Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Report 

for the 

All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project 

from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

Prepared for: 

United States Army Corp of Engineers 

Prepared by: 

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 

404 SW 140th Terrace 

Newberry, Florida 32669 

AMEC Project Number 6063120212 

September 2013 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

i 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... iv

1.1 Background, Project Location and Proposed Action ......................................................... iv

1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................. iv

2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Description of the Proposed Action .................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Method/Results of On-site Inspections ............................................................................ 2-2

2.2.1 Wetland Delineation Methods .............................................................................. 2-4

2.2.2 Benthic Assessment Methods ............................................................................. 2-4

2.2.3 Results of Field Investigation ............................................................................... 2-4

3.0 EFH and Managed Species ........................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Essential Fish Habitat within the Project Area ................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 Estuarine Scrub/Shrub (Mangroves) ................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Estuarine Subtidal Open Water/Water Column (Estuarine Planktonic) .............. 3-1

3.1.3 Tidal Creeks (Mud/Sand and Sand/Shell Bottom) .............................................. 3-2

3.2 EFH Managed Species that May Occur in the Project Area ............................................ 3-2

3.2.1 Grouper Snapper Complex .................................................................................. 3-5

3.2.1.1 Gray Snapper ....................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.1.2 Mutton Snapper .................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.1.3 Goliath Grouper .................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.2 Spiny Lobster ....................................................................................................... 3-8

3.2.3 Penaeid Shrimp ................................................................................................... 3-9

4.0 Impacts to EFH ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Construction Methods ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Direct Impacts .................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.3 Indirect Impacts ................................................................................................................ 4-2

4.4 Temporary Impacts .......................................................................................................... 4-2

4.5 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... 4-3

5.0 Avoidance, Minimization and Proposed Mitigation ................................................................ 5-1

6.0 References ................................................................................................................................... 6-1

List of Tables 

Table 1-1. Proposed Action and Results of Field Investigation 

Table 2-1. Species with EFH in the Project Vicinity 

Table 2-2. Estuarine EFH of Penaeid Shrimp

Table 3-1. Managed Species and Affected Lifestages

Table 4-1. Anticipated Impacts, Wetland Assessment and Proposed Mitigation for each Bridge 

Project Area

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Proposed Project Alignment along the North-South Corridor and East-West Corridor 

from Miami to the Orlando International Airport 

Figure 2. Bridge Project Areas with EFH 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A. Photograph Log 

Appendix B. Aerial Photographs 

Appendix C. Construction Drawings 

Appendix D. Wetland Assessment Forms
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

ii 

Table of Contents (continued) 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AAF All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulation 

BMP best management practice 

dB decibels 

DLE Department of Law Enforcement 

DEM Division of Emergency Management 

EA Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Statement (EA) for the AAF 

Proposed Rail Project between West Palm Beach and Miami, and adjacent 

areas within which the system, stations, and vehicle maintenance facility 

(VMF) released for public circulation and comment from October 31, 2012 

through December 3, 2012.1

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

East-West Corridor Approximate 40-mile extension of the Project proposed from Cocoa to 

Orlando, Florida 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EWRAP Estuarine Wetland Rapid Assessment Method 

FAC Florida Administrative Code 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FEC Corridor Florida’s East Coast 

FECI Florida East Coast Industries, Inc. 

FPL Florida Power and Light 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact issued by FRA on January 30, 2013, based 

on the information in the EA.2

 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

I-95 Interstate 95 

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature 

MCO Orlando International Airport 

MP Mile Post 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

No. Number 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

North-South Corridor North-South 128.5-mile extension from West Palm Beach to Cocoa 

Project AAF plans to connect Southeast and Central Florida with a privately owned 

and operated intercity passenger rail system with stations located in Orlando, 

West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami 

ROW right-of-way 

RRIF Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 

SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

 

1All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF). 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida 

Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. Available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. 

2

 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2013. Finding of No Significant 

Impact for the All Aboard Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. Available at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Details/L04277.
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

iii 

Table of Contents (continued) 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued) 

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method 

USC United States Code 

USACE US Army Corp of Engineers 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

WRAP Wetland Rapid Assessment Method 

VMF Vehicle Maintenance Facility 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

iv 

1.0 Executive Summary 

1.1 Background, Project Location and Proposed Action 

All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF) is currently developing a 235-mile intercity passenger 

railroad system that will connect Orlando, Florida and Miami, Florida, with intermediate stops in Fort

Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida (Project or Proposed Action). The proposed Project will 

fulfill several public policy objectives, by, among other things, reducing our state’s dependence on 

fossil fuels, relieving transportation congestion in the region and improving air quality as a result.

Furthermore, the Project will serve as a means to enhance job creation and economic development 

within South-Central Florida. 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 [42 United States Code (USC) 

4321 et seq], and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations [40 Code of Federal 

Regulation (CFR) 1500-1508], the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has initiated an evaluation 

of the potential environmental and related impacts of constructing and operating an intercity 

passenger rail service as proposed by AAF. As AAF intends to apply for a loan under FRA’s 

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program pursuant to 49 CFR Part 260, 

FRA must consider the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project pursuant to NEPA. 

As described in more detail in the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) for the Project that was published by FRA in the Federal Register on April 15, 2013, FRA shall 

act as the lead Federal agency in conducting the environmental review and preparing, reviewing, 

revising and completing the environmental documentation related to the Proposed Action. The EIS 

shall be prepared to satisfy the requirements of NEPA. 

AAF previously completed an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation (AAF EA)3 for 

intercity passenger rail service between Miami and West Palm Beach, Florida. FRA issued a Finding 

of No Significant Impact (AAF FONSI)4

 for the AAF EA in January 2013. To the extent that actions 

have not changed since the AAF EA, these would not be evaluated by FRA as part of the EIS. 

1.2 Purpose 

This Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment focuses on bridge locations where construction of the 

Project is proposed between Miami and Cocoa, Florida (Project Area), as there are no tidally 

influenced waters along the East-West Corridor. This EFH Assessment was prepared to evaluate 

potential impacts to EFH as a result of Project construction. The literature review identified four EFH 

types (estuarine planktonic, mangrove, sand/shell bottom and mud/sand bottom) in the vicinity of the 

proposed Project Areas. The literature review and personal communication with Brandon Howard of 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries5 identified several species 

within the Snapper Grouper Complex in addition to white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus), pink shrimp 

(Farfantepenaeus duorarum) and brown shrimp (F. aztecus) and spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) that 

may utilize the habitats available in the proposed Project Area. The managed species identified 

during the literature review and through personal communication with NOAA Fisheries staff are listed 

in the Table ES-1, along with the managing agency and fisheries management plan for each 

species. 

 

3

 All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF). 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All 

Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. Available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/ 

eLib/details/L04278. 

4

 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2013. Finding of No 

Significant Impact for the All Aboard Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. Available at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Details/L04277. 

5

 Howard, Brandon. 2012/2013. NOAA Fisheries. Personal Communication September 2012 – May 2013. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

v 

Table ES-1. Managed Species with EFH in the Project Vicinity 

Species Name Managing Agency Fisheries Management Plan

Goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara) SAFMC Snapper Grouper Complex 

Grey snapper (Lutjanus griseus) SAFMC Snapper Grouper Complex 

Mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) SAFMC Snapper Grouper Complex 

Spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) SAFMC Spiny Lobster 

Pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) SAFMC Penaeid Shrimp 

White shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus) SAFMC Penaeid Shrimp 

Brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus) SAFMC Penaeid Shrimp 

Notes: SAFMC = South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council 

The proposed bridge construction may have direct short-term adverse effects on the water quality in 

the vicinity of the Project. During construction, sediment control best management practices (BMPs) 

including installation of turbidity curtains and silt fencing would be utilized to protect surface waters; 

therefore, long-term impacts to the managed species in the vicinity of the Project would be 

minimized. 

Fifteen bridge projects over water bodies that contain EFH are proposed as part of the Project from 

Miami to Cocoa. The impacts to EFH, associated with the proposed Project, vary by Project Area. 

Overall direct permanent impacts to wetlands and surface waters associated with these bridge 

projects, including shading, is approximately 0.88 acres. Secondary impacts including noise and 

vibration during construction are anticipated to be minimal and temporary in nature. Based on the 

limited impacts, the potential impacts as a result of project construction on the managed species, 

affected life stages, and EFH are also expected to be minimal. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

vi 

Figure 1. Proposed Project Alignment along the North-South Corridor and East-West Corridor 

from Miami to the Orlando International Airport 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-1 

2.0 Introduction 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as those waters and substrates necessary to support fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The concept of EFH was established in 1996 

with the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 

which requires the cooperation of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Fisheries [formerly known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)], eight Regional Fishery 

Management Councils, Federal and State agencies, resource users, and others to protect, conserve, 

and enhance EFH. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) is responsible for the 

conservation and management of fish stocks within the federal 200-mile limit of the Atlantic Ocean 

off the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and eastern Florida to Key West. SAFMC 

is responsible for the development of fishery management plans and amendments to ensure 

sustainable fisheries. Implementation of the regulations, including federal requirements for permits 

for some fisheries, is the responsibility of NOAA Fisheries. SAFMC also identifies Habitat Areas of 

Particular Concern (HAPC). These are areas within EFH that are ecologically important, sensitive to 

disturbance, or rare. 

An EFH Assessment is a review of a proposed project and the project’s potential impacts to EFH6

and is required for this Project due to the presence of designated EFH within the proposed Project 

corridor. As set forth in NOAA Fisheries’ rules, EFH Assessments must include: (1) a description of 

the Proposed Action; (2) an analysis of the effects, including cumulative effects, of the action on 

EFH, the managed species, and associated species by life history stage; (3) the Federal agencies’ 

views regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and (4) proposed mitigation, if applicable.6

 If 

appropriate, the EFH Assessment should also include the results of an on-site inspection, the views 

of recognized experts on the habitat or species affected, a literature review, an analysis of 

alternatives to the Proposed Action, and any other relevant information.6

 This section describes the 

Proposed Action and presents the results of the on-site inspections. Subsequent sections of this 

document present the managed species potentially affected by the Proposed Action; the Federal 

agencies’ views regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and mitigation. 

2.1 Description of the Proposed Action 

The proposed Project is composed of two corridors: (1) a north-south corridor of approximately 

195 miles from Cocoa Beach, Florida to Miami, Florida (North-South Corridor), within the existing rail

right-of-way (ROW) along the east coast of Florida (FEC Corridor) and (2) an east-west corridor of 

approximately 40 miles from Cocoa Beach, Florida, to the Orlando International Airport (MCO) 

where the terminal station will be located (East-West Corridor). The North-South Corridor will 

connect downtown West Palm Beach to downtown Miami with one stop in downtown Fort 

Lauderdale. The North-South Corridor improvements for the Project will take place entirely within the 

FEC Corridor. That existing rail ROW within the North-South Corridor is approximately 100 feet wide 

and has supported freight and/or passenger service on a continuous basis for more than 100 years. 

The FEC Corridor was originally built as a double-track railroad, but today it is mostly single track 

with several sidings. The roadbed for the second track in the corridor still exists today and would be

used for the additional track improvements. Figure 1 provides a site location map of the FEC 

Corridor in which the majority of the Project is proposed. 

Project improvements along the North-South Corridor include: 

• Returning the existing railroad corridor to a dual-track system to allow for the addition of fast, 

dependable and efficient passenger service; and 

 

6

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation District Southeast 

Regional Office. 2008. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. Available: 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide _2008. pdf. Accessed October 2012. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-2 

• Enhancement or replacement of aging timber constructed railroad bridges. 

This EFH Assessment is evaluating the impacts to EFH associated with railroad bridge 

enhancement/replacement projects between Miami and Cocoa within the FEC Corridor (Figure 1). 

AAF is proposing enhancement/replacement to 34 bridges between Miami and Cocoa; however, 

only 19 of these bridges will require in-water work or a change in the footprint of the bridges. Four of 

the 19 bridges were determined to be upstream of salinity barriers. Bridges over water bodies with 

salinity barriers downstream are not included in this assessment, as the Project Areas are not 

accessible to marine species and do not include EFH. There are no proposed bridge structures over 

tidally influenced waters along the East-West Corridor; therefore, the remainder of this EFH will only

focus on the 15 bridges along the North-South Corridor depicted in Figure 2 (Bridge Project Areas). 

Each Bridge Project Area is defined as the footprint of that bridge, as well as the area upstream and 

downstream within the limits of construction. 

2.2 Method/Results of On-site Inspections 

The proposed alignment for the Project from Miami to Cocoa will require in-water work for 

enhancement or replacement of 15 timber railroad bridges over water bodies containing EFH (Figure 

2). Wetland delineations and snorkeling surveys were conducted at each of the 15 Bridge Project 

Areas to evaluate the type and quality of aquatic habitats and associated substrates [i.e., submerged 

aquatic vegetation (SAV) and oyster beds/shell bottom] for EFH determinations and to evaluate 

potential impacts to wetlands and other sensitive habitats. The results of these inspections were 

used to evaluate potential impacts to EFH and the managed species as a result of Project 

construction. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-3 

Figure 2. Bridge Project Areas with EFH 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-4 

2.2.1 Wetland Delineation Methods 

Potential wetlands in the Bridge Project Areas were identified and delineated in accordance with 

Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Chapter 62-340, the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) 1987 

Wetland Delineation Manual7

 and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland 

Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains Region (version 2.0).8 Field resources included 

the FDEP manual on wetland delineation.9

 The FDEP’s method for determining a wetland boundary 

is as follows: 

“The landward extent of wetlands shall be determined by the dominance of plant species, 

soils and other hydrologic evidence indicative of regular and periodic inundation or 

saturation. In all cases, attempts shall be made to locate the landward extent of wetlands 

visually by on-site inspection, or aerial photo interpretation in combination with ground 

truthing, without quantitative sampling.” 

The above-referenced FDEP methodology utilized to identify and delineate wetlands includes all 

jurisdictional wetlands otherwise identified and described by the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation 

Manual and the regional supplement.8 

2.2.2 Benthic Assessment Methods 

Estuarine natural communities of Florida may be separated into mineral-based, faunal-based, and 

floral-based communities. Mineral-based communities, faunal-based communities (e.g. octocoral 

bed, sponge bed, coral reef, mollusk reef, and worm reef communities), floral-based communities 

(e.g. algal beds, seagrass beds, tidal marsh, and tidal swamp), and composite substrate 

communities all occur in sub-tidal, intertidal, and supra-tidal zones10

. 

The purpose of the benthic survey was to characterize the bottom composition as well as evaluate 

the presence of rooted seagrass beds, oyster beds (live or dead), sponges, and other benthic 

colonizing organisms. AMEC performed visual in-water reconnaissance of the Bridge Project Areas. 

Benthic surveys were performed in accordance with the NOAA NMFS guidance for assessing small 

project sites less than or equal to 1 hectare.11 Based on proposed Project size and location, AMEC 

field personnel performed a bottom survey that included a center line transect beneath the existing 

bridge structure as well as transects on both the east and west sides of the existing bridge 

structures. As part of the in-water seagrass survey protocol, if seagrasses were determined to be 

rooted within the Bridge Project Area, field personnel would delineate and quantify patch 

distribution.12

2.2.3 Results of Field Investigation 

Table 1-1 summarizes the Proposed Action and the results of the field assessment at each of the 

15 Bridge Project Areas over water bodies containing EFH. 

 

 

7

 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual (FAC, Chapter 62-340). 

8

 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 

Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) 

9

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2008. Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface 

Waters (FDEP, Chapter 62.340, F.A.C) 

10 Florida Natural Areas Index (FNAI). 2010. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Florida State University. 

11 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2012. Recommendations for Sampling Halophila johnsonii

at a Project Site. Website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/docs/JSG%20Survey%20Guidelines.pdf. Accessed August 2012. 

12 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 2011. Recommended Survey Protocols for Estuarine and Marine 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) related to Permitting Applications (Draft). 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-5 

Table 1-1. Proposed Action and Results of Field Investigation 

Bridge Project 

Area Proposed Action Field Investigation Results 

Horse Creek 

(MP 187.37) 

Installation of single-track railroad bridge 

on the west side of existing bridge 

Freshwater creek with sand/shell 

bottom 

Goat Creek 

(MP 202.59) 

Removal of existing railroad bridge and 

installation of double-track railroad bridge

Freshwater creek (during site visit) with 

a mud/sand bottom overlain by ballast. 

White mangrove observed in Project 

Area and red mangroves observed 

downstream of Project Area. 

North Canal 

(MP 223.70) 

Installation of single-track railroad bridge 

on the west side of existing bridge 

Freshwater canal (during site visit), with 

a soft sand bottom 

South Canal 

(MP 230.03) 

Installation of single-track railroad bridge 

on the east side of existing bridge 

Freshwater canal (during site visit) with 

mud/sand bottom 

Moores Creek 

(MP 241.27) 

Installation of single-track railroad bridge 

on the west side of existing bridge 

Brackish creek with a mud/sand bottom. 

Red mangrove observed within Project 

Area and black mangrove observed 

downstream of project site 

Unnamed Creek 

(MP 259.95) 

Removal of existing railroad bridge and 

installation of double-track railroad bridge

Brackish creek with sand/shell bottom. 

Red mangrove observed along 

shoreline 

Unnamed Tributary 

2 (MP 266.58) 

Installation of single-track railroad bridge 

on the west side of existing bridge 

Brackish/Tidal creek with soft sand 

bottom. Red mangroves were observed 

along shoreline 

Unnamed Tributary 

1 (MP 266.86) 

Removal of existing railroad bridge and 

installation of double-track railroad bridge

Brackish/Tidal creek with mud/sand 

bottom. Red, black, and white 

mangrove were observed along the 

shoreline 

Tributary to 

Manatee Creek 2 

(MP 267.34) 

Removal of existing railroad bridge and 

installation of double-track railroad bridge

Freshwater creek (during site visit) with 

a sand bottom 

Tributary to 

Manatee Creek 1 

(MP 267.70) 

Removal of existing railroad bridge and 

installation of double-track railroad bridge

Freshwater (during site visit) with a soft 

sand bottom. Eelgrass was observed 

rooted within the creek. 

Hillsboro River 

(MP 326.58) 

Installation of single-track railroad bridge 

on the west side of existing bridge 

Brackish creek with sand/shell bottom 

covered with non-commercial oysters. 

White mangroves observed along 

shoreline 

North Fork of the 

Middle River 

(MP 337.91) 

Removal of existing railroad bridge and 

installation of double-track railroad bridge

Brackish creek with sand/shell bottom 

covered with non-commercial oysters. 

Red and white mangroves observed 

along shoreline 

South Fork of the 

Middle River 

(MP 338.52) 

Removal of existing railroad bridge and 

installation of double-track railroad bridge

Brackish creek with sand/shell bottom 

covered with non-commercial oysters. 

Red and white mangroves observed 

along shoreline 

Oleta River 

(MP 353.74) 

Removal of existing railroad bridge and 

installation of double-track railroad bridge

Brackish/Tidal creek with sand/shell 

bottom covered with non-commercial 

oysters. Red, black, and white 

mangroves were observed along the 

shoreline 

Arch Creek 

(MP 356.53) 

Installation of single-track railroad bridge 

span on the west side of existing bridge 

Brackish/Tidal creek with mud/sand 

bottom. Red and white mangrove were 

observed along the shoreline 

Source: AMEC, 2013 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-6 

Based on the field investigation the following habitats were identified: mangrove, estuarine 

planktonic, sand/shell bottom and mud/sand bottom. No seagrasses were identified within the Bridge 

Project Areas. Photographs of each Bridge Project Area are located in Appendix A and aerial 

photographs of each Bridge Project Area are located in Appendix B. Based on literature review and 

personal communication with NOAA Fisheries,13 EFH for species within the Snapper-Grouper 

complex; spiny lobster, pink shrimp, white shrimp, and brown shrimp; were identified within the 15 

Bridge Project Areas. The mangrove habitat identified at several of the Bridge Project Areas is 

classified as HAPC for species within the Snapper-Grouper complex. 

 

13 Howard, Brandon. 2012/2013. NOAA Fisheries. Personal Communication September 2012 – May 2013. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-1 

3.0 EFH and Managed Species 

The proposed alignment for the Project from Miami to Cocoa will require in-water work for the 

enhancement or replacement of 15 railroad bridges over water bodies containing EFH, including 10 

sites containing HAPC for Snapper-Grouper complex. A literature review was conducted and 

regulatory agency personnel were contacted to evaluate the EFH and managed species known to 

occur in the vicinity of the proposed crossing locations. The results of the literature review and an 

analysis of the effects, including cumulative effects, of the proposed Project on EFH, the managed 

species, and associated species by life history stage are presented in this section. 

3.1 Essential Fish Habitat within the Project Area 

The habitats identified in the Bridge Project Areas include: estuarine planktonic, mangrove, 

sand/shell bottom, and mud/sand bottom. These habitats fit into the following EFH types: mangroves 

fit into the estuarine scrub/shrub EFH; estuarine planktonic fit into the estuarine subtidal open 

water/water column EFH; and sand/shell and mud/sand bottoms fit into tidal creek EFH. Below is a 

brief description of each of these EFH types and their utilization by fish managed under SAFMC. 

3.1.1 Estuarine Scrub/Shrub (Mangroves) 

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub (Mangroves) wetlands are characterized by salt-tolerant woody vegetation 

less than 20 feet in height.14 There are four species which comprise the “mangrove” forest 

ecosystem: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), white 

mangrove (Languncularia racemosa), and buttonwood mangrove (Conocarpus erectus). Mangrove 

wetlands provide a variety of beneficial biological and physical functions including habitat for 

nursery, feeding, and refuge for both recreationally and commercially important fisheries and their 

prey resources.15 Based upon the classification scheme proposed by Gilmore and Snedaker,16 the 

mangrove forests present within the Bridge Project Areas are riverine mangrove forests. Riverine 

mangrove forests occur in riverine areas that are tidally influenced. Riverine mangrove forests are 

considered the most productive mangrove forests. High primary productivity is attributed to lower 

salinities and nutrient loading from freshwater runoff. Goat Creek, Moores Creek, Unnamed Creek, 

Unnamed Tributary 2, Unnamed Tributary 1, Hillsboro River, North Fork of the Middle River, South 

Fork of the Middle River, Oleta River, and Arch Creek Bridge Project Areas include riverine 

mangrove forests. 

3.1.2 Estuarine Subtidal Open Water/Water Column (Estuarine Planktonic) 

Water column habitats are constantly changing in time and space; therefore, there are numerous 

potential distinct water column habitats for a broad array of species and life-stages.15 Physical 

parameters such as temperature, salinity, density, nutrients, light, etc. often define the specific 

habitats in the water column.15 All of the Bridge Project Areas: Horse Creek, Goat Creek, North 

Canal, South Canal, Moores Creek, Unnamed Creek, Unnamed Tributaries 1 and 2, Tributaries to 

Manatee Creek 1 and 2, Hillsboro River, North Fork of the Middle River, South Fork of the Middle 

River, Oleta River, and Arch Creek include estuarine subtidal open water EFH. 

 

14 Tiner, R. W. 1993. A Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States. Amherst, Massachusetts: 

University of Massachusetts Press. 

15 South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat 

Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Available: 

http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/ tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm. 

Accessed October 2012. 

16 Gilmore, R.G. and S.C. Snedaker. 1993. Chapter 5: Mangrove forests in W.H. Martin, S.G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht, eds. 

Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publishers, New York. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-2 

3.1.3 Tidal Creeks (Mud/Sand and Sand/Shell Bottom)

Unconsolidated bottom substrate of tidal creeks may be made up of mud, sand, or shell or any 

combination of the three. Different commercially, recreationally, or ecologically significant species 

may utilize the bottom substrate of tidal creek during their life cycle. Penaeid shrimp are known to 

utilize inshore estuarine areas including tidal creeks for nursery areas.17 White shrimp and brown 

shrimp tend to prefer mud/sand bottom habitat when in inshore waters; while pink shrimp tend to 

prefer sand/shell bottom habitat.15 All of the Bridge Project Areas: Horse Creek, Goat Creek, North 

Canal, South Canal, Moores Creek, Unnamed Creek, Unnamed Tributaries 1 and 2, Tributaries to 

Manatee Creek 1 and 2, Hillsboro River, North Fork of the Middle River, South Fork of the Middle 

River, Oleta River, and Arch Creek include tidal creek EFH. 

3.2 EFH Managed Species that May Occur in the Project Area 

The NOAA EFH Mapper18 was also used to generate a list of species with designated EFH within the 

vicinity of the proposed Project. The NOAA EFH mapper indicated that EFH for the snapper/grouper 

complex, spiny lobster, and shrimp is present at one or more of the bridge locations. Habitat was 

evaluated during the September 2012 site assessment. AMEC scientists used Appendix 6: 

Summary of EFH Requirements for Species Managed by the SAFMC in the NMFS document 

Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies- South 

Atlantic Region19 to identify the species that may utilize habitat within the Bridge Project Areas. The 

list of the managed species that may utilize habitat within the Bridge Project Areas is presented in 

Table 2-1. Additional species in the snapper-grouper complex may also utilize habitat in the Bridge 

Project Areas. 

 

 

17 South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 2011. Users Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designation. Available: 

http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick. aspx? fileticket= S5hRz7dAT w0 %3D&tabid=710. Accessed March 2013. 

18 NOAA. 2013. EFH Mapper. Website: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html. Accessed March 7, 2013. 

19 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation District Southeast 

Regional Office. 2008. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. Available: 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide _2008. pdf. Accessed October 2012. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-3 

Table 2-1. Species with EFH in the Project Vicinity (page 1 of 3)

Bridge Project Area Habitat Fish Species Life Stages 

Horse Creek 

(MP 187.37) 

Sand/Shell Bottom; 

Planktonic 

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

pink shrimp postlarvae/juvenile, subadults 

(sand/shell bottom) 

Goat Creek 

(MP 202.59) 

Mangrove; 

Mud/Sand Bottom; 

Planktonic 

goliath grouper juvenile (mangrove) 

grey snapper 

postlarvae/juvenile (mangrove; mud 

bottom); adult (mangrove) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mangrove; mud/sand bottom)

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

brown shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

white shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

North Canal 

(MP 223.70) 

Sand Bottom; 

Planktonic 

mutton snapper juvenile (mud/sand bottom) 

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

brown shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

white shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

South Canal 

(MP 230.03) 

Mud/Sand Bottom; 

Planktonic 

grey snapper postlarvae/juvenile (mud bottom) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mud/sand bottom) 

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

brown shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

white shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

Moores Creek 

(MP 241.27) 

Mangrove; 

Mud/Sand Bottom; 

Planktonic 

goliath grouper juvenile (mangrove) 

grey snapper 

postlarvae/juvenile (mangrove; mud 

bottom); adult (mangrove) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mangrove; mud/sand bottom)

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

brown shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

white shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

Unnamed Creek 

(MP 259.95) 

Mangrove; 

Sand/Shell bottom; 

Planktonic 

goliath grouper juvenile (mangrove) 

grey snapper postlarvae/juvenile, adult (mangrove) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mangrove) 

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

pink shrimp post larval/juvenile, subadults 

(sand/shell bottom) 

Unnamed Tributary 2 

(MP 266.58) 

Mangrove; Sand 

Bottom; Planktonic 

goliath grouper juvenile (mangrove) 

grey snapper postlarvae/juvenile, adult (mangrove) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mangrove; mud/sand bottom)

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

brown shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

white shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-4 

Table 2-1. Species with EFH in the Project Vicinity (page 2 of 3)

Bridge Project Area Habitat Fish Species Life Stages 

Unnamed Tributary 1 

(MP 266.86) 

Mangrove; 

Mud/Sand Bottom; 

Planktonic 

goliath grouper juvenile (mangrove) 

grey snapper 

postlarvae/juvenile (mangrove; mud 

bottom); adult (mangrove) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mangrove; mud/sand bottom)

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

brown shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

white shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

Tributary to Manatee 

Creek 2 

(MP 267.34) 

Sand Bottom; 

Planktonic 

mutton snapper juvenile (mud/sand bottom) 

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

brown shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

white shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

Tributary to Manatee 

Creek 1 

(MP 267.70) 

Sand Bottom; 

Planktonic 

mutton snapper juvenile (mud/sand bottom) 

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

brown shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

white shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

Hillsboro River 

(MP 326.58) 

Mangrove; 

Sand/Shell bottom; 

Planktonic 

goliath grouper juvenile (mangrove) 

grey snapper postlarvae/juvenile, adult (mangrove) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mangrove) 

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

pink shrimp post larval/juvenile, subadults 

(sand/shell bottom) 

North Fork of the 

Middle River 

(MP 337.91) 

Mangrove; 

Sand/Shell bottom; 

Planktonic 

goliath grouper juvenile (mangrove) 

grey snapper postlarvae/juvenile, adult (mangrove) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mangrove) 

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

pink shrimp post larval/juvenile, subadults 

(sand/shell bottom) 

South Fork of the 

Middle River 

(MP 338.52) 

Mangrove; 

Sand/Shell bottom; 

Planktonic 

goliath grouper juvenile (mangrove) 

grey snapper postlarvae/juvenile, adult (mangrove) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mangrove) 

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

pink shrimp post larval/juvenile, subadults 

(sand/shell bottom) 

Oleta River 

(MP 353.74) 

Mangrove; 

Sand/Shell bottom; 

Planktonic 

goliath grouper juvenile (mangrove) 

grey snapper postlarvae/juvenile, adult (mangrove) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mangrove) 

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

pink shrimp post larval/juvenile, subadults 

(sand/shell bottom) 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-5 

Table 2-1. Species with EFH in the Project Vicinity (page 3 of 3)

Bridge Project Area Habitat Fish Species Life Stages 

Arch Creek 

(MP 356.53) 

Mangrove; 

Mud/Sand Bottom; 

Planktonic 

goliath grouper juvenile (mangrove) 

grey snapper 

postlarvae/juvenile (mangrove; mud 

bottom); adult (mangrove) 

mutton snapper juvenile (mangrove; mud/sand bottom)

spiny lobster larvae (planktonic) 

brown shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

white shrimp postlarvae/juvenile; subadults 

(mud/sand bottom) 

Sources: AMEC, 2013; NOAA, 200819; Personal Communication Brandon Howard, 2012-201313

Note: Red drum, a species formerly managed by SAFMC, is also likely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed

Project. According to NOAA Fisheries, EFH for red drum is no longer recognized by SAFMC (Howard, 

2012-2013 personal communication13). 

3.2.1 Grouper Snapper Complex 

The snapper grouper complex includes sea basses and groupers (Serranidae), wreckfish 

(Polyprionidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), porgies (Sparidae), grunts (Haemulidae), jacks 

(Carangidae), tilefishes (Malacanthidae), triggerfishes (Balistidae), wrasses (Labridae), and 

spadefishes (Eppiphidae). The species in the snapper grouper complex utilize both pelagic and 

benthic habitats during their life cycle. Estuarine dependant species in the snapper grouper complex 

include gag grouper, lane snapper, and gray snapper. Juveniles of some species, such as mutton 

snapper (Lutjanus analis), gray snapper, dog snapper (L. jocu), lane snapper, yellowtail snapper 

(Ocyurus chrysurus), goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara), red grouper (E. morio), gag, yellowfin 

grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa), Atlantic spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber), and hogfish 

(Lachnolaimus maximus) may occur in inshore seagrass beds, mangrove estuaries, lagoons, and 

bay systems.20

EFH for snapper grouper complex species includes coral reefs, live/hard bottom, SAV, artificial reefs 

and medium to high profile outcroppings on and around the shelf break zone from shore to at least 

600 feet.21 EFH includes the spawning area in the water column above the adult habitat and the 

additional pelagic environment, including Sargassum, required for larval survival and growth. In 

addition, the Gulf Stream is an EFH because it provides a mechanism to disperse larvae of the 

snapper grouper complex species.21

EFH for specific life stages of estuarine dependent and nearshore snapper grouper complex species 

includes habitats such as attached macroalgae; submerged rooted vascular plants (seagrasses); 

estuarine emergent vegetated wetlands (salt marshes, brackish marsh); tidal creeks; estuarine 

scrub/shrub (mangrove fringe); oyster reefs and shell banks; unconsolidated bottom (soft 

sediments); artificial reefs; and coral reefs and live/hard bottom inshore of the 100-foot contour.21 

Estuarine mangrove wetlands, sand/shell bottom, and sand/mud bottom are present at one or more 

of the Project Areas. Estuarine mangrove wetlands are HAPC for the Snapper-Grouper complex. 

Several species within the snapper-grouper complex have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the 

proposed Project; however, based on guidance from NOAA Fisheries,13 this EFH assessment will 

focus on the following species: gray snapper, mutton snapper, and goliath grouper. 

 

20 South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat 

Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

Available:http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/ 

SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm. Accessed October 2012. 

21 South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Final Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential Fish 

Habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Region. Available: http://www.safmc.net/ 

ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/ Habitat Protection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm. Accessed October 2012. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-6 

3.2.1.1 Gray Snapper 

Population Abundance and Distribution: Gray snappers are widely distributed in the western Atlantic 

from Florida through Brazil, including Bermuda, the Caribbean, and the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

Juveniles have been reported from as far north as Massachusetts.22 Most are caught in US waters 

off Florida.23 The abundance of gray snapper on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida is unknown, 

but appears to have remained mostly stable over the last few decades.23 In US waters, three distinct 

populations have been found: the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, the north central/eastern Gulf of 

Mexico, and the east coast of Florida.23

Habitat Requirements: Gray snapper occupy a variety of habitats during their life cycle.22 Adults are 

found near irregular, complex habitats, such as coral reefs, shipwrecks, rocky outcroppings and 

ledges, and other natural live bottom areas.22 Spawning occurs offshore, and eggs and larvae are 

transported into estuarine, shallow seagrass and mangrove nursery areas by favorable currents. 

Larvae, juveniles, and smaller adults are found inshore in seagrass beds and around mangrove 

thickets, pilings, seawalls, and jetties.22

Life History: Spawning occurs from April to November with a peak during the summer months, and is 

influenced by the lunar cycle. Gray snapper spawn in aggregations during the times surrounding the 

full moon. Individual snappers may spawn multiple times during the course of the reproductive 

season. The species is a broadcast spawner of demersal eggs from which hatch sparsely pigmented 

larvae approximately 20 hours post-fertilization. The yolk sac is absorbed within the first 45 hours, 

after which the larvae must actively feed amongst the plankton. The post-larval gray snapper 

typically settle into suitable estuarine habitats. The pre-juvenile and juvenile snapper feed by day 

until they achieve a size of approximately 80 millimeters (total length) around which time they move 

into shallow rocky areas and the coastal reefs where they are commonly found as adults.24 

Population Dynamics: The bulk of gray snapper landings in the US south Atlantic (North Carolina to 

the Florida Keys) occur in Florida. Combined landings of gray snapper from head boats (private 

recreational and charter boats) and the commercial fisheries of Florida’s east coast averaged 

493,895 kilograms annually between 1986 and 1997. Average annual landings from the south 

Florida area (Ft. Pierce through the Dry Tortugas = 412,279 kilograms) were five times greater than 

those from north Florida (Fernandina Beach through Sebastian = 81,616 kilograms). Gray snapper 

are highly valued by anglers for their fighting ability at all sizes. Recreational landings averaged 

60,685 kilograms for north Florida compared with 290,266 kilograms for south Florida annually 

between 1986 and 1997. Commercial landings averaged 20,931 kilograms for north Florida and 

122,013 kilograms for south Florida for the years 1986 through 1997.22

3.2.1.2 Mutton Snapper 

Population Abundance and Distribution: Mutton snappers are found in the Gulf of Mexico and the 

western Atlantic from Massachusetts to Brazil; but are most common in the tropical waters of 

Florida, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean Sea.25 Juveniles and small adults are found in shallow 

coastal waters over coral reefs, in protected bays with grass beds or mud bottoms, in tidal creeks 

surrounded by mangrove, and in canals. Larger adults are found in deeper waters on the continental 

shelf out to 91 foot (28 meter) depths.26

 

22 Burton, M.L. 2001. Age, growth, and mortality of gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus, from the east coast of Florida. Fish. 

Bull.99:254-265. 

23 Blue Ocean Institute (BOI). 2012. Mangrove Snapper Full Species Report. Available at: http:/ 

/blueocean.org/documents/2012/06/snapper-mangrove-full-species-report.pdf. Accessed October 2012. 

24 Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). 2009. Florida Museum of Natural History Ichthyology Department: Gray Snapper. 

Available: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish /gallery/Descript/ GraySnapper/Graysnapper.html. Accessed October 2012. 

25 Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). 2012. Mutton Snapper Biological Profile. Available at: 

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/descript/muttonsnapper/muttonsnapper.html. Accessed October 2012. 

26 Watanabe, W.O. 2001. Species Profile: Mutton Snapper. Southern Region Aquaculture Center Publication No. 725. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-7 

Habitat Requirements: Mutton snapper are found in various habitats. The juveniles are abundant in 

shallow waters such as tidal mangrove creeks, canals, and shallow protected bays, utilizing turtle 

grass as bottom cover. Solitary adults can be found among rocks and reefs, while juveniles occur 

over sandy or seagrass bottoms. Once an adult, mutton snapper becomes established in an area, 

they tend to remain there; small aggregations of mutton snapper may form during the day, 

disbanding at night.25

Life History: This snapper spawns throughout its range, though primarily in the northeastern 

Caribbean. Spawning occurs during the month of February in the Caribbean region while in other 

areas spawning occurs during summer.25 Large spawning aggregations of mutton snapper occur 

seasonally off the coasts of Cuba, the Turks and Caicos, and the US Virgin Islands.26 In the 

continental US, the last known spawning aggregation of mutton snapper is located in the Riley’s 

Hump near the Dry Tortugas area off Key West, Florida. May and June are the principal spawning 

months for mutton snapper populations in this aggregation, which is heavily fished by commercial 

and recreational anglers.26 Mutton snapper exhibit high site-fidelity, spawning at the same site and 

the same lunar calendar days, year after year.25 Little is known about the life history of mutton 

snapper from juvenile to adult stages, including patterns of movement and migration.26 All snappers 

are oviparous; they release pelagic eggs that move freely with the water currents. The number of 

eggs is dependent upon the size of the female, and after spawning, the adult fish move offshore to 

deeper waters. At lengths of less than 10 millimeters, the larvae tend to be planktonic. There is little 

known about the development of the larvae. They eventually settle on suitable habitat that offers 

some protection from predators.25 Natural distributions of juveniles and adults suggest that the young 

recruit into shallow inshore waters, gradually moving into deeper offshore areas with maturity. 

Recruitment of juveniles (less than 7 centimeters fork length) to seagrass beds in Florida and Cuba 

has been reported to peak during August and September.26

Population Dynamics: Combined annual head boat landings of Mutton Snapper in the southeastern 

US averaged 45,980 kilograms annually between 1982 and 1996. Combined annual commercial 

landings of Mutton Snapper in the southeastern US averaged 133,974 kilograms annually between 

1982 and 1996.22

3.2.1.3 Goliath Grouper 

Population Abundance and Distribution: The goliath grouper occurs in the western Atlantic Ocean 

from Florida south to Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. It is also found in 

the eastern Atlantic Ocean, from Senegal to Congo although rare in the Canary Islands. The species 

is also present in the eastern Pacific Ocean from the Gulf of California to Peru.27

Habitat Requirements: Occurring in shallow, inshore waters to depths of 150 feet (46 meters), the 

goliath grouper prefers areas of rock, coral, and mud bottoms. Juveniles inhabit mangroves and 

brackish estuaries, especially near oyster bars.27 They settle in shallow mangrove habitat, first in 

mangrove leaf litter, and then along mangrove shorelines. The juvenile stage lasts 5 or 6 years in 

this mangrove habitat, after which fish egress to shallow reefs, eventually joining adult populations 

offshore. Their distribution in mangroves depends on local water quality, particularly dissolved 

oxygen content (greater than 4 parts per million) and mid-range salinities (greater than 10 parts per 

thousand).28 The goliath grouper is notable as one of the few groupers found in brackish waters. This 

fish is solitary by nature, with the adults occupying limited home ranges. It is territorial near areas of 

refuge such as caves, wrecks, and ledges, displaying an open mouth and quivering body to 

intruders.27

 

27 Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). 2012. Goliath Grouper Biological Profile. Available at: 

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/GoliathGrouper/GoliathGrouper.html. Accessed October 2012. 

28 Florida State University (FSU). 2012. Coleman and Koenig Research Laboratory. Available at: http://www.bio.fsu.edu 

/coleman_lab/goliath_grouper.php. Accessed October 8, 2012. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-8 

Life History: Many groupers are protogynous hermaphrodites, a condition in which individuals first 

mature as females only later to become males. Spawning occurs during the summer months of 

August and September throughout the goliath grouper's range and is strongly influenced by the lunar 

cycle. Spawning goliath grouper form impressive offshore aggregations of up to 100 or more 

individuals. Ship wrecks, rock ledges, and isolated patch reefs are preferred spawning habitat. In the

1980s these aggregations reached a low of less than 10 individuals per site as fishing pressure 

greatly impacted this species. Since receiving legislative protection, the spawning aggregations of 

goliath grouper have risen to 20 to 40 individuals per location. The females release eggs while the 

males release sperm into the open offshore waters. After fertilization, the eggs are pelagic, 

dispersed by the water currents. Upon hatching, the larvae are kite-shaped, with the second dorsal 

fin spine and pelvic fin spines greatly elongated. These pelagic larvae transform into benthic 

juveniles at lengths of one inch (2.5 centimeters), around 25 or 26 days after hatching.27

Population Dynamics: The large size, slow growth, low reproductive rate, and spawning behavior 

have made the goliath grouper especially susceptible to overfishing. The goliath grouper is totally 

protected from harvest and is recognized as a "Critically Endangered" species by the International 

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Furthermore, the IUCN concludes that the species has 

been "observed, estimated, inferred or suspected" of a reduction of at least 80% over the last 10 

years or three generations. In US waters, take of this species has been prohibited since 1990, and 

the species has been protected in the Caribbean since 1993. Historical exploitation of goliath 

grouper annual spawning aggregation sites greatly reduced the number of reproductive adults. As 

goliath grouper are slow growing and require several years to reach sexual maturity, recovery for 

this species is expected to be slow.27

3.2.2 Spiny Lobster 

Spiny lobster EFH includes nearshore shelf/oceanic waters; shallow subtidal bottom; seagrass 

habitat; unconsolidated bottom (soft sediments); coral and live/hard bottom habitat; sponges; algal 

communities; and mangrove habitat (prop roots). EFH for spiny lobster applies to coastal waters to 

the landward most influence of the tide from the Virginia/North Carolina border to the Dry Tortugas in

the Florida Keys.29

Estuarine planktonic habitat was identified as one of the EFH requirements for larval Spiny Lobster.30

Estuarine planktonic habitat is present within all of the Project Areas. 

Population Abundance and Distribution: The spiny lobster inhabits the coastal waters and shallow 

Continental Shelf waters from North Carolina south to Brazil, including Bermuda and the Gulf of 

Mexico. A few specimens have been collected in the Gulf of Guinea, West Africa.31 They live just 

below the water surface to depths of 1,650 feet.32

Habitat Requirements: A broad range of marine habitats are used during their life cycle.31 Larval 

spiny lobsters float in the water column.32 As they grow, they swim to nearshore habitats and settle in 

dense vegetation, especially among macroalgae.32 Early benthic larvae and juveniles apparently 

 

29 South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 2011. Users Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designation. Available: 

http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick. aspx? fileticket= S5hRz7dAT w0 %3D&tabid=710. Accessed March 2013. 

30 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation District Southeast 

Regional Office. 2008. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. Available: 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide _2008. pdf. Accessed October 2012. 

31 Marx, J.M., and W.F. Herrnkind. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and 

invertebrates (south Florida)--spiny lobster. US Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.61). US Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 21 

pp. 

32 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2012. Fish Watch: Caribbean Spiny Lobster. Available at: 

http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/lobster/ species_pages/caribbean_spiny_lobster.htm. Accessed October 11, 

2012. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-9 

concentrate in macroalgae beds along rocky shorelines and may be interspersed among large 

expanses of seagrass that typify known nursery areas like Florida Bay.31 They live here until they 

reach about 0.6 to 0.8 inches, then find shelter in crevices provided by large sponges, octocorals 

(soft corals), and solution holes until they are about 1 1/2 inches long. When they reach 2 to 

3.15 inches, Caribbean spiny lobsters begin to travel from their nearshore nursery habitat to coral 

reefs and other offshore habitats. Adult spiny lobsters move along shore and offshore seasonally, 

migrating in single-file lines to deeper water to escape cold and turbid waters.32 Shelters for adults 

include large sponges, coral heads, mangrove roots, grass-bed undercuts, solution holes, rocky 

outcroppings or ledges, and even clumps of sea urchins. Although adult males and females 

sometimes inhabit bays, lagoons, estuaries, and shallow banks, none are known to spawn there. 

Requirements of offshore spawning are high shelter quality, suitable water conditions (stable 

temperature and salinity, low surge and turbidity), and adequate larval transport by oceanic 

currents.31

Life History: Most spiny lobster in Florida waters reproduce during late spring and early summer. 

Yearly variations in peak spawning time depend largely on water temperature. In Florida, there is no 

direct evidence that lobsters spawn more than once a year, but repeat spawning by some individuals 

is suspected in Bermuda waters. The life history of the spiny lobster consists of five major phases, 

having the following distinctive behaviors and habitat use: (1) oceanic planktonic phyllosome larvae, 

(2) swimming postlarvae pueruli (singular = puerulus), (3) early benthic "banded" juveniles, (4) later

juveniles (20 to 65 millimeters carapace length), and (5) adults. Distribution of larvae is otherwise 

regulated by ocean currents and other factors that influence water circulation patterns. The spiny 

lobster larva metamorphoses into a puerulus, a brief (several weeks), nonfeeding, oceanic phase. 

Large numbers of pueruli arrive along the southeast Florida coast and southern shores of the Florida 

Keys throughout the year, principally during the new and first - quarter lunar phases. Pueruli settle 

rapidly when they encounter suitable inshore substrate.31

Population Dynamics: In Florida, the amount of spiny lobster capable of reproducing (spawning 

biomass) has increased over time, especially from 2002 to 2005. Lobsters spend a long time in the 

larval stage traveling with the currents. This leads scientists to suspect that young lobsters that 

survive to adulthood (recruits) in the US come from many other areas. Recent genetic studies have 

shown almost all recruits in US waters are from the Caribbean. Therefore, the spawning biomass in 

the greater Caribbean area is more relevant to the population status than the spawning biomass in 

Florida. Scientists were not able to determine the current status for the spiny lobster stock in the 

Caribbean because the data from the latest assessment was uncertain.32 

3.2.3 Penaeid Shrimp 

The three species of penaeid shrimp under SAFMC management are white shrimp, pink shrimp and 

brown shrimp. EFH for penaeid shrimp includes inshore estuarine nursery areas, offshore marine 

habitats used for spawning and growth to maturity, and all interconnecting water bodies. Inshore 

nursery areas include tidal freshwater (palustrine), estuarine, and marine emergent wetlands 

(e.g., intertidal marshes); tidal palustrine forested areas; mangroves; tidal freshwater, estuarine, and 

marine SAV (e.g., seagrass); and subtidal and intertidal non-vegetated flats. The EFH is designated 

from North Carolina through the Florida Keys.33

 

Estuarine mangrove wetlands, sand/shell bottom, and sand/mud bottom are present in one or more 

of the Project Areas. Therefore, estuarine EFH for brown shrimp, white shrimp and pink shrimp 

associated with their postlarvae/juvenile and subadult life stages is present in one or more of the 

 

33 South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Final Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential Fish 

Habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Region. Available: 

http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/ Habitat Protection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm. 

Accessed October 2012. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-10 

Project Areas.34 Table 2-2 describes the estuarine EFH of these species. Species not included in 

Table 2-2 do not have lifestages that occur within the Project Area of effect. 

Table 2-2. Estuarine EFH of Penaeid Shrimp

Species Life Stage Ecosystem EFH 

Brown Shrimp Postlarvae/juvenile/subadult estuarine Sand/mud bottom 

White shrimp Postlarvae/juvenile/subadult estuarine Sand/mud bottom 

Pink shrimp Postlarvae/juvenile/subadult estuarine Sand/shell substrate 

Source: NMFS, 200834

Population Abundance and Distribution: White shrimp range from Fire Island, New York to St. Lucie 

Inlet on the Atlantic Coast of Florida. On the Atlantic Coast, brown shrimp occur from Martha’s 

Vineyard, Massachusetts to the Florida Keys. Pink shrimp occur from southern Chesapeake Bay to 

the Florida Keys and around the coast of the Gulf of Mexico to Yucatan south of Cabo Catoche.35

Habitat Requirements: White shrimp appear to prefer muddy or peaty bottoms rich in organic matter 

and decaying vegetation when in inshore waters. Offshore, white shrimp are most abundant on soft 

muddy bottoms. Brown shrimp appear to prefer a similar bottom type, and as adults, may also be 

found in areas where the bottom consists of mud, sand, and shell. Pink shrimp are most often found 

on hard sand and calcareous shell bottom.35

Penaeid shrimp have a life cycle which requires a variety of habitats. The high salinity, oceanic 

waters serve as habitat for large mature shrimp, which will spawn offshore. Brown and pink shrimp 

move to relatively deep continental shelf water, and white shrimp tend to remain nearshore in 

shallower water. Offshore water also serves as habitat for larval and postlarval shrimp. These shrimp 

are planktonic and feed on zooplankton in the water column. There is some evidence that postlarval 

brown shrimp may overwinter in nearshore bottom sediments.36 Postlarval shrimp move inshore to 

nursery areas in estuaries beginning in April and early May. In the South Atlantic, these areas are 

generally dominated by the marsh grass Spartina alterniflora. Smaller pink shrimp remain in the 

estuary during winter. They bury themselves deeply in the substrate when cold weather comes and 

are somewhat protected from winter mortalities. Shrimp that survive the winter grow rapidly in late 

winter and early spring before migrating to the ocean.37 

Spawning is correlated with bottom water temperatures and has been reported to occur at bottom 

temperatures of between 17 degrees Celsius and 29 degrees Celsius. Brown shrimp spawn in 

relatively deep water. Pink shrimp spawn at depths between 3.7 and 15.8 meters.35

Life History: White shrimp begin spawning in April in Florida and Georgia and late April or May in 

South Carolina. Spawning may continue into September or October. In North Carolina, roe-bearing 

pink shrimp females are found as early as May, and by June, most pink shrimp are ripe.35

All three species have eleven larval stages (5 nauplier, 3 protozoan and 3 mysid) before developing 

into postlarvae. Duration of the larval period is dependent on temperature, food, and habitat. 

 

34 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation District Southeast 

Regional Office. 2008. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. Available: 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide _2008. pdf. Accessed October 2012. 

35 South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat 

Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Available: 

http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/ EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm. 

Accessed October 2012. 

36 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service. Penaeid Shrimp 

EFH and Habitat Requirements. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/ profile/ 

southatlantic/penaidshrimp_efhenvreq.htm. Accessed October 2012. 

37 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fishwatch – Pink 

shrimp. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ fishwatch/species/pink_shrimp.htm. Accessed October 2012 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-11 

Records suggest larval periods of 10 to 12 days for white shrimp, 11 to 17 days for brown shrimp, 

and 15 to 25 days for pink shrimp. Postlarval shrimp sizes range from approximately 2.9 to 12 

millimeters total length, with pink and white shrimp sizes overlapping and brown shrimp usually 

being larger.35

The mechanism by which postlarvae are carried from distant spawning areas to estuaries is not well 

known. White and pink shrimp enter the estuaries at about the same time, usually beginning in April 

and early May in the southern part of their range and in June and August in North Carolina sounds, 

where white shrimp are uncommon. Large white shrimp begin emigrating out of the estuary to the 

commercial fishing areas in August and continue through December. Pink and white shrimp that 

survive the winter grow rapidly in late winter and early spring before migrating to the ocean.35

Population Dynamics: The pink shrimp population of the South Atlantic is low (but likely due to 

environmental factors rather than fishing pressure). Overall annual harvest in the South Atlantic is 

dominated by white and brown shrimp species. Annual landings of the three penaeid species vary 

considerably from year to year. These fluctuations have been attributed to environmental 

influences.37
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 August 2013 

4-1 

4.0 Impacts to EFH 

Habitats within the Bridge Project Areas have been identified as EFH and HAPC. The Bridge Project 

Areas provide EFH, during some portion of their life cycle, for at least seven fishery species 

managed by the SAFMC: goliath grouper, gray snapper, mutton snapper, spiny lobster, pink shrimp, 

white shrimp and brown shrimp. Table 3-1 presents the potentially affected lifestages for each of the 

managed species known to occur in the Project vicinity based on the results of the literature review 

for each species. 

Table 3-1. Managed Species and Affected Lifestages

Species Name Potentially Affected Lifestages 

Goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara) juvenile 

Grey snapper (Lutjanus griseus) postlarvae/juvenile, adult 

Mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) Juvenile 

Spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) larvae 

Pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) postlarvae/juvenile, subadult 

Brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus) postlarvae/juvenile, subadult 

White shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus) postlarvae/juvenile, subadult 

Source: NOAA, 200834

This section discusses the direct, indirect, temporary, and cumulative impacts to EFH and HAPC 

associated with the fifteen Bridge Project Areas and potential implications to their associated 

fisheries communities. Direct, indirect, and temporary impacts are expected to be generally similar 

for all fisheries; therefore, the presentation of impacts is for all species. 

4.1 Construction Methods 

At each Bridge Project Area (with the exception of Arch Creek), piles will be driven to load bearing 

capacity for E80 live loads plus the dead load. Piles will be driven with a steel pile driving template 

placed to prevent movement of the pile group. Multiple piles are connected by a cast in place pile 

bent cap or end bent at the abutments. The piling driver equipment will be placed on the abutment or 

on a barge in larger systems (Hillsboro River, North Fork of the Middle River, and South Fork of the 

Middle River). 

The superstructure will consist of Standard Precast Prestressed Concrete Bridge Slabs. The bridge 

slabs will sit atop the bent cap. A crane will place the bridge slabs on the abutment. To form the end

bents and backwall, a small area upslope will be excavated to install the forms. After installation is

complete, the area will be backfilled and compacted. Rip–rap will be placed around the abutment for 

slope protection. 

The deck slab with curbs, constructed of reinforced concrete, will be placed onto the superstructure. 

A ballast deck with concrete ties for the track will be installed on the deck. 

Materials for the bridge upgrades will be brought onsite via existing roads or rail. The bridge 

construction will require access for a crane at a location on top of the abutment. Plans indicate a 

proposed construction zone for access purposes around the bridge. Cranes will not access the 

construction area from the existing active track. 

Silt fence and floating turbidity barriers will be installed and maintained during construction in 

accordance with performance standards for erosion and sediment control and stormwater treatment 

set forth in section 62-40.432, FAC. Construction drawings for each site are located in Appendix C. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 August 2013 

4-2 

4.2 Direct Impacts 

Essential fish habitats and HAPCs that potentially could be affected by the proposed Project are 

Estuarine Intertidal Scrub-shrub (Mangroves), Estuarine Subtidal Open Water/Water Column 

(Estuarine Planktonic) and Tidal Creeks (Mud/sand and Sand/Shell Bottom). Within each of the 

Bridge Project Areas, EFH is equivalent to wetland and/or surface water habitats. The wetlands 

and/or surface waters within the Bridge Project Areas were identified as jurisdictional wetlands 

and/or waters. Boundaries were field verified by the USACE. Brandon Howard from NOAA Fisheries 

accompanied USACE during the site visit to verify the wetland boundaries and EFH habitats. 

Construction of the proposed Project could involve unavoidable impacts to EFH and HAPC. Direct 

impacts associated with the proposed Project would include placement of rip-rap/fill for the bridge 

approaches, placement of structures at the locations of bridge pilings, and excavation at locations of

existing timber pilings to be replaced. The impact of piling placement will be limited to the total 

footprint of pilings placed in EFH, totaling approximately 760 square feet (0.02 acre), across the 

15 bridge locations. The impacts of the rip-rap/fill at the location of the abutments has been 

calculated as the total area of rip-rap/fill placed in surface waters and totals approximately 

5,000 square feet (0.11 acre).The placement of pilings would have a variable effect on the managed 

species. Pilings could ultimately result in a beneficial effect to species/life stages that prefer such 

structures as habitat, such as adult goliath grouper, gray snapper, and mutton snapper. However, 

permanent impact of the removal of mangrove wetlands could adversely affect species/life stages 

that prefer mangrove habitat, such as juvenile goliath grouper, post larval/juvenile grey snapper, and

juvenile mutton snapper. 

Impacts to wetlands (mangroves) were calculated as the aerial extent of mangroves to be 

permanently removed by the proposed Project. Proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 

measures are discussed in Section 4.0 

4.3 Indirect Impacts 

Because an active railroad bridge is currently located at all of the Bridge Project Areas, it was 

determined that indirect impacts would be minimal. Best management practices (BMPs) including silt 

fencing and turbidity curtains will be utilized during construction to avoid indirect impacts to water

quality as well as shoreline erosion. During continued operation and maintenance of the bridge and 

associated railroad, BMPs in accordance with those outlined by standards for erosion and sediment 

control and stormwater treatment set forth in section 62-40.432, FAC will be implemented. 

4.4 Temporary Impacts 

Temporary construction-related impacts are anticipated to be limited to the area immediately 

adjacent to and under each of the proposed Bridge Project Areas. Temporary impacts resulting from 

construction activities would potentially occur from temporary disturbance, increased sediment 

loads, and increased turbidity in the water column. These impacts will be minimized by 

implementation of BMPs including installation of silt fencing and turbidity curtains during 

construction. Additional temporary impact would potentially occur through the disruption/burial of 

aquatic habitats at the location of the bridge abutments and piles. Most of the species of concern are

mobile and can actively avoid construction activities, although some benthic fauna could potentially 

be impacted at the site of the piles. Due to the small footprint of in-water work at each bridge, 

mortality levels are anticipated to be negligible. Temporary impacts were quantified by estimating the

area of proposed excavation for timber piling removal. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 August 2013 

4-3 

Pile driving (percussive or vibratory) has the potential to have temporary impacts on fish and other 

aquatic organisms during construction of a bridge.38 Potential impacts to eggs, larvae, and adults of 

invertebrates and fishes associated with pile driving are noise vibration, sediment deposition, and 

crushing. Factors that affect the physical interaction of sound with fish include the size of the fish

relative to the wavelength of sound, the mass of the fish, its anatomical variation, and the location of 

the fish in the water column relative to the sound source.39 Fish have been divided into two broad 

groups based on hearing sensitivity, ‘hearing specialists’ and ‘hearing generalists’. ‘Hearing 

specialists’ show high sensitivity to sound with levels as low as 60 decibels (dB) re 1 microPascal at

1 meter across a broad frequency range. The hearing sensitivity of ‘hearing generalists’ is lower than

that of ‘hearing specialists’. ‘Hearing generalists’ rely on the detection of particle displacement for 

sensing sound. The highly variable auditory sensitivity of fish means that it is impossible to 

generalize on the impact of impulse signals from one species to another.39

Invertebrates also vary in their sensitivity to sound. Sand shrimp exhibited a significant reduction in 

growth and reproduction rates, and an increase in aggression and mortality when exposed to noise 

levels of 30 dB in the 25 to 400 hertz bandwidth in aquaria.39

Noise from pile driving during construction could potentially affect federally managed species; 

however, the use of bubble curtains during pile driving will help to dampen noise by about 5 to 22 dB 

depending on the pile type and other conditions (Personal Communication NOAA Fisheries40). NOAA 

Fisheries has recommended that bubble curtains be used when impacts could occur. It is anticipated 

that the air bubble curtains will be used during pile driving to minimize the potential effects on 

federally managed species. 

4.5 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts result from the total effect of the proposed Project when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions (40 CFR 1508.7 and 50 CFR 402.02). 

For purposes of this analysis, the cumulative impact study area is defined as the Bridge Project 

Areas. The proposed Project is being considered within the context of other development projects 

within the watersheds of the proposed Bridge Project Areas. An active rail bridge currently exists at 

each Bridge Project Area. As discussed in Section 1.0 (Introduction), the purpose and need for these 

bridges is to support the Project from Miami to Orlando. The objective of the proposed Project is in 

response to the societal desire to expand passenger rail service in Florida as well as, the regulatory

requirements to establish and maintain a safe railway. Past actions have resulted in a landscape that 

is residential and commercial land uses surrounding the Bridge Project Areas. In addition, past 

growth in the vicinity of the Project Areas has resulted in additional stormwater discharge which has 

contributed to a degradation of water quality within these systems. 

The proposed Bridge Project Areas will not have stations associated with them; therefore, it is 

anticipated that the proposed Project would not increase the potential for any long term 

growth-induced development at the proposed Bridge Project Areas. 

Any other development projects that would affect jurisdictional wetlands or water quality would be 

subject to the same permitting and mitigation requirements as the proposed Project. The level of 

cumulative impacts for EFH within the Bridge Project Areas is expected to be very low. The total 

permanent impacts to wetlands and surface waters at the 15 Bridge Project Areas is approximately 

 

38 Popper, A.N. 2005. What do we know about pile driving and fish? In: Irwin, C.L., Garrett, P. and McDermott, K.P. (eds.). 

Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Center for Transportation and the Environment, 

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

39 Kent, C.S. and R. McCauley. 2006. Review of “Environmental Assessment of the Batholiths Marine Seismic Survey, Inland 

Waterways and Near-Offshore, Central Coast of British Columbia”. Center for Marine Science and Technology. Curtin University. 

October 2006. 

40 Howard, Brandon. 2012/2013. NOAA Fisheries. Personal Communication September 2012 – May 2013. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 August 2013 

4-4 

0.88 acres. It is not anticipated that the Proposed Action would cumulatively influence or impact any

managed fish species or EFH evaluated in this report. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 August 2013 

5-1 

5.0 Avoidance, Minimization and Proposed Mitigation 

The three EFH types in the vicinity of the Bridge Project Areas are Estuarine Intertidal Scrub-shrub 

(Mangroves), Estuarine Subtidal Open Water/Water Column (Estuarine Planktonic) and Tidal Creeks 

(Mud/sand and Sand/Shell Bottom). The effects to these EFH types would be the placement of 

pilings, placement of rip-rap/fill at the location of abutments, removal of existing timber pilings, and 

shading resulting from bridge construction. The adverse impact of piling placement will be limited to 

the total footprint of pilings placed in EFH, totaling approximately 760 square feet (0.02 acre), across 

the 15 bridge locations. The adverse impacts of the rip-rap/fill at the location of the abutments have

been calculated as the total area of rip-rap/fill to be placed in surface waters and totals 

approximately 5,000 square feet (0.11 acre). Approximately 0.73 acre of the substrate will be 

shaded. Shading impacts were calculated as the footprint of the new bridges at each Bridge Project 

Area. It should be noted, though, that no seagrasses were observed within the Bridge Project 

Areas. Therefore, shading impacts will not impact seagrasses. Approximately 940 square feet (0.02 

acre) of wetland (primarily mangroves) will be permanently removed, and approximately 4,000 

square feet (0.09 acre) of mangroves will be trimmed according to FDEP Mangrove Trimming 

Guidelines, which are designed to avoid defoliation, removal, or destruction of the mangrove tree 

itself. The details of these impacts at each Bridge Project Area are summarized in Table 4-1. It is 

expected that the pilings might actually serve as an attractant to some fish species in the area and 

may enhance the habitat in several of these systems. 

To mitigate for these impacts, work required for construction of the bridges would be conducted in a 

manner to reduce erosion and sedimentation through implementation of BMPs (such as the use of 

silt fences and turbidity curtains) in accordance with an approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control 

Plan to prevent further impacts to EFH. The placement of fill and rip-rap in wetlands resulting from 

bridge construction are considered permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. As a result, an 

appropriate Clean Water Act Section 404 permit would be obtained from the USACE prior to 

construction, and mitigation would be implemented as required by wetland permit conditions. 

Wetlands (mangroves) were evaluated through the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) 

(Chapter 62-345, FAC), Wetland Rapid Assessment Method (WRAP)/Estuarine Wetland Rapid 

Assessment Method (EWRAP), or WATER depending on the method used at each of the mitigation 

banks. These assessment methods serve as standardized method to assess wetland structure, 

function, and health. UMAM, WRAP/EWRAP, or WATER calculations have been prepared for sites 

where mitigation credits will be purchased from banks. Details of the wetland evaluation for Bridge 

Project Areas including wetlands (mangroves) are contained in Appendix D. The anticipated 

functional losses and proposed mitigation for each bridge are summarized in Table 4-1. 

Mitigation credits will be purchased at the following mitigation banks: 

• Lake X Ranch Mitigation Bank (for impacts at Goat Creek) 

• Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank (for impacts at Unnamed Creek) 

• Bear Point Mitigation Bank (for impacts at Unnamed Tributary 1 and 2 and Tributary to Manatee 

Creek 1) 

• Florida Power and Light (FPL) Everglades Mitigation Bank (for impacts at North Fork of the 

Middle River, South Fork of the Middle River and Oleta River). 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

5-2 

Table 4-1. Anticipated Impacts, Wetland Assessment and Proposed Mitigation for each Bridge Project Area

Site 

Surface Water Impact 

(pilings) 

Surface Water Impacts 

(rip-rap/fill) 

Surface Water Impact 

(shading) 

Temporary Surface Water 

Impact (timber piling removal) 

Wetland Im

(mangrove rem

Acres 

Square 

Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Squ

Horse Creek (MP 187.37) 0.0004 18.84 0.00005 2.00 0.0174 756.82 - - - Goat Creek (MP 202.59) 0.0015 66.66 0.0149 649.65 0.0640 2788.02 0.0017 75.20 0.0008 North Canal (MP 223.7) 0.0008 33.33 0.0003 11.27 0.0260 1132.84 - - - South Canal (MP 230.03) 0.0010 44.44 0.0076 332.43 0.0434 1890.48 - - - Moores Creek (MP 241.27) 0.0004 18.84 0.0020 87.35 0.0218 948.50 - - - Unnamed Creek (MP 259.95) 0.0015 66.66 0.0017 75.32 0.0536 2335.35 0.0013 55.02 0.0018 Unnamed Tributary 1 (MP 266.86) 0.0015 66.66 0.0099 429.39 0.0663 2886.93 0.0006 27.51 0.0052* 2Unnamed Tributary 2 (MP 266.58) 0.0002 9.42 0.0088 382.57 0.0124 539.64 - - 0.0008 Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 (MP 267.70) - - 0.0307 1337.88 0.0219 954.99 0.0002 7.84 0.0051* 2Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 (MP 267.34) - - 0.0094 409.97 0.0162 707.66 0.0002 7.86 - Hillsboro River (MP 326.58) 0.0018 77.77 0.0016 68.90 0.0688 2995.81 - - - North Fork of the Middle River (MP 337.91) 0.0036 155.44 0.0003 13.36 0.1230 5358.72 0.0025 110.04 0.0050 2South Fork of the Middle River (MP 338.52) 0.0036 155.44 0.0151 658.36 0.1342 5847.81 0.0029 125.76 0.0011 Oleta River (MP 353.74) 0.0010 44.44 0.0047 205.92 0.0529 2302.50 0.0005 23.52 0.0017 Arch Creek (MP 356.53) - - - - 0.0114 495.02 - - - 

Total 0.0174 757.94 0.1071 4664.37 0.7333 31941.09 0.0099 432.75 0.0216 9

Source: AMEC, 2013 Notes: * = non-mangrove wetland impacts 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 August 2013 

6-1 

6.0 References 

1. All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF). 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) 

Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. 

Available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. 

2. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

2013. Finding of No Significant Impact for the All Aboard Passenger Rail Project West Palm 

Beach to Miami, Florida. Available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Details/L04277. 

3. All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF). 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) 

Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. 

Available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. 

4. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

2013. Finding of No Significant Impact for the All Aboard Passenger Rail Project West Palm 

Beach to Miami, Florida. Available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Details/L04277. 

5. Howard, Brandon. 2012/2013. NOAA Fisheries. Personal Communication September 2012 – 

May 2013. 

6. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat 

Conservation District Southeast Regional Office. 2008. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish 

Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. Available: 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide _2008. pdf. Accessed October 2012. 

7. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual (FAC, 

Chapter 62-340). 

8. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of 

Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) 

9. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2008. Delineation of the Landward 

Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters (FDEP, Chapter 62.340, F.A.C) 

10. Florida Natural Areas Index (FNAI). 2010. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Florida 

State University. 

11. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2012. Recommendations 

for Sampling Halophila johnsonii at a Project Site. Website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/docs/JSG%20Survey%20Guidelines.pdf. Accessed August 2012. 

12. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 2011. Recommended Survey 

Protocols for Estuarine and Marine Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) related to Permitting 

Applications (Draft). 

13. Howard, Brandon. 2012/2013. NOAA Fisheries. Personal Communication September 2012 – 

May 2013. 

14. Tiner, R. W. 1993. A Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States. 

Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 August 2013 

6-2 

15. South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Habitat Plan for the South 

Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Available: http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/ 

EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/ tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm. 

Accessed October 2012. 

16. Gilmore, R.G. and S.C. Snedaker. 1993. Chapter 5: Mangrove forests in W.H. Martin, S.G. 

Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht, eds. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: lowland 

terrestrial communities. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publishers, New York. 

17. South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 2011. Users Guide to Essential Fish 

Habitat Designation. Available: http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick. aspx? fileticket= S5hRz7dAT w0 

%3D&tabid=710. Accessed March 2013. 

18. NOAA. 2013. EFH Mapper. Website: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/ 

efh/habitatmapper.html. Accessed March 7, 2013. 

19. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat 

Conservation District Southeast Regional Office. 2008. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish 

Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. Available: 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide _2008. pdf. Accessed October 2012. 

20. South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Habitat Plan for the South 

Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

Available:http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/ 

SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm. Accessed October 2012. 

21. South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Final Comprehensive 

Amendment Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South 

Atlantic Region. Available: http://www.safmc.net/ ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/ Habitat 

Protection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm. Accessed October 2012. 

22. Burton, M.L. 2001. Age, growth, and mortality of gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus, from the east 

coast of Florida. Fish. Bull.99:254-265. 

23. Blue Ocean Institute (BOI). 2012. Mangrove Snapper Full Species Report. Available at: http:/ 

/blueocean.org/documents/2012/06/snapper-mangrove-full-species-report.pdf. Accessed 

October 2012. 

24. Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). 2009. Florida Museum of Natural History 

Ichthyology Department: Gray Snapper. Available: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish

/gallery/Descript/ GraySnapper/Graysnapper.html. Accessed October 2012. 

25. Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). 2012. Mutton Snapper Biological Profile. Available 

at: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/descript/muttonsnapper/muttonsnapper.html. Accessed 

October 2012. 

26. Watanabe, W.O. 2001. Species Profile: Mutton Snapper. Southern Region Aquaculture Center 

Publication No. 725. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 August 2013 

6-3 

27. Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). 2012. Goliath Grouper Biological Profile. Available 

at: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/GoliathGrouper/GoliathGrouper.html. Accessed 

October 2012. 

28. Florida State University (FSU). 2012. Coleman and Koenig Research Laboratory. Available at: 

http://www.bio.fsu.edu /coleman_lab/goliath_grouper.php. Accessed October 8, 2012. 

29. South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 2011. Users Guide to Essential Fish 

Habitat Designation. Available: http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick. aspx? fileticket= S5hRz7dAT w0 

%3D&tabid=710. Accessed March 2013. 

30. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat 

Conservation District Southeast Regional Office. 2008. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish 

Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. Available: 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide _2008. pdf. Accessed October 2012. 

31. Marx, J.M., and W.F. Herrnkind. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental 

requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (south Florida)--spiny lobster. US Fish Wildl. 

Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.61). US Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 21 pp. 

32. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2012. Fish Watch: 

Caribbean Spiny Lobster. Available at: http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/ 

lobster/species_pages/caribbean_spiny_lobster.htm. Accessed October 11, 2012. 

33. South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Final Comprehensive 

Amendment Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South 

Atlantic Region. Available: http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/ Habitat 

Protection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm. Accessed October 2012. 

34. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat 

Conservation District Southeast Regional Office. 2008. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish 

Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. Available: 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide _2008. pdf. Accessed October 2012. 

35. South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Habitat Plan for the South 

Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Available: http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/ 

EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm. 

Accessed October 2012. 

36. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2012. National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Penaeid Shrimp EFH and Habitat Requirements. Available: http://www.nmfs. 

noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/ profile/southatlantic/penaidshrimp_efhenvreq.htm. Accessed 

October 2012. 

37. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2012. National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Fishwatch – Pink shrimp. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

fishwatch/species/pink_shrimp.htm. Accessed October 2012 

38. Popper, A.N. 2005. What do we know about pile driving and fish? In: Irwin, C.L., Garrett, P. and 

McDermott, K.P. (eds.). Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation, Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 August 2013 

6-4 

39. Kent, C.S. and R. McCauley. 2006. Review of “Environmental Assessment of the Batholiths 

Marine Seismic Survey, Inland Waterways and Near-Offshore, Central Coast of British 

Columbia”. Center for Marine Science and Technology. Curtin University. October 2006. 

40. Howard, Brandon. 2012/2013. NOAA Fisheries. Personal Communication September 2012 – 

May 2013. 
Appendix A 

Photograph Log 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

1 

Horse Creek 

Photograph 1. Existing rail bridge over Horse Creek (Brevard County), with concrete pedestrian 

access; view to south. 

Photograph 2. Horse Creek rail bridge and west side right-of-way; view to north. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

2 

Photograph 3. Residential land use; view to northeast from rail bridge.

Photograph 4. Representative view of undeveloped land in vicinity of rail bridge; view to 

southeast. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

3 

Photograph 5. Dock observed in Horse Creek near residence; view to east from rail bridge. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

4 

Goat Creek 

Photograph 1. View from south bank looking north along east side of the bridge. 

Photograph 2. View showing proximity of white mangrove in project area. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

5 

North Canal 

Photograph 1. Typical view of North Canal Bridge facing south. 

Photograph 2. Typical view of North Canal Bridge. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

6 

Photograph 3. Typical view of North Canal, view to east. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

7 

South Canal 

Photograph 1. Gravel and grass right-of-way to north of the South Canal railroad bridge and 

pedestrian bridge, view to north. 

Photograph 2. Sedimentation beneath the South Canal Bridge, with Elephant grass and 

Brazilian pepper dominant vegetation; view to north. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

8 

Photograph 3. Vegetation observed at base of bridge, including Brazilian pepper. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

9 

Moore’s Creek 

Photograph 1. View from north bank looking south along west side of the bridge.

Photograph 2. View showing red s in the assessment area, approximately 18 feet west of 

the existing rail bridge. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

10 

Unnamed Creek 

Photograph 1. Seven rows of multiple wood pilings in the water to help support the bridge. 

Photograph 2. Red mangrove propagules were observed growing under existing bridge during 

the site visit. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

11 

Unnamed Tributary 1 (MP 266.86) 

Photograph 1. The bridge at MP 266.86 crosses a creek about 20 feet wide surrounded by red 

mangrove wetlands. 

Photograph 2. Representative photograph of the coastal marsh in the footprint of the proposed 

new bridge. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

12 

Unnamed Tributary 2 (MP 266.58) 

Photograph 1. The railroad bridge at MP 266.58 has a row of 3 pilings in the water and ballast 

on the shoreline. 

Photograph 2. Manatee Plaza Marina is located just north of the Project Area at MP 266.58. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

13 

Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 (MP 267.70) 

Photograph 1. The bridge has two rows of five pilings in the water and ballast on the shoreline. 

Photograph 2. Eel grass observed in stream. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

14 

Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 (MP 267.34) 

Photograph 1. The bridge crosses the Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 with two sets of four pilings. 

The shore is covered with ballast and riprap. 

Photograph 2. Assessment Area beneath existing bridge structure. 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

15 

Hillsboro River 

Photograph 1. Facing south from the north bank. 

Photograph 2. Rip-rap beneath newly constructed automobile bridge. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

16 

Photograph 3. Oyster shell covered bottom within assessment area. 

Photograph 4. Hygrophila sp. observed within the assessment area. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

17 

North Fork of the Middle River 

Photograph 1. Facing south at mangroves growing into the former west bridge. 

Photograph 2. Oyster shell covered bottom within assessment area. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

18 

Photograph 3. Algae covered Eel Grass (Vallisneria americana) within assessment area. 

Photograph 4. Hygrophila sp. bed within the assessment area 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

19 

South Fork of the Middle River 

Photograph 1. Facing north from the southern end of the former bridge. 

Photograph 2. Facing northeast from the existing in-service bridge. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

20 

Photograph 3. Facing north through the center of the existing bridge structures. 

Photograph 4. Small oyster beds within the assessment area. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

21 

Oleta River 

Photograph 1. Facing north illustrating existing timber constructed railroad bridge.

Photograph 2. Red mangroves growing within the assessment area. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

22 

Photograph 3. Red mangroves growing beneath existing railroad bridge.

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

23 

Arch Creek 

Photograph 1. Facing north illustrating existing railroad bridge. 

Photograph 2. View from above illustrating footprint of former railroad bridge. 

 
Essential Fish Habitat Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida 

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212 August 2013 

24 

Photograph 3. Red mangroves growing within the assessment area 

Photograph 4. Red mangrove propagules growing beneath the existing bridge structure. 
 

Appendix B

Aerial Photographs
Explanation of Features

Project Area (0.28 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

NMG 11/26/2012

ARB 11/26/2012

Horse Creek Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over Horse Creek at Milepost 187.37 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\Horse Creek\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

0 50 100

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
Explanation of Features

Project Area (0.51 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

NMG 11/26/2012

ARB 11/26/2012

Goat Creek Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over Goat Creek at Milepost 202.59 Along AAF Rail Corridor

 ̄ Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\Goat Creek\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012

Project # 6063-12-0212

0 25 50

Ft 1
OLD

DIXIE

HWY

Explanation of Features

Project Area (0.71 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 08/21/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

North Canal Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over North Canal at Milepost 223.70 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\NORTH CANAL\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

0 50 100

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
FEDERAL

HWY

Explanation of Features

Project Area (0.69 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 08/21/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

South Canal Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over South Canal at Milepost 230.03 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\SOUTH CANAL\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

0 50 100

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
AVE C

FEDERAL

HWY/US 1

AE BACKUS AVE

Explanation of Features

Project Area (0.48 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 08/21/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

Moores Creek Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over Moores Creek at Milepost 241.27 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\MOORES\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

0 50 100

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
NW DIXIE HWY

Explanation of Features

Project Area (0.68 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 08/21/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

Tributary to Unnamed Creek Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over Unnamed Creek at Milepost 259.95 Along AAF Rail Corridor

 ̄ Path: F:\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\UNNAMED CREEK\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

0 100 50

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
SE DIXIE HWY

SE SALERNO RD

Explanation of Features

Project Area (0.74 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 08/21/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

Unnamed Tributary 2 Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over Unnamed Tributary at Milepost 266.58 Along AAF Rail Corridor

 ̄ Path: F:\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 2\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

0 100 50

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
SE DIXIE HWY

SE ANCHOR AVE

Explanation of Features

Project Area (0.68 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 08/21/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

Unnamed Tributary 1 Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over Unnamed Tributary at Milepost 266.86 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\UNNAMED TRIBUTARY\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

0 50 100

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
SE DIXIE HWY

Explanation of Features

Project Area (0.53 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 08/21/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over Tributary to Manatee Creek at Milepost 267.34 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\TRIBUTARY TO MANATEE CREEK 2\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

0 50 100

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
SE DIXIE HWY

SE TANGER NI E BLV

D

Explanation of Features

Project Area (.0.56 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 08/21/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over Tributary to Manatee Creek at Milepost 267.70 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\TRIBUTARY TO MANATEE CREEK 1\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

0 50 100

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
NE 3 ST

DIXIE HWY

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 11/01/2012

ARB 11/01/2012

Hillsboro Canal Aerial Map

Figure

Bridge Over Hillsboro Canal at Milepost 326.58 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\HILLSBORO CANAL\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery, AMEC 2012

0 50 100

ft

Explanation of Features

Project Area (.93 ac.)

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
DIXIE

H

WY

Explanation of Features

Project Area (.90 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 10/23/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

North Fork of Middle River Bridge Site Map

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\NORTH FORK\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 0 50 100

ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

Bridge Over North Fork of Middle River at Milepost 337.91 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Figure

1
DIXIE

H

WY

Explanation of Features

Project Area (.86 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 10/23/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

South Fork of Middle River Bridge Site Map

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\SOUTH FORK\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AMEC 2012 0 50 100

ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

Bridge Over South Fork of Middle River at Milepost 338.52 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Figure

1
BISCAYNE

BLVD

WEST

DIXIE

HWY

Explanation of Features

Project Area (.64 ac.)

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 10/23/2012

ARB 08/21/2012

Oleta River Bridge Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over Oleta River at Milepost 353.74 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\OLETA_RIVER\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AAF 2012 0 50 100

ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

1
NE 135 ST

Drawn Date

Checked Date

DLA 10/30/2012

ARB 10/30/2012

Arch Creek Bridge Site Map

Figure

Bridge Over Arch Creek at Milepost 356.53 Along AAF Rail Corridor

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\Permitting\ACOE\ARCH CREEK\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery , AAF 2012

0 10050

ft

Project # 6063-12-0212

Explanation of Features

Project Area (.56 ac.)

1
 

Appendix C

Construction Drawings
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/20/2013DJSmith

6:17:28PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\014\014-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

HORSE CREEK 1 4

3/20/2013

304120040_014

AS NOTED

BRIDGE 187.37

MP 187.37 (1)

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

9893+71.1

9925+60.8

To Miami

MP 188

LL

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

NOTES

SHEET

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION

MP 187.37 (1)

MP 187.37 (2)

MP 187.37 (3)

GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

EXIST. R/W

3189.7’

MP 187.37 (4)

LL

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

ELEVATION

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

PLAN

N

14

16

18

12

1086420

DATUM: NAVD 88

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

& PROPOSED RAIL

TOP OF EXISTING

AND ELEVATION

GENERAL PLAN

73’-6"

24’-9" 24’-0" 24’-9"

EXIST. BRIDGE TO REMAIN

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXISTING PLAN

PROP. T/R = 16.62

EXIST. T/R = 16.62

STA. 9893+59.98

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. L.C. = 12.2

EX. L.C. = 12.2

(FEMA FIRM) = 8.1

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

PROP. T/R = 16.78

EXIST. T/R = 16.78

STA. 9892+86.48

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

STEEL PIPE PILE (TYP.)

20" DIA. CONC. FILLED

OHWL = -0.58

INVERT ELEV. = -5.90

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING 0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET 0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

TYP.

20’-0" 20’-0"

20

3.

2.

1.

All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2’-0" Below Mudline.

dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

Future Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" 

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

PROPOSED BRIDGE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

30’-0"

14’-0"

50’-0" 50’-0"

100’-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

EXIST. R/W
0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

9

01

10

10

01

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

CONSULTANTS:

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/20/2013DJSmith

6:17:31PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\014\014-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500FAX:904-245-6510SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

MYC

DJS

DEB

HORSE CREEK

2 4

3/20/2013

304120040_014

AS NOTED

BRIDGE 187.37

MP 187.37 (2)

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

9893+71.1

9925+60.8

To Miami

MP 188

L

L

LOCATION PLAN

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

3189.7’

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

PLAN

N

WETLAND LINE

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

5

LEGEND

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

N/A

*

0.000

0.000

*

000.00

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

EXIST. BRIDGE TO REMAIN

98.65

1950.28

0.017 756.82

20.84

ENVIRONMENTAL

PLAN

WETLAND LINE

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

WETLAND LINE

PROPOSED BRIDGE

187.37-3 = 0.017 AC

SHADING AREA

SURFACE WATER

187.37-1 = 0.001 AC

IMPACT AREA

SURFACE WATER

18.84 SF = 0.001 AC

PER 3 PILE PIER =

AREA 187.37-2 = 9.42 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (284.30 SF)

RIP RAP (284.30 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

NOTES

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

0.045

0.001
13’-1"

14’-0"

"

16

11 2’-6

3’-2"

7’-6"

3’-8"

MYC

DJS

DEB

34

3/20/2013

AS NOTED

MP 187.37 (3)

304120040_014

TOP OF RAIL

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 187.37

BRIDGE 187.37

HORSE CREEK

SLAB (TYP.)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYP.)

WALKWAY BRACKET

(TYP.)

WALKWAY

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL POST

(TYPICAL)

CONCRETE CAP 

STEEL PIPE PILE (TYP.)

20" DIA. CONC. FILLED

AS NEEDED

SAW CUT WALKWAY

& BRIDGE TO REMAIN

C/L EXISTING TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

TYPICAL

SECTION

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/20/2013DJSmith

6:17:34PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\014\014-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:46:18PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\026\026-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

GOAT CREEK

1 4

2/10/2013

304120040_026

AS NOTED

BRIDGE 202.59

ELEVATION

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

PLAN

N

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

10697+68.2

10718+16.1

To Miami

MP 203

L

L

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

NOTES

SHEET

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION

MP 202.59 (1)

MP 202.59 (2)

MP 202.59 (3)

GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

EXIST. R/W

2047.9’

MP 202.59 (4)

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

MP 202.59 (1)

AND ELEVATION

14

16

18

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

DATUM: NAVD 88

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

TOP OF PROPOSED RAIL

TOP OF EXISTING RAIL

INVERT ELEV. = -4.28

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

MHWL = -0.90

PROP. T/R = 9.00

EXIST. T/R = 8.32

STA. 10696+66.34

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

(FEMA FIRM) = 4.0

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

PROP. L.C. = 4.5

EX. L.C. = 3.7

PROP. T/R = 8.80

EXIST. T/R = 8.12

STA. 10697+63.84

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

97’-6"

24’-9" 24’-0" 24’-0" 24’-9"

TO BE REPLACED

EXIST. BRIDGE

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

L

EXISTING PLAN

GENERAL PLAN

20’-0" 14’-0" 20’-0"

30’-0"

TYP.

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

SPEED CURVE

ADJUSTED FOR HIGH 

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

PROPOSED BRIDGE

TO BE REPLACED

EXISTING BRIDGE

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

3.

2.

1.

All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2’-0" Below Mudline.

dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

Future Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" 

50’-0" 50’-0"

100’-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
-1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

2

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

CONSULTANTS:

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:46:23PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\026\026-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500FAX:904-245-6510SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

MYC

DJS

DEB

GOAT CREEK

2 4

2/10/2013

304120040_026

AS NOTED

BRIDGE 202.59

PLAN

N

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

10697+68.2

10718+16.1

To Miami

MP 203

L

L

LOCATION PLAN

EXIST. R/W

2047.9’

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

MP 202.59 (2)

ENVIRONMENTAL

PLAN

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

LEGEND

5

TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

TRIMMING, THEREFORE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP GUIDELINES FOR MANGROVE 

SITE ACCESS AS NEEDED. ALL TRIMMING WILL BE PERFORMED

* THESE AREAS MAY REQUIRE MANGROVE TRIMMING FOR

ACRES SQ. FEET

LATERAL BRANCHES

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

MANGROVE TRIMMING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

*

0.000

*

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

---- 148.60

TO BE REPLACED

EXIST. BRIDGE

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

0.000

0.001 34.91

000.00

0.016 716.31

0.064 2788.02

0.121 5289.76

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

TO BE REPLACED

EXISTING BRIDGE

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

WETLAND LINE

202.59-2 = 0.007 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

202.59-4 = 0.064 AC

SHADING AREA

SURFACE WATER

PROPOSED BRIDGE

202.59-1 = 0.008 AC

IMPACT AREA

SURFACE WATER

66.66 SF = 0.002 AC

PER 4 PILE PIER =

AREA 202.59-3 = 11.11 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

WETLAND LINE

L

HIGH SPEED CURVE

ADJUSTED FOR

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING*

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (568.58 SF)

RIP RAP (568.58 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

= 75.20 SF = 0.002 AC

PER EXISTING 6 PILE PIER(x16)

IMPACT AREA 202.59-6 = 4.70 SF

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER

= 0.001 AC

AREA 202.59-5

MANGROVE IMPACT

NOTES

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

EXISTING PILE REMOVAL 0.002 75.20
& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L EXISTING TRACK

CAP (TYPICAL)

CONCRETE

CONCRETE PILE (TYPICAL)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

SLAB (TYPICAL)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYPICAL)

WALKWAY BRACKET

(TYPICAL)

WALKWAY

(TYPICAL)

HANDRAIL POST

13’-1" 13’-1"

14’-0"

"

16

11

16

" 2’-6 11 2’-6

TOP OF RAIL

3’-2"

7’-6"

3’-8"

MYC

DJS

DEB

34

2/10/2013

AS NOTED

MP202.59 (3)

304120040_026

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 202.59

GOAT CREEK

BRIDGE 202.59

TYPICAL

SECTION

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:46:28PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\026\026-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

4/25/2013mewilson

2:49:44PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\033\033-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

NORTH CANAL

1 4

4/25/2013

304120040_033

AS NOTED

BRIDGE 223.70

MP 223.70 (1)

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

11812+56.1

11827+79.3

To Miami

MP 224

L

L

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

NOTES

SHEET

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION

MP 223.70 (1)

MP 223.70 (2)

MP 223.70 (3)

GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

EXIST. R/W

1523.2'

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

ELEVATION

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

PLAN

N

MP 223.70 (4)

AND ELEVATION

TYP.

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

14

16

18

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

DATUM: NAVD 88

TOP OF EXISTING RAIL

TOP OF PROPOSED RAIL

PROP. T/R = 17.54

EXIST. T/R = 17.15

STA. 11811+45.03

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 17.40

EXIST. T/R = 17.01

STA. 11812+46.53

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

(FEMA FIRM) = 12.0

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD PROP. L.C. = 13.1

EX. L.C. = 13.1

20

22

24

EXISTING PLAN

GENERAL PLAN

TO REMAIN

EXIST. BRIDGE

C EXIST. TRACK

EXIST. R/W

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

3.

2.

1.

All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2'-0" Below Mudline.

dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

Future Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" 

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

PROPOSED BRIDGE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

INVERT ELEV. = 0.17

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

WATER = 2.4

OBSERVED HIGH

25'-9" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-9"

101'-6"

20'-0" 20'-0"

30'-0"

14'-0"

50'-0" 50'-0"

100'-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
2

3

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

10

01

10

10

01

10

11

11

11

21

13

13

14

15

51

15

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

CONSULTANTS:

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

4/25/2013mewilson

2:49:46PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\033\033-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500FAX:904-245-6510SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

MYC

DJS

DEB

NORTH CANAL

2 4

4/25/2013

304120040_033

AS NOTED

BRIDGE 223.70

MP 223.70 (2)

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

11812+56.1

11827+79.3

To Miami

MP 224

L

L

LOCATION PLAN

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

1523.2'

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

PLAN

N

ENVIRONMENTAL

5

LEGEND

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

N/A

*

0.000

0.000

*

000.00

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

0.026 1132.84

0.001

106.95

0.070 3048.68

EXIST. BRIDGE TO REMAIN

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

WETLAND LINE

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

WETLAND LINE

223.70-1 = 0.001 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

223.70-3 = 0.026 AC

SHADING AREA 

SURFACE WATER

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

PROPOSED BRIDGE

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

NOTES

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (293.04 SF)

RIP RAP (293.04 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

33.33 SF = 0.001 AC

PER 4 PILE PIER =

AREA 223.70-2=11.11 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

44.60
13'-1"

14'-0"

"

16

11 2'-6

3'-2"

7'-6"

3'-8"

MYC

DJS

DEB

34

4/25/2013

AS NOTED

MP223.70 (3)

304120040_033

TOP OF RAIL

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 223.70

BRIDGE 223.70

NORTH CANAL

& BRIDGE TO REMAIN

C/L EXISTING TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL POST

(TYP.)

WALKWAY

(TYP.)

WALKWAY BRACKET

SLAB (TYP.)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYP.)

CONCRETE CAP 

CONCRETE PILE (TYPICAL)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

TYPICAL

SECTION

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

4/25/2013mewilson

2:49:48PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\033\033-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:27:45PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\040\040-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

12197+66.5

To Miami

MP 231

L

L

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

NOTES

SHEET

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION

MP 230.03 (1)

MP 230.03 (2)

MP 230.03 (3)

GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

ELEVATION

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

PLAN

N

MYC

DJS

DEB

1 4

2/10/2013

AS NOTED

BRIDGE 230.03

MP 230.03 (1)

304120040_040

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

SOUTH CANAL

TYP.

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

14

16

18

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

DATUM: NAVD 88

TOP OF EXISTING RAIL

TOP OF PROPOSED RAIL

AND ELEVATION

GENERAL PLAN

20’-0" 20’-0"

5071.2’

12146+95.3

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK

C EXIST. TRACK

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

MP 230.03 (4) EXISTING PLAN

PROP. T/R = 12.77

EXIST. T/R = 12.57

STA. 12145+68.78

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 12.80

EXIST. T/R = 12.60

STA. 12146+95.28

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

(FEMA FIRM) = 10.0

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

PROP. L.C. = 8.5

EX. L.C. = 8.5

25’-9" 25’-0" 25’-0" 25’-0" 25’-9"

126’-6"

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

MLWL = -1.42

MHWL = -0.49

INVERT ELEV. = -4.80

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

30’-0"

14’-0"

50’-0" 50’-0"

100’-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED BRIDGE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

3.

2.

1.

All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2’-0" Below Mudline.

dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

Future Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" 
4

4

5

5

6

7

8

9

9

01

10

10

11

11

11

11

11

12

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:27:50PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\040\040-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

PLAN

N

MYC

DJS

DEB

2 4

2/10/2013

AS NOTED

BRIDGE 230.03

MP 230.03 (2)

304120040_040

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

SOUTH CANAL

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

12197+66.5

To Miami

MP 231

L

L

LOCATION PLAN

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

12146+95.3

5071.2’

ENVIRONMENTAL

PLAN

5

LEGEND

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

N/A

*

0.000

0.000

*

000.00

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

0.009

NOTES

1890.48

84.06

0.115 4994.38

0.043

376.87

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

230.03-1 = 0.004 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

44.44 SF = 0.001 AC

PER 4 PILE PIER =

AREA 230.03-3 = 11.11 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT 

230.03-4 = 0.043 AC

SHADING AREA 

SURFACE WATER

230.03-2 = 0.004 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

WETLAND LINE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

WETLAND LINE

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (293.00 SF)

RIP RAP (293.00 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK

C EXIST. TRACK
13’-1"

14’-0"

"

16

11 2’-6

3’-2"

7’-6"

3’-8"

MYC

DJS

DEB

34

2/10/2013

AS NOTED

MP230.03 (3)

304120040_040

TOP OF RAIL

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 230.03

BRIDGE 230.03

SOUTH CANAL

& BRIDGE TO REMAIN

C/L EXISTING TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL POST

(TYP.)

WALKWAY

(TYP.)

WALKWAY BRACKET

SLAB (TYP.)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYP.)

CONCRETE CAP 

CONCRETE PILE (TYPICAL)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

TYPICAL

SECTION

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:27:55PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\040\040-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:22:09PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\046\046-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

Railroad North

12777+80.1

To Miami

MP 242

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

NOTES

SHEET

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION

MP 241.27 (1)

MP 241.27 (2)

MP 241.27 (3)

GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

To Jacksonville

L

L

PLAN

N

ELEVATION

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

14

16

18

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

DATUM: NAVD 88

MYC

DJS

DEB

1 4

2/10/2013

AS NOTED

MOORES CREEK

BRIDGE 241.27

MP 241.27 (1)

304120040_046

12741+42.2

3637.9’

TO JACKSONVILLE

TYP.

TO MIAMI

TYP.

L

L

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

MLWL = -1.71

MHWL = -0.28

& PROPOSED RAIL

TOP OF EXISTING

AND ELEVATION

GENERAL PLAN

73’-6"

24’-9" 24’-0" 24’-9"

TO REMAIN

EXIST. BRIDGE 

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

MP 241.27 (4) EXISTING PLAN

PROP. T/R = 17.38

EXIST. T/R = 17.38

STA. 12740+84.33

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 17.17

EXIST. T/R = 17.17

STA. 12741+57.83

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. L.C. = 12.4

EX. L.C. = 12.4

(FEMA FIRM) = 5.0

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PIPE PILE (TYP.)

20" DIA. STEEL

INVERT ELEV. = -4.42

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

CONCRETE WALKWAY AS NEEDED

END BENT WINGWALLS AND

CUT AND REMOVE THE EXISTING 

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

PROPOSED BRIDGE

50’-0" 50’-0"

100’-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WA

3

Y

7’-6" 50’-0"

87’-6" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

3.

2.

1.

All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2’-0" Below Mudline.

dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" Future 

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET
-2

1-

0

0

0

2

3

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

10

10

10

01

10

11

11

11

12

12

13

13

14

14

51

15

16

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:22:15PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\046\046-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

Railroad North

12777+80.1

To Miami

MP 242

LOCATION PLAN

To Jacksonville

L

L

PLAN

N

MYC

DJS

DEB

2 4

2/10/2013

AS NOTED

MOORES CREEK

BRIDGE 241.27

MP 241.27 (2)

304120040_046

12741+42.2

3637.9’

TO JACKSONVILLE

TYP.

TO MIAMI

TYP.

L

L

ENVIRONMENTAL

PLAN

LEGEND

5

TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

TRIMMING, THEREFORE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP GUIDELINES FOR MANGROVE 

SITE ACCESS AS NEEDED. ALL TRIMMING WILL BE PERFORMED

* THESE AREAS MAY REQUIRE MANGROVE TRIMMING FOR

ACRES SQ. FEET

LATERAL BRANCHES

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

MANGROVE TRIMMING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

N/A

*

0.000

0.000

*

000.00

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

0.000 000.00

NOTES

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

TO REMAIN

EXIST. BRIDGE 

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

PROPOSED BRIDGE EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

0.022 948.50

0.002 106.19

0.002

93.57

0.055 2405.92

WETLAND LINE

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

241.27-2 = 0.002 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

241.27-4 = 0.022 AC

SHADING AREA 

SURFACE WATER

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

WETLAND LINE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

241.27-1 = 0.001 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING*

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (284.33 SF)

RIP RAP (284.33 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

18.84 SF = 0.001 AC

PER 3 PILE PIER =

AREA 241.27-3 =9.42 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT 

68.11
13’-1"

14’-0"

"

16

11 2’-6

3’-2"

7’-6"

3’-8"

MYC

DJS

DEB

34

2/10/2013

AS NOTED

MP241.27 (3)

TYPICAL SECTION

304120040_046

TOP OF RAIL

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 241.27

MOORES CREEK

BRIDGE 241.27

AS NEEDED

SAW CUT WALKWAY

& BRIDGE TO REMAIN

C/L EXISTING TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL POST

(TYP.)

WALKWAY

(TYP.)

WALKWAY BRACKET

SLAB (TYP.)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYP.)

CONCRETE CAP 

STEEL PIPE PILE (TYP.)

20" DIA. CONC. FILLED

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:22:20PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\046\046-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:16:10PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\058\058-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

1 4

2/10/2013

AS NOTED

UNNAMED CREEK

BRIDGE 259.95

MP 259.95 (1)

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

13728+38.4

13730+20.7

To Miami

MP 267

L

L

LOCATION PLAN

NOTES

SHEET

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION

MP 259.95 (1)

MP 259.95 (2)

MP 259.95 (3)

GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

ELEVATION

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

14

16

18

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

DATUM: NAVD 88

PLAN

N

182.3’

304120040_058

EXIST. R/W

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

TOP OF PROPOSED RAIL

TOP OF EXISTING RAIL

(FEMA FIRM) = 6.8

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

24’-9" 24’-0" 24’-0" 24’-9"

97’-6"

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

LEGEND

TYP.

AND ELEVATION

GENERAL PLAN

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

MP 259.95 (4) EXISTING PLAN

TO BE REPLACED

EXIST. BRIDGE

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

3.

2.

1. 

20’-0" 14’-0" 20’-0"

PROP. T/R = 11.60

EXIST. T/R = 8.78

STA. 13727+34.01

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 11.60

EXIST. T/R = 8.79

STA. 13728+31.52

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. L.C. = 7.3

EX. L.C. = 5.9

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

INVERT ELEV. = -3.15

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

MLWL = -1.19

MHWL = -0.41

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

TO BE REMOVED

PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT EXISTING BRIDGE

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

30’-0"

50’-0" 50’-0"

100’-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2’-0" Below Mudline.

dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering 

Future Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" 
-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

7

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:16:15PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\058\058-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

2 4

2/10/2013

AS NOTED

UNNAMED CREEK

BRIDGE 259.95

MP 259.95 (2)

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

13728+38.4

13730+20.7

To Miami

MP 267

L

L

LOCATION PLAN

NOTES

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

PLAN

N

182.3’

304120040_058

EXIST. R/W

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

ENVIRONMENTAL

PLAN

LEGEND

5

TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

TRIMMING, THEREFORE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP GUIDELINES FOR MANGROVE 

SITE ACCESS AS NEEDED. ALL TRIMMING WILL BE PERFORMED

* THESE AREAS MAY REQUIRE MANGROVE TRIMMING FOR

ACRES SQ. FEET

LATERAL BRANCHES

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

MANGROVE TRIMMING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

N/A

*

0.000

*

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

NOTES

259.95-4 = 0.054 AC

SHADING AREA 

SURFACE WATER

TO BE REPLACED

EXIST. BRIDGE

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

0.054 2335.35

0.003

0.015 657.74

125.05

0.096 4203.30

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING BRIDGE

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

WETLAND LINE

PROPOSED BRIDGE

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

259.95-2 = 0.001 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

WETLAND LINE

PIER = 66.66 SF = 0.002 AC

11.11 SF PER 4 PILE 

AREA 259.95-3 =

WATER SURFACE IMPACT

259.95-1 = 0.001 AC

IMPACT AREA

SURFACE WATER

0.002 79.30

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING*

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (568.67 SF)

RIP RAP (568.67 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

= 0.002 AC

AREA 259.95-5

MANGROVE IMPACT

= 55.02SF = 0.001 AC

PER EXISTING 5 PILE PIER(x14) 

IMPACT AREA 259.95-6 = 3.93 SF 

TEMPORARY WATER SURFACE

141.98

0.001 55.02
& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L EXISTING TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

CAP (TYPICAL)

CONCRETE

CONCRETE PILE (TYPICAL)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

SLAB (TYPICAL)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYPICAL)

WALKWAY BRACKET

(TYPICAL)

WALKWAY

(TYPICAL)

HANDRAIL POST

13’-1" 13’-1"

14’-0"

"

16

11

16

" 2’-6 11 2’-6

TOP OF RAIL

3’-2"

7’-6"

3’-8"

MYC

DJS

RAP

34

2/10/2013

AS NOTED

UNNAMED

MP259.95 (3)

BRIDGE 259.95

TYPICAL SECTION

304120040_058

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 259.95

CREEK

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/10/2013DJSmith

2:16:20PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\058\058-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

3:21:50PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\063\063-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

14

2/9/2013

AS NOTED

GENERAL PLAN

MP 266.58 (1)

Railroad North

14100+00.5

To Miami

MP 267

LOCATION PLAN

NOTES

SHEET

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

To Jacksonville LL

3. All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2’-0" Below Mudline.

 dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

2. Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

1. Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" Future Additional Ballast.

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

PLAN

ELEVATION

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT PROPOSED ABUTMENT

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

14

16

18

12

1086420

DATUM: NAVD 88

41’-6"

(FEMA FIRM) = 6.8

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

TO REMAIN

EXIST. BRIDGE

304120040_063

AND ELEVATION

LL

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

(TYP.)

TOP OF PROPOSED & EXISTING RAIL

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

LEGEND

UNNAMED TRIB.

BRIDGE 266.58

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET 0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

20’-0" 20’-0"

14078+54.8

30’-0"

14’-0"

50’-0" 50’-0"

100’-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

MP 266.58 (1)

MP 266.58 (2)

MP 266.58 (3)

MP 266.58 (4) EXISTING PLAN

2145.7’

PROP. L.C. = 5.0

EX. L.C. = 5.0

LWHL = -1.46

MHWL = -0.58

PROP. T/R = 9.18

EXIST. T/R = 9.18

STA. 14093+12.76

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 9.25

EXIST. T/R = 9.25

STA. 14094+17.59

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

INVERT ELEV. = -5.16

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

STEEL PIPE PILE (TYP.)

20" DIA. CONC. FILLED

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

PROPOSED BRIDGE
1E

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

3:21:55PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\063\063-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

2 4

2/9/2013

AS NOTED

ENVIRONMENTAL

MP 266.58 (2)

Railroad North

14100+00.5

To Miami

MP 267

LOCATION PLAN

To Jacksonville

L

L

EXIST. R/W

PLAN

TO REMAIN

EXIST. BRIDGE

2145.7’

304120040_063

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

LEGEND

5

TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

TRIMMING, THEREFORE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP GUIDELINES FOR MANGROVE 

SITE ACCESS AS NEEDED. ALL TRIMMING WILL BE PERFORMED

* THESE AREAS MAY REQUIRE MANGROVE TRIMMING FOR

ACRES SQ. FEET

LATERAL BRANCHES

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

MANGROVE TRIMMING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

N/A

*

0.000

0.000

*

000.00

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

NOTES

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

0.012 539.64

0.009 392.99

0.007 282.63

14078+54.8

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

WETLAND LINE

9.42 SF = 0.001 AC

PER 3 PILE PIER =

AREA 266.58-3 = 9.42 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

266.58-4 = 0.012 AC

SHADING AREA 

SURFACE WATER

PROPOSED BRIDGE

WETLAND LINE 266.58-1 = 0.006 AC

IMPACT AREA

SURFACE WATER

83.45

0.047 2061.87

0.001 36.61

UNNAMED TRIB.

BRIDGE 266.58

PLAN

PROPOSED BRIDGE EXIST. R/W

C PROP. TRACK

C EXIST. TRACK

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

AREA 266.58-2 = 0.003 AC

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

266.58-5 = 0.001 AC

MANGROVE IMPACT AREA 

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING*

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (296.88 SF)

RIP RAP (296.88 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION
MYC

DJS

DEB

34

2/9/2013

AS NOTED

UNNAMED

MP266.58 (3)

TRIBUTARY

BRIDGE 266.58

TYPICAL SECTION

304120040_063

TOP OF RAIL

& BRIDGE TO REMAIN

C/L EXISTING TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

13’-1"

14’-0"

"

16

11 2’-6

3’-2"

7’-6"

3’-8" (TYP.)

HANDRAIL POST

(TYP.)

CONCRETE CAP 

SLAB (TYP.)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYP.)

WALKWAY BRACKET

(TYP.)

WALKWAY

STEEL PIPE PILE (TYP.)

20" DIA. CONC. FILLED

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 266.58

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

3:22:00PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\063\063-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

2:29:42PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\064\064-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

PLAN

N

ELEVATION

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

14

16

18

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

DATUM: NAVD 88

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

Railroad North

14094+00.014100+00.5

To Miami

MP 267

LOCATION PLAN

NOTES

SHEET

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION

MP 266.86 (1)

MP 266.86 (2)

MP 266.86 (3)

GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

MYC

DJS

DEB

1 4

2/9/2013

AS NOTED

GENERAL PLAN

AND ELEVATION

MP 266.86 (1)

304120040_064

600.5’

To Jacksonville

L

L

EXIST. R/W

TOP OF PROPOSED RAIL

TOP OF EXISTING RAIL

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

LEGEND

(TYP.)

TO BE REPLACED

EXIST. BRIDGE

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

105’-6"

28’-9" 24’-0" 24’-0" 28’-9"

20’-0" 14’-0" 20’-0"

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

PROP. T/R = 11.60

EXIST. T/R = 8.41

STA. 14094+17.58

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 11.60

EXIST. T/R = 8.37

STA. 14093+12.08

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. L.C. = 7.3

EX. L.C. = 4.7

(FEMA FIRM) = 6.8

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

INVERT ELEV. = -2.16

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

MLWL = -1.45

MHWL = -0.58

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

UNNAMED TRIB.

BRIDGE 266.86

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

TO BE REMOVED

PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT EXISTING BRIDGE

PROPOSED BRIDGE

30’-0"

50’-0" 50’-0"

100’-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

3.

2.

1.

All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2’-0" Below Mudline.

 dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

Future Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" 
1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

7

7

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

2:29:47PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\064\064-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

PLAN

N

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

Railroad North

14094+00.014100+00.5

To Miami

MP 267

LOCATION PLAN

MYC

DJS

DEB

2 3

2/9/2013

AS NOTED

ENVIRONMENTAL

MP 266.86 (2)

304120040_064

To Jacksonville

L

L

600.5’

LEGEND

5

TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

TRIMMING, THEREFORE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP GUIDELINES FOR MANGROVE 

SITE ACCESS AS NEEDED. ALL TRIMMING WILL BE PERFORMED

* THESE AREAS MAY REQUIRE MANGROVE TRIMMING FOR

ACRES SQ. FEET

LATERAL BRANCHES

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

MANGROVE TRIMMING

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

*

0.000

*

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

NOTES

EXIST. R/W

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING BRIDGE

266.86-1 = 0.001 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER 

266.86-5 = 0.066 AC

SHADING AREA 

SURFACE WATER

REPLACEMENT

PROPOSED BRIDGE

266.86-2 = 0.005 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER 

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

WETLAND LINE

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

WETLAND LINE

PROPOSED BRIDGE

66.66 SF = 0.002 AC

PER 4 PILE PIER =

AREA 266.86-4 = 11.11 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

266.86-3 = 0.004 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

UNNAMED TRIB.

BRIDGE 266.86

PLAN

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

27.51 SF = 0.001 AC

PER EXISTING 5 PILE PIER(x7) =

IMPACT AREA 266.86-8 = 3.93 SF

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER

EXISTING PILE REMOVAL 0.001

0.011

0.066

0.005

0.021

127.39

0.141 6130.10

933.02

226.81

2886.93

496.05

27.51

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

TO BE REPLACED

EXIST. BRIDGE

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

PROPOSED BRIDGE EXIST. R/W

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

WETLAND IMPACTS

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING*

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (570.98 SF)

RIP RAP (570.98 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

= 0.003 AC

AREA 266.86-6

WETLAND IMPACT

= 0.003 AC

AREA 266.86-7

WETLAND IMPACT

WETLAND IMPACTS
& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L EXISTING TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

CAP (TYPICAL)

CONCRETE

CONCRETE PILE (TYPICAL)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

SLAB (TYPICAL)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYPICAL)

WALKWAY BRACKET

(TYPICAL)

WALKWAY

(TYPICAL)

HANDRAIL POST

13’-1" 13’-1"

14’-0"

"

16

11

16

" 2’-6 11 2’-6

TOP OF RAIL

3’-2"

7’-6"

3’-8"

MYC

DJS

DEB

33

2/9/2013

AS NOTED

UNNAMED

MP266.86 (3)

TRIBUTARY

BRIDGE 266.86

TYPICAL SECTION

304120040_064

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 266.86

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

2:29:52PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\064\064-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

1:08:51PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\066\066-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

PKC

DEB

13

LOCATION PLAN

L

Railroad North

Ex. R/W

L

DESCRIPTION

LIST OF DRAWINGS

SHEET

NOTES

1.

2.

Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" Future

To Miami

Proposed Bridge

MP 268

141 25+83.9

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering, dated 2012:

Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

3. All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2’-0" Below Mudline.

To Jacksonville

14137+60.3

c Prop. Track

c Ex. Track

Ex. R/W

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

LL

14

16

18

12

1086420

DATUM: NAVD 88

PLAN

N

ELEVATION

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

TOP OF PROP. RAIL TOP OF EX. RAIL

ELEV. = 1.60

LINE TRIBUTARY INVERT

APPROX. EXISTING GROUND

P304120040_066

AS NOTED

2/9/2013

MP 267.34 (1)

GENERAL PLAN

AND ELEVATION

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

LEGEND

MANATEE TRIB.

BRIDGE 267.34

(FEMA FIRM) = 7.8

100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION

PROP. T/R = 12.60

EXIST. T/R = 11.00

STA. 14117+78.26

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 12.70

EXIST. T/R = 11.10

STA. 14118+13.76

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

35’-6"

20’-0" 14’-0" 20’-0"

TYP.

TYP.

TYP.

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING BRIDGE

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EX. R/W LIMITS

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EXIST. TRACK (ML1)

50’-0" 50’-0"

100’-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

20’-0"

1524

be Replaced

Exist. Bridge to

PROP. LOW CHORD = 8.3

EX. LOW CHORD = 7.5

OBSERVED HIGH WATER MARK = 2.5

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

EXISTING GROUND

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET 0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

MP 267.34(1)

Typical Section

Environmental Plan

General Plan

MP 267.34(2)

MP 267.34(3)
2

3

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

10

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

1:08:57PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\066\066-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

PKC

DEB

2 3

LOCATION PLAN

L

Railroad North

Ex. R/W

L

NOTES

To Miami

Proposed Bridge

MP 268

141 25+83.9

To Jacksonville

14137+60.3

c Prop. Track

c Ex. Track

Ex. R/W

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

L

L

PLAN

N

P304120040_066

AS NOTED

2/9/2013

MP 267.34 (2)

ENVIRONMENTAL

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

5

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

N/A

*

0.000

*

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

NOTES

267.34-1 = 0.009 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

WETLAND LINE

113.05

0.034 1490.36

MANATEE TRIB.

BRIDGE 267.34

PLAN

707.66

0.009 409.97

0.016

1524

PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

267.34-2 = 0.016 AC

SHADING AREA 

SURFACE WATER

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING BRIDGE

PROPOSED BRIDGE

WETLAND LINE

EX. R/W LIMITS

EX. R/W LIMITS

C EXIST. TRACK (ML1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

LEGEND

be Replaced

Exist. Bridge to

7.86 SF = 0.001 AC

PER EXISTING 5 PILE PIER(x2) =

IMPACT AREA 267.34-1 = 3.93 SF

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER

7.86

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (568.51 SF)

RIP RAP (568.51 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

0.001
& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L EXISTING TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

CAP (TYPICAL)

CONCRETE

CONCRETE PILE (TYPICAL)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

SLAB (TYPICAL)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYPICAL)

WALKWAY BRACKET

(TYPICAL)

WALKWAY

(TYPICAL)

HANDRAIL POST

13’-1" 13’-1"

14’-0"

"

16

11

16

" 2’-6 11 2’-6

TOP OF RAIL

3’-2"

7’-6"

3’-8"

MYC

DJS

DEB

33

2/9/2013

AS NOTED

MANATEE

MP267.34 (3)

TRIBUTARY

BRIDGE 267.34

TYPICAL SECTION

304120040_066

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 267.34

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

1:09:02PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\066\066-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

8/9/2013mewilson

1:09:04PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\067\067-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER

DESCRIPTION

LIST OF DRAWINGS

SHEET

General Plan

NOTES

1.

2.

Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" Future

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering, dated 2012:

Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

3. All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2'-0" Below Mudline.

MP267.70 (1)

MP267.70 (2)

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

MP267.70 (3) Typical Section

Environmental Plan

PLAN

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

1" = 10'

N

ELEVATION

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

1" = 10'

MYC

DJS

DEB

13

8/9/2013

AS NOTED

GENERAL PLAN

AND ELEVATION

MP 267.70 (1)

304120040_067

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

14

16

18

12

1086420

DATUM: NAVD 88

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

TYP.

LOCATION PLAN

L

Railroad North

Ex. R/W

L

To Miami

MP 268

141 25+83.9

To Jacksonville

14137+60.3

Ex. R/W

LEGEND

MANATEE TRIB.

BRIDGE 267.70

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

TOP OF PROP. RAIL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

L

PROP. T/R = 16.37

EXIST. T/R = 13.70

STA. 14137+29.60

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 16.43

EXIST. T/R = 13.80

STA. 14137+65.10

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

Proposed Bridge

be Removed

Existing Bridge to

C Ex. ML1

L

Proposed Bridge C Relocated ML1

C Prop. ML2

1523.6'

2

2:1

:1

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING BRIDGE

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK (ML1)

TO BE RELOCATED

C EXIST. TRACK (ML 1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

EX. R/W LIMITS

EX. R/W LIMITS

TRIBUTARY INVERT ELEV. = 4.5

APPROX. EXISTING GROUND LINE

PROP. LOW CHORD = 12.4

EX. LOW CHORD = 11.3

(FEMA FIRM) = 11.9

100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION

WATER MARK = 6.5

OBSERVED HIGH

@ PROP. ML2

EXISTING GROUND

LINE @ EXIST. BRIDGE

EXISTING GROUND

BACKFILL UPLANDS

EXCAVATE &

BACKFILL UPLANDS

ELEV. = 4.5

PROP. CREEK BOTTOM WIDTH = 5'

TOP OF EX. RAIL

PROPOSED BRIDGE

35'-6"

30.00'

100.00'EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

50.00' 50.00'

20.00' 14.00' 20.00'
10

10

10

01

10

10

01

10

10

01

10

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

8/9/2013mewilson

1:09:06PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\067\067-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

2 3

8/9/2013

AS NOTED

ENVIRONMENTAL

MP 267.70 (2)

304120040_067

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

LOCATION PLAN

L

Railroad North

Ex. R/W

L

To Miami

MP 268

141 25+83.9

To Jacksonville

14137+60.3

Ex. R/W

MANATEE TRIB.

BRIDGE 267.70

L

Proposed Bridge

C Ex. ML1

L

Proposed Bridge C Relocated ML1

C Prop. ML2

PLAN

5

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A 0.000 000.00

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

0.022 954.99

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

0.001

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

267.70-3 = 0.022 AC

SHADING AREA

SURFACE WATER

WETLAND LINE

= 7.84 SF =0.001 AC

SF PER EXISTING 5 PILE PIER(x2)

IMPACT AREA 267.70-4 = 3.92

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER

267.70-1 = 0.018 AC

IMPACT AREA

SURFACE WATER

PROPOSED BRIDGE

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING BRIDGE

to be Replaced

Existing Bridge

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

TO BE RELOCATED

C EXIST. TRACK (ML 1)

C PROP. TRACK (ML1)

EX. R/W LIMITS

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED BRIDGE

110.71

0.065 2815.99

7.84

PLAN

EXISTING PILING REMOVAL

267.70-2 = 0.013 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

LEGEND

NOTES

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES MAY VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

N

1523.6'

0.031 1337.88

270.70-5 = 0.005 AC

WETLAND IMPACT AREA

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS (VEGETATED)

WETLAND IMPACTS REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL 0.005 220.33

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

WETLAND IMPACTS

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (498.78 SF)

RIP RAP (498.78 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

WETLAND LINE

PLANS FOR IMPACTS)

(SEE CURVE REDUCTION

REDUCTION MP 267.30 

PROPOSED CURVE

100.00'EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

50.00' 50.00'

20.00' 14.00' 20.00'
13'-1" 13'-1"

14'-0"

"

16

11

16

" 2'-6 11 2'-6

3'-2"

7'-6"

3'-8"

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L EXISTING TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

CAP (TYPICAL)

CONCRETE

CONCRETE PILE (TYPICAL)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

SLAB (TYPICAL)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYPICAL)

WALKWAY BRACKET

(TYPICAL)

WALKWAY

(TYPICAL)

HANDRAIL POST

TOP OF RAIL

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 267.70

MYC

DJS

DEB

33

8/9/2013

AS NOTED

MANATEE

MP267.70 (3)

TRIBUTARY

BRIDGE 267.70

TYPICAL SECTION

304120040_067

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

8/9/2013mewilson

1:09:09PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\067\067-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
25'-9" 25'-0" 25'-0" 28'-0" 28'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-9"

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/28/2013mewilson

2:46:34PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\087\087-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

1 4

3/28/2013

304120040_087

3/32" = 1'

HILLSBORO RIVER

MP 326.58 (1)

BRIDGE 326.58

GENERAL PLAN

AND ELEVATION

PLAN

ELEVATION

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

N

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT PROPOSED ABUTMENT

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

LIST OF DRAWINGS

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

NOTES

EX. R/W LIMITS

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

PROPOSED BRIDGE TYP.

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

TYP.

PROP. T/R = 15.17

EXIST. T/R = 15.17

STA. 17240+59.92

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

MLWL = -2.04

MHWL = 0.29

INVERT ELEV. = -11.69

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

(FEMA FIRM) = 5.6

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

PROP. L.C. = 10.50

EX. L.C. = 10.50

PROP. T/R = 15.14

EXIST. T/R = 15.14

STA. 17242+67.42

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

-5

0

5

15

10

20

DATUM: NAVD 88

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

GENERAL PLAN AND ELEVATION

SHEET DESCRIPTION

MP 326.58 (1)

MP 326.58 (2)

MP 326.58 (3)

MP 326.58 (4) EXISTING PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

2'-0" Below Mudline.

All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 

dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" Future

3.

2.

1.

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

EXIST. R/W

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK

C EXIST. TRACK

L

L

EXIST. R/W 17262+87.8

To Miami

2020.1'

MP 327

17242+67.7

To Jacksonville

TO BE REPLACED

EXIST. BRIDGE

Railroad North

& PROPOSED RAIL

TOP OF EXISTING

-10

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

16'-0" 14'-0" 20'-0"

30'-0"

80'-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

30'-0" 50'-0"

50'-0"

207'-6"
1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

10

10

11

11

12

12

12

12

13

31

13

13 13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

14

41

14

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/28/2013mewilson

2:46:36PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\087\087-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

1 4

3/28/2013

304120040_087

3/32" = 1'

HILLSBORO RIVER

MP 326.58 (2)

BRIDGE 326.58

ENVIRONMENTAL

PLAN

N

LOCATION PLAN

NOTES

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

EXIST. R/W

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK

C EXIST. TRACK

L

L

EXIST. R/W 17262+87.8

To Miami

2020.1'

MP 327

17242+67.7

To Jacksonville

TO BE REPLACED

EXIST. BRIDGE

Railroad North

LEGEND

5

TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

TRIMMING, THEREFORE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP GUIDELINES FOR MANGROVE 

SITE ACCESS AS NEEDED. ALL TRIMMING WILL BE PERFORMED

* THESE AREAS MAY REQUIRE MANGROVE TRIMMING FOR

ACRES SQ. FEET

LATERAL BRANCHES

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

MANGROVE TRIMMING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

N/A

0.000

*

0.000

0.000

000.00

*

000.00

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

(TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

EX. R/W LIMITS

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

PROPOSED BRIDGE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND LINE

WETLAND LINE

AREA 326.58-1 = 0.002 AC

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

0.003 66.29

0.069 2995.81

0.003 146.67

100.97

0.227 9899.92

PLAN

77.77 SF = 0.002 AC

PER 4 PILE PIER = 

AREA 326.58-3 = 11.11 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT 

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING*

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (266.61 SF)

RIP RAP (266.61 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

326.58-4 = 0.069 AC

SHADING AREA

SURFACE WATER

AREA 326.58-2 = 0.001 AC

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT AREA QUANTITIES

CUBIC YDS

RIPRAP

DREDGE

FILL

19.75

49.37

6.00
13'-1"

"

16

11 2'-6

3'-2"

7'-6"

3'-8"

34

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 326.58

& BRIDGE TO REMAIN

C/L EXISTING TRACK

MYC

DJS

DEB

34

3/28/2013

304120040_087

AS NOTED

HILLSBORO RIVER

MP 326.58 (3)

BRIDGE 326.58

TYPICAL

SECTION

14'-0"

TOP OF RAIL

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL POST

(TYP.)

WALKWAY

(TYP.)

WALKWAY BRACKET

SLAB (TYP.)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

(TYP.)

CONCRETE CAP 

CONCRETE PILE (TYPICAL)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/28/2013mewilson

2:46:38PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\087\087-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/28/2013mewilson

2:44:32PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\093\093-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

1 3

3/28/2013

304120040_093

1/16"=1'

NORTH FORK OF

MP 337.91 (1)

MIDDLE RIVER

BRIDGE 337.91

GENERAL PLAN

PLAN

ELEVATION

N

LIST OF DRAWINGS

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

NOTES

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

TYP.

-5

0

5

15

10

20

DATUM: NAVD 88

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

GENERAL PLAN AND ELEVATION

SHEET DESCRIPTION

TYPICAL SECTION

2'-0" Below Mudline.

All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 

dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" Future

3.

2.

1.

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

L

L

To Jacksonville To Miami

Railroad North

-10 UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

EX. R/W LIMITS

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

PROPOSED BRIDGE

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

MLWL = -2.07

MHWL = 0.12

EXIST. R/W

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK

C EXIST. TRACK

TO BE REPLACED EXIST. R/W

EXIST. BRIDGE

TO BE REPLACED

EXISTING BRIDGE

INVERT ELEV. = -5.56

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

(FEMA FIRM) = 4.6

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

MP 337.91 (3)

MP 337.91 (2)

MP 337.91 (1)

MP 338

17843+61.9

PROP. T/R = 9.60

EXIST. T/R = 7.30

STA. 17838+80.08

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 9.40

EXIST. T/R = 7.10

STA. 17840+73.58

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. L.C. = 5.10

EX. L.C. = 3.20

TOP OF PROPOSED RAIL

TOP OF EXISTING RAIL

17840+68.7

293.2'

193'-6"

24'-9" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-9"

30'-0"

20'-0" 14'-0" 20'-0"

30'-0" 48'-0"

78'-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

32'-6" 31'-6"

64'-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

4/1/2013mewilson

10:24:12AM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\093\093-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE, FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLAND O

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A. 7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE. BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

2 3

4/1/2013

304120040_093

1/16"=1'

NORTH FORK OF

MP 337.91 (2)

MIDDLE RIVER

BRIDGE 337.91

ENVIRONMENTAL

PLAN N

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

L

L

To Jacksonville To Miami

Railroad North

EX. R/W LIMITS

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

PROPOSED BRIDGE

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

EXIST. R/W

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK

C EXIST. TRACK

TO BE REPLACED EXIST. R/W

EXIST. BRIDGE

TO BE REPLACED

EXISTING BRIDGE

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

MP 338

17843+61.9

LEGEND

5

TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

TRIMMING, THEREFORE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP GUIDELINES FOR MANGROVE 

SITE ACCESS AS NEEDED. ALL TRIMMING WILL BE PERFORMED

* THESE AREAS MAY REQUIRE MANGROVE TRIMMING FOR

ACRES SQ. FEET

LATERAL BRANCHES

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

MANGROVE TRIMMING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

*

0.000

*

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

NOTES

AREA 337.91-2 = 0.001 AC

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

(TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

337.91-4 = 0.123 AC

SHADING AREA

SURFACE WATER

155.44 SF = 0.004 AC

PER 4 PILE PIER = 

AREA 337.91-3 = 11.11 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT 

WETLAND LINE

WETLAND LINE

337.91-5 = 0.005 AC

MANGROVE IMPACT AREA 

PIER(x28) = 110.04 SF = 0.003 AC

SF PER EXISTING 5 PILE 

IMPACT AREA 337.91-6 = 3.93 

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER

AREA 337.91-1 = 0.001 AC

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

0.000 000.00

0.005 218.53

0.123 5358.72

0.004 168.80

133.84

0.207 9035.87

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING*

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (568.56 SF)

RIP RAP (568.56 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

EXISTING PILE REMOVAL

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

0.003 110.04

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT AREA QUANTITIES

CUBIC YDS

RIPRAP

DREDGE

FILL 59.49

0.75

42.12

17840+68.7

293.2'
CONCRETE PILE (TYP.)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

CAP (TYP.)

CONCRETE PILE

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL POST

(TYP.)

WALKWAY

(TYP.)

WALKWAY BRACKET

SLAB (TYPICAL)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L EXISTING TRACK

14'-0"

13'-1" 16

"

11

16

" 13'-1" 2'-6 11 2'-6

7'-6"

"

2

1 3'-2 "21 4'-3

TOP OF RAIL

MYC

DJS

DEB

34

3/28/2013

304120040_093

AS NOTED

MP 337.91 (3)

MIDDLE RIVER

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 337.91

NORTH FORK OF

BRIDGE 337.91

TYPICAL SECTION

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/28/2013mewilson

2:44:37PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\093\093-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/28/2013mewilson

2:41:44PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\094\094-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

1 4

3/28/2013

304120040_094

1/16"= 1'

SOUTH FORK OF

MP 338.52 (1)

MIDDLE RIVER

BRIDGE 338.52

GENERAL PLAN

PLAN

ELEVATION

N

LIST OF DRAWINGS

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

NOTES

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

TYP.

-5

0

5

15

10

20

DATUM: NAVD 88

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

GENERAL PLAN AND ELEVATION

SHEET DESCRIPTION

EXISTING PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

2'-0" Below Mudline.

All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 

dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

Additional Ballast.

Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" Future

3.

2.

1.

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

L

L

To Jacksonville To Miami

Railroad North

-10

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

EX. R/W LIMITS

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

PROPOSED BRIDGE

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

MLWL = -2.03

MHWL = 0.23

EXIST. R/W

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK

C EXIST. TRACK

TO BE REPLACED EXIST. R/W

EXIST. BRIDGE

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

MP 338.52 (1)

MP 338.52 (2)

MP 338.52 (3)

MP 338.52 (4)

MP 339

17896+43.7

TO BE REPLACED

EXISTING BRIDGE

INVERT ELEV. = -3.43

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

PROP. T/R = 9.40

EXIST. T/R = 7.25

STA. 17877+31.20

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 9.40

EXIST. T/R = 7.27

STA. 17875+37.70

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

(FEMA FIRM) = 4.6

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

PROP. L.C. = 5.10

EX. L.C. = 3.10

TOP OF PROPOSED RAIL

TOP OF EXISTING RAIL

1918.1'

17877+25.6

193'-6"

24'-9" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-9"

20'-0" 14'-0" 20'-0"

30'-0" 37'-0" 63'-0"

100'-0" EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/28/2013mewilson

2:41:46PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\094\094-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

2 4

3/28/2013

304120040_094

1/16"= 1'

SOUTH FORK OF

MP 338.52 (2)

MIDDLE RIVER

BRIDGE 338.52

ENVIRONMENTAL

PLAN N

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

L

L

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

TYP.

TYP.

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

L

L

To Jacksonville To Miami

Railroad North

EX. R/W LIMITS

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

PROPOSED BRIDGE

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

EXIST. R/W

PROPOSED BRIDGE

C PROP. TRACK

C EXIST. TRACK

TO BE REPLACED EXIST. R/W

EXIST. BRIDGE

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

MP 339

17896+43.7

TO BE REPLACED

EXISTING BRIDGE

NOTES

ACRES SQ. FEET

LATERAL BRANCHES

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

MANGROVE TRIMMING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

*

0.000

*

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

LEGEND

5

TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

TRIMMING, THEREFORE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP GUIDELINES FOR MANGROVE 

SITE ACCESS AS NEEDED. ALL TRIMMING WILL BE PERFORMED

* THESE AREAS MAY REQUIRE MANGROVE TRIMMING FOR

(TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

338.52-5 = 0.134 AC

SHADING AREA

SURFACE WATER

155.44 SF = 0.004 AC

PER 4 PILE PIER = 

AREA 338.52-4 = 11.11 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT 

WETLAND LINE

AREA 338.52-3 = 0.013 AC

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

AREA 338.52-1 = 0.002 AC

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

AREA 338.52-2 = 0.001 AC

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

PIER(x32) = 125.76 SF = 0.003 AC

SF PER EXISTING 5 PILE

IMPACT AREA 338.52-7 = 3.93

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER

338.52-6 = 0.001 AC 

MANGROVE IMPACT AREA

129.33

0.248 10804.63

0.005 199.99

0.001 48.34

0.134 5847.81

0.019 813.80

EXISTING PILE REMOVAL 0.003 125.76

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING*

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (568.51 SF)

RIP RAP (568.51 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.

WETLAND LINE

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT AREA QUANTITIES

42.11

CUBIC YDS

RIPRAP

86.53

DREDGE 63.28

FILL

1918.1'

17877+25.6
CONCRETE PILE (TYP.)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

CAP (TYP.)

CONCRETE PILE

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL POST

(TYP.)

WALKWAY

(TYP.)

WALKWAY BRACKET

SLAB (TYPICAL)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L EXISTING TRACK

14'-0"

13'-1" 16

"

11

16

" 13'-1" 2'-6 11 2'-6

7'-6"

"

2

1 3'-2 "21 4'-3

TOP OF RAIL

MYC

DJS

DEB

34

3/28/2013

304120040_094

AS NOTED

MP 338.52 (3)

MIDDLE RIVER

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 338.52

SOUTH FORK OF

BRIDGE 338.52

TYPICAL SECTION

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

3/28/2013mewilson

2:41:49PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\094\094-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

12:06:43PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\099\099-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

OLETA RIVER

1 4

2/9/2013

AS NOTED

MP 353.74 (1)

BRIDGE 353.74

GENERAL PLAN

AND ELEVATION

304120040_099

PLAN

ELEVATION

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

PROPOSED ABUTMENT PROPOSED ABUTMENT

CONC. PILE (TYP.)

20" SQ. PRESTRESSED

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

14

16

18

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

DATUM: NAVD 88

85’-6"

TOP OF PROPOSED RAIL TOP OF EXISTING RAIL

Railroad North

To Miami

LOCATION PLAN

NOTES

SHEET

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

To Jacksonville

L

L

3. All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2’-0" Below Mudline.

 dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

2. Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

1. Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" Future Additional Ballast.

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

TO BE REPLACED

EXIST. BRIDGE

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

LEGEND

N

28’-9" 28’-0" 28’-9"

PROP. L.C. = 5.70

EX. L.C. = 6.80

(FEMA FIRM) = 4.6

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2) L

C EX. TRACK (ML1) L

EX. R/W LIMITS

TYP.

TYP.

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

30.00’ (TYP.)

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

20.00’ 14.00’ 20.00’

PROPOSED BRIDGE

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING BRIDGE

PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

100.00’ EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

50.00’ 50.00’

MP 354

18688+48.1

18679+11.7

936.4’

MP 353.74 (1)

MP 353.74 (2)

MP 353.74 (3)

MP 353.74 (4) EXISTING PLAN

MLWL = -1.78

MHWL = -0.24

INVERT ELEV. = -3.73

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

PROP. T/R = 10.05

EXIST. T/R = 9.17

STA. 18677+87.74

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 9.90

EXIST. T/R = 9.02

STA. 18678+73.24

OUTSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL
1

1

2

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

7

7

7

7

8

8

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

12:06:49PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\099\099-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

OLETA RIVER

2 4

2/9/2013

AS NOTED

MP 353.74 (2)

BRIDGE 353.74

ENVIRONMENTAL

304120040_099

PLAN

Railroad North

To Miami

LOCATION PLAN

To Jacksonville

L

L

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

TO BE REPLACED

EXIST. BRIDGE

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

LEGEND

N

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2) L

C EX. TRACK (ML1) L

EX. R/W LIMITS

TYP.

TYP.

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

MP 354

18688+48.1

18679+11.7

936.4’

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

PLAN

LEGEND

5

TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

TRIMMING, THEREFORE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP GUIDELINES FOR MANGROVE 

SITE ACCESS AS NEEDED. ALL TRIMMING WILL BE PERFORMED

* THESE AREAS MAY REQUIRE MANGROVE TRIMMING FOR

ACRES SQ. FEET

LATERAL BRANCHES

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

MANGROVE TRIMMING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

*

0.000

*

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

NOTES

353.74-2 = 0.005 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER

353.74-4 = 0.053 AC

SHADING AREA

SURFACE WATER

WETLAND LINE

BARRIER (TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY

PROPOSED BRIDGE

WETLAND LINE

REPLACEMENT

PROPOSED BRIDGE

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING BRIDGE

353.74-1 = 0.001 AC

IMPACT AREA 

SURFACE WATER FOR ONSITE ACCESS*

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

FOR ONSITE ACCESS*

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

= 0.002 AC

AREA 353.74-5

MANGROVE IMPACT

FOR ONSITE ACCESS*

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

FOR ONSITE ACCESS*

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

0.028 1275.67

0.002 75.37

0.053 2302.50

0.006 250.36

121.42

0.105 4585.02

= 23.52 SF = 0.001 AC

SF PER EXISTING 5 PILE PIER(x6)

IMPACT AREA 353.74-6 = 3.92

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER

44.44 SF = 0.001 AC

PER 4 PILE PIER(x4) =

AREA 353.74-3 = 11.11 SF

SURFACE WATER IMPACT

 EXISTING PILE REMOVAL 0.001 23.52

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING*

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (568.59 SF)

RIP RAP (568.59 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION

FROM 25 TO 100 LBS.

INDIVIDUAL RIPRAP STONES SHALL VARY IN WEIGHT

BEDDING STONE SHALL BE BALLAST.

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

3.

2.

1.
TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 353.74

CONCRETE PILE (TYP.)

20" SQUARE PRESTRESSED

CAP (TYP.)

CONCRETE PILE

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL POST

(TYP.)

WALKWAY

(TYP.)

WALKWAY BRACKET

SLAB (TYPICAL)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L EXISTING TRACK

14’-0"

13’-1" 16

"

11

16

" 13’-1" 2’-6 11 2’-6

7’-6"

"

2

1 3’-2 "21 4’-3

TOP OF RAIL

MYC

DJS

DEB

OLETA RIVER 3 4

2/9/2013

304120040_099

AS NOTED

MP 353.74 (3)

BRIDGE 353.74

TYPICAL

SECTION

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/9/2013DJSmith

12:06:54PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\099\099-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/6/2013DJSmith

9:20:37PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\101\101-C-PP01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

ARCH CREEK 1 4

2/6/2013

304120040_101

AS NOTED

MP 356.53 (1)

BRIDGE 356.53

AND ELEVATION

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

To Miami

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

NOTES

SHEET

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TYPICAL SECTION

3. All Existing Timber Piles Shall be Cut Off 2’-0" Below Mudline.

 dated 2012: Chapter 8 - Concrete Structures.

2. Specifications: A.R.E.M.A. Manual for Railway Engineering,

1. Design Live Load: Cooper E80, Plus 6" Future Additional Ballast.

EXISTING PLAN

ELEVATION

EXISTING BRIDGE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

PLAN

N

14

16

18

12

1086420

DATUM: NAVD 88

20

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

TO REMAIN

EXIST. BRIDGE

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

& PROPOSED RAIL

TOP OF EXISTING

MP 357

18846+83.2

18822+46.6

2357.7’

MP 356.53 (1)

MP 356.53 (2)

MP 356.53 (3)

MP 356.53 (4)

PROP. L.C. = 6.0

EX. L.C. = 6.0

(FEMA FIRM) = 5.4

ELEVATION

100 YEAR FLOOD

79’-0" FACE TO FACE OF BACKWALL

BEHIND EXISTING

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

BEHIND EXISTING

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

TO REMAIN (TYP.)

EXISTING ABUTMENT

EXISTING ABUTMENT

REMOVE PORTION OF

INVERT ELEV. = -4.90

GROUND LINE CREEK

APPROX. EXISTING

MLWL = -1.79

MHWL = 0.28

LL

TYP.

TYP.

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

20.00’ 20.00’

14.00’

C PROP. TRACK L

C EXIST. TRACK L

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

PROP. T/R = 12.75

EXIST. T/R = 12.75

STA. 18822+46.60

INSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

PROP. T/R = 12.70

EXIST. T/R = 12.70

STA.18823+25.6

INSIDE FACE OF BACKWALL

STEEL PIPE PILE (TYP.)

20" DIA. CONC. FILLED

UPLANDS

EXCAVATE & BACKFILL

GENERAL PLAN

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET 0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2)

C EX. TRACK (ML1)

EX. R/W LIMITS

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

30.00’ (TYP.)

50.00’ 50.00’

100.00’ EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

PROPOSED STEEL BRIDGE

ABUTMENT TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

ABUTMENT TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

ABUTMENT

PROPOSED

ABUTMENT

PROPOSED
1 2

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

6

6

7

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

10

10

01

10

01

10

10

10

10

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/6/2013DJSmith

9:20:40PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\101\101-C-PP02.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503

FLPE 42463DANIELE.BAKER

MYC

DJS

DEB

ARCH CREEK

2 4

2/6/2013

304120040_101

AS NOTED

MP 356.53 (2)

BRIDGE 356.53

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROJECT LIMITS BOUNDARY LINE

PROPOSED RIP RAP AREA

UPLAND EXCAVATION & BACKFILL

To Jacksonville

Railroad North

To Miami

L

L

LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

NOTES

PLAN

N

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXIST. R/W

EXIST. R/W

C EXIST. TRACK

C PROP. TRACK

TO REMAIN

EXIST. BRIDGE

MP 357

18846+83.2

18822+46.6

2357.7’

LEGEND

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

EX. R/W LIMITS

C PROP. TRACK (ML2) L

C EX. TRACK (ML1) L

EX. R/W LIMITS

TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

TO JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI

PROPOSED STEEL BRIDGE

ABUTMENT TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

ABUTMENT TO REMAIN

EXISTING BRIDGE

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

ABUTMENT

PROPOSED

ABUTMENT

PROPOSED

5

0 10 20 30

SCALE FEET

DESCRIPTION ACRES SQ. FEET

ENVIRONMENTAL

PLAN

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

FOR ONSITE ACCESS *

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING

356.53-1 = 0.020 AC

SHADING AREA

SURFACE WATER

AND DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS

1.FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER PLACED UPSTREAM 

(TYP.)

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

LATERAL BRANCHES

TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

TRIMMING, THEREFORE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP GUIDELINES FOR MANGROVE 

SITE ACCESS AS NEEDED. ALL TRIMMING WILL BE PERFORMED

* THESE AREAS MAY REQUIRE MANGROVE TRIMMING FOR

PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

IMPACT TYPE

MANGROVE TRIMMING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER

IMPACTS (UNVEGETATED)

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

REMOVAL/FILL-RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

SHADING - NEW TRACK

FILL / RIPRAP INSTALL

N/A

N/A

0.015

0.000

*

0.011

0.000

0.000

0.000

642.86

000.00

*

495.02

000.00

000.00

000.00

* NO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OBSERVED

0.048

-----

PROJECT AREA TOTALS

112.68

000.00

LINEAR FEET

SHORELINE

SURFACE WATER / WETLAND

----

2086.88

TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS

TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - FILL / RIPRAP

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS - SHADING

MANGROVE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL MANGROVE TRIMMING*

FILL BELOW MHWL (000.00 SF)

BEDDING STONE (000.00 SF)

RIP RAP (000.00 SF)

SILT FENCE

FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER

TOPO LINE

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WETLAND AREA DELINEATION
MYC

DJS

DEB

ARCH CREEK 3 4

2/6/2013

304120040_101

AS NOTED

MP 356.53 (3)

BRIDGE 356.53

TYPICAL

SECTION

TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE 356.53

PROPOSED ABUTMENT

16 X 2.5 (TYP.)

66 X 3/4 (TYP.)

16 X 1.5 (TYP.)

TOP OF RAIL

(TYP.)

WALKWAY

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL POST

2’-6" 2’-6" 2’-6"

1’-3" 1’-3"

5’-10"

& EXISTING BRIDGE

C/L EXISTING TRACK

& PROPOSED BRIDGE

C/L PROPOSED TRACK

14’-0"

EXISTING ABUTMENT

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET OF

PROJ NO:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: REVISIONS:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

IF THIS DRAWING IS LESS THAN 22" X 34" IT IS A REDUCED SIZE DRAWING

2/6/2013DJSmith

9:20:43PM - -G:\JA12\0040\Bridge\101\101-C-TS01.dgn

4500SALISBURY ROADPHONE:904-245-6500SUITE 440JACKSONVILLE,FL32216

FLORIDA

AAF M IAM ITO ORLANDO

PASSENGER SERVICE

PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATIONC.A.7503 FLPE 42463

DANIELE.BAKER
Appendix D

Wetland Assessment Forms 
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

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

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Significant nearby features

Assessment area description

The assessment area is classified as "Other surface water". The creek bottom substrate was generally muddy sand overlain by rail ballast. At the 

time of inspection the water in the creek was fresh. One mature white mangrove is located on the southwest shore immediately adjacent to the 

bridge and three red mangroves are present approximately 50-75 meters downstream from the bridge.

 Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional 

landscape.)

The assessment area includes Goat Creek , located in Malabar, FL. Goat Creek drains intoIndian River Lagoon. Goat Creek is connected to the 

surrounding landscape primarily through the surface water. Areas of mangrove wetlands still exist in the assessment area. 

Goat Creek Project Site

812 (Transportation) 612 (Mangroves); 642 (Coastal Marsh) Impact 0.001

Further classification (optional)

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

Northern Indian River Lagoon/21 Class III None

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

Goat Creek at Mile Post 202.59

 FLUCCs code

 PART I – Qualitative Description

Many of the tidally influence tribuatry within Brevard county are 

surrounded by residential development and have been channelized. 

Goat Creek is not surrounded by residential land us and is fairly 

sinuos.

Indian River Lagoon

The assessment area functions as habitat for marine and avian fauna and 

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):

Not present

Wildlife observed during the September site visit included: small crabs and mullet.

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

Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal 

classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the 

assessment area)

Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species 

that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to 

be found )

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

Kevin Shelton/Joy Ryan/Shannon McMorrow 9/18/2012 & 9/20/2012

Additional relevant factors:

Various wading birds (such as egrets, herons, rails, and sandpipers), 

american alligator, mud turtle, diamondaback terrapin, marine turtles, 

mangrove water snake, sheepshead, mosquito fish, snook, marsh killifish, 

and various crabs

Manatee (federally E; resting, foraging; no manatees observed; 

habitat appeared marginal for the manatee) and sea turtle species 

(federally E and T (Loggerhead); foraging; no Sea turtles observed; 

habitat appeared marginal for sea turtles)

The assessment area functions as habitat for marine and avian fauna and 

marine and terrestrial flora. The mangroves may serve as a buffer against 

tidal erosion.
w/o pres or

current

w/o pres or

current

w/o pres or

current

current

or w/o pres

Time lag (t-factor) = 

Risk factor = 

If mitigation

For impact assessment areas

FL = delta x acres = 0.0005

For mitigation assessment areas

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

If preservation as mitigation, 

4 0

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if 

uplands, divide by 20)

with

0

with

 .500(6)(c)Community structure

5 0

.500(6)(b)Water Environment 

(n/a for uplands)

1. Vegetation and/or 

2. Benthic Community

.500(6)(a) Location and 

Landscape Support

with

CURRENT: The area is currently being impacted by the existing railroad bridge and associated structures. Regarding 

support for wildlife from habitats outside the assessment area; there is forest surrounding the assessment area with 

minimal residential and transportation landuse. Upstream of the assessment area, the mangrove forest seems intact. 

This land use allows terrestrial wildlife access to and from the assessment area. Wading birds could access the 

assessment area by flight. Wildlife could potentially access the assessment area from the tributary itself (upstream 

and downstream). Goat Creek has the potential to be utilized by the manatee to access upstream habitats; however, 

the creek's size begins to decrease and would likely prevent migration of animals as large as manatee upstream. 

Goat Creek passes beneath US Highway 1 just east (approximately 375 feet) of the assessment area. Goat Creek is 

hydrologically connected to Indian River Lagoon (~1000 feet NE of assessment area). The assessment area 

provides moderate benefits to downstream fish and wildlife, habitats, and other hydrologically connected areas. 

Exotic Brazilian pepper was common within the assessment area. Impacts of land use outside the assessment area 

to fish and wildlife: Noise, people, domesticated animals, boats, automobiles and other vehicles, and runoff of 

pollutants reduce the quality of the habitat within the assessment area. 

WITH IMPACT: The proposed action will include removal and replacment of the existing single track bridge, with a 

double track bridge.The noise and vibration impacts associated with the existing railroad bridge, will increase with the 

additional traffic, potentially reducing support to wildlife and wildlife access to and from the assessment area. As a 

result of the avoidance and minimization practices implemented during the design of the proposed development, nonpermanently impacted Landscape and Location Support resources within the assessment area will maintain their 

current ecological function and value.

Condition is insufficient to 

provide wetland/surface 

water functions

Condition is optimal and fully 

supports wetland/surface 

water functions

Condition is less than 

optimal, but sufficient to 

maintain most 

wetland/surface 

waterfunctions

CURRENT: Standing (flowing) freshwater was observed in the assessment area during the site visit. Goat Creek, in 

the assessment area, has generally consistent water levels & flows, depth, and currents for a tidally influenced creek. 

Higher water level indicators were noted by water staining of the ballast. Due to some residential landuse upstream of 

the assessment area, water quality within the assessment area is moderate. The steep banks of the tributary 

prevents the natural movement of water into the mangrove ecosystem. 

WITH IMPACTS: The proposed bridge replacement is unlikely to permanently alter water quality within the 

assessment area. During the bridge construction phase, the implementation of Best Management Practices will limit 

or eliminate the transport of sediment and debris outside the project area. (As a result of the avoidance and 

minimization practices implemented during the design of the proposed development, the non permanently impacted 

wetland resources within the assessment area will maintain their current ecological function and value as they pertain 

to the water environment)

CURRENT: Plant cover and species in the assessment area was limited so far as structure (vegetation primarily in 

shrub layer); species diversity was poor, with Brazillian pepper being the dominant species. Other wetland species 

(saltbush, pond apple) were observed. One mature white mangrove located southwest shore, adjacent to the bridge. 

Plant condition was generally moderate, due to the presence of ballast along the river bank and the existing 

structures. The current substrate is consolidated and light is poor. No evidence of coarse woody debris, snag, den 

and cavity habitat were observed. The land mgmt practices (maintaining rail bridge and rail ROW) are adversely 

affecting vegetation in the assessment area (presence of ballast, steep slopes). Submerged aquatic vegetation was 

not observed. WITH 

IMPACT: Permanent impacts associated with installation of new pilings and shading from the new bridge will result in 

loss of mangrove wetlands. One mature white mangrove will be removed.

(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

AAF Goat Creek at MP 202.59

Impact Kevin Shelton/Joy Ryan/Shannon 

McMorrow

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:

PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)

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

-0.5

Preservation adjustment factor = 

Adjusted mitigation delta = 

Delta = [with-current]

0.5

with

Minimal level of support of 

wetland/surface water 

functions

Optimal (10)

0

Not Present (0)

 9/18/2012 & 9/20/2012

Moderate(7) Minimal (4)

Goat Creek at MP202.59

Scoring Guidance

The scoring of each 

indicator is based on what 

would be suitable for the 

type of wetland or surface 

water assessed

6
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):

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

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Significant nearby features

Assessment area description

The assessment area is classified as a tidally influenced riparian zone colonized by red mangroves. Small red mangroves were observed growing 

beneath the existing rail bridge. The observed water depth within the unnamed creek was approximately 1 to 2 ft deep. Based on the results of the 

benthic survey, the substrate within the assessment area is comprised of a mixture of sand, muck, and shells. 

 Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional 

landscape.)

The assessment area includes an unnamed creek, located in Jensen Beach, Martin County, FL, that drains into the St. Lucie River. The 

unnamed creek is connected to the surrounding landscape primarily through the surface water. Areas of mangrove wetlands still exist in the 

assessment area. The St. Lucie River flows into the Indian River Lagoon.

Unnamed Creek Project Site

812 (Transportation) 612 (Mangroves) Impact 0.002

Further classification (optional)

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

North St. Lucie/ 43 Class III None

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

Unnamed Creek at Mile Post 259.95

 FLUCCs code

Not present

Field personnel observed fiddler crabs, hermit crabs, clams, and oysters.

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

Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal 

classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the 

assessment area)

Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species 

that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to 

be found )

 PART I – Qualitative Description

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

Jeremy Paris/ Shannon McMorrow 9/11/2012

Many of the tidally influence tribuatries within Martin county are 

surrounded by residential development, as is the unnamed tributary at 

MP 259.95.

Additional relevant factors:

Various wading birds (such as egrets, herons, rails, and sandpipers), 

american alligator, mud turtle, diamondback terrapin, marine turtles, 

mangrove water snake, sheepshead, mosquito fish, snook, marsh killifish, 

and various crabs

Florida Wood Stork (federally E; foraging; no wood storks observed); 

Manatee (federally E; resting, foraging; no manatees observed; 

habitat appeared marginal for the manatee); the waterway is located 

within the federally-protected Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for a 

variety of species, including the smalltooth sawfish

Rio Nature Park (a small Martin County park) is just south of the 

assessment area, on the east side of the unnamed creek. 

The assessment area functions as habitat for marine and avian fauna and 

marine and terrestrial flora. The mangroves may serve as a buffer against 

tidal erosion.
w/o pres or

current

w/o pres or

current

w/o pres or

current

current

or w/o pres

Time lag (t-factor) = 

Risk factor = 

If mitigation

For impact assessment areas

FL = delta x acres = 0.0009

For mitigation assessment areas

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

If preservation as mitigation, Not Applicable

4 0

Score = sum of above scores/30 

(if uplands, divide by 20)

with

0

with

 .500(6)(c)Community structure

5 0

.500(6)(b)Water Environment 

(n/a for uplands)

1. Vegetation and/or 

2. Benthic Community

.500(6)(a) Location and 

Landscape Support

with

CURRENT: The area is currently being impacted by the existing railroad bridge and associated structures. The 

assessment area is located ~100 ft NW of Rio Nature Park, and ~600 ft N of the St. Lucie River (the marina 

located south of the assessment area is located on a dredged opening of the unnamed creek that feeds directly 

into the St. Lucie River). Regarding support to the assessment area for wildlife by outside habitats; this is 

minimal as the assessment area is located within a small triangle of undeveloped, wooded land with barriers on 

all sides. Terrestrial wildlife access to and from the site is very limited: to the N is a major highway (NW Dixie 

Highway); to the S is a paved secondary road (NW Alice St.). A small (10-15 acre) undeveloped, wooded area, 

is located to the NE of the assessment area, but it is also bound by paved roadways and commercial/industrial 

business. Wading birds could access the assessment area by flight. Wildlife could potentially access the 

assessment area from the creek itself (upstream and downstream) and the creek is a source of water for wildlife 

within the bound triangle of land. Red mangrove prop roots observed in the assessment area typically provide 

necessary habitat for several juvenile fish species. The invasive, exotic species Brazilian pepper & Australian 

pine were observed in the vicinity of the assessment area. Impacts of land use outside the assessment area to 

fish and wildlife: Noise, people, domesticated animals, boats, automobiles and other vehicles, and runoff of 

pollutants reduce the quality of the habitat within the assessment area. 

WITH IMPACT: The proposed action will occur on the west side of the existing bridge.The noise and vibration 

impacts associated with the existing railroad bridge, will increase with the additional traffic, potentially reducing 

support to wildlife and wildlife access to and from the assessment area. As a result of the avoidance and 

minimization practices implemented during the design of the proposed development, non-permanently impacted 

Landscape and Location Support resources within the assessment area will maintain their current ecological 

function and value. 

Condition is insufficient to 

provide wetland/surface water 

functions

Condition is optimal and fully 

supports wetland/surface 

water functions

Condition is less than 

optimal, but sufficient to 

maintain most 

wetland/surface water 

functions

CURRENT: Standing (flowing) water was observed in the assessment area. The creek in the assessment area 

has generally consistent water levels & flows, depth, and currents for a tidally influenced creek. Higher water 

level indicators were noted on bridge pilings. The assessment area is a disturbed site; community zonation of 

wetland vegetation was not observed; banks of creek were steep. The steep banks of the tributary prevents the 

natural movement of water into the mangrove ecosystem. The creek that passes through the assessment area 

can potentially be used as a corridor for wetland wildlife species. 

WITH IMPACT: The proposed bridge replacement is unlikely to permanently alter water quality within the 

assessment area. During the bridge construction phase, the implementation of Best Management Practices will 

limit or eliminate the transport of sediment and debris outside the project area. (As a result of the avoidance 

and minimization practices implemented during the design of the proposed development, the non permanently 

impacted wetland resources within the assessment area will maintain their current ecological function and value 

as they pertain to the water environment)

CURRENT: Plant cover and species in assessment area was limited so far as structure (vegetation primarily in 

shrub layer); species diversity was poor (primarily red mangroves, a desirable plant species and Brazilian 

pepper, an undesirable species). Plant condition was generally moderate, due to the presence of ballast along 

the river bank and the existing structures, the current substrate is consolidated and light is poor, resulting in 

stunted growth of some mangroves. Other plant species observed included black mangrove, maidencane, live 

oak, and Australian pine. Brazilian pepper and Australian pine are classified as a FLEPPC invasive exotic plant. 

No evidence of coarse woody debris, snag, den and cavity habitat were observed. The land mgmt practices 

(maintaining rail bridge and rail ROW) are adversely affecting vegetation in the assessment area (presence of 

ballast, steep slopes) . Submerged aquatic vegetation was not observed. WITH IMPACT: Permanent impacts 

associated with installation of the new bridge will result in the removal of 1 medium size (<4 inch DBH) red 

mangrove and associated propagules. Additional red mangroves may be trimmed in accordance with FDEP 

guidance. 

(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Unnamed Creek at Mile Post 259.95

Impact Jeremy Paris/ Shannon McMorrow

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:

PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)

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

-0.43

Preservation adjustment factor = 

Adjusted mitigation delta = 

Delta = [with-current]

0.43333

with

Minimal level of support of 

wetland/surface water 

functions

Optimal (10)

0

Not Present (0)

9/11/2012

Moderate(7) Minimal (4)

Unnamed Creek Project Site

Scoring Guidance

The scoring of each 

indicator is based on what 

would be suitable for the 

type of wetland or surface 

water assessed

4
Category Possible Score Score

Existing Wetland Exhibits No Evidence of Wildlife 0

US Army Corp. of Engineers Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) 

Score Sheet 

Wildlife Utilization Matrix

Notes

The wetland area is impacted by th

1

Existing Wetland Exhibits No Evidence of Wildlife 0Existing Wetland Exhibits Minimal Evidence of Wildlife Utilization 1 1.5Existing Wetland Exhibits Moderate Evidence of Wildlife Utilization 2Existing Wetland Exhibits Strong Evidence of Wildlife Utilization 3Wetland overstory/shrub canopy of Desirable Species Matrix

The wetland area is impacted by thrailroadacts as a barrier to wildlife macts as a disturbance to wildlife. Thutilization observed during the site as a corridor for aquatic fauna.

No Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 0Minimal Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 1Moderate Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 2 1.5Abundant Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 3Wetland overstory/shrub canopy of Desirable Species Matrix

The dominant canopy/shrub speciemangroves and were healthy and thyoung mangrove propagules. The iBrazilian Pepper was also common. 

No Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover Is Present 0Minimal Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover Is Present 1 1Moderate Amount of Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover is Present 2Moderate Amount of Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover is Present 3Wetland Vegetative Ground Cover of Desirable Species

The rail ROW is mowed and herbiciwithin the rail corridor, thus reduciground cover was minimal. In additspecies torpedograss was common

Moderate Amount of Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover is Present 3No Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer 0Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Averages 30 (ft) or less, containing desirable plant species 1

The habitat/land use to the west of single family residential and commethere is a greater than 30 foot, less buffer between these land uses and 

Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Matrixdesirable plant species 1Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Averages greater than 30 (ft) but less than 300 (ft), containing predominately desirable plant species 2 1Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Averages greater than than 300 (ft) containing predominately desirable plant species 3

there is a greater than 30 foot, less buffer between these land uses and there is a pedestrian walkway withiarea. To the east of the wetland arrailroad with no vegetated buffer. 

1

AAF Unnamed Tributary 2 MP 266.58
Standing (flowing) water was obser

US Army Corp. of Engineers Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) 

Score Sheet (continue)

Field Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Matrix

2

Hydrologic Regime has Become Severely altered with Strong Evidence of Succession to Transitional/Uplant or Open Water Plant Community 0Hydrologic Regime Inadequate to Maintain a Viable Wetland System 1 2

Hydrologic Regime Adequate to Maintain a Viable Wetland System 

Standing (flowing) water was obserduring the site visit; the depth of thas 4 feet during mid-tide. The tributhas generally consistent water levecurrents for a tidally influenced creindicators were noted by water stahydrologic regime is adequate to m

Hydrologic Regime Adequate to Maintain a Viable Wetland System External Features May Affect Wtland Hydrology 2Hydrologic Regime Adequate to Maintain a viable Wetland System 3Land Use Category Water Quality Input and Treatment Matrix

hydrologic regime is adequate to msystem; however, is affected by extexisting railroad.

LU1 Railroad (15%) score 1.5 LU 1 LU2 Single Family Residential (70%) score 1.5 LU 2 LU3 Commercial Low (5%) score 2 LU3 LU4 Natural Undeveloped (10%) score 3 LU4 

LU Total 

Pre-treatment CategoryLU1 Railroad (15%) - grass swales only (1) LU 1 LU2 Single Family Residential (70%)- wet/dry detention (2.5) LU 2 LU3 Commercial Low (5%) - grass swales only (1) LU 3 LU4 Natural Undeveloped (10%) - natural land (3) LU4 

LU Total WQIT 

Water Quality Input and Treatment Total 3 1.9625

Total Possible Total 

18 8.9625

Wrap Score 0.50

2

AAF Unnamed Tributary 2 MP 266.58
Category Possible Score Score

Existing Wetland Exhibits No Evidence of Wildlife 0

US Army Corp. of Engineers Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) 

Score Sheet 

Wildlife Utilization Matrix

Notes

The wetland area is impacted by th

1

Existing Wetland Exhibits No Evidence of Wildlife 0Existing Wetland Exhibits Minimal Evidence of Wildlife Utilization 1 1.5Existing Wetland Exhibits Moderate Evidence of Wildlife Utilization 2Existing Wetland Exhibits Strong Evidence of Wildlife Utilization 3Wetland overstory/shrub canopy of Desirable Species Matrix

The wetland area is impacted by thrailroadacts as a barrier to wildlife macts as a disturbance to wildlife. Thutilization observed during the site as a corridor for aquatic fauna.

No Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 0Minimal Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 1Moderate Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 2 1.5Abundant Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 3Wetland overstory/shrub canopy of Desirable Species Matrix

The dominant sub canopy species wmangroves, which were healthy and mangrove propagules was observedspecies Brazilian Pepper was also co

No Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover Is Present 0Minimal Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover Is Present 1 2Moderate Amount of Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover is Present 2Moderate Amount of Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover is Present 3Wetland Vegetative Ground Cover of Desirable Species

The rail ROW is mowed and herbiciwithin the rail corridor, thus reduciground cover was minimal. In additthe creek limited groundcover vege

Moderate Amount of Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover is Present was common within the wetland as

3

No Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer 0Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Averages 30 (ft) or less, containing desirable plant species 1

The habitat/land use to the west of single family residential and undeveeast of the wetland area, the land uthe residential and railroad land usewas common within the wetland as

Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Matrixdesirable plant species 1Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Averages greater than 30 (ft) but less than 300 (ft), containing predominately desirable plant species 2 1.5Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Averages greater than than 300 (ft) containing predominately desirable plant species 3

east of the wetland area, the land uthe residential and railroad land usebuffer (approximately 30 feet in widmajority of the wetland.

1

AAF Unnamed Tributary 1 MP 266.86
Standing (flowing) water was obser

US Army Corp. of Engineers Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) 

Score Sheet (continue)

Field Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Matrix

2

Hydrologic Regime has Become Severely altered with Strong Evidence of Succession to Transitional/Uplant or Open Water Plant Community 0Hydrologic Regime Inadequate to Maintain a Viable Wetland System 1 2

Hydrologic Regime Adequate to Maintain a Viable Wetland System 

Standing (flowing) water was obserduring the site visit; the depth of thas 1 foot during mid-tide. The tribuhas generally consistent water levecurrents for a tidally influenced creindicators were noted by water stahydrologic regime is adequate to m

Hydrologic Regime Adequate to Maintain a Viable Wetland System External Features May Affect Wtland Hydrology 2Hydrologic Regime Adequate to Maintain a viable Wetland System 3Land Use Category Water Quality Input and Treatment Matrix

hydrologic regime is adequate to msystem; however, is affected by extexisting railroad.

LU1 Railroad/Transportation (40%) score 1.5 LU 1 LU2 Single Family Residential (30%) score 1.5 LU 2 LU4 Natural Undeveloped (30%) score 3 LU 3 

LU Total 

Pre-treatment CategoryLU1 Railroad (40%) - grass swales only (1) LU 1 LU2 Single Family Residential (30%)- grass swales only (1) LU 2 LU4 Natural Undeveloped (30%) - natural land (3) LU 3 

LU Total WQIT 

Water Quality Input and Treatment Total 3 1.775

Total Possible Total 

18 10.275

Wrap Score 0.57

2

AAF Unnamed Tributary 1 MP 266.86
Category Possible Score Score

Existing Wetland Exhibits No Evidence of Wildlife 0Existing Wetland Exhibits Minimal Evidence of Wildlife Utilization 1 1.5Existing Wetland Exhibits Moderate Evidence of Wildlife Utilization 2Existing Wetland Exhibits Strong Evidence of Wildlife Utilization 3No Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 0Minimal Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 1Moderate Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 2 0.5Abundant Desirable Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Trees Present 3No Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover Is Present 0Minimal Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover Is Present 1 2Moderate Amount of Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover is Present 2Moderate Amount of Desirable Vegetative Ground Cover is Present 3No Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer 0Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Averages 30 (ft) or less, containing desirable plant species 1Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Averages greater than 30 (ft) but less than 300 (ft), containing predominately desirable plant species 2 1.5Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Averages greater than than 300 (ft) containing predominately desirable plant species 3

The habitat/land use to the west family residential and undeveloperailroad. There is little to no vegerailroad and residential land uses the undeveloped natural area to tbuffer greater than 30 ft, but less Brazilian Pepper (an undesireable Ground cover within the wetland bluestem, torpedograss, and duck invasive exotic species. The rail Rto maintain visibilty within the raidiversity.The dominant subcanopy species Brazilian Pepper followed by the iwillow. The ROW is maintained to the rail corridor, thus reducing plaThe wetland area is impacted by trailroadacts as a barrier to wildlife acts as a disturbance to wildlife. Tutilization observed during the sitas a corridor for aquatic fauna.

Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer MatrixWetland Vegetative Ground Cover of Desirable Species

US Army Corp. of Engineers Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) 

Score Sheet 

Wetland overstory/shrub canopy of Desirable Species MatrixWildlife Utilization Matrix

Note

1

AAF Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 MP 267.70
Hydrologic Regime has Become Severely altered with Strong Evidence 

of Succession to Transitional/Uplant or Open Water Plant Community

0

Hydrologic Regime Inadequate to Maintain a Viable Wetland System 1 2Hydrologic Regime Adequate to Maintain a Viable Wetland System External Features May Affect Wtland Hydrology 2Hydrologic Regime Adequate to Maintain a viable Wetland System 3Land Use Category LU1 Railroad (15%) score 1.5 LU 1 LU2 Single Family Residential (70%) score 1.5 LU 2 LU3 Natural Undeveloped (15%) score 3 LU3 

LU Total 

Pre-treatment CategoryLU1 Railroad (15%) - wetland system is part of treatment (1.5) LU 1 LU2 Single Family Residential (70%)- wet detention/dry detention (2.5) LU 2 LU3 Natural Undeveloped (15%) - natural land (3) LU3 

LU Total WQIT 

Water Quality Input and Treatment Total 3 2.075

Total Possible Total 

18 9.575

Wrap Score 0.53

Standing water and hydrologic indmarks on the trees were observed at the edge of the wetland was mhydrologically connected to the TThe hydrologic regime is adequatwetland system; however, is affecprimarily the existing railroad.

US Army Corp. of Engineers Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) 

Score Sheet (continue)

Field Indicators of Wetland Hydrology MatrixWater Quality Input and Treatment Matrix

2

AAF Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 MP 267.70
Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation (MBSE) Matrix 

 Parameters

 Parameter Scoring Criteria 

1. Adjacent to lands or waters of regional Importance and results in identifiable State Park, OFW, AP, and including but not limited to Special Waters on at least 1 bou

 ecological benefits to adjacent lands or waters. Adjacent lands contain no special designation or undesignated special value 2. Property is within boundary of an acknowledged state, local or regional acquisition program Property is within boundary of an acquisition program 

Property is not within boundary of an acquisition program 

3. Property contains ecological or geological features consistently considered by regional Property qualifies 

 Scientist, or federal and state agencies to be unusual, unique or rare in the region and is of sufficient size Property does not qualify 

4. Property designated as being of critical state or federal concern and/or contains special designations, Property contains at least 1 special designation. 

Property contains no special designations. 

5. Property important to acknowledged restoration efforts Property is important. 

Property is not important. 

6. Ownership and control of the property. Property is privately owned. 

Property is publicly owned. 

7. Threatened , Endangered & Species of Special Concern Documented Presence of Species on site  Presence of animal species (faunal) found on site No documented Presence of species on site. 8. Threatened , Endangered & Listed Species Documented Presence of Species on site  Presence of plant species (floral) found on site No documented Presence of species on site. 9. Threat of loss or destruction from development activities. (Development Pressure) High probability of development. 

Low probability of development. 

10. Extent to which lands are subject to Local, State, and Federal dredge and fill/ ERP Regulations Property is not regulated. 

Property is regulated. 

 Value Cumulative S

Site Suitability Matrix

 Maximum Possible Score (MPS)  Cumulative Score (CS) Site Suitability 

EPA, USACOE, USF & W, FDEP, NMFS, SFWMD, Dade DERM

3-Apr-96

The Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation Matrix is designed to provide a quantifiable means of determining the number of mitigation credits that should be assigned to a bank for "value" related parameters. Vadetermined to be important to society; and therefore are not measurable in a purely functional analysis. Functional analysis will only measure the degree of functional ecological improvement (degree of ecological imactivities. The SS Evaluation measures and provides credit for societal values that separate one mitigation bank from another as required by Ch. 62-342 .470 (a) (b) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) F.A.C.. The SS evaluation is not tanalysis methodology which also utilizes value related parameters in its analysis. 

After Calculating the Site Suitability Score determine the Site SuitabilitEvaluation Scale to the left. The Site Suitability Multiplier is to be multFunctional Mitigation Credits, resulting from the (W.A.T.E.R.) FunctionBank, to determine the number of Site Suitability Credits to be assigne

Evaluation Scale

Site 

1.0 1.10

.9 .8.7

1.091.07

.6.5.4.3.2.1

0

1.061.051.041.031.021.01

0

1.08

Suitability 

FPL Everglades Mitigation Bank- North Fork of the Middle River
Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Project: North Fork

W.A.T.E.R. - Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Reviewer: J. Baker

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from Date: 2/11/2013

EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County

Polygon Polygon

Parameter/ Function Scoring Criteria Ratings

1. Fish & Wildlife Functions Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems

7 or more species commonly observed 3

a. Waterfowl, wading birds, wetland dependent, or aquatic 3-6 species commonly observed 2

birds of prey. 1-2 species commonly observed 1

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 0 species commonly observed 0

7 or more species commonly observed 3

b. Fish 3-6 species commonly observed 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 1-2 species commonly observed 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) 0 species commonly observed 0

Top predator (carnivore) &/or large mammals 3

c. Mammals Medium sized mammals , (adult weight > 6 ibs.) 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Small animals (rodents, etc.) , (adult weight < 6 lbs.) 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) 0 species present 0

7 or more species commonly observed 3

d. Aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians 3-6 species commonly observed 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 1-2 species commonly observed 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) 0 species commonly observed 0

Large species observed 3

e. Aquatic reptiles Aquatic turtles 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Snakes & lizards 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) No evidence of species present 0

2. Vegetative Functions Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems

Desirable trees/shrub healthy & providing appropriate habitat 

(seedlings present) & no inappropriate species 3

a. Overstory/shrub canopy

Desirable trees/shrubs exhibit signs of stress (no seedlings) few 

inappropriate species present 2

Inappropriate trees/shrubs shading or overcoming desirable 

tree/shrubs 1

Very little or no desirable tree/shrubs present (evidence suggests 

there should be) 0

Assessment area exhibits <2% inappropriate herbaceous ground 

cover for specific wetland systems and groundcover is present 3

b. Vegetative ground cover

Assessment area contains >2% but <30% inappropriate herbaceous 

groundcover, or lack of groundcover >2% but < 30% 2

Assessment area contains >30% to <70% inappropriate herbaceous 

groundcover, or lack of ground cover >30% to <70% 1

Assessment area >70% inappropriate herbaceous groundcover or 

lack of groundcover >70% 0

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mat thickness >1 

1/4 in. (measure active & dead layer) 3

c. Periphyton mat coverage

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mat thickness 

between 3/4 in. to 1 1/4 in. (active & dead layer) 2

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mat thickness 

between 1/4 in. to 3/4 in. (active & dead layer) 1

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) not present or if pressent with average 

thickness of 0.0 to 1/4 in. (active & dead layer) 0

 < (or = to) 1 % exotic plant cover 3

d. Category 1 and Category 2 exotic plants or (non-native) >1 % to 10 % exotic plant cover 2

species >10 % to 65 % exotic plant cover 1

 > 65 % exotic plant cover 0

 >3 native species communities on site within assesssment area 3

e. Habitat diversity (vegetative) 2 or 3 native specie communities on site within assessment area 2

 ( within assessment area )

1 native species community with 75 % to 90 % coverage within 

assessment area 1

1 native species community has > 90 % coverage 

within assessment area 0

 > 3 alternative habitats available (including upland) 3

f. Biological diversity within 3000 feet 2 to 3 alternative habitats 2

 (approximately 1/2 mile from edge of assessment area) 1 alternative habitat 1

 Same habitat type, or inappropriate / impacted 0

1

2

0

2 (exotic species 

and rip rap 

present)

2

1

2

3 (based on 

manatee zone)

3 (based on 

observed species 

count)

1

3
3. Hydrologic Functions 

Major connection (Flowing water/ river or floodplain/ uniform flow through 

natural systems) 3

a. Surface water hydrology / sheet flow

Moderate connection ( Natural restriction of flow or Flowing water due to 

hydrologic engineering) 2

Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems Minor connection (Runoff collection point, or uneven flow due to berms, 

ditches, roadways etc,) 1

Hydrologically isolated, no net lateral movement 0

 > 8 months inundated with no reversals & every year drydown 3

b. Hydroperiod (normal year) fresh systems

 >5 months < 8 months or >5 years continuous inundation (look for 

strong water stains on persistent vegetation) 2

 >1 month < 5 months, with possible reversals (look for soft or less 

distinct water stains on persistent vegetation)

1

 < 4 weeks cumulative annual inundation or < 2 weeks continuous 

inundation 0

 >10 weeks of continuous inundation including soil saturation 3

b-1 Alternate to b. for 

 > 6 weeks but <10 weeks of continuous inundation including soil 

saturation 2

Short Hydroperiod (normal year) fresh systems: >2 weeks but <6 weeks of inudation, including soil saturation

1

 <2 weeks of continuos inundation 0

Inundated by >90% high tides

b-2 Alternate to b. for Inundated by "spring" high tides (bi-monthly) 2

Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems Inundated by "extreme high" tides only (biannually) 1

Inundated by storm surges only 0

Inundated by high "spring" tides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water 

sheetflow every 10 days average

3

b-3 Alternate to b. for 

Inundated by high "spring" tides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water 

sheetflow every 30 days on the average 2

High Marsh (Juncus-Distichlis) Inundated by high "spring" tides (monthly) and exposed to rain only 1

Inundated by >50% high tides and exposed to rain only 0

Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves and maintains fresh 

water at least into first half of dry season 3

b-4 Alternate to b. for 

Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves and maintains fresh 

water during rainy season only 2

Riverine systems Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves fresh water but does 

not maintain (reversal) during rainy season 1

Inundated by spring tides (bi-monthly) and/or experiences frequent 

reversals of fresh water (flashy) 0

3. Hydrologic Functions continued 

 >1 ft. water depth for at least 2.5 months and <6 in. for >1 month 

(measure water mark/ lichen line), or water depth ideal for specific 

wetland system.

3

c. Hydropattern (fresh system)

 >6 in to 1 ft. for at least 2.5 months (measure water mark/ lichen line) 

or water depth borderline over or under for specific wetland system

2

 <6 in. for at least 2.5 months (measure water mark/ lichen line) or 

water depth incorrect for specific wetland system 1

 <6 in. in association with either canals, ditches, swales, culverts, 

pumps, and/or wellfields, or these factors cause water depth to be too 

deep for specific system.

0

 >1 ft. water depth <2 ft. on 90% high tides 3

c-1 Alternate to c. for > 6 in. water depth <1 ft. on >50% high tides 2

Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems < 6 in. water depth , but > than saturated 1

 Saturated by saline water table only 0

>10 in. water depth <2 ft. on regular basis during growing season 3

c-2 Alternate to c. for >5 in. to 10in. water depth on regular basis during growing season 2

High Marsh (Juncus-Distichlis) >1 in. to 5 in. water depth on regular basis during growing season 1

>0.0 in. to 1 in. water depth sporadically during growing season 0

>2 ft. water depth (main channel) <6 ft. for 8 months 3

c-3 Alternate to c. for >2 ft. water depth (main channel) <4 ft. for 6 months 2

Riverine systems >1 ft. water depth (main channel) <2.5 ft. for 4 months 1

<1 ft. water depth, but dry for >4 weeks (dry season) 0

3

1

3 (Serves as major 

tidal connection)
3. Hydrologic Functions continued 

No indication of poor water quality (lab testing required, all values 

within acceptable range) 3

d. Water Quality

No visual indicators of poor water quality observed (1 value just over 

or under acceptable range) 2

Visual indicators of poor water quality questionable (2 values over or 

under acceptable range) 1

Visual indicators of poor water quailty observed or lab verified (values 

are out of acceptable range) 0

Unaltered 3

e. Intactness of historic topography (soil disturbance) Slightly altered soil disturbance, < 10% of assessment area 2

Moderately altered soil disturbance, < 25% of assessment area 1

Extremely altered soil disturbance, may exceed 50% of assessment 

area 0

Organic soil classified hydric soil >12 in. or any thickness over 

bedrock/caprock with perched water table and either condition 

covering >90% of surface area

3

f. Soils, organic (fresh systems)

Organic soil classified hydric soil >6 in. but <12 in. and covering >90% 

of surface area 2

Organic soil classified hydric soil >1 in. but <6 in. and covering >50% 

but <90% of surface area 1

 Organic soil classified non-hydric soil <1 in. for >50% of surface area 0

Sandy soil classified hydric soil with distinct mottling and concretions 

present in greater than 40% of horizon. 3

f-1 Alternate to f. for 

Sandy soil classified hydric soil with mottling and concretions present 

in > 20% but < 40% of horizon. 2

Freshwater, saltwater systems Sandy soil classified hydric soil with light or sparse mottling and 

concretions < 2 mm diameter or < 20% of horizon. 1

Sandy soil exhibits strong evidence of disturbance or mechanical 

manipulations or is fill material. 0

Calcareous loam >12 in. and >90 % of surface area 3

f-2 Alternate to f. for Calcareous loam >6 in. to <12 in. and >90% of surface area 2

Freshwater, saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems Calcareous loam >1 in. to <6 in. and covering >50% but <90% of 

surface area 1

Calcareous loam <1 in. for >50% of surface area 0

4. Salinity Parameters Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish, hypersaline and mitigation systems -Choose 1

<2 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

a. Optimum salinity for fresh systems during growing 2 to 3 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 4 to 5 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to freshwater systems within 5 miles of the coast >5 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-1. Alternate to a. 6 to 8 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

Optimum salinity for brackish systems during growing 9 to 13 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 14 to 16 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to brackish (tidal) systems only >16 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-2. Alternate to a. 17 to 19 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

Optimum salinity for saline systems during growing 20 to 22 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 23 to 25 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to saline marsh (tidal) systems only >25 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-3. Alternate to a. 26 to 41 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

Optimum salinity for hypersaline systems during growing 42 to 46 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 47 to 51 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to hypersaline (tidal) systems only >51 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-4 Alternate to a. bottom (lower) third between 12 to 25 ppt 3

Optimum salinity for riverine/tidal creek system during middle third between 5 to 11 ppt.

growing season based on mean high slainity for a normal upper (top) third betweem 0 to 4 ppt.

year. bottom (lower) third between 25 to 32 ppt 2

Apply to riverine systems only middle third between 6 to 24 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem 0 to 5 ppt.

bottom (lower) third between 30 to 40 ppt 1

middle third between 8 to 29 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem 0 to 7 ppt.

bottom (lower) third between 35 to 50 ppt 0

middle third between 10 to 34 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem 0 to 9 ppt.

Cotleur Hearing, Inc. Cumulative Score (SC) 31.00

W.A.T.E.R. created by: Bill L. Maus Maximum Possible Score (MPS) 54.00

11/1/1998 W.A.T.E.R. = Cumulative Score/Maximum Possible Score 0.57

2 (estimated)

0

0

2 (based on visual 

observation)
W.A.T.E.R SCORE MITIGATION ACREAGE

FUNCTIONAL MITIGATION 

CREDITS

SITE SUITABILITY 

MULTIPLIER

SITE SU

CR

0.57 0.005 0.00285 1 

vegetation removal, pile installation, shading, and placement of rip rap 
Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation (MBSE) Matrix 

 Parameters

 Parameter Scoring Criteria 

1. Adjacent to lands or waters of regional Importance and results in identifiable State Park, OFW, AP, and including but not limited to Special Waters on at least 1 bou

 ecological benefits to adjacent lands or waters. Adjacent lands contain no special designation or undesignated special value 2. Property is within boundary of an acknowledged state, local or regional acquisition program Property is within boundary of an acquisition program 

Property is not within boundary of an acquisition program 

3. Property contains ecological or geological features consistently considered by regional Property qualifies 

 Scientist, or federal and state agencies to be unusual, unique or rare in the region and is of sufficient size Property does not qualify 

4. Property designated as being of critical state or federal concern and/or contains special designations, Property contains at least 1 special designation. 

Property contains no special designations. 

5. Property important to acknowledged restoration efforts Property is important. 

Property is not important. 

6. Ownership and control of the property. Property is privately owned. 

Property is publicly owned. 

7. Threatened , Endangered & Species of Special Concern Documented Presence of Species on site  Presence of animal species (faunal) found on site No documented Presence of species on site. 8. Threatened , Endangered & Listed Species Documented Presence of Species on site  Presence of plant species (floral) found on site No documented Presence of species on site. 9. Threat of loss or destruction from development activities. (Development Pressure) High probability of development. 

Low probability of development. 

10. Extent to which lands are subject to Local, State, and Federal dredge and fill/ ERP Regulations Property is not regulated. 

Property is regulated. 

 Value Cumulative S

Site Suitability Matrix

 Maximum Possible Score (MPS)  Cumulative Score (CS) Site Suitability 

EPA, USACOE, USF & W, FDEP, NMFS, SFWMD, Dade DERM

3-Apr-96

The Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation Matrix is designed to provide a quantifiable means of determining the number of mitigation credits that should be assigned to a bank for "value" related parameters. Vadetermined to be important to society; and therefore are not measurable in a purely functional analysis. Functional analysis will only measure the degree of functional ecological improvement (degree of ecological imactivities. The SS Evaluation measures and provides credit for societal values that separate one mitigation bank from another as required by Ch. 62-342 .470 (a) (b) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) F.A.C.. The SS evaluation is not tanalysis methodology which also utilizes value related parameters in its analysis. 

After Calculating the Site Suitability Score determine the Site SuitabilitEvaluation Scale to the left. The Site Suitability Multiplier is to be multFunctional Mitigation Credits, resulting from the (W.A.T.E.R.) FunctionBank, to determine the number of Site Suitability Credits to be assigne

Evaluation Scale

Site 

1.0 1.10

.9 .8.7

1.091.07

.6.5.4.3.2.1

0

1.061.051.041.031.021.01

0

1.08

Suitability 

FPL Everglades Mitigation Bank - South Fork of the Middle River
Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Project: South Fork

W.A.T.E.R. - Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Reviewer: J. Baker

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from Date: 2/11/2013

EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County

Polygon Polygon

Parameter/ Function Scoring Criteria Ratings

1. Fish & Wildlife Functions Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems

7 or more species commonly observed 3

a. Waterfowl, wading birds, wetland dependent, or aquatic 3-6 species commonly observed 2

birds of prey. 1-2 species commonly observed 1

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 0 species commonly observed 0

7 or more species commonly observed 3

b. Fish 3-6 species commonly observed 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 1-2 species commonly observed 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) 0 species commonly observed 0

Top predator (carnivore) &/or large mammals 3

c. Mammals Medium sized mammals , (adult weight > 6 ibs.) 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Small animals (rodents, etc.) , (adult weight < 6 lbs.) 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) 0 species present 0

7 or more species commonly observed 3

d. Aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians 3-6 species commonly observed 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 1-2 species commonly observed 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) 0 species commonly observed 0

Large species observed 3

e. Aquatic reptiles Aquatic turtles 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Snakes & lizards 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) No evidence of species present 0

2. Vegetative Functions Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems

Desirable trees/shrub healthy & providing appropriate habitat 

(seedlings present) & no inappropriate species 3

a. Overstory/shrub canopy

Desirable trees/shrubs exhibit signs of stress (no seedlings) few 

inappropriate species present 2

Inappropriate trees/shrubs shading or overcoming desirable 

tree/shrubs 1

Very little or no desirable tree/shrubs present (evidence suggests 

there should be) 0

Assessment area exhibits <2% inappropriate herbaceous ground 

cover for specific wetland systems and groundcover is present 3

b. Vegetative ground cover

Assessment area contains >2% but <30% inappropriate herbaceous 

groundcover, or lack of groundcover >2% but < 30% 2

Assessment area contains >30% to <70% inappropriate herbaceous 

groundcover, or lack of ground cover >30% to <70% 1

Assessment area >70% inappropriate herbaceous groundcover or 

lack of groundcover >70% 0

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mat thickness >1 

1/4 in. (measure active & dead layer) 3

c. Periphyton mat coverage

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mat thickness 

between 3/4 in. to 1 1/4 in. (active & dead layer) 2

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mat thickness 

between 1/4 in. to 3/4 in. (active & dead layer) 1

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) not present or if pressent with average 

thickness of 0.0 to 1/4 in. (active & dead layer) 0

 < (or = to) 1 % exotic plant cover 3

d. Category 1 and Category 2 exotic plants or (non-native) >1 % to 10 % exotic plant cover 2

species >10 % to 65 % exotic plant cover 1

 > 65 % exotic plant cover 0

 >3 native species communities on site within assesssment area 3

e. Habitat diversity (vegetative) 2 or 3 native specie communities on site within assessment area 2

 ( within assessment area )

1 native species community with 75 % to 90 % coverage within 

assessment area 1

1 native species community has > 90 % coverage 

within assessment area 0

 > 3 alternative habitats available (including upland) 3

f. Biological diversity within 3000 feet 2 to 3 alternative habitats 2

 (approximately 1/2 mile from edge of assessment area) 1 alternative habitat 1

 Same habitat type, or inappropriate / impacted 0

1

2

0

2 (exotic species 

and rip rap 

present)

2

1

2

3 (based on 

manatee zone)

3 (based on 

observed species 

count)

1

3
3. Hydrologic Functions 

Major connection (Flowing water/ river or floodplain/ uniform flow through 

natural systems) 3

a. Surface water hydrology / sheet flow

Moderate connection ( Natural restriction of flow or Flowing water due to 

hydrologic engineering) 2

Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems Minor connection (Runoff collection point, or uneven flow due to berms, 

ditches, roadways etc,) 1

Hydrologically isolated, no net lateral movement 0

 > 8 months inundated with no reversals & every year drydown 3

b. Hydroperiod (normal year) fresh systems

 >5 months < 8 months or >5 years continuous inundation (look for 

strong water stains on persistent vegetation) 2

 >1 month < 5 months, with possible reversals (look for soft or less 

distinct water stains on persistent vegetation)

1

 < 4 weeks cumulative annual inundation or < 2 weeks continuous 

inundation 0

 >10 weeks of continuous inundation including soil saturation 3

b-1 Alternate to b. for 

 > 6 weeks but <10 weeks of continuous inundation including soil 

saturation 2

Short Hydroperiod (normal year) fresh systems: >2 weeks but <6 weeks of inudation, including soil saturation

1

 <2 weeks of continuos inundation 0

Inundated by >90% high tides

b-2 Alternate to b. for Inundated by "spring" high tides (bi-monthly) 2

Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems Inundated by "extreme high" tides only (biannually) 1

Inundated by storm surges only 0

Inundated by high "spring" tides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water 

sheetflow every 10 days average

3

b-3 Alternate to b. for 

Inundated by high "spring" tides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water 

sheetflow every 30 days on the average 2

High Marsh (Juncus-Distichlis) Inundated by high "spring" tides (monthly) and exposed to rain only 1

Inundated by >50% high tides and exposed to rain only 0

Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves and maintains fresh 

water at least into first half of dry season 3

b-4 Alternate to b. for 

Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves and maintains fresh 

water during rainy season only 2

Riverine systems Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves fresh water but does 

not maintain (reversal) during rainy season 1

Inundated by spring tides (bi-monthly) and/or experiences frequent 

reversals of fresh water (flashy) 0

3. Hydrologic Functions continued 

 >1 ft. water depth for at least 2.5 months and <6 in. for >1 month 

(measure water mark/ lichen line), or water depth ideal for specific 

wetland system.

3

c. Hydropattern (fresh system)

 >6 in to 1 ft. for at least 2.5 months (measure water mark/ lichen line) 

or water depth borderline over or under for specific wetland system

2

 <6 in. for at least 2.5 months (measure water mark/ lichen line) or 

water depth incorrect for specific wetland system 1

 <6 in. in association with either canals, ditches, swales, culverts, 

pumps, and/or wellfields, or these factors cause water depth to be too 

deep for specific system.

0

 >1 ft. water depth <2 ft. on 90% high tides 3

c-1 Alternate to c. for > 6 in. water depth <1 ft. on >50% high tides 2

Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems < 6 in. water depth , but > than saturated 1

 Saturated by saline water table only 0

>10 in. water depth <2 ft. on regular basis during growing season 3

c-2 Alternate to c. for >5 in. to 10in. water depth on regular basis during growing season 2

High Marsh (Juncus-Distichlis) >1 in. to 5 in. water depth on regular basis during growing season 1

>0.0 in. to 1 in. water depth sporadically during growing season 0

>2 ft. water depth (main channel) <6 ft. for 8 months 3

c-3 Alternate to c. for >2 ft. water depth (main channel) <4 ft. for 6 months 2

Riverine systems >1 ft. water depth (main channel) <2.5 ft. for 4 months 1

<1 ft. water depth, but dry for >4 weeks (dry season) 0

3

1

3 (Serves as major 

tidal connection)
3. Hydrologic Functions continued 

No indication of poor water quality (lab testing required, all values 

within acceptable range) 3

d. Water Quality

No visual indicators of poor water quality observed (1 value just over 

or under acceptable range) 2

Visual indicators of poor water quality questionable (2 values over or 

under acceptable range) 1

Visual indicators of poor water quailty observed or lab verified (values 

are out of acceptable range) 0

Unaltered 3

e. Intactness of historic topography (soil disturbance) Slightly altered soil disturbance, < 10% of assessment area 2

Moderately altered soil disturbance, < 25% of assessment area 1

Extremely altered soil disturbance, may exceed 50% of assessment 

area 0

Organic soil classified hydric soil >12 in. or any thickness over 

bedrock/caprock with perched water table and either condition 

covering >90% of surface area

3

f. Soils, organic (fresh systems)

Organic soil classified hydric soil >6 in. but <12 in. and covering >90% 

of surface area 2

Organic soil classified hydric soil >1 in. but <6 in. and covering >50% 

but <90% of surface area 1

 Organic soil classified non-hydric soil <1 in. for >50% of surface area 0

Sandy soil classified hydric soil with distinct mottling and concretions 

present in greater than 40% of horizon. 3

f-1 Alternate to f. for 

Sandy soil classified hydric soil with mottling and concretions present 

in > 20% but < 40% of horizon. 2

Freshwater, saltwater systems Sandy soil classified hydric soil with light or sparse mottling and 

concretions < 2 mm diameter or < 20% of horizon. 1

Sandy soil exhibits strong evidence of disturbance or mechanical 

manipulations or is fill material. 0

Calcareous loam >12 in. and >90 % of surface area 3

f-2 Alternate to f. for Calcareous loam >6 in. to <12 in. and >90% of surface area 2

Freshwater, saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems Calcareous loam >1 in. to <6 in. and covering >50% but <90% of 

surface area 1

Calcareous loam <1 in. for >50% of surface area 0

4. Salinity Parameters Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish, hypersaline and mitigation systems -Choose 1

<2 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

a. Optimum salinity for fresh systems during growing 2 to 3 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 4 to 5 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to freshwater systems within 5 miles of the coast >5 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-1. Alternate to a. 6 to 8 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

Optimum salinity for brackish systems during growing 9 to 13 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 14 to 16 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to brackish (tidal) systems only >16 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-2. Alternate to a. 17 to 19 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

Optimum salinity for saline systems during growing 20 to 22 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 23 to 25 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to saline marsh (tidal) systems only >25 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-3. Alternate to a. 26 to 41 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

Optimum salinity for hypersaline systems during growing 42 to 46 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 47 to 51 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to hypersaline (tidal) systems only >51 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-4 Alternate to a. bottom (lower) third between 12 to 25 ppt 3

Optimum salinity for riverine/tidal creek system during middle third between 5 to 11 ppt.

growing season based on mean high slainity for a normal upper (top) third betweem 0 to 4 ppt.

year. bottom (lower) third between 25 to 32 ppt 2

Apply to riverine systems only middle third between 6 to 24 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem 0 to 5 ppt.

bottom (lower) third between 30 to 40 ppt 1

middle third between 8 to 29 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem 0 to 7 ppt.

bottom (lower) third between 35 to 50 ppt 0

middle third between 10 to 34 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem 0 to 9 ppt.

Cotleur Hearing, Inc. Cumulative Score (SC) 31.00

W.A.T.E.R. created by: Bill L. Maus Maximum Possible Score (MPS) 54.00

11/1/1998 W.A.T.E.R. = Cumulative Score/Maximum Possible Score 0.57

2 (estimated)

0

0

2 (based on visual 

observation)
W.A.T.E.R SCORE MITIGATION ACREAGE

FUNCTIONAL MITIGATION 

CREDITS

SITE SUITABILITY 

MULTIPLIER

SITE SUITABILITY 

CREDITS

0.57 0.001 0.00057 1 0.0006

vegetation removal, pile installation, shading, and placement of rip rap 
Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation (MBSE) Matrix 

 Parameters

 Parameter Scoring Criteria 

1. Adjacent to lands or waters of regional Importance and results in identifiable State Park, OFW, AP, and including but not limited to Special Waters on at least 1 bou

 ecological benefits to adjacent lands or waters. Adjacent lands contain no special designation or undesignated special value 2. Property is within boundary of an acknowledged state, local or regional acquisition program Property is within boundary of an acquisition program 

Property is not within boundary of an acquisition program 

3. Property contains ecological or geological features consistently considered by regional Property qualifies 

 Scientist, or federal and state agencies to be unusual, unique or rare in the region and is of sufficient size Property does not qualify 

4. Property designated as being of critical state or federal concern and/or contains special designations, Property contains at least 1 special designation. 

Property contains no special designations. 

5. Property important to acknowledged restoration efforts Property is important. 

Property is not important. 

6. Ownership and control of the property. Property is privately owned. 

Property is publicly owned. 

7. Threatened , Endangered & Species of Special Concern Documented Presence of Species on site  Presence of animal species (faunal) found on site No documented Presence of species on site. 8. Threatened , Endangered & Listed Species Documented Presence of Species on site  Presence of plant species (floral) found on site No documented Presence of species on site. 9. Threat of loss or destruction from development activities. (Development Pressure) High probability of development. 

Low probability of development. 

10. Extent to which lands are subject to Local, State, and Federal dredge and fill/ ERP Regulations Property is not regulated. 

Property is regulated. 

 Value Cumulative S

Site Suitability Matrix

 Maximum Possible Score (MPS)  Cumulative Score (CS) Site Suitability 

EPA, USACOE, USF & W, FDEP, NMFS, SFWMD, Dade DERM

3-Apr-96

The Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation Matrix is designed to provide a quantifiable means of determining the number of mitigation credits that should be assigned to a bank for "value" related parameters. Vadetermined to be important to society; and therefore are not measurable in a purely functional analysis. Functional analysis will only measure the degree of functional ecological improvement (degree of ecological imactivities. The SS Evaluation measures and provides credit for societal values that separate one mitigation bank from another as required by Ch. 62-342 .470 (a) (b) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) F.A.C.. The SS evaluation is not tanalysis methodology which also utilizes value related parameters in its analysis. 

After Calculating the Site Suitability Score determine the Site SuitabilitEvaluation Scale to the left. The Site Suitability Multiplier is to be multFunctional Mitigation Credits, resulting from the (W.A.T.E.R.) FunctionBank, to determine the number of Site Suitability Credits to be assigne

Evaluation Scale

Site 

1.0 1.10

.9 .8.7

1.091.07

.6.5.4.3.2.1

0

1.061.051.041.031.021.01

0

1.08

Suitability 

FPL Everglades Mitigation Bank - Oleta River
EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County

Polygon Polygon

Parameter/ Function Scoring Criteria Ratings

1. Fish & Wildlife Functions Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems

7 or more species commonly observed 3

a. Waterfowl, wading birds, wetland dependent, or aquatic 3-6 species commonly observed 2

birds of prey. 1-2 species commonly observed 1

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 0 species commonly observed 0

7 or more species commonly observed 3

b. Fish 3-6 species commonly observed 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 1-2 species commonly observed 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) 0 species commonly observed 0

Top predator (carnivore) &/or large mammals 3

c. Mammals Medium sized mammals , (adult weight > 6 ibs.) 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Small animals (rodents, etc.) , (adult weight < 6 lbs.) 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) 0 species present 0

7 or more species commonly observed 3

d. Aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians 3-6 species commonly observed 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 1-2 species commonly observed 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) 0 species commonly observed 0

Large species observed 3

e. Aquatic reptiles Aquatic turtles 2

(Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Snakes & lizards 1

Restoration that causes 12% pop. Increases-higher score) No evidence of species present 0

2. Vegetative Functions Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems

Desirable trees/shrub healthy & providing appropriate habitat (seedlings 

present) & no inappropriate species 3

a. Overstory/shrub canopy

Desirable trees/shrubs exhibit signs of stress (no seedlings) few 

inappropriate species present 2

Inappropriate trees/shrubs shading or overcoming desirable tree/shrubs 1

Very little or no desirable tree/shrubs present (evidence suggests there 

should be) 0

Assessment area exhibits <2% inappropriate herbaceous ground cover 

for specific wetland systems and groundcover is present 3

b. Vegetative ground cover

Assessment area contains >2% but <30% inappropriate herbaceous 

groundcover, or lack of groundcover >2% but < 30% 2

Assessment area contains >30% to <70% inappropriate herbaceous 

groundcover, or lack of ground cover >30% to <70% 1

Assessment area >70% inappropriate herbaceous groundcover or lack 

of groundcover >70% 0

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mat thickness >1 

1/4 in. (measure active & dead layer) 3

c. Periphyton mat coverage

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mat thickness 

between 3/4 in. to 1 1/4 in. (active & dead layer) 2

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mat thickness 

between 1/4 in. to 3/4 in. (active & dead layer) 1

Periphyton (Blue-green algae) not present or if pressent with average 

thickness of 0.0 to 1/4 in. (active & dead layer) 0

 < (or = to) 1 % exotic plant cover 3

d. Category 1 and Category 2 exotic plants or (non-native) >1 % to 10 % exotic plant cover 2

species >10 % to 65 % exotic plant cover 1

 > 65 % exotic plant cover 0

 >3 native species communities on site within assesssment area 3

e. Habitat diversity (vegetative) 2 or 3 native specie communities on site within assessment area 2

 (within assessment area )

1 native species community with 75 % to 90 % coverage within 

assessment area 1

1 native species community has > 90 % coverage 

within assessment area 0

 > 3 alternative habitats available (including upland) 3

f. Biological diversity within 3000 feet 2 to 3 alternative habitats 2

 (approximately 1/2 mile from edge of assessment area) 1 alternative habitat 1

 Same habitat type, or inappropriate / impacted 0

1

3 (Area includes 

Biscayne bay and 

Oleta River State 

Park)

0

2

2

2 (exotic species 

and rip rap 

present)

1

3 (based on 

observed species 

count)

1

3 (based on 

manatee zone)

2

Page 1 of 3

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Project: Oleta River

W.A.T.E.R. - Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Reviewer: Jay Baker

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from Date: 2/11/2013
EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County

Polygon Polygon

Parameter/ Function Scoring Criteria Ratings

3. Hydrologic Functions 

Major connection (Flowing water/ river or floodplain/ uniform flow through 

natural systems) 3

a. Surface water hydrology / sheet flow

Moderate connection ( Natural restriction of flow or Flowing water due to 

hydrologic engineering) 2

Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems Minor connection (Runoff collection point, or uneven flow due to berms, 

ditches, roadways etc,) 1

Hydrologically isolated, no net lateral movement 0

 > 8 months inundated with no reversals & every year drydown 3

b. Hydroperiod (normal year) fresh systems

 >5 months < 8 months or >5 years continuous inundation (look for 

strong water stains on persistent vegetation) 2

 >1 month < 5 months, with possible reversals (look for soft or less 

distinct water stains on persistent vegetation)

1

 < 4 weeks cumulative annual inundation or < 2 weeks continuous 

inundation 0

 >10 weeks of continuous inundation including soil saturation 3

b-1 Alternate to b. for 

 > 6 weeks but <10 weeks of continuous inundation including soil 

saturation 2

Short Hydroperiod (normal year) fresh systems: >2 weeks but <6 weeks of inudation, including soil saturation

1

 <2 weeks of continuos inundation 0

Inundated by >90% high tides

b-2 Alternate to b. for Inundated by "spring" high tides (bi-monthly) 2

Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems Inundated by "extreme high" tides only (biannually) 1

Inundated by storm surges only 0

Inundated by high "spring" tides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water 

sheetflow every 10 days average

3

b-3 Alternate to b. for 

Inundated by high "spring" tides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water 

sheetflow every 30 days on the average 2

High Marsh (Juncus-Distichlis) Inundated by high "spring" tides (monthly) and exposed to rain only 1

Inundated by >50% high tides and exposed to rain only 0

Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves and maintains fresh 

water at least into first half of dry season 3

b-4 Alternate to b. for 

Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves and maintains fresh 

water during rainy season only 2

Riverine systems Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves fresh water but does not 

maintain (reversal) during rainy season 1

Inundated by spring tides (bi-monthly) and/or experiences frequent 

reversals of fresh water (flashy) 0

3. Hydrologic Functions continued 

 >1 ft. water depth for at least 2.5 months and <6 in. for >1 month 

(measure water mark/ lichen line), or water depth ideal for specific 

wetland system.

3

c. Hydropattern (fresh system)

 >6 in to 1 ft. for at least 2.5 months (measure water mark/ lichen line) 

or water depth borderline over or under for specific wetland system

2

 <6 in. for at least 2.5 months (measure water mark/ lichen line) or water 

depth incorrect for specific wetland system 1

 <6 in. in association with either canals, ditches, swales, culverts, 

pumps, and/or wellfields, or these factors cause water depth to be too 

deep for specific system.

0

 >1 ft. water depth <2 ft. on 90% high tides 3

c-1 Alternate to c. for > 6 in. water depth <1 ft. on >50% high tides 2

Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems < 6 in. water depth , but > than saturated 1

 Saturated by saline water table only 0

>10 in. water depth <2 ft. on regular basis during growing season 3

c-2 Alternate to c. for >5 in. to 10in. water depth on regular basis during growing season 2

High Marsh (Juncus-Distichlis) >1 in. to 5 in. water depth on regular basis during growing season 1

>0.0 in. to 1 in. water depth sporadically during growing season 0

>2 ft. water depth (main channel) <6 ft. for 8 months 3

c-3 Alternate to c. for >2 ft. water depth (main channel) <4 ft. for 6 months 2

Riverine systems >1 ft. water depth (main channel) <2.5 ft. for 4 months 1

<1 ft. water depth, but dry for >4 weeks (dry season) 0

3

1

3 (Serves as major 

tidal connection)

Page 2 of 3

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Project: Oleta River

W.A.T.E.R. - Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Reviewer: Jay Baker

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from Date: 2/11/2013
EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County

Polygon Polygon

Parameter/ Function Scoring Criteria Ratings

3. Hydrologic Functions continued 

No indication of poor water quality (lab testing required, all values within 

acceptable range) 3

d. Water Quality

No visual indicators of poor water quality observed (1 value just over or 

under acceptable range) 2

Visual indicators of poor water quality questionable (2 values over or 

under acceptable range) 1

Visual indicators of poor water quailty observed or lab verified (values 

are out of acceptable range) 0

Unaltered 3

e. Intactness of historic topography (soil disturbance) Slightly altered soil disturbance, < 10% of assessment area 2

Moderately altered soil disturbance, < 25% of assessment area 1

Extremely altered soil disturbance, may exceed 50% of assessment 

area 0

Organic soil classified hydric soil >12 in. or any thickness over 

bedrock/caprock with perched water table and either condition covering 

>90% of surface area

3

f. Soils, organic (fresh systems)

Organic soil classified hydric soil >6 in. but <12 in. and covering >90% 

of surface area 2

Organic soil classified hydric soil >1 in. but <6 in. and covering >50% 

but <90% of surface area 1

 Organic soil classified non-hydric soil <1 in. for >50% of surface area 0

Sandy soil classified hydric soil with distinct mottling and concretions 

present in greater than 40% of horizon. 3

f-1 Alternate to f. for 

Sandy soil classified hydric soil with mottling and concretions present in 

> 20% but < 40% of horizon. 2

Freshwater, saltwater systems Sandy soil classified hydric soil with light or sparse mottling and 

concretions < 2 mm diameter or < 20% of horizon. 1

Sandy soil exhibits strong evidence of disturbance or mechanical 

manipulations or is fill material. 0

Calcareous loam >12 in. and >90 % of surface area 3

f-2 Alternate to f. for Calcareous loam >6 in. to <12 in. and >90% of surface area 2

Freshwater, saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems Calcareous loam >1 in. to <6 in. and covering >50% but <90% of 

surface area 1

Calcareous loam <1 in. for >50% of surface area 0

4. Salinity Parameters Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish, hypersaline and mitigation systems -Choose 1

<2 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

a. Optimum salinity for fresh systems during growing 2 to 3 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 4 to 5 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to freshwater systems within 5 miles of the coast >5 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-1. Alternate to a. 6 to 8 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

Optimum salinity for brackish systems during growing 9 to 13 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 14 to 16 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to brackish (tidal) systems only >16 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-2. Alternate to a. 17 to 19 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

Optimum salinity for saline systems during growing 20 to 22 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 23 to 25 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to saline marsh (tidal) systems only >25 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-3. Alternate to a. 26 to 41 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

Optimum salinity for hypersaline systems during growing 42 to 46 parts per thousand (ppt) 2

season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 47 to 51 parts per thousand (ppt) 1

Apply to hypersaline (tidal) systems only >51 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

a-4 Alternate to a. bottom (lower) third between 12 to 25 ppt 3

Optimum salinity for riverine/tidal creek system during middle third between 5 to 11 ppt.

growing season based on mean high slainity for a normal upper (top) third betweem 0 to 4 ppt.

year. bottom (lower) third between 25 to 32 ppt 2

Apply to riverine systems only middle third between 6 to 24 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem 0 to 5 ppt.

bottom (lower) third between 30 to 40 ppt 1

middle third between 8 to 29 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem 0 to 7 ppt.

bottom (lower) third between 35 to 50 ppt 0

middle third between 10 to 34 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem 0 to 9 ppt.

Cotleur Hearing, Inc. Cumulative Score (SC) 31.00

W.A.T.E.R. created by: Bill L. Maus Maximum Possible Score (MPS) 54.00

11/1/1998 W.A.T.E.R. = Cumulative Score/Maximum Possible Score 0.57

2 (estimated)

0

0

2 (based on visual 

observation)

Page 3 of 3

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Project: Oleta River

W.A.T.E.R. - Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Reviewer: Jay Baker

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from Date: 2/11/2013
W.A.T.E.R SCORE MITIGATION ACREAGE

FUNCTIONAL MITIGATION 

CREDITS

SITE SUITABILITY 

MULTIPLIER

SITE S

CR

0.57 0.002 0.00114 1 

vegetation removal, pile installation, shading, and placement of rip rap