APPENDIX A 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL 

Tampa to Orlando 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Reevaluation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Florida Department of Transportation 

In Cooperation with: 

Federal Highway Administration 

United States Army Corps of Engineers 

Hillsborough, Orange, Osceola, Polk Counties, Florida 

May, 2010 

 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 May 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This reevaluation describes modifications to the design and existing conditions and documents the 

resulting changes in environmental impacts and commitments since publication of the Florida High 

Speed Rail, Tampa to Orlando Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2005. This reevaluation has 

been prepared to assist decision-makers and the public understand how refinements to the design, 

including the switch from the gas turbine to electric technology, and changes in the existing conditions 

would compare to the impacts documented in the FEIS for the Preferred Alternative. 

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has prepared this reevaluation in cooperation with the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as the lead federal agency. The FRA is an operating 

administration within the USDOT and has oversight responsibility for the safety of railroad operations 

nationwide. Cooperating federal agencies include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). FDOT and the FRA have determined that a 

reevaluation of the FEIS published in 2005 is appropriate to satisfy the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 and obtain a Record of Decision. 

The initial section of the Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) system is proposed between downtown Tampa 

and Orlando International Airport. This system would be developed on new track, with the majority of the 

system located within the rights-of-way (ROW) of Interstate 4 (I-4) and the Beachline Expressway (S.R. 

528), formerly known as the Bee Line Expressway. Together, this reevaluation and the FEIS establish the 

specific location and major design concepts of the proposed FHSR system from Tampa to Orlando in 

Florida, a distance of approximately 88 miles. All information provided in the FEIS is incorporated herein 

by reference. The 2005 FEIS documents are available electronically on the FHSR Official Website, at: 

http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org. 

The purpose and need for the FHSR project remains valid as stated in the 2005 FEIS. The purpose of 

FHSR is to enhance intercity passenger mobility in Florida by expanding passenger transportation 

capacity and providing an alternative to highway and air travel. Increased mobility is viewed as essential 

for the sustained economic growth of the region, as well as the quality of life of the region’s residents and 

visitors. Presently, passenger mobility in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided primarily by highways, 

particularly I-4. Projected transportation demand and travel growth, as prompted by social demand and 

economic development and compared to existing and future roadway capacity, show a serious deficit in 

available capacity. In addition, increasing population, employment, and tourism rates continue to elevate 

travel demand in the study corridor. 

Extensive agency coordination and public outreach were conducted as part of this reevaluation, and are 

documented in Appendix E. To facilitate input from these groups, multiple meetings were held in the 85-

mile corridor. 

For further information contact: 

Nazih Haddad, P.E. 

Manager, Passenger Rail Development/High Speed Rail 

Florida Department of Transportation 

605 Suwannee St., MS-25 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 

Tel: (850) 414-4534 
 
 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

i May 2010

Table of Contents 

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Project NEPA Status 1

1.2. Reevaluation Approach 2

1.3. Proposed Action 3

1.4. Purpose and Need 5

2. CHANGES IN PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................... 5

2.1. Preferred Alternative, 2005 FEIS 6

2.2. Preferred Technology 6

2.3. Ridership 7

2.4. Reevaluation Design Envelope 7

2.5. Preferred Alternative Changes 7

2.5.1. Station / Maintenance Facility Areas 10

2.5.2. Alignment 11

3. CHANGES IN EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 12

3.1. Environmental Updates 12

3.2. Existing Conditions Updates 12

3.2.1. Land Use Plans 14

3.2.2. Right-of-way and Relocations 14

3.2.3. Cultural Resources (Archaeological and Historic) 14

3.2.4. Section 4(f) Resources 14

3.2.5. Air Quality 15

3.2.6. Noise 16

3.2.7. Vibration 17

3.2.8. Wetlands 17

3.2.9. Contamination 17

3.2.10. Protected Species 18

3.2.11. Utilities 18

4. EVALUATION OF CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................... 20

4.1. Relocations and Right-of-Way (ROW) Impacts 23

4.2. Section 106 - Archeological and Historical Resources 24

4.3. Recreation and Parkland 25

4.4. Section 4(f) Evaluation 25

4.5. Air Quality 26

4.6. Noise 26

4.7. Vibration 27

4.8. Wetlands 27

4.9. Contamination 28
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 ii 

4.10. Wildlife and Protected Species 28

4.11. Energy Consumption 28

5. MITIGATION AND COMMITMENTS .................................................................................. 29

6. PERMITS REQUIRED ........................................................................................................ 37

7. AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................... 38

7.1 Local Government Coordination Meetings 39

7.2 ETAT Agency Coordination Meeting 39

7.3 Public Information Meetings 39

7.1.1. Public Information Meetings Comments Received 40

8. CONCLUSION 42

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map ............................................................................................... 4

Figure 2-1 Typical Section – 44-ft., Electrified Rail Tangent, Elevated Track ........................ 8

List of Tables 

Table 1-1 Summary of Major NEPA Milestones ....................................................................... 2

Table 2-1 Changes in 2010 Tampa-Orlando Ridership and Revenue for the Preferred 

Alternative 7

Table 2-2 Summary of Changes to 2005 Preferred Alternative............................................. 9

Table 3-1 Changes in Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 13

Table 3-2 Summary of Ambient Noise Measurement Results in the New Noise-sensitive 

Areas 17

Table 3-3 Potentially Contaminated Sites ............................................................................... 18

Table 3-4 Utilities Not Identified in 2005 FEIS ........................................................................ 19

Table 4-1 Change in Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ 20

Table 5-1 Mitigation and Commitments ................................................................................. 29

Table 6-1 Summary of Permits Required ............................................................................... 37

Table 7-1 Local Government Coordination Meetings ........................................................... 39
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

iii May 2010

Appendices 

APPENDIX A: BASIS FOR FEIS REEVALUATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DRAWINGS

APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS MEMORANDA

Comprehensive Planning and Coordination

Archaeological and Historic Resources

Section 4(f)

Air Quality Evaluation

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Wetland Involvement

Drainage Evaluation

Contamination Review

Protected Species Involvement

Utilities Update

APPENDIX D: SUPPORTING MEMORANDA

Tampa Interstate Study Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement

City of Tampa Memorandum

APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

1 May 2010

1. INTRODUCTION 

This reevaluation describes modifications to the design and existing conditions and documents 

the resulting changes in environmental impacts and commitments since publication of the 

Florida High Speed Rail, Tampa to Orlando Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2005. 

This reevaluation has been prepared to assist decision-makers and the public understand how 

refinements to the design, including the switch from the gas turbine to electric technology, and 

changes in the existing conditions would compare to the impacts documented in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Preferred Alternative. Together, this 

reevaluation and the FEIS establish the specific location and major design concepts of the 

proposed FHSR system from Tampa to Orlando in Florida. 

Following its creation in 2001, the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA), with guidance 

from the lead federal agency, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), undertook a number of 

actions to implement high speed rail within the state of Florida. Based on its independent utility 

and logical termini, the FHSRA began the planning, environmental studies, and engineering 

needed to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in 2002. The DEIS was 

approved by FRA in August 2003 and the FEIS was signed and circulated by FRA in 2005. 

However, due to the project being suspended, a Record of Decision (ROD) was not issued. 

In October 2008, the High Speed Rail Corridor Development Program was authorized under 

Section 501 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). This 

began a national competition for federal funding. In February 2009, the federal economic 

stimulus bill, titled the America Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA), made $8 billion 

available for High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR). In April 2009, President Barack 

Obama’s Administration unveiled its HSIPR Vision Plan, initially targeting federally-designated 

high speed rail corridors, including Tampa-Orlando-Miami in Florida. 

Given this new prospect for federal funding, the FHSRA along with the Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) began work to determine the extent of changes in potential 

environmental impacts and commitments since the FEIS was circulated in 2005. 

FRA met with FDOT representatives on June 12, 2009 to discuss the project and the status of the 

NEPA documentation. This reevaluation of the 2005 FEIS has been developed to consider 

changes since the FEIS and is consistent with FDOT’s Project Development and Environment 

(PD&E) Manual. 

1.1. Project NEPA Status 

The FHSRA, with guidance from the FRA as the lead federal agency, engaged a number of 

actions to advance the high speed rail system, including preparation of both the DEIS and FEIS. 

The major NEPA milestones are summarized in Table 1-1 below. The project was suspended in 

2005 before a ROD was issued. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 2

Table 1-1 Summary of Major NEPA Milestones 

Milestone Date 

Notice of Intent March 2002 

Advance Notification and Scoping April 2002 

Draft EIS Signed and Circulated August 2003 

Draft EIS Notice of Availability September 5, 2003 

Public Hearings October 7-9, 2003 

FEIS Signed and Circulated July 2005 

FEIS Notice of Availability August 5, 2005 

Source: Florida High Speed Rail Tampa to Orlando FEIS Reevaluation, October, 2009 

 

Independent documentation in support of the findings of the 2005 FEIS include: 

• The Tampa Interstate Study Environmental Impact Statement, November 1996 - which 

includes ultimate improvements to I-4/I-275 that accommodate the high speed rail 

alignment 

• The Intermodal Station at Orlando International Airport Environmental Assessment, 

September 2005 – planned an intermodal station at both the OIA North Terminal and the 

future OIA South Terminal, and updated the HSR and light rail alignments through OIA 

property 

• The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority Master Plan, August 2004 - incorporating 

revisions to the North Terminal, future South Terminal, and rail alignments 

• The Tampa Bay Intermodal Center, October 2005 – multimodal station site study 

consistent with the location of the Tampa HSR station area that provided for the FHSR 

alignment. 

• The Canadian Court Intermodal Transportation Center Study, April 2007 - multimodal 

station site consistent with the proposed Orange County Convention Center station that 

accommodates the FHSR alignment 

1.2. Reevaluation Approach 

While there have been no major changes to the project location and design since the FEIS was 

published, several years have elapsed since publication of the FEIS that warrants a reevaluation 

of project status and potential environmental changes. According to FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545) and FDOT’s PD&E Manual, reevaluations 

are to be conducted under the following circumstances: 

• Approval of document and authorization of the next phase is greater than one year 

• A major change in the projects location or design has occurred 

• If more than three (3) years have lapsed since last major approval 

In May 2009, FDOT initiated a qualitative assessment of the project to determine the level of 

analysis needed to complete the NEPA/PD&E process and allow the issuance of a ROD. The 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

3 May 2010

findings of this assessment were summarized in a technical memorandum, Basis for FEIS 

Reevaluation Technical Memorandum (June 4, 2009) contained in Appendix A, presented and 

discussed with FRA in June 2009. 

The qualitative assessment indicated that minor changes in the project definition are required and 

small changes in affected environment have occurred. The FRA agreed that a reevaluation was 

an appropriate course of action to evaluate the potential changes in environmental impacts, 

mitigation and commitments since the FEIS was published in 2005. Accordingly, this 

reevaluation focuses on the following: 

• Changes in the preferred technology (see Chapter 2) 

• Design changes needed based on changes to surrounding infrastructure and right-of-way 

(See Chapter 2) 

• Changes in the affected environment that have occurred since the 2005 FEIS (See 

Chapter 3) 

• Changes in environmental impacts since the 2005 FEIS (See Chapter 4) 

• Changes in the mitigation and commitments compared to the 2005 FEIS (See Chapter 5) 

• Changes in permits needed since the 2005 FEIS (See Chapter 6) 

• Coordination with local jurisdictions, stakeholders, and environmental review agencies 

(See Chapter 7) 

• Public involvement (See Chapter 7) 

• Changes in laws, rules, and regulations since 2005 

1.3. Proposed Action 

The Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) project would be developed on new track, with the 

majority of the system located within the existing right-of-way (ROW) of Interstate 4 (I-4) and 

the Beachline Expressway (S.R. 528), formerly known as the Bee Line Expressway, a distance of 

88 miles. As shown on Figure 1-1 five (5) stations are proposed and would be located at Tampa, 

Lakeland, Walt Disney World, Orlando Convention Center and Orlando International Airport 

(OIA). 

The high speed passenger rail system proposes to operate 16 intercity round trips per day with 

additional frequent shuttle service from OIA to the tourist destinations in the Orlando area. The 

maximum travel time will be 64 minutes with stops between Tampa and Orlando. The 

maximum operating speed will be 168 mph. 

To meet the desire to complete the project in a timely manner, a Design, Build, Operate, 

Maintain, and Finance (DBOM&F) process was selected for implementing the project. During 

the previous phase, proposals were solicited and two were selected for evaluation in the FEIS 

published in 2005. No change with this approach is proposed. FDOT will conduct the DBOM&F 

solicitations and selection to advance the project. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 4

 

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

5 May 2010

Additional coordination between FRA, FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

is required in the design phase with respect to emergency and maintenance access, and specific 

systems safety and security in accordance with FRA standards through the development of a 

Safety Plan. 

1.4. Purpose and Need 

The purpose of FHSR is to enhance intercity passenger mobility in Florida by expanding 

passenger transportation capacity and providing an alternative to highway and air travel. 

Increased mobility is essential for the sustained economic growth of the region, as well as the 

quality of life of the region’s residents and visitors. Presently, passenger mobility in the TampaOrlando corridor is provided primarily by highways, particularly I-4. 

Transportation demand and travel growth, as prompted by social demand and economic 

development and compared to existing and future roadway capacity, show a serious deficit in 

available capacity. In addition, increasing population, employment, and tourism rates continue to 

elevate travel demand in the study corridor. 

Although capacity improvements to the interstate system along the corridor have either recently 

been completed or are planned for completion in the near future, they are not adequate to 

accommodate future travel demand. This need is further emphasized by high traffic volumes, 

congestion, and accident rates in the study corridor. Further, social and economic demands will 

continue to call for provision of alternative transportation choices for those individuals who 

cannot or choose not to drive, as well as those travelers looking for alternatives to congested 

highways. Therefore, the purpose and need for FHSR has not changed since the 2005 FEIS. 

2. CHANGES IN PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Since the publication of the Florida High Speed Rail Tampa to Orlando Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, July 2005 (FEIS) existing conditions in the corridor and the need to make 

minor changes to the 2005 FEIS preferred alternative horizontal and vertical alignment have 

occurred. The assessment of conceptual engineering changes was undertaken through the 

following: 

• Overlay of engineering drawings on updated 2008 aerial base 

• Review of as-built plans 

• Field verifications 

• Relevant studies 

• Coordination with FDOT Districts 7, 1 and 5; the Turnpike Enterprise; the Greater 

Orlando Aviation Authority; Hillsborough, Polk and Osceola Counties; and the cities 

along the corridor concerning existing and planned conditions in the corridor. 

Preliminary engineering plan and profile drawings supporting the discussion of changes to the 

preferred alternative are included in Appendix B. Those engineering plan and profile drawings 

that remain unchanged may be found in Appendix C – Preliminary Engineering Plans of the 

2005 FEIS and on the official Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) website at: 

http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 6

2.1. Preferred Alternative, 2005 FEIS 

The preferred alternative, as defined in the 2005 FEIS, would begin at the downtown Tampa 

station to be located between Tampa Street and Marion Street, I-275, and Fortune Street. The 

FHSR alignment would follow I-275 along the south and east right-of-way (ROW). The 

alignment would cross into the I-4 median in the area of 15th Street. The majority of the FHSR 

alignment would be within the ultimate ROW identified in the Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) for 

future interstate improvements; however some additional ROW would be required and has been 

coordinated with the City of Tampa. 

The alignment would continue east within the I-4 median through Hillsborough and Polk 

counties. One station would be located in Lakeland, where two locations are under consideration: 

Polk Parkway/I-4 Interchange and Kathleen Rd. /I-4 Interchange. The environmental impacts 

associated with both options were included in the FEIS impact analysis. 

Entering Osceola County, the grade-separated alignment remains within the I-4 median. The 

proposed Disney Station would be located north of U.S. 192. The station platform would be 

located in the median and station facility would be located west of I-4 between U.S. 192 and the 

Osceola Parkway. 

The alignment would continue into Orange County in the I-4 median until the I-4/Beachline 

Expressway (S.R. 528) interchange, where it would leave the I-4 median and run along the north 

side of S.R. 528 within existing ROW. The Orange County Convention Center multi-modal 

center site is located in the northeast quadrant of the International Drive/S.R. 528 Interchange. 

The Orange County Convention Center station would be located within the ROW of the 

interchange area. 

The alignment would continue on the north side of S.R. 528 until east of the John Young 

Parkway (S.R. 423) Interchange where it would leave S.R. 528 and run on new alignment east to 

Taft-Vineland Road. The alignment would continue along Taft-Vineland Road and enter the City 

of Orlando property near Tradeport Drive. It would then follow the Orlando Utilities 

Commission rail line as a new alignment turning north crossing the Orlando International Airport 

(OIA) South Access Road and traversing through the limits of OIA from south to north, east of 

the proposed South Terminal. 

The conceptual engineering for the preferred alternative as described in the 2005 FEIS has been 

assessed in this reevaluation and the resulting changes are presented in the following sections. 

2.2. Preferred Technology 

Two high speed rail technologies were evaluated in the 2005 FEIS: 

• Gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology 

• Electric-powered locomotive-hauled train technology 

In the 2005 FEIS gas turbine-powered technology was selected as the preferred alternative. Since 

then, the electric-powered technology has emerged as the preferred technology, on the same 

alignment, based on the current initiatives to reduce carbon emissions and dependency on foreign 

oil through continued coordination with the FHSR Authority and FDOT. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

7 May 2010

2.3. Ridership 

The ridership estimates for the preferred alternative were updated for 2009 based on the two 

independent, investment-grade models developed in 2002 and documented in the 2005 FEIS. 

The models were updated to reflect the changes in the transportation network, growth and local 

land uses that have occurred since the 2005 FEIS was completed. Captive ridership/riders 

currently taking shuttle services provided by Disney and I-Drive destinations were separated 

from choice ridership (trips that would be diverted from other modes, such as private or rented 

autos, public transit). 

The results of the updated ridership and revenue forecasts are shown in Table 2-1. Annual 

ridership is not anticipated to change significantly. Annual revenue for the system is expected to 

increase. 

Table 2-1 Changes in 2010 Tampa-Orlando Ridership 

and Revenue for the Preferred Alternative 

Market 

2010 Annual Ridership (millions) 2010 Annual Revenue ($ millions) 

2005 FEIS 

2010 

Reevaluation Change 

2005 

FEIS 

2010 

Reevaluation Change 

CHOICE MARKET 1.9 to 2.3 1.9 to 2.4 +0.0 to +0.1 32.9 to 

35.4 40.5 to 46.4 +7.6 to +11.0 

CAPTIVE 

 OIA to International Drive 

 OIA to Disney 

 Subtotal: Captive 

0.5 

2.1

0.5* 

0.6 

1.9

0.6* 

+0.1 

-0.2

+0.1* 

6.3 

26.3

6.3* 

8.0 

27.2

8.0* 

+1.7 

+0.9

+2.6* 

Total: 2.4 to 2.8 2.5 to 3.0 +0.1 to +0.2 39.3 to 

41.8 48.5 to 54.5 +10.2 to +13.6 

*The 2005 FEIS assumed that captive ridership associated with the OIA-Disney market would not be included, as Disney’s participation in the preferred 

alignment was still under negotiation. 

2.4. Reevaluation Design Envelope 

The design envelope for assessing the conceptual engineering and potential project impacts are 

based upon the typical section for the project, as shown in Figure 2-1.The overall dimension is 

assumed to be 44-feet wide by 19.5-feet high (minimum). 

2.5. Preferred Alternative Changes 

Overall the preferred alternative remains substantially unchanged. Investigation of current 

conditions and planned projects has resulted in some minor adjustments to the horizontal and 

vertical alignment, reflected in the 2009 Revised Preferred Alternative (RPA). Those areas where 

changes to the 2005 preferred alternative would occur are summarized in Table 2-2 and 

discussed below. Supporting engineering plans and profiles are provided in Appendix B. Areas 

where changes have occurred are: 

• Station Areas: Tampa – Downtown, Walt Disney World/Celebration; Orange County 

Convention Center; Orlando International Airport 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 8

• I-4/I-275 Interchange Ramp D adjacent to Perry Harvey Senior Park 

• I-4/I-275 Proposed Flyover Ramp widening adjacent to Ybor City National Historic 

Landmark District 

• Transition to I-4 Median and Crosstown Connector 

• Columbus Avenue Relocation 

• Emergency Median Crossovers 

• Tradeport Drive Area 

• Orlando International Airport 

Figure 2-1 Typical Section – 44-ft., Electrified Rail Tangent, Elevated Track 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

9 May 2010

Table 2-2 Summary of Changes to 2005 Preferred Alternative 

Project Component Engineering 

Sheet No. Change 

TECHNOLOGY n/a Change in preferred technology from gas turbine to 

electric. 

STATIONS 

Tampa – Downtown 40R, 201R Station area expanded to include property purchased by 

FDOT for intermodal use. 

Lakeland 

 

No change 

Walt Disney World/Celebration 165R, 166R Station area expanded 

Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) 230R, 231R Station area expanded to property line 

Orlando - Orlando International Airport 200R, 200AR Changed to include both future South Terminal and North 

Terminal, in accordance with OIA Master Plan 

ALIGNMENT 

I-4/I-275 Interchange at Perry Harvey Sr. Park 201R Minor change in horizontal alignment to accommodate 

newly constructed interchange Ramp D and minimize use 

of parkland 

I-275 at future widening SB Flyover to I-4 EB 

Ramp 

202R Minor change, which can be accommodated in Ultimate 

TIS ROW and/or existing ROW 

Transition to I-4 Median and Crosstown 

Connector 

203R, 204R No major change - FHSR transition to median shifted 

slightly and FHSR is accommodated in Crosstown 

Connector design 

Columbus Avenue Relocation 207R, 334R, Minor change in HSR bridge location 

Emergency Median Crossovers 

 

209R, 334R, 335R Change in HSR profile can be accommodated. Other 

crossovers to be coordinated during final design. 

Polk Parkway Bridges No change 

SR 559 No change 

New Tradition Blvd. Overpass No change 

New SR 429/I-4 Interchange No change 

Tradeport Drive 241R through 246R Minor changes to horizontal alignment 

Orlando International Airport 197R through 200BR 

328R through 330AR 

Changes to reflect OIA Master Plan and extend HSR 

Station to North Terminal Intermodal Center 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY 

Maintenance Facility Sites (2 options) No change 

Source: Parsons September 2009 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 10

2.5.1. Station / Maintenance Facility Areas 

The 2005 FEIS evaluated 20-acre study areas around each of the proposed station locations. As 

each site was identified, the station area was finalized to take into account property lines and 

existing features. The following modifications to the station study areas were assessed in this 

reevaluation. 

• Tampa – Downtown Station - The Tampa station area was expanded to include the 3.2-

acre former jail site which was purchased by FDOT for use as an intermodal center. The 

building is currently being demolished. See plan sheets 40R and 41R. 

• Polk County (Lakeland) Station – The 2005 FEIS and the 2009 FEIS Reevaluation 

includes two sites for environmental analysis: west of the S.R. 570/ Polk Parkway and at 

Kathleen Road – only one is to be selected for continued development. Included in the 

2009 FEIS Reevaluation is a request by the City of Lakeland, Polk County and the 

University of South Florida Polytechnic for continued coordination into the design phase 

to verify the optimal location of a Polk County Station site to best serve Lakeland and the 

surrounding communities (see Appendix E). FDOT is committed to continued 

coordination with the county, cities and local stakeholders in the continued project 

development phases. Should a station site other than the sites located at west SR 570 or 

Kathleen Road be advanced, additional environmental analysis will be required. 

• Walt Disney World Station - The Disney station area was expanded to the west to 

include a 5.6-acre area of open land in order to provide a total 20-acre station area. The 

expansion was the result of the construction of the Osceola Parkway Interchange and 

ramps within the original 20-acre area identified in the 2005 FEIS. See plan sheets 163R 

and 164R. 

• Orange County Convention Center Station – The Orange County Convention Center 

station area was expanded to the east to the parcel property line, an additional 2.0-acre 

area. See plan sheets 230R and 231R. 

• Orlando International Airport (OIA) – In conformance with the OIA Master Plan, two 

station locations are considered under the preferred alternative: the future South Terminal 

Intermodal Center and the North Terminal Intermodal Center. See plan sheets 200R and 

200BR respectively. The North and South Terminal Intermodal Centers are included in 

the Airport Master Plan as approved through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

The North and South Terminal Intermodal Centers received Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) NEPA clearance under the OIA Intermodal Station Environmental 

Assessment, September 2005. 

• Maintenance Facility – The preferred alternative identified a preference for two 

alternative sites for the FHSR maintenance facility site: one site located directly south of 

OIA (Site 3) and a site southeast of OIA, north of Boggy Creek Road (Site 2). These two 

sites were included in the 2005 FEIS for the gas turbine train, the then-preferred 

technology alternative. The 2005 FEIS also included two sites for the electric powered 

train: Site 3 and a site located southeast of OIA and south of Boggy Creek Road (Site 1). 

With continued commercial development south of Boggy Creek Road and the increase of 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

11 May 2010

relocations, Site 1 is removed from consideration, with Sites 2 and 3 remaining as 

alternative sites for analysis in this reevaluation. 

2.5.2. Alignment 

I-4/I-275 Interchange Ramp D adjacent to Perry Harvey, Sr. Park 

The FHSR alignment at Perry Harvey, Sr. Park, was shifted eastward to lie concentric with the 

new northbound I-275 ramp D that has been constructed since the 2005 FEIS. In the vicinity of 

the park the centerline has shifted up to 49-feet closer for a short distance. The track centerline is 

22-feet from the outside edge of the highway structure in order to minimize the use of public 

parkland. See plan 41R. 

I-4/I-275 Southbound I-275 Ramp to Eastbound I-4 and Proposed Ramp widening 

at Nebraska Avenue 

The FHSR alignment was shifted easterly to allow for the required 22-foot clearance from the 

edge of I-275. The design of the spiral curve was shortened to provide clearance of the building 

at 2104 Nebraska Avenue. Continuing along this curve, the alignment was also shifted southerly 

to accommodate the future widening of the southbound I-275 to eastbound I-4 flyover ramp. The 

FHSR project would continue to remain within the limits of the Ultimate ROW limits approved 

in the Tampa Interstate Study through this area. See plan 42R. 

Transition to Median and Crosstown Connector 

The FHSR alignment between 14th Street and 22nd Street was adjusted for compatibility with the 

modified I-4 interchange configuration. The revised alignment would cross the eastbound lanes 

further to the east at an improved crossing angle that will facilitate bridge design and 

construction. The FHSR alignment is accommodated in the Crosstown Connector design. See 

plan sheets 43R and 44R. 

Columbus Avenue Relocation 

The FHSR Columbus Avenue Bridge would be moved to the crossing with relocated Columbus 

Avenue. See plan 47R and profile 255R. 

Emergency Median Crossovers 

The FHSR alignment would need to accommodate emergency median crossover locations on I-4 

at several locations. The FHSR alignment would bridge the crossover between 50th Street and 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. See plan 49R and profile sheets 255R and 256R. The crossover 

at I-75 has not been accommodated and will be coordinated with the I-75 PD&E and FHSR Final 

Design. The crossover west of U.S. 27 was provided for in the 2005 FEIS and is not changed 

with this reevaluation. The accommodation of the crossover located near World Drive will be 

addressed during final design in coordination with FDOT District 5. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 12

Tradeport Drive Area 

The FHSR horizontal alignment was adjusted along the Tradeport Drive area to avoid impacts to 

buildings on adjacent properties that were constructed since 2005. See plans 189R through 194R. 

Orlando International Airport 

Since the 2005 FEIS, the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) has updated its Master 

Plan for the Orlando International Airport (OIA) and received a FTA Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) in December 2005 for the Intermodal Station at Orlando International Airport 

Environmental Assessment, September 2005. The Master Plan provides for a future South 

Terminal Intermodal Center and a North Terminal Intermodal Center. The FHSR alignment has 

been extended through the OIA property to the North Terminal on the horizontal and vertical 

alignment as coordinated and provided by GOAA. See plans 199R through 202BR and profiles 

331AR through 331DAR. 

3. CHANGES IN EXISTING CONDITIONS 

Since the publication of the Florida High Speed Rail Tampa to Orlando Final Environmental 

Impact Statement in 2005, changes to existing conditions in the corridor have occurred that have 

been assessed in this reevaluation. A two step process was used in order to focus the detailed 

updates on those environmental areas with potential for changed conditions and resulting 

impacts. 

• A qualitative review of the complete list of environmental areas was made to identify a 

list of project specific updates needed 

• Updates of existing conditions were completed to identify the extent of changes that have 

occurred. 

3.1. Environmental Updates 

The qualitative review was conducted through field reviews, review of engineering plans on 

2008 aerials, and review of 2005 FEIS in consideration of changes in regulatory guidance. Those 

areas where an update of conditions was required are shown in Table 3-1. A summary of 

updated existing conditions is discussed below in 3.2 and technical memoranda are included in 

Appendix C. 

3.2. Existing Conditions Updates 

Existing conditions in the study corridor were updated for the environmental areas identified as 

potential change in the qualitative review. Technical memoranda documenting the updates and 

reevaluation of impacts are contained in Appendix C. The assessment of impacts and mitigation 

commitments are discussed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0. The following summarizes the changes in 

existing conditions found within the FHSR corridor. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

13 May 2010

Table 3-1 Changes in Existing Conditions 

Measure 

Potential Change 

from 2005 FEIS 

(Yes/No) 

Update Results 

COMMUNITY IMPACTS 

Community Cohesion No 

Community and Land Use Impacts Yes No Change 

Economic Impacts No 

Safety and Public Health No 

Relocation and Right-of-Way Impacts Yes Change in relocations 

Environmental Justice No 

Archeological and Historical Resources Yes Reduction in number of resources impacted 

Recreation and Parkland Yes Reduction in amount of parkland use (coordination ongoing) 

Secondary and Cumulative Impacts No 

NATURAL AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS 

Visual/Aesthetic Yes No Change 

Air Quality Yes No Change 

Noise Yes Changes in receptors, alignment, technology 

Vibration Yes Changes in receptors, alignment, technology 

Wetlands Yes No significant change 

Aquatic Preserves No 

Water Quality Yes No change 

Outstanding Florida Waters No 

Contamination Yes Five additional sites 

Wild and Scenic Rivers No 

Floodplain and Floodway Impact No 

Coastal Zone Consistency No 

Coastal Barrier Resources No 

Wildlife and Habitat, Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Yes Changes due to delisting of the bald eagle, addition of Snail 

Kite, and changes to the Gopher Tortoise Permitting 

Guidelines 

Farmlands No 

Energy Yes Technology requirements 

Utilities Yes Additional utilities identified 

TRANSPORTATION 

Freight Rail Operations No 

Highway Operations No 

Station Access No 

Source: Parsons, PBS&J September 2009 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 14

3.2.1. Land Use Plans 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) prepare Long Range Transportation Plans 

(LRTPs) for major urban regions, including the Tampa, Lakeland and Orlando areas. A review 

of the current status of the LRTPs and actions needed for the four counties through which the 

project alignment travels indicates that all of the plans include high speed rail as part of their 

long range transportation management. 

There are 13 local governments including counties and cities, as well as an improvement district 

within the project area. These local governments maintain comprehensive plans in compliance 

with Florida Statutes, Chapter 163. According to statute, these plans contain multi-modal 

transportation elements which must be consistent with the MPO LRTP. Currently the cities of 

Tampa and Lakeland and their respective county plans (Hillsborough and Polk) are consistent 

with their MPO plans. However, there is no documented consistency in Osceola County with 

METROPLAN Orlando’s long range plan. Action also needs to be taken in Orange County to 

show a map of the proposed corridor and intermodal policy amendments. 

3.2.2. Right-of-way and Relocations 

Existing conditions have changed for the two areas where relocations were identified in the 2005 

FEIS, in Tampa and in Orlando along Tradeport Drive. In Tampa the jail site has been acquired 

by FDOT and is currently under demolition. Also in Tampa within the TIS Ultimate ROW at 

Ybor City one of residences required, the property at 1006 12th Avenue has been relocated by 

FDOT. The Tradeport Drive area has experienced growth in commercial/industrial development, 

where up to four additional relocations would be required. 

3.2.3. Cultural Resources (Archaeological and Historic) 

The refinement of the 2009 RPA alignment due to current conditions has resulted in a shift in the 

FHSR right-of-way approximately 12-feet south in the vicinity of the Ybor City National 

Historic Landmark District (NHLD). However, the project would continue to be located within 

the Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) ultimate right-of way (ROW). The shift in alignment does not 

represent any change in direct or indirect impacts to historic structures within the Ybor City 

NHLD. However, the structure at 1006 12th Avenue has been moved in accordance with the TIS 

Memorandum of Agreement, see details in Section 3.2.4. Therefore, there is a change in the 

existing condition in that there is one less structure. 

3.2.4. Section 4(f) Resources 

Section 4(f) Historic Resources 

Although the FHSR proposed action would require the acquisition of two contributing historic 

structures with the Ybor City NHLD, this action would not result in a Section 4(f) involvement 

due to historic resources. This conclusion was reached in consultation with the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) due to the fact that the 

two historic structures that are located within the Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) ultimate ROW 

have already been determined to have Section 4(f) involvement with the previously approved 

TIS project. The use of these two historic structures has already been evaluated in the TIS 

Section 4(f) Evaluation and mitigation measures are included in a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA). The MOA is included as an appendix to the Tampa Interstate Study Final 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

15 May 2010

Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation and consists of specific 

commitments and stipulations, including the documentation, relocation, and rehabilitation of 

historic resources, plus architectural/historical salvage for structures not relocated or 

rehabilitated. Because the TIS Interim Alternative is currently being constructed, rather than the 

ultimate approved alternative, the MOA has not been completely fulfilled. However, mitigation 

for the structures located in the TIS ultimate ROW will remain in the MOA until that portion is 

constructed. Because the TIS ultimate approved alternative included provisions for multi-modal 

transportation, the existing MOA applies to the FHSR project. Therefore, the FHSR project will 

comply with the requirement of the existing TIS MOA and a new Section 4(f) Evaluation for 

common resources will not be required. 

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

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

City NHLD. The 2009 RPA would continue to be within the original TIS ultimate ROW. 

Therefore there are no changes to the Section 4(f) evaluation for the Ybor City NHLD. As part of 

the Tampa Interstate project (improvements to I-4 and the I-4/I-275 downtown interchange) the 

FDOT and FHWA have been implementing the stipulations of the TIS MOA. The FHSR project 

will continue to comply with the requirements of the existing TIS MOA for any remaining 

contributing historic structures that would be impacted by the FHSR ROW. At a minimum, this 

would be preparing Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation prior to 

demolition. 

Section 4(f) Parkland Resources - Perry Harvey Sr. Park 

A Section 4(f) Evaluation was prepared for Perry Harvey Sr. Park in the 2005 FEIS. The Section 

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

unavoidable impact of the project, since a prudent and feasible alternative does not exist. The 

existing exercise/jogging path located in the northernmost section of the park (north of Estelle 

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

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

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

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

indicates that the project will not substantially impair or diminish the use of the park and a 

determination was made that there will be no constructive use. 

The 2009 RPA alignment anticipates that FHSR will run 18 to 24 feet above Perry Harvey Sr. 

Park on an elevated track as it enters the Tampa Central Business District (CBD) station. Initial 

calculations indicate the use of the park will be reduced from the amount of land from the 

original acquisition of 0.184 acres to 0.05 acres. 

3.2.5. Air Quality 

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

O&M activities are directly related to forecasted train operations and train-miles traveled. No 

changes to train operations or train-miles traveled are proposed. Therefore, the emissions 

inventory documented in the 2005 FEIS accounting for new sources that would contribute to the 

regional pollutant load remains valid. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

valid. 

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

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

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

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

2005 FEIS has not changed for these three counties. 

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

FEIS was published. An Air Quality Maintenance Plan demonstrating compliance with the onehour average ozone standard was developed by the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. The 2005 FEIS documented that any increase in pollutants that are precursors to 

ozone formation are under the de minis rates stipulated in the General Conformity Rule. 

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

for the FHSR project. In late 2005, the one-hour average ozone standard was revoked and 

replaced with an eight-hour average ozone standard. The Air Quality Maintenance Plan for the 

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

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

attainment of the NAAQS. With the attainment designation, no conformity determination is 

currently required for Hillsborough County. 

3.2.6. Noise 

The objective of the noise analysis update was to identify major land use and alignment changes 

since the FEIS along the rail corridor from Tampa to Orlando, and conduct a noise analysis to 

update the status of the noise impacts assessed in the FEIS. 

The entire study corridor was evaluated through aerial photography for changes in noise 

sensitive land uses. A small number of new residential developments have been constructed in 

the study corridor since 2003, mostly along Alignment D1, the Lakeland to Kissimmee corridor. 

Noise measurements were conducted in the areas where both the more significant new noisesensitive land uses were observed and no noise measurements had been conducted nearby in the 

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

dominant source of noise at each of the measurement sites. Traffic noise from other roadways 

contributed minimally to the measured noise levels. 

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

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

Table 3-2 presents a summary of the ambient noise measurements in the new noise-sensitive 

areas. For the purposes of assessing impact and determining the impact criterion at each site, the 

Ldn at the short-term sites was estimated from the measured one-hour Leq per FRA guidance. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

17 May 2010

Table 3-2 Summary of Ambient Noise Measurement Results 

in the New Noise-sensitive Areas 

Alignment 

No. 

Site 

No. Measurement Location Description 

Start Of 

Measurement 

Meas. 

Time 

(Hrs) 

Noise 

Level 

(dBA) 

Date Time Ldn Leq 

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

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

MF at end of Tuscany Way 09-02-09 09:25 24 72 -- 

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

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

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

1. Estimated per FRA guidance. 

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2009 

3.2.7. Vibration 

As described under noise above, the vibration impact assessment was updated along the entire 

corridor of the Preferred Alternative to account for land use and alignment changes since the 

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

building with vibration-sensitive equipment. 

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

south and just west of 34th Street within 100 feet of Alignment A1 as the tracks ran along I-4, 

near Station 6140. However, these residences were taken as part of the I-4 widening and 

reconstruction project. The nearest residences in this area would now be 350 feet away from the 

tracks to the south with the I-4 eastbound lanes in between, so no vibration impact is expected. 

One impacted hotel in the FEIS that was located south of the Alignment D1 near Station 4470 is 

no longer present; therefore no vibration impact is assessed at this location. 

3.2.8. Wetlands 

The expansion of the Tampa, Disney and Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) under the 

2009 RPA station areas do not result in significant changes to previously estimated wetland 

involvement. The Tampa Jail Site is in a highly urbanized location that provides no additional 

wetland habitat. The reconfiguration of the Disney Station Area does not result in additional 

wetland habitat types affected or a significant increase in wetland habitat affected. The proposed 

increase in area to the OCCC station area site is minimal and does not result in changes to 

wetland impact area. The estimate of wetland involvement is anticipated to be modified during 

final design and the permitting process. 

3.2.9. Contamination 

The regulatory research database and aerial photographs were researched to identify 

contamination sites in addition to those identified in the 2005 FEIS. Table 3-3 summarizes the 

location of the five (5) additional sites listed. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 18

Table 3-3 Potentially Contaminated Sites 

FLHSR 

Site (Sta.) 

EDM 

Map 

ID# 

Potentially 

Contaminated Site 

Name and Address 

Facility ID 

No. 

Distance from 

Proposed 

Station Site 

Contamination Concern 

Prelim. 

Rankin

g 

Tampa 

(Sta. 6048) 

1 Giglio Property 

2007 N. Nebraska Ave. 

29-9102252 200 ft. Southeast Leaking UST Site; no cleanup 

required; no contamination 

identified 

Low 

Tampa 

(Sta. 6048) 

2 Torrest Transmissions 

2002 N. Nebraska Ave. 

29-9601267 200 ft. 

South 

Leaking UST Site; USTs 

removed in 1974; contaminated 

soil identified in old UST pit 

Low 

Disney 

(Sta. 4520) 

1 Radisson Resort Pkwy. 

2900 Parkway Blvd. 

49-9101991 900 ft. 

South 

Leaking UST Site; no cleanup 

required; no contamination 

identified 

None 

Tradeport/ 

OIA #1 

(Sta. 7710) 

1 Ring Power Corporation 

9901 Ringhaven Dr. 

49-9046708 300 ft. 

East 

Leaking AST Site; impacted soil 

removed; truck washing and 

truck maintenance activities on 

site. 

Medium 

Tradeport / 

OIA #2 

(Sta. 7780) 

1 FedEx National LTL, Inc. 

10975 Floridian Crown 

Drive 

FLR 

000100685 

800 ft. 

West 

SQG with no violations None 

AST - Above-ground Storage Tank; SQG – Small Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste; UST – Underground Storage Tank 

3.2.10. Protected Species 

The expansion of the Tampa, Disney and Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) station 

areas under the 2009 RPA do not result in additional protected species concern. The Tampa Jail 

Site is urban and developed and provides no protected species habitat. The area of expansion of 

the Disney Station Area does not result in a new habitat type or protected species concerns. The 

new additional area for the OCCC site is minimal and does not provide different habitat than 

what has already been considered. 

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

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

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

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

Florida also delisted the bald eagle. 

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

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

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

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

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be required because the corridor is within 

the snail kite’s designated consultation area. 

3.2.11. Utilities 

The locations of major utilities within the FHSR study area were assessed for the FEIS by 

contacting all of the utility companies with existing facilities in the study area. Major utilities 

were determined to be those utilities that could influence the location and design of the FHSR 

project. The utility companies and the types of utilities located within proposed Design/Build 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

19 May 2010

Alternatives 1 through 8, station locations, and maintenance facilities were identified in Table 4-

75 of the 2005 FEIS. 

The 2005 FEIS determined that the proposed FHSR design/build alternatives may require the 

relocation of some of the existing utilities. The majority of the existing utilities cross the FHSR 

alignment and would require provision of adequate depth beneath the tracks or vertical clearance 

over the tracks to accommodate for appropriate utility lines and equipment. Coordination with all 

affected utilities would be completed during final design. 

Since the 2005 FEIS, several utility companies have merged or changed names. Expansion of 

utilities into the study corridor was also a consideration. Table 3-4 lists utility companies with 

facilities that potentially cross or are located within the FHSR Preferred Alternative that were not 

previously identified in the FEIS. 

Table 3-4 Utilities Not Identified in 2005 FEIS 

Utility Owner Utility Type* 

Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. Water 

City of Polk City Water, Sewer 

Clorox Products Mfg Fiber 

Comcast Cable Communications Fiber, Cable TV 

Eastlake W Svc., Inc. Water 

Embarq Communications / Fiber 

Enterprise Community Development District Water, Sewer 

Fiberlight LLC Communications 

Gulfstream Natural Gas Gas 

Hillsborough County Traffic Traffic 

Infrasource Telephone 

Orange County Public Works Traffic, Fiber 

Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. Communications 

Osceola County Traffic, Fiber 

Progress Energy Electric 

Qwest Communications Telephone 

Reedy Creek Energy Services Electric 

Severn Trent Services Water, Sewer, Cable 

Taft W Association Water 

Tampa Transport Water, Sewer 

Toho W Authority Water 

Traffic Control Devices Fiber 

Transtate Industrial Pipeline Systems Gas 

Wiltel Communications, LLC Telephone 

XO Communications Telephone 

*Utility type identified in SSOCOF Design Ticket. Refer to Utilities Update Technical Memorandum for design ticket details. 

Note: In response to receipt of a design ticket, SSOCOF provides the originator of the design ticket with a list of SSOCOF members in the 

vicinity of the project. SSOCOF does not notify SSOCOF members of the receipt by SSOCOF of a design ticket. It is the sole responsibility of 

the design engineer to contact SSOCOF members to request information about the location of SSOCOF members` underground facilities. 

Submission of a design ticket will not satisfy the requirement of Chapter 556, Florida Statutes, to notify SSOCOF of intent to excavate or 

demolish. That intent must be made known specifically to SSOCOF in the manner required by law. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 20

4. EVALUATION OF CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACTS 

The 2005 Florida High Speed Rail Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) documented 

the impacts of multiple alternatives, including a Preferred Alternative. Alternatives 1 and 5 in the 

FEIS were identical with the exception of the high speed rail technology. Alternative 1, the 

Preferred Alternative at that time, assumed a gas-turbine powered locomotive-hauled train 

technology. Alternative 5 assumed an electric-powered locomotive-hauled train technology. 

Table 4-1 documents the changes in the environmental impacts of the 2009 Revised Preferred 

Alternative (RPA) in comparison to the 2005 FEIS impacts of the Preferred Alternative and 

Alternative 5. Where changes in environmental impacts have occurred, summary descriptions are 

included in the table and more detailed text is presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.10. 

Table 4-1 Change in Environmental Impacts 

Resource 

2005 FEIS Impacts 

Gas Turbine 

 FEIS Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative 1) 

2005 FEIS Impacts 

Electric Technology 

(Alternative 5) 

Change in 

Impacts? 

Revised 2009 Preferred 

Alternative (RPA) Impacts 

Electric Technology 

COMMUNITY IMPACTS 

Community 

Cohesion 

Minimal impacts to adjacent 

neighborhoods along I-4 in 

Tampa and to the south of 

the Tradeport Industrial Park 

Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

No Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

Community and 

Land Use Impacts 

Consistent with local land 

use plans 

Minimal impacts to existing 

land uses 

Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

No Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

Economic Impacts Benefits in excess of costs Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

No Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

Safety and Public 

Health 

No adverse impacts Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

No Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

Relocation and 

Right-of-Way 

Impacts 

3 residential relocations 

3 business relocations 

See Section 4(f) below. 

Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

Yes 3 residential relocations 

5 business relocations 

See Section 4.1 

Environmental 

Justice 

No disproportionate impacts Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

No Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

21 May 2010

Table 4-1 Change in Environmental Impacts 

Resource 

2005 FEIS Impacts 

Gas Turbine 

 FEIS Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative 1) 

2005 FEIS Impacts 

Electric Technology 

(Alternative 5) 

Change in 

Impacts? 

Revised 2009 Preferred 

Alternative (RPA) Impacts 

Electric Technology 

Section 106 - 

Archeological and 

Historical 

Resources 

North Franklin Street Historic 

District (visual) 

St. Paul AME Church 

Parsonage (visual) 

Oaklawn Cemetery (visual 

construction vibration) 

Ybor City NHLD (direct 

taking of two contributing 

buildings; visual, 

construction vibration) 

German American Club – 

Visual impacts, construction 

vibration 

Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

Yes* Same impacts as listed for 

FEIS Preferred 

Alternative, less direct 

impact of one contributing 

building in Ybor City 

NHLD* 

See Section 4.2 

Recreation and 

Parkland 

Use of 0.184 acres, Perry 

Harvey Sr. Park 

Use of 0.184 acres, Perry 

Harvey Sr. Park 

Yes Use of 0.05 acres, Perry 

Harvey Sr. Park 

See Section 4.3 

Section 4(f) 

Impacts 

Use of 0.184 acres, Perry 

Harvey Sr. Park 

0 Historic/Archeological 

Use of 0.184 acres, Perry 

Harvey Sr. Park 

0 Historic/Archeological 

Yes Use of 0.05 acres, Perry 

Harvey Sr. Park 

0 Historic/Archeological 

See Section 4.4 

Secondary and 

Cumulative 

Impacts 

No adverse impacts Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

No Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

NATURAL AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS 

Visual/Aesthetic No adverse impacts Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

No Same as 2005 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative 

Air Quality Emissions (tons/year): Emissions (tons/year): Yes Same as 2005 FEIS 

Alternative 5 

See Section 4.5 CO : -101.7 tons/year CO: -152.0 

NOX: +189.0 NOX: +23.3 

VOC: +8.9 VOC: -8.1 

Noise1 Cat. 1: 0 Cat. 1: 0 Yes Cat. 1: 0 

Cat. 2: 15 

(7 moderate, 8 severe) 

Cat. 2: 52 

(24 moderate, 28 severe) 

Cat. 2: 30 

(13 moderate, 17 severe) 

Cat. 3: 0 Cat. 3: 1 

(Perry Harvey Sr. Park) 

Cat. 3: 1 

See Section 4.6 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 22

Table 4-1 Change in Environmental Impacts 

Resource 

2005 FEIS Impacts 

Gas Turbine 

 FEIS Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative 1) 

2005 FEIS Impacts 

Electric Technology 

(Alternative 5) 

Change in 

Impacts? 

Revised 2009 Preferred 

Alternative (RPA) Impacts 

Electric Technology 

Vibration1 Cat 1: 1 Cat 1: 1 Yes Cat. 1: 1 

Cat. 2: 44 Cat. 2: 13 Cat. 2: 8 

Cat. 3: 0 Cat. 3: 0 Cat. 3: 0 

See Section 4.7 

Wetlands 

 

40 acres (total impacts) 

11 high quality wetlands 

impacted 

25.6 acres (total impacts) 

11 high quality wetlands 

impacted 

Yes 35.8 acres (total impacts) 

11 high quality wetlands 

impacted. See Section 4.8 

Aquatic Preserves No impacts No impacts No No impacts 

Water Quality No adverse impacts No adverse impacts No No adverse impacts 

Outstanding 

Florida Waters 

No impacts No impacts No No impacts 

Contamination Risk Ranking 

High : 7 

Risk Ranking 

High : 7 

Yes Risk Ranking 

High : 7 

Medium: 0 Medium: 0 Medium: 1 

Low: 0 Low: 0 Low: 1 

See Section 4.9 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

No impacts No impacts No No impacts 

Floodplain and 

Floodway Impact 

Base Floodplain 

Encroachment: 56.88 acres 

Base Floodway 

Encroachment: 9.45 acres 

Base Floodplain 

Encroachment: 56.88 

acres 

Base Floodway 

Encroachment: 9.45 acres 

No Base Floodplain 

Encroachment: 56.88 

acres 

Base Floodway 

Encroachment: 9.45 acres 

Coastal Zone 

Consistency 

No impacts No impacts No No impacts 

Coastal Barrier 

Resources 

No impacts No impacts No No impacts 

Wildlife and 

Habitat, including 

Protected Species 

9 Protected Species 

No adverse impacts 

9 Protected Species 

No adverse impacts 

Yes 10 Protected Species 

No adverse effects 

See Section 4.10 

Farmlands No impacts No impacts No No impacts 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

23 May 2010

Table 4-1 Change in Environmental Impacts 

Resource 

2005 FEIS Impacts 

Gas Turbine 

 FEIS Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative 1) 

2005 FEIS Impacts 

Electric Technology 

(Alternative 5) 

Change in 

Impacts? 

Revised 2009 Preferred 

Alternative (RPA) Impacts 

Electric Technology 

Energy 

Consumption 

498,855 Million BTU 239,820 Million BTU Yes Same as 2005 FEIS 

Alternative 5 

See Section 4.11 

Utilities No adverse impacts No adverse impacts No No adverse impacts 

TRANSPORTATION 

Freight Rail 

Operations 

Impacts 

No impacts No impacts No No impacts 

Highway 

Operations 

Impacts 

Net reduction in VMT: 

21,080,963 miles 

No adverse impacts 

Net reduction in VMT: 

21,080,963 miles 

No adverse impacts 

No Net reduction in VMT: 

21,080,963 miles 

No adverse impacts 

Station Access 

and Traffic Impacts 

No adverse impacts No adverse impacts No No adverse impacts 

Airport Operations No impacts No impacts No No impacts 

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Construction 

impacts 

No adverse impacts No adverse impacts No No adverse impacts 

Source: Parsons, PBS&J, HMMH September 2009 

1Notes: Category 1 receptors are buildings and/or parks; Category 2 receptors are residences, hospitals, hotels; Category 3 receptors are 

schools, libraries, churches, and active parks. 

4.1. Relocations and Right-of-Way (ROW) Impacts 

The 2005 FEIS indicated that the Preferred Alternative and the 2009 RPA (Alternative 5 in the 

2005 FEIS) would both require three (3) residential relocations located in two (2) structures near 

I-4 and 12th Avenue in the Ybor City area and three business relocations including the City of 

Tampa Recreation Department, the former Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office and Jail 

Complex, and a bail bondsman office. 

Since publication of the 2005 FEIS, redevelopment of the former Hillsborough County Sheriff’s 

Office and Jail Complex site has begun and the buildings are no longer present. Therefore, these 

relocations are no longer needed. 

Further, since 2005 additional development has occurred in the Tradeport Industrial Park. The 

alignment was optimized to reduce additional right-of-way needs in this area to the extent 

practicable. However, three (3) additional business relocations would be needed for the project, 

as follows: 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 24

At the northwest corner of Tradeport Drive and Ringhaver Drive, a large commercial distribution 

building (10260 Tradeport Drive) was constructed and does not appear on the project aerials. As 

of September 2, 2009, the building is vacant. The Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) alignment 

clips the northeast corner of this building and the operation of the rear loading bays. 

• Two commercial structures located in the Atlas Commercial Park (11128 and 11112 

Boggy Creek Road) are also impacted. As of September 2, 2009, these building are 

vacant. 

The ROW and relocation program will be carried out in accordance with the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970. 

4.2. Section 106 - Archeological and Historical Resources 

The 2005 FEIS Preferred Alternative and the 2009 RPA would have a “conditional no adverse 

effect” on the following five historic resources: 

• North Franklin Street Historic District – Visual impacts 

• St. Paul AME Church Parsonage – Visual impacts 

• Oaklawn Cemetery – Visual impacts, construction vibration 

• Ybor City National Historic Landmark District (NHLD) - Direct taking of two 

contributing buildings: 8HI4174/916 E. 12th Avenue, and the rear building at 

8HI4178/1006 E. 12th Avenue; Visual; Construction Vibration 

• German American Club – Visual impacts, construction vibration 

Since publication of the 2005 FEIS, FDOT began the right-of-way acquisition process for the 

Tampa Interstate Study (TIS). As a result many of the historic structures along 12th Avenue in 

the Ybor City NHLD have been relocated, including the property at 1006 E. 12th Avenue 

(8HI4178) which was listed as a direct taking in the 2005 FEIS. 

It is important to note that these impacts to historic resources were evaluated as part of a Cultural 

Resource Assessment Survey (July 2003) prepared to identify and evaluate cultural resources 

(historic structures and archaeological sites) within the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

Further, a Section 106 Consultation Case Report (December 2003) was then prepared to evaluate 

potential effects for the Preferred Alternative and extensive coordination occurred with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). As a result of this coordination, it was determined that the 

Preferred Alternative, based on a set of stipulated conditions would have a “conditional no 

adverse effect” on the resources listed above. 

Even though the impacts within the Ybor City NHLD included a direct taking of contributing 

historic resources, the SHPO determined that there would be no adverse effect because these 

buildings were previously identified as being acquired by the Tampa Interstate Study Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation (1996) and are located within the 

TIS Ultimate ROW. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was prepared at that time to mitigate 

adverse effects to the Ybor City NHLD, see Appendix D. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

25 May 2010

During the consultations with the SHPO, it was determined that the FHSR project would follow 

the requirements of this MOA. The mitigation and commitments included in Chapter 5 are 

consistent with this MOA. 

4.3. Recreation and Parkland 

According to the 2005 FEIS, 0.184 acres of right-of-way is needed from the Perry Harvey Sr. 

Park. During the preparation of the FEIS and Section 4(f) Statement the design of the alignment 

in this area was optimized to minimize this impact to the extent practicable. No prudent or 

feasible avoidance options were found to exist. 

Since the approval of the FEIS, portions of the park have been sold and/or rezoned for future 

development. These changes in the park’s boundary and a new ramp along I-275 have resulted in 

changes in the impacts to the park. Initial calculations indicate the impact to the park will be 

reduced from the amount of land to be acquired from 0.184 to 0.05acres. Mitigation of the park 

impacts remains consistent with the TIS FEIS and as coordinated with the City of Tampa, also 

included in Appendix D. 

4.4. Section 4(f) Evaluation 

During this reevaluation process, the alignment shifted slightly in the vicinity of the Ybor City 

NHLD and Perry Harvey Sr. Park, both of which are Section 4(f) resources. Right-of-way 

requirements were minimized in the vicinity of these resources. 

In the case of the Ybor City NHLD, the right-of-way required by the FHSR project is still within 

the TIS Ultimate ROW which was cleared as a part of the Tampa Interstate Study Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation (1996). Further, a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) was negotiated with the SHPO for that project to mitigate the adverse effects 

to the Ybor City NHLD from taking the right-of-way. Therefore there are no changes to the 

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

In the case of Perry Harvey Sr. Park, as stated in the original Section 4(f) Evaluation, the FHSR 

project will comply with the specific commitments and stipulations identified in the existing 

Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) FEIS for the Ultimate ROW requirements. The commitment is 

based on the assumption that the FHSR will be constructed prior to the construction of the 

Ultimate TIS. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

encroachment indicates that the project will not substantially impair or diminish the use of the 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 26

park, and a determination was made that there will be no constructive use. With the reduction of 

impacts by the 2009 RPA, these conclusions have not changed and the mitigation approach 

identified in the TIS FEIS is confirmed through coordination with the City of Tampa, see 

Appendix D.

4.5. Air Quality 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) documented in the 2005 FEIS would result in a net 

decrease in regional emissions of carbon monoxide, but a net increase in regional emissions of 

oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds as compared to the No Build Alternative. The 

net increase in regional emissions of oxides of nitrogen is a result of the relatively high emission 

rate of this pollutant from gas turbine engines. 

The switch of the preferred technology for the 2009 RPA from gas turbine-hauled trains to 

electric-hauled trains is predicted to result in a net decrease in regional emissions of carbon 

monoxide and volatile organic compounds and a much smaller increase in regional nitrogen 

oxides. The increase in oxides of nitrogen is a result of the emission rate of this pollutant from 

power plants that produce electricity through the combustion of fossil fuels. This emissions 

analysis is based on use of coal as the source for power generation resulting in a worst case 

scenario. 

Even though the alternatives associated with the electric train technology consider more train 

trips, emissions from the electric train technology would be less than emissions from the gas 

turbine train technology. This is a result of the relatively strict controls and emission reduction 

measures that are employed by power plants, which would be the source of electricity for the 

electric train technology. 

The minor changes in the project’s definition (such as the shift of station sites, modifications to 

the alignment) would be negligible on the total train miles traveled. Further, the slight increases 

in ridership projections produced during this reevaluation would produce negligible changes to 

the emissions inventory documented in the 2005 FEIS. 

Based on the change in the air quality status in Hillsborough County from a maintenance area for 

ozone to an attainment area, no conformity determination is currently required for Hillsborough 

County. 

4.6. Noise 

The noise impact assessment was updated along the entire corridor to account for land use and 

alignment changes since the 2005 FEIS was published. In summary, there are substantially fewer 

predicted noise impacts than in the FEIS even considering the change in technology. (All things 

being equal (e.g., train schedules, lengths, heights), the electric-hauled train technology has a 

higher sound exposure level than the gas turbine-hauled train technology. 

The 2005 FEIS predicted that the Preferred Alternative would have impacts at a total of 15 

residential buildings (eight with severe impact and seven with moderate impact), one hotel 

(moderate impact) and one park (Perry Harvey Sr.). The FEIS also documented the impacts of 

Alternative 5 (the comparable alternative given the change in the preferred technology), which 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

27 May 2010

was predicted to have noise impacts at a total of 52 residential buildings (24 with severe impact 

and 28 with moderate impact), one hotel (moderate impact), and one park (Perry Harvey). 

The updated analysis predicts fewer impacts resulting from implementation of the 2009 RPA, 

including 30 residential buildings (13 with moderate impacts and 17 with severe impacts); one 

hotel (moderate impact) and one park (Perry Harvey). Importantly, none of the newly identified 

sensitive receptors along the corridor were predicted to have impacts. 

The lower number of predicted impacts is a result of alignment shifts away from sensitive 

receptors near Station 6010 (in the vicinity of the I-4/I-275 interchange in Tampa) and between 

Stations 7670 and 7700 in the Taft area near Orlando. 

4.7. Vibration 

The vibration impact assessment was updated along the entire corridor to account for land use 

and alignment changes since the 2005 FEIS was published. In summary, vibration impacts are 

expected at three residences, five hotels, and one commercial building that houses vibration 

sensitive equipment. In comparison, the 2005 FEIS Preferred Alternative was predicted to have 

33 residences, 11 hotels, and the same commercial building and Alternative 5 was predicted to 

have impacts at one residence, 13 hotels and the commercial building. 

The large reduction in the total number of vibration impacts that would result from 

implementation of the 2009 RPA is due to changes in existing conditions and the difference 

between the vibration characteristics of the electric and the gas turbine trains. Not only are some 

of the residences and hotels previously affected no longer present but new receptors were also 

identified, particularly in the middle section of the alignment. None of the new receptors were 

predicted to have vibration impacts. 

Gas turbine trains have higher vibration levels at lower frequencies than electric trains. This is 

likely due to the difference in weight between the two vehicles; the gas turbine train consist 

weighs almost twice as much as the electric train consist. Furthermore, when the ground exhibits 

more efficient vibration propagation characteristics at low frequencies, there is a greater 

difference in vibration impact between the two technologies. 

4.8. Wetlands 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) documented in the 2005 FEIS would result in a total of 

40 acres of wetland impacts to 11 high quality wetlands, while Alternative 5 was predicted to 

result in 25.6 acres of impacts to 11 high quality wetlands. Even though these alternatives share 

the same alignment and station locations, they each assumed a different maintenance facility. 

The 2009 RPA would result in 35.8 acres of impacts to 11 high quality wetlands. This accounts 

for changes in existing conditions with the revised location for the maintenance facility for 

Alternative 5 since the FEIS was published and the design changes documented in Chapter 2 of 

this document. The 2009 RPA with the same maintenance facility location, as identified with the 

2005 FEIS Preferred Alternative 1, reduces impacts by 4.2 acres. 

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

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

Resource Permit. Because this project crosses multiple WMD districts, the FDEP will likely take 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 28

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

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

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

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

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

have been modified since 2005 such that any project that results in the disturbance of one or 

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

type of work, a permit application for a NPDES will not be required. Instead, a Notice of Intent 

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

prior to construction commencement. 

4.9. Contamination 

Based on the design modifications described in Chapter 2 above, a review of the potential for 

additional hazardous materials sites that could potentially be encountered during construction of 

the 2009 RPA was assessed. Five additional sites were identified. Given the contamination 

concern at these sites and their location relative to the FHSR project, three of these sites were 

found to pose no risk to the project, one was found to pose a low risk and one was found to pose 

a medium risk. Potential contamination sites will be investigated further prior to construction 

including visual inspection, monitoring of ongoing cleanups and possible subsurface 

investigations. Estimated areas of contamination will be shown on design drawings with plans to 

address the contamination. Special provisions to handle unexpected contamination during 

construction will be included in the construction plans package. All applicable local, state and 

federal standards and regulations regarding demolitions and renovations, asbestos and open 

burning will be met. 

4.10. Wildlife and Protected Species 

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

additional protection since the 2005 FEIS was published and a consultation area overlies a 

portion of the FHSR project. Given that suitable habitat for this species is not available in the 

immediate vicinity of the FHSR project, it is unlikely this species would be affected under the 

2009 RPA. Coordination with appropriate agencies, including USFWS, National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) is 

continuing. The mitigation commitments identified in the 2005 FEIS and the 2009 FEIS 

Reevaluation obligate continued consultation to ensure and verify protection of wildlife 

throughout further project delivery phases. 

4.11. Energy Consumption 

The switch to the electric train technology under the 2009 RPA results in an overall lower net 

energy consumption in 2010 since the consumption is considerably lower than the gas turbine 

train technology. The 2005 FEIS shows the net energy consumption dropping from 498,855 

million BTU (2005 FEIS Preferred Alternative) to 239,820 million BTU (2005 Alternative 5). 

These predictions factor in the reduction of gasoline consumption by diverting automobile 

ridership, the power required to propel the train, operate and maintain the new system, and 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

29 May 2010

thermal losses for electric power generation. As a part of this reevaluation effort, the ridership 

projections were updated and show a slight increase in riders. This increase would lower VMT 

only slightly resulting in a negligible decrease in the energy demands of the Revised Preferred 

Alternative. The slight shifts in alignment and station locations also would not affect the energy 

consumption predictions listed above. 

The total change is a very small fraction (less than 1/20th of one percent) of Florida’s total 

energy consumption for surface transportation (all non-military vehicle operation on highways, 

railroads, and fixed-guideway public transportation), which is estimated to reach one quadrillion 

BTUs (i.e., 1,000,000,000 MBTU) by 2010. 

5. MITIGATION AND COMMITMENTS 

FRA and FDOT are committed to working with our partners and stakeholders in the 

development of this project, and will continue to coordinate the required mitigation and 

commitments for the FHSR project. Table 5-1 documents the commitments and mitigation from 

the 2005 FEIS and any changes or updates needed based on changes in impacts or regulations 

since 2005. 

Table 5-1 Mitigation and Commitments 

Resource Mitigation and Commitments 

Change in 

impacts from 

2005 FEIS? 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Required? 

COMMUNITY IMPACTS 

Community Cohesion None required No No 

Community and Land 

Use Impacts 

• See mitigation for acquisitions from Perry Harvey Sr. 

Park in the Recreation and Parkland resource 

category below. 

No No 

Economic Impacts None required No No 

Safety and Public 

Health 

• Submittal and approval of specific plans addressing 

emergency and maintenance access to the 

guideway, construction access, and construction 

staging. 

• Development and implementation of a System 

Safety Plan that would also address security plans in 

accord with FRA standards. 

• Fencing, intrusion detection system, barriers, and 

other protective measures as required by the Safety 

Plan. 

No No 

Relocation and Rightof-Way Impacts 

• Carry out ROW and relocation program in 

accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance 

and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970. 

Yes No 

Environmental 

Justice 

None required No No 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 30

Table 5-1 Mitigation and Commitments 

Resource Mitigation and Commitments 

Change in 

impacts from 

2005 FEIS? 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Required? 

Section 106 - 

Archeological and 

Historical Resources 

• Provide the FHSR design plans (for the Tampa CBD 

and Ybor City areas) to the SHPO for review and 

comment at 30 percent, 60 percent, and 90 percent 

design stages. 

• Coordinate the design of the Tampa Station with the 

SHPO to ensure that historic integrity is maintained 

at the nearby North Franklin Street Historic District 

and the St. Paul AME Church Parsonage. 

• Implement vibration monitoring during construction 

adjacent to the Oaklawn Cemetery, German 

American Club and within the Ybor City NHLD to 

ensure vibration levels do not exceed the damage 

criteria described in FRA's guidance manual, High 

Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment, Chapter 10. If vibration levels 

approaching the damage criteria are found to occur, 

immediate coordination with the SHPO would be 

conducted and construction means and methods will 

be reviewed to determine how the potential for 

damage can be minimized. 

• The stipulations of the Tampa Interstate Study 

Memorandum of Agreement would be fulfilled for 

any impacts to contributing historic structures within 

the Ybor City NHLD and the Tampa Interstate Study 

Ultimate ROW. 

• Aesthetic treatment for the FHSR would be 

compatible with the existing Urban Design 

Guidelines set up for the Tampa Interstate Study 

FEIS/ROD within the Tampa CBD and Ybor City 

areas. At minimum, the color of the concrete should 

be compatible with the Tampa Interstate Study 

concrete color. The SHPO, City of Tampa, and local 

community groups, will be included in the 

development of the FHSR aesthetics. 

• The FHSR project shall be coordinated with the 

Barrio Latino Commission during the project’s later 

design phases, as required by the Tampa Code of 

Ordinances, Chapter 27 Zoning. 

Yes No 

Recreation and 

Parkland 

• To compensate for the right-of-way requirements at 

Perry Harvey Sr. Park, the FHSR project will comply 

with the specific commitments and stipulations 

identified in the existing Tampa Interstate Study 

MOA for the Ultimate right-of-way and 

improvements. 

Yes No 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

31 May 2010

Table 5-1 Mitigation and Commitments 

Resource Mitigation and Commitments 

Change in 

impacts from 

2005 FEIS? 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Required? 

Recreation and 

Parkland (Cont.) 

• Through coordination and correspondence, the City 

of Tampa indicated that compensation for impacts to 

the park can be accomplished through the eminent 

domain process. As stated previously, the TIS 

Ultimate ROW includes provisions for multi-modal 

transportation that applies to the FHSR project. 

Section 4(f) Impacts • See mitigation requirements listed under the Section 

106 - Archeological and Historical Resources and 

Recreation and Parkland sections above. 

Yes No 

Secondary and 

Cumulative Impacts 

None required No No 

NATURAL AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS 

Visual/Aesthetic • The Preferred Alternative would result in potential 

visual/aesthetic issues within the Tampa CBD. 

Where the FHSR leaves the I-4 median within Ybor 

City, coordination will occur with the City of Tampa 

to ensure design compatibility in height and design 

with the proposed Ybor City Gateway design at I-4 

and 21st Street. 

No No 

Air Quality None required Yes No 

Noise/Vibration • Noise impacts that exceed the FRA’s criteria for 

severe impacts will be mitigated. Mitigation will be 

coordinated with local communities during the final 

design phases of the project. 

• The feasibility of noise mitigation would need further 

evaluation. As the design is finalized, noise 

mitigation will be considered in more detail to 

determine if it is warranted based on a cost/benefit 

analysis. 

• Vibration impacts that exceed FRA criteria are 

considered to be significant and warrant mitigation, if 

feasible. Vibration mitigation will be addressed in 

more detail during final design. 

Yes No 

Wetlands • A formal wetland jurisdictional survey will be 

produced during the permitting effort. Review and 

approval of this survey will be conducted by 

appropriate local, state and federal agencies. Plans 

will comply with the any local requirements including 

the water management districts and the Hillsborough 

County Environmental Protection Commission 

guidelines. 

Yes Potentially, to 

account for 

regulatory 

changes. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 32

Table 5-1 Mitigation and Commitments 

Resource Mitigation and Commitments 

Change in 

impacts from 

2005 FEIS? 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Required? 

Wetlands (cont.) 

 

• A continuing process of avoiding and minimizing 

impacts will be performed during final design. 

Unavoidable wetland impacts shall be mitigated 

pursuant to S. 373.4138 F.S. to satisfy all wetland 

mitigation requirements of Part IV Chapter 373. and 

33 U.S.C. 1344. Mitigation requirements will be 

negotiated between FDOT and the FDEP to assure 

adequate compensation for the loss of wetlands 

from the project is provided. 

Aquatic Preserves None required No No 

Water Quality • The Preferred Alternative falls within the jurisdictions 

of the SWFWMD, the SFWMD, and the SJRWMD. 

The water quality criteria associated with each 

agency would apply to the portion of the project 

within the respective district limits. The FHSR will 

meet these criteria, which are located in rules 62-

302.500 and 62-302.530 of the F.A.C. 

No Potentially, to 

account for 

regulatory 

changes. 

Outstanding Florida 

Waters 

None required No No 

Contamination • Potential contamination sites identified in the 2005 

FEIS and this reevaluation will be investigated 

further prior to construction. Investigative work will 

include visual inspection, monitoring of ongoing 

cleanups, and possible subsurface investigations. 

• At known contamination sites, estimated areas of 

contamination will be marked on design drawings. 

Prior to construction, plans to address the 

contamination during construction will be developed. 

• Construction plans will also include special 

provisions for handling unexpected contamination 

discovered during construction will be included in the 

construction plans package. 

• FDOT will comply with all applicable local, state, and 

federal standards and regulations regarding building 

demolitions and renovations, asbestos, and open 

burning requirements, including the Hillsborough 

County Environmental Protection Commission 

guidelines. 

Yes No 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

None required No No 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

33 May 2010

Table 5-1 Mitigation and Commitments 

Resource Mitigation and Commitments 

Change in 

impacts from 

2005 FEIS? 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Required? 

Floodplain and 

Floodway Impact 

• Coordination with the water management districts 

will identify areas appropriate for mitigation of the 

volumetric impacts of the preferred alignment that 

will not increase or significantly change the flood 

elevations and/or limits. 

No No 

Coastal Zone 

Consistency 

None required No No 

Coastal Barrier 

Resources 

None required No No 

Wildlife and Habitat, 

including Protected 

Species 

Commitments and mitigation are listed below by species: 

• FDOT will continue coordination with USFWS, water 

management districts, and FFWCC to develop 

design and construction methods to avoid and 

minimize impacts to protected species 

Eastern Indigo Snake 

• To assure protection of the Eastern indigo snake 

during construction, FHSRA will incorporate the 

“Construction Precautions for the Eastern Indigo 

Snake” guidelines into the final project design and 

require that the construction contractor abide strictly 

to the guidelines throughout construction. The 

guidelines include the following: 

• FHSRA shall provide Eastern indigo snake 

educational information, as contained in the 

applicable FDOT Districts One, Five, or Seven 

approved educational plans, to construction 

employees prior to the initiation of any clearing, 

construction, or gopher tortoise relocation activities. 

The applicable FDOT Districts One, Five, or Seven 

educational exhibits shall be posted at sites 

immediately accessible to all employees. 

• All construction activities shall cease in the 

immediate vicinity of any live Eastern indigo snake 

found within the project area. Work may resume 

after the snake, or snakes, are allowed to leave the 

area on its own. 

• Location of live sightings shall be reported to the 

USFWS Vero Beach field office at (561) 562-3909. 

• If a dead Eastern indigo snake is found on the 

project site, the snake shall be frozen as soon as 

possible and FHSRA shall notify the Vero Beach 

field office immediately for further instruction. 

No Yes, to account 

for regulatory 

changes 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 34

Table 5-1 Mitigation and Commitments 

Resource Mitigation and Commitments 

Change in 

impacts from 

2005 FEIS? 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Required? 

Wildlife and Habitat, 

including Protected 

Species (cont.) 

Gopher Tortoise 

• The FHSRA will conduct comprehensive surveys for 

gopher tortoises and their burrows during the final 

design phase of the project within the construction 

limits (including roadway footprint, construction 

staging areas and stormwater management ponds) 

and prior to construction. If burrows are identified 

during these surveys, FHSRA will contact the FWC 

to coordinate mitigation for any impacts to this 

species and acquire the necessary relocation 

permits in accordance with the Gopher Tortoise 

Permitting Guidelines (April 2009). Although the 

relocation permit is issued for the gopher tortoise, 

the permitting process provides protection for the 

Florida mouse and gopher frog. 

Sand Skink 

• Based on the identification of sand skink habitat 

within the project area, the FHSRA will conduct 

surveys during the design/build phase and prior to 

permitting. The surveys will be conducted, in 

potentially suitable habitat, between March 1st and 

May 15th in accordance with the USFWS’ draft 

protocol. Further coordination with the USFWS will 

take place prior to the initiation of the surveys to 

coordinate any potential impacts during the 

design/build phase of the FHSR project. 

Sand Hill Crane 

• Prior to construction, resurveys for sandhill cranes in 

areas that may support nesting habitat will be 

conducted. If any crane nests are located, FHSRA 

will contact FFWCC immediately. Construction 

activities in the vicinity of the nest would cease until 

appropriate protective measures are determined. 

Bald Eagle 

• One bald eagle’s nest, PO-50 in Polk County, is 

located less than 300 ft. from the I-4 southern ROW 

limit. Because this nest was active through the 2007 

nesting season, the nest tree is still provided 

protection by the USFWS. Therefore, the FHSRA 

will contact the USFWS to discuss if the nest site is 

considered viable. If the nest is viable, then standard 

construction precautions will be implemented to 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

35 May 2010

Table 5-1 Mitigation and Commitments 

Resource Mitigation and Commitments 

Change in 

impacts from 

2005 FEIS? 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Required? 

Wildlife and Habitat, 

including Protected 

Species (cont.) 

assure the nest and any nesting activity would be 

protected from construction. Also, prior to 

construction, the Preferred Alternative will be reevaluated to determine if any new nests have been 

established in proximity to the construction corridor. 

Wood Stork 

• Based on USFWS guidelines, impacts to certain 

wetland systems within a 15-mi. radius, (or 18.6-mi 

radius Polk and Osceola counties) of a wood stork 

colony may directly affect colony productivity 

because they are considered to be in their Core 

Foraging Area (CFA). 

FRA and FDOT commit to the following: 

• The Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment 

Procedure will be used to evaluate wetlands likely to 

be impacted that also located within the CFA of a 

wood stork colony. 

• No net loss of wetlands within the project area. 

• Replacement of drainage ditches, swales, and 

retention ponds will be at a 1:1 or greater ratio, 

resulting in no net loss of CFA. 

• Minimizing indirect impacts (e.g., changes in 

hydrological regimes) to adjacent wetlands by 

adherence to wetland permitting requirements of the 

water management districts and the USACE. 

• Where reasonable wood stork habitat alterations will 

be mitigated within the foraging range of known 

habitat rookeries in the project area. 

Sherman’s Fox Squirrel 

• In an effort to minimize or eliminate any adverse 

affects to the Sherman’s fox squirrel, the FHSRA will 

survey areas supporting suitable habitat outside of 

existing transportation ROW for nests just prior to 

construction in those areas. If an active nest is 

located during these surveys, the FHSRA will 

contact the FFWCC for guidance on assuring no 

adverse effect. 

Everglade’s Snail Kite 

• Consultation with the USFWS to confirm no effect to 

the Everglade’s 

• Snail Kite given the consultation area established 

since publication of the FEIS in 2005 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 36

Table 5-1 Mitigation and Commitments 

Resource Mitigation and Commitments 

Change in 

impacts from 

2005 FEIS? 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Required? 

Wildlife and Habitat, 

including Protected 

Species (cont.) 

A commitment by FDOT to provide a future wildlife crossing 

during construction of the ultimate interstate improvements in 

Polk County is contained in the Design Change Reevaluation 

of I-4 from Memorial Boulevard in Polk County to the Osceola 

County line. The FHSR is considered to be a viable portion of 

the ultimate I-4 corridor and will include wildlife crossings in its 

final design. 

 

Farmlands None required No No 

Energy Consumption None required Yes No 

Utilities • Coordination with affected utilities during final design 

to ensure provision of adequate depth beneath or 

vertical clearance over project elements. 

No No 

TRANSPORTATION 

Freight Rail 

Operations Impacts 

None required No No 

Highway Operations 

Impacts 

• The design/build contractor will be required to meet 

FDOT’s Design and Specifications for maintenance 

of traffic plans during construction. 

• Coordination with Districts One, Five, and Seven is 

required to identify and coordinate any concurrent 

construction along the I-4 corridor. 

• The design/build consultant will coordinate meetings 

for the development of the maintenance of traffic 

plans and the outcome of these meetings will be an 

acceptable plan to both FDOT and FHWA prior to 

approved use of the interstate right-of-way for the 

FHSR. 

No No 

Station Access and 

Traffic Impacts 

• Roadway improvements in the immediate area of 

any station will be coordinated with local agencies 

and jurisdictions during final design. 

• Aesthetic considerations for each station will also be 

coordinated with various agencies and local 

jurisdictions during final design. 

No No 

Airport Operations • The FHSRA is committed to working with the 

Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) and the 

FAA in the development of the project, and will 

continue to coordinate all aspects of the project with 

these agencies, especially in relation to the design 

of project’s alignment, ancillary facilities and stations 

in the vicinity of the Orlando International Airport. 

No No 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

37 May 2010

Table 5-1 Mitigation and Commitments 

Resource Mitigation and Commitments 

Change in 

impacts from 

2005 FEIS? 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Required? 

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Construction Impacts • Impacts to residents and travelers in the immediate 

vicinity of the project may result due to the 

construction of the Preferred Alternative; however, 

they would be of short duration in any given location 

since the construction would proceed in a scheduled 

sequence. 

• All construction will be conducted in accordance with 

the FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and 

Bridge Construction and Best Management 

Practices (BMPs). 

No No 

Source: Parsons, PBS&J September 2009 

6. PERMITS REQUIRED 

To proceed into the next phase of project development, a number of state and federal agencies 

would be required to determine the permit requirements. These permits and the issuing agencies 

are listed in Table 6-1, below. 

Table 6-1 Summary of Permits Required 

Permit Issuing Agency Required based on 

2005 FEIS? 

Required based on 

Reevaluation? 

Environmental Resource 

Permit (ERP) 

SWFWMD 

SFWMD 

SJRWMD 

FDEP 

Yes Yes 

Section 404 Dredge and Fill 

Permit 

USACE Yes Yes 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit 

(NPDES) 

FDEP Yes No1

1Because a General Permit exists for this type of work, a Notice of Intent to utilize the General Permit is required to be published 48 hours prior to 

construction commencement. 

The complexity of the permitting process will depend greatly on the degree of the impacts to 

jurisdictional wetland areas and the changes that will be required in the existing stormwater 

management system along I-4 in particular. The degree of wetland impacts and the extent of 

changes to the existing stormwater management system will be determined during final design. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP), Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), South Florida Water 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 38

Management District (SFWMD), and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) 

regulate water quality and wetlands within the project area. The water management districts 

require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) when construction of any project results in the 

creation of a water management system, or impact to “Waters of the State” or isolated wetlands. 

Because the project crosses multiple water management districts, the FDEP will likely take the 

lead on the ERP so that a comprehensive review of the entire corridor can occur. However, this 

decision will be made during final design. 

Further, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FFWCC) review and comment on federal and state wetland permit applications. 

An Individual Permit (and wetland mitigation) would be required with mitigation for wetland 

impacts because impacts from this project will be greater than one acre. 

For the USACE, a Section 404 Permit will also be required. This permit requires compliance 

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

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

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

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

Any project which results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land requires a National 

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

Parts 122 and 124. Because a General Permit under the NPDES system exists for this type of 

work, a separate individual permit application for NPDES is not required. Rather, a Notice of 

Intent to utilize the General Permit is required to be submitted by the construction contractor 48 

hours prior to construction commencement. 

In conjunction with this permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be 

required and implemented during the construction of the project by implementing such measures 

as Best Management Practices (BMPs). The primary functions of the NPDES requirements are to 

assure that sediment and erosion control during construction of the project takes place. 

The permitting process for this project is anticipated to require between 180 and 365 days. 

7. AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

An important part of this reevaluation has been working with local jurisdictions and stakeholders 

to reintroduce the project, inform them of the changes, and obtain input. Public involvement has 

been continued by holding three public information meetings: one in Tampa, one in Lakeland, 

and one in Orlando. 

Coordination with environmental review agencies was also conducted to collect data and confirm 

mitigation requirements. This coordination effort is continuing, specifically with the City of 

Tampa. A Permitting and Agency Review meeting was held to brief agencies on the FEIS 

Revaluation approach and the changes identified since the July 2005 FEIS. Agencies, as 

identified in FDOT Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) guidance were included. 

A comprehensive agency and public outreach program was carried out for the FHSR FEIS 

reevaluation. By meeting with interested citizens and agencies during the reevaluation phase, 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

39 May 2010

FDOT ensured public participation and input on the changes to the preferred alternative and the 

resulting environmental impacts. Members of the public received direct communication in the 

form of mailings and the project website. 

The public awareness program was developed to insure federal, state, and local officials, 

property and business owners, interested groups and organizations, and county residents receive 

the latest information concerning project changes and the status of the reevaluation activities. 

7.1 Local Government Coordination Meetings 

A total of 11 meetings were held with local governments to obtain information about changes to 

transportation facilities and land use plans that have occurred since the 2005 FEIS. 

7.2 ETAT Agency Coordination Meeting 

The agency coordination meeting was held on September 11, 2009. Invitees included the 

Environmental Technical Advisory Teams from Districts One, Five, and Seven. A summary of 

the meeting is included in the Public Involvement Program, which is provided in Appendix E. 

Table 7-1 Local Government Coordination Meetings 

Organization(s) Date Location 

Various Transportation / Transit Agencies June 29, 2009 FDOT District Seven; Tampa, Florida 

Various Planning and Transportation Agencies June 30, 2009 FDOT District Five Urban Office; Orlando, Florida 

Orange County July 20, 2009 Orange County Offices; Orlando, Florida 

City of Lakeland, Polk County, Polk County TPO July 20, 2009 City of Lakeland Offices; Lakeland, Florida 

City of Tampa July 21, 2009 FDOT District Seven; Tampa, Florida 

Greater Orlando Airport Authority July 21, 2009 GOAA Annex Building; Orlando, Florida 

City of Orlando August 12, 2009 City of Orlando; Orlando, Florida 

Tampa Bay Area Regional Authority and 

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority 

August 13, 2009 FDOT District Seven; Tampa, Florida 

City of Plant City and Hillsborough County August 13, 2009 FDOT District Seven; Tampa, Florida 

University of South Florida Polytechnic August 13, 2009 FDOT District One; Bartow, Florida 

International Drive/ETC August 14, 2009 Embassy Suites; Orlando, Florida 

Source: PBS&J, Sept. 2009 

7.3 Public Information Meetings 

Three Public Information Meetings were held along the project corridor in September 2009. This 

series of meetings provided the public with an opportunity to review the information on the 

FHSR reevaluation process and results. The meeting included a video presentation and aerial 

exhibits and displays for the purpose of enhancing public understanding of the changes expected 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 40

to the proposed project. All oral and written comments received were documented as part of the 

project records. A summary of the meetings is included in Public Involvement. 

The 2005 FEIS documented the impacts of multiple alternatives, including a Preferred 

Alternative. Alternatives 1 and 5 in the FEIS were identical with the exception of the high speed 

rail technology. Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative at that time, assumed a gas-turbine 

powered locomotive-hauled train technology. Alternative 5 assumed an electric-powered 

locomotive-hauled train technology. 

7.1.1. Public Information Meetings Comments Received 

Comments received during the public information meetings are summarized by meeting location. 

Tampa Meeting 

Approximately 77 individuals participated in the Tampa Public Information Meeting, along with 

15 project team members. Ten written comments were submitted at the meeting, including two 

from elected officials: St. Petersburg City Councilman Wengay “Newt” Newton, and Florida 

Representative Betty Reed (District 59). One comment and one request for information were 

received via email. A summary of the comments is provided in the following bulleted list: 

• Eight (8) of the 11 comments received were in favor of the project 

• One (1) comment opposed the project because of its funding source (American 

Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009) 

• One (1) opposed the project because of noise issues 

• Two (2) questioned why there wasn’t a connection to Pinellas County 

• Three (3) wanted to ensure a connection to Hillsborough County’s proposed light rail 

system 

• One (1) questioned the number of site locations in Tampa and Lakeland 

• One (1) requested consideration be given to implementing a comprehensive approach to 

design sensitive issues like landscaping 

• One (1) requested additional project information 

Lakeland Meeting 

Approximately 160 individuals attended the Lakeland Public Information Meeting, along with 19 

team members. Forty-eight written comments were submitted at the meeting, and one was 

received by mail. One request for project information was received by email. The bulleted list 

below provides a summary of comments: 

• 37 of the 48 comments received were in favor of the project 

• Three (3) opposed the chosen technology (electric) and instead favored MAGLEV 

• Two (2) expressed concern about modes of transportation available to and from the high 

speed rail site locations 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

41 May 2010

• One (1) expressed concern regarding the preservation of wildlife crossings 

• Two (2) wanted the system to connect to Tampa International Airport (TIA) 

• One (1) ranked the sites in varying order 

• One (1) opposed Lakeland Option 4 

• Two (2) suggested a station at I-4 and US 27 

• Two (1) supported Location Option 1 

• Three (3) supported Location Option 4 

• Two (2) favored the Kathleen Road option 

• Four (4) supported Location Option 2 

• Two (2) favored Location Option 5 

• Two (2) favored the Mall Hill Road option 

• One (1) wanted any location in central Polk County 

• Other concerns included: 

- information on the economic impact of high speed rail 

- consideration be given to adding more stops in the future 

- availability and location of power plants used to run the system 

- concerns regarding safety of vehicular traffic adjacent to the median 

- location of the Tampa station 

- concern regarding increase in noise 

- cost of “downtown” for repairs 

Orlando Meeting 

Approximately 65 individuals attended the Orlando Public Information Meeting, along with 19 

project team members. A total of six (6) written comments were submitted at the meeting. A 

summary of the comments is provided in the bulleted list below: 

• Two (2) of the six (6) comments received were in favor of the project 

• One (1) preferred MAGLEV technology 

• Other concerns included: 

- Request for information, and that it be placed on the website 

- Advertisement of the meeting 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION

May 2010 42

8. CONCLUSION 

This reevaluation of the Florida High Speed Rail, Tampa to Orlando Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, May 2005 (FEIS) assessed the change of technology from a gas turbinepowered locomotive-hauled train to an electric-powered locomotive-hauled train on the same 

preferred alignment. The FEIS environmental analysis provided for either technology to be the 

preferred. As this FEIS reevaluation confirms, the changes within the preferred alternative 

resulting from the assessment of the alignment, existing conditions and evaluation of changes in 

the environmental impacts ranged from minimal to improved (based on the technology change). 

The changes to the preferred alternative are summarized as factors that are modified to 

accommodate the as-built conditions within the improved interstate corridor and changes to 

minimize impacts to continued development within the corridor. These changes, as stated in 

Chapter 2 of this report and illustrated in the revised plans included in Appendix B, are minimal 

within the 85-mile alternative and concentrated within the immediate Tampa CBD and in the 

Tradeport Drive industrial park area in Orange County. 

The changes in existing conditions identified in Chapter 3 of this document resulting in changes 

to the environmental impacts are summarized in the following: 

• Relocations: reduction of one business impact in Tampa CBD and 3 additional business 

impacts in Tradeport Drive industrial area. 

• Section 106: reduction of one historic structure with relocation by FDOT complete. 

• Recreation and Park/Section 4(f): Changes to the City of Tampa’s Perry Harvey Sr. Park 

boundaries since the 2005 FEIS and changes to the alternative reduce overall area of use. 

• Air Quality, Noise, Vibration, Visual/Aesthetic, and Energy Consumption: changes based 

on technology preference from gas turbine-powered to electric-powered locomotivehauled train. 

• Contamination: additional sites resulting in the same number of sites with high risk 

ranking and an additional one site each for medium and low risk ranking. 

• Wildlife and Habitat: one additional species (Everglade’s snail kite) afforded protection 

since 2005. 

The above changes to the environmental impacts do not change the mitigation and commitments 

identified in the 2005 FEIS with the exception of regulatory changes in the permitting of 

wetlands, water quality, and wildlife and habitat. These are further described in Chapters 5 and 6. 

The public involvement effort described in Chapter 7, included coordination with the local 

agencies, governments and environmental review agencies and three public information 

meetings throughout the corridor. The local governments provided information in support of the 

project. The environmental agency meeting included only one comment relating to updated 

environmental regulations. The public involvement meetings were attended by 198 citizens 

throughout the 85-mile preferred alternative with overall support of the proposed project. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL FEIS REEVALUATION 

43 May 2010

Based on the reevaluation of the Florida High Speed Rail, Tampa to Orlando Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, May 2005, FDOT and FRA have reached the conclusion that 

there are no additional significant impacts that have been identified during the reevaluation that 

would require the preparation of a Supplemental EIS.