The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014 - Notice from ACOE regarding additional comments for AAF Cathy Testa From:Kate Pingolt Cotner <kcotner@ircgov.com> Sent:Friday, October 17, 2014 10:23 AM To:Joseph Griffin; Coment, Wayne Subject:FW: All Aboard Florida - US Army Corps Comment Period Attachments:20141007-SAJ-2012-01564-Various-1106-AWP-PN.pdf Good morning, Attached is a notice from the U.S. Army Corps., regarding additional comments for the AAF project. Our participation is extremely important because the notice pertains to the relief canals and the bridge over the St. Sebastian River. Thank you, and I hope you guys are having a great Friday. Kate 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 400 HIGH POINT DRIVE, SUITE 600 COCOA, FLORIDA32926 REPLY TO October 7, 2014 ATTENTION OF Regulatory Division North Permits Branch Cocoa Permits Section PUBLIC NOTICE Permit Application NumberSAJ-2012-01564(SP-AWP) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403) as described below: APPLICANT: All Aboard Florida –Operations, LLC Attn: Jose Gonzalez th 2855 Le Jeune Road, 4Floor Coral Gables, Florida 33134 ABSTRACT: The Corps is a cooperating agency in Federal RailroadAdministration’s (FRA) Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed All Aboard Florida –Orlando to Miami, Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project. The FRApublished a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the All Aboard Florida projectin the Federal Register; onSeptember 26, 2014.Copies of the draft DEIS will be available for public review untilDecember 3,2014,at libraries located within the study corridoror online at FRA’swebsite http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0672.The Corps intends to use the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) for itsspecificpurposes of documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Corps will complete a404(b)1 analysis and public interest review in its Record of Decision following publication of the FEIS.Please note,neither the FRAnor the Corps haveidentified a preferred alternative. The applicant has estimated that the east/west component of the proposed railway would require the establishment of new tracks resulting in impacts to approximately 165 acres of waters of the United States (wetlands and surface waters). The Corps is evaluating impacts of the proposed railroad utilizing itsStandard Permitprocess.This public notice will satisfy the notification requirements for evaluation of a Standard Permit for the east/west component.Note: the Corps is not evaluating the proposed Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) in this proposal. The applicant has estimated that the north/south component of the proposed railway would occur within existing Florida East Coast Railroad(FECR)right-of-way (ROW) and would only require minor impacts to waters of the United States (wetlands and surface waters) at various locations along the corridor. The Corps has initially determined these minor improvements could be verified in accordance with the Corps’ Nationwide Permit (NWP)Program.Verification by NWP would not require further public coordination. The Corps intends to use consultations completed in the EIS to satisfy specific requirements of the Endangered Species Act and Magnusson Stevens Fisheries Management Act. Additional information regarding the Corps’ regulatory program can be found at: http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/SourceBook.aspx Comments received in response to this public notice will be incorporated intothe FEIS being completed by FRA. WATERWAY ANDLOCATION: The project would affect waters of the United States associated with Horse Creek, Eau GallieRiver, Crane Creek, Turkey Creek, Goat Creek, Sebastian River, North Canal, Main Canal, South Canal, Moores Creek, Manatee Creek, Earman River, C-51 Canal, BoyntonBeach Canal, Hillsboro River, North Fork of the Middle River, South Fork of the Middle River, Oleta River, andArch Creek. The study area for the proposed project occurs within Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, Brevard, and Orange County. The Corps has divided the overall project into two(2)corridors; East-West (E-W) and North-South (N-S). The E-W Corridor would begin at the northend of theOrlando International Airport (MCO)andextendeast to Cocoawhere it would then parallel SR 528. This corridor is approximately 35 miles long and would require allnew rail infrastructure, structures, and systems.Three (3) alternative designs are being considered within this corridor.The N-Salignment,knownas Alternative 2Bin the DEIS,follows theFECR ROW between Cocoa and Miami. Directions to the site are as follows: From Orlando International Airport proceed east along SR528to US Highway 1. The proposed alignment would occur to the south of SR 528. Proceed south on US Highway 1to Miami.The proposed alignmentwould occurwithin theFECR ROWextendingfrom Cocoa south to Miami. APPROXIMATE CENTRAL COORDINATES: Latitude 30.1007 Longitude -85.4602 PROJECT PURPOSE: Basic: Railroad Overall: Construct anintercity passenger railroad between Orlando International Airport and Miami, Floridautilizing as much of the FECR ROW as feasible. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The wetlandsystemsconsist of freshwater andsaltwater systems. The affected Natural Environment isdescribed in detail in Chapter 4, page 4- 54 of the DEIS. 2 PROPOSED WORK: The applicant’s preferred alternative for the N-Scorridor occurs within the ROWof the existing Florida East Coast Railroad from Miami to Cocoa, Floridaextending approximately 128.5miles.The FECR Corridor was originally built as a double-track railroad, but today it is mostlya single-track system with several sidings. The roadbed for the second track in the corridor still exists andwould be used for the additional track improvements needed for the Project. The proposed improvements wouldinclude relocating and upgrading existing tracks, as well as installing new tracks. The Project would alsoinclude improving or replacing existing bridges and grade crossings, as well as new signalization, and newcommunication and train control systems. The applicant has been unable to narrow its preferred alternative for the E-WCorridor. This notice considers the three (3) possible alternatives carried forwardin the DEIS, see Chapter 3, Page 3-21: 3A, 3C and 3Efor more details.The DEIS provides a location of waters of the United States in the E-W alternative based on GISinterpretation,see Appendices 4.3.3. The DEIS provides existing landuse maps in Appendices 4.1.1-A for both the N-S and E-W alternatives. The potential direct and indirect impacts to wetlands were estimated based on a GIS analysis, and includethe acreage of wetlands within the 100-foot construction footprint of each route alternative. The 32.5-mile E-W Corridor between MCO and Cocoa is proposed along the SR 528 alignment, and wouldbe a dedicated rail corridor parallel to the highway. A new railroad within this corridor would crossseveral state highways (SR 417 and SR 520) and Interstate 95 (I-95), and would connect with theN-S Corridor in Cocoa.The new rail infrastructure would include new tracks; bridges over and underhighways; bridges over waterways; new signalization; and new communication and train controlsystems. Portions of the E-W Corridor are within the jurisdiction of Greater Orlando Aviation Authority(GOAA), OOCEA, and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), see map attached. GOAA’s jurisdiction extends from MCO to South Goldenrod Road. OOCEA’s jurisdiction extends from South Goldenrod Road to SR 520.FDOT’s jurisdiction extends from SR 520 to the N-S connection. E-W CorridorAlternativeAlignment 3A would construct a new 60-foot wide rail line within the SR 528 ROWeast of SR 417. The 60-foot ROW would accommodate two tracks, but would notinclude a parallel access road for maintenance of the rail alignment, as the rail line could be reached fromSR 528. Approximately 128 acres of waters of the United States (wetlands and surface waters) would be impacted within 300-feet of the centerline of this alternative. This alternative requires bridgeviaducts to cross eight interchanges, with extensive bridging and elevated facilities. E-W Corridor Alternative Alignment3C would create a new 100-foot wide rail alignment (in order toconstruct two tracks and a parallel maintenance access road) that “straddles” the SR 528 southern ROWline within the OOCEA segment, with approximately 10 feet of the proposed rail line width within theROW and approximately 3 90 feet of the rail line width south of the ROW. Thisalternative would include a parallel access road for maintenance of the rail alignment. Within the FDOT segment, Option 3Cwould be identical to Option 3A.Approximately 165acres of waters of the United States (wetlands and surface waters) would be impacted.This alternative requires bridge viaducts to cross eight interchanges, with extensive bridging and elevated facilities. E-W Corridor Alternative Alignment3E would be located on average between 100 and 200 feet south of the southern edge of the existing SR 528 ROW with the exception of two interchanges. At the Dallas Boulevard interchange the proposed rail line wouldbe approximately 700 feet south of the current SR 528 ROW.This option would include a parallel access road for maintenance of the rail alignment. At the SR 520 interchange the proposed rail line would be approximately 500 feet south of the current SR 528 ROW. The Option E alignment would be an average of 100 feet wide in order to construct two tracks and a parallel maintenance access road.Within the FDOT segment, Option 3E would be identical to Option 3A. Approximately 157acres of waters of the United States (wetlands and surface waters) would be impacted. Because Alignment3E is substantially south of SR 528, it would not require crossing the eight interchanges along SR 528 andwould be primarily constructed at-grade within the OOCEA segment. These alternatives are described in Chapter 3, page 3-17of theDEIS. The applicant will provide itspreferred alternative in the FEIS. The applicant has indicatedthe following bridgesin the N-S corridor(see table 1-1 below)could qualify for verification pursuant to the Corps’NWP programdue.The proposed bridgeworkwouldrequire either rehabilitationto the existing bridges, replace the original bridge with two new single-trackbridges, or retain the existing bridge and construct a new single-track bridge adjacent tothe existing. Bridge plans are currently at the conceptual design level.Allnew structures would be concrete, supported on concrete pilings, and would retain the existing verticaland horizontal clearances.Only minor filling in waters of the United States would be associated with bridge abutments. Please note the Corps has not issued NWP verifications associated with proposed work to date. 4 Anticipated Anticipated Resource Resource Impacts Impacts Project includes includes Location Proposed approach approach Resource Name County Activityfill, pilings, fill and (Milepost) and pilings shading (square (square feet) feet) Retain 187.37Bridge -Horse CreekBrevard777 21 190.47Bridge -Eau GallieBrevardReplace12,196 3300 194.34Bridge -Crane CreekBrevardReplace18,513 3400 197.7Bridge -Turkey CreekBrevardReplace4,051 200 202.59Bridge -Goat CreekBrevardReplace3,500 800 212.07Bridge -Sebastian RiverBrevardReplace38,332 3000 223.7Bridge -North CanalIndian RiverUpgrade1200 50 226.78Bridge -Main CanalIndian RiverUpgrade2200 370 230.03Bridge -South CanalIndian RiverUpgrade2,300 400 241.27Bridge -Moores CreekSt. LucieUpgrade1,100 100 259.95Bridge -Unnamed CreekMartinUpgrade2,500 250 Bridge -Unnamed 266.58MartinUpgrade931 Tributary450 Bridge -Unnamed 266.86MartinUpgrade3,400 Tributary750 Bridge -Tributary to 267.34MartinReplace1,200 Manatee Creek400 Bridge -Tributary to 267.7MartinReplace2,300 Manatee Creek1500 291.86Bridge -Earman RiverPalm BeachUpgrade2100 70 304.05Bridge-Canal C-51Palm BeachUpgrade3300 260 Bridge-Boynton Beach 311.45Palm BeachUpgrade2600 Canal260 326.58Bridge-Hillsboro RiverPalm BeachUpgrade3,200 150 Bridge-N. Fork of the 337.91BrowardReplace5,600 Middle River400 Bridge-S. Fork of the 338.52BrowardReplace6,700 Middle River900 353.74Bridge-Oleta RiverDadeReplace2,600 350 356.53Bridge-Arch CreekDadeUpgrade5,00 0 Table 1-1 Anticipated impacts at existing bridge crossings in the N-S alignment. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION INFORMATION: The applicant has provided the following information in support of efforts to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the 5 aquatic environment:Based on existing public input, early agency coordination, engineering information and environmental studies, which are currently available for public review,the project has avoided and minimized impacts to regulated resources. Measures toavoid and minimize wetland losses included use of retaining walls and bridging of wetlands and surface waters where feasible. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: The applicant has offered the following compensatory mitigation plan to offset unavoidable functional loss to the aquatic environment:Compensatory mitigation for this project will be completed through the use of federally approved mitigation banks and any other mitigation options that satisfy state and federal requirements. See Chapter 7 of the DEIS foradditional discussion on mitigation. CULTURAL RESOURCES: The Corps is aware of historic property/properties within or in close proximity of the permit area. The FRAhas initiatedconsultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and those federally recognized tribes with concerns in Florida and the Permit Area, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as applicable pursuant to 33 CFR 325, Appendix C and Section 106of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Corps will review and potentially adopt consultations completed by FRA.See Chapter 4, page 4-120 for additional discussion on cultural resources. ENDANGERED SPECIES: The Corps is the lead agency for completing consultation with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Protected Resources Division, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). FRA will participate as a cooperating agency in the consultation process.Chapter 4, page 4-91 of the DEIS outlines Threatened and Endangered Speciesfound within the project corridor. Agency coordination letters can be reviewed in Appendices 5.3.6B1-B6. Corps has completed an evaluation of theproposed alternatives may have on the West Indian manatee, Audubon’s crested caracara, wood stork, Everglades snail kite, Audubon’s crested caracara,red-cockaded woodpecker, Florida scrub-jay, eastern indigo snake,Atlantic salt marsh snake, loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle; smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon,shortnose sturgeon, Johnson’s seagrass. Based upon review of the Wood Stork Key for South Florida dated May 18, 2010, the proposed project resulted in the following sequential determination: A > B > C > E = “Not likely to adversely affect” the wood stork. This determination is based on the project not being located within 2,500 feet of an active colony site; impacts to suitable foraging habitat (SFH) will be greater than 0.5 acre, project impacts to SFH are within the Core Foraging Area (CFA) of a colony site, prior to construction the applicant would provide SFH compensation in accordance with the CWA section 404(b)(1) guidelines and is not contrary to the Habitat Management Guidlines; habitat compensation would be within the appropriate CFA or within the service area of a Service-approved 6 mitigation bank; and habitat compensation replaces foraging value, consistingof wetland enhancement or restoration matching the hydroperiod of the wetlands affected, and provides foraging value similar to, or higher than, that of impacted wetlands. Based upon review of the North and South Florida Eastern indigo snake key dated August 13, 2013, the proposed project would result in the following sequential determination: A > B > C = “not likely to adversely affect” the Eastern indigo snake. This determination is based on the project not being located in open water; Commitments inthe EIS will include the use of the Service's Standard Protection Measures For The Eastern Indigo Snake (August 12, 2013) during site preparation and project construction; there are gopher tortoise burrows, holes, cavities, or other refugia where a snakecould be buried or trapped and injured during project activities; the project will impact less than 25 acres of xeric habitat supporting less than 25 active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows; any permit will be conditioned such that all gopher tortoiseburrows, active or inactive, will be evacuated prior to site manipulation in the vicinity of the burrow. If an indigo snake is encountered, the snake wouldbe allowed to vacate the area prior to additional site manipulation in the vicinity. Any permit will also be conditioned such that holes, cavities, and snake refugia other than gopher tortoise burrows will be inspected each morning before planned site manipulation of a particular area, and, if occupied by an indigo snake, no work will commence until the snake has vacated the vicinity of proposed work. Based upon review of the Manatee Key dated April 2013, the proposed project would result in the following sequential determination: A > B > C > E > N > O > P = “not likely to adversely affect”. Thisdetermination is based on the project is located in waters accessible to manatees or directly or indirectly affects manatees; project is other than the activities listed above; project is not located in an Important Manatee Area; project includes dredging of less than 50,000 cubic yards; project is for dredging a residential dock facility or is a land-based dredging operation; Project impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation, emergent vegetation or mangrove will have beneficial, insignificant, discountableor no effects on the manatee; project proponent elects to follow standard manatee conditions for in-water workand requirements, as appropriate for the proposed activity, prescribed on the maps;if project is shoreline stabilization, or dredging, the determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” is appropriateand no further consultation with the Service is necessary. The applicant has identified and surveyed the project area for the Florida scrub-jay. The applicant has confirmed the presence of the species within the project area, but outside of the work area. Surveys completed by the applicant suggest the Florida scrub-jay is unlikely to cross the existing and future tracts. As such the Corps has determined the proposed rail addition “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” Florida scrub-jay. The applicant has identified areas of suitable habitat, soil, and elevations for the Blue- tailed mole skink and Florida sand skink. Additional surveys are being completed by the applicant and will be coordinated with Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)upon completion. 7 Given the information currently available the Corps has determined the proposed rail addition “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” Blue-tailed mole skink or Florida sand skink. The Corps has determined the proposed work will have “no effect”to the Florida panther, Everglade snail kite, red-cockaded woodpecker, Atlantic salt marsh snake,and piping plover based on lack of suitable habitat, known species range within the project area, and/or lack of visual confirmation during surveys of the project corridor. Based on information provided by the applicant, technical assistance from Mr. Brandon Howard, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)and field assessments completed with Mr. Howard the Corps has determined that the proposed project would cause the following effects on federally listed speciesunder the purview of the NMFS, Protected Resources Division: The Corps has determined the proposed work will have “noeffect”to theAtlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon based on the proposed work occurring outside of their know rangeand Johnson’s seagrass based on the absence of the species within the proposed work areas. The Corps has determined the proposed work “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” swimming sea turtles (loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle)based on the applicant’s agreement to follow the Sea turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions during construction. The Corps has determined the proposed work “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” thesmalltooth sawfish based on the applicant’s proposed compensatory mitigation for loss of red mangrove habitat, absence of seagrass beds within the in-water work areas, and the applicant’s agreement to follow the Sea turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions during construction. Consultations do not include bridge demolition. Additional coordination will be completed by separate letter. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH): The Corps is thelead agency for completion of consultation with the NMFS,Habitat Conservation Division as related to Essential Fish Habitat. FRA will participate as acooperating agency in the consultation process. The proposal would impact approximately 3.71acres of habitat type utilized by various life stages offederally managed species(goliath grouper, grey snapper, mutton snapper, spiny lobster, pink shrimp, white shrimp, brown shrimp).The Corps’initial determination is that the proposed action would not have a substantial adverse impact on EFH or Federally managed fisheries. Consultation is ongoing between the Corps and theNMFS, Habitat Conservation Division (HCD). Chapter 4, page 4-89outlines EFH within the project study area. Agency coordination letters can be reviewed in Appendices 5.3.6B1-B6. 8 NOTE: This public notice is being issued based on information furnished by the applicant. This information has not been verified or evaluated to ensure compliance with laws and regulation governing the regulatory program. The jurisdictional line has been verified by Corps personnel. Other Authorizations:The proposed work would require modifications to the following Central and South Florida federal project in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 408: C-25(Taylor Creek),C-17(Earman River),C-51(C-51 Canal),C-16(Boynton Beach Canal),C-15(Hidden Valley Canal), C-14(Un-named), C-13 (Un-named),C-9(Un- named). The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is responsible for the quality control for performance of the proposed work and for ensuring proposed modifications do not interfere with the functioning of the flood control project. The Corps will evaluate proposals submitted by SFWMD.Chapter 4, page 4-76 of the DEIS provided additional information regarding federal projects. The E-WCorridor will bisect the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Pinecastle Jeep Range.The former range is a 12,483-acre site located near Orlando International Airport. Between1943 and 1946, the government leased the site for small arms training and military demonstrations ofweapons and warfare capabilities. In the late 1940s, when the military no longer needed the property, itwas returned to the original property owners. Private citizens and units of government now own muchof the land, and it is used for schools, homes, and businesses. The proposed segmentis outside of the USACEinvestigation area.No additional coordination is required. See Chapter 4, page 4-118 for additional discussion on FUDS. Water Quality Certification may be required from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and/or one of the state Water Management Districts. COMMENTS regarding the Corps regulatory action should be submitted in writing to the attention of the District Engineer through the Cocoa Permits Section, Attn: Andrew Phillips, 400 High Point Drive, Suite 600, Cocoa, Florida 32926 within 30 days from the date of this notice. COMMENTSregarding the DEIS should besubmitted by mail to Mr. John Winkle, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Room W38-311, Washington, DC 20590 or by email to AAF_comments@vhb.com. The decision whether to issue or deny this permit application will be based on the information received from this public notice, information evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement,and the evaluation of the probable impact to the associated waters of the United States. This is based on an analysis of the applicant's avoidance and minimization efforts for the project, as well as the compensatory mitigation proposed. QUESTIONS concerning this application should be directed to the project manager, Andrew Phillips, in writing at the Cocoa Permits Section, 400 High Point Drive, Suite 9 600, Cocoa, Florida 32926, byelectronic mail at andrew.w.phillips@usace.army.mil, by fax at (321)504-3803, or by telephone at (321)504-3771 extension 14. EVALUATION:The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation ofthe probableimpact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources.The benefits, whichreasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonablyforeseeable detriments.All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including cumulative impacts thereof; among these are conservation, economics, esthetics, general environmentalconcerns, wetlands, historical properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, landuse, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality,energy needs, safety, food, and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Evaluation of the impact of the activity on the publicinterest will also include application of the guidelines promulgated by the Administrator, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, under authority of Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act of the criteria establishedunder authority of Section 102(a) of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Apermit will be granted unless its issuance is found to be contrary to the public interest. The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other Interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of thisproposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assessImpacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY: In Florida, the State approval constitutes compliance with the approved CoastalZone Management Plan. PUBLIC MEETINGS: The FRA will hold eight Public Information Meetings on the DEIS. The public will have an opportunity to ask questions and discuss the DEIS with FRA, USACE,and project staff.There will also be a station where you can leave written comments on the DEIS. 2014 DatesTimeLocation Miami-Dade College –Wolfson Campus | James October 273:30 -7:00 PMK. Batten Room -2106 | 300 NE 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Broward County Convention Center | 1950 October 283:30 -7:00 PM Eisenhower Blvd. | Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 10 2014 DatesTimeLocation West Palm Beach Marriott | 1001 Okeechobee October 293:30 -7:00 PM Blvd. | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 The Kane Center | 900 SE Salerno Road | Stuart, October 303:30 -7:00 PMFL 34997 Indian River State College | Richardson Hall | November 53:30 -7:00 PM 6155 College Lane | Vero Beach, FL 32966 Port St. Lucie Civic Center | 9221 SE Civic Center November 63:30 -7:00 PM Place | Port St Lucie, FL 34952 Cocoa Civic Center | 430 Delannoy Avenue | November 123:30 -7:00 PM Cocoa, FL 32922 Wyndham Orlando Resort I-Drive | 8001 November 133:30 -7:00 PM International Drive | Orlando, Florida 32819 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Any person may request a public hearing.The request must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer within the designated comment period of the notice and must state the specific reasons for requesting the public hearing. 11