bridges have .a.`greenery' benefit > Under the current bridge at NW. 3rd Avenue and 14"" Street, the underpass is dark underneath, why can't FDOT do something about that now? • Enhancement funds ;were. not available in the past,but are available this year for development under the expressway. ' , > FEC expanding to NW 3rd Avenue.-- area was manageable for resources and important to community > Would like to learn more about underpass expressway'development • Booker 'T, Washington Alumni Association, would like for school- officials and FDOT to meet withthem on potential enhancements • How can Landscaping and vegetation be used to assist with noise;, abatement, since project does not use noise walls? -> Won't elevation of roadway: abate the ,noise, the higher the highway, the 'less the noise? ➢ We'd like to have some highly desired plants acid design' for landscaping > Are there "site specific"{areas for landscaping and,noise abatement? • You're saying that, .in general, noise; abatement cannot be justified for Federal funds? .A Will 'there be provisions to include small' and 'local businesses for joint ventures for installation and maintenance of landscaping? ➢ Special provisions ,-can : ,. be , made to contract with local and Overtown businesses/subcontractors through City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency for landscaping opportunities ➢. Would, like to benformed of suhedule:ffor landscaping bpportunities >'-.We'll need contract type informatign for disadvantaged 'business enterprises and local businesses to get work • FDOT'should be able to encourage prime,contractors to work with local small, Overtown businesses • Chapter163, State of :Florida Statutes, Veterans part, the President signed a bill. for 3% set aside of contracts; for disabled business owners and this was approved by the Florida Legislature, which needs to be applied to this project • FDOT needs to show general sensitivity to the trained, disabled veterans, need to review • legislation `. • There should not only be, a `signature. bridge` at Biscayne Boulevard, but also at NW 3rd Avenue. We understand that Biscayne Blvd, is the gateway for the 'signature,' but there should be a smaller element of the signature at 31.d Avertue > Will there be an opportunity to review the 'signature bridge' design? 3 ➢ The N.W 3rd Avenue Corridor has a:" Folklife Village" theme which a group of stakeholders support and the bridge there should carry that theme • Greater value of this project seems to be connecting south and north > Will project make .an allowance for a future Baylink to Miami Beach, with compatible plans for hurricane evacuation? • So the timeframe to commence construction is in 2019-2020 for 3-1/2 years, b.ut construction could be delayed based o.n funding? PAG Chair Fred Joseph closed the meeting by acknowledging the valuable inputthe members have made to this process. The meeting was adjourned at about 7:25 p.m. 4 liDOT I-395 FMB SI UDY ISSUES -- - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS wrra PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS, Niteroi -Dade County, Florida k Updated September 8,2009 LTC OLDERS MEEItKGDA.TRJUOCATION ' CONTACT 3NPOEMATION ISSUES C.ornmissioner ammo Barreiro ' Jr/Mini-Dade Board of County Commissioners, D'6•trict 5 - . lifionday, May 8,2005, 100 amr, Commissioner Bruno Barreiro. District Office 1454.SW 1 Street, Ste. 130 Mlt FL 33135 laurdes Cos, Appointment Secretary or Marlene T-305/375-5924 or 5904 -Favors elevated options- . Miami -Dade Gounk,r Rubric Schools, Facilities Planning • Viviam Wawa, Director ivan.M; Rooriejuez, R:A. Marti -Dada County Rubric Schools. FacTdies Piannirrg ' Monday; May 8, aropsi. 1230 p.m. , Vivian Viilaarni T-305/99.5-77_87 , • . , -RiSid-of-vrair acquisitions. especiaty !WW1! Skills Center - trablbutiCa center at NW Miami Court -Row would FDOT relocate these faaTthes/ May need to find equiv-alent site/ Roadway at edge of bulkfing •AdVanced Plan& g for 63M-of-way. acquisitions, -Current construiitIon on Biscayne ilivci -Co_ ,nstluctionaionlyr4Soarne Blvd being ComOtedin phase.s ---rerm wit" and 2 _Avenues south to centre' businesscristrict, ancfaiong le street to CNic Center -City &Miami Stmetcar project Dade Calmtlt Schtots AcJimidstTalive Sundin9 -1450 NE2Avenue, Robrft 523 Miami, FL 33132„ Wednesda,Y;r 5'ay 242006,9!2,16 an. C2" reeeffO9) - - - . Vice Mayor RichardSteinbet Cfty of Miaroilieach (Transportafron issues) Thursday. May IS, 2DOS, 10:00 a.m. r City of lifiaml Beach. City Hall 1700 Convention Center Drive, 4 Floor 1/Tarni Beach, FL 33139 _ (1e'Street off of Afton Road) Madera Taylor, Secretary T-305/673-7000, ext.6087 -Favors an eleVated akernathre with a skyline view Commissioner Audrey M. Echnonson Miami -Dade Board of County Con-smissioners, Disdrict 3 Oscar Braynon, Chief-of.Stali (since resigned) Richard,Miler_Ativibor(since retiigned) Friday, May 19.2006,430 I3.M. Commissioner -Audrey Edmonsca Downtown Office 111.14Vir 1 Street 2nd Floor Miarni, FL 33128 Marie Russell. Appointment Secretary or Richarri Mier, Advisor T-3051375 5393 -Alt 4 Tunnel option does not allowfor widening aflame. -Flooding could occur with Open CutAlt: Would have to create- &vela around trenches .0-Nrertorern resid.entai properties affected justnorth of RW2'4 2.,,, e. and Av nues -Very concerned-aborit any °Newtown properties affected State Rep. Dan -Gelber Florid!' s House of Rearesentatives 106bI District ' - " Monday, May 22, 2006, 1:00. p.m. Office of St a Rep. Dan Gelber :„ do Zxcloaraianiepaedisi taw Firm - 201 South Biscayne Blvd, Suite SOO Naomi Bennett, Secretary T-3051531-7831 1.920'Meritfian Menu? Miami. FL 83139 Miami Ssach- legisl,Itiva office- - . -APPredatsd Paged briefing • -Mora COM:BMW! Wit% Ward BeaCtl% CORIMSAVelltle at about 1334 Street project : • Commissioner Johnny L Winton - City of Miami cc son, District 2 (Since resioned) TtlesdaYi rikay 23.2006..10:00 a:m. , Office of Commissioner:Johnny Ihinton 3500 Parr American Drive . - -Laura Rodriguez CommunicationslIPormy Advisor 305/250-5333 - -Prefers Tunnel Alternative - - - - - - • - -- -- Preparedly B Mumford & Co. 1 up FDOT II95 FD&E $ UAYISSUES PUBLIG:INVOLV EMENT ;:MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS ManiaDade Connty, Florida. X Updated September B, 2009 PUBLIC OFFICiALS/STAKEHOLDY1tS t...,;. DATFJT.()f`ATTf1N t Maori, 913313 - ,: City of !Monti Beach, .: Fred H:Beckmann, P.E., Director PubLcVYO[Jis7Operations Department Fernando A. Vasquez, P.E, City Engineer -Putkc Works Department Wednesda : r - y May 24,2006 -11o0 a.m. Cjty of Miami Beach , - . • „ 1700 ComrerEbon Center Dove 4°i floor Miami Beach, FL33139 Fred H. Beckmann T.305/673-7080, ext 6012 Fernando A Vazquez 305/673-7080, ext. 6399 -gay Lfnki:ensrt project interfacing with the FDOT f-395 improve/hest Tunnel Aft, anything underground, flooding potenfia! 1"395 is.a,Miamf Beach evact tion route.. -Miami Beach needs an elevated aimmatiue -FromTounism perspective; people look upwards fora roadway vs. an under9roundtanne! -Project purpose to improve 3ty pary p[nve 1395funrdinna and capacity, per 2030 transportation demands-200 o00veltfctes a day ..-Pmjecled construction timeline: desmri;begins.2008,' canstruction-after-2008, completiomfr f year2011-12 -Traffic- maintenance Mayor David termer City of Maud Seaph Wednesday; Nfay 24, 2069,11:30 a.m. City of A6am Beach Cdy,Hall 1700-Convention-Center Drive. 4,* Floor Miami Beads, FL33139 (17°i Street off of Mori Road) Francs Rodriguez,.Secretary T 305J6733.7030 -Capon"ty.issue:ofPDOTintervering re: concnrrency syetemflaw -Development on Watson island School Board ChairmanAgustur J. Sanwa Iviiamf•t)ade Comity School Board/ District 6 Wednesday, May.31, 2006, 111:38 a.m. Otfice:otSthoolBoasd ChairAgtsstin Sartera Ftfiamt Dade:Cormiy Pubkc Schoe3s. 1450 'Nee Avelwe, Suite 700 Miami,FL.33132 Carlos Safadtigas, Scheduler Barbara Miranda. Secretary T305/395-1334 csaladnoasebdadeschaols.rat -Supports-prQjeat i[t general , ' -indicates perhaps a'Bpard w15ngness to refease/sell properties fD Mart especially }farm Sk s Center ..... " -An5cipates.SchooLBoaid offices will relocate in very near future " . ,Commissioner NHetiefteSpence-Jones City of Miami Comrnssion,District 5 =: Clarence E= Woods, Senior pdvisor mic .Development and jcunenilyat CRA) Spence -Jones Commissioner titfiaiteffe 5 Cay dimwit; commission,District - Tuesd ti : JuneB .2005,11 5 a.m... aY Otis ofCommrssionerSpence lanes at00' PznAmericed Drive - - Miami, FL 33133 - Jonefle Addedey. Administrative Assistant- T-305f25D¢390 avoods cr.mramtti.us " -.., -Di fiw[ties:rn supporting taking of properties 'west of FEC RR tracks/mutt protectbuIdingsin()verrovm AMU support thcconsensus .ofconstwents-' -i may oppose the project based upon the people -Miami Skills -Center —where wig people park.? WI parking be eliminated? Wnataboutcrossing the street there? -Can agEctFDOTwail community CommunilytNeighboifioodForumsan.generaitaptesofinterest rumby genera Taking of land, land availablethat could be used foe housing to make community a more thriving area -Land costs will be a fair market value or strictly imminent domain? ,Expanding -. a . highway. sh'.vay.mustsaUcoriwpttothecomrsiunity. must=piain to community the need far expanding I395. Are Pn pstucdbyB Mnmford & Co. Upiiarrd September 3, 2009 1133UC o1cLsTxEHoLEBs- FDOT I-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC Oleti1CIALS-STAICEFIOLDERS Demi-Dade County, Florida Updated September 8,2619 MEETING DA.TEWCATION CONTACT INFORMATION I ISSUES . - , - our roadways ready for evacuators? Brief community on what's happening. Can ourroadways withstand what's happening? -Are ourmathwo safe and have capacity to deal with situatons? to -Perceived thatthe taloa (F001) comes:into our communitydesr�y OvertownEmpowennent Assembly _ Neighborhood AssooMtlon Irby MCC:light, Chairman Overtown Charriber of Commerce Warm Arhaya: President . Monday,,June 19,2000, --00 a.m.. Culmer Neighborhood Center 1600 NW'S Avenue Miami, Fl..-3312S ... , , . Irby McKnight T-3031308-2356 " - William Amaya 735/355-7079 ' -Atterrefore 3—the land FOOTwould possibly have to acquire would -he the Cffnton litroWn property at 14th Terrace an the north side of I-395, Emma Sandere house nearthe church from eAvantre„ apartment bullring that sits closerlo 3' Avenue, Preston Marshall's farruly properdes at NW leStreet and 2' Averank-Castell Bryarit's fan* property warms from Preston's property at 14iti Streetnear lst Court (communky would be glad to see that drug haven go), -Reconnecting possibly 14We Avenue with Alta would be 'good -Open Cutwould not be accepted by community. Ifyou disconnect tilAfe Avenue, NWeAventre NWTPlace and KVVVIColut-Itlie would not be able to gallium one side of neighborhood tothe other side of Overtown -Consider Att3, potAlt2because oflhe lestreet ramp. interfacing 'lath Bgoker.T.Washington-School and the carnrsiunity issues raised -Showthe bernetts of Altemagves to the community and say the prrOjectis- needed . -Prefer the higheraltemative (5). ;Widening of 1495; wouldit requiretaking ofTown Park Milage apartment development Overtown EmpowenrientAssembly Neighborhood Association/ Overtown Chamber of Commerce -Concerned about corrimunity response to project buildings -Need to have parkcipagon from aff communitygroups make an attempt to include mostof the people Greater&garni Chamber of Commerce Jeff Bridges SeniorVice President -Operations &Strategic (natives Tuesday, June S, 2006,1:00 p.m. Greater Miami Chamberof Commerce 'IBM Biscayne Blvd, Ballroom level- - Miami. FL =lin prird-Radisson Hotel) Jeff Bridges T-305/350-7700 or direct3051577-5453 - -How is this projectifrffenent front the original projept? Is FOOT [coifing atiuM the 1-395 project or looking atthistogether with MOE for the- Interchange? -Tunnel may not be feasible because- of cost (01 Mon) and having to build wallstra protectTunnel in a category 5 hurricane -Open Cut probably w01 riot get much support -Need to connect wlih Overtown.community through property -- - - - - - -- -- thepernd by 13 3.4tirofordok Co. 3 pmber9. FOOT I-395 PDecE STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS':.; Ma331i-Dade County, Florida 1 Updated September 8, 2009 PUBLIC OFFICrAT SIST'AKEHOLD Teeirnrc- • • owners, churches end businessesto become advocates far the Project. Community wants to hearfrom people they know -Have to convince people that this project is for betterment of 1 'commututy. „ .. • . -Hoyt can this projectimpact Overtown and help with its..- growth? ;Ask people who you .should xmeet with Area:north of 1495.:thereis:a lot of development Makeischemberpresen1atiorrto the Transportation and tofrasvricture.CCommdtee State Senator Gwendolyn Margolis Florida Senate, 35a'Distill- Tuesday, August 8,2006,11;00 a_m. Of6ceofSenator Gwendolyn Margo0s 1005 Kane Concourse, Suite 205 Bay. Harbor island, FL33154 Sharon James or Spanner Goldenberg. Legislative Assistant Zachary Kobrin T-305/9933632 -Parking lot takings ., -impacting svch.animportant area—concemedthat parking areas aria coneecedwiifh performing arts center to make a hiendlywatkway-ar 1obavefightingtndertbebridgestrficture -Because ofthe'Yewissu.e. everything around dhisroadway irirprcvementisgoingtobedr8macallyirmacted,including the - Fallowing Arts Center- - State Rep. Dorothy Bendrosa-Mindinga3 Cedric Macron, Legislative Aaistant (since resigned) Florida House ofBepreseotatives.District 105 - State Rep. Dorothy Senndross-tGndingal! Tuesday, Augusta, 06,100 p.m. Office ofRep. Dorothy dross-Mindingall 1521 NW 54a Street.Sidte 1521E learnt, Shaquita Rahming, Secretary T405/e94-2958 : -Howiekithis impacttratfic near PerforrnfngArts Center? -Structure and rompa going towards Komi Beach, howwill they beconnected? :-klidtown:anddowntownMiami. how areeleyimpaded? Traffic backs up aleng:.BlsoayneStve. Ate ma0ve;aseems to be preferred. least expensive -The. Open CutAltwoutd not pmvidefor an' openview Omni Advisory Board Fred Joseph, President "Tiwrsday, hugust40;2006;;^t1:00 a.m. Biscayne Bay MarrmttHotef (tabby) Ronda fntematonal-Realty 1633 North Bayshore Drive Miami. FL 33132 Fred ;Joseph T 305/579-9088 - ." -Parking Jot wHl u6lizeShe area inatead of parks and greenery' -FavotTunner.Alt'because buildings can Won top of it; nitiaily :-Suggest an animation video oflhe-project -Considers.Peopte Mover. to Miami. Beach• ,Height ofnewsfruciure?'Performing Arts.Centerwtl not be dis#utbed by.height? Wh atareyou doing to alleviate traffic- and improve travel efficiency -(ITS}? .. . Overtnwn Advisory Board Del Bryan. President August Friday, August 11,10.m :30 a. Canner Neighberttoo t Center 1600NW3Avenue Miami, FL33136 Del Bryan T305/389-0777 dering Alt hn ar me i -No leAftematrve 4. Are you'ecnsyou are looting eta! issues? -Support the elevated structure 30 orhigherbecauseofhigher roadway. better aesthetics, Oght corning through and more design farthebddae area Prepared byB.Mumford 5:Co. ' Updattd S epemberS, 20 09 FOOT I-345PD8c E;STUDY.ISSUES, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC .OFFICIALS-STAKEHOLD 1VEami-Dade County, Florida 1 Updated September 8, 2009 CONTACT INFORMATION t ar...,-16fL...... A.. vacua. vsrza.asuaw vaa.... ............. .__—_ _. __ _ _ _ _. . �. The;Open CutALT5:isdeinrieiythe worseattractive. . roadways from NW3`.Avenueto 7'"-Avenue would be cut off in Dvertoxm .. -. *matE3.is the most viable hPrat KJ. of less:intpacts to the Overtown community -What will happen with the old road behind (south of) the Overtown Shopping Center and Town Park V11age?., St John Community DevetopmentCorporation (CDC) David Alexander. -Executive Director St John Community Development Corporation (CDC) Tuesday, August 15,200%3:0Dp.m- St John CDC 1324 NW3 Avenue Miami, FL33136= David Alexander T405t372-0682 -Traffic increases foram and for2030areflawed;a;.fallacy: Naomi 3s a-verizx[ city. Need a nit study of traffic courts -The costs associated with aiterta/ves -Aft 4-- I,at.the Ove1cwn commundyis gaining is rwfhingin proporgon tawhatwe are 9 L4 up -if you aregoing to do a Tunnel. do the whole bung half of community and: St John Institutional =0beBuck Baptist Church (at NW 3r0 Avejjust §ouch of tat St), ! 395 is III- -Wants -DOT to spend S1.5 Wort to buy relevant parts of I-95, to undo the mistake, put In atunne! come the land backto the community anything do will r5splace more Btae c people, is the project practicer? - -Need to restore land and acreage tc-CYvertoum for future development, because nothing else makes sense; a housing, social,: economic development -Theansweer.has to be `buildable land resulting from this transportation 8adva - , Town Park Village No.1 Association 1 Executive Cotnmittee Man Slater. President - J.RWear, OEO-Pres!dioRealty. Inc. . FL Real Estate Broker (94117217215). En rnanuet'Onahanjo Tuesday August 15, 2006, 6:00 p.m. Town PadcViffage'Board Room 1800hiW4Avenue Miami. FL 33136 tJQlart Slater T30513244I201 - -FDOT need to place high warrior safety purposes on the t- 335 roadway, adjacentto the carve around, to prevent people from throwing bates from expressway -Current fenceunder the northeast quadrantof1.395 Interchange is not properly maintained, drinkingfalcoho5c bottles and dugs along NVV'17°i Street • TunneFAittoo expensive -Elevated areas of road wall be good go high and stay upthere -Make sure thatthis prajecteffec s none of the Town Park village properties :Need Neon fightingorrighting along the road What is the situation wth evacuator: using our community to accommodate -another community -Need to have a fame cammunrny meednget Cutmer Center Yta.1....A e.. ....1...4 '21111Q Pr�ya cibyaMumford&Ca FDOT I-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT— MEETINGS wrm rusuc OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS • Miami -Dade County, Florida I. Updated September 8,2009 PTIBLIC OR Miami Parking Systesn r' Offsfreet Parldng Authority_ iirthur Noriega, Executive Director ' . _ — ---------.—.. Arrow:ray, August21, 2009, 10:00 aut. Offstreet Parldng Authority 190 NE3 Street Miami. FL 33132 Gwen Cummings. Secretary 7308/373-8789, ext. 227 3.430.1.1.Cdo, -Concerned about.under the bridge panting -Protecting parking -arises which generate revenues -Favoraltemative thatnaquires least property.acquisition so as to preserve parking • City of Miami Community RedevelopmentAgency {GRA) Frank Rolasorr, Director (resigning) " .James H. Villacorta. Interim Director City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) • Monday; August 21„.2C06, 110D a.m. 49 NWS Street, Sutte 100 Miami, FL.33130 ' - • Andrea Smith, Secretuy James H. Vitlacorta T-305.1679:-6840, ext. 6823 •:i1er9tir of roadway rioarPorromling Arts Canter ;Elevation at Biscayne Blvd • ' ' -State Road 836 is where trafficsiows down. near 17* Avenue -Need fighting under new I-395 -As 1,395 shifts; itsbould open up land use for parks to complement litice.ntetinial Park -Cost ofAlt 4 and.5 -. -Tunnel interfacing with Watson island and ParrotJungle tett* Florida Turnpike group could be messy .-, -Shoutd meetvdith Overtoym pastors -Large property ownemand lutermaml parties should be contacted inducEng Royal Palm CommunRies. BoYmelgreen Developers. Falcone; eearior Kluger, Cisnerns.Fotmidation • (ett galleries/mural art intemsts). Rosario -Kennedy and other property oymers or_theirremeserriatives U.S. Congressman Kendrick Meek 17th Congressional District • U.S.. House of Representatives Anthony Mulliams„ District Director-Marni . Friday, August25, 2006, 938 a.m. Office of -Congressman Kendrick Meek 111 NVV183Street Suite 31S iVarni; FL 33169 , Michael Carey, Scheduler T-2021225-4506 (DC) -Pre%rsAlterrative3--elevated sections as most reasorble. -Underground alternatives would be accmcem dire to heavy rains and storm surges- '• • -Etas City of Mami.maintained their position for Open Cut Alternative: -Projectschedule and mists ' -Concern for any imminent domain issues and requested resting *fir:loaded properties -Ensuing communications and adequate information should be presented b COMMUnilY grOUPS -Desires a comprehensive comrmnsty development plan that's of benett.to the Cornmunity, as itrelates to green space utitcation and disposidon underneath the bridge area -The NIP° showing community consensus. -Keep financial expectations realistiq Irmncirig may be an issue and challenging forfederaLgoviirnment any potential for county funding -Trafficissues aftErr project groundbreakMg -Recommend one PAG for both 1-395 and 1338 roadway projects michaeLcarevemalf.house.00v Anthony Wilframs, District Director T405/6.90•5905(tocal) Carnival Center forthe Performinq Arts Friday.August 25,2006; 11:00 2.1T7. ' Jarret tit. Haynes ' -Is the Tunnel still under consideration? Irscpaitdbyl3lvicratord &Co. Updated Septinaher 8,2009 • P`!14}r I-395 PD&E S'€'WV' ISMS PUBLIC IIVVOLVEMEITT—MEETJNGS WITHPTTRT'aiC OFFICIAL-sTAIcEHOLDERS Miami-ade County, Florida \ TTpdatt d September 8, 2009 GONT4CT INFORMATION t arcrruc - re.kt .4c. urrAc.:.i.a.i.a/Jaasnx... •va-a,aa.� t JanetM_ Haynes, Chief Operating Officer Carnival Center for the Perfomuag Arts i,..:.,.�... i., .,n�.s:........�---"., Carnival Center for the Performing Arts 1300 Biscayne Boulevard, el Floor Miami, FL 33132 ' - - _ T-7861488-2280 -From a neighborhood impact, Tunnel -Alt 4:destroys community, Eke in N.Y_-8ron area --fur herinterrupts streets -Prefers Mumma Paris Boardwalk effect-Tunnet would disconnect all of thepedeslnanconnections with Performing Arts Center - -Prefer an archummurney.deiirablestructure -Concemed with protecting Me.Censer's vrawefrom .the Bay and Biscayne Blvd -Pariang lots desirable for PACT underneath higher Midge roadway —Surface paAgng lots what happens with those areas? -Roadway arrPssib2Cdy imgwtanttoPACT - 1-95,1-395, NE2 Avenue now a2-way. and the ramps at North Miami Avenue • -PACT will need additional roadway sigma especially on frontage road to NE 2s° Downtown Miami Partnership JosieCorrea. Executive Director Robert Gentler Friday. August2S, 2006 2:00 p.m. Downtown Miami Partnership 25 SE 2Avenue, Saute 1007 Miami, FL 33131 Josie Correa T-305/379-7070 -Very interested in Tunnel Option Tunnel Option allows forgreen space and development opporitm5ies..;. , BayfrontPark Management Trust (Bicentnnial Park) Tim Scimrand,i dltive-Director Friday, August25,2005,3.30 pan. Sayfmnt Park Management Trust 301North Biscayne Boulevard Miami. FL 33132 Karen Phillip, Secretary- Assistant Tim Sehmand T-305/358-7550 Very informed -Understands why the 1-355 project is necessary -Believes both Tunnel projects are not feasible Supports connecting open space development with Bicentennial' Park State Senator Lareenia Bullard Florida Senate, 39" District Thursday, September7, 200e,11:00 a.rn. Office of Senator-Laroenia Bullard ace 'Souui D"aie=Hwy; Suite a04 Miami. FL33143 (Regions Bank/Kokes) Donna Grant orMerdochey LaFrance, Legislative Assistant cr Tiffany Johnson T-20516B2-7344 -General complaints of tremendous traffic on highways: anything we can do to -alleviate tralejams? -How is Overfovm being impacted?' Properties atie J? Right of Way takings? -Concerned about history of roadways uisrupeogOve.Kown.and the opposition FOOT may encounter .Concerned aboutposthon of constituents Irby McKnight (activist); Dorothy Herds (Black Archives) andSt.John CDC -Provide a sense of projectte the community, hoping they unit understand the neeed-May need to becreativein gaining Dvertown's support by designating an area within the project .improvements which Provide an'History of Cveriown'- 'Historibal Presentation of Overtown' .. Ilpdared Sememher S, 2009 Ptr paredbyBMomford & Co. FDQ'TI 395 FIVER STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WIT PUBLIC. OPFICLALSSTAKEHOLD Miami Dade County, Florida \ Updated September 8,:2009 PUBLIC t3FRIC [STAI Hf)LD1 RS t t C vt.rrtCTTIVFQYi7.,r t r -•--__._ _.__.........,._._.,. i lbbura. Downtown Development Authority(ODA) Rana Nottingham, Ei ecutive Director Mark Spaniofr, Capital Improvements Director Adam Lakin,land dUea snd Transportation Director Thansday September2l 10:90am. 200 " ` 4 Downtown ievelopmentAuthority 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2929 Mion r St.33132- .:: Ma Madelyn Rayboum, Secretary T-305/579,6675 . =F�evated option looks good -Parks' space underneath bridges —great ,Parking Authority.ran rio Underground parking;Yes tloodiing can occim Must thinkNette* ,Statusofpropertyacqusttion - -N6 more drop off ramps -lanes -good -Need parallel'service roads on sidesof -Cost-3/4 of St m8fion for just t mile of Improvements? Expensive:jsMDXcontdbutin ? --Mltigallotts.on community Issues, especiallywith,Overtcwn; and agency coordination mustbs provided."Housing definite& a i1 issuelor Overfown. :.. -He:1? creased traffic, mhigati ig benefits for community? =PAGoou3d become a bad sitlon for t DOT -can be consCucuve or destruc1ve.Must'offerreel benefits"and' not atlowbansportahon improvemenlsfo.become entangled in social issues such as housing and community services -Concerned about,DDAs role or RAG." because the PAG- may representaforum'olyforverbalventhationenddysfuncton '-Comprehensive'strategy for consmumty-ehouldbe presented fasitnaybecoordinatewith CRA` Offered to essistin _developing.PAG structwalpurpose[tunction St. John Institutional Baptist Church Rev_ Henry Nevin, Pastor 'Thursday, September 21, 2606,12 Noon St. John Institutional Baptist Church 1328 NW3 Avenue IUfainf FL33136 Lorraine King, Secretary T.305/372 3877 =Concerned about taking too much land -Propenyacross street from church, east side of NW 3`dAve- betereen`NW13°e& 14"'Streefs sset for the "St.John CDC development 10 stirybldg-100tinrs -Eta weneed improved trsnsporffition -Need more & replaced tirousing in Overfown..because congregation membership•atlrs and otherohurch(es) affected by number of people Irving in Overtown Commissioner Linda Hasid/SS Monday. September.25.2006:10 anr. .. -Nathaliie:Manzano . At beginning of discussion. Preferred Attemative4Tunnel. byBMumford do Co 1J ,dsLed September 8, 2039 FDOT I-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INZVOLLVEMENT-1VIEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS. 1V1iami-Dade County, Florida X Updated September 8,.2009 ISSUES XI.ras.aa.. vrr3.3..sra.i„,,u;,.,...,.vs...a..a., New.District 2 City ofYiami Commissioner- (sore replaced) CommissianerLindeHaskins Office of'Commissioner Linda Haskins. 3500 Pao American Drive Miami, FL.33133 _ :.. _ _ Administrative Assistant T.3051250-5333 opens up neghbothood area -Eater in disitussioir,Elevated Options (2 or3) would' be aerthe.tic lly pleasing with benefits tire parks, lighting and reconnectedsireetsbsatherurbanenhancements `.: -lfthe Berated Option is 120 feet high Eke 1-95 nearthe bits Riverside Centerat 444 NW 2n°Avenue, thatwill be an ugly high martyr —ay -Make roadwaYsCagrade whereinthe higtiwatfswbuidnot be'regwred : _ . . -Couidn# SeeportTunneI be edended? " . -Miami Beach needs to find attatherevacuati0n route. Why should CilyofMiami be interrupted to get people to Miami Beach?`Impacts to Miami Beach minimized with-Mese alternatives-, butnot in frrarni. further interrupts (Dear streetways as=iri-Overtown ° '" -4 vertown stilt a vuutaat barrier, though not physical -My responstbHHAY rs to be re sponstbleforthe people cfM±0mi. Make1his.ioadway rmptavementtook beaus Lillike F'DOTdoess .,.•Orc MiamitiCECtI .' -. .._.. *re need anFDOTc mmitisrentthetfhemienspaeewt8be Eghted.potenbaBX Providing for greenspeceand perking spaces 4tsa1 ctits ygirtgthatuaacgnttnueto'cutupte*: Seheidute a PnwerPointpresentetion for the commissroner(s). -Wit ihe dicvisiortOtt 4ousirig,`CommissicnerHaskins noted that Some 800 units farianuliesand the etdedy are curren8y. underconstructionand/or ,.. ;.. ; "approved ,. State Senator Frederira.SWisr on,. Florida Senate 33 B"rstrict Senator Frederica S. Wilson Joanfstrckinian.,l)istrictManager j Vtma emit. P.E.. F1TOT i395 Project Manager- Robert Linares, t�detrip'Engineefng Bobble Mumford.1395 Public Involvement Monday, Siptsmber23,2006,d7 0aan. Oft* efSenator Frederica S. W11son 38425 N'N2 Avenue, Surge 310 Niacin, FL 33159 Joan Glicienan. Districtct Manager T-305/654-7150 -PreferAifemaive3 "-How long does`iitake tc build a tunnel in iemi?r . ?tie people of Overtown want jobs andjob xaiatng. 4 may revive coast tuent cane on tras; p!ojeet , -The Overtown'residents.now,are transplanted. They are net the'ones faoni Overtnwn.Heydays. Maybe we can create a lobs program with an exemption for peopranot quaffed through:- licensing. They can work asiowwage earners All they want is a basic jab. Maybe we can tsetp create tegtslation giving residential preference to provided laborers' jobs and. even to fetotiswbo have not had their righis.restbred -1 am waling± help create. such leaistatton for FDOT projects or 'rr..,r,....rr.....,..w..a %VIA Prepared by S Mramford &. Co. YOBUCOIFISTAHOI FDOT 1-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES - ' PUBLIC INVOLVEISIENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIA_LS-STAREHOLDERS IVItaral-Dade County, Florida 1 Updated September 8, 20(19 MEETING lIATE/LOCA TION • i-tederftsi. . : • ,,-..,• L." , - • : • rock diractly with•FOOTtosogtipre a 'Fair JOS:: ErnP1Pyment -antlVencling-PractiOte initiative -an MOT FirojeCtsL This is)ieri iniPottaritlOrth corrununitgo*uPliortiliesdiCiadway projects -We can look atthe models set by Walgreen's and Walmart f or State Senalor Wilson Creates -Woof convention and Visitors Bureau Wain Aridersori, Direbtotofftlaiiciatinti and Research - ' :3ionciair..'..aepternit!er25.-2000,1:311 pia. 'Greatertgami DoMeenlioritiVisitOrSilunlau • 701 &deice( Avenue, Suita 2700 Miami, FL.33131 'MWam Anderson..., T-306/539,3065' .• . '-: , - : ' -Altematives4 ands. probably nottbe Most -feasible -Nicescanio ibistewoukibe preferred. ...... ..,.. 41ofeihaton Watson lstand,.2 hotels (3-stsr and 4-star), pier . , „,. area and sil4aftofareigaup0,,Wig_V.P rcedltielt.bel.YJCIened• -to Inteifere•intoMatareti? - - ••-• ",' - - • '-''''.--- , "*Cgd•sines liegame'gridIack cfurintr4nPeOen'irimvetats - ...,_ ,. ,;-Traffie-PatteSnsilyill:beafiel* by othercityirnpOvem6nts;' such as raising andtetiOcrziigldiamiAiWna Or ethernstcrirons -MO inform GMCVE)mernbershij ofitoject7, -the)NfriOtionsDominittai Teets riekt*ielcl ,roasi01416addresstornmOnitk frimejaAdvitioritioard (CIAS) ' rilialitcr by County OofrimOSioner Dennis Moss They meet last ,Weihi4dlyvst month fraiel0ramtci"12'ne*afbur office. 30 members tepees ihwrziaini-Daital Contact Moe RoberbutrL.Ftoject Manager:305/375-2103' • -Coalitlest of *lambert of commerce meteat our offme, 2° • .. . .... .. • Tuesday of M±ety'otlter month, at pm. Nextmeeting November •14,"_Icarierranija•preieritationforyou'iiiith FDOTs "ufbatijilanileii " ' . • • ' , •,' ". ' " iltnarni-Dade College,, Wolfson Campus Curtis•Reynolds, Vice Campus Provost Judy Schmalzes. Dean of Administration Gerry Grmrcb, Assistant Dean of Administration Hyman Eillaz. Project Manager Miami -Dade college, Wolfson Campus . ..,, , Monday, September2.5, 200E, 3dite p.m. Miami -Dade College, VVolton Campus 300 NE 2Avenue, Bldg 1000, Room 1301 Miami, FL 33132 • , - , •• .. . . . ., — • 'Gerry Guarch T405027-3226 . . , : --- " • ' , — .., ' ' ...Creating parkspece'iintierheath high roadway could cause a- problem in being used by the homeless ..SPacta. May tattarIieUsed feipirkilit lisSid of Parks 4ftlortli Miami Court becomes disccatnected, ifs okay-yety little WOalbite ' ''''' ' ''''' .• '. ' ' •Studenttraffin would have -douse NorthltiliandAVende, instead 'alma direct/Cute le the'Colle6ii 'Wang htE2r4Avenue.• . — - . CodoemedabbdtacceSsaiitt egrets • - "..",•FibrittigetaidirilikOtinrieSt tztoitiiiiiimPAveiiiie eadits WE 2"' 7Averilte,...ibichfs-Miirleittlian exit, .via frontago road -Increased Port traffic along frontage roads. going east and west (via North MiareiAVenue),which.saltients most likely- to use -Good signage should be built into project ....1Nilataree,your original plans -for doing this project. stiotly ... . . transportation improvements? ProparedbylIMmnford & Co. 10 Updated 302f:tuber 3;2009 FDOT I--395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC.INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS wan PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS Miami Dade County, Florida t Updated September 8, 2009 w err(C'A'T'T( Y Tccre-ac r7JbL➢..%AV rLi.fA3.J/J4'9-rar-••wa....r'sea ‘ • _-_.--- _____--_____. -How does spatting the roadway improve capacity? -AIotof usable space on tap of Tunnel Alternative with 3 city biockssvaslabie• Ramps would be on inside with TunnelAit8mative -Mama with one lane doesn't seem la address capacity issue Pedestrianscoubt notget"rnto Tunnel coming from Interstate -1395 that'sa vest evacuation route -Open Cut, doesn't solve the -flooding problems and hotruJcss falling in V tdh Open Cat, lose a lot of right of way space. -Does taDC own any property in this project area? Yes. MDC has plats foraamuiti levee flits Complex on its ProPertY cum rtfy used for employee parking south of the Freedom Tower between NE Sal and 6 Streets and between NE2'd Avenue and:5"rscayyneetvd -Is thereastudy tomove the Pw14a cawayfrom North Miami Avenue exit and frontage road areas? _ rHcwwfil the buck traffic mcvei cm Fortto access 1-39511-° 951SR e36 west? Same as c unent? -Can Font (truck) traffic be encouraged onto NE e`Avenue? -This improvementseemsto increase Portaccess egress traffic. PortTunnet should be coondinate4with this project on study and coruhuctionliminq; Theme! could bepreferred -Can Freedom Tower be seen from-I395? -FOOT should meetwith Federal Courthouse reps. They opposed the Ports 5d`-8 Sheets project. ?rep:rally $ Mmafnrd & Co. 1I try4 3SeptcsberS,2009 TDOT I395.PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC IlWOLVEMENT—MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFTCIALS•-STAKEHOLDERS iVMiatt i-Dade County, Florida \ Updated September 8, 2009 PUBLIC OFfICIALSISTAXEBOLDERS 1 MEETING DA TSSTIES Royal Palm Communities (Omni area)! West Parking Greg IJiume0 , President Nathaniel Heber, Vice President (met with) Monday, Seplrmber25, 2006, 5:00 p.m. 100 SE2 Stree;.Suite 2650 Miami. FL 33132 Greg Mirmelli, President — T-305/322 9900 Alternative 4 Tunnelwoutd aRowior development above it,Park could work -Elevated Option could altowfar 2 to 3 storydevel development underneath roadway, Galata shops -Wsth Eevated Option, nicato have the roadway higher This project doesn't have a tremendous Impact on Royal Palm Communities' prone:1 What's best for the city (of Miami)is whats best for us -Royal Palm closest I-395 at North MiamtAvenue and 13 Street (1337 NE1" Court) and south -of I-395 between 10t'and '11" Streets. just west fNE'2"Avenua- -FOOT right of vray staff can be in touch with us -What is the projectapproval process? Suppofiveofimprovements. Greet to lrafficissuesare being:addsessed :. TownParkPlaza South Cc..Op,Associationl Executive Committee Ethel Wfllan>.s, Site Manager Town Park PtazaSouth-Co-Op Association/' Executive Committee Mario Roberts, President Harriet McDonakl. Secretary Alma Levy, Treasurer Marie Wiens. Board Member Sharon Rachel,Board Members Steve Radler°, Agent Monday, Septembet25,2005,6 Op.m. Town Pads , eSouih Beam Roam 1798 NW SA Village Miami, Ft3313S Ethel Wiliiams,Site Mana Manager g T 3051576-2157 �Priman't concerned y. y propertytakingsin Overtovm, ent -"No,' especialTunnel and eir Open Cut atternafives -Prefer Elevated Alternative -Is this a Portproject? -lust want -to make sure that'Overtown benefits and is nottaken advantage of with this project The Historic Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church Rev. Ralph M. Ross, Pastor Deacon -Trustee Charlie %Maros The Historic Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church Friday„ tannery 25, 2007,12 noon The Hist:rieMt Zion Baptist Church 301 KW S Street Miami. F1.33138 Gait Tucker, Church Secretary Rev. Ralph M. Ross 7-305/379.4147 -Needa lead sett turning signal at thestaptightat NW 8' Street traveling south and exiting 195 at NW 8O1 Street to turn left onto 8" Street -Make NM.' Avenue a one way going north and NWZ" Avenue -a one waygoingIntl* Overtown area -Or maybe forte businesses we need all two-waystreeis -What about a belt wayconeeptforthe roadways connecting -What about raising roadwaysveryy high, more elevation -wnatisyour ixeterled alternative? -Funding torture Mrami/Multi ►ntennodal Center (MICI. is it in place? -Just don't cum whatyouare saying In that this 'proiectwalnot Prepared by8 Mnnford &Co. lipdaredSepteraber 3,2009 FDOT I-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS Cotiuty, Florida I Updated September 8, 2009 TDATEFLOCAT1O1. \ COMA& INFORMATION X ISSUES - ---- — - ---- - -- - - -- be a detriment to Overtown Historic Overtown Foliate District improvement Tuesday, July 24, 2007, 6 p.m. Dorothy Fields Oscsr Bravrmrt, Jr. Would like to know mote about Alternative 3_ From your Association Longshoremen's International Local 1418, T-3061636-2393 Dorothy Fds, Association President Union Ha Philip Bacon feedback in ptia- meetings, is option 3 the most viable option? (The BlackArchiveskyrfolbeater) 816 NVV2 Avenue T-305/377-4484, 3xt. 27 Clarence Dickson, Former City at/liana Poke Chief -Has there been any research oaths trastoric resources to determine the impacts. effects and assessments ofthese Philip Bacon, The Coffins Center Rev_ Ralph M. Ross, Mt Zion Developments, Inc Miami, FL 33136 • Mitch Friedman, Pinnacle Homing Histonebuildings? Will the Black Pace Precinct Museum (NW Lauren Levant Pinnacie Housing 114 Streette Avenue be impacted? Ted Beaten, The Black Archive-s Weirs Henchard, The BleckArchives Elizabeth Williams. The Bleak Araives -Miami has hurricanes. Have thought about a hurricane evacuation plan? WM construction start in 21)13 or 2015,1f everythim goes well? Ralph Puig Jr., ADG/Puig &Associates Derek Cole Kean Williams, DAME Development -WM the museum on 114 Street in Overtown be impacted? Don D. Patterson, BAME Development Philip Bacon 41ow will thisinterface with the Port's Tunnel project? is Mere a comprehensive plan for Overton? FDOT has several projects going on. How willthey affect Midtown, Overtown and Biscayne Fred Itchleal, SAMEDevelopment Scott I. iiicks, FAME Development Sherman liullard. New Providence Lodge 368 RicherdAtarnin, New Pnavidence Lodge 365 Boulevard? Do new assessments need to be done? Stephanie Van Wake Rev, Ralph Ross -The issue with the Tunnel is notrnoney. !Infer the TunneL The W.F. Jennings Padzima' t Braynon Oscar Braynon, Jr. Tunnel is the bestthing. Ifs effective and efficient I've lived in cities Qtti tunnels. Oscar Braynori 11, City of Miami Gardens —Vice . Dr. Dorothy Reds -The Tunnel could wipe out NW 244 Avenue, woad wipe us out Mayor Derek Cole, batty Ideas Stephanie Van Vance - -Where is the funding forthis project coming franc? LASE you identify the project atternave gist, then go forthe funding? Rev, IVO= Broomfield, Pastor --Greater Bethel AME Church Annie Lee - Why are you doing this? Clarence -Dickson, My of Kea Retired Black Poce Association Matthew Sawartz. Crosswinds „Eames Foll.dzo Threlly Cauley Vilna Croft, FDOT Historic Overtown Folklife Village Improvement Association Catherine Owen, FOOT Adebayo Coker, FDOT , Robert Linares. metric Engineering Carlos Rodriquez Metric F.nriineeximl -- - - - - - - -- - I.. by )3 IVImxtfixsi& Co. FDOT I-395 PD&E STUDY ISSC--S PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT— MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS MVBami-Dade County, Florida t Updated September 8, 2009 N BLiCOOFIIC3AIS/STATcEHOLDERS BaflYHai FDOTOutreach Office Marthatam FOOTOutreachO!£ce Prcp cdbyBMumtord&Co. MEETING DATE LOW:1ON 1 CONTACTINFORMAITON 14 ISSUES Updated September 8,2009 FDOT I-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida k Updated September S, 209 TI N XSffUES - ----- -- .... -- - Venetian Causeway Neighborhood Alliance — Board of -Directors (10-12 persons) Barbara Bisno, President Searmr Kluger,PerformingArts Trust Board Hal Kroger, Omni property owner Jean FranooisLeJettne,UM arc/theca:re profess= Gary Kokorian. M.B. PublicWcrics Tuesday, October 0„ 2003, 7.---0- pm 1000 Venetian Way (NE le Street), East Lobby Miami, FL 33133 Barbera Bisno. President T405/374-2586 or 786=0-1434 blaisno@somcastnet • Cross section of ramps rnay affeptthe Performing Arts Center -Cannot erift highway to Performing Arts Center with Alternative -Eidt manes at North Miami Avenueversusthe current NE 2- Aveiue -Housing may be built unde.r bridges -Would 13' Street be -With bridges 30 to SO fit high, won't it feel Bice a roler coaster coming down? -Whatis your rams/ forgoing higher,sto pnovide space Sewachuen St ra.ltb Dot Fleisher -You could walk under the bridge to the Performing Arts Center, to the Miami PadcMuseum -Would there be roadways built oyerlhe present roadways in places? -The barrio back Lista I-9.5 and State Road 836 Is such a back up, need to study These Zprojects together, as it relatesto The !- BB northbound ramp ' - -Is this project connected tattle Port Tunnel kaprovernents, the tunnel would go underneath Watson Island? -The-high rise area over theTunnel, will k be a parking lot? -You moved the exit ramps to the Micitovat exchange to North. Miami Avenue -Why is therniertoNvo community'deofcring so much? - -There are no additional off ramps in Overtown 4VIcAritur Causeway will be widened? - - -The green color on the oharts--represents green space? -The project rEsconneats streets eastto west -CantdoAtternafive 4 be= oft coding, notthe truck tunnet. how low would the tunnel be undergmund? -Very beautiful viewfrorri Phase! blocks, could have pedestrian If you need more right of way, won it chive tip the cost? with aTunnea -Can the Tunnel be covered with a top treatme.nt, like a hanging. Barden? -I like alterrsative 3 orthem all; it gives:acre roadway for safety and capacity, and -widening theroact -Putting a newstreet on the north and south sides of the roadway vat create a new fmnfaga mad Venetian Causeway Neighborhood Aldanr-e _ _ -You're treating the Tunnel anti -Opert Cut hice its a body of ?tefoiod by)3 Momford &Co. IS ' FDOT I-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS -WITH PUBLIC OFF'ICLUS-STAICEHOLDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida 1. Updated September 8; 2009 PUBLIC OFFICIALS/STAKEHO water ' • ' -With the Tunnel and Open Cut, if there was many a need for evacuation, could it become a problem, pumpirtg outthe water? -How:deep will the Open Cut alternative be -Wnat'sthegrade of the carrent HOV tweet Golden Glades, verys-teep? ' -Do you have videoswhictishow detail? - ' -thill,Alternative 3 be POO tightand encroach upon 13* Street or 1 sorne-ofthetaildhge, Eke the Symphony Hall? "Maybe the land scross from-theParforming Ads Center could be used fora parking rotor green space -The northern part of !lie Performing Arts Center land across - _ • horn tfle Opera House, that must be a park only, since the land was purchased with park furarls. _ ' -When could construction start on scythe Alternative 3? Is the funding and financing in place. ' -Has PDOTworked with an arfistio designerrn assist with conceptual designs, architecture...structure of bridge. columns. and tighting? • -' - -Land use-underthe bridgeorkaid it besimtiar to development . on top of tunnel? hat is the height of the elevation with Alternative 3? -Review special trafficooncfrlions from interstate, interstate on 'and local streets -When do you expect a decision on greferreeratternative? •-1-irsar.w01 you protect and manage the decision made byihe community? -One-obtlious protte.m•*Jibe Watson island When they start the _ Watson Island development in2010, theft gotng to be a tremendous IzattiOjem ._ -Regarding streets for'Baytink. what ara possible connections with current structure? Can %anew 1-39tistructuretie in with Saylink? Bay0nkwould like to be attached to the side of the -Can-we doubletier theklacArthur Causeway to get capacity backand forth?. -The Truck Tunnel, what's the status ofthat proJe.ct? Venetian Causeway Neighborhood Alliance -The ralt containers *ern the Port can be dispersed through that - tunneL , . .. Preparedby Manion:I Fr Co. 14 UpdrarnSeptember 8, 2004 Pi 01.1395 JP»$ E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT— MEEMINGS Wi' H PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS Mama —Dade County, Florida 1 Updated September 8,.2009 1V€EETlirIG DATEFL OCAT1ON ONTACT INFORMATION \ ISSUES Town Park Plaza South Co -Op Association/ Beneraa Membership (t veetown) September 2007-Meeting (Pending) She! Wdlams, f resider t 173a NW 5thAvenue fin sear), Nt'iami 33136 T-3051576-2157 Meeting Pending Entities of Common Interests Thursday, h 15,2007,10 a.m.-12 noon Tun Schmand. 5xecufive Director Robert Weinreb -Need to update Presentation series an Bicentennial (downtown Miam-Mrsausi Beach business-culiurai 8ayfrontPark Management Trust offices. Bayfront Park Management Trust Leaders) 301 North Biscayne Blvd T-3D51358-7550 Park/Museum areas ^- Tim Schmand, BayimntPadc Management Trust carol Cutt. Bayti5nt Park Marketing Director -Miami, Florida 33131 -Regarding airrent plan for Bicentennial Park; more updated images are oncity's websrte -Robert Weinreb; City of Miami Manager's Office- Leo 'Zabezhinsky, Downtown DevelopmentAuth Meccas 'Ater,CainivatCenter for Performing Arts Other City of Miami employee -Etevaied highway is stilt iininvr'5ng regardless of howit is set - up; stillth'mkpeoptewould stay_ away from. activitie.s under the structue rare theta raised highwaywl9create activities underneath -Open Cut m ould,pomrnially block some etyviews Tunnel coming horn Airport you see city, not nPoPssPrely a negative; roadway names bade up -Street level would be best alternative; tGsappeintedthetiite design doer n'twork because of capacitylow.street level would connect city sleets better +95-does not have inhibi5ons 1-395 does have inhibitions with fights,traffic congestion would be a'majorprob em -You may want to attend the next Bicentennial Paris meeting on March 21st Other Citvemployee -Ofthel40;00 Cars on roadway, where ens they going -a - large percentage'te Miarni leach, significant number eating at NE 2"4-Avenue? ' -is It possibie.to create a separatersocnessway.totake them west to Civic Center? Would like FDOTto-corisiiiermass Irarsitand connecting with the' l2stWest iooR-maybe.using frghttau :to connectto Miami Snarls Entities of Common Interest Leo Zaheztiinskv -1t s feat important to update ptesertfaton graphics -Continue to coordinate.wiih urban designers and.dowrdcwn Master Plan -New 1395will impact some of the cultural and downtown facilities and Schowovich's Plan, as well vatathappens if none of the options are puzsued? More traffic and mote congestion? Pmlarod by S Mzmmford &Co. 17 ('TAT FDOT I-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT — MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OlutiCIALS-STAKEHOLDERS Brrarai-Dade County, Florida 1 Updated September 8, 2009 G DATE/LOCATION CONTACT INFORMAilION issues • -Right or way invents interruption of local streets -Aratheir good examples of parks underneath a raised highway, desirable for park spade? The key issues are conneamg streetsand taking property from PeoPle - Tim SChrnand -Open Cut Option would dividepedestriart pathwaY - 4 turderstanct what you are saying about congestion on Biscayne Blvd. - - -At grade consideration. at frrat,seemedgreab Tunnel option seemed good: but wilt -the high walls forstorni surge, it is not good 4 favorraised highway idea, not so invasiv' e ' -Public parkspace could be acquired-12y raising highway -The vis• tie' mass of the rciadway needs to-lioat above.grade level -Pecille are using crperi.space underneath 1-595 and I-75 in BmwardCoun An -Vancouver, there's a island and marketplace that people use -Project needs M program pubSc pace sci that people could. and would be attracted to theepenspace underneath; make it compelling -Who woukkown property underneath1395? - -Would•FDPT consider parMering with 'Entifiesgroupfor , development ofthat openspace? Assistant to Tim Schinand . . . . :Would proposed deveroptnentotopen spane-undemeath raise thetrost considerably for Sevated option? - - . State Reptesentative Luis R. Garcia TetephOne Discipsion with Chief of Staf4 Matthew Monica, Chief of Staff Rep_ Garcia vras briefecion all FDOT projects. inclucUngt4e5. -Florida House aRepresentalives Matthew Moilic2 in March 2007 Mary Liss Nazario. Secretary by Districtli Secralary follcVang the representative's election to •FtoridaHouse -tor District ,. . T-305/325-7.501 the of Representatives 531-SW 1ZliAvectue . . TheYwill contact FDO,T if further, -specifics are requested on I- lifmmi, Florida-313130 ' ' , . . . 395 Notes: - Rep. -Garcia ha's been briefedby FOOT Distrint-6 - Secretary on all FOOT pmjects:. -FoiWarded project deseripSon and location maple. -- - - - - - - - - - Preparedly /1 Mumforcl Co IS FDOT I-39S IP-Dee& STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —1VESETINGS VIM PUBLIC OlenCIALS-STAKEITOLDERS Mita' mi-Dade County, Florida I Updated September 8, 2009 ON ISSUES ---- - -- - -- — - -- - -- - - - Chief of Staff Matthew Mullica- - - - The Power li Center for Social Change power ty organization. to this date, has not a:affirmed meeting. but Executive Director Denise Perry attended an FOOT Oureach Office Briefing Session (3127/2007) and members of the ofganizaton attended the 1.395 Public Wthicshop (3/24/2007) and offered their -written comments (refer to Public Workshop Comments -Matrix) Denise Perry, Director 1633 111N 3' Avenue. Miami, FL 33136 T-305/676-7449 Power US Executive Director, Denise Perry, attended an 1-396 -Project Brie5ng at the QuIreaoh Office. Her comments included: -Under the roadway would shit be dark, because the expresswarwould be lower-. -Haw much property/space vrill be required for the staging area during construction in the Overt:ryas area. from 121-i Street to 13' Steet between NW Avenue to North Warn' Avenue to NE eAvenue? -When will the environmentalindings be avaabte? Haw-vell tie options (alternatives) be prioritized? St. Agnes Episcopal Church Fattier Richard L Barry. Rector St. Agnes. Episcopal Church ' Father Richard I- Barry, Rector Wednesday, July IL 2007, 2 curt. 1750 NW 3Avenue. Miami...FL 33136 Father Richard L Reny. Radar Church-,305/573-5330 11-306/652-3666 -In support of the transportation project very Unifier with the I - 396 pMject -Proposing it does not affect personswith privet property -You mustsuccessfulty oortvince themommunity on rebuilding the bridge to see some perksthe•community -The Overpasson 10 Street wit be rebuilt that wit free Up a iota lard. FOOT Can 1.14e it% influence Mut-mettle land under the bridge to build affordable -housing- -11FOOT is going to takeaway from Overtown. Put 60mM:fling back, gins a housingprograrn. Corronurfdy Developmerrt has mirions of doltars to build; can also gethelp from county. HUD and Knight-Riddeo -Shared ne.vs orropings on the Cottages built by Loxes: nearby 4fyou are going to displace people, give there some hope. Give them some- housingthey can call their own. -You. are fightng perception. People are veryskeptical about 'is Ixtilding in Overtowrc Overton like:downtown Miami. tt was the -Stack mecca ofthe south before I-65 divided the community Community imageArivisory Board (C1A) :141=1-Code C.omMissionerDennts C. Moss. Chair AR* Robertson, Project Manager Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10 an.-12 noon Greater Iframi Corwention and Visitors Bureau 701 sricketucven4e, Suite2706 Miami, EL 33131 Arme Robertson. Project Manager T-305/375-2103 -Are the project engineers suggesfing any one of the -We'd Re to get a copy of the presentabon. -Of the 3 aval.1,k- option% the greatest opportunky seems to be with the elevated option. -. -What are the costs e,-"or-1.ited with the options? -Are suggesting one-half Varian dollars in teens of today's you dollars oriater? -We have a diefette need for open park specie with trees_ 'This could be incredible for the residents and the crly's image. rr....4,,....4 C.......,..}....1.2 "HUTU Prepared by 3 Ivitmtford &Co. FDOT'I 395:PD&E S't u»Y ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT -MEETINGS WITH. PUBLIC OFFJCI LS-S'T'ATEHOLDERS Miami -Dade Comity, Florida 1 Updated September 8, 2009 P LTC OFFICIATSSTAialIOLDERS 1ETING The biggest achievement mg bold get FDOT and thecity ' togefheronthe urband evelopmmen,- All majorcities are Looking to a signature image and focus on these am.hitectivai*ions Thus is a ma _ W% integral patlofthis'projecl,aft:IW !havefoworkk.- : -Just lookatthe fray SkanaEon of Chicago..Wewantto bean interactiVicity here in'Miaini:.fi'Create a sense' of space-- imnrospace a signature spacel Miam1withlightedbrd''ges. As it relates to undeigroiind and about ground, - you Lose the view aspeaallyfrom Miami to Miami Beach. -Have you mat with Miami Brach.-becauselhey have the 'Streeter -project? Does this project con ictwvilh the City of Miami'Beach's project?" -Tlics p ojectwasShowm to tl eTransdgesthetics CorrtmrCee— taticed=abautfheamdergroundcomparisonto-the elevated. You need'to•Comparefhe3elieofhighwayheightsand 'With pedestrian overpasses:. , -Presentation should show' pedestrian overpasses forsafety and aesthetics: Re Nietro/ads'Douglas Road Station. . d "commend MOT; this is cab a crif rent FDOT in its project appro?ch-I encauragethis Board to view the 17*Sneet 'Causeway with a -beautiful pack-underthesupcture_ a0 Community IrnageAdvisory Board MCIASj :When Wilt we have of the costs associated with making this a viable,:beauffuiproject? .,. .-I understand.the.challenge, and urge you to come up with your financial plan sponerthan later_ 4tegarding-siarmsurge. whatguarantees;canyougive usthat themewiU otbeastormsurgepoutingoceanWater.Overour sttexb?. There are historical impacts-1o'Over/own, I commend you on your efforts to embrace Overtownwith your community rnvohrementatthis;point, cn matters of environmental justice. -It's advisable for. youto work with at segments of the community, sathztyou done have tine kind of urban design on _ the east-s de and another on the westside. -The et tadaoluton seem to be the best offering in providing urban in tot, pang. shoppingand reconnecting of streets. You have to address mobility needs, but must also address Urban .canes, with a commibnentfor Miami to become a efferent' place, a world class city byBMumford&Co. 20 UpdatedScpumberS 2009 047:-395 PD&E S7CiT]3Y 7fSIIS P-.YTB]€ +C INV OL NT :2�+1EE`k (NGS WITH P__LIC OFFICIALS=STAKE [07 �1ER NCtat Dade Colmty, +iorida 1 Updated September 8, 2009 ISSUES • A VYA...C.. VA'FA� ••.•••••viaui,a.++v✓+rua.r. 'Coafrtion of Chambers of Commerce r....o...�..�--.��-- ----- .- Meeting date projected for November2007 Greater!Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau 701 Brickelf Avenue, Suite 2700 FL 31,: 331 . WilTian N.Anderson, GMCVB T-305/539 3085 . Mee5irg'Scheduted (upcoming) Outreach Office, Briefing with Constituents AnihonyCulier.;Jobs Pragiamadiocaie Rosa Green, Retired Teacher .. Friday January25, 2007,12 noon FDOTCommunityOu6eachOffice 939 NW3Avenue Miami, FL 33138 Betty Hall and Martha Miller Outreach Office staff T-305/374 4271 _,. -Let' say -that FDOT would proceed with theuse(edict alternative, how soon wouldthe l395construction start? Whe_reclothe streets eonnect reoormect? Is lop Streetnear the school (B1V) affected e - ..' -Concerned about -the sthootand youth center -Just dontwant to give :away -le -Sheet ate' Avenue —St. Agnes Episcopat Church, St,John Baptist Church, youth center With the roadway elevated, will the mad be widened? How many haneswiU it be? ' -Withthis-new construction, ho long will the new structure list? (servree rrreof 40 to 60 years)` With a Tunnel underground, what's the maintenance renuired? (tYt ssmuchwaterpressure/overabilliiondollars) The Tunnel concept is really costly - Are yougotng to tut offthe people who rive west, like in. Overtown? - Wed° appreciate FOOT in tiring from the community, When they first did t 5, they put a choke hold on the eoramunstyr., : Vtiltthe road expansion irnpacttlte:Overtawn Shopping -To clearMiscoriceptions, a vistrerundersfancrtnglikezetcur would begood We are trying to get our people job ready. so that when construction projects like this comeaiong, we can .have our peopi,humd . -We need FOOT to Ae'tet us preparing our people with the job Outreach Office Briefing with .Constituents training and skills to do-FDOTwark. coming frorn'an imp?ver>Stted.area,wTtetherastrainees brskilled labor, and to help us work with the contractors and employmentagenccies to get our peopte'hired Outreach Office Briefing with Constituents Jadde Seq. New Washington Heights CDC George S. Caldron.. Property owner Friday, February 7, 2,007,12 noon FOOT ComaiuiulyOutreacti Office.... 93914W 3.Avenue • Betty Hall and MarthaWier Outreach"Officesiaff T 3051374-4271 -Is it necessary to expand the 1-395 bridge/ Is f necessaiy to rebuild it? Carxfhe badge in any way be reposed? .FOOT isiatdng.mlfoas of dollars from the community to build su,a....a $eptember g -Irmo Prepared by B Mumford Fc Co. PUBLIC OPET FDOT 1395 FD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBIJC_ThIVOI,WIANT MEETINGS WITHTVBT.ETC°OFFICIALS-,STAKEHOLDERS N am Dade *nutty, Florida XUpdated September 8, 2009 C'eNTAcr nvFOxAZAzzox Xaren Cartwright Community activist Denalior Singleton, Property owner• • Outreach Ofiioe Briefing'tenth Constituents Miami. FL33136 • the trash aardund the � Sever requests haves made of FDOT to, dean'up, not done .; + : .. . -important to dean up areas underneath the expressways; pave -Concerned about imminent domain issues. Wdl'FDOTTneed my land at1329NWistAvenue? Ifland is needed, will they gat fair market value'forit? He does not wantin sell-Isis'pmpetty :: =Another landowner does notwant toseeanyexpansion of the bririge. ire"asked if -engineers could repairthe existing columns -tow thstand the roadway load. Concerned about imminent domainissuesforOther property owners ' : ' =Concemedaboutsociaf igcrirt.%_affecting commundy residents --The roadway will be elevated, right? -Staius•ofTunneiproject 4 -FDOT paid too much for3parcels near the Performing Arts Center=S9Drmi1Ton _ - -Shocking to hear constant -err, lion about maidng roadli ays great We need parting underneath the highways :: Ta propose a.padt.next to the Perfornatng Arts Center is : rfduutous — Field Reviewof t-395 Corridor with Ccnstitaents Jackie Bell, New Washington HeightsCOC Anthony Cuiler,.tobs Program advocate' Charles Cutler, tfeteransServices advocate Lydia Ross kit: Zen .Saliba Church Cecelia Stewart; Ove town'OversightBoard key. Willie 17411B• tins, 0vertown Mei ants Assn Friday, February 9, 2007, 11100 a.m. FOOT Community Outreach Offce 939 NW 3 Avenue Miami. FL-3313S Betty Hail and Martha Midler Outreach Office staff T305/374.4271 General Comments included: . •Suppa:tafthe Elevated -Support ofthe Trsswelaliernalive-. -Concern oten' ronmentai findings of detriments in the soil which could be harmful to community -upon I: igging-theearth -Haw businesses wilt be affected -Resulted in a better understanding of fhe.route_ Frederick c Douglass Elementary School Cathleen -McGinnis, Prinapai 14 NW139 to 21 ZOOT i230 pxn 314 NW 12$beet _ :., MS_ 5/371 Cathleen McGinnis. Principal T3051371-4687 • schools in Ovetfoym. (Douglass)and other -How will the school in O rvevs u affect NNt 3 0 schooltems affect my Avenue -Whialte businesses the most? -Will ff affect studeiitsfirom where they live :.Do -we get any input -from the school board?- The homeless.hang eutand trash colieorsunder I-95 (at NW 12'".Sbeet), just adjacent toiheschooi Dunbar Elementary School Marie Dentin, Principal Thursday, February15, 20D7-10:00 awn. . 505 NW2D Street . _. a Ms. Marie.Destin, Frincipat. T-3051573-2344 " " -Project shpuld not uproot people from their homes -May affect children and families in Overtown Pseparcd byrB'Mnsaford Sc Co. Updated Squcmber 8.2009 FDOT 1-395.PD&E STUDY Mon PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS. Maud -Dade' County Florida \ Updated' September 8> 2009 R14FA:TION 1 ISSUES" Eric Proctor,. Counselor Dunbar Elementary School Miami, FL 33127 • ' Our students come from northofNW 20' Stree!.butztudent population. for Douglass and PhylEslateatteyelementary schools could be affected 4We wallet contended aboutatl evacuation route forM'rami BeacittiarS no benefit to OverF.own -What are benefits -tothe -community? -People in-coinmundy'need jobs Phyllis Wheatley Elementary. School Deloise.R. Brown, Principal Thursday, February 15, 2007,11:30 a.m. 1801 NW 1 Place Moroi FL 33136 Ms. Deloise B. Brown, Principal T-305157 -2638 -Our students came from within the area ofTe roadway expans on , .: -The blinking school zone fighra need to be neatened' In front of our school at 1801 NW ft Place, not longer blinking St. Francis Xavier Catirotic School Stefiuk Chania, Principal- JageRodrigue;.ViPnncipai Father -John Madigan. (1.M.1., Pastor. 'St Francis Xavier Catholic hurch .. • Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 3:30 a.m. 1682.NW 4Avenue Miami FL33136. Ms. Stela* Mania. Principal T-305/573.8532 FzlherJohn Msdiigan -Father John Cox has been keeping us updated on this project instranding meetmgswhere ithas been 'discussed -Would be concemedaboutdust and noise during constuuciion at NW et' Avenue, north of1St' Street -Conpemedthat thatthe new structure would notimpose upon school property since we are already so close to expressway. Booker T.Washington Senior HighSchool Dr. Rosann Sidener, Principal (since moved) Wednesday, February21,2007,1100a.m. 1200 NW 6 Avenue Miami, Fi.33136 Dr. Rosann Sidener.Principal T-305f324-8900 -Concerned about the 'snore-ihan400students who walk fo Booker-T. Washington School -Concerned about all pedestians Walking in the projectarea -Are there any school impact -Recommended:FDOTio present to BookerT. Washington .. School's EESAC. their alumni association and student Clore*gyp - Gov't Club Outreach Office Briefing with Constituents Rev. David Shanks; Pastor Overtown Church of Christ 185 NW 14 Street Rev.ErraI James Pastor Christ Church of theti ing,God,225NW14Ten- Atso.owns 3-unitapt big at222 NW 14 Terrace Valarie James Friday, February 232007,11:30 a .039-NW 3 Avenue Miami. FL33136 • Betty Hatt and Martha Miler FOOT Outreach Office staff T-3051374-4271 .. Rev Errol James -Achy are properties always affected In Overtown? -Bridge-is too Cow at NW3�d Avenue & 14" Street I've actually seen 21ru k accidents, and heard another loud'boom° accident 4dontfavorfheTunnel. ofgoing underground 4 assume there will be property takings Rev David Shanks' 4 understand that you will have To take our church property; m improve anything. we must have changes -What are the cis of the vdriousaitemnatives? _-Which alternative dothe designers prefer?' -TTntiated ti'.,„n.. her S 2009 Prepby $:Mumferd & Co. 1DOT 1-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT — MEETINGS WIT`Et PUBLIC 01(FICIALS-ST.AKEIEOLDERS Mama -Dade County, Florida \ Updated September 8, 2009 PUBLIC OFFIE±(A±,8/ST Ot E 11 - . • Outreach pfrtee Stiefinglaritit Constituents - . . . . • -How ionThefote propedy vdill he impacted? .1.Ntsat I amMterested in is here long 'do 1 haveto wait before I 'We are teasing space -from 'Attorney ThrroiastrorriaNthe proPerti owner -Wei FDOTassistviah relocating the church? -Will you provide relocation fee far church ta •find a new place (and not pocket change); been here.for 22 years, and preaching -Tha botternline is how expeditious xellyou clove this prole& fotwardln pihohasingproperties, and what kind.otinancial assistance..chureh'assisbnice and direct assistance -can we look:forward-to? =Nis aotfavorthe TuntieblEkethe-Elevagad. - • " ' ' -I would Delo serve on the Pmjectifidvisculfeeremittee Outreach Office Briefing with Constituents Tuesday, February 27:, 2007,11 a.m. Betty Hall and Martha Maier Rev., David„Shanics, Overtown Church ctiChrisf. 939 NW3Avenue FDOT Outreach Offite staff -How.unli the donstriictionirnpact our churth building, since our Pestor Ecier.O0..Ingriatiam„.NewHope'Primitive - „Baptist Church, 1301VW1' Place- Eula L iknglitajlevikiope Clunch David Alexander, Stjohn Commurilly Development Miami, E1,prms - - T-3051374-4271 ‘' -propertr.vill not be taken: yet You are keening the existing 119ht ofway Ines and the (Mars are'right neetto the church at 1301 lilWA" Place? , -Infili access be provided bus during constsuction? Corporation (CDC) in OveRown Neil Hall, Past President -ALA -Our property sits nextto a ptilar:Could That ur'4erexpressway area be used forchtrich parking? • - Nlornit Soni, H.W..Loehner, Mc. ., . . - . -We. need FDOT to dean sup.theirpropertyander the ,. expressway: .we have a serious problem of people living in back of the church; they break into our church bialdirix trees and rats ' groWin the area • -.When the community meetings begin, you must showthe people pictures so theytagn better understand yourtilscussion -David Alserandei' - -St. John COCO has several Wesel° Pl4tforth -EDOrshatdd look at a Beautification project for the open space underneath &Me' Street arid 31° AVenue, maybe a mini -park; it should be beautified., • .,-Eressudify tile bodies of water adjacent to expressways vftti water flowers, remove the ugly FDOTfencing and replace with more attractive fencing; it would make the eormswelity look nicer -Farther east, whereveare currently designing a development between NW 12' and 14a Sheets and NW2.:` Avenue to NW , . Outreach Office Briefing wall Constituents S'Avenue. St. John CDC would like to acquire or have use of Prepared by 8 Niumford & Co. Updated September 3,200g FDOT . 39S ]PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS Miami -Dade County, 'Florida N. Updated September 8, 2009 COI TACT INFORMATION t S unLLt. iJCCri ate. KVV j(Si1L/Y4VLYJAiW • .. Office Briefing with Constituents n•.`....�.......- _ • - - that properly for - parking faaTrtiestrout housing development -We could annex f®r parking the south side of 14°1 Street from NW 2"?AvenueiaRI1K2f Court;. _ With the Elevated option, Wideninglhe road tothe 'north, no real imp s; to the south. howhighwdl structure he at NW316 Avenue,.how high at2od Avant/earsd:howhigh atl'iAvenue? -Bad idea to have only entrance and.mon at North Miami Avenue; should+be re -engineered to have More aceess-egi . .- should also -keep entrance and exit at NE 2"dAvenue•. . -As atraffic useSBdoesntmakesensetoshutdownacurrent access -egress point to add another . -"how usan alternative which.shows how the ramping would work -Any creative usages underneath. expressway Rice parks, business -retail orjoitdevelcpment'2 -Basically. the Tunnel option wall not happen. right? NO Half . :, -What isthemomentum for the Tunnel alternative? -Tunnel may be needed to create awortd Mass city with the Lkes ofBayfront Park;-PerfamvngAds Center, Museum Park -Downtown business -and arts cohmunityfavorthe Tunnel -Oh, the Tunnel would affeetOvertaem from the FEC to NV+I'2"d AvenueF -Nowt° we move theseideasfrorn dim:�sion, say about this - 'Dinned? Do youmobsTse the communityto took atthe most viable alternative which does not impactthe community, es -A 3-ditnerisiorial model of thealtemativesTs needed, so the community can hebervisvaCize. touch and feel You should present an ofthe aitemativesto Me people Rev. David Shanks' ' -' errmir The°Tunnet needSlo be ated.[favor the Elevated. Under Me Beat:dome we could haveparkirsg.spaces and parks and businesses.: -: > -Narrow down your ate rnaf eves to 2 or3; then =find .out what the cortihnunitywants ..: Outreach Overton= Community Oversight Sward ei.la Stewart Chairperson Thursday, March 15, 2001, 6.1210 p.m: Culmer Neighborhood Center. Multipurpose Room Cecelia Stewart; Chairperson - ' T-30Sfb73S892 _ Francisco de to Paz i -Would you lakes recommendation from this Board? nvivr..i Qras.nl.r r 2 xtnuh :per iby$'Mumzford&Co. • PUBLIC OF1iI _ FDt)T1;395PD&ESTUDY ISSUES PUSLICINVOLVE1vENT-1VIEETINGS WITH'rump OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida t Updated September 8, 2009 Charles _..____._.... _... ....-.........ay.+ s %%,4 s aLs xIrvsu»tsaavi� .. ,.;., ISSUt:S Cutler, Overtown resident Cary L Moore, Comcast Theresa Ma ttas, Maim l h 1800 NW 3 Avenue NMami, FL 33136 ' -Mould have to make roadway higher, Underground will not happen; Tunnel is out -.Wh:did-pouleaveoutP.ort'of{ui'mmi?_ ,, C ssaundra it+funs, Overtown resident Nicole Wild. -Matra twdgatforeach of the alternatives? North Mini Beach Emanuel Washington, Sr., Miramar Rosa Green, Overtown resident• What isthe -community time schedule --how tong will it take to complete this study? •; - . Rosa Green . Francisco de is Paz. Southwestsection - -This roadway projectis thesametnadwaythats there today -Just maketrue Mettle Overtown Youth Center is not BookerT., Washington Senior High School's - Thursday, March 15; 2007, A p.nL AnthonyJennings, Chairperson General Concerns - Educational Excellence Scholastic Advisory :Council/EESAS(simitarttPTA irta/Ischools) AnthonyJennings, Chairperson BookerT.Washington Senior High Schools . 1200 NW S Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 T-7861514-7111or305/324-8900 -ifs *by toincrease capacty,but Noramps inOvettoun -Ulm iolook attheereawest ofthereload tracks horn1=95to David Brown, M.D. Sldener, -What are the impacts along NW 14Terrace? Rosarn Principal Canton Brown ,-Talk about the improvements mare area of Jackson Hospital and the Performing Arts Center Michael Friedman, Former State legislator Other aouncll members -Hasanyone experienced the pedestrian trend along NW 141' Street r. Charles Johnson, SiWAfumni Association John Glover, 8'IWAlumn€Assoaalion What is the approval process for approving an alternative? Whatisthe tirneiinefur completing thiaprojen - James:Hunt. MIA/Alumni Assor alion/Former Prin -hotting at project map here. why starlet NWT' Avenue going Dr. Brewster . -east, why -not aart the projectat Biscayne Blvd going westi -Vtte ar -headeddown-the same -mad as with the NW 14a' Street project - -Fatal the cards* the -table; we don't want any chan9e orders Booker T. Washington Senior High School's -We creed to'see morefacts-on the Tunnel, hativ.itwould -Howmuch would itlak -to re-engineer-fhe Metmmaver,to move-itso 1-395 could be better engineered? . ESSAC We have wreakattachmentto the Overtown community; we need to have a:presentatiorrtarlored for our area, to know how the'�tsceb. are affected Michael Friedman -:-- -Overtown is an Histonnc District -You are raising I-395 to 30 feet, but 13g5:rs not 30ifeet how high will it bear the FEC? What is the inevitably of the project change orders versus a study? -Look at the retail opportuni9es 1%.,..parxdbyBMnnford&Co. 26 Updated September S; 2009 FDOT I-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS wyrEc PUBLIC OFFICIALS-STAKEECOLJDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida k Updated September 8, 2it09 TION • -Doetrnake health and safety issues afterthoughts -Give us a balanced presentation, the Tunnel versus Elevated . -InctudehowPDOT would addresssacial and economic issues; also welfare and safety of the camrnunify. I know EDOT carr teat ofthese iniiiatives for the cornmunity. and locate the funding -Interface with urban planners working for the beneitof Overown right now; benefits may give project In:pets David Brown -Fmm•past experience, withihe NW 14 Street project I wasn't provided proper infonnation, and I ifidn'tirust the project information I was provided with -We must pay careful attention to improvements for this_ -I W3 si o I ot thatthis pmjectwouldret really affect Overtown that much, butithereanesigniricant iurp.m..6 to Overtown This project presents major -social impacts to Overtown, Park • West. Ira ORA and city of Miami •-Tie footprints of the bridge need to have less impacts -We need to study all of the alternatives -Conmare whets happening here now in the community and tie into that Dr. Brewster -What is -the castanalysis? • , -What is the benefit to the community? -We need more -information on hoW the projectimpacts Overtovm -Talk nzreabout Overtovm in ycor presentation Booker T. Was hingtonSenior wgh School's • -Can we initiate improvements underneath the expressways. Fc...qa C -Discuss optionsandthe benefits and cksadvantages of each option, as krelatesto 6/ertown Anthony Jennings -We are very-cancerrect about the social and econornio barriers - of this project • -Our mission is safety ofttaldren in the communkr Maybe we ., can put our missions together tribe educationsew and well-beir' 4 of the people of the community -We must see thatthis pregect realty benefit's Overtown -We are not going to let yau bring this project through Overtown unless it has bents for Overtown Clinton Brown .. . _ .... . ..__-. — Pm. patedbyBIllundordit Co. 27 FOOT I 395 PD&.E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT — MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC O1 1CIAL S-STAISEROLDERS Arland —Dade Comity; Florida 1 Updated September 8; 2009 PUBLIC OFFICIALS . -EastofFEC what is going to happen? Wiil the roadway be 20 feet atthat pciritorwhai? This project needs be5ed into affordable housing, and recall RosannSidener, -Overtown-is a special communiiyforthe residents who five here now and have previously. Eyed here; evepvne is well (mown -So you really need.lo,talk specKrcally to the Overtown ccncems Outreach Office Briefing with Constituents Tuesday,. March 27, 2007, 3 p.m. Betty Hall and Martha Mtter So there are 4alternatives being studied( Father John Cox St. Frands.XavierChurch FDOTCommunityOutreach Office Outreach Office Staff -These aretheright ofway impacts you show onMemaps NIr.Edenturg,:Overtown Resident Barbara Henry Miami-DadeCommunib/Action Agency. Oven'nvm Cuimec Center Frances Jackson, Town Park Plaza South 939 NW3Avenue Miami. FL 33136 • T-305/374-4271 , 'here[ -Have � any purchased right of way property? -In -In the Open Cut which streets would be disconnected? You'd close au of the stmts.!: Eddie Lewis, NBPA-POC -The Open Cut Alternative, isilbeing considered? Rudy: Lorenzo, Econo Meat & Fish Market . Cheryl Pestaine, New Horizons Community Mental -What is the trajectory or purpose of doing this study? It seems thhatthe .process:neverends until you (FOOT) wants it to end.. Health Center (Oyertown gt5ce) Denise Perry, Powertr Whatusthe date forconsttrcfion? :- vvhatsre the other alternatives? What is the purpose affhe: Outreach OffuR Briefing with Constituents study —slowing down traffic? Evacuation route? South Beach . . Marie Wims, Town Park Plaza South -access? ,., ..Whatare the next steps? -,are there ofher-stvdr'es related to this 1-395 study? • -Shouldn't the project planners back when theyoriginally designed 1-395 taken into accountthetransportation needs and growth, as well aline number. ofvehides which would ultimately use I-395? -The growih potentl ofM ami-Dade County and the -growth of Miami Beach should definitely be consider d;here,,. • -TheTunnel option would be;morefavoratliel Out ofafght, out of mind is:niy petsped'rve .. Father John Cox < . :This once thriving communitywas cut off bythe expressways. Roads go around the community. Overtownt needs jobs and economicdeveiopment lwautd oppose any plan that cuts off streets. You could not convince me of a time; we cannot even secure aseptic tank . _. .. -What are the costs on these alternatives? Ws interesting to me as to what yougetforS5DDmiion_ Prepared tTB Mamford B Co. 28'. Updated September S. 009 FDOT 139 PD&-E bilanr ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS Wt2H PUBLIC OFFICIALS —STAKEHOLDERS MiEamiDade County, Florida 1 Updated September 8, 2009 R Tt?iG rt Ira• nr,Air T®x run.1..a asrrxc,z s... .t..a ..,,,......y l Outreach Oifice1dens with Constituents • _ - --- -On the funding, will it be a state road? WII there be matching fuadS? -Isit possbiity that this Wray become a toll road? Every road has a tot, _ - There may not be construction impacts., but other impacts such as noise, air, water and other -environmental impacts? Has there been a cultural assessment?' Rudy Lorenzo ... -Any idea other projects Re Anis fortransit ilnprn/emefls Denise Penn , -Under re= roadway would still be dark because-tbe expressway would sit' be iover -Howmuch property or space would be required forthe'ataging area during the construction period in the Overtown area and along72' Streetendl eStreetfromNW2"'AvenuetoNorth MiarniAvenuetoNEfaAvenue? , -Those environmental findings, when will -they beavafable? -How vim .the options (alternatives) be prio,itked? Marie lMms: , -We won't have to worry aboutTawn ParkVillage.orTown Pant PI= housing developments beirtg affected under the elevated option, 'Attlee! - -Don't put parks underneath the expressway; we get unsavory people that steep there. itivizr-dRmhenhcr22nn4 PrepaiedbyB Niumford & £m FDOT.I395 PDS& STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT -MEETINGS' WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS Maori -Dade County, Florida .1 Updated Septembers, 2009 PUBLIC O11?Lc ALSISTAEIEOS.DERS 1 CONTACTINFO RATION 1 Booker tWashington. Alumni Associatien Thursday, April 13,2007,6pun. Roberta Daniels. Alumni Chairperson -Environmental issues are amajor-concern for the community Meeting with some 40 members present BookerT. Washington Senior High School T-3051995-1000 -FOOT ,needs 'to locket social i u•s and environmental Roberta. Daniels. Chairperson 1200 NW 6 Avenue lulus/ice issues Outspoken were: MJGami, FL 3136 -Have you done esurvey m determine if the people+,vantthis?' James Hunt, a retired principal CrementMinnis -Da you have a masterptan for this project? For the overall' roadwayogriidor? For all of FOOT projects inthe Overtown community? -You aregoing to cutoff all of the streets in Overioum with this project?! Booker T.WashimatnnAlumniAssociaiion -If there are.nofunds available iortheconstruction _oflhis project whw are you pushing:th s study and these alternatives? JAWS have to re-raute,students to rofferentscfioolsduring constu4oa,.well have toPot Overtom students at Miami Seadr,'dtrami dacisonseniorhighgchools . -lave yousantaaed ibe property owners 4havewaited all ofthese40,Pala io oppose any project FDOT putsfo th; after they destroyed O iertown with 1-95 bade in the {960's' Outreach Office Briefingwith Property Owners T hutsday,April26, 2007,11 a.m. Betty Helfand and Martha Miller 8eniamin Brown. Benjamin J. Brown, 218 NW 14 Terrace FOOT Commodity Outreach Office Outs each Office Staff 4live .in our fanuiy home which we have had for 100 years. Mr: Hemy,1437 NW 3 Avenue 939 t W 3 Avenue T-305/374-4271 FOOT eoufdn t offer me enough tosedit. Ifs the sentiment Attorney Shannon Kearns representative Wang, FL 33138 ',which- Is so valuable Jeff Kluger, Omni area property owner Attorney Brian Patchen, representing property owners 4 &IAAvery seriously if IT be FOOTS friend I'm looking at the intrinsiovatue oft iryfantiys home. -FOOT put up a fence Ingle wrong place on a previous project Attorney John Scuds, 1201NE1 Avenue . Ms. Shoshana,175 NW 14 Street They made a mistake on the measurements, all of my plants ended up oil the other side ofthefenee._ (NMgr Cemn.n,h . .. . -Howgnick is the process for acquisition? The Uniform Act regcaresFOOT to provide tenants with 90 days notice. :When -will you make the finaldecision on alternatives selected Prep:ixrd by B lvrimiford & Co. 30 Updated September.3.2009 FDOT I-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEBTI&GS wITO PUJ3LIC O1`FiCL LS-STAKEBCOLDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida .1 Updated September 8, 2009 • AK1ErS4LDERS • 1 IS runa::dl. vrrra.A.M.A. iSi ......,��.. .."_...�,....._----- arthe No Build? -Federatfimdsng is needed fortis proiect,.cone.i.t? 1s that the reason FOOT needs approval tom the Federal Highvray -Is the footprint ofiheSievatedAlternative pretty much The same faalpaMas t395 is nowt -Could you briefly scrotal l other projects inthearea of transportation? -Wtl you continue to engage us in future discussions?. Outreach Office:Briefmo with Property Owners Monday, May 1S,,2007,10 a.m. Betty Halt and Martha Miller RevDavidShanks e:enwltwe decide on an altemat Ve? When thatfimecomes, E{GotiAiexanderr.Mcro Battery FDOT Community Outreach Office: Outreach Office Staff Rev. David Shanks,.Overtown-Churt of Christ 339 NW3 Avenue T-3051374-4271 hewwdit you determine which option tosetect? Min. Shanks.wifertf Rev. Shanks �fsvian VittiiP7liami-0Dade Sdroots, ara Faciii s anageifment ' Miami. FL33136 - Wnen a person hires their own attorney, doesthatcome outof the amount -you -pay or Is ita separatefeeyou payforthe attorney, related toacgwsifwn ofihe property? -Our church has been %ere far22::years; w71you pay satery of pastor and isthe pastor entiled to.retocaton assistance?' -If the property is impaled. our ahurhw+rethave to move. WU there be any financial benefits and considerations-o relocate or move the church -radar -fstherea ceiling on moving -relocation benefits? -If we have to:move, whatvatue in benefits will be given to the church for oar renovations inclu ngthee/a church%trnrtur? tou5rl we.receive [e5efiarthose : iinpmveinents:awteicfi we cannottakewith us. tire the atc? :: 4M atifwe. find a new location now, how would you handle that for our relocation as a tenant? EEYwtAtexandes, +:• , • -If I need to'selocaie•my business beyond the'5a m3e radus, how does it get -My main concerns are es aenseand.preparing a new location For instanca.1 had heavy duty specter -wiring in mycunent warehouse for the aro and remodeled the offices, for about a-100,00D when 1 moved in -Atotoflife requires special permitting and special eguiprnent for my operation -We sold the buitdng an Saymetgreen Developers} and technically don't own the'Wines, but the fixtures benefit the rha SEnte b i*2005 Prcpmrdby BMMnnford &Co. FDOT I-39S PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICLUS-STAICEHOLDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida k Updated September 8, 2009 PUBLIC - — --- -----•— —...............---.............a. ' a ....aaar.a,sarsa....a. LI, M.V61,111.1..1.4)1. A t business and would have to be re -installed for the new business tocation. We have tenant owneolTodures -Again, we coukfpotentially stay there and rent froin FDOT. So dont dernofiSh our building 'LUIS yoirramady to.build the roadway. We'd like to stay at our location until the Wiest clate. -How fast are you looking toacquire theproperty. especial& -Wezilso have 260,000 scpft. parking surface where we park cars forthe Performing Arts Center: ProPertY we bNm.':- Meeting with H. Bert Gonzalez, Chid of Staff City of Miami Commissioner Marc Sarnoff . ' Friday, May 18, 2007,12:45 p.m. Office of City of Monti Commissioner Marc Sarnoff City of Miami, .00y Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami. R.33133 H. Bert Gonzalez 7-305/250.5300 Commissioner position viall be that of commoni& consensus from his constituents and reflect the senfiments of residents . , , Outreach Office Briefing with Constituents Regina Louie Smith, new Principal of Booker T. . Washington "SeniorHigh School Rev. Shoshone, PropertY oiiii_er Homnlie Lewis, Overtownseement AllomeyThomiliJordon. PropeitiOwer Constance contris,,Lictuslisiuse . JarraNc.Folbes, fOrbes eillleogtontlY - belie PittsiRegions Bank Marvin Weeks. Timbuktu Art -Sala Nelson, Director -Urgent Inc. Linda Jones Perkins, Urgent Inc. Louise Jones, Urgent Inc. Charies,Cutter, Veterans Employment Transiffon noble Owiyie, 1-1 Way Con:oration Steven Carrot Stevcar Enterprises, Inc. Olga Zamora. City of Nriami Rev. David' Shanks, Overtown Church of Christ Vdtria Croft, FOOT Diego Rivadeoch'a, F.DOT Right of Way _ Bruce Bradley; MOTiligh! of Way Robert Linares. Metric Engineering Carlos Rodriguez, Metric -Engineering Jutteta River*, Metric Engineering . . Wednesday..luly 18,-2007; 11 a.m. . ' , . _ . . • Betty Holland Martha tvfilier Outreach Me Staff T-305/3744271 , = , . - , - . Rev Shosrana ,WII theTunnel be expensive? Will this project help the Black community orwill itjuatttelp FOOT? Would like to know_ How mill this priaject enhance °Yellow? Charles Cuter 4 would like to take eidoser lookatAlternafive 3. Hcry long wit Ahddresi the -isms of imminent domain. How does FDOTwork with the cityand county? Charles Cutler -Who will set the retail property once PDOTtekes it avray from the pes/ple? Nave you identified a developerfor the job? Linda Jones -Who will havato Move? When isfil tionstnctomstart? Haw . - . many peopleare_going to be dispiabect? Wiest peopleare on fixed incomes. WM the program help them financiaily? -Attorney Thomas Jordan • -Currently:the streets are blocked off, anctiliey need to'be opened-up:to it:soon:nullity: tf you getjhe proparty and don't' use kwheit,ticiSmitolo with it? MY 2" Avenue. theytotally -forgot oboutit. They've -had 20-3D years to open it up. When will .the project start? Della Pitts -Woukl like to know what they are going to do with stock 1 and Block 2. Vi/hen does the oily. and county oome into play with this proiect2 • byBlftmiford* Co. 32 Updated Septorobert.2009 , FIDOT I=395 P33&E S'RUMEN-ES . _- PIZBLIC IbiVOLVEMENT—MEETINGS 'WITH PUBLIC ON.FICIALS-STAKEBDLDERS: Miami -Dade County, Florida t Updated September 8, 2909 iflr`• R7At�i' 1NOATSON. ru.c...L iionit+AH:L+D/aT1.0..m.CJRv raves Outreach Office Briefing with Constituents — i�+.s.a.ausv+.�+�.. .. .»-.......... _.-._.....__- Homrnie Lewis<. -Is FOOT responstfafor 1 i" Street bridge going to Port of Miami and going to MacArthur Causeway and to Rk cenbeet er Causeway? -lathe community being usedwith this project? Highways are !deer the blood1neto a cornrow*. Ovetowf needs beeslfification,sanitation, structures and protection. Saliha Nelson ....,. -. -The community needs to been Martha county and pry are doing'fhes-jobs they 'need iohepnusid#edfo'hausirsg.You need to look at how much rent the people can pay Pastor David Shanks -Haveyou:came to the conclusion as to which aftemative•yott will go 'teal- Precared byB.Mumford&Co. 33 Updated September 8,1009 FDOT 1-395 PD&E S k'U BY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITHPUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS I ami-Dade County, Florida l Updated September 8, 2009 PUBLIC OFFICIALS/STAKEHOLDERS Co -impunity Action Agency (CAA) Board Meeting Monday, October 15,2007, 4 p.m. Alton Sears, Board Staff Person James Payson Board efDirectoss indudurg•. CAA Central Office T3051347-4615 -Mails the intent for the usage of space underneath the - 395 MN 1° Street F205/347-4539 expressway? Other Members Dr. Warrant Zvbkof, , Chairperson Miami Florida 33128 Richard Brown-Nlorilla. 1 Vice Chair -what is the projected cost ofthe project? James Payson, 2nd Vice Chair Nathaniel Green, 3n1Vice Chair Dr: Joyce Price, Treasurer -For those of us who remember how t-95-end even 1-395 destroyed the vibrant Oveflown community. its critical what yoe are doing here. Curtis Roberson, Parliamentarian Julie Edwards. Interim Executive Director -its the mistrust issue thatthe Overtown gmmunityfeels neglected for more than 30 years. We need to know that we are not going backwards.You need to understand the quality of rife issues. -We applaud your efforts, but if this project is approved, is it going to improve the qualify of fife? is it going to create a vibrancy? . -Do-you need local governmental approval? Lillie wli isms Transportation moves people from -their histol .I owned the Famous Chef Restaurant in Overtown where allthe famous - , .. ..Stack singers and entertainers came atterthey had performed. on Miami -Beach. My restaurintwas displaced with t-95 ecprass e.Y Overtown Community OversightBoard Meeting Board of Directors including ' Thursday, October 18, 2007 6 p.m_ Cecilia Stewart, Chairperson -Where wilihe construction staging area be located?' Cecilia StewartChaiperson CulmerNeighborhood Center, Multipurpose Room T3051573-5892 Dr. DerailivFields- Charles Cutler Rosa Green z6001.1WYdAvenue Miemni, Florida 33136 We have histoncsrtes in Overto NI which must be preserved, .such asSt:John lnstihrtionat Baptist Church. Marquita Forsett Terry Malias -Have You looked mtoaerMfonmentei issues Such as vibrations to the church;burldrngstbuilding, like whatccwrwith :ML Eton Francisco De La Paz Baptist -Church at 3-95 expressway? Stephanie Van Valk • Other Member Cassaundra Wanes -Where will the ramps be placed? Dr_ David Brown -i'do rrotsupportthe project because f is of -no benefit to the Overtown community. Overtown Community Oversight Board Meeting • Other Members. -How tong wthe construction process take? Will you•workin indNiduat cress? What will be, the impacts to the community diving the construction time frame? Whatabouteconomic Prcpercd by$. Mumford & Co. 54 Updated September 8, 22069 �SfSTiCEiiOt 1 FDOT i 395 PD&E UMW ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS —STAKEHOLDERS N%ami Davie County, Florida \ Updated September 8, 2809 1 CO 7ACTINFoRMATION ISSUES impacts? -Meke sure our community gets something out of this project, Pike jobs. -How does this project ftinto the NW 3"'Avenue streetscape project? -There's lots ofland uniiemeath 1.395 and i- S. What kind of development Is FDOT considering? -We are not interested in another park give us an option on the community using the land underneath the expressway_ -Can you provide us with a copy of the envuemlent report -Residents Corn Springs. Gardens have not received any information on this project -We want tohave some guarantees that a government entity does not comealongandrerttheland-ungemeaththe expressway for S1a year, for their own purpose. • -Do you have.a budgetfar this study? What is the dollar amount? Howdoesihis project fit into the Master Flan along Biscayne Bhrri.... -I- think if we are trying to get something out ofthis(tea lets ty to get something. If you think the Federal govemment.is.going to give you: something fike;jobs, l just' don't believe it's going to get done. '-Jobs may not be.realsti but what about bui ngaffordable housing underneath. -Maybe this is a chanceto revitalize NW2MAvenue and le Street.We,need acornmifineatfrrom FOOT for -FDOTto lease back the land to,.the city. .mrattyoracommunffybased organi�tion to beneftthe Ovenom community_ - Outreach Office -Briefing with Constituents Mier Snit.,Habdatfor }itunamity Thursday, October 25, 2007,12 Noon Setty Hall -Concerned eboutcantaminetedsites ih community Jackie Bell; NewWashingtan Heights.CDC Historic Mt Zion AME Church Outreach Office Staff -Canwegets private company doenvimnmental soil tinting Atossa-Gaipri 301 NW0'Street - T-3051374-4271 for contamination? Michael Harden. Overtown Resident Miami, Florida3313B -The contamination reviews need tobeavailable for the public DentasJackson,-Jackson Soul Food Restaurant ; Test for land contamination and airanatysis.aswell Ayman'Wailah,.Brown FoodMarkel -Is there atimelineA forthisptoject? -Has FOOT purchased any land yet? Outreach Office Briefing withCorsiatuents -Will the properly owners camas much as they should in `negotraEngwith FDOT'int'teirse ing paioe? L may Jones.'Heighbozs tc Neighbors Program Theopttone Keaton s_, T here's dot near my business. FOOT is responsible_ People are asking forriecency instead afieaving a rness behind Undated S-r'—''er 8_2009 Prepard by.B'Mumfard & Co. PDOT"I--395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC. INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS Miiami-Dade County, Florida t Updated September Si 2009 • • TCC:IFS. ruat. Ia.. in' ru.uaz,araieu c.a>v u,..:,,..7 1...... LawrenceMoora, Moores Gracny Witmer Sant-Preeux PubfrogrIes FariRobinson ,:. "George Sanchez: Properly Owner Stephanie Van Valk; Owe town NET Office Dashawn-Watt ACES- James White, Harbor House Residential Canter Louis Willis • .. � . <. ._ .. , ': . -FOOT is not a good landlord WhatabouttheNWtd"Street ramp? ' -Is FOOT cleaning up areas underneath the 'a:vassways? -FOOT has a lot °fiend around the area, anti you jcstthrowvp a.fence instead of•nice land,s0apmg „. ... bidge ssesandchurchescanbebuatunderfhe.elevatid Midge -There needs to be a plan-avenuesiw bonding things under the:expressway Jackie Lien 'Our main concemsare for FDOT (1) to clean up underthe expressways areas la Overtown.. testsalsfor contamination, p once they Srcut out if contamination exists, we wantthe . .. contaminated soa removed. and (4) beautifcadon and regular maintenance ofFOOT properties underanete#sentto .;_ expressways: We areastang you to console* ys.1 and 2 ofihis Process within the next 90 days, and the other requests within ,180 days. .. . . Other ConsPouents -Wiltcoma:eraat businesses lie allowed under the expresso ys?. We need commerce: .; *hat type of business structure andlor sernCes can be put vsderthe expressway? . ..& Updated September s. 2009 Prepared by Manfred nford &Co. FDOT 1-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS wan PUBLIC OFFICIALS-STAIMECOLDERS Atitarat-Dade County, Florida 'Updated September 8, 2009 ISSUES. d ...U....A+ ....,11,,,,....6.4-4,11.4.-,1.,....cm.a.r.....,,s,...,........... St -John Conrusturey DevelopmentCorporation (CDC), Board of Directors Saturday, February 16, 200E1.900 ma.• St.Jon CDC 1324 NW 3"tAvenue Miami, FL 3313B . . . . _ Nelson Adams, MD., Board Chaimtan T-305/633-4105 David Alexander. Executive Director T-305/372-0682 . - -How does 250 accidents on I-395 overS years compare with other roaciways? --4-iow much money spent so tar on land acquisition? -FDOT is seeking project support, butwe need to use FOOT space available now -Cart FDOT lease land space underneath expressways? -Are there any off ramps in Overtown? -111e ramps are athlorth Miami Ayemle betwee.n 11a and le Streets'? -What othereccamples can you. cite where storefronts complement urban design with roadways, other than Australia - and NewYork? -A criatNe of one St. John CDC has a storefront findernearn an thcpressway in anotherstate and it WorlorveryWell -There's no danger of the columns collapsing? Are wouldn't wreath see a bridge fall in Muni. • -11thene will finances come for Ws project? -What:about, FOOT paving areas underneath expressways? -St. John CDC isinterested in a pubfic-privata partnership not too. restrictive, where we would pay marketrate for a lease. -FDOT could lease to a governmental agency, right! Currently. St John has a lease agreernentwith the City of Miami thmthe CRAlDoperate a FarmaraMarketand host art exhibits underneath l-395 at NWI,ta Street -Our community wants to seethe highest Wevagon possible at Jove Avenue and le' Street -1Nhat about lighting underneath the overpasses . Venetian Causeway bleighbornood Affiance, Board of Directors , Tuesday, February 20,2008, 730 p.m. 1000 Venetian Way (NE I Sa Street), East Lobby Miami . FL 33139 Barbara Bisno, President T-305/374-2593 or736/390-1434 bisno@oorncastnet -The Affierme voted to support the Elevated alternative (note; previous presentation hacLbeentriadeto the group) . ,.. Bayfront Park Management Trust, Board of Directors Tim Schmand, Executive Director . . . Monday. February 25,2003. 42 noon . BayfrontPark ManagernentTrust 301 North Biscayne Boulevard , . . . . . _ Tim Sots:land, Executive Director T405/3.58-7550 _, . . . -is teze &WNW it affects Bicentennial Pe* areedY? -We ere worldng on a continuous Waterfront Bay Walk . . Walluvay along the -Bay from Bicentennial Park south and Updated September 8,2009 Preps:rad-by B Murata' & Co. -PDOT 1,395 P }&E STUDY ISSUES: PUBLIC ovqx.,vEivreNt-MEETINGS WITS FTJBUC OFFICIALS-STA14EfOLDERS Miami Dade County, Florida 1 Updated September 8, 2009 PUBLIC OFFICTAI,StSTAKESOLDERS 141ZEING"DATEJLOCA.TIO L CONTACTITi3ROi2MAT. Miami. FL 33932 .. directly underneath4395. Wed 6keto see your plans and haw they may impactthe'BayWaflc ._- -Whereto the Mass Transiteomponeatio move temple from Mimi :Beach? :Is theme Bay Linkca -finally supported the Tunnel option, butcansidering the inconveniences of displacPments;.favor Elevated option City of Miami City Manager Peter Hernandez AsssstantC- rtyMa»agerBrliAnldo Assistant Transportation Coordinator, Jose Gonzalez Monday, February25, 2008, 3:30 p.m. City of Miami, City Hall 350flPanAmeriranDrnre Miami, FL 33133 • Peter Hernandez, Cty Manager Ofelia Perez City Manager's T-305Y563402 ' -City officials agreed to develop aptan tit 7tscibly support the concept of FDOT land bridge providing t spacetexisting 3oSiJahnCQC-throughibee>CRAagreenrerit forthe CRAa underneath t for ofsv.vetdyFannersMadtetand Art Shows . -That FDDT is looking into providing bardscape paving: wribh pavers, fencing and fighting iimteity would aonsidezprovid ngfor poficesecurityand waste collection foralitterfree and:secure,envimnmenk m which the Farmers Marketwould tuncfon: -That the fenaiepolcecommander-hat Ovestawnarea should • be contacted-. - Upper Eastside Miami Council, Inc. Robert Fianders,.1395 PAG. representative appointed byM`ranir-Dade CommissionerAudrey Edrnonsan and he is also Past President alibis transit active organization Monday, February 25, 2008, 6:00 p.m. City of Wand Legion Memorial Park Building 6447AFE7'aAvenue Miami. FL 33t38 Robert Flanders, PAG Member T-786/2953800 -What Is estimated capacity af roadway? -Wrf the design cOnceptmnneetwifh. Bay LINO -Florida East CoastComdor(FEC),are you taksngthat 'into =Hand6mg aftratficon I395'needs °to'be'done -We are north of I395. but it does impact us PalinhiRitscus- tarlslands Association, inc., Tuesday,February 2G, zoos.. To ,imn... _ IslandsgsscCiation Club ' '.Todd Tragash PAGmemberappointed by hliarrri Beach Virg Mayor Steinberg . This projectwillcome alter the Tunnel project M atsmlt.we do aboutthe incneasedtraffic from the PortTunnel Annual PHS Meeting ' - 15i Palm Avenue ' T-305%671-1811 -Thereare long Tines of traffic in getting horrie to our families; Miami Beach,. FL,33139; "Tim Rose, Execu ive Director not goad panning, we are stuckwith just2 lanes . -T-3051299.2617 - " The port unnetwrll create a huge problem for us Trri:rose@pFwstandsorg• -If the newi395roan ease some traffic tensronfortheIslands. Pteyzoodloy$Tivmford&Ca. 3B Updated Septaaber 8, 2004. FDOT 1-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PuBuc INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS-STAICEECOLDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida k Updated September 0, 2009 KWIC Om. ClisIS/STUICEHOLDERS- MEETEIG DATE/LOCATION CONTACEINFOPSvIA.TION - ISSTJES ft is weloomed Overtovm Youth Center, Board of Directors 1 Monday, March 10, 2003. g: 30 am. Carla Penn, Executive Director T-305t349-1204 or 1211 Al Dot= Jr., Board Chairman Lisa Joseph, iVlarketing & Development -Concerned ahead construo5on period and the re-routing of -youth walking from the school(s), especially Booker T. Washington Senior Righ Schoot alFtg NW 14*Street-just SCatk. of 1-395. JO the Yoh Center. etthe corner of NW 142' Street and 3° Avenue Overtown Youth Center 453 AM11412 Street Memi, FL 33136 St. John Community DevelopmentCorPoration (CD. Follow•trP Maufla9 with Staff Monday, March illt, 2003.10:30 am. St. John CDC 1324 tiWe Avenue Miami, FL.33138 David Alexander, Executive Me:tor Susan Kelly, Assistant T-305/372-0682 . -i -St John CDCwould like to shiftto become an FDOT business partner -Long-term ViSiOrt for St. John's econorniC Plao--2015-2020. should be finished assurnkt construction starts 2015 -Hopeful that FDOTright-of.way acquisifion starts priosto 2015 -Looking forvrarci to a hausing-econornic development partnership ' ' lilliarni-Dade County PubDeSchooLs (MDCPS) Vivian illiberal!, Facilities Director -convener Jorge L. Garda. Region IV Director Joist D. Bernoetio,Safety Office Regina tette-Smith, BTW Principal Miarni-Dade County Public Schools Monday, March 17,2003.9130 am. BookerT. Washington (BniV) Senior 1-figh School 1200 NW62. Avenue . Miami, FL 33133 Monday, March 1420033 9.00 am. Vivian Villaamli. MDCPS Facilities Director T-3051995-7237 Regina Lowe -Smith, STW Principal T-3.05/324-8S3D Vivian Vtliamil, Facilities Director T-305/995-7237 . . -Cetta.in thoroughfares Mat FOOT wili need to ensure provide fora revised traflicilow, inducting flashing tistds. lag Persona e.tc. -Schedule heavy construction amend school open hours— , when schools are less irriPacred -Requite police enforrement to direct pectiesir- Ian turffc flow, especiaiy studentsto and from school -Any signage remoter, along hav142'Street during construction should.be immediately repLeces-resbored, markings and slignage -Requesting 15 nules fleshing Tights for SIVV school z.one -If preliminary engineering plans are revised,then school officials will need to review them, as they are reviewing the Current Plans. forthe safety and welts:out students -Schools havers> immediate -construction plartS, hut possibly programs and development whichrnay requite additional school bttsinci Entities of Comuson Interest Tirn,Schmancl. Bay frorrt Park Managementirust Robert Wantraub, City of Miami -Manager's Office Lao Zabezhinsky. Down/OW:1 DeveloprnentAuth Thtusday, March 20,2D0S,10:00 a_rn.. SaYfrUnt Perk Mariagernent Trust Offices 301 North Biscayne Boulevard MiamL FL,33132 - - 11rn Schrnand, Chair Bayfront Park Management Trust T-305)353-7550 -Advised by the Chair Schrnartd that the Elevated Alternative 3 was the most feasible option and also fomesed on high wall which would need to be installed with the Tunnel and Open - Cut options Prepared by la Mmtford $c Co. 39 Updated September 2,2009 TDO1 I.395 PD&S STiJDY ISSUES .. .._ . . PUBLIC. FAO VEMENT-riffETJNGS WITHPIIBy = OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS N:ra Dade:Guunty, Florida 1 Updated Septembers, 2009 PUBLIC OFb7C S!STAKEHOUThRS MEETING DATEIL(3CATIOI�T CONTAi'i III ORIY A I1O Carol C Sayf nt�� Management Trust Miami Heat •representative A restaurant representative A boaters club representative -a `Bevnanaa• event representative --- -Island Primarily concerned byEOOTs stowprogn�s"ontheir covered *WaitingiScayneElVd�ng offl largewith holes, a nctsuay ecsleiy9etrees-wnichafien5 tourism aesthetics • St. John CDC Presentation et Miami CRA Offices with multiple goyernmentaIdevetopment representation including city -and bounty Community and Economic Development offices, F40T,.CRA, architects citypianners•, etc. Wednesday, April 3,2008, 100. a.m. Offices of Cdyof Miami Community Redevelopment • Agency fCRA) 49 NW 5~" Street )(carat FL 33128 David Alexander, Executive Director -St. John CDC T-s051372 0682 -Pwpose of ,norm deveohn CDC#frathe t help for -Quest tined. fthe.E OT14 5 widerpas iruoae:rty L edf rArt i s Fair or i arrne5 tM lrket .. Property could be triad:iorAriistsFairor'Far ity Market.. -Could an FDOT.desseYo Cify.ot Miami govemmeritfor a private usage be approved. byFDOTand FHWA -St John CDC noted a 14e Street Market inihe amount of S400,000 in their' City of Miami Project Funec6n9 Needs" chart diabibuted at the meeting Mt. Zion Developments, Incorporated . Pastor Ralph M. Ross, Historic/Q. Zion Baptist Church Don D. Patterson, Executive' Director MTZiion Developments, Inc. lama Croft P.E 1-395Project Manager Robert Linares, P.E.,Metnc.Edgineering, Inc. Betty Halt,: FDOT Outreach Office `' Bobbie Mumford, I S'Publicirivolvement Tuesday, May20 :2008.1m .p.. HstoricMt Zion Baptist Church 301 NW ptlf Street Miami. FL33136 Don D. Patterson, Executive Director Mt Zmn Developments, inc. •T-9541823-7788 -MtZon Dev.invoived with District Partnership initiative and Mlami'snewest cultural arts -&entertainment diistrict -tat. Zion s Dev. districtares isbounded on north by NW 1491 Street -to NW11' •Streetonthesouth,:eastby NW1 eAve.and- west by NW 3itl Ave & 5"Aveat 11"Street -The 400'sever ofproperty atNW9aStreetand.3~Avenue that's owned•by FDOTwhere ttie ERA hasargateuaysign, Mt •Zion Dev. would fike fahold-dscussions with FDOTfora 100 yearieaseofthatproperty. justadjacentboter: uroh -ML Ton IIev l..00tyngio develop a comprehensive community to uuluded'Wetcgme lGosks - 4uead to.estabish'paitnershipswifh goveinrnentalagendes in developing community, • Asking FDOT"forpubticparking underneath 1795 from NW e"' steal. NSW8mStreet ',.. , Want FDOTto assistwih overaf theme Cttyof'Miami Community-RedevelopmeotAgeocy (CRA) Clarence Woods, Assistant CRA Director Chelsa Arsxtt: CRA ShategicPlanning Priscilla Kelsey. CRA Assistant Agenda Coordinator- Thursday;:July"i6, 2009,10-a m ' `.. FDOT Outreach O 939hlW3�Avenue, Miami, FL 33138 Chelsa Arscott CRA Strategic Planning T-3051679-6800 -CRA desires to esmblsh ajoint partnership w19i MOT for sublease use of the Outreach oftice as aresource center, business incubator. employment center-communityaccess to Internet -Industries using their space in office would irainina-c apoty PrccarcdbyS Murnford& Co. Updated September 3,2009 FD0Th395PD&STUDYiSSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS wrria ruzuc OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida X *Updated September 8, 2009 PUBLIC .elcICIALS LDERS 1YLEETING DAIPJLOCIVTION CO A.CT 0 ON Vilma Croft, P.E., 1-3.95 Project Manager Robert Linares, P.E., Metric Engineering Betty Ha, FOOT Outreach Office Bobble Murriford, 1-39S Pub0cinvolvartlent .. . , for ajob, hospitaty, test:pram training institute, Neighbors to Neighbors busines.s traihing -GRA will staff their agency operations -CM w31 peseta fetterto FDOTfor copsiderationsof this sublease a,greement .. - -B Murriforriv411 provide insurarice binder,. usual monthly Cease between ex rsesand current agreement B Murnforci and New Providence Ledge C35-610 ORA . FOOT OutreactrOffic‘Morning Session Tuesday,hdy 214 2003, 11 a.m. Betty Hall 'Comments from State Rep. Jamas Bush. Ili Florida State Rep. James Slush 111,-District ICS EDOT-OutreackOrace - .. - FDOT Outreach Office' SincePDOT is undergoing .s.process wytt project °finis Orimmunity residentsicilizens/properiy owners 939 NVVe-Avenue T-305/374-4271 - magnitude's:Id huge dollar Invesbnent; at kind of technical .Robert Linares. P.E., Metric Engineering Betty Hail. FDC/FOutzeach Office Bobbie Mumforct, 1.335 Public involvement Miami, FL 3313S jobs w41 be required? FOOT needs to have a partnership h the. community for sustainablepbs -where people win be guaranteed jobs testa tO-15 ye.girs. The people afe-Vartg 1:,- work.. There's -also the smncern of. atlocaiion and relocation. Overtown -community cart no:longer continue tO• suffer these Concernsfrom residents/citizens -Wdh Alternative 3-Sevated option, those 'red' locations would •be impacted? , ' • -What axe the National health hazards of exhaust end fumes for anyzievelopmentisuch as housing. businesses) placed 'underneath' expressway bridges? . -So urban developsnentifasaies underneath bridges ere being done nationwide/interns:Clonally. - -Safety is an issue by Homeland Security borthese studies ,Ainhoisa contamination st itheS have beertdade on 1-3.95 with no real itnpac;s . , -Additional enVironinental contamination studies were candutted per -request of1-3.95 ProjectAdviSory Gnaw member CecEa Stewart,. and somelmited at surfacefevel orontaminadort was friand andvall be removed -Ware• looking for job end business.opportuales and commuay participator' . . . -FDOT is actively coorcrutating with CRA for development' under currant and future bridges . -Landscaping is key to completing the look around the new structures . -What type ofjobs will be available an this project? WdI FDOT work to provide set aside iobs/iob training? Prepared by B Muraford & Co. 41 tipdasei Severn . FDOT I-395 FD&E STUDY ISSUES. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT -MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS-,ST HOLDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida k Updated September S, 2009 . ISSUES X VDiiit.vrc1.c.acax.s.w.irbaa.say.v..,......, ....... .......... .—__—�...-- ----- . —_--- . -FOOT doesn't have the flexibility of the City of Miami in potential•developmentand jobs, butFDOTis partneringwith City to. assistin those areas -Underneath expressway strur re::arepossgoilities%r developing vwint+*P space. parirspace, farmers:marloC extended businetto•-+storefonts - p ietion Tunetebleforprojecfponshudiontcom_ -Vrbrafionsfrom roadway traffic Could affect lace the Historic buildings . :: -Engineering team is recommending utilizing 'drill shaft' instead of "pites'which Would lessen -vibrations. -Cracks in columns have happened now, wi1L there be better materials' used on the new structure? -The newsbvcture veil be bunt to aavmmodate loads of. vehicles through 2040, doubt today's traffic' -Mat develapmentwlll occur underneath 1395,:inthatd'uthas been on the groundfrom MUM" Court to FEC since 1972 and 'die area is not property righted or fenced by FOOT? -la Tarnpa;.:t•sawa simrtartype PRjectwhich had good impacts and the area wasteurtartzed . -It's up to unto work with communityand pol'ificaifetected offs ais along with FOOT FDOTOitreachOffice, Aitemoon$ession gbzens(propeity'owners Rommunna res PLE. neerirsg PO., Metric'Office Robed Halt Betty HaO, FDOTOutreach QfSoe FDOT Bobbie Mumfard, i-3385 Public Involvement .... • Tuesday„Jiz 28,2009,2p.m. FOOT Putre� sCh Office. ' 93S NW3 Avenue Miami, FL33t36: BettyHaf' >- FDOT_Outreach Office T-3051374-4271 - -Maintenance oft2tbcduring consfcuaion- eetswill:be closed at�intenm period: during con ? n•guide2meswill be known to community -Length Of c0nStftCtl3n and cammunRyimpactseritire project construction should take 4 years wnh no permanent dosures during construction .• -AI red shadings jon Map) are impacted areas -Manua ccnsituction start if all things are perfect?2013- 2014.,- .,.. :._.,. -How many constructon jobs wit be offered to residents? By partnering with Cty Crmiiami and other agencies This'project could make amendsto Ove`dnwn community for l- g5 disrupfing Overtown homes and: businesses, if you put enough energy into doing the rightthings -Do you have ideas of what will go onto properties taken? -Willwe need a Sunpasss to use the new I-395? -Would like for water underneath bridge to be used for Preparedly B Mumford& Co.. 42 FDOT 1395 PD&E'SI'UDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT — MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIAL -STAKEHOLDERS Miami. -Dade Comity, Florida \ Updated September 8, 2009. l GVfV'[AUI i1VFU2f..N9Ai:LVPl t ISSUES i VYl+LVV .'hVacauw..++sa-cw+av .....�.���.�----�_—.—___-. :- - s mming...,bc4 NMI be imed for waterteatment? -Construcflori should riot beanimpedunenttothe sarne community areas at all times -Make surewe have frontage wads St John CommunityDevelopment Corporation (CDC) David Alexander. ExeaxfiveDirector, St. John CDC Phil Young; St John CDOCounsel - - •. -. . Willa Croft. P.E.-1395 ProjeckManager. Carlos Rodriguez: el, MNetiio;Engineering Betty haft,FDOT Outreach Office ' Bobbie *anio :L i39S Public involvement Wednesday, July29, 2009, 10 a.m. St. John CDC 1324 NW e Avenue Miami...R.3313S Susan Kelly, Administrative Assistant St. John CDC T-305t372.0882 -StJohnCDC needs Enhancement Funds for underneath t- -395 bridge usage and development -Enhancement Funds have not been availabtefortyears.but will beoomeavarnabie this-September2009 to year2014 St John CDC is still waiting on the development plans from FDOT, in that we spent considerable time wit yoururban ptannersurveyingtdi +«rm3possiblelandusagesandwe have not received anything yetfrom. FDOT - .$11milliin in EnhancementFunds-are avalabiethmugh the countysMetroporiten Planning Organization WO), by submits g yovrapp?rat on to -David Henderson atMPO, who wildetermine who gets funding . -We need to meet again on the buidgetior.SL John CDC's proposed development and you needlo•emarl me the plans and budget proiec$ons FDOT Outreach Office, Mcrning•Session Community residentslalizensfproperty owners hfitmaCrctL P.ti✓.'T395 Project Manager CL, artos:Rodriguez; EMetric Engineernrq Betty;HaIi FOOT Outreach -Office .,, , Bobbie Mum/3rd I395 Public Involvement Wednesday, July29, 2009,11 a.m. FDOT Outreach O6ce - 339-NW 3d Avenue.... Miami, FL 33136 Betty Hall . FDOT Outreach Office. T305i374-4271, -Property takings we are not in favorsf -Oveitovm.alwaysgets hit with disruptions. tearing community alb my displacing people and their homes and their businesses -Construction hours around sehordsshould bedone in eveningsand midday. so -as notto be safety hard for children vralking to and torn school -General concern of safetyforentire.cominunwty during -Weneed lobsfrom this -protect FDOT Outs -each Ofiice,Morning Session Community residentVtrtisenstproperty owns- Nana Croft..P.E1.395i?rajectNtanager Robert Linares,..:P.E, 3.1letric Engineering - Betty Hall, FDOT Outreach Office Bobbie Mumford. t-395Public lavolveipent . . Tuesday, August4, 2003,11 a.m. FOOT Outreach Office 939'NWeAvenue Miami, FL3313$ - . Betty HaA " FDOTOrdreach Olfics T30E13744271 _Do the constructionrightthe first time. then: you wouldn't have to gci back and rebuild i 3S5,1ikeconstrucdon here on MN 3r° Avenue-aivrdysdigging up the street. seemsslrketheagenaes could get together and coorduratewhat need to be done Wllt people in.Overtawn be part of the construction workforce'? We need jobs -The Overtown community -wit get Involved in this project fiction. You let is know the type of work avaifabie and we will match it with ourworkers FDOT Outreach Office, Afternoon Session Community res'rdenbslabzensfprapetty owners ttflrna.Crot P.E. t395 Project Manager Tuesday, August4, 2009,2 p.m. FDOTLlutreach Office: 939 NW3i° Avenue. Betty Hag FOOT Outreach Office. T305/374-4271 - - -Construction of highwaywie have how many more-lanes-2 contnuous lanes instead of the 1 lane continuous now, fike more of a 4Eane highway r !,,arson?! en,. tin• R ?nrxl uuk tryBMumfond & Ca: - FDOT 1-395 PD&Es-ruDy ISSUES PUBLICINVOLVEMENT —MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC Olt 1CIAIS-STAKEHOLDERS 111-asai-Dade County, Florida Updated September 8, 2009 PUBLICOFFICIALS/STAXEHOLDERS MIMING DATE/LOCATION I CONTA.CT riFORMAITON Robert,Linar,es, P.E.,"Metric Engineering Betty Han, fpqr outreach Offirie Bobbie Mumford, f=305 Public Invohrement , Miami; FL.33130 • .411 trying to ease gridlock to Miami Beach, now you are going to,jarn path traffic onto MacArthur Causeway ...„ . .., , . -thew soon is this going th happen? . , • -Whit is tibcompletaschedule forevisaything?;- • :-Howcan Overtown benefrtfrom this oroieet? .,.. . 1.335 Briefingwith hiland*ade-Cosudy .-: Commistionet Audrey M. Edmonton Commissioner Audrey M. Edmonson Gerard PhBippeaux, Director of PubficAffairs ' Kavert De*. Constituent SerVicet, Arna,Croft.'FIE, 14.45.ProjentManager RobertLineresP".E,:MetricE.ngineeting Bobbie Muntfont 1496 Pubibinvoiverrient Wednesday,-Atigrest 19,2009.2 p.m.. , , MiarnMade Commission Office; Dis>b ILI 3 Joseph Caleb Community Center 5400 ITN 22'4 Avenue Miami. F133142 . • Marie Russel, Office Manager CommissiOner Audrey almorsison's Cited Office • T40.5/636-2331 : : ' -Howdoesthe- communkyfeel about all that you have proposed forlhis Project' 4'elomotsupPortanY ProPerbrtaklags -Ifthe Oyertown community is supportive ofthe then 1 -hayenoprobiemswith the pnaject., ..,We .wilLplan to attendthe pubfic hearing I.:39 Briefing with Florida Sate Senator Frederica S. Wiiithi : .Senator Frederica S. %Afton , Angela Lane. Chief of Staff Patricia Lightfoot Legislative Assistant Shaquda Rahming, Legislative Assistant Aileen Boucle; AICP, FOOT Distirt Planning & EnvironmentalAdmiiiit. trator Dat liuyntt, P.E., FOOT,Fianning & Enyironmental mot3g6moni ' ' • v•drna• Croft:PM.. FOCI-142S Prniect Manager Bobbie Miuriford, I;396PLiblibinvotvernent , „ ,. -,... . • Monday; Auguat24, 20e9,110 a.m. .SiniitorFtedericalitfilioii*Office• . Florida Senate. District33 1.8.425-14W2iAversue. Suite 310 Miami. FL 33169 . • • :Angela LanCChief of Staff -T-305/664-7150 . -FDOTfleosis tO.Pnwide !motto:aping underneath the heightened bridges -Landscaping:around:the newstructureis essential. rice the landseapihg Wu PrOvida in Cot* et".11es : -,.. ' „:". .-.;-• - : -,•CrPrIcernedfr*IIIe Pe0Plelsisf nofth-of *6-Pro.:20'400,St, AgnesVillage beerLdidymatified.aridinvolved . . 41.0#_ ,.. It FetheNBIb4afsi garris.(flerlorOMASnes-glise0001 - Church) opinionpfthe project? I-Wye/Mine with him? . -41he Overtovm csainmoniiy tupponive of the project...since' ... . .. the coMmurulyhat been ap sever.elyfirnpacted through the ,,... . years with 13?AFIY:Pic48tts7 _ ,- , . - . . . „ PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM ALTERNATIVES PUBLIC WORKSHOP HELD MAY 24, 2007 OFRCIALStSTAKEHOLDERS MEETING DATELOCATION '' ' ..., CONTACT INFORMATION FAX _ E-MAIL •ISSUES Prepaid:I by B Monfort! dr. Cti. 44: Updated September 4,2009 FDOT 1: 395 FD&E UM( ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT — MEETINGS wi'TaPUBLICOl6'k'XCIALS-STAKEHOLDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida 1 Updated September 8, 2009 Mlle OFFICIS/STALEHOLDERS ' MEETING DATE/LOCA.TION N. CONI'ACTiNNix!i►7A€UUN x tbauxa; Philip Bacon EFistoric Ovettown Foikrife District lniprovementAssociation .Alternatives Public Workshop Thursday, May 24, 2307.,.6 pm Calmer Neighborhood Center Miami. FL33136 Coins Center 153 SE2 Ave Miami FL 33131 T-335/377.4484 pbacon@ collinsceruer.ocg The materialswere verywel presented and ;... displayed. Bobbie Mumford dome good jcb• :. (note 'Bobbie did not ask him to say that) lafavorofAtemative3 Rev. Mon Broomfield, Pastor Qrater.3etheiAMECht rch _.. AitemativesPab%Workshop Yltursday.'May24l2107 fiptn as Calmer Neighbotlwi d Center Miami: FL 33136 Creater-Bethel ., AME=Church ' 245 NWB St,. ° Miami. FL ,.. 33135 T-305/371-9102 F-305/372-0212 Revbroornneid@ Yaao.corn David Brown, M.D. University -of'Miami-Family MAedicjne Alternatives Prrb6ic Workshop - ihutsday May 24, 2007, 5 pin Calmer Neighborhood Center Miami, FL33136 University of Miami -Family Medicine 1009:NW 54' Avenue Miami, FL 3353E T305/778S114 : F 786/513-2849 dbrrnmemed.m'rami.edu I support Opt'mn 1—No Biuild:Tate other projects, as described provide no clear benefit to the Over -lawn community. with -significant risk of community -disruption _during construction.1 also beFiievethatif constructor a unde err, the resulting highway -will bepbsoletelhe. moment iris completed:-^ .. Victoria Sroz • ecoz'Euipment Akerttatives Public Workshop Thursday,; May24„2t)07, 6 pm _ CulmerWeighborhooci Center ": Miami; FL 33136 . Broz Equipment 1237 North MiemiiAvenue _ Miami FL 33136 T-305/371-2959 F-305/371-4227 As an owner of a bulrfing affected and as a. business-tenantior20 years in theares, we feel highly -affected iomovethe businessto. another area. North Miami Avenue 'tire a tot of the same -toe of businesses tat wEl be affected. .aswell. Karen A. Cartwright Resident Alternatives Publie Workshop Thursday, May24, 2007, 5 pm Calmer Neighborhood Center - Miami. FL 33136 1770 14W5' Avenue Miami. FL 33136• T 305/576-7686 car hvright@hotmaiL corn The impact -of the proposed changes appears to benotinthe best interest of the Overtown communiy 1.395 isa detriment and the loss of aaeaaethat can benettthe=communitv:rs,. underufifv'P.: Some.onsideration should be givento developmentofthe acreage. PsepsredbyB Mum?ced& Co. 45 updated September 8, 2009 FDOT I-395 PD&E SF`UDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT -MEETINGS wrra PUBLIC OT±'FICIALS-STAKE$OLDERS Miami -Dade County, Florida 1'tJpdated September$, 2009 TC.S7TSS PTD3r.TCOFFICALS/STA,1OHOLDERS 1 "r utr.�arrrr,vi.:eiiavre t %AM..ar...lu.1.,�.,r.��.,:. , Jerry Clark Student Attematives Public Workshop Thursday, Way 24,2007,6pm Culmer Neighborhood Center Miami, FL 33136 BeckerT. Washington Senior high SchoolEESAC 1200 NW 6 Ave Miami, FL 33136 T-756/514-7111 Jerty15 12n032000@yatso o.com .... ... _. ,:. -lnmyopinian.A3ternatue1is-the best option. I feet that the other options are completely obsolete. Attematves4and 5are urrviable,to tne..Altemative4.1ston tangy and wilt have great safety concerns: Alternative 5's benefits are mootwhen what ittakesaway from our community is cilitilderecL filifullauplterf goes 'be AlternativeS=however;:l could agree with •Altemative'3'Whenthe exp yfirstcame to Overtoxr iteneounteredallouiishing- cemmun ty and changed itforthe worse: We must-nova!(awoarccmmundy3obedegrade8 anYm W Leityideas.asteofmoneyeast.of:North MiairilAverne.-53 years old.: Native:Miamian. ueedduwoikenareawestnf;t-95 fluid housisig=and pnrym idecom$yr unand economic development: :, 'iflhad:t000seonealteam/ve.itwouldbe M not buil i. bait they still Wanted to buitd-=, because it'kinda' htelps ourneighimrirood and is not.th asexpensiveaseothe's.- .. . J Derek Cole Res'rdent Alternatives'PahlieWorkshep -'Thursday, May24, 2007,'6:pm Culmer,Neighborhood'Center :` Miami; FL33135.';. 1CIOuwl1St MAiaiai, FL . 33136- Derek(d�detekcoie. Com Trinlee1313(o�vaheo.com Elijah Dunk".r+tevas Student Alternatives Public Workshop "fhuts4ay, 0 ay 24, 200T,.6 pm Culmer ueighbnrho0d :Center Miami,Fi33196",''° - .. :7"-BookerT. Weshin0tmt I - - 'Sernor High SchootaEESAC 402NtN'22SY = 'tenant 33. T788/486-3162 Jacqueline Earle y . - . .. Alternatives pubtle orkshh p Thursday t 24. pm• i C ilmerNeigt}bortiood Canter .. e. '''''' rti F1.3313E °'_ .. _ The V lb ee . Housing Dept. .. Nf ni, k(yd 33337 - T305/576-4176 ,. •:: ld Corn lit � rley(cimyvray. The Tu nnet (Atterrative 4j'"appea[s'to me. However, it does eppeart0 have the hidden agenda of2llowing no entrance or exitsforthe - - Ovedown eommu � . co v» lt dre'campletaH,lYsonyfsatfinnaLarungssa : result afyaurorigi[mf 495 planned overpass: Then -when fhe:Dvertown Wndbaseuatter deroortion, the poor housingand unwanted staychuesyn 1Lwishorplan develop exi and entry ramps- So do it riow. .. . Pxpar dby8blumford&:Co. Llpdatcd Scpumbtr 8, 2009 MOT 1-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT —.MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS Maml-Dade County, Florida Updated. September 8, 2009t ISSUES PUBLIC OFFICIALN/STA.Kbitt.t.nalmtw Andrew Georgiedis t IVA-MG . E .11.1‘..." .15.0......1 Alternatives Public Workshop Thursday, May 24,2007, 6 pm S.....1,.........R.S.,-, Dover Kohl & Partners 4 •••••/, • T-305/886-0446 F-105/666-0360 ageorgiadisOcloverkohl.co m Alternative 4 is the best Then Alternative 5 (my second favorite). Cost is riot an issue if a CA:Icier Neighborhood Center Komi, FL-33136 (Town Planning) 3w1SW19 St 33-1.46 . . patents needs triple bypass surgery, haw% not choose an appendectomy just betause ft's cheapet He gnds a way to fund the operator that* really needs. Please countVoras cast farms 4 encl 6 together, since they are • of the stuns spirit for instance, if Altemetive a receives 40% arklAtternalives 4 and 5 each receive 30%,.itwould appear that Alternative & Is Me vvinnet when in factAtternatives 4 and 6 were more pccaler ,talter at they aralitariations upon a single theme).1The =nowt otgreen space created by Alternative 4 is awesome:: - lbeacgacentblocks would also beneft by having a greataddress upon newly created parks. Ibis is ranch mom importantthan the viewihat &iv= would getfrom an elevated bridge_ • I suggest that you considerwhat manyfoiward thinking cafes are doing --removing elated freeways from their urban core. Undo the damage done In the fabric by these freeways. None of the greet oiges of the world permt elevated expressways intheir core. NawYork,. Barcelona. London. Pads, Madrkl, Rio de . ,laneko and many others move more traffic through an intricate network -of Boulevards and capglary stee-2nd better than I-395 and 1425, which wreak havoc upon the social and butt fabric of Miami's neighborhoods. Milwaukee, San Francisco and other °hies are namoving elevated expressways despite the warnings of trafac engineers- When the mcressways are removed, the chaos has not mtedanzad. Instead. new life - Prepared by 13 Miunford & Do. 47 Has been breathed int:. surrounding neighborhoods. rectal:Ming developable tracts and green space that were fnmerfy in the footprint of the freevray_oars are not the most knpartant thin It' Remember to rn in /eche nge. Highyray engineers destroyed businesses. schools, churches and 2;500 FDOT 1-395 PD&E SIUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT — IVIEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OYFICIALS-STAIMIOLDERS IVriaro.i-Dade County, Florida V Updated September 8, 2009 PUBLIC OFFICIALS/STAKEHOLDERS 1, MEETING DATFJLOCATION Andrew Georgiadis • homes, dpang 1 0,000 people in the process. Lersteverse this damage to Overtown and Miami. Lets Make aworid-clas.stransit Watem and ir.move the cancerous elevated freeways from pvertown. Let Overtown flourish aga. . Thank you fora wonderful presentation. and the opportunity to comment, You Shoted all be congratulated.forirwohring the community and for tying to solve these complex problems. I admire your efforts. • • . James Hunt RepresentafWe Alternatives Public iMorkshop Thursday,Eiay, 24, 2007, S pm Culrner Neighborhood Center Nrrarni, FL 33136 Booker T. VVashington Alumni Association MC. T-305/693-3857 F-305/596-1277" jethunnbeilsoulh. , Net Visual displays are great. However, the color effects do notprovide a tree picture &the devastation and, removal of the CitiVAIWY-Of Overtove.L.Alternative 2 istheonlyatternate that showswhat•ntust badone (No'Buicl).-nle 8455 NW 10 Ave Miami, FL 33150 STWAssoniation-trif strongly oppose any other rnative . • Frances Jackson Alternatives Public Workshop Thursday, May 24,2007, 6 pm Cubner Neighborhood Center Karig F1.331315 - Power U Center for Social ,-.Change 1744,141AI 5Ave ' Miami...FL ' 23136 I preferAltemative number 3. Elevated North MlarniAvenue. Prepared by13 Mumford ef. Co. - 4s Updated September 8, MOS RDOT 1-395 PD&E STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT — MEETINGS WITII PUBLIC OFFIC3tALS-STAKEHOLDERS Itrunti-Dada-Coteutty, Florida \ Updated September 8,2009 TroN issuEs Anthony C. Jennings ESSAO Chairperson Alteinatives PublicWorkshop: - lisstuiday,MaY24,2007,'S pm Cukner Neighborhood Center Ifiligni, FL 33136- ... , ..-- - - - geokerm Washington ESSAC (Educational FrnA. lent Scholas Advisory Council), Chairperson 1200 NW S Ave Miami. Fl- T-786/514..7111 270545Q dadeschoolsnet ' it is a pleasure to sea the seemingly open attitude of FDOT on presenting this pre:leak: the'pubtic. My primary concern remains the safety; health and welfare ofthe students at oar schooL Alternative tV (4) woad have -a negative impactwith no appreciable bersea. Alternative II (2) has a negative inipasa. Herman Johnson Student . . Booker:T. Washington. Senior High School ESSAC 1200 inoV6 Ave Miami, FL 33136 T-786/514-7111 270545Q dadeschools.riet I think that it would be unnecessarrfor them to Mad any -new ramps througts the Ovectown area. So in rny opinion, tthinkrney -should go - with Atternative 'I cf them all. There'S no reason to tsuUd any rampst,Pe-A,me mat wouid cause much damage for those people who have V loose their pmperty. 1 don't.think it is necessary to waste akthatmoney on these rainps when we cloretneed them and oculd be usinsttfor something snore irrsportant. l-strongirsidewith my cleonofAtternafive 1, Na'BOW Ake:waves Pubc-Wairkshop Thursday,,May24,2067; 6 pm CultherNeighborhood Capper Miami, 'FL 33136 ., Dana Laster-AB:erne Town Park VBIage resident • Alternatives' Public Workshop Thursday,"Mas; 94;,2007, 6- Pm cturnert(eigtmottiood Center 1iami,'FL:3316 , Town Park Village .,'' 1640 NW4Ave - #108 - Miami, Ft. 33136 T.005/438-3790 F-305/436-3790 Danpat18@beltsouth.net ' ' A1ternative3 woad bethe-best for the Overtown community for reasons listed below (1) Nice tooking;.(2) Less intrusive on -the carom,* (3). The raised sinktureluicitts-for a conummity oarkwas a lake, I like Me talm;.4) Sy seParafxm the areal/an oftravei. lass the chances of a head -en coLksion. Una Lightburn Alternatives Public- Workshop 'flunzdairs Mits-24;2007,..6 pm Cullum- NeisltoMbod-Center Miami, FL 23136 Power LI-Center for •,*•.,401. Change 1710 NW 5ve Mismi. FL 36136 T-3051576-78.66 -- , , Prefer Aternative number 3.1001Y wish that what they say they are doingwill result in some goo il tittle peopie. of °venom Because all vm everget are bald promises and nothing good ever comes ourvey. We need something good to happen to us. Prepared by BMumford &Co. 49 Updated September 6.2009 FDOT I-395 PD&E S I'UMY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT=MEETINGS WTTII PUBLIC OPPICIALS STAKEROLDERS Mimi Dade County, Mirida \ Updated.September 8; 2009. . . PTJBL1C OFFICI Ls/sTAKEEULDERS m rrr rrnc rya rr.rt.rx n�rnrr r rnxrr�rrYnronowr.�sr�wr �• Joann Love AlterriatvesPubliieWorkshop` Thti sday;-May24;2007, 8.pnt 'Cuimer Neighborhood=Center Miami, FL 33136 'Powert/enter :for -Social 45 Change. NW B St Miami,' FL 33136 T•305/3813991 • - . ;auavra -•... -.NolWedon't want anymore .homes taking (taken) away and destroy (ed). No Build, we stay the way it is. People are be in9 hurt ue to knmioenit'doniain. Patti McC1ary Alternatives PublicWorkshop Thursday,+May24, 2007, 6 pm' Cutmer N2igl}borhboii Center luli- girri, FL3313&_' 1915 NW5 P1 .: • Miami, FL 33 36 T-305/673-8776 Ithank (think) that the land being locked at could be a good'one. It may help stop some of our bafficproblems, hAiami:.a a grbwwng city.•So We need to except(accept}change. Nothing ' _staysttie samealways. Lets Icokatthings in this way, ithank.(think)is projectcoadd be nice for our ciy;.Miami, Fla. l tusstudy.this projectforthe good Of us al Nellie D.Mention Alternatives Public Workshop Thucsday, May 24, 2007; 6 pm Culmer Neighborhood Center . Miami, FLr33136 Town Park Village No. 1 1620=NW 4 Ave r : 413F rr :': Miami, FL.. ,; 33136*. T 305157343864 . Norte : :. . Cheryl A. Pestaina . • Alternatives Pub6d1Nbikshop Thursday, May24 2907'6•pm •CulmerIleighbortood Corner' t.Eami, FL23136 ',Name. Horizons ttcorrithiusity Menial Health r'- r 1469.NW 36 St Nrmrni. FL - 33t26 , T-305/83541366 F-305/63546378 cpestaina@hcmhc, - erg `- Preferred pianAitemative 83_ I Ike the idea ofa raised expressway .providing More space underneath for development=econorsiic1 recreation or improving Me aesthetic grratty of the envimrtment. CannectiVity Mite neighborhood improves —IhopelThankcyou. Project boards should have the words: 'Overtown Cammunity - Involvement,.. instead of -Public involvement' , ..:,.,:. Calvin C. "C.c." Reed Community activist Alternatives Public Workshop Thursday, May.24, 2007, 6 pm Clslmer Neighborhood Center .Miami, FL33136 1601 NW 1 Ct , itt201 Miami FL `: z ,,: 33136 T-306/673-3177 MasanShabaez. Aiterrmtrves-PubiicWorkshop Thucsday May 24, 2007 S pm CuimerNeighborIwpd; enter Miami, FL.33136 NewAirica Developers 4..6214NW18 , Ave:. M rni, FL. T-786/318-1705 - nu nerca@Deilsouth.riet..1suppotAternative3.Aitemative4.isalso reasonable if you can solve'2f°-Avenue ituaUon. . • yu dliyBMuaiiotd&Co. Updated September 8,2004 FDOT I-395 PD&E S I ITDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT— MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC 916viCIALS-STAICEROLDERS IVEarai-Dade County, Florida X Updated September S; 2009 PUBLIC onicaLsisTAxacHoumts Rev. David Shanks, Pastor Alternatives Public Workshop Thursday, May 24,2007,6 pm Culmer Neighborhood Center kffami, FL 33136 The Overrown Church of Christ 185 NW 14 St Miami, FL 33138 . T405/576,2257 How soon can we siert? I preferAltemative 3. finis M. SneMng Alternatives Public Workshop "Thursday, May 242007, 5 pm Colmar Neighborhood Center Miami. FL 33138 1615 NVV5 Pi Miami, FL 33136 T-305/578-2764 1 Ere Net 3. Massa Sturgis . Alternatives Public Workshop Thursday, May 24, 2007, 8 fira Colmar Neighborhood Center Miami, FL33138' - The Power U Center for 7-3051634-0961 F-305/572-2090 metssajanesturnisairahoo Acorn The ramps wt11 not benefitOvertown residents doe to the fact thatiots of the people will be pushed out to other neighborhoods. Pius. Its at businesses would be impacted by underground ramps, or being pushed out by imminent domain. Make (making) highways higher would be dangerous for residents and the ems on 1-395, because the cars will be Social Ch 5300 NW 26 Ave, Apt. 28 Miami, FL, 33142 speeding and ton go down to thebboota on the incoming cars and people. So. eliminate -this ramp. don't rnake1485 higher, homes -would be- lost, and tesidents %shed otst of Meares cmce again. Stop alt these projects in the Slack area. No Build leaves Over:town the way it is. I should have avoid% dant push us nutfor eminent domain. stop buying our people out for the next set of people. I have lights also. Look atthe Rife oteltiren and babies born in Overtown. Prop..ved by B MtimfordIsCry. 51 Update:1September 2,2004 MOT 1-395PD&B STUDY MITES PUBLIC INVOLVEMNT —MEETINGS WITS PUBLIC OFFICIALS-STAICEHOLDBRS Miami -Dade County, Florida Updated September 8, 2009 PUBLIC OFFICIAISISTAKEHOLDERS 11/LEETTE1GD 0 1 Howard Watts Alternatives Public Worhshop Thursday, May 24, 2007.8 pm Culmer Neighborhood Center Miami. Ft. 33138 Power U Center forgcciat Change 1333 NW3Ave Miami, FL 1-305/S7S-7449 --- - — The one community impacted is OyertoWn. Overtown has alteady suffered impac* horn the inal highway deVelognient. There no gain from the community, only negate impact. Any gains Mater& being cascussed•we gainsthat . 3313s . . • • levelopecl (develop) viithout this highirayi For examplw.:new busineeeee, neurtfaveippment, new roads'. Negative intOacie are 'construction. load clestliesi-eltering Itte community. There no resulte mitre Noise StudrorwhertNolse .. Abatements/Al look like. Do not Build. Prap=rftry Mtsafard & Co. Updamd &Ix -ember 8,2009 • F»OT I=395: Pia&P STUDY ISSUES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT— MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS -STAKEHOLDERS 1N1iam`a--Dade C nasty, Florida t Updated September 8,2009 YU&Lft:i KFICIALS/STAKEHOL,D}XS \ MEETINGDATEILOC TION 1 CONTACTtIN ORMATI[ON 1 ISSUES Marie Wims Grandparer2 Alternatives PubffcWorkshop Thursday, May 24, 2007,. S pm Calmer Neighborhood Center Miami, FL33135 .. Town Park Plaza South 179D NW 5 Ave #M Miami, FL 33136 T 305/573-0593 f ptefer#3. It would leave more space in Overtown. Prepaied byy'8 Nlumford & Company for Metric Engineering, lnc..onthe Florida Department of Transportation (FD07)1395 Project Development& Environment Study Prepared byBMumforgc Co. 53 Updated-Septcmber 3. 2009 ETDM Summary Report Project #7701 -1-395 Programming Screen - Published on 09/27/2007 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Table of Contents Overview 2 1 Project Details 3 1.1. Project Description Data 3 1.2. Purpose & Need Data 4 2 Alternative #1 8 2.1. Alternative Description 8 2.2. Segment Description(s) 8 2.3. Project Effects Overview 8 2.4. ETAT Reviews: Natural 9 2.4.1. 2.4.2. Coastal and Marine 10 2.4.3. Contaminated Sites 14 2.4.4. Farmlands 16 2.4.5. : Floodpiains 16 2.4.6. 'Infrastructure.. 17 2.4.7. Navigation 17 2.4.8. Special Designations 18 2.4.9. ..Water Quality and Quantity 19 2.4.10. Wetlands 20 2.4.11. Wildlife and Habitat 25 2.5. ETAT Reviews: Cultural 30 Historic and Archaeological Sites 2.5.1. 30 2.5.2. Recreation Areas 35 2.5.3. Section 4(f) Potential 36 2.6. ETAT Reviews: Community 37 2.6.1. Aesthetics 37 Air Quality 2.6.2. 2.6.3. 2.6.4. 2.6.5. 2.6.6. 2.7. 2.7.1. Economic ......... .... . . .. . ... Land Use • r••• .. • ... , ••• • Relocation Social • ETAT Reviews: Secondary and Cumulative . Secondary and Cumulative Effects 40 42 44 45 49 50 3 • Project Scope ..... . .. ... ...... ............. ..... . . . ... . .. 51 3.1. General Project Commitments • 51 3.2. Required Permits 51 3.3. Required Technical Studies 51 3.4. Class of Action 51 3.5. Dispute Resolution Activity Log . ... ....... . ..... ... .... . . . .. . . • . . . 51 4 Hardcopy Maps: Alternative #1 .... . . . . . . .• 52 5 Appendices . . ....... ..... •..•......•......... 74 5.1. Degree of Effect Legend 74 5.2. GIS Analyses 74 5.3. Project Attachments 75 Page Efficient Transportation Decision Making: Screening Summary Reports Introduction to Programming Screen Summary Report. The Programming Screen Summary Report shown below is a read-only version of information contained in the Programming Screen Summary Report generated by the ETDM Coordinator for the "selected project after completion of the ETAT Programming Screen ,review., The purpose of the Programming Screen Summary Report is to summarize the results of the ETAT Programming Screen review of the project; provide details concerning agency comments about potential effects to natural, cultural, and community resources; and provide additional documentation of activities related to the Programming Phase for the project. Available information for a Programming Screen Summary Report includes: • Screening Summary Report chart Project Description information (including a summary description of the project, a summary of public comments on the project, and community -desired features identified during public involvement activities) • Purpose and Need information (including the Purpose and Need Statement and the results of agency reviews of the. project Purpose and Need) * Alternative -specific information, _consisting of descriptions of each: alternative and associated road segments; an overview of ETAT Programming Screen reviews for each alternative; and agency comments concerning potential effects and degree of effect, by .issue, to natural, cultural, and community resources. * Project Scope information, consisting of general project commitments resulting from the ETAT Programming Screen review, permits, and technical studies required (if any) Class of Action determined for the project • Dispute Resolution Activity Log (if any) The legend for the Degree of Effect chart is provided in an appendix to the report. For complete documentation of the project record, also see the GIS Analysis Results Report published on the same date as the Programming Screen Summary Report. ed on: 2/28/2008 District 6 Miami -Dade County FDOT District 6 Vilma Croft (305 470-5240 Legend t Vas N/A / No Involvement Norte (after 12/5/2005) 11111 Enhanced Minimal (after 12/5/2005) Moderate J t Substantial Dispute Resolution (Programming) Programming Screen West of Midtown Interchange' MacArthur: Cau$eway Bridge : 251670-1 vilma.croft dot.state.fl,us Page 2 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 The proposed project will involve the potential realignment, capacity and geometric improvements to Interstate 395.. (I-395) an elevatedexpressway that traverses approximately 1.2 miles within the City of Miami. The' proposed project extends from just west of the Midtown Interchange (SR-836/1-95/1-395) located just north of downtown' Miami and runs eastward to the MacArthur Causeway Bridge (see 1-395 Project Location Map, attached i`the :• EST).;;-, _ -- 1-395 is the only East-West Expressway through Central Miami -Dade" County connectingthe Homestead Extension of Florida's Turnpike (HEFT/SR-821) on the west and Miami Beach on the east via the MacArthur Causeway (SR- A1A). SR-836 located just west of the project's limits is the only expressway within Miami -Dade County that connects with: each of the North -South Expressways: the HEFT, the Palmetto Expressway (SR-826) and 1-95 (SR- _. 9A).,. The Midtown Interchange serves as a major hub for traffic to the Port of Miami, Downtown, Miami Beach and the Miami International Airport. Thal-395 _facility is a vital component of the Port of Miami roadway access network. It presently provjdes a critical network link for Port traffic traveling to••and from1-95 and SR-836 via the 1-395 and NE 2nd Avenue/NE lstAvenue/Biscayne. Blvd Interchange, 1-395 also. serves as the link from SR-836 and 1-95 to the South.Miami Beach area via the MacArthur Causeway. The PD&E Study -will examine various alternatives including elevated,, tunnel and open -cut options. All alternatives: will include anurban,design analysis geared' towards the development of anaesthetically pleasing pedestrian friendly corridor. Brief descriptions and graphics of the proposed alternatives are found in the "Alternatives Description Handout", attached in the EST, These.irnprovements could require modifications of the 1-95/Midtown, "Interchange and the 1-395 Interchange ramps at NE'1st Avenue, NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. ''The.Advance Notification (AN) for this project was distributed April 6, 2005 (see attached AN and summary of responses)(Florida State Clearinghouse SAI#: FL200504080708C),TheFederal Highway Administration (FF WA) approved the Glass of Action as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS: was published in the Federal Register• November 21, 2005 In -August 2005, the President signed into law r�. the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Due to SAFETEA LUi'guidelines an^EIS project that had its NOI approved on or after.; August 11, 2005 must be screened through the:Environmental Screening Tool(EST). As a result, this project is -how being screened through the Programming Screen of the EST Additionally, the FOOT through a Joint Participation'Agreement (JPA) with the Miami -Dade County Expressway Authority (MDX)will be conducting a study from•the Midtown, Interchange (S,R,' 836/I 95/l 395). west on SR 836 for ,approximately 1.0 mile The; project proposes operational and; geometric improvements that would connectto the 395 project. This project will be run concurrently with the 1-395 project, but will be submitted for review separately. Summary of Public Involvement: * Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization: "Interstate 395 Alternative Review and Development" study April 2004. FIOT Project: * Advance Notification (SAI# FL200504080708C) distributed April 6, 2005 * Agency Scoping Meeting held February 2, 2006 * Ongoing Project Development and Environment Study - Public Involvement Plan being implemented. lip Page 3 of 76 Summary Report - Project#7701 - .1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 No desired features have been entered Into the database. This does not necessarily imply that none have been identified. p‘✓ • S `' : 4 h "x56 i 0, �i` 'T 'i. �f'rl ,k #f ' 2t�rg; 4+ k^, 4.k . _ �gr • ., ,,,.&[.. Need for improvements is based the interaction with other planned include the study of the following safety by alleviating existing deficiencies, System Linkage The study area is served by several the MacArthur Causeway. Also, the Miami international Airport. Downtown Central Business District of the county via 1-95. 1-3p5 presently provides a critical Biscayne Blvd., N.E. 2nd Avenue MacArthur Causeway providing east of the project limits presently future in conjunction with the proposed tunnel and associated connection to the Port of Miami summary, the 1-395 improvements providing adequate capacity and MacArthur Causeway on the Deficiencies Capacity Capacity deficiencies deal with 395, which limit traffic movements capacity throughoutthe project the potential future congestion.' capacity and traffic/operational Transportation Demand The proposed study will develop area. The fact that the SR-836/I-395 Medical/Civic Center area, Downtown regional travel facility, Population Future and ongoing projects improvements are consistent Structural Conditions There are currently various minor bridges along 1-395 rated as functionally + > rfi 4 " f (� T4 1�a '� "� fx k �i Aa` } - P Le I '�" bi y Yu ss- (Fn xtFi i Ze .t . �� p n3 eY � r a.,Sd» �. z . ai._>:.r<x*,. ,sJ° ,, .. on combination of substandard traffic conditions; urban planning objectives and facility improvements impacting the proposed project area. Project objectives issues: increase capacity to prevent existing and future traffic congestion, improve explore access issues and establish proper continuity. major expressways and principal facilities including SR-836, 1-95, 1-395 and the Midtown Interchange serves as a major hub for traffic to the Port of Miami and This critical network hub also services South Miami Beach and the Bay Islands, the (CBD), the western suburbs of the county, as well as north and south portions network link for Port of Miami traffic traveling to and from 1-95 and SR-836 via and N.E. 1stAvenue. In addition, 1-395 continues easterly to its terminus at the access to and from the Bay Islands and Miami Beach. The MacArthur Bridge just provides a six lane section and is anticipated to be widened to eight lanes in the potential implementation of the new Port of Miami Tunnel. It should be noted that the improvements along the MacArthur Causeway would provide a direct interstate and are thus a vital component of the Port of Miami roadway access network. In have been determined to be essential in order to meet the future demand by establishing system continuity between the SR-836/I-95 on the west and the east. : inadequate levels of service at various local interchange arterial facilities along I- onto the freeway system. Proposed improvements would provide additional. limits thus allowing the facility to meet future traffic demand and alleviate much of in the area. In addition, the proposed improvements to 1-395 would provide the iniprovements`necessary to support the proposed Port. of Miami Tunnel:. and analyze various alternatives to meet the transportation demand of the project facility currently providesdirect access to the Miami international Airport, Miami and Miami Beach underscores the importance of this expressway as a and employment growth trends will also place even heavier travel demands. are expected to increase the travel demand along SR-836 and 1-395. The proposed with future transportation plans and will meet future traffic demands. structural deficiencies within the project corridor. These deficiencies include: five obsolete; one bridge rated as structurally deficient; one structure rated as Page4of76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Understood 5/25/2006 functionally obsolete within the Midtown Interchange; and four bridges along 1-95 rated as functionally -obsolete. Since most of the project corridor is elevated utilizing bridge structures, the proposed improvements would address most, if not all, of these deficiencies. Evacuation Routes and Emergency Services - The lower Southeast Florida Region has been identified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as one of the most hurricane vulnerable areas of the United States, The 1-395 facility has been' identified as a`°Hurricane Evacuation Route being utilized for all category storm evacuations. Proposed improvements to the existing 1-395 facility including the Midtown Interchange at.1-95 would facilitate hurricane evacuation from Miami Beach, the Bay Islands, the Bayfront area and other project areas. Improvements would reduce evacuation times providing better traffic flow especially for the critical westbound emergency evacuation traffic from the Bay Islands and Miami Beach. In addition, the proposed project would also improve daily emergency access (i.e., ambulances, fire rescue, prisoner transfer, etc.) to and from the major Medical/Civic Center area located just west of the project limits. Design Deficiencies. The existing1-395 facility has geometric, operational, access as,well as capacity and safety deficiencies. Future developments and projected future demand along this corridor are expected to increase substantially, thus .. resulting in more severe and detrimental deficiencies. Geometric deficiencies include substandard sections, poor vertical and horizontal alignments along the mainline and the interchange ramps as well as insufficient sight distances and vertical clearances throughout most of the project. Operational deficiencies include poor projected levels of services (LOS), weaving problems and violations of the operational features of lane balance, interchange/ramps sequence, route/lane continuity, and basic number of lanes. Access deficiencies deal specifically with three areas where Zack of adequate access to and from the expressway'' system has been identified. These include insufficient: (1) access from north of I-395/Omni area to eastbound MacArthur Causeway., (2) access from North, Downtown/Arena area to westbound SR-836, and (3) access from Eastbound1-395 to the North Downtown/Omnl area.. Safety Accident data collected and analyzed for the most recent 5 years (i.e., 1999 thru 2003) shows that accident and injury rates within the study limits consistently exceed the expected accident rates for similar type facilities. In addition, the majority of the accidents analyzed involved injuries resulting in an estimated average yearly cost of. almost 4 million dollars. -- US Fish and Wildlife Service Nopurpose and need comments were found. Page 5 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 US Army Corps of Engineers No purpose an need comments Were found. FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission No purpose and need comments were found; National Marine Fisheries Service NONE. FL Department cif State No purpose and need comments were found. FDOT District 6 No purpose and need comments were found. FL Department of Environmental Protection Understood 6/14/2006; $. Understood 6/23/2006.: Understood 6/27/2006 .. Understood 7/6/2006 Understood 7/6/2006 Page 6of76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - I-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 No purpose and need comments were found. S Environmental Protection Agency No purpose and need comments were found. Federal Highway, Administration' inderstood '7/25/200i 1. Purpose and Need - SAFETEA-LU.requires an "opportunity for involvement" by participating agencies and the public in defining the range of alternatives. This opportunity must be provided prior, to the lead Federal agency's decision regarding, the, range of reasonable alternatives to be. evaluated. That this project, isproceedirig using the ETDM planning and programming screens` will assist meeting the SAFETEA-LU provisions. The project sponsor should document the input opportunities provided to agencies and public and summarize those inputs for the. development of the Purpose and Need and range of alternatives. 2.purpose and Need Estimated project cost and funding source is not identified. The Project Description Report indicates that the project is in the, LRTPand local plans, so presurriably these estimated costs are available and should be included in the Project Description' Report This' information; will be_importent.in the project prioritization process toweigh the merits of this project against others competing :for'limited'funding. 3. Noise - (Moderate) The uploaded pictures show residential areas near the proposed new section of roadway. The environmental document should assess the noise impact to these residential areas, The noise impacts (including construction) of various alternatives should -also be considered, particularly since the alternatives have varying elevations. r. 4. Historic - (Moderate) Sixteen potential historic structures are indicated by the EST to be located' within 200 feet of the project. A cultural resource assessment will be needed to determine` eligibility, of these and other °potential' historic resources, and how these resources would be impacted by the various -project alternatives. 5 Recreation/4(f) (Moderate). In addition to the sixteen potential historic structures within 200 feet of the project, the EST identifies'the, Bicentennial Park also; located within 200 feet. Impact: on this park from the various alternatwes'should be assessed as part of the envitonment'al`docun ent. Section 4(f) determination' of < applicability maybe needed.; 6. Special Designations - (Moderate) The EST identifies two areas of special designation within 200 feet of the project: Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (also an Outstanding Florida Water) and the Miami Brownfield -area. Coordination with FDEP is needed for both of these resources:. Please refer to the PD&E Manual for procedures concerning Aquatic Preserves. Page 7 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 West of Midtown Interchange MacArthur Causeway Bridge. New Alignment ETAT Review Complete 1.2mi. Roadway Segment 1-395 West of MacArthur 1.396 Digitized #1 Midtown Causeway Interchange Bridge Segment #1 FDOT Segment #1 2000 101500 Segment #1 ,2030 180400 12 No funding sources found. URBAN: Principal Arterial -Interstate Lanes Freeway Page 8 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Coastal and Marine Contaminated Sites Special Designations Water Quality and Quantity Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands .Wildlife and Flabitat Wildlife arid Habitat Wildlife and Habitat. , ps.,45,45 Substantial Moderate Moderate E.31 Moderate Minimal Substantial N/A / No Involvement Minimal Substantial Minimal , Minimal National Marine Fisheries Service 6/27/2006 FL Department of Environmental 7/06/2006 Protection Federal Highway Administration 7/18/2006 • 1. , FL Department of Environmental Protection • FL Department of Environmental Protection National Marine Fisheries Service , 6/27/2006 US Army Corps of Engineers 6/14/2006 US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service. FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission US Fish and Wildlife Service 7/06/2606 • 7/06/2006 5/25/2006 6/7,./20 6/3/2006, 5/25/2006 „x4,,,,3„,A.„.3033,i.-4,r, 'Tv 43,:,43.4k3,623411,3,3,,,5,3,0 4413,1,344.Apvly,,,,d e3 L4Ltki,' 47,1- `',„‘.g0 ''414`44-M:4 (‘'d, :LC,146"0,4.,.` "ti." 44.444-0 trYVAW HistOrit ancl ArcliaeOlogical Sites Historic and. . ArchaeologiCal Sites Recreation Areas 'Aesthatica •Ecpnornjc • Use Land. Use Mobihty RelocatiOh..., , . Social ; Social ,14';'1174-11VnA,' Secondary and Cumulative Effects Moderate Substantial Moderate 111 Moderate galEnhanced Moderate. None , . Enhanbect. Moderate . Moderate Moderate Federal ighway Administration 7/18/2006 FL Department of State 7/06/2006 Federal Highway Administration FDOT District 6 - FDOT District 6 FDOT District 6 7/18/2006 7/25/2066- 7/25/20,06 7/06/2006 FL Department of Community Affairs 6/23/2006 FDOT District 6 ,7/25/2006 FDOT District 5 7/06/2006 FDOT District 6 , vg5t2oop Federal Highway Administration 7/18/2006 1,41Y,§ WAteatet:Vfi..,642; f51%."4,V4V. ,ar24.?"4,10.46,1pA4T-Itlii511,,,MINVINA.,1f4kia-0 Wrgi'..40SAVT.,Piriliktibta.',Onttik-V4t4 140114ii.tliMM FL ROA ancl WildlifeConservation , 6/23/2006f. Commission 4rwt, VIV.FiffnMIR o„tilivraaaa Page 9 of 76 ,ct fliMatomr., ` 4114-MrolPf Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 ,,k1,11.*AA Printed on: 2/28/2008 Summary Degree of Effect Air Quality Summary Degree of Effect: Minimal Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (12/14/2006) Comments; Air Quality will be evaluated in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 16 of the PD&E Manual: No reviews found for the Air. Quality Issue. - No review submitted from the FL Department of Environmental Protection - No review submitted from the US Environmental Protection Agency - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration Summary Degree of Effect Coastal and Marine Summary Degree of Effect: Moderate Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/08/2007) Comments: • If necessary, an Essential Fish Habitat assessment will be conducted in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 11, of the PDE Manual. As stated in the Wetland summary degree of effect, a Wetland Technical Memorandum will be prepared. I-395, an elevated expressway, is located entirely on/over urban uplands, and does not extend to the Biscayne Bay shoreline. It is located in a coastal area. Any involvement with coastal waters will be limited to water quality/stormwater management issues. The project terminus is inland of the bridge that crosses to Watson Island. No work is proposed in or over the waters of Biscayne Bay; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to any listedspecies, their critical habitat or to EFH. The proposed, tunnel alternative is well -inland of Biscayne Bay and should not impact the Bay (please see uploaded Alternatives graphics). The FDOT is recommending a Degree of Effect of "Moderate" for this issue. aev(e. ETAT Review by Madelyn T Martinez, National Marine Fisheries Service (06/27/2006) Coastal and Marine Effect: Substantial Coordination Document:The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Page 10 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Based on the project location, information provided in the ETDM website, GIS-used analysis of effects to wetlands, proposed alternatives (particularly the tunnel alternative), and site visits on April 29, 2005, and April 18 and 21, 2006, NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) finds the water,, column, seagrass, and mangrove habitat in Biscayne Bay may be impacted by the proposed project. Biscayne Bay has seagrass and mangrove habitat, which are designated as essential fish habitat (EE,H) by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). Seagrass and mangrove habitats are further designated as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (I-IAPC) by the SAFMC. HAPCs are subsets of EFH that warrant special conservation measures because these areas are rare, particularly susceptibleto human -induced degradation, especially important ecologically or located in an environmentally stressed area. Federally managed fishery species associated with seagrass and mangrove habitat include postlarval and juvenile red drum gray snappers, and dog snappers; Goliath grouper; brown and pink shrimp; and adult gray snapper, bluestriped grunts, and white grunts. Detailed information on the snapper/grouper complex and other federally managed fishery species and their EFH is provided in the 1998 amendment of the Fishery Management Plans for the South Atlantic region prepared by the SAFMC. Seagrass and mangrove also support the following species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and under the purview of NOAA Fisheries: Turtles Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) threatened Green sea turtle breeding population in Florida (C. mydas) endangered Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) endangered Kemps ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) endangered. Leatherback sea turtle (Derochelys coriacea) endangered Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) threatened Olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) threatened Fish Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinate) endangered Corals Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmate) _Staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) Seagrass Johnsons seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) threatened In addition, designated critical habitat occurs in Biscayne Bay for Johnsons seagrass (H. johnsonii) (65 FR 17786). Other species of concern that may be listed at some future date under the ESA and which inhabit Biscayne Bay include: Key silverside (Menidia conchorum) Mangrove rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus) Saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus jenkins) Comments on Effects to Resources: Because the project area is adjacent to Biscayne Bay, construction related activities could directly and indirectly adversely affect EFH, federally managed species, and ESA -listed species and their habitats. Page 11 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Mangrove habitat and Biscayne Bay are designated by the SAFMC an HAPC. Mangroves and Biscayne Bay provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for other commercially and recreationally importanefish and shellfish, such as blue crab, striped mullet, and tarpon. Mangroves and other estuarine emergent. wetlands also provide important water quality functions, such as pollution uptake (bio-assimilation), and mangroves help stabilize shorelines by attenuating wave action. Mangroves also produce and export';. detritus (decaying organic material), which is an important component of marine and estuarine food chains. The substantial incremental and cumulative loss of this category of estuarine habitat has reduced overall fisheries production within Floridas estuarine and marine ecosystems: Mangrove habitat is also known to provide nursing, foraging, and refuge habitat for ESA -listed smalltooth sawfish. Loss of habitat may adversely affect the existence of smalltooth sawfish. Construction of a tunnel may adversely impact EFH and ESA -listed species in the area. While NOAA Fisheries finds that the use of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is the construction method for tunnels that has the least environmental impact, we are concerned about the likelihood of frac-outs with this construction method. In some cases, the probability of a frac-out occurring is as high as is 80-90 percent. The slurry released during a frac-out, which usually contains bentonite, is detrimental to the aquatic environment. Bentonite in its aqueous form is known to bioaccumulate in aquatic species. Additional Comments (optional): To ensure conservation and avoidance measures are implemented, NOAA Fisheries recommends that an EFH assessment be provided for this project. The EFH assessment should include a description of the proposed action; an analysis of anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action on EFH, federally managed species, and associated species by life history stage; and the FDOTs conclusion regarding the effects of the proposed project on EFH. In addition, NOAA Fisheries recommends the following provisions be addressed as the project develops from EST to PD&E, design, and implementation: 1) Adverse impacts to wetlands should be sequentially avoided and minirnized; unavoidable impacts to wetlands should be offset in a manner that precludes a net Ions of wetlands and associated functions Any plan to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands should include the following: a. Sufficient detail to demonstrate that no net loss of wetland functions and values would result from project authorization. b. A detailed overview and cross -sectional drawings of the mitigation area(s) to include elevations of vegetative planting sites to be used for mitigation purposes. c. A detailed description of the proposed mitigation plan, including success criteria. d. Plans for the Tong -term protection and maintenance of the mitigation area(s). 2) .Wetlands within the project corridor should be fully characterized, including the size and location of wetlands that would be directly impacted by the proposed project. 3) Steps taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to EFH within the project corridor should be fully described. 4) Details of the construction activities and tunnel design (if this becomes the preferred alternative). 5) Conservation and protective measures (i.e., best management practices for water quality and erosion control) should be included in the project design and description, and implemented during construction activities. 6) A Stormwater Management Plan should be developed and implemented to ensure that the additional surface and stormwater runoff from the new impervious surface will be properly treated and disposed of in accordance with state and federal (NPDES) standards. 7) Timely coordination between NOAA Fisheries and FDOT`staff should' continue through project planning and until environmental issues are fully addressed. Page 12 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Since federally listed species may be present in the project area and the proposedprojectand related . construction may, impact these species,.a biological assessment/evaluation (BA/BE) for federally -listed species may be needed once the lead:federal•action agency is determined, The BA/BE,•shouid include,a. complete detailed project description, which includes the purpose; -detailed. construction activities, resource conservation and protection measures, and information on listed species (Le., biological surveys, maps,' project designs, scientific journals/reference, etc.). In addition, an effects analysis should be included in the=BA/BE That analysis should -describe direct and: indirect effects of theproposed project and present the final effectsdetermination of the project with regard to fisted species (Le., no effect, may affect; but not likely to adversely affect; or may adversely affect). To assist you, we suggest contacting a NOAA Fisheries ETAT member to obtain the BABE list of construction measure guidelines and provisions to minimize impacts to ESA -listed species,;_ and. an ESA initiation package template. Specific Comments If the preferred alternative is constructing a tunnel, using HDD, NOAA Fisheries recommends the'following information to be incorporated in your project plans as conservation measures and construction activities provisions: 1. A frac-out prevention: and clean-up response plan be provided to NOAA Fisheries 30 days prior to construction: The plan should include a list of operators, crew -names,, geotechnical and.biological monitors with their. cell phone numbers; biological and,frac-out monitoring .protocals; and.a,containment and clean- up plan which. includesstaging location of. vacuum: trucks,drill rig, and equipment list,. etc. , 2. All; drilling activities occurring should be.during daylight hours and on -site supervisors should be present at all times, both at the drilling monitor equipment as well on the ground at the stream during drilling activities, The on -site supervisors should be well trained with the drilling process and with a spill response and hazardous material protocol to apply in the event of a frac-out. This. will ensure trained personnel present at the site in the event of an accidental bentonite discharge and that proper emergency spill response methods are implemented. 3. All standard best management practices for water quality and erosion control will be implemented. during construction to eliminate.the pptential for accelerated erosion or sediment input into any watercourse. After construction, any disturbed sltes.will be restored or, enhance to its pre -construction condition. ,. 4. Provided that all drilling activities plan and frac-out prevention and clean-up response plan are fully implemented, there should be;no additional disturbance or placement.of dredged or fill m aterial, including bentonite, into any waters of the United States, including.wetlends. 5. Should any accidental .discharge of bentonite.slurry occur and. the slurry, continues. beyond the control of the frac-out prevention and cleanup response plan, all drilling will be haired immediately, on site clean -tap will be done with vacuum pumps or other clean-up methods and NOAA Fisheries will notified immediately even though the,_frac out:was. contained. The. time, duration, and length of contamination should be recorded and present to NOAA Fisheries when a frec-out occurs. FOOT District 6 Feedback to National Marine Fisheries Service's Review Comments:There are no wetlands in or near the project corridor. The project terminus is inland of the bridge that crosses to, Watson: Island.. No work is proposed in or over the waters. of Biscayne Bay; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to any listed species,their critical habitat or to EFH. The proposed tunnel alternative is well -inland of Biscayne Bay and should not impact the Bay (please see uploaded Alternatives graphics). The FOOT isrecommending a Degree of Effect of,"Moderate" for this issue. Date Feedback Submitted:11812007 Page 13of76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 ( No review submitted from the FL Department of Environmental Protection No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration No review submitted from the South Florida Water Management District itta:tiggr •**Wiffrifir44 • • r.ntria qr,1 - ;4404144 "lat-1-..refe.„114*,444-.11ffet VIA 344.'011 ,1141,4 mgo isIZ4.4.44, 44,4, tiilSummary Degree otEffect Contaminated Sites Summary Degree of Effect: Moderate Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/05/2007) Comments: Contamination impacts analysis will be in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 22 of the PD&E Manual and will be contained in a Contamination Screening Evaluation Report (CSER), which will comply with DERM and FDEP guidelines. FDOT has begun and will Maintain coordination on the relevant Brownfields program with the DERM Coordinator and with the FDEP Coordinator. Specific reference to Section 120, Subarticle 120-1.2 has been incorporated into all FDOT District 6 CSERs and project plans. Extensive investigation and coordination has been conducted regarding Belcher Oil Company Tank Farm , and will continue. Existing regulations, including the new rule (Rule 62-780, FA.C.) will be followed. The FDOT will coordinate with DERM regarding any monitoring wells to be capped or replaced. The possible need for dewatering of excavations varies with the proposed alternative, and the likelihood of advancing the depressed build alternatives at this time is minimal. While there is also a potential need to dewater excavations with the elevated alternatives, any dewatering will be carefully reviewed to avoid exacerbating any potential contamination. All necessary permits will be obtained in advance. All construction debris will be properly characterized, with agency coordination, for disposal in accordance with Chapter 62-701 and 62-730, F.A.C. All construction materials and supplies will be properly managed through B.M.P. The FDOT requires project managers to develop written contingency plans for natural dieasters, spill, fire or release of hazardous materials. , MO% ET AT:RI-VI • 4:04, l'3• ETAT Review by Lauren P. Milligan, FL Department of Environmental Protection (07/06/20,06) , Contaminated Sites Effect Moderate Coordination Document The "Coordination Docurnent" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: All lands lying within the proposed widening corridor. Comments on Effects to Resources: DEP Southeast District staff noted that a major portion or all of the project falls within a Miami -Dade County or city of Miami designated "Brownfield" area(s). Coordination with those offices should be made early in the project The State Has a delegation agreement with the Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) for Brownfields site management in accordance with Page 14 of 76 Summary Report Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Chapter 62-785, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Ms. Margaret Silva, P.G., with DERM is a contact for the Brownfields program (telephone 305/372-6700). Mr. Lee Hoefert, P.E., (telephone 561/681-6676) is the DEP Southeast District's Brownfields Coordinator. Useful internet websites in this regard may be, found at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/brownfields/default.htm and http://www.miamidade.gov/Berm/programslbrownfields.asp --Section 3.J. of the AN Fact Sheet states that a Contamination Screening Evaluation (similar to Phase I and Phase II Audits) would to be conducted along the proposed rights -of -way in considering the proximity to potential_ petroleum and hazardous material handling facilities. The document states that a preliminary hazardous materials survey identified approximately 54 potential contamination sites. Three of these were known petroleum contamination sites,such as gas stations. Reference is made to Section 120 Excavation and Embankment — Subarticle 120-1.2 Unidentified Areas of Contamination of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Constriction is provided in the project's construction contract documents. This specification requires that in the event that any hazardous material or suspected contamination is encountered during construction, or if any spill caused by construction related materialsshould occur, the contractor shall be instructed to stop work immediately and notify the FDOT District Six Environmental Management Office as well as the appropriate regulatory agencies for assistance. If the screening evaluations utilize reasonably current file data, or establish new data points to identify potential soil and groundwater contamination areas, the data should be acceptable for use in the Screening Evaluations. Copies of the screening evaluations should be supplied to the Department's Southeast District office, Waste Cleanup Section. In addition, please be advised that records show that the Belcher Oil Company operated a petroleum bulk terminal facility from 1920 until 1967 at the Southeast Corner of the MacArthur Causeway and Biscayne Boulevard, apparently where much of 1-395 and itsramps exist today. Therefore, special coordination, needs to occur between DERM and: the FDOT to address the contamination issues. -- The Contamination Screening Evaluations should outline specific procedures that would be followed by the applicant in the event drums, wastes, tanks or potentially contaminated soils are encountered during construction. Special attention should be made in the screening evaluation to historical land uses (such as solid waste disposal) that may have an affect on the proposed project including storm water retention and treatment areas. -- In the event contamination is detected during construction, DEP and DERM need to be notified and the FDOT may need to address the problem through additional assessment and/or remediation.activities. Please note that revisions to Chapters 62-770, 62-782, 62-785, 62-777, FAG.,and a new rule, Chapter 62-780, F.A.C., all involving contamination assessment and cleanup along with other notification requirements, took effect on April 17, 2005. -- Groundwater monitoring wells (and possibly water production wells) are likely present at/near project corridors. Arrangements need to be made to properly abandon (in accordance with Chapter 62-532 F.A.C.) and or replace any wells that may be destroyed or damaged during construction: These wells may also be used to gather data for the Contamination Screening Evaluation reports. -- Depending on the findings of the Contamination .Screening Evaluationsand the proximity to known contaminated sites, projects involving "dewatering" should be discouraged, since there is a potential to spreadcontamination to previously uncontaminated areas and affect contamination receptors, site workers and the public. Dewatering projects would require permits/approval from the South Florida Water Management District, Water Use Section and coordination with DERM. -- Any land clearing or construction debris must be characterized for proper disposal. Potentially hazardous materials must be properly managed in accordance with Chapter 62-730, F.A.C. In addition, any solid wastes or other non -hazardous debris must be managed in accordance with Chapter 62-701, F.A.C. -- Staging areas, with controlled access, should be planned in order to safely store rawmaterial paints, adhesives, fuels, solvents, lubricating oils, etc. that will be used during construction. All containers need to be properly labeled. The project managers should consider developing written construction Contingency Page 15 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 71-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Plans in the event of a natural disaster, spill, fire or environmental release of hazardous materials sfared / handled fir the project construction. Coordinator Feedback:None - No review submitted from the US Environmental Protection Agency No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration - No review submitted from the South Florida Water Management District Summary Degree of Effect Farmlands Summary Degree of Effect: N/A /No involvement Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (12/14/2006) Comments: No reviews found for the Farmlands Issue. - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration - No review submitted from the Natural Resources Conservation. Service . � 4'...:. �:� 0�?��T.- @:Jr • .� v P' �" .>F:c v[ MuZA'a'3 n h" ". 91Y3 �m.' g}d` s A `7 n u �rY�'��x3 § a � i .t,a � rar'?,g: �� �.n Summary Degree of Effect Floodplains Summary Degree of Effect: Minimal Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (12/14/2006) Comments: Most of the project corridor is located in areas determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. Only the area within approximately 1600 ft. of the coast is within special flood hazard area designated Zone AE. This area is inundated by the 100-year flood. The 100-year floodplain extends inland past biscayne Blvd, to near NE 2 Ave. The 500-year floodplain (designated Zone X) extends inland a short distance beyond NE 1 Ave. All other Page 16 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 project areas west of that point are outside areas of flood hazard, Miami -Dade County has no designated regulatory floodways. It is anticipated that the stormwater management system will be improved by the proposed action. The potential for impact to floodplains is related to project concepts. With any at -grade or above -grade alternative designs, no impact to floodplains is anticipated. However, floodplain impacts may be associated with depressed (tunnel or open -cut) designs. ETAT Reviews or, No reviews found for the Floodplains Issue. - No review submitted from the FL Department of Environmental Protection - No review submitted from the US Environmental Protection Agency - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration - No review submitted from the South Florida Water Management District orrAtTytmorTyrwir,c,'-w=7)).1.1 )),••)ro' ,"; •:4•0 fiV,'Iate•aojiV!fikttLeti.4,;hitgkri,gitnt'gLf:+F4tkWiSfg; ,,145-40,,ERWW.7 ,•44. °E*4111,14t,i.X'AV'th '24. 4 .T.PV'',E014,44j 4•71,1440.,*.4124A 444,4,4,4,470•Mr4,,,,AVWS riK,N•40,4111°,:P4° ,44 •Tr7n44,44,14r '4°.°,4•144414:£1,°--• ° " IMA,,,i4WerVATKNIt)°^' .,.)- ••••?••••ik),Iiff. , PoOrctinato ?lithe . . , 1.•A: ' et. Summary Decree of Effect Infrastructure Summary Degree of Effect: None Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (12/14/2006) Comments: •,'-A %A. •ts,: ,ReVieir if•A•Nht••••.. • • pfpstr�ture No reviews found for the Infrastructure Issue. - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration Summary Degree of Effect Navigation Summary Degree of Effect: N/A / No Involvement Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (12/14/2006) COITIments: Page 17 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 "9,511%., ,tfle 44 'AVIA. r..4) IX' • VIV•••• ,...12,11 • 114 No reviews found for the Navigation Issue. - No review submitted from the US Army Corps of Engineers No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration - No review submitted from the US Coast Guard Summary Degree of Effect Special Designations 8ummary Degree of Effect Moderate Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (12/14/2006) Comments: FHWA listed two special designations: Aquatic Preserve and Miami Brownfield. A third special designation is Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). I-395, an elevated expressway, is located entirely on/over urban lands, arid does not extend to the limits of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (AP), the Biscayne Bay shoreline. FDOT will coordinate with FDEP regarding any possible involvement with the Biscayne Bay AP, and will proceed in accordance with the PD&E Manual, Part 2, Chapter 19. Similarly, the state's special designation of OFW will be handled in accordance with the PD&E Manual, Part 2, Chapter 21. The FDOT Project Manager, has begun and will maintain coordination on the relevant Brownfields program with the DERM Coordinator and with the FDEP Coordinator. This topic is also addressed in the project's Contamination Screening Evaluation, ETAT Review by Gregory E. VVilliams, Federal Highway Administration (07/18/2006) Special Designations Effect Moderate Coordination Document: The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: The EST identifies two areas of special designation within 200 feet of the project Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (also an Outstanding Florida Water) and the Miamil3rownfield area. ' • . Comments an Effects to Resources: Coordination with FDEP is needed for both of these resources. Please refer to the PD&E Manual for procedures concerning Aquatic Preserves. Coordinator Feedback:None Page 18 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 - No review submitted from the FL Department of Environmental Protection No review submitted from the US Environmental Protection Agency - No review submitted from the South Florida Water Management District Summary Degree of Effect Water Qualify and Quantity Summary Degree of Effect. Moderate Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/05/2007) Comments: Water Quality analysis will be in accordance with the FDOT PD&E Manual, Part 2, Chapter 20: The proposed stormwater facility design will include, at a minimum, the water quantity requirements for the water quality. impacts as required by Chapter 24, Section 24-58 ofthe Miami -Dade County Code. The Miami -Dade County requirements meet or exceed the State of Florida water quality and quantity requirements. Therefore, it is anticipated that water quality within the proposed project area will improve due to the proposed stormwater treatment measures. ETAT Review by Lauren P. Milligan, FL Department of Environmental Protection (07/06/2006) Water Quality and Quantity Effect: Moderate Coordination Document: The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: The proposed project occurs adjacent to the Biscayne Ray -Aquatic Preserve,. designated Outstanding Florida Waters OF .. ( W) and afforded a high level of protection under Rules 18-18, 62-4:242(2) and 62= 302 700, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Comments on Effects to Resources: Every effort should be made to maximize the treatment of stormwater runoff from the proposed highway improvements project, as area stormwater ultimately discharges to the bay. We recommend that the PD&E study include an evaluation of existing stormwater treatment adequacy and details on the future stormwater treatmentfacllitie's. The, permit' applicant may required to demonstratethat the proposed`. stormwater system meets the design and`perforniance criteria established for the treatment and attenuation of discharges to OFWs, pursuant to rule 40E-4, F.A.C., and the SFWMD Basis of Review for ERP Applications. Any proposed impacts to the bay should also be coordinated with the DEP Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas and the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve staff. Coordinator Feedback:None .Page 19 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701-1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 - No review submitted from the US Environmental Protection Agency - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration - No review submitted from the South Florida Water Management District Summary Degree of Effect Wetlands Summary Degree of Effect: Minimal Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/08/2007) Comments: Wetlands analysis will be in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 18, of the PDE Manual. A Wetland Evaluation Report is not required; however, a Wetland Technical Memorandum will be prepared.I-395, and elevated expressway is located entirely on/over urban uplands. There are no wetlands in or near the project corridor. The project will not directly impact any wetland resources, freshwater or estuarine. The referenced NWI data relate only to the three existing, man-made stormwater detention ponds located within the Midtown Interchange. It is anticipated that neither of the permitting agencies (USACOE and SFWMD) will exert jurisdiction over the steep -sided banks of these water bodies. At this time, it is not known whether the proposed action would encroach into , or directly impact, any of these stormwater detention ponds. The nearby Biscayne Bay is deepwater habitat, and the eastern project terminus is located approximately 50 ft west of the existing seawall; no marine or estuarine wetlands will be affected. There are no wetlands in or near the project corridor, The project terminus is inland of the bridge that crosses to Watson Island. No work is proposed in or over the waters of Biscayne Bay; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to any listed species,their critical habitat or to EFH..The proposed tunnel alternative is well -inland of Biscayne Bay and should not impact the Bay (please see uploaded Alternatives. graphics). Based on our review and that of other agencies, the FDOT is recommending a Degree of Effect of "Minimal" for this issue ETAT Review by Lauren P. Milligan, FL Department of Environmental Protection (07/06/2006) Wetlands Effect: Minimal Coordination Document: The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: The National Wetlands Inventory GIS report indicates that there are 10.71 and 3.01 acres of estuarine and palustrine wetlands, respectively, within 500 feet of the project area. Additionally, within the 5,280-foot buffer there are 144.23 and 124.82 acres of continuous and discontinuous seagrass.beds. Comments on Effects to Resources: The project will require an environmental resource permit (ERP) from the South Florida Water, Management District. The ERP applicant will be required to eliminate or reduce the proposed wetland resource impacts of the roadway widening project to the greatest extent practicable: - Minimization should emphasize avoidance -oriented corridor alignments, wetland fill reductions via pile Page20of76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 bridging and steep/vertically retained side slopes, and median width reductions within safety limits. ,:, - Wetlands should not be displaced by the installation of stormwater conveyance and treatmentswales; compensatory treatment in adjacent uplands is the preferred alternative. - After avoidance and minimization have been exhausted, mitigation must be proposed to offset the adverse impacts of the project to existing wetland functions and values. Significant attention is given to forested wetland systems and seagrasses, which are difficult to mitigate. - The cumulative impacts of concurrent and future road improvement projects in the vicinity of the subject project should also be addressed., Coordinator Feedback:None ' ETAT Review by Madelyn T Martinez, National Marine Fisheries Service (06/27/2006) Wetlands Effect: Substantial Coordination Document: The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resourcesand Level of Importance: Based on the project location, information provided in the ETDM website, GIS-based analysis of effects to wetlands, proposed alternatives (particularly the tunnel alternative), and site visits on April 29, 2005, and April 18 and 21, 2006, NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) finds the water column, seagrass, and mangrove habitat in Biscayne Bay may be impacted by the proposed project. Biscayne Bay has seagrass and mangrove habitat which are designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). Seagrass and mangrove habitats are further designated as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) by the SAFMC.HAPCs are subsets of EFH that warrant special conservation measures because these areas are rare, particularly susceptible to human -induced degradation, especially important ecologically or located in an environmentally stressed area. Federally managed fishery species associated with seagrass and mangrove habitat include postlarval and juvenile red drum gray snappers, and dog snappers; Goliath grouper;. brownand pink shrimp; and adult: gray snapper, bluestriped grunts, and white grunts. Detailed information on the snapper/grouper complex and other federally managed fishery species and their EFH is provided in the 1998 amendment of the Fishery Management Plans forth South Atlantic region prepared'by the SAFMC. Seagrass and mangrovealsosupport the following species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and under the purview of NOAA Fisheries: Turtles Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) threatened Green sea turtle breeding population in Florida (C. mydas) endangered Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) endangered Kemps ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) endangered Leatherback sea turtle (Derochelys coriacea) endangered Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) threatened Olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) threatened Fish Page 21 of 76 Summary Report Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinate) endangered Corals Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata). Staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) Seagrass Johnsons seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) threatened In addition, designated critical habitat occurs in Biscayne Bay for Johnsons seagrass (H. johnsonii) (65 FR 17786). Other species of concern that may be listed at some future date under the ESA and which inhabit Biscayne Bay include: Key silverside (Menidia conchorum) Mangrove rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus) Saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus jenkins) Comments on Effects to Resources: Because the project area is adjacent to Biscayne Bay, construction related activities could directly and indirectly adversely affect EFH, federally managed species, and ESA -listed species and their habitats. Mangrove habitat and Biscayne Bay are designated by the SAFMC an HAPC. Mangroves and Biscayne Bay provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for other commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish, such as blue crab, striped mullet, and tarpon. Mangroves and other estuarine emergent wetlands also provide important water quality functions, such as pollution uptake (bio-assimilation), and mangroves help stabilize shorelines by attenuating wave action. Mangroves also produce and export detritus (decaying organic material), which is an important component of marine and estuarine food chains. The substantial incremental and cumulative Ioss'of this category of estuarine habitat has reduced overall fisheries production within Floridas estuarine and marine ecosystems. Mangrove habitat is also known to provide nursing, foraging, and refuge habitat for ESA -listed smalltooth sawfish. Loss of habitat may adversely affect the'existende of smalltooth sawfish. Construction of a tunnel may adversely impact EFH and ESA -listed species in the area. While NOAA Fisheries finds that the use of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is the construction method for tunnels that has the least environmental impact, we are concerned about the likelihood of frac-outs with this construction -method. In some cases, the probability of a frac-out occurring is as high as is 80-90 percent. The slurry released during a frac-out, which usually contains bentonite, is detrimental to the aquatic environment. Bentonite in its aqueous form is known to bioaccumulate in aquatic species. Additional Comments (optional): To ensure conservation and avoidance measures are implemented, NOAA Fisheries recommends that an E H assessment be provided for this project The EFH assessment should include a description of the proposedaction; an analysis of anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action on EFH, federally managed species, and associated species by life history stage; and the FDOTs conclusion regarding the effects of the proposed project on EFH. In addition, NOAA Fisheries recommends the following provisions be addressed as the project develops from EST to PD&E, design, and implementation: 1) Adverse impacts to wetlands should be sequentially avoided and minimized; unavoidable impacts to wetlands should be offset in a manner that precludes a net Toss of wetlands and associated'functiohs. Any plan to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands should include the following: . a. Sufficient detail to demonstrate that no net loss of wetland functions and values would result from project authorization. Page 22of76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 b. A detailed overview and cross -sectional drawings of the mitigation area(s), to include elevations of vegetative planting sites to be used for mitigation purposes. c. A detailed description of the proposed mitigation plan, including success criteria. d. Plans for the Tong -term protection and maintenance of the mitigation area(s). 2) .Wetlands within the project corridor should be fully characterized, including the size and location of wetlands that would be directly impacted by the proposed project. 3) Steps taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to EFH within the project corridor should be fully described. ,,' 4) Details of the construction activities and tunnel design (if this becomes the preferred alternative). 5) Conservation and protective measures (i.e., best management practices for water quality and erosion control) should be included in the project design and description, and implemented during construction activities. 6) A Stormwater Management Plan should be developed and implemented to ensure that the additional surface and stormwater runoff from the new impervious surface will be properly treated and disposed of in accordance with state and federal (NPDES) standards. 7) Timely coordination between NOAA Fisheries and FDOT staff should continue through project planning and until environmental issues are fully addressed. Sincefederally listed species may be present in the project area and the proposed project and related construction may impact these species, a biological assessment/evaluation (BA/BE) for federally -listed species may be needed once the lead federal action agency is determined. The BA/BE should include a complete detailed project description, which includes the purpose, detailed construction activities, resource conservation and; protection measures, and information' on listed species (i.e., biological surveys, maps, project designs, scientific journals/reference, etc.). In addition, an effects analysis should be included in the BABE. That analysis should describe direct and indirect effects of the proposed project and present the final effects determination of the project with regard to listed species (i.e., no effect, may affect but not likely to adversely affect or may adversely affect). To assist you, we suggest contacting a NOAA: Fisheries ETAT member to obtain the BA/BE list of construction measure guidelines and provisions to minimize impacts to ESA -listed species,., and an ESA initiation package template. Specific Comments .,. . If the preferred alternative is constructing a tunnel using. HDD, NOAA Fisheries recommends the following information to be incorporated in your project plans as conservation measures and construction activities provisions: 1. A frac-out prevention and clean-up response plan be provided to NOAA Fisheries 30 days prior to construction. The plan should include a list of operators, crew names, geotechnical and biological monitors with their cell phone numbers; biological and frac-out monitoring protocols;. and a containment and clean- up plan which includesstaging location of vacuum trucks, drill rig, and equipment list, etc:. 2. All drilling activities occurring should be during daylight hours and on -site supervisors should be present at all times, both at the drilling monitor equipment as well on the ground at the stream during drilling activities. The on -site supervisors should be well trained with the drilling process and with a spill response and hazardous material protocol to apply in.the event of a.frac-out. This will ensure trained personnel present at the site in the event of an accidental bentonite discharge and that proper emergency spill response methods are implemented. 3. All standard best management practices for water quality and erosion control will be implemented Page 23 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 ' during condition. 4. implemented, the ,1.- • construction to eliminate the potential for accelerated erosion or sediment input into any watercourse After construction, any disturbed sites will be restored or enhance to its pre -construction .,1 i :la ;i Provided that all drilling activities plan and frac-out prevention and clean-up response plan are full , there should be no additional disturbance or placement of dredged or fill material, including bentonite, into any waters of the United States, including wetlands. , 5. Should any accidental discharge of bentonite slurry occur and the slurry continues beyond the control of frac-out 'prevention and clean-up response plan, all drilling will be halted immediately, on site clen-up will be done:with vacuum pumps or other clean-up methods and NOAA Fisheries will notified immediately even thougii the frac-out was contained. The time, duration, and length of contamination should be recorded and present to NOAA Fisheries when a frac-out occurs. FDOT District 6 Feedback to National Marine Fisheries Service's Review Comments:There are no wetlands in or near the project corridor. The project terminus is inland of the bridge that crosses to Watson Island. No work is proposed in or over the waters of Biscayne Bay; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to any listed species,their critical habitat or to EFH. The proposed tunnel alternative is well -inland of Biscayne Bay and should not impact the Bay (please see uploaded Alternatives graphics). Based on our review and that of other agencies, the FDOT is recommending a Degree of Effect of "Minimal" for this issue. Date Feedback Submitted:11812007 ETAT Review by Robert Kirby, US Army Corps of Engineers (06/14/2006) Wetlands Effect: N/A / No Involvement Coordination Document:The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: - None found. , Comments on Effects to Resources: , None found. , , . CLC Commitments and Recommendations: Coordinator Feedback:None if 1, ETAT Review by John Wrublik, US Fish and Wildlife Service (05/25/2006) Wetlands Effect: Minimal Coordination Document The "Coordination Document" option Was not available at the time of the review. Page 24 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: wetlands Comments on Effects to Resources:. Wetlands provide important habitat for fish and wildlife.; If wetlands are found within the, project area we recommend that these valuable resources be avoided to the greatest extent practicable. If impacts to .. wetlands areunavoidable, we recommend the FDOT provide mitigation that fully compensates for the Toss of wetland resources.:, CLC Commitments and Recommendations: Coordinator Feedback:None - No reviewsubmitted from the US Environmental Protection Agency - No review: submitted fromthefederal Highway Administration; - No review submitted from the South. Florida Water Management District , Summary Degree of Effect: Wildlife and Habitat Summary Degree of Effect: Minimal Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/08/2007) Comments: Wildlife and Habitat analysis will be in accordance with FDOT PD&E Manual, Part 2, Chapter 27. The biological assessment will be prepared as a technical memorandum The`project-is an elevated urban expressway with minimal potential habitat of any federally protected species or protected habitat. No involvement is anticipated with Essential Fish Habitat. Two species of federally protected fauna are potentially present and need to be addressed. No wood stork foraging habitat (freshwater wetland) exists on or near the project corridor. However, the project location is within the 18.6 mi Core Foraging Area radii of two wood stork rookeries: It is unlikely that the eastern indigo snake may be present, but it has an extremely wide range of habitat, and may potentially be present even in urban areas. Therefore, standard eastern indigo snake protection measures will be incorporated into the project if necessary. There are no wetlands in or near the project corridor. The project terminus is inland of the bridge that crosses to Watson Island. No work is proposed in or over the waters of Biscayne Bay; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to any listed species,their critical habitat or to EFH. The proposed tunnel alternative is well -inland of Biscayne Bay and should not impact the Bay (please see uploaded Alternatives graphics). Based on our review and that of other agencies, the FDOT is recommending a Degree of Effect of "Minimal" for this issue. Page25of76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 ii ETAT Review by Madelyn T Martinez, National Marine Fisheries Service (06/27/2006) Wildlife and; Habitat Effect: Substantial Coordination Document:The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. cif Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Based on tie project location; information provided in the ETDM website, GIS-based analysis of effects to wetlands, proposed alternatives (particularly the tunnel alternative), and site visits on April 29, 2005,andi: April 18 and 21 2006, NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) finds the water column, seagrass, and'mangrove habitat in Biscayne Bay may be impacted by the proposed project;' Biscayne Bay has seagrass and mangrove habitat, which are designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) by the Sout Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC): Seagrass and mangrove habitats are further designated es Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) by the SAFMC.HAPCs are subsets of EFH that warrant} special conservation measures because these areas are rare, particularly susceptible to human -induced degradation, especially important ecologically -orlocated in an environmentally stressed area. 11 Federally managed fishery species associated with seagrass and mangrove habitat include postlarval and juvenile red ,drum gray snappers, and dog snappers; Goliath grouper; brown and pinkshrimp; and adult gray snapper, bluestriped grunts, and white grunts.' Detailed information on the snapper/grouper complex and other federally managed fishery species and their EFH is provided in the 1998 amendment of the Fishery Management Plans for the South Atlantic region prepared by the SAFMC. Seagrass and mangrove also support the following species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and under the purview of NOAA Fisheries: Turtles Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) threatened Green sea turtle breeding population in Florida. (C. niydas) endangered Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) endangered Kemps ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) endangered Leatherback sea turtle'(Derochelys coriacea) endangered Loggerhead sea turtlw(Caretta'caretta) threatened Olive ridley :(Lepidochelys olivadea) threatened Fish Smailtooth'sawfish°(Pristis pectinata) endangered Corals Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) Staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) Seagrass Johnsons seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) threatened In addition, designated critical habitat occurs in Biscayne Bay for Johnsons seagrass (H. johnsonii)' (65 FR 17786). Other species of concern that may be listed at some future date under the ESA and which inhabit Biscayne Bay include: Key silverside (Menidia conchorum) Mangrove rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus) Page26of76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus jenkins) Comments on Effects to Resources:. Because the project area is adjacent to Biscayne Bay, construction related activities could directly and indirectly adversely affect EFH, federally managed species, and ESA -listed species and their habitats:. Mangrove habitat and Biscayne Bay are designated by the SAFMC an HAPC. Mangroves and Biscayne Bay provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for other commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish .such as blue crab, striped mullet, end tarpon. Mangroves and other estuarine emergent wetlandsalso provide important water quality functions, such as pollution uptake (bio-assimilation), And mangroves help stabilize shorelines by attenuating wave action.:. Mangroves also produce and export detritus (decaying organic material), which is an important component of marine and estuarine food , chains. The substantial incremental and cumulative loss of this category of estuarine habitat has reduced overall fisheries production within Fioridas estuarine and marine ecosystems.:. Mangrove habitat Isalso known to provide nursing, foraging, and refuge habitat for ESA -listed .srnalltopth..sawfish. Loss of ,habitat may adversely affect the existence of smalltooth sawfish: Construction of a tunnel may adversely impact. EFH and ESA-listedspecies in the area.: While:NOAA.. Fisheries finds that the use of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is the construction method for tunnels that has the least environmental impact, we are concerned about the likelihood of frac-outs with this construction method. In some cases, the probability of a frac-out occurring is as high as is 80-90 percent. The; slurry released during a frac-out, which usually_ contains.:bentonite, is detrimental to the aquatic environment. Bentonite inits aqueous form is known to bioaccumulate in aquatic species. Additional Comments (optional): To ensureconservation and avoidance measures are implemented; NOAA Fisheries recommends that,an EFH assessment be provided for this project. The EFH; assessment should include a description of then proposed action; an analysis of anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action on EFH, federally managed species, and associated species by life history stage; and the FDOTs conclusion regarding the effects of the proposed project on EFH. In addition, NOAA Fisheries recommends the following provisions be addressed as the project develops from EST to PD&E, design, and implementation: 1) Adverse impacts to wetlands should be sequentially avolded and minimized;: unavoidable impacts. to wetlands should be offset in a manner that precludes a net loss of wetlands and: associated functions, Any plan to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands should include: the following: a: Sufficient detail to demonstrate that no net loss of wetland functions and values would result from project authorization. b. A detailed overview and cross -sectional drawings of the mitigation area(s);.,to .include elevations, of. vegetative planting sites to be used for mitigation purposes. c. A detailed description of the proposed mitigation plan, including success criteria. d. Plans for the long-term protection and maintenance of the mitigation area(s). 2) .Wetlands within the project corridor should be fully characterized, including the size and location of wetlands that would be directly impacted by the proposed project. 3) Steps taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to EFH within the project corridor should be fully described. 4) Details of the construction activities and tunnel design (if this becomes the preferred alternative), 5) Conservation and protective measures (Le., best management practices for water quality and erosion control) should be included in the project design and description, and implemented during construction activities. Page 27 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 6) A Stormudater Management Plan should be developed and implemented to ensure that the additional surface and stormwater runoff from the new impervious surface will be properly treated and disposed of in accordancewith state and federal (NPDES) standards. - '.. 7) Timely coordination between NOAA Fisheries and FDOT staff should continue through project planning and until environmental issues are fully addressed. ;..` Since federally listed species may be present in the project area and the proposed project and related construction may impact these species, a biological assessment/evaluation (BA/BE) for federally -listed species may be needed once the lead federal action agency is determined. The BABE should include a complete detailed project description, which includes the purpose, detailed construction activities, resource conservation and protection measures, and information on listed species (i.e., biological surveys, maps, project designs, scientific journals/reference, etc.). In addition, an effects analysis should be included in the BA/BE. That analysis should describe direct and indirect effects of the proposed project and present the final effects determination of the project with regard to listed species (i.e., no effect, may affect, but not likely to adversely affect; or may adversely affect). To assist you, we suggest contacting a NOAA Fisheries ETAT member to obtain the BABE list of construction measure guidelines and provisions to minimize impacts to ESA -listed species, and an ESA initiation package template. Specific Comments If the preferred alternative is constructing a tunnel using HDD, NOAA Fisheries recommends the following information to be incorporated in your project plans as conservation measures and construction activities provisions: 1. A frac-out prevention and clean-up response plan be provided to NOAA Fisheries 30 days prior to construction. The plan should include a list of operators, crew -names, geotechnical and biological monitors with their cell phone numbers; biological and frac-out monitoring protocols; and a containment and clean- up plan which includes staging location of vacuum trucks, drill rig, and equipment list, etc. 2. All drilling activities occurring should be during daylight hours and on -site supervisors should be present at all times, both at the drilling monitor equipment as well on the ground at the stream during drilling activities. The on -site supervisors should be well trained with the drilling process and with a spill.: response and hazardous material protocol to apply in the event of a frac-out. This will ensure trained personnel present at the site in the event of an accidental bentonite discharge and that proper emergency spill response methods are implemented. 3. All standard best management practices for water quality and erosion control will be implemented during construction to eliminate the potential for accelerated erosion or sediment input into any watercourse, After construction, any disturbed sites will be restored or enhance to its pre -construction condition. 4. Provided that all drilling activities plan and; frac-out prevention and clean-up response plan are fully implemented, there should beano additional disturbance or placement of dredged or fill material, including bentonite, into any waters of. the United States, including wetlands. 5. Should any accidental discharge of bentonite slurry occur and the slurry continues beyond the control of the frac-out prevention and clean-up response plan, all drilling will be halted immediately, on site clean-up will be done with vacuum pumps or other clean-up methods and NOAA Fisheries will notified immediately even though the frac-out was contained. The time, duration, and length of contamination should be,. recorded and presentto NOAA Fisheries when a frac-out occurs. FDOT District 6 Feedback to National Marine Fisheries Service's Review Page 28 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 • Comments:There are no wetlands in or near the project corridor. The project terminus is inland of the bridge that crosses to Watson Island. No workis proposed in orover the waters of Biscayne Bay; therefore, np impacts are anticipated to any listed species,their critical habitat or to EFH. The proposed tunnel alternative is well -inland of Biscayne Bay and should not impact the Bay (please see uploaded Alternatives graphics). Based on our reviewand that of other agencies, the FDOT is recommending. a Degree of Effect of "Minimal" for this issue. Date Feedback Submitted:•1 18/2007 ETAT Review by Scott Sanders, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (06/23/2006) Wildlife and Habitat Effect Minimal Coordination Document The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review.' Dispute InformationN/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Minimal fish and wildlife impacts expected. Comments on Effects, to Resources: We do not anticipate any significant fish and wildlife impacts associated with this project, Coordinator Feedback:None ETAT Review by. John Wrublik, US Fish and Wildlife Service (05/25/2006)., Wildlife and Habitat Effect Minimal Coordination Document The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources, and Level of importance:' Federally Listed Species and Fish and Wildlife Resources Comments on Effects to Resources: Service Comments, Federally Listed Species: The Service has reviewed our Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database for recorded locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species on or adjacent to the project study area. The GIS database is a compilation of data received from several sources. Wood Stork The project corridor is located in the Core Foraging' Areas (within 18.6 miles ) of two active nesting colonies of the endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana). The Service believes that the loss of wetlands within a CFA due to an action could result in the loss of foraging habitat for the wood stork. To minimize adverse effects to the wood stork, we recommend that any lost foraging habitat resulting from the project be replaced within the CFA of the affected nesting colony. Moreover, wetlands provided as mitigation should adequately replace the wetland functions lost as a result of the action. The Service does Page 29 of 76 Summary Report - Project.#7701 1-395 Printed on; 2/28/2008 not considerthe preservation of wetlands, by itself, as adequate compensation for impacts to wood stork foraging habitat, because the habitat lost is not replaced. Accordingly, any wetland mitigation plan }; proposed should include a restoration, enhancement, or creation component. In some cases, the Service accepts wetlands compensation located outside the CFA of the affected wood stork nesting colony. ° Specifically,: wetland credits purchased from a Service Approved mitigation bank located outside of the . 1;.. CFA would be acceptable to the Service, provided that the impacted wetlands occur within the permitted`' service area of the bank. The Service believes that the following federally listed species have the potential to occur in or near the project site: 'wood stork, and eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi), as well as the federally protected plants listed at the link for, Miami -Dade County at our web site (http://verobeach.fws.gov/Species_lists/countyfr.html). Accordingly, the Service recommends that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) prepare a Biological Assessment for the project (as required by 50 CFR 402.12) during the FDOTs Project Development and Environment process. ^S. Service Cornments, Fish and Wildlife Resources: Wetlands provide important habitat for fish and wildlife. If wetlands are found within the project area, we recommend that these valuable resources be avoided to the greatest; extent practicable. If impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, we recommend the FDOT provide mitigation that fully compensates for the loss of wetland resources. CLC Commitments and Recommendations: Coordinator Feedback:None - No review submitted from the FL Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration - No review submitted from the US Forest Service +a4j pyy,1S eg € £i :tl!be1. dTA y� i � t y T` ,s-;yrc s�iA4.�a ...:,� r.A.. 'P'V"�_ � 'ts `� 9 y {?4 Goord[pato 4aa ' y�"'`. � bu t } r., s4 Summary Degree of Effect Historic and Archaeological Sites Summary Degree of Effect: Substantial Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (12/14/2006) Comments: Archaeological and historic resources evaluation will be in accordance with the FDOT PD&E Manual, Part 2, Chapter 12, A CRAS will be prepared for the general study area. An appropriate APE is being developed based on an understanding of project improvements and coordinatiopn with SHPO prior to the fieldwork can occur. In addition, FDOT will continue coordinating with SHPO throughout the PD&E process. The inputs provided by the FDOS on historic standing structures, resource groups, and archaeological/historical sites will be considered during the CRAS process. Recommendations on specific buildings and,sites located within the defined APE will be considered, Substantial survey work has previouslly occured in the Overtown area as part of past CRAS documents, and consideration of the Overtown area cultural resources will be made during this Page 30 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 current process. . view ,3• ETAT Review by Gregory E. VVilliams, Federal Highway Administration (07/18/2006) Historic and Archaeological Sites Effect Moderate , Coordination Document: The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. DisPute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Sixteen potential'historic structures are indicated by the EST to be located within 200 feet of the project. Comments on Effects to Resources: A cultural resource assessment will be needed to determine eligibility of these and other potential historic resources, and .how these resources would be impacted by the various project alternatives. Coordinator Feedback:None ETAT Review by Sherry Anderson; FL Department of State (07/06/2006) Historic and Archaeological Sites Effect Substantial Coordination Document: The "Coordination Document" option was notavallable at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Historic Standing Structures • - Buffer distance. 100 ft (34.56 acres) Site ID; Structure Name 0A1223 1207 NE 1ST AVENUE, not evaluated by SHPO DA5865 THEELDORIS BUILDING, ineligible by SHPO DA5879 147 NW 1,3TH STREET, potentially eligible by SHPO Buffer distance: 200 ft. (70.55 acres) Site ID; Structure Name DA1172 CBR RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, not evaluated by SHPO DA1224:KENTUCKY HOME, NR listed DA2550 1,311 NW 1ST PLACE, not evaluated by SHPO DA3129 1420 NW 1:ST PLACE, not evaluated by SHPO " DA5863 1414 NW 1ST PLACE, not evaluated by SHPO DA5864 141,3 NW 1ST PLACE, 'potentially eligible by SHPO DA5871 NANDOS, ineligible for SHPO Page 31 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 DA5872 BOND SHOES, ineligible by SHPO DA5873 UNCLE SAMS PAWN SHOP, ineligible by SHPO DA5874 1135 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, ineligible by SHPO; DA5878 1300 NW 1ST COURT, ineligible by SHPO DA5882 1324 NW 1ST PLACE, ineligible by SHPO DA9594 1200 BISCAYNE BLVD., ineligible by SHPO Buffer distance: 500 ft (187.16 acres) Site ID; Structure Name r DA338 CAUSEWAY APARTMENT HOTEL, not evaluated by SHPO DA1109 SEARS BUILDING; NR listed DA1110 1317 BISCAYNE BLVD., not evaluated by SHPO DA1113 1325 BISCAYNE BLVD., not evaluated by SHPO DA1173 RIO MAR APARTMENTS, potentially eligible by SHPO DA1222 111.0 NE 1ST AVENUE, not evaluated by SHPO DA1247 1227 NE 1ST COURT, not evaluated by SHPO DA1275 1304-1318 NE 2ND AVENUE, not evaluated by SHPO DA1403 145 NE 11TH STREET, not evaluated bySHPq DA2386 1370 NW 6TH AVENUE, not evaluated by SHPO DA2476 1425 NW 1ST COURT, not evaluated by SHPO DA2477 NEW HOPE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST CHURCH, ineligible by SHPO DA2510 200 BLOCK NW 13TH STREET, not evaluated by SHPO DA2520 1441 NW 2ND AVENUE, not evaluated by SHPO DA2549 1227 NW 1ST PLACE, not evaluated by SHPO DA2551 1318 NW 1ST PLACE, not evaluated by SHPO DA2552 1446 NW 1ST PLACE, not evaluated by SHPO ' DA2559 1433 NW 1ST COURT, not evaluated by SHPO DA2560 1451 NW 1ST COURT, not evaluated by SHPO DA2563 1445 NW 2ND AVENUE, not evaluated by SHPO DA3130 1434 NW 1ST PLACE, not evaluated by SHPO DA3131 1438 NW 1ST PLACE, not evaluated by SHPO DA5127 ST JOHNS BAPTIST CHURCH; NR listed DA5857 726 NW 15TH STREET, ineligible by SHPO DA5858 CLEIN BAIL BONDS, ineligible by SHPO DA5859 BRADLEYS MARKET GROCERY, ineligible by SHPO DA5860 235 NW 14TH TERRACE, ineligible by SHPO; DA5861 CHRISTS CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, ineligible by SHPO DA5862 219 NW 14TH TERRACE, potentially eligible by SHPO DA5866 1311 NW MIAMI COURT, ineligible by SHPO DA5867 17 NW 13TH STREET, ineligible by SHPO DA5868 CENTRAL STOVE EQUIPMENT, ineligible by`SHPO DA5869 50 NE 13TH STREET, ineligible by SHPO DA5870 AMERICAN GIFT CORPORATION, ineligible by SHPO DA5875 1112 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, ineligible by SHPO DA5876 21 NW 11TH TERRACE, ineligible by SHPO DA5877 1298 NW 1ST AVENUE, not evaluated by SHPO DA5880 1235 NW 1ST PLACE, ineligible by SHPO DA5881 1233 NW 1ST PLACE, ineligible by SHPO DA5883 ECONO MEAT SUPERMART, ineligible by SHPO DA9595 1220 BISCAYNE BLVD., ineligible by SHPO Buffer distance: 1320 ft (571.9 acres) Site ID; Structure Name (numerous recorded structures; list below only includes NR listed) Page 32 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 DA1176 FIRE STATION NO. 2 DA1224 KENTUCKY HOME DA226 TRINITY EPISCOPAL CATHEDRAL DA4736 VENETIAN CAUSEWAY Buffer distance: 2640 ft (1394.27 acres) Site ID; Structure Name (numerous recorded structures; list below only includes NR listed) DA1360 ATLANTIC GAS STATION DA339 CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH DA1090 CITY OF MIAMI CEMETERY DA1654 D.A. DORSEY HOUSE DA372 FREEDOM TOWER DA2367 GREATHER BETHEL AME CHURCH DA379 HALISSEE HALL DA2361 J & S,BUILDING DA2397 LYRIC THEATER DA161 MIAMI CITY HOSPITAL BUILDING NO. 1 DA396 MIAMI WOMENS CLUB DA2359 MOUNT ZION BAPTIST CHURCH DA4734 S & S SANDWICH SHOP Buffer distance: 5280 ft. (3786.83 acres) Site ID; Structure Name (numerous recorded structures; list below only includes NR listed) DA4730 ALGONQUIN APARTMENTS DA1253 CITY NATIONAL BANK BUILDING DA1259 CONGRESS BUILDING DA355 DADE COUNTY COURTHOUSE DA1156 DUPONT BUILDING DA376 GESU CHURCH DA1209 HAHN BUILDING DA1255 HUNTINGTON BUILDING DA1281 INGRAHAM BUILDING DA4732 MEYER-KISER BUILDING DA369 OLD US POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE DA166 OLYMPIA THEATER AND OFFICE BUILDING DA258 PRISCILLA APARTMENTS DA1208 SECURITY BUILDING DA1248 SHORELAND ARCADE DA4577 SOUTH RIVER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT..,, DA407 US POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE DA1158 WALGREEN DRUG STORE Resource Groups Buffer distance: 200 ft. (70.55 acres) DA5123 DOWNTOWN MIAMI MULTIPLE RESOURCE AREA Buffer distance 2640 ft (1394.27 acres) DA6419 SPRING GARDEN HISTORIC DISTRICT Buffer distance 5280 ft (3786.83 acres) Page 33 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 DA5360 BRhCKELL'RESOURCE GROUP DA5126 DO NNTOVIlN MIAMI COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DA10001 DOWNTOWN MIAMI HISTORICDISTRICT DA5377 EDGEWATER HISTORIC DISTRICT DA6207 GROVE PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT DA8048 LUMMUS PARK RESOURCE GROUP DA5125 LUMMUS PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT DA4577 SOUTH RIVER DRIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT Archaeological or Historic Sites Buffer distance 500 ft (187,16 acres) DA6901; TWENTIETH CENTURY; LAND TERRESTRIAL; INELIGIBLE BY SHPO, BISCAYNE BLVD.; INELIGIBLE Buffer distance 1320 ft (439.48 acres) DA5993; NINETEENTH CENTURY; LAND TERRESTRIAL;" INELIGIBLE BY SHPO; DOUGLAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; INELIGIBLE Buffer distance 5280 ft (3786.83 acres) DA11; AMERICAN ACQUISITION TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT; PREHISTORIC MIDDEN; POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE BY SHPO; GRANADA; ELIGIBLE DA14; PREHISTORIC; BURIAL MOUND; NOT EVALUATED BY SHPO; MIAMI SAND MOUND 1; ELIGIBLE DA16; PREHISTORIC; MOUND; NOT EVALUATED BY SHPO, MIAMI ROCK MOUND 1; ELIGIBLE DA37; GLADES; PREHISTORIC MIDDEN; NOT EVALUATED BY SHPO; ALLAPATTA MIDDEN; INELIGIBLE DA1089; NINETEENTH CENTURY; OTHER; NOT EVLAUATED BY SHPO; LUMMUS PARK; NOT EVALUATED. DA2148; GLADES PREHISTORIC EARTHWORKS; NOT EVALUATED BY SHPO; MIAMI CIRCLE DITCH; INELIGIBLE DA6328; GLADES; LAND TERRESTRIAL; POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE BY SHPO; SE 2ND STREET MIDDEN; INELIGIBLE Comments on Effects to Resources: The project corridor was surveyed in 1995 (Survey #4507) and other overlapping surveys have been conducted in the last twenty years. These surveys have°recorded over•800 buildings within the one -mile buffer zone. Many of these have not been evaluated by SHPO. Some have been determined to be. potentially eligible for listing and 18 are currently NR listed (including one historic district). For the purposes of these comments, focus was given to those resources located within the 500-foot buffer area. Three buildings lie within the 100-foot buffer zone. One of these, DA5879, was previously determined to be potentially eligible for listing. Within the 200-foot buffer are 13 buildings. Several of these have been determined ineligible for listing; however, three have not been evaluated (DA1172, DA2550, and DA3129), one, DA5864 is potentially eligible, and the Kentucky Home (DA1224) is NR listed. Forty-two previously recorded buildings lie within the 500-foot buffer. Roughly half of these have not been evaluated and the Page 34 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 other half was determined ineligible for listing. Two properties, DA1173 and DA5862, were previously determined to be potentially eligible and two buildings, the Sears Building (DA1109) and St. Johns Baptist Church (DA5127) are NR listed. Previous surveys have not identified any potential historic districts Within the 500-foot buffer; however, areas along this project corridor should be re-evaluated for potential historic districts including any sections of Overtown located within the projects area of potential effect. Two archaeological sites (both deemed ineligible) are located within the 1320-foot buffer area. Several potentially eligible sites within the one -mile buffer zone have been determined: potentially eligible for listing. Additional Comments (optional): Given the large number of historic resources located along the project corridor, :many of which have not been evaluated by SHPO, the location of the project through the Overtown area, and the widerange of alternatives presented, it is the opinion of this office that project activities may impact significant:: historic properties. Our office recommends a systematic cultural resource assessment survey be conducted and that all relevant direct and indirect impacts be taken into consideration in thedevelopment of the area of. potential effect. Resources noted above that were previously recorded but hot evaluated by SHPO should. be reassessed as part of this survey. The potential for historic districts particularly through the Overtown area should also be re-evaluated. Coordinator Feedback:None - No review submitted from the Seminole Tribe - No review submitted from the Miccosukee Tribe l..`3 . Summary Degree of Effect Recreation Areas Summary Degree of Effect; Moderate Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/03/2007) Comments: FHWA noted that a Section 4(f)..Determination of Applicability. (DOA) may be needed for impacts to Bicentennial Park: A DOA will be prepared if deemed. necessary. If necessary, a Section 4(0 evaluation will be in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 13 of the PDE Manual. No right-of-way acquisition is planned at or near, the park, No impacts to the park are anticipated, No change is planned along the park boundary, which is generally separated from the roadway boundary by Metrorail's Metromover Bicentennial Station and elevated rail alignment. The potential visual/aesthetic effect on. Bicentennial Park will be given consideration under Section 4(f) Constructive. Use criteria, since the proposed span over Biscayne Blvd. would rise approximately 9 ft. higher than the existing bridge: Page 35 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 T eVt,6 • ETAT Review by Gregory E. Williams, Federal Highway Administration (07/18/2006) Recreation Areas Effect: Moderate Coordination Document: The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the revieW. Dispute Infi?rmation:N/A • Identified Resources and Level of Importance: In addition tO the sixteen potential historic structures within 200 feet of the project, the EST identifies the Bicentennial Park also located within 200 feet. Comments on Effects to Resources: Impact on this park from the various alternatives should be assessed as part of the environmental document. Section 4(f) determination of applicability may be needed. Coordinator Feedback:None - No review submitted from the FL Department of Environmental Protection No review submitted from the US EnVironmental Protection Agency No review submitted from the South Florida Water Management District No review submitted from the National Park Service • • • TA1T4WIECROlipliircrIMAIRVAXAMPP,rIM, ,glifirtniwpitowirovprvorninippirlistql, Summary Degree of Effect Section 4(f) Potential Summary Degree of Effect: Moderate Reviewed By: s , FDOT District 6 (1/03/2007) Comments: FHWA noted that a Section 4(f) Determination of Applicability (DOA) may be needed for impacts to Bicentennial Park. A DOA will be prepared if deemed necessary. If necessary, a Section 4(f) evaluation will be in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 13 of the PDE Manual. No right-of-way acquisition is planned at or near, the park. No impacts to the park are anticipated. No change is planned along the park houndary, which is'generally separated from the roadway boundary by Metrorail's Metromover Bicentennial Station and elevated rail alignment The potential visual/aesthetic effect on Bicentennial Park will be given consideration under Section 4(f) Constructive Use criteria, since the proposed span over Biscayne Blvd. would rise approximately 9 ft. higher than the existing bridge, No reviews found for the Section 4(f) Potential Issue. Page 36 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration Summary Degree of Effect Aesthetics Summary Degree of Effect: Moderate Reviewed By:. FDOT District 6 (1/03/2007) Comments: Aesthetic treatments along the corridor will be considered during the PD&E study. A traffic noise analysis will be conducted in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 17, of the PD&E Manual. Following completion of the noise analysis, an appropriate Noise Study Report will be prepared. ETAT f vle s c rii 0606s F3• ETAT Review by Tammy Vrana, FDOT District 6 (07/25/2006) Aesthetics Effect: Moderate Coordination Document: The ."Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Multiple Dwelling Units (Nigh,& Low Rise) Single Family Dwelling Units Comments on Effects to Resources: The project addresses modifications to an existing elevated roadway located within a highly urban environment. The visual character of the study area is dominated by hardscape features, including, streets, highways, bridges, and fences; also - demolition sites, vacant lots, and poorly maintained buildings. • However,; recent upturns in the real estate market have generated renewed' investment interest in Miamis '' urban core, including the study area Mixed use; higlidensity developMent is envisioned to occupy the numerous vacant parcels that exist here. Residential uses tend to be the most sensitive to the range of aesthetic effects that can be a product of major infrastructure projects. As an indicator for the potential for aesthetic effects, residential land uses within the 500-foot buffer were examined. There are approximately 58 acres of vacant residential lands within this buffer.. Remaining residential lands (developed residential)•. represent approximately 24%, or 106 acres in the 500-foot buffer. Relative to noise and vibration sensitive sites, there are no hospitals, eye care centers, or imaging centers evident within the EST data for the 500-foot buffer area. Page.37 of 76 Summary Report -.:Project #770.1 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 CLC Commitments and Recommendations: The local community had been the subject of numerous studies and plans, many with strategies for r improving aesthetics to help bring about desired physical, social, and economic change. Therefore, it is important that public outreach be conducted during the Project Development phase to solicit opinion as to the potential for project -related aesthetic effects and preferred methods of mitigating project effects. ' Coordinator Feedback:None - No review submitted from the Miami Urbanized Area MPO - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration Summary Degree of Effect Economic Summary Degree of Effect: Enhanced Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/03/2007) Comments: Comment was,provided by. the FDOT; therefore, no response is necessary. ETAT Review by Yamrny Wane, FDOT District 6 (07/25/2006) Economic Effect: Enhanced Coordination Document:The 'Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of importance: .. Miami -Dade County Enterprise: Zone Miami -Dade County Empowerment Zone Miami Area Brownfield Miami Downtown DRI Southeast Overtown/ Park West Community Redevelopment Area Southeast Overtown/Park West -II DRI Miami Performing Arts Center Port of Miami Hopkins 'Tech Miami -Dade Community College Jackson Memorial Hospital Page 38 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Miami Arena University of Miami Miami International Airport Medical/Civic Center:Area Downtown Miami. Miami Beach Comments on Effects to Resources: The project area has been characterized as economically distressed. In this area, many local businesses have failed over the decades and new businesses have been slow to replace them. Improved access to this area via the project could help in stimulating the local retail and employment market. There is a large amount of vacant, developable land in the study area that is proximate to job centers and tourist destinations such as Downtown, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami International Airport, Miami -Dade College, the Miami Design District, Little Havana and South Beach. A major commercial and residential development project known as the Southeast Overtown/Park West DRI is planned for the southeastern comer of the Overtown neighborhood, within the project area: During the next few years, the Overtown neighborhood is anticipated to increase its housing supply by approximately 2,000 housing units. The general area has the potential to become one of the most heavily built neighborhoods in South Florida. The study area also includes the North Central Enterprise Zone, a designated area with the objectives of attracting or expanding businesses and encouraging investment and job creation in economically distressed areas. Likewise, the Miami -Dade Empowerment Zones purpose is to create jobs and business opportunities in this economically distressed area of the inner city. Both programs provide tax incentives and performance grants, and also focus on activities to support people looking for work, such as job training, childcare and transportation. The new Miami Performing Arts Center is expected to house over 300 live performance's a year, as well as cultural programs, social events, and business meetings. The facility is anticipated to attract a lot of people and generate a lot of foot traffic. A 2001 study conductedon behalf of the Arts Center Foundation projected a direct tax impact of $25 million a year, the creation of over 4,000 jobs during the construction phase and more than 2,500 permanent new jobs. The project will play an important role in regional connectivity through linkages to county activity centers and tourist destinations. The project is anticipated to improve access from north of'I-395/Omni area to eastbound MacArthurCaUseway, the North Downtown/Arena area to westbound SR-836, and eastbound -395 to the North Downtown/Omni area. Additionally, the project would provide the capacity and traffic/operational improvements necessary to support the proposed Port of Miami Tunnel. The project will likely enhance freight movement associated with goods delivery' in the'county: The countys major employment sectors are services and retail trade serving'tourists'and retirementcommun`ities The number employed in the industrial sector is also significant. CLC Commitments and Recommendations: Public outreach conducted in conjunction with the Project Development phase should solicit input from the various business interests in the study area to get their views on how: the project could'support ongoing economic development initiatives. Coordinator Feedback:None - No review submitted from the Miami Urbanized Area MPO - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration Page 39 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Summary Degree of Effect Land Use Summary Degree of Effect: Moderate Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/03/2007) Comments: FDCA provided a summary Degree of Effect of "None." The FDOT provided a Summary DOE of "Moderate;" therefore, no response is necessary. ETAT Review by Tammy Vrana, FDOT District 6 (07/06/2006) ,. Land Use Effect: Moderate Coordination Document The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importances Miami -Dade Adopted 2005 and 2015 Land Use Plan City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Miami Transportation Concurrency Exception Area Miami Area Brownfield Miami Downtown DRI Southeast Overtown/Park West -II DRI Miami -Dade County Enterprise Zone Miami -Dade County Empowerment Zone Comments, on Effects to Resources: Existing Land Use: The tables below show the existing land uses within the 500-foot and 1,320 foot project buffer areas. Land use pattern within the study area is highly urban in character. For both project buffers, the predominant land use is Public/Semi-Public (percentages ranging from 15.93% to 18.59%). Retail/Office use has the second highest percentage land use within the 500-foot project buffer, while residential use has the second highest percentage within the 1,320-foot project buffer. Vacant lands account for approximately 15 acres within the 500-foot project buffer and 54 acres within the 1,320-foot project buffer. Existing Land Use within the 500-Foot Project Buffer (187.16 Acres) Land Use Classification Acres Percent Acreage Not Zoned For Agriculture 0.09 0.05, Industrial 744 3.98 Institutional 1.48 0.79 Public/Semi-Public 29.81 15.93 Recreation 0.45'0.24 Residential 6.49 3.47 Retail/Office 14.07 7.52 Vacant Nonresidential 11.05 5.91 Page40of76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Vacant Residential 4.14 2.21 Existing Land Use within the 1,320-Foot Project Buffer (571.9 Acres) Land Use Classification Acres Percent Acreage Not Zoned For Agriculture 0.31 0.05 Industrial 22.87 4.0 Institutional 6.80 1.19 Public/Semi-Public 106.31 18.59 Recreation 0.45 0.08 Residential 37,32 6.53 Retail/Office 50.48 8.83 Vacant Nonresidential 30.41 5.32 Vacant Residential 23.64 4.13 Future Land Use: The generalized future land use data in the EST indicates a dramatic increase in residential (multi -family) lands within the two project buffers examined. There are large areas designated for multi -family use, especially south of the project and north of the project, between the North -South Expressway and NW 1st Avenue. Commercial and industrial uses in the 500-foot buffer are anticipated to reflect what currently exists, while these land uses are expected to expand in the 1,3204foot buffer. These uses are predominantly located north of the project between NW 1st Avenue and the waterfront. A major commercial and residential development project known as the Southeast Overtown/Park West. DRI is planned for the southeastern corner of the Overtown neighborhood, within the project area.. During the next few. years, the Overtown neighborhood is anticipated to increase its housing supply by approximately 2,000 housing units. The general area has the potential to become one of the most heavily built neighborhoods in South Florida. Future Land Use within the 500-Foot Project Buffer (187.16 Acres) Land Use Classification Acres Percent Agriculture 0.43 0.23 Commercial 14.79 7.9 Federal Land 7.59 4.06 Industrial 3.69 1.97 Multi -Family 123.68 66.08 Preserve 28.1515.04 Future Land Use within the 1,320-Foot Project Buffer (571.9 Acres) Land Use Classification Acres Percent Agriculture.3.82 0.67 Commercial 51.3.6 8.98, Federal Land 48.56 8.49 Industrial 41.69 7.29 Multi -Family 307.74.53.81 Preserve 56.73 9.92 Comprehensive Plan Consistency: The City of Miami is currently experiencing significant development and redevelopment, much of which is comprised of commercial and residential uses. Within the project area, over three-quarters of the planned land uses within a five-minute walk of 1-395 are devoted to high density residential, employment, and retail uses. The Miami -Dade Adopted 2005 and 2015 Land Use Plan anticipates intense densification in the Downtown core. Likewise, infill and redevelopment are expected to progressively intensify much of the project corridor. The City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan depicts the project on the Future Traffic Circulation Map. CLC Commitments and Recommendations: Page 41 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed .on: 2/28/2008 During public outreach in the Project Development phase to obtain public input, on the potential for project- related Ianduse effects as well as appropriate measures to resolve issues. In order to be sustainable and livable, the planned compact urban development pattern will be highly reliant on pedestrian/bicycle ,t,, Mobility and, connectivity to community focal points. Likewise, accessiblity to transit will become increasingly ,important, Coordinator Feedback:None ETAT Review by Gary Donaldson, FL Department of Community Affairs (06/23/2006) Land Use Effect: None Coordination Document:The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: None found. Comments on Effects to Resources: None found. Coordinator Feedback:None - No review submitted from the Miami Urbanized Area MPO - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration 461iar Summary Degree of Effect Mobility Summary Degree of Effect: Enhanced Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/03/2007) Comments: Comment was provided by the FDOT; therefore, no response is necessary. Page 42 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 1111 ETAT Review by Tammy Vrana, FDO.T District 6 (07/25/2006) Mobility Effect: Enhanced Coordination Document The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the timeof the review Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: 100-Foot Buffer: Bus Stops (24) OGT: Multi -Use Trail Priorities: High & Low OGT: Paddling Trail Priorities: High Railroad 500-Foot Buffer: Railroad (1,102 linear feet) Railroad siding (1,456 linear feet) Greenways Ecological Priority Linkage (Low Priority) 1,320-Foot Buffer: Fixed Guideway Transit (Metomover) Heavy Rail Cedars Medical Center HCA Highland Park Hospital Bus Transit Routes (2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, 32, 77, A, C, K, M, S, T, BisMax, Flagler, Flagler Max) Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and Access 2,640-Foot Buffer: Jackson Memorial Hospital Runway Highland Park General Hospital City of Miami Runway Bus Transit Service Port of Miami Miami -Dade School Board Jefferson Parking; Garage:: 5,280-Foot Buffer: Cedars of Lebanon Hospital - Highland Park General Hospital Victoria Hospital Bus Transit Routes Miami Herald Runway Miami Police Runway Dunbar Elementary Comments on Effects to Resources: The project addresses approximately 1.2 miles of 1-395, an elevated expressway traversing the City of Miami, The project will serve to resolve substandard traffic conditions and improve interaction with planned facilities in the area by increasing capacity, accessibility and safety. I-395/SR 836 is the only east -west expressway through central Miami -Dade County connecting the Homestead Extension of Florida's Turnpike on the west and Miami Beach on the east (via MacArthur Causeway). SR-836, located west of the project is the only expressway within the county that connects to the north -south expressways: the HEFT, the Palmetto Expressway, and 1-95. The project is anticipated to improve access from north of I-395/Omni area to eastbound MacArthur Causeway, the North Downtown/Arena area to westbound SR-836, and eastbound 1-395 to the North Downtown/Omni area. In addition, the project would.provide the capacity and traffic/operational improvements necessary to support Page 43 of 76. Summary Report -Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 the proposed Port of Miami Tunnel. The Midtown Interchange serves as a major hub for traffic to the Port of Miami and the Miami International Airport. This critical network hub also services South Miami Beach and the Bay Islands, the Downtovvp Central Business District, and the countys western suburbs. The study area has a high level of accessibly to the Miami -Dade County Transit system including Metromover and Metrorail fixed guideway transit serving Downtown and the bus transit system. Pedestrian facilities exist in various forms (e.g., sidewalks and paths) within the study area; however;, bridges and fencing of limited access transportation facilities sometimes present barriers to pedestrian and bicycle travel and connectivity between residential areas and community focal points. 1-395 is identified as a Hurricane Evacuation Route being utilized for all category storm evacuations ,The project would facilitate hurricane evacuation times by providing better traffic flow, especially for the critical westbound emergency evacuation traffic from the Bay Islands and Miami Beach. Additionally, the project would also improve emergency access to and from the major medical and civic center area located immediately west of the project. CLC Commitments and Recommendations: It is recommended that public outreach conducted during the Project Development phase solicit public input on the various modes of transportation that are vital to the highly urban environment represented by the project study area. Considering the study areas demographic compositionand the potential'for population growth in conjunction with high density/intensity redevelopment, provisions for pedestrian and bicycle mobility and transit accessibility should be emphasized. Coordinator Feedback:None - No review submitted from the Miami Urbanized Area MPO - No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration - No review submitted from the Federal Transit Administration Relocation Summary Degree of Effect: Moderate Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/03/2007) Comments: Comment was provided by the FDOT; therefore, no response is necessary. Page 44 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 ETAT Review by Tammy Vrana, FDOT District 6 (07/06/2006) Relocation Effect: Moderate Coordination Document;The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the, review. Dispute information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: 100-Foot Buffer: Residential: 2.04 Acres Historic Structures (3).. Downtown Miami Multiple Resource Area Comments on Effects to Resources: The right-of-way needs for the project were not available for this sociocultural effects evaluation. Therefore, developed lands within the 100-foot project buffer were evaluated as having the potential for relocation: effects. According to data in the EST, there, are approximately four acres of commercial uses and two acres of residential uses with the potential for relocation effects. There are also three historic structures and a community facility within the 100-foot project buffer. Developed Land within the 100-Foot Project Buffer (34.6 Acres) Description Acres. Percent Commercial .and Services 2.80 8.11 Multiple, Dwelling Units, Low Rise 2.04 5,89 Parks and Zoos 0.45 1.29 Race Tracks 0.661.9 Additional Comments (optional): None Coordinator Feedback:None - No review submitted from the Miami Urbanized Area MPO - Noreview submitted from'the Federal Highway Administration, Summary Degree of Effect Social Summary Degree of Effect: Moderate Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/03/2007) Comments: A traffic noise analysis will be conducted in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 17, of the PD&E Manual. Following completion of the noise analysis, an appropriate Noise Study Report will: be prepared Page 45 of 76 Summary Report- Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 ETAT Review by Tammy Vrana, FDOT District 6 (07/25/2006) Social Effect: Moderate Coordination Document:The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the'review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: 100-Foot Buffer (34.6 acres): Historic Structure: 1207 NE 1 Ave Historic Structure: The Eldoris Building Historic Structure: 147 NW 13th St Downtown Miami Multiple Resource Area New Hope Primitive Baptist Church Bicentennial Park 200-Foot Buffer (70.55 Acres): Historic Structures (13) St John I Assisted Housing Overtown Youth Center Miami Herald Library Overtown Church of Christ El Nuevo Herald Individual and Family Services Public School 500-Foot Buffer (187.16 Acres): National Register of Historic Places: Sears, Roebuck and Company Department Store National Register of Historic Places: St. John's Baptist Church Other Historic Structures (39) OGT Multi -Use Trails Priorities: High and Low OGT Paddling Trails Priorities High • Abe Grant Alternative Outreach Program Booker T. Washington High Dade Marine Institute -North & South Deborah's Way — District Instructional Centers (A, B, C, D, J, K, L, M, N, & 0) Everglades Academy Excel Shelter Florida City Youth Center Frederick R. Douglass Elementary School (CARE (East, North, & West) Juvenile Services MiamiHalfway H6dse Miami Skill Center PACE Center for Girls PK Early Intervention St Francis'Xavier School Teenage Parent Program Youth Track Infants in Need Inc Park: City of Miami' Park Christ Church the Living God Mt Olivette Miss Baptist Church Page 46 of 76 Summary Report - Protect #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 New Hope Primitive Baptist Church St John Inst'l. Missionary St Johns Baptist Church and Tot Center Thomas J Jordan &W Geraldine T Orphanage Metro -Dade Womens Detention Center Christ Children Day Care Urgent Inc 1.230-Foot Buffer: Miami Performing Arts Center Jackson Memorial Hospital Community Partnership for Homeless Douglas Elementary Booker T Washington Junior High Educational Alternative Program Evening Tech High School (Historical) Abe Grant Alternative Outreach Program 2,640-Foot Buffer: Anna Brenner Meyer Hopkins Tech Paul Lawrence Dunbar School Rosa Parks Community School - Overtown Phillis Wheatley School Highland Park School (Historical) Lindsey Hopkins Technical Education Cent Miami Skill Center Miramar Elementary School Our Lady of Fatima Nursery School University of Miami -Main Campus Miami -Dade Community College Work America School Jackson Memorial Hospital Miami Arena Miami Fire Station Port of Miami 5,280-Foot Buffer: Gesu School (Historical) Heritage School Highland Park School (Historical) Comments on Effects to Resources: The 1-395 project is located in the incorporated area of the City of Miami within Miami -Dade County., The study area includes the Overtown neighborhood, The study area is highly urbanized andresidential areas are densely populated. Demographic information for the 2,640 foot buffer area, the City of Miami and Miami -Dade County are shown below. Approximately 43.6% percent of the households in the study area do not have a motor vehicle, which is higher than in the city (29.4%) and county (14.3%). Likewise, the percentage of disabled in the study area (33.9%) is higher than in the city (29.4%) and county (22.8%). The median family income in the study area is 19% lower than for the city and 45% lower than for the county. Page 47 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 ) DemographiC Profile 2,640-Foot Project Buffer Area* Total Population: 20,301 Under age 1'8: 22.6% 65 years an over 10.2% White: 44.4% Black: 51.4% Other: 4.2%' Hispanic: 35.1% Median Family Income: $22,143 No Vehicle Available: 43.6% With Disability: 33.9% Over 25 with Bachelor Degree: 7.9% *Statistics approximated based on Census data reported in the EST. City of Miami Total Population: 362,470 Median age (years): 37.7 Under age 18: 21.7% 65 years and over: 17.0% White: 69.5% Black: 24.2% Other: 11.1% Hispanic: 65.8% Average household size: 2.6 Median Family Income: $27,225 Individuals below poverty level: 28.5% No Vehicle Available: 26.7% With Disability: 29.4% Over 25 with Bachelor Degree: 16.2% Miami -Dade County Total Population: 2,253,362 Median age (years): 35.6 Under age 18: 24.8% 65 years and over: 13.3% White: 72.3% I3lack: 21.6% Other: 10.0% Hispanic: 57.3% Median Family Income: $40,260 Individuals below poverty level: 18.0% No Vehicle Available: 14.3% With Disability: 22.8% Over 25 with Bachelor Degree: 21.7% Given the urban context and proximity to the urban core, there are numerous community focal points in the one- mile project buffer including several historic structures and landmarks, such as the St. John Baptist Church. A large number of educational, social service, recreational, and other governmental facilities are located within the study area (see listing above), as well as a Significant amount of pubjic and subsidized housing, Community focal points located most proximate to the project Within the 100-foot projeCt buffer include three historic structures, the Downtown Miami Multiple Resource Area, New Hope Primitive Baptist Church, and Bicentennial Park, The project should account for these resources in the analysis of alternatives. Page 48 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Additionally, a new performing arts center, located on Biscayne Boulevard between NE 13th and 14th streets is located in the project area. The 570,000 square foot center will be linked by a pedestrian bridge spanning Biscayne Boulevard. There are sidewalks and pedestrian paths within the study area; however, there are instances where elevated transportation facilities, such as 1-395, have created impediments to pedestrian and bicycle mobility in the community. The projects design should consider ways the project could improve conditions for non -motorized travel, community cohesion, community policing and surveillance through elimination of isolated areas. CLC Commitments and Recommendations: Public opinion should be solicited during Project Development to help identify the potential for project effects, as well as methods of resolving such effects. The public outreach approach should be tailored to obtain input from the study area population. The project should include design considerations for pedestrians and bicyclists at access points with the neighborhood street network (Le., interchanges). Features such as crosswalks, pedestrian signals, streetlights and landscaping would be especially beneficial to the non -motoring public, who are abundant in the study area. Coordinator Feedback:None 1.3w ETAT Review by Gregory E. Williams, Federal Highway Administration (07/18/2006) Social Effect: Moderate Coordination Document: The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of the review. Dispute Information:N/A Identified Resources and Level of Importance: The uploaded pictures show residential areas near the proposed new section of roadway. The environmental document should assess the noise impact to these residential areas. Comments on Effects to Resources: The noise impacts (including construction) of various alternatives should also be considered, particularly since the alternatives have varying elevations. Coordinator Feedback:None No review submitted from the Miami Urbanized Area MPO - No review submitted from the FL Department of Community Affairs No review submitted from the FL Department of Environmental Protection No review submitted from the US Environmental Protection Agency Page 49 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 7443`..,14..WA,Aikra,MOC.TVIV IMMTVA tiV '2X54.0t0.0r4t,V)0111A611t1106 lq/C41AgfiggitiltV**1`44:.C:41.1tN''Vgi.it:151FIr.eW,P4)141V' „ 1 44,-,34.gaca ,455:'.410,.,&.45r.,,atieh4;.`410 1,4„ • Summary Degree of Effect Secondary and Cumulative Effects Summary Degree of Effect: Minimal Reviewed By: FDOT District 6 (1/03/2007) Comments: The project corridor is entirely urbanized. Potential secondary and cumulative effects will be evaluated. g!m,4 •'. • . • : ETAT Review by Scott Sanders, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (06/23/2006) Secondary and Cumulative Effects Effect: Minimal COOrclinatiOn Document:The "Coordination Document" option was not available at the time of tha review. Dispute Information:N/A At -Risk Resource:INildlife and Habitat Comments on Effects: Minimal Recommended Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures: None found. Recommended Actions to Improve At -Risk Resources: None found. Coordinator Feedback:None Page 50 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 No General Project Commitments. Found Environmental Impact Statement Federal Highway Administration Sectim106 Consultation NONE Gregory E, Williams ACCEPTED 2/16/2007 (Federal Highway: Administration) Marjorie Bixby (FOOT District 6) No comments were found. ACCEPTED 1/19/2007 NolDispute Actions Found, Page 51 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 - 1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Hardcopy Maps: Alternative #1 • Page 52 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 7701 1-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge 0 0.1 Miles Data Sources US Gedogical Survey FL Department of Transportation Geographic Data Technology, Inc. US Census Bireau Page 53 of /5 Population Age Distribution Map ETDM Alternative Terminus --' Railroad ETDM Alternative — River, Stream or Canal — Major Road Water Bob — Local Road or Trail Median Age qfP Map Generated on: l 2/1 /2006 II Summary Report - Project #I (01 - I- 3 Jb Printed on: /28/1UU3 sr QD01. Miles 7701 1-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge., • Coastal and Marine Resource Map ETDM Alternative Term inus Aquatic Preserve ' Amu Swamp or Marsh gac Sheltered Tidal Flat e .,. ETDM Alternative n FLU CCS Wetlands Yt7.4,E>goosest Rocky Platform tottottviixeci Sand And Gravel Beach — Major Road — Navigable Water Way Ate Sand Beach +Sheltered flock iSeaw llIVbgeteted — Local Road or Trail El Continuous Seagrass mom Gravel BeechtRiprap gate Exposed Vertical Rocky Shore/Seaysall — River; Stream or Canal El Discontinuous Seagrsss ttAttEvosed Tidal Flat NI Water Body El Coastal Barrier Resource Area Data Sources: Geographic Data Technology, Inc.; US Geological Survey, Florida Marine Research Institute; Florida Department of Transportation; Florida }Department of En4ironmental Protection; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association; Florida Water Management Districts Map Generated on:12412006 1111-nmall(W5iT- r'rojecT#i (ll'r - 1-39b in ea on: zt urzuua 7701 1-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge 411111111.111 10111111116111111111 11111N 1111.111111111hill 111111111111111ir .1k‘ 11111111 NM otnal••••L-.‘ IrM1111111111111iMinftra H 8.02 Mites Community Facilities and Services Map • ETDM Alternative Terminus Community Center M Health Care — Major Road ETDM Alternative * Law Enforcement School Local Road or Trail 4- Place of Worship le Park —1 Railroad • Oovernment n Civic Center Cultural Center n Community Boundary Cemetery — River, Stream or Canal mo- ni Water Body Datsources Social Service KI) Fire Station Recreational Trail Consetyation or Recreation Area • e US Geological Survey; FL Department of Transportation; Geographic Data Technology, Inc.; FL Property Appraisers; FL Natural Areas Inventory Page. bb otlb IMap Generated on: 12/1 pooa Summary Report - Project lit/ - 1-.39b Printed on: 2/2d/2UU8 7701 1-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthurCauseway Bridge late Sources, sographic Data Technology, Inc.; US 0eological Survey, FL Department of Transportation; FL Department of Environmental. Protection; FL \FL Wtiter Management ¶struts, US Environmental Protedion Agency; Natural Resource Conservation Service ■1■.s. 0 0.1 Miles ETDM Alternative Terminus w E x ETDM Alternative — Major Road — Local Road or Trail --1 Railroad — River, Stream or Canal Potential Contamination Assessment Map Toxic Release Inventory ■ Power Plant 'Soil Drainage Water; Body * Dry Cleaning Facility * Superfund Site Excellent to Well :. Swamp/M arsh A Gasoline Service Station Nuclear Site Well to Moderate Well o Solid Waste Facility RE Petroleum Tank Moderate Well to Poor NPLRemediationSite raBroWnfiieIdArea OPoor toVery Poor A. Hazardous Material Site — 5 FT Contour ❑ Unclassified Map Generated on:'12M t2006 ages ofiiG —Summary 1-report - Protect #1 lDi Printed on: 2/28/20013 7701 I-39kAltemative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge Faltmlands Resource Map • ETDM Alternative Terminus —Major Road Feeding,Operations Local Road or Trail MNurseries/Vineyards 4 Water Body Specialty Farms M Prime; Farmland Soils ti Tree Crops Cropland/Pastureland. Rural Open Lands ETDM Alternative. River, Stream or Canal Data Sources Geographic Data Technology, Inc. Florida Water Management Districts. US Gedogicai Survey Natural Resources Conseration Services rage of or to Map Generated on: 12/112006 bunlrnary Report -, 'rojsct i'F/ /U'r - 1-,Juorrirltea on: 4Iai/zuou 77011.395, Alternative #1 1Nest of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge ,, a1,MiIes Data Sources Geographic Data Technology, Inc. US OedogIcal Survey Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain Resource Map ETDM Alternative Terminus River, Stream.or Canal ETDM Alternative — Major Road — Local Road or Trail r11 Water Body Inside Special FlOOd Hazard Area El Outside Special Flood Hazard Area 0 FEMA Data N'ot Available Map Generated on: 12/1 /2006 000 (I001 1IIes 7701 1-395, Alternative #1 VVest of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge Data Sources Geographic Data Technology, Inc. US Geological Survey Florida Department of Transportation Florida Department of Stale, Bureau of Arthaeologicat Research taoRIMI. Ath • • • 4. a 1$ 41 AT.tf, • ,.:.; 150 h-a17".g d. ; Re. Et: nal% Historic Resources Map — Local Road or Trail 1., Historic Resource Group —1 Railroad E] Cultural Resource Field Survey Area Water Body El Historic Structure nj State Historic High%Aey Swam pilvlarsh Historjc Cemetery Note: Historic properties depided on this map represent resources listed in the Florida Master Site File exclucl ng archeolojcal site locations, vthich, pursuant to Chapter, 287.135, Florida Statutes, may be exempt from public record (Chapter 119.07, Florida Statutes). Absense of features on the map does not necessarily Indicate en absense of resources inthe project vidnity. Page 59 of 76 (0 ETDM Alternative Terminus — Major Road au Historic Bridge ET DM Alternative • River, Stream or C anal Map Generated on: 12/1'2008 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 0 0,1 Miles 7701 1-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange. to MacArthur Causeway Bridge Hydrogeology Resource Map 0 ETD MAlto rnattveTerminus Reoharge Areas of the Floridan Aquifer Geological Epoch ETD M Alternative ^ Major R oad Local R oad or Trail' — River, Stearn or canal a Other Water Dody • Swamp/Marsh 0 Discharge 1 TO 6 ® Discharge) 6 [] Dfsharge 1 Recharge 1 TO 10 Zj Recharge > 10' f Recharge e 1 Eocene Holocene II Miooene 1 Miooene/Pliocene Oligocene rre. OligooeneMiooene Pleistocene Pleistocene & Holocene Pliocene Pllooene/Pleistocene Data Sourced Geographic Data Technology, Inc.; US Geological Survey, Florida Department of Transportation; Soith Wed Florida Water Management Dietrid; Florida Geological Survey Map Generated on: 12t1,2006 rage 60 of 76 Summary Report - I roject #7701 -1-395 Printed on. 2/28/2008 7701 1-395, Alternative #1 V'West.of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge ■ 0.02 Miles Data Sources . USGedegical Survey` FL Department of Transportation .Geographic Data Technology, Inc. US Census Bureau Page •b'I of /b • ETDM Alternative Terminus ETDM Alternative -w M aJor Road Local Road or Trail Income Distribution Map Railroad — River, Stream or Canal j » 20% Below Poverty PA Water Body Median Household Income �,1� / ,o ti o'`" t3) t i py' 1 Map Generated on: 12Mt2o06 I Summary Report-- Project #/ /U9 - 1-390 t'rinted on: 2/28/2UUU 7701 1-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge 11111111161111111 0 0.1 Miles Data Sources Geographic Data Technology, Inc. US Gedogical Survey Florida Department of Transportation Florida Fish 8 Wildlife Conservation Commission ,)- Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System Map ETD M Alternative Terminus Railroad Lov,;. Habitat Quality ETD M Alternative —River, Stream or Canal iag Medium Habitat Quality N High Habitat Quality — Major Road M Water Body — Local Ro ad or Trail Map Generated on: 12/1 /2006 Summary Report - - i-Jgb Printeo on: 27.18/2UU8 7701 1-3955 Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge r 1111111111110 N. PIM 111111111111111° assaii ,11111111111111 sunth.,--*.man • linsouslimo mummamaimMmea 11111111110111111111111E 1111111111111111111MONN A• llMill1111111111111111 114111111111 111111111111111 HUI -1111111•11111 0 $ 0.1 Miles Data ourses Geographic Data Technology, Inc. US Gedogl Survey Florida Department of Revenue Florida Department of Transportation Florida County Property Asorraiser Offices Hag° fid Ot tb • ETDM Alternative Terminus e Agricultural ETDM Alternative M Industrial — M ajor Road M institutional — Local 9oaci or Trail Railroad — River, Stream or Canal Land Use Map Other Retail/Office 111 Public Vacant (Residential) Right -of -Way Vacant (Nonresidential) M Mining Recreational Water Open (Not Agricultural) MI Residential CI No Data Map Generated on: 12 ft /2006 Summary Keport —1-'rojec litf 101,- I-dUb • Nnnted on: 2/28/2UUd 7101 1-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge .411`11111111,1re.,,t•4,i10;', MUM 0, 0.1 Miles Deita Sources: US Geological Survey FL Department of Transportation °Geographic Data Tednol ogy, Inc. US ConsusBireau • ETDM Alternative Terminus —I Railroad ETDM Alternative — River, Stream or Canal — Major Road Water Body — Local Road or Trail Page 4 ot (b Summary oport - Project #rrui I-3gb Minority Population Distribution Map Percent Minority Popilation • rP (6) c5) • °J Map Generated on: 12/112006 IMF on-7277872Mr-- 7701 I-305sAltemative #1 West• of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge 11111111111111 0 0.1 Mile Data .§ourcea US Geological Survey FL Department of Transportation Geographic Data Tecrnology, Inc. US Census Bureau Population Density Map • ETDM Alternative Terminus Railroad ETDM Alternative — River, Stream or Canal — Major Road El Water Body. — Local Road or Trail Hage bb ot burnmary Keport WrOject #1101 I-49b' Population per Acre rawatawarasimum cb op"' • Map Generated on: 12/1 /2006 •Vrinteo on: 2/6/2UUti 77011395, Alternative #1 West of Mid/town Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge 0 0.04 Miles Data Sources: Hi ghAays -Geographic Data Technology, Inc. Digital Orthophotograph -US Geological Survey Project Aeri al Map •ETDM Alternative Terminus — Secondary, Unlimited Access Highway ETDM Alternative —:Other Highway F eature — Primary and Limited Access Highway Map Generated on: 12t1 12005 vage fot) OT Ib bffilImary Kepat Propranted on: Z/Zo/ZUUti 7701 1-3955Alternave #1, West of Midtown interchange to .MacArthur Causeway Bridge GB.02 Piles Data Sources Geographic Data Technology, Inc, • US Gedogical Survey US Census au'eau County Property Appraisers Florida Natural Areas Inventory 0 ETDM Alternative Terminus ETDM Alternative .-. River, Stream or banal Water.Body SwampiMarsh Eg I a n a ged Conservation Lands g',44.1414+ 110 !Ai., • " "Pi.Oled Lodition — Primary and Limited Access Highway Airport — Secondary, Unlimited Access Highway El City Limits — Connecting Road 13 County Boundaries — Local Road or Trail Other Roadway Feature — Toll Road Railroad V....III I ItAlly • • ".. Map Generated on: 12/ /2006 111 ) 7701 I-3951 Alternative #1 West lof Midtown interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge • 0 10 Miles Data Sources Geographic Data Technology, Inc. US 0 edogical Survey US Census Bu'eau County Property Appraisers County Location Map — ET DM Alternative ki Water Body — Primary and Limited Access Highway 0 City Limit — Secondary, Unlimited Access Highway County Boundary — Other Highway Feature Project Extent Map Generated an: 12/4,12006 7701 I-395., Alternative #1 West .of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge 0 0▪ ,00 Miles Data Sources Geographic Data Tec}noiogy, Inc. US Geological Survey Florida Natural Areas Inventory Page by of Ib: Conservation and Recreation Area Map. ETDM Alternative Terminus C Conservation or Recreation Area • ETOM Alternative — Major Road • River, Stream or Canal _.- Local Road or Trail t Water Body --i Railroad • Srvamp/Marsh = County Boundary Map Generated on:/214/2006 Summary. Keport - Protect 4/ (U1 - 1-:49b I'rinted on: 2I /ZUUt$ 1 7701 1-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge 1111111111 11111111111110 0 „ 0.1 Miles Data Sources Geographic Data Technologylnc. US Geological Survey Florida Department of Transportation Florida Fish &Wildlife Conservation Commission I'age IU of Ifi Species Potential Habitat Model Map • El -DM Alternative Terminus 11 Water Body ETD M Alternative Potential Habitatfor Focal Species Ni 1 - 6 Species - 12 Species M13-18Species ■>18Species Major Road — Local Road or Trail —+ Railroad. River, Stream or Canal Map Generated on: 12/4/2006 Summary Report - Project #/Itl1 -1-3g tsrinfed on: 2128/2Uut3 77011-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge ETOMFttemafte Tamnus Mkt Classified B:TOMittemathe ig Coast ?I Strand - -MajorRalad IDjSandiatoch — Inca) Road or Trail Wert) Oak Scrub NSand Pine Scrub. SandHll Day Praile Cattail Mash Data Sources NMxed Hardwood -pine Forest NShrubyanp NHadwood Harrmodcsand Forests.NBay.Swarp NMargrova Swanp El Unimproved Pasture N Brazilian Pepper NFtnelands NClpr s Swarrp NSorub Mangrove p Sugarcane ❑ Figh trpact thou NCabbage Palm -live Oak Hammock INCNpresslPineIcabbage Pal-n NTrdai Flats alms 0 Low Frpact lob IETropioal Hardw000l Harnnock aM(xed Watland Forest II Open Water i] Row and Feld Crops N Bsdracue LEI FreshwaterMarsh and VW Prairie alHardwood Swarrp pi Shrub and Bruglland 0CilierPgicuhure paSawgrass Mash NHydrio Hammock 0Oassiand N Ratio Marts N NBottomland Hardwood Forest OBare SdI/aem:La IIIAlstrJlan Pine NMelaleuca 'Salt Mush Disproved Pasture Geographic Data Technology, Inc,; Florida Departmert of Transportatior( Florida Fish and 1Midiite Conservation Commission Page (1 of ft) Map Generated on: 12/4/2006 I summary Report Project ff//U.1 1-39b Printed on: 2I2W2)u$ 7701 I-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge VIM 0 015 Miles Data Sources Geographic Data Technology, Inc. US Gedogical Survey tshy 20TH Major Road Local Road or Trail —1 Railroad Florida Department of Transportation Florida Department of Environmental Protection r•. All ET DM Alternative Terminus 13ISCAYNE iiYilYQUMIC RWSERIZE Water Resources Map ,1st Magnitude Spring ET DM Project Alternative Corridor * River, Stream or Canal Navigable Water Way N:Drainage Basin ro Outstanding F[arida Water Florida Geciodcal Survey US Bureau of Transportation Statistics Surface Water Class I $ Surface Water Class II OtherWater Body Swamp/Marsh Map Generated on:12/412006 Page /2 of [b summary Report- Project l/U1 I-3Ub Printed on; 2/26/2UUt3 7701 1-395, Alternative #1 West of Midtown Interchange to MacArthur Causeway Bridge Wetland Resource Map • ETDM Alternative Terminus - River, Stream or Canal 01 Vegetated Non -forested Wetland ETDM Alternative ICA Water Body le Non -vegetated Wetland - Major Road Wetland Hardwood Forest Cut Over Wetland — Local Road or Trail Wetland Coniferous Forest Wetland Forested Mixed Data Sources Geographic Data Technology, ,Inc.; Florida Water Management DiStrids US Geological Survey rage !J or; to Wetland Scrub Shrub Map Generated on; 12/4/2006 bummary Keport Project m, rPrintea on: ziluut ]]{{fi�gg I � y, r](>y(\ 1.^rY,n�R '! "d18EJa'c:f�tz x� p Lg rs5 L �.'�'.SMk1�Skn.44ia;'d}i:.FiSF ti,w` , d34 > 7 a .'.:A: YS �,Y 3p ti r , ° " w ( 'T3N� �.y l ,v 1, 0m None X The impact effect consultation agency. 12/5/2005. ���fl. � ��✓' issue is present, but the project on the issue; project has no on ETAT resources; permit. involves routine interaction The None degree of effect YQH i4 b,�( will have no adverse issuance or with the is new as of � � � �:3� %4f i l,�.�'P {i>i No community opposition to thee„ planned project. No adverse effect on the community. Enhanced Project has positive effect on. the ETAT resource or can reverse a previous adverse effect leading ' to environmental improvement. Affected community supports: the proposed project. Project has positive effect. Minimal to None G 3 ` -or- Minimal Project has little adverse effect on ETAT resources. Permit issuance or consultation involves routine interaction with the agency. Low cost options are available to address concerns. The Minimal degree of effect is new as of 12/5/2005. Prior to 12/5/2005, a green degree of effect indicated Minimal to None. Minimum community opposition to the planned project. Minimum adverse effect on the community, ir,fl Fjh'iY 6x r ' , : Moderate Agency resources are affected by the proposed project butand is trtions ravaiale and abe addredduing development with a moderated amount. of agency involvement and moderate cost impact' Project has adverse effect on elements Publ Involvemet iaffected community. seek alternatives more acceptable to the community. Moderate community interaction will be required during project development. Substantial r . ` The project has substantial adverse effects but ETAT understands the project need and will be able to seek avoidance and minimization or mitigation options during project development. _. Substantial interaction will be required during project development and permitting. Project has substantial adverse effects on the community and faces substantial community opposition. Intensive community interaction with focused Public Involvement will be required duringproject development to address community concerns. ' Potential Dispute -or- Dispute Resolution Project does not conform to agency statutory requirements and will not be permitted. Dispute resolution is required before the project proceeds to programming. The Potential Dispute degree of effect pertains to the Planning Phase, while Dispute Resolution degree of effect refers to the Programming Phase. Community strongly opposes the project. Project is not in conformity with local comprehensive plan and has severe negative impact on the affected community. ma�;� No ETAT Consensus ETAT members from different agencies assigned a different degree of effect to this project, and the ETDM coordinator has not assigned a summary degree of effect. No ETAT Reviews No ETAT members have reviewed the corresponding issue for this project, and the ETDM coordinator has not assigned a summary degree of effect. Since there are so many GIS Analyses available for Project #7701 - I-395, they have not been included in this ETDM Summary Report. GIS Analyses, however, are always available for this project on the Public ETDM Website. Please click on the link below (or copy this link into your Web Browser) in order to view detailed GIS tabular information for this project: http:!/etdmpub.fla-etatorg/est/index.jsp?tpID=7701&startPageName=GIS%20Analysis%20Results Special Note: Please be sure that when the GIS Analysis Results page loads, the Programming Screen Summary Page 74 of 76 Summary Report - Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 Report Re -published 09/27/2007 Milestone is selected: GIS Analyses snapshots have been taken for Project #7701 at variouspoints throughout the project's life -cycle, so it is important that you view the correct snapshot. • Note: Attachments are not included in,this Summary Report, but can be accessed by clicking on the links= below: 2/21/2007 Ancillary 1.99 Project = MB Documentation 2/21/2007 Ancillary 2.13 Project MB- Documentation http://etdmpub.fla-etat,orglest/servletlblobViewer?bloblD=42 http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/servlet/blobViewer?bloblD=212 11/06/200 .Arlciiiary '215KB http9letdmput>:fla-etat.org/estlservlet/blobViewer?bloblD=29D Pros and Cons of 6 Project the 1-395 project Documentation alternatives.: Pros AnCiliary Project Documentation for. ETDM Project #7701. AnCiliary Project Doourpentatlon for ETDM Project #7701` 11/06/200• Ancillary 15.45 6 Project MB Documentation 11/06/290 Ancillary 15.45 6 Project , MB Documentation 5/08/2006 Ancillary Project Documentation http://etdmpub.fla.etet.org/esdiervlet/blobViewer?bloblD=104' httpi/letdripub.fla etatorg/estlservletlblobVewer?bloblD=238 71 KB hope/etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/servletlblobViewer?bloblD=17 and cons of the I- 395 project alternatives. Powerpoint presentation made_ to ;the Project Advisory Group (PAG) `in October:: Powerpojnt presentation made. to the Project Advisory -Group_ (PAO) in October: Powerpoint presentation made tothe, Project Advisory Group (PAG) in October.: Powerpoint presentation made' to. the Project Advisory Group (PAG) in October. Advance Notification responses.: Advance Notification Page 75 of 76 Summary Report.- Project #7701 -1-395 Printed on: 2/28/2008 � ` `—� '� responses. 2/09/2006 Anoillary 1.45 mmwD~^"" Descrip'116'n Of YWBiv --- ,"~.. . -, 2/09/2008 1.8N0 °w"ID~^Projectlocatioh — Project --r: Pa Do5umentation —a. 2/09C2006 Adyance 8180B . . - '—_ AR ^AFvPaokago Package for ETOIVIPnoject ~' � � �A ' + « ^r »� / � ƒ� Page 7Guf7G Summary Report - Project #77O1'1-385 Printed on: 2/28/2008 1.395 Pro eet Miami -Dade Count Residential Comaarable Pro. erties Pre- Relirentithi Needs MsOsinthit Surrey Plan The fellowing listing information refers to residential properties for sale and lease throughout area 31, sections 13, 14, 23, 24).25, 26, 35, And 36 Overtown/Liberty city area (exhibit A). These properties are listed being available as of this Wilting. It should be noted that due to the active real estate Market itthe project area, continuous infertilation updates will bo required to ensure accuracy of propertyavailability information provided to residential displaces on this project. Furthermore; the Properties ,listed are a sampling eta significantly hute market Of available dWellings throughout this .area. The Project is impaetini fir businesses and three Residential parcels, The besinesses that are affected do net employ residents of the over town coinmunity: Parcel Number 13ushiesses Address • Number of gmployces 2$ . '' 119 ' Miem power Battely, cz. Inc. ife Mal Exports USA, Inc ,1401,1138Street ' in Woe international 1229N. Miami Ave 15 159 ()cartoons good Market 1433NW 3Aoe 3 140 Shone Shine) Inc . 1201 NW 1 Ave 10 141 Att (finery 1208 NB 1 AV .2 Resideatini Impacts Panel Number Address Number Units , Present Monthly Rent ()money —123 1360.NW 1 Court 12 0,00 Vacant -Gutted 130 218 NW 14 . Terrace 400,00 100% 131 222 NW 14 Terrace 6 400.00 $0% • Sufficient available residential and commercial properties exist in the Overtown Community to facilitate the relocation of all displaced entities by thc Department of Transportation, Please refer te District Six Florida Department of • Transportation Right of Way Relocation Real Bstate Study perfbtmed on October 24,. 2007, 40 Under Section 24.204 — General Relocation Requirements requires that no one may bo required to move from a dwelling without one comparable replacement dwelling having been made available, In addition, 24.204 (a) requires that, "Where possible, three or more comparable replaeoment dwellings shall be made available," • Section 24.205 ( 0) (2) (ii) (e) is intended to emphasize that if the comparable replacement dwellings are located in areas of minority concentratiOn, minority persons should if possible be given opportunities to Monte to replacement dwellings not located in such areas. Miaini--Daueebunt Pre- Relocati64 Needs Assessitier4 Survey Plan . • '` LeStReport Housing eOriaideiatlen Will be re 040 for Subetantial portion ()fill° ,fl reaidential displaceinente due to Various factors as , o The yolatilitY, of the real estate market in the area o Relatively low,to 1110iali i.1169#16 lovols or Certain displaced tenants o Requirement of additional bedreeins in teplacotnentd1iingst� comply with decent safe and sanitary guidelines and o Carve outs Own residential portions of households, resulting in higher replacenient housing payment computations, ' • No other concurrent projebts aro underWayidielfWill negatively impaot.tho relocation assistance efforts on this, 'project. 1 I-395 PROJECT, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAPD&E) STUDY MIDTOWN INTERCHANGE (I-95/SR 836/I-395) JUST NORTH OF DOWNTOWN MIAMI AND RUNS EASTWARD TO BISCAYNE BAY TERMINATING AT THE MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY WEST CHANNEL PlaDOES OVER BISCAYNE.BAY FINANCIAL PROJECT NUMBER.: 251670-1-22-02 ETDM NUMEER trin (Certified Copy TUESDAYi AUGUST 25, 06 H/STORICIJYRIC THEATER' 1119 1'ORTHWEST'2ND AVENUE tOBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305 740-7121 APPEARANCES: Florida Senator Frederica S. Wilson Judy Schmelzer, Miami Dade ' College -Wolfson Campus Irby McKnight, Overtown Neighborhood AssemblY Clement Minnis, Booker T. Washington High School Alumni Association .Derek Cole, Lofty Ideas/Overtown property owner Fred Joseph, Chairman of I7395 Project Advisory Group/Chairman-Omni Advisory Board Ken Knight, Small BUsiness Center Rodney Jackson, Overtown resident Robert Fournier) Wynwood resident Charles Cutler, Overtown resident/Director of Veterans Employment Program Alyce Robertson, Executive Director of Miami Downtown Development Authority Reginald C. Munnings, Power V Organization Eugene Rodriguez, Ice Palace (55 NW 14 Street) Kelsey R. Dorsett, Overtown resident/I-395 Project Advisory Group member John Richard, CEO of Adrienne Arsht Performing Arts Center David Chiverton, Community activist Anthony Cutler, Martin Luther King Economic Development Center David Eaton, Citizen Husain Xddin Latif, Overtown resident George Sanchez, Overtown property owner/Artist James Hunt, Booker T. Washington High School Alumni Association/retired school principal Peter E. McIntosh, Apostolic Revival Center Church Javier Betancourt, Miami Downtown Development Authority Dr. Dorothy U. Fields, The Black Archives/Lyric Theater Bill Curtin, Citizen -Coral Cables Dr. Marvin Dunn, Director of 'Roots In The City° Sarah E. Wallace) Concerned citizen & Overtown resident for 52 years Kathryn Moore, Omni area resident Pastor David Shanks, Pastor-Overtown Church of Christ ffill}:".SAMILVM101,1,W4OARIAW,A, 51,411.1 ROBERT :CALM te ABSOcIATES INC . 305-740-7121 6 7 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VIERNUPON: MS: CROFT: 1-395 Project, Development and Environment, PD&L Study, izz Miami -Dade County. My name is Vilma Creft, and Vm the project manager fer the Florida Department. of Transpertation, District Six. SPAN/SH INTERPRETER: (Speaker speaking without an interpreter.) CBE= XNTERPRETER; (Speaker speaking without an interpreter.) MS. CROFT: Bete with me tonight froth the 'Florida Department ef Transportation is Mr. Gus Pego, Ms, Alyce Brave, Ms. Deborah Rivera,'Ms. Aileen Beucle, and other representatives ftom the Department and Environmental Management Office and thp.Right of WaY.Office. Also here with Motonight are representatives from the Department's Consultant Brigineering Firm Robert Cpares With. Metric Engineering, environmental shbOonsultant,' consultant -engineering in science; public information sUbcensultant Me. Bobbie Mumford With Bobbie MOmford'Ec Cetpany; and urban design pubcOnsultant Engineer Ido. —At this tite, I would like to rocegnize any elective public officials for you tonight that wish ROBERT XAPLAN &AS$Q0IATES, INC, 305-740-7121 10 11 12 xs 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 '21 22 23 24 25 to be recognized. We have Mr. Gerald Philip.:Hogues of Public Affairs and Policy, Thank.. you. Mr. Wayne Jones of Public Affairs and..Policy.with the office of Audrey Edmondson... Any other public officials here —this evening who wish to be recognized, please stand and intxoclue e yourself . No? Okay. This public hearing is being held in. accordance With the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1968 as amended with Chapter 23 of the United States Code 128, Title. 40 of the Cade of Federal Regulation.Parts 1500 through 1508., Title 23• of the,code of Federal Regulatian._Part 771, Florida. Statute, :339.155 and Executive Order,11.98a, 'loodplain.:Management and Executive Order 11990on..Protecti,on of Wetlands of the Constitution of theUnited states of America. This pubini..c hearing.was advertised on August 5.th in ..the Niamijlerald and ,E1. Nuevo }Jerald, and again on August lath in .iahe: Miami .i eral,d, and on August.18th in the..El.Nueyo.Herald consistent with federal and state requirements. In addition, adjacent property. owners, interested citizensand elected officials .and public officials were noti.,f'ied by letter of tonight's Meeting. M1 _ •f 4•WW:•;A'W1fY�L1•�..s._ f�iY— S��'�• y ���.!'dNt�16'sQR4�4P�f��1WYR„MV)Fi.iiM!�M!J4�L R.OBERT rAPt,AN & AS$OCIATES, INC. 3:05-740, 7121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 411 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 This Meeting'is'being held and is being conduCted Coneistent with Americana -with Disabilities Act of 1990• With that, we Will' now commence the formal presentatien. PRESENTATIONI ThiS hearing is being held to give all interested Persons the right to understand the prOjeet and comment -on their'concerns to the Department. Public participatien is solicited without regard to races'coler, national origin, age, oex or religion, disability or faMily status: The purpose. of tonightls public hearing is to ehare'information with the general public about the proposed iMproVementaS itS'eeneeptual design, all alternatives:under study And potential, beneficial adverse odeials-economic and enVironmentel impacts .Ipt:1% the- dOMMUnity. The public hearing Aso serVes as an offieial--- fOLIM PrOViding for opPertunity for the public to expres0 their Opinion's and concerns regarding the IoCation, eeneeptUal d01.-grks the potpntialsecial, econemic andenVironmental affectof the proposed improvementon the cOMmunity. This study ip being conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation District Six, and. was TtOBERT KAPLAN St ASSOCIATES INC. 305-740-7121. 6 12 :13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .23 24 25 developed in cooperation with.the Federal Highway Administration, the City of Miami,MimDade County and several other agencies. This hearing Is heing held relative to the I-395 Project, Development and Environment, or PD&E 5tudy, Financial project Numhsr 251570-1-22-02, and the Federal Aid Project,,Number NH-018210, and ' Pftipial_Transportation,Deelpion-Making, or ETMD •p,roject, Number 7701. ThiS project is in the project, •development and environment, or PD&E, phase. This phase involves e' preparation of all preliminary engineering and environmental documentation,requixed for federal approval and subsequent, funding. The project entails thepotential reconstruction of 1-39.5 1.00pte4(jupt north, of the downtown Miami core area and extendingover 1.5 miles_fromjUst west of_X-55 t.5) the MacArthur Causeway Bridge. 1-'95 has been designated as part ogthe Florida_Intrastate Highwalr SYatem and Strategio_Intermodal System. 1-895 is a crucial comPenent ofFlOrida!O transportation infrastructure and. is considered pritipal An tering ofcarrying economic commerce and providing access to our air and seaports, ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305•-740-.7121 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,16 17 3.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 A little bit about the hiatory of this project: The MOT first became involved in the study in 1991 as an indirect result of a major update on the Port of Miami master plan which took place during the early 1980s. A new tunnel facility connecting to the port With 1-05 via Watson Island and 1-395 was proposed, because 1-395 is a vital component of the corels access network. 'The Federal Administration directed the MOT to conduct a separate study for 1-395. Because of the major deficiencies also found on theradjoining lin% of State,Boad 836, it was decided that the segment of $R-836 extending from Northwest 17th Avenue to 1-95 should also be added in the study. The original study commenced in late 1992 and Was Placed en hold it early 1996 due to some of the funding constraints, but also in part because of public opposition by the OVertoWn companity due to potential right of way impacts.However, this projeat did not remain dormant. 2 nuMber Of different ideas from various planners and architects were presented to the FDOT and the City of Miami ranging from totally eliminating the existing 1-395 structure and replacing it with a three -level facility to a . sirscraosmOraiumlimensuallitu*sfel ROBERT '<AKAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 25 variety of tunnel and depressed: solutions. In 200.4, the.FFOT reinitiated the. study with a modified fous .that. not only addresses the.. suppressing transportation need,.:.but. also looks at best how to provide _this ..improvement with minimal disruptions and,. as a part ,.of an overall comprehensive improvement strategy for . the,; community. The Interstate .39.5:quarter .traverses one of the. Count.y's urbanized areas asyell .as the historic ovextown community. This .area :.has .been undergoing major redevelopment as evidenced by all the high-rise developments, the . Adrienne,, Arsht Center for the Performing. Arts,and, the proposed Museum Park Miami.:_ As ; ,the area's population continues to grow, the quarter .deficiencies :and corresponding project needs are becoming, more.,; critical. .In .terms of corridor oapadity, .the future traffic projections 'show approximately 206; 6.00 vehicles :per, day for the year 2040, almost double the ..roadway's;,current traffic Revels. In addition to this,there ate currently various structural def:idiencies withinthe project corridor. -These include five bridges rated as RO ERT'° . xmliAN. & APPPGI4` E4 , INC. 305--740 7121 , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 23 24 25 functiOnally obsolete and throebridges graded at structurally deficient. A functionally obsolete bridge hag' old detign featiires. Itis not'able to adequateli accommodate current traffic volumes and/or Current vehiCle weights' and sizes, and a structurally deficient bridge is rated with a poor ' condition according to the 'Neticinal Bridge Inventory o 11131 scale. There are also many significant geometric and operation deficiencies along thaeicieting facility. The .Icistencei of eXit-only left-hand off -ramps 'weakened areas'clue tO current ramp arrangements and inaddquate ramp Sequenceand iMproper lane bounds and continuity: There have been 246 crashes along 'the Corridor over the past five years. FroMa system Connectivity viewpoint, the need. fer- itPrOving are evident since 1:4395 is directly or -indirectly linked '66-Interstate 95, State goad 636, ' Florida's Turnpike, State Road 626 and the future Port 't..kiami Tunnel on-Wat6On Lastly, this cortider also'seryes as one of the main emergency access and evacuation routefor the Citietof Miami and Miami Beach both prior to and immediately after a 'storm event. It was critcal that the needs of the project ROBERT JKA,PLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 10 - 21 23 4 10 be cleaxliy outlined in ordei7t0,conducta. comprehensive corridor.investigation. Thus the. study's effortentailed threedistinct components: ,ublic.involvement, engineering analysis,,and .environmental...analysip. :This -interdisciplinary approach .fUlly 'adhereSto the. reguirementa of the Jfational WironmentalPolicy.Act, 'or NRA, and other federal and state.laws rules.andregulations. Thepublic involvement, process utilized a •consensusIbuildingapproachthatused lie pub1ia ....„input obtained:throughout...the studyprocess in order to. refine..qpr recommendations sugh,progreesed, thepublieoUtreePh,plenwas,implemented. Xt Utilized)panypf.the existing community and civic groups:in.the.areato help facilitate getting the message gut. to .the communityahoUt.this project. Over.180.meetings have been held so_far with various public officials community leaders and local ,constituents. In order to ensure the, most open and, iriformetive proces0 PopOible, the FDPT opened a community outreach centerwithin the Overtown oomMunity. Hxistence of the oommunityoutrpach center helped the communityremain informed about the fa0t0 of the project. Numerous project meetings - . • ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES INC. 305,7,40-'7121 1 1 2 3 4 • 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 2.5 16 17 16 19 • 20 21 22 23 24, 25 11 have -been held atthe office throughout the life of the project. To date, there have been over 2,200 viSitora tOthe Community outreachcentet. In Ordetto prOVide a, better understanding of the project, site visits were scheduled with intetested community resident's. These site visits were coordinated through'the community outreach office and offered the opportunity toget 'a tour of the project area with one -or more 'Members of the project team. This extenniVe. public,involvement program was Undertaken by the tTOT in conjunction with the 'Magineering and MivironMentalatalysisin order to ascertain the bent imprOVement strategy for the •x-39p cotridor.•A mUltiphase-alternative • development-ptCcess was followed. Various alternatives were connidered inclUding d'no-build alternative, neVeral'transPortatidn'synteM management'alternatiVes, or TSM iMprovements, and Ur distinct' build-alternatiVee Were. deVeloped. It should be noted that hoth the no -build option, which" maintains the existing facility as is, and the TSM alternatives, which entails minor'imProveMents such as imProving signage and/Or 'providing operational ImProveMents to high -crash -Segments, would not ROBERT KAPLAN 61 ABSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 12 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 , 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 effectively address the safety and capacity needs associated with this corridor. ,As previously mentioned, Alternative 1, or no -build option, involves maintaining the existing facility as is. No improvements will take place under this option and no expenditure of funds would be required, However, one of the needs previously described will be addressed. This option remains a viable alternative throughout the duration of the study. Alternative 2 is an elevated option. it entails the reconstruction of 1-395,. The existing ramps at Northeast 2nd Avenue and at Northeast 1st Avenue would be replaced With new entrance and exit ramps off of 1-95 at Northwest 14th Street. The ramps, praviding access to and from the south, were Part of..a seParate project and have long since been •eliminated from the Metropolitan P,lanning ,9rganization's Long Range Transportation Plant due to public opposition. Therefore, Alternative 2 is , no longer considered a vital option. Alternative 3 is also Planned as an elevated freeway. it would provide a main lane expansion to two continuous lanes in each direction with new entrance and exit ramps located at North Miami ROBERT ICAPLAN Sc ASSOCIATES, INC. 305.-740-7121 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 •16 17 t18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 Avenue. Two new elevated connector facilities, one eastbound and: one westbound, will provide direct. linkage between. 1-95 traffic and. 1-395 traffic. Alternative 3 features all right-hand entrance and exit ramps Right: -hand .,entrance and 'exit ramps are considered safer, because they meet driver expectancy. Alternative 3 provides a much higher profile than the existing facility allowing for • better utilization of the space underneath. Similar to -Alternative 3, Alternative 4 would also provide an expanded main linesection to the two continuous lanes in each °direction. New entrance and exit ramps at forth Miami` Avenue and two new connector facilities, one eastbound and one westbound, will provide direct linkage. between 1-95 and X-395 traffic: This alternative would result in the closure of Northwest 1st Place, a critical existing' local street '`connection in'Overtown. This option proposeS a tunnel between Miami Avenue'and Biscayne Boulevard .and maintains an undesirable" left -.and ramp similar to thy: existing condition. It should be noted that because of the proximity to Biscayne Bay, flood walls up to 11 feet would have to be"provided at both ends of the tunnel to avoid potential flooding of. the tunnel during ROBERT KAPLAN & A$.. SOCXATE 3', INC , 305-740-7121 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1,4 storm surges, These wal._J.s will create visual obstruction_and.commnnity.cohesion concerns. _Alternative 5. features an open -cut solution. The freeway lane. configuration and ramp .lo'oatio7n of this option is very similar to'the existing 1-395 condition. Under this configuration, many of the existing deficiencies along I-395.:would.remain. Zn addition, numerous .streets 'would be•permanently closed: including Northwest 1rdAvenue. Northwest 3rd Avenue currently serves as_ one of the primary . north/south routes within the..overtown Community. This alternative maintains a.substandard design feature presently found along the current.I.3'95 facility. Alternative 5 entail,s a.prevision of an open -cut or trint .section . with maximurs loath capac ty.of approximately a8 feet below the existing ground elevation. This depressed: section. extends 4500 .feet from ,Northwest2ind Avenue, to just east of Bayshore prive. , New ,bridge ,structures would be required to.. stand severalnorth/south avenues as well as the F'EC railroad in, order tip provide access: across. the o en trench. Under Alternative: ,,thevertical clearance at the Bayshore. Drive encamp would be lower than that of the existing condition, and thus. 'the southbound "lY gpn.sams uu09 4445.pJi.4ioK.W'R��1f,S�ilA "pe, . , . Y! .+:.'`...v:11piAf�Jf+6a' ii'il. ROBERT 'CAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 6 1.0 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Bayshore Drive ramp Connection to eastbound MacArthur Causeway Bridge would need to be closed. To accommodatethis movement, left turns would be allowed at the 'Biscayne Boulevard Northeast 12th Street intersection. Because of i.te depressed profile, this option would also require the provision of extensive flood walls in order to prevent potential flooding during storm Surges. A detail evaluation methodology°using the nUMerioa1 descriptive matrixes .was utilized taking into account 15 evaluation parameters including engineering; social economic:; environmental and cost fadtcrs. This detailed evaluation showed A7.ternat,ive 3 to be the highest rank alternative from a safety, operational, cost and multimodal standpoint: In addition; all the viable build options, this alternative has the least tight of way and -social economic impacts to the'.' community. In s.ummaxy, Alternative 3 is a preferred option for betli +'DOT and' `the Federal Highway Administration. In addition, the 'BrOjeot Advise ry Group, which. is composed of several stakeholders from the surrounding project area; and various other agencies and' local grew''s have expressed their support of ROBERT ICAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC 305-740-7121 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24. 25 16 Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. As part of this PD&E study, urban design objectives for the l- 395 corridor were generated from the need to improve the physical and perceived aesthetic of the highway on the neighboring community. One of the major study goals was to allow for potential reconnection of local..streets in_Overtown that were previously disconnected as a result of the original construction of the 1-395 facility. Alternative 3 provides the necessary ,vertical clearance to reconnect both Northwest 2nd Avenue and Northeast. Miami. Court.. Due to its higher profile and separation of: the eastbound and Westbound lanes in certain areas, Alternative 3 will also allow for better pedestrian connectivity as, well as the poosibi1ity of additional parking and other open -space opportunities. under the new facility. Another important.. component of the engineering analysis is the maintenance. of traffic,. or ;MOT. A conception MOT plan has been developed for the preferred build .Alternative. 3. This plan not only includes the.[-395 system'traffic control plants, but also the local streets adjacent to the facility specifically within the residential community of xNw/�+�zvr..YRwu+,uawwNRw.M.w ROBERT lazkr, +T & AS$OCZATES, fr INC. 305-740-:7121. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 in:contaCt with. Xf you axe required to make any type of move as a result of the Department of Transportationts projedt, you can expect to be treated in a fair and helpful manner and in compliance with the Uniform Relocation.Assistance Act. You Will be contacted bY 110BE1T KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES INC. 305-740-7121 17 Overtown. The Overtown community generates the most pedestrian and bicycle •traffic. Since abiding property land uses within Ovtrtown include not only residential, but also recreational and educational facilities such as Booker T. Washington Senior High School and Douglas Elementary School, the pedestrian safety, as well as the mineralization of access disruptions during all project construction stages are a primary concern. As previously mentioned, there are some right of way needs associated with these improvements. A total of 64 properties, 52 which are vacant, are anticipated to be directly impacted by the preferred alternative. One of the unavoidable consequences of a project such as this is the necessary relocation of family or bueinesses. On this project, we anticipate the 27 location of ten families -and five businesses of which the-Department(haa Already been, 4 „ p. • 6 9 IO 12 13 15 .16 • 17 18 ,20 21 22 23 .24 .25 18 an appraiser who will inspect yourpropetty. We encourage you to be present during.the inspection and provideinformation about the value' -of your .property •YouJilay also beeligible.for relocation advisory:services and payment benefits.,,If you are jmanTtoved.andyoulreunsatisfied with the Department's determination of your eligibility for: payment or the amount of'that payment, you may • appeal that -determination. You will be properly furnished the necessary forms,and notified of the procedures .to be, followed in malting that appeal. special word of caution: If you move before you receive notification of the relocation benefits that you might be entitled to your benefits may be jeopardized. The district relocation administrator who was supervising this program is Diego Rivadeneira, Hell be hal:TY to,answer Your questions and will -also furnish you with copies of relocation sYstem brochures — Diego, if you would pleaPPStand so that anyone who is involved in a relocation of this project willAnow that they need to see you regarding,their property. The project has been thoroughly evaluated for - potential environmental, imPaOts. Either minimal or. ROB8RT KAPTAN.&:ASSOCIATES, INC. ,305-7407121 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.0 21. 22 23 24 25 19 no adverse environmental effects are anticipated as a result of this project and air quality assessment was conducted and this project meets the standards established by the U.S. EnvLronmental, Protection Agency. Five significant historic resources were identified within an. area of potential effect. These are the Sears Roebuck & Company Building, Fire Station Number 2, St. John's Baptist Church, The Rio Mar Apartments, and Citizens Bank. 'It should be noted that no direct impacts to any of these sites are anticipated. In terms of potentialcontamination, 21 potential contamination site's were identified within the immediate project vicinity. of these, six are listed as high, -risk sites, two minimuM-risk sites, nine as low -risk sites, and four as no -risk sites. A noise `impact assessment was prepared for the; project. Most of the sites determined to be Impacted by the build alternative are located between Northwest 3rd Avenue and North 'Miani Avenue where numerous residents are located directly adjacent to X-395. The: primary source of noise along the corridor is caused by vehicular traffic on 1-395. The noise levels closest to 1-.395 are ROBERT'KAPLAN 4 ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 4 6 7 9 10 J.7. 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 0 .21 '22 23 24 25 20 generally Predicted .to•decrease with the .preferred alternative due to the greater elevation of the proposed. roadway. Noise levels i.nOvertown that are. not adjacent to the 1-395 corridor are, not expected to be affected by the project. The current project costs associated with the I-395improvements are approximately $581.million in construction costs and •183.4.million in right-of-way costs for an overall project .cost .'of approximately 764.4 million. The, proposedimprovements to X-395 were investigated and documented in the engineering and environmental . studies conducted for this project. These documents and preliminary plans for the proposed roadway construction improvements are available here tonight for .anyone wko wishes to examine them.. Project information will be available fer,review at both the FD0T District Six office and at the Overtown field office until September 1st. This PD&E study began in December,. of.2004 and is scheduled for. completion 'by Decamber2O09. The preparationof the final constru.cti.on.drawings and right-of-way acquisitions will follow .this.phase. Anyonedesiringto make. a statement orpresent written views and/or exhibits regarding the ROB RT KAPLAN &r ASSOCIATES, INC. 30.5-7.40-.7121 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.1 23 24 25 location, .conceptual designs, social, , econoinio and environmental„ effects of the improvements will now have an opportunity to do so. If you're holding speaker cards, please give them to the district staff members. If you have not receiveda speaker 'card and wish to, speak, please raise your hand so that you can receive a -card to fill out. Written statements and exhibits may be presented in lieu of or in addition to verbal statements. A11 written material received at this public hearing and at the Florida Department of Transportation District Office located at 100.0. Northwest 111th Avenue, Room 61.17.,A> Miami, Florida 33172 postmarked no later :than ten days following the date of this public hearing will become part of, thepublic record for this hearing. All written comments should be addressed:. to 'Vilma Croft, • P.R., project manager. Comments may also be e-mailed to Vilma.Croftedot.etat.e.'L.US. This concludes our presentation. We will now. call upon those who have turned • ;in speaker cards. When you •come .forward, please state your name and address. If you represent an organization, a municipality or other public body, please provide that information as well. We ask that you limit your input to three minutee if you are representing ROEERT KAPLA T & ASSOCIATES, INC 305-740-7121 2. 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 k • an organization and that you limit your individual comments to twominutes. Please dome forward to the microphone so rthat the court reporter will be able to get a complete record of your comments. MR. ALEXANDER: Good evening, ladies And gentlemen. NW name is David Alexander. I'm president of St. John -- MS. CROFT: David, David. David. David. David. David. David. KR. ALEXANDER: What? MS. CROFT: •Xlm sorry. We have comment cards. So we're going to go in order. Did you• turn in a comment card. MR. ALEXANDER: Yes, 1 did. Ms. CROFT: Okay. We'll -call' your name. Right WA I'd like to call Senator --' •k MR. ALEXANDEP Okay. Thanks anyway. X have to leave. Okay? Thanks. M$: CROFT: 'I!ot, sorry. I'd liketo call -Senator Frederica Wilson, and ::he' will make a bomment.for the record. • Ms. wIts0N1 Thank you so -- ooh, wow. Okay. Thank you so much for corning out this evening. 1 am Senator Frederica Wilson an 1 serve in the State Senate representing District 33. gatxmosivaalt.auwarmammicumituRc‘mwera ROBERT ICAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. '1a 16 17 10 19' 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 x was 'born in Overtowxi on. Northwest .4th Avenue. My grandmother's name was r'rederica, and she owned several blocks of Overtown before she passed away. 47hen,.1 was one year old, we moved to Liberty City in a home that it took my father one year to build, and the reason it .torik himone year to build was because. blackpeople could tot obtain loans; So he had.to build the house,every evening he got off from Work. He would go to the construction site with the construction workers, and they. would build onthe house brick by brick, and as they completed the days Work, he would have .to pay them. So as he. Saved his money, it took. ue a. year for ;us, ;to build .a house in Liberty City., so we moved to Liberty City.• . SoOvertown.plays ..a special part in my heart. This is my ..birthplace, and X watched the, transition as the.expressway pare through and X just, want to say and 1 want tobe very fair with. you, in throughout the state of rlorida, we have all kinds ofprojects going on au it relates to toads and construction and highways, but never.have..X seen a field office in place where' people in, the community can actually come ask questions,- understand, make .comments and give input. So S appreciate the respect that has been shown toTaybirthplace, ROBERT KAPX,AN & ASSOCIATES IN'C. 3:05--740-7121 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 • 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 . 17 ,118 19 • 20 21 s'22 23 24 25 24. Overtewn, the respect that I see the Florida Department of Transportation'is giving us as a community. I've listened to the options and X've been ;*involvedin this a long time. I'm not sure whatthe wishes ofthe cemmutity'haPpens to be, blit'what 1 have heard and what has been presented to mein the briefing that I received last year and tlds year, the railed bridge is the best -- the raised ra4 to me is the Most ceMtpon Sense one that • We shOuld`tryto approach in thig endeavot; Xn addition, I:had questions about what would be under the raised bridge that was la aesthetically beautiful, and I* was Promised that we would have 00Me.xlice flowers' and'planta, and*it'would be -' *aesthetically beautiful and -,'so that peoPle in the community Would havii come apPreciation as tO what is happening with their community. to X just want to thank Ms. nobble Mumford, who has been working on this project fot a long time, and Vilma, who represent e us and'does 'a great job. 00 behalf of the State of Florida, I just wanted to say thank'yau for respecting thel eople of Overtown and especially for respecting my'birthplace. Thank yeu. 41.1wwwiummiusal:INwnimm.00LAnumaz,!diduimiawal;i11431,14.4.4 ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES , XNC 305-740-7i.21 r 9 1° 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 L9 20 21 22 23 24 2S 25 AUDIENCE MEMBERp Thank you. MS. CROFT: Thank you, Senator. Now I would like to call the next speaker, Ms. Judy Schmelzer AdMinistration, Miami -Dade College, MS. SCHMELIZER: Good evening, everyone. As ahe said, Uudy.Schmeizer, MiaMiDade college, We're at 300 Northeast. 2nd Avenue and we are wtof the community and we are very committed to the OVertown community. We'Ve been involved with the projedt.advisory group since its indeption, Myself andmy assistant, Jerry Sorach, who -is here with me tonight, and hae submitted a reinstatement of sUpport We believe that this is a needed project justlrom the inforMation we saw on the slide show, and we support Alternative 3, bepause we believe it will alleviate some of the traffic congestion that impacts the campus directly. We appreciate the work of Ms. Mumford in organizing, and the Department of Transportation and all the efforts of everybody that has 1en involved in this project. It's much needed. 1 know there's pros and cons with all of them, but we cannot not do it. Thank you. ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 f 2 4 5 .6 7 9 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MS. CROFT: Thank you.. x guess before we continue with the spea)cex'.n, X just wanted to mentionthat we're taking comments. However, any questions we'll be able to address and the team members Will remain after the oomrnent period. -Weill be' able to answer your question, but just keep in'mind'that at this time, it's just .omments trade into the record, so we will not be Able to answer any questions. Sp with that, x'11 go to our next Speaker, Mr,. xrby MoNight. Mtt. MCNtc3EtT: Good evening, xom xrby MCNight. X am -the chairperson of the Overtown Neighborhood Asaem»1y... ' X want to first start by saying,,.1996 to 2000, there was thirteen meetings. X attended the first meeting on this.in 1996. x!m a Little sick of then¢ meetings now.. x am one of the xacal town residents along with M. Caa;twright and othero whe fought the Department of Transportation in 1906 against the project. However, today, x am here in support of Alternative Number 3, alit no, x didnIt ohmage my mind. Alternative Number 3 was not offered to us in 1996. n 1996, ,.we wound have loot two buildings in ROBBRT 5 A LAX & ASSOCXATBS, INC. 305-740-7 .2 . 27 Town Hall Village: The Overtown shopping center, 2 whioh doesnit help us anyway anyheW, and a lot of 3 Other problem, and We Said enough is enough. 4 So because we went on so militantly, X know X 5 was, .X want to thank the Department, Florida 6• Department of Transportation, for liOtening to the 7 residonta. X know We gave you a real eduCation 8 about our beloved community at these meetings, but 9 again, you Can take it, yonlre the staff, they pay 10 youx.want to thank' yOutor Alternative Number .3, 11 and our hatoto B. Hun:ford & Company with what 12 rsepect youtve shown out Oommunity. To our State 13 :Senator, Mrs. Wilpon, who actually 1P Senator for 14 .0vertown,- but is always here to help us. I-wender 15 whore our Senatoris. beVY'eur-Mo, Wi3.son,,tc,M4ke sure that the 17 bate7-end-switch game n,net Played ()PAW- We are 18 acoustomed to improving plans that are going to come 19 on the drawing hoard and be agfertmt. years later. 20 Example, the. mark:1,1190 on.3rd 4venue in the street. 21 They was supposed to be the -- tower, which you 22 instead, we got ayerybad replica of the Jamaican 23 Flag. We didn't ask for that. So I hope this won't 24 be a bait -and -Switch scheme like that was. The City 25 did that.bate 4714 oWitoh. 1 wouXd. think I would • .. .11./ 6.4.,....1114.,%"0,-i.• 4i, wrr 7•41.• /J. • ,••• ROtERT XAPLOT CCAOSOCIATNia, 114C. 305-740-7121 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 .24 26 28 bold the State much higher than the City. So I want to thank all of you, especially these two ladies. Vilma, I know we had a rough time, but yOu're a pro and I thank you. 1 thank you on behalf of all those residents that met with you at the conference center in 1996 and say, "Hell no. We won't go," but we won't have to go now, Thank you. Thank you verY much. MS, CR0117; Thank you, Irby. We now call Clement Minnis.,, mN. MINNIS: Good evening. Clement Minnis, Booker T. Washington AluMti. also have been fighting you for years. Tonight I'm happy to say I'm happy for 'the proposal of Alternative 3 for the safety of our kids at Booker T, Douglas and the youth. enter. It's being taken care of. If you keep your promise, you won't see me. Thank you. MS. CROFT: Thank you. Derek Cole.. • MR. COL: Derek coie, Lofty Ideas. I'm very happy with Number 3. I've been going to the • .• meetings group for two or three years now, but my main concern is underneath the overpass that we put oattoolwisa. • ROBERT MPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 some 'small businessea and some Proper use. underneath. MS. CROFT; laank you. Fred Jeseph. MR. aOSEPHi First, 1 would like'te thank all of youlorattending -- and the.staff that put up With the advisory groups thateame over, these two ladies especially who made surd.that these meetings were civil and resPectftl. The advisory group' that was formed called the Stakeholders, we saw the projects. Unfortunately, we were not able to get the input of all the community. So we. kept advising our stakeholders. With that, came a great deal of ideas of the emphasis of. What was going to.go Under the raised facility. We saw parks, because We don't want to see A chain link fen60, We.Saw'f6Untains, because we didn't. want to nee traffic hold up. We saw a lot of items' that you know -- Xvve lived. there. 1 look ' out there and X am there:I'm going to be the first to bother of alltheitems that you didnit like and .' the landbcaPe is trash. We want to see the progress. NuMber'3 was the only one that Would give a little bit to everybOdy, but the biggest impact ROBERT KAPLAN & .AS8OCIATES .1 INC. 305-74Q-7121 1 2 -3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 *13 DIXOBT: Good evening. Tim also here to Eilgvott.:toe project1 likeKumber 16 the less intrusive, butt the same time, I'm always' thinking$,.aheadt and whatI!m4nterested: in 'is the 18 lobs or e,economics. of the project. In 19 Pa411Plaar;- the. infrastructure is raised at and 20 minoritiesparticipation. If you go. to the Miami-Dade.exP;esewaY, they 30 would be the vigual effect. It's sq unsightly now that we will bavary pleased. want to thank all the members of the project advisory group that I originally coached there, don't know where our chairperson disappeared to " an0„thon.they elevated meto.that, may be with a target onliyy back. ,But 1 want to thank all of them, and they, should be recognized„ because they kept many, many, many meetingsand many hours of trying to help us the community. Ihank you very much. •14S, Ci2OFT: Thank you. We have Ken, Ken Knight. ,2 2 have a. minority Participation program for vendors, 23 1 think that this project should havethe Pam, but 24 , my emphasis is always.on outcomes. ,YOU °snit eat ,1 25 grass, You can't eat flowers. You can.l.t, pay your' r44.444N.4a4g0.-34—wo$,,,,o-rw.u.,..--..44.4....0, 41.,......4....fis,ow•- • , , ROBERV EAPLIAN & ASSO'CIATES, INC 05-740,..7121 u. 3 6 7 a 9 11 .2 13 14 15 16 `17 �.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 mortgage or your car payment. 5o all those beautification things they appear to be. please to the eye, but they don't do anything for your bank account or your pocketbook. So -my emphasis is always on those outcomes.. Where are the jobs as it relates:to•-thepeople in Qvertown? How are yo►a going to-'inelude .them with training and Subsequently employment? ' I mean, it's the'meat-and-potato issues that'I'm concerned with. You keep the vows, you know, and I'll take them as • they're given to the ` jobs. Thank you. MS. CROFT: Thank you. Rodney Jackson. y MR. JXCKSON: Good evening. My name is Rodney 1 Jackson. I'm a resident, born and raised in overtown. When X look at the projeots and what it impacts, X See it impacts my community. My community has already suUUered a great deal, and it's still suffering, and with this project, it continues to come through. I'Mi looking at the impact and what wi11it do and what will our community become because of it, 1 xcuse me. I'm a Little nervous of 'speaking in ROEERT 'CAPLAN & ASSOCIATES INC. 305-740 7121 32 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 9 10 11 12 13 14 ,15 16 17 18 19 20 2.1 22 23 24 255 front of anaudience, but AUDIENCE. MEMBER.: ;You're doing fine:. AUDI'NCE MEMBER: You're fine... MR. JACKSON: ]C would really liko-to know what are the benefits that. -will help., our community more: than. it.:will destroy at. Qvertownis., not big. It has& t. signed its name on a bonus card where its parks can be distributed. Any way that a group of people tlhat:have the money that it is suited for their benefit.: We aped to get our community back together, .not destroy it. by building and moving our residents out. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER; Thank you. MS. CROgT:_ Thank you Robert Foamier MR. FOUMIER: .Robert Fournier; 2.07.Q.. Northwest 3301 Street:, Mzami.., z..' m veryupset, that the; Senator had:. to< leave and, she;.did,, because 1 hadaomeththg. very..important to say, and thatis regarding: the senior'citizens who have been hooting;, and hollering all across our nationregardingthese public meetings. you have, but we don't have the senioz-eitizens here, but they did not complain about healthcare -- per se. R.OBEI T KAPLAN & -ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 p.5-:740.7121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 '21 22 24 25 ) 33 What a senior citizen is dealing with 3.0 a Completo.distrust in the united States of'221merica. They have -lost the faith in.America, andthat's what. I want to say. pow, I'm a senior citizen and'I'm not complaining. I'm looking/into the future: This project is. a 1960 project. It's a lead maker. What ym have to consider is a project that will take us into the next SO years, and I'm talking about interstate s across the United States- This project ' is being constructed for tho .port and the tunnel and for thethousands of tractor -trailers that corn across the road every day. . Me -need tractor -trailer traffic off our interatates, and they can go by rail. At the present•time; the rail y etii conbidering tractor and the trailer -rig driving -on to a flat -- and going for a-200-mtle trip or -overnight.. The tractor . driver,..the truck driver:goes with.the rig, He drives'it Onand off, and -1Am mentioning"that because that is the 'future of the interstates. They; areunbafe with those rigs on it. If We're building -this in conjunction. with the tunnel, we should know.thist There'are train tracks running from the Port of Miami. ' worked the ROBERT KAPLAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 20 '21 22 23 24 25 train bridge In 1.972. X worked the midnight shift. What we did is we came on'duty, we •set you at the bridge.at1100„ and the trainstookthe cargo off . the port between 100 and 5:00.a.m. We eliminated thatAowntowntraffic.Vay back then; I don't know. whywa'deWt;do it,tedey. Okay? Ms. ,020FIT: ,Thank yo Charles Cutler, MR:_CUTIJtg: Good afternodn+ everybody. X want, . to say one.thing. First, me forgive-noT for what you did,in the past,. and just like this gentleman just stated, we want toloOk into -the future, so what's in the past is in. the past, and Mr, Ken Knighte-he spoke about something that's vety :apecific..to my heart-. • ..,--.We,need to look atthis project from an optimistSs_perspective and waneed-to,be able to identify whateVer opportunities that -.-that exist so-that.this community will -be allowed to grow, .-beoaM4P,the ponbuild option; that's 'not an option at, all. -.something has .to be. done with the OXPresswaY, and the elevated optionr.Option 3, is what -- my namp's.chaties cutler. ,I111) going to start -- and I'm an,Overtown resident. I've been over here for 30 years, and I am the pm of the Veterans ...• • •••• • noun KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES INC. 305-740-7121 1 7 8 9 1.0 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 Employment Transition Service, and we have -- I've raised other children _- I put three children through college in overtown and I've rained some other kids that's taken different paths, and T'm really,really concerned about the .oareex'path that a. lot of these kids are going to take, whatever opportunity, that's not ` really 'DOT' a responsibility, but whatever opportunities and however FDOT can assist us in being able to: Number one, create job opportunities both for our -youth that's coming out of school, to be able to utilize that lard up under .. the expressway in the event that the County and the city and the State of the Federal Government do go with Option 3, to be able to get the highest and best use out of that property so it can benefit' the community so it can bring our community back together. What's in the past is in the past, and we're going to leave that there. It's time to grow now, but what we want to do is We want to grew together, and what we want to look at that X-395 project and look whatever projects that POT might have that's available throughout Miami -Dade County and even throughout the state of Florida, because We have a lot people here. ROBERT KAPLAN dk ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740'-7 21 1. 2 3 10 11 12 13. 14 1:5 <16 17 18 9 20 21 '22 23 24 25 36 As you know, we; are strapped -with the .homeless cxisia, and then one of the. biggest problem with the homeless is skills, knowledge and they're abilities -are not —conducive to employment in the local area. So that - we can be.: able. to facilitate that„ process. •. We can even be .,able to .relocate them. that we have been ,very successful with them as.veterans. to be able to make them more productive individuals just by placing them in other places.:based.:on their • ski11s,...ancl knowledge and abilities,.so that they'll: be .able; to -_get back on land. and.,bedome productive _taxpayers. So, that!;s what this .:e :.ali:.about. From our perspective,. - this is .ours. 'opportunity, and we want to be abletocome in from:the.beginning all the,way to the end -to be able to: fa:sil.itate the process. , and whatever; develnpe, as a> -resu1 of that, we want to be able to participate.in that- process also. .. ..: ..•r . Thank you. MS ...CROFT.: .Thank you. Todd Whitefield. Todd? , - Alyce Robertson, Ms. ROBERTSON':: Hi., Alyce Robertson with the Miami. Downtown. Development Author ity. x just want to speak to this: The way it is RO '3ERT YtAPLAN & ASSOCIATES r INC, 305-.740-7 21 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 looking in the preliminary designs, make pure that there. is --I1in using theterminology of Somebody earlier about a bait and switch. - This has to be a 'Signature bridge. It has to be one of those world -quality bridges. It's right in front. of the Performing Arts Center. Its the.gateway into our oity. It has to be an ionic look at where we're rebuilding this -- it's not a very Sightly bridge right now. - I'm Sorry to sae that the tunnel option is so unfeasible, because'claiming back Some ofthe property underneath Would aCtually'be-mere deSitable, but if it.'not able to be going forward - -- I do also want to put on the record a concern about the acoustics in the Performing Arts Center; The Performing Arts Center is a $600-mi11ion-taXpayer-fUnded facility. It was based on the adeuetiCe beinge highend acoustical space, and 1 think that one of the concerns as going forWard is to make Sure that nothing that is being done on this project would damage any of those aceustice. Thanks. MS, CROVT: Thank. you. Regina Munnings from iaower U. RODERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES , INC 305-740-7121 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 :14 16 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3.8 MR. MuNNINS9: That's Reginald Munnings. MS. CROFT:. 04 sorry. Sorry. MR. rmiss Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for allowing me to come here and speak. I ilasn't quite old enough the last time the expressway, came through, but I'd like to say thist My concern is -- I'M an old resident here. I've been around since 1986, and off and on. Now, this is my residence of choice. I love this area. It's economical. I'm getting older, now. One block seems like two, you know. Everything is close in this area for me and I like this area and 1 know a lot of people got their eyes on it as well. I just want to point out the fact that I would like to see,the people of this area included, not excluded in this project, you know. I'm all about trying tpget everybody together, you know. I see the expressWay. It's main thing is to make it more economical for people to get back and forth from Miami Beach to the mainland, and in case of emergencies and the commerce of Course. I like the idea of Number 3, but I want to remind you of what we have right now.. We have public expree ways *ith underground passages underneath with fences around areas that you can't R.Q13ERT XcAPLAN & AS$OCIATES, INC, 305-740-7121 39 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 26. 21 22 23 24 25 ) even get to, you know, except for workers in the city using it for storage areas and whatnot. I mean, this is the same promise you're giving us now, that you'll build something underneath it. I just hope we'll get an even swap and not a swindle this time. Okay? Sc, with that, I'll take my leave. Thank you. MS. CROPT: Thank you. Eugene Rodriguez. MR, RODRIGUEZ: Hi. I'm Eugene Rodriguez, I own the Ice Palace Pilm Studios and Karu & Y and also own two of the five historical buildings you have as listed of which there's actually more on North Miami Avenue and llth. There's another group ot historical buildings that have not been accounted for. I have a pretty big objection to having both • , •,, . the on ramp and off ramp on North Miami Avenue considering - especially the off -- the on ramp, because everyone leaves at the same time from the arena and everything. So it's going to create huge congestion and ruin the connectivity of the two entertainment districts, that connect on North Miami Avenue. I came to the last Meeting a year ago,. and I ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC, 305-740-7121 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 16 20 21 ,; 22 23 24 25 objected. No one called me to meet or to go anywhere. I -think if the enramp is moved to Discayne and the off ramp to NOtth Miami. Avenue, at.: leaut yontre otaggeting 'that traffiC, but Putting both of bhem-between North Miami Avenue ia almost like just uhovingeVerything -in One spot,and North Miami Avenue is too small. It can't handle that, oo -- and Iedlove to Meet with someone about it, because it is a huge problemrfor our future developmentin the area, and we -are putting a lot of money,in that tea, ,00 11d 1 appreciate someones assietanCe. • MO..CROFTI Thank you4 KelPoY Doroe.tti MR. DORSATTt God evening, Myjlamo is Xeloey Dorsett. First Of all, I'd like to °amend the 00 fer its unprecedented efforts in terms of getting community inVolvement. 1 do recall back in the ,50a.and 1600 where we knot nothing that was coming until it waa,cOming. So we Wore involved in a planning phase and envisioning phase of this. project; and '1 want to thank you. X do support Option 3, Xalso'believe that Option 3 is -- for joba. My personal -quest is Jobs, ROBgRT KAPLAN 61 ASSOCXATES, 305-740-7121 INC. 40 41 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 .17 1E1 21 22 23 24 25 jobs, jobs, economic OpportimitieS, and Would hope that DOT can find Some ways,'innovated,ways, of preparing the 'persons that live in Overtown or in the adjacent areas that will be iMpacterIby 1-395 will have ad opportunity to work with these projects. You're• going to 1160d a lotof laborers. You're going to need different people. I don't know What it'weuld entail tobuilding highways, -but X see that there ie.; a good opportunity, a great opportunity to take'advantage of creating new jobs. ,particUlatIy for people in Overtown, and as the young Man mentioned'the veterans, the Association. I would also hope that DOT would take advantage of the training opportunitiee with Miami -Dade C011ege We-alaci have'busidessdevelopment opportunities'with the MiaMi-Dade Chamber.of Commerce, Miami -Dade College and others. So that's. another possibility of:helping people get jobs and black -owned businesses treated. Again, / support Alternative 3, and my one concern, I think, at the last pant that was made is that in the past; Overtown has been isolated. It didn't have -- well, we can Look it it right now this 39$, 1-95 -- that you dell it. I'm just ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 • 4 2 wondering if you can Create something that would 2allowtVertown to .have moretraffiO flaying. If you. don'thave traffic and-peOple,coming, to. an,area, youkrenot going to have a thriving economic engine , yeknow that small ,businesp is the economic 6'makingof AMerioa, So,maylje you will look at that 'lest Portion of it and:trYto- make a waythat 8.I;jOyertowncan have ,some -7 ngt a vbalsof lot traffic, 9 going through,,,.but some.trafflofor,,, and I'll make .10 my last point._ ,T.knowor a fact frem,the,Past ,11 etreets,-17th, 16th Street, 1 believe 9th and 10th 12 treets, have been blocked off for :years, Okay? 13 And though it's not a DOT responsibi4tY, „these are 14 the:. kinds of tpings th4t we have seen happen in isolated Overtpwn.. " 16 48,Frederica said ,-- ch here's my partner .... 17 itm a native,miaman, and my ,4ere in '18 19 90 22 23 24 25 1911. So_Overtpwn is myheart, and I 'd just like to see',.the POPt tbings One or it AgAint congratulations. , Thank you'. MS. ,cRopT , John 1Richard. MR. RICHW: Good. evening. Thank you for the invitation to come ,and speak. My ,name is John Richard, and 1 am the president ot the AdrApnne ROBERT KAMM ASSOCIATES/ INC. 305-740-7121 7 8 10 .11 12 13 14 15 _16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4.3 Arsht Center of the Performing Arts in'Miami-D'ade County: The real reason came tonight is x--'wanted to see the Lyric Theater, and ,asyou talked about -- z say that in •- jest in part: This is really a beautiful space, anal, the renovation is reflective of the aspiration and that great design that snakes peaple feel good about coming to public spaces like this, and I think 7 as X was thinking and .listening to the community speak about this.p.rticular project 'over the past13• years, I realized that TLve come late to the gams having joined the Arsht Center back in December of 2008 and starting my career in Miami,, and living in Miami for the past nine months. The second reason that I' cametonight is that 1 wanted to hear for myself the community's x'esponae to the project and how over 13•years there's been a willingness by the ° FDOT to listen to folks about the impact of such incredibleproject to the'dommuuity, and T'also come here,`as the president air the Arsht Centerto learn before we can support, an option and to take the ten days to think•about'what we've heard and to assess fox ourselves what this design could mean to two very beautiful theaters, one of which was -- is, z 'should say., the_last great concert ROBERT JK PLAN & ASSOCXATE$,. 305-740-7121 1 2 3 4 5 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 .15 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 44 hall, the Knight,Concert Hall, te.bsbuilt in this nation aa a concert hall, and then, of course, is . the nit Ballet Were House. ,130 wa, have some concerns about the public and privately investment in these two,facilitiea, which are qUite nearby, and,part of the fabric of the community in beginningto.gainmomentum as an asset, in:this city, asa destination locally and regionally., So the thoughts we have, AS we Pee in. this deign and the proposed selection of Humber 3,. is that if it begins to have, a number of features that msshould think about seriously, The highway does move.cIoser to the b4ilding,,and by moving the highway and the bridge closer to the, building, 1 have, to ask the question that 1 know you can't answer tonight, eP,41YPA Robertson did,from:MialAi Downtown Development Authority, now,dowe assess the acoustical impact •On these,twOPheaters- when there was,such, a huge.investment .in keeping ambient sound' ClutSideofthe,theater and,keeping pound outside of the concert hall, and 1 don't know Within your study you' 1]. praise theimpact Of sound and noise that would impact these two theaters, second, it.seems that there is a historic opportunity in design to create, as Alyce described .4woura.alt“-44,4"0*".".4•44,4+441".., AUWW44.41 • ROBERT npLAN & ASSOCIATES/ INC. 305-740-7121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 12 13 .14 15 3.6 .17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 and others have seen, this magnificent structure' And iconic bridge for the city, that could be a feature for this city Worldwide au -a distinguishing architectural element that could not only accentuate thp two beautiful bnildings,at the art Center, but our entire community as the gateWay: coming through out city and leading to the beach. Third and fourth are more practical questions thatwe would have that,W0 .would need tcfocus on as it relates to a long-totm cOnsttUction project like this. W0 are expecting next season in terMs of the number of performances at the center and people arriving and departing, oVer,500000'people coming to the center. 'In the firet-seaSon, there were nearly 300,000 people, andthat-is a driving experience that begins with -getting in the oar and getting back in the Car after the experience, So this aldo seemingly has an impact on parking, but ' fitst it ha an impact on dOnstruction.. tiring the, construction period,' the people coining andleaving, ad what happos'Ourin4 that periodHof'time When, theteis'a construction project of this magnitude of .this impaetto our Ot*loity, and .we would imed to 'asses:a that for ourselves in being suppOrtive.of the project and moving it forward, 'ROBERT 'CAPLAN & ASSOCIATES • INC . 305-.740-7121 46 Finally, I would like to say. that wecOnsider the opportunity to participate. and the. points that I've made are,really important to the Areht Center, I think. to the City, and .1,wOuld believe. to the State of Florida, bedaUse if done cotrectlY, this signature element to ourgOity has broad illIplications of how we locally market the assets of our city internationally. $O I thank you forg.the. , opportunity, and I can't wait to come back to the 10 , Lyric Theater when there's a 'Performance on this 11 stage. L2 Thanka4. , "13 MS. CROFT: Thank You. - We have.DaYid ChiYerton. PorrY. '15 , AUDIENC4 MEMSgR: Pavid Chvetton. _ MR. CHWERTON:- ThankYo.u. Pavid- Chiverton. 17 lust Wanted-to'PaY I likeNnTber 3. .I,wut..to be 18 ,sure .that you-alltemember theimportanceof the Cvertownoommun#Y.Preserying,its history, -I've :20 , lived over h formetjre. I.know.that one of 21 .,,c.the, biggest concerns is! just how ;the histpry has 22 , eroded away, So-as.Y9u. raise pie bridqs, maybe 2 there are, things, that:could be done that brings the, community back together, provides.some opportunitie0 25 for like a socialtevival and things like that, that ROEIERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 " 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 Will really help give Overtown back it name, because thereto a lot of history, a lot of love, a lot of respect, and. :I'd like to see that returned along with.recognizing tho$0 agencies tha have been here long enough like the Veterans Employment Transition and the' other CVCs, that have a stake in this area -that they benefit as.you spend $600 million. Thank you. MS. CROFT: Thank you. Colleen Worth. AUDIENCE MEM: Colleen Worth. AUDIPICE MOWER: She left. AUDIENCE MEM8ER: She left. nthony Cutler. MR. CUTtER1 'Thank you -very mudh. My name is Anthony. Cutlet. I reside at 706 Notthwest.'4th Btreet. You know, integrity means a lot to me, and 'knew coming to these meetings., this ain't my first time tonnd: 'I'm ?ciew Robert,'Vilma, and Ms, Mumfotd, they all, familiar with me -- AODIENCS MEMBER t That'S right. MR. CUTLER: and that's why I have to expound on the table, because a let of people have ROI3ERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-.740.-.712.1 4 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lcet what that word really means, especially our so-called representatives. •Not all of them, but some of them, just like Wu had.a mayor did some things in the Miami Herald, that wasn't too bright for the public, but that's how politics does. so the key to integrity is change. With this particular project, and.I. just got it and I've been hopeful and I've been spirited making sire that It is inclusive that people would have the integrity, and I think if these ladies here along with Robert, they display that, because transparency means something to these people, because like X said, there are other projects in,our community that had no transparency. This.is the only project that 1 know that has it. $0.1 have to take,my hat off to these,peeple, because that's what they bring, because we Want. to be included. Inclusion is the key. If we don't include these people -- on board is not going to work and it ain't ,po race -- because if.I take YPur (VP"tunitY away from you, Y01011 be rallying and trying to support your family as well. Those days are gone. We have to now bring back the humanity, in our community, and I think that these people here, they've demonstrated in doing that by having transparencY, and l really admire and waiftm,auma; any, ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOC/ATES, INC. 305-740-7121 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.7 1.8 19 20 •21 22 23 24 25 49 I take my hat off to these guys and I support this project. M8. CROFT: David Eaton. Okay. We're going to take this time in listening -.. oh, .I'm sorry. MR: EATON: good afternoon. I grew up in Overtown. When 'I grew up in Overtown, I watched 95 begin to be build,' and it was a project. It was a project that we thought; then it would bring something to the community other than separation and•- movement -- and when 1 think about the project now, and I've heard a lot of different projects coming from representatives and the government and all these other general people that I haven't seen making progress, there's always these different ladies coming down to Overtown. We do need the expressway, but I don't think that we need an infrastructure better than we need concern in the people of Overtown that has been pushed out. We heard talk about trying to bring them back. There's rig progress on it, and when I think about projects, I dou't believe there's a project incorporated in bringing integrity back. Not just to the politician, but back to the neighborhood, because we have a nei.ghbbrhood that ROBERT KA,PLAN` & ASSOCIATES , INC 305-740-y712 . 3 10 :41 12 '13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 -22 23 24 25 50 has been totally destroyed with Projects. Projects that started, didn't get off the ground. ,Many people said let's forget about the pa6t, but how could you forget about the past when you see projects steadily popping up, but there's nothing ,being done concerning the people that is left here The infrastructure starts with the people, not lust with concrete-highWLY0, but we.don't have an infrastructure when it comes down to people. There's no place to go. You have young women, no place to go... No,place tP.go where theyoar. get computers. gem in Overtown, yen -don't have nothing but a project where there's a -- where there's - Another lie from representatives or whatever, and so when. I,think-it .is 7- IITA jug'q-WAiting to see. Is there truly going. to beeeme,integrity/ re there truly going to.49 some actiontaken, because .• .ihfiAetrUctures to me,doesn't necessarily start with a rampt because thesepeople don't profit from it •and the people that live •in overtown arsgoing to suffer from it. The jobs, things to dorplaces to go, it's not .bere in Overtown,snd So when X hear that Word"project,' 1 wonder if this is just like another institution experiment with the.neighbors and the people of Overtownv,and 1 just Wanted to ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5. share that. Because i haven't seen much action when it comes to Overtown and its projects getting off the ground. Thank you. MS. CROFT: All right. The next speaker, Busam Iddin Latif. MR, LIN,TIF: Latif. MS. CROFT: Okay. Latif. MR. LhTIF: Good evening. My nate is Husain Iddin Latit. I live at 222 Northwest Oakley Terrace. 1 was -- or whatever. My father 8et the steel, put the structure together, because my own mother - because she was the only skilled -- skilled worker at that time here in the area. We also put the top on the courthouse downtown. So that's -- my family did most of the infrastructure in this community when I was a little baby. So I thought S had to share that. $o I'm very concerned about what happens in overtown -- too soon -- because we did all of the buildings at one time. We built all the buildings, you know -- people in Overtown, we did -- all the construction was done by these people in Overtown. Viscaya, built by people from Overtown. Okay? So we have to put those things in perspective. ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ; 13 14 18 16 1.8 19 20 €21. 23 24 25 52 So now, we !trained people, my father trained people, my neighbor, Mr, Goodman, trained electricians. All the. electricians in Miami -Dade. County was trained by Mr. Goodman. Matter of fact, Plorida. Power & Light, got its whole: structure from Mr. Goodman. Okay? He was -- in Overtown. T want you and understand this, that this is.:a historic community, very :historic, and: we are the roots of all of Dade County.. This is the same community that belonged to, Miami River. I want you . to understand that ;too... So we moved, back from downtown to Overtown. This is the same community that was downtown. So whatever you do in thiscommunity,, Overtown, understand that you are the community roots of Dade County. These are the people .that this whole community stands on. SO.,respeCt that. Thank you. One more thing. One more thing. One more .thing., 1 live right here. Okay? Now► there's a construction outfitthat's been under my.-- x've beentrying to get. somebody .to give .me some attention for the last six months -- youdon't count, but I've got hammers going. tight by my -- bulldozers, tractor and trailers, nobody, cares. You ROBERT {;,A'LAtT &. ASSOCIATES, XNC. 305-740-7121 53 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know what I'm saying? Construction company doesn't -- you know -- is anybody - the construction company -- if somebody break the law -.- because that's going to be a problem. That's the property .of Florida's DOT. Nobody -- X just want to know if -- anybody -- thank you. MS. CROFT: Okay. George Sanchez. MR. SANCHEZ: George,Sanchez, 75 Northwest 12th Street. 1. want to thank Gas and your Staff. They've .been very professional in:meetings that I've attended and dieenesing and explaining,to us the things that they're planning for the future, but from the first meeting, I've had only one concern. I've been a property owner in the area for nine years, and with your assistance, wegot parts of underneath -395 lit and.paved-from Miami Avenue up to 1st Avenue. You know., what yoedo'in the future is What we do. in the future, and really my interest is now. - , Likethree parking lots were built underneath and they wereproperty lit. The area from the railroad tracks to Northwest 2nd..Court is dirt. It has been dirt since 1972. Th"re'S)eedles, pipes, a fascinating amount of thing e that you oan find there, and its been there since 1972. 60141/11211•1 ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305 7407121 1 2 54 11••••••••••W So I present the hams argument, I've presented' it since X went to the first meeting, on the baois 3 of credibility to present to thecOmmunity, who X A think it's admirable for this many people to come 5 out and speak in A way that ort hiB, but X 6 want to credibility ita tosay we're going to 7 cleanup this mehii new, not in five Years, not in 8 ten years, -because everyone leekAt the money being 9 spent on:the'studiea and thinga'and they get 10 ' concerned about it4'hUt'teday,if'We all:took a walk: 11 down the.•street; therets-dirt, there'W,needles, 12 broken fences. X mean, roan jUst,go on and on. 13 )aide frowthe drainage issues and the other 14 things they have repaired recentlyk.which .3. think. 15 ; Slaughter .Censtr4Ption bas Ons'akex0,3,1q04 Job, t They tomill4AlOated.With thepropertycvners. .They 17 have been excellent, but you need tWcredibility 18 rea3.1y t:0 MOVE) ONWard, because War there's dirt 19 .undPrneath the bighway and it's beenthere since 20 21 22 23 24 25 1972. So that lb what I am asking for, what, plan 1, car $, it is irrelevant. I want to see that cleaned up. .Thanks. MS. CROYTI Tank. you, 'a4meo Hunt. ROBERT ICAPIJOT & ASSOCIATES r INC 3 05,u740-7121 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • MR. RUNT: Good .evening. My naMe'is James Bunt. All the members of the FOOT, I don't have to introduce myself, because they have seen,a let of me over the last 10 Or 12 years, and it was a project that came through, as everybody said, WertoWn had approximately404 50,000 people by community. Than all of a sudden, we heard that -- early 'BOs -- and 1.t was going to come down - and 1 am amazed at the fact; that the tracks are 'still there, because in • 1965, they told us tight down that track. They were.going- to roVe it from the north to' the south, and they -did. When they put in 95 -- it was five blockto the west, five whole blocks, and all the five blockt, it took everything .that wasnot glued down. It downgraded the -property value.It moved eVerything down. So'fer the last 35, .40 years, I,Ve had a very in. my heart the way yOwWould-if'You lose a friend of yOursi'a dead relative we lost our friend, Booker T. MashingtOn Seniorl-ligh School. It may not have been a --or an'outstanding • infrastructure that BoOker'T. was downgraded to a ' junior highschool, but it started the ball rolling that maybe nobody caree. I' left school in 1957. We were told by our parents and our teachers Af you ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 55' 3 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 wanted to do something about it, you•,go educate. do ,oft -to School Learn s.<imething.- You can't really: gain .i E :you know the; rules anc. you can't .:learn the rules if you don't have an understanding of what they're saying.,...: So all o£ those and. ve:walked out and in Overtown went •off, to -school Five, years later, we came.: back. We . didn't have, a high school in the community. They told `us; it was -integration, and we were trying ,to figure out what was .the difference between,,,integration-and segregation Well, integration became a -new -ward instead•ofstarting with the S,._it changed and we started looking. Maybe this is a go.od.thing•£or us_j,and the more we looked, theMore we founts that, We couldn't .believe what we were told Swasn't sane .>i. graduated from high school and people are saying how long they 1:ived , in the• ;fivertown-area.> .x tve..been,,; here since 1.8. •, When was i born? In 1938 - Now•, ,many people have sa:i.d, to us - the alumni that we don't:,live in this area, but no fault of yours, because with,_ F'DOT, oyrerybody came .,through the. expressway.; We — to call -.- because .our,parente were our leaders, and -they said .to us. little people should be seen and not heard,and: we listened to w ROBERT ICAPI iN & ASSOCIATES, . x iC . 305-340.7121 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that, because we were obedient, but whpn X came back and foUnd the:schoel gone, we heard it was because they had no attendance, nobody kept in the Overtown area,. When they told us they re going to set out notificatiOna-to the people that lived in the area -- now, therels'a FloricWtegislative law that says When you're going to build near a Soheol, we must send out indications to thepeople wholive there within a thousand feet of that school site -- by the - time they get throughwith 95;•nobody liVed within a . thoUsand keet of the school. — So when they send out all those hundreds and thousands of letters to people, nobody iJas telling them -- so they did their job. They"sent out the letters. Now, liVe been -- with -- another thing, and Bobbie can tell you, they said something that hurt •that - 2006. They idyou don't want to live in the Overtown area, Hell no. We said for all PraCtical purpodes, we live in Dade County-- and this ie the parking lot and if you cut down the , toots, you don't bave to worry about that tree, because it wonit. be long to get there. I promised lnyself .and 1 told Vilma, told Bobbie, and every time they.had e meeting, 1 jumped ROBER'r KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC 305-740-7121 58 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :21 .22 P3 .24 25 up and I spoke and / -- and they said, well, when are you going to think about the community, When are you going to do somethings that,might be positive, and I Went, to church •two,years ,ago .and my , pastor said, to me When you lose, 4 lOyed one,. the healing, process .doa notstart until you learn to forgive, Youdoni.t. forget,. but you must learn to forgive, and I ,startod there, and. Robbie,..if You reuimber i. said,te her X um goixag ,to jump up and down andscream„ and yell at anybody who WaSwilling to listen, because in 1965, we didn!t have that optiori, of listening. We were what you call . collateral damage. We were part. of a process going , to eliminate Overtown although wedidn't even. know -- and it came. I look back and Z say all of that not to dredge Up. -,7the past, because it's gone,but, a.lot of time you, hayel to look at _the past:to q d e wha.t7, the : 6 future is going to be, ..because, that ' s, all„ you have. Wehave dreame,beyohd the present; We know what the ,pas't, wag and you got to hope that somewhere in •eOmebody's heart ,is going to.baye a ,new turnaround. I think you, call it transparency and, integrity. I caWt, toil you: -- 1pye what we call -- in the 160s, .aud we were told.that we were going -- moved a ROBERT APLAN & ASSOCIATES, =C. 305-740-7121 ( 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 .12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 :19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 50 out of the area - - and we .didn't count. Vilma, you might remember this. 2006 January,. it was the last town meeting before they -.- bring in the expressway ramp over by Booker Washington, and we were sitting listening one day and some>- student said to me I'm: --.offer. Why are they doing this to. our school? They did it a long time ago.. They don't like us.. I said, no, that's not it. They have another agenda.:. So we decided that we were going to be heard this time and we. were. Vilma came in with the group out there and told us it's not over until it's over,. and we weren't .talking about the fat lady was going to. sing. We were saying we were going to be there, and we were going to be thereuntil we see that you are 'starting ::to see us as a community people to be respected from 40,000 to:50,000 andone day .when your say you're -going to bring:the expressway:through--.BiscayneBoulevard, you know what we thought? - Accordingto them -- 1575, the mayor of Miami said you don't have to worry about your town, because they ride bicycles. They don't need the ramp. We need the ramp to get around to the south, to the north, and then exit at 14th Street, and people Were worrying' where they going to ROBERT KA' ,AN & ASSOCIATES, INC, 305-740-7121 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 60 put that ramp. Right 'down in front of Booker T. Washington, land that was granted by the State.. Since 1977 at -- High School. It took ug 30 years toget back to a high school standard. And though were small -- some people talk about how we going to ao this. Some people talk about jobs. You have a first grade school -- forget about what they classify you as -- most of you don't know they put you in groups of learning according to your skills, andwhat: happens then? I'mentioned three years ago, put a business construction academy at Booker T. Washington, you grow your own product and when they Comeoutof high school, they can have the skills for that community, because they .will .be here. I would like to say to, you. because I jumped all over you guys podium, I'm in favor of Alternative 3, and this is by fax - so .I -give you my blessing and given you our blessing as Longas you don'.t impact the, integrity and the community and .Booker, T. Washing Senior ;High School. You,=.have our:, backing, but ;if:you don't keep .your word were going to always be here, because .we.:wcn't,go.away. Thank you. MS..CRQFT: Thank you. We have Peter McIntosh, RO ER T KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES , INC. 305-740-7121 6i 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 -20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MCINTOSH: Good evening. I've read the and I want to say in .the name Of JeSe Christ who -- heaven -- and to"my pester -- and our first lady -- and to everyone here, X just want to.say'three things: My situation is kind of different. I had just got out of -- 15 years in prison for an armed robbery, and X served 15 years of 22 and in 2006,. 1 contacted the church and I just wanted to mention that they started writing me and X wrote and they helped me. I was released April 16th of this year, 2009, and been doing quite well. X was at Morehaven prison, was the last prison, and X took a CDL crass of which I did pretty good. I passed general knowledge compilation, passengers, doubles and triples and 1 was told that when I get into the Community -- and I would get"dome help. 'I understand to you all here that to work Porce, they put me on the List and said something about calling 'to fulfill .without a job ,and I'm being fully supportedby the church as 1 speak to you this day. I'need help. l want to work, I have -- I want to just get moving. I want to give back to the community. 1 don't live in Overtawn. live in Liberty City. I sold drugs and 1 did a lot of bad things over the years, but I've gotten my act ROBERT .KAP AN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 10 11 L2 13 14 15 16 3.7 18 20 '21 22 23 24 25 togethori and 1 need help I.want to work. I'm willing tcrwork, and if X can't drive .a tractor -trailer, then I guessdig Mild or whatever I have to do. My point.is I'm without a job and I'm an ex-Convictwilling to giye back to my comMunity. thankful'to the. church. t'm working with the youth and -- the life that Ilived and .11msorry for All the people I hurt at one time hence I'm going doing the best I can with what 1 have, •which is nothing, but overall 1 have -- and 1 use that for the glory of God, and Ineedyour help, I have a -number. It's 786-486-2833, andyou can contact me any time,reven 41.00 in, the morning.. 1 don't care. I just want to Wrk. 1 want to give back to my community and Xowe it tq society to come out and be a productive citizen, because you can change. You can turn around. You Can make, you know -- but X need,your help. I can't do it without You. So I'm asking you --111Y,d4dress is 1455 Northwest 67th ZtreetApartment 9, and then Miami, Florida 33147, aridthe cbch.i attend is called Apostolic Revival center located at 6702 northwest 15th Avenue, and I just„want to aay thank you.to you all and I'm ready to get moving, raw.-56x.43,3amizaw§4 liak.4.kunatt.44.• ARAluizaa PilllexaMoult ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC 305-740.4121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 Thank you. MS. CROFT: Thank you. David Alexander. SaVid? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Se lett, MS. CROFT: Javier BetencOurt. MR. BSTENCOURT: Hi. Good evening: Javier Betancourt With the Miami MA. I juat want to make aCoUpla of 'quick comments% Fitst of all, I haven't heard'a whole lot toight about transit, and I. just want to make sure that as you move forward, you in corporate transit into your deaign both looking at the gateway and alb° the -- fer the future of South Florida, East Coast Florida -- commuter rail, atd secondly, 1 juat want to underscore a comment that was made by George Sanchez earlier that .while we're focuased'hare tonight on the futureand ten years .from now, that there are a lot of improvements that .canbe and should be Made today, tomorrow And in'tha years batWeen now and the donstructioxiaf ”S. ' So cusing on the aesthetic improvements, Cleanlitesi, safety, 1ight4n04 those things are extraerdindrily important to doWntoWn, to the surrounding areas, around 1-395, and it really zeeds to be, you know, Eocused on those issues today while ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES 305-740-7121 10 12 13 14 .15 16 17 ' 18 -19 20 '21 22 23 24 25 64 we look at tomorrow. Thank you. MS. CROFTly Thank you Dr. Dorothy Fields, DR. FIELDS: Thank;.you, Good evening and welcome to the Historic Lyra,o. -theater. I'm t,r. Dorothy Jenkins .„Fields.. I'm the founder of the Black Archives Foundation and:this hiet'oric theater; which..was.,built , in ,1913 ' in an outreach program of ,the., Black )'rahives Foundation. _Wye delighted to have you;here this evening, and we are not quite Sure_>yet,.the Black .Archives and the...historical -- district, association and,other_than residents, the stakeholders, we're.not.quite sure yet .that the third or. any of the proposed. areas,_ are the: ones that we want,. because we don't, understand and We have not seen. any indication of the benefits, to :this community. Jim Hunt,. who spoke . so eloquently, and. 1 gave him,, T ;think,.some of.my time, wars the principal at Booker .m. Washington High School, and.though the information that he. gave you:comes from the., organization and how they have been working trying to keep this as a cohesive community know that we .must see ,benefits.. ROBERT .itAPLAN & ,P:SSOCIAATES, 305-740-7121 INC. 65 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -':15 16 r17 18 '19 20' 21 22 23 24 ,2.5 For instance, as it looks now, there will be no access to Overtown.. Second Avenue ,and 3rd Avenue, as i understand it, will all be cut off, that the only way that you Will be abbe to get to this area. will be 8th Street. There's got to be -- we've got to be able to have interface, and so we need very Much to have `acdese.' Of course, we are concerned about the theater) 'aridi aii very happy that 'the president of the Arsht Center wras here; 1.hopehe's still here. I'd like very much to meet him, and We too are 'concerned about the aootistics and all of the other things that .go with the theater. So know that there Are still sbme of us are who unsettled, and when I was growing up, at'Booker T.,. they called it the "Highway in the Sky. Ile -were told that we all had to write'essaya about this Highway in the Sky that wap coming, and we• didn't quite understand what it was " about, and `once` we. saw the devastation that it caused to this ` community, once a vibrant community,, cud thrall) Arid commercially, withot regard to the people, we knew that that was; not quite what we should have httd. And again, we are quite unsettled about this, ad within the next ten days, we. need. to know the ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305.-740-7121 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 . ,22 23 24 25 66 benefits to 9vertown. Thank you, MS. CROFT; -- will talkto you after the meeting. Some .of the Statements, some of the .... go over that with you. 131,11 Curtin, MR, CURTIN: Good evening.,. My name 1.6 Bill Curtin. a'resident of Coral Gables -- coming , over here to see .these -7 cities 7- in particular, ..., I've spent a lot of time in Philadelphia, :which ActnallY intothe city and it's actually pretty appealing as far as pedestrian -- I don't have a direct stake in thiaommunity. I was just, curious about the people that livelsere and work here -- and I don't own real eatata here. 1 don't work in this direct area. The other thing that, prompted me to come over here today is 1 saw the picture of theelevated ridgq newpapr, and0„mm aesthetically it just didn't,look so great, but -- I guess thereon great -- oppertunitien. a4 owner -- we paid for osr own renoVations -- do anything once. So I think in terms og looking ,at different options here, if you take a different viewpoint, and thin viewpoint, from what 1 can tell, is to more a AWN. 0.41,44014LiSk• calamake R,OBER'I' KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. •305-740-7121 5 7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 lot of cars. ad Allow them to traverse this area without stepping. This is the first time X've.ever been in this balding and aCtally on this block. Think it is a terrific. building. 1 think if it wad, a -- street -- type of a community, X probably would have stopped here in the paat on my any trips over to Miami Beach. Anatfier thing X didn't quite see in here was anything about Mass‘tranaA. /rt. didn't seem to be integrated in the plan at all, and in terms of viewpoint, there's references here that this structure would come / guess to accommodate the traffic flow up to 2040 or 2050, which I guess this. taking care of Myeelf. I think -- as Well to see it, but quite frankly, in terms of a viewpoint, you can bring some geologist over here to tell you about 200'. We're going to be Out of gas. So maybe if there's a different -viewpoint where you looked:to create a pedeattiat friendly community that encourages walking and is' supported by mass transit, you might have a different viewpoint of how you are creating traffic. I think Ws very interesting'that with this community waS adversely atfected -- Highway in the Sky waa originally constructed here, and I juat, in curious ways, 1 itOMIZT KAPLAN & -ASOCIA.TPS INC. 305.-740-7121 10 11 13 14 .15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 . :find it interestingthat thecommunity itself would PriciPrse by building another Highway in• the sky ._ and, again, I.lust wanted to offer My -viewpoint, which I think is a different one that to,:be able to walk from here to the, future economic -- going to be the healthcare center and research center across 1-95 and possibly be able to walk,fromhere over to' that high school, again, I think WOUld be more embracing to a community for this community then Supporting borne type of elevated litghwaY, M$. CROFT: Thank you. Marvin Dunn. MR. DUNN: Good evening. My name_is Marvin , Dunn. I'm the director of the Roots in the City Prc>ject‘ For. some 15 years, we had a community environment of the -- x-395 a year ago, I walked away from it -- FDOT. FDDT's policies in terms of maintenance of . . 1-395 and through overtown is atrocious, qust -- under 395 -- you can see that it's atrocious. They came -- another -six months, ago -- of the embarkment, ripped out a lot of plants, Left the ground exposed. Walked away from Lt. Nobody came back -- over for 16years without one cent from • ROBERT KA?LAN & ASSOC/ATES INC. 305-740-7121 6;. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ,19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FDOP. Not one -- was, we don't do gardens. We don't do the landscape, We put up the highways. Same thing here -'- we've got 18 people living in a small county and thousands living just -- and to come once a month with the trucks to improve and that's supposed to take care of - in Overtown is just insulting. There's standing water, drainage problems, drugs, paraphernalia, all the thingd mentioned earlier and 'DOP doesn't do anything about it. 1 -- too much into this part in advance of this meeting. 1 wanted to know whether the new structure is not going to be built and walk away from like you did 1-395, and whether the same maintenance policy that -- on the county is going to apply to Overtown, and most of the garbage tried to be picked up for 15 or 16 years -- you put that on the town people. It got thrown there -- Miami Beach and we picked it up. So let's get -- planbe better in terms of maintaining the underside of this thing you are going to build -- the Same old thing. You're going to put it up, walk away from it and put -- down. My other concern has to do with w•ater, rain water coming off of the bridge. For at least 15 or 16 years, 1 work shift -- underneath the expressway ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATtS,XIIC. 305-740-7121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 and 14th, Street., liVed there for .over. 15 years. The amount of. water rushing ,down the, expressway and just standing there is just ridiculous and, unhealthy , Why can! tthere not be some proj ect to r:eclailn all of that water,. some of that,water, and uSe. it, to Make this community look better.. Why can' t we take some of that land fellow and plant food on it. Why :can't we. use the land that FDOT owns 44, Overtewn for, a better use than just leave it the way it is. saw all of the drawings, of the parks and all of_ that .7- that aspect of this project. I hope that $25 million is ,spent in. a way that has proper maintenance for that. bridge and shows a lot of respect for the, community. MS. CROFT: !Thank. yo4. Sarah. Wallace. I heard about thialdeeting throughJav Muslim brothers in the. orange shirts I .knoW anything: about it. AnybOdy ever heard of Stevie Wonder'? AlIDIENCE MpMDR: :You bet. ...MS.WALLACE Fil let you know.why I called his name out in a while. I'm unhappy. I got,my issues and my spiritual ROBERT KAI::'14AN & ASSOCIATES, INC • 305-740-7121 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 fOUndation: 1 am the daughter of Sarah Bernie Wallace I'never thOught OVertown WoUldgo to the dogs the way it has, 'You just ceMe.and you just take it and you don't give:back.. That's not tight, :because you don't live over here. 1 live at 234 Worthweet 11th Street. 1 used to be' homeless pushing a buggy strung out on drugs, 1 got delivered. You know what? 1 want better and I'm net wrong to want better anymore, Why can't I have a decent house? " I don't have no car. I don't see why we need this expressway, and that's my opinion and 1 can say it -- what -- 1 can use some of that se 1 can have my own bathroom -- sleep where 1 sleep for 24 hours. You want to get out of there. Step taking from ue, because they told me that -- you:wouldn't like -it if .'yoU say thin is historic,. Then leave it alone; 'We can take care of olitseiveb; and who -told yeu about / wanted to be relocated, Nebodyever.asked me --I my place. Help me get'housing. 'Oive us "some jobs,.You know -- know somebody and-- very -impressive, but it's not feeding Me. I struggle with food. You jubt keep taking. I asked you about Stevie Wonder, bdC6Alse he Wad -We are say that you do, No much concern ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 • 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 '21 22 23 24 25 about. involved with the decisions that are made by meI am sick and tired of hearing your songs tellinume,how- you're going to.ohange right and wrong,,because if youreally want. to knew. my views, you haven't done nothing, CROFT: Thank you, Kathryn Moore, MS, MOORE.: nello: I'm a fifth generation Miamian) and,I recognize that maybe you -all aren't from here, ,but.stve been hearing steries,about Overtown since,I was a kid. This is the core, the heart and sole of one of the -- I believe to be one of the world's.greatest •cities._ ',grew up,here. I moved away. X spent a lot of my time in this oity.-7 E doWt know if any of:youjiave been there, but .1. live very close to the elevated highway,.and 1 wohder if anyof,you have traveled to any of thepe cities that, have highways - , like this. I wphdar.what kin4'of expel you ,4aYevithother urban penters,that are cut directly through the heart pgtheit cityTby a giant elevated 4i4ucture that not may devalues the property sadjacent to it, but moves their views and connects them with:the Waterfront as well as, to me, the arte district, the entertainmentdistrict, the health ROBERT ICA.PLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 district, all the other districts that sort of highlight our city. I don't livo'in Overtown, but I use your streets when I go to the Arsht Center, 1 ride my bike through here. Yes, I ride my bike. I drive my car through herd on my way home from work in downtown, and t'understand that a lot of concerns here. about jobs, but my concerns with jobs are people going to have and I'm .going to have when this project is done, beCauSe when you cut off these cities, when you cut off.-- it seemslike two normal cities on each side, you really do bear some responsibi,iity, there(s been some conversations here about forgiveness. 1 imagine you all aren't seeking forgiveness, because it's none ofyou here that built 395, 1 recognize that, andthat is an organization of people, but you're here now, and I see that you have an exceptional opportunity to buildsoMething great and to be a part of something that Will be a hallmark of this city'a future, and you also have axi. incredible respOnsibility, not to these people who are kids, but to their kids' who are cluing to live ,here and are going to continue to live here, and hopefully are going to have something to ROBERT KAPLAN ASSOCIATES, XNC 30$ =.740-7121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1,9 20 21 :22 23 24 25 7 4 • visit. You -all didn't. talk about transportation and you're. from FDOT. I mean, transportation is not just about .cars leaving the beach so they can get awayfrom, you know, their house is about to be taken down bya hurricane.. My parents live on the beach, and I want them to havea place toescape, but I also have been in the projects and worked on projects in the ,prove. They're 3 feet underground and they're going east of the bridge, You know, I understand the job you have to our city to have a bridge .there So it's not only like living directly in this terrible place Where -you can't possibly build. I just felt there wasn't enough in your presentation about thealternative of having almost a boulevard. I understand that in an emergency situationyou couldnt close off.theso sides streets and make it a functional highway, when necessary, but we don't liVe in the city where there's not A hurricane and we use these streets, and I wouldn't feel comfortable riding my bike under an elevated highway, and to be fair, 1 don't trust that you 'all are going to maintaina sp0.41i place, an aesthetically beautiful place. • A ) . , . .... , .. ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 2,3 24 25 75 Pits of the images in. this little hook has a reflective pool„with a giant -- coming out of 0 supporting the elevated highway. Vm sorry if 1,111 - if that makema laugh, but 1 want to know really, are you going to build a reflecting poel underneath the expressway and that's going to attract People? 1 ust 7- X really want te know more about that, because 1 want to believe that Miami's future is something that you -all are investigating with your time ana your money, ana I know you guy') have to respond to peopae above yott, but thole of us Who don't live in OvertoWn, but. Understand that we have to work And liVe and play and walk through here, are 4106 Very concerned, and I just mtnted to share that perspective, Thank You. MOM- Thank yOu, We have Pastor David Shanks. IlisTOR'SHANKS: Xlm Pastor Shanks 0- inge1i�t X've been living in Memphis, ,Tennos pee for 37 years AA a pt1est. There vas some gentlemen down, here in Aiami whd we grew up together, an4 in Austin, aeorgia and,they asked Me to come down and Work with them in tho OVertown area, and, of course, I had a -- Church in Mi4Mi memphla, I don't ROBERT KAPLAN 64. ASSOCIATES, INC. 305-740-7121 ( 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 6 17 18 19 20 2L 22 2S 24 25 76 know if I can do it. So I came to Miami and started the church here in Overtown, the. Overtown Oink& Of-Chribt, and we were gonna praise the Lord, We were growing and 1 had to fight. 1 had to fight, a niChe, and -- sometimes 1 tell. people that -- old folks -- that's but however, when this prcgram started about the -- in Overtown, you know, devastated and they were going to take down buildings -- and the members started drifting, and they -- too, We thought we were closer to completion of the plan and phase of this -- two, three years ago. Though we were closer, but -- realize and we almost started going -- and op finally it was difficult for us to -- . and I had great —7 for this and in some of the -- I'm sure who came by and saw the layout that we had, and I don't have plans,cr drawing from the gentleman and what haveyoU,,but none of that can come to and we#4.d..to IeaVelcand.-ha4 tP404ve before we , and-thereasca for thatjg.pp :many of the members began to praise -the Lord -of the church- -f.-metbersf and it made it,difficult tbrue-to stay there - so -- close -down. We never ,planned to close.the Overtown church. That as something that *as further away froM,anything-in our mind, because tzfA4ww,oakva. ow77A ROBERT KAPLAN SC ASSOCIATES, INC, 305-.740-7121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 we had -- one thing after the other and we were but when this came in, then that just proved the away everything all about planning just went into - all of it. So we 'had -:- someone. -- %We out. So then. X went over and you -- nothing coma to -- over -- and to have, them -- howeVer, the Same situation got so bad, the checks could not support in making -0 when X tell you my own house 57 years old -- and t brought in the church:you-get to have energy there's energy and no doubt and My -- a little thing, IOwever X will -..bringgeMe young'tnd in hepa'.... but bridge --- so row X understand that ihagMuCh an we had tip °loge t1OWfl aiWmove-cia before we got terthie phasethateo-far habended. conversation Irma- thiwpoint me and the Overtown OhUrch, M:understat4 itas a thingof the'past and would and 1-don1t knowWhy,,bacauge we : and:X jugt want you:topeetWplan.that_w,had for ti chUr0h-7! dOwntown.0.1o4,0, -7,q0„ahoad 44g1.11,011^4 what luvant to know, what 1 want. to k0owv gna.it's,notMuch,ybut X want,to knowabout .this thehighwaY or Whoever -7.,to ponal.dey Me in t40, -7 now -- X011'.tell you XsdLl. eupport it -- but when thishighway thing at4rted aupportexp Waruumindrzu , . . . . • ROBERT MM.= & ASSOCIATES, INC 305-740-71,21 2 4 q; 8 9 10 12 13 15 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 7/3 we left, because they didn't want to be. caught up in this: Now, this -- the highway department is not the only reason that -- when we decided that we were going to build in Overtown, our main objection -- but we decided that that this works in Overtown, and so we changed our mind, and when I ' told.the church that we were not going to -- we were going to build in Overtown, some:of us said -- Overtown, and SQ1 just thought that we stay here -- end build a church from this area, and we were. doing a11 right,until this started. -„ Now -- when I left the last meeting, nobody was talking..to me, but,. X heard the oonversa4on. I gOt, good. ears, - the church -- they. can sit way back there and start talking:and .tn 4 Tranutp I )cnow what they're talking about an4, 7'7 surprise. -Sp I got pretty good ears. I hear a. lotbf things,,but .somebedyeaid -- nothing ^7 nothing.: Veil, that • ''sound -all right to me,becaUse-X-think 4,11the work And labor and the time Put into this and we put into :this - and'I want ask everybody -Who is in charge of this and everybody who hae 4 say so to consider t6 some extent bridge -- help me just get a , - little, just 0 little -- to get My feet back on the OatRT itAnoon',6:` SOCIA.TES INC'1"'N 305-.740-7121 2 3 4. 5. 6 7 8. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 ground and .get move.out of here. NOW, I -- but I'm .still - and so I just wanted to say Whatever I can and de whateverI can for this group to consider me, and when you get ready to -- this and this -- and -- mean to be said and the' center -of attention -- the preacher was pissed off -- anything -- he said hell no, Setchur, .come over here, Setchur Setchur - Setchur -- said Setchur -- said -- so --- something need to be said by me so s ay it. AUDIENCE. MEMBER: Thank you. M. CROFT; Thank you, Pastor Shanks., Does anyone else desire to speak'? I.f you have completed a speaker card, please repeat your name and address. If not, state your name and address. MR, CUTLER: Yes, Vilma. 1 just wanted to give one more shout out, and that's to commissioner Edmondson and her staff, because -- and when I see people like that showing up -- and when they show up --- about the community, and I'd just like to make an announcement to that. MS. CROFT: Thank you. The verbatim transcript of the hearing's verbal proceedings together with all written material received as part .of the hearing record a.nd 'ROBERT KCP P & . A$$CC EATES r 2NC 305-740-7121 1 2 3 A. 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 B 0 all studies, displays and informational material provided at the hearing will be made a part of the project decision -making process and will be available at the district office for public review , • upon request, Thank, you. for attending today's hearing and for providing your input on this project. It is now hereby officially close the. Public Hearing for the 1-395 projectdevelopment and environment, PD&E, study. Thank you again and have a,gend evening, (Thereupon the. meeting concluded at 8:35 p.m.) . ••• • •efl1. ROBERT KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES INC. 305-740-7121 9 10 CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI D DS t, Anthony Pacheco, a Shorthand Reporter and Ilotaryy Public for the State of Florc da at large, d2i hereby certify:, Tliat the statement `which is herein before.: ;et ' forth, was duly recorded stenographically by me; ands that, 11 such transcript is. a true record rd} of te,statements . made 12 by the partied involved. 12 la 19 20 21 22 22 24. 25 X further certify that ;C am not related toany of the parties by blood or marriage, and. ;that I aM inno er Way : interested in the outcome cor .thie matt; .;that ':X am not an attorney 'ores counsel of any of the :parties, not a relative or employee of any attorney or,Counsel connected with the.. action, nor financially. interested. in the action. wx'fNESS my hand and: Official Seal in the.C.ty of Miami, County of Dade, State of Florida, this 8th day of September Q2-200.9. 2 thoily Pacheco a .3Ei2T ICA'LAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 30.5µ74O 7 ;21 w 1 ItiBtRsim.r: . . • ,,,, , NT CARD 3,95 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) - DISTRICT SIX 1.395 PD&E STUDY (Project Development and Environment Study) PUBLIC HEARING - TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2009 6:00 PM - Lyric Theater, 819 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33136 Your comments regarding the 1-395 PD&E Study are very important to FDOT.. Please complete this form and return it tonight or mail (within 10 days following tonight's Hearing) to: Vilma Croft, P,E., Project Manager, Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, Environmental Management Office, 1000 NW 111th Avenue, Room 6111A, Miaml, Florida 33172. Tel. 305.470.6240, Fax 305410-5205 or e-mail your comments to: Vilma.Croftedot.state.fLus , • ' For more information on that-395 PD&E Study, please visit www.1395miami.com Date: 111'6 I 91 Name: Veree91..) illtrato Organization: Address: 3-211 12,iscANA.36,. gug) ... AfT E,5 fat A -AA f State: Pt- Zip Code: 3515,1. City: , No.: "94.70 314,S STVI Fax Na.; , Telephone E.Mall Address: .Z„ •, reAci e, t s COMMENTS: s o4, , Jo ILRSTNIC,, COMMENT CARD 395 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) - DISTRICT SIX 1-395 PD&E STUDY (Project Development and Environment Study) PUBLIC HEARING - TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2009,500 PM - Lyric Theater, 819 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33136 Your comments regarding the 1-395 PD&E Study are very Irnportant to FDQT. Please complete this form and return it tonight or mail (within 10 days following tonight's Hearing) to: Vilma Croft, P.E., Project Manager, Florida Department of Transportation., District: Six, Environmental marmgement,g*e, 1900 NW 11Vh' Avenue, Room 6111A, Miami, Florida 33172. Tel, 305-470-5240, Fax 395470-5205 or e-mail your comments to: VIlma.Croft@dot.stateAus For more information on the 1-395 PD&E Study, please visit www.139§nniami.com Date; 8 /2sr 10 Name: s. , // A ? / cli) 11 t - a 2, 8 / 717 /110 fri eil e ....) Organization: (2/751 €9/ /Ita/71/ Address: s,.41-4,--z4Z, 21;c1 2.4 cl ,4ve iir a #7/ City: ' ,r- i State: F- L Zlp Code: 3 / .3 0 Telephone No,: '3 c\-- .41-/ /az Y Fax No.: E-Mail Address: b QM,' do (2. /-77, 0.-)-77., 0 . c c:21—i1 COMMENTS: /0 7 7"..% e 6 7''. Oki' /?/// reet, 6/4' : 2 4 4) ,o n - 47ja el /tf 4-1•aI/re ,--,-/, , 0,/e/-- 7,.,i, c47,., e if fa ' 777/.r ,Pirti4-7/ziCe .Vhev/e/ 44" 0 ,Xer./. a-c . V O fa,. 4,..,a7 7' i/v/-7 742/4//7 .g /-% e ?et. ri-pl/Iii. A-4 oge ile /.- 2.,-- ()tee" c ,,, fie,a-ee cis, , oier eilea 74ke.. i f ,r4ve yze/i-e. bv,4/ch / 4 fra-6// /f, 4 lee/ 0,-) a/ in ce 7 0 f--4'4-,1. it-.4../ra ,6/ei rv7 asi/77(7 fr, a /lc e_ et,,,e,‘, fildfkr-7 al,c), ;. Aili iv P-0 ve ci co) rivec.--74111// COMMENT CARD FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FOOT) -- DISTRICT SIX 1.395 PD&E STUDY (Project Development arid Environment Study) PUBLIC HEARING --TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2009 600 PM — Lyric Theater, 819 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33136 Your comments regarding the 1-395 PD&E Study are very important to FOOT. ip 395 Please complete this forrn and return It tonight or mail (within 10 days following tonight's Hearing) to: Vilma Croft, P,.E., Project Manager, Florida Depailrnent of Transportation, District Six, Environmental Management Office, 1000 NW 1111" Avenue, Room 6111A, Miami, Florida 33172. Tel. 305-470-5240, Fax 305-470-5205 e-mall your comments to: VI Ima.Croft 0 dot.state,fl.us For more informed n on t 1-395 PD&E Study, please visit wwvir.1395miami.com Date: tri°1. Name: Organization: Address: ha 36 A) city: 13 00 A). tate. 47.1444 Zip Code: 3 3 1.3.4 Telephone No . Fax No.: 50r3 47/ 40' E-Mail Address: COMMENTS: COMMENT CARD FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) -- DISTRICT SIX 1-395 PD&E STUDY (Project Development and,EnVironment Study) PUBLIC HEARING — TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2009 6:00 PM Lyric Theater, 819 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33136 TEIZSIAlki 1095 Your comments regarding the 17395 PD&E Study are'very Important to FDOT. Please complete this form and return it tonight or mall (within 10 days following 'tonight's Hearing) to: Vilma Croft, P.E.,,PrOject Manager, Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, Environrriental Management,Office, 1000 NW 111th Avenue, Room 6111A,-Mierni,' Florida 33172. Tel. 305-470-5240, Fax 305-470-5205 or e-mail your comments to: Vilma.Croftedot.state.fLus For more information on the 1-395 PD&E Study, please visit www.1395miami.com Date: Name: 6am$ Organization: V af:a94 Address; 15 ig Salt 'OM) s City: Vit- State: Zlp Code: 331(16 Telephone No.; 3oso:- 62:n. Fax No.: ak4e alas a-63 ezitncsoV-, AfLr E-Mail Address: commENTs: ,-,, rater ,4,1.›/INt-i reckv\ gi661* .0 ov-t k,\ , ct._, i 1-n44, e3()_ umvokr podsf- ()Aan, rati,04.:. e/..m ik.NA 00.. ElvatiLl g.e.,,i;\ ioadt, 4 kl,,,,t 4. 61461t- of No 1-.0 :rut ,.--\)-( e.4/' roPA. ..7 Ativt atlq 4k4 ii/4/0 ve,IN:QA 4z 'T ns" /4;5' 41/1:. A1140-e. im)15(t\ Le- trePt;4 1\& tt,r40,.. Covete4 a. 6,4 ete p (Ai 1.1.1, 4 1-1j'L °A r4w1) i'3') 114' klig.' 4 e..0 5 .40A; ioe sikkAtiik. ,6. covv),&,t .-1 4Ste, 5,, -i6i9 i‘4.', Ti,linter- jtp. A ky ?Am& w4474,,-, 4,&e,, aAfk „ tap, -6) Olii- •bk' Okk 04 40 tk/Pri J., cm1R. <AAA 4rt Vit CA' ai PAM\ IMt ("/ et"))AA" ZCIV°11 d '°4*. i14\iNfiC"'" 4/4 CAj(40.4 (k No11-04 Al ito totla 1\mYstA 1,, 4 oowa, ( COMMENT CARD FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FOOT)— DISTRICT SIX 1-395 PD&E STUDY (Project Development and Environment Study) PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2009 6:00 PM — Lyria Theater, 819 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33138 Your comments regarding the 1-395 PD&E Study are very Important to FDOT. INTFOTAII 395 Please complete this form and return it tonight or mail (within 10 days following tonight's Hearing) to: Vilma Croft, P.E., Project Manager, Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, Environmental Management Office, 1000 NW 111th Avenue, Room 6111A, Miami, Florida 33172. Tel. 305-470-5240, Fax 305-470-5205 or e-mail your comments to: Vilma.Croft@dot.state.fLus For more Information on the 1-395 PD&E Study, please visit www.1396miarni.com Date: Name: j74 t IL Organization: 6160,4 e.g./ &rii 11 Address: City: bll 1* State: Fi Telephone No.: 7 E-Mail Address: r 9 Fax No.: COMMENTS: Ake.rtieVe., 1/614-0,01,7 r65:ckyrt a, 12e4,1(-Prani Crmet,1116 "kfr e jffe '?(L/nj</r,5k0Uitj .1e/ -Gs( - CreMalfig, Oreitelet/e, 614(ije. Zip Cod oet Page 1 of 1 Bobbie Mumford • From: Guarth, Gerry Nguerchamdc.eduj Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2609 6:2:1 FM, To: Vilnia.crefiedastate.tue Cc: schmelzer, Judy; Sobble Mumford Subject: FW: 1-39614roJect Ms, Vilma Croft, Florida Department of Transportation 1000 N.W. 111 Avenue, District VI Miami, Pf. 33172 Dear Ms. Croft: I take this opportunity to write this correspondence in support of the 1-395 redevelopment project and specifically Option #3. The current configuration off- 395 has been detrimental in terms of aesthetics, safety and traffic flow for the Downtown area for many years. A newly designed and elevated 1-395, with new and Unproved on/off ramps at North Miami Avenue, will Serve to improve the three areas of concerned previously mentioned. If project is approved, the traffic flow in the Downtown area will be significantly improved. This is an important factor for the residents, students and employees of the area. As a 25 year employee of the Wolfson Campus of Miami Dade College, I have seen many changes and So-called "innovations" in traffic patterns Downtown, Some have worked and had a positive influence on the area and others have not. I sincerely believe that this project will createa safer pedestrian environment and traffic flow in the Overtown and Downtownareas. It will also generate a positive environment which will foster new business, community growth/prosperity and, gentrifreation. If you have any questions, please call me. Gerry Ottarch Assistant Dean,for Administration Miami Dade College Wolfson Catnpus,, 300 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miaini, F1, 33132 , Phone: (305) 237-3226 Fax: (305) 237-3645 Email: gguarch@mdc,cdu Please Note: "Due to Florida's very public record's law, most written communication to or from College employees regarding College business are publie records, available to the polio and media upon request. Therefore, this c- mini communication may be subject to nubile disclosure". 8/26/2009 Sep OB 09 11:41a 4? p.2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FOOT) — DISTRICT SIX 1.7. 395 PD&E -STUDY (Projed Development end'Environment Study) PUBLIC HEARING — TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2009 6:00 PM Wit Theater, 819 NW AVernaj, Mrerni, Florida 33138 Your comments regarding the 1.3911PD8E Sttidy ere very Impothmt to FOOT. • 'Please coMplete this forni and return It tonight or by mall within 10 days following torilght's Hearing to: 'VD:cm CroTt, P.Et Project Manager, Florida Department of Tiratisporbrilon, Dlatrist Six, EnvIrontrientsl Management °tack 1000 NW 111" Avenue', Room S111A, .Mtarid, Florida 33172. Tel. 305470424% Fa* 305470.5205 or e••••rnell your common* to: VI m dot. .11 u , For More information orithe I-390 PD&E Study, Please Welt wajw.139stelatel.eere Date: Name: Organization: Address: /1,eu city: sfii/47/ State: Telephone Nog: 10 4•2•Zoll6,15 E.Mall Address: zip code: Sop 08 09 11:41a P•3 COMMEr CARD. FLORIDA EPAnioigto OF TRANSPORTATION (FOOT) -»"DIS'rRidTilX "" 390= Pu6g STUDY (PigOOt DOVIII9PeTrent anitEniiironntent Study) PUBLIC HEARING TVESDAYi AUGUST 25.i:2009 6:00 OM •I• Lyric Theater,. 819 NVV 2nd Avenue„IVIlarni, Fksida 33136 Your oorr)Rorot, reflarellOti the 1400 MOM Study aro vertimpOrtant to FOOT. PleaSe complete Olio form and return' It tonight or by mall Within 10 days following:tonight% Hoaring tSPViltna Croft, P.E.„ Project Manager, Florida Departmentof Tnmspottation, District' Six,-!EMIrortnieritai ilitanagenint (*too, 1000 NW 111Y) Avenue, Room 0111A,•Mlarit Florkla 33172. Tol. 3004704240$ re* to54/0-5205 or e-mail your 0001000 to: Vilme.croftalitiotstateAuS For more information on the PD;ie Study, please visit vvWar„i3garnlarnLOOrn Date: !time: `1"TWiteto.5 Organization: Q0 0 04.e`iirtkvt•--1 12P.57911 Addriss: C43. NO city: 9oyi st,Dto: Telephone No.: 45(1 ..3v14•5#c" Fax No,: Zip Code: 3 :3 ( -5 E.Niall Address: cOmMENTs: TA\ cc-1- arV. ift‘k54- 4f4 1.4( tieh a • •Bop 08 09 11:438 commprcARp FLORIOA,OP OP ATM' (ppm) DISTRICT SIX ppm STUDY (Project; Ditinalopinent end eindronitent StOdy) PUBLIC HEARING .',11)ESDAY, -AVOW 26, 2009 0,00 PM.. Lyric Theater, 019•NW 2ridAseintS, Miart11, Florida .33136 p.10 Your comments regarding the 1.3.96 POSE Study are volt ImPonlint to my I. Please canals'. dais form and return It tontglit or byroad within 10 days fallowing tontalit Hawing to: Vilma Crete P.., Projeot Manager, Florida Department of Transportation, Diatriot Six, Environmental Management Miss, 1000 NW 111" Avenue, Room 6111A) liPliat1111 Florida 33172. Tel. 308470-6240, rex $66410.62.05 or o.rnall your conurranti 10; Miltnetc(914901.9tistalP40, • • For more Information on the 1.395 PosE Study, pieces visit wriw.1396inlamLoorn Date: Name: Organization: Address: (so SAl.A.,-1.1 City: frtilarvi(' Stets: Flor)d-1 , zip code: Telephone No.: (.4 51(0 Ety Fax No.: C4)5.15 r77 E-Mall Address: fi Sop. 06 09 11:42a p.4 c 4 , FLORMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(FOOT) DISTRICT SIX I PD&E STUDY (Project Development rind Environmont Study) PUBLIC:HEARING—TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2009 • 6:00 PM — Lyric Theater, 819 NW 2nd Avenue, Miarnl, Florida 93136 Your commente rellerthell the MS PD&E Study are vary hupertatit to FDOT. Please complete this form and return It .tonight or by mall withIn10 days following tonight's Hearing to: Alma Croft, P.C., Project Manager; Florida Depatintent of TienePortation, Oltdriot Envil:nmental Plianatiomont Offico„ 1000 NW,111th Avenuo, Room eitiAi Florida. 33172. T 305470.8240, Fax 305470.6208 or squall your c:oitutiente to: VlimaiCrofta4etatate.11,us For store Information on the 1405. PD&E Study, plea*. Walt wW1.1395trtlami.com Date: 02,Se '-'40 Name: (-49 organizitiont kkiress: ( Al IV, 5 )410,.,p'- City: ini‘;4-01/ / State: le---?;.9- -reteph„.„. No.: 5 35r (;2.7(eP Fax No.: E-Mall Address: Zip Code: .0b31 AL-1-7o4.01,!0 commENs:- 140a: /-=. 676. Sep 08 09 11:42a •CO E TC R P.6 FLORIDADEPARTMEW OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)!...1016TOICT S'IX • 1— 390 PD&E STUDY (Pri3ject Dinisitipment and erlifiroitkkont Study) PUBLIC TUESDAY,‘AtiOUST"gs; 2009 6;00PM Lyrio Theater, 019 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33136 Your comments miterding the.1490 PD&E 8ftsdy are very Impor1uit to FOOT. Pleasecomplete tide form and returri It tonight or by' mail vOlthin-19 days toillAvIngi teolgite.e Hearing to: ,,Vilma Croft, PE Project Manager„ Florida Difipartintad TranaPortatIono.Dietriet Environmental Management Onion, 1000 111W Ill"' Avarice, ItOkirri 0111A, 33172, Tel. 305.1170.02AO, Fax 3054704200 or e-inali your commenta'to: For more infornriation on the 1499 P004E Study, plenao viali www.1395mramLeorn Data: 9-K Name: • Organization: Address: !HT Ai( 3 AO MY: (111-vv State: . • Zip Code: • Telephone No.:30S- 5 SI cf, NIX No.: Addivaa: • Sep 08 09 11:42a COMMENT CARD FLORIDA DEPARTMENT or TRANSPORTATION trocirt., DISTRICT SIX I — 365 OW STUDY (PT(40fit Ogrel9Pment and Envtanuraint Study) PUBLIC HEARING = TUESDAY, AUGUST 2t:1000 6;0Q PM = Lytle Vomit 819 NW 2nd AvenueNtarni, Florida 83136 YOUt Coinmanta the 1495 POSE Study are vary, ImpOrtaritto FDOT. Please cony We this form and return 1t tonight or by trial' within10 days 'following tan Haringto: wftni Croft, PLi Pmi*Ot Muflager, Florida D*411111014 of Tratle60006611, DMtdct SI;'Efligropniontid!NturtOpoltuktt Ortioo; 1000 NW ltith Avontio, Room S111AF 33172» Tol. 4054470-0.40, Fax 3054704208 or *yam!, your cOmmonts to: Nam.: a)-0100 e Y ROM ;IrPfgagttIthtifttellit • For mom krforatation on the 1495 POSE Study, please vialfwvivv,139tIndantLoom Date: , r Organization: inat.e.1-it),,L„cilher 11%, /47(1,1) eOfneirre. Acklitias: '766 _Ai. 6.), ii./14, • A/6 City:State: oe:dco 21P Coda: Telephone No.: If143/1., 54 Fax Noi: S-Mail Address: • commptipst , • /9.7. /. • • .: Zip Code: ON. CI • cal., 4.4 Sep 08 09 1142a p.7 T CA FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (eDOT) — DISTRICT SIX 1 — 308 PDS& trropy (utigict • 1 . ; , t andEnelmnrrsent Study) PUBIJO HEARING —1JESDAY$ AUGUST 20, 2009 . 6:00 PM — Lyric Theefor, 819 NW 2nd Avenue, tillemi, Florida 23.130 Your cornments regardklu the 1490 PD8E Study are very Important to FDOT,. Plecoe complete this Nam and returrilt tonight or bY:Inall within 10 day5 following tonlehts Nearing to: Alma Croft; PE „ Project Nlartsger„ Florida Department of Tmisportation, DIstrict Sht, Eavironmentel Management Office; 10.00 NW111th, AVenue, Room 0111A, Miami, Florida ' 3317Z Tel. 300-4704240, Fait 3084704200 or e4nall your comments to: VIIIM.crciftPODLIPtattl teiki, _ _, , ' • For More Info on of the 1406 PDSE Study„ Weenie visit www.1390mleml.corn Date: • 7 ‘ <1'0 9 . Name: Oreentation: Acklmse: city: 0 44.,\ State: Telephone No.: Fax No (<4 1;1 ri•Q (1`i E-Mall Address: COMMENTS: n. ep 08 09 11:43s COMMENT CARD FLORIDA DEPARTMENT de TRANSPOFtTAT10141 (FIX1T)-7.DISTRICT SIX - 395 POSE STUDY (Project Dovolopment and'Erivirenment Study) PUSLICAEARING -TUESDAY; AUGUST 25, 2009 6:00 PM Lyric Theater, 819 NW 2nd Avenue, .Mleml, Florida 33136 Your comments regarding the tslap..PSE Study are very important to mar. Please complete this form and return It tonight or by mail within.,10 days *lowing tonight's Homing to: Vilma Craft, P.E., Pro* Manager, PlorideDepartmentof Tranapotteilon, Dkrtriet Six, Environmental Menagement'Offile, 1080 NW °lir Avenue, Room 6111A, Ward,Florida 33172, Tel. 30547843240,.. rex 308470420e or 01011 your tommerite fo: yjiramerottAdotstatoinitis ' • , For more information on the 1495 POW Study, please visit www.1305miiiml.dorn Date: Name: Keki Organization: 5.A14. ac4.di,v40,; Ceri'v Address: 1 I -6 4-1 Si-, City: , mi State: . Zip Code: 33/q)--: Telephone No.: 5111:- 341-- 2499 Fax No.: Mall Address: i COMMENTS:, _. etts, tate- \S f::114 01.7.44 • *0 TrAhvi •-lf ' --,—&----E.'.L44 paliN1sf-e-1.-- - pc' a g 4 AA-. Pqr ; 1 1 5-44.0144/04-/- , ,y-i 1 c"...4, J-k-A. e 4,-r1" .e.c, ..6 ... iF ..1- ' (0 c.a..), . . .-"" ,,4-17,e efre-- e /A 74 r.../1,4 it... ' , .44,/e-.7J o 4 4-. (viz. , 49 "-- tut / i i ai 4,4-1,-. L 'Oa* / le iiA, I;"' "Pl"'" AVeAd),..4'.. 19e1P1001 •-• piph e..4r- Ar.. r-04' .. ,ciet 1-/ fr) .. ,,, : ../..e.., . et. k,24C> Ptr/tiefiii...t 4rtli Sep 08 09 11:4$a p%9 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT1oN (FDOT) DISTRICT SIX I — 398 POSE STUDY (Project Doirei*Pmont and Environment tittldh PUBLIC HEARING — TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2009 8:00 PM — Lyra Theater, 810 NW 2ncl Avenue, Miami, Florida 33138 WON comments regarding the 1495 PDS1E Study are very Important to FOOL Please complete this form and return It tonight or by mall within 10 days folknving tonight's Hearing to: Vilma Croft, 1231, Project Manager, Florida Department of Transportation, District Environmental Office, 1000 NW 111th Avenue, Room 0111A, Miami, Florida 33172. Tat 300-4704240, Fan; 305470.0205 or a -mail your comments az V0ine.9r0 ' ottaleAue For more information on the 1-305 POSE Study, posse Welt wwW,1390rnlami.com Telephone No, &Mali Ackiress: COMMENTS: • Owen 'Catherine • From: Sent: To: Co: Subject: Attachments: Croft, Vilma Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:51 PM Nicole Carter Carlos Rodriguet, Owen, Catherine FW: I-396s Miami reconstructionapplauds with suggestions burlemarxjpg; arts center,jpg;,Mlamiskylinepg;a96,jpg; I-395:jpg Front: alexadams220comcast,net [malito:a1exadarns22@comcastmet) Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 944 PM To: Croft, Vilma; Jeffries, Ken, Pego, Gus; Bravo, Alice; Charlie Crist; Jeff Katkamp; FDOT Mall Cc: mayor@miamidade.gov; Manager@mlamidade,gov; distrid6@mlarniclade.govi jhvillacorta©cl.miami,f1.us; cra@miamigov,com; Mannydiaz©dmiaml.fl.us; rnsarnoffOrnlamlgov.com; MSpence@miamigov.corn; pgh@mlamigov.cOM Subject: X-395 Miami reconstruction applauds with suggestions First, I would like to take the opportunity to applaud the FDOT and their consultants for the presentation last night. It was clear and professional with the speaker dubbed into the presentation created a clean crisp presentation. Second I would like to personally thank Gus Pego and Alice Bravo for coming to such an important meeting. 1-395 and the Port Tunnel will be the image of Mlarfil for thousands of visitors to our area and as important to Miami as the Airport and MIC. I would like to echo many of the concerns of broken promises from the community, Do not show us the Sunshine Skyway (reference to Tampa's "gateway bridge") if you intend to build the Julia Tune Causeway! Additionally, I have Seen many roads such as Biscayne Boulevard be constructed with the Burle Marx patterns and other high profile routes that fall into neglect and disrepair. (I know the city agreed to maintain this, however its a FDOT roadway and the primary gateway for Miami- FDOT should build to a higher standard in city's downtowns and maintain the surfaces/ features/ landscaping.) Assuming that we are going to get the elevated option I have a few suggestions: 1. The addition of 1 additional thru lane In each direction. With the construction of the Port Tunnel there will be 10 lanes (5 east/ 5 west) feeding this segment Assuming 1 lane enters and exits at Biscayne Boulevard there are 8 lanes entering and exiting 1-395. At least 6 lanes should be allocated for try traffic. Additionally there will be a high degree of truck traffic (1 believe at slower speeds due to the number of inclines and declines to traverse (tunnel, 3 bridges (Bay, 395, Mianli River) within a mile and movements across lanes therefore the need for additional lanes is needed, We can not go back and build another in 10, 20, 50 years. This style of bridge can not be retrofitted with extra lanes. Your own website http://etdmpub.fla- etatorg/est/index.jsp?startPageName=project%20DescriptIon&tolD.47701 says 12 lanes will be needed in 2030. ' 2. The addition of colored lighting on the bridge and under the bridge structure. (simular to Sunshine (yellow) Skyway or McAthur Causeway (1-395 connects to); it's Miami's image of neon lights, pastel colors, lights and energy, Also this area Is designated as the Entertainment District for Miami and the CRA MaSter Plan shows decorative lighting and retro bus benches with neon, (developed by Zysoovich) etc, 3. Continue the Arts and Entertainment District lighting and landscaping guidelines on all on/ off ramps to the city's streets to match the existing recently installed theme. This district and 1-396 is the northern gateWay to doWntoWn. 4. Expand the sidewalks On Blecayrie Boulevard under the new bridge using the Burle Marx pattern and create a new Burle Marx Hardscape Plaza on western side of Biscayne Boulevard to tie the 2 projects together and provide a-hardscape plaza linking the Performing Arts Center under the, structure to the rest of the boulevard. 6. Be realistic in the "parks under the structure. Install storm water ponds and add aerator fountains so that these areas do not become eyesores, Look at Orlando's downtown expressvvays (I-4/ East-West toll interchange) and new downtown reconstruction to see how landscaping and storm water ponds can be simple and look aesthetically pleasing. 6, Construct the remaining piece of the Baywaik along the edge of Biscayne Bay under the new structure to connect Miami's Museum Park to the Herald Plaza and Venetian Causeway through a bayside mixed -use walkway under the 1-395 structure, This is a Miesing connection to allowing unobstructed pedestrian and bicycle access from the Venetian Causeway into Downtown. 7. Show renderings from inside the Performing Arts Center and from Government Gut towards the Arts Center to prove that the views will not be bloCked. This was a priority in developing the Museum Park plan and the Museum buildinga. Hundreds of millions have been spent on ihoto buildings and park. 8. Reconnect Overtown's streets and include matching the sidewalk patterns, lighting, and landscaping that the city has recently Installed and is planning on the Overtown north/south avenees. (2nd Ave specialty pavers like outside the Lyric Theatre, double FPL decorative light and poles, landscape planters) Lastly, Without funding for this project the tunnel is, a waste of money as traffieWill be squeezing 10 lanes into 41 I'm not an engineer but I can tell you that is a recipe for disaster. Thank -you to the Department for bringing this project back with revisions and with the suggestion above 1 bellevethis is a project the community can imbrace as a positive enhancement for the Miami.region. Respecfully, Alexander Adams Owen, Catherine From: Sent: To: Subject: Owen, Catherine Wednesday, September 23, 2009 4:43 PM Owen, Catherine • EW 'I-395' PUbiic Hearing.Cornment Sheet From; Bobbie Mumrord (malito:mum@beitsouth,net] Sent::Wednesday, August 26, 2009.9:18:AM To: Croft, Vilrna Subject; 1-395 Public Hearing Comment Sheet' From: ounnFlU@aol,coni Cmailto:DunnFIU@aoi,comj Sent Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:07 AM To: Riinares@metriceng.com Cc: mum@belIsouth;net, nhmurphy@bellsouth,net, AndreaLor@aol.com Subject: Re: I.-395 Concern FOOT. I want to follow up on my remarks last evening at the public hearing regarding the proposed improvements to 1395. i do support Alternative Three but have very strong feelings about the absolute atrocity of FOOT highway maintenance of the current structure in Overtown, The FOOT. maintenance program supplies a crew that comes through about once per month. There is no maintenance of the area underneattithe. structure where homeless people congregate. The result is an ugly accumulation of. trash and:garbage especially at the intersection of NW Third Avenue and Fourteenth Street much of it thrown from vehicles on the expressway,'; In terms of:maintenance it seems that FIOT treats, a high density urban area such as Overtownin the same manner`as unpopulated rural areas,• once;monthly shouid.do it. The most generous description I can give this practice or policy is not well thought out. Roots In the.City has maintained the 1396 embankment at Third Avenue and Fourteenth Street for over fifteen years at no cost to FOOT. We installed irrigation, planted trees, flowering shrubs even vegetables end flowers on the embankment. Hundreds of volunteers over the yearsgave time in maintaining the site and it was incorporated into the Overtown Community Garden: But some months ago a work crew came -in and did major repairs on the drainage system on the embankment... They ripped out the irrigation; tore up the plants and shrubbery, exposed ugly white rook; and fill, then left. Since. that time, I walked away from the garden which is now in severe decline. Whatever promises that are being made for the new project, what about the mess FDQT has made of what was once a beautiful garden In Overtown? Although FOOT promises that the area under the new structure will have public green spaces and such, what about the next decade before construction begins? Do we have to live with the current mess under the highway and no help from FOOT in maintaining its portion of the community garden? FOOT should supply funds for the restoration of the 1395 embankment in Overtown. The department should allocate funds for a much enhanced Maintenance program for the 395 property in Overtown especially under the expressway. Roots in the City stands ready to discuss this situation at the convenience of the department. Marvin Dunn Roots in the City 786 5730100 In a message dated 8/24/2009 11:32:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Riinares@metriceng.com writes: t Dr, Dunn Thank you for your Involvement with this project and your input dating back to the beginning of this study. The concept as Bobble mentioned that has been identified as the preferred alternative entails; dernellshing the existing structure and replacing it with a new higher and structurally significant bridge that would allow forth° reconnection of previously closed streets in Overtown such as NW 2"" Avenue, in addition to opening up the local street grid it would also provide usable spaces underneath the facility for different uses. These may include parking, parks, Infill development and landscaping. As part of this study, these improvemehts are a critical component of the preferred alternative and are Included in the cost of the build alternative. $25 Million of the overall construction costs have been set aside for "urban design enhancements' at the ground floor level With regards to yOur second point concerning drainage, the project entails the construction of stormwater management facilities to effectively capture and treat the runoff from the roadway. This includes in part, the provision of ponds between Biscayne and Miami Avenue to serve both an aesthetic and_fuectional purpose hi treating the stormwater runoff. The issue of Water reclamation Is not something that eideeOneldered'aS'Part of this project, however Irrigation and solving the existing drainage issues associated With the current facility are all a part of the preferred elevated option for1-39.5. If you have any other questions or concerns, please give me a call, (my cell is 305 968 7843), Thank you I [See the attached file] Robert Mares, P,E. Vice President Director of TranspOrtation Planning Rlineres@metriceng.coin www.metriceng.COM Englneerino ExcelleriCe Since 1976 Metric Engineering X. 13940 SW 136 Street Suite 200' Fl 33186 tell 305-235.5098 fax; $03.-251-504 weent,weeyrayseeevelnelatest iefel ictriattire like thicl • From: DunnFIU@aol.com [mallto:DurinFIU©aol.com) Sent; Sunday, August 23, 2009 11;09 AM To: mum@bellsoutienet; Roberto ilnarea Cc: Carlos Rodriguez Subject: Re: I-395 Concern If the area beneath the new 896 overpass Is developed as you described it would be greet for the deminunity and a real improvement over the current situation. Do pardon my skeptloism until I see this actually moving into place. One other question I will raise. What about the massive drain of water from the expressway? The current system should be Improved given that there is standing water under the 805 overpass most of the time, How 2 about some serious rainwater reclamation project that wouid allow that water to be used for irrigation and beautification of the community? (It seems to me to. be better to raise questions in advance so that the FDOT folks can have a chance to consider a response.) Marvin Dunn 786 573 0180 In a message dated 8/23/2009 9:03:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mum@bellsouth.net writes: Hi Dr. Marvin Dunn, lay Dopy of this correspondence, I am asking my superlors to also contact you immediately In regards to your conceI stated betow'(af C-305-380-1604- Delighted that you'll share your thoughts with FDOT at the public hearing at 6pm this`ruesday, 8/25. In response to your concerns. FOOT has beenmeeting' with City of Miami and Miami CRAonInitiatives to possibly convey land underneath bridges (some already conveyed). to them which can potentially, be utilized by developers, such as "Roots,' St, John CDC, Mt Zion's C80 (both of the latter with whom FDOT has been in discussion). Additionally, they've had MAW urban developers recommending ideas and working with the. community. The recommended alternative 3 Is an elevated structure, 8`'to 10 feet higher than'the current highwsy, height: at NW 3'd Ave & 14th St, which will have light flowing underneath and will allow for some type of infill development such as businesses, housing, open space, parks, landscaping, to name a few options discussed. As you know, FDOT Is strictly in the transportation business, but has made tremendous outreach on this I-395 project to provide environmental and social Justice which is why they have consummately worked with the City of Miami and COO's to suggest development opportunities, Thank you. See you. Bobbie Mumford From: DunnFIU@aol.com [mailto:DunnFIU@aol,comj Sent: Friday, August 21, .2009 6:3I. PM Tor murribbellsOuth.net Subject; I will be there Bobbi, wI speak'at the public meeting. I support the plan but as you know, Roots In the City has virtually lived under that i 395 expressWay at Fourteenth Street That's where our tool shed has been located tor oryi6 18 years. There are issues I will raise regarding long term care and landscape maintenance after FOOT finishes and walks away from this thing they are going to build through Overtowri. Ask the FOOT big folk who will be there at the meeting to take a look at the underside of 3 96 where we work every day. Is that what we have in store after this new project? Marvin Dunn Roots In the city. Attention: The Information contained In this E-mail message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the indivIdual(a) named above. If the reader of this Message Is not. the Intended recipient, you are herebyliollfied that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication Is strictlyprohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please Contact the sender by reply a -moll and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. giving our, students the world Superintendent of Schools Alberta M. Carvalhb August 25, 2009 Ms. Aileen Boucle, AICP District Planning and Environmental Administrator' Florida Department of Transportation 1.000 NW 11'1th'Avenue Miarhi, Florida 33172 Re: 1-$95 Project Development and Environment (PD & E) Study Dear Ms. Boucle: Mlaml-Dade County School $oard Or. Solomon C. Stinson; Chair Dr. Marta Perez, Me Chair, Agustin J. Barrera: RenterDlaz de la Porfllla Dr. Leviience:S. Feldman Perla Tabares: Hbntmarr Dr..Wllbert Tee"Holloway: Or. Martin Karp Ana Rivas Logan Thank you for your letter of August 17, 2009 responding to the School Board's concerns regarding the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) 1-395 Project Development and. Environment (PD&E) Study. As you know from previous correspondence and my 'involvement on the Project Advisory Group, the preferred project design Alternative # 3 (Project) would directly impact the School Board owned site housing the Stores and Distribution Warehouse and the Miami Skills Center, located at 50 NW 14 Street (Facility). Recognizing the detrimental impacts to the Facility, the'School Board, at its June 18, 2008 meeting, adopted a formal position, requesting that FOOT explore a 'design alternative that would eliminate these impacts, it also listed Maintenance of Operation (MOT) recommendations to ensure the safetyof students attending various schools that would be impacted during the construction phases of the Project (please see attached School Board Agenda item). We thank -you. for your continuing- commitment to. develop an appropriate..; MOT that would address pedestrian Safety during the relevant" Project phases, -as expressed: in a previous letter. from` your Department, dated January 14, 2:009..As to the project design, please note we continue to request that you seek any possible alternative to alleviate the impacts that construction of the Project will have on. the Facility. • We appreciate all your efforts in accommodating the District's concerns, and will continue to work with' FOOT to ensure that the School Board's interests are protected, In the meantime, District staff will not be available to attend the Project Public. Hearing this evening. As such, kindly include this letter as part of the public hearing record. VGV:scJ L074 Attachment cc: Mr. JaimeG. Torrens Mr. Fernando Albuerne Ms. Ana Craft Sincerely, Villaamilii Ms, Ana RiJo-Conde Mr,Michael Levine Ms. Vilma Croft Facilities Planning Ana MO -Conde, AICP Planning 0f17der * 1450 N.E. 2idAvenue, Suite 525 • Miami, Florida 33132 305-995-7285.305-995-4760(FAX) • ar1Ja@dadeschools.net Office of Superintendent of Schools May 27,,2008 Board Meeting of June 18, 2008 Office of School Facilities Jaime G. Torrens, Chief Facilities Officer SUBJECT; AUTHORIZE THE SUPERINTENDENT TO; ; re I . CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE AS A ;MEMBER OF -THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OP.:TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP, THE VENUE BY WHICH FDOT WILL SELECT A DESIGN ALTERNATIVE:FOR THE 1-396 RECONSTRUCTION 'PROJECT, WITH' THE oZil0A1,.. ' TO ELIMINATE IMPACTS TO THE BOARD -OWNED SITE LOCATED AT SOWN 14 STREET;: *‘' . ' • '1 . ' r • . 2. 2. REQUEST FDOT TO FINALIZE AND ADOPT A MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC PLAN :(MOT) AND OTHER ASSESSMENTS, TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF STUDENTS . AND FACULTY AT ALL POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SCHOOLS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS; AND 3. UPDATE THE BOARD UPON FDOT'S FINAL SELECTION OF A PREFERRED, OPTION , FOR THE 1-395 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT COMMITTEE; FACILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION REFORM . . LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: ,IMPROVE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES . _ The, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Is:currently+) the:proeess'of studying the feasibilitybf Improving the operational and safety defieleneles.of,lhe ,005 corridor, , located just, •South of the School Board Administration Building, from i-9,6 to the MaoArthur Causeway: . School District staff '-,presently serves. on ,the -;FDOT Project Advisory Group (PAG), whosemembers are , comprised of stakehelders,,,in; .the community arid..advise ,FDOT projectstakon'important Issues to consider regarclingthe project, The PAG also provides .a, link to the Metropolitan Planning .Organization, -qn which Vice.!Chair Perla Tabares Hantman serves as the Board's representative.InItIafly five alternative's were identified for further evaluation (see Attaohment."A"),:,,but as a result of PAG meetings, neighborhood Input, as well as further environmental. and engineering analysis, only three alternatives remain, including a "no -build!' option, Which would maintain current cen,ditIons, • Page 1 of 6 F 10 The FOOT preferred option, referred to. as Alternative 3; .would as presently proposed, impact the Board -owned site housing the Flichards Warehouse and. the former Miami Skills Center (Board Property),. located at 50 NW 14 Street. Additional Information In addition to any physical requirements of the 1-395 reconstruction project, some of the proposed road work could result in:temporary •operational Impacts near other School Board -owned. facilities, namely Booker T. Washington Senior High School, and Frederick. DouglaW and Phlilis , Wheatley Elementary : Schools. FDOT is currently developing Maintenance of Operation (MOT) plans to ensure the safety of the children attending these ..schools, duringthe_oonstruction .phases: Most recently, in March, of this year, District representatives, .including the_Principai:of Booker T. Washington Senior H,igh.School, and staff from, the Dlvisign of Safety.and-Emergency Management and the Regional- Cel ter met withFDOT staff to further, review and discuss the MOT for the' affected .schools. A number of .recomniendatiorts were made. by the participants, when. and If the proposed project. Is implemented, including: c1f. atudent;pedestrians'must be re4routed, FOOT Is to ensure that proper .safety pracedurostare in place and law enforcement personnel are utilized at - a Ft OT's oust toA .ensure that the active construction site is not utilized as a path of traveI • FDOT to restore all pavement markings `.and signage Immediately after completing required read construction; District and FDOT to-eontlnue:.co.drdinatin'g In all: phases of the project, and F[ OT to=immediateiy„notifyithe Distrl`ot of any changes in construction plans that could potentialiyrimpact One er more Of these -Schools further; • FOOT to further review and assess the potential impacts of the project on Fi'oderick'Dougias SEiernentaty •(314 NW 12 Street and Phlliis- Wheetely Elementary (1801 NW 161 Place), which are located in close proximity ;to proposed construction area, specifically as to any Impact on the Walking routes of the etuderital at: both) schools,: and propose. ceptable :Ways "to. address any concerns; • FOOT to conduct a traffic study of the trafflc.sign.als in the .affected area (14!h "kStreetland 191 Avenue)'and present .the resultVto•-appropriate iDistrlct`,staff for review and `discussion. „ s While a.flynat option has not.yet .boen selected, in the interest of protecting the Board's interests" as well ss the safety of the students acid faculty' at `the potentially 'affected schools,; staff 'reco►nmends: that :the Board request FOOT to: i1) develop one or more options that would` eliminate impacts on theBoard Property; 2) finalize •a proposed MOT for all potentially affected schools aswellas conduot the additional assessments ,listed above;''3) present and discuss with appropriate District. r'epresentatives-°these new options and the proposed MOT.. Page 2 of 5 • • RECOINIMENfjgbr. That The School Board of Miami -Dade County, Florida, authorize the Superintendent to: 1. continue to participate as, a member of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Project Advisory Group, the venue by which FDOT will select design alternative for the 1.398 reconstruction project, With the goal to eliminate impacts to the Board -owned site located at 50 NW 14 Street; VV:aj request FDOT to finsillie end adopt a:Maintenance of Trate Plah,, (MOT) and other aSsestironts, as listed above, to ensure-the-Safety,ot;studentaand faculty at all'potentiallY'affected schoolsduring the construction process; and . * 3. • update the Board.. upon FDOT's.final selection of a preferred.option for .the I.;395 reconstruction project. Page 3 of 5 ALTaRNA'FiYES ggagg ERED A multi -phase alternative development, evaluation and selection process was employed to properly assess all alternatives oonsidered for the proposed 1-395 improvements. The ,alternatives comprised three dlstinot:types as follows: The "No BuUd" alternative entails .the retalnage of theexisting conditions within the project Iimits with its present geometric, operational and safety deficiencies. The Traneportetion Systems, 'Management (TSM)alternatives are comprised of minor improvements options. (irriprovtng interseotions, sigeajlzaUon, signing/markings and delineation, etc.) that .are usually generated to alleviate apeclfio traffic congestion/safety problems. Based on the fact that the No Build" and TSMalternatives Will not alleviate all of the existing corridor deficiencies nor Would they suffice to meet current and furore travel demand, It was determined that various major Build Atternativee would have to be developed. Srtiid Alternatives Alternative 2 proposed the closure of ail 1-395 existing ramps (at NE 2"" Ave, and Nl. 1°1 Ave.). The potential remover of all existing connections would allow the development iif a much higher 1-39& p'roflte that could be less visually obje4tionable than the present one. This option provided a new entrance to Wl3 SR -flag and NB 1-96 near the existing NW leSt./NW:2"d Ave. intersection,: This alternative assumodthe provision Of a new.$B.,t-96. oil- . ramp connecting.,to,NW 14. Si asi well es 1wa:NW lath st access' ramps to/from south 1- 9B,. Since iho 14th St. Access Ramps project was a vflal component of this alternative and was eliminated from the MPO work program, Alternative 2 le no Longer under' consideration as a viable option. r k,wsa.« u: �y,,4 r 1 µvs,,,,,. �.._..... �, rar;s�� ALTERNATIVE 2 (Elevated/ Midtown.tnterehange) Alternatives 3 and Care utmost identical to each other In terms of the proposed 1-395 improvements. Some of the more Important common features Include the following: I) the 1-395 mainline will be expanded to three -lanes in each direction, 2) entrance/exit ramps will PAGE ;4 OF 5 bo Located on N. Miami Ave and 3} a new collector!dlstributor roadwill separate ,the 1.03. traffic and the $11,833 WtB traffic,. Tho key differences between these altematiVea ehtallthe proposed 1-395 mainline and ramp profiles, Whllo Alternative 3 is planned as an elevated. urban freeway, Aiternativo 4 proposes a tunnel between Matti; Ave, and I3lscayno 5ivd.. +.} � tf V O.rto7 YqvriY411CN1nhthruma tr*uNraI V nt ALTERNATIVE 3 (Elevated / Mlarnl Avonue) ALTERNATIVE 4 (Tunnel / Wand Avenue) Alternative 5 featured an open-out.'`solutlon The .freeway lane configuration and ramp ralien of tills option are: almost ►dontipai to the oxtstin'd 1395 -Condition. `i`ho Alain arenco between this option and tlie'exis Ing condition is the veertloal proli o of 1-595. PAGI= 5 OP 5 ) PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS Citizen in Favor of Project Against Project Other Resident I.Organization Comments/Concerns Responses . ., . Public Hearing Speaker Cormne.nts - • Frederica Wilson X Rona Senator Supports Alternative 3 / Would like to see landscaping• included with the proposed alternative in the Overtown Landoozrio, will be provided as part . '''. w of this project. _ Judy Schmelzer X Miarni-Dade Community College - Wolfson Campus ... Supports Alternative 4 Irby McKnight X ' Overtown Neightxxhood Assembly Supports Alternative 3 Clement.nnis 7( Booker T.. Washington High SchOol Alumni Assoc. supports pit ative 3 . Derek Cole X Overtown Property Owner, Lofty ide.as Supports Alternative 3 / Concerned regarding use of the area under the proposed bridge The adcfitional heightof theproposed structure would be an aesthetic improvement in itself. Fred Joseph X Chairman 1-395 Project Advisory Group / Chairman Omni Advisory Board Supports Alternative 3-/ Pleased with the proposed visual effects underneath the proposed bridge , Ken Knight X pmall Business Owner Supports Alternative3 /Would like to see jab oppottunities created for Overtown residents Current..Job openings are posted on a bulletin board at the Field Office. .. Rodney Jackson • . X ' - Overtown Resident Concerned with impactto community and how project benefits Overtown Robert Fournier X Wynwood Resident Concerned the projectis being built for truck traffic only/ Would like to see truck traffic moved onto rail system The need for the project is based on safety aiwell as capacity. Charles Cutler X Overtown Resident! Ditactor of Vetelans Employment Program Supports Alternative 31 Concerned regarding use of the area underthe proposed bridge/Would like to see job opportunities created for Overtown residents - • , .,.. • The additionat height of the proposed structure would be an aesthetic improvement in itself_ Job openings are regulady posted at the Reid Office. AlyceRobertson X Executive Director of Miarni Downtown Development Authority Supports Alternative 31 Would like to see a 'signature - . bndge I Cdademed abaut 'the effect °I1 ecnnetide et The' PAC _. 1 ne Department is corrunitted to a "signature' sisuctUre. " Reginald C_ Munnings X Power U Organization . Supprri orts Alteative 3 / Would like to see commitment regarding use of the area under the proposed bridge 'Me Department has committed ix) the proposprofile.e additional ed Th height of the. proposed Structure , would be an sestbefie improvement in itsetf. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS Citizen In Favor of Project Against Project Other Resident / Organization Comments/Concerns Responses Eugene Rodriguez X Ice Palace (55.NW 14 Street) Objects to on & off ramp at N. Mord Ave. Would like on- ramp moved to Biscayne-131vd. and off -ramp at N. Miami Ave. On and off ramps must be provided at same location to meet Design Criteria. Kelsey R. Dorsett X Overtown Resident /1-395 Project Advisory Group Member Supports Altemarive 3/ Would like to see job opportunities created for Overtown residents / Allow for mothrough Ov re traffic flow ertown Current Job openings are posted on a bulletin board at the Field Office_ John Richard X• CEO of Adrienne Arsht Performing Arts Centerthe Concerns include: Acoustics at the PAC, the• style of proposed bridge, and effect on parkingltraffic flow at the PAC during construction Department committed to providing a signature structure. Coordination with connuuring PAC to tie d construction_ David Chiverton X Overtown Community Activist Supports Alternative 3 Anthony Cutler X Martin Luther }Ong Economic Development Center Supports Alternative 3 David Eaton X Overtown Resident Concerned about the integrity of institutions The Department has documented all commitments made to the community in this report Husam lddin Latiff X Overtown Resident Concerned•about the people of Overtowrs George Sanchez X Overtown Property Owner / Artist Concerned with existing areas under 1-395, drt needles and broken fences Proposed structure is higher than existing. Allows lightto penetrate through discouraging existing uses underneath structure. ;James Hunt X BookerT. Washington High School Alumni Assoc./ Retired School Principal Supports Alternative 3 / Concerned regarding impact to Booker T. Washington High School Committed to coordinating with Booker T Washington HS through design and construction of the project Peter E. McIntosh X Apostolic Revival Center Church Requested a job olvortunity Current job opportunities are listed at the Field Office. Javier Betancourt X Miami Downtowrs Development Authority Would like to see transit incorporated into the project / Focused on aesthetics underneath proposed 1-395 This project does not preclude Bus Rapid Transit. Dr. DorothyJ. Fields _ X . The Black Archives / Lyric Theater Concerned about access to Overtown. how the project benefits the community, and the effect on acoustics at the Lyric Theater _• Project does -not impact the Lyric ater. Bill Curtin X Coral Gables Resident - Concerned about incorporating transit and pedestrian facilities This project does not preclude Bus Rapid Transit • PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS Citizen In Favor of Project .Against Project Other i ResOrganization Comments/Concerns Responses Dr. Marvin Dunn £ir. . X" , Director of " Roots in the city. Concerned regarding the aesthetics and maiittenance under the proposed bridge as well as maintenance and ability to plant under the existing bridge Theexisting Structures too low to- allow light to penetrate thnough. Very - difficult to grog any vegetation with existing conditions. Sarah E. Wallace X Overtown Resident Concrned about future of Overtown Kathryn Moore X 4 Omni Area Resident Presentation did not address a boulevard alternative- A boulevard option does not meet the traffic demands of this cerridor. Pastor David Shanks X Pastor- Overtown Church of Christ Supports Alternative 3 Public Hearing Writteneosmneras Bill Anidp X City of Miami / Asst. City Manager Recommends 'signature' blidge to serve as gateway to City/Improve cormectivityf Uze area•under bridge for low -maintenance park space Department committed to providing a signature structure and low maintenance park space. Victoria Broz X Broz Equipment ..„. - Conce.rned regarding impacta- to warehouses and traffic flow No impacts anticipated to the wasehouse, The future Level of Service for 2040 along NW 14 Street varies between A a C. Alex Aclarns X Coral Gables Resident Tunnel option was ranked inferior to the elevated option due to impacts to Overtown. Prefers tunnel option Irby McKnight X Overtown Neighborhood Assembly Supixats Alternative 3 / Suggests the area under the ' ProPosed bridge be used for economic opportunities Written Comments frov'ti within 10-daypublic connment period) Gerry Guarch X Asst Dean for Admirtistration / Miami- Dade College -Wolfson Campus . Supports Atternattve 3 Jesse Smith III X Overtown Resident , Supports project Thaddeos Napper X Overtown Resident Supports project / Community needs employment Melissa Sturgis X Power U No need to push out business, churches, and people to make the expressway any higher Lasharna Marshall X ., ,.. Overtown Resident Supports Alternative 3,1 It would heti) people getjobs Kelly Dixon X Overtown Resklent Supports Alternative 3 / It would help people get jobs 3 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS Citizen In Favor of Project Against Project er , .., Resident/Organization , . _. - Comments/Concerns ,. Responses Anthony Cutler X Martin L.uther Kng Economic Development Center • Supports Alternative 3 Robert Simmons X Power U Gentrification is bad Ken Knight , . X . Small Business Center 1281- N.W, 56 Street _ . Training and skill development to be identified for all construction trades Monty of construction jobs are on - the-tr job aining. Information on awarded contracts is posted in the Field Office. Melanie Vann '. X Power U No comments AleX Adams X . Coral Gables Resident . Applauds FOOTS efforts / Suggests additional through lanes in each direction 1 Addition of colored lighting on the bridge / Continuing the Arts and Entertainment District lighting and landscaping plan / Expand decorative sidewalks an Biscayne Boulevard! Install stormwate_r ponds and fountains under bridge / Construct remaining piece of Baywalk under the bridge 1 Ensure views ofthe PAC and nthe- buikfings will not be impeded,/ Reconnect Overtown streets and match existing patterns - The higher profile. of the Proposed structure will improve the viewshed of the PAC and allow to reconnect NW 2nd Avenue and NE Miami Court. ° . * DrMarvin Dunn X .. • . Director ofRoots " in the City" Concernett regarding the maintenance under the proposed bridge as well as the' lack of on:going . maintenance under the existing bridge 1 Also, cctncemed about recent impacts to the Roots in the City garden - _ The District Six Maintenance Office field reviewed the area and identified locations of broken fence which will be repaired. - . Vivian Villaamil X , - IVElarni-DadeCountyPublic Schools • Requests Itiat FDOT explore design alternatives that eliminate impacts to the School Board -owned Stores and Distribution Warehouse arid the Miami SkillsCenter AN, to develop an MOT plan thatensures students safety during construction An alternative that eliminates impacts to the School Board property is not feasible. Atemative 3 has the least right otway.and community impacts. During design, every effort will be made t0 -minimize right of way impacts to the extent possible. . . .. -** Includes written commentsreceived pdOrto:and.post,public hearing. 4 Record of Decision 1-395 Reconstruction State Road No.: 1-395 Financial Project No.: 251670-1-22..02 Federal Aid Project No.: 6182 (101 County: Miami -Dade Description: Reconstruction of the Interstate395 (1-395) Corridor from the 1-95 Midtown Interchange [I-955/State Road lSR1.836/1-3951 Ramos to MacArthur Causeway West Channel Bridges at Biscayne Bay, City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida. This is the Record of Decision (ROD) for the above subject project identified in the Miami -Dade County 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), as adopted. The need and purpose for this project is in response to the existing deficiencies in capacity, geometries and safety. The existing 1-395 has only two through lanes, and only one continuous lane, in each direction. It has both left-hand and right-hand ramps, and unexpected merges and lane drops. These deficiencies are described in Section 1 (Figure 1-3, page 1-8) of the FEIS and are fully analyzed in the project's Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). This ROD is made pursuant to the 1-395 Final EIS which is hereby incorporated by reference. !Decision The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Florida Division, in coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and associated consultants and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and associated laws, regulations, and orders, proposes the reconstruction of the entire Interstate-395 (1-395) corridor, from the original terminus at the west side of the 1-95/Midtown interchange (I- 95/State Road [SR]-836/1-395) to the original corridor terminus at the West Channel Bridges of US-41/MacArthur Causeway (1,4 miles). The entire 1-395 project corridor lies within the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida. 1-395 is an independent facility linking 1-95 (to the south and north), SR-836 (to the west) and the MacArthur Causeway/US-41 (to the east) over Biscayne Bay. 1-395 serves as the emergency evacuation route for the southern part of the City of Miami Beach and for Star, Hibiscus and Palm Islands. The selected alternative is Build Alternative 3. The 1.4 mile project will begin at the I-95/Midtown interchange and will connect with the West Channel Bridges of the MacArthur Causeway. The location map for the selected alternative is included in Attachment 1. - Background The purpose of the 1-395 facility is to provide an expressway link between I-95/SR-836 and the MacArthur Causeway. A secondary purpose of 1-395 is to provide local access by ramps. Two of the needs for the proposed improvements are to improve capacity and geometries. The existing design is essentially limited to two lanes in each direction, while other linking roadways (1-95, SR-836, US-41) all have at least three lanes in each direction (five lanes beyond the Midtown Interchange). Therefore, the existing 1-395 lacks sufficient capacity for system linkage and needs improvement. The need for improvements is based on a combination of substandard traffic conditions, urban planning objectives and the interaction with other planned facility improvements impacting the proposed project area. Project objectives include: increase capacity to prevent existing and future traffic congestion; improve safety by alleviating existing deficiencies; and, explore access issues and establish proper continuity. The existing i- 395 facility has geometric, operational, access, capacity and safety deficiencies. Future development and projected demand usage along this corridor are expected to increase substantially, thus resulting in more severe and detrimental deficiencies. The lower Southeast Florida Region has been identified by the Natio al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as one of the most hurricane vu nerable areas of the United States. The 1-395 facility has been identified as a Hurrica e Evacuation Route being utilized for all category storm evacuations. The propose improvements would reduce evacuation times by providing better traffic flow especi Ily for the critical westbound emergency evacuation traffic from the Bay Islands and M ami Beach. In addition, the proposed project would also improve daily emergency a cess (e.g., ambulances, fire rescue, prisoner transfer, etc,) to and from the majo Medical/Civic Center area located just west of the project limits. FDOT, through the Advance Notification (AN) process, informed Fed rat, State, autonomous regional and local agencies and other interested parties f the existence of this project and its scope on April 06, 2005. In addition, this project as screened through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Programing Screen on September 27, 2007 as ETDM #7701 in accordance with SAFETEA-LU. Another key aspect of this project has included numerous meetings with interestecl parties other than the Federal and State environmental permit and review agencies. These include elected public officials, representatives of public agencies, and citizen's interest groups of many kinds, The public hearing was held at Overtown's historic Lyric Theater on August 25, 2009. Alternatives Considered Alternative 1 is the No -Build Alternative. Corridor analysis indicated that the only viable alternative corridor would involve a shift northward, to a straighter and shorter expressway alignment. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the Build Alternatives. All Build Alterinatives share the same footprint. The Build Alternatives included two elevated designs (structural bridges) and two depressed designs (a tunnel and an open -cut). The two elevated designs were entitled: Alternative 2, Elevated with Ramps at Midtown Interchange and, Alternative 3, Elevated with Ramps at Miami Avenue. During project development, it was determined that Alternative 2, Elevated with Ramps 2 at Midtown Interchange, was no longer viable, since it required construction of a related project, which was not advanced. The cumulative impacts within Overtown associated with the combination of the NW 14th Street/I-95 ramps project and the access ramps of I- 395 Build Alternative 2 (within Overtown) were not acceptable to the Overtown community. In this case, additional points of access to and from the interstate system were opposed and rejected by the affected community. Thus through the Public Involvement process, it was determined that Alternative 2 was fatally flawed. Build Alternative 3, Ramps at Miami Avenue, was the second elevated alternative. The proposed location of the access ramps was east of Overtown, in a generally vacant commercial area. This alternative involved considerably less right -cif -way (R/W) impacts and displacement to the Overtown community, This alternative wa1? the best at fulfilling the project purpose and need while minimizing the associated im p acts to this minority community. It was, therefore, the best option for advancement. The 'two depressed designs were Alternative 4, Tunnel, Ramps at Alternative 5, Open -Cut, Ramps at NE 1 and NE 2fld AvenueE concepts had been promoted by local interests for several years a expressway disappear from view. However, through four years analysis, both were determined not to be viable. The costs were that of a surface road or bridge option. Apart from costs, the two u also had major disadvantages in terms of more impacts to the C (e.g., environmental justice), as well as more involvement with con and safety impacts, as compared to the elevated roadway concept. Miami Avenue, and Both below -grade a way to make the of extensive PD&E approximately twice nderground designs vertown community ;amination, flooding, No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative (Alternative 1) is the "do-nothing" or "no -act on" option. The No - Build Alternative remained a viable alternative through the Public Haring. It is used to compare the costs and benefits of implementing the proposed imp ovements to those incurred by continuing to use the existing facility. The existing pro !erns and concerns with the operational and capacity shortcomings of the 'roadway would remain essentially unchanged, with all of the geometric, operational and access deficie cies. The necessary continuity is lacking in the existing facility. 1-395 haL only two through lanes in each direction, while the connecting expressways have at east three through lanes. It has only one lane in each direction that Is continuous from e t d to end. It fails to effectively serve the access needs of the abutting land uses, and is inadequate in terms of existing and future capacity. Transportation S stem Maria ement Alternative Another alternative that was explored entailed the potential provision of Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements. TSM options are usually generated to alleviate specific traffic congestion/safety problems, or to get the maximum utilization out 3 of the existing facility by improving operational efficiency. A total of seven TSM concepts were considered but ultimately were rejected because, although they bring some beneficial effects, they still maintain the existing roadway se tion, and therefore preclude the attainment of any significant improvement in the ov rail project Level of Service. Alternative Selected It was determined by FHWA and FOOT through the alternatives evaluation process that the elevated Build Alternative 3 was the selected design. This deign features paired bridges that span nearly one mile between the Midtown Interchange and Bayshore Drive, with a partial interchange near the bridge's mid -point. The interchange at N Miami Avenue includes two westbound on -ramps and two eastbound off-r=mps. The proposed geometry of the two Biscayne Boulevard ramps (slip ramps) at t e eastern terminus portion of the 1-395 corridor remains very similar to the existing ramp layout. Major Issues Considered Project implementation will include the following environmental impa ts: Right -of -Way: Prior to the subject action, FDOT used the corridor p qeservation process of Advance Right -of -Way Acquisition (ARNVA) to acquire most (but not all) of the urban area needed to construct a new facility. With ail build alternatives, t e westbound lanes of this facility would be constructed north of the existing facility, affe Ling approximately 11 acres along 14 blocks, Therefore, all build options basically h d the same RNV requirements. Through the first AR/WA action, FOOT acquired the a stern three blocks near the AACPA, curtailing a proposed construction of four 57-sto buildings at this location. This first ARNVA was processed as a Type 2 Catego ical Exclusion for acquisition of 26 parcels, and was approved by FHWA on August 30, 2004. The acquisition of this first group of parcels was completed by 2006. T e second ARNVA action was processed as a Reevaluation of the CE-2 and was appr+ved by FHWA on August 8, 2006 for acquisition of another 42 parcels along 11 blocks to the west of the first three blocks. Funding is contained in FY 2019-2021, therefore, this second group of properties has not yet been acquired. While these 68 parcels w.-re common to all build alternatives, the individual build alternatives varied slightly in RNV needs. The, specific needs of Build Alternative 3 involved an additional 7 parcel (approximately 1 acre) all located south of the existing facility, in the vicinity of the N Miami Avenue ramps. These seven parcels were not acquired through ARNVA, ando pertain to the subject EIS action. These parcels include a warehouse, a commercia site, a partial clip of an industrial site, and several vacant parcels, 'but do not i clude residential displacements. Relocations: A total of ten (10) residential units, five (5) businesses o services, one (1) special category site (former place of warship) and four (4) personal •roperty category items (signs, etc.) will be relocated as a result of the two previous . R/WA- actions for corridor preservation and the subject EIS action. The FDOT Rig t-of Way Section 4 quite small fora project of this magnitude, especially for one in an u due in large part to the fact that 53 of the RAW acquisitions involved as vacant. The displacement of ten residential units (individuals considered a significant impact to the Overtown community. These will be afforded every benefit to assist in their relocation. The relocation program is a critical program whose purpose is to pry rules to implement the Uniform Relocation Assistance ar Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 USC 4601) the following objectives: 1) to ensure that owners of real propert Federal and Federally assisted projects are treated fairly and encourage and expedite acquisition agreements with such own: litigation and relieve congestion in the courts, 4) to promote public ensure that reiocatees are treated fairly, consistently, and equi persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of proje* benefit of the public as a whole while implementing these regulation efficient and cost effective. The Relocation Department will prompt! accordance with the requirements of applicable law. Construction: The total replacement of a major expressway, inclu• two suspension bridges, involves large-scale impacts that are of Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) and sequence of construction wi scheduled so as to minimize traffic delays throughout the project. T Plan developed in seven phases for the selected Build Alternative 3 view and cross section in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. First, th. roadway/bridge will be constructed to the north of the existing facility, stages by removal of the existing two-way facility and constructio roadway/bridge. The MOT includes two temporary elevated roadw ramp structure, and an eastbound detour on fill. prepared a document entitled 1-395 Significant Relocation lmpaci 2007. In a section of the FEIS entitled Pre -Relocation Needs ASSE were tables listing Business impacts (five parcels) and Resid€ parcels). Residential impacts affect ten occupied, one -bedroom a buildings (six-piex, four-piex), plus one vacant former apartment b housing of last resort measures are likely to be needed for the di that sufficient available residential and commercial properties e area. The five (5) business impacts, affect 55 employees, however, as s 2007 report none of the employees were residents of Overtown. T suitable replacement commercial space was available. On manufacturer/distributor of batteries for hearing aids (25 em• displaced businesses include: Broz International (restaurant equip Sheila Shine (cleaner of stainless steel, 10 employees); Overto employees); and, Art Gallery (2 employees). The latter three enter s dated October 24, ssrnent Survey Plan ntial Impacts (three artment units in two wilding. It stated that placed persons, but ist in the Overtown ated in the October, e report stated that enterprise is a loyees). The other ent, 15 employees); n Food Market (3 rises are located in Overtown. Note that the actual amount of displacements (residential and commercial) is ban location. This is rarcels of land listed or families) is not lisplaced individuals mulgate and follow d Real Property in accordance with to be acquired for consistently, 2) to rs, 3) to minimize onfidence, and 5)to ably so that such is designed for the in a manner that is review appeals in ing construction of temporary nature. I be planned and e preliminary MOT s illustrated in plan new westbound followed in several of the eastbound ys; a northbound 5 The following are statements of findings for relevant environmental impact categories: • in accordance with Executive Order 11990, wetlands developing and evaluating alternatives for the proposed action. T eastern terminus is some 350 feet inland from the shoreline of Bisca • It has been determined through consultation with local, stet resources and floodway management agencies that there is no involvement on the proposed project and that the project inv development that is incompatible with existing floodplain ranagemei The Office of Planning and Budget, Office of the Governor this project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management • The noise sensitive receivers within the project Area of Pot currently experience noise levels which exceed FDOT's Noise At Criteria (NAAC) and would continue to do so under the Design Year It has been determined through a detailed noise analysis that it mitigate noise impacts are not applicable to this project. Noise bar be constructed along this corridor at the edge -of -pavement of the e nearest the impacted sites. In these locations, crash -approved n approved by FDOT are currently limited to a maximum height of 8 noise level reduction, i.e., insertion Toss, accepted by FDOT is 5 proposed structures meet FDOT's minimum noise level reduction Grit In accordance with Executive Order 12898, environmental jus for the Overtown Community. The selected alternative involves con impacts to Overtown than the other three Build Alternatives. Residen displacements are few, and replacement space is readily available. is the result of considerable coordination with the Overtown comm throughout the PD&E Phase. Measures fie Minimize Harm This project incorporates all practical measures to avoid or mini harm. Although some impacts will occur, every effort will be made t through the institution of feasible measures applicable to each si specific commitments have been made regarding Relocation assista will be provided, as defined in F.S 339.09 and Public Law 91-54s Public Law 100-17. The existing drainage system is sub -standard a to provide stormwater treatment prior to discharge into receiving wate affected receiving waters are located in the Port of Miami (POM) turni Bay) in front of Bicentennial Park. These waters are designated Bis Preserve and Outstanding Florida Waters. All applicable water qualit be met rere considered in he subject project's one Bay. and federal water egulatory floodway Ives no floodplain t. as determined that Ian. ntial Effects (APE) atement Approach No -Build Scenario. normal solutions to riers would have to evated traffic lanes Ise barrier designs eet. The minimum BA. None of the ria. ice was addressed iderably less direct ial and commercial he selected design nity that occurred ize environmental minimize impacts cation. Numerous ce, and payments as amended by d will be replaced s. In this case, the g basin (Biscayne ayne Bay Aquatic requirements will 6 Commitments In order to minimize the impacts of this project, FDOT is comm tted to the following measures: • The Department will maintain continuous coordination with communities in order to facilitate their awareness of pe project advances forward into the design and construction p • Adequate pedestrian and bicycle connectivity shall be phases of construction in order to maximize safety and disruptions. The construction sequencing plan will also safety, especially in the context of the large student copula project. • The roadway vertical clearance along 1-395 should have a the area west of the FEC rail corridor and a minimum of 25 rail corridor. • A minimum distance of 150 feet between the eastbound an will be provided along NE 15t Avenue. • A minimum of 200 feet will be provided between the Ad (AACPA) and the 1-395 westbound bridge. • A minimum of 225 feet column span length will be provided. • Due to the provision of higher structures, the potential to Avenue and NE Miami Court under the proposed 1-395 fa establish and facilitate local street linkage in Overtown Will be • The Department will develop Technical Special Provisions ( will occur adjacent to the AACPA in order to minimize constru noise and vibration -sensitive site. • The Department commits to providing a `signature' bridge des' • The Department will provide aesthetics enhancements (e. order to help maximize the total integration of the project community. • The Department will review the need to provide a Limit underneath the proposed structure. • To minimize the adverse effects on air and noise quality activities, the contractor will adhere to air quality and nois the adjacent project inent issues as the ases. aintained during all inimize delays and address pedestrian ion surrounding the inimum of 19 feet in eet east of the FEC westbound bridges enne Arsht Center reconnect NW 2nd iiity in order to re- ctifier explored. SPs) for work that tion impacts to this n. landscaping) in with the adjacent d Access Fence from construction provisions of the 7 FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Const as well as appropriate Best Management Practices, ction, latest edition, • The contractor shall dispose of all oil, chemicals, fuel, et ., in an acceptable manner according to local, state and federal regulations nd shall not dump these contaminants on the ground or in sinkholes, canal , or borrow lakes. Appropriate Best Management Practices will be used dur ng the construction phase for erosion control and water quality in order to ob ain Chapter 62-25, F.A.C. compliance. In addition, the contractor will adhere to the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition. • Maintain and enhance system continuity between the SR 836/1-95 facility on the west and the MacArthur Causeway on the east. • The Department will review the maintenance issues of conce n expressed during the public hearing during the design and construction phases .f the project. • Maintain hurricane evacuation capacity from Miami Beach, t e Bay Islands and the adjacent bayfront area during the construction phase. • Potential construction vibration impacts will be further evaluat-d during the future phases of this project, • Stormwater management features to mitigate for water qu lity impacts will be incorporated. • A re-evaluation of contamination concerns will be conducted prior to right-of-way acquisition, if necessary, and/or during the design phase if de- med necessary by the Contamination Impact Coordinator. Monitorin and Enforcement Program The FDOT Reevaluation Process serves to ensure compliance Federal and State laws and regulations prior to the advancement o next major production phase. This process also provides the mea commitments made during the project development process are iden their status confirmed. Any new commitments or laws which may ha since the approval of the original final environmental document ar; Reevaluation. As a result, the environmental documentation on a current with prevailing rules and regulations, as well as any commitm the project development process, including permit requirements. FD these commitments through a data base in order to manage and ac diverse amount of data in a timely manner. ith all applicable the project to the hanisms by which ified, updated, and e come into effect addressed in the project is always r nts resulting from �T District 6 tracks ess the large and 8 Substantive Comments on Final Environmental Im ' act Statem nt FEIS The FEIS was approved for circulation on February 18, 2010, . nd the notice of its availability was published in the Federal Register on April 2, 201 0, with a request that comments be postmarked by May 3, 2010. The FHWA, in coordination with the FDOT, has taken into consideration all pertinent correspondence, docu ents, and technical reports, FDOT has adequately responded to all substantive com ents received from interested parties regarding the content and accuracy of the EIS and supporting studies for selection of Alternative 3. In a letter dated May 3, 2010, EPA commented that the FEIS addsssed the majority of their DEIS comments. The letter reiterated several of the commen s from their letter of September 8, 2009, and stated that these comments could be ad.ressed in the ROD. EPA's.comments included the following: • EPA has concerns regarding the potential for impac to children's health due to the close proximity to several schools a ong the proposed alignment. FDOT Response: Traffic noise impacts were analyzed in accord nce with 23CFR772. Exterior traffic noise in the project study area is pre icted to increase by levels well below the threshold recognized by the FHWA (3 dBA) at which humans are able to perceive changes in noise level. In addition, national esearch has shown that noise sensitive sites greater than 500 feet from a project, as is the case with the schools, do not experience project generated noise levelabove the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria. Given the minimal changes to traffic p=tterns near schools and the area's attainment status for all of the NAAQS, to al -site air monitoring related to this project is not considered necessary. In ddition, continued community involvement will be implemented to ensure student sa ety and mitigate for any noise issues during the construction phase. • EPA recognizes FDCT's commitment to fully mitigate sto m water impact and any potential impact of existing groundwater contam nation. FDOT Response: FDOT is committed to fully mitigating storm wa er impact and any potential impact of existing groundwater contamination. Summa of Substantive Comments and Res •onses Concernin a the FEIS See Attachment 2 at the end of this document. 9 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, artd based upon consideration of all t and environmental evaluation contained in the Final Environment with the input received from other agencies, organizations, and th Highway Administration has determined that the FEELS preferred Alternative 3 is hereby the selected alternative, Therefore It is my alternative as the proposed action for this project. Diision Administrator Federal Highway Administration Dat e social, economic, I Impact Statement, public, the Federal alternative, namely ecision to adopt this 10 Attachment 1 - Project Location Map INTERNATIONAL $a A flTf'CiriT T � yc ast' 4'r.Q3.1 L xnrassrdy t f 0 1A3R ES S. fn7n� ti>.. ;.vraf iN�y: GOR Ai BPGIW PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION Florida Department of Transportation Attachment 2 — Substantive Comments on FEIS 12 Attachment 2: SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON FEiS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Summary of DEIS comments from letter dated September 8, 2009 and FEES comments from fetter dated May 3, 2010) Agency Comment Date Agency Comment FDOT Response US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 9/8/2009 Concern was expressed regarding the shortage. of comparable rental units within the immediate area for the residentiai relocates. The Pre -Relocation Needs Assessment Survey Plan was recently updated to reflect the currant market conditions. The plan determined that there are sufficient affordable housing options available forthe ten (10) residential units to be displaced. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 9/8/2009 A recommendation was made to continue the on- going public involvement program throughout the planning, design and construction phases of the project. This ongoing public involvement program will continue to occur throughout the subsequent project phases. 9/8/2009 The DEiS did not include an adequate evaluation of the impacts of air toxics ((V1SAT) emissions on nearby population centers and sensitive populations given the magnitude of the existing and proposed project and the proximity to focal schools. Miami -Dade County is currently in attainment for all of the pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been promulgated. The FHWA mandated air quality analysis for the project demonstrated that no potential adverse air quality impacts would be caused by construction of the Build Alternative. While project level analysis of MSATs is not required under the NEPA process as currently administered by FHWA, the FDOT has provided a qualitative assessment of MSATs in Section 4.3.3.2 of the FEIS. For informational purposes we have also included in this section a listing of nearby sites potentially sensitive to MSATs. A more detailed quantitative analysis of potential project related environmental and health impacts due to MSATs is encumbered by significant technical shortcomings and/or uncertain science that prevents a meaningful determination of project level MSAT levels and impacts. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 9/8/2009 ErA-recommends-fhatthe-FinallElSlaclrtde a detailed inventory of air toxics emissions (including diesel emissions) from both stationary and mobile sources that serve the facility, including the locomotives, switchers, tractors, and support equipment, etc. It should also include a screening level evaluation of the potential impacts on these emissions an neighboring populations. A detailed inventory of air toxics emissions is not required under the NEPA process as currently administered by FHWA. Miami -Dade County Is currently in attainment for all of the pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been promulgated. In addition, the FHWA mandated air quality analysis for the project demonstrated that no potential adverse air quality impacts would be caused by construction of the Build Alternative. Please see section 4.3.3 .1 of the FEIS_ 13 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 9/8/2009 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 9/8/2009 9/8/2009 Noise and MSAT emissions from heavy truck and vehicular traffic are areas of environmental and public health concern, particularly in close proximity of school zones. The existing facility already adversely impacts these two areas and the proposed upgrades to the facility may exacerbate these issues. In recognition of these concerns, EPA recommends that FDOT employ air monitors to monitor pollutant levels near school grounds during construction and post construction. . EPA recommends that the final EIS consider the following strategies to minimize these impacts including: a) providing or installing soundproof materials for the classrooms; b) working with schools to schedule outdoor activities at the school when vehicular traffic is,the lowest; and c) examining where fresh air intakes for the school are located, and filtering air intake to the extent feasible to minimize intake of these particulates into the school's heating and air conditioning systems, as well as filtering within the HVAG system (should MSAT's pose an issue). A recommendation was made to consider the indirect impacts of any future mass transit projects that may impact the project area in the FEIS. Project level analysis of MSATs is not required under the NEPA process as currently administered by FHWA. Please see Sections 4_3, 4.4 and 4.17; Air quality, Noise and Construction, respectively in the FEIS. Traffic noise impacts were analyzed in accordance with 23CFR772. Exterior traffic noise in the project study area is predicted to increase by levels well below the threshold that humans are able to perceive changes in noise level recognized by the FHWA (3 dBA). in addition, national research has shown that noise sensitive sites greater than 500 feet from a project, as is the case with the schools, do not experience project generated noise levels .above the FI-IWA Noise Abatement Criteria. Given the minimal changes to traffic patterns near schools and the area's attainment status for all of the NAAQS, local -site air monitoring related to this project is not considered necessary. In accordance with the NEPA process for FHWA projects, at required analysis were conducted and it was determined that no impacts are expected to occur at the nearby schools as a result of the proposed action. Please see Sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.17; Air quality, Noise and Construction, respectively in the FEIS. As stated in Section 1.5 —Modal Interrelationships, the proposed project is compatible with existing and proposed multimodai. The FEC rail corridor is not a mass -transit facility. No immediate plans currently exist to re -initiate passenger service. However, the South. Florida East Coast Corridor (SFECC) Transit Analysis Study, a feasibility study, is on -going to develop and analyze alternatives that potentially integrate passenger and freight transport along the SFECC, which is centered along the existing FEC rail corridor. The existing double -rail freight corridor crosses at -grade under 1-395 at North Miami Avenue. The SFECC Transit Analysis Study may include a station or statignee the Overtown communityein.the vicirfity-of-1-395—However; the proposed new location of access ramp(s) to/from 1-395 at N. Miami Avenue will result in less traffic on local streets as related to the potential new station or stations compared to the location of the existing access ramps an N.E. 2nd Avenue_ Therefore, at this time there is minimal and/or no indirect impact from the SFECC Transit Analysis Study. 14 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 9/812009 5/3/2010 5/3/2010 Concern was expressed that the storm water system be able to effectively manage the flow of runoff without adversely affecting any existing contaminant plumes which could degrade groundwater quality. EPA recommends that public involvement with the adjacent communities continue through the future design and construction phases of the project. EPA recommends continue community invoivementihronghoutthe construcuon phase as well as consideration for employing air monitors to monitor pollutant levels near school grounds during construction. Continued community involvement is necessary to refine steps taken to ensure student safety and mitigate for any noise issues during the construction phase. The FDDT has committed to incorporating storm water management features into the project design to mitigate for water quality impacts_ During the design phase, a re- evaluation of contamination concerns will be conducted based on the speck drainage design prepared for this project. The re-evaluation will include a review of the federal, state and local agency databases to identify the status of previously reported contaminant sources as well as Identify any new potential sources. Based on the results of the re-evaluation, a Level II Contamination Assessment may be required to determine the extent of existing contamination within the project corridor if deemed necessary by the Contamination Impact Coordinator. The type and location of the proposed storm water management features will be assessed for potential involvement with existing contamination sources. The project design engineer will be directed to modify any storm water feature so as not to affect any existing contaminant plumes. This ongoing publio involvement program will continue to occur throughout the subsequent project phases. Continued community involvement will continue throughout the construction phase. Given the minimal changes to traffic patterns near schools and the area's attainment status for a of the NAAQS, local -site air monitoring related to this project is not considered necessary. In addition, continued' community involvement will be implemented to ensure student safety and mitigate for any noise issues during the construction phase. 15 iUS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 513/2010 EPA recognizes FDOT's commitment to fully mitigate storm water impact and any potential impact of existing groundwater contamination. FDOT is committed to fully mitigating storm water impact and any potential impact of existing groundwater contamination. 16 Public Hearing Comments Hearing date: August 25, 2009; Location: Historic Lyric Theater, Overtown Citizen in Favor of Project Against Project Other Resident / Organization Comments/Concerns Responses Rodney Jackson Overtown Resident Concerned with Impact to community and how project benefits Overtown Richert Fournier Wynwood Resident Concerned the project is being built for truck traffic only/Would like to see truck traffic moved onto rail system The need for the project is based on safety as well as capacity. Eugene Rodriguez ice Palace (55 NW 14 Street) Objects to on & off ramp at N. Miami Ave. Would like on -ramp moved to Biscayne Blvd. and off -ramp at N. Miami Ave. John Richard CEO of Adrienne Arsht Performing Arts Center Concerns include: Acoustics at the PAC, the style of proposed bridge, and effect on parking/traffic flow at the PAC during construction David Eaton George Sanchez James Hunt Overtown Resident Overtown Property Owner / Artist Booker T. Washington High School Alumni Assoc./ Retired School Principal Concerned about the integrity of institutions Concerned with existing areas under 1-395, dirt, needles and broken fences Supports Alternative 3 / Concerned regarding impact to Booker T. Washington High School Javier Betancourt X Miami Downtown Development Authority Would like to see transit incorporated into the project / Focused on aesthetics underneath proposed 1-395 On and off ramps must be provided at same location to meet Design Criteria. Department committed to providing a signature structure. Coordination with the PAC to continue during construction. The Department has documented all commitments made to the community in this report. Proposed structure is higher than existing. Allows light to penetrate through discouraging existing uses underneath structure. Committed to coordinating with BookerT Washington HS through design and const[tiction_Pflhe project. This project does riot preclude Bus Rapid Transit. Dr. Dorothy J. Fields X The Black Archives / Lyric Theater Concerned about access to Overtown, how the project benefits the community, and the effect on acoustics at the Lyric Theater Project does not impact the Lyric Theater. Dr. Marvin Dunn X Director of " Roots in the city" Concerned regarding the aesthetics and maintenance under the proposed bridge as well as maintenance and ability to plant under the existing bridge The existing structure is to low to allow light to penetrate through. Very difficult to grow any vegetation with existing condritions. Victoria Brim X Broz Equipment Concerned regarding impacts to warehouses and traffic flaw•warehouse. No impacts anticipated to the The future Level of Service for 2040 along NW 14 Street Alex Adams Melissa Sturgis X X Coral Gables Resident Power E! Prefers tunnel option No need to push out business, churches, and people to make the expressway arty higher varies between A & O. Tunnel option was ranked inferior to the elevated option due to impacts to Overtown. Vivian Viliaamnl * X Miami Dade County Public Schools Requests that FDOT explore design alternatives that eliminate impacts to the Board -owned Stores and Distribution Warehouse and the Miami Skills Center and to develop an MOT plan that ensures students' safety during constriction An alternative that eliminates impacts to the School Board property is not feasible. Alternative 3 has the least right of way and community impacts. During design, every effort will be made to mtnirrtize right of way impacts to the extent possible_ includes written comments received erior to and nnst-nuh lrr Fa.a.,,, • 18