All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 September 2014 

 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-1 September 2014 

 

Summary 

This	is	the	Draft	Environmental	Impact	Statement	(DEIS)	for	the	proposed	All	Aboard	Florida	Orlando	to	

Miami	 Intercity	 Passenger	 Rail	 Project	 (the	 Project).	 This	 summary	 is	 intended	 to	 assist	 readers	 in	

understanding	the	Project,	the	environmental	review	process,	the	alternatives	that	were	evaluated	and	

the	environmental	effects	of	the	Project.	

About the Project 

All	Aboard	Florida	–	Operations	LLC	(AAF)	is	proposing	to	construct	and	operate	a	privately	owned	and	

operated	intercity	passenger	railroad	system	 that	will	connect	Orlando	and	Miami,	with	intermediate	

stops	in	Fort	Lauderdale	and	West	Palm	Beach,	Florida.		

AAF	has	applied	 for	$1.6	billion	in	 federal	 funds	 through	 the	Railroad	Rehabilitation	and	 Improvement	

Financing	(RRIF)	program,	which	is	a	loan	and	loan	guarantee	program	administered	by	FRA	as	described	

in	49	Code	of	Federal	Regulations	(CFR)	part	260.	Under	this	program,	the	FRA	Administrator	is	authorized	

to	provide	direct	loans	and	loan	guarantees	 that	may	be	used	 to	acquire,	improve,	or	rehabilitate	rail	

equipment	or	facilities	or	develop	new	intermodal	or	railroad	facilities.	Because	AAF	has	applied	for	a	

loan	under	FRA’s	RRIF	program,	FRA	is	required	under	the	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA)	to	

conduct	an	analysis	of	the	potential	environmental	impacts	resulting	from	the	Project.	NEPA	compliance	

is	a	prerequisite	for	RRIF	approval,	and	FRA	will	not	approve	the	Project	for	a	RRIF	loan	until	the	NEPA	

process	is	complete.		A	RRIF	loan,	if	approved,	would	be	part	of	an	overall	capital	structure	put	in	place	

by	AAF	to	finance	the	infrastructure	improvements.	

AAF	proposes	to	implement	the	Project	through	a	phased	approach.	Phase	I	would	provide	rail	service	on	

the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section	while	Phase	II	would	extend	service	to	Orlando.	Phase	I	would	

provide	passenger	rail	service	along	the	66.5	miles	of	the	Florida	East	Coast	Railroad	(FECR)	Corridor	

connecting	West	 Palm	 Beach,	 Fort	 Lauderdale,	 and	 Miami.	 AAF	 has	 obtained	 private	 financing	 for	

Phase	I	and	is	proceeding	to	implement	Phase	I,	which	is	illustrated	in	Figure	1.1‐1.	

FRA	and	AAF	conducted	an	environmental	review	of	Phase	I	in	2012/2013,	including	preparing	and	issuing	

both	an	Environmental	Assessment	(EA)	(Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All

Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida)	and	a	Finding	of	No	Significant	

Impact	 (FONSI)	 (AAF	 2012;	 FRA	 2013a).	 Phase	 I	 of	 the	 Project,	 as	 described	in	 the	 2012	 EA,	includes	

constructing	three	new	stations	(West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale	and	Miami),	purchasing	five	train	sets,	

adding	 a	 second	 track	 along	 most	 of	 the	 66.5‐mile	 corridor	 and	 adding	 16	 new	 round‐trip	 intercity	

passenger	train	trips	(32	one‐way	trips)	on	the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section	of	the	FECR	Corridor.	

FRA	concluded	that	Phase	I	has	independent	utility	(that	is,	it	could	be	advanced	and	serve	a	transportation	

need	even	if	Phase	II	were	not	constructed).	FRA	has	made	no	decision	under	the	Railroad	Rehabilitation	

and	Improvement	Financing	(RRIF)	program	as	to	whether	a	loan	would	be	provided	for	Phase	I.		

As	a	result	of	the	environmental	review	process	conducted	by	FRA	in	cooperation	with	AAF	for	Phase	I,	AAF	

is	authorized	to	construct	the	Phase	I	component	of	the	Project	as	reviewed	and	approved	in	the	2012	EA	

and	FRA’s	subsequent	FONSI.	Since	the	FONSI,	AAF	proposed	and	FRA	has	evaluated	a	new	location	for	the	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-2 September 2014 

 

proposed	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	and	issued	a	re‐evaluation	decision	that	found	no	significant	difference	

from	the	location	evaluated	in	the	2012	EA.	Also	since	the	FONSI,	AAF	proposed	and	FRA	has	evaluated	a	

new	location	in	West	Palm	Beach	for	the	proposed	Fort	Lauderdale	layover	and	maintenance	facility.	FRA	

has	issued	a	supplemental	EA	for	public	review	of	this	new	site	concurrent	with	this	DEIS.		

Considering	 Phase	 II	 of	 the	 Project	 and	 RRIF	 loan	 approval	 as	 separate	 federal	 actions,	 FRA	 has	

undertaken	a	NEPA	review	of	the	proposed	extension.	Given	that	operations	would	cover	the	full	corridor	

from	Orlando	to	Miami,	this	DEIS	analyzes	the	cumulative	effects	of	completing	both	phases	of	the	Project,	

although	the	impacts	exclusively	from	Phase	1	have	already	been	addressed	in	the	2012	EA	and	FONSI	

and	will	not	be	reanalyzed	in	the	DEIS.	AAF	can	proceed	at	this	time	with	construction	of	Phase	I	based	

upon	 the	 FONSI	 and	 incorporating	 the	 mitigation	 measures	 identified	 therein. The	 bulk	 of	 the	

information	 in	 this	 DEIS	 related	 to	 Phase	 I	 is	 drawn	 from	 the	 2012	 EA.	 FRA	 concluded	 that	 it	 was	

important	 to	 provide	 a	 comprehensive	 look	 at	 the	 environmental	 impacts	 of	 both	 phases	 in	 one	

environmental	document.		

Phase	II	of	the	Project	includes	constructing	a	new	railroad	line	parallel	to	State	Road	(SR)	528	between	

the	Orlando	 International	Airport	 (MCO)	and	Cocoa,	constructing	a	new	Vehicle	Maintenance	Facility	

(VMF)	on	property	owned	by	the	Greater	Orlando	Airport	Authority	(GOAA),	adding	a	second	track	within	

128.5	miles	 of	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 between	West	 Palm	 Beach	 and	 Cocoa,	 and	 additional	 bridge	work	

between	Miami	and	West	Palm	Beach.	The	proposed	service	would	use	a	new	intermodal	facility	at	MCO	

that	 is	 being	 constructed	 by	 GOAA	 as	 an	 independent	 action.	 The	 Project	 includes	 purchasing	 five	

additional	 passenger	 train	 sets,	 and	 would	 add	 16	 new	 round‐trip	 intercity	 passenger	 train	 trips	

(32	one‐way	trips)	on	the	new	railroad	segment	and	on	the	FECR	Corridor	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	

Beach.	No	additional	trips	beyond	those	considered	in	the	2012	EA	(16	round‐trip	intercity	passenger	

train	trips	[32	one‐way	trips])	would	be	added	on	the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section.		

About the NEPA Process 

FRA	is	the	lead	federal	agency	responsible	for	conducting	the	NEPA	environmental	review	process	for	the	

Project.	FRA	manages	financial	assistance	programs	for	rail	capital	investments	and	has	certain	safety	

oversight	responsibilities	with	respect	to	railroad	operations.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-3 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-4 September 2014 

 

AAF	has	applied	for	federal	funds	through	the	RRIF	program,	as	described	above,	which	is	administered	

by	the	FRA.	Under	this	program,	the	FRA	Administrator	is	authorized	to	provide	direct	loans	and	loan	

guarantees	that	may	be	used	to	acquire,	improve,	or	rehabilitate	rail	equipment	or	facilities	or	develop	

new	intermodal	or	railroad	facilities.	Because	AAF	has	applied	for	a	loan	under	FRA’s	RRIF	program,	FRA	

is	required	under	the	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA)	to	conduct	an	analysis	of	the	potential	

environmental	impacts	resulting	from	the	Project.	NEPA	compliance	is	a	prerequisite	for	RRIF	approval,	

and	FRA	will	not	approve	the	Project	for	a	RRIF	loan	until	the	NEPA	process	is	complete.		A	RRIF	loan,	if	

approved,	would	be	part	of	an	overall	capital	structure	put	in	place	by	AAF	to	finance	the	infrastructure	

improvements.	

Approvals	by	several	 federal	agencies,	including	 the	FRA,	U.S.	Army	Corps	of	Engineers	 (USACE),	U.S.	

Coast	Guard	(USCG),	Federal	Aviation	Administration	(FAA),	Federal	Highway	Administration	(FHWA),	

U.S.	 Fish	 and	Wildlife	 Service	 (USFWS)	 and	 the	 National	 Marine	 Fisheries	 Service	 (NMFS)	 would	 be	

necessary	to	implement	the	Project.		

An	EIS	is	a	document	required	by	NEPA	that	describes	the	environmental	effects	of	a	project	to	inform	

decision‐makers	and	the	public.	NEPA	is	a	federal	environmental	law	that	facilitates	public	disclosures	

and	 establishes	 policies	 for	 federal	 agencies	 to	 study	 a	 reasonable	 range	 of	 alternatives	 and	 assess	

environmental	impacts	of	projects.	An	EIS	must	be	prepared	by	a	federal	agency	for	any	major	federal	

action	 significantly	 affecting	 or	 with	 the	 potential	 to	 affect	 the	 quality	 of	 the	 natural	 and	 built	

environment.	Environmental	effects	can	be	both	positive	(beneficial)	or	negative	(adverse).	

NEPA	 and	 the	 Council	 on	 Environmental	 Quality’s	 implementing	 regulations	 define	 the	 general	

framework	for	preparing	an	EIS.	FRA	also	has	its	own,	more	specific,	guidelines	for	implementing	NEPA.	

The	NEPA	process	typically	includes	these	steps:	

 Notice	 of	 Intent	 –	 a	 notice,	 published	 in	 the	 Federal	 Register,	 notifying	 the	 public	 of	 the	 federal	

agency’s	intent	to	prepare	an	EIS,	defining	the	project	and	informing	the	public	how	to	comment	on	

the	project.	The	Notice	of	Intent	for	the	AAF	Project	was	published	on	April	15,	2013.	

 Scoping	–	an	early	and	open	process	for	identifying	significant	issues	related	to	a	project.	As	part	of	

the	scoping	process,	agencies	and	the	public	are	invited	to	participate	and	provide	comment.	A	series	

of	public	scoping	meetings	for	the	Project	were	held	in	April	and	May	2013	in	Orlando,	Fort	Pierce,	

West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale	and	Miami	and	an	agency	scoping	meeting	was	held	in	April	2013.	

Agencies	and	the	public	provided	input	that	informed	the	scope	and	content	of	the	environmental	

studies	conducted	 for	 the	DEIS,	including	concerns	about	noise	and	vibration	impacts,	impacts	 to	

navigation,	impacts	to	wildlife	and	protected	species,	safety	and	traffic	operations	at	grade	crossings.	

The	public	comments	also	indicated	in	interest	in	additional	stations	and	the	opportunity	to	include	

a	bicycle	trail	within	the	railroad	right‐of‐way	(ROW).	

 Draft	EIS	(DEIS)	–	the	purpose	of	the	DEIS	is	to	disclose	all	environmental	effects	associated	with	the	

project	 alternatives,	 whether	 they	 are	 adverse	 or	 beneficial	 and	 allow	 the	 public	 to	 review	 and	

comment	on	the	document.	FRA	has	prepared	and	published	this	DEIS	in	coordination	with	the	FAA,	

USACE	and	USCG	and	informed	the	public	through	a	notice	in	the	Federal	Register,	newspaper	ads	

and	press	releases.	Public	information	meetings	on	the	DEIS	will	be	held	during	the	75‐day	public	

comment	period.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-5 September 2014 

 

 Final	EIS	(FEIS)	–	following	the	public	comment	period	on	the	DEIS,	FRA	will	prepare	and	publish	a	

FEIS	that	responds	to	public	and	agency	comments.		

 Record	of	Decision	(ROD)	–	FRA	will	issue	a	single	document	that	consists	of	the	Final	Environmental	

Impact	Statement	and	Record	of	Decision	pursuant	to	Pub.	L.	112‐141,	126	Stat.	405,	Section	1319(b)	

unless	FRA	determines	that	statutory	criteria	or	practicability	considerations	preclude	issuance	of	

such	a	combined	document.	FRA	may	approve	the	RRIF	loan	request	after	the	ROD	has	been	finalized.	

Purpose of the Project 

As	identified	by	AAF,	the	purpose	of	the	Project	is	to	provide	reliable	and	convenient	intercity	passenger	

rail	 transportation	 between	 Orlando	 and	 Miami,	 Florida	 (the	 Project	 Corridor,	 see	 Figure	 S‐1),	 by	

extending	(in	Phase	II)	the	previously	reviewed	Phase	I	AAF	passenger	rail	service	between	West	Palm	

Beach	and	Miami	and	by	maximizing	 the	use	of	existing	 transportation	corridors.	This	 transportation	

service	would	offer	a	safe	and	efficient	alternative	to	automobile	travel	on	congested	highway	corridors,	

add	 transportation	 capacity	 within	 those	 corridors	 (particularly	 Interstate	 95	 [I‐95])	 and	 encourage	

connectivity	with	other	modes	of	transportation	such	as	light	rail,	commuter	rail	and	air	transportation.		

The	additional	purpose	of	Phase	I	of	the	Project,	as	stated	in	the	2013	FONSI	for	that	initial	project,	is	to	

“provide	 intercity	 passenger	 rail	 service	 that	 addresses	 South	 Florida’s	 current	 and	 future	 needs	 to	

enhance	the	transportation	system	by	providing	a	transportation	alternative	for	Floridians	and	tourists,	

supporting	economic	development,	creating	jobs	and	improving	air	quality.”	

Alternatives Considered in this EIS 

In	 order	 to	 identify	 and	 consider	 alternatives	 that	 will	 satisfy	 this	 purpose,	 including	 the	 Project’s	

feasibility	as	a	private	enterprise,	AAF	identified	its	primary	objective	which	is	to	provide	an	intercity	rail	

service	 that	is	 sustainable	 as	 a	 private	 commercial	enterprise.	 The	 two	 principal	 components	 of	 this	

objective	are	the	basis	for	developing	the	criteria	and	framework	for	evaluating	the	Project	alternatives.	

AAF’s	two	primary	goals	are	to:		

 Provide	 a	 reliable	 and	 convenient	 intercity	 rail	 service	 between	 Orlando	 and	 Miami	 with	 an	

approximate	3‐hour	trip	time	between	the	terminal	stations;	and

 Provide	an	intercity	rail	service	that	is	sustainable	as	a	private	commercial	enterprise.	Sustainable	

means	that	the	rail	service	can	attract	sufficient	riders	to	meet	revenue	projections	and	operate	at	an	

acceptable	profit	level.	

The	DEIS	evaluates	the	No‐Action	Alternative	as	a	baseline	to	compare	the	effects	of	the	“build”	(Action)	

Alternatives.	The	No‐Action	Alternative	involves	no	changes	 to	the	rail	line	within	 the	FECR	Corridor	

beyond	regular	maintenance	and	improvements	that	have	been	currently	planned	and	funded.	Under	the	

No‐Action	Alternative,	existing	freight	operations	and	infrastructure	would	be	maintained	by	FECR.	The	

demand	for	freight	capacity	is	expected	to	grow	along	the	North	South	Corridor	(N‐S	Corridor)	regardless	

of	the	Project.	Based	on	anticipated	operations	data	for	the	2016	target	date	for	the	Project,	the	average	

number	of	freight	trains	per	day	is	expected	to	increase	from	10	to	14	(in	2013)	to	20,	along	with	an	

increase	in	the	average	train	length	to	8,150	feet.	The	No‐Action	Alternative	would	also	include	future	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-6 September 2014 

 

planned	and	 funded	roadway,	 transit,	air	and	other	intermodal	improvements	likely	 to	be	completed	

within	the	Project	study	area	by	the	2016	target	date.	

AAF	conducted	a	tiered	alternatives	analysis	that	first	evaluated	four	routes	to	connect	Orlando	(at	the	

planned	GOAA	Intermodal	Station)	with	the	planned	West	Palm	Beach	Station	on	the	FECR	Corridor	and	

identified	the	FECR	Corridor	Alternative	as	the	only	feasible	route.	This	alternative	would	extend	service	

from	the	West	Palm	Beach	station	north	along	the	FECR	ROW	to	the	Cocoa	area,	then	parallel	SR	528	(the	

BeachLine	 Expressway)	 to	 MCO.	 In	 the	 second	 level	 of	 analysis,	AAF	 identified	 and	 evaluated	 route	

modifications	to	connect	the	SR	528	corridor	to	the	Intermodal	Station	on	the	west	and	with	the	FECR	

ROW	 on	 the	 east.	 The	 third	 level	 evaluated	 alignment	 alternatives	 parallel	 to	 SR	 528.	 Three	 Action	

Alternatives	 were	 retained	 for	 detailed	 evaluation	 in	 the	 DEIS:	 Alternative	 A,	 Alternative	 C	 and	

Alternative	E.	Table	S‐1	summarizes	the	main	characteristics	of	the	three	Action	Alternatives.	

Operations	 and	 ridership	would	 be	 the	 same	 for	 all	 three	 alternatives.	 AAF	 would	 provide	 regularly	

scheduled,	hourly‐service	frequency	with	an	approximately	3‐hour	trip	time.	The	intercity	passenger	rail	

service	 would	 operate	 with	 new	 diesel‐electric	 locomotives	 and	 single‐level	 coach	 trains.	 Passenger	

operations	would	include	16	round‐trip	passenger	 trains	per	day.	Maximum	operating	speeds	would	

range	 from	 79	 to	 125	miles	 per	 hour	 (mph),	 depending	 upon	 the	location.	Operating	 speeds	will	 be	

greatest	along	 the	SR	528	corridor	where	 there	would	be	no	highway‐rail	grade	crossings.	 From	 the	

station	at	MCO	to	West	Palm	Beach,	service	would	be	non‐stop,	as	there	are	no	intermediate	stations	

proposed.	According	to	a	ridership	and	revenue	forecast	commissioned	by	Florida	East	Coast	Industries	

and	prepared	by	Louis	Berger	Group	(LBG)	for	the	Project,	the	most	conservative	total	annual	ridership	

would	 amount	 to	 approximately	 3.5	 million	 in	 2019.	 Among	 the	 2019	 project	 totals,	 approximately	

2.0	million	would	be	short	distance	trips	(Ft.	Lauderdale	–	Miami,	West	Palm	Beach	–	Miami,	West	Palm	

Beach	–	Ft.	Lauderdale)	and	1.5	million	would	be	long	distance	trips	(Orlando	–	Southeast	Florida).	Total	

annual	ridership	is	predicted	 to	exceed	4	million	by	year	2030.	Each	of	 the	 three	Action	Alternatives	

would	include	a	new	VMF	located	on	GOAA	property	south	of	MCO.	No	new	stations	would	be	constructed	

as	part	of	the	Project.	The	Project	would	incorporate	a	new	Positive	Train	Control	system	and	associated	

infrastructure	and	would	install	pole‐mounted	warning	horns	at	grade	crossings.	

Alternative	A	would	include	a	new	rail	corridor	extending	north	through	MCO	to	SR	528	(the	MCO	Segment),	

including	 the	 proposed	 VMF;	 a	 new	 rail	 alignment	 largely	 within	 the	 SR	 528	 ROW	 owned	 by	 the	

Orlando‐Orange	County	Expressway	Authority	 (OOCEA)	and	 the	Florida	Department	 of	Transportation	

(FDOT)	from	MCO	to	the	FECR	Corridor	in	Cocoa	(the	East	West	Corridor	[E‐W	Corridor]);	and	would	use	

the	existing	FECR	ROW	from	Cocoa	to	West	Palm	Beach	(the	N‐S	Corridor).	Within	the	N‐S	Corridor,	the	

Project	largely	consists	of	restoring	a	second	track,	modifying	several	curves	to	accommodate	higher	speeds	

and	replacing	or	repairing	bridges	across	waterways.	Alternative	A	also	includes	modifications	to	seven	

bridges	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	and	minor	track	modifications	at	the	Miami	Viaduct.	

Alternative	C	differs	from	Alternative	A	within	the	OOCEA	ROW	section	of	the	E‐W	Corridor.	Alternative	C	

would	include	a	new	rail	corridor	extending	north	through	MCO	to	SR	528	(the	MCO	Segment),	including	

the	proposed	VMF;	a	new	rail	alignment	along	the	edge	of	the	SR	528	OOCEA	ROW	(the	E‐W	Corridor)	

from	MCO	to	SR	520	and	then	within	the	SR	528	FDOT	ROW	to	the	FECR	Corridor	in	Cocoa;	and	would	

use	the	existing	FECR	ROW	from	Cocoa	to	West	Palm	Beach	(the	N‐S	Corridor).	Within	the	N‐S	Corridor,	

the	Project	largely	consists	of	restoring	a	second	track,	modifying	several	curves	to	accommodate	higher	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-7 September 2014 

 

speeds	and	replacing	or	repairing	bridges	across	waterways.	Alternative	C	also	includes	modifications	to	

seven	bridges	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	a	new	location	for	the	proposed	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	and	

minor	track	modifications	at	the	Miami	Viaduct.	

Table S-1 DEIS Alternatives 

Segment/Project 

Element 

No-Action Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

MCO No construction 2.5-mile new rail 

corridor 

2.5-mile new rail 

corridor 

2.5-mile new rail 

corridor 

E-W Corridor No construction 1.5-mile new rail 

corridor west of 

Narcoosee Road 

17.5-mile new rail 

corridor within current 

SR 528 OOCEA 

ROW 

15-mile new rail 

corridor within FDOT 

and utility ROWs 

5 new bridges over 

water 

1.5-mile new rail 

corridor west of 

Narcoosee Road 

17.5-mile new rail 

corridor along 

boundary of current 

SR 528 OOCEA 

ROW 

15-mile new rail 

corridor within FDOT 

and utility ROWs 

5 new bridges over 

water 

1.5-mile new rail 

corridor west of 

Narcoosee Road 

17.5-mile new rail 

corridor 100 feet 

south of current 

SR 528 OOCEA 

ROW 

15-mile new rail 

corridor within FDOT 

and utility ROWs 

5 new bridges over 

water 

N-S Corridor No construction – 

Freight trips increase to 

20 trips/day in 2016 

128.5 mile corridor 

Add second track, 

straighten curves, 

Reconstruct 18 

bridges 

128.5 mile corridor 

Add second track, 

straighten curves, 

Reconstruct 18 

bridges 

128.5 mile corridor 

Add second track, 

straighten curves, 

Reconstruct 18 

bridges 

WPB-M Corridor No construction – 

Freight increases to 20 

trips/day in 2016 

66.5-mile corridor 

Add second track 

Reconstruct 7 

bridges 

66.5-mile corridor 

Add second track 

Reconstruct 7 

bridges 

66.5-mile corridor 

Add second track 

Reconstruct 7 

bridges 

VMF No construction New VMF on south 

portion of GOAA 

property 

Construct 1 new 

bridge 

New VMF on south 

portion of GOAA 

property 

Construct 1 new 

bridge 

New VMF on south 

portion of GOAA 

property 

Construct 1 new 

bridge 

Stations MCO Intermodal Station West Palm Beach 

Fort Lauderdale 

Miami 

West Palm Beach 

Fort Lauderdale 

Miami 

West Palm Beach 

Fort Lauderdale 

Miami 

Passenger Trips None 16 RT (32 trains) 16 RT (32 trains) 16 RT (32 trains) 

Ridership 0 3.5M 3.5M 3.5M 

Alternative	 E	 differs	 from	Alternatives	A	and	 C	within	 the	OOCEA	ROW	 section	 of	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor.	

Alternative	 E	 would	 include	 a	 new	 rail	 corridor	 extending	 north	 through	 MCO	 to	 SR	 528	 (the	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-8 September 2014 

 

MCO	Segment),	including	the	proposed	VMF;	a	new	rail	alignment	200	feet	south	of	the	SR	528	OOCEA	

ROW	(the	E‐W	Corridor)	from	MCO	SR	520	and	then	within	the	SR	528	FDOT	ROW	to	the	FECR	Corridor	

in	Cocoa;	and	would	use	 the	existing	FECR	ROW	 from	Cocoa	 to	West	Palm	Beach	 (the	N‐S	Corridor).	

Within	the	N‐S	Corridor,	the	Project	largely	consists	of	restoring	a	second	track,	modifying	several	curves	

to	accommodate	higher	speeds	and	replacing	or	repairing	bridges	across	waterways.	Alternative	E	also	

includes	modifications	to	seven	bridges	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	a	new	location	for	the	proposed	Fort	

Lauderdale	Station	and	minor	track	modifications	at	the	Miami	Viaduct.	

Chapter	3,	Alternatives,	provides	a	detailed	discussion	of	the	alternatives	analysis	process	and	a	detailed	

description	of	each	of	the	alternatives	retained	for	evaluation	in	this	DEIS.	

Environmental Effects 

This	DEIS	evaluates	the	environmental	effects	associated	with	the	three	Action	Alternatives.	The	potential	

effects,	both	beneficial	and	adverse,	of	the	three	alternatives	are	summarized	below.	The	Project	has	the	

potential	to	adversely	affect	land	use,	transportation	(particularly	traffic	at‐grade	crossings),	noise	and	

vibration,	water	resources,	wetlands	and	floodplains,	biological	communities,	protected	species,	social	

and	 economic	 conditions,	 cultural	 resources,	 parks	 and	 recreation	 areas	 and	 utilities.	 However,	

mitigation	 measures	 would	 be	 required	 that	 will	 reduce	 these	 potential	 adverse	 effects.	 The	 Project	

would	also	have	beneficial	environmental	effects,	such	as	traffic	diversion	from	I‐95	and	other	highways,	

economic	growth,	air	quality	improvements	and	energy	consumption	improvements	during	operation.	

Land Use 

The	land	use	analysis	included	an	inventory	of	existing	land	use	as	well	as	the	evaluation	of	local	land	use	

plans	applicable	to	the	Project	Area.	Potential	direct	effects	include	the	potential	for	permanent	land	use	

conversions	and	consistency	with	local	land	use	plans.	

Direct	impacts	to	land	use	along	the	MCO	Segment	and	N‐S	Corridor	are	the	same	for	all	three	Action	

Alternatives.	AAF	would	lease	land	within	MCO	for	the	VMF	and	railroad	ROW	and	would	lease	land	from	

OOCEA	and	FDOT	to	construct	the	E‐W	Corridor.	AAF	would	purchase	privately	owned	property	in	two	

locations,	which	would	result	in	the	permanent	conversion	of	45	acres	of	land	from	undeveloped	land	use	

to	 transportation	 use.	 The	 Project	 would	 be	 consistent	 with	 land	 use	 plans	 and	 the	 plans	 of	 the	

transportation	stakeholders	(GOAA,	OOCEA	and	FDOT).	

Section	 5.1.1,	 Land Use,	 describes	 these	 environmental	 impacts	 in	 detail,	 along	 with	 indirect	 and	

secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	

Transportation 

The	transportation	analysis	included	Annual	Average	Daily	Volume	(AADT)	obtained	from	FDOT	for	the	

two	largest	arterials,	by	volume,	for	each	county	through	which	the	Project	would	pass.	Highway	capacity	

analysis	for	the	10	at‐grade	railroad	crossings	and	intersections	were	conducted	in	accordance	with	the	

standard	methodology	presented	in	the	Highway	Capacity	Manual	(TRB	2010).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-9 September 2014 

 

The	Project	would	have	 the	 same	transportation	impacts	under	all	 three	Action	Alternatives,	as	 they	

would	include	the	same	effects	on	existing	rail	and	highway	infrastructure,	have	the	same	ridership	and	

effects	on	vehicle	miles	traveled	and	would	have	the	same	number	and	locations	of	at‐grade	crossings.	

There	 are	 no	 existing	 freight	 rail	 operations	 along	 the	 MCO	 Segment	 or	 E‐W	 Corridor,	 therefore	 no	

impacts	to	freight	rail	operations	would	occur	along	these	segments.	The	N‐S	Corridor	has	been	designed	

to	 cause	 no	 adverse	 impact	 on	 freight	 operations	 and	 has	 an	 assumed	 beneficial	 impact	 on	 freight	

operations.	 Infrastructure	modifications	and	 upgrades	 from	a	mostly	 single‐track	 system	 to	a	mostly	

double‐track	system	would	improve	freight	efficiencies,	as	represented	by	increases	in	average	operating	

speeds.	The	Project	would	have	a	beneficial	impact	on	the	passenger	rail	transportation	network	between	

Orlando	 and	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 by	 providing	 potential	 customers	 with	 an	 alternative	 means	 of	

transportation.		

Riders	 for	AAF	are	expected	 to	be	primarily	diverted	 from	automobile	modes	(69	percent	of	 forecast	

ridership).	The	Project	would	have	the	beneficial	impact	of	removing	335,628	auto	vehicle	trips	per	year	

from	the	regional	roadway	network	in	2016	and	1.2	million	vehicles	in	2019.		

The	proposed	passenger	rail	 service	would	divert	10	percent	of	its	long‐distance	riders	 from	private	

inter‐city	motorbus	services,	which	totals	approximately	152,600	annual	bus	passenger	trips	per	year.	

The	proposed	 service	would	divert	10	percent	 of	its	 riders	 from	 the	air	 service	market,	which	 totals	

approximately	152,600	annual	aviation	passenger	trips	per	year.	Two	percent	of	the	AAF	long‐distance	

ridership	is	forecast	to	come	from	Amtrak	passenger	rail	services.	In	2019,	this	amounts	to	approximately	

31,000	annual	trips	diverted	from	Amtrak	which	is	about	4	percent	of	Amtrak’s	2012	ridership	in	South	

Florida.		

The	Project	would	not	impact	local	vehicular	traffic	along	the	MCO	Segment	or	the	E‐W	Corridor,	as	there	

would	be	no	at‐grade	crossings.	The	N‐S	Corridor	would	result	in	some	degradation	in	Levels	of	Service	

at	 the	 grade	 crossings	 and	intersections	 studied,	with	 greater	percentages	 of	 time	within	 an	 hour	 of	

operation	under	unacceptable	roadway	conditions	than	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	With	just	three	

train	crossings	per	hour,	the	majority	of	each	hour	of	operation	would	not	be	affected	by	the	introduction	

of	passenger	train	service.	Typical	at‐grade	crossings	(intersections	of	local	roads	with	the	FECR	corridor)	

would	be	closed	an	average	of	54	 times	per	day	 (3	 times	per	hour),	with	closure	 times	ranging	 from	

1.7	minutes	(passenger)	to	2.8	minutes	(freight).	The	total	hourly	closure	would	range	from	4.2	minutes	

per	hour	to	4.5	minutes	per	hour,	an	increase	of	approximately	2	minutes	per	hour	in	comparison	to	the	

No‐Action	Alternative.		

Section	5.1.2,	Transportation,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail,	along	with	indirect	and	

secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	

Navigation 

Impacts	to	navigable	waters	and	navigation	would	be	the	same	for	Alternatives	A,	C	and	E,	as	each	would	

include	the	same	bridge	improvements.	Existing	fixed	bridges	would	be	replaced,	or	new	fixed	bridges	

would	be	constructed	to	maintain	the	existing	vertical	and	horizontal	clearances	and	maintain	existing	

navigation	conditions.	There	would	be	no	loss	in	existing	clearance	for	the	proposed	new	rail	bridge	over	

the	St.	Johns	River	and	no	change	in	the	structure	or	the	dimensions	of	the	opening	for	the	St.	Lucie	River	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-10 September 2014 

 

or	Loxahatchee	 (Jupiter)	River	bridges.	Under	all	Action	Alternatives,	 the	moveable	bridges	 (St.	Lucie	

River,	Loxahatchee	River	and	New	River)	would	be	closed	more	frequently	to	accommodate	the	increased	

number	 of	 trains.	 AAF	 has	 developed	 an	 operating	 plan	 that	minimizes	 the	 number	 and	 duration	 of	

closures;	however,	the	total	daily	closure	time	at	each	bridge	would	increase	in	comparison	to	the	No‐

Action	Alternative.	AAF	is	proposing	to	mitigate	 for	this	increased	closure	time	by	implementing	new	

measures	to	notify	mariners	of	the	bridge	closure	 times	and	 to	make	closure	 times	more	predictable.	

These	mitigation	measures	will	reduce	delays	and	help	to	reduce	queue	lengths	and	times.	

Section	 5.1.3,	Navigation,	 describes	 navigation	impacts	in	 detail,	 along	with	economic	impacts	 to	 the	

marine	 industry.	 Chapter	 7,	 Mitigation Measures and Project Commitments,	 describes	 the	 proposed	

mitigation	measures.	

Air Quality 

The	 air	 quality	 analysis	 evaluated	 the	 emission	 of	 air	 pollutants	 from	 the	 Project,	 the	 resulting	

concentrations	of	pollutants	in	the	regional	areas	and	carbon	monoxide	concentrations	at	intersections	

affected	 by	 changes	 in	 traffic	 patterns.	 This	 evaluation	 applied	 primary	 and	 secondary	 air	 quality	

standards	identified	by	the	National	Ambient	Air	Quality	Standards	(NAAQS)	to	evaluate	if	the	Project	

might	cause	any	new	violation	of	the	NAAQS,	increase	the	frequency	or	severity	of	any	existing	violations	

or	delay	attainment	of	any	NAAQS.	

As	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	air	quality	effects	of	the	Project	would	be	identical,	as	each	

alternative	would	provide	a	similar	 travel	 time	and	would	have	the	same	ridership	and	vehicle	miles	

traveled	 (VMT)	 reductions.	 All	 six	 counties	 crossed	 by	 the	 Project	 are	 in	 attainment	 for	 all	 criteria	

pollutants.	The	Project	would	provide	a	net	regional	air	quality	benefit	as	compared	 to	the	No‐Action	

Alternative.	Air	quality	in	the	region	would	be	improved	through	the	reduction	of	vehicles	from	the	roads	

and	highways	as	riders	move	instead	to	the	proposed	passenger	rail	service	between	Orlando	and	West	

Palm	Beach.	The	Project	would	decrease	emissions	 of	carbon	monoxide	 (CO),	nitrogen	oxides	 (NOx),	

sulfur	 dioxide	 (SO2),	 volatile	 organic	 compounds	 (VOCs),	 particulate	 matter	 less	 than	 10	 microns	 in	

diameter	(PM10)	and	particulate	matter	less	than	2.5	microns	in	diameter	(PM2.5)	by	2016.	By	2030,	the	

Project	would	reduce	CO	emissions	by	1,654	tons,	NOx	by	192	tons,	VOCs	by	59	tons	and	PM10	by	7	tons.		

A	detailed	hot‐spot	modeling	evaluation	of	intersections	was	not	conducted	as	part	of	 the	air	quality	

analysis	because	traffic	volumes	and	congestion	at	grade	crossings,	and	therefore	CO	emissions,	would	

be	lower	than	those	evaluated	as	part	of	the	2012	EA	for	the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	segment,	which	

did	not	exceed	air	quality	criteria.	

Section	 5.2.1,	 Air Quality,	 describes	 these	 environmental	 impacts	 in	 detail,	 along	 with	 indirect	 and	

secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	

Noise and Vibration 

Noise	 and	 vibration	 have	 been	 assessed	 according	 to	 guidelines	 specified	 in	 FRA’s	High‐Speed Ground

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment	 guidance	 manual,	 the	 Federal	 Transit	

Administration’s	(FTA)	Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment	guidance	manual	and	the	FHWA	guidelines	

as	defined	for	Florida	application	by	FDOT	for	traffic	operations	(FRA	2012a;	FTA	2006;	FDOT	2011c).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-11 September 2014 

 

There	would	be	no	adverse	noise	impacts	in	the	MCO	Segment.	Along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	noise	impacts	

would	 be	 primarily	due	 to	 the	increased	 noise	propagation	 from	elevated	 portions	 of	 track.	There	is	

potential	 for	 105	moderate	and	 five	 severe	 noise	impacts	at	 residential	 receptors	and	 one	moderate	

impact	at	an	institutional	receptor.	Along	 the	N‐S	Corridor,	 the	use	of	wayside	 (pole‐mounted)	horns	

would	 eliminate	 any	 severe	 impacts	 and	 would	 reduce	 noise	 levels	 in	 comparison	 to	 the	 No‐Action	

Alternative.	

Noise	mitigation	along	elevated	portions	of	track	may	include	sound	barriers	on	the	edge	of	the	elevated	

structures	 to	 mitigate	 potential	 severe	 impacts.	 AAF	 is	 committed	 to	 mitigating	 impacts	 from	 the	

increased	 frequency	 of	 warning	 horn	 use	 at	 highway‐rail	 at‐grade	 crossings	 with	 the	 installation	 of	

stationary	wayside	horns	at	each	of	the	grade	crossings	where	severe,	unmitigated	impacts	would	occur.	

AAF	is	committed	to	cooperating	with	local	jurisdictions	should	they	seek	to	establish	quiet	zones	in	lieu	

of	wayside	horns.	

The	greatest	potential	for	vibration	impact	is	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	due	to	the	increase	(approximately	

doubling)	of	vibration	events.	There	is	no	potential	vibration	impact	along	the	MCO	Segment.	Along	the	

E‐W	Corridor,	there	is	the	potential	for	vibration	impact	at	118	residential	and	12	institutional	receptors.	

There	would	be	potential	vibration	impact	at	a	total	of	3,317	residential,	513	institutional	receptors,	three	

TV	studios,	 three	recording	studios,	nine	auditoriums	and	 three	 theaters	along	 the	N‐S	Corridor.	AAF	

would	minimize	vibration	impacts	by	wheel	and	rail	maintenance	that	will	control	unacceptably	high	

vibration	 levels.	 Vibration	 levels	 would	 be	 minor	 and	 would	 not	 exceed	 the	 threshold	 for	 structural	

damage	to	fragile	buildings.	

Noise	 during	 construction	 would	 affect	 residences	 and	 other	 buildings	 close	 to	 the	 Project	 Area,	

particularly	where	pile‐driving	is	required	for	bridge	construction.	

Section	5.2.2,	Noise and Vibration,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail,	along	with	indirect	

and	secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	Chapter	7,	Mitigation Measures and Project

Commitments,	describes	the	proposed	mitigation	measures.	

Farmland Soils 

Farmland	 soils	within	 the	Project	Study	Area	with	any	level	 of	designation	by	 the	Natural	Resources	

Conservation	Service	(NRCS)	were	identified	and	mapped	relative	to	the	location	of	the	Project.	Direct	

impacts	to	prime	and	unique	farmland	soils	from	constructing	the	Project	are	limited	to	the	E‐W	Corridor	

for	 all	 three	 Action	 Alternatives.	 Farmland	 Conversion	 Impact	 Rating	 forms	 were	 completed	 and	

submitted	to	NRCS.	According	to	the	results	of	the	NRCS	evaluation,	there	would	be	no	significant	impact	

to	farmland	soils.	

Section	5.2.3,	Farmland Soils,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail,	along	with	indirect	and	

secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	

Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal 

Several	 potential	 sources	 of	 soil	 or	groundwater	 contamination	are	within	 or	adjacent	 to	 the	Project	

footprint.	 A	 contamination	 screening	 evaluation	 was	 performed	 and	 included	 a	 records	 search	 and	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-12 September 2014 

 

review	 of	 historical	 aerials.	 A	 field	 reconnaissance	 was	 also	 conducted	 for	 sites	 rated	 medium	 and	

high‐risk	in	proximity	to	the	Project	footprint.		

The	Project	has	the	potential	to	encounter	contaminated	soils	or	groundwater,	or	to	require	the	removal	

of	 waste	 material	 such	 as	 railroad	 ties,	 creosote‐treated	 bridge	 timbers,	 or	 demolition	 material.	 The	

potential	effects	of	the	Action	Alternatives	would	be	the	same.	GOAA	reported	that	no	contaminated	sites	

were	located	within	500	feet	of	the	Project	for	the	MCO	Segment	(including	the	VMF).	The	contaminated	

sites	evaluation	 for	 the	E‐W	Corridor	identified	16	potentially	contaminated	sites	within	 the	500‐foot	

detailed	 evaluation	 area.	 However,	 all	 of	 the	 potentially	 contaminated	 sites	 are	 outside	 the	 planned	

construction	 areas	 and	 impacts	 from	 the	 existing	 contaminated	 areas	 are	 not	 anticipated.	 A	 total	 of	

337	potentially	contaminated	sites	are	within	the	200‐foot	detailed	search	radius	along	the	128.5‐mile	N‐

S	 Corridor.	As	 the	 proposed	 upgrades	 for	 this	 portion	 of	 the	Project	would	be	 completely	within	 the	

existing	FECR	Corridor	and	would	result	in	minimal	subsurface	disturbance,	there	would	be	no	impacts	

from	existing	contaminated	areas.	The	Project	would	not	substantially	increase	operational	hazardous	

materials	or	hazardous	waste.	During	construction,	the	Project	would	include	proper	handling,	use	and	

disposal	of	hazardous	materials	and	waste	and	would	be	compliant	within	all	appropriate	tracking	and	

reporting	requirements.	Consequently,	none	of	the	three	alternatives	would	affect	the	transfer,	storage,	

or	transportation	of	pollutants.	

Section	5.2.4,	Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	

detail,	along	with	indirect	and	secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.		

Coastal Zone Management 

The	 Project	 lies	 within	 the	 designated	 Florida	 Coastal	 Zone	 and	 requires	 a	 federal	 consistency	

determination	under	the	Coastal	Zone	Management	Act	(CZMA).	Direct	effects	to	the	“natural	resources	

of	the	coastal	zone”,	including	both	aquatic	and	marine	resources,	would	result	from	all	elements	of	the	

Project,	including	construction	of	the	VMF,	bridge	and	rail	construction	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	and	bridge	

construction	along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	Portions	of	the	N‐S	Corridor	are	within	or	adjacent	to	Coastal	and	

Aquatic	 Managed	 Areas.	 Bridge	 construction/reconstruction	 would	 affect	 small	 areas	 of	 aquatic	

resources	within	the	Indian	River	and	the	Jensen	Beach‐Juniper	Inlet	Aquatic	Reserve.	Each	of	the	three	

Action	Alternatives	is	consistent	with	applicable	coastal	zone	policies;	however,	several	provisions	of	the	

Florida	Coastal	Management	Program	would	require	mitigation.	

Section	5.2.5,	Coastal Zone Management,	provides	a	detailed	discussion	of	coastal	zone	consistency.	

Climate Change 

Florida	faces	direct,	immediate	and	severe	impacts	from	climate	change	through	rising	sea	level	and	the	

possibility	of	more	intense	storms.	Calculations	for	emission	of	greenhouse	gases	(GHG)	carbon	dioxide	

(CO2),	methane	(CH4)	and	nitrous	oxide	(N2O)	show	the	Project	would	decrease	emissions	as	a	result	of	

decreased	 automobile	 VMT.	 CO2	 emissions	 would	 decrease	 by	 19,617	 tons/year	 in	 2019	 and	

31,477	tons/year	in	2030.	CH4	emissions	would	decrease	by	4.7	and	5.7	tons/year,	respectively	and	N2O	

emissions	by	5.0	and	6.1	tons/year	in	2019	and	2030.	Sea	level	rise	effects	for	the	MCO	Segment	and	

E‐W	Corridor	are	anticipated	to	be	minimal	for	the	2030	and	2060	planning	horizons	as	these	segments	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-13 September 2014 

 

of	the	Project	are	at	higher	elevations	and	further	from	the	coast.	The	N‐S	Corridor	and	WPB‐M	Corridor	

were	assessed	for	vulnerability,	as	these	corridors	are	along	the	coast	and	cross	several	coastal	water	

bodies.	Bridge	structures	will	have	increased	vulnerability	over	time;	potential	infrastructure	damage	

may	result	from	flooding,	tidal	damage	and/or	storms.	

	Section	5.2.6,	Climate Change,	provides	a	detailed	discussion	of	climate	change	effects.	

Water Resources 

Surface	 water	 and	 groundwater	 resources,	 including	 navigable	 waters,	 Outstanding	 Florida	 Waters	

(OFWs)	and	impaired	water	bodies,	were	evaluated	 for	potential	impacts	based	on	water	availability,	

quality,	use	and	associated	regulations.		

Direct	permanent	impacts	to	waterways	include	installing	concrete	pilings	and	abutments	within	surface	

waters	 during	 bridge	 construction.	 Each	 of	 the	 alternatives	 would	 include	 constructing	 31	 new	 or	

replacement	 bridges	 over	 waterways,	 of	 which	 six	 would	 cross	 OFWs.	 New	 impervious	 surfaces	

(pavement	and	buildings)	would	be	constructed	in	the	MCO	Segment	 for	 the	VMF	and	would	require	

stormwater	management	systems	to	protect	surface	and	groundwater	quality.	Along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	

the	 proposed	 railroad	would	 convert	existing	 pervious	land	 to	a	 ballasted	 railroad	 bed	and	 unpaved	

access	road,	resulting	in	minor	changes	to	stormwater	runoff	and	infiltration.	AAF	will	implement	best	

management	practices	 (BMPs),	which	are	often	required	as	part	of	 the	environmental	review	permit	

process	and	would	comply	with	all	Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	(FDEP)	and	local	

ordinances.	 Therefore,	 there	 would	 be	 no	 significant	 impacts	 to	 surface	 waters	 and	 groundwater	

resources.	

Section	5.3.1,	Water Resources,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail,	along	with	indirect	and	

secondary	 impacts	 and	 temporary	 construction	 impacts.	 Chapter	 7,	Mitigation Measures and Project

Commitments,	describes	the	proposed	mitigation	measures.	

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The	 closest	 Wild	 and	 Scenic	 River	 designated	 segment	 of	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River	 is	 approximately	

four	river	miles	upstream	from	the	N‐S	Corridor	in	Palm	Beach	County.	No	impact	would	occur	to	Wild	

and	Scenic	Rivers	from	the	Project,	which	would	not	be	located	in	or	visible	from	a	Wild	and	Scenic	River	

segment.		

Wetlands 

The	Project	would	have	moderate	direct	and	indirect	effects	to	wetlands.	Wetlands	would	be	 filled	to	

construct	portions	of	the	VMF	and	the	E‐W	Corridor	for	all	alternatives.	Wetland	impacts	at	the	VMF	have	

largely	been	permitted	by	the	USACE	under	a	prior	permit	issued	to	GOAA.	Bridge	construction	along	the	

E‐W,	N‐S	and	WPB‐M	 Corridors	would	 have	minor	effects	 on	wetlands	 due	 to	installing	 new	 pilings,	

abutments	and	riprap	protection	and	cutting	mangrove	vegetation	beneath	 the	bridges.	Alternative	A	

would	 result	 in	 128	 acres	 of	 direct	 impacts	 to	 aquatic	 resources	 (wetlands	 and	 surface	 waters).	

Alternative	 C	would	 directly	impact	 165	 acres	 of	 aquatic	 resources	 and	Alternative	 E	would	 directly	

impact	157	acres	 of	aquatic	 resources.	 Impacts	 to	wetlands	providing	high	quality	habitat	 to	wildlife	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-14 September 2014 

 

would	be	the	least	with	Alternative	A	and	the	greatest	with	Alternative	C.	The	Project	would	have	indirect	

effects	 on	wetland	quality	and	 functions	along	 the	E‐W	Corridor	but	 these	would	be	minor	 since	 the	

wetlands	are	already	affected	by	proximity	to	the	heavily‐traveled	SR	528	corridor.	All	wetlands	impacts	

would	be	mitigated	through	the	purchase	of	appropriate	mitigation	bank	credits.		

Section	 5.3.3,	 Wetlands,	 describes	 these	 environmental	 impacts	 in	 detail,	 along	 with	 indirect	 and	

secondary	 impacts	 and	 temporary	 construction	 impacts.	 Chapter	 7,	Mitigation Measures and Project

Commitments,	describes	the	proposed	mitigation	measures.	

Floodplains 

Impacts	 to	 areas	 subject	 to	 flooding	were	 evaluated	 using	 the	 base	 flood	 elevation	 published	 on	 the	

Federal	Emergency	Management	Agency’s	Flood	Insurance	Rate	Maps.		

All	three	of	the	Action	Alternatives	would	require	construction	within	the	mapped	100‐year	floodplain.	

The	 E‐W	 Corridor	 crosses	 several	 floodplains,	 primarily	 those	 associated	 with	 the	 Econolockhatchee	

River	and	the	St.	Johns	River.	The	N‐S	Corridor	uses	the	existing	FECR	ROW,	which	crosses	numerous	

floodplains	primarily	associated	with	coastal	waters	and	estuaries.	Alternative	A	would	affect	the	least	

amount	of	floodplains,	approximately	138	acres.	Both	Alternatives	C	and	E	would	affect	approximately	

195	acres	of	floodplains.	These	impacts	are	not	avoidable	due	to	the	extent	of	floodplains	throughout	the	

Project	footprint.	The	construction	design	of	each	Action	Alternative	would	minimize	potential	harm	to	

the	 floodplains	 by	 retaining	 existing	 elevations	 where	 feasible,	 constructing	 stormwater	 mitigation	

measures	and	retention	ponds	and	minimizing	fill	in	sensitive	areas.		

Section	 5.3.4,	 Floodplains,	 describes	 these	 environmental	 impacts	 in	 detail,	 along	 with	 indirect	 and	

secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	

Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems 

Natural	habitats	within	the	Project	Study	Area	support	biological	diversity,	wildlife	and	fish.	Many	of	these	

natural	 habitats	 are	 directly	 adjacent	 to	 existing	 transportation	 facilities	 and	 have	 reduced	 habitat	

functions.	Direct	impacts	to	biological	resources	and	natural	ecological	systems	from	the	Project	would	

result	from	the	loss	of	natural	vegetation	along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	south	of	SR	528.	

The	Project	would	result	in	varying	impacts	to	natural	upland	habitat.	Alternative	A	would	cause	93	acres	

of	 direct	 loss	 of	 upland	 vegetation.	 Alternative	 C	 would	 directly	 impact	 approximately	 122	 acres	 of	

uplands	 and	 Alternative	 E	 would	 directly	 impact	 approximately	 109	 acres	 of	 uplands.	 For	 each	

alternative,	the	greatest	loss	of	upland	habitat	would	be	to	forested	plant	communities.	The	potential	loss	

of	wildlife	habitat	could	result	in	indirect	or	secondary	effects	to	wildlife	such	as	habitat	fragmentation	

and	associated	 “edge	effects,”	 the	loss	 of	genetic	diversity	 of	plant	and	animal	populations,	increased	

competition	 for	 resources	 and	 physical	 or	 psychological	 restrictions	 on	 movements	 caused	 by	 some	

feature	within	a	corridor	that	wildlife	are	unwilling	or	unable	to	cross.	It	is	also	possible	that	the	operation	

of	the	Project	could	displace	some	individual	wildlife	populations	that	are	sensitive	to	noise	and	vibration.	

However,	 these	 effects	 are	 negligible	 due	 to	 the	 existing	 effects	 of	 SR	 528	 and	 other	 transportation	

facilities.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-15 September 2014 

 

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

spawning,	 breeding,	 feeding	 or	 growth	 to	 maturity.	 Habitat	 Areas	 of	 Particular	 Concern	 (HAPC)	 are	

subsets	of	EFHs	that	are	particularly	important	to	the	long‐term	productivity	of	populations	of	one	or	

more	managed	species,	or	are	particularly	vulnerable	to	human	induced	degradation.	The	evaluation	of	

EFHs	and	HAPC	included	potential	impacts	to	fisheries.	Impacts	under	Alternatives	A,	C	and	E	would	be	

generally	similar	for	all	fisheries.	The	Project	would	have	unavoidable	minor	impacts	to	EFH	and	HAPC.	

Direct	 impacts	 associated	 with	 the	 Project	 would	 result	 from	 placing	 rip‐rap/fill	 for	 the	 bridge	

approaches,	placing	bridge	pilings	and	excavating	where	existing	 timber	pilings	will	be	replaced.	The	

USACE	and	NMFS	have	concurred	that	the	Project	would	not	have	a	significant	adverse	effect	on	EFHs.	

Impacts	to	biological	resources	and	natural	ecological	systems	have	been	minimized	due	to	the	fact	that	

the	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	developed	immediately	adjacent	to	an	existing	transportation	corridor	and	

would	not	significantly	increase	fragmentation	and	noise	impacts	that	do	not	already	exist	in	this	area.		

The	 Project	includes	 a	 new	wildlife	 crossing	 adjacent	 to	 the	 Tosohatchee	Wildlife	Management	Area	

(WMA)	to	facilitate	future	movement	along	the	Florida	Wildlife	Corridor.	

Erosion	and	sedimentation	would	be	controlled	using	BMPs,	such	as	silt	fences	and	turbidity	curtains,	in	

accordance	 with	 an	 approved	 Erosion	 and	 Sedimentation	 Control	 Plan,	 during	 construction	 of	 the	

bridges.		

Section	5.3.5,	Biological Resources andNatural Ecological Systems,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	

in	 detail,	along	with	indirect	and	 secondary	impacts	and	 temporary	 construction	impacts.	 Chapter	 7,	

Mitigation Measures and Project Commitments,	describes	the	proposed	mitigation	measures.	

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The	Project	would	potentially	affect	habitats	used	by	federal	and	state	listed	wildlife	and	plant	species.	

The	Federal	Endangered	Species	Act	of	1973	(ESA)	defines	an	endangered	species	as	“any	species	which	

is	in	 danger	 of	 extinction	 throughout	 all	 or	 a	 significant	 portion	 of	its	 range.”	 The	Act	 also	 defines	 a	

threatened	 species	 as	 “any	 species	 which	 is	 likely	 to	 become	 an	 endangered	 species	 within	 the	

foreseeable	future	throughout	all	or	a	significant	portion	of	its	range.”	The	ESA	protects	species	listed	as	

endangered	or	threatened	on	a	national	basis.		

Each	of	the	Action	Alternatives	could	potentially	impact	the	following	federally	listed	species	and/or	their	

habitats:	West	Indian	manatee,	sea	turtles,	smalltooth	sawfish,	Audubon’s	crested	caracara,	wood	stork	

rookeries,	Florida	scrub‐jay,	red‐cockaded	woodpecker,	American	alligator	and	the	eastern	indigo	snake.	

One	federally	listed	plant	species	may	occur	in	a	number	of	waterways	that	intersect	the	N‐S	and	WPB‐

M	Corridors.	Due	to	the	disturbed	habitat	located	in	the	FECR	ROW,	it	is	unlikely	any	terrestrial	federally	

listed	plant	species	would	occur	within	the	Project	footprint,	but	several	species	have	been	documented	

within	the	adjacent	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park.	Potential	impacts	to	state	listed	species	and/or	their	

habitats	include	 the	Sherman’s	 fox	squirrel,	burrowing	owl,	Florida	sandhill	crane,	limpkin,	little	blue	

heron,	roseate	spoonbill,	snowy	egret,	the	southeastern	American	kestrel,	tricolored	heron,	white	ibis,	

mangrove	rivulus,	gopher	tortoise	(and	its	associated	eastern	indigo	snake,	Florida	mouse,	Florida	pine	

snake,	short‐tailed	snake	and	gopher	frog	habitat),	wading	bird	rookeries,	American	oyster	catcher	and	

reddish	 egret	 habitat.	 AAF	 has	 proposed	 specific	 mitigation	 for	 potential	 temporary	 and	 permanent	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-16 September 2014 

 

impacts	to	the	habitat	of	federally	listed	species,	in	addition	to	conducting	pre‐construction	surveys	for	

rare	species	(caracara,	red‐cockaded	woodpecker,	gopher	tortoise,	sand	skink	and	state‐listed	plants).		

The	USACE,	the	lead	federal	agency	for	ESA	compliance,	assessed	the	effects	of	the	Project	on	federally	

listed	species.	The	USACE	found	that	the	Project	is	“not	likely	to	adversely	affect”	the	wood	stork,	the	

eastern	indigo	snake,	the	West	Indian	manatee	and	the	Florida	scrub	jay;	and	may	affect,	but	is	not	likely	

to	adversely	affect,	the	blue‐tailed	mole	skink	or	the	Florida	sand	skink.	USFWS	and	NMFS	have	concurred	

with	this	finding.	

Section	5.3.6,	Threatened and Endangered Species,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail,	along	

with	indirect	and	secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	Chapter	7,	MitigationMeasures

and Project Commitments,	describes	the	proposed	mitigation	measures.	

Communities and Demographics 

Information	 collected	 from	 the	United	 States	 Census	 Bureau	 (USCB),	 county	 websites	 and	municipal	

websites	 were	 reviewed	 and	incorporated,	 as	 appropriate,	 to	 describe	 the	 community	 structure	 and	

demographic	profiles	along	the	Project	corridor.	Impacts	to	communities	and	demographics	are	those	

that	involve	long‐term	residential	displacement	and	neighborhood	fragmentation	or	the	loss	of	continuity	

between	neighborhoods.

The	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	predominantly	within	 the	SR	528	ROW	between	Orlando	and	Cocoa	and	

would	not	cross	any	residential	neighborhoods;	therefore,	no	neighborhood	fragmentation	would	occur.	

No	residential	displacement	would	occur,	as	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	not	require	the	use	of	residential	

properties.	The	N‐S	Corridor	would	not	result	in	residential	displacement,	neighborhood	fragmentation,	

or	the	loss	of	continuity	between	neighborhoods.	The	N‐S	Corridor	is	within	the	existing	FECR	corridor	

and	would	not	displace	residences	or	businesses.	The	relocated	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	would	not	affect	

any	communities.	

Section	 5.4.1,	Communities and Demographics,	describes	 these	environmental	impacts	in	detail,	along	

with	indirect	and	secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	

Environmental Justice 

Federal	environment	impact	analysis	standards	require	review	and	determination	to	assess	whether	a	

project	has	a	disproportionate	adverse	effect	on	minority	or	low‐income	populations.	

This	environmental	justice	evaluation	included	the	use	of	demographic	data	collected	from	the	2010	U.S.	

Census	 and	 2010	 American	 Community	 Survey.	 The	 Project	 Study	 Area	 for	 this	 evaluation	 included	

census	 tracts	within	 1,000	 feet	 of	 the	 of	 the	 proposed	 or	existing	 railroad	alignments.	 Thresholds	 to	

determine	meaningfully	greater	high	minority	and	low‐income	populations	include	census	tracts	where	

minority	populations	are	10	percent	higher	than	the	combined	total	for	the	six	counties	crossed	by	the	

Action	 Alternatives	 (37.4	 percent)	 and	 census	 tracts	 where	 low‐income	 populations	 are	 10	 percent	

higher	than	the	combined	total	for	the	census	tracts	crossed	by	the	Project	(23.3	percent).		

There	would	be	no	impacts	to	environmental	justice	communities	along	the	MCO	Segment,	as	there	are	

no	minority	or	low‐income	populations	within	the	census	tract	encompassing	this	segment.	Neither	the	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-17 September 2014 

 

E‐W	Corridor	nor	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	result	in	residential	displacement,	job	loss,	or	neighborhood	

fragmentation	 due	 to	 the	 use	 of	 property;	 therefore,	 there	 would	 be	 no	 disproportionate	 effects	 to	

environmental	justice	communities	from	changes	in	land	use.	Although	changes	in	noise	would	affect	110	

residential	parcels	(105	moderate	and	four	severe	impacts)	along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	none	of	these	parcels	

are	within	environmental	justice	communities.	There	would	be	no	disproportionate	effects	from	changes	

in	noise.	There	would	be	no	adverse	vibration	impacts	to	environmental	justice	communities	along	the	E‐

W	Corridor	under	the	Project	and	mitigation	would	limit	any	changes	in	vibration	along	the	N‐S	Corridor,	

such	that	there	would	be	no	resulting	vibration	impacts.		

Section	5.4.2,	Environmental Justice,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail,	along	with	indirect	

and	secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.		

Economic Conditions 

Impacts	to	economics	are	those	that	involve	the	displacement	of	businesses,	changes	in	employment,	loss	

of	real	estate	taxes	and	also	include	beneficial	effects	from	construction‐period	spending	or	long‐term	

economic	changes.	With	the	Project,	the	MCO	Segment	and	N‐S	Corridor	would	not	result	in	the	reduction	

of	municipal	property	tax	revenues.	The	E‐W	Corridor	would	require	partial	acquisition	of	one	privately	

owned	parcel	outside	the	SR	528	ROW	and	would	result	in	a	negligible	loss	of	property	tax	revenues	for	

Brevard	 County.	 The	 Relocated	 Fort	 Lauderdale	 Station,	 within	 the	WPB‐M	 Corridor,	 would	 require	

acquisition	of	three	parcels	adjoining	the	Florida	East	Coast	Corridor.	These	businesses	are	expected	to	

relocate	elsewhere	in	Fort	Lauderdale.	None	of	the	Action	Alternatives	would	result	in	any	business	or	

job	losses.		

The	Project	would	have	long‐term	direct	economic	benefits	to	local	populations	through	the	creation	of	

approximately	 1,100	 jobs	 on	 average	 per	 year	 through	 2021	 and	 labor	 income	 valued	 at	 nearly	

$294	million	through	2021.	During	construction,	the	Project	would	create	an	estimated	10,400	jobs	on	

average	 per	 year	 and	 labor	 income	 valued	 at	 nearly	 $1.2	 billion.	 Overall,	 the	 Project	 would	 realize	

approximately	 $1.2	 billion	 to	 Florida’s	 Gross	Domestic	 Product	(GDP)	in	 estimated	 annual	 economic	

development	through	2021	and	generate	approximately	$187	million	in	annual	federal,	state	and	local	

government	tax	revenue	through	2021.1		

Section	5.4.3,	Economic Conditions,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail,	along	with	indirect	

and	secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	

Public Health and Safety 

The	Project	would	have	an	overall	beneficial	effect	on	public	health,	safety	and	security	in	the	rail	corridor.	

While	greater	frequency	of	trains	may	increase	the	frequency	of	opportunities	for	conflict	between	trains	

and	vehicles	or	people,	safety	improvements	at	crossings,	an	upgraded	Positive	Train	Control	system,	

enhanced	 security	 and	 improved	 communications	 among	 emergency	 responders	 would	 minimize	

potential	conflicts	and	 their	consequences.	The	benefits	 resulting	 from	decreased	congestion	and	 the	

 

1 Includes both direct, indirect and secondary federal, state and local government tax revenue generated from the Project. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-18 September 2014 

 

potential	for	fewer	vehicular	crashes	and	fewer	air	emissions	indicate	that	there	will	be	no	significant	

negative	impacts	on	public	health	and	safety.	

The	Action	Alternatives	are	anticipated	to	have	the	same	effects	on	accessibility	and	would	benefit	elderly	

and	 handicapped	 individuals	 by	 providing	 a	 transportation	 option	 that	 will	 enhance	 mobility	 and	

livability	 in	 their	 communities.	 The	 AAF	 trains	 and	 stations	 would	 comply	 with	 the	 Americans	 with	

Disabilities	Act	(ADA)	requirements.	Preliminary	design	plans	indicate	that	AAF	trains	will	be	single	level,	

fully	accessible	coaches,	with	no	stairs	or	other	obstacles	to	impede	movement	on	board	trains.	Every	

coach	car	will	have	ADA	compliant	restrooms.	

Section	5.4.4,	Public Health and Safety,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail.	

Cultural Resources 

The	methodology	 for	identifying	cultural	resources	has	been	developed	in	conjunction	with	 the	State	

Historic	Preservation	Officer	(SHPO)	and	is	similar	to	previous	SHPO‐approved	methodologies	that	have	

been	applied	to	other	large‐scale	transit	projects.		

Section	5.4.5,	Cultural Resources,	constitutes	FRA’s	Findings	of	Effect	under	Section	106	of	the	National	

Historic	Preservation	Act	of	1966,	as	amended.	No	National	Register	of	Historic	Places	(NRHP),	listed	or	

eligible	resources,	were	identified	within	the	MCO	Segment	or	the	E‐W	Corridor.	NRHP	listed	or	eligible	

resources	were	identified	within	 the	N‐S	Corridor	and	include	 the	FECR	Railway	Historic	District	and	

several	historic	railroad	bridges.	The	Project	would	have	no	adverse	effect	on	the	historic	district.	SHPO	

has	concurred	for	the	2012	EA	that	the	use	of	the	historic	rail	line	and	restoration	of	passenger	rail	service	

would	not	constitute	an	adverse	effect	(FRA	2013).	The	Project	will	require	that	two	historic	bridges	(Eau	

Gallie	River	and	St.	Sebastian	River)	which	are	individually	eligible	for	the	NRHP,	be	demolished.	FRA	has	

determined	that	the	Project	would	have	an	adverse	effect	on	these	two	bridges.	The	adverse	effect	to	

historic	railroad	bridges	under	Section	106	is	subject	to	a	Section	4(f)	Evaluation,	presented	in	Chapter	6,	

Section 4(f) Evaluation.	

The	Project	would	have	no	direct	or	indirect	effects	(noise,	vibration	or	change	in	setting)	to	the	historic	

resources	located	adjacent	 to	 the	N‐S	Corridor.	The	relocated	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	would	have	no	

effect	on	nearby	historic	properties.	A	conditional	“no	adverse	effect	finding”	is	anticipated	based	on	the	

condition	that	consultation	with	the	SHPO	will	continue	through	the	design	process	in	order	to	ensure	

compatibility	and	appropriate	sensitivity	to	the	FECR	Railway	Historic	District	and	bridge	resources.	

Section	5.4.5,	Cultural Resources,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail,	along	with	indirect	and	

secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	

Recreation and other Section 4(f) Resources 

The	Project	would	not	adversely	affect	 (“use”)	any	public	parks,	recreation	areas,	 or	wildlife	 refuges.	

Collectively,	these	properties	are	protected	under	Section	4(f)	of	the	Department	of	Transportation	Act,	

as	are	historic	properties.	The	MCO	Segment	is	within	the	property	boundaries	of	MCO	and	no	Section	4(f)	

resources	are	located	on	this	property.	The	E‐W	Corridor	(and	SR	528)	is	adjacent	to	two	Section	4(f)	

recreation	resources	(the	Tosohatchee	WMA	and	the	Canaveral	Marshes	Conservation	Area);	however,	

constructing	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	not	require	acquisition	of	new	ROW	within	the	property	limits	of	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-19 September 2014 

 

these	 resources.	 Thirty	 Section	 4(f)	 recreation	 resources	 are	 along	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor.	 The	 existing	

N‐S	Corridor	bisects	two	of	these	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	(the	Hobe	Sound	National	Wildlife	

Refuge	and	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park).	All	construction	would	take	place	within	the	existing	FECR‐

owned	ROW	and	would	not	require	acquisition	of	new	ROW	within	Section	4(f)	resource	property	limits.	

Two	of	the	30	identified	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	are	also	Section	6(f)	

resources	(North	Sebastian	Conservation	Area	and	Sawfish	Bay	Park).	The	N‐S	Corridor	would	not	cross	

either	resource	and	no	land	acquisition	within	either	resource	would	be	required.		

The	Project	would	not	affect	the	use	of	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	adjacent	to	the	Project	in	regards	

to	noise,	vibration,	aesthetics	or	access.	Noise	and	vibration	generated	by	the	Project	would	be	compatible	

with	the	intended	use	of	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources.	Existing	viewsheds	along	the	Project	would	be	

consistent	with	existing	conditions	at	MCO,	along	the	SR	528	ROW	(E‐W	Corridor)	and	the	FECR	Corridor	

(N‐S	Corridor).		

The	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	constructed	as	an	overpass	as	not	to	interrupt	the	use	of	Long	Bluff	Road	

within	 the	 Tosohatchee	 WMA.	 Construction	 would	 avoid	 temporary	 road	 closures	 to	 the	 extent	

practicable.	 If	 temporary	 road	 or	 lane	 closures	 are	 necessary,	 AAF,	 in	 association	 with	 FRA,	 would	

coordinate	with	the	land	managing	agencies	of	the	Section	4(f)	recreational	resources	(Florida	Fish	and	

Wildlife	Conservation	Commission	[FWC]).	To	ensure	the	safety	of	the	users	of	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	

Park,	AAF	would	implement	at‐grade	crossing	improvements	where	the	N‐S	Corridor	crosses	Southeast	

Jonathan	Dickinson	Way.	

Section	 5.4.6,	 Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources,	 describes	 these	 environmental	 impacts	 in	

detail.	Chapter	6,	Section 4(f) Evaluation,	provides	additional	information	on	FRA’s	Section	4(f)	process,	

alternatives	 evaluation	 and	 mitigation	 measures.	 Chapter	 7,	 Mitigation Measures and Project

Commitments,	also	describes	the	proposed	mitigation	measures.	

Visual and Scenic Resources 

The	Project	is	anticipated	to	have	only	minor	effects	on	visual	and	scenic	resources,	primarily	associated	

with	new	bridges	over	waterways	and	new	communications	towers	along	the	E‐W	Corridor.	The	effects	

of	all	three	Action	Alternatives	are	expected	to	be	similar	within	each	segment	of	the	Project	with	some	

minor	differences.	The	existing	viewshed	of	the	MCO	Segment	and	N‐S	Corridor	would	remain	primarily	

unchanged.	Motorists	traveling	along	SR	528	would	generally	be	able	to	see	the	new	railroad	in	the	E‐

W	Corridor	to	the	south.		

The	viewshed	of	motorists	 traveling	east	on	SR	528	crossing	 the	St.	 Johns	River	would	be	somewhat	

obstructed	because	the	rail	bridge	would	be	higher	than	the	SR	528	bridge.	The	views	for	boaters	on	the	

St.	Johns	River	looking	north	towards	SR	528	would	not	change	substantially	as	the	rail	bridge	would	be	

parallel	to	SR	528	and	would	be	similar	to	the	size	and	structure	of	SR	528	over	the	river.	Views	would	be	

the	same	for	Alternatives	A,	C	and	E,	as	all	three	Action	Alternatives	would	be	on	the	same	alignment	at	

this	location.		

The	viewshed	of	motorists	traveling	on	existing	roads	crossing	SR	528,	including	motorists	on	I‐95,	would	

change	minimally.	The	new	rail	overpasses	would	be	constructed	parallel	to	SR	528	and	would	be	similar	

to	the	size	and	structure	of	the	SR	528	Bridge	over	I‐95.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-20 September 2014 

 

Section	5.4.7,	Visual and Scenic Resources,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail.	

Utilities and Energy Resources 

The	 evaluation	 of	 utilities	 and	 energy	 resources	 included	 a	 review	 of	 county‐developed	 interactive	

mapping	services	 for	current	utility	locations	and	urban	service	areas	and	national	databases	 for	 the	

current	locations	of	underground	pipelines.	

Action	Alternatives	A,	C	and	E	may	require	portions	of	existing	utilities	be	relocated	outside	the	track	

footprint	where	 the	proposed	 track	crosses	underground	utilities.	Where	 the	proposed	 track	crosses	

under	overhead	utilities,	relocation	or	reconstruction	may	be	necessary	to	provide	the	required	vertical	

clearance	over	the	tracks	to	accommodate	utility	lines	and	equipment.	

Some	buried	utilities	may	be	present	in	the	MCO	Segment.	The	proposed	VMF	is	currently	served	by	all	

necessary	 utilities	 (Orlando	 Utilities	 Commission	 2013).	 Constructing	 the	 VMF	 would	 affect	 a	 large	

infiltration	ditch	originally	constructed	to	serve	the	City	of	Orlando	wastewater	treatment	facility,	which	

is	no	longer	functioning.	Constructing	the	VMF,	therefore,	would	not	affect	any	utilities.		

The	 E‐W	 Corridor	 crosses	 several	 stormwater	 management	 features	 associated	 with	 SR	 528.	 For	

Alternative	A,	a	power	line	access	road	would	be	accommodated	within	the	existing	SR	528	ROW.	For	

Alternatives	C	and	E,	a	new	maintenance	access	road	would	be	constructed	south	of	 the	railroad	and	

would	 be	 a	 shared	 maintenance	 road	 with	 AAF.	 The	 Project	 would	 intersect	 two	 existing	 pipelines.	

Alternative	A	may	require	portions	of	these	pipelines	be	relocated.		

Electrical	 transmission/distribution	lines,	above	and	 below	ground,	are	located	along	and	within	 the	

FECR	ROW	in	the	N‐S	Corridor.	In	some	locations,	poles	will	require	relocation	in	order	to	accommodate	

the	new	mainline	track	and	upgraded	crossings.	Any	relocation	of	poles	is	expected	to	be	minimal.		

The	locomotives	are	planned	as	diesel‐electric	units	and	will	not	place	any	additional	load	on	the	existing	

electrical	and	utility	services.	Based	on	the	estimated	annual	quantities	of	diesel	consumption,	the	impact	

on	energy	 resources	would	 be	 negligible.	The	increase	in	electrical	 service/demand	 due	 to	 signals	is	

minimal	and	will	require	no	major	changes	or	construction	of	electrical	or	other	utility	infrastructure.	

Section	5.4.8,	Utilities and Energy Resources,	describes	these	environmental	impacts	in	detail,	along	with	

indirect	and	secondary	impacts	and	temporary	construction	impacts.	

Cumulative Effects 

Under	 NEPA	 regulations	 (40	 CFR	part	 1508.7),	 a	 cumulative	 effect	 is	 defined	 as	 “the	 impact	 on	 the	

environment	which	results	from	the	incremental	impact	of	the	action	when	added	to	other	past,	present	

and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	actions	regardless	of	what	agency	(Federal	or	non‐Federal)	or	person	

undertakes	such	other	actions.	Cumulative	impacts	can	result	from	individually	minor	but	collectively	

significant	actions	taking	place	over	a	period	of	time.”		

The	 cumulative	 effects	 of	 the	 Project	were	 analyzed	 for	 each	 of	 the	 alternatives,	 as	 compared	 to	 the	

baseline	 condition	 (the	 No‐Action	 Alternative).	 The	 evaluation	 was	 conducted	 for	 a	 selected	 set	 of	

resources	within	certain	temporal	and	spatial	boundaries,	in	reference	to	historical	trends	or	effects	from	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-21 September 2014 

 

other	specific	projects	and	that	are	(for	the	most	part)	regulated	by	various	governmental	agencies.	The	

cumulative	effects	evaluation	focused	on	those	resources	that	would	be	affected	by	the	Project	including:	

 Land	Use;	

 Transportation;	

 Air	Quality;	

 Noise	and	Vibration;	

 Water	Resources;	

 Floodplains;	

 Wetlands;	

 Protected	Species;	and	

 Social	and	Economic	Environment.	

The	other	resources	evaluated	in	Chapter	5	are	expected	to	be	affected	minimally	or	not	affected	by	any	

of	 the	 Project	 alternatives	 and/or	 would	 not	 be	 adversely	 affected	 by	 past,	 present	 or	 reasonably	

foreseeable	actions	in	the	Project	Study	Area.	

The	cumulative	analysis	for	the	Project	shows	that	the	combination	of	the	AAF	Passenger	Rail	Project	

impacts	with	other	impacts	would	not	result	in	a	serious	deterioration	of	environmental	 functions	or	

exceed	applicable	significant	thresholds.	

Comparing the Alternatives 

Table	 S‐2	 summarizes	 the	 anticipated	 environmental	 effects	 of	 each	 of	 the	 alternatives	 for	 the	 AAF	

Intercity	Passenger	Rail	Service	Project.		

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-22 September 2014 

 

Table S-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects of Alternatives 

Action Alternatives 

Resource No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Land Use No Effect Minor land acquisition (45 acres); remaining land leased from GOAA, OOCEA, 

FDOT. Consistent with land use and transportation plans. 

Transportation Increases in automobile 

volume on SR 528, I-95 

and Florida’s Turnpike 

would increase 

congestion and delays 

Beneficial effects by increased freight traffic efficiencies. The Project would remove 

335,628 auto vehicle trips per year from the regional roadway network in 2016 and 

1.2 million vehicle trips per year in 2019. The MCO Segment and E-W Corridor would not 

have an adverse effect on local vehicle transportation, while the N-S Corridor would 

increase the number of roadway grade crossing closures. 

Navigation Increased freight 

operations would increase 

the number of closures at 

the St. Lucie River, 

Loxahatchee River and 

New River Bridges 

The three moveable bridges would be closed more frequently with the Project and 

would affect navigation. The improved track infrastructure will decrease the 

duration of any single bridge closure, by allowing increased train speeds. Mitigation 

measures proposed by AAF would reduce delays and queuing at the bridges. 

Air Quality VMT would continue to 

increase resulting in 

increased air pollutant 

emissions 

Alternatives A, C and E would provide a net regional air quality benefit through a 

reduction in VMT and associated air pollutant emissions. 

Noise and 

Vibration 

Noise and vibration 

would increase as a 

result of increased 

freight traffic 

Noise effects along the E-W Corridor would occur at elevated portions of track and along 

the N-S Corridor at-grade crossing locations. The use of pole-mounted horns at grade 

crossings would reduce noise levels to below existing conditions. Vibration effects would 

be caused by an increase (approximately double) in vibration events. 

Farmland Soils No effect No significant effects 

Hazardous 

Materials and 

Waste 

Potentially contaminated 

sites previously not 

identified would not be 

assessed or mitigated 

No effect on the transfer, storage, or transportation of pollutants. The Project would not 

substantially increase operational hazardous materials or hazardous waste. 

Coastal Zone 

Management 

Consistent Consistent 

Climate Change VMT would continue to 

increase resulting in 

increased greenhouse gas 

emissions 

GHG emissions for CO2, CH4 and N2O were calculated and the Project would decrease 

emissions as a result of decreased automobile VMT. Bridge structures in the N-S Corridor 

and WPB-M Corridor will have increased vulnerability over time; potential infrastructure 

damage may result from flooding, tidal damage and/or storms. 

Water No effect The proposed VMF would add impervious surfaces for pavement and buildings. Appropriate 

stormwater BMPs would be included in project design to reduce impacts to water quality. 

The Project would require stormwater management facilities along the E-W Corridor and 

may require modification of stormwater ditches along the N-S Corridor. 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

No effect No effect 

Wetlands No effect 128 acres of wetland 

loss 

165 acres of wetland loss 157 acres of wetland loss 

Floodplains No effect 138 acres of floodplain 

affected. Negligible 

effect on flood storage or 

flooding. 

195 acres of floodplain affected. Negligible effect on 

flood storage or flooding. 

Biological 

Resources and 

Natural Ecological 

Systems 

No effect 93 acres of upland habitat 

loss. Minor indirect and 

secondary impacts to 

wildlife. 

122 acres of upland habitat 

loss. Minor indirect and 

secondary impacts to 

wildlife. 

109 acres of upland 

habitat loss. Minor indirect 

and secondary impacts to 

wildlife. 

Essential Fish 

Habitat 

No effect No significant effect. BMPs to protect fish habitat would be implemented during 

bridge construction. 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species 

No effect No adverse effect 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-23 September 2014 

 

Table S-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects (Continued) 

Action Alternatives 

Resource No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Communities and 

Demographics 

No effect No adverse effect 

Environmental 

Justice 

No effect No disproportionate adverse effect 

Economics No effect Beneficial long- and short-term effects. During construction, the Project will 

generate jobs and labor income and increase the state GDP. The Project will 

increase Federal, state and local tax revenues during construction and during 

subsequent operations. The Project would have long-term direct economic 

benefits to local populations through the creation of jobs. 

Public Health and 

Safety 

No effect Overall beneficial effect on public health, safety and security. AAF trains will 

comply with ADA requirements. 

Cultural 

Resources 

No adverse effect Demolition of historic railroad bridges would be an adverse effect under Section 

106 and would be considered a “use” under Section 4(f). 

Recreation and 

Other Section 4(f) 

Resources 

No use No use of land from parks, recreation areas or wildlife refuges and no effect on 

the use of these properties. 

Visual and Scenic 

Resources 

No effect The existing viewsheds of the MCO Segment and N-S Corridor would remain 

primarily unchanged. Views would be changed, but not significantly, for motorists 

traveling along SR 528 and along roads and highways that cross SR 528. 

Utilities and 

Energy Resources 

Energy consumption for 

private automobiles 

would increase 

commensurate with the 

increase in annual 

vehicle-miles traveled. 

Portions of existing utilities may need to be relocated outside the track footprint 

where the proposed track crosses underground utilities. Relocation or 

reconstruction of overhead utilities may be necessary to provide the required 

vertical clearance over the tracks. The relocation of poles is expected to be 

minimal. The Project would require minimal electrical demand and would result in 

a long-term decrease in energy consumption through increased travel efficiency. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary S-24 September 2014 

 

This page intentionally left blank.

		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents i September 2014 

 

Table of Contents 

Summary .................................................................................................................................................. S-1

How to Read this Document ................................................................................................................... xiv

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary ............................................................................................... xviii

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Project Background .................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1.1 Phased Approach to Project Implementation ............................................................ 1-1 

1.1.2 Phase II – Loan Application and Environmental Review ........................................... 1-3 

1.2 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.2.1 MCO Segment ........................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.2.2 E-W Corridor .............................................................................................................. 1-4 

1.2.3 N-S Corridor .............................................................................................................. 1-4 

1.2.4 WPB-M Corridor ........................................................................................................ 1-5 

1.3 Federal Agency Actions and Legislative Authority ..................................................................... 1-5 

1.4 Permits, Licenses, and Other Regulatory Requirements ........................................................... 1-6 

1.5 Development of this Environmental Impact Statement .............................................................. 1-7 

1.6 Organization of this Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................... 1-8 

2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2-1 

2.2 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.3 Need ........................................................................................................................................... 2-2 

2.3.1 Congestion on Existing Road Systems ..................................................................... 2-2 

2.3.2 Safety on the Existing Highway System .................................................................... 2-5 

2.3.3 Alternative Modes of Transportation – Orlando to Miami .......................................... 2-5 

2.3.4 Population, Employment, and Tourism Growth ......................................................... 2-7 

2.3.5 Financing and Public Initiatives ................................................................................. 2-9 

2.4 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2-10 

3 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Alternatives Identification and Screening ................................................................................... 3-2 

3.2.1 Level 1 - Route Alternatives ...................................................................................... 3-4 

3.2.2 Level 2 – Corridor Connection Alternatives ............................................................. 3-12 

3.2.3 Level 3 Screening – East-West Corridor Alignment Options .................................. 3-17 

3.2.4 Vehicle Maintenance Facility Alternatives ............................................................... 3-22 

3.2.5 Station Alternatives .................................................................................................. 3-23 

3.3 Alternatives Studied in Detail in the EIS .................................................................................. 3-23 

3.3.1 Phase I ..................................................................................................................... 3-25 

3.3.2 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 3-26 

3.3.3 Alternative A ............................................................................................................ 3-27 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents ii September 2014 

 

3.3.4 Alternative C ............................................................................................................ 3-42 

3.3.5 Alternative E ............................................................................................................ 3-42 

3.4 Operations ................................................................................................................................ 3-44 

3.5 Ridership .................................................................................................................................. 3-45 

3.5.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 3-45 

3.5.2 Ridership Projections ............................................................................................... 3-46 

3.6 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 3-47 

4 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Land Use and Transportation ..................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.2 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4-4 

4.1.3 Navigation ................................................................................................................ 4-16 

4.2 Physical Environment ............................................................................................................... 4-30 

4.2.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 4-30 

4.2.2 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................. 4-35 

4.2.3 Farmland Soils ......................................................................................................... 4-45 

4.2.4 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal ..................................................... 4-47 

4.2.5 Coastal Zone Management ..................................................................................... 4-51 

4.3 Natural Environment ................................................................................................................ 4-54 

4.3.1 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 4-54 

4.3.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................ 4-64 

4.3.3 Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 4-65 

4.3.4 Floodplains .............................................................................................................. 4-72 

4.3.5 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems ........................................... 4-78 

4.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ..................................................................... 4-91 

4.4 Social and Economic Environment ........................................................................................ 4-102 

4.4.1 Communities and Demographics .......................................................................... 4-103 

4.4.2 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... 4-106 

4.4.3 Economic Conditions ............................................................................................. 4-111 

4.4.4 Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 4-113 

4.4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 4-120

4.4.6 Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources ...................................................... 4-139 

4.4.7 Visual and Scenic Resources ................................................................................ 4-144 

4.4.8 Utilities and Energy Resources ............................................................................. 4-151 

5 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Land Use, Transportation, and Navigation ................................................................................ 5-1 

5.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1.2 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 5-6 

5.1.3 Navigation ................................................................................................................ 5-15 

5.2 Physical Environment ............................................................................................................... 5-33 

5.2.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 5-33 

5.2.2 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................. 5-39 

5.2.3 Farmland Soils ......................................................................................................... 5-55 

5.2.4 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal ..................................................... 5-58 

5.2.5 Coastal Zone Management ..................................................................................... 5-62 

5.2.6 Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 5-71 

5.3 Natural Environment ................................................................................................................ 5-75 

5.3.1 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 5-75 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents iii September 2014 

 

5.3.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................ 5-81 

5.3.3 Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 5-81 

5.3.4 Floodplains .............................................................................................................. 5-93 

5.3.5 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems ........................................... 5-96 

5.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................... 5-110 

5.4 Social and Economic Environment ........................................................................................ 5-121 

5.4.1 Communities and Demographics .......................................................................... 5-121 

5.4.2 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... 5-123 

5.4.3 Economic Conditions ............................................................................................. 5-127 

5.4.4 Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 5-130 

5.4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 5-137

5.4.6 Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources ...................................................... 5-143 

5.4.7 Visual and Scenic Resources ................................................................................ 5-151 

5.4.8 Utilities and Energy Resources ............................................................................. 5-154 

5.4.9 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................... 5-158 

6 Section 4(f) Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6-1 

6.2 Project Purpose and Description ................................................................................................ 6-1 

6.3 Section 4(f) Applicability ............................................................................................................. 6-2 

6.4 Description and Use of Section 4(f) Resources ......................................................................... 6-2

6.4.1 Eau Gallie River Bridge ............................................................................................. 6-3

6.4.2 St. Sebastian River Bridge ........................................................................................ 6-5 

6.4.3 Tosohatchee WMA .................................................................................................... 6-6 

6.5 Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 6-8 

7 Mitigation Measures and Project Commitments ............................................................................ 7-1

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7-1 

7.2 Project Commitments ................................................................................................................. 7-1 

7.2.1 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 7-3 

7.2.2 Navigation .................................................................................................................. 7-4 

7.2.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 7-5 

7.2.4 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................... 7-5 

7.2.5 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal ....................................................... 7-8 

7.2.6 Surface and Groundwater ......................................................................................... 7-8 

7.2.7 Wetlands .................................................................................................................... 7-8 

7.2.8 Floodplains ................................................................................................................ 7-9 

7.2.9 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems ............................................. 7-9 

7.2.10 Essential Fish Habitat .............................................................................................. 7-10 

7.2.11 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Protected Species ..................... 7-10 

7.2.12 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 7-13 

7.2.13 Section 4(f) Resources ............................................................................................ 7-13

8 Summary of Public Involvement Process and Tribal Coordination ............................................. 8-1

8.1 Scoping ...................................................................................................................................... 8-1 

8.1.1 Agency Scoping Meeting ........................................................................................... 8-2 

8.1.2 Public Scoping Meetings ........................................................................................... 8-2 

8.2 Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................. 8-3 

8.3 Tribal Coordination ..................................................................................................................... 8-6 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents iv September 2014 

 

8.4 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 8-6 

8.5 Post-Scoping Comments ........................................................................................................... 8-8 

9 References ......................................................................................................................................... 9-1

10 List of Preparers .............................................................................................................................. 10-1

11 Distribution List ............................................................................................................................... 11-1

12 Index ................................................................................................................................................. 12-1

 

	 	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents v September 2014 

 

List of Tables 

Table No. Description Page 

 S-1 DEIS Alternatives ......................................................................................................... S-7 

 S-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects of Alternatives ................................................ S-22 

 S-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects (Continued) .................................................... S-23 

 1.4-1 Permits or Approvals Required for the Project ............................................................. 1-8 

 2.3-1 Existing and Projected Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and Volume to 

Capacity (V/C) Ratios ................................................................................................... 2-4 

 2.3-2 Aviation Delays in the Project Corridor (2012) ............................................................. 2-6 

 2.3-3 Employment Growth by Metropolitan Statistical Area .................................................. 2-8 

 2.3-4 Population Employed Outside of the County of Residence .......................................... 2-8 

 2.3-5 Summary of Rail Legislation and Related Activities in Florida 2000 – 2010 ................ 2-9 

 2.3-6 Summary of High Speed Rail Legislation in Florida 2000 – 2010 .............................. 2-10 

 3.2-1 Screening Analysis Results – Level 1 Route Alternatives .......................................... 3-11 

 3.2-2 Screening Analysis Results – Level 2 FECR Route Segment Alternatives ................ 3-16 

 3.2-3 Screening Analysis Results –East-West Corridor Alignment Options ........................ 3-21 

 3.3-1 Existing and Future Freight Train Operations (No-Action Alternative) ....................... 3-26 

 3.3-2 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor West Section ................................ 3-31 

 3.3-3 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor Middle Section .............................. 3-32 

 3.3-4 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor East Section ................................. 3-33 

 3.3-5 Proposed Bridges, N-S Corridor ................................................................................. 3-39 

 3.3-6 Proposed Bridges over Waterways, West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor ..................... 3-40 

 3.3-7 Proposed Structures Alternative C, E-W Corridor Middle Section .............................. 3-43 

 3.3-8 Proposed Structures Alternative E, E-W Corridor Middle Section .............................. 3-44 

 3.3-9 Projected Average Passenger Rail Operating Speeds by County ............................. 3-44 

 3.3-10 Projected Base-Case Ridership (2019) ...................................................................... 3-47 

 3.3-11 Estimate of Auto Vehicle Trips Diverted to AAF ......................................................... 3-47 

 4.1.1-1 Local Land Use Plans .................................................................................................. 4-4 

 4.1.2-1 Existing Highway Volumes and Operational Characteristics ...................................... 4-13 

 4.1.2-2 Existing Traffic Volumes for Local Roadways ............................................................ 4-15 

 4.1.2-3 Summary of At-grade Crossings by County Within the N-S Corridor ......................... 4-15 

 4.1.2-4 Summary of Existing (2011) Freight Operating Characteristics and 

Average Crossing Closures within the N-S Corridor .................................................. 4-16 

 4.1.3-1 Definition and Example of Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Effects ................ 4-20 

 4.1.3-2 Daily Vessel Traffic at the St. Lucie, Loxahatchee, and New River Bridges, 

January 20141 ........................................................................................................... 4-22 

 4.1.3-3 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Martin County .......... 4-26 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents vi September 2014 

 

Table No. Description Page 

 4.1.3-4 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in St. Lucie County ...... 4-27 

 4.1.3-5 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry 

along the St. Lucie River ............................................................................................ 4-28 

 4.1.3-6 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in 

Palm Beach County ................................................................................................... 4-28 

 4.1.3-7 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the 

Loxahatchee River ..................................................................................................... 4-29 

 4.1.3-8 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Broward County ...... 4-29 

 4.1.3-9 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the New River.... 4-30 

 4.2.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................................... 4-31 

 4.2.1-2 Existing Air Quality Conditions: Comparison to Federal and State 

Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................. 4-34 

 4.2.1-3 2008 Baseline Mobile Source Emissions Inventories ................................................. 4-35 

 4.2.2-1 Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise ................................................... 4-38 

 4.2.2-2 Existing Rail Operations by County (N-S Corridor) .................................................... 4-39 

 4.2.2-3 Existing Noise Conditions from Roads (E-W Corridor) ............................................... 4-40 

 4.2.2-4 Number of Census Blocks per Population Density and Ambient Noise Level ............ 4-40 

 4.2.2-5 Existing Noise Conditions from Train Operations (N-S Corridor) ............................... 4-41 

 4.2.3-1 Prime and Unique Farmland Soils within the E-W Corridor ........................................ 4-47 

 4.2.4-1 Summary of Risk Ratings for Potentially Contaminated Sites .................................... 4-50 

 4.3.1-1 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in the MCO Segment and 

E W Corridor .............................................................................................................. 4-57 

 4.3.1-2 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in the N-S Corridor, 

Cocoa to West Palm Beach ....................................................................................... 4-60 

 4.3.1-3 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in WPB-M Corridor, 

West Palm Beach to Miami ........................................................................................ 4-62 

 4.3.1-4 Sole Source Aquifer Protection Zones in the Project Study Area ............................... 4-63 

 4.3.3-1 Existing wetland communities within the Project Study Area as defined by 

FLUCCS and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) .................................................. 4-67 

 4.3.3-2 Common Wetland Plant Species ................................................................................ 4-69 

 4.3.4-1 Project Study Area within the Existing 100-year Floodplain ....................................... 4-76 

 4.3.4-2 Floodway Crossings within the Project Study Area .................................................... 4-77 

 4.3.4-3 Federal Flood Control Projects Within the Project Study Area ................................... 4-77 

 4.3.5 1 Existing Natural Upland Communities Located Within and Adjacent to the 

Project Study Area ..................................................................................................... 4-79 

 4.3.5-2 Common Upland Plant Species ................................................................................. 4-80 

 4.3.5-3 Key Upland Wildlife Species ...................................................................................... 4-80 

 4.3.5-4 Essential Fish Habitat within the Project Study Area.................................................. 4-89 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents vii September 2014 

 

Table No. Description Page 

 4.3.6 1 Rare Species and Habitat (Land Use) Assumptions for Terrestrial Species .............. 4-92 

 4.3.6-2 Federal and State Protected Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within 

Project Study Area Counties ...................................................................................... 4-93 

 4.3.6-3 Federal and State Protected Plant Species Known to Occur Within 

Project Study Area Counties ...................................................................................... 4-99 

 4.3.6-4 State-only Protected Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within 

Project Study Area Counties ...................................................................................... 4-99 

 4.3.6-5 State-only Protected Plant Species Known to Occur Within 

Project Study Area Counties .................................................................................... 4-100 

 4.3.6-6 Federal and State Listed Animal Species Potentially in WPB-M Corridor 

Project Area ............................................................................................................. 4-101 

 4.3.6-7 Federal and State Listed Plant Species Potentially in WPB-M Corridor 

Project Area ............................................................................................................. 4-102 

 4.4.1-1 Total Population (2000 and 2011) of Incorporated Municipalities Crossed by the 

Project, by County .................................................................................................... 4-104 

 4.4.1-2 Total Population of Census Tracts Crossed by the Project, by County .................... 4-105 

 4.4.2-1 Summary of the Minority/’Non-White’ Populations per County ................................. 4-107 

 4.4.2-2 Minority Population Concentrations .......................................................................... 4-108 

 4.4.2-3 Summary of Poverty Data Status in the past 12 months at the State, County, and 

Census Tract Level within the Project Study Area ................................................... 4-109 

 4.4.2-4 Low-Income Population Concentrations ................................................................... 4-110 

 4.4.3-1 Existing Labor Force and General Employment Data .............................................. 4-112 

 4.4.3-2 Summary of Economic Impacts of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and 

Related Industries Along the N-S Corridor ............................................................... 4-113 

 4.4.4-1 N-S Corridor At-Grade Crossing Accident Data by County ...................................... 4-115 

 4.4.4-2 FECR Accidents, Cocoa to Miami – Years 2011 to 20071 ....................................... 4-116 

 4.4.4-3 Primary Regional Roadway System Traffic Accidents – Years 2011 to 2007 .......... 4-116 

 4.4.4-4 FECR Safety and Security Practices ........................................................................ 4-118 

 4.4.4-5 Elderly/Senior Population Identified in Census Tracts within 1,000 feet of the 

Project Alignment ..................................................................................................... 4-119 

 4.4.4-6 Identified Sinkholes in the Project Study Area ......................................................... 4-120 

 4.4.5-1 Native American Consultation Contacts ................................................................... 4-125 

 4.4.5-2 Certified Local Government/Local Informant Contacts Regarding 

Potential Locally Designated Cultural Resources Located Within the Phase II APE 

(Orlando to West Palm Beach) ................................................................................. 4-125 

 4.4.5-3 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources Within the MCO Segment ............ 4-126 

 4.4.5-4 Previously Recorded Historic Linear Resources within the E-W Corridor APE ........ 4-127 

 4.4.5-5 Previously Recorded Historic District within the E-W Corridor APE ......................... 4-127 

 4.4.5-6 Previously Recorded Historic Resources Adjacent to the E-W Corridor APE .......... 4-127 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents viii September 2014 

 

Table No. Description Page 

 4.4.5-7 Newly Identified E-W Corridor Historic Resources ................................................... 4-127 

 4.4.5-8 E-W Corridor Areas and Estimated Mileage and Acreage of Areas Previously 

Surveyed and by Probability Classification for Areas Unsurveyed ........................... 4-128 

 4.4.5-9 Historic Linear Resources Previously Identified in the N-S Corridor APE ................ 4-129 

 4.4.5-10 Historic Railway Bridges Identified Within the N-S Corridor APE ............................. 4-130 

 4.4.5-11 Historic Resources Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE ............ 4-131 

 4.4.5-12 Historic District Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE .................. 4-131 

 4.4.5-13 Historic Cemeteries Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE ........... 4-131 

 4.4.5-14 Archaeological Sites Located within the N-S Corridor APE ...................................... 4-132 

 4.4.5-15 Historic Railway Bridges Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE ....................... 4-132 

 4.4.5-16 Historic Districts Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE .................................... 4-133 

 4.4.5-17 Linear Resources Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE .................................. 4-133 

 4.4.5-18 Historic Structures Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE ................................. 4-134 

 4.4.5-19 Historic Stations or Railroad Related Resources within the 

WPB-M Corridor APE ............................................................................................... 4-135 

 4.4.5-20 Historic Cemeteries Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE ............................... 4-135 

 4.4.5-21 Historic Resources within the WPB-M Corridor APE for Historic Resources 

Stations .................................................................................................................... 4-137 

 4.4.6-1 Section 4(f) Evaluation Sources ............................................................................... 4-140 

 4.4.6-2 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Conservation, and 

Recreation Areas within the Orlando-West Palm Beach Project Study Area ........... 4-141 

 4.4.6-3 Recreational Resources within 300 feet and 100 feet of the West Palm Beach – 

Miami Corridor .......................................................................................................... 4-143

 5.1.2-1 Grade Crossing Locations Evaluated ........................................................................... 5-6 

 5.1.2-2 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria ..................................................................................... 5-7 

 5.1.2-3 Passenger Diversion from Other Modes of Transportation .......................................... 5-9 

 5.1.2-4 At-grade Crossing Closures (2019) ............................................................................ 5-12 

 5.1.2-5 Intersection Level of Service, N-S Corridor (minutes per hour) – 

2016 PM Peak Hour ................................................................................................... 5-13 

 5.1.3-1 Average Speeds of Passenger and Freight Trains .................................................... 5-16 

 5.1.3-2 Moveable Bridge Closures ......................................................................................... 5-18 

 5.1.3-3 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the St. Lucie River Bridge ................... 5-20 

 5.1.3-4 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge (2016) ............... 5-21 

 5.1.3-5 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the Loxahatchee River Bridge ............ 5-23 

 5.1.3-6 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the Loxahatchee River Bridge (2016) ........ 5-24 

 5.1.3-7 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the New River Bridge .......................... 5-25 

 5.1.3-8 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the New River Bridge (2016) ..................... 5-26 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents ix September 2014 

 

Table No. Description Page 

 5.1.3-9 Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge for Existing Conditions and 

No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................. 5-28 

 5.1.3-10 Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River Bridge for Existing 

Conditions and No-Action Alternative ......................................................................... 5-29 

 5.1.3-11 Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge for Existing Conditions and 

No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................. 5-30 

 5.1.3-12 Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge No-Action Alternative and 

Combined Effect ......................................................................................................... 5-31 

 5.1.3-13 Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River FECR Bridge 

No-Action Alternative and Combined Effect ............................................................... 5-32 

 5.1.3-14 Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge No-Action Alternative and 

Combined Effect ......................................................................................................... 5-32 

 5.2.1-1 Projected Ridership, Vehicle-Trips Removed and VMT Reductions for 

Orlando West Palm Beach Service ............................................................................ 5-35 

 5.2.1-2 Summary of Emissions (tons/year) for Orlando to West Palm Beach, 2016-20301 ... 5-36 

 5.2.1-3 Summary of Emissions Reductions (tons/year) for Orlando to Miami, 2019-2030 ..... 5-37 

 5.2.2-1 Proposed Passenger Rail Operations (2016) ............................................................. 5-40 

 5.2.2-2 Summary of Distance between SR 528 and Alternative Alignment ............................ 5-41 

 5.2.2-3 Ground-borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria ............................. 5-44 

 5.2.2-4 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for 

Special Buildings ........................................................................................................ 5-44

 5.2.2-5 Distances to Potential Construction Noise Impact...................................................... 5-45 

 5.2.2-6 Summary of FRA Impact Contour Distances for MCO Segment ................................ 5-46 

 5.2.2-7 Noise Calculations for 65 Ldn Contours within MCO ................................................. 5-47 

 5.2.2-8 Summary of Project Noise Levels for Residential Receptors at 50 ft. (dBA Ldn) 

along the E W Corridor ............................................................................................... 5-47 

 5.2.2-9 Summary of Project Noise Levels - North-South Corridor .......................................... 5-48 

 5.2.2-10 Summary of Noise Levels for Residential Receptors at 50 feet (dBA, Ldn) along 

the N-S Corridor ......................................................................................................... 5-49

 5.2.2-11 Summary of Noise Impacts (number of parcels) ........................................................ 5-50 

 5.2.2-12 Summary of Vibration Impacts ................................................................................... 5-51

 5.2.2-13 Construction Noise Impact Criteria ............................................................................. 5-52

 5.2.2-14 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts – Project .................................................... 5-53 

 5.2.2.15 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts –West Palm Beach to Miami Corridor 

(Excluding Bridges) .................................................................................................... 5-54 

 5.2.3-1 Summary of Soil and Farmland Losses for the No-Action and Build Alternatives 

(acres) ........................................................................................................................ 5-57 

 5.2.4-1 Hazardous Materials Currently Transported on FECR Corridor ................................. 5-60 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents x September 2014 

 

Table No. Description Page 

 5.2.4-2 Anticipated Hazardous Products Storage at the VMF – Above-Ground Storage 

Tanks (ASTs) ............................................................................................................. 5-61

 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review ..................................... 5-65 

 5.2.6-1 Projected Total Sea Level Rise and Sea Level Rise Acceleration ............................ 5-74 

 5.2.6-2 Estimated Timeframes for Sea Level Rise in Southeast Florida ............................... 5-74 

 5.2.6-3 Current and Projected Future Bridge Conditions (Horse Creek and Arch Creek) ...... 5-75 

 5.3.1-1 Surface Water Impacts, Alternative A ........................................................................ 5-76 

 5.3.3-1 Alternative A - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres) ............................................. 5-84 

 5.3.3-2 Alternative C - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres) ............................................. 5-85 

 5.3.3-3 Alternative E - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres) ............................................. 5-87 

 5.3.3-4 Total Direct Aquatic Resources Effects Resulting from Each Alternative (acres) ....... 5-88 

 5.3.3-5 Total Direct Aquatic Resources Effects Resulting from Each Alternative (acres) ....... 5-88 

 5.3.4-1 Floodplains (acres) ..................................................................................................... 5-94 

 5.3.5-1 Alternative A – Effects to Upland Communities (acres).............................................. 5-97 

 5.3.5-2 Alternative C – Effects to Upland Communities (acres) ............................................. 5-99 

 5.3.5-3 Alternative E – Effects to Upland Communities (acres)............................................ 5-100 

 5.3.5-4 Total Direct Upland Effects from Each Alternative (acres) ....................................... 5-100 

 5.3.5-5 Summary of Wildlife Noise Impact Criteria ............................................................... 5-105 

 5.3.6-1 Alternative A - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat 

(acres) ...................................................................................................................... 5-112 

 5.3.6-2 Alternative C - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat 

(acres) ...................................................................................................................... 5-116 

 5.3.6-3 Alternative E - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat 

(acres) ...................................................................................................................... 5-118 

 5.4.3-1 Summary of Economic Benefits of AAF Construction and Operations ..................... 5-128 

 5.4.3-2 Summary of Economic Benefits of TOD Construction and Operations .................... 5-130 

 7.2-1 Project BMPs and Mitigation Measures – Construction Period .................................... 7-2 

 7.2-2 Project Mitigation Measures for Unavoidable Impacts – Operational Period ............... 7-3 

 8.1-1 Public Scoping Meetings .............................................................................................. 8-3 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents xi September 2014 

 

List of Figures 

Figure No. Description Page 

 

 S-1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... S-3 

 1.1-1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 1-2 

 2.3-1 Project Corridor ............................................................................................................ 2-3 

 3.2-1 Screening Alternatives3-3 

 3.2-2 N-S Corridor Route Alternatives ................................................................................... 3-8 

 3.2-3 Route Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 3-14 

 3.2-4 E-W Corridor Alignment Alternatives .......................................................................... 3-19 

 3.2-5 Typical Section Alignment Alternatives ...................................................................... 3-20 

 3.2-6 Proposed VMF Layout ............................................................................................... 3-22

 3.2-7 MCO Intermodal Station ............................................................................................. 3-24 

 3.3-1 Alternative A ............................................................................................................... 3-28 

 3.3-2 MCO Segment and E-W Corridor ............................................................................... 3-30 

 3.3-3 N-S Corridor ............................................................................................................... 3-34 

 3.3-4 Existing and Proposed Bridges over Waterways ....................................................... 3-38 

 4.1.2-1 Amtrak System ............................................................................................................. 4-5 

 4.1.2-2 Tri-Rail System ............................................................................................................. 4-7 

 4.1.2-3 CSX System ................................................................................................................. 4-9 

 4.1.2-4 Regional Roadway Network ....................................................................................... 4-12 

 4.1.2-5 Local Roadway Network at MCO ............................................................................... 4-14 

 4.2.3-1 Farmland Soils ........................................................................................................... 4-46 

 4.2.5-1 Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas ......................................................................... 4-53 

 4.3.1-1 Movable Bridges ........................................................................................................ 4-17 

 4.3.1-2 Source Water Assessment and Protection Program .................................................. 4-56 

 4.3.1-3 MCO and E-W Corridor Waterway Crossings ............................................................ 4-58 

 4.3.1-4 N-S Corridor Waterway Crossings ............................................................................. 4-59 

 4.3.1-5 WPB-M Corridor Waterway Crossings ....................................................................... 4-61 

 4.3.4-1 Floodplains along the MCO Segment and E-W Corridor ............................................ 4-74 

 4.3.4-2 Floodplains along the N-S Corridor ............................................................................ 4-75 

 4.3.5-1 Florida Wildlife Corridor .............................................................................................. 4-86 

 4.3.6-1 Protected Bird Species along the MCO Segment and the E-W Corridor ................... 4-94 

 4.3.6-2 Protected Bird Species along the N-S and WPB-M Corridors .................................... 4-96 

 4.3.6-3 Bald Eagle Nest ......................................................................................................... 4-97 

 4.3.6-4 West Indian Manatee Critical Habitat ......................................................................... 4-98 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents xii September 2014 

 

Figure No. Description Page 

 4.4.5-1 Example Area of Potential Effect along the N-S Corridor ......................................... 4-123 

 4.4.7-1 E-W Corridor Visual Environment Key ..................................................................... 4-146 

 4.4.7-2 Existing Future Views of Econlockhatchee River ..................................................... 4-148 

 4.4.7-3 Existing Future Views of St. Johns River, southeast view ........................................ 4-149 

 4.4.7-4 Existing Future Views of St. Johns River, north view ............................................... 4-150 

 4.4.7-5 Existing Future Views of SR 528 overpass from I-95, north view ............................. 4-151 

 5.3.5-1 Bridge Project Areas within Essential Fish Habitat .................................................. 5-108 

 5.3.6-1 Sand Skink Soils along MCO Segment E-W Corridor .............................................. 5-115 

 5.4.6-1 Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area ................................................................. 5-147 

 5.4.6-2 Jonathan Dickinson State Park ................................................................................ 5-149 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Table of Contents xiii September 2014 

 

List of Appendices – Volume II 

Appendix No. Description 

Appendix 1.1-A 1 FONSI 

Appendix 1.1-A2 FONSI Exhibits 

Appendix 3.3-A Fort Lauderdale Re-Evaluation Documents 

Appendix 3.3-B Alternative A Track Plans 

Appendix 3.3-C Grade Crossing Details 

Appendix 3.3-D Alternative C, E-W Corridor OOCEA Portion PlanSet 

Appendix 3.3-E Alternative E, E-W Corridor OOCEA Portion PlanSet 

Appendix 3.3-F Ridership and Revenue Study Summary 

Appendix 4.1.1-A Existing Land Use Maps 

Appendix 4.1.3-A USCG Cooperating Agency Acceptance 

Appendix 4.1.3-B USCG Jurisdictional Determination 

Appendix 4.1.3-C Navigation Discipline Report 

Appendix 4.2.4-A Potentially Contaminated Sites Aerial Photographs 

Appendix 4.3.1-A USCG Coordination Meeting Notes, August 12, 2013 

Appendix 4.3.3-A Characteristic Plant Species 

Appendix 4.3.5-A EFH Assessment 

Appendix 4.3.6-A Rare Species Survey Reports 

Appendix 4.3.6-B Rare Species Consultation Areas 

Appendix 4.4.2-A Minority Populations 

Appendix 4.4.2-B Poverty Populations 

Appendix 4.4.5-A SHPO Consultation Materials 

Appendix 4.4.5-B Cultural Resources Proximate to the Project Corridor 

Appendix 4.4.6-A Recreation Resources 

Appendix 5.2.2-A Noise and Vibration Contours 

Appendix 5.2.2-B Noise Impact Tables 

Appendix 5.2.2-C Vibration Impact Tables 

Appendix 5.2.3-A Farmland Soils, Completed NRCS Forms 

Appendix 5.2.4-A Risk Evaluation Summary Table 

Appendix 5.3.1-A Bridge Crossing Maps 

Appendix 5.3.4-A Floodplain Impacts 

Appendix 5.3.6-A Section 7 Meeting Notes 

Appendix 5.3.6-B Section 7 Consultation Materials 

Appendix 8.1-A NOI 

Appendix 8.1-B Scoping Report 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

How to Read xiv September 2014 

 

How to Read this Document 

Purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement 

This	Environmental	Impact	Statement	(EIS)	has	been	prepared	by	the	Federal	Railroad	Administration	

(FRA)	to	disclose	the	environmental	consequences	of	a	proposed	action,	and	to	inform	decision‐makers	

and	the	public	of	any	reasonable	alternatives	that	would	avoid	or	minimize	adverse	impacts	to	the	natural	

or	human	environment.	In	this	instance,	the	EIS	will	be	used	by	each	of	the	Federal	agencies	that	are	

considering	an	action	on	the	proposed	All	Aboard	Florida	Intercity	Passenger	Rail	Project	(Project)	‐	the	

FRA,	the	U.S.	Army	Corps	of	Engineers,	the	U.S.	Coast	Guard,	the	Federal	Aviation	Administration	(FAA),	

and	the	Federal	Highway	Administration	‐	to	help	plan	their	actions	and	make	decisions.	

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 

All	of	the	technical	terms	and	abbreviations	used	in	this	document	are	listed	and	defined	in	the	section	

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary,	which	follows	the	How to Read this Document	pages.	

References 

Reference	documents	are	cited	in	the	text	in	an	abbreviated	format	(author	date).	Full	citations	for	all	

references,	including	web	addresses	for	electronic	documents	are	provided	in	Chapter	9,	References.	

Index 

This	 document	 contains	 an	 index	 to	 major	 topics	 and	 issues	 that	 can	 help	 readers	 quickly	 locate	

information	on	specific	topics.	

Appendices and Supporting Material 

The	text	and	figures	that	comprise	this	EIS	are	supported	by	a	series	of	appendices	that	contain	material	

that	is	too	lengthy	to	include	in	the	body	of	the	EIS.	As	stated	in	the	Council	on	Environmental	Quality’s	

National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA)	regulations,	an	EIS	should	be	kept	concise	and	be	no	longer	

than	 absolutely	 necessary	 to	 comply	 with	 NEPA	 and	 the	 regulations.	 Each	 of	 these	 appendices	 is	

numbered	to	correspond	to	the	relevant	chapter	and	section	of	the	EIS.	Material	that	may	be	found	in	the	

appendices	 includes	 detailed	 maps	 of	 the	 Project	 area,	 detailed	 noise	 and	 vibration	 analysis	 results,	

information	on	rare	species	and	fisheries,	cultural	resources,	and	documentation	of	agency	coordination	

and	consultation.	

Chapter 1 – Introduction 

Chapter	1	briefly	describes	the	history	of	the	Project,	the	relationship	of	Phase	I	(West	Palm	Beach	to	

Miami	passenger	rail	service	and	infrastructure	improvements)	to	Phase	II	(Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

How to Read xv September 2014 

 

passenger	rail	service	and	infrastructure	improvements),	defines	each	Phase,	and	identifies	the	actions	

that	the	FRA	and	other	Federal	agencies	are	responsible	for.	

Chapter 2 – Purpose and Need 

Chapter	2	briefly	describes	the	purpose	of	the	Project	and	the	transportation	needs	that	the	Project	will	

address.	

Chapter 3 – Alternatives 

This	 chapter	 contains	a	 detailed	 description	 of	 Phase	 II	 of	 the	 Project,	which	includes	a	 new	Vehicle	

Maintenance	Facility	on	property	 to	be	leased	at	 the	Orlando	 International	Airport	 (MCO);	new	 track	

infrastructure	within	MCO;	new	track	infrastructure	parallel	to	State	Road	528	(SR	528	or	the	Beachline);	

and	improvements	to	the	track	infrastructure	within	the	Florida	East	Coast	Railroad	right‐of‐way	from	

Cocoa	to	West	Palm	Beach.	Phase	II	also	includes	reconstructing	seven	bridges	between	West	Palm	Beach	

and	Miami.	This	chapter	also	describes	the	future	No‐Action	Alternative,	which	provides	a	base	scenario	

against	which	to	compare	the	effects	of	the	Project.	The	Alternatives	chapter	also	describes	a	three‐level	

screening	process	which	first	evaluated	four	different	route	alternatives	connecting	Orlando	with	Miami;	

evaluated	five	alternatives	to	connect	the	SR	528	corridor	with	the	MCO	facility	and	with	the	Florida	East	

Coast	Railroad	Corridor	(FECR	corridor)	right‐of‐way;	and	evaluated	five	alternative	alignments	along	

the	SR	528	corridor.	The	three	alternatives	that	are	evaluated	in	Chapter	5,	Environmental Consequences,	

are	described	in	detail.	The	applicant	has	not	identified	a	Preferred	Alternative	at	this	time.	

Chapter 4 – Affected Environment 

This	chapter	describes	the	existing	(2013)	environmental	conditions	along	the	Project	corridor	from	MCO	

to	West	Palm	Beach,	and	summarizes	relevant	information	from	the	2012	Environmental	Assessment	for	

West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami.	These	baseline	conditions	provide	a	context	for	understanding	the	impacted	

resources	 and	 to	 familiarize	 the	 reader	 with	 the	 geography,	 land	 use,	 demographics,	 physical	

environment,	natural	resources,	and	cultural	resources	associated	with	the	Project	corridor.	

Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequences 

This	 chapter	 describes	 the	 environmental	 consequences	 of	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative	 and	 the	 three	

alternatives	considered	for	the	Project.		Impacts	are	considered	for	the	resource	categories	of	land	use	

and	transportation;	air	quality,	noise	and	vibration;	natural	resources;	and	social,	economic	and	cultural	

resources.	 For	 each	 category,	 the	 analysis	 considers	 direct	 impacts,	 indirect	 impacts,	 short‐term	

construction‐period	 impacts,	 and	 the	 cumulative	 impacts	 of	 the	 Project	 along	 with	 reasonably	

foreseeable	past,	present,	and	future	impacts.	

Chapter 6 – Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Because	the	Project	will	require	that	two	bridges	eligible	for	the	National	Register	of	Historic	Places	be	

demolished,	an	evaluation	under	Section	4(f)	of	the	Department	of	Transportation	Act	is	included	in	this	

document.	Section	 4(f)	 states	 that	 the	Secretary	 of	 Transportation	may	 not	approve	any	 project	 that	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

How to Read xvi September 2014 

 

requires	the	use	of	any	property	protected	under	Section	4(f)	unless	there	is	no	 feasible	and	prudent	

alternative	 to	 the	 use	 of	 such	land,	 and	 the	 project	 includes	 all	 possible	 planning	 to	 minimize	 harm	

resulting	from	the	use.	This	chapter	describes	the	proposed	action,	alternatives	that	were	considered,	and	

planning	to	mitigate	for	adverse	effects.	

Chapter 7 – Mitigation and Project Commitments 

This	chapter	describes	the	measures	considered	to	minimize,	avoid,	and/or	mitigate	potential	adverse	

impacts	from	the	Project.		

Chapter 8 – Public Involvement 

This	chapter	describes	the	efforts	of	the	FRA	and	the	proponent,	All	Aboard	Florida,	to	inform	the	public	

about	the	Project,	and	to	solicit	input	on	the	Project	and	the	scope	of	this	EIS.	

Where to Find Information about Specific Resources 

Chapters	4	and	5	of	this	EIS	provide	information	about	the	existing	environment	(Chapter	4)	and	the	

impacts	of	the	Project	(Chapter	5)	on	the	range	of	environmental	resource	categories	specified	by	the	

Council	 on	 Environmental	 Quality	 (CEQ)	 NEPA	 Regulations,	 FRA’s	NEPA	 Guidance,	 and	 FAA’s	 NEPA	

Regulations.	 The	 table	 below	 lists	 all	 of	 these	 resource	 categories	 and	 where	 the	 reader	 can	 find	

information	on	existing	conditions	and	Project	impacts.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

How to Read xvii September 2014 

 

Resource Categories Evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement

 Location in EIS 

Resource (FRA) Impact Category (FAA)1

Chapter 4, Affected 

Environment 

Chapter 5, 

Environmental 

Consequences 

Air Quality Air Quality Section 4.2.1 Section 5.2.1 

Climate Change Not applicable Section 5.2.6 

Coastal Zone Management Coastal Resources Section 4.2.5 Section 5.2.5 

Communities and Demographics 

Socioeconomic Impacts, 

Environmental Justice and 

Children’s Health and Safety 

Risks Section 4.4.1 Section 5.4.1 

Construction Impacts Construction Impacts Not applicable Section 5.2.2 

Cumulative Impacts (applies to all categories) Not applicable Section 5.4.9 

Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Impacts Section 4.4.4 Section 5.4.4 

Environmental Justice 

Socioeconomic Impacts, 

Environmental Justice and 

Children’s Health and Safety 

Risks Section 4.4.2 Section 5.4.2 

Farmland Soils Farmlands Section 4.2.3 Section 5.2.3 

Biological Resources and Natural 

Ecological Systems Fish, Wildlife and Plants Section 4.3.5 Section 5.3.5 

Floodplains Floodplains Section 4.3.4 Section 5.3.4 

Hazardous Materials and Solid 

Waste Disposal 

Hazardous Materials, Pollution 

Prevention and Solid Waste Section 4.2.4 Section 5.2.4 

Land Use Compatible Land Use Section 4.1.1 Section 5.1.1 

Migratory Birds Fish, Wildlife and Plants Section 4.3.5 Section 5.3.5 

Navigation Section 4.1.3 Section 5.1.3 

Noise Noise Section 4.2.2 Section 5.2.2 

Recreation and Other Section 4(f) 

Resources 

Department of Transportation 

Act, Section 4(f) Section 4.4.6 Section 5.4.6 

Public Health and Safety 

Socioeconomic Impacts, 

Environmental Justice and 

Children’s Health and Safety 

Risks (in part) Section 4.4.4 Section 5.4.4 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Fish, Wildlife and Plants Section 4.3.6 Section 5.3.6 

Transportation and Traffic 

Socioeconomic Impacts, 

Environmental Justice and 

Children’s Health and Safety 

Risks Section 4.1.2 Section 5.1.2 

Utilities and Energy Resources 

Natural Resources and Energy 

Supply Section 4.4.8 Section 5.4.8 

Vibration Section 4.2.2.2 Section 5.2.2 

Visual and Scenic Resources 

Light Emissions and Visual 

Impacts Section 4.4.7 Section 5.4.7 

Water Resources Water Quality Section 4.3.1 Section 5.3.1 

Wetlands Wetlands Section 4.3.3 Section 5.3.3 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Section 4.3.2 Section 5.3.2 

1	 FAA	Order	1050.1E,	Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.	March	20,	2006.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xviii September 2014 

 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary 

Acronyms 

AADT	 Annual	Average	Daily	Traffic	

AAF	 All	Aboard	Florida	–	Operations	LLC		

AAR	 Association	of	American	Railroads	

ACHP	 Advisory	Council	on	Historic	Preservation	

ACS	 American	Community	Survey	

ACSC		 Areas	of	Critical	State	Concern		

ADA	 Americans	with	Disabilities	Act		

APE	 Area	of	Potential	Effect	

AQCR	 Air	Quality	Control	Region	

AQI	 air	quality	index		

AREMA	 American	Railway	Engineering	and	Maintenance‐of‐Way	Association	

ASLRRA	 American	Short	Line	and	Regional	Railroad	Association	

ASM	 Areas	of	Special	Management	

AST	 above	ground	storage	tank	

ASTM	 American	Society	of	Testing	and	Materials	

BA	 Biological	Assessment	

BBCS		 Florida	 Department	 of	 Environmental	 Protection	 Bureau	 of	 Beaches	 and	 Coastal	

Systems	

BCT	 Broward	County	Transit	

BGEPA	 Bald	and	Golden	Eagle	Protection	Act	

BLS	 Bureau	of	Labor	Statistics	

BMP	 Best	Management	Practice	

CAAA	 Clean	Air	Act	Amendments	

CAMA	 Florida	 Department	 of	 Environmental	 Protection’s	 Office	 of	 Coastal	 and	 Aquatic	

Managed	Areas	

CEQ		 President’s	Council	on	Environmental	Quality		

CFA	 Core	Foraging	Areas	

CFR		 Code	of	Federal	Regulation		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xix September 2014 

 

CH4		 methane	

CLG	 Certified	Local	Governments	

CO		 carbon	monoxide	

CO2		 carbon	dioxide	

CR	 County	Road	

CRAS	 Cultural	Resource	Assessment	Survey	

CRM	 Cultural	Resource	Management	

CWA	 Clean	Water	Act	

CZMA	 Coastal	Zone	Management	Act	

dB	 decibels	

dBA	 A‐weighted	decibel	

DEIS	 Draft	Environmental	Impact	Statement	

DEO		 Department	of	Economic	Opportunity	

EA	 Environmental	Assessment		

EDM	 Environmental	Data	Management,	Inc.		

EDR	 Environmental	Data	Resources,	Inc.	

EEL	 Environmentally	Endangered	Lands		

EFH	 Essential	Fish	Habitat		

EIS	 Environmental	Impact	Statement	

EO	 Executive	Order	

EPA	 United	States	Environmental	Protection	Agency		

ERP	 Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	Environmental	Resource	Permit		

ESA	 Endangered	Species	Act	

E‐W	Corridor	 East‐West	Corridor	

FAA	 Federal	Aviation	Administration	

FAC	 Florida	Administrative	Code	

FCMP	 Florida	Coastal	Management	Program	

FDACS	 Florida	Department	of	Agriculture	and	Consumer	Services	

FDEP	 Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	

FDHR	 Florida	Division	of	Historic	Resources	

FDOT	 Florida	Department	of	Transportation	

FECR	Corridor	 Florida	East	Coast	Corridor			
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xx September 2014 

 

FECI	 Florida	East	Coast	Industries,	Inc.	

FECR	 Florida	East	Coast	Railway	LLC	

FEMA	 Federal	Emergency	Management	Agency	

FERC	 Federal	Energy	Regulatory	Commission	

FHSRA	 Florida	High	Speed	Rail	Authority	

FHWA	 Federal	Highway	Administration	

FIHS	 Florida	Interstate	Highway	System	

FIRM	 Flood	Insurance	Rate	Map	

FLAQS	 Florida's	Air	Quality	System	

FLEPPC		 Florida	Exotic	Pest	Plant	Council	

FLL	 Fort	Lauderdale‐Hollywood	International	Airport	

FLUCCS	 Florida	Land	Use,	Covers	and	Forms	Classification	System

FMC	 Fishery	Management	Councils		 	

FMSF	 Florida	Master	Site	File	

FNAI	 Florida	Natural	Area	Inventory		

FONSI	 Finding	of	No	Significant	Impact	

FPL	 Florida	Power	&	Light	Company	

FPPA	 Farmland	Protection	and	Policy	Act	

FRA	 Federal	Railroad	Administration	

FS		 Florida	Statutes	

FTA	 Federal	Transit	Administration	

FTE	 Florida	Turnpike	Enterprise	

FWC	 Florida	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation	Commission	

FY	 fiscal	year	

GBN	 ground‐borne	noise	

GHG	 Greenhouse	Gas		

GIS	 Geographic	Information	System	

GOAA	 Greater	Orlando	Airport	Authority	

HAPC	 Habitat	Areas	of	Particular	Concern		

HSA	 Highway	Safety	Act	

HSR	 Hal	Scott	Regional	Preserve	

Hz	 hertz	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxi September 2014 

 

I‐4	 Interstate	4	

I‐95	 Interstate	95	

ICU	 Intersection	Capacity	Utilization	

LBG	 Louis	Berger	Group	

Ldn	 A‐weighted	average	day‐night	sound	level	

Leq(h)	 A‐weighted	hourly	equivalent	sound	level	

LEDPA	 Least	Environmentally	Damaging	Practicable	Alternative	

LRT	 light	rail		

LOS	 Level	of	Service		

LRTPs	 Long	Range	Transportation	Plans	

M	 million	

MCO	 Orlando	International	Airport	

MIA	 Miami	International	Airport	

MIC	 Miami	Intermodal	Center	

MINWR	 Merritt	Island	National	Wildlife	Refuge	

MOA	 Memorandum	of	Agreement	

MP		 Mile	Post		

mph	 miles	per	hour	

MPO	 Metropolitan	Planning	Organizations	

MRS	 Munitions	Response	Sites	

MSA	 Metropolitan	Statistical	Area	

msl	 mean	sea	level	

N2O		 nitrous	oxide	

NAAQS	 National	Ambient	Air	Quality	Standards	

NASA	 National	Aeronautics	and	Space	Administration	

NB	 northbound	

n.d.	 not	dated	

NEPA		 National	Environmental	Policy	Act		

NHPA	 National	Historic	Preservation	Act	

nm	 nautical	mile	

NMFS	 National	Marine	Fisheries	Service	

NO2	 nitrogen	dioxide		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxii September 2014 

 

NOAA		 National	Oceanic	and	Atmospheric	Administration	

NOI	 Notice	of	Intent	

NOx	 oxides	of	nitrogen		

NPDES	 USEPA	National	Pollutant	Discharge	Elimination	System		

NRCS	 Natural	Resource	Conservation	Service	

NRHP	 National	Register	of	Historic	Places	

N‐S	Corridor	 North‐South	Corridor	

NWI	 National	Wetland	Inventory		

O3	 ozone		

OFW	 Outstanding	Florida	Waters		

OOCEA	 Orlando	Orange	County	Expressway	Authority	

OUC	 Orlando	Utilities	Commission	

Pb	 lead		

PD&E	 Project	Development	and	Environment	

PM	 particulate	matter	

PM10	 particulate	matter	sized	10	micrometers	or	less	

PM2.5	 particulate	matter	sized	2.5	micrometers	or	less		

ppb	 parts	per	billion		

ppm	 parts	per	million		

PTC	 Positive	Train	Control	

ROW	 right‐of‐way	

RRIF		 Railroad	Rehabilitation	and	Improvement	Financing		

SAFMC	 South	Atlantic	Fishery	Management	Council		

SB	 southbound	

SEL	 Sound	Exposure	Level	

SFECC	 South	Florida	East	Coast	Corridor	Study	

SFECCTA	 South	Florida	East	Coast	Corridor	Transit	Analysis	

SFRC	 South	Florida	Rail	Corridor	

SFRTA	 South	Florida	Regional	Transportation	Authority	

SFWMD		 South	Florida	Water	Management	District	

SHPO	 State	Historic	Preservation	Officer		

SIP	 State	Implementation	Plan	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxiii September 2014 

 

SJRWMD		 St.	Johns	River	Water	Management	District	

SO2	 sulfur	dioxide		

SPCC	 Spill	Prevention,	Control,	and	Countermeasures	Plan	

SR	 State	Road	

SRPP	 Strategic	Regional	Policy	Plans	

SSA	 sole	source	aquifer	

SWAPP	 Source	Water	Assessment	and	Protection	Program	

SWIM		 Surface	Water	Improvement	and	Management	

SWPPP	 Storm	Water	Pollution	Prevention	Plan	

THPO	 Tribal	Historic	Preservation	Officer	

TOD	 Transit‐Oriented	Development	

TSR	 Tosohatchee	State	Reserve	

USACE		 United	States	Army	Corps	of	Engineers	

USAF	 United	States	Air	Force	

USC	 United	States	Code	

USCB		 United	States	Census	Bureau	

USCG	 United	States	Coast	Guard		

USDA	 United	States	Department	of	Agriculture	

USDOT		 United	States	Department	of	Transportation	

USFWS	 United	States	Fish	&	Wildlife	Service	

USGS	 United	States	Geological	Survey	

UST	 Underground	Storage	Tank	

V/C	 volume	to	capacity	

VdB	 vibration	decibels	

VMF	 Vehicle	Maintenance	Facility	

VMT		 vehicle	miles	traveled		

VOC	 volatile	organic	compound(s)	

WEG	 The	Washington	Economics	Group,	Inc.	

WMA	 Wildlife	Management	Area			

WMD	 Water	Management	Districts	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxiv September 2014 

 

Glossary 

A

Accessibility:	The	ease	with	which	a	site	or	facility	may	be	reached	by	passengers	and	others	necessary	

to	the	facility’s	intended	function.	Also,	the	extent	to	which	a	facility	is	usable	by	persons	with	disabilities,	

including	wheelchair	users.	

Action Alternative:	An	alternative	that	proposes	some	action	in	contrast	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	

Adverse:	Negative	or	detrimental.	

Affected Environment:	The	physical,	biological,	social,	and	economic	setting	potentially	affected	by	one	

or	more	of	the	alternatives	under	consideration.	

Air Pollution:	A	general	term	that	refers	to	one	or	more	chemical	substances	that	degrade	the	quality	of	

the	atmosphere.	

Alignment:	The	horizontal	and	vertical	route	of	a	transportation	corridor	or	path.	

Allelopathic:	Beneficial	or	harmful	effects	of	one	plant	on	another	plant	from	the	release	of	biochemicals.	

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):	 Federal	 regulation	 establishing	 legal	 requirements	 for	

accessibility	for	those	with	disabilities.	

Anthropogenic: Relating	to,	or	resulting	from	the	influence	of,	human	beings	on	nature.	

Aquatic Managed Areas: Submerged	 lands	 and	 select	 coastal	 uplands	 managed	 by	 the	 Florida	

Department	 of	 Environmental	 Protection’s	 Office	 of	 Coastal	 and	 Aquatic	 Managed	 Areas.	 The	 Office	

manages	41	aquatic	preserves,	three	National	Estuarine	Research	Reserves	and	the	Florida	Keys	National	

Marine	Sanctuary.	

Aquifer:	Subsurface	geologic	unit	(rock	or	sediment)	that	contains	and	transmits	groundwater.	

Area of Critical State Concern: An	area	containing,	or	having	a	significant	impact	upon,	environmental	

or	natural	resources	of	regional	or	statewide	importance.

Area of Potential Effect (APE): The	area	potentially	affected	by	the	construction	and	operation	of	the	

Project;	for	archaeological	properties,	considered	to	be	the	area	of	ground	proposed	to	be	disturbed	

during	construction	of	the	undertaking,	including	grading,	cut‐and‐fill,	easements,	staging	areas,	utility	

relocation,	borrow	pits,	and	biological	mitigation	areas;	for	historic	architecture,	considered	to	be	the	

proposed	construction	 footprint	and	properties	near	the	undertaking	where	the	undertaking	would	

result	in	a	 substantial	 change	 from	 the	 historic	 use,	access,	 or	 noise	and	 vibration	levels	 that	were	

present	50	years	ago,	or	during	the	period	of	significance	of	a	property,	if	different.	

Artesian conditions: Artesian	conditions	exist	where	an	inclined	aquifer	is	overlain	and	underlain	by	

impervious	rock	layers.	

At‐Grade:	 At	 ground	 surface	 level;	 used	 to	 describe	 roadways,	 track	 alignments,	 and	 road‐track	

intersections.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxv September 2014 

 

Attainment:	An	air	basin	is	considered	to	be	in	attainment	for	a	particular	pollutant	if	it	meets	the	federal	

or	state	standards	set	for	that	pollutant.	See	also	Maintenance and Nonattainment.

A‐Weighted Sound Level:	A	measure	of	sound	intensity	that	is	weighted	to	approximate	the	response	of	

the	human	ear	so	it	describes	the	way	sound	will	affect	people	in	the	vicinity	of	a	noise	source.	

B

Ballasted Track: Railways	installed	over	a	specific	type	of	crushed	rock	that	is	graded	to	support	heavily	

loaded	rolling	stock.	

Baseline: Foundation	or	basis	to	use	for	comparison	purposes.	

Best Management Practices (BMPs):	 Methods	 designed	 to	 minimize	 adverse	 effects	 to	 the	

environment.	Examples	of	BMPs	include	practices	for	erosion	and	sedimentation	controls,	watering	for	

dust	control,	perimeter	silt	fences,	rice	straw	bales,	and	sediment	basins.	

Biodiversity:	An	assessment	of	the	numbers,	types,	and	relative	abundance	of	plant	and	animal	species	

in	 natural	 (biotic)	 communities.	 Biodiversity	 encompasses	 species	 richness	 as	 well	 as	 the	 genetic	

differences	 among	 individuals,	 abundance	 or	 variety	 of	 habitats,	 communities,	 ecosystems,	 and	

landscapes	where	species	occur.	

BiologicalResources:	Plant	and	wildlife	species,	terrestrial	and	aquatic	habitats	(including	jurisdictional	

waters),	and	habitats	of	concern	(including	sensitive	plant	communities,	critical	habitat,	core	recovery	

areas,	mitigation	banks,	and	wildlife	corridors).	

Bubble Curtain: An	underwater	system	that	produces	bubbles	in	a	deliberate	arrangement	serving	as	a	

barrier	in	order	to	break	up	the	propagation	of	sound	waves.		

C

Capital Cost:	The	total	cost	of	acquiring	an	asset	or	constructing	a	project.	

Carbon Dioxide (CO2):	 A	 colorless,	 odorless	 gas	 that	 occurs	 naturally	in	 the	 atmosphere;	 fossil	 fuel	

combustion	emits	significant	quantities	of	CO2.	

Carbon Monoxide (CO):	A	colorless,	odorless	gas	generated	in	the	urban	environment	primarily	by	the	

incomplete	combustion	of	fossil	fuels	in	motor	vehicles.	

Census Block: A	subdivision	of	a	census	block	group	(or,	prior	to	2000,	a	block	numbering	area),	a	block	

is	the	smallest	geographic	unit	for	which	the	U.S.	Census	Bureau	tabulates	100‐percent	data.	Many	census	

blocks	correspond	to	individual	city	blocks	bounded	by	streets;	but	census	blocks	–	especially	in	rural	

areas	–	may	include	many	square	miles	and	may	have	some	boundaries	that	are	not	streets.	

Class IV Track: The	class	of	a	section	of	track	determines	the	maximum	possible	running	speed	limits	

and	the	ability	to	run	passenger	trains.	Class	IV	Track	is	characterized	by	a	maximum	freight	train	speed	

of	60	miles	per	hour	(mph)	and	passenger	train	speed	of	80	mph.		

Class VI Track: The	class	of	a	section	of	track	determines	the	maximum	possible	running	speed	limits	

and	 the	 ability	 to	 run	 passenger	 trains.	 Class	 VI	 Track	 is	 characterized	 by	 a	 maximum	 freight	 and	

passenger	train	speed	of	110	miles	per	hour	(mph).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxvi September 2014 

 

CleanAirAct (CAA):	The	law	that	defines	the	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency’s	responsibilities	for	

protecting	and	improving	the	nation's	air	quality	and	the	stratospheric	ozone	layer.	The	CAA	protects	the	

general	public	from	exposure	to	airborne	contaminants	that	are	known	to	be	hazardous	to	human	health.	

Clean Water Act (CWA):	The	primary	federal	law	protecting	the	quality	of	the	nation’s	surface	waters,	

including	wetlands.	The	CWA	regulates	discharges	and	spills	of	pollutants,	including	hazardous	materials,	

to	surface	waters	and	groundwater.	

Construction: The	act	or	process	of	building.		

Cooperating Agency: Any	agency	invited	by	the	lead	federal	agency	that	has	agreed	to	participate	in	the	

NEPA	process,	and	has	legal	jurisdiction	over,	or	technical	expertise	regarding,	environmental	impacts	

associated	with	a	proposed	action.	

Corridor:	 A	 geographic	 belt	 or	 band	 that	 follows	 the	 general	 route	 of	 a	 transportation	 facility	

(e.g.,	highway	or	railroad).	

Cowardin Classification System: A	comprehensive	classification	system	of	wetlands	and	deepwater

habitats	developed	for	the	U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	in	1979.	Under	this	system,	wetlands	are	of	two	

basic	 types:	coastal	 (also	known	as	 tidal	or	estuarine	wetlands)	and	inland	 (also	known	as	non‐tidal,	

freshwater,	or	palustrine	wetlands).	

Criteria Pollutants: Pollutants	for	which	federal	and	state	air	quality	standards	have	been	established:	

carbon	monoxide	(CO),	sulfur	oxides	(SOx),	nitrogen	oxides	(NOx),	ozone	(O3),	particulate	matter	with	a	

diameter	of	10	microns	or	less	(PM10),	particulate	matter	with	a	diameter	of	2.5	microns	or	less	(PM2.5),	

and	lead	(Pb).	

Critical Habitat:	 Designated	 areas	 that	 provide	 suitable	 habitat	 for	 federally	 listed	 threatened	 or	

endangered	species,	and	in	which	are	the	geographical	locations	and	physical	features	essential	to	the	

conservation	of	a	particular	species.	

Cultural Resources:	Resources	related	to	the	tangible	and	intangible	aspects	of	cultural	systems,	living	

and	dead,	that	are	valued	by	a	given	culture	or	contain	information	about	the	culture.	Cultural	resources	

include,	 but	 are	 not	 limited	 to,	 sites,	 structures,	 buildings,	 districts,	 and	 objects	 associated	 with	 or	

representative	of	people,	cultures,	and	human	activities	and	events.	

Cumulative Impact:	 (1)	 CEQ	―	 the	 result	 of	 two	 or	more	individual	impacts	 that,	when	 considered	

together,	are	considerable	or	that	compound	or	increase	other	environmental	impacts;	(2)	NEPA	―	an	

impact	on	the	environment	that	results	from	the	incremental	impact	of	the	action	when	added	to	other	

past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	actions.	

D

Decibel (dB):	A	logarithmic	measurement	of	noise	intensity.	

Degreasers:	Chemical	products/substances	that	remove	greases	and	oils	from	surfaces.		

Demographics:	Quantifiable	statistics	of	a	given	population	such	as	race,	age,	sex,	income,	etc.		

Demucking:	To	remove	muck	or	peat	to	provide	a	stable	substrate	for	construction.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxvii September 2014 

 

Detention Pond:	A	pond	designed	to	temporarily	store	and	slowly	release	runoff.	

Disproportionately HighAdverse Effects:	An	Environmental	Justice	term	used	to	describe	the	unequal	

treatment	to	low	income	and	minority	populations	as	a	result	of	a	proposed	project	and	action.	Executive	

Order	12898	directs	each	 federal	agency	to	identify	and	address	disproportionately	high	and	adverse	

human	health	or	environmental	effects	of	its	projects	and	actions.	

Disturbance:	A	discrete	natural	or	human‐induced	event	 that	causes	a	change	in	 the	condition	of	an	

ecological	system.	

E

Ecosystem:	An	interconnected	network	of	living	organisms,	including	people,	and	their	local	physical	

environment;	often	viewed	as	an	ecological	unit.	

Ecotone:	A	transitional	zone	between	two	communities	containing	the	characteristic	species	of	each.

Effect:	A	change	in	the	condition	or	function	of	an	environmental	resource	or	environmental	value	as	a	

result	of	human	activity.	

Endangered Species: Any	species	listed	under	the	federal	Endangered	Species	Act	as	being	in	danger	of	

or	threatened	with	extinction	throughout	all	or	most	of	its	range.	

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Documentation	 required	 by	 the	 National	 Environmental	

Policy	Act	(NEPA)	for	certain	actions	"significantly	affecting	the	quality	of	the	human	environment."		An	

EIS	is	a	decision‐making	tool	that	presents	detailed	analysis	of	a	proposed	action	and	alternatives	to	the	

proposed	action.	The	EIS	presents	the	project’s	potential	effects	–	both	beneficial	and	adverse	–	and	any	

mitigation	measures	to	reduce	adverse	effects.	

Environmental Justice: Identifying	 and	 addressing	 the	 potential	 for	 disproportionately	 high	 and	

adverse	effects	of	programs,	policies,	and	activities	on	minority	and	low‐income	populations.	

Erosion:	Process	by	which	earth	materials	are	worn	down	by	the	action	of	flowing	water,	ice,	or	wind.	

Essential Fish Habitat:	Includes	all	types	of	aquatic	habitat—wetlands,	coral	reefs,	seagrasses,	rivers—

where	fish	spawn,	breed,	feed,	or	grow	to	maturity.

Estuary:	A	tidal	body	of	water	where	salt	water	from	an	ocean	mixes	with	fresh	water	from	a	river.	

Ethnicity:	A	grouping	or	categorization	of	people	based	on	shared	cultural	traits	such	as	ancestral	origin,	

language,	custom,	or	social	attitude.	

Exotic Species: Plant	or	animal	species	introduced	into	an	area	where	they	do	not	occur	naturally;	non‐

native	species.

F

Farmland of Statewide Importance:	 Farmlands	 that	 are	 similar	 to	 prime	 farmlands	 but	 are	 less	

valuable	 because	 they	 have	 steeper	 slopes,	 less	 ability	 to	 retain	 moisture	 in	 the	 soil,	 or	 other	

characteristics	that	limit	their	use.	To	qualify	as	Farmland	of	Statewide	Importance,	a	property	must	have	

been	used	for	production	of	irrigated	crops	at	some	time	during	the	previous	4	years.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxviii September 2014 

 

Feasible:	Capable	of	being	implemented.	

Federal Endangered Species Act (Federal ESA):	 The	 federal	 ESA	 and	 subsequent	 amendments	

(Sections	7,	9,	and	10)	provide	guidance	for	conserving	federally	listed	species	and	the	ecosystems	upon	

which	they	depend.	

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): An	agency	within	the	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation	that	

administers	financial	assistance	programs	and	regulates	the	operation	and	safety	of	freight	and	passenger	

rail	throughout	the	United	States.	

Floating Turbidity Barrier:	Designed	to	contain	and	control	the	dispersion	of	silt	in	a	water	body.	Often	

implemented	in	areas	with	marine	construction,	pile	driving,	site	work	or	dredging	activities.	

Footprint: The	area	covered	by	a	facility	or	affected	by	construction	activities.	

G

General Conformity Rule: The	 requirement	 that	 federal,	 state,	 tribal,	 and	 local	 governments	 in	 air	

quality	 nonattainment	 or	 maintenance	 areas	 ensure	 that	 federal	 actions	 conform	 to	 the	 initiatives	

established	in	the	applicable	state	implementation	plan	or	tribal	implementation	plan.	

Geographic Information System (GIS): An	information	management	 system	 designed	 to	 store	 and	

analyze	data	referenced	by	spatial	or	geographic	coordinates.	

Grade Crossing: The	 intersection	 of	 a	 railroad	 and	 a	 highway	 at	 the	 same	 elevation	 (grade);	 an	

intersection	of	two	or	more	highways;	an	intersection	of	two	railroads.	Same	as	at‐grade	crossing.		

Grade‐Separated:	At	different	elevations;	on	separate	levels.	

Greater Orlando Airport Authority (GOAA):	Operating	agency	for	the	Orlando	International	Airport	

and	Orlando	Executive	Airport	in	Orlando,	Florida.		

Greenhouse Gases: A	class	of	air	pollutants	believed	to	contribute	to	the	greenhouse	global	warming	

effect,	including	nitrogen	oxides	(NOx),	hydrocarbons	(HC),	and	carbon	dioxide	(CO2).	

Groundwater:	Water	contained	and	transmitted	through	open	spaces	within	rock	and	sediment	below	

the	ground	surface.	

H

Habitat: An	environment	where	plants	or	animals	naturally	occur;	an	ecological	setting	used	by	animals	

for	a	particular	purpose	(e.g.,	roosting	habitat	or	breeding	habitat).	

Hazardous Materials:	Any	material	 that,	because	of	quantity,	concentration,	or	physical	or	chemical	

characteristics,	 poses	 a	 significant	 present	 or	 potential	 hazard	 to	 human	 health	 and	 safety,	 or	 the	

environment,	if	released.	

Hazardous Waste:	A	hazardous	material	 that	is	no	longer	of	use	and	will	be	disposed	of.	Hazardous	

waste	is	regulated	by	the	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	under	the	Resource	Conservation	and	

Recovery	Act.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxix September 2014 

 

Headway:	The	time	between	buses,	trains,	or	other	transit	vehicles	at	a	given	point.	For	example,	a	15‐

minute	headway	means	that	one	bus	arrives	every	15	minutes.	

Hydric:	Relating	to,	characterized	by,	or	requiring	considerable	moisture.		

Hydrocarbons: Various	organic	compounds,	including	methane,	emitted	principally	from	the	storage,	

handling,	and	combustion	of	fossil	fuels.	

Hydroperiod:	The	seasonal	pattern	of	the	water	level	of	a	wetland.	

Hydrostratigraphic unit: A	body	of	rock	that	forms	a	distinct	hydrologic	unit	with	respect	to	the	flow	of	

ground	water.	

I

Impact: A	change	in	the	condition	or	function	of	an	environmental	resource	or	environmental	value	as	a	

result	of	human	activity.	

Impervious Surface: Surface	covered	by	impenetrable	materials,	such	as	parking	lots	and	buildings,	that	

increases	the	potential	for	water	runoff	and	reduces	the	potential	for	groundwater	recharge.	

Important Farmland: Categorized	as	Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide

Importance, or Unique Farmland. The	 categories	 are	 defined	 according	 to	 U.S.	 Department	 of	

Agriculture	land	inventory	and	monitoring	criteria.	

Indirect Impact: The	 consequences	 of	 a	 project’s	 direct	 impacts.	 These	 impacts	 are	 generally	 not	

quantifiable	and	may	occur	over	a	larger	area	or	a	longer	period.	

Induced Growth: An	indirect	impact	of	a	project	triggering	community	growth	(increases	in	population,	

development,	etc.)	that	is	influenced	and	stimulated	by	the	Proposed	Action.	

Infrastructure:The	facilities	required	for	a	societal	function	or	service	(such	as	transportation	and	utility	

infrastructure	–	roads,	bridges,	railroads,	pipelines,	power	lines,	etc.).	

Interlocking:	An	arrangement	of	train	signal	apparatus	that	prevents	conflicting	movements	through	an	

arrangement	of	tracks	such	as	junctions	or	crossings.	

Intermodal:	Transportation	that	involves	more	than	one	mode	(e.g.,	walk,	bike,	auto,	transit,	taxi,	train,	

bus,	and	air)	during	a	single	journey.	

Intermodal Station: A	 transit	 station	 that	 provides	 connections	 among	 more	 than	 one	 mode	 of	

transportation.	

Invertebrate:	Organisms	lacking	a	vertebral	column.	

L

Lead (Pb): A	 stable	 element	 that	 can	 have	 toxic	 effects	 and	 that	 persists	 and	 accumulates	 in	 the	

environment,	humans,	or	animals.	

Lead Agency:	The	public	agency	 that	has	 the	principal	responsibility	 for	carrying	out	or	approving	a	

project	or	action	and	is	responsible	for	preparing	environmental	review	documents	in	compliance	with	

CEQ	and/or	NEPA.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxx September 2014 

 

Leq: A	measure	of	the	average	noise	level	during	a	specified	period	of	time.	

Leq(h), dBA:	Equivalent	or	average	noise	level	for	the	noisiest	hour,	expressed	in	A‐weighted	decibels.	

Level of Service (LOS):A	rating	using	qualitative	measures	to	characterize	operational	conditions	within	

a	traffic	stream	and	their	perception	by	motorists	and	passengers.	

M

Maintenance:	An	air	basin	that	was	formerly	in	nonattainment	but	now	meets	the	established	standards	

for	that	pollutant.	See	also	Attainment	and	Nonattainment.	

Mesoscale:	Describes	an	air	quality	analysis	at	the	regional	level.	

Metapopulation: A	group	of	spatially	separated	populations	of	the	same	species	which	interact	at	some	

level.	

Microscale:	Describes	an	air	quality	analysis	for	a	localized	area	such	as	an	intersection.	

Mitigation: Action	or	measure	undertaken	to	minimize,	reduce,	eliminate,	or	rectify	the	adverse	impacts	

of	a	project,	practice,	action,	or	activity.	

Mitigation Bank:	A	large	 block	 of	land	 that	is	 preserved,	 restored,	and	enhanced	 for	 the	 purpose	 of	

mitigating	 for	 projects	 that	impact	 special‐status	 species,	wetlands	 or	 otherwise	 vegetated	 biological	

communities.	

Mobility: Movement	of	people	across	areas.

Monospecific:	Relating	to	or	consisting	of	only	one	species.	

N

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Federal	 standards	 stipulating	 the	 allowable	

ambient	concentrations	of	specific	criteria	pollutants.	

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):	Federal	legislation	that	establishes	national	policies	and	

goals	for	the	protection	of	the	environment	and	requires	federal	agencies	to	consider	the	environmental	

impacts	of	major	federal	projects	or	decisions,	to	share	information	with	the	public,	to	identify	and	assess	

reasonable	alternatives,	to	identify	appropriate	measures	to	mitigate	potential	impacts,	and	to	coordinate	

efforts	with	other	planning	and	environmental	reviews	taking	place.	Codified	at:	42	U.S.C.A.	§	4331	et	seq.	

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx):	A	class	of	pollutant	compounds	that	include	nitrogen	dioxide	(NO2)	and	nitric	

oxide	(NO),	both	of	which	are	emitted	by	motor	vehicles.	See	Criteria Pollutants.	

No‐Action:	Under	NEPA,	refers	to	an	alternative	under	which	no	action	would	be	taken	(no	infrastructure	

would	be	built	and	no	new	management	or	operational	practices	would	be	instituted).	

Nonattainment: An	air	basin	that	exceeds	federal	or	state	standards	for	a	particular	pollutant.	

See	also	Attainment and Maintenance.	

Nonpoint Source Pollution:	Pollution	that	collects	from	a	wide	area	and	cannot	be	traced	to	a	single	

source.	Examples	include	pesticides	or	fertilizers	that	wash	into	rivers	or	percolate	through	the	soil	into	

groundwater.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxi September 2014 

 

Notice ofIntent (NOI): Formal	notice	published	in	the	Federal	Register	by	the	federal	lead	agency	stating	

that	an	EIS	will	be	prepared	for	a	proposed	project.	

National Priorities List/Superfund List: A	federal	list	of	sites	that	have	been	identified	as	posing	an	

immediate	public	health	hazard	and	where	an	immediate	response	is	necessary.	

O

On‐time Performance:	The	level	of	success	of	the	train	service	remaining	on	the	published	schedule.	

Factors	 that	 influence	 on‐time	 performance	 include	 traffic,	 accidents,	 detours,	 weather,	 increased	

ridership,	and	breakdowns.		

Orlando‐Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA): District	 agency	 of	 the	 State	 of	 Florida	

responsible	for	building	and	operating	an	expressway	system	to	support	the	Central	Florida	area.		

Over‐grade Bridge: A	bridge	structure	located	above	standard	grade.

Ozone (O3): A	 photochemical	 oxidant	 that	 is	 a	 major	 cause	 of	 lung	 and	 eye	 irritation	 in	 urban	

environments.	

P

Particulate Pollution:	 Air	 pollution	 such	 as	 dust,	 soot,	 and	 smoke	 that	 is	 irritating	 but	 usually	 not	

poisonous.	 Particulate	 pollution	 also	 can	 include	 bits	 of	 highly	 toxic	 solid	 or	 liquid	 substances.	 Of	

particular	concern	are	particles	smaller	than,	or	equal	to,	10	microns	(PM10)	or	2.5	microns	(PM2.5)	in	size.	

PassingTrack:	A	track	connected	to	the	main	line	on	both	ends	that	allows	a	train	to	stop	for	commercial	

reasons	(in	a	station	for	example)	or	operating	purposes	(to	deal	with	a	delayed	train)	and	that	allows	

other	trains	to	pass.	

Phase II Investigation: Part	of	an	Environmental	Site	Assessment,	which	assesses	whether	identified	

historic	on‐site	or	off‐site	hazardous	uses	have	impacted	the	soil	and/or	groundwater	conditions	beneath	

a	property.		

PileBent:	Two	or	more	piles	driven	in	a	row	transverse	to	the	long	dimension	of	a	structure	and	fastened	

together	by	capping	and	(sometimes)	bracing.	

Pile Bent Cap:	Structural	members	 placed	 on,	and	 usually	 fastened	 to,	 the	 top	 of	a	 pile	and	 used	 to	

transmit	loads	into	the	pile	or	group	of	piles	and,	in	the	case	of	a	group,	to	connect	them	into	a	pile	bent.	

Pine Flatwoods:	 The	 most	 extensive	 terrestrial	 ecosystem	 in	 Florida	 characterized	 by	 low,	 flat	

topography	and	relatively	poorly	drained,	acidic,	sandy	soil.	

Point Source Pollution:	Pollution	that	can	be	traced	to	a	single	source	(e.g.,	a	smokestack	at	a	factory).	

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Chemicals	used	in	electrical	 transformers,	hydraulic	equipment,

capacitors,	and	similar	equipment.	

Positive Train Control (PTC) Infrastructure:	 Integrated	 command,	 control,	 communications,	 and	

information	 systems	 for	 controlling	 train	 movements	 that	 improve	 railroad	 safety	 by	 significantly	

reducing	 the	 probability	 of	 collisions	 between	 trains,	 casualties	 to	 roadway	workers,	 and	 damage	 to	

equipment.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxii September 2014 

 

Positive Train Control (PTC) Systems:	 The	 Rail	 Safety	 Improvement	 Act	 requires	 that	 railroads	

implement	PTC	systems	to	prevent	train‐to‐train	collisions	on	certain	rail	lines	by	the	end	of	2015.	

Potentially Contaminated Site:	 Land	 that	 may	 contain	 substances	 in	 or	 under	 the	 land	 that	 are

potentially	hazardous	to	health	or	the	environment,	but	have	not	been	tested	yet	for	contamination.	

Poverty Level:	The	income	at	which	a	family	or	individual	is	considered	poor.	In	2009	the	U.S.	Census	

Bureau	defined	the	poverty	level	for	a	family	of	four	as	an	income	of	$21,954	or	less.	

Practicable:	Available	and	capable	of	being	done	after	taking	into	consideration	cost,	existing	technology,	

and	logistics	in	light	of	overall	project	purposes.	

Preferred Alternative:	The	alternative	identified	as	preferred	by	the	lead	agency	or	project	proponent	

(the	applicant’s	preferred	alternative).	

Prime Farmland:	Rural	land	that	has	the	best	combination	of	physical	and	soil	chemistry	characteristics	

for	producing	food,	feed,	forage,	fiber,	and	oilseed	crops,	and	is	available	for	these	uses.	

Public Transportation:	Includes	bus,	trolley	bus,	streetcar	or	trolley	car,	subway	or	elevated,	railroad,	

ferryboat,	and	taxicab	service.	

Purpose and Need: The	reason(s)	why	a	project	or	action	is	undertaken,	and	the	need(s)	it	is	intended	

to	meet	or	fulfill.	

R

Reasonably Foreseeable FutureAction:Those	future	actions	that	are	likely	to	occur	or	probable,	rather	

than	those	that	are	merely	possible.	Used	in	determining	indirect	and	cumulative	impacts	for	a	Proposed	

Action.		

Regulated waste:	 Pathological	 and	 microbiological	 wastes	 containing	 blood	 or	 other	 potentially	

infectious	materials.	

Retention Pond: A	pond	designed	to	hold	and	infiltrate	most	or	all	of	the	runoff	that	it	receives.	

Ridership: The	number	of	people	who	ride	a	transportation	system.	

Right‐of‐Way:	A	legal	right	of	passage	over	a	defined	area	of	real	property.	In	transit	usage,	the	corridor	

along	a	roadway	or	railway	that	is	controlled	by	a	transit	or	transportation	agency/authority.	

Riparian: Relating	to,	living,	or	located	on	the	bank	of	a	natural	water	course,	lake,	or	tidewater.	

S

Scoping: A	process	used	under	NEPA	to	determine	the	scope	of	issues	to	be	addressed	and	for	identifying	

the	significant	issues	related	to	the	proposed	action	or	project	to	be	addressed	in	an	EIS	(under	NEPA).	

Seagrass:	A	group	of	grass‐like,	flowering	plants	which	grow	in	sub‐tidal	marine	environments.		

Secondary Impact: Reasonably	 foreseeable	 indirect	 consequences	 to	 the	 environment	 caused	 by	 a	

proposed	project	that	would	occur	either	in	the	future	or	in	the	vicinity	of,	but	not	the	same	location	as,	

the	direct	impacts	associated	with	the	project.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxiii September 2014 

 

Section 4(f):	Provisions	originally	enacted	as	Section	4(f)	of	the	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation	Act	of	

1966	codified	in	49	United	States	Code,	Subtitle	I,	Section	303(c).	Section	4(f)	addresses	the	potential	for	

conflicts	 between	 transportation	 needs	 and	 the	 protection	 of	land	 for	 recreational	 use	 and	 resource	

conservation	by	providing	protection	for	publicly	owned	parkland,	recreation	areas,	and	historic	sites	

from	 use.	 Specifically,	 the	 provisions	 prohibit	 the	 Secretary	 of	 Transportation	 from	 approving	 any	

program	or	project	that	would	require	the	use	of	any	publicly	owned	land	from	a	public	park,	recreation	

area,	wildlife	or	waterfowl	refuge,	or	land	of	an	historic	site	of	national	significance	as	determined	by	the	

officials	having	jurisdiction	over	these	lands	unless	there	are	no	feasible	and	prudent	alternatives	to	the	

use	of	these	lands.	

Section 6(f):	Section	6(f)	of	the	Land	and	Water	Conservation	Fund	Act	of	1964	prohibits	the	conversion	

of	 property	acquired	 or	 developed	with	 funds	 granted	 through	 the	 act	 to	 a	 nonrecreational	 purpose	

without	the	approval	of	the	National	Park	Service.	Section	6(f)	directs	the	

Department	of	 the	 Interior	 to	ensure	 that	replacement	lands	of	equal	value	(monetary),	location,	and	

usefulness	are	provided	as	conditions	to	such	conversions.	

Sensitive Natural Communities:	Communities	of	plants	and	wildlife	interacting	in	the	same	ecosystem	

whose	extent	has	been	much	reduced	in	the	state	and	which	are	locally	rare.	

Sensitive Receiver: Noise‐sensitive	locations	where	increased	annoyance	can	occur,	such	as	residences,	

schools,	hotels/motels,	medical	facilities,	or	other	vibration‐sensitive	receivers.	

Sensitive Receptors:	 Locations	 considered	more	 sensitive	 to	adverse	effects	 from	air	 pollution	 (e.g.,	

residences;	preschools	and	kindergarten	through	grade	12	schools;	daycare	centers;	health‐care	facilities	

such	as	hospitals,	retirement	homes,	and	nursing	homes;	and	parks	and/or	playgrounds).	

Shared‐use Track:	Use	of	the	same	track	and	corridor	by	two	transit	modes	(light	rail	transit	vehicles	

and	heavy	rail,	or	passenger	and	freight).		

Significant: In	 CEQ	 usage,	 describes	 an	 impact	 that	 is	 sufficiently	 adverse,	 intense,	 or	 prolonged	 to	

require	mitigation.	In	NEPA,	to	determine	an	impact	is	significant	the	context	and	intensity	(the	degree	to	

which	 the	effects	on	quality	of	human	environment	are	controversial,	whether	 the	action	 threatens	a	

violation	of	federal,	state	or	local	law,	and	others)	of	the	action	must	be	considered.		

Sole SourceAquifer (SSA):An	aquifer	designated	by	the	United	States	Environmental	Protection	Agency	

(USEPA)	as	the	sole	or	principal	source	of	drinking	water	for	an	area	pursuant	to	§	1424(e)	of	the	federal	

Safe	Drinking	Water	Act,	as	amended.	USEPA	defines	a	sole	or	principal	source	aquifer	as	one	that	supplies	

at	least	50	percent	of	the	drinking	water	consumed	in	the	area	overlying	the	aquifer.	These	areas	can	have	

no	alternative	drinking	water	source(s)	that	could	physically,	legally,	and	economically	supply	all	those	

who	depend	upon	the	aquifer	for	drinking	water.	

Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A	time‐integrated	metric	(i.e.,	continuously	summed	over	a	time	period)	

that	quantifies	the	total	energy	in	the	A‐weighted	sound	level	measured	during	a	transient	noise	event.	

SEL	accounts	for	both	the	duration	and	the	loudness	of	a	noise	event.	

Special‐Status Species:	 Plants	 and	 animals	 that	 are	legally	 protected	 under	 the	 federal	 Endangered	

Species	Act	of	1973,	the	Florida	Endangered	Species	Act,	or	other	regulations,	such	as	those	species	that	

meet	the	definitions	of	rare	or	endangered	under	CEQ	Guidelines	Sections	15380	and	15125.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxiv September 2014 

 

State Implementation Plan (SIP): Statewide	plan	for	complying	with	the	federal	Clean	Air	Act.	The	SIP	

consists	of	narrative,	rules,	and	agreements	that	Florida	will	use	to	clean	up	polluted	areas.	

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP):	A	plan	that	specifies	site	management	activities	to	

be	 implemented	 during	 site	 development,	 including	 construction	 stormwater	 best	 management	

practices,	erosion	and	sedimentation	controls,	dewatering	(nuisance	water	removal),	runoff	controls,	and	

construction	equipment	maintenance.	

Sulfur Oxides (SOx):	 Sulfur‐oxygen	 compounds	 that	include	 the	important	 criteria	 pollutants	 sulfur	

dioxide	(SO2)	and	sulfur	trioxide	(SO3).	

Surficial Aquifer: The	surficial	aquifer	system	in	Florida	includes	any	otherwise	undefined	aquifers	that	

are	 present	 at	 land	 surface.	 The	 surficial	 aquifer	 is	 mainly	 used	 for	 domestic,	 commercial,	 or	 small	

municipal	supplies	(Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection).

Surficial Geology: Unconsolidated	 geologic	 materials	 lying	 on	 top	 of	 bedrock.	 Common	 surficial	

materials	include	sand	and	gravel,	glacial	tills,	and	clay	and	silts.	

Switch: A	mechanical	installation	enabling	trains	to	be	guided	 from	one	track	to	another	at	a	railway	

junction.	

T

Take: To	harass,	harm,	pursue,	hunt,	shoot,	wound,	kill,	trap,	capture,	or	collect,	or	to	attempt	to	engage	

in	any	such	conduct	(as	defined	in	Section	3	of	the	federal ESA).	

Tangent:	Meeting	a	curve	or	surface	in	a	single	point	if	a	sufficiently	small	interval	is	considered.	

Terminal Station: The	first	or	last	station	of	a	passenger	railway	route.	

Traditional Cultural Properties and Resources (TCPs):	Places	associated	with	the	cultural	practices	

or	beliefs	of	a	living	community	that	are	rooted	in	that	community’s	history.	Examples	of	TCPs	include,	

but	 are	 not	limited	 to,	 any	 place	 where	 people	 practice	 a	 ritual	 activity	 or	 festival;	 any	 place	 where	

something	happened	that	is	of	significance	to	a	group	or	community	and	is	referred	to	in	stories;	any	place	

that	is	a	vital	and	beloved	part	of	the	community	and	that	may	give	the	community	a	special	identity	or	

defining	character.	

Train Control System:	System	of	railroad	equipment	designed	to	ensure	safety	by	monitoring	locations	

of	trains	and	providing	analysis	and	reporting.		

Train set:	A	complete	single	train,	including	engine(s)	and	cars.	

Travel Time:	The	time	spent	traveling	from	a	place	of	origin	to	a	place	of	destination.	Total	travel	time	

includes	the	time	required	to	reach	a	station	or	an	airport,	time	spent	waiting	for	the next	scheduled	train	

or	flight,	time	spent	getting	to	the	boarding	area,	time	spent	checking	and retrieving	luggage,	time	spent	

getting	a	rental	car	or	taxi,	as	well	as	time	spent	to	reach	the	final destination.	

U

Under‐grade Bridge: A	bridge	structure	located	below	standard	grade.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxv September 2014 

 

Unique Farmland:	Farmland	with	soils	of	lower	quality	than	either	Prime Farmland	or	Farmland of

Statewide Importance,	 but	 still	 used	 for	 the	 production	 of	 crops.	 To	 qualify	 as	 unique	 farmland,	 a	

property	must	have	been	in	crops	at	some	time	during	the	previous	4	years.	

V

V/C Ratio:	Volume	to	capacity	ratio;	describes	the	relationship	between	the	amount	of	traffic	a	roadway	

was	designed	to	carry	and	the	amount	of	traffic	it	actually	carries.	Related	to	the	Level of Service (LOS)

the	roadway	can	provide.	

Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF): A	dedicated	facility	for	vehicle	fueling,	maintenance,	repair	and	

washing.		

Vertebrate: Organisms	with	a	vertebral	column	(fish,	reptiles,	amphibians,	birds	and	mammals).	

Viaduct:	A	long	and	high	bridge	composed	of	several	small	spans	for	carrying	a	railroad	over	a	valley,	

gorge,	or	other	topographic	feature.	

Vibration:		A	rapid	linear	motion	of	a	particle	or	of	an	elastic	solid	about	an	equilibrium	position.	

Viewshed: The	total	area	visible	from	a	single	observer	position,	or	the	total	area	visible	from	multiple	

observer	positions.	Viewsheds	include	scenes	from	highways,	trails,	campgrounds,	towns,	cities,	or	other	

viewer	locations.	

Visual Character:	The	physical	attributes	of	the	landscape.	

Visual Quality:	The	character	or	inherent	features	of	a	viewshed.	

Visual Resources: The	 natural	 and	 artificial	 features	 of	 a	 landscape	 that	 characterize	 its	 form,	 line,	

texture,	and	color.	

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):	 Colorless	 gaseous	 compounds	 originating,	 in	 part,	 from	 the	

evaporation	and	incomplete	combustion	of	fuels.	In	the	presence	of	sunlight	VOCs	react	to	form	ozone,	a	

pollutant	regulated	by	the	Clean	Air	Act	Amendments.	

W

Waters of the United States:	The	federal	CWA	defines	waters	of	the	United	States	as	(1)	All	waters	that	

are	 currently	 used,	 or	 were	 used	 in	 the	 past,	 or	 may	 be	 susceptible	 to	 use	 in	 interstate	 or	 foreign	

commerce,	including	all	waters	subject	to	the	ebb	and	flow	of	the	tide;	(2)	All	interstate	waters	including	

interstate	 wetlands;	 and	 (3)	 All	 other	 waters,	 such	 as	 intrastate	 lakes,	 rivers,	 streams	 (including	

intermittent	streams),	mudflats,	sandflats,	wetlands,	sloughs,	prairie	potholes,	wet	meadows,	playa	lakes,	

or	 natural	 ponds,	 the	 use,	 degradation,	 or	 destruction	 of	 which	 could	 affect	 interstate	 or	 foreign	

commerce	(33	CFR	328.3[a]).	

Watershed:	The	area	that	contributes	water	to	a	drainage	system	or	stream.	

Wayside Signaling: A	visual	form	of	railway	signaling	which	uses	elevated	flags	or	balls.	

Wetland: An	area	of	land	with	soil	that	is	saturated	with	moisture,	either	permanently	or	seasonally.	

According	 to	 the	 U.S.	 Army	 Corps	 of	 Engineers	 Wetland	 Delineation	 Manual,	 three	 criteria	 must	 be	

satisfied	to	classify	an	area	as	a	jurisdictional	wetland:	(1)	a	predominance	of	plant	life	that	is	adapted	to	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxvi September 2014 

 

life	in	wet	conditions	(hydrophytic	vegetation),	(2)	soils	that	saturate,	flood,	or	pond	long	enough	during	

the	growing	season	to	develop	anaerobic	conditions	in	the	upper	part	(hydric	soils),	and	(3)	permanent	

or	periodic	inundation	or	soils	saturation,	at	least	seasonally	(wetland	hydrology).	

Wildlife Corridor:	A	belt	of	habitat	that	is	essentially	free	of	physical	barriers	such	as	fences,	walls,	and	

development,	 and	 connects	 two	 or	 more	 larger	 areas	 of	 habitat,	 allowing	 wildlife	 to	 move	 between	

physically	separate	areas.	

X

Xeric:	Relating	to,	characterized	by,	or	containing	little	moisture.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Introduction 1-1 September 2014 

 

1 Introduction 

This	Draft	Environmental	Impact	Statement	(DEIS)	evaluates	a	proposal	by	All	Aboard	Florida	‐	Operations	

LLC	(AAF)	to	institute	intercity	passenger	rail	service	between	Orlando	and	Miami,	Florida	with	station	

stops	in	Orlando,	West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	Miami	(Project).	The	Project	would	consist	of	a	

235‐mile	intercity	passenger	rail	service	with	an	anticipated	three‐hour	travel	time.	

The	Federal	Railroad	Administration	(FRA)	published	a	Notice	of	Intent	to	prepare	an	Environmental	

Impact	Statement	(EIS)	for	the	Project	in	the	Federal	Register	on	April	15,	2013.	FRA	is	the	lead	federal	

agency	responsible	for	conducting	the	environmental	review	and	preparing	the	National	Environmental	

Policy	Act	(NEPA)	environmental	documentation	related	to	the	Project	described	in	this	DEIS.		

1.1 Project Background 

AAF	has	applied	 for	$1.6	billion	in	 federal	 funds	 through	 the	Railroad	Rehabilitation	and	 Improvement	

Financing	(RRIF)	program,	which	is	a	loan	and	loan	guarantee	program	administered	by	FRA	as	described	

in	 49	 Code	 of	 Federal	Regulations	 (CFR)	 part	 260.	Under	 the	RRIF	 program,	 the	 FRA	Administrator	is	

authorized	to	provide	direct	loans	and	loan	guarantees	that	may	be	used	to	acquire,	improve,	or	rehabilitate	

rail	equipment	or	facilities,	or	develop	new	intermodal	or	railroad	facilities.		Because	AAF	has	applied	for	a	

loan	under	FRA’s	RRIF	program,	FRA	is	required	under	the	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA)	to	

conduct	an	analysis	of	the	potential	environmental	impacts	resulting	from	the	Project.	NEPA	compliance	

is	a	prerequisite	for	RRIF	approval,	and	FRA	will	not	approve	the	Project	for	a	RRIF	loan	until	the	NEPA	

process	is	complete.		A	RRIF	loan,	if	approved,	would	be	part	of	an	overall	capital	structure	put	in	place	

by	AAF	to	finance	the	infrastructure	improvements.	

1.1.1 Phased Approach to Project Implementation 

AAF	proposes	to	implement	the	Project	through	a	phased	approach.	Phase	I	would	provide	rail	service	on	

the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section	while	Phase	II	would	extend	service	to	Orlando.	Phase	I	would	

provide	passenger	rail	service	along	the	66.5	miles	of	the	Florida	East	Coast	Railroad	(FECR)	Corridor	

connecting	West	 Palm	 Beach,	 Fort	 Lauderdale,	 and	 Miami.	 AAF	 has	 obtained	 private	 financing	 for	

Phase	I	and	is	proceeding	to	implement	Phase	I,	which	is	illustrated	in	Figure	1.1‐1.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Introduction 1-2 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Introduction 1-3 September 2014 

 

AAF	is	a	subsidiary	of	Florida	East	Coast	Industries,	LLC	(FECI),	which	is	a	transportation,	infrastructure	

and	commercial	real	estate	company	based	in	Coral	Gables,	Florida.	FECR,	an	affiliate	of	FECI,	owns	the	

right‐of‐way	(ROW)	and	existing	railroad	infrastructure	within	the	corridor	between	 Jacksonville	and	

Miami,	over	which	FECR	operates	a	freight	rail	service	(FECR	Corridor).	AAF	has	an	exclusive,	perpetual	

easement	 granted	 by	 FECR	 whereby	 AAF	 may	 develop	 and	 operate	 the	 proposed	 passenger	 service	

within	the	FECR	Corridor.	AAF	will	operate	the	proposed	passenger	rail	service	within	the	FECR	Corridor	

in	coordination	with	FECR's	continued	freight	service.			

FRA	and	AAF	conducted	an	environmental	review	of	Phase	I	in	2012/2013,	including	preparing	and	issuing	

both	an	Environmental	Assessment	(EA)	(Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All

Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida)	and	a	Finding	of	No	Significant	

Impact	(FONSI)	(AAF	2012;	FRA	2013a).	The	2012	EA	is	available	at	www.fra.gov/page/P0590	and	the	

FONSI	is	attached	to	this	DEIS	as	Appendix	1.1‐A.	Phase	I	of	the	Project,	as	described	in	the	2012		EA,	includes	

constructing	three	new	stations	(West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	Miami),	purchasing	five	train	sets,	

adding	 a	 second	 track	 along	 most	 of	 the	 66.5‐mile	 corridor,	 and	 adding	 16	 new	 round‐trip	 intercity	

passenger	train	trips	(32	one‐way	trips)	on	the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section	of	the	FECR	Corridor.	

FRA	concluded	that	Phase	I	has	independent	utility;	that	is,	it	could	be	advanced	and	serve	a	transportation	

need	even	if	Phase	II	was	not	constructed.	FRA	has	made	no	decision	under	the	RRIF	program	as	to	whether	

a	loan	would	be	provided	for	Phase	I.		

As	a	result	of	the	environmental	review	process	conducted	by	FRA	in	cooperation	with	AAF	for	Phase	I,	AAF	

is	authorized	to	construct	the	Phase	I	component	of	the	Project	as	reviewed	and	approved	in	the	2012	EA	

and	FRAs	subsequent	FONSI.	Since	the	FONSI,	AAF	proposed	and	FRA	has	evaluated	a	new	location	for	the	

proposed	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	and	issued	a	re‐evaluation	decision	that	found	no	significant	difference	

from	the	location	evaluated	in	the	2012	EA.	Also	since	the	FONSI,	AAF	proposed	and	FRA	has	evaluated	a	

new	location	in	West	Palm	Beach	for	the	proposed	Fort	Lauderdale	layover	and	maintenance	facility.	FRA	

has	issued	a	supplemental	EA	for	public	review	of	this	new	site	concurrent	with	this	DEIS.	The	Re‐Evaluation	

document	for	the	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	is	provided	in	Appendix	3.3‐A.		

1.1.2 Phase II – Loan Application and Environmental Review 

Considering	 this	 phase	 of	 the	 Project	 and	 RRIF	 loan	 approval	 as	 separate	 federal	 actions,	 FRA	 has	

undertaken	a	NEPA	review	of	the	proposed	extension.	Given	that	operations	would	cover	the	full	corridor	

from	Orlando	to	Miami,	this	DEIS	analyzes	the	cumulative	effects	of	completing	both	phases	of	the	Project,	

although	the	impacts	exclusively	from	Phase	1	have	already	been	addressed	in	the	2012	EA	and	FONSI	

and	will	not	be	reanalyzed	in	the	DEIS.	AAF	can	proceed	at	this	time	with	construction	of	Phase	I	based	

upon	 the	 FONSI	 and	 incorporating	 the	 mitigation	 measures	 identified	 therein. The	 bulk	 of	 the	

information	related	to	Phase	I	is	drawn	from	the	2012	EA.	FRA	concluded	that	it	was	important	to	provide	

a	comprehensive	look	at	the	environmental	impacts	of	both	phases	in	one	environmental	document.		

Phase	II	of	the	Project	includes	constructing	a	new	railroad	line	parallel	to	State	Road	(SR)	528	between	

the	Orlando	 International	Airport	 (MCO)	and	Cocoa,	constructing	a	new	Vehicle	Maintenance	Facility	

(VMF)	on	property	owned	by	the	Greater	Orlando	Airport	Authority	(GOAA),	adding	a	second	track	within	

128.5	miles	 of	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 between	West	 Palm	 Beach	 and	 Cocoa,	 and	 additional	 bridge	work	

between	Miami	and	West	Palm	Beach.	The	proposed	service	would	use	a	new	intermodal	facility	at	MCO	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Introduction 1-4 September 2014 

 

that	 is	 being	 constructed	 by	 GOAA	 as	 an	 independent	 action.	 The	 Project	 includes	 purchasing	 five	

additional	 passenger	 train	 sets,	 and	 would	 add	 16	 new	 round‐trip	 intercity	 passenger	 train	 trips	

(32	one‐way	trips)	on	the	new	railroad	segment	and	on	the	FECR	Corridor	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	

Beach.	No	additional	trips	beyond	those	considered	in	the	2012	EA	(16	round‐trip	intercity	passenger	

train	trips	[32	one‐way	trips])	would	be	added	on	the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section.		

1.2 Proposed Action 

The	Applicant,	AAF,	will	secure	financing	and	will	own	the	system	and	be	responsible	for	the	Project’s	

development,	construction,	operation,	and	maintenance.	The	proposed	action	is	Phase	II	of	the	Project	

and	includes	four	discrete	geographic	segments:	a	terminal	segment	at	MCO	(MCO	Segment),	an	East‐

West	Corridor	between	MCO	and	Cocoa	(E‐W	Corridor),	a	North‐South	Corridor	between	Cocoa	Beach	

and	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 (N‐S	 Corridor),	 and	 the	 corridor	 between	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 and	 Miami	 (the	

WPB‐M	Corridor)	(Figure	1.1‐1).		

1.2.1 MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment	is	located	on	GOAA	property.	At	the	MCO	terminus,	AAF	would	construct	a	new	VMF	and	

related	rail	infrastructure.	The	Project	would	provide	passenger	rail	service	 to	 the	new	South	Terminal	

Intermodal	Station	being	planned	and	constructed	by	GOAA	as	a	separate	action.	The	proposed	intermodal	

station	has	been	evaluated	in	two	previous	EAs	(Federal	Aviation	Administration	[FAA]	and	GOAA	1998;	

Federal	Transit	Administration,	Florida	Department	of	Transportation	[FDOT],	and	GOAA	2005).	The	FAA	

has	recently	issued	a	re‐evaluation	for	this	facility	due	to	the	lapse	of	time	since	the	prior	FONSI	was	issued	

(FAA	 2013).	 Since	 the	 new	 South	 Terminal	 Intermodal	 Station	 has	 not	 been	 constructed,	 this	 DEIS	

addresses	the	cumulative	environmental	consequences	of	a	new	rail	passenger	station	in	Orlando	serving	

the	 Project.	 Previous	 proposals	 for	 rail	 service	 have	 also	 studied	 a	 VMF	 at	 MCO,	 although	 not	 in	 the	

currently‐proposed	location	or	configuration.	The	MCO	Segment	would	require	that	AAF	execute	a	lease	

with	GOAA	for	the	new	track	and	VMF,	subject	to	FAA’s	review	and	approval.	

1.2.2 E-W Corridor 

The	32.5‐mile	E‐W	Corridor	between	MCO	and	Cocoa	is	proposed	along	the	SR	528	alignment,	and	would	

be	a	dedicated	 rail	corridor	parallel	 to	 the	highway.	A	new	 railroad	within	 this	corridor	would	cross	

several	 state	 highways	 (SR	 417	 and	 SR	 520)	 and	 Interstate	 95	 (I‐95),	 and	 would	 connect	 with	 the	

N‐S	Corridor	in	Cocoa.	The	new	rail	infrastructure	would	include	new	tracks;	bridges	over	and	under	

highways;	 bridges	 over	 waterways;	 new	 signalization;	 and	 new	 communication	 and	 train	 control	

systems.	 The	 E‐W	 Corridor	 would	 require	 that	 AAF	 execute	 leases	 with	 the	 Orlando‐Orange	 County	

Expressway	 Authority	 and	 FDOT,	 and	 secure	 Federal	 Highway	 Administration	 (FHWA)	 approval	 for	

occupancy	of	the	I‐95	ROW.	

1.2.3 N-S Corridor 

The	 N‐S	 Corridor	 is	 a	 128.5‐mile	 segment	 of	 the	 existing	 active	 FECR	 Corridor	 between	 Cocoa	 and	

West	Palm	Beach.	The	FECR	Corridor	was	originally	built	as	a	double‐track	railroad,	but	today	it	is	mostly	

a	single‐track	system	with	several	sidings.	The	roadbed	for	the	second	track	in	the	corridor	still	exists	and	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Introduction 1-5 September 2014 

 

would	be	used	for	the	additional	track	improvements	needed	for	the	Project.	The	improvements	would	

include	relocating	and	upgrading	existing	tracks,	as	well	as	installing	new	tracks.	The	Project	would	also	

include	improving	or	replacing	existing	bridges	and	grade	crossings,	as	well	as	new	signalization,	and	new	

communication	and	train	control	systems.		

1.2.4 WPB-M Corridor 

The	WPB‐M	Corridor	is	a	66.5‐mile	segment	of	the	existing	active	FECR	ROW	between	West	Palm	Beach	

and	Miami.	Phase	II	of	the	Project	includes	reconstructing	seven	bridges	over	waterways	within	the	

WPB‐M	Corridor	between	West	Palm	Beach	and	Miami	that	were	not	evaluated	in	the	2012	EA.	Because	

this	construction	is	part	of	Phase	II,	the	environmental	effects	on	these	waterways	are	considered	in	

this	DEIS.		

The	2012	EA	described	 the	infrastructure	improvements	included	in	Phase	 I	of	 the	Project,	including	

relocating	and	upgrading	existing	tracks	as	well	as	installing	new	tracks.	Within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	

Phase	 I	 of	 the	 Project	 would	 include	 improving	 grade	 crossings,	 as	 well	 as	 new	 signalization,	 new	

communication	and	train	control	systems,	and	proposed	stations	at	West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale,	

and	Miami.	

1.3 Federal Agency Actions and Legislative Authority 

FRA	is	the	lead	agency	for	NEPA	review	for	the	Project.	Pursuant	to	NEPA	(42	USC	§4321	etseq.),	Council	

on	 Environmental	Quality	 (CEQ)	 NEPA	 regulations	 (40	 CFR	 parts	 1500‐1508),	 and	 the	 FRA’s	 NEPA	

procedures	(FRA	1999),	FRA	has	evaluated	in	this	DEIS	the	potential	environmental	and	related	impacts	

of	constructing	and	operating	the	intercity	passenger	rail	service	between	Orlando	and	Miami.	The	FRA	

action	that	is	the	subject	of	this	DEIS	is	the	approval	of	a	RRIF	loan.	The	U.S.	Army	Corps	of	Engineers	

(USACE),	U.S.	Coast	Guard	(USCG),	and	FAA,	because	of	their	jurisdiction,	are	cooperating	agencies	for	this	

environmental	review.		

FRA	requested	that	the	USACE	act	as	a	cooperating	agency	on	the	EIS,	and	the	USACE	agreed.	The	Project	

may	impact	waters	of	the	United	States	within	the	jurisdiction	of	the	USACE	under	its	authority	granted	by	

the	Clean	Water	Act,	Section	404	(33	U.S.C	§	1344,	as	amended),	or	navigable	water	of	the	United	States	

within	the	jurisdiction	of	the	USACE	under	its	authority	granted	by	Sections	10	and	14	of	the	Rivers	and	

Harbors	Act	(R&HA)	(33	U.S.C	§	401	etseq.,	as	amended).	USACE	will	provide	special	expertise	with	respect	

to	environmental	issues	concerning	the	potential	discharge	of	dredged	or	fill	materials	into	waters	of	the	

United	States	or	the	construction	of	any	structure	over	navigable	waters	of	the	United	States.	USACE	will	

also	 provide	 FRA	 with	 all	 EIS	 documentation	 requirements	 that	 are	 unique	 to	its	 Regulatory	 Program	

outlined	 in	 33	 CFR	 part	 325	 Appendix	 B	 	 (i.e.,	 which	 would	 not	 be	 addressed	 by	 FRA	 in	 FRA's	

implementation	 of	its	NEPA	 requirements).	An	 example	 of	 a	 requirement	 that	is	 unique	 to	 the	USACE	

Regulatory	Program	and	may	be	applicable	 to	 the	USACE's	participation	as	a	cooperating	agency	is	 the	

identification	and	analysis	of	 the	Least	Environmentally	Damaging	Practicable	Alternative	(LEDPA)	and	

Public	Interest	Review	as	a	requirement	for	compliance	with	the	Section	404	permit	program.	USACE	will	

complete	its	own	Record	of	Decision	including	a	Clean	Water	Act	‐	Section	404(b)(1)	determination,	public	

interest	evaluation,	R&HA	Section	10,	and	engineering	analysis	to	determine	whether	to	issue	authorization	

pursuant	to	R&HA	Section	14	(33	USC	408)	permit	applications.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Introduction 1-6 September 2014 

 

FRA	requested	that	USCG	act	as	a	cooperating	agency	on	the	EIS,	and	the	USCG	agreed.	The	Project	may	

impact	waters	of	the	United	States	within	the	jurisdiction	of	USCG	under	its	authority	granted	by	Section	9	

of	the	R&HA	and	through	the	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation	Act	of	1969.	USCG,	as	authorized	under	

33	CFR	part	115.70,	is	responsible	for	maintaining	navigational	adequacy	of	bridges.	The	purpose	of	these	

Acts	is	to	preserve	the	public	right	of	navigation	and	to	prevent	interference	with	interstate	and	foreign	

commerce.	The	General	Bridge	Act	of	1946,	as	amended,	the	R&HA	of	1899,	as	amended,	and	the	Act	of	

March	 23,	 1906,	 as	 amended,	 all	 require	 the	 location	 and	 plans	 of	 bridges	 and	 causeways	 across	 the	

navigable	waters	of	the	United	States	be	submitted	to	and	approved	by	the	Secretary	of	Homeland	Security	

prior	 to	 construction.	 The	 General	 Bridge	 Act	 of	 1946	 is	 cited	 as	 the	 legislative	 authority	 for	 bridge	

construction	in	most	cases.	These	Acts	placed	the	navigable	waters	of	the	United	States	under	the	exclusive	

control	of	the	USCG	to	prevent	any	interference	with	their	navigability	by	bridges	or	other	obstructions	

except	by	express	permission	of	the	United	States	Government.	

FRA	requested	that	FAA	act	as	a	cooperating	agency	on	the	EIS,	and	the	FAA	agreed.	The	Project	will	

require	FAA	review	and	approval	over	changes	to	the	GOAA	property.		Under	49	USC	§401,	the	FAA	has	

jurisdiction	 over	 the	layout	 of	 airports,	including	 but	 not	limited	 to	 approval	 of	 airport	layout	 plans,	

airspace,	and	 facility	development.	The	Project	will	require	that	FAA	approve	the	Airport	Layout	Plan	

Modifications,	Project	elements	that	occupy	air	space,	and	lease	agreements	between	GOAA	and	AAF.	

Other	applicable	legislative	authority	includes:	

 Under	41	USC	§4601,	if	federal	assistance	is	provided	to	a	project,	the	Uniform	Relocation	Assistance	

and	Real	Property	Acquisition	Polices	Act	of	1970,	as	amended,	and	its	implementing	regulations	

detailed	in	49	CFR	part	24	are	applicable	if	land	acquisition	is	required.		

 Under	23	USC	§111,	for	the	portions	of	the	Project	that	would	be	within	the	existing	I‐95	ROW	under	

the	jurisdiction	of	FHWA,	the	implementing	regulations	in	23	CFR	part	1.23	provide	FHWA	authority	

over	approval	of	 temporary	or	permanent	occupancy	or	use	within	 the	boundaries	of	 federal‐aid	

highways.	

1.4 Permits, Licenses, and Other Regulatory Requirements 

Approvals	by	several	federal	agencies,	including	FRA,	FAA,	USACE,	USCG,	FHWA,	U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	

Service	(USFWS),	and	the	National	Marine	Fisheries	Service	(NMFS)	would	be	necessary	to	implement	

the	Project.	Constructing	and	operating	the	Project	evaluated	in	this	DEIS	will	also	require	permits	issued	

by	state	agencies.	AAF	will	be	responsible	for	securing	the	permits	and	approvals	listed	in	Table	1.4‐1,	

and	will	be	required	to	comply	with	additional	regulations,	including:	

 Carrying	out	the	mitigation	measures	and	commitments	resulting	from	the	Endangered	Species	Act,	

Section	7,	consultation	with	the	USFWS	and	NMFS;	and	

 Carrying	 out	 the	 mitigation	 measures	 and	 commitments	 resulting	 from	 the	 National	 Historic	

Preservation	Act,	Section	106,	consultation	with	the	Florida	State	Historic	Preservation	Office,	and	

the	federally	recognized	tribes	within	Florida.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Introduction 1-7 September 2014 

 

1.5 Development of this Environmental Impact Statement 

As	it	has	in	the	past,	FRA	has	used	a	third	party	contracting	process	in	preparing	this	DEIS.	FRA	does	not	

have	appropriated	funds	to	support	the	development	of	EISs	for	RRIF	loan	applications.	As	a	result,	FRA	

requires	the	applicant	to	engage	the	services	of	a	qualified	consultant	approved	by	FRA	to	assist	FRA	in	

preparing	 the	 EIS.	 Consistent	 with	 a	 memorandum	 of	 agreement	 among	 the	 parties,	 the	 third	 party	

contractor	is	paid	for	by	AAF	but	reports	to	and	takes	direction	from	FRA.	In	developing	the	proposed	

action,	AAF	engaged	the	services	of	consultant	firms	to	prepare	engineering	designs	for	the	Project	and	

to	 prepare	 technical	 reports	 documenting	 existing	 environmental	 conditions	 and	 analyses	 of	

environmental	 consequences.	 FRA’s	 third	 party	 contractor	 reviewed	 all	 materials	 provided	 by	 AAF;	

assisted	FRA	in	determining	that	this	information	was	complete,	accurate,	and	relevant;	and	assisted	FRA	

in	the	preparation	of	this	DEIS.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Introduction 1-8 September 2014 

 

Table 1.4-1 Permits or Approvals Required for the Project 

Agency Permit/Approval 

Federal Highway Administration Concurrence for Highway ROW Occupancy 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit 

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 and Section 14 Permit 

Federal Aviation Administration Airport Layout Plan Modification approval 

Approval of air space and facility development stormwater ponds 

Review of lease agreements 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act Section 7 concurrence 

National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Act Section 7 concurrence 

Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act – Essential Fish Habitat 

U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permits 

Drawbridge Operation Regulatory changes (potential) 

Florida State Historic Preservation Office National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Concurrence 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification 

Environmental Resource Permit (for the E-W and N-S Corridors) 

Sovereign Submerged Lands Approval for bridges 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

South Florida Water Management District Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification 

Environmental Resource Permit (for the MCO Segment) 

De Minimis Exemption for Upland Track Work 

ROW Permits for Work Over Canals under USCG Jurisdiction 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

Florida Department of Transportation Occupancy and Use Permit 

ROW Permit 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Gopher Tortoise Permit 

Orange County Wetland Conservation Area Impact Permit 

Wetland Conservation Area Determination 

Building Permit (for Vehicle Maintenance Facility) 

Broward County Bridge Permit 

Miami-Dade County Bridge Permit 

1.6 Organization of this Environmental Impact Statement 

This	DEIS	has	been	developed	in	compliance	with	CEQ	NEPA	regulations	and	FRA	NEPA	procedures.	It	

documents	the	purpose	of	and	need	for	the	Project	(Chapter	2,	Purpose andNeed for the Proposed Action);	

describes	 the	 Proposed	 Action	 and	 other	 alternatives	 evaluated	 in	 this	 DEIS,	 as	 well	 as	 alternatives	

considered	 but	 withdrawn	 (Chapter	 3,	 Alternatives);	 describes	 the	 affected	 environment	 within	 the	

Project	 Study	 Area	 (Chapter	 4,	 Affected Environment);	 describes	 the	 environmental	 impacts	 of	 the	

alternatives,	including	 the	No‐Action	Alternative	(Chapter	5,	Environmental Consequences);	provides	a	

Section	 4(f)	 Evaluation	 (Chapter	 6,	 Section 4[f] Evaluation);	 identifies	 the	 mitigation	 measures	 and	

commitments	 (Chapter	 7,	 Mitigation Measures and Project Commitments);	 and	 describes	 the	 public	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Introduction 1-9 September 2014 

 

outreach	 and	 coordination	 conducted	 during	 the	 NEPA	 process	 (Chapter	 8,	 Summary of Public

Involvement Process and Tribal Coordination).	

This	DEIS	focuses	on	the	environmental	impacts	of	the	Project	that	is	the	subject	of	the	federal	agency	

action:	FRA’s	approval	of	the	RRIF	loan	application	for	the	All	Aboard	Florida	Intercity	Passenger	Rail	

Service	Project	from	Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach.	The	DEIS	has	also	been	developed	to	satisfy	the	NEPA	

requirements	 of	 the	 federal	 cooperating	 agencies:	 the	 FAA,	 USACE,	 and	 USCG.	 In	 order	 to	 present	 a	

comprehensive	 picture	 of	 the	 cumulative	effects	 of	 the	 Project	that	is	 the	 subject	 of	AAF’s	RRIF	loan	

application,	in	combination	with	the	effects	of	Phase	I	(West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami),	this	DEIS	incorporates	

information	from	the	2012	EA	entitled	Environmental Assessment and Section 4(F) Evaluation for the All

Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami;	identifies	any	changes	in	project	design	

since	the	2012	EA	and	2013	FONSI;	and	evaluates	the	effects	of	those	changes.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Purpose and Need for 2-1 September 2014 

the Proposed Action 

2 Purpose and Need for the 

Proposed Action 

2.1 Introduction 

All	Aboard	Florida	LLC	(AAF)	proposes	to	institute	intercity	passenger	rail	service	between	Orlando	

and	Miami,	Florida	with	station	stops	in	Orlando,	West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	Miami.	The	

Project	 would	 consist	 of	 a	 235‐mile	 long	 intercity	 passenger	 rail	 service	 with	 an	 anticipated	

three‐hour	 travel	 time.	 Improvements	 needed	 to	 support	 the	 service	 would	 include	 both	

construction	within	existing	railroad	rights‐of‐way	(ROW)	and	new	construction	outside	of	existing	

railroad	corridors.	AAF	has	applied	for	a	loan	from	the	Federal	Railroad	Administration	(FRA)	to	fund	

a	portion	of	the	construction	costs	of	building	the	Project.	If	approved	and	constructed,	AAF	would	

be	responsible	for	covering	the	costs	of	operating	its	services	and	 for	repaying	FRA	the	borrowed	

funds	in	accordance	with	financial	terms	that	would	be	agreed	upon	by	AAF	and	FRA.	As	a	private	

applicant,	AAF	has	identified	the	basic	components	of	the	project	it	is	proposing	to	build	and	operate,	

and	has	identified	the	purpose	and	need	for	the	Project.	Given	the	private	sector	nature	of	the	Project,	

FRA	has	independently	validated	the	purpose	and	need	for	the	Project	identified	by	AAF	to	assure	

that	 this	 Environmental	 Impact	 Statement	 (EIS)	 appropriately	 articulates	 that	 purpose	 and	 need	

consistent	 with	 the	National	 Environmental	 Policy	 Act	 (NEPA),	its	implementing	 regulations	 and	

procedures,	and	related	statutes	and	regulations.	

2.2 Purpose 

The	 purpose	 of	 the	 Project	 is	 to	 provide	 reliable	 and	 convenient	 intercity	 passenger	 rail	

transportation	between	Orlando	and	Miami,	Florida	(the	Project	Corridor),	by	extending	(in	Phase	II)	

the	previously	reviewed	Phase	I	AAF	passenger	rail	service	between	West	Palm	Beach	and	Miami	and	

by	maximizing	the	use	of	existing	transportation	corridors.	This	transportation	service	would	offer	a	

safe	 and	 efficient	 alternative	 to	 automobile	 travel	 on	 congested	 highway	 corridors,	 add	

transportation	 capacity	 within	 those	 corridors	 (particularly	 Interstate	 95),	 and	 encourage	

connectivity	 with	 other	 modes	 of	 transportation	 such	 as	 light	 rail,	 commuter	 rail,	 and	 air	

transportation.		

The	additional	purpose	of	Phase	 I	of	 the	Project,	as	stated	in	the	Finding	of	No	Significant	 Impact	

(FONSI),	is	 to	 “provide	intercity	passenger	rail	service	 that	addresses	South	Florida’s	current	and	

future	 needs	 to	 enhance	 the	 transportation	 system	 by	 providing	 a	 transportation	 alternative	 for	

Floridians	and	tourists,	supporting	economic	development,	creating	jobs	and	improving	air	quality.”	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Purpose and Need for 2-2 September 2014 

the Proposed Action 

2.3 Need 

The	Project	is	needed	to	provide	a	fast,	sustainable,	and	reliable	means	of	travel	that	responds	to	the	

transportation	needs	of	the	existing	population	as	well	as	future	population	growth.	The	need	for	the	

Project	stems	from	several	factors:	increasing	congestion	on	the	I‐95	corridor	and	State	Road	(SR)	528,	

long	 travel	 times,	 limited	 existing	 capacity,	 limited	 and	 constrained	 opportunities	 for	 corridor	

expansion,	limited	alternative	modes	 of	 transportation,	and	increasing	 travel	demand	generated	by	

growth	in	population	and	tourism.	Transportation	demand	and	travel	growth	in	Florida	is	outgrowing	

the	capacity	available	on	the	existing	and	future	transportation	network	between	Orlando	and	Miami	

(Louis	Berger	Group	2013).	Increasing	population,	employment,	and	tourism	continue	to	elevate	travel	

demand	in	 the	Project	 Corridor,	as	 documented	 by	 population	and	employment	 forecasts	 from	 the	

Office	 of	 Economic	 and	 Demographic	 Research	 and	 Florida	 Department	 of	 Economic	 Opportunity	

(FDEO)	 (Office	of	Economic	and	Demographic	Research	2013;	FDEO	2013).	Transportation	options	

between	 these	 two	 cities	 have	 become	 more	 limited	 with	 the	 decline	 of	 air	 service	 in	 the	 Project	

Corridor,	 limits	 on	 roadway	 expansions,	 and	 the	 lack	 of	 adequate,	 reliable	 alternative	 modes	 of	

transportation	(Louis	Berger	Group	2013).	As	a	result,	FRA	has	concluded	that	there	is	a	need	for	a	safe,	

efficient,	reliable	transportation	alternative	to	the	dominant	mode	of	travel	(automobile).	Finally,	with	

funding	at	the	state	and	national	level	being	limited,	there	is	a	need	for	a	privately	operated	passenger	

railroad	project.	FRA	concurs	that	the	Project	could	help	address	a	need	for	improved	transportation	

in	the	markets	that	would	be	served.		

These	existing	and	future	transportation	conditions	and	resulting	needs	are	described	in	more	detail	

below.		

2.3.1 Congestion on Existing Road Systems 

The	Project	 Corridor	and	 transportation	 network	are	 shown	in	 Figure	 2.3‐1.	 There	are	 two	main	

north‐south	interstate	highways	along	 the	southeast	coast	of	Florida,	 I‐95	and	Florida’s	Turnpike,	

which	is	a	toll	road.	These	two	roads	run	roughly	parallel	to	the	east	coast	of	Florida	and	connect	

Orlando	with	Miami,	as	well	as	intermediate	destinations.	The	current	travel	time	between	Orlando	

and	Miami	 via	automobile	is	4	hours,	15	minutes	 via	SR	528	 to	 I‐95	and	3	hours,	50	minutes	 via	

Florida’s	 Turnpike.	 These	 times	 can	 vary	 substantially	 based	 on	 traffic,	 congestion,	 weather,	 and	

other	factors.		

According	 to	 the	 United	 States	 Department	 of	 Transportation’s	 (USDOT)	 Federal	 Highway	

Administration	(FHWA),	the	annual	average	daily	traffic	(AADT)	on	I‐95	between	Orlando	and	Miami	

is	 between	 48,500	 and	 283,774,	 depending	 on	 the	location	 (Louis	 Berger	 Group	 2013).	 Florida’s	

Turnpike,	which	parallels	I‐95	in	southeastern	Florida,	has	an	AADT	of	between	26,000	and	113,369,	

depending	 on	 the	 location	 (Louis	 Berger	 Group	 2013).	 Traffic	 levels	 on	 these	 two	 corridors	 are	

expected	to	grow	by	52	percent	between	2007	and	2040	as	population	and	vehicular	travel	in	Florida	

increases	 (Louis	 Berger	 Group	 2013).	 By	 2040,	 traffic	 volume	 is	 expected	 to	 be	 at	 or	 exceeding	

capacity	for	almost	all	segments	(Table	2.3‐1).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Purpose and Need for 2-3 September 2014 

the Proposed Action 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Purpose and Need for 2-4 September 2014 

the Proposed Action 

Table 2.3-1 Existing and Projected Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and Volume to 

Capacity (V/C) Ratios 

Highway Segment County 

2007 

AADT 

2040 

AADT 

2007 

V/C 

2040 

V/C 

Florida's 

Turnpike 

South of U.S. 441 Osceola 30,050 45,818 0.71 1.01 

North of SR 60 Osceola/ Okeechobee/ Indian 

River/ St. Lucie/ Indian River 

26,000 39,642 0.53 0.79 

North of SR 706 Indian River/ St. Lucie/ Martin/ 

Palm Beach 

36,000 54,890 0.57 0.87 

North of SR 870 Palm Beach/ Broward 94,200 143,629 0.94 1.42 

North of SR 820 Broward 113,369 172,857 1.12 1.71 

Interstate 95 

South of SR 528 Brevard/ Indian River/ St. Lucie/ 

Martin 

48,500 73,949 0.87 1.25 

North of SR 706 Palm Beach 70,954 108,185 0.72 1.05 

North of SR 870 Broward/ Palm Beach 274,277 418,198 1.31 2.00 

North of SR 820 Broward 283,774 432,678 1.07 1.64 

Source: Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September 2013. 

Florida’s	existing	transportation	infrastructure	is	overloaded	due	to	a	substantial	increase	in	population,	

business,	and	tourism	over	the	last	30	years	(I‐95	Corridor	Coalition	2013).	Without	further	improvements	

to	the	existing	I‐95	corridor,	by	2035	100‐percent	of	the	urban	segments	within	the	I‐95	corridor	will	be	

under	 “heavy	 congestion,	 and	 55	 percent	 of	 the	 non‐urban	 segments	 will	 see	 increased	 congestion”	

(I‐95	Corridor	Coalition	2013).	Mobility	is	hampered	in	Florida	because	of	chronic	congestion	and	delays	

due	to	inadequate	roadway	capacity	and	the	inability	to	expand	most	of	the	State’s	urban	roadway	capacity,	

according	 to	 Florida	 Department	 of	 Transportation	 (FDOT)	 and	 FHWA	 research	 (FDOT	 2010;	 FHWA	

2005a).	In	1991,	FDOT	established	a	limit	of	ten	lanes	(five	lanes	in	either	direction)	at	any	location	on	the	

Florida	Interstate	Highway	System	(FIHS)	(FRA	2005).	This	limit	to	capacity	was	further	solidified	in	2002	

and	2003,	when	FDOT	procedures	525‐030‐250‐f	and	525‐030‐255‐c	set	up	specific	criteria	for	widening	

all	roads	on	the	FIHS.	These	procedures	were	based	on	2000	legislation	(Section	225.02(3)	of	the	Florida	

Statutes	[FS]),	which	establishes	criteria	that	must	be	considered	when	determining	the	number	of	lanes	on	

the	 FIHS.	 The	 criteria	 include	 consideration	 of	 multi‐modal	 alternatives	 and	 considerations	 of	 local	

comprehensive	plans	and	approved	metropolitan	long	range	transportation	plans.	The	procedures	(FDOT	

2003)	note:		

“Nothing	in	Section	335.02	(3)	FS	precludes	a	number	of	lanes	in	excess	of	ten	lanes.	However,	before	the	

Department	may	determine	the	number	of	lanes	should	be	more	than	ten,	the	availability	of	[right‐of‐

way]	(ROW),	and	the	capacity	to	accommodate	other	modes	of	transportation	within	the	existing	ROW	

must	be	considered.“	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Purpose and Need for 2-5 September 2014 

the Proposed Action 

The	need	for	a	solution	to	the	problem	of	roadway	congestion	has	been	recognized	by	many,	including	

FDOT.	In	June	2009,	FDOT	released	the	Florida Rail Project Plan: Policy Element	(FDOT	2009)	concluding,	

among	other	things,	that:		

“In	spite	of	recent	slowing	of	growth	due	to	a	downturn	in	the	national	and	state	economy,	by	2030	more	

than	25	million	people	will	call	Florida	home,	an	increase	of	over	35	percent	since	2007.	The	expected	

growth	in	population	over	the	long‐term	reinforces	the	value	of	investing	in	rail	as	part	of	a	multimodal	

transportation	strategy	to	more	efficiently	accommodate	the	mobility	needs	of	future	populations.”		

2.3.2 Safety on the Existing Highway System 

On	 a	 national	 level,	 comparing	 miles	 traveled	 via	 commercial	 aircraft,	 trains,	 and	 automobiles	 on	

highways,	auto	travel	on	highways	has	the	highest	rate	of	passenger	fatalities	per	mile	traveled.	In	2011,	

more	than	34	percent	of	all	transportation	fatalities	involved	occupants	of	passenger	cars,	while	there	

were	no	fatalities	related	to	passenger	rail	(USDOT	2012).	These	statistics	indicate	that	a	passenger	rail	

system	 would	 provide	 a	 safer	 travel	 option	 than	 passenger	 cars	 traveling	 on	 I‐95	 and	 other	 area	

highways.	

2.3.3 Alternative Modes of Transportation – Orlando to Miami 

The	transportation	alternatives	to	cars	for	travel	within	the	Orlando	to	Miami	corridor	currently	include	

passenger	train,	airplane,	and	motor	bus.	Amtrak	currently	operates	two	separate	train	services	in	the	

Project	Corridor,	the	Silver	Star	and	Silver	Meteor	(both	between	New	York	City,	New	York	and	Miami,	

Florida).	There	are	two	southbound	(SB)	trains	per	day	and	two	northbound	(NB)	trains	per	day.	The	

travel	time	between	Orlando	and	Miami	on	the	two	Amtrak	services	is	between	5	hours,	45	minutes	and	

7	 hours,	 34	 minutes.	 Annual	 ridership	 on	 these	 two	 routes	 was	 23,300	 (Louis	 Berger	 Group	 2013).	

Ridership	on	Amtrak	in	the	Project	Corridor	has	grown	by	8	percent	(compounded	annually)	since	2006	

(Louis	Berger	Group	2013).	By	2030,	these	volumes	are	expected	to	grow	to	120,000	passengers	per	year	

(Louis	Berger	Group	2013).		

Intercity	train	travel	in	the	Project	Corridor	is	limited	by	reliability	issues,	infrequent	service,	and	a	long	

overall	travel	time,	among	other	factors	(Louis	Berger	Group	2013).	The	Amtrak	services	operate	for	only	

a	small	portion	of	their	route	on	tracks	owned	by	Amtrak,	with	the	rest	of	their	route	primarily	on	tracks	

owned	by	CSX	Corporation	or	FDOT.	The	number	of	trains	that	they	are	able	to	operate	is	limited	by	the	

time	slots	available	from	CSX.	With	limited	control	over	the	primary	causes	of	delay,	the	two	routes	had	

an	on‐time	performance	of	60	percent	for	the	period	of	August	2012	to	July	2013	(Amtrak	2013).	This	

low	on‐time	performance	means	that	by	the	time	a	SB	train	gets	to	Orlando,	it	can	be	anywhere	between	

2	and	3	hours	late.		

American	Airlines,	United	Airlines,	and	Silver	Airways	provide	air	service	between	Orlando	and	Miami,	

Silver	 Airways	 and	 Spirit	 Airlines	 provide	 service	 between	 Orlando	 and	 Fort	 Lauderdale,	 and	 Silver	

Airways	provides	service	between	Orlando	and	West	Palm	Beach.	The	average	flight	time	is	60	minutes,	

which	 does	 not	include	 the	 time	 required	 to	 reach	 the	 airport,	pass	 security,	 and	 board	 the	 aircraft.	

Several	smaller	airlines	and	charter	services	provide	service	between	 the	various	smaller	“executive”	

airports	in	 the	region.	 In	 total,	 there	are	more	 than	30	 flights	per	day	between	Orlando	 International	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Purpose and Need for 2-6 September 2014 

the Proposed Action 

Airport	(MCO)	and	the	West	Palm	Beach/Fort	Lauderdale/Miami	Airports	(PBI,	FLL,	and	MIA).	There	are	

244	 daily	and	 88,900	annual	 passengers	who	 travel	 between	Orlando	and	Miami	 via	airplane	 (Louis	

Berger	 Group	 2013).	 In	 2012,	 96,112	 daily	 and	 35.1	 million	 (M)	 annual	 passengers	 used	 MCO	 and	

108,969	daily	and	39.5M	annual	passengers	used	Miami	Airport	 (MCO	n.d.).	By	2030,	 the	number	 of	

passengers	is	expected	to	grow	to	74M	per	year,	an	increase	of	45	percent	(Louis	Berger	Group	2013).	

Air	travel	within	Florida	is	limited	by	the	availability	of	flights,	increasing	prices,	and	delays.	Currently,	

there	 are	 only	 two	 major,	 national	 air	 carriers	 that	 provide	 service	 between	 Central	 and	 Southeast	

Florida.	This	limitation	on	competition	has	resulted	in	higher	prices	and	fewer	options	to	travel	within	

the	state	(prices	have	increased	by	almost	15	percent	in	the	last	10	years)	(USDOT	2013).	 Increasing	

delays	have	also	made	air	travel	less	reliable;	in	2012,	approximately	18	to	23	percent	of	all	flights	in	the	

Project	Corridor	were	considered	“late”	by	the	FAA	(Table	2.3‐2).		

Table 2.3-2 Aviation Delays in the Project Corridor (2012) 

Route 

Total Number 

of Flights 

Total Number of 

Delayed Flights 

Percent of 

Flights Delayed 

Orlando - Miami 3,496 802 23 

Orlando - Fort Lauderdale 1,468 266 18 

Source: BTS. 2013. Summary Statistics, Origin and Destination Airport: January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2013.

http://apps.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/ddisp/OntimeSummarySelect.xml?tname=OntimeSummaryBothData. 

Accessed September 12, 2013. 

Greyhound	 Bus	 Service	 offers	 a	 variety	 of	 motor	 coach	 services	 between	 Orlando	 and	 Miami,	 and	

intermediate	destinations,	with	20	daily	departures.	The	average	trip	time	varies	between	4	and	7	hours.	

There	are	approximately	10	SB	buses	and	10	NB	buses	between	 the	 two	cities	each	day.	Trip	 time	is	

strongly	influenced	by	highway	congestion.	

Multiple	local	 transit	 operating	 authorities	 provide	 connecting	 service	in	 areas	 around	 the	 proposed	

stations.	These	transit	providers	do	not	provide	service	over	the	entire	length	of	the	Project	Corridor.	The	

only	transit	service	currently	operating	along	part	of	the	Project	Corridor	is	the	South	Florida	Regional	

Transportation	Authority	(SFRTA),	which	operates	the	“Tri‐Rail”	commuter	train	service	between	West	

Palm	 Beach	 and	Miami.	 SFRTA	 operates	 commuter	 train	 service	 on	the	 CSX	 railroad	 ROW,	 which	is	

approximately	one	mile	west	of	the	Florida	East	Coast	Railway	Corridor	ROW.		Tri‐Rail	service	has	17	

stations	within	this	72‐mile	corridor,	with	a	total	travel	time	of	approximately	1	hour,	50	minutes.	There	

are	25	SB	and	25	NB	trains	per	weekday	within	this	southern	portion	of	the	corridor	(SFRTA	2013a).	

Based	on	the	available	data,	trip	times	for	alternative	modes	of	long‐distance	intercity	transportation	are	

often	unreliable	and	roadway	congestion	is	increasing	due	to	limited	capacity	for	expansion.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Purpose and Need for 2-7 September 2014 

the Proposed Action 

2.3.4 Population, Employment, and Tourism Growth 

Growth	in	population,	employment,	and	tourism	is	anticipated	to	exacerbate	existing	highway	congestion	

and	increase	the	demand	for	alternative	modes	of	transportation	(Louis	Berger	Group	2013).	Florida	has	

a	current	population	of	19	million	people,	which	is	expected	to	increase	by	almost	5M	people	in	the	next	

20	years	(Figure	2.3‐2).	The	municipal	areas	at	the	two	ends	of	the	project	corridor	are	among	the	five	

largest	cities	in	Florida,	with	increasing	population	growth.	Orlando,	at	the	northern	end	of	the	Project	

Corridor,	is	the	fifth	largest	city	in	Florida	and	had	the	second	highest	population	growth	in	the	state.	

Miami,	at	the	southern	end	of	the	Project	Corridor,	is	the	second	largest	city	in	Florida	(BEBR	2011a;	

Schlueb	2013).		

Figure 2.3-2 Projected Population for the State of Florida 

Source: Office of Economic and Demographic Research. 2013. Total County Population: April 1, 1970-2040. 

http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/population-demographics/data/CountyPopulation.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2013. 

As	of	June	2013,	the	Florida	economy	employed	approximately	8,751,000	people	according	to	the	United	

States	 Department	 of	 Labor,	 Bureau	 of	 Labor	 Statistics	 (BLS)	 (BLS	 2013).	 In	 the	 last	 two	 years,	

employment	 in	 Florida	 has	 grown	 by	 over	 450,000	 people	 and	 the	 number	 of	 people	 employed	 is	

approaching	pre‐recession	levels	(BLS	2013).	Since	2011,	employment	in	 the	combined	Metropolitan	

Statistical	Areas	(MSAs)	has	grown	by	three	percent	or	more	per	year	(Table	2.3‐3).		

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Population 6,789,447 9,746,961 12,938,071 15,982,824 18,801,332 21,141,318 23,601,075 25,583,157

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

Total Population

Historic and Projected Population for Florida (1970 ‐ 2040)
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Purpose and Need for 2-8 September 2014 

the Proposed Action 

Table 2.3-3 Employment Growth by Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Year 

Miami-Fort LauderdalePompano Beach Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford Total 

 Employment 

Growth Rate 

(%) Population 

Growth Rate 

(%) Population 

Growth Rate 

(%) 

2003 2,440,482 - 885,928 - 3,326,410 - 

2004 2,486,155 1.9 920,858 3.9 3,407,013 2.4 

2005 2,561,772 3.0 971,929 5.5 3,533,701 3.7 

2006 2,647,953 3.4 1,016,278 4.6 3,664,231 3.7 

2007 2,765,416 4.4 1,062,268 4.5 3,827,684 4.5 

2008 2,698,722 -2.4 1,052,279 -0.9 3,751,001 -2.0 

2009 2,515,298 -6.8 992,687 -5.7 3,507,985 -6.5 

2010 2,524,021 0.3 991,964 -0.1 3,515,985 0.2 

2011 2,606,069 3.3 1,014,675 2.3 3,620,744 3.0 

2012 2,698,050 3.5 1,050,951 3.6 3,749,001 3.5 

Source: BLS. 2013. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=la. Accessed September 13, 2013. 

Orange	County	and	Miami‐Dade	County	are	the	main	centers	of	employment	in	the	Project	Corridor.	This	

concentration	 of	employment	leads	 to	a	 substantial	jobs‐housing	imbalance	 for	 some	 counties	in	 the	

corridor	that	are	more	residential,	including	Martin,	Osceola,	and	Broward	Counties	(Table	2.3‐4).	This	

jobs‐to‐housing	imbalance	leads	to	longer	home‐to‐work	travel.	

Table 2.3-4 Population Employed Outside of the County of Residence 

County 

Population 

% Employed in 

County of Residence 

% Employed Out of 

County of Residence 

Orange County 87 13 

Osceola County 49 51 

Brevard County 93 7 

Indian River County 85 15 

Martin County 67 33 

Palm Beach County 89 11 

Broward County 78 22 

Miami-Dade County 93 7 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: S0801, Commuting 

Characteristics by Sex. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 12, 2013. 

In	2012,	91.4M	people	visited	Florida	for	tourist	purposes,	including	theme	parks	in	Orlando,	beaches	

along	the	coast,	and	other	attractions	(Visit	Florida	2013a).	Although	the	majority	of	these	visitors	came	

from	the	United	States,	a	growing	number	come	from	international	locations.	In	2012,	50	percent	of	all	

visitors	arrived	via	airplane	(Visit	Florida	2013a).	Orlando	is	the	most	visited	destination	in	the	United	

States,	with	over	50M	visitors	a	year.	The	number	of	visitors	has	increased	from	approximately	49M	in	

2008	to	57M	in	2012,	and	is	forecast	to	reach	more	than	59M	in	2014	(Visit	Orlando	2014).	Miami	saw	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Purpose and Need for 2-9 September 2014 

the Proposed Action 

4.1M	cruise	passengers	embark	in	2010	(Miami‐Dade	County	2014),	and	saw	13.9M	visitors	in	2012,	with	

a	nine	percent	increase	in	hotel	occupancy	from	2008	to	2013	(Greater	Miami	Convention	Center	and	

Visitors	Bureau	2014).	As	discussed	previously,	there	are	few	transportation	options	connecting	Orlando	

and	Miami	other	than	private	automobiles.	

The	increasing	number	of	people	living,	working	and	visiting	the	Project	Corridor	will	result	in	a	greater	

number	of	people	traveling	in	the	corridor.	This	increase	in	travel	between	Orlando	and	Miami,	Florida	

places	increased	pressure	on	the	highways	and	other	modes	serving	the	region.		

2.3.5 Financing and Public Initiatives 

A	number	of	public	agencies	and	private	entities	have	studied	the	development	of	an	intercity	passenger	

rail	system	in	Florida.	Intercity	passenger	rail	is	recognized	as	a	viable	and	needed	service,	given	the	level	

of	travel	activity	and	the	existing	and	growing	congestion	on	Florida’s	highways.	Tables	2.3‐5	and	2.3‐6	

provide	a	summary	of	prior	rail	legislation	and	high	speed	rail	legislation	in	Florida	from	2000	to	2010	

(FDOT	2010).	Available	funding	for	capital	and	operating	costs	of	transportation	projects	is	limited	at	the	

state	and	national	level,	and	none	of	these	projects	have	advanced,	primarily	due	to	lack	of	funding.	At	a	

national	level,	 funding	 for	 the	 capital	 cost	 of	 highway/transit	 projects	 has	 remained	 flat	in	 the	latest	

transportation	 authorization	 budget	 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, Federal Public

Transportation Act of 2012).	Florida	has	not	committed	to	funding	the	operating	and	capital	costs	for	the	

Tampa	to	Miami	High	Speed	Rail	project	due	to	limited	resources.	

Table 2.3-5 Summary of Rail Legislation and Related Activities in Florida 2000 – 2010 

Date/Title Description 

2000 

Constitutional Amendment on High 

Speed Rail Approved by Florida 

Voters 

Florida’s voters adopted an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Florida 

that mandated the construction of a high-speed transportation system in the state. 

The amendment required the use of train technologies that would operate at 

speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour and would consist of dedicated rails or 

guideways separated from motor vehicle traffic. The system was to link the five 

largest urban areas of Florida and construction was mandated to begin by 

November 2003. 

2001 

Florida Legislature Enacts the Florida 

High Speed Rail Authority Act 

Florida Legislature enacted the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act and created 

the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA). The FHSRA was charged with the 

responsibility for planning, administering, and implementing a high-speed rail 

system. 

2001 

High Speed Rail Authority Issues 

Vision Plan 

The FHSRA crafted a vision for a high-speed rail network linking the major 

population centers of Florida. The FHSRA’s long-term vision for a statewide highspeed rail system included the provision for high-speed rail along Florida’s east 

coast, linking Jacksonville and Miami. 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Purpose and Need for 2-10 September 2014 

the Proposed Action 

Table 2.3-5 Summary of Rail Legislation and Related Activities in Florida 2000 – 2010 

(Continued) 

Date/Title Description 

2002 

Report to the Governor and the 

Legislature Issued 

The FHSRA issued a request for proposal in 2002 to design, build, operate, 

maintain, and finance an initial high-speed rail service between Tampa and 

Orlando. The cost estimate was $2.4 billion. The route was planned to begin 

near the Tampa Central Business District and travel parallel to Interstate 4 into 

Orlando, then to the MCO, along with a future extension into St. Petersburg. A 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared for Tampa-Orlando 

project in 2003 and a Final EIS was released in 2005 (re-evaluation and Record 

of Decision in 2010). 

2003 

Funding Vetoed by Governor Jeb Bush 

Governor Jeb Bush vetoed funding approved by the Legislature for the High 

Speed Rail project and for the continuation of activities by the Board. The FHSRA 

was able to continue the project development and environmental process and 

procurement process with funds previously earmarked by the federal 

government. 

2004 

Constitutional Requirement is 

Repealed 

Growing concern over the costs of implementing a high-speed rail network led 

to efforts to repeal the amendment. In November 2004, Florida voters chose to 

overturn the original amendment, resulting in the removal of the constitutional 

mandate. 

2009 

Florida Rail Project Plan 

The 2009 Florida Rail Plan was an update to the 2006 Florida Freight and 

Passenger Rail Plan and built upon previous rail planning efforts, including the 

2006 Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Vision Plan. The Project was developed in 

response to this policy plan. 

Table 2.3-6 Summary of High Speed Rail Legislation in Florida 2000 – 2010 

Date/Title Description 

December 2009 

Florida Statewide Passenger Rail 

Commission created 

Governor Charlie Crist signed House Bill 1B, creating the Florida Statewide 

Passenger Rail Commission. The commission will monitor Florida’s passenger 

rail systems, advise the Florida Department of Transportation concerning 

passenger rail service, evaluate passenger rail policies, and provide advice and 

recommendations to the legislature. 

Source: Florida House of Representatives. 2009. HB 1B – Transportation. 

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=42784. Accessed September 21, 2013. 

2.4 Project Objectives 

AAF	identified	its	primary	objective	for	the	Project,	which	is	to	provide	an	intercity	rail	service	that	is	

sustainable	 as	 a	 private	 commercial	 enterprise.	 Sustainable	 means	 that	 the	 rail	 service	 can	 attract	

sufficient	riders	to	meet	revenue	projections	and	operate	at	an	acceptable	profit	level.	FRA	agrees	that	

there	is	an	identified	need	for	a	reliable	and	convenient	intercity	passenger	rail	service	between	Orlando	

and	Miami	 and	 that	 the	 private	 sector	 nature	 of	 the	 proposal	 requires	 that	 the	 system	 operate	 as	 a	

sustainable	private	commercial	enterprise.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-1 September 2014 

 

3 Alternatives 

The	Council	on	Environmental	Quality	 (CEQ)	regulations	 that	implement	 the	National	Environmental	

Policy	Act	of	1969	(NEPA)	state	 that	the	alternatives	section	is	 the	heart	of	an	Environmental	 Impact	

Statement	(EIS)	(40	CFR	§	1502.14).	Those	regulations	and	accompanying	guidance,	Forty Most Asked

Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations	(CEQ	1981),	require	a	federal	

decision‐maker,	in	this	case	the	Federal	Railroad	Administration	(FRA),	to:		

 Develop	 and	 describe	 the	 range	 of	 alternatives	 capable	 of	 achieving	 the	 purpose	 and	 need	

(1505.1(e)),	including	alternatives	not	within	the	jurisdiction	of	the	lead	agency	and	the	No‐Action	

Alternative	(1502.14(d));	and	

 Rigorously	explore	and	objectively	evaluate	 these	alternatives,	and	provide	reasons	why	 the	lead	

agency	eliminated	certain	alternatives	from	further	study	(1502.14(a)).		

This	 chapter	 describes	 the	 process	 through	 which	 the	 Proposed	 Action	 (Build)	 Alternatives	 and	 the	

No‐Action	 Alternative	 for	 Phase	II	 of	 the	 Orlando‐Miami	 Passenger	 Rail	 Project	 were	 identified	 and	

evaluated,	and	provides	a	detailed	description	of	the	alternatives	evaluated	in	this	Draft	Environmental	

Impact	 Statement	 (DEIS).	 The	 environmental	 impacts	 of	 each	 of	 the	 alternatives	 that	 were	 carried	

forward	from	this	screening	process	are	evaluated	in	Chapter	5, Environmental Consequences,	of	this	DEIS.	

3.1 Proposed Action 

All	Aboard	Florida	(AAF)	is	proposing	to	construct	and	operate	a	privately	owned,	intercity	passenger	

railroad	 system	 that	 will	 connect	Orlando	 and	Miami.	 	 Phase	 I	 of	 the	 Project	includes	infrastructure	

improvements,	stations,	and	initial	passenger	rail	service	from	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami.	Phase	I,	which	

FRA	 determined	 has	 independent	 utility,	 and	 which	 was	 the	 subject	 of	 a	 FRA‐led	 environmental	

assessment	(EA)	and	finding	of	no	significant	impact	(FONSI)	in	2012.	Phase	II	of	the	Project	would	extend	

that	service	to	Orlando	by	maximizing	the	use	of	existing	transportation	corridors.	As	noted	in	Chapter	2,	

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action,	AAF	identified	its	primary	objective	which	is	 to	provide	an	

intercity	rail	service	that	is	sustainable	as	a	private	commercial	enterprise.	Sustainable	means	that	the	

rail	service	can	attract	sufficient	riders	to	meet	revenue	projections	and	operate	at	an	acceptable	profit	

level.	 The	 two	 principal	 components	 of	 this	 objective	 are	 the	 basis	 for	 developing	 the	 criteria	 and	

framework	for	evaluating	the	Project	alternatives.	The	two	primary	goals	are	to:		

 Provide	 a	 reliable	 and	 convenient	 intercity	 rail	 service	 between	 Orlando	 and	 Miami	 with	 an	

approximate	3‐hour	trip	time	between	the	terminal	stations;	and

 Provide	an	intercity	rail	service	that	is	sustainable	as	a	private	commercial	enterprise.	Sustainable	

means	that	the	rail	service	can	attract	sufficient	riders	to	meet	revenue	projections,	and	can	operate	

at	an	acceptable	profit	level.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-2 September 2014 

 

3.2 Alternatives Identification and Screening 

This	section	describes	the	alternatives	that	were	identified	and	developed	for	the	Project	and	the	criteria	

used	 to	 evaluate	 each	 alternative.	 The	 analysis	 also	 included	 a	 preliminary	 comparison	 of	 potential	

impacts	to	key	environmental	resources.	Alternatives	were	identified	and	screened	in	an	iterative,	three‐

level	process:	

 Level	1	identified	and	screened	overall	routes	connecting	Orlando	with	the	previously	reviewed	West	

Palm	Beach	to	Miami	service,	and	identified	a	preferred	route	alternative.		

 Level	2	was	more	fine‐grained	and	evaluated	segment	alternatives	within	the	preferred	route.		

 Level	 3	 evaluated	 alternatives	 within	 one	 segment	 (the	 Orlando‐Orange	 County	 Expressway	

Authority	(OOCEA)‐controlled	segment	of	the	East‐West	Corridor)	of	the	preferred	route.	

Figure	3.2‐1	shows	the	screening	process	graphically.	In	order	to	identify	and	consider	alternatives	that	

will	 satisfy	 the	 Project’s	 purpose,	 including	 its	 feasibility	 as	 a	 private	 enterprise,	 AAF	 developed	

evaluation	criteria,	including	six	critical	determining	factors	(Critical	Determining	Factors)	that	must	be	

met	in	order	for	AAF	to	be	able	to	proceed	with	the	Project.	These	screening	criteria	recognize	that	AAF	

is	a	private	enterprise	that	cannot	rely	on	government	operating	subsidies	and	that	does	not	have	the	

authority	to	acquire	property	by	eminent	domain	(condemnation).	To	be	feasible	as	a	private	enterprise,	

AAF	must	be	able	to:		

 Provide	 reliable	 and	 convenient	 intercity	 passenger	 rail	 transportation	 connecting	 Orlando	 and	

Miami,	Florida,	by	extending	previously	reviewed	passenger	rail	service	between	West	Palm	Beach	

and	Miami;	

 Gain	 access	 to	 the	 lands	 on	 which	 alternatives	 are	 proposed	 through	 viable	 acquisitions,	 leases,	

licenses,	permits,	or	other	arrangements	that	do	not	preclude	the	feasibility	of	the	Project	as	a	private	

enterprise;		

 Deliver	a	 travel	 time	 that	will	meet	 the	 ridership	 targets	 necessary	 for	a	 sustainable	 commercial	

initiative;		

 Commence	construction	in	the	near	term	in	order	to	control	costs;	

 Remain	 in	 close	 proximity	 to	 existing	 or	 planned	 transportation	 corridors	 in	 order	 to	 limit	 land	

acquisitions	and	related	impacts;	and	

 Limit	 cost	 of	 development,	 including	 cost	 of	 land	 acquisitions,	 access,	 construction,	 and	

environmental	mitigation.	

AAF	identified	the	alternatives	at	each	level,	and	developed	and	applied	screening	criteria	to	determine	

whether	each	alternative	was	reasonable	and	capable	of	being	implemented	in	accordance	with	these	

overall	 objectives.	 FRA	 has	 independently	 evaluated	 AAF’s	 analysis,	 validated	 assumptions,	 and	 has	

prepared	the	following	summary	of	the	alternatives	evaluation	process.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-3 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-4 September 2014 

 

3.2.1 Level 1 - Route Alternatives 

AAF	 evaluated	 four	 route	 alternatives	 to	 connect	 the	 Greater	 Orlando	 Airport	 Authority’s	 (GOAA)	

proposed	 Intermodal	 Facility	 at	the	 Orlando	 Airport	 (MCO)	 with	the	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 Station	 (the	

terminus	of	Phase	I).	These	route	alternatives	were	developed	and	evaluated	by	other	entities	in	previous	

planning	initiatives	to	connect	Orlando	and	Miami	through	intercity	passenger	rail.	The	two	most	recent	

studies	were	the	Florida High Speed Rail Express Service from Orlando to Miami,	proposed	by	the	Florida	

Rail	 Enterprise	 in	 2009	 (Florida	 Rail	 Enterprise	 2009)	 as	 part	 of	 the	 American	 Recovery	 and	

Reinvestment	Act	High	Speed	Rail	initiative,	and	 the	Orlando‐Miami Planning Study	conducted	by	 the	

Florida	High	Speed	Rail	Authority	in	2003	(HNTB	2003).		

The	four	route	alternatives	evaluated	by	AAF	in	Level	1	were:	

 The	CSX	Route	Alternative	

 The	Florida’s	Turnpike	Route	Alternative	

 The	Interstate	95	(I‐95)	Route	Alternative	

 The	(Florida	East	Coast	Railroad)	FECR	Route	Alternative	

3.2.1.1 Screening Criteria 

The	primary	screening	criteria	used	at	this	level	was	developed	to	assess	(1)	whether	the	alternative	

satisfies	the	purpose	and	need	of	the	Project,	(2)	whether	the	alternative	is	practicable	to	construct	and	

operate	 (satisfies	AAF’s	specified	critical	determining	 factors),	and	 (3)	 to	what	degree	 the	alternative	

would	have	impacts	to	key	environmental	resources.		

Access to Land 

The	alternatives	analysis	assumes	that	a	100‐foot	wide	right‐of‐way	(ROW)	would	be	required	for	the	rail	

corridor	 to	construct	a	double‐track	system	and	 to	accommodate	stormwater	management	elements,	

utilities,	signal	equipment,	and	maintenance	roads.	As	AAF	does	not	have	the	authority	to	condemn	land,	

it	can	only	obtain	access	to	property	through	negotiating	agreements	with	property	owners.	Agreements	

may	include	lease	arrangements	with	the	owners	of	existing	ROW	or	purchasing	property.	This	criterion	

was	 evaluated	 based	 on	 the	 estimated	 number	 of	 properties	 crossed	 by	 the	 alternative,	 using	 a	

geographic	information	systems	(GIS)	analysis.	Land	access	contributes	to	the	logistical	feasibility	of	an	

alternative,	as	the	number	of	parcels	requiring	acquisition	is	directly	related	to	the	cost	of	the	Project	and	

the	time	of	execution,	due	to	the	time	necessary	to	complete	transactions.	The	need	for	land	access	also	

contributes	 to	 risk,	 since	 any	 party	 that	 was	 not	 willing	 to	 enter	 into	 negotiations	 could	 block	

construction.		

Some	alternatives	require	that	AAF	negotiate	an	agreement	for	perpetual	access	to	and	operation	of	a	

shared	 use	environment	with	 other	 railroads.	A	 shared‐use	environment	is	 one	in	which	 freight	and	

passenger	trains	operate	over	the	same	network.	Both	types	of	trains	must	share	common	resources	such	

as	track,	signaling,	and	traffic	control	facilities,	as	well	as	terms	regarding	dispatching	and	priority.	The	

shared‐use	arrangement	is	challenging	because	passenger	and	freight	trains	operate	at	different	speeds	

(freight	trains	are	limited	to	70	mph)	and	passenger	trains	frequently	need	to	pass	freight	trains	going	in	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-5 September 2014 

 

the	same	direction.	This	passing	movement	uses	both	tracks	of	a	two‐track	line,	and	can	interfere	with	

movements	in	the	opposite	direction.	The	Train	Dispatcher	is	responsible	for	determining	the	order	in	

which	trains	will	move,	and	for	determining	which	train	will	be	delayed.	Although	operational	priority	is	

established	 in	 the	 individual	 agreements,	 in	 practice	 in	 shared‐use	 environments	 where	 the	 freight	

operator	 controls	 the	 line,	 passenger	 service	 is	 frequently	 delayed	 by	 freight.	 Amtrak’s	 Silver	

Service/Palmetto	line	had	a	66	percent	on‐time	performance	in	February	2014,	and	60	percent	on‐time	

performance	 for	 the	 previous	 12	 months.	 The	 primary	 causes	 of	 delay	 were	 train	 interferences	

(39	percent	of	the	total	delay,	of	which	84	percent	occurred	on	the	CSX‐dispatched	line)	and	track	and	

signal	problems	(25	percent	of	the	total	delay,	of	which	79	percent	occurred	on	the	CSX	lines)	(Amtrak	

2014).	Negotiating	shared‐use	agreements	presents	the	risk	of	delays	to	the	schedule,	and	the	risk	that	

the	 controlling	 railroad	 would	 not	 agree	 to	 acceptable	 terms	 for	 a	 shared	 use	 environment.	 Any	

alternative	requiring	extensive	acquisitions	or	use	negotiations	would	have	substantial	cost,	delay,	and	

risk,	which	affect	the	determination	of	whether	an	alternative	is	commercially	viable.	

Activities	associated	with	an	alternative	that	could	potentially	delay	the	completion	of	the	Project	and	

thus	increase	Project	costs	include	the	need	to	negotiate	with	numerous	parties	for	land	acquisition	or	

access	as	well	as	other	uncertainties.	For	purposes	of	this	screening	process,	access	to	land	involves	the	

need	 to	 obtain	 satisfactory	 railroad	 operating	 agreements,	 land	 acquisition	 to	 construct	 a	 new	 rail	

connector	across	West	Palm	Beach,	land	acquisition	from	private	land	owners,	and	leasing	land	within	

public	transportation	ROW.	

Logistics 

Logistics	includes	the	subcategories	of	train	signaling	and	control	systems	and	route	length,	time,	and	

schedule.	The	ability	 to	use	existing	rail	 technology	and	infrastructure	was	an	important	 factor	in	 the	

alternatives	screening	process.	This	criterion	considers	the	level	of	difficulty,	costs,	and	risks	associated	

with	constructing	an	entirely	new	rail	corridor	or	adapting	an	existing	rail	corridor.	

Train Signaling and Control Systems 

The	Project	is	subject	to	all	regulatory	requirements	governing	the	safe	operation	of	passenger	rail.	These	

regulations	 require	 rail	 signaling,	 control	 and	 communications	 systems,	 including	 the	 current	

requirement	for	Positive	Train	Control	(PTC)	systems.	Corridors	which	currently	have	no	signaling	and	

control	systems	would	require	constructing	and	testing	new	systems,	which	would	delay	construction	

and	operations	of	the	proposed	intercity	passenger	rail.	

Route Length, Time and Schedule 

The	economic	viability	of	the	Project	is	dependent	on	ridership.	A	ridership	study	(Louis	Berger	Group	

2013)	 (see	 Appendix	 3.3‐F)	 was	 used	 to	 develop	 ridership	 projections.	 The	 study	 determined	 that	

ridership	is	based	on	travel	time,	the	amount	of	time	required	to	reach	an	AAF	station,	and	the	frequency	

of	 service.	 Travel	 time	 is	 dependent	 on	 route	 length	 and	 operating	 speeds,	 which	 depend	 on	

infrastructure	features	such	as	curvature	and	density	of	development	near	at‐grade	crossings.	The	study	

also	found	that	trip	time	is	the	most	sensitive	predictor	of	ridership,	(see	Section	3.5,	Ridership).	The	study	

found	that	the	ridership	necessary	for	a	sustainable	commercial	venture	was	obtained	with	a	total	trip	

time	of	3	hours,	15	minutes	or	less	(Louis	Berger	Group	2013).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-6 September 2014 

 

Environmental Impacts 

The	potential	environmental	impacts	of	each	alternative	were	evaluated	at	this	level	based	on	the	amount	

of	each	resource	present	within	a	300‐foot	wide	corridor	centered	on	the	track.	This	corridor	includes	

the	100‐foot	ROW	in	which	direct	consequences	(losses)	of	the	resource	would	be	anticipated,	and	an	

additional	100	feet	on	either	side	of	the	ROW	where	indirect	effects	to	the	resource	could	occur.	This	

criterion	serves	as	an	estimate	of	potential	mitigation	costs,	which	are	assumed	to	be	proportional	to	the	

acres	of	wetland	loss.		Environmental	impacts,	depending	on	their	severity	and	the	quality	of	affected	

resources	may	affect	Project	viability.		

Wetlands and Waterways 

The	potential	direct	and	indirect	impacts	to	wetlands	were	estimated	based	on	a	GIS	analysis,	and	include	

the	acreage	of	wetlands	within	the	100‐foot	construction	footprint	of	each	route	alternative.	Impacts	to	

waterways	at	this	level	of	the	alternatives	analysis	were	assessed	based	on	the	number	of	new	bridges	

over	waterways	that	would	be	required.	

Conservation Lands 

Publicly	owned	conservation	lands	are	protected	under	Section	4(f)	of	the	Department	of	Transportation	

Act.	The	potential	direct	and	indirect	impacts	to	conservation	lands	(including	public	and	private	lands)	

were	assessed	based	on	the	miles	of	conservation	land	crossed	by	or	adjacent	to	each	alternative.	

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Potential	direct	and	indirect	impacts	to	federal‐	and	state‐listed	threatened	and	endangered	species	were	

evaluated	based	on	information	provided	by	the	Florida	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation	Commission,	and	

included:	

 Bald	eagle	nest	locations;	

 Florida	wood	stork	nesting	areas;	

 Florida	scrub	jay	habitats;	and	

 Recorded	observations	for	additional	federal	and	state	listed	species.	

Impacts	were	assessed	based	 on	 the	number	 of	listed	species	observations	within	 or	adjacent	 to	 the	

300‐foot	corridor	for	each	alternative.	The	analysis	did	not	include	plant	species	or	aquatic	species	such	

as	the	West	Indian	manatee.	

3.2.1.2 Description and Analysis of Route Alternatives 

The	four	route	alternatives	would	use	existing	transportation	infrastructure	to	the	extent	feasible.	The	

2003	High Speed Rail Study	(HNTB	2003)	assumed	that	each	route	alternative	would	support	high‐speed	

rail	service	within	a	dedicated	ROW	adjacent	to	existing	rail	or	highway	ROW,	to	the	extent	feasible.	The	

four	route	alternatives	(Figure	3.2‐2)	are	described	below.	The	description	of	the	CSX,	Florida	Turnpike,	

and	I‐95	Route	Alternatives	is	based	on	information	from	the	2003	High Speed Rail Study.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-7 September 2014 

 

CSX Route Alternative 

The	CSX	Route	Alternative	(Figure	3.2‐2)	would	extend	from	the	West	Palm	Beach	Station	to	the	GOAA	

Intermodal	Station.	This	route	would	depart	from	the	FECR	ROW,	require	a	new	rail	connection	between	

the	 FECR	and	 CSX	corridors	 north	 of	West	Palm	Beach	 (0.45	miles),	and	connect	 to	 the	existing	 CSX	

Sanford	Subdivision	rail	corridor.	This	route	would	follow	the	CSX	corridor	to	State	Route	(SR)	27	west	

of	Haines	City,	then	follow	SR	27	north	to	Interstate	4	(I‐4)	in	Orlando.	From	I‐4,	the	route	would	follow	

either	SR	417	or	SR	528	to	the	GOAA	Intermodal	Station.	The	southern	portion	assumes	shared	use	of	the	

existing	CSX	infrastructure.	The	northern	portion	would	require	a	new	dedicated	ROW	along	the	west	

side	of	SR	27,	and	would	be	constructed	within	the	median	of	I‐4.	Property	acquisition	between	Orlando	

and	West	Palm	Beach	was	estimated	as	1,200	acres.	This	route	would	be	approximately	264	miles	from	

Orlando	to	Miami,	with	an	estimated	trip	time	of	greater	than	3	hours.	

Based	on	land	access,	logistics,	and	environmental	impacts,	this	alternative	does	not	meet	the	screening	

evaluation	criteria	and	is,	therefore,	not	feasible	to	implement.	Although	portions	of	the	CSX	Route	may	

allow	 a	 shared‐use	 operating	 environment,	 extensive	 upgrades	 to	 the	 track,	 grade	 crossings,	 and	

infrastructure	would	be	required.	AAF	does	not	have	operating	rights	on	the	CSX	portion	of	this	route,	

and	would	have	to	negotiate	agreements	for	a	shared	use	environment.	This	creates	increased	risk	of	

significant	delays	to	the	schedule,	as	well	as	the	risk	that	CSX	would	not	be	willing	to	enter	into	such	a	

transaction.	In	other	portions	of	the	route,	AAF	would	need	to	purchase	or	lease	land	from	many	different	

public	and	private	landowners,	including	properties	in	or	immediately	north	of	West	Palm	Beach	for	a	

new	rail	connector,	which	results	in	a	substantial	impact	on	the	time	required	to	complete	construction.	

As	previously	discussed,	this	also	substantially	increases	the	risk	that	AAF	would	not	be	able	to	acquire	

all	of	the	property	required	for	this	alternative.	Due	to	the	long	trip	length	and	speed	reductions,	this	route	

alternative	would	not	provide	a	trip	time	consistent	with	the	ridership	target	needed	to	sustain	a	viable	

private	enterprise.	With	respect	to	environmental	criteria,	this	alternative	would	also	result	in	the	highest	

potential	 adverse	 direct	 and	 indirect	 impacts	 to	 wetlands	 and	 protected	 species,	 and	 may	 require	

acquisition	of	conservation	land	for	an	aggregate	distance	of	13	miles	(AMEC	2014d).	

Florida’s Turnpike Route Alternative 

The	Florida’s	Turnpike	Route	Alternative	(Figure	3.2‐2),	as	described	in	the	2003	High Speed Rail Study,	

would	extend	from	the	Miami	station	to	the	GOAA	Intermodal	Station.	This	route	would	depart	from	the	

FECR	 Corridor,	 require	 a	 new	 rail	 connection	 between	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 and	 Florida’s	 Turnpike	

corridors	north	of	West	Palm	Beach	(4.5	miles),	then	follow	the	Turnpike	to	Boggy	Creek	Road	south	of	

MCO.	This	route	would	then	extend	north	to	the	terminal	station.	This	alternative	assumes	that	a	new	

100‐foot	wide	ROW	would	be	required	along	most	of	the	route,	as	there	is	insufficient	land	within	the	

highway	ROW	 to	 support	 the	 2‐track	 railroad.	New	ROW	would	 also	 be	 needed	 to	minimize	 curves.	

Property	acquisition	between	Orlando	and	Miami	was	estimated	as	2,678	acres.	This	route	would	be	

approximately	226	miles	from	Orlando	to	Miami,	with	an	estimated	trip	time	of	3	hours.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-8 September 2014 

 

Based	on	land	access,	logistics,	and	environmental	impacts,	this	alternative	does	not	meet	the	screening	

evaluation	criteria	and	is,	therefore,	not	feasible	to	implement.	Extensive	new	construction	of	track,	grade	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-9 September 2014 

 

crossings,	and	infrastructure	would	be	required,	including	a	completely	new	train	signaling	and	control	

system,	as	this	route	does	not	currently	support	rail	infrastructure.	AAF	would	need	to	purchase	or	lease	

land	from	many	different	public	and	private	landowners,	including	the	Florida	Turnpike	Authority	and	

private	properties	in	or	immediately	north	of	West	Palm	Beach,	for	a	new	rail	connector.	This	would	result	

in	a	substantial	impact	on	the	time	required	to	complete	construction.	As	previously	discussed,	this	also	

substantially	increases	the	risk	that	AAF	would	not	be	able	to	acquire	all	of	the	property	required	for	this	

alternative.	This	route	alternative	would	provide	a	trip	time	consistent	with	the	ridership	target	needed	

to	sustain	a	viable	private	enterprise.	With	respect	to	environmental	criteria,	this	alternative	would	also	

result	in	high	potential	adverse	direct	and	indirect	effects	to	wetlands	(AMEC	2014d).	

I-95 Route Alternative 

The	I‐95	Route	Alternative	(Figure	3.2‐2),	as	described	in	the	2003	High Speed Rail Study,	would	extend	

from	West	Palm	Beach	station	to	the	GOAA	Intermodal	Station.	This	route	would	depart	from	the	FECR	

Corridor,	require	a	new	rail	connection	between	the	FECR	Corridor	and	I‐95	corridor	north	of	West	Palm	

Beach	(2	miles),	and	follow	the	I‐95	corridor	to	U.S.	192	near	Melbourne,	where	it	would	diverge	and	

follow	SR	528	west	to	MCO.	This	alternative	assumes	that	a	new	100‐foot	wide	ROW	would	be	required	

along	most	 of	 the	 route,	as	 there	is	insufficient	land	within	 the	highway	ROW	 to	 support	 the	2‐track	

railroad.	New	ROW	would	also	be	needed	to	minimize	curves.	Property	acquisition	between	Orlando	and	

West	 Palm	 Beach	was	 estimated	 as	 1,890	 acres.	 This	 route	would	be	 approximately	 229	miles	 from	

Orlando	to	Miami,	with	an	estimated	trip	time	of	3	hours.	(AMEC	2014d).	

Based	on	land	access,	logistics,	and	environmental	impacts,	this	alternative	does	not	meet	the	screening	

evaluation	criteria	and	is,	therefore,	not	feasible	to	implement.	Extensive	new	construction	of	track,	grade	

crossings,	and	infrastructure	would	be	required,	including	a	completely	new	train	signaling	and	control	

system,	as	this	route	does	not	currently	support	rail	infrastructure.	AAF	would	need	to	purchase	or	lease	

land	from	many	different	public	and	private	landowners,	including	Florida	Department	of	Transportation	

(FDOT)	and	Florida	Highway	Administration	and	private	properties	in	or	immediately	north	of	West	

Palm	Beach	for	a	new	rail	connector.	This	would	result	in	a	substantial	impact	on	the	time	required	to	

complete	construction.	Negotiating	land	access	agreements	results	in	a	substantial	impact	on	the	time	

required	to	complete	construction	and	substantial	risk	to	the	ability	to	secure	access	to	the	land	required	

for	the	rail	corridor.	This	route	alternative	would	provide	a	trip	time	consistent	with	the	ridership	target	

needed	 to	 sustain	a	 viable	 private	enterprise.	With	 respect	 to	environmental	 criteria,	 this	alternative	

would	also	result	in	the	second	highest	potential	adverse	direct	and	indirect	impacts	to	wetlands	and	

protected	species	(AMEC	2014d).	

FECR Route Alternative 

The	FECR	Route	Alternative	(Figure	3.2‐2),	would	extend	 from	West	Palm	Beach	Station	to	the	GOAA	

Intermodal	Station.	From	the	West	Palm	Beach	Station,	the	alignment	would	follow	the	FECR	Corridor	to	

Cocoa,	where	it	would	diverge	and	follow	SR	528	west	to	MCO.	As	described	in	the	2003	High Speed Rail

Study,	this	alternative	assumes	that	the	AAF	service	would	operate	in	a	shared‐use	environment	within	

the	FECR	Corridor,	and	that	a	60‐	to	100‐foot	wide	ROW	would	be	necessary	to	accommodate	the	track	

and	infrastructure	between	the	FECR	Corridor	and	MCO.	Because	AAF	and	FECR	are	owned	by	the	same	

company,	Florida	East	Coast	Industries,	AAF	has	the	right	to	develop	passenger	rail	service	within	the	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-10 September 2014 

 

FECR	Corridor,	and	has	negotiated	an	agreement	for	shared	use	of	the	FECR	rail	line.	Property	acquisition	

between	 Orlando	 and	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 was	 estimated	 as	 418	 to	 423	 acres.	 This	 route	 would	 be	

approximately	235	miles	from	Orlando	to	Miami,	with	an	estimated	trip	time	of	3	hours	(AMEC	2014d).	

Based	on	land	access,	logistics,	and	environmental	impacts,	this	alternative	is	feasible	to	implement.	AAF	

has	the	right	to	use	the	FECR	Corridor	between	West	Palm	Beach	and	Cocoa.	The	FECR	Corridor	is	an	

active	freight	railroad,	in	continuous	use	for	over	100	years.	Originally	constructed	with	two	tracks,	the	

railroad	currently	operates	with	a	single	track.	Bridges,	signals,	and	railroad	infrastructure	are	in	place,	

but	would	need	to	be	upgraded	to	accommodate	passenger	rail	service,	and	the	second	track	would	need	

to	be	restored.	New	construction	of	track,	grade	crossings,	and	infrastructure	would	be	required	only	

along	the	segment	between	MCO	and	Cocoa.	The	route	requires	purchase	or	lease	of	land	from	only	five	

different	landowners	(including	FDOT,	OOCEA,	and	GOAA).	Acquiring	the	necessary	land	would	have	a	

negligible	 effect	 on	 the	 time	 required	 to	 complete	 construction	 because	 these	 public	 agencies	 have	

entered	into	lease	agreements	with	AAF,	which	are	currently	in	escrow.	This	route	alternative	would	

provide	a	 trip	 time	consistent	with	 the	 ridership	 target	needed	 to	 sustain	a	 viable	private	enterprise	

(AMEC	2014d).	With	respect	to	environmental	criteria,	this	alternative	would	also	minimize	potential	

adverse	direct	and	indirect	impacts	to	wetlands	and	protected	species	because	it	maximizes	the	use	the	

existing	rail	corridor.	Use	of	the	FECR	Corridor	would	return	the	existing	rail	corridor	to	its	prior	dual‐

track	system,	and	maximizes	the	use	of	existing	rail	infrastructure	including	grade	crossings,	bridges,	and	

signal	systems.	Because	AAF	has	the	right	to	develop	passenger	rail	service	within	the	West	Palm	Beach	

to	Cocoa	corridor,	no	land	access,	rail	access,	or	acquisition	is	required	on	this	segment,	and	there	is	a	

reasonable	likelihood	that	the	Project	can	be	completed	on	schedule.	Use	of	this	existing	developed	rail	

corridor	would	minimize	impacts	to	environmental	resources	between	West	Palm	Beach	and	Cocoa.	

3.2.1.3 Route Alternatives Screening 

The	four	Level	1	Route	Alternatives	were	evaluated	using	screening	criteria	specific	to	the	overall	Project	

objectives	and	the	level	of	design	available	for	these	routes.	This	section	describes	the	screening	criteria	

and	how	the	criteria	were	applied	to	identify	a	preferred	route.	Table	3.2‐1	presents	the	results	of	the	

Level	 1	 screening	 analysis.	 Shaded	 cells	 indicate	 that	 the	 alternative	 does	 not	 satisfy	 the	 screening	

criterion.	As	shown	in	Table	3.2‐1,	the	CSX,	Florida’s	Turnpike,	and	I‐95	Route	Alternatives	do	not	meet	

the	overall	screening	criteria.		

The	CSX	Route	Alternative	does	not	meet	the	Project	purpose.	Trip	times	would	exceed	the	3‐hour	target.	

Because	of	the	substantial	number	of	private	land	acquisitions,	the	Project	could	not	be	constructed	in	a	

reasonable	 time	 frame	and	would	not	be	practicable	if	AAF	was	unable	 to	purchase	 these	properties.	

Because	it	requires	an	operating	agreement	with	CSX,	there	is	a	potential	that	an	acceptable	operating	

agreement	would	not	be	developed	and	this	route	would	not	be	practicable.	In	addition,	the	CSX	Route	

Alternative	would	have	the	second‐highest	level	of	wetland	loss	based	on	wetland	acreage,	and	would	not	

be	 the	 least	 environmentally	 damaging	 alternative	 as	 defined	 by	 the	 U.S.	 Army	 Corps	 of	 Engineers	

(USACE)	with	respect	to	Section	404	permitting.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-11 September 2014 

 

Table 3.2-1 Screening Analysis Results – Level 1 Route Alternatives 

Alternative 

Criterion Metric CSX 

Florida 

Turnpike I-95 FECR 

Land Access Requires new rail connector 

across West Palm Beach 

Yes Yes Yes No 

 Requires RR operating 

agreement for shared use 

Yes No No Yes 

(in place) 

 Requires land from private 

landowners 

Substantial 

(1,556 parcels) 

Substantial 

(211 parcels) 

Substantial 

(743 parcels) 

2 private 

parcels 

 (3 public) 

 Requires lease from public 

transportation agencies 

Yes Yes Yes Yes 

(in place) 

Logistics 

Use of Existing 

Infrastructure 

Does the alternative use existing 

infrastructure? 

Partially No No Partially 

Train Signaling and 

Control Systems 

Does the alternative have a rail 

signal and control system in 

place? 

Partially No No Partially 

Route Length and 

Time 

Does the alternative meet the 

target travel time 

(3 hrs., 15 min. or less)? 

264 miles 

Time > target 

226 miles 

Time = target 

229 miles 

Time = target 

235 miles 

Time = target 

Environmental 

Wetlands and 

Waterways1

Amount of resource directly or 

indirectly affected 

268 acres 243 acres 272 acres 134 acres 

Conservation 

Lands2

Amount of resource potentially 

affected 

13 miles 0 miles 12 miles 5 miles 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species3

Number of habitats directly or 

indirectly affected 

14 10 3 11 

Source; AMEC 2014d, Addendum to Technical Memorandum 3, Screening Analysis for Alternatives Identification. 

1 Within a the construction footprint (100-feet wide for new track) 

2 Miles crossed or adjacent to the alternative 

3 Within a 300-foot corridor centered on the track 

The	Florida	Turnpike	Route	Alternative	does	not	meet	the	Project	purpose.	Because	of	the	substantial	

number	of	private	land	acquisitions,	the	Project	could	not	be	constructed	in	a	reasonable	time	frame	and	

would	not	be	practicable	if	AAF	was	unable	to	purchase	these	properties.	Because	it	requires	entirely	new	

rail	infrastructure,	signal	and	control	systems,	this	alternative	would	not	be	practicable	based	on	cost.	In	

addition,	the	Florida	Turnpike	Route	Alternative	would	have	the	third‐highest	level	of	wetland	loss	based	

on	wetland	acreage,	and	would	not	be	the	least	environmentally	damaging	alternative	as	defined	by	the	

USACE	with	respect	to	Section	404	permitting.	

The	 I‐95	Route	Alternative	 does	not	meet	 the	Project	purpose.	Because	 of	 the	 substantial	number	 of	

private	land	acquisitions,	the	Project	could	not	be	constructed	in	a	reasonable	time	frame	and	would	not	

be	 practicable	if	 AAF	 was	 unable	 to	 purchase	 these	 properties.	Because	it	 requires	 entirely	 new	 rail	

infrastructure,	signal	and	control	systems,	 this	alternative	would	not	be	practicable	based	on	cost.	 In	

addition,	the	I‐95	Turnpike	Route	Alternative	would	have	the	highest	level	of	wetland	loss,	and	would	not	

be	the	least	environmentally	damaging	alternative.	

The	FECR	Route	Alternative	meets	the	Project	purpose.	Trip	times	would	meet	the	3‐hour	target.	Because	

of	the	small	number	of	private	land	acquisitions	(two),	the	Project	could	be	constructed	in	a	reasonable	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-12 September 2014 

 

time	frame	and	would	be	practicable.	Because	it	does	not	require	entirely	new	rail	infrastructure,	signal	

and	control	systems,	this	alternative	would	be	practicable	based	on	cost.	In	addition,	the	FECR	Alternative	

would	 have	 the	 lowest	 level	 of	 wetland	 loss	 based	 on	 wetland	 acreage,	 and	 would	 be	 the	 least	

environmentally	damaging	alternative	as	defined	by	the	USACE	with	respect	to	Section	404	permitting,	

although	impacts	to	conservation	lands	and	threatened	and	endangered	species	habitats	could	be	greater	

than	for	the	Florida’s	Turnpike	and	I‐95	alternatives.	

3.2.2 Level 2 – Corridor Connection Alternatives 

The	 FECR	 Route	 Alternative	 (connecting	 Orlando	 at	 the	 proposed	 GOAA	 Intermodal	 Station	 to	 the	

proposed	AAF	West	Palm	Beach	Station)	consists	of	a	sequence	of	connected	segments.	The	segments	

include	the	western	terminus	at	MCO	(the	MCO	Segment),	the	East‐West	Corridor	(E‐W	Corridor),	the	

connection	between	the	E‐W	and	the	North‐South	Corridors	(E‐W/N‐S	Connector),	and	the	North‐South	

Corridor	(N‐S	Corridor).	The	N‐S	Corridor	consists	of	the	existing	FECR	Corridor.		

The	four	alternatives	described	and	evaluated	in	this	section	assume	use	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	and	the	

N‐S	Corridor,	and	differ	in	the	alignment	that	connects	the	MCO	terminus	with	the	E‐W	Corridor,	and	the	

alignment	that	connects	the	E‐W	Corridor	with	the	N‐S	Corridor.

3.2.2.1 Level 2 Screening Criteria 

The	screening	criteria	used	for	the	Level	2	analysis	are	the	same	as	used	in	the	Level	1	Route	Alternatives	

screening	process.	Three	criteria,	Time	of	Execution,	Cost	of	Construction	and	Engineering	Design,	and	

Grade	Crossings/Bridges,	were	added	to	help	refine	the	analysis.		

Time of Execution 

The	timing	and	duration	of	construction	is	an	important	consideration	in	evaluating	feasibility	as	a	private	

enterprise,	as	delayed	or	increased	construction	times	would	add	to	the	cost	of	construction	and	would	

delay	initiating	revenue	service.	

At-Grade Crossings and Railroad Bridges 

The	 alternatives	 analysis	 considers	 the	 number	 of	 existing	 at‐grade	 crossings	 that	 would	 have	 to	 be	

modified	 and	 the	 number	 of	 new	 at‐grade	 crossings	 that	 would	 need	 to	 be	 constructed	 where	 a	

grade‐separated	crossing	was	not	feasible	or	necessary.	The	total	number	of	at‐grade	crossings	would	

potentially	impact	train	speeds	as	trains	must	reduce	speeds	in	some	areas	with	at‐grade	crossings.	New	

at‐grade	crossings	would	add	to	the	Project	cost	and	would	impact	traffic	on	local	roads.	Improvements	

or	 widening	 of	 existing	 at‐grade	 crossings	 would	 also	 impact	 Project	 cost.	 The	 number	 of	 at‐grade	

crossings	for	each	alternative	was	estimated	using	GIS	mapping.

The	alternatives	analysis	also	considers	the	number	of	new	bridges	over	waterways	or	highways	that	

would	be	required	for	each	alternative.	Bridge	construction	would	impact	Project	cost	and	schedule,	as	

bridges	require	longer	construction	time	than	at‐grade	railroad	infrastructure.	The	number	of	new	or	

modified	 bridges	 associated	 with	 each	 alternative	 was	 estimated	 using	 GIS	 mapping.	 For	 the	 FECR	

Corridor,	the	analysis	includes	those	existing	bridges	that	would	require	modification	or	replacement.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-13 September 2014 

 

3.2.2.2 Alternative Level 2A – SR 407 Alternative (Connection Alternative 1A) 

Alternative	2A	(Figure	3.2‐3)	consists	of	four	segments.	The	AAF	tracks	would	originate	at	the	proposed	

Vehicle	Maintenance	Facility	(VMF)	location,	extending	north	to	the	proposed	GOAA	Intermodal	Station	at	

the	future	MCO	South	Terminal.	From	the	GOAA	Intermodal	Station,	the	alignment	would	parallel	the	North	

Airport	Boulevard	through	the	airport,	cross	under	the	North	Crossfield	Taxiway	and	the	Mid	Crossfield	

Taxiway	 (both	of	which	were	designed	and	constructed	 to	accommodate	a	 transit	line).	The	alignment	

would	curve	to	the	east	and	would	parallel	SR	528.	All	land	for	the	railway	alignment	would	be	leased	from	

GOAA.	The	E‐W	Corridor	would	parallel	SR	528	on	the	south	side.	The	rail	line	would	turn	north	off	of	the	

SR	 528	ROW	at	 the	 Challenger	Memorial	 Parkway	interchange.	 Connection	Alternative	 2A	would	 then	

proceed	northeast,	cross	over	SR	407,	and	travel	along	the	eastern	ROW	of	SR	407.	It	would	transition	from	

SR	407	to	the	Orlando	Utilities	Commission	(OUC)	transmission	line	corridor.	Alternative	2A	would	follow	

the	transmission	line	northeast	to	Delespine,	Florida	and	then	transition	in	a	generally	southeast	direction	

onto	the	FECR	Railway	(N‐S	Corridor)	at	milepost	(MP)	160.5.		

3.2.2.3 Alternative Level 2B – Cocoa Curve (Connection Alternative 1B) 

Alternative	2B,	the	Cocoa	Curve	Connection,	would	be	the	same	as	Alternative	2A	from	MCO	through	the	

E‐W	Corridor.	It	would	follow	the	SR	528	ROW	to	the	Industry	Road	interchange.	At	this	point,	the	alignment	

would	rise	up	on	an	embankment,	cross	Industry	Road	via	a	bridge,	return	to	grade	and	cross	under	SR	528	

to	the	south	side	at	the	interchange	with	U.S.	1	and	merge	with	the	N‐S	Corridor	at	MP	167	(Figure	3.2‐3).		

3.2.2.4 Alternative Level 2B – with GOAA South Loop Alternative (Connection Alternative 1C) 

Another	alternative	was	developed	based	on	a	modification	of	Alternative	2B.	The	GOAA	South	Loop	

would	leave	the	GOAA	Intermodal	Station	to	the	south,	partially	on	new	alignment,	parallel	SR	417,	and	

use	the	existing	OUC	freight	tracks.	This	rail	line	would	connect	with	the	E‐W	Corridor	just	west	of	the	

SR	528	and	Econlockhatchee	River	crossing	 (Figure	3.2‐3).	The	remaining	sections	of	 this	alternative	

would	be	identical	to	the	other	Alternative	2B.		

The	GOAA	South	Loop	Alternative	would	place	the	passenger	trains	on	the	existing	OUC	freight	tracks.	

OUC	uses	this	railroad	to	transport	coal	to	the	power	plant	north	of	SR	528.	This	would	mean	that	AAF	

would	need	to	operate	in	a	shared	use	environment,	affecting	the	operation	and	speed	at	which	AAF’s	

passenger	trains	would	be	able	to	travel.	Speed	is	critical	in	this	area	in	order	to	achieve	the	overall	travel	

times	that	are	targeted	for	the	Orlando	to	Miami	trip.	The	GOAA	South	Loop	Alternative	would	use	OUC’s	

existing	 rail	 corridor	 from	 south	 of	 the	 GOAA	 property	 up	 to	 the	 International	 Corporate	 Park	 (ICP)	

Boulevard.	 The	 existing	 curved	 OUC	 alignment	 restricts	 train	 speeds	 and	 can	 only	 accommodate	

approximately	60	mph	average	speeds	in	this	stretch,	without	further	land	acquisition	to	straighten	the	

curves.	In	order	for	AAF	to	use	the	OUC	tracks,	AAF	would	need	to	negotiate	an	access	and	operating	

agreement,	including	 terms	regarding	 the	manner	in	which	 freight	and	passenger	 trains	would	share	

track,	signaling,	and	traffic	control	facilities	as	well	as	terms	regarding	dispatching	and	priority.	The	need	

for	such	an	agreement	 that	would	be	mutually	acceptable	 to	both	AAF	and	OUC	presents	risks	 to	 the	

Project,	including	schedule,	cost,	and	overall	feasibility.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-14 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-15 September 2014 

 

The	 total	 length	 of	 the	 segment	 from	 ICP	 Boulevard	 to	 the	 proposed	 VMF	 is	 12.2	 miles	 rather	 than	

12.5	miles	to	the	proposed	GOAA	Intermodal	Station.	There	are	approximately	eight	existing	roadway	

grade	crossings	along	the	GOAA	South	Loop	Alternative	that	would	require	grade‐separated	crossings	

(road	bridging	over	rail)	due	to	high	traffic	volumes.	The	alignment	and	grade	separations	would	require	

ROW	 access	 from	 about	 100	 parcels	 with	 this	 alternative.	 The	 rail	 alignment	 passes	 near	 several	

residential	communities,	and	AAF	considers	that	there	is	a	substantial	potential	for	opposition	from	these	

communities	that	increases	risk	for	the	Project.	

This	alternative	is	not	consistent	with	GOAA’s	future	plans	(GOAA	2012a,	2012b,	2013).	GOAA’s	planned	

multi‐modal	connections	incorporate	the	OUC	railroad	to	provide	commuter	rail	and	light	rail	to	the	Lake	

Nona	Medical	City,	University	of	Central	Florida,	and	other	destinations.	The	combined	use	of	the	OUC	

corridor	 for	 freight,	 passenger,	 commuter,	 and	 light	 rail	 would	 require	 substantial	 infrastructure	

modifications	 and	 the	 crossing	movements	 at	 the	intermodal	 station	 would	 present	 operational	 and	

safety	concerns.	

3.2.2.5 Alternative Level 2C – Melbourne South Loop Alternative 

Alternative	2C,	the	Melbourne	South	Loop,	would	be	the	same	as	Alternative	2B	from	MCO	through	the	

western	portion	of	the	E‐W	corridor	(Figure	3.2‐3).	It	would	diverge	from	the	SR	528	ROW	west	of	the	

SR	520	interchange,	approximately	1.5	miles	east	of	 the	Dallas	Boulevard	interchange,	cross	 through	

private	 property,	 and	 connect	 with	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 in	 Melbourne.	 The	 proposed	 alignment	 was	

developed	 to	 follow	 existing	 transportation	 and	 utility	 infrastructure	 to	 the	 extent	 possible,	 and	 to	

minimize	impacts	to	environmental	resources.	The	route	would	follow	a	southerly	alignment	and	then	

turn	east	to	parallel	the	north	side	of	Nova	Road.	The	route	would	continue	east,	cross	the	St.	Johns	River	

and	then	turn	south	to	parallel	the	west	side	of	I‐95	before	curving	east	to	cross	over	I‐95	and	a	proposed	

new	interchange	for	Ellis	Road.	

The	portion	of	this	alternative	on	private	land	is	approximately	45.6	miles	long	and	results	in	an	overall	

routing	that	is	3.3	miles	longer	than	Alternative	2B	between	the	same	beginning	and	ending	points	due	

to	 the	circuitous	routing	of	 the	alignment	 that	would	be	necessary	 through	private	properties.	These	

curves	would	restrict	speeds	to	60	mph.		

The	 Melbourne	 South	 Loop	 (Alternative	 2C)	 is	 estimated	 to	 increase	 travel	 time	 by	 approximately	

12	minutes	over	other	connection	alternatives	due	to	the	need	for	reduced	speeds	at	grade	crossings	and	

curves.	

3.2.2.6 Level 2 Alternatives Evaluation 

Table	 3.2‐2	 presents	 the	 results	 of	 the	 Level	 2	 screening	 analysis.	 	 As	 shown	 in	 the	 table,	 Level	 2	

Alternative	2A	does	not	meet	the	Project	purpose	because	it	would	not	deliver	a	trip	time	of	less	than	3	

hours	15	minutes,	and	because	it	could	not	be	constructed	in	the	short‐term.	Because	of	the	substantial	

number	of	private	land	acquisitions,	this	alternative	could	not	be	constructed	in	a	reasonable	time	frame	

and	would	not	be	practicable	if	AAF	was	unable	to	purchase	these	properties.	This	alternative	has	the	

second‐highest	 wetland	 impacts	 based	 on	 acres	 of	 wetland	 lost,	 and	 would	 not	 be	 the	 least	

environmentally	damaging	alternative	as	defined	by	the	USACE	with	respect	to	Section	404	permitting.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-16 September 2014 

 

Table 3.2-2 Screening Analysis Results – Level 2 FECR Route Segment Alternatives 

Criterion Metric 2A 2B 2B GOAA 2C 

Time of Execution Can the alternative be 

constructed in the 

near-term? 

No Yes No No 

Logistics

Land Access Number of landowners 279 5 100 63 

At-Grade Crossings Number of new or 

extended crossings 

8 0 8 (existing) 16 

Bridges Number of new or 

reconstructed bridges over 

waterways/over roads 

27/10 27/10 27/8 26/37 

Route Length and Time Does the alternative meet 

the target travel time 

(3 hrs., 15 min. or less)? 

248 miles 

Time> target 

235 miles 

Time= target 

233 miles 

Time>target 

238 miles

Time>targ

et 

Environmental

Wetlands and 

Waterways 1

Amount of resource directly 

or indirectly impacted 

534 acres 134 acres 285 acres 674 acres 

Conservation Lands 2 Amount of resource 

potentially impacted 

7 miles 5 miles 9 miles 5 miles 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 1

Number of habitats directly 

or indirectly impacted 

33 11 7 8 

Source; AMEC 2014d, Addendum to Technical Memorandum 3, Screening Analysis for Alternatives Identification. 

1 Within a 300-foot corridor centered on the track 

2 Miles crossed or adjacent to the alternative 

Alternative	 2B	 meets	 the	 Project	 purpose	 because	 it	 would	 deliver	 a	 trip	 time	 of	 less	 than	 3	 hours	

15	 minutes,	 and	 because	 it	 could	 be	 constructed	 in	 the	 short‐term.	 Because	 of	 the	 few	 private	 land	

acquisitions,	this	alternative	could	be	constructed	in	a	reasonable	time	frame	and	would	be	practicable	

because	 AAF	 has	 secured	 agreements	 to	 purchase	 these	 properties.	 This	 alternative	 has	 the	 lowest	

wetland	impacts	based	on	the	acres	of	wetland	loss,	and	would	be	the	least	environmentally	damaging	

alternative	as	defined	by	the	USACE	with	respect	to	Section	404	permitting.	

Alternative	2B	with	GOAA	South	Loop	does	not	meet	the	Project	purpose	because	it	would	not	deliver	a	trip	

time	of	less	than	3	hours	15	minutes,	and	because	it	could	not	be	constructed	in	the	short‐term.	Because	of	

the	substantial	number	of	private	land	acquisitions,	this	alternative	could	not	be	constructed	in	a	reasonable	

time	frame	and	would	not	be	practicable	if	AAF	was	unable	to	purchase	these	properties.	This	alternative	

has	 the	 third‐highest	 wetland	 impacts	 based	 on	 the	 acres	 of	 wetland	 loss	 and	 would	 not	 be	 the	 least	

environmentally	damaging	alternative	as	defined	by	the	USACE	with	respect	to	Section	404	permitting.	

Alternative	2C	does	not	meet	the	project	purpose	because	it	would	not	deliver	a	trip	time	of	less	than	3	

hours	15	minutes,	and	because	it	could	not	be	constructed	in	the	short‐term.	Because	of	the	substantial	

number	of	private	land	acquisitions,	this	alternative	could	not	be	constructed	in	a	reasonable	time	frame	

and	would	not	be	practicable	if	AAF	was	unable	to	purchase	these	properties.	This	alternative	has	the	

highest	 wetland	 impacts	 based	 on	 the	 acres	 of	 wetland	 loss,	 would	 result	 in	 substantial	 habitat	

fragmentation	along	 the	new	alignment	route,	and	would	not	be	 the	least	environmentally	damaging	

alternative	as	defined	by	the	USACE	with	respect	to	Section	404	permitting.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-17 September 2014 

 

3.2.3 Level 3 Screening – East-West Corridor Alignment Options 

The	 FECR	 Route	 Alternative	 (Alternative	 2B)	 described	 above	 would	 follow	 the	 SR	 528	 alignment	

between	 MCO	 and	 the	 FECR	 Corridor,	 maximizing	 the	 use	 of	 existing	 transportation	 infrastructure.	

Several	 variations	of	 this	route—the	E‐W	Corridor—were	developed	based	on	 the	existing	ROW	and	

adjacent	land	uses,	as	well	as	the	future	development	plans	of	the	transportation	agencies.	Based	on	these	

considerations,	 AAF	 determined	 that	 new	 rail	 could	 be	 accommodated	 within	 the	 FDOT‐controlled	

segment	of	SR	528,	west	of	the	SR	520	interchange,	and	that	a	lease	of	the	FDOT	ROW	was	feasible.	This	

within‐ROW	alignment	minimizes	impacts	to	natural	and	social	resources.	From	MCO	to	SR	520,	SR	528	

is	controlled	by	OOCEA,	and	is	largely	bordered	by	undeveloped	land	to	the	south.	Level	3	evaluates	the	

E‐W	Corridor	alignment	options	developed	within	the	OOCEA	segment	(SR	417	to	SR	520)	to	evaluate	

alternatives	 which	 would	 minimize	 environmental	 impacts	 and	 which	 were	 compatible,	 to	 varying	

degrees,	with	future	plans	for	highway	improvement.	

3.2.3.1 Screening Criteria 

Two	 additional	 criteria	 were	 used	 to	 screen	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 alignment	 options.	 These	 criteria,	

Stakeholder	 (Planning)	 Consistency	and	 stormwater	management	 (as	a	 subcategory	 of	 Logistics)	are	

unique	considerations	at	this	level	of	evaluation,	and	are	relevant	to	the	determination	of	practicability.	

Planning Consistency 

This	criterion	evaluates	the	extent	to	which	each	alternative	for	the	E‐W	Corridor	(parallel	to	SR	528)	

is	consistent	with	the	plans	of	transportation	stakeholders	and	other	adjacent	property	owners.	

Portions	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	are	within	the	jurisdiction	of	GOAA,	OOCEA,	and	FDOT,	each	of	which	has	

plans	for	future	expansion	and	operation.	The	feasibility	of	each	alternative	must	be	evaluated	based	

on	the	compatibility	of	the	alignment	with	stakeholder	plans.	Alternatives	that	are	consistent	with	the	

plans	of	each	entity	could	be	accomplished	through	access	agreements	or	leases,	within	the	current	or	

future	 ROW	 of	 each	 transportation	 agency,	 and	 would	 not	 require	 negotiating	 land	 purchase	 with	

numerous	 property	 owners	 outside	 of	 the	 transportation	 ROW.	 As	 previously	 discussed	 under	

Logistics,	 the	number	 of	 parcels	 to	be	acquired	affects	costs	and	 schedule,	and	presents	a	 risk	 that	

owners	could	block	construction	by	refusing	to	sell.	Specific	agency	plans	are	described	below.	

 GOAA	 has	 plans	 to	 develop	 the	 eastern	 portion	 of	 the	 property.	GOAA’s	 proposed	 East	Airfield	

Development	Area	would	develop	all	of	the	area	south	of	SR	528	and	west	of	North	Narcoossee	

Road	for	aircraft	support	(hangars,	cargo,	and	maintenance	facilities),	airport	support,	stormwater	

management,	and	a	fuel	farm	(GOAA	2009).	

 OOCEA’s	plan	to	expand	SR	528	includes	an	additional	eight	lanes	to	the	outside,	an	open	median,	

and	adding	or	modifying	eight	interchanges.	OOCEA	has	already	expanded	two	mainline	toll	plazas	

to	accommodate	the	future	widening	(OOCEA	2008).		

 FDOT’s	plan	to	expand	SR	528	east	of	SR	520	includes	widening	by	an	additional	four	to	six	lanes,	

partially	toward	the	median	and	partially	to	the	outside.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-18 September 2014 

 

Each	E‐W	Corridor	Alignment	Option	was	evaluated	based	on	consistency	with	future	plans,	as	well	as	

the	willingness	of	 these	 transportation	entities	 to	assume	certain	costs	of	completion,	operation,	or	

maintenance	of	facilities	such	as	bridges	or	interchanges.	An	alternative	is	reasonable	and	practicable	

only	where	the	controlling	entity	(GOAA,	OOCEA,	or	FDOT)	is	willing	to	accept	the	location	or	added	

cost	of	an	alternative.	

In	 addition	 to	 planned	 transportation	 improvements	 of	 these	 three	 agencies,	 AAF	 has	 considered	

current	and	future	development	plans	of	adjacent	property	owners.	

Logistics 

Additional	 logistical	 considerations	 in	 the	 Level	 3	 alternatives	 analysis	 for	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 include	

stormwater	management. 

Stormwater Management 

Stormwater	management	systems	are	required	to	capture	and	treat	runoff	during	and	after	construction.	

Where	an	alignment	option	is	close	to	the	existing	highway,	the	existing	stormwater	system	may	be	able	

to	 accommodate	 the	 runoff	 from	 the	 railroad	 as	 well	 as	 both	 existing	 and	 planned	 future	 highway	

facilities.	Options	 that	are	 farther	 from	 the	existing	highway	would	require	new	separate	stormwater	

systems	that	would	increase	the	cost	and	complexity	of	construction	and	future	maintenance.	

3.2.3.2 Alignment Option 3A 

E‐W	Corridor	Alignment	Option	3A	would	construct	a	new	60‐foot	wide	rail	line	within	the	SR	528	ROW	

east	of	SR	417	(Figures	3.2‐4	and	3.2‐5).	The	60‐foot	ROW	would	accommodate	two	tracks,	but	would	not	

include	a	parallel	access	road	for	maintenance	of	the	rail	alignment,	as	the	rail	line	could	be	reached	from	

SR	528.	Land	required	to	construct	Option	3A	would	be	leased	from	OOCEA	and	FDOT.	AAF	has	secured	

lease	agreements	with	both	entities	that	would	allow	the	construction	of	Option	3A.	This	alignment	would	

require	 extensive	 retaining	 walls	 and	 bridges	 in	 order	 to	 minimize	 its	 footprint	 and	 accommodate	

existing	and	future	SR	528	infrastructure	without	extending	outside	the	ROW.	Option	3A	requires	bridge	

viaducts	 to	 cross	 eight	 interchanges,	 with	 extensive	 bridging	 and	 elevated	 facilities.	 These	 complex	

components	would	increase	design	time,	construction	time,	and	costs.		

3.2.3.3 Alignment Option 3C 

E‐W	 Corridor	 Alignment	 Option	 3C	 would	 create	 a	 new	 100‐foot	 wide	 rail	 alignment	 (in	 order	 to	

construct	two	tracks	and	a	parallel	maintenance	access	road)	that	“straddles”	the	SR	528	southern	ROW	

line	within	the	OOCEA	segment,	with	approximately	10	feet	of	the	proposed	rail	line	width	within	the	

ROW	and	approximately	90	feet	of	the	rail	line	width	south	of	the	ROW	(Figures	3.2‐4	and	3.2‐5).	This	

alternative	would	include	a	parallel	access	road	for	maintenance	of	the	rail	alignment.	OOCEA	would	

acquire	the	land,	which	would	then	be	leased	by	AAF.	According	to	AAF,	Option	3C	would	not	preclude	

future	expansion	of	SR	528.	Within	the	FDOT	segment,	Option	3C	would	be	identical	to	Option	3A.	AAF	

has	secured	lease	agreements	with	FDOT	and	OOCEA	that	would	allow	the	construction	of	Option	3C.	

Option	3C	requires	bridge	viaducts	to	cross	eight	interchanges,	with	extensive	bridging	and	elevated	

facilities.	These	complex	components	would	increase	design	time,	construction	time,	and	costs.	A	minor	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-19 September 2014 

 

variant	of	this	alternative	(Option	3B)	was	developed	during	early	planning,	but	was	dismissed	by	AAF	

because	the	interchange	configurations	were	not	acceptable	to	OOCEA	and	were	not	compatible	with	

OOCEA’s	future	expansion	plans.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-20 September 2014 

 

3.2.3.4 Alignment Option 3D 

E‐W	Corridor	Alignment	Option	3D	represents	a	new	rail	line	location	with	an	alignment	separated	from	

the	 SR	 528	 ROW	 for	 17.4	 miles	 (parallel	 to	 SR	 528)	 within	 the	 OOCEA	 segment	 of	 SR	 528.	 Under	

Option	3D,	the	proposed	100‐foot	wide	E‐W	Corridor	(in	order	to	construct	two	tracks	and	a	parallel	

maintenance	access	road)	would	be	located	approximately	400	feet	south	of	the	SR	528	southern	ROW	

boundary	line.	Within	the	FDOT	segment,	Option	3D	would	be	identical	to	Option	3A.	Within	the	OOCEA	

segment,	the	adjacent	property	owners	have	stated	that	they	would	not	be	willing	to	sell	this	land	to	AAF.		

3.2.3.5 Alignment Option 3E 

E‐W	Corridor	Alignment	Option	3E	would	be	located	on	average	between	100	and	200	feet	south	of	the	

southern	 edge	 of	 the	 existing	 SR	 528	 ROW	 with	 the	 exception	 of	two	 interchanges	 (Figures	 3.2‐4	

and	3.2‐5).	At	the	Dallas	Boulevard	interchange	the	proposed	rail	line	would	be	approximately	700	feet	

south	of	the	current	SR	528	ROW.	This	option	would	include	a	parallel	access	road	for	maintenance	of	

the	rail	alignment.	At	the	SR	520	interchange	the	proposed	rail	line	would	be	approximately	500	feet	

south	of	the	current	SR	528	ROW.	The	Option	E	alignment	would	be	an	average	of	100	feet	wide	in	

order	 to	 construct	 two	 tracks	 and	 a	 parallel	 maintenance	 access	 road.	 Land	 required	 to	 construct	

Option	E	would	be	leased	from	OOCEA	and	FDOT.	OOCEA	would	acquire	the	land	south	of	the	existing	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-21 September 2014 

 

ROW	 limits	 to	 accommodate	 future	 highway	 widening	 and	 a	 transit	 corridor,	 and	 would	 lease	 an	

approximately	100‐foot	wide	strip	to	AAF.	AAF	has	secured	lease	agreements	with	FDOT	and	OOCEA	

that	would	allow	 the	construction	 of	Option	3E.	Option	3E	would	not	preclude	 future	expansion	 of	

SR	528.	Within	the	FDOT	segment,	Option	3E	would	be	identical	to	Option	3A.	Because	Option	3E	is	

substantially	south	of	SR	528,	it	would	not	require	crossing	the	eight	interchanges	along	SR	528	and	

would	be	primarily	constructed	at‐grade	within	the	OOCEA	segment.	This	would	reduce	design	and	

construction	time,	as	well	as	construction	costs.		

3.2.3.6 Summary – East-West Alignment Options 

Table	3.2‐3	provides	a	summary	of	 the	East‐West	corridor	screening	analysis.	Based	on	 this	analysis,	

Alignment	Option	3D	was	dismissed	from	further	consideration	because	it	would	require	a	significant	

amount	of	land	acquisition	from	private	entities	that	have	indicated	that	they	are	not	willing	to	sell	the	

land.		Therefore,	Option	3D	is	not	a	practicable	option.		Alignment	Option	3D	would	also	have	the	highest	

amount	 of	 wetland	 impacts	 and	 therefore	 is	 not	 the	 least	 environmentally	 damaging	 alternative.		

Alignments	3A,	3C	and	3E	were	retained	for	additional	analysis.			

Table 3.2-3 Screening Analysis Results –East-West Corridor Alignment Options1

Criterion Metric 3A 3C 3D 3E 

Cost of Construction Estimated Cost $1.5B $1.5B $1.4B $1.4B 

Time of Execution Can the alternative be 

constructed by 2016? 

No 1 No 1 No 2 Yes 

Planning Consistency Consistency with plans of 

transportation agencies and 

landowners 

Yes Yes No Yes 

Logistics 

Land Access Can access be secured by 

project start date? 

Yes Yes No Yes 

Stormwater Management Is a new separate 

stormwater system 

required? 

No No Yes Yes 

Bridges Number of new or 

reconstructed bridges over 

roads 

37 3 37 34 34 

Route Length and Time Does the alternative meet 

the target travel time (3 hrs. 

15 min. or less)? 

235 miles 

Time=target 

235 miles 

Time=target 

235 miles 

Time=target 

235 miles 

Time=targ

et 

Environmental 

Wetlands and Waterways Amount of resource directly 

affected 

128 acres 165 acres 178 acres 158 acres 

Conservation Lands 4 Amount of resource 

potentially affected 

5 miles 5 miles 5 miles 5 miles 

Source; AMEC 2014d, Addendum to Technical Memorandum 3, Screening Analysis for Alternatives Identification. 

1 Construction time extended due to bridges

2 Construction time extended due to land acquisition

3 Values are for the entire Alternative  

4 Miles crossed or adjacent to the alternative 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-22 September 2014 

 

3.2.4 Vehicle Maintenance Facility Alternatives 

The	Project	includes	a	dedicated	VMF	located	at	the	northern	terminus	of	the	route	(Figure	3.2‐6).	AAF	

evaluated	two	sites:	the	proposed	site,	located	on	GOAA	property	south	of	MCO,	and	a	second	location	

along	SR	528	east	of	Dallas	Boulevard.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-23 September 2014 

 

AAF	selected	the	GOAA	site	because	it	would	be	consistent	with	future	plans	by	GOAA	and	others	 for	

SunRail	and	other	commuter	rail	systems,	as	well	as	be	consistent	with	future	expansion	plans	for	the	

airport	(GOAA	2012a,	2012b,	2013).	The	site	is	less	than	2	miles	from	the	GOAA	Intermodal	Station,	and	

would	minimize	non‐revenue	 trip	costs	between	 the	VMF	and	 the	station.	GOAA	has	already	secured	

wetland	permits	for	portions	of	the	proposed	site	(USACE	1996),	and	all	necessary	utilities	are	already	

available	at	 the	site.	Based	on	cost,	logistics,	and	environmental	impacts,	 this	alternative	is	 feasible	 to	

implement.	

A	site	along	the	south	side	of	SR	528,	east	of	Dallas	Boulevard,	was	proposed	by	an	abutting	landowner.	

This	site	is	16	miles	from	the	GOAA	Intermodal	Station,	and	would	result	in	increased	non‐revenue	costs	

to	move	empty	trains	between	the	VMF	and	the	station	at	the	start	and	end	of	each	run.	This	site	would	

require	fill	of	approximately	67	acres	of	wetland,	and	the	only	available	utility	is	electricity.	Due	to	the	

distance	from	fuel	providers,	an	on‐site	fuel	tank	farm	(propane,	diesel,	and	other	required	fuels)	would	

be	needed.	Previous	subsurface	investigations	showed	 that	sections	of	this	site	have	unsuitable	muck	

subsoils	 that	 would	 require	 removal	 and	 replacement	 with	 suitable	 structural	 fill	 materials.	 This	

alternative	would	have	substantially	higher	costs,	logistic	problems,	and	environmental	impacts	than	the	

GOAA	site	and	was,	therefore,	dismissed.		

3.2.5 Station Alternatives 

The	Project	includes	one	station	between	Orlando	and	West	Palm	Beach,	the	proposed	GOAA	Intermodal	

Station	that	is	being	planned	and	constructed	by	GOAA	(Figure	3.2‐7).	According	to	GOAA,	construction	

was	scheduled	to	begin	mid‐2014.	AAF	selected	this	location	because	it	would	be	consistent	with	GOAA’s	

plans	for	future	intermodal	connections,	including	connections	to	the	airport’s	People	Mover	system.	AAF	

determined	that	no	other	location	with	the	same	intermodal	connectivity	is	available	in	Orlando.	A	site	in	

downtown	Orlando	would	add	travel	time,	and	would	not	deliver	the	approximately	three‐hour	trip	time	

required	 to	 meet	 the	 ridership	 targets	 necessary	 for	 a	 sustainable	 commercial	 initiative.	 Additional	

stations	along	 the	N‐S	Corridor	 (for	example,	Cocoa,	Melbourne,	 or	 Fort	Pierce)	were	not	considered	

because	 any	 additional	 stations	 would	 increase	 travel	 time	 between	 Orlando	 and	 Miami	 to	 an	

unacceptable	duration	 of	greater	 than	3	hours	15	minutes.	However,	 the	Project	would	not	preclude	

future	stations.	

3.3 Alternatives Studied in Detail in the EIS 

Chapter	 5,	Environmental Consequences,	 of	 this	DEIS	 provides	 a	 detailed	 analysis	 of	 the	 environmental	

impacts	 of	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative	 and	 three	 Action	 Alternatives	 (Alternative	 A,	 Alternative	 C,	 and	

Alternative	 E).	 Each	 of	 the	 three	 Action	 Alternatives	 incorporates	 the	 same	 proposed	 action	 for	 these	

components:	the	MCO	Segment	and	VMF,	the	E‐W	Corridor	parallel	to	SR	528,	and	the	N‐S	Corridor	within	

the	FECR	Corridor.	The	three	alternatives	differ	with	respect	to	the	alignment	within	the	17.4‐mile	segment	

of	the	E‐W	Corridor	between	the	MCO	Segment	and	SR	520	(within	the	OOCEA‐controlled	portion	of	SR	528	

between	SR	417	and	SR	520).	These	alternatives	were	designed	to	accommodate	OOCEA’s	long‐term	plan	

to	expand	the	overall	cross‐section	of	SR	528	to	an	8‐lane	roadway,	as	described	in	the	agency’s	SR 528

Multi‐Use/Multi‐Modal Corridor Study	(OOCEA	2008).	They	were	also	designed	 to	be	 flexible	depending

upon	the	outcome	of	ongoing	property	negotiations	between	FECR,	FDOT,	OOCEA,	and	private	landowners.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-24 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-25 September 2014 

 

AAF	 has	 executed	 a	 lease	 agreement	 with	 OOCEA	 that	 allows	 them	 to	 construct	 any	 of	 the	 three	

alternatives,	pending	an	OOCEA	Board	vote	that	the	land	to	be	occupied	by	AAF	is	"surplus."	AAF	has	

provided	design	concepts,	which	have	been	reviewed	by	OOCEA,	that	show	any	of	the	three	alternatives	

can	be	constructed	and	not	preclude	future	BeachLine	Expressway	widening.	The	OOCEA	Board	may	not	

vote	to	declare	any	of	the	land	within	their	existing	ROW	to	be	"surplus."	In	that	case,	Alternatives	A	and	C	

would	be	eliminated	since	it	would	not	be	possible	to	lease	the	land.	Currently,	the	OOCEA	Board	has	not	

made	a	determination,	so	all	three	alignments	are	still	being	considered.	All	land	acquisitions	required	for	

this	segment	of	the	Project	would	be	carried	out	by	OOCEA.	

The	 sections	 below	 provide	 a	 detailed	 description	 of	 the	No‐Action	 Alternative	 and	 the	 three	 Action	

Alternatives	 studied	in	 this	 DEIS.	 Section	 3.4	 provides	information	 on	 the	 operations	 common	 to	 all	

alternatives,	 and	 Section	 3.5	 provides	 information	 on	 ridership,	 which	 would	 be	 the	 same	 for	 each	

alternative.		AAF	estimates	a	2016	completion	date	for	Phase	I	and	Phase	II,	assuming	project	financing	

and	equipment	are	available.		Ridership	is	anticipated	to	increase	from	2016	to	2019,	and	remain	stable	

after	2019.		The	analyses	in	this	DEIS	are	based	on	these	assumptions.	

3.3.1 Phase I 

This	 section	 provides	 a	 description	 of	 Phase	 I	 of	 the	 Project,	based	 on	information	 presented	in	 the	

2012	Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail

Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida (2012	EA).	As	summarized	in	Section	1.1	of	the	2012	EA,	Phase	

I	would	provide	intercity	passenger	rail	on	a	66‐mile	corridor	from	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami,	within	the	

FECR	railroad	ROW.	Three	new	stations	would	be	located	in	the	central	business	districts	of	West	Palm	

Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale	and	Miami.	The	existing	track	would	be	upgraded,	with	49.2	miles	of	new	second	

main	line	track,	8.3	miles	of	siding	rehabilitation,	and	new	track	signal	controls.	Existing	highway	and	

pedestrian	at‐grade	crossings	would	be	upgraded	to	enhance	safety.	Three	bridges	would	have	a	second	

track	added	but	would	not	require	construction	in	the	water	(C‐15	Canal,	Cypress	Creek	Canal,	and	Snake	

Creek	Canal).	Hourly	service	would	be	provided,	consisting	of	16	daily	roundtrip	trains.			

Subsequent	to	the	publication	of	the	2012	EA	and	the	FONSI	issued	by	the	FRA	in	2013	(2013	FONSI),	

AAF	proposed	shifting	the	proposed	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	building	to	the	opposite	(west)	side	of	the	

tracks,	along	NW	2nd	Avenue	between	NW	4th	Street	and	Broward	Boulevard.	On	March	27,	2014	FRA	

issued	a	Re‐Evaluation	that	determined	the	new	location	would	not	change	the	environmental	impacts	

identified	in	the	2012	EA	and	previously	found	to	be	not	significant	(Appendix	3.3‐A).	

Subsequent	to	the	publication	of	the	2012	EA	and	2013	FONSI,	AAF	has	proposed	a	shift	of	the	proposed	

Fort	Lauderdale	VMF	to	an	existing	freight	rail	yard	in	West	Palm	Beach.	Concurrently	with	this	DEIS,	AAF	

has	prepared	a	supplemental	Environmental	Assessment	for	this	facility.		This	EA	is	available	on	the	FRA	

website	for	public	review	and	comment	for	30	days	from	the	date	of	the	DEIS	availability.		The	document	

and	details	on	how	to	submit	comments	can	be	found	on	FRA’s	website	at	www.fra.dot.gov.		In	Phase	I,	the	

Project	would	use	the	proposed	VMF	in	West	Palm	Beach	for	maintenance	and	overnight	vehicle	storage.	

The	 Project’s	 Phase	 I	 environmental	impacts	were	 evaluated	in	 the	 2012	 EA	 and	 FRA’s	 2013	 FONSI	

(Appendix	1.1‐A1	and	A2);	it	was	confirmed	 that	 the	West	Palm	Beach	 to	Miami	phase	of	 the	Project	

would	have	no	significant	environmental	impacts	(FRA	2013).	The	effects	of	this	phase	of	the	Project,	also	

described	as	 the	West	Palm	Beach‐Miami	Segment	 (WPB‐M	Segment),	are	considered	in	 this	DEIS	in	

order	 to	 provide	 a	 complete	 description	 of	 the	 cumulative	 environmental	 impacts	 of	 the	 Project.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-26 September 2014 

 

Subsequent	sections	of	this	DEIS	will	also	evaluate	changes	to	the	WPB‐M	Segment	since	the	publication	

of	the	2012	EA	and	2013	FONSI	and	subsequent	re‐evaluations.	

3.3.2 No-Action Alternative 

The	No‐Action	Alternative	involves	no	changes	to	the	rail	line	within	the	FECR	Corridor	beyond	regular	

maintenance	 and	 improvements	 that	 have	 been	 currently	 planned	 and	 funded.	 Under	 the	 No‐Action	

Alternative,	existing	freight	operations	and	infrastructure	would	be	maintained	by	FECR.	The	No‐Action	

Alternative	 would	 also	 include	 future	 planned	 and	 funded	 roadway,	 transit,	 air,	 and	 other	 intermodal	

improvements	likely	to	be	completed	within	the	Project	study	area	by	the	2016	target	date.	Table	3.3‐1	

shows	the	future	freight	operations	within	the	FECR	Corridor	that	would	occur	in	the	absence	of	the	Project.	

Table 3.3-1 Existing and Future Freight Train Operations (No-Action Alternative) 

Day 

2013 (Existing) 2016 

Number of trains 

per day 

(7:00 AM-10:00 PM) 

Number of trains 

per night 

(10:00 PM-7:00 AM) 

Number of trains 

per day 

(7:00 AM-10:00 PM) 

Number of trains 

per night 

(10:00 PM-7:00 AM) 

Monday 10 5 16 8 

Tuesday 11 6 16 9 

Wednesday 11 6 17 9 

Thursday 10 7 15 9 

Friday 11 5 12 6 

Saturday 6 3 8 2 

Sunday 4 6 11 6 

Total 63 38 95 49 

Average Trains per Day 14 20 

Source: AAF. 2013a. Modeling Assumptions. May 2013. Report. 

Currently,	the	prevailing	train	control	system	on	the	FECR	Corridor	is	commonly	known	as	a	“cab	with	

wayside”	type	system.	It	utilizes	wayside	color	light	signals	at	interlockings	that	control	safe	switching	of	

trains	from	mainline	track	to	mainline	track,	or	mainline	track	to	controlled	sidings.	These	signals	are	

remotely	 controlled	 by	 dispatchers	 from	 an	 operations	 control	 center	 in	 Jacksonville,	 Florida.	 Safe	

braking	 distance	 is	 maintained	 through	 automatic	 signals	 (also	 color	 lights)	 used	 as	 intermediates	

between	controlled	interlocking	signals.	The	control	system	is	“route‐signaling”	augmented	by	in‐cab	

signals	 that	display	 the	state	of	 the	wayside	signals	continuously	in	 the	locomotive	cab	via	electronic	

coded	track.	This	electronic	coded	track	also	provides	broken	rail	detection.	FECR	is	required	by	FRA	

regulations	 to	implement	a	new	 signal	 system	 that	will	provide	positive	 train	control	 (PTC)	by	2015	

(49	 CFR	 Part	 229).	 PTC	 systems	 are	 integrated	 command,	 control,	 communication,	 and	 information	

systems	for	controlling	train	movements	with	safety,	security,	precision,	and	efficiency.	PTC	systems	are	

comprised	of	digital	data	link	communication	networks,	continuous	and	accurate	positioning	systems	

such	as	Nationwide	Differential	Global	Positioning	Systems,	on‐board	computers	with	digitized	maps	on	

locomotives	 and	 maintenance‐of‐way	 equipment,	 in‐cab	 displays,	 throttle‐brake	 interfaces	 on	

locomotives,	wayside	interface	units	at	switches	and	wayside	detectors,	and	control	center	computers	

and	displays.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-27 September 2014 

 

Under	 the	No‐Action	Alternative,	it	is	assumed	 that	land	use	development	would	continue	consistent	

within	 the	 approved	 and	 adopted	 local	 comprehensive,	 master	 and/or	 visioning	 plans	 of	 each	

municipality.	 For	 the	 purposes	 of	 this	 analysis,	 it	 was	 also	 assumed	 that	 only	 planned	 and	 funded	

improvements	will	be	completed.	

3.3.3 Alternative A 

Alternative	A	(Figure	3.3‐1)	includes	four	segments:	the	MCO	Segment,	which	includes	the	proposed	VMF	

and	 new	 railroad	 infrastructure	 between	 the	 VMF	 and	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor;	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 on	 new	

alignment	(Alternative	Option	3A)	between	MCO	and	Cocoa,	paralleling	SR	528;	the	N‐S	Corridor	within	

the	FECR	ROW	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach;	and	the	WPB‐Miami	Corridor	within	the	FECR	ROW	

between	West	Palm	Beach	and	Miami	(the	Phase	1	project	evaluated	in	the	previous	EA	and	FONSI).	The	

Project	evaluated	in	this	EIS	also	includes	bridge	reconstruction	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	within	the	

FECR	ROW.	Since	the	publication	of	the	2012	EA	and	2013	FONSI,	AAF	has	determined	that	it	is	necessary	

for	the	Phase	II	Project	to	reconstruct	seven	bridges	over	waterways,	and	to	modify	the	turnout	at	the	

Miami	Viaduct.		Generally,	the	Project	includes	additional	rail	infrastructure	improvements	from	Orlando	

to	West	Palm	Beach,	including	new	 track,	new	bridges,	drainage	systems	and	 the	development	 of	all	

communications,	signaling,	safety	and	security	systems.	A	new	signal	system	would	be	implemented	as	

part	of	 the	Project	 that	will	provide	a	PTC	overlay	system	with	a	back	office	server	in	 the	operations	

control	center	to	achieve	compliance	with	49	CFR	part	229.	

The	 following	 subsections	 describe	 each	 of	 the	 corridor	 segments	 for	 Alternative	 A,	 the	 proposed	

infrastructure,	operations,	and	ridership.	Detailed	plans	of	Alternative	A	are	provided	in	Appendix	3.3‐B1	

through	3.3‐B4.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-28 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-29 September 2014 

 

3.3.3.1 MCO Segment 

The	 MCO	 Segment	 (Figure	 3.3‐2)	 is	 approximately	 2.5	 miles	 long	 and	 would	 consist	 of	 two	 tracks,	

extending	 from	 the	 VMF	 to	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 west	 of	 Goldenrod	 Road.	 The	 track	 would	 be	 at‐grade	

between	the	VMF	and	the	Intermodal	Terminal	Complex,	where	it	would	rise	on	structure	to	a	three‐track	

station	 with	 center	 platforms.	 The	 track	 would	 return	 to	 grade	 and	 would	 parallel	 North	 Airport	

Boulevard,	crossing	under	Mid	Crossfield	Taxiways	F	and	E.	Tug	Roads	#2	and	#4,	and	the	A2	Service	

Road,	would	be	realigned	and	lowered	to	allow	the	track	to	pass	over	these	service	roads.	The	track	would	

pass	under	North	Crossfield	Taxiway	J	and	the	Cargo	Road,	requiring	the	Cargo	Road	Ramp	be	re‐aligned.	

The	Crossfield	Taxiway	bridges	were	constructed	with	an	extra	bay	to	accommodate	future	rail;	however,	

the	Cargo	Road	Bridge	would	be	widened	for	the	AAF	tracks.	The	proposed	track	would	continue	at‐grade	

around	the	west	and	north	sides	of	the	Employee	Parking	Lot	before	joining	the	E‐W	Corridor	along	the	

south	side	of	SR	528	west	of	Goldenrod	Road.	The	FAA	must	review	all	leases	and/or	agreements	between	

AAF	and	GOAA	prior	to	execution	and	have	a	determination	of	object/no	object.	

3.3.3.2 East-West Corridor 

The	E‐W	Corridor	between	Orlando	and	Cocoa,	which	is	approximately	32.5	miles	long,	would	require	all	

new	rail	infrastructure,	structures,	and	systems	(Figure	3.3‐2).	The	E‐W	Corridor	would	begin	at	the	north	

end	of	the	MCO	Segment	(SR	436)	and	then	parallel	SR	528,	a	transportation	corridor	controlled	by	two	

public	transportation	agencies:		

 The	approximately	20	miles	from	SR	436	to	SR	520,	which	is,	or	will	be,	controlled	by	OOCEA	(pending	

additional	land	acquisition	involving	private	landowners);	and	

 The	eastern‐most	15	miles,	which	is	owned	by	FDOT	(pending	additional	land	acquisition	by	AAF	

from	one	private	landowner).	

From	Orlando	to	Cocoa,	AAF	plans	to	maintain	track	conditions	in	accordance	with	FRA	safety	standards	

permitting	maximum	train	speeds	of	125	mph	(FRA	2012b	and	2012c).	Standard	FDOT	highway	fencing,	

or	its	equivalent,	would	be	installed	throughout	the	length	of	the	corridor,	and	all	road	crossings	would	

be	grade‐separated.	Based	on	coordination	with	the	natural	resource	agencies,	the	standard	fencing	may	

be	modified	or	substituted	with	fencing	appropriate	to	discourage	wildlife	crossings	where	unmitigated	

impacts	 may	 exist.	 The	 following	 sections	 provide	 detailed	 descriptions	 of	 each	 section	 of	 the	

E‐W	Corridor.	The	west	and	east	sections	of	the	E‐W	Corridor,	described	below,	are	common	to	the	three	

alternatives	(A,	C,	and	E)	while	the	central	section	differs	for	each.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-30 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-31 September 2014 

 

West Section of the E-W Corridor (SR 436 to SR 417) 

This	section	is	approximately	1.5	miles	long.	It	would	begin	at	the	northern	terminus	of	the	MCO	Segment	

on	GOAA	property	(SR	436),	and	follow	an	at‐grade	route	consistent	with	GOAA’s	planned	expansion.	

Access	to	land	owned	by	GOAA	is	subject	to	agreements	being	negotiated	between	AAF	and	GOAA	on	the	

ultimate	alignment	and	approach.	

The	alignment,	comprised	of	two	tracks,	would	continue	at	grade	and	pass	under	Goldenrod	Road,	as	

planned	for	the	design	of	the	interchange.	Between	Goldenrod	Road	and	Narcoossee	Road,	the	alignment	

would	 travel	 along	 the	 south	 side	 of	 SR	 528,	 and	 begin	 to	 straddle	 the	 property	 line	 between	 the	

properties	owned	by	OOCEA	and	GOAA.	The	alignment	would	be	at	grade	and	would	begin	to	climb	above	

grade	on	fill	as	it	approaches	the	SR	528/Narcoossee	Road	interchange.	The	eastbound	off‐ramp	at	the	

interchange	would	be	re‐aligned	and	the	rail	alignment	would	pass	over	this	ramp	and	Narcoossee	Road	

using	a	bridge.	To	accommodate	the	proposed	alignment,	Jetport	Drive	and	a	drainage	canal	would	also	

be	realigned.	A	new	stormwater	detention	pond	would	be	located	at	the	southwest	corner	where	the	

alignment	 crosses	Narcoossee	Road.	 East	 of	 the	SR	 528/Narcoossee	Road	interchange	 the	alignment	

would	continue	above	grade	for	30	feet	before	returning	to	an	at‐grade	elevation.	The	alignment	would	

begin	to	climb	above	grade	again	approximately	25	feet	west	of	the	SR	528/SR	417	interchange,	which	it	

crosses	 using	 an	 overhead	 bridge	 before	 returning	 back	 to	 grade.	 No	 at‐grade	 crossings	 would	 be	

required	in	this	segment.	As	described	in	Table	3.3‐2,	there	would	be	three	structures	in	this	section;	all	

would	be	approximately	60	feet	wide.		

Table 3.3-2 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor West Section 

Structure 

Proposed Structure 

Length (ft) 

Proposed Structure 

Width (ft) Number of Spans 

Goldenrod Road Tunnel 300 34 NA 

Narcoossee Road and Ramp Bridges 400, 170, 650 28 4, 1, 6 

SR 417 Tunnel 4,400 34 NA 

Middle Section of East-West Corridor (SR 417 to SR 520) 

This	section	is	approximately	17.5	miles	long.	East	of	SR	417,	Alternative	A	would	be	within	the	SR	528	

ROW.	The	alignment	would	be	comprised	of	mostly	a	single	new	track,	but	would	require	extensive	

retaining	walls	and	bridges	in	order	 to	minimize	its	 footprint	and	accommodate	existing	and	 future	

SR	 528	 infrastructure.	 Constructing	 a	 new	 rail	 line	 along	 this	 corridor	 would	 require	 stormwater	

features	to	capture	and	treat	the	runoff.	Drainage	would	be	comingled	with	the	existing	SR	528	drainage	

ditch.	The	proposed	ROW	in	this	section	is	an	average	of	60	feet	wide	and	would	impact	approximately	

127	acres	of	land.		

This	section	of	Alternative	A	would	begin	at	grade	east	of	SR	417	and	would	rise	up	to	an	embankment	

almost	100	 feet	west	of	 the	interchange	with	 ICP	Boulevard.	The	alignment	would	alternate	between	

embankment	and	bridge	structure	to	span	the	proposed	interchange	with	Innovation	Way	(a	planned	

roadway	in	this	vicinity),	ICP	Boulevard,	the	CSX	Rail	Line,	and	Farm	Access	Road	#1.	After	a	short	section	

at‐grade,	 the	 alignment	 would	 again	 alternate	 between	 bridges	 and	 embankments	 to	 cross	 the	

Econlockhatchee	 River	 and	 the	interchange	 with	Dallas	 Boulevard,	 which	 would	 be	 expanded	in	 the	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-32 September 2014 

 

future	as	part	of	improvements	to	SR	528.	The	alignment	would	be	on	an	embankment	in	the	vicinity	of	

the	Dallas	Mainline	Toll	Plaza	and	would	remain	at	grade	until	Farm	Access	Road	#2	and	SR	520,	which	

would	be	crossed	using	bridges.	The	structures	in	this	section	are	listed	in	Table	3.3‐3.	

Table 3.3-3 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor Middle Section 

Bridge 

Proposed Structure 

Length (ft) 

Proposed Structure 

Width (ft) 

Number of 

Spans 

Innovation Way, ICP Boulevard, CSX Rail 5,500 14 70 

BeachLine Exit 1,500 14 17 

Farm Access Road #1 200 14 3 

Econolockhatchee River 1,700 14 21 

Dallas Boulevard Off-Ramp 500 14 6 

Dallas Blvd 165 14 2 

Future Dallas Boulevard On-Ramp 250 14 4 

Future Dallas Boulevard Interchange 1,200 14 17 

Farm Access Road #2 180 14 3 

SR 520 215 14 2 

Ramp Connecting SR 520 to SR 528 1,300 14 16 

East Section of the E-W Corridor (SR 520 to N-S Corridor) 

This	section	is	approximately	15	miles	long	and	would	be	comprised	of	two	tracks.	The	segment	begins	west	

of	SR	520	where	the	alignment	would	be	at	grade	and	then	climb	above	grade	onto	an	embankment	10	feet	

west	of	the	William	Beardall	Tosohatchee	State	Reserve.	The	alignment	would	then	pass	over	Second	Creek	

and	Jim	Creek	on	bridges	and	remain	elevated	for	40	feet,	after	which	it	would	return	to	grade	level.	To	climb	

over	Long	Bluff	Road,	the	alignment	would	again	rise	onto	an	embankment	and	an	above‐grade	bridge	for	

a	total	distance	of	35	feet	before	returning	to	grade.	This	would	continue	until	20	feet	before	Taylor	Creek,	

at	which	point	the	alignment	would	use	a	series	of	bridges	and	semi‐retained	fill	to	cross	Taylor	Creek	and	

the	St.	Johns	River.	The	alignment	would	pass	south	of	the	SR	528/SR	407	interchange.	New	retention	ponds	

would	be	built	in	the	middle	of	the	interchange.		

East	of	the	SR	528/SR	407	interchange,	the	alignment	would	be	mostly	at‐grade	except	 for	one	small	

embankment	and	bridge	section	over	an	unnamed	creek.	Three	retaining	ponds	would	be	built	adjacent	

to	the	alignment	in	this	area.	Approaching	I‐95,	the	alignment	would	rise	up	to	an	embankment	and	would	

bridge	the	interchange	with	SR	528	and	I‐95.	A	new	retention	pond	would	be	constructed	in	the	southeast	

quadrant	of	the	I‐95/SR	528	interchange.	AAF	would	acquire	property	at	the	interchange	with	Industry	

Road	and	I‐95.		

Immediately	east	of	the	SR	528/I‐95	interchange,	the	alignment	would	follow	the	Cocoa	Curve	connection	

to	the	N‐S	Corridor.	It	would	shift	to	the	north	side	of	SR	528	using	a	bridge	and	embankment,	and	would	

return	to	grade	until	the	SR	528/Industry	Road	interchange.	At	this	point,	the	alignment	would	rise	up	on	

an	embankment,	cross	Industry	Road	via	a	bridge,	return	to	grade	and	cross	under	SR	528	to	the	south	

side	at	the	interchange	with	U.S.	1.	Retention	ponds	would	be	constructed	in	the	middle	of	the	interchange	

ramps	in	this	location.	At	the	end	of	this	section,	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	merge	with	the	N‐S	Corridor	

(discussed	below).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-33 September 2014 

 

No	at‐grade	crossings	would	exist	in	this	section.	Table	3.3‐4	lists	the	structures	in	this	section.		

Table 3.3-4 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor East Section 

Bridge 

Proposed Structure 

Length (ft) 

Proposed Structure 

Width (ft) 

Number of 

Spans 

Second Creek 350 28 5 

Jim Creek 250 28 4 

Long Bluff Road 80 28 1 

Future Wildlife Crossing 60 28 2 

Taylor Creek 150 28 3 

St. Johns River 550 28 13 

Un-named Creek 100 28 1 

Pine Street 80 28 1 

I-95 Ramp 187 28 2 

I-95 Ramp 222 28 2 

I-95 288 28 2 

I-95 Ramp 71 28 1 

I-95 Ramp 115 28 1 

SR 528 1,200 28 11 

Industry Road 180 28 2 

SR 528 (tunnel) 260 34 NA 

3.3.3.3 North-South Corridor 

The	approximately	128.5	miles	of	the	N‐S	Corridor	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach	(Figure	3.3‐3)	

is	part	of	a	larger	existing	351‐mile	system	currently	operating	as	a	freight	railroad.	FECR,	an	affiliate	of	

AAF’s	parent	company,	operates	the	mainline	track	within	the	FECR	Corridor	from	Miami	to	Jacksonville,	

with	direct	rail	access	to	South	Florida's	ports	and	a	high	reliability	and	safety	record.	FECR	owns	the	fee	

simple	title	in	the	ROW	and	owns	the	existing	railroad	infrastructure	within	the	corridor	over	which	FECR	

operates	this	freight	rail	service.	AAF	owns	the	permanent,	perpetual	and	exclusive	rights,	privileges	and	

easements	on,	over,	and	across	all	of	the	real	property	within	FECR’s	mainline	ROW	located	in	the	State	

of	Florida,	for	the	passenger	rail	purposes	that	would	be	provided	by	AAF	through	the	Project.	

Originally,	the	entire	FECR	system	was	built	and	operated	as	a	double	track	railroad	but,	since	the	early	

1970s,	 much	 of	 the	 double	 track	 has	 been	 removed	 to	 balance	 railroad	 service	 needs	 with	 capacity,	

operating,	and	maintenance	costs.	The	railroad	subgrade	embankments	and	track	bed	still	exist	in	most	

places	along	the	system;	and	the	consolidated	sub‐base,	primary	drainage	systems	and	bridge	substructures	

remain	for	a	complete,	double‐track	railroad	system.	Existing	ROW	widths	are	typically	at	least	100	feet	

throughout	 the	existing	 system.	The	existing	 system	was	built	and	is	maintained	 to	 FRA	Class	 IV	 track	

standards,	permitting	freight	and	passenger	operations.	Ruling	grades	are	predominantly	0.3	percent	with	

the	horizontal	alignment	predominantly	tangent,	with	typical	curves	2	degrees	or	less.	In	isolated	locations	

where	curves	exceed	2	degrees,	operating	speeds	are	reduced.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-34 September 2014 

 

Improvements	 to	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 for	 the	 Project	 would	 primarily	 take	 place	 within	 the	 existing	

developed	FECR	Corridor.	The	FECR	Corridor	today	is	mostly	a	single‐track	system	with	several	sidings.	

The	roadbed	 for	the	original	second	track	would	be	used	 for	the	additional	track	improvements.	This	

would	 include	 upgrades	 to,	 and	 relocation	 of,	 existing	 tracks,	 as	 well	 as	 installing	 new	 tracks.	 The	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-35 September 2014 

 

proposed	improvements	include	upgrades	to	bridges	and	grade	crossings,	as	well	as	new	signalization,	

new	communication	systems,	and	PTC	systems.	In	addition	to	the	track	construction	between	Cocoa	and	

West	Palm	Beach,	18	bridges	will	be	reconstructed	to	accommodate	the	second	track.		

The	new	construction	and	improvements	proposed	along	the	FECR	Corridor	are:	

 Improve	approximately	128.5	miles	of	rail	line;	

 Reconstruct	18	bridges;	

 Add	approximately	109	miles	of	new	second	track;	

 Eight	miles	of	new	third	track;	

 Upgrade	highway	and	pedestrian	crossings;	and	

 Upgrade	signals	and	grade	crossings.	

The	sections	below	provide	detailed	descriptions	of	each	element.	

Track 

The	N‐S	Corridor	would	primarily	consist	of	two	tracks	from	Cocoa	to	West	Palm	Beach.	As	the	majority	

of	the	existing	FECR	alignment	is	a	single	track,	this	would	require	constructing	an	additional	second	track	

within	 the	 existing	 ROW.	 A	 third	 track	 would	 be	 constructed	 within	 the	 FECR	 right‐of‐way,	 in	 the	

following	 approximate	 locations	 (for	 more	 information,	 please	 refer	 to	 the	 track	 charts	 included	 in	

Appendix	3.3‐B4).		

Brevard	County:	

 At	the	northern	end	of	the	corridor,	in	the	vicinity	of	SR	528;

 In	the	vicinity	of	Poinset	Road;	

 North	of	Gus	Hipp	Boulevard;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	Carver	Street;	

 South	of	Suntree	Boulevard;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	Masterson	Street;	

 South	of	Sarno	Road;	and	

 In	the	vicinity	of	University	Boulevard/Apollo	Boulevard.	

Indian	River	County:	

 In	the	vicinity	of	16th	Street;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	Indian	River	Drive;	and	

 South	of	Savannah	Road.	

Martin	County:	

 In	the	vicinity	of	Pinewood	Street;	and	

 In	the	vicinity	of	Park	Road.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-36 September 2014 

 

The	 existing	 track	 would	 be	 modified	 to	 reduce	 the	 overall	 curvature	 and	 increase	 the	 maximum	

allowable	operating	speeds	for	the	train.	This	work	would	all	be	constructed	in	the	existing	ROW:	

Brevard	County:	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	170.94/Dixon	Boulevard;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	174.47/Barton	Boulevard;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	177.97/McIver	Lane;	and	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	202.5/North	of	Valkaria	Road.	

Indian	River	County:		

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	221.23/73rd	Street;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	225.44;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	226.22/Pickerill	Lane;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	229.02/Glendale	Road;	and	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	230.98/9th	Lane	SW.	

St.	Lucie	County:	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	243.30/Savannah	Road;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	245.49/North	of	E.	Midway	Road;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	250.02;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	251.93;	and	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	254.04/Pleasant	View	Drive.	

Martin	County:	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	254.05;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	255.75/NE	Chardon	Street;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	259.21/NE	Dixie	Highway;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	265.40/SE	Golf	Trail;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	267.3/SE	Cove	Road;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	273.31/SE	Oleander	Street;	and	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	274.7/Water	Street.	

Palm	Beach	County:	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	282.66/Seminole	Avenue;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	289.31/Kyoto	Gardens	Drive;	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	290.81/Entrada	Way;	and	

 In	the	vicinity	of	MP	291.9/Richard	Road.	

Current	track	conditions	along	the	FECR	Corridor	permits	passenger	trains	to	operate	up	to	a	maximum	

speed	of	79	mph.	From	Cocoa	to	West	Palm	Beach,	AAF	plans	to	build	and	maintain	track	conditions	in	

accordance	with	FRA	safety	standards	that	permit	maximum	passenger	train	speeds	of	110	mph	(FRA	

2012b	and	2012c).	To	maintain	this	track	classification,	AAF	will	complete	infrastructure	improvements	

to	the	mainline,	including	replacement	of	the	second	mainline	track,	reconstruction	of	existing	crossovers	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-37 September 2014 

 

and	 the	 addition	 of	 crossovers	 to	 facilitate	 operational	 efficiencies..	 	 The	 corridor	 will	 be	 fenced	 in	

locations	where	an	FRA	hazard	analysis	review	determines	that	fencing	is	required	for	safety.	

Drainage 

Drainage	would	be	accommodated	using	an	existing	channel	along	the	east	or	west	side	of	the	ROW.	In	

some	cases,	this	would	require	relocating	existing	drainage	channels	within	the	ROW.		

At-grade Crossings

There	are	approximately	170	highway‐rail	grade	crossings	within	 the	N‐S	Corridor,	of	which	159	are	

at‐grade	 and	 11	 are	 grade‐separated.	 The	 ultimate	 number	 of	 at‐grade	 crossings	 may	 increase	 or	

decrease	depending	upon	the	distances	required	for	the	PTC	entry	track	or	permanent	road	closures.	Of	

the	159	at‐grade	crossings,	all	but	three	use	active	warning	devices	with	a	minimum	of	flashing	lights,	

gates,	and	bell(s),	and	a	substantial	number	of	crossings	have	cantilevers	or	bridges	for	lane	coverage	of	

flashers.	 These	 crossing	warning	 systems	are	 operated	 by	either	 phase	motion	 detection	 or	 crossing	

predictor	 units.	 	 FECR	 is	 responsible	 for	 maintenance	 of	 the	 crossing	 equipment.	 Each	 affected	

highway‐rail	grade	crossing	will	go	through	a	diagnostic	team	review	to	determine	the	appropriate	level	

of	 warning.	 To	 mitigate	 noise	 impacts	 from	 train	 horns	 AAF	 has	 committed,	 as	 part	 of	 the	 Project	

description,	to	install	pole‐mounted	horns	at	all	highway‐rail	grade	crossings	on	the	N‐S	Corridor	and	the	

WPB‐M	Corridor	unless	the	community	establishes	a	quiet	zone.	The	grade	crossings	are	described	in	

more	detail	in	Appendix	3.3‐C.		

Bridge and Structures 

Bridge	construction	over	waterways	would	be	required	at	the	18	locations	listed	in	Table	3.3‐5,	either	to	

rehabilitate	the	existing	bridges	(two	locations),	replace	the	original	bridge	with	two	new	single‐track	

bridges	(nine	locations),	or	retain	the	existing	bridge	and	construct	a	new	single‐track	bridge	adjacent	to	

the	existing	(seven	locations)	(Figure	3.3‐4).	Bridge	plans	are	currently	at	the	conceptual	design	level.	

Sixteen	new	bridges	would	be	constructed	in‐water	or	over	water	and	would	be	fixed‐span	structures.	All	

new	structures	would	be	concrete,	supported	on	concrete	pilings,	and	would	retain	the	existing	vertical	

and	 horizontal	 clearances.	 The	 Project	 also	 includes	 rehabilitating	 the	 two	 moveable	 bridges	 at	 the	

St.	Lucie	River	and	Loxahatchee	(Jupiter	Inlet)	River.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-38 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-39 September 2014 

 

Table 3.3-5 Proposed Bridges, N-S Corridor 

Bridge Existing 

Number of 

New SingleTrack Bridges Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

Number of 

Spans 

Horse Creek Retain 1 72 16 3 

Eau Gallie River Demolish 2 580 16 (15)1

Crane Creek Demolish 2 660 16 (17) 

Turkey Creek Demolish 2 180 16 3 

Goat Creek Demolish 2 120 16 5 

St. Sebastian River Demolish 2 1625 16 (43) 

North Canal Retain 1 100 16 4 

Main Canal Retain 1 118 16 4 

South Canal Retain 1 125 16 5 

Taylor Creek Rehabilitate - 210 16 8 

Moores Creek Retain 1 72 16 3 

Rio Waterway Demolish 2 95 16 4 

St. Lucie River Rehabilitate - 1270 24 49 

Salerno Waterway Retain 1 40 16 2 

Salerno Waterway 2 Demolish 2 103 16 4 

Manatee Tributary 1 Demolish 2 34 16 1 

Manatee Tributary 2 Demolish 2 34 16 1 

Loxahatchee River Rehabilitate - 585 28 9 

Earman River Retain 1 175 16 7 

1 Number of spans has not been determined for the new structure. (X) is number of existing spans. 

3.3.3.4 West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor 

The	Project	within	the	WPB‐M	Segment	remains	the	same	as	the	project	evaluated	in	the	2012	EA	and	

2013	FONSI.	Phase	I	of	the	Project	includes	reconstructing	the	former	second	track	within	the	FECR	ROW	

from	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	and	constructing	new	passenger	rail	stations	in	West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	

Lauderdale,	and	Miami.	New	elements	of	the	Phase	II	Project	that	were	not	previously	evaluated	in	the	

WPB‐M	Segment	include	replacing	or	reconstructing	seven	bridges	over	waterways.	

Bridges 

As	 shown	 in	 Table	 3.3‐6,	 AAF	 proposes	 to	 improve	 seven	 bridges	 within	 the	 WPB‐M	 Segment	 to	

accommodate	the	proposed	second	track.	As	long‐range	operational	flexibility	for	full	operations	from	

Orlando	to	Miami	has	been	further	studied	and	understood,	AAF	has	determined	that	double‐tracking	

these	bridges	would	be	warranted	for	Phase	II	operations.		As	shown	in	Table	3.3‐6,	four	bridges	would	

be	rehabilitated,	and	seven	would	require	construction	to	replace	the	original	bridge	with	two	new	single‐

track	 bridges	 (the	 two	Middle	River	 crossings	and	 the	Oleta	River),	 or	 retain	 the	existing	bridge	and	

construct	a	new	single‐track	bridge	adjacent	to	the	existing	structure	(four	locations)	(Figure	3.3‐4).	All	

new	structures	would	be	concrete,	supported	by	concrete	pilings,	and	would	retain	the	existing	vertical	

and	 horizontal	 clearances.	 The	 moveable	 bridge	 at	 the	 New	 River	 in	 Fort	 Lauderdale	 would	 be	

rehabilitated	as	part	of	Phase	1.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-40 September 2014 

 

Table 3.3-6 Proposed Bridges over Waterways, West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor 

Bridge Existing 

Number of 

New SingleTrack Bridges Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

Number of 

Spans 

West Palm Beach Canal Retain 1 200 16 9 

Boynton Canal Retain 1 154 16 6 

Hidden Valley Canal Rehabilitate - 171 13 6 

Hillsboro Canal Retain 1 206 16 8 

Cypress Creek Canal Retain - 

North Fork Middle River Demolish 2 192 16 (8)1

South Fork Middle River Demolish 2 192 16 (8)1

New River Rehabilitate - 210 30 6 

Tarpon River Retain - 

Dania Canal Rehabilitate - 79 30 1 

Oleta River Demolish 2 82 16 (26)1

Snake Creek Canal Rehabilitate - 160 27 7 

Arch Creek Retain 1 75 16 1 

Biscayne Park Canal Retain - 

Little River Canal Retain - 

1 Number of spans has not been determined for the new structure. (X) is number of existing spans. 

Fort Lauderdale Station 

Subsequent	to	the	publication	of	the	2012	EA	and	2013	FONSI,	AAF	shifted	the	proposed	Fort	Lauderdale	

Station	building	to	the	opposite	(west)	side	of	the	tracks,	along	NW	2nd	Avenue	between	NW	4th	Street	and	

Broward	Boulevard.	On	March	27,	2014	FRA	issued	a	Re‐Evaluation	that	determined	the	new	location	

would	not	change	the	environmental	impacts	identified	in	the	2012	EA	and	previously	found	to	be	not	

significant	(Appendix	3.3‐A).	

West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Subsequent	to	the	publication	of	the	2012	EA	and	2013	FONSI,	AAF	shifted	the	proposed	Fort	Lauderdale	

VMF	to	an	existing	freight	rail	yard	in	West	Palm	Beach.	The	AAF	2012	EA	and	2013	FONSI	evaluated	a	VMF	

to	support	AAF	passenger	service	at	an	existing	rail	maintenance	yard	in	Fort	Lauderdale	(Andrews	Yard)	

owned	 and	 operated	 by	 FECR.	 	However,	 the	 Andrews	 Yard	location	is	 unavailable	in	 a	 configuration	

necessary	for	AAF’s	use	at	this	time;	therefore,	AAF	has	identified	an	alternative	location.		The	new	location	

(the	WPB	Rail	Yard),	is	an	active	FECR	freight	layover	yard	currently	used	for	staging	and	building	freight	

trains.		This	site	is	0.9	miles	north	of	 the	West	Palm	Beach	Station,	 the	 terminus	of	 the	Phase	1	project	

evaluated	in	the	2012	EA.	Concurrently	with	this	DEIS,	FRA	has	prepared	a	supplemental	EA	for	this	facility	

which	is	available	for	public	review	on	the	FRA	website	(www.fra.dot.gov).	

3.3.3.5 Orlando Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

AAF’s	proposed	VMF	would	occupy	approximately	80	acres	of	land	leased	 from	GOAA	 (subject	 to	FAA	

review	and	approval),	and	would	include	four	storage	tracks,	a	maintenance	building	with	five	tracks,	and	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-41 September 2014 

 

a	secondary	maintenance	building.	The	two	buildings	would	occupy	approximately	216,000	square	feet	and	

60,000	square	feet,	respectively.	The	smaller	building	would	include	an	EPA‐certified	paint	booth.	Planned	

operations	at	the	VMF,	such	as	vehicle	fueling,	maintenance,	repair	and	washing	include	use	of	hazardous	

materials	(primarily	petroleum	products,	lubricants	and	degreasers).	The	typical	materials	that	would	be	

stored	and	used	at	the	VMF	include	diesel	fuel,	motor	oils,	lubricants,	and	degreasers.	Current	conceptual	

plans	include	two	10,000‐gallon	aboveground	storage	tanks	for	diesel	fuel	and	one	500‐gallon	aboveground	

storage	 tank	 for	gasoline.	The	VMF	would	also	provide	 overnight	 train	 storage	at	 the	 north	end	 of	 the	

Project.	The	facility	would	have	80	to	90	employees,	with	a	90‐space	parking	lot.	Access	to	the	facility	would	

be	from	Boggy	Creek	Road	(SR	527A/530).	Following	completion	of	construction	of	the	Orlando	to	West	

Palm	Beach	Corridors	and	construction	of	the	MCO	VMF,	the	West	Palm	Beach	VMF	would	be	discontinued	

and	all	maintenance	operations	would	take	place	at	the	MCO	VMF.

3.3.3.6 Positive Train Control (PTC) System 

PTC	is	a	system	designed	to	prevent	train‐to‐train	collisions,	derailments	caused	by	excessive	speeds,	

unauthorized	train	movements	in	work	zones,	and	the	movement	of	trains	through	switches	left	in	the	

wrong	position.	PTC	networks	enable	real‐time	information	sharing	between	trains,	rail	wayside	devices,	

and	“back	office”	applications,	concerning	train	movements,	speed	restrictions,	train	position	and	speed,	

and	 the	 state	 of	 signal	 and	 switch	 devices.	 The	 Rail	 Safety	 Improvement	 Act	 of	 2008	 and	 the	

corresponding	FRA	regulations	require	passenger	and	major	freight	railroads	to	implement	PTC	on	major	

freight	lines	and	all	new	passenger	lines.		

AAF	will	implement	a	PTC	system	throughout	the	Project,	including	the	E‐W	Corridor	between	Orlando	

and	Cocoa,	and	the	N‐S	Corridor	between	Cocoa	and	Miami.	The	new	PTC	system	will	be	interoperable	

between	the	AAF	and	FECR	trains.	AAF	will	outfit	55	FECR	locomotives	as	well	as	its	own	locomotives	to	

avoid	any	incompatibility	issues.	AAF	will	also	expand	and	supplement	FECR’s	Digicon	Digital	Traffic	

Control	systems	and	add	a	new	Back	Office	Server	to	satisfy	FRA’s	requirements	(49	CFR	part	236).	The	

system	will	also	use	the	existing	Parallel	Infrastructure	LLC’s	fiber	optic	system	within	the	FECR	Corridor.		

Along	the	N‐S	Corridor	and	WPB‐M	Segment,	AAF	will	use	the	existing	FECR	Radio	Base	Stations.	Parallel	

Infrastructure	LLC	(a	subsidiary	of	FECI)	currently	owns	six	radio	towers	on	the	FECR	Corridor,	with	an	

additional	11	towers	in	the	planning	process.	The	existing	and	future	Parallel	Infrastructure	towers	will	

be	considered	for	use	as	part	of	the	PTC	system,	with	additional	towers	placed	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	

and	 N‐S	 Corridor	 where	 required.	 AAF	 will	 commission	 a	 propagation	 and	 interference	 study	 to	

determine	where	towers	are	required,	tower	spacing,	and	tower	height.	AAF	anticipates	that	two	core	

communications	towers	will	be	needed	to	support	the	PTC	system	on	the	E‐W	Corridor:	an	existing	tower	

at	City	Point	in	Cocoa,	and	a	new	tower	to	be	located	along	SR	528	approximately	20	miles	west	of	City	

Point.	This	tower	would	be	either	a	monopole	or	lattice	construction	and	would	be	60	to	100	feet	in	height.	

Additionally,	an	approximate	55	poles	(monopoles),	30	to	60	feet	in	height,	will	be	required	along	the	

E‐W	Corridor	to	support	the	PTC	and	to	provide	WiFi.	All	of	the	proposed	poles	would	be	located	within	

the	AAF	100‐foot	ROW.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-42 September 2014 

 

3.3.4 Alternative C 

Alternative	 C	includes	 four	 segments:	 the	MCO	Segment,	which	includes	 the	proposed	VMF	and	 new	

railroad	infrastructure	 between	 the	VMF	and	 the	E‐W	 Corridor;	 the	E‐W	 Corridor	 on	 new	alignment	

(Option	3C)	between	MCO	and	Cocoa,	paralleling	SR	528;	the	N‐S	Corridor	within	the	FECR	ROW	between	

Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach,	and	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	within	the	FECR	ROW.	This	alternative	also	builds	

on	and	incorporates	Phase	I	of	the	Project	and	includes	two	modifications	of	the	previously	reviewed	

WPB‐M	Segment.	Alternative	C	would	be	identical	to	Alternative	A	except	for	the	Mid‐Section	of	the	E‐W	

Corridor	(Figure	3.2‐3;	see	Appendix	3.3‐D	for	detailed	plans).		

East	of	SR	417,	Alternative	C	“straddles”	the	SR	528	southern	ROW	line	in	this	section,	with	10	feet	of	the	

proposed	rail	alignment	width	within	 the	existing	SR	528	ROW	and	approximately	90	 feet	extending	

south	of	the	existing	SR	528	ROW	(Figure	3.2‐4).	This	alternative	includes	an	access	road.	This	alternative	

is	an	average	of	100	feet	wide	and	will	impact	approximately	225	acres	of	land	to	construct	the	new	rail	

line.	In	accordance	with	the	lease	agreement	with	OOCEA,	OOCEA	would	acquire	the	land	and	lease	the	

railroad	ROW	to	AAF.	The	alignment	would	be	comprised	of	mostly	a	single	new	track,	but	would	require	

extensive	retaining	walls	and	bridges	in	order	to	minimize	its	footprint	and	accommodate	existing	and	

future	SR	528	infrastructure.	Constructing	a	new	rail	line	along	 this	corridor	will	require	stormwater	

features	to	capture	and	treat	the	runoff.	Stormwater	from	the	proposed	rail	line	will	drain	to	its	own,	new	

stormwater	management	system	and	will	not	comingle	with	SR	528	drainage.		

This	section	of	Alternative	C	would	begin	at	grade	east	of	SR	417	and	would	rise	up	to	an	embankment	

almost	100	 feet	west	of	 the	interchange	with	 ICP	Boulevard.	The	alignment	would	alternate	between	

embankment	and	bridge	structure	to	span	the	proposed	interchange	with	Innovation	Way	(a	planned	

roadway	in	this	vicinity),	ICP	Boulevard,	the	CSX	Rail	Line,	and	Farm	Access	Road	#1.	After	a	short	section	

at‐grade,	 the	 alignment	 would	 again	 alternate	 between	 bridges	 and	 embankments	 to	 cross	 the	

Econlockhatchee	River	and	 the	interchange	with	Dallas	Boulevard	 (which	would	 be	expanded	in	 the	

future	as	part	of	improvements	to	SR	528).	The	alignment	would	be	on	embankment	in	the	vicinity	of	the	

Dallas	Mainline	Toll	Plaza	and	would	remain	at	grade	until	Farm	Access	Road	#2	and	SR	520,	which	would	

be	crossed	using	bridges.	The	structures	in	this	section	are	listed	in	Table	3.3‐7.	

3.3.5 Alternative E 

Alternative	E	includes	 four	 segments:	 the	MCO	Segment,	which	includes	 the	proposed	VMF	and	 new	

railroad	infrastructure	 between	 the	VMF	and	 the	E‐W	 Corridor;	 the	E‐W	 Corridor	 on	 new	alignment	

(Option	3E)	between	MCO	and	Cocoa,	paralleling	SR	528;	the	N‐S	Corridor	within	the	FECR	ROW	between	

Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach,	and	the	WPB‐M	Segment	within	the	FECR	ROW.	This	alternative	also	builds	

on	 and	 incorporates	 Phase	 I	 of	 the	 Project	 and	 includes	 two	 modifications	 of	 the	 WPB‐M	 Segment.	

Alternative	E	would	be	identical	to	Alternatives	A	and	C	except	for	the	middle	section	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	

(Figure	3.2‐3;	see	Appendix	3.3‐E	for	detailed	plans).		

East	 of	 SR	 417,	Alternative	 E	would	 diverge	 to	 the	 south	 and	would	 be	located	 on	 average	 between	

100	and	200	feet	south	of	the	southern	edge	of	the	existing	SR	528	ROW	(Figure	3.2‐4)	with	the	exception	

of	 two	 interchanges.	 Around	 the	 interchange	 at	 Dallas	 Boulevard	 the	 proposed	 rail	 line	 would	 be	

approximately	700	feet	south	of	the	SR	528	ROW	and	at	the	SR	520	interchange	the	proposed	rail	line	

would	be	approximately	500	feet	south	of	the	SR	528	ROW.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-43 September 2014 

 

Table 3.3-7 Proposed Structures Alternative C, E-W Corridor Middle Section 

Bridge 

Proposed 

Structure Length 

(ft) 

Proposed 

Structure Width 

(ft) 

Number of 

Spans 

Innovation Way Ramp over RR 350 35 3 

Innovation Way over Rail 400 150 4 

SR 528 Ramp to Innovation Way 350 35 3 

ICP Boulevard/RR 350 14 3 

ICP Boulevard Ramp 800 14 8 

Future Farm Access Road #1 Ramp 750 14 7 

Farm Access Road #1 200 14 3 

Future Farm Access Road #1 Ramp 400 14 4 

Econolockhatchee River 249 14 3 

Dallas Boulevard off-Ramp 850 14 10 

Dallas Blvd 165 14 2 

Future Farm Access Road #2 Ramp 400 14 5 

Farm Access Road #2 180 14 3 

Future Farm Access Road #2 Ramp 300 14 4 

Ramp Connecting SR 528 to SR 520 420 14 5 

SR 520 215 14 2 

Ramp Connecting SR 520 to SR 528 300 14 4 

This	alternative	includes	an	access	road	and	is	an	average	of	100	feet	wide	and	will	impact	approximately	

225	acres	of	land	for	the	construction	of	the	new	rail	line.	In	accordance	with	the	lease	agreement	with	

OOCEA,	OOCEA	would	acquire	 the	land	and	lease	 the	railroad	ROW	to	AAF.	The	alignment	would	be	

comprised	of	mostly	a	single	new	track	but	would	require	extensive	retaining	walls	and	bridges	in	order	

to	minimize	its	footprint	and	accommodate	existing	and	future	SR	528	infrastructure.	Constructing	a	new	

rail	line	along	this	corridor	will	require	stormwater	features	to	capture	and	treat	the	runoff.	Stormwater	

from	the	proposed	rail	line	will	drain	to	its	own,	new	stormwater	management	system	(will	not	comingle	

with	SR	528	drainage).		

This	section	of	Alternative	E	would	begin	at	grade	east	of	SR	417	and	would	rise	up	to	an	embankment	

and	bridge	to	cross	Innovation	Way,	ICP	Boulevard,	the	CSX	Rail	Line,	and	Dallas	Boulevard.	Farm	Access	

Roads	#1	and	#2	would	be	closed.	Alternative	E	would	cross	SR	520	on	a	bridge.	The	structures	in	this	

section,	based	on	the	conceptual	design,	are	listed	in	Table	3.3‐8.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-44 September 2014 

 

Table 3.3-8 Proposed Structures Alternative E, E-W Corridor Middle Section 

Bridge 

Proposed Structure 

Length (ft) 

Proposed Structure 

Width (ft) Number of Spans 

ICP Boulevard/RR 160 14 2 

ICP Boulevard Ramp 190 14 2 

Econolockhatchee River 249 14 3 

Dallas Blvd 165 14 2 

SR 520 215 14 2 

1 Over Grade Bridge – rail goes over the road/river 

2 Under-Grade Bridge – road goes over the rail 

3.4 Operations 

The	 Project’s	 planned	 service	 between	 Orlando	 and	 Miami	 would	 consist	 of	 16	 revenue	 round‐trips	

leaving	hourly	in	each	direction	from	5:00	AM	to	9:00	PM,	with	planned	stops	at	the	two	intermediate	

stations	in	West	Palm	Beach	and	Fort	Lauderdale.	The	last	Orlando‐bound	revenue	train	would	arrive	in	

Orlando	at	12:10	AM	and	the	last	Miami‐bound	revenue	train	would	arrive	in	Miami	at	11:10	PM.		

Total	scheduled	travel	time,	including	stops,	is	anticipated	to	be	3	hours,	10	minutes	between	the	terminal	

stations.	Station	to	station	travel	time	would	be	1	hour,	50	minutes	from	Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach,	

and	 1	 hour,	 20	 minutes	 from	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 to	 Miami.	 The	 planned	 operating	 speed	 has	 three	

components:	a	maximum	speed	of	125	mph	from	Orlando	to	Cocoa;	a	maximum	speed	of	110	mph	from	

Cocoa	to	West	Palm	Beach;	and	a	maximum	speed	of	79	mph	from	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami.	Table	3.3‐9	

depicts	the	projected	average	operating	speeds	for	passenger	and	freight	rail	service	by	county	and	the	

net	change	in	freight	rail	average	operating	speed	over	today’s	performance.	The	E‐W	Corridor	from	MCO	

to	Cocoa	would	be	a	dedicated‐use	corridor	with	only	passenger	service	and	no	grade	crossings,	while	

the	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	a	shared‐use	corridor	with	freight	and	passenger	service	and	grade	crossings.		

Table 3.3-9 Projected Average Passenger Rail Operating Speeds by County 

County 

2013 Freight/ 

2016 No-Action 

Alternative 

(mph) 

2016 Freight 

(with Project) 

(mph) 

2016 Passenger 

(mph) 

Change in Average 

Freight Speed 

with Project 

(mph) 

Orange N/A1 N/A 68.472 N/A1

Brevard 31.95 40.97 93.77 9.02 

Indian River 38.57 43.45 103.34 4.88 

St. Lucie 33.48 35.55 93.38 2.07 

Martin 31.76 37.06 76.96 5.30 

Palm Beach 34.89 40.42 75.37 5.53 

Broward 31.57 38.11 61.72 6.54 

Miami-Dade 39.63 39.91 55.67 -0.72 

Source: AAF. 2013a. Modeling Assumptions. May 2013. Report. 

1 Only the E-W Corridor enters Orange County, which does not carry freight traffic 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-45 September 2014 

 

The	intercity	passenger	rail	service	would	operate	with	new	diesel‐electric	locomotives	and	single‐level	

coach	trains.	The	rolling	stock	for	the	Project	would	consist	of	ten	train	sets.	Eight	train	sets	would	be	

required	to	be	in	concurrent	operation	along	the	AAF	route	to	deliver	regularly	scheduled,	hourly‐service	

frequency.	Each	train	set	would	be	comprised	of	two	locomotives,	and	seven	coach‐type	passenger	cars	

(two	Business	Cars,	a	Café/Economy	Car,	four	Economy	Coach	Cars).	In	addition,	AAF	would	procure	one	

spare	 locomotive	 and	 one	 spare	 café	 car.	 The	 two‐locomotive	 arrangement	 provides	 redundant	

push/pull	operation	and	would	assure	smooth	operations	up	to	the	maximum	speed	of	125	mph	even	

with	 an	 expansion	 of	 the	 train	 set	 to	 nine	 cars,	 if	 needed.	 The	 fleet	 and	 all	 facilities	 (stations	 and	

maintenance)	are	designed	to	accommodate	expansion	to	nine‐car	trains.	Five	train	sets	would	be	stored	

in	the	VMF	near	MCO	with	the	remaining	five	train	sets	being	stored	at	the	West	Palm	Beach	VMF	or	

Miami	Station.	

The	floor	height	of	the	train	cars	would	be	the	same	height	as	the	proposed	station	platforms	and	will	

enable	level	boarding	of	all	the	passenger	cars.	The	entire	train	would	fully	conform	to	Americans	with	

Disabilities	Act	 (ADA)	access	 compliance	 requirements.	 To	 provide	easy	and	 safe	 train	 boarding	and	

de‐boarding	and	to	minimize	the	dwell	time	at	stations,	passengers	would	be	distributed	evenly	along	the	

platform.	 When	 AAF	 passengers	 purchase	 their	 tickets,	 they	 would	 select	 their	 seat,	 similar	 to	 the	

experience	of	airline	passengers	 today.	Along	with	each	seat	assignment,	 the	 tickets	would	indicate	a	

number	that	coordinates	with	large	numbering	on	each	coach	door	location	along	the	platform	where	the	

customer	should	wait	to	enter	the	train.	These	large	numbers	would	be	also	affixed	along	the	platform	

edge	to	assist	with	wayfinding.	Uniform	consistency	of	the	AAF	train	sets	would	simplify	this	procedure,	

and	give	comfort	to	passengers	that	they	have	confirmed	seating,	and	know	exactly	where	it	will	be.	These	

train	features	would	support	the	planned	dwell	times	at	intermediate	stations	of	1	minute.	

3.5 Ridership 

AAF	 commissioned	 the	 Louis	 Berger	 Group	 to	 develop	 an	 investment	 grade	 ridership	 and	 revenue	

forecast	 for	 this	Project.	The	study	was	based	upon	substantial	research	and	development	of	a	 travel	

demand	forecasting	model.	AAF	commissioned	a	peer	review	to	validate	the	study.	A	summary	of	the	

Ridership and Revenue Study	(Louis	Berger	Group	2013)	is	provided	in	Appendix	3.3‐F.	FRA	has	reviewed	

and	accepted	this	summary.	

3.5.1 Methodology 

The	ridership	study	assessed	 the	existing	and	 future	intercity	travel	market,	attributes	of	 the	current	

modes	of	travel,	and	estimated	future	growth	in	travel.	Specific	elements	of	the	study	included:	

 Establishing	the	market	size	and	catchment	area	using	data	on	current	levels	of	travel	by	auto,	rail,	

air,	 and	 bus,	 as	 well	 as	 information	 on	 traveler	 origin	 and	 destination	 patterns.	 The	 summary	

estimates	that	as	a	result	of	the	Project,	the	central	Florida	to	Southeast	Florida	travel	market	would	

draw	over	50	million	person‐trips	annually.		

 Identifying	the	travel	network	and	the	schedule,	journey	time,	and	costs	of	all	modes	of	travel	using	

the	network.	

 Establishing	growth	rates	for	the	overall	market	based	on	trends	in	each	segment.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-46 September 2014 

 

 Using	stated	preference	surveys	to	understand	how	travelers	make	mode	choices	based	on	access	

time,	in‐vehicle	time,	headways,	and	cost.	

 Estimating	 diversion	 from	 existing	modes	 of	 travel	 to	 AAF	intercity	 passenger	 rail	 and	 ridership	

volumes	on	each	city‐pair	segment	of	the	AAF	system.	

 Testing	the	sensitivity	of	the	ridership	model	to	changes	in	key	forecast	assumptions.	

Key	assumptions	of	the	ridership	forecast	include:	

 The	study	area	was	limited	to	the	metropolitan	areas	of	Central	and	Southeast	Florida.	

 Trip	 tables	 for	 auto	 travel	 were	 developed	 based	 on	 information	 from	 Metropolitan	 Planning	

Organizations	(MPOs),	planning	agencies,	and	operators	of	other	transit	services.	

 Station	market	catchment	areas	were	developed	as	boundaries	for	the	market	area.	

 Growth	in	the	future	travel	market	was	assumed	to	keep	pace	with	regional	projections	in	growth	of	

populations	and	households.	The	published	forecasts	of	Amtrak,	Tri‐Rail,	and	the	FAA	were	used	to	

model	future	rail	and	air	modes	of	travel.	

 Congested	auto	travel	times	were	used	to	account	for	station	access	and	long‐distance	auto	travel	

times.	

 The	forecast	assumed	that	short	distance	vehicle	occupancies	were	2.2	persons	per	auto	while	long	

distance	auto	occupancies	equaled	2.38	persons	per	auto.		

 Induced	demand	potential	was	included	in	the	model,	based	on	methods	used	in	prior	Florida	high	

speed	rail	studies.	

 The	model	assumes	that	AAF	would	initiate	service	in	2016,	and	that	ridership	would	grow	to	a	stable	

volume	after	3	years.		

Sensitivity	tests	were	conducted	to	determine	the	change	in	ridership	associated	with	changes	in	model	

assumptions,	including	trip	time,	frequency	of	service,	time	to	access	a	station,	changes	in	auto	travel	time,	

changes	in	fuel	costs,	and	changes	in	air	fares.		

3.5.2 Ridership Projections 

The	 ridership	 analysis	 forecasts	 that	 passenger	 rail	 ridership	 would	 total	 approximately	 3.5	 million	

annual	riders	in	2019	(Table	3.3‐10).	Of	these,	approximately	2	million	annual	riders	would	be	making	

short	distance	trips	using	Phase	I	of	the	Project	(Fort	Lauderdale‐Miami,	West	Palm	Beach‐Miami,	West	

Palm	Beach‐Fort	Lauderdale).	Phase	II	of	the	Project,	connecting	Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach,	would	add	

approximately	1.5	million	riders	making	long	distance	trips	(Orlando‐Southeast	Florida).	AAF	projects	

that	total	annual	ridership	would	exceed	4	million	by	year	2030.	These	ridership	estimates	predict	that	

the	AAF	rail	service	will	capture	7.2	percent	of	the	long	distance	market	share	(Orlando	to	Miami)	and	

5.6	percent	of	the	combined	long	distance	and	short	distance	market	share.	Rail	ridership	will	be	drawn	

from	the	following	modes:	

 69	percent	of	the	forecast	riders	will	shift	from	long	distance	automobile	travel;		

 10	percent	of	the	forecast	riders	will	shift	from	airline	travel;	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-47 September 2014 

 

 10	percent	of	the	forecast	riders	will	shift	from	bus	travel;	

 2	percent	of	the	forecast	riders	will	shift	from	Amtrak	rail	services;	and	

 9	percent	of	the	forecast	riders	will	be	from	new	or	“induced”	trips.	

Table 3.3-10 Projected Base-Case Ridership (2019) 

Year 

Short-Distance Service 

(West Palm Beach-Miami) 

Long-Distance Service 

(Orlando to Southeast Florida) Total 

2019 1,944,500 1,526,300 3,470,800 

Source: Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September 2013. 

Sensitivity	analyses	showed	that	forecasted	AAF	ridership	was	sensitive	to	travel	factors	such	as	train	

running	 time,	 service	 frequency,	 access	 time	 to	 stations,	 competing	 auto	 travel	 times,	 fuel	 costs,	 and	

competing	airline	fares.	An	increase	of	10	percent	in	running	time	(approximately	18	minutes)	would	

result	in	an	approximately	7	percent	decrease	in	forecast	ridership	(and	vice	versa).	An	increase	in	the	

frequency	of	service	by	20	percent	would	result	in	a	5.4	percent	increase	in	ridership.	

The	 ridership	 analysis	 also	 estimated	 the	 number	 of	 automobiles	 that	 would	 be	 removed	 from	 the	

region’s	roadways	(Table	3.3‐11).	In	2016	the	study	estimates	that	approximately	336,000	cars	would	be	

removed	with	approximately	209,000	coming	from	short	distance	trips	and	126,000	coming	from	long	

distance	trips.	By	2030,	 this	estimate	increases	to	1.35	million	annual	automobiles	removed	 from	 the	

roadways.		

Table 3.3-11 Estimate of Auto Vehicle Trips Diverted to AAF 

Year 

Short Distance 

Service 

Long Distance 

Service Total 

20161 209,896 125,733 335,628 

20192 723,005 442,937 1,165,942 

2030 815,471 530,228 1,345,699 

Source: Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September 2013. Prepared 

for Florida East Coast. 

1 2016 is the anticipated first year of revenue service 

2 2019 is the anticipate year at which ridership reaches planned full-service levels. 

3.6 Summary 

As	required	by	NEPA,	this	DEIS	presents	the	alternatives	developed	for	the	Project,	and	evaluates	these	

alternatives	in	light	of	their	ability	to	satisfy	the	Project	purpose,	meet	the	primary	objective	of	the	Project	

(to	 provide	 reliable	 and	 convenient	 intercity	 rail	 service	 that	 is	 sustainable	 as	 a	 private	 commercial	

enterprise	while	maximizing	 the	use	 of	existing	infrastructure).	This	chapter	 describes	 the	alternatives	

identified	within	each	of	the	connected	segments	of	the	Project,	and	reports	the	results	of	applying	screening	

criteria.	The	chapter	presents	 the	reasons	why	each	alternative	was	either	withdrawn	or	retained,	and	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives 3-48 September 2014 

 

describes	in	detail	the	No‐Action	Alternative	and	the	three	Action	Alternatives	evaluated	in	this	DEIS.	These	

Action	 Alternatives	 (Alternative	 A,	 Alternative	 C,	 and	 Alternative	 E)	 differ	 only	 in	 the	 location	 of	 the	

proposed	tracks	in	the	17‐mile	segment	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	parallel	to	SR	528	between	the	interchanges	

with	SR	417	and	SR	520.	All	other	elements	of	the	Action	Alternatives	are	identical.	Chapter	5,	Environmental

Consequences,	 of	 this	 DEIS	 provides	 an	 evaluation	 of	 the	 environmental	 impacts	 of	 the	 three	 Action	

Alternatives,	 in	 comparison	 to	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative.	 Chapter	 5	 also	 describes	 the	 environmental	

impacts	of	activities	within	the	Phase	I	WPB‐M	Segment	that	were	not	previously	evaluated	in	the	2012	EA	

and	2013	FONSI	and	subsequent	re‐evaluations,	including	the	seven	new	or	reconstructed	bridges	over	

waterways	and	minor	changes	to	the	Miami	Viaduct,	and	summarizes	the	environmental	consequences	as	

described	in	the	2012	EA.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-1 September 2014 

 

4 Affected Environment 

This	chapter	describes	the	affected	environment	in	which	the	All	Aboard	Florida	(AAF)	Passenger	

Rail	Project	(Project)	would	be	constructed	and	operated.	Characteristics	of	the	surrounding	area	are	

given	to	familiarize	the	reader	with	the	geography,	land	use,	demographics	and	economics,	and	the	

physical	 and	 natural	 environment.	 The	 Council	 on	 Environmental	 Quality	 (CEQ)	 regulations	 at	

40	CFR	§	1502.15	require	that	an	Environmental	Impact	Statement	(EIS)	

“shall	succinctly	describe	the	environment	of	the	area(s)	to	be	affected	or	created	by	the	alternatives	

under	consideration.	The	descriptions	shall	be	no	longer	than	is	necessary	to	understand	the	effects	

of	the	alternatives.	Data	and	analyses	in	a	statement	shall	be	commensurate	with	the	importance	of	

the	impact,	with	less	important	material	summarized,	consolidated,	or	simply	referenced.”	

The	level	of	information	provided	in	this	chapter	for	each	resource	is	proportionate	to	that	resource’s	

potential	to	be	affected	by	the	Project.	The	baseline	conditions	presented	in	this	chapter	reflect	2013	

Existing	Conditions	or	the	most	recent	year	for	which	data	are	available.	Information	on	the	affected	

environment	is	presented	in	a	north‐to‐south	order:		

 Orlando	International	Airport	(MCO)	Segment	(MCO	Segment)	–	the	portion	of	the	Project	on	

Greater	Orlando	Airport	Authority	(GOAA)	property;		

 East‐West	Corridor	(E‐W	Corridor)	–	from	the	GOAA	property	line	to	the	connection	with	the	

Florida	East	Coast	Railway	(FECR)	corridor	in	Cocoa;		

 North‐South	Corridor	(N‐S	Corridor)	–	the	FECR	Corridor	from	Cocoa	to	West	Palm	Beach,	

the	terminus	of	the	Project	evaluated	in	this	EIS;	and	

 West	Palm	Beach‐Miami	Corridor	(WPB‐M	Corridor)	–	the	FECR	Corridor	 from	West	Palm	

Beach	to	Miami	that	was	previously	evaluated	as	Phase	I.	

4.1 Land Use and Transportation 

This	section	provides	an	overview	of	the	existing	land	uses	and	transportation	systems	within	the	

Project	Study	Area.	The	Project	Study	Area	for	these	resources	includes	the	portion	of	central	and	

southeast	 Florida	 proximate	 to	 the	 Project,	 including	 the	 counties	 through	 which	 it	 passes.	 The	

Project	Study	Area	for	land	use	includes	the	50‐foot	wide	existing	track	bed	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	

plus	125	feet	on	either	side	(east	and	west)	and	a	50‐foot	central	track	bed	plus	125	feet	on	either	

side	(north	and	south)	for	each	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	alternatives.		

4.1.1 Land Use 

This	section	describes	the	methods	used	to	evaluate	existing	land	uses	and	provides	an	overview	of	

the	land	uses	and	land	use	plans	and	policies	within	the	Project	Study	Area.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-2 September 2014 

 

4.1.1.1 Methodology 

Florida	Land	Use,	Cover	and	Forms	Classification	System	(FLUCCS)	geographic	information	systems	

(GIS)	data	derived	from	the	South	Florida	Water	Management	District	(SFWMD)	and	the	St.	Johns	River	

Water	 Management	 District	 (SJRWMD)	 were	 the	 primary	 sources	 of	 data	 (SFWMD	 2008;	

SJRWMD	2009).	The	land	use	data	presented	in	this	section	include	the	FLUCCS	category	designation	

(with	description),	acreage,	and	aerial	cover	(by	percent)	of	each	mapped	land	use	within	the	Project	

Study	Area	(FDOT	1999).	‘Predominant’	land	uses	are	those	categories	of	land	use,	as	represented	by	

mapped	land	use,	that	encompass	at	least	10	percent	of	the	total	aerial	cover	of	the	Project	Study	Area.		

4.1.1.2 Affected Environment 

This	section	describes	the	existing	land	uses	and	provides	an	overview	of	the	land	uses	and	land	use	

plans	and	policies	within	the	Project	Study	Area,	for	each	segment	of	the	Project.	

Existing Land Uses 

The	 MCO	 Segment	 is	 on	 GOAA	 property.	 Primary	 land	 uses	 include	 Transportation,	 Water,	 and	

undeveloped	lands.	Transportation	land	uses	include	airport	infrastructure	and	parking	lots.	Existing	

land	uses	along	the	MCO	Segment	are	shown	in	Appendix	4.1.1‐A.	

The	E‐W	Corridor	crosses	Orange	and	Brevard	Counties.	The	western	terminus	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	

is	in	the	City	of	Orlando	in	Orange	County,	while	the	eastern	terminus	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	is	in	the	

City	of	Cocoa	in	Brevard	County.	Land	uses	adjacent	to	the	E‐W	Corridor	within	Orlando	are	primarily	

Transportation,	 Commercial	 and	 Services,	 and	 undeveloped	 lands.	 Land	 uses	 adjacent	 to	 the	

E‐W	Corridor	within	Cocoa	are	primarily	Transportation,	Low	Density	Residential,	Commercial	and	

Services,	 and	 undeveloped	 lands.	 The	 remaining	 areas	 along	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 are	 primarily	

Transportation,	Cropland	and	Pastureland,	and	undeveloped	land	adjacent	to	State	Road	(SR)	528.	

Figures	 4.1.1‐A2	 through	 4.1.1‐A38	 in	 Appendix	 4.1.1‐A	 depict	 the	 existing	 land	 uses	 along	 the	

E‐W	Corridor	as	well	as	the	incorporated	municipal	boundaries	of	Orlando	and	Cocoa.	

The	E‐W	Corridor	passes	through	the	Innovation	Way	Overlay	Area,	the	unincorporated	community	of	

Wedgefield,	and	the	Tosohatchee	Wildlife	Management	Area	(WMA).	The	Innovation	Way	Overlay	Area	

is	a	designated	special	use	area	in	Orange	County,	(Orange	County	Planning	Division	2013).	The	intent	of	

the	Innovation	Way	Overlay	Area	is	to	promote	high	tech	business	jobs	and	growth,	along	with	quality	

housing,	new	schools,	parks,	 trails,	and	natural	spaces.	Amendment	2006‐1‐B‐FLUE‐2	also	includes	a	

multi‐modal	transportation	plan.	The	unincorporated	community	of	Wedgefield	is	west	of	the	SR	520	

interchange,	and	has	a	total	population	of	6,679	within	a	land	area	of	23.4	square	miles,	for	a	population	

density	of	approximately	285.4	persons	per	square	mile	(USCB	2012).	The	WMA	is	east	of	the	SR	520	

interchange,	and	is	managed	by	the	Florida	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation	Commission	(FWC).	The	WMA	

consists	of	30,701	acres	within	the	St.	Johns	River	Watershed	(FWC	2013).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-3 September 2014 

 

The	N‐S	Corridor,	which	is	entirely	a	Transportation	land	use	and	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor,	

crosses	Brevard,	Indian	River,	St.	Lucie,	Martin,	and	Palm	Beach	counties.	The	predominant	land	uses	

adjacent	to	the	N‐W	Corridor	in	each	county	are	shown	in	Appendix	4.1.1‐A	and	include:	

 Brevard	County:	Commercial	and	Services,	Transportation,	and	Medium	Density	Residential;	

 Indian	River	County:	Commercial	and	Services,	Industrial,	and	undeveloped	lands;	

 St.	Lucie	County:	Low	Density	Residential	and	undeveloped	lands;	

 Martin	County:	Transportation,	Medium	Density	Residential,	Commercial	and	Services,	and	

undeveloped	lands;	and	

 Palm	Beach	County:	Transportation,	Commercial	and	Services,	and	Medium	Density	Residential.	

The	N‐S	Corridor	passes	through	several	incorporated	municipalities:	Cocoa,	Melbourne,	Vero	Beach,	

Fort	Pierce,	Jupiter,	Palm	Beach	Gardens,	Riviera	Beach,	and	West	Palm	Beach.	More	information	on	

these	municipalities	is	provided	in	Section	4.4.1,	Communities and Demographics.	Appendix	4.1.1‐A	

depicts	 the	 existing	 land	 uses	 along	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 as	 well	 as	 any	 incorporated	 municipal	

boundaries	crossed	by	this	segment.	

The	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 crosses	 Palm	 Beach,	 Broward,	 and	 Miami‐Dade	 Counties.	 The	 existing	

FECR	Corridor	within	the	Project	Study	Area	is	typically	100	feet	wide	and	has	had	freight	and/or	

passenger	 service	 within	 the	 corridor	 throughout	 its	 100‐year	 plus	 history.	 The	 existing	

FECR	Corridor	traverses	established	and	heavily	developed	areas	of	the	three	counties.	Land	uses	

transition	 from	 high	 density,	 central	 business	 district	 urban,	 to	 medium	 density	 residential,	 to	

industrial	 and	 commercial	 uses.	 Little	 vacant	 and/or	 undeveloped	land	 exists	 along	 the	 corridor.	

Established	neighborhoods	and	communities	have	evolved	in	conjunction	with	the	corridor	due	to	

the	age	of	the	existing	corridor.	The	WPB‐M	Corridor	passes	through	the	central	business	districts	of	

West	 Palm	 Beach,	 Fort	 Lauderdale,	 and	 Miami.	 The	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 Station	 area	 is	 within	 the	

designated	Downtown	Planned	Unit	Development.	The	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	area	is	within	 the	

Regional	Activity	Center/West	Mixed‐Use	Area,	and	the	Miami	Station	area	is	currently	designated	

as	High‐Density	Residential	area.		

Land Use Plans 

As	 per	 the	 Chapter	 163,	 Part	 II,	 Florida	 Statutes	 (FS)	 (the	 Community	 Planning	 Act),	 local	

governments	in	the	State	of	Florida	are	required	to	create,	adopt,	and	maintain	a	comprehensive	plan	

to	 guide	 and	 manage	 future	 development.	 Amendments	 to	 the	 Comprehensive	 Plan	 are	 typically	

made	twice	per	year,	and	may	include	changes	to	the	future	land	use	designation	of	public	or	private	

properties,	changes	to	the	schedule	of	capital	improvements	necessary	to	support	future	population	

growth,	 or	 amendments	 to	 goals,	 objectives,	 and/or	 policies	 for	 growth	 management.	 Private	

development	must	conform	 to	any	applicable	local	comprehensive	plans,	or	elements	 or	portions	

thereof	(Florida	Legislature	2012).	Table	4.1.1‐1	lists	the	relevant	land	use	plans	for	those	counties	

crossed	by	the	Project.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-4 September 2014 

 

Table 4.1.1-1 Local Land Use Plans 

Title 

Last 

Update Preparer 

Growth Management Plan, City of Orlando 2011 City of Orlando, Planning Division 

Orange County, Florida; Comprehensive Plan 

2010-2030, Destination 2030 

2012 Orange County Community, Environmental, and 

Development Services; Planning Division 

The 1988 Brevard County Comprehensive Plan 2011 Brevard County Planning and Development 

Indian River County 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2006 Indian River County, Planning Division 

St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan 2010 St. Lucie County, Planning Division 

Martin County Comprehensive Growth 

Management Plan 

2013 Martin County, Division of Community Planning 

Palm Beach County, 1989 Comprehensive Plan 2013 Palm Beach County, Planning Division 

West Palm Beach Master Plan Update 2009 City of West Palm Beach 

Fort Lauderdale Downtown Master Plan 2007 City of Fort Lauderdale 

2025 Downtown Miami Master Plan 2009 Miami Downtown Development Authority 

4.1.2 Transportation 

This	section	provides	an	overview	of	the	existing	transportation	infrastructure	within	the	Project	Study	

Area.	Transportation	infrastructure	includes	automobile,	motorbus,	pedestrian,	train,	and	aviation.	

4.1.2.1 Rail Transportation 

There	are	three	primary	north‐south	rail	corridors	in	the	Project	Study	Area.	One	corridor	runs	along	the	

east	 coast	 of	 Florida	 between	 Jacksonville	and	Miami	and	is	 owned	 by	 FECR.	According	 to	 the	 FECR	

operations	data	 from	2012,	 this	route	consists	of	 four	 flat	switching	yards,	72	industry	 turnouts,	and	

21	over‐grade	and	under‐grade	bridges.	CSX	owns	tracks	through	the	center	of	the	state	between	Winter	

Haven	and	Palm	Beach	that	connect	to	a	third	set	of	tracks	owned	by	the	State	of	Florida	between	Palm	

Beach	 and	 Miami	 (South	 Florida	 Rail	 Corridor).	 There	 is	 no	 existing	 rail	 infrastructure	 in	 the	

E‐W	Corridor.		

Existing Passenger Train Service 

The	National	Railroad	Passenger	Corporation	(Amtrak)	provides	passenger	rail	service	between	Orlando	

and	Miami	on	their	Silver	Star	and	Silver	Meteor	services.	These	services	originate	in	New	York	City	and	

operate	 between	 Orlando	 and	Miami	 via	 CSX	 tracks	 to	West	 Palm	 Beach	 and	 the	 South	 Florida	 Rail	

Corridor	 tracks	 between	West	 Palm	 Beach	 and	 Miami.	 These	 services	 stop	 at	 ten	 stations	 including	

Orlando,	Kissimmee,	Winter	Haven,	West	Palm	Beach,	and	Miami.	One	train	operates	per	service	each	day	

in	each	direction	with	travel	times	ranging	from	5	hours,	45	minutes	to	7	hours,	34	minutes.	The	average	

round	trip	cost	for	the	service	is	$100.00	for	one	adult	passenger.	In	2012,	ridership	for	the	entire	Silver	

Star	 service	 was	 425,794	 passengers,	 while	 ridership	 for	 the	 entire	 Silver	 Meteor	 service	 was	

375,164	 passengers.	 Combined	 ridership	 was	 800,958	 annual	 passengers	 (Brookings	 2013).	

Figure	4.1.2‐1	depicts	the	Amtrak	service.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-5 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-6 September 2014 

 

The	South	Florida	Regional	Transit	Authority	(SFRTA)	serves	the	Project	Study	Area	with	commuter	rail	

service	 between	 Mangonia	 Park	 in	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 and	 Miami	 (approximately	 70	 miles),	 called	

“Tri‐Rail.”	Only	the	northernmost	station,	Mangonia	Park,	is	within	the	Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach	study	

area.	Tri‐Rail	operates	on	the	South	Florida	Rail	Corridor	and	serves	17	stations	with	25	southbound	(SB)	

and	25	northbound	(NB)	trains	per	weekday,	and	15	SB/15	NB	trains	per	weekend	day.	The	travel	time	

between	West	Palm	Beach	and	Miami	is	1	hour,	40	minutes.	Tri‐Rail	has	a	zone	based	fare	system	which	

ranges	 from	 $2.50	 to	 $6.90	 per	 trip.	 Fare	 discounts	 are	 available.	 Average	 monthly	 ridership	 for	

2012	ranged	from	less	than	12,000	to	over	14,000	riders,	which	is	an	increase	over	the	previous	year	

(SFRTA	2013b).	Figure	4.1.2‐2	shows	the	Tri‐Rail	service.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-7 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-8 September 2014 

 

Existing Freight Rail Service 

Regular	freight	traffic	currently	operates	within	the	FECR	Corridor	from	Jacksonville	to	Miami.	The	freight	

track	within	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	was	evaluated	 from	Mile	Post	 (MP)	 170	in	 Cocoa	 (Brevard	 County)	 to	

MP	299	in	West	Palm	Beach	(Palm	Beach	County).	The	existing	 freight	 traffic	consists	of	an	average	of	

15	trains	per	day	with	a	low	of	nine	daily	trains	on	Saturday	and	a	high	of	17	daily	trains	Tuesday	through	

Thursday.	This	includes	both	NB	and	SB	trains.	The	average	train	length	is	8,150	feet,	which	includes	two	

locomotives	and	101	cars.	Regular	freight	traffic	also	operates	within	the	CSX/South	Florida	Rail	corridors	

from	Orlando	to	Miami.	Figure	4.1.2‐3	shows	the	CSX	tracks	in	the	Project	Study	Area.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-9 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-10 September 2014 

 

4.1.2.2 Inter-City Motorbus Service 

Miami	Orlando	Shuttle	Bus	provides	five	bus	trips	daily,	seven	days	a	week	between	Orlando	and	West	

Palm	Beach.	From	West	Palm	Beach	the	route	follows	Florida’s	Turnpike,	passing	through	Fort	Pierce	and	

Kissimmee	before	arriving	in	Orlando.	 It	 takes	about	4	hours	and	 the	average	round	 trip	cost	 for	 the	

service	is	$60.00	for	one	adult	passenger	(Miami	Orlando	Shuttle	Bus	2014).		

Greyhound	provides	passenger	bus	service	between	Orlando	and	West	Palm	Beach.	The	route	runs	four	

times	daily	from	Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach.	From	West	Palm	Beach	the	route	follows	Florida’s	Turnpike,	

passing	through	Fort	Pierce	and	Kissimmee	before	arriving	in	Orlando.	It	takes	about	4	hours	one	way	and	

the	average	round	trip	cost	for	the	service	is	$60.00	for	one	adult	passenger	(Greyhound	2014).		

RedCoach	provides	passenger	bus	service	between	Orlando	and	West	Palm	Beach.	The	route	north	to	

south	(Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach)	runs	along	Florida’s	Turnpike,	passing	through	Fort	Pierce	before	

arriving	in	Orlando.	The	route	runs	four	times	daily	on	Tuesday,	Wednesday,	Thursday,	and	Saturday.	

This	route	also	runs	two	times	daily	on	Monday,	Friday,	and	Sunday.	The	route	south	to	north	(West	Palm	

Beach	 to	Orlando)	runs	along	Florida’s	Turnpike,	passing	through	Fort	Pierce	before	arriving	in	West	

Palm	Beach.	The	route	runs	four	times	daily	on	Monday,	Tuesday,	Wednesday,	and	Saturday.	This	route	

also	runs	two	times	daily	on	Thursday,	Friday,	and	Sunday.	It	takes	about	3	hours	one	way	and	the	average	

round	trip	cost	for	the	service	is	$100.00	for	one	adult	passenger	(RedCoach	USA	2014).		

4.1.2.3 Local Transit Service 

Orlando,	West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	Miami	all	have	local	transit	service	that	circulates	within	

each	jurisdiction.	

LYNX	is	the	transit	operator	in	Orlando;	it	provides	local,	limited,	and	express	bus	service	throughout	

Orange,	 Seminole,	 and	 Osceola	 Counties	 and	 portions	 of	 Lake,	 Volusia,	 and	 Polk	 Counties.	 MCO	 is	

currently	served	by	multiple	local	bus	routes	that	provide	connections	to	Walt	Disney	Universal	Studios,	

the	Florida	Mall,	and	Downtown	Orlando.	Local	bus	fare	is	$2.00.	

Palm	Tran	is	the	primary	transit	operator	in	Palm	Beach	County,	providing	local	and	express	bus	service	

throughout	Palm	Beach	County.	Local	bus	fare	is	$1.50.		

Broward	County	Transit	(BCT)	provides	local	bus	service	within	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	connects	Broward	

County	to	multi‐modal	transit	options	in	Palm	Beach	and	Miami‐Dade	Counties.	BCT	operates	285	fixed	

route	buses	along	43	bus	routes	on	weekdays	and	28	to	30	bus	routes	on	weekends.	BCT	fares	range	

between	$1.75	for	regular	service	and	$2.35	for	express	service.	Senior,	youth,	disabled,	and	Medicare	

discounts	are	available,	which	reduce	regular	service	to	$0.85	and	express	service	to	$1.15.	Children	less	

than	40	inches	in	height	ride	free	(Broward	County	Transit	2013).	

Miami‐Dade	Transit	is	the	transit	operator	in	Miami‐Dade	County;	they	provide	local,	limited	stop,	and	

express	bus	and	rail	service	throughout	Miami‐Dade	County.	The	single	ride	fare	is	$2.00.		

4.1.2.4 Aviation System 

Orlando,	 West	 Palm	 Beach,	 Fort	 Lauderdale,	 and	 Miami	 all	 have	 international	 airports	 with	 multiple	

commercial	flights	each	day.	In	2012,	96,112	daily	and	35.1	million	annual	passengers	used	MCO	(MCO	n.d.)	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-11 September 2014 

 

and	108,969	daily	and	39.5	million	annual	passengers	used	Miami	International	Airport	(MIA)	(MIA	2013).	

There	are	244	daily	and	88,900	annual	passengers	who	travel	between	Orlando	and	Miami	via	airplane	

(Louis	 Berger	 Group	 2013).	 American	 Airlines,	 United	 Airlines,	 and	 Silver	 Airways	 provide	 air	 service	

between	Orlando	and	Miami,	Silver	Airways	and	Spirit	Airlines	provide	service	between	Orlando	and	Fort	

Lauderdale,	and	Silver	Airways	provides	service	between	Orlando	and	West	Palm	Beach.	The	average	flight	

time	is	60	minutes,	which	does	not	include	the	time	required	to	reach	the	airport,	pass	security,	and	board	

the	 aircraft.	 Several	 smaller	 airlines	 and	 charter	 services	 provide	 service	 between	 the	 various	 smaller	

“executive”	airports	in	the	region.	In	total,	there	are	more	than	30	flights	per	day	between	MCO	and	the	West	

Palm	Beach	(PBI)/Fort	Lauderdale	(FLL)/Miami	(MIA)	Airports.	There	are	244	daily	and	88,900	annual	

passengers	 who	 travel	 between	 Orlando	 and	Miami	 via	 airplane	 (Louis	 Berger	 Group	 2013).	 In	 2012,	

96,112	daily	and	35.1	million	annual	passengers	used	MCO	and	108,969	daily	and	39.5	million	annual	

passengers	used	MIA	(MCO	n.d.).	By	2030,	the	number	of	passengers	is	expected	to	grow	to	74	million	per	

year,	an	increase	of	45	percent	(Louis	Berger	Group	2013).	

4.1.2.5 Roadway Network 

The	Project	Study	Area	includes	the	regional	road	network	between	Orlando	and	Miami,	and	the	local	

road	system.		

Regional Roadway Network 

The	primary	regional	roadways	between	Orlando	and	West	Palm	Beach	are	shown	in	Figure	4.1.2‐4	and	

include	 SR	 528	 (which	 runs	 east‐west),	 Florida’s	 Turnpike	 (which	 runs	 northwest‐southeast)	 and	

Interstate	95	(I‐95)	(which	runs	north‐south).	SR	528	is	a	53.5‐mile	partial	toll	road	that	is	operated	and	

maintained	 by	 the	 Orlando‐Orange	 County	 Expressway	 Authority	 (OOCEA)	 from	 Sand	 Lake	 Road	 to	

SR	520,	and	by	the	Florida	Department	of	Transportation	(FDOT)	from	Interstate	4	(I‐4)	to	Sand	Lake	

Road	and	 from	SR	 520	 to	its	eastern	 terminus	at	SR	 401.	 The	 roadway	 has	 four	 to	 six	lanes	in	each	

direction.	The	OOCEA	section	has	two	toll	plazas.	The	FDOT	sections	are	not	tolled.	Florida’s	Turnpike	is	

a	multi‐lane,	limited	access	toll	road	that	is	operated	and	maintained	by	the	Florida	Turnpike	Enterprise	

(FTE)	from	Wildwood	to	Miami.	The	FTE	section	in	the	Project	Study	Area	has	six	toll	plazas.	I‐95	is	a	

multi‐lane	limited	access	interstate	highway	that	is	operated	and	maintained	by	FDOT	that	covers	the	

entire	length	of	the	state	of	Florida.		

The	Level	of	Service	(LOS)	and	Average	Annual	Daily	Traffic	(AADT)	for	the	highways	were	determined	

from	the	FDOT	District	4	and	5	Generalized	Tables	and	the	FTE	(FDOT	2011a	and	2011b;	CFGIS	2012).	

Overall	the	LOS	through	the	analyzed	roadway	corridors	has	reasonably	stable	flow,	at	or	near	free	flow	

traffic	(LOS	C),	which	is	the	target	for	highway	systems	outside	urbanized	areas	according	to	FDOT.	There	

are	several	segments	within	the	roadway	corridors	where	the	LOS	approaches	an	unstable	flow	in	traffic,	

LOS	D,	but	according	to	FDOT	LOS	D	is	the	target	for	highway	systems	inside	urbanized	areas.	Therefore,	

these	highways	currently	meet	or	exceed	the	LOS	standard	for	state	highway	systems	according	to	FDOT.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-12 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-13 September 2014 

 

The	average	travel	time	between	Orlando	and	Miami	via	automobile	is	4	hours,	15	minutes	via	I‐95	and	

3	 hours,	 50	 minutes	 via	 Florida’s	 Turnpike.	 The	 travel	 time	 between	 MCO	 and	 I‐95	 on	 SR	 528	 is	

31	minutes.	Table	4.1.2‐1	shows	the	volume	and	operating	conditions	on	major	area	highways.	

Table 4.1.2-1 Existing Highway Volumes and Operational Characteristics 

Highway County Lanes 

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic 

Level of 

Service 

State Road 528 Orange 4-6 30,000-78,300 B-C 

 Brevard 4 20,200-30,000 B 

Interstate 95 Brevard 4-6 26,500-55,000 B-C 

 Indian River 4 38,000-41,000 B 

 St. Lucie 4-6 35,000-67,000 B-C 

 Martin 6 39,000-66,500 B-C 

 Palm Beach 10 66,000-179,500 B-D 

Florida’s Turnpike Orange 4 55,900 C 

 Osceola 4 25,300-55,900 B-C 

 Indian River 4 26,400 B 

 Okeechobee 4 26,400 B 

 St. Lucie 4 26,400-40,700 B 

 Martin 4 35,700-40,700 B 

 Palm Beach 4 35,700-56,300 B-C 

Source: FDOT. 2011a. 2011 SHS LOS Maps. Secure download from Chon Wong, District 4 Contact. Received May 2013; 

FDOT. 2011b. Florida’s Turnpike AADT and LOS Request. Email from Kim Cromartie Samson, Florida’s Turnpike 

Enterprise to author. Received May 2013; 

Central Florida Geographic Information Systems. 2012. District 5 LOS Spreadsheet for 2012. http://www.cfgis.org/FDOTResources/TrafficData.aspx. Accessed May 7, 2012. 

Local Roadway Network 

MCO	is	south	of	SR	528	and	north	of	SR	417	(the	Central	Florida	Greenway).	Roadway	access	from	the	

north	 is	 primarily	 from	 Jeff	 Fuqua	 Boulevard	 and	 from	 the	 south	 on	 the	 South	 Access	 Road	

(Figure	4.1.2‐5).	Vehicular	volumes	for	the	South	Access	Road	(County	Road	[CR]	530/Boggy	Creek	Road)	

are	shown	in	Table	4.1.2‐2.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-14 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-15 September 2014 

 

Table 4.1.2-2 Existing Traffic Volumes for Local Roadways 

Project Element Access Road Segment 

Average 

Annual 

Daily Traffic 

Level of 

Service 

Vehicle Maintenance 

Facility (VMF) 

County Road (CR) 530/Boggy 

Creek Road North of Airport Park Drive 13,000 E 

VMF CR530/Boggy Creek Road Weatherbee to East Weatherbee 9,300 E 

West Palm Beach Station Quadrille Street 

Banyan Boulevard to Flagler 

Memorial Bridge 10,900 B 

Fort Lauderdale Station Broward Boulevard 

Avenue of the Arts to 

S Andrews Avenue 50,500 C 

Miami Station NW 1st Avenue NW 2nd Ave to NW 1st Ave 4,600 B 

Source: City of Orlando, Planning Division. 2011. Growth Management Plan, City of Orlando: Transportation Element. 

http://www.cityoforlando.net/planning/cityplanning/PDFs/GMP/2012/jan/04 Transportation_GOPs_Supp_5.pdf. 

December 2011. Accessed August 7, 2013. 

Access	to	the	West	Palm	Beach	Station	would	be	from	Quadrille	Street	and	6th	Street.	Access	to	the	Fort	

Lauderdale	Station	would	be	from	Broward	Boulevard	to	NE	2nd	Avenue,	and	access	to	the	Miami	Station	

would	be	from	NW	1st	Avenue.	Table	4.1.2‐2	shows	the	current	daily	traffic	volumes	and	LOS	for	these	roads.	

4.1.2.6 At-grade Crossings 

The	N‐S	Corridor	crosses	159	roadways	at	grade	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach	(AAF	2013c).	A	

summary	of	the	total	number	of	public	and	private	at‐grade	crossings	by	county,	within	the	N‐S	Corridor,	

is	provided	in	Table	4.1.2‐3.	A	summary	of	existing	 freight	operations	is	provided	in	Table	4.1.2‐4.	As	

shown	 in	 Table	 4.1.2‐4,	 grade	 crossings	 are	 typically	 closed	 for	 240	 seconds	 (4	 minutes)	 per	 train,	

generally	 once	 per	 hour.	 Phase	 I	 of	 the	 Project	 crosses	 183	 roadways	 at‐grade,	 as	 described	 in	

Section	3.3.1.3	of	the	2012	EA.	

Table 4.1.2-3 Summary of At-grade Crossings by County Within the N-S Corridor 

County 

Length of Corridor 

(miles) 

Number of At-grade 

Crossings 

Brevard 42 55 

Indian River 21 30 

St. Lucie 22 21 

Martin 26 27 

Palm Beach 18 26 

Totals 87 159 

Source: AAF. 2013c. FECR Grade Crossing Estimate Spreadsheet. Received via email from Alex Gonzalez on March 7, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-16 September 2014 

 

Table 4.1.2-4 Summary of Existing (2011) Freight Operating Characteristics and Average Crossing 

Closures within the N-S Corridor 

County 

Time to 

Activate 

and Close 

the Gate 

(sec)1

Avg. Train 

Length 

(ft.) 

Avg. Train 

Speed 

(mph)3

Time to 

Clear 

 (sec) 

Time to 

Bring the 

Gate 

Back Up 

(sec) 

Total 

Time to 

Activate 

and Clear

(sec) 

Crossings

(Trains 

per Day) 

Closure 

(min/day) 

Maximum 

Crossings 

per Hour2

Maximum 

Delay per 

Hour 

(min)4

Brevard 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0 

Indian River 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0 

St. Lucie 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0 

Martin 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0 

Palm Beach 30 8150 59.4 94 15 139 18 41.6 1 2.3 

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West 

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 

1 FRA regulations require 20 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the railroad crossing and 

10 seconds to bring the gate back up. FDOT uses 30 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the 

railroad crossing and 15 seconds to bring the gate back up. To account for the worst-case scenario, FDOT timings were used 

in this analysis. 

2 Maximum crossings per hour includes north-bound and south-bound trains combined 

3 2011 freight speed for Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Brevard Counties was obtained from Section 3.3.1.1 

of the Environmental Assessment for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida, 

dated October 31, 2012. 

4 Maximum Delay per Hour calculated as the Total Time to Activate and Clear multiplied by the Maximum Crossings per Hour. 

4.1.3 Navigation 

The	United	States	Coast	Guard	(USCG)	has	reviewed	the	Project	and	determined	that	six	of	the	proposed	

bridges	(the	new	bridge	across	 the	St.	 Johns	River	parallel	 to	SR	528,	and	 the	proposed	second‐track	

bridges	across	the	Eau	Gallie	River,	St.	Sebastian	River,	Crane	Creek,	Turkey	Creek,	and	the	Hillsboro	Canal	

in	Broward	County)	will	require	bridge	permits	(USCG	letter	May	1,	2013,	Appendix	4.1.3‐B).	The	USCG	

requested	that	a	navigation	analysis	of	these	bridges	be	included	in	the	EIS	(USCG	letter	July	24,	2013,	

Appendix	4.1.3‐A).		This	detailed	analysis	is	provided	in	Appendix	4.1.3‐C,	Navigation Discipline Report.	

The	 USCG	 determined	 (USCG	 letter	 May	 1,	 2013)	 that	 an	 additional	 twelve	 bridges	 that	 would	 be	

reconstructed	as	part	of	the	Project	are	exempt	from	obtaining	bridge	permits.	The	reasons	provided	by	

the	USCG	for	their	exemption	include	that	they	are	either	not	navigable	other	than	by	rowboats,	canoes,	

or	small	motorboats	and	existing	navigational	clearances	would	be	maintained;	fall	under	the	Coast	Guard	

Authorization	Act	 of	1982;	 or	are	not	 subject	 to	 tidal	influence,	not	used	 for	 substantial	interstate	 or	

foreign	commerce,	and	not	susceptible	to	such	use	in	their	natural	or	potentially	improved	condition.	

USCG	did	not	make	any	findings	concerning	other	fixed‐span	bridges	where	superstructure	replacement	

would	be	required	to	accommodate	the	proposed	second	track.	At	a	meeting	held	on	August	12,	2013	

(see	 Appendix	 4.3.1‐A	 for	 meeting	 notes),	 USCG	 indicated	 that	 information	 on	 the	 operations	 of	 all	

moveable	bridges	within	the	Project	Study	Area	would	be	required	to	determine	if	there	would	be	any	

operational	effects	on	navigation.	USCG	also	requested	information	on	the	navigation	conditions	at	the	

New	River	Bridge	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-17 September 2014 

 

This	section	provides	a	summary	of	existing	navigational	conditions	for	the	proposed	new	fixed	bridge	

over	the	St.	Johns	River	and	for	three	existing	moveable	bridges	(Figure	4.3.1‐1):		

 The	St.	Lucie	River	(St.	Lucie/Martin	County);	

 The	Loxahatchee	River	(also	known	as	the	Jupiter	River,	Martin/Palm	Beach	County);	and	

 The	New	River	in	Fort	Lauderdale	(Broward	County).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-18 September 2014 

 

Information	is	also	provided	for	five	waterways	which	have	fixed	bridges:		

 Eau	Gallie	River	(Brevard	County)	

 Crane	Creek	(Brevard	County)	

 Turkey	Creek	(Brevard	County)	

 St.	Sebastian	River	(Brevard/Indian	River	County)	

 Hillsboro	Canal	(Palm	Beach/Broward	County).	

In	addition,	this	section	provides	information	on	the	existing	economic	value	of	the	maritime	industry	

associated	with	the	three	moveable	bridges.	

4.1.3.1 Methodology 

This	section	describes	the	methods	used	to	evaluate	existing	vessel	traffic	at	the	three	moveable	bridges	

and	to	evaluate	existing	economic	conditions	associated	with	the	maritime	industry	at	these	locations.	

This	study	considers	data	presented	in	previous	traffic	studies	performed	by	others,	and	includes	detailed	

analyses	and	simulation	modeling	results	based	on	current	and	future	freight	train	operations,	proposed	

passenger	rail,	and	recent	boat	traffic	surveys.	These	studies	and	analyses	include:	

 Literature	reviews	of	vessel	traffic	studies	conducted	at	each	bridge;	

 Summaries	of	2014	vessel	traffic	surveys	gathered	through	video	assessments;	

 Summaries	of	bridge	closure	data;	

 A	detailed	analysis	of	the	existing	vessel	traffic	and	bridge	schedules;	

 A	detailed	analysis	of	the	marine	industry	at	each	bridge;	

 Socioeconomic	analyses;	and	

 Results	from	a	discrete‐event	simulation	model	of	vessel	traffic.	

Vessel Survey Modeling 

Vessel	 traffic	on	 the	New	River,	Loxahatchee	River,	and	St.	Lucie	River	were	characterized	based	 on	a	

traffic	survey	and	video	survey.	

2014 Vessel Traffic Survey 

As	described	in	the	2014	Navigation Discipline Report	(Appendix	4.1.3‐C)	video	recordings	from	cameras	

located	at	FECR’s	bridges	at	the	St.	Lucie	River,	Loxahatchee	River,	and	New	River	were	provided	by	FECR.	

The	videos	contain	approximately	two	to	three	weeks	of	data	from	the	peak	vessel	traffic	season,	and	in	

some	instances	a	holiday,	and	were	used	to	quantify	the	number	and	types	of	recognizable	vessels	that	

pass	under	the	bridges	under	existing	conditions.	The	raw	data	collected	includes	the	number	and	size	of	

commercial	 and	 recreational	 vessels	 that	 pass	 under	 the	 bridges.	 These	 data	 were	 summarized	 and	

organized	to	show	differences	and	patterns	between	and	within	weekdays,	weekends,	and	different	times	

of	the	day	(AMEC	2014a).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-19 September 2014 

 

2014 Video Survey 

Video	recordings	provided	by	 FECR	were	used	 to	collect	bridge	operation	data	 for	 FECR’s	bridges	at	

Loxahatchee	River	and	St.	 Lucie	River.	The	 time	 of	 day	when	 the	 bridge	initially	 begins	 to	 close	was	

recorded,	and	train	schedule	times	were	recorded	relative	to	this	initial	closure	time.		

Existing	bridge	operations	data	for	the	New	River	Bridge	could	not	be	collected	from	the	video	provided	

by	FECR.	The	location	of	the	camera	did	not	provide	a	line	of	sight	on	the	bridge	itself.	Instead,	information	

on	current	bridge	operations	and	vessel	traffic	at	the	New	River	Bridge	was	gathered	through	monitoring	

of	 live	 video	 feed	 available	 at	 this	 location:	 http://www.microseven.com/tv/livevideo‐esplanade.html.	

This	effort	was	conducted	for	five	days	during	the	peak	season	for	vessel	traffic,	including	weekdays	and	

one	full	weekend.	Live	video	feed	data	collection	included	vessel	direction	(heading	east	or	west),	vessel	

type	(commercial	or	recreational),	vessel	size,	bridge	operations	(e.g.	closing	times,	the	time	the	train	

arrives,	and	time	it	clears	the	bridge),	as	well	as	pictures	of	the	vessels	crossing	(AMEC	2014a).	

Economic Analysis 

The	 State	 of	 Florida	 has	 performed	 extensive	 studies	 regarding	 the	 economic	 value	 of	 the	 marine	

industry.	These	 studies	include	analysis	 of	 spending	 on	 vessels	 (e.g.,	 boat	 sales,	 storage,	 repairs)	and	

recreation	 (e.g.,	 restaurants,	 fishing,	 tackle,	 ski/boating	 instruction).	 These	 studies	 also	 provide	

information	 about	 the	 economic	 value	 of	 marine‐related	 activities	 by	 county.	 The	 2014 Navigation

Discipline Report (Appendix	4.1.3‐C)	estimated	 the	economic	 value	 of	 the	marine	industry	in	2013	in	

order	 to	 determine	a	 cost	 per	 trip	 for	 the	 socioeconomic	impact	analysis.	 The	 four	 counties	 that	are	

affected	by	marine	activities	on	the	St.	Lucie	River,	Loxahatchee	River,	and	New	River	include	St.	Lucie,	

Martin,	Palm	Beach,	and	Broward	counties	(AMEC	2014a).		

As	described	in	the	2014 Navigation Discipline Report,	the	economic	benefits	of	marine‐related	activities	

on	the	inland	waterways	for	each	of	the	counties	considered	were	originally	analyzed	in	the	following	

years:	2007	for	Broward	County,	2006	for	Palm	Beach	County,	and	1999	for	both	Martin	and	St.	Lucie	

Counties.	The	State	of	Florida	updated	these	studies	in	December	2011	to	reflect	the	economic	value	of	

the	marine	industry	in	each	county	for	2009	values	(based	on	the	most	recently	available	data	at	the	time)	

(Florida	 Inland	Navigation	District	2011).	The	state’s	studies	identify	and	quantify	 the	 total	economic	

benefit	 of	 each	 county’s	 waterways,	including	 direct	 benefits,	indirect	 benefits,	 and	induced	 benefits	

associated	 with	 marine‐related	 activity;	 the	 analysis	 includes	 benefits	 related	 to	 expenditures	in	 the	

marine	industry	as	well	as	expenditures	outside	of	the	marine	industry,	but	directly	related	to	marine	

activities	(e.g.,	groceries	purchased	for	a	boating	trip).	These	analyses	do	not	include	the	impact	of	the	

marine	industry	on	property	values;	accordingly,	 this	report	does	not	discuss	property	value	impacts	

(AMEC	2014a).		

This	analysis	expands	on	the	methodology	of	the	state’s	studies	to	estimate	growth	in	direct,	indirect,	and	

induced	economic	activity	 (see	Table	 4.1.3‐1),	including	 total	business	 volume,	 personal	income,	and	

employment	(AMEC	2014a).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-20 September 2014 

 

Table 4.1.3-1 Definition and Example of Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Effects

Type of Effect Definition Illustrative Example 

Direct The initial change in the industry in question 

(e.g., expenditures in the marine industry) 

For example, when a boater pays for repairs to his 

vessel, this spending is considered a direct effect of 

the industry. 

Indirect Changes in inter-industry transactions when 

supplying industries respond to increased 

demands from the directly affected industries 

(e.g., impacts from non-wage expenditures) 

When repairing the vessel, the mechanic uses a 

portion of these funds to purchase epoxy; if this 

expenditure occurs in the same region, it would 

constitute an indirect economic effect of vessel 

industry spending. 

Induced Changes in local spending that result from 

income changes in the directly and indirectly 

affected industry sectors (e.g., impacts from 

wage expenditures). 

The vessel mechanic would earn income that can 

then be spent in the local economy, thereby 

producing induced benefits to the local economy. 

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report. 

In	 order	 to	 determine	 the	 economic	 value	 of	 the	 specific	 waterways	 considered	in	 this	 analysis,	 the	

relative	importance	of	each	waterway	was	determined	as	a	percentage	of	 the	marine	industry	in	 the	

county	in	which	it	is	located.	In	the	case	that	a	particular	waterway	is	located	in	two	counties,	its	relative	

importance	in	each	county	was	considered	and	then	the	results	for	each	county	were	summed	to	get	the	

total	economic	value	of	the	waterway.		

4.1.3.2 Existing Navigation Conditions 

This	section	describes	the	nine	waterways	and	the	existing	(2013)	navigation	conditions	and	operations	

at	each	waterway.	

St. Johns River 

The	St.	Johns	River	at	SR	528	is	a	non‐tidal	navigable	waterway	approximately	280	feet	wide,	and	is	a	

shallow	 meandering	 river	 without	 a	 designated	 channel.	 The	 SR	 528	 bridges	 (the	 eastbound	 and	

west‐bound	lanes	are	on	separate	parallel	bridges)	are	supported	on	concrete	pilings,	including	one	set	

of	pilings	in	the	center	of	the	river.	These	bridges	provide	approximately	16	feet	of	vertical	clearance	over	

the	river.	The	St.	Johns	River	receives	minimal	boat	traffic,	almost	solely	from	recreational	use	and	airboat	

tours.	There	are	no	existing	public	boat	ramps	with	access	to	the	river	at	the	SR	528	crossing.	The	closest	

public	boat	ramps	with	direct	access	to	the	river	are	6	miles	north	at	the	SR	50	bridge	and	approximately	

six	miles	south	at	the	SR	520	bridge.		

St. Lucie River 

The	St.	Lucie	River	is	a	tidal	waterway	located	in	St.	Lucie	and	Martin	Counties,	with	the	railway	bridge	

located	in	Martin	County.	The	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	is	located	about	5.9	miles	from	the	St.	Lucie	River’s	

inlet	and	is	between	the	U.S.	A1A	(Dixie	Highway)	bridge	(a	drawbridge	with	an	approximately	100‐foot	

opening)	and	the	U.S.	1	bridge,	a	fixed‐span	structure.	The	railroad	bridge	is	a	low	single‐track,	concrete‐

piling	supported	structure	with	a	drawbridge.	This	operable	bridge	has	a	vertical	clearance	of	7	feet	and	

a	 horizontal	 clearance	 of	 50	 feet.	 Although	 this	 bridge	 remains	 open	 to	 the	 waterway	 to	 allow	 a	

continuous	flow	of	vessel	traffic,	it	closes	an	average	of	10	times	daily	to	accommodate	freight	rail	service.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-21 September 2014 

 

While	closed,	most	vessels	(with	the	exception	of	small	recreational	vessels	less	than	16	feet	size	class)	

are	unable	to	pass	through	the	bridge,	and	queue	while	waiting	for	the	bridge	to	re‐open	(AMEC	2014a).	

The	bridge	is	approximately	8.2	miles	above	the	outlet	of	the	river	at	Sawfish	Point	and	the	inlet	to	the	

Indian	River	Lagoon.	Immediately	upriver	from	the	bridge	is	the	confluence	of	the	North	and	South	Forks	

of	the	St.	Lucie	River	and	the	County	Line	Canal.		

The	 primary	 bridges	 crossing	 the	 St.	 Lucie	 River,	 within	 the	 constraints	 of	 waterfront	 development,	

include	three	operable	bridges	and	ten	stationary	bridges.	Operable	bridges	include	the	St	Lucie	River	

Bridge	and	the	Dixie	Highway	Bridge,	located	at	the	confluence,	approximately	5.92	miles	and	5.97	miles	

from	 the	 St.	 Lucie	 River	 inlet,	 respectively	 and	 a	 railroad	 bridge	 located	 in	 the	 South	 Fork	 at	 the	

Okeechobee	Waterway.		

The	St.	Lucie	River	system	is	an	active	recreational	boating	area,	primarily	servicing	smaller	recreational	

vessels.	The	St.	Lucie	River	going	inbound,	or	up	river,	has	a	broad	river	channel	at	its	confluence	with	the	

Indian	River	Lagoon,	which	provides	mariners	with	access	 to	 the	Atlantic	Ocean	and	 the	 Intracoastal	

Waterway.	From	 the	St.	Lucie	Bridge,	 the	St.	Lucie	River	 travels	inland	southwestward	 to	South	Fork	

where	it	enters	the	St.	Lucie	Canal	(Okeechobee	Waterway)	and	continues	generally	west	southwestward	

to	Port	Mayaca	where	the	canal	enters	Lake	Okeechobee.	The	Okeechobee	Waterway	provides	a	route	

across	the	state	of	Florida	from	the	St.	Lucie	River	to	Punta	Rassa,	approximately	90	miles	south	of	the	

entrance	to	Tampa	Bay	on	Florida’s	west	coast.	Public	and	private	marine	facilities	are	concentrated	in	

the	eastern	portions	of	the	river	and	include	seven	marinas	and	four	boat	ramps.	There	are	numerous	

marinas	downriver	(in	Stuart	and	Port	Salerno)	as	well	as	upriver	immediately	above	the	bridge.	There	

are	15	public	and	private	marinas	on	the	St.	Lucie	River.	The	number	of	slips	at	these	marinas	ranges	from	

eight	to	nearly	200,	with	439	total	slips	and	an	average	of	approximately	35	slips	per	marina.	Marinas	

occur	throughout	the	St.	Lucie	River	but	many	are	concentrated	near	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	(AMEC	

2014a).		

The	 drawbridge	 is	 currently	 kept	 in	 the	 open	 condition	 and	 lowered	 for	 freight	 train	 passage,	 in	

accordance	with	USCG	Drawbridge	Operation	Regulations	at	33	CFR	111.317(c).	Freight	 trains	at	 the	

St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	average	32	mph.	Under	existing	conditions,	14	freight	trains	cross	the	St.	Lucie	River	

Bridge	with	an	average	closure	 time	of	21	minutes.	The	average	of	 the	 total	weekday	closure	 time	is	

241	minutes	 (4.01	hours)	per	day	and	 the	average	of	 the	 total	weekend	closure	 time	is	165	minutes	

(2.74	hours)	per	day	(AMEC	2014a).	

The	vessel	traffic	data	show	an	average	of	102	vessel	crossings	per	day	(Min=28;	Max=263)	from	Monday	

to	Friday,	compared	to	about	315	vessels	(Min=157;	Max=413)	per	day	on	a	weekend.	Sundays	had	the	

most	vessel	activity,	with	a	range	of	296	to	395	vessel	counts	(AMEC	2014a).	

As	shown	in	Table	4.1.3‐2,	the	average	count	of	commercial	vessels	per	day	ranged	from	two	to	21,	with	

an	average	of	7	vessels	and	12	vessels	passing	through	the	St.	Lucie	Bridge	on	weekdays	and	weekends	

respectively.	The	average	count	of	recreational	vessels	per	day	ranged	from	26	to	406.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-22 September 2014 

 

Table 4.1.3-2 Daily Vessel Traffic at the St. Lucie, Loxahatchee, and New River Bridges, 

January 20141

 St. Lucie River Loxahatchee River New River 

Recreational Vessels 

 Minimum 26 5 64 

 Maximum 406 500 356 

 Average 117 148 166 

Commercial Vessels 

 Minimum 2 0 29 

 Maximum 21 14 59 

 Average 4 9 49 

Total Vessels 

 Minimum 28 5 99 

 Maximum 413 502 508 

 Average 121 157 215 

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

1 Vessel traffic was assessed during January daylight hours, from 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM 

Loxahatchee River (Jupiter River) 

The	Loxahatchee	River	is	a	tidal	waterway	located	in	Martin	and	Palm	Beach	Counties,	with	the	railway	

bridge	located	in	Palm	Beach	County.	The	river	has	three	main	forks	that	flow	to	the	central	embayment	

area	before	heading	out	the	Jupiter	Inlet	(AMEC	2014a).	The	waterway	is	popular	for	recreational	boating	

and	related	activities	such	as	fishing.	According	to	FWC,	in	2012,	there	were	15,702	registered	vessels	in	

Martin	County	and	38,363	registered	vessels	in	Palm	Beach	County	(FWC	2012b).	The	primary	bridges	

crossing	 the	 Loxahatchee	River	include	 two	 operable	 bridges	 and	 three	 stationary	 bridges.	Operable	

bridges	 include	 the	 U.S.	 1	 Jupiter	 Federal	 Bridge	 and	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River	 Bridge	 located	 at	 the	

confluence,	0.9	miles	and	1.3	miles	from	the	Jupiter	Inlet,	respectively.	Stationary	bridges	include	the	A1A	

Route	Bridge,	the	Tequesta	Drive	Bridge,	and	the	Loxahatchee	River	Road	Bridge	(AMEC	2014a).		

The	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	is	immediately	adjacent	to	the	Intracoastal	Waterway	(Hobe	Sound	to	the	

north,	Lake	Worth	Creek	to	the	south)	and	is	about	1.3	miles	west	of	the	Jupiter	Inlet	(AMEC	2014a).	The	

railroad	bridge	was	constructed	 for	 two	 tracks,	although	 only	one	 track	is	currently	maintained.	The	

concrete‐pile	supported	structure	is	an	approximately	600‐foot	long	structure	with	a	drawbridge.	The	

bridge	has	a	vertical	clearance	of	4	feet	and	a	horizontal	clearance	of	40	feet	(AMEC	2014a).	The	bridge	is	

parallel	to	the	U.S.	1	Bridge,	a	fixed‐span	structure.		

The	Loxahatchee	River	supports	a	marine	industry	that	primarily	services	smaller	recreational	vessels.	

There	 are	 hundreds	 of	 private	 docks	 upriver	 from	 the	 bridge	 along	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River	 and	 the	

C‐18	Canal.	Downriver,	along	the	Intracoastal	Waterway	and	Jupiter	Inlet,	there	are	numerous	private	

docks	and	several	marinas.	Public	and	private	marine	facilities	are	concentrated	in	the	eastern	portions	

of	the	river	and	include	seven	marinas	and	four	boat	ramps,	all	of	which	are	located	within	Palm	Beach	

County.	The	number	of	slips	at	these	marinas	ranges	from	30	to	130,	with	534	total	slips	and	an	average	

of	approximately	72	slips	per	marina.	Marinas	on	the	Loxahatchee	River	comprise	less	than	one	fourth	of	

all	marinas	in	Palm	Beach	 County.	The	largest	 concentration	 of	marinas	 on	 the	 Loxahatchee	River	is	

located	along	the	Jupiter	Inlet	east	of	the	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge,	while	the	majority	of	the	marinas	in	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-23 September 2014 

 

Palm	Beach	County	are	located	along	the	Intracoastal	Waterway.	No	waterfront	hotels	or	restaurants	that	

cater	specifically	to	mariners	are	located	on	the	Loxahatchee	River	(AMEC	2014a).		

With	the	exception	of	a	commercial	area	and	marine	facilities	near	Jupiter	Inlet,	waterfront	development	

is	predominantly	private	residences,	which	provide	approximately	135	private	slips	and	1,061	private	

docks.	 While	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River	 is	 located	 in	 both	 Martin	 and	 Palm	 Beach	 counties,	 waterfront	

development	and	marine	facilities	are	overwhelmingly	concentrated	in	Palm	Beach	County.	This	is	largely	

due	to	the	Wild	and	Scenic	River	designation	that	applies	to	the	Loxahatchee	River	for	most	of	its	reach	

in	Martin	County.	The	Loxahatchee	River	is	used	for	recreational	boating	and	as	a	travel	corridor	to	and	

from	residences	to	access	the	Atlantic	Ocean	via	the	Jupiter	Inlet	and	the	Intracoastal	Waterway.	Wild	and	

Scenic	River	designated	portions	of	the	Loxahatchee	River	are	accessible	to	smaller	vessels	only,	and	is	a	

destination	for	wildlife	viewing	(AMEC	2014a).		

The	 drawbridge	 is	 currently	 kept	 in	 the	 open	 condition	 and	 lowered	 for	 freight	 train	 passage	 in	

accordance	 with	 USCG	 Drawbridge	 Operation	 Regulations	 at	 33	 CFR	 111.299.	 Freight	 trains	 at	 the	

Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	average	33	mph.	Under	2013	conditions,	14	freight	trains	cross	the	bridge	per	

day.	 The	 RTC	 model	 shows	 a	 total	 of	 10	 bridge	 closures	 per	 day	 with	 an	 average	 closure	 time	 of	

19	minutes.	The	average	 of	 total	weekday	closure	 time	is	214	minutes	 (3.57	hours)	per	day	and	 the	

average	of	the	total	weekend	closure	time	is	156	minutes	(2.6	hours)	per	day	(AMEC	2014a).		

The	vessel	traffic	data	show	an	average	of	108	vessels	per	day	(Min=5;	Max=335)	from	Monday	to	Friday,	

compared	to	about	271	vessels	(Min=119;	Max=502)	per	day	on	a	weekend.	As	shown	in	Table	4.1.3‐2,	

the	 average	 count	 of	 commercial	 vessels	 per	 day	 ranged	 from	 zero	 to	 14	 and	 the	 average	 count	 of	

recreational	vessels	per	day	ranged	from	five	to	500.	Both	commercial	and	recreational	vessel	passage	

increased	on	weekend	days.	High	vessel	activity	was	observed	during	four	different	weekday	holidays	

(around	New	Years	and	Presidents	day)	with	vessel	counts	in	the	range	of	200	to	335.	When	vessel	traffic	

data	from	holidays	are	not	included	in	the	average	vessel	count	for	the	weekdays,	this	average	value	drops	

to	an	average	of	65	vessels	per	day.	Sundays	had	the	highest	vessel	activity,	with	exception	of	the	holidays,	

with	a	range	of	119	to	502	vessel	counts.	The	average	vessel	count	for	Monday	appears	high,	but	these	

results	include	data	from	January	20,	2014,	which	was	a	holiday,	and	thus	represents	an	unusual	vessel	

count	for	Mondays	as	compared	with	data	from	Monday	January	27,	2014	(AMEC	2014a).		

New River 

The	New	River	originates	in	the	Everglades	and	flows	east	to	the	Atlantic	Ocean,	entirely	within	Broward	

County.	The	New	River	is	an	extensive	branched	tidal	waterway	in	Fort	Lauderdale,	which	discharges	to	

the	ocean	at	Port	Everglades.	The	waterway	travels	from	the	Intracoastal	Waterway	east	to	the	west	past	

residences	and	through	the	Central	Business	District	of	the	City	of	Fort	Lauderdale.	West	of	the	Central	

Business	District,	the	river	splits	into	North	and	South	forks.	The	North	Fork	of	the	New	River	is	a	shallow	

meandering	tributary,	bordered	primarily	by	residences	with	private	docks.	The	South	Fork	is	a	wider,	

deeper	tributary,	which	supports	larger	vessels	and	is	bordered	by	residences	and	commercial	marine	

industries.	Most	marinas	at	the	South	Fork	are	located	approximately	2.5	to	3.5	miles	from	the	New	River	

Bridge,	 and	 numerous	 boat	 yards	 extend	 to	 approximately	 6.8	 miles	 from	 the	 New	 River	 Bridge	

(AMEC	2014a).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-24 September 2014 

 

The	New	River	has	a	robust	waterfront	industry,	with	vessel	traffic	utilizing	a	broad	array	of	public	and	

private	marine	facilities	including	12	marinas	and	four	boat	ramps;	there	are	also	four	boat/yacht	clubs,	

two	waterfront	restaurants,	and	two	waterfront	hotels	that	cater	to	mariners.	The	marinas	range	in	scale	

from	five	slips	to	more	than	190	slips,	with	an	average	of	approximately	42	slips	per	marina.	Marinas	on	

the	 New	 River	 comprise	 approximately	 one	 third	 of	 all	 marinas	 in	 Broward	 County.	 The	 largest	

concentration	of	marinas	is	located	on	the	South	Fork	of	the	New	River	approximately	two	miles	west	of	

New	River	Bridge	(AMEC	2014a).	The	majority	of	Fort	Lauderdale’s	recreational	boating	industry	(repair	

facilities,	boatyards,	boat	sales,	equipment	sales)	are	also	west	of	the	bridge.	Residential	and	commercial	

development	 occurs	 along	 the	 navigable	 extent	 of	 the	 New	 River,	 which	 provides	 approximately	

280	private	slips	and	3,750	private	docks.	Hundreds	of	private	docks,	with	boats	up	to	100	feet	long,	are	

also	upriver	of	the	bridge.	According	to	a	Broward	County	vessel	traffic	study	(Mote	Marine	Laboratory	

2005),	recreational	boating	represents	an	estimated	$8.8	billion	segment	of	the	local	economy.	In	addition	

to	private	recreational	boats,	the	New	River	is	also	used	by	commercial	sightseeing	vessels.		

The	New	River	going	inbound	(or	up	river)	starts	at	river	markers	five	and	six.	The	river	is	approximately	

450	feet	wide	through	marker	11	where	the	river	makes	an	“S”	turn	to	marker	12,	known	as	the	Tarpon	

Bend.	Beyond	marker	12	and	into	the	Central	Business	District,	the	river	is	on	average	less	than	150	feet	

wide,	but	can	be	as	little	as	100	feet	wide	at	some	narrower	turns.	This	section	of	the	river	can	be	too	

narrow	for	larger	vessels,	which	can	include	yachts	up	to	140	feet	in	length.	Towboats	are	often	utilized	

to	tow	100‐foot	yachts	and	larger	vessels	up	and	down	the	New	River	to	and	from	several	large	boat	yards	

that	cater	to	yachts	(e.g.,	Lauderdale	Marine	Center).	All	of	the	commercial	vessels;	such	as	the	tour	boats,	

tow	boats	and	fuel	barge	boats;	as	well	as	bridges	(including	the	FECR	New	River	Bridge),	monitor	very	

high	frequency	(VHF)	channel	9.		

The	New	River	Bridge	is	located	approximately	4	miles	west	of	the	New	River’s	inlet.	The	FECR	railroad	

bridge,	a	2‐track	bascule	bridge,	crosses	 the	waterway	west	of	St.	Andrews	Avenue.	The	river	at	 this	

location	is	approximately	135	feet	wide.	The	bridge	has	a	vertical	clearance	of	four	feet	and	a	horizontal	

clearance	of	60	feet	(AMEC	2014a).	The	bridge	is	currently	kept	in	the	open	position	and	lowered	for	

freight	train	passage	in	accordance	with	USCG	Drawbridge	Operation	Regulations	at	33	CFR	111.313(b).	

A	bridge	operation	survey	performed	through	observations	of	live	feed	shows	that	the	New	River	Bridge	

is	closed	on	average	19	minutes	per	closure.		

Based	on	the	January	2014	FECR	video,	an	average	of	157	vessel	crossings	occurred	at	the	New	River	

Bridge	(Min=99;	Max=289)	on	a	daily	basis	(6:00	AM	to	6:30	PM)	from	Monday	through	Friday	compared	

to	an	average	of	356	vessels	(Min=262;	Max=508)	per	day	on	a	weekend	day.	As	shown	in	Table	4.1.3‐2,	

the	 average	 count	 of	 commercial	 vessels	 per	 day	 ranged	 from	 29	 to	 59	 and	 the	 average	 count	 of	

recreational	vessels	per	day	ranged	from	64	to	356.	There	was	an	increase	in	recreational	vessel	traffic	

by	 approximately	 64	 percent	 during	 the	 weekend;	 an	 increase	 in	 commercial	 crossings	 during	 the	

weekend	was	not	observed	during	this	two‐week	assessment.	Both	Sundays	observed	during	this	two	

week	video	assessment	(January	19	and	January	26)	had	the	most	vessel	activity,	with	a	total	304	and	

508	 vessel	 counts	 from	 6:00	 AM	 to	 6:30	 PM,	 respectively.	Wednesdays	 and	 Thursdays	 reported	 the	

lowest	vessel	activity	with	an	average	of	114	and	136	vessel	counts,	respectively.	The	average	vessel	

count	for	Monday	is	likely	higher	than	normal	since	it	includes	data	from	January	20,	2014,	which	was	a	

holiday	(AMEC	2014a).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-25 September 2014 

 

The	average	vessel	count	observed	during	the	February	2014	New	River	live	feed	observations	was	lower	

than	 values	 obtained	 from	 the	 January	 2014	 New	 River	 Bridge	 video	 assessment	 (Table	 4.1.3‐2).	

However,	the	density	of	traffic	was	similar	throughout	the	week,	with	lower	vessel	traffic	on	Thursdays	

and	an	increase	in	vessel	traffic	over	the	weekend.	A	higher	traffic	of	recreational	vessels	was	observed	

compared	to	commercial	vessels.	Most	commercial	vessel	trips	account	for	those	made	by	taxi	boats,	the	

Jungle	Queen,	a	sightseeing	riverboat	cruise,	and	towing	services	(AMEC	2014a).	

Eau Gallie River 

The	Eau	Gallie	River	is	a	tidal	river,	tributary	to	Indian	River,	in	Eau	Gallie,	Brevard	County.	The	fixed	

FECR	railroad	bridge	crosses	the	waterway	immediately	west	of	Harbor	City	Boulevard.	The	river	at	this	

location	is	approximately	575	feet	wide.	The	multiple‐span	bridge	provides	a	vertical	clearance	at	mean	

high	water	of	11.3	feet,	with	a	48‐foot	horizontal	clearance.	Boating	activities	are	concentrated	on	the	east	

side	 of	 the	 bridge,	 with	 two	 major	 marinas	 between	 the	 bridge	 and	 the	 Indian	 River	 Lagoon	

(AMEC	2013d).	Boat	traffic	under	the	Eau	Gallie	River	Bridge	is	limited	to	small	open	fishing	boats	or	

personal	watercraft	with	a	maximum	10‐foot	height.	

Crane Creek 

Crane	 Creek	is	 a	 tidal	 waterway	in	Melbourne,	 Brevard	 County,	 tributary	 to	 Indian	 River.	 The	 FECR	

railroad	bridge	crosses	the	waterway	immediately	west	of	the	U.S.	1	(Dixie	Highway)	bridge.	The	river	at	

this	location	is	approximately	650	feet	wide.	The	multiple	span	bridge	provides	a	vertical	clearance	of	

approximately	15	feet,	with	a	48‐foot	horizontal	clearance.	Boat	traffic	is	limited	as	capacity	is	restricted	

by	an	approximately	4‐foot	water	depth	under	 the	center	of	 the	bridge	 (AMEC	2013d).	There	are	no	

commercial	 marinas	 or	 docking	 facilities	 upriver	 of	 the	 bridge,	 and	 few	 private	 docks	 with	 small	

shallow‐draft	boats.	

Turkey Creek 

Turkey	 Creek	is	 a	 tidal	waterway	in	 Palm	 Bay,	 Brevard	 County,	 tributary	 to	 Indian	 River.	 The	 FECR	

railroad	bridge	crosses	the	waterway	immediately	west	of	the	U.S.	1	(Dixie	Highway)	bridge.	The	creek	at	

this	location	is	approximately	180	feet	wide.	The	multiple	span	bridge	provides	a	vertical	clearance	of	

approximately	11	feet,	with	a	54‐foot	horizontal	clearance.	The	waterway	is	used	by	small	pontoon	boats	

and	personal	watercraft	(AMEC	2013d).	There	are	no	commercial	marinas	or	docking	facilities	upriver	of	

the	bridge,	and	few	private	docks	with	small	shallow‐draft	boats.	

St. Sebastian River 

The	St.	Sebastian	River	is	a	tidal	waterway	on	the	border	between	Brevard	and	Indian	River	Counties.	The	

FECR	railroad	bridge	crosses	the	waterway	1.25	miles	upriver	of	the	U.S.	1	(Dixie	Highway)	bridge.	The	

river	 at	 this	location	 is	 approximately	 1,624	 feet	 wide.	 The	 multiple	 span	 bridge	 provides	 a	 vertical	

clearance	of	approximately	13	feet	and	a	48‐foot	horizontal	clearance.	Boating	activity	is	primarily	east	

of	the	bridge	(AMEC	2013d).	The	waterway	is	used	by	small	boats	and	personal	watercraft.	There	are	no	

commercial	marinas	or	docking	facilities	upriver	of	the	bridge	and	few	private	docks.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-26 September 2014 

 

Hillsboro Canal 

The	Hillsboro	Canal	is	a	tidal	waterway	on	the	border	between	Palm	Beach	and	Broward	Counties.	The	

FECR	railroad	bridge	crosses	the	waterway	immediately	west	of	the	SR	811	(Dixie	Highway)	bridge.	The	

waterway	at	this	location	is	approximately	207	feet	wide.	The	multiple	span	bridge	provides	a	vertical	

clearance	of	approximately	9	feet	with	a	28‐foot	horizontal	clearance.	Boating	activity	is	primarily	east	of	

the	bridge,	and	there	are	no	commercial	marinas	west	of	the	bridge	(AMEC	2013d).	A	marine	business	

that	provides	dry	storage	is	located	west	of	the	FECR	bridge.	Boats	at	the	private	docks	west	of	the	bridge	

are	primarily	small	powerboats	less	than	30	feet	long.	

4.1.3.3 Existing Economic Conditions 

This	 section	describes	maritime	economic	 conditions	in	 the	areas	associated	with	 the	 three	movable	

bridges:	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge,	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge,	and	New	River	Bridge.	

Martin County 

As	described	in	the	2014NavigationDiscipline Report(Appendix	4.1.3‐C),	the	direct	economic	value	of	the	

marine	industry	in	Martin	County	was	determined	by	updating	the	economic	analysis	performed	by	the	

State	of	Florida	in	2011.	The	state’s	study	was	updated	from	the	base	year	of	1999,	when	the	original	

study	for	Martin	County	was	performed,	to	reflect	the	total	value	of	the	industry	in	December	2013.	The	

direct	economic	value	of	the	marine	industry	associated	with	the	portion	of	the	St.	Lucie	River	that	lies	in	

Martin	County	includes	all	direct	spending	associated	with	the	marine	industry	that	occurred	near	this	

portion	of	the	St.	Lucie	River.	In	other	words,	it	includes	all	marine‐related	spending	by	the	individuals	

utilizing	this	portion	of	the	waterway	(AMEC	2014a).

The	total	value	of	the	marine	industry	in	Martin	County	is	$705.0	million,	with	$523.7	million	in	direct	

sales,	 $86.0	million	 in	indirect	 benefits,	 and	 $95.3	 million	 in	induced	 benefits	 (Table	 4.1.3‐3).	 Direct	

spending	in	the	marine	industry	supports	4,588	jobs	and	$138.1	million	in	personal	income.	Additionally,	

the	 total	spending	associated	with	 the	marine	industry,	including	direct,	indirect,	and	induced	effects,	

supports	7,049	jobs	and	$205.5	million	in	personal	income	(Table	4.1.3‐3)	(AMEC	2014a).		

Table 4.1.3-3 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Martin County 

Original 1999 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures 

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Business Volume 

(in millions) $314.8 $51.7 $57.3 $423.8 $523.7 $86.0 $95.3 $705.0 

Personal Income 

(in millions) $83.0 $19.0 $21.5 $123.5 $138.1 $31.6 $35.8 $205.5 

Employment 2,758 663 816 4,237 4,588 1,103 1,358 7,049 

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-27 September 2014 

 

St. Lucie County 

As	described	in	the	2014NavigationDiscipline Report	(Appendix	4.1.3‐C),	the	direct	economic	value	of	the	

marine	industry	in	St.	Lucie	County	was	determined	by	updating	the	economic	analysis	performed	by	the	

State	of	Florida	in	2011.	Because	the	economic	studies	for	the	marine	industry	in	Martin	and	St.	Lucie	

Counties	were	both	performed	in	1999,	the	methodology	for	updating	data	to	December	2013	values	is	

the	same	for	both	counties.	The	direct	economic	value	of	the	marine	industry	associated	with	the	portion	

of	the	St.	Lucie	River	that	lies	in	St.	Lucie	County	includes	all	direct	spending	associated	with	the	marine	

industry	 that	occurred	near	 this	portion	of	 the	St.	Lucie	River.	 In	other	words,	it	includes	all	marine‐

related	spending	by	the	individuals	utilizing	this	portion	of	the	waterway	(AMEC	2014a).	

The	total	value	of	the	marine	industry	in	St.	Lucie	County	is	$420.9	million,	with	$308.4	million	in	direct	

sales,	 $53.2	million	in	indirect	 benefits,	 and	 $59.3	million	in	induced	 benefits.	 Additionally,	 the	 total	

personal	income	generated	by	the	industry	is	$106.6	million	and	the	total	associated	employment	is	3,771	

jobs	(Table	4.1.3‐4)	(AMEC	2014a).	

Table 4.1.3-4 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in St. Lucie County 

Original 1999 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures 

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Business Volume 

(in millions) 

$192.87 $33.26 $37.11 $263.24 $308.35 $53.17 $59.33 $420.85 

Personal Income 

(in millions) 

$40.34 $12.46 $13.88 $66.68 $64.49 $19.92 $22.19 $106.60 

Employment 1,377 441 541 2,359 2,201 705 865 3,771 

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report. 

The	St.	Lucie	River	represents	approximately	82.9	percent	of	the	marine	activity	in	Martin	County	and	

15.3	percent	in	St.	 Lucie	County.	Because	 the	economic	activity	associated	with	 the	St.	 Lucie	River	is	

located	in	both	Martin	and	St.	Lucie	Counties,	the	total	economic	value	of	this	river	is	equivalent	to	82.9	

percent	of	the	economic	value	of	the	marine	industry	in	Martin	County	plus	15.3	percent	of	the	economic	

value	of	the	marine	industry	in	St.	Lucie	County,	resulting	in	a	total	economic	value	of	$648.8	million.	This	

total	value	is	comprised	of	$481.3	million	in	direct	expenditures,	$79.4	million	in	indirect	effects,	and	

$88.1	million	in	indirect	effects.	This	activity	supports	6,420	jobs	and	$186.6	million	in	personal	income	

(Table	4.1.3‐5)	(AMEC	2014a).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-28 September 2014 

 

Table 4.1.3-5 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the 

St. Lucie River 

 Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Portion within 

Martin County

Business Volume (in millions) $434.1 $71.3 $79.0 $584.4 

Personal Income (in millions) $114.4 $26.2 $29.7 $170.3 

Employment 3,803 914 1,125 5,843 

Portion within 

St. Lucie County

Business Volume (in millions) $47.2 $8.1 $9.1 $64.4 

Personal Income (in millions) $9.9 $3.0 $3.4 $16.3 

Employment 337 108 132 577 

Total 

Business Volume (in millions) $481.3 $79.4 $88.1 $648.8 

Personal Income (in millions) $124.3 $29.2 $33.1 $186.6 

Employment 4,140 1,022 1,258 6,420 

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report. 

Palm Beach County 

As	described	in	the	2014NavigationDiscipline Report	(Appendix	4.1.3‐C),	the	direct	economic	value	of	the	

marine	industry	in	Palm	Beach	County	was	determined	by	updating	the	economic	analysis	performed	by	

the	State	of	Florida	in	2011.	The	state’s	study	was	updated	from	the	base	year	of	2006,	when	the	original	

study	for	Palm	Beach	County	was	performed,	to	reflect	the	total	value	of	the	industry	in	December	2013.	

The	direct	economic	 value	 of	 the	marine	industry	associated	with	 the	 Loxahatchee	River	includes	all	

marine‐related	spending	by	the	individuals	and	businesses	utilizing	the	waterway	(AMEC	2014a).	

The	total	value	of	the	marine	industry	in	Palm	Beach	County	is	$1,716.7	million,	with	$943.1	million	in	

direct	sales,	$219.4	million	in	indirect	benefits,	and	$554.2	million	in	induced	benefits	(Table	4.1.3‐6).	

Direct	 spending	 in	 the	 marine	 industry	 supports	 4,753	 jobs	 and	 $182.7	 million	 in	 personal	 income.	

Additionally,	 the	 total	 spending	 associated	 with	 the	 marine	 industry,	 including	 direct,	 indirect,	 and	

induced	 effects,	 supports	 11,865	 jobs	 and	 $494.8	 million	 in	 personal	 income	 (Table	 4.1.3‐6)	

(AMEC	2014a).	

Table 4.1.3-6 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Palm Beach County

Original 2006 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures 

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Business Volume 

(in millions) 

$1,311.9 $305.2 $771.0 $2,388.2 $943.1 $219.4 $554.2 $1,716.7 

Personal Income 

(in millions) 

$254.2 $122.8 $311.3 $688.3 $182.7 $88.3 $223.8 $494.8 

Employment 6,612 2,533 7,360 16,505 4,753 1,821 5,291 11,865 

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report. 

The	 Loxahatchee	 River	 represents	 approximately	 23.2	 percent	 of	the	 marine	 activity	 in	 Palm	 Beach	

County,	 excluding	 revenue	 from	 port	 activities.	 Because	 the	 economic	 activity	 associated	 with	 the	

Loxahatchee	River	is	located	in	Palm	Beach	County,	the	total	economic	value	of	this	river	is	equivalent	to	

23.2	percent	of	the	economic	value	of	the	marine	industry	in	Palm	Beach	County,	or	$398.6	million.	This	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-29 September 2014 

 

total	value	is	comprised	of	$219.0	million	in	direct	expenditures,	$50.9	million	in	indirect	effects,	and	

$128.7	million	in	induced	effects.	This	activity	supports	2,755	jobs	and	$114.9	million	in	personal	income	

(Table	4.1.3‐7)	(AMEC	2014a).		

Table 4.1.3-7 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the 

Loxahatchee River 

Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Business Volume (in millions) $219.0 $50.9 $128.7 $398.6 

Personal Income (in millions) $42.4 $20.5 $52.0 $114.9 

Employment 1,104 423 1,228 2,755 

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report. 

Broward County 

As	noted	in	Section	3.2.4.1	 of	 the	2014 Navigation Discipline Report,	 the	direct	economic	 value	 of	 the	

marine	industry	in	Broward	County	was	determined	by	updating	the	economic	analysis	performed	by	

the	State	of	Florida	in	2011.	The	state	updated	 the	study	 from	the	base	year	of	2007,	 the	year	of	 the	

original	study	for	Broward	County,	to	reflect	the	total	value	of	the	industry	in	December	2013.	The	direct	

economic	 value	 of	 the	 marine	 industry	 associated	 with	 the	 New	 River	 includes	 all	 marine‐related	

spending	by	the	individuals	and	businesses	utilizing	the	waterway	(AMEC	2014a).	

The	total	value	of	the	marine	industry	in	Broward	County	is	$5,268.0	million,	with	$3,748.3	million	in	direct	

sales,	$820.2	million	in	indirect	benefits,	and	$699.4	million	in	induced	benefits	(see	Table	4.1.3‐8).	Direct	

spending	in	the	marine	industry	supports	15,185	jobs	and	$638.7	million	in	personal	income.	Additionally,	

the	 total	 spending	 associated	 with	 the	 marine	 industry,	 including	 direct,	 indirect,	 and	 induced	 effects,	

supports	27,592	jobs	and	$1,186.8	million	in	personal	income	(Table	4.1.3‐8)	(AMEC	2014a).	

Table 4.1.3-8 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Broward County

Benefit 

Original 2007 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures 

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Business Volume 

(in millions) 

$4,325.8 $946.6 $807.2 $6,079.6 $3,748.3 $820.2 $699.4 $5,268.0 

Personal Income 

(in millions) 

$737.1 $364.2 $268.3 $1,369.6 $638.7 $315.6 $232.5 $1,186.8 

Employment 17,524 7,415 6,904 31,843 15,185 6,425 5,982 27,592 

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report.

The	New	 River	 represents	 approximately	 32.7	 percent	 of	 the	marine	 activity	 and	 economic	 value	in	

Broward	County,	excluding	port	activities.	In	addition,	the	total	value	of	this	river’s	marine	activities	is	

equivalent	 to	 32.7	 percent	 of	 the	 economic	 value	 of	 the	 marine	 industry	 in	 Broward	 County,	 or	

$1,723.7	 million.	 This	 total	 value	 is	 comprised	 of	 $1,226.5	 million	 in	 direct	 expenditures,	 $268.4	 in	

indirect	effects,	and	$228.9	million	in	induced	effects.	This	activity	supports	9,028	jobs	and	$388.3	million	

in	personal	income	(see	Table	4.1.3‐9)	(AMEC	2014a).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-30 September 2014 

 

Table 4.1.3-9 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the New River

Benefit Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Business Volume (in millions) $1,226.5 $268.4 $228.9 $1,723.7 

Personal Income (in millions) $209.0 $103.3 $76.1 $388.3 

Employment 4,968 2,102 1,957 9,028 

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report.

4.2 Physical Environment 

This	section	provides	information	on	the	physical	environment	in	the	Project	Study	Area,	with	respect	to	

air	quality,	noise	and	vibration,	 farmland	soils,	hazardous	materials	and	solid	waste,	and	coastal	zone	

management.	The	Project	Study	Area	for	these	resources	includes	the	portion	of	central	and	southeast	

Florida	proximate	to	the	Project,	including	the	counties	through	which	it	passes.	

4.2.1 Air Quality 

This	section	provides	the	baseline	regional	air	quality	conditions	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	The	air	

quality	provisions	that	are	applicable	to	the	Project	include	the	1990	Clean	Air	Act	Amendments	(CAAA)	

(42	 USC	 §	 7401,	 et.	 seq.),	 and	 the	 NEPA	 requirements	 as	 specified	 in	 the	 CEQ’s	 Regulations	 for	

Implementing	 the	National	 Environmental	 Policy	Act	 (40	 CFR	 parts	 1500‐1508)	 (U.S.	 Environmental	

Protection	Agency	2008a;	CEQ	2005a).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-31 September 2014 

 

Table 4.2.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Primary/Secondary 

Averaging 

Time Level Form 

Carbon Monoxide Primary 8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year. 1-hour 35 ppm 

Lead Primary and secondary Rolling 3 month 

average 

0.15/m3, 1 Not to be exceeded. 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

Primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged 

over 3 years. 

Primary and secondary Annual 53 ppb 2 Annual Mean. 

Ozone 

Primary and secondary 8-hour 0.075 ppm 2

Annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour 

concentration, averaged over 

3 years. 

Particle Pollution 

PM2.5

Primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 

3 years. 

Secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 

3 years. 

Primary and secondary 24-hour 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged 

over 3 years. 

PM10

Primary and secondary 24-hour 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year on average over 

3 years. 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Primary 1-hour 75 ppb 4 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years. 

Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year. 

Source: EPA. 2013. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/. June 11, 2013. Accessed 

September 27, 2013. 

ppm parts per million 

ppb parts per billion 

μm/m3 micrometers per cubic meter 

1 Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one 

year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, the 1978 

standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 

2 The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer 

comparison to the 1-hour standard. 

3 Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour 

ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued 

obligations under that standard (“anti-backsliding”). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of 

days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1. 

4 Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in that same rulemaking. 

However, these standards remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in areas 

designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to 

attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved. 

The	CAAA	requires	the	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	to	set	National	Ambient	Air	Quality	

Standards	(NAAQS)	(40	CFR	part	50)	for	six	“criteria”	pollutants	considered	harmful	to	public	health	and	

the	 environment	 (EPA	 2012b).	 The	NAAQS	 identify	 two	 types	 of	 air	 quality	 standards:	 primary	 and	

secondary.	 Primary	 standards	 provide	 public	 health	 protection,	 including	 protecting	 the	 health	 of	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-32 September 2014 

 

"sensitive"	populations,	such	as	asthmatics,	children,	and	the	elderly.	Secondary	standards	provide	public	

welfare	 protection,	 including	 protection	 against	 decreased	 visibility	 and	 damage	 to	 animals,	 crops,	

vegetation,	and	buildings.		

Air	quality	in	a	given	location	is	determined	by	the	concentration	of	various	pollutants	in	the	atmosphere.	

The	NAAQS	are	established	by	the	EPA	for	criteria	pollutants,	including:	ozone	(O3),	carbon	monoxide	

(CO),	nitrogen	dioxide	(NO2),	sulfur	dioxide	(SO2),	particulate	matter	equal	to	or	less	than	10	microns	in	

diameter	(PM10)	and	2.5	microns	in	diameter	(PM2.5),	and	lead	(Pb)	(40	CFR	Part	50).	NAAQS	represent	

maximum	levels	of	background	pollution	that	are	considered	safe,	with	an	adequate	margin	of	safety,	to	

protect	public	health	and	welfare.	Transportation	sources,	particularly	motor	vehicles,	are	the	primary	

source	 of	 CO,	 NO2,	 and	 volatile	 organic	 compounds	 (VOCs).	 The	 State	 of	 Florida	 ambient	 air	 quality	

standards	are	the	same	as	the	NAAQS	(EPA	2012b).	The	NAAQS	are	presented	in	Table	4.2.1‐1.	

The	CAAA	resulted	in	states	being	divided	into	attainment	and	non‐attainment	areas	with	classifications	

based	 upon	 the	 severity	 of	 their	 air	 quality	 problem.	 A	 non‐attainment	 area	is	 an	 area	 that	 has	 had	

measured	pollutant	levels	that	exceed	the	NAAQS	and	that	has	not	been	designated	to	attainment.	The	

CAAA	established	emission	reduction	requirements	that	vary	by	an	area’s	classification.	The	attainment	

status	of	each	of	the	pollutants	of	concern	is	discussed	below.

All	six	counties	within	the	Project	Study	Area	for	the	MCO	Segment,	E‐W	Corridor,	and	N‐S	Corridor	are	

designated	 as	 attainment	 areas	 for	 all	 criteria	 pollutants.	 In	 addition,	 the	 three	 counties	 within	 the	

WPB‐M	Corridor	(Palm	Beach,	Broward,	and	Miami‐Dade)	are	designated	as	attainment	for	all	criteria	

pollutants.	The	following	sections	describe	these	criteria	pollutants	and	report	air	quality	monitoring	data	

that	further	characterize	the	existing	air	quality	conditions	within	the	Project	Study	Area.		

Criteria Pollutants

Air	 quality	 is	 affected	 by	 stationary	 sources	 (industrial	 development)	 and	 mobile	 sources	 (motor	

vehicles).	Air	quality	at	a	given	location	is	a	function	of	several	factors,	including	the	quantity	and	type	of	

pollutants	emitted	locally	and	regionally,	and	the	dispersion	rates	of	pollutants	in	the	region.	Primary	

factors	affecting	pollutant	dispersion	are	wind	speed	and	direction,	atmospheric	stability,	temperature,	

the	 presence	 or	 absence	 of	 inversions,	 and	 topography.	 Transportation	 sources,	 particularly	 motor	

vehicles,	are	the	primary	source	of	CO,	oxides	of	nitrogen	(NOx),	and	VOCs.	In	the	presence	of	heat	and	

sunlight,	NOx	and	VOCs	chemically	react	to	form	O3.	NO2	is	one	of	a	group	of	highly	reactive	gasses	known	

as	NOx.	PM	and	SO2	are	primarily	emitted	from	stationary	sources	that	burn	fossil	fuels,	such	as	power	

plants	(FRA	and	FDOT	2010).		

Air	pollution	is	of	concern	because	of	its	demonstrated	impacts	on	human	health.	Of	special	concern	are	

the	respiratory	effects	of	these	criteria	pollutants	and	their	potential	toxic	effects,	as	described	below.	

Ozone (O3):	Ozone	(also	known	as	smog)	is	a	strong	oxidizer	and	an	irritant	that	affects	the	lung	tissues	and	

respiratory	 functions.	 Exposure	 to	O3	 can	impair	 the	ability	 to	 perform	 physical	exercise;	 can	 result	in	

symptoms	such	as	 tightness	in	 the	chest,	coughing,	and	wheezing;	and	can	ultimately	result	in	asthma,	

bronchitis,	and	emphysema.	The	majority	of	ground‐level	O3	is	formed	as	a	result	of	complex	photochemical	

reactions	 in	 the	 atmosphere	 involving	 VOCs,	 NOx,	 and	 high	 temperatures.	 The	 State	 of	 Florida	 is	 in	

attainment	for	O3.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-33 September 2014 

 

Carbon Monoxide (CO):	CO	is	a	colorless,	odorless,	poisonous	gas	produced	by	incomplete	burning	of	

carbon	in	fuel.	The	health	threat	from	CO	is	most	serious	for	those	who	suffer	from	cardiovascular	disease,	

particularly	those	with	angina	and	peripheral	vascular	disease.	All	six	counties	within	the	Project	Study	

Area	are	designated	as	attainment	areas	for	CO.	

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2):	NO2	is	a	highly	reactive	gas	that	can	irritate	the	lungs,	cause	bronchitis	and	

pneumonia,	and	lower	resistance	to	respiratory	infections.	Repeated	exposure	to	high	concentrations	of	

NO2	 may	 cause	 acute	 respiratory	 disease	 in	 children.	 Because	 NO2	 is	 an	 important	 precursor	 in	 the	

formation	 of	 O3,	 control	 of	 NO2	 emissions	 is	 an	 important	 component	 of	 overall	 pollution	 reduction	

strategies.	The	 two	primary	sources	of	NO2	in	 the	U.S.	are	 fuel	combustion	and	 transportation.	All	six	

counties	within	the	Project	Study	Area	are	designated	as	attainment	areas	for	NO2.	

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2):	SO2	is	emitted	primarily	from	stationary	source	coal	and	oil	combustion,	steel	mills,	

refineries,	pulp	and	paper	mills,	and	non‐ferrous	smelters.	High	concentrations	of	SO2	may	aggravate	

existing	respiratory	and	cardiovascular	disease;	asthmatics	and	those	with	emphysema	or	bronchitis	are	

the	most	sensitive	to	SO2	exposure.	SO2	also	contributes	to	acid	rain,	which	can	lead	to	the	acidification	of	

lakes	and	streams	and	damage	vegetation.	All	six	counties	within	the	Project	Study	Area	are	designated	

as	attainment	areas	for	SO2.	

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM 2.5):	PM	is	a	mixture	of	tiny	particles	that	vary	greatly	in	shape,	size,	

and	 chemical	 composition;	 their	 composition	 may	 include	 metals,	 soot,	 soil,	 and	 dust.	 PM10	 includes	

larger,	coarse	particles,	whereas	PM2.5	includes	smaller,	fine	particles.	Sources	of	coarse	particles	include	

crushing	or	grinding	operations,	and	dust	from	paved	or	unpaved	roads.	Sources	of	fine	particles	include	

all	types	of	combustion	activities	(motor	vehicles,	power	plants,	wood	burning)	and	certain	industrial	

processes.	 Exposure	 to	 PM10	 and	 PM2.5	 levels	 exceeding	 current	 standards	 can	 result	 in	 increased	

lung‐	and	heart‐related	respiratory	illness.	The	EPA	has	concluded	that	finer	particles	are	more	likely	to	

contribute	to	health	problems	than	those	greater	than	10	microns	in	diameter.	All	six	counties	within	the	

Project	Study	Area	are	designated	as	attainment	areas	for	PM10	and	PM2.5.	

Airborne Lead (Pb):	 Airborne	 Pb	 can	 be	 inhaled	 directly	 or	 ingested	 indirectly	 by	 consuming	 lead	

contaminated	food,	water,	or	non‐food	materials	such	as	dust	or	soil.	Fetuses,	infants,	and	children	are	

most	sensitive	to	Pb	exposure.	Pb	has	been	identified	as	a	factor	in	high	blood	pressure	and	heart	disease.	

Exposure	to	Pb	has	declined	dramatically	in	the	last	10	years	as	a	result	of	the	reduction	of	Pb	in	gasoline	

and	paint,	and	the	elimination	of	Pb	from	soldered	cans.	All	six	counties	within	the	Project	Study	Area	are	

designated	as	attainment	areas	for	Pb.	

Greenhouse Gases:	 Greenhouse	 gases	 include	 water	 vapor,	 CO2,	 CH4	(methane),	 N2O	 (nitrous	 oxide),	

ground‐level	O3,	and	fluorinated	gases	such	as	chlorofluorocarbons	and	hydrochlorofluorocarbons.	These	

gases	 trap	 heat	 in	 the	 atmosphere	 and	 regulate	 the	 Earth’s	 temperature.	 Global	 climate	 change	 is	 a	

transformation	in	the	average	weather	of	the	Earth,	which	is	measured	by	changes	in	temperature,	wind	

patterns,	and	precipitation.	Scientific	consensus	has	identified	human‐related	emission	of	greenhouse	gases	

above	natural	levels	as	a	significant	contributor	to	global	climate	change	(NCADAC	2013).		

Air Quality Monitoring 

Air	quality	monitoring	in	Florida	is	managed	by	 the	Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	

(FDEP),	which	publishes	statewide	air	quality	and	permitting	regulations.	The	FDEP	divides	the	state’s	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-34 September 2014 

 

counties	into	six	districts	based	on	their	geography	within	the	state.	Air	quality	monitoring	data	from	

FDEP’s	Florida's	Air	Quality	System	(FLAQS)	rates	air	quality	conditions	using	an	air	quality	index	(AQI)	

(FDEP	2013b).	The	AQI	utilizes	a	numerical	scale	that	indicates	the	degree	of	air	pollution.	The	qualitative	

descriptors	of	the	FLAQS	AQI	include:	Good,	Moderate,	Unhealthy	for	Sensitive	Groups,	Unhealthy,	Very	

Unhealthy,	 and	 Hazardous.	 The	 FLAQS	 reported	 yearly	 AQI	 data,	 from	 2005	 to	 2007,	 for	 monitored	

pollutants	in	Orange,	Brevard,	St.	Lucie,	and	Palm	Beach	Counties	(FDEP	2013b).	FLAQS	yearly	AQI	data	

for	monitored	pollutants	in	Indian	River	and	Martin	Counties,	for	this	same	monitoring	period,	were	not	

available.		

Table 4.2.1-2 Existing Air Quality Conditions: Comparison to Federal and State Air Quality Standards

Pollutant 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

(ppm) 

Lead 

(μm/m3

) 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

(ppb) 

Ozone 

(ppb) 

PM10

(μm/m3) 

PM2.5 

(μm/m3

) 

Sulfur 

Dioxide

(ppb) 

Averaging Time 8-hr 1-hr Qtrly 3-mo Annual 1-hr 1-hr 8-hr 24-hr Annual 24-hr 3-hr 1-hr 

Florida standard 9 35 1.5 0.15 50 -- 120 -- 150 -- -- 500 -- 

NAAQS 9 35 1.5 0.15 53 100 -- 75 150 15 35 -- 75 

Highest 

averaging time 

reading 

Orange 2 15 -- -- 5 37 93 79 39 9.8 31 4 7 

Brevard -- -- -- -- -- -- 83 72 23 7.6 24 4 7 

St. Lucie -- -- -- -- -- -- 78 70 -- -- -- -- -- 

Martin -- -- -- -- -- -- 74 70 -- 9.1 30 -- -- 

Palm Beach -- -- -- -- 4 49 81 66 50 -- -- 4 5 

Source: FDEP. 2011. Air Monitoring Report. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/air_quality/techrpt/amr11.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2013. 

Notes: ppm = parts per million 

 μm/m3 = micrometers per cubic meter 

 ppb = parts per billion 

 -- = Monitoring Data not available 

Existing	 air	 quality	is	monitored	 throughout	 the	 State	 of	 Florida.	 Table	 4.2.1‐2	 compares	 the	 highest	

24‐hour	readings	and	the	annual	averages	recorded	in	2011,	where	available,	to	the	federal	and	state	air	

quality	standards	by	county	for	all	counties	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	

The	MCO	Segment	is	in	Orange	County,	which	is	located	within	the	Central	Florida	Interstate	Air	Quality	

Control	Region	(AQCR).	The	Central	Florida	Interstate	AQCR	is	designated	as	an	attainment	area	for	all	

NAAQS	pollutants	(EPA	2012a).	For	Orange	County	and	the	group	of	monitored	pollutants	of	CO,	NO2,	

SO2,	O3,	PM10,	and	PM2.5,	an	AQI	descriptor	of	Good	was	reported	for	73	to	81	percent	of	the	days	through	

the	 3‐year	monitoring	 period	 (FDEP	 2013b).	 An	 AQI	 descriptor	 of	Moderate	 was	 reported	 for	 17	 to	

25	percent	of	the	days	through	the	same	monitoring	period.	AQI	descriptors	of	Unhealthy	for	Sensitive	

Groups	and	Unhealthy	were	reported	 for	2	percent	and	less	 than	1	percent,	respectively,	of	 the	days	

within	this	period.		

The	E‐W	Corridor	crosses	both	Brevard	and	Orange	Counties.	Like	Orange	County,	Brevard	County	is	also	

within	the	Central	Florida	Intrastate	AQCR.	The	annual	data	available	indicated	that	for	Brevard	County	

and	the	group	of	monitored	pollutants	of	O3,	PM10,	and	PM2.5,	an	AQI	descriptor	of	Good	was	reported	for	

83	to	91	percent	of	the	days	through	the	3‐year	monitoring	period.	An	AQI	descriptor	of	Moderate	was	

reported	 for	 9	 to	 16	 percent	 of	 the	 days	 through	 the	 same	 monitoring	 period.	 AQI	 descriptors	 of	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-35 September 2014 

 

Unhealthy	 for	 Sensitive	 Groups	 and	Unhealthy	were	 reported	 for	1	 percent	 and	less	 than	 1	 percent,	

respectively,	of	the	days	within	this	period.		

The	N‐S	Corridor	crosses	portions	of	 five	counties:	Brevard,	 Indian	River,	St.	Lucie,	Martin,	and	Palm	

Beach	 Counties.	As	previously	 stated,	Brevard	 County	is	located	within	 the	Central	 Florida	 Intrastate	

AQCR.	Indian	River,	St.	Lucie,	Martin,	and	Palm	Beach	Counties	are	located	within	the	Southeast	Florida	

Intrastate	AQCR.	Like	the	Central	Florida	Intrastate	AQCR,	the	Southeast	Florida	Intrastate	AQCR	is	also	

designated	 as	 an	 attainment	 area	 for	 all	 NAAQS	 pollutants	 (EPA	 2012a).	 The	 annual	 data	 available	

indicated	that:	

 For	St.	Lucie	County	and	the	group	of	monitored	pollutants	of	NO2,	O3,	and	PM2.5,	an	AQI	descriptor	of	

Good	was	reported	for	84	to	91	percent	of	the	days	through	the	3‐year	monitoring	period.	An	AQI	

descriptor	of	Moderate	was	reported	for	9	to	16	percent	of	the	days	through	the	same	monitoring	

period.	An	AQI	descriptor	of	Unhealthy	for	Sensitive	Groups	was	reported	for	less	than	1	percent	of	

the	days	within	this	period.		

 For	Palm	Beach	County	and	the	group	of	monitored	pollutants	of	CO,	NO2,	SO2,	O3,	PM10,	and	PM2.5,	an	

AQI	descriptor	of	Good	was	reported	for	84	to	90	percent	of	the	days	through	the	3‐year	monitoring	

period.	An	AQI	descriptor	of	Moderate	was	reported	for	10	to	15	percent	of	the	days	through	the	same	

monitoring	period.	An	AQI	descriptor	of	Unhealthy	for	Sensitive	Groups	was	reported	for	less	than	

1	percent	of	the	days	within	this	period.	

The	primary	type	of	emissions	contributing	to	air	pollution	in	the	Project	Study	Area	is	mobile	source	

emissions	 from	combustion	engines	such	as	automobiles.	Table	4.2.1‐3	shows	existing	mobile	source	

emissions	for	2008,	the	most	recent	year	available,	for	the	Phase	II	Project	area	

Table 4.2.1-3 2008 Baseline Mobile Source Emissions Inventories 

County 

CO SOx NOx PM10 VOC 

Tons 

per 

Year 

Tons 

per 

Day 

Tons 

per 

Year 

Tons 

per 

Day 

Tons 

per 

Year 

Tons 

per 

Day 

Tons 

per 

Year 

Tons 

per 

Day 

Tons 

per 

Year 

Tons 

per 

Day 

Brevard 121,189 332 2,850 8.0 17,819 48.9 1,050 2.8 5,732 15.7 

Indian River 29,870 82 49 0.1 3,521 9.6 212 0.6 3,480 9.5 

St. Lucie 49,265 135 111 0.3 6,107 16.7 316 0.9 5,645 15.5 

Martin 48,055 132 244 0.7 5,831 16.0 350 1.0 6,198 17.0 

Palm Beach 234,409 642 832 2.3 26,636 73.0 1,554 4.3 25,221 69.1 

Source: EPA. 2008c. The National Emissions Inventory. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html. Accessed October 14, 2013. 

4.2.2 Noise and Vibration 

This	section	presents	background	on	fundamentals	and	metrics	used	to	describe	noise	and	vibration,	an	

inventory	of	noise‐	and	vibration‐sensitive	land	use	in	the	Project	Study	Area,	and	characterizes	existing	

noise	and	vibration	conditions.	

Noise	 and	 vibration	 are	 assessed	 according	 to	 guidelines	 specified	 in	 FRA’s	 High‐Speed Ground

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment	 guidance	 manual,	 the	 Federal	 Transit	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-36 September 2014 

 

Administration’s	 (FTA)	 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment	 guidance	 manual,	 and	 the	 Federal	

Highway	 Administration	 (FHWA)	 guidelines	 as	 defined	 for	 Florida	 application	 by	 FDOT	 for	 traffic	

operations (FRA	2012a;	FTA	2006;	FDOT	2011c).	

4.2.2.1 Noise 

Noise	is	defined	as	unwanted	sound	or,	more	specifically,	a	sound	that	is	undesirable	because	it	interferes	

with	communication	or	is	annoying	(EPA	1976).	Human	response	to	noise	can	vary	according	to	the	type	

and	 characteristics	 of	 the	 noise	 source,	 the	 distance	 between	 the	 noise	 source	 and	 the	 receptor,	 the	

sensitivity	of	the	receptor,	and	the	time	of	day.	

Due	to	the	wide	range	of	sound	levels	that	commonly	exist	in	the	environment,	sound	is	expressed	in	

decibels	(dB),	a	unit	of	measure	based	on	a	logarithmic	scale.	A	10‐dB	increase	in	noise	level	corresponds	

to	a	doubling	in	perceived	loudness.	Sound	levels	are	typically	measured	and	reported	according	to	the	

A‐weighted	decibel	(dBA),	which	relates	to	the	human	response	to	sound	at	different	frequencies.	The	

frequency	of	sound	is	measured	in	terms	of	Hertz	(Hz).	Humans	can	normally	detect	sounds	ranging	from	

about	20	to	15,000	Hz.	“A‐weighting”	adjusts	the	sound	level	at	different	frequencies	to	approximate	the	

human	 ear’s	 sensitivity	 because	 sounds	 are	 not	 heard	 equally	 well.	 Humans	 are	 most	 sensitive	 to	

frequencies	in	the	1,000	to	4,000	Hz	range.	A‐weighted	sound	levels	are	commonly	used	in	measurement	

of	community	environmental	noise.	Unless	otherwise	noted,	all	decibel	measurements	presented	in	this	

noise	analysis	are	dBA.	Figure	4.2.2‐1	provides	an	example	of	the	types	of	activities	that	result	in	varying	

degrees	of	sound	levels	in	dBA.	

Environmental	 noise	 fluctuates	 over	 time,	 so	 noise	 levels	 over	 a	 stated	 period	 of	 time	 (1	 hour)	 are	

commonly	represented	by	the	“equivalent	sound	level,”	Leq.	The	“day‐night	average”	sound	level	(Ldn)	is	a	

noise	metric	that	represents	the	equivalent	sound	energy	over	a	24‐hour	period,	with	a	10‐dB	penalty	

added	to	noise	events	occurring	between	10:00	PM	and	7:00	AM.	This	penalty	is	intended	to	compensate	

for	generally	lower	background	noise	levels	at	night	and	 the	additional	annoyance	of	nighttime	noise	

events.	Ldn	takes	into	account	how	loud	noise	events	are,	how	long	they	last,	how	often	they	occur,	and	

whether	they	occur	during	the	day	or	night.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-37 September 2014 

 

Figure 4.2.2-1 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments 

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 

Methodology 

The	Project	Study	Area	for	noise	extends	approximately	2,500	feet	from	the	rail	corridor	and	the	Project	

Study	Area	for	vibration	extends	approximately	600	feet.	These	study	areas	include	all	land	uses	that	are	

sensitive	to	noise	or	vibration	(“sensitive	receptors”).	

As	 shown	 in	 Table	 4.2.2‐1,	 FRA	 and	 FTA	 guidelines	 separate	 noise‐sensitive	 land	 uses	 into	 three	

categories	based	on	sensitivity.	Category	1	land	uses	include	areas	where	quiet	is	an	essential	element	in	

their	intended	purpose,	such	as	land	set	aside	 for	serenity	and	quiet,	outdoor	amphitheaters,	concert	

pavilions,	recording	studios,	concert	halls,	and	National	Historic	Landmarks	with	significant	outdoor	use.	

Buildings	where	nighttime	sensitivity	to	noise	is	important	are	defined	as	Category	2,	and	include	homes,	

hospitals,	and	hotels.	The	noise	metric	used	for	Category	2	land	uses	is	Ldn,	which	describes	the	average	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-38 September 2014 

 

24‐hour	noise	environment	with	emphasis	given	to	noise	generated	during	nighttime	hours	(10:00	PM	

to	7:00	AM).	Category	3	land	uses	include	institutional	facilities	that	are	used	primarily	during	daytime	

and	evening	hours,	such	as	schools,	libraries,	theaters,	places	of	worship,	and	certain	historical	sites	and	

parks.	The	noise	metric	used	for	Category	1	and	3	land	uses	is	the	loudest‐hour	Leq	which	occurs	during	

the	times	that	the	location	is	being	used	(such	as	during	school	hours).	

Table 4.2.2-1 Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise 

Land Use 

Category 

Noise Metric 

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category 

1 Outdoor Leq(h)1 A tract of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This 

category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as 

outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks 

with significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls. 

2 Outdoor Ldn Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes 

homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be 

of utmost importance. 

3 Outdoor Leq(h)1 Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category 

includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is important to avoid 

interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading 

material. Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, 

museums, campgrounds and recreational facilities can also be considered to be in 

this category. Certain historical sites, parks, campgrounds, and recreational facilities 

are also included. 

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 

1 Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity 

Existing	noise	conditions	have	been	determined	at	a	range	of	distances	from	existing	and	future	noise	

sources	 and	 grouped	 in	 sections	 with	 similar	 conditions.	 Noise	 levels	 from	 fixed‐guideway	 transit	

sources,	highway	 transit	sources,	and	general	ambient	sources	were	modeled	to	characterize	existing	

noise	conditions	in	the	study	area.	Both	highways	and	rail	lines	are	considered	to	be	linear	noise	sources.	

As	the	distance	from	the	linear	sources	decreases	the	noise	level	decreases	until	eventually	existing	noise	

is	dominated	instead	by	other	general	noise	sources.	For	this	assessment,	sections	of	the	study	area	have	

been	grouped	based	on:	

 Proximity	to	rail	or	roadway	noise	sources;	

 Existing	and	proposed	train	operations;		

 Proximity	to	railroad	crossings	where	horn	noise	is	present;	and		

 Whether	the	proposed	rail	line	would	be	at‐grade	or	on	an	elevated	structure.		

Along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	existing	noise	conditions	are	generally	dominated	by	roadway	traffic.	Along	the	

N‐S	Corridor,	existing	noise	conditions	are	generally	dominated	by	freight	rail	operations.	Existing	noise	

conditions	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	have	been	modeled	based	on	existing	FECR	freight	operations	in	Brevard,	

Indian	River,	St.	Lucie,	Martin,	and	Palm	Beach	Counties.	Reference	noise	levels	from	the	FTA	Manual	have	

been	used	for	modeling	existing	freight	train	operations	including	locomotives,	rail	cars,	crossing	signals,	

and	warning	horns.	Daily	train	operations	were	obtained	from	AAF	as	well	as	the	FRA	Crossing	Inventory	

(FRA	n.d.).	Based	on	existing	conditions,	freight	trains	are	on	average	8,150	feet	in	length,	and	consist	of	two	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-39 September 2014 

 

locomotives	(89	feet	each)	and	101	rail	cars	(79	feet	each).	Approximately	half	of	the	freight	operations	

occur	at	night	(10:00	PM	 to	7:00	AM)	and	half	during	 the	day	(7:00	AM	 to	10:00	PM)	(FRA	n.d.).	Daily	

operations	frequency	and	average	speed	is	summarized	in	Table	4.2.2‐2.	For	the	average	speeds	provided,	

an	8,150‐foot	train	results	in	a	noise	exposure	duration	ranging	from	1.7	to	2.1	minutes	per	event	for	any	

given	receiver	along	the	corridor.	

Table 4.2.2-2 Existing Rail Operations by County (N-S Corridor) 

County 

Speed 

(mph) 

Total Daily 

Trains 

Daily 

Trains/Hour 

Total Trains 

in Day 

(7:00 AM to 

10:00 PM)1

Day 

Trains/Hour 

Total Trains 

in Night 

(10:00 PM 

to 7:00 

AM)1

Night 

Trains/Hour 

Brevard (NS) 53.8 18 0.75 9 0.6 9 1.00 

Indian River 54.2 18 0.75 9 0.6 9 1.00 

St. Lucie 47.8 18 0.75 9 0.6 9 1.00 

Martin 44.4 18 0.75 9 0.6 9 1.00 

Palm Beach 54.3 18 0.75 9 0.6 9 1.00 

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from 

Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. 

Existing	 noise	exposure	at	 highway‐rail	grade	 crossings	along	 the	N‐S	 Corridor	 have	 been	 calculated	

separately	 from	 mainline	 segments.	 Noise	 within	 1⁄4‐mile	 of	 crossings	 has	 been	 modeled	 based	 on	

reference	levels	for	locomotive	horns	and	crossing	bells.	The	existing	noise	levels	at	distances	farther	than	

50	feet	have	been	modeled	based	on	the	general	approach	that	sound	from	a	linear	noise	source	decreases	

by	4.5	dB	per	doubling	of	distance.	The	attenuation	of	sound	from	intervening	building	structures	has	also	

been	considered.	In	characterizing	existing	and	future	noise	conditions,	the	population	density	has	been	

used	 to	 determine	 whether	 there	 would	 be	 intervening	 buildings	 and	 how	 much	 attenuation	 those	

buildings	would	provide.	

Affected Environment 

Existing	noise	conditions	along	the	MCO	Segment	are	dominated	by	aircraft	operations	at	MCO,	and	are	

within	the	airport’s	65	dB	DNL	contour	for	aviation	noise	(GOAA	2009).	

Along	 the	E‐W	 Corridor,	noise	 from	SR	 528	is	 the	 dominant	existing	 noise	 source.	Noise	levels	were	

estimated	using	FRA	guidelines	for	interstate	highways,	which	are	based	on	data	from	the	FHWA	highway	

traffic	noise	model	(Barry	and	Regan	1978).	Table	4.2.2‐3	provides	the	estimated	noise	levels,	in	relation	

to	distance	from	the	source.	This	table	shows	that	existing	noise	levels	range	from	50	to	75	Ldndepending	

on	proximity	to	the	highway.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-40 September 2014 

 

Table 4.2.2-3 Existing Noise Conditions from Roads (E-W Corridor) 

Distance From Interstate Highways (feet)1,2 Existing Noise Exposure (Ldn) 

10-49 75 

50-99 70 

100-199 65 

200-399 60 

400-799 55 

800 and up 50 

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 

1 Distances do not include shielding from intervening rows of buildings. 

2 Roadways with four or more lanes that permit trucks, with traffic at 60 mph. 

In	areas	away	from	major	roads	or	railroad	lines,	ambient	noise	is	typically	dominated	by	local	streets	

and	community	activities.	According	to	the	EPA,	ambient	noise	in	these	areas	can	be	related	to	population	

density	 (EPA	1974).	Estimates	 of	population	density	within	 the	Project	Study	Area	were	made	using	

census	 block	 data	 from	 the	 2010	 U.S.	 Census.	 The	 number	 of	 census	 blocks	 per	 population	 density	

category	and	ambient	noise	level	per	county	is	presented	in	Table	4.2.2‐4.	

Table 4.2.2-4 Number of Census Blocks per Population Density and Ambient Noise Level 

Population Density

(people per sq. mile) 

Existing Noise 

Exposure 

(Ldn) Orange Brevard 

Indian 

River St. Lucie Martin 

Palm 

Beach 

<1000 35 to 45 6 34 16 10 10 2 

1000 – 3000 50 2 18 17 1 11 21 

3000 – 10000 55 0 8 2 0 9 24 

10000 – 30000 60 0 0 0 0 0 1 

>30000 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006; USCB. 2010a. Census 2010. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 13, 2013. 

Table	 4.2.2‐5	 presents	 a	 summary	 of	 the	 existing	 noise	 conditions	 at	 a	 distance	 of	 50	 feet	 from	 the	

N‐S	Corridor.	This	 table	shows	 that	existing	noise	conditions	range	 from	74	 to	82	Ldn	at	a	distance	of	

50	feet	from	the	railroad.	

Phase	I	(the	WPB‐M	Corridor),	as	described	in	Section	3.1.7.2	of	the	2012	EA,	is	within	a	highly	developed	

urban	 region	 with	 high	 ambient	 noise	 levels	 because	 of	 its	 proximity	 to	 central	 business	 districts,	

highways,	and	the	existing	freight	operations.	Because	there	is	an	existing	freight	rail	line	and	substantial	

highway	 traffic,	 the	 existing	 noise	 levels	 were	 calculated	 based	 on	 the	 FTA	 Guidance	 Manual.	

Section	3.1.7.2	of	the	2012	EA	states	that	the	existing	freight	trains	generate	noise	levels	of	67	dBA	Ldn	at	

50	 feet	 from	the	tracks.	Warning	horn	noise	is	74	dBA	Ldn	at	50	 feet,	within	1⁄4	mile	of	each	at‐grade	

crossing.	Warning	horns	are	the	dominant	noise	sources	near	grade	crossings.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-41 September 2014 

 

Table 4.2.2-5 Existing Noise Conditions from Train Operations (N-S Corridor) 

County Track Condition 

Noise at 50 Feet 

Leq (day) Leq (night) Ldn

Brevard Mainline 66.4 68.6 74.7 

Crossing 73.9 76.1 82.3 

Indian River Mainline 66.4 68.6 74.8 

Crossing 73.9 76.1 82.3 

St. Lucie Mainline 65.6 67.8 74.0 

Crossing 73.8 76.0 82.1 

Martin Mainline 65.1 67.4 73.5 

Crossing 73.7 75.9 82.1 

Palm Beach Mainline 66.4 68.7 74.8 

Crossing 73.9 76.1 82.3 

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from 

Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report. 

4.2.2.2 Vibration 

Vibration	is	the	oscillating	motion	of	a	structure	or	material	that	can	result	in	perceptible	movement	of	

building	floors,	rattling	of	windows,	shaking	of	items	on	shelves,	and	rumbling	sounds.	Vibration	may	be	

described	in	terms	of	the	acceleration,	velocity,	or	displacement	that	occurs	during	the	oscillatory	motion	

(FTA	2006).	For	describing	the	human	response	to	vibration,	the	vibration	velocity	expressed	in	decibels	

(VdB)	with	a	reference	value	of	one	micro‐inch	per	second	is	used.	The	vibration	levels	that	commonly	

exist	in	 the	environment	 range	 from	approximately	 40	 to	 100	VdB.	At	low	amplitude,	 vibration	may	

interfere	with	sensitive	equipment.	At	higher	amplitude,	vibration	may	be	perceptible	to	humans	and	

cause	 annoyance.	 At	 very	 high	 amplitude,	 vibration	 can	 cause	 damage	 to	 susceptible	 buildings.	

Figure	4.2.2‐2	presents	typical	levels	of	ground‐borne	vibration.	

Vibration	that	propagates	into	buildings	can	cause	the	floors,	walls,	and	ceilings	of	a	room	to	radiate	sound	

called	ground‐borne	noise	(GBN).	GBN	normally	is	characterized	as	a	low‐frequency	‘rumbling’	sound.	

GBN	is	often	not	a	concern	for	at‐grade	transit	sources	and	buildings	with	windows	and	doors	exposed	to	

the	transit	sources	because	the	contribution	of	noise	from	airborne	paths	can	be	more	significant	than	

the	contribution	of	GBN.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-42 September 2014 

 

Figure 4.2.2-2 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration 

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 

Figure	4.2.2‐3	depicts	the	basic	concept	of	ground‐borne	vibration	and	GBN	for	a	rail	system.	When	train	

wheels	roll	on	rails,	the	forces	between	the	wheels	and	the	rails	generate	vibration	that	is	transmitted	

through	the	rails,	rail	bed,	and	soils	into	building	structures.	How	efficiently	vibration	propagates	into	

adjacent	buildings	is	dependent	upon	the	operating	conditions	and	type	of	train,	the	track	design,	the	

geologic	characteristics	of	the	surrounding	soil,	and	the	construction	of	the	building.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-43 September 2014 

 

Figure 4.2.2-3 Propagation of Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise into Buildings 

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 

Methodology 

Similar	to	noise,	FRA	and	FTA	separate	vibration‐sensitive	land	use	into	three	categories	based	on	the	

sensitivity	to	vibration	(FTA	2006).	Vibration	Category	1	–	High	Sensitivity	include	those	buildings	where	

vibration	would	interfere	with	operations	within	the	building,	including	levels	that	may	be	well	below	

those	 associated	 with	 human	 annoyance.	 Examples	 of	 Category	 1	 buildings	 are	 vibration‐sensitive	

research	 and	 manufacturing,	 hospitals	 with	 vibration‐sensitive	 equipment,	 and	 university	 research	

operations	(concert	halls	and	other	special‐use	facilities	are	covered	under	a	special	designation).	The	

vibration	 limits	 associated	 with	 these	 buildings	 are	 based	 on	 acceptable	 vibration	 for	 moderately	

vibration‐sensitive	equipment	with	vibration	isolation	systems.	Vibration	Category	2	–	Residential	covers	

all	residential	land	uses	and	any	buildings	where	people	sleep,	such	as	hotels	and	hospitals.	Vibration	

Category	3	–	Institutional	includes	land	uses	that	do	not	have	vibration‐sensitive	equipment,	but	still	have	

the	potential	for	activity	interference,	such	as	schools,	churches,	and	quiet	offices.	

There	are	also	buildings	that	can	be	very	sensitive	to	vibration	and	noise	but	do	not	fit	into	any	of	the	

three	categories	such	as	concert	halls,	TV	and	recording	studios,	and	theaters.	These	buildings	have	their	

own	impact	criteria	and	are	treated	separately	from	the	categories	described	above.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-44 September 2014 

 

Existing	 vibration	 levels	 were	 based	 on	 FTA	 generalized	 curves	 for	 ground‐borne	 vibration	 versus	

distance	from	the	track	(see	Figure	4.2.2‐4),	providing	an	estimate	of	existing	vibration	levels	from	freight	

trains	and	rubber‐tired	vehicles	such	as	buses	and	trucks.	These	general	curves	estimate	ground	vibration	

outside	buildings	and	do	not	take	into	account	effects	from	different	soil	types	or	building	construction.	

Affected Environment 

Existing	vibration	conditions	in	the	study	area	are	dominated	by	vehicular	sources	on	the	E‐W	Corridor	

(primarily	SR	528)	and	by	existing	freight	operations	on	the	N‐S	Corridor	and	on	the	WPB‐Miami	Corridor.	

The	FTA	generalized	vibration	curves,	presented	in	Figure	4.2.2‐4,	show	that	the	existing	vibration	level	

from	a	freight	train	at	50	mph	is	estimated	to	be	84	VdB	at	50	feet.	A	rubber‐tired	vehicle	traveling	at	30	mph,	

such	as	a	bus	or	truck,	generates	substantially	less	vibration	with	an	estimated	level	of	63	VdB.	

Figure 4.2.2-4 Generalized Vibration Curves for Trains and Rubber-Tired Vehicles 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-45 September 2014 

 

4.2.3 Farmland Soils 

The	 Farmland	 Protection	 Policy	 Act	 (FPPA)	 limits	 the	 conversion	 of	 significant	 agricultural	 lands	 to	

non‐agricultural	uses	as	a	result	of	federal	actions	(7	USC	§	4201,	et	seq.).	The	determination	of	whether	

or	not	farmlands	are	subject	to	FPPA	requirements	is	based	on	soil	type;	the	land	does	not	have	to	be	

actively	used	for	agriculture.	The	FPPA	regulates	four	types	of	farmland	soils:		

 Prime	Farmland;	

 Unique	Farmland;	

 Farmland	of	Statewide	Importance;	and	

 Farmland	of	Local	Importance.	

Farmland	subject	to	FPPA	requirements	can	be	pastureland,	forested,	or	other	land	types,	but	not	open	

water	or	developed	urban	or	transportation	areas.		

Prime	 farmland	 is	 defined	 by	 the	 U.S.	 Department	 of	 Agriculture’s	 (USDA)	 Natural	 Resources	

Conservation	 Service	 (NRCS)	 as	 “land	 that	 has	 the	 best	 combination	 of	 physical	 and	 chemical	

characteristics”	for	agriculture.	This	includes	land	with	these	characteristics	used	for	livestock	or	timber	

production	but	not	land	that	is	already	urbanized	or	used	for	water	storage.	Unique	farmland	is	defined	

as	“land	other	than	prime	farmland	that	is	used	for	production	of	specific	high‐value	food	and	fiber	crops,”	

with	such	crops	defined	by	the	Secretary	of	Agriculture.	Farmland	of	statewide	or	local	importance	is	

farmland	other	than	prime	or	unique	farmland	that	“is	used	for	the	production	of	food,	feed,	fiber,	forage	

or	oilseed	crops”	(USDA	2012).	

4.2.3.1 Methodology 

Farmlands	with	any	level	of	designation	by	the	NRCS	were	identified	and	mapped	relative	to	the	Project	

(Figure	4.2.3‐1)	(USDA	2013).	

4.2.3.2 Affected Environment 

The	most	recent	farmland	soils	inventory	for	Florida,	completed	in	2002,	identified	1,041,600	acres	of	

prime	 farmland.	 Between	 2002	 and	 2007	 approximately	 8,100	 acres	 of	 this	 prime	 rural	 land	 was	

converted	to	developed	land	(Farmland	Information	Center	2014).		

MCO Segment 

All	lands	within	the	MCO	Segment	have	been	developed	or	are	utilized	for	nonagricultural	purposes.	No	

prime	farmland	or	unique	farmland	is	present.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-46 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-47 September 2014 

 

East-West Corridor 

The	E‐W	Corridor	is	within	Orange	and	Brevard	Counties,	and	crosses	areas	that	contain	citrus,	forage,	

and	 vegetable	 agricultural	 operations.	 Table	 4.2.3‐1	 indicates	the	 active	 farmland	 located	 within	 the	

E‐W	Corridor.	Prime	farmland	soils	are	located	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	in	the	vicinity	of	I‐95	and	between	

I‐95	and	the	FECR	Corridor.	A	total	of	19.3	acres	of	 farmland	is	within	the	Alternative	A	corridor	and	

31.8	acres	of	unique	farmland	is	located	within	the	Alternatives	C	and	E	corridors.		

Table 4.2.3-1 Prime and Unique Farmland Soils within the E-W Corridor 

Farmland Characteristics Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Total Acres Within Corridor 260.9 434.8 431.6 

Total Acres of Prime and Unique Farmland Soils 19.3 31.8 31.8 

Percentage of Farmland in County within Corridor <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 

Source: AAF and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type 

Projects. June 7, 2013. Report. 

North-South Corridor 

The	 N‐S	 Corridor	 is	 located	 entirely	 within	 the	 existing	 FECR	 Corridor,	 which	 is	 developed	 for	 rail	

infrastructure	and	does	not	contain	prime	farmland,	unique	farmland,	or	farmland	of	statewide	or	local	

importance.		

West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor 

The	WPB‐M	Corridor	is	located	entirely	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor,	which	is	developed	for	rail	

infrastructure	and	does	not	contain	prime	farmland,	unique	farmland,	or	farmland	of	statewide	or	local	

importance	

4.2.4 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal 

This	 section	 describes	 potential	 and	 confirmed	 sources	 of	 subsurface	 contamination	 and/or	 waste	

materials	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	

4.2.4.1 Methodology 

A	contamination	screening	evaluation	was	performed	in	general	accordance	with	Part	2,	Chapter	22	of	

the	FDOT	ProjectDevelopment and Environment(PD&E) GuidelinesManual,	and	included	a	records	search	

and	review	of	historical	aerials	(FDOT	2008).	Field	reconnaissance	was	also	conducted	for	sites	rated	

medium‐	and	high‐risk	(as	defined	by	the	PD&E GuidelinesManual)	in	close	proximity	to	the	Project	Study	

Area.	The	purpose	of	the	survey	was	to	identify	areas	along	the	proposed	corridor	where	contamination	

of	soil	and/or	groundwater	by	petroleum	or	hazardous	materials	has	occurred,	where	contamination	of	

these	same	materials	may	exist,	and	where	the	potential	for	contamination	exists	due	to	past	and	present	

land	use.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-48 September 2014 

 

Evaluation Rating 

Risk	ratings	were	assigned	 to	every	contamination	site	identified	within	 the	EDM	reports.	Sites	were	

identified	 as	 “No,”	 “Low,”	 “Medium,”	 or	 “High”	 risk	indicating	the	 degree	 for	 potential	 contamination	

related	impacts	to	the	Project.	Risk	ratings	were	assigned	according	to	the	following	criteria	as	outlined	

in	the	FDOT	PD&E	Guidelines:	

 No	‐	A	review	of	information	in	the	EDM	report	finds	there	is	nothing	to	indicate	contamination	

would	be	a	problem.	It	is	possible	that	contaminants	were	handled	on	the	property;	however,	all	

information	indicates	 that	contamination	problems	should	not	be	expected.	An	example	of	an	

operation	 that	may	 receive	 this	 rating	is	 a	 wholesale	 or	 retail	 outlet	 that	 handles	 hazardous	

materials	in	sealed	containers	that	are	never	opened	while	at	this	facility,	such	as	cans	of	spray	

paint	at	a	“drug	store.”	

 Low	‐	The	former	or	current	operation	has	a	hazardous	waste	generator	identification	number,	

or	deals	with	hazardous	materials;	however,	based	on	information	available	in	the	EDM	report,	

there	is	no	reason	to	believe	there	would	be	any	involvement	with	contamination	in	relation	to	

the	 Project.	 This	 is	 the	 lowest	 possible	 rating	 a	 gasoline	 station	 operating	 within	 current	

regulations	can	receive.	This	rating	could	also	apply	to	a	retail	store	that	blends	paint.		

 Medium	 ‐	 Indications	 of,	 known	 soil	 and/or	 water	 contamination	 however	 available	

documentation	indicates	that	the	problem	does	not	need	remediation,	is	being	remediated	(air	

stripping	 of	 the	 groundwater,	 etc.),	 or	 that	 continued	 monitoring	 is	 required.	 This	 rating	

expresses	the	degree	of	concern	for	potential	contamination	problems.	Known	problems	may	not	

necessarily	 present	 a	 high	 cause	 for	 concern	 if	 corrective	 actions	 are	 either	 underway	 or	

complete.	The	actions	may	not	have	an	adverse	impact	on	the	Project.	

 High	‐	Potential	 for	contamination.	Properties	previously	used	as	gasoline	stations	and	which	

have	not	been	evaluated	or	assessed	would	probably	receive	this	rating.	

Records Search 

The	records	search	conducted	for	this	evaluation	included	review	of	regulatory	agencies’	enforcement	

and	permitting	records	database	information	for	the	Project	Study	Area	prepared	by	Environmental	Data	

Management,	Inc.	(EDM),	and	supplemental	records	searches	for	select	sites	through	the	FDEP	online	

database	Document	Management	System	“OCULUS.”	EDM’s	search	reviewed	and	summarized	numerous	

databases	that	are	generally	consistent	with	American	Society	of	Testing	and	Materials	(ASTM)	1527‐05	

Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.		

The	EDM	records	search	radius	was	established	at	a	one‐quarter‐mile	width	to	encompass	all	alternative	

alignments	under	consideration.	 In	addition,	 the	detailed	screening	area	was	set	at	500	 feet	 from	 the	

approximately	 centerline	 of	 the	 proposed	 E‐W	 Corridor	 alternatives	 and	 the	 boundary	 of	 the	

MCO	Segment	to	provide	coverage	of	the	alternatives.		

For	the	N‐S	Corridor,	the	Project	will	remain	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor	and	no	land	acquisition	

will	be	required.	EDM	performed	a	one‐eighth‐mile	wide	records	search	for	this	portion	of	the	Project.	

EDM	database	search	results	for	all	sites	included	within	this	search	radius	were	reviewed	and	rated	as	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-49 September 2014 

 

part	of	this	evaluation.	A	buffer	of	200	feet	on	each	side	of	the	N‐S	Corridor	centerline	defined	the	detailed	

screening	area.		

A	historical	 file	and	record	review	 through	 the	FDEP	online	database	Document	Management	System	

“OCULUS”	was	also	conducted	to	further	assess	if	environmental	consequences	have	been	recorded	on	

select	sites.	 Individual	sites	were	selected	 for	additional	research	based	on	risk	rating,	 to	supplement	

information	presented	in	the	EDM	data	report	and/or	due	to	the	proximity	of	the	site	to	the	Project.	All	

sites	ranked	“High”	and	“Medium”	(as	defined	below)	and	located	within	the	detailed	screening	areas	of	

500	 feet	 for	 the	E‐W	Corridor	and	 the	MCO	Segment,	and	200	 feet	 for	 the	N‐S	Corridor	were	 further	

researched	on	OCULUS.		

Historical Aerial Photography Review 

Historical	aerial	images	 of	 the	Project	Study	Area	and	adjacent	 properties	were	 reviewed	 to	identify	

potentially	contaminated	sites	that	may	not	be	listed	in	the	databases	reviewed	in	the	records	search.	

Historical	aerials	are	useful	in	identifying	dump	sites,	landfills,	junk	yards,	disturbed	vegetation,	and	other	

uncharacteristic	land	uses.		

East-West Corridor 

For	each	aerial	image	available	along	 the	E‐W	Corridor,	an	area	within	approximately	500	 feet	of	 the	

alternative	alignments	was	examined.	The	aerial	images	were	reviewed	to	identify	previously	existing	

land	uses	or	conditions	that	were	not	identified	during	the	records	search	and	could	indicate	potentially	

contaminated	sites.		

North-South Corridor 

The	review	of	environmental	documents	included	the	Final Contamination Screening Evaluation Report,

FECR Amtrak Passenger Rail Study (Amtrak	EA)	(FRA	and	FDOT	2010).	The	Amtrak	EA	included	a	review	

of	historical	aerials	along	the	FECR	Corridor	that	included	the	proposed	N‐S	Corridor	for	the	Project.	No	

historical	concerns	were	identified	within	the	report.	Therefore,	the	study	for	this	EIS	focused	on	records	

research	and	field	reconnaissance.		

Field Reconnaissance 

From	 July	 8	 through	 12,	 2013,	 AAF	 conducted	 field	 reconnaissance	 on	 properties	 adjacent	 to	 the	

E‐W	Corridor	and	the	N‐S	Corridor.	The	purpose	of	the	field	reconnaissance	was	to	visually	assess	sites	

in	close	proximity	to	the	Project	Study	Area	and	identify	sites	that,	based	on	the	records	search	and	field	

observation,	could	potentially	impact	the	human	environment	(if	not	mitigated	during	construction)	due	

to	the	presence	of	contaminated	soil,	groundwater,	or	other	materials.		

The	EDM	report	for	the	GOAA	property,	through	which	the	MCO	Segment	passes,	identified	161	records	

for	potentially	contaminated	sites.	A	majority	of	the	records	were	related	to	minor	releases	associated	

with	fueling	activities	at	the	airport.	Since	site	location	data	presented	in	the	EDM	data	report	was	not	

detailed	enough	to	identify	the	specific	locations	of	the	releases	on	the	property,	and	site	access	is	limited	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-50 September 2014 

 

within	the	active	airport,	GOAA	personnel	were	contacted	to	ascertain	information	regarding	potentially	

contaminated	sites	within	the	MCO	Segment.		

Along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	five	high‐risk	and	one	medium‐risk	rated	sites	within	approximately	500	feet	of	

the	corridor	were	visited.		

Along	 the	N‐S	 Corridor,	 215	 high‐risk	 and	 48	medium‐risk	 rated	 sites	 adjacent	 to	 the	 corridor	were	

inspected.	The	site	inspections	focused	primarily	on	sites	within	approximately	200	feet	of	the	corridor	

centerline	or	150	feet	from	the	FEC	right‐of‐way.	However,	several	sites	outside	the	200‐foot	detailed	

survey	 boundary	 were	 visited.	 Field	 inspections	 included	 a	 walk‐through	 of	 each	 site,	 looking	 for	

indications	of	possible	soil	contamination,	stressed	or	dead	vegetation,	or	refuse	that	may	indicate	the	

presence	of	pollutants,	toxic,	or	hazardous	materials.		

4.2.4.2 Affected Environment 

The	following	sections	provide	an	overview	of	the	existing	conditions	and	land	use	within	the	Project	

Study	Area,	as	it	relates	to	evaluation	of	potentially	contaminated	sites.	Land	use	maps	are	provided	in	

Appendix	4.1.1‐A.		

A	total	of	1,365	potentially	contaminated	sites	were	identified	within	the	evaluation	area.	Table	4.2.4‐1	

summarizes	the	number	of	sites	evaluated	and	the	risk	ratings	for	each	site.		

Table 4.2.4-1 Summary of Risk Ratings for Potentially Contaminated Sites 

Risk Rating 

MCO Segment 

(Number) 

E-W Corridor 

(Number) 

N-S Corridor 

(Number) 

WPB-M Corridor) 

(Number) 

Less than 

500 ft. 

Greater 

than 500 ft. 

Less than 

500 ft. 

Greater 

than 500 ft. 

Less than 

200 ft. 

Greater 

than 200 ft. Less than 150 ft. 

High 1 43 3 3 101 237 14 

Medium 1 3 0 2 23 56 13 

Low 14 38 4 4 114 314 199 

No 11 50 9 6 99 202 0 

Total 27 134 16 15 337 809 226 

Appendix	 4.2.4‐A	 includes	 a	 summary	 table	 of	 all	 potentially	 contaminated	 sites	 evaluated	 and	 risk	

ratings,	 aerial	 figures	 illustrating	 the	 location	 of	 all	 potentially	 contaminated	 sites,	 detailed	 site	

descriptions	for	sites	that	were	researched	through	the	FDEP	OCULUS	database	and/or	included	in	the	

field	reconnaissance	effort	and	copies	of	the	EDM	database	reports	for	the	Project	Study	Area.		

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	 Segment	 enters	 the	 GOAA	 property	 from	 the	 north	 and	 extends	 to	 the	 south,	 between	 the	

existing	terminals.	The	proposed	VMF	is	planned	for	an	undeveloped	portion	of	land	within	the	southern	

portion	of	the	MCO	property.	As	shown	in	Table	4.2.4‐1,	27	potentially	contaminated	sites	occur	within	

500	feet	of	the	MCO	Segment.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-51 September 2014 

 

East-West Corridor 

Historical	 aerial	 images	 were	 reviewed	 for	 the	 entire	 32.5‐mile	 E‐W	 Corridor.	 However,	 features	 of	

interest	were	only	identified	along	approximately	26	miles	of	the	SR	528	corridor	west	of	the	St.	Johns	

River.	 Fifteen	 features	 of	interest	 from	 historical	 aerial	images	 were	identified.	Of	 the	 15	 features	 of	

interest	identified,	only	one	was	noted	as	warranting	 further	investigation	due	 to	potential	mining	or	

forestry	activities	observed	in	a	1970	image.	As	shown	in	Table	4.2.4‐1,	16	potentially	contaminated	sites	

occur	within	500	feet	of	the	E‐W	Corridor.	As	discussed	in	Section	4.4.4,	Public Health and Safety,	The	

E‐W	Corridor	will	bisect	the	Formerly	Used	Defense	Sites	(FUDS)	Pinecastle	Jeep	Range.	The	former	range	

is	a	12,483‐acre	site	located	near	Orlando	International	Airport.		

North-South Corridor 

The	N‐S	Corridor	is	an	approximately	100‐foot	wide	existing	active	railroad.	Freight	and/or	passenger	

service	has	used	 this	alignment	 throughout	its	100‐year	plus	history.	The	N‐S	Corridor	extends	 from	

Cocoa	 to	 West	 Palm	 Beach,	 Florida	 and	 traverses	 established	 and	 heavily	 developed	 areas.	

Neighborhoods	and	communities	have	evolved	in	conjunction	with	the	rail	line.	Surrounding	land	uses	

include	undeveloped,	residential,	commercial,	and	light	industrial	properties.	As	shown	in	Table	4.2.4‐1,	

337	potentially	contaminated	sites	occur	within	200	feet	of	the	N‐S	Corridor.		

West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor 

The	Project	Study	Area	traverses	established	and	heavily	developed	areas	of	Palm	Beach,	Broward,	and	

Miami‐Dade	 Counties,	 and	 the	 potential	 presence	 of	 contaminated	 sites	 was	 previously	 evaluated	 in	

Section	3.3.6	of	the	2012	EA.	Land	uses	transition	from	central	business	district	urban,	to	medium	density	

residential,	to	industrial	and	commercial	uses.	Little	vacant	and/or	undeveloped	land	exists	along	the	

corridor.	 Due	 to	 the	 age	 of	 the	 existing	 corridor,	 established	 neighborhoods	 and	 communities	 have	

evolved	in	conjunction	with	the	corridor.	

4.2.5 Coastal Zone Management 

The	Coastal	Zone	Management	Act	(CZMA),	16	USC	§	1451,	et	seq.,	was	passed	in	1972	as	guidance	for	the	

management	of	coastal	resources.	As	part	of	the	CZMA,	Congress	provided	coastal	states	with	incentives	to	

encourage	 the	 development	 and	 implementation	 of	 comprehensive	 coastal	 management	 programs	 to	

balance	resource	protection	with	economic	growth	and	development	within	the	coastal	zone.		

The	 CZMA	 requires	 states	 to	 consider	 areas	 within	 the	 coastal	 zone	 that	 may	 warrant	 special	

consideration	due	to	their	environmental,	cultural,	economic,	or	recreational	value.	In	response	to	this	

requirement,	Florida	designated	Areas	of	Special	Management	(ASM)	that	consist	of	four	existing	state	

programs:	Areas	of	Critical	State	Concern	(ACSC),	Aquatic	Preserves	System,	Surface	Water	Improvement	

and	Management	(SWIM),	and	Beach	and	Inlet	Management	Areas.	

Chapter	380.05	of	the	Florida	Statutes	(FS)	established	the	ACSC	program	and	authorized	the	Department	

of	Economic	Opportunity,	 the	designated	 state	land	planning	agency,	 to	 recommend	 specific	areas	 of	

concern	to	the	Administration	Commission,	which	includes	the	Governor	and	the	Cabinet,	for	adoption	as	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-52 September 2014 

 

ACSC.	No	ACSCs	occur	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	The	FDEP	Office	of	Coastal	and	Aquatic	Managed	

Areas	(CAMA)	oversees	the	management	of	designated	aquatic	preserves	in	Florida.		

The	FDEP	Bureau	of	Beaches	and	Coastal	Systems	(BBCS)	is	responsible	for	implementing	the	Beach	

and	Shore	Preservation	Act.	On	May	21,	2008,	FDEP	adopted	the	Strategic	Beach	Management	Plan	to	

address	specific	strategies	 for	constructive	actions	at	critically	eroded	beaches	and	inlets,	known	as	

Beach	 and	 Inlet	 Management	 Areas.	 Approximately	 108	 miles	 of	 the	 Florida	 Atlantic	 coastline	 are	

actively	managed	to	reduce	and	minimize	beach,	shoreline,	and	inlet	erosion,	including	beach	and	dune	

restoration,	beach	nourishment,	feeder	beaches	or	inlet	sand	bypassing,	and	other	actions	to	mitigate	

the	erosive	effects	of	inlets.	

The	Project	is	located	entirely	within	the	designated	Florida	Coastal	Zone.	Coastal	and	Aquatic	Managed	

Areas	which	are	located	within	or	in	the	vicinity	of	the	Project	are	shown	on	Figure	4.2.5‐1	and	include:	

 Banana	River	Aquatic	Preserve;	

 Indian	River	–	Malabar	to	Vero	Beach	Aquatic	Preserve;	

 Indian	River	–	Vero	Beach	to	Fort	Pierce	Aquatic	Preserve;	

 Jensen	Beach	to	Jupiter	Inlet	Aquatic	Preserve;	and	

 Loxahatchee	River	–	Lake	Worth	Creek.	

Beach	and	Inlet	Management	Areas	within	and	adjacent	to	the	Project	Study	Area	include	Brevard	County	

Beach,	 Indian	 River	 County	 Sector	 Seven,	 Fort	 Pierce	 Shore	 Protection	 Project,	 St.	 Lucie	 Inlet	

Management,	Jupiter	Beach	Restoration,	and	Miami	Beach	Restoration.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-53 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-54 September 2014 

 

4.3 Natural Environment 

This	 section	 provides	 a	 description	 of	 the	 existing	 natural	 resources	 within	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area,	

including	water	resources,	wild	and	scenic	rivers,	wetlands,	floodplains,	biological	resources	and	natural	

ecological	systems,	and	threatened	and	endangered	species.		

As	stated	in	Chapter	1,	Introduction,	the	USACE	jurisdiction	of	authority	includes	Sections	10	and	14	of	

the	 Rivers	 and	 Harbors	 Act	 (RHA)	 and	 Section	 404	 of	 the	 Clean	 Water	 Act	 (CWA).	 The	 geographic	

jurisdiction	of	the	RHA	includes	all	navigable	waters	of	the	United	States	which	are	defined	(33	CFR	Part	

329)	as,	“those	waters	that	are	subject	to	the	ebb	and	flow	of	the	tide	and/or	are	presently	used,	or	have	

been	used	in	the	past,	or	may	be	susceptible	to	use	to	transport	interstate	or	foreign	commerce.”	This	

jurisdiction	extends	seaward	to	include	all	ocean	waters	within	a	zone	three	nautical	miles	from	the	coast	

line	 (the	 “territorial	 seas”).	 Limited	authorities	extend	across	 the	 outer	 continental	 shelf	 for	artificial	

islands,	installations	and	other	devices	(see	43	U.S.C.	1333	(e)).		

The	CWA	uses	the	term	“navigable	waters”	which	is	defined	(Section	502(7))	as	“waters	of	the	United	

States,	including	the	territorial	seas.”	Thus,	Section	404	jurisdiction	is	defined	as	encompassing	Section	

10	waters	plus	their	tributaries	and	adjacent	wetlands	and	isolated	waters	where	the	use,	degradation,	

or	destruction	of	such	waters	could	affect	interstate	or	foreign	commerce.		

Section	404	of	the	CWA	(33	CFR	320‐332)	regulates	discharges	of	dredged	or	fill	material	into	waters	of	the	

United	States,	including	jurisdictional	wetlands.		The	CWA	requires	compliance	with	the	Section	404(b)(1)	

Guidelines,	 40	 C.F.R.	 Part	 230,	 developed	 jointly	 by	 the	 EPA	 and	 USACE.	 CWA	 compliance	 requires	 a	

sequential	evaluation	process	which	includes	verification	that	all	jurisdictional	wetland	impacts	have	been	

avoided	to	the	greatest	extent	practicable,	unavoidable	impacts	have	been	minimized	to	the	greatest	extent	

practicable,	and	unavoidable	impacts	have	been	mitigated	in	the	 form	of	wetlands	creation,	restoration,	

enhancement	or	preservation.	AAF	has	not	yet	submitted	its	application	for	Section	404	authorization	to	

USACE.			USACE	will	complete	its	Section	404(b)(1)	Guidelines	analysis	and	public	interest	review	in	its	

record	of	decision	following	publication	of	the	Final	EIS.	

Section	14	of	the	RHA	states	any	proposed	modification	to	an	existing	USACE	projects	(either	federally	or	

locally	maintained)	that	go	beyond	those	modifications	required	for	normal	Operation	and	Maintenance	

require	approval	under	33	USC	408.	33	USC	408	also	states	that	there	shall	be	no	temporary	or	permanent	

alteration,	occupation,	or	use	of	any	public	works	including	but	not	limited	to	levees,	sea	walls,	bulkheads,	

jetties,	and	dikes	for	any	purpose	without	the	permission	of	the	Secretary	of	the	Army.	Under	the	terms	

of	33	USC	408,	any	proposed	modification	requires	a	determination	by	the	Secretary	of	the	Army	that	

such	proposed	alteration	or	permanent	occupation	or	use	of	a	Federal	project	is	not	injurious	to	the	public	

interest	and	will	not	impair	the	usefulness	of	such	work.	The	authority	to	make	this	determination	and	to	

approve	modifications	to	Federal	works	under	33	USC	408	has	been	delegated	to	the	Chief	of	Engineers.	

Table	4.3.4‐3	provides	a	full	list	of	federal	projects	which	could	be	impacted	by	the	proposed	action.		

4.3.1 Water Resources 

Water	resources	analyzed	within	the	Project	Study	Area	include	surface	water	and	groundwater,	as	well	

as	navigable	waters.	The	quality	and	availability	of	surface	and	groundwater	are	addressed.	Surface	water	

resources	comprise	lakes,	rivers,	and	streams	and	are	important	for	ecological,	economic,	recreational,	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-55 September 2014 

 

aesthetic,	and	human	health	reasons.	Groundwater	comprises	the	subsurface	hydrologic	resources	of	the	

physical	environment	and	is	an	essential	resource	in	many	areas;	groundwater	is	commonly	used	 for	

potable	water	consumption,	agricultural	irrigation,	and	industrial	applications.	Groundwater	properties	

are	often	described	in	terms	of	depth	to	aquifer,	aquifer	or	well	capacity,	water	quality,	and	surrounding	

geologic	composition.	

Surface	 water	 resources	 are	 lakes,	 rivers,	 and	 streams,	 and	 are	 important	 for	 ecological,	 economic,	

recreational,	aesthetic,	and	human	health	reasons.	Federal	and	state	agencies	classify	water	bodies	based	

upon	their	characteristics,	function,	and	use.	Water	quality	is	also	monitored	and	classifications	are	assigned	

to	water	bodies.	Several	of	these	classifications	relevant	to	the	Project	Study	Area	are	described	below.	

 Outstanding Florida Waters –	 Chapter	 62‐302,	 Florida	 Administrative	 Code	 (FAC),	 defines	

Outstanding	Florida	Waters	(OFWs),	which	include	aquatic	preserves,	state	reserves/preserves,	and	

National	Wild	and	Scenic	River	Systems.	OFWs	are	waters	designated	worthy	of	special	protection	

because	 of	 their	 natural	 attributes.	 This	 special	 designation	 is	 applied	 to	 certain	 waters,	 and	 is	

intended	to	protect	and	maintain	existing	acceptable	quality	standards	(FDEP	2012b).		

 Impaired Water Bodies –	Chapter	62‐303	of	the	FAC	defines	the	verified	impaired	water	bodies	

within	Florida	 (FDEP	2012a	and	2012c).	 Impairments	 to	surface	waters	may	include	bacteria	 (in	

shellfish),	copper,	dissolved	oxygen,	fecal	coliforms,	mercury	(in	fish	tissue),	and	nutrients.	

4.3.1.1 Methodology 

Available	GIS	information	was	used	to	identify	and	characterize	waterways	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	

Navigation	conditions	were	determined	using	existing	published	information.	

The	Source	Water	Assessment	and	Protection	Program	(SWAPP)	GIS	data	layer	is	maintained	by	FDEP	

(FDEP	2008).	The	data	layer	represents	buffered	assessment	areas	around	the	drinking	water	supply	

wells	 for	 the	 following	 types	 of	 wells:	 non‐community	 wells	 (500‐foot	 radius	 buffer	 of	 the	 well);	

community	 wells	 serving	 populations	 <	 1,000	 persons	 (1,000‐foot	 radius	 buffer	 of	 the	 well);	 and	

community	wells	serving	populations	>	1,000	persons	(1,000‐foot	radius	buffer	of	the	well	plus	a	5‐year	

groundwater	 travel	 time).	The	SWAPPs	within	a	10‐mile	radius	of	Project	Study	Area	are	mapped	in	

Figure	4.3.1‐2.	The	Project	would	intersect	SWAPP	zones	in	all	six	counties.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-56 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-57 September 2014 

 

4.3.1.2 Affected Environment 

This	section	describes	the	existing	surface	waters,	groundwater,	and	navigation	environment	within	the	

Project	Study	Area.	

Surface Water 

One	surface	water,	Boggy	Creek,	is	within	the	MCO	Segment.	

The	E‐W	Corridor	crosses	five	surface	waters	(Figure	4.3.1‐3),	one	of	which	is	classified	as	navigable,	and	

two	of	which	are	classified	as	OFW	(Table	4.3.1‐1).	The	St.	Johns	River	is	considered	navigable	by	USCG.	

Table 4.3.1-1 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in the MCO Segment and 

E-W Corridor 

County Name of Waterbody Impaired Source of Impairment 

FDEP 

Classification1

Orange Boggy Creek Yes Fecal Coliform 3F 

Orange Econlockhatchee River Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Fecal Coliform 3F2

Orange Second Creek 

Orange Taylors Creek 

Orange St. Johns River Above Puzzle 

Lake (South Segment) 

Yes Fecal Coliform, Dissolved Oxygen, Mercury (in 

fish tissue) 

3F2,3

Brevard 

1 Florida's waterbody classifications are defined as: 

1= Potable water supplies 

2= Shellfish propagation or harvesting 

3F= Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in fresh water 

3M= Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in marine water 

4= Agricultural water supplies 

5 = Navigation, utility, and industrial use 

2 Outstanding Florida Waters 

3 Navigable Waters 

As	outlined	in	Table	4.3.1‐2,	the	N‐S	Corridor	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach	crosses	23	surface	

waters	(Figure	4.3.1‐4),	four	of	which	are	classified	as	navigable,	and	two	of	which	are	classified	as	OFW.	

The	 water	 bodies	 north	 of	West	 Palm	 Beach	 that	 are	 considered	 navigable	 waters	 are	 Crane	 Creek,	

St.	Sebastian	River	above	Indian	River,	North	Coastal‐St.	Lucie/Loxahatchee,	and	the	St.	Lucie	Estuary.	

Impairments	 to	 these	 surface	 waters	 includes	 bacteria	 (in	 shellfish),	 copper,	 dissolved	 oxygen,	 fecal	

coliforms,	mercury	(in	fish	tissue),	and	nutrients.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-58 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-59 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-60 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.1-2 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in the N-S Corridor, 

Cocoa to West Palm Beach 

County Name of Waterbody Impaired Source of Impairment 

FDEP 

Classification1

Brevard Horse Creek Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Nutrients (historic chlorophyll-A) 3M 

Brevard Eau Gallie River Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients 

(chlorophyll-A), Copper 

3M 

Brevard Indian River Above Melbourne 

Causeway 

Yes Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M 

Brevard Crane Creek Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients 

(chlorophyll-A), Copper 

3M5

Brevard Palm Bay And Turkey Creek 

(Estuarine Segment) 

Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Nutrients (historic chlorophyll-A) 3M 

Brevard Goat Creek (Marine Segment) Yes Mercury (in Fish tissue), Nutrients (historic chlorophyll-A) 24

Brevard St. Sebastian River Above 

Indian River 

Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Dissolved Oxygen 3M5

Indian River 

Indian River South Prong St. Sebastian 

River (Estuarine Segment) 

Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Dissolved Oxygen (BOD), Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll-A) 

3M 

Indian River North Canal Yes Fecal Coliform, Dissolved Oxygen 3F 

Indian River Main Canal Yes Fecal Coliform, Dissolved Oxygen (BOD) 3F 

Indian River South Canal Yes Fecal Coliform 3F 

St Lucie North Coastal 

(St. Lucie/Loxahatchee) 

Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A), Dissolved Oxygen, Bacteria (in 

Shellfish) 

3M5

St Lucie Moore Creek Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A) 3M 

Martin South Indian River Yes Fecal Coliform, Copper, Bacteria (in Shellfish) 2 

Martin Warner Creek2 Yes Fecal Coliform, Copper, Bacteria (in shellfish) 2,3M 

Martin Unnamed Creek2 Yes Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M 

Martin St. Lucie Estuary Yes Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M5

Martin Tributary to Manatee Creek 13 Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A), Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M 

Martin Tributary to Manatee Creek 23 Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A), Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M 

Martin Unnamed Tributary 13 Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A), Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M 

Martin Unnamed Tributary 23 Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A), Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M 

Martin Loxahatchee River Yes Nutrients (historic chlorophyll-A), Mercury (in fish tissue), 

Bacteria (in shellfish) 

3M4,5

Palm Beach 

Palm Beach Earman River (Palm Beach 

Stations / D-Canals) 

Yes Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients (chlorophyll-A) 3F 

1 Florida's waterbody classifications are defined as: 

1 = Potable water supplies 

2 = Shellfish propagation or harvesting 

3F = Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in fresh water 

3M = Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in marine water 

4 = Agricultural water supplies 

5 = Navigation, utility, and industrial use 

2 Mapped as part of South Indian River in FDEP's Verified Impaired Florida Waters Database 

3 Mapped as part of Manatee Pocket in FDEP's Verified Impaired Florida Waters Database 

4 Outstanding Florida Waters 

5 Navigable Waters 

The	WPB‐M	Corridor	crosses	15	surface	waters	(Figure	4.3.1‐5),	four	of	which	are	classified	as	navigable,	

and	one	of	which	is	classified	as	OFW	(Table	4.3.1‐3).	The	water	bodies	south	of	West	Palm	Beach	that	

are	considered	navigable	waters	are	the	Hillsboro	Canal	(identified	by	USCG	as	navigable),	North	Fork	of	

the	Middle	River,	South	Fork	of	the	Middle	River,	and	the	Oleta	River.	The	Oleta	River	is	also	designated	

as	an	OFW.	Impairments	to	these	surface	waters	includes	bacteria	(in	shellfish),	copper,	dissolved	oxygen,	

fecal	coliforms,	mercury	(in	fish	tissue),	and	nutrients.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-61 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-62 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.1-3 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in WPB-M Corridor, 

West Palm Beach to Miami 

County Name of Waterbody Impaired Source of Impairment 

FDEP 

Classification1

Palm Beach West Palm Beach Canal (C-51) Yes Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients 

(chlorophyll A) 

3F 

Palm Beach Boynton Beach Canal Yes Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients 

(chlorophyll-A) 

3F 

Palm Beach Hillsboro Canal Yes Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients 

(chlorophyll-A) 

3F3

Palm Beach Hidden Valley Canal - 

Broward Cypress Creek Canal - 

Broward North Fork of the Middle River No NA 3M 

Broward South Fork of the Middle River No NA 3M 

Broward New River - 

Broward Tarpon River - 

Broward Dania Cutoff Canal - 

Miami-Dade Oleta River Yes Fecal Coliform, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M2 

Miami-Dade Snake Creek/Royal Glades Canal - 

Miami-Dade Arch Creek Yes Fecal Coliform, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3F 

Miami-Dade Biscayne Park Canal - 

Miami-Dade Little River - 

Note: Section 3.1.2.1 of the 2012 EA did not provide information on impairments or classifications of waters where no 

construction was proposed. 

1 Florida's water body classifications are defined as: 

1 = Potable water supplies 

2 = Shellfish propagation or harvesting 

3F = Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in fresh water 

3M = Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in marine water 

4 = Agricultural water supplies 

5 = Navigation, utility, and industrial use 

 2 Outstanding Florida Waters 

 3 Navigable Waters 

Groundwater 

The	Florida	Safe	Drinking	Water	Act	 (Fla.	Stat.	§§	403.850	 –	403.8911)	ensures	 that	 the	existing	and	

potential	drinking	water	resources	 of	 the	 state	remain	 free	 from	harmful	quantities	 of	contaminants.	

Local	officials	of	each	county	and	municipality	have	been	encouraged	to	handle	pollution	problems	within	

their	respective	jurisdictions	on	a	cooperative	basis	with	the	state.	Brevard,	Indian	River,	St.	Lucie,	Martin,	

and	Palm	Beach	Counties	have	policies	and	regulations,	in	the	form	of	wellfield	protection	ordinances,	to	

protect	drinking	water	supplies	from	contamination.	Wellfield	protection	criteria	are	found	in	Article	14,	

Chapter	B	of	the	Palm	Beach	County	Unified	Land	Development	Code	(Palm	Beach	County,	Florida	1992);	

Martin	County	Ordinance	428	(Martin	County,	Florida	2012);	Chapter	VI,	Section	6.03.00	of	the	St.	Lucie	

Land	Development	Code	(St.	Lucie	County,	Florida	2009);	Code	of	Ordinances	County	of	Indian	River	Land	

Development	 Regulations	 Chapter	 931	 (Indian	 River	 County,	 Florida	 2012);	 Chapter	 62,	 Article	 X,	

Division	2,	and	Section	62‐3631	of	the	Brevard	County	Natural	Resource	Ordinances	(Brevard	County,	

Florida	2012).	Orange	County	does	not	have	a	wellfield	protection	ordinance;	however,	they	follow	FDEP	

regulations	(Chapter	62‐521,	FAC)	(Mercado	2013).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-63 September 2014 

 

The	federal	Safe	Drinking	Water	Act	(42	U.S.C.	§	300f)	requires	protection	of	sole	source	aquifers	(SSAs).	

The	Project	Study	Area	was	overlain	on	SSA	GIS	polygon	data	to	determine	where	there	were	areas	of	

overlap	(EPA	2011a).	The	results	are	presented	in	Table	4.3.1‐4.	There	is	no	overlap	with	a	SSA	in	four	of	

the	counties.	There	is	overlap	in	Orange	County	within	the	westernmost	20	miles	of	the	Project	Study	

Area	and	in	Palm	Beach	County	for	the	Biscayne	aquifer	SSA	streamflow	and	recharge	zone.	

MCO Segment 

Wells	in	the	vicinity	of	the	MCO	Segment	were	identified	using	the	Environmental	Data	Resources,	Inc.	

(EDR)	Radius	Map	Report.	 The	 EDR	 report	indicated	 nine	wells	listed	 on	 the	 Florida	Wells	 database	

within	1	mile	of	the	MCO	Segment	(EDR	2013).	Reportedly,	four	wells	are	located	within	0.25	mile,	two	

wells	within	0.5	mile,	and	one	well	within	1	mile.	The	water	use	of	these	wells	is	City	of	Orlando	public	

water	supply	(one),	private	(seven),	and	monitoring	(one).	

Table 4.3.1-4 Sole Source Aquifer Protection Zones in the Project Study Area 

County 

Sole Source 

Aquifer(s) Name of Aquifer(s)/Protection Zone 

Orange Y Biscayne aquifer SSA streamflow and recharge source zones 

Brevard N 

Indian River N 

St. Lucie N 

Martin N 

Palm Beach (North from the Station 

in West Palm Beach) 

Y Biscayne aquifer SSA streamflow and recharge source zones 

Source: EPA. 2011a. Office of Water’s 2011 SSA Database. http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp. Accessed 

September 27, 2013. 

East-West Corridor 

There	are	three	hydrostratigraphic	units	in	Orange	County.	These	include	the	surficial	aquifer	system,	

intermediate	aquifer	 system/confining	 unit,	and	 the	 Floridan	aquifer	 system.	The	Biscayne	aquifer	is	

protected	in	Orange	County	as	SSA	streamflow	and	recharge	source	zones	(Lane	and	Scott	1980;	Lichtler	

et	al.	1968;	Wilson,	W.	et	al.	1987;	Florida	Sinkhole	Research	Institute	1989).		

North-South Corridor 

Brevard	 County	 is	 underlain	 by	 three	 hydrostratigraphic	 units.	 These	 units	 include	 the	 unconfined	

surficial	aquifer	system,	intermediate	aquifer	system/confining	unit,	and	the	confined	Floridan	aquifer	

system.	This	is	not	an	area	typical	of	karst	terrain.	A	large	percentage	of	the	groundwater	used	in	Brevard	

County	comes	from	the	Floridan	aquifer	system.	The	Floridan	aquifer	system	yields	large	quantities	of	

water	due	to	the	high	permeability	of	the	carbonates.	The	Ocala	Limestone	yields	the	highest	amounts	of	

water	in	the	Brevard	County	area	(Brown,	D.W.,	et	al.	1962;	Lane	and	Scott	1980;	Mercado	2013).	

There	 are	 three	 hydrostratigraphic	 units	 in	 Indian	 River	 County.	 These	 include:	 the	 surficial	 aquifer	

system,	intermediate	confining	unit,	and	 the	Floridan	aquifer	system	(Crane,	Hughes,	and	Snell	1975;	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-64 September 2014 

 

Schiner,	Laughlin,	and	Toth	1988;	Spencer	and	Lane	1995;	Toth	and	Huang	1998).	This	area	is	mostly	

devoid	of	karst	terrain.	The	surficial	aquifer	system	is	a	major	source	of	drinking	water	in	Indian	River	

County.	The	Floridan	aquifer	system	exists	under	artesian	conditions	in	Indian	River	County.	However,	it	

is	not	generally	a	major	source	of	potable	water	in	the	area	due	to	high	chloride	concentrations	(Marella	

1999;	Miller	1990).		

There	are	three	hydrostratigraphic	units	in	St.	Lucie	County.	These	include:	the	surficial	aquifer	system,	

intermediate	 confining	 unit,	 and	 the	 Floridan	 aquifer	 system.	 This	 area	is	 essentially	 devoid	 of	 karst	

terrain.	The	surficial	aquifer	system	is	the	primary	source	of	fresh	water	in	St.	Lucie	County.	The	water	

quality	 of	 the	 surficial	 aquifer	 system	 is	 generally	 good.	 Chloride	 concentrations	 in	 surficial	 aquifer	

groundwater	average	less	 than	100	milligrams	per	liter	 (Bearden	1972;	Hicks,	Marting,	and	Stodghill	

1988).	The	Floridan	aquifer	exists	under	artesian	conditions	in	St.	Lucie	County.	It	is	not	generally	a	major	

source	 of	 potable	water	in	 the	area	 due	 to	 high	 chloride	concentrations	 (Bearden	 1972;	Hicks	 1988;	

Florida	Geological	Survey	2012;	Bond	1987).		

There	are	three	hydrostratigraphic	units	in	Martin	County.	These	include	 the	surficial	aquifer	system,	

intermediate	aquifer	system/confining	unit,	and	the	Floridan	aquifer	system.	This	is	not	an	area	typical	

of	karst	terrain.	The	surficial	aquifer	system,	commonly	referred	to	as	the	Coastal	aquifer	or	the	shallow	

aquifer,	is	 the	primary	source	of	 fresh	water	in	Martin	County.	The	surficial	aquifer	system	generally	

ranges	from	150	to	200	feet	below	mean	sea	level	(msl)	in	eastern	Martin	County.	The	surficial	aquifer	

system	is	primarily	recharged	by	rainfall.	The	Floridan	aquifer	exists	under	artesian	conditions	in	Martin	

County.	It	is	highly	saline	with	elevated	chloride	concentrations.	

Palm	Beach	County	contains	three	hydrostratigraphic	units	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	These	include	

the	surficial	aquifer	system,	intermediate	aquifer	system/confining	unit,	and	the	Floridan	aquifer	system.	

The	Biscayne	aquifer	is	protected	in	Palm	Beach	County	as	a	SSA	streamflow	and	recharge	source	zones.	

The	surficial	aquifer	system	is	the	primary	source	of	 fresh	water	in	Palm	Beach	County.	The	Floridan	

aquifer	system	is	not	a	source	of	potable	water	due	to	salinity.	

4.3.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Through	the	National	Wild	and	Scenic	Rivers	Act	of	1968,	rivers	can	be	federally	designated	as	wild	and	

scenic	if	they	contain	remarkable	scenic, recreational,	or	fish	and	wildlife	related	values.	Such	rivers	are	

granted	protection	under	the	Act	and	must	be	evaluated	as	part	of	the	NEPA	process.		

The	Wekiva	and	Loxahatchee	Rivers	are	the	only	federally	designated	Wild	and	Scenic	Rivers	in	the	State	

of	Florida.	The	Wekiva	River	is	41.6	miles	long	and	located	in	Central	Florida,	north	of	the	City	of	Orlando.	

It	was	designated	as	Wild	and	Scenic	in	2000	with	31.4	miles	of	the	river	designated	as	Wild,	2.1	miles	as	

Scenic,	and	8.1	miles	as	Recreational	(National	Wild	and	Scenic	River	Systems	2010).	The	Wekiva	River	

is	 not	 proximate	 to	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area.	 The	 Loxahatchee	 River	 is	 7.6	 miles	 long	 and	 located	 in	

southeast	Florida	in	Martin	and	Palm	Beach	County.	Approximately	1.3	miles	of	the	river	is	designated	as	

Wild,	5.8	miles	as	Scenic,	and	0.5	miles	as	Recreational.	The	Loxahatchee	was	designated	as	a	Wild	and	

Scenic	River	in	1985	and	stretches	from	Riverbend	Park	downstream	to	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park	

(National	Wild	and	Scenic	River	Systems	1985).	The	N‐S	Corridor	crosses	the	Loxahatchee	River	in	Palm	

Beach	County;	however,	it	crosses	the	river	approximately	4	river	miles	downstream	of	the	Wild	and	

Scenic	River	designated	area.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-65 September 2014 

 

4.3.3 Wetlands 

Wetlands	within	the	Project	Study	Area	are	regulated	and	protected	under	state	and	federal	regulatory	

programs.	Within	 the	 State	 of	 Florida,	 activities	 conducted	in	wetlands	 are	 regulated	 by	 the	 State	 of	

Florida	under	Part	IV,	Chapter	373,	FS.	The	USACE	administers	Section	404	of	the	CWA	(33	CFR	320‐332)	

which	regulates	discharges	of	fill	into	wetlands	and	waters	of	the	United	States.		Wetlands	as	defined	in	

Subsection	 373.019(17)	 FS,	 are	 “those	 areas	 that	 are	 inundated	 or	 saturated	 by	 surface	 water	 or	

groundwater	 at	 a	 frequency	 and	 duration	 sufficient	 to	 support,	 and	 under	 normal	 circumstances	 do	

support,	a	prevalence	of	vegetation	typically	adapted	for	life	in	saturated	soils.”			

The	Clean	Water	Act,	33	CFR	Part	328	defines	wetlands	as	“those	areas	that	are	inundated	or	saturated	

by	 surface	 or	groundwater	at	a	 frequency	and	 duration	 sufficient	 to	 support,	and	 that	 under	 normal	

circumstances	 do	 support,	 a	 prevalence	 of	 vegetation	 typically	 adapted	 for	 life	 in	 saturated	 soil	

conditions.	Wetlands	generally	include	swamps,	marshes,	bogs,	and	similar	areas.”	

AAF	has	not	yet	submitted	its	application	for	Section	404	authorization	to	USACE.			USACE	will	complete	

its	Section	404(b)(1)	Guidelines	analysis	and	public	interest	review	in	its	record	of	decision	following	

publication	of	the	Final	EIS.		

4.3.3.1 Methodology 

Wetlands	 were	 identified	 and	 characterized	 for	 areas	 in	 which	 the	 Project	 would	 require	 ground	

disturbing	activities.	For	areas	in	which	ground	disturbing	activities	would	occur	and	for	which	no	land	

acquisition	is	required,	a	buffer	of	150	feet	from	the	corridor	centerline	defines	the	Project	Study	Area.	

For	 areas	 in	 which	 ground	 disturbing	 activities	 would	 occur	 and	 for	 which	 new	 land	 acquisition	 is	

required,	a	 buffer	 of	 500	 feet	 outside	 the	 property	boundary	 of	 the	 proposed	acquisition	defines	 the	

Project	Study	Area.	

Wetland	 vegetation,	 habitat	 quality,	 and	 biodiversity	 were	 characterized	 using	 readily	 available	

information.	Resources	reviewed	included,	but	were	not	limited,	to	the	USFWS	National	Wetland	Inventory	

(USFWS	2013a),	Florida	Land	Use,	Cover	and	Forms	Classification	System	(FLUCCS)	maps	(FDOT	1999),	

USFWS	topographic	maps	(USFWS	n.d.),	USDA	NRCS	soil	survey	maps	(USDA	2013),	USFWS	wood	stork	

rookery	 data	 (USFWS	 2013b),	 Florida	 Natural	 Areas	 Inventory	 (FNAI)	 natural	 communities	 data	

(FNAI	2013),	and	water	management	district	(WMD)	land	use	data	(SJRWMD	2009;	SFWMD	2008).	

These	 wetland	 systems	 were	identified	 utilizing	WMD	land	 use	 data	 that	 were	identified	 to	 FLUCCS	

Level	II	for	generally	anthropogenic	land	uses	and	to	FLUCCS	Level	III	primarily	for	natural	habitats	(the	

FLUCCS	 is	 arranged	 in	 hierarchical	 levels	 with	 each	 level	 containing	 land	 information	 of	 increasing	

specificity.	Level	I	data	are	the	most	general	in	nature,	while	Level	IV	data	are	the	most	specific	[FLUCCS	

1999]).	 In	 addition,	 field	 delineations	 were	 conducted	 for	 the	 existing	 SR	 528	 right‐of‐way	 and	 the	

FECR	Corridor.	These	delineations	provided	field	confirmation	for	the	occurrence	of	wetland	and	surface	

waters	that	would	be	considered	jurisdictional	pursuant	to	Chapter	62‐340	FAC,	and	the	USACE	1987

Wetland Delineation Manual	 and	 the	 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland

Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region	(Version	2.0).	Upon	completion	of	 the	 field	

verifications	the	USACE	will	provide	a	preliminary	Jurisdictional	Determination	to	AAF.	For	purposes	of	

computation	 of	 impacts,	 compensatory	 mitigation	 requirements,	 and	 other	 resource	 protection	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-66 September 2014 

 

measures,	assessments	in	this	EIS	will	be	made	on	the	basis	of	a	preliminary	jurisdictional	determination.	

A	preliminary	jurisdictional	determination	will	treat	all	waters	and	wetlands,	which	would	be	affected	in	

any	way	by	the	proposed	activity	as	if	they	are	jurisdictional	waters	of	the	United	States.	

4.3.3.2 Affected Environment 

The	Project	Study	Area	includes	16	types	of	aquatic	habitats	(wetlands	and	surface	waters),	as	listed	in	

Table	4.3.3‐1.	The	figures	in	Appendix	4.1.1‐A	provide	depictions	of	the	land	use	within	the	Project	Study	

Area.	Lists	of	characteristic	plant	species	of	each	community	are	provided	in	Appendices	4.3.3‐A1	and	

4.3.3‐A2.		

Streams and Waterways 

Streams	 and	 waterways	 communities	 include	 rivers,	 creeks,	 canals,	 and	 other	 linear	 waterways.	

Freshwater	rivers	and	streams	cross	the	E‐W	Corridor,	the	N‐S	Corridor,	and	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	Within	

urbanized	areas,	these	systems	typically	have	been	dredged	to	facilitate	stormwater	drainage	and	the	banks	

are	 often	 armored	 to	 protect	 from	 erosion.	 Rivers	 and	 streams	 in	 rural	 areas,	 particularly	 along	 the	

E‐W	Corridor,	may	have	been	channelized	at	some	point	but	appear	relatively	undisturbed.	Water	levels	

within	these	systems	vary	according	to	seasonal	precipitation	with	water	levels	rising	in	the	wet	summer	

months	and	dropping	during	the	dry	winter	season.	Vegetation	within	freshwater	river	and	stream	systems	

vary	according	to	intensity	of	utilization,	adjacent	land	use,	water	depth	and	frequency	of	inundation.	

Tidally	influenced	waterways	cross	the	N‐S	Corridor	and	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	at	several	locations.	Tidally	

influenced	systems	include	creeks	and	canals	along	the	coastline	that	are	subject	to	salinity	and	water	

level	fluctuation	concomitant	with	the	ebb	and	flow	of	the	tides.	Canals	are	typically	excavated	waterways	

providing	 boat	 access	 to	 inland	 areas.	 Canals	 undergo	 regular	 maintenance	 in	 the	 form	 of	 channel	

dredging	and	canal	banks	tend	to	be	steeply	sloped	or	vertical	and	bolstered	with	concrete	seawalls	or	

rip‐rap	 to	 prevent	 bank	 erosion.	 Vegetation	 is	 often	 limited	 to	 isolated	 red	 mangrove	 and	 scattered	

patches	of	typical	saltmarsh	vegetation.	Tidally	influenced	river	and	creeks	exhibit	banks	with	less	steep	

slopes	although	many	areas	are	armored	with	seawalls	and	rip‐rap	to	minimize	erosion.	Within	most	tidal	

rivers	and	creeks,	channels	have	been	dredged	to	allow	boat	traffic.	Variations	in	salinity	and	water	level	

generated	by	tidal	flow	and	freshwater	and	sediment	inputs	from	their	associated	watersheds	provide	a	

mosaic	of	habitats	and	communities	within	tidal	river	and	creek	systems.	Habitats	associated	with	tidal	

river	 and	 creeks	 include	 saltwater	 marshes,	 mangrove	 swamps,	 seagrass	 beds	 and	 oyster	 bars.	 The	

specific	community	composition	varies	from	location	to	location	according	to	the	intensity	of	waterway	

utilization	and	adjacent	land	uses.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-67 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.3-1 Existing wetland communities within the Project Study Area as defined by 

FLUCCS and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) 

FLUCCS Code FLUCCS Description National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetland3

510 Streams and Waterways Riverine 

520 Lakes Lake 

530 Reservoirs Lake 

540 Bays and Embayments Estuarine and Marine Deepwater 

611 Bay Swamps Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO3/1) 

612 Mangrove Swamps Estuarine and Marine Wetland (E2FO3) 

617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO1/3) 

618 Willow and Elderberry Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PSS3) 

619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO3/1) 

621 Cypress Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO2) 

625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO4) 

630 Wetland Forested Mixed Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO6/7) 

641 Freshwater Marsh Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PEM2) 

643 Wet Prairie Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PEM2) 

644 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PEM1) 

646 Treeless Hydric Savanna Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PSS6/7) 

Sources: FDOT. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) – Handbook. 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf. January 2013. Accessed August 7, 2013; 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013a. National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed 

September 27, 2013. 

Lakes 

Lakes	communities	include	lakes,	ponds,	and	stormwater	ponds.	Within	the	Project	Study	Area	these	consist	

primarily	of	stormwater	ponds,	which	are	constructed	 to	prevent	 flooding	by	retention	or	detention	of	

water	during	storm	events.	Retention	ponds	are	generally	“wet”	and	store	stormwater	for	extended	periods	

of	time	allowing	the	water	to	percolate	into	the	soil	and	recharge	the	groundwater	or	to	dissipate	through	

evaporation	or	evapotranspiration.	Detention	ponds	are	generally	“dry”	and	hold	water	for	short	periods	of	

time	slowly	releasing	it	into	the	drainage	system.	In	addition	to	maintaining	surface	and	groundwater	levels,	

stormwater	ponds	allow	suspended	sediments	and	pollutants	to	settle	out	of	the	water	column.	Vegetation	

within	stormwater	ponds	varies	based	on	location,	hydrology,	utilization,	and	surrounding	environment	or	

land	uses.	Dominant	vegetation	typically	consists	of	weedy	upland	and	wetland	species.	

Reservoirs 

Reservoirs	 are	 artificial	 impoundments	 constructed	 for	 water	 supplies,	 irrigation,	 flood	 control,	 and	

recreation.	Reservoirs	are	typically	dominated	by	open	water	although	some	designs	incorporate	littoral	

zones	 or	 islands	 to	 increase	 wildlife	 habitat	 value	 or	 to	 provide	 aesthetic	 enhancement.	 Vegetation	

consists	of	wetland	species	but	the	species	composition	varies	considerably	depending	on	the	purpose	

and	 utilization	 of	 the	 reservoir.	 Factors	 such	 as	 human	 activity,	 maintenance	 regime,	 design,	 and	

landscaping	influence	the	community	structure	and	habitat	value.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-68 September 2014 

 

Bays and Estuaries 

Bays	and	estuaries	consist	of	inlets	of	the	ocean	that	occur	along	coastlines	and	include	subtidal,	intertidal,	

and	supratidal	zones	and	occur	along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	Estuaries	typically	have	a	river	or	stream	flowing	

into	it	and	exhibit	an	open	connection	to	the	sea	greater	than	1	nautical	mile	(nm)	in	width	(FDOT	1999).	

Tidal	areas	less	than	1	nm	wide	are	classified	as	streams	and	waterways.	Estuaries	are	subject	to	marine	

influences,	such	as	 tides,	waves,	and	 the	influx	of	salt	water.	 In	addition	 to	 the	physical	and	chemical	

influences	that	tides	have	on	estuaries,	estuaries	also	receive	inputs	of	freshwater	and	sediment	from	

their	associated	watersheds.	As	a	result	estuaries	may	contain	many	biological	niches	within	a	small	area,	

and	are	associated	with	high	biodiversity.	

Bay Swamps 

Bay	swamps	are	freshwater	hardwood	forested	wetlands	dominated	by	bay	tree	species	such	as	swamp	

bay,	red	bay,	sweetbay,	and	loblolly	bay	(Table	4.3.3‐2).	These	communities	typically	occur	in	wetland	

areas	 with	 a	 strong	 seepage	 component	 to	 the	 hydrology	 and	 mucky	 acidic	 soils.	 The	 understory	 is	

composed	 of	 a	 moderately	 dense	 shrub	 stratum	 consisting	 of	 Virginia	 willow,	 wax	 myrtle,	 common	

buttonbush,	possumhaw,	and	swamp	azalea	among	others.	Groundcover	species	consist	of	shade	tolerant	

herbaceous	species	such	as	lizard’s	tail	and	ferns.	

Mangrove Swamps 

Mangrove	swamp	is	a	dense	forest	occurring	along	marine	and	estuarine	shorelines	that	are	protected	

from	full	wave	energy.	Mangrove	swamps	are	dominated	by	four	mangrove	species	(Table	4.3.3‐2)	that	

generally	occur	in	distinct	monospecific	zones	that	reflect	varying	degrees	of	tidal	influence	and	depth	of	

inundation,	levels	of	salinity,	and	 types	of	substrate.	Red	mangrove	often	dominates	 the	lowest	zone,	

followed	 by	 black	 mangrove	 in	 the	 intermediate	 zone,	 and	 white	 mangrove	 in	 the	 highest	 zone.	

Buttonwood	 usually	 occupies	 the	 transitional	 zone	 between	 the	 wetland	 and	 the	 adjacent	 upland	

community.	

The	 density	 and	 height	 of	 mangroves	 and	 the	 diversity	 of	 associated	 herbaceous	 species	 can	 vary	

considerably	within	a	mangrove	swamp.	Mangroves	typically	occur	in	dense	stands	but	may	be	sparse,	

allowing	salt	marsh	species	predominate.	Mangrove	swamps	often	exist	with	no	understory,	although	

shrubs	 such	 as	 seaside	 oxeye	 and	 woody	 vines	 may	 be	 present.	 Groundcover	 is	 usually	 sparse,	 but	

herbaceous	 species	 common	 to	 mangrove	 swamps	 include	 saltwort,	 perennial	 glasswort,	 mangrove	

spiderlily,	and	giant	leather	fern.	

Mangrove	 swamps	 occur	 adjacent	 to	 the	N‐S	 Corridor	 and	WPB‐M	 Corridor,	 and	 are	 found	in	 some	

locations	within	the	FECR	right‐of‐way.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-69 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.3-2 Common Wetland Plant Species 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Acer rubrum Red maple 

Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 

Cladium jamaicense Sawgrass 

Gordonia lasianthus Loblolly bay 

Ilex cassine Dahoon holly 

Itea virginica Virginia willow 

Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum 

Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay 

Melaleuca quinquinerva Melaleuca 

Myrica cerifera Wax myrtle 

Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora Swamp tupelo 

Panicum hemitomum Maidencane 

Persea borbonia Red bay 

Persea palustris Swamp bay 

Pinus elliottii Slash pine 

Pinus palustris Longleaf pine 

Pinus serotina Pond pine 

Quercus hemisphaerica Laurel oak 

Quercus nigra Water oak 

Rhododendron viscosum Swamp azalea 

Sabal minor Dwarf palmetto 

Sabal palmetto Cabbage palm 

Salix caroliniana Carolina willow 

Schinus terebinthefolia Brazilian pepper 

Taxodium ascendens Pond cypress 

Taxodium distichum Bald cypress 

Ulmus americana American elm 

Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 

Mixed	 wetland	 hardwoods	 are	 freshwater	 hardwood	 forested	 wetlands	 exhibiting	 a	 large	 variety	 of	

species	 composing	 the	 canopy	 stratum	 with	 no	 discernible	 pattern	 of	 dominance.	 Canopy	 species	

typically	include	American	elm,	sweetbay,	red	maple,	sugarberry,	American	hornbeam,	and	water	oak	

(Table	4.3.3‐2).	Cabbage	palm	and	slash	pine	are	often	components	of	the	canopy	or	subcanopy.	Common	

shrub	and	 understory	 species	include	 swamp	dogwood,	Walter’s	 viburnum,	 swamp	 bay,	wax	myrtle,	

dwarf	palmetto,	American	beautyberry,	and	wild	coffee.	Groundcover	species	are	dominated	by	ferns.	

Willow and Elderberry 

Willow	and	Elderberry	is	a	community	in	which	either	Carolina	willow	or	elderberry	is	predominant.	

Within	the	Project	Study	Area	this	community	is	typically	found	in	areas	disturbed	by	human	activities.	It	

can	also	be	found	in	areas	experiencing	natural	fluctuations	in	environmental	conditions.	Both	Carolina	

willow	 and	 elderberry	 are	 early	 successional	 species	 which	 tend	 to	 quickly	 recruit	 into	 and	 spread	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-70 September 2014 

 

through	disturbed	systems.	They	are	also	tolerant	of	a	wide	range	of	environmental	conditions	and	may	

be	found	in	areas	with	fluctuating	conditions	such	as	slough	systems.	

Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 

Exotic	Wetland	Hardwoods	are	wetlands	dominated	by	non‐native	hardwood	species	such	as	Brazilian	

pepper	and	melaleuca.	These	exotic	species	present	dense	stands	with	little	light	penetration	and	sparse	

groundcover	vegetation.	This	community	is	usually	found	in	areas	disturbed	by	human	activity	or	natural	

process	such	as	wildfire.	

Cypress 

Cypress	is	a	 freshwater	 coniferous	wetland	 forest	 dominated	 by	pond	 cypress	 or	 bald‐cypress.	Deep	

zones	of	this	community	typically	consist	of	dense	or	pure	stands	of	cypress	within	a	transitional	zone	

dominated	by	red	maple,	water	oak,	live	oak,	or	other	hardwood	tree	species	tolerant	of	hydric	conditions.	

Cypress	wetlands	are	often	isolated	forming	“domes”	with	the	older,	taller	trees	in	the	center.	Canopy	

associate	species	include	red	maple,	dahoon	holly,	swamp	bay,	slash	pine,	sweetbay,	loblolly	bay,	and,	in	

South	Florida,	coco	plum	and	pond	apple.	Shrubs	are	typically	sparse	to	moderate,	and	typical	shrubs	

include	Virginia	willow,	shiny	lyonia,	common	buttonbush,	and	wax	myrtle.	Typical	herbaceous	species	

include	ferns,	maidencane,	sawgrass,	and	lizard’s	tail.	

Hydric Pine Flatwoods 

Hydric	Pine	Flatwoods	are	pine	forests	with	a	sparse	subcanopy	and	groundcover	consisting	of	hydrophytic	

grasses,	herbs,	and	shrubs.	The	dominant	pine	canopy	typically	consists	of	one	or	a	combination	of	longleaf	

pine,	slash	pine,	pond	pine,	or	South	Florida	slash	pine.	Longleaf	pine	and	pond	pine	are	more	common	in	

the	 northern	 portions	 of	 the	Project	Study	Area.	Associated	 tree	 species	 consist	 of	 scattered	 sweetbay,	

swamp	 bay,	loblolly	 bay,	 pond	 cypress,	 dahoon	 holly,	and	 cabbage	 palm.	 Common	 shrubs	include	wax	

myrtle,	 shiny	 lyonia,	 swamp	 azalea,	 common	 buttonbush,	 and	 Walter’s	 viburnum,	 among	 others.	

Herbaceous	groundcover	species	include	grasses,	Carolina	redroot,	beaksedges,	and	rushes.		

Wetland Forested Mixed 

Wetland	forested	mixed	includes	freshwater	forested	wetland	communities	in	which	neither	hardwoods	

nor	 conifers	 achieve	 a	 66‐percent	 dominance	 of	 the	 canopy	 community.	 Dominant	 canopy	 species	

typically	include	sweetgum,	sweetbay,	laurel	oak,	water	oak,	American	elm,	red	maple,	swamp	tupelo,	

slash	pine,	and	bald	cypress.	Bay	species	such	as	loblolly	and	swamp	bay	are	often	mixed	in	the	canopy	in	

acidic	 or	 seepage	 systems.	 Common	 shrubs	include	 swamp	 dogwood,	 dahoon	 holly,	 dwarf	 palmetto,	

Walter’s	viburnum,	American	snowbell,	wax	myrtle,	and	highbush	blueberry.	Characteristic	groundcover	

species	include	witchgrass,	slender	woodoats,	beaksedges,	Virginia	chain	fern,	and	beaked	panicum.	

Freshwater Marsh 

Freshwater	marshes	are	regularly	inundated	wetlands	and	may	occur	in	a	variety	of	situations.	Species	

composition	 is	 heterogeneous	 both	 within	 and	 between	 marshes	 but	 can	 generally	 be	 divided	 into	

emergent	and	 transitional	zones	 from	deepest	 to	shallowest	portions.	Shrub	patches	may	be	present	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-71 September 2014 

 

within	 any	 of	 these	 zones.	 Species	 common	 to	 the	 emergent	 zone	 include	 pickerelweed,	 bulltongue	

arrowhead,	 cattail,	 sawgrass,	 burr	 marigold,	 and	 softstem	 bulrush.	 Maidencane,	 sand	 cordgrass,	

sweetscent,	 mild	 waterpepper,	 and	 blue	 waterhyssop	 are	 species	 common	 to	 the	 transitional	 zone.	

Carolina	willow,	common	buttonbush,	and	wax	myrtle	are	common	shrubby	components.	

Wet Prairie 

Wet	Prairie	is	characterized	as	a	shallow,	usually	rounded	depression	in	sand	substrate	with	herbaceous	

vegetation	 or	 shrubs	 and	 a	 relatively	 short	 hydroperiod.	 Wet	 prairies	 typically	 occur	 in	 landscapes	

occupied	by	fire‐maintained	communities	such	as	mesic	flatwoods,	dry	prairie,	or	sandhill.	Zonation,	seen	

as	concentric	bands	of	vegetation,	is	related	to	the	length	of	the	hydroperiod	and	depth	of	flooding.	The	

outer	 zone	 is	 often	 occupied	 by	 herbaceous	 vegetation	 or	 shrubs	 consisting	 of	 bushy	 bluestem,	

beaksedges,	yelloweyed	grass,	blue	maidencane,	myrtleleaf	St.	John’s	wort,	sand	cordgrass,	roundpod,	

and	bogbutton.	The	deeper	zones	commonly	consist	of	purple	bluestem, peelbark	St.	John’s	wort,	water	

toothleaf,	Baldwin’s	spikerush,	maidencane,	bulltongue	arrowhead,	or	sawgrass.	

Emergent Aquatic Vegetation 

Emergent	 aquatic	 vegetation	 is	 a	 deep	 marsh	 dominated	 by	 emergent,	 floating,	 and	 submerged	

herbaceous	vegetation.	A	shallow	transitional	zone	is	present	at	the	wetland	edge.	This	type	of	wetland	

typically	 exhibits	 a	 longer	 hydroperiod	 than	 the	 freshwater	 marsh.	 Alligator	 flag,	 pickerelweed,	

bulltongue	arrowhead,	giant	cutgrass,	softstem	bulrush,	and	Kissimmeegrass	are	common	species	where	

emergent	vegetation	is	present.	Deeper	areas	may	contain	floating	and	submerged	aquatic	plants	such	as	

American	white	waterlily,	 big	 floating	heart,	 spatterdock,	 frog’s	bit,	and	 bladderworts.	Exotic	 floating	

species	 such	 as	 water	 hyacinth	 and	 water‐lettuce	 have	 become	 common	 components	 of	 the	 floating	

vegetation	community	in	Florida.	

Treeless Hydric Savanna 

Treeless	Hydric	Savanna	is	a	shrub	and	grass	dominated	hydric	flatland	although	this	FLUCCS	code	is	

often	applied	to	any	shrub	dominated	wetland	system.	Within	the	Project	Study	Area	these	shrub	systems	

are	found	in	wet	areas	which	have	been	disturbed	by	human	activities	and	are	typically	dominated	by	

Carolina	willow,	wax	myrtle,	elderberry,	and	false‐willow.		

Wildlife Habitat 

Wetlands	 and	 waterbodies	 capable	 of	 supporting	 fish	 and/or	 shellfish	 populations	 are	 important	 in	

maintaining	diversity	and	abundance	within	the	aquatic	community.	Other	wetland	characteristics	that	

contribute	to	the	health	of	the	aquatic	species	populations	include	water	quality	improvement,	cover	and	

shelter,	forage	resources,	spawning	and	nursery	areas,	and	connectivity	between	water	resources.	

There	are	specific	habitats	within	the	Project	Study	Area	that	are	valuable	to	maintaining	viable	aquatic	

species	communities.	Red	mangroves	located	along	the	tidal	streams	and	rivers	crossing	the	N‐S	Corridor	

are	important	fish	nursery	areas,	which	support	many	species	of	fish	and	shellfish.	Much	of	this	area	has	

been	 designated	 as	 Essential	 Fish	 Habitat	 (EFH)	 by	 the	 National	 Marine	 Fisheries	 Service	 (NMFS).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-72 September 2014 

 

Seagrass	and	oyster	beds	located	within	these	estuarine	areas	also	provide	aquatic	wildlife	habitat	as	well	

and	nurseries	for	shellfish.	

Large,	undisturbed	wetlands	are	generally	considered	to	provide	important	wildlife	habitat	functions.	Other	

factors	that	contribute	to	the	provision	of	important	wildlife	habitat	include	the	proximity	to	undisturbed	

upland	wildlife	habitat,	vegetation	species	and	structural	diversity,	and	foraging	opportunities.	Wetlands	

that	are	contiguous	to	other	wetland	areas	may	serve	as	travel	corridors	for	many	species	of	wildlife.	A	large	

number	of	species	are	dependent	on	wetlands	at	some	point	in	their	life	cycle.	

Wetland	wildlife	habitat	within	 the	maintained	areas	of	 the	SR	528	right‐of‐way	is	limited,	but	many	

species	will	forage	within	stormwater	management	ponds,	swales,	and	ditches.	Outside	the	maintained	

areas	of	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way,	wetlands	provide	higher	quality	habitat	although	many	of	these	areas	

consist	of	ecotones	between	the	natural	wetland	ecosystem	and	the	cleared	roadway	and	may	exhibit	

primary	 or	 secondary	 successional	 vegetation	 communities	 reducing	 their	 overall	 value	 as	 wildlife	

habitat.	 Beyond	 the	 ecotones	 much	 of	 the	 existing	 wetland	 habitat	 consists	 of	 virtually	 undisturbed	

wetlands	with	developed	communities	which	provide	habitat	for	a	diversity	of	wildlife	species.	

Much	of	the	wetland	habitat	located	within	the	E‐W	Corridor	in	Orange	County	outside	of	the	existing	

SR	528	right‐of‐way	is	undisturbed	and	provides	high	quality	wildlife	habitat.	Barriers	between	habitats	

provided	 by	 either	 fences	 along	 the	 SR	 528	 right‐of‐way	 boundary	 or	 created	 by	 ecotones	 between	

disturbed	and	undisturbed	habitat	are	limited	and	allow	more	natural	connectivity	between	and	within	

existing	habitats.	

4.3.4 Floodplains 

	A	floodplain	is	defined	as	any	land	area	susceptible	to	being	inundated	by	floodwaters	from	any	water	

source	(44	CFR	part	59),	whereas	the	100‐year	floodplain	is	the	area	of	land	inundated	by	a	flood	event	

that	has	a	1	percent	chance	of	being	equaled	or	exceeded	in	any	given	year	(FEMA	2013a).	Floodplains	

are	designated	and	regulated	by	the	Federal	Emergency	Management	Agency	(FEMA)	with	standards	

outlined	in	44	CFR	Part	60.3.	Executive	Order	(EO)	11988,	Floodplain Management,	requires	agencies	to	

assess	 the	 impacts	 that	 their	 actions	 may	 have	 on	 floodplains	 and	 to	 consider	 alternatives	 to	 avoid	

adverse	 impacts	 and	 incompatible	 development	 on	 floodplains.	 U.S.	 Department	 of	 Transportation	

(USDOT)	Order	5650.2,	Floodplain Management and Protection,	contains	the	Department’s	implementing	

procedures	to	fulfill	the	requirements	of	the	EO.	

4.3.4.1 Methodology 

For	this	analysis,	the	areas	subject	to	flooding	and	protected	under	EO	11988	were	obtained	using	the	

base	 flood	 elevation	 published	 on	 FEMA’s	 Flood	 Insurance	 Rate	Maps	 (FIRMs)	 through	 GIS	 analysis.	

Special	Flood	Hazard	Areas	depicted	on	the	FIRMs	include	Flood	Zones	A	or	V,	also	referred	to	as	the	

100‐year	 floodplain.	 For	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor,	a	 100‐foot	 buffer	was	 used	 on	each	 side	 of	 the	 proposed	

60‐foot‐wide	right‐of‐way	to	identify	floodplain	locations	within	the	corridor.	For	the	segments	that	were	

missing	right‐of‐way	data,	an	average	distance	of	150	feet	from	the	rail	centerline	was	used	in	the	analysis.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-73 September 2014 

 

4.3.4.2 Affected Environment 

According	to	the	FIRMs	and	GIS	analysis,	the	Project	Study	Area	contains	Zone	A	(the	100‐year	floodplain)	

and	Zone	X	(the	500‐year	floodplain).	As	summarized	below,	portions	of	the	Project	Study	Area	within	

the	 MCO	 Segment,	 E‐W	 Corridor,	 and	 N‐S	 Corridor	 would	 be	 located	 within	 the	 existing	 100‐year	

floodplain.	 Figure	 4.3.4‐1	 depicts	 the	extent	 of	 the	 100‐year	 floodplain	within	 the	MCO	Segment	and	

E‐W	Corridor,	and	Figure	4.3.4‐2	depicts	the	extent	of	the	100‐year	floodplain	within	the	N‐S	Corridor.	

Table	4.3.4‐1	provides	a	summary	of	the	total	acreage	within	each	segment	or	corridor	within	the	existing	

100‐year	floodplain.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-74 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-75 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-76 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.4-1 Project Study Area within the Existing 100-year Floodplain 

Element Area within 100-year Floodplain (acres) 

MCO Segment 117 

E-W Corridor 332 

N-S Corridor 472 

WPB-M Corridor 145 

The	E‐W	Corridor	and	N‐S	Corridor	also	cross	regulated	 floodways.	A	regulated	 floodway	“means	the	

channel	of	a	river	or	other	watercourse	and	the	adjacent	land	areas	that	must	be	reserved	in	order	to	

discharge	 the	 base	 flood	 without	 cumulatively	 increasing	 the	 water	 surface	 elevation	 more	 than	 a	

designated	 height	 (FEMA	 2013b).”	 The	 regulated	 floodways	 are	 also	 depicted	 on	 Figures	 4.3.4‐1	

and	4.3.4‐2.	Table	4.3.4‐2	provides	a	summary	of	the	floodways	within	these	corridors.		

Section	205	of	the	Flood	Control	Act	of	1948,	as	amended,	provides	a	continuing	authority	for	the	USACE	

to	 develop	 and	 construct	 small	 flood	 control	 projects	 without	 the	 need	 of	 specific	 congressional	

authorization.	The	 Jacksonville	District	began	implementation	 of	 the	Central	and	South	 Florida	 Flood	

Control	 Project	 (CS&F)	 in	 the	 1950s.	 Since	 that	 time	 the	 Jacksonville	 District	 and	 its	 partners	 have	

established	 flood	control,	water	conservation	and	control,	saltwater	intrusion,	 fish	and	wildlife,	water	

supply	to	Everglades	National	Park,	and	environmental	restoration.	Features	implemented	by	the	CS&F	

project	include	46	bridges,	10	locks,	670	miles	of	canals,	809	miles	of	levees,	130	control	and	diversion	

structures,	and	16	pump	stations.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-77 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.4-2 Floodway Crossings within the Project Study Area 

Floodway Corridor County FEMA Flood Zone 

Econolockhatchee River E-W Orange AE 

St Johns River E-W Orange/Brevard AE 

Jim Creek E-W Brevard A 

Second Creek E-W Brevard A 

Taylor Creek E-W Brevard AE 

Turkey Creek N-S Brevard AE 

Crane Creek N-S Brevard AE 

Eau Gallie N-S Brevard AE 

Goat Creek N-S Brevard AE 

Horse Creek N-S Brevard AE 

South Canal N-S Indian River AE 

Main Canal N-S Indian River AE 

North Canal N-S Indian River AE 

Taylors Creek N-S St Lucie VE 

St. Sebastian River N-S St Lucie AE 

Moore’s Creek N-S St Lucie AE 

Tributary To Manatee Creek N-S Martin X500 

Tributary To Manatee Creek N-S Martin AE 

Unnamed Tributary N-S Martin AE 

Unnamed Tributary N-S Martin AE 

Warner Creek N-S Martin AE 

No Name N-S Martin AE 

Earman River N-S Palm Beach AE 

Jupiter River N-S Palm Beach AE 

St. Lucie River N-S Palm Beach AE 

Source: St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 2012. SJRWMD Waterbodies. 

http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed September 27, 2013; South Florida Water Management 

District (SFWMD). 2012. Water Body. http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?query=unq_id=1959. 

Accessed September 27, 2013. 

The	Project	Study	Area	will	cross	eight	existing	federal	projects	listed	in	table	4.3.4‐3	below.	Seven	of	

these	are	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	These	federal	projects	are	for	flood	control	purposes,	which	only	

have	a	canal	feature	to	convey	the	flood	waters	away	from	the	protected	areas.		

Table 4.3.4-3 Federal Flood Control Projects Within the Project Study Area 

County Federal Project Name Local Name Project Corridor 

St. Lucie C-25 Taylor Creek N-S 

Palm Beach C-17 Earman River WPB-M 

Palm Beach C-51 C-51 Canal WPB-M 

Palm Beach C-16 Boynton Beach Canal WPB-M 

Palm Beach C-15 Hidden Valley Canal WPB-M 

Broward C-14 Un-named WPB-M 

Broward C-13 Un-named WPB-M 

Miami-Dade C-9 Un-named WPB-M 

Source: USACE 2013 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-78 September 2014 

 

4.3.5 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems 

This	section	describes	biological	resources,	including	fish,	wildlife	and	plants,	present	within	the	Project	

Study	Area,	in	accordance	with	CEQ	guidance	Incorporating Biodiversity ConsiderationsInto Environmental

ImpactAnalysisUnder theNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct	(CEQ	1993).	This	section	includes	a	description	

of	natural	upland	habitats,	important	wildlife	habitats,	migratory	bird	habitats,	and	EFH.	

4.3.5.1 Methodology 

Habitats	were	characterized	based	on	a	desktop	review	of	readily	available	information	regarding	natural	

and	disturbed	upland	vegetation	and	habitat.	Evaluated	resource	material	included,	but	was	not	limited	to,	

the	FLUCCS	maps	(FDOT	1999),	USDA	NRCS	soil	survey	maps	(USDA	2013),	FNAI	natural	communities	data	

(FNAI	2013),	and	land	use	data	from	WMDs	(SJRWMD	2009;	SFWMD	2008),	in	addition	to	high	altitude	

aerial	imagery	 supplemented	 by	 satellite	imagery.	 Information	 regarding	 upland	 vegetation	land	 cover	

types,	wildlife	corridors,	habitat	quality,	and	biodiversity	within	the	Project	Study	Area	was	also	reviewed.	

Upland	habitats	were	identified	utilizing	WMD	land	use	data	that	were	identified	to	FLUCCS	Level	II	for	

generally	anthropogenic	land	uses	and	 to	FLUCCS	Level	 III	primarily	 for	natural	habitats	(FDOT	1999).	

Factors	considered	in	assessing	the	relative	condition	of	uplands	included,	but	were	not	limited	to:		

 Location	and	use	of	the	upland	(whether	the	upland	is	currently	natural,	or	has	the	upland	been	

impacted	by	non‐natural	land	uses	such	as	residential,	commercial,	industrial,	agriculture,	and	

transportation);	

 Size	of	the	upland	(whether	the	upland	is	located	within/adjacent	to	the	Project	Study	Area	part	

of	a	large	contiguous	upland,	or	is	it	isolated);	

 Uniqueness;	

 Presence	of	known	and	proposed	wildlife	corridors,	habitat	preserves,	and	wildlife	sanctuaries;	

 Protected	species	(whether	the	upland	provides	required	conditions/habitat	for	protected	plant	

and	animal	species);	and	

 Level	 of	 disturbance	 (whether	 the	 upland	 is	 disturbed	 by	 the	 existing	 rail	 and/or	 other	

transportation	or	land	use).	

NMFS’s	 EFH Mapper	 database	 (NOAA	 2013),	 literature	 review	 (South	 Atlantic	 Fishery	 Management	

Council	 1998a	 and	 1998b;	 NMFS	 2004	 and	 2008)	 and	 on‐site	 investigation,	 as	 well	 as	 information	

provided	by	NMFS	(Howard	2013)	were	used	to	generate	a	list	of	species	groups	with	designated	EFH	

within	 the	N‐S	Corridor	(including	all	bridges	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach	and	bridges	with	

proposed	in‐water	construction	between	West	Palm	Beach	and	Miami).	

Habitat	was	evaluated	at	 the	bridge	 sites	 to	identify	habitats	listed	in	 “Appendix	6:	Summary	 of	EFH	

Requirements	 for	 Species	 Managed	 by	 the	 SAFMC”	 of	 Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat

National Mandate for Federal Agencies	provided	as	Appendix	4.3.5‐A	(NMFS	2010).	

Snorkeling	surveys	were	conducted	at	each	of	the	potential	impact	areas	to	evaluate	the	type	and	quality	

of	aquatic	habitats	and	associated	substrates	(submerged	aquatic	vegetation	[SAV]	and	oyster	beds/shell	

bottom)	 for	 EFH	 determinations.	 The	 purpose	 of	 the	 benthic	 survey	 was	 to	 characterize	 the	 bottom	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-79 September 2014 

 

composition	as	well	as	evaluate	the	presence	of	rooted	seagrass	beds,	oyster	beds	(live	or	dead),	sponges,	

and	other	benthic	colonizing	organisms.	Benthic	surveys	were	performed	at	each	Bridge	Study	Area	in	

accordance	with	the	NMFS	guidance	for	assessing	small	project	sites	less	than	or	equal	to	1	hectare	(NOAA	

2012).	The	bottom	survey	included	a	center	line	transect	beneath	the	existing	bridge	structure	as	well	as	

transects	on	both	the	east	and	west	sides	of	the	existing	bridge	structures.	As	part	of	the	in‐water	seagrass	

survey	 protocol,	 if	 seagrasses	 were	 determined	 to	 be	 rooted	 within	 the	 bridge	 project	 area,	 patch	

distribution	was	delineated	and	quantified.	Appendix	4.3.5‐A,	EFHAssessmentReport,	provides	additional	

details	of	the	sampling	methods	and	results.	

4.3.5.2 Affected Environment 

Natural Upland Habitats 

Uplands	present	within	the	Project	Study	Area	include	natural	habitats	that	are	relatively	undisturbed	by	

human	 activity	 and	 anthropogenic	 land	 uses	 that	 include	 commercial	 and	 residential	 developments,	

industrial,	agriculture,	mining.	Natural	 upland	 habitats	within	 the	 Project	Study	Area	were	identified	

according	to	the	FLUCCS	Level	III,	as	appropriate,	and	are	provided	in	Table	4.3.5‐1.	Many	of	these	natural	

habitats	are	relatively	undisturbed	by	human	activity	although	habitats	present	within	developed	areas	

have	experienced	varying	levels	of	disturbance.	

The	 natural	 upland	 habitats	 located	 within	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 are	 listed	 in	 Table	 4.3.5‐1.	 Brief	

descriptions	including	vegetation	and	wildlife	information	for	the	upland	habitat	categories	are	detailed	

in	the	sections	below.	Table	4.3.5‐2	provides	a	list	of	common	plant	species	found	in	these	communities.	

Table	4.3.5‐3	provides	a	list	of	common	wildlife	species	found	in	upland	habitats.	

Table 4.3.5-1 Existing Natural Upland Communities Located Within and Adjacent to the Project 

Study Area 

FLUCCS Code FLUCCS Description 

310 Herbaceous (Dry Prairie) 

320 Shrubs and Brushland 

321 Palmetto Prairie 

322 Coastal Scrub 

330 Mixed Rangeland 

411 Pine Flatwoods 

413 Sand Pine 

420 Hardwood Forests 

421 Xeric Oak 

422 Brazilian Pepper 

424 Melaleuca 

427 Live Oak 

428 Cabbage Palm 

434 Hardwood – Coniferous Mixed 

437 Australian Pines 

Source: FDOT. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) – Handbook. 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf. January 2013. Accessed August 7, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-80 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.5-2 Common Upland Plant Species 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Andropogon spp. Bluegrass, Bluestem 

Aristida stricta var. beyrichiana Wiregrass 

Celtis laevigata Sugarberry 

Ceratiola ericoides Florida rosemary 

Dichanthelium spp. Witchgrass 

Gaylussacia dumosa Dwarf huckleberry 

Ilex glabra gallberry 

Lyonia spp. Fetterbush 

Myrica cerifera Wax myrtle 

Panicum spp. Panic grass 

Quercus geminate Sand live oak 

Quercus minima Dwarf live oak 

Rhus coppalinum Winged sumac 

Serenoa repens Saw palmetto 

Vaccinium arboretum Sparkleberry 

Vaccinium myrsinites Shiny blueberry 

Table 4.3.5-3 Key Upland Wildlife Species 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Florida grasshopper sparrow 

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub jay 

Athene cunicularia floridana Florida burrowing owl 

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake 

Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite 

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American kestrel 

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise 

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle 

Lampropeltis extenuata Short-tailed snake 

Lithobates capito Gopher frog 

Neoseps reynoldsi Sand skink 

Peromyscus polionotus Beach mouse 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker 

Pituopsis melanolucus mugitus Florida pine snake 

Podomys floridanus Florida mouse 

Polyborus plancus Audubon’s crested caracara 

Puma concolor coryi Florida panther 

Sciurus niger avicennia Big cypress fox squirrel 

Sciurus niger shermani Sherman’s fox squirrel 

Ursus americanus floridus Florida black bear 

Herbaceous (Dry Prairie) 

Herbaceous	(dry	prairie)	habitat	within	the	E‐W	Corridor	and	N‐S	Corridor	is	located	within	the	Project	

Study	Area	in	Orange,	Brevard,	Martin,	Indian	River,	and	St.	Lucie	Counties.	Dry	prairie	typically	lacks	

trees	and	displays	a	variety	of	herbaceous	vegetation	including	grasses,	rushes,	sedges,	and	low	shrubs.	

The	dry	prairie	typically	occupies	large,	level	expanses	of	land.	Communities	sometimes	present	with	dry	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-81 September 2014 

 

prairie	include	islands	of	xeric	or	mesic	flatwoods,	small	depression	wetlands,	wet	prairies,	and	live	oak	

hammocks.	 This	 habitat	 is	 typically	 dominated	 by	 grasses	 and	 herbs	 such	 as	 wiregrass,	 bottlebrush	

threeawn,	 bluestem,	 lopsided	 indiangrass,	 panicgrass,	 yellow‐eyed	 grass,	 milkwort,	 witchgrass,	

narrowleaf	silkgrass,	goldenrod,	and	slender	flattop	goldenrod.	Scattered	shrubs	and	subshrubs	found	

within	dry	prairies	typically	include	saw	palmetto,	dwarf	live	oak,	gallberry,	fetterbush,	shiny	blueberry,	

pawpaw,	Atlantic	St.	John's	wort,	wax	myrtle,	and	dwarf	huckleberry.	

Key	wildlife	species	which	inhabit	dry	prairie	include	several	bird	species	that	prefer	open	habitat	with	

low	 groundcover	 such	 as	 Florida	 grasshopper	 sparrow,	 Florida	 burrowing	 owl,	 Audubon’s	 crested	

caracara,	white‐tailed	kite,	Florida	sandhill	crane,	and	southeastern	American	kestrel.	Other	important	

wildlife	species	include	gopher	tortoise,	eastern	indigo	snake,	Florida	mouse,	and	gopher	frog.	

Shrub and Brushland 

Shrub	and	brushland	is	a	Level	II	category,	which	includes	three	shrub	dominated	communities:	palmetto	

prairie,	coastal	scrub,	and	other	shrubs	and	brush.	This	Level	II	category	is	often	applied	to	shrub	areas	

for	 which	 the	 dominant	 species	 cannot	 be	 identified	 on	 aerial	 photography.	 The	 E‐W	 Corridor	 and	

N‐S	 Corridor	 traverse	 this	land	 cover	 type	in	all	 six	 counties.	Dominant	 shrubs	within	 these	 habitats	

include	saw	palmetto,	wax	myrtle,	gallberry,	sand	live	oak,	sea	grape,	false‐willow,	and	Brazilian	pepper.	

This	land	use	category	includes	both	undisturbed	natural	habitats	and	habitats	undergoing	successional	

ecosystem	development	subsequent	to	a	historical	disturbance.	

Key	wildlife	species	that	inhabit	shrub	and	brushland	habitats	include	gopher	tortoise,	eastern	indigo	

snake,	Florida	mouse,	and	gopher	frog.	Florida	black	bear	may	also	utilize	large	tracts	of	these	habitats	

for	foraging	and	migration.	

Palmetto Prairie 

Palmetto	prairie	is	a	saw	palmetto	dominated	habitat	common	to	peninsular	Florida.	Shrub	species	which	

may	be	present	in	addition	to	saw	palmetto	include	wax	myrtle,	gallberry,	winged	sumac,	sand	live	oak,	

shiny	blueberry,	fetterbush,	and	pawpaw.	Groundcover	is	present	in	the	spaces	between	palmettos	and	

includes	 wiregrass,	 bottlebrush	 threeawn,	 bluestem,	 lopsided	 indiangrass,	 yellow‐eyed	 grass,	 and	

narrowleaf	goldenrod.	

Coastal Scrub 

Coastal	 scrub	 is	 found	 within	 the	 coastal	 zone	 associated	 with	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor.	 The	 community	

composition	is	strongly	influenced	by	physical	factors	attributed	to	proximity	with	the	sea	include	wind	

and	salt	spray.	It	usually	develops	as	a	band	between	beach	dunes	along	the	coast,	and	maritime	hammock	

or	mangrove	swamp	communities	further	inland.	On	barrier	islands	it	also	occurs	as	patches	of	shrubs	

within	coastal	grasslands.	Typical	components	of	the	shrub	stratum	of	this	habitat	include	saw	palmetto,	

sand	live	oak,	sea	grape,	Spanish	bayonet,	myrsine,	buttonsage,	white	indigoberry,	Spanish	stopper,	wild	

lime,	 coinvine,	 and	 gray	 nicker.	 Common	 groundcover	 species	 include	 seaoats,	 railroad	 vine,	 coral	

dropseed,	and	seashore	paspalum.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-82 September 2014 

 

Scrub	occurring	near	the	coast	is	important	habitat	for	endangered	beach	mice	populations	during	and	

after	storm	events	that	destroy	the	fore‐dunes.	Coastal	scrub	is	also	important	for	gopher	tortoise.	

Mixed Rangeland 

Mixed	rangeland	includes	habitat	composed	of	an	intermixture	(greater	than	33	percent	composition)	of	

both	dry	prairie	or	shrub	dominated	habitats	(FDOT	1999).	The	Project	Study	Area	includes	this	habitat	

type	within	Orange,	Brevard,	Indian	River,	and	St.	Lucie	Counties.	The	natural	community	within	this	land	

cover	type	includes	grasses,	forbs,	and	shrubs	that	provide	grazing	opportunities	as	well	as	a	mix	of	the	

vegetation	described	for	herbaceous	(dry	prairie)	and	palmetto	prairie.	

Pine Flatwoods 

Pine	flatwoods	typically	has	an	open	canopy	of	tall	pines	and	dense	groundcover	of	low	shrubs,	grasses,	

and	forbs.	In	northern	and	central	Florida	longleaf	pine	and	slash	pine	are	the	dominant	canopy	species.	

In	south	Florida	the	canopy	is	typically	dominated	by	south	Florida	slash	pine.	The	shrub	stratum	consists	

of	saw	palmetto,	 fetterbush,	tarflower,	and	winged	sumac.	Subshrubs	include	dwarf	live,	running	oak,	

shiny	blueberry,	Darrow's	blueberry,	and	dwarf	huckleberry.	The	herbaceous	layer	consists	primarily	of	

grasses,	including	wiregrass,	dropseed,	witchgrasses,	panicgrass,	and	bluestem	among	others.	Typical	

forbs	include	goldenrod,	slender	flattop	goldenrod,	chaffhead,	and	gayfeather.	

Listed	wildlife	species	found	in	pine	flatwoods	in	the	Project	Study	Area	include	the	eastern	indigo	snake,	

grasshopper	sparrow,	red‐cockaded	woodpecker,	Florida	pine	snake,	Sherman’s	fox	squirrel,	Big	Cypress	

fox	squirrel,	and	Florida	black	bear.	Dry	pine	flatwoods	may	also	be	utilized	by	Florida	mouse,	Florida	

scrub‐jay,	gopher	tortoise,	and	associated	species	such	as	the	gopher	frog.	Bald	eagles	will	nest	in	pine	

trees	near	water	bodies	within	pine	flatwoods.	

Sand Pine 

Sand	Pine	occurs	in	xeric	habitats	and	has	an	open	canopy	of	widely	spaced	sand	pine	with	an	understory	

consisting	of	low	grasses	and	shrubs.	Other	canopy	species	may	include	turkey	oak	and	long	leaf	pine.	

The	shrub	layer	consists	of	saw	palmetto,	rusty	staggerbush,	and	scrub	oak	species.	Common	subshrubs	

include	 dwarf	 live	 oak,	 running	 oak,	 dwarf	 huckleberry,	 gopher	 apple,	 Adam’s	 needle,	 and	 shiny	

blueberry.	 Grasses	 include	 wiregrass,	 bluestem,	 and	 little	 bluestem.	 Forbs	 include	 coastal	 plain	

honeycomb	head,	narrowleaf	silkgrass,	October	flower,	and	pricklypear.	Key	wildlife	species	are	similar	

to	those	species	utilizing	pine	flatwoods.	

Upland Hardwood Forests 

Upland	 hardwood	 forest	 includes	 any	 natural	 forest	 stand	 with	 a	 canopy	 providing	 greater	 than	

10	percent	cover	that	is	dominated	(greater	than	66	percent)	by	hardwood	tree	species	(FDOT	1999).	

The	 Project	 Study	 Area	includes	 upland	 hardwood	 forest	in	Orange,	 Brevard,	 Indian	 River,	 St.	 Lucie,	

Martin,	and	Palm	Beach	Counties.	

A	wide	variety	of	wildlife	species	utilize	upland	hardwood	forests	including	Florida	black	bear,	eastern	

indigo	snake,	Audubon’s	crested	caracara,	Florida	panther,	Sherman’s	fox	squirrel,	and	Big	Cypress	fox	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-83 September 2014 

 

squirrel.	Bald	eagles	utilize	pine	trees	found	within	hardwood	forest	or	hardwood	–	coniferous	mixed	

forest	for	nesting.	

Xeric Oak 

Xeric	oak,	also	called	scrub,	is	a	community	composed	of	evergreen	shrubs	and	is	found	on	dry,	infertile,	

sandy	 ridges.	 This	 habitat	 is	 dominated	 by	 three	 shrub	 oak	 species,	 myrtle	 oak,	 sand	 live	 oak,	 and	

Chapman’s	oak.	Associated	shrub	species	include	rusty	staggerbush	and	saw	palmetto.	Florida	rosemary	

and	sand	pine	may	also	be	present.	The	overall	structure	of	this	habitat	consists	of	a	dense	shrub	layer	

with	patches	of	open	ground	with	patchy	cover	of	grasses	and	herbs.	Herbaceous	species	are	typically	

dominated	by	threeawn,	sedges,	and	subshrubs	such	as	pinweed	and	jointweed,	and	ground	lichens.	

Central	Florida	scrub	habitat	is	utilized	by	a	number	of	listed	wildlife	species	including	several	found	only	

on	the	Lake	Wales	Ridge	(not	within	the	Project	Study	Area).	Additional	species	endemic	to	scrub	and	

other	xeric	habitats	in	Florida	include	the	sand	skink,	Florida	mouse,	and	the	short‐tailed	snake.	Scrub	is	

also	important	for	gopher	tortoise.	

Brazilian Pepper 

Brazilian	pepper	is	dominated	by	the	exotic	hardwood	species	Brazilian	pepper.	Brazilian	pepper	creates	

dense	pure	stands	with	little	light	penetration	and	sparse	groundcover	vegetation.	This	habitat	is	usually	

found	in	areas	disturbed	by	human	activity	or	natural	process	such	as	wildfire,	although	Brazilian	pepper	

has	been	documented	as	a	highly	invasive	species	and	can	completely	overgrow	native	habitats.	Brazilian	

pepper	has	historically	been	utilized	as	an	ornamental	landscape	species	in	Florida.	

Melaleuca 

Melaleuca	is	 dominated	 by	 the	 exotic	 hardwood	 species	melaleuca.	 Like	 Brazilian	 pepper,	melaleuca	

creates	dense	pure	stands	with	little	light	penetration	and	sparse	groundcover	vegetation.	This	habitat	is	

usually	 found	in	areas	disturbed	by	human	activity	or	natural	process	such	as	wildfire.	Melaleuca	has	

been	documented	as	a	highly	invasive	species	and	can	completely	overgrow	native	habitats.	Melaleuca	

has	historically	been	utilized	as	an	ornamental	landscape	species	in	Florida.	

Live Oak 

Live	oak	is	a	mesic	upland	hammock	dominated	by	live	oak.	Associated	canopy	species	include	laurel	oak,	

water	oak,	and	sand	live	oak.	Cabbage	palm,	southern	magnolia,	and	pignut	hickory	may	occasionally	be	

present	 in	 the	 subcanopy.	 The	 shrubby	 understory	 is	 typically	 composed	 of	 a	 mix	 of	 saw	 palmetto,	

American	beautyberry,	gallberry,	sparkleberry,	highbush	blueberry,	and	wax	myrtle.	The	herb	layer	is	

often	 sparse	 or	 patchy	 due	 to	 a	 dense	 canopy	 and	 subcanopy,	 including	 panicgrass,	 witchgrasses,	

woodsgrass,	longleaf	woodoats,	and	tailed	bracken.	

Cabbage Palm 

Cabbage	 palm	 is	 a	 mesic	 upland	 hammock	 dominated	 by	 cabbage	 palm.	 Associated	 canopy	 species	

include	live	oak,	laurel	oak,	water	oak,	southern	magnolia,	and	pignut.	The	shrubby	understory	is	typically	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-84 September 2014 

 

composed	 of	 a	 mix	 of	 saw	 palmetto,	 American	 beautyberry,	 gallberry,	 sparkleberry,	 and	 highbush	

blueberry.	Tropical	shrubs	such	as	Simpson’s	stopper,	myrsine,	and	wild	coffee	are	common	in	south	

Florida	 mesic	 hammocks.	 The	 groundcover	 is	 often	 sparse	 or	 patchy	 due	 to	 a	 dense	 canopy	 and	

subcanopy	and	includes	panicgrass,	witchgrass,	woodsgrass,	longleaf	woodoats,	and	tailed	bracken.	

Hardwood – Coniferous Mixed 

Hardwood	–	Coniferous	Mixed	is	typically	a	closed‐canopy	forest	with	a	diverse	mixture	of	coniferous	and	

hardwood	 tree	 species	 on	mesic	 soils.	 Characteristic	 canopy	 trees	include	 southern	magnolia,	 pignut	

hickory,	sweetgum,	live	oak,	laurel	oak,	water	oak,	slash	pine,	cabbage	palm,	red	maple,	American	elm,	

longleaf	 pine,	 and	 sugarberry.	 Typical	 shrubs	 species	 include	 saw	 palmetto,	 American	 beautyberry,	

sparkleberry,	and	wax	myrtle,	among	others.	The	groundcover	is	composed	of	shade	 tolerant	species	

such	as	Virginia	creeper,	muscadine	grape,	tailed	bracken,	and	saw	greenbriar.	

Australian Pines 

Australian	pines	is	dominated	by	the	exotic	Australian	pine	species.	Like	Brazilian	pepper	and	melaleuca,	

Australian	pine	creates	dense	pure	stands	with	little	light	penetration	and	sparse	groundcover	vegetation.	

This	 habitat	 is	 usually	 found	 in	 areas	 disturbed	 by	 human	 activity	 although	 Australian	 pine	 has	

historically	been	utilized	to	stabilize	beaches	and	provide	shade	in	coastal	recreational	areas	in	Florida.	

Preserves, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Wildlife Corridors 

Although	the	existing	transportation	corridors,	including	SR	528	and	the	FECR	Corridor,	do	not	provide	

important	wildlife	habitat	and	present	a	barrier	 to	wildlife	movement	within	 the	Project	Study	Area,	

several	 preserves,	 sanctuaries,	 and	 wildlife	 corridors	 important	 to	 upland	 biodiversity	 are	 present	

adjacent	to	the	corridors.		

Hal Scott Regional Preserve 

The	Hal	Scott	Regional	Preserve	(HSR	Preserve)	is	located	in	eastern	Orange	County,	southeast	of	Orlando	

and	north	of	SR	528.	The	preserve	was	established	as	part	of	the	mitigation	for	beltway	construction	in	

the	southern	part	of	Orange	County.	County	funding	provided	the	partnership	to	establish	this	regional	

preserve,	which	protects	the	natural	resources	of	the	Econlockhatchee	River.	

The Florida Wildlife Corridor 

The	Florida	Wildlife	Corridor	project	is	a	collaborative	effort	to	connect	natural	lands,	waters,	forests,	

working	farms,	and	ranches	from	the	Everglades	to	Georgia,	protecting	a	functional	ecological	corridor.	

The	goals	of	the	project	(Florida	Wildlife	Corridor	2013)	are:	

 Protect	 and	 restore	 habitat	 and	 migration	 corridors	 essential	 for	 the	 survival	 of	 the	 diverse	

wildlife	of	Florida,	including	wide‐ranging	species	such	as	panthers	and	black	bears;	

 Restore	water	levels	in	the	Everglades	and	maintain	the	water	supply	of	south	Florida;	

 Protect	the	St.	Johns	River	and	water	supply	for	central	and	north	Florida;	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-85 September 2014 

 

 Sustain	food	production,	economies,	and	cultural	legacies	of	working	ranches	and	farms;	

 Bolster	local	economies	through	opportunities	such	as	hunting,	fishing,	birdwatching,	and	other	

forms	of	eco‐tourism;		

 Provide	native	wildlife	and	plants	opportunities	to	adapt	to	a	changing	climate	and	sea	level	rise;	

and		

 Provide	 an	 important	 linkage	 within	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 (Figure	 4.3.5‐1)	 via	 the	 Florida	

Wildlife	Corridor	between	wildlife	habitat	areas	north	and	south	of	SR	528.	

Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area 

The	Tosohatchee	Wildlife	Management	Area	covers	30,701	acres	along	19	miles	of	the	St.	Johns	River	in	

eastern	Orange	County.	Dominant	natural	communities	include	 freshwater	marsh,	hardwood	swamp,	

mesic	hammocks,	pine	flatwoods,	cypress,	and	rivers	and	streams.	These	habitats,	and	those	of	adjacent	

public	lands,	are	essential	to	maintaining	water	quality	and	the	ecological	integrity	of	the	St.	Johns	River	

(FWC	2008).	

Helen and Allan Cruikshank Sanctuary 

The	Helen	and	Allan	Cruickshank	Sanctuary	is	part	of	the	Brevard	County	Environmentally	Endangered	

Lands	 (EEL)	 Program.	 The	 approximately	 140‐acre	 site	 is	 located	 in	 Rockledge,	 Florida.	 Natural	

communities	within	the	sanctuary	include	pine	flatwoods	and	sand	pine	along	with	other	upland	and	

wetland	habitats.	Approximately	1,000	feet	of	the	eastern	boundary	of	the	sanctuary	abuts	the	existing	

FECR	 Corridor	 between	 Mile	 Post	 (MP)	 176	 and	 177.	Wildlife	 species	 present	 within	 the	 sanctuary	

include	 migratory	 birds,	 Florida	 scrub‐jay,	 northern	 bobwhite,	 raptors,	 gopher	 tortoise,	 and	 eastern	

indigo	snake	(Brevard	County,	Florida	2013a).	

Jonathan Dickinson State Park 

The	11,500‐acre	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park	was	established	in	1950	and	is	located	south	of	Stuart	in	

Martin	 and	 Palm	 Beach	 Counties	 along	 the	 east	 end	 of	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River.	 Thirteen	 natural	

communities	are	found	within	the	park,	including	pine	flatwoods,	sand	pine	scrub,	mangrove	swamp,	and	

river	swamps.	The	Loxahatchee	River,	Florida's	 first	 federally	designated	Wild	and	Scenic	River,	runs	

through	the	park	(Florida	State	Parks	n.d.).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-86 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-87 September 2014 

 

Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge 

Hobe	Sound	National	Wildlife	Refuge,	established	in	September	1969,	is	a	coastal	refuge	located	in	Martin	

County	and	bisected	by	the	Indian	River	Lagoon	into	two	separate	tracts	of	land	totaling	over	1,000	acres.	

The	 735‐acre	 Jupiter	 Island	 tract	 located	 on	 the	 north	 half	 of	the	 island	 provides	 some	 of	 the	 most	

productive	 sea	 turtle	 nesting	 habitat	 in	 the	 United	 States.	 The	 300‐acre	 mainland	 tract	 located	

immediately	east	of	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park	is	dominated	by	the	native	sand	pine	scrub	habitat	

much	of	which	has	been	lost	to	development	in	Florida	(USFWS	2013c).	The	Project	Study	Area	is	adjacent	

to	the	west	boundary	of	the	mainland	tract.	

Hypoluxo Scrub Natural Area (Lantana) 

The	Hypoluxo	Scrub	Natural	Area	is	a	92‐acre	site	owned	and	managed	by	Palm	Beach	County.	This	

site	is	mostly	scrub	and	scrubby	flatwoods.	Most	of	the	site	was	cleared	in	the	early	1960s	and	the	

natural	communities	are	still	in	the	process	of	regenerating.	A	small	Florida	scrub‐jay	population	lives	

on	this	site	and	also	uses	several	nearby	smaller	scrub	sites.	

Seacrest Scrub Natural Area (Boynton Beach) 

The	Seacrest	Scrub	Natural	Area	is	a	54‐acre	site	owned	and	managed	by	Palm	Beach	County.	This	site	

is	predominantly	scrub	and	scrubby	flatwoods.	Most	of	the	area	was	cleared	in	the	1920s	for	pineapple	

farming	and	the	natural	communities	are	still	in	the	process	of	regenerating.	

Leon M. Weekes Environmental Preserve (Delray Beach) 

The	Leon	M.	Weekes	Environmental	Preserve	is	a	12‐acre	site	co‐owned	by	Palm	Beach	County	and	

the	Town	 of	Delray	Beach.	The	Preserve	is	managed	by	 the	Town	 of	Delray	Beach.	The	site	is	scrub	

habitat	with	paved	and	natural	trails.	The	old	sand	pine	scrub	burned	in	late	1990s	near	the	railroad	and	

now	is	mostly	occupied	by	scrub	oaks.	Gopher	tortoise	burrows	are	found	on	the	property.	

Rosemary Ridge Preserve (Boca Raton) 

The	Rosemary	Ridge	Preserve	is	a	7‐acre	site	owned	and	managed	by	the	City	of	Boca	Raton.	The	site	

consists	of	xeric	sand	pine	scrub.

Gopher Tortoise Preserve (Boca Raton) 

The	Gopher	Tortoise	Preserve	is	a	9‐acre	site	owned	and	managed	by	the	City	of	Boca	Raton.	The	site	

consists	of	xeric	sand	pine	scrub.

Highland Scrub Natural Area (Pompano Beach) 

The	Highland	Scrub	Natural	Area	is	a	34‐acre	site	owned	and	managed	by	Broward	County.	The	site	

consists	of	scrub	oak	and	sand	pine	and	is	considered	one	of	Broward	County’s	last	substantial	remaining	

sand	pine	scrub	communities.	The	site	is	characterized	by	loose	white	sand	with	a	canopy	of	sand	pine	

and	scrub	oak	and	a	subcanopy	of	saw	palmetto,	small	scrub	oaks,	gopher	apple,	and	prickly	pear	cactus.	

A	gopher	tortoise	was	identified	on	site	during	field	visits.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-88 September 2014 

 

Colohatchee Park (Wilton Manors) 

Colohatchee	Park	is	a	7‐acre	site	owned	and	managed	by	the	City	of	Wilton	Manors.	The	site	consists	of	

a	mangrove	preserve	along	the	Middle	River	dominated	by	red	and	white	mangroves.	

Greynolds Park (North Miami Beach) 

Greynolds	Park	is	a	241‐acre	site	owned	and	managed	by	Miami‐Dade	County.	Once	the	site	of	a	rock	

quarry,	 the	site	 consists	 of	a	 variety	of	 habitats,	including	 1	acre	of	 pineland,	18	acres	of	 hammock,	

26	acres	of	coastal	habitat,	and	31	acres	of	lake.	 The	hammock	is	one	of	the	last	well‐protected	natural	

areas	of	northern	Miami‐Dade	County.	

Oleta River State Park (North Miami) 

Oleta	River	State	Park	is	a	1,033‐acre	site	owned	by	Trustees	of	the	Internal	Improvement	Trust	Fund	

and	managed	by	FDEP.	Florida's	largest	urban	park,	Oleta	River	State	Park,	borders	the	north	shore	of	

Biscayne	Bay	and	contains	the	mouth	of	the	Oleta	River.	Along	the	Oleta	River,	at	the	north	end	of	the	

park,	a	large	stand	of	mangrove	forest	is	present.	The	bulk	of	the	uplands	are	dredge	spoil,	and	exotic	

species	are	a	major	problem,	but	natural	vegetation	has	reclaimed	468	acres	of	tidal	swamp.	

Arch Creek Park (North Miami Beach) 

Arch	Creek	Park	is	a	9‐acre	site	owned	and	managed	by	the	Miami‐	Dade	County.	The	site	consists	of	

7	acres	of	hammock	and	1	acre	of	coastal	habitat.	 The	park	was	created	around	a	natural	limestone	

bridge	formation	that	was	once	part	of	an	important	Indian	 trail	and	is	designated	as	a	Florida	State	

Historical	Preserve.	

Essential Fish Habitat 

EFH	is	defined	as	those	waters	and	substrates	necessary	to	support	fish	for	spawning,	breeding,	feeding,	or	

growth	to	maturity.	Reauthorization	of	the	Magnuson‐Stevens	Fishery	Conservation	and	Management	Act	

in	1966	required	NMFS	to	coordinate	with	federal	and	state	agencies,	resource	users,	and	others	to	protect,	

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

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

coasts	 of	 North	 Carolina,	 South	 Carolina,	 Georgia,	 and	 eastern	 Florida	 to	 Key	 West.	 SAFMC	 is	 also	

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

fisheries.	Implementation	of	the	regulations,	including	federal	management	of	permits	for	some	fisheries,	is	

the	responsibility	of	NMFS.	The	rule	also	identifies	Habitat	Areas	of	Particular	Concern	(HAPC).	HAPC	are	

subsets	of	EFH	that	are	particularly	important	to	the	long‐term	productivity	of	populations	of	one	or	more	

managed	species,	or	are	particularly	vulnerable	to	human	induced	degradation.		

There	are	no	EFHs	or	HAPCs	located	within	the	MCO	Segment	or	the	E‐W	Corridor.	EFH	and	HAPC	are	

located	within	the	N‐S	Corridor	associated	with	waterways	and	bridge	crossings.	EFH	for	sites	along	the	

FECR	 Corridor	 from	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 to	 Miami	 were	 previously	 identified	 in	 Section	 3.1.5.1	 of	 the	

2012	EA.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-89 September 2014 

 

NMFS	indicated	that	EFH	for	the	snapper/grouper	complex,	spiny‐lobster,	and	penaeid	shrimp,	as	well	as	

HAPC	for	snapper/grouper	complex,	is	present	at	one	or	more	of	the	bridge	project	locations.	A	figure	of	

the	 locations	 of	 EFH	 and	 HAPC	 located	 within	 or	 adjacent	 to	 the	 Project	 boundaries	 is	 provided	 in	

Appendix	 4.3.5‐A.	 The	 list	 of	 the	 managed	 species	 groups	 that	 may	 utilize	 aquatic	 habitat	 along	 the	

N‐S	and	WPB‐M	Corridors	is	presented	in	Table	4.3.5‐4.	

Table 4.3.5-4 Essential Fish Habitat within the Project Study Area 

County Site EFH1 HAPC1

Brevard Horse Creek Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

None 

Eau Gallie River Spiny Lobster 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

None 

Crane Creek Spiny Lobster Snapper-Grouper 

Complex 

None 

Turkey Creek Spiny Lobster Snapper-Grouper 

Complex 

None 

Goat Creek Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

St. Sebastian River Spiny Lobster 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

None 

Indian River North Canal Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

None 

Main Canal2 None None 

South Canal Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

None 

Moores Creek Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Warner Creek2 None None 

Unnamed Creek Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Martin St. Lucie River Bull Shark 

Blacktip Shark 

Spiny Lobster 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

None 

Unnamed Tributary2

(MP 266.58) 

Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Unnamed Tributary1

(MP 266.86) 

Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Tributary to Manatee Creek2

(MP 267.34) 

Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

None 

Tributary to Manatee Creek1

(MP 267.70) 

Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

None 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-90 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.5-4 Essential Fish Habitat within the Project Study Area (Continued) 

County Site EFH1 HAPC1

Palm Beach County Loxahatchee River Spiny Lobster 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

None 

Earman River2 None None 

Canal C-512 None None 

Hillsboro Canal Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Boynton Beach Canal Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

- 

Broward County North Fork of the Middle River Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

South Fork of the Middle 

River 

Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Hillsboro Canal Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Comples 

Cypress Creek Canal Spiny Lobster - 

New River Spiny Lobster - 

Tarpon River Spiny Lobster - 

Dania Cut-off Canal Spiny Lobster - 

Miami-Dade County Oleta River Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Arch Creek Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Snapper-Grouper Complex 

Biscayne Park Canal Spiny Lobster 

Penaeid Shrimp 

- 

Little River Penaeid Shrimp - 

Source: NMFS. 2010. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies- South Atlantic 

Region. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation District Southeast Regional Office. 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide_2010.pdf. September 2010. Accessed March 7, 2013; NOAA. 2013. 

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

1 Identified based on site assessment of habitat and literature review (NMFS 2010; NOAA 2013) 

2 Water control structure downstream of these bridge locations 

Migratory Bird Habitat 

Florida	is	on	the	Atlantic	flyway,	a	major	migratory	route	stretching	more	than	3,000	miles	from	Baffin	

Island	 to	 northern	 South	 America	 (Ducks	 Unlimited	 n.d.).	 Florida	 provides	 important	 overwintering	

habitat	 to	 many	 migratory	 bird	 species	 (Rapoza	 2007).	 Common	 migratory	 species	 include	 many	

waterfowl	 (gadwall,	 American	 widgeon,	 blue‐winged	 teal,	 northern	 shoveler,	 northern	 pintail,	

green‐winged	teal,	American	coot),	raptors	(northern	harrier,	American	kestrel,	sharp‐shinned	hawk),	

shorebirds	 (black‐bellied	plover,	semipalmated	plover,	greater	yellowlegs,	ruddy	 turnstone,	red	knot,	

least	 sandpiper,	 short‐billed	 dowitcher),	 and	 passerine	 landbirds	 (eastern	 phoebe,	 palm	 warbler,	

yellow‐rumped	 warbler,	 gray	 catbird,	 American	 robin,	 ruby‐crowned	 kinglet,	 chipping	 sparrow,	

Baltimore	oriole).	Birds	that	overwinter	on	the	Caribbean	islands	also	migrate	through	Atlantic	coastal	

Florida	in	spring	and	fall,	including	shorebirds,	flycatchers,	warblers,	and	thrushes	and	tanagers	(Rapoza	

2007).	Passerine	migrants	are	found	in	hardwood	hammocks	and	other	forested	habitats,	waterfowl	on	

lakes	and	impoundments,	and	shorebirds	on	beaches	and	flooded	agricultural	fields	(Rapoza	2007).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-91 September 2014 

 

4.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The	Federal	Endangered	Species	Act	of	1973	(ESA)	defines	an	endangered	species	as	“any	species	which	

is	in	 danger	 of	 extinction	 throughout	 all	 or	 a	 significant	 portion	 of	its	 range.”	 The	Act	 also	 defines	 a	

threatened	 species	 as	 “any	 species	 which	 is	 likely	 to	 become	 an	 endangered	 species	 within	 the	

foreseeable	future	throughout	all	or	a	significant	portion	of	its	range.”	The	ESA	protects	species	listed	as	

endangered	or	threatened	on	a	national	basis.	The	current	list	of	federally	protected	wildlife	is	provided	

within	the	50	CFR	part	17.11	Endangered andThreatenedWildlife,	published	October	1,	2012.	The	current	

list	of	federally	protected	plants	is	provided	within	50	CFR	part	17.12	Endangered and Threatened Plants,	

published	October	1,	2012.	

State‐listed	species	are	protected	under	Article	IV,	Section	9	of	the	Constitution	of	the	State	of	Florida,	and	

are	classified	as	Endangered,	Threatened,	or	Species	of	Special	Concern.	An	Endangered	species	is	a	species	

native	to	Florida	that	is	in	danger	of	extinction	throughout	all	or	a	significant	portion	of	its	range	within	

Florida.	A	Threatened	species	is	a	species	native	to	Florida	that	is	likely	to	become	endangered	in	Florida	in	

the	foreseeable	future.	Species	of	Special	Concern	are	those	species	native	to	Florida	for	which	biological	

research	has	documented	a	decline	in	population	that	could	threaten	the	species	if	the	decline	continues	

unchecked,	or	those	species	native	to	Florida	that	occur	in	such	small	numbers	or	with	such	a	restricted	

distribution	 that	 they	 could	 easily	 become	 threatened	 within	 the	 state.	 Chapter	 68A‐27.003‐.005	 FAC,	

updated	January	2013,	lists	protected	wildlife	species	regulated	by	the	State	of	Florida.	Plant	species	listed	

in	Chapter	5B‐40.0055,	FAC,	adopted	April	22,	2004,	are	regulated	by	the	State	of	Florida	and	are	classified	

as	Endangered,	Threatened,	or	Commercially	Exploited.	

4.3.6.1 Methodology 

Databases	maintained	by	the	regional	offices	of	USFWS	(USFWS	2012a)	and	by	the	FNAI	Biodiversity	

Matrix	(FNAI	n.d.)	were	consulted	to	identify	listed	species	within	each	county.	These	databases	provide	

information	on	state	and/or	federally	protected	species	documented	or	expected	to	occur	in	or	near	the	

Project	Study	Area.	

In	addition,	the	FWC	bald	eagle	locator	(FWC	2012a),	red‐cockaded	woodpecker	database	(USFWS	2004a),	

and	wading	bird	colony	locator	(FWC	2009)	were	utilized	to	determine	the	presence	of	nests	and	rookeries	

of	these	species	in	relation	to	the	Project	Study	Area.	Low	altitude	aerial	photography	was	utilized	to	identify	

areas	which	may	provide	suitable	habitat	for	particular	listed	species.	

The	records	search	provided	a	list	of	species	with	potential	to	occur	within	or	adjacent	to	the	Project	

Study	Area,	their	habitat	requirements,	and	life	history	information.	Wildlife	within	the	Project	Study	Area	

were	 observed	 during	 pedestrian	 field	 surveys	 (where	 plant	 and	 animals	 species	 were	 identified).	

Windshield	surveys	of	habitat,	benthic	seagrass	surveys,	low	altitude	aerial	surveys	to	identify	eagle	nests,	

and	 surveys	 to	 evaluate	 Florida	 scrub‐jay	 habitat	 were	 also	 conducted.	 Seagrass	 survey	 details,	 field	

survey	methods	and	details	of	specific	surveys	for	Audubon’s	crested	caracara,	bald	eagle,	and	Florida	

scrub‐jay	are	provided	in	Appendix	4.3.6‐A.	

Several	of	the	species	may	use	habitat	types	that	were	not	included	in	assumptions	listed	in	Table	4.3.6‐1.	

For	example,	gopher	tortoises	may	utilize	areas	within	residential	developments	and	road	or	railroad	

rights‐of‐way	if	the	soil	conditions	are	appropriate.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-92 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.6-1 Rare Species and Habitat (Land Use) Assumptions for Terrestrial Species 

Species Assumed Cover Type Use (FLUCCS Codes) 

Bald Eagle None 

Wood Stork 510, 520, 530, 610, 620, 630, 640 

Sand Skink None (Habitat based on soils and elevation, not cover or land use) 

Eastern Indigo Snake 310, 320, 330, 411, 434, 617, 625, 630, 641, 643 

Audubon’s Crested Caracara 310, 330, 411, 625, 641, 643 

Florida Scrub-Jay 320, 330, 411 

Everglades Snail Kite None 

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 411, 625 

Sherman’s Fox Squirrel 310, 330, 411, 434, 625, 630 

American Alligator 510, 525, 530, 641 

Sandhill Crane 310, 330, 510, 530, 641, 643 

Southeastern American Kestrel 310, 330, 411, 625, 641, 643 

Gopher tortoise 310, 320, 330, 411 

Burrowing Owl 310, 320, 330, 411 

Florida Mouse 310, 320, 330, 411 

Pine Snake 310, 320, 330, 411 

Short-Tailed Snake 310, 320, 330, 411 

Rim Rock Crowned Snake None 

Gopher Frog 310, 320, 330, 411 

Mangrove Rivulus 612 

Limpkin 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646 

Little Blue Heron 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646 

Roseate Spoonbill 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646 

Reddish Egret 612 

Snowy Egret 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646 

Tricolored Heron 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646 

White Ibis 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646 

Source: SFWMD. Undated. GIS Data Catalog. http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed: August 31, 2013; 

SJRWMD. 2013a. GIS Data Download Table. http://floridaswater.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed: August 31, 2013. 

4.3.6.2 Affected Environment 

The	 desktop	 survey	 identified	 38	 plant	 and	 animal	 species	 that	 are	 both	 federally	 and	 state	 listed	

(Tables	 4.3.6‐2	 and	 4.3.6‐3)	 and	 36	 plant	 and	 animal	 species	 listed	 only	 by	 the	 State	 of	 Florida	

(Tables	4.3.6‐4	and	4.3.6‐5)	that	may	occur	within	or	adjacent	to	the	Project	Study	Area.		

The	MCO	Segment,	E‐W	Corridor,	and	N‐S	Corridor	intersect	USFWS	Consultation	Areas	for:	West	Indian	

(Florida)	manatee	 (Figure	4.3.6‐4),	 Florida	 scrub‐jay,	 red‐cockaded	woodpecker,	Everglade	 snail	 kite,	

Audubon’s	crested	caracara,	piping	plover,	and	Atlantic	salt	marsh	snake	(USFWS	2003a,	2003b,	2003c,	

2003d,	,	2003e,	2003f,	and	2004a).	Appendix	4.3.6‐B	provides	figures	depicting	Consultation	Areas	for	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-93 September 2014 

 

these	species	in	relation	to	the	Project	Study	Area.	Figure	4.3.6‐1	shows	the	location	of	listed	bird	species	

habitats	in	relation	to	the	E‐W	Corridor.	

Table 4.3.6-2 Federal and State Protected Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within Project Study 

Area Counties 

Listed Species Scientific Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status Preferred Habitat 

West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E E Coastal waters, bays, rivers, lakes 

Southeastern Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris E T Sand dunes 

Florida panther Puma concolor coryi E E Large blocks of forested upland or wetland 

Florida scrub-jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T T Fire-dominated low-growing oak scrub 

Red knot Calidris canutus rufa C Not listed Beaches 

Audubon’s crested caracara Caracara cheriway T T Open country with cabbage palm 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus T T Beaches and tidal mudflats 

Kirtland’s Warbler Dendroica kirtlandii E E Dense scrub 

Wood stork Myceteria americana E E Freshwater wetlands 

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E E Open mature pine woodland 

Everglade snail kite Rostrhamnus socialibis plumbeus E E Large open freshwater marshes 

American alligator Alligator mississippinesis SAT SSC Permanent bodies of freshwater 

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta T T Coastal and oceanic waters 

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas E E Coastal and oceanic waters 

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E E coastal and oceanic waters 

Hawksbill sea turtle Eremochelys imbricata E E Coastal and oceanic waters 

Leatherback sea turtle Demochelys coriacea E E Coastal and oceanic waters 

Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus C T Dry sandy uplands 

Florida sand skink Neoseps reynoldsii T T Sparse dry scrub 

Atlantic salt marsh snake Nerodia clarkia taeniata T T Coastal salt marshes 

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T Wide range of upland and wetland habitats 

Striped newt Notophthalmus parstriatus C Not listed Xeric uplands 

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata T T Estuaries, bays, tidal creeks 

E Endangered 

T Threatened 

C Candidate 

SAT Threatened because of similarity of appearance 

SSC State Special Concern 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-94 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-95 September 2014 

 

Numerous	natural	areas,	parks,	refuges	and	other	open	spaces	are	adjacent	to	the	Project	Study	Area	in	

several	locations.	Protected	species	populations	utilize	some	of	these	open	space	areas.	These	natural	

areas	provide	primary	habitat	as	well	as	refugia	for	a	wide	variety	of	plant	and	animal	species.	Boundary	

fences	are	located	adjacent	to	the	FECR	Corridor	and	SR	528	along	many	of	the	natural	areas	typically	

with	a	maintained	buffer	of	10	to	20	feet	between	the	rail	line	and	the	natural	area	fence.	The	Project	

Study	 Area	is	in	 close	 proximity	 to	 wood	 stork	 nesting	 colonies,	 other	 active	 wading	 bird	 rookeries,		

red‐cockaded	woodpecker	nesting	sites,	and	a	bald	eagle	nest	(Figures	4.3.6‐2	and	4.3.6‐3).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-96 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-97 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-98 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-99 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.6-3 Federal and State Protected Plant Species Known to Occur Within Project Study 

Area Counties 

Listed Species Scientific Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status Preferred Habitat 

Four-petal pawpaw Asimina tetramera E E Sand pine scrub 

Florida bonamia Bonamia grandiflora T E Open or disturbed sand scrub 

Fragrant prickly-apple Ceereus eriophorus var. fragrans E E Scrub flatwoods and xeric hammocks 

Florida perforated cladonia Cladonia perforata E E Rosemary scrub 

Okeechobee gourd Cucurbita okeechobeensis E E Swamps along Lake Okeechobee 

Beautiful pawpaw Deeringothamnus pulchellus E E Open longleaf pine woods 

Lakela’s mint Dicerandra immaculata E E Atlantic coastal ridge scrub 

Scrub wild buckwheat Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium T E Various scrub upland habitats 

Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii T T Tidal deltas, mouths of canals 

Beach jacquemontia Jacquemontia reclinata E E Dunes, coastal strand 

Papery whitlow-wort Paronychia chartacea T E Lake Wales ridge scrub 

Tiny polygala Polygala smallii E E Scrub, sandhill 

Sand lace Polygonella myriophylla E E Open sandy scrub 

Scrub plum Prunus geniculata E E Sandhill and oak scrub 

Carter’s mustard Warea carteri E E Sandhill, inland and coastal scrub 

E Endangered 

T Threatened 

Table 4.3.6-4 State-only Protected Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within Project Study Area Counties 

Listed Species Scientific Name 

State 

Status Preferred Habitat 

Florida mouse Podomys floridanus SSC Xeric sandy uplands 

Sherman’s fox squirrel Sciurus niger shermani SSC Sandhill, pine flatwoods, pastures 

American oystercatcher Haematopus palliates SSC Beaches, sandbars, mudflats 

Black skimmer Rynchops niger SSC Coastal waters 

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis SSC Coastal shallow estuarine waters 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SSC Sparsely vegetated sandy uplands 

Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis ST Prairies, pasture, freshwater marshe 

Least tern Sterna antillarum ST Beaches 

Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC Mangroves, marshes, wetlands 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea SSC Shallow open wetlands 

Reddish egret Egretta rufescens SSC Tidal flats and shores 

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja SSC Coastal mangroves, tidal flats 

Snowy egret Egretta thula SSC Inland and coastal wetlands 

Southeastern american kestrel Falco sparverius paulus ST Open pine habitats, prairies, pastures 

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor SSC Coastal and inland wetlands 

White ibis Eudocimus albus SSC Freshwater and brackish marshes 

Florida pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus SSC Open upland forests on dry sandy soils 

Rim rock crowned snake Tantilla oolitica ST Tropical hardwood hammocks, disturbed habitats 

Gopher frog Lithobates capito SSC Dry sandy uplands near water 

Mangrove rivulus Rivulus marmoratus SSC Mangrove forests 

SSC Species of Special Concern 

ST State Threatened 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-100 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.6-5 State-only Protected Plant Species Known to Occur Within Project Study Area Counties 

Listed Species Scientific Name 

State 

Status Preferred Habitat 

Curtiss’ sandgrass Calamovilfa multiflorus ST Wet flatwoods 

Many-flowered grass-pink Calopogon multiflorus SE Dry to moist longleaf pine forest 

Sand dune spurge Chamaesyce cumulicola SE Beach dunes 

Piedmont joint grass Coelorachis tuberculosa ST Freshwater marshes 

Large-flowered rosemary Conardina grandiflora ST Coastal scrub 

Nodding pinweed Lechea cernua ST Scrub and scrubby flatwoods 

Pine pinweed Lechea divaricata SE Scrub and scrubby flatwoods 

Celestial lily Nemastylis floridana SE Wet prairies, marshes, cabbage palm hammocks 

Simpson’s zephyrlily Zephyranthes simpsonii ST Peaty-sandy soil 

ST State Threatened 

SE State Endangered 

The	waters	along	 the	 coastline	and	intra‐coastal	waterway	east	of	 the	N‐S	 Corridor	 contain	 seagrass	

populations	and	habitat.	Johnson’s	seagrass	is	a	federally	threatened	species.	Potential	seagrass	habitat	

near	the	bridge	crossings	consists	of	shallow	areas	less	than	7	feet	deep,	with	stable	sediments	and	slow	

currents.	No	 Johnson’s	 seagrass	 populations	were	identified	in	or	adjacent	 to	 the	 Project	Study	Area	

during	benthic	surveys.	Seagrass	species	located	in	the	vicinity	of	the	existing	bridges	but	outside	the	

footprints	of	the	bridges	proposed	for	construction	work	include	manatee	grass	and	shoal	grass,	which	

are	not	listed.	

The	 federally	protected	bald	eagle	was	observed	during	 the	 field	surveys,	along	with	suitable	nesting	

habitat.		

State	and	federal	listed	species,	Florida	scrub‐jay,	Audubon’s	crested	caracara,	wood	stork,	and	gopher	

tortoise	were	observed	during	the	field	surveys.	Suitable	habitat	for	eastern	indigo	snake,	West	Indian	

(Florida)	manatee,	Florida	scrub‐jay,	smalltooth	sawfish,	and	Audubon’s	crested	caracara	were	observed	

within	the	Project	Study	Area	during	the	field	investigations,	along	with	wood	stork	foraging	and	wading	

bird	nesting	and	foraging.	

Several	federal	species	identified	as	present	within	the	counties	through	which	the	Project	would	pass	

are	not	within	the	Project	Study	Area	because	either	habitat	is	lacking	or	the	Project	Study	Area	is	outside	

the	accepted	range	of	 the	species.	These	species	include:	Florida	panther,	southeastern	beach	mouse,	

piping	plover,	Kirtland’s	warbler,	Everglades	snail	kite,	and	Atlantic	salt	marsh	snake.	Plant	species	for	

which	the	accepted	range	does	not	include	the	Project	Study	Area	are:	Florida	bonamia,	pygmy	fringe	

tree,	Okeechobee	gourd,	scrub	wild	buckwheat,	scrub	lupine,	Britton’s	beargrass,	papery	whitlow‐wort,	

and	Carter’s	mustard.	Plant	species	for	which	known	populations	do	not	occur	within	the	Project	Study	

Area	 include:	 fragrant	 prickly	 apple,	 Lakela’s	 mint,	 beach	 jacquemontia,	 sand	 lace,	 scrub	 plum,	 and	

clasping	warea.	

Areas	 within	 and	 adjacent	 to	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 also	 may	 provide	 habitat	 for	 listed	 species.	

Table	4.3.6‐6	and	Table	4.3.6‐7	list	the	protected	species	reported	for	the	three	counties	crossed	by	the	

WPB‐M	Corridor.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-101 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.6-6 Federal and State Listed Animal Species Potentially in WPB-M Corridor Project Area 

Listed Species Scientific Name Federal Status State Status 

Mangrove Rivulus Rivulus marmoratus N/A SSC 

Smalltooth Sawfish Pristis pectinata E E 

American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SAT SAT 

American Crocodile Crocodylus acutus T T 

Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T 

Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas E E 

Gopher Frog Lithobates capito N/A SSC 

Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus N/A T 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricate E E 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta T T 

Rim Rock Crowned Snake Tantilla oolitica N/A T 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Delisted Delisted 

Everglades Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus E E 

Florida Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia floridana N/A SSC 

Florida Scrub-jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T T 

Kirtland's Warbler Dendroica kirtlandii E E 

Piping Plover Charadruis melodus T T 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea N/A SSC 

Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa C N/A 

Snowy egret Egretta thula N/A SSC 

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor N/A SSC 

White ibis Eudocimus albus N/A SSC 

Wood stork Mycteria americana E E 

Florida Bonneted bat Eumops floridanus C T 

Florida mouse Podomys floridanus N/A SSC 

Southeastern Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotusniveiventris T T 

West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E/CH E/CH 

E Endangered 

T Threatened 

C Candidate 

CH Critical Habitat 

SAT Threatened because of similarity of appearance 

SSC State Special Concern 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-102 September 2014 

 

Table 4.3.6-7 Federal and State Listed Plant Species Potentially in WPB-M Corridor Project Area 

Listed Species Scientific Name Federal Status State Status 

Bahama Brake Pteris bahamensis N/A T 

Bahama Sachsia Sachsia polycephala N/A T 

Banded Wild-pine Tillandsia flexuosa N/A T 

Blodgett's Wild-mercury Argythamnia blodgettii N/A E 

Celestial Lily Nemastylis floridana N/A E 

Christmas Berry Crossopetalum ilicifolium N/A T 

Clamshell Orchid Encyclia cochleata var. triandra N/A E 

Coastal Vervain Glandularia maritima N/A E 

Cutthroat Grass Panicum abscissum N/A E 

Eaton's Spike Moss Selaginella eatonii N/A E 

Florida Lantana Lantana depressa var. depressa N/A E 

Florida Royal Palm Roystonea elata N/A E 

Giant Orchid Pteroglossaspis ecristata N/A T 

Golden Leather Fern Acrostichum aureum N/A T 

Johnson’s Seagrass Halophila johnsonii T/CH T/CH 

Large-flowered Rosemary Conradina grandiflora N/A T 

Lignum-vitae Guaiacum sanctum N/A E 

Nodding Pinweed Lechea cernua N/A T 

Pine Pinweed Lechea divaricata N/A E 

Pineland Jacquemontia Jacquemontia curtissii N/A T 

Porter's Broad-leaved Spurge Chamaesyce porteriana N/A E 

Redmargin Zephyrlily Zephyranthes simpsonii N/A T 

Rockland Painted-leaf Euphorbia pinetorum N/A E 

Sand-dune Spurge Chamaesyce cumulicola N/A E 

Small's Flax Linum carteri var. smallii N/A E 

Tiny polygala Polygala smallii E E 

Two-keeled Helmet Orchid Galeandra bicarinata N/A E 

West Indies Mahogany Swietenia mahagoni N/A T 

E Endangered 

T Threatened 

CH Critical Habitat 

4.4 Social and Economic Environment 

This	 Section	 provides	 information	 on	 the	 existing	 human	 environment,	 including	 communities	 and	

demographics,	 environmental	 justice	 communities,	 economics,	 public	 health	 and	 safety,	 cultural	

resources,	recreation,	and	other	Section	4(f)	resources,	visual	and	scenic	resources,	utilities,	and	energy.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-103 September 2014 

 

4.4.1 Communities and Demographics 

This	section	provides	an	overview	of	existing	community	structure	and	demographic	profiles	within	the	

Project	Study	Area.	

4.4.1.1 Methodology 

Information	collected	from	the	United	States	Census	Bureau	(USCB),	county	websites	(Orange,	Brevard,	

Indian	River,	St.	Lucie,	Martin,	and	Palm	Beach),	and	municipal	websites	(Orlando,	Cocoa,	Melbourne,	

Vero	Beach,	Fort	Pierce,	Jupiter,	Palm	Beach	Gardens,	Riviera	Beach,	and	West	Palm	Beach)	was	reviewed	

and	incorporated,	as	appropriate,	to	describe	the	community	structure	and	demographic	profiles	within	

the	Project	Study	Area.

4.4.1.2 Affected Environment 

The	MCO	Segment	is	located	within	MCO,	which	is	in	the	City	of	Orlando.	MCO	is	the	13th	busiest	airport	

in	the	United	States	and	the	29th	busiest	airport	in	the	world	(MCO	2012b).	Orlando	is	the	most	visited	

destination	 in	 the	 United	 States	 with	 over	 50	 million	 domestic	 and	 international	 visitors	 each	 year	

(Orange	County	Office	of	Economic	Development	2013).		

According	to	2007‐2011 American Community Survey	(ACS)	5‐year	Estimates,	the	City	of	Orlando	has	a	

total	population	of	236,532	(Table	4.4.1‐1)	(USCB	2011).	Between	2000	and	2011,	the	total	population	of	

the	 city	 increased	 by	 27.2	 percent	 (USCB	 2000).	 Orlando	 has	 a	 land	 area	 of	 102.4	 square	 miles;	 its	

population	density	is	approximately	2,310	persons	per	square	mile	(USCB	2013).	

The	E‐W	Corridor	extends	from	Orlando	to	Cocoa.	Outside	of	these	municipalities,	the	remaining	areas	

along	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 predominantly	 consist	 of	 transportation,	 cropland	 and	 pastureland,	 and	

undeveloped	 areas.	 Cocoa	 is	 located	 within	 Florida’s	 Space	 Coast,	 the	 most	 concentrated	 high‐tech	

economy	in	the	state	(Economic	Development	Commission	of	Florida’s	Space	Coast	2011a).	According	to	

2007‐2011	 ACS	 5‐year	 Estimates,	 the	 City	 of	 Cocoa	 has	 a	 total	 population	 of	 17,302	 (Table	 4.4.1‐1)	

(USCB	 2011).	 Between	 2000	 and	 2011,	 the	 total	 population	 of	 Cocoa	 increased	 by	 5.4	 percent	

(Table	 4.4.1‐1)	 (USCB	 2000).	 Cocoa	 has	 a	 land	 area	 of	 13.3	 square	 miles;	 its	 population	 density	 is	

approximately	1,301	persons	per	square	mile	(USCB	2013).		

The	 N‐S	 Corridor	 is	 within	 the	 existing	 FECR	 Corridor,	 and	 passes	 through	 numerous	 incorporated	

municipalities:	Cocoa,	Melbourne,	Vero	Beach,	Fort	Pierce,	Jupiter,	Palm	Beach	Gardens,	Riviera	Beach,	

and	West	Palm	Beach.	Among	these	municipalities,	West	Palm	Beach	has	the	highest	total	population	

(98,795),	while	Vero	Beach	has	the	lowest	total	population	(15,664)	(USCB	2011).	Between	2000	and	

2011,	 Jupiter	 experienced	 the	 largest	 population	 gain	 of	 these	 communities,	 on	 a	 percentage	 basis	

(37.1	percent)	(USCB	2000).	Vero	Beach	was	the	only	incorporated	municipality	in	the	Project	Study	Area	

whose	population	declined	between	2000	and	2011	(‐11.5	percent)	(USCB	2000).	Table	4.4.1‐1	lists	the	

total	population,	 by	 county,	in	 2000	and	 2011	 for	each	 of	 the	incorporated	municipalities	within	 the	

Project	Study	Area.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-104 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.1-1 Total Population (2000 and 2011) of Incorporated Municipalities Crossed by the 

Project, by County 

County Municipality 

Total Population 

(2000) 

Total Population 

(2011) 

Percent Increase in 

Total Population 

(2000 to 2011) 

Orange Orlando 185,951 236,532 27.2 

Brevard Cocoa 16,412 17,302 5.4 

Melbourne 71,382 76,538 7.2 

Indian River Vero Beach 17,705 15,664 -11.5 

St. Lucie Fort Pierce 37,516 42,373 12.9 

Palm Beach Jupiter 39,328 53,935 37.1 

Palm Beach Gardens 35,058 47,483 35.4 

Riviera Beach 29,884 32,508 8.8 

West Palm Beach 82,103 98,795 20.3 

Source: USCB. 2000. Census 2000. http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed August 13, 2013; USCB. 2013. State and County 

Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1260975.html. Accessed August 14, 2013. 

A	brief	description	of	the	other	incorporated	municipalities	within	the	Project	Study	Area	is	provided	

below.	

 Melbourne	 is	 in	 the	 southern	 portion	 of	 Brevard	 County,	 on	 Florida’s	 Space	 Coast	

(Melbourne,	Florida	2012).	Melbourne	has	a	land	area	of	33.9	square	miles;	its	population	density	

is	approximately	2,258	persons	per	square	mile	(USCB	2013).		

 Vero	 Beach’s	 tourist	 attractions	 are	 an	important	 part	 of	 the	 city’s	 economy	 and	 the	 greater	

region	 known	 as	 the	 “Treasure	 Coast”	 (Vero	 Beach,	 Florida	 n.d.).	 Recreational	 activities	 and	

attractions	in	Vero	Beach	include	golfing,	water	sports,	fishing,	beaches,	museums,	and	nature	

tours	(Visit	Florida	2013b).	Vero	Beach	has	a	land	area	of	11.4	square	miles;	its	population	density	

is	approximately	1,374	persons	per	square	mile	(USCB	2013).	

 Fort	Pierce	is	one	of	the	oldest	communities	on	the	eastern	coast	of	Florida	and	has	been	the	hub	of	

St.	 Lucie	 County	 for	 over	 100	 years	 (Fort	 Pierce,	 Florida	 2010).	 Fort	 Pierce	 has	 a	land	 area	 of	

20.6	 square	 miles;	 its	 population	 density	 is	 approximately	 2,057	 persons	 per	 square	 mile	

(USCB	2013).	

 Jupiter	 is	 a	 coastal	 community,	 and	 one	 of	 the	 northernmost	 suburbs	 of	 the	 Miami‐Fort	

Lauderdale‐Pompano	Beach	Metropolitan	Statistical	Area.	Jupiter	has	a	land	area	of	21.5	square	

miles;	its	population	density	is	approximately	2,509	persons	per	square	mile	(USCB	2013).	

 Palm	Beach	Gardens	is	the	largest	land	area	in	Palm	Beach	County.	Over	50	percent	of	the	city’s	

land	mass	is	either	forested	or	landscaped	green	space	(Palm	Beach	Gardens,	Florida	2008).	Palm	

Beach	 Gardens	 has	 a	land	 area	 of	 55.1	 square	miles;	its	 population	 density	is	 approximately	

862	persons	per	square	mile	(USCB	2013).	

 Riviera	Beach	has	a	robust	waterfront,	occupied	by	shops,	restaurants,	and	other	attractions	such	

as	the	Port	of	Palm	Beach	(City	of	Riviera	Beach,	Florida	2013).	Riviera	Beach	has	a	land	area	of	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-105 September 2014 

 

8.5	 square	 miles;	 its	 population	 density	 is	 approximately	 3,824	 persons	 per	 square	 mile	

(USCB	2013).	

 West	 Palm	 Beach	 includes	 numerous	 shopping	 districts,	 historic	 and	 scenic	 neighborhoods	

(Northwood	 Village,	 Old	 Northwood,	 Flamingo	 Park,	 and	 El	 Cid),	 and	 year‐round	 outdoor	

festivals.	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 has	 a	 land	 area	 of	 55.3	 square	 miles;	 its	 population	 density	 is	

approximately	1,787	persons	per	square	mile	(USCB	2013).	

The	additional	two	municipalities	served	by	proposed	stations	are	described	below.	

 The	 City	 of	 Fort	 Lauderdale	 has	 a	 land	 area	 of	 34.8	 square	 miles;	 its	 population	 density	 is	

approximately	4,791	persons	per	square	mile	(USCB	2010a	and	2011).	

 The	 City	 of	 Miami	 has	 a	 land	 area	 of	 35.9	 square	 miles	 and	 has	 a	 population	 density	 of	

approximately	11,041	persons	per	square	mile	(USCB	2010a	and	2011).	

The	total	population	of	the	117	census	tracts	within	the	Project	Study	Area	is	535,868,	which	represents	

15.1	percent	of	the	total	population	of	the	six	counties	and	2.9	percent	of	the	total	population	of	the	entire	

state.	 The	 highest	 concentrations	 of	 population	in	 the	 Project	Study	Area	are	within	Brevard	 County	

(158,623)	and	Palm	Beach	County	(115,597).	Table	4.4.1‐2	provides	the	total	population	for	each	of	the	

six	counties	crossed	by	the	Project,	the	census	tracts	within	the	Project	Study	Area	(by	county),	and	the	

State	of	Florida	(USCB	2010a).		

Table 4.4.1-2 Total Population of Census Tracts Crossed by the Project, by County 

Geography 

(No. of Census Tracts) Total Population 

Total Population of the 

Census Tracts 

Transected by the Project 

Florida 18,688,787 -- 

Six County Total 3,541,985 535,868 

Orange (8) 1,133,087 78,632 

Brevard (32) 542,320 158,623 

Indian River (17) 137,004 69,533 

St. Lucie (10) 274,693 35,131 

Martin (20) 145,480 78,352 

Palm Beach (30 - N-S Corridor) 1,309,401 115,597 

Palm Beach (46 - WPB-M Corridor) 1,320,1341 170,6871

Broward (52) 1,748,0661 220,3081

Miami-Dade (38) 2,496,4351 157,7691

Source: USCB. 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Total Population. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. 

Accessed August 13, 2013; AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida 

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

September 12, 2013. 

1 Population data, as presented in Section 3.3.3 of the 2012 EA, derives from the 2010 U.S. Census 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-106 September 2014 

 

Section	 4.4.2,	 Environmental Justice, presents	 demographic	 information	 pertaining	 to	 minority	 and	

low‐income	populations	identified	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	

4.4.2 Environmental Justice 

This	 section	 provides	 an	 overview	 of	 the	 existing	 conditions	 related	 to	 minority	 and	 low‐income	

populations	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	EO	12898,	Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Population and Low‐Income Populations,	was	issued	in	February	1994	and	requires	that	federal	

agencies	consider	whether	a	proposed	project	would	have	a	disproportionately	high	adverse	impact	on	

minority	or	low‐income	populations.		

CEQ	has	oversight	of	the	federal	government’s	compliance	with	NEPA,	including	EO	12898.	CEQ,	with	

input	from	the	EPA	and	other	affected	agencies,	developed	a	guidance	document	to	assist	federal	agencies	

with	 their	 NEPA	 procedures	 so	 that	 environmental	 justice	 concerns	 are	 effectively	 identified	 and	

addressed.	CEQ’s	guidance	document	indicates	that		

“minority	populations	should	be	identified	where	either:	(a)	the	minority	population	of	the	affected	

area	exceeds	50	percent	or	(b)	the	minority	population	percentage	of	the	affected	area	is	meaningfully	

greater	than	the	minority	population	percentage	in	the	general	population	or	other	appropriate	unit	

of	geographic	analysis.	A	minority	population	also	exists	if	there	is	more	than	one	minority	group	

present	and	the	minority	percentage,	as	calculated	by	aggregating	all	minority	persons,	meets	one	of	

the	above‐stated	thresholds,”	(CEQ	1997b).	

4.4.2.1 Methodology 

This	evaluation	uses	demographic	data	collected	from	the	2010	U.S.	Census	and	2010	ACS.	The	Project	

Study	 Area	includes	 census	 tracts	 within	 1,000	 feet	 of	 the	 proposed	 or	 existing	 railroad	 alignments.	

Because	impacts	 to	environmental	justice	communities	are	dependent	on	 the	potential	 for	significant	

impacts	in	other	environmental	categories,	the	area	of	analysis	for	environmental	justice	is	the	area	of	

potential	 significant	 impacts	 for	 the	 other	 environmental	 impact	 categories,	 including	 cumulative	

impacts.		

Thresholds	to	determine	meaningfully	greater	high	minority	and	low‐income	populations	include	census	

tracts	where	minority	populations	are	10	percent	higher	 than	 the	combined	 total	 for	 the	six	counties	

crossed	by	the	Project	(37.4	percent)	between	Orlando	and	West	Palm	Beach,	and	census	tracts	where	

low‐income	populations	are	10	percent	higher	than	the	combined	total	for	the	census	tracts	crossed	by	

the	alignments	(23.3	percent).		

Poverty	information	was	obtained	from	the	USCB	American	Fact	Finder	website	for	poverty	status	in	the	

past	12	months	at	the	state,	county,	and	census	tract	levels	within	the	Project	Study	Area	(USCB	2010b).	

There	is	a	portion	of	the	population	whose	poverty	status	cannot	be	determined.	These	populations	include	

individuals	under	the	age	of	15	that	do	not	live	with	a	family	member	such	as	foster	children;	and	people	in	

college	 dormitories,	 military	 barracks,	 and	 institutional	 quarters	 such	 as	 prisons	 or	 nursing	 homes	

(USCB	2012).	The	percentage	of	the	population	below	the	poverty	level	is	based	on	the	population	for	which	

poverty	status	has	been	determined,	rather	than	the	total	population	in	a	given	area.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-107 September 2014 

 

4.4.2.2 Affected Environment 

Race 

For	this	analysis,	the	minority	or	‘non‐White’	population	refers	to	persons	who	reported	their	ethnicity	

and	race	as	something	other	than	‘White	alone’	during	the	2010	Census	(USCB	2010a).	The	‘non‐White’	

population	was	calculated	by	subtracting	the	‘White’	population	from	the	total	population	for	each	area.	

The	‘non‐White’	population	includes	individuals	of	American	Indian	or	Alaskan	Native;	Asian	or	Pacific	

Islander;	 Black,	 not	 of	 Hispanic	 origin;	 or	 Hispanic	 racial	 heritage.	 Table	 4.4.2‐1	 summarizes	 the	

‘non‐White’	populations	identified	at	the	state,	county	and	census	tract	levels	within	the	Project	Study	

Area.	Census	tracts	with	a	meaningfully	greater	percentage	of	minority	populations	(≥37.4	percent	of	the	

population,	which	is	10	percent	higher	than	the	percent	minority	population	calculated	for	the	combined	

six	counties	crossed	by	the	Project)	and	minority	populations	greater	than	50	percent	are	listed	by	county	

in	Table	4.4.2‐2	and	shown	in	Appendix	4.4.2‐A.	

Table 4.4.2-1 Summary of the Minority/’Non-White’ Populations per County 

Minority/‘Non White’ 

Population Percent ‘Non-White’ 

Florida 4,692,148 25.0

Orange County 417,161 36.4 

Brevard County 92,449 17.0 

Indian River County 21,682 15.7 

St. Lucie County 78,453 28.2 

Martin County 18,627 12.7 

Palm Beach County 350,013 26.5 

Six County Total 978,385 27.4 

Project Study Area Census Tracts within: 

Orange County (8) 21,684 27.6 

Brevard County (32) 28,557 18.0 

Indian River County (17) 14,782 21.3 

St. Lucie County (10) 11,812 33.6 

Martin County (20) 10,374 13.2 

Palm Beach County (30) 48,162 41.7 

Project Study Area Total 135,371 25.3 

Source: USCB. 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Total Population. http://factfinder2.census.gov/.

Accessed August 13, 2013.

As	 shown	 in	 Table	 4.4.2‐1,	 25.3	 percent	 of	 the	 total	 population	 within	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 is	

‘non‐White’.	This	is	lower	than	the	total	percentage	of	the	population	considered	‘non‐White’	within	the	

six	counties	crossed	by	the	Project	Study	Area	(27.4	percent),	but	nearly	equal	to	the	total	percentage	of	

the	 population	 considered	 ‘non‐White’	 within	 the	 entire	 state	 (25.0	 percent).	 Meaningfully	 higher	

populations	of	‘non‐White’	persons	at	the	county	level	occur	in	St.	Lucie	and	Palm	Beach	Counties.	Among	

the	counties	within	 the	Project	Study	Area,	Orange	County	has	 the	highest	concentration	 of	minority	

populations	(36.4	percent),	while	Martin	County	has	the	lowest	concentration	of	minority	populations	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-108 September 2014 

 

(12.7	percent).	The	highest	concentrations	of	minority	populations	within	the	Project	Study	Area	were	

found	to	be	in	Palm	Beach	County	(41.7	percent),	St.	Lucie	County	(33.6	percent),	and	Orange	County	

(27.6	percent).	Of	the	117	census	tracts	within	the	Project	Study	Area,	24	census	tracts	(20.5	percent)	

have	 minority	 populations	 greater	 than	 50	 percent	 and	 two	 tracts	 (1.7	 percent)	 have	 minority	

populations	greater	than	37.4	percent	(Table	4.4.2‐2).		

Table 4.4.2-2 Minority Population Concentrations 

 Census Tract 

Percent Minority 

Population ≥37.4 % 

Percent Minority 

Population >50 % 

Brevard 

062301 -- 60.2 

062302 38.2 -- 

062600 -- 78.2 

062900 38.5 -- 

064902 -- 53.1 

065124 -- 70.2 

Indian River 050302 -- 79.0 

St. Lucie 

380901 -- 57.8 

380100 -- 66.7 

380200 -- 94.9 

380500 -- 51.4 

Martin 000800 -- 58.5 

Palm Beach 

001101 -- 67.9 

001200 -- 72.8 

001301 -- 85.6 

001302 -- 98.6 

001404 -- 97.3 

001403 -- 98.5 

001402 -- 91.0 

001500 -- 85.8 

001600 -- 64.1 

001700 -- 50.2 

001801 -- 83.4 

002200 -- 95.1 

002300 -- 51.4 

002400 -- 93.1 

Source: USCB. 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Total Population. http://factfinder2.census.gov/.

Accessed August 13, 2013.

For	 the	WPB‐M	Corridor	evaluated	in	Section	3.3.3	of	 the	2012	EA	(138	census	 tracts	in	Palm	Beach,	

Broward,	and	Miami‐Dade	Counties),	39.7	percent	of	the	population	was	‘non‐White’	and	25.7	percent	

Hispanic,	which	is	10.0	percent	greater	than	the	tri‐county	‘non‐White’	population	and	15.9	percent	less	

than	the	tri‐county	Hispanic	population.	Based	on	the	CEQ	guidelines,	the	10.0	percent	higher	‘non‐White’	

population	represents	a	proportion	of	the	impacted	area	that	is	deemed	“meaningfully	greater”	when	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-109 September 2014 

 

compared	 to	 the	 regional	 population;	 therefore,	 minority	 populations	 subject	 to	 protection	 under	

Executive	Order	12898	are	present	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.			

Low Income 

CEQ’s	 guidance	 for	 environmental	 justice	 indicates	 that	 low‐income	 populations	 in	 an	 affected	 area	

“should	 be	 identified	 with	 the	 annual	 statistical	 poverty	 thresholds	 from	 the	 Bureau	 of	 the	 Census’	

Current	Population	Reports,	Series	P‐60	on	Income	and	Poverty	(CEQ	1997b).”	USCB	uses	a	set	of	income	

thresholds	 that	 vary	 by	 family	 size	 and	 composition	 to	 determine	 poverty	 status.	 Official	 poverty	

thresholds	do	not	vary	geographically,	but	are	updated	for	inflation	(USCB	2012).	USCB	reports	poverty	

data	 from	 several	 major	 household	 surveys	 and	 programs,	 including	 the	 ACS,	 which	 is	 an	 ongoing	

statistical	survey	that	samples	a	small	percentage	of	the	population	every	year.	Information	from	the	ACS	

is	used	to	help	determine	how	federal	and	state	funds	are	distributed	each	year	(USCB	2011).	Weighted	

average	poverty	thresholds	for	2010	ranged	from	$10,458	to	$11,344	annual	income	for	individuals,	and	

$14,218	to	$45,220	for	households,	depending	on	age	and	the	number	of	people	in	the	household.	

Table	4.4.2‐3	summarizes	low‐income	populations	identified	at	the	state,	county,	and	census	tract	levels	

within	the	Project	Study	Area.	Census	tracts	with	a	meaningfully	greater	percentage	of	the	population	

below	the	poverty	level	(≥23.3	percent	of	the	population,	which	is	10	percent	higher	than	the	percent	of	

the	population	below	poverty	calculated	for	the	combined	six	counties)	and	populations	below	poverty	

greater	than	50	percent	are	listed	by	county	in	Table	4.4.2‐4	and	figures	in	Appendix	4.4.2‐B.	

Table 4.4.2-3 Summary of Poverty Data Status in the past 12 months at the State, County, and 

Census Tract Level within the Project Study Area 

Population for 

which Poverty is 

determined

Population 

Below Poverty

Percent Below 

Poverty

Median 

Household 

Income

Florida 18,107,049 2,502,365 13.8 $47,827 

Orange County 1,097,169 147,225 13.4 $49,731 

Brevard County 532,304 55,981 10.5 $50,068 

Indian River County 134,445 16,984 12.6 $46,363 

St. Lucie County 265,682 36,457 13.7 $44,947 

Martin County 141,536 14,724 10.4 $53,612 

Palm Beach County 1,281,333 156,759 12.2 $52,951 

Six County Total 3,452,469 428,130 12.4 

Affected Census Tracts (117) within: 

Project Study 

Area Weighted 

Average 

Orange County (8) 71,324 6,495 9.1 $66,704 

Brevard County (32) 154,662 18,353 11.9 $51,269 

Indian River County (17) 68,002 11,175 16.4 $42,270 

St. Lucie County (10) 35,127 5,977 17.0 $35,629 

Martin County (20) 75,856 7,764 10.2 $54,002 

Palm Beach County (30) 108,645 18,611 17.1 $55,004 

Project Study Area Total 513,616 68,375 13.3 

Source: USCB. 2010b. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: S0801, Commuting Characteristics by Sex. 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 12, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-110 September 2014 

 

As	shown	in	Table	4.4.2‐3,	13.3	percent	of	the	total	population	within	the	Project	Study	Area	has	been	

below	the	poverty	level	within	the	last	12	months.	This	is	slightly	higher	than	the	total	percent	of	the	

population	 below	 poverty	within	 the	 six	 counties	 (12.4	 percent),	 but	 slightly	lower	 than	 the	 percent	

below	poverty	within	the	entire	state	(13.8	percent).	Meaningful	levels	of	low‐income	persons	are	present	

in	Indian	River,	St.	Lucie,	and	Palm	Beach	Counties.	St.	Lucie	County	has	the	highest	percent	below	the	

poverty	 level	 (13.7	 percent),	 while	 Martin	 County	 has	 the	 lowest	 percent	 below	 the	 poverty	 level	

(10.4	 percent).	Of	 the	 117	 census	 tracts	 within	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area,	 three	 (2.6	 percent)	 reported	

poverty	 greater	 than	 50	 percent	 and	 20	 (19.7	 percent)	 reported	 poverty	 greater	 than	 23.3	 percent	

(Table	4.4.2‐4).	The	three	census	tracts	with	poverty	greater	than	50	percent	occur	in	St.	Lucie	and	Palm	

Beach	Counties,	and	were	also	identified	as	counties	with	greater	than	50	percent	minority	populations.	

Nearly	half	(10)	of	the	census	tracts	with	poverty	greater	than	23.3	percent	are	in	Palm	Beach	County	and	

are	the	same	tracts	identified	as	having	a	high	percent	minority	population.	

Table 4.4.2-4 Low-Income Population Concentrations 

 Census Tract 

Percent Low-Income Population 

≥23.3 percent 

Percent Low-Income Population 

>50 percent 

Brevard 

062301 38.5 -- 

062302 40.2 -- 

062400 23.6 -- 

062600 36.2 -- 

064700 27.0 -- 

064902 40.8 -- 

065124 23.4 -- 

Indian River 

050302 29.1 -- 

050401 46.9 -- 

St. Lucie 

380100 -- 51.6 

380200 42.9 -- 

381000 26.5 -- 

Martin 000800 35.6 -- 

Palm Beach 

001200 24.8 -- 

001301 23.7 -- 

001302 31.4 -- 

001402 24.7 -- 

001403 -- 51.6 

001500 24.8 -- 

001700 35.1 -- 

002200 -- 56.0 

002300 33.8 -- 

002400 46.1 -- 

Source: USCB. 2010b. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: S0801, Commuting Characteristics by Sex. 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 12, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-111 September 2014 

 

In	addition	to	data	pertaining	to	minority	and	low‐income	populations,	information	on	language	usage	

identifies	areas	within	the	Project	Study	Area	where	mitigation	measures,	such	as	the	use	of	translators	

during	public	meetings,	may	be	necessary.	In	Orange	and	Brevard	Counties,	12.8	percent	and	3.1	percent	

of	the	total	population	(5	years	old	and	over)	speak	English	less	than	“very	well,”	respectively.	Among	the	

combined	 total	 population	 (5	 years	 old	 and	 over)	 within	 the	 counties	 crossed	 by	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor,	

9.6	percent	speak	English	less	than	“very	well.”	The	highest	concentration	of	persons	that	speak	English	

less	than	“very	well”	were	found	to	be	in	Palm	Beach	County	(13.0	percent)	(USCB	2010b).		

For	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	evaluated	in	Section	3.3.3	of	the	2012	EA,	20.4	percent	of	the	population	was	

below	 the	 poverty	 level.	 This	 is	 8.9	 percent	 higher	 than	 the	 tri‐county	 average,	 which	 represents	 a	

proportion	of	the	impacted	area	that	is	deemed	“meaningfully	greater”	when	compared	to	the	regional	

population	as	per	 the	CEQ	guidelines.	Low‐income	populations	subject	 to	protection	under	Executive	

Order	12898	are	present	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	

4.4.3 Economic Conditions 

This	section	provides	an	overview	of	existing	labor	force	and	general	employment	sector	conditions	for	

the	six	counties	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	

4.4.3.1 Methodology 

Data	obtained	from	the	2007‐2011	ACS,	“Selected	Economic	Characteristics,”	and	information	collected	

as	part	of	a	literature	review	were	examined	and	incorporated,	as	appropriate,	to	describe	the	economic	

characteristics	of	the	Project	Area.		

4.4.3.2 Affected Environment 

Orlando	and	Orange	County	are	the	most	visited	destinations	in	the	United	States	with	over	50	million	

domestic	and	international	visitors	each	year	(Orange	County	Office	of	Economic	Development	2013).	

The	 tourism	 sector	 alone	 provides	 $27.6	 billion	 in	 total	 economic	 impact	 to	 Metro	 Orlando	

(Metro	Orlando	Economic	Development	Commission	2012).	Theme	parks	such	as	Walt	Disney	World	

Resort,	Universal	Orlando	Resort,	and	SeaWorld	Orlando	are	some	of	the	area’s	main	attractions.	Walt	

Disney	World	Resort	is	the	largest	amongst	these	attractions,	and	includes	several	theme	parks	and	water	

parks:	Magic	Kingdom,	Epcot	Center,	Disney’s	Hollywood	Studios,	Disney’s	Animal	Kingdom,	Disney’s	

Typhoon	 Lagoon,	 and	 Disney’s	 Blizzard	 Beach	 (Disney	 n.d.).	 The	 nation’s	 second	 largest	 convention	

facility	is	the	Orange	County	Convention	Center,	which	hosts	approximately	1	million	visitors	per	year	

and	 provides	 $1.9	 billion	 in	 total	 economic	 impact	 to	 the	 Central	 Florida	 economy	 (Orange	 County	

Convention	Center	2013).		

The	area	from	Cocoa	to	Melbourne	in	Brevard	County	is	within	Florida’s	Space	Coast.	The	Space	Coast	

stretches	72	miles	along	the	state’s	eastern	coastline,	and	is	the	most	concentrated	high‐tech	economy	in	

the	state	(Economic	Development	Commission	of	Florida’s	Space	Coast	2011a).	This	high‐tech	economy	

includes	 communications,	 electronics,	 aerospace,	 advanced	 security,	 and	 emerging	 technologies	

(Economic	Development	 Commission	 of	 Florida’s	 Space	 Coast	 2011a).	 The	National	 Aeronautics	 and	

Space	Administration	(NASA)	Kennedy	Space	Center	and	United	States	Air	Force	(USAF)	Cape	Canaveral	

Air	 Force	 Station	 operate	 within	 the	 Space	 Coast,	 and	 are	 two	 of	 the	 region’s	 largest	 employers	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-112 September 2014 

 

(Economic	Development	Commission	of	Florida’s	Space	Coast	2011b).	The	Kennedy	Space	Center	Visitor	

Complex	hosts	over	1.5	million	visitors	per	year.	The	Space	Coast	also	includes	the	Merritt	Island	National	

Wildlife	Refuge	(MINWR)	and	Canaveral	National	Seashore,	which	draw	over	550,000	visitors	per	year.	

Port	Canaveral,	one	of	the	busiest	ports	in	the	nation,	served	over	3	million	passengers	in	2011	and	has	

an	estimated	economic	impact	of	$48	million	of	state	and	local	taxes	(Canaveral	Port	Authority	2009).	

According	to	the	ACS,	three	industry	categories	typically	employed	the	greatest	percentage	of	the	labor	

forces	in	the	six	counties	transected	by	the	Project	Study	Area:	educational	services,	health	care,	and	social	

assistance;	 professional,	 scientific,	management,	administrative	and	waste	management	 services;	and	

retail	trade	(USCB	2011)	(Table	4.4.3‐1).		

Table 4.4.3-1 Existing Labor Force and General Employment Data 

County 

Population in 

Labor Force 

Industry Type (Percent of Workforce) 

Percent 

Unemployed 

Educational 

Services, Health 

Care and Social 

Assistance 

Retail 

Trade 

Professional, Scientific, 

Management, 

Administrative and Waste 

Management Services 

Orange 627,702 17.5 12.5 13.9 7.2 

Brevard 263,218 20.8 13.3 12.9 6.2 

Indian River 62,322 20.9 13.9 12.7 6.7 

St. Lucie 128,691 20.8 16.8 10.0 8.2 

Martin 66,999 20.2 14.7 13.1 5.8 

Palm Beach 647,885 20.0 13.4 14.0 6.3 

Source: USCB. 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Total Population. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. 

Accessed August 13, 2013. 

Agriculture	is	one	of	the	major	industries	in	Palm	Beach	County;	commercial	agriculture	provides	over	

$2	billion	in	total	economic	impact	to	Palm	Beach	County’s	economy.	Approximately	37	percent	of	the	

total	 land	 in	 the	 county	 is	 occupied	 by	 agricultural	 land	 use	 (Palm	 Beach	 County,	 Florida	 2013).	

Agriculture,	natural	resources	and	related	industries	are	significant	economic	contributors	within	the	five	

counties	 crossed	 by	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor.	 This	 industry	 group	 generates	 189,489	 direct	 jobs	 and	

approximately	 $15.4	 billion	 in	 direct	 revenues;	 it	 has	 an	 overall	 economic	 impact	 of	 approximately	

$18	billion	(Table	4.4.3‐2).	Among	the	five	counties	crossed	by	the	N‐S	Corridor,	the	largest	economic	

impact	 from	 agriculture,	 natural	 resources	 and	 related	 industries	 is	 found	 in	 Palm	 Beach	 County	

($11.6	billion)	(Rahmani	et	al.	2008).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-113 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.3-2 Summary of Economic Impacts of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related 

Industries Along the N-S Corridor 

Direct Employment 

(Jobs) 

Revenue 

($ billions) 

Economic Impact 

($ billions) 

Brevard 29,493 2.1 2.2 

Indian River 14,919 1.1 1.2 

St. Lucie 18,612 1.3 1.6 

Martin 14,217 1.2 1.4 

Palm Beach 112,248 9.7 11.6 

Five County Total 189,489 15.4 18.0 

Source: Rahmani, Mohammad, Alan W. Hodges, and Rodney L. Clouser. 2008. Economic Contributions of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources, and Related Industries in Florida Counties, 2008. http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/economic-impactanalysis/pdf/Florida%20Counties%20Main.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2013. 

Recreational	boating	activities	bring	 revenue	 for	local	businesses	and	governments.	According	 to	 the	

SFWMD	and	the	Florida	Center	for	Environmental	Studies,	fishing	in	the	Indian	River	Lagoon	brought	in	

$82.1	million	in	Martin	and	St.	Lucie	Counties	in	1995,	with	boating	adding	an	additional	$12.4	million	

(SFWMD	 and	 Florida	 Center	 for	Environmental	Studies	 1999).	According	 to	 the	Recreational	Marine	

Research	Center,	which	conducted	a	study	commissioned	by	the	Florida	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation	

Commission,	 the	 total	 spending	 on	boat	 trips	by	boat	 owners	 registered	in	Martin	County	in	2006	is	

estimated	to	be	over	$65	million,	and	nearly	$170	million	in	Palm	Beach	County.	If	the	estimated	annual	

spending	 on	 recreational	 boating,	 not	 including	 purchases	 of	 boats,	 is	 added	 to	 that,	 the	 economic	

significance	 of	 trip	 spending	 and	 annual	 boating	 spending	 by	 boats	 registered	 in	 Martin	 County	 is	

estimated	to	have	a	value	of	over	$90	million.	In	Palm	Beach	County,	these	numbers	are	estimated	with	a	

value	over	$280	million	(Recreational	Marine	Research	Center	n.d.).	According	to	recreational	boat	traffic	

surveys,	recreational	boating	in	Broward	County	has	an	economic	impact	of	approximately	$8.8	billion	

(Mote	2005).	These	estimates	include	lodging,	marina	services,	restaurants,	groceries,	boat	fuel,	auto	fuel,	

marine	supplies,	recreation,	entertainment,	and	shopping,	and	encompass	an	area	much	larger	than	the	

Project	Study	Area.	Section	4.1.3,	Navigation,	provides	additional	information	on	the	economics	of	the	

maritime	industry.	

4.4.4 Public Health and Safety 

This	section	describes	the	existing	and	proposed	conditions	within	the	Project	Study	Area	with	respect	to	

the	health	and	safety	of	 the	residents	and	communities	 that	may	be	affected	by	 the	construction	and	

long‐term	operation	of	the	Project.		

FRA	has	primary	regulatory	authority	over	railroad	safety.	FRA’s	regulations	govern	aspects	of	railroad	

safety,	including	rail	operations,	track,	and	signaling,	as	well	as	rolling	stock,	such	as	locomotives	and	

freight	cars	(49	CFR	parts	200‐299).	The	State	of	Florida	also	has	an	important	role	in	freight	rail	safety,	

especially	at	highway/rail	at‐grade	crossings.	Other	groups	that	establish	standards	and	practices	for	the	

industry	include	 the	Association	of	American	Railroads	 (AAR),	 the	American	Short	Line	and	Regional	

Railroad	 Association	 (ASLRRA),	 and	 the	 American	 Railway	 Engineering	 and	 Maintenance‐of‐Way	

Association	(AREMA).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-114 September 2014 

 

Where	a	roadway,	sidewalk	or	pedestrian	trail/bikeway	crosses	the	track	at	the	same	elevation,	this	is	

called	 an	 at‐grade	 crossing.	Where	 a	 roadway,	 sidewalk	 or	 pedestrian	 trail/bikeway	 passes	 over	 the	

tracks	via	an	overpass	bridge	structure	or	passes	under	a	railroad	track	via	an	underpass	bridge	structure,	

these	crossings	are	 referred	 to	as	grade	 separated.	 FHWA	and	FRA	have	 regulatory	jurisdiction	 over	

safety	at	crossings,	pursuant	to	the	Highway	Safety	Act	of	1966	(HSA)	(23	USC	§	401	et seq.).	The	HSA	

governs	the	distribution	of	 federal	 funds	to	states	aimed	at	eliminating	hazards	at	highway‐rail	grade	

crossings.	USDOT	has	issued	regulations	that	address	crossing	safety	and	provides	federal	funding	for	the	

installation	 and	 improvement	 of	 warning	 devices	 through	 state	 departments	 of	 transportation.	 In	

addition	 to	 federal	oversight	and	 funding,	states	also	monitor	crossings	and,	in	many	cases	designate	

funding	to	complement	the	federal	funds.	Jurisdiction	over	highway‐rail	grade	crossings	falls	primarily	to	

the	states.	This	authority	is	set	forth	in	the	Railroad‐Highway	Grade	Crossing	Handbook	(FHWA	2007).	

Each	state	department	of	transportation	is	required	to	periodically	inspect	highway‐rail	grade	crossings	

and	 to	 determine	 the	 adequacy	 of	 warning	 devices	 at	 each	 location,	 as	 well	 as	 to	 order	 safety	

improvements.	 USDOT	 oversees	 and	 approves	 the	 state	 determinations.	Within	 Florida,	 FDOT’s	 Rail	

Office	maintains	responsibility	for	grade	crossings.	

4.4.4.1 Methodology 

Highway/rail	 at‐grade	 crossing	 information	 was	 collected	 from	 the	 FRA	 Grade	 Crossings	 database	

(FRA	 n.d.).	 This	 database	 provides	 spatial	 crossing	 information	 that	 originates	 from	 the	 National	

Highway‐Rail	Crossing	Inventory	Program.		

The	description	of	geological	hazards,	considered	as	a	public	safety	issue,	was	developed	using	existing	

available	information	 (Institute	of	Food	and	Agricultural	Service	1998	and	2005) and	applicable	data	

obtained	 from	 geotechnical	 surveys	 (soil	 borings)	 conducted	 for	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area,	 including	

information	and	data	obtained	 to	describe	existing	conditions	and	potential	consequences	associated	

with	sinkholesand	seismic	hazard	zones	(Beck,	Berry	and	Sinclair	1986;	NOAA	n.d.).	

Data	related	to	soils	were	collected	using	the	following	GIS	analysis	techniques:	

 Creating	a	polygon	that	represents	a	100‐foot	buffer	of	the	N‐S	Corridor;		

 Creating	a	polygon	that	represents	a	60‐foot	buffer	of	the	E‐W	Corridor;	

 Dividing	the	polygons	into	county	segments	using	the	Intersect	geoprocessing	tool	in	ArcGIS;	and	

 Using	the	Intersect	geoprocessing	tool	to	intersect	the	county	buffer	polygons	with	the	Soil	Survey	

Geographic	database	soils	feature	classes	created	by	the	NRCS	USDA.	

4.4.4.2 Affected Environment 

This	section	describes	the	existing	conditions	within	the	Project	Study	Area	with	respect	to	the	health	and	

safety	 of	 the	 residents	 and	 communities	 that	 may	 be	 affected	 by	 the	 construction	 and	 long‐term	

operations	of	the	Project.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-115 September 2014 

 

Public Safety 

The	N‐S	Corridor	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach	is	within	an	existing	rail	right‐of‐way	known	as	

the	FECR	Corridor.	Freight	rail	service	is	currently	provided	in	this	corridor	as	described	in	Section	4.1.2,	

Transportation.	Passenger	rail	service	is	not	currently	provided	in	the	corridor.		

FRA’s	Track	Safety	Standards	are	based	on	classifications	of	track	that	determine	maximum	operating	

speed	 limits,	 inspection	 frequencies,	 and	 standards	 of	 maintenance,	 among	 other	 issues	 (49	 CFR	

part	 213).	 Higher	 track	 classes	 require	 more	 stringent	 maintenance	 standards	 to	 support	 higher	

allowable	maximum	operating	speed.	The	existing	track	in	the	N‐S	Corridor	is	Class	4,	allowing	maximum	

speeds	up	to	79	mph.	Existing	maintenance	and	inspection	requirements,	as	documented	in	the	existing	

service	plan,	meet	FRA	Class	4	standards.	

The	N‐S	Corridor	crosses	approximately	171	at‐grade	crossings.	Two	of	 these,	located	in	Palm	Beach	

County,	do	not	have	signals	or	safety	equipment.	The	remaining	169	at‐grade	crossings	are	protected	with	

various	 forms	 of	 at‐grade	 crossing	 controls,	 including	 actively	 protected	 grade	 crossing	 predictor	

technology	 with	 gates	 and	 flashing	 light	 signals.	 An	 inventory	 of	 accidents	 at	 N‐S	 Corridor	 at‐grade	

crossings	was	conducted	for	a	5‐year	period	(2007	through	2012)	using	the	FRA’s	Office	of	Safety	Analysis	

database	(Table	4.4.4‐1).	In	general,	the	total	number	of	accidents	by	county	is	minimal,	and	only	one	

crossing	(Babcock	Street,	Brevard	County)	has	had	more	than	one	accident	in	the	last	5	years.		

Table 4.4.4-1 N-S Corridor At-Grade Crossing Accident Data by County 

 Brevard 

Indian 

River St. Lucie Martin 

Palm 

Beach 

Total Number of Grade Crossings 52 31 27 26 35 

Number of Grade Crossings with Accidents (Year 20121) 1 1 0 1 1 

Number of Grade Crossings with Accidents (2011) 0 0 0 0 1 

Number of Grade Crossings with Accidents (2010) 2 0 0 0 1 

Number of Grade Crossings with Accidents (2009) 1 0 0 0 0 

Number of Grade Crossings with Accidents (2008) 2 0 0 1 2 

Total Number of Accidents 6 1 0 2 5 

Number of Grade Crossings with Signals 52 31 27 26 33 

Number of Grade Crossings without Signals 0 0 0 0 2 

Source: FRA. 2013b. Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/default.aspx. Accessed September 18, 2013. 

1 Palm Beach and Brevard County numbers exclude crossings north of SR 528 and south of the proposed West Palm Beach 

stations. Numbers for all counties exclude grade crossings on sidings and off of the FECR Main Line. 

Accidents	occurring	along	the	FECR	right‐of‐way	(and	not	at	grade	crossings)	are	listed	in	Table	4.4.4‐2.	

These	may	include	a	range	of	accident	types,	including	derailments,	accidents	between	trains,	trains	and	

humans,	or	between	trains	and	objects	on	the	tracks.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-116 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.4-2 FECR Accidents, Cocoa to Miami – Years 2011 to 20071

Year 

 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 

Total Accidents 14 12 10 11 38 

Fatalities 3 3 2 1 1 

Source: FRA. 2013b. Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/default.aspx. Accessed September 18, 2013. 

1 Accident locations are based on counties; data represents Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian 

River and Brevard counties. 

The	 primary	 roads	 in	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 are	 I‐95	 and	 Florida’s	 Turnpike	 (SR	 91),	 providing	

north‐south	connections,	and	SR	528,	providing	the	east‐west	connection.	Table	4.4.4‐3	below	provides	

five	years	of	accident	data	for	the	regional	roadway	system	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	

Table 4.4.4-3 Primary Regional Roadway System Traffic Accidents – Years 2011 to 20071

Accidents 

Year 

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 

I-95 (Cocoa to Miami) 

Total Accidents 7903 8957 8232 8464 9174 

Fatalities 65 68 72 91 84 

Turnpike (Orlando to Miami) 

Total Accidents 1771 2239 2438 2868 3017 

Fatalities 22 22 15 19 32 

SR 528 (MCO to Cocoa) 

Total Accidents 213 245 253 322 301 

Fatalities 3 3 0 9 7 

Source: FDOT. 2013c. Florida Traffic Safety Portal. http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/trafficsafetywebportal/. Accessed September 31, 2013. 

1 Accident locations are based on counties; data represents Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian 

River and Brevard counties. 

The	prevailing	 train	control	system	on	 the	existing	FECR	Corridor	is	commonly	known	as	a	cab	with	

wayside	type	system.	It	uses	wayside	color	light	signals	at	interlockings	that	control	safe	switching	of	

trains	from	mainline	track	to	mainline	track,	or	mainline	track	to	controlled	sidings.	These	signals	are	

remotely	 controlled	 by	 dispatchers	 from	 an	 operations	 control	 center	 in	 Jacksonville,	 Florida.	 Safe	

braking	 distance	 is	 maintained	 through	 automatic	 signals	 (also	 color	 lights)	 used	 as	 intermediates	

between	controlled	interlocking	signals.	The	control	is	route‐signaling	augmented	by	in‐cab	signals	that	

display	the	state	of	the	wayside	signals	continuously	in	the	locomotive	cab	through	electronic	coded	track.	

This	electronic	coded	track	also	provides	information	on	broken	rail	detection.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-117 September 2014 

 

Freight	 trains	 traveling	along	 the	FECR	Corridor	are	currently	equipped	 to	haul	hazardous	materials.	

Although	 there	 is	 no	 set	 schedule,	 hazardous	 materials	 are	 hauled	 on	 an	 average	 of	 once	 per	 week	

(see	Table	4.2.4‐2).	FECR	adheres	to	a	safety	program	for	existing	freight	service	that	includes:	

 Education	and	Awareness:	All	FECR	employees	receive	training	throughout	the	year	as	required	

by	law	and	by	company	policy.	

 Test/Audits:	FECR	management	teams	conducts	unannounced	safety	and	compliance	audits	to	

ensure	that	employees	are	working	in	the	safest	environment	possible.	

 Compliance/Prevention:	FECR	ensures	 that	potentially	unsafe	behaviors	or	circumstances	are	

addressed	immediately	and	any	incidents	are	investigated	in	a	timely	manner.	

 Recognition:	Employee	recognition	is	a	key	component	of	any	successful	safety	program.	FECR	

employees	share	in	the	success	of	the	safety	program	through	functions	designed	to	promote	safe	

work	habits	and	recognize	safety	accomplishments	throughout	the	year.	

FECR	has	consistently	been	recognized	for	their	safety	record	through	receipt	of	performance	rewards,	

including	five	E.H.	Harriman	Awards	since	2005.	The	E.H.	Harriman	Award	is	an	annual	award	presented	

to	American	railroad	companies	in	recognition	for	outstanding	safety	achievements.		

Security 

In	the	current	security	climate,	rail	line	security	continues	to	be	a	prominent	concern.	Access	points	are	

of	particular	concern.		

The	FECR	Corridor	from	Cocoa	to	West	Palm	Beach	includes	buildings	and	rail	yards	(Cocoa‐Rockledge	

Yard,	Ft.	Pierce	Yard,	Port	of	Palm	Beach	Yard,	and	West	Palm	Beach	Yard),	bridges,	right‐of‐way,	and	

underpasses.	The	safety	and	security	for	this	rail	infrastructure	is	identified	in	FECR’s	Safety	Rules	and	

Company	Policies	(FECR	2012b).	The	plan	provides	for	overall	right‐of‐way	safety	and	security	objectives	

and	the	reporting	of	safety	and	security	performance	and	details	the	arrangements	for	managing	safety	

and	security.	Standard	FECR	security	practices	are	listed	in	Table	4.4.4‐4.		

Safety	and	security	in	the	N‐S	Corridor	is	accomplished	through	the	combined	facilities	and	services	of	

FECR	and	the	support	from	local	police	departments	in	each	town/city	in	the	corridor,	other	state	and	

county	law	enforcement	departments	and	other	local	emergency	service	providers.	

FECR	has	the	responsibility	for	rail	line	safety	and	security	along	the	existing	FECR	Corridor.	At‐grade	

crossings	have	warning	controls	as	required	by	applicable	federal	law	(49	CFR	Part	222).	Trains	sound	

their	horns	as	they	travel	through	at‐grade	crossings.	Other	existing	controls	range	from	active	warning	

systems	and	crossings	with	passive	warning	systems.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-118 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.4-4 FECR Safety and Security Practices 

Rail Infrastructure Current Practice 

Buildings 

 Abandoned 

 Instrument Houses 

 Storage Facilities 

 Wayside Headquarters

Secured with locks or made inaccessible by boarding openings. Instrument housing 

and communication housings generally contain unauthorized entry alarm systems 

and electronic fire detection devices. Generally, headquarters, towers and storage 

facilities are not alarm protected. County and city police patrols provide additional 

security. 

Right-of-Way 

 Fencing 

 Inter-Track Platforms

 Inter-Track Fencing

 Grade Crossings

 Yards

Fencing is installed in specific areas throughout the FECR Corridor. Where 

appropriate fencing with locked gates are provided. At some locations security 

is regulated by inner-track fencing. Switch machines and signal housings are 

locked. County and city police patrols provide additional security. 

Bridges 

 Moveable 

 Overhead 

 Signal 

 Undergrade

Generally bridges are protected from trespassing to the same extent as any 

ROW area with fencing provided in specific areas. Certain wooden deck bridges 

have fire circuits incorporated into the signal circuits. Some areas are secured 

with locked gates and fencing. Locked anti-climb barriers on ladders protect 

signal bridges. 

Underpasses Generally underpasses are protected from trespassing to the same extent as any 

ROW area. Evacuation points to underpasses are provided and maintained. 

Formerly Used Defense Sites 

The	 East/West	 Corridor	 will	 bisect	 the	 Formerly	 Used	 Defense	 Sites	 (FUDS)	 Pinecastle	 Jeep	 Range	

(USACE	n.d.).	The	former	range	is	a	12,483‐acre	site	located	near	Orlando	International	Airport.	Between	

1943	and	1946,	the	government	leased	the	site	for	small	arms	training	and	military	demonstrations	of	

weapons	and	warfare	capabilities.	In	the	late	1940s,	when	the	military	no	longer	needed	the	property,	it	

was	returned	to	the	original	property	owners.	Private	citizens	and	units	of	government	now	own	much	

of	the	land,	and	it	is	used	for	schools,	homes,	and	businesses.		

At	Pinecastle,	the	military	leased	most	of	the	land	to	accommodate	small	arms	training	(bullets	1/2	inch	

in	diameter	or	less).	When	 fired,	 these	bullets	can	 travel	a	long	distance,	so	it	is	likely	 that	expended	

.50	caliber	projectiles	are	throughout	the	former	range.	These	bullets	present	a	negligible	risk,	as	they	are	

just	pieces	of	metal	with	no	explosives.	

A	small	portion	of	the	site	was	used	for	bombing,	rocketry,	and	gunnery	demonstrations.	Information	

from	 surface	 clearance	 efforts	 after	 military	 use	 indicates	 that,	 of	 the	 total	 12,483‐acre	 site,	 the	

demonstration	area,	which	has	the	highest	potential	for	the	presence	of	explosive	munitions	hazards,	was	

concentrated	on	only	about	500	acres	south	of	Lee	Vista	Boulevard.	As	an	added	precaution,	the	USACE	

expanded	 its	 investigation	 to	 extend	 3,000	 feet	 from	 the	 identified	 target	 locations,	 which	 includes	

portions	of	neighborhoods	north	of	Lee	Vista	Boulevard	and	west	of	Highway	417.	The	proposed	segment	

is	outside	of	the	USACE	investigation	area.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-119 September 2014 

 

Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped 

The	existing	rail	and	highway	infrastructure	do	not	provide	any	barriers	to	the	elderly	or	handicapped.	The	

Americans	with	Disabilities	Act	(ADA)	of	1990	is	a	civil	rights	law	that	prohibits	discrimination	based	on	

disability	and	includes	accessibility	requirements	for	public	transit	facilities	(42	USC	§	12101	et seq.).	This	

section	provides	information	pertaining	to	the	elderly/senior	population	that	was	identified	within	census	

tracts	that	occur	along	or	within	1,000	feet	of	the	Project	Study	Area	(Table	4.4.4‐5)	and	that	may	be	affected	

by	future	operations.	The	elderly/senior	population	is	identified	as	individuals	65	years	or	older.	

According	to	the	USCB,	20.87	percent	of	the	population	within	the	Project	Study	Area	buffer	(117	census	

tracts	within	1,000	feet	of	the	rail	corridor)	is	65	years	or	older	(Table	4.4.4‐5).	Of	the	117	census	tracts	

within	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area,	 eight	 (6.8	 percent)	 reported	 poverty	 greater	 than	 50	 percent	 and	

26	(22.2	percent)	reported	senior	populations	greater	than	30.87	percent.	The	20	census	tracts	identified	

within	the	Project	Study	Area	in	Martin	County	have	a	combined	senior	population	of	28.92	percent.		

Table 4.4.4-5 Elderly/Senior Population Identified in Census Tracts within 1,000 feet of the 

Project Alignment 

 Senior (65+) Population Percent Elderly/Senior 

Orange 5,150 6.55 

Brevard 36,715 23.15 

Indian River 17,108 24.60 

St. Lucie 9,569 27.24 

Martin 22,661 28.92 

Palm Beach 20,623 17.84 

Total 111,826 20.87 

Source: USCB. 2010a. Census 2010. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 13, 2013. 

Geological Conditions 

Geological	conditions	were	investigated	to	determine	if	there	were	existing	geological	conditions	such	as	

sinkholes	 or	 seismic	 hazard	 zones	 that	 could	 pose	 a	 threat	 to	 public	 safety	 during	 passenger	 rail	

operations.	

Sinkholes	are	a	natural	and	common	geologic	 feature	in	areas	underlain	by	limestone	and	other	rock	

types	 that	are	 soluble	in	natural	water.	The	 term	 sinkhole	is	 used	 for	closed	 depressions	in	 the	land	

surface	that	are	formed	by	surficial	solution	or	by	subsidence	or	collapse	of	surficial	materials	owing	to	

the	 solution	 of	 near‐surface	 limestone	 or	 other	 soluble	 rocks.	 This	 discussion	 refers	 to	 sinkhole	

occurrence	in	limestone	and	dolomite,	the	most	common	rock	types	in	Florida.	

Sinkholes	occur	in	a	variety	of	shapes	from	steep‐walled	“natural	wells”	to	funnel‐shaped	or	bowl‐shaped	

depressions.	The	movement	of	groundwater	to	the	limestone	layers	enhances	the	development	of	sinkholes	

by	causing	raveling	of	the	overlying	soils	into	limestone	solution	channels	and	interconnected	caverns	over	

a	 period	 of	 thousands	 of	 years.	 Sinkholes	 are	 of	 interest	 in	 Florida	 because	 they	 are	 one	 of	 the	 most	

predominant	features	of	the	state;	their	development	may	be	sudden,	resulting	in	possible	loss	of	life	and	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-120 September 2014 

 

property;	they	may	cause	flooding	during	storms;	and	they	may	provide	an	avenue	for	pollutants	on	the	

land	surface	to	more	rapidly	seep	into	the	underlying	limestone	and	dolomite.	

The	Project	Study	Area	is	located	in	a	region	of	incohesive,	permeable	sand	ranging	from	20	to	200	feet	

thick	 (FDEP	 1985).	 Small	 cover	 subsidence	 sinkholes	 are	 the	most	 common	 type,	with	less	 common	

collapse	 sinkholes	 forming	 in	 areas	 with	 clayey	 overburden	 sediments.	 Table	 4.4.4‐6	 lists	 sinkholes	

within	a	1‐	to	4.5‐mile	radius	of	the	Project	alignment	(FDEP	2013c).	

Table 4.4.4-6 Identified Sinkholes in the Project Study Area 

Sinkhole ID County Latitude Longitude 

Approximate 

Distance from 

Project 

75-594 Orange 28.499722 -81.27722 3.5 miles 

75-075 Orange 28.492109 -81.27597 3.2 miles 

75-593 Orange 28.488575 -81.070328 2.3 miles 

70-001 Brevard 28.463833 -80.791778 1.1 miles 

75-049 Orange 28.463822 -81.383767 1.2 miles 

75-511 Orange 28.461994 -81.3644 1.1 miles 

75-595 Orange 28.46111 -81.36 1 mile 

75-047 Orange 28.450833 -81.3575 4.4 miles 

93-004 Palm Beach 26.783738 -80.058446 2.3 miles 

93-003 Palm Beach 26.690833 -80.0675 0.8 miles 

Source: FDEP. 2013c. Subsidence Incident Report locations in a KMZ file.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/gisdatamaps/SIRs_database.htm. Accessed March 31, 2013. 

Seismic Zones / Hazard Zones 

Florida	is	in	a	region	that	is	classified	as	stable	with	regards	to	earthquakes;	that	is,	earthquakes	in	the	

state	of	Florida	are	not	probable.	The	state	is	on	the	passive	margin	of	the	North	American	Plate	and	has	

a	very	low	incidence	of	earthquakes.	An	earthquake	(magnitude	of	5.8)	occurred	on	September	10,	2006	

in	the	Gulf	of	Mexico	and	was	not	linked	to	any	specific	fault.	The	U.S.	Geological	Survey	(USGS)	Seismicity

Map of Florida – 1973 to Present	indicated	no	seismic	activities	within	the	Project	Study	Area	during	this	

period	(USGS	n.d.).	The	Seismic	Hazard	Map	of	Florida	indicated	that	the	Project	Study	Area	is	within	a	

0.02	to	0.04	g	seismic	zone	/	hazard	zone	(USGS	n.d.).	The	seismic	design	category,	which	reflects	the	

likelihood	of	experiencing	earthquake	shaking	of	various	intensities,	indicates	that	the	state	of	Florida	has	

a	very	small	probability	of	experiencing	damaging	earthquake	effects.	

4.4.5 Cultural Resources 

Cultural	resources	as	defined	by	the	National	Historic	Preservation	Act	of	1966	(NHPA),	as	amended,	are	

any	“prehistoric	or	historic	district,	site,	building,	structure,	or	object	included	in	or	eligible	for	listing	on	

the	National	Register	of	Historic	Places”	 (NRHP).	Cultural	resources	are	 found	both	above	and	below	

ground.	 Archaeological	 sites	 or	 archaeological	 resources	 represent	 the	 locations	 of	 prehistoric	 and	

historic	 activities.	 The	 term	 “historic	 structures”	includes	 houses,	 buildings,	 bridges,	 and	 constructed	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-121 September 2014 

 

features	that,	with	few	exceptions,	are	at	least	50	years	old.	Historic	landscapes	consist	of	lands	that	have	

been	culturally	modified.	Linear	historic	resources	can	include	canals,	roads,	railroads	or	other	manmade	

linear	features.	Historic	districts	consist	of	historic	structures	and	other	elements	that	retain	identity	and	

integrity	as	a	whole.	Sacred	sites,	cemeteries,	and	burial	places	are	also	considered	cultural	resources,	

although	they	are	generally	not	considered	eligible	for	NRHP	listing.	

Section	 106	 of	 the	 NHPA	 requires	 all	 federal	 agencies	 to	 take	 into	 account,	 prior	 to	 authorizing	 an	

undertaking,	the	effect	of	that	undertaking	on	cultural	resources	listed	in	or	eligible	for	listing	in	the	NRHP	

(16	USC	470(f)).	NHPA	establishes	specific	criteria	for	eligibility	to	the	NRHP:	(1)	association	with	events	

that	 significantly	 contribute	 to	 our	 history;	 (2)	 associated	 with	 persons	 significant	 in	 our	 history;	 (3)	

embodying	distinctive	architectural	styles	or	methods,	high	artistic	values,	or	representing	a	significant	

entity	whose	components	may	lack	individual	distinction;	or	(4)	have	the	potential	to	yield	information	

important	to	prehistory	or	history.	A	key	factor	in	determining	eligibility	is	an	evaluation	of	the	integrity	of	

location,	 design,	 setting,	 materials,	 workmanship,	 feeling,	 and	 association	 of	 the	 resources	 under	

consideration	(National	Park	Service	2002).	AAF,	as	a	non‐federal	party,	is	assisting	FRA	in	meeting	its	

obligations	under	Section	106,	and	has	conducted	studies	to	determine	if	any	cultural	resources	exist	in	the	

Project’s	Area	of	Potential	Effect	(APE)	that	are	listed	in	or	eligible	for	listing	on	the	NRHP.		

4.4.5.1 Methodology 

All	cultural	resource	investigations	and	consultations	were	conducted	in	accordance	with	Section	106	

and	 its	 implementing	 regulations	 for	 Protection	 of	 Historic	 Properties	 at	 36	 CFR	 part	 800.	 The	

investigations	 and	 consultations	 also	 complied	 with	 the	 field	 methods,	 data	 analysis,	 and	 reporting	

standards	 embodied	 in	 the	 Florida	 Division	 of	 Historical	 Resources	 (FDHR)	 Cultural Resource

Management (CRM) Standards and Operational Manual (Florida	 Department	 of	 State	 2002),	 and	

Chapter	1A‐46	(Archaeological and Historical Report Standards and Guidelines),	Florida	Administrative	

Code	 (FAC).	 All	 work	 conformed	 to	 professional	 guidelines	 set	 forth	 in	 the	 Secretary	 of	 Interior’s	

Standards	and	Guidelines	for	Archaeology	and	Historic	Preservation	(48	FR	44716,	as	amended).	

AAF	conducted	initial	consultation	with	FDHR,	which	is	the	State	Historic	Preservation	Officer	(SHPO),	on	

March	28,	2013	prior	to	the	initiation	of	the	cultural	resources	survey	to	establish	a	methodology	and	APE.	

A	copy	of	the	meeting	minutes	is	provided	in	Appendix	4.4.5‐A1	On	July	8,	2013,	FRA	and	SHPO	held	a	

conference	call	to	discuss	the	cultural	resource	survey	methodology,	APE,	and	Section	106	process	timeline.		

The	 methodology	 has	 been	 developed	 in	 conjunction	 with	 SHPO	 and	 is	 similar	 to	 previous	

SHPO‐approved	methodologies	that	have	been	applied	to	other	large‐scale	transit	projects.	This	proven	

methodology	provides	key	information	such	as	identifying	existing	historic	and	archaeological	resources,	

and	the	potential	for	additional	unrecorded	cultural	resources.	Archival	research	pertinent	to	the	APE	

was	 conducted	 to	 determine	 the	 types,	 chronological	 placement,	 and	 location	 patterning	 of	 known	

cultural	 resources	 within	 the	 APE.	 This	 included	 a	 search	 of	 federal,	 state,	 county,	 and	 local	 site	

inventories,	published	and	unpublished	CRM	reports,	county	Property	Appraiser	records,	historic	maps,	

and	 other	 relevant	 historical	 research	 materials.	 Field	 surveys,	 including	 subsurface	 testing,	 were	

conducted	 to	 identify	 other	 archaeological	 and	 historic	 resources	 eligible	 for	 listing	 on	 the	 NRHP.	 A	

Cultural	Resources	Assessment	Survey	Report	(CRAS)	was	prepared	for	the	SR	528	corridor	between	

SR	520	and	Cape	Canaveral	that	identifies	NRHP	listed	and	eligible	resources	(Janus	Research,	Inc.	2005).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-122 September 2014 

 

A	 separate	 Section	 106	 Determination	 of	 Effects	 Case	 Study	 Report	 was	 also	 prepared	 to	 determine	

potential	effects	of	the	Project	on	NRHP	listed	and	eligible	resources.		

After	 consultation	 with	 the	 SHPO,	 FRA	 determined	 that	 the	 MCO	 Segment	 and	 the	 VMF	 had	 been	

adequately	addressed	by	the	GOAA	in	two	previous	environmental	assessments	(FAA	and	GOAA	1998;	

FAA	 2013).	 In	 general,	 the	 methodology	 for	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 complied	 with	 FDHR	 standards	 for	

undeveloped	 acreage.	 The	 methodology	 for	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 was	 consistent	 with	 that	 used	 in	

Section	3.3.7	of	the	2012	EA.		

Area of Potential Effect 

FRA	established	an	appropriate	APE	 for	 the	Project	in	coordination	with	SHPO.	The	APE	includes	 the	

geographic	area	or	areas	in	which	the	Project	may	directly	or	indirectly	cause	changes	in	the	character	or	

use	of	archaeological	and	historic	properties,	if	such	properties	exist.	The	APE	was	influenced	by	the	scale	

and	nature	of	the	undertaking	as	well	as	its	geographical	setting.	The	APE	included	measures	to	identify	

and	 evaluate	 both	 archaeological	 and	 historical	 resources.	 Normally,	 archaeological	 and	 other	

below‐ground	resources	will	be	affected	by	ground	disturbing	activities	and	changes	in	ownership	status.	

Structural	resources	and	other	above	ground	sites,	however,	are	often	impacted	by	those	activities,	as	

well	as	alterations	to	setting,	access	and	appearance.	Indirect	impacts,	such	as	noise,	vibration,	and	visual	

impacts,	may	also	affect	historic	resources.	As	a	consequence,	the	survey	methodologies	for	these	two	

broad	categories	of	sites	differ.		

FRA’s	 coordination	 with	 SHPO	 considered	 what	 improvements	 and	 activities	 would	 occur	 in	 the	

E‐W	Corridor	and	in	the	N‐S	Corridor,	and	how	the	Project	may	impact	cultural	resources	listed	or	eligible	

for	the	NRHP.	The	APE	is	based	on	the	approved	APE	for	the	2012	EA	(Section	3.3.7).		

For	the	alternative	considered	for	the	MCO	Segment	and	the	VMF,	the	archaeological	APE	included	the	

limits	of	disturbance.	For	historic	resources,	the	APE	for	the	MCO	Segment	was	200	feet	on	either	side	of	

the	railroad	centerline,	and	for	the	VMF,	the	APE	was	the	47‐acre	area.  

For	the	E‐W	Corridor,	the	archaeological	APE	included	the	limits	of	disturbance	for	the	alternatives	to	be	

considered	 (approximately	 100‐foot	 average	 width).	 The	 archaeological	 archival	 research	 and	

reconnaissance	APE	for	the	E‐W	Corridor	included	all	alignment	alternatives.	For	historic	resources,	the	

APE	was	200	feet	on	either	side	of	the	centerlines	for	the	alternatives	considered.	

For	the	N‐S	Corridor,	the	archaeological	resources	APE	was	limited	to	the	footprint	of	subsurface	activities	

within	the	existing	approximately	100‐foot	wide	FECR	Corridor.	The	historic	resources	APE	included	the	

N‐S	Corridor	as	well	as	150	feet	on	either	side	of	the	N‐S	Corridor	to	allow	for	the	consideration	of	indirect	

impacts.	Figure	4.4.5‐1	shows	an	example	of	the	direct	and	indirect	APE	for	the	N‐S	Corridor.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-123 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-124 September 2014 

 

Consultation 

FRA	formally	initiated	the	Section	106	process	as	part	of	the	Notice	of	Intent	(NOI)	to	prepare	the	DEIS	

for	the	Project	(FRA	2013c).	As	part	of	the	NOI,	FRA	provided	information	about	the	Project	and	identified	

that	FRA	is	seeking	participation	and	input	of	interested	federal,	state,	and	local	agencies,	Native	American	

groups,	and	other	private	organizations	and	individuals.	FRA	is	coordinating	compliance	of	Section	106	

with	the	preparation	of	the	DEIS.	The	Project	is	being	coordinated	with	appropriate	potential	consulting	

parties	pursuant	to	Section	106	and	Advisory	Council	on	Historic	Preservation	(ACHP)	guidance	(36	CFR	

Part	800).	Consultation	materials	are	provided	in	Appendix	4.4.5‐A1‐5.	

At	an	initial	March	28,	2013	consultation	meeting	between	AAF	and	SHPO,	SHPO	determined	that	unlike	

the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	AAF	Passenger	Rail	Project,	the	Project	was	not	crossing	or	near	historic	

districts	 and	 would	 not	 be	 affecting	 railroad	 terminals	 except	 at	 the	 MCO.	 Therefore,	 the	 level	 of	

coordination	with	local	 preservation	 planning	 representatives	 used	in	 Phase	 I	was	 not	warranted	 In	

Phase	II.	During	a	July	8,	2013	conference	call,	FRA,	SHPO,	and	AAF	discussed	potential	consulting	parties.	

SHPO	 concurred	with	 FRA’s	 determination	 that	 consultation	with	local	 entities	was	 not	 required	 for	

Phase	II.		

Five	public	scoping	meetings	were	held	in	May	2013	(see	Chapter	8,	Public Involvement).	At	these	meetings,	

information	about	the	Section	106	process	was	available	for	the	public	and	other	interested	parties	and	a	

cultural	 resources	 specialist	 was	 made	 available	 as	 well	 to	 address	 any	 questions	 raised.	 SHPO	 has	

confirmed	 that	 these	 public	 meetings	 provided	 adequate	 opportunity	 for	 consultation	 (see	

Appendix	4.4.5‐A1‐5).		

Due	 to	 previous	 Section	 106	 consultation	meetings	in	 affected	 communities	 (West	 Palm	 Beach,	 Fort	

Lauderdale,	 and	 Miami),	 SHPO	 determined	 that	 no	 additional	 separate	 Section	 106	 meetings	 were	

necessary.	To	date,	FRA	has	not	received	written	requests	from	individuals	or	organizations	to	participate	

as	consulting	parties.	

FRA	sent	a	letter	concerning	the	Project	to	USFWS	because	a	known	archaeological	site	is	located	near	

the	Hobe	Sound	National	Wildlife	Refuge	(Appendix	4.4.5‐A1‐5).	To	date,	FRA	has	not	received	a	request	

by	the	USFWS	to	be	a	consulting	party.	

On	April	23,	2013,	FRA	initiated	consultation	via	e‐mail	and	letter	with	five	Native	American	Nations	to	

determine	whether	traditional	use	areas	or	sacred	lands	would	be	crossed	by	the	Project.	The	list	of	Native	

American	tribes	to	be	consulted	was	compiled	in	consultation	with	SHPO,	and	used	prior	contacts	with	

Native	American	 tribes	 for	FRA	regulated	projects	in	Florida.	Efforts	 to	identify	other	interested	Native	

American	tribes	included	requesting	all	those	who	received	letters	to	notify	FRA	and	AAF	of	any	additional	

groups	 or	individuals	who	might	 be	interested	in	 providing	 comment.	A	list	 of	Native	American	 tribes	

contacted	 is	 included	 in	 Table	 4.4.5.1.	 Copies	 of	 consultation	 letters	 and	 responses	 are	 included	 in	

Appendix	4.4.5‐A1‐5.	To	date,	only	the	Seminole	Tribe	of	Florida	Tribal	Historic	Preservation	Officer	(THPO)	

has	responded	to	FRA.	The	THPO	(June	6,	2013	response	letter)	provided	no	scoping	comments	concerning	

the	Project,	but	did	request	Project	updates	and	a	copy	of	the	completed	DEIS	(see	Appendix	4.4.5‐A1‐5).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-125 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.5-1 Native American Consultation Contacts 

Agency (Native American) Contact Name 

Date of 

Correspondence 

Date of 

Response 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida Steve Terry, Land Resource Manager April 23, 2013 No Response to Date 

Muscogee Creek Nation Emman Spain, THPO April 23, 2013 No Response to Date 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians Robert Thrower, THPO April 23, 2013 No Response to Date 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Chief Leonard M. Harjo April 23, 2013 No Response to Date 

Seminole Tribe of Florida Paul Backhouse, THPO April 23, 2013 June 6, 2013 

Coordination	between	FRA,	SHPO,	and	the	Section	106	consulting	parties	will	continue	throughout	the	

development	of	the	EIS	for	the	Project.	

Four	 Certified	 Local	 Governments	 (CLG)	 and	 two	 local	 informants	 were	 also	 contacted	 regarding	

information	 on	 locally	 designated	 historic	 resources.	 Three	 CLGs	 responded	 to	 these	 inquiries.	

Table	4.4.5‐2	summarizes	this	coordination.	

Table 4.4.5-2 Certified Local Government/Local Informant Contacts Regarding Potential Locally 

Designated Cultural Resources Located Within the Phase II APE (Orlando to West 

Palm Beach) 

City/Town 

CLG Contact/ 

Local Informant Response 

Contact 

Date 

Response 

Date County 

City of Melbourne Kelly Delmonico, 

Planner 

No locally designated 

resources within 150 feet of 

the rail line. Property list of 

locally designated resources 

provided. 

June 10, 2013 June 17, 2013 Brevard 

Town of Lake Park Nadia Di Tommaso, 

Community Development 

Director 

Property list of locally 

designated resources 

provided 

July 9, 2013 July 10, 2013 Palm Beach 

Town of Jupiter David M. Kemp, AICP 

Principal Partner 

Property list of locally 

designated resources 

provided 

July 9, 2013 July 10, 2013 Palm Beach 

City of Ft. Pierce Kori Benton, 

Historic Preservation Officer 

No response July 9,2013 N/A St. Lucie 

N/A Christian Davenport, 

County Archaeologist 

No response July 10, 2013 N/A Palm Beach 

N/A Leslie Olson, 

Planning Manager 

No response June 10, 2013 N/A St. Lucie 

4.4.5.2 Affected Environment 

This	section	categorizes	the	existing	cultural	resources	within	the	APE.	The	NRHP	Criteria	of	Eligibility	

describe	 what	 makes	 a	 property	 historically	 significant	 (36	 CFR	 60.4).	 These	 criteria	 were	 used	 to	

evaluate	the	significance	of	the	surveyed	historic	architectural	and	archaeological	resources	within	the	

APE.	To	be	eligible	for	the	National	Register,	districts,	sites,	buildings,	structures,	and	objects	must	possess	

integrity	of	location,	design,	setting,	materials,	workmanship,	feeling,	and	association,	and:	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-126 September 2014 

 

a) that	are	associated	with	events	that	have	made	a	significant	contribution	to	the	broad	patterns	of	

our	history;	

b) that	are	associated	with	the	lives	of	persons	significant	in	our	past;		

c) that	embody	the	distinctive	characteristics	of	a	type,	period,	or	method	of	construction,	or	that	

represent	the	work	of	a	master,	or	that	possess	high	artistic	values,	or	that	represent	a	significant	

and	distinguishable	entity	whose	components	may	lack	individual	distinction;	or		

d) that	have	yielded,	or	may	be	likely	to	yield,	information	important	in	prehistory	or	history.	

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment	and	VMF	are	located	within	Orange	County	and	are	depicted	on	the	Pine	Castle	USGS	

topographic	quadrangle	map.		

Archival	 research	 conducted	 on	 the	 VMF	 was	 based	 on	 the	 studies	 prepared	 for	 areas	 previously	

surveyed	and	assessed	for	cultural	resources	during	the	development	of	the	GOAA	NEPA	EA	for	the	South	

Terminal	Complex	at	MCO	(FAA	and	GOAA	1998;	FAA	2013).	One	previously	recorded	archaeological	site	

has	been	identified	within	the	MCO	Segment	(Table	4.4.5‐3).	No	historic	structures	have	been	identified	

within	the	MCO	Segment	(including	the	VMF)	APE.	Since	no	NRHP	listed	or	eligible	cultural	resources	

were	 identified	 within	 the	 VMF	 APE	 during	 the	 previous	 surveys,	 no	 additional	 archival	 or	 cultural	

resources	 field	work	is,	 therefore,	necessary	 for	 the	VMF	APE.	This	information	is	summarized	in	 the	

CRAS	and	Section	106	Determinations	of	Effects	Case	Study	Report.	Appendix	4.4.5‐B1‐3	provides	maps	

of	cultural	resources	in	proximity	to	the	MCO	Segment	and	VMF.	

Table 4.4.5-3 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources Within the MCO Segment 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Style National Register Status 

8OR8277 South Terminal Northeast Low-density pre-Columbian artifact scatter Determined Ineligible for the National 

Register by SHPO 

East-West Corridor 

For	 identification	 of	 cultural	 resources,	 Alignment	 Alternative	 E	 was	 used	 to	 define	 the	 APE,	 as	 it	

represents	the	maximum	limit	of	disturbance.	

Historic Resources 

The	E‐W	Corridor	between	Orlando	and	Cocoa	is	located	within	portions	of	Orange	and	Brevard	Counties,	

and	is	depicted	on	the	Courtenay,	Lake	Poinsett	NW,	Narcoossee	NE,	Narcoossee	NW,	Pine	Castle,	and	

Sharpes	USGS	topographic	maps.	

The	Florida	Master	Site	File	(FMSF),	county	and	local	site	inventories,	published	and	unpublished	CRM	

reports,	 county	 Property	 Appraiser’s	 records,	 and	 other	 relevant	 historical	 research	 materials	 were	

reviewed	to	identify	known	historic	resources	within	the	APE	 for	the	E‐W	Corridor	Alternative	E,	the	

alternative	with	the	largest	footprint	on	undisturbed	land.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-127 September 2014 

 

Pertinent	 literature	 and	 records	 of	 the	 surrounding	 region	 as	 well	 as	 archaeological	 and	 historical	

assessments	 of	 other	 tracts	 of	 land	 within	 or	 adjacent	 to	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 with	 Alternative	 E	 were	

reviewed	to	determine	the	locations	of	any	previously	recorded	archaeological	and	historic	resources.	

This	background	research	identified	28	previously	conducted	cultural	resource	surveys	that	have	been	

performed	 within	 or	 adjacent	 to	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 with	 Alternative	 E.	 Fieldwork	 was	 conducted	 to	

identify	archaeological	and	historic	resources	in	these	areas.	

Within	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 APE,	 the	 only	 NRHP‐eligible	 resource	 was	 the	 previously	 identified	 FECR	

Railway	District	(see	Tables	4.4.5‐4	through	4.4.5‐6).		

Table 4.4.5-4 Previously Recorded Historic Linear Resources within the E-W Corridor APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Group Type National Register Status 

8OR9850 Bull Slough Drainage Ditches Historic Linear Resource Determined Ineligible for the NRHP by SHPO 

8BR1870 Florida East Coast Railway Historic Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO 

8BR2697 US Highway 1/Cocoa Blvd Historic Linear Resource Portions Determined Ineligible for the NRHP by SHPO 

Table 4.4.5-5 Previously Recorded Historic District within the E-W Corridor APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Group Type National Register Status 

8OR9851 Gee Bee Resource Group Mixed District Determined Ineligible for the NRHP by SHPO 

Table 4.4.5-6 Previously Recorded Historic Resources Adjacent to the E-W Corridor APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address 

Construction 

Date Style National Register Status 

8BR1735 Altered Image Tattoo / 

2417 N Cocoa Blvd. 

c. 1949 Frame Vernacular Determined Ineligible for the NRHP by 

SHPO 

8BR1735 Jumping Flea Market / 

2507 N Cocoa Blvd. 

c. 1940 Masonry Vernacular Determined Ineligible for the NRHP by 

SHPO 

Three	additional	historic	resources	are	within	the	APE	for	the	E‐W	Corridor	(Table	4.4.5‐7).	Two	of	these	

resources	are	1960s	residences	located	in	Brevard	County.	The	third	is	a	1963	industrial	structure	located	

in	Brevard	County.	None	of	these	resources	appear	to	be	eligible	for	the	NRHP	(see	Appendix	4.4.5‐A1‐5).	

Cultural	resources	identified	within	the	E‐W	Corridor	APE	are	shown	on	maps	in	Appendix	4.4.5‐B1‐5.	

Table 4.4.5-7 Newly Identified E-W Corridor Historic Resources 

FMSF # Site Name/Address 

Construction

Date Style 

SHPO Evaluation of National 

Register Significance 

8BR3066 5161 Palm Avenue c. 1963 Masonry vernacular Considered ineligible 

8BR3067 3800 Pine Street c. 1965 Masonry vernacular Considered ineligible 

8BR3068 2800 Clearlake Road c. 1963 Industrial vernacular Considered ineligible 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-128 September 2014 

 

Archaeological Resources 

A	 search	 of	 literature	 and	 records	 of	 the	 surrounding	 region	 and	 archaeological	 and	 historical	

assessments	 of	 other	 tracts	 of	 land	 within	 or	 adjacent	 to	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 APE	 was	 conducted	 to	

determine	 the	 locations	 of	 previously	 recorded	 archaeological	 resources.	 This	 background	 research	

identified	 28	 previously	 conducted	 cultural	 resource	 surveys	 that	 have	 been	 performed	 within	 or	

adjacent	 to	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 APE.	 No	 known	 archaeological	 sites	 are	 located	 within	 the	 100‐foot	

right‐of‐way	of	the	centerlines	of	the	three	alternative	alignments	considered	for	the	E‐W	Corridor.	A	field	

survey	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	for	areas	located	outside	of	the	boundaries	of	the	CRA Survey of the Proposed

Magnolia Ranch Development Site, Orange County, Florida	(FMSF	Survey	No.	2420)	and	CRA Survey for the

SR528 Study From State Road 520 to the Port Canaveral Terminal B Interchange, Orange and Brevard

Counties	(FMSF	Survey	No.	11594)	was	completed	in	summer	2013.	

For	the	approximately	32.5‐mile	E‐W	Corridor,	Table	4.4.5‐8	identifies	estimated	mileage	and	acreage	for	

previously	surveyed	areas	and	evaluates	the	probability	for	identifying	new	archaeological	sites	in	the	

areas	that	have	not	been	surveyed.	Various	factors	must	be	considered	when	assessing	the	potential	of	

an	area	to	contain	prehistoric	and/or	historic	archaeological	sites.	Among	these	are	topographic	setting;	

soils;	 proximity	 to	 water;	 location	 along	 major	 routes	 of	 transportation;	 and	 the	 extent	 of	 ground	

disturbances	within	the	area	resulting	from	erosion,	construction,	maintenance,	or	agricultural	activities.	

Generally	speaking,	high	site	potential	areas	are	defined	as	those	areas	of	moderately	well	drained	to	

excessively	drained	upland	locales	near	a	wetland	or	body	of	water.	These	areas	were	tested	at	25‐meter	

(82‐foot)	intervals.	Generally	speaking,	moderate	site	potential	zones	are	defined	as	those	poorly	to	very	

poorly	drained	locales	near	a	wetland	or	body	of	water.	Moderate	potential	areas	were	tested	at	50‐meter	

(164‐foot)	intervals.	Low	potential	zones	are	defined	as	those	areas	of	very	poorly	drained	to	excessively	

drained	upland	locales	not	otherwise	designated	as	high	or	medium	potential.	Areas	of	low	potential	were	

tested	judgmentally	at	100‐meter	(328‐foot)	intervals.	

Table 4.4.5-8 E-W Corridor Areas and Estimated Mileage and Acreage of Areas Previously 

Surveyed and by Probability Classification for Areas Unsurveyed 

Testing Miles Acreage 

Percent 

of Total 

Previously Surveyed 14.0 282.9 35.0 

High Archaeological Site Potential (shovel testing planned) 1.3 26.3 3.3 

Moderate Archaeological Site Potential (shovel testing planned) 0.8 15.7 1.9 

Low Archaeological Site Potential (pedestrian survey planned) 22.9 462.8 57.4 

Low Archaeological Site Potential (judgmental if shovel testing appropriate) 1.0 19.4 2.5 

Archaeological	field	testing	in	the	previously	unsurveyed	portions	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	did	not	identify	

any	cultural	material	and	did	not	identify	any	additional	environmental	features	indicative	of	increased	

archaeological	site	potential.	The	survey	team	was	not	able	to	gain	access	to	a	portion	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	

located	on	one	private	property.	Once	access	is	obtained,	a	supplemental	survey	will	be	conducted	to	

complete	the	pedestrian	survey	and	subsurface	testing	within	the	E‐W	Corridor.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-129 September 2014 

 

North-South Corridor 

Historic Resources 

The	N‐S	Corridor	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach	is	located	within	portions	of	Brevard,	Indian	River,	

St.	Lucie,	Martin,	and	Palm	Beach	Counties,	and	is	depicted	on	the	Ankona,	Cocoa,	Courtenay,	Eau	Gallie,	

Eden,	Fellsmere,	Fort	Pierce,	Gomez,	Grant,	Hobe	Sound,	Indrio,	Jupiter,	Melbourne	East,	Melbourne	West,	

Oslo,	 Palm	 Beach,	 Palm	 City,	 Riviera	 Beach,	 Sebastian,	 Sharpes,	 St.	 Lucie	 Inlet,	 and	 Vero	 Beach	USGS	

topographic	maps.	

For	the	N‐S	Corridor,	historic	resources	included	individual	resources	and	historic	districts	located	along	

the	FECR	Corridor	and	on	adjacent	properties/parcels.	The	historic	resources	were	identified	through	

background	 research	 and	 a	 reconnaissance	 survey.	 Research	 identified	 127	 previously	 conducted	

cultural	 resource	 surveys	 that	 have	 been	 performed	 within	 or	 adjacent	 to	 the	N‐S	 Corridor.	Historic	

resource	forms	(architectural,	linear,	and	district)	from	FMSF	identified	previously	recorded	architectural	

and	historical	resources	greater	than	50	years	of	age	and	properties	listed	in	the	NRHP.	Appendix	4.4.5‐B	

shows	the	locations	of	known	cultural	resources	relative	to	the	N‐S	Corridor	APE.	

Background	 research	 identified	 19	 architectural/historical	 resources	 in	 Brevard	 County;	 three	

architectural/historical	 resources	 in	 Indian	 River	 County;	 three	 architectural/historical	 resources	 in	

St.	Lucie	County;	six	architectural/historical	resources	in	Martin	County;	and	three	architectural/historical	

resources	in	Palm	Beach	County.		

Previous	studies	and	coordination	with	SHPO	have	identified	the	FECR	Corridor	(8BR1870/8IR1497/	

8IR1518/8SL3014/	MT1391/8MT1450/8PB12102)	as	eligible	for	listing	on	the	NRHP	as	a	linear	district	

(Table	 4.4.5‐9).	 FECR	 retains	 historical	 importance	 due	 to	 its	 associations	 with	 development	 and	

transportation	of	the	east	coast	of	Florida.	Built	primarily	in	the	last	quarter	of	the	19th	century	and	the	

first	decade	of	the	20th	century,	the	FECR	Corridor	was	a	project	of	Henry	Morrison	Flagler.	Flagler,	who	

originally	 worked	 with	 John	 D.	 Rockefeller	 in	 building	 the	 Standard	 Oil	 Trust,	 became	 known	 for	

developing	 resorts,	 industries,	 and	 communities	 along	 Florida's	 eastern	 coast.	 The	 FECR	 Corridor	 is	

considered	eligible	for	listing	in	the	NRHP	as	a	linear	historic	district	under	Criterion	A	in	the	categories	

of	Transportation,	and	Community	Planning	and	Development.	

Table 4.4.5-9 Historic Linear Resources Previously Identified in the N-S Corridor APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Group Type National Register Status 

8BR1870 Florida East Coast Railway Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO 

8IR1497/ 8IR1518 Florida East Coast Railway Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO 

8SL3014 FECR Railway-Lake Harbor Branch Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO 

8MT1391/8MT1450 Florida East Coast Railway Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO 

8PB12102 Florida East Coast Railway Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-130 September 2014 

 

In	 addition,	 within	 the	 FECR	 Corridor,	 four	 bridges	 (8BR3058,	 8BR3062/8IR1569,	 8MT1382,	 and	

8PB16041)	have	been	identified	as	individually	eligible	for	listing	on	the	NRHP	under	Criterion	A	and	

Criterion	 C	 (Table	 4.4.5‐10).	 These	 four	 bridges	 are	 also	 considered	 contributing	 elements	 to	 the	

FECR	Railway	Historic	District.	An	additional	nine	bridges	are	not	considered	individually	eligible	 for	

listing	on	the	NRHP	but	are	still	considered	contributing	elements	to	the	FECR	Railway	Historic	District.	

SHPO	concurrence	is	expected	 for	 these	eligibility	recommendations.	A	request	 for	concurrence	with	

FRA’s	eligibility	determination	was	submitted	to	SHPO	on	October	31,	2013	(see	Appendix	4.4.5‐A3).		

Table 4.4.5-10 Historic Railway Bridges Identified Within the N-S Corridor APE 

Mile 

Post County FMSF # Site Name / Address 

Date 

Estimate National Register Status 

190.47 Brevard 8BR3058 Fixed Railway Bridge over the Eau 

Gallie River – Steel 

1925 Individually Eligible, Contributing 

to an Eligible FECR Railway 

Linear Historic District 

194.34 Brevard 8BR3059 Fixed Railway Bridge over the Crane 

Creek and Melbourne Street – Steel 

1925 Contributing to an Eligible FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

197.7 Brevard 8BR3060 Fixed Railway Bridge over the Turkey 

Creek – Steel 

1925 Contributing to an Eligible FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

202.59 Brevard 8BR3061 Fixed Railway Bridge over the Goat 

Creek – Steel 

1959 Contributing to an Eligible FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

212.07 Brevard and 

Indian River 

8BR3062/ 

8IR1569 

Fixed Railway Bridge over the 

Sebastian River – Steel 

1926 Individually Eligible; Contributing 

to an Eligible FECR Railway 

Linear Historic District 

240.1 St. Lucie 8SL3191 Fixed Bridge over the Taylor Creek - 

Concrete with Steel Beam Span 

1961 Contributing to an Eligible FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

241.22 St. Lucie 8SL3192 Fixed Bridge over “C” Avenue – 

Concrete 

1912/ 

2003 

Ineligible 

259.95 Martin 8MT1623 Fixed Bridge over the Rio Waterway - 

Steel and Timber Piles 

1958 Contributing to an Eligible FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

260.93 Martin 8MT1382 Movable Bridge over the St. Lucie 

River – Steel 

1938 Individually Eligible; Contributing 

to an Eligible FECR Railway 

Linear Historic District 

266.86 Martin 8MT1624 Fixed Bridge over the Salerno 

Waterway - Steel and Timber Piles 

1958 Contributing to an Eligible FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

267.34 Martin 8MT1625 Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to 

Manatee Creek 1 - Steel and Timber Piles

1962 Contributing to an Eligible FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

267.70 Martin 8MT1626 Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to 

Manatee Creek 2 - Steel and Timber Piles

1962 Contributing to an Eligible FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

282.58 Palm Beach 8PB16041 Movable Bridge over the Loxahatchee 

River – Steel 

1935 Individually Eligible; Contributing 

to an Eligible FECR Railway 

Linear Historic District 

On	properties	adjacent	to	the	FECR	Corridor,	one	NRHP‐listed	site	(Florida	Power	&	Light	Co.	Ice	Plant,	

8BR215),	 one	 NRHP‐eligible	 historic	 district	 (Union	 Cypress	 Saw	 Mill	 Historic	 District,	 8BR2173;	

Table	4.4.5‐11),	one	other	NRHP‐eligible	linear	resource	(FECR	Railway‐Lake	Harbor	Branch,	8SL3014;	

Table	4.4.5‐12),	and	ten	other	NRHP‐eligible	historic	resources	(residences,	stores,	and	cemeteries)	were	

identified	(Table	4.4.5‐13).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-131 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.5-11 Historic Resources Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address 

Construction 

Date Style National Register Status 

8BR215 Florida Power & Light Co. Ice Plant / 

1604 S, Harbor City Boulevard 

1926 Industrial Vernacular NRHP–Listed 

8BR759 Whaley, Marion S Citrus Packing 

House/2275 Rockledge Blvd W. 

1930 Frame Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible 

by SHPO 

8BR1710 Jorgensen's General Store/5390 US Hwy 1 1894 Frame Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible 

by SHPO 

8BR1723 Cocoa Cemetery Storage Building/ 

101 N. Cocoa Blvd. 

c. 1931 Masonry Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible 

by SHPO 

8BR1739 Ashley's Cafe & Lounge/ 

1609 Rockledge Blvd. W. 

c. 1932 Tudor Revival ca.1890-

1940 

Determined NRHP–Eligible 

by SHPO 

8BR1741 Rockledge Gardens Nursery & 

Landscaping/2153 Rockledge Blvd. W. 

c. 1930 Industrial Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible 

by SHPO 

8BR1744 Harvey's Groves/3700 US Hwy. 1 E. c. 1939 Masonry Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible 

by SHPO 

8BR1765 Bohn Equipment Company/ 255 Olive St c. 1927 Industrial Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible 

by SHPO 

8BR2779 317 Rosa Jones Dr. Residence c. 1962 International ca. 1925-

present 

Determined NRHP–Eligible 

by SHPO 

8IR1049 Florida East Coast Railroad Platform 

Structural Remains 

20th century American Railroad Fence 

and Platform Supports 

Considered NRHP–Ineligible 

Table 4.4.5-12 Historic District Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address 

Resource 

Group Type National Register Status 

8BR2173 Union Cypress Saw Mill Historic District Mixed District Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO 

Table 4.4.5-13 Historic Cemeteries Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Date Est. National Register Status 

8BR1777 Cocoa Cemetery c. 1890 Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO 

N/A Unnamed Cemetery on West Railroad Avenue c. 1960 Further Research Needed 

8BR2808 Pinecrest Colored Cemetery c. 1949 Further Research Needed 

Archaeological Resources 

Five	 archaeological	 resources	 were	 identified	 within	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 from	 the	 record	 search	

(Table	 4.4.5‐14	 and	 Appendix	 4.4.5‐B3).	 All	 of	 these	 sites	 have	 experienced	 some	 level	 of	 previous	

disturbances.	Four	of	the	archaeological	sites	have	not	been	evaluated	for	NRHP	eligibility	by	the	SHPO	

and	 one	 site	was	 previously	 determined	 not	NHRP	 eligible	 by	SHPO	 (Appendix	 4.4.5‐A).	One	 known	

archaeological	site	was	identified	in	Indian	River	County	and	one	archaeological	site	was	identified	in	

Martin	 County.	 Three	 known	 archaeological	 sites	 were	 identified	 in	 St.	 Lucie	 County.	 No	 known	

archaeological	sites	were	identified	in	the	N‐S	Corridor	in	Brevard	and	Palm	Beach	Counties.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-132 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.5-14 Archaeological Sites Located within the N-S Corridor APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Site Type National Register Significance1

8IR846 Railroad Malabar-Period Shell Midden and 

Artifact Scatter 

Not Evaluated by SHPO 

8MT1287 Hobe Sound National Wildlife 

Refuge #3 

Prehistoric Campsite and Prehistoric 

Shell Midden 

Not Evaluated by SHPO 

8SL41 Fort Capron Historic Fort Not Evaluated by SHPO 

8SL1136 Pineapple Surface Scatter, Campsite, 

Homestead, and Farmstead 

Ineligible 

8SL1772 Avenue A-Downtown Fort Pierce Precolumbian Habitation, Midden, 

Campsite, and extractive Site; 

Historic American Building Remains, 

Refuse, and Artifact Scatter 

Not Evaluated by SHPO 

1 As recorded in the FMSF; may require re-evaluation 

WPB-M Corridor 

Historical Resources 

The	 SHPO	 determined	 that	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 itself	 is	 considered	 eligible	 for	 inclusion	 in	 the	 NRHP	

(FRA	 2013a).	 Section	 3.3.7.1	 of	 the	 2012	 EA	 described	 eight	 historic	 railway	 bridges	 within	 the	

WPB‐M	 Corridor	 (Table	 4.4.5‐15).	 The	 2012	 CRA	 identified	 the	 bridges.	 Each	 identified	 bridge	 is	

considered	a	contributing	resource	within	a	potential	FECR	Railway	Linear	Historic	District.	Potential	

NRHP	 eligibility	 on	 an	individual	 basis	 was	 not	 determined,	 consistent	 with	 the	 evaluation	methods	

developed	with	the	SHPO/FDHR	for	the	2010	FECR	Amtrak	Passenger	Rail	Project	and	the	SHPO/FDHR	

methods	established	for	that	project.		

Table 4.4.5-15 Historic Railway Bridges Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE 

County FMSF # Site Name / Address 

Date 

Estimate National Register Status 

Palm Beach 8PB15951 Fixed Railway Bridge over the C-15 Canal 1962 Contributing to a Potential FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

Broward 8BD4860 Fixed Railway Bridge over the 

Cypress Creek/ C-14 Canal 

1960 Contributing to a Potential FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

Broward 8BD4861 Fixed Railway Bridge over the 

North Fork of Middle River 

1957 Contributing to a Potential FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

Broward 8BD4862 Fixed Railway Bridge over the 

South Fork of Middle River 

1959 Contributing to a Potential FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

Broward 8BD4863 Fixed Railway Bridge over the 

Dania Cut-Off Canal 

1927 Contributing to a Potential FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

Miami-Dade 8DA12596 Fixed Railway Bridge over the 

Oleta River 

1963 Contributing to a Potential FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

Miami-Dade 8DA12597 Fixed Railway Bridge over the 

Royal Glades/C-9 Canal 

1956 Contributing to a Potential FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

Miami-Dade 8DA12598 Fixed Railway Bridge over the Arch Creek 1930 Contributing to a Potential FECR 

Railway Linear Historic District 

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-133 September 2014 

 

Nineteen	 historic	 districts	 were	 identified	 within	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 (Table	 4.4.5‐16).	 The	 FMSF	

identified	four	NRHP–	listed	districts.	Fifteen	districts	have	been	determined	NRHP–eligible	by	the	SHPO	

or	 the	 2012	 CRA.	 The	 FMSF	also	identified	 four	 historic	linear	 resources	 that	 have	 been	 determined	

NRHP–eligible	by	the	SHPO	or	the	2012	CRA	(Table	4.4.5‐17).	Thirty	significant	historic	buildings	are	

located	 within	 the	WPB‐M	 Corridor	 (Table	 4.4.5‐18).	 The	 FMSF	identified	 six	NRHP‐listed	 buildings.	

Twenty‐four	 buildings	 have	 been	 determined	 NRHP‐eligible	 by	 the	 SHPO	 or	 the	 2012	 CRA.	

Four	 significant	 historic	 stations	 or	 railway	 related	 resources	 (Table	 4.4.5‐19)	 and	 two	 historic	

cemeteries	(Table	4.4.5‐20)	were	identified	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	APE.	

Table 4.4.5-16 Historic Districts Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE 

County FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Group Type National Register Status 

Palm Beach 8PB5980 Northwest Neighborhood Historic 

District 

Historic District NRHP–Listed 

Palm Beach 8PB9905 Lake Lucerne Commercial 

Historic District 

Historic District NRHP–Listed 

Palm Beach 8PB10350 Grandview Heights Historic District Historic District NRHP–Listed 

Palm Beach 8PB13713 Camino Real Historic District Historic District Determined NRHP–Eligible 

Palm Beach 8PB14285 Del-Ida Park Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Palm Beach 8PB15380 Atlantic Avenue Historic District Historic District Determined NRHP– Eligible 

Palm Beach N/A Pearl City Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Broward 8BD181 Downtown Fort Lauderdale 

Historic District 

Historic District Determined NRHP–Eligible 

Broward 8BD3284 Hollywood Boulevard Historic 

Business District 

FMSF Building Complex NRHP–Listed 

Broward N/A Northwest Pompano Historic 

District 

Historic District Considered NRHP-Eligible 

Broward N/A Old Business District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Broward N/A Old Pompano Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Miami-Dade 8DA378 Greynolds Park Designed Historic Landscape Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Miami-Dade 8DA3536 Miami Shores Golf Course Designed Historic Landscape Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Miami-Dade N/A Miami Shores Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Miami-Dade N/A Biscayne Park Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Miami-Dade N/A El Portal Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Miami-Dade N/A MiMo/Biscayne Boulevard 

HistoricDistrict 

Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Miami-Dade N/A Palm Grove Neighborhood 

HistoricDistrict 

Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 

Table 4.4.5-17 Linear Resources Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE 

County FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Group Type National Register Status 

Palm Beach 8PB10311 Hillsboro Canal Linear Resource Determined NRHP– Eligible 

Palm Beach 8PB10331 West Palm Beach Canal Linear Resource Determined NRHP– Eligible 

Broward 8BD3229 Hillsboro Canal Linear Resource Determined NRHP– Eligible 

Miami-Dade N/A El Portal – Little River - Seawall Linear Resource Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West 

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-134 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.5-18 Historic Structures Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE 

County FMSF # Site Name / Address 

Construction 

Date Style National Register Status 

Palm Beach 8PB169 Administration Building/ 

Dixie Highway & Camino Real 

1925 Mediterranean Revival 

ca. 1880-1940 

NRHP–Listed 

Palm Beach 8PB240 Hoot, Toot & Whistle/ 

290 E. Atlantic Avenue 

c.1926 Mission Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Palm Beach 8PB513 Andrews House/ 

306 SE 1st Avenue 

c.1909 Frame Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Palm Beach 8PB835 Peninsular Plumbing Company 

Warehouse/501-513 Fern Street 

c. 1938 Masonry Vernacular Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO; Noted as Eligible by 

Friederike Mittner West Palm 

Beach Historic Preservation 

Planner 

Palm Beach 8PB8232 Seaboard Air Line Dining Car 6113/747 

S. Dixie Highway 

1947 Moderne ca. 1920-1940 NRHP–Listed 

Palm Beach 8PB8233 Seaboard Air Line Lounge Car 6603/747 

S. Dixie Highway 

1947 Moderne ca. 1920-1940 NRHP–Listed 

Palm Beach 8PB14806 470 Fern Street c. 1930 Mediterranean Revival Determined NRHP– Eligible 

by the SHPO 

Palm Beach 8PB14808 500 Fern Street c. 1949 Mediterranean Revival Determined NRHP– Eligible 

by the SHPO 

Palm Beach N/A Arc Rib Storage/502 Kanuga Drive Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Palm Beach N/A Delray Beach Antique Mall/ 

1350 N. Federal Highway 

Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Palm Beach N/A Goodwill/1640 N. Federal Highway Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Palm Beach N/A Lantana Chamber of Commerce/ 

212 Iris Avenue 

Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP–Eligible 

Palm Beach N/A Woodlawn Cemetery Gate/ 

1500 S. Dixie Highway 

Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Palm Beach N/A 3615 Henry Avenue c.1925 Frame Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible

Broward 8BD62 King-Cromartie House/229 SW 2nd

Avenue 

1907 Frame Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Broward 8BD63 New River Inn/229 SW 2nd Avenue 1906 Masonry Vernacular NRHP–Listed 

Broward 8BD143 Hotel Poinciana/ 

141 NW 1st Avenue 

c.1920 Mission Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Broward 8BD212 Philemon Bryan House/ 

227 SW 2nd Avenue 

1906 Neo-Classical Revival 

ca. 1880-1940 

Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Broward 8BD227 Bryan, Tom M. Building/ 

201-213 Himmarshee Street 

c.1925 Mediterranean Revival 

ca. 1880-1940 

Determined NRHP– Eligible 

Broward 8BD376 The Hollywood Publishing 

Company/219 N 21st Avenue 

1924 Masonry Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Broward 8BD574 Ingram Arcade/ 

2033-2051 Hollywood Blvd. 

1921 Commercial Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Broward 8BD1976 Progresso Plaza/901 Progresso Drive c.1925 Mediterranean Revival 

ca. 1880-1940 

Determined NRHP– Eligible 

Broward 8BD2237 Hamilton's Pharmacy/ McClellan 

Drugs/126 N Flagler Avenue 

1925 Art Deco ca. 1920-1940 Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Broward 8BD2258 Pompano Mercantile Company/ 

114 N Flagler Avenue 

1924 Mission Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Broward 8BD4179 Hollywood Armory/910 N Dixie Highway 

W 

c.1954 Other Determined NRHP– Eligible 

Broward N/A Antique Car Museum/1527 SW 1st 

Avenue 

Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Broward N/A Sears Town/901 N Federal Highway Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Miami-Dade 8DA165 Reassembled Spanish Monastery AD 

1141/16711 W Dixie Highway 

1952 Masonry Vernacular NRHP– Listed 

Miami-Dade 8DA355 Dade County Courthouse/ 

Miami City Hall/73 W Flagler Street 

1925 Neo-Classical Revival 

ca. 1880-1940 

NRHP–Listed 

Miami-Dade N/A N. Miami Beach/Peoples Gas Building/ 

System/15779 W. Dixie Highway 

Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible 

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-135 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.5-19 Historic Stations or Railroad Related Resources within the WPB-M Corridor APE 

County FMSF # Site Name / Address 

Construction 

Date Style National Register Status 

Palm Beach 8PB96 FECR Railway Station/ 

S. Dixie Highway at SE 8th Street 

1929 Mediterranean 

Revival ca. 1880-1940 

NRHP–Listed 

Palm Beach N/A Delray Beach FECR Depot and 

Water Tower/220 NE 1st Street 

Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible

Broward N/A Florida East Coast Freight House 

and Platform Machine Ramp/ 

1801 SW 1st Avenue 

1948; 1956 Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible

Broward N/A Florida East Coast Rail Yard/ 

3125 S. Andrews Avenue 

Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West 

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 

Table 4.4.5-20 Historic Cemeteries Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE 

County FMSF # Site Name / Address Date Est. National Register Status 

Palm Beach N/A Woodlawn Cemetery Not Available Considered NRHP-Eligible 

Miami-Dade 8DA1090 City of Miami Cemetery 1897 NRHP–Listed 

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West 

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.

The	FECR	Corridor	is	located	within	the	APE	for	each	of	the	proposed	station	locations.	During	previous	

cultural	resources	assessment	projects	that	have	involved	the	FECR	Corridor,	the	SHPO	determined	that	

the	FECR	Corridor	itself	is	considered	eligible	for	inclusion	in	the	NRHP.	Additional	resources	located	

directly	within	the	APE	for	the	station	locations	are	discussed	below.	

Two	NRHP‐eligible	historic	buildings	are	located	within	the	West	Palm	Beach	Station	North	Site	APE	for	

Historic	Resources	(Table	4.4.5‐21).	The	FMSF	identified	one	historic	building	determined	by	the	SHPO	

to	be	NRHP‐eligible.	The	2012	CRA	identified	one	historic	building	as	NRHP‐eligible.		

The	FMSF	identified	one	NRHP‐listed	historic	district	within	the	APE	for	the	West	Palm	Beach	Station	

Central	 Site	 (Table	 4.4.5‐21).	Within	 this	 district,	 the	 2012	 CRA	 identified	 seven	 buildings	 that	 are	

contributing	to	the	NRHP‐listed	historic	district	but	are	not	individually	eligible	and	three	contributing	

buildings	 to	 the	 historic	 district	 that	 are	 individually	 NRHP‐eligible.	 The	 FMSF	 also	 identified	 one	

NRHP‐listed	building	and	three	buildings	determined	NRHP‐eligible	by	SHPO.	The	2012	CRA	identified	

two	buildings	as	NRHP‐eligible.		

The	FMSF	identified	one	NRHP‐eligible	historic	district	within	the	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	North	Site	

APE	 for	Historic	Resources	 (Table	 4.4.5‐21);	 this	APE	is	applicable	 to	 the	Relocated	 Fort	 Lauderdale	

Station	site.	Within	this	district,	the	FMSF	identified	one	building	that	is	contributing	to	the	district	and	

is	NRHP‐listed,	two	buildings	that	are	contributing	to	the	district	and	have	previously	been	determined	

to	be	NRHP‐eligible	by	SHPO,	and	one	building	that	is	a	contributing	element	to	the	district	but	is	not	

individually	 eligible.	 The	 2012	 CRA	identified	 two	 additional	 buildings	 that	 are	 contributing	 to	 the	

NRHP‐eligible	historic	district	and	are	considered	NRHP‐eligible	and	one	building	that	is	contributing	

to	the	NRHP‐eligible	historic	district	and	is	considered	individually	ineligible.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-136 September 2014 

 

The	FMSF	identified	one	NRHP‐eligible	historic	district	within	the	APE	for	the	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	South	

Site	(Table	4.4.5‐21).	The	FMSF	identified	one	building	that	is	contributing	to	the	district	and	is	NRHP‐listed	

and	two	buildings	that	are	contributing	to	the	district	and	are	determined	NRHP‐eligible	by	the	SHPO.	The	

2012	CRA	identified	two	additional	buildings	that	are	contributing	to	the	district	and	are	considered	NRHP‐

eligible	and	two	buildings	that	are	contributing	and	considered	ineligible	for	the	NRHP.	

The	 FMSF	 identified	 one	 NRHP‐listed	 Historic	 District	 within	 the	 APE	 for	 the	 Miami–Central	 site	

(Table	4.4.5‐21).	The	2012	CRA	identified	one	 contributing	resource	within	the	NRHP‐listed	Historic	

District,	which	is	ineligible	on	an	individual	basis.	The	FMSF	also	identified	 two	buildings	which	are	

NRHP‐listed	 or	 eligible.	 The	 2012	 CRA	 identified	 one	 NRHP‐eligible	 building	 within	 the	 Historic	

Resources	APE	established	for	the	Miami	‐	Central	Elevated	Site.	

An	additional	reconnaissance	survey	was	conducted	as	part	of	 the	2012	CRA	 to	evaluate	resources	

within	one	block	of	the	proposed	elevated	railway	track	improvements	for	the	Miami–Central	Elevated	

Site.	This	resulted	in	the	identification	of	one	NRHP‐eligible	resource:	X‐Ray	Clinic/171	NW	11thStreet.	

Within	the	Miami–South	Site	the	FMSF	identified	one	NRHP‐listed	historic	district	and	five	contributing	

buildings	that	are	determined	NRHP‐eligible	on	an	individual	basis	by	SHPO.	The	2012	CRA	identified	

one	contributing	building	within	the	NRHP‐listed	Historic	District	which	is	 considered	NRHP‐eligible	

and	 one	 building	 that	is	considered	is	 ineligible.	 The	 FMSF	identified	 two	additional	NRHP‐listed	or	

eligible	buildings	within	the	Miami–South	At	Grade	Site	APE.	The	2012	CRA	identified	one	additional	

individually	NRHP‐eligible	building	(Table	4.4.5‐21).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-137 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.5-21 Historic Resources within the WPB-M Corridor APE for Historic Resources Stations 

Site FMSF # Site Name / Address 

Construction 

Date Style National Register Status 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB574 513-515 Clematis 

Street 

c. 1921 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP–Listed Clematis 

Street Historic Commercial District 

(8PB10348) 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB575 517-519 Clematis 

Street 

c. 1929 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis 

Street Historic Commercial District 

(8PB10348) 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB576 518-520 Clematis 

Street 

1924 Masonry Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis 

Street Historic Commercial District 

(8PB10348) 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB577 521-527 Clematis 

Street 

c. 1920 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis 

Street Historic Commercial District 

(8PB10348) 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB578 522 Clematis Street 1919 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis 

Street Historic Commercial District 

(8PB10348) 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB579 526 Clematis Street 1923 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis 

Street Historic Commercial District 

(8PB10348) 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB580 W. E. Pope 

Building/529- 531 

Clematis Street 

1921 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis 

Street Historic Commercial District 

(8PB10348) 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB581 528 Clematis Street 1929 Art Deco Considered NRHP– Eligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis 

Street Historic Commercial District 

(8PB10348) 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB582 533 Clematis Street 1925 Neoclassical Revival Considered NRHP– Eligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis 

Street Historic Commercial District 

(8PB10348) 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB585 540 Clematis Street c. 1925 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis 

Street Historic Commercial District 

(8PB10348) 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB593 Alma Hotel/ 

534 Datura Street 

c. 1926 Mediterranean 

Revival 

Considered NRHP– Eligible 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB690 Ferndix Building/ 

321-325 S. Dixie 

Highway 

1925 Mission NRHP–Listed in 1999 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB835 Peninsular Plumbing 

Company 

Warehouse/ 

501-513 Fern Street 

c. 1938 Masonry Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB10348 Clematis Street 

Historic Commercial 

District 

Various Various NRHP–Listed 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB14806 470 Fern Street c. 1930 Mediterranean 

Revival 

Determined NRHP– Eligible by the SHPO

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-138 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.5-21 Historic Resources within the WPB-M Corridor APE for Historic Resources Stations 

(Continued) 

Site FMSF # Site Name / Address 

Construction 

Date Style National Register Status 

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB14807 West Palm Beach 

Employee Health 

Center/464 Fern Street

c. 1930 Mediterranean 

Revival 

Determined NRHP– Eligible by the SHPO

West Palm 

Beach Central 

8PB14808 Ballet Florida/ 

500 Fern Street 

c. 1949 Mediterranean 

Revival 

Determined NRHP– Eligible by the SHPO

Fort Lauderdale 

North 

8BD62 King-Cromartie 

House/ 

229 SW 2nd Avenue 

1907 Frame Vernacular Considered NRHP–Eligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Eligible Ft. 

Lauderdale Historic District (8BD181) 

Fort Lauderdale 

North 

8BD63 New River Inn/ 

231 SW 2nd Avenue 

1906 Masonry Vernacular NRHP–Listed; Contributing Resource 

within NRHP–Eligible Ft. Lauderdale 

Historic District (8BD181) 

Fort Lauderdale 

North 

8BD181 Ft. Lauderdale 

Historic District 

Various Various Determined NRHP–Eligible by the SHPO 

Fort Lauderdale 

North 

8BD212 Philemon Nathanial 

Bryan House/ 

227 SW 2nd Avenue 

1906 Neoclassical Revival Considered NRHP–Eligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Eligible Ft. 

Lauderdale Historic District (8BD181) 

Fort Lauderdale 

North 

8BD213 Davis Acetylene 

Building/N of 229 SW 

2nd Avenue 

c. 1905 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP– Eligible Ft. 

Lauderdale Historic District (8BD181) 

Fort Lauderdale 

North 

8BD227 Tom Bryan Building/ 

201-211 Himmarshee 

Street 

c. 1925 Mediterranean 

Revival 

Determined NRHP–Eligible by the SHPO; 

Contributing Resource within NRHP– 

Eligible Ft. Lauderdale Historic District 

(8BD181) 

Fort Lauderdale 

North 

8BD237 ROK:BRGR/ 

208 Himmarshee 

Street 

c. 1939 Masonry Vernacular Determined Ineligible by the SHPO; 

Contributing Resource within NRHP–

Eligible Ft. Lauderdale Historic District 

(8BD181) 

Fort Lauderdale 

North 

8BD239 Briny Irish Pub/ 

214-220 SW 2nd 

Street 

c. 1937 Masonry Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible by the SHPO; 

Contributing Resource within NRHP–

Eligible Ft. Lauderdale Historic 

District(8BD181) 

Miami Central 8DA271 Salvation Army 

Citadel/ 

49 NW 5th Street 

c. 1925 Gothic Revival Determined NRHP-Eligible by the SHPO 

Miami Central 8DA1164 212-222 N Miami 

Avenue 

c. 1922 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing 

Resource within NRHP Listed Downtown 

Miami Historic District (8DA10001) 

Miami Central 8DA2397 Lyric Theater/ 

819 NW 2nd Avenue 

c. 1914 Masonry Vernacular NRHP-Listed 

Miami Central 8DA10001 Downtown Miami 

Historic District 

Various Various NRHP-Listed 

Miami Central 8DA12603 201 NW 1st Avenue c. 1914 Masonry Vernacular Considered NRHP-Eligible 

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West 

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 

Archaeological Resources 

As	noted	in	Section	3.3.7.1	of	the	2012	EA,	the	FMSF	identified	no	previously	recorded	archeological	sites	

within	the	Palm	Beach	County	segment	of	the	FECR	Corridor	Archaeological	APE.	The	FMSF	also	listed	no	

previously	recorded	NRHP‐listed	or	eligible	archaeological	sites	within	the	Miami‐Dade	County	portion	

of	the	FECR	Corridor	Main	Line	Archaeological	APE.	Based	on	digital	files	available	from	the	City	of	Miami	

illustrating	the	locations	of	Archaeological	Conservation	Areas,	the	Miami‐Dade	County	segment	of	the	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-139 September 2014 

 

FECR	Corridor	Main	Line	Archaeological	APE	intersects	one	City	of	Miami	Archaeological	Conservation	

Area,	which	extends	from	the	north	bank	of	the	Little	River	approximately	0.4	miles	to	the	south.		

One	previously	recorded	archaeological	site,	Brickell	Block	(8BD2916),	extends	into	the	archaeological	APE	

for	the	Broward	County	segment	of	FECR	Corridor	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	The	Brickell	Block	is	in	an	

urban	 setting	 beneath	 a	 multi‐story	 shopping	 and	 entertainment	 complex,	 and	 associated	 hardscape,	

including	a	parking	lot.	The	significance	of	this	site	has	not	been	evaluated	by	SHPO,	but	it	is	recorded	as	

containing	sensitive	material.	The	Broward	County	segment	also	traverses	through	two	areas	defined	by	

the	City	of	Fort	Lauderdale	as	archaeologically	sensitive	zones.	These	zones	are	between	the	New	River	and	

SW	4th	Court,	and	approximately	500	feet	to	both	the	north	and	south	of	the	Tarpon	River.		

The	FMSF	identified	no	previously	recorded	significant	archaeological	sites	within	the	Archaeological	

APE	established	for	the	West	Palm	Beach	Station	North	Site,	West	Palm	Beach	Station	Central	Site,	Miami	

Station	Central	Site,	Miami	Station	South	Site,	and	the	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	North	Site	(including	the	

Relocated	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	Site).

4.4.6 Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources 

This	section	describes	existing	recreational	properties	along	with	properties	that	are	protected	under	

Section	4(f)	of	the	USDOT	Act	of	1966	(49	USC	§	303	et	seq.)	and	Section	6(f)	of	the	Land	and	Water	

Conservation	Act	of	1965	(16	USC	§	460L)	(other	than	the	historic	resources	described	in	Section	4.4.5,	

Cultural Resources).		

Section	 4(f)	 resources	 are	 identified	 as	 parks,	 recreation	 areas,	 or	 wildlife	 and	 waterfowl	 refuges	 of	

national,	state,	or	local	significance	that	are	available	to	the	public.	A	park	or	recreation	area	is	afforded	

federal	protection	under	Section	4(f)	if:	

 It	is	publicly	owned,	meaning	the	property	is	owned	and	operated	by	a	public	entity,	or	the	public	

entity	has	a	proprietary	interest	in	the	property,	such	as	an	easement;		

 It	is	open	to	the	public	for	visitation	for	more	than	a	select	group	of	the	public	at	any	time	during	

normal	hours	of	operation;	

 The	primary	purpose	of	 the	property	is	recreation	(lands	used	primarily	 for	non‐recreational	

purposes	but	that	host	recreational	activities	do	not	have	recreation	as	a	primary	purpose);	and		

 It	is	significant	as	a	park	or	recreation	area,	meaning	that	the	resource	plays	an	important	role	in	

meeting	the	park	and	recreational	objectives	of	the	community,	as	determined	by	the	official	with	

jurisdiction	over	the	property.	

Section	6(f)	resources	are	all	parks	and	other	recreational	facilities	that	have	been	the	subject	of	Land	and	

Water	Conservation	Fund	Act	grants	of	any	type.	Section	6(f)(3)	contains	strong	provisions	to	protect	

federal	 investments	 and	 the	 quality	 of	 assisted	 resources.	 Section	 6(f)(3)	 states	 that	 no	 Section	 6(f)	

resource	 shall	 be	 converted	 to	 other	 than	 public	 outdoor	 recreation	 uses	 without	 approval	 of	 the	

Secretary	 of	 the	 Interior.	 The	 Secretary	 may	 approve	 conversions	 only	 if	 he/she	 finds	 it	 to	 be	 in	

accordance	with	the	existing	comprehensive	statewide	outdoor	recreation	plan.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-140 September 2014 

 

4.4.6.1 Methodology 

This	evaluation	used	GIS	data	derived	 from	 the	 Florida	Natural	Area	 Inventory	and	 the	University	 of	

Florida.	 In	addition,	EDR	provided	environmental	data	 to	identify	 facilities	that	are	within	 the	Project	

Study	Area.	The	EDR	database	review	identified	natural	areas	 that	included	 federal	wilderness	areas,	

preserves,	sanctuaries,	refuges	and	wild	and	scenic	rivers.	Property	appraiser’s	websites	for	each	county	

within	the	Project	Study	Area	and	aerial	photography	were	also	evaluated	to	identify	additional	resources	

not	identified	in	the	above	referenced	data	sources.	Local	land	use	plans	for	the	six	counties	within	the	

Project	Study	Area	were	reviewed	to	determine	if	there	are	any	planned	recreational	resources	within	

300	feet	of	the	Project	alignment.	A	list	of	the	sources	used	in	this	evaluation	is	provided	in	Table	4.4.6‐1.	

Table 4.4.6-1 Section 4(f) Evaluation Sources 

Title Author Date 

Florida Managed Areas (GIS) Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) June 2012 

Florida Parks and Recreational Facilities (GIS) University of Florida 2009 

The EDR National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) check Report 

Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) Site- Johnson Boulevard, 

Inquiry Number 3532737.8s 

Environmental Data Resources February 2013 

Orange County Property Appraiser Orange County 2013 

Brevard County Property Appraiser Brevard County 2013 

Indian River County Property Appraiser Indian River County 2013 

St. Lucie County Property Appraiser St. Lucie County 2013 

Martin County Property Appraiser Martin County 2013 

Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Palm Beach County 2013 

Google Earth Imagery Google 2011 

Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, Orange County Orange County 2012 

Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter III: Recreation and Open 

Space Element 

Brevard County 2009 

Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10: Recreation 

and Open Space Element 

Indian River County 2010 

St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan: Recreation Element St. Lucie County 2010 

Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, Martin County Martin County 2013 

Palm Beach County 1989 Comprehensive Plan Palm Beach County 2012 

4.4.6.2 Affected Environment 

Thirty‐two	Section	4(f)	resources	were	identified	within	300	feet	of	the	Project	alignment	(Table	4.4.6‐2;	

Appendix	 4.4.6‐A).	 Two	 of	 the	 identified	 Section	 4(f)	 resources	 are	 along	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor,	 while	 the	

remaining	30	are	along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	No	Section	4(f)	resources	were	identified	along	the	MCO	Segment.	

Two	of	the	identified	Section	4(f)	resources	were	also	identified	as	Section	6(f)	resources:	North	Sebastian	

Conservation	 Area	 and	 Sawfish	 Bay	 Park.	 Both	 Section	 6(f)	 resources	 are	 along	 the	N‐S	 Corridor.	 The	

counties’	 comprehensive	 planning	 documents	 showed	 that	 there	 are	 no	 Section	 4(f)	 resources	 (parks,	

recreational	areas,	or	wildlife	refuges)	planned	within	300	feet	of	the	Project	alignment.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-141 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.6-2 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Conservation, and 

Recreation Areas within the Orlando-West Palm Beach Project Study Area 

Map 

ID 

Recreational 

Resource County Description 

E-W Corridor 

1 Tosohatchee Wildlife 

Management Area 

(WMA) 

Orange The WMA is managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FWC) bisected by the proposed alignment. Recreational 

activities include: hiking, bicycling, camping, horseback riding, fishing, 

limited hunting and wildlife viewing (FWC 2013a). 

2 Canaveral Marshes 

Conservation Area 

Brevard Conservation area managed by SJRWMD bisected by the proposed 

alignment. Recreational activities include: fishing, hiking, bicycling, 

canoeing, boating, and wildlife viewing (SJRWMD 2013b). 

N-S Corridor 

3 Helen and Allan 

Cruickshank Sanctuary 

Brevard Wildlife sanctuary managed by Brevard County. Recreational activities 

include hiking and wildlife viewing (Brevard County, Florida 2013b). 

4 Rotary Park at Suntree Brevard Community park managed by Brevard County. Recreational facilities 

include a playground and a pavilion (Brevard County, Florida 2013c). 

5 Jordan Scrub Sanctuary Brevard Wildlife sanctuary managed by Brevard County. Recreational activities 

include: hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, and wildlife viewing 

(Brevard County, Florida 2013b).

6 South Mainland 

Community Center 

Brevard Community Center managed by Brevard County. Recreational facilities 

include a gymnasium and playground. A nature trail is in the planning 

process (Brevard County, Florida 2013b). 

7 North Sebastian 

Conservation Area1

Indian River Conservation area managed by Indian River County. Primary intended 

use is the protection of scrub habitat for the Florida scrub-jay. A plan 

for environmental education and passive recreation (hiking) was 

proposed (Indian River County, Parks Division 2013). 

8 Pocahontas Park Indian River Community park managed by Indian River County. Facilities include 

playground, tennis courts, shuffle board, water fountains, and shaded 

park benches (Indian River County, Parks Division 2013). 

9 Harmony Oaks 

Conservation Area 

Indian River Conservation area managed by Indian River County. Intended use of 

the park is to maintain a scenic shoreline for boaters. There are no 

existing trails, but the County has identified this area for future trails 

(locations unknown) (FWC 2013a). 

10 Harbor Branch Natural 

Area 

St. Lucie Natural Area managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational activities 

include: hiking, picnicking, disc golf, horseshoes and volleyball 

(St. Lucie County, Environmental Resources Department n.d.). 

11 D.J. Wilcox Preserve St. Lucie Preserve managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational activities include: 

hiking, birding and wildlife viewing (St. Lucie County, Florida 2013a). 

12 Indrio Scrub Preserve St. Lucie Preserve managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational activities include 

hiking and wildlife viewing (St. Lucie County, Florida 2013a). 

13 St. Lucie Village 

Heritage Park 

St. Lucie Park managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational activities include: 

Interpretive hiking trails, birding, picnic, volleyball, disc golf, and grilling 

(St. Lucie County, Florida 2013a).

14 Central Open Space – 

SLV 

St. Lucie Park managed by St. Lucie County. Park consists of a vacant lot with no 

facilities (St. Lucie County, Office of the Property Appraiser 2013). 

15 Old Fort Historical Site St. Lucie Historical site managed by St. Lucie County. No recreational facilities were 

identified on the site and no information regarding the park was available 

on the County website (St. Lucie County, Florida 2013a). 

16 Savannas Outdoor 

Recreation Area 

St. Lucie Recreational area managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational 

activities include: camping, boating, fishing, hiking, biking, wildlife 

viewing and picnicking (St. Lucie County, Florida 2013b). 

17 Savannas Preserve 

State Park 

St. Lucie Park managed by the State of Florida. Recreational activities include: 

hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, canoeing, kayaking, fishing and 

wildlife viewing (Florida State Parks 2013). 

18 Walton Scrub Preserve St. Lucie Preserve managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational activities include 

hiking, bicycling, fishing, and wildlife viewing (St. Lucie County, Florida 

2013b). 

19 Rio Nature Park Martin Nature park managed by Martin County. Recreational activities include 

picnicking and wildlife viewing (Martin County, Department of Parks 

and Recreation 2011a). 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-142 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.6-2 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Conservation, and 

Recreation Areas within the Orlando-West Palm Beach Project Study Area 

(Continued) 

Map ID 

Recreational 

Resource County Description 

N-S Corridor 

20 Sailfish Ballpark Martin Ball Park managed by the City of Stuart. Recreational facilities include 

baseball fields, racquetball courts, tennis courts and picnicking facilities 

(City of Stuart, Community Services n.d.). 

21 Martin County 

Fairgrounds 

Martin Fairgrounds managed by Martin County. Intended use is to entertain 

and promote communities' traditions, talents, diversity, vision and 

agricultural heritage (Martin County Fair Association, Inc. 2013). 

22 Station 30 Park Martin Community park managed by Martin County. Recreational facilities 

include picnicking facilities and playground (Martin County Property 

Appraiser 2012). 

23 Broward St. 

Boat Ramp 

Martin Boat ramp managed by Martin County. Primary function is the loading 

and removing of boats from manatee pocket (Martin County, 

Department of Parks and Recreation 2011b). 

24 Seabranch 

Preserve State 

Park 

Martin Park managed by the State of Florida. Recreational activities include: 

hiking, picnicking, and wildlife viewing (Florida State Parks 2013).

25 William G. "Doc" 

Meyers Park 

a.k.a. "South 

County Ball 

Park" 

Martin Ball Park managed by Martin County. Recreational facilities include 

softball/baseball fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, multi-purpose 

football and soccer fields, a batting cage, and concessions (Martin 

County, Department of Parks and Recreation 2011b).

26 Saturn Ave 

Addition 

Martin Park managed by Martin County. Park consists of a vacant lot with no 

facilities (Martin County, Department of Parks and Recreation 2011b). 

27 Hobe Sound 

National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Martin Wildlife refuge managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) bisected by the proposed alignment. Recreational activities 

include: wildlife viewing, surf fishing, beach use, hiking and 

environmental education (USFWS 2013c). 

28 Jonathan 

Dickinson State 

Park 

Martin Park managed by the State of Florida bisected by the proposed 

alignment. Recreational activities include: biking, hiking, boating, 

camping, swimming, picnicking, horseback riding, and wildlife viewing 

(Florida State Parks 2013).

29 Sawfish Bay 

Park1

Palm Beach Park managed by the Town of Jupiter. Recreational activities include: 

picnicking, fishing, canoeing and kayaking (Town of Jupiter, Parks 

Department 2013). 

30 Lake Park 

Scrub Natural 

Area 

Palm Beach Natural area managed by Palm Beach County. Recreational activities 

include hiking and wildlife viewing (Palm Beach County, Environmental 

Resources Management 2013). 

31 Northwood 

Community 

Center 

Palm Beach Community park managed by the Boy and Girls Club of Palm Beach 

County. Recreational facilities include: outdoor basketball court, 

playground and recreational fields (Boys and Girls Clubs of Palm 

Beach County 2013). 

32 Nathaniel 

Adams Park 

Palm Beach Community park managed by the City of West Palm Beach. Recreation 

facilities include a playground and basketball courts (City of West Palm 

Beach n.d.). 

Source: FNAI. 2012. Florida managed Areas-June 2012. Using: ArcGIS 10.1. Redlands, California: ESRI 2012. Tallahassee, 

Florida.; University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2009. Florida Parks and Recreational Facilities 2009. Using: ArcGIS 10.1. 

Redlands, California: ESRI 2012. Gainesville, Florida. 

1 Section 6(f) Resources 

Section	3.3.8	of	the	2012	EA	listed	an	additional	45	Section	4(f)	recreational	resources	within	300	feet	of	

the	WPB‐M	Corridor	(Table	4.4.6‐3).	Twenty	of	these	recreational	properties	are	within	100	feet	of	the	

corridor.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-143 September 2014 

 

Table 4.4.6-3 Recreational Resources within 300 feet and 100 feet of the West Palm Beach – 

Miami Corridor 

Resource Name County/Municipality 

Within 

300 feet 

Within 

100 feet 

Flamingo Park West Palm Beach X

Mary Brandon Park West Palm Beach X

City of West Palm Beach Municipal Golf Course West Palm Beach X X

City of West Palm Beach Recreational Center West Palm Beach X X

Hypoluxo Scrub Natural Area Palm Beach County X X

Seacrest Scrub Natural Area Palm Beach County X X

Lake Worth Shuffleboard Courts Lake Worth X

Lake Worth Recreation Center Lake Worth X

Veterans Park Boyton Beach X

Bicentennial Park Boyton Beach X

Pence Park BoytonBeach X

Palm Beach CountyRecreation Center BoytonBeach X

Worthing Park Delray Beach X 

Currie Commons Park Delray Beach X 

Miller Park Delray Beach X 

Leon M. WeekesEnvironmental Preserve Delray Beach X X

Boca Isles Park Boca Raton X 

City of Boca RatonRecreation Center Boca Raton X X

City of Boca Raton GopherTortoise Preserve Boca Raton X X

Rosemary Ridge Preserve Boca Raton X X 

Poinciana Park/DogPark Hollywood X

Dowdy Baseball Park Hollywood X

Byrd Park Dania X 

Jaco Pastorius Park and Community Center Oakland Park X X

Tarpon River Park Fort Lauderdale X

Florence C. Hardy Park Fort Lauderdale X

Sistrunk Park Fort Lauderdale X X

Oakland Park Boat Ramp Fort Lauderdale X

Midway Park Fort Lauderdale X

City of Fort Lauderdale SW 9th Street Recreation Center Fort Lauderdale X X

Florence C. Hardy Park and Southside Cultural Center Fort Lauderdale X

Highlands Scrub Natural Area Broward County X X

Broward County Planned Park Broward County X X

Colohatchee Park Winton Manors X X

Aqua Bowl Park North Miami Beach X

Arthur I. Snyder Tennis Complex North Miami Beach X

Oleta River State Park Miami-Dade County X

Arch Creek Park Miami-Dade County X X

Arch Creek Park Addition Miami-Dade County X X

Greynolds Park Miami-Dade County X X

Dorsey Park City of Miami X

Woodson/Miami Design Park City of Miami X X

Ed Abdella Field House and Athletics City of Miami X X

El Portal Tot Lot Village of El Portal X X

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West 

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-144 September 2014 

 

4.4.7 Visual and Scenic Resources 

Visual	and	scenic	resources	include	natural	and	man‐made	features	that	give	a	particular	landscape	its	

aesthetic	properties.	Visual	resources	include	sites,	objects,	and	landscapes	features	that	contribute	to	the	

visual	character	of	the	surrounding	area	and/or	are	valued	for	their	scenic	qualities.	They	can	include	

designated	scenic	routes	and	 views	within	natural	areas,	parks,	and	urban	areas	identified	as	having	

historical	or	cultural	significance.		

4.4.7.1 Methodology 

Three	crossing	locations	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	(at	the	Econlockhatchee	River,	St.	Johns	River,	and	I‐95)	

were	selected	as	representative	sites	that	illustrate	the	potential	impact	that	the	new	rail	line	would	have	

on	its	surroundings	(Figure	4.4.7‐1).	No	photo	renderings	were	developed	for	the	N‐S	Corridor	as	this	is	

currently	 a	 developed	 rail	 corridor	 and	 restoring	 the	 second	 track	is	 not	 anticipated	 to	 substantially	

change	the	visual	environment.		

A	mosaic	of	hundreds	of	high‐resolution	digital	pictures	was	used	as	a	backdrop	on	which	the	rendered	

rail	alignment	and	bridges	could	be	placed.	Two	points	of	view	were	chosen	for	the	St.	Johns	River	Bridge	

visual	analyses	to	show	the	viewshed	from	the	point	of	view	of	the	driver	on	SR	528	looking	toward	the	

proposed	railroad	bridge	and	from	the	St.	Johns	River	looking	north	toward	the	bridge.	Viewpoints	and	

camera	views	were	arranged	in	the	modeling	software,	3D	Studio	Max,	to	match	the	perspective	views	of	

the	photographs.	The	bridges,	earth	retaining	walls,	trains,	guardrails	and	barriers	were	all	modeled.	Each	

element	was	assigned	a	material	and	color,	which	was	then	rendered	by	the	software.	Several	revisions	

of	the	renderings	were	required	to	assure	that	the	shade	and	shadows	matched	the	photographs.	The	

renderings	were	melded	into	the	existing	photographs	using	Adobe	Photoshop.	Existing	and	proposed	

renderings	were	developed	in	order	to	display	potential	impacts	to	visual	and	scenic	resources.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-145 September 2014 

 

4.4.7.2 Affected Environment 

The	visual	and	scenic	resources	associated	with	the	MCO	Segment	and	VMF	generally	consist	of	SR	528,	

MCO,	and	associated	airport	infrastructure	such	as	parking	lots.		

The	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	located	parallel	and	adjacent	to	SR	528,	where	there	is	currently	no	rail	line.	

The	areas	outside	of	the	current	transportation	right‐of‐way	generally	consist	of	undeveloped	wooded	

areas,	agricultural	pasture,	wetlands,	and	road	crossings.	The	current	E‐W	Corridor	area	provides	scenic	

views	 to	motorists	 on	 SR	 528	 and	 recreational	 users	 of	 roads	 and	 trails	in	 the	 Tosohatchee	Wildlife	

Management	 Area	 and	 the	 St.	 Johns	 River.	 Motorists	 traveling	 on	 SR	 528	 and	 crossing	 the	

Econlockhatchee	 River	 currently	 see	 a	 narrow	 view	 of	 the	 river	 and	 associated	 dense	 floodplain	

vegetation.	 Figure	 4.4.7‐2a	 shows	 the	existing	 view	 of	 the	Econlockhatchee	River	looking	 south	 from	

SR	528.	Motorists	traveling	on	SR	528	crossing	the	St.	Johns	River	see	a	broad	view	of	the	river	with	an	

open	 floodplain	and	meandering	river	channel.	Views	 from	 the	St.	 Johns	River	looking	north	 towards	

SR	528	are	wide	and	open	with	the	low	SR	528	bridge	crossing	the	river.	Figures	4.4.7‐3a	and	4.4.7‐4a	

provide	existing	views	of	the	St.	Johns	River	looking	southeast	from	SR	528	and	from	the	St.	Johns	River	

looking	north.	Motorists	traveling	on	I‐95	towards	the	SR	528	overpass	currently	see	sparse	vegetation	

on	 the	 right	and	left	 sides	 of	 the	 roadway	with	 the	 overall	 view	 dominated	 by	 the	SR	 528	 overpass.	

Figure	4.4.7‐5a	shows	the	existing	view	of	the	SR	528	overpass	from	I‐95.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-146 September 2014 

 

The	 visual	 and	 scenic	 resources	 associated	with	 the	N‐S	 Corridor	 generally	 consist	 of	 the	 previously	

disturbed	FECR	Corridor.	The	N‐S	Corridor	is	visible	from	roadways	that	cross	at‐grade.	Motorists’	views	

at	these	at‐grade	roadways	are	limited	to	grade	crossings,	lights,	gates,	and	flashers.	In	a	few	locations,	

especially	urban	areas,	the	N‐S	Corridor	is	visible	from	nearby	buildings.	Views	currently	consist	of	one	

or	two	tracks,	railroad	ballast,	and	infrastructure.	In	more	suburban	areas,	vegetation	generally	screens	

the	views	of	the	railroad.	Boaters	traveling	on	navigable	waterways,	such	as	Crane	Creek,	the	Sebastian	

River	and	the	St.	Lucie	River,	have	a	view	of	the	existing	FECR	Corridor	bridges.	In	most	locations,	these	

consist	of	an	active,	maintained	bridge	and	a	parallel	out‐of‐service,	poor	condition,	structure.		

Visual	and	scenic	resources	associated	with	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	are	similar	to	the	N‐S	Corridor.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-147 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-148 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-149 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-150 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-151 September 2014 

 

4.4.8 Utilities and Energy Resources 

This	section	describes	 the	public	utilities	and	energy	 facilities	and	providers	within	 the	Project	Study	

Area.		

4.4.8.1 Methodology 

The	 affected	 environment	 for	 public	 utilities	 and	 energy	 resources	 was	 determined	 based	 upon	 the	

following	web‐based	resources:	

 Orlando	Utilities	Commission	(OUC)	–	Service	Area	Map;	

 Orange	County	–	Planning	and	Development	Map;	

 USDOT	–	Pipeline	Mapping	System;	

 Waste	Management‐Class	III	Landfills;	and	

 Florida	Department	of	Agriculture	and	Consumer	Services	–	Annual	Motor	Gasoline	and	Diesel	

Report.	

4.4.8.2 Affected Environment 

Existing	 utilities	 (water	 systems,	 stormwater	 management	 systems,	 energy	 production/transmission	

facilities)	were	identified	for	each	of	the	three	project	corridor	segments.	

Existing	utilities	within	the	MCO	Segment	include	power	and	subsurface	utilities	associated	with	MCO.	

The	E‐W	Corridor	contains	the	following	utilities,	based	on	information	provided	by	AAF:	

 Stormwater	management	system	for	SR	528;	

 Overhead	transmission	lines	owned	by	Florida	Power	and	Light	(FPL),	OUC,	and	Progress	Energy	

Florida	LLC/TECO	Energy	Inc.;	and	

 Two	existing	pipelines	(Pipeline	and	Hazardous	Materials	Safety	Administration	2007),	owned	

by	Florida	Gas	Transmission	Company	LLC.	

Electrical	service	providers	within	the	E‐W	Corridor	include	FPL,	OUC,	and	Progress	Energy.	Electrical	

service	providers	within	the	N‐S	Corridor	include	FPL	and	the	City	of	Vero	Beach.		

The	N‐S	Corridor	contains	underground	 fiber‐optic	duct	banks	containing	FECR	communications	and	

signals	 systems.	 Several	 overhead	 and	 underground	 utilities	 are	 also	 present	 within	 the	 FECR	

right‐of‐way,	under	license	to	FECR.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Affected Environment 4-152 September 2014 

 

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-1 September 2014 

 

5 Environmental Consequences 

This	 chapter	 describes	 the	 consequences	 of	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative	 and	 three	 Action	 Alternatives	

(Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E)	to	the	environmental	resources	specified	in	Federal	Railroad	Administration’s	

(FRA)	Proceduresfor Considering EnvironmentalImpacts	(64	FR	28545).	The	discussion	of	environmental	

consequences	 includes	 any	 adverse	 environmental	 impacts	 that	 cannot	 be	 avoided,	 the	 relationship	

between	short‐term	uses	of	environmental	resources	and	the	maintenance	and	enhancement	of	long‐

term	productivity,	and	any	irreversible	or	irretrievable	commitments	of	resources	that	would	be	involved	

in	 the	Project	 should	it	be	implemented.	This	chapter	also	includes	a	 summary	 of	 the	environmental	

consequences	 of	 Phase	 I,	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 to	 Miami	 Passenger	 Rail,	 as	 presented	 in	 the	 2012	 EA.	

Mitigation	for	any	unavoidable	impacts	is	discussed	in	Chapter	7,	Mitigation.	

5.1 Land Use, Transportation, and Navigation 

This	section	provides	a	description	of	the	potential	consequences	of	the	Project	with	respect	to	land	uses,	

transportation	(regional	and	local	roadways),	and	navigation	(boat	traffic	and	related	economics).	

5.1.1 Land Use 

This	section	identifies	the	potential	direct,	indirect,	and	secondary	effects	to	land	and	land	uses	for	each	

Alternative.	 As	 required	 by	 NEPA	 regulations	 (40	 CFR	 §	 1502.16(c)),	 this	 section	 also	 includes	 a	

discussion	of	“possible	conflicts	between	the	proposed	action	and	the	objectives	of	federal,	regional,	state,	

and	local	(and	in	the	case	of	a	reservation,	Indian	tribe)	land	use	plans,	policies	and	controls	for	the	area	

concerned.”		

As	documented	below,	each	Action	Alternative	would	convert	up	to	approximately	423	acres	of	land	to	

transportation	use	through	All	Aboard	Florida	(AAF)’s	acquisition	of	private	property	and	leasing	land	

from	public	entities	including	 the	Greater	Orlando	Airport	Authority	(GOAA),	Orlando‐Orange	County	

Expressway	Authority	(OOCEA),	and	the	Florida	Department	of	Transportation	(FDOT).	The	Project	is	

consistent	with	all	local	and	regional	land	use	plans.	

5.1.1.1 Environmental Consequences 

The	impacts	of	the	Project	on	land	include	areas	where	property	would	be	acquired	through	fee	or	lease	

and	where	existing	non‐transportation	land	uses	would	be	converted	to	transportation.	This	section	also	

includes	an	evaluation	of	the	consistency	of	each	alternative	with	local	land	use	plans.		

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	construction	and	operation	of	the	Project	would	not	take	place.	Existing	

commuter	railway	services	and	opportunities	would	remain	unchanged,	and	no	changes	to	local	land	use	

patterns	would	occur.	Land	use	development	would	continue	consistent	with	the	approved	and	adopted	

local	comprehensive,	master,	and/or	visioning	plans.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-2 September 2014 

 

Alternative A 

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment	is	entirely	within	MCO;	it	would	not	require	acquisition	of	privately	owned	property.	

The	Vehicle	Maintenance	Facility	(VMF)	portion	of	the	MCO	Segment	would	require	the	lease	of	80	acres	

from	GOAA.	Land	that	is	part	of	this	lease	agreement	would	convert	from	utilities	(wastewater	treatment	

plant	and	infiltration	ditch)	and	undeveloped	lands	to	transportation	use.		

The	MCO	Segment	would	be	consistent	with	land	use	plans	(described	below)	of	Orlando	and	Orange	

County.	

The	 City	 of	 Orlando’s	 Growth	 Management	 Plan	 supports	 higher	 speed	 rail;	 it	 recognizes	 rail	 as	 an	

alternative	to	automobile	and	airline	travel	(City	of	Orlando,	Planning	Division	2011).	The	City	desires	to	

conduct	annual	coordination	with	GOAA	to	identify	transportation	alternatives	to	serve	MCO.	The	City	

has	also	expressed	an	interest	in	becoming	the	hub	of	a	statewide	intercity	railway	system,	and	to	work	

with	FDOT	to	identify	appropriate	corridors	and	sites	for	stations	and	ancillary	components	associated	

with	the	system.	The	MCO	Segment	is	consistent	with	Orlando’s	planning	goals	and	objectives.	

Orange	 County	 recognizes	 the	 need	 for	 alternative	 modes	 of	 transportation,	 and	 supports	 the	

development	of	high‐capacity	transit	systems.	The	county	also	supports	the	expansion	of	commuter	rail	

stations	to	major	employment	centers	such	as	MCO,	International	Drive,	and	the	Central	Florida	Research	

Park	 (Orange	 County	 Planning	 Division	 2012).	 The	 MCO	 Segment	 is	 consistent	 with	 Orange	 County	

planning	goals	and	objectives.	

East-West Corridor 

OOCEA	plans	 to	acquire	an	additional	538	acres	of	right‐of‐way	south	of	 the	existing	State	Road	528	

(SR	528)	right‐of‐way	along	an	approximate	17‐mile	stretch	in	Orange	County.	This	land	acquisition	will	

allow	for	future	expansion	of	SR	528,	as	well	as	the	Project.	SR	528	is	owned	by	FDOT	in	Brevard	County:	

FDOT’s	expansion	plans	for	SR	528	do	not	require	the	acquisition	of	additional	right‐of‐way.	However,	in	

order	 for	 the	 Project	 to	 accommodate	 FDOT’s	 SR	 528	 expansion	 plans,	 AAF	 intends	 to	 acquire	

approximately	44	acres	east	of	the	Interstate	95	(I‐95)	interchange.	

The	E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternative	A	is	predominantly	within	the	current	SR	528	right‐of‐way.	Direct	

effects	to	land	use	from	the	E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternative	A	would	be	limited	to	the	use	of	44	acres	of	

privately	owned	property	in	Brevard	County	east	of	I‐95.	Property	acquisition	would	be	limited	to	a	small	

portion	of	one	parcel	(Parcel	24	35	10	00‐1)	outside	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way.	Use	of	this	property	would	

permanently	convert	44	acres	(15.7	percent)	of	the	parcel’s	approximately	280	acres	from	undeveloped	

land	use	to	transportation	use.	

As	described	above,	OOCEA	plans	to	acquire	property	in	Orange	County	adjacent	to	the	existing	SR	528	

right‐of‐way	 that	 would	 be	 converted	 to	 a	 transportation	 corridor.	 All	 of	 this	 land	 is	 currently	

undeveloped.	For	the	E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternative	A,	OOCEA	would	lease	approximately	245	acres	of	

the	newly	acquired	land	to	AAF.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-3 September 2014 

 

The	E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternative	A	would	be	consistent	with	the	land	use	plan	(described	below)	of	

Brevard	 County.	 As	 explained	 in	 the	 MCO	 Segment	 discussion,	 the	 Project	 is	 consistent	 with	 growth	

management	policies	adopted	by	Orange	County.		

Brevard	 County’s	 plan	encourages	 the	expansion	 of	 transportation,	including	 rail	 facilities,	 for	 the	 safe,	

efficient,	 and	 timely	 movement	 of	 passengers	 and	 goods	 (Objective	 5)	 (Brevard	 County,	 Planning	 and	

Development	 2011).	 The	 County	also	 supports	 the	 development	and	maintenance	 of	 a	 comprehensive	

railway	system	to	meet	current	and	future	needs	as	well	as	to	further	economic	growth	(Policy	5.2)	(Brevard	

County,	Planning	and	Development	2011).	The	E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternative	A	would	be	consistent	with	

Brevard	County	planning	goals	and	objectives.	

North-South Corridor 

The	N‐S	Corridor	is	entirely	within	the	existing	Florida	East	Coast	Railway	(FECR)	Corridor;	it	would	not	

require	acquisition	of	privately	owned	property,	and	there	would	be	no	land	use	conversions.	

The	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	consistent	with	the	local	land	use	plans	of	Indian	River,	St.	Lucie,	Martin,	and	

Palm	 Beach	 Counties	 (described	 below).	 As	 explained	 in	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 discussion,	 the	 Project	 is	

consistent	with	growth	management	policies	adopted	by	Brevard	County.	Indian	River	County	does	not	

have	a	passenger	rail	service,	but	supports	future	planning	to	secure	access	to	the	FECR	Corridor	for	future	

passenger	 rail.	 The	 County	 also	 supports	 future	 coordination	 with	 the	 FDOT	 and	 Florida	 East	 Coast	

Industries	(FECI)	about	a	passenger	rail	service	(Policy	6.7)	(Indian	River	County,	Planning	Division	2010).	

The	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	consistent	with	Indian	River	County	planning	goals	and	objectives.		

According	to	the	St.	Lucie	Comprehensive	Plan,	St.	Lucie	County	supports	the	reestablishment	of	passenger	

rail	 along	 the	 eastern	 coast	 of	 Florida	 (St.	 Lucie,	 County	 Planning	 Division	 2010).	 It	 also	 supports	 the	

establishment	of	rail	stations	in	Fort	Pierce,	Port	St.	Lucie,	and/or	within	the	County’s	urban	service	area.	

One	of	the	goals	of	St.	Lucie	County	is	to	provide	safe	and	efficient	multi‐modal	transportation	systems	that	

address	the	movement	of	people	and	goods.	The	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	consistent	with	St.	Lucie	County	

planning	goals	and	objectives.	

Martin	County	discusses	 the	many	positive	effects	of	higher	speed	rail	on	 transportation	systems	in	its	

Comprehensive	Growth	Management	Plan	(Martin	County,	Division	of	Community	Planning	2013).	One	of	

the	goals	of	 the	County	is	 to	develop	and	implement	a	 transportation	network	 that	is	coordinated	and	

consistent	with	municipal,	county,	regional,	state,	and	federal	planning	programs.	Martin	County	desires	to	

plan	 for	comprehensive	long‐range	 transportation	needs,	including	a	Florida	higher	speed	railway.	The	

County	further	desires	to	collaborate	with	the	Florida	High	Speed	Rail	Authority (FHSRA)	and	a	rail	service	

provider	to	establish	service	between	Martin	County	and	nearby	major	regional	hubs	such	as	Port	St.	Lucie,	

Palm	Beach	County,	and	points	beyond.	The	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	consistent	with	Martin	County	planning	

goals	and	objectives.	

The	Palm	Beach	County	Comprehensive	Plan	does	not	include	objectives	or	policies	regarding	constructing	

higher	speed	railway	in	the	county	(Palm	Beach	County,	Planning	Division	2013);	however,	it	does	describe	

the	Tri‐Rail,	South	Florida's	existing	commuter	rail	system.	The	county	encourages	the	use	of	this	railway	

for	commuter	 transportation	 through	incentive	programs.	Palm	Beach	County	designs	and	implements	

these	incentive	programs	through	coordination	with	Tri‐Rail	and	the	Palm	Beach	Metropolitan	Planning	

Organization.	The	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	consistent	with	Palm	Beach	County	planning	goals	and	objectives.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-4 September 2014 

 

Phase I – West Palm Beach to Miami Corridor 

As	stated	in	Section	3.3.2	of	the	2012	EA,	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	which	includes	the	Preferred	Build	System	

Alternative	and	the	Preferred	Build	Station	Alternatives, would	not	have	a	significant	effect	on	land	use	or	

property	acquisition.	Proposed	improvements	to	the	mainline	are	occurring	within	existing	right‐of‐way	

and	 the	 existing	 corridor	 is	 identified	 as	 a	 transportation	 land	 use	 in	 all	 three	 counties	 (Palm	 Beach,	

Broward,	and	Miami‐Dade).	Property	acquisition	would	be	required	for	the	proposed	West	Palm	Beach	

Station	 and	 relocated	 Fort	 Lauderdale	 Station.	 These	 property	 acquisitions	would	 not	 have	 significant,	

adverse	impacts	on	property	owners	or	land	use,	as	documented	in	the	2012	EA	(Section	3.3.2).		

Alternative C 

The	 E‐W	 Corridor	 is	 the	 only	 component	 under	 Alternative	 C	 that	 differs	 from	 Alternative	 A.	 The	

E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternative	C	straddles	the	current	SR	528	right‐of‐way	and	the	newly	acquired	land	

by	OOCEA	in	the	segment	of	the	corridor	owned	by	OOCEA.	This	straddle	design	would	require	the	same	

land	acquisition	and	access	arrangements	with	OOCEA,	GOAA,	and	FDOT	as	described	in	the	E‐W	Corridor	

under	Alternative	A.	Under	Alternative	C,	however,	OOCEA	would	lease	374	acres	of	the	newly	acquired	

land	 to	 AAF,	 which	 would	 result	 in	 the	 use	 of	 418	 acres	 of	 land	 through	 either	 acquisition	 or	 leasing	

(44	acquired,	374	leased).	

The	E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternative	C	would	be	consistent	with	local	land	use	plans.	As	explained	under	

Alternative	A,	the	Project	is	consistent	with	growth	management	policies	adopted	by	Orange	and	Brevard	

Counties.		

Alternative E 

The	E‐W	Corridor	is	the	only	component	under	Alternative	E	that	differs	from	Alternatives	A	and	C.	The	

E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternative	E	would	be	offset	approximately	200	feet	south	of	the	existing	SR	528	right‐

of‐way,	and	completely	within	the	newly	acquired	land	by	OOCEA	in	the	portion	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	that	

lies	adjacent	to	the	land	currently	owned	by	OOCEA.	This	offset	would	require	the	same	land	acquisition	

and	 access	 arrangements	 with	 OOCEA,	 GOAA,	 and	 FDOT	 as	 described	 in	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 under	

Alternatives	A	and	C.	Under	Alternative	E,	OOCEA	would	lease	374	acres	of	the	newly	acquired	land	to	AAF,	

which	would	 result	in	 the	 use	 of	 418	 acres	 of	land	 through	 either	acquisition	 or	leasing	 (44	 acquired,	

374	leased).	

The	E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternative	E	would	be	consistent	with	local	land	use	plans.	As	explained	under	

Alternative	A,	the	Project	is	consistent	with	growth	management	policies	adopted	by	Orange	and	Brevard	

Counties.		

5.1.1.2 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

The	Project	would	not	result	in	induced	growth;	no	changes	to	land	use	due	to	induced	growth	would	

occur.	The	only	potential	growth‐inducing	Project	component	proposed	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	

is	the	new	intermodal	station	at	MCO	to	be	constructed	by	GOAA.	No	transit‐oriented	development	would	

occur	at	 this	 station,	as	it	is	entirely	within	MCO	property	 boundaries;	it	would	 not	 be	a	 nucleus	 for	

induced	growth.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-5 September 2014 

 

The	evaluation	of	potential	indirect	effects	includes	a	review	of	population	projections	for	Orange	County,	

as	the	only	station	under	Phase	II	of	the	Project	is	at	MCO.	The	MCO	Intermodal	Station	would	be	developed	

by	GOAA	as	a	separate	action	from	the	Project.	Rail	stations	are	potential	growth	inducers	due	to	associated	

transit‐oriented	development,	which	provides	increased	economic	activity	and	housing	options.	Transit‐

oriented	development	is	not	anticipated	at	this	location,	as	the	station	will	be	within	MCO	and	is	part	of	the	

planned	South	Terminal	complex.	

According	to	projections	from	the	University	of	Florida,	Orange	County	will	add	nearly	670,000	residents	

by	2040	(BEBR	2011b).	Orange	County	will	need	to	accommodate	this	projected	growth.	According	to	

the	county’s	Infill	Master	Plan,	the	county	prioritizes	infill	and	redevelopment,	activity	centers	and	mixed‐

use	 corridors	 (Orange	 County,	 Planning	 Division	 2008).	 An	 increasing	 population,	 however,	 will	 put	

pressure	on	Orange	County	to	expand	services,	such	as	water	and	sewer,	to	undeveloped	lands.	These	

conditions	are	independent	of	the	Project;	they	represent	baseline	conditions	that	would	occur	under	the	

No‐Action	Alternative.	The	MCO	Segment	and	N‐S	Corridor	under	the	Action	Alternatives	would	not	bisect	

any	privately	owned	properties,	no	partial	acquisition	of	parcels	is	required,	and	no	adjacent	land	uses	

would	change.	The	E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	would	require	 the	use	of	one	privately	

owned	property	outside	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way.	AAF	would	acquire	a	small	portion	of	this	parcel;	however,	

the	amount	of	acres	acquired	would	not	be	substantial	enough	to	induce	a	land	use	conversion	on	the	acres	

remaining	under	private	 ownership.	The	 remainder	 of	 this	parcel	would	continue	as	undeveloped	and	

would	be	available	for	future	development.		

Phase	I	of	the	Project	(see	Section	1.6	of	the	2012	EA)	includes	development	in	the	vicinity	of	each	of	the	

proposed	stations.	At	West	Palm	Beach	and	Fort	Lauderdale,	there	will	be	10,000	square	feet	of	retail	

space	within	the	station.	At	Miami,	the	Project	includes	30,000	square	feet	of	retail	within	the	station,	and	

additional	75,000	square	feet	of	transit‐oriented	retail,	300,000	square	feet	of	office	space,	400	residential	

units,	and	a	200‐room	hotel.	As	described	in	Section	3.5	of	the	EA,	these	connected	actions	as	well	as	

potential	development	and	redevelopment	outside	of	the	station	are	consistent	with	the	future	land	use	

plans	for	these	counties.	

5.1.1.3 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Constructing	 the	 Action	 Alternatives	 would	 not	 require	 permanent	 land	 acquisition	 for	 constructing	

staging	 areas	 or	 access.	 Temporary	 construction	 impacts	 to	 land	 use	 would	 include	 short‐term	

construction	easements	on	privately	owned	properties.		

The	Action	Alternatives	would	not	require	construction	easements	for	the	MCO	Segment,	N‐S	Corridor,	

or	WPB‐M	Corridor;	all	construction	staging	areas	would	be	located	on	vacant	lands	within	MCO	or	the	

existing	FECR	Corridor.		

Temporary	construction	impacts	to	land	use	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	limited	to	areas	outside	

the	 SR	 528	 right‐of‐way.	 Construction	 easements	 would	 result	 in	 temporary	 land	 use	 conversions;	

however,	pre‐construction	land	use	patterns	would	return	once	the	construction	period	concludes.	At	

this	stage	in	the	development	of	the	Project,	the	number	and	location	of	required	construction	easements	

for	the	E‐W	Corridor	alternatives	are	unknown.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-6 September 2014 

 

5.1.2 Transportation 

This	section	provides	an	analysis	of	the	potential	impacts	of	the	Project	on	transportation	systems.	For	

the	purposes	of	this	transportation	evaluation,	the	Project	Study	Area	includes	the	MCO	Segment,	the	

E‐W	Corridor,	and	the	N‐S	Corridor.	The	impacts	of	the	Project	on	transportation	systems	in	the	WPB–M	

Corridor	 were	 evaluated	 in	 the	 2012	 EA	 and	 2013	 FONSI.	 This	 evaluation	 considers	 impacts	 on	 all	

transportation	modes	and	infrastructure,	including	automobile,	motorbus,	pedestrian,	train,	and	aviation.	

There	would	be	no	significant	impact	to	transportation	as	a	result	of	the	Project.	The	Project	would	not	

adversely	impact	 (and	 will	 benefit)	 current	 freight	 train	 service	 on	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 by	increasing	

freight	 speeds	 and	 providing	 additional	 passing	 track,	 and	 would	 improve	 conditions	 on	 regional	

highways	by	relieving	congestion.	Increased	train	traffic	will	result	in	minor	degradation	of	local	road	

traffic	conditions	at	certain	at‐grade	crossings	and	nearby	intersections.	

5.1.2.1 Methodology 

This	analysis	focuses	on	the	impacts	of	increased	train	frequency	on	local	roads,	caused	by	more	frequent	

trains	and	at‐grade	crossing	closures.	Annual	Average	Daily	Volume	(AADT)	traffic	data	are	available	from	

FDOT	for	arterials	in	the	Project	Study	Area.	These	were	sorted	and	the	largest	two	arterials	by	volume	

for	each	county	were	selected	for	analysis.	Nine	major	arterials	with	highway‐rail	grade	crossings	on	the	

existing	FECR	Corridor	were	analyzed	(Table	5.1.2‐1).	

Table 5.1.2-1 Grade Crossing Locations Evaluated 

County Location

Annual Average Daily Volume 

(AADT) (2011)

Brevard Pineda Causeway 40,000 

Palm Bay Road 26,000 

Indian River Oslo Road 12,400

19th Place/20th Place 11,500

St. Lucie Seaway Drive 6,600

North Causeway 8,200

Martin SE Indian Street 16,200

E Monterey Road 15,900

Palm Beach Banyan Boulevard 39,500

Northlake Boulevard 40,000

Highway	capacity	analysis	 for	 the	10	at‐grade	railroad	crossings	and	intersections	were	conducted	in	

accordance	 with	 the	 methodology	 presented	 in	 the	 Highway	 Capacity	 Manual	 utilizing	 Synchro/	

Simtraffic	software,	Version	8	(TRB	2010).	

Level	of	service	(LOS)	provides	a	qualitative	relationship	between	operational	conditions.	Signalized	LOS	

ranges	from	“A”	through	“F,”	with	“A”	being	the	most	free	operating	condition	and	“F”	being	the	most	

restrictive.	 Generally,	 LOS	 “D”	 or	 better	 is	 considered	 acceptable.	 LOS	 for	 signalized	 intersections	 is	

measured	by	control	or	signal	delay	per	vehicle.	Unsignalized	LOS	ranges	from	“A”	through	“H,”	with	“A”	

being	the	most	free	operating	condition	and	“H”	being	the	most	restrictive.	Generally,	LOS	“D”	or	better	is	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-7 September 2014 

 

considered	acceptable.	LOS	for	unsignalized	intersections	is	calculated	using	the	Intersection	Capacity	

Utilization	 (ICU)	 method	 by	 taking	 a	 sum	 of	 critical	 volume	 to	 saturation	 flow	 ratios.	 Table	 5.1.2‐2	

provides	the	delay	ranges	for	the	signalized	and	unsignalized	LOS.	No	significant	adverse	impacts	would	

occur	if	the	future	LOS	is	D	or	better,	and	if	the	LOS	below	“D”	does	not	deteriorate.	

Table 5.1.2-2 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria 

Level of Service

Signalized Intersections - Delay 

(seconds/vehicle)

Unsignalized Intersections – Intersection 

Capacity Utilization (ICU)

A <10 <55

B 10.1 to 20.0 >55 <64

C 20.1 to 35.0 >64 <73

D 35.1 to 55.0 >73 <82

E 55.1 to 80.0 >82 <91

F > 80.0 >91 <100

G >100 <109

H >109

For	the	Project,	intersections	and	railroad	crossings	were	analyzed	with	conditions	similar	to	the	projected	

evening	 (PM)	 Peak	Hour,	 to	 represent	 the	maximum	 traffic	 volume	 during	 the	 day.	 Each	location	was	

analyzed	without	train	crossings,	with	freight	train	crossings,	and	with	passenger	train	crossings.		

The	operation	includes	a	clearance	phase	prior	to	the	arrival	of	the	train	to	clear	any	queues	present	on	the	

railway	and	adjacent	approaches.	Then	 the	 train‐crossing	event	is	 simulated.	During	 the	 train‐crossing	

event,	the	traffic	movements	not	in	conflict	with	the	train	crossing	continue	to	operate	normally.	

Since	the	train	crossings	occur	approximately	three	times	during	the	peak	hour,	the	closure	time	for	each	

crossing	was	calculated	without	train	crossing,	with	freight	train	crossing,	and	with	passenger	train	crossing	

closures.	However,	the	combined	freight	train	and	passenger	train	schedules	could	result	in	more	than	three	

trains	per	hour	at	various	times	of	day	and	at	various	locations.		

Queue	lengths	were	obtained	for	the	95th	percentile	queue	as	calculated	by	the	Synchro/Simtraffic	software.	

The	95th	percentile	queue	represents	the	queue	length	that	is	not	expected	to	be	reached	95	percent	of	the	

time.	 Results	 for	 closure	 times,	 LOS,	 and	 queue	length	 were	 calculated	 for	 each	 crossing	 and	 adjacent	

intersections	 for	 2016	 (Appendix	 3.3‐B).	 LOS	 and	 queue	 length	 with	 the	 freight	 train	 crossings	 are	

considered	to	be	equivalent	to	the	No‐Action	condition.		

5.1.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

This	section	presents	the	potential	impacts	of	the	Project	on	rail	transportation,	highways,	and	local	roads,	

in	comparison	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative	in	the	same	analysis	year	(2016,	projected	to	be	the	first	year	of	

revenue	service).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-8 September 2014 

 

No-Action Alternative 

The	No‐Action	Alternative	would	not	cause	significant	adverse	impacts	to	rail	transportation.	Under	the	No‐

Action	Alternative,	there	would	be	no	passenger	train	service	added	from	Cocoa	to	West	Palm	Beach	and	

the	existing	freight	infrastructure	would	be	maintained.	Freight	train	configurations	would	be	expected	to	

incorporate	 the	anticipated	annual	cargo	growth	of	approximately	3	percent	 through	increases	in	 train	

length	 and/or	 speed.	 The	 No‐Action	 Alternative	 would	 not	 result	 in	 any	 delays	 or	 impacts	 related	 to	

construction	of	stations	or	other	infrastructure	required	for	the	Project.	The	upgrades	to	the	FECR	Corridor	

contemplated	as	part	of	the	Project	would	not,	however,	occur	in	the	near	term	as	part	of	the	No‐Action	

Alternative,	and	freight	speeds	would	not	increase.	The	demand	for	freight	capacity	is	expected	to	grow	

along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	Based	on	anticipated	operations	data	for	the	2016	opening	year,	the	number	of	

freight	trains	per	day	is	expected	to	increase	from	18	(in	2011;	14	in	2013)	to	20	in	2016	along	with	an	

increase	in	the	average	train	length	to	8,150	feet	(AMEC	2014a).	The	projected	annual	increase	in	freight	

would	result	in	minor	increases	in	local	roadway	crossing	closures,	but	total	impacts	relative	to	existing	

conditions	would	be	minimal.	

Given	the	projected	increase	in	intercity	traffic,	the	No‐Action	Alternative	has	the	potential	to	contribute	to	

future	adverse	transportation	impacts	on	SR	528,	I‐95,	and	Florida’s	Turnpike	by	not	aiding	in	the	reduction	

of	the	projected	increase	in	total	automobile	volume	on	these	roads.	Without	the	added	capacity	provided	

by	the	proposed	passenger	service,	these	roads	would	be	forced	to	absorb	the	majority	of	this	increase.		

The	No‐Action	Alternative	would	not	have	a	significant	impact	on	local	 vehicular	 traffic.	Based	on	data	

provided	in	Table	5.1.2‐3,	the	projected	annual	increase	in	freight	operations	would	increase	local	roadway	

crossing	 closure	 times.	 Table	 5.1.2‐3	 shows	 the	 at‐grade	 closure	 times	 for	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative	

(freight),	based	on	22	trains	per	day	(2019	conditions).	Closure	times	would	range	from	an	average	of	2.5	

to	2.8	minutes	per	hour,	with	the	longest	closures	occurring	in	Martin	County.	This	is	an	increase	from	the	

existing	average	of	1.2	minutes	per	hour	(see	Table	4.1.2‐4),	but	would	not	have	a	significant	impact	on	

traffic.	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

The	Project	would	have	the	same	impacts	as	a	result	of	Alternatives	A,	C,	or	E.	The	route	alternatives	for	the	

E‐W	 Corridor	 would	 have	 the	 same	impact	 on	 rail	 transportation,	 other	modes	 of	 transportation,	 and	

highway	 and	 local	 traffic,	 as	 they	 would	 include	 the	 same	 impacts	 on	 existing	 rail	 and	 highway	

infrastructure,	have	 the	same	ridership	and	effects	on	vehicle	miles	 traveled,	and	would	have	 the	same	

number	and	locations	of	at‐grade	crossings.	Table	5.1.2‐3	shows	the	predicted	diversion	from	other	modes	

of	transportation	in	2019	(when	passenger	volumes	are	predicted	to	reach	steady	levels).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-9 September 2014 

 

Table 5.1.2-3 Passenger Diversion from Other Modes of Transportation 

Mode Percent Diverted Annual Ridership Daily Ridership 

Long-Distance Market 

Air 10 152,630 418 

Rail 2 30,526 84 

Bus 10 152,630 418 

Short-Distance Market 

Bus 22 427,790 1,172 

Source: Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September 2013. Prepared 

for Florida East Coast. Report. 

Rail Impacts 

The	Project	passenger	operations	would	include	16	round‐trip	passenger	trains	per	day,	which	amounts	

to	a	maximum	frequency	of	two	passenger	trains	crossings	per	hour.	Maximum	operating	speeds	would	

range	from	79	to	125	mph,	depending	upon	the	location	along	the	E‐W	or	N‐S	Corridors.	Operating	speeds	

will	be	greatest	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	where	there	are	no	highway‐rail	grade	crossings.	From	the	station	

at	MCO	to	the	station	at	West	Palm	Beach,	service	would	be	nonstop,	as	there	are	no	intermediate	stations	

proposed.		

The	 N‐S	 Corridor	 has	 been	 designed	 to	 cause	 no	 adverse	 impact	 on	 freight	 operations,	 and	 has	 an	

assumed	beneficial	impact	on	freight	operations.	The	addition	of	passenger	rail	service	would	require	

modifying	the	mostly	single‐track	system	to	a	mostly	double	track	system,	which	would	be	used	by	both	

passenger	and	 freight	operations.	This	will	improve	 freight	efficiency	by	increasing	average	operating	

speeds.	 As	 a	 result,	 the	 Project	would	 have	 beneficial	impacts	on	 future	 freight	 traffic	 along	 the	N‐S	

Corridor.	There	are	no	existing	freight	rail	operations	within	the	E‐W	Corridor;	therefore,	no	impacts	to	

freight	rail	operations	would	occur	in	the	E‐W	Corridor	with	Alternatives	A,	C,	or	E.		

The	Project	would	also	have	a	beneficial	impact	on	the	passenger	rail	transportation	network	between	

Orlando	and	Miami	by	providing	potential	customers	with	an	alternative	means	of	rail	transportation.	

The	Project	is	designed	to	provide	a	direct,	nonstop	rail	service	from	MCO	to	West	Palm	Beach,	which	is	

a	different	service	geographically	and	functionally	compared	to	the	existing	Amtrak	service.	The	Project	

would	also	provide	more	frequent	and	regular	service,	which	would	result	in	more	flexibility	to	potential	

customers.		

Riders	 for	AAF	are	expected	 to	be	primarily	diverted	 from	automobile	modes	(69	percent	of	 forecast	

ridership).	However,	2	percent	of	the	AAF	ridership	is	forecast	to	accrue	from	competing	passenger	rail	

services,	 which	 would	 include	 the	 existing	 Amtrak	 service.	 In	 2019,	 this	 amounts	 to	 approximately	

30,526	annual	trips	(Table	5.1.2‐3)	diverted	from	Amtrak,	which	is	about	4	percent	of	Amtrak’s	FY2012	

ridership	 along	 the	 Silver	 Star	(425,794)	 and	 Silver	 Meteor	 (375,164)	 corridors	 (Amtrak	 2012).	 No	

diversion	from	Tri‐Rail	is	anticipated.	Tri‐Rail	provides	frequent	commuter‐rail	service	between	West	

Palm	Beach	and	Miami,	with	multiple	stops	and	relatively	low	fares.	The	infrequent	intercity	passenger	

rail	service	provided	by	AAF	would	have	 fewer	stops	and	higher	fares,	and	would	not	be	expected	to	

divert	a	significant	number	of	riders.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-10 September 2014 

 

Inter-City Motorbus Service Impacts 

The	proposed	passenger	train	service	would	divert	10	percent	of	its	long‐distance	riders	and	22	percent	

of	 its	 short‐distance	 riders	 from	 private	 inter‐city	 motorbus	 services	 (Table	 5.1.2‐3).	 This	 totals	

approximately	 152,630	 annual	 bus	 passenger‐trips	 per	 year	 in	 the	 long‐distance	 market	 and	

427,790	trips	per	year	in	the	short‐distance	market.		

Local Transit Service Impacts 

The	 Project	 is	 not	 anticipated	 to	 impact	 local	 transit	 services,	 as	 intercity	 passenger	 rail	 would	 not	

compete	with	local	transit	services	for	long‐distance	riders	due	to	the	stations	served	and	the	higher	fares.	

Local	transit	providers	(such	as	LYNX	in	Orlando)	would	be	expected	to	carry	more	passengers	locally	as	

a	result	of	the	rail	service	as	these	passengers	will	be	seeking	connections	to	their	ultimate	destinations	

from	the	AAF	station.	

Aviation Impacts 

The	proposed	passenger	train	service	would	attract	approximately	10	percent	of	its	riders	from	the	air	

service	market	(Louis	Berger	Group	2013).	This	totals	approximately	152,630	annual	aviation	passenger	

trips	per	year	(418	per	day)	who	could	potentially	choose	train	service	based	on	convenience	and	cost.	

This	does	not	represent	a	significant	diversion	from	the	overall	air	passenger	market	between	central	and	

southeast	Florida.	

Regional Roadway Impacts 

The	FDOT	“Vision	Plan”	discussed	in	the	Purpose	and	Need	Statement	estimates	that	the	total	intercity	

travel	person	trips	between	Miami	and	Orlando	will	increase	from	9.5M	in	2000	to	18.5M	by	2020,	with	

further	increase	to	30.5M	by	2040	(FDOT	2006a).	This	will	result	in	several	roadway	segments	exceeding	

capacity.		

The	ridership	analysis	projected	that	335,628	auto	vehicle	trips	per	year	would	be	removed	from	the	

roads	as	a	result	of	the	Project	in	2016	and	1.2M	vehicles	would	be	removed	per	year	in	2019	(Louis	

Berger	Group	2013).		

The	Project	would	have	a	beneficial	impact	on	regional	roadway	transportation	networks	by	providing	

additional	transportation	capacity	between	Orlando	and	Miami.	Construction	and	operation	of	the	Project	

would	reduce	the	cumulative	traffic	volume	on	I‐95,	Florida’s	Turnpike,	and	SR	528	by	removing	vehicles	

and	providing	an	easily	accessible	and	efficient	alternative	means	of	 transport	 to	residents	and	visitors	

between	the	Orlando,	West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	Miami	areas.		

Local Traffic Impacts 

The	proposed	VMF	would	have	a	negligible	impact	on	local	vehicular	transportation.	Assuming	facility	

operations	would	require	100	employees	per	day	and	each	employee,	in	addition	to	arriving	and	leaving	

from	 work	 each	 day,	 left	 an	 average	 of	 once	 during	 the	 day	 for	 lunch,	 meetings,	 and	 errands.	 The	

estimated	maximum	number	of	trips	that	would	be	generated	each	day	is	400.	This	traffic	would	access	

the	station	via	Boggy	Creek	Road	from	either	the	northwest	or	southeast.	In	2012,	the	AADT	for	these	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-11 September 2014 

 

portions	 of	Boggy	Creek	Road	were	13,000	and	9,300,	 respectively.	 If	employee	access	is	distributed	

evenly	 between	 both	 access	 directions,	 the	increase	in	 AADT	would	 consume	 1.5	 percent	 of	 current	

capacity	in	the	northwest	direction	and	2.2	percent	in	the	southeast	direction.	This	is	considered	minor,	

as	the	threshold	for	a	major	impact	is	a	five‐percent	loss	of	capacity.	In	existing	conditions,	Boggy	Creek	

Road	is	operating	at	a	LOS	E.	The	Project	is	not	anticipated	to	change	the	LOS	during	peak	periods.		

The	Project	would	not	impact	local	vehicular	traffic	along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	as	there	would	be	no	at‐grade	

crossings	and	no	public	road	closures.		

Along	the	N‐S	Corridor,	passenger	rail	service	would	result	in	minor	increased	traffic	delays	at	existing	

roadway	 crossings.	 The	 Project	would	 result	in	 some	 degradation	in	 LOS	 at	 the	 grade	 crossings	 and	

intersections	studied,	with	greater	percentages	of	time	within	an	hour	of	operation	under	unacceptable	

roadway	 conditions	 than	 in	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative.	With	 just	 three	 train	 crossings	 per	 hour,	 the	

majority	of	each	hour	of	operation	would	not	be	affected	by	the	introduction	of	passenger	train	service.	

However,	at	some	locations,	more	than	three	trains	per	hour	are	scheduled	and	greater	percentages	of	

those	hours	would	operate	under	unacceptable	levels	of	service	than	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative.		

The	increase	in	number	of	crossing	events	due	to	the	addition	of	16	passenger	rail	round	trips	per	day	

would	cause	additional	closures,	but	closures	from	passenger	trains	would	be	much	shorter	than	closures	

from	 existing	 freight	 traffic	 (Table	 5.1.2‐4).	On	 average,	 an	 at‐grade	 crossing	 requires	 30	 seconds	 to	

activate	and	close	the	gates,	and	15	seconds	to	bring	the	gate	back	up.	FRA	regulations	require	20	seconds	

to	activate	and	close	the	gate	prior	to	the	train	entering	the	railroad	crossing	and	10	seconds	to	bring	the	

gate	back	up.	FDOT	uses	30	seconds	to	activate	and	close	the	gate	prior	to	the	train	entering	the	railroad	

crossing	and	15	seconds	to	bring	the	gate	back	up.	To	account	for	the	worst‐case	scenario,	FDOT	timings	

were	used	in	this	analysis.	For	freight	trains	(average	length	8,150	feet	and	average	speed	approximately	

51	mph),	a	single	train	crossing	results	in	an	average	crossing	closure	of	155	seconds	(ranging	from	147	to	

170	seconds),	which	equates	to	2.6	minutes.	For	passenger	trains	(average	length	725	to	900	feet	and	

average	speed	93	mph),	a	single	train	crossing	results	in	an	average	crossing	closure	of	51	seconds.	

As	shown	in	Table	5.1.2‐4,	typical	at‐grade	crossings	(intersections	of	local	roads	with	the	FECR	Corridor)	

would	be	closed	an	average	of	54	times	per	day	(three	times	per	hour),	with	closure	times	ranging	from	

1.7	minutes	(passenger)	to	2.8	minutes	(freight).	The	total	hourly	closure	would	range	from	4.2	minutes	

per	hour	to	4.5	minutes	per	hour,	an	increase	of	approximately	2	minutes	per	hour	in	comparison	to	the	

No‐Action	Alternative.		

Detailed	 traffic	impact	 analyses	 were	 done	 for	 the	 nine	 highest‐volume	 at‐grade	 crossings	 along	 the	

N‐S	corridor	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach	(Table	5.1.2‐1).	Several	of	the	intersections	where	the	

N‐S	 Corridor	 crosses	 local	 roads	 are	 also	 adjacent	 to	 other	 intersections.	 The	 analyses	 evaluate	 the	

impacts	 on	 local	 traffic	 for	 the	 road	 crossing	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 as	 well	 as	 the	 adjacent	 connected	

intersections,	with	respect	to	level	of	service	and	the	duration	of	the	adverse	impact	(Table	5.1.2‐4).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-12 September 2014 

 

Table 5.1.2-4 At-grade Crossing Closures (2019) 

 Freight Passenger Total

County

Number of 

at-grade 

crossings1

Number 

of trains/ 

day

Train 

speed 

(mph)

Maximum 

closure 

(min/hour)2

Number 

of trains/ 

day

Train 

speed 

(mph)

Maximum 

closure 

(min/hr)

Maximum 

closure 

(min/hr)

Brevard 55 22 53.8 2.5 32 98.1 1.7 4.2

Indian River 30 22 54.2 2.5 32 106.6 1.7 4.2

St. Lucie 20 22 47.8 2.7 32 92.6 1.7 4.4

Martin 25 22 44.4 2.8 32 79.5 1.7 4.5

Palm Beach 26 22 54.3 2.5 32 89.2 1.7 4.2

Source: AMEC. 2013 e. Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to 

West Palm Beach, Florida. September 2013. Report. 

1 Maximum crossings per hour include northbound and southbound trains combined. 

2 Maximum closure per hour calculated as the total time to activate and clear multiplied by the maximum crossings per hour, 

divided by 60. 

Average	 delays	 for	 both	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative	 and	 the	 Project	 alternatives	 at	 several	 of	 these	

intersections	 are	much	lower	 than	 the	 gate	 closure	 times	 predicted	 for	 passenger	 and	 freight	 trains.	

Although	there	may	be	some	variability	in	when	automobiles	arrive	at	a	closed	intersection,	some	of	the	

automobiles	crossing	at	this	location	would	experience	a	delay	at	least	as	long	as	the	gate	closure	time.	

At	several	locations	described	below,	the	at‐grade	crossing	is	adjacent	to	several	other	at‐grade	crossings.	

The	high	traffic	volumes	combined	with	the	potential	that	numerous	adjacent	roadways	could	also	have	

their	crossing	gates	deployed	at	the	same	time	could	have	greater	impacts	on	traffic	operations.	

The	analyses	show	 that	 the	Project	would	have	a	minor,	but	not	significant,	impact	on	local	 traffic	by	

increasing	 the	 frequency	 of	 at‐grade	 crossing	 closures.	 As	 shown	 in	 Table	 5.1.2‐5,	 the	 majority	 of	

intersections	operate	at	acceptable	levels	of	service	(LOS	A	to	LOS	C)	in	both	the	No‐Action	Alternative	

and	with	the	Project,	for	the	majority	of	the	PM	Peak	Hour.	The	level	of	service	degrades	to	LOS	E	or	LOS	F	

when	a	 train	passes.	Two	intersections	 (Pineda	Causeway	and	Northlake	Boulevard)	operate	at	poor	

levels	of	service	(LOS	D	to	LOS	E)	for	most	of	the	PM	Peak	Hour,	and	degrade	to	LOS	F	for	short	periods	

due	to	train	passage.	As	noted	above,	with	the	Project	the	PM	Peak	Hour	train	traffic	would	include	one	

freight	and	two	passenger	trains.	The	Project	would	increase	the	amount	of	time	that	each	intersection	

experiences	LOS	F	conditions,	in	comparison	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	by	0	to	7.5	minutes	in	the	PM	

Peak	Hour.	The	greatest	impact	to	local	traffic	would	occur	on	Seaway	Drive	in	Fort	Pierce,	at	the	FECR	

railroad	crossing.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-13 September 2014 

 

Table 5.1.2-5 Intersection Level of Service, N-S Corridor (minutes per hour) – 2016 PM Peak Hour 

Intersection Condition LOS 

A 

LOS 

B 

LOS 

C 

LOS 

D 

LOS E LOS F 

Pineda Causeway – Holy Trinity Road No-Action 0 0 0 54.5 3 1.5 

Action Alternatives 0 0 0 56.5 2 1.5 

Oslo Road – FECR No-Action 57.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 

Action Alternatives 52.5 0 0 0 0 7.5 

Oslo Road – Old Dixie Highway No-Action 0 58.5 0 0 0 1.5 

Action Alternatives 0 55.5 0 0 0 4.5 

19th Place/20th Place – FECR No-Action 58 0 0 0 0 2 

Action Alternatives 53.5 0 0 0 0 6.5 

20th Place-Commerce Ave No-Action 58 0 0 0 0 2 

Action Alternatives 53.5 0 0 0 0 6.5 

Seaway Drive – FECR No-Action 56 0 0 0 0 4 

Action Alternatives 48.5 0 0 0 0 11.5 

Seaway Drive – U.S. 1 No-Action 0 0 57.5 0 0 2.5 

Action Alternatives 0 0 52.5 0 0 7.5 

North Causeway-Old Dixie Highway No-Action 0 58.5 0 0 0 1.5 

Action Alternatives 0 55.5 0 0 0 4.5 

SE Indian Street – FECR No-Action 59 0 0 0 1 0 

Action Alternatives 57 0 0 0 3 0 

SE Dixie Hwy – SE Indian St No-Action 58 0 0 0 0 2 

Action Alternatives 54.5 0 0 0 0 5.5 

East Monterey Rd - FECR No-Action 59 0 0 0 1 0 

Action Alternatives 57 0 0 0 3 0 

Monterey Rd – SE Dixie Hwy No-Action 58 0 0 0 0 2 

Action Alternatives 56 0 0 0 0 4 

Banyan Blvd-FECR No-Action 0 0 0 0 57 3 

Action Alternatives 0 0 0 0 51 9 

Northlake Blvd-Old Dixie Hwy No-Action 0 0 0 58 0 2 

Action Alternatives 0 0 0 54 0 6 

Northlake Blvd-Hwy 811 No-Action 0 0 0 0 58 2 

Action Alternatives 0 0 0 0 53 7 

Source: AMEC 

Phase I - West Palm Beach to Miami 

As	stated	in	the	2013	FONSI,	Phase	I	of	the	Project(which	was	analyzed	to	include	impacts	resulting	from	

existing	freight	service,	as	well	as	projected	freight	growth	and	the	proposed	passenger	service)	would	

not	have	a	significant	impact	on	traffic	operations	at	railroad	crossings	between	West	Palm	Beach	and	

Miami.	The	impact	on	delay,	queuing,	and	LOS	is	limited	to	signal	cycles	immediately	following	a	train	

crossing	event	and	are	minimal	on	a	peak‐hour	basis.	The	passenger	train	is	proposed	to	clear	a	typical	

crossing	 in	 52	 seconds.	With	 only	 one	 such	 crossing	 event	 during	 peak	 hours,	 the	 impact	 on	 traffic	

operations	on	adjacent	roadways	is	expected	to	be	minor.	Signal	and	circuit	upgrades	performed	as	part	

of	the	track	construction,	improvement,	and	rehabilitation	would	occur	within	the	FECR	Corridor,	and	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-14 September 2014 

 

would	not	substantially	impact	traffic	on	intersecting	roadways.	There	are	no	permanent	road	closures	

contemplated	 as	 a	 result	 of	 the	 railroad	 system	 portion	 of	 the	Project.	 There	 are,	 however,	 crossing	

closures	 anticipated	 for	 the	 station	 elements	 of	 the	 Project	 that	 are	 necessary	 to	 accommodate	 the	

proposed	platforms.	As	documented	in	the	2012	EA	(Section	2.5.1),	the	contemplated	crossing	closures	

would	only	occur	at	low‐volume,	local	streets	and	would	not	impact	local	circulation	significantly	as	there	

are	 alternate	 routes	 located	 in	 close	 proximity	 to	 the	 proposed	 closures	 so	 as	 to	 avoid	 dead‐end	

conditions	and	result	in	minimal	changes	to	the	existing	traffic	patterns.	Access	to	existing	properties	

would	not	be	impacted	by	the	proposed	crossing	closures.	There	would	be	one	roadway	closure	at	both	

the	West	Palm	Beach	and	Fort	Lauderdale	Stations,	and	 two	at	 the	Miami	Station.	As	required	by	 the	

FONSI,	AAF	prepared	supplemental	traffic	analyses	for	the	three	Phase	1	stations	to	evaluate	intersection	

operations.	 The	 analysis	 showed	 that	 all	 intersections	 would	 operate	 under	 acceptable	 conditions	

without	mitigation.	All	three	reports	can	be	found	at	http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0590.	

5.1.2.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

The	 Project	 would	 enhance	 regional	 roadway	 transportation	 by	 reducing	 vehicles	 on	 the	 regional	

roadway	 network.	 The	 three	 proposed	 stations	 for	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 (in	 West	 Palm	 Beach,	 Fort	

Lauderdale,	and	Miami)	may	result	in	secondary	effects	such	as	creating	potential	for	development	and	

redevelopment	 outside	 the	 development	 directly	 associated	 with	 the	 stations.	 This	 additional	

development	may	also	create	impacts	such	as	induced	traffic	generated	by	those	developments.		

5.1.2.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

The	Project	would	result	in	minor,	short‐term	impacts	to	freight	rail	transportation,	regional	highways,	

and	local	vehicular	traffic	during	construction.	New	track	construction	required	for	the	Project	would	be	

performed	according	to	best	management	practices	(BMPs),	which	are	defined	as	methods	designed	to	

minimize	adverse	impacts	to	the	environment,	so	that	minimal	temporary	adverse	impacts	to	existing	

freight	 operations	 would	 be	 experienced.	 Any	 required	maintenance	 or	 rehabilitation	 of	 the	 existing	

single	track	would	also	be	done	using	planning	and	construction	practices	that	would	minimize	impacts	

to	 existing	 freight	 traffic.	 Future	 required	 maintenance	 and	 rehabilitation	 would	 also	 be	 done	 more	

efficiently	as	track	operators	would	be	able	to	use	planning	practices	that	utilize	the	additional	tracks	to	

mitigate	 temporary	 delays.	 AAF	 plans	 to	 use	 BMPs	 and	 previously	 successful	 methods	 to	 reduce	 or	

eliminate	potential	impacts	such	as	delays	or	downtime.	

As	stated	in	Section	3.4	of	the	2012	EA,	existing	at‐grade	crossings	along	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	will	be	

modified	 to	 include	 second	 tracks	 and	 crossing	 protection	 devices	 relocated	 as	 required.	 These	

improvements	will	require	temporary	closures	of	individual	lanes	or	complete	streets.	All	closure	plans	

involve	the	coordination	and	involvement	of	state	and	local	governments	due	to	the	crossing	agreements	

in	place,	and	will	only	be	implemented	with	the	full	collaboration	of	the	agencies.	Temporary	lane	or	full	

crossing	 closures	may	 create	 temporary	 construction	impacts	 to	traffic	 during	 construction	 from	 the	

operation	of	equipment	and	potential	temporary,	short‐term	closure	of	local	streets.	The	typical	duration	

of	any	closures	ranges	from	2	to	3	days	for	minor	crossings	to	up	to	1	week	for	major	arterial	crossings.	

Proper	 planning	 and	 implementation	 and	 maintenance	 of	 mitigation	 measures	 (e.g.,	 maintenance	 of	

traffic	plans)	will	be	specified	and	required	for	construction.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-15 September 2014 

 

5.1.3 Navigation 

This	section	provides	the	analysis	of	proposed	navigational	conditions	for	the	No‐Action	Alternative	and	

the	Project	for	the	bridges	over	navigable	waters	that	require	replacement	or	reconstruction,	including	

the	New	River	Bridge	(Figure	4.3.1‐1	and	4.3.1‐4).	These	include:	

 The	proposed	new	fixed	railroad	bridge	over	the	St.	Johns	River.	

 The	existing	single‐track	drawbridge	over	the	St.	Lucie	River.	The	existing	structure	is	planned	

to	be	rehabilitated,	and	train	frequencies	would	increase.	

 The	existing	double‐track	drawbridge	over	the	Loxahatchee	River	(also	known	as	the	Jupiter	

River),	which	is	currently	operated	as	a	single‐track	bridge.	For	the	Project,	the	out‐of‐service	

second	track	would	be	reconstructed.	

 The	existing	double‐track	drawbridge	over	the	New	River.	No	construction	is	planned	at	this	

bridge,	but	train	frequencies	would	increase.	

 The	 five	 fixed	 bridges	 that	 will	 be	 replaced	 (Eau	 Gallie	 River,	 Crane	 Creek,	 Turkey	 Creek,	

St.	Sebastian	River,	Hillsboro	Canal).	

Freight	traffic	is	predicted	to	increase	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	from	14	trains	under	2013	existing	

conditions	to	a	projected	20	trains	by	2016,	increasing	the	number	of	bridge	closures	and	vessel	wait	

times	at	the	St.	Lucie	River,	Loxahatchee	River,	and	New	River	Bridges.		

Under	Project	conditions,	an	additional	16	round‐trip	passenger	trains	(32	total)	would	pass	over	these	

bridges	in	 addition	 to	 the	 20	 freight	 trains.	 The	 bridge	 and	 track	infrastructure	 would	 be	improved,	

resulting	in	increased	train	speeds.	The	Project	would	increase	the	number	of	bridge	closures	and	vessel	

wait	times	at	the	three	moveable	bridges,	however	there	would	not	be	a	substantial	increase	in	the	length	

of	time	for	any	single	closure.	

All	alternatives	would	alter	the	existing	fixed	bridges	at	other	navigable	waterways	by	either	replacing	

the	existing	track	bridge	with	a	new	double‐track	bridge,	or	adding	a	second	single‐track	bridge	parallel	

to	the	existing	bridge.	Navigation	on	the	waterways	with	fixed	bridges	would	not	be	impacted	due	to	the	

increase	in	train	traffic.	

For	commercial	and	recreational	vessels,	increased	wait	times	and	queue	lengths	anticipated	under	the	

No‐Action	Alternative	would	result	in	increased	costs,	which	are	estimated	to	be	$76,285	annually	at	the	

St.	Lucie	River	Bridge,	$45,625	annually	at	the	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge,	and	$136,145	annually	at	the	

New	River	Bridge	(AMEC	2014a).	Under	Project	conditions,	no	adverse	economic	impacts	to	marine	jobs,	

economic	growth,	or	development	are	anticipated.	Increases	in	vessel	wait	times	would	result	in	minor	

increases	in	costs	of	less	than	0.1	percent	when	compared	to	the	marine	industry	values	at	the	St.	Lucie	

River,	Loxahatchee	River,	and	New	River	Bridges.	Increased	vessel	wait	times	and	queue	lengths	would	

have	minor	economic	impacts	to	commercial	destinations	(e.g.,	boat/yacht	repair	and	support	facilities)	

along	the	New	River;	however,	these	types	of	establishments	would	not	incur	any	decline	in	business	

along	 the	 St.	 Lucie	 and	 Loxahatchee	 Rivers.	 Cruise	 ships,	 commercial	 freighters,	 and	 other	 large	

oceangoing	vessels	do	not	access	the	St.	Lucie,	Loxahatchee,	or	New	River	Bridges;	therefore,	the	Project	

would	not	impact	the	existing	or	future	operations	of	these	types	of	vessels.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-16 September 2014 

 

5.1.3.1 Methodology 

This	section	explains	how	effects	 to	navigation	and	marine‐related	economics	were	evaluated	 for	 the	

future	No‐Action	Alternative	and	Project.	Details	of	the	methodology	are	provided	in	Appendix	4.1‐3‐C.	

Operations Modeling 

Estimates	of	rail	traffic	arrivals	are	based	on	the	existing	schedule.	A	model	to	predict	this	schedule	was	

generated	using	Rail	Traffic	Controller	(RTC)2	modeling.	Freight	train	arrivals	were	grouped	by	day‐of‐

week	and	time‐of‐day.	The	RTC	model	simulation	includes	variations	in	departure	times	and	delays	in	

route.	The	model	generates	train	arrivals	at	the	bridges	using	arrival	times	with	a	variance	of	±10	minutes	

to	maintain	some	randomness	in	the	forecasted	train	arrivals.	Passenger	train	arrivals	provided	by	the	

RTC	model	are	at	regular	intervals,	approximately	once	per	hour	in	each	direction.	The	RTC	data	provide	

no	variability	in	passenger	train	arrival	times	because	the	predictability	of	the	passenger	service	schedule	

is	critically	important	to	overall	performance	(AMEC	2014a).	

Infrastructure	changes	as	a	result	of	the	Project	include	extending	the	double	track	of	the	mainline	across	

Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	and	up	to	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge;	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	will	remain	single	

tracked.	This	change	will	allow	a	train	to	be	staged	closer	to	the	bridge	while	waiting	for	a	second	train	to	

cross	the	bridge.	This	action	would	reduce	delays	for	trains	that	currently	have	to	slow	or	stop	to	yield	to	

oncoming	 train	 traffic.	 The	 model	 assumes	 that	 trains	 encountering	 oncoming	 traffic	 are	 delayed	

5	minutes	under	the	2016	Project	conditions.	The	New	River	Bridge	is	currently	double	tracked,	so	there	

are	no	delays	realized	in	either	the	2013	or	the	2016	model	scenarios	(AMEC	2014a).	It	is	also	assumed	

that	due	to	improved	infrastructure	under	Project	conditions,	future	trains	will	operate	at	a	faster	speed	

than	 trains	under	 the	No‐Action	Alternative.	Table	5.1.3‐1	depicts	average	 train	speeds	under	Project	

conditions,	as	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	

Table 5.1.3-1 Average Speeds of Passenger and Freight Trains 

County

No-Action Alternative Project

Freight Train Speed 

(mph)

Passenger Train Speed 

(mph)

Freight Train Speed 

(mph)

Broward 23 61 38

Palm Beach 33 76 39

Martin 32 77 36

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

RTC	modeling	was	used	to	determine	the	times	that	trains	would	occupy	the	span	over	the	waterway.	A	

secondary	 process	 used	 the	 RTC	 model	 data	 to	 determine	 the	 times	 that	 the	 water	 way	 would	 be	

unavailable	 to	 vessel	 passage;	 this	included	 the	 time	 the	water	way	is	 unavailable	 during	 the	 bridge	

closing	process	before	a	train’s	arrival.	A	bridge	must	be	closed	several	minutes	prior	to	the	train’s	arrival	

to	allow	for	safe	passage;	under	existing	conditions,	this	closure	time	is	approximately	12	minutes.	Train	

 

2 Rail Traffic Controller is a rail traffic simulation tool developed by Berkeley Simulation Software. It is the de facto simulation tool 

used by all Class I carriers (the seven largest North American railroads) and the majority of rail consulting firms. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-17 September 2014 

 

speeds	are	expected	to	increase	as	a	result	of	the	Project	and	will	allow	closure	times	prior	to	the	train’s	

arrival	to	be	reduced	to	approximately	7	minutes.	The	waterway	remains	unavailable	as	the	bridge	is	

raised.	The	RTC	model	was	run	for	the	average	number	of	marine	vessels	arriving	per	day	(AMEC	2014a).	

Economic Analysis 

This	analysis	considers	the	potential	effects	of	the	Project	as	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative	to	

obtain	 the	average	economic	effect	 that	bridge	closure	delays	would	have	on	 the	local	economy.	The	

bridge	operations	model	included	in	the	2014	Navigation Discipline Report	(Appendix	4.1‐3‐C)	and	was	

used	 to	 determine	 the	 total	 number	 of	 minutes	 of	 waiting	 time	 resulting	 from	 the	 Project	 to	 both	

recreational	and	commercial	boaters	by	multiplying	the	daily	number	of	vessels	by	the	average	amount	

of	 wait	 time	 per	 vessel.	 The	 waiting	 time	 was	 then	 multiplied	 by	 the	 cost	 per	 hour	 of	 operating	

recreational	and	commercial	vessels	on	each	of	the	rivers	included	in	this	analysis.	The	sum	of	these	costs	

constitutes	 the	 total	 value	 to	 the	marine	industry	and	 recreational	boaters	associated	with	increased	

bridge	closures	on	account	of	the	Project	(AMEC	2014a).	

5.1.3.2 Navigation Impacts 

This	section	describes	the	projected	impacts	to	navigation	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	and	Project.	

Appendix	4.1‐3‐C	provides	a	detailed	analysis,	including	modeling	results.	

No-Action Alternative 

Under	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative,	 freight	 traffic	 on	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 is	 predicted	 to	 increase.	 FECR	

operated	24	daily	trains	in	2006	and	had	projected	growth	of	5	to	7	percent	between	today	and	2016.	

However,	due	to	delays	in	the	expansion	of	the	Panama	Canal	and	other	factors,	it	is	now	expected	that	

freight	operations	will	increase	from	the	current	number	of	trains	to	20	trains	per	day	by	2016,	and	at	a	

3	percent	annual	growth	after	2016.	Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	infrastructure	would	not	be	

improved;	 train	 speeds	would	 not	increase	and,	 therefore,	 the	amount	 of	 overall	closure	 time	would	

increase.	Approximately	20	 freight	 trains	would	pass	 over	 the	St.	 Lucie,	 Loxahatchee,	and	New	River	

Bridges	on	any	given	day	(AMEC	2014a).	Approximately	half	of	the	trains	would	pass	during	daytime	

hours	 (7	AM	 to	 10	PM).	As	 shown	in	Table	 5.1.3‐2,	at	 the	St.	 Lucie	River	Bridge	 this	would	 result	in	

18	closures	per	day,	with	an	average	time	of	20	minutes	per	closure.	The	average	of	the	total	weekday	

closure	time	would	be	397.4	minutes	(6.6	hours).	The	average	of	the	total	weekend	closure	time	at	the	

St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	would	be	213	minutes	(3.6	hours).	The	Loxahatchee	River	(Jupiter	Inlet)	bridge	

would	result	in	16	closures	per	day,	with	an	average	time	of	20	minutes	per	closure.	The	average	of	the	

total	weekday	closure	time	would	be	350.8	minutes	(5.8	hours)	and	the	average	of	the	total	weekend	

closure	time	would	be	216	minutes	(3.6	hours).	The	New	River	Bridge	would	be	closed	16	times	per	day,	

with	an	average	time	of	19	minutes	per	closure.	The	average	of	the	total	weekday	closure	time	would	be	

360	 minutes	 (6.0	 hours)	 and	 the	 average	 of	 the	 total	 weekend	 closure	 time	 would	 be	 197	 minutes	

(3.3	hours).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-18 September 2014 

 

Table 5.1.3-2 Moveable Bridge Closures 

Year

Number 

of 

Closures1

Average 

Single Weekly 

Closure Time 

(minutes)

Average of 

Total 

Weekday 

Closure time 

(minutes)

Average of 

Total 

Weekday 

Closure time 

(hours)

Average of 

Total 

Weekend 

Closure Time 

(minutes)

Average of 

Total 

Weekend 

Closure Time 

(hours)

St Lucie River Bridge

2013 10 21 241 4.0 165 2.7

2016 No-Action 18 20 397 6.6 213 3.6

2016 Project 42 15 588 9.8 458 7.6

Loxahatchee River Bridge (Jupiter Inlet)

2013 10 19 214 3.6 156 2.6

2016 No-Action 16 20 351 5.8 216 3.6

2016 Project 42 12 515 8.6 434 7.2

New River Bridge

2013 10 19 147 3.5 147 2.5

2016 No-Action 16 19 360 6.0 197 3.3

2016 Project 30 13 414 6.9 314 5.2

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

St. Lucie River Bridge 

The	total	number	of	vessels	that	wait	and	the	average	vessel	wait	times	at	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	would	

increase	under	the	2016	No‐Action	Alternative.		

Approximately	20	freight	trains	would	pass	over	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	on	any	given	day.	As	shown	in	

Table	5.1.3‐2,	at	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	this	would	result	in	18	closures	per	day,	with	an	average	time	

of	 20	 minutes	 per	 closure.	 The	 average	 of	 the	 total	 weekday	 closure	 time	 would	 be	 397.4	 minutes	

(6.6	hours).	The	average	of	the	total	weekend	closure	time	at	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	would	be	213	

minutes	(3.6	hours).		

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	an	increase	in	obstruction	of	passage	compared	to	Existing	Conditions	

is	projected.	This	increase	in	obstruction	of	passage	is	due	to	a	greater	number	of	bridge	closures	as	a	

result	of	the	increased	freight	traffic.	The	number	of	vessels	that	experience	a	wait	time	would	increase	

from	 7	 percent	 to	 14	 percent,	 which	 represents	 approximately	 10.8	 additional	 vessels	 per	 day.	 The	

average	queue	time	for	vessels	experiencing	a	wait	will	increase	by	approximately	1.7	minutes.	With	the	

exception	of	a	few	specific	hour	periods,	the	vessel	queue	length	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	rarely	

exceeds	10	vessels;	it	is	projected	that	the	queue	length	will	be	10	vessels	or	fewer	for	97.8	percent	of	the	

time.	 Table	 5.1.3‐4	 presents	 vessel	 wait	 times	 for	 the	 St.	 Lucie	 River	 Bridge	 under	 the	 No‐Action	

Alternative.	

Loxahatchee River Bridge 

The	total	number	of	vessels	that	wait	and	the	average	vessel	wait	times	at	the	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	

would	increase	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-19 September 2014 

 

Approximately	 20	 freight	 trains	would	 pass	 over	 the	 Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	 on	any	given	 day.	As	

shown	 in	 Table	 5.1.3‐2,	 rail	 traffic	 over	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River	 (Jupiter	 Inlet)	 bridge	 would	 result	 in	

16	closures	per	day,	with	an	average	time	of	20	minutes	per	closure.	The	average	of	the	total	weekday	

closure	time	would	be	350.8	minutes	(5.8	hours)	and	the	average	of	the	total	weekend	closure	time	would	

be	216	minutes	(3.6	hours).		

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	an	increase	in	obstruction	of	passage	compared	to	existing	conditions	

is	projected.	This	increase	in	obstruction	of	passage	is	due	to	a	greater	number	of	bridge	closures	as	a	

result	of	the	increased	freight	traffic.	The	number	of	vessels	that	experience	a	wait	time	increases	from	

7	percent	to	25	percent,	which	represents	approximately	7	additional	vessels.	The	average	queue	time	

for	vessels	experiencing	a	wait	will	increase	by	approximately	1.1	minutes.	With	the	exception	of	a	few	

specific	hour	periods,	the	vessel	queue	length	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	rarely	exceeds	10	vessels;	

it	is	projected	that	the	queue	length	will	be	10	vessels	or	fewer	for	98.3	percent	of	the	time.	Table	5.1.3‐6	

presents	vessel	wait	times	for	the	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative.		

New River Bridge 

The	total	number	of	vessels	that	wait	and	the	average	vessel	wait	times	at	the	New	River	Bridge	would	

increase	under	the	2016	No‐Action	Alternative.		

Approximately	20	freight	trains	would	pass	over	the	New	River	Bridge	on	any	given	day.	As	shown	in	

Table	5.1.3‐2,	the	New	River	Bridge	would	be	closed	16	times	per	day,	with	an	average	time	of	19	minutes	

per	closure.	The	average	of	the	total	weekday	closure	time	would	be	360	minutes	(6.0	hours)	and	the	

average	of	the	total	weekend	closure	time	would	be	197	minutes	(3.3	hours).	

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	an	increase	in	obstruction	of	passage	compared	to	existing	conditions	

is	projected.	This	increase	in	obstruction	of	passage	is	due	to	a	greater	number	of	bridge	closures	as	a	

result	 of	 the	 increased	 freight	 traffic.	 Combined,	 these	 factors	 increase	 the	 number	 of	 vessels	 that	

experience	a	wait	 time	 from	14	percent	 to	23	percent,	which	represents	approximately	20	additional	

vessels	per	day.	The	average	wait	time	for	vessels	that	wait	will	increase	by	approximately	2	minutes.	

With	the	exception	of	a	few	specific	hour	periods,	the	vessel	queue	length	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	

rarely	exceeds	10	vessels;	it	is	projected	that	the	queue	length	will	be	10	vessels	or	fewer	for	97.8	percent	

of	 the	 time.	 Table	 5.1.3‐8	 presents	 vessel	 wait	 times	 for	 the	 New	 River	 Bridge	 under	 the	 No‐Action	

Alternative.		

Fixed Bridges 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	fixed	bridges	at	other	navigable	waterways	would	not	be	altered.	The	

waterways	 include	 the	 Eau	 Gallie	 River,	 Crane	 Creek,	 Turkey	 Creek,	 St.	 Sebastian	 River,	 and	 the	

Hillsboro	 Canal.	 The	 projected	 increase	 in	 the	 number	 of	 freight	 trains	 in	 2016	 would	 not	 affect	

navigation	at	these	bridges.	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

The	effects	to	navigation	from	the	Project	would	be	the	same	for	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E,	as	each	would	

include	the	same	bridge	improvements	and	the	same	number	of	passenger	trains	at	each	of	the	bridges	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-20 September 2014 

 

under	 consideration.	 Navigation	 impacts	 were	 modeled	 for	 2016	 using	 the	 number	 of	 freight	 trains	

projected	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	However,	with	the	Project’s	infrastructure	improvements,	the	

freight	 trains	 would	 be	 operating	 at	 higher	 speeds.	 The	 project	 analysis	 includes	 both	 freight	 and	

passenger	 trains	since	it	is	not	possible	 to	separate	 their	effects	at	moveable	bridges	 (a	single	bridge	

closure	could	accommodate	both).		

St. Johns River 

The	proposed	new	rail	bridge	over	the	St.	Johns	River	would	provide	the	same	clearance	that	the	existing	

SR	528	bridge	provides.	The	proposed	rail	bridge	would	provide	16	 feet	vertical	clearance	above	 the	

mean	high	water	level	of	river,	resulting	in	no	loss	of	existing	clearance.	The	Project	would	not	impede	or	

interfere	with	navigation.		

St. Lucie River 

The	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	would	be	rehabilitated	as	part	of	the	Project.	There	would	be	no	change	in	the	

structure	or	the	dimensions	of	the	opening.	The	bridge	would	continue	to	operate	in	accordance	with	the	

bridge	regulations	at	33	CFR	111.317(c).	The	proposed	passenger	train	operations	would	increase	the	

amount	of	time	that	the	bridge	would	be	closed.	Table	5.1.3‐2	shows	the	effect	of	the	additional	train	trips	

on	bridge	closure	times.	Under	Project	conditions,	16	round‐trip	(32)	passenger	trains	and	20	 freight	

trains	would	pass	over	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	on	any	given	day.	Future	train	speeds	at	this	location	are	

shown	in	Table	5.1.3‐1.	Appendix	4.1.3‐D	also	provides	detailed	information	on	hourly	bridge	closures.	

Table 5.1.3-3 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the St. Lucie River Bridge 

St. Lucie River Bridge No-Action Alternative1 Project2

Average Single Closure Time (minutes)3 20 15

Total Number of Daily Closures 18 42

Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Minutes) 397.4 588

Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Hours) 6.6 9.8

Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Minutes) 213 458

Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Hours) 3.6 7.6

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

1 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations with closure times verified with existing field conditions 

and under the assumption that infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action do not occur.

2 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations for both freight and passenger rail with the planned 

infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action. 

3 Multiple trains (freight and passenger) can cross under a single bridge closure. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-21 September 2014 

 

The	Project	would	result	in	an	additional	24	closures	per	day	of	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	(Table	5.1.3‐3).	

These	 additional	 closures	 result	 in	 a	 higher	 number	 of	 vessels	 experiencing	 wait	 times	 for	 both	

commercial	and	recreational	vessels.	Additionally,	the	increased	frequency	of	closures	results	in	vessel	

queuing	that	would	affect	the	vessel	movement	on	the	St.	Lucie	River	and	associated	waterways.		

Table 5.1.3-4 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge (2016) 

Units

No-Action 

Alternative Project

Total Vessels 

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 157 157

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 135 90

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 86% 58%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 22.5 66.7

% Vessels With Wait Time 14% 42%

Avg. Wait Time (all)1 (min) 1.4 3.4

Avg. Wait Time2 (min) 9.9 8.1

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) <18.3 <17.6

Commercial Vessels

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 9 9

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 7 4

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 78% 51%

Vessels with Wait Time (#/day) 2 4

% Vessels With Wait Time 22% 49%

Avg. Wait Time (all)1 (min) 1.8 3.7

Avg. Wait Time2 (min) 8.1 7.7

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) <18.3 <16.6

Recreational Vessels

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 148 148

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 127 86

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 86% 58%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 21 63

% Vessels With Wait Time 14% 42%

Avg. Wait Time (all)1 (min) 1.4 3.4

Avg. Wait Time2 (min) 10.1 8.1

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) <18.3 <17.7

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

1 Average time all vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge (average between vessels with wait time and vessels 

with no wait time) 

2 Average time queue vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge 

Based	on	the	current	proposed	operational	plan	provided	by	AAF,	with	the	Project,	the	St.	Lucie	River	

Bridge	would	be	closed	42	times	per	day,	with	an	average	time	of	15	minutes	per	closure.	The	average	of	

total	 weekday	 closure	 time	 would	 be	 588	 minutes	 (9.8	 hours)	 per	 day	 under	 Project	 conditions,	 an	

increase	 of	 190.6	minutes	 (3.2	 hours)	 over	 the	No‐Action	 Alternative.	 The	 average	 of	 total	 weekend	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-22 September 2014 

 

closure	time	would	be	458	minutes	(7.6	hours)	per	day	under	Project	conditions,	which	is	an	increase	of	

245	minutes	(4.0	hours)	over	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	Model	results	for	the	No‐Action	Alternative	and	

Project	bridge	operations	for	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	are	presented	in	Table	5.1.3‐3	(AMEC	2014a).	

Table	5.1.3‐4	shows	the	model	results	for	marine	traffic	wait	times	for	both	commercial	and	recreational	

vessels	at	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge.	Under	Project	conditions,	the	percentage	of	vessels	that	experience	

a	 wait	 under	 Project	 conditions	 would	increase	 from	 14	 percent	under	 the	No‐Action	 Alternative	 to	

42	percent	under	the	Project	(approximately	44	additional	vessels	per	day).	The	average	wait	time	for	all	

vessels	(inclusive	of	those	vessels	that	wait	and	those	that	do	not	wait)	would	increase	from	1.4	minutes	

under	 the	No‐Action	Alternative	 to	 3.4	minutes	 under	 the	 Project.	 The	 average	wait	 time	 of	 delayed	

vessels	would	decrease,	from	9.9	minutes	to	8.1	minutes.	The	most	likely	vessel	wait	time	would	be	less	

under	Project	conditions	as	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative	(AMEC	2014a).	With	the	exception	of	

a	few	specific	hour	periods,	the	vessel	queue	length	rarely	exceeds	10	vessels.	The	likelihood	of	a	queue	

length	greater	 than	10	in	any	given	hour	would	increase	 from	0.2	percent	 (No‐Action	Alternative)	 to	

4.3	percent	under	the	Project	conditions.		

Vessel	delays	for	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge	are	based	on	the	modeled	average	of	157	arrivals	per	day.	In	

actuality,	there	would	be	a	range	in	the	number	of	vessel	arrivals	depending	on	the	day	and	time.	For	the	

St.	Lucie	River	Bridge,	arrivals	ranged	from	46	to	413	vessels	during	the	2014	Video	Survey	and	arrivals	

were	 higher	 than	 157	 vessels	 29	 percent	 of	 the	 time.	 On	 peak	 days,	 navigation	 impacts	 may	 be	

substantially	greater	than	what	is	depicted	in	Table	5.1.3‐4.	

Loxahatchee (Jupiter) River

The	Project	would	reconstruct	 the	second	 track	at	 the	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge.	There	would	be	no	

change	 in	 the	 structure	 or	 the	 dimensions	 of	 the	 opening.	 The	 bridge	 would	 continue	 to	 operate	 in	

accordance	with	 the	bridge	regulations	at	33	CFR	111.299.	The	proposed	passenger	 train	operations	

would	increase	the	amount	of	time	that	the	bridge	would	be	closed.	Table	5.1.3‐2	shows	the	effect	of	the	

additional	train	trips	on	bridge	closure	times.	A	total	of	16	round‐trip	(32)	passenger	trains	and	20	freight	

trains	would	pass	over	the	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	on	any	given	day.	Future	train	speeds	at	this	location	

are	shown	in	Table	5.1.3‐1.		

The	 Project	 would	 result	 in	 an	 additional	 26	 closures	 per	 day	 of	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River	 Bridge	

(Table	5.1.3‐5).	These	additional	closures	result	in	a	higher	number	of	vessels	experiencing	wait	times	

for	both	commercial	and	recreational	vessels.	Additionally,	the	increased	frequency	of	closures	results	in	

vessel	 queuing	 that	 would	 affect	 the	 vessel	 movement	 on	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River	 and	 associated	

waterways.	

Based	on	the	current	proposed	operational	plan	provided	by	AAF,	with	the	Project	the	Loxahatchee	

(Jupiter	Inlet)	River	Bridge	would	be	closed	42	times	per	day	with	an	average	time	of	12	minutes	per	

closure.	The	average	of	the	total	weekday	closure	time	would	be	515	minutes	(8.6	hours)	per	day,	an	

increase	of	164.2	minutes	(2.8	hours)	over	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	The	average	of	the	total	weekend	

closure	time	would	be	434	minutes	(7.2	hours)	per	day,	an	increase	of	218	minutes	(3.6	hours)	over	

the	No‐Action	Alternative.	There	would	be	no	direct	effect	on	navigation	of	the	Intracoastal	Waterway,	

as	the	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	does	not	cross	the	waterway	directly.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-23 September 2014 

 

Model	results	for	the	bridge	operations	under	the	Project	and	No‐Action	Alternative	for	the	Loxahatchee	

River	 Bridge	 are	 presented	in	 Table	 5.1.3‐5.	 Appendix	 4.1.3‐D	 also	 provides	 detailed	information	 on	

hourly	bridge	closures.	

Table 5.1.3-5 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the Loxahatchee River Bridge 

Loxahatchee River Bridge No-Action Alternative1 Project 2

Average Single Closure Time (minutes)3 20 12

Total Number of Daily Closures 16 42

Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Minutes) 351 515

Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Hours) 5.8 8.6

Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Minutes) 216 434

Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Hours) 3.6 7.2

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

1 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations with closure times verified with existing field conditions 

and under the assumption that infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action do not occur.

2 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations for both freight and passenger rail with the planned 

infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action. 

3 Multiple trains (freight and passenger) can cross under a single bridge closure. 

Table	5.1.3‐6	shows	the	model	results	for	marine	traffic	wait	times	for	both	commercial	and	recreational	

vessels	 at	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River	 Bridge.	 Under	 Project	 conditions,	 the	 percentage	 of	 vessels	 that	

experience	 a	 wait	 under	 Project	 conditions	 would	 increase	 from	 25	 percent	 under	 the	 No‐Action	

Alternative	to	42	percent	under	the	Project	conditions	(approximately	31	additional	vessels	per	day).	The	

average	wait	time	for	all	vessels	(inclusive	of	those	vessels	that	wait	and	those	that	do	not	wait)	would	

increase	from	1.2	minutes	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	to	2.2	minutes	under	the	Project.	The	average	

wait	time	of	delayed	vessels	would	decrease,	from	9.4	minutes	to	5.7	minutes.	The	most	likely	vessel	wait	

time	is	less	under	Project	conditions	as	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative	(AMEC	2014a).	With	the	

exception	of	a	few	specific	hour	periods,	the	vessel	queue	length	rarely	exceeds	10	vessels.	The	likelihood	

of	 a	 queue	 length	 greater	 than	 10	 in	 any	 given	 hour	 would	 decrease	 from	 1.7	 percent	 (No‐Action	

Alternative)	to	0.5	percent	under	the	Project	conditions.		

Vessel	delays	for	the	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	are	based	on	the	modeled	average	of	121	arrivals	per	day.	

In	actuality,	there	would	be	a	range	in	the	number	of	vessel	arrivals	depending	on	the	day	and	time.	For	

the	 Loxahatchee	River	Bridge,	arrivals	 ranged	 from	 19	 to	 502	 vessels	in	 the	 2014	Video	Survey	and	

arrivals	were	higher	than	121	vessels	43	percent	of	the	time.	On	peak	days,	navigation	impacts	may	be	

substantially	greater	than	what	is	depicted	in	Table	5.1.3‐6.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-24 September 2014 

 

Table 5.1.3-6 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the Loxahatchee River Bridge (2016)

 Units

No-Action 

Alternative Project

Total Vessels

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 121 121

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 105 74

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 87% 61%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 16 47

% Vessels With Wait Time 25% 42%

Avg. Wait Time (all)1 (min) 1.2 2.2

Avg. Wait Time2 (min) 9.4 5.7

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.7 9.8

Commercial Vessels

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 4 4

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 4 2

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 84% 56%

Vessels with Wait Time (#/day) 1 2

% Vessels With Wait Time 16% 44%

Avg. Wait Time (all)1 (min) 1.2 2.4

Avg. Wait Time2 (min) 6.7 5.4

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 15.7 10.1

Recreational Vessels

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 116 116

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 101 71

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 87% 61%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 15 45

% Vessels With Wait Time 13% 39%

Avg. Wait Time (all)1 (min) 1.2 2.2

Avg. Wait Time2 (min) 9.5 5.7

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.8 9.8

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

1 Average time all vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge (average between vessels with wait time and vessels 

with no wait time) 

2 Average time queue vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge 

New River 

The	Project	would	not	require	any	action	at	 the	New	River	Bridge.	There	would	be	no	change	in	 the	

structure	or	the	dimensions	of	the	opening.	The	bridge	would	continue	to	operate	in	accordance	with	the	

bridge	regulations	at	33	CFR	111.313(b).	The	proposed	passenger	train	operations	would	increase	the	

amount	of	time	that	the	bridge	would	be	closed.	Table	5.1.3‐2	shows	the	effect	of	the	additional	train	trips	

on	bridge	closure	times.	Under	Project	conditions,	16	round‐trip	(32)	passenger	trains	and	20	 freight	

trains	would	pass	over	the	New	River	Bridge	on	any	given	day.	Future	train	speeds	at	this	location	are	

shown	in	Table	5.1.3‐1.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-25 September 2014 

 

The	Project	would	result	in	an	additional	14	closures	per	day	of	the	New	River	Bridge	(Table	5.1.3‐7).	

These	additional	closures	would	result	in	a	higher	number	of	vessels	experiencing	wait	times	for	both	

commercial	and	recreational	vessels.	Additionally,	the	increased	frequency	of	closures	results	in	vessel	

queueing	that	would	affect	the	vessel	movement	on	the	New	River.	

Based	on	the	current	operational	plan	provided	by	AAF,	with	the	Project	the	New	River	Bridge	would	be	

closed	30	times	per	day	with	an	average	time	of	13	minutes	per	closure	(Table	5.1.3‐7).	Under	Project	

conditions,	the	average	of	the	total	weekday	closure	time	would	be	414	minutes	(6.9	hours)	per	day	and	

the	average	of	the	total	weekend	closure	time	would	be	314	minutes	(5.2	hours)	per	day.	The	estimated	

effect	of	the	Project	on	the	New	River	Bridge	on	weekdays	is	approximately	54	minutes	(0.9	hours)	of	

additional	bridge	closure	time	per	day	as	compared	to	the	No	Action	Alternative.	The	estimated	effect	of	

the	Project	on	the	New	River	Bridge	on	weekends	is	approximately	117	minutes	(1.9	hours)	of	additional	

bridge	closure	time	per	day	as	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	Model	results	for	the	projected	

bridge	operations,	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	and	Project,	for	the	New	River	Bridge	are	presented	

in	Table	5.1.3‐7	(AMEC	2014a).	Appendix	4.1.3‐D	also	provides	detailed	information	on	hourly	bridge	

closures.	

Table 5.1.3-7 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the New River Bridge 

New River Bridge No-Action Alternative1 Project 2

Average Weekly Closure Time (minutes)3 19 13

Total Number of Daily Closures 16 30

Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Minutes) 360 414

Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Hours) 6.0 6.90

Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Minutes) 197 314

Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Hours) 3.3 5.23

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

1 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations with closure times verified with existing field 

conditions and under the assumption that infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action do not occur.

2 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations for both freight and passenger rail with the planned 

infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action. 

3 Multiple trains (freight and passenger) can cross under a single bridge closure. 

Table	5.1.3‐8	shows	the	model	results	for	marine	traffic	wait	times	for	both	commercial	and	recreational	

vessels	at	the	New	River	Bridge.	Under	Project	conditions	the	percentage	of	vessels	that	experience	a	wait	

would	 increase	 from	 23	 percent	 under	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative	 to	 36	 percent	 (approximately	 27	

additional	vessels	per	day).	The	average	wait	time	for	all	vessels	(inclusive	of	those	vessels	that	wait	and	

those	that	do	not	wait)	would	increase	from	1.8	minutes	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	to	2.2	minutes	

under	 the	Project.	The	average	wait	 time	of	delayed	vessels	would	decrease,	 from	7.9	minutes	 to	6.3	

minutes.	The	most	likely	vessel	wait	time	is	less	under	Project	conditions	as	compared	to	the	No‐Action	

Alternative	(AMEC	2014a).	With	the	exception	of	a	 few	specific	hour	periods,	the	vessel	queue	length	

rarely	exceeds	10	 vessels.	The	likelihood	 of	a	queue	length	greater	 than	10	in	any	given	hour	would	

decrease	from	2.2	percent	(No‐Action	Alternative)	to	2.0	percent	under	the	Project	conditions.		

Vessel	delays	 for	 the	New	River	Bridge	are	based	on	 the	modeled	average	of	215	arrivals	per	day.	 In	

actuality,	there	would	be	a	range	in	the	number	of	vessel	arrivals	depending	on	the	day	and	time.	For	the	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-26 September 2014 

 

New	River	Bridge,	arrivals	ranged	from	37	to	508	vessels	during	the	2014	Video	Survey	and	arrivals	were	

higher	than	215	vessels	36	percent	of	the	time.	On	peak	days,	navigation	impacts	may	be	substantially	

greater	than	what	is	depicted	in	Table	5.1.3‐8.	

Table 5.1.3-8 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the New River Bridge (2016) 

 Units

No-Action 

Alternative Project

Total Vessels

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 215 215

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 165 139

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 77% 64%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 50 76

% Vessels With Wait Time 23% 36%

Avg. Wait Time (all)1 (min) 1.8 2.2

Avg. Wait Time2 (min) 7.9 6.3

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.4 12.2

Commercial Vessels

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 49 49

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 35 29

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 71% 59%

Vessels with Wait Time (#/day) 14 20

% Vessels With Wait Time 29% 41%

Avg. Wait Time (all)1 (min) 2.1 2.6

Avg. Wait Time2 (min) 7.3 6.3

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 17.0 12.9

Recreational Vessels

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 165 165

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 130 109

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 79% 66%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 35 56

% Vessels With Wait Time 21% 34%

Avg. Wait Time (all)1 (min) 1.7 2.1

Avg. Wait Time2 (min) 8.1 6.3

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.3 12.0

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

1 Average time all vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge (average between vessels with wait time and vessels 

with no wait time) 

2 Average time queue vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge 

Fixed Bridges 

All	alternatives	would	alter	 the	existing	 fixed	bridges	at	other	navigable	waterways	(Eau	Gallie	River,	

St.	Sebastian	River,	Crane	Creek,	Turkey	Creek,	and	the	Hillsboro	Canal)	by	either	replacing	the	existing	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-27 September 2014 

 

track	bridge	with	a	new	double‐track	bridge,	or	adding	a	second	single‐track	bridge	parallel	to	the	existing	

bridge.	At	these	waterways,	the	new	bridge	would	have	the	same	horizontal	and	vertical	clearances	as	

the	existing	bridge	and	would	not	affect	navigation.	

The	 USCG	 requested	 that	 AAF	 evaluate	 alternatives	 that	 would	 raise	 these	 bridges	 and	increase	 the	

vertical	 clearance	 below	 the	 bridge,	 as	 the	 low	 clearance	 under	 these	 structures	 currently	 limits	

navigation.	AAF	has	evaluated	alternatives	that	would	raise	the	bridge	elevation	and	concluded	that	these	

are	not	feasible.	A	primary	consideration	in	the	use	of	elevated	structures	is	track	grade	or	incline.	Trains,	

as	opposed	to	automobiles,	are	much	more	restricted	in	the	grades	they	can	navigate	safely	and	efficiently.	

For	the	FECR	Corridor,	freight	trains	represent	the	limiting	factor	for	grade,	which	is	a	one‐percent	grade	

based	 on	 AREMA	 design	 standards	 (AREMA	 2003).	 To	 provide	 a	 1‐percent	 grade,	 for	 each	 foot	 in	

elevation	a	bridge	is	raised,	an	additional	100	linear	feet	of	embankment	is	needed	at	each	end	of	the	

bridge.	For	example,	if	the	bridge	is	raised	20	feet,	the	track	work	for	2,000	feet	on	either	end	of	the	bridge	

will	require	substantial	infrastructure	improvements	to	support	the	grade	increase,	resulting	in	a	total	

impact	of	4,000	feet	(0.75	mile).		

Raising	the	track	on	the	approaches	to	the	bridges	would	require	retaining	walls	to	keep	the	additional	

fill	 within	 the	 railroad	 right‐of‐way,	 and	 may	 require	 property	 acquisition	 to	 accommodate	 the	 new	

embankment	 and	 structures.	At‐grade	 crossings	 are	 often	 close	 to	 the	 bridge,	 and	 raising	 the	 bridge	

would	require	either	closing	the	grade	crossing	or	raising	the	surface	road.	For	example,	major	surface	

roads	are	located	less	than	0.2	miles	from	the	Eau	Gallie	River	and	St.	Sebastian	River	bridges	(SR	505).	

These	infrastructure	improvements	and	supporting	activities	would	have	significant	additional	costs	as	

a	result	of:	

 Building	large,	costly	retaining	walls	to	minimize	the	footprint	of	the	large	embankments	and	

fill	required	to	maintain	track	grades;	

 Abandoning,	rebuilding,	or	relocating	the	existing	grade	crossings	adjacent	to	the	bridges;	

 Mitigating	any	increased	environmental	impacts	to	wetlands,	important	habitat,	etc.;	

 Mitigating	increased	noise	impacts	to	any	residences	near	the	elevated	structure;	and	

 Protecting	or	purchasing	buildings	or	nearby	community	structures	of	significance	which	will	

be	impacted	by	the	larger	footprint	of	the	bridge.	

The	use	of	elevated	bridge	structures	would	result	in	significant	cost	increase;	preliminary	cost	estimates	

indicate	at	least	an	increase	in	 costs	 of	 two	 to	 three	 times	 planned	activities.	Time	 of	 overall	project	

execution	 would	 also	 increase,	 thereby	 affecting	 AAF’s	 goal	 to	 be	 operational	 in	 2016.	 Purchasing	

additional	 property,	 if	 available,	 would	 negatively	 impact	 project	 costs	 and	 the	 project	 schedule.	

Moreover,	AAF	does	not	have	condemnation	authority,	so	there	is	no	guarantee	that	AAF	would	be	able	

to	purchase	the	needed	land.	Community	impacts	would	also	result	from	closing,	moving	or	modification	

of	at‐grade	crossings	and	the	impacts	of	construction	and	operations	to	structures	in	the	vicinity	of	the	

expanded	footprint	that	would	be	needed.	

In	summary,	FRA	has	determined	that	the	significant	delays,	costs,	and	risks	associated	with	the	use	of	

elevated	structures	make	raising	any	of	the	corridor	bridges	not	feasible.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-28 September 2014 

 

5.1.3.3 Economic Impacts 

This	section	provides	an	overview	of	the	economic	impacts	associated	with	the	No‐Action	Alternative	and	

the	Project	for	the	St.	Lucie	River,	Loxahatchee	River,	and	New	River	Bridges.	

No-Action Alternative 

As	 noted	 in	 Section	 5.1.3.2,	 Navigation Impacts,	 freight	 traffic	 on	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 is	 predicted	 to	

increase	 from	 14	 trains	 to	 20	 trains	 per	 day	 by	 2016	 under	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative.	 Under	 the	

No‐Action	Alternative,	the	infrastructure	would	not	be	improved	and	train	speeds	would	not	increase;	

therefore,	the	amount	of	overall	closure	time	would	increase.	

St. Lucie River 

The	anticipated	increase	in	average	 vessel	wait	 times	associated	with	additional	 bridge	 closures	and	

unimproved	infrastructure	would	 result	in	an	increase	in	 vessel	queues	 of	11	 vessels	per	day.	These	

increased	 vessel	 wait	 times	 were	 considered	 when	 evaluating	 economic	 impacts	 to	 commercial	

developments	along	the	St	Lucie	River.	The	increase	in	average	vessel	wait	times	is	estimated	to	result	in	

an	economic	impact	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	(Table	5.1.3‐9)	of	$209	per	day	or	$76,285	annually.	

This	 value	is	 the	difference	between	 the	estimated	economic	impacts	 from	 the	No‐Action	Alternative	

compared	to	the	impact	of	Existing	Conditions.	This	represents	less	than	a	0.1	percent	increase	in	the	total	

cost	of	vessel	delays	per	day	on	the	marine	industry	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	(AMEC	2014a).	

Table 5.1.3-9 Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge for Existing Conditions 

and No-Action Alternative 

Units Existing Conditions No-Action Alternative

Total Daily Wait Time for All Vessels min/day 96 223

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 2 15

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 15 26

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0006 0.0011

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 10 21

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 143 341

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0065 0.0156

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

There	 are	 no	 cruise	 ships,	 commercial	 freighters,	 or	 other	 large	 oceangoing	 vessels	 that	 access	 the	

St.	 Lucie	 River;	 therefore,	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative	 is	 not	 expected	 to	 impact	 the	 existing	 or	 future	

operations	of	these	types	of	vessels	(AMEC	2014a).	

Individual	 commercial	 vessels	 could	 potentially	 experience	 an	 increase	 in	 vessel	 queue	 times	 at	 the	

St.	Lucie	River	Bridge.	However,	there	are	very	few	commercial	destinations	on	the	St.	Lucie	River,	and	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-29 September 2014 

 

they	would	not	be	anticipated	 to	incur	any	decline	in	business	as	a	result	of	the	moderate	impacts	 to	

navigation	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	(AMEC	2014a).	

Loxahatchee River 

The	anticipated	increase	in	average	 vessel	wait	 times	associated	with	additional	 bridge	 closures	and	

unimproved	infrastructure	would	result	in	an	increase	in	vessel	queues	of	seven	vessels	per	day.	These	

increased	 vessel	 wait	 times	 were	 considered	 when	 evaluating	 economic	 impacts	 to	 commercial	

developments	along	 the	Loxahatchee	River.	The	increase	in	average	vessel	wait	 times	is	estimated	 to	

result	in	an	economic	impact	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	(Table	5.1.3‐10)	of	$125	per	day	or	$45,625	

annually.	 This	 value	 is	 the	 difference	 between	 the	 estimated	 economic	 impacts	 from	 the	 No‐

Action	Alternative	compared	to	the	impact	of	Existing	Conditions.	This	represents	less	than	a	0.1	percent	

increase	in	the	total	cost	of	vessel	delays	per	day	on	the	marine	industry	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	

(AMEC	2014a).		

Table 5.1.3-10 Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River Bridge for Existing 

Conditions and No-Action Alternative 

Units Existing Conditions No-Action Alternative

Total Daily Wait Time for All Vessels min/day 74 147

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 1 1

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 7 9

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0005 0.0006

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 8 15

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 118 241

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0089 0.0182

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

There	 are	 no	 cruise	 ships,	 commercial	 freighters,	 or	 other	 large	 oceangoing	 vessels	 that	 access	 the	

Loxahatchee	River;	therefore,	the	No‐Action	Alternative	is	not	expected	to	have	an	impact	on	operations	

of	these	types	of	vessels	(AMEC	2014a).	

Individual	 commercial	 vessels	 could	 potentially	 experience	 an	 increase	 in	 vessel	 queue	 times	 at	 the	

Loxahatchee	River	Bridge.	However,	 there	are	 very	 few	 commercial	 destinations	 on	 the	 Loxahatchee	

River,	and	they	would	not	be	anticipated	to	incur	any	decline	in	business	as	a	result	of	the	bridge	closures.	

Therefore,	there	is	no	impact	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	(AMEC	2014a).	

New River 

The	anticipated	increase	in	average	 vessel	wait	 times	associated	with	additional	 bridge	 closures	and	

unimproved	infrastructure	would	 result	in	an	increase	in	 vessel	queues	 of	18	 vessels	per	day.	These	

increased	 vessel	 wait	 times	 were	 considered	 when	 evaluating	 economic	 impacts	 to	 commercial	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-30 September 2014 

 

developments	 along	 the	 New	 River.	 The	 increase	 in	 average	 vessel	 wait	 times	 for	 commercial	 and	

recreational	 vessels	 is	 estimated	 to	 result	 in	 an	 economic	 impact	 under	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative	

(Table	 5.1.3‐11)	 of	 $373.00	 per	 day	 or	 $136,145	 annually.	 This	 value	 is	 the	 difference	 between	 the	

estimated	 economic	 impacts	 from	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative	 compared	 to	 the	 impact	 of	 Existing	

Conditions.	This	represents	less	than	a	0.1	percent	increase	in	the	total	cost	of	vessel	delays	per	day	on	

the	marine	industry	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	(AMEC	2014a).		

Table 5.1.3-11 Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge for Existing Conditions and 

No-Action Alternative 

Units Existing Conditions No-Action Alternative

Total Daily Wait Time for All Vessels min/day 178 390

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 11 14

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 101 196

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0016 0.0031

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 20 35

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 215 493

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0040 0.0092

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

Port	Everglades	is	located	east	of	the	New	River	Bridge;	however,	cruise	ships,	commercial	freighters,	and	

other	large	oceangoing	vessels	do	not	access	the	New	River.	Therefore,	the	No‐Action	Alternative	would	

have	no	impact	to	existing	or	future	commercial	freighter	or	cruise	ship	operations	at	Port	Everglades	

(AMEC	2014a).	

Commercial	destinations	on	the	New	River	are	primarily	boat/yacht	repair	and	support	facilities,	which	

would	not	be	anticipated	to	incur	any	decline	in	business	because	of	impacts	to	navigation,	as	the	services	

they	offer	are	primarily	need‐based	and	would	less	likely	be	procured	by	transient	waterway	boaters.	

Therefore,	the	No‐Action	Alternative	is	not	expected	to	have	impacts	to	such	businesses	(AMEC	2014a).	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

The	economic	effects	of	extended	bridge	closures	to	the	local	economy	would	be	the	same	for	Alternatives	

A,	C,	and	E,	as	each	would	include	the	same	bridge	improvements	and	the	same	number	of	passenger	trains.		

St. Lucie River 

As	noted	in	Section	6.6	of	the	2014	Navigation Discipline Report,	the	Project	would	potentially	result	in	

minor	economic	impacts	to	jobs,	economic	growth,	and	development.	The	estimated	economic	impact	

under	the	Project	Alternatives	(Table	5.1.3‐12)	is	$520	per	day	or	$189,800	annually	(an	increase	of	$311	

per	day	or	$113,515	annually	when	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative).	This	is	the	impact	of	the	

increased	total	vessel	delay	per	day	on	the	marine	industry	under	the	Project	Alternatives	and	represents	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-31 September 2014 

 

less	than	a	0.1‐percent	increase	in	the	percent	cost	of	waiting	compared	to	the	marine	industry	value	at	

the	St.	Lucie	River	(AMEC	2014a).		

Table 5.1.3-12 Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge No-Action Alternative and 

Combined Effect 

Units

Existing 

Conditions

Project 

Alternatives Difference

Average Wait Time for all Vessels min 223 239 16

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing Wait Time #/day 9 4 (5)

Cost of Vessel Delay to Marine Industry $/day 26 55 29

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0011 0.0023 0.0012

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing Wait Time #/day 148 165 17

Cost of Vessel Delay to Marine Industry $/day 341 832 491

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0156 0.0381 .0225

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. 

Commercial	destinations	on	the	St.	Lucie	River	are	primarily	vessel/yacht	repair	and	support	facilities,	

which	would	not	be	anticipated	to	incur	any	decline	in	business	as	a	result	of	the	impacts	of	the	Project	

on	navigation	and,	therefore,	the	Project	would	have	minimal	impact	to	such	businesses	(AMEC	2014a).	

There	 are	 no	 cruise	 ships,	 commercial	 freighters,	 or	 other	 large	 oceangoing	 vessels	 that	 access	 the	

St.	 Lucie	 River;	 therefore,	implementation	 of	 the	 Project	 would	 have	 no	impact	 to	 existing	 or	 future	

operations	of	these	types	of	vessels	(AMEC	2014a).		

Loxahatchee River 

As	noted	in	Section	6.5	of	the	2014	Navigation Discipline Report (Appendix	4.1‐3‐C),	the	Project	would	

potentially	result	in	minor	economic	impacts	to	jobs,	economic	growth,	and	development.	The	estimated	

economic	impact	under	the	Project	Alternatives	(Table	5.1.3‐13)	is	$208	per	day	or	$75,920	annually	(an	

increase	of	$83	per	day	or	$30,295	annually	when	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative).	This	is	the	

impact	of	the	increased	total	vessel	delay	per	day	on	the	marine	industry	under	the	Project	Alternatives	

and	represents	less	than	a	0.1	percent	increase	(AMEC	2014a).		

There	 are	 very	 few	 commercial	 destinations	 on	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River,	 as	 most	 of	 the	 waterfront	

development	is	residential.	The	 few	commercial	destinations	are	not	expected	 to	incur	any	decline	in	

business	as	a	result	of	the	impacts	of	the	Project	on	navigation	(AMEC	2014a).	

There	 are	 no	 cruise	 ships,	 commercial	 freighters,	 or	 other	 large	 oceangoing	 vessels	 that	 access	 the	

Loxahatchee	River;	therefore,	the	Project	would	have	no	impact	to	existing	or	future	operations	of	these	

types	of	vessels	(AMEC	2014a).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-32 September 2014 

 

Table 5.1.3-13 Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River FECR Bridge No-Action 

Alternative and Combined Effect 

Units

Existing 

Conditions

Project 

Alternatives Difference

Average Wait Time for all Vessels min 147 269 122

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 1 2 1

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 9 18 9

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0006 0.0012 0.0006

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 15 45 30

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 241 440 199

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry Value % 0.0182 0.0331 0.0150

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

New River 

As	noted	in	Section	6.4	of	the	2014	Navigation Discipline Report (Appendix	4.1‐3‐C),	the	Project	is	not	

anticipated	 to	 result	 in	 adverse	 economic	 impacts	 to	 jobs,	 economic	 growth,	 and	 development.	 The	

increase	in	average	vessel	wait	times	results	in	minor	economic	impact	under	the	Project	Alternatives	

(Table	5.1.3‐14),	which	is	estimated	at	$161	per	day	or	$58,765	annually	(a	decrease	in	loss	of	$212	per	

day	or	$77,380	annually	when	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative	versus	Existing	Conditions).	This	

is	the	cost	of	the	total	vessel	delay	per	day	on	the	marine	industry	under	the	Project	Alternatives,	and	

creates	a	minimal	impact	as	there	is	a	less	than	0.1	percent	increase	in	the	cost	of	waiting	compared	to	

the	marine	industry	value	at	the	New	River,	when	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative	(AMEC	2014a).	

Table 5.1.3-14 Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge No-Action Alternative and 

Combined Effect 

Units

Existing 

Conditions

Project 

Alternatives Difference

Average Wait Time for all Vessels min 390 481 91

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 14 20 6

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 196 239 43

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0031 0.0038 0.0007

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 35 56 21

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 493 611 117

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry Value % 0.0092 0.0114 0.0022

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-33 September 2014 

 

Commercial	destinations	on	the	New	River	are	primarily	boat/yacht	repair	and	support	facilities.	These	

facilities	are	anticipated	to	incur	minor	impacts	to	their	business	as	a	result	of	the	moderate	impacts	of	

the	Project	on	vessel	wait	times	and	queue	lengths	(AMEC	2014a).		

Port	Everglades	is	located	east	of	the	New	River	Bridge.	Cruise	ships,	commercial	freighters,	and	other	

large	oceangoing	vessels	do	not	access	the	New	River;	therefore,	the	Project	would	have	no	impact	to	

existing	or	future	operations	at	Port	Everglades	(AMEC	2014a).	

5.2 Physical Environment 

This	section	evaluates	the	potential	impacts	of	the	Project	on	the	physical	environment	in	the	Project	

Study	Area,	with	respect	to	air	quality,	noise	and	vibration,	farmland	soils,	hazardous	materials	and	solid	

waste,	coastal	zone	management,	and	climate	change.	Geology,	which	is	not	a	resource	that	FRA	requires	

to	be	evaluated	in	an	EIS,	is	considered	in	Section	5.4.4,	Public	Health	and	Safety,	as	it	concerns	the	safety	

of	the	Project	with	respect	to	sinkholes	and	other	geological	threats	to	public	infrastructure.	

5.2.1 Air Quality 

This	section	describes	the	potential	impacts	to	air	quality	from	the	Project.	The	air	quality	provisions	that	

are	 applicable	 to	 the	 Project	 include	 the	 1990	 Clean	 Air	 Act	 Amendments	 (CAAA),	 and	 the	 NEPA	

requirements	as	specified	in	the	CEQ’s	Regulations	for	Implementing	the	National	Environmental	Policy	

Act	(40	CFR	parts	1500‐1508)	(EPA	2008a;	CEQ	2005a).	

The	CAAA	require	that	a	Project	does	not:	

 Cause	any	new	violation	of	the	NAAQS;	

 Increase	the	frequency	or	severity	of	any	existing	violations;	or	

 Delay	attainment	of	any	NAAQS.	

As	demonstrated	in	this	section,	for	all	alternatives	the	Project	would	provide	a	net	regional	air	quality	

benefit	as	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	The	air	quality	study	demonstrates	that	the	Project	

would	decrease	emissions	of	all	regulated	pollutants.	Air	quality	in	the	region	would	be	improved	through	

the	diversion	of	vehicles	from	the	roads	and	highways	in	central‐east	Florida.	

5.2.1.1 Methodology 

The	analysis	considered	emissions	of	regulated	pollutants	from	passenger	trains	and	other	vehicles.	

Passenger Train Emissions Methodology 

Air	pollutant	emissions	resulting	from	the	operation	of	passenger	trains	associated	with	the	Project	and	

switching	occurring	at	the	VMF	were	calculated	based	upon	the	number	and	types	of	locomotives	(two	

diesel	 engines	 per	 train,	 with	 eight	 trainsets	 operating	 concurrently),	 the	 horsepower	 rating	 of	 the	

engines	 (4,000	horsepower),	and	 the	assumption	 that	 the	locomotives	would	be	compliant	with	EPA	

Tier	4	rail	emission	standards.	Criteria	pollutant	emission	factors	for	the	locomotives	were	obtained	from	

the	EPA.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-34 September 2014 

 

Vehicular Emissions Methodology 

Overall	vehicle	miles	travelled	(VMT)	reductions	were	calculated	based	upon	estimates	of	auto	vehicle	trips	

avoided	as	auto	passengers	are	diverted	to	the	new	rail	service	for	long‐distance	service	(travel	between	

central	and	southeast	Florida).	Daily	vehicle	trip	reductions	were	calculated	based	on	values	for	total	annual	

trips	diverted	based	on	the	AAF	ridership	report	(Louis	Berger	Group	2013)	(Appendix	3.3‐F)	Air	pollutant	

emission	reductions	resulting	from	reduced	VMT	as	a	consequence	of	the	Project	were	determined	using	a	

conservative	approach.	All	VMT	reductions	were	assumed	to	result	from	motorcycles,	cars	and	light	trucks	

(SUVs,	light	pickups,	etc.).	Emission	factors	for	cars,	motorcycles,	and	light	trucks	for	speeds	above	40	mph	

were	 taken	 from	 data	 generated	 from	 the	 2007	 on‐road	 mobile	 source	 inventory	 developed	 for	 the	

Southeastern	 States	 Air	 Resource	 Managers,	 Inc.	 (AMEC	 2013a).	 For	 the	 purposes	 of	 this	 estimation	

procedure,	all	vehicles	were	assumed	to	be	gasoline	burning	vehicles	since	that	fuel	type	represents	the	

majority	of	vehicles	in	the	passenger	vehicle	categories	included	in	this	evaluation.		

5.2.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

This	section	describes	the	potential	impacts	to	air	quality	that	could	result	 from	the	Project.	Air	quality	

impacts	would	be	the	same	for	each	of	the	Action	Alternatives,	as	each	would	include	the	same	train	miles	

and	automobile	diversions;	this	analysis,	therefore,	does	not	differentiate	between	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E.		

The	CAAA	require	 that	 federal	agency	activities	conform	 to	 the	State	 Implementation	Plan	 (SIP)	with	

respect	 to	achieving	and	maintaining	attainment	 of	NAAQS	and	addressing	air	 quality	effects	 (58	 FR	

62188).	 The	 EPA	 General	 Conformity	 Rule	 requires	 that	 a	 conformity	 analysis	 be	 performed	 which	

demonstrates	that	a	proposed	action	does	not:		

1) Cause	or	contribute	to	any	new	violation	of	any	NAAQS	in	the	area;		

2) Interfere	with	provisions	in	the	SIP	for	maintenance	or	attainment	of	any	NAAQS;		

3) Increase	the	frequency	or	severity	of	any	existing	violation	of	any	NAAQS;	or		

4) Delay	timely	attainment	of	any	NAAQS,	any	interim	emission	reduction,	goals,	or	other	milestones	

included	in	the	SIP	(58	FR	63214).		

Provisions	 in	 the	 General	 Conformity	 Rule	 allow	 for	 exemptions	 from	 performing	 a	 conformity	

determination	 only	 if	 total	 emissions	 of	 individual	 nonattainment	 area	 pollutants	 resulting	 from	 the	

proposed	action	fall	below	the	significant	threshold	values.		

The	Project	Study	Area	(Phase	2)	is	located	in	Orange,	Brevard,	Indian	River,	St.	Lucie,	Martin,	and	Palm	

Beach	Counties.	All	six	counties	are	designated	as	attainment	areas	for	all	criteria	pollutants.	As	the	Project	

is	in	attainment	areas,	it	is	not	subject	to	review	under	the	EPA’s	General	Conformity	Rule.	Pursuant	to	this	

exclusion,	a	development,	or	select	analysis,	of	emissions	inventories	of	criteria	pollutants	of	the	proposed	

action	would	not	be	necessary	and	would	not	be	performed	for	General	Conformity	evaluation	purposes.	

However,	emissions	of	the	criteria	pollutants,	as	related	to	reductions	in	new	passenger	trains,	freight	trains,	

and	on‐road	VMT,	are	reviewed	to	assess	whether	the	passenger	trains	emissions	would	affect	regional	air	

quality	and	to	assess	the	effects	of	VMT	reduction	on	regional	air	quality.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-35 September 2014 

 

The	2013	FONSI	for	Phase	I	found	that	the	Project	would	provide	a	net	regional	air	quality	benefit	as	

compared	to	current	conditions,	and	would	reduce	regional	criteria	pollutants,	mobile	source	air	toxics,	

and	greenhouse	gas	emissions	because	motor	vehicle	use	would	decrease.		

No-Action Alternative 

Under	 the	No‐Action	Alternative,	VMT	within	 the	Orlando	 to	West	Palm	Beach	area	would	continue	 to	

increase	 as	 population	in	 southeastern	 and	 central‐eastern	 Florida	 continues	 to	 grow.	 This	 population	

increase	would	result	in	an	ongoing	increase	in	VMT,	with	few	alternative	public	transportation	options	that	

could	be	utilized	by	a	large	number	of	residents	and	visitors.	VMT	reductions	that	would	be	realized	under	

the	Proposed	Action	would	not	occur;	therefore,	moderate	adverse	air	quality	impacts	would	occur.	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Air	quality	impacts	of	the	three	Action	Alternatives	(Alternative	A,	Alternative	C,	and	Alternative	E)	would	

be	identical,	as	each	alternative	would	provide	a	similar	travel	time	and	would	have	the	same	ridership	and	

VMT	reductions.	As	shown	in	Table	5.2.1‐1,	the	Project	for	the	Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach	service	would	

remove	344	daily	vehicle‐trips	from	area	highways	in	2016,	1,214	daily	trips	in	2019,	and	1,453	daily	trips	

in	2030.	With	a	377‐mile	round‐trip	distance,	this	would	result	in	an	annual	VMT	reduction	of	42,313,720	in	

the	start‐up	year	(2016),	and	an	annual	VMT	reduction	of	149,328,070	by	2019,	the	year	that	near‐full	

ridership	is	anticipated.	In	2030,	VMT	reductions	of	178,726,265	are	anticipated.	

The	 entire	 Project	 would	 provide	 a	 net	 regional	 air	 quality	 benefit	 as	 compared	 to	 the	 No‐Action	

Alternative.	Air	quality	in	the	region	would	be	improved	through	the	reduction	of	vehicles	from	the	roads	

and	highways	as	riders	move	instead	to	the	proposed	passenger	rail	service	between	Orlando	and	West	

Palm	Beach.		

Table 5.2.1-1 Projected Ridership, Vehicle-Trips Removed and VMT Reductions for 

Orlando-West Palm Beach Service 

 2016 2019 2030

Daily Vehicle-Trips Removed 344 1,214 1,453

Annual Vehicle-Trips Removed 125,560 443,110 530,345

Annual VMT Reductions1 42,313,720 149,328,070 178,726,265

Source: Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September 2013. Prepared 

for Florida East Coast. Report. 

1 Based on a 337-mile round trip between Orlando and West Palm Beach 

As	shown	in	Table	5.2.1‐2,	the	difference	between	reductions	in	emissions	related	to	VMT	and	increases	

related	to	passenger	train	emissions,	as	measured	in	tons	per	year,	was	estimated	for	CO,	NOx,	SO2,	VOCs,	

PM10,	PM2.5,	CO2,	CH4,	and	N2O.	Emissions	for	all	pollutants,	except	CO2	in	2016,	show	an	overall	decrease.	

The	lone	exception	is	CO2	if	 the	Project	is	considered	independently	of	 the	cumulative	impacts	in	 the	

Project	Study	Area.	Under	that	analysis,	CO2	shows	an	increase	of	just	over	23,000	tons	per	year,	related	

primarily	to	the	increase	in	passenger	 train	emissions	and	 the	modest	decrease	in	vehicular	 traffic	in	

2016.	This	analysis	is	based	only	on	a	review	of	the	344	vehicles	per	day	being	removed	as	a	result	of	train	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-36 September 2014 

 

ridership	for	2016	for	the	extension	of	proposed	passenger	rail	service	from	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami.	

Under	 that	limited	 analysis,	 the	modest	 decrease	in	 vehicular	 traffic	 from	 the	 Project	in	 2016	is	 not	

sufficient	to	offset	the	emissions	increase	for	CO2	from	the	trains	themselves	(which	are	calculated	on	the	

basis	of	the	entire	Project).		

Table 5.2.1-2 Summary of Emissions (tons/year) for Orlando to West Palm Beach, 2016-20301

Pollutant Year VMT Reduction

Automobile 

Total

Passenger 

Train

Train 

Switching

Train 

Total

Net 

Emissions

CO 2016 42,313,720 -354.0 55.4 1.6 57.0 -296.9

2019 149,328,070 -1249.1 55.4 1.6 57.0 -1192.1

2030 178,726,265 -1495.1 55.4 1.6 57.0 -1438.1

NOx 2016 42,313,720 -51.6 43.4 1.3 44.5 -7.1

2019 149,328,070 -182.1 43.4 1.3 44.5 -137.6

2030 178,726,265 -218.0 43.4 1.3 44.5 -173.4

SO2 2016 42,313,720 -0.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 -0.6

2019 149,328,070 -2.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 -2.6

2030 178,726,265 -3/3 0.2 0.0 0.2 -3.1

VOC 2016 42,313,720 -12.7 1.8 0.1 1.9 -10.8

2019 149,328,070 -44.9 1.8 0.1 1.9 -43.0

2030 178,726,265 -53.7 1.8 0.1 1.9 -51.8

PM10 2016 42,313,720 -1.3 0.6 0.0 0.7 -0.6

2019 149,328,070 -4.5 0.6 0.0 0.7 -3.8

2030 178,726,265 -5.4 0.6 0.0 0.7 -4.7

PM2.5 2016 42,313,720 -1.1 0.6 0.0 0.6 -0.4

2019 149,328,070 -3.8 0.6 0.0 0.6 -3.2

2030 178,726,265 -4.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 -3.9

CO2 2016 42,313,720 -16,978.0 40,234,9 NA 40,234.9 23,256.9

2019 149,328,070 -59,916.5 40,234,9 NA 40,234.9 -19,618.7

2030 178,726,265 -71,212,3 40,234,9 NA 40,234.9 -31,477.4

CH4 2016 42,313,720 -1.4 0.4 NA 0.4 -1.0

2019 149,328,070 -5.1 0.4 NA 0.4 -4.7

2030 178,726,265 -6.1 0.4 NA 0.4 -5.7

N2O 2016 42,313,720 -1.5 0.2 NA 0.2 -1/3

2019 149,328,070 -5.3 0.2 NA 0.2 -5.0

2030 178,726,265 -6.3 0.2 NA 0.2 -6.1

Source: AMEC. 2013b. Technical Memorandum No. 10: Environmental Consequences for All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail 

Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. Report. 

1 Emissions reductions are presented as negative numbers (-) 

By	2019,	 the	reduction	in	automobile	 travel	 from	 the	Project	would	offset	all	CO2	emissions	 from	 the	

passenger	 trains	 and	 provide	 an	 overall	 reduction	in	 all	 pollutants	including	 CO2.	 The	 CO2	 reduction	

would	approximate	20,000	tons	by	2019,	and	31,000	tons	by	2030.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-37 September 2014 

 

Table	 5.2.1‐3	 summarizes	 the	 cumulative	 air	 quality	 benefits	 of	 the	 Project	in	 combination	 with	 the	

Phase	I	‐	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	service	analyzed	in	Section	3.1.1	of	the	2012	EA.	The	Project	for	all	

alternatives	would	provide	a	net	regional	air	quality	benefit	as	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	

The	air	quality	study	demonstrates	that	the	Project	would	decrease	emissions	of	CO,	NOx,	SO2,	VOC,	PM10,	

and	PM2.5.	Air	quality	in	the	region	would	be	improved	through	the	diversion	of	vehicles	from	the	roads	

and	 highways	in	 central‐east	 Florida.	 By	 2030,	 the	 combined	 project	would	 reduce	 CO	 emissions	 by	

1,654	tons,	NOx	by	192	tons,	VOCs	by	59	tons,	and	PM10	by	7	tons.	

The	2013	FONSI	for	Phase	I	stated	that	the	selected	alternative	would	provide	a	net	regional	air	quality	

benefit	as	compared	to	the	current	conditions,	and	that	operation	of	the	selected	alternative	would	reduce	

regional	criteria	pollutants,	mobile	source	air	toxics,	and	greenhouse	gas	emissions	because	motor	vehicle	

emissions	would	decrease	in	the	region	based	on	the	reduction	of	VMTs.		

Table 5.2.1-3 Summary of Emissions Reductions (tons/year) for Orlando to Miami, 2019-2030 

Pollutant Year Segment

Estimated VMT 

Reduction

Estimated Pollutant 

Reduction 

(tons/year)

CO 2018/2019 Orlando to West Palm Beach 149,328,070 1,249.1

West Palm Beach to Miami 44,229,342 273.5

Net Reduction 1,522.6

2030 Orlando to West Palm Beach 178,726,265 1,438.1

West Palm Beach to Miami 51,345,672 215.7

Net Reduction 1,653.8

NOx 2018/2019 Orlando to West Palm Beach 149,328,070 182.1

West Palm Beach to Miami 44,229,342 49.6

Net Reduction 132.5

2030 Orlando to West Palm Beach 178,726,265 173.4

West Palm Beach to Miami 51,345,672 19.0

Net Reduction 192.4

VOC 2018/2019 Orlando to West Palm Beach 149,328,070 44.9

West Palm Beach to Miami 44,229,342 14.5

Net Reduction 59.4

2030 Orlando to West Palm Beach 178,726,265 51.8

West Palm Beach to Miami 51,345,672 7.1

Net Reduction 58.9

PM10 2018/2019 Orlando to West Palm Beach 149,328,070 4.5

West Palm Beach to Miami 44,229,342 0.1

Net Reduction 4.6

2030 Orlando to West Palm Beach 178,726,265 4.7

West Palm Beach to Miami 51,345,672 2.2

Net Reduction 6.9

Source: AMEC. 2013b. Technical Memorandum No. 10: Environmental Consequences for All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail 

Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-38 September 2014 

 

Vehicle Maintenance Facility and Station 

The	Project	includes	a	dedicated	VMF	on	GOAA	property	south	of	MCO.	There	would	be	some	electrical	

requirements	 for	 the	 VMF	 but	 the	 emissions	 related	 to	 the	 minimal	 electrical	 requirements	 are	

considered	negligible.	In	addition,	the	additional	vehicular	trips	related	to	the	MCO	Intermodal	Station	

are	projected	to	be	minimal	(less	than	100	employees)	and	are	considered	negligible	in	relation	to	the	

entire	Project’s	estimated	annual	VMT	reductions	of	42,313,720	in	2016	and	149,328,070	in	2019.	The	

Project’s	VMT	and	associated	pollutant	reductions	dominate	the	air	quality	benefits.		

Intersections 

Section	3.1.1	of	 the	2012	EA	prepared	 for	 the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section	modeled	air	quality	

emissions	at	intersections	and	grade	crossings,	where	vehicle	congestion	may	occur,	using	a	CO	hotspot	

screening	method.	Motor	vehicles	emit	CO	at	high	rates	when	they	are	operating	a	low	speeds	or	idling	in	

queues.	Section	3.1.1	of	the	2012	EA	evaluated	the	most	congested	intersections	(in	terms	of	LOS,	delay,	

and	traffic	volumes)	in	the	vicinity	of	the	proposed	stations	and	railroad	crossings.	The	modeling	showed	

that	traffic	did	not	exceed	air	quality	criteria	in	either	the	opening	year	or	the	build‐out	year	at	any	of	the	

intersections	or	grade	crossings.		

The	 highest‐volume	 grade	 crossing	 evaluated	 in	 Section	 3.1.1	 of	 the	 2012	 EA	 had	 an	 AADT	 of	

47,200	 (Hillsboro	 Boulevard,	 Broward	 County).	 As	 documented	 in	 Section	 4.1.2,	 Transportation,	 the	

highest‐volume	grade	crossings	for	the	Project	carry	40,000	AADT.	Traffic	volumes	and	congestion	at	the	

Project’s	grade	crossings,	and	therefore	CO	emissions,	are	projected	to	be	lower	than	those	presented	in	

Section	3.1.1	of	the	2012	EA	and	therefore	would	not	exceed	air	quality	criteria.	As	Section	3.1.1	of	the	

2012	EA	showed	that	traffic	delays	at	the	higher‐volume	grade	crossing	did	not	exceed	air	quality	criteria,	

a	detailed	hot‐spot	CO	modeling	evaluation	was	not	conducted	for	this	EIS.	

5.2.1.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

The	areas	surrounding	 the	proposed	stations	are	already	developed;	 the	Project	is	not	anticipated	 to	

result	in	induced	growth	or	development	that	could	generate	additional	emissions	of	criteria	pollutants,	

and	would	not	result	in	indirect	or	secondary	effects	to	air	quality.	Section	3.1	of	the	2012	EA	documented	

that	there	would	be	no	indirect	or	secondary	effects	to	air	quality	associated	with	Phase	I	of	the	Project.	

5.2.1.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

The	 emissions	 from	 construction	 activities	 are	 expected	 to	 be	 minimal,	 controlled	 using	 BMPs,	 and	

temporary	in	nature.	Combustion	emissions	would	be	associated	with	construction‐related	equipment,	

workers’	 vehicles,	 and	 transportation/delivery	 of	 construction	 materials.	 Emissions	 associated	 with	

construction	equipment	would	 be	minimal	 because	most	equipment	would	 be	 driven	 to	and	 kept	at	

affected	 sites	 for	 the	 duration	 of	 construction	 activities.	 In	 addition,	 BMPs	 routinely	 performed	 at	

construction	sites	would	serve	to	keep	emissions	of	PM	(the	primary	pollutant	emitted)	to	a	minimum	

during	 the	 temporary	 construction	 activities.	 Emissions	 associated	 with	 construction	 workers	

commuting	and	 the	 transport	 of	materials	would	also	 be	minimal	given	 the	 temporary	 nature	 of	 the	

activities.	Contractors	will	be	required	to	use	BMPs	during	construction,	such	as	soil	watering	to	reduce	

fugitive	 dust	 emissions,	 that	 would	 be	 effective	 in	 substantially	 reducing	 potential	 emissions	 during	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-39 September 2014 

 

construction.	Any	potential	 temporary	impacts	will	be	avoided	and/or	minimized	 through	BMPs	and	

mitigation	requirements	applied	pursuant	to	all	applicable	federal,	state,	and	local	statutes,	regulations	

and	 ordinance,	if	and	as	applicable,	 such	 that	any	 such	 temporary	 construction	impacts	would	 cease	

immediately	after	construction	activities	are	completed.	

5.2.2 Noise and Vibration 

This	section	identifies	the	impacts	of	the	Project	on	properties	and	residents	within	the	Project	Study	Area	

due	to	changes	in	noise	and	vibration.	Section	4.2.2	defines	noise	and	vibration	and	provides	information	

on	existing	noise	and	vibration	levels.	AAF	has	committed	to	installing	stationary	wayside	horns	at	each	of	

the	159	grade	crossings	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach	where	severe,	unmitigated	impacts	would	

occur	using	locomotive‐mounted	horns.	Therefore,	the	noise	analysis	assumes	that	wayside	horns	will	be	

implemented	 as	 part	 of	 the	 Project.	 Stationary	 pole‐mounted	 wayside	 horns	 at	 grade	 crossings	 will	

reduce	future	noise	levels	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	by	eliminating	train‐mounted	warning	horns	for	both	

future	 freight	 trains	and	AAF	 passenger	 trains.	Using	wayside	horns	at	 the	intersection	instead	of	 the	

locomotive	horn	has	been	shown	to	substantially	reduce	the	noise	footprint	without	compromising	safety	

at	the	grade	crossing.	

The	Project	would	result	in	long‐term	noise	and	vibration	adverse	impacts	to	residents	and	properties,	

primarily	along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	The	Project	would	result	in	noise	impacts	along	some	elevated	sections	

of	the	E‐W	Corridor.	Noise	impacts	would	be	the	same	for	the	three	alignments,	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E.	

The	 Project	 will	 result	 in	 minor	 vibration	 impacts	 along	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 due	 to	 the	 increase	

(approximately	doubling)	of	vibration	events	as	a	result	of	adding	passenger	train	service	to	the	existing	

freight	operations.	There	is	no	potential	vibration	impact	along	the	MCO	Segment	because	of	low	train	

speeds	and	the	absence	of	sensitive	receptors.	Along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	minor	vibration	impacts	would	

occur	where	residences	are	close	 to	 the	proposed	 tracks.	Vibration	levels	are	not	projected	 to	exceed	

structural	damage	levels	(100	VdB)	at	any	location.	

5.2.2.1 Methodology 

Noise	and	vibration	have	been	assessed	according	to	guidelines	specified	in	FRA’s	High‐Speed Ground

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment	 guidance	 manual	 (FRA	 Manual),	 the	 Federal	

Transit	Administration’s	(FTA)	Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment	guidance	manual,	and	the	Federal	

Highway	 Administration	 (FHWA)	 guidelines	 as	 defined	 for	 Florida	 application	 by	 FDOT	 for	 traffic	

operations (FRA	 2012a;	 FTA	 2006;	 FDOT	 2011c).	 These	 guidelines	 provide	 the	 methodology	 for	

identifying	 the	affected	environment	and	assessing	potential	impact	 from	 transit	projects	such	as	 the	

Project.	

The	methodology	for	assessing	potential	short‐	and	long‐term	noise	and	vibration	impacts	of	the	Project	

includes:	identifying	noise	and	vibration‐sensitive	land	uses	within	the	area	of	potential	impact;	modeling	

existing	noise	and	vibration	conditions	at	these	sensitive	receptors	based	on	existing	freight	operations,	

highway	traffic	conditions,	and	general	ambient	sources;	projecting	future	noise	and	vibration	conditions	

from	 the	 proposed	 alternatives;	 assessing	 potential	 long‐term	 noise	 and	 vibration	 impact;	 and	

considering	noise	and	vibration	mitigation.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-40 September 2014 

 

The	distances	to	potential	impact	have	been	used	to	create	noise	contours	and	to	identify	the	number	of	

potential	 impacts.	 The	 noise	 impacts	 have	 been	 calculated	 assuming	 that	 wayside	 horns	 will	 be	

implemented	as	part	of	the	Project.	Noise	impacts	were	calculated	for	2016,	the	first	year	of	full	revenue	

service,	for	all	at‐grade	intersections	and	along	the	Project	corridor	with	respect	to	operational	noise	and	

vibration.		

Noise 

Noise	generated	from	the	proposed	passenger	rail	operations	was	calculated	based	on	average	operating	

characteristics	for	each	county	and	projected	service	schedules.	Table	5.2.2‐1	shows	the	noise	calculation	

inputs	for	the	proposed	passenger	rail	operations.	The	train	schedule	assumes	an	average	of	two	operations	

per	hour	between	7:00	AM	and	10:00	PM	and	0.22	operations	per	hour	between	10:00	PM	and	7:00	AM,	for	

a	total	of	16	roundtrip	trains	per	day	during	the	2016	build‐out	year.	For	this	analysis,	total	passenger	train	

length	was	 assumed	 to	 be	 810	 feet,	 consisting	 of	 two	 65‐foot	long	locomotives	 and	 eight	 85‐foot	long	

passenger	cars.		

Speeds	will	vary	depending	upon	the	location	along	the	route.	Except	for	Orange	County,	speeds	were	

averaged	by	county.	For	Orange	County,	operations	were	split	into	Orange	(East)	and	Orange	(West)	of	

SR	417	because	projected	operating	speeds	would	be	substantially	less	west	of	SR	417.	

Distances	to	potential	moderate	and	severe	noise	impacts	have	been	calculated	and	impact	assessed	by	

comparing	the	Project	noise	level	with	the	existing	noise	level.	As	both	existing	and	Project	noise	levels	

decrease	with	increasing	distance	from	the	source,	comparisons	were	made	at	5‐foot	intervals	moving	

outward	from	the	alignment	until	the	Project	noise	would	no	longer	exceed	the	impact	criteria.	As	existing	

noise	is	in	part	a	function	of	population	density,	which	varies	on	either	side	of	the	track,	impact	contours	

are	not	always	necessarily	symmetrical.		

Table 5.2.2-1 Proposed Passenger Rail Operations (2016) 

County

Speed 

(mph)

Average 

Daily 

Trains

Trains/ 

Hour Daily

Trains/ 

Day 

(7:00 AM10:00 PM)2Trains/

Hour Day

Trains/ 

Night 

(10:00 PM7:00 AM)2Trains/ 

Hour Night

East-West Corridor 

Orange (West) 34.2 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22 

Orange (East) 103.5 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22 

Brevard 94.6 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22 

North-South Corridor 

Brevard 98.1 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22 

Indian River 106.6 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22 

St. Lucie 92.6 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22 

Martin 79.5 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22 

Palm Beach 89.2 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22 

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from 

Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. AAF. 2013a. Modeling Assumptions. May 2013. 

1 Average speeds calculated from CA20 TPC Runtimes 

2 Relative distribution of day/night activity for Passenger Operations 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-41 September 2014 

 

Noise	impacts	within	the	MCO	Segment	were	determined	using	FRA	impact	criteria.	In	the	vicinity	of	the	

VMF,	noise	from	idling	locomotives	was	added	to	the	noise	generated	from	moving	trains.	The	Ldn	from	

moving	and	idling	trains	is	68.8	dBA	at	a	distance	of	50	feet	(FTA	2006).		

Along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	the	Project	includes	13	bridges	over	roads.	In	these	areas,	the	proposed	track	

will	be	elevated	and	noise	generated	from	the	passenger	trains	would	therefore	propagate	farther.	To	

account	for	this	increased	noise	exposure,	a	correction	of	+4	dBA	was	added	to	these	sections.	These	areas	

are	indicated	as	 “Elevated”	in	Table	5.2.2‐8,	while	non‐elevated	portions	of	 track	are	indicated	as	“At	

Grade.”	In	order	to	account	for	the	varying	distances	between	SR	528	and	the	track	alignment	for	each	

alternative	alignment	in	the	OOCEA	segment,	the	corridor	was	divided	into	nine	sections	(HW1	through	

HW9)	based	on	the	average	distance	between	SR	528	and	the	track	alignment.	Existing	and	Project	noise	

levels	 were	 computed	 as	 a	 function	 of	 distance	 from	 the	 respective	 sources	 and	 impacts	 assessed	

according	to	FRA	criteria.		

A	summary	of	the	nine	sections	is	given	in	Table	5.2.2‐2	and	illustrated	in	Appendix	5.2.2‐A.	Distance	

between	the	alignment	centerline	and	SR	528	was	calculated	for	each	section,	and	is	measured	from	the	

alternative	alignment	centerline	to	the	centerline	of	the	near	lane.	Generally,	the	alternative	alignments	

are	located	south	of	SR	528.	However,	in	Section	HW9,	the	alternative	alignment	is	north	of	SR	528.	

Noise	impact	criteria	for	trains	are	defined	by	FTA	and	FRA.	The	criteria	are	based	on	potential	future	

increases	 in	 noise	 exposure	 and	 are	 defined	 using	 a	 sliding	 scale	 that	 incorporates	 existing	 noise	

conditions.	For	example,	introducing	new	noise	sources	in	relatively	quiet	areas	would	have	a	greater	

potential	for	impact	than	in	noisier	areas.	Future	noise	levels	would	include	the	contributions	of	existing	

noise	sources	and	new	project	noise	sources.		

Table 5.2.2-2 Summary of Distance between SR 528 and Alternative Alignment 

SR 528 

Section

Rail Noise 

Section From To

Offset Distance (feet)1

Alt. A Alt. C Alt. E

HW1 Orlando (West) SR 436 GOAA Property Boundary 50 70 130

HW2

Orlando (East)

GOAA Property Boundary SR 417 100 100 100

HW3 SR 417 Int. Corp Park Blvd 80 140 260

HW4 Int. Corp Park Blvd Dallas Blvd 80 140 250

HW5 Dallas Blvd SR 520 80 550 260

HW6 SR 520 Brevard County Line 80 80 70

HW7

Brevard (EW)

Orange County Line SR 407 50

HW8 SR 407 East side of I-95 

Interchange 

70

HW9 East of I-95 Interchange SR 524 80

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from 

Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. 

1 Distance measured from alternative alignment centerline to SR 528 near lane centerline. Section H9 located north of SR 528. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-42 September 2014 

 

The	noise	criteria	include	 two	levels	of	potential	noise	impact.	The	interpretation	of	these	two	levels	of	

impact	is	summarized	below	and	shown	in	Figure	5.2.2‐1:	

 Severe: FRA	strongly	encourages	noise	abatement	for	projects	where	severe	noise	impacts	

are	identified.	Severe	noise	impacts	represent	the	most	compelling	need	for	mitigation	as	they	

have	the	greatest	potential	for	adverse	impact	on	the	community.	

 Moderate: In	 this	 range	 of	 noise	impact,	 several	 project‐specific	 factors	are	considered	 to	

determine	the	magnitude	of	the	impact.	These	factors	include	where	impact	falls	within	the	

moderate	range,	what	the	existing	noise	levels	are	and	what	future	noise	levels	would	exist,	

and	the	types	and	number	of	noise‐sensitive	land	uses	impacted.

Figure 5.2.2-1 Noise Impact Criteria 

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-43 September 2014 

 

Vibration 

Vibration	levels	are	estimated	based	on	the	FTA	generalized	curve	that	predicts	the	overall	ground‐borne	

vibration	level	outside	buildings	as	a	function	of	distance	from	the	source.	Adjustments	were	applied	to	this	

generalized	curve	to	account	for	factors	such	as	vehicle	speed,	building	type	and	propagation	characteristics.	

For	this	assessment,	vibration	was	projected	based	on	a	composite	approach	that	incorporated	modeling	

methods	recommended	by	FRA	and	measured	vibration	levels	from	another	project	along	the	existing	N‐

S	Corridor	(FRA	and	FDOT	2010).	The	combined	approach	establishes	existing	vibration	conditions	based	

on	measured	data	and	then	extrapolates	these	data	for	the	proposed	track	conditions	and	train	speeds.	

In	a	noise	and	vibration	assessment	prepared	in	July	2010	as	part	of	the	Amtrak	EA	(FRA	and	FDOT	2010)	

for	 a	 separate	 proposed	 passenger	 rail	 service	 expansion	 along	the	 existing	 FECR	 Corridor,	 vibration	

measurements	were	conducted	at	representative	locations	70	feet	from	the	track	centerline	in	Jacksonville,	

Vero	Beach,	and	West	Palm	Beach.	These	vibration	measurements	are	representative	of	the	existing	freight	

rail	traffic	and	passenger	rail	operations.		

A	baseline	curve	was	established	according	 to	 the	average	measured	vibration	level	 from	the	Amtrak	

study	for	each	type	of	train:	freight	and	passenger.	For	freight	operations,	a	total	of	11	train	events	with	

speeds	 ranging	 from	 30	 to	 49	mph	 (average	 39	mph)	generated	 vibration	levels	 ranging	 from	 79	 to	

86	VdB	(average	of	82	VdB).	For	passenger	operations,	a	total	of	four	train	events	with	speeds	ranging	

from	71	to	72	mph	(average	72	mph)	generated	vibration	levels	ranging	from	80	to	83	VdB	(average	

81	VdB).	

The	average	measured	results	for	passenger	and	freight	operations	were	adjusted	according	to	the	FTA	

generalized	curve	 for	“Locomotive	Powered	Passenger	or	Freight”	operations	incorporate	the	specific	

source	and	soil	propagation	characteristics	associated	with	FRA	and	FTA	“Adjustment	Factors”	for	these	

specific	 source	 and	 propagation	 characteristics.	 Figure	 4.2.2‐4	 shows	 the	 generalized	 curve	 for	

“Locomotive	Powered	Passenger	or	Freight”	operations	at	50	mph	and	the	freight	and	passenger	curves	

based	on	measurements	in	the	Amtrak	EA.	Vibration	estimates	for	the	proposed	passenger	operations	

were	then	adjusted	for	the	average	train	speed	along	the	project	segment.		

Ground‐borne	noise	predictions	were	made	using	the	same	curves	generated	for	ground‐borne	vibration	

with	adjustments	 for	 the	 frequency	spectra	of	 the	 type	 of	 train	and	 soil	characteristics.	Based	 on	 the	

characteristics	 of	 freight	 and	 passenger	 trains	 and	 that	 the	 majority	 of	 soils	 along	 the	 N‐S	 and	

E‐W	Corridors	are	sandy,	an	adjustment	of	‐50	dB	was	used	to	calculate	ground‐borne	noise	levels	(dBA)	

from	ground‐borne	vibration	levels	(VdB).	

FTA	and	FRA	vibration	impact	criteria	are	based	on	human	and	structural	responses	to	ground‐borne	

vibration	 and	 GBN.	 The	 criteria	 are	 based	 on	 the	 type	 of	 land	 use	 and	 the	 frequency	 of	

vibration‐generating	 events.	 Just	 as	 with	 noise	 impacts,	 more	 frequent	 vibration	 events	 will	 cause	 a	

greater	impact	than	less	 frequent	events.	Table	5.2.2‐3	lists	the	vibration	impact	criteria	for	the	three	

major	land	use	categories,	according	to	frequency	of	vibration	events.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-44 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.2-3 Ground-borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria 

Land Use Category

Ground Borne Vibration Impact Levels 

(VdB)

Ground Borne Noise Impact Levels 

(dB)

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Frequent 

Events1

Occasion

al Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Category 1: Buildings where 

vibration would interfere with 

interior operations

65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5

Category 2: Residences and 

buildings where people normally 

sleep

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 VdA 38 VdA 43 VdA

Category 3: Institutional land uses 

with primarily daytime use 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 VdA 43 VdA 48 VdA

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 

1 Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day. 

2 Occasional Events is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same kind per day. 

3 Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. 

4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. 

Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring 

lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. 

5 Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise. 

There	are	some	buildings	that	can	be	very	sensitive	to	vibration	and	noise	but	do	not	fit	into	any	of	the	

three	 land	 use	 categories	 listed	 in	 Table	 5.2.2‐3.	 These	 buildings	 can	 include	 concert	 halls,	 TV	 and	

recording	 studios,	auditoriums,	and	 theaters,	and	warrant	 special	attention	when	assessing	 potential	

vibration	impacts.	The	impact	criteria	for	these	special	buildings	are	given	in	Table	5.2.2‐4.	

Table 5.2.2-4 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for Special 

Buildings 

Land Use Category

Ground Borne Vibration Impact Levels 

(VdB)

Ground Borne Noise Impact Levels 

(dB)

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Concert Halls 65 65 65 25 25 25

TV Studios 65 65 65 25 25 25

Recording Studios 65 65 65 25 25 25

Auditoriums 72 80 80 30 38 38

Theaters 72 80 80 35 43 43

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 

1 Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day. 

2 Occasional Events is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same kind per day. 

3 Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-45 September 2014 

 

Construction 

Construction	noise	impacts	were	estimated	following	the	general	assessment	methodologies	in	the	FRA	

Manual.	Based	on	these	guidelines,	1‐hour	Leq	noise	levels	were	projected	for	the	two	loudest	pieces	of	

equipment	 used	 for	 typical	 construction	activities.	 For	 bridge	 construction,	 the	 two	loudest	 pieces	 of	

equipment	are	a	pile	driver	and	a	bulldozer.	For	non‐bridge	construction	including	track	construction,	

the	two	loudest	pieces	of	equipment	are	a	rail	saw	and	a	bulldozer.	The	distances	to	potential	construction	

noise	impact	are	shown	in	Table	5.2.2‐5.	

Table 5.2.2-5 Distances to Potential Construction Noise Impact

Construction Condition Land Use

Distance to Impact (feet from corridor centerline)

Day 

(7 AM-10 PM)

Night 

(10 PM-7 AM)

1 – Bridge Residential 175 565

Commercial 55 55

Industrial 55 55

2 – Non-Bridge Residential 55 180

Commercial 0 0

Industrial 0 0

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from 

Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report. 

Construction	vibration	was	assessed	to	determine	the	potential	for	human	annoyance‐related	impacts	as	

well	as	potential	structural	damage	to	vibration‐sensitive	buildings.	Based	on	methodologies	outlined	in	

the	FRA	Manual,	vibration	levels	from	a	pile	driver	and	a	large	bulldozer	were	used	to	predict	vibration	

levels	and	assess	potential	impact.		

The	 distances	 to	 potential	 structural	 damage	 from	 pile	 driving	 operations	 are	 50	 feet	 for	

reinforced‐concrete,	 steel	 or	 timber	 structures	 and	 up	 to	 135	 feet	 for	 extremely	 vibration‐sensitive	

structures.	The	distance	to	potential	structural	damage	from	a	large	bulldozer	does	not	extend	beyond	the	

typical	working	clearance	of	 the	bulldozer	 to	structures.	The	 tables	in	Appendix	5.2.2‐B	summarize	 the	

distances	to	potential	vibration	impact	for	structural	damage	for	pile	driving	and	a	large	bulldozer.	

5.2.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

This	section	describes	the	noise	and	vibration	impact	assessment	results	for	the	No‐Action	Alternative	

and	the	Action	Alternatives	for	the	Project.	As	documented	below,	the	Project	would	result	in	long‐term	

noise	and	vibration	adverse	impacts	to	residents	and	properties,	primarily	along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	The	

impacts	of	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	would	be	similar.	

Noise 

Noise	impacts	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	primarily	be	due	to	the	sound	created	by	train	passage.	Along	

the	N‐S	Corridor,	noise	impacts	would	primarily	be	due	to	the	increased	frequency	of	warning	horn	use	at	

at‐grade	crossings.	According	to	FRA	guidelines,	minimizing	or	eliminating	horn	blowing	and	other	types	of	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-46 September 2014 

 

audible	warning	signals	can	reduce	noise	impacts,	but	must	be	compliant	with	safety	regulations	and	FRA	

guidelines.	Wayside	horns	are	a	commonly	used	example	warning	signal,	and	noise	levels	resulting	from	

their	 implementation	 are	 well	 documented.	 Using	 wayside	 horns	 at	 the	 intersection	 instead	 of	 the	

locomotive	horn	has	been	shown	to	substantially	reduce	the	noise	footprint	without	compromising	safety	

at	 the	 grade	 crossing.	 A	 wayside	horn	 does	 not	 need	 to	 be	 as	loud	 as	 a	locomotive	 horn,	 but	 the	 real	

advantage	is	the	focusing	of	the	warning	sound	only	on	the	area	where	it	is	needed.	AAF	has	committed	to	

installing	stationary	wayside	horns	at	each	of	the	159	grade	crossings	where	severe,	unmitigated	impacts	

would	occur	using	locomotive‐mounted	horns.	These	mitigation	measures	would	eliminate	all	severe	noise	

impacts	 for	residential	and	institutional	receptors	along	 the	N‐S	Corridor.	Where	compliant	with	safety	

regulations	and	FRA	guidelines,	AAF	is	also	working	with	local	communities	that	would	like	to	create	quiet	

zones	as	an	alternate	noise	abatement	measure	to	wayside	horns.3

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	there	would	be	increases	in	existing	freight	train	operations	and	highway	

traffic	volumes.	Along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	projected	increases	in	intercity	transit	between	Orlando	and	Miami	

will	likely	result	in	increased	traffic	volumes	along	SR	528,	which	will	likely	result	in	marginal	changes	in	

future	noise	conditions.	Along	the	N‐S	Corridor,	freight	operations	are	expected	to	continue	with	a	planned	

annual	growth	of	3	percent.	This	continued	growth	will	likely	result	in	marginal	increases	in	noise	levels	

through	possible	increases	in	train	speed,	frequency,	and	length.	It	is	important	to	note	that	the	FTA	noise	

and	vibration	assessment	methodology	specifies	that	noise	and	vibration	impact	is	assessed	based	on	a	

comparison	 of	 existing	 to	 future	 Proposed	 Action	 conditions	 and	 not	 to	 the	 No‐Action	 Alternative.	

Therefore,	there	would	be	no	noise	impact	associated	with	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

MCO Segment		

The	Project	would	not	result	in	adverse	noise	impacts	within	the	MCO	Segment.	Table	5.2.2‐6	shows	the	

distance	 to	 impact	 contours	 for	the	 impact	 analysis	 conducted	 according	 to	 FRA	 methods	 and	 impact	

criteria	assuming	a	background	Ldn	of	65	dBA.	There	are	no	noise‐sensitive	receptors	within	these	distances.	

Table 5.2.2-6 Summary of FRA Impact Contour Distances for MCO Segment 

Operating 

Condition1

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Moderate 

Impact 

(feet)

Severe 

Impact (feet)

Moderate 

Impact 

(feet)

Severe 

Impact 

(feet)

Moderate 

Impact 

(feet)

Severe 

Impact 

(feet)

Moving Trains 85 none 90 none none None

Idling Trains 165 70 120 50 75 None

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from 

Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report. 

 

3 Please note that AAF cannot create a quiet zone; the public entity must go through the application process with FRA. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-47 September 2014 

 

Table	5.2.2‐7	shows	the	total	noise	at	50	feet	from	each	source,	along	with	the	distances	to	the	65	and	

70	 Ldn	 contours.	 The	 65	 and	 70	 Ldn	 contours	 are	 shown	in	Appendix	 5.2.2‐A	 along	 with	 potentially	

incompatible	 land	 uses.	 No	 incompatible	 land	 use	 exists	 within	the	 65	 Ldn	 Contour	 associated	 with	

proposed	passenger	train	operations	or	the	VMF.	

Table 5.2.2-7 Noise Calculations for 65 Ldn Contours within MCO 

Project Noise Source 

Existing 

Noise 

Exposure 

(Ldn)

Noise at 50 feet from Source Distance to 

65 Ldn 

Contour 

(feet)

Distance to 

70 Ldn 

Contour 

(feet)

Project Noise 

Exposure 

(Ldn)

Total Noise 

Exposure 

(Ldn)

Inbound/Outbound Rail 65 65 68 50 NA

VMF 65 69 70 80 60

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from 

Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report. 

East‐West Corridor

For	the	E‐W	Corridor,	passenger	rail	operations	adjacent	to	SR	528	would	increase	future	noise	levels	and	

potential	noise	impacts.	Table	5.2.2‐8	provides	a	summary	of	noise	impacts	within	 the	E‐W	Corridor.	

Existing	highway	noise	results	in	a	calculated	Ldn	of	65	dBA.	The	Project	would	result	in	noise	levels	of	

63	dBA	on	at‐grade	sections	and	67	dBA	at	elevated	sections,	for	a	total	future	noise	level	of	67	dBA	on	

at‐grade	sections	and	69	dBA	at	elevated	sections.	As	a	result	of	the	Project,	noise	levels	would	increase	

by	2.0	to	2.3	dBA	in	at‐grade	sections	and	by	4.0	to	4.4	dBA	in	elevated	sections.

West	of	SR	520,	there	would	be	one	potential	severe	Category	2	(residential)	noise	impact.	East	of	SR	520,	

in	Brevard	County,	there	is	the	potential	for	105	moderate	and	four	severe	noise	impacts	at	Category	2	

(residential)	land	use	and	one	moderate	impact	at	Category	3	(institutional)	land	use.	

Table 5.2.2-8 Summary of Project Noise Levels for Residential Receptors at 50 ft. (dBA Ldn) 

along the E-W Corridor 

County Condition Existing 

Project 

(Passenger 

Trains) Total Future 

Change 

(Total Future 

vs Existing) 

Orange At-grade 65 63 67 2.3 

 Elevated 65 67 69 4.4 

Brevard At-grade 65 63 67 2.0 

 Elevated 65 67 69 4.0 

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from 

Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-48 September 2014 

 

North‐South Corridor

Passenger	rail	operations	would	be	added	to	existing	freight	operations	within	the	N‐S	Corridor,	resulting	

in	an	increase	in	future	noise	levels	and	the	potential	for	noise	impacts.	As	shown	in	Table	5.2.2‐9,	the	

Project	 (passenger	 rail	 trains	 only,	 with	 wayside	 horns)	 would	 result	 in	 daytime	 noise	 levels	 (Leq)	

ranging	from	62.1	to	63.9	dBA	close	to	at‐grade	crossings	(average	62.5	dBA)	and	ranging	from	61.4	to	

63.5	dBA	along	the	mainline	tracks.	The	noise	levels	of	passenger	trains,	measured	as	Ldn	(residential	

receptors)	would	range	from	62.2	to	64.1	dBA	at	grade	crossings,	and	from	61.6	to	63.6	dBA	along	the	

mainline.	Table	5.2.2.‐9	also	shows	the	impact	criteria	for	each	land	use	category,	based	on	existing	noise	

levels.		

Table 5.2.2-9 Summary of Project Noise Levels - North-South Corridor 

 Total Noise at 50 ft. (dBA) 

Day (Leq) Night (Leq) Ldn 

County 

At-Grade 

Crossing Mainline 

At-Grade 

Crossing Mainline 

At-Grade 

Crossing Mainline 

Brevard 63.4 62.9 53.9 53.3 63.6 63.1 

Indian River 63.9 63.5 54.4 53.9 64.1 63.6 

St. Lucie 63.1 62.5 53.5 52.9 63.2 62.6 

Martin 62.1 61.4 52.6 51.9 62.3 61.6 

Palm Beach 62.8 62.2 53.3 52.7 63.0 62.4 

Impact Criteria (moderate) 

Cat 1 – Quiet Setting 65 62 - - - - 

Cat 2 – Residential - - - - 65 65 

Cat 3 – Institutional and 

Recreational 

70 62 - - - - 

Table	5.2.2‐10	summarizes	the	noise	analysis	results	for	residential	receptors	along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	The	

table	 shows	 the	existing	 noise	levels	 for	mainline	 segments	and	at‐grade	 crossings	(based	 on	 freight	

locomotives	with	train‐mounted	horns),	noise	resulting	from	the	Project	(passenger	trains	with	wayside	

horns)	and	the	total	future	noise	(future	passenger	trains	and	freight,	all	with	wayside	horns).	The	Project	

would	reduce	noise	levels	compared	to	existing	noise	levels.	With	the	installation	of	wayside	horns,	total	

future	noise	levels	would	be	comparable	to	existing	levels,	generally	increasing	by	0.2	to	0.3	dBA,	along	

the	 mainline.	 Future	 noise	 levels	 would	 be	 substantially	 lower	 than	 existing	 noise	 levels	 at	 grade	

crossings,	generally	by	7	dBA.	As	shown	in	Table	5.2.2‐10,	no	receptors	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	

experience	noise	levels	that	exceed	impact	criteria.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-49 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.2-10 Summary of Noise Levels for Residential Receptors at 50 feet (dBA, Ldn) along 

the N-S Corridor 

County Location Existing 

Project 

(Passenger 

Trains) Total Future 

Change 

(Total Future 

vs Existing) 

Brevard Mainline 75 63 75 0.3 

At-grade Crossing 82 64 75 -7.1 

Indian River Mainline 75 64 75 0.3 

At-grade Crossing 82 64 75 -7.0 

St, Lucie Mainline 74 63 74 0.3 

At-grade Crossing 82 63 74 -7.0 

Martin Mainline 74 62 74 0.3 

At-grade Crossing 82 62 74 -8.1 

Palm Beach Mainline 75 62 75 0.2 

At-grade Crossing 82 63 75 -7.1 

Phase I	‐	West Palm Beach – Miami		

The	2012	EA	for	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	included	an	evaluation	of	operational	noise	and	vibration,	noise	

and	vibration	associated	with	stations,	and	station	traffic	(2012	EA	Section	3.1.7.3).	The	analysis	found	

that	there	were	no	noise‐sensitive	receptors	within	500	feet	of	the	proposed	station	sites	and,	therefore,	

station	noise	would	be	negligible.	The	traffic	noise	impacts	associated	with	traffic	changes	around	the	

proposed	stations	were	evaluated	for	2012	(existing)	and	2035	(future)	conditions.	The	analysis	found	

that	no	traffic	noise	impacts	would	be	caused	by	traffic	increases	around	the	proposed	stations.	Adding	

passenger	 trains	 on	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 (with	 the	 use	 of	 wayside	 horns	 to	 reduce	 noise	 at	 grade	

crossings)	would	have	moderate	adverse	impacts	to	199	residential	and	six	institutional	receptors,	and	

severe	noise	impacts	to	four	residential	receptors.	

Summary 

The	distances	to	potential	impact	have	been	used	to	create	noise	contours	and	to	identify	the	number	of	

potential	impacts.	Appendix	5.2.2‐A	shows	the	noise	impact	contours	along	the	corridor	for	all	alternatives.	

Table	5.2.2‐11	shows	a	summary	of	the	total	number	of	impacted	parcels	for	each	corridor	and	alternative.	

There	would	be	no	noise	impact	in	the	MCO	Segment.	Along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	noise	impacts	would	be	the	

same	for	the	three	alignments,	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E.	There	would	be	105	moderate	and	four	severe	noise	

impacts	 at	 residential	 receptors	 and	 one	moderate	impact	 at	 a	 Category	 1	 (quiet)	 receptor.	 Along	 the	

N‐S	Corridor,	the	Project	would	have	no	permanent	noise	impacts	as	a	result	of	the	use	of	wayside	horns.	

Phase	 I	 evaluated	 in	 the	 2012	 EA	 would	 add	 199	 moderate	 and	 four	 severe	 residential	 impacts,	 and	

six	moderate	institutional	impacts.	FRA	found,	in	the	2013	FONSI,	that	this	would	not	constitute	a	significant	

adverse	impact.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-50 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.2-11 Summary of Noise Impacts (number of parcels) 

Corridor Segment

Category 1 

(Quiet)

Category 2 

(Residential)

Category 3 

(Institutional)

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe

MCO 0 0 0 0 0 0

East-West 1 0 105 4 0 0

North-South 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 1 0 105 4 0 0

West Palm Beach to Miami 0 0 199 4 6 0

Totals 1 0 304 8 6 0

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from Orlando 

to Miami, Florida. July 2013. AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger 

Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 

Vibration 

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	freight	train	operations	would	increase	along	the	N‐S	Corridor,	with	a	

planned	annual	growth	of	3	percent.	This	continued	growth	will	likely	result	in	small	increases	in	the	

number	of	vibration	events,	but	there	would	be	no	increase	in	the	amplitude	of	vibration	events	since	the	

train	speeds	would	not	be	expected	to	change.	Therefore,	there	would	be	no	vibration	impact	associated	

with	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

New	passenger	rail	service	along	 the	MCO	Segment	and	E‐W	Corridor,	and	addition	of	passenger	rail	

service	to	the	N‐S	Corridor,	has	the	potential	to	cause	vibration	impacts.	Along	the	N‐S	Corridor	there	is	a	

potential	for	impact	due	to	the	increase	in	the	number	of	train	events.	The	analysis	demonstrates	that	

there	would	be	no	differences	in	vibration	impacts	among	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E.	

MCO Segment		

Along	 the	 MCO	 Segment,	 ground‐borne	 vibration	 levels	 were	 estimated	 based	 on	 average	 operating	

speeds	of	the	trains.	There	would	be	no	potential	vibration	impacts	along	the	MCO	Segment	(Table	5	in	

Appendix	5.2.2‐C).	

East‐West Corridor

Along	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor,	 ground‐borne	 vibration	 levels	 were	 estimated	 based	 on	 average	 operating	

speeds	of	the	trains	and	whether	the	track	was	at‐grade	or	on	elevated	structure.	There	are	13	locations	

along	the	E‐W	Corridor	where	the	proposed	alignment	would	be	elevated.	Vibration	levels	associated	

with	trains	on	elevated	structures	are	approximately	10	VdB	lower	than	for	at‐grade	trains.	

As	shown	in	Table	5.2.2‐12,	the	Project	would	result	in	vibration	impacts	to	118	residential	properties	

and	12	institutional	properties	(Tables	6	through	8	in	Appendix	5.2.2‐C).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-51 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.2-12 Summary of Vibration Impacts 

Land Use Category

Corridor

MCO Segment East-West North-South WPB-M Total

Category 1 (highly sensitive) 0 0 0 0 0

Category 2 (residential) 0 118 3,317 0 3,435

Category 3 (institutional) 0 12 513 0 525

Concert Halls 0 0 0 0 0

TV Studios 0 0 3 0 3

Recording Studios 0 0 3 0 3

Auditoriums 0 0 9 0 9

Theaters 0 0 3 0 3

Total 0 130 3,848 0 3,978

 Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from Orlando 

to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report. 

North‐South Corridor

Ground‐borne	 vibration	 levels	 already	 exceed	 the	 FRA	 criteria	 along	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 due	 to	 the	

frequency	and	nature	of	current	freight	operations.	FRA	guidance	for	assessing	project	impacts	along	such	

“heavily	used	rail	corridors”	(more	than	12	trains	per	day)	states	that	additional	impact	would	occur	if	

the	project	approximately	doubled	the	number	of	trains	(FRA	2012a).	For	the	Project,	although	vibration	

levels	would	not	increase	from	the	passenger	trains,	the	frequency	of	events	will	approximately	double.	

Appendix	5.2.2‐C	summarizes	distances	to	vibration	impact	and	the	number	of	impacts	by	county	for	the	

N‐S	Corridor.	Impact	contours	are	also	illustrated	in	Appendix	5.2.2‐A3.		

As	 shown	in	Table	 5.2.2‐12,	 the	Project	would	 result	in	minor	 vibration	impacts	 to	 3,317	 residential	

receptors	and	513	institutional	receptors,	as	well	as	18	other	vibration‐sensitive	land	uses	(TV	studios,	

recording	studios,	auditoriums,	and	theaters).		

Phase I	‐	West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor

The	2012	EA	included	an	evaluation	of	operational	vibration	along	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	and	vibration	

associated	with	stations	(2012	EA	Section	3.1.7.3).	The	analysis	concluded	that	none	of	the	residential	or	

institutional	buildings	in	 the	Project	Study	Area	would	experience	levels	exceeding	 the	FTA	limits	 for	

ground	borne	vibration	or	ground	borne	noise.		

Summary 

The	greatest	potential	for	vibration	impact	is	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	due	to	the	increase	(approximately	

doubling)	 of	 vibration	 events	 as	 a	 result	 of	 adding	 passenger	 train	 service	 to	 the	 existing	 freight	

operations.	 There	is	 no	 potential	 vibration	impact	 along	 the	MCO	 Segment.	 Along	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor,	

vibration	impacts	would	be	the	same	for	each	of	the	three	alignments,	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E.	There	is	

the	 potential	 for	 vibration	 impact	 at	 118	 Category	 2	 and	 12	 Category	 3	 receptors.	 There	 would	 be	

potential	vibration	impact	at	a	total	of	3,317	Category	2	receptors,	513	Category	3	receptors,	three	TV	

studios,	three	recording	studios,	nine	auditoriums,	and	three	theatres	along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	Vibration	

levels	at	all	receptors	will	be	less	 than	100	VdB,	 the	 threshold	 for	minor	structural	damage	 to	 fragile	

buildings,	and	therefore	vibration	is	not	anticipated	to	cause	structural	damage	to	buildings.	A	summary	

of	ground‐borne	vibration	impacts	from	the	Action	Alternatives	is	provided	in	Table	5.2.2‐12.	Vibration	

mats	will	be	used	where	appropriate	to	mitigate	vibration	impacts.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-52 September 2014 

 

5.2.2.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

The	Project	is	not	anticipated	to	cause	any	specific	growth	or	development	that	could	increase	noise	or	

vibration	conditions	in	the	Project	Study	Area.	There	will	likely	be	redevelopment	around	the	stations,	

however	these	areas	are	already	developed.	Therefore,	there	would	be	no	indirect	or	secondary	impacts	

associated	with	Phase	II	of	the	Project.	The	Phase	I,	2012	EA	considered	the	indirect	and	secondary	effects	

associated	with	the	three	new	stations	and	station‐area	development,	and	found	that	there	were	no	traffic	

noise	impacts	associated	with	this	development	(Section	3.1.7.3).	

5.2.2.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Construction Noise 

Constructing	the	Project	could	cause	short‐term	noise	and	vibration	impacts	from	construction	activities.	

Potential	impact	from	construction	noise	has	been	assessed	according	to	FTA	guidelines	to	screen	for	

potential	construction	noise	impacts.	Table	5.2.2‐13	presents	the	FTA	criteria	based	on	1‐hour	Leq	limits	

at	residential,	commercial	and	industrial	land	uses.		

Table 5.2.2-13 Construction Noise Impact Criteria

Land Use

One-Hour Leq

Day (7:00 AM-10:00 PM) Night (10:00 PM -7:00 AM)

Residential 90 80

Commercial 100 100

Industrial 100 100

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 

In	addition	to	FRA	construction	noise	impact	criteria,	various	local	noise	ordinances	apply	to	the	Project.	

In	general,	each	county	enforces	noise	limits	that	are	based	on	time	of	day	and	surrounding	land	use.	Each	

county	 prohibits	 general	 nighttime	 construction.	 However,	 provisions	 are	 in	 place	 within	 the	 local	

ordinances	 to	allow	 for	 temporary	exemptions	 to	 these	limitations,	provided	 that	proper	permits	are	

obtained	prior	to	construction.	In	all	cases,	it	will	be	the	responsibility	of	AAF	to	apply	for	all	applicable	

local	permits	prior	to	construction.	Applicable	county	noise	ordinances	include:	

 Orange	 County	 –	 Code	 of	 Ordinances.	 Part	 II	 –	 Orange	 County	 Code.	 Chapter	 15	 –	

Environmental	Control.	Article	V.	Noise	Pollution	Control	(Orange	County,	Florida	2013).	

 Brevard	County	–	Code	of	Ordinances.	Chapter	62	Land	Development	Regulations.	Sec.	62‐

2271	(Brevard	County,	Florida	2012).	

 Indian	 River	 County	 –	 Code	 of	 Ordinances.	 Chapter	 974.	 Section	 974.04(2)	 (Indian	 River	

County,	Florida	2012).	

 St.	Lucie	County	–	Code	of	Ordinances.	Chapter	1‐13.8	Noise	Control.	Sec.	1‐13.8‐19(n)	(St.	

Lucie	County,	Florida	2009).	

 Martin	County	–	County	Code	and	Ordinances.	Ordinance	No.	531.	Section	5B:	Specific	Noise	

Prohibitions	(Martin	County,	Florida	2012).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-53 September 2014 

 

 Palm	Beach	County	–	Unified	Land	Development	Code.	Article	5	–	Supplementary	Standards.	

Supplement	No.	14	(Palm	Beach	County,	Florida	1992).	

Two	main	categories	of	construction	activity	were	assumed	for	the	construction	noise	impact	assessment:	

bridge	 construction	 and	 non‐bridge	 construction	 (that	 is,	 track	 construction).	 The	 primary	 difference	

between	the	categories	is	the	presence	or	absence	of	pile	drivers,	one	of	the	noisiest	pieces	of	construction	

equipment	commonly	used	for	rail	projects.	Table	5.2.2‐14	presents	a	summary	of	the	construction	noise	

impacts	within	the	distances	to	potential	impact.	The	construction	impacts	in	Palm	Beach,	Broward	and	

Miami‐Dade	counties	would	result	from	bridge	construction,	particularly	from	pile‐driving	activities.		

Table 5.2.2-14 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts – Project 

County

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Bridge Non-Bridge Bridge Non-Bridge Bridge Non-Bridge

Day Construction

E-W Corridor

Orange - Alternative A 0 0 1 0 0 3

Orange - Alternative C 0 0 1 0 0 3

Orange - Alternative E 0 0 1 0 0 4

Brevard 0 0 34 0 0 0

N-S Corridor

Brevard 0 0 17 618 0 0

Indian River 0 0 0 86 0 0

St. Lucie 0 0 4 523 0 0

Martin 0 0 25 194 0 0

WPB-M Corridor

Palm Beach 0 0 34 0 3 0

Broward 0 NA 60 NA 3 NA

Miami-Dade 0 NA 18 NA 6 NA

Totals 0 0 195 1,421 12 10

Night Construction

E-W Corridor

Orange - Alternative A 0 0 43 0 0 3

Orange - Alternative C 0 0 19 0 0 3

Orange - Alternative E 0 0 3 0 0 4

Brevard 0 0 128 111 0 0

N-S Corridor

Brevard 0 0 135 1149 0 0

Indian River 0 0 0 223 0 0

St. Lucie 0 0 24 830 0 0

Martin 0 0 236 646 0 0

WPB-M Corridor

Palm Beach 0 0 153 608 0 0

Broward 0 NA 231 NA 3 NA

Miami-Dade 0 NA 23 NA 6 NA

Totals 0 0 995 3,567 9 10

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from 

Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-54 September 2014 

 

For	Phase	I,	the	analysis	presented	in	Section	3.1.7.3	of	the	2012	EA	established	that	the	Project	would	

result	in	construction	noise	impacts	as	shown	in	Table	5.2.2‐15.	Table	5.2.2‐14	shows	 that	nighttime	

construction	of	the	seven	bridges	over	waterways	in	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	would	result	in	daytime	and	

nighttime	noise	impacts	to	residential	and	institutional	properties	in	proximity	to	the	bridges.		

Table 5.2.2.15 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts –West Palm Beach to Miami Corridor 

(Excluding Bridges) 

Day Construction 

County Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 

Palm Beach 0 1 0 

Broward 0 0 0 

Miami-Dade 0 0 0 

Night Construction 

Palm Beach 0 373 0 

Broward 0 94 0 

Miami-Dade 0 133 0 

Total 

Palm Beach 0 374 0 

Broward 0 94 0 

Miami-Dade 0 133 0 

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West 

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 

Construction Vibration 

The	 distances	 to	 potential	 structural	 damage	 from	 pile	 driving	 operations	 are	 50	 feet	 for	

reinforced‐concrete,	 steel	 or	 timber	 structures	 and	 up	 to	 135	 feet	 for	 extremely	 vibration‐sensitive	

structures.	The	distance	to	potential	structural	damage	from	a	large	bulldozer	does	not	extend	beyond	

the	typical	working	clearance	of	the	bulldozer	to	structures.	No	structures	are	present	within	50	feet	of	

the	Project;	therefore	there	would	be	no	potential	construction	vibration	impacts	for	structural	damage.	

On	the	E‐W	Corridor,	pile	driving	would	potentially	result	in	143	residential	and	41	institutional	vibration	

impacts	for	human	annoyance.	Large	bulldozer	construction	would	potentially	result	in	83	residential	

and	12	institutional	impacts.	On	the	N‐S	Corridor,	pile	driving	would	potentially	result	in	693	residential	

and	 61	 institutional	 vibration	 impacts	 for	 human	 annoyance.	 The	 use	 of	 large	 bulldozers	 would	

potentially	 impact	 four	 highly	 sensitive	 land	 uses,	 1,551	 residential	 land	 uses,	 and	 217	 institutional	

properties,	as	well	as	one	auditorium.	Tables	18	and	19	in	Appendix	5.2.2‐C	summarize	the	distances	to	

potential	vibration	impact	for	human	annoyance	for	pile	driving	and	a	large	bulldozer,	and	the	number	of	

impacts	in	the	E‐W	Corridor	and	N‐S	Corridor,	respectively.	

For	Phase	I,	Section	3.1.7.4	of	the	2012	EA	stated	that	neither	impacts	nor	damage	 from	construction	

vibration	are	anticipated	as	a	result	of	the	Project.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-55 September 2014 

 

5.2.2.5 Summary 

The	Project	is	anticipated	 to	result	in	 four	severe	and	105	moderate	noise	impacts	 to	residential	and	

institutional	receptors	in	the	absence	of	mitigation.	The	Project	includes	the	use	of	stationary	wayside	

horns	at	grade	crossings,	replacing	locomotive‐mounted	horns,	to	minimize	noise	impacts.	The	Project	

would	also	result	in	vibration	impacts	to	3,978	receptors.	In	total,	noise	from	the	Project	would	affect	

304	 receptors	 at	 a	 moderate	 level	 and	 11	 receptors	 at	 a	 severe	 level,	 in	 the	 absence	 of	 mitigation.	

Mitigation	measures	proposed	for	noise	impacts	(noise	barriers	or	other	measures	as	appropriate)	and	

for	vibration	impacts	(wheel	and	rail	maintenance)	would	substantially	reduce	or	eliminate	these	adverse	

impacts.	AAF	has	committed	to	mitigate	the	adverse	impacts	of	construction	noise	by	a	range	of	measures	

including	time	of	construction,	modifications	to	construction	equipment,	and	selection	of	construction	

routes.	

5.2.3 Farmland Soils 

The	 Farmland	 Protection	 Policy	 Act	 (FPPA)	 (7	 USC	 Chapter	 73)	 limits	 the	 conversion	 of	 significant	

agricultural	lands	to	non‐agricultural	uses	as	a	result	of	federal	actions.	The	determination	of	whether	or	

not	farmlands	are	subject	to	FPPA	requirements	is	based	on	soil	type;	the	land	does	not	have	to	be	actively	

used	for	agriculture.		

The	Project	would	result	in	a	loss	of	prime	and	unique	 farmlands	within	 the	E‐W	Corridor.	The	 total	

disturbed	area	would	comprise	a	negligible	percent	 of	 the	 farmland	in	Orange	and	Brevard	Counties	

(AAF	and	NRCS	2013).	The	locations	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	alternative	alignments	within	or	proximate	to	

the	existing	SR	528	corridor	ensure	that	losses	of	prime	or	unique	farmland	soils	and	farm	operations	

would	be	limited	to	the	margins	of	active	or	potential	agricultural	areas.	Farmland	impacts	would	be	the	

same	for	Alternatives	C	and	E,	and	slightly	less	for	Alternative	A.	Implementing	any	of	the	alternatives	

would	not	result	in	significant adverse	impacts	to	farmlands.	

5.2.3.1 Methodology 

Part	 I	 of	 the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects	 and	Farmland Conversion

Impact Rating	 forms	were	completed	and	submitted	to	NRCS	on	 June	10,	2013	 for	the	MCO	Segment,	

E‐W	Corridor,	and	the	N‐S	Corridor.	Farmlands	with	any	level	of	designation	by	the	NRCS	were	identified	

and	mapped	relative	to	the	Project	(Figure	4.2.3‐1).	

5.2.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

Impacts	 to	 prime	 farmland	 and	 unique	 farmland	 areas	 were	 defined	 and	 quantified	 based	 on	 a	

construction	footprint	of	60	or	100	feet	in	width,	depending	upon	the	Action	Alternative	alignment.	This	

section	 describes	 the	 direct	effects	 to	 soils,	 prime	 farmlands,	and	 unique	 farmlands	anticipated	 from	

constructing	and	operating	the	Project.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-56 September 2014 

 

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed.	The	Project	Study	Area	as	it	exists	

today	would	remain	the	same	with	no	development	or	construction	changes	relevant	to	the	Project.	In	

the	No‐Action	Alternative,	there	would	be	no	impacts,	adverse	or	otherwise,	to	soils	or	farmlands.	

Alternative A 

Alternative	A	consists	of	 the	MCO	Segment	 (including	 the	VMF),	E‐W	Corridor	Alternative	A,	and	 the	

N‐S	Corridor.	Direct	effects	to	each	of	these	areas	are	discussed	below.	

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment,	including	the	VMF,	does	not	contain	any	prime	or	unique	farmland	areas	so	there	will	

be	no	impacts	to	this	resource.		

East-West Corridor 

Constructing	E‐W	Corridor	Alternative	A	would	result	in	the	loss	of	19.3	acres	of	prime	farmland	and	

unique	farmland	soils.		

North-South Corridor 

The	 N‐S	 Corridor	 is	 not	 subject	 to	 the	 FPPA	 because,	 according	to	 the	 NRCS,	 the	 corridor’s	 existing	

right‐of‐way	 was	 purchased	 before	 August	 4,	 1984	 and	 no	 farmland	 is	 being	 converted	 to	

non‐agricultural	use.	The	N‐S	Corridor	does	not	contain	any	prime	or	unique	farmlands,	so	there	would	

be	no	impacts	to	these	resources.	

Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor 

The	southern	section	of	the	passenger	rail	service,	from	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami,	would	not	impact	

mapped	farmland	soils.	As	stated	in	Section	3.0	of	the	2012	EA,	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	is	not	subject	to	the	

FPPA	 because,	 according	 to	 the	 NRCS,	 the	 corridor’s	 existing	 right‐of‐way	 was	 purchased	 before	

August	4,	1984	and	no	farmland	is	being	converted	to	non‐agricultural	use.	The	WPB‐M	Corridor	does	

not	contain	any	prime	or	unique	farmlands,	so	there	would	be	no	impacts	to	these	resources.	

Alternative C 

Alternative	 C	 consists	 of	 the	MCO	Segment	 (including	 the	VMF),	E‐W	 Corridor	Alternative	 C,	and	 the	

N‐S	Corridor.	Direct	effects	to	farmland	soils	within	the	MCO	Segment	and	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	

identical	to	Alternative	A.	Within	the	E‐W	Corridor,	Alternative	C	would	result	in	direct	conversion	of	

31.8	acres	of	mapped	prime	and	unique	farmland	soils.		

Alternative E 

Alternative	E	 consists	 of	 the	MCO	Segment	 (including	 the	VMF),	E‐W	Corridor	Alternative	E,	and	 the	

N‐S	Corridor.	Direct	effects	to	farmland	soils	within	the	MCO	Segment	and	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-57 September 2014 

 

identical	 to	 Alternative	 A.	Within	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor,	 Alternative	 E	 would	 result	 in	 the	 conversion	 of	

31.8	acres	of	mapped	prime	and	unique	farmland	soils.		

Summary of Direct Impacts 

Impacts	to	prime	and	unique	farmland	soils	from	constructing	the	Project	are	limited	to	the	E‐W	Corridor	

for	all	three	alternatives.	The	direct	effects	to	soils	from	the	No‐Action	and	three	Action	Alternatives	are	

summarized	 in	 Table	 5.2.3‐1.	 The	 relative	 value	 for	 agricultural	 production	 of	 the	 farmland	 to	 be	

converted	(as	determined	by	NRCS	and	described	below)	by	the	Project	compared	to	the	relative	value	

of	 other	 farmland	 in	 the	 area	 (for	 example,	 the	 average	 relative	 value	 for	 the	 proposed	 site)	 is	 also	

provided	in	Table	5.2.3‐1.	

Table 5.2.3-1 Summary of Soil and Farmland Losses for the No-Action and Build Alternatives 

(acres) 

Soil/Farmland Characteristic No-Action Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E

Total acres of prime and unique farmland 

converted

0 19.3 31.8 31.8

Relative value of farmland (out of 100)1 0 46.9 46.9 46.7

Percentage of farmland in county with 

same or higher relative value

0 18.7 18.7 18.7

Total points 0 77.9 81.9 81.7

Source: AAF and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type 

Projects. June 7, 2013. 

AAF,	in	accordance	with	 the	 FPPA,	 has	 completed	USDA’s	NRCS	 Farmland	Conversion	 Impact	Rating	

(NRCS	Form	AD	1006).	These	Forms	(provided	in	Appendix	5.2.3‐A)	were	submitted	to	NRCS	and	were	

completed	by	NRCS	and	returned	on	June	12,	2013.	In	completing	the	AD	1006	Form,	NRCS	conducted	a	

two‐part	evaluation	of	each	alignment	alternative,	consisting	of	an	assessment	of	the	relative	value	of	the	

potentially	 impacted	 farmland	 and	 an	 overall	 site	 assessment.	 An	 overall	 score	 is	 calculated	 (out	 of	

260	points)	of	the	relative	value	of	farmland	to	be	converted.	Sites	most	suitable	for	protection	under	

these	 criteria	 receive	 the	highest	 total	 scores,	and	 sites	least	 suitable	 receive	 the	lowest	 scores.	Sites	

where	the	total	points	equal	or	exceed	160	must	consider	alternative	actions,	such	as	alternative	sites,	

modifications,	 or	 mitigation.	 According	 to	 the	 results	 of	 the	 NRCS	 evaluation	 and	 as	 shown	 in	

Table	5.2.3‐1,	none	of	the	alignment	alternatives	exceed	the	160‐point	threshold:	Alternative	A	received	

a	total	of	77.9	points,	Alternative	C	81.9	points	and	Alternative	E	81.7	points.	These	low	scores	indicate	

no	significant	adverse	impact	to	farmland	soils.

5.2.3.3 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Temporary	impacts	are	 those	 that	 occur	in	association	with	construction	 related	activities	and	 cease	

following	the	completion	of	construction.	Temporary	impacts	to	farmland	soils	would	occur	where	areas	

of	 farmland	 soils	 would	 be	 used	 for	 construction	 staging,	 construction	 access,	 or	 other	 temporary	

occupancy	of	farmland.	The	impacts	on	farmland	soils	could	include	soil	compaction	in	staging	and	traffic	

areas,	dust	generation,	and	erosion.	Vehicle	and	heavy	equipment	use,	as	well	as	storing	heavy	materials,	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-58 September 2014 

 

can	 compact	 the	 soils.	 Compaction	 reduces	 the	 transmission	 of	air	and	water	into	 the	 soil,	increases	

runoff,	and	makes	vegetation	establishment	more	difficult.	Construction	activities	remove	the	vegetation	

coverage	and	root	structure	that	helps	to	maintain	the	soil.	These	exposed	soils	are	more	susceptible	to	

loss	from	wind	as	dust	or	being	eroded	by	rain	and	stormwater	runoff.	The	Project	is	not	anticipated	to	

have	a	temporary	adverse	impact	on	farmland	soils	as	there	are	no	construction	staging	or	access	areas	

proposed	within	areas	of	mapped	farmland	soils.		

5.2.4 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal 

This	section	describes	the	potential	impacts	that	may	occur	as	the	result	of	existing	or	potential	releases	

and	regulated	materials	in	the	Project	Study	Area.	Constructing	the	Project	has	the	potential	to	encounter	

contaminated	soils	or	groundwater,	or	 to	require	 the	removal	of	waste	material	such	as	railroad	 ties,	

creosote‐treated	bridge	 timbers,	or	demolition	material,	as	described	below.	The	potential	impacts	of	

Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	would	be	the	same.	The	Project	would	not	generate	hazardous	materials	or	solid	

waste.	Implementing	the	Action	Alternatives	would	not	change	the	potential	for	indirect	effects	along	the	

N‐S	 Corridor,	 as	 there	 is	 no	 anticipated	 change	 in	 frequency	 or	 quantity	 of	 hazardous	 materials	

transported	by	freight.	

5.2.4.1 Methodology 

Risk	ratings	were	assigned	 to	every	contamination	site	identified	within	 the	EDM	reports.	Sites	were	

identified	 as	 “No,”	 “Low,”	 “Medium”	 or	 “High”	 risk	indicating	 the	 degree	 for	 potential	 contamination	

related	impacts	to	the	Project.	Risk	ratings	were	assigned	according	to	the	criteria	outlined	in	the	FDOT	

PD&E	Guidelines	summarized	in	Section	4.2.4.	

5.2.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

This	section	identifies	the	potential	impacts	that	may	occur	as	the	result	of	existing	or	potential	releases	

and	 regulated	 materials	 in	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area.	 Direct,	 indirect,	 and	 secondary	 effects	 were	

characterized	 by	 comparing	 each	 alternative	 with	 the	 locations	 and	 nature	 of	 the	 areas	 of	 concern	

(potential	and	confirmed	sources	of	subsurface	contamination	and/or	waste	materials).	

Direct	 effects	 are	 defined	 as	 immediate	 consequences	 to	 the	 environment	 as	 a	 result	 of	 the	

implementation	of	the	alternatives.	As	used	in	this	section,	a	direct	effect	would	occur	if	construction	of	

an	alternative	encountered	contaminated	soils	or	groundwater.	In	comparison	to	the	Action	Alternatives,	

the	No‐Action	Alternative	is	expected	to	encounter	relatively	inconsequential	amounts	of	contaminated	

soils	 or	 groundwater	 or	 generate	 relatively	 inconsequential	 amounts	 of	 solid	 waste	 during	 routine	

subsurface	maintenance	activities,	if	conducted	in	the	vicinity	of	a	release	

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed.	The	Project	Study	Area	as	it	exists	

today	would	 remain	 the	 same	with	 no	 development	 or	 construction	 changes	 relevant	 to	 the	 Project.	

Existing	contaminated	sites	within	the	Project	Study	Area	would	continue	to	be	addressed	in	accordance	

with	 the	regulatory	 framework.	Potentially	contaminated	sites	not	previously	identified	would	not	be	

assessed	or	mitigated	without	the	implementation	of	the	Project.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-59 September 2014 

 

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

The	Action	Alternatives	have	the	potential	to	encounter	contaminated	soils	or	groundwater,	or	to	require	

the	removal	of	waste	material	such	as	railroad	ties,	creosote‐treated	bridge	timbers,	or	demolition	material,	

as	described	below.	The	potential	impacts	of	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	would	be	the	same.	

MCO Segment 

A	total	of	27	potentially	contaminated	sites	were	reported	by	EDM	within	the	500‐foot	detailed	evaluation	

area	 for	 the	 MCO	 Segment	 (including	 the	 VMF)	 on	 the	 GOAA	 property.	 However,	 the	 site	 location	

information	 provided	 by	 EDM	 did	 not	 appear	 to	 accurately	 represent	 specific	 site	 locations.	 GOAA	

maintains	 environmental	 records	 for	 known	 contaminated	 areas	 within	 the	 airport	 property	 and	

reviewed	the	EDM	data.	GOAA	reported	that	no	contaminated	sites	were	located	within	500	feet	of	the	

Project.	All	EDM‐mapped	sites	are	included	in	the	database	summary	included	as	Appendix	5.2.4‐A.		

East-West Corridor 

Sixteen	 potentially	 contaminated	 sites	 were	 within	 the	 500‐foot	 detailed	 evaluation	 area	 for	 the	

E‐W	Corridor.	Construction	activities	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	are	anticipated	to	involve	subsurface	work	

and	 may	 include	 underground	 utility	 installations	 and	 stormwater	 pond	 construction.	 However,	

potentially	contaminated	sites	identified	 for	 the	E‐W	Corridor	were	outside	 the	planned	construction	

areas	and	impacts	from	the	existing	contaminated	areas	are	not	anticipated.	The	E‐W	Corridor	may	also	

require	limited	property	acquisition	of	undeveloped	properties	adjacent	to	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way.	Prior	

to	property	acquisition,	further	assessment	may	be	conducted	to	determine	if	contamination	is	present	

and	to	identify	any	regulatory	obligations	and	associated	cost	premiums	as	a	result	of	contamination	that	

could	be	present	on	these	properties.	

North-South Corridor 

A	total	of	337	potentially	contaminated	sites	were	identified	within	the	200‐foot	detailed	evaluation	area	

along	 the	 128.5‐mile	 N‐S	 Corridor.	 However,	 the	 proposed	 work	 for	 this	 portion	 of	 the	 Project	 is	

anticipated	to	be	completely	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor	and	would	result	in	minimal	subsurface	

disturbance.	Impacts	 from	existing	contaminated	areas	are	not	anticipated.	Any	contamination	 that	is	

discovered	in	the	existing	FECR	Corridor	and	associated	structures	as	a	result	of	current	or	historical	

usage	will	be	managed	in	accordance	with	applicable	federal,	state	and	local	law	or	regulations.		

Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor 

According	 to	 information	 provided	 in	 Section	 3.3.6	 of	 the	 2012	EA,	 there	 are	 199	 Low	Risk	 sites;	

13	 Medium	 Risk	 sites;	 and	 14	 High	 Risk	 sites	 along	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor.	 Preliminary	 subsurface	

investigations	to	establish	the	presence	of	soil	or	groundwater	contamination	will	be	conducted	prior	to	

construction	 activities	 for	 sites	 receiving	 a	 High	 or	 Medium	 risk	 ranking	 that	 may	 be	 impacted	 by	

acquisition,	drainage	features,	underground	utilities,	or	dewatering	activities.	

Construction	 requirements	 and	 methodology	 for	 the	 proposed	 system	 upgrades	 within	 the	

FECR	Corridor	will	result	in	minimal	subsurface	disturbance;	consequences	to	existing	contaminated	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-60 September 2014 

 

areas	are	not	anticipated.	Construction	impacts	 will	be	 minimized	 through	 the	avoidance	of	areas	of	

known	 or	 suspected	 contamination	 during	 the	 design	 of	 the	 drainage,	 lighting,	 and	 foundations.	

Contamination	areas	will	be	verified	prior	to	construction	and	remedial	actions	will	be	developed	and	

implemented	to	further	minimize	consequences	if	necessary.	Any	contaminated	or	hazardous	wastes	

encountered	through	ground‐disturbing	activities	during	construction	 for	 any	 of	 the	 alternatives will	

be	 handled	 and	 disposed	 of	 in	accordance	with	applicable	regulatory	requirements.	 If	potentially	

contaminated	sites	cannot	be	avoided	through	project	engineering	all	applicable	state	and	federal	laws	

will	be	followed	to	minimize	impacts.	

5.2.4.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

An	indirect	effect	related	to	subsurface	contamination	or	waste	materials	management	would	exist	if	an	

alternative	has	the	potential	to	impact	ongoing	remediation	of	known	releases,	would	produce	additional	

sources	of	subsurface	contamination	or	waste	materials	following	construction,	or	would	transport	waste	

to	another	site.	The	scope	and	magnitude	of	 the	indirect	effects	 for	each	Action	Alternative	would	be	

generally	the	same,	as	described	below.	No	indirect	effects	were	identified	for	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	

A	secondary	effect	related	to	subsurface	contamination	or	waste	materials	management	would	exist	if	an	

alternative	has	the	potential	to	cause	an	impact	in	another	time	or	place.	

No-Action Alternative 

The	No‐Action	Alternative	could	potentially	result	in	indirect	impacts	associated	with	spills	from	freight	

trains.	Freight	trains	traveling	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	are	currently	equipped	to	haul	hazardous	materials	

and	will	continue	to	do	so.	Although	there	is	no	set	schedule,	hazardous	materials	are	transported	on	an	

average	of	once	per	week.	Table	5.2.4‐1	contains	a	list	of	hazardous	materials	hauled	by	freight	trains	

along	the	FECR	Corridor.	

Table 5.2.4-1 Hazardous Materials Currently Transported on FECR Corridor 

Liquid Propane Gas Rocket Motors Chemicals not elsewhere classified

Ethanol Potassium Chloride Phosphoric Acid

Sodium Hydroxide/Caustic Soda Carbon Dioxide Explosives

Alcohol in Bond Ammonium Polyphosphate Methanol

Hydrogen Chloride Sulfur Dioxide Pesticide/Chemicals not elsewhere classified 

Bleach-Sodium Hypochlorite Fuel Oil Tail Oil Pitch

Ammonium Nitrate

Source: AMEC. 2013f. Technical Memorandum No. 6: Contaminated Sites Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail 

Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. Report. 

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Implementing	 the	 Action	 Alternatives	 would	 not	 change	 the	 potential	 for	 indirect	 effects	 along	 the	

N‐S	Corridor,	as	there	is	no	anticipated	change	in	frequency	or	quantity	of	hazardous	materials	transported	

by	freight.	The	proposed	VMF	has	the	potential	for	spills	and	soils	or	groundwater	contamination.	Planned	

operations	at	the	VMF,	such	as	vehicle	fueling,	maintenance	and	repair,	and	washing,	would	include	use	of	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-61 September 2014 

 

hazardous	materials	(primarily	petroleum	products,	lubricants,	and	degreasers).	The	Project	would	not	

include	use	or	storage	of	hazardous	materials	outside	the	VMF.	The	typical	materials	that	would	be	stored	

and	used	at	the	VMF	include	diesel	fuel,	motor	oils,	lubricants,	and	degreasers.	Table	5.2.4‐2	provides	an	

inventory	of	the	typical	materials	stored	at	existing	VMF	facilities	and	is	considered	representative	of	the	

types	and	quantities	of	hazardous	materials	that	are	anticipated	at	the	Project	VMF.	

Table 5.2.4-2 Anticipated Hazardous Products Storage at the VMF – Above-Ground Storage 

Tanks (ASTs) 

Capacity Quantity Contents

10,000-gallon AST1 2 Diesel Fuel

500-gallon AST 1 Gasoline

250-gallon AST 1 Conventional Oil

250-gallon AST 1 Hydraulic Oil

250-gallon AST 1 Waste Oil

Source: AAF 

1 AST = aboveground storage tank 

All	hazardous	products	would	be	stored	at	the	VMF	in	double‐walled	storage	containers	or	double‐walled	

above‐ground	 storage	 tanks	 (ASTs).	 Hazardous	 materials	 would	 be	 used	 and	 stored	 according	 to	

accepted	industry	BMPs.	Planned	operations	at	the	VMF	are	similar	to	operations	currently	ongoing	at	

MCO	and	are	considered	minor	in	respect	to	the	overall	operations	and	land	use	at	the	airport.		

The	Project	could	result	in	off‐site	disposal	of	construction	materials.	During	construction,	contaminated	

materials	and	regulated	waste	would	require	disposal	at	off‐site	 facilities	including	landfills,	recycling	

centers,	and	treatment/asphalt	batch	plants.	If	not	handled	properly,	the	disposal	of	these	materials	could	

potentially	cause	soil,	groundwater,	or	air	contamination	at	these	facilities	or	during	transport	to	them.	

Regional	facilities	for	disposing	of	construction	debris,	contaminated	materials	and	regulated	waste	have	

sufficient	capacity	to	dispose	of	the	anticipated	volume	of	material.	

The	Project	would	include	only	passenger	trains	along	the	E‐W	Corridor.	Freight	trains	would	not	operate	

over	the	E‐W	Corridor.	With	the	exception	of	on‐board	fuel,	lubricants,	and	relatively	small	quantities	of	

materials	 required	 for	 operation	 of	 the	 passenger	 trains,	 there	 would	 be	 no	 hazardous	 material	

transportation	associated	with	passenger	trains,	or	along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	associated	with	the	Project.	

5.2.4.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

In	the	event	that	construction	activities	occur	in	or	near	contaminated	areas,	a	Phase	II	investigation	may	

need	to	be	conducted.	If	subsurface	activities	impact	contaminated	sites	and	cannot	be	avoided,	technical	

special	provisions	such	as	Remedial	Action	Plans	would	be	developed	as	part	of	the	Phase	II	investigation.	

If	contamination	is	identified	prior	to	construction,	remedial	actions	can	be	implemented	to	minimize	

impacts.	 Any	 contaminated	 or	 hazardous	 wastes	 encountered	 through	 ground‐disturbing	 activities	

during	construction	would	be	handled	and	disposed	in	accordance	with	regulatory	requirements.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-62 September 2014 

 

For	dewatering	activities,	potentially	contaminated	sites	within	a	500‐foot	radius	of	the	construction	site	

will	need	to	be	re‐evaluated	and	addressed	before	applying	for	a	dewatering	permit	to	avoid	potentially	

exacerbating	a	contaminant	plume,	and	to	determine	proper	groundwater	management	for	such	sites.	

Construction	activities	have	the	potential	to	generate	new	releases/spills	as	a	result	of	the	storage	and	

use	of	hazardous	materials	such	as	diesel	fuel,	gasoline,	hydraulic	oil,	and	lubricating	oils	associated	with	

the	construction	equipment,	storage	tank	removal,	and	pipeline	relocation	activities.	New	USTs	and	ASTs	

would	be	installed	as	part	of	the	construction	of	any	of	the	Action	Alternatives,	including	an	expanded	

tank	farm	at	the	airport.	AAF	would	construct	new	facilities	in	accordance	with	all	applicable	regulations,	

and	a	new	Spill	Prevention,	Control,	and	Countermeasure	Plan	would	be	implemented	to	reduce	the	risk	

of	accidental	releases.	

The	Project	would	generate	construction	and	demolition	debris	such	as	used	railroad	ties,	creosote‐treated	

bridge	timbers,	steel	rail,	excess	soil,	rock,	organic	material,	asphalt,	concrete,	or	wood.	All	construction	and	

demolition	debris	would	be	handled	according	to	federal,	state,	and	local	regulations	and	industry	BMPs.	To	

the	extent	practical,	materials	would	be	recycled.	Debris	that	requires	disposal	would	be	transported	under	

applicable	transportation	manifests	and	disposed	of	at	licensed	disposal	facilities.	

The	recommendations	for	mitigation	measures	during	construction	may	include	special	waste	handling,	

dust	control,	and	management	and	disposal	of	contaminated	soil	and	ground	water	in	order	to	prevent	

construction	delays	and	to	provide	adequate	protection	to	workers	and	any	nearby	sensitive	receptors.	All	

Remedial	Action	Plans	actions	must	ensure	that	any	nearby	or	adjacent	receptors	are	adequately	protected	

and	the	assessment	and	management	of	contaminated	media	encountered	during	the	Project	would	be	

handled	in	accordance	with	applicable	federal,	state,	and	local	laws	and	regulations.	Contaminated	sites	

have	been	identified	within	150	feet	of	the	FECR	right‐of‐way	in	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	and	in	the	vicinity	of	

the	 Preferred	Build	Station	Alternatives	identified	in	Section	3.3.6	 of	 the	 2012	 EA.	None	 of	 the	 Project	

elements	described	in	the	2012	EA	are	anticipated	to	impact	known	contaminated	or	hazardous	waste	sites	

within	the	Project	Study	Area;	avoidance	techniques	will	be	maximized	during	the	design	phase.	

5.2.5 Coastal Zone Management 

Under	provisions	of	Section	307	of	the	Coastal	Zone	Management	Act	(CZMA),	the	State	of	Florida	has	

authority	to	review	any	federal	activity	that	impacts	the	coastal	resources	of	Florida	for	consistency	with	

the	Florida	Coastal	Management	Plan	(FCMP).	Federal	activities	subject	to	review	include:	

 Activities	conducted	by	or	on	behalf	of	a	federal	government	agency;	

 Federal	licenses	or	permits;	

 Permits	issued	under	the	Outer	Continental	Shelf	Lands	Act	for	offshore	minerals	exploration	

or	development;	and	

 Federal	assistance	to	state	and	local	governments	(FDEP	1981).	

The	Florida	State	Clearinghouse	coordinates	the	review	of	proposed	federal	activities,	requests	for	federal	

funds,	and	applications	for	federal	permits	other	than	permits	issued	under	Section	404	of	the	Clean	Water	

Act	and	Section	10	of	the	Rivers	and	Harbors	Act.	Consistency	reviews	of	federal	permits	issued	under	those	

Acts	are	conducted	in	conjunction	with	Environmental	Resource	Permit	(ERP)	applications	by	the	FDEP	or	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-63 September 2014 

 

the	Waste	Management	 Districts	 (WMDs).	 The	 FCMP	 provides	 each	 partner	 agency	 an	 opportunity	 to	

comment	 on	 the	 merits	 of	 the	 proposed	 action,	 address	 concerns,	 make	 recommendations	 and	 state	

whether	the	project	is	consistent	with	its	statutory	authorities	under	the	FCMP.	Regional	planning	councils	

and	local	 governments	 also	may	 participate	in	 the	 federal	 consistency	 review	 process	 by	 advising	 the	

Florida	Department	of	Economic	Opportunity	(DEO)	on	the	local	and	regional	effect	of	proposed	federal	

actions.	In	the	event	a	state	agency	determines	a	proposed	federal	activity	is	inconsistent,	the	agency	must	

identify	the	statute	with	which	the	activity	conflicts	and	provide	alternatives	for	the	project	to	maintain	

consistency	with	the	FCMP.		

As	the	designated	lead	coastal	agency	for	the	state,	FDEP	communicates	the	agency	comments	and	the	

final	consistency	decision	of	the	state	to	federal	agencies	and	applicants	for	all	actions	other	than	permits	

issued	 under	Section	 404	 of	 the	 Clean	Water	Act	and	Section	 10	of	 the	Rivers	and	Harbors	Act.	 The	

consistency	decisions	on	those	permits	are	made	through	the	approval	or	denial	of	the	ERP	issued	under	

Chapter	373,	Part	IV,	FS.	Federal	consistency	is	the	requirement	that	federal	actions	that	impact	any	land	

or	water	use	or	natural	resource	of	a	state’s	coastal	zone	must	be	consistent	with	the	enforceable	policies	

of	the	state.	The	FCMP	federal	consistency	process	consists	of	a	network	of	24	Florida	Statutes	(that	is,	

enforceable	 policies)	 administered	 by	 FDEP	 and	 a	 group	 of	 partner	 agencies	 responsible	 for	

implementing	 the	 statutes.	 Consistency	 is	 based	 on	 effects	 rather	 than	 geographic	 boundaries;	

consequently,	there	are	no	categorical	exclusions	from	the	consistency	requirement.	Any	federal	activity	

that	would	have	an	impact	on	a	state's	coastal	zone	is	subject	to	a	consistency	review,	unless	specifically	

exempted	by	federal	law.	Impacts	are	determined	by	assessing	reasonably	foreseeable	direct	and	indirect	

effects	on	any	coastal	use	or	resource.	

As	documented	in	this	section,	the	Project	is	consistent	with	Florida’s	Coastal	Zone	Management	Act.	

5.2.5.1 Environmental Consequences 

This	section	evaluates	the	direct	effects	to	coastal	resources,	including	coastal	barrier	beaches,	Coastal	

and	Aquatic	Managed	Areas,	and	natural	resources	within	the	coastal	zone.		

Direct	effects	to	the	“natural	resources	of	the	coastal	zone”	(both	aquatic	and	marine	resources)	will	result	

from	all	elements	of	the	Project,	including	construction	of	the	VMF,	bridge	and	rail	construction	along	the	

E‐W	Corridor,	and	bridge	construction	along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	A	full	discussion	of	the	impacts	on	these	

resources	is	provided	in	the	appropriate	sections	of	this	EIS.	Portions	of	the	N‐S	Corridor	are	within	or	

adjacent	 to	 Coastal	 and	 Aquatic	 Managed	 Areas	 identified	 in	 Section	 4.2.5.	 Bridge	

construction/reconstruction	would	impact	small	areas	of	aquatic	resources	within	the	Indian	River	and	

the	 Jensen	 Beach‐Juniper	 Inlet	 Aquatic	 Reserve.	 Coastal	 barrier	 resources	 are	 associated	 with	

unconsolidated	shorelines	and	are	on	the	east	side	of	the	Intracoastal	Waterway;	therefore,	none	of	the	

WPB‐M	 Corridor	 Project	 elements	 (which	 are	 west	 of	 the	 Intracoastal	Waterway)	 considered	 in	 the	

2012	EA	would	impact	any	coastal	barrier	resources.	

5.2.5.2 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

The	Project	is	not	anticipated	to	result	in	direct	impacts	to	coastal	resources,	and	would	not	result	in	

development	 or	 induced	 growth	 in	 coastal	 natural	 resources.	 The	 Project	 therefore	 would	 not	 have	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-64 September 2014 

 

indirect	or	secondary	effects	 to	coastal	natural	resources	or	designated	Coastal	and	Aquatic	Managed	

Areas.	

5.2.5.3 Draft Consistency Determination 

This	 section	 provides	 a	 draft	 Consistency	 Determination	 under	 CZMA	 Section	 307,	 15	 CFR	

part	930	Sub‐part	C,	Chapter	380	FS,	Part	II,	Coastal	Planning	and	Management.	This	federal	consistency	

determination	addresses	the	proposed	extension	of	passenger	rail	service	from	Orlando	to	West	Palm	

Beach,	which	would	include	the	MCO	Segment,	the	E‐W	Corridor,	and	the	N‐S	Corridor.	Additionally,	this	

federal	 consistency	 determination	includes	 all	 in‐water	 bridge	work	 for	 the	 seven	 bridges	 along	 the	

66.5‐mile	WPB‐M	Corridor	(AAF	2012).4	The	FDEP,	as	the	designated	coastal	agency	for	the	state,	will

participate	in	consistency	decisions	on	permits	issued	under	Section	404	of	 the	Clean	Water	Act	and	

Section	 10	 of	 the	 Rivers	 and	 Harbors	 Act	 through	 the	 state’s	 ERP	 process.	 Both	 of	 these	 permitting	

processes	are	applicable	to	the	Project.	

No-Action Alternative 

Under	 the	No‐Action	Alternative,	 the	Project	would	not	be	constructed.	Therefore,	 there	would	be	no	

adverse	impact	on	land	or	water	use	or	natural	resources	of	the	coastal	zone.	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Table	5.2.5‐1	documents	the	consistency	of	the	Project	with	the	FCMP.	There	would	be	no	difference	in	

consistency	between	the	three	Action	Alternatives	evaluated	in	this	EIS.	The	scope	of	each	relevant	statute	

and	the	Project’s	consistency	with	the	provisions	of	the	statute	is	provided.	

As	stated	in	the	2013	FONSI	for	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	the	Florida	State	Clearinghouse	has	reviewed	the	

South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis,	a	similar	project	to	the	Phase	I	to	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	

described	in	the	2012	EA.	The	South	Florida	project	was	determined	to	be	consistent	with	the	FCMP,	and	

the	 State	 Clearinghouse	 determined	 that	 this	 consistency	 determination	 would	 be	 valid	 for	 the	 AAF	

project	because	the	AAF	Project	Area	is	fully	encompassed	within	the	South Florida East Coast Corridor

Transit Analysis	area	which	was	found	to	be	consistent	in	2006	and	there	have	been	no	relevant	changes	

in	the	CZMA	or	FCMP	criteria	that	would	affect	that	determination.	

As	documented	in	the	following	Table	5.2.5‐1,	the	Project	(all	alternatives)	is	consistent	with	each	of	the	

relevant	CZM	statutes	and	standards.	

 

4 This 66.5-mile rail segment was analyzed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard

Florida (AAF) Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida (2012). However, the 2012 EA did not include analysis 

of in-water bridge work that is contemplated as part of this Proposed Action. Therefore, that work is included as the subject of 

the Build Alternatives being considered herein. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-65 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review 

Statute Scope Consistency

Chapter 161 

Beach and Shore 

Preservation

This statute provides policies for 

the regulation of construction, 

reconstruction, and other physical 

activities related to the beaches 

and shores of the state. 

Additionally, this statute requires 

the restoration and maintenance 

of critically eroding beaches. 

The Project would not impact beach and shore management 

along Florida’s East Coast, specifically as it pertains to: 

 The Coastal Construction Permit Program. 

 The Coastal Construction Control Line Permit Program. 

 The Coastal Zone Protection Program. 

All construction activities associated with the N-S Corridor would 

occur within the existing FECR Corridor. Additionally, the 

E-W Corridor would not be sited on beach or dune habitat. 

Chapter 163, Part II 

Growth Policy; 

County and Municipal 

Planning; Land 

Development 

Regulation

Requires local governments to 

prepare, adopt, and implement 

comprehensive plans that 

encourage the most appropriate 

use of land and natural resources in 

a manner consistent with the public 

interest. 

The Project would be consistent with local, regional, and state 

comprehensive plans. Consistency with these plans has been 

included in the purpose and need criteria matrix used to 

develop the Action Alternatives. 

Chapter 186 

State and Regional 

Planning

Details state-level planning efforts. 

Requires the development of 

special statewide plans governing 

water use, land development, and 

transportation. 

The Project, including the proposed mitigation measures 

aimed at reducing the severity of impacts to physical and 

biological resources, is generally consistent with the State 

Comprehensive Plan as adopted under Florida Statue Title 

8 Planning and Development Section 187.101. 

Specifically, the Project meets the adopted air quality, energy, 

urban and downtown revitalization, and transportation policies, 

including the following listed below: 

 Ensure that developments and transportation systems are 

consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality. 

 Ensure emergency efficiency in transportation design and 

planning and increase the availability of more efficient modes 

of transportation. 

 Enhance the linkages between land use, water use, and 

transportation planning in state, regional, and local plans for 

current and future designated areas. 

 Encourage the development of mass transit systems for 

urban centers, including multimodal transportation feeder 

systems, as a priority of local metropolitan, regional, and state 

transportation planning. 

The proposed rail system is also consistent with the adopted 

transportation goal that Florida shall direct future transportation 

improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall 

have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, 

mass transit, and transportation modes. 

Additionally, mitigation measures included as part of the Project 

meet the intent of Natural Systems and Recreation Lands goal 

that Florida shall protect and acquire unique natural habitats and 

ecological systems, such as wetlands, and restore degraded 

natural systems to a functional condition. Further, soil and water 

quality mitigation measures meet the intent of water resources 

policies directing the protection of surface and groundwater 

quality in the state. 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-66 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued) 

Statute Scope Consistency

Chapter 186 

State and Regional 

Planning (contd.)

Details state-level planning efforts. 

Requires the development of 

special statewide plans governing 

water use, land development, and 

transportation. 

The Project is located within the East Central Florida and 

Treasure Coast regional planning council districts. The 

proposed rail system meets the transportation goals in the 

Strategic Regional Policy Plans (SRPPs) for each of these 

districts including Policy 5.12 of the East Central Florida SRPP 

which encourages that multi-modal design options should take 

precedence over the expansion of existing roads or the 

construction of new roads where feasible as well as Policy 

7.1.3.4 of the Treasure Coast SRPP which encourages the 

reduction of vehicle miles traveled per capita by private 

automobile within the region through a combination of means, 

including the expansion of commuter rail and intermodal 

connections. 

Chapter 252 

Emergency 

Management

Provides for planning and 

implementation of the state’s 

response to, efforts to recover 

from, and the mitigation of natural 

and manmade disasters. 

The Project would include the development of a passenger rail 

system within an existing rail corridor and along an existing 

highway ROW. The E-W Corridor would be located outside of 

the defined storm surge zones and hurricane evacuation 

areas for Brevard and Orange counties. Within the N-S 

Corridor the rail line would be located within Florida Division of 

Emergency Management-defined storm surge zones; 

however the development would occur entirely within the 

FECR Corridor and would be consistent with the existing 

transportation uses. While the proposed rail system would 

encourage regional connection as well as growth in the vicinity 

of the supporting stations, growth would be focused in 

previously developed areas and would be consistent with 

existing commercial and industrial land uses. 

Consequently, the Project would not affect the state’s 

vulnerability to natural disasters and would not affect 

emergency response and evacuation procedures. Further the 

Project would be consistent with the emergency preparedness 

policies within the East Central Florida and Treasure Coast 

SRPPs. 

Chapter 253 

State Lands

Addresses the state’s 

administration of public lands and 

property of this state and provides 

direction regarding the acquisition, 

disposal, and management of all 

state lands. 

The proposed rail line would be located within the privately 

owned FECR Corridor as well as along the SR 528 ROW. 

OOCEA is pursuing the acquisition of additional ROW along 

SR 528, which would affect the viability of certain E-W Corridor 

alternatives. E-W Corridor Alternative A would occur entirely 

within the SR 528 ROW; consequently, this alternative would 

not adversely impact state lands. Under E-W Corridor 

Alternative C and Alternative E would require acquisition of 

additional ROW easement along 14 miles of the alignments 

between SR 417 and SR 520. However, any impacts to public 

lands and property of the state outside of the existing SR 528 

ROW would be mitigated by permit requirements and the 

implementation of standard construction BMPs. Additionally, 

the E-W Corridor would include bridges where necessary to 

avoid significant impacts to wetlands, streams, and rivers, 

including the St. Johns River and Econlockhatchee River; 

some of which may include State-owned Sovereign 

Submerged Lands. Proposed bridges would meet U.S. Coast 

Guard navigational requirements and would therefore not 

interfere with public use of sovereign submerged lands. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-67 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued) 

Statute Scope Consistency

Chapter 258 

State Parks and 

Preserves 

Addresses administration and 

management of state parks and 

preserves. 

The N-S Corridor is entirely within the existing FECR Corridor. 

Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to state parks 

and preserves. E-W Corridor Alternative A would be sited 

within the SR 528 ROW. Although this alignment would 

traverse the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area and 

Canaveral Marsh Conservation Area, the proposed rail line 

would be located within the SR 528 ROW, which is owned by 

FDOT in this segment and includes wetlands that have been 

delineated (with the exception of the portion of the alignment 

identified as the Cocoa Curve). Many of the wetland boundaries 

have been inspected and confirmed by the USACE; however, 

a binding Jurisdictional Determination has not been completed 

at this time. The St. Johns River WMD has also inspected and 

confirmed these delineated wetlands. The E-W Corridor 

Alternatives C and E would require additional ROW 

acquisition along the 14-mile segment between SR 417 and 

SR 520. While impacts to the Tosohatchee Wildlife 

Management Area and Canaveral Marsh Conservation Area, 

located east of SR 520, would remain the same as those 

described for E-W Corridor Alternative A, additional area 

within the Hal Scott Preserve would not be affected by the 

development of a rail corridor to the north (outside) of the SR 

528 ROW. Impacts to these state lands would be mitigated 

through the implementation of standard construction BMPs 

(e.g., erosion controls) as well as the acquisition and/or 

restoration of wetland habitats as required by Section 404 

Individual Permit requirements. Wetland delineations have not 

been completed for the portions of the E-W Corridor 

Alternatives C and E that lie beyond the SR 528 ROW. 

Chapter 259 

Land Acquisition for 

Conservation or 

Recreation

Authorizes acquisition of 

environmentally endangered lands 

and outdoor recreation lands. 

The Project would likely result in beneficial impacts; 

compensatory mitigation would be required including the 

potential acquisition of environmentally endangered lands. 

Impacts to delineated wetlands would require mitigation as 

required by Section 404 Individual Permits. Consequently, while 

the implementation of the Project would remove wetlands from 

the N-S and E-W Corridors, compensatory mitigation would 

include the potential acquisition of environmentally sensitive 

habitat types. 

Chapter 260 

Florida Greenways 

and Trails Act

Established in order to conserve, 

develop, and use the natural 

resources of Florida for healthful 

and recreational purposes. 

The N-S Corridor would not impact any of the greenways and 

trails as defined in the Florida Greenways and Trails System 

Plan. The E-W Corridor would cross the St. Johns River, which 

is designated as a Priority Land Trail and as an Existing Trail in 

Priority Network to the north of the SR 528. 

SR 528 crosses this area via a bridge approximately 550 feet 

long. For the Project, this Priority Land Trail would be bypassed 

via a railroad bridge, which would pass over the Priority Land 

Trail providing for continued trail linkage. The Project would not 

significantly adversely impact the trail and would generally be 

consistent with the strategies and goals outlined in the 

Greenways and Trails System Plan. 

Additionally, the E-W Corridor would cross the proposed Florida 

Wildlife Corridor, which is envisioned to secure a connected 

landscape from the Everglades to Georgia. The proximity of the 

E-W Corridor alignment to existing SR 528 infrastructure would 

limit the Project’s contribution to fragmentation of natural 

landscapes and watersheds. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-68 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued) 

Statute Scope Consistency

Chapter 267 

Historical Resources

Addresses management and 

preservation of the state’s 

archaeological and historical 

resources. 

FRA has formally initiated the National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 consultation process with the Florida State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) as a part of the Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare this EIS. Additionally, FRA has separately 

initiated consultation with five Native American Nations. 

Coordination between FRA, SHPO, and Section 106 consulting 

parties will continue through the Project. 

Chapter 267 

Historical Resources 

(contd.)

Addresses management and 

preservation of the state’s 

archaeological and historical 

resources. 

During a 2009 SHPO meeting regarding the South Florida East 

Coast Corridor Study, there was agreement that the use of the 

historic rail line within the FECR Railway District and restoration 

of passenger rail on the line would not constitute an adverse 

effect. Consequently, the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP)-eligible FECR Railway District would not be adversely 

affected by the N-S Corridor. 

Within the FECR Corridor, four bridges have been identified as 

individually eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A and 

Criterion C. These four bridges are also considered contributing 

elements to the FECR Railway Historic District. An additional 

eight bridges are not considered individually eligible for listing on 

the NRHP but are still considered contributing elements to the 

FECR Railway Historic District. For the AAF FONSI, a no 

adverse effect determination was conditioned on the 

reconstruction or rehabilitation work to the bridges being 

developed in consultation with the SHPO to avoid and/or 

minimize effects. For the Project, a similar no adverse effect 

finding is anticipated based on the condition that consultation 

with the SHPO would continue through the design process in 

order to ensure compatibility and appropriate sensitivity to the 

bridge resources and FECR Railway Historic District. 

Based on the information available, the Project would have no 

adverse effect on archaeological sites along the N-S Corridor. 

The no adverse effect finding is based on the condition that 

consultation with the SHPO would continue through the design 

process, as needed, in order to ensure appropriate sensitivity to 

the previously recorded archaeological sites located within the 

area of potential effect (APE). 

Similarly, the E-W Corridor is anticipated to have no adverse 

effect on the FECR Railway Historic District. Field surveys have 

determined that no archaeological resources occur in the E-W 

Corridor. The Project would be consistent with Florida’s statutes 

and regulations regarding the state’s archaeological and 

historical resources. 

Chapter 288 

Commercial 

Development and 

Capital Improvements

Promotes and develops general 

business, trade, and tourism 

components of the state economy. 

The Project would provide linkages between regional and 

statewide multi-modal transportation networks and promote 

commercial development within the vicinity of the transit stations 

consistent with the East Central Florida and Treasure Coast 

SRPPs. The Project would be consistent with Smart Growth and 

Sustainability Policies 4.1 and 4.3 in the East Central Florida 

SRPP as well as Policy 4.13, which encourages efforts that 

connect regional airports, rail systems, and seaports to gain a

competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Further, the 

Project would be consistent with Regional Goal 3.5 in the 

Treasure Coast SRPP, which encourages multimodal linkages 

throughout the region, including the provision of commuter and 

long distance passenger service on the FECR corridor. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-69 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued) 

Statute Scope Consistency

The Project would have an indirect beneficial effect on future 

business opportunities and would likely promote tourism in the 

region. 

Chapter 334 

Transportation 

Administration

Addresses the state’s policy 

concerning transportation 

administration. 

The Project would be consistent with the transportation code 

as well as the mission, goals, and object of FDOT. Specifically 

the Project would be consistent with Section 334.30 regarding 

public-private transportation facilities. 

Chapter 339 

Transportation 

Finance and Planning

Addresses the finance and 

planning needs of the state’s 

transportation system. 

The Project would be funded by a loan under the RRIF 

Program pursuant to 49 CFR part 260. The Project would be 

consistent with the 2060 Florida Transportation Plan, which 

includes new measures encouraging a greater reliance on 

public transportation systems for moving people, including a 

statewide passenger rail network and enhanced transit 

systems in Florida’s major urban areas. The Project would 

support the long range objective of the plan to develop and 

operate a statewide intercity passenger rail system connecting 

all regions of the state and linking to public transportation 

systems in rural and urban areas. The Project would not have 

an adverse impact on transportation finance and would result 

in beneficial impacts with regard to transportation planning. 

Chapter 373 

Water Resources

Addresses sustainable water 

management; the conservation of 

surface and ground waters for full 

beneficial use; the preservation of 

natural resources, fish, and 

wildlife; protecting public land; and 

promoting the health and general 

welfare of Floridians. 

The Project would impact surface waters including wetlands 

within the N-S and E-W Corridors. However, these corridors 

are currently impacted by the existing FECR Corridor as well 

as the SR 528 ROW. To the extent feasible, direct effects to 

surface water bodies would be avoided through the 

construction of bridges. Additionally, standard construction 

BMPs would be employed to limit offsite construction-related 

impacts. 

Section 404 Individual Permits would be required for the N-S 

and E-W Corridors, and compensatory mitigation measures 

would be implemented as a part of the Project. 

Chapter 373 

Water Resources 

(contd.)

Addresses sustainable water 

management; the conservation of 

surface and ground waters for full 

beneficial use; the preservation of 

natural resources, fish, and 

wildlife; protecting public land; and 

promoting the health and general 

welfare of Floridians. 

Additionally, applicable permitting requirements would be 

satisfied in accordance with Florida Administrative Code 

(FAC) 62-25 and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES). AAF would submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) 

to use the generic permit for stormwater discharge under the 

NPDES program prior to project initiation according to Florida 

Statute Section 403.0885. The Project would also require 

coverage under the generic permit for stormwater discharge 

from construction activities that disturb one or more acres of 

land (FAC 62-621). 

The Project would be consistent with Florida’s statutes and 

regulations regarding the water resources of the state. 

Chapter 375 

Outdoor Recreation 

and Conservation 

Lands

Develops comprehensive 

multipurpose outdoor recreation 

plan to document recreational 

supply and demand, describe 

current recreational opportunities, 

estimate need for additional 

recreational opportunities, and 

propose means to meet the 

identified needs. 

The Project would be consistent with Florida’s Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. The passenger rail 

service would provide additional transportation linkages 

between recreational areas throughout the state. Additionally, 

as the Project is within existing transportation corridors, the rail 

line would not substantially directly impact recreational areas 

or recreational opportunities in the immediate vicinity. 

Chapter 376 

Pollutant Discharge 

Regulates transfer, storage, and 

transportation of pollutants, and 

cleanup of pollutant discharges. 

Construction activities associated with the Project may require 

the use of hazardous materials, and hazardous waste may be 

generated. However, the Project would not substantially 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-70 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued) 

Statute Scope Consistency

Prevention and 

Removal

increase operational hazardous material or hazardous waste. 

The Project would include proper handling, use and disposal of 

hazardous materials and waste and would be compliant within 

all appropriate tracking and reporting requirements. The Project 

would not impact the transfer, storage, or transportation of 

pollutants. 

Chapter 377 

Energy Resources

Addresses regulation, planning, 

and development of oil and gas 

resources of state. 

The Project would not impact energy resource production, 

including oil and gas, and/or the transportation of oil and gas. 

Chapter 379 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation

Addresses the management and 

protection of the state of Florida’s 

wide diversity of fish and wildlife 

resources. 

Pursuant to the NEPA Section 2, 102(H), avoidance and 

minimization of potential impacts to federally and 

state-protected species have been considered for the Project. 

Protected species habitat was avoided to the extent possible 

when developing the alternatives for the Project. Further, 

consultation with NOAA – NMFS, FWS, and FWC has been 

conducted to ensure full compliance with the federal and state 

Endangered Species Act (ESA); Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA); and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 

A Biological Assessment (BA) is under preparation for U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with the Final ESA 

Section 7 Consultation Handbook (USFWS 1998). The BA is 

intended to provide documentation necessary for informal 

consultation with the USFWS and NMFS in order to comply with 

Section 7 of the ESA (7 USC §136; 16 USC §1531 et seq.). 

Chapter 379 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation (contd.)

Addresses the management and 

protection of the state of Florida’s 

wide diversity of fish and wildlife 

resources. 

While no significant impacts to sensitive species are 

anticipated, USFWS- and FWC-recommended speciesspecific mitigation measures would be implemented for each 

potentially affected federally or state-listed species. Therefore 

the Project would be consistent with the state’s policies 

concerning the protection of wildlife. 

Chapter 380 

Land and Water 

Management

Establishes land and water 

management policies to guide and 

coordinate local decisions relating 

to growth and development. 

The Project would occur within existing transportation 

corridors, which span six counties in eastern Florida. Changes 

to coastal infrastructure would include the repair or 

construction of railroad track as well as the construction of 18 

bridges within the FECR Corridor. The Project would result in 

impacts to upland habitats as well as surface water resources, 

including wetland habitats. However, these degraded habitats 

occur within the existing ROWs. Management of state lands 

outside of the existing transportation corridors would remain 

unchanged. Additionally, surface waters and storm water 

runoff would be consistent with all applicable policies including 

FS Section 380.06, which outlines policies for developments 

of region impact that may have effects on the health, safety or 

welfare of citizens of more than one county. 

Chapter 381 

Public Health, 

General Provisions

Establishes public policy 

concerning the state’s public 

health system. 

The Project would not affect the state’s policies concerning the 

public health system. 

Chapter 388 

Mosquito Control

Addresses mosquito control effort 

in the state. 

The Project would not affect mosquito control efforts. 

Chapter 403 

Environmental 

Control

Establishes public policy 

concerning environmental control 

in the state. 

AAF would coordinate all applicable permits in accordance 

with the FAC. 

The Project would adversely impact surface water bodies, 

including wetlands along the N-S and E-W Corridors. 

However, standard BMPs would be implemented during 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-71 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued) 

Statute Scope Consistency

construction activities and compensatory mitigation measures 

for impacts to wetlands would be required. 

During construction activities, AAF would take all reasonable 

precautions to minimize fugitive particulate (i.e., dust) 

emissions during any construction activities in accordance 

with FAC 62-296. 

Net increases to operational emissions, both from stationary 

and mobile sources would be less than significant as a result 

of the Project. Total emissions would remain below de minimis 

levels and any adverse impacts to air quality would also be 

less than significant. Additionally, beneficial impacts to air 

quality would occur as a result of the potential reduction in 

vehicle miles traveled. 

The Project would not significantly increase hazardous 

material or hazardous waste generated within the existing 

transportation corridors. 

Therefore, the Project would not impact water quality, air 

quality, pollution control, solid waste management, or other 

environmental control efforts. 

Chapter 582 

Soil and Water 

Conservation

Addresses means to conserve soil 

and water. 

All applicable standard construction BMPs, such as erosion 

and sediment controls and stormwater management 

measures would be implemented to minimize erosion and 

storm water run-off, and to regulate sediment control during 

construction. 

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the Florida’s 

statutes and regulations regarding soil and water conservation 

efforts. 

Source: AMEC. 2013b. Technical Memorandum No. 10: Environmental Consequences for All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail 

Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. Report. 

5.2.6 Climate Change 

This	 section	 describes	 climate	 change	 effects	 related	 to	 the	 Project.	 Transportation	 systems	 are	

vulnerable	to	extreme	weather	and	climate	change	effects	such	as	increased	temperatures,	sea	level	rise,	

and	 more	 intense	 storm	 events;	 these	 effects	 increase	 the	 vulnerability	 of	 transportation	 systems	

(FHWA	 2013).	 Climate	 change	 adaptation	 is	 critical	 to	 protecting	 transportation	 systems.	 Reducing	

greenhouse	gas	(GHG)	emissions	is	important	for	long‐term	climate	change	effects,	but	the	reduction	of	

GHGs	will	likely	have	little	impact	on	the	expected	climate	change	effects	over	the	next	20	or	30	years	

(FHWA	2012).	

The	climate	change	provisions	that	are	applicable	to	the	Project	include:	

 EO	13514:	Federal	Leadership	in	Environmental,	Energy,	and	Economic	Performance;		

 USACE	Circular	1165‐2‐212:	Sea‐Level	Change	Considerations	for	Civil	Works	Programs;	and		

 CEQ	Draft	NEPA	Guidance	on	Consideration	 of	 the	Effects	of	Climate	Change	and	Greenhouse	Gas	

Emissions	(CEQ	Draft	NEPA	Guidance).	

Executive	Order	13514	calls	for	federal	leadership	in	environmental,	energy,	and	economic	performance.	

The	CEQ	Draft	NEPA	Guidance	outlines	climate	change	considerations	for	federal	agencies.	Federal	agencies	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-72 September 2014 

 

should	 consider	 the	 effects	 of	GHG	emissions	and	 climate	 change	in	 their	evaluation	 of	 proposals.	 The	

relationship	of	climate	change	effects	to	a	proposed	action	should	be	considered;	this	includes	proposal	

design,	environmental	impacts,	mitigation,	and	adaptation	measures.	If	a	proposed	action	is	anticipated	to	

cause	direct	emissions	of	25,000	metric	tons	or	more	of	CO2‐equivalent	GHG	emissions	on	an	annual	basis,	

a	 quantitative	 and	 qualitative	 assessment	 may	 be	 meaningful	 to	 decision	 makers	 and	 the	 public.	

Environmental	documents	should	reflect	the	global	context	of	climate	change	and	be	realistic	in	focusing	on	

information	that	will	be	useful	to	decision	makers.	GHG	emissions	and	mitigation	opportunities	should	be	

evaluated	and	compared	between	alternatives.	According	to	the	CEQ	Draft	NEPA	Guidance,	climate	change	

effects	should	be	considered	in	the	analysis	of	projects	that	are	designed	for	long‐term	utility	and	located	in	

areas	that	are	considered	vulnerable	to	specific	climate	change	effects	(CEQ	2010).	

As	documented	in	this	section,	the	Project	would	reduce	emissions	of	greenhouse	gases	that	contribute	

to	climate	change.	The	N‐S	and	WPB‐M	Corridors	of	the	Project	are	vulnerable	to	climate	change	effects	

in	the	near	 future.	Both	of	these	corridors	are	along	the	Florida	coast	and	cross	several	coastal	water	

bodies.	Bridge	structures,	particularly	those	with	lower	elevation,	will	have	increased	vulnerability	over	

time,	and	potential	infrastructure	damage	may	result	from	flooding,	tidal	damage,	and/or	storms.	

5.2.6.1 Methodology 

The	analysis	of	climate	change	effects	considers	local	climate	change	scenarios.	Major	concerns	for	Florida	

in	the	coming	decades	include	sea	level	rise	and	more	intense	storm	events.	Two	main	planning	horizons	

for	climate	change	are	considered	in	this	EIS:	2030	and	2060.	The	2030	horizon	represents	near‐term	

impacts	 and	 the	 2060	 horizon	 represents	 longer‐term	 impacts.	 These	 representative	 years	 are	 also	

frequently	referenced	in	climate	change	literature	for	the	region.	By	2030	a	sea	level	rise	of	3	to	7	inches	

is	anticipated	and	by	2060	a	rise	of	9	to	24	inches	is	anticipated.	The	region	will	also	be	vulnerable	to	an	

increasing	number	of	intense	storm	events.	

USACE	Circular	1165‐2‐212	provides	guidance	for	incorporating	the	direct	and	indirect	physical	impacts	of	

projected	 future	sea‐level	change	across	a	project	life	cycle.	Potential	relative	 sea‐level	change	must	be	

considered	 in	 every	 USACE	 Civil	 Works	 coastal	 activity	 as	 far	 inland	 as	 the	 extent	 of	 estimated	 tidal	

influence.	Planning	and	design	must	consider	how	sensitive	and	adaptable	natural	and	human	systems	are	

to	climate	change.	Planning	and	design	for	both	existing	conditions	and	Project	alternatives	should	consider	

and	evaluate	alternatives	for	the	entire	range	of	possible	future	rates	of	sea‐level	change	over	the	project	

life	cycle.	The	Circular	recommends	that	alternatives	should	be	evaluated	using	“low,”	“intermediate,”	and	

“high”	rates	of	future	sea‐level	change	for	both	“with”	and	“without”	project	conditions.	The	historic	rate	of	

sea‐level	change	should	be	used	as	the	“low”	rate;	“intermediate”	and	“high”	rates	should	be	estimated	using	

equations	described	in	the	Circular.	Alternative	plans	and	designs	should	be	formulated	and	evaluated	for	

the	three	sea‐level	change	scenarios.	Sensitivity	to	the	rates	of	future	sea‐level	change	should	be	determined	

for	plan	alternatives;	how	this	sensitivity	affects	calculated	risk	and	design	measures	to	minimize	adverse	

impacts	and	maximize	benefits	should	also	be	addressed.	

GHG	emissions	factors	were	obtained	from	the	EPA	(EPA	2008b).	GHG	emission	factors	for	intercity	rail	

travel	were	used	for	this	estimation	process.	The	GHG	emissions	from	switch	engines	are	anticipated	to	

be	negligible.	Passenger	miles	for	GHG	emission	estimates	were	based	on	estimates	of	total	ridership	in	

2019	and	2030.	Section	5.2.1	of	this	DEIS	provides	a	detailed	description	of	air	quality	analysis	methods.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-73 September 2014 

 

5.2.6.2 Local Context: Florida Climate Scenarios 

Florida	faces	direct,	immediate,	and	severe	impacts	from	climate	change	through	rising	sea	level	and	the	

possibility	of	more	intense	storms.	There	is	also	increased	likelihood	of	more	severe	droughts	and	periods	

of	torrential	rain.	Due	to	these	predictions,	Florida’s	commitment	to	address	climate	change	is	increasing.	

Florida’s Resilient Coasts: A State Policy Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change	 provides	 a	

framework	for	state	actions	(FAU	2007).	

Southeast	Florida	is	particularly	vulnerable	to	the	effects	of	climate	change,	especially	sea	level	rise.	As	

mentioned	 above,	 two	important	 planning	 horizons,	 referencing	 the	 year	 2010	 as	 the	 start	 date,	 are	

2030	and	2060.	These	representative	years	are	also	frequently	referenced	in	climate	change	literature	

for	the	region.	Sea	level	is	predicted	to	rise	1	foot	from	the	2010	level	between	2040	and	2070,	but	a	2‐foot	

rise	is	possible	by	2060.	By	2060	sea	level	is	projected	to	be	rising	by	2	to	6	inches	per	decade.	It	will	be	

important	to	review	projections	as	scientific	understanding	improves.	Sea	levels	will	continue	to	rise	even	

if	mitigation	efforts	to	reduce	GHG	emissions	are	successful	at	stabilizing	or	reducing	atmospheric	CO2

(Southeast	Florida	Regional	Climate	Change	Compact	2011).	

Florida	will	also	be	susceptible	to	more	intense	storm	events.	It	is	likely	that	in	the	future	there	will	be	

fewer	total	storms	but	a	higher	number	of	intense	storms	according	to	Climate Scenarios:AFlorida‐Centric

View (Misra	et	al.	2011).	The	damage	caused	by	future	storms	is	expected	to	increase	by	about	30	percent	

despite	the	decrease	in	the	total	number	of	storms.	Potential	impacts	of	climate	change	and	variability	for	

Florida	 include	 the	 displacement	 of	 communities,	 damage	 to	 infrastructure,	 and	 damage	 to	 natural	

systems	(Misra	et	al.	2011).	

5.2.6.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

GHGs	 include	 water	 vapor,	 CO2,	 CH4,	 N2O,	 ground‐level	 O3,	 and	 fluorinated	 gases	 such	 as	

chlorofluorocarbons	 and	 hydrochlorofluorocarbons.	 These	 gases	 trap	 heat	 in	 the	 atmosphere	 and	

regulate	the	Earth’s	temperature.	Global	climate	change	is	a	transformation	in	the	average	weather	of	the	

Earth,	 which	 is	 measured	 by	 changes	 in	 temperature,	 wind	 patterns,	 and	 precipitation.	 Scientific	

consensus	 has	 identified	 human‐related	 emission	 of	 GHGs	 above	 natural	 levels	 as	 a	 significant	

contributor	to	global	climate	change	(NCADAC	2013).	

GHG	emissions	for	carbon	dioxide	(CO2),	methane	(CH4)	and	nitrous	oxide	(N2O)	were	calculated	for	this	

project.	 As	 shown	 in	 Table	 5.2.1‐2,	 the	 Project	 would	 decrease	 emissions	 as	 a	 result	 of	 decreased	

automobile	 VMT.	 CO2	 emissions	 are	 calculated	 to	 decrease	 by	 19,617	 tons/year	 in	 2019	 and	

31,477	tons/year	in	2030.	CH4	emissions	would	decrease	by	4.7	and	5.7	tons/year,	respectively,	and	N2O	

emissions	by	5	and	6.1	tons/year	in	2019	and	2030.	

5.2.6.4 Climate Change Vulnerabilities and Adaptation 

Tables	5.2.6‐1	and	5.2.6‐2	display	sea	level	rise	projections	for	Southeast	Florida,	with	the	year	2010	as	a	

baseline.	 Using	 the	 USACE	 methodology	 and	 as	 described	 above,	 by	 2030	 a	 rise	 of	 3	 to	 7	 inches	 is	

anticipated	and	by	2060	a	rise	of	9	to	24	inches	is	anticipated.	A	rise	of	1	foot	is	predicted	between	2040	

and	2070	and	2	feet	between	2060	and	2115.	The	rate	of	sea	level	rise	is	expected	to	increase	each	decade.	

Sea	level	rise	projections	should	be	reviewed	as	the	scientific	understanding	of	climate	change	grows.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-74 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.6-1 Projected Total Sea Level Rise and Sea Level Rise Acceleration 

Time Range Decadal Rate of Rise

Projected Rise 

(inches)

Historic 

(inches/decade)

Projected Rate of Sea 

Level Rise 

(inches/decade)

 0.82-0.94

2010-2020 1.5-3.0 1.4-3.2

2020-2030 3.0-7.0 1.6-4.0

2030-2040 5.0-12.0 1.8-4.8

2040-2050 7.0-17.5 2.0-5.6

2050-2060 9.0-24.0 2.2-6.3

Source: Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. 2011. A Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida. 

http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/pdf/Sea%20Level%20Rise.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2014 

Table 5.2.6-2 Estimated Timeframes for Sea Level Rise in Southeast Florida 

Projected Sea Level Rise Estimated Time Occurrence

1 foot 2040-2070

2 feet 2060-2115

3 feet 2078-2150

Source: Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. 2011. A Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida. 

http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/pdf/Sea%20Level%20Rise.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2014

The	N‐S	Corridor	and	WPB‐M	Corridor	were	assessed	for	vulnerability,	as	these	corridors	are	along	the	

coast	 and	 cross	 several	 coastal	 water	 bodies.	 Climate	 change	 effects	 for	 the	 MCO	 Segment	 and	

E‐W	Corridor	are	anticipated	to	be	minimal	for	the	2030	and	2060	planning	horizons	as	these	segments	

of	the	Project	are	at	higher	elevations	and	further	from	the	coast.	Track	and	bridge	heights	are	assessed	

given	current	sea	level	and	projected	sea	level.		

Track	and	bridge	elevations	average	from	15	to	18	feet	(NAVD88).	The	current	100‐year	flood	elevation	

averages	 5.0	 to	 5.6	 feet	 (NAVD88)	 and	 the	 mean	 high	 water	 level	 averages	 0.0	 feet	 (+	 0.3	 feet).	

Two	 bridges	 were	 chosen	 as	 a	 representative	 sample	 to	 assess	 vulnerability:	 Horse	 Creek	 in	 the	

N‐S	Corridor	and	Arch	Creek	in	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	Both	of	these	bridges	would	be	reconstructed	as	

part	of	the	Project.	

Table	5.2.6‐3	shows	current	and	projected	bridge	conditions	at	Horse	Creek	and	Arch	Creek	under	the	

highest	sea	level	rise	projection	for	2030	and	2060,	respectively.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-75 September 2014 

 

Table 5.2.6-3 Current and Projected Future Bridge Conditions (Horse Creek and Arch Creek) 

2013

2030 

(7-inch sea level 

rise)

2060 (24 inch sea 

level rise)

Horse Creek Bridge

Top-of-bridge elevation 16.8 feet 

Bottom cord 12.2 feet 

100-year flood level 8.1 feet 8.8 10.1

Mean high water level -0.58 feet 0 2.0

Arch Creek Bridge

Top-of-bridge elevation 12.75 feet 

Bottom cord 6.0 feet 

100-year flood level 5.4 feet 6.0 7.4

Mean high water level 0.28 feet 1.7 2.28

Source: AAF. 2013d. General Plans and Elevations for the Horse Creek and Arch Creek Bridges. Transystems Corporation. 

Bridge	structures	will	have	increased	vulnerability	over	time;	potential	infrastructure	damage	may	result	

from	 flooding,	 tidal	 damage,	and/or	 storms.	More	 frequent	and	 severe	 flooding	is	 predicted	and	it	is	

possible	that	the	100‐year	floodplain	could	increase	in	lateral	extent.	Bridges	with	a	lower	elevation,	such	

as	Arch	Creek,	will	have	increased	vulnerability	by	the	2030	time	frame	during	storm	and	flood	events.	

Based	on	the	2030	projection,	the	100‐year	flood	level	will	rise	to	meet	the	bottom	chord	of	the	bridge;	at	

high	tide	the	water	level	may	surpass	the	bottom	chord	(Table	5.2.6‐3).	This	vulnerability	will	increase	as	

sea	level	rises.	As	a	result,	there	may	be	increasing	periods	of	time	where	the	train	is	out	of	service	during	

storm	events.	

5.3 Natural Environment 

This	section	describes	the	potential	impacts	of	the	Project	on	the	natural	resources	within	the	Project	

Study	Area,	including	water	resources,	wild	and	scenic	rivers,	wetlands,	floodplains,	biological	resources	

and	natural	ecological	systems,	and	threatened	and	endangered	species.	For	each	alternative,	the	analysis	

includes	the	impacts	of	the	Project	in	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	based	on	information	provided	in	Section	3.0	

of	the	2012	EA	and	the	impacts	of	new	Project	elements	in	that	corridor	that	were	not	evaluated	in	the	

2012	EA.	

5.3.1 Water Resources 

Water	 resources	 analyzed	 for	 the	 Project	 include	 surface	 water	 and	 groundwater.	 This	 section	 also	

provides	the	analysis	of	proposed	navigational	conditions.	The	Project	would	have	negligible	impacts	on	

surface	or	groundwater	resources.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-76 September 2014 

 

5.3.1.1 Methodology 

Impacts	to	surface	and	groundwater	resources	were	evaluated	by	overlaying	the	Project	footprint	on	GIS	

mapping	of	water	resources,	and	assessing	the	potential	impacts	to	water	quality	based	on	changes	to	the	

quality	and	quantity	of	stormwater	runoff.	

5.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

No-Action Alternative 

Under	 the	No‐Action	Alternative,	 the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	The	Project	Area	

would	remain	the	same	as	it	exists	today	with	no	development	or	construction	changes	relevant	to	the	

Project,	and	no	adverse	impacts	to	water	resources	would	occur.

Alternative A 

Direct	effects	to	water	resources	within	each	segment	of	Alternative	A	are	discussed	below	with	respect	

to	impacts	on	surface	waters	and	water	quality,	outstanding	Florida	waters	(OFWs),	groundwater,	sole	

source	 aquifers	 (SSAs),	wellfield	 protection,	 and	 drinking	water	 safety.	Alternative	A	would	 result	in	

minor	 impacts	 to	 surface	 and	 groundwater	 resources	 through	 construction	 of	 21	 new	 and	

10	replacement	bridges	over	waterways,	of	which	six	would	cross	OFWs.	This	alternative	would	convert	

161	acres	of	vegetated	pervious	areas	to	railroad,	and	139	acres	of	new	impervious	surfaces	(buildings,	

parking	lot,	roads)	would	be	constructed.	These	facilities	would	be	designed	with	appropriate	BMPs	so	

as	to	not	substantially	increase	the	volume	of	runoff.	BMPs	would	also	mitigate	for	potential	impacts	to	

water	quality	and	water	quantity.	Alternative	A,	in	the	western	section,	would	cross	the	Biscayne	Bay	SSA	

streamflow	and	recharge	source	zones.	AAF	will	implement	BMPs	to	protect	discharge	water	quality	and	

ensure	that	freshwater	recharge	to	the	SSA	was	maintained.	

Table	5.3.1‐1	summarizes	 the	surface	waters	impacted	by	Alternative	A	as	described	in	 the	 following	

paragraphs.		

Table 5.3.1-1 Surface Water Impacts, Alternative A

Segment

New 

Bridges Replaced or Reconstructed Bridges Outstanding Florida Waters

MCO Segment 1 0 0 

E-W Corridor 5 0 2 

(Econolockhatchee River, 

St. Johns River) 

N-S Corridor 0 18 3 

(Goat Creek, 

Loxahatchee River, 

St. Lucie River) 

WPB-M Corridor 0 7 1 

(Oleta River) 

Total 6 25 6
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-77 September 2014 

 

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment,	including	the	VMF,	would	increase	impervious	area	and	one	new	bridge	would	be	

required	over	a	surface	water	body.	No	construction	would	occur	within	or	in	the	vicinity	of	designated	

OFWs	or	navigable	waters.		

Direct	permanent	impacts	to	surface	waters	would	be	limited	to	installing	concrete	pilings	and	abutments	

within	 surface	 waters	 during	 bridge	 construction	 at	 Boggy	 Creek.	 This	 alternative	 would	 change	

approximately	20	acres	of	pervious	surface	area	and	30	acres	of	impervious	surfaces	to	railroad	ballasted	

railbed	along	the	MCO	Segment.	The	VMF	would	convert	approximately	75	acres	of	pervious	surface	area	

to	impervious	surface	area	(buildings,	parking	lots,	and	roads)	and	ballasted	railbed.	Converting	75	acres	

of	pervious	surface	area	to	impervious	would	alter	groundwater	recharge	and	change	surface	drainage	

patterns.	

Portions	 of	 the	 MCO	 Segment	 traverse	 areas	 of	 the	 airport	 facilities	 with	 a	 constructed	 stormwater	

management	system	consisting	primarily	of	wet	detention	ponds.	A	new	wet	detention	pond	is	proposed	

to	treat	stormwater	runoff	from	the	VMF.	A	required	road	would	require	filling	an	existing	detention	pond	

and	another	pond	would	be	expanded	to	accommodate	the	displaced	treatment	volume.	Drainage	swales	

would	be	used	to	treat	runoff	from	the	rail	areas.	All	stormwater	facilities	on	airport	property	will	comply	

with	FAA	regulations	(40	CFR	part	60).	

The	MCO	Segment	and	VMF	would	increase	impervious	surfaces;	however,	 this	would	not	result	in	a	

substantial	impact	to	groundwater	recharge	over	the	length	of	the	corridor	or	within	localized	areas	of	

increased	impervious	surfaces.	Therefore,	only	minor	impacts	to	groundwater	would	occur.		

The	 MCO	 Segment	 and	 VMF	 would	 overlap	 a	 SSA	 protection	 zone	 in	 Orange	 County.	 Proposed	

construction	would	increase	impervious	surfaces	in	the	Biscayne	Aquifer	SSA	streamflow	and	recharge	

source	zones.	Water	quality	and	quantity	BMPs	for	the	additional	impervious	surface	area	in	the	form	of	

stormwater	 treatment	 would	 be	 required	 as	 part	 of	 the	 ERP	 process	 and	 would	 provide	 a	 form	 of	

recharge.	Therefore,	impacts	to	SSAs	would	be	minor.	

The	MCO	Segment	and	VMF	are	not	located	within	a	wellfield	protection	zone	or	source	water	assessment	

and	protection	program	(SWAPP)	zone.	Orange	County	does	not	have	a	wellfield	protection	ordinance;	

however,	they	follow	FDEP	regulations	(Mercado	2013).	The	Project	would	comply	with	all	FDEP	and	

local	ordinances;	therefore,	no	adverse	impact	to	drinking	water	resources	would	occur.		

East-West Corridor

Direct	permanent	impacts	associated	with	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	include	installing	concrete	pilings	and	

abutments	within	surface	waters	during	bridge	construction	and	converting	approximately	72	acres	of	

vegetated	pervious	surface	area	to	ballasted	railbed.		

Stormwater	runoff	would	be	designed	primarily	to	flow	to	the	SR	528	drainage	ditch.	This	may	require	

expanding	the	capacity	of	the	ditch/swale	to	accommodate	the	additional	runoff	volume	from	the	Project.	

West	of	SR	417	the	Project	would	require	realigning	a	drainage	canal	and	constructing	a	wet	detention	

pond	at	the	south‐west	corner	of	Narcoossee	Road.	A	new	wet	detention	pond	would	also	be	constructed	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-78 September 2014 

 

to	treat	stormwater	runoff	at	the	SR	528/SR	407	interchange,	with	three	new	ponds	constructed	at	the	

I‐95/SR	528	interchange.		

Alternative	A	would	cross	two	OFWs,	the	Econlockhatchee	River	and	the	St.	Johns	River,	on	new	bridges.	

Stormwater	treatment	BMPs	would	be	installed	to	accommodate	any	increases	in	runoff	associated	with	

the	Project.	

Orange	 County	 has	 designated	 a	 portion	 of	 the	 Econlockhatchee	 River	 and	 its	 tributaries	 as	 the	

Econlockhatchee	River	Corridor	Protection	Zone.	According	to	Chapter	15,	Article	VIII,	Section	15‐825	of	

the	 Orange	 County	 Code	 of	 Ordinance,	 in	 processing	 development	 applications,	 there	 shall	 be	 no	

additional	crossing	by	road,	rail	or	utility	corridors	of	 the	Econlockhatchee	River	Corridor	Protection	

Zone	unless	the	following	conditions	are	met:		

1) There	is	no	feasible	and	prudent	alternative	to	the	crossing;		

2) All	possible	measures	to	minimize	harm	to	the	resources	of	the	basin	will	be	implemented;		

3) The	crossing	supports	an	activity	that	is	clearly	in	the	public	interest	as	determined	by	the	board;	

and		

4) The	wildlife	crossing	is	adequately	sized	to	maintain	wildlife	movement.		

Orange	County	development	permits	would	be	required	as	part	of	the	permitting	process.	Orange	County	

review	of	the	Project	would	ensure	impacts	to	the	Econlockhatchee	River	Corridor	Protection	Zone	are	

kept	to	a	minimum	and	meet	the	code.		

Converting	vegetated	areas	to	ballasted	railbed	would	not	result	in	a	substantial	impact	to	groundwater	

recharge	 over	 the	length	 of	 the	 corridor	 or	 within	localized	 areas.	 Therefore,	 only	minor	impacts	 to	

groundwater	recharge	or	quality	would	occur.		

The	westernmost	20	miles	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	overlap	a	SSA	protection	zone	in	Orange	County.	

The	proposed	construction	would	not	result	in	an	increase	in	impervious	surfaces	in	the	Biscayne	Aquifer	

SSA	streamflow	and	recharge	source	zones.	Water	quality	mitigation	would	be	addressed	as	part	of	the	

ERP	 process.	 FDEP	 would	 oversee	 the	 ERP	 permitting	 process	 with	 the	 St.	 Johns	 River	 Water	

Management	District	(SJRWMD)	and	the	South	Florida	Water	Management	District	(SFWMD);	the	ERP	

requirements	protect	the	discharge	water	quality,	which	in	turn	avoids	and	minimizes	potential	effects	

to	the	SSA.	Therefore,	impacts	to	SSAs	would	be	minor.	

Alternative	A	crosses	several	wellfield	protection	zones	or	SWAPP	zones	in	Brevard	County,	which	have	

wellfield	 protection	 ordinances	 to	 protect	 drinking	 water	 supplies	 from	 contamination.	 Wellfield	

protection	criteria	are	 found	in	Chapter	62,	Article	X,	Division	2,	and	Section	62‐3631	of	 the	Brevard	

County	Natural	Resource	Ordinances.	Orange	County	does	not	have	a	wellfield	protection	 ordinance;	

however,	they	follow	FDEP	regulations.	In	these	counties,	the	transportation	of	any	regulated	substances	

through	 the	wellfield	protection	zones	is	exempt	 from	 the	provisions	of	 the	county/state	ordinances,	

provided	that	the	transporting	vehicle	is	in	continuous	transit.	No	adverse	impact	to	wellfield	resources	

would	occur.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-79 September 2014 

 

North‐South Corridor

The	N‐S	Corridor	 follows	the	FECR	Corridor.	The	Project	would	include	improvements	to	the	existing	

mainline	and	reconstruction	of	the	second	tracks	on	the	existing	track	beds.	Constructing	the	Project	in	

the	N‐S	 Corridor	would	 not	 create	 new	impervious	 surface.	As	 described	 for	 the	WPB‐M	 Corridor	in	

Section	 3.1.2	 of	 the	 2012	 EA,	 the	 proposed	 mainline	 improvements	 will	 not	 increase	 the	 existing	

impervious	surface	area	or	alter	the	existing	drainage	system	because	the	Project	will	utilize	an	existing	

rail	corridor.	The	original	construction	of	the	corridor	included	two	rail	lines.	The	majority	of	the	original	

second	line	was	previously	removed,	but	the	track	bed	remains.	The	Project	would	include	reconstruction	

of	the	second	line	on	the	existing	track	bed.	Reconstructing	the	second	rail	line	within	the	existing	roadbed	

would	not	create	new	impervious	area.	Adjacent	surface	drainage	would	also	not	be	impacted	with	the	

reconstruction	of	the	second	line.	Existing	cross	drainage	facilities	on	the	adjacent	roadways	span	the	

entire	right‐of‐way	width	and	would	not	require	modification	to	account	for	the	installation	of	the	rail	

line	on	existing	roadbed.	

Water	quality	and	quantity	concerns	associated	with	reconstructing	the	railbed	to	add	a	second	track	will	

be	 addressed	 as	 part	 of	 the	 Florida	 Environmental	 Resource	 Permit	 process.	 Drainage	 would	 be	

accommodated	using	an	existing	channel	along	the	north	or	south	side	of	the	right‐of‐way.	In	some	cases,	

this	 would	 require	 relocating	 existing	 drainage	 channels.	 With	 the	 implementation	 of	 BMP	 measures	

determined	by	and	in	compliance	with	permit	requirements,	the	Project	would	result	in	negligible	impacts	

to	water	quality	within	and	in	the	vicinity	of	the	N‐S	Corridor.	No	construction	would	occur	that	would	

potentially	contact	or	impact	groundwater	supply.	Constructing	the	rail	in	this	corridor	would	not	result	in	

a	substantial	impact	to	groundwater	recharge	and	only	minor	impacts	to	groundwater	would	occur.	

Surface	 water	 resources	 would	 experience	 minor	 direct	 effects	 as	 a	 result	 reconstructing	 or	 replacing	

18	bridges	(Table	5.3.1‐1).	Figures	depicting	the	bridge	crossing	locations	are	provided	in	Appendix	5.3.1‐A.	

Direct	permanent	impacts	would	include	installing	concrete	pilings	and	abutments	within	surface	waters.	

No	permanent	adverse	impacts	to	surface	water	quality	would	be	caused	by	the	bridges.		

The	N‐S	Corridor	would	pass	over	two	OFWs:	Goat	Creek	and	the	Loxahatchee	River	(Table	5.3.1‐1).	The	

Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	would	be	rehabilitated	as	part	of	the	Project.	The	existing	FECR	rail	bridge	over	

Goat	Creek	would	be	removed	and	replaced	with	a	double‐track	railroad	bridge.	These	actions	would	

have	no	adverse	impact	on	the	OFWs.	

The	N‐S	Corridor	would	overlap	an	SSA	protection	area	within	Palm	Beach	County	along	 the	eastern	

border	 of	 the	 aquifer	 protection	 area.	 The	 proposed	 improvements	 would	 not	 increase	 impervious	

surfaces	 in	 the	 Biscayne	 Aquifer	 SSA	 streamflow	 and	 recharge	 source	 zones.	 Stormwater	 treatment	

would	be	required	as	part	of	the	ERP	process.	No	adverse	impacts	to	SSAs	would	occur.	

The	N‐S	Corridor	passes	 through	several	wellfield	protection	zones	or	SWAPP	zones	in	 the	 following	

counties:	Brevard,	Indian	River,	St.	Lucie,	Martin,	and	Palm	Beach.	Each	of	these	counties	has	policies	and	

regulations,	 in	 the	 form	 of	 wellfield	 protection	 ordinances,	 to	 protect	 drinking	 water	 supplies	 from	

contamination,	as	described	above.	The	Project	would	comply	with	all	local	ordinances	for	protection	of	

the	wellfields,	therefore,	no	impact	to	wellfield	resources	would	occur.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-80 September 2014 

 

Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor 

According	to	Section	3.1.2	of	the	2012	EA,	the	proposed	mainline	improvements	will	not	increase	the	

existing	impervious	surface	area	or	alter	the	existing	drainage	system	because	the	project	will	utilize	an	

existing	rail	corridor.	The	original	construction	of	the	corridor	included	two	rail	lines.	The	majority	of	the	

original	 second	 line	 was	 previously	 removed,	 but	 the	 track	 bed	 remains.	 The	 Project	 would	 include	

reconstruction	of	the	second	line	on	the	existing	track	bed.	Reconstructing	the	second	rail	line	within	the	

existing	roadbed	would	not	create	new	impervious	area.	Adjacent	surface	drainage	would	also	not	be	

impacted	with	 the	reconstruction	of	 the	second	line.	Existing	cross	drainage	 facilities	on	 the	adjacent	

roadways	 span	 the	 entire	 right‐of‐way	 width	 and	 would	 not	 require	modification	 to	 account	 for	 the	

installation	of	the	rail	line	on	existing	roadbed.	

Improvements	 associated	 with	 the	 proposed	 stations	in	Miami	 and	West	 Palm	 Beach	 would	include	

minor	changes	to	impervious	surface	areas	for	the	station	buildings,	parking	facilities,	and	platforms.	No,	

or	minimal,	 upgrades	 to	 existing	 off‐site	municipal	 drainage	 systems	 (conveyance	 structures)	 would	

result	from	the	proposed	stations;	there	will	be	little	change	in	the	pre‐	versus	post‐runoff	condition	in	

these	cases.	

The	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 and	 stations	 are	 over	 the	 sole	 source	 Biscayne	 Aquifer.	 Minor	 mainline	

modifications	 are	 required	 to	 accommodate	 the	increase	in	 train	 speeds	 and	 the	 replacement	 of	 the	

second	rail	on	existing	base	material.	The	proposed	improvements	would	not	change	the	existing	runoff	

points	of	discharge;	they	would	also	not	significantly	increase	the	existing	amount	of	impervious	area	or	

the	pollutant	loading	of	the	runoff.	SFWMD	ERP	requirements	protect	the	discharge	water	quality,	which	

in	turn	avoids	impacts.	None	of	the	project	elements	considered	in	the	2012	EA	would	impact	sole	source	

aquifers	(Section	3.1.2.2).	

The	FECR	Corridor	within	Broward	and	Palm	Beach	Counties	travels	through	several	wellfield	protection	

zones;	however,	none	of	 the	proposed	stations	are	within	any	wellfield	protection	zones.	The	Project	

would	comply	with	all	local	ordinances	for	protection	of	the	wellfields,	including	those	noted	above.	None	

of	the	project	elements	considered	in	the	2012	EA	would	impact	wellfield	resources	(Section	3.1.2.3).	

As	part	of	Phase	 II,	new	construction	is	proposed	at	 four	bridges	within	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	and	an	

additional	three	bridges	would	be	reconstructed.	This	would	consist	of	replacing	the	existing	bridges	with	

two	new	single‐track	rail	bridges,	or	adding	a	new	single‐track	bridge	parallel	to	the	existing	bridge.	The	

impacts	of	these	bridge	replacements	were	not	evaluated	in	the	2012	EA	because	they	are	part	of	Phase	II.	

Alternative C 

Impacts	 to	 surface	 and	 groundwater	 resources	 associated	 with	 Alternative	 C	 would	 be	 identical	 to	

Alternative	A,	except	within	the	E‐W	Corridor.	The	direct	effects	to	surface	waters	for	Alternative	C	are	

the	 same	 acreage	 as	 Alternative	 A,	 but	 will	 occur	 slightly	 to	 the	 south.	 Constructing	 the	 rail	 in	 the	

E‐W	Corridor	for	Alternative	C	would	change	approximately	93	acres	of	vegetated	pervious	surface	area	

to	ballasted	railroad	bed	(Appendix	5.3.1‐A).	Stormwater	from	the	proposed	rail	line	would	drain	to	its	

own,	new	stormwater	management	system	and	would	not	comingle	with	SR	528	drainage.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-81 September 2014 

 

Alternative E 

Impacts	 to	 surface	 and	 groundwater	 resources	 associated	 with	 Alternative	 E	 would	 be	 identical	 to	

Alternative	A,	except	within	the	E‐W	Corridor.	The	direct	effects	to	surface	waters	in	the	E‐W	Corridor	for	

Alternative	 E	 are	 the	 same	 acreage	 (3	 acres)	 as	 Alternative	 A,	 but	 will	 occur	 farther	 to	 the	 south.	

Constructing	 the	 rail	in	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 for	 Alternative	 E	 would	 change	 approximately	 93	 acres	 of	

vegetated	 pervious	 surface	 area	 to	 ballasted	 railroad	 bed	 (Appendix	 5.3.1‐A).	 Stormwater	 from	 the	

proposed	rail	line	would	drain	to	its	own,	new	stormwater	management	system	(it	would	not	comingle	

with	SR	528	drainage)	and	some	existing	stormwater	ponds	would	need	to	be	relocated.		

5.3.1.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

As	 discussed	in	 Section	 5.1.1,	Land Use,	 the	 Project	is	 not	 anticipated	 to	 result	in	induced	growth	 or

development	other	than	as	described	in	the	EA	in	the	vicinity	of	stations,	and	therefore	would	not	have	

indirect	effects	on	water	quality.		

5.3.1.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Construction	could	potentially	have	localized	site‐specific	temporary	impacts	on	hydrology	and	water	

quality	on	surface	waters	that	would	be	crossed	by	bridges	or	that	are	adjacent	to	the	railroad.	Substantial	

quantities	of	suspended	solids	can	be	released	as	a	result	of	construction	activities,	when	large	areas	of	

exposed	soil	may	be	present.	AAF	will	develop	a	Storm	Water	Pollution	Prevention	Plan	(SWPPP)	during	

final	 design	 that	 will	 identify	 BMPs	 that	 would	 be	 used	 to	 protect	 receiving	 waters	 from	 sediment	

discharges	or	spills	during	the	construction	period.	AAF	would	use	all	appropriate	BMPs	to	construct	new	

bridge	pilings	in	surface	waters,	including	sediment	control	structures,	turbidity	curtains,	silt	booms,	and	

silt	fence.		

5.3.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The	 closest	 Wild	 and	 Scenic	 River	 designated	 segment	 is	 on	 the	 Loxahatchee	 River	 approximately	

four	river	miles	upstream	from	the	N‐S	Corridor	in	Palm	Beach	County.	The	Project	would	not	impact	

Wild	and	Scenic	Rivers.	The	railroad	would	not	be	located	in	or	visible	 from	a	Wild	and	Scenic	River	

segment.		

5.3.3 Wetlands 

The	Project	would	result	in	impacts	to	the	aquatic	environment.	The	CWA	defines	“aquatic	environment”

and	 “aquatic	 ecosystem” as	 waters	 of	 the	 United	 States,	including	 wetlands	 that	 serve	 as	 habitat	 for	

interrelated	and	interacting	communities	and	populations	of	plants	and	animals.	Alternative	A	would	

result	in	128	acres	of	direct	impacts	to	aquatic	resources	(wetlands	and	surface	waters).	Alternative	C	

would	directly	affect	165	acres	of	aquatic	resources	(wetlands	and	surface	waters),	and	Alternative	E	

would	directly	affect	157	acres	of	aquatic	resources	(wetlands	and	surface	waters)		

Wetlands	 within	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 are	 protected	 under	 state	 and	 federal	 regulatory	 programs.	

Within	the	State	of	Florida,	activities	conducted	in	wetlands	are	regulated	by	Part	IV,	Chapter	373,	FS.	

Section	404	of	the	federal	Clean	Water	Act	regulates	discharges	of	dredged	or	fill	material	into	waters	of	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-82 September 2014 

 

the	United	States,	including	jurisdictional	wetlands.	EO	11990	also	protects	wetlands	by	directing	federal	

agencies	to	avoid	new	construction	in	wetlands	where	there	is	a	practicable	alternative.	

Section	 404	 of	 the	 Clean	Water	Act	 (CWA)	 (33	 CFR	 320‐332)	 regulates	 discharges	 of	 dredged	 or	 fill	

material	into	waters	of	the	United	States,	including	jurisdictional	wetlands.	The	CWA	requires	compliance	

with	the	Section	404(b)(1)	Guidelines,	40	C.F.R.	Part	230,	developed	jointly	by	the	EPA	and	USACE.	CWA	

compliance	requires	a	sequential	evaluation	process	which	includes	verification	all	jurisdictional	wetland	

impacts	have	been	avoided	to	the	greatest	extent	practicable,	unavoidable	impacts	have	been	minimized	

to	the	greatest	extent	practicable,	and	unavoidable	impacts	have	been	mitigated	in	the	form	of	wetlands	

creation,	restoration,	enhancement	or	preservation.	AAF	has	not	yet	submitted	its	application	for	Section	

404	authorization	to	USACE.	USACE	will	complete	its	Section	404(b)(1)	Guidelines	analysis	and	public	

interest	review	in	its	record	of	decision	following	publication	of	the	Final	EIS.	

This	 section	 discusses	 wetland	 impacts	 relative	 to	 the	 alternatives	 for	 the	 Project.	 These	 direct	 and	

indirect	impacts	are	discussed	along	with	potential	mitigation	efforts	and	how	they	relate	to	the	state	and	

federal	regulatory	process.	

The	types	of	direct	impacts	and	the	indirect	impacts	to	wetlands	that	may	result	from	the	Project	include:	

 Discharging	fill	material	into	wetlands	(loss	of)	–	reduction	in	wetland	size,	fragmentation	and	

edge	 effects,	 introduction	 of	 human	 activity	 (noise,	 disturbance)	 to	 wetland,	 change	 in	

hydrology,	vegetation,	or	habitat;	

 Change	 in	 hydrology,	 fragmentation,	 introduction	 of	 disturbed	 non‐wetland	 conditions,	

creation	of	new	“edge”	conditions,	interruption	of	migratory	routes,	alteration	of	water	levels	

or	flow	patterns;	

 Installing	a	new	culvert	or	changing	existing	culvert	–	alteration	water	levels	or	flow	patterns;	

 Removing	canopy	or	other	vegetation	–	change	of	light	regimes,	water	temperature,	or	plan	

community	structure;	and	

 New	discharges	of	stormwater	–	alteration	of	water	levels	or	flow	patterns,	or	introduction	of	

sediments	or	nutrients.	

5.3.3.1 Methodology 

Direct	wetland	impacts	within	 the	MCO	Segment	and	 the	E‐W	Corridor	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	were	

calculated	as	the	area	of	wetland	within	a	100‐foot	wide	corridor,	50	feet	on	each	side	of	the	planned	

railroad	center	line	for	each	alternative	alignment.	This	approximates	the	footprint	of	the	constructed	

railroad	corridor	including	the	tracks,	access	road,	and	stormwater	management	system.	This	analysis	

assumes	that	wetlands	identified	within	the	100‐foot	corridor	and	footprint	of	the	VMF	would	be	filled	

for	the	Project.	

Direct	wetland	impacts	for	the	N‐S	Corridor	were	estimated	based	on	the	proposed	limit	of	work	overlain	

on	the	field	delineation	of	wetlands	in	areas	where	the	footprint	of	the	existing	railroad	corridor	would	

change	 due	 to	 third	 track	 addition,	 curve	 reduction,	 or	 bridge	 improvement.	 The	 USACE	 has	 not	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-83 September 2014 

 

completed	a	preliminary	jurisdictional	determination	of	the	N‐S	Corridor.	Indirect	effects	to	wetlands	and	

other	 waters	 include	 the	 following	 impacts	 that	 could	 be	 caused	 by	 the	 placement	 of	 fill	 within	 the	

wetlands,	but	occur	at	a	different	location	or	time:	

 Changes	in	wetland	functions;	or	

 Changes	in	wetland	physical/biological	characteristics	as	a	result	of	the	direct	effects	(loss	of	

wetland).	

Indirect	effects	to	wetlands	were	assessed	for	wetlands	within	100	feet	of	the	assumed	100‐foot	wide	

railroad	corridor	and	within	500	feet	of	the	proposed	VMF	footprint.	Wetlands	were	identified	utilizing	

land	use	data	categorized	according	to	FLUCCS	(FDOT	1999).	The	assessment	was	based	on	the	functions	

and	 values	 each	 wetland	 provides	 and	 the	 type	 and	 extent	 of	 the	 direct	 wetland	 impacts	 and	 work	

adjacent	to	the	wetland	which	is	the	cause	of	the	secondary	effect.		

5.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

Direct	effects	are	defined	as	those	“which	are	caused	by	the	action	and	occur	at	the	same	time	and	place”	

(CEQ	2005a).	Direct	effects	may	include	the	discharge	of	dredge	or	fill	material	into	aquatic	resources,	

removal	of	vegetation,	alteration	of	hydrology,	and	pollutant	discharge.	

No-Action Alternative 

In	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	As	a	result	no	wetland	

loss	would	occur.	

Alternative A 

Alternative	A	would	result	in	the	loss	of	approximately	128	acres	of	aquatic	resources,	including	17	acres	

of	surface	waters	and	111	acres	of	wetlands	of	which	70	acres	are	forested	and	41	acres	are	non‐forested.	

Table	5.3.3‐1	provides	acreages	of	direct	effects	to	wetlands	and	surface	waters	for	the	MCO	Segment,	E‐

W	Corridor,	N‐S	Corridor,	and	WPB‐M	Corridor	under	Alternative	A,	as	described	in	detail	in	the	following	

paragraphs.	Effects	of	the	Project	on	wildlife	and	important	wildlife	habitats	are	described	in	Section	5.3.5.	

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment	would	directly	affect	approximately	43	acres	of	aquatic	resources	including	canals,	

marshy	lake,	reservoirs,	mixed	wetland	hardwoods,	cypress,	wetland	 forested	mixed,	and	 freshwater	

marsh.	Stormwater	management	ponds	comprise	the	majority	of	wetlands	affected	by	the	Project.		

The	wetlands	located	within	the	footprint	of	the	VMF	provide	moderate	quality	wetland	wildlife	habitat.	

Wetlands	within	 the	MCO	Segment	have	sustained	limited	disturbance	and	provide	moderate	quality	

wildlife	habitat	for	those	species	tolerant	of	the	airplane	noise.	Much	of	the	wetland	habitat	present	along	

the	MCO	Segment	has	been	affected	by	either	airport	development	activities	or	tree	harvesting	that	has	

occurred	near	 the	south	end	of	 the	GOAA	property.	Wetlands	 from	which	 trees	have	been	harvested	

provide	some	low	to	moderate	wildlife	habitat	while	the	wetland	remnants	and	stormwater	ponds	within	

the	airport	itself	provide	minimal	resources	for	wildlife	utilization.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-84 September 2014 

 

The	loss	 of	wetlands	associated	with	 the	MCO	Segment	and	VMF	has	been	partially	approved	by	 the	

USACE	under	a	prior	permit	issued	to	GOAA	(USACE	1996).	

Table 5.3.3-1 Alternative A - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres) 

FLUCCS Description

MCO 

Segment

E-W 

Corridor

N-S 

Corridor

WPB-M 

Corridor Total

510 Streams and Waterways 0.5 3.2 1.6 <0.1 7.5

525 Marshy Lake 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

530 Reservoirs 1.4 7.3 0 0 8.7

610-612 Wetland Hardwood Forest 0 0 0.3 <0.1 0.4

617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 24.0 10.1 0 0 34.1

618 Willow and Elderberry 0 1.2 0 0 1.2

621 Cypress 6.9 3.9 0 0 10.8

625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 0 2.4 0 0 2.4

630 Wetland Forested Mixed 5.6 18.7 0 0 24.3

640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1

641 Freshwater Marsh 4.5 7.0 0 0 12.5

643 Wet Prairie 0 4.8 0 0 4.8

646 Treeless Hydric Savannah 0 23.5 0 0 23.5

 Total Direct Effects (loss) 43.4 82.1 2.0 0.1 127.7

Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog. 

http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - 

GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013. 

East-West Corridor 

Alternative	A	would	directly	affect	approximately	82	acres	of	wetlands,	including	streams	and	waterways,	

reservoirs,	mixed	wetland	hardwoods,	willow	and	elderberry,	cypress,	hydric	pine	flatwoods,	wetland	

forested	 mixed,	 freshwater	 marsh,	 wet	 prairie,	 and	 treeless	 hydric	 savannah.	 Table	 5.3.3‐1	 provides	

acreages	 of	 direct	 effects	 to	 wetlands	 and	 aquatic	 habitats	 based	 upon	 the	 assumed	 100‐foot	 wide	

railroad	corridor.	

Direct	wetland	impacts	would	include	wetlands	within	the	St.	Johns	River	100‐year	floodplain	and	the	

floodplain	 of	 the	 Econlockhatchee	 River,	 an	 OFW.	 The	 FNAI	 and	 FWC	 prioritized	 wetland	 habitats	

throughout	 the	 state	 for	 conservation.	 Geographical	 Information	 System	 (GIS)	 data	 indicate	 several	

wetlands	within	the	E‐W	Corridor	that	the	FNAI	and	FWC	ranked	as	the	highest	priority	for	conservation.	

These	wetlands	include	 several	large,	 contiguous	 cypress	 strands	 east	 of	SR	 417	 and	 the	 contiguous	

system	 of	 hydric	 pine	 flatwoods	 and	 mixed	 forested	 wetlands	 associated	 with	 the	 St.	 Johns	 River	

floodplain	(FNAI	2011).	Wet	prairies	and	hydric	pine	flatwoods	are	often	considered	valuable	wetlands	

due	to	the	high	degree	of	wildlife	utilization	of	these	habitats.	Due	to	their	narrow	hydroperiods,	it	is	also	

somewhat	difficult	to	establish	the	required	hydrologic	regimes	for	these	wetlands	in	mitigation	sites.	

The	proposed	communications	 towers	would	be	sited	in	uplands,	and	would	not	increase	impacts	 to	

wetlands.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-85 September 2014 

 

North-South Corridor 

Direct	wetland	and	aquatic	habitat	losses	within	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	total	approximately	2.0	acres	

due	to	bridge	construction.	These	include	streams	and	waterways,	wetland	hardwood	forest,	mangrove	

swamps	and	treeless	hydric	savannah.	Table	5.3.3‐1	provides	acreages	of	direct	effects	to	wetlands	based	

upon	the	anticipated	construction	activities.	Wetland	wildlife	habitat	would	experience	minor	impacts	

due	to	bridge	reconstruction.		

Phase 1 - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor 

Bridge	construction	and	reconstruction	in	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	would	impact	surface	waters	as	a	result	

of	installing	new	concrete	pilings,	and	would	impact	mangrove	wetlands	within	the	footprint	of	the	new	

or	widened	bridge.	The	total	wetland	loss	would	be	approximately	0.1	acres,	as	shown	in	Table	5.3.3‐1.	

Phase	I	(West	Palm	Beach	–	Miami	Corridor)	as	evaluated	in	the	2012	EA	would	not	affect	surface	waters.		

Alternative C 

Alternative	C	would	result	in	the	loss	of	approximately	165	acres	of	aquatic	resources,	including	7	acres	

of	surface	waters/aquatic	habitat	and	159	acres	of	wetlands,	of	which	98	acres	are	forested	and	60	acres	

are	non‐forested.	Table	5.3.3‐2	provides	acreages	of	direct	effects	to	wetlands	and	surface	waters	for	the	

MCO	Segment,	E‐W	Corridor,	N‐S	Corridor,	and	WPB‐M	Corridor	under	Alternative	C.		

Table 5.3.3-2 Alternative C - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres) 

FLUCCS Description 

MCO 

Segment 

E-W 

Corridor 

N-S 

Corridor 

WPB-M 

Corridor Total 

510 Streams and Waterways 0.5 1.4 1.6 <0.1 3.6 

525 Marshy Lake 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 

530 Reservoirs 1.4 1.0 0 0 2.4 

610-612 Wetland Hardwood Forest 0 0 0.3 <0.1 0.4 

617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 24.0 15.1 0 0 39.1 

618 Willow and Elderberry 0 1.8 0 0 1.8 

621 Cypress 6.9 20.3 0 0 27.2 

625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 0 2.8 0 0 2.8 

630 Wetland Forested Mixed 5.6 21.3 0 0 26.9 

640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 

641 Freshwater Marsh 4.5 11.6 0 0 16.1 

643 Wet Prairie 0 11.0 0 0 11.0 

646 Treeless Hydric Savannah 0 33.1 0 0 33.1 

 Total Direct Effects 43.4 119.4 2.0 0.1 164.9 

Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog. 

http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - 

GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-86 September 2014 

 

Alternative	C	would	have	the	same	effects	as	Alternative	A	within	the	MCO	Segment	and	the	N‐S	Corridor.	

Within	the	E‐W	Corridor,	Alternative	C	would	result	in	the	loss	of	approximately	119	acres	of	streams	and	

waterways,	reservoirs,	mixed	wetland	hardwoods,	willow	and	elderberry,	cypress,	hydric	pine	flatwoods,	

wetland	forested	mixed,	freshwater	marsh,	wet	prairie,	and	treeless	hydric	savannah.		

Direct	effects	to	aquatic	resources	would	include	larger	portions	of	undisturbed	area	within	the	St.	Johns	

River	100‐year	floodplain	and	the	floodplain	of	the	Econlockhatchee	River.	Alternative	C	would	impact	a	

higher	acreage	of	wet	prairies,	hydric	pine	flatwoods,	and	areas	ranked	by	FNAI	and	FWC	as	the	highest	

priority	for	conservation,	than	would	Alternative	A.	

Alternative E 

Table	5.3.3‐3	provides	acreages	of	direct	effects	to	aquatic	resources	for	the	MCO	Segment,	E‐W	Corridor,	

N‐S	 Corridor,	 and	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 under	 Alternative	 E.	 Alternative	 E	 would	 result	 in	 the	 loss	 of	

approximately	157	acres	of	aquatic	resources,	including	6	acres	of	surface	waters/aquatic	habitat	and	

152	acres	of	wetlands,	of	which	100	acres	are	forested	and	53	acres	are	non‐forested.		

Alternative	E	would	have	the	same	effects	as	Alternative	A	within	the	MCO	Segment	and	the	N‐S	Corridor.	

Within	the	E‐W	Corridor,	Alternative	E	would	result	in	the	loss	of	approximately	112	acres	of	aquatic	

resources,	 including	 streams	 and	 waterways,	 reservoirs,	 mixed	 wetland	 hardwoods,	 willow	 and	

elderberry,	cypress,	hydric	pine	flatwoods,	wetland	forested	mixed,	freshwater	marsh,	wet	prairie,	and	

treeless	hydric	savannah.		

Wetlands	 impacted	 by	 Alternative	 E	 would	 include	 larger	 portions	 of	 undisturbed	 area	 within	 the	

St.	Johns	River	100‐year	floodplain	and	the	floodplain	of	the	Econlockhatchee	River	although	the	total	

acreage	of	aquatic	resource	effects	would	be	comparable	to	those	which	would	occur	with	Alternative	C.	

Alternative	 E	would	 result	in	 the	loss	 of	less	area	 of	wet	 prairies	and	greater	acreage	 of	 hydric	 pine	

flatwoods,	and	a	larger	acreage	of	wetlands	ranked	by	FNAI	and	FWC	as	highest	priority	for	conservation,	

than	would	Alternatives	A	or	C.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-87 September 2014 

 

Table 5.3.3-3 Alternative E - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres) 

FLUCCS Description

MCO 

Segment

E-W 

Corridor

N-S 

Corridor

WPB-M 

Corridor Total

510 Streams and Waterways 0.5 1.4 1.6 <0.1 3.6

525 Marshy Lake 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

530 Reservoirs 1.4 0.3 0 0 1.7

610-612 Wetland Hardwood Forest 0 0 0.3 <0.1 0.4

617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 24.0 13.4 0 0 37.4

618 Willow and Elderberry 0 1.5 0 0 1.5

621 Cypress 6.9 18.0 0 0 24.9

625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 0 6.7 0 0 6.7

630 Wetland Forested Mixed 5.6 22.6 0 0 28.2

640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1

641 Freshwater Marsh 4.5 9.4 0 0 13.9

643 Wet Prairie 0 7.7 0 0 7.7

646 Treeless Hydric Savannah 0 30.9 0 0 30.9

Total Direct Effects 43.4 111.9 2.0 0.1 157.5

Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog. 

http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - GIS 

Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013. 

Summary of Direct Impacts 

Table	5.3.3‐4	provides	a	comparison	of	acreages	of	direct	effects	to	aquatic	resources	for	all	alternatives.	

No	loss	of	aquatic	resources	would	occur	with	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	Alternative	A	would	result	in	

128	acres	of	direct	loss,	of	which	111	acres	would	be	forested	and	herbaceous	wetlands.	Alternative	C	

would	directly	affect	165	acres	(159	acres	of	wetlands),	and	Alternative	E	would	directly	affect	158	acres	

(152	acres	of	wetlands).	For	each	alternative,	the	greatest	loss	of	wetlands	would	be	to	the	mixed	wetland	

hardwoods	category,	followed	by	treeless	hydric	savannah	and	wetland	forested	mixed	wetlands.	Losses	

of	forested	wetlands	would	be	the	least	with	Alternative	A	(70	acres)	and	Alternative	C	and	Alternative	E	

would	result	in	an	equivalent	loss	of	approximately	100	acres	of	forested	wetland.	

Alternative	A	would	result	in	the	lowest	acreage	of	loss	of	aquatic	resources	while	Alternative	C	would	

result	in	the	highest	loss.	Direct	effects	would	consist	of	removing	all	wetland	area	through	filling	with	

ballast	for	the	railroad	bed,	constructing	bridges,	and	installing	culverts.	Placing	ballast	within	wetland	

areas	would	eliminate	most	wetland	functions	and	values.	New	culverts	and	bridges	would	have	minimal	

effects	on	water	storage,	flow	volume,	and	wildlife	habitat	but	would	result	in	less	adverse	impacts	than	

removing	aquatic	resources.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-88 September 2014 

 

Table 5.3.3-4 Total Direct Aquatic Resources Effects Resulting from Each Alternative (acres) 

FLUCCS Description No-Action A C E

510 Streams and Waterways 0 7.5 3.6 3.6

525 Marshy Lake 0 0.5 0.5 0.5

530 Reservoirs 0 8.7 2.4 1.7

610 Wetland Hardwood Forest 0 0.4 0.4 0.4

617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 0 34.1 39.1 37.4

618 Willow and Elderberry 0 1.2 1.8 1.5

621 Cypress 0 10.8 27.2 24.9

625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 0 2.4 2.8 6.7

630 Wetland Forested Mixed 0 24.3 26.9 28.2

640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetland 0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

641 Freshwater Marsh 0 12.5 16.1 13.9

643 Wet Prairie 0 4.8 11.0 7.7

646 Treeless Hydric Savannah 0 23.5 33.1 30.9

 Total Direct Effects 0 127.7 164.9 157.5

Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog. 

http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - 

GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013. 

Table 5.3.3-5 Total Direct Aquatic Resources Effects Resulting from Each Alternative (acres) 

Description No-Action A C E

Surface Waters/Aquatic Habitat 0 16.7 6.5 5.8

Vegetated Wetlands 

Forested Wetland 0 70.5 98.2 99.2

Non-forested Wetland 0 40.9 60.3 52.6

Total Vegetated Wetland 0 127.7 164.9 157.5

5.3.3.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

The	Section	404(b)(1)	Guidelines	state	that	“secondary	effects	are	effects	on	an	aquatic	ecosystem	that	are	

associated	with	a	discharge	of	dredged	or	fill	materials,	but	do	not	result	from	the	actual	placement	of	the	

dredged	or	 fill	material.”	 (40	CFR	part	230.11).	Although	not	specifically	addressing	impacts	 to	aquatic	

resources,	the	CEQ	regulations	define	indirect	effects	as	“effects,	which	are	caused	by	the	action	and	are	later	

in	time	or	farther	removed	in	distance,	but	are	still	reasonably	foreseeable.	Indirect	effects	many	include	...	

related	effects	on	air	and	water	and	other	natural	systems,	including	ecosystems	(40	CFR	part	1508.8).”	

Indirect	effects	are	therefore	the	consequences	of	the	direct	effects	of	a	proposed	action.	For	example,	while	

the	direct	effect	of	filling	a	wetland	would	be	the	loss	of	the	filled	wetland	area	and	the	functions	and	values	

provided	by	 that	 specific	area,	 the	indirect	effects	 of	 that	wetland	 fill	would	 result	 from	 the	associated	

changes	to	the	overall	size	of	the	wetland,	hydrology,	cover	type,	species	assemblage,	or	degree	of	habitat	

fragmentation.	These	types	of	effects	could	adversely	impact	the	ability	of	the	wetland	to	provide	functions	

and	values,	or	could	diminish	the	functions	and	values	to	a	degree	greater	than	would	be	attributed	simply	

due	to	the	loss	of	area.	Isolated	fragments	of	wetlands	or	waterways	may	have	reduced	habitat	value,	no	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-89 September 2014 

 

longer	provide	viable	fish	or	wildlife	habitat,	or	be	so	isolated	that	the	wetland	or	waterway	fragments	are	

rendered	inaccessible	to	many	fish	or	other	aquatic	species.	

Secondary	and/or	indirect	effects	are	changes	in	the	ability	of	a	wetland	to	provide	functions,	and	do	not	

affect	a	wetland	uniformly	(except	for	some	small	wetlands).	These	functional	effects	occur	as	gradients	

with	the	highest	intensity	occurring	closest	to	the	disturbance	and	decreasing	with	distance.	Each	resource	

affected	may	also	experience	the	effects	differently	(for	example,	the	effects	of	a	canopy	gap	do	not	affect	all	

wildlife	species	in	 the	same	way,	or	at	 the	same	distance).	While	some	researchers	have	considered	an	

indirect	effect	to	alter	the	entire	wetland,	others	have	documented	that	the	impacts	of	highways,	or	railways,	

are	not	uniformly	distributed	across	a	wetland	(Forman	and	Deblinger	2000;	Eigenbrod,	Hecnor,	and	Fahrig	

2009).	For	example,	impacts	on	the	ability	of	a	wetland	to	support	production	export	are	different	in	type	

and	location	than	impacts	on	the	ability	of	a	wetland	to	provide	sediment/toxicant	retention	or	nutrient	

transformation.	

There	are	numerous	published	studies	that	document	that	road	construction	may	adversely	impact	the	

hydrology	of	wetlands	upstream	and	downstream	of	a	new	road,	and	may	adversely	impact	the	movement	

of	 nutrients,	 sediment,	 or	 wildlife	 between	 wetlands	 (Biglin	 and	 Dupigny‐Giroux	 2006;	 Fahrig	 and	

Rytwinski	2009;	Forman	and	Deblinger	2000;	Van	der	Ree	et	al.	2011).	For	newly	constructed	roads,	these	

effects	have	been	documented	to	extend	200	to	300	meters	from	the	road.	Other	studies	have	focused	on	

the	impacts	of	roads,	particularly	highways,	on	wetland‐dependent	wildlife	and	have	shown	that	roads	have	

adverse	impacts	on	aquatic	wildlife	populations	as	a	result	of	loss	of	habitat,	either	directly	or	indirectly,	or	

as	 a	 result	 of	 noise,	 particularly	 for	multi‐lane	major	 highways	 (Eigenbrod,	Hecnor,	 and	 Fahrig	 2009).	

Forman	and	Deblinger	(2000)	coined	the	phrase	“Road‐Effect	Zone”	 for	the	combined	area	of	highway‐

related	secondary	and/or	indirect	effects	 to	natural	ecosystems,	and	considered	 (based	on	research	by	

others)	that	300	meters	was	the	maximum	distance	that	ecological	effects	would	occur	from	a	highway.	

Subsequent	studies	have	shown	that	highway	effects	are	highly	species‐specific	and	are	correlated	with	the	

width	of	the	highway,	the	volume	of	traffic,	and	the	night/day	traffic	distribution	(Eigenbrod,	Hecnor,	and	

Fahrig	2009).	

Eigenbrod	et	al.	(2009)	have	shown	that	the	ability	of	a	wetland	to	provide	wildlife	habitat	 functions	is	

multivariate,	and	includes	 size,	edge:	interior	ratio,	cover	 type,	connectivity,	microhabitat	diversity,	soil	

moisture,	and	other	factors.	Their	work	has	shown	that	the	most	important	variable	is	wetland	size,	and	

that	changes	in	wetland	size	in	small	wetlands	has	a	much	greater	impact	on	wildlife	species	richness	than	

changes	in	size	in	larger	wetlands.	

Loss	of	part	of	a	wetland	would	create	a	new	ecotone	at	the	wetland/fill	boundary	causing	an	“edge	effect.”	

An	ecotone	is	a	zone	which	lies	at	the	boundary	between	two	biomes,	or	habitats	and	typically	contain	

species	 characteristic	 of	 both	 habitats.	 Community	 composition	 varies	 due	 to	interspecific	 competition	

which	opens	these	areas	to	generalist	species	tolerant	of	fluctuating	conditions	and	typically	consisting	of	

weedy	and	invasive	exotic	species.	The	introduction	of	a	new	edge	also	reduces	biodiversity,	which	is	a	

function	of	the	length	of	the	edge	of	the	habitat	versus	the	area	of	the	habitat,	within	a	habitat.	A	change	in	

the	light	regime	may	cause	a	shift	in	the	understory	community	from	species	requiring	shade	to	species	

more	tolerant	of	direct	sunlight.	

Placing	fill	within	a	wetland	would	result	in	alterations	in	hydrology.	Because	fill	reduces	the	volume	of	

available	storage,	water	levels	within	adjacent	wetland	areas	that	were	not	directly	affected	would	increase.	

The	water	level	increase	is	a	function	of	the	volume	of	fill	placed	in	the	wetland	and	the	size	of	the	remaining	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-90 September 2014 

 

wetland.	 Increased	 water	 levels	 may	 impact	 wetlands	 by:	 shifting	 the	 composition	 of	 the	 vegetation	

community	to	species	tolerant	of	deeper	water,	causing	hydrologic	stress	to	trees	which	are	less	tolerant	of	

fluctuations	in	water	level,	and	providing	the	opportunity	for	invasive	exotic	wetland	vegetation	to	recruit	

into	areas	where	the	vegetation	is	reduced	by	hydrologic	stress.	The	introduction	of	fill	into	a	wetland	would	

also	cause	an	alteration	in	the	flow	regime/drainage	patterns	of	adjacent	wetlands	although	ballast	utilized	

for	 railroad	 corridors	 allows	 some	 reduced	 hydrologic	 connectivity	 between	 wetlands.	 The	 upstream	

impoundment	of	water	caused	by	reduced	flow	rates	through	the	ballast	may	further	increase	water	levels	

within	remaining	wetland	fragments.	

Minimal	alteration	of	the	existing	hydrologic	regime	would	occur	due	to	the	proposed	construction	activities	

for	several	reasons.	The	railroad	corridor	was	constructed	over	100	years	ago	and	the	hydrology	within	

adjacent	areas	has	adjusted	to	the	presence	of	hydrologic	barrier	formed	by	the	railroad.	Proposed	wetland	

impacts	are	small	in	number	and	size	in	all	areas	of	the	corridor,	and	effects	would	occur	in	separate	wetland	

systems	in	different	watersheds	thus	minimizing	the	collective	impact	of	the	Project.	The	proposed	bridge	

construction	would	not	require	dredging	of	the	associated	stream	and	canal	channels	and	would	not	alter	

the	existing	flow	regimes	at	any	of	the	bridge	locations.	

No-Action Alternative 

In	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	As	a	result	no	new	indirect	

wetland	 impacts	 would	 occur.	 Continued	 maintenance	 of	 wetland	 vegetation	 within	 the	 SR	 528	 and	

FECR	Corridor	would	alter	wetland	vegetation	and	wildlife	habitat	characteristics,	and	stormwater	runoff	

from	SR	528	could	continue	to	impact	wetland	functions.	

Alternative A 

Alternative	A	would	result	in	minor	secondary	and	indirect	effects	to	wetlands	along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	

although	these	impacts	would	be	minimal	due	to	the	proximity	to	SR	528.	

MCO Segment 

Constructing	the	railroad	and	VMF	in	the	MCO	Segment	would	result	in	minor	impacts	to	wildlife.	Although	

the	new	rail	corridor	within	 the	MCO	Segment,	and	 the	new	VMF,	would	introduce	barriers	 to	wildlife	

movement,	fragment	habitat,	and	increase	human	activity	on	the	site,	these	activities	would	be	in	areas	that	

have	already	been	developed	and	are	in	close	proximity	to	roads,	the	Orlando	wastewater	treatment	plant,	

airport	facilities,	and	parking	lots.		

East-West Corridor 

The	E‐W	Corridor	is	characterized	by	a	mixture	of	disturbed	and	undisturbed	wetland	habitats.	Many	of	the	

previously	disturbed	wetland	areas	are	wetland	fragments	along	SR	528	that	have	previously	experienced	

indirect	effects	from	the	roadway.	Alternative	A	would	remove	wetland	area	and	stormwater	management	

ponds	and	increase	the	width	of	the	wildlife	barrier	created	by	SR	528.	Indirect	effects	to	remaining	wetland	

areas	 include	 alterations	 in	 wetland	 hydrology,	 reduction	 in	 habitat	 size,	 creation	 of	 a	 new	 “edge,”	

introduction	 of	 additional	 human	 activity	 and	 noise,	 and	 alteration	 of	 the	light	 regime	 associated	with	

removal	of	canopy.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-91 September 2014 

 

Indirect	effects	to	wetland	functions	of	groundwater	recharge,	floodflow	alteration,	sediment	and	pollutant	

retention,	 and	 nutrient	 removal	 would	 also	 occur	 due	 to	 reduction	 of	 wetland	 size	 and	 water	 storage	

capacity.	The	value	of	wetlands	as	wildlife	habitat	varies	widely	within	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way.	The	Project	

would	reduce	the	amount	of	 forested	wetland	habitat,	particularly	of	several	cypress	wetlands	with	the	

appropriate	characteristics	to	support	wood	stork	and	other	wading	bird	rookeries.		

North-South Corridor 

The	N‐S	Corridor	would	have	negligible	impacts	on	wetland	functions.	The	existing	developed	(ballasted)	

railroad	bed	and	tracks	has	a	maintained	canopy	gap	and	forms	a	partial	barrier	to	wildlife	movement.	No	

indirect	wetland	effects	are	anticipated	in	areas	in	which	the	ballast	footprint	and	right‐of‐way	width	would	

remain	the	same.	

The	existing	railroad	corridor	and	adjacent	development	activities	previously	affected	many	of	the	wetlands	

that	would	be	impacted	by	the	Project,	although	several	wetlands	provide	moderate	quality	wildlife	habitat.	

Direct	effects	to	forested	wetlands	would	total	2.58	acres	and	this	canopy	removal	would	alter	the	light	

regimes	 within	 the	 forest	 interior.	 Bridge	 construction	 activities	 would	 require	 trimming	 mangroves	

adjacent	to	bridges,	which	would	reduce	the	quality	of	the	existing	habitat	as	well	as	altering	the	light	regime	

within	these	wetland	areas.		

Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor 

Track,	signal,	and	related	infrastructure	improvements	for	Phase	I	of	the	Project,	according	to	Section	3.1.5	

of	 the	2012	EA,	would	not	have	a	significant	impact	on	aquatic	resources.	The	wetlands	adjacent	 to	or	

abutting	the	FECR	Corridor	are	limited	to	sporadic	fringe	mangrove	wetlands,	associated	in	most	cases,	with	

larger	wetland	systems	(waterways).	The	fringe	mangrove	wetlands	are	along	the	perimeter	edge	of	the	

right‐of‐way	and	no	work	is	proposed	in	the	immediate	vicinity	of	these	wetlands.	Any	intrusion	into	these	

edge	 wetlands	 will	 be	 avoided	 or	 minimized	 through	 project	 design,	 such	 as	 using	 cross‐sections	 of	

minimum	practicable	width	to	fully	avoid	intrusion.		

	Mainline	modifications	to	accommodate	the	increase	in	train	speeds	or	additional	capacity	(proposed	areas	

of	double	tracking)	will	occur	within	the	FECR	Corridor,	predominately	on	already	established	trackbed.	

There	are	no	planned	modifications	 to	wetlands	as	a	result	of	 the	bridge	rehabilitation	as	described	in	

Section	3.1.5	of	the	2012	EA.	BMPs	would	be	employed	during	construction	to	avoid	temporary	impacts	to	

the	wetland	systems.	Bridge	construction	activities	would	require	trimming	mangroves	adjacent	to	bridges,	

which	would	reduce	 the	quality	of	 the	existing	habitat	as	well	as	altering	 the	light	regime	within	 these	

wetland	areas.	No	wetland	alteration	is	required	for	the	three	stations	or	the	WPB	Rail	Yard.	

Phase	II	construction	of	new	or	replacement	bridges	at	seven	waterways	(West	Palm	Beach	Canal,	Boynton	

Canal,	Hillsboro	Canal,	North	Fork	Middle	River,	South	Fork	Middle	River,	Oleta	River,	Arch	Creek)	would	

result	 in	 the	 cumulative	 loss	 of	 approximately	 0.1	 acre	 of	 aquatic	 resources	 on	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	

(Table	5.3.3‐1)	from	new	pilings	and	abutments,	and	would	require	removing	some	vegetation	beneath	the	

new	structures.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-92 September 2014 

 

Alternative C 

Indirect	wetland	effects	of	Alternative	C	would	be	the	same	as	for	Alternative	A	within	the	MCO	Segment,	

the	N‐S	Corridor,	and	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	Within	the	E‐W	Corridor,	Alternative	C	would	increase	the	width	

of	the	wildlife	barrier	formed	by	SR	528.	Indirect	effects	to	remaining	wetland	areas	would	alter	wetland	

hydrology,	reduce	habitat	size,	create	new	“edge”	conditions,	introduce	additional	human	activity	and	noise,	

and	alter	the	light	regime	associated	with	removal	of	canopy.	

Indirect	 effects	 to	 wetland	 systems	 from	 Alternative	 C	 would	 be	 similar	 to	 indirect	 effects	 under	

Alternative	A	although	the	intensity	of	the	effects	would	be	greater.	Alternative	C	would	also	bisect	a	number	

of	wetlands,	creating	small	wetland	fragments	between	the	rail	and	highway.	Hydrologic	effects	to	wetland	

fragments	 remaining	 between	 SR	 528	 and	 the	 railroad	 corridor	 would	 occur	 because	 hydrologic	

connectivity	 to	 both	 the	 north	 and	 the	 south	 would	 be	 reduced	 whereas	 Alternative	 A	 would	 reduce	

connectivity	to	the	north	only.	Alternative	C	would	further	reduce	the	size	of	cypress	wetlands	with	the	

potential	to	be	used	as	wood	stork	or	wading	bird	rookeries.		

Alternative E 

Indirect	wetland	effects	of	Alternative	E	would	be	the	same	as	for	Alternative	A	within	the	MCO	Segment,	

the	N‐S	Corridor,	and	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	Alternative	E	would	fill	wetlands	within	the	E‐W	Corridor	and	

create	a	new	barrier	to	wildlife	movement	within	wetlands	and	along	riparian	corridors.	Indirect	effects	to	

remaining	wetland	areas	would	include	altering	wetland	hydrology,	reducing	habitat	size,	creating	a	new	

“edge”	condition,	introducing	additional	human	activity	and	noise,	and	altering	the	light	regime	associated	

with	removal	of	canopy.	

Indirect	effects	to	wetland	systems	from	Alternative	E	would	be	similar	to	indirect	effects	from	Alternative	A	

and	Alternative	C,	although	the	intensity	of	the	effects	would	be	greater.	Alternative	E	would	also	bisect	a	

number	of	wetlands,	fragmenting	wetlands	and	wildlife	habitat.	Hydrologic	effects	to	wetland	fragments	

remaining	between	SR	528	and	the	railroad	from	reduced	hydrologic	connectivity	would	be	somewhat	less	

than	Alternative	C	due	to	the	additional	wetland	area	and	increased	water	storage	capacity.	Alternative	E	

would	further	reduce	the	size	of	cypress	wetlands	with	the	potential	for	utilization	as	wood	stork	or	wading	

bird	rookeries.		

5.3.3.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Temporary	 impacts	 are	 those	 that	 occur	 in	 association	 with	 construction	 related	 activities	 and	 cease	

following	 construction.	 Constructing	 the	 railroad	 track	 and	 associated	 structures	 requires	 excavating	

unsuitable	 material	 (muck),	 placing	 fill	 or	 retaining	 walls,	 and	 use	 of	 materials	 such	 as	 limerock	 and	

concrete.	Demucking	is	anticipated	at	most	of	the	wetland	sites	and	would	be	controlled	by	Section	120	of	

the	 FDOT’s	 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.	 Unsuitable	 materials	 would	 be	

disposed	of	on‐	or	off‐site.	Debris	would	be	removed	in	accordance	with	local	and	state	regulatory	agencies	

permitting	 this	 operation.	 Temporary	 erosion	 control	 features,	 as	 specified	 in	 the	 FDOT’s	 Standard

Specificationsfor Road and Bridge Construction,	Section	104,	would	consist	of	temporary	grassing,	sodding,	

mulching,	sandbagging,	slope	drains,	sediment	basins,	sediment	checks,	silt	fences,	and	berms.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-93 September 2014 

 

5.3.4 Floodplains 

The	Project	would	result	in	impacts	to	floodplains	but	would	not	result	in	a	significant	adverse	impact	on	

the	beneficial	values	of	floodplains,	and	would	not	adversely	impact	any	federal	flood	control	project.	All	

three	 of	 the	 action	 alternatives	 under	 consideration	 would	 require	 construction	 within	 the	 mapped	

100‐year	 floodplain,	 with	 effects	 ranging	 from	 approximately	 138	 to195	 acres.	 These	 impacts	 are	 not	

avoidable	due	to	the	extent	of	floodplains	throughout	the	Project	Study	Area.	The	E‐W	Corridor	parallels	

SR	528	to	maximize	the	use	of	existing	transportation	corridors,	and	crosses	several	floodplains,	primarily	

those	associated	with	the	Econolockhatchee	River	and	the	St.	Johns	River.	The	N‐S	Corridor	would	use	the	

existing	FECR	Corridor	to	maximize	the	use	of	existing	infrastructure.	The	FECR	Corridor	crosses	numerous	

floodplains,	 primarily	 associated	 with	 coastal	 waters	 and	 estuaries.	 The	 construction	 design	 would	

minimize	 potential	 harm	 to	 the	 floodplain	 by	 retaining	existing	 elevations	where	 feasible,	 constructing	

stormwater	mitigation	measures	and	retention	ponds	and	minimizing	fill	in	sensitive	areas.	

This	section	summarizes	 the	impacts	of	 the	Project	on	 floodplains.	EO	11988	(Floodplain Management)	

requires	 agencies	 to	 assess	 the	 impacts	 that	 their	 actions	 may	 have	 on	 floodplains	 and	 to	 consider	

alternatives	to	avoid	adverse	impacts	and	incompatible	development	on	floodplains.	U.S.	Department	of	

Transportation	 (USDOT)	 Order	 5650.2,	 Floodplain Management and Protection,	 contains	 the	 USDOT's	

implementing	procedures	to	fulfill	the	requirements	of	the	EO.	

5.3.4.1 Methodology 

For	this	analysis,	the	areas	subject	to	flooding	and	protected	under	EO	11988	were	obtained	using	the	base	

flood	elevation	published	 on	 FEMA’s	 Flood	 Insurance	Rate	Maps	 (FIRMs)	 through	GIS	analysis.	Special	

Flood	Hazard	Areas	depicted	on	the	FIRMs	include	Flood	Zones	A	or	V,	also	referred	to	as	the	100‐year	

floodplain.	The	proposed	right‐of‐way	width	was	used	to	calculate	floodplain	effects	along	the	E‐W	Corridor.	

The	Project	construction	footprint	was	used	to	calculate	effects	for	the	MCO	Segment	and	the	N‐S	Corridor.	

Floodplain	impacts	for	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	provided	in	Section	3.1.4	of	the	2012	EA,	are	included	here	for	

a	comprehensive	evaluation	of	the	cumulative	impacts	of	the	entire	Project.	

5.3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

This	section	describes	the	direct	floodplain	effects	anticipated	as	part	of	the	Project.	Appendix	5.3.4‐A	shows	

the	 areas	 within	 floodplains	 along	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 that	 fall	 within	 the	 proposed	 alignment.	 As	

described	 below,	 the	 Project	 would	 impact	 138	 acres	 (Alternative	 A)	 to	 195	 acres	 of	 floodplains	

(Alternatives	C	and	E)	from	Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach.	Reconstructing	the	existing	railroad	infrastructure	

from	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	would	require	construction	within	an	additional	145	acres	of	floodplains,	

but	with	no	loss	of	flood	storage.	This	section	also	considers	the	effects	to	federal	flood	projects.	Section	14	

of	 the	 Rivers	 and	 Harbors	 Act	 states	 any	 proposed	 modification	to	 an	 existing	 USACE	 project	 (either	

federally	or	locally	maintained)	 that	go	beyond	 those	modifications	required	 for	normal	Operation	and	

Maintenance	require	approval	under	33	USC	408.	33	USC	408	also	states	that	there	shall	be	no	temporary	

or	permanent	alteration,	occupation	or	use	of	any	public	works	including	but	not	limited	to	levees,	sea	walls,	

bulkheads,	jetties	and	dikes	for	any	purpose	without	the	permission	of	the	Secretary	of	the	Army.	Under	the	

terms	of	33	USC	408,	any	proposed	modification	requires	a	determination	by	the	Secretary	of	the	Army	that	

such	proposed	alteration	or	permanent	occupation	or	use	of	a	Federal	project	is	not	injurious	to	the	public	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-94 September 2014 

 

interest	and	will	not	impair	the	usefulness	of	such	work.	The	authority	to	make	this	determination	and	to	

approve	modifications	to	Federal	works	under	33	USC	408	has	been	delegated	to	the	Chief	of	Engineers.		

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	The	Project	Study	Area	

as	it	exists	today	would	remain	the	same	with	no	development	or	construction	changes	relevant	to	the	

Project.	

Alternative A 

Alternative	A	would	impact	a	 total	of	138.3	acres	within	 the	mapped	100‐year	 floodplain,	as	shown	in	

Table	5.3.4‐1.		

Table 5.3.4-1 Floodplains (acres) 

County Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E

MCO Segment 

Orange County 11 11 11

E-W Corridor 

Orange County 28.8 65.9 75.2

Brevard County 29.9 49.8 39.8

N-S Corridor 

Brevard County 31.6 31.6 31.6

Indian River County 5.3 5.3 5.3

St Lucie County 5.2 5.2 5.2

Martin County 13.8 13.8 13.8

Palm Beach County 12.7 12.7 12.7

Subtotal 138.3 195.3 194.6

WPB-M Corridor 

Palm Beach County 1.3 1.3 1.3

Broward County 121.7 121.7 121.7

Miami-Dade County 22.2 22.2 22.2

Subtotal 145.2 145.2 145.2

Totals 284.0 340.5 339.8

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment	and	VMF	 footprint	would	affect	11.0	acres	of	100‐year	floodplain.	According	to	AAF,	

GOAA	has	stated	that	a	large	portion	of	the	VMF	footprint	within	the	floodplain	was	previously	permitted.	

Other	encroached	floodplain	areas,	primarily	those	associated	with	the	rail	corridor	of	the	MCO	Segment,	

would	be	permitted	 through	the	SFWMD.	AAF	would	optimize	the	use	of	the	existing	MCO	stormwater	

management	system,	and	incorporate	BMPs	to	minimize	and	compensate	for	floodplain	encroachment.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-95 September 2014 

 

East-West Corridor 

Alignment	Alternative	A	would	affect	58.7	acres	of	100‐year	floodplains.	This	alternative	would	impact	the	

least	amount	of	floodplain	area,	as	it	is	primarily	within	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way	boundaries.	Displaced	flood	

storage	would	have	minor	impacts	due	to	the	length	of	the	corridor,	the	small	amount	of	fill	in	any	single	

location,	and	the	large	lateral	extent	of	the	floodplains.	No	Federal	projects	are	located	within	the	East‐West	

Corridor.		

North-South Corridor 

The	impacted	area	of	100‐year	 floodplain	within	 the	N‐S	Corridor	would	 total	68.6	acres,	ranging	 from	

5.2	acres	in	St.	Lucie	County	to	31.6	acres	in	Brevard	County.	Floodplain	management	for	the	N‐S	Corridor	

is	not	a	concern,	as	the	Project	would	be	limited	to	the	existing	FECR	Corridor,	minimizing	the	any	new	land	

fill	 required.	 Flood‐prone	 areas	 occurring	 within	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 were	 filled	 during	 the	 historic	

construction	of	 the	rail	line	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach.	AAF	proposes	 to	improve	or	replace	

existing	crossings	of	eight	CS&F	projects	located	in	Table	4.3.4‐3.	The	USACE	has	turned	over	all	of	the	CS&F	

identified	in	Table	4.3.4‐3	to	the	SFWMD	for	operation	and	maintenance.	Each	modified	CS&F	project	will	

be	independently	evaluated	by	the	USACE	and	documented	in	the	USACE	Record	of	Decision.		

Filling	would	be	essentially	limited	to	third	track	and	curve	reduction	areas.	Reductions	in	flood	storage	

volume	resulting	from	any	nominal	amount	of	placement	of	fill	would	be	insignificant.	The	N‐S	Corridor	is	

not	anticipated	 to	promote	 future	incompatible	 floodplain	development	 or	increase	potential	 for	 flood‐

related	property	damage	or	human	life.	Work	within	the	100‐year	floodplain	has	been	minimized	to	comply	

with	EO	11988	and	the	Project	would	conform	to	applicable	state	and	local	floodplain	standards	(the	Project	

would	be	required	to	meet	local	floodplain	standards).	Therefore,	moderate	impacts	to	floodplains	would	

be	anticipated.	

The	N‐S	Corridor	crosses	several	federal	flood	control	watersheds	and	waterways,	including	the	Earman	

River	and	Taylor	Creek.	No	construction	is	proposed	at	Taylor	Creek.	Adding	a	new	single‐track	bridge	

parallel	to	the	existing	Earman	River	bridge,	with	the	same	hydraulic	opening,	would	not	affect	flooding.	

Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor 

Section	3.1.4	of	the	2012	EA	stated	that	the	reconstruction	of	railroad	infrastructure	along	this	portion	of	

the	Project	would	require	work	in	145.2	acres	of	the	mapped	100‐year	floodplain	in	Palm	Beach	(1.3	acres),	

Broward	(121.7	acres),	and	Miami‐Dade	(22.2	acres)	Counties,	but	that	no	work	would	be	performed	below	

the	100‐year	floodplain	elevation	and	that	there	would	be	no	permanent	impact	to	the	100‐year	floodplain.		

The	Phase	I	WPB‐M	Corridor	crosses	six	federal	flood	control	watersheds	and	waterways,	including	the	

C1	 Canal,	 the	 Boynton	 Beach	 Canal,	 and	 three	 un‐named	 waterways.	 The	 Miami	 Canal	is	 south	 of	 the	

terminus	of	the	Project.	New	single‐track	parallel	bridges	are	proposed	at	the	C1	Canal	and	Boynton	Beach	

Canal.	These	would	be	built	with	the	same	hydraulic	opening	as	the	existing	bridges	and	would	not	affect	

flooding.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-96 September 2014 

 

Alternative C 

Alternative	C	would	impact	a	total	of	195.3	acres	within	the	100‐year	floodplain.	Floodplain	impacts	for	

Alternative	 C	 would	 be	 identical	 to	 Alternative	 A	 for	 the	 MCO	 Segment,	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor,	 and	 the	

WPB‐M	Corridor.	Within	the	E‐W	Corridor,	alignment	Alternative	C	would	impact	115.7	acres	of	100‐year	

floodplain	 (Table	 5.3.4‐1).	Displaced	 flood	 storage	 would	 have	minor	impacts	 due	 to	 the	length	 of	 the	

corridor,	the	small	amount	of	fill	in	any	single	location,	and	the	large	lateral	extent	of	the	floodplains.	

Alternative E 

Alternative	E	would	impact	a	total	of	194.6	acres	within	the	100‐year	floodplain.	Floodplain	impacts	for	

Alternative	 E	 would	 be	 identical	 to	 Alternative	 A	 for	 the	 MCO	 Segment,	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor,	 and	 the	

WPB‐M	Corridor.	Within	the	E‐W	Corridor,	alignment	Alternative	E	would	impact	115.0	acres	of	100‐year	

floodplain	 (Table	 5.3.4‐4).	Displaced	 flood	 storage	 would	 have	minor	impacts	 due	 to	 the	length	 of	 the	

corridor,	the	small	amount	of	fill	in	any	single	location,	and	the	large	lateral	extent	of	the	floodplains.	

5.3.4.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

Secondary	effects,	such	as	groundwater	contamination	of	post‐development	 flood‐prone	areas	 from	the	

operation	of	the	railway,	are	expected	to	be	minor	as	BMPs	would	be	put	in	place	to	prevent	degradation	of	

water	quality	in	downstream	waters	and	flood‐prone	areas.	

5.3.4.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Temporary	impacts	to	floodplains	would	occur	where	areas	of	floodplains	would	be	used	for	construction	

staging,	construction	access,	or	other	temporary	occupancy	of	floodplains.	The	Project	is	not	anticipated	to	

have	 a	 temporary	 adverse	 impact	 on	 floodplains	 as	 there	 are	 no	 construction	 staging	 or	 access	 areas	

proposed	within	areas	of	mapped	floodplains.		

5.3.5 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems 

This	 section	 describes	 effects	 of	 the	 Project	 on	 natural	 upland	 habitats;	 wildlife	 and	 wildlife	 habitats;	

preserves,	 wildlife	 sanctuaries,	 and	 wildlife	 corridors;	 essential	 fish	 habitat	 (EFH);	 and	 migratory	 bird	

habitats	in	accordance	with	the	CEQ	guidance	Incorporating Biodiversity ConsiderationsInto Environmental

Impact Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act	(CEQ	1993).	The	Project	would	have	minor	

impacts	on	biological	resources	and	natural	ecological	systems	as	a	result	of	the	loss	of	natural	vegetation	

along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	south	of	SR	528.	The	Project	would	not	contribute	to	habitat	fragmentation	or	loss	

of	important	natural	systems,	and	would	not	have	a	substantial	adverse	impact	on	EFH	or	migratory	bird	

habitat.	The	Project	would	not	impact	any	wildlife	preserves,	sanctuaries,	or	corridors.	

5.3.5.1 Methodology 

The	analysis	of	direct	effects	to	natural	upland	habitat	was	based	on	the	calculation	of	upland	habitat	area	

within	a	100‐foot	wide	corridor,	50	feet	on	each	side	of	the	railroad	center	line,	which	approximates	the	

footprint	 of	 the	 constructed	 railroad	 corridor	 including	 the	 tracks,	 access	 road,	 and	 stormwater	

management	system.	Upland	habitat	was	identified	from	land	use	data	categorized	according	to	the	FLUCCS	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-97 September 2014 

 

(SFWMD	 n.d.;	 SJRWMD	 2013a;	 FDOT	 1999).	 This	 analysis	 also	 included	 uplands	 identified	 within	 the	

footprint	of	the	VMF.	Upland	habitats	identified	within	the	100‐foot	corridor	and	footprint	of	the	VMF	would	

be	removed	when	constructing	the	Project.	

The	assessment	of	indirect	effects	to	upland	resources	and	habitats	involved	identifying	potential	impacts	

of	 construction	 of	 the	 railroad	 corridor	 and	 operation	 of	 the	 passenger	 service.	 Potential	 impacts	 are	

described	qualitatively	in	terms	of	the	potential	source	and	magnitude	of	impact	on	the	wildlife	population	

and	biodiversity	of	the	upland	habitats	adjacent	to	the	proposed	railroad	corridor.	

5.3.5.2 Natural Upland Habitats 

This	section	addresses	the	environmental	impacts	of	each	alternative	of	the	Project	with	respect	to	upland	

ecological	 systems	and	plant	communities.	Alternative	A	would	cause	93	acres	 of	direct	loss	 of	upland	

vegetation.	Alternative	C	would	directly	affect	approximately	122	acres	of	uplands,	and	Alternative	E	would	

directly	affect	approximately	109	acres	of	uplands.	For	each	alternative,	the	greatest	loss	of	upland	habitat	

would	be	to	forested	plant	communities,	primarily	pine	flatwoods	and	hardwood‐coniferous	mixed	forest.	

No-Action Alternative 

In	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	As	a	result	no	impacts	to	

biological	resources	would	occur	except	for	the	loss	of	cleared	and	graded	land	for	construction	of	the	MCO	

Intermodal	Station.	

Alternative A 

As	shown	in	Table	5.3.5‐1,	Alternative	A	would	result	in	a	loss	of	93	acres	of	natural	upland	habitats,	of	which	

the	largest	is	pine	flatwoods	(49	acres);	there	would	be	no	loss	of	natural	upland	habitats	in	the	N‐S	Corridor	

or	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	

Table 5.3.5-1 Alternative A – Effects to Upland Communities (acres) 

FLUCCS Description MCO Segment E-W Corridor Total

190 Open Land 0.5 0 0.5

310 Dry Prairie 0 3.9 3.9

320 Shrub and Brushland 0 4.5 4.5

330 Mixed Rangeland 6.1 3.0 9.1

411 Pine Flatwoods 28.0 20.7 48.7

420 Upland Hardwood Forest 2.9 0.1 3

434 Hardwood-Coniferous Mixed 21.0 2.3 23.3

Total Direct Effects 58.5 34.5 93.0

Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog. 

http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - 

GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-98 September 2014 

 

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment	would	result	in	the	loss	of	58.5	acres	of	upland	habitats,	including	open	land,	mixed	

rangeland,	 pine	 flatwoods,	 upland	 hardwood	 forest,	 and	 hardwood‐coniferous	 forest.	 Table	 5.3.5‐1	

provides	acreages	of	direct	effects	to	upland	habitats	based	upon	the	assumed	100‐foot	wide	railroad	

corridor	and	the	footprint	of	the	VMF.	

FNAI	 and	 FWC	 identified	 natural	 habitats	 that	 they	 consider	 “underrepresented”	 and	 of	 greater	

conservation	concern	in	Florida	(FNAI	2011).	These	underrepresented	habitats	include	pine	flatwoods,	

which	are	present	within	the	MCO	Segment	at	the	south	end	of	the	Project	Study	Area.	

The	natural	ecological	systems	within	the	footprint	of	the	VMF	have	sustained	limited	disturbance	and	

provide	moderate	to	high	quality	wildlife	habitat	for	those	species.	Much	of	the	upland	habitat	present	

along	the	proposed	railroad	corridor	has	been	impacted	by	either	airport	development	activities	or	pine	

trees	harvesting	that	occurred	near	the	south	end	of	the	line.	Upland	ecosystems	from	which	trees	have	

been	harvested	provide	some	low	to	moderate	wildlife	habitat	while	remnant	upland	systems	within	the	

airport	itself	provide	minimal	resources	for	wildlife	utilization.	

East-West Corridor 

The	E‐W	Corridor	would	result	in	the	loss	of	34.5	acres	of	natural	upland	communities	that	include:	dry	

prairie,	 shrub	 and	 brushland,	 mixed	 rangeland,	 pine	 flatwoods,	 upland	 hardwood	 forest,	 and	

hardwood‐coniferous	mixed.	Table	5.3.5‐1	provides	acreages	of	direct	effects	to	uplands	based	upon	the	

assumed	100‐foot	wide	railroad	corridor.	

Habitats	identified	by	FNAI	and	FWC	as	being	of	greater	conservation	concern	include	pine	flatwoods	and	

scrub,	or	scrubby	flatwoods.	Pine	flatwoods	occurs	throughout	the	length	of	the	corridor,	and	scrubby	

flatwoods	occur	between	MCO	and	the	Econlockhatchee	River.	

Wildlife	habitat	within	the	maintained	areas	of	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way	is	limited	although	some	species	

will	 forage	 within	 areas	 that	 are	 regularly	 mowed	 due	 to	 the	 ease	 of	 spotting	 prey	 and	 the	 high	

productivity	of	maintained	grasses.		

North-South Corridor 

All	construction	activities	proposed	for	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	occur	within	previously	disturbed	areas	

in	the	FECR	Corridor	and	would	not	impact	natural	communities.	Limited	wildlife	habitat	exists	within	

the	N‐S	Corridor	although	field	surveys	indicate	some	utilization	of	disturbed	habitats.	

Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor 

As	described	in	Section	3.2.1	of	the	2012	EA,	there	are	no	sensitive	ecological	areas	in	the	vicinity	of	the	

proposed	stations	in	the	WPB‐M	Corridor;	therefore,	the	proposed	stations	will	not	impact	terrestrial	

ecological	 systems.	 Terrestrial	 ecological	 systems	 will	 not	 be	 impacted	 because	 this	 alternative	 only	

involves	the	removal	of	open	maintained	areas	within	the	FECR	Corridor	or	adjacent	disturbed	urban	

areas.	There	is	a	10‐	to	20‐foot	roadway	buffer	maintained	between	the	inside	of	the	property	fence	and	

the	 natural	 area,	 where	 the	 public	 lands	 run	 parallel	 to	 the	 FECR	 right‐of‐way.	 None	 of	 the	 project	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-99 September 2014 

 

elements	considered	in	the	2012	EA	would	result	in	significant	impacts	to	existing	ecological	systems	

along	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	including	the	area	in	the	vicinity	of	the	proposed	stations	and	the	area	to	be	

modified	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor	or	facilities.		

Alternative C 

Under	Alternative	C	wildlife	habitat	availability	and	quality	within	the	MCO	Segment,	the	N‐S	Corridor,	

and	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 would	 be	 the	 same	 as	 under	 Alternative	 A.	 As	 shown	 in	 Table	 5.3.5‐2,	

Alternative	C	would	result	in	the	loss	of	121.8	acres	of	natural	upland	habitat	along	the	E‐W	Corridor.	

Table 5.3.5-2 Alternative C – Effects to Upland Communities (acres) 

FLUCCS Description MCO Segment E-W Corridor Total

190 Open Land 0.5 0 0.5

310 Dry Prairie 0 10.5 10.5

320 Shrub and Brushland 0 10.8 10.8

330 Mixed Rangeland 6.1 4.9 11

411 Pine Flatwoods 28.0 32.7 60.7

420 Upland Hardwood Forest 2.9 0.2 3.1

434 Hardwood-Coniferous Mixed 21.0 4.2 25.2

Total Direct Effects 58.5 63.3 121.8

Source: SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. 

Accessed August 31, 2013. 

Direct	effects	to	habitats	identified	by	FNAI	and	FWC	as	being	of	greater	conservation	concern	include	a	

larger	 area	 of	 pine	 flatwoods	 and	 scrubby	 flatwoods.	 Pine	 flatwoods	 losses	 (61	 acres)	 would	 occur	

throughout	the	length	of	the	E‐W	Corridor,	and	scrubby	flatwoods	losses	between	the	Econlockhatchee	

River	and	MCO.	

Natural	upland	ecosystems	affected	by	Alternative	C	provide	higher	quality	wildlife	habitat	than	the	areas	

affected	by	Alternative	A	because	these	are	in	more	undisturbed	areas	outside	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way.	

Maintained	areas	of	the	right‐of‐way	represent	a	smaller	proportion	of	the	area	affected	by	Alternative	C.		

Alternative E 

As	shown	in	Table	5.3.5‐3,	Alternative	E	would	result	in	the	loss	of	approximately	109	acres	of	natural	

upland	habitat	along	the	E‐W	Corridor.	

Direct	effects	to	habitats	identified	by	FNAI	and	FWC	as	being	of	greater	conservation	concern	include	a	

lower	acreage	of	pine	flatwoods	and	scrubby	flatwoods.	Pine	flatwoods	losses	(54	acres)	would	occur	

throughout	 the	 length	 of	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor,	 and	 scrubby	 flatwoods	 between	 the	 MCO	 and	 the	

Econlockhatchee	River.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-100 September 2014 

 

Table 5.3.5-3 Alternative E – Effects to Upland Communities (acres) 

FLUCCS Description MCO Segment E-W Corridor Total

190 Open Land 0.5 0 0.5

310 Dry Prairie 0 9.7 9.7

320 Shrub and Brushland 0 7.9 7.9

330 Mixed Rangeland 6.1 3.5 9.6

411 Pine Flatwoods 28.0 26.4 54.4

420 Upland Hardwood Forest 2.9 0.1 3

434 Hardwood-Coniferous Mixed 21.0 3.3 24.3

Total Direct Effects 58.5 50.9 109.4

Source: SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. 

Accessed August 31, 2013. 

Summary of Direct Impacts 

Table	5.3.5‐4	provides	acreages	 of	direct	effects	 to	natural	upland	ecosystems	 for	all	alternatives.	No	

direct	upland	effects	would	occur	with	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	Alternative	A	would	cause	93	acres	of	

direct	 loss	 of	 upland	 communities.	 Alternative	 C	 would	 directly	 impact	 approximately	 122	 acres	 of	

uplands,	 and	 Alternative	 E	 would	 directly	 impact	 approximately	 109	 acres	 of	 uplands.	 For	 each	

alternative,	the	greatest	loss	of	upland	habitat	would	be	to	forested	plant	communities,	primarily	pine	

flatwoods	and	hardwood‐coniferous	mixed	forest.	

Table 5.3.5-4 Total Direct Upland Effects from Each Alternative (acres) 

FLUCCS Description No-Action A C E

190 Open Land 0 0.5 0.5 0.5

310 Dry Prairie 0 3.9 10.5 9.7

320 Shrub and Brushland 0 4.5 10.8 7.9

330 Mixed Rangeland 0 9.1 11.0 9.6

411 Pine Flatwoods 0 48.7 60.7 54.4

420 Upland Hardwood Forest 0 3.0 3.1 3.0

434 Hardwood-Coniferous Mixed 0 23.3 25.2 24.3

Total Direct Effects 0 93 121.8 109.4

Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog. 

http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - 

GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013. 

Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

Indirect	effects	to	upland	systems	may	include	habitat	fragmentation	and	associated	“edge”	effects,	the	

loss	 of	 genetic	 diversity	 of	 plant	 and	 animal	 populations,	 increased	 competition	 for	 resources,	 and	

physical	 or	 psychological	 restrictions	 on	 movements	 caused	 by	 some	 feature	 within	 a	 corridor	 that	

wildlife	are	unwilling	or	unable	to	cross.	A	railroad	may	act	as	a	barrier	that	interferes	with	the	movement	

of	some	mammals,	amphibians,	birds,	and	reptiles	from	one	habitat	to	another.	The	width	of	a	railroad	

corridor	 can	 influence	 the	 frequency	 of	 wildlife	 crossings,	 as	 well	 as	 the	 mortality	 associated	 with	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-101 September 2014 

 

potential	collisions	with	rail	or	vehicular	traffic.	The	rail	itself	can	create	a	barrier	to	smaller	species	such	

as	amphibians,	reptiles,	and	smaller	mammals.	Another	potential	indirect	effect	is	the	introduction	of	non‐

native	invasive	plant	species	along	the	linear	corridors	of	disturbed	land.	

Under	Alternative	C	and	Alternative	E,	a	greater	degree	of	impacts	to	upland	habitats	would	occur	for	

upland	areas	remaining	between	SR	528	and	the	railroad.	The	two	alignments	would	create	hydrologic	

barriers	to	the	north	and	south,	impounding	water	between	them.	The	barriers	would	force	the	water	

between	them	to	flow	either	east	or	west	to	a	culvert	or	bridge	location.	The	impounded	water	would	

cause	frequent	flooding	of	the	adjacent	uplands	and	may	lead	to	community‐wide	shifts	from	upland	to	

wetland	vegetation,	most	likely	consisting	of	invasive	exotic	species,	and	loss	of	canopy.		

Alteration of Light Regime in Forested Systems 

Removal	 of	 the	 forest	 canopy	 on	the	proposed	 railbed	 could	 potentially	alter	 the	physical	 conditions	

(light,	wind,	temperature)	in	adjacent	forested	areas.	No	adverse	impacts	are	anticipated	to	herbaceous	

or	shrub‐dominated	communities,	since	 there	would	be	no	change	in	 the	light,	wind,	or	 temperature	

regimes.	The	canopy	gap	 for	 the	rail	alternatives	would	vary	with	 the	width	of	 the	limit	of	work	and	

adjacent	land	uses.	In	locations	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	where	curve	reduction	or	third	track	installation	

activities	would	occur,	or	for	the	E‐W	Corridor	alternatives	where	the	proposed	railroad	corridor	will	

share	 the	 SR	 528	 right‐of‐way,	 the	 canopy	 gap	 may	 only	 increase	 slightly.	 For	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	

Alternatives	C	and	E	in	locations	where	the	railroad	would	be	located	south	of	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way,	

the	canopy	gap	would	vary	from	60	to	100	feet	wide.	However,	since	this	would	be	within	or	adjacent	to	

SR	528,	impacts	would	be	minimal.	

Along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	new	forest	edges	would	predominantly	face	north,	and	would	result	in	minor	

changes	to	interior	forest	microclimate	or	habitat.	Indirect	effects	caused	by	removal	of	forest	canopy	

would	occur	in	a	limited	number	of	areas	along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	Within	the	majority	of	the	corridor,	the	

footprint	of	the	railroad	corridor	would	not	change	and	the	“closed	edges”	defined	above	have	formed	

along	the	edge	of	the	existing	alignment.		

Introduction of Invasive Species 

Construction	along	any	active	or	inactive	rail	corridor,	or	constructing	a	new	rail	line,	may	increase	the	

width	of	the	canopy	gap	over	the	railbed	and	would	likely	require	removing	existing	vegetation	on	the	

elevated	railbed.	This	linear	gap,	extending	through	natural	communities,	may	allow	invasive	exotic	plant	

species	to	colonize	the	railbed	or	adjacent	areas.	

As	per	EO	13112,	invasive	species	may	be	defined	as	“alien	species	whose	introduction	does	or	is	likely	

to	 cause	 economic	 or	 environmental	 harm.”	 The	 Florida	 Exotic	 Pest	 Plant	 Council	 (FLEPPC)	 defines	

invasive	exotic	plants	as	“an	exotic	that	not	only	has	naturalized,	but	is	expanding	on	its	own	in	Florida	

native	plant	communities”	(FLEPPC	2011).	The	FLEPPC	distinguishes	between	two	classes	of	invasive	

exotic	plant	species:	

 Category	 I	species	 that	are	characterized	as	 “invasive	exotics	that	are	altering	native	plant	

communities	 by	 displacing	 native	 species,	 changing	 community	 structures	 or	 ecological	

functions,	or	hybridizing	with	natives;”	and		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-102 September 2014 

 

 Category	 II	 species	 that	 are	 characterized	 as	 “invasive	 exotics	 that	 have	 increased	 in	

abundance	 or	 frequency	 but	 have	 not	 yet	altered	 Florida	 plant	 communities	 to	 the	extent	

shown	by	Category	I	species”	(FLEPPC	2011).	

The	FLEPPC	does	not	categorize	invasive	exotic	species	based	upon	the	economic	severity	or	geographic	

range	of	the	problem,	but	on	the	documented	ecological	damage	caused	by	a	species.	

There	is	a	wide	range	of	invasive	exotic	species	known	to	occur	in	Florida,	occurring	in	many	habitats	

from	ponds	and	lakes	to	xeric	scrub	and	sandhills.	The	primary	Category	I	potential	invasive	species	that	

could	affect	the	upland	and	wetland	habitats	within	and	adjacent	to	the	railroad	corridor	include:	

 Casuarina spp.,	Australian	pine;	

 Dioscorea alata,	winged	yam;	

 Dioscorea bulbifera,	air	potato;	

 Eichhornia crassipes,	Common	water‐hyacinth;	

 Imperata cylindrica,	cogongrass;	

 Ludwigia peruviana,	Peruvian	primrosewillow;	

 Lygodium japonicum,	Japanese	climbing	fern;	

 Lygodium microphyllum,	Old	World	climbing	fern;	

 Melaleuca quinquenervia,	punktree;	

 Paederia foetida,	skunkvine;	

 Panicum repens,	torpedograss;	

 Pistia stratiotes,	water	lettuce;	and	

 Schinusterebinthifolius,	Brazilian	pepper.	

Vine	 species	 such	 as	 winged	 yam,	 air	 potato,	 Japanese	 climbing	 fern,	 Old	 World	 climbing	 fern,	 and	

skunkvine	recruit	into	areas	where	the	forest	canopy	has	been	disturbed	by	either	natural	or	artificial	

processes.	 These	 vines	 quickly	 establish	 themselves	 and	 create	 a	 monospecific	 community	 covering	

everything	and	climbing	the	healthy	trees	at	the	edge	of	the	clearing.	These	species	have	very	high	growth	

rates	and	will	begin	to	topple	trees	with	the	added	weight.	In	some	cases	the	rachis	created	by	the	vines	

conducts	ground	fire	into	the	canopy	where	it	spreads	from	tree	to	tree	destroying	large	tracts	of	forest.	

Forest	edges	and	openings,	whether	upland	or	wetland,	may	be	colonized	by	invasive	species	dispersed	

by	birds	that	perch	in	trees	at	the	edge	of	the	boundary.	This	creates	the	potential	for	establishment	of	

Australian	pine,	punktree,	and	Brazilian	pepper	on	or	along	the	edges	of	the	right‐of‐way.	The	potential	

for	 these	species	 to	recruit	into	disturbed	areas	is	particularly	high.	These	species	 tends	 to	create	an	

impenetrable	monospecific	understory	layer	within	upland	and	wetland	forests	which	prevent	normal	

canopy	species	regeneration	eventually	leading	to	complete	loss	of	the	 forest	as	the	mature	trees	die.	

Australian	pine	becomes	large	enough	to	directly	compete,	and	then	outcompete,	with	the	established	

forest	canopy.	Australian	pine	leaves,	which	are	analogous	to	pine	needles,	often	form	a	thick	layer	on	the	

forest	floor	smothering	understory	species.	

Seeds	 of	 cogongrass	 could	 be	 carried	 by	wind	 or	wildlife	 to	 disturbed	areas	within	 the	Project	Area.	

Cogongrass	 is	 particularly	 invasive	 in	 disturbed	 upland	 soils	 and	 is	 tolerant	 of	 the	low	 nutrient	 and	

undeveloped	microbial	conditions	within	clean	sands	utilized	as	fill	in	construction	projects.	Cogongrass	

spreads	quickly	by	rhizomes	and	seeds,	may	potentially	be	allelopathic,	and	is	tolerant	of	mesic	to	wet	

conditions.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-103 September 2014 

 

Peruvian	primrosewillow	and	 torpedograss	 typically	occur	in	wetlands,	although	 they	may	survive	in	

mesic	 uplands.	 Torpedograss	 seeds	 can	 be	 carried	 by	 seed	 eating	 birds	 or	 will	 float	 from	 upstream	

wetland	areas.	Peruvian	primrose	willow	has	very	small	sticky	seeds	which	will	float	or	stick	to	birds	and	

other	wildlife.	Water	lettuce	and	common	water‐hyacinth	typically	float	on	the	water	surface	in	aquatic	

environments.	Seeds	are	usually	spread	by	water	fowl,	and	aquatic	environments	with	a	recently	cleared	

canopy	 providing	 access	 to	 water	 birds	 and	 increased	 direct	 sunlight	 are	 particularly	 subject	 to	

infestation	by	these	species.	

The	Project	has	the	potential	to	increase	invasive	species	occurrences	in	natural	habitats,	particularly	

along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	where	new	disturbance	would	occur	adjacent	to	natural	communities.	However,	

this	does	not	represent	a	significant	change,	as	the	existing	SR	528	corridor	provides	opportunities	for	

the	spread	of	invasive	species.	

Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Temporary	 impacts	 to	 biological	 resources	 and	 natural	 ecological	 systems	 would	 occur	 where	

undeveloped	areas	would	be	utilized	 for	construction	 staging	or	construction	access.	The	impacts	 on	

ecological	resources	could	include	clearing	of	vegetation,	soil	compaction	in	staging	and	traffic	areas,	dust	

generation,	erosion,	and	incidental	mortality	of	wildlife	entering	the	construction	zone.	In	addition	to	the	

temporary	loss	of	wildlife	habitat,	construction	activities	may	lead	to	soil	compaction	which	reduces	the	

permeability	 of	 the	 soil	 to	 water	 absorption	 and	 gas	 exchange	 increasing	 surface	 water	 run‐off	 and	

erosion.	 The	 effects	 of	 soil	 compaction	 and	 the	 removal	 of	 vegetation	 subsequently	 affect	 the	 soil’s	

microbial	community	which	requires	a	commensal	relationship	with	plant	species	to	maintain	a	balanced	

ecosystem.	 The	 Project	 is	 not	likely	 to	 impact	 natural	 habitats	 adjacent	 to	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 because	

staging	 areas	 are	 anticipated	 to	 be	 located	 in	 existing	 developed	 areas	 such	 as	 parking	 lots	 and	 the	

majority	of	supplies	and	equipment	will	be	brought	to	the	construction	site	by	rail.	Temporary	impacts	

may	 occur	 along	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 although	 the	 location	 and	 extent	 of	 those	 impacts	 cannot	 be	

determined	until	the	locations	of	staging	areas	and	access	roads	are	determined.		

5.3.5.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats 

The	Project	would	result	in	the	loss	of	wetland	and	upland	wildlife	habitat,	as	described	in	Sections	5.3.2	

and	5.3.5.2.	These	habitat	losses	would	largely	occur	at	the	proposed	VMF	and	along	the	17‐mile	section	

of	the	E‐W	Corridor	west	of	SR	520,	where	the	proposed	railroad	is	outside	of	the	existing	SR	528	right‐of‐

way.	The	loss	of	habitat	would	not	eliminate	any	habitat	patches,	but	would	reduce	the	size	of	available	

habitat	areas	slightly	although	this	is	not	likely	to	displace	wildlife	populations.	The	Project	would	not	

result	in	the	loss	of	habitat	within	any	of	the	important	wildlife	conservation	areas	listed	in	Section	4.3.5.2,	

nor	would	it	interrupt	any	existing	wildlife	corridors.	The	proposed	communications	towers	described	in	

Section	3.3.3.6	along	 the	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	monopole	or	lattice‐type	poles,	less	than	100	 feet	in	

height,	and	would	not	require	guy	wires.	These	towers	would	be	consistent	with	USFWS	guidance	on	

communications	towers	(USFWS	2012c),	and	would	not	have	an	adverse	effect	on	wildlife	or	birds.		

Other	potential	indirect	effects	on	wildlife	and	wildlife	habitats	would	result	from	habitat	fragmentation	

and	operational	noise,	as	described	below.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-104 September 2014 

 

Habitat Fragmentation 

Fragmentation	is	defined	as	the	subdivision	of	once	large	and	continuous	tracts	of	habitat	into	smaller	

patches.	It	results	from	agriculture,	urbanization,	and	transportation	(or	other	rights‐of‐way)	(Rosenfield	

et	al.	1992).	Habitat	fragmentation	is	associated	with	‘edge	effects’	when	there	is	a	disturbed	or	developed	

area	created	adjacent	to	a	natural	and/or	forested	area.	Edge	effects	may	include	the	spread	of	invasive	

species,	increase	in	 the	 canopy	 gap,	 and	 a	 decrease	in	 species	dependent	 on	 undisturbed	 habitat.	 In	

general,	 fragmentation	 of	 habitat	 is	 viewed	 as	 detrimental	 when	 considering	 original	 native,	 climax	

species	composition	and	abundance,	natural	history,	and	relative	ecological	stability	of	unmanaged	plant	

and	animal	populations.	In	particular,	habitat	fragmentation	increases	the	amount	of	edge	relative	to	the	

amount	of	interior	habitat	(Primack	2008).	Scientific	experts	agree	that	preservation	of	continuous	forest	

blocks	is	essential	to	the	long‐term	protection	of	biodiversity.	Fragmentation	of	forested	tracts	has	been	

cited	as	a	major	cause	in	the	decline	of	bird	communities.	Fragmentation	occurs	at	several	spatial	scales,	

from	local,	which	includes	edge	effects,	to	landscape,	which	encompasses	differences	in	size	and	shape	of	

forest	 tracts,	 to	 regional,	 where	 differences	 in	 canopy	 cover	 are	 studied	 to	 determine	 the	 effects	 on	

breeding	 birds	 (Robinson	 1998).	 The	 majority	 of	 the	 available	 literature	 has	 focused	 on	 large‐scale	

fragmentation	that	breaks	existing	forest	blocks	into	disconnected	remnants	across	a	landscape	by	major	

roadways,	residential	subdivisions,	and	clear	cuts.		

A	railroad	corridor	may	act	as	a	barrier	that	interferes	with	the	movement	of	amphibians	and	reptiles	

from	 one	 habitat	 to	another.	The	width	 of	a	 railroad	 corridor	can	influence	 the	 frequency	 of	wildlife	

crossings,	as	well	as	 the	mortality	associated	with	potential	collisions	with	rail	 traffic.	The	railbed	on	

which	the	tracks	are	laid	can	itself	create	a	barrier	to	smaller	species	such	as	amphibians,	reptiles,	and	

smaller	 mammals.	 Traffic	 density	 and	 traffic	 speed	 may	 also	 influence	 wildlife	 avoidance	 of	

transportation	corridors	(Reijnen	et	al.	1995;	Forman	and	Alexander	1998).

Indirect	effects	to	reptile	and	amphibian	populations	could	include	lowered	reproductive	success	of	existing	

amphibian	populations	if	rail	collisions	affect	amphibian	mortality	rates.	If	the	rail	is	experienced	as	a	barrier	

by	migrating	amphibians,	existing	populations	may	be	divided	into	subpopulations.	This,	in	turn,	may	result	

in	a	reduced	gene	pool	in	the	remaining	subpopulations,	which	could	result	in	loss	of	the	population	if	the	

remaining	genetic	variation	is	not	diverse	enough	to	offset	the	joint	action	of	natural	selection	and	genetic	

drift.	 Preserving	 genetic	 diversity	is	important	 because	it	 allows	 populations	 the	 potential	 to	 adapt	 by	

“saving”	genes	that	may	be	useful	during	future	environmental	changes.	However,	the	rail	would	not	create	

a	complete	barrier	to	movement	between	the	eastern	and	western	sides	of	the	right‐of‐way,	which	would	

limit	the	fragmentation	effect.	

Indirect	effects	to	mammals	from	fragmentation	include	potentially	lowered	reproductive	success	rates	

from	interruption	of	migration	routes	to	breeding	areas	(restricted	gene	flow),	increased	predation	on	

small	mammals	due	to	lack	of	cover	on	the	ballasted	railroad	embankment,	and	general	disturbance	of	

mammalian	 communities	 immediately	 adjacent	 to	 the	 right‐of‐way.	 These	 disturbances	 include	

alterations	to	foraging,	denning,	and	overwintering	habitat	due	to	changes	in	vegetative	cover,	light,	and	

temperature	regimes.	There	may	be	minor	indirect	effects	to	small	mammals	but	this	is	not	expected	to	

affect	 population	 stability	 because	 of	 their	 small	 home	 ranges.	 Deer	 and	 other	 large	 mammals	 are	

expected	to	continue	to	cross	the	tracks	with	minimal	impedance.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-105 September 2014 

 

Fragmentation	effects	are	expected	to	be	minimal	from	any	of	the	alternatives,	since	the	existing	SR	528	

alignment,	immediately	to	the	north	of	Alternatives	A,	C,	or	E,	has	already	caused	fragmentation	of	large	

blocks	of	existing	natural	habitat.	Widening	the	gap	is	not	anticipated	to	significantly	change	the	effects	

of	the	existing	transportation	corridor	on	habitat	quality	or	continuity.	The	Project	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	

and	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	would	not	create	or	exacerbate	fragmentation	effects	and	the	FECR	Corridor	

would	not	be	widened.	

Noise Impacts on Wildlife 

Noise	from	train	operations	and	horns	at	grade	crossings	may	have	indirect	effects	on	wildlife.		

Scientific	literature	and	 other	 relevant	 publications	 concerning	 the	impacts	 of	 train	 pass‐by	 noise	 on	

wildlife	were	reviewed.	Many	of	the	available	studies	are	from	western	states;	far	less	is	known	about	the	

effects	in	 the	eastern	United	States,	 presumably	 because	 highway	and	 rail	infrastructure	was	largely	

already	in	place	well	in	advance	of	the	advent	of	modern	wildlife	ecology	and	conservation	biology,	and	

also	because	of	the	proportionately	larger	numbers	of	endangered	mammals	long	displaced	in	the	east	

and	 now	 confined	 to	 the	less‐developed	 west.	 As	 documented	in	 the	 National	 Park	 Service’s	 (2011)	

Annotated Bibliography – Impacts of Noise on Wildlife,	the	effects	of	noise	on	wildlife	have	been	studied	

for	roads	(where	noise	is	continuous),	aircraft,	boats,	and	off‐road	vehicles	and	snowmobiles.	No	specific	

studies	on	the	effects	of	the	episodic	noise	from	trains	are	listed	in	this	bibliography.	

It	is	possible	that	the	Project	would	displace	some	individuals	of	wildlife	populations	that	are	sensitive	to	

noise	and	vibration,	causing	increased	competition	for	nearby	suitable	habitat.	Most	of	the	scientific	studies	

conducted	on	noise	and	wildlife	involve	assessing	effects	from	roads,	and	there	is	limited	scientific	data	for	

impacts	to	wildlife	from	rail.	Most	studies	show	that	noise	associated	with	high‐density	roads	affects	avian	

communities	 by	 interfering	 with	 communication	 during	 courtship	 and	 brood‐rearing.	 However,	 the	

continuous	noise	resulting	from	highways	is	substantially	different	from	the	infrequent	noise	produced	by	

trains.	Noise	impacts	are	expected	to	be	minor	because	of	the	moderate	numbers	of	trains.	

Although	limited	data	exist	to	relate	noise	exposure	levels	to	effects	on	wildlife,	criteria	to	identify	possible	

impacts	are	available.	Table	5.3.5‐5	provides	wildlife	impact	criteria	based	on	a	summary	of	recent	literature	

that	can	be	found	in	Appendix	A	of	the	FRA	High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact

Assessment	(FRA	2012a).	The	criteria	are	based	on	the	assumption	that	impacts	occur	when	a	noise	event	

is	sufficiently	loud	enough	to	generate	an	observable	effect	in	domestic	livestock	or	wildlife.	

Table 5.3.5-5 Summary of Wildlife Noise Impact Criteria 

Animal Category Class Noise Metric

Noise Level 

(dBA)

Domestic Mammals (Livestock) Sound exposure level (SEL) 100

Birds (Poultry) SEL 100

Wild Mammals SEL 100

Birds SEL 100

Source: FRA. 2012a. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, USDOT Report Number 

DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1238511. Accessed September 27, 2013. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-106 September 2014 

 

Based	on	the	impact	criteria	listed	in	Table	5.3.5‐5,	effects	to	wildlife	could	occur	at	sound	levels	exceeding	

100	dBA.	Along	 the	E‐W	Corridor,	noise	and	vibration	disturbance	 from	 the	operation	of	 the	railroad	

would	disturb	wildlife	for	very	short,	discrete	periods	of	time,	but	would	not	affect	wildlife	as	much	as	the	

constant	noise	from	the	highway.	As	documented	in	Section	5.1.	2,	train	pass‐by	will	not	exceed	70	dBA,	

and	will	not	affect	wildlife.	There	would	be	no	new	crossings	along	the	MCO	Segment	or	the	E‐W	Corridor	

and	consequently	no	noise	impacts	on	wildlife	from	wayside	horns.		

Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Temporary	impacts	are	 those	 that	 occur	in	association	with	construction	 related	activities	and	 cease	

following	 the	completion	of	construction.	Short‐term	 temporary	indirect	effects	can	be	caused	by	 the	

increased	noise	and	visual	disturbance	 from	land‐clearing,	earth‐moving,	and	construction	machinery	

during	construction.		

Temporary	 impacts	 to	 biological	 resources	 and	 natural	 ecological	 systems	 could	 also	 occur	 where	

undeveloped	 areas	 would	 be	 utilized	 for	 construction	 staging	 or	 construction	 access.	 The	 effects	 on	

ecological	resources	could	include	clearing	vegetation,	soil	compaction	in	staging	and	traffic	areas,	dust	

generation,	erosion,	and	incidental	mortality	of	wildlife	entering	the	construction	zone.	The	Project	is	not	

likely	to	impact	natural	habitats	adjacent	to	the	N‐S	Corridor	because	staging	areas	are	anticipated	to	be	

located	in	existing	developed	areas	such	as	parking	lots	and	the	majority	of	supplies	and	equipment	will	

be	brought	to	the	construction	site	by	rail.	Temporary	effects	may	occur	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	although	

the	location	and	extent	of	 those	effects	cannot	be	determined	until	 the	locations	of	staging	areas	and	

access	roads	are	determined.	

5.3.5.4 Preserves, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Wildlife Corridors 

The	Project	would	 not	incorporate	land	 from	any	 of	 the	 preserves	 or	wildlife	 sanctuaries	 described	in	

Section	4.3.5,	and	would	not	affect	the	ability	of	these	properties	to	protect	wildlife	or	wildlife	habitat.	The	

Project	would	also	not	adversely	impact	any	wildlife	corridor.	As	described	in	Section	7.2.9,	all	alternatives	

would	include	wildlife	crossings	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	to	maintain	or	improve	wildlife	passage.	

5.3.5.5 Essential Fish Habitat 

EFHs	and	Habitat	Areas	of	Particular	Concern	(HAPCs)	that	potentially	could	be	impacted	by	the	Project	

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

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

project	areas,	EFH	is	equivalent	to	wetland	and/or	surface	water	habitats.	Constructing	the	Project	could	

affect	EFH	and	HAPC	as	a	result	of	placing	rip‐rap/fill	for	the	bridge	approaches,	placing	bridge	pilings,	

and	excavating	where	existing	timber	pilings	will	be	replaced.	

Enhancement/replacement	is	proposed	for	34	bridges	between	Cocoa	and	Miami;	however,	only	21	of	

these	bridges	will	require	in‐water	work	or	a	change	in	the	footprint	of	the	bridges.	Four	of	the	bridges	

were	determined	to	be	upstream	of	salinity	barriers.	Bridges	over	water	bodies	with	downstream	salinity	

barriers	are	not	included	in	this	assessment,	as	these	sites	are	not	accessible	to	marine	species	and	do	not	

include	EFH.	This	assessment	focuses	on	the	bridges	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	and	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	that	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-107 September 2014 

 

require	construction	within	EFH.	Each	bridge	project	area	is	defined	as	the	footprint	of	that	bridge,	as	well	

as	the	area	upstream	and	downstream	within	the	limits	of	construction.		

The	USACE	determined	that	the	Project	would	not	have	a	substantial	adverse	impact	on	EFH	or	federally	

managed	fishery	species	based	on	the	proposed	mitigation.	On	October	28,	2013	the	NMFS	agreed	with	

this	 determination	 (Appendix	 5.3‐6‐B4).	 This	 determination	 did	 not	 include	 the	 additional	 bridge	

replacement	proposed	in	Brevard	and	St.	Lucie	Counties.	Consultation	has	been	initiated	with	NMFS,	

Habitat	Conservation	Division	regarding	potential	impacts	to	EFH	associated	with	these	bridges.		

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated;	there	would	be	no	

impacts	to	EFH.	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

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

21	bridge	project	areas	and	potential	implications	to	their	associated	fisheries	communities.	Direct,	indirect,	

and	temporary	impacts	are	expected	to	be	generally	similar	for	all	fisheries;	therefore,	the	presentation	of	

impacts	is	for	all	species.	The	potential	impacts	to	EFH	and	HAPC	would	be	the	same	for	each	of	the	Action	

Alternatives,	as	the	impacts	would	only	occur	along	the	common	N‐S	and	WPB‐M	Corridors.	

Habitats	within	the	bridge	project	areas	have	been	identified	as	EFH	and	HAPC.	As	shown	in	Table	4.3.6‐1,	

these	areas	provide	EFH	for	at	least	seven	fishery	species	managed	by	the	SAFMC	during	some	portion	of	

their	life	cycle:	goliath	grouper,	gray	snapper,	mutton	snapper,	spiny	lobster,	pink	shrimp,	white	shrimp,	

and	brown	shrimp.		

At	each	bridge	project	area	(with	the	exception	of	Arch	Creek),	piles	would	be	driven	to	load	bearing	

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

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

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

barge	in	larger	systems	(Eau	Gallie	River,	St.	Sebastian	River,	Hillsboro	River,	North	Fork	of	the	Middle	

River,	and	South	Fork	of	the	Middle	River).	Silt	fences	and	floating	turbidity	barriers	would	be	installed	

and	maintained	during	construction	in	accordance	with	performance	standards	for	erosion	and	sediment	

control	and	stormwater	treatment	set	forth	in	Section	62‐40.432,	FAC.		

The	effect	of	pilings	would	be	limited	to	the	total	footprint	of	pilings	placed	in	EFH,	totaling	approximately	

760	square	feet	(<0.1	acre).	The	effects	of	the	rip‐rap/fill	at	the	location	of	the	abutments	has	been	calculated	

as	 the	 total	 area	 of	 rip‐rap/fill	 placed	in	 surface	 waters,	 which	 totals	 approximately	 5,000	 square	 feet	

(0.1	acre).	Approximately	0.73	acre	of	the	substrate	would	be	shaded.	Shading	effects	were	calculated	as	the	

footprint	of	the	new	bridges	at	each	bridge	project	area.	No	seagrasses	were	observed	within	the	bridge	

project	 areas.	 Approximately	 940	 square	 feet	 (0.02	 acre)	 of	 wetland	 (primarily	 mangroves)	 would	 be	

permanently	removed,	and	approximately	4,000	square	feet	(0.09	acre)	of	mangroves	would	be	trimmed	

in	accordance	with	FDEP	Mangrove	Trimming	Guidelines,	which	are	designed	to	avoid	defoliation,	removal,	

or	destruction	of	the	mangrove	tree	itself.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-108 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-109 September 2014 

 

The	new	pilings	would	have	a	variable	impact	on	the	managed	species.	Pilings	could	ultimately	result	in	a	

beneficial	impact	to	species/life	stages	that	prefer	such	structures	as	habitat,	such	as	adult	goliath	grouper,	

gray	snapper,	and	mutton	snapper.	Permanent	effect	of	the	removal	of	mangrove	wetlands	could	adversely	

impact	 species/life	 stages	 that	 prefer	 mangrove	 habitat,	 such	 as	 juvenile	 goliath	 grouper,	 post	

larval/juvenile	grey	snapper,	and	juvenile	mutton	snapper.	Impacts	to	wetlands	(mangroves),	calculated	as	

the	aerial	extent	of	mangroves	to	be	permanently	removed	by	the	Project,	would	be	minor.	

Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

Indirect	effects	to	EFH	from	ongoing	operations	and	maintenance	would	be	minimal,	as	active	railroad	

bridges	are	currently	located	at	all	of	the	bridge	project	areas.		

Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Temporary	construction‐related	impacts	would	be	limited	to	the	area	immediately	adjacent	to	and	under	

each	 of	 the	 bridge	 project	 areas.	 Most	 of	 the	 species	 of	 concern	 are	 mobile	 and	 can	 actively	 avoid	

construction	activities,	although	some	benthic	fauna	could	potentially	be	affected	at	the	site	of	the	piles.	

Due	to	the	small	footprint	of	in‐water	work	at	each	bridge,	mortality	levels	would	be	negligible.		

Temporary	 impacts	 resulting	 from	 construction	 activities	 could	 occur	 from	 temporary	 disturbance,	

increased	sediment	loads,	and	increased	turbidity	in	the	water	column.	These	effects	would	be	minimized	

by	 implementing	 BMPs	 including	 silt	 fencing	 and	 turbidity	 curtains	 during	 construction.	 Additional	

temporary	effect	would	potentially	occur	through	the	disruption/burial	of	aquatic	habitats	at	the	location	

of	the	bridge	abutments	and	piles.	

Pile	driving	(percussive	or	vibratory)	can	result	in	temporary	effects	on	fish	and	other	aquatic	organisms	

during	construction	of	a	bridge	(Popper	2005).	Potential	impacts	to	eggs,	larvae,	and	adults	of	invertebrates	

and	fishes	associated	with	pile	driving	are	noise	and	vibration,	sediment	deposition,	and	crushing.	Factors	

that	affect	the	physical	interaction	of	sound	with	fish	include	the	size	of	the	fish	relative	to	the	wavelength	

of	sound,	the	mass	of	the	 fish,	its	anatomical	variation,	and	the	location	of	the	 fish	in	the	water	column	

relative	to	the	sound	source	(Kent	and	McCauley	2006).	Fish	may	be	divided	into	two	broad	groups	based	

on	 hearing	 sensitivity,	 ‘hearing	 specialists’	 and	 ‘hearing	 generalists’.	 ‘Hearing	 specialists’	 show	 high	

sensitivity	to	sound	with	levels	as	low	as	60	dBA	re	1	microPascal	at	1	meter	across	a	broad	frequency	range.	

The	hearing	sensitivity	of	‘hearing	generalists’	is	lower	than	that	of	‘hearing	specialists’.	‘Hearing	generalists’	

rely	on	the	detection	of	particle	displacement	for	sensing	sound.	The	highly	variable	auditory	sensitivity	of	

fish	means	that	it	is	impossible	to	generalize	on	the	effect	of	impulse	signals	from	one	species	to	another	

(Kent	and	McCauley	2006).		

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

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

of	30	dBA	in	the	25‐	to	400‐hertz	bandwidth	in	aquaria	(Kent	and	McCauley	2006).	Noise	from	pile	driving	

during	construction	could	affect	federally	managed	species;	however,	the	use	of	bubble	curtains	during	

pile	driving	would	help	 to	dampen	noise	by	about	5	 to	22	dBA	depending	on	 the	pile	 type	and	other	

conditions	(Howard	2013).	NMFS	has	recommended	 that	bubble	curtains	be	used	when	effects	could	

occur.	Air	bubble	curtains	will	be	used	during	pile	driving	to	minimize	the	potential	impacts	on	federally	

managed	species.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-110 September 2014 

 

5.3.5.6 Migratory Bird Habitat 

The	Migratory	Bird	Treaty	Act	of	1918	states	that,	unless	permitted	by	regulations,	it	is	illegal	to		

“pursue,	hunt,	take,	kill,	attempt	to	take,	capture	or	kill,	possess,	offer	for	sale,	sell,	offer	for	purchase,	

purchase,	 deliver	 for	 shipment,	 ship,	 cause	 to	 be	 shipped,	 deliver	 for	 transportation,	 transport,	

cause	to	be	transported,	carry,	or	cause	to	be	carried	by	any	means	whatever,	receive	for	shipment,	

transportation	or	carriage,	or	export,	at	any	time	or	in	any	manner,	any	migratory	bird,	included	in	

the	terms	of	this	Convention	...	or	any	part,	nest,	or	egg	of	such	bird	(16	USC	703(a).”		

As	the	U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	(USFWS)	states,	“we	regulate	most	aspects	of	the	taking,	possession,	

transportation,	sale,	purchase,	barter,	exportation,	and	importation	of	migratory	birds	(50	CFR	parts	10	

and	21).”	The	USFWS	does	not,	through	the	Migratory	Bird	Treaty	Act,	explicitly	prohibit	or	regulate	the	

incidental	take	of	birds,	bird	nests,	or	bird	eggs	caused	by	land	clearing.		

EO	13186,	Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,	requires	each	federal	agency	

taking	actions	 that	are	likely	 to	have	a	measurable	negative	impact	on	migratory	bird	populations	 to	

develop	a	Memorandum	of	Understanding	with	the	USFWS,	to	promote	conservation	of	migratory	bird	

populations.	The	EO	also	requires	all	NEPA	analyses	to	evaluate	the	effects	of	actions	on	migratory	birds	

and	minimize	“incidental	takes”	of	migratory	birds.		

The	 Project	 would	 not	 adversely	 impact	 the	 majority	 of	 habitats	 important	 to	 migratory	 birds	

(see	Section	4.3.5),	such	as	flooded	agricultural	fields,	open	water	bodies	or	deep	marshes,	or	intertidal	

beaches	or	mudflats.	Each	of	the	three	action	alternatives	under	consideration	would	result	in	the	loss	of	

forested	 uplands	 and	 wetlands,	 such	 as	 wetland	 and	 upland	 hardwood	 forest,	 which	 may	 provide	

important	migratory	habitat.	These	habitat	losses	would	occur	in	small	areas,	at	the	periphery	of	larger	

forested	stands,	and	would	have	a	minor	overall	impact	on	the	availability	of	habitat	for	migratory	birds.	

As	 previously	 mentioned,	 the	 proposed	 communications	 towers	 along	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 would	 be	

monopole	 or	lattice‐type	poles,	less	 than	 100	 feet	in	 height,	and	would	 not	 require	guy	wires.	These	

towers	 would	 be	 consistent	 with	 USFWS	 guidance	 on	 communications	 towers	 (USFWS	 2012c),	 and	

would	not	have	an	adverse	impact	on	wildlife	or	birds.		

5.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The	USACE,	a	cooperating	agency	with	respect	to	this	EIS,	is	the	lead	federal	agency	with	ESA	Section	7	

responsibilities	for	the	Project.	As	described	below,	the	USACE	has	evaluated	the	effects	of	the	Project	on	

federally	listed	species	and	determined	that	the	Project	would	not	jeopardize	any	listed	species	or	modify	

any	designated	critical	habitat.	The	USACE	has	made	determinations	of	“no	effect”	or	“no	adverse	effect”	

for	each	of	the	listed	species	within	the	Project	Area.	The	agencies	charged	with	administering	the	ESA,	

the	US	Fish	&	Wildlife	Service	(USFWS),	and	the	NOAA‐NMFS,	have	concurred	with	these	determinations	

(Appendix	5.3.6‐B).		

The	ESA	authorizes	the	determination	and	listing	of	species	as	Endangered	or	Threatened	and	prohibits	

unauthorized	taking,	possession,	sale,	and	transport	of	endangered	species.	Section	7	of	the	Act	requires	

federal	agencies	to	ensure	that	any	action	authorized,	funded,	or	carried	out	by	a	federal	agency	is	not	

likely	to	jeopardize	the	continued	existence	of	listed	species	or	to	modify	their	critical	habitat.	USFWS	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-111 September 2014 

 

administers	the	Act,	but	NMFS	is	the	lead	federal	agency	responsible	for	the	stewardship	of	the	offshore	

living	marine	resources	of	the	nation	and	their	habitat.	

FWC	 regulates	 wildlife	 species	 protected	 by	 the	 State	 of	 Florida.	 Chapter	 68A‐27.003(1)(a),	 FAC	

provides	“no	person	shall	take,	possess,	or	sell	any	of	the	endangered	or	threatened	species...or	parts	

thereof	or	 their	nests	or	eggs	except	as	allowed	by	specific	 federal	or	state	permit	authorization.”	

Chapter	68A‐27.005(1)(a),	FAC	additionally	stipulates	“no	person	shall	take,	possess,	transport,	or	

sell	any	species	of	species	concern...or	parts	thereof	or	their	nests	or	eggs	except	as	authorized	by	

permit	 from	 the	 executive	 director,	 permits	 being	 issued	 upon	 reasonable	 conclusion	 that	 the	

permitted	 activity	 will	 not	 be	 detrimental	 to	 the	 survival	 potential	 of	 the	 species.”	 The	 Florida	

Department	of	Agriculture	and	Consumer	Services	 (FDACS)	regulates	protected	plant	species	and	

limits	 the	 harvest,	 transport	 and	 sale	 of	 plant	 species	 listed	 as	 Endangered,	 Threatened,	 or	

Commercially	Exploited	in	Chapter	5B‐40,	FAC.	

The	 Bald	 and	 Golden	 Eagle	 Protection	 Act	 (BGEPA)	 serves	 to	 protect	 bald	 and	 golden	 eagles	 by	

prohibiting	anyone	from	taking	eagles,	their	nests,	or	their	eggs,	without	a	permit	issued	by	the	Secretary	

of	 the	 Interior.	 The	 Act	 specifically	 defines	 a	 taking	 as	 pursuing,	 shooting,	 shooting	 at,	 poisoning,	

wounding,	 killing,	 capturing,	 trapping,	 collecting,	molesting,	or	 disturbing	 the	 species	 (USFWS	 1972).	

Violating	the	Act	could	result	in	fines,	imprisonment,	or	both	for	first	offenses.		

5.3.6.1 Methodology 

Direct	effects	were	calculated	through	the	use	of	GIS	models.	This	model	quantified	effects	by	intersecting	

the	proposed	work	areas	with	land	use	polygons	of	habitat	that	may	be	utilized	by	protected	species.	The	

model	quantified	all	loss	of	habitat	along	the	Project	based	on	the	limit	of	permanent	alteration.	Areas	

within	permanent	alteration	limits	that	are	already	disturbed,	such	as	ballasted	railbed	and	roads,	were	

not	counted	as	habitat	loss.	Impacts	to	wetland	habitats	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	were	calculated	based	on	

the	wetland	delineations	conducted	for	the	project.	The	land	use	data	was	acquired	from	SFWMD	(n.d.)	

and	SJRWMD	(2013a).	

The	 USACE	 assessed	 the	 effects	 of	 the	 Project	 on	 federally	 listed	 species	 using	 the	 appropriate	

species‐specific	 Effects	 Determination	 Keys	 developed	 by	 the	 USACE	 and	 USFWS	 (USFWS	 2008	 and	

2010a	through	d).	

5.3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

Direct	 effects	 to	 protected	 species	 may	 include	 effects	 from	 construction,	 grading,	 vegetation	

management,	 and	mortality	 associated	with	 potential	 collisions	with	 rail	 traffic.	 These	 activities	may	

result	in	degradation	of	ecological	function	and	loss	of	habitat,	as	well	as	loss	of	rare	plant	and	animal	

species.	Permanent	impacts	may	include	losses	or	changes	in	habitat	and	rare	plant	and	wildlife	species	

through	clearing,	grading,	construction,	and	the	potential	introduction	of	undesirable,	invasive	species.	

Habitat	loss	is	a	direct	effect	of	 transportation	projects.	Habitat	loss	occurs	if	an	area	 that	previously	

provided	food,	cover,	water,	and/or	breeding	resources	to	a	rare	species	is	cleared,	paved,	filled,	or	altered	

in	such	a	way	that	it	no	longer	provides	one	or	more	of	these	resources.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-112 September 2014 

 

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	Consequently,	adverse	

impacts	 to	 threatened	 and	 endangered	 species	 and	 their	 habitats	 would	 not	 occur	 under	 the	

No‐Action	Alternative.	

Alternative A 

Alternative	 A	 would	impact	 habitats	 potentially	 used	 by	 federally	 and	 state	listed	wildlife	 species	 as	

indicated	in	Table	5.3.6‐1.	The	discussion	of	the	effects	of	Alternative	A	includes	Phase	I,	the	West	Palm	

Beach	to	Miami	corridor.	

Table 5.3.6-1 Alternative A - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat (acres) 

Common Name MCO Segme

nt

EW CorridorN-S Corridor Total

Federally Listed Wildlife Species 

Florida Scrub-Jay 34.1 28.2 0 62.3

Audubon’s Crested Caracara 38.7 39.3 0 78

Wood Stork 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 28.0 23.0 0 51

American Alligator 6.2 17.5 6.8 30.5

Eastern Indigo Snake 99.0 81.2 2.8 183

Wildlife Species Listed Only by the State of Florida 

Florida Mouse 34.1 32.1 0 66.2

Sherman’s Fox Squirrel 60.6 50.9 0 111.5

Burrowing Owl 34.1 32.1 0 66.2

Florida Sandhill Crane 12.5 22.3 6.2 41

Limpkin 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2

Little Blue Heron 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2

Roseate Spoonbill 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2

Snowy Egret 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2

Southeastern American Kestrel 38.7 41.6 0 80.3

Reddish Egret 0 0 0.1 0.1

Tricolored Heron 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2

White Ibis 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2

Gopher tortoise 34.1 32.1 0 66.2

Florida Pine Snake 34.1 32.1 0 66.2

Short-Tailed Snake 34.1 32.1 0 66.2

Gopher Frog 34.1 32.1 0 66.2

Mangrove rivulus 0 0 0.1 0.1
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-113 September 2014 

 

Federal Species 

Bridge	construction	activities	would	impact	West	Indian	manatee	critical	habitat,	and	potential	habitat	

for	sea	turtles	and	the	smalltooth	sawfish,	but	construction	activities	would	not	disturb	seagrass	beds	or	

require	dredging.	

Field	surveys	for	Audubon’s	crested	caracara	nests	would	be	completed	subsequent	to	the	selection	of	

the	 final	E‐W	 Corridor	alignment.	 Construction	activities	 proposed	along	 the	N‐S	 Corridor	would	 not	

impact	suitable	caracara	habitat	or	existing	nest	trees.	Direct	effects	to	potential	caracara	habitat	which	

would	occur	with	the	Project	total	approximately	78	acres.	Caracara	may	also	utilize	pasture,	but	pasture	

was	not	included	in	the	analysis.	

Bald	 eagle	 nest	 OR‐065,	 in	 Orange	 County,	 may	 be	 affected	 by	 the	 Project	 within	 the	 MCO	 Segment	

(Figure	4.3.6‐3).	The	proposed	railroad	alignment	is	less	than	200	feet	from	the	nest,	placing	it	within	the	

primary	and	secondary	nest	buffer	zones.	Eagle	nest	OR‐079,	also	in	Orange	County	(Figure	4.3.6‐1),	is	

approximately	 600	 feet	 from	 the	 proposed	 alignment,	 potentially	 within	 the	 nest	 buffer	 zone	

(FWC	2012a).	

Two	wood	stork	rookeries	are	within	2,500	feet	of	the	N‐S	Corridor	in	Brevard	County	(USFWS	2010a).	All	

activities	for	the	Project	except	construction	of	the	bridges	over	the	Oleta	River	and	Arch	Creek	would	take	

place	within	at	least	one	Core	Foraging	Area	(CFA)	(USFWS	2010b).	Direct	effects	to	a	total	of	134.2	acres	of	

Suitable	Foraging	Habitat	(SFH)	would	occur	with	the	implementation	of	Alternative	A.	

Florida	scrub‐jay	metapopulations	are	within	the	vicinity	of	the	N‐S	Corridor	throughout	Brevard,	Indian	

River,	St.	Lucie,	and	Marin	Counties,	with	a	few	located	in	Palm	Beach	County.	Although	the	presence	of	

scrub‐jays	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	has	not	been	fully	evaluated,	the	Florida Scrub‐Jay Umbrella Habitat

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment indicates	 the	 presence	 of	 documented	 breeding	

populations	 within	 the	 vicinity	 of	 the	 Project	 in	 Orange	 County	 (USFWS	 2012b).	 Potential	 scrub‐jay	

habitat	occurs	within	the	Project	Study	Area	outside	the	maintained	areas	of	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way,	and	

direct	effects	would	total	approximately	62.3	acres	under	Alternative	A.	

A	review	of	GIS	data	of	documented	red‐cockaded	woodpecker	nest	cavities	indicated	no	nests	occur	

within	the	Project	Study	Area.	Direct	effects	to	red‐cockaded	woodpecker	habitat	which	would	occur	with	

Alternative	A	total	approximately	51	acres	within	the	E‐W	Corridor.	

Potential	habitat	for	the	American	alligator	occurs	throughout	the	Project	Study	Area	for	Alternative	A.	

Direct	effects	to	potential	alligator	habitat	would	total	approximately	30.5	acres.	Although	the	American	

alligator	is	no	longer	listed	by	the	USFWS	as	a	threatened	species,	it	retains	federal	protection	because	of	

its	similarity	of	appearance	to	the	American	crocodile,	which	is	a	listed	species.	

Alternative	A	would	impact	undeveloped	(unpaved)	sand	skink	soils	within	the	footprint	of	the	VMF	and	

along	the	MCO	Segment	(Figure	5.3.6‐1).	Surveys	to	confirm	the	presence	of	sand	skinks	have	not	been	

completed.	Areas	providing	potential	habitat	for	the	Eastern	indigo	snake	include	many	habitats	located	

within	the	Project	Study	Area.	The	maintained	areas	within	MCO	Segment,	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way	along	

the	E‐W	Corridor,	and	 the	FECR	Corridor	are	generally	not	considered	suitable	habitat	 for	 the	indigo	

snake.	However,	indigo	snakes	are	known	 to	enter	developed	and	maintained	areas	adjacent	 to	large	

undeveloped	 tracts	 of	 land.	 Direct	 effects	 to	 potential	 eastern	 indigo	 snake	 habitat	 would	 total	

approximately	183	acres.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-114 September 2014 

 

A	known	population	of	beautiful	pawpaw	occurs	in	southeast	Orange	County	in	pine	flatwoods	adjacent	to	

the	St.	Johns	River	in	the	E‐W	Corridor.	Johnson’s	seagrass	may	occur	in	a	number	of	the	waterways	that	

intersect	with	 the	existing	N‐S	 Corridor.	Seagrass	 surveys	 conducted	at	 the	 stream	 crossings	indicated	

Johnson’s	seagrass	is	not	located	within	the	Project	Study	Area	and	would	not	be	directly	affected	by	the	

Project.	Due	to	the	disturbed	habitat	located	in	the	FECR	Corridor,	it	is	unlikely	any	terrestrial	federally	listed	

plant	species	would	occur	within	the	Project	Study	Area,	but	several	species	have	been	documented	within	

Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park	in	sand	pine	scrub,	which	is	found	adjacent	to	the	railroad	corridor,	including	

four‐petal	pawpaw,	Florida	perforated	cladonia,	and	tiny	polygala.	

On	November	20,	2012,	USFWS	confirmed	FRA’s	finding	that	no	adverse	effect	would	result	from	Phase	I	of	

the	Project,	as	documented	in	the	2013	FONSI	(FRA	2013a).		

State Species 

Habitat	for	Sherman’s	fox	squirrel,	a	state‐listed	species,	is	located	throughout	the	MCO	Segment	and	along	

the	E‐W	Corridor.	Direct	effects	to	potential	fox	squirrel	habitat	would	total	approximately	111.5	acres.	

Potential	sandhill	crane	habitat	consists	of	upland	and	shallow	wetland	areas	with	little	or	no	canopy.	Direct	

effects	 to	potential	sandhill	crane	habitat	would	 total	approximately	41	acres.	No	nests	were	identified	

within	the	Project	Study	Area	during	the	wetland	delineation	field	work.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-115 September 2014 

 

The	 southeastern	 American	 kestrel	 utilizes	 similar	 habitat	 to	 the	 Audubon’s	 crested	 caracara.	

Appropriate	 habitats	 consist	 of	 open	 areas	 with	 low	 vegetation	 and	 scattered	 or	 adjacent	 trees	 for	

perching.	Direct	effects	to	potential	kestrel	habitat	would	total	approximately	80	acres.	Habitat	for	the	

burrowing	 owl	 occurs	 within	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 in	 dry	 upland	 areas.	 Direct	 effects	 to	 potential	

burrowing	owl	habitat	would	total	approximately	66	acres.	Field	reconnaissance	did	not	identify	any	owl	

burrows	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	

Gopher	tortoise	habitat	occurs	within	the	xeric	uplands	of	the	Project	Study	Area	including	the	E‐W	Corridor	

and	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor,	 which	 were	 not	 included	 in	 the	 habitat	 analysis.	 Field	 reconnaissance	 indicated	

Alternative	A	would	directly	impact	gopher	tortoise	burrows.	Effects	to	burrows	would	potentially	impact	

eastern	indigo	snake,	Florida	mouse,	Florida	pine	snake,	and	gopher	frog	populations	by	removing	potential	

refuges	 and	 nesting	locations	 from	 the	 area.	Direct	 effects	 to	potential	 gopher	 tortoise,	 Florida	mouse,	

Florida	 pine	 snake,	 short‐tailed	 snake,	 and	 gopher	 frog	 habitat	 would	 total	 approximately	 66	 acres.	

Subsequent	to	the	selection	of	the	final	railway	alignment,	a	FWC‐compliant	gopher	tortoise	survey	would	

be	completed	to	accurately	characterize	gopher	tortoise	utilization	of	the	habitats.	

Two	 wading	 bird	 rookeries	 within	 1,500	 feet	 of	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 at	 distances	 of	 approximately	

550	feet	and	1,400	feet,	respectively,	may	also	be	affected	by	the	Project.	Both	are	visually	blocked	from	the	

alignment	by	screens	of	thick	vegetation,	placing	the	Project	outside	of	the	buffer	zones	for	both	rookeries.	

Potential	habitat	for	the	American	oyster	catcher	occurs	at	several	bridge	locations	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	

and	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	Although	oyster	beds	are	not	mapped	in	the	GIS	land	use	data	acquired	from	

SFWMD	and	SJRWMD,	they	were	identified	within	the	Hillsboro	Canal,	North	Fork	of	the	Middle	River,	South	

Fork	of	the	Middle	River,	and	the	Oleta	River.	

Habitat	for	the	reddish	egret	and	mangrove	rivulus	is	also	present	in	mangroves	at	bridge	locations	along	

the	 N‐S	 and	 WPB‐M	 Corridors	 and	 direct	 effects	 to	 mangrove	 habitat	 would	 total	 0.1	 acre.	 Because	

Mangrove	rivulus	are	amphibious	and	may	be	found	out	of	water	in	wet	logs	or	leaf	matter	within	mangrove	

swamps,	construction	may	result	in	an	incidental	take	of	the	rivulus.	

Field	surveys	have	not	been	completed	for	the	MCO	Segment	or	the	E‐W	Corridor,	but	potential	habitat	for	

state	listed	plant	species	occurs	throughout	the	Project	Study	Area.	Field	survey	will	be	completed	once	the	

final	E‐W	Corridor	alignment	has	been	selected.	

The	 Florida	 Fish	 and	 Wildlife	 Conservation	 Commission	 sent	 a	 letter	 to	 the	 Florida	 Department	 of	

Environmental	Protection	on	November	26,	2012	in	support	of	the	Project	and	to	confirm	its	finding	that	

no	significant	adverse	impact	would	result	from	Phase	I	of	the	Project.		

Alternative C 

Alternative	C	would	result	in	the	loss	of	natural	habitats	potentially	used	by	federally	and	state	listed	wildlife	

species	as	shown	in	Table	5.3.6‐2.	Alternative	C	would	have	the	same	impacts	on	the	habitat	of	protected	

species	as	Alternative	A	within	the	MCO	Segment	and	the	N‐S	Corridor.	The	difference	in	impacts	between	

Alternative	A	and	Alternative	C	would	occur	within	the	17‐mile	stretch	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	between	SR	520	

and	 SR	 417	 where	 the	 proposed	 route	 for	 Alternative	 C	 would	 be	 south	 of	 the	 proposed	 route	 for	

Alternative	A	and	includes	some	habitat	located	south	of	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-116 September 2014 

 

Table 5.3.6-2 Alternative C - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat (acres) 

Common Name MCO Segmen

t

E-W Corridor N-S Corridor Total

Federally Listed Wildlife Species 

Florida Scrub-Jay 34.1 48.4 0 82.5

Audubon’s Crested Caracara 38.7 70.1 0 108.8

Wood Stork 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 28.0 32.9 0 60.9

American Alligator 6.2 14.0 6.8 27

Eastern Indigo Snake 99.0 122.5 2.8 224.3

Wildlife Species Listed Only by the State of Florida 

Florida Mouse 34.1 58.8 0 92.9

Sherman’s Fox Squirrel 60.6 73.8 0 134.4

Burrowing Owl 34.1 58.8 0 92.9

Florida Sandhill Crane 12.5 116.9 6.2 135.6

Limpkin 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2

Little Blue Heron 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2

Roseate Spoonbill 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2

Snowy Egret 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2

Southeastern American Kestrel 38.7 70.9 0 109.6

Reddish Egret 0 0 0.1 0.1

Tricolored Heron 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2

White Ibis 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2

Gopher Tortoise 34.1 58.8 0 92.9

Florida Pine Snake 34.1 58.8 0 92.9

Gopher Frog 34.1 58.8 0 92.9

Mangrove rivulus 0 0 0.1 0.1

Although	the	presence	of	scrub‐jays	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	has	not	been	fully	evaluated,	documented	

breeding	 populations	 occur	 within	 the	 vicinity	 of	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 in	 Orange	 County	

(USFWS	2012b).	Alternative	C	would	impact	approximately	83	acres	of	potential	scrub‐jay	habitat.	

The	route	for	Alternative	C	would	place	the	railroad	alignment	farther	from	the	highway	than	the	route	

for	Alternative	A.	This	would	lead	to	greater	effects	to	potential	caracara	habitat	than	would	occur	under	

Alternative	A	and	a	greater	likelihood	 of	a	 caracara	 nest	located	within	 the	 railroad	 footprint.	Direct	

effects	to	caracara	habitat	with	Alternative	C	would	total	approximately	108.8	acres.	

The	Project	areas	close	to	the	bald	eagle	nests,	wood	stork	nesting	colonies,	and	wading	bird	rookeries	

described	for	Alternative	A	are	no	different	under	Alternative	C,	therefore	effects	to	nesting	areas	would	

remain	the	same.	All	activities	for	the	Project	except	constructing	bridges	over	the	Oleta	River	and	Arch	

Creek	would	take	place	within	at	least	one	wood	stork	CFA	(USFWS	2010b).	Direct	effects	to	a	total	of	

approximately	169	acres	of	SFH	would	occur	with	the	implementation	of	Alternative	C.	

Although	implementing	Alternative	C	would	not	result	in	the	removal	of	any	documented	red‐cockaded	

woodpecker	nest	cavities,	it	would	affect	approximately	60.9	acres	of	potential	habitat.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-117 September 2014 

 

Direct	effects	to	wetlands	would	be	greater	with	Alternative	C	than	with	Alternative	A	due	entirely	to	the	

difference	in	alignments	between	SR	520	and	SR	417	in	Orange	County.	The	difference	in	wetland	effects	

would	impact	habitat	for	American	alligator,	Florida	sandhill	crane,	and	the	state	listed	wading	birds,	and	

may	potentially	impact	foraging	habitat	for	Audubon’s	crested	caracara,	southeastern	American	kestrel,	

and	eastern	indigo	snake	(Table	5.3.6‐2).	

Alternative	C	would	also	impact	undeveloped	sand	skink	soils	within	the	footprint	of	the	VMF.	Surveys	to	

confirm	the	presence	of	sand	skinks	have	not	been	completed.	Field	surveys	indicate	direct	effects	under	

Alternative	C	would	most	likely	occur	to	gopher	tortoise	burrows.		

Alternative E 

Alternative	E	would	result	in	the	loss	of	natural	habitats	potentially	used	by	 federally	and	state	listed	

wildlife	species	as	shown	in	Table	5.3.6‐3.	Alternative	E	would	have	the	same	impacts	on	the	habitat	of	

protected	 species	 as	 Alternative	 A	 within	 the	 MCO	 Segment	 and	 the	N‐S	 Corridor.	 The	 difference	 in	

impacts	 between	 Alternative	 A	 and	 Alternative	 E	 would	 occur	 within	 the	 17‐mile	 stretch	 of	 the	

E‐W	Corridor	between	SR	520	and	SR	417	where	the	proposed	route	for	Alternative	E	would	be	south	of	

the	proposed	route	for	Alternative	A	and	include	some	habitat	located	south	of	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way.	

Although	the	presence	of	scrub‐jays	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	has	not	been	fully	evaluated,	documented	

breeding	populations	occur	in	Orange	County	(USFWS	2012b).	Alternative	E	would	impact	approximately	

72	acres	of	potential	scrub‐jay	habitat.	

A	survey	of	Audubon’s	crested	caracara	nests	would	not	be	completed	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	until	the	

final	 alignment	 for	 the	 railroad	 is	 selected.	 Alternative	 E	 would	 impact	 approximately	 102	 acres	 of	

potential	caracara	feeding	habitat.	There	would	also	be	a	greater	potential	for	caracara	nest	trees	located	

within	the	Project	Study	Area.	The	Project	areas	close	to	the	bald	eagle	nests,	wood	stork	nesting	colonies,	

and	wading	bird	rookeries	described	above	for	Alternative	A	would	not	be	different	under	Alternative	E.	

All	activities	except	construction	of	the	bridges	over	the	Oleta	River	and	Arch	Creek	would	take	place	

within	at	least	one	wood	stork	CFA	(USFWS	2010b).	Alternative	E	would	affect	a	total	of	approximately	

164	acres	of	SFH.	

Field	surveys	for	the	presence	of	red‐cockaded	woodpecker	nest	cavities	would	be	conducted	subsequent	

to	the	selection	of	the	final	alternative	for	the	Project.	Although	implementing	Alternative	E	would	not	

result	in	the	removal	of	any	documented	red‐cockaded	woodpecker	nest	cavities,	it	would	affect	61	acres	

of	potential	habitat.		

Wetland	losses	would	impact	habitat	for	wood	stork,	American	alligator,	Florida	sandhill	crane,	and	the	

state	listed	wading	birds,	and	may	potentially	impact	foraging	habitat	for	Audubon’s	crested	caracara,	

southeastern	American	kestrel,	and	eastern	indigo	snake	(Table	5.3.6‐3).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-118 September 2014 

 

Table 5.3.6-3 Alternative E - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat (acres) 

Common Name MCO Segment E-W Corridor N-S Corridor Total

Federally Listed Wildlife Species 

Florida Scrub-Jay 34.1 37.8 0 71.9

Audubon’s Crested Caracara 38.7 63.4 0 102.1

Wood Stork 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 28.0 33.1 0 61.1

American Alligator 6.2 11.1 6.8 24.1

Eastern Indigo Snake 99.0 110.7 2.8 212.5

Wildlife Species Listed Only by the State of Florida 

Florida Mouse 34.1 47.5 0 81.6

Sherman’s Fox Squirrel 60.6 72.1 0 132.7

Burrowing Owl 34.1 47.5 0 81.6

Florida Sandhill Crane 12.5 32.0 6.2 50.7

Limpkin 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2

Little Blue Heron 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2

Roseate Spoonbill 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2

Reddish Egret 0 0 0.1 0.1

Snowy Egret 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2

Southeastern American Kestrel 38.7 63.4 0 102.1

Tricolored Heron 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2

White Ibis 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2

Gopher Tortoise 34.1 47.5 0 81.6

Florida Pine Snake 34.1 47.5 0 81.6

Short-Tailed Snake 34.1 47.5 0 81.6

Gopher Frog 34.1 47.5 0 81.6

Mangrove rivulus 0 0 0.1 0.1

Alternative	E	would	also	impact	undeveloped	sand	skink	soils	within	the	footprint	of	the	VMF.	Surveys	to	

confirm	the	presence	of	sand	skinks	have	not	been	completed.	Field	surveys	indicate	direct	effects	from	

Alternative	E	would	most	likely	occur	to	gopher	tortoise	burrows	the	effects	of	which	would	potentially	

impact	eastern	indigo	snake,	Florida	mouse,	Florida	pine	snake,	and	gopher	frog	populations	by	removing	

potential	refuges	and	nesting	locations	from	the	area.	

5.3.6.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

Indirect	effects	to	threatened	or	endangered	species	may	include	habitat	fragmentation	and	associated	

edge	effects;	the	loss	of	genetic	diversity	of	rare	plant	and	animal	populations,	increased	competition	for	

resources,	and	physical	or	psychological	restrictions	on	movements	caused	by	some	 feature	within	a	

corridor	that	wildlife	are	unable	or	unwilling	to	cross.	Indirect	effects	can	be	caused	by	the	increased	noise	

and	 visual	 disturbance	 from	 land‐clearing,	 earth‐moving,	 and	 construction	 machinery	 during	

construction.	Noise	and	vibration	associated	with	the	active	rail	line	may	cause	indirect	effects	if	wildlife	

avoid	habitat	near	the	embankment.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-119 September 2014 

 

Section	 5.3.5,	Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems, provides	a	 broader	analysis	 of	 the	

indirect	effects	to	natural	habitats	and	communities.	

Few	studies	on	wildlife	responses	 to	noise	resulting	 from	rail	operations	have	been	conducted	in	 the	

United	States,	but	there	is	a	well‐documented	negative	correlation	between	transportation	corridors	and	

wildlife	health/diversity	(Rosenfield	et	al.	1992).	Summers	et	al.	(2011)	found	that	distance	away	from	

roads	was	the	most	important	determinant	of	songbird	species	richness	but	were	not	able	to	demonstrate	

that	this	was	due	to	traffic	noise.	A	study	conducted	in	central	Florida	on	the	federally	threatened	Florida	

scrub‐jay	found	mortality	was	significantly	higher	in	roadside	territories	and	reproductive	success	was	

higher	 in	 non‐roadside	 territories	 (Mumme	 et	 al.	 2000).	 Noise	 does	 not	 always	 indicate	 lower	

reproductive	success	in	birds.	A	study	on	the	impact	of	percussive	and	military	aircraft	(helicopter)	noise	

on	 nesting	 success	 and	 behavior	 of	 the	 federally	 endangered	 red‐cockaded	 woodpecker	 found	

(Delaney	et	al.	2000)	that:	

 Experimental	 noise	 (maximum	 level	 =	 104	 dB)	 did	 not	 impact	 red‐cockaded	 woodpecker	

reproductive	success;	

 Flush	response	increased	closer	to	the	noise	source;	

 Red‐cockaded	woodpeckers	returned	to	their	nests	relatively	quickly	after	being	flushed;	and	

 Noise	levels	within	the	nest	cavities	were	substantially	louder	than	noise	levels	at	the	base	of	

the	nest	tree.	

Based	on	these	analyses,	the	Project	would	not	have	an	adverse	indirect	effect	on	federal	or	state‐listed	

species.	

5.3.6.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Proposed	construction	activities	(for	example,	using	construction	equipment,	operating	barges	or	boats,	

and	 placing	 and	 securing	 piling	 structures)	 associated	 with	 in‐water	 bridge	 work	 may	 temporarily	

disturb	manatees,	sea	turtles,	and	smalltooth	sawfish	in	the	vicinity	of	the	Project	Study	Area	through	

temporary	 effects	 to	 water	 quality	 (for	 example,	 increased	 turbidity),	 noise,	 boat	 collisions,	 and	

unintentional	“harassment”	of	individuals	within	or	adjacent	to	the	Project	Study	Area.	

As	described	above	in	Section	5.3.5.5	for	EFH,	pile	driving	(percussive	or	vibratory)	has	the	potential	to	

have	 temporary	 impacts	 on	 threatened	 or	 endangered	 fish	 and	 other	 aquatic	 organisms	 during	

construction	of	a	bridge.	The	highly	variable	auditory	sensitivity	of	 fish	means	 that	it	is	impossible	to	

generalize	on	the	effect	of	impulse	signals	from	one	species	to	another.	In	terrestrial	habitats,	noise	and	

human	activity	 from	construction	could	 temporarily	cause	bird	and	other	vertebrate	species	 to	avoid	

areas	near	construction	sites.	

5.3.6.5 Section 7 Consultation and Draft Findings 

The	USACE	has	facilitated	several	discussions	with	USFWS	and	NMFS	regarding	ESA	consultation	for	this	

project.	These	discussions	have	aided	in	clarification	of	the	details	required	in	the	Biological	Assessment	

(BA),	 which	 is	 being	 prepared	 in	 accordance	 with	 the	 Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook

(USFWS	1998).	Meeting	minutes	are	provided	in	Appendix	5.3.6‐A.	The	consultation	has	been	performed	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-120 September 2014 

 

in	 coordination	 with	 the	 following	 agencies:	 USFWS	 (Jacksonville	 and	 Vero	 Beach	 offices),	 NMFS,	

Protected	Resources	Division	(PRD),	and	FWC.	The	BA	is	intended	to	provide	documentation	necessary	

for	informal	consultation	with	the	USFWS	and	NMFS	in	order	to	comply	with	Section	7	of	the	federal	ESA	

(50	CFR	402).	

Protected	species	coordination	was	initiated	on	September	6,	2012,	with	a	meeting	at	the	USACE	office	in	

Cocoa,	which	included	representatives	from	the	USFWS	offices	for	North	Florida	and	South	Florida,	and	

NMFS.	 USFWS	 determined	 the	 construction	 conditions	 would	 be	 required	 for	 protecting	 manatees,	

smalltooth	sawfish,	indigo	snakes,	and	sea	turtles.	Adjacency	to	Florida	scrub‐jay	habitat	was	a	concern,	

so	scrub‐jay	surveys	would	also	be	required	to	determine	how	the	operation	of	the	rail	would	affect	the	

species.	NMFS	required	effects	to	Johnson	seagrass	and	smalltooth	sawfish	be	determined	and	provided	

an	ESA	checklist	for	the	bridge	locations	and	the	EFH	federal	mandate.	

On	October	12,	2012,	an	email	was	sent	to	USFWS	requesting	confirmation	of	listed	species	occurrence	

and	requirements	for	the	Project	Study	Area.	A	response	from	the	South	Florida	Office	of	the	USFWS	was	

received	on	October	30,	2012	confirming	the	species	of	concern	included:	wood	stork,	Florida	scrub‐jay,	

Audubon’s	crested	caracara,	bald	eagle,	eastern	indigo	snake,	and	red‐cockaded	woodpecker.	The	North	

Florida	Office	of	the	USFWS	confirmed	the	list	of	species	of	concern	at	a	meeting	at	the	USFWS	Office	in	

Jacksonville.	The	species	list	was	confirmed	to	include:	West	Indian	manatee,	wood	stork,	red‐cockaded	

woodpecker,	eastern	indigo	snake,	Audubon’s	crested	caracara,	Florida	scrub‐jay,	and	bald	eagle.	

BAs	were	completed	and	submitted	in	September	2013	for	species	under	USFWS	and	NMFS	jurisdiction.	

Based	 upon	 the	 BA	 submitted	 to	 the	 USFWS,	 the	 USACE	 issued	 an	 effects	 determination	 letter	 on	

September	19,	2013,	for	the	South	Florida	portion	of	the	Project	extending	from	Miami	north	through	

Indian	River	County,	and	on	September	24,	2013	for	the	northern	section	of	the	Project	extending	from	

Indian	River	County	to	Orlando.	Within	this	area	it	was	determined	the	Project	would	have	“no	effect”	to	

the	Florida	panther,	Everglade	kite	snail,	red‐cockaded	woodpecker,	and	piping	plover	based	on	the	lack	

of	suitable	habitat,	known	species	range	within	the	Project	Study	Area,	and/or	lack	of	visual	confirmation	

during	 surveys.	 USACE	 has	 made	 the	 specific	 findings	 listed	 below	 (Appendix	 5.3.6‐B).	 According	 to	

USACE,	the	Project	is:	

 Not	likely	to	adversely	impact	the	wood	stork.	This	determination	is	based	on	the	Project	not	

being	 located	 within	 2,500	 feet	 of	 an	 active	 colony	 site.	 Although	 the	 Project	 includes	

construction	within	SFH	and	within	the	CFA	of	a	colony	site,	prior	to	construction	AAF	would	

provide	SFH	compensation	in	accordance	with	the	Habitat	Management	Guidelines	to	replace	

lost	foraging	value.	

 Not	likely	to	adversely	impact	the	eastern	indigo	snake.	This	determination	is	based	on	the	

Project	not	being	located	in	open	water,	and	the	commitment	by	AAF	to	follow	the	USFWS’s	

Standard Protection Measuresfor the Eastern Indigo Snake	during	construction.	

 May	affect,	but	is	not	likely	to	adversely	impact	the	West	Indian	manatee.	This	determination	

is	based	on	the	 fact	that	the	Project	is	not	located	in	an	Important	Manatee	Area;	does	not	

include	dredging;	will	have	minimal	adverse	effects	on	aquatic	vegetation	or	mangroves;	and	

the	commitment	by	AAF	to	follow	standard	manatee	conditions	for	in‐water	work.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-121 September 2014 

 

 May	effect,	but	is	not	likely	to	adversely	impact	the	Florida	scrub‐jay.	Habitat	documented	to	

be	used	by	this	species	is	outside	of	the	proposed	work	area.		

 May	affect,	but	is	not	likely	to	adversely	impact	the	blue‐tailed	mole	skink	or	the	Florida	sand	

skink.	AAF	has	identified	areas	of	suitable	habitat	for	these	species	and	is	completing	surveys.		

 Will	have	no	effect	to	the	Atlantic	sturgeon	or	shortnose	sturgeon	based	on	the	proposed	work	

occurring	outside	of	their	known	range.	

 Will	 have	 no	 effect	 to	 Johnson’s	 seagrass	 based	 on	 the	 absence	 of	 the	 species	 within	 the	

proposed	work	area.	

 May	 affect,	 but	 is	 not	 likely	 to	 adversely	 impact	 swimming	 sea	 turtles	 based	 on	 AAF'’s	

agreement	 to	 follow	 the	 Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions	 during	

construction.	

 May	affect,	but	is	not	likely	to	adversely	impact	smalltooth	sawfish	based	on	AAF's	proposed	

compensatory	mitigation	for	the	loss	of	red	mangrove	habitat,	absence	of	seagrass	beds	within	

the	in‐water	work	areas,	and	AAF's	agreement	to	follow	the	Smalltooth	Sawfish	Construction	

Conditions	during	construction.	

USFWS,	 Jacksonville	 Field	 Office	 and	 NMFS,	 Habitat	 Conservation	 Division	 have	 provided	 letters	 of	

concurrence	with	USACE’s	 findings,	as	documented	in	Appendix	5.3.6‐B.	Consultation	is	ongoing	with	

USFWS,	Vero	Beach	Field	Office	and	NMFS,	PRD.	

5.4 Social and Economic Environment 

This	section	evaluates	the	effects	of	the	Project	on	the	human	environment,	including	communities	and	

demographics,	 environmental	 justice	 communities,	 economics,	 public	 health	 and	 safety,	 cultural	

resources,	 recreation	 and	 other	 Section	 4(f)	 resources,	 visual	 and	 scenic	 resources,	 and	 utilities	 and	

energy.	

5.4.1 Communities and Demographics 

This	section	describes	the	potential	impacts	to	existing	community	structure	and	demographic	profiles	

within	the	Project	Study	Area.	The	Project	under	all	Action	Alternatives	would	not	result	in	residential	

displacement,	neighborhood	fragmentation,	or	the	loss	of	continuity	between	neighborhoods.	

5.4.1.1 Environmental Consequences 

This	section	evaluates	potential	direct	effects	of	the	Project	to	communities	and	demographics	under	the	

No‐Action	 Alternative	 and	 the	 Action	 Alternatives.	 Potential	 direct	 effects	 would	 include	 long‐term	

residential	 displacement	 and	 neighborhood	 fragmentation	 or	 the	 loss	 of	 continuity	 between	

neighborhoods.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-122 September 2014 

 

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	Existing	commuter	

railway	services	would	remain	unchanged,	and	no	changes	 to	communities	and	demographics	would	

occur.	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Potential	direct	effects	of	the	Project	on	communities	and	demographics	would	be	the	same	under	all	

Action	Alternatives.	

MCO Segment 

The	 MCO	 Segment	 is	 entirely	 within	 GOAA	 property	 boundaries;	 it	 would	 not	 result	 in	 residential	

displacement,	neighborhood	fragmentation	or	the	loss	of	continuity	between	neighborhoods.	

East-West Corridor 

The	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	predominantly	within	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way	between	Orlando	and	Cocoa.	

The	right‐of‐way	already	bisects	these	municipalities;	therefore,	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	not	result	in	

new	neighborhood	fragmentation	or	loss	of	continuity	among	these	neighborhoods.		

The	 E‐W	 Corridor	 would	 not	 cross	 any	 residential	 neighborhoods	 outside	 Orlando	 and	 Cocoa;	 no	

neighborhood	fragmentation	would	occur.	The	E‐W	Corridor	would	pass	just	south	of	the	unincorporated	

community	of	Wedgefield,	which	is	north	of	SR	528	and	west	of	the	SR	520	interchange.	Wedgefield	is	

already	isolated	from	other	neighborhoods;	there	are	no	adjoining	neighborhoods.		

The	E‐W	Corridor	would	not	require	acquisition	of	residential	properties;	no	residential	displacements	

would	occur.	

North-South Corridor 

The	N‐S	Corridor	would	not	result	in	residential	displacement,	neighborhood	fragmentation,	or	the	loss	

of	continuity	between	neighborhoods.	The	N‐S	Corridor	is	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor,	and	would	

not	 displace	 residences	 or	 businesses.	 The	 existing	 FECR	 Corridor	 has	 supported	 freight	 and/or	

passenger	service	on	a	continuous	basis	 for	more	than	100	years,	and	existing	neighborhoods	largely	

developed	around	these	conditions.		

Phase I - West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor 

Similar	 to	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor,	 infrastructure	 improvements	 along	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 for	 the	

WPB‐M	Corridor	would	not	result	in	residential	displacement,	neighborhood	fragmentation,	or	the	loss	

of	continuity	between	neighborhoods.	Property	acquisition	will	be	required	for	the	proposed	stations	at

West	Palm	Beach	and	Fort	Lauderdale;	however,	no	significant	adverse	impacts	would	result	to	existing	

local	community	structure	or	demographic	profiles.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-123 September 2014 

 

5.4.1.2 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

The	Project	would	have	an	indirect	beneficial	effect	to	communities;	it	would	improve	accessibility	and	

mobility	 between	 Orlando	 and	 Miami,	 as	 well	 as	 other	 communities	 in	 southeast	 Florida.	 Despite	

accessibility	and	mobility	improvements,	the	Project	would	not	result	in	measurable	population	shifts.		

According	to	projections	from	the	University	of	Florida,	Orange	County	will	add	nearly	670,000	residents	

by	2040	(BEBR	2011b).	This	forecast	is	independent	of	the	Project	and	it	represents	baseline	conditions	

that	would	occur	under	the	No‐Action	Alternative.		

As	noted	in	Section	4.1.1,	Land Use,	the	only	potential	growth‐inducing	component	of	the	Project	is	use	of	

the	MCO	Intermodal	Station.	Since	this	station	is	located	within	MCO	property	boundaries,	there	would	

be	no	associated	transit‐oriented	development.	The	station	at	MCO	would	not	be	a	nucleus	for	growth	or	

promote	population	shifts.		

According	to	the	2006	South	Florida	East	Coast	Corridor	Transit	Analysis	(SFECCTA),	Southeast	Florida	

has	been	growing	rapidly	due	to	immigration	and	high	birth	rates	and	is	expected	to	continue	to	grow	in	

the	foreseeable	future	(FDOT	2006b).	By	2030,	the	number	of	households	along	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	is	

projected	to	increase	by	36	percent	compared	to	28	percent	for	Palm	Beach,	Broward,	and	Miami‐Dade	

counties	 combined.	 Population	 will	 increase	 even	 more	 with	 34	 percent	 growth	 in	 the	 region	 and	

46	percent	along	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	bringing	the	total	population	within	1	mile	of	the	FECR	Corridor	

to	 over	 1	million	 by	 2030.	 Automobile	 ownership	 and	 vehicle	miles	 traveled	 (VMT)	 are	 expected	 to	

increase	even	more	dramatically	than	population.	

As	 stated	in	Section	 3.5	 of	 the	 2012	 EA,	 transportation	improvement	 projects,	 such	 as	 the	 proposed	

stations,	 have	 been	 shown	 to	 induce	 new	 residential	 and	 new	 commercial	 development.	 However,	

changes	 in	 population	 density	 and	 growth	 rate	 are	 projected	 to	 occur	 along	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	

regardless	of	the	Project.	The	WPB‐M	Corridor	would	provide	an	efficient	transportation	alternative	that	

addresses	highway	congestion	and	current	and	future	travel	demand	between	major	South	Florida	cities.	

The	WPB‐M	Corridor	would	increase	the	ability	of	nearby	populations	to	travel	to	jobs,	education,	health	

care,	and	leisure	activities.	

5.4.1.3 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

Constructing	the	Project	may	temporarily	disrupt	automobile	traffic.	Upgrades	at	grade	crossings	and	

bridge	 rehabilitations	 would	 adversely	 impact	 travel	 between	 adjacent	 neighborhoods	 and	 could	

potentially	 impede	 emergency	 responders,	 particularly	 along	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor.	 As	 discussed	 in	

Section	5.1.2,	AAF	will	work	with	local	communities	to	minimize	disruption	to	traffic	and	to	maintain	

emergency	access.	

5.4.2 Environmental Justice 

This	section	describes	the	potential	effects	to	minority	and	low‐income	populations	within	the	Project	

Study	Area	that	could	result	from	the	Project.	EO	12898	Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice

inMinorityPopulation and Low‐IncomePopulations	was	issued	in	February	1994	and	requires	that	federal	

agencies	consider	whether	a	Project	would	have	a	disproportionately	high	adverse	impact	on	minority	or	

low‐income	populations.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-124 September 2014 

 

CEQ’s	guidance	also	indicates	that	the	analysis	should	identify	if	a	disproportionately	high	adverse	human	

health	or	environmental	impact	occurs	on	minority	or	low‐income	populations.	Furthermore,	USDOT	

Order	 5610.2(a)	 establishes	USDOT	 policy	 to	 consider	 environmental	justice	 principles	in	 all	USDOT	

programs,	 policies	 and	 activities.	 USDOT	 Order	 5610.2(a)	 also	 sets	 forth	 the	 steps	 to	 prevent	

disproportionately	high	and	adverse	impacts	to	minority	or	low‐income	populations.	

The	Project	would	not	result	in	disproportionately	high	and	adverse	impacts	to	minority	or	low‐income	

populations.	There	would	be	no	adverse	impacts	to	environmental	justice	communities	resulting	from	

residential	displacement,	job	loss	or	neighborhood	fragmentation	due	to	the	use	of	property.	Although	

changes	in	noise	would	affect	residents	along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	none	of	the	affected	parcels	are	within	

environmental	 justice	 communities.	 There	 would	 be	 no	 adverse	 noise	 or	 vibration	 impacts	 to	

environmental	justice	communities	along	 the	E‐W	Corridor	under	any	of	 the	Action	Alternatives,	and	

mitigation	would	limit	 any	 changes	in	 vibration	 along	 the	N‐S	 Corridor	 such	 that	 there	would	 be	 no	

resulting	vibration	impacts.		

5.4.2.1 Methodology 

A	 high‐level	 quantitative	 analysis	 was	 conducted	 for	 Phase	 I	 pursuant	 to	 Executive	 Order	 12898,	 to	

determine	the	potential	for	disproportionately	high	or	adverse	impacts	to	sensitive	communities.Based	

on	the	result	of	the	demographic	assessment,	minority	populations	subject	to	protection	under	Executive	

Order	 12898	 are	 present	 within	 the	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 to	 Miami	 Corridor	 Area.	 Although	 there	 are	

Environmental	Justice	communities	of	concern	present	along	the	FECR	Corridor,	the	implementation	of	

directional,	wayward,	or	crossing	mounted	horns	would	dramatically	reduce	 the	existing	 footprint	of	

warning	horn	noise	and	would	minimize	the	number	of	existing	and	potential	noise	impacts	in	the	Project	

Area.	Further,	Phase	I would	not	displace	any	businesses	or	residences	and	would	not	adversely	impact	

the	demographics	of	the	Project	Area.	The	Projectwould	further	benefit	residents	by	providing	additional	

transportation	options	to	residents	and	tourists	within	walking	distance	of	the	CBDs	in	the	three	cities	

where	stations	are	proposed.	The	2013	FONSI	(FRA	2013)	found	that	the	Selected	Alternative	will	not	

result	in	a	disproportionately	high	or	adverse	effect	on	those	sensitive	populations	and	Environmental	

Justice	communities	of	concern	considered	under	Executive	Order	12898	after	noise	mitigation	measures	

have	been	implemented,	such	as	directional,	wayward	or	crossing	mounted	horns.	

This	 evaluation	 used	 demographic	 data	 collected	 from	 the	 2010	U.S.	 Census	 and	 2010	 ACS.	 Because	

impacts	to	environmental	justice	communities	are	dependent	on	the	potential	for	significant	impacts	in	

other	environmental	categories,	the	area	of	analysis	 for	environmental	justice	is	 the	area	of	potential	

significant	impacts	 for	 the	 other	environmental	impact	categories,	including	 cumulative	impacts.	The	

Project	Study	Area	for	this	evaluation	includes	census	tracts	within	1,000	feet	of	the	proposed	or	existing	

railroad	alignments.		

Thresholds	to	determine	meaningfully	greater	high	minority	and	low‐income	populations	include	census	

tracts	where	minority	populations	are	10	percent	higher	 than	 the	combined	 total	 for	 the	six	counties	

crossed	by	the	Project	(37.4	percent)	and	census	tracts	where	low‐income	populations	are	10	percent	

higher	than	the	combined	total	for	the	census	tracts	crossed	by	the	alignments	(23.3	percent).		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-125 September 2014 

 

5.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

This	 section	includes	 an	 evaluation	 of	 potential	 direct	 effects	 of	 the	 Project	 to	 environmental	justice	

communities	 under	 the	 No‐Action	Alternative	 and	 the	 Action	 Alternatives.	 Potential	 direct	 effects	 to	

environmental	 justice	 communities	 would	 include	 residential	 or	 job	 displacement	 due	 to	 property	

acquisition,	neighborhood	fragmentation,	increases	in	noise	levels	and	effects	to	other	resources.	This	

evaluation	 includes	 a	 comparison	 between	 the	 potential	 direct	 effects	 to	 environmental	 justice	

communities	with	those	same	impacts	to	non‐environmental	justice	communities	to	determine	if	adverse	

impacts	would	be	predominantly	borne	by	minority	and/or	low‐income	populations.		

No-Action Alternative 

Under	 the	No‐Action	Alternative,	 the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	Existing	commuter	

railway	 services	 and	 opportunities	would	 remain	 unchanged,	 and	there	would	 be	 no	 disproportionate	

adverse	impacts	to	minority	or	low‐income	populations.	However,	minority	populations	in	Orlando,	Miami,	

and	other	communities	would	not	have	access	to	efficient	intercity	rail	service.	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Potential	direct	effects	of	the	Project	to	environmental	justice	communities	would	be	the	same	under	all	

Action	 Alternatives.	 Alternatives	 A,	 C,	 and	 E	 would	 have	 identical	 impacts	 to	 environmental	 justice	

communities	because	they	would	cross	the	same	census	tracts.	

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment	is	entirely	within	Census	Tract	168.02.	According	to	2010	USCB	data,	this	census	tract	

does	not	meet	the	established	environmental	justice	thresholds.	No	environmental	justice	communities	

exist	along	the	MCO	Segment;	therefore,	there	would	be	no	disproportionate	adverse	impacts	to	minority	

or	low‐income	populations.	

East-West Corridor 

As	noted	in	Sections	5.4.1,	Communities and Demographics,	and	5.4.3,	Economic Conditions,	the	Project	

would	not	result	in	residential	displacement,	job	loss,	or	neighborhood	fragmentation	due	to	required	

property	acquisitions	along	the	E‐W	Corridor.	Therefore,	there	would	be	no	disproportionate	impacts	to	

environmental	justice	communities	from	changes	in	land	use	under	any	of	the	Action	Alternatives.	

The	 E‐W	 Corridor	 passes	 through	 two	 census	 tracts	 that	meet	 the	 established	 environmental	justice	

thresholds,	Census	Tracts	623.02	and	624.00.	The	current	sound	environment	along	these	portions	of	the	

E‐W	Corridor	predominantly	includes	roadway	traffic	along	SR	528.	As	described	in	Section	5.2.2,	Noise

and Vibration,	changes	to	noise	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	affect	109	(105	moderate	and	four	severe	

impacts)	residential	parcels.	None	of	 the	affected	residential	parcels	are	within	environmental	justice	

communities;	 therefore,	 there	 would	 be	 no	 disproportionate	 adverse	 impacts	 from	 noise	 in	

environmental	justice	communities	along	the	E‐W	Corridor.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-126 September 2014 

 

The	Project	would	result	in	vibration	impacts	to	118	residential	parcels	along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	none	of	

which	 are	 within	 environmental	 justice	 communities.	 There	 would	 be	 no	 disproportionate	 adverse	

impacts	from	vibration	in	environmental	justice	communities	along	the	E‐W	Corridor.	

The	 E‐W	 Corridor	 would	 not	 require	 use	 of	land	 within	 a	 Section	 4(f)	 resource.	 There	 would	 be	 no	

disproportionate	adverse	impacts	to	Section	4(f)	resources	within	environmental	justice	communities	

along	the	E‐W	Corridor.	

North-South Corridor 

As	noted	in	Sections	5.4.1,	Communities and Demographics,	and	5.4.3,	Economic Conditions,	the	Project	

would	not	result	in	residential	displacement,	job	loss,	or	neighborhood	fragmentation	due	to	required	

property	 acquisitions	 along	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor.	 Therefore,	 there	 would	 be	 no	 adverse	 impacts	 to	

environmental	justice	communities	from	changes	in	land	use.		

The	 N‐S	 Corridor	 passes	 through	 29	 census	 tracts	 that	 meet	 the	 established	 environmental	 justice	

thresholds	(Tables	4.4.2‐2	and	4.4.2‐4).	The	future	No‐Action	sound	environment	along	these	portions	of	

the	N‐S	Corridor	predominantly	includes	freight	traffic	along	the	existing	FECR	Corridor	and	noise	from	

surrounding	population	density.	As	described	in	Section	 5.2.2,	Noise and Vibration,	adding	 passenger	

trains	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	not	result	in	adverse	noise	impacts.	Potential	impacts	resulting	from	

changes	to	noise	in	environmental	justice	communities	would	not	be	appreciably	more	severe	or	greater	

in	 magnitude	 than	 the	 impacts	 experienced	 by	 non‐environmental	 justice	 communities	 along	 the	

N‐S	Corridor.	

The	 Project	 would	 result	 in	 vibration	 impacts	 to	 3,317	 residential	 parcels	 along	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor,	

820	(24.7	percent)	of	which	are	within	environmental	justice	communities.	All	vibration	impacts	(including	

those	within	environmental	justice	communities)	would	be	mitigated	using	ballast	mats	beneath	rail	lines,	

“frogs”	at	selected	switch	locations	with	nearby	sensitive	receptors,	and	special	pile‐driving	methods	at	

selected	 locations	 near	 sensitive	 receptors	 during	 construction.	 There	 would	 be	 no	 disproportionate	

adverse	impacts	 from	 vibration	in	environmental	justice	 communities	along	 the	N‐S	 Corridor	with	 the	

implementation	of	these	measures.	

The	N‐S	Corridor	would	not	require	use	of	land	within	a	park,	recreational	area	or	wildlife	Section	4(f)	

resource.	 There	 would	 be	 no	 disproportionate	 adverse	 impacts	 within	 environmental	 justice	

communities	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	as	a	result	of	the	loss	of	Section	4(f)	recreational	or	park	resources.	

Phase I - West Palm Beach - Miami Corridor 

As	 stated	 in	 Section	 3.3.3	 of	 the	 2012	 EA,	 the	 Project	 would	 not	 impact	 minority	 or	 low‐income	

populations	in	a	disproportionate	manner.	The	relocated	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	(as	compared	to	the	

Fort	Lauderdale	Station	North	Site)	would	also	not	disproportionately	impact	minority	or	low‐income	

populations.	Implementation	of	crossing‐mounted	horns	would	offset	all	severe	impacts	in	Broward	and	

Miami‐Dade	Counties	and	more	than	99	percent	of	all	severe	impacts	in	Palm	Beach	County.	As	required	

by	the	2013	FONSI,	AAF	conducted	a	supplemental	study	of	the	Phase	1	Projects’	effects	on	environmental	

justice	communities	(AMEC	2014b)	and	found	no	disproportionate	adverse	effect.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-127 September 2014 

 

Summary 

Direct	effects	to	environmental	justice	communities	along	the	MCO	Segment,	E‐W	Corridor,	N‐S	Corridor,	

and	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 would	 be	 the	 same	 for	 all	 Action	 Alternatives.	 There	 would	 be	 no	 impacts	 to	

environmental	 justice	 communities	 along	 the	 MCO	 Segment,	 as	 there	 are	 no	 minority	 or	 low‐income	

populations	 within	 the	 census	 tract	 encompassing	 this	 segment.	 Neither	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 nor	 the	

N‐S	Corridor	would	result	in	residential	displacement,	job	loss,	or	neighborhood	fragmentation	due	to	the	

use	 of	 property;	 therefore,	 there	 would	 be	 no	 disproportionate	 impacts	 to	 environmental	 justice	

communities	from	changes	in	land	use.	Although	changes	in	noise	would	affect	109	(105	moderate	and	four	

severe)	residential	parcels	along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	none	of	these	parcels	are	within	environmental	justice	

communities.	Changes	in	train	frequency	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	not	result	in	adverse	noise	impacts	

to	environmental	justice	communities.	There	would	be	 no	adverse	 vibration	impacts	 to	environmental	

justice	communities	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	under	any	Action	Alternative,	and	mitigation	would	limit	any	

changes	in	vibration	along	the	N‐S	Corridor,	such	that	there	would	be	no	resulting	vibration	impacts.	Finally,	

there	would	be	no	acquisition	of	land	within	a	Section	4(f)	resource	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	or	N‐S	Corridor,	

and	no	disproportionate	adverse	impacts	to	environmental	justice	communities.		

5.4.2.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

By	offering	an	alternative	transportation	option,	the	Project	would	improve	access	and	mobility	between	

Orlando,	West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	Miami	and	would	have	a	beneficial	effect	on	minority	

and	low	income	populations	in	these	communities.		

5.4.2.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

The	Project	would	benefit	environmental	justice	communities	by	providing	job	opportunities	during	the	

construction	 period.	 AAF	 would	 hire	 local	 workers	 to	 the	 greatest	 extent	 practicable.	 Section	 5.4.3,	

Economic Conditions,	discusses	these	benefits	in	detail.	

5.4.3 Economic Conditions 

This	section	describes	the	potential	effects	to	local	economic	conditions	that	could	result	from	the	Project.	

The	Project	would	not	reduce	municipal	property	tax	revenues	along	the	MCO	Segment	or	N‐S	Corridor.	

Partial	acquisition	of	one	privately	owned	parcel	outside	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way	would	be	required	along	

the	E‐W	Corridor,	and	would	result	in	a	negligible	loss	of	property	tax	revenues	for	Brevard	County.	The	

relocated	 Fort	 Lauderdale	 Station	 within	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 requires	 acquisition	 of	 three	 parcels	

adjoining	the	FECR	Corridor.	Some	businesses	would	be	displaced	but	are	expected	to	relocate	elsewhere	

in	Fort	Lauderdale.	The	Project	would	not	displace	any	other	existing	businesses	or	result	in	the	loss	of	

jobs.	The	Project	would	have	beneficial	regional	economic	impacts	from	increased	economic	activity,	tax	

revenues,	construction	jobs,	and	associated	spending.	

5.4.3.1 Environmental Consequences 

Potential	long‐term	direct	and	adverse	effects	 to	local	economic	conditions	would	include	 the	loss	 of	

municipal	 property	 tax	 revenue	 from	 the	 acquisition	 of	 privately	 owned	 properties,	 permanent	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-128 September 2014 

 

displacement	of	existing	businesses	and	associated	revenues,	and	employment	displacement.	Potential	

long‐term	 direct	 and	 beneficial	 effects	 to	 local	 economic	 conditions	 would	 include	 expenditures	

associated	 with	 Project	 operations	 such	 as	 labor,	 fuel	 costs,	 equipment	 maintenance,	 insurance,	

maintenance	of	right‐of‐way,	and	lease	payments.	

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	Existing	commuter	

railway	 services	 would	 remain	 unchanged,	 and	 no	 anticipated	 changes	 to	 local	 economic	 conditions	

would	occur.		

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Potential	direct	effects	of	the	Project	on	local	economic	conditions	would	be	the	same	under	all	Action	

Alternatives.	

The	Project	would	increase	federal,	state,	and	local	government	revenues	and	have	other	direct	economic	

benefits	 to	local	 populations.	 The	Washington	 Economics	Group,	Inc.	 (WEG)	 performed	an	economic	

benefits	analysis	for	the	Project	(WEG	2014),	which	followed	professionally	accepted	and	widely	utilized	

methodologies	using	the	IMPLAN	methodology	(developed	by	the	Minnesota	IMPLAN	Group,	Inc.).		

Table 5.4.3-1 Summary of Economic Benefits of AAF Construction and Operations 

Category 

 Operations 

Construction Average Annual 

Total 

(2016-2021) 

Jobs Over 10,000 1,603 1,603 

Labor Income $1.2 Billion $75 Million $442 Million 

Gross Domestic Product $1.7 Billion $105 Million $619 Million 

Total Economic Value $3.4 Billion $150 Million $887 Million 

Federal. State and Local Taxes $291 Million $21 Million $126 Million 

Source: WEG 2014 

Increases	in	tax	revenue,	including	growth	in	real	estate	taxes,	corporate	income	taxes,	and	sales	taxes	as	

well	as	benefits	to	be	realized	from	reemployment	insurance,	could	reduce	local	tax	burdens	and/or	be	

utilized	to	address	community‐specific	needs	(schools,	parks,	public	works,	police,	and	fire	protection).	

Potential	adverse	effects	to	other	elements	of	the	transportation	industry,	due	to	diversion	of	riders,	was	

also	evaluated	as	a	potential	economic	effect.	The	Project	would	divert	an	estimated	10	percent	of	the	

proposed	long‐distance	passenger	rail	ridership	from	airplane	passengers	to	passenger	rail	service.	This	

equates	to	approximately	400	air	passengers	per	day.	Based	on	2014	airline	flight	schedules	(Orlando	

Airports	2014)	and	load	factors	(DOT	2014)	as	well	as	industry	average	revenue	per	passenger	mile	and	

the	annual	operating	revenues	of	the	airlines	currently	providing	direct	service	between	Orlando	and	

South	Florida	(American	Airlines,	Spirit	Airlines,	and	Silver	Airways),	the	lost	revenue	from	diversion	of	

air	 passengers	 would	 account	 for	 less	 than	 0.01	 percent	 of	 the	 airlines’	 combined	 annual	 operating	

revenue.	Therefore,	the	forecast	diversion	of	air	travelers	to	the	AAF	service	would	not	have	a	significant	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-129 September 2014 

 

economic	impact	to	the	airlines	currently	serving	the	two	markets.	The	potential	diversion	from	other	

intercity	rail	services	and	bus	services	is	also	not	anticipated	to	result	in	a	significant	economic	impact	

from	lost	revenue.	

The	analysis	also	evaluated	 the	potential	economic	effects	of	property	acquisition	within	each	project	

segment,	as	described	below.	

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment	would	not	 require	acquisition	 of	privately	 owned	property	as	it	is	entirely	within	

MCO	property	boundaries.	Since	no	land	acquisition	is	necessary,	the	MCO	Segment	would	not	result	in	

the	reduction	of	municipal	tax	revenue,	commercial	displacements,	or	job	loss.		

East-West Corridor 

The	E‐W	Corridor	would	require	partial	acquisition	of	one	parcel,	which	in	2013	had	a	total	taxable	value	

of	$1,420,960	(Brevard	County,	Property	Appraiser	2013).	Acquisition	would	be	limited	to	15.8	percent	

of	 the	 overall	 parcel	 acreage,	 and	 a	 proportional	 taxable	 value	 of	 $224,145.	 Because	 AAF	 is	 only	

purchasing	a	portion	of	the	parcel,	effects	on	Brevard	County	are	limited.	The	loss	of	municipal	property	

tax	 revenues	 attributable	 to	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 would	 not	 be	 significant	 enough	 to	 adversely	 impact	

government	services.		

As	noted	in	Section	5.1.1,	Land Use,	partial	land	acquisition	 for	 the	E‐W	Corridor	under	Alternative	A	

would	neither	change	the	land	use	of	the	remainder	of	the	parcel,	nor	result	in	commercial	displacement	

or	job	losses.	Current	land	use	on	the	remainder	of	the	parcel	would	continue	as	undeveloped.		

North-South Corridor 

The	Project	would	not	require	acquisition	of	privately	owned	property	along	 the	N‐S	Corridor,	as	 the	

N‐S	Corridor	is	entirely	within	 the	existing	FECR	Corridor.	Since	no	land	acquisition	is	necessary,	 the	

Project	would	not	result	in	the	reduction	of	municipal	tax	revenue,	commercial	displacements,	or	job	loss	

along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	

Phase I - West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor 

The	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 would	 require	 acquisition	 of	 private	 property	 for	 the	 proposed	 stations	 at	

West	Palm	Beach	and	Fort	Lauderdale.	Any	direct	loss	in	real	estate	taxes,	however,	would	be	offset	by	

revenues	 from	 increased	 property	 values	 in	 areas	 adjacent	 to	 these	 stations.	 The	 relocated	 Fort	

Lauderdale	Station	requires	acquisition	of	three	parcels,	one	of	which	is	occupied	by	an	office	building	

that	would	be	demolished	to	make	way	for	the	station	lobby	building.	Tenants	within	the	office	building	

would	be	displaced	by	the	Project,	but	are	expected	to	relocate	within	Fort	Lauderdale	with	no	loss	of	

jobs	or	income	tax	revenue.	

5.4.3.2 Indirect and Secondary Impacts 

This	 section	 includes	 an	 evaluation	 of	 potential	 indirect	 and	 secondary	 effects	 of	 the	 Project	 to	 local	

economic	 conditions,	 which	 would	 include	 job	 creation	 and	 economic	 development	 stemming	 from	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-130 September 2014 

 

increased	 goods	 and	 services	 and	 re‐spending	 patterns	 as	 well	 as	 the	 effects	 of	 the	 construction	 and	

operation	of	transit‐oriented	development	(TOD)	that	will	be	created	by	AAF	at	and	around	the	stations	in	

Miami,	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	West	Palm	Beach.	As	noted	in	the	economic	benefits	analysis	prepared	by	WEG,	

potential	indirect	and	secondary	effects	of	the	Project	on	local	economic	conditions	are	summarized	in	Table	

5.4.3‐2,	and	include	construction	and	operational	benefits	of	jobs,	income,	GDP	increases,	and	tax	revenues.	

Table 5.4.3-2 Summary of Economic Benefits of TOD Construction and Operations 

Category 

 Operations 

Construction Average Annual Total (2016-2021) 

Jobs 1,695 389 389 

Labor Income $658.8 Million $20 Million $66 Million 

Gross Domestic Product $980.5 Million $60 Million $204 Million 

Total Economic Value $1.8 Billion $80 Million $284 Million 

Federal. State and Local Taxes $187.4 Million $14 Million $48 Million 

Source: WEG 2014 

Additional	indirect	economic	benefits	of	the	Project	could	be	realized	through	savings	associated	with	

reduced	 highway	 maintenance	 costs.	 The	 operation	 of	 passenger	 rail	 service	 would	 relieve	 road	

congestion,	which	would	prolong	the	lifespan	of	highway	infrastructure	more	than	if	the	passenger	rail	

service	were	not	operating.		

5.4.3.3 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts 

This	section	includes	an	evaluation	of	the	potential	direct,	indirect,	and	secondary	effects	of	the	Project	

during	the	anticipated	construction	period	(mid‐2014	to	mid‐2016),	which	would	include	job	creation	

and	 investments	 associated	 with	 the	 design,	 engineering,	 and	 construction	 of	 rail,	 bridges,	

communications	infrastructure,	support	facilities,	and	train	stations	as	well	as	equipment	purchases.	As	

shown	in	Table	5.4.3‐1,	constructing	the	Project	is	expected	to	generate	over	10,000	jobs,	with	a	total	

economic	benefit	of	$3.4	Billion.		

5.4.4 Public Health and Safety 

This	section	describes	the	proposed	conditions	within	the	Project	Study	Area	with	respect	to	the	health	

and	 safety	 of	 the	residents	and	communities	 that	may	be	affected	by	 the	construction	and	long‐term	

operation	of	the	Project.	The	Project	would	comply	with	all	relevant	health	and	safety	regulations	and	

would	 not	 adversely	impact	 the	 public’s	 health	 or	 safety.	Measures	 would	 be	in	 place	 to	 protect	 the	

security	of	the	railroad	infrastructure	and	the	traveling	public.	

The	2013	FONSI	for	Phase	I	(FRA	2013)	found	that	the	addition	of	passenger	trains	to	the	FECR	Corridor	

and	the	development	of	the	corresponding	stations	will	not	negatively	impact	public	health	or	safety.	The	

Project would	result	in	enhancing	public	safety	with	improvements	to	grade	crossing	signal	equipment	

for	 vehicular	 and	 pedestrian	 traffic.	 Also,	 the	 benefits	 resulting	 from	 decreased	 congestion	 and	 the	

potential	for	fewer	vehicular	crashes	and	fewer	air	emissions	indicate	that	there	will	be	no	significant	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-131 September 2014 

 

negative	impacts	on	public	health	and	safety.	According	to	the	2013	FONSI,	Phase	I	of	the	Project	will	not	

result	in	significant	adverse	impacts	on	public	health	and	safety.	

5.4.4.1 Regulatory Framework 

The	following	publications	and	resource	materials	from	FRA	and	other	USDOT	agencies	were	reviewed	

for	general	safety	information.	The	Project	would	be	constructed	and	operated	in	compliance	with	these	

regulations:	

 Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110‐432). The	Rail	Safety	Improvement	

Act	reauthorized	funding	to	enable	FRA	to	oversee	the	nation's	rail	safety	program	between	

2009	and	2013.	One	aim	of	the	statute	is	to	improve	conditions	of	rail	bridges	and	tunnels.	The	

Rail	Safety	 Improvement	Act	also	requires	 that	railroads	implement	Positive	Train	Control	

(PTC)	systems	to	prevent	train‐to‐train	collisions	on	certain	rail	lines	by	the	end	of	2015.		

 Federal Railroad Administration (49 CFR Volume 4, Chapter II, part 200 to 299). FRA	

regulations	 for	railroad	 transportation	safety,	including	standards,	rules,	and	practices,	are	

listed	in	49	CFR	parts	200‐299.	

 U.S. Code on Railroad Safety (49 U.S.C. §§ 20101 et seq.). Part	A	of	Subtitle	V	of	Title	49	of	

the	United	States	Code	contains	a	series	of	statutory	provisions	affecting	the	safety	of	railroad	

operations.		

 Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration (49 CFR

part 1580). Part	 1580,	 Rail	 Transportation	 Security,	 codifies	 the	 Transportation	 Security	

Administration	 inspection	 program.	 It	 includes	 security	 requirements	 for	 freight	 railroad	

carriers;	intercity,	commuter,	and	short‐haul	passenger	 train	service	providers;	rail	 transit	

systems;	 and	 rail	 operations	 at	 certain	 fixed‐site	 facilities	 that	 ship	 or	 receive	 specified	

hazardous	materials	by	rail.	

 Transportation Security Administration	 ‐	 Security Directives for Passenger Rail

Security. Directives	 RAILPAX‐04‐01	 require	 rail	 transportation	 operators	 to	 implement	

15	 protective	 security	 measures,	 which	 include	 reporting	 potential	 threats	 and	 security	

concerns	 to	 the	 Transportation	 Security	 Administration,	 and	 designate	 a	 primary	 and	

alternate	security	coordinator.	

 EmergencyPlanning and CommunityRight‐to‐KnowAct. The	objectives	of	the	Emergency	

Planning	and	Community	Right‐to‐Know	Act	are	to	allow	state	and	local	planning	for	chemical	

emergencies,	 provide	 for	 notification	 of	 emergency	 releases	 of	 chemicals,	 and	 address	 a	

community's	right‐to‐know	about	toxic	and	hazardous	chemicals(42	USC	116).	

 Guide to Developing a Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Plan. FRA’s	Guide to

Developing a Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Plan	 assigns	 railroad	 operators	 the	

responsibility	 for	 developing	 and	 implementing	 an	 emergency	 preparedness	 plan	 that	

complies	with	 applicable	laws	 and	 regulations,	 based	 on	 the	 specific	 circumstances	 of	 the	

proposed	railroad’s	operations	(FRA	2010a).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-132 September 2014 

 

 FDOT Rail Handbook. The	 Rail	 Handbook	 identifies	 rail	 processes,	 guidelines,	 and	

responsibilities	 for	 the	 development	 and	 implementation	 of	 programs	 which	 include	

Highway‐Rail	Grade	Crossing	 Inventory,	Highway‐Rail	Grade	Crossing	Safety	 Improvement	

Program,	Construction	and	Maintenance	Project	Management	Program,	Public	Highway‐Rail	

Grade	Crossing	Opening	–	Closure	Program,	Railroad	Safety	Inspection	Program,	Florida	Rail	

System	Plan,	Rail	Emergency	Management	Plan,	and	the	Use	of	Locomotive	Horns	at	Highway‐

Rail	Grade	Crossings	and	Quiet	Zone	Application	Process	(FDOT	2012a).		

FDOT	provides	railroad	Safety	Inspectors	to	ensure	each	railroad	is	in	compliance	with	49	CFR	part	200	

et	seq.	,	which	includes	but	is	not	limited	to,	inspections	of:

 Railroad	operating	and	safety	rules;	

 Federal	regulations	concerning	training	and	testing	of	operating	personnel;	

 Protection	of	employees	working	on	track	and	equipment;	

 Drug	and	alcohol	prohibitions;	

 Railroad	communications;	and	

 Train	identification.	

FECR	 has	 established	 operational	 rules	 based	 on	 FRA	 guidelines	 under	 which	 they	 operate.	 These	

guidelines	 are	included	 as	 Section	 6,	Method	 of	Operation,	in	 FECR’s	Operating	Rules	 (FECR	 2012a).	

FECR’s	Method	of	Operation	includes	the	following	major	operational	rules	and	supporting	information:		

 General	Signal	Rules	(Signals	Imperfectly	Displayed	Governing	Signal,	Manual	Block	Territory);	

 Interlocking	Rules	(Automatic	Block	and	Interlocking	Signals);	

 Automatic	Block	Signal	(ABS)	Rules;	

 Centralized	Traffic	Control	(CTC)	Signal	System	Rules	(Automatic	Train	Control	System);	

 Control	Station	Rules;	and	

 Rules	for	Railroad	Communications.		

5.4.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

The	No‐Action	Alternative	would	continue	to	be	operated	consistent	with	the	regulations	applicable	to	

the	 existing	 FECR	 freight	 operations.	 The	 Project	 Alternatives	 and	 equipment	 would	 be	 constructed,	

maintained	and	operated	consistent	with	FRA	safety	regulations.		

Design	elements	of	the	Project	include:	enhancing	signal	and	train	control	systems;	reducing	the	potential	

for	accidents	at	highway‐rail	at‐grade	crossings;	and	limiting	access	to	rail	infrastructure	by	trespassers	

and	other	unauthorized	persons.	These	design	elements	support	safe	railroad	operations	for	passengers,	

employees,	 pedestrians,	 and	 motorists.	 Consolidated	 control	 of	 both	 freight	 and	 passenger	 train	

movement,	plus	the	added	rail	infrastructure,	will	allow	freight	operations	to	continue	to	operate	reliably	

without	adverse	impact	from	the	restoration	of	intercity	passenger	rail	services	within	the	N‐S	Corridor.		

The	Project	would	not	appreciably	affect	public	health,	safety,	and	security	in	 the	rail	corridor.	While	

greater	frequency	of	trains	may	increase	the	frequency	of	opportunities	for	conflict	between	trains	and	

vehicles	or	people,	safety	improvements	at	crossings,	an	upgraded	PTC	system,	enhanced	security,	and	

improved	 communications	 among	 emergency	 responders	 would	 be	 a	 beneficial	 effect,	 serving	 to	

minimize	potential	conflicts	and	their	consequences.	AAF	will	develop	a	comprehensive	safety	program	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-133 September 2014 

 

for	the	Project	including	guidelines	and	plans	including:	a	passenger	train	emergency	preparation	plan,	a	

safety	and	security	certification	plan,	track	safety	standards,	an	operations	system	safety	program	plan,	a	

right‐of‐way	safety	and	security	plan,	and	several	FECR	safety	procedures,	including,	for	example,	FECR’s	

Emergency	Preparedness	Plan	(FECR	2012c).		

Public Safety 

Public	 safety	 concerns	 include	 at‐grade	 crossings,	 train	 control	 systems,	 and	 transport	 of	 hazardous	

materials.	The	E‐W	Corridor	and	adding	passenger	trains	to	the	N‐S	Corridor	are	not	expected	to	adversely	

impact	public	health	or	safety.	Any	of	the	Project	Alternatives	under	consideration	would	elevate	public	

safety	by	improving	grade‐crossing	signal	equipment	for	vehicular	and	pedestrian	traffic	and	upgrading	

current	crossing	equipment	with	signals	interconnected	with	highway	traffic	signals,	constant	warning	time	

activation	through	the	railroad	signal	system,	and	other	devices	and	measures	as	required	by	pertinent	

laws,	 regulations,	 and	 local	 safety	 plans.	 Upgrades	 to	 road‐crossings	 will	 be	 coordinated	 with	 and/or	

communicated	to	local	emergency	responders,	as	activations	at	the	road	crossings	are	expected	to	be	more	

frequent	with	the	increased	frequency	of	train	traffic.	However,	the	delays	are	also	expected	to	be	minimal,	

as	the	passenger	trains	should	clear	a	typical	crossing	in	less	than	a	minute.		

No-Action Alternative 

In	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	existing	signal	system	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	remain	in	place,	and	

all	at‐grade	crossings	would	be	protected	as	they	currently	are.	There	would	be	no	change	to	public	safety.	

There	are	no	anticipated	changes	in	frequency	or	quantity	of	hazardous	materials	to	be	transported	along	

the	N‐S	Corridor;	however,	given	the	number	of	ports	along	the	corridor,	growth	could	occur.	Hazardous	

materials	would	continue	to	be	transported	consistent	with	applicable	statutes,	rules	and	regulations,	and	

there	would	be	no	effect	to	health	and	safety	due	to	the	transportation	of	these	materials.	

The	No‐Action	Alternative	is	not	expected	 to	have	a	positive	effect	on	public	health	and	safety	in	 the	

Project	 Study	 Area,	 as	 vehicular,	 bicycle,	 and	 pedestrian	 traffic	 safety	 would	 not	 be	 enhanced	 with	

upgraded	at‐grade	crossings.	The	number	of	freight	trains	is	projected	to	increase	from	14	(2014)	to	20	

(2016).	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	are	anticipated	to	have	the	same	effects	on	public	safety.		

At‐Grade Crossings

As	is	described	in	Chapter	3,	Alternatives,	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	entirely	grade	separated	at	roadways.	

Existing	roads	would	either	be	crossed	using	bridges	or	would	be	closed,	eliminating	any	potential	safety	

concerns.	As	part	of	the	Project,	existing	crossings	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	upgraded	in	accordance	

with	applicable	laws	regarding	safety	requirements,	with	the	need	for	improvements	being	determined	by	

a	crossing‐by‐crossing	diagnostic	approach.	During	the	winter	of	2013‐2014,	AAF	contacted	FRA	and	FDOT	

requesting	both	agencies’	assistance	in	conducting	a	diagnostic	safety	review	of	the	existing	grade	crossings	

along	the	FECR	corridor	to	make	objective	judgments	about	the	physical	and	operational	characteristics	at	

roadway	 rail	 crossings,	 and	 to	 recommend	 modifications	 to	 the	 crossings	 based	 on	 a	 consensus	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-134 September 2014 

 

determination	concerning	crossing	safety	needs.	The	Diagnostic	Team	consisted	of	representatives	from	

FDOT,	FRA,	FECR	and	AAF,	as	well	as	local	officials.	The	Diagnostic	Team	concluded	the	on‐site	review	in	

Cocoa	having	looked	at	349	total	grade	crossings	in	all.	FRA	will	be	publishing	recommendations	for	those	

respective	 grade	 crossings	 based	 on	 FRA’s	 Highway‐Rail	 Grade	 Crossing	 Guidelines	 for	 High‐Speed	

Passenger	Rail	(http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03536).

	Upgrades	 to	 road‐crossings	 would	 be	 coordinated	 with	 and/or	 communicated	 to	 local	 emergency	

responders,	as	activations	at	 the	road	crossings	are	expected	 to	be	more	 frequent	with	 the	increased	

frequency	 of	 train	 traffic	 (32	 additional	 passenger	 train	 crossings	 per	 day).	 Recommendations	 for	

crossings	 may	 include	 flashing	 lights	 and	 gates,	 pedestrian	 lights	 and	 gates,	 advance	 warning	 signs,	

additional	signage,	motion	sensors,	raised	medians	or	barriers,	improved	crossing	geometry,	improved	

sight	distances,	or	other	modifications.	

While	the	increased	number	of	train	crossings	would	increase	the	delay	to	local	traffic	at	grade	crossings	

as	compared	to	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	local	area	traffic	would	not	be	affected	for	the	majority	of	

the	day.	The	trains	should	clear	a	typical	crossing	in	less	than	1	minute	and	the	grade	crossing	would	

reopen	for	traffic	in	approximately	50	seconds	for	a	passenger	train	and	between	147	and	170	seconds	

for	a	freight	train.	Although	not	quantifiable,	additional	public	health	and	safety	benefits	will	be	realized	

from	the	anticipated	decrease	in	roadway	congestion	and	the	potential	for	fewer	vehicular	accidents	on	

existing	parallel	roadways	such	as	U.S.	1	and	I‐95,	as	well	as	a	decrease	in	air	emissions.		

Train Operations

According	 to	 the	 operating	plan,	 some	 trains	are	scheduled	 to	pass	 or	 “meet”	at	 or	in	 the	immediate	

vicinity	of	grade	crossings.	As	part	of	the	diagnostic	review,	“Next	Train	Coming”	notification	signs	or	

Operation	Lifesaver	Education	forums	will	be	considered	to	notify	the	public	of	a	change	in	grade	crossing	

operations.		

The	new	signal	system	to	be	implemented	along	both	the	N‐S	and	E‐W	Corridors	as	part	of	the	Project	

would	retain	the	same	system	currently	in	use	(route‐signaling	augmented	by	in‐cab	signals5),	as	well	as	

provide	 a	 PTC	 overlay	 system	 with	 a	 back	 office	 server	 in	 the	 operations	 control	 center	 to	 achieve	

compliance	with	49	CFR	part	229,	Positive Train Control Systems; Final Rule.	

As	 stated	 in	 Section	 3.3.5	 of	 the	 2012	 EA,	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 would	 enhance	 public	 safety	 with	

improvements	 to	 existing	 grade‐crossing	 signal	 equipment	 for	 vehicular	 and	 pedestrian	 traffic.	 This	

would	include	upgrading	current	crossing	equipment	with	signals	interconnected	with	highway	traffic	

signals,	constant	warning	time	activation	through	the	railroad	signal	system,	reballasting	of	track	at	the	

crossings	to	improve	drainage,	and	other	devices	and	measures	as	required.	No	adverse	impacts	to	public	

safety	 for	 residential	 and	 recreational	 land	 uses	 adjacent	 to	 the	 proposed	 improvements	 along	 the	

WPB‐M	Corridor	would	occur.	The	WPB‐M	Corridor	includes	stops	in	the	central	business	districts	of	

West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	Miami.	Each	station	would	be	ADA	complaint	and	include	safety	

features	such	as	cameras	in	stations	and	parking	lots,	and	regular	police	patrols.		

 

5 The current train control system on the FEC North-South Corridor is “Route-signaling” augmented by in cab signals that display 

the state of the wayside signals continuously in the locomotive cab via electronic coded track. This electronic coded track also 

provides for broken rail detection. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-135 September 2014 

 

Security 

Security	considers	the	effects	of	the	Project	on	the	security	of	the	rail	system.	

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	existing	fencing	and	other	protection	systems	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	

would	remain	in	place	with	no	upgrades.		

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	are	anticipated	to	have	the	same	effects	on	security.	For	the	E‐W	Corridor	standard	

FDOT	highway	fencing,	or	its	equivalent,	would	be	added	throughout	the	length	of	the	corridor	where	the	

track	 is	 at‐grade	 that	 will	 restrict	 and	 seal	 the	 railroad	 right‐of‐way	 from	 public	 access.	 Based	 on	

coordination	with	the	natural	resource	agencies,	the	standard	fencing	may	be	modified	or	substituted	

with	fencing	appropriate	to	discourage	wildlife	crossings.	Fencing	on	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	upgraded	

based	on	existing	public	access	locations	and	the	potential	for	conflicts	with	the	increased	train	frequency.	

Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped 

The	Project	would	benefit	elderly	and	handicapped	individuals	by	providing	a	transportation	option	that	

will	enhance	mobility	and	livability	in	their	communities.	During	the	design	phase,	federal,	state,	and	local	

provisions	related	to	the	Americans	with	Disabilities	Act	(ADA)	of	1990	compliance	would	be	followed.	The	

ADA	provides	for	equal	opportunity	for	individuals	with	disabilities	to	access	public	and	private	facilities.		

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	there	would	be	no	change	to	access	by	the	elderly	and	handicapped.	The	

new	MCO	Intermodal	Facility	and	new	passenger	rail	stations	proposed	as	part	of	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	

would	be	fully	accessible.		

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	are	anticipated	to	have	the	same	effects	on	accessibility.	The	passenger	trains	

would	comply	with	ADA	requirements.	AAF	trains	will	be	single	level,	fully	accessible	coaches,	with	no	

stairs	 or	 other	 obstacles	 to	 impede	 movement	 on	 board	 trains.	 Every	 coach	 car	 would	 have	

ADA‐compliant	restrooms.	

As	stated	in	Section	3.3.4	of	the	2012	EA,	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	would	not	result	in	significant	adverse	

impacts	in	 terms	 of	 barriers	 to	 the	 elderly	 and	 handicapped	 populations.	Designated	ADA‐compliant	

parking	spaces	at	the	three	stations	would	be	provided	to	ensure	availability	of	parking	and	decrease	the	

distance	for	elderly	and	disabled	passengers	to	travel	to	the	train	platform.	In	addition,	all	station	facilities	

and	platforms	would	have	elevator	access	and	level	boarding,	and	individuals	with	disabilities	would	not	

encounter	stairs	in	boarding	or	departing	from	trains.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-136 September 2014 

 

Geological Conditions 

Geological	 conditions	 may	 be	 a	 safety	 concern	 if	 subsurface	 conditions	 are	 favorable	 to	 sinkhole	

formation	or	geological	faulting.	No	geological	faults	are	known	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	risks	posed	by	sinkholes	would	be	unchanged.		

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	are	anticipated	to	have	the	same	risks	to	public	safety	posed	by	sinkholes.	The	

potential	for	collapse	of	sinkholes	along	any	segment	of	the	Project	is	anticipated	to	be	low.	However,	if	

sinkholes	were	to	occur	in	the	railway	alignment	or	any	public	areas,	the	sinkholes	would	be	immediately	

reported	to	local	law	enforcement	and	cordoned‐off	for	public	safety.	

As	stated	in	Section	3.0	of	the	2012	EA,	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	would	not	require	tunneling	or	subterranean	

construction	activities.	Thus,	no	potential	impact	to	geology	or	geologic	resources	exists.	

Hazardous Materials

Planned	operations	at	the	VMF,	such	as	vehicle	fueling,	maintenance,	repair,	and	washing	will	include	use	

of	hazardous	materials	(primarily	petroleum	products,	lubricants	and	degreasers).	The	Project	does	not	

include	use	or	storage	of	hazardous	materials	outside	the	VMF.	The	typical	materials	that	would	be	stored	

and	used	at	the	VMF	include	diesel	fuel,	motor	oils,	lubricants,	and	degreasers.	All	hazardous	products	

would	be	stored	in	double‐walled	storage	containers	or	double‐walled	ASTs.	Hazardous	materials	would	

be	used	and	stored	at	the	VMF	according	to	accepted	industry	BMPs.	Planned	operations	at	the	VMF	are	

similar	to	operations	currently	ongoing	at	MCO,	and	are	considered	minor	in	the	respect	to	the	overall	

operations	and	land	use	at	the	airport,	as	explained	in	Section	5.2.4.	

There	are	no	anticipated	changes	in	frequency	or	quantity	of	hazardous	materials	to	be	transported	along	

the	N‐S	Corridor;	however,	given	the	number	of	ports	along	the	corridor,	growth	could	occur.	Hazardous	

materials	would	continue	to	be	transported	consistent	with	applicable	statutes,	rules	and	regulations	and	

there	would	be	no	anticipated	effect	to	health	and	safety	due	to	the	transportation	of	these	materials.	

Formally Used Defense Sites (FUDS)

The	USACE	completed	a	Remedial	Investigation/Feasibility	Study	(RI/FS)	of	the	entire	former	Pinecastle	

Jeep	Range	(PJR)	property	in	2010,	which	is	located	along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	north	of	SR	528	between	

Narcoossee	Road	and	SR	417.	.	The	PJR	property	was	formerly	used	as	an	Army	weapons	demonstration	

range	and	training	facility.	The	purpose	was	to	determine	where	and	what	type	of	contamination	was	

present.	During	the	RI/FS,	crews	searched	for	munitions	and	collected	soil	and	water	samples.	They	dug	

over	51,000	objects	and	collected	almost	200	samples.	Over	800	of	the	metallic	items	were	debris	related	

to	munitions	(such	as	casings	and	fragments),	but	only	24	were	actual	munitions.	The	remaining	objects	

were	 nails,	 fencing	 and	 the	 like.	 The	 munitions	 and	 munitions	 debris	 were	 found	 primarily	 on	

undeveloped	land	and	none	were	found	in	residential	lots.	No	munitions,	pieces	of	munitions,	or	soil	or	

water	contamination	were	 found	north	of	Lee	Vista	Boulevard.	No	environmental	contamination	was	

identified	in	any	of	the	residential	areas.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-137 September 2014 

 

The	site	was	divided	into	 four	Munitions	Response	Sites	 (MRS)	based	on	what	was	 found	during	 the	

RI/FS.	The	MRSs	are:	Demonstration	Range	North,	Demonstration	Range	South,	Demonstration	Range	

East,	and	Remaining	Area.	The	demonstration	ranges	are	south	of	Lee	Vista	Boulevard,	north	of	Beachline	

Expressway,	 and	 from	 the	 western	 boundary	 of	 the	 property	 east	 to	 the	 Orange	 County	 landfill.	

Demonstration	 Range	 South	 is	 a	 portion	 of	 the	 undeveloped	 property	 known	 as	 Mockingbird.	

Demonstration	Range	East	includes	Beltway	Commerce	Center	and	a	portion	of	 the	landfill	property.	

Demonstration	Range	North	is	south	of	Lee	Vista	Boulevard	and	includes	Odyssey	Middle	School,	Tivoli	

Gardens,	and	Lee	Vista	Square.	All	the	residential	neighborhoods	except	those	in	Demonstration	Range	

North	are	in	the	Remaining	Area	MRS.	

No‐Action Alternative

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	PJR	would	not	be	traversed.		

Action Alternatives A, C, and E

Alternatives	A,	 C,	 and	 E	 traverse	 the	Remaining	 Area	MRS,	 within	 the	 SR	 528	 ROW.	 The	USACE	 has	

determined	no	munitions	were	located	in	these	areas	and	no	further	action	is	required.	

5.4.5 Cultural Resources 

Cultural	resources	as	defined	by	the	National	Historic	Preservation	Act	of	1966	(NHPA),	as	amended,	are	

any	“prehistoric	or	historic	district,	site,	building,	structure,	or	object	included	in	or	eligible	for	listing	on	

the	National	Register	of	Historic	Places	(NRHP).”		

Section	 106	 of	 the	 NHPA	 requires	 all	 federal	 agencies	 to	 take	 into	 account,	 prior	 to	 authorizing	 an	

undertaking,	 the	effect	 of	 that	undertaking	 on	cultural	resources	listed	in	 or	eligible	 for	listing	in	 the	

NRHP.	Under	Section	106,	an	adverse	effect	is	found	when	an	undertaking	may	alter,	directly	or	indirectly,	

any	of	the	characteristics	of	a	historic	property	that	qualify	the	property	for	inclusion	in	the	NRHP	in	a	

manner	that	would	diminish	the	property’s	integrity.	Adverse	effects	may	include	reasonably	foreseeable	

effects	caused	by	 the	undertaking	 that	may	occur	later	in	 time,	be	 farther	removed	in	distance,	or	be	

cumulative.	AAF,	as	a	project	applicant,	is	assisting	the	FRA	in	meeting	its	obligations	under	Section	106.	

Therefore,	studies	were	conducted	to	determine	the	potential	project	effects,	if	any,	on	cultural	resources.		

This	 section	 of	 the	 DEIS	 constitutes	 FRA’s	 Findings	 of	 Effect	 under	 Section	 106	 of	 the	 NHPA.	 No	

NRHP‐listed	or	eligible	resources	were	identified	within	the	MCO	Segment	and	VMF	APE,	or	within	the	

E‐W	Corridor.	NRHP‐listed	or	eligible	resources	were	identified	within	the	N‐S	Corridor,	and	include	the	

FECR	Railway	Historic	District	and	several	historic	railroad	bridges	as	described	in	Section	4.4.5	of	this	

EIS.	For	Phase	I,	FRA	determined	that	the	Project	would	have	no	adverse	effect	on	these	resources,	and	

SHPO	has	concurred	that	the	use	of	the	historic	rail	line	and	restoration	of	passenger	rail	service	would	

not	constitute	an	adverse	effect.		

For	Phase	II,	FRA	has	determined	that	the	Project	would	have	an	adverse	effect	on	the	two	bridges	(the	

Eau	Gallie	River	and	St.	Sebastian	River	Bridges)	that	are	individually	eligible	for	the	NRHP.	None	of	the	

bridges	 within	 the	WPB‐M	 Corridor	 are	 individually	 eligible	 for	 the	 NRHP.	 The	 Project	 will	 have	 no	

adverse	effect	on	the	FECR	Railway	Historic	District.	The	Project	would	have	no	direct	or	indirect	effects	

(noise,	vibration,	change	in	setting)	to	the	historic	resources	located	adjacent	to	the	N‐S	Corridor.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-138 September 2014 

 

5.4.5.1 Methodology 

All	cultural	resource	investigations	and	consultations	were	conducted	in	accordance	with	Section	106	of	

the	NHPA	and	its	implementing	regulations	for	Protection	of	Historic	Properties	(36	CFR	part	800).		

In	consultation	with	the	SHPO,	FRA	determined	that	the	MCO	Segment	and	the	VMF	had	been	adequately	

addressed	 by	 the	GOAA	in	 two	 previous	environmental	assessments	 (FAA	and	GOAA	 1998	and	 FTA,	

FDOT,	and	GOAA	2005).	In	general,	the	methodology	for	the	E‐W	Corridor	complied	with	FDHR	standards	

for	 undeveloped	 acreage.	 FRA	issued	 a	 FONSI	 for	 the	 2012	 EA	 that	 covered	 the	WPB‐M	 Corridor	in	

January	2013	(FRA	2013a).	To	the	extent	that	actions	have	not	changed	since	the	2012	EA,	these	would	

not	 be	 evaluated	 by	 FRA	 as	 part	 of	 the	 current	 Project.	 The	 methodology	 for	 the	 balance	 of	 the	

N‐S	Corridor	was	consistent	with	that	used	in	the	2012	EA.		

5.4.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

This	section	identifies	the	potential	beneficial	and	adverse	effects	to	cultural	resources	from	the	Project.	

Under	Section	106,	an	adverse	effect	is	found	when	an	undertaking	may	alter,	directly	or	indirectly,	any	

of	the	characteristics	of	a	historic	property	that	qualify	the	property	for	inclusion	in	the	NRHP	in	a	manner	

that	would	diminish	the	property’s	integrity.	Adverse	effects	may	include	reasonably	foreseeable	effects	

caused	by	the	undertaking	that	may	occur	later	in	time,	be	farther	removed	in	distance,	or	be	cumulative.		

No-Action Alternative 

The	No‐Action	Alternative	is	not	anticipated	to	have	any	effect	on	cultural	resources.		

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

The	effects	of	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	would	be	identical	with	respect	to	cultural	resources.	This	section	

provides	a	summary	of	impacts	to	cultural	resources	and	FRA’s	recommendations	of	effects.	The	SHPO	

will	use	this	DEIS	as	FRA’s	recommendations	and	will	make	a	Section	106	finding	based	on	the	DEIS.	

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	 Segment	 (including	 the	 VMF)	 APE	 has	 been	 previously	 surveyed	 and	 assessed	 for	 cultural	

resources	 during	 the	 development	 of	 the	 EA	 for	 the	 South	 Terminal	 Complex	 at	 the	 MCO	 (FAA	 and	

GOAA	1998).	No	NRHP‐listed	or	eligible	cultural	resources	were	identified	within	the	MCO	Segment	and	

VMF	APE	during	the	previous	survey.	FRA	determined	that	the	MCO	Segment	and	VMF	would	have	no	

effect	on	cultural	resources.		

East-West Corridor 

Large	portions	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	APE	were	surveyed	in	1990	and	2005	(Piper	Archaeology	1990;	Janus	

Research,	 Inc.	 2005).	 The	 remaining	 portions,	 with	 the	 exception	 of	 one	 area	 where	 access	 was	 not	

allowed,	were	surveyed	in	the	summer	of	2013	(Janus	Research,	Inc.	2013).	One	NRHP‐eligible	resource	

has	been	identified	adjacent	to	the	APE	for	the	E‐W	Corridor—the	FECR	Railway	Historic	District,	at	the	

end	of	the	E‐W	Corridor	in	Cocoa.	FRA	determined	that	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	have	no	adverse	effect	

on	the	FECR	Railway	Historic	District.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-139 September 2014 

 

The	E‐W	Corridor	has	been	determined	to	lack	any	cultural	material	and	has	no	features	indicative	of	

archaeological	 site	 potential.	 Construction	 of	 the	 railroad	and	infrastructure	would	 have	 no	effect	 on	

cultural	resources.	New	communications	towers	are	proposed	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	to	support	the	PTC	

system	and	other	communications	systems.	Although	the	locations	of	these	towers	have	not	yet	been	

identified,	AAF	would	site	new	towers	in	locations	that	have	been	determined	to	contain	no	above‐	or	

below‐ground	cultural	resources.	

North-South Corridor 

The	N‐S	 Corridor	APE	 contains	 several	NRHP‐eligible	 cultural	 resources,	including	 the	 FECR	Railway	

Historic	District,	the	Union	Cypress	Sawmill	historic	district,	four	bridges,	and	10	other	historic	resources.	

There	are	also	five	identified	archaeological	sites.		

FECR Railway Historic District 

The	N‐S	 Corridor	was	 originally	 built	as	a	 double‐track	 railroad,	 but	 today	it	is	mostly	a	 single‐track	

railroad	with	several	long	sidings.	The	railbed	for	the	second	track	still	exists	and	would	be	used	for	the	

additional	 track	 improvements.	 The	 Project	 would	 return	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 to	 a	 dual‐track	 system.	

Infrastructure	improvements,	such	as	bridge	replacements	and	curve	improvements,	are	planned	to	be	

completed	within	the	existing	right‐of‐way	(no	additional	right‐of‐way	acquisition	is	anticipated).	The	

addition	of	 the	second	 track	will	return	 the	corridor	 to	its	historic	configuration	and	historic	use	as	a	

passenger	rail	line.		

The	NRHP‐eligible	FECR	Railway	Historic	District,	which	is	the	central	resource	of	the	N‐S	Corridor,	would	

not	be	adversely	affected	by	the	Project.	During	a	2009	SHPO	meeting	regarding	the	South	Florida	East	Coast	

Corridor	 Study	 (SFECC),	 there	 was	 agreement	 that	 the	 use	 of	 the	 historic	 rail	 line	 and	 restoration	 of	

passenger	rail	on	the	line	would	not	constitute	an	adverse	effect.	Phase	I	(The	AAF	Passenger	Rail	Project	–	

West	Palm	Beach	 to	Miami	)	was	determined	 to	not	have	an	adverse	effect	on	 the	NRHP‐eligible	FECR	

Railway	Historic	District.	The	Project	would	include	similar	improvements	for	the	N‐S	Corridor	in	Phase	II.	

FRA	 has	 made	 a	 recommendation	 of	 no	 adverse	 effect	 to	 the	 FECR	 Railway	 Historic	 District.	 SHPO	

concurrence	is	expected	for	this	determination.	

NRHP-Eligible Bridges and Contributing Element Bridges 

Within	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor,	 four	 bridges	 (Eau	 Gallie	 River,	 St.	 Sebastian	 River,	 St.	 Lucie	 River,	 and	

Loxahatchee	River)	have	been	identified	as	individually	eligible	for	listing	on	the	NRHP	under	Criterion	A	

and	 Criterion	 C.	 These	 four	 bridges	 are	 also	 considered	 contributing	 elements	 to	 the	 FECR	 Railway	

Historic	District.	Eight	additional	bridges	(see	Section	4.4.5)	are	not	considered	individually	eligible	for	

listing	on	the	NRHP	but	are	still	considered	contributing	elements	to	the	FECR	Railway	Historic	District.		

As	described	in	Section	3.3,	Alternatives Studied in Detail in the EIS,	AAF	proposes	to	demolish	the	Eau	

Gallie	River	and	St.	Sebastian	River	bridges	and	construct	two	new	single‐track	bridges	within	the	same	

footprint.	Demolishing	these	two	bridges	is	an	adverse	effect	which	cannot	be	avoided	(as	documented	

in	 Chapter	 6,	 Section 4(f) Evaluation).	 The	 St.	 Lucie	 River	 and	 Loxahatchee	 River	 bridges	 would	 be	

rehabilitated,	as	described	in	Section	3.3.3,	but	would	not	be	substantially	altered.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-140 September 2014 

 

For	 Phase	 I,	 SHPO	 issued	 a	 no	 adverse	 effect	 determination	 conditioned	 on	 the	 reconstruction	 or	

rehabilitation	work	to	the	bridges	being	developed	in	consultation	with	SHPO	to	avoid	and/or	minimize	

effects.	For	Phase	II,	AAF	will	continue	to	consult	with	SHPO	through	the	design	process	in	order	to	ensure	

compatibility	and	appropriate	sensitivity	to	the	bridge	resources	and	FECR	Railway	Historic	District.		

The	adverse	effect	to	the	two	historic	bridges	(the	Eau	Gallie	River	Bridge	and	the	St.	Sebastian	River	

Bridge)	would	also	constitute	a	“use”	under	Section	4(f)	and	requires	a	Section	4(f)	evaluation,	provided	

in	Chapter	6,	Section 4(f) Evaluation.	

Adjacent Historic Resources 

Improvements	 within	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 would	 remain	 within	 the	 existing	 right‐of‐way,	 and	 will	 not	

require	right‐of‐way	acquisition	from	any	adjacent	historic	districts	or	individual	NRHP‐listed	or	eligible	

historic	 resources.	 Therefore,	 the	 Project	 will	 have	 no	 effect	 on	 historic	 resources	 adjacent	 to	 the	

N‐S	Corridor	or	adjacent	to	at‐grade	crossings.	

Archaeological Resources 

The	Project	would	return	the	existing	FECR	Corridor	to	a	dual‐track	system.	Infrastructure	improvements	

are	planned	to	be	completed	within	the	existing	right‐of‐way	(no	additional	right‐of‐way	acquisition	is	

anticipated).	Five	previously	identified	archaeological	sites	have	been	recorded	within	the	N‐S	Corridor	

APE.	Four	of	the	archaeological	sites	were	not	previously	evaluated	for	NRHP	eligibility	by	SHPO.	The	

Pineapple	Site	(Site	8SL1136)	was	determined	not	NRHP‐eligible	by	SHPO.	All	of	these	archaeological	

sites	have	experienced	some	level	of	previous	disturbances.	

Two	of	the	archaeological	sites	–	Hobe	Sound	National	Wildlife	Refuge	#3	Site	(8MT1287)	and	the	Fort	

Capron	Site	(8SL41)	–	initially	appeared	to	have	the	potential	to	be	affected	by	the	Project.		

The	Hobe	Sound	National	Wildlife	Refuge	#3	Site	consists	of	a	thin	scatter	of	shell	and	a	few	aboriginal	

ceramic	potsherd	 fragments	situated	on	a	dune	bluff	that	was	bisected	during	the	construction	of	the	

railroad	in	the	early	part	of	the	last	century.	Located	at	Mile	Post	275.30,	this	is	in	an	area	where	the	rail	

line	curves	to	the	west.	Preliminary	engineering	specified	a	curve	modification	at	this	location	and	this	

action	 would	 have	 caused	 disturbance	 of	 potentially	intact	 portions	 of	 the	 archaeological	 site.	 As	 an	

avoidance	and	protection	measure,	this	curve	modification	was	eliminated	and	instead	construction	in	

this	area	will	consist	of	installing	rail	tracks	in	their	historic	locations.	No	subsurface	excavation	will	be	

required.	Preliminary	discussions	with	SHPO	indicated	 that	 this	design	change	would	avoid	 the	Hobe	

Sound	National	Wildlife	Refuge	#3	Site.	

The	Fort	Capron	Site	consists	of	the	archaeological	remains	of	a	1850s	military	fort.	Currently,	the	only	

visible	remnants	of	Fort	Capron	are	several	ditches	that	extend	to	the	east	down	towards	the	Indian	River.	

The	fort	is	located	at	Mile	Post	238.3.	Construction	in	this	area	will	consist	of	installing	rail	tracks	in	their	

historic	 locations.	 No	 subsurface	 excavation	 will	 be	 required	 and	 no	 additional	 right‐of‐way	 will	 be	

needed.	Therefore,	there	would	be	no	effects	to	the	archaeological	site	caused	by	the	Project.	

Based	 on	 the	information	available,	 the	 Project	would	 have	 no	adverse	effect	 on	archaeological	 sites	

within	the	N‐S	Corridor.	The	no	adverse	effect	finding	is	based	on	the	condition	that	consultation	with	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-141 September 2014 

 

SHPO	will	continue	through	the	design	process,	as	needed,	in	order	to	ensure	appropriate	sensitivity	to	

the	previously	recorded	archaeological	sites	located	within	the	APE.		

Phase I - West Palm Beach - Miami Corridor 

As	stated	in	the	2013	FONSI,	FRA	consulted	with	the	Florida	SHPO	pursuant	to	NHPA	Section	106,	and	

received	concurrence	on	November	6,	2012	with	FRA’s	finding	that	the	Project	would	have	no	significant	

adverse	effect	on	any	of	 the	historic	and/or	cultural	resources	 found	along	 the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	The	

concurrence	 is	 conditional,	 and	 requires	 continued	 consultation	 with	 the	 SHPO	 and	 locally	 affected	

parties,	including	the	Cities	of	West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	Miami,	through	the	station	design	

process.	The	SHPO	also	concurred	with	FRA’s	finding	that	the	relocated	Ft.	Lauderdale	Station	would	have	

no	adverse	effect	on	historic	resources	(Appendix	3.3‐A).	

No	additional	work	proposed	within	the	West	Palm	Beach‐	Miami	Corridor	as	part	of	Phase	II	would	have	

an	effect	on	any	historical	resource.	

5.4.5.3 Indirect and Secondary Effects 

Indirect	and	secondary	effects	can	include	visual	changes,	increased	noise	and	vibration,	and	increased	

development	associated	with	the	Project.	

No-Action Alternative 

There	would	be	no	indirect	or	secondary	effects	from	the	No‐Action	alternative.	

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Additional	private	development	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	not	generally	be	required	to	comply	with	

the	cultural	resource	protections	afforded	by	Section	106.	However,	SHPO	does	afford	a	level	of	historic	

preservation	 and	 protection,	 as	 do	 Florida	 state	 environmental	 regulations	 and	 permitting.	 Local	

government	historic	preservation	commissions	and	ordinances	provide	some	protection	for	historic	sites	

and	districts.	

The	Project	would	increase	noise	and	vibration	minimally	above	existing	conditions	in	the	N‐S	Corridor.	

While	the	proposed	passenger	trains	are	lighter	and	faster	than	the	existing	freight	train	traffic,	overall	

there	will	be	more	train	traffic/operations	occurring	each	day.	Secondary	and	cumulative	noise	effects	

are	anticipated	to	be	minimal	to	moderate.	The	noise	and	vibration	changes	will	have	no	indirect	adverse	

effects	to	cultural	resources.	None	of	the	adjacent	cultural	resources	are	sensitive	to	noise,	and	vibration	

will	not	exceed	damage	thresholds	(see	Section	5.2.2).	Therefore,	it	is	anticipated	that	there	will	be	no	

indirect	adverse	effects	due	to	changes	in	noise	or	vibration	to	either	the	setting	or	physical	structure	of	

any	historic	property.	The	Project	will	not	require	soundproofing	of	any	historic	structure.		

By	returning	the	FECR	Corridor	to	its	historic	configuration	and	historic	use	as	a	passenger	rail	line,	the	

Project	could	indirectly	benefit	nearby	cultural	 resources	if	historic	structures	and	infrastructure	are	

preserved,	restored,	or	maintained	due	to	increased	funding	or	interest	in	historic	preservation	resulting	

from	the	Project.	At	this	time,	it	is	not	known	where	any	secondary	development	would	occur	and	for	this	

reason	additional	cultural	resource	surveys	would	not	be	practical.	Potential	negative	indirect	effects	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-142 September 2014 

 

could	occur	if	increased	development	results	in	pressure	to	demolish	or	destroy	cultural	resources.	FDHR	

and	local	historic	and	planning	commissions	(such	as	the	West	Palm	Beach	Historic	Preservation	Board	

and	Planning	Board)	do	afford	a	level	of	historic	preservation	and	protection	(for	example,	West	Palm	

Beach	Ordinance	4265‐10	identifies	development	standards	for	the	City’s	historic	districts).	

5.4.5.4 Temporary Construction-Period Effects 

Temporary	construction	period	effects	generally	consist	of	noise,	dust,	vibration,	and	traffic	related	to	

construction.	 These	 construction	 effects	 are	 temporary	 and	 would	 occur	 during	 and	 immediately	

following	construction.	Some	specific	construction	effects	cannot	be	estimated	at	this	time	because	they	

depend	on	several	factors	yet	to	be	determined,	such	as:	final	design,	location	of	material	staging,	access	

to	work	areas,	materials	to	be	used,	specific	construction	methodologies,	and	identification	of	borrow	

areas	or	excess	material	placement	areas,	if	necessary.	If	any	access,	staging,	borrow,	or	excess	material	

placement	areas	are	not	located	within	the	existing	rights‐of‐way,	these	areas	would	be	surveyed.	

For	the	E‐W	Corridor,	access	would	be	primarily	from	public	areas	or	the	highway	right‐of‐way	(SR	528)	

but	some	private	access	may	be	required.	Material	staging	areas	would	be	located	within	the	proposed	

railroad	right‐of‐way.	Site	access	has	not	yet	been	identified	and	therefore,	construction	effects	have	not	

been	assessed.	Construction	activities	will	be	conducted	in	a	manner	to	avoid	effects	to	known	cultural	

resources	listed	or	eligible	for	listing	on	the	NRHP,	as	stipulated	in	the	MOA.	

Within	the	N‐S	Corridor,	access	to	work	areas	will	be	primarily	from	public	access	points	and	therefore,	

will	not	affect	cultural	resources.	If	private	property	is	proposed	to	be	used	for	site	access	or	for	material	

staging,	AAF	will	conduct	such	activities	in	such	a	manner	to	avoid	effects	to	known	cultural	resources	

listed	or	eligible	for	listing	on	the	NRHP,	as	stipulated	in	the	MOA.	Any	construction	staging	areas	not	

currently	within	the	right‐of‐way	will	be	surveyed.	

As	 stated	in	 Section	 3.4	 of	 the	 2012	 EA,	 the	WPB‐M	 Corridor	 will	include	 construction	 primarily	 on	

existing	 exclusive	 right‐of‐way,	 and,	 therefore,	 would	 have	 no	 temporary	 effects	 on	 historic	 or	

archaeological	resources.	

5.4.5.5 Regulatory Compliance 

This	section	outlines	the	regulatory	compliance	requirements	for	cultural	resources.	Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966	as	amended	(36	CFR	800)	provides	the	regulatory	framework	

for	the	compliance	guidelines	for	the	identification	and	evaluation	of	cultural	resources.	Other	relevant	

legislation	 and	 regulations	 include	 Executive	 Order	 11593,	 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural

Environment,	and	the	Proceduresfor the Protection ofHistoric Properties	(Appendix	C)	at	33	CFR	part	325,	

Processing	of	Department	of	the	Army	Permits.		

Mitigation	 measures	 for	 adverse	 effects	 to	 historic	 resources	 include	 avoidance,	 minimization,	 data	

recovery,	and	photographic	recordation.	The	documentation	for	any	of	these	mitigation	measures	must	

provide	evidence	that	consultation	has	been	completed	with	the	SHPO,	concerned	Indian	Tribes,	and	any	

other	identified	consulting	parties.	Actions	that	the	parties	agree	upon	to	resolve	adverse	effects	will	be	

detailed	 in	 a	 Memorandum	 of	 Agreement	 or	 Programmatic	 Agreement,	 which	 is	 a	 legally	 binding	

agreement	among	the	FRA,	other	participating	federal	agencies,	the	SHPO,	and	the	Advisory	Council	on	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-143 September 2014 

 

Historic	Preservation.	A	draft	MOA	will	be	included	in	the	Final	EIS.	Once	the	agreement	is	signed	by	all	

appropriate	parties	and	 the	 filed	with	 the	Advisory	Council	on	Historic	Preservation,	 the	Section	106	

process	is	completed.	FRA’s	Section	106	responsibilities	are	fulfilled	when	the	agreement’s	stipulations	

are	implemented.		

The	next	steps	in	Section	106	compliance	for	the	Project	include	SHPO	review	and	concurrence	with	FRA’s	

finding	of	adverse	effect	to	the	Eau	Gallie	River	Bridge	and	St.	Sebastian	River	Bridge,	and	developing	a	MOA	

or	PA	that	stipulates	measures	to	mitigate	 for	these	adverse	effects,	measures	 to	address	unanticipated	

discoveries	of	archaeological	resources	during	construction,	and	measures	to	ensure	that	construction	of	

new	communications	towers	is	consistent	with	the	requirements	of	Section	106.	

5.4.6 Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources 

This	section	describes	the	potential	effects	to	existing	recreational	properties	along	with	properties	that	

are	 protected	 under	 Section	 4(f)	 of	 the	 USDOT	 Act	 of	 1966	 (publicly	 owned	 land	 of	 a	 public	 park,	

recreation	area,	or	wildlife	and	waterfowl	refuge	of	national,	state	or	local	significance)	and	Section	6(f)	

of	 the	 Land	 and	 Water	 Conservation	 Act	 of	 1965	 (other	 than	 the	 historic	 resources	 described	 in	

Section	5.4.5,	Cultural Resources)	(49	USC	303,	et	seq.,	16	USC	460L‐460L‐11).		

A	 use	 of	 a	 Section	 4(f)	 resource	must	 be	 avoided	 unless	 there	is	 no	 feasible	 and	 prudent	 avoidance	

alternative	 to	 use	 of	 the	 resource	 and	 all	 possible	 planning	 to	 minimize	 harm	 (such	 as	 avoidance,	

minimization,	mitigation,	or	enhancement	measures)	is	implemented	 or	 there	is	a	de minimis impact

determination.	De minimis	impacts	to	Section	4(f)	resources	are	those	effects	that	would	have	no	adverse	

effect	on	the	protected	resource.	

Section	6(f)	resources	are	all	parks	and	other	recreational	facilities	that	have	been	the	subject	of	Land	and	

Water	Conservation	Fund	Act	grants	of	any	type.	Section	6(f)(3)	contains	strong	provisions	to	protect	

federal	 investments	 and	 the	 quality	 of	 assisted	 resources.	 Section	 6(f)(3)	 states	 that	 no	 Section	 6(f)	

resource	 shall	 be	 converted	 to	 other	 than	 public	 outdoor	 recreation	 uses	 without	 approval	 of	 the	

Secretary	 of	 the	 Interior.	 The	 Secretary	 may	 approve	 conversions	 only	 if	 he/she	 finds	 it	 to	 be	 in	

accordance	with	the	existing	comprehensive	statewide	outdoor	recreation	plan.	

As	documented	below	the	Project	would	not	require	the	use	of	any	Section	4(f)	property	related	to	parks,	

recreation	areas	and	wildlife	or	waterfowl	refuges	and	would	not	result	in	a	constructive	use	of	any	such	

Section	 4(f)	property.	No	Section	 6(f)	properties	would	 be	 used	 by	 the	Project.	 Chapter	 6	 of	 this	EIS	

provides	a	detailed	Section	4(f)	Evaluation.	

5.4.6.1 Methodology 

Direct	impacts	to	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	were	characterized	based	on	physical	impacts	to	park	

and	recreational	properties,	including:	

 Land	permanently	incorporated	into	a	transportation	facility;	

 Temporary	occupancy	of	land	that	is	adverse	in	terms	of	the	statute's	preservation	purpose;	

that	is,	when	one	of	the	following	criteria	for	temporary	occupancy	are	not	met:		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-144 September 2014 

 

o The	duration	of	the	occupancy	must	be	less	than	the	time	needed	for	the	construction	of	the	

project,	and	no	change	of	ownership	occurs.		

o Both	the	nature	and	magnitude	of	the	changes	to	the	Section	4(f)	land	are	minimal.		

o No	permanent	adverse	physical	changes,	nor	interference	with	activities	or	purposes	of	the	

resources	on	a	temporary	or	permanent	basis,	are	anticipated.		

o The	land	must	be	returned	to	a	condition	that	is	at	least	as	good	as	existed	prior	to	the	project.		

o There	is	documented	agreement	with	the	appropriate	federal,	state,	or	local	officials	having	

jurisdiction	over	the	land	that	the	above	conditions	have	been	met.		

Indirect	 impacts	 (constructive	 use)	 were	 also	 evaluated.	 A	 constructive	 use	 can	 occur	 when	 the	

transportation	project	does	not	incorporate	land	from	a	Section	4(f)	resource,	but	the	project's	proximity	

effects	are	 so	 severe	 that	 the	 protected	activities,	 features,	or	attributes	 that	 qualify	 the	 resource	 for	

protection	under	Section	4(f)	are	substantially	impaired.	

5.4.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

Potential	direct	effects	to	Section	4(f)	and	Section	6(f)	recreation	resources	could	include	the	acquisition	

and	permanent	incorporation	of	land	within	these	resources.	The	Project	would	not	require	the	use	of	

any	Section	4(f)	or	Section	6(f)	recreation	area,	park,	or	wildlife	refuge.	

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	Existing	commuter	

railway	services	and	opportunities	would	remain	unchanged,	and	no	use	of	Section	4(f)	or	Section	6(f)	

recreation	resources	would	occur.		

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

Potential	direct	effects	of	the	Project	to	Section	4(f)	and	Section	6(f)	recreation	resources	would	be	the	

same	under	all	Action	Alternatives.	The	Project	would	not	incorporate	any	Section	4(f)	recreation	area,	

park,	or	wildlife	refuge.	

MCO Segment 

The	MCO	Segment	would	not	require	the	use	of	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources.	The	MCO	Segment	is	

within	the	property	boundaries	of	MCO;	there	are	no	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	or	Section	6(f)	

lands	within	MCO,	which	is	entirely	within	the	property	of	the	Orlando	International	Airport.		

East-West Corridor 

The	E‐W	Corridor	is	adjacent	 to	 two	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	east	of	 the	SR	528	and	SR	520	

interchange:	 the	 Tosohatchee	 WMA	 and	 Canaveral	 Marshes	 Conservation	 Area.	 Constructing	 the	

E‐W	 Corridor	 would	 not	 require	 acquisition	 of	 new	 right‐of‐way	within	 the	 property	limits	 of	 these	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-145 September 2014 

 

Section	4(f)	recreation	resources,	as	the	new	railroad	would	be	entirely	within	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way	

owned	by	FDOT.	No	new	communications	towers	would	be	placed	in	a	Section	4(f)	resource.	

The	E‐W	Corridor	would	cross	Long	Bluff	Road	in	the	Tosohatchee	WMA	(Figure	5.4.6‐1).	Long	Bluff	Road	

is	a	designated	multi‐use	path	that	provides	access	from	the	north	to	parking	and	fishing	areas	in	the	

southern	portion	of	the	Tosohatchee	WMA;	it	is	the	only	road	providing	access	across	SR	528	within	the	

Tosohatchee	WMA.	SR	528	also	crosses	over	Long	Bluff	Road	at	this	location.	The	Project	would	cross	

Long	Bluff	Road	on	a	new	overpass	and	no	permanent	land	acquisition	would	be	required.		

AAF	is	in	discussion	with	the	Tosohatchee	State	Reserve	(TSR)	Land	Manager6	concerning	the	possibility	

of	 obtaining	 material	 for	 railway	 embankments	 from	 three	 ponds	 on	 the	 reserve	 lands	 that	 were	

originally	created	as	borrow	pits	for	the	original	SR	528	construction.	According	to	AAF,	the	TSR	desires	

that	these	three	ponds	be	expanded	and	reshaped	with	the	addition	of	habitat‐friendly	littoral	shelves.	

AAF	is	currently	surveying	the	pond	areas	to	evaluate	the	existing	ecological	conditions	and	determine	

whether	borrow	material	from	the	ponds	would	be	suitable	for	constructing	the	Project.	This	activity	is	

considered	a	 temporary	 but	 beneficial	 occupancy	 of	a	Section	 4(f)	 property	with	a	de minimis	effect.	

Section	6.4.3	of	this	EIS	provides	additional	information	on	this	use	of	the	Tosohatchee	WMA.	

 

6 The Tosohatchee State Reserve is the umbrella for properties under the jurisdiction of multiple state agencies, and includes the 

Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-146 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-147 September 2014 

 

North-South Corridor 

Thirty	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	are	along	the	N‐S	Corridor.	The	existing	FECR	Corridor	bisects	

two	of	these	resources:	the	Hobe	Sound	National	Wildlife	Refuge	and	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park.	All	

construction	 would	 take	 place	 within	 the	 existing	 FECR‐owned	 right	 of	 way,	 and	 would	 not	 require	

acquisition	of	new	right‐of‐way	within	these	Section	4(f)	resource	property	limits.		

The	N‐S	Corridor	crosses	two	roads	within	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park:	the	Florida	Trail	(East	Loop)	

and	Southeast	Jonathan	Dickinson	Way	(Figure	5.4.6‐2).	Based	on	information	provided	by	the	Jonathan	

Dickinson	State	Park	Manager	(Nelson	2013)	the	Florida	Trail	(East	Loop)	is	no	longer	open	due	to	safety	

concerns	related	to	existing	freight	traffic	along	the	FECR	Corridor.	Southeast	Jonathan	Dickinson	Way	is	an	

at‐grade	access	road	that	connects	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park	to	US	1.	The	N‐S	Corridor	would	not	result	

in	the	permanent	closure	of	Southeast	Jonathan	Dickinson	Way.	All	construction	would	take	place	within	

the	existing	FECR‐owned	right‐of‐way,	and	no	land	acquisition	would	be	required.	To	ensure	the	safety	of	

the	users	of	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park,	AAF	would	implement	at‐grade	crossing	improvements	where	

the	N‐S	Corridor	crosses	Southeast	Jonathan	Dickinson	Way.	Safety	improvements	would	include	upgraded	

warning	 devices	 such	 as	 flashing	lights,	 signage	and	 pavement	markings;	median	 barriers;	 and	 a	 four‐

quadrant	 gate,	 which	 blocks	 both	 sides	 of	 each	 traffic	 lane.	 Electronic	 warning	 systems	 would	 be	

implemented,	which	would	monitor	and	communicate	train	locations	and	speeds,	and	would	stop	the	train	

if	the	crossing	is	not	clear.	Current	safety	measures	at	the	existing	at‐grade	crossing	of	the	freight	railway	

and	Southeast	Jonathan	Dickinson	Way	include	passive	signage,	flashing	lights,	and	a	two‐quadrant	gate.	

Two	of	the	30	identified	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	are	also	Section	6(f)	

resources:	North	Sebastian	Conservation	Area	and	Sawfish	Bay	Park.	No	land	acquisition	within	either	

resource	would	be	required.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-148 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-149 September 2014 

 

Phase I - West Palm Beach - Miami Corridor 

As	 stated	 in	 Section	 3.3.8	 of	 the	 2012	 EA,	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 would	 not	 require	 direct	 property	

acquisition	or	additional	right‐of‐way	within	any	of	the	Section	4(f)	properties	that	are	adjacent	to	the	

right‐of‐way.	 Phase	 I	 does	 not	 require	 direct	acquisition	 of	any	Section	 4(f)	 protected	 resources	 that	

would	 constitute	 a	 use	 under	Section	 4(f).	 The	 FRA,	in	 the	 FONSI,	 found	 that	 Phase	 I	would	 not	 use	

properties	subject	to	the	requirements	of	Section	4(f)	of	the	Department	of	Transportation	Act	of	1966	or	

have	a	significant	impact	on	recreational	resources.	

5.4.6.3 Constructive Use 

A	constructive	use	can	occur	when	a	transportation	project	does	not	incorporate	land	from	a	Section	4(f)	

resource,	but	the	project’s	proximity	effects	are	so	severe	that	the	protected	activities,	features,	or	attributes	

that	 qualify	 the	 resources	 for	 protection	 under	 Section	 4(f)	 are	 substantially	 impaired.	 Substantial	

impairment	is	determined	to	occur	when	there	is	a	substantial	diminishment	of	the	activities,	features,	and	

attributes	 of	 the	 Section	 4(f)	 recreation	 resources.	 This	 evaluation	 of	 constructive	 use	 of	 Section	 4(f)	

recreation	resources	for	the	Project	reviewed	potential	noise,	vibration,	aesthetics	and	access	effects.		

Noise 

Changes	in	noise	from	the	operation	of	the	Project	would	not	result	in	a	constructive	use	to	Section	4(f)	

recreation	resources	within	or	adjacent	to	the	Project	Study	Area,	for	the	following	reasons:	

 The	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	currently	experience	vehicular	traffic	noise	disturbance	

(automobile	 and	 truck	 traffic	 within	 the	 SR	 528	 corridor)	 and/or	 rail	 noise	 disturbance	

(freight	traffic	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor).		

 Noise	disturbance	from	additional	train	traffic	would	be	intermittent,	and	limited	to	only	a	few	

minutes	per	hour	under	the	highest	levels	of	rail	traffic.	

 Train	noise	from	individual	passenger	trains	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	likely	be	lower	and	

occur	for	shorter	periods	of	times,	even	though	more	frequently,	than	with	current	freight	rail	

operations.	

	Section	5.2.2,	Noise and Vibration	discusses	changes	in	noise	associated	with	 the	Project. The	Project	

would	 be	 compatible	 with	 the	 intended	 uses	 of	 Section	 4(f)	 recreation	 resources,	 as	 parklands	 are	

compatible	with	these	noise	levels	(FAA	2004).	

As	stated	in	Section	3.3.8	of	the	2012	EA,	one	Section	4(f)	resource	appears	to	have	a	potential	effect	from	

noise	along	the	WPB‐M	Corridor:	the	El	Portal	Tot	Lot	–	Miami‐Dade	County.	However,	based	on	committed	

mitigation	measures	(for	example,	stationary	grade	crossing	horns),	all	severe	and	moderate	effects	related	

to	recreational	land	uses	are	eliminated,	including	noise	impact	to	the	El	Portal	Tot	Lot.	

Vibration 

Vibration,	even	at	a	severe	level,	would	not	interfere	with	 the	intended	use	of	Section	4(f)	recreation	

resources	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	Any	increase	in	vibration	resulting	from	the	Project	would	not	

create	adverse	effects,	and	would	be	scarcely	noticeable	to	the	surroundings.	The	Project	would	cross	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-150 September 2014 

 

Long	Bluff	Road	in	 the	Tosohatchee	WMA	by	means	of	an	overpass.	Vibration	effects	at	 this	crossing	

would	be	less	than	those	projected	for	the	at‐grade	portions	of	the	E‐W	Corridor,	as	the	trains	would	be	

elevated	and	disconnected	from	the	ground.	Vibration	associated	with	existing	freight	traffic	along	the	

N‐S	Corridor,	including	the	crossing	of	Southeast	Jonathan	Dickinson	Way	in	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	

Park,	is	greater	than	vibration	associated	with	the	proposed	passenger	train	traffic.	Changes	in	vibration	

from	 the	 Project	 would	 not	 result	in	 constructive	 use	 to	 Section	 4(f)	 recreation	 resources	 within	 or	

adjacent	to	the	Project	Study	Area,	as	the	intended	use	of	these	resources	is	compatible	with	any	increases	

in	vibration.	Section	5.2.2,	Noise and Vibration	discusses	changes	in	vibration	associated	with	the	Project.		

Aesthetic 

The	Project	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	constructed	primarily	within	or	adjacent	to	the	SR	528	right‐

of‐way.	SR	528	dominates	the	existing	viewshed	along	the	majority	of	the	E‐W	Corridor;	modifications	

proposed	 for	 this	 corridor	 would	 not	 substantially	 change	 existing	 aesthetic	 conditions	 for	 the	 two	

Section	4(f)	properties	present	along	this	segment.	The	N‐S	Corridor	is	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor,	

and	modifications	proposed	for	this	corridor	would	maintain	the	general	aesthetics	of	this	active	rail	line.	

Changes	 to	 aesthetics/viewshed	 associated	 with	 the	 Project	 would	 not	 result	 in	 constructive	 use	 to	

Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	within	or	adjacent	to	the	Project	Study	Area.	Section	5.4.7,	Visual and

Scenic Resources,	discusses	changes	to	aesthetics	associated	with	the	Project.	

Access Alteration 

None	of	the	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	within	the	Project	Study	Area	would	require	alteration	to	

existing	 access.	 The	 Project	 crosses	 Long	 Bluff	 Road	 and	 Southeast	 Jonathan	 Dickinson	 Way	 in	 the	

Tosohatchee	WMA	and	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park,	respectively.	The	Project	would	cross	Long	Bluff	

Road	on	an	elevated	track	structure,	and	would	maintain	existing	accessibility.	The	N‐S	Corridor	would	

be	entirely	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor,	which	currently	crosses	Southeast	Jonathan	Dickinson	Way.	

Although	 these	Section	4(f)	recreation	resources	would	not	experience	direct	use	associated	with	 the	

Project,	there	may	be	temporary	access	restrictions	to	these	roads	during	construction	but	that	would	

not	affect	their	use.	

5.4.6.4 Temporary Construction-Period Effects 

At	 Long	Bluff	Road,	construction	of	a	new	 railroad	bridge	would	 require	 temporary	 occupancy	 of	an	

adjacent	 area	 of	 the	 Tosohatchee	WMA	 to	 accommodate	 erosion	 and	 sediment	 control,	 construction	

staging	 areas,	 and	 traffic	 coordination.	 If	 temporary	 road	 or	 lane	 closures	 are	 necessary,	 AAF,	 in	

association	with	FRA,	would	coordinate	with	the	land	managing	agency	of	the	Section	4(f)	recreational	

resources	 (FWC).	 As	 described	 in	 Chapter	 6,	 Section 4(f) Evaluation,	 this	 would	 not	 constitute	 a	

constructive	use	of	the	Tosohatchee	WMA.	

5.4.6.5 Mitigation 

The	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	constructed	as	an	overpass	so	as	not	to	interrupt	the	intended	use	of	Long	

Bluff	 Road	 within	 the	 Tosohatchee	 WMA.	 Construction	 of	 the	 overpass	 may	 require	 the	 temporary	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-151 September 2014 

 

occupancy	of	construction	areas	within	the	Tosohatchee	WMA;	however,	the	construction	areas	would	

be	stabilized	with	grass	and	mulch	and	the	land	returned	to	pre‐construction	conditions.	

5.4.7 Visual and Scenic Resources 

This	section	addresses	the	potential	effects	of	the	Project	on	visual	and	scenic	resources,	the	natural	and	

man‐made	features	that	give	a	particular	landscape	its	aesthetic	properties.	Visual	resources	include	sites,	

objects	and	landscapes	features	that	contribute	to	the	visual	character	of	the	surrounding	area	and/or	

are	valued	for	their	scenic	qualities.		

The	Project	is	anticipated	to	have	only	minor	effects	on	visual	and	scenic	resources,	primarily	associated	

with	new	bridges	over	waterways	and	new	communications	towers	along	the	E‐W	Corridor.	

5.4.7.1 Methodology 

As	described	in	Section	4.4.7,	Visual and ScenicResources,	three	crossing	locations	along	the	E‐W	Corridor,	

at	the	Econlockhatchee	River,	at	the	St.	Johns	River,	and	at	I‐95,	were	selected	as	representative	sites	that	

illustrate	the	potential	effect	the	new	rail	line	would	have	on	its	surroundings.	No	photo	renderings	were	

developed	for	the	N‐S	Corridor	as	this	is	currently	a	developed	rail	corridor	and	restoring	the	second	track	

is	not	anticipated	to	substantially	change	the	visual	environment.	

5.4.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

This	section	describes	the	visual	and	scenic	resource	effects	resulting	from	the	Project.	Potential	historic	

landscapes,	wildlife	refuges,	parks,	and	other	visual	and	scenic	resources	proximate	to	the	MCO	Segment,	

E‐W	 Corridor,	and	N‐S	 Corridor	including	 potential	 viewshed	effects,	are	also	evaluated	within	 other	

sections	(Section	5.4.5,	Cultural Resources,	and	Section	5.4.6,	Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources)	

of	this	DEIS.	

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	or	operated.	The	Project	Study	

Area,	 including	 viewsheds,	 would	 remain	 the	 same	 with	 no	 passenger	 rail	 related	 development	 or	

construction	changes.	In	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	there	would	be	no	effects,	adverse	or	otherwise,	to	

visual	and	scenic	resources.		

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

The	visual	effects	of	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	are	expected	to	be	similar.		

MCO Segment 

The	 existing	 viewshed	 of	 the	 MCO	 Segment	 would	 remain	 primarily	 unchanged	 as	 the	 existing	 area	

includes	mainly	 the	developed	MCO.	Development	of	 the	MCO	Segment	would	not	significantly	affect	

visual	and	scenic	resources	in	this	area	as	the	existing	transportation	land	use	would	not	change	because	

of	the	Project.	Airport	visitors	would	see	a	new	rail	line	parallel	to	an	existing	roadway,	which	would	have	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-152 September 2014 

 

minimal	effect	on	the	visual	conditions.	AAF	passengers	traveling	along	the	MCO	Segment	would	see	the	

existing	SR	528,	MCO	terminals,	roadways,	parking	lots,	and	undeveloped	land.		

East-West Corridor 

The	 E‐W	 Corridor	 primarily	 crosses	 undeveloped	 wooded	 areas,	 wetlands,	 and	 agricultural	 pasture,	

parallel	to	SR	528.	The	design	and	construction	of	the	railroad	through	the	E‐W	Corridor	would	comply	

with	 FDOT	 and	 FRA	 guidelines,	 and	 would	include	 aesthetic	 features	 such	 as	 standard	mechanically	

stabilized	earth	walls	pursuant	to	FDOT’s	Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction,	and	

the	FDOT’s	standard	Design‐Build	Guidelines	(FDOT	2012b	and	2013a).	Motorists	traveling	along	SR	528	

would	generally	be	able	to	see	the	new	railroad	to	the	south.	For	Alternatives	A	and	C,	vegetation	within	

the	 south	 side	 of	 the	 highway	 right‐of‐way	 would	 be	 removed,	 opening	 up	 views	 to	 the	 south	 and	

increasing	motorists’	views	of	the	railroad	and	adjacent	undeveloped	lands.	For	Alternative	E,	motorists	

would	be	less	likely	to	see	the	passenger	rail	line	as	the	vegetation	near	the	highway	would	be	retained	

and	the	rail	line	would	be	farther	from	the	highway.		

Three	 locations	 along	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	 were	 selected	 as	 representation	 sites	 to	 illustrate	 potential	

impacts	of	new	rail	line	on	surrounding	viewsheds:	the	Econlockhatchee	River,	the	St.	Johns	River,	and	

I‐95.	 If	 the	 E‐W	 Corridor	were	 to	 be	 developed,	 the	 viewshed	 of	motorists	 traveling	 east	 on	 SR	 528	

crossing	the	Econlockhatchee	River	would	change	minimally.	For	Alternatives	A	and	C,	the	rail	line	would	

be	relatively	close	to	SR	528	and	visible	to	motorists	traveling	on	SR	528.	Motorists	would	be	able	to	see	

the	rail	bridge’s	long	retaining	walls	parallel	to	SR	528.	For	Alternative	E,	the	rail	line	would	be	farther	

away	from	SR	528	and	therefore	less	visible.	Motorists	would	be	able	to	see	a	small	portion	of	the	new	

passenger	rail	line	through	existing	vegetated	areas.	A	narrow,	restricted	view	of	the	rail	bridge	settled	

within	the	existing	views	of	the	Econlockhatchee	River’s	natural	features	would	be	visible	at	this	location.	

Figure	4.4.7‐2b	shows	a	photo	rendering	of	the	Econlockhatchee	River	viewshed	looking	south	from	SR	

528	for	Alternative	E.		

The	viewshed	of	motorists	 traveling	east	on	SR	528	crossing	 the	St.	 Johns	River	would	be	somewhat	

obstructed	because	the	rail	bridge	would	be	higher	than	the	SR	528	bridge.	Those	motorists	traveling	in	

small	passenger	vehicles	would	no	longer	have	an	extensive	view	of	 the	St.	 Johns	River	 from	SR	528.	

Motorists	in	larger	vehicles	such	as	sport	utility	vehicles	or	trucks	would	likely	be	able	to	view	the	St.	Johns	

River	over	the	railroad	bridge	and	embankment	as	drivers	in	these	vehicles	sit	at	greater	heights.	The	

views	for	boaters	on	the	St.	Johns	River	looking	north	towards	SR	528	would	not	change	substantially	as	

the	rail	bridge	would	be	parallel	to	SR	528	and	would	be	similar	to	the	size	and	structure	of	SR	528	over	

the	river.	Figures	4.4.7‐3b	and	4.4.7‐4b	are	photo	renderings	of	St.	Johns	River	views	looking	southeast	

from	SR	528	and	from	the	St.	Johns	River	looking	north.	Views	would	be	the	same	for	Alternatives	A,	C	

and	E	as	all	three	alternatives	would	be	on	the	same	alignment	at	this	location.		

The	viewshed	of	motorists	traveling	on	I‐95	towards	the	SR	528	overpass	would	change	minimally.	The	

new	rail	overpass	would	be	constructed	parallel	to	SR	528	and	would	be	similar	to	the	size	and	structure	

of	the	SR	528	bridge	over	I‐95.	Motorists	traveling	on	I‐95	would	see	another	overpass	similar	to	SR	528.	

Figure	4.4.7‐5b	shows	a	photo	rendering	of	the	I‐95	approach	to	the	SR	528	overpass.	Views	would	be	the	

same	for	Alternatives	A,	C	and	E	as	all	three	alternatives	would	be	on	the	same	alignment	at	this	location.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-153 September 2014 

 

Motorists	traveling	northbound	on	other	intersecting	highways,	such	as	Narcoosee	Road,	SR	417	and	SR	

520,	approaching	SR	528	would	see	a	similar	view	as	the	I‐95	approach	to	SR	528.	Motorists	on	these	

highways	would	see	a	new	overpass	in	 front	of	and	similar	to	the	existing	SR	528	overpass.	The	only	

minor	change	in	appearance	of	the	new	overpass	would	be	instead	of	seeing	grass	side	slopes,	such	as	the	

ones	associated	with	SR	528	overpasses,	motorists	would	see	concrete	retaining	walls	similar	to	those	

shown	in	Figure	4.4.7‐5b.		

New	communications	towers	would	be	required	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	to	support	the	communications	

systems.	These	 towers	would	be	either	monopole	or	lattice‐type	towers,	generally	60	 feet	 tall	or	less.	

While	these	towers	would	be	visible	to	motorists	on	SR	528,	they	would	not	substantially	change	views	

along	this	corridor.	

North-South Corridor 

The	existing	viewshed	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	remain	largely	unchanged.	Modifications	proposed	

for	 this	 corridor	 are	 expected	 to	 maintain	 the	 general	 aesthetics	 of	 this	 active	 rail	 line.	 Project	

improvements,	including	restoring	the	double‐track	system	along	the	N‐S	Corridor,	would	occur	within	

the	existing	right‐of‐way.	Construction	within	the	N‐S	Corridor	is	not	expected	to	affect	visual	and	scenic	

resources	in	this	area	as	the	existing	transportation	land	use	would	not	be	changed	because	of	the	Project.	

The	existing	rail	corridor	would	continue	to	be	used	with	minimal	removal	of	vegetation	and	no	changes	

to	at‐grade	crossings	except	for	upgrades	to	signals	in	some	locations.		

The	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	visible	from	roadways	that	cross	at‐grade.	Motorists’	views	at	these	at‐grade	

roadways	would	be	limited	to	grade	crossings,	lights,	gates,	and	flashers.	In	a	few	locations,	especially	

urban	areas,	the	N‐S	Corridor	would	be	visible	from	nearby	buildings.	Views	currently	consist	of	one	or	

two	 tracks,	 railroad	 ballast,	 and	 infrastructure.	 In	 more	 suburban	 areas,	 vegetation	 would	 generally	

screen	 the	views	of	the	railroad.	These	visual	conditions	are	not	anticipated	to	change	because	of	 the	

Project.	Boaters	traveling	underneath	existing	FECR	Corridor	bridges	on	navigable	waterways	would	not	

see	a	 substantial	change	because	 of	 the	Project,	although	 some	dilapidated	bridges	 on	 timber	pilings	

would	be	replaced	with	new	structures	supported	on	concrete	pilings.	Boaters’	views	would	continue	to	

consist	of	the	railroad	bridges,	as	proposed	improvements	would	restore	the	tracks	or	reconstruct	the	

bridges	within	the	same	location	as	the	existing	structures.		

AAF	passengers	would	see	a	variety	of	undeveloped	and	developed	land	use	types,	such	as	residential	areas,	

highways,	 commercial	 and	 industrial	 developments,	 golf	 courses,	 wetlands,	 forested	 areas,	 parks,	

agriculture,	and	water	bodies	while	traveling	the	N‐S	Corridor.	The	trains	would	travel	through	areas	of	high	

density	associated	with	urban	centers	and	areas	of	low	density	associated	with	natural	areas.	

Phase I - West Palm Beach - Miami Corridor 

As	stated	in	Section	3.3.11	of	the	2012	EA,	the	existing	viewshed	of	the	FECR	Corridor	from	the	surrounding	

land	 uses	 would	 be	 maintained.	 The	 proposed	 station	 concepts	 include	 aesthetic	 features	 such	 as	

architectural	 components,	 landscaping,	 and	 ADA‐compliant	 parking	 and	 pedestrian	 features.	 These	

improvements	are	anticipated	to	result	in	an	enhancement	to	the	existing	communities.	It	is	also	anticipated	

that	the	proposed	station	construction	would	be	compatible	with	surrounding	land	uses.	During	the	design	

phase	of	the	WPB‐M	Corridor,	complete	engineering	and	architectural	details	for	station	facilities	(including	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-154 September 2014 

 

canopy	columns	and	railings),	platforms,	signing,	lighting,	and	landscaping	plans	would	be	developed	in	

accordance	with	all	applicable	codes	and	laws	and	pursuant	to	all	required	permitting	reviews.	

The	 stations	 located	 adjacent	 to	 NRHP‐eligible	 historic	 districts	 will	 incorporate	 aesthetic	 features	

consistent	 with	 the	 historic	 architecture	 of	 the	 surrounding	 community	 and	 will	 be	 developed	 in	

coordination	with	local	historic	preservation	groups	and	organizations	and	subject	to	review	by	SHPO.	

Boaters	traveling	underneath	existing	FECR	Corridor	bridges	on	navigable	waterways	would	not	see	a	

substantial	change	because	of	the	Project,	although	some	dilapidated	bridges	on	timber	pilings	would	be	

replaced	with	new	structures	supported	on	concrete	pilings.	Boaters’	views	would	continue	to	consist	of	

the	 railroad	 bridges,	as	 proposed	improvements	would	 restore	 the	 tracks	 or	 reconstruct	 the	 bridges	

within	the	same	location	as	the	existing	structures.	

5.4.8 Utilities and Energy Resources 

This	 section	describes	 the	 potential	effects	 of	 the	Project	 on	public	 utilities	and	energy	 supplies.	The	

Project	would	have	no,	or	negligible,	effects	on	utilities	and	energy	resources.	

5.4.8.1 Environmental Consequences – Utilities 

The	Project	may	require	 that	some	of	 the	existing	utilities	be	relocated	outside	of	 the	 track	 footprint.	

Where	 the	 proposed	 track	 crosses	 underground	 utilities,	 relocation	may	 be	 necessary	 to	 provide	 an	

adequate	depth	below	the	tracks.	Where	the	proposed	track	crosses	under	overhead	utilities,	relocation	

or	 reconstruction	 may	 be	 necessary	 to	 provide	 the	 required	 vertical	 clearance	 over	 the	 tracks	 to	

accommodate	 utilities	 lines	 and	 equipment.	 During	 final	 design,	 AAF	 will	 coordinate	 with	 all	 of	 the	

affected	utilities.		

No-Action Alternative 

The	No‐Action	Alternative	would	not	affect	existing	public	utilities.		

Action Alternatives A, C, and E 

The	effects	to	utilities	from	Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	are	expected	to	be	similar,	with	some	slight	variations	

in	the	alternative	alignments	through	the	OOCEA	section	of	the	E‐W	Corridor.	

MCO Segment 

Some	 buried	 utilities	may	 be	 present	in	 the	MCO	Segment.	 Coordination	with	 the	affected	 utilities	is	

required	and	planned;	coordination	and	 final	 relocation	plans	will	be	established	during	 the	detailed	

design	stage	of	the	Project.	The	proposed	VMF,	on	GOAA	property	near	the	MCO,	is	currently	served	by	

all	necessary	utilities	(OUC	2013).	Constructing	the	VMF	would	affect	a	large	infiltration	ditch	originally	

constructed	to	serve	the	City	of	Orlando	wastewater	treatment	facility	but	which	is	no	longer	functioning.	

Constructing	the	VMF,	therefore,	would	not	affect	any	utilities.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-155 September 2014 

 

East-West Corridor 

The	E‐W	Corridor	crosses	several	stormwater	management	features	associated	with	SR	528.	The	Project	

has	 been	 designed	 to	 provide	 replacement	 stormwater	 management	 ponds	 and	 infrastructure,	 and	

would	not	have	a	long‐term	adverse	effect	on	stormwater	management.		

The	E‐W	Corridor	crosses	several	overhead	electrical	transmission	lines.	Vertical	relocation	(raising)	the	

aerial	electrical	transmission	lines	crossing	the	E‐W	Corridor	right‐of‐way	may	also	be	required,	although	

preliminary	analyses	by	AAF	suggest	that	raising	lines	to	maintain	adequate	vertical	clearances	is	not	

likely	necessary.	The	Project	would	require	that	an	existing	access	road	between	Farm	Access	Road	#2	

and	the	major	Florida	Power	and	Light	(FPL)	overhead	transmission	line	west	of	SR	520	be	relocated,	for	

a	distance	of	approximately	1	mile.	For	Alternative	A,	the	access	road	would	be	accommodated	within	the	

existing	 SR	 528	 right‐of‐way	 using	 retaining	 walls	 for	 the	 railroad.	 For	 Alternatives	 C	 and	 E,	 a	 new	

maintenance	access	road	would	be	constructed	south	of	the	railroad,	and	would	be	a	shared	maintenance	

road	with	AAF.	AAF	would	coordinate	with	the	affected	utilities	during	final	design.		

According	 to	 the	National	 Pipeline	Mapping	 Service,	 the	 Project	may	intersect	 two	 existing	 pipelines	

(PHMSA	2007)	that	are	within	the	SR	528	right‐of‐way,	parallel	to	the	existing	road.	Alternative	A	may	

require	that	portions	of	these	pipelines	be	relocated.	Measures	that	would	be	used	to	ensure	that	natural	

gas	pipelines	or	any	other	pipelines	crossing	beneath	the	proposed	new	rail	may	include	the	use	of	casing	

and	 maintaining	 at	 least	 4.5	 feet	 of	 cover	 between	 the	 top	 of	 the	 casing	 and	 the	 rail	 bed.	 AAF	 will	

coordinate	with	 the	pipeline	owners	and	operators	during	 final	design.	Any	relocation	would	require	

approval	from	the	Federal	Energy	Regulatory	Commission	(FERC).	Coordination	with	the	affected	utilities	

is	required	and	planned;	coordination	and	final	relocation	plans	will	be	established	during	the	detailed	

design	stage	of	the	Project.		

North-South Corridor 

Electrical	 transmission/distribution	lines,	above	and	 below	ground,	are	located	along	and	within	 the	

FECR	Corridor.	In	some	locations,	poles	will	require	relocation	in	order	to	accommodate	the	new	mainline	

track	and	upgraded	crossings.	AAF	would	coordinate	with	the	affected	utilities	during	final	design	and	

prior	to	construction.	Pole	relocation	is	expected	to	be	minimal,	and	associated	with	grade	crossings	and	

limited	sections	of	the	rail	corridor	where	new	track	is	required.	

Electrical	service	providers	within	the	N‐S	Corridor	include	FPL	and	the	City	of	Vero	Beach.	Improving	

the	railroad	crossings	could	impose	temporary	and	minor	disturbances	on	electrical	service	and	could	

result	in	a	slight	increase	in	electricity	to	operate	the	new	crossings	and	switch	stations.		

Phase I - West Palm Beach - Miami Corridor 

Phase	I	of	the	Project	is	also	served	by	FPL.	An	existing	FPL	substation,	located	between	Datura	and	North	

Clematis	Streets	at	the	intersection	of	the	FECR	rail	line,	would	serve	the	Project.	The	main	service	for	the	

site	 is	 routed	 through	 aboveground	 distribution	 lines	 adjacent	 to	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor.	 No	 utility	

relocations	would	be	required	for	Phase	I.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-156 September 2014 

 

5.4.8.2 Environmental Consequences - Energy Use 

This	section	evaluates	the	changes	in	energy	use	associated	with	the	Project.	The	No‐Action	Alternative	

would	be	expected	to	result	in	increasing	energy	consumption	for	private	automobiles,	commensurate	

with	the	increase	in	annual	vehicle‐miles	traveled.	

The	evaluation	 of	energy	consumption	 took	into	account	energy	 requirements	 for	locomotives	 (train	

operations),	 facility	operations,	and	the	off‐setting	decrease	in	energy	usage	by	personal	automobiles.	

Alternatives	A,	C,	and	E	would	have	negligible	effects	on	energy	consumption.	As	defined	by	 the	EPA,	

negligible	energy	effects	are	those	that	would	result	in	a	slight	measurable	increased	use	of	energy	but	

are	very	close	to	the	existing	conditions.		

Operational,	 safety	 improvements	 and	 upgrades	 are	 necessary	 due	 to	 the	 increased	 passenger	 train	

speeds	and	frequency.	These	improvements	and	upgrades	require	minimal	electrical	demand.	Electrical	

consumption	would	increase	with	the	addition	of	a	second	mainline	track	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	from	

Cocoa	to	Miami,	along	with	the	increase	in	maximum	authorized	speed.	This	minor	increase	is	a	result	of	

additional	interlockings,	which	provide	the	operational	flexibility	for	mixed	freight	and	passenger	service.	

In	addition	to	the	increase	of	interlockings,	PTC	adds	electrical	loads	not	currently	seen.	These	PTC	loads	

are	 derived	 from	 associated	 equipment,	 including	 wayside	 interface	 units	 and	 radio	 towers	 for	

transmission	of	information	between	wayside	locations	and	each	train.	Another	area	of	increase	is	at	

highway‐rail	grade	crossings.	Additional	equipment	is	required	due	to	adding	a	second	mainline	track,	

increasing	track	speed,	and	the	proposed	PTC	system.	To	help	offset	any	increases	in	energy	demand	at	

crossings,	AAF	will	replace	existing	incandescent	lamps	with	LED	flashers.	Additional	minor	increases	in	

energy	usage	would	occur	with	new	surveillance	cameras	at	locations	where	high	vandalism	occurs,	and	

where	potential	storage	of	track	maintenance	equipment	is	likely	to	take	place.		

Additional	electrical	service	would	be	required	to	operate	new	rail	crossings	or	switch	stations.	Electrical	

service	providers	within	 the	corridor	include	 FPL,	Orlando	Utilities	Commission	 (OUC),	and	Progress	

Energy.	The	increase	in	electrical	service/demand	is	minimal	and	would	require	no	major	changes	or	

construction	of	electrical	or	other	utility	infrastructure.	No	other	electrical	utilities	would	be	affected	by	

the	construction	or	operation	of	Project	elements	within	the	N‐S	Corridor.	

As	stated	in	Section	3.3.10	of	the	2012	EA,	electrical	energy	requirements	directly	related	to	the	operation	

of	 the	 stations	 and	 ancillary	 activities	 along	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 are	 anticipated	 to	 average	

81,600,000	kilowatt	hours	(kWh)	annually.		

Locomotives 

AAF	will	operate	each	train	with	two	locomotives.	Each	locomotive	will	be	designed	in	accordance	with	

New	 Generation	 DE	 Locomotive	 PRIIA	 305‐005	 technical	 specification	 and	 all	 FRA	 standards	 and	

regulations.	The	dual	set	will	provide	maximum	reliability,	improved	acceleration,	and	a	high	level	of	

safety	from	the	locomotive’s	incorporated	crash	energy	management	system.		

Each	 locomotive	 will	 be	 equipped	 with	 a	 state‐of‐the‐art,	 4,000‐horsepower	 diesel	 engine	 that	 will	

provide	 sufficient	 traction	power	 for	up	 to	nine	 single‐level	cars	 for	a	 sustained	maximum	 operating	

speed	of	125	mph.	Emission	limits	are	according	to	EPA	Tier	4	(Rail)	(EPA	2011b).	Fuel	consumption	and	

exhaust	 will	 be	 reduced	 significantly	 by	 using	 a	 highly	 efficient	 diesel‐electric	 traction	 system	 with	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-157 September 2014 

 

rheostatic	braking	which	will	enable	significant	fuel	savings	with	significant	reduction	of	exhaust.	The	

electrical	brake	will	provide	electrical	energy	to	feed	auxiliaries.	

According	 to	Section	3.3.10	of	 the	2012	EA,	approximately	1.3	million	gallons	of	diesel	 fuel	would	be	

consumed	 by	 the	 Project	 (in	 total)	 on	 an	 annual	 basis.	 In	 2011,	 the	 State	 of	 Florida	 consumed	

approximately	1.4	billion	gallons	of	diesel	fuel	(Florida	Department	of	Agriculture	and	Consumer	Services	

2012).	The	Project	fuel	needs	represent	approximately	0.09	percent	of	existing	diesel	fuel	use.	Based	on	

the	estimated	annual	quantities	of	diesel	consumption,	the	effect	on	energy	resources	would	be	negligible.		

Facility Operations 

Operating	the	VMF	at	the	northern	terminus	would	require	additional	energy	through	existing	electrical	

services.	Electrical	requirements	related	directly	to	the	operation	of	the	stations	and	ancillary	activities	

are	anticipated	to	average	81.6	million	kWh	annually,	which	is	compared	with	8.5	trillion	kWh	produced	

by	the	OUC	annually	(OUC	2013).	Adequate	energy	supplies	are	available	to	support	the	operation	of	the	

VMF.	 As	 stated	 in	 the	 EA	 (Section	 3.3.10),	 electrical	 energy	 would	 be	 required	 for	 Phase	 I	 stations.	

Electrical	 requirements	 related	 directly	 to	 the	 operation	 of	 the	 stations	 and	 ancillary	 activities	 are	

anticipated	to	average	81,600,000	kWh	annually.		

Personal Vehicle Use 

Based	on	the	Florida	Standard	Urban	Transportation	Model	Structure	Regional	Transportation	Model	

Highway	Evaluation	output	and	the	investment‐grade	ridership	study	(Louis	Berger	Group	2013),	AAF	

estimates	that	roadway	VMT	would	be	reduced	by	the	proposed	Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach	service	by	

149,328,070	miles	in	2019	and	by	178,726,265	miles	in	2030	(see	Table	5.2.1‐1),	respectively.	Using	the	

U.S.	average	of	22.1	miles	per	gallon	(mpg)	for	2011,	this	represents	a	saving	of	6,756,926	gallons	per	

year	(gpy)	in	2019	and	8,087,161	gpy	in	2030.	The	analysis	indicates	that	the	Project	would	result	in	a	

net	reduction	in	petroleum‐based	fuels	consumed	and	VMTs	within	the	State	of	Florida	and,	therefore,	

would	have	a	beneficial	or	enhanced	effect	on	energy	use.	

As	 stated	 in	 Section	 3.1.1	 of	 the	 2012	 EA,	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 would	 reduce	 roadway	 VMT	 by	

44,229,342	in	2018	and	by	51,345,672	in	2030,	respectively.	Using	the	average	22.1	mpg,	this	represents	

a	 saving	 of	 2,001,327.6	 and	 2,323,333.5	 gpy,	 respectively,	 in	 gasoline	 (energy)	 consumption.	 This	

reduction	in	VMT	would	generate	a	corresponding	reduction	in	regional	highway	congestion	levels.	

5.4.8.3 Temporary Construction-Period Effects 

The	Project	would	require	the	use	of	various	types	of	fossil	fuels,	electrical	energy,	and	other	resources	

during	construction.	These	resources	are	considered	to	be	irretrievably	committed	to	the	Project.	At	this	

time,	these	resources	are	not	in	short	supply	and	are	considered	readily	available.	As	a	result,	the	use	of	

these	resources	is	not	expected	to	result	in	an	adverse	effect	upon	their	continued	availability.		

The	Project	would	consume	energy,	primarily	as	diesel	fuel,	during	construction.	According	to	the	current	

design	plans	for	the	N‐S	Corridor,	the	materials	and	equipment	required	to	reconstruct	the	railroad	bridges	

and	 the	 additional	 rail	lines	would	 be	 transported	 via	 the	 existing	 railway.	Due	 to	 the	 reduced	energy	

demands	 associated	with	 rail	 travel,	 the	 energy	 needed	 to	 construct	 the	 Project	in	 the	N‐S	 Corridor	is	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-158 September 2014 

 

substantially	 less	 than	 compared	 to	 an	 infrastructure	 project	 that	 requires	 a	 roadway	 mobilization	

(FRA	2010b).	Construction	phasing	could	greatly	reduce	energy	consumption	associated	with	construction	

in	the	E‐W	Corridor	and	VMF	by	allowing	materials	to	be	transported	by	rail.		

The	Project	would	require	the	commitment	of	various	types	of	construction	materials,	including	steel,	

aggregate,	cement,	asphalt	(bituminous	materials),	electrical	supplies,	piping,	and	other	raw	materials	

such	as	metal,	stone,	sand	and	fill	material.	Large	amounts	of	labor	and	other	natural	resources	would	be	

committed	 to	 the	 fabrication	 and	 preparation	 of	 these	 construction	 materials.	 This	 commitment	 of	

resources	is	irretrievable	but	the	resources	are	not	in	short	supply	and	their	use	would	not	result	in	any	

adverse	effect	upon	their	continued	availability.		

The	initial	operation	of	the	Project	may	result	in	a	slight	increase	in	energy	consumption	when	compared	

to	the	No‐Action	Alternative.	The	Project	would	be	expected	to	result	in	a	long‐term	decrease	in	energy	

consumption	through	increased	travel	efficiency	along	new	transit	routes	during	operation.	

Contractors	would	use	phasing	and	hire	professional	utility	locators	to	identify	any	potential	conflicts	in	

order	 to	prevent	or	limit	any	interruptions	in	utility	service.	Potential	outages	could	occur	depending	

upon	the	utilities	network,	which	may	have	the	ability	to	reroute	those	circuits	in	order	to	minimize	any	

temporary	disruption	of	service.	The	relocation	of	poles	is	expected	to	be	minimal,	and	associated	with	

grade	crossings	and	limited	sections	of	the	rail	corridor	where	new	track	is	required.	Contractors	will	be	

required	 to	 follow	 standard	 safety	 practices	 when	 working	 below	 power	 lines,	 including	 signage,	

restrictions	on	equipment	height,	and	protecting	wires.		

5.4.9 Cumulative Impacts 

The	Project	would	result	in	direct	or	indirect,	adverse	and/or	beneficial	effects	to	a	range	of	resources,	as	

described	in	the	prior	sections	of	Chapter	5.	Some	of	the	Project‘s	impacts,	whether	minor	or	major,	when	

combined	with	the	effects	of	other	past,	present,	or	reasonably	foreseeable	future	actions	may	result	in	

substantive	effects	to	environmental	or	social	(human)	resources.	These	combined	impacts	are	referred	

to	as	cumulative	impacts.		

The	analysis	provided	in	this	section	evaluates	direct	and	indirect	changes	to	the	environment	resulting	

from	the	Project	and	because	of	past	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	actions,	consistent	with	CEQ	and	

other	agency	guidance	documents:	

 Considering	Cumulative	Effects	Under	the	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(CEQ	1997a);	

 Guidance	on	the	Consideration	of	Past	Actions	in	Cumulative	Effects	Analysis	(CEQ	2005b);	

 Secondary	 and	 Cumulative	 Impact	 Assessment	 in	 the	 Highway	 Project	 Development	 Process	

(FHWA	1992);	

 Interim	Guidance:	Questions	and	Answers	Regarding	Indirect	and	Cumulative	Impact	Considerations	

in	the	NEPA	Process	(FHWA	2003);	and	

 Cumulative	Effects	Evaluation	Handbook	(FDOT	2012c).	

The	CEQ	regulations	define	a	cumulative	impact	as	“the	impact	on	the	environment	which	results	from	

the	incremental	impact	 of	 the	 action	when	 added	 to	 other	 past,	present,	 and	 reasonably	 foreseeable	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-159 September 2014 

 

future	 actions	 regardless	 of	 what	 agency	 (Federal	 or	 non‐Federal)	 or	 person	 undertakes	 such	 other	

actions.	Cumulative	impacts	can	result	from	individually	minor	but	collectively	significant	actions	taking	

place	over	a	period	of	time	(40	CFR	§	1508.7).”		

As	documented	in	this	section,	the	Project	is	not	anticipated	to	result	in	cumulative	impacts	which	would	

be	 collectively	 significant	 and	 adverse.	 With	 respect	 to	 transportation,	 air	 quality,	 and	 economic	

resources,	the	Project	would	have	beneficial	cumulative	impacts.	

5.4.9.1 Methodology 

The	purpose	of	a	cumulative	impacts	analysis	is	to	identify	effects	that	may	be	minimal	and	therefore	

neither	significant	nor	adverse	when	examined	within	the	context	of	the	proposed	action,	but	that	may	

accumulate	 and	 become	 both	 significant	 and	 adverse	 over	 a	 large	 number	 of	 actions.	 This	 section	

describes	the	methodology	used	to	evaluate	the	cumulative	impacts	of	the	Project	alternatives.	

The	 cumulative	 effects	 of	 the	 Project	were	 analyzed	 for	 each	 of	 the	 alternatives,	 as	 compared	 to	 the	

baseline	 condition	 (the	 No‐Action	 Alternative).	 The	 evaluation	 was	 conducted	 for	 a	 selected	 set	 of	

resources	within	certain	temporal	and	spatial	boundaries,	in	reference	to	historical	trends	or	effects	from	

specific	other	projects,	and	that	are	(for	the	most	part)	regulated	by	various	governmental	agencies.	

Resources Evaluated 

Sections	5.1.1	through	5.4.8	cover	the	potential	direct	and	indirect	effects	of	the	Project	for	a	broad	range	

of	resources,	including	environmental	media	(air,	water),	ecosystems	(biodiversity,	wetlands,	protected	

species),	 and	 human	 communities	 (historical	 and	 archaeological	 resources,	 the	 economy).	 Some	

resources	are	expected	to	be	little	affected	by	any	of	the	Project	alternatives;	others	may	be	substantively	

affected	positively	or	negatively,	either	directly	or	indirectly,	or	through	induced	growth.	Some	resources	

have	experienced	substantial	historical	impact	from	other	projects	or	human	activity,	may	experience	

substantial	future	impact	from	other	projects	or	activities,	or	are	of	specific	interest	to	decision‐makers,	

regulators,	and	the	residents	of	the	Central	and	South	Florida	region.	The	cumulative	impacts	evaluation	

focuses	on	those	resources	affected	by	the	Project:	

 Land	Use;	

 Transportation;	

 Air	quality;	

 Noise;	

 Water	resources;	

 Floodplains;	

 Wetlands;	

 Protected	species;	and	

 Social	and	economic	environment.	

The	other	resources	evaluated	in	Chapter	5	of	this	DEIS	are	expected	to	be	little	affected	or	not	affected	

by	 any	 of	 the	 Project	 alternatives	 and/or	 would	 not	 be	 adversely	 impacted	 by	 past	 or	 reasonably	

foreseeable	actions	in	the	Project	Study	Area.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-160 September 2014 

 

Although	 not	 a	 “reasonably	 foreseeable	 future	 action”	in	 the	 traditional	 sense	 of	 cumulative	impacts	

analysis,	 the	 possible	 effects	 of	 climate	 change	 on	 resources	 such	 as	 wetlands	 and	 threatened	 and	

endangered	species	has	been	taken	into	consideration	to	the	extent	possible.	

Federal,	state,	or	local	governmental	agencies	regulate	most	of	the	resources	selected	for	the	cumulative	

impacts	evaluation.	The	regulatory	programs	drive	many	of	 the	 trends	 for	improving	resource	values	

(such	as	air	quality,	water	quality,	and	wetlands	area)	and	are	thus	an	important	factor	in	the	resource	

effects	of	the	Project	and	other	regional	projects.	The	regulatory	programs	typically	control	effects	to	the	

resources	by	prohibiting	impacts	except	for	as	authorized	by	a	permit.	Regulatory	agencies	are	charged	

with	reviewing	permit	applications	and,	generally,	only	authorize	activities	that	provide	the	least	impact	

to	the	resource	while	still	meeting	the	Project’s	purpose	and	need.	For	this	cumulative	impacts	evaluation,	

the	 existing	 permitted	 facilities	 and	 proposed	 actions	 provide	an	indication	 of	 the	 current	 and	likely	

future	impacts	to	the	resources.		

The	 agencies	 responsible	 for	 administering	 these	 programs	 are	 typically	 charged	 with	 managing	 the	

resources	on	a	project‐by‐project	basis,	but	in	the	context	of	the	common	good.	For	example,	the	federal	

government	 has	 a	 “no	 net	 loss”	 policy	 regarding	 wetlands:	 project	 proponents	 seeking	 permits	 to	 fill	

wetland	areas	are	commonly	required	 to	offset	losses	by	replacing	 filled	wetlands	at	a	negotiated	ratio.	

These	replacement	ratios,	in	part,	make	up	for	historical	wetland	loss	in	addition	to	the	project‐specific	loss.	

Thus,	certain	regulated	resources	are	experiencing	improvements,	rather	than	degradations,	over	time.	

Temporal and Spatial Boundaries 

The	cumulative	impacts	analysis	defines	a	time	frame	and	geographic	range	for	the	evaluation,	and	takes	

into	account	changes	from	other	projects	within	this	time	frame	that	contribute	to	cumulative	effects	on	

the	resources	listed	above.	Historical	impacts	have	been	evaluated	for	two	time	periods.	

For	most	resources,	prior	changes	have	been	evaluated	for	the	period	2000	to	2012.	The	year	2000	was	

selected	as	the	starting	date	because	this	is	a	prior	census	year,	it	was	in	the	midst	of	a	period	of	economic	

downturn,	 and	 it	 establishes	 a	 reasonable	 baseline	 condition.	 The	 baseline	 reflects	 conditions	 in	

2012/2013,	taking	into	consideration	publication	delays	for	the	availability	of	the	most	recent	data.	Future	

impacts	have	been	evaluated	to	the	year	2019,	the	planning	year	for	the	Project	at	which	time	full	ridership	

is	anticipated	to	be	reached.	Spatial	boundaries	for	the	analysis	varied	by	resource,	according	to	the	specific	

characteristics	of	the	resource,	regulatory	jurisdictions,	and	the	availability	of	meaningful	data.		

The	 analysis	 used	 readily	 available	 data	 sources	 for	 past	 and	 future	 changes.	 For	 each	 resource,	 the	

analysis	took	into	consideration	past	changes	to	the	selected	resources	that	resulted	from	development	

trends	or	major	projects	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	Future	changes	to	the	selected	resources	are	based	

on	 historic	 or	 recent	 trends,	 or	 specific	 projects,	including	 all	 reasonably	 foreseeable	 projects	 (those	

projects	 that	 are	 undergoing	 or	 have	 completed	 major	 environmental	 permitting	 actions	 or	 NEPA	

reviews)	and	that	are	programmed	for	construction.	Each	of	these	projects	is	briefly	described	below.	

Because	the	majority	of	these	projects	are	in	early	planning	stages	and	are	at	the	conceptual	design	stage,	

effects	 to	environmental	resources	have	largely	not	been	quantified.	The	cumulative	impacts	of	 these	

projects	are	therefore	assessed	qualitatively	based	on	the	assumed	level	of	impact.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-161 September 2014 

 

Projects Considered in this Analysis 

The	analysis	of	cumulative	impacts	includes	projects	within	the	Central‐Southeast	Florida	study	area	that	

are	reasonably	foreseeable	–	that	are	planned	and	programmed	for	construction	within	the	time	frame	of	

this	analysis,	or	which	are	likely	to	occur	outside	of	the	public	planning	process.	Projects	that	have	been	

proposed	and	evaluated,	but	which	are	not	likely	to	proceed	in	this	time	frame,	are	not	included	in	the	

analysis.	

MCO Intermodal Station 

Multimodal	improvements	proposed	at	MCO	include	two	new	Intermodal	Centers	for	passengers	and	the	

associated	 passenger	 rail	 and	 light	 rail	 (LRT)	 alignments	 within	 MCO.	 These	 improvements	 provide	

connections	 to	 intercity	 passenger	 rail	 and	 regional	 light	 rail.	 The	 Intermodal	 Centers	 provide	

interconnectivity	to	multi‐modes	of	transportation	within	the	region’s	current	and	future	transportation	

system	and	increase	capacity	 through	additional	passenger	processing,	ground	 operations	and	parking	

immediately	 adjacent	 to	 the	 terminals	 to	 the	 south	 (FTA,	 FDOT,	 and	 GOAA	 2005).	 Construction	 of	 the	

Intermodal	Centers	would	occur	with	or	without	the	Project,	as	they	would	potentially	accommodate	other	

rail	projects	(that	is,	commuter	rail	[SunRail]	and	light	rail	[North‐South	Light	Rail	Alignment]),	along	with	

an	expanded	LYNX	bus	service,	large‐scale	garage	parking,	rental	car	facilities,	taxi	accommodations,	and	

other	ground	transportation	options	(MCO	2010).	

GOAA	has	programmed	construction	of	this	facility	for	2014	through	2016	(MCO	2012a).	The	Intermodal	

Terminal	Complex,	at	the	site	of	the	future	South	Terminal,	would	consist	of	a	terminal	building	housing	

the	airport’s	Automated	People	Mover,	a	bus	terminal,	passenger	rail	tracks,	platforms	and	lobby,	and	

future	commuter	rail	tracks	and	platforms.	A	3,500‐car	parking	garage	would	be	constructed	as	part	of	

this	complex.	This	terminal	complex	would	be	constructed	by	GOAA	even	if	the	AAF	project	were	not	

advanced,	and	is	therefore	not	part	of	the	Project.		

In	 accordance	 with	 NEPA,	 the	 FTA	 and	 the	 FDOT,	 in	 cooperation	 with	 GOAA,	 prepared	 an	 EA	 that	

evaluated	the	potential	environmental	impacts	of	the	proposed	intermodal	improvements	at	MCO	(FTA,	

FDOT,	and	GOAA	2005).	In	December	2005,	the	FTA	issued	a	FONSI	based	on	the	information	in	the	Final	

EA	(FTA	2005).	The	FAA	issued	a	re‐evaluation	of	the	EA	for	the	South	Terminal	Complex	and	Intermodal	

Center,	and	concluded	 that	 the	 proposed	intermodal	improvements	at	MCO	do	 not	 require	a	 new	 or	

supplemental	EA	(FAA	2013).	

Orlando International Airport East Airfield Development Area 

GOAA	is	proposing	to	develop	an	approximately	1,325‐acre	area	on	the	east	side	of	the	airport	property,	

south	of	SR	528	and	west	of	Narcoossee	Road.	The	proposed	development	would	require	FAA	approval	

of	a	modified	Airport	Layout	Plan	and	is	therefore	subject	to	NEPA.	The	Project	was	described	in	a	draft	

EA	issued	for	public	comment	in	November	2009,	and	in	an	unpublished	revised	draft	(November	2010)	

available	on	 the	GOAA	website	(GOAA	2009).	The	Project	includes	a	 flexible	conceptual	development	

master	plan	to	provide	large‐scale	aviation	uses	with	efficient	airfield	access,	potentially	including	a	fuel	

farm;	airport	support	uses	such	as	maintenance,	manufacturing,	hangars	or	cargo	 facilities,	and	 flight	

training	centers;	stormwater	management	areas;	roadways	and	open	space;	and	buffers	to	the	adjacent	

communities.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-162 September 2014 

 

Development along the SR 417 Corridor 

Development	along	SR	 417	 southeast	 of	 the	MCO	 has	 been	 occurring	 since	 the	early	 2000s,	and	 has	

included	large	 private	institutional	 developments	 (including	 the	 Veterans	 Affairs	Medical	 Center,	 the	

Sanford‐Burnham	Medical	Research	Institute,	and	Nemours	Children’s	Hospital,	all	located	at	the	Lake	

Nona	Medical	City	area)	and	residential	communities	 (Randal	Park,	North	Lake	Park).	Comparison	of	

2003	 and	 2013	 aerial	 photographs	 illustrates	 the	 increased	 development	 in	 this	 area.	 Other	 private	

developments	are	planned	(such	as	 International	Corporate	Park	and	Magnolia	Ranch)	and	growth	is	

anticipated	to	continue	as	Central	Florida	recovers	from	the	recession.	

The	Wewahootee	 property	 (formerly	 known	 as	 Innovation	 Place)	 is	 a	 1,284‐acre	 mixed	 use	 master	

planned	community	located	at	the	southeast	quadrant	of	the	SR	528	and	SR	417	interchange.	The	project	

area	was	recently	annexed	into	the	City	of	Orlando	from	unincorporated	Orange	County	and	is	entitled	

for	 over	 2,000	 residential	 units	 and	 1.3	 million	 square	 feet	 of	 non‐residential	 use	 (retail,	 office).	 A	

construction	phasing	schedule	has	not	yet	been	established	or	approved	by	the	City	of	Orlando.		

State Road 528 Corridor Improvements 

FDOT,	in	consultation	with	FHWA,	is	proposing	to	widen	the	existing	SR	528	corridor	from	four	lanes	to	

six	lanes.	Additionally,	the	OOCEA	evaluated	proposed	improvements	in	the	2008	SR	528	corridor	study,	

which	included	expanding	existing	corridors	and/or	constructing	new	multi‐use	corridor(s)	 that	may	

include,	but	not	be	limited	 to,	a	limited‐access	 toll	roadway,	a	multi‐use	utility	corridor	 for	pipelines,	

power,	communication,	and/or	water	facilities;	transit	features	and/or	freight	rail	service.	The	project	

study	limits	 for	 FDOT’s	 SR	 528	 PD&E	 Study	 extend	 from	 the	 SR	 520	interchange	in	 unincorporated	

Orange	County	to	the	Port	Canaveral	Terminal	B	interchange	(George	King	Boulevard)	in	unincorporated	

Brevard	County,	approximately	24	miles	in	length.	This	area	includes	portions	of	unincorporated	areas	

of	eastern	Orange	County,	the	City	of	Cocoa,	and	unincorporated	areas	of	Brevard	County.	Generally,	the	

purpose	of	 the	project	is	 to	enhance	 the	integrity	of	 the	highway	while	accommodating	 future	 traffic	

demands,	 improving	 overall	 safety,	 and	 meeting	 current	 design	 standards.	 In	 addition	 to	 providing	

improved	emergency	evacuation	and	response/recovery	time,	the	proposed	improvements	are	intended	

to	serve	existing	and	approved	land	uses	along	the	SR	528	corridor.	

The	PD&E	study	completed	in	2006	by	FDOT	provides	the	documented	information	necessary	for	FDOT	

to	reach	a	decision	on	the	type,	design,	and	location	of	improvements	to	SR	528,	and	this	project	has	been	

identified	in	FDOT’s	Five	Year	Work	Program.	No	funding	for	design,	right‐of‐way,	or	construction	has	

been	allocated.	

The	SR	528	Multi‐Use/Multi‐Modal	Corridor	Study	was	completed	in	2008	by	OOCEA.	Next	steps	include	

a	 PD&E	 study	 for	 multi‐use/multi‐modal	 improvements.	 No	 funding	 for	 design,	 right‐of‐way,	 or	

construction	has	been	allocated	(OOCEA	2008).	

In	 July	2013,	OOCEA	agreed	 to	purchase	approximately	500	acres	of	undeveloped	land	 from	Deseret	

Ranches	(OOCEA	2013).	The	purchase	agreement	includes	a	200‐foot	wide	strip	south	of	 the	existing	

SR	528	right‐of‐way	for	future	highway	improvements	and	to	accommodate	the	multi‐use/multi‐modal	

corridor	identified	in	the	authority’s	2030	Master	Plan.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-163 September 2014 

 

Interstate 95 Widening 

The	portion	of	I‐95	under	study	by	FDOT	and	FHWA	stretches	for	222	miles,	from	the	Indian	River	County/	

Brevard	 County	 border	at	 the	 southern	limit	 to	 the	Georgia	 border	at	 the	 northern	limit,	and	includes	

six	counties	and	12	municipalities.	Roadway	widening	projects	along	the	I‐95	corridor	involve	increasing	

lane	counts	from	between	four	and	eight	lanes	to	between	six	and	12	lanes.	The	I‐95	corridor	serves	and	

connects	 several	 key	 facilities	 including	 major	 airports,	 intermodal	 freight‐rail	 terminals,	 passenger	

terminals,	seaports,	and	a	spaceport.	The	primary	purpose	of	the	I‐95	Sketch	Interstate	Plan	is	to	outline	a	

course	 of	 action	 to	 improve	 users/travelers	 mobility	 within	 the	 I‐95	 corridor	 by	 identifying	 mainline	

concepts	to	provide	the	mobility	that	will	adequately	serve	high	volume	travel,	facilitating	interstate	and	

regional	commerce	and	long	distance	trips	(FDOT,	Systems	Planning	Office	2010).	

Some	portions	of	I‐95	expansion	near	Cocoa	in	Brevard	County	have	been	funded	or	identified	for	funding	

by	 FDOT.	 Design‐build	 proposals	 for	 the	 12.4	 miles	 from	 SR	 528	 south	 to	 SR	 519	 were	 received	 in	

September	2006.	Construction	of	 the	10	miles	 from	SR	528	north	to	SR	50	was	 funded	in	Fiscal	Year	

2009/2010.	 The	 FDOT	 PD&E	 to	 improve	 the	 I‐95	 corridor	 from	 north	 of	 Oakland	 Park	 Boulevard	

(SR	816)	near	Fort	Lauderdale	in	Broward	County	to	south	of	Glades	Road	(SR	808)	near	Boca	Raton	in	

Palm	Beach	County	is	anticipated	in	July	2013,	followed	by	implementation	phases	(FDOT	2013b).	

Potential Future Projects Not Considered in this Analysis 

Several	 transportation	 projects	within	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 have	 been	 proposed	 or	 are	 currently	 in	

preliminary	planning	stages.	The	Tri‐Rail	Coastal	Link	Study	is	being	undertaken	by	FDOT,	and	is	evaluating	

the	use	of	the	FECR	Corridor	for	the	Tri‐Rail	service,	which	currently	operates	on	the	CSX‐controlled	railroad	

right‐of‐way	west	of	the	FECR	Corridor	(FDOT	2014).	The	NEPA	process	for	that	study	is	anticipated	to	

begin	in	2014.	In	2010,	a	draft	Environmental	Assessment	was	completed	for	a	project	that	contemplated	

Amtrak	service	on	the	FECR	Corridor	between	Jacksonville	and	Miami	(FRA	and	FDOT	2010).	That	project	

has	not	advanced	due	to	lack	of	funding,	and	no	funding	is	reasonably	foreseeable.		

5.4.9.2 Cumulative Impacts 

This	 section	 describes	 the	 past,	 reasonably	 foreseeable	 future,	 and	 cumulative	 impacts	 to	 those	

environmental	resources	within	the	Project	Study	Area	that	would	be	affected	by	the	Project.	Cumulative	

impacts	are	described	for	the	Project	as	a	whole,	and	identify	any	differences	among	the	three	alternatives	

evaluated	in	this	DEIS.	

Land Use 

Past Effects 

Within	 the	 analysis	 period,	land	 use	 within	 and	 adjacent	 to	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 has	 not	 changed	

substantially,	with	the	exception	of	the	area	east	and	southeast	of	MCO	along	SR	417.	Development	of	the	

Lake	 Nona	 area	 and	 other	 residential/commercial	 projects	 have	 resulted	 in	 the	 conversion	 of	

undeveloped	land	and	agricultural	land	to	residential,	commercial	and	institutional	land	uses.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-164 September 2014 

 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Effects (without the Project) 

Development	of	the	area	east	and	southeast	of	MCO,	along	SR	417	and	further	east	along	Innovation	Way	

is	expected	to	continue,	with	additional	conversion	of	undeveloped	land.	The	East	End	Development	Area	

at	MCO	would	convert	approximately	115	acres	of	undeveloped	land	to	airport	support	facilities,	with	an	

additional	204	acres	of	stormwater	management	areas,	and	approximately	346	acres	to	other	land	uses	

(transportation	and	open	space).	Full	build‐out,	however,	may	not	occur	within	the	planning	horizon	of	

the	Project.		

The	MCO	Intermodal	Facility,	SR	528	corridor	improvements,	and	I‐95	expansion	would	be	located	within	

existing	transportation	facilities	or	corridors	and	would	not	affect	land	use.	Although	the	conceptual	plans	

(see	Appendices	3.3‐A2	and	3.3‐A3)	for	the	SR	528	corridor	show	potential	future	interchanges,	these	

would	only	be	constructed	as	needed	to	support	future	development	along	SR	528.	This	development	is	

speculative	and	would	not	occur	within	the	time	frame	of	this	analysis.	

Cumulative Impacts of the Project 

The	Project	would	result	in	minor	changes	to	land	use	within	GOAA	property	(for	the	VMF),	within	the	

SR	528	corridor,	and	to	land	acquired	to	facilitate	construction	of	the	Cocoa	Curve	connection	between	

the	E‐W	and	N‐S	Corridors.	The	Project,	considered	in	combination	with	past	and	reasonably	foreseeable	

future	effects	to	land,	would	not	result	in	a	substantially	greater	change	in	land	use	or	loss	of	undeveloped	

land	within	the	Project	Study	Area.		

The	passenger	rail	and	multi‐modal	stations	proposed	for	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	project	would	affect	land	

at	 the	 proposed	 station	 sites.	 However,	 station	 construction	 would	 have	 only	 a	 minor	 change	 to	

surrounding	land	 uses	and	would	 not	effectuate	 change	in	land	 use	and	 planning	 for	adjacent	areas,	

though	regionally	additional	infill	development	is	expected	as	governed	by	local	land	use	and	zoning	

regulations	and	ongoing	adjustments	

Transportation 

Past Impacts 

Regional	increases	in	population	and	recent	developments	within	and	adjacent	to	the	Project	Study	Area	

have	 increased	 traffic	 demand	 on	 local	 and	 regional	 roadways,	 increasing	 congestion	 and	 delays,	 as	

documented	in	Chapter	2,	Purpose and Need.	

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project) 

The	 projects	 included	 in	 this	 analysis	 would	 provide	 transportation	 benefits	 resulting	 from	 capacity	

increases	on	SR	528	and	I‐95,	and	may	benefit	communities	located	along	the	east	coast	and	the	State	of	

Florida	 as	 a	 whole	 by	 improving	 flow	 of	 traffic	 and	 increasing	 mobility.	 Construction	 of	 the	

MCO	 Intermodal	 Facility	 would	 improve	 transportation	 connectivity	 for	 airport	 passengers	 and	

employees.	Further	development	of	the	East	Airfield	Area	and	the	area	southeast	of	MCO	would	increase	

traffic	demand	on	SR	417	and	SR	528,	as	well	as	other	local	roads;	however,	traffic	mitigation	measures	

would	be	incorporated	into	development	permits	for	these	projects.	The	proposed	SR	528	Master	Plan	

development	would	improve	capacity	and	traffic	flow.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-165 September 2014 

 

Cumulative Impacts of the Project 

The	 cumulative	 impact	 would	 be	 beneficial	 to	 the	 regional	 transportation	 system	 because	 of	 capacity	

increases.	Any	adverse	impacts	would	be	limited	 to	 temporary	delays	and	detours	during	construction	

phasing.	The	improvements	to	regional	transportation	would	further	benefit	communities	located	along	the	

east	coast	and	the	State	of	Florida	as	a	whole	with	improved	flow	of	traffic	and	increased	mobility.	

Air Quality 

Past Impacts 

Current	 air	 quality	 conditions	 within	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area,	 as	 described	 in	 Section	 4.2.1,	 reflect	 the	

contributions	of	air	pollutants	 from	a	range	of	sources,	and	the	effects	of	state	and	 federal	air	pollution	

regulations	that	have	improved	regional	air	quality.		

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project) 

The	 I‐95	 widening	 project,	 the	 SR	 528	 improvements,	 and	 the	 WPB‐M	 Corridor	 project	 involve	

improvements	 to	existing	highway	and	rail	corridors.	Cumulative	air	quality	effects	are	associated	with	

increased	 vehicle	 capacity	 of	 the	 expanded	 roadway,	 and	 take	 into	 account	 the	 beneficial	 effects	 of	

regulatory	programs.		

Cumulative Impacts of the Project 

The	Project	is	anticipated	to	have	a	beneficial	effect	on	air	quality	due	to	the	offsetting	effect	of	increased	rail	

ridership	 to	 reduce	 vehicular	 travel.	 Increased	 ridership	 through	 expanded	 rail	 service	 is	 expected	 to	

alleviate	 to	a	minor	extent	 the	demand	 for	vehicular	 travel	and	offset	related	emissions.	No	cumulative	

adverse	effect	is	therefore	anticipated.	The	Project	is	anticipated	to	be	constructed	at	a	different	time	than	

the	other	future	projects	included	in	this	analysis,	and	therefore	would	not	contribute	to	cumulative	air	

quality	effects	from	construction.	

Increased	development	associated	with	increased	economic	activity	in	the	vicinity	of	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	

transit	nodes	would	potentially	result	in	increased	emissions	indirectly	associated	with	building	operation	

or	commercial	activity.	Air	quality	effects	from	construction	will	be	temporary	and	will	primarily	be	in	the	

form	 of	 exhaust	 emissions	 from	 trucks	 and	 construction	 equipment	 as	 well	 as	 fugitive	 dust	 from	

construction	sites.	

Noise 

Past Impacts 

Many	areas	in	the	vicinity	of	MCO,	along	SR	528,	and	along	the	FECR	Corridor	experience	noise	because	of	

vehicular	and	freight	train	traffic,	as	well	as	aviation	noise	and	general	urban	noise	levels.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-166 September 2014 

 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project) 

The	projects	included	in	the	analysis	primarily	involve	improvements	to	existing	highway	and	rail	corridors,	

or	within	an	existing	airport.	 Increased	 vehicle	 capacity	 of	 the	expanded	 roadway	 system	would	likely	

increase	vehicular	noise	and,	to	a	lesser	extent,	vibration.	The	FECR	Corridor	currently	operates	with	freight	

rail,	which	generates	noise	and	vibration.	Any	noise	impacts	to	adjacent	residences	or	sensitive	land	uses	

along	 the	SR	 528	 or	 I‐95	corridors	 resulting	 from	 shifting	 vehicle	 traffic	closer	 to	 residences	would	be	

mitigated	as	required	by	FHWA	guidelines.	Temporary	noise	and	vibration	impacts	may	be	generated	by	

heavy	 equipment	 and	 construction	 activities	 such	 as	 pile	 driving	 and	 vibratory	 compaction	 of	

embankments.	

Cumulative Impacts of the Project 

The	Project	is	not	anticipated	to	result	in	noise	impacts	within	the	MCO	Segment	or	the	E‐W	Corridor	due	

to	the	lack	of	receptors,	and	would	not	result	in	cumulative	noise	impacts	in	these	areas.	The	N‐S	Corridor	

is	approximately	1	to	15	miles	east	of	I‐95.	Due	to	this	physical	separation,	the	construction	and	operation	

of	 the	 rail	 facilities	 are	 not	 likely	 to	 cumulatively	 generate	 noise	 or	 vibration	 impacts	 for	 adjacent	

communities.	The	addition	of	new	structures	or	uses	associated	with	the	I‐95	widening	in	proximity	to	the	

existing	 N‐S	 Corridor	 would	 result	 in	 minimal	 cumulative	 effects	 from	 the	 introduction	 of	 noise	 and	

vibration‐sensitive	uses	in	adjacent	developed	areas	or	areas	of	potential	future	urban	development.	The	

Project	would	reduce	noise	within	the	N‐S	and	WPB‐M	Corridors	by	using	pole‐mounted	horns	at	grade	

crossings.	

The	N‐S	 Corridor	and	 the	WPB‐M	 Corridor	are	within	 the	existing	 FECR	 Corridor.	Noise	and	 vibration	

impacts	may	be	generated	by	heavy	equipment	and	construction	activities	such	as	pile	driving	and	vibratory	

compaction	of	embankments	during	construction	phases	only,	but	would	not	cumulatively	increase	noise	

and	vibration	when	considered	with	the	Project.	

Water Resources 

Past Impacts 

As	 documented	in	Section	 4.3.1,	Water Resources,	Affected	 Environment	 discussion,	 the	 surface	waters	

throughout	 the	 Project	 Study	Area	 have	 been	 adversely	 affected	by	 past	 human	 activities	 (agriculture,	

wastewater	 discharge,	 urban	 development)	 and	 are	 considered	 impaired	 for	 fecal	 coliform,	 dissolved	

oxygen,	mercury,	copper,	and	high	nutrient	levels	(eutrophication).	

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project) 

Each	of	the	reasonably	foreseeable	future	projects	considered	in	this	analysis	would	impact	water	resources	

due	to	the	effects	of	increased	surface	runoff	from	impermeable	surfaces	and	redirection	of	natural	water	

bodies.	However,	impacts	are	expected	to	be	minor,	as	all	projects	are	expected	to	include	BMPs	put	in	place	

to	prevent	degradation	of	water	quality	in	downstream	waters	and	flood‐prone	areas.	Impacts	to	water	

resources	 are	 anticipated	 to	 be	 minimal	 on	 a	 regional	 scale.	 Proposed	 development	 would	 not	 be	

anticipated	 to	 result	 in	 potential	 effects	 to	 water	 bodies,	 creeks,	 streams,	 and	 rivers	 in	 the	 vicinity	 as	

regulatory	agencies	require	appropriate	BMPs	prior	to	issuing	permits.	The	FAA	EA/FONSI	for	the	MCO	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-167 September 2014 

 

Intermodal	Facility	determined	that	there	is	no	significant	pollution	discharge	associated	with	the	surface	

waters	 within	 MCO,	 and	 that	 the	 existing	 stormwater	 management	 system	 could	 accommodate	 the	

proposed	rail	extensions	within	 the	MCO	property	with	little	if	any	modification.	Stormwater	Pollution	

Prevention	Plans	(SWPPPs)	would	be	required	for	all	phases	of	projects	to	cumulatively	avoid	effects	to	

water	resources.	The	MCO	East	End	Development	has	committed	to	more	than	200	acres	of	stormwater	

management	to	mitigate	for	potential	effects	to	water	resources.	On	a	regional	basis,	groundwater	aquifers	

are	predicted	to	be	affected	by	climate	change	and	sea	level	rise	(Koch‐Rose,	Mitsova‐Boneva,	and	Root	

2011).	

Cumulative Impacts of the Project 

The	Project	is	expected	to	have	minor	impacts	on	surface	and	groundwater,	as	all	surface	water	effects	

would	be	mitigated	in	accordance	with	applicable	state	and	local	laws	regarding	appropriate	compensation	

and	permitting.	The	Project	would	result	in	minimal	amounts	of	impervious	surfaces,	with	new	impervious	

surface	 proposed	 only	 at	 the	 VMF.	 Improvements	 associated	with	the	 proposed	 station	 alternatives	in	

Miami	 and	 Fort	 Lauderdale	 will	 include	 minor	 changes	 to	 impervious	 surface	 areas	 for	 the	 proposed	

stations,	parking	facilities,	and	platforms	as	outlined	in	Table	3‐1.9	of	the	2012	EA.	Because	there	will	be	

little	change	in	the	pre‐	versus	post‐runoff	condition	in	these	cases,	no,	or	minimal,	upgrades	to	existing	off‐

site	municipal	drainage	systems	(conveyance	structures)	are	anticipated	as	a	result	of	the	proposed	stations	

and	facilities.

The	remainder	of	the	Project	would	be	constructed	as	railroad	bed	and	ballast	and	would	not	affect	surface	

or	groundwater.	The	Project	would	not	contribute	to	cumulative	impacts	on	groundwater.	The	cumulative	

impacts	 of	 the	 Project	 and	 other	 reasonably	 foreseeable	 future	 effects	 would	 be	 minor	 and	 would	 be	

mitigated	 as	 required	 by	 regulatory	 agencies.	 Cumulative	 impacts	 of	 construction	 (release	 of	 silt	 or	

sediment)	are	not	likely	because	the	Project	would	not	be	constructed	at	the	same	time	as	the	other	future	

projects.	

Floodplains 

Past Impacts 

It	is	likely	that	past	development	actions	have	encroached	on	the	100‐year	floodplain	at	locations	within	the	

Project	Study	Area;	however,	the	effects	of	these	actions	have	not	been	documented.	

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project) 

Each	of	the	reasonably	foreseeable	future	projects	considered	in	this	analysis	would	require	construction	

in	100‐year	 flood	prone	areas,	however,	 the	existing	master	stormwater	system	in	place	is	expected	 to	

compensate	 for	 flood	 storage	 volumes	 and	 prevent	 cumulative	 increases	 in	 onsite	 or	 offsite	 flooding.	

Proposed	SR	528	widening	would	be	likely	to	affect	areas	within	the	100‐year	floodplain,	and	would	require	

improvements	to	the	stormwater	system	to	compensate	for	flood	storage	volumes	and	prevent	cumulative	

increases	in	onsite	or	offsite	flooding.	With	predicted	sea	level	rise	and	climate	change,	future	100‐year	flood	

elevations	are	expected	to	increase,	and	future	improvements	to	SR	528	or	I‐95	may	require	design	features	

to	improve	resiliency	in	extreme	flood	events.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-168 September 2014 

 

Cumulative Impacts of the Project 

The	Project	would	require	construction	within	 the	100‐year	 floodplain	in	several	locations.	Cumulative	

impacts	are	expected	to	be	minor,	as	all	floodplain	effects	would	be	mitigated	in	accordance	with	applicable	

state	and	local	laws	regarding	appropriate	compensation	and	permitting.	

Wetlands 

Past Impacts 

Wetlands	throughout	the	Project	Study	Area	have	been	altered	by	previous	human	activities,	including	road	

construction,	urban	and	 suburban	development,	construction	 of	MCO,	and	agricultural	activities.	These	

impacts	 have	included	wetland	loss,	 fragmentation	 of	wetlands	 and	 riparian	 habitats,	 and	 a	 decreased	

ability	for	wetlands	to	provide	important	functions	such	as	flood	storage,	groundwater	recharge/discharge,	

pollutant	 attenuation,	 and	 wildlife	 habitat.	 In	 recent	 years,	 wetland	 effects	 have	 been	 compensated	 by	

constructing	new	wetlands	in	wetland	mitigation	banks,	and	some	large‐scale	wetland	restoration	projects	

have	been	advanced.	For	example,	over	the	last	decade,	large‐scale	wetland	restoration	and	enhancement	

projects	have	been	undertaken	at	Indian	River	Lagoon,	St.	Lucie	River,	Hobe	Sound,	and	Loxahatchee	River.	

Much	of	the	restoration	conducted	within	these	areas	was	completed	or	supported	as	part	of	the	Indian	

River	 Lagoon	 National	 Estuary	 Program,	 which	 includes	 dozens	 of	 small	 and	 large‐scale	 wetland	

enhancement	and	restoration	projects.	Projects	range	in	size	from	less	than	1	acre	to	over	500	acres	and	

include	activities	such	as	hydrology	restoration,	exotic	species	removal,	native	plant	installation,	and	trash	

removal	(SJRWMD	2013c).	

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project) 

Under	the	reasonably	foreseeable	future	conditions,	existing	wetlands	would	likely	be	filled	or	experience	

impaired	functions	and	values	because	of	constructing	the	East	End	Development.	Approximately	260	acres	

of	wetlands	would	be	converted	to	uplands	and	stormwater	management	system	for	this	development,	The	

SR	528	improvements,	the	I‐95	widening,	and	 future	private	development	projects	would	also	result	in	

wetland	losses,	which	have	not	been	quantified.	Discharges	of	dredged	or	fill	material	into	jurisdictional	

wetlands	are	required	to	be	mitigated	pursuant	to	the	CWA	Section	404(b)(1)	Guidelines,	either	by	the	

purchase	 of	 wetland	 mitigation	 credits	 at	 approved	 mitigation	 banks	 or	 in	 lieu	 fees	 or	 by	 permittee‐

responsible	compensatory	mitigation,	in	accordance	with	applicable	permit	conditions.	

Cumulative Impacts of the Project 

The	Project	is	anticipated	to	result	in	minor	losses	of	wetlands	in	all	of	the	project	segments,	and	would	

affect	wetland	functions	and	values.	Potential	adverse	impacts	to	future	populations	of	wetland‐dependent	

wildlife	and/or	aquatic	species	from	loss	of	habitat	through	project	construction	and	cumulative	projects	in	

the	 vicinity	 of	 the	Project	are	also	expected	 to	be	minor.	Cumulative	impacts	 to	wetland	 resources	are	

anticipated	to	be	minimal	on	a	regional	scale,	and	are	proposed	to	be	fully	mitigated	through	the	purchase	

of	mitigation	bank	credits.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-169 September 2014 

 

Protected Species 

Past Impacts 

Numerous	plant	and	wildlife	species	within	the	Project	Study	Area	are	currently	protected	by	the	federal	

and	state	endangered	species	acts.	Although	some	of	these	are	rare	due	to	species‐specific	restricted	habitat	

distributions,	population	dynamics,	or	other	natural	causes,	many	are	threatened	or	endangered	due	to	

historic	effects	of	human	activity	(habitat	loss,	hunting,	pesticides),	which	have	been	most	severe	on	species	

which	 have	 highly	 restricted	 habitat	 requirements	 or	 existed	 in	 small	 populations.	 However,	 several	

previously‐listed	species	(including	the	bald	eagle	and	American	alligator)	have	recovered	and	populations	

expanded	due	to	federal	protection	and	are	no	longer	considered	imperiled.	Other	species	continue	to	be	at	

low	or	declining	population	sizes	due	to	a	variety	of	factors,	including	development	and	habitat	change.	

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project) 

Some	of	the	Projects	within	the	Project	Study	Area	may	have	a	direct	or	indirect	effect	on	protected	species.	

Although	 the	SR	528	and	 the	 I‐95	improvements	are	planned	 for	existing	 transportation	corridors	 that	

provide	low	quality	habitat,	wildlife	species	are	at	risk	for	fatal	or	injurious	encounters	with	vehicles,	and	

the	proposed	improvements	may	result	in	the	loss	of	habitat	for	reptiles	such	as	gopher	tortoise	or	indigo	

snake.	Potential	adverse	effects	 to	 future	 populations	 of	wildlife	 or	 plants	 from	loss	 of	 habitat	 through	

project	construction	and	cumulative	projects	in	 the	vicinity	of	 the	Project	are	expected	 to	be	minor.	All	

Projects	would	require	review	by	USFWS	and	NMFS	to	ensure	that	effects	to	listed	species	were	avoided	to	

the	extent	feasible,	and	mitigated	as	needed,	in	conformance	with	the	ESA.	

Cumulative Impacts of the Project 

Cumulative	impacts	to	protected	species	are	anticipated	to	be	minimal	on	a	regional	scale	and	limited	to	

incidental	takes	from	transportation	uses	and	minor	losses	of	habitat.	As	the	proposed	passenger	trains	

would	pass	through	the	E‐W	and	the	N‐S	Corridors	relatively	infrequently,	introduction	of	the	trains	along	

these	transportation	corridors	would	not	be	anticipated	to	result	in	a	measurable	increase	in	takings	of	

special	status	species	such	as	gopher	tortoise	or	Florida	scrub‐jay.	The	USFWS	and	NMFS	are	anticipated	to	

concur	with	the	USACE’s	finding	of	“effect	but	not	adverse	effect”	for	all	listed	species.	The	WPB‐M	Corridor	

project	would	have	no	adverse	impact	on	federal	listed	species	and	no	significant	adverse	impact	to	state	

listed	species.	

Social and Economic 

Past Impacts 

Between	2003	and	2006,	Florida	experienced	substantial	increases	in	total	population,	averaging	yearly	

expansions	 of	 about	 426,000	 persons	 per	 year	 (Office	 of	 Economic	 and	Demographic	Research	 2011).	

Significant	 economic	 growth	 accompanied	 population	 increases,	 as	 Florida’s	 gross	 state	 product	 rose	

27.4	percent	from	$574.4	million	in	2003	to	$731.5	million	in	2006	(BEA	2013).	Economic	expansion	turned	

to	decline	following	one	of	the	worst	national	financial	disasters	since	the	1930s,	the	Great	Recession.	From	

the	onset	of	the	Great	Recession	in	December	2007	to	its	end	in	June	2009,	the	unemployment	rate	in	the	

State	of	Florida	increased	from	4.7	percent	to	10.5	percent	(NBER	2010;	BLS	2013).	During	the	same	18‐
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Environmental Consequences 5-170 September 2014 

 

month	period,	 the	unemployment	 rates	in	 the	Metropolitan	Statistical	Areas	 (MSAs)	within	 the	Project	

Study	Area	collectively	increased	from	4.5	percent	to	11.0	percent	(BLS	2013).7		

While	the	Great	Recession	officially	ended	at	the	national	level	in	June	2009,	the	Florida	economy	continued	

to	decline	until	the	statewide	unemployment	rate	peaked	at	11.4	percent	in	February	2010	(NBER	2010;	

BLS	2013).	The	statewide	economy	(as	evidenced	by	unemployment)	has	slowly	improved,	but	has	not	fully	

recovered	to	pre‐recession	levels.	As	of	June	2013,	the	statewide	unemployment	rate	was	7.1	percent	(BLS	

2013).	 Although	 this	 represents	 the	 state’s	 lowest	 unemployment	 level	 since	 September	 2008,	 it	 is	

2.4	 percent	 above	 the	 state’s	 unemployment	 level	 at	 the	 onset	 of	 the	 Great	 Recession.	 Similar	 to	 the	

statewide	economy,	the	economies	of	the	MSAs	within	the	Project	Study	Area	have	improved,	and	have	not	

fully	recovered	 to	pre‐recession	levels.	As	of	 June	2013,	 the	combined	unemployment	rate	in	 the	MSAs	

within	the	Project	Study	Area	was	7.6	percent	(BLS	2013).	According	to	IHS	Global	Insight	Inc.,	the	economy	

of	the	State	of	Florida	will	not	return	to	pre‐recession	employment	levels	until	2016	(BusinessWire	2013).	

Land	development	activity	peaked	in	2007,	followed	by	several	years	of	low	activity	corresponding	with	the	

economic	recession.	The	land	development	market	began	to	recover	in	2012	as	master	developers	and	

homebuilders	cleared	existing	inventory.	In	September	2013,	the	Orlando	metropolitan	area	was	identified	

as	Number	5	in	the	U.S.	among	the	top	10	“booming”	real	estate	markets	(Orlando	Business	Journal	2013).		

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project) 

Construction	and	operation	of	these	projects	would	not	substantially	extend	into	surrounding	land	uses	or	

change	land	use	and	planning	for	adjacent	areas.	At	MCO,	new	construction	of	intermodal	improvements	

would	be	limited	to	existing	MCO	property	and	would	not	extend	into	or	partition	existing	neighborhoods	

or	populations.	OOCEA’s	property	acquisition	would	change	land	use	but	would	not	affect	the	economic	

viability	of	Deseret	Ranch	(a	300,000‐acre	property).	Removing	these	500	acres	from	the	tax	rolls	would	

have	a	negligible	effect	on	the	tax	revenues	of	Orange	County.	None	of	the	reasonably	foreseeable	future	

actions	would	result	in	splitting,	relocating,	or	isolating	neighborhoods	and	would	not	isolate	a	portion	of	

an	ethnic	group	or	neighborhood,	separate	residences	from	community	facilities,	or	substantially	change	

local	traffic	travel	patterns.	The	construction	and	operation	of	these	facilities	would	likely	introduce	new	

jobs	and	revenue	into	local	communities	over	the	life	of	both	projects	and	would	have	a	beneficial	effect	to	

the	adjacent	communities,	where	additional	jobs,	community	reinvestment/redevelopment,	and	improved	

tourism	to	local	business	and	attractions	may	occur.	

Cumulative Impacts of the Project 

The	cumulative	impacts	of	the	Project	in	combination	with	other	reasonably	foreseeable	projects	would	be	

beneficial	to	communities	since	these	projects	would	result	in	additional	jobs,	community	reinvestment/	

redevelopment,	and	improved	tourism	to	local	business	and	attractions.	The	WPB‐M	Corridor	would	also	

have	slight	beneficial	contributions	to	cumulative	impacts.	The	addition	of	passenger	rail	service	would	also	

encourage	 transit‐oriented	 development	 adjacent	 to	 the	 proposed	 stations	 and	 would	 promote	 local	

economic	growth	in	these	areas.	

 

7 The MSAs along the Project Corridor include Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, Palm BayMelbourne-Titusville, Port St. Lucie and Sebastian-Vero Beach. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-1 September 2014 

 

6 Section 4(f) Evaluation 

6.1 Introduction 

Section	4(f)	of	the	U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966	requires	Department	of	Transportation	

(DOT)	agencies	to	protect	certain	public	resources	when	making	transportation	improvements.	These	

resources,	 collectively	 referred	 to	as	Section	 4(f)	 resources,	include	 publicly	 owned	 parks,	 recreation	

areas,	wildlife	or	waterfowl	refuges,	or	historical	properties	of	national,	state,	or	local	significance.	This	

chapter	describes	Section	4(f)	resources	that	would	be	impacted	by	the	alternatives	under	consideration	

for	the	Proposed	Action.	If	a	prudent	and	feasible	alternative	exists	that	avoids	Section	4(f)	resources	and	

it	meets	the	Project	purpose	and	need,	the	DOT	agencies	may	not	select	the	alternative	that	uses	a	Section	

4(f)	resource.	This	chapter	contains	a	prudent	and	feasible	alternatives	analysis,	and	discusses	mitigation	

measures	 that	 would	 be	 employed	 to	 minimize	 harm	 to	 Section	 4(f)	 properties	 resulting	 from	 use.	

Section	4(f)	properties	in	the	Project	Study	Area	that	will	not	be	subject	to	a	physical	or	constructive	use	

under	Section	4(f),	were	evaluated	in	Chapter	5,	Environmental Consequences.	

6.2 Project Purpose and Description 

The	purpose	of	the	Project	is	to	provide	reliable	and	convenient	intercity	passenger	rail	transportation	

between	Orlando	and	Miami,	Florida	(the	Project	Corridor),	by	extending	(in	Phase	 II)	 the	previously	

reviewed	Phase	I	All	Aboard	Florida	(AAF)	passenger	rail	service	between	Miami	and	West	Palm	Beach	

and	by	maximizing	the	use	of	existing	transportation	corridors.	This	transportation	service	would	offer	a	

safe	and	efficient	alternative	to	automobile	travel	on	Interstate	95	(I‐95),	the	primary	highway	connecting	

Orlando	and	Miami;	add	transportation	capacity	to	communities	within	the	I‐95	corridor;	and	encourage	

connectivity	with	other	modes	of	transportation	such	as	light	rail,	commuter	rail,	and	air	transportation.		

The	 additional	 purpose	 of	 Phase	 I	 of	 the	 Project,	 as	 stated	in	the	 Finding	 of	No	 Significant	 Impact	

(FONSI),	is	to	“provide	intercity	passenger	rail	service	that	addresses	South	Florida’s	current	and	future	

needs	to	enhance	the	transportation	system	by	providing	a	transportation	alternative	for	Floridians	

and	tourists,	supporting	economic	development,	creating	jobs,	and	improving	air	quality.”	

The	Project	includes	four	segments:	the	MCO	Segment,	which	includes	the	proposed	vehicle	maintenance	

facility	(VMF)	and	new	railroad	infrastructure	between	the	VMF	and	the	E‐W	Corridor;	the	E‐W	Corridor	

on	new	alignment	between	MCO	and	Cocoa,	paralleling	State	Road	(SR)	528;	the	N‐S	Corridor	within	the	

Florida	East	Coast	Railroad	(FECR)	right‐of‐way	between	Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach	(WPB),	and	the	

WPB‐M	Corridor	within	the	FECR	right‐of‐way.	Since	the	publication	of	the	2012	EA	and	FONSI,	AAF	has	

determined	that	additional	construction	is	necessary	within	the	Phase	I	area,	including	reconstructing	

seven	bridges	over	waterways,	and	modifying	the	turnout	at	the	Miami	Viaduct.	Other	changes	to	the	

Phase	 I	 segment	include	 relocating	 the	 Fort	 Lauderdale	Station	and	moving	 the	Vehicle	Maintenance	

Facility	(from	Fort	Lauderdale	to	West	Palm	Beach).	The	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	was	cleared	by	FRA	in	

a	Re‐Evaluation,	 and	 a	 separate	 Supplemental	 EA	 has	 been	 prepared	 for	 the	West	 Palm	 Beach	 VMF.	

Generally,	the	Project	includes	additional	rail	infrastructure	improvements	from	Orlando	to	West	Palm	

Beach,	including	new	track,	new	bridges,	drainage	systems,	and	the	development	of	all	communications,	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-2 September 2014 

 

signaling,	safety,	and	security	systems.	A	new	signal	system	would	be	implemented	as	part	of	the	Project	

that	will	 provide	a	 Positive	 Train	 Control	 overlay	 system	with	a	 back	 office	 server	in	 the	 operations	

control	center	to	achieve	compliance	with	49	CFR	part	229.	

AAF	 submitted	 two	 separate	loan	 applications	 to	 the	 Federal	Railroad	Administration	 (FRA)	 seeking	

financial	assistance	 to	support	 the	phased	implementation.	This	action	 triggered	 the	need	 for	review	

under	the	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA).	

6.3 Section 4(f) Applicability 

Section	4(f)	of	the	U.S.	DOT	Act	(23	U.S.C.	138,	49	USC,	Subtitle	I,	Section	303(c))	provides	protection	for	

publicly	owned	parks,	recreation	areas,	public	school	playgrounds,	wildlife	and	waterfowl	refuges,	and	

historic	properties	or	archaeological	sites	on	or	eligible	for	listing	on	the	National	Register	of	Historic	

Places	(the	National	Register).	The	DOT	Act	outlines	Section	4(f)	as	follows:	

“The	Secretary	of	Transportation	shall	cooperate	and	consult	with	 the	Secretaries	of	 the	 Interior,	

Housing	and	Urban	Development,	and	Agriculture,	and	with	the	States,	in	developing	transportation	

plans	and	programs	that	include	measures	to	maintain	or	enhance	the	natural	beauty	of	lands	crossed	

by	transportation	activities	or	facilities...		The	Secretary	may	approve	a	transportation	program	or	

project...requiring	the	use	of	publicly	owned	land	of	a	public	park,	recreation	area,	or	wildlife	and	

waterfowl	refuge	of	national,	State,	or	local	significant,	or	land	of	an	historic	site	of	national,	State,	or	

local	significance	(as	determined	by	Federal,	State,	or	local	officials	having	jurisdiction	over	the	park,	

area,	refuge	or	site)	only	if:	

 There	is	no	prudent	and	feasible	alternative	to	using	that	land;	and	

 The	program	or	project	includes	all	possible	planning	to	minimize	harm	to	the	park,	recreation	

area,	wildlife	and	waterfowl	refuge,	or	historic	site	resulting	from	the	use.”	

The	“use”	of	a	property	protected	under	Section	4(f)	(23	U.S.C.	138	and	re‐codified	at	49	USC,	Subtitle	

I,	Section	303(c))	has	a	very	specific	meaning	and	is	defined	as:	

 When	land	is	permanently	incorporated	into	a	transportation	facility;	

 When	 there	 is	 a	 temporary	 occupancy	 of	 land	 that	 is	 adverse	 in	 terms	 of	 the	 statute’s	

preservationist	purposes	...	;	or	

 When	there	is	a	constructive	use	of	land.		

In	 certain	 circumstances	 a	 constructive	 use	 can	 be	 found.	 	 “Constructive	 use	 occurs	 when	 the	

transportation	 project	 does	 not	 incorporate	 land	 from	 a	 Section	 4(f)	 resource	 but	 the	 project’s	

proximity	 impacts	 are	 so	 severe	 that	 the	 protected	 activities,	 features,	 or	 attributes	 that	 qualify	 a	

resource	 for	protection	under	Section	4f)	are	substantially	impaired.	Substantial	impairment	occurs	

only	when	the	protected	activities,	features,	or	attributes	of	the	resource	are	substantially	diminished.”	

6.4 Description and Use of Section 4(f) Resources 

The	following	sections	describe	the	context	of	the	Section	4(f)	historical	and	recreational	properties	

that	would	be	used	by	the	Project,	and	the	use	of	properties	afforded	protection	under	Section	4(f).	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-3 September 2014 

 

At	this	time,	the	FRA	does	not	anticipate	any	temporary	occupancy of	Section	4(f)	properties	during	

construction	as	a	result	of	the	need	for	temporary	construction	easements	or	activities.		

For	each	property	that	would	be	incorporated	into	the	Project,	this	section	provides	an	evaluation	of	

location	and	design	alternatives	that	would	avoid	the	use	of	and/or	minimize	harm	to	Section	4(f)	

properties.	 Section	 4(f)	 defines	 a	 “feasible	 and	 prudent	 alternative”	 as	 one	 that	 “avoids	 using	

Section	4(f)	property	and	does	not	cause	other	severe	problems	of	a	magnitude	that	substantially	

outweighs	 the	 importance	 of	 protecting	 the	 Section	 4(f)	 property,”	 as	 defined	 in	 23	 CFR	 774.	 A	

detailed	analysis	of	the	alternatives	reviewed	to	avoid	use	of	Section	4(f)	properties	is	provided	in	

this	section.		

Publicly	owned	parks,	wildlife	refuges,	and	National	Register‐eligible	historic	resources	protected	under	

Section	 4(f)	are	located	along	 the	entire	 proposed	Project	corridor.	These	 resources	are	identified	in	

Chapter	4,AffectedEnvironment(see	Section	4.4.5	for	identification	of	cultural	resources	and	Section	4.4.6	

for	parks,	recreation	areas,	and	wildlife	refuges).	Of	these	resources,	two	will	be	impacted	by	the	Project	

and	constitute	a	use	under	Section	4(f).	Specifically,	the	Project	activities	will	result	in	a	Section	4(f)	use	

(have	an	adverse	effect	to)	two	historic	bridges.	The	Project	will	also	result	in	a	de minimis	use	of	a	public	

recreation	area/wildlife	refuge,	as	described	below.	Section	4(f)	regulations,	at	23	CFR	774.17,	define	a	

“de minimis	impact”	to	parks,	recreation	areas	and	wildlife	refuges,	as	“one	that	will	not	adversely	affect	

the	features,	attributes,	or	activities	qualifying	the	property	for	protection	under	Section	4(f)”.	Section	

4(f)	evaluations	for	these	three	resources	are	presented	in	the	following	sections.		

6.4.1 Eau Gallie River Bridge 

The	 Project	 requires	 that	 the	 Eau	Gallie	Bridge,	a	 structure	located	within	 the	 FECR	 right‐of‐way,	 be	

demolished	to	construct	a	new	structurally	sound	bridge	able	to	accommodate	the	future	passenger	rail	

traffic.	

6.4.1.1 Description of Bridge and Status of Historical Designation 

The	original	railroad	crossing	of	the	Eau	Gallie	River	in	Melbourne,	Brevard	County,	was	constructed	in	

1925	 as	 a	 fixed	 viaduct	 bridge	 with	 two	 tracks	 on	 an	 open	 deck.	 The	 bridge	 has	 15	 spans	 and	 is	

approximately	600	feet	long.	The	substructure	consists	of	steel	bents	on	concrete	piles,	with	cross‐ties	

between	bents.	At	some	point	during	its	operating	history,	the	railroad	was	reduced	to	a	single	active	

track	 on	 the	eastern	 side	 of	 the	 deck.	 The	western	 tracks	were	not	maintained	 and	 are	in	 a	 state	 of	

dilapidation	and	disrepair.		

The	existing	bridge	is	eligible	for	listing	in	the	National	Register	both	as	an	individual	resource	and	as	a	

contributing	 resource	 to	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	linear	historic	district	 (see	Section	 4.4.5	in	 Chapter	 4	 for	

additional	information	 and	 determinations	 of	 eligibility	 for	 both	 the	 Eau	 Gallie	 Bridge	 and	 the	 FECR	

Corridor	linear	historic	district).		FRA	is	continuing	to	consult	with	the	State	Historic	Preservation	Office	

(SHPO)	regarding	concurrence	with	the	FRA’s	adverse	effect	determination	and	mitigation	measures.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-4 September 2014 

 

6.4.1.2 Proposed Use 

AAF	proposes	to	construct	a	new	twin	575‐foot	independent	ballast	deck	bridge	that	will	be	located	to	

the	 east	 of	 the	 existing	 railroad	 bridge.	 The	 existing	 bridge	 will	 be	 demolished.	 The	 demolition	 and	

removal	of	the	existing	bridge	is	necessary	to	protect	navigation	uses	on	the	waterway,	as	determined	by	

the	U.S.	Coast	Guard	(USCG).	The	demolition	of	the	bridge	is	an	adverse	effect	under	Section	106	(see	

Section	5.4.5	in	Chapter	5	for	the	finding	of	adverse	effect)	and	therefore	constitutes	a	use	under	Section	

4(f).	The	bridge	is	within	the	FECR	right‐of‐way	and	no	property	acquisition	is	required.		

6.4.1.3 Avoidance Alternatives 

A	comprehensive	set	of	avoidance	alternatives	was	considered	to	avoid	demolishing	the	bridge,	including	

the	 No‐Action	 Alternative,	 rehabilitating	 and	 reusing	 the	 bridge,	 and	 retaining	 the	 bridge	 while	

constructing	a	new	parallel	bridge.	These	alternatives	are	described	below.	

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	bridge	would	be	retained	in	its	current	condition,	and	no	new	bridge	

would	be	constructed.	The	Project	would	operate	with	a	single	 track	crossing	at	 this	location,	on	 the	

existing	bridge.	

This	alternative	was	not	selected	because	a	second	track	is	required	at	this	crossing	to	provide	integrity	

with	 the	rest	of	 the	system,	which	is	being	proposed	as	a	 two	 track	system	 to	support	 the	additional	

number	of	trains	and	frequency	of	trips.	A	bottleneck	at	this	location	would	increase	travel	times	and	

would	not	meet	the	project	purpose.	This	alternative	is	therefore	not	prudent.	

Rehabilitate and Reuse Existing Bridge 

This	alternative	would	rehabilitate	and	reuse	the	existing	bridge,	and	restore	the	second	track	on	the	west	

side	of	the	deck.	AAF	assessed	the	condition	of	the	existing	bridge	and	determined	it	was	not	feasible	to	

rehabilitate	 the	bridge	superstructure	due	 to	its	condition	and	 the	condition	of	 the	substructure.	The	

proposed	passenger	trains	will	operate	at	110	mph	in	this	segment,	and	require	a	higher	bridge	loading	

factor	 than	 the	 existing	 freight	 trains,	 which	 operate	 at	 28	 mph.	 The	 existing	 substructure	 and	

superstructure,	even	if	rehabilitated,	would	not	meet	the	required	loading	rating.	This	alternative	would	

not	meet	the	project	purpose	and	is	neither	feasible	nor	prudent.	

Construct New Bridge and Retain Existing Bridge 

This	alternative	would	construct	a	new	bridge	east	of	the	existing	bridge.	The	existing	bridge	would	be	

retained	but	abandoned.	This	alternative	is	not	prudent,	as	the	USCG	has	determined	the	bridge	must	be	

removed	 to	allow	 for	 safe	navigation	of	 vessels	 on	 the	Eau	Gallie	River	at	 this	location	 (USCG	2014).	

Bridges	 that	 are	 not	 used	 for	 the	 convenience	 of	 land	 transportation	 are	 considered	 unreasonable	

obstructions	 to	navigation.	There	is	a	condition	in	all	USCG	bridge	permits	 for	removal	of	bridges	no	

longer	used	for	transportation	purposes.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-5 September 2014 

 

6.4.1.4 Measures to Minimize Harm and Mitigate Impacts 

AAF	proposes	to	conduct	historic	research	and	prepare	a	Historic	American	Buildings	Survey	(HABS)	and	

Historic	American	Engineering	Record	(HAER)	for	the	bridge	prior	to	its	demolition.	FRA	is	continuing	to	

consult	with	the	SHPO	regarding	concurrence	with	the	FRA’s	adverse	effect	determination	and	mitigation	

measures.	

6.4.2 St. Sebastian River Bridge 

The	Project	requires	that	the	St.	Sebastian	River	Bridge,	a	structure	located	within	the	FECR	right‐of‐way,	

be	demolished	to	construct	a	new	structurally‐sound	bridge	able	to	accommodate	the	future	passenger	

and	freight	traffic.	

6.4.2.1 Description of Bridge and Status of Historical Designation 

The	 original	 railroad	 crossing	 of	 the	 St.	 Sebastian	 River	 in	 Brevard	 and	 Indian	 River	 counties	 was	

constructed	in	1926	as	two	deck	plate	girder	bridges	supported	by	a	common	substructure.	Each	bridge	

superstructure	has	an	open	deck	and	single	track.	The	substructures	consist	of	steel	towers	on	concrete	

foundations	with	steel	ties.	The	bridges	span	an	approximately	1,635‐foot	crossing.	At	some	point	during	

its	operating	history,	the	railroad	was	reduced	to	a	single	active	track	on	the	easternmost	bridge.	The	

westernmost	bridge	has	not	been	maintained.	The	rails	were	removed	and	the	deck	and	substructure	

have	fallen	into	disrepair.		

The	existing	bridges	are	eligible	for	listing	in	the	National	Register	both	as	individual	resources	and	as	

contributing	resources	 to	the	FECR	Corridor	linear	historic	district	(see	Section	4.4.5	in	Chapter	4	 for	

additional	information	and	determinations	of	eligibility	for	both	the	St.	Sebastian	Bridge	and	the	FECR	

Corridor	linear	historic	district).		

6.4.2.2 Proposed Use 

AAF	proposes	to	construct	a	new	twin	independent	ballast	deck	structure	with	concrete	piers,	located	to	

the	 east	 of	 the	 existing	 railroad	 bridges.	 The	 demolition	 and	 removal	 of	 the	 westernmost	 bridge	 is	

necessary	to	protect	navigation	uses	on	the	waterway,	as	determined	by	the	USCG.		The	demolition	of	the	

bridge	is	an	adverse	effect	under	Section	106	(see	Section	5.4.5	in	Chapter	5	for	the	finding	of	adverse	

effect)	and	therefore	constitutes	a	use	under	Section	4(f).	The	bridge	is	within	the	FECR	right‐of‐way	and	

no	property	acquisition	is	required.	

6.4.2.3 Avoidance Alternatives 

A	comprehensive	set	of	avoidance	alternatives	was	considered	to	avoid	demolishing	the	bridge,	including	

the	No‐Action	Alternative,	rehabilitating	and	reusing,	and	retaining	the	bridge	while	constructing	a	new	

parallel	bridge.	These	alternatives	are	described	below.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-6 September 2014 

 

No-Action Alternative 

Under	the	No‐Action	Alternative,	the	westernmost	bridge	would	be	retained	in	its	current	dilapidated	

and	unused	condition,	and	no	new	bridge	would	be	constructed.	The	Project	would	operate	with	a	single	

crossing	at	this	location,	on	the	existing	single	track	bridge.

This	alternative	is	not	prudent	because	a	second	track	is	required	at	this	crossing	to	provide	integrity	with	

the	rest	of	the	system,	which	is	being	proposed	as	a	two	track	system	to	support	the	additional	number	

of	trains	and	frequency	of	trips.	A	bottleneck	at	this	location	would	increase	travel	times	and	would	not	

meet	the	project	purpose.	This	alternative	is	therefore	not	prudent.	

Rehabilitate and Reuse Existing Bridge 

This	alternative	would	rehabilitate	and	reuse	the	existing	westernmost	bridge,	and	restore	it	to	use	as	the	

second	 track	 at	 this	 location.	 AAF	 assessed	 the	 condition	 of	 the	 existing	 westernmost	 bridge	 and	

determined	it	was	not	feasible	to	rehabilitate	the	bridge	due	to	its	condition.	The	proposed	passenger	

trains	will	operate	at	110	mph	in	this	segment,	and	require	a	higher	bridge	loading	factor	than	the	existing	

freight	 trains,	 which	 operate	 at	 28	 mph.	 The	 existing	 substructure	 and	 superstructure,	 even	 if	

rehabilitated,	would	not	meet	the	required	loading	rating.	This	alternative	would	not	meet	the	project	

purpose	and	is	neither	feasible	nor	prudent.		

Construct New Bridge and Retain Existing Bridge 

This	alternative	would	construct	a	new	bridge	to	the	east	of	the	existing	bridges.	The	westernmost	bridge	

would	 be	 retained	 in	 its	 current	 abandoned	 state.	 This	 alternative	 is	 not	 prudent,	 as	 the	 USCG	 has	

determined	the	bridge	must	be	removed	to	allow	for	safe	navigation	of	vessels	on	the	St.	Sebastian	River	

at	this	location	(USCG	2014).	Bridges	that	are	not	used	for	the	convenience	of	land	transportation	are	

considered	 unreasonable	 obstructions	 to	 navigation.	 There	 is	 a	 condition	 in	 all	 Coast	 Guard	 Bridge	

Permits	for	removal	of	bridges	no	longer	used	for	transportation	purposes.	

6.4.2.4 Measures to Minimize Harm and Mitigate Impacts 

AAF	 proposes	 to	 conduct	 historic	 research	 and	 a	 prepare	 HABS/HAER	 documentation	 for	 the	

westernmost	 bridge	 prior	 to	 its	 demolition.	 FRA	 is	 continuing	 to	 consult	 with	 the	 SHPO	 regarding	

concurrence	with	the	FRA’s	adverse	effect	determination	and	mitigation	measures.	

6.4.3 Tosohatchee WMA 

The	Project	will	include	two	temporary	uses	of	the	Tosohatchee	Wildlife	Management	Area	(WMA),	as	

described	below.	

6.4.3.1 Description of Property 

The	Tosohatchee	WMA	covers	30,701	acres	along	19	miles	of	the	St.	Johns	River	in	eastern	Orange	County.	

The	 purpose	 of	 the	WMA	is	 to	 provide	 both	wildlife	 conservation	 and	 recreational	 opportunities	 for	

visitors. The	E‐W	Corridor	parallels	the	Tosohatchee	WMA	(see	Figure	5.4.6‐1	in	Chapter	5)	south	of	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-7 September 2014 

 

SR	528	between	SR	520	and	the	St.	Johns	River.	The	new	railroad	will	be	constructed	within	the	layout	of	

SR	528	at	this	location	and	does	not	require	the	use	of	land	within	the	WMA.				

6.4.3.2 Proposed Pond Use 

AAF	is	evaluating	using	three	ponds	(former	borrow	pits)	located	within	the	WMA	for	borrow	materials	to	

construct	the	railroad	embankment.	These	manmade	ponds	are	south	of	SR	528	and	are	the	result	of	the	

prior	excavation	of	“borrow”	materials	to	provide	fill	for	the	construction	of	SR	528.	These	three	ponds,	

known	as	“T‐shirt	Pond,”	“Peek‐a‐boo	Pond,”	and	“Utah	Pond,”	were	originally	cut	in	very	sharp	lines,	and	

do	not	provide	natural	shorelines	or	typical	shoreline	vegetation	zonation	supportive	of	wildlife	or	fish.	As	

shown	on	the	Tosohatchee	Wildlife	Management	Area	trails	map,	there	are	public	parking	areas	at	these	

ponds	and	they	are	designated	for	fishing	(see	http://myfwc.com/media/305331/tosohatchee_trails.pdf).	

Currently,	none	of	these	ponds	are	used	for	stormwater	treatment,	but	“Utah	Pond”	is	planned	as	a	future	

stormwater	facility	for	the	six‐lane	widening	of	SR	528.	

	AAF	proposes	to	excavate	material	from	and	adjacent	to	these	ponds,	and	to	then	rehabilitate	the	ponds	

by	creating	more	natural	shorelines,	reshaping	the	ponds,	and	adding	littoral	shelves.	These	actions	will	

enhance	 the	 fisheries	 habitat,	 increase	 the	 zonation	 of	 wetland	 plant	 communities,	 improve	 wildlife	

habitat,	 and	 expand	 the	 function	 of	 the	 ponds	 as	 a	 recreational	 resource.	 The	 Land	Manager	 for	 the	

Tosohatchee	 State	 Reserve	 (TSR),	 which	 acts	 as	 the	 umbrella	 organization	 for	 properties	 under	 the	

jurisdiction	 of	 multiple	 state	 agencies	 and	 includes	 the	 Tosohatchee	 WMA,	 has	 indicated	 that	 this	

arrangement	would	be	beneficial,	and	that	a	prior	similar	approach	to	a	fourth	borrow	pond	has	proved	

beneficial.	AAF	is	currently	surveying	the	pond	areas	to	evaluate	the	existing	ecological	conditions	and	

determine	whether	borrow	material	from	the	ponds	would	be	suitable	for	constructing	the	Project.		

6.4.3.3 Proposed Construction Staging - Long Bluff Road 

At	 Long	Bluff	Road,	construction	of	a	new	 railroad	bridge	would	 require	 temporary	 occupancy	 of	an	

adjacent	 area	 of	 the	 Tosohatchee	WMA	 to	 accommodate	 erosion	 and	 sediment	 control,	 construction	

staging	 areas,	 and	 traffic	 coordination.	 If	 temporary	 road	 or	 lane	 closures	 are	 necessary,	 AAF,	 in	

association	with	FRA,	would	coordinate	with	the	land	managing	agency	of	the	Section	4(f)	recreational	

resources,	the	Florida	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation	Commission	(FWC).		

6.4.3.4 De Minimis Determination 

FRA	has	determined	 that	 the	proposed	pond	reconfiguration	and	 removal	of	 fill	material	would	be	a	

temporary	occupancy	of	a	Section	4(f)	resource,	and	that	it	is	a	de minimis use.	The	use	is	de minimis

because	 it	 will	 not	 adversely	 affect	 the	 activities,	 features,	 and	 attributes	 that	 qualify	 the	 WMA	 for	

protection	 under	 Section	 4(f).	 Specifically,	it	will	 have	 a	 net	 benefit	 on	 the	wildlife	 conservation	 and	

recreational	 attributes	 of	 the	 three	 borrow	 ponds	 by	 providing	 natural	 shoreline	 topography	 and	

increasing	suitable	conditions	for	emergent	aquatic	vegetation	beneficial	to	fisheries	and	wildlife.	FRA	is	

coordinating	with	the	Land	Manager	regarding	the	use	of	the	ponds	and	the	FRA	determination	of	the	use	

as	de minimis.	

FRA	 has	 determined	 that	 the	 construction	 staging	 area	 at	 Long	 Bluff	 Road	 would	 be	 a	 temporary	

occupancy	of	a	Section	4(f)	resource,	and	that	it	is	a	de minimis use.	The	use	is	de minimis	because	it	will	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-8 September 2014 

 

not	adversely	affect	 the	activities,	 features,	and	attributes	 that	qualify	 the	WMA	 for	protection	under	

Section	4(f).	Specifically,	it	will	have	a	temporary	effect	on	land	immediately	adjacent	to	the	existing	road,	

which	will	be	restored	to	a	natural	condition	following	construction.	FRA	is	coordinating	with	the	Land	

Manager	regarding	the	FRA	determination	of	this	temporary	occupancy	as	a	de minimisimpact.	

6.5 Findings 

There	is	no	feasible	and	prudent	alternative	to	the	demolition	of	the	Eau	Gallie	River	and	St.	Sebastian	

River	bridges.	New	bridges	are	required	at	these	locations	to	upgrade	these	crossings	to	double	track	

crossings,	and	retaining	the	bridges	presents	an	unacceptable	safety	risk	to	navigation	of	vessels	on	the	

waterways	 below.	 To	mitigate	 the	loss	 of	 these	 historic	 resources,	AAF	 proposes	 to	 conduct	 historic	

research	 and	 to	 prepare	 HABS/HAER	 documentation	 for	 the	 westernmost	 bridges	 prior	 to	 their	

demolition.	Consultation	with	the	SHPO	is	ongoing.	

The	use	of	borrow	ponds	located	within	the	Tosohatchee	WMA	and	their	subsequent	reconstruction	and	

rehabilitation	is	found	to	be	a	de minimis	impact	under	Section	4(f),	as	is	the	temporary	occupancy	of	a	

portion	of	the	WMA	for	bridge	construction.	The	improvements	proposed	to	these	ponds	will	enhance	

their	function	as	wildlife	habitat	and	use	for	recreation,	thus	furthering	the	goals	of	the	WMA,	and	the	

construction	staging	area	is	a	temporary	use,	which	will	be	fully	restored	with	no	loss	of	function.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-1 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

7 Mitigation Measures and Project 

Commitments 

7.1 Introduction 

According	 to	 the	 Council	 on	 Environmental	 Quality	 (CEQ)	 Regulations for Implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act(NEPA),	project	proponents	shall,	to	the	fullest	extent	possible:	

“Use	 all	 practicable	 means	 consistent	 with	 the	 requirements	 of	 the	 Act	 and	 other	 essential	

considerations	of	nation	policy,	to	restore	and	enhance	the	quality	of	the	human	environment	and	avoid	

or	minimize	any	possible	adverse	effects	of	 their	actions	on	 the	quality	of	 the	human	environment	

(40	CFR	§	1500.2(f)).”	

In	 accordance	 with	 the	NEPA	 regulations,	 this	 chapter	identifies	 and	 evaluates	measures	 that	would	

avoid,	minimize,	or	mitigate	impacts	that	would	result	from	the	Project.	Measures	to	minimize	impacts	

by	limiting	the	degree	or	magnitude	of	impacts	associated	with	the	proposed	All	Aboard	Florida	(AAF)	

passenger	rail	service	and	its	implementation	are	described.	As	documented	in	this	chapter,	effects	to	

various	environmental	resources	are	unavoidable	due	to	the	proposed	location	of	the	new	MCO	Segment	

and	East‐West	Corridor	(E‐W	Corridor)	connecting	with	the	existing	Florida	East	Coast	Railway	(FECR)	

(the	North‐South	Corridor	[N‐S	Corridor]);	therefore,	measures	that	minimize	adverse	effects	have	been	

identified.	A	detailed	analysis	of	proposed	compensatory	mitigation	measures	is	included	 for	areas	in	

which	replacing	lost	resources	is	necessary.		

This	chapter	provides	a	description	of	mitigation	for	short‐term	construction‐period	effects,	permanent	loss	

of	protected	resources,	and	long‐term	effects	of	Project	operations.		Mitigation	is	addressed	with	respect	to	

hazardous	 materials	 and	 solid	 waste	 disposal,	 wetlands,	 biological	 resources	 and	 natural	 ecological	

systems,	Essential	Fish	Habitat	(EFH),	and	threatened	and	endangered	species.		This	chapter	also	describes	

consultation	with	federal	and	state	agencies	pertaining	to	mitigation.		In	addition,	this	chapter	summarizes	

the	mitigation	commitments	for	Phase	I,	the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	Corridor,	as	set	out	in	the	2013	

Finding	of	No	Significant	Impact	(FONSI)	(FRA	2013).	

7.2 Project Commitments 

This	section	describes	the	proposed	Best	Management	Practices	(BMPs)	incorporated	in	the	Project	as	well	

as	mitigation	for	unavoidable	impacts.	Mitigation	measures	are	proposed	for	noise	and	vibration	impacts,	

navigation	effects,	wetlands,	biological	resources	and	natural	ecological	systems,	EFH,	and	threatened	and	

endangered	 species.	 For	 each	 resource,	 the	 analysis	 describes	efforts	 to	 avoid	 consequences,	minimize	

impacts,	and	provide	compensatory	mitigation.	Table	7.2‐1	provides	a	summary	of	construction‐period	

BMPs	and	mitigation	measures	proposed	for	environmental	resources	that	would	be	affected	by	the	Project.		

These	construction‐period	BMPs	were	also	required	by	the	FONSI	for	the	WPB‐M	Corridor.	Table	7.2‐2	

provides	 a	 summary	 of	 BMPs	 that	 would	 be	 incorporated	 into	 the	 Project	 and	 additional	 mitigation	

measures	proposed	for	unavoidable	impacts	as	a	result	of	the	Project.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-2 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

Table 7.2-1 Project BMPs and Mitigation Measures – Construction Period 

Environmental Resource BMPs and Mitigation Measures 

Transportation  Implement traffic management BMPs during construction activities 

Air Quality  Implement BMPs (such as soil watering to reduce fugitive dust emissions) to keep emissions to a 

minimum 

 Keep construction equipment on site for duration of construction 

Noise and Vibration  Avoid nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods 

 Locate stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noise sensitive sites 

 Re-route construction-related truck traffic along roadways that will cause the least disturbance to 

residents 

 Monitor and maintain equipment to meet noise limits 

 Minimize the use of generators to power equipment 

 Limit use of public address systems 

 Limit or avoid certain noisy activities, such as aboveground jackhammering and impact pile driving, 

during nighttime hours 

 Use augers (as opposed to pile drivers) where practicable 

 Operate earthmoving equipment on the construction lot as far away from vibration-sensitive sites 

as practicable. 

 Phase demolition, earthmoving, and ground-impacting operations so as not to occur in the same 

time period.

 Select low-impact demolition methods where possible.

 Avoid vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas.

Hazardous Materials and Solid 

Waste Disposal 

 Use appropriate special waste handling techniques 

 Implement dust control measures 

 Use proper technique for management/disposal of contaminated soil/groundwater 

Water  Implement sediment control BMPs (turbidity curtains and silt fences) 

Essential Fish Habitat  Use silt fences and turbidity curtains 

 Develop and implement an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Other Protected 

Species 

 Siltation/turbidity barriers would be made of material that would not entrap/entangle species, and 

would not impede species movement. 

 Water vessels would operate at no wake/idle speeds at all times and in water depths where the 

draft of the vessel provides less than a 4-foot clearance from the sediment. Vessels would follow 

routes of deep water. 

 Personnel would be instructed in the potential presence of threatened and endangered species in 

the vicinity. Personnel would be advised of the civil and criminal penalties for harming species. 

 If a manatee comes within 50 feet of the construction area or barrier, activities would cease, 

including vessels being shutdown, until the animal has moved on its own volition beyond the 50-

foot radius of the construction operation. 

 Signs regarding species would be posted before and during in-water construction activities. 

 Feeding sites shall not be subjected to water management practices. 

 Construction would comply with the Bald Eagle Management Plan. 

 A Bald Eagle Disturbance Permit will be obtained. 

 An eastern indigo snake monitoring report would be submitted to the appropriate federal and local 

field offices. 

 Construction activities would occur during daylight hours in areas that might be visible from any 

sea turtle nesting beaches. 

 Construction completed from the water would utilize floating barges and turbidity barriers. 

 Use bubble curtains during pile driving. 

 Prior to ground disturbing activities, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-compliant 

gopher tortoise surveys shall be completed by a qualified gopher tortoise agent. 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-3 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

Table 7.2-2 Project Mitigation Measures for Unavoidable Impacts – Operational Period 

Environmental Resource Mitigation Measure

Traffic and Grade Crossings  Work with State and local traffic officials to adjust traffic signal timing as needed 

in Project Area 

 Implement or fund grade crossing safety enhancements identified in the 

Diagnostic Team Report (see Section 5.4.4.2) 

Noise and Vibration  Install noise barriers along the E-W Corridor where effective in reducing noise 

impacts near elevated structures 

 Maintain train wheels and rails to minimize vibration

 Install pole-mounted horns at grade crossings

Water  Implement stormwater treatment BMPs (surface infiltration through swales, 

ditches, and over-land flow; installation of underground French drain systems; 

deep injection wells to drain water via gravity or pumping; and/or wet detention 

and retention ponds) 

Navigation  Manage train schedules to minimize bridge closures 

 Provide marine industry with bridge closure schedules to facilitate planning by 

boaters 

 Develop a set schedule for the down times of each bridge location. This schedule 

will include both freight and passenger rail service. 

 Provide that schedule of bridge closures in an internet-accessible format to offer the 

public with access to that information, including the boating community and marinas. 

This will be posted on the AAF website and/or the US Coast Guard website. 

 Implement a notification sign/signal at each bridge location with warning count 

downs to indicate the times at which the bridge will begin to close and open and how 

long before a train will arrive. 

 Develop formal contact with first responders and emergency personnel.	

 Develop coordination plans between AAF and local authorities during peak vessel 

travel times on holidays and major public events 

 Install a bridge tender at the New River Bridge

Wetlands  Purchase wetland mitigation credits 

Biological Resources and 

Natural Ecological Systems 

 Develop designs to provide wildlife passage under bridges and through culverts 

in critical areas. 

 Install wildlife crossing within the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area 

 Revegetate cleared areas when required by standard BMPs and applicable 

laws. 

Essential Fish Habitat  Obtain Section 404 permit and follow wetland mitigation conditions 

7.2.1 Transportation 

AAF	does	not	propose	any	new	road	crossings	in	the	Project.	The	increase	in	number	of	crossing	events	

along	the	N‐S	Corridor	and	WPB‐M	Corridor	due	to	the	addition	of	32	passenger	trains	each	day	would	

cause	additional	closure	events	at	each	at‐grade	crossing,	but	closures	from	passenger	trains	will	be	much	

shorter	than	closures	from	existing	freight	traffic.	AAF	will	work	with	state	and	local	traffic	officials	to	

adjust	traffic	signal	timing	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	and	WPB‐M	Corridor	to	reduce	potential	traffic	impacts.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-4 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

AAF	will	perform	new	 track	construction	required	 for	 the	Project	according	 to	BMPs	so	 that	minimal	

temporary	adverse	impacts	to	existing	freight	operations	will	be	experienced.	Any	required	maintenance	

or	rehabilitation	of	the	existing	single	track	will	also	be	done	using	planning	and	construction	practices	

that	will	minimize	impact	to	existing	freight	traffic.	Future	required	maintenance	and	rehabilitation	will	

also	be	done	more	efficiently	as	 track	operators	will	be	able	 to	use	planning	practices	 that	utilize	 the	

additional	tracks	to	mitigate	temporary	delays.	

The	 FONSI	 required	 AAF	 to	 coordinate	 with	 the	 Florida	 Department	 of	 Transportation	 (FDOT)	 and	

Southern	Florida	Rail	Transportation	Agency	 (SFRTA)	 to	develop	a	plan	 for	integrated	passenger	rail	

services	in	the	South	Florida	region.	

7.2.2 Navigation 

AAF	will	implement	a	series	of	mitigation	measures	 to	reduce	vessel	delay	and	queueing	at	 the	 three	

operable	bridges	(St.	Lucie	River,	Loxahatchee	River,	and	New	River).	These	include:	

 Develop	a	set	schedule	for	the	down	times	of	each	bridge	for	passenger	rail	service.	Passenger	

rail	service	is	anticipated	to	operate	on	consistent	daily	schedules	that	are	both	predictable	and	

reliable	with	minimal	deviations.	Local	mariners	should	be	able	to	predict	approximate	crossing	

times	 once	 they	 are	 familiar	 with	 the	 passenger	 rail	 schedule,	which	 will	 be	 consistent	 and	

unchanging	from	week	to	week.	Mariners	will	be	able	to	plan	travel	times	and	avoid	unnecessary	

wait	times	according	to	the	posted	schedule.

 Provide	public	access	to	the	bridge	closure	schedules	in	an	internet	accessible	format	updated	

daily	with	anticipated	crossing	times	for	each	bridge.	Schedules	for	each	bridge	will	be	posted	on	

the	AAF	website	and/or	the	United	States	Coast	Guard	(USCG)	website.	Internet	sites	will	provide	

estimated	bridge	crossing	times	so	mariners	may	access	real‐time	data	from	the	water	and	plan	

appropriately.	Schedules	and/or	information	may	also	be	made	available	at	local	marinas	and	

tackle	shops.	This	will	allow	the	boating	community	to	plan	their	trips	to	avoid	wait	times.	

 Implement	a	notification	sign/signal/horn	at	each	bridge	location	with	countdowns	to	indicate	

the	 times	 at	 which	 the	 bridge	 will	 begin	 to	 close	 and	 open.	 Similar	 to	 a	 road	 crossing,	 the	

notification	system	will	alert	mariners	within	the	vicinity	of	a	bridge	that	a	train	is	approaching.	

The	signal	will	also	provide	a	countdown	for	bridge	closings	and	openings.	This	system	can	help	

mariners	within	the	vicinity	of	the	bridge	plan	trips	accordingly	and	will	also	help	to	ease	boater	

frustration	for	those	that	wait.	

 Develop	formal	contact	with	first	responders	and	emergency	personnel. A	point	of	contact	will	

be	established	to	ensure	that	emergency	personnel	can	coordinate	with	the	dispatch	center	when	

access	is	necessary	to	respond	to	waterway	emergencies.	

 Develop	coordination	plans	between	AAF	and	local	authorities	during	peak	vessel	travel	times	on	

holidays	and	major	public	events. Local	authorities	will	have	the	ability	to	contact	AAF	in	order

to	coordinate	plans	for	certain	special	events	and	occasions	in	an	effort	to	establish	adjustments	

to	train	schedules	that	will	allow	a	bridge	to	be	open	for	specified	periods	of	time.	

 Develop	 a	 coordination	 plan	 between	 AAF	 and	 the	 USCG	 to	 communicate	 bridge	 operating	

schedules	 to	 the	 commercial	 and	 recreational	 boating	 communities.	 Such	 a	 plan	 will	 allow	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-5 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

updates	 to	 the	 bridge	 operating	 schedule	 to	 be	 disseminated	 throughout	 these	 communities.	

Communication	will	be	through	the	USCG,	local	marinas,	and	on	the	official	scheduling	website.	

 Install	a	bridge	tender	at	the	New	River	Bridge.	The	New	River	Bridge	has	the	greatest	amount	of	

commercial	traffic	(as	compared	to	the	Loxahatchee	River	Bridge	and	the	St.	Lucie	River	Bridge).	

The	addition	of	a	bridge	tender	at	this	location	will	allow	better	communication	with	commercial	

vessels.	The	tender	could	be	contacted	directly	by	mariners	with	a	need	for	information	so	that	

they	could	plan	accordingly	and	minimize	wait	times.	

7.2.3 Air Quality 

The	 Project	 will	 have	 a	 beneficial	 effect	 on	 air	 quality	 as	 the	 daily	 vehicle	 trips	 will	 be	 reduced	 on	

roadways	 and	 annual	 vehicle	 miles	 traveled	 will	 decrease.	 These	 changes	 will	 result	 in	 emissions	

reductions	and	provide	an	overall	net	benefit	for	regional	air	quality.		

Potential	emissions	associated	with	construction	equipment	will	be	kept	to	a	minimum	as	most	equipment	

will	be	driven	to	and	kept	at	affected	sites	for	the	duration	of	construction	activities.	In	addition,	routine	

BMPs	will	 be	 performed	 at	 construction	 sites	 to	 keep	 emissions	of	 particulates	 (the	 primary	 pollutant	

emitted)	 to	 a	 minimum	 during	 the	 temporary	 construction	 activities.	 Emissions	 associated	 with	

construction	workers	commuting	and	the	transport	of	materials	will	also	be	minimal	given	the	temporary	

nature	of	the	activities.	The	use	of	BMPs	during	construction,	such	as	soil	watering	to	reduce	fugitive	dust	

emissions,	will	be	effective	in	substantially	reducing	potential	emissions	during	construction.	

7.2.4 Noise and Vibration 

AAF	will	implement	mitigation	measures	as	 part	 of	 the	 project	 design	 to	 reduce	 noise	and	 vibration	

impacts	from	passenger	train	operations	as	well	as	construction.	

7.2.4.1 Noise Mitigation 

Along	 the	E‐W	Corridor,	noise	impacts	will	be	primarily	due	 to	the	increased	noise	propagation	 from	

elevated	portions	of	track.	Proposed	noise	mitigation	in	these	areas	includes	sound	barriers	on	the	edge	

of	the	elevated	structures	to	mitigate	potential	severe	effects.	Sound	barriers	are	effective	in	mitigating	

noise	when	they	break	the	line‐of‐sight	between	source	and	receiver.	The	necessary	height	of	a	barrier	

depends	on	such	factors	as	the	source	height	and	the	distance	from	the	source	to	the	barrier.	For	example,	

if	a	barrier	is	located	very	close	to	a	train	noise	source,	it	typically	only	needs	to	be	3	to	4	feet	above	the	

top	of	rail	to	provide	noise	reductions	of	6	to	10	dBA.	Constructing	noise	barriers	along	these	portions	of	

track	will	effectively	eliminate	all	severe	noise	impacts	anticipated	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	and	reduce	the	

number	of	moderate	noise	impacts	to	only	33	residential	receptors.		

Noise	along	the	N‐S	Corridor	and	the	WPB‐M	Corridor	will	be	reduced	by	the	use	of	pole‐mounted	horns	

at	 grade	 crossings,	 as	 described	 in	 Section	 5.2	 and	 required	 by	 the	 FONSI	 (FRA	 2013).	 	 With	 this	

mitigation,	there	will	be	no	significant	noise	impacts	along	the	rail	corridor.		However,	stakeholders	in	the	

affected	 communities	 along	 the	 N‐S	 Corridor	 are	 considering	 the	 institution	 of	 quiet	 zones	 (which	

prohibit	horns	to	be	sounded	in	specified	areas)	at	certain	at‐grade	crossings.	This	involves	instituting	

alternate	safety	measures	such	as	four‐quadrant	gates	and	non‐mountable	median	dividers.	In	addition,	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-6 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

supplementary	safety	measures	must	be	installed	and	a	risk	analysis	must	be	prepared	to	demonstrate	

that	 safety	 would	 not	 be	 compromised	 by	 eliminating	 train	 horns	in	 the	 area	 receiving	 “quiet	 zone”	

designation.	The	governmental	entities	or	other	authorities	pursuing	 these	quiet	zones	will	act	as	the	

sponsors	 of	such	efforts	and	will	be	 responsible	 for	 the	application	process	and	 the	associated	costs,	

including	the	costs	of	any	improvements.		AAF	is	committed	to	cooperating	with	local	jurisdictions	and	

funding	the	necessary	improvements	should	they	seek	to	establish	quiet	zones	in	lieu	of	pole‐mounted	

horns.	

7.2.4.2 Vibration Mitigation 

The	purpose	of	vibration	mitigation	is	to	minimize	the	adverse	effects	that	the	Project’s	ground‐borne	

vibration	will	have	on	sensitive	receptors,	such	as	annoyance	and	rattling.		Vibration	impacts	are	not	as	

common	a	problem	as	environmental	noise,	and	the	mitigation	approaches	have	not	been	as	well	defined.	

In	 some	 cases,	 it	 is	 necessary	 to	 develop	 project‐specific	 approaches	 to	 mitigate	 for	 unacceptable	

vibration	impacts.	This	is	partly	due	to	the	fact	that	vibration	characteristics	are	difficult	to	calculate,	and	

depend	on	numerous	project	and	environmental	factors.		

Vibration	impacts	will	be	minimized	by	wheel	and	rail	maintenance	that	will	control	unacceptably	high	

vibration	levels.	According	to	the	Federal	Railroad	Administration	(FRA)	guidelines,	problems	with	rough	

wheels	or	rails	can	increase	vibration	levels	by	as	much	as	20	dB,	negating	the	effects	of	even	the	most	

effective	vibration	control	measures.		Where	necessary	and	appropriate,	ballast	mats	will	be	installed.	

7.2.4.3 Construction Noise Mitigation 

AAF	will	monitor	construction	noise	to	verify	compliance	with	the	relevant	noise	limits.	The	contractor	

will	have	the	flexibility	to	meet	the	Federal	Transit	Administration	construction	noise	limits	in	the	most	

efficient	 and	 cost‐effective	 manner.	 In	 that	 regard,	 the	 contractor	 may	 either	 prohibit	 certain	

noise‐generating	activities	during	nighttime	hours	or	provide	additional	noise	control	measures	to	meet	

the	noise	limits.	To	meet	required	noise	limits,	AAF	will	implement	the	following	noise	control	mitigation	

measures:	

 Avoid	nighttime	construction	in	residential	neighborhoods;	

 Locate	stationary	construction	equipment	as	far	as	possible	from	noise	sensitive	sites;	

 Re‐route	construction‐related	truck	traffic	along	roadways	that	will	cause	the	least	disturbance	

to	residents;	

 Monitor	and	maintain	equipment	to	meet	noise	limits;	

 Minimize	the	use	of	generators	to	power	equipment;	

 Limit	use	of	public	address	systems;	and	

 Limit	 or	 avoid	 certain	 noisy	 activities	 during	 nighttime	 hours	 such	 as	 aboveground	

jackhammering	and	impact	pile	driving.	

To	avoid	noise	impacts	related	to	pile	driving	(if	needed),	AAF’s	constructor	would	use	an	auger	to	install	

the	piles	instead	of	a	pile	driver	which	would	reduce	noise	levels	substantially.	If	pile	driving	is	necessary	

for	station	construction,	the	time	of	day	that	the	activity	can	occur	will	be	limited	to	daytime	hours.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-7 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

7.2.4.4 Construction Vibration Mitigation 

Vibration	from	construction	activities	does	not	often	reach	the	levels	that	can	damage	structures,	but	it	may	

be	audible	or	perceptible	in	buildings	very	close	to	construction	activities.	The	construction	activity	that	

typically	generate	the	most	severe	vibrations	is	impact	pile	driving.		To	mitigate	construction	vibration,	

AAF’s	contractor	will	be	required	to	implement	equipment	location	and	processes,	as	listed	below.	

Construction	Equipment	and	Haul	Routes:	

 Route	heavily	loaded	trucks	away	from	residential	streets,	if	possible.	Select	streets	with	fewest	

homes,	if	no	alternatives	are	available.	

 Operate	earthmoving	equipment	 on	 the	 construction	lot	as	 far	away	 from	 vibration‐sensitive	

sites	as	practicable.	

Sequence	of	Operations:	

 Phase	demolition,	earthmoving,	and	ground‐impacting	operations	so	as	not	to	occur	in	the	same	

time	period.	Unlike	noise,	the	total	vibration	level	produced	could	be	significantly	less	when	each	

vibration	source	operates	separately.	

 Avoid	 nighttime	 activities.	 People	 are	 more	 aware	 of	 vibration	 in	 their	 homes	 during	 the	

nighttime	hours.	

Alternative	Construction	Methods:	

 Avoid	impact	pile	driving	where	practicable	in	vibration‐sensitive	areas.	Drilled	piles	or	the	use	

of	a	sonic	or	vibratory	pile	driver	causes	lower	vibration	levels	where	the	geological	conditions	

permit	their	use.		

 Select	 demolition	methods	 not	involving	impact,	where	 possible.	 For	example,	 sawing	 bridge	

decks	into	sections	that	can	be	loaded	onto	trucks	results	in	lower	vibration	levels	than	impact	

demolition	by	pavement	breakers,	and	milling	generates	lower	vibration	levels	than	excavation	

using	clam	shell	or	chisel	drops.	

 Avoid	vibratory	rollers	and	packers	near	sensitive	areas.	

Pile	 driving	 is	 potentially	 the	 greatest	 source	 of	 vibration	 associated	 with	 equipment	 used	 during	

construction	of	a	project.	However,	there	are	some	additional	vibration	effects	of	vibratory	pile	drivers	

that	may	limit	their	use	in	sensitive	locations.	A	vibratory	pile	driver	operates	by	continuously	shaking	

the	 pile	 at	 a	 fixed	 frequency,	 literally	 vibrating	 it	 into	 the	 ground.	 Continuous	 operation	 at	 a	 fixed	

frequency	may	be	more	noticeable	to	nearby	residents,	even	at	lower	vibration	levels.	Further,	the	steady‐

state	 excitation	 of	 the	 ground	 may	 increase	 resonance	 response	 of	 building	 components.	 Resonant	

response	 may	 be	 unacceptable	 in	 cases	 of	 fragile	 buildings	 or	 vibration‐sensitive	 manufacturing	

processes.	Impact	pile	drivers,	in	contrast,	produce	a	high	vibration	level	for	a	short	time	with	sufficient	

time	between	impacts	to	allow	any	resonant	response	to	decay.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-8 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

7.2.5 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal 

AAF	would	implement	BMPs	during	construction	and	include	special	waste	handling,	dust	control,	and	

management	and	disposal	of	contaminated	soil	and	ground	water	in	order	to	prevent	construction	delays	

and	to	provide	adequate	protection	to	workers	and	any	nearby	sensitive	receptors.	All	remedial	action	

plans	must	ensure	that	any	nearby	or	adjacent	receptors	are	adequately	protected	and	the	assessment	

and	management	of	contaminated	media	encountered	during	the	Project	will	be	handled	in	accordance	

with	applicable	federal,	state,	and	local	laws	and	regulations.

7.2.6 Surface and Groundwater 

AAF	will	provide	water	quality	measures	in	the	form	of	stormwater	treatment	(retention,	detention,	and	

treatment)	 as	 part	 of	 the	 Project	 to	 mitigate	 for	 creating	 additional	 impervious	 surface	 area	 and	

converting	 vegetated	 areas	 to	 ballasted	 railbed.	 Specific	 measures	 would	 be	 determined	 by	 and	 in	

compliance	with	permit	requirements.	

Temporary	effects	to	surface	waters	and	groundwater	during	construction	activities	will	be	minimized	

through	the	application	by	AAF	of	BMPs.	The	Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	(FDEP)	is	

responsible	for	issuing	and	enforcing	National	Pollutant	Discharge	Elimination	System	(NPDES)	permits.	

These	permits	identify	activities	during	construction	to	assure	an	acceptable	standard	of	water	quality.	

The	 Clean	 Water	 Act	 (CWA)	 Section	 404	 permit	 program	 requires	 that	 construction	 stormwater	

management	and	construction	practices	be	addressed,	including	erosion	prevention,	sediment	control,	

and	in‐water	work.	Regulatory	agencies	will	closely	review	these	practices	to	minimize	effects.		

During	construction,	AAF	will	use	sediment	control	BMPs,	including	installation	of	turbidity	curtains	and	

silt	fencing,	to	protect	surface	waters.	Accidental	spills	of	material	such	as	fuels,	lubricants,	solvents,	or	

other	liquids	that	could	harm	surface	waters	will	be	cleaned	up	in	a	timely	manner	in	accordance	with	a	

Spill	 Prevention,	 Control,	 and	 Countermeasures	 Plan	 and	 BMPs	 to	 be	 prepared	 by	 contractors	 and	

approved	by	AAF.	These	measures	would	minimize	the	potential	for	temporary	effects.	

AAF	will	provide	water‐quality	mitigation	for	additional	impervious	and	semi‐impervious	surface	areas	in	

the	 form	 of	 stormwater	 treatment	 (retention,	 detention,	 and	 treatment)	 as	 part	 of	 the	 Project.	 BMP	

measures	would	be	determined	by	and	in	compliance	with	permit	requirements.	

7.2.7 Wetlands 

As	part	of	the	Project,	AAF	will	secure	wetland	permits	including	Environmental	Resource	Permits	issued	

by	the	South	Florida	Water	Management	District	and	St.	Johns	River	Water	Management	District,	a	CWA	

Section	404	Dredge	and	Fill	permit	issued	by	the	U.S.	Army	Corps	of	Engineers	(USACE),	a	Rivers	and	

Harbors	Act	Section	10	permit	also	issued	by	the	USACE,	and	a	NPDES	permit	issued	by	the	FDEP.	Some	

of	these	permits	may	be	jointly	covered	under	a	Joint	Environmental	Resource	Permit.		

AAF	will	minimize	impacts	to	wetlands	to	the	greatest	extent	practicable	during	the	final	design	process	

as	required	by	the	CWA	Section	404(b)(1)	Guidelines.		This	analysis	will	be	included	in	USACE’s	Record	

of	Decision	 for	AAF’s	application	 for	CWA	Section	404	authorization.		AAF	has	proposed	measures	 to	

avoid	 and	 minimize	 wetland	 losses	 through	 the	 use	 of	 retaining	walls	 and	 other	 methods.	 AAF	 will	

mitigate	all	unavoidable	impacts	to	jurisdictional	wetlands	in	compliance	with	the	U.S.	Environmental	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-9 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

Protection	Agency	and	USACE’s	joint	mitigation	rule,	33	CFR	Part	332.		AAF	has	proposed	to	mitigate	

impacts	through	the	purchase	of	in‐kind	mitigation	bank	credits.		Because	AAF	has	not	yet	submitted	a	

permit	application	to	the	USACE	for	Section	404	authorization,	and	has	not	received	a	determination	that	

the	proposed	alternative	is	the	Least	Environmentally	Damaging	Practicable	Alternative	(LEDPA),	USACE	

cannot	determine	the	amount	of	compensatory	mitigation	credit	required	to	offset	unavoidable	effects.	

USACE’s	 Section	 404(b)(1)	 Guidelines	 analysis,	 determination	 of	 the	 LEDPA,	 and	 the	 required	

compensatory	mitigation	will	be	included	in	the	USACE’s	record	of	decision	for	AAF’s	Section	404	permit	

application.	

7.2.8 Floodplains 

AAF	will	mitigate	all	 floodplain	impacts	in	accordance	with	applicable	 state	and	local	laws	 regarding	

appropriate	compensation	and	permitting.	The	construction	design	would	minimize	potential	harm	to	

the	 floodplain	 by	 retaining	 existing	 elevations	 where	 feasible,	 constructing	 stormwater	 mitigation	

measures	and	retention	ponds,	and	minimizing	fill	in	sensitive	areas.	

7.2.9 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems 

Impacts	to	biological	resources	and	natural	ecological	systems	have	been	minimized	due	to	the	fact	that	

the	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	developed	immediately	adjacent	to	an	existing	transportation	corridor	and	

would	not	significantly	increase	fragmentation	and	noise	impacts	that	do	not	already	exist	in	this	area.	

The	same	is	true	for	the	N‐S	Corridor	as	it	will	be	developed	on	an	existing	rail	corridor.	No	new	at‐grade	

crossings	are	proposed	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	that	would	have	potential	noise	effects	to	wildlife	related	

to	warning	horns	typically	utilized	at	at‐grade	crossings.		

AAF	 will	 minimize	 effects	 to	 upland	 habitats	 and	 wildlife	 through	 implementation	 of	 standard	

construction	BMPs	and	mitigation	measures	including:	

 Designs	 to	 provide	 wildlife	 passage	 under	 bridges	 and	 through	 culverts	 in	 critical	 areas	

(Figure	5.3.5‐1);	and	

 Cleared	areas	may	be	revegetated	when	required	by	standard	BMPs	and	applicable	laws.	

AAF	will	design	bridges	and	culverts	along	the	E‐W	Corridor	to	facilitate	wildlife	passage,	consistent	with	

the	 existing	 bridges	 and	 culverts	 along	 SR	 528	 and	 with	 the	 Orlando	 Orange	 County	 Expressway	

Authority	and	FDOT’s	future	plans.	AAF	will	construct	a	new	wildlife	crossing	approximately	4,100	feet	

east	 of	 Long	 Bluff	 Road,	 and	 will	 provide	 a	 passage	 with	 8	 to	 10	 feet	 of	 vertical	 clearance	 and	

approximately	 50	 feet	 of	 horizontal	 clearance.	 This	 wildlife	 crossing	 will	match	 the	 wildlife	 crossing	

proposed	by	FDOT	as	part	of	the	future	SR	528	widening.	The	railroad	wildlife	crossing	(along	with	the	

SR	528	crossing	when	constructed	by	FDOT)	will	enhance	wildlife	passage	between	the	northern	and	

southern	sections	of	the	Tosohatchee	Preserve,	and	will	function	as	part	of	the	Florida	Wildlife	Corridor.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-10 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

7.2.10 Essential Fish Habitat 

Through	consultation	with	National	Marine	Fisheries	Service	Habitat	Conservation	Division	(NMFS	HCD),	

USACE	 has	 assisted	in	identifying	 species	 groups	with	 designated	 EFH	 and	 recommended	 the	 use	 of	

mitigation	methods	such	as	avoiding	impacts	to	mangroves.	

To	mitigate	for	impacts	to	EFH,	AAF	will	construct	bridges	over	waterways	in	a	manner	to	reduce	erosion	

and	sedimentation	through	implementation	of	BMPs	(such	as	the	use	of	silt	fences	and	turbidity	curtains)	

in	accordance	with	an	Erosion	and	Sedimentation	Control	Plan	approved	by	NMFS	to	prevent	 further	

impacts	 to	 EFH.	 The	 placement	 of	 fill	 and	 rip‐rap	 in	 wetlands	 resulting	 from	 bridge	 construction	 is	

considered	a	permanent	impact	to	jurisdictional	wetlands.	As	a	result,	AAF	will	obtain	an	appropriate	

Section	 404	 permit	 from	USACE	 prior	 to	 construction,	 and	implement	mitigation	 as	 required	 by	 the	

wetland	permit	conditions	(see	Section	5.2.2).		

7.2.11 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Protected Species 

USACE	 has	 facilitated	 several	 discussions	 with	 U.S.	 Fish	 and	 Wildlife	 Service	 (USFWS)	 and	 NMFS	

Protected	Resource	Division	(PRD)	regarding	Endangered	Species	Act	(ESA)	consultation	for	this	project.	

These	discussions	have	aided	in	clarification	of	the	details	required	in	the	Biological	Assessment	(BA)	that	

was	prepared	by	AAF	in	accordance	with	the	Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook	(USFWS	1998)	

and	submitted	in	September	2013.	Based	on	the	BA,	effect	findings	were	determined	for	species	found	

throughout	the	project	corridor	also	in	September	2013.	Consultation	with	USFWS	and	NMFS	PRD	has	

also	helped	develop	mitigation	methods	for	minimizing	effects	to	threatened	and	endangered	species.		

Specific	 measures	 will	 be	 implemented	 by	 AAF	 to	 mitigate	 for	 potential	 temporary	 and	 permanent	

impacts	to	the	habitat	of	federally	listed	species,	as	described	below.	In	addition	to	these	measures,	AAF	

has	committed	to	conducting	pre‐construction	surveys	for	the	following	species:	

 Audubon’s	crested	caracara	

 Florida	scrub‐jay	

 Red‐cockaded	woodpecker	

 Sand	skinks	

 State‐listed	plant	species	

None	of	the	alternatives	considered	for	this	analysis	would	be	expected	to	result	in	significant	adverse	

impacts	to	protected	species	or	protected	species	habitat.	However,	AAF	is	committed	to	these	measures	

to	address	any	significant,	unmitigated	impacts	that	may	arise	as	a	result	of	the	Project.	

7.2.11.1 West Indian Manatee Mitigation Measures 

AAF	will	conduct	construction	activities	in	accordance	with	Standard Manatee Construction Conditions for

In‐Water Work,	which	shall	include,	but	are	not	limited	to,	the	following	BMPs	(USFWS	2011):	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-11 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

 Siltation/turbidity	barriers	will	be	made	of	material	that	would	not	entrap/entangle	the	manatee,	

and	would	not	impede	manatee	movement.	Barriers	would	be	properly	secured	and	routinely	

monitored	to	ensure	manatees	are	not	entangled.	

 Within	 the	 construction	 area,	 water	 vessels	 associated	 with	 construction	 will	 operate	 at	 no	

wake/idle	speeds	at	all	times	and	in	water	depths	where	the	draft	of	the	vessel	provides	less	than	

a	4‐foot	clearance	from	the	sediment.	Vessels	will	follow	routes	of	deep	water	when	possible.	

 All	 personnel	 associated	 with	 the	 construction	 and	 operational	 phases	 of	 the	 Project	 will	 be	

instructed	 in	 the	 potential	 presence	 of	 manatees	 in	 the	 water.	 Construction	 site	 personnel	

associated	 with	 operating	 water	 craft	 will	 be	 advised	 of	 the	 civil	 and	 criminal	 penalties	 for	

harming,	harassing,	or	killing	species	that	are	protected	under	the	Marine	Mammal	Protection	

Act,	ESA,	and	the	Florida	Manatee	Sanctuary	Act.	

 If	a	manatee	comes	within	50	 feet	 of	 the	construction	area	 or	barrier,	activities	would	cease,	

including	vessels	being	shutdown,	until	 the	animal	has	moved	on	its	own	volition	beyond	the	

50‐foot	radius	of	the	construction	operation.	The	animals	would	not	be	herded	away	or	harassed	

into	leaving.	

 Florida	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation	Commission‐approved	(FWC)	temporary	signs	regarding	

manatees	will	be	posted	before	and	during	in‐water	construction	activities.		

In	the	event	of	a	collision	with	a	manatee,	the	on‐site	construction	manager	would	immediately	notify	the	

FWC	hotline	(1‐888‐404‐3922)	and	USFWS	in	Jacksonville	for	north	Florida	(1‐904‐731‐3336)	and	Vero	

Beach	for	south	Florida	(1‐772‐563‐3909).	

7.2.11.2 Wood Stork Mitigation Measures 

All	personnel	associated	with	the	construction	and	operational	phases	of	the	Project	will	be	instructed	

about	the	potential	presence	of	wood	storks.	The	construction	site	personnel	will	also	be	informed	of	the	

civil	and	criminal	penalties	for	harming,	harassing,	or	killing	species	that	are	protected.	Personnel	would	

avoid	 operating	 noise‐making	 equipment	 unnecessarily	if	 wood	 storks	 are	 present	 and	 wood	 storks	

would	never	be	intentionally	forced	to	fly.		

Feeding	sites	shall	not	be	subjected	to	water	management	practices	that	alter	traditional	water	levels	or	

seasonally	normal	drying	patterns	and	rates.	

7.2.11.3 Bald Eagle Mitigation Measures 

In	order	to	avoid	a	take	under	the	Bald	and	Gold	Eagle	Protection	Act,	in	constructing	the	Project	AAF	will	

comply	 with	 the	 FWC	 Bald	 Eagle	 Management	 Plan,	 which	 prescribes	 buffer	 areas	 around	 linear	

transportation	projects	and	recommend	that	construction	activities	occur	outside	of	breeding	seasons	

(FWC	2008).	AAF	will	also	apply	for	a	Bald	Eagle	Disturbance	Permit,	as	required	by	FWC,	in	order	to	

work	within	the	buffer	for	nest	OR‐065.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-12 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

7.2.11.4 Indigo Snake Mitigation Measures 

AAF	will	construct	the	Project	in	accordance	with	Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo

Snake	 (USFWS	 August	 12	 2013).	 	 Construction	 specifications	 will	 include	 the	 Species Conservation

Guidelines: Eastern Indigo Snake	(USFWS	2004b).	

All	personnel	associated	with	the	construction	and	operational	phases	of	the	Project	will	be	instructed	in	

the	potential	presence	of	the	eastern	indigo	snake.	The	construction	site	personnel	will	also	be	informed	

of	the	civil	and	criminal	penalties	for	harming,	harassing,	or	killing	species	that	are	protected.	

AAF	will	develop	a	management	plan	for	all	construction	personnel	to	follow.	Informational	signs	shall	

be	posted	throughout	the	construction	site	and	along	any	proposed	access	road	to	contain	the	following	

information:	

 A	description	of	the	eastern	indigo	snake,	its	habits,	and	protection	under	federal	law;	

 Instructions	not	to	inquire,	harm,	harass,	or	kill	this	species;	

 Directions	to	cease	activities	and	allow	the	eastern	indigo	snake	sufficient	time	to	move	away	

from	the	site	on	its	own	before	resuming;	and	

 Telephone	 numbers	 of	 pertinent	 agencies	 to	 be	 contacted	 if	 a	 dead	 eastern	 indigo	 snake	 is	

encountered.	

AAF	will	submit	an	eastern	indigo	snake	monitoring	report	to	the	appropriate	USFWS	and	FWC	field	office	

within	60	days	of	the	conclusion	of	the	construction	phases.	The	report	should	be	submitted	whether	or	

not	eastern	indigo	snakes	are	observed.	The	report	should	contain	the	following	information:	

 Any	sightings	of	eastern	indigo	snakes;	and	

 Other	obligations	required	by	the	USFWS,	as	stipulated	in	the	permit.	

7.2.11.5 Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Mitigation Measures 

AAF	 will	 construct	 the	 Project	 in	 accordance	 with	 Sea	 Turtle	 and	 Smalltooth	 Sawfish	 Construction	

Conditions	(NMFS	Revised	March	23,	2006)	which	include,	but	are	not	limited	to	the	following	BMPs:	

 Siltation	barriers	would	be	made	of	material	that	would	not	entrap/entangle	a	sea	turtle,	and	

would	 not	 block	 sea	 turtle	 access	 from	 designated	 critical	 habitat.	 Barriers	 shall	 be	 properly	

secured	and	routinely	monitored	to	ensure	turtles	are	not	entangled.	

 Water	vessels	associated	with	construction	would	operate	at	no	wake/idle	speeds	at	all	times	in	

the	construction	area,	and	in	water	depths	where	the	draft	of	the	vessel	provides	less	than	a	4‐foot	

clearance	from	the	sediment.	

All	personnel	associated	with	the	construction	and	operational	phases	of	the	Project	will	be	instructed	in	

the	potential	presence	of	protected	sea	turtles.	Further,	AAF	will	inform	the	construction	site	personnel	

and	 personnel	 associated	 with	 operating	 the	 ferry	 of	 the	 civil	 and	 criminal	 penalties	 for	 harming,	

harassing,	or	killing	species	that	are	protected.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-13 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

Construction	 activities	 will	 occur	 during	 daylight	 hours	 only	in	 areas	 that	might	 be	 visible	 from	 any	

nesting	beach.	No	nighttime	construction	activities	would	be	conducted	in	areas	which	project	lighting	

could	be	visible	from	a	nesting	beach.	

Construction	completed	from	the	water	will	be	done	from	a	floating	barge	using	floating	turbidity	barriers	

made	 of	 materials	 that	 would	 not	 allow	 sea	 turtles	 to	 become	 entangled.	 Spill	 response	 kits	 will	 be	

maintained	on	board	during	construction.	

In	the	unlikely	event	that	a	protected	sea	turtle	species	approaches	the	Project	during	construction,	work	

would	immediately	cease	until	the	turtle	moves	at	least	50	feet	away	on	its	own	volition.	

Noise	from	pile	driving	during	construction	could	potentially	affect	federally	managed	species.	The	use	of	

bubble	curtains	during	pile	driving	will	help	to	dampen	noise	by	5	to	22	dB	depending	on	the	pile	type	

and	 other	 conditions	 (Howard	 2013).	 NMFS	 has	 recommended	 that	 bubble	 curtains	 be	 used	 when	

impacts	could	occur.	It	is	anticipated	that	the	air	bubble	curtains	would	be	utilized	during	pile	driving	to	

minimize	the	potential	effects	on	federally	managed	species.	

7.2.11.6 Johnson’s Sea Grass Mitigation Measures 

Bridge	 crossings	 that	 would	 require	 in‐water	 work	 for	 bridge	 retrofits	 and/or	 construction	 of	 new	

bridges	 will	 be	 permitted	 individually	 through	 the	 USACE	 and	 the	 applicable	 state	 regional	 water	

management	 districts.	Additionally,	AAF	will	 observe	water	 quality	 protection	measures	 at	 all	 of	 the	

in‐water	construction	areas	to	protect	manatees	and	sea	turtles	and	would	also	provide	protection	to	

downstream	populations	of	seagrass	and	other	submerged	aquatic	vegetation.	

7.2.11.7 Gopher Tortoise Mitigation Measures 

Prior	to	commencement	of	any	ground	disturbing	activities,	AAF	will	complete	FWC‐compliant	gopher	

tortoise	surveys	by	a	qualified	gopher	tortoise	agent.	If	any	tortoises,	burrows,	or	other	sign	of	tortoises	

are	 encountered	 within	 the	 Project	 footprint,	 AAF	 will	 obtain	 appropriate	 relocation	 permits,	 which	

would	include	specific	mitigation	measures	to	reduce	the	impacts	to	this	species.	

7.2.12 Cultural Resources 

The	 Project	 would	 have	 an	 adverse	 effect	 on	 two	 bridges	 determined	 to	 be	 eligible	 for	 the	National	

Register	of	Historic	Places,	the	Eau	Gallie	River	Bridge	and	the	St.	Sebastian	River	Bridge.		Both	bridges	

would	 be	 demolished	in	 order	 to	 construct	 new	 bridges	 capable	 of	 carrying	 the	 proposed	 passenger	

trains.		As	mitigation,	AAF	will	conduct	historic	research	and	prepare	Historic	American	Buildings	Survey	

and	Historic	American	Engineering	Record	documentation	for	each	bridge	prior	to	its	demolition.	FRA	is	

continuing	to	consult	with	the	SHPO	regarding	concurrence	with	the	FRA’s	adverse	effect	determination	

and	potential	mitigation	measures.	

7.2.13 Section 4(f) Resources 

The	Project	would	not	require	a	use	of	Section	4(f)	resources	except	for	certain	historic	railroad	bridges,	

as	described	in	Chapter 6, Section 4(f) Evaluation.			During	construction,	two	roads	within	Section	4(f)	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Mitigation Measures and 7-14 September 2014 

Project Commitments 

properties	(the	Tosohatchee	Wildlife	Management	Area	and	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park)	would	be	

temporarily	affected	by	construction	activities.		

The	E‐W	Corridor	would	be	constructed	as	an	overpass	so	as	to	not	interrupt	the	intended	use	of	Long	

Bluff	Road	within	the	Tosohatchee	Wildlife	Management	Area.	Construction	of	the	overpass	may	require	

construction	areas	within	the	Tosohatchee	Wildlife	Management	Area;	however,	the	construction	areas	

would	be	stabilized	with	grass	and	mulch	and	the	land	returned	to	pre‐construction	conditions.	

AAF	proposes	to	excavate	material	from	and	adjacent	to	three	man‐made	ponds	within	the	Tosohatchee	

Wildlife	 Management	 Area,	 and	 to	 then	 rehabilitate	 the	 ponds	 by	 creating	 more	 natural	 shorelines,	

reshaping	the	ponds,	and	adding	littoral	shelves.	These	actions	will	enhance	the	fisheries	habitat,	increase	

the	 zonation	 of	wetland	 plant	 communities,	improve	wildlife	 habitat,	and	expand	 the	 function	 of	 the	

ponds	as	a	recreational	resource.	The	Land	Manager	for	the	Tosohatchee	State	Reserve,	which	acts	as	the	

umbrella	organization	for	properties	under	the	jurisdiction	of	multiple	state	agencies	and	includes	the	

Tosohatchee	Wildlife	Management	Area,	has	indicated	that	this	arrangement	would	be	beneficial,	and	

that	a	prior	similar	approach	to	a	fourth	borrow	pond	has	proved	beneficial.	AAF	is	currently	surveying	

the	pond	areas	to	evaluate	the	existing	ecological	conditions	and	determine	whether	borrow	material	

from	the	ponds	would	be	suitable	for	constructing	the	Project.	

To	ensure	the	safety	of	the	users	of	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park,	AAF	will	implement	at‐grade	crossing	

improvements	where	the	N‐S	Corridor	crosses	Southeast	Jonathan	Dickinson	Way.	Safety	improvements	

would	include	upgraded	warning	devices	such	as	flashing	lights,	signage	and	pavement	markings;	median	

barriers;	 and	 a	 four‐quadrant	 gate,	 which	 blocks	 both	 sides	 of	 each	 traffic	 lane.	 Electronic	 warning	

systems	would	be	implemented,	which	would	monitor	and	communicate	train	locations	and	speeds,	and	

would	stop	the	train	if	the	crossing	is	not	clear.	Current	safety	measures	at	the	existing	at‐grade	crossing	

of	the	freight	railway	and	Southeast	Jonathan	Dickinson	Way	include	passive	signage,	flashing	lights,	and	

a	two‐quadrant	gate.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary of Public Involvement 8-1 September 2014 

Process and Tribal Coordination 

8 Summary of Public Involvement 

Process and Tribal Coordination 

Public,	agency,	and	tribal	consultation	and	coordination	on	the	Project	was	undertaken	in	accordance	

with	Council	on	Environmental	Quality	(CEQ)	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA)	regulations	at		

40	CFR	parts	1500‐1507	and	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation	Order	5610.C.	The	public	involvement	

process	was	conducted	to	obtain	meaningful	public	input	regarding	the	Project,	which	is	described	and	

analyzed	 in	 this	 Draft	 Environmental	 Impact	 Statement	 (DEIS).	 Specifically,	 the	 public	 involvement	

process	was	undertaken	to:	

 Make	diligent	efforts	to	involve	the	public	in	preparing	and	implementing	NEPA	procedures;		

 Hold	or	sponsor	public	information	meetings	or	statutorily	required	public	hearings;	

 Provide	public	notice	of	NEPA‐related	hearings,	public	meetings,	and	the	availability	of	environmental	

documents	to	inform	individuals	and	agencies	who	may	be	interested	or	affected;	and	

 Solicit	input	from	the	public.	

Federal	Railroad	Administration	(FRA)	is	the	lead	agency	for	this	DEIS.	Federal	Aviation	Administration	

(FAA),	U.S.	Army	Corps	of	Engineers	(USACE),	and	U.S.	Coast	Guard	(USCG)	are	Cooperating	Agencies	on	

the	DEIS,	in	accordance	with	NEPA	and	CEQ	regulations	(40	CFR	part	1501.6).	FRA	and	USACE	have	a	

Memorandum	 of	Agreement	 (MOA)	 for	this	 Project	 that	 establishes	 an	 agreement	 between	 FRA	 and	

USACE	regarding	the	procedures	to	be	followed	in	preparing	this	Environmental	Impact	Statement	(EIS).	

USACE’s	role	in	the	DEIS	has	focused	on	its	requirements	under	Section	404	of	the	Clean	Water	Act	and	

Sections	10,	12,	and	14	of	the	Rivers	and	Harbors	Act.	USACE	has	also	taken	the	lead	role	with	respect	to	

Endangered	Species	Act	Section	7	and	Magnuson‐Stevens	Fishery	Conservation	and	Management	Act	

consultation	with	U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	(USFWS)	and	National	Marines	Fishery	Service	(NMFS).	

FAA’s	involvement	in	the	DEIS	was	focused	on	the	effects	at	the	Project’s	northern	terminus	at	Orlando	

International	Airport.	USCG’s	role	has	focused	on	navigation	and	bridges	requiring	USCG	Bridge	Permits.	

This	chapter	summarizes	the	consultation	and	coordination	process	through	which	 federal,	state,	and	

local	agencies,	elected	officials,	members	of	the	public,	and	other	interested	entities	were	involved	in	the	

NEPA	 process	 for	 this	 DEIS.	 The	 scoping	 process	is	 described	in	 Section	 8.1,	 agency	 coordination	in	

Section	8.2,	tribal	coordination	in	Section	8.3,	and	public	involvement	in	Section	8.4.		

8.1 Scoping 

Scoping	 is	 an	 early,	 open,	 and	 on‐going	 part	 of	 the	 NEPA	 process	 used	 to	 determine	 the	 range	 of	

alternatives,	issues,	and	effects	that	the	DEIS	will	address	in	detail.	The	process	includes	consultation	with	

appropriate	federal,	state,	regional,	and	local	agencies	and	occurs	early	in	the	NEPA	process	before	final	

decisions	have	been	made	on	the	types	of	studies	to	be	conducted,	the	Project	Study	Area,	or	content	of	

the	DEIS.	Scoping	provides	agencies	and	the	public	with	the	opportunity	to	contribute	to	the	technical	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary of Public Involvement 8-2 September 2014 

Process and Tribal Coordination 

direction	and	analysis	of	the	DEIS,	and	to	contribute	information	that	could	be	relevant	to	evaluation	of	

the	effects	of	the	Project.		

FRA	initiated	the	formal	scoping	process	for	the	Project	on	April	15,	2013	by	publishing	a	Notice	of	Intent	

(NOI)	to	prepare	an	EIS	in	the	Federal	Register.	A	copy	of	the	NOI	is	included	in	Appendix	8.1‐A.	The	NOI	

provided	 a	 description	 of	 the	 Project	 and	 outlined	 the	 environmental	 review	 process.	 The	 NOI	 also	

included	an	announcement	of	the	FRA’s	intent	to	conduct	public	and	agency	scoping	meetings.	Comments	

were	invited	on	the	scope	of	the	DEIS,	including	the	purpose	and	need,	alternatives	to	be	considered,	

effects	to	be	evaluated,	and	methodologies	to	be	used	in	the	evaluation.	Comments	on	the	scope	were	

requested	by	May	15,	2013.	

8.1.1 Agency Scoping Meeting 

Representatives	of	federal,	state,	regional,	and	county	agencies,	and	Native	American	Sovereign	Nations,	

were	invited	to	participate	in	the	scoping	process	and	to	participate	in	an	agency/tribal	scoping	meeting	

on	May	1,	2013	at	the	Renaissance	Orlando	Airport	Hotel,	in	Orlando,	Florida.	Federal	agencies	invited	to	

participate	included	the	U.S.	Departments	of	Agriculture,	U.S.	Department	of	Commerce,	U.S.	Department	

of	Defense,	U.S.	Department	of	the	Interior,	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	and	U.S.	Environmental	

Protection	Agency.	State	agencies	invited	included	the	Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	

(FDEP),	Fish	and	Wildlife	Commission	(FWC),	and	the	State	Historic	Preservation	Office	(SHPO).	Regional	

and	 county	 agencies	 invited	 to	 participate	 included	 the	 St.	 Johns	 River	 Water	 Management	 District	

(SJRWMD),	South	Florida	Water	Management	District	,	Greater	Orlando	Aviation	Authority	(GOAA),	and	

Broward,	Miami‐Dade,	and	Orange	Counties.	Representatives	from	USACE,	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	

Agency,	USFWS,	FAA,	FDEP,	Federal	Highways	Administration	(FHWA),	FWC,	SJRWMD,	Miami‐Dade	and	

Orange	 Counties,	 SHPO,	 National	 Park	 Service	 (NPS),	 USCG,	 and	 GOAA	 attended	 the	 agency	 scoping	

meeting.		

At	 the	 meeting,	 FRA	 introduced	 the	 attendees,	 provided	 an	 overview	 of	 the	 Project	 with	 background	

information,	and	outlined	the	next	steps	in	the	NEPA	process.	Presentations	by	FRA	and	All	Aboard	Florida,	

LLC	(AAF)	provided	the	overview.	The	FRA	also	held	a	question‐and‐answer	session,	and	solicited	agency	

comments.		

Agency	comments	on	the	DEIS	scope	were	received	from	FAA,	USCG,	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	NPS,	

Florida	 Department	 of	 Transportation	 (FDOT),	 and	 the	 Seminole	 Tribe	 of	 Florida	 Tribal	 Historic	

Preservation	Office.	The	comments	were	reviewed	by	FRA.	Comments	from	agencies	pertained	to	land	

use	and	planning,	Section	4(f)	resources,	surface	transportation,	and	waterways.		

8.1.2 Public Scoping Meetings 

Following	the	publication	of	the	NOI,	in	May	2013	five	public	scoping	meetings	were	held	in	five	different	

communities	(Orlando,	Miami,	West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Pierce,	and	Fort	Lauderdale).	Table	8.1‐1	provides	

the	locations,	dates,	number	of	attendees,	and	number	of	comments	received	at	 these	public	scoping	

meetings.	

The	first	four	public	meetings	were	advertised	in	several	newspapers	and	available	in	various	locations	

near	the	Project	Study	Area,	including	Florida Today, Orlando Sentinel, The Palm Beach Post, Sun Sentinel,
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary of Public Involvement 8-3 September 2014 

Process and Tribal Coordination 

St. Lucie News Tribune, La Voz, El Nuevo Herald, Miami Herald, el Sentinel, El Latino Semanal, and	Haiti en

Marche.	The	last	public	meeting	was	advertised	in	the	Sun Sentinel and	el Sentinel.Notices	were	published	

on	several	dates	between	April	17th	and	April	27,	2013.	The	notices	were	published	in	English,	Spanish,	

and	Haitian	Creole.		

Table 8.1-1 Public Scoping Meetings 

Public Scoping 

Meeting Location Date 

Number of 

Attendees 

Number of 

Comment 

Forms 

Received 

at the Meeting 

Orlando Renaissance Orlando Airport Hotel May 1, 2013 135 61 

Miami Culmer Center May 6, 2013 125 63 

West Palm Beach Gaines Park Community Center May 7, 2013 138 67 

Fort Pierce Havert L. Fenn Center May 9, 2013 75 38 

Fort Lauderdale Holiday Park Social Center May 29, 2013 80 19 

Total 553 248 

Source: VHB, 2013. 

Approximately	550	participants	attended	the	five	public	scoping	meetings.	Attendees	included	elected	

officials,	local	government	representatives,	members	of	the	business	community,	and	residents	from	the	

communities	 in	 or	 near	 the	 Project	 Study	 Area.	 The	 meeting	 format	 was	 an	 open	 house	 style	 with	

attendees	encouraged	to	view	the	various	exhibits	placed	around	the	room.	Questions	were	directed	to	

representatives	of	FRA	present	at	the	meeting.	A	continuous	loop	visual	presentation	provided	attendees	

with	information	about	the	Project,	including	the	background	and	general	information	about	NEPA	and	

the	scoping	processes.	Large	aerial	maps	depicting	the	Project	Study	Area	were	also	displayed	at	each	

scoping	meeting.		

Attendees	wanting	to	submit	a	written	comment	were	able	to	do	so	by	filling	out	a	comment	form.	Written	

comments	could	either	be	submitted	during	the	public	scoping	meeting	or	mailed	to	the	FRA.	A	total	of	

248	comment	letters	were	received	during	the	30‐day	scoping	period	(April	15	to	May	15,	2013).	Each	

comment	received	was	reviewed	and	analyzed,	and	was	considered	by	the	FRA	during	the	preparation	of	

this	DEIS.	Comments	received	from	municipalities	and	the	public	pertained	to	alternatives,	floodplains,	

hazardous	materials,	natural	resources,	noise	and	vibration,	public	outreach,	safety,	social,	community,	

socio‐economics,	 surface	 transportation,	 wetlands	 and	 waterways,	 wildlife,	 environmental	 justice,	

purpose	and	need,	and	water	quality.	Appendix	8.1‐B,	Scoping Report,	provides	a	more	detailed	review	of	

the	scoping	process	and	comments	received.		

8.2 Agency Coordination 

AAF	initially	coordinated	with	 federal,	state,	regional,	and	county	agencies	regarding	the	Project	 from	

March	2012	through	April	2013.	These	preliminary	efforts	focused	on	satisfying	requirements	for	the	

submittal	 of	 environmental	 permit	 applications.	 Through	 this	 process	 AAF	 identified	 concerns	 of	

stakeholders	and	requirements	of	regulatory	agencies	that	are	relevant	to	the	NEPA	process.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary of Public Involvement 8-4 September 2014 

Process and Tribal Coordination 

As	 mentioned	 above,	 FRA	 initiated	 the	 NEPA	 process	 by	 publishing	 the	 NOI	 to	 prepare	 an	 EIS	 on	

April	15,	2013.	The	NOI	provided	a	description	of	 the	Project	and	outlined	 the	environmental	review	

process.	 The	 NOI	 also	 announced	 FRA’s	 intent	 to	 conduct	 public	 and	 agency	 scoping	 meetings	 (see	

Section	8.1).	FRA	coordinated	with	a	range	of	Federal	agencies	throughout	this	process.	

This	 coordination	 informed	 AAF	 and	 FRA	 regarding	 the	 regulatory	 requirements	 and	 critical	

environmental	concerns	of	these	agencies,	as	well	as	concerns	of	state	and	local	authorities.		Coordination	

included	the	agencies	and	entities	listed	below.		

Federal	agencies	

 Federal	Aviation	Administration	

 Federal	Highway	Administration

 Federal	Railroad	Administration

 National	Marine	Fisheries	Service

 United	States	Army	Corps	of	Engineers

 United	States	Coast	Guard

 United	States	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	

State	government	authorities,	agencies,	and	elected	officials	

 Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	

 Florida	Department	of	Transportation	

 Florida	Division	of	Historical	Resources/State	Historic	Preservation	Officer	

 Florida	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation	Commission	

 Florida	House	of	Representatives	

 Florida	Senate	

 Florida	Transportation	Commission	

Local	government	authorities,	agencies,	and	elected	officials	

 Counties:	

o Orange 

o Osceola 

o Brevard 

o Indian River 

o St. Lucie 

o Martin 

o Palm Beach 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary of Public Involvement 8-5 September 2014 

Process and Tribal Coordination 

o Broward 

o Miami/Dade 

 Cities:	

o Aventura 

o Cocoa 

o Dania Beach 

o Fort Lauderdale 

o Fort Pierce 

o Jupiter 

o Lake Park 

o Lake Worth 

o Melbourne 

o Miami Gardens 

o North Miami Beach 

o Orlando 

o Palm Bay 

o Palm Beach Gardens 

o Pompano Beach 

o Port St. Lucie 

o Sebastian 

o Stuart 

o St. Lucie 

o El Portal 

o Vero Beach 

o West Palm Beach 

 Elected	Officials:	

o District 4 Mayors/Managers 

o Miami-Dade City Managers 

 Other	Organizations:	

o East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 

o Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary of Public Involvement 8-6 September 2014 

Process and Tribal Coordination 

o Martin Metropolitan Planning Organization 

o Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization 

o Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority

o Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization 

o Port of Palm Beach 

o South Florida Water Management District 

o Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization

o St. Johns River Water Management District 

o St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization 

8.3 Tribal Coordination 

Native	American	Sovereign	Nations	were	invited	to	participate	in	the	scoping	process	and	participate	in	

the	scoping	meeting	on	May	1,	2013	along	with	federal,	state,	and	county	agencies.	The	Native	American	

Sovereign	Nations	invited	to	participate	were	the	Miccosukee	Tribe	of	Florida,	Muscogee	Creek	Nation,	

Poarch	Band	of	Creek	Indians,	Seminole	Nation	of	Oklahoma,	and	Seminole	Tribe	of	Florida.	Comments	

from	the	Native	American	Sovereign	Nations	were	received	and	reviewed	by	FRA,	and	were	considered	

during	development	of	the	DEIS.		

8.4 Public Involvement 

Since	AAF	publicly	announced	the	Project,	it	has	employed	a	public	outreach	strategy	including	meetings,	

social	media,	and	press	releases	to	provide	and	solicit	information	relevant	to	the	Project	to	and	from	

agencies	 and	 the	 public.	 The	 public	 outreach	 strategy	 also	 served	 to	 keep	 local	 officials,	 community	

members,	 and	 other	 parties	informed	 about	 the	 process	 and	 status	 of	 the	 DEIS.	 AAF	 participated	in	

numerous	meetings	with	residents,	businesses	and	community	leaders,	and	public	agencies	throughout	

the	state.	Two	websites	(http://www.allaboardflorida.com/	and	https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0672),	a	

Facebook	page	(https://www.facebook.com/AllAboardFlorida),	a	Twitter	account	(@AllAboardFlorida),	

and	email	distribution	list	have	also	been	created	to	increase	outreach	efforts	to	the	public.	AAF’s	public	

involvement	effort	has	also	included	a	series	of	press	releases	to	Florida	press	outlets	and	over	national	

wire	services.		

Meetings	and/or	presentations	were	held	to	ensure	agencies,	communities,	and	other	representatives	

were	informed	about	the	Project	and	development,	in	addition	to	the	NEPA	public	outreach	activities.	

AAF	 met	 with	 representatives	 from	 the	 following	 non‐governmental	 organizations	 during	 the	 NEPA	

process:	

 Admiral’s	Cove	Homeowners	Association	

 American	Federation	of	Labor	and	Congress	of	Industrial	Organizations	Miami	Chapter	

 Associated	Builders	&	Contractors	

 Barefoot	Bay	Homeowners	Association	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary of Public Involvement 8-7 September 2014 

Process and Tribal Coordination 

 Black	Archives	

 Broward	County	Marine	Steering	Committee/Advisory	Board	

 Broward	County	National	Association	for	the	Advancement	of	Colored	People	

 Central	Florida	Hotel	and	Lodging	Association	

 Chamber	of	Commerce	of	the	Palm	Beaches	

 City	View	Townhomes	Association	

 Cocoa	Beach	Regional	Chamber	of	Commerce	

 Council	of	Fort	Lauderdale	Civic	Associations	

 Downtown	Fort	Lauderdale	Civic	Association	

 Efficient	Transportation	for	the	Community	

 Federation	of	Boca	Raton	Homeowners	Association	

 Flagler	Village	Civic	Association	

 Florida	Council	of	100	

 Florida	Planning	&	Zoning	Association	

 Gold	Coast	League	of	Cities	

 Indian	River	Freeholders	Association	

 International	Drive	Chamber	of	Commerce	

 Kiwanis	Club	of	West	Palm	Beach	

 Leadership	Orlando	

 Martin	County	Chamber	of	Commerce	

 MetroPlan	Orlando	

 Metro	Orlando	Economic	Development	Commission	

 Miami‐Dade	County	Citizen’s	Independent	Transportation	Trust	

 Northern	Palm	Beach	Chamber	of	Commerce	

 Orlando	Sentinel	Transportation	Forum	

 Palm	Beach	Business	Forum	

 Palm	Beach	County	Marine	Industries	Association	

 Palm	Beach	County	Realtors	Association	

 Palm	Beach	County	Tourist	Development	Council	

 Rotary	Club	of	Orlando	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Summary of Public Involvement 8-8 September 2014 

Process and Tribal Coordination 

 SeaWorld	Orlando	

 South	Andrews	Business	Association	

 St.	Cloud	Chamber	of	Commerce	

 St.	Lucie	Economic	Development	Council	

 St.	Lucie	River	Working	Group	

 Town	Square	Neighborhood	Development	Corporation	

 Treasure	Coast	Joint	Advisory	Committee	

 Universal	Studios	

 Village	of	Biscayne	Park	

 Visit	Orlando	

 Vista	Lakes	Homeowners	Association	

 Walt	Disney	World	

 West	Palm	Beach	Downtown	Development	Authority	

 Women	in	Transportation	

8.5 Post-Scoping Comments 

Numerous	members	 of	 the	 public	 have	 submitted	 comments	 to	 FRA	 following	 the	 scoping	 comment	

period.	More	than	160	comments	have	been	received	since	July	2013.	The	vast	majority	of	the	concerns	

have	 focused	 on	 quality	 of	 life	 (including	 noise	 and	 safety)	 and	 potential	 impacts	 to	 the	 boating	

community	as	a	result	of	increased	bridge	closures.				
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-1 September 2014 

 

9 References 

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

Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida.	

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278.	Accessed	September	12,	2013.	

________.	2013a.	Modeling Assumptions.	May	2013.	Report.	

________.	2013b.	West Palm Beach to Miami Project, Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing

Program.	March	2013.	Loan	Application.	

________.	2013c.	FECR	Grade	Crossing	Estimate	Spreadsheet.	Received	via	email	from	Alex	Gonzales	on	

March	7,	2013.		

________.	2013d.	General	Plans	and	Elevations	for	the	Horse	Creek	and	Arch	Creek	Bridges.	Transystems	

Corporation.		

AAF	and	Natural	Resources	Conservation	Service	(NRCS).	2013.	Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for

Corridor Type Projects.	June	7,	2013.	Report.	

AMEC	Environment	&	Infrastructure,	Inc.	2013a.	On‐Road Mobile Source Emissions Factorsfor the

Southeastern Modeling Analysis and Planning (SEMAP) States.	Prepared	for	Southeastern	States	Air	

Resources	Managers,	Inc.	March	21,	2013.	Report.	

_______.	2013b.	Technical Memorandum No. 10: Environmental Consequencesfor All Aboard Florida

Passenger Rail Projectfrom Orlando to Miami, Florida.	Report.		

________.	2013c.	Technical Memorandum No. 5,Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail

Projectfrom Orlando to Miami, Florida.	July	2013.	Report.	

________.	2013d.	Supplemental Bridge Information for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Projectfrom

Orlando to Miami, Florida.	Report.		

________.	2013e.	Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysisfor the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail

Projectfrom Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida.	September	2013.	Report.	

________.	2013f.	Technical Memorandum No. 6: Contaminated Sites Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida

Passenger Rail Projectfrom Orlando to Miami, Florida.	Report.

________.	2014a.	Navigation Discipline Reportfor the AAF Passenger Rail Projectfrom Orlando to Miami,

Florida.	July	2014.	Report.		

________.	2014b.	Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessmentfor the All Aboard Florida Passenger

Rail Projectfrom West PalmBeach to Miami, Florida.	June	2014.	Report.		

________.	2014c.	Addendum to Technical Memorandum 3 Screening Analysisfor AlternativesIdentification for

the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Projectfrom Orlando to Miami, Florida.	January	2014.	Report.	

American	Railway	Engineering	and	Maintenance	of	Way	Association	(AREMA).	2003.	Practical Guide to Railway

Engineering.	http://www.engsoc.org/~josh/AREMA/.	Accessed	July	11,	2014.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-2 September 2014 

 

Amtrak.	2012.	Amtrak Sets New Ridership Record.	http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/636/294/Amtrak‐Sets‐

New‐Ridership‐Record‐FY2012‐ATK‐12‐092.pdf.	Accessed	December	31,	2013.		

________.	2014.	Amtrak Silver Service/Palmetto On‐Time Performance. http://www.amtrak.com/silver‐

service‐palmetto‐train&mode.	Accessed	March	27,	2014.		

Barry,	T.M.	and	J.	Regan.	1978.	FHWAHighway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA‐RD‐77‐108.	USDOT,	

Federal	Highway	Administration	(FHWA).	Washington,	D.C.		

Bearden,	H.W.	1972.	Water Available in Canals and Shallow Sedimentsin St. Lucie County, Florida.	

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001249/00001/1x.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

Beck,	Berry	F.	and	William	C.	Sinclair.	1986.	Sinkhole Zonesin Florida: An Introduction.	

http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/FGS/FGS_Publications/FGS%20Library%20Documents/Sinkhol

esInFlaAnIntroBeck1986a.pdf.	The	Florida	Sinkhole	Research	Institute	at	the	University	of	Central	

Florida.	Accessed	August	31,	2013.	

Biglin,	Kevin	and	Lesley‐Ann	Dupigny‐Giroux.	2006.	Mapping the Road‐effect Zone to AssessImpacts of

Proposed Road Segments.

http://www.journalconsplanning.org/2006/volume2/bb8b/finalmanuscript.pdf.	Accessed	

September	27,	2013.	

Bond,	P.	1987.	Geology and Waste Disposal in Florida, Map Series 112.	Department	of	Environmental	

Protection,	Florida	Geological	Survey.	Tallahassee,	Florida.	

Boys	and	Girls	Clubs	of	Palm	Beach	County.	2013.	Florence De George Boys & Girls Club.	

http://www.bgcpbc.org/index.php?page=west‐palm‐beach.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.	

Brevard	County,	Florida.	2012.	Code of Ordinances County of Brevard, Florida.	

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10473.	Accessed	March	2013.	

________.	2013a.	Helen& Allen Cruickshank Sanctuary.	

http://www.brevardcounty.us/EELProgram/Areas/Cruickshank/Home.	Accessed	August	18,	2013.	

________.	2013b.	The Environmentally Endangered Lands(EEL) Program.	

http://www.brevardcounty.us/EELProgram/Home.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.	

________.	2013c.	Brevard County Parks & Recreation South Area.

http://www.brevardcounty.us/ParksRecreation/South.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.	

Brevard	County,	Planning	and	Development.	2011.	The 1988 Brevard County Comprehensive Plan.

http://www.brevardcounty.us/PlanningDev/CompPlan.	December	2011.	Accessed	August	7,	2013.	

Brevard	County,	Property	Appraiser.	2013.	Property Details(24‐35‐10‐00‐00001). https://www.bcpao.us/.	

Accessed	September	21,	2013.	

Brookings.	2013.	U.S. Passenger Rail Ridership.	

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/amtrakroutes.	March	2013.	Accessed	

December	13,	2013.	

Broward	County	Transit.	2013.	Fixed Route Bus Facts.	

http://www.broward.org/BCT/About/Documents/factsheet.pdf.	Accessed	February	9,	2014.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-3 September 2014 

 

Brown,	D.W.,	et	al.	1962.	Water Resources of Brevard County, Florida.	Florida	Geological	Survey	(FGS)	

Report	of	Investigations	No.	28.	

Bureau	of	Economic	Analysis	(BEA).	2013.	Regional Economic Accounts:NAICS All GDP Components.	

http://www.bea.gov/regional/downloadzip.cfm.	U.S.	Department	of	Commerce.	Accessed	

September	22,	2013.	

Bureau	of	Economic	and	Business	Research	(BEBR).	2011a.	Florida Population: Census Summary 2010.

http://www.floridarealtors.org/Research/upload/2‐Fla‐Census_Summary_2010.pdf.	Warrington	

College	of	Business	Administration,	University	of	Florida.	Accessed	September	12,	2013.		

________.	2011b.	Orange County Expected to Lead Florida Growth.	http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/news/orange‐

expected‐lead‐florida‐growth.	Accessed	September	4,	2013.	

________.		2013.	2003‐2013: Population Estimatesfor Florida Counties.	University	of	Florida.	April	2013.	

Bureau	of	Labor	Statistics	(BLS).	2013.	Local Area Unemployment Statistics.	

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=la.	Accessed	September	21,	2013.		

Bureau	of	Transportation	Statistics	(BTS).	2013.	Summary Statistics, Origin and Destination Airport:

January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2013.

http://apps.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/ddisp/OntimeSummarySelect.xml?tname

=OntimeSummaryBothData.	Accessed	September	12,	2013.	

BusinessWire.	2013.	Just Over One Third ofthe States Will Return to Prerecession Peak Employment by End

of 2013, According to IHS.	

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130918005168/en/States‐Return‐Prerecession‐

Peak‐Employment‐2013‐HIS.	Accessed	September	22,	2013.		

Canaveral	Port	Authority.	2009.	Economic Impact Study Summary.

http://www.portcanaveral.com/general/economics.php.	Accessed	August	15,	2013.	

Central	Florida	Geographic	Information	Systems	(CFGIS).	2012.	District 5 LOS Spreadsheetfor 2012.	

http://www.cfgis.org/FDOT‐Resources/TrafficData.aspx.	Accessed	May	7,	2012.	

City	of	Fort	Lauderdale,	Florida.	2007.	Fort Lauderdale: Building a Livable Downtown: Consolidated

Downtown Master Plan.	

http://www.fortlauderdale.gov/planning_zoning/downtown_masterplan.htm.	Accessed	

December	13,	2013.	

________.	2011.	Official City of Fort LauderdaleHistoric Resources Maps as Amended August, 2011.	

https://www.fortlauderdale.gov/planning_zoning/historic_preservation/pdf/hist_resources.pdf.	

Accessed	February	10,	2014.	

City	of	Miami,	Florida.	2009.	Downtown Miami: Epicenter ofthe Americas: 2025 Downtown Miami Master Plan.

http://www.miamidda.com/pdf/DDA_Master_Plan_2009_LR.pdf.	Accessed	December	13,	2013.	

City	of	Orlando,	Planning	Division.	2011.	Growth Management Plan, City of Orlando: Transportation

Element.

http://www.cityoforlando.net/planning/cityplanning/PDFs/GMP/2012/jan/04_Transportation_

GOPs_Supp_5.pdf.	December	2011.	Accessed	August	7,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-4 September 2014 

 

City	of	Riviera	Beach,	Florida.	2013.	Government.	http://www.rivierabch.com/content/1484/default.aspx.	

Accessed	August	14,	2013.	

City	of	Stuart,	Community	Services.	Undated.	Sailfish Ball Park.	http://cityofstuart.us/index.php/park‐

facility‐availability/faciliies/sailfish‐ball‐park.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.		

City	of	West	Palm	Beach,	Florida.	Undated.	Nathaniel Adams Park.	http://wpb.org/park/nathaniel‐adams‐

park/#tabs.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.	

________.	2009.	West PalmBeach Master Plan Update.	http://wpb.org/planning/master‐plan‐update/.	

Accessed	December	13,	2013.		

Council	on	Environmental	Quality	(CEQ).	1981.	Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’sNational

Environmental Policy Act Regulations(40 Fed. Reg. 18026).	http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/G‐

CEQ‐40Questions.pdf.	March	23,	1981.	Accessed	September	20,	2013.	

________.	1993.	Incorporating Biodiversity Considerationsinto Environmental Impact Analysis Under the

National Environmental Policy Act.	

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G‐CEQ‐

BiodiversityConsiderations.pdf.	January	1993.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

________.	1997a.	Considering Cumulative Effects Under theNational Environmental Policy Act.	

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G‐CEQ‐

ConsidCumulEffects.pdf.	January	1997.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	

________.	1997b.	Environmental Justice: Guidance Under theNational Environmental Policy Act.

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf.	December	

10,	1997.	Accessed	August	31,	2013.	

________.	2005a.	Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)	‐	40 CFR Parts 1500	‐	1508: Regulationsfor Implementing

the Procedural Provisions oftheNational Environmental Policy Act.	

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NEPA‐40CFR1500_1508.pdf.	Accessed	September	13,	2013.	

________.	2005b.	Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actionsin Cumulative Effects Analysis.	

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G‐CEQ‐

PastActsCumulEffects.pdf.	June	24,	2005.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	

________.	2010.	DraftNEPA Guidance on Consideration ofthe Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas

Emissions.	http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/CEQ_Draft_Guidance‐

ClimateChangeandGHGemissions‐2.18.10.pdf.	Accessed	January	7,	2014.	

Crane,	L.,	G.H.	Hughes	and	L.	Snell.	1975.	Water Resources of Indian River County, Florida. Florida Geological

Survey (FGS) Report of Investigations No. 80. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001267/00001/3j.	Accessed	

September	27,	2013.	

Delaney,	D.K.,	L.L.	Pater,	T.J.	Hayden,	L.	Swindell,	L.	Carlile	and	E.	Spadgenske.	2000.	Assessment of Training

Noise Impacts on the Red‐cockaded Woodpecker: 1999 Results.	United	States	Army	Corps	of	

Engineers.	Technical	Report.	

Disney.	Undated.	Walt Disney World.	https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/.	Accessed	August	13,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-5 September 2014 

 

Ducks	Unlimited.	Undated.	DU Projects: Atlantic Flyway.	http://www.ducks.org/conservation/where‐we‐

work/flyways/du‐projects‐atlantic‐flyway.	Accessed	February	5,	2014.	

Economic	Development	Commission	of	Florida’s	Space	Coast	(EDC).	2011a.	Florida’s Space Coast:

America’sHigh Tech Titan.	http://www.spacecoastedc.org.	Accessed	June	2013.	

________.	2011b.	Major Public and Private Employers.	

http://www.spacecoastedc.org/portals/0/informationcenter/workforce/major%20public%20a

nd%20private%20employers.pdf.	Accessed	August	13,	2013.	

Eigenbrod,	F.,	S.J.	Hecnor	and	L.	Fahrig.	2009.	Quantifying	the	Road‐effect	Zone:	Threshold	Effects	of	a	

Motorway	on	Anuran	Populations	in	Ontario,	Canada.	Ecology and Society.	14,	24.	

Environmental	Data	Resources,	Inc.	(EDR).	2013.	Radius Map Report with Geocheck for GOAA Site.	EDR	

Inquiry	Number	3532737.2s.	

Fahrig,	L.	and	T.	Rytwinski.	2009.	Effects	of	Roads	on	Animal	Abundance:	an	Empirical	Review	and	

Synthesis.	Ecology and Society.	14,	21.	

Farmland	Information	Center.	2014.	Florida Statistics.	http://www.farmlandinfo.org/statistics/florida.	

Accessed	March	28,	2014.	

Federal	Aviation	Administration	(FAA).	2004.	14 CFR Part 150, AirportNoise Compatibility Planning; Final

Rule.	

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/federal_register_notices/media/environm

ental_69fr57622.pdf.	Accessed	December	30,	2013.	

________.	2007.	Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions.	

http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/environmental_desk_ref/media/desk_ref_chap7.pd

f.	Chapter	7,	Section	4(f)	Resources.	October	2007.	Accessed	July	9,	2014.			

________.	2013.	Written Re‐Evaluation; 1998 Final Environmental Assessmentfor South Terminal Complex and

Related Aviation Support Areas and Finding ofNo SignificantImpact/Record of Decision.	December	

2013.	Report.	

Federal	Aviation	Administration	(FAA)	and	Greater	Orlando	Aviation	Authority	(GOAA).	1998.	

Environmental Assessmentfor the Proposed South Terminal Complex atthe Orlando International

Airport.	Report.	

Federal	Emergency	Management	Agency	(FEMA).	2013a.	Flood Zones.	http://www.fema.gov/floodplain‐

management/flood‐zones.	August	16,	2013.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

________.	2013b.	Floodway.	http://www.fema.gov/floodplain‐management/flood‐way.	August	16,	2013.	

Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

Federal	Highway	Administration	(FHWA).	1992.	NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking – Secondary

and Cumulative Assessmentin the Highway Project Development Process.

www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdm2_c_imp.asp.	Accessed	April	23,	2006.		

________.	2003.	Questions and Answers Regarding Indirect and Cumulative Impact Considerationsin theNEPA

Process. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/qaimpact.asp.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-6 September 2014 

 

________.	2005.	Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced Strategiesfor Congestion Mitigation.	

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/chapter4.htm.	Accessed	September	12,	2013.	

_______	.	2007.	Railroad‐Highway Grade CrossingHandbook – Revised Second Edition August 2007.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/.	Accessed	October	14,	2013.		

________.	2010.	23 CFR 774: Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites

(Section 4(f)).	http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR‐2010‐title23‐vol1/pdf/CFR‐2010‐title23‐

vol1‐part774.pdf.	Accessed	September	31,	2013.	

________.	2012.	Climate Change Adaptation.	

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/.	Accessed	January	21,	2014.	

________.	2013.	Assessment ofthe Body of Knowledge on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measuresinto

Transportation Projects.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/resources_and_publications/tran

sportation_projects/transportationprojects.pdf.	Accessed	January	21,	2014.	

Federal	Railroad	Administration	(FRA).	Undated.	Highway‐Rail Crossing Inventory Data.	

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Downloaddbf.aspx.	Accessed	March	11,	2013.		

________.	1999.	64 FR 28545: Proceduresfor Considering Environmental Impacts.	

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐1999‐05‐26/pdf/99‐13262.pdf.	Accessed	September	12,	2013.	

________.	2005.	Final Environmental Impact Statement: FloridaHigh Speed Rail, Tampa to Orlando.	

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L01397.	Accessed	February	4,	2014.	

________.	2010a.	Guide to Developing a Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Plan.	

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/2134.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.		

________.	2010b.	National Rail Plan Progress Report.	https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/1336.	

Accessed	March	21,	2013.	

________.	2012a.	High‐Speed Ground TransportationNoise and Vibration Impact Assessment, USDOT Report

Number DOT/FRA/ORD‐12/15.	http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1238511.	Accessed	

September	27,	2013.	

________.	2012b.	Track and Rail and Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manual : Volume II	‐	Chapter 1	‐	

Track Safety Standards	‐	Classes 1 through 5.	http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04404.	

Accessed	February	4,	2014.	

________.	2012c.	Track and Rail and Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manual : Volume II	‐	Chapter 2	‐	

Track Safety Standards	‐	Classes 6 through 9.	http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04405.	

Accessed	February	4,	2014.

________.	2013a.	Finding of No SignificantImpactfor the All Aboard Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach

to Miami, Florida.	http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Details/L04277.	September	12,	2013.		

________.	2013b.	Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis.	

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/default.aspx.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-7 September 2014 

 

________.	2013c.	Notice of Intentto Prepare an EIS for the All Aboard Florida Miami‐Orlando Passenger Rail

Project.	Federal	Register.	78(72),	22363‐4.	

________.	2014.	NEPA Preliminary Environmental Re‐Examination Consultation.	March	27,	2014.		

Federal	Railroad	Administration	(FRA)	and	Florida	Department	of	Transportation	(FDOT).	2010.	Draft

Environmental Assessment and 4(f) Statementfor the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Study: Jacksonville

(Duval County)to Miami(Miami‐Dade County), Florida.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/FECAmtrak/0901%20‐%20Draft%20EA%20‐

%20August%202010.pdf.	Accessed	September	12,	2013.	

________.	2006.	TransitNoise and Vibration Impact Assessment.	USDOT	Report	Number	FTA‐VA‐90‐1003‐06,	

May	2006.		

Federal	Transit	Administration	(FTA).	2005.	Finding ofNo SignificantImpact, OIA Intermodal Center and

AssociatedHigh Speed Rail and Light Rail Alignments.

http://business.sunrail.com/uploads/docs/17.pdf.	Accessed	January	6,	2014.	

Federal	Transit	Administration	(FTA),	FDOT,	and	GOAA.	2005.	Environmental Assessmentfor the Proposed

OIA Intermodal Center and AssociatedHigh Speed Rail and Light Rail Alignments.	

http://business.sunrail.com/uploads/docs/17.	Accessed	September	13,	2013.	

Florida	Atlantic	University	(FAU).	2007.	Florida’s Resilient Coasts: A State Policy Framework for Adaptation

to Climate Change.	http://www.ces.fau.edu/files/projects/climate_change/Fl_ResilientCoast.pdf.	

Accessed	January	7,	2014.	

Florida	Department	of	Agriculture	and	Consumer	Services.	2012.	2011 Florida Motor Gasoline and Diesel

Fuel Report.	

http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/30865/762562/2011_Gas_Report.pdf.	

August	2012.	Accessed	March	21,	2013.	

Florida	Department	of	Economic	Opportunity	(FDEO).	2013.	Employment Projections.	

http://www.floridajobs.org/labor‐market‐information/data‐center/statistical‐

programs/employment‐projections.	Accessed	January	20,	2014.	

Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	(FDEP).	1972.	Florida Water Resources Act of 1972:

Chapter 373, PartIV, Florida Statutes.	

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/docs/ch373.pdf.	Accessed	September	13,	

2013.		

________.	1981.	Florida Coastal Management Program: Chapter 380, PartII, Florida Statutes.	

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300‐

0399/0380/0380PartIIContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2013&Title=‐%3E2013‐

%3EChapter%20380‐%3EPart%20II.	Accessed	September	13,	2013.		

________.	1985.	Sinkhole Type,Development, and Distribution in Florida – Map SeriesNo. 110.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/publications/sinkholetype3.pdf.	Accessed	September	31,	2013.	

________.	1994.	62‐340, FAC: Delineation ofthe Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters.	

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=62‐340.	Accessed	October	13,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-8 September 2014 

 

________.	2008.	Source	Water	Assessment	and	Protection	Program	(SWAPP)	Areas.	

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gis/datadir.htm.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.			

________.	2010.	Chapter 62‐302 Surface Water Quality Standards.	

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62‐302/62‐302.pdf.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

________.	2011.	Air Monitoring Report. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/air_quality/techrpt/amr11.pdf.	

Accessed	August	9,	2013.	

________.	2012a.	Chapter 62‐303: Identification of Impaired Surface Water.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62‐303/62‐303.pdf.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

________.	2012b.	Outstanding Florida Waters: Run 44‐	October 2012.		

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gis/datadir.htm.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

________.	2012c.	Verified Impaired Florida Waters: Run 44‐	October 2012.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/download.htm.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.		

________.	2013a.	24 Florida Statutes ofthe Florida Coastal Management Program.	

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/federal/24_statutes.htm.	July	30,	2013.	Accessed	September	27,	

2013.	

________.	2013b.	Florida’s Air Quality System (FLAQS).

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/air_quality/airdata.htm.	September	11,	2013.	Accessed	April	2013.	

________.	2013c.	Subsidence Incident Reportlocationsin a KMZ file.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/gisdatamaps/SIRs_database.htm.	Accessed	March	31,	2013.		

Florida	Department	of	State.	2002.	Compliance and Review: Cultural Resources Management Standards&

Operational Manual.	Division	of	Historical	Resources.	

http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/compliance/manual.cfm.	Accessed	March	28,	2014.	

Florida	Department	of	Transportation	(FDOT).	1999.	Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification

System (FLUCCS) –Handbook.	

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf.	

January	2013.	Accessed	August	7,	2013.	

________.	2003.	Florida Intrastate Highway System Program Development Procedure (Topic 525‐030‐255).

May	21,	2003.	Report.	

________.	2006a.	Florida Intercity Passenger Rail“Vision Plan.”	

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/FECAmtrak/16G1%20‐

%20Florida%20Passenger%20Rail%20Vision%20Plan%20‐%202006.pdf.	Accessed	February	

11,	2014.	

________.	2006b.	South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis Study.	

http://www.soflo.fau.edu/report/SFECC_Summary_Prior_Studies_Tech_Memo.pdf.	Gannett	

Fleming	and	Carter	Burgess.	Accessed	January	7,	2014.		

________.	2008.	Project Development and Environment Guidelines Manual(PD&E Manual).	

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/pdeman1.shtm.	Accessed	September	13,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-9 September 2014 

 

________.	2009.	The Florida Rail System Plan: Policy Element.	

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/FECAmtrak/16G2%20‐

%20Florida%20Rail%20System%20Plan%20‐%20Policy%20Element%20‐%202009.pdf.	

March	2009.	Accessed	September	12,	2013.	

________.	2010.	The Economic Cost of Traffic Congestion in Florida: BDK75 977‐19.	

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research‐center/Completed_Proj/Summary_OP/FDOT_BDK75_977‐

19_rpt.pdf.	August	2010.	Accessed	September	12,	2013.		

________.	2011a.	2011 SHS LOS Maps. Secure	download	from	Chon	Wong,	District	4	Contact.	Received	May	2013.	

________.	2011b.	Florida’s Turnpike AADT and LOS Request.	Email	from	Kim	Cromartie	Samson,	Florida’s	

Turnpike	Enterprise	to	author.	Received	May	2013.	

________.	2011c.	Florida Department of Transportation, Project Development and Environment Manual.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/Pt2ch17_052411‐current.pdf.	May	24,	2011.	

Accessed	October	16,	2013.	

________.	2012a.	Rail Handbook.	http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/publications/handbook.pdf.	January	2012.	

Accessed	September	18,	2013.		

________.	2012b.	Design‐Build Guidelines.	

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/DesignBuild/DBRules/DesignBuildGuidelines.pdf.	

August	8,	2012.	Accessed	September	31,	2013.	

________.	2012c.	Cumulative Effects EvaluationHandbook.	http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/CEE/CEE‐

Handbook‐2012‐1218.pdf.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	

________.	2013a.	Standard Specifications Library for Road and Bridge Construction.	

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/specificationsoffice/Implemented/SpecBooks/2013/Files/2013eBoo

k.pdf.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	

________.	2013b.	I‐95 PD&E Study.	http://i95study.com/index.html.	Accessed	September	31,	2013.		

________.	2013c.	Florida Traffic Safety Portal.	http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/trafficsafetywebportal/.	Accessed	

September	31,	2013.		

________.	2014.	Tri‐Rail Coastal Link South Florida East Coast Corridor (SFECC) Transit Analysis Study.	

http://www.tri‐railcoastallinkstudy.com/.	Accessed	February	10,	2014.	

Florida	Department	of	Transportation	(FDOT),	Systems	Planning	Office.	2010.	I‐95 Sketch Interstate Plan

Summary Report, Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP)for Interstate 95 (I‐95) From the Indian River/Brevard

County Line to the Florida/Georgia State Line: Executive Summary.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/corridor/Sketch/I‐95/Summary.pdf.	October	

2010.	Accessed	September	31,	2013.	

Florida	Division	of	Historic	Resources.	2013.	Meeting	with	All	Aboard	Florida	on	March	28,	2013.	Meeting	

Minutes.	

Florida	East	Coast	Railway,	LLC	(FECR).	2012a.	Operating Rules.	Report.	

________.	2012b.	Safety Rules and Company Policies.	Report.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-10 September 2014 

 

________.	2012c.	Emergency Preparedness Plan.	Report.	

Florida	Exotic	Pest	Plant	Council	(FLEPPC).	2011.	List of Invasive Species.

http://www.fleppc.org/list/2011plantlist.pdf.	Accessed	September	9,	2013.	

Florida	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation	Commission	(FWC).	2008.	Bald Eagle Management Plan.	

http://myfwc.com/media/427567/Eagle_Plan_April_2008.pdf.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	

________.	2009.	FWC.	Wading Bird Rookery Surveys(WBROOK99).	Tallahassee,	Florida.	Using:	ArcGIS	10.1.	

Redlands,	California:	ESRI	2012.	

________.	2011.	Endangered and Threatened Species Act: Title 28 Chapter 379.2291 ofthe Florida Statutes.	

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/379.2291.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	

________.	2012a.	EagleNest Locator.	https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx.	

Accessed	September	28,	2013.	

________.	2012b.	Boating	Accident	Statistic	Report.	http://myfwc.com/boating/safety‐education/boating‐

accidents.	Accessed	October	10,	2013.	

________.	2013.	Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area.

http://myfwc.com/viewing/recreation/wmas/lead/tosohatchee/.	Accessed	August	13,	2013.	

Florida	Geological	Survey.	2012.	Lithologic Well Logs:sfwmd1.zip.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/gisdatamaps/litholog‐temp.htm.	Accessed	September	27,	

2013.		

Florida	House	of	Representatives.	2009.	HB 1B – Transportation.	

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=42784.	Accessed	

September	21,	2013.	

Florida	Inland	Navigation	District.	2011.	December	2011.	Update ofthe Economic Benefits ofthe District’s

Waterwaysin Florida, Main Report(AppendicesJ, K, L, and M).	

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list.	Accessed	July	6,	2014.	

Florida	Legislature.	2012.	Title XI, Chapter 163, 163.31.61: Community Planning Act.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL

=0100‐0199/0163/Sections/0163.3161.html.	Accessed	August	15,	2013.	

Florida	Natural	Areas	Inventory	(FNAI).	Undated.	Biodiversity Matrix.	

http://lotmaps.freac.fsu.edu/bio05/index.html.	Accessed	September	29,	2013.	

________.	2011.	Critical LandsIdentification Project(CLIP). http://www.fnai.org/clip.cfm.	Accessed	

September	20,	2013.	

________.	2012.	Florida managed Areas‐June 2012.	Using:	ArcGIS	10.1.	Redlands,	California:	ESRI	2012.	

Tallahassee,	Florida.	

________.	2013.	Natural Communities Data.	http://www.fnai.org/.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.		

Florida	Rail	Enterprise.	2009.	PreapplicationHSIPR Program.	

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/economicstimulus/rail/HSR‐Pre‐Application.pdf.	August	27,	

2009.	Accessed	August	18,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-11 September 2014 

 

Florida	Sinkhole	Research	Institute.	1989.	Reported Sinkholesin Orange County.	University	of	Central	

Florida,	Orlando	Florida.	

Florida	State	Parks.	Undated.	Jonathan Dickinson State Park.	

http://www.floridastateparks.org/jonathandickinson/.	Accessed	August	18,	2013.	

________.	2013.	Florida State Parks.	http://www.floridastateparks.org.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.	

Florida	Wildlife	Corridor.	2013.	The Florida Wildlife Corridor. http://www.floridawildlifecorridor.org/.	

Accessed	August	18,	2013.	

Forman,	Richard	T.	T.	and	Lauren	E.	Alexander.	1998.	Roads	and	their	Major	Ecological	Effects.	Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics. 29,	207‐231.	

Forman,	Richard	T.	and	R.	D.	Deblinger.	2000.	The	Ecological	Road‐effect	Zone	of	a	Massachusetts	(U.S.A.)	

Suburban	Highway. Conservation Biology.	14,	36‐46.	

Fort	Pierce,	Florida.	2010.	The City of Fort Pierce.	http://www.cityoffortpierce.com.	Accessed	

August	31,		2013.	

Gorzelany,	Jay	F.	2005.	Recreational Boat Traffic Surveys of Broward County, Florida.	

http://www.broward.org/Manatees/Documents/recreational_boat_survey.pdf.	Accessed	

December	30,	2013.	

________.	2013.	A Characterization of Recreational Boating Activity and Boater Compliance with Posted Speed

Zonesin Palm Beach County.	http://www.co.palm‐

beach.fl.us/erm/coastal/manatees/pdf/2012BoaterSpeedZoneComplianceStudy.pdf.	Accessed	

September	5,	2013.	

Greater	Miami	Convention	Center	and	Visitors	Bureay.	2012.	

http://www.travel.miami_and_beaches.com/partners/tools_and_resources/research_and_statisti

cs.	Accessed	February	11,	2014.	

Greater	Orlando	Aviation	Authority	(GOAA).	2009.	Environmental Assessmentfor the East Airfield

Development Area at Orlando International Airport.	

http://www.orlandoairports.net/east_airfield/.	Accessed	September	31,	2013.	

_________.	2012a.	Tiger	IV	Grant	Application,	March	19,	2012.	Phase	1	Multi‐Modal	Connection	at	Orlando	

International	Airport.	Long	Range	Transit	Vision	–	Airport	and	Medical	City	Area	Map.	

http://www.orlandoairports.net/planning/tiger4/docs/airport_medical_city_Maps.pdf.		

_________.	2012b.	Tiger	IV	Grant	Application,	March	19,	2012.	Phase	1	Multi‐Modal	Connection	at	Orlando	

International	Airport.	Long	Range	Transit	Vision	–	Airport	to	Lake	Nona	Medical	City	Connectivity	

Maps	(2).	http://www.orlandoairports.net/planning/tiger4/docs/airport_medical_city_Maps.pdf.		

_________.	2013.	Tiger	V	Grant	Narrative,	June	3	2013.	Phase	1	Multi‐Modal	Connection	at	Orlando	

International	Airport.		

Greyhound.	2014.	Tickets.	https://www.greyhound.com/default.aspx.	Accessed	March	28,	2014.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-12 September 2014 

 

Hicks,	R.W.	Marting	Jr.	and	A.	Stodghill.	1988.	Fort Pierce Utility Authority 25th Street Wellfield

Contamination – St. Lucie County, Florida.	FDEP	Bureau	of	Waste	Cleanup	Groundwater	

Investigation	Report	No.	88‐01.	

HNTB.	2003.	FloridaHigh Speed Rail Authority: Orlando‐Miami Planning Study.	

http://www.floridabullettrain.com/fhsra/uploaddocuments/p25/Orlando‐

Miami%20Final%20Planning%20Study.pdf.	Florida	High	Speed	Rail	Authority.	March	2013.	

Accessed	October	14,	2013.	

Howard,	Brandon.	2013.	Personal	Communication	with	Brandon	Howard,	Fisheries	Biologist	with	NOAA.	

September	2012	–	February	2013.		

I‐95	Corridor	Coalition.	2013.	I‐95 Facts and Stats.	

http://www.i95coalition.org/i95/Home/I95CorridorFacts/tabid/173/Default.aspx.	Accessed	

September	12,	2013.	

Indian	River	County,	Florida.	2012.	Code of Ordinances County of Indian River, Florida.	

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=12232.	Accessed	March	2013.		

Indian	River	County,	Parks	Division.	2013.	Indian River County Conservation Lands Program.	

http://www.ircgov.com/Departments/General_Services/Parks/Conservation.	Accessed	June	13,	

2013.	

Indian	River	County,	Planning	Division.	2010.	Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.	

http://www.irccdd.com/Planning_Division/Comp_Plan.htm.	Accessed	August	7,	2013.	

Institute	of	Food	and	Agricultural	Service	(IFAS).	1998.	Publication DH1805 ofthe DisasterHandbook, a

component ofthe Comprehensive Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Education Module.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/department_disaster_handbook.	Accessed	October	13,	2013.	

_________.	2005.	Florida’s GeologicalHistory: WEC189/UW208.	Department	of	Wildlife	Ecology	and	

Conservation,	University	of	Florida.	http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw208.	Accessed	October	13,	2013.		

Janus	Research,	Inc.	2005.	CRAS for SR 528 PD&E Study, from SR 520 to the Port Canaveral Terminal B

Exchange.	Technical	Report.	

________.	2013.	Cultural Resources Assessment Reportfor the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Projectfrom

Orlando to West Palm Beach. Technical	Report.	

Kent,	C.S.	and	R.	McCauley.	2006.	Review of“Environmental Assessment ofthe Batholiths Marine Seismic

Survey, Inland Waterways andNear‐Offshore, Central Coast of British Columbia.”	Center	for	Marine	

Science	and	Technology,	Curtin	University.		

Koch‐Rose,	Marguerite,	Diana	Mitsova‐Boneva,	and	Tara	Root.	2011.	Florida Water Management and

Adaptable in the Face of Climate Change.	http://floridaclimate.org/docs/water_managment.pdf.	

State	University	System	of	Florida.	Accessed	January	7,	2014.	

Lane,	E.	M.	Knapp	and	T.	Scott.	1980.	Environmental Geology Series Fort Pierce Sheet.	FGS	Map	Series	No.	

80.	

Lichtler,	W.,	W.	Anderson,	and	B.	Joyner.	1968.	Water Resources of Orange County, Florida.	Florida	

Geological	Survey	(FGS)	50:	7,8,9,10,Fig.6,	15‐22,82,83,86,87,88,90‐99,128,133.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-13 September 2014 

 

Louis	Berger	Group.	2013.	All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report.	September	

2013.	Prepared	for	Florida	East	Coast.	Report.		

Marella,	R.	1999.	Water Withdrawals, Use, Discharge, and Trendsin Florida, 1995.	

http://fl.water.usgs.gov/PDF_files/wri99_4002_marella.pdf.	Accessed	September	19,	2013.	

Martin	County,	Florida.	2012.	Code of Ordinances County of Martin, Florida.	

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11203&stateId=9&stateName=Florida.	

Accessed	March	31	2013.	

Martin	County,	Department	of	Parks	and	Recreation.	2011a.	RioNature Park.	

http://www.martin.fl.us/portal/page?_pageid=354,3437495&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p

ark_id=674.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.	

________.	2011b.	Martin County Park and Recreation.	

http://ap3server.martin.fl.us:7778/portal/page?_pageid=354,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL.	

Accessed	June	13,	2013.		

Martin	County,	Division	of	Community	Planning.	2013.	Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management

Plan.	http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=13591.	April	2013.	Accessed	August	7,	

2013.	

Martin	County	Fair	Association,	Inc.	2013.	Martin County Fair.	

http://www.martincountyfair.com/directions.html.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.			

Martin	County	Property	Appraiser.	2012.	Martin County Florida – Property Appraiser’s Office.	

http://www.mcpropertyappraiser.com/.	Accessed	February	26,	2013.	

Mercado,	Arnaldo.	2013.	Environmental	Programs	Administrator,	Orange	County	Environmental	

Protection	Division.	Personal	Communication.	March	14,	2013.	

Melbourne,	Florida.	2012.	Welcome to theHarbor City, About Melbourne, Florida.

http://www.melbourneflorida.org/info/.	Accessed	August	31,	2013.	

Metro	Orlando	Economic	Development	Commission.	2012.	Economy.	http://www.orlandoedc.com/Data‐

Center/economy.shtml.	Accessed	August	13,	2013.	

Miami	International	Airport	(MIA).	2013.	Miami‐Dade Aviation: Facts at a Glance.	http://www.miami‐

airport.com/facts.asp.	Accessed	July	2013.	

Miami	Orlando	Shuttle	Bus.	2014.	Miami Orlando Shuttle Bus.	

http://www.miamiorlandoshuttle.com/miami‐to‐orlando.html.	Accessed	March	28,	2014.	

Miller,	James	A.	1990.	Ground Water Atlas ofthe United States: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South

Carolina,HA 730‐G.	http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_g/.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

Misra,	V.,	et	al.	2011.	Climate Scenarios: A Florida‐Centric View; A White Paper on Climate Scenariosfor Florida.

http://floridaclimate.org/docs/climate_scenario.pdf.	Accessed	January	7,	2014.	

Mote	Marine	Laboratory.	2005.	Recreational Boat Traffic Surveys of Broward County, Florida.	

http://www.broward.org/Manatees/Documents/recreational_boat_survey.pdf/.	Florida	Fish	and	

Wildlife	Conservation.	Accessed	January	6,	2014.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-14 September 2014 

 

Mumme,	R.L.,	S.J.	Schoech,	G.E.	Woolfenden	and	J.W.	Fitzpatrick.	2000.	Life	and	Death	in	the	Fast	Lane:	

Demographic	Consequences	of	Road	Mortality	in	the	Florida	Scrub	Jay.	Conservation Biology.	14,	

501‐512.	

National	Bureau	of	Economic	Research	(NBER).	September	20,	2010.	Business Cycle Dating Committee,

National Bureau of Economic Research.	http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html.	Accessed	

September	21,	2013.		

National	Climate	Assessment	Development	Advisory	Committee	(NCADAC).	2013.	Draft Climate

Assessment Report. http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11‐2013‐

publicreviewdraft‐fulldraft.pdf.	January	11,	2013.	Accessed	August	9,	2013.	

National	Marine	Fisheries	Service	(NMFS).	2004.	Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine FishHabitat Conservation

Mandate for Federal Agencies: South Atlantic Region.	Technical	Report.	NOAA	NMFS	Habitat	

Conservation	Division,	Southeast	Regional	Office,	St.	Petersburg,	Florida.	

________.	2008.	Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine FishHabitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies	–	

South Atlantic Region.	National	Marine	Fisheries	Service	Habitat	Conservation	District	Southeast	

Regional	Office.	http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide_2008.pdf.	August	2008.	

Accessed	March	7,	2013.	

________.	2010.	Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine FishHabitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies‐	

South Atlantic Region.	National	Marine	Fisheries	Service	Habitat	Conservation	District	Southeast	

Regional	Office.	http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide_2010.pdf.	September	

2010.	Accessed	March	7,	2013.		

National	Oceanic	and	Atmospheric	Administration	(NOAA).	Undated.	U.S. Earthquake Intensity Database.	

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=35&d=35.	Accessed	September	14,	

2013.	

________.	2006.	Part 930 – Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs.	

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐

idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=15:3.1.2.2.13&idno=15.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

________.	2012.	Recommendationsfor SamplingHalophila johnsonii at a Project Site.

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/docs/JSG%20Survey%20Guidelines.pdf/.	Accessed	

October	10,	2013.	

________.	2013.	EFH Mapper. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html.	Accessed	

March	7,	2013.	

National	Park	Service	(NPS).	2002.	How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation Bulletin.	

http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.	Accessed	August	31,	2013.	

________.	2011.	Annotated Bibliography – Impacts ofNoise on Wildlife.	

http://www.nature.nps.gov/sound/assets/docs/Wildlife_AnnotatedBiblio_Aug2011.pdf.	

Accessed	September	29,	2013.			

National	Wild	and	Scenic	River	Systems.	1985.	Loxahatchee River, Florida.

http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/loxahatchee.php.	Accessed	August	27,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-15 September 2014 

 

________.	2010.	Wekiva River, Florida. http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/wekiva.php.	Accesses	August	27,	2013.	

Nelson,	Mark.	2013.	Manager,	Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park.	Personal	Communication.	August	5,	2012.		

Office	of	Economic	and	Demographic	Research.	2011.	Florida Population Estimatesfor Counties –

Countywide, Unincorporated, and Incorporated Totals: 1972‐2011.	

http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/population‐demographics/data/FLcopops_2011.xls.	Accessed	

September	22,	2013.		

________.	2013.	Total County Population: April 1, 1970‐2040.	http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/population‐

demographics/data/CountyPopulation.pdf.	Accessed	September	22,	2013.	

Orange	County,	Florida.	2013.	Orange County Code.	

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10182.	Accessed	October	10,	2013.	

Orange	County	Convention	Center.	2013.	Economic Impact.	

http://www.occc.net/Community/Economic.asp.	Accessed	August	13,	2013.	

Orange	County	Office	of	Economic	Development.	2013.	Key Industries: Orange County’s Economic Basis.	

http://www.ocfl.net/EconomicDevelopment/KeyIndustries.aspx.	Accessed	June	2013.		

Orange	County,	Planning	Division.	2008.	Infill Master Plan.

http://www.orangecountyfl.net/Portals/0/resource%20library/planning%20‐

%20development/Infill_Master_Plan.pdf.	Accessed	September	3,	2013.	

________.	2012.	Orange County, Florida, Comprehensive Plan 2010‐2030, Destination 2030.

http://www.orangecountyfl.net/Portals/0/resource%20library/planning%20‐

%20development/Comprehensive%20Plan%20GOPS%202012.pdf	.	June	2012.	Accessed	August	

7,	2013.	

________.	2013.	Innovation Way Economic Development Corridor.

http://www.orangecountyfl.net/PlanningDevelopment/InnovationWayEconomicDevelopmentC

orridor.aspx.	Access	September	17,	2013.	

Orlando	Business	Journal.	2013.	Orlando isNation’s Fifth ‘Booming’ Housing Market.	

http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/blog/2013/09/orlando‐is‐nations‐fifth‐booming.html.	

September	19,	2013.	Accessed	September	31,	2013.	

Orlando	International	Airport	(MCO).	Undated.	Traffic Statistics.	www.orlandoairports.net/statistics.	

Accessed	July	2013.	

________.	2010.	Recommendations, High Speed Rail Station & Maintenance Facility Locations& Related Issues.	

http://www.orlandoairports.net/poitras/HSR_presentation20100317.pdf.	Accessed	December	

31,	2013.	

________.	2012a.	Phase I Multimodal Connector at Orlando International Airport, Tiger IV Grant Application.	

http://www.orlandoairports.net/planning/tiger4/index.htm.	Accessed	May	28,	2013.		

________.	2012b.	Orlando International AirportInformation.	http://mco.airport‐viewer.com/.	Accessed	

August	13,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-16 September 2014 

 

Orlando	Orange	County	Expressway	Authority	(OOCEA).	2008.	SR 528 Multi‐Use/Multi‐Modal Corridor

Study, Concept Development and Evaluation Study Report: Final Report.

https://www.oocea.com/Portals/0/docs/Future‐Plans‐and‐Studies/Concept‐

Studies/SR%20528%20Multi‐Use%20Multi‐

Modal%20Corridor%20Study/SR528MM_ExecutiveSummaryConclusion.pdf.	July	2008.	Accessed	

September	12,	2013.	

________.	2013.	Contract of Sale and Purchase (Deseret Ranch).	

https://www.oocea.com/Portals/0/2013%20board%20meetings/July%2024/Deseret%20Ranc

h%20Agr.pdf.	Accessed	December	30,	2013.	

Orlando	Utilities	Commission	(OUC).	2013.	History of OUC.	http://www.ouc.com/about‐ouc/history‐of‐

ouc.	Accessed	March	22,	2013.	

Palm	Beach	County,	Environmental	Resources	Management.	2013.	Lake Park ScrubNatural Area.	

http://www.pbcgov.com/erm/natural/natural‐areas/lake‐park‐scrub/.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.	

Palm	Beach	County,	Florida.	1992.	Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code.	Article	14	Chapter	

B,	Wellfield	Protection	Prohibitions,	Restrictions,	and	Best	Management	Practices.	

http://www.pbcgov.com/erm/permitting/water‐resources/wellfield/pdf/affidavit‐of‐

notification‐form.pdf.	Accessed	March	2013.	

________.	2013.	Agricultural Economicsin Palm Beach County.	

http://www.pbcgov.com/coextension/agriculture/development/.	Accessed	August	13,	2013.	

Palm	Beach	County,	Planning	Division.	2013.	Palm Beach County, 1989 Comprehensive Plan.

http://www.co.palm‐beach.fl.us/pzb/planning/comprehensiveplan/Transportation.pdf.	

April	2013.	Accessed	August	7,	2013.	

Palm	Beach	Gardens,	Florida.	2008.	Municipal Services.	http://www.pbgfl.com/content/74/.	Accessed	

August	31,	2013.	

PBS&J.	2009.	Palm Beach County Vessel Traffic Study.	Florida	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation	Commission.	

Report.	

Pipeline	and	Hazardous	Materials	Safety	Administration	(PHMSA).	2007.	National Pipeline Mapping

System.	http://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/.	USDOT.	Accessed	June	31,	2013.		

Piper	Archaeology.	1990.	CRAS ofthe Proposed Magnolia Ranch Development Site.	Technical	Report.	

Popper,	A.N.	2005.	What	do	we	know	about	pile	driving	and	fish?	In	Proceedings ofthe 2005 International

Conference on Ecology and Transportation,	edited	by	Irwin,	C.L.,	Garrett,	P.	and	McDermott,	K.P.	

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

Carolina.	

Primack,	R.B.	2008.	A Primer of Conservation Biology, 4th Edition.	Sinauer	Associates,	Sunderland,	MA.	

Rahmani,	Mohammad,	Alan	W.	Hodges,	and	Rodney	L.	Clouser.	2008. Economic Contributions of

Agriculture,Natural Resources, and Related Industriesin Florida Counties, 2008.

http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/economic‐impact‐analysis/pdf/Florida%20Counties%20Main.pdf.	

Accessed	August	18,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-17 September 2014 

 

Rapoza,	Brian.	2007.	Birding Florida.	Falcon	Guides.	Guilford,	Connecticut.	292	pp.	

Recreational	Marine	Research	Center.	Undated.	Florida Online Boating Economic Impact Model.	

http://www.floridaboatingeconomics.com.	Accessed	September	5,	2013.	

RedCoach	USA.	2014.	West Palm Beach Bus Schedule.	http://www.redcoachusa.com/buses‐west‐palm‐

beach.	Accessed	March	28,	2014.	

Reijnen,	R.,	Ruud	Foppen,	Cajo	Ter	Braak	and	Johan	Thissen.	1995.	The	Effects	of	Car	Traffic	on	Breeding	

Bird	Populations	in	Woodland.	III.	Reduction	of	Density	in	Relation	to	the	Proximity	of	Main	

Roads.	Journal of Applied Ecology.	32,	187‐202.	

Robinson,	S.K.	1998.	Another	Threat	Posed	by	Forest	Fragmentation:	Reduced	Food	Supply.	The Auk.	115,	

1‐3.		

Rosenfield,	R.N.,	C.M.	Morasky,	J.	Bielefeldt,	and	W.L.	Loope.	1992.	Forest Fragmentation and Island

Biogeography: A Summary and Bibliography.	U.S.	Department	of	the	Interior.	Technical	Report.		

Schiner,	G.R.,	C.P.	Laughlin	and	D.J.	Toth.	1988.	Geohydrology of Indian River County, Florida.	

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1988/4073/report.pdf.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

Schlueb,	Mark.	2013.	Orlando Population Growth 2nd in State.	http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013‐

05‐28/news/os‐orlando‐population‐growth‐20130528_1_population‐growth‐sunshine‐state‐

cities‐report.	Orlando	Sentinel.	Accessed	September	12,	2013.		

Silver	Airways	Corp.,	2012.	First	Year	Progress	Report,	June	13,	2012.		

http://www.airlineinfo.com/ostpdf84/725.pdf.	Accessed	January	23,	2014.	

South	Atlantic	Fishery	Management	Council	(SAFMC).	1998a.	Final Essential Habitat Plan.

http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/Ecosystem%20Management/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabit

atPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm/.	Accessed	March	7,	2013.	

________.	1998b.	Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential FishHabitatin Fishery Management Plans

ofthe South Atlantic Region.

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

n/tabid/80/Default.aspx.	Accessed	March	7,	2013.

Southeast	Florida	Regional	Climate	Change	Compact.	2011.	A Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast

Florida.	http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/pdf/Sea%20Level%20Rise.pdf.	Accessed	January	

7,	2014.	

South	Florida	Regional	Transportation	Authority	(SFRTA).	2013a. Tri‐Rail: Train Schedule.	

http://www.tri‐rail.com/.	Accessed	October	14,	2013.	

________.	2013b.	South Florida Regional Transportation Authority: Transit Development Plan FY 2013‐2022

Annual Update.	

http://www.sfrta.fl.gov/docs/planning/TDP/Draft_TDP_Annual_Update_FY_2013_FULL.pdf.	

Accessed	September	13,	2013.		

South	Florida	Water	Management	District	(SFWMD).	Undated.	SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data

Catalog.	http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?.	Accessed	

September	27,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-18 September 2014 

 

________.	2008.	Land Use Land Cover 2008.	

http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?query=unq_id=2184.	Accessed	

August	7,	2013.	

________.	2012.	Water Body.	

http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?query=unq_id=1959.	Accessed	

September	27,	2013.	

South	Florida	Water	Management	District	(SFWMD)	and	Florida	Center	for	Environmental	Studies.	1999.	

Focus on the St. Lucie River.	

http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/stlucie.pdf.	

Accessed	October	14,	2013.				

Spencer,	S.M.	and	E.	Lane.	1995.	Florida Sinkhole Index	‐	Florida Geological Survey Open‐File ReportNo. 58.

St.	Johns	River	Water	Management	District	(SJRWMD).	2009.	St. Johns River Water Management District

Land Use and Cover 2009.	ftp://secure.sjrwmd.com/disk6b/lcover_luse/lcover2009/.	Accessed	

August	7,	2013.	

________.	2012.	SJRWMD Waterbodies.	http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html.	

Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

________.	2013a.	SJRWMD	‐	GIS Data Download Table.	

http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html.	Accessed	August	31,	2013.	

________.	2013b.	SJRWMD Recreational Guide.	http://www.sjrwmd.com/recreationguide/.	Accessed	June	

13,	2013.		

________.	2013c.	It’s Your Lagoon, The Indian River Lagoon: An estuary of nationalsignificance.	

http://floridaswater.com/itsyourlagoon/.	Accessed	December	30,	2013.	

St.	Lucie	County,	Florida.	2009.	St. Lucie County Florida Land Development Code.	

http://search.municode.com/html/14641/MCC_TOC.html.	Accessed	March	2013.	

________.	2013a.	Nature Preserves & Recreational Opportunities.	

http://www.stlucieco.gov/beaches/preserves.htm.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.	

________.	2013b.	Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department.	http://www.stlucieco.gov/parks/index.htm.	

Accessed	June	13,	2013.	

St.	Lucie	County,	Environmental	Resources	Department.	Undated.	The St. Lucie County Environmental

Lands Brochure.	http://www.stlucieco.gov/pdfs/WEBSITE_‐_All_Sites_Brochure.pdf.	Accessed	

June	13,	2013.	

St.	Lucie	County,	Office	of	the	Property	Appraiser.	2013.	Office ofthe Property Appraiser.

http://www.paslc.org/#home.	Accessed	February	26,	2013.	

St.	Lucie	County,	Planning	Division.	2010.	St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan.	

http://www.stlucieco.gov/planning/comp_plan.htm.	October	2010.	Accessed	August	7,	2013.	

Summers,	P.D.,	G.M.	Cunnington	and	L.	Fahrig.	2011.	Are	the	Negative	Effects	of	Roads	on	Breeding	Birds	

Caused	by	Traffic	Noise?	Journal of Applied Ecology.	48,	1527.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-19 September 2014 

 

The	Washington	Economics	Group,	Inc.	(WEG).	2014.	Economic Impacts ofthe All Aboard Intercity Passenger

Rail Project.	May	20,	2014.	Prepared	for	All	Aboard	Florida.	Report.		

The	White	House:	Office	of	the	Press	Secretary.	2009.	Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership in

Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.	

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/2009fedleader_eo_rel.pdf.	Accessed	January	7,		2014.		

Toth,	D.	Ph.D.	and	C.	Huang	Ph.D.	1998.	Investigation ofthe Groundwater Resourcesin Central Indian River

County, Florida. Special Publication SJ98‐SP19.

http://www.sjrwmd.com/technicalreports/pdfs/SP/SJ98‐SP19.pdf.	Accessed	September	27,	

2013.	

Town	of	Jupiter,	Parks	Department.	2013.	Sawfish Bay Park.	

http://apps.jupiter.fl.us/ParksRecreation/Parks/Sawfish‐Bay.cfm.	Accessed	June	13,	2013.	

Transportation	Research	Board	(TRB).	2010.	Highway Capacity Manual.	National	Academy	of	Sciences.	

Washington,	D.C.	

Transportation	Security	Administration	(TSA),	Department	of	Homeland	Security.	2004.	Security

Directives: RAILPAX‐04‐01.Department	of	Homeland	Security.

________.	2011.	49 CFR Part 1580: Rail Transportation Security.	http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR‐2011‐

title49‐vol9/pdf/CFR‐2011‐title49‐vol9‐part1580.pdf.	Accessed	September	13,	2013.	

United	States	Army	Corps	of	Engineers	(USACE).	Undated.	Formerly Used Defense Sites(FUDS).	

http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Missions/MilitaryProjects/FormerlyUsedDefenseSites(FUDS).as

px.	Accessed	April	2,	2014.	

________.	1986.	33 CFR part 329: Definition of Waters ofthe United States.	

http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/FederalRegul

ation.aspx.	Accessed	October	2,	2013.	

________.	1987.	Wetland Delineation Manual.	http://www.wetlands.com/regs/tlpge02e.htm.	Accessed	

October	10,	2013.	

________.	1998.	Department ofthe Army Permit, Permit No. 199800201 (IP‐ME).	Greater	Orlando	Aviation	

Authority.	U.S.	Army	Engineer	District,	Jacksonville.		

________.	2010.	Regional Supplementto the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf

Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0),	J.	S.	Wakeley,	R.	W.	Lichvar,	and	C.	V.	Noble,	eds.	U.S.	Army	

Engineer	Research	and	Development	Center,	Vicksburg,	MS.	

________.	2011.	Circular No. 1165‐2‐212: Sea‐Level Change Considerationsfor Civil Works Programs.

http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/library/ECs/EC11652212Nov2011.pdf.	Accessed	

January	7,	2014.	

United	States	Census	Bureau	(USCB).	2000.	Census 2000.	http://factfinder2.census.gov.	Accessed	

August		13,	2013.	

________.	2010a.	Census 2010. http://factfinder2.census.gov/.	Accessed	September	13,	2013.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-20 September 2014 

 

________.	2010b.	2006‐2010 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates: S0801, Commuting

Characteristics by Sex.	http://factfinder2.census.gov/.	Accessed	September	12,	2013.	

________.	2011.	2007‐2011 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates: Total Population.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed	August	13,	2013.

________. 2012.	Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division: Poverty.	

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.	Accessed	March	31,	2013.	

________. 2013.	State and County Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.	Accessed	August	

14,	2013.	

United	States	Coast	Guard	(USCG).	2013a.	Letter	from	Evelyn	Smart,	Environmental	Protection	Specialist	

with	the	United	States	Coast	Guard	to	Alex	Gonzalez,	Corporate	Development	Manager	with	

Florida	East	Coast	Industries.	May	1,	2013.		

________.	2013b.	Letter	from	Barry	Dragon,	Director	Bridge	Branch	with	the	United	States	Coast	Guard	to	

Mary	D.	Hassell	with	the	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation.	July	24,	2013.		

________.	2014.	Letter	from	Evelyn	Smart,	Environmental	Protection	Specialist	with	the	United	States	Coast	

Guard	to	Lisa	A.	Standley,	Chief	Environmental	Scientist	with	Vanasse,	Hangen,	Brustlin,	Inc.	

April		4,	2014.	

United	States	Department	of	Agriculture	(USDA),	Natural	Resources	Conservation	Service	(NRCS)	2012.	

Prime and Unique Farmlands.	

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1187178.pdf.	Accessed	

December	30,	2013.	

________.	2013.	Web Soil Survey.	http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.	Accessed	

December	30,	2013.	

United	States	Department	of	Transportation	(USDOT).	2012.	Transportation Statistics Annual Report	‐	

2012.	http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/tsar_2012.pdf.pdf.	Accessed	July	2,	

2014.	

________.	2013.	Domestic Airline Consumer Airfare Report. http://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation‐

policy/domestic‐airline‐fares‐consumer‐report.	August	8,	2013.	Accessed	August	6,	2013.		

United	States	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA).	1974.	Population Distribution ofthe United States as

a Function of OutdoorNoise Level, Report 550/9‐74‐009.	

http://www.hmmh.com/cmsdocuments/PopulationDistribution_US_FunctionOutdoorNoiseLevel

.pdf.	June	1974.	Accessed	September	13,	2013.	

________.	1976.	About Sound.	Washington,	D.C.:	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency,	Office	of	Noise	

Abatement	and	Control.		

________.	1997.	40 CFR part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelinesfor Specification of Disposal Sitesfor Dredged or

Fill Material. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐

idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr230_main_02.tpl.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.

________.	2008a.	Clean Air Act. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.	Accessed	August	9,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-21 September 2014 

 

________.	2008b.	Climate Leaders Greenhouse GasInventory Protocol Core Module Guidance – Optional

Emissionsfrom Commuting, Business Travel and Product Transport.

http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/resources/commute_travel_product.pdf.	

Office	of	Air	and	Radiation.	Accessed	September	13,	2013.		

________. 2008c.	TheNational EmissionsInventory.	http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html.	

Accessed	October	14,	2013.	

________.	2009.	Emission Factorsfor Locomotives – Technical Highlights.	

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf.	April	2009.	Accessed	September	13,	2013.		

________.	2011a.	Office of Water’s 2011 SSA Database.	http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp.	

Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

________.	2011b.	40 CFR part 1039: Control of Emissionsfrom New and In‐UseNonroad Compression‐Ignition

Engines.	http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐

idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr1039_main_02.tpl.	Accessed	March	21,	2013.	

________.	2012a.	Green Book of Attainment. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/.	Accessed	August	9,	

2013.		

________.	2012b.	40 CFR part 50:National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS).	

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/.	December	14,	2012.	Accessed	August	9,	2013.	

________.	2013.	National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS).	http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/.	June		11,	

2013.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

United	States	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	(USFWS).	Undated.	USGS Topographic Maps.	

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands‐Mapper.html.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.	

________.	1972.	The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/midwestbird/eaglepermits/bagepa.html.	Accessed	August	31,	

2013.	

________.	1977.	50 CFR part 17: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.	http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐

bin/text‐

idx?c=ecfr&sid=3a9ffb73ce00042c403283999da3d41b&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title50/50cfr17a_mai

n_02.tpl.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	

________.	1998.	Final ESA Section 7 ConsultationHandbook.	http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa‐

library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	

________.	2003a.	Audubon’s Crested Caracara Consultation Area Map.	

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/CrestedCaracaraConsultationArea.pdf.	July	14,	2003.	

Accessed	August	31,	2013.		

________.	2003b.	WestIndian Manatee Consultation Area Map.	

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MammalsPDFs/WestIndianManateeConsultation	Area.pdf.	

September	19,	2003.	Accessed	August	31,	2013.	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-22 September 2014 

 

________.	2003c.	Florida Scrub‐Jay Consultation Area Map.	

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/SLOPESScrubJayConsultationArea.pdf.	

October	16,	2003.	Accessed	August	31,	2013.		

________.	2003d.	Everglades Snail Kite Consultation Area Map.	

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/SnailKiteConsultationArea.pdf.	October	30,	2003.	

Accessed	August	31,	2013.	

________.	2003e.	Piping Plover Consultation Area Map.	

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/PipingPloverConsultationArea.pdf.	

September	29,	2003.	Accessed	October	14,	2013.	

________.	2003f.	Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake Consultation Area Map.	

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/ReptilesPDFs/AtlanticSaltMarshSnakeConsultationArea.pdf.	

September	29,	2013.	Accessed	October	13,	2013.	

________.	2004a.	Species Conservation Guidelines, South Florida, Red‐cockaded Woodpecker.	

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/200407SlopesCompleteRedCockadedWoodpecker.p

df.		July	12,	2004.	Accessed	August	31,	2013.	

________.	2004b.	Species Conservation Guidelines: Eastern Indigo Snake.	

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/ReptilesPDFs/EasternIndigoSnakeConservationGuidelines.pdf.	

Accessed	September	18,	2013.	

________.	2008.	Wood Stork Key for Central andNorth Peninsular Florida.	

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/Documents/20080900_JAXESO_WOST_Key.pdf.	

September	2008.	Accessed	December	16,	2013.	

________.	2010a.	FloridaNesting Colony GIS Shapefiles.	

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood‐storks.htm.	February	2010.	Accessed	

September	13,	2013.	

________.	2010b.	FloridaNesting Colony Core Foraging Areas GIS Shapefiles.	

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood‐storks.htm.	February	2010.	Accessed	

September	13,	2013.	

________.	2010c.	North	and	South	Florida	Eastern	Indigo	Snake	Key.	

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/IndigoSnakes/20130813_ltr_Update_addendum_2010_COE_Pr

ogrammatic_EIS_Key.pdf.	Accessed	December	16,	2013.	

________.	2010d.	50 CFR Parts 10 and 21, General Provisions: Migratory Birds Revised List and Permits; Final

Rules.	Federal	Register	vol.	75	No.	39,	p.	9282.	March	1,	2010.	

________.	2011.	Standard Manatee Construction Conditionsfor In‐Water Work.

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MammalsPDFs/2011%20Standard%20Manatee%20Constructi

on%20Conditions.pdf.	Accessed	September	18,	2013.	

________.	2012a.	Species Database.	http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/2012918USGSESData.html.	Accessed	

August	31,	2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-23 September 2014 

 

________.	2012b.	Florida Scrub‐Jay UmbrellaHabitat Conservation plan and Environmental Assessment.

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Scrub‐

Jays/Docs/Umbrella/20121000_ver_FSJ_Umbrella_HCP_EA.pdf.	Accessed	September	15,	2013.	

________.	2012c.	Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning

Recommendations.	http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/telecomguidance.html.	

Accessed	February	10,	2014.	

________.	2013a.	National WetlandsInventory.	http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.	Accessed	

September	27,	2013.	

________.	2013b.	Wood Stork Rookery Information.	http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood‐

storks.htm.	Accessed	September	27,	2013.		

________.	2013c.	Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.fws.gov/hobesound/.	April	19,	2013.	

Accessed	August	18,	2013.	

United	States	Geological	Society	(USGS).	Undated.	Florida: Seismic Hazard Map.	

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/florida/hazards.php.	Accessed	March	28,	2014.	

University	of	Florida	GeoPlan	Center.	2009.	Florida Parks and Recreational Facilities 2009.	Using:	

ArcGIS	10.1.	Redlands,	California:	ESRI	2012.	Gainesville,	Florida.	

Wilson,	W.	et.	al.	1987.	Hydrogeologic Factors Associated with Recent Sinkhole Developmentin the Orlando

Area, Florida.	Florida	Sinkhole	Research	Institute	Report.	87‐88‐4.	University	of	Central	Florida,	

Orlando,	Florida.	pp.	3,4,7‐17,29.	

Van	der	Ree,	R.,	J.A.	Jaeger,	E.A.	van	der	Grift	and	A.P.	Clevenger.	2011.	Effects	of	Roads	and	Traffic	on	

Wildlife	Populations	and	Landscape	Function:	Road	Ecology	is	Moving	Toward	Larger	Scales.	

Ecology and Society.	16,	48.	

Vero	Beach,	Florida.	Undated.	Welcome to the City of Vero Beach.	http://www.covb.org.	Accessed	

August	31,	2013.	

Visit	Florida.	2013a.	Research – OfficialNewsroom, VisitFlorida.com. http://www.visitflorida.com/en‐

us/media/research.html.	Accessed	August	6,	2013.	

Visit	Florida.	2013b.	Vero Beach.	http://www.visitflorida.com/en‐us/cities/vero‐beach.html	.	Accessed	

August	14,	2013.	

Visit	Orlando.	2014.	Visitor	Statistics.	Http://www.	

corporate.visitorlando.com/research_and_statistics/Orlando‐visitor‐statistics.	Accessed	

February	11	2014.		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

References 9-24 September 2014 

 

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

List of Preparers 10-1 September 2014 

 

10 List of Preparers 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Dr.	Lisa	A.	Standley	

Chief	Environmental	Scientist	

Technical	Document	Lead	

Ph.D.,	Botany,	University	of	Washington	

M.S.,	Botany,	Cornell	University	

B.S.,	Ecology	and	Systematics,	Cornell	University	

26	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

and	21	years	of	experience	in	preparing	NEPA	

documents	

Lauren	Ballou	

Environmental	Planner	

DEIS	Preparation	

M.A.,	Global	Leadership	and	Sustainable	

Development,	Hawaii	Pacific	University	

B.A.,	Biology,	Environmental	Policy,	Boston	

University	

2	years	of	experience	in	environmental	policy	and	

management	

Terry	Byrne	

Senior	Project	Manager	

Transit	and	Rail	Operations,	and	Train	Control	

39	years	of	experience	in	transit	and	rail	industry	

specific	to	train	control	systems	and	rail	operations		

Rick	Carey,	P.E.	

Northern	New	England	Director	of	Transit	&	Rail	

Rail	Engineering	

M.B.A.,	Bryant	College	

B.S.,	Engineering,	Civil,	Mechanical,	University	of	

Rhode	Island	

27	years	of	experience	in	passenger	and	freight	rail	

design	and	construction	initiatives		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

List of Preparers 10-2 September 2014 

 

Lisa	DiTaranti,	P.E.	

Northeast	Director	of	Transit	&	Rail	

Rail	Operations,	Transportation,	Ridership	

B.S.,	Civil	Engineering,	Villanova	University	

29	 years	 of	 experience	 in	 railroad	 planning	 and	

engineering	consulting	and	25	years	of	experience	in	

preparing	NEPA	documents	

Colin	Foley,	AICP	

Transportation	Planner	

Alternatives	Analysis	

M.C.P.,	Transportation	Planning,	University	of	

Pennsylvania	

B.S.,	History,	Boston	College	

8	years	of	experience	in	transportation	and	

environmental	planning	

Donny	Goris‐Kolb,	AICP,	LEED	Green	Associate	

Environmental	Planner	

Social	and	Economic	Impacts,	Environmental	

Justice	

M.U.P.,	University	at	Buffalo	

B.A.,	Sociology,	Binghamton	University	

6	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

and	preparing	NEPA	documents		

Marianne	Iarossi	

Environmental	Planner	

DEIS	Preparation	

M.R.P.,	Environmental	Planning,	University	of	

Massachusetts	

B.S.,	Environmental	Science,	Geography	and	

Regional	Planning,	Westfield	State	University	

2	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

and	preparing	NEPA	documents	

John	Jennings,	ASLA	

Principal	

Visual	and	Aesthetic	Impacts	

B.A.,	Landscape	Architecture,	University	of	Oregon	

42	years	of	experience	in	design	consulting	of	public	

open	space	and	infrastructure	projects	

Mike	McArdle	

Director,	Transit	&	Rail	

Rail	Operations	and	Engineering	

B.S.,	Civil	Engineering,	University	of	Lowell	

26	years	of	experience	in	transit	and	rail	

infrastructure	projects		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

List of Preparers 10-3 September 2014 

 

Kate	McEneaney	

Permitting	Specialist	

Section	4(f),	DEIS	Preparation	

M.A.,	 Energy	 and	 Environmental	 Analysis,	 Boston	

University		

B.A.,	Environmental	Policy,	Boston	University	

12	years	of	experience	in	permitting	efforts	for	

linear	projects	

Paul	McKinlay,	PG,	LSP	

Director,	Oil	and	Hazardous	Materials	Services	

Hazardous	Materials	and	Solid	Waste	

M.A.,	Geology,	Boston	University	

B.A.,	Geology,	Boston	University	

Professional	Geologist,	New	Hampshire	and	

Licensed	Site	Professional	in	Massachusetts	

17	years	of	experience	in	Oil	and	Hazardous	

Materials		

Sean	Murray	

Environmental	Scientist	

Wetlands,	Uplands,	Wildlife,	Threatened	and	

Endangered	Species	

B.A.,	Biology	and	Environmental	Science,	University	

of	Virginia	

10	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

and	3	years	of	experience	in	biological	research		

Curtis	Ostrodka,	AICP,	LEED	AP	

Senior	Project	Manager,	Planning	

Social	and	Economic	Impacts,	Land	Use	

M.U.P,	University	of	Virginia	

B.S.,	Natural	Resources	and	Environmental	Sciences,	

University	of	Illinois	

10	years	of	experience	in	environmental	and	land	

use	planning	consulting	

Heidi	Richards	

Project	Manager/Associate	

Air	Quality		

B.S.,	Civil	Engineering,	University	of	Vermont	

22	years	of	experience	in	transportation	planning	

consulting	and	15	years	of	experience	in	preparing	

information	for	NEPA	documents			
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

List of Preparers 10-4 September 2014 

 

Christopher	Rife	

Senior	Project	Manager	

Lead	Document	Author	

M.S.,	Environmental	Policy	and	Management,	

University	of	Denver	

B.A.,	Philosophy,	Humboldt	State	University	

21	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

and	16	years	of	experience	in	preparing	NEPA	

documents	

Clayton	Robertson	

Principal	Environmental	Scientist	

Biological	Resources	and	Natural	Ecological	

Systems;	Wetlands	

B.S.,	Natural	Sciences,	Zoology,	University	of	South	

Florida	

38	years	of	experience	in	regulatory	and	

environmental	consulting	including	ecological	

assessments,	regulatory	permitting	and	biological	

resource	impact	analyses		

Gary	Serviss,	LEED	AP	

Principal	Scientist	

Farmlands	Soils	and	Water		

M.S.,	Biological	Sciences,	Florida	Institute	of	

Technology	

B.S.,	Marine	Biology,	Florida	Institute	of	Technology	

31	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

and	9	years	of	experience	in	preparing	NEPA	

documents		

Tom	Wholley	

Director,	Air	Quality	and	Noise	Services	

Air	Quality		

B.S.,	Civil	Engineering,	University	of	Massachusetts	

42	years	of	professional	experience	in	air	quality	

and	noise	analyses	

Autumn	Young	Ward	

Airport	Planner	

Lead	Technical	Reviewer	

M.S.,	Aeronautics,	Embry	Riddle	Aeronautical	

University	

B.S.,	Aviation	Business	Administration,	Embry	

Riddle	Aeronautical	University	

11	years	of	experience	in	aviation	with	9	years	of	

experience	in	preparing	NEPA	documents	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

List of Preparers 10-5 September 2014 

 

Paul	Yeargain,	P.E.,	CFM	

Director	of	Water	Resources	

Water,	Floodplain	Impacts	

M.S.,	Civil	Engineering,	University	of	Central	Florida	

B.S.,	Civil	Engineering,	University	of	Maryland	

22	years	of	experience	in	stormwater	management,	

floodplain	management,	and	permitting	

HMMH

Jason	Ross,	P.E.	

Vice	President	

Noise	and	Vibration		

M.E.,	Acoustics,	Pennsylvania	State	University	

B.S.,	Mechanical	Engineering,	University	of	Colorado,	

Boulder	

15	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

and	rail	and	transit	noise	and	vibration	

South Arc

Martin	Dickinson,	RPA	

President	

Cultural	Resources	

M.A.,	Anthropology	(Archaeology),	University	of	

Florida	

B.A.,	Anthropology,	University	of	South	Florida	

33	years	of	experience	in	cultural	resource	

management	and	environmental	consulting	and	

preparation	of	EA/EIS/NEPA	documentation	

Lucy	Wayne,	Ph.D.,	RPA	

Vice	President	

Cultural	Resources	

Ph.D.,	Architecture	(Preservation	Planning),	

University	of	Florida	

M.A.,	Anthropology	(Archaeology),	University	of	

Florida	

B.A.,	Art	History,	Mary	Washington	College	

31	years	of	experience	in	cultural	resource	

management	consulting	and	preparation	of	

EA/EIS/NEPA	documentation	

	 	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

List of Preparers 10-6 September 2014 

 

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Distribution List 11-1 September 2014 

 

11 Distribution List 

This	DEIS	is	being	distributed	to	Federal,	state	and	municipal	agencies	and	to	the	interested	parties	listed	

below.	 This	 list	 includes	 those	 entities	 that	 the	 Federal	 Railroad	 Administration’s	 Procedures for

Considering Environmental Impacts	 require	 as	 part	 of	 the	 review	 of	 the	 document,	 including	

representatives	of	government	agencies	and	community	groups	concerned	with	the	Proposed	Project.	

Copies	 of	 this	 DEIS	 are	 also	 available	 at	 the	 libraries	 listed	 below	 and	 through	 the	 FRA	 website	

(https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0672).	For	more	information	regarding	this	document	or	for	additional	

copies	of	this	report	please	contact:	

John	Winkle	

FRA	Environmental	Specialist	

Office	of	Railroad	Policy	and	Development	

1200	New	Jersey	Ave.	SE	

Washington,	D.C.	20590	

(202)	493‐6067	

john.winkle@dot.gov	

Federal Elected Officials 

(Receives	an	executive	summary	of	the	DEIS	and	a	CD	of	the	full	DEIS)	

 Senator	Bill	Nelson	

 Senator	Marco	Rubio	

 Representative	Bill	Posey	(District	8)	

 Representative	Alan	Grayson	(District	9)	

 Representative	Daniel	Webster	(District	10)		

 Representative	Patrick	Murphy	(District	18)	

 Representative	Alcee	Hasting	(District	20)	

 Representative	Theodore	Deutch	(District	21)	

 Representative	Lois	Frankel	(District	22)	

 Representative	Debbie	Wasserman	Schultz	(District	23)	

 Representative	Frederica	Wilson	(District	24)	

Federal Agencies 

(Receives	an	executive	summary	of	the	DEIS	and	a	CD	of	the	full	DEIS)	

 Federal	Aviation	Administration	

 Federal	Highway	Administration

 National	Oceanic	and	Atmospheric	Administration	‐	National	Marine	Fisheries	Service

 National	Park	Service

 United	States	Army	Corps	of	Engineers
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Distribution List 11-2 September 2014 

 

 United	States	Coast	Guard

 United	States	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(Washington	D.C.	and	Regional)

 United	States	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	(North	Florida	Ecological	Services	Office	and	South	Florida	

Ecological	Services	Office

State Elected Officials 

(Receives	an	executive	summary	of	the	DEIS	and	a	CD	of	the	full	DEIS)	

 Governor	Rick	Scott	

 Representative	Linda	Stewart		(District	47)

 Representative	Victor	M.	Torres,	Jr.		(District	48)		

 Representative	Tom	Goodson		(District	50)	

 Representative	Steve	Crisafulli		(District	51)	

 Representative	Ritch	Workman		(District	52)	

 Representative	John	Tobia		(District	53)	

 Representative	Debbie	Mayfield		(District	54)	

 Representative	MaryLynn	Magar		(District	82)	

 Representative	Gayle	Harrell		(District	83)	

 Representative	Larry	Lee,	Jr.		(District	84)	

 Representative	Pat	Rooney,	Jr.		(District	85)	

 Representative	Mark	Pafford	(District	86)	

 Representative	Dave	Kerner		(District	87)	

 Representative	Bobby	Powell		(District	88)	

 Representative	Bill	Hager		(District	89)	

 Representative	Gwyndolen	Clarke‐Reed		(District	92)	

 Representative	George	Moraitis			(District	93)	

 Representative	Perry	E.	Thurston,	Jr.		(District	94)	

 Representative	Elaine	J.	Schwartz		(District	99)	

 Representative	Joseph	Gibbons		(District	100)	

 Representative	Shevrin	D.	Jones		(District	101)	

 Representative	Barbara	Watson		(District	107)	

 Representative	Daphne	D.	Campbell		(District	108)	

 Representative	Cynthia	A.	Stafford		(District	109)	

 Representative	David	Richardson		(District	113)	

 Senator	Andy	Gardiner		(District	13)	

 Senator	Darren	Soto		(District	14)	

 Senator	Thad	Altman		(District	16)	

 Senator	Joseph	Abruzzo		(District	25)	

 Senator	Jeff	Clemens		(District	27)	

 Senator	Jeremy	Ring		(District	29)		
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Distribution List 11-3 September 2014 

 

 Senator	Christopher	Smith		(District	31)		

 Senator	Joe	Negron		(District	32)	

 Senator	Eleanor	Sobel		(District	33)	

 Senator	Maria	Sachs		(District	34)	

 Senator	Gwen	Margolis		(District	35)	

 Senator	Oscar	Braynon	II		(District	36)	

 Senator	Dwight	Bullard		(District	39)	

 Senator	Miguel	Diaz	de	la	Portilla		(District	40)		

State Agencies 

(Receives	an	executive	summary	of	the	DEIS	and	a	CD	of	the	full	DEIS)	

 Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	

 Florida	Department	of	Transportation	

 Florida	Division	of	Historical	Resources/State	Historic	Preservation	Officer	

 Florida	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation	Commission	

 State	Environmental	Management	Office	

County Elected Officials and Departments 

(Receives	an	executive	summary	of	the	DEIS	and	a	CD	of	the	full	DEIS)	

 County	Commissioners	and	County	Managers:	

o Brevard	

o Broward	

o Indian	River	

o Martin		

o Miami‐Dade		

o Orange	

o Osceola	

o Palm	Beach		

o St.	Lucie	County	

Local/Regional Agencies and Organizations 

(Receives	an	executive	summary	of	the	DEIS	and	a	CD	of	the	full	DEIS)	

 East	Central	Florida	Regional	Planning	Council	

 Greater	Orlando	Aviation	Authority	

 Martin	Metropolitan	Planning	Organization	

 Miami‐Dade	Metropolitan	Planning	Organization	

 MetroPlan	Orlando	

 Orange	County	Environmental	Protection	

 Orlando‐Orange	County	Expressway	Authority	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Distribution List 11-4 September 2014 

 

 Palm	Beach	Metropolitan	Planning	Organization	

 South	Florida	Water	Management	District	

 South	Florida	Regional	Planning	Council	

 Space	Coast	Transportation	Planning	Organization	

 St.	Johns	River	Water	Management	District	

 St.	Lucie	Transportation	Planning	Organization	

 Treasure	Coast	Regional	Planning	Council	

Municipalities 

(Receives	an	executive	summary	of	the	DEIS	and	a	CD	of	the	full	DEIS)	

 Aventura	

 Boca	Raton	

 Cocoa	

 Dania	Beach	

 Edgewood	

 Fort	Lauderdale		

 Fort	Pierce		

 Jupiter	

 Lake	Park	

 Lake	Worth	

 Melbourne	

 Miami	Gardens	

 North	Miami	Beach	

 Orlando	

 Palm	Bay	

 Palm	Beach	Gardens	

 Pompano	Beach	

 Port	St.	Lucie	

 Riviera	Beach	

 Sebastian	

 Stuart		

 St.	Lucie	

 El	Portal	

 Vero	Beach	

 West	Palm	Beach	

Libraries 

(Receives	the	full	DEIS	and	a	CD	of	the	full	DEIS)	
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Distribution List 11-5 September 2014 

 

 Cocoa	

 Delray	Beach	

 Fort	Lauderdale	

 Fort	Pierce	

 Jupiter	

 Melbourne	

 Miami	

 Orlando	

 Palm	Bay	

 Port	St.	Lucie	

 Sebastian	

 Stuart	

 West	Palm	Beach	

Native American Sovereign Nations 

(Receives	an	executive	summary	of	the	DEIS	and	a	CD	of	the	full	DEIS)	

 Miccosukee	Tribe	of	Florida	

 Muscogee	Creek	Nation	

 Poarch	Band	of	Creek	Indians	

 Seminole	Nation	of	Oklahoma	

 Seminole	Tribe	of	Florida	

Other Interested Parties 

(Receives	an	executive	summary	of	the	DEIS	and	a	CD	of	the	full	DEIS)	

 1000	Friends	of	Florida	(Charles	Pattison,	President)	

 Council	of	Fort	Lauderdale	Civic	Association	(Marilyn	Mammano,	President)	

 Eagle’s	Nest	Property	Owners	Association	

 Farmland	Reserve	(David	Wright)	

 Gulfstream	Sailing	Club	(Luis	Oliveira)	

 Hopping	Green	&	Sams,	P.A.	(Frank	Matthews)	

 Jonathan	Dickinson	State	Park	(Mark	Nelson,	Manager)	

 Jupiter	Inlet	District	(Mike	Grella)	

 Marine	Industries	Association	of	South	Florida	

 The	Palms	at	Boca	Teeca	(Robert	Trainor,	Vice	President)	

 Rails‐to‐Trails	Conservancy	

 Sierra	Club	(John	Puhek)	

 Tosohatchee	State	Preserve		

An	additional	120	persons	were	notified	by	email	that	the	DEIS	was	available	on	the	FRA’s	website.	

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Distribution List 11-6 September 2014 

 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Index 12-1 September 2014 

 

12 Index

Agency Coordination ............................................. 8‐3

Air Quality........................ S‐10, 4‐30, 5‐33, 5‐165, 7‐5

All Aboard Florida ........................................... S‐1, 1‐1

Alternative A (defined).................................... S‐6, 3‐27

Alternative C (defined) ................................. S‐6, 3‐42

Alternative E (defined).................................. S‐7, 3‐42

Alternatives..................................................... S‐5, 3‐1

Alternatives Screening, Level 1.............................. 3‐4

Alternatives Screening, Level 2............................ 3‐12

Alternatives Screening, Level 3............................ 3‐17

Aquatic Resources............................. S‐13, 5‐63, 5‐81

Aquifer Protection ...................................... 4‐63, 5‐79

Archaeological Resources....................... 4‐120, 5‐137

At‐Grade crossings............................... 3‐12, 4‐15, 5‐6

Aviation System................................................... 4‐10

Bald Eagles....................................... 4‐91, 4‐97, 5‐113

Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped........... 4‐119

Bridge replacement ..............3‐37, 5‐80, 5‐106, 5‐139

Bridges (proposed action) ........................................... 

.....................................3‐25, 3‐27, 3‐39, 3‐42, 4‐16

Climate Change........................................... S‐12, 5‐71

Coastal Zone ...................................... S‐12, 4‐51, 5‐62

Coastal Zone Consistency Determination............ 5‐64

Communities and Demographics... S‐16, 4‐103, 5‐121

Construction noise............................................... 5‐45

Construction vibration......................................... 5‐54

Contaminated sites............................ S‐12, 4‐49, 5‐58

Crane Creek ................................................ 4‐25, 4‐57

CSX Route ..................................................... 3‐7, 3‐10

Cultural Resources................ S‐18, 4‐120, 5‐137, 7‐13

Cumulative Impacts.................................. S‐20, 5‐158

Defense Sites.......................................... 4‐118, 5‐136

DOT Act Section 4(f)  ............... S‐18, 4‐139, 5‐143, 6‐1

Drainage ........................3‐31, 3‐37, 4‐66, 4‐127, 5‐77  

East‐West Corridor (defined)........................ 1‐4, 3‐29

Eau Gallie River.........................3‐39, 4‐25, 5‐137, 6‐3

Economic Analysis .................. S‐17, 4‐29, 4‐111, 5‐17

Economic Impacts to Maritime Industry ............. 4‐18

Employment ...................................................... 5‐128

Energy Use................................................ S‐20, 5‐156

Environmental Justice Communities...........................

................................................... S‐16, 4‐106, 5‐123

ESA Section 7 ............................................ 5‐110, 7‐10

Essential Fish Habitat................................ 4‐78, 5‐106

FAA........................................................................  1‐6

Farmland Soils ................................... S‐11, 4‐45, 5‐55

FECR Railway Historic District  ....... S‐18, 4‐130, 5‐139

Finding of No Significant Impact...................................... 

   ..........................................S‐1, 1‐3, Appendix 1.1‐A

Floodplains ........................................ S‐14, 4‐72, 5‐93

Florida East Coast Industries ................................. 1‐3

Florida East Coast Railroad ....................... S‐1, 1‐1, 3‐9

Florida’s Turnpike Route........................................ 3‐7

Fort Lauderdale Station................................... 1‐3, 3‐40

Freight Operations... 3‐26, 4‐15, 4‐38, 5‐8, 5‐39, 5‐43

Geological Conditions............................. 4‐119, 5‐136

GOAA ..................................................... 1‐3, 3‐4, 3‐13

Greenhouse gas emissions ......................... 5‐35, 5‐73

Groundwater .............................. S‐11, 4‐47, 5‐58, 7‐8

Hazardous Materials................... S‐11, 4‐47, 5‐58, 7‐8

Highway System............................................ 2‐5, 4‐11

Hillsboro Canal................................... 3‐40, 4‐26, 5‐15

Historic Resources  ..S‐18, 4‐121, 4‐126, 4‐129, 5‐140

I‐95 Route .............................................................. 3‐9

Inter‐City Motorbus Service ....................... 4‐10, 5‐10

Intercity Passenger Rail ............  1‐1, 2‐1, 3‐1, 5‐9, 6‐1

Invasive species ............................. 4‐83, 5‐101, 5‐104

Jonathan Dickinson State Park  ....................................

............................................ S‐19, 4‐85, 5‐147, 7‐15

Lakes.................................................................... 4‐54

Land acquisition........................3‐5, 3‐11, 4‐65, 5‐129

Land Use .................................................. S‐8, 4‐1, 5‐1

Legislative authority .............................................. 1‐5

Local Transit......................................... 2‐6, 4‐10, 5‐10

Loxahatchee River ....................................................... 

............................3‐39, 4‐22, 5‐18, 5‐22, 5‐29, 5‐31

Manatees.................................................. 5‐119, 7‐11

MCO Intermodal Facility............................. 3‐4, 5‐161

MCO Segment............................................... 1‐4, 3‐29

Miami Station...................................... 3‐7, 4‐15, 4‐139

Migratory Bird Habitat.............................. 4‐90, 5‐110

Mitigation Measures ............................................. 7‐1

Natural Upland Habitats.................... S‐14, 4‐79, 5‐97

Navigation..................................................... S‐9, 4‐16

Navigation impacts.............................................. 5‐15

Navigation Mitigation............................................ 7‐5

New River ................................... 4‐23, 5‐19, 5‐24, 7‐6

NHPA Section 106.......................... 4‐121, 5‐137, 5‐141

No‐Action Alternative..................... S‐5, 3‐26, 5‐1, 6‐6  

Noise........................................................... S‐10, 4‐35

Noise Barriers........................................................ 7‐5

Noise impacts ...................................................... 5‐39

North‐South Corridor (defined).................... 1‐4, 3‐33

Notice of Intent ........................... S‐4, Appendix 8.1‐A

OOCEA .................................3‐2, 3‐17, 3‐42, 4‐11, 5‐1
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Index 12-2 September 2014 

 

Operations........................................................... 3‐44

Outstanding Florida Waters........................ 4‐55, 5‐76

Parks.............................................. S‐18, 4‐139, 5‐143

Permits and approvals........................................... 1‐6

Phase I .......................................................... 1‐1, 3‐25

Phase II ......................................................... 1‐3, 3‐27

Pinecastle Jeep Range.................... 4‐51, 4‐118, 5‐136

Plants........................................................... 4‐78, 4‐92

Population, Employment, and Tourism Growth.... 2‐7

Positive Train Control System................ 3‐5, 3‐41, 6‐2

Preserves .................................................. 4‐85, 5‐106

Proposed Action ....................1‐4, 3‐1, 4‐54, 5‐1, 5‐34

Public Health and Safety Impacts.. S‐17, 4‐114, 5‐130

Public Involvement................................................ 8‐1

Public Safety ........................................... 4‐114, 5‐130

Purpose and Need ................................................. 2‐1

Quiet Zones.................................................... 5‐46, 7‐6

Rail legislation........................................................ 2‐9

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing

Program............................................................... S‐1, 1‐1

Recreation Resources............................. 4‐140, 5‐143

Reservoirs............................................................ 4‐67

Ridership..................................2‐5, 3‐5, 3‐45, 4‐4, 5‐8

Roadway Network ............................................... 4‐11

Scoping .................................................................. 8‐1

Section 106 Consultation........................ 4‐124, 5‐137

Section 4(f)........................... See DOT Act Section 4(f)

Security................................................... 4‐117, 5‐135

Seismic Zones .................................................... 4‐121

Sole Source Aquifer .................................... 4‐63, 5‐76

St. Johns River.......3‐15, 4‐20, 4‐145, 5‐20, 5‐151, 6‐6

St. Lucie River .......3‐37, 4‐20, 4‐146, 5‐18, 5‐20, 5‐30  

St. Sebastian River ....................3‐39, 4‐25, 5‐137, 6‐5

Surface Waters ............................................. 4‐57, 7‐9

Threatened and Endangered Species..........................

..................................... S‐15, 3‐6, 4‐91, 5‐110, 7‐11

Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area.................... 

.............................................. 4‐85, 5‐145, 6‐6, 7‐14

Traffic impacts..................................................... 5‐10

Tribal Coordination................................................ 8‐6

Turkey Creek........................................................ 4‐25

USACE ...................1‐5, 4‐65, 5‐82, 5‐83, 5‐110, 5‐120

USCG............................................. 1‐5, 1‐6, 4‐16, 5‐27

Utilities........................................... S‐20, 4‐152, 5‐154

Vehicle Maintenance Facility (Orlando) .............. 3‐40

Vehicle Maintenance Facility (West Palm Beach) .......

......................................................................... 3‐40

Vessel Survey....................................................... 4‐18

Vibration............................................ S‐10, 4‐35, 5‐39

Visual and Scenic Resources.......... S‐19, 4‐145, 5‐121

Water Resources ............................... S‐13, 4‐54, 5‐75

West Palm Beach ‐ Miami Corridor .............................

.............................................. 1‐5, 3‐39, 4‐47, 5‐122

Wetland impacts, direct ...................................... 5‐81

Wetland impacts, indirect ...................................... 5‐90

Wetlands..................................................... S‐13, 4‐65

Wild and Scenic Rivers....................... S‐13, 4‐64, 5‐81

Wildlife ........................................................ 4‐78, 5‐96

Wildlife Corridors.......................................... 4‐78, 5‐96