Support dominates Fort Hamer Bridge meeting

EAST COUNTY — Since 1999, Marty Peate, a senior project manager at URS Corp., a contractor assigned to study the impact of a bridge being built across the Manatee River, has measured nearby wetlands and combed for endangered species.

An Aug. 7 public meeting the U.S. Coast Guard chaired signaled the end of debate on the proposed Fort Hamer Bridge that has spanned decades marked by delays and economic jolts.

Manatee County officials say the two-lane bridge, which would connect Fort Hamer Park to Upper Manatee River Road, will provide an alternative north-south transportation route between areas east of Interstate 75.

Nearly 400 people came to the Bradenton Area Convention Center to comment — mostly in support — on the bridge and a draft environmental-impact statement that recommends it be built.

“It’s a relief that we’re almost there,” Peate said. “It’s been an extraordinary period. But, the delays don’t matter to me. I evaluate based on facts, and that’s what we’ll do here.”

Supporters of the two-lane bridge wore green shirts reading, “For our bridge.” For Our Bridge is an official group that has circulated a petition with more than 2,000 signatures over two years.

The Coast Guard adjourned the meeting at 5:38 p.m., well before the scheduled 6:30 p.m. end time, after public comment ended.

“The Coast Guard has not made a decision,” emphasized Randy Overton, the Coast Guard project manager who is overseeing the report written by URS Corp. “Today we heard things we’ve heard before, but everyone puts their own flavor on it. If you cut it down, this all affects people.”

Individuals who attended the meeting, held at the Bradenton Area Convention Center, commented on URS’ draft statement, which declared the Fort Hamer Bridge as the most viable north-south bridge alternative compared to two others: expanding the Rye Road Bridge or doing nothing.

“I saw overwhelming support for the bridge,” said Ron Schulhofer, Manatee County director of public works. “It’s awesome to see the community involved with it. We’re heading in the right direction to build a necessary north-south bridge. Now, we wait.”

Peate estimated the cost of the Fort Hamer option at $30.2 million, and the Rye Road alternative at $80.8 million.

After residents from Waterlefe, in July 2010, rallied against the two-lane bridge project, the Coast Guard required Manatee County to expand its environmental-impact statement to include the Rye Road Bridge option and determine whether it could meet the county’s need for a north-south route.

Disagreement within the Waterlefe community continued at the public meeting.

“We’re against it for the cost to the natural beauty of the habitat,” said Tom Davidson, a representative of the Waterlefe Property Owners Association. “Once that bridge goes in, that beauty will be changed forever.”

The EIS states the Fort Hamer Bridge would have a larger impact on natural resources compared with the Rye Road alternative.It would affect a greater number of wetlands — 5.30 acres — and floodplains.
URS called those impacts unavoidable and said they would be mitigated in accordance with federal- and state-permit requirements.

Ken Bumgarner, the chairman of the Waterlefe Community Development District, only wishes for communication.

“The board has taken the position from the beginning that we would not oppose the bridge, because the county has the right of way to build it,” he said. “What we have asked repeatedly is for the county to work with us to mitigate the problems that will clearly come from the bridge: safety, access and noise.”

The URS confirmed a written disclosure of the proposed bridge was made — and continues to be made — to all Waterlefe homeowners, in their home-purchase documents.

Supporters of the project say the bridge will shorten emergency-response times, improve evacuation capacity and create business opportunities.

The public-comment period ends Aug. 19. After that time, the Coast Guard will assemble comments and apply them to URS’ Final Environmental Impact Statement with a final recommendation and approval.

Contact Josh Siegel at [email protected].