2 Minwr Feasibility Report Final

Florida Department of
TRANSPORTATION
Titusville to Edgewater Trail

Feasibility Report
Titusville to Edgewater Trail from Sand Point Park
(Titusville) to US 1 and Kennedy Parkway
Financial Project Number:
Federal Project Number:
424040-2-22-01
7777-186-A
WWW.DOT.STATE.FL.US
Titusville to Edgewater Trail

Feasibility Report
Titusville to Edgewater Trail from Sand Point Park
(Titusville) to US 1 and Kennedy Parkway
Financial Project Number:
Federal Project Number:
424040-2-22-01
7777-186-A
Prepared for Florida Departmentof Transportation

District S
719 S. Woodland Boulevard
Deland, FL 32720-6834
I, Fraser S. Howe Jr., have prepared this Feasibility

Transportation Scope of Services.
Centennial
Report in accordance
with Florida
Department of
PREPAREDBY:
Fraser S. Howe Jr, P.E. No. ~ l 5:58
Date
METRO CONSULTING GROUP, LLC (Cert. of Auth. No. 29325)

604 Courtland Street, Suite 140
Orlando, FL 32804
Phone: 407.960.3970
Email:
Version:
Date:
Prepared by:
Final
April 10, 2015
Fraser S. Howe Jr.
Project Manager
Approved by:
Jazlyn Heywood, PE
District 5 Project Manager
PE#41558
PE# 76937
P:\300 PROJECT MGMn 12FT502_ T2E_ TRAIL_PDE\2.ENGINEERING\2.40.FEASIBILITY\424040_2_MINWR_FEASIBILITY
_REPORT.DOCX
TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
MINWR ROUTE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Executive Summary
This feasibility study evolved from the confluence of two concepts; a Titusville to Edgewater Trail to connect
the ends of the East Central Regional Rail Trail, and a Coast to Coast connector trail to provide a continuous
path across the peninsula. Merritt Island provided a unique possibility to complete both concepts while also
offering trail users a wildlife viewing opportunity. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and National Park Service (NPS) are all stakeholder
agencies responsible for Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) and/or the Canaveral National
Seashore (CANA). Discussions with these agencies revealed issues and concerns that were different than
those typically encountered through the Florida Department of Transportations (FDOT) Project Development
and Environmental (PD&E) study process. This report sought to discuss how public and agency outreach led
to the need for a future PD&E study, identify terms for NASA, USFWS, and NPS approval of the future PD&E
study, and estimate the cost of the future study.
The proposed trail was broken down into five segments; Segment one crossed a Brevard County bridge and
park, segment two, four, and five were within the MINWR, and segment three was within the CANA. While
bicycling for recreation was acceptable for the County and NPS, NASA and USFWS take their direction
from the National Wildlife Refuge System improvement Act of 1997 that set forth the six activities of hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation as the
primary public uses of the Refuge System. Therefore the trail in MINWR must support wildlife viewing to be
acceptable.
Agencies have also identified concerns over environmental impacts, funding, design, maintenance, and
liability. These issues will need to be addressed by the future PD&E study that shall be completed to USFWS
standards, not Federal Highway Administration standards as is typically done for FDOT projects.
Information has been included from an initial investigation of cultural resources, wetland and wildlife habitat,
and contamination. This preliminary work did not reveal any issues that would prevent this trail project from
going forward. However, the future study shall verify and append this information to the satisfaction of the
approving agencies.
Public outreach for this project has been met with overwhelming support with some concerns raised over user
safety and loss of cultural resources in the Shiloh area.
The future study was anticipated to cost $400,000 and take two years to complete.
PAGE III
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... iii
1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Project Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Physical Inventory and Assessment of Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 13

3.1
General Description ..................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2
Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 13
3.3
Existing Typical Sections .............................................................................................................................. 14
3.4
Existing Roadway ROW .............................................................................................................................. 14
3.5
Roadway Classification ............................................................................................................................... 14
3.6
Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................................... 14
3.7
Horizontal and Vertical Alignments ........................................................................................................... 15
3.8
Pedestrian Accommodations ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.9
Bicycle Facilities Location, Type, Width, and Designation ................................................................ 15
3.10 Lighting Type, Condition, Spacing, and Maintaining Agency .......................................................... 15

3.11 Intersection Characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 15
3.12 Traffic Signals ................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.13 Railroad Crossings ........................................................................................................................................ 16
3.14 Structural and Operational Conditions of the Pavement ...................................................................... 16
3.15 Drainage System Inventory......................................................................................................................... 16
3.16 Traffic Data.................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.17 Crash Data and Safety Analysis ............................................................................................................... 17
3.18 Utilities............................................................................................................................................................. 17
3.19 Soils and Geotechnical Data ...................................................................................................................... 17
3.20 Trail Connectivity........................................................................................................................................... 18
3.21 Other Engineering Data .............................................................................................................................. 18
4
Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Trail Concept Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20

PAGE IV
5.1
Segment 1 Titusville (Coast to Coast) .................................................................................................... 20
5.2
Segment 2 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Coast to Coast) ........................................... 21
5.3
Segment 3 Playalinda Beach (Coast to Coast) ................................................................................... 22
5.4
Segment 4 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Titusville to Edgewater) 1 ......................... 23
5.5
Segment 5 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Titusville to Edgewater) 2 ......................... 25
Environmental Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 26

6.1
Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 26
6.2
Wildlife and Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 27
6.3
Contamination ................................................................................................................................................ 33
Stakeholder Coordination ........................................................................................................................................................ 37

7.1
US Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................................... 37
7.2
National Aeronautics and Space Administration .................................................................................... 39
7.3
National Park Service .................................................................................................................................. 42
7.4
FHWA Eastern Federal Lands .................................................................................................................... 42
7.5
Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization ............................................................................. 42
Public Involvement ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 45
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix A Meeting Notes

Appendix B Draft Memorandum of Agreement
Appendix C Draft PD&E Scope
Appendix D Concept Plans
Appendix E Agency Coordination
PAGE V
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project location ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Titusville to Edgewater Trail original route ................................................................................................ 9
Figure 3: Proposed trail segments in Brevard County ............................................................................................10
Figure 4: Public use zones in MINWR .........................................................................................................................13
Figure 5: Bike trails proposed in the MINWR Visitor Services Plan .....................................................................18
Figure 6: Separate shared-use path in segment 1 ..................................................................................................20
Figure 7: Proposed route along Max Brewer Parkway (Source: NASA) ............................................................21
Figure 8: Proposed route along NASA railroad (Source: NASA) .........................................................................21
Figure 9: Proposed trail along NASA Railroad........................................................................................................22
Figure 10: CANA General Management Plan bicycle path ..................................................................................22
Figure 11: Proposed route along power poles (Source: NASA) ...........................................................................23
Figure 12: Concept showing off-road shared-use path along power poles adjacent to Kennedy Parkway
....................................................................................................................................................................................23
Figure 13: Titusville to Edgewater segments.............................................................................................................24
Figure 14: Concept showing proposed paved shoulders for bikes along Kennedy Parkway........................25
Figure 15: Potential Scrub-Jay territories; MINWR C2C & MINWR T2E 1 .......................................................31
Figure 16: Potential Scrub-Jay Territories; MINWR T2E 2 ....................................................................................32
Figure 17: FEMA flood zone coverage ......................................................................................................................34
Figure 18: Soil Classification Map ..............................................................................................................................35
Figure 19: Future land use map (Source: Kennedy Space Center Master Plan) ...............................................39
Figure 20: Shiloh complex launch sites .......................................................................................................................40
Figure 21: Map of possible roadway transfers in Kennedy Space Center .......................................................41
Figure 22: CANA bicycle path route ..........................................................................................................................42
Figure 23: Project website Home Page .....................................................................................................................43
Figure 24: December 2014 statistics for project website ......................................................................................43
Figure 25: Pictures from a food truck event in Titusville (Feb. 25, 2013) ...........................................................44
Figure 26: MINWR & CANA bicycle trail route from Titusville to Playalinda Beach .......................................45
PAGE VI
List of Tables
Table 1: Roadway Classification.................................................................................................................................14
Table 2: Railroad Crossings .........................................................................................................................................16
Table 3: Pavement Rideability ....................................................................................................................................16
Table 4: Traffic Data .....................................................................................................................................................16
Table 5: Brevard Crash Data ......................................................................................................................................17
Table 6: Soil Data ..........................................................................................................................................................17
Table 7: Design Criteria for two-way shared-use path .........................................................................................19
Table 8: Previously Recorded Historic Resources within 100 Feet of the Segment ROW Centerlines..........26
Table 9: Threatened and Endangered Species within the Project Vicinity .........................................................29
Table 10: Threatened and Endangered Plants within Project Vicinity.................................................................30
Table 11: Comparison of Environmental Assessment Documents ..........................................................................38
Table 12: Length of Bike Trail .....................................................................................................................................45
Table 13: Estimated Staff Hours to perform the Future PD&E Study ..................................................................46
PAGE VII
Introduction
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a Project Development and Environment (PD&E)
Study to develop a trail connection between the ends of the East Central Regional Rail Trail (ECRRT) in
Titusville (Brevard County), and in Edgewater (Volusia County). The intent of the study was to develop and
evaluate potential preliminary design alternatives that would provide users a scenic opportunity through
existing natural areas such as the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR), Canaveral National
Seashore (CANA), the Indian River Lagoon, and the Mosquito Lagoon. The total project length was
approximately 33 miles. Design alternatives were analyzed for the provision of a bike route for recreational
and experienced bicyclists. The project complied with all applicable federal and state laws, and minimized
potential environmental impacts. Figure 1 shows the project loaction.
Figure 1: Project location

PAGE 8
The original route, shown in Figure 2, started at the west end of the A. Max Brewer Memorial Parkway
Bridge (commonly known as Max Brewer Parkway and Max Brewer Bridge) in Brevard County, went north
though the MINWR, and ended at the intersection of Park Avenue and Dale Street in Volusia County.
Begin Project
West of Max Brewer Bridge
Figure 2: Titusville to Edgewater Trail original route
The Original Scope of Services was amended for the Brevard County portion of the trail to prepare a
feasibility report that identified terms for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) acceptance. The report was also to discuss public/agency outreach,
include a connection to complete the Coast-to-Coast (C2C) Connector, and estimate the cost of the future
PD&E study. Therefore this report only contains information concerning the trail in Brevard County and
environmental information for the original route.
The new study route included an off road trail along Max Brewer Parkway to the MINWR entrance, a trail
along an existing berm from the MINWR entrance to the NASA railroad, a trail along the NASA railroad to
the CANA, and a trail parallel to Playalinda Beach Road through the CANA. Alignments and segment
breakdowns are shown in Figure 3.
PAGE 9
Figure 3: Proposed trail segments in Brevard County
PAGE 10
Project Purpose and Need
This feasibility study was developed in response to needs identified through a number of discussions that
occurred during the Titusville to Edgewater (T2E) Trail Project Development & Environment (PD&E) study. The
US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had
concerns for trails within the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) that exceeded the original
scope of the study. The result of discussions with these agencies, and the Space Coast Transportation Planning
Organization (SCTPO), was to perform a feasibility study to delineate the unique nature of both the MINWR
and the Canaveral National Seashore (CANA). This report outlines the special considerations needed within
the MINWR and CANA (National Park Service), along with direction for the development of a scope for the
PD&E study of trails within the MINWR and the CANA.
Numerous coordination meetings were conducted throughout the study. Detailed notes from each meeting
are attached in Appendix A. The following summarizes the most pertinent meetings.
T2E Trail Briefing with MINWR & Kennedy Space Center (KSC) at MINWR September 12, 2012
Major discussion items: Issues raised showed that safety is the biggest concern of NASA. NASA
prefers separated (off-road) trails. Other concerns are adverse effects on scrub jay habitat, and
the potential use of utility easements.
T2E Trail Meeting at KSC HQ September 27, 2012
Major discussion items: Issues raised included concerns about adverse effects on the habitat of scrub
jays, indigo snakes, and wood storks.
Trail Field Review December 7, 2012
Major discussion items: Participants pointed out preliminary considerations for the trail including the
status of the East Central Regional Rail Trail (ECRRT), safety concerns, and rideability issues of SR 5
(US 1) that should be addressed with upcoming resurfacing project.
Trail Design Meeting at District 5 January 7, 2013
Major discussion items: Can the alternatives be designed and constructed as enhancement projects?
This referring to FDOTs Transportation Enhancement Program.
SCTPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meeting at County Administration Building January
28, 2013
Major discussion items: Adding the T2E Trail to the roadways would change their use, justifying a
reduced speed limit, e.g. to 35 MPH for the potential "sharrow" on Playalinda Beach Road between
Max Brewer Parkway and Kennedy Parkway.
T2E Trail Alternatives Meeting at MINWR April 1, 2013
Major discussion items: NASA may grant FDOT an easement for a shared-use path along the power
poles assigned to Progress Energy.
T2E Trail Environmental Meeting at MINWR April 5, 2013
Major discussion items: Exhibits were presented, showing NASAs concept to run the trail along the
NASA railroad and along the T-10F dike.
PAGE 11
T2E Trail - Brevard Stakeholder Meeting at MINWR July 24, 2013

Major discussion items: SCTPO will request FDOT to fund and prepare an Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) for the portion of the project within
MINWR and CANA. This document will be signed by the USFWS, with NASA being a
cooperating agency. FDOT will be responsible for design and construction of the trail, with
oversight from NASA and USFWS. Maintenance responsibility will need to be established. It is
the desire of the FDOT to design and construct the trail, and then turn over maintenance
responsibility to the USFWS.
Internal Staff Meeting at District 5 August 15, 2013
Major discussion items: Within the MINWR, the USFWS staff and NASA planning staff have
directed us to evaluate one build alignment for the T2E Trail that travels along he old SR
402/Pump House Road to the railroad tracks, along the railroad tracks to Kennedy Parkway,
then along the mowed grass electrical easement to Haulover Canal Bridge. The only
consideration north of Haulover Canal will be the addition of paved shoulders. More details of
this discussion are provided in Appendix A.
T2E Alternatives Public Workshop at Titusville City Hall November 27, 2013
Major discussion items: Users want to ride on a separate trail/path, not on shoulders along highspeed roads like SR 5 (US 1) and Kennedy Parkway.
MINWR Road Safety Audit (RSA) December 10, 2013
Major discussion items: Existing and anticipated pedestrian and bicycle crossings need to be
enhanced in terms of vehicular speed control at the crossings, pavement markings at the crossings
and an advance warning system to drivers that a pedestrian crossing is in the vicinity.
PAGE 12
Physical Inventory and Assessment of Existing Conditions
3.1 General Description

The proposed trail is an off-road trail through Brevard Countys Parrish Park, the Merritt Island National
Wildlife Refuge (MINWR), and the Canaveral National Seashore (CANA). An on-road segment proposed
the construction of new paved shoulders along Kennedy Parkway. The project began at Sand Point Park,
located at the west end of the Max Brewer Bridge. The bridge has sidewalks and paved shoulders to
accommodate crossing the Indian River. Parrish Park is between the east end of the bridge and the Titusville
entrance to MINWR. As shown previously in Figure 3, the CANA is east of Kennedy Parkway at the end of
Playalinda Beach Road where the Coast to Coast (C2C) terminates. The Titusville to Edgewater (T2E) Trail
portion of this project ends at the intersection of Kennedy Parkway with US-1.
3.2 Existing Conditions

The two-lane Max Brewer Parkway within Parrish Park has no paved shoulders. There is a gravel parking
lot on the north side of the road, but none on the south side. Playlinda Beach Road within the CANA is a twolane roadway with no paved shoulders, but with sevaral roadside pull-offs. There are no drainage ditches
along the roadway, just the adjacent wetlands.
Existing conditions along the proposed T2E trail route vary in the two character zones within the MINWR,
shown in Figure 4.
Primary Public Use Zone is the area where the majority of public use facilities would be concentrated.
Secondary Public Use Zone is the area where less intensive public use activities may occur; such as canoeing,
wildlife observation, photography, hunting, and fishing.
Figure 4: Public use zones in MINWR

PAGE 13
3.3 Existing Typical Sections

The proposed trail segments, previously shown in Figure 3, are located on land owned by the US Bureau of
Land Management (for NASA), and managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National
Park Service (NPS). Each segment is discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
Segment 1: Titusville Coast to Coast

Along Max Brewer Parkway from Sand Point Park to the MINWR entrance. A portion of this segment is on
the Max Brewer Bridge, a two-lane bridge with sidewalks and paved shoulders to accommodate crossing
the Indian River. East of the bridge (within Parrish Park), Max Brewer Parkway is a rural two-lane roadway
with no shoulders or pedestrian facilities. The posted speed limit within Segment 1 is 30 mph along the bridge
and through Parrish Park (east of the bridge), and is 40 mph from east of Parrish Park to the MINWR
entrance.
Segment 2: Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Coast to Coast

This segment begins at the MINWR entrance near Max Brewer Parkway. The off road trail alignment follows
the old SR 402/Pump House Road embankment to the NASA railroad tracks, then follows the railroad tracks
to Kennedy Parkway. This segment parallels Max Brewer Parkway and the Playalinda Beach Road. Both
are rural two-lane roadways without shoulders or pedestrian facilities and with posted speed limits that vary
between 45 and 55 MPH.
Segment 3: Playalinda Beach Coast to Coast

Along Playalinda Beach Road from Kennedy Parkway to the coast. Playalinda Beach Road is a rural twolane roadway with no shoulders or pedestrian facilities and lies within both the MINWR Primary (west end)
and Secondary (east end) Public Use Zones. The posted speed limit along Playalinda Beach Road is 55 mph.
The off-road trail alignment would parallel the roadway along the north side until its terminus at the coast.
Segment 4: Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Titusville to Edgewater, Section 1

The off-road trail alignment parallels Kennedy Parkway, from Playalinda Beach Road to the Haulover Canal
Bridge. Kennedy Parkway is a two-lane rural roadway with no shoulders or pedestrian facilities and is
located within the MINWR Primary Public Use Zone. The posted speed limit along Kennedy Parkway within
Segment 4 is predominately 55 mph.
Segment 5: Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Titusville to Edgewater, Section 2

Along Kennedy Parkway, from Haulover Canal Bridge to US 1. Kennedy Parkway is a two-lane rural
roadway with no shoulders or pedestrian facilities and is located within the MINWR Secondary Public Use
Zone. The posted speed limit along Kennedy Parkway within Segment 5 varies from 45 to 55 mph.
3.4 Existing Roadway ROW

Presently the right-of-way (ROW) within MINWR and CANA is maintained by NASA who, together with the
USFWS and NPS, is the agency responsible for the entire property. Maintained widths are approximately
100 feet wide centered on the roadway.
3.5 Roadway Classification

Table 1: Roadway Classification
None of the studied corridors are

part of the Florida Interstate
Highway System (FIHS) or Strategic
Intermodal System (SIS). Table
1provides functional classifications.
Road
Functional Class
Max Brewer Parkway (outside MINWR)

Max Brewer Parkway (inside MINWR)
Playalinda Beach Road
Kennedy Parkway
Urban Principal Arterial

Rural Principal Arterial
Rural Principal Arterial
Rural Major Collector
3.6 Existing Land Use

Space View Park and Sand Point Park are both city parks located in downtown Titusville. These uses can be
destinations for bicyclists and pedestrians coming across the Max Brewer Bridge.
PAGE 14
Parrish Park at Titusville is an urban district river park situated on both sides of Max Brewer Parkway from
the east end of the bridge to the MINWR entrance. The 36.6-acre park provides convenient access to the
Indian River for fishing, water sports, sunbathing and shuttle viewing. Recreational amenities include picnic
shelters, restrooms, boardwalk, fishing pier, and boat ramps with paved parking for 46 cars and 47 boat
trailers. Unpaved parking for the river shoreline accommodates 100 vehicles.
The MINWR and the CANA are overlays of NASAs John F. Kennedy Space Center. The USFWS manages
the National Wildlife Refuge System including Merritt Island. The refuge provides wildlife habitat, hunting,
fishing, canoeing, and wildlife observation opportunities for residents and visitors. The Refuge is an attractive
destination for residents of northern Brevard County and southern Volusia County who choose to make their
trip (bicycle or walking/running) without using a vehicle.
CANA was created through congressional legislation on January 3, 1975 (by Public Law 93-626) to preserve
and protect the natural, scenic, scientific, ecological, archeological, and historical values and resources within
the national seashore, and to provide for public outdoor recreational use and enjoyment of those resources.
3.7 Horizontal and Vertical Alignments

Existing horizontal alignments along the study corridor do not appear deficient and are not causing any
operational difficulties. It has been observed that the super elevated curve at the Kennedy Parkway and SR
5 (US 1) intersection has angled the pavement so that the southbound US 1 lanes are not visible from the
stop sign at Kennedy Parkway.
Existing vertical alignments along the study corridor are mostly flat with the highest grades occurring at the
Max Brewer Bridge and the Kennedy Parkway Haulover Canal movable-span bridge.
3.8 Pedestrian Accommodations

Max Brewer Parkway has sidewalks and curb ramps west of the Max Brewer Bridge. The bridge has paved
shoulders and sidewalks on both sides.
The MINWR and the CANA only have isolated wildlife observation trails presently. No existing pedestrian
walkways are available along the roadway corridors.
3.9 Bicycle Facilities Location, Type, Width, and Designation

The Max Brewer Bridge has wide shoulders that accommodate bicycles.
The MINWR has no separate bicycle facilities along the roadway corridor. Some recreational bike trails are
planned by the USFWS. Current signage prohibits bike use on the roadways during 6:00 9:00 AM and
3:00 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
3.10 Lighting Type, Condition, Spacing, and Maintaining Agency

Titusville has standard street lighting along Max Brewer Parkway and the Max Brewer Bridge in Segment
1.
The MINWR and CANA are open only during daylight hours and have no street lighting.
3.11 Intersection Characteristics

The intersection of Max Brewer Parkway with Playalinda Beach Road is an un-signalized T intersection.
Traveling from the southwest to the northeast, Max Brewer Parkway curves to the east to become Playalinda
Beach Road. The T-leg of the intersection is a continuation of Max Brewer Parkway. Separate right and left
turns (southbound) are provided. The intersection of Playalinda Beach Road and Kennedy parkway is
signalized. Free flow right turn lanes are provided on all four approaches. The intersection of Kennedy
Parkway and Max Brewer Parkway is an un-signalized T intersection with Max Brewer Parkway being
the T-leg.
3.12 Traffic Signals

The intersection of Kennedy Parkway with Playalinda Road has post-mounted signals for all four approaches.
PAGE 15
3.13 Railroad Crossings

The NASA rail spur intersects the study corridor within the MINWR. The Table 2 provides crossing information.
Table 2: Railroad Crossings
Road
Railroad No. of Tracks Warning Device
Max Brewer Parkway north of Playalinda Beach Road

Kennedy Parkway north of Playalinda Beach Road
Playalinda Beach Road east of Kennedy Parkway
NASA
NASA
NASA
1
1
1
Passive
Passive
Passive
3.14 Structural and Operational Conditions of the Pavement

Pavement cores were not needed for this study due to the minimal effect that bicycles have on the pavement
structure. Instead, the pavement was inspected for potential bicycle rideability issues and noted in Table 3.
Table 3: Pavement Rideability
Road
Pavement Surface
Notes
Max Brewer Bridge

Max Brewer Parkway
GOOD
FAIR

Kennedy Parkway
FAIR
POOR
New bridge
Raised rumble strips at Playalinda Beach Rd
intersection
Some cracking
Cracking and raveling
3.15 Drainage System Inventory

The roads within Parrish Park, MINWR, and CANA all have an open drainage system consisting of roadside
swales and ditches (or runoff directly to the adjacent water bodies).
3.16 Traffic Data

The study of trail alternatives is not affected directly by traffic volumes but areas of high volume and areas
of lower volume tend to impact bicyclist and pedestrian comfort. Thus Table 4 contains the traffic data:
Table 4: Traffic Data
Road
Near
Site #
AADT K
D
T
Max Brewer Bridge
Parrish Park
70-7076 2,900 9.0 54.2 3.2
Playalinda Beach Road Visitors Center 70-7077 450 9.5 54.2 1.4
Kennedy Parkway
Haulover Canal 70-8070 350 9.5 54.2 3.8
Source: Florida Transportation Information 2013 CD
Roadways within MINWR and CANA have generally low volumes during the daytime. Higher volumes have
been observed during peak morning and evening hours when workers travel to and from Kennedy Space
Center.
PAGE 16
3.17 Crash Data and Safety Analysis

Crash information, from 2009 2014, was collected for the study corridor from multiple sources including
Brevard County and NASA reported crashes within the MINWR. Crash data from Brevard is summarized in
Table 5.
Location
Type
Off Road
Rollover
Unknown
Left Turn
Rear End
Other
Right angle
Sideswipe
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Head On
Total
Table 5: Brevard Crash Data
Max Brewer Parkway

from Titusville to
PDO
Injuries
Fatalities
8
1
0
0
0
0
38
2
0
4
1
0
6
5
0
7
2
0
25
23
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
91
35
0
Any
PDO
Injuries
Fatalities
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
Any
Max Brewer Parkway

from Playalinda Beach Rd
to Kennedy Pkwy.
Kennedy Parkway north
of Playalinda Beach Rd
NASA Security transmitted MINWR crash data from the past five years. A summary of the one reported
incident is included below:
A driver northbound on Route 3 (Kennedy Parkway) driving over the (speed) limit was distracted and
crashed into a northbound bicyclist. The bicyclist died at the scene. Road does not have a paved shoulder
or a bicycle lane.
3.18 Utilities
There are overhead power transmission lines along the south side of Playalinda Beach Road in the MINWR
and the CANA. A line of power poles are along the west side of Kennedy Parkway, offset by a 100-foot
vegetated buffer, from south of Playalinda Beach Road to one mile north of the Max Brewer Parkway
intersection. The power poles then cross the road to run along the east side of Kennedy Parkway to the
movable bridge at Haulover Canal.
3.19 Soils and Geotechnical Data

Soil information collected from Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
Department of Agriculture is in Table 6.
Table 6: Soil Data
Road
Max Brewer Parkway
Soils
Source
Myakka-Sand, Copeland Bradenton

Wabasso-Sand over limestone
Web Soil Survey, USDA, NRCS
Playalinda Beach Road Immokalee-Sand
Kennedy Parkway
Cocoa-Sand
PAGE 17
3.20 Trail Connectivity

Figure 5 shows the bike trails proposed in the MINWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), Appendix
G Visitor Services Plan (Figure 7-11).
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Figure 5: Bike trails proposed in the MINWR Visitor Services Plan
The SCTPO and City of Titusville are studying routes to connect the current southern terminus of the ECRRT at
Canaveral Avenue, south of Garden Street, to Sand Point Park. This will achieve the goal of connecting the
ECRRT with the C2C connector to the Atlantic Ocean.
The T2E Trail route along Kennedy Parkway will connect the C2C trail with the north MINWR entrance at the
intersection of Kennedy Parkway with US 1. Project 424040-3-22-01 would complete the northern
connection to the ECRRT from the US 1 MINWR entrance to the intersection of Park Avenue and Dale Street.
3.21 Other Engineering Data

The major bridge structure along the proposed route is the Haulover Canal Bridge; a replacement is currently
under design. The most up to date (2012) aerial photographs available have been included on the Concept
Plans, but should be verified independently after the projects have completed.
PAGE 18
Design Criteria
Alternatives on state roads will follow the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual (PPM); alternatives on non-state
roads will follow Floridas Greenbook, the Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction
and Maintenance for Streets and Highways by FDOT.
The project is only within the Urban Area 1-Mile Buffer for Brevard County from the beginning of the project
until about the intersection of Max Brewer Parkway with Playalinda Beach Road. Per Florida Statute, special
emphasis shall be given to bicycle and pedestrian projects in or within one (1) mile or an urban area.
Chapter 8 of the PPM defines shared use paths as paved facilities physically separated from motorized
vehicular traffic by an open space, or barrier, and within some form of right-of-way (ROW). Shared use
paths are used by bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, runners, and others. The bicycles operating characteristics
will govern the design of shared use paths, as well as the requirements of the 2006 ADA Standards for
Transportation Facilities. The proposed trail shall follow the design criteria for a shared use path. Table 7
lists the design criteria for the proposed trail with its source.
Table 7: Design Criteria for two-way shared-use path
Element
Criteria
Source PPM
Width
Horizontal
Clearance
Design Speed
Horizontal
Alignment
Separation
from Roadway
10 - 14 feet; 10 minimum for two-way path

4 feet to lateral obstructions on both sides;
2-foot wide graded area with a maximum 1:6 slope
18 MPH
74 feet minimum radius
Section 8.6.2
Section 8.6.5
Section 8.6.7
Section 8.6.8
5 feet on roadways with flush shoulders, measured from the outside Section 8.6.10
edge of shoulder to the inside edge of the path;
4 feet on roadways with curbs, measured from the back of curb to
the inside edge of the path with consideration of other roadside
obstructions (signs, light poles, etc.)
Edge Drop-off Case 1: a drop-off greater than 10 inches that is closer than 2 feet Section 8.8
requiring
from the pedestrians or bicyclists pathway, or edge of sidewalk, use
Index 870 or 880;
shielding
Case 2: a slope steeper than 1:2 that begins closer than 2 feet from
the pathway with a total drop-off greater than 60 inches, use index
850 or 860
PAGE 19
Trail Concept Plan
There were four (4) basic alternatives considered during the course of this study, including the no-build
alternative. These alternatives were developed based on expected impacts and implementation costs. A
brief description of each alternative is found below:
Build Alternative A: Paved shoulders
This alternative added paved shoulders along the existing roadway network for the entirety of the corridor.
This alternative had the least amount of potential impacts and was also the least costly of the build
alternatives.
Build Alternative B: Combination of paved shoulders and off-road trail
This alternative proposed a combination of paved shoulders/bike lanes and off-road trail facilities. This
alternative allowed for a more diverse user base at a moderate cost.
Build Alternative C: Off-road trail
This alternative, with the exception of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) Secondary Use
Zone, proposed entirely off-road trail facilities. While this alternative had the most potential impacts and
highest cost, it provided a facility that encouraged the most diverse user base among the three (3) build
alternatives considered.
No-Build Alternative
The no-build alternative would provide no additional cycling and/or recreational facilities along the corridor
other than those that exist today. There would be no impacts nor construction costs associated with this
alternative and no benefit to non-motorized user safety.
The National Wildlife Refuge System improvement Act of 1997 set forth the six activities of hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation as the primary public
uses of the Refuge System. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would not consider alternatives that
did not conform to these Big Six uses. They determined that Build Alternative C was the only build
alternative to match their mission and therefore, was the only alternative presented in the following pages.
5.1 Segment 1 Titusville (Coast to Coast)

This segment begins at the west end of the Max Brewer Bridge and would utilize existing shoulders and
sidewalks on the bridge. This would connect to a proposed off-road trail along the north side of Max Brewer
Parkway from the bridge to the MINWR entrance. A visualization of the proposed trail is shown in Figure
6.
Figure 6: Separate shared-use path in segment 1
PAGE 20
5.2 Segment 2 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Coast to Coast)

Within this segment of the MINWR, a separate off-road trail was the only improvement allowable by NASA
and the USFWS. The proposed route, suggested by NASA, runs along the T-10A Dike, Pump House Road,
and Dike T-10F to the NASA Railroad (Figure 7).
Dike T-10F
Dike T-10A
Pump House
Rd
Figure 7: Proposed route along Max Brewer Parkway (Source: NASA)
The remaining portion of Segment 2 from Max Brewer to Kennedy Parkway would also be an off-road trail
and run along the north side of the NASA Railroad (Parts A, B, and C). NASA would require that the trail be
offset from the rails by at least fifteen feet or separated by a barrier of vegetation or a fence. Figure 8
shows the proposed route along the railroad and Figure 9 shows a visualization of the concept.
Railroad Part A
Railroad Part B
Railroad Part C
Figure 8: Proposed route along NASA railroad (Source: NASA)
PAGE 21
Figure 9: Proposed trail along NASA Railroad
5.3 Segment 3 Playalinda Beach (Coast to Coast)

The Canaveral National Seashore (CANA) General Management Plan, adopted in 2013 by the USFWS,
includes the Preferred Alternative bicycle path shown in Figure 10. The off-road trail would follow the
railroad until the intersection with Playalinda Beach Road. The trail would continue along the north side of
Playalinda Beach Road until it reached the coast. It may be advantageous to terminate the trail at the
existing beach parking and dune crossing rather than construct a new trailhead.
Figure 10: CANA General Management Plan bicycle path
PAGE 22
5.4 Segment 4 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Titusville to Edgewater) 1

Within Segment 4, a separate off-road, two-way shared use path was the only improvement allowable by
NASA and the USFWS. The proposed route, suggested by NASA, runs adjacent to the power poles along
Kennedy Parkway from the NASA Railroad to Haulover Canal, Figure 11.
Water Crossing
Road
Crossing
Power Line
Figure 11: Proposed route along power poles (Source: NASA)
Figure 12 shows a visualization of what the trail might look like running adjacent to the power poles.
Figure 12: Concept showing off-road shared-use path along power poles adjacent to Kennedy Parkway
PAGE 23
The Segment 4- T2E 1 and Segment 5- T2E 2 abut at the Haulover Canal Bridge, as shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Titusville to Edgewater segments

PAGE 24
5.5 Segment 5 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Titusville to Edgewater) 2

Within Segment 5, the addition of shoulders to Kennedy Parkway would be the only improvement allowable
by NASA and the USFWS. The proposed route would utilize the future bridge shoulders (not part of this
study) and proposed Kennedy Parkway paved shoulders from the bridge to US 1. Figure 14 shows a
visualization of how the paved shoulder concept could look.
Figure 14: Concept showing proposed paved shoulders for bikes along Kennedy Parkway
PAGE 25
Environmental Summary of Findings
The following is a summary of the environmental findings from within Brevard County. More details
concerning these findings can be obtained in the Appendices of the reports for 424040-3-22-01 Titusville
to Edgewater Trail from Kennedy Parkway and SR 5 (US 1) to Park Avenue in Edgewater. It should also be
noted that these data were gathered for the original scoped alignment and may not be inclusive of the
proposed off-road alignments.
6.1 Cultural Resources

The Florida Master Site File (FMSF) is the official inventory of historical, cultural resources for the State of
Florida. A FMSF search was conducted for the project that identified seven historic resources or archeological
sites within 100 feet of the segment ROW centerlines (Table 8). These sites did not appear to be impacted
directly by the proposed trail, but these data should be updated with the future study.
Table 8: Previously Recorded Historic Resources within 100 Feet of the Segment ROW Centerlines
National
Register
Evaluation1
Trail
Segment(s)
Historic Linear Canal

Segment
National
Register Listed
in 1978
Segment 4MINWR T2E

1
Dike Access
Road
St. Johns-Period and

Historic American Artifact
Scatter
Ineligible
Segment 5MINWR T2E

2
8BR2229
Clifton
Schoolhouse
St. Johns-Period
Habitation and Historic
American
Homestead/Farm
Not Evaluated
by SHPO
Segment 5MINWR T2E

2
8BR1699
Indian River
Bridge
c. 1948
Girder--Floorbeam/
Moveable--Swing Bridge
Segment 1Titusville
8BR1626
Crook/Watton
1900+
Historic Cemetery
National
Register
Eligible
Not Evaluated
by SHPO
8BR2230/
8VO8880
New Smyrna to
Haulover Canal
Road
Prior to
1823
Historic Linear Road

Segment
Not Evaluated
by SHPO
Segment 4
& 5- MINWR
T2E 1 & 2
8BR2258
New Haulover
Canal
Prior to
1887
Historic Linear Canal

Segment
Not Evaluated
by SHPO
Segment 4
& 5- MINWR
T2E 1 & 2
FMSF #
Name / Address
8BR188
Old Haulover
Canal
8BR1625
Year
Built
1843
Resource Type/Style
1 As recorded in the FMSF; may require re-evaluation
PAGE 26
Segment 5MINWR T2E

2
6.2 Wildlife and Habitat

Existing wildlife and habitat conditions for the study area have been determined primarily through desktop
reviews of existing data sources, including the following:
NASA data layers including: land cover, threatened and endangered plant species, wading bird
colonies, bald eagle nesting locations, and Florida scrubjay priority habitats;
St. Johns River Water Management District land cover data set;
Brevard County land use data;
City of Titusville public lands, parks and recreation land data;
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) data including the threatened and endangered species data
for various mammal, bird, reptile and amphibian species;
National Wetland Inventory data layer;
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) road and highway data sets;
Various publically available ortho-imagery and base mapping images.
The above data layers were used to determine on a preliminary basis, the impacts that may be associated
with each of the project alternatives being investigated. A brief description of the research results follows.
6.2.1 Land Use
The MINWR Primary Public Use and MINWR Secondary Public Use discussion was derived primarily from
the NASA 2003 Land Cover data set.
Segment 1 Titusville C2C
This segment of the proposed trail is completely urban with public park lands, including Sand Point Park and
Parrish Park, located adjacent to the project corridor.
Segment 2 MINWR C2C & Segment 4 MINWR T2E 1
These segments of the proposed trail are contained completely within the MINWR primary use zone. The
northern portion supports native upland scrub, coniferous forest habitats, and citrus. The power line easement
is also characterized by native uplands. The southern portion supports primarily upland coniferous forest and
oak scrub, transitioning to areas of freshwater scrubshrub wetland and freshwater marsh. In general, much
of the existing roadway corridor itself is classified as ruderal or disturbed.
Segment 5 MINWR T2E 2
This segment of the proposed trail is contained completely within the MINWR secondary use zone. Land Use
along this segment can be characterized as mostly upland coniferous forest in the north, transitioning to oak
scrub and planted hardwoods in the central portion. Citrus mixed with oak scrub and upland
coniferous/hardwood forest becomes dominant as the proposed route approaches the Haulover Canal
Bridge in the south. Much of the existing roadway itself along the trail route is classified as ruderal or
disturbed.
6.2.2 Wetlands
This segment is almost completely urbanized and developed with one (1) estuarine and marine wetland
present just west of the Max Brewer Bridge.
According to NASA data, wetlands along this portion of the route can be classified mainly as freshwater
forested/shrub, freshwater emergent, and freshwater marsh with some freshwater ponds near the proposed
trail route. The western portions pass through large areas of wetlands classified mainly as freshwater
forested/shrub and freshwater emergent wetlands. Some lake and freshwater pond areas are also adjacent
to the proposed route. The existing power line easement traverses several herbaceous wetland systems.
PAGE 27

According to the NWI database, this segment traverses a few wetland areas, with some freshwater
forested/shrub and freshwater emergent wetlands present in the northern portion. Forested scrubshrub
wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation including Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) interspersed
with other species generally less than six (6) meters in height, while freshwater emergent wetlands are
generally dominated by perennial plants present for most of the growing season.
6.2.3 Upland Habitats
This segment is devoid of native upland habitat,
transportation/communication/utility land classifications.
consisting
totally
of
urban
and

The northern portion of this segment supports oak and palmetto scrub habitats as well as upland coniferous
forest. The southern portions and the power line easement areas are characterized by oak scrub and upland
coniferous forest habitats.
This segment can be characterized as mostly upland coniferous forest and pine flatwoods in the north,
transitioning to dominant oak scrub with pine flatwoods to the east. Planted hardwoods, planted pine, and
ruderal herbaceous vegetation areas are dominant to the west. A 50/50 mix of oak scrub and citrus habitat
characterizes the southern portion of this section, with some upland coniferous/hardwood forest also present.
6.2.4 Protected Species
Database searches for listed species were performed to determine if state-protected and federallyprotected species occur within or in the vicinity of the project area. Databases reviewed include:
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)

Florida Geographic Data Library
USFWS
Wood stork rookery database
NASA
PAGE 28
Wildlife species protected by the USFWS or FWC with potential to occur within the project area and vicinity
are provided in Table 9.
Table 9: Threatened and Endangered Species within the Project Vicinity
Common Name
Birds
American Oystercatcher
Bald Eagle
Black Skimmer
Crested Caracara
Florida Scrubjay
Least Tern
Little Blue Heron
Reddish Egret
Roseate Spoonbill
Snowy Egret
Tricolor Heron
White Ibis
Wood Stork
Mammals
West Indian Manatee
Reptiles
Eastern Indigo Snake
Florida Pine Snake
Gopher Tortoise
Scientific Name
Haematopus palliatus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Rynchops niger
Caracara cheriway
Aphelocoma coerulescens
Sternula antillarum
Egretta caerulea
Egretta rufescens
Platalea ajaja
Egretta thula
Egretta tricolor
Eudocimus albus
Mycteria americana
Trichechus manatus
Drymarchon corais couperi
Pituophis melanoleucas mugitus
Gopherus polyphemus
Federal/State
Legal Status
Likelihood for
Occurrence
N/SSC
IUCN LC
N/SSC
T/T
T/T
N/T
N/SSC
N/SSC
N/SSC
N/SSC
N/SSC
N/SSC
T/T
High
High
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
E/E
High
T/T
N/N
Candidate/T
High
High
High
E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SSC = Species of Special Concern, LC = Least Concern, N = Not Listed
6.2.4.1 Birds
Numerous wading bird colonies are documented by USFWS in the project vicinity, especially in the MINWR2
area with the Mosquito Lagoon to the east and the Indian River to the west. No active wood stork (Mycteria
americana) rookeries are found within the 15-mile core foraging area as described by USFWS for this part
of Florida. Although roadside ditches and wetland areas adjacent to the corridor are likely utilized as forage
areas, no rookeries are documented immediately adjacent to the corridor, and significant impacts to these
species are not anticipated.
Both USFWS and NASA databases list bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nesting sites within and near
the project area. Seven bald eagle nesting locations are reported within one mile of the MINWR T2E 1
section of the proposed route active as recently as 2010. One nest location was reported active in the
MINWR C2C section of the project in 2010.
Florida ScrubJay
The entire study area lies within the USFWS Florida scrubjay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) consultation area,
and scrub habitats within the MINWR have been undergoing active restoration and management of habitats
for this species. NASA data for the MINWR depicts areas that have been designated as suitable habitat for
future scrubjay territories, shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16. These habitat areas have been prioritized
based on the approximate number of scrubjay families that can be supported at carrying capacity. For
both Category 1 and 2 it is suggested that any new construction occur outside of these areas and any
PAGE 29
impacts would trigger USFWS consultation. The Category 3 designation can support approximately 66254
families of scrubjays, and per NASA, impacts to these areas may require USFWS consultation and possible
mitigation for impacts to occupied habitat. Impacts to areas designated as Category 4 should not impact
scrubjay populations, and would probably not require habitat compensation.
Based on preliminary field observations, only some of the areas along the trail corridor are occupied
currently by scrubjays, and many patches of unsuitable habitat exist within these designations. More
coordination will be needed to determine actual impacts to scrub-jay habitat and appropriate consultation
path.
6.2.4.2 Plants
Nine (9) species of plants listed as threatened or endangered have been documented within one (1) mile of
the project corridor (Table 10).
Table 10: Threatened and Endangered Plants within Project Vicinity
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal/State Legal Status
Coastal Dune Sandmat

Coastal Mock Vervain
Tampa Mock Vervain
Scrub Pinweed
Drysand Pinweed
Celestial Lily
Hand Fern
Silk Bay
Giant Orchid
Chamaesyce cumulicola
Glandularia maritima
Glandularia tampensis
Lechea cernua
Lechea divaricata
Nemastylis floridana
Ophioglossum palmatum
Persea borbonia var. humilis
Pteroglossaspis ecristata
N/E
N/E
N/E
N/T
N/E
N/E
N/E
N/SSC
N/T
E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SSC = Species of Special Concern, N= Not Listed
PAGE 30
Figure 15: Potential Scrub-Jay territories; MINWR C2C & MINWR T2E 1
PAGE 31
Figure 16: Potential Scrub-Jay Territories; MINWR T2E 2
PAGE 32
6.3 Contamination
The following is a summary of the contamination findings within Brevard County for part of the T2E trail
alignment. More details concerning these findings can be obtained in the Appendices of the Contamination
Report for 424040-3-22-01 Titusville to Edgewater Trail from Kennedy Parkway and SR 5 (US 1) to Park
Avenue in Edgewater.
Existing Land Use
Review of land use data reported to the Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR) by the Brevard County
Property Appraisers reveal a land use designation of Other within the MINWR.
6.3.1 Hydrologic Features
The topographic, hydrologic and pedologic characteristics of the project area could move, collect, or
disperse contaminant plumes released into the surrounding soil and water.
Figure 17 illustrates the Federal Emergency Management Agencys Flood Insurance Rate Map (FEMA FIRM).
FEMA FIRM classifications provide insight on a geographic areas location within established floodplains,
including an estimated chance of having flood levels established for a given floodplain(s) exceeded within
a given year.
Water quality monitoring and testing wells investigated as part of the State Underground Petroleum
Environmental Response Act (SUPERAct) program administered by the Florida Department of Health (FDOH).
As part of a cooperative agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), wells
assessed under SUPERAct are also registered under the Florida Unique Well Identification (FLUWID)
program that aids in the transfer and sharing of information related to well construction, location, and
monitored groundwater quality.
Data available from the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Survey
Geographic Database (SSURGO) was illustrated in the soil classification map in Figure 18. Soils within the
proposed trail limits belong mainly to the Myakka Sands and the Turnbull and Riomar tidal sands SSURGO
map units, are poorly to very poorly drained, and possess a soil pH ranging from very acidic to slightly
alkaline (i.e. 0.0 to 8.4) indicating an elevated corrosion potential for uncoated buried steel structures.
PAGE 33
Figure 17: FEMA flood zone coverage
PAGE 34
Figure 18: Soil Classification Map
PAGE 35
6.3.2 Contaminated Site Research Method

This section summarizes the method used to make determinations and recommendations on contamination risk
as they pertain to installation of the Titusville to Edgewater Trail. No Degree of Effect for contamination
impacts has been assigned to this project by FDOT District Five and an Efficient Transportation Decision
Making screening document has not been prepared.
Public Record Review and Site Reconnaissance
An environmental records search was requested from Environmental Data Resources (EDR) to ascertain
additional risk of contamination within and surrounding the project corridor, and serve as the basis of this
section of the report (for the full EDR report see Appendix A of the Contamination Screening Evaluation
Report for 424020-3-22-01). A buffer distance of three miles was used for the EDR records search.
However, only records existing within mile of the proposed trail alignment(s) are presented and discussed
within this report. Environmental records included within this search include (but are not limited to):
National Priorities List (NPL), Delisted NPL, and Proposed NPL

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (CERCLIS-NFRAP)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Report (RCRA CORRACTS)
RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities List (RCRA TSD)
Florida State-Funded Action Sites (SHWS)
Solid Waste Facility Database (SWF/LF)
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
Dry cleaning facilities
Federal, State, and Tribal Underground/Aboveground Storage Tank Databases (UST/AST)
Federal, State, and Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tank Lists (LUST)
Further, data published directly by state and local agencies such as the FDOH and FDEP were also consulted.
To support and supplement the environmental records search, historical aerial photographs of the project
area were reviewed to ascertain whether historical land uses would be of potential contamination risk during
project implementation. Additionally, a visual site survey was conducted to verify the obtained electronic
data, and to identify additional contamination concerns pertaining to structures, surface contamination,
airborne/waterborne contamination, general site conditions, and other activities not reflected by the
environmental databases.
6.3.3 Potential Contaminated Site Impacts
Information retrieved through environmental and geographic records searches, site reconnaissance, and
historical photography did not identify any sites, areas, and/or facilities with the potential to be of
contamination concern in the project area. Merritt Island has not always been a wildlife refuge and so the
potential for contamination does exist. Part of the future PD&E should be to coordinate with USFWS and
NASA to comply with their requirements to comply with NEPA regarding contamination screening.
PAGE 36
Stakeholder Coordination
This feasibility study was developed in response to needs identified through a number of discussions that
occurred during the Titusville to Edgewater (T2E) Trail Project Development & Environment (PD&E) study. The
US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had
concerns for trails within the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) that exceeded the original
scope of the study for the area inside MINWR. The result of discussions with these agencies and the Space
Coast Transportation Planning Organization (SCTPO), was to perform a feasibility study to delineate the
unique nature of both MINWR and the Canaveral National Seashore (CANA).
Below are a summary of considerations and concerns in terms of agency requirements for the preparation
of the subject PD&E Study. Additional coordination details are provided in Appendix E.
7.1
US Fish and Wildlife Service
The USFWS manages the MINWR and has prepared a Comprehensive Conservation Plan with a Visitor
Service Plan. This plan advises bicycling is compatible with the Big Six priority use of wildlife viewing.
However, it is preferred to reduce wildlife disturbance by placing the bicycle trail in upland locations or
where a vegetative screen exists. Additional trail guidelines include incorporation of pullouts/viewing areas,
non-paved trail surfaces, minimum trail widths to lessen environmental impact, and barriers that allow for
the movement of wildlife.
The USFWS Compliance Specialist recommended preparing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding
of no significant impact (FONSI) for each involved agency. Different federal agencies have different
requirements for an EA. A comparison between USFWS and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
requirements is provided in Table 11. The most significant differences are that USFWS organizes analysis
by alternative rather than topic, and they do not require as much analysis as FHWA.
PAGE 37
Table 11: Comparison of Environmental Assessment Documents
USFWS - Habitat Evaluation

Procedures Handbook
Cover Sheet
Summary (optional in EA)
Table of Contents (optional in EA)
1.0 Purpose of the Proposed Action
2.0 Needs for the Action
3.0 Scoping/Public Participation
(optional in EA, but suggested)
4.0 Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action
4.1 Alternative A (Proposed Action)
4.2 Alternative B (No Action)
4.3 Alternative C (continue listing all
reasonable alternatives)
4.4 Summary of Actions by
Alternatives (compare actions in a
table)
5.0 Affected Environment (optional in
EA, but suggested)
FHWA FDOT PD&E

Manual
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Project Description,
Purpose and Need
Alternatives Considered
6.2 Alternative B (No Action)

A. Wetland Habitat Impacts
B. Wildlife Impacts
C. Economic Impacts
Comments and
Coordination
Commitments and
Recommendations
7.0 List of Preparers
8.0 List of Agencies, Organizations,
and Persons Contacted
9.0 Appendices (optional in EA/EIS,
but suggested to keep above text
easily readable)
10.0 Index (optional in EA)
USFWS - Habitat Evaluation Procedures

Handbook
6.0 Environmental Consequences (use
same impact topics for each alternative)
6.1 Alternative A (Proposed Action)
B. Wildlife Impacts
C. Economic Impacts
6.3 Alternative C
B. Wildlife Impacts
C. Economic Impacts
Appendices
6.4 Summary of Environmental

Consequences by Alternative
PAGE 38
FHWA FDOT PD&E Manual

IMPACTS
Social and Economic
1 Land Use Changes
2 Community Cohesion
3 Relocation Potential
4 Community Services
5 Nondiscrimination Considerations
6 Controversy Potential
7 Scenic Highways
8 Farmlands
Cultural
1 Section 4(f)
2 Historic Sites/Districts
3 Archaeological Sites
4 Recreational Areas
Natural
1 Wetlands
2 Aquatic Preserves
3 Water Quality
4 Outstanding Florida Waters
5 Wild and Scenic Rivers
6 Floodplains
7 Coastal Zone Consistency
8 Coastal Barrier Resources
9 Wildlife and Habitat
10 Essential Fish Habitat
Physical
1 Noise
2 Air Quality
3 Construction
4 Contamination
5 Aesthetic Effects
6 Bicycles and Pedestrians
7 Utilities and Railroads
8 Navigation
7.2
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Chief of the spaceport planning office for Kennedy Space Center communicated a number of actions
and issues to address before implementation of a bike trail in the MINWR. These actions and issues included
completion of an EA in compliance with the NEPA, FDOT design and construction of the trail, USFWS and
NASA involvement in the design, creation of a maintenance agreement, water management district permitting
as needed, separation of the trail and railroad tracks, and indemnity from user injuries. Once all conditions
are met, an easement or other authorization for construction would be provided to the FDOT.
Figure 19 shows the relationship of future facilities in the vicinity of the future Coast to Coast and T2E trails.
Launch Operations & Support
Public Outreach
Support Services
Vertical Landing
NASA Railroad
Playalinda Beach Rd
Horizontal Landing
Figure 19: Future land use map (Source: Kennedy Space Center Master Plan)
PAGE 39
Shiloh Launch Complex

Space Florida proposes to develop a non-Federal launch site that is State-controlled and State-managed.
Under the Proposed Action, Space Florida would construct and operate a commercial space launch site
(known as the Shiloh Launch Complex) consisting of two vertical launch facilities and two off-site operations
support areas. The project website for the environmental impact Statement is
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/doc
uments_progress/shiloh_launch_statement/
The Final Environmental Site Review for the Approximate 1,140 Acres Combined Study Area for the Shiloh
Site, May 2013, Cardno/TEC:
The area known as the Shiloh Site is divided into two study areas referred to as Site 1 and Site 2 for
this report. Site 1 is the original study area and is comprised of approximately 845 acres of undeveloped
land on the west side of Kennedy Parkway North, which overlaps the Volusia/Brevard County line (Figure
20). Site 2 is approximately 295 acres of undeveloped land adjoining Site 1 to the south and is solely in
Brevard County. Both sites are located on NASAs Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in a portion of KSC
managed as the Merritt Island NWR. Neither site is within the Canaveral National Seashore (CNS) whose
westerly border is on the east side of SR 3. Historically, a majority of the sites was used for citrus
production and was a part of the citrus community referred to as Shiloh.
Figure 20: Shiloh complex launch sites
PAGE 40
Possible Roadway Transfers in Kennedy Space Center

NASA and FDOT have been discussing a possible transfer of ownership of roadways within KSC. Figure 21
shows the future transfers to FDOT, as of the date of this report. The District 5 Director of Transportation
Operations has advised that there are still issues that need to be resolved and the time frame when it will
happen is uncertain. Contacts are:
Alan E. Hyman, P.E.
Director of Transportation Operations
Florida Department of Transportation - D5
386-943-5477 (O)
Stephen Berry, Senior Project Manager

CARDNO, GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION
904-363-3727
Address 7406 Fullerton Street Suite 110,
Jacksonville, FL 32256 USA
Figure 21: Map of possible roadway transfers in Kennedy Space Center

PAGE 41
7.3
National Park Service
In the National Park Service (NPS) 2014 General Management Plan for CANA, a bicycle path route is shown
(Figure 22).
A bicycle path connecting with the proposed USFWS bike path along State Route 402 (Playalinda Beach
Road) into Playalinda Beach would be developed.
This should provide guidance on the part of the NPS for the development of the future PD&E Study.
Figure 22: CANA bicycle path route
7.4
FHWA Eastern Federal Lands
Jack Van Dop, FHWA's Eastern Federal Lands Office, advised that a Project Agreement will be needed
between the agencies. While there could be one EA document, a separate FONSI should be prepared for
the MINWR and CANA. The Federal Lands Access Program could be a source of funding.
Based on the sample from FHWA, Appendix B contains a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) template
between the likely parties. Once finalized, the MOA will define the responsibilities of the federal, state, and
local entities conducting the future PD&E study.
7.5
Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization
A presentation was given to the SCTPO BPAC on January 28, 2013. Discussion topics included reducing the
speed limit for the potential use of sharrows on Max Brewer Parkway, Playalinda Beach Road, and
Kennedy Parkway.
SCTPO will request FDOT to fund and prepare an EA/FONSI for the portion of the project within MINWR
and CANA. This document will be signed by the USFWS, with NASA being a cooperating agency. FDOT will
responsible for design and construction of the trail, with oversight from NASA and USFWS. Maintenance
responsibility will need to be established. It is the desire of the FDOT to design and construct the trail, and
then turn over maintenance responsibility to the USFWS.
PAGE 42
Public Involvement
Public outreach started with the activation of the project website on August 24, 2012. The homepage shown
in Figure 23 below was from web address: www.TitusvilleToEdgewaterTrail.com Website statistics are shown
in Figure 24.
Figure 23: Project website Home Page
Figure 24: December 2014 statistics for project website

PAGE 43
On Monday February 25, 2013 the METRO team attended a Food Truck event at the Miracle Mall in
Titusville. Over 3000 persons were there including Titusville Mayor Jim Tulley and Commissioner Robin Fisher.
About 50 business-size cards, with the project website, contacts and a map, were handed out. Persons were
generally very excited about the areas trails, and most know of progress on the East Central Regional Rail
Trail. Further, many spoke of the relatively unsafe conditions of riding bikes through MINWR and along
Kennedy Parkway. Finally, there was great interest in coming to the public workshop, planned in April, to
hear more details and to voice their support. It was a great event for getting the word out about our study
and the upcoming public workshops. Figure 25 shows photos from the event. Media coverage included
television segments by Fox Channel 13.
Figure 25: Pictures from a food truck event in Titusville (Feb. 25, 2013)
ALTERNATIVES PUBLIC WORKSHOP

The Public Alternative workshops were held on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at Edgewater City Hall and
on Thursday, November 21, 2013 at Titusville City Hall. The Titusville workshop was attended by nine agency
staff members and nine members of the public, including Titusville Mayor Jim Tulley.
The most frequently heard comment, from both workshops was that users want to ride on a separate
trail/path, not on shoulders along high-speed roads like US 1 and Kennedy Parkway. At Titusville a few
residents noted their concern over having just a paved shoulder as a trail. Many were interested in the
status of the ECRRT construction. Also, Mayor Jim Tulley was very supportive and looks forward to completing
a cycling loop through MINWR.
One comment form was received at the Titusville workshop in support of off-road trails and has been included
in Appendix. Following the workshop several interested parties used the website comment form and
requested to be added to the mailing list. Their comments were received in support of the trail project.
PAGE 44
Implementation Plan
The stakeholder requirements, discussed in Section 7, apply to all future PD&E studies within the Merritt Island
National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) and the Canaveral National Seashore (CANA).
Project number 437093-1 is a FDOT programmed PD&E Study for the Coast to Coast (C2C) trail route
through MINWR and CANA. Figure 26 shows the alignment from the east end of the Max Brewer Bridge to
Playalinda Beach that will form the east end of the C2C Connector.
Figure 26: MINWR & CANA bicycle trail route from Titusville to Playalinda Beach
Table 12 shows the length of the preferred routes in MINWR and CANA.
Table 12: Length of Bike Trail
Segment & Limits

Segment 1 West of the Max Brewer Bridge to MINWR entrance
Segment 2 MINWR entrance to Kennedy Parkway
Segment 4 - NASA RR to Haulover Bridge
Segment 5 - Haulover Bridge to SR 5 (US 1)
Subtotal of Length in MINWR
Segment 3 - Kennedy Parkway to Playalinda Beach
Subtotal of Length in CANA
Total length
PAGE 45
Length
(miles)
1.4
6.0
7.3
9.0
23.7
4.5
4.5
28.2
The staff hour estimate was created based on a per mile negotiated hour distribution for the T2E PD&E
Study applied to the new length and alignment of the trail in the MINWR and CANA. Table 13 gives an
estimate of the staff hours needed to perform the study broken down by major task. The fee for a 24-month
study should be at least $380,000, or rounded up to $400,000.
Table 13: Estimated Staff Hours to perform the Future PD&E Study
1.
2.
3.
4.
Tasks
Public Involvement
Engineering Analysis & Reports
Environmental Analysis & Reports
Miscellaneous
PROJECT TOTAL HOURS
Hours
850
920
900
345
3015
Given the direction of the stakeholders discussed above and the estimated cost to perform the future PD&E
Study, a draft PD&E Scope of Services has been included in the Appendix of this report.
PAGE 46
APPENDICES
PAGE 47
Appendix A Meeting Notes
12SEP2012 T2E Trail Briefing with MINWR & KSC

Titusville to Edgewater (T2E) Trail PD&E Study
Subject
Date and Location Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM, MINWR HQ building
Attendees
Florida DOT
David Cooke - District 5 Project Manager
Bill Walsh - District 5 Environmental Administrator
Garry Balogh - Scenic Highways Coordinator
METRO Consulting Group, LLC
Fraser Howe, PE - Project Manager
Paul Schmidt - Lead Environmental Scientist
Jim Patterson - Senior Environmental Scientist
Quest Ecology
Vivienne Handy
David Gordon
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
Layne Hamilton - Project Leader
Candice Stevenson
Kennedy Space Center
Trey Carlson - KSC Master Planner
Gisele Altman
Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization
Leigh Holt
Agenda
Introductions
Brief introduction by David Cook
Proposed Trail Alternatives within MINWR / KSC

Fraser Howe gave a recap of general project information using material from the project
presentation. During this recap, a number of topics were brought up and addressed:
Trey Carlson asked Layne about how the primary and secondary recreational use areas within
MINWR were determined.
Layne Hamilton responded by saying that while the designations were done by her predecessor,
it was most likely determined by locations of existing recreational resources.
Trey commented that during any launches or other high security times that the proposed trail,
along with roadway access, would be closed. This is SOP for the entire Refuge during these
events.
David Cook added that in most areas paved shoulders would be preferred due to potential
impacts from a separate shared-use path.
Trey commented that cyclist safety is the biggest concern from NASAs standpoint as cyclists
currently use the roads within MINWR even though there are not designated facilities for them.
He brought up the recent death of a cyclist on SR 3, south of KSC, as an example of what needs
to be addressed in this project.
Fraser discussed possible trail options including "sharrow" (bikes share the full roadway right of
way), paved shoulders, separated trails or some combination of these alternatives.
David Cook mentioned the safety issues for cyclists transitioning from a separate shared-use
path to paved shoulders on both sides of the road.
Trey responded by saying that NASA prefers separated (off road) trails or at least paved
shoulders. He also noted that KSC must approve the final plan for any trails within their
property.
Leigh Holt noted that this trail is one of the Space Coast TPO's top six priorities.
Vivienne Handy brought up an issue within an area Fraser had suggested might be suitable for a
separated trail - a utility easement parallel to, and off the west side of, Kennedy Parkway (SR 3).
She mentioned that the area in question is occupied scrub jay habitat and that the designation goes
to the edge of existing pavement.
Leigh Holt mentioned that the Space Coast TPOs staff was thinking that since the areas near the
existing roadways were maintained, that any construction in that area would have very minimal
environmental impacts.
Vivienne responded by saying the scrub jays forage in these cleared areas and that they are
considered occupied habitat.
Layne mentioned that all scrub jay issues would have to go through the USFWS Jacksonville
office and that since this project is not funded by FWS and is not a Refuge project, it could not
be done through intra-agency coordination. KSC would be the involved agency then with
coordination with the FWS Jacksonville office.
David (Quest) stated that on a similar project the Vero FWS office still required 2:1 mitigation
for a multiuse trail.
Vivienne asked Layne and Candice about using MINWR as a mitigation source for impacts.
Layne stated that it should not be a major issue as they have done this many times in the past.
She noted that they are working on a mechanism of identifying and quantifying potential
mitigation areas to be used for future impacts.
Candice Stevenson stated that a possible mitigation option would be to do some enhancement
or restoration to habitat within MINWR with FWS taking the lead and FDOT supplying the
funding.
Fraser requested that the District run an EDTM screen on the project. David said he would ask
Richard Fowler to do so.
Paul Schmidt inquired about possibility of getting existing data from MINWR staff.
Layne mentioned that NASA probably had more readily available data.
Trey responded by saying that they do have information and that NASA was willing to share
that information with the project staff.
Trey also mentioned that John Schaeffer and Lynne Phillips are NASAs environmental
scientists and would be the ones to ask regarding existing information and would be a good
resource going forward. Paul will schedule a meeting with them.
Fraser inquired about getting ROW information within KSC property.
Trey said that he was certain that such information existed, but was did not want that
information shown to the general public.
Bill Walsh brought up the idea that since KSC owns the roads within KSC property as well as
the adjacent lands, that the specific ROW might not need to be delineated.
Trey stated that he will consider what information NASA is willing to release for public
viewing.
Layne brought up the fact that MAP 21 funding is coming out soon (2013) and includes funding for
alternative transportation projects leading to federal lands. She also noted that they have applied
for a Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program Grant. (Note: the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks
Program was repealed in MAP 21. The grantee will have to consult with FTA about other potential
funding sources to complete the project.)
David Cook mentioned that the City of Edgewater wants the trail on US 1.
Layne stated that she prefers the trail to use SR 402 so it runs past the visitor center and would line
up better with proposed bike trails within MINWR as well as a NPS proposed bike trail that will lead
out to Canaveral National Seashore.
Candice mentioned that if the trail does use SR 402 she would like the project team to
consider adding some pull over areas as currently FWS has trouble with vehicles pulling over
to look at wildlife and blocking traffic.
Layne also mentioned that using SR 406 would encourage more bicycle use within the Black
Point Wildlife Drive. The issue is that FWS would like to discourage cyclists from using the
Black Point Wildlife Drive since the birds are more disturbed by cyclists than vehicles.
Fraser brought up an option to consider that would make SR 406 a one-way road and utilize
the other lane as a two-way trail.
Paul brought up the possibility of utilizing the existing power line easement west of SR 3,
but David mentioned that since this area is separated from the road by a dense tree/shrub
cover that security may be an issue.
Layne and Candice mentioned security concerns on the off road trails within the Refuge.
Layne and Trey mentioned that they are open to hearing about all possibilities.
Trey stated that SR 3/Kennedy Parkway is being repaved up to the Haulover Canal Bridge starting in
October.
Trey also stated that the Haulover Canal Bridge would undergo minor work (re-decking) but
that the replacement of the bridge (design by E.C. Driver) would not occur until the end of
this decade.
David stated that if the bridge replacement project is so far in the future the trail would
need to match up with the existing typical section at the bridge.
Fraser and David requested some information on the typical section of the proposed new
bridge.
Leigh, David and Trey discussed the possibilities of funding either paved shoulders or curbs
(for safety reasons) to the repaving project.
The end result of this discussion was that while this could be a great cost saving opportunity,
there is too little time to arrange for any funding approval prior to the start of the project.
Trey stated that while reviewing all of the lease agreements (typically 50 years) within KSC, he
discovered that even though NASA has been responsible for SR3 for decades, that it was never
officially transferred over and still belongs to FDOT.
Leigh added that the leases on other roads lapsed and technically defaulted back to FDOT.
Layne added that SR 406 from SR 402 to SR 3 belongs to FWS as NASA determined it did not
need the facility and transferred it to FWS for maintenance.
Trey noted that KSC maintains SR 406 up to the pavement change at the foot of the Max
Brewer Causeway bridge.
Trey noted there are FP&L easements in the Refuge /KSC.
It was generally agreed that aside from the FWS portion of SR 406, everything else belonged
to NASA.
Layne mentioned that areas north of SR 402 and east of SR 3/Kennedy Parkway are co-managed
with the National Park Service (since 1975) and that the NPS takes the lead on all cultural resource
issues. The FWS takes the lead on all natural resource related concerns.
Leigh mentioned that the Space Coast TPO would like to see a better name for the trail for
branding purposes, they call it the KSC Trail. Garry Balogh noted that the FDEP Office of Greenways
& trails refers to it as the Space Coast Gap. David stated that by using the Titusville to Edgewater
Trail moniker for this project, it would leave the final naming of the facility for a later date.
T2E Trail Schedule

Trey asked Fraser for a copy of the schedule shown within the presentation material
Availability of Data / Format

MINWR - see notes above
1. Wetlands
2. Habitat
3. Listed Species Occurrences
NASA / KSC - see notes above

4. ROW
5. Haulover Canal Bridge design status
Agency Points of Contact

6. MINWR
7. NASA / KSC
Protocol for conducting limited field reviews in MINWR
While the Refuge is open to the public, Trey & Layne requested that they be notified when
we will conduct our field reviews.
Other Related Items
27SEP2012 Titusville to Edgewater Trail Meeting at KSC HQ

Monday, October 08, 2012 11:54 AM
Titusville to Edgewater Trail Meeting at KSC HQ

September 27, 2012 1 PM
Meeting Notes
Attendees:
Gisele Altman NASA
John Shaffer NASA
Lynne Phillips NASA
James Lyon FWS
Michael Legam - FWS
David Cooke FDOT
Garry Balogh FDOT
David Gordon Quest Ecology
James Patterson - Metro
Notes:
Brief introduction by David Cooke on the Titusville to Edgewater Trail project
John Shaffer stated that if the project should get elevated to a full blown NEPA document, NASA
would want to be a cooperating agency
Lynne Phillips pointed out that currently cyclists are not allowed on roads during times of peak
rush hour traffic; noted that this could conflict with shared facilities
Michael Legam noted that along SR 3 and SR 402, there is a corridor 22 on either side of the
centerline that is not within the refuge, but rather is controlled and maintained by KSC
Lynne mentioned that ROW lines may be available , but would have to come from the
infrastructure GIS group and not the one associated with the environmental team
David Gordon explained to the group what information he was interested in obtaining for use in
this project. This data included pertinent listed species information as well as any habitat
mapping or wetland delineation shapefiles
Good discussion among the group about the varying levels of data available on KCS scrub jay
populations from detailed family group data to presence / absence and suitable habitat
information
Michael and Lynne discussed a current scrub jay habitat restoration project currently under way
on the Meyer Block located near Haulover Canal. All of the work to date has occurred east of
the utility corridor along SR 3
NASA/FWS team members stated that other readily available information included eagle nest
trees, wading bird rookery nesting locations, land use, and wetland lines (not formally
delineated, but rather based on soils, vegetation and aerial photography)
Michael mentioned that one listed species that would also be a concern for the project is the
Indigo Snake considering that most of the area is considered suitable habitat. While FWS has
some telemetry-based data, it is not in a readily usable format, but that there are a few
associated publications that could be useful.
Lynne also stated that Wood storks are and issue and will have to be accounted for in the
project environmental analysis
With regards to onsite mitigation, Lynne stated that while there are a few small existing
mitigation areas, that these areas were funded for use on launch-related projects and would not
be available for any impacts associated with a bike path. She did say that there are mitigation
projects that are waiting for funding and could be developed for use on this project
Gisele Altman asked that all those in attendance be added to the project mailing lists and
notified of any future public meetings
John Shaffer stated that the project team would benefit greatly from KSCs Environmental
Resource Document and agreed to include that as part of the data exchange. Given that this
document is updated yearly (with major updates every five years) it would be very useful for the
project team
With regards to contamination and cultural issues, Gisele handed out contact information for
the two NASA coordinators responsible for these two issues. The sensitivity of the data was
agreed on by all as specific information on known archaeological sites can lead to treasure
hunters degrading the sites integrity
The meeting finished with members agreeing to the following actions
Gisele was going to send out copies of the sign-in sheet to everyone
Jim Patterson agreed to send meeting minutes to Gisele for her review and submittal to NASA /
FWS members
Gisele agreed to ask Ronald Schaub to coordinate with David Gordon on the exchange of
pertinent GIS data
John Shaffer agreed to get a copy of the Environmental Resource Document to the project team
David Gordon will coordinate with Michael Legam, Lynne Phillips, Ronald Schaub and John
Shaffer with regards to the data discussed in this meeting
Project team will follow-up with Gisele about getting the ROW information from the
infrastructure GIS contact
Project Team will add meeting members to the project mailing list
7DEC2012 Trail Field Review Notes

Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:00 PM
Subject
T2E Trail Field Review - confirmed for 7DEC2012
Date and Location Friday, December 07, 2012 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM,
Edgewater City Hall, 104 N Riverside Dr.
Attendees
FDOT District 5
David Cooke, david.cooke@dot.state.fl.us
Joan Carter, joan.carter@dot.state.fl.us
METRO Consulting Group team
Fraser Howe, fraser.howe@metrocgllc.com

Cris Schooley, cris.schooley@metrocgllc.com
Jim Patterson, james.patterson@metrocgllc.com
Greg Kern, gregory.kern@stveinc.com
Vivienne Handy, Vivienne@questecology.com
Myra Monreal, mam@myraplanning.com
Volusia TPO
Stephan Harris, sharris@volusiatpo.org
Space Coast TPO
Leigh Holt, Leigh.Holt@brevardcounty.us
Volusia County
Scott Martin, smartin@volusia.org

Amanda Vandermaelen, avandermaelen@volusia.org
Ken Hooper, khooper@peconline.com
Tim Baylie ,tbaylie@volusia.org
City of Edgewater
Darren Lear, dlear@cityofedgewater.org

Tracy Barlow, ttbarlow@cityofedgewater.org
Jack Corder, jcorder@cityofedgewater.org
NASA, Kennedy Space Center
Gisele Altman, gisele.altman-1@nasa.gov
Town of Oak Hill
Kohn Evans evansk@oakhillfl.com

Message
Attachments
Itinerary
Review Concept Plans & Typical Sections at City Hall
Review alternatives on Park Ave & US 1, north of MINWR (Kennedy Parkway).
David Cooke & Joan Carter will drive FDOT van holds 12 max.
Lunch at Goodrichs (Oak Hill) http://goodrichseafoodandoysterhouse.com/
Review alternatives in MINAR & Titusville.
<<T2E Trail Fact Sheet.pdf>>
Notes
Topic
Highlights
What is the status of the Project is at 60% plans.

Edgewater sidewalk
project?
What is the status of the Project is on-going and may end up being let as a design-build.
Oak Hill sidewalk
project?
When is the East Central Construction should begin in spring 2013 in Volusia County, segment from
Regional Rail Trail being Cow Creek to Dale Street open summer 2014. Brevard County should have
constructed?
trail complete 2015. Bridge over Garden Street 2018, but may be moved up.
Rotary Park off of Park Ave will be upgraded as an ECRRT trailhead.
Other project
mentioned
East Coast Greenway Trail, from Maine to Key West, FL. GIS shapefile should
be available.
Titusville to Edgewater
Trail PD&E discussion
Maps were distributed showing the alignment of the project.
FDOT PPM minimum shared-use path width is 10-ft.
Rideability of US-1 should be improved after an upcoming scheduled resurfacing.

There is limited right-of-way on west side of US-1, so a separate shared-use-path would be
difficult. Same R/W and drainage difficulties exist throughout the corridors.
Alternative alignments discussed included using Ocean Ave as a bypass to avoid the "pinch
point" along Park Ave east of the FEC RR crossing since widening Park Ave would be difficult
(drainage & utility relocations) and costly.
At US 1 Joan cautioned to make sure there is enough width in the median for more than 1
cyclist.
On several occasions those participating in the review mentioned the safety issues related to
locations where the trail would shift from a shared use path to bike lanes on the shoulders.
Joan & Leigh referred to the "green striping" project on the Pineda Causeway.
Bike lanes on US-1 from Edgewater to the ECRRT at Mims, FL could be a bypass to the MINWR in
the event of launches and closure at night.
No hunting impacts are anticipated due to the trail alignment.

Gisele mentioned NASA's interest in having FDOT take-over maintenance of several roads
(previously state roads) they now maintain.
NASA's "Shiloh project" for another launch site in the Bill's Hill area, would use planned
mitigation - could the T2E Trail also use some of this planned mitigation?
7JAN2013 T2E Trail Design meeting

Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:00 AM
Subject
Titusville to Edgewater Loop Trail FM 424040-2 & -3
Date and Location
Monday, January 07, 2013 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM, D5-DO, Magnolia
Attendees
David Cooke, George Borchik, Christopher Cairns, Joan Carter

Fraser Howe
Notes
1. George asked that the proposed typical sections show the width of the existing pavement.
2. George advised that the shoulder-widening concepts should follow the FDOT's Enhancement
policy; and that he would favor a variation to allow the existing 4' shoulder, rather than
widening 1'.
3. Joan suggested that the trail be considered an enhancement within 1 mile of the urbanized area
boundary; and that it should close the gaps between those boundaries.
4. Joan recommended with support the trail as an enhancement to mitigate known issues of
safety.
5. Chris favors route signing rather than Bikes Share the Road (where there is no constraint).
6. Chris noted that Derek Dixon is managing a safety project on US 1, that includes intersection
improvements.
7. David pointed-out the safety concerns of pedestrians & cyclists crossing US 1 at un-signalized
locations (especially at SR 3/Kennedy Parkway) ; and crossing the roads in MINWR.
George was referring EMOs Transportation Enhancement Program and, specifically, to developing
alternatives that could be designed and constructed as Enhancement Projects. These must meet one of
the twelve categories below.
Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles

The provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrian and bicyclists
Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites
Scenic or historic highway programs, (including the provision of tourist and welcome center
facilities)
Landscaping and other scenic beautification
Historic preservation
Rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities (including historic
railroad facilities and canals)
Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for
pedestrian or bicycle trails)
Control and removal of outdoor advertising
Archaeological planning and research
Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehiclecaused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity
Establishment of transportation museums
Joan was saying that the enhancement projects are generally in urban or urbanizing areas and that,
outside of MINWR, the T2E trail along US 1 and Park Ave would be within one mile of the urbanized
boundary.
28JAN2013 SCTPO BPAC Meeting

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:56 PM
Subject
SCTPO BPAC Meeting
Date and Location
Monday, January 28, 2013 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM, Magnolia Room of Bldg. B, Viera Government Center
Attendees
Fraser Howe, Libertad Acosta-Anderson
Message
Titusville to Edgewater Trail PD&E Study 1st briefing

Friday 1/18/2013 agenda materials due
BPTAC Committee Members Present:

Murray Hann (Chairman)
KHA
Dan Gallagher Citizen
Central Brevard
Joann Gulliver Citizen
South Brevard
Alex Chamberlain Citizen
North Brevard
Jimmy Karp
SCVS
Lisa Frazier
Citizen
Cynthia Matthews
Citizen
Heidi Lapin
City of Palm Bay
Joan Carter
FDOT
Others Present:
Georganna Gillette
Space Coast TPO Staff
Kim Smith
Leigh Holt
Carol Holden
Ginger Twigg
Citizen, Revolutions Cyclery
Fraser Howe
METRO Consulting Group
Libertad Acosta-Anderson
FDOT
Chris OHare
EEL Program
Lisette Kolar
Town of Grant/Valkaria
Mike Knight
EEL Program
Brad Manly
EEL Program
Nicole Master
reThink
Steve Kreidt
KCG
Ginger Twigg
Revolutions Cyclery
Ben Elliott
Bobs Cycle Shop
Todd Alexander
FDOT
Agenda:
<<SCTPO_BPAC_28JAN2013.pdf>>
Fraser gave the power point presentation:
<<T2E Trail TPO Briefing_28JAN2012.pdf>>
Notes
Murray Hann asked Fraser to contact Barbara Kelly, SCTPO, about ROW parallel to SR 406, between the
Max Brewer Bridge and SR 402, that could be used for an off-road trail. He prefers off-road trails to
using the shoulder on high-speed roadways.
Ginger Twigg commented that adding the T2E Trail to the roadways would change their use, justifying a
reduced speed limit, e.g. to 35 MPH for the potential "sharrow" on SR 406 between SR 402 and SR 3.
Fraser noted that SR 406 is posted at 35 MPH between SR 402 and the NASA Railroad Tracks; 45
between the tracks and SR 3 (Kennedy Parkway).
01APR2013 Meeting at MINWR

Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:46 PM
Subject
Meet on T2E Trail Alternatives in Brevard County
Date and Location
Monday, April 01, 2013 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM, MINWR HQ
Attendees
Layne Hamilton, Candace Stevenson, MINWR

Gisele Altman, KSC
Leigh Holt, Space Coast TPO
Libertad Acosta-Anderson, FDOT District 5
Fraser Howe, METRO Consulting Group
Message
We are evaluating possible alternative routes for the T2E Loop in Volusia County. I want to schedule a
meeting with you three (at least) to review our alternatives in MINWR and confirm that these conform to
the Refuges Management Plan and KSCs future planning.
Notes
Leigh advised that the power poles are in an easement that NASA has granted to Progress Energy;
Trey Carlson indicated to her that NASA could also grant FDOT an easement for a shared-use path
along the power poles.
Layne noted that USFWS only has one officer assigned to patrol the roads in MINWR that are
outside of KSC.
Layne advised that MINWR & KSC are developing a mitigation plan for impacts from planned
projects. We requested that they account for impacts from the T2E Trail within that plan.
USFWS is negotiating with a candidate for the Transportation Scholar for MINWR (hopefully this
individual will be onboard soon enough to coordinate with this PD&E study).
Leigh noted that the portion of the T2E Loop that connects the ECRRT to Canaveral National
Seashore is part of the "Close the Gaps" initiative by the Florida Greenways & Trails Foundation to
create a continuous Coast-to-Coast trail. Funding this is a very high priority for the Space Coast TPO.
Further, cyclists are looking for a loop around the "triangle" and from MINWR to US 1 in Volusia
County.
Leigh asked METRO to review the cost estimates for the T2E trail segments.
She noted that all segments of the ECRRT, in both Brevard and Volusia Counties, are funded.
Layne advised that the National Park Service manages ~1000 acres in the Bill's Hill area. They seem
to have dropped the concept for a new visitor center near the intersection of Kennedy Parkway and
US 1.
Gisele will setup a meeting (either on Friday 8MAR2013 or the following week) with NASA biologists
John Schaeffer and Lynn Phillips for Libertad, Fraser and the METRO biologists. Purpose is to
determine the buffer needed for scrub jay habitat and to agree on the calculation of the effect area
(using the available gross-scale data).
Layne advised that MINWR is responsible for maintenance of Max Brewer Parkway, between
Playalinda Beach Road and Kennedy Parkway. This is funded by the FHWA's Eastern Lands Program.
Layne noted that, under the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Visitor Services Plan, Figure 7.1 they
were not considering a separate trail along this section of M.B. Pkwy.
Candace will talk with "Stan" about the feasibility of a 12' wide separate trail along the berm
northwest of MB Pkwy.
Candace confirmed that water quality permits must be acquired from the SJRWMD, even in the
federal lands.
Maintaine
d
By MNWR
5APR2013 T2E Loop - Environmental Meeting

Friday, April 05, 2013 4:27 PM
Subject
EDGEWATER TO TITUSVILLE BIKE TRAIL - Environmental
Date and Location Friday, April 05, 2013 12:30 PM - 1:30 PM, MINWR HQ OFFICE
Attendees
Gisele Altman, (KSC-ADA00); John Shaffer (KSC-TAA4C);

Fraser Howe, Corey Carter, METRO;
Vivienne Handy, Quest Ecology, via teleconference
Leigh Holt (Leigh.Holt@brevardcounty.us);
Layne Hamilton [Fish and Wildlife], candice_stevenson@fws.gov, Jim Lyon MINWR;
Libertad Acosta-Anderson (Libertad.Acosta-Anderson@dot.state.fl.us), Joan Carter, FDOT
Notes
Jim Lyon presented a concept to run the trail along the NASA railroad, along the north side of the tracks
where they currently drive vehicles. Layne advised that MINWR likes this alternative however, Gisele
advised that NASA has security concerns.
Jim also presented an alternate route along the T-10F dike that would connect a trail along Pump House
Road to a potential bike path running along the north side of the NASA RR tracks.
Jim showed photos taken along these routes. He also presented a picture of a trail, the Great Allegheny
Transect, where it crosses the Western Maryland Scenic Railroad. Both head more or less west from
Cumberland, Maryland. The coordinates for the rail/trail crossing: 3940'56.97"N 7848'29.27"W (Just
paste these coordinates into Google Earth. You may need to zoom in a bit to see the detail.)
Screen clipping taken: 4/16/2013 9:59 AM
It was noted that some portions of the proposed All Aboard Florida railroad would have a trail adjacent
to the tracks.
Jim provided a PDF file of Rails With Trails, Design, Management and Operating Characteristics of 61
Trails Along Active Railroads, November 2000 by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, in cooperation with the
National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program.
John Shaffer, KSC, discussed the different types of wetlands (per UMAM) along the proposed trail routes
in the MINWR. There was also conversation about the need for more data on scrub-jays, as the layers
NASA provided previously are very broad brush and dont delineate actual areas of documented
occupied habitat. The study team asked John to provide us with additional data on SJ habitat. KSC &
MINWR have developed a long-range plan for mitigation within the Refuge for impacts from future
development at the Space Center. Mitigation includes restoration of previously impacted areas. Usually
mitigation for impacts to these wetlands is at a 2:1 ratio however it could be less for impacts to lowerquality wetlands. It was agreed that impacts from the proposed trail should be located in the same areas
so they could "piggy-back" on the restoration. A "landscape-level" plan would be needed from this PD&E
study.
There was also conversation about more NASA data on scrub-jays, as the layers they provided previously
are very broad brush and dont delineate actual areas of documented occupied habitat. It might have
been John that said he might be able to provide us with additional data on this. (This is pretty
significant, as anything they cant provide to us would have to be determined via field surveys.)
Regarding mitigation, there was also discussion that although they have identified and perhaps
banked mitigation areas for their use, these would not be available to DOT. However, expanding on
their existing areas seemed like a good possibility. I believe this applied to both wetland and SJ
mitigation options. This is important to note for DOT for future planning and cost estimating purposes.
- Vivienne Handy, Quest Ecology
Layne noted that Wildlife Drive has a surface of crushed shell, over a geoweb, and suggested this as a
possible surface for the trail. However, to minimize maintenance, MINWR would prefer an asphalt
surface.
Candace confirmed that they obtain permits from SJRWMD for attenuation and floodplain impacts.
Gisele Altman, KSC, mentioned that KSC will begin a study, requested by the Canaveral Port Authority,
about the feasibility of allowing freight shipments to the Port to use the NAS Railroad. She noted that
the tracks fall within the Air Force safety arc , which may influence the availability of this use. Leigh Holt,
Space Coast TPO, noted that a maintenance agreement will need to be worked-out. Joan Carter, FDT,
commented that this rail access to the Port would stimulate economic development that could support
KSC's mission through improved access for private partners.
24JUL2013 Titusville to Edgewater Loop - Brevard Stakeholder

Meeting
Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:30 PM
Agenda
1. Review objectives of FDOT PD&E Study.

2. Review alternatives developed within Brevard County.
3. Review trails in MINWR adopted CCP & Visitor Services Plan.
4. Review KSC planning in MINWR.
5. Review scope for Shiloh Launch Complex EIS
Action Items
Confirm support for a continuous through MINWR connecting the entrance on SR 406 with
the entrance at US 1.
Agree on which agency will maintain the off-road trail/ shared-use path.
Important Dates
10SEP2013 Alternatives Public Workshop, Edgewater City Hall
12SEP2013 Alternatives Public Workshop, Titusville City Hall
Those of you who have participated in our previous meetings have consistently expressed support for
the concept of this bicycle/pedestrian loop through the MINWR, so we have continued to develop
alternatives for either:
widening shoulders on the existing roadways or routes for an paved two-way, off-road shareduse path between the entrance on SR 406 and the Haulover Canal Bridge.
North of the bridge our alternatives are either widened shoulders on Kennedy Parkway or only
signage to warn motorists that Bikes Share the Road.
Meeting Details
Location: Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) Headquarters
Attendees
invited
attended
Libertad
AcostaAnderson
FDOT District 5, Project

Manager
Libertad.AcostaAnderson@dot.state.fl.us
Amy Sirmans
FDOT District 5,
Environmental Mgmt
Office
Amy.Sirmans@dot.state.fl.us
Lorena
Valencia
FDOT District 5, Space

Coast TPO Liaison
Lorena.Valencia@dot.state.fl.us
Colleen Jarrell
FDOT District 5, GEC
Colleen.Jarrell@dot.state.fl.us
Attendees
Leigh Holt
invited
Space Coast TPO, MultiModal Program Manager
attended
Leigh.Holt@brevardcounty.us
Layne Hamilton MINWR Project Leader
Layne_Hamilton@fws.gov
Sandy Mickey
MINWR Supervisory
Ranger
Sandra_Mickey@fws.gov
James Lyon
MINWR Biologist
James_Lyon@fws.gov
Elisa Kropat
MINWR Transportation
Specialist
Elisa_Kropat@fws.gov
Mario Busacca
KSC Branch Chief of

Planning
Mario.Busacca@nasa.gov
Trey Carlson
KSC Master Planner
Trey.Carlson@nasa.gov
Gisele Altman
KSC Planning Specialist
Gisele.Altman-1@nasa.gov
Lynne Phillips
KSC Biologist
Lynne_v.Phillips@nasa.gov
Sheryl Chaffee
KSC Property Manager
Sheryl.Chaffee@nasa.gov
Fraser Howe
Consultant PM, METRO

Consulting Group
Fraser.Howe@metrocgllc.com
Corey Carter
Consultant Env, Scientist,

METRO
Corey.Carter@metrocgllc.com
Greg Kern
Consultant Planner, STV
Gregory.Kern@STVinc.com
Dwayne
Darbonne
METRO Managing
Principal
Dwayne.Darbonne@metrocgllc.com
Discussion
Will MINWR/KSC allow:
Along berm / Old SR 402 alignment NW of Max Brewer Parkway
Along NASA Railroad (between Max Brewer Pkwy and Kennedy Pkwy)
Along power pole easement (between Playalinda Beach Road and Haulover Canal Bridge)
Widened shoulders on both sides of Kennedy Pkwy from the Haulover Canal Bridge to US 1
Need to know if any of these will not be allowed, so we can drop them from our analysis of
feasible alternatives for we go to public meetings in August.
Meeting Summary
The meeting began at approximately 3:40 PM at the MINWR Headquarters with staff
introductions.
Libertad Acosta-Anderson, FDOT District 5, welcomed those with whom we had not previously
met.
Leigh Holt, Space Coast TPO, updated the group on the status of the Coast to Coast Connector
trail
and provided handouts for the attendees (see attached):
The Coast to Coast Connector will connect existing trails from St. Pete to Cape Canaveral. The
Governor vetoed the $50M that was put in the budget by the Senator and the TPOs have done a
resolution to the Governor asking for the money. The TPOs are currently reviewing segments for
readiness to be constructed. All of the Brevard section of ECRRT is funded in 2014 and she gave a
summary of the cost estimate. While the PD&E study is not completed, preliminary estimates were
developed. Also, the PD&E doesnt include a link to the beach and thats the preference. The goal is
to complete the Coast to Coast within 5 years.
It is worthy to note that:
The Coast to Coast Connector is a significant effort to provide a safe and continuous multiuse
trail from the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic through Central Florida. The Connector is an
estimated total distance of 275 miles with approximately 75 percent (over 200 miles) of the
corridor already developed and open to the public or funded for completion. The estimated cost
to close the remaining gaps is approximately $42 million. The Connector will link communities
between St. Petersburg and Titusville along its entire length into a major destination route that
will allow residents and visitors to explore Central Florida by bicycle or foot. The Connector is a
major priority within the Florida Greenways and Trails System Plan which is being implemented
by the Office of Greenways and Trails (Florida DEP), and is the keystone project within the Florida
Greenways and Trails Foundations Close the Gaps Campaign.
- Florida Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Council, Meeting May 1, 2013, Tallahassee.
Fraser Howe, METRO PM, gave a presentation on the T2E Loop PD&E Study:
Background Information
Location Map
Coast to Coast Connector/Close the Gap Initiative
Planning Consistency
Study Overview in Brevard County
PD&E Study Scope
Funding
Constraints and Projects in the Vicinity
Existing Conditions
Trail Alternatives
Schedule
Commitments
Mario Busacca, KSC, and Sandy Mickey, MINWR, provided a handout (attached) defining the
requirements for the Establishment of a Bike Trail on Kennedy Space Center and Merritt Island
National Wildlife Refuge, July 2013. This was provided as an draft document that will be the basis of
a letter to Florida DOT (addressed to Lorena Valencia, copying Libertad). A summary of these
requirements are as follows:
The FDOT will fund and prepare an EA/FONSI for the portion of the project within MINWR. This
document will be owned by the USFWS with NASA being a cooperating agency. FWS has to have
final approval of the document and would have a say in selecting the consultant to conduct the
analysis. FWS indicated this would be as simple as looking at the resumes of the firm to be
selected.
NASA will not allow bicyclists to share the roads. This is a safety concern. They presented
alignments that will be acceptable to them (see attached aerials); an off-road network consisting
of a combination of the old SR 402 alignment, RR alignment and the line of power poles (along
Kennedy Parkway). Since there is no opportunity for an off-road alignment north of Haulover
Canal, they are OK with adding shoulders however, no signing should be installed to mark the
route as a bike route. The aerials provided by NASA/MINWR shows individual trail segments and
identify the current conditions and areas of the concern the agency may have regarding them.
FDOT is responsible for design and construction of the trail, with oversight from NASA and
USFWS.
Maintenance responsibility will need to be established. If it is the desire of the FDOT to design
and construct the trail and then turn over maintenance responsibility to the USFWS, then this
will need to be detailed in the EA (as will any other potential arrangement). NASA and the
USFWS will determine if they would maintain the trail after the EA has been completed and they
have had time to review the entire project documents. Once this has been determined, a legal
agreement will be required.
Mario indicated stormwater permitting may be required if paved paths are constructed. It was
stated that the SJRWMD would be the ultimate authority when it comes to what will be
required for this projects. It was also requested that other trail surfaces be considered during
the study.
Requirements for the trail alongside the NASA railroad were briefly discussed and outlined in
the documentation provided at the meeting.
Sandy Mickey discussed the "Big Six" priority wildlife oriented uses for refuge lands identified in
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. The reason this
is important is that the EA must be prepared to show the bike trail as supporting one or more of
these activities; for example, the path may have pullouts for wildlife observation or interpretive
signage along the route, etc.
Prior to the conclusion of the meeting both NASA and USFWS staff expressed their support, within
these requirements, and committed to work with FDOT to make the process as easy as possible.
Leigh Holt requested that an extension of the trail east of Kennedy Parkway to the Canaveral
National Seashore (consistent with the Coast-to-Coast Connector) be considered in the expanded
scope to prepare the EA.
The meeting ended at approximately 5:10 PM.
Action Items
Lynne Phillips will provide documentation of NASA's policy on not allowing bicycles to share
the road.
Lynne will provide her contacts at the SJRWMD, Palm bay office (for a re-application
meeting, after FDOT approval).
Sandy Mickey will provide a copy (or link) of an EA meeting USFWS guidelines.
Libertad Acosta-Anderson, in consultation with District 5 staff, will determine if the public
workshops will be held on the tentative dates or postponed.
Minutes prepared by: Fraser Howe, PE, METRO CONSULTING GROUP, LLC
15AUG2013 Jazlyn Heywood, 386.943.5388

District 5 staff meeting internally, following meeting with FHWA, to decide what to do with T2E Loop
PD&E Study.
We reviewed METRO's scope: to evaluate both on-road (shoulders) and off-road (shared-use path)
alternatives for the trail connecting the two ends of the East Central Regional Rail Trail (ECRRT), in
Titusville and Edgewater. She referred to the T2ETrail_Overall.pdf:
I explained that in Volusia
County we were comparing
widening/improving shoulders
on US 1 to constructing a shareduse path within the right of way from MINWR to SR 442. North of
SR 442 there is no room within
the ROW for a separate trail;
there the build alternative is to
use the existing shoulders and
bike lines up to Park Avenue. On
Park Avenue, between US 1 and
the CSX RR tracks, the only
feasible alternatives are signing
and pavement marking
"Sharrow"; between the RR
tracks and Dale Street paved
shoulders can be added.
In Brevard County we are
evaluating two alternatives on
SR 406 from the east end of the
Max Brewer Bridge to the
entrance to the Merritt Island
National Wildlife Refuge
(MINWR), entirely within the
County's Parrish Park: continuing
the paved shoulders or
construction a separate shareduse path along the original
alignment of SR 402 (north of the current roadway). Within the MINWR, The USFWS staff and NASA
planning staff have directed us to evaluate one build alignment:
1. Continue along the old SR 402 alignment (berm) to the NASA Railroad; then
2. Follow along the north side of the tracks east towards Kennedy Parkway (formerly SR 3); then
3. Follow the mowed grass "easement" on the west side of Kennedy Parkway from the RR tracks to
cross Max Brewer Parkway (formerly SR 406) and continue north to the point where the poleline crosses to the east side of Kennedy Parkway; then
4. Follow the power pole "easement" north to the Haulover Canal Bridge. Note that there is no
easement, NASA owns all of the property and maintains the power lines that feed the bascule
bridge over Haulover Canal.
5. Since there are no power poles, or other cleared path, north of Haulover Canal the only build
alternative NASA/USFWS will consider is adding paved shoulders to the roadway. This will
encroach on the Scrub jay habitat, which includes the mowed grass along the roadway. They will
not permit signage indicating "Bikes Share the Road".
Jazlyn asked for construction cost estimates.

I agreed to provide them in 2 weeks, noting that it will be difficult to estimate the mitigation costs
because MINWR has indicated that we may be able to "piggy-back" on the mitigation areas that
they have designated for future NASA development.
She noted that the Space Coast TPO will have to decide if they want to fund a supplemental
agreement to prepare the Environmental Assessment (EA) that USFWS will require to document the
impacts and mitigation within MINWR.
I requested that Jazlyn provide any cost-estimating prices for trails that the District has recently
used, e.g. the US 92 Trail.
27NOV2013 T2E Bike Loop - Public Workshop debriefing

Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:58 AM
Meeting Date: 11/27/2013 10:00 AM

Location: Lync Meeting
Invitation Message
Content
<<Edgewater sign in sheets_19NOV2013.pdf>> Added by Fraser Howe
Attachment from Outlook
<<Titusville SignIn_21NOV2013.pdf>>
Added by Fraser Howe

<<T2E Handout_Fact Sheet_21NOV2013.pdf>> Added by Fraser Howe
Participants
Fraser Howe (Meeting Organizer)
Corey Carter (Accepted in Outlook)
Gregory A. Kern (Accepted in Outlook)
Jo Ann Lucarelli (Accepted in Outlook)
Brice S. Shrader (Accepted in Outlook)
Dwayne Darbonne
Notes
Arthur Thompson (Accepted in Outlook)

'Myra Monreal
(mam@myraplanning.com)'
'Vivienne Handy
(Vivienne@questecology.com)'
Melanie Higgins
Most frequently heard comment, from both workshops:
Users want to ride on a separate trail/path, not on shoulders along high-speed roads like US 1
and Kennedy Parkway.
Dwayne Darbonne, METRO
Users do not want Sharrows on Park Avenue - there are a lot of trucks going to/from the
industrial areas near the RR tracks and on Air Park Road
What effect will removing the TWLT (to stripe bike lanes) on Park Avenue have on safety?
Will the cost for adding/widening/rehabbing shoulders really be the same as constructing a new
shared-use path along US 1?
Brice Shrader, METRO
Many asked when the trail will be constructed
One asked how close the trail along US 1 would come to a house or business
Art Thompson, METRO
He heard all favorable comments
Talked with long-time resident, David McCallister, who favors the trail
Corey Carter, METRO
I talked with a couple of individuals and what I got was lots of support because they were avid
bike rider that use the area regularly. I also received the question of costs for a new trail being
too expensive and how can we justify that vs. going with the shoulder options.
Greg Kern, STV
He heard all favorable comments
He recalled conversations during the ECRRT study with Brevard County Commissioner Robin
Fisher and Volusia County Commissioner Pat Northey, who both wanted the Titusville to
Edgewater Bike Loop to be on a separate trail (not routed on the roadway shoulders)
In Edgewater he talked with City staff who would ultimately like to see funding designated to
acquire from FEC the remaining ROW west of the active rail line; and ROW along the north side
of Park Avenue (between the RR tracks and US 1) to extend the separate path from Dale Street
to US 1. This would have to go through the VTPO.
At Edgewater: Three citizens I spoke to all were very concerned about just having paved
shoulders on US 1. They all indicated it would be unsafe and would likely not be used by anyone
except those riders who currently ride on US 1. They were all in favor of the trail project, and
were hopeful that a separated trail could be constructed.
I requested them all to fill out the comment cards or provide comments online at the website.
At Titusville: A few residents noted their concern over having just a paved shoulder as a trail.
Many were interested in the status of the ECRRT construction.
Vivienne Handy, Quest Ecology
At Edgewater, talked with Cathy Owen, District 5 EMO. She thought it would be a good idea to
coordinate with the 4(f) lead in Tallahassee to be sure.
Myra Monreal, MPD
The concept plans that are posted to the website should clearly indicate that the Bike Lanes and
Separate Path are separate alternatives, i.e. we are not evaluating constructing both.
Fraser Howe, METRO
I concur with the notes above (I heard the same comments)
At Edgewater I spoke with Jack Corder, Tracy Barlow and Darren Lear about the alternative
route they suggested along Hibiscus Ave/16th St/Mango Tree Ave. I noted that I the Department
had decided that the route did not meet the project objectives and was not considered feasible
for the primary route. However, it could be a local alternative ("jug-handle" as Joan Carter calls
it) that the City could consider designating.
At Titusville, Mayor Jim Tulley was very supportive and looks forward to completing a cycling
loop through MINWR.
10DEC2013 MINWR Road Safety Audit

Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:56 AM
Meeting Date: 12/10/2013 3:00 PM

Location: MINWR & Webinar
Invitation Message
MINWR Pre-Audit Road Safety Audit Meeting

Tuesday December 10th, 2013
Participant
Organization - Role
In-Person
Layne Hamilton
MINWR - Project Leader
Jane Whaley
MINWR - Head Law Enforcement Officer
Joan Carter
FDOT - Bike & Ped Coordinator
Ana Contreras
KSC - Special Agent
Myrna Palfrey
CNS - Superintendent
Elisa Kropat
MINWR - Transportation Scholar - Presenter
Online
Laurie Miskimins
Central Federal Lands - Planner - Project Mentor to Elisa
Isbel Ramos
Eastern Federal - Lands PE - Presenter -Assisting with

audit team
Fraser Howe
Metro Consulting - PE - T2E Trail
Natalie Villwock-Witte
WTI/TRIPTAC - PE - Assisting with audit team
Phil Shapiro
WTI/TRIPTAC -PE - Assisting with audit team
Notes - Fraser Howe
Downloaded MerrittIsland_Preaudit_121013.ppt - Includes Isbel Ramos' slides describing how the

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division conducts a RSA; and
RSA Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Identify projects
Select RSA team
Conduct start-up meeting - Today's meeting
Perform field reviews - February 2014
Analyze & report on findings
Present findings to owner
Prepare formal response - March/April 2014
Incorporate findings
Elisa's slides on Bicycle & Refuges
(referencing the National Wildlife Refuge System's "Big Six" activities) and the four areas to be
audited:
Areas
Reason
Black Point Wildlife Drive
Vehicle-Bicycle Conflicts
Visitor Information Center Complex
Lack of Infrastructure
Primary Public Use Zone -Triangle Area
To Develop Paths
Proposed Alignment for the Titusville to Edgewater Trail
Need for Safe Crossings
Ana asked if pavement condition is one part of the data collection and analysis - Isbel confirmed that
it is. (I think they should get a count of the number of cyclists too.)
Elisa noted that NASA maintains the Beach Road and Kennedy Parkway; MINWR maintains Max
Brewer Parkway.
Layne noted that this RSA is very timely because the Refuge is planning a new Visitor Center.
Myrna noted that they already see many cycling groups and a trail from Kennedy Parkway is already
in the Seashore General Management Plan.
Natalie noted that US 1 is a listed Bicycle Route.
Joan Carter suggested asking MINWR staff for their anecdotal reports / specific observations of
incidents involving roadway safety, especially with bicycles.
11FEB2014 Spaceport Public Hearing

Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:27 AM
Subject
Spaceport Public Hearing
From
Pamela Blankenship
To
Ardell Jim
(bbofficemanager@cfl.rr.com);
Ardell Jim (paxalot@earthlink.net);
Claudia Calzaretta
(Claudia.Calzaretta@DOT.state.fl.us);
Clay Ervin; ddaniels@volusia.org;
Deb Denys;
debbie@townofpierson.org;
Doug Gibson;
Downs, Noranne;
Emter, Gene;
Ford, Bob;
Gilliland, Robert;
Jennings Harry
(hjennings@cityofdbs.org);
jmcguirk@cityofnsb.com;
Joe Perrone;
Joshua Wagner
(jwagner@volusia.org);
Joyce Cusack (jcusack@volusia.org);
Kelley, Ed;
Linda Costello;
Lita Handy-Peters;
mail2linda@aol.com;
Marshall Shupe;
Masiarczyk John
(jmasiarczyk@deltonafl.gov);
Matusick, Leigh;
Nancy Long;
Northey, Patricia;
Penny Currie;
ppatterson@volusia.org;
Rick Basso
(rickbassozone3@gmail.com);
Ron Saylor;
Sowell, James;
Storke, Bob;
Anthony Pupello;
Bennington, Gigi
(district2@cityofedgewater.org);
Chris Nabicht;
Cruz, Stewart;
Dan Hunt;
Davis Jason (JDavis@volusia.org);
Elizabeth Albert
Woods, Pamela;
Cerullo, Peter;
Allison Stettner;
Charlene Poniatowski;
Blanck, Heather;
Clay LaRoche;
Chad Lingenfelter
Dawn Edwards ;
(clingenfelter@cityofflaglerbeach.com); Deweece Ogden ;
Cheney, Jon;
Diane Poitras;
Dillard, John;
Douglas Beach;
Disher, Mike (mikedisher@ymail.com); Goldstein, Barbara (bgold2@iag.net);
dlear@cityofedgewater.org;
Carole M. Hinkley;
Ferrell, Fred;
Jackie Uhrig;
Gail Henrikson;
James, Patricia;
Goss, Ric;
Jean Cerullo;
Holmes, Mike;
Jeffrery Bumb;
Joulani, Aref;
Jo Santiago;
KC Cichon;
Judy Ryan;
Kerr, Jim;
Julie Shaw;
Kohn Evans (evansk@oakhillfl.com);
Kent, Chip;
LaHue, Larry;
Kevin Thompson;
Leon, Pedro;
Lisa Broward;
Lingenfelter Chad
Lynn Sinnott;
(clingenfelter@hotmail.com);
Mary Ellen Ottman;
Marcum, Mike (marcumm@codb.us); Robin King;
Melissa Winsett
Sharol Robinson;
(mwinsett@volusia.org)
Steven Jack;
(mwinsett@volusia.org);
White, Mike;
Mike DIsher;
Alice Haldeman
Paradise, Ron;
(alicebeatrice1@gmail.com);
Patty Rippey;
Carter, Joan;
Rebecca Hammock ;
Colleen Nicoulin;
Rich Walton (Waltonr@codb.us);
Deborah Tyrone;
Rick Karl (FKarl@volusia.org);
Hickey, Wendy
Rickey Mack;
(whickey@ourorangecity.com);
Ridgeway, Marian;
Idler, Holly;
Smith, Jim;
Jason Aufdenberg;
Tim Burman;
Jessie Clark (jclark@volusia.k12.fl.us);
Tom Harowski;
John Schmitz;
Ball, Robert (Bobby);
Kris Jones; Kris Jones;
Bliss Jamison (elizabliss1@cfl.rr.com); Merens, Rani;
Craig Judy (judylesliecraig@aol.com); mgrenham@cityofedgewater.org;
D'Antonio, Dan;
Pamela Masters;
deyette@earthlink.net;
Perney, Gwen;
Elizabeth Alicia Lendian;
Phelps Kevin (kmphelps@cfl.rr.com);
Elliott, Susan;
Phyllis Campbell;
Friend, Tomm;
Scott Leisen;
Jake Sachs;
Ted Wendler;
John Cotton;
Tim Bustos;
(ealbert@hollyhillfl.org);
Green, Allen;
Locke, George;
Martin, Phil;
Nic Mostert;
Smart, Donald;
Stowers James
(James.stowers@ormondbeach.org);
Tami Lewis;
Wheeler Billie
(Bwheeler@cityofdbs.org);
Richard Belhumeur;
Walters, Roy;
Richard Gailey (rich@franksoffice.com); William Pouzar
Antol, Pat (bpantol@cfl.rr.com);
(billpouzar@alumni.ufl.edu)
Arnold Anderson;
Cc
(lynndehlinger@usa.net); Blissett, Kassandra; Clauss, Jeaneen; Colleen Storch; Cote Carl (CCote@palmcoastgov.com);
Cuthbertson, Mick (mcuthbertson@bunnellcity.us); cwalsh@teds-fl.com; David Dixon (seemor77@att.net); Doug
Dycus; Falgout Beau (BFalgout@palmcoastgov.com); falkhatib@flaglercounty.org; Hardy, Blanche; Hoke, Ginger;
Johnnie Ponder (jponder1956@gmail.com); Jose Papa; Kevin Jameson; Kyle Fegley; Malecia Harris
(mharris@cityofedgewater.org); Mary Schoelzel (mary.schoelzel@dot.state.fl.us); Morrissey, Saralee;
rsmith@cityofflaglerbeach.com; Sally Sherman (ssherman@flaglercounty.org); Sans Lassiter; Schweizer, Carl
(CSchweizer@volusia.org); Tonya L. West; Tyner Ray (rtyner@palmcoastgov.com); Heeb, Ferd; Mike Woods;
plipovsky@cfl.rr.com; Alex Bautista; Gary Dirda; Grasso, Camilla; Karen Somerset; Mike Bowmer; Robert Craig;
Zakaluzny, Darla; Andy Johnson; Bob Atack; Celeste Philip; Decarie, John (decariejohn@gmail.com); Ehrlich, Anthony
(AnthonyEhrlich@earthlink.net); Fraser Howe; Galan, Marilyn; Gary Shepherd (info@carefreecater.com); Greg Akin
(gpakin@volusia.k12.fl.us); Hickson, Frank; Jones, Tina; Leigh.Holt@brevardcounty.us; Libertad Acosta-Anderson;
Linda Richards; Maggie Ardito; marianne.gurnee@dot.state.fl.us; Marissa Moore; Munizzi Amy
(dscainc@bellsouth.net); Nancy Maddox; Reginald Mills; Robert Kelly; Suzanne Grubbs; Tbaylie@volusia.org; Vicki
Reed; Debbie Stewart; Robert Keeth; Lois Bollenback; Jean Parlow; Herbert Seely; Stephan Harris; Adam Burghdoff;
Amy Skinner; amy.blaida@rsandh.com; astill@hsa-env.com; Barbara Harkins; Barbara O'Connor; Barbara Revels;
Barley, Harry; Beth Lemke; Bill McGuire; Bob White (bob6100@bellsouth.net); Carolyn West; Caryl Taylor; Christie L.
Mayer; Cino, Charles; Craig Coffey (ccoffey@flaglercounty.org); Curtis Leonard; DeAnn Parker; Dr. Louis Malenfant;
Edward "Ned" Baier; Fabricio Ponce; Francis Donna (obeverlybeacht@cfl.rr.com); Frank O'Dea; Fred Jones
(frederick.jones@rsandh.com); Ganzel Neil (neal@coquinachurchpca.org); Garcia, Mark
(mark.garcia@dot.state.fl.us); Gene Lozano; George Trovato (trovatodist3@yahoo.com); gmoore@drmp.com; Gwen
Azama-Edwards; Huttmann Gary (ghuttmann@metroplanorlando.com); Janice McMahan; Jay Young; Jennie Celona;
Joe Petrock; John Kulpa (John.kulpa@rsandh.com); John Leif Ersland; John Mowen; Joyce Kent; Judi Stetson; Kern
Greg (Gregory.Kern@stvinc.com); Khuwaja Mansoor (mkhuwaja@gmb.cc); Landon, James
(jlandon@palmcoastgov.com); Lara Bouck (Lara.Bouck@rsandh.com); ldiaz@hntb.com; Lewis-Whittington, Virginia ;
Linda Hall; Mark Manwell; Martinez Armando (amartinez@bunnellcity.us); McCray Jason (McCrayj@etminc.com);
Michael Yeager; Mike Ruland; Mike Snyder (michael.snyder@ch2m.com); Mindy Heath; mo.hassan@dot.state.fl.us;
Nancy Kocher (NKocher@palmcoastgov.com); Naomi Weiss (Naomi.Weiss@mail.house.gov); P. E. Kurt R. Luman Jr.
(KLuman@cphengineers.com); P. Shattuck; Pat Gadbaw; Peggy Pendergrass (peggy@danielslegal.com); Penny
Overstreet; Randy Wright; Rob Palmer (rob.palmer@rsandh.com); Robert Abbott; Ron Meade; Russ L. Gibson; Ruth
Schifferniller; Sadhigi, Susan; Scott McKee; Shawn Collins; Smith Virginia (vsmith@palmcoastgov.com); Somerford,
Debra; Sorin Garber; Steve Olson; Steve Sherrer; terry.rains@dot.state.fl.us; Wallace Bob
(bwallace@tindaleoliver.com); Wendland, Bernice; Whittaker, Sue; Bruce Campbell; David Ferguson; Hanns, George;
Jason DeLorenzo; John Rogers; Kendra Iannotti; Larry Williams (ljwilliams@bunnellcity.us); Marianne Pulaski; Nate
McLaughlin; Netts, Jon (jnetts@palmcoastgov.com); Sandy Bolser; Stetson, Judi
Sent
Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:44 AM
The
Federal Aviation Authority

will take input regarding a possible Commercial
Spaceport!
The FAA invites interested agencies, organizations, Native American tribes, and
members of the public to submit comments or suggestions to assist in identifying
significant environmental issues and in determining the appropriate scope of the
Environmental Impact Study.
The scoping meeting format will include an open-house workshop from 5:00 pm to
6:00 pm. The FAA will provide an overview of the environmental process from 6:00
pm to 6:15 pm followed by a public comment period from 6:15 pm to 8:00 pm. The
open-house workshop will consist of poster stations describing the proposed
project and the NEPA process.
When
TUESDAY
February 11, 2014
From 5pm to 8pm
Where
New Smyrna Beach High School
Gymnasium
1015 10th Street
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
Forward this email
This email was sent to dave@daytonachamber.com by ddenys@cfl.rr.com |

Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe | Privacy Policy.
Deb Denys | PO Box 714 | New Smyrna Beach | FL | 32170
11JUN2014 T2E Bike Loop Field Review

Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:29 PM
Meeting Date: 6/11/2014 10:00 AM

Location: Edgewater City Hall, 104 N. Riverside Drive
Link to Outlook Item: click here
Invitation Message
Participants
Fraser Howe (Meeting Organizer)
Jazlyn Heywood (jazlyn.Heywood@dot.state.fl.us) (Accepted in Outlook)
Carter, Joan (Tentative in Outlook)
Michael.McPhail@DOT.State.FL.US
Darren Lear (Accepted in Outlook)
Dollery, Michael (Accepted in Outlook)
jcorder@cityofedgewater.org
Myra.monreal@gmail.com
Notes
Fraser gave a briefing of the purpose & need; the existing conditions along the route
suggested by the City of Edgewater; shared-use path design criteria from the Florida
Greenbook; and the anticipated right-of-way needs along the route.
Darren & Jack noted that construction has started on the portion of the East Central Regional
Rail Trail (ECRRT) along Cow Creek Road (including the bridge over SR 442); and that, earlier
this month, the County awarded the design build contract for the portion of the ECRRT from
Dale Street to the west.
Joan Carter noted that the Deland Greenway has been successfully constructed along some
residential streets.
The field review stopped at:

Roberts Rd - Edgewater Commons
Roberts Rd - Whistle Stop Park / Indian River ES
Hibiscus Dr - just north of Roberts Rd
Hibiscus Dr - just north of 26th St. (power poles are only on the east side of Hibiscus north of
26th St)
Hibiscus Dr - north of SR 442, at the canal. Here we discussed an alternative to run the trail
west along the ROW of 18th St (canal but no paved road), up Juniper Dr to 16th), see below.
16th St - between Juniper Dr & Kumquat Dr, along south side (triangle parcel owned by the
City, next to the City's pond)
Mango Tree Dr - at 16th St (noted fairly high traffic volume, including City trucks). Discussed
possibility of an 8' wide sidewalk, behind a curb, along the west side of Mango Tree Dr. (15'
from EOP to apparent ROW line)
Mango Tree Dr - just north of 12th St. Discussed continuing the trail up the west side of
Mango Tree (along parcels owned by the FDOT, Volusia School Board & County).
Mango Tree Dr - north of the City Public Works Yard. Discussed continuing the trail up the
west side of Mango Tree (appears to be room and avoids the large oaks on the east side).
Volusia County PALMS

http://vcmaps.vcgov.org/vcmaps/Palms/viewer.htm
Screen clipping taken: 6/11/2014 3:54 PM
24JUN2014 T2E_Volusia Stakeholders - Meeting notes

Monday, July 14, 2014 2:55 PM
Subject
Re: T2E_Volusia Stakeholders_24JUN2014 - Meeting notes
From
James White
To
Fraser Howe
Cc
Darren Lear; Tracey Barlow (ttbarlow@CITYOFEDGEWATER.ORG); 'Amy M. Sirmans(amy.sirmans@dot.state.fl.us)';

Deborah Tyrone; Jazlyn Heywood (jazlyn.Heywood@dot.state.fl.us); BillEggers (beggers359@gmail.com); 'Kate
Hoffman (kate_hoffman@janus-research.com)'; psanford@kbenv.com; Elaine Bates; 'Myra Monreal
(mam@myraplanning.com)'; Steve Harris(sharris@r2ctpo.org); Gregory A. Kern
Sent
Friday, June 27, 2014 10:03 AM
Hi Fraser,
We talked about concrete structures & precast panels, etc. for the ped bridges, but the County's
preference is to widen the roadway & have the trail adjacent to the shoulder, separate by a concrete
barrier. FDOT does not perform bridge inspections for pedestrian bridges and the County does not have
the personnel to perform them.
I also have a few questions:
1. What are the limits & length of project in Volusia County?
3.8 miles on Kennedy Parkway south of US 1 (in MINWR) covered under Feasibility Report for
future PD&E Study.
11.66 miles on US 1, from Kennedy Pkwy to Park Ave; and 1.0 miles on Park Ave from US 1 to
Dale St.
2. How many bridges? Locations (& are they in Edgewater, Oak Hill, or unincorporated County)?
Lengths? What are they crossing (river, ditch, etc)?
2 locations crossing lateral ditches on the east side of US 1 - one 6'x8' CBC 500' north of Golden
Bay Rd and one 4'x10' CBC just south of Indian Creek Dr.
On the Edgewater alternative - 1 location on the east side of Hibiscus Dr, crossing canal 2 x 6'
diameter RCP under CSX RR (would also cross canal if the route went west to Juniper Drive)
3. What structures are crossing them on US 1 (bridge, box culvert, etc)?

Existing box culverts
4. You said only a mile of trail is in unincorporated County, correct?
~3250' between city limits (Oak Hill at Ariel Rd, Edgewater at William St)
5. Would Edgewater maintain trail in city limits? Ped bridges in city limits?
6. Would Oak Hill maintain trail in city limits? Ped bridges in city limits?
(If either is no - what is additional length of trail County would be asked to maintain?)
Thanks. I'm trying to find out what the County would be asked to maintain.
Jim
Jim White, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Volusia County Engineering & Construction
386-736-5967 ext 12511
>>> Fraser Howe <fraser.howe@metrocgllc.com> 6/27/2014 8:15 AM >>>
Meeting Attendees,
Attached are the METRO team notes from our meeting on Tuesday, 24JUN2014, at Edgewater City Hall.
Please review and advise me of any necessary revisions.
Once these notes are final, I will copy them to Kohn Evans, City of Oak Hill.
Fraser S. Howe Jr, PE, F.ASCE
Director of Engineering & Planning
METRO Consulting Group, LLC
604 Courtland Street, Suite 140
Orlando, FL 32804
407.865.1053 preferred
407.960.3970 land line
www.metrocgllc.com
3JUL2014 FHWA Teleconference

Thursday, July 03, 2014 1:30 PM

Location: CO-Burns, Teleconference Bridge 9; D5-DO, Spruce Creek
Invitation Message
Content
<<424040-2&-3 Titusville to Edgewater Bike Loop.pdf>> Added by Heywood, Jazlyn
Participants
Heywood, Jazlyn (Meeting Organizer)
Sullivan, Joseph
Fraser Howe
Owen, Catherine
Cathy.Kendall@dot.gov
Amy.sirmans@dot.state.fl.us
Notes
Jazlyn advised that Space Coast TPO can't confirm that they will seek federal funds for the future PD&E
study however, we will proceed as if they will. In that case, what will FHWA need?
Cathy said it depends on the program
Rec/Trails funding would be easy however, there is currently no funding in that program for
Florida.
Not sure if we can use STP funding for a Transportation Enhancement (TE) project that is off
the federal aid system (NHS). There may be an exemption applicable to a TE.
Joe advised that, since the project would be on the USFWS MINWR and NPS Canaveral National
Seashore, that FHWA's Eastern Federal Lands office should handle (Joe & Cathy would review
appropriate documents).
Jazlyn should contact Jack Van Dop.
13AUG2014 R2CTPO BPAC

Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:36 AM

Location: Volusia TPO
Invitation Message
Participants
Stephan Harris (Meeting Organizer)
Deborah Tyrone
Dwayne Darbonne
Fraser Howe
Art Thompson
Kern, Gregory A.
Notes
Steve Harris questioned the gap in Oak Hill and asked if we had looked at alternative routes around
the constrained ROW.
Fraser showed the map of the routes suggested by the Town of Oak Hill. He advised that
he & Libertad Acosta-Anderson (D5 PM at the time) met with Mayor Doug Gibson, Kohn
Evans & Montye Beamer on 28MAR2013 and agreed that they would look to sign the
route, rather than a separate shared-use path or adding shoulders to the designated
roads.
Steve asked about just going behind the buildings.
This was not my reply at the meeting however, looking at the parcels, the route could go up Oak
Street, but there is no ROW between Oak & US 1 south of Halifax Avenue and, north of Halifax until
Lagoon Ave.
Volusia County PALMS

http://vcmaps.vcgov.org/vcmaps/Palms/viewer.htm
8/14/2014 8:51 AM - Screen Clipping
I recommend adding a slide to the presentation for the CAC/TTC & Board to address this.
There was a question about how the Shiloh Launch site could affect the bike loop.
Fraser replied that the MINWR staff will not revise their plans until the EIS, currently in
process, is approved (they doubt it will be). The future PD&E study for the Bike Loop in
MINWR/CANA will address what has been approved at that time.
There was also a question about funding all or parts of the trail in Volusia County.
Fraser replied, and Deborah Tyrone concurred, that those projects should be prioritized by
the TPO through their ongoing process.
Notes From River to Sea TPO Committee Meetings for T2E

Presentations
Monday, September 15, 2014 11:45 AM
Notes from River to Sea TPO August Committee Meetings for T2E
Presentations
13AUG 2014 BPAC
How the gap in Oak Hill can be handled (Steve Harris, R2CTPO)?
The gap (from 200' south of Halifax Ave to 700' north of Halifax) is the same gap left when the 5'
sidewalk was constructed last year.
South of Halifax (in front of the Dollar General) the FDOT ROW is at the edge of the shoulder.
Right of way must be acquired to construct the shared-use path, separated from the paved
shoulder.
North of Halifax the right of way is also narrow (the buildings have diagonal parking that
encroaches in the ROW). Right of way must be acquired to construct the shared-use path,
separated from the paved shoulder.
o
Parcel 9505-05-00-1000, CHARLES R & CAROL M DEAN
Parcel 9505-05-00-0980, JAMES W & LORETTA P MAYNARD
Parcel 9505-05-00-0930123C, ROBERT S FASSIE TRUST
19AUG 2014 CAC

Did not record any comments
19AUG 2014 TTC

FEC to Dale Street
Who will maintain this section?
The recommended alternative is to add paved shoulders to Park Avenue from the active FEC RR
tracks to Dale Street, where the ECRRT ends. Shoulders will be maintained by the same agency
that maintains the roadway pavement.
General
How will access to existing transit stops be accommodated?
ADA access to VOTRAN stops will be part of the design of the shared-use path.
Oak Hill US 1 route vs. jug handle, do connectivity issues outweigh the use of the jug handle?
Within the PD&E study limits, i.e. south of Park Avenue, US 1 will be designated as a US
Numbered Bike Route, a route for long-distance cyclists along the east coast. Oak Hill and
Edgewater should submit their jug handle routes to be prioritized for funding through the
R2CTPO.
Should vehicle speeds be modified in bike activity areas?
Vehicle speeds are set by law/ordinance or by speed studies. Posted speed is a factor in
determining the appropriate type of bicycle facility.
Who will maintain the shared-use path, and bridges over the two canals, on US 1 (Jon Cheney,
Volusia County)?
The Department will negotiate an agreement with the City & County for a local agency to
maintain the trail.
27AUG2014 Board
Will this study be used in the TPOs Trail coordination study?
Once accepted, the recommendations from this PD&E Study will be the Department's input into
the TPO Trail program.
Is this recommendation really a trail or just a bikeway?
The recommended alternative in the Preliminary Engineering Report from the Titusville to
Edgewater Bike Loop is for a route for pedestrians and cyclists to use between the intersection
of US 1 & Kennedy Parkway and the intersection of Park Avenue and Dale Street, connecting to
the ECRRT.
Oak Hill loop presents tough ROW issues.
That is why the 5' wide sidewalk, completed in November 2013, was not able to be constructed
from 200' south to 700' north of Halifax Avenue. Additional ROW must be acquired, from about
150' north of Church Street to Lagoon Avenue (2400'), to construct a 10' wide shared use path
that will be separated from the paved shoulder on the east side of US 1.
Can Edgewater serve as the connector in the Coast to Coast bike trail? Does the trail have to go
through MINWR?
That will be answered through participation in the Coast to Coast Connector Summit on October
1, 2014.
Appendix B Draft Memorandum of Agreement
FHWA Agreement No: Click here to enter text.

Revised Click here to enter text.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Among the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
And
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
And
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE
And
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
MERRITT ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
And
NATIONAL AERONATICS & SPACE ADMINISTRATION
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER
And
SPACE COAST TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
In
Brevard County, Florida
\\METROCLOUD\Public\300 Project Mgmt\12FT502_T2E_Trail_PDE\2.Engineering\2.40.Feasibility\draft FHWA Agreement.docx
Draft Memorandum of Agreement

This memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) entered into by and among the United States Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD), and
the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); the District of Columbia Department of Transportation
(DDOT); the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Canaveral National
Seashore (CANA); the United States Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR); the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (SCTPO),
collectively known as the Parties, is for the purpose of establishing the roles, responsibilities, and
procedures under which work shall be performed by the Parties to complete the planning and project
development of improvements within the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National
Seashore in Brevard County, FL, hereinafter called the Titusville to Edgewater Bike Loop. For the purposes
of this Agreement, the following terms are defined:
Titusville to Edgewater Bike Loop Project The term Titusville to Edgewater Bike Loop Project means the
portion of the Coast to Coast Connector from the east end of the Max A. Brewer Bridge, through the
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge to US 1, and through the Canaveral National Seashore to
Playalinda Beach on the Atlantic Ocean.
MINWR Gap The term MINWR Gap means the part of the Titusville to Edgewater Bike Loop to be
undertaken and managed by the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, including planning, design,
engineering, and construction for the structures on the Bike Loop; and utilities to be installed or relocated to
serve the structures.
CANA Gap The term CANA Gap means the part of the Titusville to Edgewater Bike Loop to be
undertaken and managed by the Canaveral National Seashore, including planning, design, engineering,
and construction for the structures on the Bike Loop; and utilities to be installed or relocated to serve the
structures.
Field reviews The term field reviews means an inspection held in the field for the purposes of discussing
design or construction issues. These reviews commonly require both an on-site inspection and in-office
discussions.
Green spaces The term green spaces means areas within the boundaries of the Project or affected by
the Project that are covered by grass, trees, or other vegetation.
Trail The term Trail means improvements to the area within MINWR and CANA carried out under the
Project and comprised of transportation elements (including shared-use path) and non-transportation
elements (including landscaping, green space, open public space, and structures).
MINWR Bike Loop Project The term MINWR Bike Loop Project means the project as described in the
Feasibility Report, providing for the construction of a shared-use path and for recreational and wildlife
viewing use with the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. The term includes planning, design,
engineering, and construction of the Trail, structures to be constructed along the Trail, and may include any
other elements of the Project identified in the Feasibility Report.
Project Agreement The term Project Agreement refers to a document between two or more agencies
that identifies the roles and responsibilities of each party relative to a specific project. This document
generally addresses issues such as, but is not limited to, funding transfers or billing, job specific working
relationships and responsibilities, and means and methods to be used in the execution or implementation of
a project focused toward final completion of the project.
Secretary The term Secretary means the Secretary of Transportation.
Page 2 of 8

Feasibility Report The term Feasibility Report means the report of the FDOT submitted to the FHWA
under Section 1214 if the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (20 U.S.C. 76j note; 112 Stat.
204).
CANA Bike Loop Project The term CANA Bike Loop Project means the project as described in the
Feasibility Report, providing for the construction of a shared-use path and for recreational use within the
Canaveral National Seashore. The term includes planning, design, engineering, and construction of the
Trail, structures to be constructed along the Trail, and may include any other elements of the Project
identified in the Feasibility Report.
WHEREAS, the authorize the planning, design, engineering, and construction of the MINWR Bike Loop
Project and related transportation improvements, and the total appropriation of $__ from fiscal years,
available until expended.
WHEREAS, the authorize the planning, design, engineering, and construction of the CANA Bike Loop
Project and related transportation improvements, and the total appropriation of $__ from fiscal years,
available until expended.
WHEREAS, the FY __ Department of Transportation Appropriations Bill, Public Law 106-346, Section 378,
appropriated funding of $__from the Highway Trust Fund for planning, environmental work, and
preliminary engineering of the pedestrian and bicycle access to MINWR and CANA;
WHEREAS, 23 U.S.C. 308(a) authorizes the FHWA to perform engineering and other services for other
Federal or State Cooperating agencies in connection with the survey, design, construction, and
improvements of transportation enhancements;
WHEREAS, the FDOT has the jurisdictional and __ authority;
WHEREAS, the FHWA and the DDOT are authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the authority
contained in 31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1537, and 20 U.S.C. 76h et seq.;
WHEREAS, the USFWS has the responsibility for planning, design, and construction of capital repairs; for
replacement, improvements, alteration, and modifications to the buildings and grounds; for ensuring safe
and convenient access for vehicles and pedestrians; and managing and operating the grounds of The
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge;
WHEREAS, the NPS has the responsibility for planning, design, and construction of capital repairs; for
replacement, improvements, alteration, and modifications to the buildings and grounds; for ensuring safe
and convenient access for vehicles and pedestrians; and managing and operating the grounds of The
Canaveral National Seashore;
WHEREAS, The National Aeronautics and Space Act, Pub. L. No. 111314, 124 Stat. 3328 (Dec. 18,
2010) authorizes NASA to acquire (by purchase, lease, condemnation, or otherwise), construct, improve,
repair, operate, and maintain laboratories, research and testing sites and facilities, aeronautical and
space vehicles, quarters and related accommodations for employees and dependents of employees of the
Administration, and such other real and personal property (including patents), or any interest therein, as
the Administration deems necessary within and outside the continental United States;
WHEREAS, Congress has recognized the role of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to certain aspects
of transportation, and the USFWS and NPS, agencies of the U.S. Department of the Interior, administer
certain Federal lands in the vicinity of the Kennedy Space Center;
WHEREAS, the USFWS is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the authority contained in the
__ et seq.;
Page 3 of 8

WHEREAS, the NPS is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the authority contained in the
Organic Act of 1916, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.;
WHEREAS, the FHWA, as the central planning agency for the Nations transportation system, has review
and approval authority for development projects on public lands;
WHEREAS, the FHWA Eastern Federal Lands Division is responsible for coordinating the Federal interest
and preparing __ and is authorized to approve certain land transfers between and among Federal District
agencies in accordance with 40 U.S.C. 8124(a);
WHEREAS, the FHWA is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the authority contained in ___;
WHEREAS, the SCTPO has the review and approval authority of the funding; and has the responsibility to
review and advise in Brevard County, Florida; and advise on the of major importance;
WHEREAS, the SCTPO is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the authority contained in ___;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the ___, the Parties in consideration of the
mutual promises herein expressed, do hereby agree as follows:
Article I.
SCOPE OF WORK (Obligations, Responsibilities, and Funding)
Section 1.01 The EFLHD agrees to:

(a) With regard to the MINWR Bike Loop and CANA Bike Loop Projects:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Act as the __ Federal agency, and be responsible for the management of the overall
improvements to the Projects (with the exception of the buildings);
Consult and coordinate with the MINWR and CANA and all other Parties in the preparation of
design plans for the Projects, to maximize efficiencies in planning and executing the Projects;
With the MINWR and CANA, jointly prepare a supplemental Project Agreement for
administrative issues associated with the management of the overall Bike Loop Projects
including funds management and project coordination;
In conjunction with the CANA, and on behalf of the NPS or any other involved Federal agency,
submit to __ for review and approval: (i) schematic, preliminary, and final plans for the
Project, including the MINWR Bike Loop Project and the CANA Bike Loop Project, in
accordance with ___, and __ Project Plan Submission Requirements, and (ii) transfers of
property jurisdiction between and among Federal and District agencies necessary to
implement the Projects, in accordance with __;
Prepare periodic project and funding status reports (written or oral) on the Projects for all
parties as appropriate; and
Work with relevant parties to develop an Ownership and Maintenance Agreement for the
proposed Projects. Funding for the initial construction contract for the Projects will not be
obligated until such Agreement is completed.
(b) With regard to the Project:

Perform planning, design, engineering, and construction services;
Administer all surveying, mapping, and subsurface investigations for final design activities;
Design the Project in accordance with applicable NPS, AASHTO, and DDOT, standards and
guides, and the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal
Highway Projects, current edition, as amended;
10. Conduct field reviews with FDOT, USFWS, NPS, KSC, SCTPO, and other appropriate agencys
representatives attending;
7.
8.
9.
Page 4 of 8

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Prepare necessary right-of-way and other plans necessary for the review and approval of the
Project;
Prepare documents for permit for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1251, et seq.;
compliance for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 16
USC 470, et seq., in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the
NPS and USFWS; SFWMD permits; and any construction permits required;
Coordinate and acquire any necessary utility permits;
Procure and administer consulting services and construction contracts, including necessary
construction inspections, as appropriate, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR), and the Transportation Acquisition Regulation (TAR);
Assume responsibility for the administrative settlement or adjudication of any claims arising
from any contracts awarded by the EFLHD, in accordance with the FAR and TAR, and subject
to the availability of funds;
(c) The FHWA agrees to:

Act as a cooperating agency with regard to the review and approval of the Project;
Participate as necessary in all design activities and field reviews for the Project;
Review and concur in the approval of right-of-way plans, right-of-way acquisition, and utility
relocation activities.
4. Review and concur in the approval of the final plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E)
packages for advertisement;
5. Participate in the final inspection of the Project; and
6. With regard to the Project, be a party to any other Project Agreements as necessary.
1.
2.
3.
(d) The FDOT agrees to:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Act as a cooperating agency and be responsible for guiding the decisions associated with
improvements to USFWS or NPS-owned or maintained roadways or where FDOT interests are
involved;
Participate in design activities and field reviews, as applicable;
Approve the final design standards for all improvements related to NASA-owned right-ofway;
Assign and identify a FDOT employee as the Project Manager for the Project so that all
communication regarding the design and construction of the Project will be coordinated and
managed through that identified person;
Notify the SCTPO, Brevard County and the City of Titusville of impending work within
jurisdictional ward;
Cooperate in applicable project activities to ensure satisfactory completion of the Project;
Participate in the final inspection of the Project;
proposed Projects; and
With regard to the Project, be a party to any other Project Agreements as necessary.
(e) The Kennedy Space Center agrees to:

Act as a cooperating agency for the Project;
Assign and identify a KSC employee as the Project Representative for the overall Project so
that all communication regarding the design and construction of the Project will be coordinated
and managed through that identified person;
3. With the FHWA, jointly prepare a supplemental Project Agreement for administrative issues
associated with the management of the overall Project including funds management and
project coordination;
1.
2.
Page 5 of 8

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Participate in the design and construction activities, as applicable, and coordinate with the
EFLHD for facility and site improvements with design and construction activities, to the extent
reasonable;
Approve the final design standards for all improvements related to the KSC-maintained
facilities;
Participate in all design and construction field reviews;
Assume responsibility for the administrative settlement or adjudication of claims arising from
contracts awarded by the Kennedy Space Center in connection with this Agreement;
Project; and
With regards to the Project, prepare and/or be a party to any other Project Agreements as
necessary.
(f) The NPS agrees to:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Act as a cooperating agency and be responsible for guiding the decisions associated with
NPS lands for improvements to the, or where NPS interests are involved;
Participate in the design and construction activities and field reviews, as applicable;
Approve, in writing, the final design standards for all improvements related to NPS-owned
rights-of-way;
Assist with necessary permits;
Secure written approval from the Secretary of the Interior, where and if required by law, with
respect to the management and operation of the CANA grounds. As used in this provision, the
term grounds has the meaning set forth in 16 U.S.C. 76s;
Upon completion, accept maintenance of all improvements made to NPS-owned rights-of-way;
Receive transfer of jurisdiction from the NASA as may be necessary or result from the removal
or relocation of transportation infrastructure by the requirements of the Project on NPS-owned
rights-of-way; and
(g) The USFWS agrees to:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Act as a cooperating agency, under existing statutory authority;

Consult and coordinate with the Parties during all phases of the Project, and review and
participate as necessary;
Participate in all design and construction field reviews, as applicable;
Review and approve Federal land transfers prior to construction;
Assist with the activities necessary to provide the required final environmental and Section 106
compliance measures and the requisite coordination and approval process;
Participate in the final inspection of the Project; and
(h) The SCTPO agrees to:

1.
Act as a cooperating agency and be responsible for All of the parties shall perform such other
actions as are reasonably necessary to complete the design and construction as set forth in
Public Law 107-224, Sections 12 and 13, subject to the availability of funds.
Section 1.02 ARTICLE II: TERM OF AGREEMENT

This Agreement shall remain in effect until the work, including payment, has been completed to the mutual
satisfaction (written acceptance) of all Parties. The Agreement may be modified by written consent of all
of the Parties.
Page 6 of 8

All Parties to the Agreement will be afforded the opportunity to inspect, review and comment on, at any
time, work in progress; and to participate in all meetings and field reviews relating to the Plaza Project.
Section 1.03 ARTICLE III: KEY OFFICIALS AND CONTACTS

A. For the FHWA:
KEY OFFICIAL:
B. For the FDOT:
KEY OFFICIAL:
C. For the Kennedy Space Center:
KEY OFFICIAL:
D. For the NPS:
KEY OFFICIAL:
E. For the USFWS:
KEY OFFICIAL:
F. For the SCTPO:
KEY OFFICIAL:
CONTACT PERSON:
CONTACT PERSON:
CONTACT PERSON:
CONTACT PERSON:
CONTACT PERSON:
CONTACT PERSON:
Section 1.04 ARTICLE IV: EXPIRATION

This Agreement will expire when all transfers of funds are completed and all work associated with this
Agreement has been inspected and approved in writing by the Parties with written notification to the
FHWA.
The Parties to this Agreement do hereby agree to cooperate in the performance of the Agreement and to
meet all of the requirements set on them by this Agreement.
Section 1.05 ARTICLE V: ASSIGNMENT

No transfer or assignment of this Agreement, or any part thereof or interest therein, directly or indirectly,
voluntarily or involuntarily, shall be made unless such transfer or assignment is first approved in writing by
all Parties.
Section 1.06 ARTICLE VI: LIABILITY

Each Party accepts full responsibility for any property damage, injury, or death caused by the acts or
omissions of their respective employees, acting within the scope of their employment, or their contractors
scope of work, to the fullest extent of the law. All claims shall be processed pursuant to applicable
governing law.
Section 1.07 TORT CLAIMS:

Any claim filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq. (1994)), alleging an injury
during the performance of this Agreement, which may be traced to a Party, shall be received and
processed by the Party having responsibility for the particular injury-causing condition.
Section 1.08 ARTICLE VII: REQUIRED AND STANDARD CLAUSES

A. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting or affecting the legal authorities of the
Parties, or as requiring the Parties to perform beyond their respective authorities. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be deemed to bind any Party to expend funds in excess of available
appropriations.
B. NON-DISCRIMINATION: The Parties shall not discriminate in the selection of employees or
participants for any employment or other activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement on the
grounds of race, creed, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin, and shall observe all of the
provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252; U.S.C. 2000(d) et seq.). The
Page 7 of 8

Parties shall take positive action to ensure that all applicants for employment or participation in
any activities pursuant to this Agreement shall be employed or involved without regard to race,
creed, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin.
C. ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT: Pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1) (2003),
nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as binding the United States or the District
of Columbia to expend any sum in excess of appropriations made by Congress for the purposes
of this Agreement, or as involving the United States or the District of Columbia in any contract or
other obligation for the further expenditure of money in excess of such appropriations.
D. INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: No member of, or Delegate to, or Resident
Commissioner in Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any
benefits that may arise therefrom, unless the share or part or benefit is for the general benefit of
a corporation or company.
E. LOBBY PROHIBITION: The Parties will abide by the provisions of Section 1913 (Lobbying with
Appropriated Monies) of 18 U.S.C., which states:
No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of
express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal
service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device,
intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an
official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation,
law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill,
measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation;
but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or
agencies from communication to any such Member or official, at his request, or to Congress or
such official, through the proper official channels, requests for any legislation, law, ratification,
policy, or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public
business, or from making any communication whose prohibition by this section might, in the
opinion of the Attorney General, violate the Constitution or interfere with the conduct of
foreign policy, counter-intelligence, intelligence, or national security activities. Violations of this
section shall constitute violations of section 1352(a) of title 31.
F. This Agreement is subject to all laws governing Federal and District procurement and to all
regulations and rules promulgated thereunder, whether now in force or hereafter enacted or
promulgated, except as specified in this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed
as in any way impairing the general powers of the Parties for supervision, regulation, and control
of its property under such applicable laws, regulations, and rules.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives.
Page 8 of 8
Appendix C Draft PD&E Scope
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT (PD&E) STUD Y
Financial Project ID:
Federal Aid Project No.:
Description:
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge / Canaveral National Seashore Bike Loop
P:\300 Project Mgmt\12FT502_T2E_Trail_PDE\2.Engineering\2.40.Feasibility\DraftScope\PDE Scope_draft.docx
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT (PD&E) STUDIES
Contents
FINANCIAL PROJECT ID: ................................................................................................................................ 1
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
STUDY OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................................................................... 1
STUDY REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS FOR WORK .................................................................................. 2
Governing Regulations
2
Liaison Office
2
Key Personnel
2
Meetings and Presentations
3
Quality Control
3
Correspondence
3
Submittals
3
ENGINEERING ITEMS: ...................................................................................................................................... 4
COPIES: .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
COPIES: .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Computer Automation
4
Coordination with Other Consultants and Entities
4
Optional Services N/A
5
1
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 6
1.1
Public Involvement Program ______________________________________________________ 6
1.2
Public Involvement Data Collection ________________________________________________ 6
1.3
Notice of Intent N/A Only needed for an EIS. _____________________________________ 6
1.4
Advance Notification N/A ______________________________________________________ 6
1.5
Scheduled Public Meetings _______________________________________________________ 6
1.6
Unscheduled Public and Agency Meetings __________________________________________ 7
1.7
Public Hearing _________________________________________________________________ 7
1.8
Location and Design Concept Acceptance Per PD&E Manual___________________________ 7
1.9
Special Public Involvement Requirements ___________________________________________ 7
1.10 Quality Control ________________________________________________________________ 9

2
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND REPORTS ............................................................................................. 9
(Stage XX)
ii
FPID:

2.1
Data Collection ________________________________________________________________ 9
2.2
Field Review __________________________________________________________________ 9
2.3
Aerial Photography _____________________________________________________________ 9
2.4
Survey Coordination ___________________________________________________________ 10
2.5
Existing Roadway Characteristics_________________________________________________ 10
2.6
Existing Structure Characteristics N/A ____________________________________________ 10
2.7
Traffic Data __________________________________________________________________ 10
2.8
Crash Data ___________________________________________________________________ 10
2.9
Existing Signage Inventory N/A ________________________________________________ 10
2.10 Utilities ______________________________________________________________________ 10

2.11 Transportation Plans ___________________________________________________________ 10
2.12 Soils ________________________________________________________________________ 11
2.13 Base Map ____________________________________________________________________ 11
2.14 Safety _______________________________________________________________________ 11
2.15 Analysis of Existing Conditions __________________________________________________ 11
2.16 Development of Needs Statement ________________________________________________ 11
2.17 Design Analysis_______________________________________________________________ 11
2.18 Corridor Analysis N/A__________________________________________________________ 11
2.19 Traffic Analysis _______________________________________________________________ 11
2.20 Typical Section Analysis ________________________________________________________ 12
2.21 Design Alternatives ____________________________________________________________ 12
2.22 Prepare Concept Plans _________________________________________________________ 12
2.23 Drainage Analysis and Pond Siting Report _________________________________________ 12
2.24 Structures ____________________________________________________________________ 12
2.25 Access Management N/A _____________________________________________________ 12
2.26 Multi-modal Accommodation N/A ______________________________________________ 12
2.27 Maintenance of Traffic Analysis __________________________________________________ 12
(Stage II)
iii
FPID:

2.28 Geotechnical Coordination ______________________________________________________ 12
2.29 Intelligent Transportation Systems N/A___________________________________________ 12
2.30 Utilities and Railroads __________________________________________________________ 12
2.31 Other Engineering Services ______________________________________________________ 12
2.32 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives _____________________________________________ 13
2.33 Comparative Analysis and Evaluation Matrix _______________________________________ 13
2.34 Selection of Preferred Alternative(s) _______________________________________________ 13
2.35 Conceptual Design Plans (Preferred) ______________________________________________ 13
2.36 Identify Construction Segments __________________________________________________ 13
2.37 Value Engineering N/A _______________________________________________________ 13
2.38 Design and Construction Cost Estimates ___________________________________________ 13
2.39 Right of Way Cost Estimates N/A _______________________________________________ 13
2.40 Typical Section Package ________________________________________________________ 13
2.41 Design Exceptions and Variances_________________________________________________ 13
2.42 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) _____________________________________________ 13
2.43 Lighting Justification Report N/A _______________________________________________ 14
2.44 Quality Control _______________________________________________________________ 14
3
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND REPORTS ..................................................................................... 14
3.1 Social and Cultural Impacts _____________________________________________________

3.1.1
Land Use Changes
3.1.2
Economic
3.1.3
Mobility
3.1.4
Visual Impacts and Aesthetics
3.1.5
Relocation Potential N/A
14
14
14
14
15
15
3.2 Cultural Resources _____________________________________________________________ 15

3.2.1
Archaeological and Historic Resources
15
3.2.2
Section 4(f) N/A
16
3.3 Natural Impacts _______________________________________________________________
3.3.1
Wetlands
3.3.2
Conceptual Mitigation Plans
3.3.3
Water Quality
3.3.4
Special Designations
(Stage II)
iv
16
17
17
17
17
FPID:

3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8
3.3.9
Floodplains
Wildlife and Habitat
Essential Fish Habitat
Identify Permit Conditions
Farmlands N/A
17
17
17
17
17
3.4 Physical Impacts ______________________________________________________________

3.4.1
Noise N/A
3.4.2
Air Quality N/A
3.4.3
Construction Impact Analysis
3.4.4
Contamination
17
17
17
17
17
3.5 Environmental Reports _________________________________________________________

3.5.1
Class of Action Determination
3.5.2
Environmental Assessment
3.5.3
Finding of No Significant Impact N/A
3.5.4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement N/A
3.5.5
Final Environmental Impact Statement N/A
3.5.6
Quality Control
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES ............................................................................................................... 18
4.1
Contract and Project Files _______________________________________________________ 18
4.2
Project Management Meetings and Coordination ____________________________________ 18
4.3 Additional Services ____________________________________________________________ 19

4.3.1
Geotechnical Investigations and Analysis N/A
19
4.3.2
Survey
19
5
METHOD OF COMPENSATION .......................................................................................................... 19
SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE DEPARTMENT ......................................................................... 19
(Stage II)
FPID:

This Exhibit forms an integral part of the agreement between the State of Florida Department of
Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT) and . (hereinafter referred to as the
CONSULTANT) relative to the transportation facility described as follows:
Financial Project ID:
Federal Aid Project No.:
Description:
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Exhibit is to describe the scope of work and the responsibilities of the CONSULTANT
and the DEPARTMENT in connection with the Preliminary Engineering (Conceptual Design), and
Environmental Studies necessary to comply with Department procedures and to obtain Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Location and Design Concept Acceptance (LDCA) of proposed improvements to this
transportation facility.
The Project Development Process shall follow the DEPARTMENT'S publication titled "Project Development
and Environment Manual", published 07/01/88 and all subsequent revisions. Throughout this Scope of
Services portion of this CONSULTANT Contract, the publication will be referred to as the "PD&E Manual".
All tasks identified in this scope of work will be done in accordance with the Departments PD&E Manual,
unless otherwise stated.
The PD&E Manual incorporates all the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
Federal law and executive orders; applicable Federal regulations included in the Federal Highway
Administration Federal-Aid Policy Guide; and applicable State laws and regulations including Chapter
339.155 of the Florida Statutes. The project documentation prepared by the CONSULTANT in accordance
with the PD&E Manual shall therefore be in compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws,
executive orders, and regulations.
The CONSULTANT shall perform those engineering services required for LDCA studies, including
consideration of all social, economic, environmental effects, and mitigation as required by the FHWA
and/or the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual, along with the required environmental
documents, engineering reports, preliminary plans, public hearing, and right-of-way maps.
Sections 1 through 4 of the Scope of Services will establish which items of work described in the PD&E
Manual are specifically included in this contract, and also which of the items of work will be the
responsibility of the CONSULTANT or the DEPARTMENT.
The DEPARTMENT will provide contract administration and provide management services and technical
reviews of all work associated with the development and preparation of the engineering/environmental
study reports for the transportation facility.
STUDY OBJECTIVE
The CONSULTANT is to study the addition of a trail connection between the Coast-To-Coast Connector in
Titusville and Playalinda Beach, and the Titusville to Edgewater Bike Loop in Volusia County. The intent of
the study is to develop and evaluate potential preliminary design alternatives/routes which would provide
trail users a scenic opportunity through existing natural areas such the Merritt Island National Wildlife
Refuge (MINWR), Canaveral National Seashore (CANA), the Indian River Lagoon and the Mosquito
Lagoon, among others. The proposed MINWR / CANA Bike Loop is intended to provide a connection
between the existing and proposed trail heads in Titusville and Edgewater which are associated with the
East Central Rail Trail and is envisioned to be a potential national destination for both recreational and
experienced trail users. Evaluation alternatives for the trail shall include separate trail facility.
The CONSULTANT shall perform those engineering services required for LDCA studies, including
consideration of all social, economic, and environmental effects, and mitigation as required by the FHWA
and/or Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual, along with the required environmental
documents, engineering reports, preliminary plans, public hearing, and right-of-way maps.
(Stage II)
FPID:

The CONSULTANT shall also perform those engineering services required by National Park Service
Directors Order #12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision-Making,
effective date 10/5/2011.
STUDY REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS FOR WORK

Governing Regulations
The services performed by the CONSULTANT shall be in compliance with all applicable DEPARTMENT
Manuals and Guidelines. The DEPARTMENT'S Manuals and Guidelines incorporate by requirement or
reference all applicable State and Federal regulations. The current edition, including updates, of the
following DEPARTMENT Manuals and Guidelines shall be used in the performance of this work. It is
understood that AASHTO criteria shall apply as incipient policy.
Florida Statutes
Florida Administrative Codes
Applicable federal regulations; and technical advisories
Project Development and Environment Manual
Plans Preparation Manual
Roadway Traffic and Design Standards
Highway Capacity Manual
Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction, and Maintenance for Streets
and Highways
Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual
Right-of-Way Mapping Handbook
Location Survey Manual
EFB User Guide
Drainage Manual
Outline Specifications - Aerial Surveys/Photogrammetry
Soils and Foundations Manual
Structures Design Guidelines
CADD Manual (No. 625-050-001)
CADD Production Criteria Handbook
Florida's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning (No. 525-000-005)
Equivalent Single Axle Load Guidelines (No. 525-030-121)
Design Traffic Procedure (No. 525-030-120)
K-Factor Estimation Process
Project Traffic Forecasting Guidelines
Florida Highway Landscape Guide
Basis of Estimates Manual
Utility Accommodation Manual
Liaison Office
The DEPARTMENT will designate a Liaison Office and a Project Manager who shall be the representative
of the DEPARTMENT for the Project. While it is expected the CONSULTANT shall seek and receive advice
from various state, regional, and local agencies, the final direction on all matters of this Project remain with
the Project Manager who facilitates coordination with the team consisting of the customers of the final
product (i.e. In-house Design, Consultant Project Management, etc.).
Key Personnel
The CONSULTANT'S work shall be performed and directed by the key personnel identified in the proposal
presentations by the CONSULTANT. Any changes in the indicated personnel shall be subject to review and
approval by DEPARTMENT.
(Stage II)
FPID:

Meetings and Presentations
The CONSULTANT shall attend a Notice to Proceed Meeting with DEPARTMENT representatives, where
relevant project information will be provided by the DEPARTMENT, along with procedures for
administering the contract. The CONSULTANT and his staff shall also be available with no more than a five
(5) workday notice to attend meetings or make presentations at the request of the DEPARTMENT. Such
meetings and presentations may be held at any hour between 8:00 A.M. and 12:00 midnight on any day
of the week. The CONSULTANT may be called upon to provide maps, press releases, advertisements,
audiovisual displays and similar material for such meetings.
Quality Control
The CONSULTANT shall be responsible for insuring that all work products conform to DEPARTMENT
standards and criteria. This shall be accomplished through an internal Quality Control (QC) process
performed by the CONSULTANT. This QC process shall insure that quality is achieved through checking,
reviewing, and surveillance of work activities by objective and qualified individuals who were not directly
responsible for performing the initial work.
Prior to submittal of the first invoice, the CONSULTANT shall submit to the DEPARTMENT'S Project Manager
for approval the proposed method or process of providing Quality Control for all work products. The
Quality Control Plan shall identify the products to be reviewed, the personnel who perform the reviews,
and the method of documentation.
Correspondence
Copies of all written correspondence between the CONSULTANT and any party pertaining specifically to
this study shall be provided to the DEPARTMENT for their records within one (1) week of the receipt of said
correspondence.
Submittals
As needed, documents will be submitted by the Consultant through the Electronic Review Comments (ERC)
process.
The CONSULTANT shall provide copies of the required documents as listed below. These are the
anticipated printing requirements for the project. This tabulation will be used for estimating purposes, and
the Project Manager will determine the number of copies required prior to each submittal. Electronic files
will be made of all deliverables.
(Stage II)
FPID:

Engineering Items:
Copies:
4
First Draft Project Development Summary Report
4
Second Draft Project Development Summary Report
4
Final Project Development Summary Report (Signed and Sealed)
4
Location Hydraulics Technical Memorandum
3
Drainage/Pond Siting Report
3
Conceptual Design Roadway Plan Set
2
Right of Way Plans (conceptual, draft and final)
3
Geotechnical Report
4
Typical Section Package
N/A
Bridge Hydraulic Report
N/A
Bridge Development Report
8
Value Engineering Information Report
3
Utility Assessment Package
3
Conceptual Lighting Justification Technical Memorandum
Copies:
Environmental Items:
2
Public Involvement Plan
N/A
Class of Action Determination
Included
in PER
Type II Categorical Exclusion
N/A
Section 4(f) Statement
N/A
Noise Study Report
3
Air Quality Report
3
Contamination Screening Evaluation Report
N/A
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
2
Public Hearing Transcript
3
Natural Environment Report (Wetlands/Wildlife/Habitat)
N/A
Essential Fish Habitat
3
Cultural Resource Assessment
Upon completion of the study, the CONSULTANT shall deliver to the DEPARTMENT, in an organized
manner, all project files, maps, sketches, worksheets, and other materials used or generated during the
study process.
Computer Automation
The project will be developed utilizing Computer Aided Drafting and Design (CADD) systems. The
DEPARTMENT makes available software to help assure quality and conformance with the policy and
procedures regarding CADD. It is the responsibility of the CONSULTANT to meet the requirements in the
FDOT CADD Manual (Topic No. 625-050-001). The CONSULTANT will submit final documents and files as
described therein. Additional related information is found in the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual (Topic
No. 625-000-008).
All computer disks shall be scanned for viruses prior to submitting to FDOT. Failure to scan for viruses may
result in a lower Consultant work performance evaluation.
Coordination with Other Consultants and Entities
The CONSULTANT is to coordinate their work with any ongoing and/or planned projects that may affect
this study.
The CONSULTANT is to coordinate with local governmental entities to ensure design and right of way
requirements for the project are compatible with local public works improvements and right of way
activities.
(Stage II)
FPID:

Optional Services N/A
(Stage II)
FPID:

Public Involvement
Public Involvement is an important aspect of the project development process. Active public involvement
fosters understanding and cooperation between the DEPARTMENT and the public.
The intent of public involvement is to fully inform and involve all interested public officials, local agencies,
public transit providers, property owners adjacent to the project as well as those not subject to right-ofway acquisition, citizens, businesses, and special interest groups in the development of the transportation
project. All have a stake in the decisions and it is important that these stakeholders are provided an
opportunity for input in the transportation decision making.
The CONSULTANT shall carry out a Public Involvement Program on this project as outlined in Part 1,
Chapter 11, and Part 2, Chapter 9 of the PD&E Manual and the following sections.
The CONSULTANT shall provide to the DEPARTMENT drafts of all Public Involvement collateral (i.e.,
newsletters, property owner letters, advertisements, etc.) associated with the following tasks for review and
approval at least fifteen (15) business days prior to printing and / or distribution.
1.1 Public Involvement Program

The CONSULTANT shall assist the DEPARTMENTs Project Manager in developing and maintaining a Public
Involvement Program (PIP) that is project specific, results oriented and a working document. The purpose of
the PIP to establish and maintain a strategy for early, meaningful, and continuous public and stakeholder
involvement throughout the PD&E process up to the time of Preliminary Engineering (PE) Begin. Obtaining
stakeholder public consensus throughout the PD&E phase is the desired outcome of the PIP. The PIP will
establish public outreach goals and strategies to achieve the goals. The outcome and measurement of
effectiveness of each goal should be included in the plan. Any changes to the outreach effort goals shall
be reflected in an amended PIP. The PIP is a document that will be updated regularly to reflect the current
public involvement status of PD&E up to the time the project design begins (PE Begin). The PIP is a
document that will transition into the DEPARTMENT's Design Community Awareness Plan (CAP).
1.2 Public Involvement Data Collection

The collection of public input occurs throughout the life of the project and requires maintaining files,
newspaper clippings, and especially direct contacts before, during, and after any public meetings. Articles
such as mentioned, shall be provided to the Department. In addition to public involvement data collection,
the CONSULTANT shall assist the DEPARTMENT in preparing responses to any public inquiries as a result of
the public involvement process.
1.3 Notice of Intent N/A Only needed for an EIS.

1.4 Advance Notification N/A
1.5 Scheduled Public Meetings
The CONSULTANT shall provide all support necessary for the DEPARTMENT to hold or participate in
various public meetings, which may include but not limited to:
Scoping Meetings - N/A

Elected Officials/Agency Kick-off Letter
Public Kick-off Meeting 1
Corridor or other Public Meeting N/A
Alternatives Public Meeting - 1
For any of the above type meetings, the CONSULTANT shall prepare and/or provide:
(Stage II)
Scripts or agenda for presentation

Handouts
Multi-media presentation, equipment and graphics for presentation
Meeting equipment set-up and tear-down
FPID:

Legal and/or display advertisements (The CONSULTANT will pay the cost of publishing)
Letters for notification of elected and appointed officials, property owners and other
interested parties (The CONSULTANT will pay the cost of first class postage)
News releases, for use three to five days prior to meeting
Summary notes of meetings to be provided to the Department no later than 5 business days
after the meeting
Briefing of Department staff, No debriefing of Department staff will be held with Consultant
The CONSULTANT will investigate potential meeting sites to advise the DEPARTMENT on their suitability.
The CONSULTANT will pay all costs for meeting site rents and insurance.
The CONSULTANT will attend the meetings with an appropriate number of personnel to assist the
DEPARTMENT'S Project Manager.
It is estimated for this project there will be 2 Public meetings during the study.
1.6 Unscheduled Public and Agency Meetings

In addition to scheduled public meetings, the CONSULTANT will be required to participate in unscheduled
meetings with the public, elected officials, or public agencies. The CONSULTANTs participation will include
participation during the meeting, providing a PowerPoint presentation, note taking, and summarizing the
meeting in a memo to the file. It is estimated for this project there will be XX meetings during the study.
One of the goals of these meetings will be to identify and document the vision of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR), and the National
Park Service (NPS) for the Canaveral National Seashore (CANA).
1.7 Public Hearing

The CONSULTANT shall provide all the support services listed in Sections 1.2 and 1.5 above, and in
addition shall prepare:
Public officials and Agency letters - The CONSULTANT will prepare the letters, insert them in envelopes, and
address the envelopes. The CONSULTANT will pay for first class postage.
Property owner letters - The CONSULTANT will provide marked tax maps of the project alternatives and
identify the names and addresses of the property owners from county tax rolls. The CONSULTANT will
prepare the letters, insert them in envelopes, and address the envelopes. The CONSULTANT will pay for first
class postage.
All elements of the multi-media presentation

Multi-media presentation, equipment and graphics
Displays of plans and report(s) for the public display
Brochures or handouts
Prepare public advertisements
Court Reporter
Briefing of Department staff
The CONSULTANT will procure a verbatim transcript of the Public Hearing. The CONSULTANT will combine
the transcript with any letters received by the DEPARTMENT as part of the public hearing record, and
affidavits of publication of legal ads, and will provide copies of the transcript for the DEPARTMENT'S use.
The CONSULTANT will also prepare a Public Hearing Summary if the project will be processed as a
Categorical Exclusion.
1.8 Location and Design Concept Acceptance Per PD&E Manual

1.9 Special Public Involvement Requirements
Identify and Inspect Public Meeting Sites
(Stage II)
FPID:

Prospective sites for any public meetings to be held shall be inspected for suitability. Consideration
shall be given to location, seating capacity, sound system, lighting, multimodal accessibility (on a
transit route), display space and any other physical characteristics which would influence the
viability of this site, including compatibility with the terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990. Possible Public Information Workshop sites (which may also be the Public Hearing site)
should be catalogued. Sites which have characteristics more suitable to a Public Hearing (than a
more informal information workshop) shall be catalogued. The CONSULTANT shall make all
arrangements for use of the meeting facility for the Public Information Workshop(s) and Public
Hearing including payment of any rental fees, if applicable.
Correspondence
Within three days of the receipt or mailing of all written correspondence between the
CONSULTANT and any party pertaining to this study, copies shall be provided to the
DEPARTMENT for their records.
Newsletters
The CONSULTANT shall prepare newsletters at various key points during the study. The newsletters
shall be mailed by the CONSULTANT to elected officials, property owners, businesses and
interested persons included on the mailing list compiled by the CONSULTANT. DEPARTMENT review
prior to mailing is required. A maximum of XX newsletters are anticipated.
Commitments and Recommendations
All documentation of the public participation (including commitments and recommendations)
accomplished throughout the study period shall be recorded in the PIP. This includes summaries and
responses to the comments received from the Public Involvement Efforts, Advance Notification
Process, coordination with local officials and agencies, public meetings, etc. as part of Part 2,
Chapter 31 of the PD&E Manual. See 1.1 for more details about the PIP. The CONSULTANT shall
prepare a plan of action for each commitment and documentation of coordination efforts with
stakeholders including preliminary funding agreements with local governments, Joint Participation
Agreements, etc. for inclusion in the PIP. These comments, coordination efforts, and agreements shall
also be submitted with the final Project Development Summary Report.
Presentation Videos for the Alternatives Public Meeting and Public Hearing N/A
Project Web Site
The CONSULTANT will create a project web site for this project. The project is expected to take
24 months. This site will have a distinct address on the World Wide Web (i.e., www.xxxx). A link
will be established on the Florida Department of Transportation Home page as well as the
CONSULTANTs home page. To allow for input via E-mail links, meeting information and report
summaries will be available for viewing and downloading. Limited graphics will be available due
to the size and downloading time for many graphical applications. The web site must be updated
monthly.
The web site will contain a minimum of five pages:
A facts page (home page)
A PD&E definition page
A project information page
A public involvement page, and
A project schedule page
The facts page will be a brief overview of what the project is, and the need for the project.
(Stage II)
FPID:

A link to this site will appear wherever the acronym PD&E appears on any of the subsequent
pages. It will give a brief overview of how a PD&E project is done and the outcomes possible from
it.
The project information page will have specific project information as well as results of workshops,
hearings, etc. This will be updated to add or delete alternatives being considered as necessary.
The public involvement page will contain a general overview of proposed meetings. This will
include Public Information Meetings, Public Workshops, Speakers Bureau, Neighborhood
Homeowners Association Meetings, Public Hearing, and any other meeting the DEPARTMENT would
like added to the site. The page will also contain an area where viewers may enter their name
and address (both are to be mandatory inputs) to be added to the mailing database. The Project
Managers name will be listed as a contact with his FDOT mailing, and E-mail addresses listed as
well as his/her telephone and fax at the District Office. This page will also contain all above
information listed for the Departments Project Manager on the subscription page. All pages will
be linked to the public involvement page.
The project schedule will contain a brief generalization of the milestones for this project. Milestones
will be taken from the schedule developed by the CONSULTANT, as approved by the
DEPARTMENT.
The project specific website will be linked directly to that project's commenting tool within the
CFGIS Project Diary. The CONSULTANT will coordinate with the Department to allow the
Department to provide a direct link with the Comment Reports.
1.10 Quality Control

This task includes producing and implementing a QA/QC plan, also includes sub-consultant review,
response to comment and any resolution meetings if required, and assembly of plans and submittals for
review. The hours are based on 5-10% of analysis and report activities. The tasks identified for QA/QC
are:
Base maps, all tasks associated with the Needs section, all tasks associated with the Design analysis, with
the exception of Value Engineering, all drafts of the Project Development Summary Report, and all other
project documents.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND REPORTS
The CONSULTANT shall coordinate and perform the appropriate level of engineering analysis for this
project as outlined in Part 1, Chapter 4 of the PD&E Manual and the following sections.
2.1 Data Collection

Upon Notice to Proceed, the CONSULTANT shall begin preliminary assessments of the study corridor from
an engineering standpoint. This task is largely of a data gathering nature. This activity consists of collecting
various information and materials relative to the performance of engineering analyzes within the study
area. The information should include all data necessary to perform adequate evaluation of the location
and design of a transportation facility.
Refer to documents produced by the Titusville to Edgewater Bike Loop PD&E Study, 2015.
2.2 Field Review

The CONSULTANT shall conduct all anticipated field trips needed to collect engineering data.
2.3 Aerial Photography

Aerial Photography shall be used as a basis for plotting various data necessary for both engineering and
environmental analysis, alternative corridor and design studies, and the development of the preliminary
plans of conceptual design. Copies of aerial photography are the prime source of information used to
convey project considerations to the public at public meetings.
(Stage II)
FPID:

The CONSULTANT will furnish the necessary aerial photography to be used in the study. Aerial
photography shall be prepared for the following uses at the noted ratios:
Overall Project Location Map
1= 1000
Drainage master Plan
1= 400
Corridor Location Maps
1= 400
Alternative Plans
1= 200
Detail
1= 100
2.4 Survey Coordination

This task is for the CONSULTANT to coordinate with the survey sub consultant regarding project
requirements, review of survey data, and scheduling. Survey activities for this project are described under
section 4.3 of this document.
2.5 Existing Roadway Characteristics

This task includes gathering data on pertinent corridor physical features and conditions which help in better
understanding the existing highway segments under consideration in this contract. Most of this information is
available from the DEPARTMENT; however, other references including field observations and interviews
with knowledgeable people will yield additional data. DEPARTMENT sources include: project files, contract
documents, right-of-way maps, Straight Line Diagrams, Roadway Characteristic Inventory, and drainage
maps.
The CONSULTANT shall be responsible to procure all the engineering data listed in Part 1, Chapter 9 of
the PD&E Manual and other data necessary to conduct a PD&E study and prepare a Preliminary
Engineering Report. The CONSULTANT shall develop a CADD database, supported by computer
spreadsheets, that includes all existing highway characteristics noted above, as appropriate. CADD
database information shall be compatible for use on aerial photography used for Public Hearing displays,
the Corridor Base Map(s), and Conceptual Design Plans.
2.6 Existing Structure Characteristics N/A

2.7 Traffic Data
The Department will provide all traffic data.
2.8 Crash Data

The CONSULTANT shall obtain available data from local sources for various highway segments required.
Obtain data for previous five years. The data collected shall include the number and type of accidents,
accident locations, number of fatalities and injuries, and estimates of property damage and economic loss.
The Consultant will perform one (1) update with available crash data prior to the public hearing and
document in the PER. Assumes no significant changes or document revisions.
2.9 Existing Signage Inventory N/A

2.10 Utilities
In accordance with Part 2, Chapter 10 of the PD&E Manual. This activity includes, but is not limited to:
identification of all utilities, contact and obtain existing utility information including non-reimbursable and
reimbursable cost estimates, evaluate impacts during the alternative development. (Refer to 2.28 for Utility
Assessment Package.) Utility impacts will be documented in the PER.
2.11 Transportation Plans

The CONSULTANT shall obtain plans for all modes of transportation including surface, transit and nonmotorized modes. The following plans or studies should be obtained:
(Stage II)
10
FPID:

MINWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP);

CANA General Management Plan (GMP);
Kennedy Space Center 2012 2032 Master Plan
County Cost Feasible and Needs Plans;
Local Comprehensive Plans; and
Transit, rail, bus, other non-motorized modes, including bikeways and pedestrian walkways.
2.12 Soils
The CONSULTANT shall review the United States Department of Agriculture, Geological Survey, Soil
Conservation Service Maps and summarize the findings.
2.13 Base Map

The CONSULTANT shall develop a CADD database that includes existing characteristics. CADD data base
information shall be compatible for use on aerial photography used for public hearing presentations,
corridor maps, and alternative plans.
2.14 Safety
Based on the information obtained from the crash data, the CONSULTANT shall identify project needs
associated with the safety of the existing facility.
2.15 Analysis of Existing Conditions

The CONSULTANT shall analyze the existing conditions in order to identify any deficiencies that are to be
identified in the Needs section.
2.16 Development of Needs Statement

The Consultant shall update and verify the purpose and need statement and project description accepted
by the lead agency from the Programming Summary Report as outlined in Part 2, Chapter 5 of the PD&E
Manual. The CONSULTANT will ensure consistency between the accepted Purpose and Need Statement in
the Programming Summary Report and the Needs Statement in the Project Development Summary Report.
2.17 Design Analysis

Utilizing the data collected as part of this scope of work, the CONSULTANT shall perform the engineering
analysis necessary to complete the project development process. The task of engineering analysis will be
ongoing throughout the duration of the project and will be performed with consideration to the results of
the environmental impacts analysis.
After selection of viable corridor(s), the CONSULTANT shall develop and analyze alternate conceptual
design alternatives. The development of the design alternatives shall consider the desires of the community
with respect to landscaping, aesthetics, or other special features in order to satisfy the requirements of the
Departments policy on Transportation Design for Livable Communities. Viable alternatives shall be
developed in each corridor. The CONSULTANT shall obtain concurrences for those conceptual
improvements/alternatives from the Project Manager who facilitates coordination with the team consisting
of the customers of the final product (i.e. In-house Design, Consultant Project Management, etc.).
The CONSULTANT shall develop and evaluate all viable alternatives in order to address the project
needs.
2.18 Corridor Analysis N/A

2.19 Traffic Analysis
The DEPARTMENT will provide all traffic data and analyses. The CONSULTANT will review as required the
scope of services for the traffic analysis and draft information being prepared by the DEPARTMENT to
determine and include applicable information in the Design Traffic Technical Memorandum.
The Consultant will complete the PD&E Design Traffic Reevaluation Assessment Checklist and include in the
PER. Assumes no significant changes or document revisions.
(Stage II)
11
FPID:

2.20 Typical Section Analysis

The CONSULTANT shall develop up to four (4) initial and up to two (2) viable typical section alternatives
for the project and obtain concurrences from the Department. These will include the Departments standard
typical sections, or any typical sections that may result in minimizing right of way and construction costs as
well as design efforts.
The CONSULTANT shall perform a spot speed study and summarize findings in a technical memorandum.
2.21 Design Alternatives

The CONSULTANT shall develop up to two (2) viable trail alternatives using one (1) typical section to
determine the best scenario based upon the requirements of National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Park Service
(NPS).
2.22 Prepare Concept Plans

The CONSULTANT will overlay Concept Plans on the base maps. At a minimum, the concept plans should
include preliminary horizontal geometry (including any side streets improvements), bridges, intersections,
critical locations of Back of Sidewalk Profiles, drainage details, existing public transit stops, existing and
proposed right-of-way lines, edge of pavement and median openings.
2.23 Drainage Analysis and Pond Siting Report

The CONSULTANT shall perform preliminary drainage design in order to determine potential outfall
locations and preliminary sizes (volume and area) of required detention and/or retention facilities for
storm water treatment or attenuation. The location and size of potential detention/retention areas along
with the location of their respective storm-sewers/drainage ditches/outfalls will be determined for all
viable alternate alignments.
2.24 Structures
The CONSULTANT shall develop pedestrian bridge concepts for locations to mitigate environmental
impacts.
2.25 Access Management N/A

2.26 Multi-modal Accommodation N/A
2.27 Maintenance of Traffic Analysis
The CONSULTANT will analyze the design alternatives for constructability, and the ability to maintain
traffic. The cost to maintain traffic will be in the final estimate for each alternative.
2.28 Geotechnical Coordination

The CONSULTANT must coordinate with the geotechnical sub-consultant regarding project requirements,
review of geotechnical data, and scheduling. Geotechnical activities for this project are described under
section 4.3 of this document.
2.29 Intelligent Transportation Systems N/A

2.30 Utilities and Railroads
The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with any affected utility and railroad in analyzing the proposed
design alternatives. The railroad is owned and maintained by NASA; utilities are maintained under
agreements between NASA, USFWS (MINWR) and NPS (CANA).
2.31 Other Engineering Services

The CONSULTANT shall also perform those engineering services required by National Park Service
Directors Order #12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision-Making,
effective date 10/5/2011.
(Stage II)
12
FPID:

2.32 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

The DEPARTMENT will determine which viable alternative(s) will be evaluated further through the public
involvement process and environmental analysis. The possibility exists that the No-Build alternate may be
selected at this point.
2.33 Comparative Analysis and Evaluation Matrix

After developing the viable alternatives and costs, the CONSULTANT will prepare a matrix comparing the
impacts and costs of the alternatives evaluated, with a recommendation of the most viable alternative(s).
The CONSULTANT shall present their recommendations to the DEPARTMENT for consideration.
2.34 Selection of Preferred Alternative(s)

The CONSULTANT shall recommend a preferred alternative(s) based on a review and analysis of all
engineering, environmental, and public involvement issues related to the project.
2.35 Conceptual Design Plans (Preferred)

The CONSULTANT will finalize concept plans for the preferred alternative that include refinements from
the public hearing.
2.36 Identify Construction Segments

The CONSULTANT shall identify construction segments in MINWR and in CANA.
2.37 Value Engineering N/A

2.38 Design and Construction Cost Estimates
The CONSULTANT shall develop construction cost estimates for each design alternative. The construction
cost estimate is to be developed using the Departments long range estimating (LRE) program. A design
cost estimate will be developed by the CONSULTANT for the preferred alternative using the Districts
Staff-Hour estimation guidelines and related forms and average estimated cost rates. Engineering
experience can be used to estimate the design effort for structures design in lieu of the Districts Staff-Hour
estimation guidelines and related forms. The purpose of the design cost estimate is to provide for an
additional quality control check and to obtain a more realistic estimate of the design costs for future
budgeting proposes and not to negotiate design fees. The Departments staff and CONSULTANT will meet
to review and finalize the design cost estimate for the preferred alternative.
2.39 Right of Way Cost Estimates N/A

2.40 Typical Section Package
The CONSULTANT will prepare the Typical Section Package in accordance with the Departments Plans
Preparation Manual and obtain Districts concurrence.
2.41 Design Exceptions and Variances

The CONSULTANT will identify potential exception and variance (s) for the preferred alternative in
accordance with the Departments Plan Preparation Manual.
2.42 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER)

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 4 in
the PD&E Manual.
The CONSULTANT will include an Action Plan for each of the commitments that will be placed in the PER.
The action plans may include existing partners, the background reason/history for the commitment, identify
responsibilities, include preliminary funding agreements, unresolved issues, related correspondence, etc.
(Stage II)
13
FPID:

2.43 Lighting Justification Report N/A

2.44 Quality Control
The CONSULTANT shall prepare a specific Quality Control plan for this project and provide it to the
Department for approval.
are:
Base maps, all tasks associated with the Needs section, all tasks associated with the Design
analysis, with the exception of Value Engineering, all drafts of the Preliminary Engineering Report,
and all other project documents.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND REPORTS
The CONSULTANT shall coordinate and perform the appropriate level of environmental analysis for this
project as outlined in the PD&E Manual and the following sections.
The CONSULTANT shall utilize the Programming Summary Report and graphical information from the
Environmental Screening Tool (EST) available at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo, Florida Geographic Data
Library (FGDL), or other appropriate, database that includes all existing features. This data base
information shall be compatible for use on base maps used for public hearing presentations, corridor
maps, and alternative plans.
3.1 Social and Cultural Impacts

The CONSULTANT shall collect data regarding the following Socio-cultural issues. Pertinent data shall be
collected, analyzed and summarized in the appropriate section of the Preliminary Engineering Report
(PER). Pertinent data shall also be displayed on the base map, as applicable. These issues shall be
analyzed in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 9 of the PD&E Manual and the Sociocultural Effects
Evaluation Handbook (available at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo).
3.1.1 Land Use Changes
Issues identified as needing further coordination include:
Plan Consistency: consistency with comprehensive conservation plans, visitor service plans and general
management plans.
3.1.1.1 Social
Public Involvement will be conducted throughout the PD&E study to solicit input from the general public and
other interested parties.
Community Goals and Quality of Life: social value changes, compatibility with community goals and vision.
3.1.2 Economic
Public Involvement will be conducted throughout the PD&E study to solicit input from the general public and
other interested parties.
Commerce: business and/or business district access, visibility, traffic patterns, and parking issues. Input from
business interests along the corridor
Tax Base: business impacts that affect the tax base, employment opportunities and property values
3.1.3 Mobility
Issues were identified as needing further study.
(Stage II)
14
FPID:

3.1.4 Visual Impacts and Aesthetics
Aesthetics: noise/vibration sensitive sites, view-shed, project aesthetics, community character and aesthetic
values, landscaping.
3.1.5
Relocation Potential N/A
3.2 Cultural Resources

3.2.1 Archaeological and Historic Resources
All work shall be conducted by a professional qualified under the provisions of 36 CFR 61, and be done in
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665, as amended) and the
implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) as well as with the provisions contained in Chapter 267, Florida
Statutes.
Task 1: Conduct a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS)
A CRAS will be conducted for that portion of the proposed Edgewater to Titusville bike trail through the
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) property in
Brevard County. Prior to the initiation of the CRAS, an Area of Potential Effect (APE) will be established in
consultation with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). The APE is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d) as the geographic area or areas within
which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties,
if such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking as well as its
geographical setting, and must include measures to identify and evaluate both archaeological and
historical resources. Typically for trails, the APE for both archaeological sites and historic resources is
limited to the width of the proposed trail. A Phase I archaeological survey and Archaeological Resources
Protection Act (ARPA) permit from the NPS South East Archaeological Center (SEAC) are required of the
trail alignment and staging areas to identify archaeological sites and historic resources within the APE.
Those areas identified must also be documented in the Environmental Assessment (EA). In areas where the
trail is proposed to follow a railroad corridor, an archaeological survey is not typically required due to
the previous disturbance of the area. Historic resource surveys are required along railroad corridors.
Surveys are also not required for previously surveyed areas within the APE. Parts of the proposed trail are
within the boundaries of previous surveys.
Preliminary background research conducted as part of this feasibility study indicates that the project area
is located within an archaeologically rich area and that two previously recorded archaeological sites
(8BR76 and 8BR2229) intersect the proposed trail along Kennedy Parkway. The National Register
eligibility of these sites has not been evaluated. Therefore, an evaluation will be conducted as part of the
CRAS. Five previously recorded historic resources were also identified, including the National Registerlisted Haulover Canal (8BR188), the National Register-eligible NASA Railroad at Kennedy Space Center
(8BR2931), and the National Register-eligible NASA KSC Railroad System HD (8BR2932). The National
Register eligibility of two previously recorded resources, the New Smyrna Road at Kennedy Space Center
(8BR2230) and New Haulover Canal (8BR2258) has not been evaluated. The National Register eligibility
of these resources will need to be included in the CRAS.
Because preliminary background research indicates that parts of the project area are within the
boundaries of previous surveys, an archaeological survey is recommended for those area that have not
been recently surveyed and that are within areas considered to have a high or moderate probability for
archaeological sites. Subsurface testing in areas of high site potential will be conducted at roughly 25 m
(80 feet) intervals, and in areas of moderate site potential at roughly 50 m (160 feet) intervals.
Subsurface testing in areas considered to be of low archaeological site potential will be conducted on a
judgmental basis. Subsurface tests will be .5 m (20 inches) in diameter and excavated to a minimum depth,
subsurface conditions permitting, of one meter (3.3 feet). All excavated soils will be sifted through 6.4 mm
( inch) metal hardware cloth screen suspended from portable wooden frames. Any cultural materials
recovered will be stored in plastic bags with all provenience data recorded. Field notes on each test
performed will be recorded, and the location of all tests will be clearly marked on aerial photographs of
the project area. The laboratory processing will consist of the cleaning, stabilization (if needed),
(Stage II)
15
FPID:

inventorying, packaging, and temporary storage of the artifacts recovered. Artifact analysis will involve
the morphological and functional classification of artifacts and, if possible, establish their temporal/cultural
affiliations. All artifacts, excluding human remains, will then be transferred to the property owner.
The archaeological survey will also focus on confirming the locations of the two previously recorded
archaeological sites and determining their National Register eligibility, as feasible. Prior to the initiation of
any archaeological subsurface testing, a Permit for Archaeological Research (ARPA permit) issued under
the Archaeological Resources Protection ACT (ARPA), the Antiquities Act, or both will need to be obtained
from the National Park Service for any testing on federal land. A copy of an ARPA permit application is
included in Attachment X. In addition, special use permits will need to be obtained from each separate
property (MINWR and Cape Canaveral Seashore). The permitting process takes approximately 30-90
days to complete.
Coordination with the Sunshine State One Call Center will also be conducted prior to the initiation of
subsurface testing in order to identify the locations of known underground utilities. Detailed background
research will also be conducted to include an updated search of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) and
pertinent records held by the KSC or MINWR related to cultural resources in the project area. A summary
of the project area's history, prehistoric and historic archaeology, and salient environmental features will
be prepared from the results of the background research and literature review. This overview will describe
each project area's archaeological record, important events, locations, structures and individuals
associated with the area. The environmental description will include a discussion of present and past
environmental conditions. This information will also provide the context in which the significance of any
archaeological sites or historic structures identified during the project can be evaluated.
A draft report presenting the specific methods, findings, evaluations, and recommendations of the
investigations will be prepared for review. New or update FMSF forms and a Survey Log Sheet will be
completed to include any new information provided by the investigations and will be submitted with the
report. Once comments are received and any necessary changes are incorporated into the report, a final
report will be prepared. It is anticipated that copies of the report will be submitted to FDOT, FHWA,
SHPO, NPS, MINWR, and KSC for review.
Task 2: Evaluate Effects and Prepare a Section 106 Documentation and Determination of Effects Report
Subsequent to the CRAS, a Section 106 Analysis of Effects will need to be conducted for any National
Registerlisted and eligible resources located within the APE. Due to their level of significance, resources
related to the space program that are National Register-eligible may involve a certain degree of
complexity when working through potential effects.
The Section 106 Analysis of Effects document will include general description of the project and its
benefits, historical context, description of significant resources, discussion of potential effects to the
resources, and a preliminary description of measures proposed to mitigate adverse effects, if appropriate.
As part of this task, a meeting will be held with the affected parties to discuss the Section 106 process,
effects to the significant historic resource, and the development of appropriate mitigation options. It is
anticipated that affected parties will include the FDOT, FHWA, SHPO, National Park Service, the Kennedy
Space Center Historic Preservation Officer and representatives of the MINWR.
Task 3: Memorandum of Agreement (Optional Services)
A Memorandum of Agreement will only need to be prepared if there are adverse effects to any National
Registerlisted or eligible resources. If needed, the MOA will develop stipulations for mitigation and other
strategies based on input from agencies and involved parties.
3.2.2 Section 4(f) N/A
Section (f) Evaluation is not required by US Fish & Wildlife Service or National Park Service.
3.3 Natural Impacts

Existing work should be used as reference and starting point.
(Stage II)
16
FPID:

3.3.1 Wetlands
In accordance with Part 2, Chapter 18 of the PD&E Manual and Directors Order #77-1 of the National
Park Service for Wetland Protection, a wetlands delineation will need to be completed of the proposed
trail alignment and staging areas. If under 10 acres, a Wetlands Statement of Findings will not be
required. If over 10 acres, a Wetlands Statement of Findings will be required and disturbed wetlands are
to be mitigated within the park. Both the delineation results and Wetlands Statement of Findings will have
to be documented within the Environmental Assessment (EA).
3.3.2 Conceptual Mitigation Plans
In accordance with Part 2, Chapter 18 of the PD&E Manual. Coordinate with MINWR CCP and CANA
GMP.
3.3.3 Water Quality
In accordance with Part 2, Chapter 20 of the PD&E Manual.
3.3.4
Special Designations
Outstanding Florida Waters
Wild And Scenic Rivers
Aquatic Preserves
Coastal Barrier Resources
3.3.5 Floodplains
3.3.6 Wildlife and Habitat
3.3.7 Essential Fish Habitat
3.3.8 Identify Permit Conditions
In accordance with the PD&E Manual, Part 1, Chapter 10, the CONSULTANT shall identify permit
conditions, type of permits required, mitigation options and coordination conducted during the project. This
task includes the review of maps and data in order to determine permit related information for the
project. The intent of this task is to identify all needed permits and any special issues or conditions to
consider during permit acquisition or design. Permits have been previously secured for this project. These
permits should be used to the fullest extent possible.
3.3.9
Farmlands N/A
3.4 Physical Impacts

3.4.1
Noise N/A
3.4.2
Air Quality N/A
3.4.3 Construction Impact Analysis

3.4.4 Contamination
The CONSULTANT shall perform the necessary analysis to complete the Contamination Screening
Evaluation for all proposed alternatives, and complete the Contamination Screening Evaluation Report as
described in Part 2, Chapter 22, of the PD&E Manual.
(Stage II)
17
FPID:

3.5 Environmental Reports

The Environmental Documents prepared by the CONSULTANT will comply with the procedures listed in the
PD&E Manual, Part 1, and will also follow the format and include content described in Part 2 of the PD&E
Manual. The task of documentation includes the preparation of draft and interim reports prepared by the
CONSULTANT for review and comment upon by the DEPARTMENT prior to producing final reports and
documents.
3.5.1 Class of Action Determination
An Environmental Assessment, as defined by the USFWS and NPS, is the expected level of environmental
documentation required for this project. The CONSULTANT will complete the Environmental Determination
Form to document the Class of Action as described in Part 1, Chapter 2, of the PD&E Manual.
3.5.2 Environmental Assessment
The CONSULTANT will also provide all the documentation required by the PD&E Manual and by USFWS
DO #12.
3.5.3
Finding of No Significant Impact N/A
3.5.4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement N/A
3.5.5
Final Environmental Impact Statement N/A
3.5.6 Quality Control

are:
Base maps, all tasks associated with the Needs section, all tasks associated with the Design analysis, with
the exception of Value Engineering, all drafts of the Preliminary Engineering Report, and all other project
documents.
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES
4.1 Contract and Project Files

Project Management efforts for complete setup and maintenance, developing monthly progress reports,
schedule updates, work effort to develop and execute sub-consultant agreements etc. Progress reports
shall be delivered to the DEPARTMENT in a format as prescribed by the Department and no less than 10
days prior to submission of the corresponding invoice. Judgment on whether work of sufficient quality and
quantity has been accomplished will be made by the Project Manager by comparing the reported percent
complete against actual work accomplished.
Within ten (10) days after the Notice to Proceed, the CONSULTANT shall provide a schedule of calendar
deadlines accompanied by an anticipated payout curve. Said schedule and anticipated payout curve shall
be prepared in a format prescribed by the DEPARTMENT.
4.2 Project Management Meetings and Coordination

The CONSULTANT shall meet with the DEPARTMENT as needed throughout the life of the project. It is
anticipated XX meetings will be needed. These meetings will include progress and miscellaneous review
and other coordination activities with the Department.
(Stage II)
18
FPID:

4.3 Additional Services

4.3.1
Geotechnical Investigations and Analysis N/A
4.3.2 Survey
XX roadway cross sections from 25 outside right of way line to 25 outside of right of way line. Cross
sections to be taken with a conventional level at areas as provided by the EOR. The horizontal and vertical
control for these sections will be based on data collected using the FDOT GPS network Spider or an
equivalent network.
CONSULTANT shall not expend supplemental survey budget unless approved in writing by District Location
Surveyor or District Five Consultant Survey Manager.
METHOD OF COMPENSATION
Payment for the work accomplished will be in accordance with Exhibit B of this contract. Invoices shall be
submitted thru the Department's web enabled Consultant Invoice Transmittal System (CITS) Internet
application. The DEPARTMENT'S Project Manager and the CONSULTANT shall monitor the cumulative
invoiced billings to insure the reasonableness of the billings compared to the project schedule and the work
accomplished and accepted by the DEPARTMENT.
Payments will not be made that exceed the percentage of work identified in the approved payout curve
and schedule provided in accordance with Section 4.1.
SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE DEPARTMENT
The DEPARTMENT will provide those services and materials as set forth below:
(Stage II)
Project data currently on file, specifically the Feasibility Report, and all appendices, prepared
under the 2014 Titusville to Edgewater Bike Loop PD&E Study.
All available information in the possession of the DEPARTMENT pertaining to utility companies
whose facilities may be affected by the proposed construction
All future information that is in possession or may come to the DEPARTMENT pertaining to
subdivision plans, so that the CONSULTANT may take advantage of additional areas that can
be utilized as part of the existing right-of-way.
Process Advance Notification and all environmental and engineering documents including
Permit Coordination Package.
Coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
Existing FDOT right-of-way maps.
The DEPARTMENT will permit the CONSULTANT to utilize the DEPARTMENT'S computer
facilities upon proper authorization as described in the DEPARTMENT Procedure No.
261 009. The models anticipated for use in this project are CAL3QHC2, COSCREEN98,
MOBILE 5a, FSFAC05, FSFAC08, TEXIN, and STAMINA 2.1.
The DEPARTMENT will provide available FDOT crash data.
Design Traffic
19
FPID:
Appendix D Concept Plans
Appendix E Agency Coordination
The MINWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Appendix G Visitor Services Plan, advises:
Some individuals use bike riding as a mode of transportation to view wildlife, while others use it a sport.
When the use is aimed at wildlife viewing, the use may be compatible with a Big Six priority use. However,
based on anecdotal information, research, and best professional judgment of staff, bicycling in open
marsh habitats appears to cause more wildlife disturbances than bicycle riding in upland locations.
Therefore, a rule of thumb for this plan is to steer wildlife oriented bicycle riding into more upland
locations, or wetland locations where vegetative screens exist, and wildlife disturbance can be reduced.
With the adoption of this plan, Refuge policy regarding bike riding for the purpose of wildlife viewing
would be to contain the activity to established paved or unpaved roads, or tree-lined dikes where it does
not present a safety hazard to the bicyclist or motorist, and where wildlife disturbances can be minimized.
The Refuge would work with KSC, the Seashore, Brevard County, and others in selecting locations for
bike paths which support their plans, and provide quality wildlife viewing opportunities while minimizing
wildlife impacts.
In a letter, dated August 28, 2013, Layne Hamilton, Refuge Manager, gave the following Bicycle Path
Guidelines
Since bicycling on a wildlife refuge entails a different purpose from bike trails on other lands, below are
design considerations and examples to help facilitate a design that meets the needs of the Merritt Island
National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR), and are hopefully acceptable by FDOT. All design elements of the
Titusville to Edgewater bicycle trail that will be on Refuge property shall be designed for recreational and
wildlife viewing use in order for the trail to remain compatible with the National Wildlife Refuge System's
Big Six approved activities.
Primary Use: While this trail will provide connectivity between the City of Titusville and the City of
Edgewater, as well as access to the Refuge using alternative modes, its primary use is for wildlife
observation and interpretation. Therefore, please work with the Refuge staff to incorporate areas for
pullouts, stopping location for vantage points, and wildlife observation.
Trail Surface: To promote recreational use and a wildlife viewing environment, it is requested that other
trail surfaces be explored as alternatives to paving, though paving in certain areas would be accepted.
Width: It is anticipated that along certain segments environment constraints will dictate the trail width (i.e.
for the portion along the berms the width of the berm might dictate the width of the trail, and in areas
along the railroad a width should be chosen that allows for maintenance vehicles). However, a narrower
width is preferred in order to minimize the impact to wildlife and the habitat. This should not comprise
visitor/user safety, however.
Design Speed: Please incorporate design and geometric features that will keep user's speed lower in order
to allow for wildlife viewing. Consider speeds appropriate or rural trails and recreational users.
Barriers: If a barrier between the railroad and the trail is deemed necessary, consider a barrier that will
allow for the flow of wildlife across the tracks such as vegetative barrier, or picketed fence.
Summary of June 2, 2014 Phone Conversation with Cheri Ehrhardt, USFWS NEPA Compliance Specialist
at MINWR
With the limited information she had on the T2E Trail Project, the USFWS NEPA Compliance Specialist gave
a recommendation to prepare one environmental assessment (EA) document, and a finding of no significant
impact (FONSI) for each agency. It was also mentioned that the FHWA has the option of preparing a
Categorical Exclusion after the completion of the FONSIs. In regards to NEPA requirements, the three federal
agencies involved would have to decide on their own how they would want to address such requirements.
Table 11 presents a comparison of the differences in the content and organization of Environmental
Assessment documents prepared for the Federal Highway Administration to those for the US Fish & Wildlife
Service.
Significant differences:
USFWS organizes the analysis by alternative rather than by topic.

USFWS does not require an analysis of impacts to many of the topics that FHWA does, e.g. social
and cultural environment or physical environment, except for economic impacts; natural environment
only as impacts to wetlands and wildlife
NASA Coordination
In a letter dated August 22, 2013, from Mario Busacca, Chief of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Spaceport
Planning Office, set forth the Requirements for the Establishment of Bike Trail on the Kennedy Space Center
and Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge:
There are a number of actions and issues that need to be addressed prior to any implementation:
Because this project occurs on federal lands, requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) must be completed. This means that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will
be responsible for funding and preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project for FWS
and NASA. The said EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) must be completed prior to
final approval by both the FWS and NASA.
FDOT will be responsible for the design and construction of the trail. A plan for these responsibilities
must be submitted to the FWS and NASA for approval. Also, FWS and NASA would need to be a
party to the design process, and be given the opportunity to review and concur on all designs.
The responsibility for the maintenance of the path will have to be established. An agreement would
need to be in place to establish who is responsible for regular maintenance and repairs.
It is understood that FDOT's plans are to pave the paths. Given the overall length of the trail, it may
trigger the thresholds for Stormwater permitting. FDOT would be responsible for obtaining any said
permits, and the maintenance of any systems required. However, as outlined in the refuge's
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Visitor Services Plan, ... bicycle riding as an activity
that is not connected to wildlife viewing or another Big Six use is not wildlife oriented and not
appropriate." The Big Six refers to the National Wildlife Refuge System improvement Act of 1997
that sets forth six activities (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education, and interpretation) as the primary public uses of the Refuge System. We
request other trail surface materials be explored as alternatives to paving to encourage wildlife
viewing and other opportunities for visitors, though paving in certain areas would be acceptable.
As a portion of the trail would be adjacent to the KSC Rail Line, the following requirements would
apply:
o
NASA and MINWR have the option to close the path when there is train traffic, or for
operational needs (similar to launch days)
There must be assurance that people stay off the gravel rock base of the railway system,
which is unsafe for the bicyclists, and damages the railway system. Options:
If there is a barrier - path must be l0 feet from rail
If there is no barrier path must be 15 feet from rail
Possible signage options:

"Do not cross tracks"
"Do not cross barrier"
"Keep off the track"
Ideal condition for the path next to the tracks is not having any vegetation touching the
train cars
Some areas will need clearing and widening
The issue of liability has not yet been determined. Neither NASA nor the FWS intend to assume any
liability for injuries, or other potential impacts that the users might incur. Any approvals, such as
easements, will have to delineate this issue.
When all of these conditions are met, an easement or other authorization for construction would be
provided to the FDOT. Such casement would not be provided until all conditions are satisfied.
Kennedy Space Center 2012 2032 Master Plan

NASA also requires that any trails be consistent with the Kennedy Space Center 2012 2032 Master Plan.
Under Development Factors, the Plan notes:
The unique relationship between space flight and protection of natural resources is carefully orchestrated
to ensure that both objectives are achieved with minimal conflict. KSC has designated undeveloped
portions of its land to be managed for wildlife habitat conservation, and, as a conditional and noninterfering use, public access for recreation to pristine coastal beaches, inland waterways, and nature
trails.
In addition to development constraints associated with sensitivity to KSCs natural environment, the built
environment has key characteristics unique to a spaceport that influence development suitability and
development capacity. These considerations include Quantity Distance (QD) arcs, lines of site and vehicle
impact limit lines. Principles that have historically guided land use planning at KSC include risk avoidance
for the general public and risk management for KSC personnel. This includes separating the general public
from launch hazards by establishing significant safety buffers, and limiting access to hazardous areas by
KSC personnel except as appropriate. Quantity Distance (QD) arcs encompass 1,842 acres and are
concentrated in the vertical and horizontal launch, assembly integration and testing, and space systems
test and processing areas. To enable the expansion of developing technologies and facilities that support
horizontal launch and landing and vertical landing capabilities, an east-west corridor just south of Beach
Road has been identified.
There are 477 acres of paved and unpaved existing road network infrastructure connecting the mainland
and quinti-modal network, and provides access to expanded development.

2 Minwr Feasibility Report Final

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2 Minwr Feasibility Report Final

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Florida Department of

Titusville to Edgewater Trail

Titusville to Edgewater Trail

Prepared for Florida Departmentof Transportation

I, Fraser S. Howe Jr., have prepared this Feasibility

Fraser S. Howe Jr, P.E. No. ~ l 5:58

METRO CONSULTING GROUP, LLC (Cert. of Auth. No. 29325)

P:\300 PROJECT MGMn 12FT502_ T2E_ TRAIL_PDE\2.ENGINEERING\2.40.FEASIBILITY\424040_2_MINWR_FEASIBILITY

TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

MINWR ROUTE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

MINWR ROUTE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

Project Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

Physical Inventory and Assessment of Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 13

General Description ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Existing Typical Sections .............................................................................................................................. 14

Existing Roadway ROW .............................................................................................................................. 14

Roadway Classification ............................................................................................................................... 14

Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................................... 14

Horizontal and Vertical Alignments ........................................................................................................... 15

Pedestrian Accommodations ....................................................................................................................... 15

Bicycle Facilities Location, Type, Width, and Designation ................................................................ 15

3.10 Lighting Type, Condition, Spacing, and Maintaining Agency .......................................................... 15

Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................................................................. 19

Trail Concept Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20

TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

MINWR ROUTE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

Segment 1 Titusville (Coast to Coast) .................................................................................................... 20

Segment 2 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Coast to Coast) ........................................... 21

Segment 3 Playalinda Beach (Coast to Coast) ................................................................................... 22

Segment 4 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Titusville to Edgewater) 1 ......................... 23

Segment 5 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Titusville to Edgewater) 2 ......................... 25

Environmental Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 26

Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 26

Wildlife and Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 27

Stakeholder Coordination ........................................................................................................................................................ 37

US Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................................... 37

National Aeronautics and Space Administration .................................................................................... 39

National Park Service .................................................................................................................................. 42

FHWA Eastern Federal Lands .................................................................................................................... 42

Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization ............................................................................. 42

Public Involvement ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43

Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix A Meeting Notes

TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

MINWR ROUTE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

MINWR ROUTE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

MINWR ROUTE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

Figure 1: Project location

TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

MINWR ROUTE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

Figure 2: Titusville to Edgewater Trail original route

TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 3: Proposed trail segments in Brevard County

MINWR ROUTE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

MINWR ROUTE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

Project Purpose and Need

TITUSVILLE TO EDGEWATER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY