FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

APPENDIX C May 2010

APPENDIX C: 

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS MEMORANDA 

Comprehensive Planning and Coordination 

Archaeological and Historic Resources 

Section 4(f) 

Air Quality Evaluation 

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 

Wetland Involvement 

Drainage Evaluation 

Contamination Review 

Protected Species Involvement 

Utilities Update 

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - 

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND COORDINATION Page 1 of 3 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND COORDINATION 

Date Prepared: September 22, 2009 

Prepared By: Sherry Carver 

Section S.9 of the Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) addresses consistency between the FHSR and the comprehensive plans for the various 

local governments that are located within the preferred corridor. Specifically, Table S-5, page S25, summarizes the references to high speed rail in the Transportation Elements of the 

comprehensive plans for Hillsborough County, Polk County, Osceola County and the affected 

municipalities within them. Table S-6, page S-26, summarizes the references to high speed rail 

in the long range transportation plans (LRTPs) for the three MPOs that represent the various 

affected local governments. 

In order to illustrate the updated references to high speed rail in both the comprehensive plans 

and the LRTPs, Table S-5 and Table S-6 have been revised and are attached to this 

memorandum. These tables are based on a review of all applicable planning documents as of 

August 31, 2009. Only those references that mentioned high speed rail specifically have been 

included. The “Actions Needed” column on the revised Tables S-5 and S-6 state that the Florida 

Department of Transportation (FDOT) will request each local government and MPO address 

High Speed Rail in the next comprehensive plan or LRTP update. 

Copies of all pertinent pages from the comprehensive plans and LRTPs referenced in revised 

Tables S-5 and S-6 are also attached to this memorandum. 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - 

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND COORDINATION Page 2 of 3 

Updated References to Table S-5 

 (Review Conducted on Aug 31, 2009) 

High Speed Rail Study Area 

Long Range Transportation Plans 

Document LRTP Adoption 

Date Reference to High Speed Rail Action Needed 

Hillsborough County 

Yes - Chapter 8, Amended June 

5, 2007, Regional 

Transportation Planning (Page 

8-4) 

Hillsborough County 2025 

LRTP 

Adopted: Nov 10, 

2004 Amended: 

Oct 3, 2006 

Amended: June 5, 

2007 

None 

Polk County 

Adopted: 

December 2005 Polk County 2030 LRTP Amended: June 

21,2007 

Yes - Policies 5.8 and 5.9 (Page 

21) None 

Orange and Osceola Counties 

METROPLAN Orlando 

2030 LRTP 

Scheduled to be 

Adopted: Sept 2009 

Yes - Map of Transit Network 

Needs (Page 36) 

Map of Transit Vision Concept 

Plan Corridors (Page 38) 

None 

      

 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - 

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND COORDINATION Page 3 of 3 

Updated References to Table S-6 

 (Review Conducted on Aug 31, 2009) 

High Speed Rail Study Area 

Transportation Elements 

Document Adoption Date Reference to High Speed Rail Action Needed 

Hillsborough County 

Hillsborough County Yes - Policy 6.1.4 (Page 154) 

Transportation 

Element 

Adopted: 

Aug 26, 2008 None 

City of Tampa Yes - Intermodal Analysis 

Transportation 

Element 

Adopted: 

Feb 9, 2009 Policy 48.1.3 (Page 337) None 

City of Plant City 

Transportation 

Element 

Adopted: 

July 7, 2009 No None 

Polk County 

Adopted: 

Dec 27, 2001 City of Lakeland 

Transportation 

Element Effective: 

June 8, 2009 

Policy 7D (Page III-122) 

Policy 7E (Page III-122a) None 

Yes - Policy 3.202-F3 (Page G7) Adopted: 

Nov 18, 1992 Policy 3.202-F4 (Page G-8) 

Policy 3.202-F5 (Page G-8) 

Polk County 

Transportation 

Element Revised: 

Sept 2008 Policy 3.202-F6 (Page G-8) 

None 

Osceola County 

Osceola County Yes - Policy 1.2.13 (Page 66) 

Transportation 

Element 

Adopted: 

Dec 10, 2007 None 

Reedy Creek 

Improvement District Dec 15, 1999 No FDOT will request the District to address HSR. 

Orange County 

Orange County 

Transportation 

Element 

Adopted: 

August 2009 No FDOT will request the District to address HSR. 

Adopted: City of Orlando Aug 12, 1991 Transportation 

Element Amended: 

June 28, 2007 

No FDOT will request the 

District to address HSR. 

 

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – ARCHAEOLOGICAL 

AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES UPDATE Page 1 of 5

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES UPDATE 

Date Prepared: September 15, 2009 

Prepared By: Rebecca Spain Schwarz, Cultural Resource Coordinator

Archaeological and Historical Resources 

PD&E Background information 

A Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study was prepared for the Florida High 

Speed Rail project between Tampa and Orlando in 2002-2005. During the PD&E Study, a 

Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) (July 2003) was prepared to identify and evaluate 

cultural resources (historic structures and archaeological sites) within the project Area of 

Potential Effect (APE). A Section 106 Consultation Case Report (December 2003) was then 

prepared to evaluate potential effects for the Preferred Alternative. In accordance with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; 36 CFR Part 800; and 

Chapter 267, Florida Statutes, these documents were coordinated with the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). As a result of this 

coordination, the Preferred Alternative, based on the stipulated conditions (commitments stated 

below),would have a “conditional no adverse effect” determination for the Oaklawn Cemetery, 

German American Club, Ybor City NHLK, North Franklin Street Historic District, and the St. 

Paul AME Church Parsonage (SHPO letter dated January 5, 2004). 

The resulting Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was approved by FRA the on July 

19, 2005. The FEIS included the following five cultural resource related commitments agreed 

upon by the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA), FRA, and the SHPO, as part of the 

Section 106 Consultation process conducted during the PD&E Study. These commitments 

would also be incorporated into future Design, Build, Operate, Maintain, and Finance 

(DBOM&F) contracts that will be binding to the vendor: 

a. Provide the Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) design plans (for the Tampa Central 

Business District [CBD] and Ybor City areas) to the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) for review and comment at 30 percent, 60 percent, and 90 percent submittal. 

b. Coordinate the design of the Tampa Station with the SHPO to ensure that historic 

integrity is maintained at the nearby North Franklin Street Historic District and the St. 

Paul AME Church Parsonage. 

c. Implement vibration monitoring during construction adjacent to the Oaklawn Cemetery, 

German American Club and within the Ybor City National Historic Landmark District 

(NHLD) to determine if damage is likely to occur according to damage criteria described 

in FRA's guidance manual, High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – ARCHAEOLOGICAL 

AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES UPDATE Page 2 of 5

Impact Assessment, Chapter 10. If vibration levels approaching the damage criteria are 

found to occur during construction, immediate coordination with the SHPO would be 

conducted to determine the use of less destructive methods and/or minimization methods 

for continuing the construction. 

d. The stipulations of the Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

would be fulfilled for any impacts to contributing historic structures within the Ybor City 

NHLD and the TIS Ultimate right-of-way (ROW). 

e. Aesthetic treatment for the FHSR would be compatible with the existing Urban Design 

Guidelines set up for the TIS within the Tampa Commercial Business District (CBD) and 

Ybor City areas. At minimum, the color of the concrete should be compatible with the 

TIS concrete color. The SHPO, City of Tampa, and local community groups, will be 

included in the development of the FHSR aesthetics. 

2009 Reevaluation Update 

During the current reevaluation process, the alignment was shifted slightly (12 feet south) and 

the ROW requirements were reduced to the minimum amount needed in the vicinity of the Ybor 

City NHLD. This is still within the original TIS Ultimate ROW. The attached aerials show the 

PD&E Study alignment presented in the Section 106 Consultation Case Report (December 2003) 

and the current alignment being evaluated in the Reevaluation (September 2009). This shift in 

alignment does not represent any change in impacts (direct or indirect) to historic structures 

within the Ybor City NHLD. Therefore, there are no changes in impacts as a result of the 

alignment shift evaluated in this Reevaluation. 

As part of the Tampa Interstate project (improvements to I-4, the I-4/I-275 downtown interchange, and I275 west of downtown) the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) have been implementing the stipulations of the TIS MOA. To date, the FDOT 

and FHWA have relocated and rehabilitated 35 historic contributing structures, as stipulated in the MOA. 

They have also worked with the City of Tampa to relocate an additional 17 historic structures (out of 29 

stipulated in the MOA) for rehabilitation by others. One of these historic structures (1006 E. 12th

Avenue) was located within the proposed FHSR ROW. This structure was moved to 2314 E. 12th Avenue 

in April 2009. Twelve additional historic structures are in the process of being evaluated for relocation by 

FHWA/FDOT and rehabilitation by others, to fulfill the requirements of the TIS MOA. 

To date, there are five historic contributing structures located on parcels that are within the Ybor 

City NHLD and the FHSR ROW. These are 916, 920, 922, 1004, and 1010 E. 12th Avenue, as 

shown in the attached photographs. The structures themselves might not all be impacted directly 

since some of the FHSR ROW needs are small takes from the rear of the parcel. These 

structures have been evaluated for relocation by FDOT/FHWA and rehabilitation by others, but 

have not yet been selected as suitable candidates. 916 E. 12th Avenue is very large and a suitable 

relocation lot south of I-4 is not available. 920 and 922 E. 12th Avenue are two very small 

buildings, located on one parcel, that are not in good condition. 1004 E. 12th Avenue is too long 

for the currently available relocation lots south of I-4. 1010 E. 12th Avenue has been altered with 

replacement siding and windows but retains its Bungalow form and porch. If any of these 

structures will be removed for the FHSR ROW acquisition, they would require Historic 

American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation prior to demolition in order to fulfill the 

requirements of the TIS MOA (FEIS commitment d stated above). 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – ARCHAEOLOGICAL 

AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES UPDATE Page 3 of 5

Summary Archaeological and Historical Resources Update Status 

Even with the slight 12 foot shift in alignment, the proposed project still lies within the TIS Ultimate 

ROW that was included in the TIS MOA. Based on the stipulated conditions (FHSR FEIS commitments 

stated above), the proposed project will still have a “conditional no adverse effect” determination for the 

Oaklawn Cemetery, German American Club, Ybor City NHLK, North Franklin Street Historic District, 

and the St. Paul AME Church Parsonage. There is no change in status. 



TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 

SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES UPDATE Page 1 of 5 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES UPDATE 

Date Prepared: September 30, 2009 

Prepared By: Sharon Phillips, Sr. Division Manager 

Rev. Howard Newman September 30, 2009

2005 PD&E Background Information 

A Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study was prepared for the Florida High 

Speed Rail project between Tampa and Orlando in 2005. In the 2005 Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS), a Section 4(f) Evaluation was prepared for Perry Harvey Sr. Park. The 

Section 4(f) Evaluation identified the acquisition of 0.184 acres of ROW at Perry Harvey Sr. 

Park as an unavoidable impact of the project, since a prudent and feasible alternative does not 

exist. The existing exercise/jogging path located in the northernmost section of the park (north 

of Estelle Street) would be terminated approximately 40 feet east of its current terminus at 

Henderson Avenue. Measures to minimize harm were evaluated and implemented to the greatest 

extent possible. It was determined that there would be a potential for moderate noise level 

increases (proximity effects). An evaluation of vibration, access, aesthetics, and ecological 

encroachment indicates that the project will not substantially impair or diminish the use of the 

park and a determination was made that there will be no constructive use. 

Ross Ferlita of the City of Tampa stated that Perry Harvey Sr. Park is a significant park for the 

citizens of the downtown Tampa area in a letter dated March 27, 2003. The Florida High Speed 

Rail Authority (FHSRA) requested through a letter to the City of Tampa that it concur in writing 

with the proposed mitigation that provides for compensation for the impacts to Perry Harvey Sr. 

Park, which will be determined during the ROW phase of the FHSR project. The City of Tampa 

responded in a letter dated March 11, 2004 that the compensation for impacts to the park can be 

accomplished through the eminent domain process. 

The resulting Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was approved by the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) on July 19, 2005. The FEIS included the following Section 4(f) 

related commitment agreed upon by the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA), FRA, and 

the FHWA during the PD&E Study. These commitments would also be incorporated into future 

Design, Build, Operate, Maintain, and Finance (DBOM&F) contracts that will be binding to the 

vendor: 

The Long-Term Preferred Alternative for this project (TIS EIS) will involve the 

“use” of land from one City of Tampa park requiring a Section 4(f) Evaluation. In 

an effort to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts, several avoidance 

alternatives were evaluated. FHWA has determined that there is no feasible and 

prudent alternative to the use of a limited amount of land from Perry Harvey Sr. 

Park for public transportation purposes. FDOT is committed to mitigating the 

potential impacts to Perry Harvey Sr. Park. Conceptual mitigation plans have 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 

SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES UPDATE Page 2 of 5 

been prepared for the park, coordinated with the City of Tampa, and presented to 

the community for input. Mitigation includes berms, landscape materials, a noise 

barrier, realignment of walkways and paths, replacement of the skateboard facility 

at a location to be designated by the City, and relocation of the Kid Mason 

Fendall Center into the Perry Harvey Sr. Park. 

2009 Reevaluation Update 

As stated in the original Section 4(f) Evaluation, the FHSR project will comply with the specific 

commitments and stipulations identified in the existing Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) FEIS for 

the Ultimate ROW requirements. The commitment is based on the assumption that the FHSR 

will be constructed prior to the construction of the Ultimate TIS. 

Ybor City National Historic Lands District (NHLD) 

The right-of-way required by the FHSR project is still within the TIS Ultimate ROW which was 

cleared as a part of the Tampa Interstate Study Final Environmental Impact Statement and 

Section 4(f) Evaluation (1996). Further, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was negotiated 

with the SHPO for that project to mitigate the adverse effects to the Ybor City National Historic 

Lands District (NHLD) from taking the right-of-way. Therefore there are no changes to the 

Section 4(f) evaluation for the Ybor City NHLD. 

Perry Harvey Sr. Park 

Since the approval of the 2005 FHSR FEIS, the interim reconstruction of I-275/I-4 interchange 

has occurred In addition, FDOT has proposed a safety improvement requiring an additional lane 

be constructed to the outside of the ramp running from SB I-275 to EB I-4. As a result of the 

safety improvement, the FHSR ROW has been minimized to a ROW width of 44 feet and 

relocated slightly to the south and west. The FHSR ROW remains within the TIS Ultimate ROW 

footprint. It is anticipated that FHSR will run 18 to 24 feet above the park on an elevated track as 

it enters the Tampa Central Business District (CBD) station. Initial calculations indicate the 

impact to the park will be reduced from the amount of land to be acquired from .184 to .05 acres. 

 

During the 2005 FEIS it was determined that there would be a potential for moderate noise level 

increases (proximity effects). An evaluation of vibration, access, aesthetics, and ecological 

encroachment indicates that the project will not substantially impair or diminish the use of the 

park, and a determination was made that there will be no constructive use. These conclusions 

have not changed. Coordination is currently being finalized with the City of Tampa. 
C FLHSR 2 L

L

L

L

L

N

100’

MATCHLINE STA 6038+00 

41

perry

harvey sr.

park

henderson ave 7TH ST

CENTRAL AVE

45

INTERSTATE

020

6030

6040

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL

PLAN

SHEET NO.

PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STATE OF FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA 

PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

LEGEND

 Perry Harvey, Sr. Park Private Property formerly Park Property 2009 Alignment (44-ft). 2005 FEIS Alignment (60-ft.)Portion of Perry Harvey, Sr. Park to be acquired (2005 FEIS) = 4,593 sf (0.11 acres)*Portion of Perry Harvey Sr. Park to be acquired (Red Alignment) = 4,232 sf (0.10 acres)**Notes: * Excludes portion of park property that is now privately owned.** Measurement subject to parcel data verification.
 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – AIR QUALITY Page 1 of 2 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

AIR QUALITY EVALUATION 

Date Prepared: September 16, 2009 

Prepared By: Daniel Doebler 

The Florida High Speed Rail project was previously evaluated for effects on air quality. The air 

quality evaluation was performed on a regional basis through development of an emissions 

inventory for three pollutants; carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic 

compounds. The inventory accounted for emissions from trains, operational/maintenance 

(O&M) facilities supporting the trains, and O&M activities which would all be new sources that 

would contribute to the regional pollutant load. The emissions inventory also accounted for 

reductions in emissions of air pollutants caused by decreased motor vehicle trips as travelers use 

the train as an alternate mode of transportation. 

The air quality evaluation was documented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

circulated by FRA and FHSRA in July 2005. This reevaluation will address changes in 

conditions subsequent to the 2005 FEIS that may affect the proposed project. This memorandum 

focuses specifically on the effect changed conditions will have on the air quality analysis. 

The changed conditions can be sorted into four main categories which are described below: 

1) Relocation of some preferred station sites that are part of the preferred alternative; 

2) Possible modifications to the FHSR horizontal and vertical alignments to accommodate 

roadway improvements designed or constructed after the 2005 FEIS was prepared; 

3) Relocation of the Operations and Maintenance Facility to accommodate development of 

the previously selected site included in the preferred alternative; 

4) Update of the forecasted ridership. 

Methodology 

The 2005 FEIS was reviewed to determine air quality impacts previously identified for the 

preferred project alternative that may be influenced by changed conditions and associated 

modifications to the preferred alternative. Commitments documented in the 2005 FEIS were 

also reviewed to identify any measures specific to air quality. Current designations pertaining to 

attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were reviewed to identify 

the need to demonstrate conformity with the Sate Implementation Plan or maintenance plans 

developed for the counties (Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, and Orange Counties) involved in the 

proposed project. 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – AIR QUALITY Page 2 of 2 

Results 

Emissions from trains, operational/maintenance (O&M) facilities supporting the trains, and 

O&M activities are directly related to forecasted train operations and train-miles traveled. 

Relocation of station sites or the O&M facility and modifications to horizontal or vertical 

alignments of the FHSR will not cause a change in forecasted train operations. Any change in 

train trip distance caused by relocation of station sites would be negligible on the total trainmiles traveled. Therefore, the emissions inventory documented in the 2005 FEIS accounting for 

new sources that would contribute to the regional pollutant load remains valid. 

Reductions in emissions of air pollutants caused by decreased motor vehicle-miles traveled are 

directly related to forecasted ridership. The updated forecast shows a very small increase in 

ridership which would further reduce motor vehicle trips. However, the change in the updated 

forecast is very small and any corresponding change in the regional pollutant load would be 

negligible. Therefore, the emissions inventory documented in the 2005 FEIS accounting for 

reduced emissions from motor vehicles that would diminish the regional pollutant load remains 

valid. 

Commitments 

There are no commitments documented in the 2005 FEIS that are specific to air quality. The 

more general commitment (#25) stating that “construction will be conducted in accordance with 

the FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and Best Management 

Practices” does include control of dust (i.e., particulate matter) from earthwork and unpaved 

roads. There will be no change in this commitment. 

Regulatory Updates 

Polk, Osceola, and Orange Counties were designated as in attainment of the NAAQS at the time 

that the 2005 FEIS was circulated and under review. With the attainment designation, 

determination of conformity with a State Implementation Plan or plan to maintain the NAAQS 

was not required. The attainment designation and conformity determination documented in the 

2005 FEIS has not changed for these three counties. 

Hillsborough County was designated as a maintenance area for ozone at the time that the 2005 

FEIS was circulated and under review. An Air Quality Maintenance Plan demonstrating 

compliance with the one-hour average ozone standard was developed by the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection. The 2005 FEIS documented that any increase in pollutants that are 

precursors to ozone formation are under the de minis rates stipulated in the General Conformity 

Rule. Therefore, a conformity determination pursuant to the General Conformity Rule was not 

required for the FHSR project. Later in the year 2005, the one-hour average ozone standard was 

revoked and replaced with an eight-hour average ozone standard. The Air Quality Maintenance 

Plan for the one-hour average ozone standard was no longer applicable and the U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency re-designated all counties in Florida, including Hillsborough 

County, as in attainment of the NAAQS. With the attainment designation, no conformity 

determination is currently required for Hillsborough County. 

 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Page 1 of 6 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Date Prepared: September 21, 2009 

Prepared By: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) 

Introduction and Summary 

The objective of the update was to identify major land use and alignment changes since the Florida High 

Speed Rail (FHSR) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) along the rail corridor from Tampa to 

Orlando, and conduct a noise and vibration analysis to update the status of the noise and vibration impacts 

assessed in the FEIS. 

This update considered only the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5 in the FEIS) along Alignments A1, 

B1, C1, D1, and E1. This update assumed only an electric-powered train and the speed profiles, height 

profiles, alignments, and schedules information provided by Parsons. 

The entire study corridor was evaluated through aerial photography for changes in noise- and vibrationsensitive land uses. A small number of new residential developments have been constructed in the study 

corridor since 2003, mostly along Alignment D1. Noise measurements were conducted in the areas where 

both the more significant new noise-sensitive land uses were observed and no noise measurements had 

been conducted nearby in the EIS. 

This update report provides 1) a characterization of the existing noise conditions at the significant new 

noise-sensitive land uses, 2) an update of the corridor-long noise impact assessment and a noise 

assessment at the significant new sites, and 3) an update of the corridor-long vibration impact assessment 

and a vibration assessment at the significant new sites. 

There are fewer noise impacts in the study update than in the FEIS, and none of the impacts are at the new 

noise-sensitive land uses. In 2003, there were 28 residential buildings exposed to moderate noise impact 

and 24 exposed to severe impact. In the current update, those totals have been reduced to 13 moderate 

impacts and 17 severe impacts. 

Vibration impacts have also been reduced from the FEIS, and none of the impacts are at the new land 

uses. In 2003, vibration impact was assessed at seven residences, six hotels, and a commercial building 

with vibration-sensitive equipment. In the current update, vibration impact is expected at only three 

residences, at five of the hotels, and at the commercial building. 

Existing Noise Measurements at Significant New Land Uses 

Existing ambient noise levels were characterized through direct measurements in five selected areas 

representing significant land use changes along the corridor on September 2 and 3, 2009. Estimating 

existing noise exposure is an important step in the noise impact assessment since the thresholds for noise 

impact are based on the existing levels of noise exposure. The measurements included both long-term 

(approximately 24 hours) and short-term (60 minutes) monitoring of the A-weighted sound levels at 

representative noise-sensitive locations in the five selected areas closest to the proposed rail line. 

Four of the new noise-sensitive areas were located along Alignment D1, and one was located at the east 

end of Alignment C1. The attached figure shows the general location of the two long-term monitoring 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Page 2 of 6 

sites LT-12A and LT-12B, and the three short-term sites, ST-17A, ST-15A and ST-14A. In the figure, the 

new sites are shown in red, along with the 2003 noise measurement sites, which are shown in black. At 

each site, the measurement microphone was positioned adjacent to the noise-sensitive buildings in a 

location most exposed to the study corridor, avoiding noise shielding by fences, landscaping, and other 

obstructions, where possible. 

Since all of the new locations are along the I-4 corridor, traffic noise from I-4 was the dominant source of 

noise at each of the measurement sites. Traffic noise from other roadways contributed minimally to the 

measured noise levels. Descriptions of each of the new measurement locations follow: 

Long-term site LT-12A represents nine new modular homes constructed in an existing mobile home area 

located on Frontage Rd between I-4 and Avenue of the Americas in Davenport. The site and closest 

homes are approximately 220 ft south of the proposed rail line near FHSR survey Station 3970. 

Long-term site LT-12B represents the Tuscana Resort, a complex of multi-family buildings located 

between S Goodman Rd and I-4 in Davenport. The site is approximately 230 ft north of the proposed rail 

line near Station 4185 at the end of Tuscany Way. A golf course borders the complex to the east. 

Short-term site ST-17A represents condominiums called the Villas at Reunion Square North in 

Kissimmee, south of the corridor. The area is bordered by I-4 to the north, Tradition Blvd to the west and 

S. Lake Wilson Road to the east. Portions of the site closest to I-4 are still under construction. The 

measurement site was located at the residential building closest to the rail line approximately 750 ft away 

near Station 4237, and at the end of Sandy Ridge Dr. Planned future development closer to the proposed 

rail line will be only parking, according to the development plans. 

Short-term site ST-15A represents a complex of multi-family buildings north of the corridor in Lakeland, 

bordered by I-4 to the south, Old Combee Rd to the west, and Walt Loop Rd to the east. The site was 

located at the end of Field Stone Dr at the closest building to the corridor, approximately 250 ft from the 

rail line near Station 2936. 

Short-term site ST-14A represents the Cambridge Cove Apartments, north of the corridor in Lakeland, 

and bordered by Kathleen Rd, Mall Hill Rd, and I-4 to the south. The measurement site was 

approximately 500 ft from the rail line near Station 2730, and located at the closest building to the 

corridor at the end of Cambridge Cove Cir. 

Table 1 presents a summary of the ambient noise measurements in the new noise-sensitive areas, 

including location, date, time, duration and measured sound levels. The measured noise levels include the 

24-hour Ldn for the long-term sites and the one-hour Leq measured at the short-term sites. For the 

purposes of assessing impact and determining the impact criterion at each site, the Ldn at the short-term 

sites was estimated from the measured one-hour Leq per FRA guidance. 

Table 1. Summary of Ambient Noise Measurement Results in the New Noise-sensitive Areas 

Start Of 

Measurement 

Noise 

Level 

(dBA) 

Alignment

No. 

Site 

No. Measurement Location Description 

Date Time 

Meas. 

Time 

(Hrs) Ldn Leq 

D1 LT-12A Modular homes at 2727 Frontage Road, Davenport 09-02-09 10:15 24 68 -- 

D1 LT-12B Tuscana resort, 1395 Tuscana Ln, Davenport 

MF at end of Tuscany Way 

09-02-09 09:25 24 72 -- 

D1 ST-17A MF @ 104 Sandy Ridge Dr, Kissimmee 09-02-09 11:25 1 601 62 

D1 ST-15A MF @ 5406 Field Stone Dr, Lakeland 09-02-09 13:37 1 691 71 

C1 ST-14A MF @ 101 Cambridge Cove Circle, Lakeland 09-03-09 09:25 1 551 57 

Notes : Estimated per FRA guidance. Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2009 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Page 3 of 6 

Noise Impact Assessment 

As described above, the noise impact assessment was updated along the entire corridor of the Preferred 

Alternative to account for land use and alignment changes since the FEIS. 

In summary, there are fewer noise impacts in this study update than in the FEIS, and none of the impacts 

are at the new noise-sensitive land uses. In 2003, there were 28 residential buildings exposed to moderate 

noise impact and 24 exposed to severe impact. In the current update, those totals have been reduced to 13 

moderate impacts and 17 severe impacts. 

The results of the noise analysis are presented in Table 2, which shows for each impacted 

property, the Alignment designation, the FHSR station number, the distance to near track, the 

existing and predicted future noise levels, the noise impact criteria and category of impact, and 

the number of residences impacted. 

Table 2. Noise Impacts for the Preferred Alternative 

Project Noise Level1 No. of Res. 

Impacts 

Impact 

Criteria 

Location 

FHSR 

Survey

Station

Dist to 

Near 

Track 

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1 Predicted2

Mod Sev

Impact 

Category

Total 

Noise 

Level1, 2

Noise Level 

Increase1, 2

Mod Sev 

Alignment A1 6003 33 21 68 67 63 68 Moderate 70 2.6 1 hotel 0 

Alignment A1 6010 63 24 68 63 63 68 Moderate 69 1.2 3 0 

Alignment A1 6042 25 42 74 69 65 72 Moderate 75 1.4 4 0 

Alignment A1 6051 43 45 79 66 65 75 Moderate 79 0.2 3 0 

Alignment E1 7671 73 137 59 68 57 63 Severe 68 8.9 0 1 

Alignment E1 7673 93 137 59 66 57 63 Severe 67 7.7 0 4 

Alignment E1 7679 118 132 59 64 57 63 Severe 65 6.3 0 8 

Alignment E1 7683 133 130 59 63 57 63 Severe 65 5.6 0 4 

Alignment E1 7687 218 126 59 60 57 63 Moderate 63 3.5 3 0 

1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the 

increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location. 

Table 2 shows noise impacts for a total of 30 residential buildings, 13 with moderate impact, and 17 with 

severe impact. Moderate impact is also projected at one hotel. Moderate noise impacts are expected at 10 

residential buildings and one hotel along Alignment A1 in Tampa, near or west of the I-4/I-275 

interchange. Alignment A1 has shifted slightly closer to the residences near Station 6042 due to I-275 

widening, and slightly away from the residential area at Station 6010. Some residences that were 

impacted in 2003 are no longer present or now outside of the impact zone. 

Along Alignment E1, severe noise impacts are expected at 17 residences and moderate noise impacts are 

expected at 3 residences. All of the impacted residences are located along or near 11th St. in the Taft area 

near Orlando. Impacts in this area have been reduced from the 24 severe and 13 moderate in 2003 

because the rail line between Station 7670 and 7700 has shifted south and away from the nearest homes 

by between 5 and 75 ft. 

Table 3 shows the results of the noise analysis performed at each of the five new noise-sensitive sites 

under the Preferred Alternative. For the sites where short-term measurements were performed, the Ldn 

was estimated from the measured one-hour Leq according to FRA guidelines. None of these sites will be 

impacted by noise from the Preferred Alternative. 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Page 4 of 6 

Table 3. Predicted Project Noise Levels for the Preferred Alternative at New Noise-sensitive Sites 

Project Noise Level1 No. of Res. 

Impacts 

Impact 

Criteria 

Location 

FHSR 

Survey

Station

Dist to 

Near 

Track 

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1 Predicted2

Mod Sev

Impact 

Category

Total 

Noise 

Level1, 2

Noise Level 

Increase1, 2

Mod Sev 

Alignment C1 Site

ST-14A 2730 493 132 55 48 56 61 No Impact 55 0.9 0 0 

Alignment D1 Site

ST-15A 2936 243 129 69 53 64 69 No Impact 69 0.1 0 0 

Alignment D1 Site

LT-12A 3970 213 162 68 55 63 68 No Impact 68 0.2 0 0 

Alignment D1 Site

LT-12B 4185 223 162 72 50 66 71 No Impact 72 0 0 0 

Alignment D1 Site

ST-17A 4237 743 162 60 42 58 63 No Impact 60 0.1 0 0 

1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the 

increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location.

4 Vibration impact assessment 

As described above, the vibration impact assessment was updated along the entire corridor of the 

Preferred Alternative to account for land use and alignment changes since the FEIS. 

In summary, vibration impacts have been reduced from the FEIS, and none of the impacts are at the new 

land uses. In 2003, vibration impact was assessed at seven residences, six hotels, and a commercial 

building with vibration-sensitive equipment. In the current update, vibration impact is expected at only 

three residences, at five of the hotels and at the commercial building. 

The results of the vibration analysis are presented in Table 4, which shows for each impacted 

property, the Alignment designation, the FHSR station number, the distance to near track, the 

speed, the projected vibration level, the vibration impact criterion, and the number of residences 

impacted. The table shows that there are three residences, five hotels, and one commercial 

building (that contains vibration-sensitive equipment) with potential vibration impact. There are 

no impacts projected at any Category 3 (institutional) receptors. A discussion of each impacted 

receptor group follows. 

Table 4. Vibration Impacts for the Preferred Alternative 

Location 

FHSR 

Survey 

Station 

Dist to Near 

Track (ft.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

Project 

Vibration 

Level1,2

Vibration 

Impact 

Criterion1

No. of Res. 

Impacts 

Alignment D1 4534 153 162 85 80 1 hotel 

Alignment D1 4536 223 162 82 80 1 hotel 

Alignment D1 4540 203 162 82 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7131 183 162 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7109 228 162 81 80 2 

Alignment E1 7104 213 162 82 80 1 

Alignment E1 7203 233 162 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7530 137 120 67 65 1 comm3

1. Vibration levels are measured in VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec. 

2. The reported vibration level represents the maximum vibration level for each location. 

3. Commercial building that uses lasers, which can be sensitive to vibration 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Page 5 of 6 

In the FEIS, vibration impact was assessed at a group of four single-family residences located south and 

just west of 34th Street within 100 ft of Alignment A1 as the tracks ran along I-4, near Station 6140. 

However, these residences were taken as part of the I-4 widening and reconstruction project. The nearest 

residences in this area would now be 350 ft south away from the tracks with the I-4 eastbound lanes in 

between, so no vibration impact is expected. 

A group of three hotels near the Celebration area on the south side of I-4 located within 300 ft of the 

proposed Alignment D1 experienced vibration impact in the 2003 study. These impacts are still expected 

with only a slight change in the alignment. One impacted hotel in the FEIS that was located south of the 

Alignment D1 near Station 4470 is no longer present; therefore no vibration impact is assessed at this 

location. 

A group of hotels, multi-family residences, and apartments located in the Lake Buena Vista area of 

Alignment E1 is within 325 ft of the proposed tracks. There is a slight change in the alignment, but 

vibration impact is still expected in these buildings that are located on both sides of the corridor. In 

addition, a commercial building located just west of Orange Blossom Drive, and within 230 ft from the 

alignment, is projected to be impacted due to the use of vibration-sensitive equipment on site. In 

Alignment E1, a total of 3 residences, 2 hotels, and 1 commercial building would likely experience 

vibration impacts. 

Table 5 summarizes the results of the vibration assessment conducted for the Preferred Alternative at the 

new sensitive sites identified for this update. These locations are along Alignments C1 and D1, and 

represent condominiums, multi-family residences, apartments, and modular homes. As the table shows, 

no vibration impact is expected at any of these receptors. 

Table 5. Predicted Project Vibration Levels for the Preferred Alternative 

at New Noise-sensitive Sites 

Location 

FHSR 

Survey 

Station 

Dist to Near 

Track (ft.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

Project 

Vibration 

Level1,2

Vibration 

Impact 

Criterion1

 Type of 

Receptor 

No. of Res. 

Impacts 

Alignment C1 (ST-14A) 2730 493 132 49 80 Multi-Family 0 

Alignment D1 (ST-15A) 2936 243 129 67 80 Multi-Family 0 

Alignment D1 (LT-12A) 3970 213 162 71 80 Modular homes 0 

Alignment D1 (LT-12B) 4185 223 162 71 80 Multi-Family 0 

Alignment D1 (ST-17A) 4237 743 162 53 80 Multi-Family 0 

1. Vibration levels are measured in VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec. 

2. The reported vibration level represents the maximum vibration level for each location. 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Page 6 of 6 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – WETLAND INVOLVEMENT Page 1 of 3

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

WETLAND INVOLVEMENT 

Date Prepared: September 30, 2009 

Prepared By: Melanie A. Calvo, Sr. Scientist 

The Florida High Speed Rail corridor was previously reviewed for involvement with surface 

waters and wetlands. That evaluation was included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) approved in July 2005. This re-evaluation will address changes to potential wetland 

impacts or regulation changes that may affect the proposed project. 

The corridor alternatives proposed for this re-evaluation are unchanged with the exception of the 

three railway station site alternatives described below: 

1) The addition of a site known as the “Tampa Jail Site” located in Corridor A southwest of 

I-275 and adjacent and north of Jefferson Street. This site is being added to the 

previously proposed, adjoining 20-acre Tampa station site (approximate Station 6011). 

2) A re-location of a proposed “Disney Site” station approximately between stations 

4515+00 and 4533+50, north and adjacent to Interstate Highway 4 (I-4) between Osceola 

Parkway and U.S. Highway 192 in Osceola County. The station was previously proposed 

in this location but is being shifted north to accommodate the new limited access right-ofway line for I-4. 

3) The Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) Station’s easternmost boundary is being 

extended slightly to the east. 

4) A relocation of one of the two Maintenance and Operations facilities was required 

because of construction within the Orlando International Airport. (OIA). The site was 

previously identified in the FEIS a part of Alternative 5 and was replaced by an O&M 

site previously identified within the FEIS preferred alternative, Alternative 1. 

Methodology 

The 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was reviewed to determine the wetland 

impacts previously estimated for the project. The previous wetland protection commitments 

were also reviewed. 

Current aerials for the Florida High Speed Rail with the proposed corridors and stations were 

reviewed to identify if changes to the previous alignment would result in changes to wetland or 

surface water involvement. Current requirements and regulations pertaining to wetland 

permitting and mitigation measures were also reviewed. 

Results 

The proposed revisions to the station sites locations do not result in significant changes to 

previously estimated wetland involvement. The “Tampa Jail Site” is in a highly urbanized 

location that provides no additional wetland habitat. The reconfiguration of the “Disney Site” 

does not result in additional wetland habitat types affected or a significant increase in wetland 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – WETLAND INVOLVEMENT Page 2 of 3

habitat affected. The proposed increase in area to the OCCC site is minimal and is not 

anticipated to result in changes to wetland impact area. The corridor alignments and other 

stations identified previously have not been altered since the FEIS approved in 2005. 

 The change in location of an O&M within OIA site results in an increase of 10.22 wetland acres 

to the previous 25.62 acres for Alternative 5. The resulting total is 35.84 wetland acres. The 

estimate of wetland impacts for Alternative 5 is less the 40.03 identifies in the FEIS for 

Alternative 1. Therefore wetland impacts have not changed in a significant or substantial 

manner. The amount of high quality impacts does not change from the FEIS estimate of 11 acres. 

 However, it is noted that this estimate of wetland involvement is anticipated to be modified 

when the design process begins and minimization/avoidance measures are implemented during 

permitting. 

Regulatory Updates: 

The 2005 FEIS indicates that either FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) or 

the Water Management Districts (WMD) may be the reviewing agency for the Environmental 

Resource Permit. Because this project crosses multiple WMD districts, the FDEP will likely 

take the lead on permitting so that a comprehensive review of the entire corridor can occur. 

However, this decision will be made during the design and permitting phase. 

 

The 2005 FEIS also states that “Any project which results in the clearing of five or more ac. of 

land would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from 

FDEP, pursuant to 40 C.F.R Parts 122 and 124.” The regulations governing the NPDES have 

been modified since 2005 such that any project that results in the clearing of one or more acre of 

land will require a NPDES permit. Also, because a General Permit exists for this type of work, a 

permit application for a NPDES will not be required. Instead, a Notice of Intent to utilize the 

General Permit is required to be submitted by the construction contractor 48 hours prior to 

construction commencement. 

Finally, the 2005 FEIS states that “Once the application(s) are submitted, the permitting process 

period ranges from 30 to 240 days.” Because the permitting level anticipated for this project is 

at an “Individual” level (greater than 1 acre of impact), this should be updated to state that the 

permitting process period is anticipated to require between 180 days to 365 days. 

Commitments 

The following commitments resulted from the 2005 FEIS. The original commitment is stated 

below with recommended changes in bold following. 

1. A formal wetland jurisdictional survey will be produced during the permitting effort. 

Review and approval of these lines will be conducted by appropriate local, state and 

federal agencies. Plans will comply with the any local requirements including the 

Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission guidelines. 

No change. 

2. A continuing process of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation will be performed 

during final design and permitting. At this time, wetland impacts, which will result from 

the construction of this project, will be mitigated pursuant to S. 373.4137 F.S. (Senate 

Bill 1986) to satisfy all wetland mitigation requirements of Part IV Chapter 373, F.S. and 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – WETLAND INVOLVEMENT Page 3 of 3

33 U.S.C.s. 1344. Under this statute, transportation improvement mitigation can be 

achieved through long range planning, rather than a project-by-project basis. The 

mitigation is carried out by either the FDEP or the WMD. Under S. 373.4137 F.S., 

mitigation of FHSR wetland impacts will be implemented through the FDEP. Each 

WMD has developed a regional wetland mitigation plan to address the estimated 

mitigation needs. This plan is updated on an annual basis and approved by the Florida 

State Legislature. 

A specific statute (S. 373.4148) is in place for the FHSR project for the negotiation 

of wetland mitigation requirements and fees. The project will not follow the 

373.4137 (F.S.) process with the exception that if and agreement on fees can not be 

reached between the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the FDEP, that the 

rates as described in 373.4137 (3) (F.S.) will be utilized. It is recommended that the 

wording be revised to reflect the specific statute for the HSR. 

It is suggested that the commitment be modified as follows: 

“A continuing process of wetland avoidance and minimization will occur during the 

design and permitting phase of the project. Unavoidable wetland impacts shall be 

mitigated pursuant to S. 373.4138 F.S. to satisfy all wetland mitigation requirements 

of Part IV Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 U.S.C.s. 1344. Mitigation requirements and 

associated fees will be negotiated between the DOT and the DEP to assure adequate 

compensation for the loss of wetlands resulting from the project is provided. 

3. The Preferred Alternative falls within the jurisdictions of the SWFWMD, the SFWMD, 

and the SJRWMD. The water quality criteria associated with each agency would apply 

to the portion of the project within the respective district limits. The FDEP would 

administer the project water quality requirements. The FHSR must meet criteria, which 

are located in rules 62-302.500 and 62-302.530 of the F.A.C. 

No change. 
 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – DRAINAGE EVALUATION Page 1 of 4 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

DRAINAGE EVALUATION 

Date Prepared: September 30, 2009 

Prepared By: Edward J. Kory, P.E., Senior Drainage Engineer

Introduction 

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Reevaluation of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) Tampa to Orlando 

project. The FEIS for the FHSR Tampa to Orlando project was initially approved by the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) in July 2005. After this process funding for the project was cancelled by 

the State of Florida. In 2009 the Federal Government passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (ARRA). One of the programs created by the ARRA is the “Vision for High Speed Rail in 

America Program”. FDOT has initiated the reevaluation process of the FEIS to qualify for participation 

in this program. 

The purpose of the reevaluation of the FEIS is to identify any significant changes to the environmental 

impacts reflecting updates to land uses, roadways and environmental regulations within the approved 

FHSR corridor. This memorandum will deal with current changes and anticipated changes to the 

environmental regulations that will impact the permit requirements for this project. 

Permit Requirements 

To construct this project coordination will be required with a number of state and federal agencies. Based 

on the current rules the following permits will be required for this project: 

Permit Issuing Agency

Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) WMD/FDEP 

Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit USACE 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System FDEP 

Water Quality Criteria

The Project corridor falls within the jurisdictions of the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

(SWFWMD), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and the St. Johns River Water 

Management District (SJRWMD). The water quality criteria associated with each agency would apply to 

the portion of the project within the respective district limits. The Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP) would administer the project water quality requirements. 

State Water Quality Standards 

(a) The construction of the FHSR will require the construction of stormwater management facilities 

(SMF) for the treatment of stormwater runoff from the FHSR. Reasonable assurance must be 

provided that these facilities “will not adversely affect the water quality of receiving waters such 

that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-3. 62-4, 62-302, 62-304, 62-520, 62-522 

and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of sections 62-4.242 (2) and (3), 

and 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Waters and Outstanding 

National Resource Waters set forth in sections 62-4.242 (2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated”. 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – DRAINAGE EVALUATION Page 2 of 4 

(b) Will be financially, legally, and administratively capable of being effectively operated and 

maintained pursuant to the requirements of the Applicant Handbook. 

(c) Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being 

performed and of functioning as proposed. 

SMF in compliance with the standards listed above are presumed to meet all state water quality standards, 

including any Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s) or pollutant load reduction goals established in a 

watershed management plan. SMF as typically designed in Florida today don’t meet the TMDL 

requirements for the removal of nutrients such as Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Therefore the FDEP along 

with the WMD’s have set up a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to draft a new Statewide 

Stormwater Treatment Rule to address this issue. This will impact the SMF design for the FHSR. 

New Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule 

FDEP is currently developing a new Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule that would result in a major 

change to the permit criteria. Details for this new rule can be found in the FDEP’s “Stormwater Quality 

Applicant Handbook”. 

The new rule will require permit applicants to show that SMF meet water quality standards as they apply 

to the removal of total phosphorous. 

The performance standard for the new rule could require SMF “discharges to Class 3 wasters to provide a 

minimum level of treatment equal to an 85% reduction of the average annual loading of total phosphorus 

(TP) from the project site; or the post-development average annual loading total phosphorus shall not 

exceed the loading from representative native landscapes (e.g., post = pre), whichever is less.” 

For the case where SMF discharge directly to Outstanding Florida Waters, the minimum level of 

treatment may require that the post-development average annual loading total phosphorus not to exceed 

the loading from representative native landscapes (e.g., post = pre). 

One of the major provisions being considered for determining the level TP required to be removed is how 

the existing level of TP is quantified. The “native landscapes referred to in the previous paragraph could 

require that for the existing condition analysis of the annual load of TP, that the project site be analyzed 

based on the land use prior to any development. 

It is also noted in the latest draft (as of September 30, 2009) that the above performance standard has been 

set to address only Total Phosphorus. The TAC is still assessing the level of Total Nitrogen (TN) 

reduction that is achieved if a SMF is designed to achieve an 85% TP reduction to see if this is adequate. 

If the TAC deems the level of TN removal is not sufficient, the performance standard would be set at 85% 

reduction of the annual loading for both TP and TN, with the option to use the post-pre level of treatment 

if it is less than 85%. 

Stormwater Management Facilities (SMF) 

Due to the moderate to high ground water tables typically encountered the most common SMF design is 

the Wet Detention Pond. The most significant component and design criteria for the wet detention pond 

is the storage capacity of the permanent pool which is the pond surface located below any outfall 

structure. Pollutant removal processes that take place in the permanent pool include: uptake of nutrients 

by algae, adsorption of nutrients and heavy metals onto bottom sediments, biological oxidation of organic 

materials, and sedimentation. 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – DRAINAGE EVALUATION Page 3 of 4 

The permanent pool volume in the pond must be large enough to detain the untreated runoff long enough 

for the treatment processes described in the previous paragraph to take place. One of the major biological 

mechanisms for the removal on nutrients is phytoplankton growth. The average residence time of the 

pond must be large enough to assure adequate algae growth. Typically the permanent pool volumes for 

wet detention ponds are sized to achieve a minimum residence time of 14 days. The residence time is 

determined by the annual rainfall volumes. Based on the new criteria the residence time required to 

achieve the necessary treatment efficiency shall be determined from regression equations performed by 

Harvey Harper based on data gathered for wet detention ponds in Florida. 

Based on these equations, a wet detention pond with a permanent pool volume equivalent to a 14 day 

residence time has a removal efficiency of 58 percent for total phosphorous. Wet detention ponds are 

capable of providing annual mass load reductions for TP in excess of 80% for residence times greater 

than 200 days, however the removal of TN is under 45%. Therefore if wet detention is the primary mode 

of treatment for a SMF, then some amount of pre-treatment will be required to enhance the SMF 

performance efficiency to meet the minimum efficiencies required to meet the average annual load 

reductions for TP and TN. 

The pre-treatment option would consist of dry retention in ponds, ditches or exfiltration trenches 

if the ground water and soil conditions allow. If not underdrains can be incorporated into the dry 

retention design to control the ground water condition and promote the recovery of the required 

stormwater runoff volume. This is typically referred to as the “Treatment Train Approach” in 

the new rules being developed. Underdrains will be incorporated into the design of the FHSR to 

remove water from the track corridor. Therefore it may be feasible to modify this design and 

utilize the underdrains in the track bed to provide the required pre-treatment required to meet the 

new stormwater treatment standards. 

This is the one major change to the stormwater management requirements now versus what was 

anticipated in the original FEIS for the FHSR. The new rule, if instituted, could require larger 

ponds and a more complex SMF design to meet the new water quality standards. In addition 

these ponds would require additional maintenance over their lifespan to operate at the required 

efficiencies under the new rule. 

Existing Permits 

Hillsborough County is located within the jurisdictional limits of FDOT District 7 and the SWFWMD. 

There are existing ERP for road construction activities previously built in this County. These permits 

assumed that the median was DCIA, so it was concluded in the original FEIS for the FHSR that additional 

SMF would not be required in Hillsborough County. It was thought that only Letter Modifications from 

the SWFWMD would be required to permit the construction of the FHSR here. Based on the New 

Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule being developed this is no longer the case. SMF designs submitted 

to the FDEP for review will have to show that they meet the standards required for the removal of the 

average annual load of TP and TN. The current ponds do not meet this requirement. They may provide 

the required attenuation and it may be practical to incorporate these ponds into the SMF design as part of 

the treatment train approach. This may help greatly reduce any additional right-of-way requirements, but 

additional treatment options will be needed here. 

Polk County is located within the jurisdictional limits of FDOT District 1 and the SWFWMD. At the 

time of the original FEIS for the FHSR there were three Design Build contracts awarded but not 

permitted. Since then these projects have been permitted and constructed through the SWFWMD. The 

widening of I-4 in Polk County was to the outside; therefore the median areas were assumed to be 

pervious areas in the design of the SMF. SMF designs submitted to the FDEP for review will have to 

show that they meet the standards required for the removal of the average annual load of TP and TN. The 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – DRAINAGE EVALUATION Page 4 of 4 

current ponds do not meet this requirement. In addition they may not provide the required attenuation but 

it may be practical to incorporate these ponds into the SMF design as part of the treatment train approach. 

This may help greatly reduce any additional right-of-way requirements, but additional treatment options 

will be needed here. 

Portions of the I-4 corridor in Polk County traverse the Green Swamp which is located within the 100-

year flood zone. SWFWMD criteria requires that any floodplain volume lost due to fill be replaced based 

on a cup for cup approach. Reviews of the existing permits indicate that due to the outside widening the 

floodplain compensation volume was in some instances provided in the median. Placement of fill in the 

median to construct to FHSP may increase the floodplain impacts above what was originally assumed in 

the FEIS. In addition there have been SMF permitted in the median of I-4. Therefore to reduce the 

floodplain impacts and not impact existing SMF in this area it may be practical to consider elevating the 

FHSR to minimize these impacts. 

Osceola and Orange County’s are located within the jurisdictional limits of FDOT District 5 and both the 

SFWMD and SJRMWD. Coordination with the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) will be 

required where the FHSR crosses Bonnet Creek in Osceola County and along portions of SR 528 in 

Orange County. In addition coordination with the Valencia Water Control District will be required where 

the FHSR crosses over the C-10 and C-11 Canals in Orange County. There are several existing SMF that 

can be utilized as part of the SMF design in these two Counties. It may be feasible to incorporate these 

SMF’s into the overall SMF design to reduce the right-of-way requirements. 

Wetland Impacts 

Wetland impacts within the project corridor will require coordination with the SWFWMD, SFWMD, and 

SJRWMD), FDEP and United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). In addition the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) will review and 

comment on federal and state wetland permit applications. 

The complexity of the permitting process depends greatly on the degree of the impact to 

jurisdictional wetland areas. The WMDs require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) when 

construction of any project results in the creation of a water management system, or impact to 

“Waters of the State” or isolated wetlands. An Individual Permit (and wetland mitigation) would 

be required with mitigation for wetland impacts because impacts would be greater than one ac. 

For USACE, a 404 Permit would also be required. This permit requires compliance with Section 

404(b) (1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA compliance includes verification 

that all impacts have been avoided to the greatest extent possible, that unavoidable impacts have 

been minimized to the greatest extent possible, and that unavoidable impacts have been mitigated 

in the form of wetlands creation, restoration, preservation, and/or enhancement. 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Any project which results in the clearing of one or more ac. of land would require a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from FDEP, pursuant to 40 C.F.R Parts 

122 and 124. In conjunction with this permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 

would be required and implemented during the construction of the project by implementing such 

measures as Best Management Practices (BMPs). The primary functions of the NPDES 

requirements are to assure that sediment and erosion control during construction of the project 

takes place. Once the application(s) are submitted, the permitting process period ranges from 90 

to 240 days. 

Attachments: FDEP Contact Record 9/1/09, SWFWMD Contact Record 9/1/09, FDOT District 5 

Meeting Minutes 9/2/09 and Contact Record 9/9/09 
PARSONS 

Baldwin Point Building, 2420 Lakemont Avenue, Suite 450, Orlando, Florida 32814 (407) 702-6800 Fax: (407) 702-6950 www.Parsons.com

644905 

Meeting Minutes 

Florida High Speed Rail 

Meeting w/FDEP 

A meeting was conducted with the FDEP, on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., to discuss the 

how the new Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule will impact the stormwater management design for 

the High Speed Rail. 

The following were in attendance: 

Debra Laisure, FDEP Leo Angelero, FDEP 

Lisa Prather, FDEP Jim Kory, Parsons 

 

• The final Technical Advisory Committee (T.A.C.) meeting is scheduled for September 22 and 23. 

3⁄4 After this meeting the draft rule and Stormwater Quality Applicants Handbook will be 

finalized. 

3⁄4 Rule workshops will take place between October 2009 and February 2010. 

3⁄4 The new rule will then be presented to the State Legislature in the spring of 2010, which 

will need to pass Statutes for the new rule to take effect. 

3⁄4 The new rule should become law starting in 2011. 

• Projects without a permit in hand by the time the new Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule takes 

effect will need to meet the new criteria. 

• The existing land condition used to determine the allowable nutrient discharge is based on the 

native vegetative state of the soil before it was ever altered by people. 

3⁄4 To determine the native vegetative condition of the project corridor (I-4 Median), one 

would have to look at the land use prior to any type of development. 

• Changes made during TAC meetings to proposed rule change. 

3⁄4 In March 2009, the agencies determined that the performance standard (level of treatment) 

for the statewide stormwater rule should be the lesser of at least 85% average annual 

nutrient load reduction (95% for discharges to OFWs) OR post-development nutrient load 

not exceeding predevelopment nutrient load (where predevelopment is the native 

vegetative community condition). A revised draft Applicant’s Handbook, along with 
 P:\644905\drainage\Correspondence\DrainageMtg_FDEP_090109.doc 

2

several technical memos, has been added under the July 29-30 TAC Meeting folder. The 

revised Applicant’s Handbook will be the focus of the discussions at the July, August, and 

September TAC meetings. Based on input from these meetings, we will revise the 

Applicant’s Handbook before beginning rule workshops in the fall. 

• Hank Higginbotham from the SWFWMD has run different scenarios to estimate the water quality 

treatment criteria based on the New Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule. 

Action Item: Contact Hank Higginbotham from SWFWMD to obtain EXCEL BMP Review Aid which 

can be used to estimate potential pond sizes. 

cc.: Attendees 

File-644905 
Parsons Transportation Group will proceed on actions identified in this report. Discrepancies should be brought to our attention in writing within (7) days. 

CONTACT RECORD REPORT

DATE: 09/01/09 

REPORT BY: JIM KORY

TIME: 1:00 PM 

TYPE OF CONTACT: VISIT PHONE 

PHONE NUMBER: 1-813-985-7481 EXT. 2001 

PERSON CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT WITH YOU: HANK HIGGINBOTHAM (SWFMD) 

CALL SUMMARY: I SPOKE TO HANK HIGGINBOTHAM ABOUT THE NEW STATEWIDE STORMWATER 

TREATMETN RULE BEING DEVELOPED BY THE FDEP AND WMD'S .

MR. HIGGINBOTAHM INFORMED ME THAT THEY HAVE DEVELOPED A DRAFT DOCUMENT, AN EXCEL

SPREADSHEETS WHICH CAN BE USED TO CALCULATED THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY DESIGN 

TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL OF NUTRIENTS FROM STORMWATER RUNOFF. THIS FILE CAN BE 

DOWNLOADED FROM THE FOLLOWING DIRECTORY 

(HTTP://FTP.SWFWMD.STATE.FL.US/PUB/DRAFT_IMP_WATERS_REV_AID/ ). THE NAME OF THE EXCEL FILE 

IN THIS DIRECTORY IS "DRAFT_BMP_REVIEW_AID_AS_OF_02_13_09.XLS".

MR. HIGGINBOTHAM SAID THAT THE ACTUAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL CRITERIA AND HOW IT IS TO BE 

QUANTIFIED IS STILL SUBJECT TO CHANGE. HOWEVER, IF SWFWMD WHERE STORMWATER RUNOFF 

DISCHARGES TO AN IMPAIRED WATER BODY (I.E. LAKE HANCOCK), STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 

FACILITIES CURRENTLY NEED TO SHOW A NET REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF NUTIENTS DISCHARGED TO 

THE IMPAIRED WATER BODY. HE DID NOTE THE THE GREEN SWAMP IS NOT CONSIDERED AND IMPAIRED 

WATER BODY.

 

ACTION REQUIRED/TAKEN: I DOWNLOADED THE EXCEL FILE FROM THE WEB SITE. 

 

 

 

JIM KORY__________________________________ ______________________________ 

 Name of Person Documenting Conversation Signature 
PARSONS 

Baldwin Point Building, 2420 Lakemont Avenue, Suite 450, Orlando, Florida 32814 (407) 702-6800 Fax: (407) 702-6950 www.Parsons.com

644905 

Meeting Minutes 

Florida High Speed Rail 

Meeting w/FDOT District 5 

A meeting was conducted with the FDOT District 5 Drainage Staff, on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 

10:00 a.m., to discuss the stormwater management design for the High Speed Rail. 

The following were in attendance: 

Pat Muench, FDOT Ferrel Hickson, FDOT 

Hannah Hernandez, FDOT Jim Kory, Parsons 

 

• The meeting began with Jim Kory providing an overview on the latest developments with the High 

Speed Rail and the reevaluation of the FEIS document. 

3⁄4 FDOT District 5 Drainage Staff was not aware of this work previous to our meeting. 

• Provisions for the High Speed Rail within FDOT design for ultimate build out of I-4. 

3⁄4 FDOT District 5 Drainage Staff mentioned that the I-4 corridor has been permitted for the 

ultimate build out. 

3⁄4 FDOT stated that based on this work that in some areas the right-of-way for the permitted 

stormwater management facilities for the ultimate build out of Interstate 4 had been 

acquired by the State. 

3⁄4 FDOT said that Scott Wesson of PBS&J lead the permitting effort for this task. 

Action Item: Contact Scott Wesson from PBS&J to discuss Interstate 4 permits for the ultimate build out 

of the project corridor. 

cc.: Attendees 

File-644905 
Parsons Transportation Group will proceed on actions identified in this report. Discrepancies should be brought to our attention in writing within (7) days. 

CONTACT RECORD REPORT

DATE: 09/09/09 

REPORT BY: JIM KORY

TIME: 9:50 AM 

TYPE OF CONTACT: VISIT PHONE 

PHONE NUMBER: 1-407-806-4106 

PERSON CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT WITH YOU: SCOTT WESSON (PBS&J) 

CALL SUMMARY: I SPOKE TO SCOTT WESSON ABOUT THE WORK DONE ON ACQUIRING STORMWATER 

MANAGEMENT PERMITS FOR THE UTLTIMATE BUILD OUT OF INTERSTATE 4. 

I TOLD SCOTT THAT I HAD SPOKEN TO FDOT DISTRICT 5 DRAINAGE STAFF, WHO INFORMED ME THAT 

PERMITS HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUIRED FOR THE FUTURE BUILDOUT (WIDENING)

OF INTERSTATE 4. MR. WESSON SAID THAT THE PERMITS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FROM BOTH THE 

SJRWMD AND SFWMD FOR THIS WORK..HE ALSO SAID THAT THE PERMITTED PLANS INCLUDED A RAIL 

CORRIDOR IN THE MEDIAN FOR THE PROPOSED COMMUTTER RAIL. HOWEVER, MR. WESSON THE 

SOUTHERN TERMINUS FOR THESE PERMITS WAS KIRKMAND ROAD. SINCE KIRKMAN ROAD IS NORTH OF 

THE HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT CORRIDOR ALONG INTERSTATE 4, THESE PERMITS WILL HAVE NO INPACT ON 

THE HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECTS. 

MR. WESSON SAID THAT THE PERMITS ACQUIRED HAD TEN YEAR LIFE SPAN. THE AGENCIES GRANTED THE 

FDOT LONGER PERMITS DUE TO THE POTENTIAL FINANCIAL CONCERNS FOR CONSTRUCTING THESE 

PROJECTS. MR. WESSON SAID THE PERMITTING AGENCIES ALSO LEFT OPEN THE POSSIBILITY OF EXTENDING 

THESE PERMITS AFTER TEN YEARS DUE TO THE POTENTIAL FINANCING CONCERNS FOR CONSTRUCTING THE 

PROPOSED IMPROVMENTS. HOWEVER, THE PERMITTING AGENCIES HAVE RESEARVED THE RIGHT TO 

MODIFY THE PERMIT CRITERIA BASED ON THE FUTURE REQUIREMENTS. 

 

ACTION REQUIRED/TAKEN: 

 

 

 

JIM KORY__________________________________ ______________________________ 

 Name of Person Documenting Conversation Signature 
 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - 

CONTAMINATION REVIEW Page 1 of 4 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

CONTAMINATION REVIEW 

Date Prepared: September 17, 2009 

Prepared By: Karol Sihite, Brad Bayne, P.G. 

Based on a review of the design modifications suggested for the reevaluation for four (4) of the 

proposed Florida High Speed Rail station locations, the impact evaluation for Contamination should 

be updated as discussed below. The two proposed station “properties” located at the vicinity of 

Station 7780 are considered one “site” for the purposes of this review. 

Methodology 

To obtain updated information, a regulatory research database report (EDM - attached) for each 

station location was reviewed and research of on-line information regarding the sites listed in the 

database was conducted. On-line resources utilized included the FDEP Oculus (Storage Tanks and 

Hazardous Waste) databases and the Storage Tank/Contaminated Facility database. On-line sources 

for aerial photographs dating from the 1950s, 1960s, 1999, 2002, and 2008 was also reviewed to 

search for any nearby sites of potential contamination concern (such as gas stations, landfills, 

industrial facilities, etc.) USGS topographic maps were reviewed for the sites, which sometimes 

contain indications of historical land uses. 

Findings 

A summary of our findings is as follows: 

Tampa Station Site (2104 Nebraska Avenue, Sta. 6048) 

The EDM report identified two sites (MAP ID #1 and MAP ID #2) within approximately 200 feet of 

the proposed Tampa station site. The remaining sites listed in the EDM report (MAP ID #3 – MAP 

ID #12) were located more than 800 feet from the proposed station site, and are not expected to have 

any involvement with the project. MAP ID #1 is a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (UST) 

facility known as the Giglio Property (at 2007 Nebraska Ave.). The site is now occupied by a 

parking lot, but it was once occupied by a fueling station, which had nine USTs, all of which were 

removed in March 1991. Although this facility had a petroleum discharge reported on March 21, 

1991, no cleanup was required. Twenty-five soil borings were completed on this property and were 

screened for organic vapors; no impacted soils were identified. The water table was greater than 20 

feet below surface, so no groundwater samples were collected. This facility was found to be 

ineligible for participation in the State’s petroleum cleanup programs because no contamination had 

been documented at this facility. This facility (MAP ID #1) is not anticipated to have any impact on 

the proposed Tampa station site. 

MAP ID #2 is a Leaking UST Site known as Torres Transmissions (2002 

Nebraska Avenue) 

This site was once a gasoline station, but the four on-site fuel USTs were removed in 1974. A 

petroleum discharge was reported at this facility on May 24, 1996. A 550-gallon used oil UST was 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - 

CONTAMINATION REVIEW Page 2 of 4 

removed at that time, and soil borings in the former fuel UST area indicated elevated organic vapor 

concentrations. The former fuel UST area was noted to be at the “front” (east side) of the property. 

The facility was found to be eligible for the State’s petroleum cleanup program. The initial facility 

cleanup score was 46, but has since been lowered to 10. No further information was available in the 

Oculus files, and there was no indication that any additional investigations had been conducted after 

1996. Three factors limit the likelihood that this facility could impact the proposed Tampa station 

site: 1) the age of the contamination source (pre-1974), 2) the presumed groundwater flow direction 

(east or southeast), and 3) the estimated depth to groundwater (more than 20 feet). This facility 

(MAP ID #2) would be ranked Low with respect to project impacts.

Disney Station Site (W. Osceola Parkway at I-4, Sta. 4520) 

The EDM report identified only one site (MAP ID #1) within approximately 900 feet of the proposed 

Disney station site. MAP ID #1 is a Leaking UST facility known as the Radisson Resort Parkway (at 

2900 Parkway Boulevard). The site is a hotel facility with an emergency diesel fuel generator. The 

facility previously had a generator fuel UST, which was installed in 1987 and removed in May 1999. 

The UST was replaced with a generator fuel Above-ground Storage Tank (AST) in March 1999. 

Although this facility had a petroleum discharge reported on March 30, 1999, no cleanup was 

required. This facility was found to be ineligible for participation in the State’s petroleum cleanup 

programs because no contamination had been documented at this facility. Due to its distance from 

the proposed Disney station site, this facility (MAP ID #1) is not anticipated to have any impact on 

the proposed Disney station site. 

Although no contamination impacts are expected at the proposed Disney site, it should be noted that 

he EDM report identified seven proposed or active Water Use Permitted water wells within the 

proposed site or in the immediate vicinity. No further information was provided regarding these 

wells, but they could be affected by the project, if the wells are active.

Tradeport/Orlando International Airport Station Site, location #1 (North of 

Tradeport Drive at Ringhaver Drive, Sta. 7710) 

The EDM report identified one site (MAP ID #1) within approximately 500 feet of the proposed 

Tradeport/OIA station site. The remaining sites listed in the EDM report (MAP ID #2 and MAP ID 

#3) were located more than 800 feet from the proposed station site, and are not expected to have any 

involvement with the project. MAP ID #1 is a Leaking AST facility and a Small Quantity Generator 

of hazardous waste known as Ring Power Corporation (at 9901 Ringhaver Drive). This site is a 

Caterpillar heavy equipment sales, rental, maintenance, and storage facility. The facility currently 

has nine ASTs for fuel, lube oil, waste oil, and antifreeze. One fuel AST was removed in March 

2006. This facility had a petroleum discharge reported on January 26, 1991. The facility was under 

a monitoring only program from 1993 to 1995, and the facility reportedly received No Further Action 

approval from FDEP in February 1995. A soil removal project was conducted in March 1997, 

wherein 260.3 tons of petroleum-impacted soils were removed from the western portion of the site 

(approximately 250 feet east of the proposed Tradeport/OIA station site). Soil investigations 

continued in this area until 2001, when additional soil removal activities were completed, and No 

Further Action was requested for this facility. A Site Rehabilitation Completion Order for this 

facility was approved by FDEP on May 29, 2006. The impacted soil area is now covered by a 

building and a gravel parking area. Groundwater investigations of the site were limited, and the 

facility continues to use the area for equipment maintenance, equipment washing, and vehicle 

parking. 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - 

CONTAMINATION REVIEW Page 3 of 4 

Ring Power Corporation (MAP ID #1) 

This site was inspected on several occasions by the FDEP for compliance with hazardous waste 

regulations. The September 2006 inspection identified one procedural violation, but no indications 

of spills or releases were noted in the inspection report. The facility was again inspected in 

December 2008, and did not have any violations. The Ring Power Corporation facility (MAP ID #1) 

would be ranked Medium with respect to project impacts at the proposed Tradeport/OIA station site 

– location #1. 

Tradeport/Orlando International Airport Station Sites, location #2 (Boggy 

Creek Road at OUC Railroad spur, Sta. 7780) 

The EDM report identified one site (MAP ID #1) within approximately 800 feet of the proposed 

Tradeport/OIA location #2 site. The remaining sites listed in the EDM report (MAP ID #2 – MAP 

ID #4) were located more than 900 feet from the proposed station site, and are not expected to have 

any involvement with the project. MAP ID #1 is a Small Quantity Generator of hazardous waste 

known as Fedex National LTL, Inc. – Orlando (at 10975 Florida Crown Drive). No hazardous waste 

violations have been noted for this facility. Due to its distance from the proposed Tradeport/OIA 

station site and the lack of hazardous waste violations, the Fedex facility (MAP ID #1) is not 

anticipated to have any impact on the proposed Tradeport/OIA station site – location #2. 

The following are recommended to address possible contamination concerns associated with this 

project: 

There is a possibility that groundwater impacts originating at the Ring Power Corporation site (which 

was ranked Medium) have not been fully evaluated. Depth to groundwater and the direction of 

groundwater flow are not known for this site. The Ring Power facility includes a heavy equipment 

parking area and a truck wash rack area on top of an unpaved surface. There is the potential for spills 

of fuel or solvents from equipment to go undetected and leach into the groundwater. As a result of 

the uncertainty about the groundwater flow direction and the possibility of impacts to groundwater at 

the adjacent Tradeport/OIA station site – location #1, installation of three temporary monitoring 

wells is recommended along the east side of the proposed station site. The monitoring wells would 

be sampled for petroleum and solvent constituents. While this recommendation is made from a 

precautionary point of view, the actual installation of those wells can wait until such time as when 

actual property acquisition takes place. 

The attached table summarizes the impacts from the regulatory-listed facilities nearest to each of the 

proposed High Speed Rail station sites. It should also be noted that any buildings to be demolished 

as part of construction of station facilities should be evaluated for asbestos and lead-based paint. 

This would apply primarily to the Tampa site, as that structure may be old enough to have a 

reasonable probability of containing asbestos and/or lead materials. 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - 

CONTAMINATION REVIEW Page 4 of 4 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – PROTECTED SPECIES INVOLVEMENT Page 1 of 6 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

PROTECTED SPECIES INVOLVEMENT 

Date Prepared: September 30, 2009 

Prepared By: Melanie A. Calvo, Sr. Scientist 

Introduction 

The Florida High Speed Rail corridor was previously reviewed for involvement of species 

protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and the state Threatened and Endangered 

Species Act through a PD&E study (Study). That Study resulted in a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS), approved in July 2005. This re-evaluation will address changes to 

species protection status and changes to protected species management requirements that may 

affect the proposed project. The corridor alternatives proposed for this re-evaluation are 

unchanged with the exception of the three railway station site alternatives described below: 

1) The addition of a site known as the “Tampa Jail Site” located in Corridor A southwest of 

I-275 and adjacent and north of Jefferson Street. This site is being added to the 

previously proposed, adjoining 20-acre Tampa station site (approximate Station 6011). 

2) A re-location of a proposed “Disney Site” station approximately between stations 

4515+00 and 4533+50, north and adjacent to Interstate Highway 4 (I-4) between Osceola 

Parkway and U.S. Highway 192. The station was previously proposed in this location but 

is being shifted north to accommodate the new limited access right-of-way line for I-4. 

3) The Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) Station’s easternmost boundary is being 

extended slightly to the east. 

This re-evaluation will also determine if the changes to the proposed station sites would result in 

any additional protected species involvement or a change in protection measures, beyond what 

was identified in the 2005 Study.

Methodology 

The 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was reviewed to determine the list of 

protected species that should be re-evaluated for the project. The previous species protection 

commitments were also reviewed. 

Current aerials for the Florida High Speed Rail with the proposed corridors and stations were 

reviewed to assure that changes to the previous alignment will not result in additional protected 

species or habitat concerns. Other databases, managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), were reviewed 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – PROTECTED SPECIES INVOLVEMENT Page 2 of 6 

to obtain the most current species data. The databases reviewed included information on the 

location of bald eagle nests, Florida black bear telemetry, nuisance, and road mortality location 

data, wading bird nesting colonies, wood stork core foraging areas, Florida panther database, 

snail kite consultation areas, and red-cockaded woodpecker colony locations. 

Results 

The revisions to the station sites do not result in additional protected species concern. The 

“Tampa Jail Site” is urban and developed and provides no protected species habitat. The 

reconfiguration of the “Disney Site” does not result in a new habitat type or protected species 

concerns. The new additional area for the OCCC site is minimal and does not provide different 

habitat than what has already been considered. 

The federal and state protected species that were considered to potentially occur in the area in the 

2005 FEIS included the: 

• gopher frog (Rana capito) 

• American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) 

• gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

• Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) 

• Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) 

• bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

• wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

• Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) 

• Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparvenus paulus) 

• Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) 

• wading birds 

• Florida black bear (Ursus americanus) 

• Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) 

• Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostrus) 

• Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus) 

• Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) 

Updates 

Since the 2005 FEIS, the bald eagle was delisted (with the exception of the desert bald eagle in 

Arizona) and is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act as of June 28, 2007. 

However, the bald eagle is still provided protection by two other federal laws, the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act of 1918 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended. The state of 

Florida also delisted the bald eagle. The state wildlife agency, the FWC, has been delegated the 

responsibility of managing the bald eagle population in Florida. This is facilitated by guidelines 

provided in the Bald Eagle Management Plan. Any potentially disruptive activity within 660-

feet of an active eagle nest must follow avoidance and protection guidelines detailed in the 

Management Plan. 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – PROTECTED SPECIES INVOLVEMENT Page 3 of 6 

An additional species, the Everglades snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) has been afforded 

additional protection since the 2005 FEIS. A consultation area for the snail kite is now in place 

over Polk County and much of Osceola County. Although it is unlikely that this species will be 

affected by the project as habitat in the area is suboptimal, consultation with and concurrence 

from the USFWS will be required because the corridor is within the snail kite’s designated 

consultation area. (Please refer to attached exhibit.) 

The Gopher Tortoise Management Plan (September 2007) and Gopher Tortoise Permitting 

Guidelines (revised April 2009) instituted new permitting requirements for the gopher tortoise. 

These guidelines no longer allow an “incidental take” permit except under emergency situations. 

Therefore, the gopher tortoise must be relocated to an appropriate recipient site in accordance 

with these revised guidelines if impacts to the tortoise or its burrow are unavoidable. 

The panther mortality database indicated two additional panther deaths on the I-4 corridor since 

the 2005 FEIS. A male panther (UCFP84) mortality was recorded on April 14, 2006, 

approximately 1⁄4 mile southwest of Orlando. Another male panther (FP130) mortality occurred 

on March 21, 2007 near the Osceola and Orange County line. 

Commitments 

The following commitments resulted from the 2005 FEIS. The original commitment is stated 

below with recommended changes in bold following. 

1. To assure protection of the Eastern indigo snake during construction, FHSRA will 

incorporate the “Construction Precautions for the Eastern Indigo Snake” guidelines into 

the final project design and require that the construction contractor abide strictly to the 

guidelines throughout construction. The guidelines include the following: 

a. FHSRA shall provide Eastern indigo snake educational information, as 

contained in the applicable FDOT Districts One, Five, or Seven approved 

educational plans, to construction employees prior to the initiation of any 

clearing, construction, or gopher tortoise relocation activities. The applicable 

FDOT Districts One, Five, or Seven educational exhibits shall be posted at 

sites immediately accessible to all employees. 

b. All construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of any live 

Eastern indigo snake found within the project area. Work may resume after 

the snake, or snakes, are allowed to leave the area on its own. 

c. Location of live sightings shall be reported to the USFWS Vero Beach field 

office at (561) 562-3909. 

d. If a dead Eastern indigo snake is found on the project site, the snake shall be 

frozen as soon as possible and FHSRA shall notify the Vero Beach field office 

immediately for further instruction. 

No change. 

2. The FHSRA will conduct comprehensive surveys for gopher tortoises and their burrows 

during the final design phase of the project within the construction limits (including 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – PROTECTED SPECIES INVOLVEMENT Page 4 of 6 

roadway footprint, construction staging areas and stormwater management ponds) and 

prior to construction. If burrows are identified during these surveys, FHSRA will contact 

the FFWCC to coordinate mitigation for any impacts to this species and acquire the 

necessary incidental take or relocation permits. Although the incidental take permit is 

issued for the gopher tortoise, the permitting process provides protection for the Florida 

mouse and gopher frog. 

Incidental take permits are not longer allowed. The commitment should be 

modified to state: “If burrows are identified during these surveys, FHSRA will 

contact FWC to coordinate mitigation for any impacts to this species and acquire 

the necessary relocation permits in accordance with the Gopher Tortoise Permitting 

Guidelines (April 2009). Although the relocation permit is issued for the gopher 

tortoise, the permitting process provides protection for the Florida mouse and 

gopher frog. 

3. Based on the identification of sand skink habitat within the project area, the FHSRA will 

conduct surveys during the design/build phase and prior to permitting. The surveys will 

be conducted, in potentially suitable habitat, between March 1st and May 15th in 

accordance with the USFWS’ draft protocol. Further coordination with the USFWS will 

take place prior to the initiation of the surveys to coordinate any potential impacts during 

the design/build phase of the FHSR project. 

No change. 

4. Prior to construction, resurveys for sandhill cranes in areas that may support nesting 

habitat will be conducted. If any crane nests are located, FHSRA will contact FWC 

immediately. Construction activities in the vicinity of the nest would cease until 

appropriate protective measures are determined. 

No change. 

5. One bald eagle’s nest, PO-50 in Polk County, is located less than 300 ft. from the I-4 

southern ROW limit. Because this nest was active through the 2002/2003 nesting season, 

the nest tree is still provided protection by the USFWS. Therefore, the FHSRA will 

contact the USFWS to discuss if the nest site is considered viable. If the nest is viable, 

then standard construction precautions will be implemented to assure the nest and any 

nesting activity would be protected from construction. Also, prior to construction, the 

Preferred Alternative will be re-evaluated to determine if any new nests have been 

established in proximity to the construction corridor. 

No change is recommended to the commitment. However, it is noted that the bald 

eagle nest PO-50 was active in 2007. The FHSRA should contact USFWS to discuss 

the viability of the nest prior to construction as well as determining any new nests 

established as stated in the existing commitment. 

6. Based on new USFWS guidelines, impacts to certain wetland systems within an 18.6-mi. 

radius, or the Core Foraging Area (CFA), of a wood stork colony may directly affect 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – PROTECTED SPECIES INVOLVEMENT Page 5 of 6 

colony productivity. FHSRA commits to ensuring that there is no net loss of wetlands 

within the project area. The replacement of drainage ditches, swales, and retention ponds 

will be at a 1:1 or greater ratio, resulting in no net loss of CFA. Indirect impacts (e.g., 

changes in hydrological regimes) to adjacent wetlands will be minimized by adherence to 

wetland permitting requirements of the WMDs and the USACE. FHSRA further 

commits, where reasonable, to ensure that any wood stork habitat alteration is mitigated 

within the foraging range of known habitat rookeries in the project area in compliance 

with the USFWS’ SLOPES requirements. 

The USFWS guidelines have been modified to reduce the CFA to a 15-mi radius in 

central Florida. However, even with the reduction in the radius, most wetlands in 

the project corridor are anticipated to be in a CFA. Polk County and Osceola 

County are still subject to an 18.6-mi radius. It is also recommended that the 

FHSRA commit to utilizing the Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment 

Procedure to evaluate wetlands that are within the CFA of a wood stork colony. 

7. In an effort to minimize or eliminate any adverse affects to the Sherman’s fox squirrel, 

the FHSRA will survey areas supporting suitable habitat outside of existing 

transportation ROW for nests just prior to construction in those areas. If an active nest is 

located during these surveys, the FHSRA will contact the FFWCC for guidance on 

assuring no adverse effect. 

No change. 

8. A commitment by FDOT to provide a future wildlife crossing during construction of the 

ultimate interstate improvements in Polk County is contained in the Design Change 

Reevaluation of I-4 from Memorial Boulevard in Polk County to the Osceola County 

line. Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 do not provide for a future animal crossing 

(See Appendix A, Corridor D, Station 3230+00 and 3735+00 in Polk County), but will be 

required to do so to maintain consistency with FDOT commitments. Since the FHSR is 

considered to be a viable portion of the ultimate I-4 corridor, the successful proposer will 

include wildlife crossings in its final design. 

No change. 

Effect Determinations 

The 2005 FEIS concluded that:

“The Preferred Alternative will have “no effect” on the following species: American alligator, 

Florida pine snake, Florida scrub jay, Florida burrowing owl, Southeastern American kestrel, 

Florida panther, manatee, Florida black bear, and protected plant species. The Preferred 

Alternative “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” the following species: Eastern indigo 

snake, gopher tortoise, Florida mouse, gopher frog, sand skink, Florida sandhill crane, bald 

eagle, wood stork, state protected wading bird species, and Sherman’s fox squirrel. As part of 

mitigation commitments, FHSRA will continue to coordinate with USFWS, the WMDs, and 

FFWCC to develop design and construction methods to avoid and minimize impacts to these 

species.” 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – PROTECTED SPECIES INVOLVEMENT Page 6 of 6 

No change is recommended to the effects determinations. However, the snail kite was not included in the 

2005 FEIS. Since the 2005 FEIS, a consultation area was established for the snail kite which includes 

Polk County and a portion of Osceola County. Therefore, consultation should take place with the 

USFWS for this species. The project is anticipated to have “no effect” on the Everglades snail kite as 

suitable habitat is not present.

USFWS Coordination 

Coordination has been initiated by phone with Todd Mecklenborg of USFWS. A letter is being 

prepared for USFWS signature which will update their concurrence with FHSR commitments 

including the Snail Kite. FGFWFC coordination typical takes place during the design permitting 

process. 
POLK CO

LAKE CO

PASCO CO

HILLSBOROUGH CO

ORANGE CO

OSCEOLA CO

SUMTER CO

HERNANDO CO

CITRUS CO

SEMINOLE CO

MANATEE CO HARDEE CO HIGHLANDS CO

4

Tampa

Orlando

75

275

75

tu27

tu441

tu192

tu41

tu301

tu17

tu98

tu98

tu17

tu98

tu301

tu301

tu17

tu98

tu41

tu301

tu98

tu17

tu98

tu41

tu17

tu17

tu17

tu17

tu41

tu41

tu192

tu17

tu301

tu27

tu41

tu98

60

436

471

429

570

52

50 417

551

33

37

674

19

54

438

540

580

482 528

618

435

423

408

48

589

39

426

580

589

54

429

50

60

60

Florida High Speed Rail (Tampa - Orlando)

Snail Kite Consultation Area

Tallahassee

Miami

Tampa

Jacksonville

FL

AL GA /

1 inch = 10 miles

0 10 Miles

P:\PROJECTS\Small_Requests\Melanie_Calvo\090828\MXD\rail_corridor_TnE_check.mxd

SD19414 090828

Legend

Snail Kite Consultation Area

Rail Corridor ROW I-4 Corridor County Line
 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – UTILITIES UPDATE Page 1 of 4

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

UTILITIES UPDATE 

Date Prepared: September 21, 2009 

Prepared By: Lynn Hogan, Utility Coordinator

Introduction 

The locations of major utilities within the Florida High-Speed Rail (FHSR) study area were 

assessed for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) by contacting all of the utility 

companies with existing facilities in the study area. To determine what facilities exist within the 

project limits, all utilities were provided with sets of aerial maps of the study area for identifying 

the location of existing and planned facilities. Information received from the various utility 

companies was retained in the project file. Major utilities were determined to be those utilities 

that could influence the location and design of the FHSR project. The utility companies and the 

types of utilities located within proposed Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8, station 

locations, and maintenance facilities were identified in Table 4-75 of the 2005 FEIS. 

It was determined in the FEIS that the proposed FHSR design/build alternatives may require the 

relocation of some of the existing utilities. The majority of the existing utilities cross the FHSR 

alignments and would require provision of adequate depth beneath the tracks or vertical 

clearance over the tracks to accommodate for appropriate utility lines and equipment. 

Coordination with all affected utilities would be completed during final design. 

Methodology 

For the FEIS Reevaluation, the presence of utilities within the FHSR Preferred Alignment was 

determined by issuing Sunshine State One-Call of Florida (SSOCOF) utility location requests 

(design tickets) through the SSOCOF Online Design Ticket Entry System at 

http://www.callsunshine.org (Irthnet). Detailed records of SSOCOF design tickets, 

correspondence with utility companies, and utility contact information, have been retained in the 

reevaluation project file. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the SSOCOF design tickets and the limits of each ticket. Per 

SSOC, the designer may reference these ticket numbers in the future while confirming utility 

locations. SSOCOF ticket numbers may also be used to obtain maps of electronically generated 

and manually drawn sections of the alignment as well as current utility contacts through Irthnet. 
Table 1. Sunshine One Call of Florida Record of Design Tickets Created for the Preferred 

ROAD LIMITS FROM TO COUNTY AREA T

1 SR 400 I 275 S I4 E Ramp N 50th Street Hillsborough Tampa City 2 SR 400 E Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. E Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Hillsborough Tampa CDP 3 SR 400 E Dr Martin Luther King US 301 Hillsborough Tampa CDP 4 SR 400 Us 301 I-75 W Ramp Hillsborough Tampa Comm5 SR 400 Williams Rd. CR 574/Mango Rd. Hillsborough Mango CDP 6 SR 400 CR 574/Mango Rd. McIntosh Rd. Hillsborough Thonotosassa CDP 7 SR 400 Branch Forbes Rd. Hillsborough Plant City CDP 8 SR 400 Thonotosassa Paul Buchman Hwy Hillsborough Plant City CDP 9 SR 400 Charlie Taylor Rd. County Line Rd. Hillsborough Plant City Comm10 SR 400 County Line Road Polk Pkwy (E) Polk Lakeland Comm11 SR 400 Polk Pkwy Galloway Rd. Polk 12 SR 400 Galloway Rd Kathleen Rd. Polk Lakeland City 13 SR 400 Kathleen Rd SR 33 Polk Lakeland City 14 SR 400 SR 33 Hwy 33 N Polk Lakeland City 15 SR 400 Hwy 33 N Polk Pkwy Polk 16 SR 400 Polk Pkwy Hwy 557 Polk Polk City Comm17 SR 400 Hwy 557 US 27 Polk 18 SR 400 US 27 Ronald Reagan - Osceola/Polk CL Polk Davenport Comm19 SR 400 Osceola Polk Line Rd SR 429 Osceola Citrus Ridge CDP 20 SR 400 SR 429 World Drive Osceola 21 SR 400 World Drive US 192 Osceola Celebration CDP 22 SR 400 W Osceola Pkwy W Osceola Pkwy Osceola Kissimmee Comm23 SR 400 Epcot Center Dr Epcot Center Dr Orange Orlando Comm24 SR 400 Central Fla Pkwy SR 535 / Apopka Vineland Orange Orlando Comm25 SR 400 SR 535 SR 528 Ramp Orange Orlando Comm26 SR 528 SR 400 Intl Drive Orange Orlando Comm28 John Young Pkwy. Commerce Park Dr Taft Vineland Orange Orlando Comm27 Taft-Vineland Orange Blossom Trail Tradeport Orange Orlando Comm28 SR 528 Universal Blvd Orange Williamsburg CDP 29 

N/A (manually drawn alignment) 

SR 528 @ John Young Pkwy 

Taft Vineland @ Orange Blossom Trail Orange Orlando Comm

30 OUC Spur Line Boggy Creek S Access Rd Orange Orlando Comm31 S. Access Rd. Boggy Creek Heinzelman Blvd Orange Orlando Comm
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – UTILITIES UPDATE Page 3 of 4

Findings 

Since the 2005 FEIS, several utility companies have merged or changed names. Expansion of 

utilities into the study corridor was also a consideration. Table 2 lists utility companies with 

facilities that potentially cross or are within the FHSR Preferred Alternative Alignment. Utility 

companies highlighted and shown in bold in Table 2 were not previously identified in the FEIS. 

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 7 District Environmental Permits and Utilities 

Administrator, Sally A. Prescott, in an e-mail dated September 14, 2009, provided the following 

comments with regard to utilities that would be potentially impacted by the FHSR Preferred Alignment: 

• TECO has some OE Transmission crossings throughout the corridor. In places where the 

proposed track follows along the outside of the roadway, such as the downtown interchange area, 

may require widening and relocation of the OH transmission poles. The outages involved with 

such relocations, as well as the MOT for the interstate, may be complicated as far as 

constructability and coordination with power outage scheduling. There is also the interstate street 

lighting involved in that area, which adds to the complexity. 

• The downtown Tampa station area is in an older part of the city and may have old and fragile 

utilities in the area. There may also be contamination in the area. We need to determine if there 

are any more underground oil-cased power transmission lines such as we encountered during 

design of the Cross-town Connector. 

• Per the proposed Florida Gas Transmission loop maps, Loop 10 proposes a gas transmission main 

crossing at the easternmost point of the westbound exit ramp to Forbes Road, STA 2045+50. 

This would need to be coordinated with both construction efforts (rail and gas main). 

• Underground utilities are generally permitted at depths of 3-ft. under pavement (for jack & bores) 

and there may be instances where they may be in conflict. Any utilities placed by directional drill 

methods are at depths of 10 x diameter of the pipe, so they are probably clear. 

The presence of the proposed FGT Loop 10 crossing was not identified in the FEIS utility data plans. 

Florida Gas Transmission has indicated that construction of Loop 10 is expected to begin in April 2010. 

Conclusion 

There are no changes in the following findings of the 2005 FHSR FEIS with regard to utilities: 

The Preferred Alternative would require the relocation of some of the existing 

utilities. The majority of the existing utilities cross the Preferred Alternative and 

would require provision of adequate depth beneath the tracks or vertical clearance 

over the tracks to accommodate for appropriate utility lines and equipment. 

Coordination with all affected utilities would be completed during final design. 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – UTILITIES UPDATE Page 4 of 4

Table 2. Utilities within the Preferred Alignment 

Utility Owner Utility Type Utility Owner Utility Type 

1 Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. W 26 MCI T 

2 AT&T T / FO 27 Orange County Public Works Traffic, FO 

3 Bright House Networks CTV 28 Orange County Utilities W & S 

4 City of Auburndale W, S 29 Orlando Orange County Expwy. Authority Traffic, FO 

5 Tampa Transport W, S 30 Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. Comm. 

6 Central Florida Gas Gas 31 Orlando Utilities Commission Electric, W, Chilled 

W 

7 City of Lakeland Electric, FO, Gas, W, 

S 32 Osceola County Traffic, FO 

8 City of Orlando W, S 33 Polk County Utilities W & S 

9 City of Plant City W, S, FO, Traffic 34 Progress Energy Electric 

10 City of Polk City W, S 35 Qwest Communications T 

11 City of Tampa W, S 36 Reedy Creek Energy Services Electric 

12 Clorox Products Mfg FO 37 Severn Trent Services W, S, Cable 

13 Comcast Cable 

Communications FO, Cable TV 38 Smart City Telecom T 

14 Eastlake W Svc., Inc. W 39 Taft W Association W 

15 Embarq Comm. / FO 40 Tampa Bay W W 

16 Enterprise Community 

Development District W, S 41 Tampa Electric Company Power 

17 Fiberlight LLC Comm. 42 TECO Peoples Gas Gas 

18 Florida Gas Transmission Gas 43 Time Warner Telecommunications T 

19 Florida Power & Light Power 44 Toho W Authority W 

20 Gulfstream Natural Gas Gas 45 Traffic Control Devices FO 

21 Hillsborough County 

Traffic Traffic 46 Transtate Industrial Pipeline Systems Gas 

22 Hillsborough County 

Water Resource Services W 47 Verizon Florida Inc T 

23 Infrasource T 48 Wiltel Communications, LLC T 

24 Kinder Morgan/ Central 

Florida Pipeline G 49 XO Communications T 

25 Level 3 Communications T 

Notes: Key: CTV=Cable Television, FO=Fiber Optic, W=W, S=Sewer, G=Gas, T=Telecommunications 

= Utility company not identified in the 2005 FEIS 

In response to receipt of a design ticket, SSOCOF provides the originator of the design ticket with a list of SSOCOF members in the 

vicinity of the project. SSOCOF does not notify SSOCOF members of the receipt by SSOCOF of a design ticket. It is the sole 

responsibility of the design engineer to contact SSOCOF members to request information about the location of SSOCOF members` 

underground facilities. Submission of a design ticket will not satisfy the requirement of Chapter 556, Florida Statutes, to notify SSOCOF 

of intent to excavate or demolish. That intent must be made known specifically to SSOCOF in the manner required by law.