AAF Orlando to Miami Draft EIS

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


September 2014


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


September 2014


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


Summary S-1 September 2014

Summary
This is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed All Aboard Florida Orlando to
Miami Intercity Passenger Rail Project (the Project). This summary is intended to assist readers in
understanding the Project, the environmental review process, the alternatives that were evaluated and
the environmental effects of the Project.
About the Project
All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF) is proposing to construct and operate a privately owned and
operated intercity passenger railroad system that will connect Orlando and Miami, with intermediate
stops in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida.
AAF has applied for $1.6 billion in federal funds through the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement
Financing (RRIF) program, which is a loan and loan guarantee program administered by FRA as described
in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 260. Under this program, the FRA Administrator is authorized
to provide direct loans and loan guarantees that may be used to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate rail
equipment or facilities or develop new intermodal or railroad facilities. Because AAF has applied for a
loan under FRA’s RRIF program, FRA is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to
conduct an analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project. NEPA compliance
is a prerequisite for RRIF approval, and FRA will not approve the Project for a RRIF loan until the NEPA
process is complete. A RRIF loan, if approved, would be part of an overall capital structure put in place
by AAF to finance the infrastructure improvements.
AAF proposes to implement the Project through a phased approach. Phase I would provide rail service on
the West Palm Beach to Miami section while Phase II would extend service to Orlando. Phase I would
provide passenger rail service along the 66.5 miles of the Florida East Coast Railroad (FECR) Corridor
connecting West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. AAF has obtained private financing for
Phase I and is proceeding to implement Phase I, which is illustrated in Figure 1.1‐1.
FRA and AAF conducted an environmental review of Phase I in 2012/2013, including preparing and issuing
both an Environmental Assessment (EA) (Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All
Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida) and a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) (AAF 2012; FRA 2013a). Phase I of the Project, as described in the 2012 EA, includes
constructing three new stations (West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami), purchasing five train sets,
adding a second track along most of the 66.5‐mile corridor and adding 16 new round‐trip intercity
passenger train trips (32 one‐way trips) on the West Palm Beach to Miami section of the FECR Corridor.
FRA concluded that Phase I has independent utility (that is, it could be advanced and serve a transportation
need even if Phase II were not constructed). FRA has made no decision under the Railroad Rehabilitation
and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program as to whether a loan would be provided for Phase I.
As a result of the environmental review process conducted by FRA in cooperation with AAF for Phase I, AAF
is authorized to construct the Phase I component of the Project as reviewed and approved in the 2012 EA
and FRA’s subsequent FONSI. Since the FONSI, AAF proposed and FRA has evaluated a new location for the
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-2 September 2014

proposed Fort Lauderdale Station and issued a re‐evaluation decision that found no significant difference
from the location evaluated in the 2012 EA. Also since the FONSI, AAF proposed and FRA has evaluated a
new location in West Palm Beach for the proposed Fort Lauderdale layover and maintenance facility. FRA
has issued a supplemental EA for public review of this new site concurrent with this DEIS.
Considering Phase II of the Project and RRIF loan approval as separate federal actions, FRA has
undertaken a NEPA review of the proposed extension. Given that operations would cover the full corridor
from Orlando to Miami, this DEIS analyzes the cumulative effects of completing both phases of the Project,
although the impacts exclusively from Phase 1 have already been addressed in the 2012 EA and FONSI
and will not be reanalyzed in the DEIS. AAF can proceed at this time with construction of Phase I based
upon the FONSI and incorporating the mitigation measures identified therein. The bulk of the
information in this DEIS related to Phase I is drawn from the 2012 EA. FRA concluded that it was
important to provide a comprehensive look at the environmental impacts of both phases in one
environmental document.
Phase II of the Project includes constructing a new railroad line parallel to State Road (SR) 528 between
the Orlando International Airport (MCO) and Cocoa, constructing a new Vehicle Maintenance Facility
(VMF) on property owned by the Greater Orlando Airport Authority (GOAA), adding a second track within
128.5 miles of the FECR Corridor between West Palm Beach and Cocoa, and additional bridge work
between Miami and West Palm Beach. The proposed service would use a new intermodal facility at MCO
that is being constructed by GOAA as an independent action. The Project includes purchasing five
additional passenger train sets, and would add 16 new round‐trip intercity passenger train trips
(32 one‐way trips) on the new railroad segment and on the FECR Corridor between Cocoa and West Palm
Beach. No additional trips beyond those considered in the 2012 EA (16 round‐trip intercity passenger
train trips [32 one‐way trips]) would be added on the West Palm Beach to Miami section.
About the NEPA Process
FRA is the lead federal agency responsible for conducting the NEPA environmental review process for the
Project. FRA manages financial assistance programs for rail capital investments and has certain safety
oversight responsibilities with respect to railroad operations.

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


Summary S-3 September 2014


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


Summary S-4 September 2014

AAF has applied for federal funds through the RRIF program, as described above, which is administered
by the FRA. Under this program, the FRA Administrator is authorized to provide direct loans and loan
guarantees that may be used to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate rail equipment or facilities or develop
new intermodal or railroad facilities. Because AAF has applied for a loan under FRA’s RRIF program, FRA
is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to conduct an analysis of the potential
environmental impacts resulting from the Project. NEPA compliance is a prerequisite for RRIF approval,
and FRA will not approve the Project for a RRIF loan until the NEPA process is complete. A RRIF loan, if
approved, would be part of an overall capital structure put in place by AAF to finance the infrastructure
improvements.
Approvals by several federal agencies, including the FRA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would be
necessary to implement the Project.
An EIS is a document required by NEPA that describes the environmental effects of a project to inform
decision‐makers and the public. NEPA is a federal environmental law that facilitates public disclosures
and establishes policies for federal agencies to study a reasonable range of alternatives and assess
environmental impacts of projects. An EIS must be prepared by a federal agency for any major federal
action significantly affecting or with the potential to affect the quality of the natural and built
environment. Environmental effects can be both positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse).
NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations define the general
framework for preparing an EIS. FRA also has its own, more specific, guidelines for implementing NEPA.
The NEPA process typically includes these steps:
 Notice of Intent – a notice, published in the Federal Register, notifying the public of the federal
agency’s intent to prepare an EIS, defining the project and informing the public how to comment on
the project. The Notice of Intent for the AAF Project was published on April 15, 2013.
 Scoping – an early and open process for identifying significant issues related to a project. As part of
the scoping process, agencies and the public are invited to participate and provide comment. A series
of public scoping meetings for the Project were held in April and May 2013 in Orlando, Fort Pierce,
West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami and an agency scoping meeting was held in April 2013.
Agencies and the public provided input that informed the scope and content of the environmental
studies conducted for the DEIS, including concerns about noise and vibration impacts, impacts to
navigation, impacts to wildlife and protected species, safety and traffic operations at grade crossings.
The public comments also indicated in interest in additional stations and the opportunity to include
a bicycle trail within the railroad right‐of‐way (ROW).
 Draft EIS (DEIS) – the purpose of the DEIS is to disclose all environmental effects associated with the
project alternatives, whether they are adverse or beneficial and allow the public to review and
comment on the document. FRA has prepared and published this DEIS in coordination with the FAA,
USACE and USCG and informed the public through a notice in the Federal Register, newspaper ads
and press releases. Public information meetings on the DEIS will be held during the 75‐day public
comment period.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-5 September 2014

 Final EIS (FEIS) – following the public comment period on the DEIS, FRA will prepare and publish a
FEIS that responds to public and agency comments.
 Record of Decision (ROD) – FRA will issue a single document that consists of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement and Record of Decision pursuant to Pub. L. 112‐141, 126 Stat. 405, Section 1319(b)
unless FRA determines that statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuance of
such a combined document. FRA may approve the RRIF loan request after the ROD has been finalized.
Purpose of the Project
As identified by AAF, the purpose of the Project is to provide reliable and convenient intercity passenger
rail transportation between Orlando and Miami, Florida (the Project Corridor, see Figure S‐1), by
extending (in Phase II) the previously reviewed Phase I AAF passenger rail service between West Palm
Beach and Miami and by maximizing the use of existing transportation corridors. This transportation
service would offer a safe and efficient alternative to automobile travel on congested highway corridors,
add transportation capacity within those corridors (particularly Interstate 95 [I‐95]) and encourage
connectivity with other modes of transportation such as light rail, commuter rail and air transportation.
The additional purpose of Phase I of the Project, as stated in the 2013 FONSI for that initial project, is to
“provide intercity passenger rail service that addresses South Florida’s current and future needs to
enhance the transportation system by providing a transportation alternative for Floridians and tourists,
supporting economic development, creating jobs and improving air quality.”
Alternatives Considered in this EIS
In order to identify and consider alternatives that will satisfy this purpose, including the Project’s
feasibility as a private enterprise, AAF identified its primary objective which is to provide an intercity rail
service that is sustainable as a private commercial enterprise. The two principal components of this
objective are the basis for developing the criteria and framework for evaluating the Project alternatives.
AAF’s two primary goals are to:
 Provide a reliable and convenient intercity rail service between Orlando and Miami with an
approximate 3‐hour trip time between the terminal stations; and
 Provide an intercity rail service that is sustainable as a private commercial enterprise. Sustainable
means that the rail service can attract sufficient riders to meet revenue projections and operate at an
acceptable profit level.
The DEIS evaluates the No‐Action Alternative as a baseline to compare the effects of the “build” (Action)
Alternatives. The No‐Action Alternative involves no changes to the rail line within the FECR Corridor
beyond regular maintenance and improvements that have been currently planned and funded. Under the
No‐Action Alternative, existing freight operations and infrastructure would be maintained by FECR. The
demand for freight capacity is expected to grow along the North South Corridor (N‐S Corridor) regardless
of the Project. Based on anticipated operations data for the 2016 target date for the Project, the average
number of freight trains per day is expected to increase from 10 to 14 (in 2013) to 20, along with an
increase in the average train length to 8,150 feet. The No‐Action Alternative would also include future
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-6 September 2014

planned and funded roadway, transit, air and other intermodal improvements likely to be completed
within the Project study area by the 2016 target date.
AAF conducted a tiered alternatives analysis that first evaluated four routes to connect Orlando (at the
planned GOAA Intermodal Station) with the planned West Palm Beach Station on the FECR Corridor and
identified the FECR Corridor Alternative as the only feasible route. This alternative would extend service
from the West Palm Beach station north along the FECR ROW to the Cocoa area, then parallel SR 528 (the
BeachLine Expressway) to MCO. In the second level of analysis, AAF identified and evaluated route
modifications to connect the SR 528 corridor to the Intermodal Station on the west and with the FECR
ROW on the east. The third level evaluated alignment alternatives parallel to SR 528. Three Action
Alternatives were retained for detailed evaluation in the DEIS: Alternative A, Alternative C and
Alternative E. Table S‐1 summarizes the main characteristics of the three Action Alternatives.
Operations and ridership would be the same for all three alternatives. AAF would provide regularly
scheduled, hourly‐service frequency with an approximately 3‐hour trip time. The intercity passenger rail
service would operate with new diesel‐electric locomotives and single‐level coach trains. Passenger
operations would include 16 round‐trip passenger trains per day. Maximum operating speeds would
range from 79 to 125 miles per hour (mph), depending upon the location. Operating speeds will be
greatest along the SR 528 corridor where there would be no highway‐rail grade crossings. From the
station at MCO to West Palm Beach, service would be non‐stop, as there are no intermediate stations
proposed. According to a ridership and revenue forecast commissioned by Florida East Coast Industries
and prepared by Louis Berger Group (LBG) for the Project, the most conservative total annual ridership
would amount to approximately 3.5 million in 2019. Among the 2019 project totals, approximately
2.0 million would be short distance trips (Ft. Lauderdale – Miami, West Palm Beach – Miami, West Palm
Beach – Ft. Lauderdale) and 1.5 million would be long distance trips (Orlando – Southeast Florida). Total
annual ridership is predicted to exceed 4 million by year 2030. Each of the three Action Alternatives
would include a new VMF located on GOAA property south of MCO. No new stations would be constructed
as part of the Project. The Project would incorporate a new Positive Train Control system and associated
infrastructure and would install pole‐mounted warning horns at grade crossings.
Alternative A would include a new rail corridor extending north through MCO to SR 528 (the MCO Segment),
including the proposed VMF; a new rail alignment largely within the SR 528 ROW owned by the
Orlando‐Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) and the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) from MCO to the FECR Corridor in Cocoa (the East West Corridor [E‐W Corridor]); and would use
the existing FECR ROW from Cocoa to West Palm Beach (the N‐S Corridor). Within the N‐S Corridor, the
Project largely consists of restoring a second track, modifying several curves to accommodate higher speeds
and replacing or repairing bridges across waterways. Alternative A also includes modifications to seven
bridges within the WPB‐M Corridor and minor track modifications at the Miami Viaduct.
Alternative C differs from Alternative A within the OOCEA ROW section of the E‐W Corridor. Alternative C
would include a new rail corridor extending north through MCO to SR 528 (the MCO Segment), including
the proposed VMF; a new rail alignment along the edge of the SR 528 OOCEA ROW (the E‐W Corridor)
from MCO to SR 520 and then within the SR 528 FDOT ROW to the FECR Corridor in Cocoa; and would
use the existing FECR ROW from Cocoa to West Palm Beach (the N‐S Corridor). Within the N‐S Corridor,
the Project largely consists of restoring a second track, modifying several curves to accommodate higher
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-7 September 2014

speeds and replacing or repairing bridges across waterways. Alternative C also includes modifications to
seven bridges within the WPB‐M Corridor, a new location for the proposed Fort Lauderdale Station and
minor track modifications at the Miami Viaduct.

Table S-1 DEIS Alternatives
Segment/Project
Element
No-Action Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E
MCO No construction 2.5-mile new rail
corridor
2.5-mile new rail
corridor
2.5-mile new rail
corridor
E-W Corridor No construction 1.5-mile new rail
corridor west of
Narcoosee Road
17.5-mile new rail
corridor within current
SR 528 OOCEA
ROW
15-mile new rail
corridor within FDOT
and utility ROWs
5 new bridges over
water
1.5-mile new rail
corridor west of
Narcoosee Road
17.5-mile new rail
corridor along
boundary of current
SR 528 OOCEA
ROW
15-mile new rail
corridor within FDOT
and utility ROWs
5 new bridges over
water
1.5-mile new rail
corridor west of
Narcoosee Road
17.5-mile new rail
corridor 100 feet
south of current
SR 528 OOCEA
ROW
15-mile new rail
corridor within FDOT
and utility ROWs
5 new bridges over
water
N-S Corridor No construction –
Freight trips increase to
20 trips/day in 2016
128.5 mile corridor
Add second track,
straighten curves,
Reconstruct 18
bridges
128.5 mile corridor
Add second track,
straighten curves,
Reconstruct 18
bridges
128.5 mile corridor
Add second track,
straighten curves,
Reconstruct 18
bridges
WPB-M Corridor No construction –
Freight increases to 20
trips/day in 2016
66.5-mile corridor
Add second track
Reconstruct 7
bridges
66.5-mile corridor
Add second track
Reconstruct 7
bridges
66.5-mile corridor
Add second track
Reconstruct 7
bridges
VMF No construction New VMF on south
portion of GOAA
property
Construct 1 new
bridge
New VMF on south
portion of GOAA
property
Construct 1 new
bridge
New VMF on south
portion of GOAA
property
Construct 1 new
bridge
Stations MCO Intermodal Station West Palm Beach
Fort Lauderdale
Miami
West Palm Beach
Fort Lauderdale
Miami
West Palm Beach
Fort Lauderdale
Miami
Passenger Trips None 16 RT (32 trains) 16 RT (32 trains) 16 RT (32 trains)
Ridership 0 3.5M 3.5M 3.5M

Alternative E differs from Alternatives A and C within the OOCEA ROW section of the E‐W Corridor.
Alternative E would include a new rail corridor extending north through MCO to SR 528 (the
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-8 September 2014

MCO Segment), including the proposed VMF; a new rail alignment 200 feet south of the SR 528 OOCEA
ROW (the E‐W Corridor) from MCO SR 520 and then within the SR 528 FDOT ROW to the FECR Corridor
in Cocoa; and would use the existing FECR ROW from Cocoa to West Palm Beach (the N‐S Corridor).
Within the N‐S Corridor, the Project largely consists of restoring a second track, modifying several curves
to accommodate higher speeds and replacing or repairing bridges across waterways. Alternative E also
includes modifications to seven bridges within the WPB‐M Corridor, a new location for the proposed Fort
Lauderdale Station and minor track modifications at the Miami Viaduct.
Chapter 3, Alternatives, provides a detailed discussion of the alternatives analysis process and a detailed
description of each of the alternatives retained for evaluation in this DEIS.
Environmental Effects
This DEIS evaluates the environmental effects associated with the three Action Alternatives. The potential
effects, both beneficial and adverse, of the three alternatives are summarized below. The Project has the
potential to adversely affect land use, transportation (particularly traffic at‐grade crossings), noise and
vibration, water resources, wetlands and floodplains, biological communities, protected species, social
and economic conditions, cultural resources, parks and recreation areas and utilities. However,
mitigation measures would be required that will reduce these potential adverse effects. The Project
would also have beneficial environmental effects, such as traffic diversion from I‐95 and other highways,
economic growth, air quality improvements and energy consumption improvements during operation.
Land Use
The land use analysis included an inventory of existing land use as well as the evaluation of local land use
plans applicable to the Project Area. Potential direct effects include the potential for permanent land use
conversions and consistency with local land use plans.
Direct impacts to land use along the MCO Segment and N‐S Corridor are the same for all three Action
Alternatives. AAF would lease land within MCO for the VMF and railroad ROW and would lease land from
OOCEA and FDOT to construct the E‐W Corridor. AAF would purchase privately owned property in two
locations, which would result in the permanent conversion of 45 acres of land from undeveloped land use
to transportation use. The Project would be consistent with land use plans and the plans of the
transportation stakeholders (GOAA, OOCEA and FDOT).
Section 5.1.1, Land Use, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect and
secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Transportation
The transportation analysis included Annual Average Daily Volume (AADT) obtained from FDOT for the
two largest arterials, by volume, for each county through which the Project would pass. Highway capacity
analysis for the 10 at‐grade railroad crossings and intersections were conducted in accordance with the
standard methodology presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB 2010).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-9 September 2014

The Project would have the same transportation impacts under all three Action Alternatives, as they
would include the same effects on existing rail and highway infrastructure, have the same ridership and
effects on vehicle miles traveled and would have the same number and locations of at‐grade crossings.
There are no existing freight rail operations along the MCO Segment or E‐W Corridor, therefore no
impacts to freight rail operations would occur along these segments. The N‐S Corridor has been designed
to cause no adverse impact on freight operations and has an assumed beneficial impact on freight
operations. Infrastructure modifications and upgrades from a mostly single‐track system to a mostly
double‐track system would improve freight efficiencies, as represented by increases in average operating
speeds. The Project would have a beneficial impact on the passenger rail transportation network between
Orlando and West Palm Beach by providing potential customers with an alternative means of
transportation.
Riders for AAF are expected to be primarily diverted from automobile modes (69 percent of forecast
ridership). The Project would have the beneficial impact of removing 335,628 auto vehicle trips per year
from the regional roadway network in 2016 and 1.2 million vehicles in 2019.
The proposed passenger rail service would divert 10 percent of its long‐distance riders from private
inter‐city motorbus services, which totals approximately 152,600 annual bus passenger trips per year.
The proposed service would divert 10 percent of its riders from the air service market, which totals
approximately 152,600 annual aviation passenger trips per year. Two percent of the AAF long‐distance
ridership is forecast to come from Amtrak passenger rail services. In 2019, this amounts to approximately
31,000 annual trips diverted from Amtrak which is about 4 percent of Amtrak’s 2012 ridership in South
Florida.
The Project would not impact local vehicular traffic along the MCO Segment or the E‐W Corridor, as there
would be no at‐grade crossings. The N‐S Corridor would result in some degradation in Levels of Service
at the grade crossings and intersections studied, with greater percentages of time within an hour of
operation under unacceptable roadway conditions than under the No‐Action Alternative. With just three
train crossings per hour, the majority of each hour of operation would not be affected by the introduction
of passenger train service. Typical at‐grade crossings (intersections of local roads with the FECR corridor)
would be closed an average of 54 times per day (3 times per hour), with closure times ranging from
1.7 minutes (passenger) to 2.8 minutes (freight). The total hourly closure would range from 4.2 minutes
per hour to 4.5 minutes per hour, an increase of approximately 2 minutes per hour in comparison to the
No‐Action Alternative.
Section 5.1.2, Transportation, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect and
secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Navigation
Impacts to navigable waters and navigation would be the same for Alternatives A, C and E, as each would
include the same bridge improvements. Existing fixed bridges would be replaced, or new fixed bridges
would be constructed to maintain the existing vertical and horizontal clearances and maintain existing
navigation conditions. There would be no loss in existing clearance for the proposed new rail bridge over
the St. Johns River and no change in the structure or the dimensions of the opening for the St. Lucie River
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-10 September 2014

or Loxahatchee (Jupiter) River bridges. Under all Action Alternatives, the moveable bridges (St. Lucie
River, Loxahatchee River and New River) would be closed more frequently to accommodate the increased
number of trains. AAF has developed an operating plan that minimizes the number and duration of
closures; however, the total daily closure time at each bridge would increase in comparison to the No‐
Action Alternative. AAF is proposing to mitigate for this increased closure time by implementing new
measures to notify mariners of the bridge closure times and to make closure times more predictable.
These mitigation measures will reduce delays and help to reduce queue lengths and times.
Section 5.1.3, Navigation, describes navigation impacts in detail, along with economic impacts to the
marine industry. Chapter 7, Mitigation Measures and Project Commitments, describes the proposed
mitigation measures.
Air Quality
The air quality analysis evaluated the emission of air pollutants from the Project, the resulting
concentrations of pollutants in the regional areas and carbon monoxide concentrations at intersections
affected by changes in traffic patterns. This evaluation applied primary and secondary air quality
standards identified by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to evaluate if the Project
might cause any new violation of the NAAQS, increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations
or delay attainment of any NAAQS.
As compared to the No‐Action Alternative, air quality effects of the Project would be identical, as each
alternative would provide a similar travel time and would have the same ridership and vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) reductions. All six counties crossed by the Project are in attainment for all criteria
pollutants. The Project would provide a net regional air quality benefit as compared to the No‐Action
Alternative. Air quality in the region would be improved through the reduction of vehicles from the roads
and highways as riders move instead to the proposed passenger rail service between Orlando and West
Palm Beach. The Project would decrease emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
sulfur dioxide (SO
2
), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM
10
) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM
2.5
) by 2016. By 2030, the
Project would reduce CO emissions by 1,654 tons, NOx by 192 tons, VOCs by 59 tons and PM
10
by 7 tons.
A detailed hot‐spot modeling evaluation of intersections was not conducted as part of the air quality
analysis because traffic volumes and congestion at grade crossings, and therefore CO emissions, would
be lower than those evaluated as part of the 2012 EA for the West Palm Beach to Miami segment, which
did not exceed air quality criteria.
Section 5.2.1, Air Quality, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect and
secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Noise and Vibration
Noise and vibration have been assessed according to guidelines specified in FRA’s High‐Speed Ground
Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual, the Federal Transit
Administration’s (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual and the FHWA guidelines
as defined for Florida application by FDOT for traffic operations (FRA 2012a; FTA 2006; FDOT 2011c).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-11 September 2014

There would be no adverse noise impacts in the MCO Segment. Along the E‐W Corridor, noise impacts
would be primarily due to the increased noise propagation from elevated portions of track. There is
potential for 105 moderate and five severe noise impacts at residential receptors and one moderate
impact at an institutional receptor. Along the N‐S Corridor, the use of wayside (pole‐mounted) horns
would eliminate any severe impacts and would reduce noise levels in comparison to the No‐Action
Alternative.
Noise mitigation along elevated portions of track may include sound barriers on the edge of the elevated
structures to mitigate potential severe impacts. AAF is committed to mitigating impacts from the
increased frequency of warning horn use at highway‐rail at‐grade crossings with the installation of
stationary wayside horns at each of the grade crossings where severe, unmitigated impacts would occur.
AAF is committed to cooperating with local jurisdictions should they seek to establish quiet zones in lieu
of wayside horns.
The greatest potential for vibration impact is along the N‐S Corridor due to the increase (approximately
doubling) of vibration events. There is no potential vibration impact along the MCO Segment. Along the
E‐W Corridor, there is the potential for vibration impact at 118 residential and 12 institutional receptors.
There would be potential vibration impact at a total of 3,317 residential, 513 institutional receptors, three
TV studios, three recording studios, nine auditoriums and three theaters along the N‐S Corridor. AAF
would minimize vibration impacts by wheel and rail maintenance that will control unacceptably high
vibration levels. Vibration levels would be minor and would not exceed the threshold for structural
damage to fragile buildings.
Noise during construction would affect residences and other buildings close to the Project Area,
particularly where pile‐driving is required for bridge construction.
Section 5.2.2, Noise and Vibration, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect
and secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts. Chapter 7, Mitigation Measures and Project
Commitments, describes the proposed mitigation measures.
Farmland Soils
Farmland soils within the Project Study Area with any level of designation by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) were identified and mapped relative to the location of the Project. Direct
impacts to prime and unique farmland soils from constructing the Project are limited to the E‐W Corridor
for all three Action Alternatives. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating forms were completed and
submitted to NRCS. According to the results of the NRCS evaluation, there would be no significant impact
to farmland soils.
Section 5.2.3, Farmland Soils, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect and
secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal
Several potential sources of soil or groundwater contamination are within or adjacent to the Project
footprint. A contamination screening evaluation was performed and included a records search and
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-12 September 2014

review of historical aerials. A field reconnaissance was also conducted for sites rated medium and
high‐risk in proximity to the Project footprint.
The Project has the potential to encounter contaminated soils or groundwater, or to require the removal
of waste material such as railroad ties, creosote‐treated bridge timbers, or demolition material. The
potential effects of the Action Alternatives would be the same. GOAA reported that no contaminated sites
were located within 500 feet of the Project for the MCO Segment (including the VMF). The contaminated
sites evaluation for the E‐W Corridor identified 16 potentially contaminated sites within the 500‐foot
detailed evaluation area. However, all of the potentially contaminated sites are outside the planned
construction areas and impacts from the existing contaminated areas are not anticipated. A total of
337 potentially contaminated sites are within the 200‐foot detailed search radius along the 128.5‐mile N‐
S Corridor. As the proposed upgrades for this portion of the Project would be completely within the
existing FECR Corridor and would result in minimal subsurface disturbance, there would be no impacts
from existing contaminated areas. The Project would not substantially increase operational hazardous
materials or hazardous waste. During construction, the Project would include proper handling, use and
disposal of hazardous materials and waste and would be compliant within all appropriate tracking and
reporting requirements. Consequently, none of the three alternatives would affect the transfer, storage,
or transportation of pollutants.
Section 5.2.4, Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal, describes these environmental impacts in
detail, along with indirect and secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Coastal Zone Management
The Project lies within the designated Florida Coastal Zone and requires a federal consistency
determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Direct effects to the “natural resources
of the coastal zone”, including both aquatic and marine resources, would result from all elements of the
Project, including construction of the VMF, bridge and rail construction along the E‐W Corridor and bridge
construction along the N‐S Corridor. Portions of the N‐S Corridor are within or adjacent to Coastal and
Aquatic Managed Areas. Bridge construction/reconstruction would affect small areas of aquatic
resources within the Indian River and the Jensen Beach‐Juniper Inlet Aquatic Reserve. Each of the three
Action Alternatives is consistent with applicable coastal zone policies; however, several provisions of the
Florida Coastal Management Program would require mitigation.
Section 5.2.5, Coastal Zone Management, provides a detailed discussion of coastal zone consistency.
Climate Change
Florida faces direct, immediate and severe impacts from climate change through rising sea level and the
possibility of more intense storms. Calculations for emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) carbon dioxide
(CO
2
), methane (CH
4
) and nitrous oxide (N
2
O) show the Project would decrease emissions as a result of
decreased automobile VMT. CO
2
emissions would decrease by 19,617 tons/year in 2019 and
31,477 tons/year in 2030. CH
4
emissions would decrease by 4.7 and 5.7 tons/year, respectively and N
2
O
emissions by 5.0 and 6.1 tons/year in 2019 and 2030. Sea level rise effects for the MCO Segment and
E‐W Corridor are anticipated to be minimal for the 2030 and 2060 planning horizons as these segments
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-13 September 2014

of the Project are at higher elevations and further from the coast. The N‐S Corridor and WPB‐M Corridor
were assessed for vulnerability, as these corridors are along the coast and cross several coastal water
bodies. Bridge structures will have increased vulnerability over time; potential infrastructure damage
may result from flooding, tidal damage and/or storms.
Section 5.2.6, Climate Change, provides a detailed discussion of climate change effects.
Water Resources
Surface water and groundwater resources, including navigable waters, Outstanding Florida Waters
(OFWs) and impaired water bodies, were evaluated for potential impacts based on water availability,
quality, use and associated regulations.
Direct permanent impacts to waterways include installing concrete pilings and abutments within surface
waters during bridge construction. Each of the alternatives would include constructing 31 new or
replacement bridges over waterways, of which six would cross OFWs. New impervious surfaces
(pavement and buildings) would be constructed in the MCO Segment for the VMF and would require
stormwater management systems to protect surface and groundwater quality. Along the E‐W Corridor,
the proposed railroad would convert existing pervious land to a ballasted railroad bed and unpaved
access road, resulting in minor changes to stormwater runoff and infiltration. AAF will implement best
management practices (BMPs), which are often required as part of the environmental review permit
process and would comply with all Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and local
ordinances. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to surface waters and groundwater
resources.
Section 5.3.1, Water Resources, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect and
secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts. Chapter 7, Mitigation Measures and Project
Commitments, describes the proposed mitigation measures.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
The closest Wild and Scenic River designated segment of the Loxahatchee River is approximately
four river miles upstream from the N‐S Corridor in Palm Beach County. No impact would occur to Wild
and Scenic Rivers from the Project, which would not be located in or visible from a Wild and Scenic River
segment.
Wetlands
The Project would have moderate direct and indirect effects to wetlands. Wetlands would be filled to
construct portions of the VMF and the E‐W Corridor for all alternatives. Wetland impacts at the VMF have
largely been permitted by the USACE under a prior permit issued to GOAA. Bridge construction along the
E‐W, N‐S and WPB‐M Corridors would have minor effects on wetlands due to installing new pilings,
abutments and riprap protection and cutting mangrove vegetation beneath the bridges. Alternative A
would result in 128 acres of direct impacts to aquatic resources (wetlands and surface waters).
Alternative C would directly impact 165 acres of aquatic resources and Alternative E would directly
impact 157 acres of aquatic resources. Impacts to wetlands providing high quality habitat to wildlife
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-14 September 2014

would be the least with Alternative A and the greatest with Alternative C. The Project would have indirect
effects on wetland quality and functions along the E‐W Corridor but these would be minor since the
wetlands are already affected by proximity to the heavily‐traveled SR 528 corridor. All wetlands impacts
would be mitigated through the purchase of appropriate mitigation bank credits.
Section 5.3.3, Wetlands, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect and
secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts. Chapter 7, Mitigation Measures and Project
Commitments, describes the proposed mitigation measures.
Floodplains
Impacts to areas subject to flooding were evaluated using the base flood elevation published on the
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
All three of the Action Alternatives would require construction within the mapped 100‐year floodplain.
The E‐W Corridor crosses several floodplains, primarily those associated with the Econolockhatchee
River and the St. Johns River. The N‐S Corridor uses the existing FECR ROW, which crosses numerous
floodplains primarily associated with coastal waters and estuaries. Alternative A would affect the least
amount of floodplains, approximately 138 acres. Both Alternatives C and E would affect approximately
195 acres of floodplains. These impacts are not avoidable due to the extent of floodplains throughout the
Project footprint. The construction design of each Action Alternative would minimize potential harm to
the floodplains by retaining existing elevations where feasible, constructing stormwater mitigation
measures and retention ponds and minimizing fill in sensitive areas.
Section 5.3.4, Floodplains, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect and
secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems
Natural habitats within the Project Study Area support biological diversity, wildlife and fish. Many of these
natural habitats are directly adjacent to existing transportation facilities and have reduced habitat
functions. Direct impacts to biological resources and natural ecological systems from the Project would
result from the loss of natural vegetation along the E‐W Corridor, south of SR 528.
The Project would result in varying impacts to natural upland habitat. Alternative A would cause 93 acres
of direct loss of upland vegetation. Alternative C would directly impact approximately 122 acres of
uplands and Alternative E would directly impact approximately 109 acres of uplands. For each
alternative, the greatest loss of upland habitat would be to forested plant communities. The potential loss
of wildlife habitat could result in indirect or secondary effects to wildlife such as habitat fragmentation
and associated “edge effects,” the loss of genetic diversity of plant and animal populations, increased
competition for resources and physical or psychological restrictions on movements caused by some
feature within a corridor that wildlife are unwilling or unable to cross. It is also possible that the operation
of the Project could displace some individual wildlife populations that are sensitive to noise and vibration.
However, these effects are negligible due to the existing effects of SR 528 and other transportation
facilities.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-15 September 2014

Essential fish habitat (EFH) is defined as those waters and substrates necessary to support fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are
subsets of EFHs that are particularly important to the long‐term productivity of populations of one or
more managed species, or are particularly vulnerable to human induced degradation. The evaluation of
EFHs and HAPC included potential impacts to fisheries. Impacts under Alternatives A, C and E would be
generally similar for all fisheries. The Project would have unavoidable minor impacts to EFH and HAPC.
Direct impacts associated with the Project would result from placing rip‐rap/fill for the bridge
approaches, placing bridge pilings and excavating where existing timber pilings will be replaced. The
USACE and NMFS have concurred that the Project would not have a significant adverse effect on EFHs.
Impacts to biological resources and natural ecological systems have been minimized due to the fact that
the E‐W Corridor would be developed immediately adjacent to an existing transportation corridor and
would not significantly increase fragmentation and noise impacts that do not already exist in this area.
The Project includes a new wildlife crossing adjacent to the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area
(WMA) to facilitate future movement along the Florida Wildlife Corridor.
Erosion and sedimentation would be controlled using BMPs, such as silt fences and turbidity curtains, in
accordance with an approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, during construction of the
bridges.
Section 5.3.5, Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems, describes these environmental impacts
in detail, along with indirect and secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts. Chapter 7,
Mitigation Measures and Project Commitments, describes the proposed mitigation measures.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The Project would potentially affect habitats used by federal and state listed wildlife and plant species.
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) defines an endangered species as “any species which
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act also defines a
threatened species as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The ESA protects species listed as
endangered or threatened on a national basis.
Each of the Action Alternatives could potentially impact the following federally listed species and/or their
habitats: West Indian manatee, sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, Audubon’s crested caracara, wood stork
rookeries, Florida scrub‐jay, red‐cockaded woodpecker, American alligator and the eastern indigo snake.
One federally listed plant species may occur in a number of waterways that intersect the N‐S and WPB‐
M Corridors. Due to the disturbed habitat located in the FECR ROW, it is unlikely any terrestrial federally
listed plant species would occur within the Project footprint, but several species have been documented
within the adjacent Jonathan Dickinson State Park. Potential impacts to state listed species and/or their
habitats include the Sherman’s fox squirrel, burrowing owl, Florida sandhill crane, limpkin, little blue
heron, roseate spoonbill, snowy egret, the southeastern American kestrel, tricolored heron, white ibis,
mangrove rivulus, gopher tortoise (and its associated eastern indigo snake, Florida mouse, Florida pine
snake, short‐tailed snake and gopher frog habitat), wading bird rookeries, American oyster catcher and
reddish egret habitat. AAF has proposed specific mitigation for potential temporary and permanent
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-16 September 2014

impacts to the habitat of federally listed species, in addition to conducting pre‐construction surveys for
rare species (caracara, red‐cockaded woodpecker, gopher tortoise, sand skink and state‐listed plants).
The USACE, the lead federal agency for ESA compliance, assessed the effects of the Project on federally
listed species. The USACE found that the Project is “not likely to adversely affect” the wood stork, the
eastern indigo snake, the West Indian manatee and the Florida scrub jay; and may affect, but is not likely
to adversely affect, the blue‐tailed mole skink or the Florida sand skink. USFWS and NMFS have concurred
with this finding.
Section 5.3.6, Threatened and Endangered Species, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along
with indirect and secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts. Chapter 7, Mitigation Measures
and Project Commitments, describes the proposed mitigation measures.
Communities and Demographics
Information collected from the United States Census Bureau (USCB), county websites and municipal
websites were reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate, to describe the community structure and
demographic profiles along the Project corridor. Impacts to communities and demographics are those
that involve long‐term residential displacement and neighborhood fragmentation or the loss of continuity
between neighborhoods.
The E‐W Corridor would be predominantly within the SR 528 ROW between Orlando and Cocoa and
would not cross any residential neighborhoods; therefore, no neighborhood fragmentation would occur.
No residential displacement would occur, as the E‐W Corridor would not require the use of residential
properties. The N‐S Corridor would not result in residential displacement, neighborhood fragmentation,
or the loss of continuity between neighborhoods. The N‐S Corridor is within the existing FECR corridor
and would not displace residences or businesses. The relocated Fort Lauderdale Station would not affect
any communities.
Section 5.4.1, Communities and Demographics, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along
with indirect and secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Environmental Justice
Federal environment impact analysis standards require review and determination to assess whether a
project has a disproportionate adverse effect on minority or low‐income populations.
This environmental justice evaluation included the use of demographic data collected from the 2010 U.S.
Census and 2010 American Community Survey. The Project Study Area for this evaluation included
census tracts within 1,000 feet of the of the proposed or existing railroad alignments. Thresholds to
determine meaningfully greater high minority and low‐income populations include census tracts where
minority populations are 10 percent higher than the combined total for the six counties crossed by the
Action Alternatives (37.4 percent) and census tracts where low‐income populations are 10 percent
higher than the combined total for the census tracts crossed by the Project (23.3 percent).
There would be no impacts to environmental justice communities along the MCO Segment, as there are
no minority or low‐income populations within the census tract encompassing this segment. Neither the
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-17 September 2014

E‐W Corridor nor the N‐S Corridor would result in residential displacement, job loss, or neighborhood
fragmentation due to the use of property; therefore, there would be no disproportionate effects to
environmental justice communities from changes in land use. Although changes in noise would affect 110
residential parcels (105 moderate and four severe impacts) along the E‐W Corridor, none of these parcels
are within environmental justice communities. There would be no disproportionate effects from changes
in noise. There would be no adverse vibration impacts to environmental justice communities along the E‐
W Corridor under the Project and mitigation would limit any changes in vibration along the N‐S Corridor,
such that there would be no resulting vibration impacts.
Section 5.4.2, Environmental Justice, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect
and secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Economic Conditions
Impacts to economics are those that involve the displacement of businesses, changes in employment, loss
of real estate taxes and also include beneficial effects from construction‐period spending or long‐term
economic changes. With the Project, the MCO Segment and N‐S Corridor would not result in the reduction
of municipal property tax revenues. The E‐W Corridor would require partial acquisition of one privately
owned parcel outside the SR 528 ROW and would result in a negligible loss of property tax revenues for
Brevard County. The Relocated Fort Lauderdale Station, within the WPB‐M Corridor, would require
acquisition of three parcels adjoining the Florida East Coast Corridor. These businesses are expected to
relocate elsewhere in Fort Lauderdale. None of the Action Alternatives would result in any business or
job losses.
The Project would have long‐term direct economic benefits to local populations through the creation of
approximately 1,100 jobs on average per year through 2021 and labor income valued at nearly
$294 million through 2021. During construction, the Project would create an estimated 10,400 jobs on
average per year and labor income valued at nearly $1.2 billion. Overall, the Project would realize
approximately $1.2 billion to Florida’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in estimated annual economic
development through 2021 and generate approximately $187 million in annual federal, state and local
government tax revenue through 2021.
1

Section 5.4.3, Economic Conditions, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect
and secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Public Health and Safety
The Project would have an overall beneficial effect on public health, safety and security in the rail corridor.
While greater frequency of trains may increase the frequency of opportunities for conflict between trains
and vehicles or people, safety improvements at crossings, an upgraded Positive Train Control system,
enhanced security and improved communications among emergency responders would minimize
potential conflicts and their consequences. The benefits resulting from decreased congestion and the

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


Summary S-18 September 2014

potential for fewer vehicular crashes and fewer air emissions indicate that there will be no significant
negative impacts on public health and safety.
The Action Alternatives are anticipated to have the same effects on accessibility and would benefit elderly
and handicapped individuals by providing a transportation option that will enhance mobility and
livability in their communities. The AAF trains and stations would comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Preliminary design plans indicate that AAF trains will be single level,
fully accessible coaches, with no stairs or other obstacles to impede movement on board trains. Every
coach car will have ADA compliant restrooms.
Section 5.4.4, Public Health and Safety, describes these environmental impacts in detail.
Cultural Resources
The methodology for identifying cultural resources has been developed in conjunction with the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and is similar to previous SHPO‐approved methodologies that have
been applied to other large‐scale transit projects.
Section 5.4.5, Cultural Resources, constitutes FRA’s Findings of Effect under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. No National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), listed or
eligible resources, were identified within the MCO Segment or the E‐W Corridor. NRHP listed or eligible
resources were identified within the N‐S Corridor and include the FECR Railway Historic District and
several historic railroad bridges. The Project would have no adverse effect on the historic district. SHPO
has concurred for the 2012 EA that the use of the historic rail line and restoration of passenger rail service
would not constitute an adverse effect (FRA 2013). The Project will require that two historic bridges (Eau
Gallie River and St. Sebastian River) which are individually eligible for the NRHP, be demolished. FRA has
determined that the Project would have an adverse effect on these two bridges. The adverse effect to
historic railroad bridges under Section 106 is subject to a Section 4(f) Evaluation, presented in Chapter 6,
Section 4(f) Evaluation.
The Project would have no direct or indirect effects (noise, vibration or change in setting) to the historic
resources located adjacent to the N‐S Corridor. The relocated Fort Lauderdale Station would have no
effect on nearby historic properties. A conditional “no adverse effect finding” is anticipated based on the
condition that consultation with the SHPO will continue through the design process in order to ensure
compatibility and appropriate sensitivity to the FECR Railway Historic District and bridge resources.
Section 5.4.5, Cultural Resources, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with indirect and
secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Recreation and other Section 4(f) Resources
The Project would not adversely affect (“use”) any public parks, recreation areas, or wildlife refuges.
Collectively, these properties are protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act,
as are historic properties. The MCO Segment is within the property boundaries of MCO and no Section 4(f)
resources are located on this property. The E‐W Corridor (and SR 528) is adjacent to two Section 4(f)
recreation resources (the Tosohatchee WMA and the Canaveral Marshes Conservation Area); however,
constructing the E‐W Corridor would not require acquisition of new ROW within the property limits of
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-19 September 2014

these resources. Thirty Section 4(f) recreation resources are along the N‐S Corridor. The existing
N‐S Corridor bisects two of these Section 4(f) recreation resources (the Hobe Sound National Wildlife
Refuge and Jonathan Dickinson State Park). All construction would take place within the existing FECR‐
owned ROW and would not require acquisition of new ROW within Section 4(f) resource property limits.
Two of the 30 identified Section 4(f) recreation resources along the N‐S Corridor are also Section 6(f)
resources (North Sebastian Conservation Area and Sawfish Bay Park). The N‐S Corridor would not cross
either resource and no land acquisition within either resource would be required.
The Project would not affect the use of Section 4(f) recreation resources adjacent to the Project in regards
to noise, vibration, aesthetics or access. Noise and vibration generated by the Project would be compatible
with the intended use of Section 4(f) recreation resources. Existing viewsheds along the Project would be
consistent with existing conditions at MCO, along the SR 528 ROW (E‐W Corridor) and the FECR Corridor
(N‐S Corridor).
The E‐W Corridor would be constructed as an overpass as not to interrupt the use of Long Bluff Road
within the Tosohatchee WMA. Construction would avoid temporary road closures to the extent
practicable. If temporary road or lane closures are necessary, AAF, in association with FRA, would
coordinate with the land managing agencies of the Section 4(f) recreational resources (Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission [FWC]). To ensure the safety of the users of Jonathan Dickinson State
Park, AAF would implement at‐grade crossing improvements where the N‐S Corridor crosses Southeast
Jonathan Dickinson Way.
Section 5.4.6, Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources, describes these environmental impacts in
detail. Chapter 6, Section 4(f) Evaluation, provides additional information on FRA’s Section 4(f) process,
alternatives evaluation and mitigation measures. Chapter 7, Mitigation Measures and Project
Commitments, also describes the proposed mitigation measures.
Visual and Scenic Resources
The Project is anticipated to have only minor effects on visual and scenic resources, primarily associated
with new bridges over waterways and new communications towers along the E‐W Corridor. The effects
of all three Action Alternatives are expected to be similar within each segment of the Project with some
minor differences. The existing viewshed of the MCO Segment and N‐S Corridor would remain primarily
unchanged. Motorists traveling along SR 528 would generally be able to see the new railroad in the E‐
W Corridor to the south.
The viewshed of motorists traveling east on SR 528 crossing the St. Johns River would be somewhat
obstructed because the rail bridge would be higher than the SR 528 bridge. The views for boaters on the
St. Johns River looking north towards SR 528 would not change substantially as the rail bridge would be
parallel to SR 528 and would be similar to the size and structure of SR 528 over the river. Views would be
the same for Alternatives A, C and E, as all three Action Alternatives would be on the same alignment at
this location.
The viewshed of motorists traveling on existing roads crossing SR 528, including motorists on I‐95, would
change minimally. The new rail overpasses would be constructed parallel to SR 528 and would be similar
to the size and structure of the SR 528 Bridge over I‐95.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-20 September 2014

Section 5.4.7, Visual and Scenic Resources, describes these environmental impacts in detail.
Utilities and Energy Resources
The evaluation of utilities and energy resources included a review of county‐developed interactive
mapping services for current utility locations and urban service areas and national databases for the
current locations of underground pipelines.
Action Alternatives A, C and E may require portions of existing utilities be relocated outside the track
footprint where the proposed track crosses underground utilities. Where the proposed track crosses
under overhead utilities, relocation or reconstruction may be necessary to provide the required vertical
clearance over the tracks to accommodate utility lines and equipment.
Some buried utilities may be present in the MCO Segment. The proposed VMF is currently served by all
necessary utilities (Orlando Utilities Commission 2013). Constructing the VMF would affect a large
infiltration ditch originally constructed to serve the City of Orlando wastewater treatment facility, which
is no longer functioning. Constructing the VMF, therefore, would not affect any utilities.
The E‐W Corridor crosses several stormwater management features associated with SR 528. For
Alternative A, a power line access road would be accommodated within the existing SR 528 ROW. For
Alternatives C and E, a new maintenance access road would be constructed south of the railroad and
would be a shared maintenance road with AAF. The Project would intersect two existing pipelines.
Alternative A may require portions of these pipelines be relocated.
Electrical transmission/distribution lines, above and below ground, are located along and within the
FECR ROW in the N‐S Corridor. In some locations, poles will require relocation in order to accommodate
the new mainline track and upgraded crossings. Any relocation of poles is expected to be minimal.
The locomotives are planned as diesel‐electric units and will not place any additional load on the existing
electrical and utility services. Based on the estimated annual quantities of diesel consumption, the impact
on energy resources would be negligible. The increase in electrical service/demand due to signals is
minimal and will require no major changes or construction of electrical or other utility infrastructure.
Section 5.4.8, Utilities and Energy Resources, describes these environmental impacts in detail, along with
indirect and secondary impacts and temporary construction impacts.
Cumulative Effects
Under NEPA regulations (40 CFR part 1508.7), a cumulative effect is defined as “the impact on the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present
and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non‐Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
significant actions taking place over a period of time.”
The cumulative effects of the Project were analyzed for each of the alternatives, as compared to the
baseline condition (the No‐Action Alternative). The evaluation was conducted for a selected set of
resources within certain temporal and spatial boundaries, in reference to historical trends or effects from
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary S-21 September 2014

other specific projects and that are (for the most part) regulated by various governmental agencies. The
cumulative effects evaluation focused on those resources that would be affected by the Project including:
 Land Use;
 Transportation;
 Air Quality;
 Noise and Vibration;
 Water Resources;
 Floodplains;
 Wetlands;
 Protected Species; and
 Social and Economic Environment.
The other resources evaluated in Chapter 5 are expected to be affected minimally or not affected by any
of the Project alternatives and/or would not be adversely affected by past, present or reasonably
foreseeable actions in the Project Study Area.
The cumulative analysis for the Project shows that the combination of the AAF Passenger Rail Project
impacts with other impacts would not result in a serious deterioration of environmental functions or
exceed applicable significant thresholds.
Comparing the Alternatives
Table S‐2 summarizes the anticipated environmental effects of each of the alternatives for the AAF
Intercity Passenger Rail Service Project.

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


Summary S-22 September 2014

Table S-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects of Alternatives
Action Alternatives
Resource No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E
Land Use No Effect Minor land acquisition (45 acres); remaining land leased from GOAA, OOCEA,
FDOT. Consistent with land use and transportation plans.
Transportation Increases in automobile
volume on SR 528, I-95
and Florida’s Turnpike
would increase
congestion and delays
Beneficial effects by increased freight traffic efficiencies. The Project would remove
335,628 auto vehicle trips per year from the regional roadway network in 2016 and
1.2 million vehicle trips per year in 2019. The MCO Segment and E-W Corridor would not
have an adverse effect on local vehicle transportation, while the N-S Corridor would
increase the number of roadway grade crossing closures.
Navigation Increased freight
operations would increase
the number of closures at
the St. Lucie River,
Loxahatchee River and
New River Bridges
The three moveable bridges would be closed more frequently with the Project and
would affect navigation. The improved track infrastructure will decrease the
duration of any single bridge closure, by allowing increased train speeds. Mitigation
measures proposed by AAF would reduce delays and queuing at the bridges.
Air Quality VMT would continue to
increase resulting in
increased air pollutant
emissions
Alternatives A, C and E would provide a net regional air quality benefit through a
reduction in VMT and associated air pollutant emissions.
Noise and
Vibration
Noise and vibration
would increase as a
result of increased
freight traffic
Noise effects along the E-W Corridor would occur at elevated portions of track and along
the N-S Corridor at-grade crossing locations. The use of pole-mounted horns at grade
crossings would reduce noise levels to below existing conditions. Vibration effects would
be caused by an increase (approximately double) in vibration events.
Farmland Soils No effect No significant effects
Hazardous
Materials and
Waste
Potentially contaminated
sites previously not
identified would not be
assessed or mitigated
No effect on the transfer, storage, or transportation of pollutants. The Project would not
substantially increase operational hazardous materials or hazardous waste.
Coastal Zone
Management
Consistent Consistent

Climate Change VMT would continue to
increase resulting in
increased greenhouse gas
emissions
GHG emissions for CO
2
, CH
4
and N
2
O were calculated and the Project would decrease
emissions as a result of decreased automobile VMT. Bridge structures in the N-S Corridor
and WPB-M Corridor will have increased vulnerability over time; potential infrastructure
damage may result from flooding, tidal damage and/or storms.
Water No effect The proposed VMF would add impervious surfaces for pavement and buildings. Appropriate
stormwater BMPs would be included in project design to reduce impacts to water quality.
The Project would require stormwater management facilities along the E-W Corridor and
may require modification of stormwater ditches along the N-S Corridor.
Wild and Scenic
Rivers
No effect No effect

Wetlands No effect 128 acres of wetland
loss
165 acres of wetland loss 157 acres of wetland loss
Floodplains No effect 138 acres of floodplain
affected. Negligible
effect on flood storage or
flooding.
195 acres of floodplain affected. Negligible effect on
flood storage or flooding.
Biological
Resources and
Natural Ecological
Systems
No effect 93 acres of upland habitat
loss. Minor indirect and
secondary impacts to
wildlife.
122 acres of upland habitat
loss. Minor indirect and
secondary impacts to
wildlife.
109 acres of upland
habitat loss. Minor indirect
and secondary impacts to
wildlife.
Essential Fish
Habitat
No effect No significant effect. BMPs to protect fish habitat would be implemented during
bridge construction.
Threatened and
Endangered
Species
No effect No adverse effect


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


Summary S-23 September 2014

Table S-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects (Continued)
Action Alternatives
Resource No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E
Communities and
Demographics
No effect No adverse effect
Environmental
Justice
No effect No disproportionate adverse effect
Economics No effect Beneficial long- and short-term effects. During construction, the Project will
generate jobs and labor income and increase the state GDP. The Project will
increase Federal, state and local tax revenues during construction and during
subsequent operations. The Project would have long-term direct economic
benefits to local populations through the creation of jobs.
Public Health and
Safety
No effect Overall beneficial effect on public health, safety and security. AAF trains will
comply with ADA requirements.
Cultural
Resources
No adverse effect Demolition of historic railroad bridges would be an adverse effect under Section
106 and would be considered a “use” under Section 4(f).
Recreation and
Other Section 4(f)
Resources
No use No use of land from parks, recreation areas or wildlife refuges and no effect on
the use of these properties.
Visual and Scenic
Resources
No effect The existing viewsheds of the MCO Segment and N-S Corridor would remain
primarily unchanged. Views would be changed, but not significantly, for motorists
traveling along SR 528 and along roads and highways that cross SR 528.
Utilities and
Energy Resources
Energy consumption for
private automobiles
would increase
commensurate with the
increase in annual
vehicle-miles traveled.
Portions of existing utilities may need to be relocated outside the track footprint
where the proposed track crosses underground utilities. Relocation or
reconstruction of overhead utilities may be necessary to provide the required
vertical clearance over the tracks. The relocation of poles is expected to be
minimal. The Project would require minimal electrical demand and would result in
a long-term decrease in energy consumption through increased travel efficiency.


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


Summary S-24 September 2014

This page intentionally left blank.

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


Table of Contents i September 2014

Table of Contents
Summary .................................................................................................................................................. S-1 
How to Read this Document ................................................................................................................... xiv 
Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary ............................................................................................... xviii 
1  Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 
1.1 Project Background .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Phased Approach to Project Implementation ............................................................ 1-1
1.1.2 Phase II – Loan Application and Environmental Review ........................................... 1-3
1.2 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.1 MCO Segment ........................................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.2 E-W Corridor .............................................................................................................. 1-4
1.2.3 N-S Corridor .............................................................................................................. 1-4
1.2.4 WPB-M Corridor ........................................................................................................ 1-5
1.3 Federal Agency Actions and Legislative Authority ..................................................................... 1-5
1.4 Permits, Licenses, and Other Regulatory Requirements ........................................................... 1-6
1.5 Development of this Environmental Impact Statement .............................................................. 1-7
1.6 Organization of this Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................... 1-8
2  Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................... 2-1 
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Need ........................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.1 Congestion on Existing Road Systems ..................................................................... 2-2
2.3.2 Safety on the Existing Highway System .................................................................... 2-5
2.3.3 Alternative Modes of Transportation – Orlando to Miami .......................................... 2-5
2.3.4 Population, Employment, and Tourism Growth ......................................................... 2-7
2.3.5 Financing and Public Initiatives ................................................................................. 2-9
2.4 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2-10
3  Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 
3.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Alternatives Identification and Screening ................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Level 1 - Route Alternatives ...................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.2 Level 2 – Corridor Connection Alternatives ............................................................. 3-12
3.2.3 Level 3 Screening – East-West Corridor Alignment Options .................................. 3-17
3.2.4 Vehicle Maintenance Facility Alternatives ............................................................... 3-22
3.2.5 Station Alternatives .................................................................................................. 3-23
3.3 Alternatives Studied in Detail in the EIS .................................................................................. 3-23
3.3.1 Phase I ..................................................................................................................... 3-25
3.3.2 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 3-26
3.3.3 Alternative A ............................................................................................................ 3-27
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Table of Contents ii September 2014

3.3.4 Alternative C ............................................................................................................ 3-42
3.3.5 Alternative E ............................................................................................................ 3-42
3.4 Operations ................................................................................................................................ 3-44
3.5 Ridership .................................................................................................................................. 3-45
3.5.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 3-45
3.5.2 Ridership Projections ............................................................................................... 3-46
3.6 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 3-47
4  Affected Environment ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 
4.1 Land Use and Transportation ..................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4-4
4.1.3 Navigation ................................................................................................................ 4-16
4.2 Physical Environment ............................................................................................................... 4-30
4.2.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 4-30
4.2.2 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................. 4-35
4.2.3 Farmland Soils ......................................................................................................... 4-45
4.2.4 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal ..................................................... 4-47
4.2.5 Coastal Zone Management ..................................................................................... 4-51
4.3 Natural Environment ................................................................................................................ 4-54
4.3.1 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 4-54
4.3.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................ 4-64
4.3.3 Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 4-65
4.3.4 Floodplains .............................................................................................................. 4-72
4.3.5 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems ........................................... 4-78
4.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ..................................................................... 4-91
4.4 Social and Economic Environment ........................................................................................ 4-102
4.4.1 Communities and Demographics .......................................................................... 4-103
4.4.2 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... 4-106
4.4.3 Economic Conditions ............................................................................................. 4-111
4.4.4 Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 4-113
4.4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 4-120
4.4.6 Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources ...................................................... 4-139
4.4.7 Visual and Scenic Resources ................................................................................ 4-144
4.4.8 Utilities and Energy Resources ............................................................................. 4-151
5  Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 5-1 
5.1 Land Use, Transportation, and Navigation ................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 5-6
5.1.3 Navigation ................................................................................................................ 5-15
5.2 Physical Environment ............................................................................................................... 5-33
5.2.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 5-33
5.2.2 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................. 5-39
5.2.3 Farmland Soils ......................................................................................................... 5-55
5.2.4 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal ..................................................... 5-58
5.2.5 Coastal Zone Management ..................................................................................... 5-62
5.2.6 Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 5-71
5.3 Natural Environment ................................................................................................................ 5-75
5.3.1 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 5-75
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Table of Contents iii September 2014

5.3.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................ 5-81
5.3.3 Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 5-81
5.3.4 Floodplains .............................................................................................................. 5-93
5.3.5 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems ........................................... 5-96
5.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................... 5-110
5.4 Social and Economic Environment ........................................................................................ 5-121
5.4.1 Communities and Demographics .......................................................................... 5-121
5.4.2 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... 5-123
5.4.3 Economic Conditions ............................................................................................. 5-127
5.4.4 Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 5-130
5.4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 5-137
5.4.6 Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources ...................................................... 5-143
5.4.7 Visual and Scenic Resources ................................................................................ 5-151
5.4.8 Utilities and Energy Resources ............................................................................. 5-154
5.4.9 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................... 5-158
6  Section 4(f) Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 6-1 
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Project Purpose and Description ................................................................................................ 6-1
6.3 Section 4(f) Applicability ............................................................................................................. 6-2
6.4 Description and Use of Section 4(f) Resources ......................................................................... 6-2
6.4.1 Eau Gallie River Bridge ............................................................................................. 6-3
6.4.2 St. Sebastian River Bridge ........................................................................................ 6-5
6.4.3 Tosohatchee WMA .................................................................................................... 6-6
6.5 Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 6-8
7  Mitigation Measures and Project Commitments ............................................................................ 7-1 
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Project Commitments ................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2.1 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 7-3
7.2.2 Navigation .................................................................................................................. 7-4
7.2.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 7-5
7.2.4 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................... 7-5
7.2.5 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal ....................................................... 7-8
7.2.6 Surface and Groundwater ......................................................................................... 7-8
7.2.7 Wetlands .................................................................................................................... 7-8
7.2.8 Floodplains ................................................................................................................ 7-9
7.2.9 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems ............................................. 7-9
7.2.10 Essential Fish Habitat .............................................................................................. 7-10
7.2.11 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Protected Species ..................... 7-10
7.2.12 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 7-13
7.2.13 Section 4(f) Resources ............................................................................................ 7-13
8  Summary of Public Involvement Process and Tribal Coordination ............................................. 8-1 
8.1 Scoping ...................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.1 Agency Scoping Meeting ........................................................................................... 8-2
8.1.2 Public Scoping Meetings ........................................................................................... 8-2
8.2 Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................. 8-3
8.3 Tribal Coordination ..................................................................................................................... 8-6
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Table of Contents iv September 2014

8.4 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 8-6
8.5 Post-Scoping Comments ........................................................................................................... 8-8
9  References ......................................................................................................................................... 9-1 
10  List of Preparers .............................................................................................................................. 10-1 
11  Distribution List ............................................................................................................................... 11-1 
12  Index ................................................................................................................................................. 12-1 


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


Table of Contents v September 2014

List of Tables
Table No. Description Page

S-1 DEIS Alternatives ......................................................................................................... S-7
S-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects of Alternatives ................................................ S-22
S-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects (Continued) .................................................... S-23
1.4-1 Permits or Approvals Required for the Project ............................................................. 1-8
2.3-1 Existing and Projected Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and Volume to
Capacity (V/C) Ratios ................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3-2 Aviation Delays in the Project Corridor (2012) ............................................................. 2-6
2.3-3 Employment Growth by Metropolitan Statistical Area .................................................. 2-8
2.3-4 Population Employed Outside of the County of Residence .......................................... 2-8
2.3-5 Summary of Rail Legislation and Related Activities in Florida 2000 – 2010 ................ 2-9
2.3-6 Summary of High Speed Rail Legislation in Florida 2000 – 2010 .............................. 2-10
3.2-1 Screening Analysis Results – Level 1 Route Alternatives .......................................... 3-11
3.2-2 Screening Analysis Results – Level 2 FECR Route Segment Alternatives ................ 3-16
3.2-3 Screening Analysis Results –East-West Corridor Alignment Options ........................ 3-21
3.3-1 Existing and Future Freight Train Operations (No-Action Alternative) ....................... 3-26
3.3-2 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor West Section ................................ 3-31
3.3-3 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor Middle Section .............................. 3-32
3.3-4 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor East Section ................................. 3-33
3.3-5 Proposed Bridges, N-S Corridor ................................................................................. 3-39
3.3-6 Proposed Bridges over Waterways, West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor ..................... 3-40
3.3-7 Proposed Structures Alternative C, E-W Corridor Middle Section .............................. 3-43
3.3-8 Proposed Structures Alternative E, E-W Corridor Middle Section .............................. 3-44
3.3-9 Projected Average Passenger Rail Operating Speeds by County ............................. 3-44
3.3-10 Projected Base-Case Ridership (2019) ...................................................................... 3-47
3.3-11 Estimate of Auto Vehicle Trips Diverted to AAF ......................................................... 3-47
4.1.1-1 Local Land Use Plans .................................................................................................. 4-4
4.1.2-1 Existing Highway Volumes and Operational Characteristics ...................................... 4-13
4.1.2-2 Existing Traffic Volumes for Local Roadways ............................................................ 4-15
4.1.2-3 Summary of At-grade Crossings by County Within the N-S Corridor ......................... 4-15
4.1.2-4 Summary of Existing (2011) Freight Operating Characteristics and
Average Crossing Closures within the N-S Corridor .................................................. 4-16
4.1.3-1 Definition and Example of Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Effects ................ 4-20
4.1.3-2 Daily Vessel Traffic at the St. Lucie, Loxahatchee, and New River Bridges,
January 20141 ........................................................................................................... 4-22
4.1.3-3 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Martin County .......... 4-26

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


Table of Contents vi September 2014

Table No. Description Page

4.1.3-4 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in St. Lucie County ...... 4-27
4.1.3-5 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry
along the St. Lucie River ............................................................................................ 4-28
4.1.3-6 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in
Palm Beach County ................................................................................................... 4-28
4.1.3-7 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the
Loxahatchee River ..................................................................................................... 4-29
4.1.3-8 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Broward County ...... 4-29
4.1.3-9 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the New River.... 4-30
4.2.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................................... 4-31
4.2.1-2 Existing Air Quality Conditions: Comparison to Federal and State
Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................. 4-34
4.2.1-3 2008 Baseline Mobile Source Emissions Inventories ................................................. 4-35
4.2.2-1 Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise ................................................... 4-38
4.2.2-2 Existing Rail Operations by County (N-S Corridor) .................................................... 4-39
4.2.2-3 Existing Noise Conditions from Roads (E-W Corridor) ............................................... 4-40
4.2.2-4 Number of Census Blocks per Population Density and Ambient Noise Level ............ 4-40
4.2.2-5 Existing Noise Conditions from Train Operations (N-S Corridor) ............................... 4-41
4.2.3-1 Prime and Unique Farmland Soils within the E-W Corridor ........................................ 4-47
4.2.4-1 Summary of Risk Ratings for Potentially Contaminated Sites .................................... 4-50
4.3.1-1 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in the MCO Segment and
E W Corridor .............................................................................................................. 4-57
4.3.1-2 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in the N-S Corridor,
Cocoa to West Palm Beach ....................................................................................... 4-60
4.3.1-3 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in WPB-M Corridor,
West Palm Beach to Miami ........................................................................................ 4-62
4.3.1-4 Sole Source Aquifer Protection Zones in the Project Study Area ............................... 4-63
4.3.3-1 Existing wetland communities within the Project Study Area as defined by
FLUCCS and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) .................................................. 4-67
4.3.3-2 Common Wetland Plant Species ................................................................................ 4-69
4.3.4-1 Project Study Area within the Existing 100-year Floodplain ....................................... 4-76
4.3.4-2 Floodway Crossings within the Project Study Area .................................................... 4-77
4.3.4-3 Federal Flood Control Projects Within the Project Study Area ................................... 4-77
4.3.5 1 Existing Natural Upland Communities Located Within and Adjacent to the
Project Study Area ..................................................................................................... 4-79
4.3.5-2 Common Upland Plant Species ................................................................................. 4-80
4.3.5-3 Key Upland Wildlife Species ...................................................................................... 4-80
4.3.5-4 Essential Fish Habitat within the Project Study Area.................................................. 4-89

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


Table of Contents vii September 2014

Table No. Description Page

4.3.6 1 Rare Species and Habitat (Land Use) Assumptions for Terrestrial Species .............. 4-92
4.3.6-2 Federal and State Protected Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within
Project Study Area Counties ...................................................................................... 4-93
4.3.6-3 Federal and State Protected Plant Species Known to Occur Within
Project Study Area Counties ...................................................................................... 4-99
4.3.6-4 State-only Protected Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within
Project Study Area Counties ...................................................................................... 4-99
4.3.6-5 State-only Protected Plant Species Known to Occur Within
Project Study Area Counties .................................................................................... 4-100
4.3.6-6 Federal and State Listed Animal Species Potentially in WPB-M Corridor
Project Area ............................................................................................................. 4-101
4.3.6-7 Federal and State Listed Plant Species Potentially in WPB-M Corridor
Project Area ............................................................................................................. 4-102
4.4.1-1 Total Population (2000 and 2011) of Incorporated Municipalities Crossed by the
Project, by County .................................................................................................... 4-104
4.4.1-2 Total Population of Census Tracts Crossed by the Project, by County .................... 4-105
4.4.2-1 Summary of the Minority/’Non-White’ Populations per County ................................. 4-107
4.4.2-2 Minority Population Concentrations .......................................................................... 4-108
4.4.2-3 Summary of Poverty Data Status in the past 12 months at the State, County, and
Census Tract Level within the Project Study Area ................................................... 4-109
4.4.2-4 Low-Income Population Concentrations ................................................................... 4-110
4.4.3-1 Existing Labor Force and General Employment Data .............................................. 4-112
4.4.3-2 Summary of Economic Impacts of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and
Related Industries Along the N-S Corridor ............................................................... 4-113
4.4.4-1 N-S Corridor At-Grade Crossing Accident Data by County ...................................... 4-115
4.4.4-2 FECR Accidents, Cocoa to Miami – Years 2011 to 20071 ....................................... 4-116
4.4.4-3 Primary Regional Roadway System Traffic Accidents – Years 2011 to 2007 .......... 4-116
4.4.4-4 FECR Safety and Security Practices ........................................................................ 4-118
4.4.4-5 Elderly/Senior Population Identified in Census Tracts within 1,000 feet of the
Project Alignment ..................................................................................................... 4-119
4.4.4-6 Identified Sinkholes in the Project Study Area ......................................................... 4-120
4.4.5-1 Native American Consultation Contacts ................................................................... 4-125
4.4.5-2 Certified Local Government/Local Informant Contacts Regarding
Potential Locally Designated Cultural Resources Located Within the Phase II APE
(Orlando to West Palm Beach) ................................................................................. 4-125
4.4.5-3 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources Within the MCO Segment ............ 4-126
4.4.5-4 Previously Recorded Historic Linear Resources within the E-W Corridor APE ........ 4-127
4.4.5-5 Previously Recorded Historic District within the E-W Corridor APE ......................... 4-127
4.4.5-6 Previously Recorded Historic Resources Adjacent to the E-W Corridor APE .......... 4-127

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


Table of Contents viii September 2014

Table No. Description Page

4.4.5-7 Newly Identified E-W Corridor Historic Resources ................................................... 4-127
4.4.5-8 E-W Corridor Areas and Estimated Mileage and Acreage of Areas Previously
Surveyed and by Probability Classification for Areas Unsurveyed ........................... 4-128
4.4.5-9 Historic Linear Resources Previously Identified in the N-S Corridor APE ................ 4-129
4.4.5-10 Historic Railway Bridges Identified Within the N-S Corridor APE ............................. 4-130
4.4.5-11 Historic Resources Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE ............ 4-131
4.4.5-12 Historic District Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE .................. 4-131
4.4.5-13 Historic Cemeteries Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE ........... 4-131
4.4.5-14 Archaeological Sites Located within the N-S Corridor APE ...................................... 4-132
4.4.5-15 Historic Railway Bridges Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE ....................... 4-132
4.4.5-16 Historic Districts Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE .................................... 4-133
4.4.5-17 Linear Resources Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE .................................. 4-133
4.4.5-18 Historic Structures Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE ................................. 4-134
4.4.5-19 Historic Stations or Railroad Related Resources within the
WPB-M Corridor APE ............................................................................................... 4-135
4.4.5-20 Historic Cemeteries Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE ............................... 4-135
4.4.5-21 Historic Resources within the WPB-M Corridor APE for Historic Resources
Stations .................................................................................................................... 4-137
4.4.6-1 Section 4(f) Evaluation Sources ............................................................................... 4-140
4.4.6-2 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Conservation, and
Recreation Areas within the Orlando-West Palm Beach Project Study Area ........... 4-141
4.4.6-3 Recreational Resources within 300 feet and 100 feet of the West Palm Beach –
Miami Corridor .......................................................................................................... 4-143
5.1.2-1 Grade Crossing Locations Evaluated ........................................................................... 5-6
5.1.2-2 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria ..................................................................................... 5-7
5.1.2-3 Passenger Diversion from Other Modes of Transportation .......................................... 5-9
5.1.2-4 At-grade Crossing Closures (2019) ............................................................................ 5-12
5.1.2-5 Intersection Level of Service, N-S Corridor (minutes per hour) –
2016 PM Peak Hour ................................................................................................... 5-13
5.1.3-1 Average Speeds of Passenger and Freight Trains .................................................... 5-16
5.1.3-2 Moveable Bridge Closures ......................................................................................... 5-18
5.1.3-3 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the St. Lucie River Bridge ................... 5-20
5.1.3-4 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge (2016) ............... 5-21
5.1.3-5 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the Loxahatchee River Bridge ............ 5-23
5.1.3-6 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the Loxahatchee River Bridge (2016) ........ 5-24
5.1.3-7 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the New River Bridge .......................... 5-25
5.1.3-8 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the New River Bridge (2016) ..................... 5-26

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


Table of Contents ix September 2014

Table No. Description Page

5.1.3-9 Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge for Existing Conditions and
No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................. 5-28
5.1.3-10 Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River Bridge for Existing
Conditions and No-Action Alternative ......................................................................... 5-29
5.1.3-11 Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge for Existing Conditions and
No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................. 5-30
5.1.3-12 Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge No-Action Alternative and
Combined Effect ......................................................................................................... 5-31
5.1.3-13 Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River FECR Bridge
No-Action Alternative and Combined Effect ............................................................... 5-32
5.1.3-14 Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge No-Action Alternative and
Combined Effect ......................................................................................................... 5-32
5.2.1-1 Projected Ridership, Vehicle-Trips Removed and VMT Reductions for
Orlando West Palm Beach Service ............................................................................ 5-35
5.2.1-2 Summary of Emissions (tons/year) for Orlando to West Palm Beach, 2016-20301 ... 5-36
5.2.1-3 Summary of Emissions Reductions (tons/year) for Orlando to Miami, 2019-2030 ..... 5-37
5.2.2-1 Proposed Passenger Rail Operations (2016) ............................................................. 5-40
5.2.2-2 Summary of Distance between SR 528 and Alternative Alignment ............................ 5-41
5.2.2-3 Ground-borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria ............................. 5-44
5.2.2-4 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for
Special Buildings ........................................................................................................ 5-44
5.2.2-5 Distances to Potential Construction Noise Impact...................................................... 5-45
5.2.2-6 Summary of FRA Impact Contour Distances for MCO Segment ................................ 5-46
5.2.2-7 Noise Calculations for 65 Ldn Contours within MCO ................................................. 5-47
5.2.2-8 Summary of Project Noise Levels for Residential Receptors at 50 ft. (dBA Ldn)
along the E W Corridor ............................................................................................... 5-47
5.2.2-9 Summary of Project Noise Levels - North-South Corridor .......................................... 5-48
5.2.2-10 Summary of Noise Levels for Residential Receptors at 50 feet (dBA, Ldn) along
the N-S Corridor ......................................................................................................... 5-49
5.2.2-11 Summary of Noise Impacts (number of parcels) ........................................................ 5-50
5.2.2-12 Summary of Vibration Impacts ................................................................................... 5-51
5.2.2-13 Construction Noise Impact Criteria ............................................................................. 5-52
5.2.2-14 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts – Project .................................................... 5-53
5.2.2.15 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts –West Palm Beach to Miami Corridor
(Excluding Bridges) .................................................................................................... 5-54
5.2.3-1 Summary of Soil and Farmland Losses for the No-Action and Build Alternatives
(acres) ........................................................................................................................ 5-57
5.2.4-1 Hazardous Materials Currently Transported on FECR Corridor ................................. 5-60

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


Table of Contents x September 2014

Table No. Description Page

5.2.4-2 Anticipated Hazardous Products Storage at the VMF – Above-Ground Storage
Tanks (ASTs) ............................................................................................................. 5-61
5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review ..................................... 5-65
5.2.6-1 Projected Total Sea Level Rise and Sea Level Rise Acceleration ............................ 5-74
5.2.6-2 Estimated Timeframes for Sea Level Rise in Southeast Florida ............................... 5-74
5.2.6-3 Current and Projected Future Bridge Conditions (Horse Creek and Arch Creek) ...... 5-75
5.3.1-1 Surface Water Impacts, Alternative A ........................................................................ 5-76
5.3.3-1 Alternative A - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres) ............................................. 5-84
5.3.3-2 Alternative C - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres) ............................................. 5-85
5.3.3-3 Alternative E - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres) ............................................. 5-87
5.3.3-4 Total Direct Aquatic Resources Effects Resulting from Each Alternative (acres) ....... 5-88
5.3.3-5 Total Direct Aquatic Resources Effects Resulting from Each Alternative (acres) ....... 5-88
5.3.4-1 Floodplains (acres) ..................................................................................................... 5-94
5.3.5-1 Alternative A – Effects to Upland Communities (acres).............................................. 5-97
5.3.5-2 Alternative C – Effects to Upland Communities (acres) ............................................. 5-99
5.3.5-3 Alternative E – Effects to Upland Communities (acres)............................................ 5-100
5.3.5-4 Total Direct Upland Effects from Each Alternative (acres) ....................................... 5-100
5.3.5-5 Summary of Wildlife Noise Impact Criteria ............................................................... 5-105
5.3.6-1 Alternative A - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat
(acres) ...................................................................................................................... 5-112
5.3.6-2 Alternative C - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat
(acres) ...................................................................................................................... 5-116
5.3.6-3 Alternative E - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat
(acres) ...................................................................................................................... 5-118
5.4.3-1 Summary of Economic Benefits of AAF Construction and Operations ..................... 5-128
5.4.3-2 Summary of Economic Benefits of TOD Construction and Operations .................... 5-130
7.2-1 Project BMPs and Mitigation Measures – Construction Period .................................... 7-2
7.2-2 Project Mitigation Measures for Unavoidable Impacts – Operational Period ............... 7-3
8.1-1 Public Scoping Meetings .............................................................................................. 8-3








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


Table of Contents xi September 2014

List of Figures
Figure No. Description Page

S-1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... S-3
1.1-1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 1-2
2.3-1 Project Corridor ............................................................................................................ 2-3
3.2-1 Screening Alternatives3-3
3.2-2 N-S Corridor Route Alternatives ................................................................................... 3-8
3.2-3 Route Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 3-14
3.2-4 E-W Corridor Alignment Alternatives .......................................................................... 3-19
3.2-5 Typical Section Alignment Alternatives ...................................................................... 3-20
3.2-6 Proposed VMF Layout ............................................................................................... 3-22
3.2-7 MCO Intermodal Station ............................................................................................. 3-24
3.3-1 Alternative A ............................................................................................................... 3-28
3.3-2 MCO Segment and E-W Corridor ............................................................................... 3-30
3.3-3 N-S Corridor ............................................................................................................... 3-34
3.3-4 Existing and Proposed Bridges over Waterways ....................................................... 3-38
4.1.2-1 Amtrak System ............................................................................................................. 4-5
4.1.2-2 Tri-Rail System ............................................................................................................. 4-7
4.1.2-3 CSX System ................................................................................................................. 4-9
4.1.2-4 Regional Roadway Network ....................................................................................... 4-12
4.1.2-5 Local Roadway Network at MCO ............................................................................... 4-14
4.2.3-1 Farmland Soils ........................................................................................................... 4-46
4.2.5-1 Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas ......................................................................... 4-53
4.3.1-1 Movable Bridges ........................................................................................................ 4-17
4.3.1-2 Source Water Assessment and Protection Program .................................................. 4-56
4.3.1-3 MCO and E-W Corridor Waterway Crossings ............................................................ 4-58
4.3.1-4 N-S Corridor Waterway Crossings ............................................................................. 4-59
4.3.1-5 WPB-M Corridor Waterway Crossings ....................................................................... 4-61
4.3.4-1 Floodplains along the MCO Segment and E-W Corridor ............................................ 4-74
4.3.4-2 Floodplains along the N-S Corridor ............................................................................ 4-75
4.3.5-1 Florida Wildlife Corridor .............................................................................................. 4-86
4.3.6-1 Protected Bird Species along the MCO Segment and the E-W Corridor ................... 4-94
4.3.6-2 Protected Bird Species along the N-S and WPB-M Corridors .................................... 4-96
4.3.6-3 Bald Eagle Nest ......................................................................................................... 4-97
4.3.6-4 West Indian Manatee Critical Habitat ......................................................................... 4-98

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


Table of Contents xii September 2014

Figure No. Description Page

4.4.5-1 Example Area of Potential Effect along the N-S Corridor ......................................... 4-123
4.4.7-1 E-W Corridor Visual Environment Key ..................................................................... 4-146
4.4.7-2 Existing Future Views of Econlockhatchee River ..................................................... 4-148
4.4.7-3 Existing Future Views of St. Johns River, southeast view ........................................ 4-149
4.4.7-4 Existing Future Views of St. Johns River, north view ............................................... 4-150
4.4.7-5 Existing Future Views of SR 528 overpass from I-95, north view ............................. 4-151
5.3.5-1 Bridge Project Areas within Essential Fish Habitat .................................................. 5-108
5.3.6-1 Sand Skink Soils along MCO Segment E-W Corridor .............................................. 5-115
5.4.6-1 Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area ................................................................. 5-147
5.4.6-2 Jonathan Dickinson State Park ................................................................................ 5-149


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


Table of Contents xiii September 2014

List of Appendices – Volume II
Appendix No. Description

Appendix 1.1-A 1 FONSI
Appendix 1.1-A2 FONSI Exhibits
Appendix 3.3-A Fort Lauderdale Re-Evaluation Documents
Appendix 3.3-B Alternative A Track Plans
Appendix 3.3-C Grade Crossing Details
Appendix 3.3-D Alternative C, E-WCorridor OOCEA Portion PlanSet
Appendix 3.3-E Alternative E, E-WCorridor OOCEA Portion PlanSet
Appendix 3.3-F Ridership and Revenue Study Summary
Appendix 4.1.1-A Existing Land Use Maps
Appendix 4.1.3-A USCG Cooperating Agency Acceptance
Appendix 4.1.3-B USCG Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix 4.1.3-C Navigation Discipline Report
Appendix 4.2.4-A Potentially Contaminated Sites Aerial Photographs
Appendix 4.3.1-A USCG Coordination Meeting Notes, August 12, 2013
Appendix 4.3.3-A Characteristic Plant Species
Appendix 4.3.5-A EFH Assessment
Appendix 4.3.6-A Rare Species Survey Reports
Appendix 4.3.6-B Rare Species Consultation Areas
Appendix 4.4.2-A Minority Populations
Appendix 4.4.2-B Poverty Populations
Appendix 4.4.5-A SHPO Consultation Materials
Appendix 4.4.5-B Cultural Resources Proximate to the Project Corridor
Appendix 4.4.6-A Recreation Resources
Appendix 5.2.2-A Noise and Vibration Contours
Appendix 5.2.2-B Noise Impact Tables
Appendix 5.2.2-C Vibration Impact Tables
Appendix 5.2.3-A Farmland Soils, Completed NRCS Forms
Appendix 5.2.4-A Risk Evaluation Summary Table
Appendix 5.3.1-A Bridge Crossing Maps
Appendix 5.3.4-A Floodplain Impacts
Appendix 5.3.6-A Section 7 Meeting Notes
Appendix 5.3.6-B Section 7 Consultation Materials
Appendix 8.1-A NOI
Appendix 8.1-B Scoping Report

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


How to Read xiv September 2014

How to Read this Document
Purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) to disclose the environmental consequences of a proposed action, and to inform decision‐makers
and the public of any reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the natural
or human environment. In this instance, the EIS will be used by each of the Federal agencies that are
considering an action on the proposed All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project (Project) ‐ the
FRA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
and the Federal Highway Administration ‐ to help plan their actions and make decisions.
Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary
All of the technical terms and abbreviations used in this document are listed and defined in the section
Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary, which follows the How to Read this Document pages.
References
Reference documents are cited in the text in an abbreviated format (author date). Full citations for all
references, including web addresses for electronic documents are provided in Chapter 9, References.
Index
This document contains an index to major topics and issues that can help readers quickly locate
information on specific topics.
Appendices and Supporting Material
The text and figures that comprise this EIS are supported by a series of appendices that contain material
that is too lengthy to include in the body of the EIS. As stated in the Council on Environmental Quality’s
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, an EIS should be kept concise and be no longer
than absolutely necessary to comply with NEPA and the regulations. Each of these appendices is
numbered to correspond to the relevant chapter and section of the EIS. Material that may be found in the
appendices includes detailed maps of the Project area, detailed noise and vibration analysis results,
information on rare species and fisheries, cultural resources, and documentation of agency coordination
and consultation.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 1 briefly describes the history of the Project, the relationship of Phase I (West Palm Beach to
Miami passenger rail service and infrastructure improvements) to Phase II (Orlando to West Palm Beach
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


How to Read xv September 2014

passenger rail service and infrastructure improvements), defines each Phase, and identifies the actions
that the FRA and other Federal agencies are responsible for.
Chapter 2 – Purpose and Need
Chapter 2 briefly describes the purpose of the Project and the transportation needs that the Project will
address.
Chapter 3 – Alternatives
This chapter contains a detailed description of Phase II of the Project, which includes a new Vehicle
Maintenance Facility on property to be leased at the Orlando International Airport (MCO); new track
infrastructure within MCO; new track infrastructure parallel to State Road 528 (SR 528 or the Beachline);
and improvements to the track infrastructure within the Florida East Coast Railroad right‐of‐way from
Cocoa to West Palm Beach. Phase II also includes reconstructing seven bridges between West Palm Beach
and Miami. This chapter also describes the future No‐Action Alternative, which provides a base scenario
against which to compare the effects of the Project. The Alternatives chapter also describes a three‐level
screening process which first evaluated four different route alternatives connecting Orlando with Miami;
evaluated five alternatives to connect the SR 528 corridor with the MCO facility and with the Florida East
Coast Railroad Corridor (FECR corridor) right‐of‐way; and evaluated five alternative alignments along
the SR 528 corridor. The three alternatives that are evaluated in Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences,
are described in detail. The applicant has not identified a Preferred Alternative at this time.
Chapter 4 – Affected Environment
This chapter describes the existing (2013) environmental conditions along the Project corridor from MCO
to West Palm Beach, and summarizes relevant information from the 2012 Environmental Assessment for
West Palm Beach to Miami. These baseline conditions provide a context for understanding the impacted
resources and to familiarize the reader with the geography, land use, demographics, physical
environment, natural resources, and cultural resources associated with the Project corridor.
Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequences
This chapter describes the environmental consequences of the No‐Action Alternative and the three
alternatives considered for the Project. Impacts are considered for the resource categories of land use
and transportation; air quality, noise and vibration; natural resources; and social, economic and cultural
resources. For each category, the analysis considers direct impacts, indirect impacts, short‐term
construction‐period impacts, and the cumulative impacts of the Project along with reasonably
foreseeable past, present, and future impacts.
Chapter 6 – Section 4(f) Evaluation
Because the Project will require that two bridges eligible for the National Register of Historic Places be
demolished, an evaluation under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act is included in this
document. Section 4(f) states that the Secretary of Transportation may not approve any project that
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


How to Read xvi September 2014

requires the use of any property protected under Section 4(f) unless there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of such land, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm
resulting from the use. This chapter describes the proposed action, alternatives that were considered, and
planning to mitigate for adverse effects.
Chapter 7 – Mitigation and Project Commitments
This chapter describes the measures considered to minimize, avoid, and/or mitigate potential adverse
impacts from the Project.
Chapter 8 – Public Involvement
This chapter describes the efforts of the FRA and the proponent, All Aboard Florida, to inform the public
about the Project, and to solicit input on the Project and the scope of this EIS.
Where to Find Information about Specific Resources
Chapters 4 and 5 of this EIS provide information about the existing environment (Chapter 4) and the
impacts of the Project (Chapter 5) on the range of environmental resource categories specified by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations, FRA’s NEPA Guidance, and FAA’s NEPA
Regulations. The table below lists all of these resource categories and where the reader can find
information on existing conditions and Project impacts.

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


How to Read xvii September 2014


Resource Categories Evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement
Location in EIS
Resource (FRA) Impact Category (FAA)
1

Chapter 4, Affected
Environment
Chapter 5,
Environmental
Consequences
Air Quality Air Quality Section 4.2.1 Section 5.2.1
Climate Change Not applicable Section 5.2.6
Coastal Zone Management Coastal Resources Section 4.2.5 Section 5.2.5
Communities and Demographics
Socioeconomic Impacts,
Environmental Justice and
Children’s Health and Safety
Risks Section 4.4.1 Section 5.4.1
Construction Impacts Construction Impacts Not applicable Section 5.2.2
Cumulative Impacts (applies to all categories) Not applicable Section 5.4.9
Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Impacts Section 4.4.4 Section 5.4.4
Environmental Justice
Socioeconomic Impacts,
Environmental Justice and
Children’s Health and Safety
Risks Section 4.4.2 Section 5.4.2
Farmland Soils Farmlands Section 4.2.3 Section 5.2.3
Biological Resources and Natural
Ecological Systems Fish, Wildlife and Plants Section 4.3.5 Section 5.3.5
Floodplains Floodplains Section 4.3.4 Section 5.3.4
Hazardous Materials and Solid
Waste Disposal
Hazardous Materials, Pollution
Prevention and Solid Waste Section 4.2.4 Section 5.2.4
Land Use Compatible Land Use Section 4.1.1 Section 5.1.1
Migratory Birds Fish, Wildlife and Plants Section 4.3.5 Section 5.3.5
Navigation Section 4.1.3 Section 5.1.3
Noise Noise Section 4.2.2 Section 5.2.2
Recreation and Other Section 4(f)
Resources
Department of Transportation
Act, Section 4(f) Section 4.4.6 Section 5.4.6
Public Health and Safety
Socioeconomic Impacts,
Environmental Justice and
Children’s Health and Safety
Risks (in part) Section 4.4.4 Section 5.4.4
Threatened and Endangered
Species Fish, Wildlife and Plants Section 4.3.6 Section 5.3.6
Transportation and Traffic
Socioeconomic Impacts,
Environmental Justice and
Children’s Health and Safety
Risks Section 4.1.2 Section 5.1.2
Utilities and Energy Resources
Natural Resources and Energy
Supply Section 4.4.8 Section 5.4.8
Vibration Section 4.2.2.2 Section 5.2.2
Visual and Scenic Resources
Light Emissions and Visual
Impacts Section 4.4.7 Section 5.4.7
Water Resources Water Quality Section 4.3.1 Section 5.3.1
Wetlands Wetlands Section 4.3.3 Section 5.3.3
Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Section 4.3.2 Section 5.3.2
1 FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. March 20, 2006.

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


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xviii September 2014

Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary
Acronyms
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic
AAF All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC
AAR Association of American Railroads
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACS American Community Survey
ACSC Areas of Critical State Concern
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APE Area of Potential Effect
AQCR Air Quality Control Region
AQI air quality index
AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way Association
ASLRRA American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
ASM Areas of Special Management
AST above ground storage tank
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
BA Biological Assessment
BBCS Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal
Systems
BCT Broward County Transit
BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
BMP Best Management Practice
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CAMA Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Coastal and Aquatic
Managed Areas
CEQ President’s Council on Environmental Quality
CFA Core Foraging Areas
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xix September 2014

CH
4
methane
CLG Certified Local Governments
CO carbon monoxide
CO
2
carbon dioxide
CR County Road
CRAS Cultural Resource Assessment Survey
CRM Cultural Resource Management
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
dB decibels
dBA A‐weighted decibel
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DEO Department of Economic Opportunity
EA Environmental Assessment
EDM Environmental Data Management, Inc.
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EEL Environmentally Endangered Lands
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERP Florida Department of Environmental Protection Environmental Resource Permit
ESA Endangered Species Act
E‐W Corridor East‐West Corridor
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAC Florida Administrative Code
FCMP Florida Coastal Management Program
FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDHR Florida Division of Historic Resources
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FECR Corridor Florida East Coast Corridor
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xx September 2014

FECI Florida East Coast Industries, Inc.
FECR Florida East Coast Railway LLC
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FHSRA Florida High Speed Rail Authority
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIHS Florida Interstate Highway System
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FLAQS Florida's Air Quality System
FLEPPC Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council
FLL Fort Lauderdale‐Hollywood International Airport
FLUCCS Florida Land Use, Covers and Forms Classification System
FMC Fishery Management Councils
FMSF Florida Master Site File
FNAI Florida Natural Area Inventory
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FPL Florida Power & Light Company
FPPA Farmland Protection and Policy Act
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FS Florida Statutes
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FTE Florida Turnpike Enterprise
FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FY fiscal year
GBN ground‐borne noise
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GOAA Greater Orlando Airport Authority
HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
HSA Highway Safety Act
HSR Hal Scott Regional Preserve
Hz hertz
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxi September 2014

I‐4 Interstate 4
I‐95 Interstate 95
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
LBG Louis Berger Group
L
dn
A‐weighted average day‐night sound level
L
eq
(h) A‐weighted hourly equivalent sound level
LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
LRT light rail
LOS Level of Service
LRTPs Long Range Transportation Plans
M million
MCO Orlando International Airport
MIA Miami International Airport
MIC Miami Intermodal Center
MINWR Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MP Mile Post
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MRS Munitions Response Sites
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
msl mean sea level
N
2
O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NB northbound
n.d. not dated
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
nm nautical mile
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NO
2
nitrogen dioxide
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxii September 2014

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
NO
x
oxides of nitrogen
NPDES USEPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
N‐S Corridor North‐South Corridor
NWI National Wetland Inventory
O
3
ozone
OFW Outstanding Florida Waters
OOCEA Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority
OUC Orlando Utilities Commission
Pb lead
PD&E Project Development and Environment
PM particulate matter
PM
10
particulate matter sized 10 micrometers or less
PM
2.5
particulate matter sized 2.5 micrometers or less
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PTC Positive Train Control
ROW right‐of‐way
RRIF Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
SB southbound
SEL Sound Exposure Level
SFECC South Florida East Coast Corridor Study
SFECCTA South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis
SFRC South Florida Rail Corridor
SFRTA South Florida Regional Transportation Authority
SFWMD South Florida Water Management District
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP State Implementation Plan
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxiii September 2014

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District
SO
2
sulfur dioxide
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan
SR State Road
SRPP Strategic Regional Policy Plans
SSA sole source aquifer
SWAPP Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
TOD Transit‐Oriented Development
TSR Tosohatchee State Reserve
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USAF United States Air Force
USC United States Code
USCB United States Census Bureau
USCG United States Coast Guard
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
V/C volume to capacity
VdB vibration decibels
VMF Vehicle Maintenance Facility
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WEG The Washington Economics Group, Inc.
WMA Wildlife Management Area
WMD Water Management Districts

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


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxiv September 2014

Glossary
A
Accessibility: The ease with which a site or facility may be reached by passengers and others necessary
to the facility’s intended function. Also, the extent to which a facility is usable by persons with disabilities,
including wheelchair users.
Action Alternative: An alternative that proposes some action in contrast to the No‐Action Alternative.
Adverse: Negative or detrimental.
Affected Environment: The physical, biological, social, and economic setting potentially affected by one
or more of the alternatives under consideration.
Air Pollution: A general term that refers to one or more chemical substances that degrade the quality of
the atmosphere.
Alignment: The horizontal and vertical route of a transportation corridor or path.
Allelopathic: Beneficial or harmful effects of one plant on another plant from the release of biochemicals.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Federal regulation establishing legal requirements for
accessibility for those with disabilities.
Anthropogenic: Relating to, or resulting from the influence of, human beings on nature.
Aquatic Managed Areas: Submerged lands and select coastal uplands managed by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas. The Office
manages 41 aquatic preserves, three National Estuarine Research Reserves and the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary.
Aquifer: Subsurface geologic unit (rock or sediment) that contains and transmits groundwater.
Area of Critical State Concern: An area containing, or having a significant impact upon, environmental
or natural resources of regional or statewide importance.
Area of Potential Effect (APE): The area potentially affected by the construction and operation of the
Project; for archaeological properties, considered to be the area of ground proposed to be disturbed
during construction of the undertaking, including grading, cut‐and‐fill, easements, staging areas, utility
relocation, borrow pits, and biological mitigation areas; for historic architecture, considered to be the
proposed construction footprint and properties near the undertaking where the undertaking would
result in a substantial change from the historic use, access, or noise and vibration levels that were
present 50 years ago, or during the period of significance of a property, if different.
Artesian conditions: Artesian conditions exist where an inclined aquifer is overlain and underlain by
impervious rock layers.
At‐Grade: At ground surface level; used to describe roadways, track alignments, and road‐track
intersections.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxv September 2014

Attainment: An air basin is considered to be in attainment for a particular pollutant if it meets the federal
or state standards set for that pollutant. See also Maintenance and Nonattainment.
A‐Weighted Sound Level: A measure of sound intensity that is weighted to approximate the response of
the human ear so it describes the way sound will affect people in the vicinity of a noise source.
B
Ballasted Track: Railways installed over a specific type of crushed rock that is graded to support heavily
loaded rolling stock.
Baseline: Foundation or basis to use for comparison purposes.
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Methods designed to minimize adverse effects to the
environment. Examples of BMPs include practices for erosion and sedimentation controls, watering for
dust control, perimeter silt fences, rice straw bales, and sediment basins.
Biodiversity: An assessment of the numbers, types, and relative abundance of plant and animal species
in natural (biotic) communities. Biodiversity encompasses species richness as well as the genetic
differences among individuals, abundance or variety of habitats, communities, ecosystems, and
landscapes where species occur.
Biological Resources: Plant and wildlife species, terrestrial and aquatic habitats (including jurisdictional
waters), and habitats of concern (including sensitive plant communities, critical habitat, core recovery
areas, mitigation banks, and wildlife corridors).
Bubble Curtain: An underwater system that produces bubbles in a deliberate arrangement serving as a
barrier in order to break up the propagation of sound waves.
C
Capital Cost: The total cost of acquiring an asset or constructing a project.
Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
): A colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally in the atmosphere; fossil fuel
combustion emits significant quantities of CO
2
.
Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless gas generated in the urban environment primarily by the
incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles.
Census Block: A subdivision of a census block group (or, prior to 2000, a block numbering area), a block
is the smallest geographic unit for which the U.S. Census Bureau tabulates 100‐percent data. Many census
blocks correspond to individual city blocks bounded by streets; but census blocks – especially in rural
areas – may include many square miles and may have some boundaries that are not streets.
Class IV Track: The class of a section of track determines the maximum possible running speed limits
and the ability to run passenger trains. Class IV Track is characterized by a maximum freight train speed
of 60 miles per hour (mph) and passenger train speed of 80 mph.
Class VI Track: The class of a section of track determines the maximum possible running speed limits
and the ability to run passenger trains. Class VI Track is characterized by a maximum freight and
passenger train speed of 110 miles per hour (mph).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxvi September 2014

Clean Air Act (CAA): The law that defines the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s responsibilities for
protecting and improving the nation's air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer. The CAA protects the
general public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health.
Clean Water Act (CWA): The primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s surface waters,
including wetlands. The CWA regulates discharges and spills of pollutants, including hazardous materials,
to surface waters and groundwater.
Construction: The act or process of building.
Cooperating Agency: Any agency invited by the lead federal agency that has agreed to participate in the
NEPA process, and has legal jurisdiction over, or technical expertise regarding, environmental impacts
associated with a proposed action.
Corridor: A geographic belt or band that follows the general route of a transportation facility
(e.g., highway or railroad).
Cowardin Classification System: A comprehensive classification system of wetlands and deepwater
habitats developed for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1979. Under this system, wetlands are of two
basic types: coastal (also known as tidal or estuarine wetlands) and inland (also known as non‐tidal,
freshwater, or palustrine wetlands).
Criteria Pollutants: Pollutants for which federal and state air quality standards have been established:
carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO
x
), nitrogen oxides (NO
x
), ozone (O
3
), particulate matter with a
diameter of 10 microns or less (PM
10
), particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM
2.5
),
and lead (Pb).
Critical Habitat: Designated areas that provide suitable habitat for federally listed threatened or
endangered species, and in which are the geographical locations and physical features essential to the
conservation of a particular species.
Cultural Resources: Resources related to the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, living
and dead, that are valued by a given culture or contain information about the culture. Cultural resources
include, but are not limited to, sites, structures, buildings, districts, and objects associated with or
representative of people, cultures, and human activities and events.
Cumulative Impact: (1) CEQ ― the result of two or more individual impacts that, when considered
together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts; (2) NEPA ― an
impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
D
Decibel (dB): A logarithmic measurement of noise intensity.
Degreasers: Chemical products/substances that remove greases and oils from surfaces.
Demographics: Quantifiable statistics of a given population such as race, age, sex, income, etc.
Demucking: To remove muck or peat to provide a stable substrate for construction.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxvii September 2014

Detention Pond: A pond designed to temporarily store and slowly release runoff.
Disproportionately High Adverse Effects: An Environmental Justice term used to describe the unequal
treatment to low income and minority populations as a result of a proposed project and action. Executive
Order 12898 directs each federal agency to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of its projects and actions.
Disturbance: A discrete natural or human‐induced event that causes a change in the condition of an
ecological system.
E
Ecosystem: An interconnected network of living organisms, including people, and their local physical
environment; often viewed as an ecological unit.
Ecotone: A transitional zone between two communities containing the characteristic species of each.
Effect: A change in the condition or function of an environmental resource or environmental value as a
result of human activity.
Endangered Species: Any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act as being in danger of
or threatened with extinction throughout all or most of its range.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Documentation required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) for certain actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." An
EIS is a decision‐making tool that presents detailed analysis of a proposed action and alternatives to the
proposed action. The EIS presents the project’s potential effects – both beneficial and adverse – and any
mitigation measures to reduce adverse effects.
Environmental Justice: Identifying and addressing the potential for disproportionately high and
adverse effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority and low‐income populations.
Erosion: Process by which earth materials are worn down by the action of flowing water, ice, or wind.
Essential Fish Habitat: Includes all types of aquatic habitat—wetlands, coral reefs, seagrasses, rivers—
where fish spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity.
Estuary: A tidal body of water where salt water from an ocean mixes with fresh water from a river.
Ethnicity: A grouping or categorization of people based on shared cultural traits such as ancestral origin,
language, custom, or social attitude.
Exotic Species: Plant or animal species introduced into an area where they do not occur naturally; non‐
native species.
F
Farmland of Statewide Importance: Farmlands that are similar to prime farmlands but are less
valuable because they have steeper slopes, less ability to retain moisture in the soil, or other
characteristics that limit their use. To qualify as Farmland of Statewide Importance, a property must have
been used for production of irrigated crops at some time during the previous 4 years.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxviii September 2014

Feasible: Capable of being implemented.
Federal Endangered Species Act (Federal ESA): The federal ESA and subsequent amendments
(Sections 7, 9, and 10) provide guidance for conserving federally listed species and the ecosystems upon
which they depend.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): An agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that
administers financial assistance programs and regulates the operation and safety of freight and passenger
rail throughout the United States.
Floating Turbidity Barrier: Designed to contain and control the dispersion of silt in a water body. Often
implemented in areas with marine construction, pile driving, site work or dredging activities.
Footprint: The area covered by a facility or affected by construction activities.
G
General Conformity Rule: The requirement that federal, state, tribal, and local governments in air
quality nonattainment or maintenance areas ensure that federal actions conform to the initiatives
established in the applicable state implementation plan or tribal implementation plan.
Geographic Information System (GIS): An information management system designed to store and
analyze data referenced by spatial or geographic coordinates.
Grade Crossing: The intersection of a railroad and a highway at the same elevation (grade); an
intersection of two or more highways; an intersection of two railroads. Same as at‐grade crossing.
Grade‐Separated: At different elevations; on separate levels.
Greater Orlando Airport Authority (GOAA): Operating agency for the Orlando International Airport
and Orlando Executive Airport in Orlando, Florida.
Greenhouse Gases: A class of air pollutants believed to contribute to the greenhouse global warming
effect, including nitrogen oxides (NO
x
), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon dioxide (CO
2
).
Groundwater: Water contained and transmitted through open spaces within rock and sediment below
the ground surface.
H
Habitat: An environment where plants or animals naturally occur; an ecological setting used by animals
for a particular purpose (e.g., roosting habitat or breeding habitat).
Hazardous Materials: Any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical
characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or the
environment, if released.
Hazardous Waste: A hazardous material that is no longer of use and will be disposed of. Hazardous
waste is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxix September 2014

Headway: The time between buses, trains, or other transit vehicles at a given point. For example, a 15‐
minute headway means that one bus arrives every 15 minutes.
Hydric: Relating to, characterized by, or requiring considerable moisture.
Hydrocarbons: Various organic compounds, including methane, emitted principally from the storage,
handling, and combustion of fossil fuels.
Hydroperiod: The seasonal pattern of the water level of a wetland.
Hydrostratigraphic unit: A body of rock that forms a distinct hydrologic unit with respect to the flow of
ground water.
I
Impact: A change in the condition or function of an environmental resource or environmental value as a
result of human activity.
Impervious Surface: Surface covered by impenetrable materials, such as parking lots and buildings, that
increases the potential for water runoff and reduces the potential for groundwater recharge.
Important Farmland: Categorized as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, or Unique Farmland. The categories are defined according to U.S. Department of
Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria.
Indirect Impact: The consequences of a project’s direct impacts. These impacts are generally not
quantifiable and may occur over a larger area or a longer period.
Induced Growth: An indirect impact of a project triggering community growth (increases in population,
development, etc.) that is influenced and stimulated by the Proposed Action.
Infrastructure: The facilities required for a societal function or service (such as transportation and utility
infrastructure – roads, bridges, railroads, pipelines, power lines, etc.).
Interlocking: An arrangement of train signal apparatus that prevents conflicting movements through an
arrangement of tracks such as junctions or crossings.
Intermodal: Transportation that involves more than one mode (e.g., walk, bike, auto, transit, taxi, train,
bus, and air) during a single journey.
Intermodal Station: A transit station that provides connections among more than one mode of
transportation.
Invertebrate: Organisms lacking a vertebral column.
L
Lead (Pb): A stable element that can have toxic effects and that persists and accumulates in the
environment, humans, or animals.
Lead Agency: The public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a
project or action and is responsible for preparing environmental review documents in compliance with
CEQ and/or NEPA.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxx September 2014

L
eq
: A measure of the average noise level during a specified period of time.
L
eq
(h), dBA: Equivalent or average noise level for the noisiest hour, expressed in A‐weighted decibels.
Level of Service (LOS): A rating using qualitative measures to characterize operational conditions within
a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and passengers.
M
Maintenance: An air basin that was formerly in nonattainment but now meets the established standards
for that pollutant. See also Attainment and Nonattainment.
Mesoscale: Describes an air quality analysis at the regional level.
Metapopulation: A group of spatially separated populations of the same species which interact at some
level.
Microscale: Describes an air quality analysis for a localized area such as an intersection.
Mitigation: Action or measure undertaken to minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the adverse impacts
of a project, practice, action, or activity.
Mitigation Bank: A large block of land that is preserved, restored, and enhanced for the purpose of
mitigating for projects that impact special‐status species, wetlands or otherwise vegetated biological
communities.
Mobility: Movement of people across areas.
Monospecific: Relating to or consisting of only one species.
N
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Federal standards stipulating the allowable
ambient concentrations of specific criteria pollutants.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Federal legislation that establishes national policies and
goals for the protection of the environment and requires federal agencies to consider the environmental
impacts of major federal projects or decisions, to share information with the public, to identify and assess
reasonable alternatives, to identify appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts, and to coordinate
efforts with other planning and environmental reviews taking place. Codified at: 42 U.S.C.A. § 4331 et seq.
Nitrogen Oxides (NO
x
): A class of pollutant compounds that include nitrogen dioxide (NO
2
) and nitric
oxide (NO), both of which are emitted by motor vehicles. See Criteria Pollutants.
No‐Action: Under NEPA, refers to an alternative under which no action would be taken (no infrastructure
would be built and no new management or operational practices would be instituted).
Nonattainment: An air basin that exceeds federal or state standards for a particular pollutant.
See also Attainment and Maintenance.
Nonpoint Source Pollution: Pollution that collects from a wide area and cannot be traced to a single
source. Examples include pesticides or fertilizers that wash into rivers or percolate through the soil into
groundwater.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxi September 2014

Notice of Intent (NOI): Formal notice published in the Federal Register by the federal lead agency stating
that an EIS will be prepared for a proposed project.
National Priorities List/Superfund List: A federal list of sites that have been identified as posing an
immediate public health hazard and where an immediate response is necessary.
O
On‐time Performance: The level of success of the train service remaining on the published schedule.
Factors that influence on‐time performance include traffic, accidents, detours, weather, increased
ridership, and breakdowns.
Orlando‐Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA): District agency of the State of Florida
responsible for building and operating an expressway system to support the Central Florida area.
Over‐grade Bridge: A bridge structure located above standard grade.
Ozone (O3): A photochemical oxidant that is a major cause of lung and eye irritation in urban
environments.
P
Particulate Pollution: Air pollution such as dust, soot, and smoke that is irritating but usually not
poisonous. Particulate pollution also can include bits of highly toxic solid or liquid substances. Of
particular concern are particles smaller than, or equal to, 10 microns (PM
10
) or 2.5 microns (PM
2.5
) in size.
Passing Track: A track connected to the main line on both ends that allows a train to stop for commercial
reasons (in a station for example) or operating purposes (to deal with a delayed train) and that allows
other trains to pass.
Phase II Investigation: Part of an Environmental Site Assessment, which assesses whether identified
historic on‐site or off‐site hazardous uses have impacted the soil and/or groundwater conditions beneath
a property.
Pile Bent: Two or more piles driven in a row transverse to the long dimension of a structure and fastened
together by capping and (sometimes) bracing.
Pile Bent Cap: Structural members placed on, and usually fastened to, the top of a pile and used to
transmit loads into the pile or group of piles and, in the case of a group, to connect them into a pile bent.
Pine Flatwoods: The most extensive terrestrial ecosystem in Florida characterized by low, flat
topography and relatively poorly drained, acidic, sandy soil.
Point Source Pollution: Pollution that can be traced to a single source (e.g., a smokestack at a factory).
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Chemicals used in electrical transformers, hydraulic equipment,
capacitors, and similar equipment.
Positive Train Control (PTC) Infrastructure: Integrated command, control, communications, and
information systems for controlling train movements that improve railroad safety by significantly
reducing the probability of collisions between trains, casualties to roadway workers, and damage to
equipment.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxii September 2014

Positive Train Control (PTC) Systems: The Rail Safety Improvement Act requires that railroads
implement PTC systems to prevent train‐to‐train collisions on certain rail lines by the end of 2015.
Potentially Contaminated Site: Land that may contain substances in or under the land that are
potentially hazardous to health or the environment, but have not been tested yet for contamination.
Poverty Level: The income at which a family or individual is considered poor. In 2009 the U.S. Census
Bureau defined the poverty level for a family of four as an income of $21,954 or less.
Practicable: Available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology,
and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Preferred Alternative: The alternative identified as preferred by the lead agency or project proponent
(the applicant’s preferred alternative).
Prime Farmland: Rural land that has the best combination of physical and soil chemistry characteristics
for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is available for these uses.
Public Transportation: Includes bus, trolley bus, streetcar or trolley car, subway or elevated, railroad,
ferryboat, and taxicab service.
Purpose and Need: The reason(s) why a project or action is undertaken, and the need(s) it is intended
to meet or fulfill.
R
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Action: Those future actions that are likely to occur or probable, rather
than those that are merely possible. Used in determining indirect and cumulative impacts for a Proposed
Action.
Regulated waste: Pathological and microbiological wastes containing blood or other potentially
infectious materials.
Retention Pond: A pond designed to hold and infiltrate most or all of the runoff that it receives.
Ridership: The number of people who ride a transportation system.
Right‐of‐Way: A legal right of passage over a defined area of real property. In transit usage, the corridor
along a roadway or railway that is controlled by a transit or transportation agency/authority.
Riparian: Relating to, living, or located on the bank of a natural water course, lake, or tidewater.
S
Scoping: A process used under NEPA to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying
the significant issues related to the proposed action or project to be addressed in an EIS (under NEPA).
Seagrass: A group of grass‐like, flowering plants which grow in sub‐tidal marine environments.
Secondary Impact: Reasonably foreseeable indirect consequences to the environment caused by a
proposed project that would occur either in the future or in the vicinity of, but not the same location as,
the direct impacts associated with the project.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxiii September 2014

Section 4(f): Provisions originally enacted as Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966 codified in 49 United States Code, Subtitle I, Section 303(c). Section 4(f) addresses the potential for
conflicts between transportation needs and the protection of land for recreational use and resource
conservation by providing protection for publicly owned parkland, recreation areas, and historic sites
from use. Specifically, the provisions prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from approving any
program or project that would require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation
area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national significance as determined by the
officials having jurisdiction over these lands unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the
use of these lands.
Section 6(f): Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964 prohibits the conversion
of property acquired or developed with funds granted through the act to a nonrecreational purpose
without the approval of the National Park Service. Section 6(f) directs the
Department of the Interior to ensure that replacement lands of equal value (monetary), location, and
usefulness are provided as conditions to such conversions.
Sensitive Natural Communities: Communities of plants and wildlife interacting in the same ecosystem
whose extent has been much reduced in the state and which are locally rare.
Sensitive Receiver: Noise‐sensitive locations where increased annoyance can occur, such as residences,
schools, hotels/motels, medical facilities, or other vibration‐sensitive receivers.
Sensitive Receptors: Locations considered more sensitive to adverse effects from air pollution (e.g.,
residences; preschools and kindergarten through grade 12 schools; daycare centers; health‐care facilities
such as hospitals, retirement homes, and nursing homes; and parks and/or playgrounds).
Shared‐use Track: Use of the same track and corridor by two transit modes (light rail transit vehicles
and heavy rail, or passenger and freight).
Significant: In CEQ usage, describes an impact that is sufficiently adverse, intense, or prolonged to
require mitigation. In NEPA, to determine an impact is significant the context and intensity (the degree to
which the effects on quality of human environment are controversial, whether the action threatens a
violation of federal, state or local law, and others) of the action must be considered.
Sole Source Aquifer (SSA): An aquifer designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) as the sole or principal source of drinking water for an area pursuant to § 1424(e) of the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended. USEPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer as one that supplies
at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. These areas can have
no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically, legally, and economically supply all those
who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water.
Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A time‐integrated metric (i.e., continuously summed over a time period)
that quantifies the total energy in the A‐weighted sound level measured during a transient noise event.
SEL accounts for both the duration and the loudness of a noise event.
Special‐Status Species: Plants and animals that are legally protected under the federal Endangered
Species Act of 1973, the Florida Endangered Species Act, or other regulations, such as those species that
meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQ Guidelines Sections 15380 and 15125.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxiv September 2014

State Implementation Plan (SIP): Statewide plan for complying with the federal Clean Air Act. The SIP
consists of narrative, rules, and agreements that Florida will use to clean up polluted areas.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): A plan that specifies site management activities to
be implemented during site development, including construction stormwater best management
practices, erosion and sedimentation controls, dewatering (nuisance water removal), runoff controls, and
construction equipment maintenance.
Sulfur Oxides (SOx): Sulfur‐oxygen compounds that include the important criteria pollutants sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3).
Surficial Aquifer: The surficial aquifer system in Florida includes any otherwise undefined aquifers that
are present at land surface. The surficial aquifer is mainly used for domestic, commercial, or small
municipal supplies (Florida Department of Environmental Protection).
Surficial Geology: Unconsolidated geologic materials lying on top of bedrock. Common surficial
materials include sand and gravel, glacial tills, and clay and silts.
Switch: A mechanical installation enabling trains to be guided from one track to another at a railway
junction.
T
Take: To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage
in any such conduct (as defined in Section 3 of the federal ESA).
Tangent: Meeting a curve or surface in a single point if a sufficiently small interval is considered.
Terminal Station: The first or last station of a passenger railway route.
Traditional Cultural Properties and Resources (TCPs): Places associated with the cultural practices
or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that community’s history. Examples of TCPs include,
but are not limited to, any place where people practice a ritual activity or festival; any place where
something happened that is of significance to a group or community and is referred to in stories; any place
that is a vital and beloved part of the community and that may give the community a special identity or
defining character.
Train Control System: System of railroad equipment designed to ensure safety by monitoring locations
of trains and providing analysis and reporting.
Train set: A complete single train, including engine(s) and cars.
Travel Time: The time spent traveling from a place of origin to a place of destination. Total travel time
includes the time required to reach a station or an airport, time spent waiting for the next scheduled train
or flight, time spent getting to the boarding area, time spent checking and retrieving luggage, time spent
getting a rental car or taxi, as well as time spent to reach the final destination.
U
Under‐grade Bridge: A bridge structure located below standard grade.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxv September 2014

Unique Farmland: Farmland with soils of lower quality than either Prime Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance, but still used for the production of crops. To qualify as unique farmland, a
property must have been in crops at some time during the previous 4 years.
V
V/C Ratio: Volume to capacity ratio; describes the relationship between the amount of traffic a roadway
was designed to carry and the amount of traffic it actually carries. Related to the Level of Service (LOS)
the roadway can provide.
Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF): A dedicated facility for vehicle fueling, maintenance, repair and
washing.
Vertebrate: Organisms with a vertebral column (fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals).
Viaduct: A long and high bridge composed of several small spans for carrying a railroad over a valley,
gorge, or other topographic feature.
Vibration: A rapid linear motion of a particle or of an elastic solid about an equilibrium position.
Viewshed: The total area visible from a single observer position, or the total area visible from multiple
observer positions. Viewsheds include scenes from highways, trails, campgrounds, towns, cities, or other
viewer locations.
Visual Character: The physical attributes of the landscape.
Visual Quality: The character or inherent features of a viewshed.
Visual Resources: The natural and artificial features of a landscape that characterize its form, line,
texture, and color.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Colorless gaseous compounds originating, in part, from the
evaporation and incomplete combustion of fuels. In the presence of sunlight VOCs react to form ozone, a
pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act Amendments.
W
Waters of the United States: The federal CWA defines waters of the United States as (1) All waters that
are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including
interstate wetlands; and (3) All other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes,
or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign
commerce (33 CFR 328.3[a]).
Watershed: The area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream.
Wayside Signaling: A visual form of railway signaling which uses elevated flags or balls.
Wetland: An area of land with soil that is saturated with moisture, either permanently or seasonally.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, three criteria must be
satisfied to classify an area as a jurisdictional wetland: (1) a predominance of plant life that is adapted to
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary xxxvi September 2014

life in wet conditions (hydrophytic vegetation), (2) soils that saturate, flood, or pond long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (hydric soils), and (3) permanent
or periodic inundation or soils saturation, at least seasonally (wetland hydrology).
Wildlife Corridor: A belt of habitat that is essentially free of physical barriers such as fences, walls, and
development, and connects two or more larger areas of habitat, allowing wildlife to move between
physically separate areas.
X
Xeric: Relating to, characterized by, or containing little moisture.


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


Introduction 1-1 September 2014

1 Introduction
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) evaluates a proposal by All Aboard Florida ‐ Operations
LLC (AAF) to institute intercity passenger rail service between Orlando and Miami, Florida with station
stops in Orlando, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami (Project). The Project would consist of a
235‐mile intercity passenger rail service with an anticipated three‐hour travel time.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project in the Federal Register on April 15, 2013. FRA is the lead federal
agency responsible for conducting the environmental review and preparing the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) environmental documentation related to the Project described in this DEIS.
1.1 Project Background
AAF has applied for $1.6 billion in federal funds through the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement
Financing (RRIF) program, which is a loan and loan guarantee program administered by FRA as described
in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 260. Under the RRIF program, the FRA Administrator is
authorized to provide direct loans and loan guarantees that may be used to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate
rail equipment or facilities, or develop new intermodal or railroad facilities. Because AAF has applied for a
loan under FRA’s RRIF program, FRA is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to
conduct an analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project. NEPA compliance
is a prerequisite for RRIF approval, and FRA will not approve the Project for a RRIF loan until the NEPA
process is complete. A RRIF loan, if approved, would be part of an overall capital structure put in place
by AAF to finance the infrastructure improvements.
1.1.1 Phased Approach to Project Implementation
AAF proposes to implement the Project through a phased approach. Phase I would provide rail service on
the West Palm Beach to Miami section while Phase II would extend service to Orlando. Phase I would
provide passenger rail service along the 66.5 miles of the Florida East Coast Railroad (FECR) Corridor
connecting West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. AAF has obtained private financing for
Phase I and is proceeding to implement Phase I, which is illustrated in Figure 1.1‐1.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Introduction 1-2 September 2014


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


Introduction 1-3 September 2014

AAF is a subsidiary of Florida East Coast Industries, LLC (FECI), which is a transportation, infrastructure
and commercial real estate company based in Coral Gables, Florida. FECR, an affiliate of FECI, owns the
right‐of‐way (ROW) and existing railroad infrastructure within the corridor between Jacksonville and
Miami, over which FECR operates a freight rail service (FECR Corridor). AAF has an exclusive, perpetual
easement granted by FECR whereby AAF may develop and operate the proposed passenger service
within the FECR Corridor. AAF will operate the proposed passenger rail service within the FECR Corridor
in coordination with FECR's continued freight service.
FRA and AAF conducted an environmental review of Phase I in 2012/2013, including preparing and issuing
both an Environmental Assessment (EA) (Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All
Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida) and a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) (AAF 2012; FRA 2013a). The 2012 EA is available at www.fra.gov/page/P0590 and the
FONSI is attached to this DEIS as Appendix 1.1‐A. Phase I of the Project, as described in the 2012 EA, includes
constructing three new stations (West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami), purchasing five train sets,
adding a second track along most of the 66.5‐mile corridor, and adding 16 new round‐trip intercity
passenger train trips (32 one‐way trips) on the West Palm Beach to Miami section of the FECR Corridor.
FRA concluded that Phase I has independent utility; that is, it could be advanced and serve a transportation
need even if Phase II was not constructed. FRA has made no decision under the RRIF program as to whether
a loan would be provided for Phase I.
As a result of the environmental review process conducted by FRA in cooperation with AAF for Phase I, AAF
is authorized to construct the Phase I component of the Project as reviewed and approved in the 2012 EA
and FRAs subsequent FONSI. Since the FONSI, AAF proposed and FRA has evaluated a new location for the
proposed Fort Lauderdale Station and issued a re‐evaluation decision that found no significant difference
from the location evaluated in the 2012 EA. Also since the FONSI, AAF proposed and FRA has evaluated a
new location in West Palm Beach for the proposed Fort Lauderdale layover and maintenance facility. FRA
has issued a supplemental EA for public review of this new site concurrent with this DEIS. The Re‐Evaluation
document for the Fort Lauderdale Station is provided in Appendix 3.3‐A.
1.1.2 Phase II – Loan Application and Environmental Review
Considering this phase of the Project and RRIF loan approval as separate federal actions, FRA has
undertaken a NEPA review of the proposed extension. Given that operations would cover the full corridor
from Orlando to Miami, this DEIS analyzes the cumulative effects of completing both phases of the Project,
although the impacts exclusively from Phase 1 have already been addressed in the 2012 EA and FONSI
and will not be reanalyzed in the DEIS. AAF can proceed at this time with construction of Phase I based
upon the FONSI and incorporating the mitigation measures identified therein. The bulk of the
information related to Phase I is drawn from the 2012 EA. FRA concluded that it was important to provide
a comprehensive look at the environmental impacts of both phases in one environmental document.
Phase II of the Project includes constructing a new railroad line parallel to State Road (SR) 528 between
the Orlando International Airport (MCO) and Cocoa, constructing a new Vehicle Maintenance Facility
(VMF) on property owned by the Greater Orlando Airport Authority (GOAA), adding a second track within
128.5 miles of the FECR Corridor between West Palm Beach and Cocoa, and additional bridge work
between Miami and West Palm Beach. The proposed service would use a new intermodal facility at MCO
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Introduction 1-4 September 2014

that is being constructed by GOAA as an independent action. The Project includes purchasing five
additional passenger train sets, and would add 16 new round‐trip intercity passenger train trips
(32 one‐way trips) on the new railroad segment and on the FECR Corridor between Cocoa and West Palm
Beach. No additional trips beyond those considered in the 2012 EA (16 round‐trip intercity passenger
train trips [32 one‐way trips]) would be added on the West Palm Beach to Miami section.
1.2 Proposed Action
The Applicant, AAF, will secure financing and will own the system and be responsible for the Project’s
development, construction, operation, and maintenance. The proposed action is Phase II of the Project
and includes four discrete geographic segments: a terminal segment at MCO (MCO Segment), an East‐
West Corridor between MCO and Cocoa (E‐W Corridor), a North‐South Corridor between Cocoa Beach
and West Palm Beach (N‐S Corridor), and the corridor between West Palm Beach and Miami (the
WPB‐M Corridor) (Figure 1.1‐1).
1.2.1 MCO Segment
The MCO Segment is located on GOAA property. At the MCO terminus, AAF would construct a new VMF and
related rail infrastructure. The Project would provide passenger rail service to the new South Terminal
Intermodal Station being planned and constructed by GOAA as a separate action. The proposed intermodal
station has been evaluated in two previous EAs (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] and GOAA 1998;
Federal Transit Administration, Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT], and GOAA 2005). The FAA
has recently issued a re‐evaluation for this facility due to the lapse of time since the prior FONSI was issued
(FAA 2013). Since the new South Terminal Intermodal Station has not been constructed, this DEIS
addresses the cumulative environmental consequences of a new rail passenger station in Orlando serving
the Project. Previous proposals for rail service have also studied a VMF at MCO, although not in the
currently‐proposed location or configuration. The MCO Segment would require that AAF execute a lease
with GOAA for the new track and VMF, subject to FAA’s review and approval.
1.2.2 E-W Corridor
The 32.5‐mile E‐W Corridor between MCO and Cocoa is proposed along the SR 528 alignment, and would
be a dedicated rail corridor parallel to the highway. A new railroad within this corridor would cross
several state highways (SR 417 and SR 520) and Interstate 95 (I‐95), and would connect with the
N‐S Corridor in Cocoa. The new rail infrastructure would include new tracks; bridges over and under
highways; bridges over waterways; new signalization; and new communication and train control
systems. The E‐W Corridor would require that AAF execute leases with the Orlando‐Orange County
Expressway Authority and FDOT, and secure Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval for
occupancy of the I‐95 ROW.
1.2.3 N-S Corridor
The N‐S Corridor is a 128.5‐mile segment of the existing active FECR Corridor between Cocoa and
West Palm Beach. The FECR Corridor was originally built as a double‐track railroad, but today it is mostly
a single‐track system with several sidings. The roadbed for the second track in the corridor still exists and
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Introduction 1-5 September 2014

would be used for the additional track improvements needed for the Project. The improvements would
include relocating and upgrading existing tracks, as well as installing new tracks. The Project would also
include improving or replacing existing bridges and grade crossings, as well as new signalization, and new
communication and train control systems.
1.2.4 WPB-M Corridor
The WPB‐M Corridor is a 66.5‐mile segment of the existing active FECR ROW between West Palm Beach
and Miami. Phase II of the Project includes reconstructing seven bridges over waterways within the
WPB‐M Corridor between West Palm Beach and Miami that were not evaluated in the 2012 EA. Because
this construction is part of Phase II, the environmental effects on these waterways are considered in
this DEIS.
The 2012 EA described the infrastructure improvements included in Phase I of the Project, including
relocating and upgrading existing tracks as well as installing new tracks. Within the WPB‐M Corridor,
Phase I of the Project would include improving grade crossings, as well as new signalization, new
communication and train control systems, and proposed stations at West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale,
and Miami.
1.3 Federal Agency Actions and Legislative Authority
FRA is the lead agency for NEPA review for the Project. Pursuant to NEPA (42 USC §4321 et seq.), Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and the FRA’s NEPA
procedures (FRA 1999), FRA has evaluated in this DEIS the potential environmental and related impacts
of constructing and operating the intercity passenger rail service between Orlando and Miami. The FRA
action that is the subject of this DEIS is the approval of a RRIF loan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and FAA, because of their jurisdiction, are cooperating agencies for this
environmental review.
FRA requested that the USACE act as a cooperating agency on the EIS, and the USACE agreed. The Project
may impact waters of the United States within the jurisdiction of the USACE under its authority granted by
the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (33 U.S.C § 1344, as amended), or navigable water of the United States
within the jurisdiction of the USACE under its authority granted by Sections 10 and 14 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act (R&HA) (33 U.S.C § 401 et seq., as amended). USACE will provide special expertise with respect
to environmental issues concerning the potential discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the
United States or the construction of any structure over navigable waters of the United States. USACE will
also provide FRA with all EIS documentation requirements that are unique to its Regulatory Program
outlined in 33 CFR part 325 Appendix B (i.e., which would not be addressed by FRA in FRA's
implementation of its NEPA requirements). An example of a requirement that is unique to the USACE
Regulatory Program and may be applicable to the USACE's participation as a cooperating agency is the
identification and analysis of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and
Public Interest Review as a requirement for compliance with the Section 404 permit program. USACE will
complete its own Record of Decision including a Clean Water Act ‐ Section 404(b)(1) determination, public
interest evaluation, R&HA Section 10, and engineering analysis to determine whether to issue authorization
pursuant to R&HA Section 14 (33 USC 408) permit applications.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Introduction 1-6 September 2014

FRA requested that USCG act as a cooperating agency on the EIS, and the USCG agreed. The Project may
impact waters of the United States within the jurisdiction of USCG under its authority granted by Section 9
of the R&HA and through the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1969. USCG, as authorized under
33 CFR part 115.70, is responsible for maintaining navigational adequacy of bridges. The purpose of these
Acts is to preserve the public right of navigation and to prevent interference with interstate and foreign
commerce. The General Bridge Act of 1946, as amended, the R&HA of 1899, as amended, and the Act of
March 23, 1906, as amended, all require the location and plans of bridges and causeways across the
navigable waters of the United States be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security
prior to construction. The General Bridge Act of 1946 is cited as the legislative authority for bridge
construction in most cases. These Acts placed the navigable waters of the United States under the exclusive
control of the USCG to prevent any interference with their navigability by bridges or other obstructions
except by express permission of the United States Government.
FRA requested that FAA act as a cooperating agency on the EIS, and the FAA agreed. The Project will
require FAA review and approval over changes to the GOAA property. Under 49 USC §401, the FAA has
jurisdiction over the layout of airports, including but not limited to approval of airport layout plans,
airspace, and facility development. The Project will require that FAA approve the Airport Layout Plan
Modifications, Project elements that occupy air space, and lease agreements between GOAA and AAF.
Other applicable legislative authority includes:
 Under 41 USC §4601, if federal assistance is provided to a project, the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Polices Act of 1970, as amended, and its implementing regulations
detailed in 49 CFR part 24 are applicable if land acquisition is required.
 Under 23 USC §111, for the portions of the Project that would be within the existing I‐95 ROW under
the jurisdiction of FHWA, the implementing regulations in 23 CFR part 1.23 provide FHWA authority
over approval of temporary or permanent occupancy or use within the boundaries of federal‐aid
highways.
1.4 Permits, Licenses, and Other Regulatory Requirements
Approvals by several federal agencies, including FRA, FAA, USACE, USCG, FHWA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would be necessary to implement
the Project. Constructing and operating the Project evaluated in this DEIS will also require permits issued
by state agencies. AAF will be responsible for securing the permits and approvals listed in Table 1.4‐1,
and will be required to comply with additional regulations, including:
 Carrying out the mitigation measures and commitments resulting from the Endangered Species Act,
Section 7, consultation with the USFWS and NMFS; and
 Carrying out the mitigation measures and commitments resulting from the National Historic
Preservation Act, Section 106, consultation with the Florida State Historic Preservation Office, and
the federally recognized tribes within Florida.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Introduction 1-7 September 2014

1.5 Development of this Environmental Impact Statement
As it has in the past, FRA has used a third party contracting process in preparing this DEIS. FRA does not
have appropriated funds to support the development of EISs for RRIF loan applications. As a result, FRA
requires the applicant to engage the services of a qualified consultant approved by FRA to assist FRA in
preparing the EIS. Consistent with a memorandum of agreement among the parties, the third party
contractor is paid for by AAF but reports to and takes direction from FRA. In developing the proposed
action, AAF engaged the services of consultant firms to prepare engineering designs for the Project and
to prepare technical reports documenting existing environmental conditions and analyses of
environmental consequences. FRA’s third party contractor reviewed all materials provided by AAF;
assisted FRA in determining that this information was complete, accurate, and relevant; and assisted FRA
in the preparation of this DEIS.

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


Introduction 1-8 September 2014

Table 1.4-1 Permits or Approvals Required for the Project
Agency Permit/Approval
Federal Highway Administration Concurrence for Highway ROW Occupancy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 and Section 14 Permit
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Layout Plan Modification approval
Approval of air space and facility development stormwater ponds
Review of lease agreements
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act Section 7 concurrence
National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Act Section 7 concurrence
Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act – Essential Fish Habitat
U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permits
Drawbridge Operation Regulatory changes (potential)
Florida State Historic Preservation Office National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Concurrence
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Environmental Resource Permit (for the E-W and N-S Corridors)
Sovereign Submerged Lands Approval for bridges
Coastal Zone Management Act
South Florida Water Management District Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Environmental Resource Permit (for the MCO Segment)
De Minimis Exemption for Upland Track Work
ROW Permits for Work Over Canals under USCG Jurisdiction
Coastal Zone Management Act
Florida Department of Transportation Occupancy and Use Permit
ROW Permit
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Gopher Tortoise Permit
Orange County Wetland Conservation Area Impact Permit
Wetland Conservation Area Determination
Building Permit (for Vehicle Maintenance Facility)
Broward County Bridge Permit
Miami-Dade County Bridge Permit

1.6 Organization of this Environmental Impact Statement
This DEIS has been developed in compliance with CEQ NEPA regulations and FRA NEPA procedures. It
documents the purpose of and need for the Project (Chapter 2, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action);
describes the Proposed Action and other alternatives evaluated in this DEIS, as well as alternatives
considered but withdrawn (Chapter 3, Alternatives); describes the affected environment within the
Project Study Area (Chapter 4, Affected Environment); describes the environmental impacts of the
alternatives, including the No‐Action Alternative (Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences); provides a
Section 4(f) Evaluation (Chapter 6, Section 4[f] Evaluation); identifies the mitigation measures and
commitments (Chapter 7, Mitigation Measures and Project Commitments); and describes the public
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Introduction 1-9 September 2014

outreach and coordination conducted during the NEPA process (Chapter 8, Summary of Public
Involvement Process and Tribal Coordination).
This DEIS focuses on the environmental impacts of the Project that is the subject of the federal agency
action: FRA’s approval of the RRIF loan application for the All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail
Service Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach. The DEIS has also been developed to satisfy the NEPA
requirements of the federal cooperating agencies: the FAA, USACE, and USCG. In order to present a
comprehensive picture of the cumulative effects of the Project that is the subject of AAF’s RRIF loan
application, in combination with the effects of Phase I (West Palm Beach to Miami), this DEIS incorporates
information from the 2012 EA entitled Environmental Assessment and Section 4(F) Evaluation for the All
Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami; identifies any changes in project design
since the 2012 EA and 2013 FONSI; and evaluates the effects of those changes.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Purpose and Need for 2-1 September 2014
the Proposed Action
2 Purpose and Need for the
Proposed Action
2.1 Introduction
All Aboard Florida LLC (AAF) proposes to institute intercity passenger rail service between Orlando
and Miami, Florida with station stops in Orlando, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. The
Project would consist of a 235‐mile long intercity passenger rail service with an anticipated
three‐hour travel time. Improvements needed to support the service would include both
construction within existing railroad rights‐of‐way (ROW) and new construction outside of existing
railroad corridors. AAF has applied for a loan from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to fund
a portion of the construction costs of building the Project. If approved and constructed, AAF would
be responsible for covering the costs of operating its services and for repaying FRA the borrowed
funds in accordance with financial terms that would be agreed upon by AAF and FRA. As a private
applicant, AAF has identified the basic components of the project it is proposing to build and operate,
and has identified the purpose and need for the Project. Given the private sector nature of the Project,
FRA has independently validated the purpose and need for the Project identified by AAF to assure
that this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) appropriately articulates that purpose and need
consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), its implementing regulations and
procedures, and related statutes and regulations.
2.2 Purpose
The purpose of the Project is to provide reliable and convenient intercity passenger rail
transportation between Orlando and Miami, Florida (the Project Corridor), by extending (in Phase II)
the previously reviewed Phase I AAF passenger rail service between West Palm Beach and Miami and
by maximizing the use of existing transportation corridors. This transportation service would offer a
safe and efficient alternative to automobile travel on congested highway corridors, add
transportation capacity within those corridors (particularly Interstate 95), and encourage
connectivity with other modes of transportation such as light rail, commuter rail, and air
transportation.
The additional purpose of Phase I of the Project, as stated in the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), is to “provide intercity passenger rail service that addresses South Florida’s current and
future needs to enhance the transportation system by providing a transportation alternative for
Floridians and tourists, supporting economic development, creating jobs and improving air quality.”
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Purpose and Need for 2-2 September 2014
the Proposed Action
2.3 Need
The Project is needed to provide a fast, sustainable, and reliable means of travel that responds to the
transportation needs of the existing population as well as future population growth. The need for the
Project stems from several factors: increasing congestion on the I‐95 corridor and State Road (SR) 528,
long travel times, limited existing capacity, limited and constrained opportunities for corridor
expansion, limited alternative modes of transportation, and increasing travel demand generated by
growth in population and tourism. Transportation demand and travel growth in Florida is outgrowing
the capacity available on the existing and future transportation network between Orlando and Miami
(Louis Berger Group 2013). Increasing population, employment, and tourism continue to elevate travel
demand in the Project Corridor, as documented by population and employment forecasts from the
Office of Economic and Demographic Research and Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
(FDEO) (Office of Economic and Demographic Research 2013; FDEO 2013). Transportation options
between these two cities have become more limited with the decline of air service in the Project
Corridor, limits on roadway expansions, and the lack of adequate, reliable alternative modes of
transportation (Louis Berger Group 2013). As a result, FRA has concluded that there is a need for a safe,
efficient, reliable transportation alternative to the dominant mode of travel (automobile). Finally, with
funding at the state and national level being limited, there is a need for a privately operated passenger
railroad project. FRA concurs that the Project could help address a need for improved transportation
in the markets that would be served.
These existing and future transportation conditions and resulting needs are described in more detail
below.
2.3.1 Congestion on Existing Road Systems
The Project Corridor and transportation network are shown in Figure 2.3‐1. There are two main
north‐south interstate highways along the southeast coast of Florida, I‐95 and Florida’s Turnpike,
which is a toll road. These two roads run roughly parallel to the east coast of Florida and connect
Orlando with Miami, as well as intermediate destinations. The current travel time between Orlando
and Miami via automobile is 4 hours, 15 minutes via SR 528 to I‐95 and 3 hours, 50 minutes via
Florida’s Turnpike. These times can vary substantially based on traffic, congestion, weather, and
other factors.
According to the United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the annual average daily traffic (AADT) on I‐95 between Orlando and Miami
is between 48,500 and 283,774, depending on the location (Louis Berger Group 2013). Florida’s
Turnpike, which parallels I‐95 in southeastern Florida, has an AADT of between 26,000 and 113,369,
depending on the location (Louis Berger Group 2013). Traffic levels on these two corridors are
expected to grow by 52 percent between 2007 and 2040 as population and vehicular travel in Florida
increases (Louis Berger Group 2013). By 2040, traffic volume is expected to be at or exceeding
capacity for almost all segments (Table 2.3‐1).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Purpose and Need for 2-3 September 2014
the Proposed Action


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


Purpose and Need for 2-4 September 2014
the Proposed Action
Table 2.3-1 Existing and Projected Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and Volume to
Capacity (V/C) Ratios
Highway Segment County
2007
AADT
2040
AADT
2007
V/C
2040
V/C
Florida's
Turnpike
South of U.S. 441 Osceola 30,050 45,818 0.71 1.01
North of SR 60 Osceola/ Okeechobee/ Indian
River/ St. Lucie/ Indian River
26,000 39,642 0.53 0.79
North of SR 706 Indian River/ St. Lucie/ Martin/
Palm Beach
36,000 54,890 0.57 0.87
North of SR 870 Palm Beach/ Broward 94,200 143,629 0.94 1.42
North of SR 820 Broward 113,369 172,857 1.12 1.71
Interstate 95
South of SR 528 Brevard/ Indian River/ St. Lucie/
Martin
48,500 73,949 0.87 1.25
North of SR 706 Palm Beach 70,954 108,185 0.72 1.05
North of SR 870 Broward/ Palm Beach 274,277 418,198 1.31 2.00
North of SR 820 Broward 283,774 432,678 1.07 1.64
Source: Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September 2013.

Florida’s existing transportation infrastructure is overloaded due to a substantial increase in population,
business, and tourism over the last 30 years (I‐95 Corridor Coalition 2013). Without further improvements
to the existing I‐95 corridor, by 2035 100‐percent of the urban segments within the I‐95 corridor will be
under “heavy congestion, and 55 percent of the non‐urban segments will see increased congestion”
(I‐95 Corridor Coalition 2013). Mobility is hampered in Florida because of chronic congestion and delays
due to inadequate roadway capacity and the inability to expand most of the State’s urban roadway capacity,
according to Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and FHWA research (FDOT 2010; FHWA
2005a). In 1991, FDOT established a limit of ten lanes (five lanes in either direction) at any location on the
Florida Interstate Highway System (FIHS) (FRA 2005). This limit to capacity was further solidified in 2002
and 2003, when FDOT procedures 525‐030‐250‐f and 525‐030‐255‐c set up specific criteria for widening
all roads on the FIHS. These procedures were based on 2000 legislation (Section 225.02(3) of the Florida
Statutes [FS]), which establishes criteria that must be considered when determining the number of lanes on
the FIHS. The criteria include consideration of multi‐modal alternatives and considerations of local
comprehensive plans and approved metropolitan long range transportation plans. The procedures (FDOT
2003) note:
“Nothing in Section 335.02 (3) FS precludes a number of lanes in excess of ten lanes. However, before the
Department may determine the number of lanes should be more than ten, the availability of [right‐of‐
way] (ROW), and the capacity to accommodate other modes of transportation within the existing ROW
must be considered.“
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Purpose and Need for 2-5 September 2014
the Proposed Action
The need for a solution to the problem of roadway congestion has been recognized by many, including
FDOT. In June 2009, FDOT released the Florida Rail Project Plan: Policy Element (FDOT 2009) concluding,
among other things, that:
“In spite of recent slowing of growth due to a downturn in the national and state economy, by 2030 more
than 25 million people will call Florida home, an increase of over 35 percent since 2007. The expected
growth in population over the long‐term reinforces the value of investing in rail as part of a multimodal
transportation strategy to more efficiently accommodate the mobility needs of future populations.”
2.3.2 Safety on the Existing Highway System
On a national level, comparing miles traveled via commercial aircraft, trains, and automobiles on
highways, auto travel on highways has the highest rate of passenger fatalities per mile traveled. In 2011,
more than 34 percent of all transportation fatalities involved occupants of passenger cars, while there
were no fatalities related to passenger rail (USDOT 2012). These statistics indicate that a passenger rail
system would provide a safer travel option than passenger cars traveling on I‐95 and other area
highways.
2.3.3 Alternative Modes of Transportation – Orlando to Miami
The transportation alternatives to cars for travel within the Orlando to Miami corridor currently include
passenger train, airplane, and motor bus. Amtrak currently operates two separate train services in the
Project Corridor, the Silver Star and Silver Meteor (both between New York City, New York and Miami,
Florida). There are two southbound (SB) trains per day and two northbound (NB) trains per day. The
travel time between Orlando and Miami on the two Amtrak services is between 5 hours, 45 minutes and
7 hours, 34 minutes. Annual ridership on these two routes was 23,300 (Louis Berger Group 2013).
Ridership on Amtrak in the Project Corridor has grown by 8 percent (compounded annually) since 2006
(Louis Berger Group 2013). By 2030, these volumes are expected to grow to 120,000 passengers per year
(Louis Berger Group 2013).
Intercity train travel in the Project Corridor is limited by reliability issues, infrequent service, and a long
overall travel time, among other factors (Louis Berger Group 2013). The Amtrak services operate for only
a small portion of their route on tracks owned by Amtrak, with the rest of their route primarily on tracks
owned by CSX Corporation or FDOT. The number of trains that they are able to operate is limited by the
time slots available from CSX. With limited control over the primary causes of delay, the two routes had
an on‐time performance of 60 percent for the period of August 2012 to July 2013 (Amtrak 2013). This
low on‐time performance means that by the time a SB train gets to Orlando, it can be anywhere between
2 and 3 hours late.
American Airlines, United Airlines, and Silver Airways provide air service between Orlando and Miami,
Silver Airways and Spirit Airlines provide service between Orlando and Fort Lauderdale, and Silver
Airways provides service between Orlando and West Palm Beach. The average flight time is 60 minutes,
which does not include the time required to reach the airport, pass security, and board the aircraft.
Several smaller airlines and charter services provide service between the various smaller “executive”
airports in the region. In total, there are more than 30 flights per day between Orlando International
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Purpose and Need for 2-6 September 2014
the Proposed Action
Airport (MCO) and the West Palm Beach/Fort Lauderdale/Miami Airports (PBI, FLL, and MIA). There are
244 daily and 88,900 annual passengers who travel between Orlando and Miami via airplane (Louis
Berger Group 2013). In 2012, 96,112 daily and 35.1 million (M) annual passengers used MCO and
108,969 daily and 39.5M annual passengers used Miami Airport (MCO n.d.). By 2030, the number of
passengers is expected to grow to 74M per year, an increase of 45 percent (Louis Berger Group 2013).
Air travel within Florida is limited by the availability of flights, increasing prices, and delays. Currently,
there are only two major, national air carriers that provide service between Central and Southeast
Florida. This limitation on competition has resulted in higher prices and fewer options to travel within
the state (prices have increased by almost 15 percent in the last 10 years) (USDOT 2013). Increasing
delays have also made air travel less reliable; in 2012, approximately 18 to 23 percent of all flights in the
Project Corridor were considered “late” by the FAA (Table 2.3‐2).

Table 2.3-2 Aviation Delays in the Project Corridor (2012)
Route
Total Number
of Flights
Total Number of
Delayed Flights
Percent of
Flights Delayed
Orlando - Miami 3,496 802 23
Orlando - Fort Lauderdale 1,468 266 18
Source: BTS. 2013. Summary Statistics, Origin and Destination Airport: January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2013.
http://apps.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/ddisp/OntimeSummarySelect.xml?tname=OntimeSummaryBothData.
Accessed September 12, 2013.

Greyhound Bus Service offers a variety of motor coach services between Orlando and Miami, and
intermediate destinations, with 20 daily departures. The average trip time varies between 4 and 7 hours.
There are approximately 10 SB buses and 10 NB buses between the two cities each day. Trip time is
strongly influenced by highway congestion.
Multiple local transit operating authorities provide connecting service in areas around the proposed
stations. These transit providers do not provide service over the entire length of the Project Corridor. The
only transit service currently operating along part of the Project Corridor is the South Florida Regional
Transportation Authority (SFRTA), which operates the “Tri‐Rail” commuter train service between West
Palm Beach and Miami. SFRTA operates commuter train service on the CSX railroad ROW, which is
approximately one mile west of the Florida East Coast Railway Corridor ROW. Tri‐Rail service has 17
stations within this 72‐mile corridor, with a total travel time of approximately 1 hour, 50 minutes. There
are 25 SB and 25 NB trains per weekday within this southern portion of the corridor (SFRTA 2013a).
Based on the available data, trip times for alternative modes of long‐distance intercity transportation are
often unreliable and roadway congestion is increasing due to limited capacity for expansion.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Purpose and Need for 2-7 September 2014
the Proposed Action
2.3.4 Population, Employment, and Tourism Growth
Growth in population, employment, and tourism is anticipated to exacerbate existing highway congestion
and increase the demand for alternative modes of transportation (Louis Berger Group 2013). Florida has
a current population of 19 million people, which is expected to increase by almost 5M people in the next
20 years (Figure 2.3‐2). The municipal areas at the two ends of the project corridor are among the five
largest cities in Florida, with increasing population growth. Orlando, at the northern end of the Project
Corridor, is the fifth largest city in Florida and had the second highest population growth in the state.
Miami, at the southern end of the Project Corridor, is the second largest city in Florida (BEBR 2011a;
Schlueb 2013).

Figure 2.3-2 Projected Population for the State of Florida

Source: Office of Economic and Demographic Research. 2013. Total County Population: April 1, 1970-2040.
http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/population-demographics/data/CountyPopulation.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2013.

As of June 2013, the Florida economy employed approximately 8,751,000 people according to the United
States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (BLS 2013). In the last two years,
employment in Florida has grown by over 450,000 people and the number of people employed is
approaching pre‐recession levels (BLS 2013). Since 2011, employment in the combined Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) has grown by three percent or more per year (Table 2.3‐3).

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Population 6,789,447 9,746,961 12,938,071 15,982,824 18,801,332 21,141,318 23,601,075 25,583,157
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
T
o
t
a
l
 
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Historic and Projected Population for Florida (1970 ‐ 2040)
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Purpose and Need for 2-8 September 2014
the Proposed Action
Table 2.3-3 Employment Growth by Metropolitan Statistical Area
Year
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-
Pompano Beach Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford Total
Employment
Growth Rate
(%) Population
Growth Rate
(%) Population
Growth Rate
(%)
2003 2,440,482 - 885,928 - 3,326,410 -
2004 2,486,155 1.9 920,858 3.9 3,407,013 2.4
2005 2,561,772 3.0 971,929 5.5 3,533,701 3.7
2006 2,647,953 3.4 1,016,278 4.6 3,664,231 3.7
2007 2,765,416 4.4 1,062,268 4.5 3,827,684 4.5
2008 2,698,722 -2.4 1,052,279 -0.9 3,751,001 -2.0
2009 2,515,298 -6.8 992,687 -5.7 3,507,985 -6.5
2010 2,524,021 0.3 991,964 -0.1 3,515,985 0.2
2011 2,606,069 3.3 1,014,675 2.3 3,620,744 3.0
2012 2,698,050 3.5 1,050,951 3.6 3,749,001 3.5
Source: BLS. 2013. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=la. Accessed September 13, 2013.

Orange County and Miami‐Dade County are the main centers of employment in the Project Corridor. This
concentration of employment leads to a substantial jobs‐housing imbalance for some counties in the
corridor that are more residential, including Martin, Osceola, and Broward Counties (Table 2.3‐4). This
jobs‐to‐housing imbalance leads to longer home‐to‐work travel.

Table 2.3-4 Population Employed Outside of the County of Residence
County
Population
% Employed in
County of Residence
% Employed Out of
County of Residence
Orange County 87 13
Osceola County 49 51
Brevard County 93 7
Indian River County 85 15
Martin County 67 33
Palm Beach County 89 11
Broward County 78 22
Miami-Dade County 93 7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: S0801, Commuting
Characteristics by Sex. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 12, 2013.

In 2012, 91.4M people visited Florida for tourist purposes, including theme parks in Orlando, beaches
along the coast, and other attractions (Visit Florida 2013a). Although the majority of these visitors came
from the United States, a growing number come from international locations. In 2012, 50 percent of all
visitors arrived via airplane (Visit Florida 2013a). Orlando is the most visited destination in the United
States, with over 50M visitors a year. The number of visitors has increased from approximately 49M in
2008 to 57M in 2012, and is forecast to reach more than 59M in 2014 (Visit Orlando 2014). Miami saw
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Purpose and Need for 2-9 September 2014
the Proposed Action
4.1M cruise passengers embark in 2010 (Miami‐Dade County 2014), and saw 13.9M visitors in 2012, with
a nine percent increase in hotel occupancy from 2008 to 2013 (Greater Miami Convention Center and
Visitors Bureau 2014). As discussed previously, there are few transportation options connecting Orlando
and Miami other than private automobiles.
The increasing number of people living, working and visiting the Project Corridor will result in a greater
number of people traveling in the corridor. This increase in travel between Orlando and Miami, Florida
places increased pressure on the highways and other modes serving the region.
2.3.5 Financing and Public Initiatives
A number of public agencies and private entities have studied the development of an intercity passenger
rail system in Florida. Intercity passenger rail is recognized as a viable and needed service, given the level
of travel activity and the existing and growing congestion on Florida’s highways. Tables 2.3‐5 and 2.3‐6
provide a summary of prior rail legislation and high speed rail legislation in Florida from 2000 to 2010
(FDOT 2010). Available funding for capital and operating costs of transportation projects is limited at the
state and national level, and none of these projects have advanced, primarily due to lack of funding. At a
national level, funding for the capital cost of highway/transit projects has remained flat in the latest
transportation authorization budget (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, Federal Public
Transportation Act of 2012). Florida has not committed to funding the operating and capital costs for the
Tampa to Miami High Speed Rail project due to limited resources.

Table 2.3-5 Summary of Rail Legislation and Related Activities in Florida 2000 – 2010
Date/Title Description
2000
Constitutional Amendment on High
Speed Rail Approved by Florida
Voters
Florida’s voters adopted an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Florida
that mandated the construction of a high-speed transportation system in the state.
The amendment required the use of train technologies that would operate at
speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour and would consist of dedicated rails or
guideways separated from motor vehicle traffic. The system was to link the five
largest urban areas of Florida and construction was mandated to begin by
November 2003.
2001
Florida Legislature Enacts the Florida
High Speed Rail Authority Act
Florida Legislature enacted the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act and created
the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA). The FHSRA was charged with the
responsibility for planning, administering, and implementing a high-speed rail
system.
2001
High Speed Rail Authority Issues
Vision Plan
The FHSRA crafted a vision for a high-speed rail network linking the major
population centers of Florida. The FHSRA’s long-term vision for a statewide high-
speed rail system included the provision for high-speed rail along Florida’s east
coast, linking Jacksonville and Miami.

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


Purpose and Need for 2-10 September 2014
the Proposed Action
Table 2.3-5 Summary of Rail Legislation and Related Activities in Florida 2000 – 2010
(Continued)
Date/Title Description
2002
Report to the Governor and the
Legislature Issued
The FHSRA issued a request for proposal in 2002 to design, build, operate,
maintain, and finance an initial high-speed rail service between Tampa and
Orlando. The cost estimate was $2.4 billion. The route was planned to begin
near the Tampa Central Business District and travel parallel to Interstate 4 into
Orlando, then to the MCO, along with a future extension into St. Petersburg. A
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared for Tampa-Orlando
project in 2003 and a Final EIS was released in 2005 (re-evaluation and Record
of Decision in 2010).
2003
Funding Vetoed by Governor Jeb Bush
Governor Jeb Bush vetoed funding approved by the Legislature for the High
Speed Rail project and for the continuation of activities by the Board. The FHSRA
was able to continue the project development and environmental process and
procurement process with funds previously earmarked by the federal
government.
2004
Constitutional Requirement is
Repealed
Growing concern over the costs of implementing a high-speed rail network led
to efforts to repeal the amendment. In November 2004, Florida voters chose to
overturn the original amendment, resulting in the removal of the constitutional
mandate.
2009
Florida Rail Project Plan
The 2009 Florida Rail Plan was an update to the 2006 Florida Freight and
Passenger Rail Plan and built upon previous rail planning efforts, including the
2006 Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Vision Plan. The Project was developed in
response to this policy plan.

Table 2.3-6 Summary of High Speed Rail Legislation in Florida 2000 – 2010
Date/Title Description
December 2009
Florida Statewide Passenger Rail
Commission created
Governor Charlie Crist signed House Bill 1B, creating the Florida Statewide
Passenger Rail Commission. The commission will monitor Florida’s passenger
rail systems, advise the Florida Department of Transportation concerning
passenger rail service, evaluate passenger rail policies, and provide advice and
recommendations to the legislature.
Source: Florida House of Representatives. 2009. HB 1B – Transportation.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=42784. Accessed September 21, 2013.

2.4 Project Objectives
AAF identified its primary objective for the Project, which is to provide an intercity rail service that is
sustainable as a private commercial enterprise. Sustainable means that the rail service can attract
sufficient riders to meet revenue projections and operate at an acceptable profit level. FRA agrees that
there is an identified need for a reliable and convenient intercity passenger rail service between Orlando
and Miami and that the private sector nature of the proposal requires that the system operate as a
sustainable private commercial enterprise.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-1 September 2014

3 Alternatives
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations that implement the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) state that the alternatives section is the heart of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) (40 CFR § 1502.14). Those regulations and accompanying guidance, Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (CEQ 1981), require a federal
decision‐maker, in this case the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), to:
 Develop and describe the range of alternatives capable of achieving the purpose and need
(1505.1(e)), including alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency and the No‐Action
Alternative (1502.14(d)); and
 Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate these alternatives, and provide reasons why the lead
agency eliminated certain alternatives from further study (1502.14(a)).
This chapter describes the process through which the Proposed Action (Build) Alternatives and the
No‐Action Alternative for Phase II of the Orlando‐Miami Passenger Rail Project were identified and
evaluated, and provides a detailed description of the alternatives evaluated in this Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS). The environmental impacts of each of the alternatives that were carried
forward from this screening process are evaluated in Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, of this DEIS.
3.1 Proposed Action
All Aboard Florida (AAF) is proposing to construct and operate a privately owned, intercity passenger
railroad system that will connect Orlando and Miami. Phase I of the Project includes infrastructure
improvements, stations, and initial passenger rail service from West Palm Beach to Miami. Phase I, which
FRA determined has independent utility, and which was the subject of a FRA‐led environmental
assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) in 2012. Phase II of the Project would extend
that service to Orlando by maximizing the use of existing transportation corridors. As noted in Chapter 2,
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action, AAF identified its primary objective which is to provide an
intercity rail service that is sustainable as a private commercial enterprise. Sustainable means that the
rail service can attract sufficient riders to meet revenue projections and operate at an acceptable profit
level. The two principal components of this objective are the basis for developing the criteria and
framework for evaluating the Project alternatives. The two primary goals are to:
 Provide a reliable and convenient intercity rail service between Orlando and Miami with an
approximate 3‐hour trip time between the terminal stations; and
 Provide an intercity rail service that is sustainable as a private commercial enterprise. Sustainable
means that the rail service can attract sufficient riders to meet revenue projections, and can operate
at an acceptable profit level.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-2 September 2014

3.2 Alternatives Identification and Screening
This section describes the alternatives that were identified and developed for the Project and the criteria
used to evaluate each alternative. The analysis also included a preliminary comparison of potential
impacts to key environmental resources. Alternatives were identified and screened in an iterative, three‐
level process:
 Level 1 identified and screened overall routes connecting Orlando with the previously reviewed West
Palm Beach to Miami service, and identified a preferred route alternative.
 Level 2 was more fine‐grained and evaluated segment alternatives within the preferred route.
 Level 3 evaluated alternatives within one segment (the Orlando‐Orange County Expressway
Authority (OOCEA)‐controlled segment of the East‐West Corridor) of the preferred route.
Figure 3.2‐1 shows the screening process graphically. In order to identify and consider alternatives that
will satisfy the Project’s purpose, including its feasibility as a private enterprise, AAF developed
evaluation criteria, including six critical determining factors (Critical Determining Factors) that must be
met in order for AAF to be able to proceed with the Project. These screening criteria recognize that AAF
is a private enterprise that cannot rely on government operating subsidies and that does not have the
authority to acquire property by eminent domain (condemnation). To be feasible as a private enterprise,
AAF must be able to:
 Provide reliable and convenient intercity passenger rail transportation connecting Orlando and
Miami, Florida, by extending previously reviewed passenger rail service between West Palm Beach
and Miami;
 Gain access to the lands on which alternatives are proposed through viable acquisitions, leases,
licenses, permits, or other arrangements that do not preclude the feasibility of the Project as a private
enterprise;
 Deliver a travel time that will meet the ridership targets necessary for a sustainable commercial
initiative;
 Commence construction in the near term in order to control costs;
 Remain in close proximity to existing or planned transportation corridors in order to limit land
acquisitions and related impacts; and
 Limit cost of development, including cost of land acquisitions, access, construction, and
environmental mitigation.
AAF identified the alternatives at each level, and developed and applied screening criteria to determine
whether each alternative was reasonable and capable of being implemented in accordance with these
overall objectives. FRA has independently evaluated AAF’s analysis, validated assumptions, and has
prepared the following summary of the alternatives evaluation process.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-3 September 2014


All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-4 September 2014

3.2.1 Level 1 - Route Alternatives
AAF evaluated four route alternatives to connect the Greater Orlando Airport Authority’s (GOAA)
proposed Intermodal Facility at the Orlando Airport (MCO) with the West Palm Beach Station (the
terminus of Phase I). These route alternatives were developed and evaluated by other entities in previous
planning initiatives to connect Orlando and Miami through intercity passenger rail. The two most recent
studies were the Florida High Speed Rail Express Service from Orlando to Miami, proposed by the Florida
Rail Enterprise in 2009 (Florida Rail Enterprise 2009) as part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act High Speed Rail initiative, and the Orlando‐Miami Planning Study conducted by the
Florida High Speed Rail Authority in 2003 (HNTB 2003).
The four route alternatives evaluated by AAF in Level 1 were:
 The CSX Route Alternative
 The Florida’s Turnpike Route Alternative
 The Interstate 95 (I‐95) Route Alternative
 The (Florida East Coast Railroad) FECR Route Alternative
3.2.1.1 Screening Criteria
The primary screening criteria used at this level was developed to assess (1) whether the alternative
satisfies the purpose and need of the Project, (2) whether the alternative is practicable to construct and
operate (satisfies AAF’s specified critical determining factors), and (3) to what degree the alternative
would have impacts to key environmental resources.
Access to Land
The alternatives analysis assumes that a 100‐foot wide right‐of‐way (ROW) would be required for the rail
corridor to construct a double‐track system and to accommodate stormwater management elements,
utilities, signal equipment, and maintenance roads. As AAF does not have the authority to condemn land,
it can only obtain access to property through negotiating agreements with property owners. Agreements
may include lease arrangements with the owners of existing ROW or purchasing property. This criterion
was evaluated based on the estimated number of properties crossed by the alternative, using a
geographic information systems (GIS) analysis. Land access contributes to the logistical feasibility of an
alternative, as the number of parcels requiring acquisition is directly related to the cost of the Project and
the time of execution, due to the time necessary to complete transactions. The need for land access also
contributes to risk, since any party that was not willing to enter into negotiations could block
construction.
Some alternatives require that AAF negotiate an agreement for perpetual access to and operation of a
shared use environment with other railroads. A shared‐use environment is one in which freight and
passenger trains operate over the same network. Both types of trains must share common resources such
as track, signaling, and traffic control facilities, as well as terms regarding dispatching and priority. The
shared‐use arrangement is challenging because passenger and freight trains operate at different speeds
(freight trains are limited to 70 mph) and passenger trains frequently need to pass freight trains going in
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-5 September 2014

the same direction. This passing movement uses both tracks of a two‐track line, and can interfere with
movements in the opposite direction. The Train Dispatcher is responsible for determining the order in
which trains will move, and for determining which train will be delayed. Although operational priority is
established in the individual agreements, in practice in shared‐use environments where the freight
operator controls the line, passenger service is frequently delayed by freight. Amtrak’s Silver
Service/Palmetto line had a 66 percent on‐time performance in February 2014, and 60 percent on‐time
performance for the previous 12 months. The primary causes of delay were train interferences
(39 percent of the total delay, of which 84 percent occurred on the CSX‐dispatched line) and track and
signal problems (25 percent of the total delay, of which 79 percent occurred on the CSX lines) (Amtrak
2014). Negotiating shared‐use agreements presents the risk of delays to the schedule, and the risk that
the controlling railroad would not agree to acceptable terms for a shared use environment. Any
alternative requiring extensive acquisitions or use negotiations would have substantial cost, delay, and
risk, which affect the determination of whether an alternative is commercially viable.
Activities associated with an alternative that could potentially delay the completion of the Project and
thus increase Project costs include the need to negotiate with numerous parties for land acquisition or
access as well as other uncertainties. For purposes of this screening process, access to land involves the
need to obtain satisfactory railroad operating agreements, land acquisition to construct a new rail
connector across West Palm Beach, land acquisition from private land owners, and leasing land within
public transportation ROW.
Logistics
Logistics includes the subcategories of train signaling and control systems and route length, time, and
schedule. The ability to use existing rail technology and infrastructure was an important factor in the
alternatives screening process. This criterion considers the level of difficulty, costs, and risks associated
with constructing an entirely new rail corridor or adapting an existing rail corridor.
Train Signaling and Control Systems
The Project is subject to all regulatory requirements governing the safe operation of passenger rail. These
regulations require rail signaling, control and communications systems, including the current
requirement for Positive Train Control (PTC) systems. Corridors which currently have no signaling and
control systems would require constructing and testing new systems, which would delay construction
and operations of the proposed intercity passenger rail.
Route Length, Time and Schedule
The economic viability of the Project is dependent on ridership. A ridership study (Louis Berger Group
2013) (see Appendix 3.3‐F) was used to develop ridership projections. The study determined that
ridership is based on travel time, the amount of time required to reach an AAF station, and the frequency
of service. Travel time is dependent on route length and operating speeds, which depend on
infrastructure features such as curvature and density of development near at‐grade crossings. The study
also found that trip time is the most sensitive predictor of ridership, (see Section 3.5, Ridership). The study
found that the ridership necessary for a sustainable commercial venture was obtained with a total trip
time of 3 hours, 15 minutes or less (Louis Berger Group 2013).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-6 September 2014

Environmental Impacts
The potential environmental impacts of each alternative were evaluated at this level based on the amount
of each resource present within a 300‐foot wide corridor centered on the track. This corridor includes
the 100‐foot ROW in which direct consequences (losses) of the resource would be anticipated, and an
additional 100 feet on either side of the ROW where indirect effects to the resource could occur. This
criterion serves as an estimate of potential mitigation costs, which are assumed to be proportional to the
acres of wetland loss. Environmental impacts, depending on their severity and the quality of affected
resources may affect Project viability.
Wetlands and Waterways
The potential direct and indirect impacts to wetlands were estimated based on a GIS analysis, and include
the acreage of wetlands within the 100‐foot construction footprint of each route alternative. Impacts to
waterways at this level of the alternatives analysis were assessed based on the number of new bridges
over waterways that would be required.
Conservation Lands
Publicly owned conservation lands are protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act. The potential direct and indirect impacts to conservation lands (including public and private lands)
were assessed based on the miles of conservation land crossed by or adjacent to each alternative.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Potential direct and indirect impacts to federal‐ and state‐listed threatened and endangered species were
evaluated based on information provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and
included:
 Bald eagle nest locations;
 Florida wood stork nesting areas;
 Florida scrub jay habitats; and
 Recorded observations for additional federal and state listed species.
Impacts were assessed based on the number of listed species observations within or adjacent to the
300‐foot corridor for each alternative. The analysis did not include plant species or aquatic species such
as the West Indian manatee.
3.2.1.2 Description and Analysis of Route Alternatives
The four route alternatives would use existing transportation infrastructure to the extent feasible. The
2003 High Speed Rail Study (HNTB 2003) assumed that each route alternative would support high‐speed
rail service within a dedicated ROW adjacent to existing rail or highway ROW, to the extent feasible. The
four route alternatives (Figure 3.2‐2) are described below. The description of the CSX, Florida Turnpike,
and I‐95 Route Alternatives is based on information from the 2003 High Speed Rail Study.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-7 September 2014

CSX Route Alternative
The CSX Route Alternative (Figure 3.2‐2) would extend from the West Palm Beach Station to the GOAA
Intermodal Station. This route would depart from the FECR ROW, require a new rail connection between
the FECR and CSX corridors north of West Palm Beach (0.45 miles), and connect to the existing CSX
Sanford Subdivision rail corridor. This route would follow the CSX corridor to State Route (SR) 27 west
of Haines City, then follow SR 27 north to Interstate 4 (I‐4) in Orlando. From I‐4, the route would follow
either SR 417 or SR 528 to the GOAA Intermodal Station. The southern portion assumes shared use of the
existing CSX infrastructure. The northern portion would require a new dedicated ROW along the west
side of SR 27, and would be constructed within the median of I‐4. Property acquisition between Orlando
and West Palm Beach was estimated as 1,200 acres. This route would be approximately 264 miles from
Orlando to Miami, with an estimated trip time of greater than 3 hours.
Based on land access, logistics, and environmental impacts, this alternative does not meet the screening
evaluation criteria and is, therefore, not feasible to implement. Although portions of the CSX Route may
allow a shared‐use operating environment, extensive upgrades to the track, grade crossings, and
infrastructure would be required. AAF does not have operating rights on the CSX portion of this route,
and would have to negotiate agreements for a shared use environment. This creates increased risk of
significant delays to the schedule, as well as the risk that CSX would not be willing to enter into such a
transaction. In other portions of the route, AAF would need to purchase or lease land from many different
public and private landowners, including properties in or immediately north of West Palm Beach for a
new rail connector, which results in a substantial impact on the time required to complete construction.
As previously discussed, this also substantially increases the risk that AAF would not be able to acquire
all of the property required for this alternative. Due to the long trip length and speed reductions, this route
alternative would not provide a trip time consistent with the ridership target needed to sustain a viable
private enterprise. With respect to environmental criteria, this alternative would also result in the highest
potential adverse direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and protected species, and may require
acquisition of conservation land for an aggregate distance of 13 miles (AMEC 2014d).
Florida’s Turnpike Route Alternative
The Florida’s Turnpike Route Alternative (Figure 3.2‐2), as described in the 2003 High Speed Rail Study,
would extend from the Miami station to the GOAA Intermodal Station. This route would depart from the
FECR Corridor, require a new rail connection between the FECR Corridor and Florida’s Turnpike
corridors north of West Palm Beach (4.5 miles), then follow the Turnpike to Boggy Creek Road south of
MCO. This route would then extend north to the terminal station. This alternative assumes that a new
100‐foot wide ROW would be required along most of the route, as there is insufficient land within the
highway ROW to support the 2‐track railroad. New ROW would also be needed to minimize curves.
Property acquisition between Orlando and Miami was estimated as 2,678 acres. This route would be
approximately 226 miles from Orlando to Miami, with an estimated trip time of 3 hours.

All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-8 September 2014


Based on land access, logistics, and environmental impacts, this alternative does not meet the screening
evaluation criteria and is, therefore, not feasible to implement. Extensive new construction of track, grade
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-9 September 2014

crossings, and infrastructure would be required, including a completely new train signaling and control
system, as this route does not currently support rail infrastructure. AAF would need to purchase or lease
land from many different public and private landowners, including the Florida Turnpike Authority and
private properties in or immediately north of West Palm Beach, for a new rail connector. This would result
in a substantial impact on the time required to complete construction. As previously discussed, this also
substantially increases the risk that AAF would not be able to acquire all of the property required for this
alternative. This route alternative would provide a trip time consistent with the ridership target needed
to sustain a viable private enterprise. With respect to environmental criteria, this alternative would also
result in high potential adverse direct and indirect effects to wetlands (AMEC 2014d).
I-95 Route Alternative
The I‐95 Route Alternative (Figure 3.2‐2), as described in the 2003 High Speed Rail Study, would extend
from West Palm Beach station to the GOAA Intermodal Station. This route would depart from the FECR
Corridor, require a new rail connection between the FECR Corridor and I‐95 corridor north of West Palm
Beach (2 miles), and follow the I‐95 corridor to U.S. 192 near Melbourne, where it would diverge and
follow SR 528 west to MCO. This alternative assumes that a new 100‐foot wide ROW would be required
along most of the route, as there is insufficient land within the highway ROW to support the 2‐track
railroad. New ROW would also be needed to minimize curves. Property acquisition between Orlando and
West Palm Beach was estimated as 1,890 acres. This route would be approximately 229 miles from
Orlando to Miami, with an estimated trip time of 3 hours. (AMEC 2014d).
Based on land access, logistics, and environmental impacts, this alternative does not meet the screening
evaluation criteria and is, therefore, not feasible to implement. Extensive new construction of track, grade
crossings, and infrastructure would be required, including a completely new train signaling and control
system, as this route does not currently support rail infrastructure. AAF would need to purchase or lease
land from many different public and private landowners, including Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) and Florida Highway Administration and private properties in or immediately north of West
Palm Beach for a new rail connector. This would result in a substantial impact on the time required to
complete construction. Negotiating land access agreements results in a substantial impact on the time
required to complete construction and substantial risk to the ability to secure access to the land required
for the rail corridor. This route alternative would provide a trip time consistent with the ridership target
needed to sustain a viable private enterprise. With respect to environmental criteria, this alternative
would also result in the second highest potential adverse direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and
protected species (AMEC 2014d).
FECR Route Alternative
The FECR Route Alternative (Figure 3.2‐2), would extend from West Palm Beach Station to the GOAA
Intermodal Station. From the West Palm Beach Station, the alignment would follow the FECR Corridor to
Cocoa, where it would diverge and follow SR 528 west to MCO. As described in the 2003 High Speed Rail
Study, this alternative assumes that the AAF service would operate in a shared‐use environment within
the FECR Corridor, and that a 60‐ to 100‐foot wide ROW would be necessary to accommodate the track
and infrastructure between the FECR Corridor and MCO. Because AAF and FECR are owned by the same
company, Florida East Coast Industries, AAF has the right to develop passenger rail service within the
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-10 September 2014

FECR Corridor, and has negotiated an agreement for shared use of the FECR rail line. Property acquisition
between Orlando and West Palm Beach was estimated as 418 to 423 acres. This route would be
approximately 235 miles from Orlando to Miami, with an estimated trip time of 3 hours (AMEC 2014d).
Based on land access, logistics, and environmental impacts, this alternative is feasible to implement. AAF
has the right to use the FECR Corridor between West Palm Beach and Cocoa. The FECR Corridor is an
active freight railroad, in continuous use for over 100 years. Originally constructed with two tracks, the
railroad currently operates with a single track. Bridges, signals, and railroad infrastructure are in place,
but would need to be upgraded to accommodate passenger rail service, and the second track would need
to be restored. New construction of track, grade crossings, and infrastructure would be required only
along the segment between MCO and Cocoa. The route requires purchase or lease of land from only five
different landowners (including FDOT, OOCEA, and GOAA). Acquiring the necessary land would have a
negligible effect on the time required to complete construction because these public agencies have
entered into lease agreements with AAF, which are currently in escrow. This route alternative would
provide a trip time consistent with the ridership target needed to sustain a viable private enterprise
(AMEC 2014d). With respect to environmental criteria, this alternative would also minimize potential
adverse direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and protected species because it maximizes the use the
existing rail corridor. Use of the FECR Corridor would return the existing rail corridor to its prior dual‐
track system, and maximizes the use of existing rail infrastructure including grade crossings, bridges, and
signal systems. Because AAF has the right to develop passenger rail service within the West Palm Beach
to Cocoa corridor, no land access, rail access, or acquisition is required on this segment, and there is a
reasonable likelihood that the Project can be completed on schedule. Use of this existing developed rail
corridor would minimize impacts to environmental resources between West Palm Beach and Cocoa.
3.2.1.3 Route Alternatives Screening
The four Level 1 Route Alternatives were evaluated using screening criteria specific to the overall Project
objectives and the level of design available for these routes. This section describes the screening criteria
and how the criteria were applied to identify a preferred route. Table 3.2‐1 presents the results of the
Level 1 screening analysis. Shaded cells indicate that the alternative does not satisfy the screening
criterion. As shown in Table 3.2‐1, the CSX, Florida’s Turnpike, and I‐95 Route Alternatives do not meet
the overall screening criteria.
The CSX Route Alternative does not meet the Project purpose. Trip times would exceed the 3‐hour target.
Because of the substantial number of private land acquisitions, the Project could not be constructed in a
reasonable time frame and would not be practicable if AAF was unable to purchase these properties.
Because it requires an operating agreement with CSX, there is a potential that an acceptable operating
agreement would not be developed and this route would not be practicable. In addition, the CSX Route
Alternative would have the second‐highest level of wetland loss based on wetland acreage, and would not
be the least environmentally damaging alternative as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) with respect to Section 404 permitting.

All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-11 September 2014

Table 3.2-1 Screening Analysis Results – Level 1 Route Alternatives
Alternative
Criterion Metric CSX
Florida
Turnpike I-95 FECR
Land Access Requires new rail connector
across West Palm Beach
Yes Yes Yes No
Requires RR operating
agreement for shared use
Yes No No Yes
(in place)
Requires land from private
landowners
Substantial
(1,556 parcels)
Substantial
(211 parcels)
Substantial
(743 parcels)
2 private
parcels
(3 public)
Requires lease from public
transportation agencies
Yes Yes Yes Yes
(in place)
Logistics
Use of Existing
Infrastructure
Does the alternative use existing
infrastructure?
Partially No No Partially
Train Signaling and
Control Systems
Does the alternative have a rail
signal and control system in
place?
Partially No No Partially
Route Length and
Time
Does the alternative meet the
target travel time
(3 hrs., 15 min. or less)?
264 miles
Time > target
226 miles
Time = target
229 miles
Time = target
235 miles
Time = target
Environmental
Wetlands and
Waterways
1

Amount of resource directly or
indirectly affected
268 acres 243 acres 272 acres 134 acres
Conservation
Lands
2

Amount of resource potentially
affected
13 miles 0 miles 12 miles 5 miles
Threatened and
Endangered
Species
3

Number of habitats directly or
indirectly affected
14 10 3 11
Source; AMEC 2014d, Addendum to Technical Memorandum 3, Screening Analysis for Alternatives Identification.
1 Within a the construction footprint (100-feet wide for new track)
2 Miles crossed or adjacent to the alternative
3 Within a 300-foot corridor centered on the track

The Florida Turnpike Route Alternative does not meet the Project purpose. Because of the substantial
number of private land acquisitions, the Project could not be constructed in a reasonable time frame and
would not be practicable if AAF was unable to purchase these properties. Because it requires entirely new
rail infrastructure, signal and control systems, this alternative would not be practicable based on cost. In
addition, the Florida Turnpike Route Alternative would have the third‐highest level of wetland loss based
on wetland acreage, and would not be the least environmentally damaging alternative as defined by the
USACE with respect to Section 404 permitting.
The I‐95 Route Alternative does not meet the Project purpose. Because of the substantial number of
private land acquisitions, the Project could not be constructed in a reasonable time frame and would not
be practicable if AAF was unable to purchase these properties. Because it requires entirely new rail
infrastructure, signal and control systems, this alternative would not be practicable based on cost. In
addition, the I‐95 Turnpike Route Alternative would have the highest level of wetland loss, and would not
be the least environmentally damaging alternative.
The FECR Route Alternative meets the Project purpose. Trip times would meet the 3‐hour target. Because
of the small number of private land acquisitions (two), the Project could be constructed in a reasonable
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-12 September 2014

time frame and would be practicable. Because it does not require entirely new rail infrastructure, signal
and control systems, this alternative would be practicable based on cost. In addition, the FECR Alternative
would have the lowest level of wetland loss based on wetland acreage, and would be the least
environmentally damaging alternative as defined by the USACE with respect to Section 404 permitting,
although impacts to conservation lands and threatened and endangered species habitats could be greater
than for the Florida’s Turnpike and I‐95 alternatives.
3.2.2 Level 2 – Corridor Connection Alternatives
The FECR Route Alternative (connecting Orlando at the proposed GOAA Intermodal Station to the
proposed AAF West Palm Beach Station) consists of a sequence of connected segments. The segments
include the western terminus at MCO (the MCO Segment), the East‐West Corridor (E‐W Corridor), the
connection between the E‐W and the North‐South Corridors (E‐W/N‐S Connector), and the North‐South
Corridor (N‐S Corridor). The N‐S Corridor consists of the existing FECR Corridor.
The four alternatives described and evaluated in this section assume use of the E‐W Corridor and the
N‐S Corridor, and differ in the alignment that connects the MCO terminus with the E‐W Corridor, and the
alignment that connects the E‐W Corridor with the N‐S Corridor.
3.2.2.1 Level 2 Screening Criteria
The screening criteria used for the Level 2 analysis are the same as used in the Level 1 Route Alternatives
screening process. Three criteria, Time of Execution, Cost of Construction and Engineering Design, and
Grade Crossings/Bridges, were added to help refine the analysis.
Time of Execution
The timing and duration of construction is an important consideration in evaluating feasibility as a private
enterprise, as delayed or increased construction times would add to the cost of construction and would
delay initiating revenue service.
At-Grade Crossings and Railroad Bridges
The alternatives analysis considers the number of existing at‐grade crossings that would have to be
modified and the number of new at‐grade crossings that would need to be constructed where a
grade‐separated crossing was not feasible or necessary. The total number of at‐grade crossings would
potentially impact train speeds as trains must reduce speeds in some areas with at‐grade crossings. New
at‐grade crossings would add to the Project cost and would impact traffic on local roads. Improvements
or widening of existing at‐grade crossings would also impact Project cost. The number of at‐grade
crossings for each alternative was estimated using GIS mapping.
The alternatives analysis also considers the number of new bridges over waterways or highways that
would be required for each alternative. Bridge construction would impact Project cost and schedule, as
bridges require longer construction time than at‐grade railroad infrastructure. The number of new or
modified bridges associated with each alternative was estimated using GIS mapping. For the FECR
Corridor, the analysis includes those existing bridges that would require modification or replacement.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-13 September 2014

3.2.2.2 Alternative Level 2A – SR 407 Alternative (Connection Alternative 1A)
Alternative 2A (Figure 3.2‐3) consists of four segments. The AAF tracks would originate at the proposed
Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) location, extending north to the proposed GOAA Intermodal Station at
the future MCO South Terminal. From the GOAA Intermodal Station, the alignment would parallel the North
Airport Boulevard through the airport, cross under the North Crossfield Taxiway and the Mid Crossfield
Taxiway (both of which were designed and constructed to accommodate a transit line). The alignment
would curve to the east and would parallel SR 528. All land for the railway alignment would be leased from
GOAA. The E‐W Corridor would parallel SR 528 on the south side. The rail line would turn north off of the
SR 528 ROW at the Challenger Memorial Parkway interchange. Connection Alternative 2A would then
proceed northeast, cross over SR 407, and travel along the eastern ROW of SR 407. It would transition from
SR 407 to the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) transmission line corridor. Alternative 2A would follow
the transmission line northeast to Delespine, Florida and then transition in a generally southeast direction
onto the FECR Railway (N‐S Corridor) at milepost (MP) 160.5.
3.2.2.3 Alternative Level 2B – Cocoa Curve (Connection Alternative 1B)
Alternative 2B, the Cocoa Curve Connection, would be the same as Alternative 2A from MCO through the
E‐W Corridor. It would follow the SR 528 ROW to the Industry Road interchange. At this point, the alignment
would rise up on an embankment, cross Industry Road via a bridge, return to grade and cross under SR 528
to the south side at the interchange with U.S. 1 and merge with the N‐S Corridor at MP 167 (Figure 3.2‐3).
3.2.2.4 Alternative Level 2B – with GOAA South Loop Alternative (Connection Alternative 1C)
Another alternative was developed based on a modification of Alternative 2B. The GOAA South Loop
would leave the GOAA Intermodal Station to the south, partially on new alignment, parallel SR 417, and
use the existing OUC freight tracks. This rail line would connect with the E‐W Corridor just west of the
SR 528 and Econlockhatchee River crossing (Figure 3.2‐3). The remaining sections of this alternative
would be identical to the other Alternative 2B.
The GOAA South Loop Alternative would place the passenger trains on the existing OUC freight tracks.
OUC uses this railroad to transport coal to the power plant north of SR 528. This would mean that AAF
would need to operate in a shared use environment, affecting the operation and speed at which AAF’s
passenger trains would be able to travel. Speed is critical in this area in order to achieve the overall travel
times that are targeted for the Orlando to Miami trip. The GOAA South Loop Alternative would use OUC’s
existing rail corridor from south of the GOAA property up to the International Corporate Park (ICP)
Boulevard. The existing curved OUC alignment restricts train speeds and can only accommodate
approximately 60 mph average speeds in this stretch, without further land acquisition to straighten the
curves. In order for AAF to use the OUC tracks, AAF would need to negotiate an access and operating
agreement, including terms regarding the manner in which freight and passenger trains would share
track, signaling, and traffic control facilities as well as terms regarding dispatching and priority. The need
for such an agreement that would be mutually acceptable to both AAF and OUC presents risks to the
Project, including schedule, cost, and overall feasibility.

All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-14 September 2014


All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-15 September 2014

The total length of the segment from ICP Boulevard to the proposed VMF is 12.2 miles rather than
12.5 miles to the proposed GOAA Intermodal Station. There are approximately eight existing roadway
grade crossings along the GOAA South Loop Alternative that would require grade‐separated crossings
(road bridging over rail) due to high traffic volumes. The alignment and grade separations would require
ROW access from about 100 parcels with this alternative. The rail alignment passes near several
residential communities, and AAF considers that there is a substantial potential for opposition from these
communities that increases risk for the Project.
This alternative is not consistent with GOAA’s future plans (GOAA 2012a, 2012b, 2013). GOAA’s planned
multi‐modal connections incorporate the OUC railroad to provide commuter rail and light rail to the Lake
Nona Medical City, University of Central Florida, and other destinations. The combined use of the OUC
corridor for freight, passenger, commuter, and light rail would require substantial infrastructure
modifications and the crossing movements at the intermodal station would present operational and
safety concerns.
3.2.2.5 Alternative Level 2C – Melbourne South Loop Alternative
Alternative 2C, the Melbourne South Loop, would be the same as Alternative 2B from MCO through the
western portion of the E‐W corridor (Figure 3.2‐3). It would diverge from the SR 528 ROW west of the
SR 520 interchange, approximately 1.5 miles east of the Dallas Boulevard interchange, cross through
private property, and connect with the N‐S Corridor in Melbourne. The proposed alignment was
developed to follow existing transportation and utility infrastructure to the extent possible, and to
minimize impacts to environmental resources. The route would follow a southerly alignment and then
turn east to parallel the north side of Nova Road. The route would continue east, cross the St. Johns River
and then turn south to parallel the west side of I‐95 before curving east to cross over I‐95 and a proposed
new interchange for Ellis Road.
The portion of this alternative on private land is approximately 45.6 miles long and results in an overall
routing that is 3.3 miles longer than Alternative 2B between the same beginning and ending points due
to the circuitous routing of the alignment that would be necessary through private properties. These
curves would restrict speeds to 60 mph.
The Melbourne South Loop (Alternative 2C) is estimated to increase travel time by approximately
12 minutes over other connection alternatives due to the need for reduced speeds at grade crossings and
curves.
3.2.2.6 Level 2 Alternatives Evaluation
Table 3.2‐2 presents the results of the Level 2 screening analysis. As shown in the table, Level 2
Alternative 2A does not meet the Project purpose because it would not deliver a trip time of less than 3
hours 15 minutes, and because it could not be constructed in the short‐term. Because of the substantial
number of private land acquisitions, this alternative could not be constructed in a reasonable time frame
and would not be practicable if AAF was unable to purchase these properties. This alternative has the
second‐highest wetland impacts based on acres of wetland lost, and would not be the least
environmentally damaging alternative as defined by the USACE with respect to Section 404 permitting.

All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-16 September 2014

Table 3.2-2 Screening Analysis Results – Level 2 FECR Route Segment Alternatives
Criterion Metric 2A 2B 2B GOAA 2C
Time of Execution Can the alternative be
constructed in the
near-term?
No Yes No No
Logistics
Land Access Number of landowners 279 5 100 63
At-Grade Crossings Number of new or
extended crossings
8 0 8 (existing) 16
Bridges Number of new or
reconstructed bridges over
waterways/over roads
27/10 27/10 27/8 26/37
Route Length and Time Does the alternative meet
the target travel time
(3 hrs., 15 min. or less)?
248 miles
Time> target
235 miles
Time= target
233 miles
Time>target
238 miles
Time>targ
et
Environmental
Wetlands and
Waterways
1

Amount of resource directly
or indirectly impacted
534 acres 134 acres 285 acres 674 acres
Conservation Lands
2
Amount of resource
potentially impacted
7 miles 5 miles 9 miles 5 miles
Threatened and
Endangered Species
1

Number of habitats directly
or indirectly impacted
33 11 7 8
Source; AMEC 2014d, Addendum to Technical Memorandum 3, Screening Analysis for Alternatives Identification.
1 Within a 300-foot corridor centered on the track
2 Miles crossed or adjacent to the alternative

Alternative 2B meets the Project purpose because it would deliver a trip time of less than 3 hours
15 minutes, and because it could be constructed in the short‐term. Because of the few private land
acquisitions, this alternative could be constructed in a reasonable time frame and would be practicable
because AAF has secured agreements to purchase these properties. This alternative has the lowest
wetland impacts based on the acres of wetland loss, and would be the least environmentally damaging
alternative as defined by the USACE with respect to Section 404 permitting.
Alternative 2B with GOAA South Loop does not meet the Project purpose because it would not deliver a trip
time of less than 3 hours 15 minutes, and because it could not be constructed in the short‐term. Because of
the substantial number of private land acquisitions, this alternative could not be constructed in a reasonable
time frame and would not be practicable if AAF was unable to purchase these properties. This alternative
has the third‐highest wetland impacts based on the acres of wetland loss and would not be the least
environmentally damaging alternative as defined by the USACE with respect to Section 404 permitting.
Alternative 2C does not meet the project purpose because it would not deliver a trip time of less than 3
hours 15 minutes, and because it could not be constructed in the short‐term. Because of the substantial
number of private land acquisitions, this alternative could not be constructed in a reasonable time frame
and would not be practicable if AAF was unable to purchase these properties. This alternative has the
highest wetland impacts based on the acres of wetland loss, would result in substantial habitat
fragmentation along the new alignment route, and would not be the least environmentally damaging
alternative as defined by the USACE with respect to Section 404 permitting.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-17 September 2014

3.2.3 Level 3 Screening – East-West Corridor Alignment Options
The FECR Route Alternative (Alternative 2B) described above would follow the SR 528 alignment
between MCO and the FECR Corridor, maximizing the use of existing transportation infrastructure.
Several variations of this route—the E‐W Corridor—were developed based on the existing ROW and
adjacent land uses, as well as the future development plans of the transportation agencies. Based on these
considerations, AAF determined that new rail could be accommodated within the FDOT‐controlled
segment of SR 528, west of the SR 520 interchange, and that a lease of the FDOT ROW was feasible. This
within‐ROW alignment minimizes impacts to natural and social resources. From MCO to SR 520, SR 528
is controlled by OOCEA, and is largely bordered by undeveloped land to the south. Level 3 evaluates the
E‐W Corridor alignment options developed within the OOCEA segment (SR 417 to SR 520) to evaluate
alternatives which would minimize environmental impacts and which were compatible, to varying
degrees, with future plans for highway improvement.
3.2.3.1 Screening Criteria
Two additional criteria were used to screen the E‐W Corridor alignment options. These criteria,
Stakeholder (Planning) Consistency and stormwater management (as a subcategory of Logistics) are
unique considerations at this level of evaluation, and are relevant to the determination of practicability.
Planning Consistency
This criterion evaluates the extent to which each alternative for the E‐W Corridor (parallel to SR 528)
is consistent with the plans of transportation stakeholders and other adjacent property owners.
Portions of the E‐W Corridor are within the jurisdiction of GOAA, OOCEA, and FDOT, each of which has
plans for future expansion and operation. The feasibility of each alternative must be evaluated based
on the compatibility of the alignment with stakeholder plans. Alternatives that are consistent with the
plans of each entity could be accomplished through access agreements or leases, within the current or
future ROW of each transportation agency, and would not require negotiating land purchase with
numerous property owners outside of the transportation ROW. As previously discussed under
Logistics, the number of parcels to be acquired affects costs and schedule, and presents a risk that
owners could block construction by refusing to sell. Specific agency plans are described below.
 GOAA has plans to develop the eastern portion of the property. GOAA’s proposed East Airfield
Development Area would develop all of the area south of SR 528 and west of North Narcoossee
Road for aircraft support (hangars, cargo, and maintenance facilities), airport support, stormwater
management, and a fuel farm (GOAA 2009).
 OOCEA’s plan to expand SR 528 includes an additional eight lanes to the outside, an open median,
and adding or modifying eight interchanges. OOCEA has already expanded two mainline toll plazas
to accommodate the future widening (OOCEA 2008).
 FDOT’s plan to expand SR 528 east of SR 520 includes widening by an additional four to six lanes,
partially toward the median and partially to the outside.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-18 September 2014

Each E‐W Corridor Alignment Option was evaluated based on consistency with future plans, as well as
the willingness of these transportation entities to assume certain costs of completion, operation, or
maintenance of facilities such as bridges or interchanges. An alternative is reasonable and practicable
only where the controlling entity (GOAA, OOCEA, or FDOT) is willing to accept the location or added
cost of an alternative.
In addition to planned transportation improvements of these three agencies, AAF has considered
current and future development plans of adjacent property owners.
Logistics
Additional logistical considerations in the Level 3 alternatives analysis for the E‐W Corridor include
stormwater management.
Stormwater Management
Stormwater management systems are required to capture and treat runoff during and after construction.
Where an alignment option is close to the existing highway, the existing stormwater system may be able
to accommodate the runoff from the railroad as well as both existing and planned future highway
facilities. Options that are farther from the existing highway would require new separate stormwater
systems that would increase the cost and complexity of construction and future maintenance.
3.2.3.2 Alignment Option 3A
E‐W Corridor Alignment Option 3A would construct a new 60‐foot wide rail line within the SR 528 ROW
east of SR 417 (Figures 3.2‐4 and 3.2‐5). The 60‐foot ROW would accommodate two tracks, but would not
include a parallel access road for maintenance of the rail alignment, as the rail line could be reached from
SR 528. Land required to construct Option 3A would be leased from OOCEA and FDOT. AAF has secured
lease agreements with both entities that would allow the construction of Option 3A. This alignment would
require extensive retaining walls and bridges in order to minimize its footprint and accommodate
existing and future SR 528 infrastructure without extending outside the ROW. Option 3A requires bridge
viaducts to cross eight interchanges, with extensive bridging and elevated facilities. These complex
components would increase design time, construction time, and costs.
3.2.3.3 Alignment Option 3C
E‐W Corridor Alignment Option 3C would create a new 100‐foot wide rail alignment (in order to
construct two tracks and a parallel maintenance access road) that “straddles” the SR 528 southern ROW
line within the OOCEA segment, with approximately 10 feet of the proposed rail line width within the
ROW and approximately 90 feet of the rail line width south of the ROW (Figures 3.2‐4 and 3.2‐5). This
alternative would include a parallel access road for maintenance of the rail alignment. OOCEA would
acquire the land, which would then be leased by AAF. According to AAF, Option 3C would not preclude
future expansion of SR 528. Within the FDOT segment, Option 3C would be identical to Option 3A. AAF
has secured lease agreements with FDOT and OOCEA that would allow the construction of Option 3C.
Option 3C requires bridge viaducts to cross eight interchanges, with extensive bridging and elevated
facilities. These complex components would increase design time, construction time, and costs. A minor
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-19 September 2014

variant of this alternative (Option 3B) was developed during early planning, but was dismissed by AAF
because the interchange configurations were not acceptable to OOCEA and were not compatible with
OOCEA’s future expansion plans.



All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-20 September 2014


3.2.3.4 Alignment Option 3D
E‐W Corridor Alignment Option 3D represents a new rail line location with an alignment separated from
the SR 528 ROW for 17.4 miles (parallel to SR 528) within the OOCEA segment of SR 528. Under
Option 3D, the proposed 100‐foot wide E‐W Corridor (in order to construct two tracks and a parallel
maintenance access road) would be located approximately 400 feet south of the SR 528 southern ROW
boundary line. Within the FDOT segment, Option 3D would be identical to Option 3A. Within the OOCEA
segment, the adjacent property owners have stated that they would not be willing to sell this land to AAF.
3.2.3.5 Alignment Option 3E
E‐W Corridor Alignment Option 3E would be located on average between 100 and 200 feet south of the
southern edge of the existing SR 528 ROW with the exception of two interchanges (Figures 3.2‐4
and 3.2‐5). At the Dallas Boulevard interchange the proposed rail line would be approximately 700 feet
south of the current SR 528 ROW. This option would include a parallel access road for maintenance of
the rail alignment. At the SR 520 interchange the proposed rail line would be approximately 500 feet
south of the current SR 528 ROW. The Option E alignment would be an average of 100 feet wide in
order to construct two tracks and a parallel maintenance access road. Land required to construct
Option E would be leased from OOCEA and FDOT. OOCEA would acquire the land south of the existing
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-21 September 2014

ROW limits to accommodate future highway widening and a transit corridor, and would lease an
approximately 100‐foot wide strip to AAF. AAF has secured lease agreements with FDOT and OOCEA
that would allow the construction of Option 3E. Option 3E would not preclude future expansion of
SR 528. Within the FDOT segment, Option 3E would be identical to Option 3A. Because Option 3E is
substantially south of SR 528, it would not require crossing the eight interchanges along SR 528 and
would be primarily constructed at‐grade within the OOCEA segment. This would reduce design and
construction time, as well as construction costs.
3.2.3.6 Summary – East-West Alignment Options
Table 3.2‐3 provides a summary of the East‐West corridor screening analysis. Based on this analysis,
Alignment Option 3D was dismissed from further consideration because it would require a significant
amount of land acquisition from private entities that have indicated that they are not willing to sell the
land. Therefore, Option 3D is not a practicable option. Alignment Option 3D would also have the highest
amount of wetland impacts and therefore is not the least environmentally damaging alternative.
Alignments 3A, 3C and 3E were retained for additional analysis.

Table 3.2-3 Screening Analysis Results –East-West Corridor Alignment Options
1

Criterion Metric 3A 3C 3D 3E
Cost of Construction Estimated Cost $1.5B $1.5B $1.4B $1.4B
Time of Execution Can the alternative be
constructed by 2016?
No
1
No
1
No
2
Yes
Planning Consistency Consistency with plans of
transportation agencies and
landowners
Yes Yes No Yes
Logistics
Land Access Can access be secured by
project start date?
Yes Yes No Yes
Stormwater Management Is a new separate
stormwater system
required?
No No Yes Yes
Bridges Number of new or
reconstructed bridges over
roads
37
3
37 34 34
Route Length and Time Does the alternative meet
the target travel time (3 hrs.
15 min. or less)?
235 miles
Time=target
235 miles
Time=target
235 miles
Time=target
235 miles
Time=targ
et
Environmental
Wetlands and Waterways Amount of resource directly
affected
128 acres 165 acres 178 acres 158 acres
Conservation Lands
4
Amount of resource
potentially affected
5 miles 5 miles 5 miles 5 miles
Source; AMEC 2014d, Addendum to Technical Memorandum 3, Screening Analysis for Alternatives Identification.
1 Construction time extended due to bridges 
2 Construction time extended due to land acquisition 
3 Values are for the entire Alternative  
4 Miles crossed or adjacent to the alternative

All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-22 September 2014

3.2.4 Vehicle Maintenance Facility Alternatives
The Project includes a dedicated VMF located at the northern terminus of the route (Figure 3.2‐6). AAF
evaluated two sites: the proposed site, located on GOAA property south of MCO, and a second location
along SR 528 east of Dallas Boulevard.


All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-23 September 2014

AAF selected the GOAA site because it would be consistent with future plans by GOAA and others for
SunRail and other commuter rail systems, as well as be consistent with future expansion plans for the
airport (GOAA 2012a, 2012b, 2013). The site is less than 2 miles from the GOAA Intermodal Station, and
would minimize non‐revenue trip costs between the VMF and the station. GOAA has already secured
wetland permits for portions of the proposed site (USACE 1996), and all necessary utilities are already
available at the site. Based on cost, logistics, and environmental impacts, this alternative is feasible to
implement.
A site along the south side of SR 528, east of Dallas Boulevard, was proposed by an abutting landowner.
This site is 16 miles from the GOAA Intermodal Station, and would result in increased non‐revenue costs
to move empty trains between the VMF and the station at the start and end of each run. This site would
require fill of approximately 67 acres of wetland, and the only available utility is electricity. Due to the
distance from fuel providers, an on‐site fuel tank farm (propane, diesel, and other required fuels) would
be needed. Previous subsurface investigations showed that sections of this site have unsuitable muck
subsoils that would require removal and replacement with suitable structural fill materials. This
alternative would have substantially higher costs, logistic problems, and environmental impacts than the
GOAA site and was, therefore, dismissed.
3.2.5 Station Alternatives
The Project includes one station between Orlando and West Palm Beach, the proposed GOAA Intermodal
Station that is being planned and constructed by GOAA (Figure 3.2‐7). According to GOAA, construction
was scheduled to begin mid‐2014. AAF selected this location because it would be consistent with GOAA’s
plans for future intermodal connections, including connections to the airport’s People Mover system. AAF
determined that no other location with the same intermodal connectivity is available in Orlando. A site in
downtown Orlando would add travel time, and would not deliver the approximately three‐hour trip time
required to meet the ridership targets necessary for a sustainable commercial initiative. Additional
stations along the N‐S Corridor (for example, Cocoa, Melbourne, or Fort Pierce) were not considered
because any additional stations would increase travel time between Orlando and Miami to an
unacceptable duration of greater than 3 hours 15 minutes. However, the Project would not preclude
future stations.
3.3 Alternatives Studied in Detail in the EIS
Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, of this DEIS provides a detailed analysis of the environmental
impacts of the No‐Action Alternative and three Action Alternatives (Alternative A, Alternative C, and
Alternative E). Each of the three Action Alternatives incorporates the same proposed action for these
components: the MCO Segment and VMF, the E‐W Corridor parallel to SR 528, and the N‐S Corridor within
the FECR Corridor. The three alternatives differ with respect to the alignment within the 17.4‐mile segment
of the E‐W Corridor between the MCO Segment and SR 520 (within the OOCEA‐controlled portion of SR 528
between SR 417 and SR 520). These alternatives were designed to accommodate OOCEA’s long‐term plan
to expand the overall cross‐section of SR 528 to an 8‐lane roadway, as described in the agency’s SR 528
Multi‐Use/Multi‐Modal Corridor Study (OOCEA 2008). They were also designed to be flexible depending
upon the outcome of ongoing property negotiations between FECR, FDOT, OOCEA, and private landowners.

All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-24 September 2014



All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-25 September 2014

AAF has executed a lease agreement with OOCEA that allows them to construct any of the three
alternatives, pending an OOCEA Board vote that the land to be occupied by AAF is "surplus." AAF has
provided design concepts, which have been reviewed by OOCEA, that show any of the three alternatives
can be constructed and not preclude future BeachLine Expressway widening. The OOCEA Board may not
vote to declare any of the land within their existing ROW to be "surplus." In that case, Alternatives A and C
would be eliminated since it would not be possible to lease the land. Currently, the OOCEA Board has not
made a determination, so all three alignments are still being considered. All land acquisitions required for
this segment of the Project would be carried out by OOCEA.
The sections below provide a detailed description of the No‐Action Alternative and the three Action
Alternatives studied in this DEIS. Section 3.4 provides information on the operations common to all
alternatives, and Section 3.5 provides information on ridership, which would be the same for each
alternative. AAF estimates a 2016 completion date for Phase I and Phase II, assuming project financing
and equipment are available. Ridership is anticipated to increase from 2016 to 2019, and remain stable
after 2019. The analyses in this DEIS are based on these assumptions.
3.3.1 Phase I
This section provides a description of Phase I of the Project, based on information presented in the
2012 Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail
Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida (2012 EA). As summarized in Section 1.1 of the 2012 EA, Phase
I would provide intercity passenger rail on a 66‐mile corridor from West Palm Beach to Miami, within the
FECR railroad ROW. Three new stations would be located in the central business districts of West Palm
Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami. The existing track would be upgraded, with 49.2 miles of new second
main line track, 8.3 miles of siding rehabilitation, and new track signal controls. Existing highway and
pedestrian at‐grade crossings would be upgraded to enhance safety. Three bridges would have a second
track added but would not require construction in the water (C‐15 Canal, Cypress Creek Canal, and Snake
Creek Canal). Hourly service would be provided, consisting of 16 daily roundtrip trains.
Subsequent to the publication of the 2012 EA and the FONSI issued by the FRA in 2013 (2013 FONSI),
AAF proposed shifting the proposed Fort Lauderdale Station building to the opposite (west) side of the
tracks, along NW 2
nd
Avenue between NW 4
th
Street and Broward Boulevard. On March 27, 2014 FRA
issued a Re‐Evaluation that determined the new location would not change the environmental impacts
identified in the 2012 EA and previously found to be not significant (Appendix 3.3‐A).
Subsequent to the publication of the 2012 EA and 2013 FONSI, AAF has proposed a shift of the proposed
Fort Lauderdale VMF to an existing freight rail yard in West Palm Beach. Concurrently with this DEIS, AAF
has prepared a supplemental Environmental Assessment for this facility. This EA is available on the FRA
website for public review and comment for 30 days from the date of the DEIS availability. The document
and details on how to submit comments can be found on FRA’s website at www.fra.dot.gov. In Phase I, the
Project would use the proposed VMF in West Palm Beach for maintenance and overnight vehicle storage.
The Project’s Phase I environmental impacts were evaluated in the 2012 EA and FRA’s 2013 FONSI
(Appendix 1.1‐A1 and A2); it was confirmed that the West Palm Beach to Miami phase of the Project
would have no significant environmental impacts (FRA 2013). The effects of this phase of the Project, also
described as the West Palm Beach‐Miami Segment (WPB‐M Segment), are considered in this DEIS in
order to provide a complete description of the cumulative environmental impacts of the Project.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-26 September 2014

Subsequent sections of this DEIS will also evaluate changes to the WPB‐M Segment since the publication
of the 2012 EA and 2013 FONSI and subsequent re‐evaluations.
3.3.2 No-Action Alternative
The No‐Action Alternative involves no changes to the rail line within the FECR Corridor beyond regular
maintenance and improvements that have been currently planned and funded. Under the No‐Action
Alternative, existing freight operations and infrastructure would be maintained by FECR. The No‐Action
Alternative would also include future planned and funded roadway, transit, air, and other intermodal
improvements likely to be completed within the Project study area by the 2016 target date. Table 3.3‐1
shows the future freight operations within the FECR Corridor that would occur in the absence of the Project.

Table 3.3-1 Existing and Future Freight Train Operations (No-Action Alternative)
Day
2013 (Existing) 2016
Number of trains
per day
(7:00 AM-10:00 PM)
Number of trains
per night
(10:00 PM-7:00 AM)
Number of trains
per day
(7:00 AM-10:00 PM)
Number of trains
per night
(10:00 PM-7:00 AM)
Monday 10 5 16 8
Tuesday 11 6 16 9
Wednesday 11 6 17 9
Thursday 10 7 15 9
Friday 11 5 12 6
Saturday 6 3 8 2
Sunday 4 6 11 6
Total 63 38 95 49
Average Trains per Day 14 20
Source: AAF. 2013a. Modeling Assumptions. May 2013. Report.

Currently, the prevailing train control system on the FECR Corridor is commonly known as a “cab with
wayside” type system. It utilizes wayside color light signals at interlockings that control safe switching of
trains from mainline track to mainline track, or mainline track to controlled sidings. These signals are
remotely controlled by dispatchers from an operations control center in Jacksonville, Florida. Safe
braking distance is maintained through automatic signals (also color lights) used as intermediates
between controlled interlocking signals. The control system is “route‐signaling” augmented by in‐cab
signals that display the state of the wayside signals continuously in the locomotive cab via electronic
coded track. This electronic coded track also provides broken rail detection. FECR is required by FRA
regulations to implement a new signal system that will provide positive train control (PTC) by 2015
(49 CFR Part 229). PTC systems are integrated command, control, communication, and information
systems for controlling train movements with safety, security, precision, and efficiency. PTC systems are
comprised of digital data link communication networks, continuous and accurate positioning systems
such as Nationwide Differential Global Positioning Systems, on‐board computers with digitized maps on
locomotives and maintenance‐of‐way equipment, in‐cab displays, throttle‐brake interfaces on
locomotives, wayside interface units at switches and wayside detectors, and control center computers
and displays.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-27 September 2014

Under the No‐Action Alternative, it is assumed that land use development would continue consistent
within the approved and adopted local comprehensive, master and/or visioning plans of each
municipality. For the purposes of this analysis, it was also assumed that only planned and funded
improvements will be completed.
3.3.3 Alternative A
Alternative A (Figure 3.3‐1) includes four segments: the MCO Segment, which includes the proposed VMF
and new railroad infrastructure between the VMF and the E‐W Corridor; the E‐W Corridor on new
alignment (Alternative Option 3A) between MCO and Cocoa, paralleling SR 528; the N‐S Corridor within
the FECR ROW between Cocoa and West Palm Beach; and the WPB‐Miami Corridor within the FECR ROW
between West Palm Beach and Miami (the Phase 1 project evaluated in the previous EA and FONSI). The
Project evaluated in this EIS also includes bridge reconstruction within the WPB‐M Corridor within the
FECR ROW. Since the publication of the 2012 EA and 2013 FONSI, AAF has determined that it is necessary
for the Phase II Project to reconstruct seven bridges over waterways, and to modify the turnout at the
Miami Viaduct. Generally, the Project includes additional rail infrastructure improvements from Orlando
to West Palm Beach, including new track, new bridges, drainage systems and the development of all
communications, signaling, safety and security systems. A new signal system would be implemented as
part of the Project that will provide a PTC overlay system with a back office server in the operations
control center to achieve compliance with 49 CFR part 229.
The following subsections describe each of the corridor segments for Alternative A, the proposed
infrastructure, operations, and ridership. Detailed plans of Alternative A are provided in Appendix 3.3‐B1
through 3.3‐B4.

All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-28 September 2014


All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-29 September 2014

3.3.3.1 MCO Segment
The MCO Segment (Figure 3.3‐2) is approximately 2.5 miles long and would consist of two tracks,
extending from the VMF to the E‐W Corridor west of Goldenrod Road. The track would be at‐grade
between the VMF and the Intermodal Terminal Complex, where it would rise on structure to a three‐track
station with center platforms. The track would return to grade and would parallel North Airport
Boulevard, crossing under Mid Crossfield Taxiways F and E. Tug Roads #2 and #4, and the A2 Service
Road, would be realigned and lowered to allow the track to pass over these service roads. The track would
pass under North Crossfield Taxiway J and the Cargo Road, requiring the Cargo Road Ramp be re‐aligned.
The Crossfield Taxiway bridges were constructed with an extra bay to accommodate future rail; however,
the Cargo Road Bridge would be widened for the AAF tracks. The proposed track would continue at‐grade
around the west and north sides of the Employee Parking Lot before joining the E‐W Corridor along the
south side of SR 528 west of Goldenrod Road. The FAA must review all leases and/or agreements between
AAF and GOAA prior to execution and have a determination of object/no object.
3.3.3.2 East-West Corridor
The E‐W Corridor between Orlando and Cocoa, which is approximately 32.5 miles long, would require all
new rail infrastructure, structures, and systems (Figure 3.3‐2). The E‐W Corridor would begin at the north
end of the MCO Segment (SR 436) and then parallel SR 528, a transportation corridor controlled by two
public transportation agencies:
 The approximately 20 miles from SR 436 to SR 520, which is, or will be, controlled by OOCEA (pending
additional land acquisition involving private landowners); and
 The eastern‐most 15 miles, which is owned by FDOT (pending additional land acquisition by AAF
from one private landowner).
From Orlando to Cocoa, AAF plans to maintain track conditions in accordance with FRA safety standards
permitting maximum train speeds of 125 mph (FRA 2012b and 2012c). Standard FDOT highway fencing,
or its equivalent, would be installed throughout the length of the corridor, and all road crossings would
be grade‐separated. Based on coordination with the natural resource agencies, the standard fencing may
be modified or substituted with fencing appropriate to discourage wildlife crossings where unmitigated
impacts may exist. The following sections provide detailed descriptions of each section of the
E‐W Corridor. The west and east sections of the E‐W Corridor, described below, are common to the three
alternatives (A, C, and E) while the central section differs for each.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-30 September 2014


All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-31 September 2014

West Section of the E-W Corridor (SR 436 to SR 417)
This section is approximately 1.5 miles long. It would begin at the northern terminus of the MCO Segment
on GOAA property (SR 436), and follow an at‐grade route consistent with GOAA’s planned expansion.
Access to land owned by GOAA is subject to agreements being negotiated between AAF and GOAA on the
ultimate alignment and approach.
The alignment, comprised of two tracks, would continue at grade and pass under Goldenrod Road, as
planned for the design of the interchange. Between Goldenrod Road and Narcoossee Road, the alignment
would travel along the south side of SR 528, and begin to straddle the property line between the
properties owned by OOCEA and GOAA. The alignment would be at grade and would begin to climb above
grade on fill as it approaches the SR 528/Narcoossee Road interchange. The eastbound off‐ramp at the
interchange would be re‐aligned and the rail alignment would pass over this ramp and Narcoossee Road
using a bridge. To accommodate the proposed alignment, Jetport Drive and a drainage canal would also
be realigned. A new stormwater detention pond would be located at the southwest corner where the
alignment crosses Narcoossee Road. East of the SR 528/Narcoossee Road interchange the alignment
would continue above grade for 30 feet before returning to an at‐grade elevation. The alignment would
begin to climb above grade again approximately 25 feet west of the SR 528/SR 417 interchange, which it
crosses using an overhead bridge before returning back to grade. No at‐grade crossings would be
required in this segment. As described in Table 3.3‐2, there would be three structures in this section; all
would be approximately 60 feet wide.

Table 3.3-2 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor West Section
Structure
Proposed Structure
Length (ft)
Proposed Structure
Width (ft) Number of Spans
Goldenrod Road Tunnel 300 34 NA
Narcoossee Road and Ramp Bridges 400, 170, 650 28 4, 1, 6
SR 417 Tunnel 4,400 34 NA

Middle Section of East-West Corridor (SR 417 to SR 520)
This section is approximately 17.5 miles long. East of SR 417, Alternative A would be within the SR 528
ROW. The alignment would be comprised of mostly a single new track, but would require extensive
retaining walls and bridges in order to minimize its footprint and accommodate existing and future
SR 528 infrastructure. Constructing a new rail line along this corridor would require stormwater
features to capture and treat the runoff. Drainage would be comingled with the existing SR 528 drainage
ditch. The proposed ROW in this section is an average of 60 feet wide and would impact approximately
127 acres of land.
This section of Alternative A would begin at grade east of SR 417 and would rise up to an embankment
almost 100 feet west of the interchange with ICP Boulevard. The alignment would alternate between
embankment and bridge structure to span the proposed interchange with Innovation Way (a planned
roadway in this vicinity), ICP Boulevard, the CSX Rail Line, and Farm Access Road #1. After a short section
at‐grade, the alignment would again alternate between bridges and embankments to cross the
Econlockhatchee River and the interchange with Dallas Boulevard, which would be expanded in the
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-32 September 2014

future as part of improvements to SR 528. The alignment would be on an embankment in the vicinity of
the Dallas Mainline Toll Plaza and would remain at grade until Farm Access Road #2 and SR 520, which
would be crossed using bridges. The structures in this section are listed in Table 3.3‐3.

Table 3.3-3 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor Middle Section
Bridge
Proposed Structure
Length (ft)
Proposed Structure
Width (ft)
Number of
Spans
Innovation Way, ICP Boulevard, CSX Rail 5,500 14 70
BeachLine Exit 1,500 14 17
Farm Access Road #1 200 14 3
Econolockhatchee River 1,700 14 21
Dallas Boulevard Off-Ramp 500 14 6
Dallas Blvd 165 14 2
Future Dallas Boulevard On-Ramp 250 14 4
Future Dallas Boulevard Interchange 1,200 14 17
Farm Access Road #2 180 14 3
SR 520 215 14 2
Ramp Connecting SR 520 to SR 528 1,300 14 16

East Section of the E-W Corridor (SR 520 to N-S Corridor)
This section is approximately 15 miles long and would be comprised of two tracks. The segment begins west
of SR 520 where the alignment would be at grade and then climb above grade onto an embankment 10 feet
west of the William Beardall Tosohatchee State Reserve. The alignment would then pass over Second Creek
and Jim Creek on bridges and remain elevated for 40 feet, after which it would return to grade level. To climb
over Long Bluff Road, the alignment would again rise onto an embankment and an above‐grade bridge for
a total distance of 35 feet before returning to grade. This would continue until 20 feet before Taylor Creek,
at which point the alignment would use a series of bridges and semi‐retained fill to cross Taylor Creek and
the St. Johns River. The alignment would pass south of the SR 528/SR 407 interchange. New retention ponds
would be built in the middle of the interchange.
East of the SR 528/SR 407 interchange, the alignment would be mostly at‐grade except for one small
embankment and bridge section over an unnamed creek. Three retaining ponds would be built adjacent
to the alignment in this area. Approaching I‐95, the alignment would rise up to an embankment and would
bridge the interchange with SR 528 and I‐95. A new retention pond would be constructed in the southeast
quadrant of the I‐95/SR 528 interchange. AAF would acquire property at the interchange with Industry
Road and I‐95.
Immediately east of the SR 528/I‐95 interchange, the alignment would follow the Cocoa Curve connection
to the N‐S Corridor. It would shift to the north side of SR 528 using a bridge and embankment, and would
return to grade until the SR 528/Industry Road interchange. At this point, the alignment would rise up on
an embankment, cross Industry Road via a bridge, return to grade and cross under SR 528 to the south
side at the interchange with U.S. 1. Retention ponds would be constructed in the middle of the interchange
ramps in this location. At the end of this section, the E‐W Corridor would merge with the N‐S Corridor
(discussed below).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-33 September 2014

No at‐grade crossings would exist in this section. Table 3.3‐4 lists the structures in this section.

Table 3.3-4 Proposed Structures Alternative A, E-W Corridor East Section
Bridge
Proposed Structure
Length (ft)
Proposed Structure
Width (ft)
Number of
Spans
Second Creek 350 28 5
Jim Creek 250 28 4
Long Bluff Road 80 28 1
Future Wildlife Crossing 60 28 2
Taylor Creek 150 28 3
St. Johns River 550 28 13
Un-named Creek 100 28 1
Pine Street 80 28 1
I-95 Ramp 187 28 2
I-95 Ramp 222 28 2
I-95 288 28 2
I-95 Ramp 71 28 1
I-95 Ramp 115 28 1
SR 528 1,200 28 11
Industry Road 180 28 2
SR 528 (tunnel) 260 34 NA

3.3.3.3 North-South Corridor
The approximately 128.5 miles of the N‐S Corridor between Cocoa and West Palm Beach (Figure 3.3‐3)
is part of a larger existing 351‐mile system currently operating as a freight railroad. FECR, an affiliate of
AAF’s parent company, operates the mainline track within the FECR Corridor from Miami to Jacksonville,
with direct rail access to South Florida's ports and a high reliability and safety record. FECR owns the fee
simple title in the ROW and owns the existing railroad infrastructure within the corridor over which FECR
operates this freight rail service. AAF owns the permanent, perpetual and exclusive rights, privileges and
easements on, over, and across all of the real property within FECR’s mainline ROW located in the State
of Florida, for the passenger rail purposes that would be provided by AAF through the Project.
Originally, the entire FECR system was built and operated as a double track railroad but, since the early
1970s, much of the double track has been removed to balance railroad service needs with capacity,
operating, and maintenance costs. The railroad subgrade embankments and track bed still exist in most
places along the system; and the consolidated sub‐base, primary drainage systems and bridge substructures
remain for a complete, double‐track railroad system. Existing ROW widths are typically at least 100 feet
throughout the existing system. The existing system was built and is maintained to FRA Class IV track
standards, permitting freight and passenger operations. Ruling grades are predominantly 0.3 percent with
the horizontal alignment predominantly tangent, with typical curves 2 degrees or less. In isolated locations
where curves exceed 2 degrees, operating speeds are reduced.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-34 September 2014


Improvements to the N‐S Corridor for the Project would primarily take place within the existing
developed FECR Corridor. The FECR Corridor today is mostly a single‐track system with several sidings.
The roadbed for the original second track would be used for the additional track improvements. This
would include upgrades to, and relocation of, existing tracks, as well as installing new tracks. The
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-35 September 2014

proposed improvements include upgrades to bridges and grade crossings, as well as new signalization,
new communication systems, and PTC systems. In addition to the track construction between Cocoa and
West Palm Beach, 18 bridges will be reconstructed to accommodate the second track.
The new construction and improvements proposed along the FECR Corridor are:
 Improve approximately 128.5 miles of rail line;
 Reconstruct 18 bridges;
 Add approximately 109 miles of new second track;
 Eight miles of new third track;
 Upgrade highway and pedestrian crossings; and
 Upgrade signals and grade crossings.
The sections below provide detailed descriptions of each element.
Track
The N‐S Corridor would primarily consist of two tracks from Cocoa to West Palm Beach. As the majority
of the existing FECR alignment is a single track, this would require constructing an additional second track
within the existing ROW. A third track would be constructed within the FECR right‐of‐way, in the
following approximate locations (for more information, please refer to the track charts included in
Appendix 3.3‐B4).
Brevard County:
 At the northern end of the corridor, in the vicinity of SR 528;
 In the vicinity of Poinset Road;
 North of Gus Hipp Boulevard;
 In the vicinity of Carver Street;
 South of Suntree Boulevard;
 In the vicinity of Masterson Street;
 South of Sarno Road; and
 In the vicinity of University Boulevard/Apollo Boulevard.
Indian River County:
 In the vicinity of 16th Street;
 In the vicinity of Indian River Drive; and
 South of Savannah Road.
Martin County:
 In the vicinity of Pinewood Street; and
 In the vicinity of Park Road.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-36 September 2014

The existing track would be modified to reduce the overall curvature and increase the maximum
allowable operating speeds for the train. This work would all be constructed in the existing ROW:
Brevard County:
 In the vicinity of MP 170.94/Dixon Boulevard;
 In the vicinity of MP 174.47/Barton Boulevard;
 In the vicinity of MP 177.97/McIver Lane; and
 In the vicinity of MP 202.5/North of Valkaria Road.
Indian River County:
 In the vicinity of MP 221.23/73rd Street;
 In the vicinity of MP 225.44;
 In the vicinity of MP 226.22/Pickerill Lane;
 In the vicinity of MP 229.02/Glendale Road; and
 In the vicinity of MP 230.98/9th Lane SW.
St. Lucie County:
 In the vicinity of MP 243.30/Savannah Road;
 In the vicinity of MP 245.49/North of E. Midway Road;
 In the vicinity of MP 250.02;
 In the vicinity of MP 251.93; and
 In the vicinity of MP 254.04/Pleasant View Drive.
Martin County:
 In the vicinity of MP 254.05;
 In the vicinity of MP 255.75/NE Chardon Street;
 In the vicinity of MP 259.21/NE Dixie Highway;
 In the vicinity of MP 265.40/SE Golf Trail;
 In the vicinity of MP 267.3/SE Cove Road;
 In the vicinity of MP 273.31/SE Oleander Street; and
 In the vicinity of MP 274.7/Water Street.
Palm Beach County:
 In the vicinity of MP 282.66/Seminole Avenue;
 In the vicinity of MP 289.31/Kyoto Gardens Drive;
 In the vicinity of MP 290.81/Entrada Way; and
 In the vicinity of MP 291.9/Richard Road.
Current track conditions along the FECR Corridor permits passenger trains to operate up to a maximum
speed of 79 mph. From Cocoa to West Palm Beach, AAF plans to build and maintain track conditions in
accordance with FRA safety standards that permit maximum passenger train speeds of 110 mph (FRA
2012b and 2012c). To maintain this track classification, AAF will complete infrastructure improvements
to the mainline, including replacement of the second mainline track, reconstruction of existing crossovers
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-37 September 2014

and the addition of crossovers to facilitate operational efficiencies.. The corridor will be fenced in
locations where an FRA hazard analysis review determines that fencing is required for safety.
Drainage
Drainage would be accommodated using an existing channel along the east or west side of the ROW. In
some cases, this would require relocating existing drainage channels within the ROW.
At-grade Crossings
There are approximately 170 highway‐rail grade crossings within the N‐S Corridor, of which 159 are
at‐grade and 11 are grade‐separated. The ultimate number of at‐grade crossings may increase or
decrease depending upon the distances required for the PTC entry track or permanent road closures. Of
the 159 at‐grade crossings, all but three use active warning devices with a minimum of flashing lights,
gates, and bell(s), and a substantial number of crossings have cantilevers or bridges for lane coverage of
flashers. These crossing warning systems are operated by either phase motion detection or crossing
predictor units. FECR is responsible for maintenance of the crossing equipment. Each affected
highway‐rail grade crossing will go through a diagnostic team review to determine the appropriate level
of warning. To mitigate noise impacts from train horns AAF has committed, as part of the Project
description, to install pole‐mounted horns at all highway‐rail grade crossings on the N‐S Corridor and the
WPB‐M Corridor unless the community establishes a quiet zone. The grade crossings are described in
more detail in Appendix 3.3‐C.
Bridge and Structures
Bridge construction over waterways would be required at the 18 locations listed in Table 3.3‐5, either to
rehabilitate the existing bridges (two locations), replace the original bridge with two new single‐track
bridges (nine locations), or retain the existing bridge and construct a new single‐track bridge adjacent to
the existing (seven locations) (Figure 3.3‐4). Bridge plans are currently at the conceptual design level.
Sixteen new bridges would be constructed in‐water or over water and would be fixed‐span structures. All
new structures would be concrete, supported on concrete pilings, and would retain the existing vertical
and horizontal clearances. The Project also includes rehabilitating the two moveable bridges at the
St. Lucie River and Loxahatchee (Jupiter Inlet) River.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-38 September 2014


All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-39 September 2014

Table 3.3-5 Proposed Bridges, N-S Corridor
Bridge Existing
Number of
New Single-
Track Bridges
Length
(ft)
Width
(ft)
Number of
Spans
Horse Creek Retain 1 72 16 3
Eau Gallie River Demolish 2 580 16 (15)
1

Crane Creek Demolish 2 660 16 (17)
Turkey Creek Demolish 2 180 16 3
Goat Creek Demolish 2 120 16 5
St. Sebastian River Demolish 2 1625 16 (43)
North Canal Retain 1 100 16 4
Main Canal Retain 1 118 16 4
South Canal Retain 1 125 16 5
Taylor Creek Rehabilitate - 210 16 8
Moores Creek Retain 1 72 16 3
Rio Waterway Demolish 2 95 16 4
St. Lucie River Rehabilitate - 1270 24 49
Salerno Waterway Retain 1 40 16 2
Salerno Waterway 2 Demolish 2 103 16 4
Manatee Tributary 1 Demolish 2 34 16 1
Manatee Tributary 2 Demolish 2 34 16 1
Loxahatchee River Rehabilitate - 585 28 9
Earman River Retain 1 175 16 7
1 Number of spans has not been determined for the new structure. (X) is number of existing spans.

3.3.3.4 West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor
The Project within the WPB‐M Segment remains the same as the project evaluated in the 2012 EA and
2013 FONSI. Phase I of the Project includes reconstructing the former second track within the FECR ROW
from West Palm Beach to Miami and constructing new passenger rail stations in West Palm Beach, Fort
Lauderdale, and Miami. New elements of the Phase II Project that were not previously evaluated in the
WPB‐M Segment include replacing or reconstructing seven bridges over waterways.
Bridges
As shown in Table 3.3‐6, AAF proposes to improve seven bridges within the WPB‐M Segment to
accommodate the proposed second track. As long‐range operational flexibility for full operations from
Orlando to Miami has been further studied and understood, AAF has determined that double‐tracking
these bridges would be warranted for Phase II operations. As shown in Table 3.3‐6, four bridges would
be rehabilitated, and seven would require construction to replace the original bridge with two new single‐
track bridges (the two Middle River crossings and the Oleta River), or retain the existing bridge and
construct a new single‐track bridge adjacent to the existing structure (four locations) (Figure 3.3‐4). All
new structures would be concrete, supported by concrete pilings, and would retain the existing vertical
and horizontal clearances. The moveable bridge at the New River in Fort Lauderdale would be
rehabilitated as part of Phase 1.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-40 September 2014

Table 3.3-6 Proposed Bridges over Waterways, West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor
Bridge Existing
Number of
New Single-
Track Bridges
Length
(ft)
Width
(ft)
Number of
Spans
West Palm Beach Canal Retain 1 200 16 9
Boynton Canal Retain 1 154 16 6
Hidden Valley Canal Rehabilitate - 171 13 6
Hillsboro Canal Retain 1 206 16 8
Cypress Creek Canal Retain -
North Fork Middle River Demolish 2 192 16 (8)
1

South Fork Middle River Demolish 2 192 16 (8)
1

New River Rehabilitate - 210 30 6
Tarpon River Retain -
Dania Canal Rehabilitate - 79 30 1
Oleta River Demolish 2 82 16 (26)
1

Snake Creek Canal Rehabilitate - 160 27 7
Arch Creek Retain 1 75 16 1
Biscayne Park Canal Retain -
Little River Canal Retain -
1 Number of spans has not been determined for the new structure. (X) is number of existing spans.

Fort Lauderdale Station
Subsequent to the publication of the 2012 EA and 2013 FONSI, AAF shifted the proposed Fort Lauderdale
Station building to the opposite (west) side of the tracks, along NW 2
nd
Avenue between NW 4
th
Street and
Broward Boulevard. On March 27, 2014 FRA issued a Re‐Evaluation that determined the new location
would not change the environmental impacts identified in the 2012 EA and previously found to be not
significant (Appendix 3.3‐A).
West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility
Subsequent to the publication of the 2012 EA and 2013 FONSI, AAF shifted the proposed Fort Lauderdale
VMF to an existing freight rail yard in West Palm Beach. The AAF 2012 EA and 2013 FONSI evaluated a VMF
to support AAF passenger service at an existing rail maintenance yard in Fort Lauderdale (Andrews Yard)
owned and operated by FECR. However, the Andrews Yard location is unavailable in a configuration
necessary for AAF’s use at this time; therefore, AAF has identified an alternative location. The new location
(the WPB Rail Yard), is an active FECR freight layover yard currently used for staging and building freight
trains. This site is 0.9 miles north of the West Palm Beach Station, the terminus of the Phase 1 project
evaluated in the 2012 EA. Concurrently with this DEIS, FRA has prepared a supplemental EA for this facility
which is available for public review on the FRA website (www.fra.dot.gov).
3.3.3.5 Orlando Vehicle Maintenance Facility
AAF’s proposed VMF would occupy approximately 80 acres of land leased from GOAA (subject to FAA
review and approval), and would include four storage tracks, a maintenance building with five tracks, and
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-41 September 2014

a secondary maintenance building. The two buildings would occupy approximately 216,000 square feet and
60,000 square feet, respectively. The smaller building would include an EPA‐certified paint booth. Planned
operations at the VMF, such as vehicle fueling, maintenance, repair and washing include use of hazardous
materials (primarily petroleum products, lubricants and degreasers). The typical materials that would be
stored and used at the VMF include diesel fuel, motor oils, lubricants, and degreasers. Current conceptual
plans include two 10,000‐gallon aboveground storage tanks for diesel fuel and one 500‐gallon aboveground
storage tank for gasoline. The VMF would also provide overnight train storage at the north end of the
Project. The facility would have 80 to 90 employees, with a 90‐space parking lot. Access to the facility would
be from Boggy Creek Road (SR 527A/530). Following completion of construction of the Orlando to West
Palm Beach Corridors and construction of the MCO VMF, the West Palm Beach VMF would be discontinued
and all maintenance operations would take place at the MCO VMF.
3.3.3.6 Positive Train Control (PTC) System
PTC is a system designed to prevent train‐to‐train collisions, derailments caused by excessive speeds,
unauthorized train movements in work zones, and the movement of trains through switches left in the
wrong position. PTC networks enable real‐time information sharing between trains, rail wayside devices,
and “back office” applications, concerning train movements, speed restrictions, train position and speed,
and the state of signal and switch devices. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and the
corresponding FRA regulations require passenger and major freight railroads to implement PTC on major
freight lines and all new passenger lines.
AAF will implement a PTC system throughout the Project, including the E‐W Corridor between Orlando
and Cocoa, and the N‐S Corridor between Cocoa and Miami. The new PTC system will be interoperable
between the AAF and FECR trains. AAF will outfit 55 FECR locomotives as well as its own locomotives to
avoid any incompatibility issues. AAF will also expand and supplement FECR’s Digicon Digital Traffic
Control systems and add a new Back Office Server to satisfy FRA’s requirements (49 CFR part 236). The
system will also use the existing Parallel Infrastructure LLC’s fiber optic system within the FECR Corridor.
Along the N‐S Corridor and WPB‐M Segment, AAF will use the existing FECR Radio Base Stations. Parallel
Infrastructure LLC (a subsidiary of FECI) currently owns six radio towers on the FECR Corridor, with an
additional 11 towers in the planning process. The existing and future Parallel Infrastructure towers will
be considered for use as part of the PTC system, with additional towers placed along the E‐W Corridor
and N‐S Corridor where required. AAF will commission a propagation and interference study to
determine where towers are required, tower spacing, and tower height. AAF anticipates that two core
communications towers will be needed to support the PTC system on the E‐W Corridor: an existing tower
at City Point in Cocoa, and a new tower to be located along SR 528 approximately 20 miles west of City
Point. This tower would be either a monopole or lattice construction and would be 60 to 100 feet in height.
Additionally, an approximate 55 poles (monopoles), 30 to 60 feet in height, will be required along the
E‐W Corridor to support the PTC and to provide WiFi. All of the proposed poles would be located within
the AAF 100‐foot ROW.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-42 September 2014

3.3.4 Alternative C
Alternative C includes four segments: the MCO Segment, which includes the proposed VMF and new
railroad infrastructure between the VMF and the E‐W Corridor; the E‐W Corridor on new alignment
(Option 3C) between MCO and Cocoa, paralleling SR 528; the N‐S Corridor within the FECR ROW between
Cocoa and West Palm Beach, and the WPB‐M Corridor within the FECR ROW. This alternative also builds
on and incorporates Phase I of the Project and includes two modifications of the previously reviewed
WPB‐M Segment. Alternative C would be identical to Alternative A except for the Mid‐Section of the E‐W
Corridor (Figure 3.2‐3; see Appendix 3.3‐D for detailed plans).
East of SR 417, Alternative C “straddles” the SR 528 southern ROW line in this section, with 10 feet of the
proposed rail alignment width within the existing SR 528 ROW and approximately 90 feet extending
south of the existing SR 528 ROW (Figure 3.2‐4). This alternative includes an access road. This alternative
is an average of 100 feet wide and will impact approximately 225 acres of land to construct the new rail
line. In accordance with the lease agreement with OOCEA, OOCEA would acquire the land and lease the
railroad ROW to AAF. The alignment would be comprised of mostly a single new track, but would require
extensive retaining walls and bridges in order to minimize its footprint and accommodate existing and
future SR 528 infrastructure. Constructing a new rail line along this corridor will require stormwater
features to capture and treat the runoff. Stormwater from the proposed rail line will drain to its own, new
stormwater management system and will not comingle with SR 528 drainage.
This section of Alternative C would begin at grade east of SR 417 and would rise up to an embankment
almost 100 feet west of the interchange with ICP Boulevard. The alignment would alternate between
embankment and bridge structure to span the proposed interchange with Innovation Way (a planned
roadway in this vicinity), ICP Boulevard, the CSX Rail Line, and Farm Access Road #1. After a short section
at‐grade, the alignment would again alternate between bridges and embankments to cross the
Econlockhatchee River and the interchange with Dallas Boulevard (which would be expanded in the
future as part of improvements to SR 528). The alignment would be on embankment in the vicinity of the
Dallas Mainline Toll Plaza and would remain at grade until Farm Access Road #2 and SR 520, which would
be crossed using bridges. The structures in this section are listed in Table 3.3‐7.
3.3.5 Alternative E
Alternative E includes four segments: the MCO Segment, which includes the proposed VMF and new
railroad infrastructure between the VMF and the E‐W Corridor; the E‐W Corridor on new alignment
(Option 3E) between MCO and Cocoa, paralleling SR 528; the N‐S Corridor within the FECR ROW between
Cocoa and West Palm Beach, and the WPB‐M Segment within the FECR ROW. This alternative also builds
on and incorporates Phase I of the Project and includes two modifications of the WPB‐M Segment.
Alternative E would be identical to Alternatives A and C except for the middle section of the E‐W Corridor
(Figure 3.2‐3; see Appendix 3.3‐E for detailed plans).
East of SR 417, Alternative E would diverge to the south and would be located on average between
100 and 200 feet south of the southern edge of the existing SR 528 ROW (Figure 3.2‐4) with the exception
of two interchanges. Around the interchange at Dallas Boulevard the proposed rail line would be
approximately 700 feet south of the SR 528 ROW and at the SR 520 interchange the proposed rail line
would be approximately 500 feet south of the SR 528 ROW.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-43 September 2014


Table 3.3-7 Proposed Structures Alternative C, E-W Corridor Middle Section
Bridge
Proposed
Structure Length
(ft)
Proposed
Structure Width
(ft)
Number of
Spans
Innovation Way Ramp over RR 350 35 3
Innovation Way over Rail 400 150 4
SR 528 Ramp to Innovation Way 350 35 3
ICP Boulevard/RR 350 14 3
ICP Boulevard Ramp 800 14 8
Future Farm Access Road #1 Ramp 750 14 7
Farm Access Road #1 200 14 3
Future Farm Access Road #1 Ramp 400 14 4
Econolockhatchee River 249 14 3
Dallas Boulevard off-Ramp 850 14 10
Dallas Blvd 165 14 2
Future Farm Access Road #2 Ramp 400 14 5
Farm Access Road #2 180 14 3
Future Farm Access Road #2 Ramp 300 14 4
Ramp Connecting SR 528 to SR 520 420 14 5
SR 520 215 14 2
Ramp Connecting SR 520 to SR 528 300 14 4

This alternative includes an access road and is an average of 100 feet wide and will impact approximately
225 acres of land for the construction of the new rail line. In accordance with the lease agreement with
OOCEA, OOCEA would acquire the land and lease the railroad ROW to AAF. The alignment would be
comprised of mostly a single new track but would require extensive retaining walls and bridges in order
to minimize its footprint and accommodate existing and future SR 528 infrastructure. Constructing a new
rail line along this corridor will require stormwater features to capture and treat the runoff. Stormwater
from the proposed rail line will drain to its own, new stormwater management system (will not comingle
with SR 528 drainage).
This section of Alternative E would begin at grade east of SR 417 and would rise up to an embankment
and bridge to cross Innovation Way, ICP Boulevard, the CSX Rail Line, and Dallas Boulevard. Farm Access
Roads #1 and #2 would be closed. Alternative E would cross SR 520 on a bridge. The structures in this
section, based on the conceptual design, are listed in Table 3.3‐8.

All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-44 September 2014

Table 3.3-8 Proposed Structures Alternative E, E-W Corridor Middle Section
Bridge
Proposed Structure
Length (ft)
Proposed Structure
Width (ft)
Number of Spans
ICP Boulevard/RR 160 14 2
ICP Boulevard Ramp 190 14 2
Econolockhatchee River 249 14 3
Dallas Blvd 165 14 2
SR 520 215 14 2
1 Over Grade Bridge – rail goes over the road/river
2 Under-Grade Bridge – road goes over the rail

3.4 Operations
The Project’s planned service between Orlando and Miami would consist of 16 revenue round‐trips
leaving hourly in each direction from 5:00 AM to 9:00 PM, with planned stops at the two intermediate
stations in West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale. The last Orlando‐bound revenue train would arrive in
Orlando at 12:10 AM and the last Miami‐bound revenue train would arrive in Miami at 11:10 PM.
Total scheduled travel time, including stops, is anticipated to be 3 hours, 10 minutes between the terminal
stations. Station to station travel time would be 1 hour, 50 minutes from Orlando to West Palm Beach,
and 1 hour, 20 minutes from West Palm Beach to Miami. The planned operating speed has three
components: a maximum speed of 125 mph from Orlando to Cocoa; a maximum speed of 110 mph from
Cocoa to West Palm Beach; and a maximum speed of 79 mph from West Palm Beach to Miami. Table 3.3‐9
depicts the projected average operating speeds for passenger and freight rail service by county and the
net change in freight rail average operating speed over today’s performance. The E‐W Corridor from MCO
to Cocoa would be a dedicated‐use corridor with only passenger service and no grade crossings, while
the N‐S Corridor would be a shared‐use corridor with freight and passenger service and grade crossings.

Table 3.3-9 Projected Average Passenger Rail Operating Speeds by County
County
2013 Freight/
2016 No-Action
Alternative
(mph)
2016 Freight
(with Project)
(mph)
2016 Passenger
(mph)
Change in Average
Freight Speed
with Project
(mph)
Orange N/A
1
N/A 68.47
2
N/A
1

Brevard 31.95 40.97 93.77 9.02
Indian River 38.57 43.45 103.34 4.88
St. Lucie 33.48 35.55 93.38 2.07
Martin 31.76 37.06 76.96 5.30
Palm Beach 34.89 40.42 75.37 5.53
Broward 31.57 38.11 61.72 6.54
Miami-Dade 39.63 39.91 55.67 -0.72
Source: AAF. 2013a. Modeling Assumptions. May 2013. Report.
1 Only the E-W Corridor enters Orange County, which does not carry freight traffic


All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-45 September 2014

The intercity passenger rail service would operate with new diesel‐electric locomotives and single‐level
coach trains. The rolling stock for the Project would consist of ten train sets. Eight train sets would be
required to be in concurrent operation along the AAF route to deliver regularly scheduled, hourly‐service
frequency. Each train set would be comprised of two locomotives, and seven coach‐type passenger cars
(two Business Cars, a Café/Economy Car, four Economy Coach Cars). In addition, AAF would procure one
spare locomotive and one spare café car. The two‐locomotive arrangement provides redundant
push/pull operation and would assure smooth operations up to the maximum speed of 125 mph even
with an expansion of the train set to nine cars, if needed. The fleet and all facilities (stations and
maintenance) are designed to accommodate expansion to nine‐car trains. Five train sets would be stored
in the VMF near MCO with the remaining five train sets being stored at the West Palm Beach VMF or
Miami Station.
The floor height of the train cars would be the same height as the proposed station platforms and will
enable level boarding of all the passenger cars. The entire train would fully conform to Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) access compliance requirements. To provide easy and safe train boarding and
de‐boarding and to minimize the dwell time at stations, passengers would be distributed evenly along the
platform. When AAF passengers purchase their tickets, they would select their seat, similar to the
experience of airline passengers today. Along with each seat assignment, the tickets would indicate a
number that coordinates with large numbering on each coach door location along the platform where the
customer should wait to enter the train. These large numbers would be also affixed along the platform
edge to assist with wayfinding. Uniform consistency of the AAF train sets would simplify this procedure,
and give comfort to passengers that they have confirmed seating, and know exactly where it will be. These
train features would support the planned dwell times at intermediate stations of 1 minute.
3.5 Ridership
AAF commissioned the Louis Berger Group to develop an investment grade ridership and revenue
forecast for this Project. The study was based upon substantial research and development of a travel
demand forecasting model. AAF commissioned a peer review to validate the study. A summary of the
Ridership and Revenue Study (Louis Berger Group 2013) is provided in Appendix 3.3‐F. FRA has reviewed
and accepted this summary.
3.5.1 Methodology
The ridership study assessed the existing and future intercity travel market, attributes of the current
modes of travel, and estimated future growth in travel. Specific elements of the study included:
 Establishing the market size and catchment area using data on current levels of travel by auto, rail,
air, and bus, as well as information on traveler origin and destination patterns. The summary
estimates that as a result of the Project, the central Florida to Southeast Florida travel market would
draw over 50 million person‐trips annually.
 Identifying the travel network and the schedule, journey time, and costs of all modes of travel using
the network.
 Establishing growth rates for the overall market based on trends in each segment.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-46 September 2014

 Using stated preference surveys to understand how travelers make mode choices based on access
time, in‐vehicle time, headways, and cost.
 Estimating diversion from existing modes of travel to AAF intercity passenger rail and ridership
volumes on each city‐pair segment of the AAF system.
 Testing the sensitivity of the ridership model to changes in key forecast assumptions.
Key assumptions of the ridership forecast include:
 The study area was limited to the metropolitan areas of Central and Southeast Florida.
 Trip tables for auto travel were developed based on information from Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), planning agencies, and operators of other transit services.
 Station market catchment areas were developed as boundaries for the market area.
 Growth in the future travel market was assumed to keep pace with regional projections in growth of
populations and households. The published forecasts of Amtrak, Tri‐Rail, and the FAA were used to
model future rail and air modes of travel.
 Congested auto travel times were used to account for station access and long‐distance auto travel
times.
 The forecast assumed that short distance vehicle occupancies were 2.2 persons per auto while long
distance auto occupancies equaled 2.38 persons per auto.
 Induced demand potential was included in the model, based on methods used in prior Florida high
speed rail studies.
 The model assumes that AAF would initiate service in 2016, and that ridership would grow to a stable
volume after 3 years.
Sensitivity tests were conducted to determine the change in ridership associated with changes in model
assumptions, including trip time, frequency of service, time to access a station, changes in auto travel time,
changes in fuel costs, and changes in air fares.
3.5.2 Ridership Projections
The ridership analysis forecasts that passenger rail ridership would total approximately 3.5 million
annual riders in 2019 (Table 3.3‐10). Of these, approximately 2 million annual riders would be making
short distance trips using Phase I of the Project (Fort Lauderdale‐Miami, West Palm Beach‐Miami, West
Palm Beach‐Fort Lauderdale). Phase II of the Project, connecting Orlando to West Palm Beach, would add
approximately 1.5 million riders making long distance trips (Orlando‐Southeast Florida). AAF projects
that total annual ridership would exceed 4 million by year 2030. These ridership estimates predict that
the AAF rail service will capture 7.2 percent of the long distance market share (Orlando to Miami) and
5.6 percent of the combined long distance and short distance market share. Rail ridership will be drawn
from the following modes:
 69 percent of the forecast riders will shift from long distance automobile travel;
 10 percent of the forecast riders will shift from airline travel;
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-47 September 2014

 10 percent of the forecast riders will shift from bus travel;
 2 percent of the forecast riders will shift from Amtrak rail services; and
 9 percent of the forecast riders will be from new or “induced” trips.

Table 3.3-10 Projected Base-Case Ridership (2019)
Year
Short-Distance Service
(West Palm Beach-Miami)
Long-Distance Service
(Orlando to Southeast Florida) Total
2019
1,944,500 1,526,300 3,470,800
Source: Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September 2013.

Sensitivity analyses showed that forecasted AAF ridership was sensitive to travel factors such as train
running time, service frequency, access time to stations, competing auto travel times, fuel costs, and
competing airline fares. An increase of 10 percent in running time (approximately 18 minutes) would
result in an approximately 7 percent decrease in forecast ridership (and vice versa). An increase in the
frequency of service by 20 percent would result in a 5.4 percent increase in ridership.
The ridership analysis also estimated the number of automobiles that would be removed from the
region’s roadways (Table 3.3‐11). In 2016 the study estimates that approximately 336,000 cars would be
removed with approximately 209,000 coming from short distance trips and 126,000 coming from long
distance trips. By 2030, this estimate increases to 1.35 million annual automobiles removed from the
roadways.

Table 3.3-11 Estimate of Auto Vehicle Trips Diverted to AAF
Year
Short Distance
Service
Long Distance
Service Total
2016
1
209,896 125,733 335,628
2019
2
723,005 442,937 1,165,942
2030 815,471 530,228 1,345,699
Source: Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September 2013. Prepared
for Florida East Coast.
1 2016 is the anticipated first year of revenue service
2 2019 is the anticipate year at which ridership reaches planned full-service levels.

3.6 Summary
As required by NEPA, this DEIS presents the alternatives developed for the Project, and evaluates these
alternatives in light of their ability to satisfy the Project purpose, meet the primary objective of the Project
(to provide reliable and convenient intercity rail service that is sustainable as a private commercial
enterprise while maximizing the use of existing infrastructure). This chapter describes the alternatives
identified within each of the connected segments of the Project, and reports the results of applying screening
criteria. The chapter presents the reasons why each alternative was either withdrawn or retained, and
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3-48 September 2014

describes in detail the No‐Action Alternative and the three Action Alternatives evaluated in this DEIS. These
Action Alternatives (Alternative A, Alternative C, and Alternative E) differ only in the location of the
proposed tracks in the 17‐mile segment of the E‐W Corridor parallel to SR 528 between the interchanges
with SR 417 and SR 520. All other elements of the Action Alternatives are identical. Chapter 5, Environmental
Consequences, of this DEIS provides an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the three Action
Alternatives, in comparison to the No‐Action Alternative. Chapter 5 also describes the environmental
impacts of activities within the Phase I WPB‐M Segment that were not previously evaluated in the 2012 EA
and 2013 FONSI and subsequent re‐evaluations, including the seven new or reconstructed bridges over
waterways and minor changes to the Miami Viaduct, and summarizes the environmental consequences as
described in the 2012 EA.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-1 September 2014

4 Affected Environment
This chapter describes the affected environment in which the All Aboard Florida (AAF) Passenger
Rail Project (Project) would be constructed and operated. Characteristics of the surrounding area are
given to familiarize the reader with the geography, land use, demographics and economics, and the
physical and natural environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at
40 CFR § 1502.15 require that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
“shall succinctly describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives
under consideration. The descriptions shall be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects
of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a statement shall be commensurate with the importance of
the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced.”
The level of information provided in this chapter for each resource is proportionate to that resource’s
potential to be affected by the Project. The baseline conditions presented in this chapter reflect 2013
Existing Conditions or the most recent year for which data are available. Information on the affected
environment is presented in a north‐to‐south order:
 Orlando International Airport (MCO) Segment (MCO Segment) – the portion of the Project on
Greater Orlando Airport Authority (GOAA) property;
 East‐West Corridor (E‐W Corridor) – from the GOAA property line to the connection with the
Florida East Coast Railway (FECR) corridor in Cocoa;
 North‐South Corridor (N‐S Corridor) – the FECR Corridor from Cocoa to West Palm Beach,
the terminus of the Project evaluated in this EIS; and
 West Palm Beach‐Miami Corridor (WPB‐M Corridor) – the FECR Corridor from West Palm
Beach to Miami that was previously evaluated as Phase I.
4.1 Land Use and Transportation
This section provides an overview of the existing land uses and transportation systems within the
Project Study Area. The Project Study Area for these resources includes the portion of central and
southeast Florida proximate to the Project, including the counties through which it passes. The
Project Study Area for land use includes the 50‐foot wide existing track bed along the N‐S Corridor
plus 125 feet on either side (east and west) and a 50‐foot central track bed plus 125 feet on either
side (north and south) for each of the E‐W Corridor alternatives.
4.1.1 Land Use
This section describes the methods used to evaluate existing land uses and provides an overview of
the land uses and land use plans and policies within the Project Study Area.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-2 September 2014

4.1.1.1 Methodology
Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) geographic information systems
(GIS) data derived from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the St. Johns River
Water Management District (SJRWMD) were the primary sources of data (SFWMD 2008;
SJRWMD 2009). The land use data presented in this section include the FLUCCS category designation
(with description), acreage, and aerial cover (by percent) of each mapped land use within the Project
Study Area (FDOT 1999). ‘Predominant’ land uses are those categories of land use, as represented by
mapped land use, that encompass at least 10 percent of the total aerial cover of the Project Study Area.
4.1.1.2 Affected Environment
This section describes the existing land uses and provides an overview of the land uses and land use
plans and policies within the Project Study Area, for each segment of the Project.
Existing Land Uses
The MCO Segment is on GOAA property. Primary land uses include Transportation, Water, and
undeveloped lands. Transportation land uses include airport infrastructure and parking lots. Existing
land uses along the MCO Segment are shown in Appendix 4.1.1‐A.
The E‐W Corridor crosses Orange and Brevard Counties. The western terminus of the E‐W Corridor
is in the City of Orlando in Orange County, while the eastern terminus of the E‐W Corridor is in the
City of Cocoa in Brevard County. Land uses adjacent to the E‐W Corridor within Orlando are primarily
Transportation, Commercial and Services, and undeveloped lands. Land uses adjacent to the
E‐W Corridor within Cocoa are primarily Transportation, Low Density Residential, Commercial and
Services, and undeveloped lands. The remaining areas along the E‐W Corridor are primarily
Transportation, Cropland and Pastureland, and undeveloped land adjacent to State Road (SR) 528.
Figures 4.1.1‐A2 through 4.1.1‐A38 in Appendix 4.1.1‐A depict the existing land uses along the
E‐W Corridor as well as the incorporated municipal boundaries of Orlando and Cocoa.
The E‐W Corridor passes through the Innovation Way Overlay Area, the unincorporated community of
Wedgefield, and the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area (WMA). The Innovation Way Overlay Area
is a designated special use area in Orange County, (Orange County Planning Division 2013). The intent of
the Innovation Way Overlay Area is to promote high tech business jobs and growth, along with quality
housing, new schools, parks, trails, and natural spaces. Amendment 2006‐1‐B‐FLUE‐2 also includes a
multi‐modal transportation plan. The unincorporated community of Wedgefield is west of the SR 520
interchange, and has a total population of 6,679 within a land area of 23.4 square miles, for a population
density of approximately 285.4 persons per square mile (USCB 2012). The WMA is east of the SR 520
interchange, and is managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The WMA
consists of 30,701 acres within the St. Johns River Watershed (FWC 2013).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-3 September 2014

The N‐S Corridor, which is entirely a Transportation land use and within the existing FECR Corridor,
crosses Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach counties. The predominant land uses
adjacent to the N‐W Corridor in each county are shown in Appendix 4.1.1‐A and include:
 Brevard County: Commercial and Services, Transportation, and Medium Density Residential;
 Indian River County: Commercial and Services, Industrial, and undeveloped lands;
 St. Lucie County: Low Density Residential and undeveloped lands;
 Martin County: Transportation, Medium Density Residential, Commercial and Services, and
undeveloped lands; and
 Palm Beach County: Transportation, Commercial and Services, and Medium Density Residential.
The N‐S Corridor passes through several incorporated municipalities: Cocoa, Melbourne, Vero Beach,
Fort Pierce, Jupiter, Palm Beach Gardens, Riviera Beach, and West Palm Beach. More information on
these municipalities is provided in Section 4.4.1, Communities and Demographics. Appendix 4.1.1‐A
depicts the existing land uses along the N‐S Corridor as well as any incorporated municipal
boundaries crossed by this segment.
The WPB‐M Corridor crosses Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami‐Dade Counties. The existing
FECR Corridor within the Project Study Area is typically 100 feet wide and has had freight and/or
passenger service within the corridor throughout its 100‐year plus history. The existing
FECR Corridor traverses established and heavily developed areas of the three counties. Land uses
transition from high density, central business district urban, to medium density residential, to
industrial and commercial uses. Little vacant and/or undeveloped land exists along the corridor.
Established neighborhoods and communities have evolved in conjunction with the corridor due to
the age of the existing corridor. The WPB‐M Corridor passes through the central business districts of
West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. The West Palm Beach Station area is within the
designated Downtown Planned Unit Development. The Fort Lauderdale Station area is within the
Regional Activity Center/West Mixed‐Use Area, and the Miami Station area is currently designated
as High‐Density Residential area.
Land Use Plans
As per the Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (FS) (the Community Planning Act), local
governments in the State of Florida are required to create, adopt, and maintain a comprehensive plan
to guide and manage future development. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are typically
made twice per year, and may include changes to the future land use designation of public or private
properties, changes to the schedule of capital improvements necessary to support future population
growth, or amendments to goals, objectives, and/or policies for growth management. Private
development must conform to any applicable local comprehensive plans, or elements or portions
thereof (Florida Legislature 2012). Table 4.1.1‐1 lists the relevant land use plans for those counties
crossed by the Project.

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


Affected Environment 4-4 September 2014

Table 4.1.1-1 Local Land Use Plans
Title
Last
Update Preparer
Growth Management Plan, City of Orlando 2011 City of Orlando, Planning Division
Orange County, Florida; Comprehensive Plan
2010-2030, Destination 2030
2012 Orange County Community, Environmental, and
Development Services; Planning Division
The 1988 Brevard County Comprehensive Plan 2011 Brevard County Planning and Development
Indian River County 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2006 Indian River County, Planning Division
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan 2010 St. Lucie County, Planning Division
Martin County Comprehensive Growth
Management Plan
2013 Martin County, Division of Community Planning
Palm Beach County, 1989 Comprehensive Plan 2013 Palm Beach County, Planning Division
West Palm Beach Master Plan Update 2009 City of West Palm Beach
Fort Lauderdale Downtown Master Plan 2007 City of Fort Lauderdale
2025 Downtown Miami Master Plan 2009 Miami Downtown Development Authority
4.1.2 Transportation
This section provides an overview of the existing transportation infrastructure within the Project Study
Area. Transportation infrastructure includes automobile, motorbus, pedestrian, train, and aviation.
4.1.2.1 Rail Transportation
There are three primary north‐south rail corridors in the Project Study Area. One corridor runs along the
east coast of Florida between Jacksonville and Miami and is owned by FECR. According to the FECR
operations data from 2012, this route consists of four flat switching yards, 72 industry turnouts, and
21 over‐grade and under‐grade bridges. CSX owns tracks through the center of the state between Winter
Haven and Palm Beach that connect to a third set of tracks owned by the State of Florida between Palm
Beach and Miami (South Florida Rail Corridor). There is no existing rail infrastructure in the
E‐W Corridor.
Existing Passenger Train Service
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) provides passenger rail service between Orlando
and Miami on their Silver Star and Silver Meteor services. These services originate in New York City and
operate between Orlando and Miami via CSX tracks to West Palm Beach and the South Florida Rail
Corridor tracks between West Palm Beach and Miami. These services stop at ten stations including
Orlando, Kissimmee, Winter Haven, West Palm Beach, and Miami. One train operates per service each day
in each direction with travel times ranging from 5 hours, 45 minutes to 7 hours, 34 minutes. The average
round trip cost for the service is $100.00 for one adult passenger. In 2012, ridership for the entire Silver
Star service was 425,794 passengers, while ridership for the entire Silver Meteor service was
375,164 passengers. Combined ridership was 800,958 annual passengers (Brookings 2013).
Figure 4.1.2‐1 depicts the Amtrak service.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-5 September 2014



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


Affected Environment 4-6 September 2014

The South Florida Regional Transit Authority (SFRTA) serves the Project Study Area with commuter rail
service between Mangonia Park in West Palm Beach and Miami (approximately 70 miles), called
“Tri‐Rail.” Only the northernmost station, Mangonia Park, is within the Orlando to West Palm Beach study
area. Tri‐Rail operates on the South Florida Rail Corridor and serves 17 stations with 25 southbound (SB)
and 25 northbound (NB) trains per weekday, and 15 SB/15 NB trains per weekend day. The travel time
between West Palm Beach and Miami is 1 hour, 40 minutes. Tri‐Rail has a zone based fare system which
ranges from $2.50 to $6.90 per trip. Fare discounts are available. Average monthly ridership for
2012 ranged from less than 12,000 to over 14,000 riders, which is an increase over the previous year
(SFRTA 2013b). Figure 4.1.2‐2 shows the Tri‐Rail service.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-7 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-8 September 2014

Existing Freight Rail Service
Regular freight traffic currently operates within the FECR Corridor from Jacksonville to Miami. The freight
track within the FECR Corridor was evaluated from Mile Post (MP) 170 in Cocoa (Brevard County) to
MP 299 in West Palm Beach (Palm Beach County). The existing freight traffic consists of an average of
15 trains per day with a low of nine daily trains on Saturday and a high of 17 daily trains Tuesday through
Thursday. This includes both NB and SB trains. The average train length is 8,150 feet, which includes two
locomotives and 101 cars. Regular freight traffic also operates within the CSX/South Florida Rail corridors
from Orlando to Miami. Figure 4.1.2‐3 shows the CSX tracks in the Project Study Area.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-9 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-10 September 2014

4.1.2.2 Inter-City Motorbus Service
Miami Orlando Shuttle Bus provides five bus trips daily, seven days a week between Orlando and West
Palm Beach. From West Palm Beach the route follows Florida’s Turnpike, passing through Fort Pierce and
Kissimmee before arriving in Orlando. It takes about 4 hours and the average round trip cost for the
service is $60.00 for one adult passenger (Miami Orlando Shuttle Bus 2014).
Greyhound provides passenger bus service between Orlando and West Palm Beach. The route runs four
times daily from Orlando to West Palm Beach. From West Palm Beach the route follows Florida’s Turnpike,
passing through Fort Pierce and Kissimmee before arriving in Orlando. It takes about 4 hours one way and
the average round trip cost for the service is $60.00 for one adult passenger (Greyhound 2014).
RedCoach provides passenger bus service between Orlando and West Palm Beach. The route north to
south (Orlando to West Palm Beach) runs along Florida’s Turnpike, passing through Fort Pierce before
arriving in Orlando. The route runs four times daily on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday.
This route also runs two times daily on Monday, Friday, and Sunday. The route south to north (West Palm
Beach to Orlando) runs along Florida’s Turnpike, passing through Fort Pierce before arriving in West
Palm Beach. The route runs four times daily on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Saturday. This route
also runs two times daily on Thursday, Friday, and Sunday. It takes about 3 hours one way and the average
round trip cost for the service is $100.00 for one adult passenger (RedCoach USA 2014).
4.1.2.3 Local Transit Service
Orlando, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami all have local transit service that circulates within
each jurisdiction.
LYNX is the transit operator in Orlando; it provides local, limited, and express bus service throughout
Orange, Seminole, and Osceola Counties and portions of Lake, Volusia, and Polk Counties. MCO is
currently served by multiple local bus routes that provide connections to Walt Disney Universal Studios,
the Florida Mall, and Downtown Orlando. Local bus fare is $2.00.
Palm Tran is the primary transit operator in Palm Beach County, providing local and express bus service
throughout Palm Beach County. Local bus fare is $1.50.
Broward County Transit (BCT) provides local bus service within Fort Lauderdale, and connects Broward
County to multi‐modal transit options in Palm Beach and Miami‐Dade Counties. BCT operates 285 fixed
route buses along 43 bus routes on weekdays and 28 to 30 bus routes on weekends. BCT fares range
between $1.75 for regular service and $2.35 for express service. Senior, youth, disabled, and Medicare
discounts are available, which reduce regular service to $0.85 and express service to $1.15. Children less
than 40 inches in height ride free (Broward County Transit 2013).
Miami‐Dade Transit is the transit operator in Miami‐Dade County; they provide local, limited stop, and
express bus and rail service throughout Miami‐Dade County. The single ride fare is $2.00.
4.1.2.4 Aviation System
Orlando, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami all have international airports with multiple
commercial flights each day. In 2012, 96,112 daily and 35.1 million annual passengers used MCO (MCO n.d.)
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-11 September 2014

and 108,969 daily and 39.5 million annual passengers used Miami International Airport (MIA) (MIA 2013).
There are 244 daily and 88,900 annual passengers who travel between Orlando and Miami via airplane
(Louis Berger Group 2013). American Airlines, United Airlines, and Silver Airways provide air service
between Orlando and Miami, Silver Airways and Spirit Airlines provide service between Orlando and Fort
Lauderdale, and Silver Airways provides service between Orlando and West Palm Beach. The average flight
time is 60 minutes, which does not include the time required to reach the airport, pass security, and board
the aircraft. Several smaller airlines and charter services provide service between the various smaller
“executive” airports in the region. In total, there are more than 30 flights per day between MCO and the West
Palm Beach (PBI)/Fort Lauderdale (FLL)/Miami (MIA) Airports. There are 244 daily and 88,900 annual
passengers who travel between Orlando and Miami via airplane (Louis Berger Group 2013). In 2012,
96,112 daily and 35.1 million annual passengers used MCO and 108,969 daily and 39.5 million annual
passengers used MIA (MCO n.d.). By 2030, the number of passengers is expected to grow to 74 million per
year, an increase of 45 percent (Louis Berger Group 2013).
4.1.2.5 Roadway Network
The Project Study Area includes the regional road network between Orlando and Miami, and the local
road system.
Regional Roadway Network
The primary regional roadways between Orlando and West Palm Beach are shown in Figure 4.1.2‐4 and
include SR 528 (which runs east‐west), Florida’s Turnpike (which runs northwest‐southeast) and
Interstate 95 (I‐95) (which runs north‐south). SR 528 is a 53.5‐mile partial toll road that is operated and
maintained by the Orlando‐Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) from Sand Lake Road to
SR 520, and by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) from Interstate 4 (I‐4) to Sand Lake
Road and from SR 520 to its eastern terminus at SR 401. The roadway has four to six lanes in each
direction. The OOCEA section has two toll plazas. The FDOT sections are not tolled. Florida’s Turnpike is
a multi‐lane, limited access toll road that is operated and maintained by the Florida Turnpike Enterprise
(FTE) from Wildwood to Miami. The FTE section in the Project Study Area has six toll plazas. I‐95 is a
multi‐lane limited access interstate highway that is operated and maintained by FDOT that covers the
entire length of the state of Florida.
The Level of Service (LOS) and Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for the highways were determined
from the FDOT District 4 and 5 Generalized Tables and the FTE (FDOT 2011a and 2011b; CFGIS 2012).
Overall the LOS through the analyzed roadway corridors has reasonably stable flow, at or near free flow
traffic (LOS C), which is the target for highway systems outside urbanized areas according to FDOT. There
are several segments within the roadway corridors where the LOS approaches an unstable flow in traffic,
LOS D, but according to FDOT LOS D is the target for highway systems inside urbanized areas. Therefore,
these highways currently meet or exceed the LOS standard for state highway systems according to FDOT.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-12 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-13 September 2014

The average travel time between Orlando and Miami via automobile is 4 hours, 15 minutes via I‐95 and
3 hours, 50 minutes via Florida’s Turnpike. The travel time between MCO and I‐95 on SR 528 is
31 minutes. Table 4.1.2‐1 shows the volume and operating conditions on major area highways.

Table 4.1.2-1 Existing Highway Volumes and Operational Characteristics
Highway County Lanes
Average Annual
Daily Traffic
Level of
Service
State Road 528 Orange 4-6 30,000-78,300 B-C
Brevard 4 20,200-30,000 B
Interstate 95 Brevard 4-6 26,500-55,000 B-C
Indian River 4 38,000-41,000 B
St. Lucie 4-6 35,000-67,000 B-C
Martin 6 39,000-66,500 B-C
Palm Beach 10 66,000-179,500 B-D
Florida’s Turnpike Orange 4 55,900 C
Osceola 4 25,300-55,900 B-C
Indian River 4 26,400 B
Okeechobee 4 26,400 B
St. Lucie 4 26,400-40,700 B
Martin 4 35,700-40,700 B
Palm Beach 4 35,700-56,300 B-C
Source: FDOT. 2011a. 2011 SHS LOS Maps. Secure download from Chon Wong, District 4 Contact. Received May 2013;
FDOT. 2011b. Florida’s Turnpike AADT and LOS Request. Email from Kim Cromartie Samson, Florida’s Turnpike
Enterprise to author. Received May 2013;
Central Florida Geographic Information Systems. 2012. District 5 LOS Spreadsheet for 2012. http://www.cfgis.org/FDOT-
Resources/TrafficData.aspx. Accessed May 7, 2012.

Local Roadway Network
MCO is south of SR 528 and north of SR 417 (the Central Florida Greenway). Roadway access from the
north is primarily from Jeff Fuqua Boulevard and from the south on the South Access Road
(Figure 4.1.2‐5). Vehicular volumes for the South Access Road (County Road [CR] 530/Boggy Creek Road)
are shown in Table 4.1.2‐2.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-14 September 2014



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


Affected Environment 4-15 September 2014

Table 4.1.2-2 Existing Traffic Volumes for Local Roadways
Project Element Access Road Segment
Average
Annual
Daily Traffic
Level of
Service
Vehicle Maintenance
Facility (VMF)
County Road (CR) 530/Boggy
Creek Road North of Airport Park Drive 13,000 E
VMF CR530/Boggy Creek Road Weatherbee to East Weatherbee 9,300 E
West Palm Beach Station Quadrille Street
Banyan Boulevard to Flagler
Memorial Bridge 10,900 B
Fort Lauderdale Station Broward Boulevard
Avenue of the Arts to
S Andrews Avenue 50,500 C
Miami Station NW 1
st
Avenue NW 2
nd
Ave to NW 1
st
Ave 4,600 B
Source: City of Orlando, Planning Division. 2011. Growth Management Plan, City of Orlando: Transportation Element.
http://www.cityoforlando.net/planning/cityplanning/PDFs/GMP/2012/jan/04 Transportation_GOPs_Supp_5.pdf.
December 2011. Accessed August 7, 2013.

Access to the West Palm Beach Station would be from Quadrille Street and 6
th
Street. Access to the Fort
Lauderdale Station would be from Broward Boulevard to NE 2
nd
Avenue, and access to the Miami Station
would be from NW 1
st
Avenue. Table 4.1.2‐2 shows the current daily traffic volumes and LOS for these roads.
4.1.2.6 At-grade Crossings
The N‐S Corridor crosses 159 roadways at grade between Cocoa and West Palm Beach (AAF 2013c). A
summary of the total number of public and private at‐grade crossings by county, within the N‐S Corridor,
is provided in Table 4.1.2‐3. A summary of existing freight operations is provided in Table 4.1.2‐4. As
shown in Table 4.1.2‐4, grade crossings are typically closed for 240 seconds (4 minutes) per train,
generally once per hour. Phase I of the Project crosses 183 roadways at‐grade, as described in
Section 3.3.1.3 of the 2012 EA.

Table 4.1.2-3 Summary of At-grade Crossings by County Within the N-S Corridor
County
Length of Corridor
(miles)
Number of At-grade
Crossings
Brevard 42 55
Indian River 21 30
St. Lucie 22 21
Martin 26 27
Palm Beach 18 26
Totals 87 159
Source: AAF. 2013c. FECR Grade Crossing Estimate Spreadsheet. Received via email from Alex Gonzalez on March 7, 2013.

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


Affected Environment 4-16 September 2014

Table 4.1.2-4 Summary of Existing (2011) Freight Operating Characteristics and Average Crossing
Closures within the N-S Corridor
County
Time to
Activate
and Close
the Gate
(sec)
1

Avg. Train
Length
(ft.)
Avg. Train
Speed
(mph)
3

Time to
Clear
(sec)
Time to
Bring the
Gate
Back Up
(sec)
Total
Time to
Activate
and Clear
(sec)
Crossings
(Trains
per Day)
Closure
(min/day)
Maximum
Crossings
per Hour
2

Maximum
Delay per
Hour
(min)
4

Brevard 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0
Indian River 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0
St. Lucie 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0
Martin 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0
Palm Beach 30 8150 59.4 94 15 139 18 41.6 1 2.3
Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West
Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.
1 FRA regulations require 20 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the railroad crossing and
10 seconds to bring the gate back up. FDOT uses 30 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the
railroad crossing and 15 seconds to bring the gate back up. To account for the worst-case scenario, FDOT timings were used
in this analysis.
2 Maximum crossings per hour includes north-bound and south-bound trains combined
3 2011 freight speed for Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Brevard Counties was obtained from Section 3.3.1.1
of the Environmental Assessment for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida,
dated October 31, 2012.
4 Maximum Delay per Hour calculated as the Total Time to Activate and Clear multiplied by the Maximum Crossings per Hour.

4.1.3 Navigation
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has reviewed the Project and determined that six of the proposed
bridges (the new bridge across the St. Johns River parallel to SR 528, and the proposed second‐track
bridges across the Eau Gallie River, St. Sebastian River, Crane Creek, Turkey Creek, and the Hillsboro Canal
in Broward County) will require bridge permits (USCG letter May 1, 2013, Appendix 4.1.3‐B). The USCG
requested that a navigation analysis of these bridges be included in the EIS (USCG letter July 24, 2013,
Appendix 4.1.3‐A). This detailed analysis is provided in Appendix 4.1.3‐C, Navigation Discipline Report.
The USCG determined (USCG letter May 1, 2013) that an additional twelve bridges that would be
reconstructed as part of the Project are exempt from obtaining bridge permits. The reasons provided by
the USCG for their exemption include that they are either not navigable other than by rowboats, canoes,
or small motorboats and existing navigational clearances would be maintained; fall under the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1982; or are not subject to tidal influence, not used for substantial interstate or
foreign commerce, and not susceptible to such use in their natural or potentially improved condition.
USCG did not make any findings concerning other fixed‐span bridges where superstructure replacement
would be required to accommodate the proposed second track. At a meeting held on August 12, 2013
(see Appendix 4.3.1‐A for meeting notes), USCG indicated that information on the operations of all
moveable bridges within the Project Study Area would be required to determine if there would be any
operational effects on navigation. USCG also requested information on the navigation conditions at the
New River Bridge within the WPB‐M Corridor.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-17 September 2014

This section provides a summary of existing navigational conditions for the proposed new fixed bridge
over the St. Johns River and for three existing moveable bridges (Figure 4.3.1‐1):
 The St. Lucie River (St. Lucie/Martin County);
 The Loxahatchee River (also known as the Jupiter River, Martin/Palm Beach County); and
 The New River in Fort Lauderdale (Broward County).

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


Affected Environment 4-18 September 2014

Information is also provided for five waterways which have fixed bridges:
 Eau Gallie River (Brevard County)
 Crane Creek (Brevard County)
 Turkey Creek (Brevard County)
 St. Sebastian River (Brevard/Indian River County)
 Hillsboro Canal (Palm Beach/Broward County).
In addition, this section provides information on the existing economic value of the maritime industry
associated with the three moveable bridges.
4.1.3.1 Methodology
This section describes the methods used to evaluate existing vessel traffic at the three moveable bridges
and to evaluate existing economic conditions associated with the maritime industry at these locations.
This study considers data presented in previous traffic studies performed by others, and includes detailed
analyses and simulation modeling results based on current and future freight train operations, proposed
passenger rail, and recent boat traffic surveys. These studies and analyses include:
 Literature reviews of vessel traffic studies conducted at each bridge;
 Summaries of 2014 vessel traffic surveys gathered through video assessments;
 Summaries of bridge closure data;
 A detailed analysis of the existing vessel traffic and bridge schedules;
 A detailed analysis of the marine industry at each bridge;
 Socioeconomic analyses; and
 Results from a discrete‐event simulation model of vessel traffic.
Vessel Survey Modeling
Vessel traffic on the New River, Loxahatchee River, and St. Lucie River were characterized based on a
traffic survey and video survey.
2014 Vessel Traffic Survey
As described in the 2014 Navigation Discipline Report (Appendix 4.1.3‐C) video recordings from cameras
located at FECR’s bridges at the St. Lucie River, Loxahatchee River, and New River were provided by FECR.
The videos contain approximately two to three weeks of data from the peak vessel traffic season, and in
some instances a holiday, and were used to quantify the number and types of recognizable vessels that
pass under the bridges under existing conditions. The raw data collected includes the number and size of
commercial and recreational vessels that pass under the bridges. These data were summarized and
organized to show differences and patterns between and within weekdays, weekends, and different times
of the day (AMEC 2014a).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-19 September 2014

2014 Video Survey
Video recordings provided by FECR were used to collect bridge operation data for FECR’s bridges at
Loxahatchee River and St. Lucie River. The time of day when the bridge initially begins to close was
recorded, and train schedule times were recorded relative to this initial closure time.
Existing bridge operations data for the New River Bridge could not be collected from the video provided
by FECR. The location of the camera did not provide a line of sight on the bridge itself. Instead, information
on current bridge operations and vessel traffic at the New River Bridge was gathered through monitoring
of live video feed available at this location: http://www.microseven.com/tv/livevideo‐esplanade.html.
This effort was conducted for five days during the peak season for vessel traffic, including weekdays and
one full weekend. Live video feed data collection included vessel direction (heading east or west), vessel
type (commercial or recreational), vessel size, bridge operations (e.g. closing times, the time the train
arrives, and time it clears the bridge), as well as pictures of the vessels crossing (AMEC 2014a).
Economic Analysis
The State of Florida has performed extensive studies regarding the economic value of the marine
industry. These studies include analysis of spending on vessels (e.g., boat sales, storage, repairs) and
recreation (e.g., restaurants, fishing, tackle, ski/boating instruction). These studies also provide
information about the economic value of marine‐related activities by county. The 2014 Navigation
Discipline Report (Appendix 4.1.3‐C) estimated the economic value of the marine industry in 2013 in
order to determine a cost per trip for the socioeconomic impact analysis. The four counties that are
affected by marine activities on the St. Lucie River, Loxahatchee River, and New River include St. Lucie,
Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward counties (AMEC 2014a).
As described in the 2014 Navigation Discipline Report, the economic benefits of marine‐related activities
on the inland waterways for each of the counties considered were originally analyzed in the following
years: 2007 for Broward County, 2006 for Palm Beach County, and 1999 for both Martin and St. Lucie
Counties. The State of Florida updated these studies in December 2011 to reflect the economic value of
the marine industry in each county for 2009 values (based on the most recently available data at the time)
(Florida Inland Navigation District 2011). The state’s studies identify and quantify the total economic
benefit of each county’s waterways, including direct benefits, indirect benefits, and induced benefits
associated with marine‐related activity; the analysis includes benefits related to expenditures in the
marine industry as well as expenditures outside of the marine industry, but directly related to marine
activities (e.g., groceries purchased for a boating trip). These analyses do not include the impact of the
marine industry on property values; accordingly, this report does not discuss property value impacts
(AMEC 2014a).
This analysis expands on the methodology of the state’s studies to estimate growth in direct, indirect, and
induced economic activity (see Table 4.1.3‐1), including total business volume, personal income, and
employment (AMEC 2014a).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-20 September 2014


Table 4.1.3-1 Definition and Example of Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Effects
Type of Effect Definition Illustrative Example
Direct The initial change in the industry in question
(e.g., expenditures in the marine industry)
For example, when a boater pays for repairs to his
vessel, this spending is considered a direct effect of
the industry.
Indirect Changes in inter-industry transactions when
supplying industries respond to increased
demands from the directly affected industries
(e.g., impacts from non-wage expenditures)
When repairing the vessel, the mechanic uses a
portion of these funds to purchase epoxy; if this
expenditure occurs in the same region, it would
constitute an indirect economic effect of vessel
industry spending.
Induced Changes in local spending that result from
income changes in the directly and indirectly
affected industry sectors (e.g., impacts from
wage expenditures).
The vessel mechanic would earn income that can
then be spent in the local economy, thereby
producing induced benefits to the local economy.
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report.

In order to determine the economic value of the specific waterways considered in this analysis, the
relative importance of each waterway was determined as a percentage of the marine industry in the
county in which it is located. In the case that a particular waterway is located in two counties, its relative
importance in each county was considered and then the results for each county were summed to get the
total economic value of the waterway.
4.1.3.2 Existing Navigation Conditions
This section describes the nine waterways and the existing (2013) navigation conditions and operations
at each waterway.
St. Johns River
The St. Johns River at SR 528 is a non‐tidal navigable waterway approximately 280 feet wide, and is a
shallow meandering river without a designated channel. The SR 528 bridges (the eastbound and
west‐bound lanes are on separate parallel bridges) are supported on concrete pilings, including one set
of pilings in the center of the river. These bridges provide approximately 16 feet of vertical clearance over
the river. The St. Johns River receives minimal boat traffic, almost solely from recreational use and airboat
tours. There are no existing public boat ramps with access to the river at the SR 528 crossing. The closest
public boat ramps with direct access to the river are 6 miles north at the SR 50 bridge and approximately
six miles south at the SR 520 bridge.
St. Lucie River
The St. Lucie River is a tidal waterway located in St. Lucie and Martin Counties, with the railway bridge
located in Martin County. The St. Lucie River Bridge is located about 5.9 miles from the St. Lucie River’s
inlet and is between the U.S. A1A (Dixie Highway) bridge (a drawbridge with an approximately 100‐foot
opening) and the U.S. 1 bridge, a fixed‐span structure. The railroad bridge is a low single‐track, concrete‐
piling supported structure with a drawbridge. This operable bridge has a vertical clearance of 7 feet and
a horizontal clearance of 50 feet. Although this bridge remains open to the waterway to allow a
continuous flow of vessel traffic, it closes an average of 10 times daily to accommodate freight rail service.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-21 September 2014

While closed, most vessels (with the exception of small recreational vessels less than 16 feet size class)
are unable to pass through the bridge, and queue while waiting for the bridge to re‐open (AMEC 2014a).
The bridge is approximately 8.2 miles above the outlet of the river at Sawfish Point and the inlet to the
Indian River Lagoon. Immediately upriver from the bridge is the confluence of the North and South Forks
of the St. Lucie River and the County Line Canal.
The primary bridges crossing the St. Lucie River, within the constraints of waterfront development,
include three operable bridges and ten stationary bridges. Operable bridges include the St Lucie River
Bridge and the Dixie Highway Bridge, located at the confluence, approximately 5.92 miles and 5.97 miles
from the St. Lucie River inlet, respectively and a railroad bridge located in the South Fork at the
Okeechobee Waterway.
The St. Lucie River system is an active recreational boating area, primarily servicing smaller recreational
vessels. The St. Lucie River going inbound, or up river, has a broad river channel at its confluence with the
Indian River Lagoon, which provides mariners with access to the Atlantic Ocean and the Intracoastal
Waterway. From the St. Lucie Bridge, the St. Lucie River travels inland southwestward to South Fork
where it enters the St. Lucie Canal (Okeechobee Waterway) and continues generally west southwestward
to Port Mayaca where the canal enters Lake Okeechobee. The Okeechobee Waterway provides a route
across the state of Florida from the St. Lucie River to Punta Rassa, approximately 90 miles south of the
entrance to Tampa Bay on Florida’s west coast. Public and private marine facilities are concentrated in
the eastern portions of the river and include seven marinas and four boat ramps. There are numerous
marinas downriver (in Stuart and Port Salerno) as well as upriver immediately above the bridge. There
are 15 public and private marinas on the St. Lucie River. The number of slips at these marinas ranges from
eight to nearly 200, with 439 total slips and an average of approximately 35 slips per marina. Marinas
occur throughout the St. Lucie River but many are concentrated near the St. Lucie River Bridge (AMEC
2014a).
The drawbridge is currently kept in the open condition and lowered for freight train passage, in
accordance with USCG Drawbridge Operation Regulations at 33 CFR 111.317(c). Freight trains at the
St. Lucie River Bridge average 32 mph. Under existing conditions, 14 freight trains cross the St. Lucie River
Bridge with an average closure time of 21 minutes. The average of the total weekday closure time is
241 minutes (4.01 hours) per day and the average of the total weekend closure time is 165 minutes
(2.74 hours) per day (AMEC 2014a).
The vessel traffic data show an average of 102 vessel crossings per day (Min=28; Max=263) from Monday
to Friday, compared to about 315 vessels (Min=157; Max=413) per day on a weekend. Sundays had the
most vessel activity, with a range of 296 to 395 vessel counts (AMEC 2014a).
As shown in Table 4.1.3‐2, the average count of commercial vessels per day ranged from two to 21, with
an average of 7 vessels and 12 vessels passing through the St. Lucie Bridge on weekdays and weekends
respectively. The average count of recreational vessels per day ranged from 26 to 406.

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


Affected Environment 4-22 September 2014

Table 4.1.3-2 Daily Vessel Traffic at the St. Lucie, Loxahatchee, and New River Bridges,
January 2014
1

St. Lucie River Loxahatchee River New River
Recreational Vessels
Minimum 26 5 64
Maximum 406 500 356
Average 117 148 166
Commercial Vessels
Minimum 2 0 29
Maximum 21 14 59
Average 4 9 49
Total Vessels
Minimum 28 5 99
Maximum 413 502 508
Average 121 157 215
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.
1 Vessel traffic was assessed during January daylight hours, from 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM

Loxahatchee River (Jupiter River)
The Loxahatchee River is a tidal waterway located in Martin and Palm Beach Counties, with the railway
bridge located in Palm Beach County. The river has three main forks that flow to the central embayment
area before heading out the Jupiter Inlet (AMEC 2014a). The waterway is popular for recreational boating
and related activities such as fishing. According to FWC, in 2012, there were 15,702 registered vessels in
Martin County and 38,363 registered vessels in Palm Beach County (FWC 2012b). The primary bridges
crossing the Loxahatchee River include two operable bridges and three stationary bridges. Operable
bridges include the U.S. 1 Jupiter Federal Bridge and the Loxahatchee River Bridge located at the
confluence, 0.9 miles and 1.3 miles from the Jupiter Inlet, respectively. Stationary bridges include the A1A
Route Bridge, the Tequesta Drive Bridge, and the Loxahatchee River Road Bridge (AMEC 2014a).
The Loxahatchee River Bridge is immediately adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway (Hobe Sound to the
north, Lake Worth Creek to the south) and is about 1.3 miles west of the Jupiter Inlet (AMEC 2014a). The
railroad bridge was constructed for two tracks, although only one track is currently maintained. The
concrete‐pile supported structure is an approximately 600‐foot long structure with a drawbridge. The
bridge has a vertical clearance of 4 feet and a horizontal clearance of 40 feet (AMEC 2014a). The bridge is
parallel to the U.S. 1 Bridge, a fixed‐span structure.
The Loxahatchee River supports a marine industry that primarily services smaller recreational vessels.
There are hundreds of private docks upriver from the bridge along the Loxahatchee River and the
C‐18 Canal. Downriver, along the Intracoastal Waterway and Jupiter Inlet, there are numerous private
docks and several marinas. Public and private marine facilities are concentrated in the eastern portions
of the river and include seven marinas and four boat ramps, all of which are located within Palm Beach
County. The number of slips at these marinas ranges from 30 to 130, with 534 total slips and an average
of approximately 72 slips per marina. Marinas on the Loxahatchee River comprise less than one fourth of
all marinas in Palm Beach County. The largest concentration of marinas on the Loxahatchee River is
located along the Jupiter Inlet east of the Loxahatchee River Bridge, while the majority of the marinas in
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-23 September 2014

Palm Beach County are located along the Intracoastal Waterway. No waterfront hotels or restaurants that
cater specifically to mariners are located on the Loxahatchee River (AMEC 2014a).
With the exception of a commercial area and marine facilities near Jupiter Inlet, waterfront development
is predominantly private residences, which provide approximately 135 private slips and 1,061 private
docks. While the Loxahatchee River is located in both Martin and Palm Beach counties, waterfront
development and marine facilities are overwhelmingly concentrated in Palm Beach County. This is largely
due to the Wild and Scenic River designation that applies to the Loxahatchee River for most of its reach
in Martin County. The Loxahatchee River is used for recreational boating and as a travel corridor to and
from residences to access the Atlantic Ocean via the Jupiter Inlet and the Intracoastal Waterway. Wild and
Scenic River designated portions of the Loxahatchee River are accessible to smaller vessels only, and is a
destination for wildlife viewing (AMEC 2014a).
The drawbridge is currently kept in the open condition and lowered for freight train passage in
accordance with USCG Drawbridge Operation Regulations at 33 CFR 111.299. Freight trains at the
Loxahatchee River Bridge average 33 mph. Under 2013 conditions, 14 freight trains cross the bridge per
day. The RTC model shows a total of 10 bridge closures per day with an average closure time of
19 minutes. The average of total weekday closure time is 214 minutes (3.57 hours) per day and the
average of the total weekend closure time is 156 minutes (2.6 hours) per day (AMEC 2014a).
The vessel traffic data show an average of 108 vessels per day (Min=5; Max=335) from Monday to Friday,
compared to about 271 vessels (Min=119; Max=502) per day on a weekend. As shown in Table 4.1.3‐2,
the average count of commercial vessels per day ranged from zero to 14 and the average count of
recreational vessels per day ranged from five to 500. Both commercial and recreational vessel passage
increased on weekend days. High vessel activity was observed during four different weekday holidays
(around New Years and Presidents day) with vessel counts in the range of 200 to 335. When vessel traffic
data from holidays are not included in the average vessel count for the weekdays, this average value drops
to an average of 65 vessels per day. Sundays had the highest vessel activity, with exception of the holidays,
with a range of 119 to 502 vessel counts. The average vessel count for Monday appears high, but these
results include data from January 20, 2014, which was a holiday, and thus represents an unusual vessel
count for Mondays as compared with data from Monday January 27, 2014 (AMEC 2014a).
New River
The New River originates in the Everglades and flows east to the Atlantic Ocean, entirely within Broward
County. The New River is an extensive branched tidal waterway in Fort Lauderdale, which discharges to
the ocean at Port Everglades. The waterway travels from the Intracoastal Waterway east to the west past
residences and through the Central Business District of the City of Fort Lauderdale. West of the Central
Business District, the river splits into North and South forks. The North Fork of the New River is a shallow
meandering tributary, bordered primarily by residences with private docks. The South Fork is a wider,
deeper tributary, which supports larger vessels and is bordered by residences and commercial marine
industries. Most marinas at the South Fork are located approximately 2.5 to 3.5 miles from the New River
Bridge, and numerous boat yards extend to approximately 6.8 miles from the New River Bridge
(AMEC 2014a).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-24 September 2014

The New River has a robust waterfront industry, with vessel traffic utilizing a broad array of public and
private marine facilities including 12 marinas and four boat ramps; there are also four boat/yacht clubs,
two waterfront restaurants, and two waterfront hotels that cater to mariners. The marinas range in scale
from five slips to more than 190 slips, with an average of approximately 42 slips per marina. Marinas on
the New River comprise approximately one third of all marinas in Broward County. The largest
concentration of marinas is located on the South Fork of the New River approximately two miles west of
New River Bridge (AMEC 2014a). The majority of Fort Lauderdale’s recreational boating industry (repair
facilities, boatyards, boat sales, equipment sales) are also west of the bridge. Residential and commercial
development occurs along the navigable extent of the New River, which provides approximately
280 private slips and 3,750 private docks. Hundreds of private docks, with boats up to 100 feet long, are
also upriver of the bridge. According to a Broward County vessel traffic study (Mote Marine Laboratory
2005), recreational boating represents an estimated $8.8 billion segment of the local economy. In addition
to private recreational boats, the New River is also used by commercial sightseeing vessels.
The New River going inbound (or up river) starts at river markers five and six. The river is approximately
450 feet wide through marker 11 where the river makes an “S” turn to marker 12, known as the Tarpon
Bend. Beyond marker 12 and into the Central Business District, the river is on average less than 150 feet
wide, but can be as little as 100 feet wide at some narrower turns. This section of the river can be too
narrow for larger vessels, which can include yachts up to 140 feet in length. Towboats are often utilized
to tow 100‐foot yachts and larger vessels up and down the New River to and from several large boat yards
that cater to yachts (e.g., Lauderdale Marine Center). All of the commercial vessels; such as the tour boats,
tow boats and fuel barge boats; as well as bridges (including the FECR New River Bridge), monitor very
high frequency (VHF) channel 9.
The New River Bridge is located approximately 4 miles west of the New River’s inlet. The FECR railroad
bridge, a 2‐track bascule bridge, crosses the waterway west of St. Andrews Avenue. The river at this
location is approximately 135 feet wide. The bridge has a vertical clearance of four feet and a horizontal
clearance of 60 feet (AMEC 2014a). The bridge is currently kept in the open position and lowered for
freight train passage in accordance with USCG Drawbridge Operation Regulations at 33 CFR 111.313(b).
A bridge operation survey performed through observations of live feed shows that the New River Bridge
is closed on average 19 minutes per closure.
Based on the January 2014 FECR video, an average of 157 vessel crossings occurred at the New River
Bridge (Min=99; Max=289) on a daily basis (6:00 AM to 6:30 PM) from Monday through Friday compared
to an average of 356 vessels (Min=262; Max=508) per day on a weekend day. As shown in Table 4.1.3‐2,
the average count of commercial vessels per day ranged from 29 to 59 and the average count of
recreational vessels per day ranged from 64 to 356. There was an increase in recreational vessel traffic
by approximately 64 percent during the weekend; an increase in commercial crossings during the
weekend was not observed during this two‐week assessment. Both Sundays observed during this two
week video assessment (January 19 and January 26) had the most vessel activity, with a total 304 and
508 vessel counts from 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM, respectively. Wednesdays and Thursdays reported the
lowest vessel activity with an average of 114 and 136 vessel counts, respectively. The average vessel
count for Monday is likely higher than normal since it includes data from January 20, 2014, which was a
holiday (AMEC 2014a).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-25 September 2014

The average vessel count observed during the February 2014 New River live feed observations was lower
than values obtained from the January 2014 New River Bridge video assessment (Table 4.1.3‐2).
However, the density of traffic was similar throughout the week, with lower vessel traffic on Thursdays
and an increase in vessel traffic over the weekend. A higher traffic of recreational vessels was observed
compared to commercial vessels. Most commercial vessel trips account for those made by taxi boats, the
Jungle Queen, a sightseeing riverboat cruise, and towing services (AMEC 2014a).
Eau Gallie River
The Eau Gallie River is a tidal river, tributary to Indian River, in Eau Gallie, Brevard County. The fixed
FECR railroad bridge crosses the waterway immediately west of Harbor City Boulevard. The river at this
location is approximately 575 feet wide. The multiple‐span bridge provides a vertical clearance at mean
high water of 11.3 feet, with a 48‐foot horizontal clearance. Boating activities are concentrated on the east
side of the bridge, with two major marinas between the bridge and the Indian River Lagoon
(AMEC 2013d). Boat traffic under the Eau Gallie River Bridge is limited to small open fishing boats or
personal watercraft with a maximum 10‐foot height.
Crane Creek
Crane Creek is a tidal waterway in Melbourne, Brevard County, tributary to Indian River. The FECR
railroad bridge crosses the waterway immediately west of the U.S. 1 (Dixie Highway) bridge. The river at
this location is approximately 650 feet wide. The multiple span bridge provides a vertical clearance of
approximately 15 feet, with a 48‐foot horizontal clearance. Boat traffic is limited as capacity is restricted
by an approximately 4‐foot water depth under the center of the bridge (AMEC 2013d). There are no
commercial marinas or docking facilities upriver of the bridge, and few private docks with small
shallow‐draft boats.
Turkey Creek
Turkey Creek is a tidal waterway in Palm Bay, Brevard County, tributary to Indian River. The FECR
railroad bridge crosses the waterway immediately west of the U.S. 1 (Dixie Highway) bridge. The creek at
this location is approximately 180 feet wide. The multiple span bridge provides a vertical clearance of
approximately 11 feet, with a 54‐foot horizontal clearance. The waterway is used by small pontoon boats
and personal watercraft (AMEC 2013d). There are no commercial marinas or docking facilities upriver of
the bridge, and few private docks with small shallow‐draft boats.
St. Sebastian River
The St. Sebastian River is a tidal waterway on the border between Brevard and Indian River Counties. The
FECR railroad bridge crosses the waterway 1.25 miles upriver of the U.S. 1 (Dixie Highway) bridge. The
river at this location is approximately 1,624 feet wide. The multiple span bridge provides a vertical
clearance of approximately 13 feet and a 48‐foot horizontal clearance. Boating activity is primarily east
of the bridge (AMEC 2013d). The waterway is used by small boats and personal watercraft. There are no
commercial marinas or docking facilities upriver of the bridge and few private docks.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-26 September 2014

Hillsboro Canal
The Hillsboro Canal is a tidal waterway on the border between Palm Beach and Broward Counties. The
FECR railroad bridge crosses the waterway immediately west of the SR 811 (Dixie Highway) bridge. The
waterway at this location is approximately 207 feet wide. The multiple span bridge provides a vertical
clearance of approximately 9 feet with a 28‐foot horizontal clearance. Boating activity is primarily east of
the bridge, and there are no commercial marinas west of the bridge (AMEC 2013d). A marine business
that provides dry storage is located west of the FECR bridge. Boats at the private docks west of the bridge
are primarily small powerboats less than 30 feet long.
4.1.3.3 Existing Economic Conditions
This section describes maritime economic conditions in the areas associated with the three movable
bridges: St. Lucie River Bridge, Loxahatchee River Bridge, and New River Bridge.
Martin County
As described in the 2014 Navigation Discipline Report (Appendix 4.1.3‐C), the direct economic value of the
marine industry in Martin County was determined by updating the economic analysis performed by the
State of Florida in 2011. The state’s study was updated from the base year of 1999, when the original
study for Martin County was performed, to reflect the total value of the industry in December 2013. The
direct economic value of the marine industry associated with the portion of the St. Lucie River that lies in
Martin County includes all direct spending associated with the marine industry that occurred near this
portion of the St. Lucie River. In other words, it includes all marine‐related spending by the individuals
utilizing this portion of the waterway (AMEC 2014a).
The total value of the marine industry in Martin County is $705.0 million, with $523.7 million in direct
sales, $86.0 million in indirect benefits, and $95.3 million in induced benefits (Table 4.1.3‐3). Direct
spending in the marine industry supports 4,588 jobs and $138.1 million in personal income. Additionally,
the total spending associated with the marine industry, including direct, indirect, and induced effects,
supports 7,049 jobs and $205.5 million in personal income (Table 4.1.3‐3) (AMEC 2014a).

Table 4.1.3-3 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Martin County

Original 1999 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures
Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total
Business Volume
(in millions)
$314.8 $51.7 $57.3 $423.8 $523.7 $86.0 $95.3 $705.0
Personal Income
(in millions)
$83.0 $19.0 $21.5 $123.5 $138.1 $31.6 $35.8 $205.5
Employment 2,758 663 816 4,237 4,588 1,103 1,358 7,049
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report.

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


Affected Environment 4-27 September 2014

St. Lucie County
As described in the 2014 Navigation Discipline Report (Appendix 4.1.3‐C), the direct economic value of the
marine industry in St. Lucie County was determined by updating the economic analysis performed by the
State of Florida in 2011. Because the economic studies for the marine industry in Martin and St. Lucie
Counties were both performed in 1999, the methodology for updating data to December 2013 values is
the same for both counties. The direct economic value of the marine industry associated with the portion
of the St. Lucie River that lies in St. Lucie County includes all direct spending associated with the marine
industry that occurred near this portion of the St. Lucie River. In other words, it includes all marine‐
related spending by the individuals utilizing this portion of the waterway (AMEC 2014a).
The total value of the marine industry in St. Lucie County is $420.9 million, with $308.4 million in direct
sales, $53.2 million in indirect benefits, and $59.3 million in induced benefits. Additionally, the total
personal income generated by the industry is $106.6 million and the total associated employment is 3,771
jobs (Table 4.1.3‐4) (AMEC 2014a).

Table 4.1.3-4 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in St. Lucie County

Original 1999 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures
Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total
Business Volume
(in millions)
$192.87 $33.26 $37.11 $263.24 $308.35 $53.17 $59.33 $420.85
Personal Income
(in millions)
$40.34 $12.46 $13.88 $66.68 $64.49 $19.92 $22.19 $106.60
Employment 1,377 441 541 2,359 2,201 705 865 3,771
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report.

The St. Lucie River represents approximately 82.9 percent of the marine activity in Martin County and
15.3 percent in St. Lucie County. Because the economic activity associated with the St. Lucie River is
located in both Martin and St. Lucie Counties, the total economic value of this river is equivalent to 82.9
percent of the economic value of the marine industry in Martin County plus 15.3 percent of the economic
value of the marine industry in St. Lucie County, resulting in a total economic value of $648.8 million. This
total value is comprised of $481.3 million in direct expenditures, $79.4 million in indirect effects, and
$88.1 million in indirect effects. This activity supports 6,420 jobs and $186.6 million in personal income
(Table 4.1.3‐5) (AMEC 2014a).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-28 September 2014


Table 4.1.3-5 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the
St. Lucie River
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Portion within
Martin County
Business Volume (in millions) $434.1 $71.3 $79.0 $584.4
Personal Income (in millions) $114.4 $26.2 $29.7 $170.3
Employment 3,803 914 1,125 5,843
Portion within
St. Lucie County
Business Volume (in millions) $47.2 $8.1 $9.1 $64.4
Personal Income (in millions) $9.9 $3.0 $3.4 $16.3
Employment 337 108 132 577
Total
Business Volume (in millions) $481.3 $79.4 $88.1 $648.8
Personal Income (in millions) $124.3 $29.2 $33.1 $186.6
Employment 4,140 1,022 1,258 6,420
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report.

Palm Beach County
As described in the 2014 Navigation Discipline Report (Appendix 4.1.3‐C), the direct economic value of the
marine industry in Palm Beach County was determined by updating the economic analysis performed by
the State of Florida in 2011. The state’s study was updated from the base year of 2006, when the original
study for Palm Beach County was performed, to reflect the total value of the industry in December 2013.
The direct economic value of the marine industry associated with the Loxahatchee River includes all
marine‐related spending by the individuals and businesses utilizing the waterway (AMEC 2014a).
The total value of the marine industry in Palm Beach County is $1,716.7 million, with $943.1 million in
direct sales, $219.4 million in indirect benefits, and $554.2 million in induced benefits (Table 4.1.3‐6).
Direct spending in the marine industry supports 4,753 jobs and $182.7 million in personal income.
Additionally, the total spending associated with the marine industry, including direct, indirect, and
induced effects, supports 11,865 jobs and $494.8 million in personal income (Table 4.1.3‐6)
(AMEC 2014a).

Table 4.1.3-6 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Palm Beach County

Original 2006 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures
Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total
Business Volume
(in millions)
$1,311.9 $305.2 $771.0 $2,388.2 $943.1 $219.4 $554.2 $1,716.7
Personal Income
(in millions)
$254.2 $122.8 $311.3 $688.3 $182.7 $88.3 $223.8 $494.8
Employment 6,612 2,533 7,360 16,505 4,753 1,821 5,291 11,865
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report.

The Loxahatchee River represents approximately 23.2 percent of the marine activity in Palm Beach
County, excluding revenue from port activities. Because the economic activity associated with the
Loxahatchee River is located in Palm Beach County, the total economic value of this river is equivalent to
23.2 percent of the economic value of the marine industry in Palm Beach County, or $398.6 million. This
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-29 September 2014

total value is comprised of $219.0 million in direct expenditures, $50.9 million in indirect effects, and
$128.7 million in induced effects. This activity supports 2,755 jobs and $114.9 million in personal income
(Table 4.1.3‐7) (AMEC 2014a).

Table 4.1.3-7 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the
Loxahatchee River
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Business Volume (in millions) $219.0 $50.9 $128.7 $398.6
Personal Income (in millions) $42.4 $20.5 $52.0 $114.9
Employment 1,104 423 1,228 2,755
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report.

Broward County
As noted in Section 3.2.4.1 of the 2014 Navigation Discipline Report, the direct economic value of the
marine industry in Broward County was determined by updating the economic analysis performed by
the State of Florida in 2011. The state updated the study from the base year of 2007, the year of the
original study for Broward County, to reflect the total value of the industry in December 2013. The direct
economic value of the marine industry associated with the New River includes all marine‐related
spending by the individuals and businesses utilizing the waterway (AMEC 2014a).
The total value of the marine industry in Broward County is $5,268.0 million, with $3,748.3 million in direct
sales, $820.2 million in indirect benefits, and $699.4 million in induced benefits (see Table 4.1.3‐8). Direct
spending in the marine industry supports 15,185 jobs and $638.7 million in personal income. Additionally,
the total spending associated with the marine industry, including direct, indirect, and induced effects,
supports 27,592 jobs and $1,186.8 million in personal income (Table 4.1.3‐8) (AMEC 2014a).

Table 4.1.3-8 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Broward County
Benefit
Original 2007 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures
Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total
Business Volume
(in millions)
$4,325.8 $946.6 $807.2 $6,079.6 $3,748.3 $820.2 $699.4 $5,268.0
Personal Income
(in millions)
$737.1 $364.2 $268.3 $1,369.6 $638.7 $315.6 $232.5 $1,186.8
Employment 17,524 7,415 6,904 31,843 15,185 6,425 5,982 27,592
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report.

The New River represents approximately 32.7 percent of the marine activity and economic value in
Broward County, excluding port activities. In addition, the total value of this river’s marine activities is
equivalent to 32.7 percent of the economic value of the marine industry in Broward County, or
$1,723.7 million. This total value is comprised of $1,226.5 million in direct expenditures, $268.4 in
indirect effects, and $228.9 million in induced effects. This activity supports 9,028 jobs and $388.3 million
in personal income (see Table 4.1.3‐9) (AMEC 2014a).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-30 September 2014


Table 4.1.3-9 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the New River
Benefit Direct Indirect Induced Total
Business Volume (in millions) $1,226.5 $268.4 $228.9 $1,723.7
Personal Income (in millions) $209.0 $103.3 $76.1 $388.3
Employment 4,968 2,102 1,957 9,028
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014. Report.

4.2 Physical Environment
This section provides information on the physical environment in the Project Study Area, with respect to
air quality, noise and vibration, farmland soils, hazardous materials and solid waste, and coastal zone
management. The Project Study Area for these resources includes the portion of central and southeast
Florida proximate to the Project, including the counties through which it passes.
4.2.1 Air Quality
This section provides the baseline regional air quality conditions within the Project Study Area. The air
quality provisions that are applicable to the Project include the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
(42 USC § 7401, et. seq.), and the NEPA requirements as specified in the CEQ’s Regulations for
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508) (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 2008a; CEQ 2005a).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-31 September 2014

Table 4.2.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Primary/Secondary
Averaging
Time Level Form
Carbon Monoxide
Primary 8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than
once per year.
1-hour 35 ppm
Lead
Primary and secondary Rolling 3 month
average
0.15/m
3, 1
Not to be exceeded.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged
over 3 years.
Primary and secondary Annual 53 ppb
2
Annual Mean.
Ozone
Primary and secondary 8-hour 0.075 ppm
2

Annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour
concentration, averaged over
3 years.
Particle Pollution
PM
2.5

Primary Annual 12 μg/m
3
Annual mean, averaged over
3 years.
Secondary Annual 15 μg/m
3
Annual mean, averaged over
3 years.
Primary and secondary 24-hour 35 μg/m
3
98th percentile, averaged
over 3 years.
PM
10

Primary and secondary 24-hour 150 μg/m
3
Not to be exceeded more than
once per year on average over
3 years.
Sulfur Dioxide
Primary 1-hour 75 ppb
4
99th percentile of 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations,
averaged over 3 years.
Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than
once per year.
Source: EPA. 2013. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/. June 11, 2013. Accessed
September 27, 2013.
ppm parts per million
ppb parts per billion
µm/m3 micrometers per cubic meter
1 Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 µg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one
year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, the 1978
standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
2 The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer
comparison to the 1-hour standard.
3 Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour
ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued
obligations under that standard (“anti-backsliding”). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of
days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1.
4 Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in that same rulemaking.
However, these standards remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in areas
designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to
attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved.

The CAAA requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR part 50) for six “criteria” pollutants considered harmful to public health and
the environment (EPA 2012b). The NAAQS identify two types of air quality standards: primary and
secondary. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-32 September 2014

"sensitive" populations, such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public
welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops,
vegetation, and buildings.
Air quality in a given location is determined by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere.
The NAAQS are established by the EPA for criteria pollutants, including: ozone (O
3
), carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO
2
), sulfur dioxide (SO
2
), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM
10
) and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM
2.5
), and lead (Pb) (40 CFR Part 50). NAAQS represent
maximum levels of background pollution that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to
protect public health and welfare. Transportation sources, particularly motor vehicles, are the primary
source of CO, NO
2
, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The State of Florida ambient air quality
standards are the same as the NAAQS (EPA 2012b). The NAAQS are presented in Table 4.2.1‐1.
The CAAA resulted in states being divided into attainment and non‐attainment areas with classifications
based upon the severity of their air quality problem. A non‐attainment area is an area that has had
measured pollutant levels that exceed the NAAQS and that has not been designated to attainment. The
CAAA established emission reduction requirements that vary by an area’s classification. The attainment
status of each of the pollutants of concern is discussed below.
All six counties within the Project Study Area for the MCO Segment, E‐W Corridor, and N‐S Corridor are
designated as attainment areas for all criteria pollutants. In addition, the three counties within the
WPB‐M Corridor (Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami‐Dade) are designated as attainment for all criteria
pollutants. The following sections describe these criteria pollutants and report air quality monitoring data
that further characterize the existing air quality conditions within the Project Study Area.
Criteria Pollutants
Air quality is affected by stationary sources (industrial development) and mobile sources (motor
vehicles). Air quality at a given location is a function of several factors, including the quantity and type of
pollutants emitted locally and regionally, and the dispersion rates of pollutants in the region. Primary
factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability, temperature,
the presence or absence of inversions, and topography. Transportation sources, particularly motor
vehicles, are the primary source of CO, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and VOCs. In the presence of heat and
sunlight, NOx and VOCs chemically react to form O
3
. NO
2
is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known
as NOx. PM and SO
2
are primarily emitted from stationary sources that burn fossil fuels, such as power
plants (FRA and FDOT 2010).
Air pollution is of concern because of its demonstrated impacts on human health. Of special concern are
the respiratory effects of these criteria pollutants and their potential toxic effects, as described below.
Ozone (O
3
): Ozone (also known as smog) is a strong oxidizer and an irritant that affects the lung tissues and
respiratory functions. Exposure to O
3
can impair the ability to perform physical exercise; can result in
symptoms such as tightness in the chest, coughing, and wheezing; and can ultimately result in asthma,
bronchitis, and emphysema. The majority of ground‐level O
3
is formed as a result of complex photochemical
reactions in the atmosphere involving VOCs, NOx, and high temperatures. The State of Florida is in
attainment for O
3
.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-33 September 2014

Carbon Monoxide (CO): CO is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of
carbon in fuel. The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease,
particularly those with angina and peripheral vascular disease. All six counties within the Project Study
Area are designated as attainment areas for CO.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
2
): NO
2
is a highly reactive gas that can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and
pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Repeated exposure to high concentrations of
NO
2
may cause acute respiratory disease in children. Because NO
2
is an important precursor in the
formation of O
3
, control of NO
2
emissions is an important component of overall pollution reduction
strategies. The two primary sources of NO
2
in the U.S. are fuel combustion and transportation. All six
counties within the Project Study Area are designated as attainment areas for NO
2
.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO
2
): SO
2
is emitted primarily from stationary source coal and oil combustion, steel mills,
refineries, pulp and paper mills, and non‐ferrous smelters. High concentrations of SO
2
may aggravate
existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease; asthmatics and those with emphysema or bronchitis are
the most sensitive to SO
2
exposure. SO
2
also contributes to acid rain, which can lead to the acidification of
lakes and streams and damage vegetation. All six counties within the Project Study Area are designated
as attainment areas for SO
2
.
Particulate Matter (PM
10
and PM
2.5
): PM is a mixture of tiny particles that vary greatly in shape, size,
and chemical composition; their composition may include metals, soot, soil, and dust. PM
10
includes
larger, coarse particles, whereas PM
2.5
includes smaller, fine particles. Sources of coarse particles include
crushing or grinding operations, and dust from paved or unpaved roads. Sources of fine particles include
all types of combustion activities (motor vehicles, power plants, wood burning) and certain industrial
processes. Exposure to PM
10
and PM
2.5
levels exceeding current standards can result in increased
lung‐ and heart‐related respiratory illness. The EPA has concluded that finer particles are more likely to
contribute to health problems than those greater than 10 microns in diameter. All six counties within the
Project Study Area are designated as attainment areas for PM
10
and PM
2.5
.
Airborne Lead (Pb): Airborne Pb can be inhaled directly or ingested indirectly by consuming lead
contaminated food, water, or non‐food materials such as dust or soil. Fetuses, infants, and children are
most sensitive to Pb exposure. Pb has been identified as a factor in high blood pressure and heart disease.
Exposure to Pb has declined dramatically in the last 10 years as a result of the reduction of Pb in gasoline
and paint, and the elimination of Pb from soldered cans. All six counties within the Project Study Area are
designated as attainment areas for Pb.
Greenhouse Gases: Greenhouse gases include water vapor, CO
2
, CH
4
(methane), N
2
O (nitrous oxide),
ground‐level O
3
, and fluorinated gases such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons. These
gases trap heat in the atmosphere and regulate the Earth’s temperature. Global climate change is a
transformation in the average weather of the Earth, which is measured by changes in temperature, wind
patterns, and precipitation. Scientific consensus has identified human‐related emission of greenhouse gases
above natural levels as a significant contributor to global climate change (NCADAC 2013).
Air Quality Monitoring
Air quality monitoring in Florida is managed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), which publishes statewide air quality and permitting regulations. The FDEP divides the state’s
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-34 September 2014

counties into six districts based on their geography within the state. Air quality monitoring data from
FDEP’s Florida's Air Quality System (FLAQS) rates air quality conditions using an air quality index (AQI)
(FDEP 2013b). The AQI utilizes a numerical scale that indicates the degree of air pollution. The qualitative
descriptors of the FLAQS AQI include: Good, Moderate, Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups, Unhealthy, Very
Unhealthy, and Hazardous. The FLAQS reported yearly AQI data, from 2005 to 2007, for monitored
pollutants in Orange, Brevard, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach Counties (FDEP 2013b). FLAQS yearly AQI data
for monitored pollutants in Indian River and Martin Counties, for this same monitoring period, were not
available.

Table 4.2.1-2 Existing Air Quality Conditions: Comparison to Federal and State Air Quality Standards

Pollutant
Carbon
Monoxide
(ppm)
Lead
(µm/m
3
)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(ppb)
Ozone
(ppb)
PM
10
(µm/m
3
)
PM
2.5

(µm/m
3
)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(ppb)
Averaging Time 8-hr 1-hr Qtrly 3-mo Annual 1-hr 1-hr 8-hr 24-hr Annual 24-hr 3-hr 1-hr
Florida standard 9 35 1.5 0.15 50 -- 120 -- 150 -- -- 500 --
NAAQS 9 35 1.5 0.15 53 100 -- 75 150 15 35 -- 75
Highest
averaging time
reading
Orange 2 15 -- -- 5 37 93 79 39 9.8 31 4 7
Brevard -- -- -- -- -- -- 83 72 23 7.6 24 4 7
St. Lucie -- -- -- -- -- -- 78 70 -- -- -- -- --
Martin -- -- -- -- -- -- 74 70 -- 9.1 30 -- --
Palm Beach -- -- -- -- 4 49 81 66 50 -- -- 4 5
Source: FDEP. 2011. Air Monitoring Report. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/air_quality/techrpt/amr11.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2013.
Notes: ppm = parts per million
µm/m3 = micrometers per cubic meter
ppb = parts per billion
-- = Monitoring Data not available

Existing air quality is monitored throughout the State of Florida. Table 4.2.1‐2 compares the highest
24‐hour readings and the annual averages recorded in 2011, where available, to the federal and state air
quality standards by county for all counties within the Project Study Area.
The MCO Segment is in Orange County, which is located within the Central Florida Interstate Air Quality
Control Region (AQCR). The Central Florida Interstate AQCR is designated as an attainment area for all
NAAQS pollutants (EPA 2012a). For Orange County and the group of monitored pollutants of CO, NO
2
,
SO
2
, O
3
, PM
10
, and PM
2.5
, an AQI descriptor of Good was reported for 73 to 81 percent of the days through
the 3‐year monitoring period (FDEP 2013b). An AQI descriptor of Moderate was reported for 17 to
25 percent of the days through the same monitoring period. AQI descriptors of Unhealthy for Sensitive
Groups and Unhealthy were reported for 2 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively, of the days
within this period.
The E‐W Corridor crosses both Brevard and Orange Counties. Like Orange County, Brevard County is also
within the Central Florida Intrastate AQCR. The annual data available indicated that for Brevard County
and the group of monitored pollutants of O
3
, PM
10
, and PM
2.5
, an AQI descriptor of Good was reported for
83 to 91 percent of the days through the 3‐year monitoring period. An AQI descriptor of Moderate was
reported for 9 to 16 percent of the days through the same monitoring period. AQI descriptors of
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-35 September 2014

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups and Unhealthy were reported for 1 percent and less than 1 percent,
respectively, of the days within this period.
The N‐S Corridor crosses portions of five counties: Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm
Beach Counties. As previously stated, Brevard County is located within the Central Florida Intrastate
AQCR. Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties are located within the Southeast Florida
Intrastate AQCR. Like the Central Florida Intrastate AQCR, the Southeast Florida Intrastate AQCR is also
designated as an attainment area for all NAAQS pollutants (EPA 2012a). The annual data available
indicated that:
 For St. Lucie County and the group of monitored pollutants of NO
2
, O
3
, and PM
2.5
, an AQI descriptor of
Good was reported for 84 to 91 percent of the days through the 3‐year monitoring period. An AQI
descriptor of Moderate was reported for 9 to 16 percent of the days through the same monitoring
period. An AQI descriptor of Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups was reported for less than 1 percent of
the days within this period.
 For Palm Beach County and the group of monitored pollutants of CO, NO
2
, SO
2
, O
3
, PM
10
, and PM
2.5
, an
AQI descriptor of Good was reported for 84 to 90 percent of the days through the 3‐year monitoring
period. An AQI descriptor of Moderate was reported for 10 to 15 percent of the days through the same
monitoring period. An AQI descriptor of Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups was reported for less than
1 percent of the days within this period.
The primary type of emissions contributing to air pollution in the Project Study Area is mobile source
emissions from combustion engines such as automobiles. Table 4.2.1‐3 shows existing mobile source
emissions for 2008, the most recent year available, for the Phase II Project area

Table 4.2.1-3 2008 Baseline Mobile Source Emissions Inventories
County
CO SO
x
NO
x
PM
10
VOC
Tons
per
Year
Tons
per
Day
Tons
per
Year
Tons
per
Day
Tons
per
Year
Tons
per
Day
Tons
per
Year
Tons
per
Day
Tons
per
Year
Tons
per
Day
Brevard 121,189 332 2,850 8.0 17,819 48.9 1,050 2.8 5,732 15.7
Indian River 29,870 82 49 0.1 3,521 9.6 212 0.6 3,480 9.5
St. Lucie 49,265 135 111 0.3 6,107 16.7 316 0.9 5,645 15.5
Martin 48,055 132 244 0.7 5,831 16.0 350 1.0 6,198 17.0
Palm Beach 234,409 642 832 2.3 26,636 73.0 1,554 4.3 25,221 69.1
Source: EPA. 2008c. The National Emissions Inventory. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html. Accessed October 14, 2013.

4.2.2 Noise and Vibration
This section presents background on fundamentals and metrics used to describe noise and vibration, an
inventory of noise‐ and vibration‐sensitive land use in the Project Study Area, and characterizes existing
noise and vibration conditions.
Noise and vibration are assessed according to guidelines specified in FRA’s High‐Speed Ground
Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual, the Federal Transit
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-36 September 2014

Administration’s (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual, and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines as defined for Florida application by FDOT for traffic
operations (FRA 2012a; FTA 2006; FDOT 2011c).
4.2.2.1 Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound or, more specifically, a sound that is undesirable because it interferes
with communication or is annoying (EPA 1976). Human response to noise can vary according to the type
and characteristics of the noise source, the distance between the noise source and the receptor, the
sensitivity of the receptor, and the time of day.
Due to the wide range of sound levels that commonly exist in the environment, sound is expressed in
decibels (dB), a unit of measure based on a logarithmic scale. A 10‐dB increase in noise level corresponds
to a doubling in perceived loudness. Sound levels are typically measured and reported according to the
A‐weighted decibel (dBA), which relates to the human response to sound at different frequencies. The
frequency of sound is measured in terms of Hertz (Hz). Humans can normally detect sounds ranging from
about 20 to 15,000 Hz. “A‐weighting” adjusts the sound level at different frequencies to approximate the
human ear’s sensitivity because sounds are not heard equally well. Humans are most sensitive to
frequencies in the 1,000 to 4,000 Hz range. A‐weighted sound levels are commonly used in measurement
of community environmental noise. Unless otherwise noted, all decibel measurements presented in this
noise analysis are dBA. Figure 4.2.2‐1 provides an example of the types of activities that result in varying
degrees of sound levels in dBA.
Environmental noise fluctuates over time, so noise levels over a stated period of time (1 hour) are
commonly represented by the “equivalent sound level,” L
eq
. The “day‐night average” sound level (L
dn
) is a
noise metric that represents the equivalent sound energy over a 24‐hour period, with a 10‐dB penalty
added to noise events occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. This penalty is intended to compensate
for generally lower background noise levels at night and the additional annoyance of nighttime noise
events. L
dn
takes into account how loud noise events are, how long they last, how often they occur, and
whether they occur during the day or night.

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


Affected Environment 4-37 September 2014


Figure 4.2.2-1 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006.

Methodology
The Project Study Area for noise extends approximately 2,500 feet from the rail corridor and the Project
Study Area for vibration extends approximately 600 feet. These study areas include all land uses that are
sensitive to noise or vibration (“sensitive receptors”).
As shown in Table 4.2.2‐1, FRA and FTA guidelines separate noise‐sensitive land uses into three
categories based on sensitivity. Category 1 land uses include areas where quiet is an essential element in
their intended purpose, such as land set aside for serenity and quiet, outdoor amphitheaters, concert
pavilions, recording studios, concert halls, and National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use.
Buildings where nighttime sensitivity to noise is important are defined as Category 2, and include homes,
hospitals, and hotels. The noise metric used for Category 2 land uses is Ldn, which describes the average
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-38 September 2014

24‐hour noise environment with emphasis given to noise generated during nighttime hours (10:00 PM
to 7:00 AM). Category 3 land uses include institutional facilities that are used primarily during daytime
and evening hours, such as schools, libraries, theaters, places of worship, and certain historical sites and
parks. The noise metric used for Category 1 and 3 land uses is the loudest‐hour L
eq
which occurs during
the times that the location is being used (such as during school hours).

Table 4.2.2-1 Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise
Land Use
Category
Noise Metric
(dBA) Description of Land Use Category
1 Outdoor Leq(h)
1
A tract of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This
category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as
outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks
with significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls.
2 Outdoor Ldn Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes
homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be
of utmost importance.
3 Outdoor Leq(h)
1
Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category
includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is important to avoid
interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading
material. Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments,
museums, campgrounds and recreational facilities can also be considered to be in
this category. Certain historical sites, parks, campgrounds, and recreational facilities
are also included.
Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006.
1 Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity

Existing noise conditions have been determined at a range of distances from existing and future noise
sources and grouped in sections with similar conditions. Noise levels from fixed‐guideway transit
sources, highway transit sources, and general ambient sources were modeled to characterize existing
noise conditions in the study area. Both highways and rail lines are considered to be linear noise sources.
As the distance from the linear sources decreases the noise level decreases until eventually existing noise
is dominated instead by other general noise sources. For this assessment, sections of the study area have
been grouped based on:
 Proximity to rail or roadway noise sources;
 Existing and proposed train operations;
 Proximity to railroad crossings where horn noise is present; and
 Whether the proposed rail line would be at‐grade or on an elevated structure.
Along the E‐W Corridor, existing noise conditions are generally dominated by roadway traffic. Along the
N‐S Corridor, existing noise conditions are generally dominated by freight rail operations. Existing noise
conditions along the N‐S Corridor have been modeled based on existing FECR freight operations in Brevard,
Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. Reference noise levels from the FTA Manual have
been used for modeling existing freight train operations including locomotives, rail cars, crossing signals,
and warning horns. Daily train operations were obtained from AAF as well as the FRA Crossing Inventory
(FRA n.d.). Based on existing conditions, freight trains are on average 8,150 feet in length, and consist of two
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-39 September 2014

locomotives (89 feet each) and 101 rail cars (79 feet each). Approximately half of the freight operations
occur at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) and half during the day (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) (FRA n.d.). Daily
operations frequency and average speed is summarized in Table 4.2.2‐2. For the average speeds provided,
an 8,150‐foot train results in a noise exposure duration ranging from 1.7 to 2.1 minutes per event for any
given receiver along the corridor.

Table 4.2.2-2 Existing Rail Operations by County (N-S Corridor)
County
Speed
(mph)
Total Daily
Trains
Daily
Trains/Hour
Total Trains
in Day
(7:00 AM to
10:00 PM)
1

Day
Trains/Hour
Total Trains
in Night
(10:00 PM
to 7:00
AM)
1

Night
Trains/Hour
Brevard (NS) 53.8 18 0.75 9 0.6 9 1.00
Indian River 54.2 18 0.75 9 0.6 9 1.00
St. Lucie 47.8 18 0.75 9 0.6 9 1.00
Martin 44.4 18 0.75 9 0.6 9 1.00
Palm Beach 54.3 18 0.75 9 0.6 9 1.00
Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013.

Existing noise exposure at highway‐rail grade crossings along the N‐S Corridor have been calculated
separately from mainline segments. Noise within ¼‐mile of crossings has been modeled based on
reference levels for locomotive horns and crossing bells. The existing noise levels at distances farther than
50 feet have been modeled based on the general approach that sound from a linear noise source decreases
by 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. The attenuation of sound from intervening building structures has also
been considered. In characterizing existing and future noise conditions, the population density has been
used to determine whether there would be intervening buildings and how much attenuation those
buildings would provide.
Affected Environment
Existing noise conditions along the MCO Segment are dominated by aircraft operations at MCO, and are
within the airport’s 65 dB DNL contour for aviation noise (GOAA 2009).
Along the E‐W Corridor, noise from SR 528 is the dominant existing noise source. Noise levels were
estimated using FRA guidelines for interstate highways, which are based on data from the FHWA highway
traffic noise model (Barry and Regan 1978). Table 4.2.2‐3 provides the estimated noise levels, in relation
to distance from the source. This table shows that existing noise levels range from 50 to 75 Ldn

depending
on proximity to the highway.

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


Affected Environment 4-40 September 2014

Table 4.2.2-3 Existing Noise Conditions from Roads (E-W Corridor)
Distance From Interstate Highways (feet)¹
,
² Existing Noise Exposure (L
dn
)
10-49 75
50-99 70
100-199 65
200-399 60
400-799 55
800 and up 50
Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006.
1 Distances do not include shielding from intervening rows of buildings.
2 Roadways with four or more lanes that permit trucks, with traffic at 60 mph.

In areas away from major roads or railroad lines, ambient noise is typically dominated by local streets
and community activities. According to the EPA, ambient noise in these areas can be related to population
density (EPA 1974). Estimates of population density within the Project Study Area were made using
census block data from the 2010 U.S. Census. The number of census blocks per population density
category and ambient noise level per county is presented in Table 4.2.2‐4.

Table 4.2.2-4 Number of Census Blocks per Population Density and Ambient Noise Level
Population Density
(people per sq. mile)
Existing Noise
Exposure
(L
dn
) Orange Brevard
Indian
River St. Lucie Martin
Palm
Beach
<1000 35 to 45 6 34 16 10 10 2
1000 – 3000 50 2 18 17 1 11 21
3000 – 10000 55 0 8 2 0 9 24
10000 – 30000 60 0 0 0 0 0 1
>30000 65 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006; USCB. 2010a. Census 2010. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 13, 2013.

Table 4.2.2‐5 presents a summary of the existing noise conditions at a distance of 50 feet from the
N‐S Corridor. This table shows that existing noise conditions range from 74 to 82 L
dn
at a distance of
50 feet from the railroad.
Phase I (the WPB‐M Corridor), as described in Section 3.1.7.2 of the 2012 EA, is within a highly developed
urban region with high ambient noise levels because of its proximity to central business districts,
highways, and the existing freight operations. Because there is an existing freight rail line and substantial
highway traffic, the existing noise levels were calculated based on the FTA Guidance Manual.
Section 3.1.7.2 of the 2012 EA states that the existing freight trains generate noise levels of 67 dBA Ldn at
50 feet from the tracks. Warning horn noise is 74 dBA Ldn at 50 feet, within ¼ mile of each at‐grade
crossing. Warning horns are the dominant noise sources near grade crossings.

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


Affected Environment 4-41 September 2014

Table 4.2.2-5 Existing Noise Conditions from Train Operations (N-S Corridor)
County Track Condition
Noise at 50 Feet
L
eq
(day) L
eq
(night) L
dn

Brevard Mainline 66.4 68.6 74.7
Crossing 73.9 76.1 82.3
Indian River Mainline 66.4 68.6 74.8
Crossing 73.9 76.1 82.3
St. Lucie Mainline 65.6 67.8 74.0
Crossing 73.8 76.0 82.1
Martin Mainline 65.1 67.4 73.5
Crossing 73.7 75.9 82.1
Palm Beach Mainline 66.4 68.7 74.8
Crossing 73.9 76.1 82.3
Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report.

4.2.2.2 Vibration
Vibration is the oscillating motion of a structure or material that can result in perceptible movement of
building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves, and rumbling sounds. Vibration may be
described in terms of the acceleration, velocity, or displacement that occurs during the oscillatory motion
(FTA 2006). For describing the human response to vibration, the vibration velocity expressed in decibels
(VdB) with a reference value of one micro‐inch per second is used. The vibration levels that commonly
exist in the environment range from approximately 40 to 100 VdB. At low amplitude, vibration may
interfere with sensitive equipment. At higher amplitude, vibration may be perceptible to humans and
cause annoyance. At very high amplitude, vibration can cause damage to susceptible buildings.
Figure 4.2.2‐2 presents typical levels of ground‐borne vibration.
Vibration that propagates into buildings can cause the floors, walls, and ceilings of a room to radiate sound
called ground‐borne noise (GBN). GBN normally is characterized as a low‐frequency ‘rumbling’ sound.
GBN is often not a concern for at‐grade transit sources and buildings with windows and doors exposed to
the transit sources because the contribution of noise from airborne paths can be more significant than
the contribution of GBN.

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


Affected Environment 4-42 September 2014


Figure 4.2.2-2 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006.

Figure 4.2.2‐3 depicts the basic concept of ground‐borne vibration and GBN for a rail system. When train
wheels roll on rails, the forces between the wheels and the rails generate vibration that is transmitted
through the rails, rail bed, and soils into building structures. How efficiently vibration propagates into
adjacent buildings is dependent upon the operating conditions and type of train, the track design, the
geologic characteristics of the surrounding soil, and the construction of the building.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-43 September 2014


Figure 4.2.2-3 Propagation of Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise into Buildings

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006.

Methodology
Similar to noise, FRA and FTA separate vibration‐sensitive land use into three categories based on the
sensitivity to vibration (FTA 2006). Vibration Category 1 – High Sensitivity include those buildings where
vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including levels that may be well below
those associated with human annoyance. Examples of Category 1 buildings are vibration‐sensitive
research and manufacturing, hospitals with vibration‐sensitive equipment, and university research
operations (concert halls and other special‐use facilities are covered under a special designation). The
vibration limits associated with these buildings are based on acceptable vibration for moderately
vibration‐sensitive equipment with vibration isolation systems. Vibration Category 2 – Residential covers
all residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Vibration
Category 3 – Institutional includes land uses that do not have vibration‐sensitive equipment, but still have
the potential for activity interference, such as schools, churches, and quiet offices.
There are also buildings that can be very sensitive to vibration and noise but do not fit into any of the
three categories such as concert halls, TV and recording studios, and theaters. These buildings have their
own impact criteria and are treated separately from the categories described above.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-44 September 2014

Existing vibration levels were based on FTA generalized curves for ground‐borne vibration versus
distance from the track (see Figure 4.2.2‐4), providing an estimate of existing vibration levels from freight
trains and rubber‐tired vehicles such as buses and trucks. These general curves estimate ground vibration
outside buildings and do not take into account effects from different soil types or building construction.
Affected Environment
Existing vibration conditions in the study area are dominated by vehicular sources on the E‐W Corridor
(primarily SR 528) and by existing freight operations on the N‐S Corridor and on the WPB‐Miami Corridor.
The FTA generalized vibration curves, presented in Figure 4.2.2‐4, show that the existing vibration level
from a freight train at 50 mph is estimated to be 84 VdB at 50 feet. A rubber‐tired vehicle traveling at 30 mph,
such as a bus or truck, generates substantially less vibration with an estimated level of 63 VdB.
Figure 4.2.2-4 Generalized Vibration Curves for Trains and Rubber-Tired Vehicles

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


Affected Environment 4-45 September 2014

4.2.3 Farmland Soils
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) limits the conversion of significant agricultural lands to
non‐agricultural uses as a result of federal actions (7 USC § 4201, et seq.). The determination of whether
or not farmlands are subject to FPPA requirements is based on soil type; the land does not have to be
actively used for agriculture. The FPPA regulates four types of farmland soils:
 Prime Farmland;
 Unique Farmland;
 Farmland of Statewide Importance; and
 Farmland of Local Importance.
Farmland subject to FPPA requirements can be pastureland, forested, or other land types, but not open
water or developed urban or transportation areas.
Prime farmland is defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) as “land that has the best combination of physical and chemical
characteristics” for agriculture. This includes land with these characteristics used for livestock or timber
production but not land that is already urbanized or used for water storage. Unique farmland is defined
as “land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific high‐value food and fiber crops,”
with such crops defined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Farmland of statewide or local importance is
farmland other than prime or unique farmland that “is used for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage
or oilseed crops” (USDA 2012).
4.2.3.1 Methodology
Farmlands with any level of designation by the NRCS were identified and mapped relative to the Project
(Figure 4.2.3‐1) (USDA 2013).
4.2.3.2 Affected Environment
The most recent farmland soils inventory for Florida, completed in 2002, identified 1,041,600 acres of
prime farmland. Between 2002 and 2007 approximately 8,100 acres of this prime rural land was
converted to developed land (Farmland Information Center 2014).
MCO Segment
All lands within the MCO Segment have been developed or are utilized for nonagricultural purposes. No
prime farmland or unique farmland is present.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-46 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-47 September 2014

East-West Corridor
The E‐W Corridor is within Orange and Brevard Counties, and crosses areas that contain citrus, forage,
and vegetable agricultural operations. Table 4.2.3‐1 indicates the active farmland located within the
E‐W Corridor. Prime farmland soils are located along the E‐W Corridor in the vicinity of I‐95 and between
I‐95 and the FECR Corridor. A total of 19.3 acres of farmland is within the Alternative A corridor and
31.8 acres of unique farmland is located within the Alternatives C and E corridors.

Table 4.2.3-1 Prime and Unique Farmland Soils within the E-W Corridor
Farmland Characteristics Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E
Total Acres Within Corridor 260.9 434.8 431.6
Total Acres of Prime and Unique Farmland Soils 19.3 31.8 31.8
Percentage of Farmland in County within Corridor <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Source: AAF and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type
Projects. June 7, 2013. Report.

North-South Corridor
The N‐S Corridor is located entirely within the existing FECR Corridor, which is developed for rail
infrastructure and does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local
importance.
West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor
The WPB‐M Corridor is located entirely within the existing FECR Corridor, which is developed for rail
infrastructure and does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local
importance
4.2.4 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal
This section describes potential and confirmed sources of subsurface contamination and/or waste
materials within the Project Study Area.
4.2.4.1 Methodology
A contamination screening evaluation was performed in general accordance with Part 2, Chapter 22 of
the FDOT Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Guidelines Manual, and included a records search
and review of historical aerials (FDOT 2008). Field reconnaissance was also conducted for sites rated
medium‐ and high‐risk (as defined by the PD&E Guidelines Manual) in close proximity to the Project Study
Area. The purpose of the survey was to identify areas along the proposed corridor where contamination
of soil and/or groundwater by petroleum or hazardous materials has occurred, where contamination of
these same materials may exist, and where the potential for contamination exists due to past and present
land use.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-48 September 2014

Evaluation Rating
Risk ratings were assigned to every contamination site identified within the EDM reports. Sites were
identified as “No,” “Low,” “Medium,” or “High” risk indicating the degree for potential contamination
related impacts to the Project. Risk ratings were assigned according to the following criteria as outlined
in the FDOT PD&E Guidelines:
 No ‐ A review of information in the EDM report finds there is nothing to indicate contamination
would be a problem. It is possible that contaminants were handled on the property; however, all
information indicates that contamination problems should not be expected. An example of an
operation that may receive this rating is a wholesale or retail outlet that handles hazardous
materials in sealed containers that are never opened while at this facility, such as cans of spray
paint at a “drug store.”
 Low ‐ The former or current operation has a hazardous waste generator identification number,
or deals with hazardous materials; however, based on information available in the EDM report,
there is no reason to believe there would be any involvement with contamination in relation to
the Project. This is the lowest possible rating a gasoline station operating within current
regulations can receive. This rating could also apply to a retail store that blends paint.
 Medium ‐ Indications of, known soil and/or water contamination however available
documentation indicates that the problem does not need remediation, is being remediated (air
stripping of the groundwater, etc.), or that continued monitoring is required. This rating
expresses the degree of concern for potential contamination problems. Known problems may not
necessarily present a high cause for concern if corrective actions are either underway or
complete. The actions may not have an adverse impact on the Project.
 High ‐ Potential for contamination. Properties previously used as gasoline stations and which
have not been evaluated or assessed would probably receive this rating.
Records Search
The records search conducted for this evaluation included review of regulatory agencies’ enforcement
and permitting records database information for the Project Study Area prepared by Environmental Data
Management, Inc. (EDM), and supplemental records searches for select sites through the FDEP online
database Document Management System “OCULUS.” EDM’s search reviewed and summarized numerous
databases that are generally consistent with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1527‐05
Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.
The EDM records search radius was established at a one‐quarter‐mile width to encompass all alternative
alignments under consideration. In addition, the detailed screening area was set at 500 feet from the
approximately centerline of the proposed E‐W Corridor alternatives and the boundary of the
MCO Segment to provide coverage of the alternatives.
For the N‐S Corridor, the Project will remain within the existing FECR Corridor and no land acquisition
will be required. EDM performed a one‐eighth‐mile wide records search for this portion of the Project.
EDM database search results for all sites included within this search radius were reviewed and rated as
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-49 September 2014

part of this evaluation. A buffer of 200 feet on each side of the N‐S Corridor centerline defined the detailed
screening area.
A historical file and record review through the FDEP online database Document Management System
“OCULUS” was also conducted to further assess if environmental consequences have been recorded on
select sites. Individual sites were selected for additional research based on risk rating, to supplement
information presented in the EDM data report and/or due to the proximity of the site to the Project. All
sites ranked “High” and “Medium” (as defined below) and located within the detailed screening areas of
500 feet for the E‐W Corridor and the MCO Segment, and 200 feet for the N‐S Corridor were further
researched on OCULUS.
Historical Aerial Photography Review
Historical aerial images of the Project Study Area and adjacent properties were reviewed to identify
potentially contaminated sites that may not be listed in the databases reviewed in the records search.
Historical aerials are useful in identifying dump sites, landfills, junk yards, disturbed vegetation, and other
uncharacteristic land uses.
East-West Corridor
For each aerial image available along the E‐W Corridor, an area within approximately 500 feet of the
alternative alignments was examined. The aerial images were reviewed to identify previously existing
land uses or conditions that were not identified during the records search and could indicate potentially
contaminated sites.
North-South Corridor
The review of environmental documents included the Final Contamination Screening Evaluation Report,
FECR Amtrak Passenger Rail Study (Amtrak EA) (FRA and FDOT 2010). The Amtrak EA included a review
of historical aerials along the FECR Corridor that included the proposed N‐S Corridor for the Project. No
historical concerns were identified within the report. Therefore, the study for this EIS focused on records
research and field reconnaissance.
Field Reconnaissance
From July 8 through 12, 2013, AAF conducted field reconnaissance on properties adjacent to the
E‐W Corridor and the N‐S Corridor. The purpose of the field reconnaissance was to visually assess sites
in close proximity to the Project Study Area and identify sites that, based on the records search and field
observation, could potentially impact the human environment (if not mitigated during construction) due
to the presence of contaminated soil, groundwater, or other materials.
The EDM report for the GOAA property, through which the MCO Segment passes, identified 161 records
for potentially contaminated sites. A majority of the records were related to minor releases associated
with fueling activities at the airport. Since site location data presented in the EDM data report was not
detailed enough to identify the specific locations of the releases on the property, and site access is limited
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-50 September 2014

within the active airport, GOAA personnel were contacted to ascertain information regarding potentially
contaminated sites within the MCO Segment.
Along the E‐W Corridor, five high‐risk and one medium‐risk rated sites within approximately 500 feet of
the corridor were visited.
Along the N‐S Corridor, 215 high‐risk and 48 medium‐risk rated sites adjacent to the corridor were
inspected. The site inspections focused primarily on sites within approximately 200 feet of the corridor
centerline or 150 feet from the FEC right‐of‐way. However, several sites outside the 200‐foot detailed
survey boundary were visited. Field inspections included a walk‐through of each site, looking for
indications of possible soil contamination, stressed or dead vegetation, or refuse that may indicate the
presence of pollutants, toxic, or hazardous materials.
4.2.4.2 Affected Environment
The following sections provide an overview of the existing conditions and land use within the Project
Study Area, as it relates to evaluation of potentially contaminated sites. Land use maps are provided in
Appendix 4.1.1‐A.
A total of 1,365 potentially contaminated sites were identified within the evaluation area. Table 4.2.4‐1
summarizes the number of sites evaluated and the risk ratings for each site.

Table 4.2.4-1 Summary of Risk Ratings for Potentially Contaminated Sites
Risk Rating
MCO Segment
(Number)
E-W Corridor
(Number)
N-S Corridor
(Number)
WPB-M Corridor)
(Number)
Less than
500 ft.
Greater
than 500 ft.
Less than
500 ft.
Greater
than 500 ft.
Less than
200 ft.
Greater
than 200 ft. Less than 150 ft.
High 1 43 3 3 101 237 14
Medium 1 3 0 2 23 56 13
Low 14 38 4 4 114 314 199
No 11 50 9 6 99 202 0
Total 27 134 16 15 337 809 226

Appendix 4.2.4‐A includes a summary table of all potentially contaminated sites evaluated and risk
ratings, aerial figures illustrating the location of all potentially contaminated sites, detailed site
descriptions for sites that were researched through the FDEP OCULUS database and/or included in the
field reconnaissance effort and copies of the EDM database reports for the Project Study Area.
MCO Segment
The MCO Segment enters the GOAA property from the north and extends to the south, between the
existing terminals. The proposed VMF is planned for an undeveloped portion of land within the southern
portion of the MCO property. As shown in Table 4.2.4‐1, 27 potentially contaminated sites occur within
500 feet of the MCO Segment.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-51 September 2014

East-West Corridor
Historical aerial images were reviewed for the entire 32.5‐mile E‐W Corridor. However, features of
interest were only identified along approximately 26 miles of the SR 528 corridor west of the St. Johns
River. Fifteen features of interest from historical aerial images were identified. Of the 15 features of
interest identified, only one was noted as warranting further investigation due to potential mining or
forestry activities observed in a 1970 image. As shown in Table 4.2.4‐1, 16 potentially contaminated sites
occur within 500 feet of the E‐W Corridor. As discussed in Section 4.4.4, Public Health and Safety, The
E‐W Corridor will bisect the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Pinecastle Jeep Range. The former range
is a 12,483‐acre site located near Orlando International Airport.
North-South Corridor
The N‐S Corridor is an approximately 100‐foot wide existing active railroad. Freight and/or passenger
service has used this alignment throughout its 100‐year plus history. The N‐S Corridor extends from
Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida and traverses established and heavily developed areas.
Neighborhoods and communities have evolved in conjunction with the rail line. Surrounding land uses
include undeveloped, residential, commercial, and light industrial properties. As shown in Table 4.2.4‐1,
337 potentially contaminated sites occur within 200 feet of the N‐S Corridor.
West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor
The Project Study Area traverses established and heavily developed areas of Palm Beach, Broward, and
Miami‐Dade Counties, and the potential presence of contaminated sites was previously evaluated in
Section 3.3.6 of the 2012 EA. Land uses transition from central business district urban, to medium density
residential, to industrial and commercial uses. Little vacant and/or undeveloped land exists along the
corridor. Due to the age of the existing corridor, established neighborhoods and communities have
evolved in conjunction with the corridor.
4.2.5 Coastal Zone Management
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 USC § 1451, et seq., was passed in 1972 as guidance for the
management of coastal resources. As part of the CZMA, Congress provided coastal states with incentives to
encourage the development and implementation of comprehensive coastal management programs to
balance resource protection with economic growth and development within the coastal zone.
The CZMA requires states to consider areas within the coastal zone that may warrant special
consideration due to their environmental, cultural, economic, or recreational value. In response to this
requirement, Florida designated Areas of Special Management (ASM) that consist of four existing state
programs: Areas of Critical State Concern (ACSC), Aquatic Preserves System, Surface Water Improvement
and Management (SWIM), and Beach and Inlet Management Areas.
Chapter 380.05 of the Florida Statutes (FS) established the ACSC program and authorized the Department
of Economic Opportunity, the designated state land planning agency, to recommend specific areas of
concern to the Administration Commission, which includes the Governor and the Cabinet, for adoption as
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-52 September 2014

ACSC. No ACSCs occur within the Project Study Area. The FDEP Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed
Areas (CAMA) oversees the management of designated aquatic preserves in Florida.
The FDEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS) is responsible for implementing the Beach
and Shore Preservation Act. On May 21, 2008, FDEP adopted the Strategic Beach Management Plan to
address specific strategies for constructive actions at critically eroded beaches and inlets, known as
Beach and Inlet Management Areas. Approximately 108 miles of the Florida Atlantic coastline are
actively managed to reduce and minimize beach, shoreline, and inlet erosion, including beach and dune
restoration, beach nourishment, feeder beaches or inlet sand bypassing, and other actions to mitigate
the erosive effects of inlets.
The Project is located entirely within the designated Florida Coastal Zone. Coastal and Aquatic Managed
Areas which are located within or in the vicinity of the Project are shown on Figure 4.2.5‐1 and include:
 Banana River Aquatic Preserve;
 Indian River – Malabar to Vero Beach Aquatic Preserve;
 Indian River – Vero Beach to Fort Pierce Aquatic Preserve;
 Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve; and
 Loxahatchee River – Lake Worth Creek.
Beach and Inlet Management Areas within and adjacent to the Project Study Area include Brevard County
Beach, Indian River County Sector Seven, Fort Pierce Shore Protection Project, St. Lucie Inlet
Management, Jupiter Beach Restoration, and Miami Beach Restoration.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-53 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-54 September 2014

4.3 Natural Environment
This section provides a description of the existing natural resources within the Project Study Area,
including water resources, wild and scenic rivers, wetlands, floodplains, biological resources and natural
ecological systems, and threatened and endangered species.
As stated in Chapter 1, Introduction, the USACE jurisdiction of authority includes Sections 10 and 14 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The geographic
jurisdiction of the RHA includes all navigable waters of the United States which are defined (33 CFR Part
329) as, “those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have
been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.” This
jurisdiction extends seaward to include all ocean waters within a zone three nautical miles from the coast
line (the “territorial seas”). Limited authorities extend across the outer continental shelf for artificial
islands, installations and other devices (see 43 U.S.C. 1333 (e)).
The CWA uses the term “navigable waters” which is defined (Section 502(7)) as “waters of the United
States, including the territorial seas.” Thus, Section 404 jurisdiction is defined as encompassing Section
10 waters plus their tributaries and adjacent wetlands and isolated waters where the use, degradation,
or destruction of such waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce.
Section 404 of the CWA (33 CFR 320‐332) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. The CWA requires compliance with the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. Part 230, developed jointly by the EPA and USACE. CWA compliance requires a
sequential evaluation process which includes verification that all jurisdictional wetland impacts have been
avoided to the greatest extent practicable, unavoidable impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent
practicable, and unavoidable impacts have been mitigated in the form of wetlands creation, restoration,
enhancement or preservation. AAF has not yet submitted its application for Section 404 authorization to
USACE. USACE will complete its Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines analysis and public interest review in its
record of decision following publication of the Final EIS.
Section 14 of the RHA states any proposed modification to an existing USACE projects (either federally or
locally maintained) that go beyond those modifications required for normal Operation and Maintenance
require approval under 33 USC 408. 33 USC 408 also states that there shall be no temporary or permanent
alteration, occupation, or use of any public works including but not limited to levees, sea walls, bulkheads,
jetties, and dikes for any purpose without the permission of the Secretary of the Army. Under the terms
of 33 USC 408, any proposed modification requires a determination by the Secretary of the Army that
such proposed alteration or permanent occupation or use of a Federal project is not injurious to the public
interest and will not impair the usefulness of such work. The authority to make this determination and to
approve modifications to Federal works under 33 USC 408 has been delegated to the Chief of Engineers.
Table 4.3.4‐3 provides a full list of federal projects which could be impacted by the proposed action.
4.3.1 Water Resources
Water resources analyzed within the Project Study Area include surface water and groundwater, as well
as navigable waters. The quality and availability of surface and groundwater are addressed. Surface water
resources comprise lakes, rivers, and streams and are important for ecological, economic, recreational,
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-55 September 2014

aesthetic, and human health reasons. Groundwater comprises the subsurface hydrologic resources of the
physical environment and is an essential resource in many areas; groundwater is commonly used for
potable water consumption, agricultural irrigation, and industrial applications. Groundwater properties
are often described in terms of depth to aquifer, aquifer or well capacity, water quality, and surrounding
geologic composition.
Surface water resources are lakes, rivers, and streams, and are important for ecological, economic,
recreational, aesthetic, and human health reasons. Federal and state agencies classify water bodies based
upon their characteristics, function, and use. Water quality is also monitored and classifications are assigned
to water bodies. Several of these classifications relevant to the Project Study Area are described below.
 Outstanding Florida Waters – Chapter 62‐302, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), defines
Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs), which include aquatic preserves, state reserves/preserves, and
National Wild and Scenic River Systems. OFWs are waters designated worthy of special protection
because of their natural attributes. This special designation is applied to certain waters, and is
intended to protect and maintain existing acceptable quality standards (FDEP 2012b).
 Impaired Water Bodies – Chapter 62‐303 of the FAC defines the verified impaired water bodies
within Florida (FDEP 2012a and 2012c). Impairments to surface waters may include bacteria (in
shellfish), copper, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliforms, mercury (in fish tissue), and nutrients.
4.3.1.1 Methodology
Available GIS information was used to identify and characterize waterways within the Project Study Area.
Navigation conditions were determined using existing published information.
The Source Water Assessment and Protection Program (SWAPP) GIS data layer is maintained by FDEP
(FDEP 2008). The data layer represents buffered assessment areas around the drinking water supply
wells for the following types of wells: non‐community wells (500‐foot radius buffer of the well);
community wells serving populations < 1,000 persons (1,000‐foot radius buffer of the well); and
community wells serving populations > 1,000 persons (1,000‐foot radius buffer of the well plus a 5‐year
groundwater travel time). The SWAPPs within a 10‐mile radius of Project Study Area are mapped in
Figure 4.3.1‐2. The Project would intersect SWAPP zones in all six counties.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-56 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-57 September 2014

4.3.1.2 Affected Environment
This section describes the existing surface waters, groundwater, and navigation environment within the
Project Study Area.
Surface Water
One surface water, Boggy Creek, is within the MCO Segment.
The E‐W Corridor crosses five surface waters (Figure 4.3.1‐3), one of which is classified as navigable, and
two of which are classified as OFW (Table 4.3.1‐1). The St. Johns River is considered navigable by USCG.

Table 4.3.1-1 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in the MCO Segment and
E-W Corridor
County Name of Waterbody Impaired Source of Impairment
FDEP
Classification
1

Orange Boggy Creek Yes Fecal Coliform 3F
Orange Econlockhatchee River Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Fecal Coliform 3F
2

Orange Second Creek
Orange Taylors Creek
Orange St. Johns River Above Puzzle
Lake (South Segment)
Yes Fecal Coliform, Dissolved Oxygen, Mercury (in
fish tissue)
3F
2,3

Brevard
1 Florida's waterbody classifications are defined as:
1= Potable water supplies
2= Shellfish propagation or harvesting
3F= Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in fresh water
3M= Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in marine water
4= Agricultural water supplies
5 = Navigation, utility, and industrial use
2 Outstanding Florida Waters
3 Navigable Waters

As outlined in Table 4.3.1‐2, the N‐S Corridor between Cocoa and West Palm Beach crosses 23 surface
waters (Figure 4.3.1‐4), four of which are classified as navigable, and two of which are classified as OFW.
The water bodies north of West Palm Beach that are considered navigable waters are Crane Creek,
St. Sebastian River above Indian River, North Coastal‐St. Lucie/Loxahatchee, and the St. Lucie Estuary.
Impairments to these surface waters includes bacteria (in shellfish), copper, dissolved oxygen, fecal
coliforms, mercury (in fish tissue), and nutrients.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-58 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-59 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-60 September 2014

Table 4.3.1-2 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in the N-S Corridor,
Cocoa to West Palm Beach
County Name of Waterbody Impaired Source of Impairment
FDEP
Classification
1

Brevard Horse Creek Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Nutrients (historic chlorophyll-A) 3M
Brevard Eau Gallie River Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients
(chlorophyll-A), Copper
3M
Brevard Indian River Above Melbourne
Causeway
Yes Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M
Brevard Crane Creek Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients
(chlorophyll-A), Copper
3M
5

Brevard Palm Bay And Turkey Creek
(Estuarine Segment)
Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Nutrients (historic chlorophyll-A) 3M
Brevard Goat Creek (Marine Segment) Yes Mercury (in Fish tissue), Nutrients (historic chlorophyll-A) 2
4

Brevard St. Sebastian River Above
Indian River
Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Dissolved Oxygen 3M
5

Indian River
Indian River South Prong St. Sebastian
River (Estuarine Segment)
Yes Mercury (in fish tissue), Dissolved Oxygen (BOD), Nutrients
(Chlorophyll-A)
3M
Indian River North Canal Yes Fecal Coliform, Dissolved Oxygen 3F
Indian River Main Canal Yes Fecal Coliform, Dissolved Oxygen (BOD) 3F
Indian River South Canal Yes Fecal Coliform 3F
St Lucie North Coastal
(St. Lucie/Loxahatchee)
Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A), Dissolved Oxygen, Bacteria (in
Shellfish)
3M
5

St Lucie Moore Creek Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A) 3M
Martin South Indian River Yes Fecal Coliform, Copper, Bacteria (in Shellfish) 2
Martin Warner Creek
2
Yes Fecal Coliform, Copper, Bacteria (in shellfish) 2,3M
Martin Unnamed Creek
2
Yes Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M
Martin St. Lucie Estuary Yes Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M
5

Martin Tributary to Manatee Creek 1
3
Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A), Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M
Martin Tributary to Manatee Creek 2
3
Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A), Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M
Martin Unnamed Tributary 1
3
Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A), Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M
Martin Unnamed Tributary 2
3
Yes Nutrients (chlorophyll-A), Copper, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M
Martin Loxahatchee River Yes Nutrients (historic chlorophyll-A), Mercury (in fish tissue),
Bacteria (in shellfish)
3M
4,5

Palm Beach
Palm Beach Earman River (Palm Beach
Stations / D-Canals)
Yes Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients (chlorophyll-A) 3F
1 Florida's waterbody classifications are defined as:
1 = Potable water supplies
2 = Shellfish propagation or harvesting
3F = Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in fresh water
3M = Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in marine water
4 = Agricultural water supplies
5 = Navigation, utility, and industrial use
2 Mapped as part of South Indian River in FDEP's Verified Impaired Florida Waters Database
3 Mapped as part of Manatee Pocket in FDEP's Verified Impaired Florida Waters Database
4 Outstanding Florida Waters
5 Navigable Waters

The WPB‐M Corridor crosses 15 surface waters (Figure 4.3.1‐5), four of which are classified as navigable,
and one of which is classified as OFW (Table 4.3.1‐3). The water bodies south of West Palm Beach that
are considered navigable waters are the Hillsboro Canal (identified by USCG as navigable), North Fork of
the Middle River, South Fork of the Middle River, and the Oleta River. The Oleta River is also designated
as an OFW. Impairments to these surface waters includes bacteria (in shellfish), copper, dissolved oxygen,
fecal coliforms, mercury (in fish tissue), and nutrients.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-61 September 2014



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


Affected Environment 4-62 September 2014

Table 4.3.1-3 Surface Waters Classifications and Impairments in WPB-M Corridor,
West Palm Beach to Miami
County Name of Waterbody Impaired Source of Impairment
FDEP
Classification
1

Palm Beach West Palm Beach Canal (C-51) Yes Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients
(chlorophyll A)
3F
Palm Beach Boynton Beach Canal Yes Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients
(chlorophyll-A)
3F
Palm Beach Hillsboro Canal Yes Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients
(chlorophyll-A)
3F
3

Palm Beach Hidden Valley Canal -
Broward Cypress Creek Canal -
Broward North Fork of the Middle River No NA 3M
Broward South Fork of the Middle River No NA 3M
Broward New River -
Broward Tarpon River -
Broward Dania Cutoff Canal -
Miami-Dade Oleta River Yes Fecal Coliform, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3M
2

Miami-Dade Snake Creek/Royal Glades Canal -
Miami-Dade Arch Creek Yes Fecal Coliform, Mercury (in fish tissue) 3F
Miami-Dade Biscayne Park Canal -
Miami-Dade Little River -
Note: Section 3.1.2.1 of the 2012 EA did not provide information on impairments or classifications of waters where no
construction was proposed.
1 Florida's water body classifications are defined as:
1 = Potable water supplies
2 = Shellfish propagation or harvesting
3F = Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in fresh water
3M = Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife in marine water
4 = Agricultural water supplies
5 = Navigation, utility, and industrial use
2 Outstanding Florida Waters
3 Navigable Waters

Groundwater
The Florida Safe Drinking Water Act (Fla. Stat. §§ 403.850 – 403.8911) ensures that the existing and
potential drinking water resources of the state remain free from harmful quantities of contaminants.
Local officials of each county and municipality have been encouraged to handle pollution problems within
their respective jurisdictions on a cooperative basis with the state. Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin,
and Palm Beach Counties have policies and regulations, in the form of wellfield protection ordinances, to
protect drinking water supplies from contamination. Wellfield protection criteria are found in Article 14,
Chapter B of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (Palm Beach County, Florida 1992);
Martin County Ordinance 428 (Martin County, Florida 2012); Chapter VI, Section 6.03.00 of the St. Lucie
Land Development Code (St. Lucie County, Florida 2009); Code of Ordinances County of Indian River Land
Development Regulations Chapter 931 (Indian River County, Florida 2012); Chapter 62, Article X,
Division 2, and Section 62‐3631 of the Brevard County Natural Resource Ordinances (Brevard County,
Florida 2012). Orange County does not have a wellfield protection ordinance; however, they follow FDEP
regulations (Chapter 62‐521, FAC) (Mercado 2013).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-63 September 2014

The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. § 300f) requires protection of sole source aquifers (SSAs).
The Project Study Area was overlain on SSA GIS polygon data to determine where there were areas of
overlap (EPA 2011a). The results are presented in Table 4.3.1‐4. There is no overlap with a SSA in four of
the counties. There is overlap in Orange County within the westernmost 20 miles of the Project Study
Area and in Palm Beach County for the Biscayne aquifer SSA streamflow and recharge zone.
MCO Segment
Wells in the vicinity of the MCO Segment were identified using the Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
(EDR) Radius Map Report. The EDR report indicated nine wells listed on the Florida Wells database
within 1 mile of the MCO Segment (EDR 2013). Reportedly, four wells are located within 0.25 mile, two
wells within 0.5 mile, and one well within 1 mile. The water use of these wells is City of Orlando public
water supply (one), private (seven), and monitoring (one).

Table 4.3.1-4 Sole Source Aquifer Protection Zones in the Project Study Area
County
Sole Source
Aquifer(s) Name of Aquifer(s)/Protection Zone
Orange Y Biscayne aquifer SSA streamflow and recharge source zones
Brevard N
Indian River N
St. Lucie N
Martin N
Palm Beach (North from the Station
in West Palm Beach)
Y Biscayne aquifer SSA streamflow and recharge source zones
Source: EPA. 2011a. Office of Water’s 2011 SSA Database. http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp. Accessed
September 27, 2013.

East-West Corridor
There are three hydrostratigraphic units in Orange County. These include the surficial aquifer system,
intermediate aquifer system/confining unit, and the Floridan aquifer system. The Biscayne aquifer is
protected in Orange County as SSA streamflow and recharge source zones (Lane and Scott 1980; Lichtler
et al. 1968; Wilson, W. et al. 1987; Florida Sinkhole Research Institute 1989).
North-South Corridor
Brevard County is underlain by three hydrostratigraphic units. These units include the unconfined
surficial aquifer system, intermediate aquifer system/confining unit, and the confined Floridan aquifer
system. This is not an area typical of karst terrain. A large percentage of the groundwater used in Brevard
County comes from the Floridan aquifer system. The Floridan aquifer system yields large quantities of
water due to the high permeability of the carbonates. The Ocala Limestone yields the highest amounts of
water in the Brevard County area (Brown, D.W., et al. 1962; Lane and Scott 1980; Mercado 2013).
There are three hydrostratigraphic units in Indian River County. These include: the surficial aquifer
system, intermediate confining unit, and the Floridan aquifer system (Crane, Hughes, and Snell 1975;
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-64 September 2014

Schiner, Laughlin, and Toth 1988; Spencer and Lane 1995; Toth and Huang 1998). This area is mostly
devoid of karst terrain. The surficial aquifer system is a major source of drinking water in Indian River
County. The Floridan aquifer system exists under artesian conditions in Indian River County. However, it
is not generally a major source of potable water in the area due to high chloride concentrations (Marella
1999; Miller 1990).
There are three hydrostratigraphic units in St. Lucie County. These include: the surficial aquifer system,
intermediate confining unit, and the Floridan aquifer system. This area is essentially devoid of karst
terrain. The surficial aquifer system is the primary source of fresh water in St. Lucie County. The water
quality of the surficial aquifer system is generally good. Chloride concentrations in surficial aquifer
groundwater average less than 100 milligrams per liter (Bearden 1972; Hicks, Marting, and Stodghill
1988). The Floridan aquifer exists under artesian conditions in St. Lucie County. It is not generally a major
source of potable water in the area due to high chloride concentrations (Bearden 1972; Hicks 1988;
Florida Geological Survey 2012; Bond 1987).
There are three hydrostratigraphic units in Martin County. These include the surficial aquifer system,
intermediate aquifer system/confining unit, and the Floridan aquifer system. This is not an area typical
of karst terrain. The surficial aquifer system, commonly referred to as the Coastal aquifer or the shallow
aquifer, is the primary source of fresh water in Martin County. The surficial aquifer system generally
ranges from 150 to 200 feet below mean sea level (msl) in eastern Martin County. The surficial aquifer
system is primarily recharged by rainfall. The Floridan aquifer exists under artesian conditions in Martin
County. It is highly saline with elevated chloride concentrations.
Palm Beach County contains three hydrostratigraphic units within the Project Study Area. These include
the surficial aquifer system, intermediate aquifer system/confining unit, and the Floridan aquifer system.
The Biscayne aquifer is protected in Palm Beach County as a SSA streamflow and recharge source zones.
The surficial aquifer system is the primary source of fresh water in Palm Beach County. The Floridan
aquifer system is not a source of potable water due to salinity.
4.3.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers
Through the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, rivers can be federally designated as wild and
scenic if they contain remarkable scenic, recreational, or fish and wildlife related values. Such rivers are
granted protection under the Act and must be evaluated as part of the NEPA process.
The Wekiva and Loxahatchee Rivers are the only federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the State
of Florida. The Wekiva River is 41.6 miles long and located in Central Florida, north of the City of Orlando.
It was designated as Wild and Scenic in 2000 with 31.4 miles of the river designated as Wild, 2.1 miles as
Scenic, and 8.1 miles as Recreational (National Wild and Scenic River Systems 2010). The Wekiva River
is not proximate to the Project Study Area. The Loxahatchee River is 7.6 miles long and located in
southeast Florida in Martin and Palm Beach County. Approximately 1.3 miles of the river is designated as
Wild, 5.8 miles as Scenic, and 0.5 miles as Recreational. The Loxahatchee was designated as a Wild and
Scenic River in 1985 and stretches from Riverbend Park downstream to Jonathan Dickinson State Park
(National Wild and Scenic River Systems 1985). The N‐S Corridor crosses the Loxahatchee River in Palm
Beach County; however, it crosses the river approximately 4 river miles downstream of the Wild and
Scenic River designated area.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-65 September 2014

4.3.3 Wetlands
Wetlands within the Project Study Area are regulated and protected under state and federal regulatory
programs. Within the State of Florida, activities conducted in wetlands are regulated by the State of
Florida under Part IV, Chapter 373, FS. The USACE administers Section 404 of the CWA (33 CFR 320‐332)
which regulates discharges of fill into wetlands and waters of the United States. Wetlands as defined in
Subsection 373.019(17) FS, are “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils.”
The Clean Water Act, 33 CFR Part 328 defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.”
AAF has not yet submitted its application for Section 404 authorization to USACE. USACE will complete
its Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines analysis and public interest review in its record of decision following
publication of the Final EIS.
4.3.3.1 Methodology
Wetlands were identified and characterized for areas in which the Project would require ground
disturbing activities. For areas in which ground disturbing activities would occur and for which no land
acquisition is required, a buffer of 150 feet from the corridor centerline defines the Project Study Area.
For areas in which ground disturbing activities would occur and for which new land acquisition is
required, a buffer of 500 feet outside the property boundary of the proposed acquisition defines the
Project Study Area.
Wetland vegetation, habitat quality, and biodiversity were characterized using readily available
information. Resources reviewed included, but were not limited, to the USFWS National Wetland Inventory
(USFWS 2013a), Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) maps (FDOT 1999),
USFWS topographic maps (USFWS n.d.), USDA NRCS soil survey maps (USDA 2013), USFWS wood stork
rookery data (USFWS 2013b), Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) natural communities data
(FNAI 2013), and water management district (WMD) land use data (SJRWMD 2009; SFWMD 2008).
These wetland systems were identified utilizing WMD land use data that were identified to FLUCCS
Level II for generally anthropogenic land uses and to FLUCCS Level III primarily for natural habitats (the
FLUCCS is arranged in hierarchical levels with each level containing land information of increasing
specificity. Level I data are the most general in nature, while Level IV data are the most specific [FLUCCS
1999]). In addition, field delineations were conducted for the existing SR 528 right‐of‐way and the
FECR Corridor. These delineations provided field confirmation for the occurrence of wetland and surface
waters that would be considered jurisdictional pursuant to Chapter 62‐340 FAC, and the USACE 1987
Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0). Upon completion of the field
verifications the USACE will provide a preliminary Jurisdictional Determination to AAF. For purposes of
computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-66 September 2014

measures, assessments in this EIS will be made on the basis of a preliminary jurisdictional determination.
A preliminary jurisdictional determination will treat all waters and wetlands, which would be affected in
any way by the proposed activity as if they are jurisdictional waters of the United States.
4.3.3.2 Affected Environment
The Project Study Area includes 16 types of aquatic habitats (wetlands and surface waters), as listed in
Table 4.3.3‐1. The figures in Appendix 4.1.1‐A provide depictions of the land use within the Project Study
Area. Lists of characteristic plant species of each community are provided in Appendices 4.3.3‐A1 and
4.3.3‐A2.
Streams and Waterways
Streams and waterways communities include rivers, creeks, canals, and other linear waterways.
Freshwater rivers and streams cross the E‐W Corridor, the N‐S Corridor, and the WPB‐M Corridor. Within
urbanized areas, these systems typically have been dredged to facilitate stormwater drainage and the banks
are often armored to protect from erosion. Rivers and streams in rural areas, particularly along the
E‐W Corridor, may have been channelized at some point but appear relatively undisturbed. Water levels
within these systems vary according to seasonal precipitation with water levels rising in the wet summer
months and dropping during the dry winter season. Vegetation within freshwater river and stream systems
vary according to intensity of utilization, adjacent land use, water depth and frequency of inundation.
Tidally influenced waterways cross the N‐S Corridor and the WPB‐M Corridor at several locations. Tidally
influenced systems include creeks and canals along the coastline that are subject to salinity and water
level fluctuation concomitant with the ebb and flow of the tides. Canals are typically excavated waterways
providing boat access to inland areas. Canals undergo regular maintenance in the form of channel
dredging and canal banks tend to be steeply sloped or vertical and bolstered with concrete seawalls or
rip‐rap to prevent bank erosion. Vegetation is often limited to isolated red mangrove and scattered
patches of typical saltmarsh vegetation. Tidally influenced river and creeks exhibit banks with less steep
slopes although many areas are armored with seawalls and rip‐rap to minimize erosion. Within most tidal
rivers and creeks, channels have been dredged to allow boat traffic. Variations in salinity and water level
generated by tidal flow and freshwater and sediment inputs from their associated watersheds provide a
mosaic of habitats and communities within tidal river and creek systems. Habitats associated with tidal
river and creeks include saltwater marshes, mangrove swamps, seagrass beds and oyster bars. The
specific community composition varies from location to location according to the intensity of waterway
utilization and adjacent land uses.


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


Affected Environment 4-67 September 2014

Table 4.3.3-1 Existing wetland communities within the Project Study Area as defined by
FLUCCS and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
FLUCCS Code FLUCCS Description National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetland
3

510 Streams and Waterways Riverine
520 Lakes Lake
530 Reservoirs Lake
540 Bays and Embayments Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
611 Bay Swamps Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO3/1)
612 Mangrove Swamps Estuarine and Marine Wetland (E2FO3)
617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO1/3)
618 Willow and Elderberry Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PSS3)
619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO3/1)
621 Cypress Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO2)
625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO4)
630 Wetland Forested Mixed Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PFO6/7)
641 Freshwater Marsh Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PEM2)
643 Wet Prairie Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PEM2)
644 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PEM1)
646 Treeless Hydric Savanna Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PSS6/7)
Sources: FDOT. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) – Handbook.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf. January 2013. Accessed August 7, 2013;
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013a. National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed
September 27, 2013.

Lakes
Lakes communities include lakes, ponds, and stormwater ponds. Within the Project Study Area these consist
primarily of stormwater ponds, which are constructed to prevent flooding by retention or detention of
water during storm events. Retention ponds are generally “wet” and store stormwater for extended periods
of time allowing the water to percolate into the soil and recharge the groundwater or to dissipate through
evaporation or evapotranspiration. Detention ponds are generally “dry” and hold water for short periods of
time slowly releasing it into the drainage system. In addition to maintaining surface and groundwater levels,
stormwater ponds allow suspended sediments and pollutants to settle out of the water column. Vegetation
within stormwater ponds varies based on location, hydrology, utilization, and surrounding environment or
land uses. Dominant vegetation typically consists of weedy upland and wetland species.
Reservoirs
Reservoirs are artificial impoundments constructed for water supplies, irrigation, flood control, and
recreation. Reservoirs are typically dominated by open water although some designs incorporate littoral
zones or islands to increase wildlife habitat value or to provide aesthetic enhancement. Vegetation
consists of wetland species but the species composition varies considerably depending on the purpose
and utilization of the reservoir. Factors such as human activity, maintenance regime, design, and
landscaping influence the community structure and habitat value.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-68 September 2014

Bays and Estuaries
Bays and estuaries consist of inlets of the ocean that occur along coastlines and include subtidal, intertidal,
and supratidal zones and occur along the N‐S Corridor. Estuaries typically have a river or stream flowing
into it and exhibit an open connection to the sea greater than 1 nautical mile (nm) in width (FDOT 1999).
Tidal areas less than 1 nm wide are classified as streams and waterways. Estuaries are subject to marine
influences, such as tides, waves, and the influx of salt water. In addition to the physical and chemical
influences that tides have on estuaries, estuaries also receive inputs of freshwater and sediment from
their associated watersheds. As a result estuaries may contain many biological niches within a small area,
and are associated with high biodiversity.
Bay Swamps
Bay swamps are freshwater hardwood forested wetlands dominated by bay tree species such as swamp
bay, red bay, sweetbay, and loblolly bay (Table 4.3.3‐2). These communities typically occur in wetland
areas with a strong seepage component to the hydrology and mucky acidic soils. The understory is
composed of a moderately dense shrub stratum consisting of Virginia willow, wax myrtle, common
buttonbush, possumhaw, and swamp azalea among others. Groundcover species consist of shade tolerant
herbaceous species such as lizard’s tail and ferns.
Mangrove Swamps
Mangrove swamp is a dense forest occurring along marine and estuarine shorelines that are protected
from full wave energy. Mangrove swamps are dominated by four mangrove species (Table 4.3.3‐2) that
generally occur in distinct monospecific zones that reflect varying degrees of tidal influence and depth of
inundation, levels of salinity, and types of substrate. Red mangrove often dominates the lowest zone,
followed by black mangrove in the intermediate zone, and white mangrove in the highest zone.
Buttonwood usually occupies the transitional zone between the wetland and the adjacent upland
community.
The density and height of mangroves and the diversity of associated herbaceous species can vary
considerably within a mangrove swamp. Mangroves typically occur in dense stands but may be sparse,
allowing salt marsh species predominate. Mangrove swamps often exist with no understory, although
shrubs such as seaside oxeye and woody vines may be present. Groundcover is usually sparse, but
herbaceous species common to mangrove swamps include saltwort, perennial glasswort, mangrove
spiderlily, and giant leather fern.
Mangrove swamps occur adjacent to the N‐S Corridor and WPB‐M Corridor, and are found in some
locations within the FECR right‐of‐way.


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


Affected Environment 4-69 September 2014


Table 4.3.3-2 Common Wetland Plant Species
Scientific Name Common Name
Acer rubrum Red maple
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush
Cladium jamaicense Sawgrass
Gordonia lasianthus Loblolly bay
Ilex cassine Dahoon holly
Itea virginica Virginia willow
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay
Melaleuca quinquinerva Melaleuca
Myrica cerifera Wax myrtle
Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora Swamp tupelo
Panicum hemitomum Maidencane
Persea borbonia Red bay
Persea palustris Swamp bay
Pinus elliottii Slash pine
Pinus palustris Longleaf pine
Pinus serotina Pond pine
Quercus hemisphaerica Laurel oak
Quercus nigra Water oak
Rhododendron viscosum Swamp azalea
Sabal minor Dwarf palmetto
Sabal palmetto Cabbage palm
Salix caroliniana Carolina willow
Schinus terebinthefolia Brazilian pepper
Taxodium ascendens Pond cypress
Taxodium distichum Bald cypress
Ulmus americana American elm

Mixed Wetland Hardwoods
Mixed wetland hardwoods are freshwater hardwood forested wetlands exhibiting a large variety of
species composing the canopy stratum with no discernible pattern of dominance. Canopy species
typically include American elm, sweetbay, red maple, sugarberry, American hornbeam, and water oak
(Table 4.3.3‐2). Cabbage palm and slash pine are often components of the canopy or subcanopy. Common
shrub and understory species include swamp dogwood, Walter’s viburnum, swamp bay, wax myrtle,
dwarf palmetto, American beautyberry, and wild coffee. Groundcover species are dominated by ferns.
Willow and Elderberry
Willow and Elderberry is a community in which either Carolina willow or elderberry is predominant.
Within the Project Study Area this community is typically found in areas disturbed by human activities. It
can also be found in areas experiencing natural fluctuations in environmental conditions. Both Carolina
willow and elderberry are early successional species which tend to quickly recruit into and spread
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-70 September 2014

through disturbed systems. They are also tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions and may
be found in areas with fluctuating conditions such as slough systems.
Exotic Wetland Hardwoods
Exotic Wetland Hardwoods are wetlands dominated by non‐native hardwood species such as Brazilian
pepper and melaleuca. These exotic species present dense stands with little light penetration and sparse
groundcover vegetation. This community is usually found in areas disturbed by human activity or natural
process such as wildfire.
Cypress
Cypress is a freshwater coniferous wetland forest dominated by pond cypress or bald‐cypress. Deep
zones of this community typically consist of dense or pure stands of cypress within a transitional zone
dominated by red maple, water oak, live oak, or other hardwood tree species tolerant of hydric conditions.
Cypress wetlands are often isolated forming “domes” with the older, taller trees in the center. Canopy
associate species include red maple, dahoon holly, swamp bay, slash pine, sweetbay, loblolly bay, and, in
South Florida, coco plum and pond apple. Shrubs are typically sparse to moderate, and typical shrubs
include Virginia willow, shiny lyonia, common buttonbush, and wax myrtle. Typical herbaceous species
include ferns, maidencane, sawgrass, and lizard’s tail.
Hydric Pine Flatwoods
Hydric Pine Flatwoods are pine forests with a sparse subcanopy and groundcover consisting of hydrophytic
grasses, herbs, and shrubs. The dominant pine canopy typically consists of one or a combination of longleaf
pine, slash pine, pond pine, or South Florida slash pine. Longleaf pine and pond pine are more common in
the northern portions of the Project Study Area. Associated tree species consist of scattered sweetbay,
swamp bay, loblolly bay, pond cypress, dahoon holly, and cabbage palm. Common shrubs include wax
myrtle, shiny lyonia, swamp azalea, common buttonbush, and Walter’s viburnum, among others.
Herbaceous groundcover species include grasses, Carolina redroot, beaksedges, and rushes.
Wetland Forested Mixed
Wetland forested mixed includes freshwater forested wetland communities in which neither hardwoods
nor conifers achieve a 66‐percent dominance of the canopy community. Dominant canopy species
typically include sweetgum, sweetbay, laurel oak, water oak, American elm, red maple, swamp tupelo,
slash pine, and bald cypress. Bay species such as loblolly and swamp bay are often mixed in the canopy in
acidic or seepage systems. Common shrubs include swamp dogwood, dahoon holly, dwarf palmetto,
Walter’s viburnum, American snowbell, wax myrtle, and highbush blueberry. Characteristic groundcover
species include witchgrass, slender woodoats, beaksedges, Virginia chain fern, and beaked panicum.
Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marshes are regularly inundated wetlands and may occur in a variety of situations. Species
composition is heterogeneous both within and between marshes but can generally be divided into
emergent and transitional zones from deepest to shallowest portions. Shrub patches may be present
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-71 September 2014

within any of these zones. Species common to the emergent zone include pickerelweed, bulltongue
arrowhead, cattail, sawgrass, burr marigold, and softstem bulrush. Maidencane, sand cordgrass,
sweetscent, mild waterpepper, and blue waterhyssop are species common to the transitional zone.
Carolina willow, common buttonbush, and wax myrtle are common shrubby components.
Wet Prairie
Wet Prairie is characterized as a shallow, usually rounded depression in sand substrate with herbaceous
vegetation or shrubs and a relatively short hydroperiod. Wet prairies typically occur in landscapes
occupied by fire‐maintained communities such as mesic flatwoods, dry prairie, or sandhill. Zonation, seen
as concentric bands of vegetation, is related to the length of the hydroperiod and depth of flooding. The
outer zone is often occupied by herbaceous vegetation or shrubs consisting of bushy bluestem,
beaksedges, yelloweyed grass, blue maidencane, myrtleleaf St. John’s wort, sand cordgrass, roundpod,
and bogbutton. The deeper zones commonly consist of purple bluestem, peelbark St. John’s wort, water
toothleaf, Baldwin’s spikerush, maidencane, bulltongue arrowhead, or sawgrass.
Emergent Aquatic Vegetation
Emergent aquatic vegetation is a deep marsh dominated by emergent, floating, and submerged
herbaceous vegetation. A shallow transitional zone is present at the wetland edge. This type of wetland
typically exhibits a longer hydroperiod than the freshwater marsh. Alligator flag, pickerelweed,
bulltongue arrowhead, giant cutgrass, softstem bulrush, and Kissimmeegrass are common species where
emergent vegetation is present. Deeper areas may contain floating and submerged aquatic plants such as
American white waterlily, big floating heart, spatterdock, frog’s bit, and bladderworts. Exotic floating
species such as water hyacinth and water‐lettuce have become common components of the floating
vegetation community in Florida.
Treeless Hydric Savanna
Treeless Hydric Savanna is a shrub and grass dominated hydric flatland although this FLUCCS code is
often applied to any shrub dominated wetland system. Within the Project Study Area these shrub systems
are found in wet areas which have been disturbed by human activities and are typically dominated by
Carolina willow, wax myrtle, elderberry, and false‐willow.
Wildlife Habitat
Wetlands and waterbodies capable of supporting fish and/or shellfish populations are important in
maintaining diversity and abundance within the aquatic community. Other wetland characteristics that
contribute to the health of the aquatic species populations include water quality improvement, cover and
shelter, forage resources, spawning and nursery areas, and connectivity between water resources.
There are specific habitats within the Project Study Area that are valuable to maintaining viable aquatic
species communities. Red mangroves located along the tidal streams and rivers crossing the N‐S Corridor
are important fish nursery areas, which support many species of fish and shellfish. Much of this area has
been designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-72 September 2014

Seagrass and oyster beds located within these estuarine areas also provide aquatic wildlife habitat as well
and nurseries for shellfish.
Large, undisturbed wetlands are generally considered to provide important wildlife habitat functions. Other
factors that contribute to the provision of important wildlife habitat include the proximity to undisturbed
upland wildlife habitat, vegetation species and structural diversity, and foraging opportunities. Wetlands
that are contiguous to other wetland areas may serve as travel corridors for many species of wildlife. A large
number of species are dependent on wetlands at some point in their life cycle.
Wetland wildlife habitat within the maintained areas of the SR 528 right‐of‐way is limited, but many
species will forage within stormwater management ponds, swales, and ditches. Outside the maintained
areas of the SR 528 right‐of‐way, wetlands provide higher quality habitat although many of these areas
consist of ecotones between the natural wetland ecosystem and the cleared roadway and may exhibit
primary or secondary successional vegetation communities reducing their overall value as wildlife
habitat. Beyond the ecotones much of the existing wetland habitat consists of virtually undisturbed
wetlands with developed communities which provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife species.
Much of the wetland habitat located within the E‐W Corridor in Orange County outside of the existing
SR 528 right‐of‐way is undisturbed and provides high quality wildlife habitat. Barriers between habitats
provided by either fences along the SR 528 right‐of‐way boundary or created by ecotones between
disturbed and undisturbed habitat are limited and allow more natural connectivity between and within
existing habitats.
4.3.4 Floodplains
A floodplain is defined as any land area susceptible to being inundated by floodwaters from any water
source (44 CFR part 59), whereas the 100‐year floodplain is the area of land inundated by a flood event
that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (FEMA 2013a). Floodplains
are designated and regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with standards
outlined in 44 CFR Part 60.3. Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, requires agencies to
assess the impacts that their actions may have on floodplains and to consider alternatives to avoid
adverse impacts and incompatible development on floodplains. U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, contains the Department’s implementing
procedures to fulfill the requirements of the EO.
4.3.4.1 Methodology
For this analysis, the areas subject to flooding and protected under EO 11988 were obtained using the
base flood elevation published on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) through GIS analysis.
Special Flood Hazard Areas depicted on the FIRMs include Flood Zones A or V, also referred to as the
100‐year floodplain. For the E‐W Corridor, a 100‐foot buffer was used on each side of the proposed
60‐foot‐wide right‐of‐way to identify floodplain locations within the corridor. For the segments that were
missing right‐of‐way data, an average distance of 150 feet from the rail centerline was used in the analysis.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-73 September 2014

4.3.4.2 Affected Environment
According to the FIRMs and GIS analysis, the Project Study Area contains Zone A (the 100‐year floodplain)
and Zone X (the 500‐year floodplain). As summarized below, portions of the Project Study Area within
the MCO Segment, E‐W Corridor, and N‐S Corridor would be located within the existing 100‐year
floodplain. Figure 4.3.4‐1 depicts the extent of the 100‐year floodplain within the MCO Segment and
E‐W Corridor, and Figure 4.3.4‐2 depicts the extent of the 100‐year floodplain within the N‐S Corridor.
Table 4.3.4‐1 provides a summary of the total acreage within each segment or corridor within the existing
100‐year floodplain.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-74 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-75 September 2014



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


Affected Environment 4-76 September 2014

Table 4.3.4-1 Project Study Area within the Existing 100-year Floodplain
Element Area within 100-year Floodplain (acres)
MCO Segment 117
E-W Corridor 332
N-S Corridor 472
WPB-M Corridor 145

The E‐W Corridor and N‐S Corridor also cross regulated floodways. A regulated floodway “means the
channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to
discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a
designated height (FEMA 2013b).” The regulated floodways are also depicted on Figures 4.3.4‐1
and 4.3.4‐2. Table 4.3.4‐2 provides a summary of the floodways within these corridors.
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, provides a continuing authority for the USACE
to develop and construct small flood control projects without the need of specific congressional
authorization. The Jacksonville District began implementation of the Central and South Florida Flood
Control Project (CS&F) in the 1950s. Since that time the Jacksonville District and its partners have
established flood control, water conservation and control, saltwater intrusion, fish and wildlife, water
supply to Everglades National Park, and environmental restoration. Features implemented by the CS&F
project include 46 bridges, 10 locks, 670 miles of canals, 809 miles of levees, 130 control and diversion
structures, and 16 pump stations.


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


Affected Environment 4-77 September 2014

Table 4.3.4-2 Floodway Crossings within the Project Study Area
Floodway Corridor County FEMA Flood Zone
Econolockhatchee River E-W Orange AE
St Johns River E-W Orange/Brevard AE
Jim Creek E-W Brevard A
Second Creek E-W Brevard A
Taylor Creek E-W Brevard AE
Turkey Creek N-S Brevard AE
Crane Creek N-S Brevard AE
Eau Gallie N-S Brevard AE
Goat Creek
N-S
Brevard
AE
Horse Creek
N-S
Brevard
AE
South Canal
N-S
Indian River
AE
Main Canal
N-S
Indian River
AE
North Canal
N-S
Indian River
AE
Taylors Creek N-S St Lucie VE
St. Sebastian River N-S St Lucie AE
Moore’s Creek
N-S
St Lucie
AE
Tributary To Manatee Creek N-S Martin X500
Tributary To Manatee Creek
N-S
Martin
AE
Unnamed Tributary
N-S
Martin
AE
Unnamed Tributary
N-S
Martin
AE
Warner Creek
N-S
Martin
AE
No Name N-S Martin AE
Earman River
N-S
Palm Beach
AE
Jupiter River N-S Palm Beach AE
St. Lucie River N-S Palm Beach AE
Source: St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 2012. SJRWMD Waterbodies.
http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed September 27, 2013; South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD). 2012. Water Body. http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?query=unq_id=1959.
Accessed September 27, 2013.

The Project Study Area will cross eight existing federal projects listed in table 4.3.4‐3 below. Seven of
these are within the WPB‐M Corridor. These federal projects are for flood control purposes, which only
have a canal feature to convey the flood waters away from the protected areas.

Table 4.3.4-3 Federal Flood Control Projects Within the Project Study Area
County Federal Project Name Local Name Project Corridor
St. Lucie C-25 Taylor Creek N-S
Palm Beach C-17 Earman River WPB-M
Palm Beach C-51 C-51 Canal WPB-M
Palm Beach C-16 Boynton Beach Canal WPB-M
Palm Beach C-15 Hidden Valley Canal WPB-M
Broward C-14 Un-named WPB-M
Broward C-13 Un-named WPB-M
Miami-Dade C-9 Un-named WPB-M
Source: USACE 2013

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


Affected Environment 4-78 September 2014

4.3.5 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems
This section describes biological resources, including fish, wildlife and plants, present within the Project
Study Area, in accordance with CEQ guidance Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations Into Environmental
Impact Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1993). This section includes a description
of natural upland habitats, important wildlife habitats, migratory bird habitats, and EFH.
4.3.5.1 Methodology
Habitats were characterized based on a desktop review of readily available information regarding natural
and disturbed upland vegetation and habitat. Evaluated resource material included, but was not limited to,
the FLUCCS maps (FDOT 1999), USDA NRCS soil survey maps (USDA 2013), FNAI natural communities data
(FNAI 2013), and land use data from WMDs (SJRWMD 2009; SFWMD 2008), in addition to high altitude
aerial imagery supplemented by satellite imagery. Information regarding upland vegetation land cover
types, wildlife corridors, habitat quality, and biodiversity within the Project Study Area was also reviewed.
Upland habitats were identified utilizing WMD land use data that were identified to FLUCCS Level II for
generally anthropogenic land uses and to FLUCCS Level III primarily for natural habitats (FDOT 1999).
Factors considered in assessing the relative condition of uplands included, but were not limited to:
 Location and use of the upland (whether the upland is currently natural, or has the upland been
impacted by non‐natural land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, agriculture, and
transportation);
 Size of the upland (whether the upland is located within/adjacent to the Project Study Area part
of a large contiguous upland, or is it isolated);
 Uniqueness;
 Presence of known and proposed wildlife corridors, habitat preserves, and wildlife sanctuaries;
 Protected species (whether the upland provides required conditions/habitat for protected plant
and animal species); and
 Level of disturbance (whether the upland is disturbed by the existing rail and/or other
transportation or land use).
NMFS’s EFH Mapper database (NOAA 2013), literature review (South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council 1998a and 1998b; NMFS 2004 and 2008) and on‐site investigation, as well as information
provided by NMFS (Howard 2013) were used to generate a list of species groups with designated EFH
within the N‐S Corridor (including all bridges between Cocoa and West Palm Beach and bridges with
proposed in‐water construction between West Palm Beach and Miami).
Habitat was evaluated at the bridge sites to identify habitats listed in “Appendix 6: Summary of EFH
Requirements for Species Managed by the SAFMC” of Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat
National Mandate for Federal Agencies provided as Appendix 4.3.5‐A (NMFS 2010).
Snorkeling surveys were conducted at each of the potential impact areas to evaluate the type and quality
of aquatic habitats and associated substrates (submerged aquatic vegetation [SAV] and oyster beds/shell
bottom) for EFH determinations. The purpose of the benthic survey was to characterize the bottom
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-79 September 2014

composition as well as evaluate the presence of rooted seagrass beds, oyster beds (live or dead), sponges,
and other benthic colonizing organisms. Benthic surveys were performed at each Bridge Study Area in
accordance with the NMFS guidance for assessing small project sites less than or equal to 1 hectare (NOAA
2012). The bottom survey included a center line transect beneath the existing bridge structure as well as
transects on both the east and west sides of the existing bridge structures. As part of the in‐water seagrass
survey protocol, if seagrasses were determined to be rooted within the bridge project area, patch
distribution was delineated and quantified. Appendix 4.3.5‐A, EFH Assessment Report, provides additional
details of the sampling methods and results.
4.3.5.2 Affected Environment
Natural Upland Habitats
Uplands present within the Project Study Area include natural habitats that are relatively undisturbed by
human activity and anthropogenic land uses that include commercial and residential developments,
industrial, agriculture, mining. Natural upland habitats within the Project Study Area were identified
according to the FLUCCS Level III, as appropriate, and are provided in Table 4.3.5‐1. Many of these natural
habitats are relatively undisturbed by human activity although habitats present within developed areas
have experienced varying levels of disturbance.
The natural upland habitats located within the Project Study Area are listed in Table 4.3.5‐1. Brief
descriptions including vegetation and wildlife information for the upland habitat categories are detailed
in the sections below. Table 4.3.5‐2 provides a list of common plant species found in these communities.
Table 4.3.5‐3 provides a list of common wildlife species found in upland habitats.

Table 4.3.5-1 Existing Natural Upland Communities Located Within and Adjacent to the Project
Study Area
FLUCCS Code FLUCCS Description
310 Herbaceous (Dry Prairie)
320 Shrubs and Brushland
321 Palmetto Prairie
322 Coastal Scrub
330 Mixed Rangeland
411 Pine Flatwoods
413 Sand Pine
420 Hardwood Forests
421 Xeric Oak
422 Brazilian Pepper
424 Melaleuca
427 Live Oak
428 Cabbage Palm
434 Hardwood – Coniferous Mixed
437 Australian Pines
Source: FDOT. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) – Handbook.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf. January 2013. Accessed August 7, 2013.

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


Affected Environment 4-80 September 2014

Table 4.3.5-2 Common Upland Plant Species
Scientific Name Common Name
Andropogon spp. Bluegrass, Bluestem
Aristida stricta var. beyrichiana Wiregrass
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry
Ceratiola ericoides Florida rosemary
Dichanthelium spp. Witchgrass
Gaylussacia dumosa Dwarf huckleberry
Ilex glabra gallberry
Lyonia spp. Fetterbush
Myrica cerifera Wax myrtle
Panicum spp. Panic grass
Quercus geminate Sand live oak
Quercus minima Dwarf live oak
Rhus coppalinum Winged sumac
Serenoa repens Saw palmetto
Vaccinium arboretum Sparkleberry
Vaccinium myrsinites Shiny blueberry

Table 4.3.5-3 Key Upland Wildlife Species
Scientific Name Common Name
Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Florida grasshopper sparrow
Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub jay
Athene cunicularia floridana Florida burrowing owl
Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake
Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite
Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American kestrel
Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise
Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle
Lampropeltis extenuata Short-tailed snake
Lithobates capito Gopher frog
Neoseps reynoldsi Sand skink
Peromyscus polionotus Beach mouse
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker
Pituopsis melanolucus mugitus Florida pine snake
Podomys floridanus Florida mouse
Polyborus plancus Audubon’s crested caracara
Puma concolor coryi Florida panther
Sciurus niger avicennia Big cypress fox squirrel
Sciurus niger shermani Sherman’s fox squirrel
Ursus americanus floridus Florida black bear

Herbaceous (Dry Prairie)
Herbaceous (dry prairie) habitat within the E‐W Corridor and N‐S Corridor is located within the Project
Study Area in Orange, Brevard, Martin, Indian River, and St. Lucie Counties. Dry prairie typically lacks
trees and displays a variety of herbaceous vegetation including grasses, rushes, sedges, and low shrubs.
The dry prairie typically occupies large, level expanses of land. Communities sometimes present with dry
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-81 September 2014

prairie include islands of xeric or mesic flatwoods, small depression wetlands, wet prairies, and live oak
hammocks. This habitat is typically dominated by grasses and herbs such as wiregrass, bottlebrush
threeawn, bluestem, lopsided indiangrass, panicgrass, yellow‐eyed grass, milkwort, witchgrass,
narrowleaf silkgrass, goldenrod, and slender flattop goldenrod. Scattered shrubs and subshrubs found
within dry prairies typically include saw palmetto, dwarf live oak, gallberry, fetterbush, shiny blueberry,
pawpaw, Atlantic St. John's wort, wax myrtle, and dwarf huckleberry.
Key wildlife species which inhabit dry prairie include several bird species that prefer open habitat with
low groundcover such as Florida grasshopper sparrow, Florida burrowing owl, Audubon’s crested
caracara, white‐tailed kite, Florida sandhill crane, and southeastern American kestrel. Other important
wildlife species include gopher tortoise, eastern indigo snake, Florida mouse, and gopher frog.
Shrub and Brushland
Shrub and brushland is a Level II category, which includes three shrub dominated communities: palmetto
prairie, coastal scrub, and other shrubs and brush. This Level II category is often applied to shrub areas
for which the dominant species cannot be identified on aerial photography. The E‐W Corridor and
N‐S Corridor traverse this land cover type in all six counties. Dominant shrubs within these habitats
include saw palmetto, wax myrtle, gallberry, sand live oak, sea grape, false‐willow, and Brazilian pepper.
This land use category includes both undisturbed natural habitats and habitats undergoing successional
ecosystem development subsequent to a historical disturbance.
Key wildlife species that inhabit shrub and brushland habitats include gopher tortoise, eastern indigo
snake, Florida mouse, and gopher frog. Florida black bear may also utilize large tracts of these habitats
for foraging and migration.
Palmetto Prairie
Palmetto prairie is a saw palmetto dominated habitat common to peninsular Florida. Shrub species which
may be present in addition to saw palmetto include wax myrtle, gallberry, winged sumac, sand live oak,
shiny blueberry, fetterbush, and pawpaw. Groundcover is present in the spaces between palmettos and
includes wiregrass, bottlebrush threeawn, bluestem, lopsided indiangrass, yellow‐eyed grass, and
narrowleaf goldenrod.
Coastal Scrub
Coastal scrub is found within the coastal zone associated with the N‐S Corridor. The community
composition is strongly influenced by physical factors attributed to proximity with the sea include wind
and salt spray. It usually develops as a band between beach dunes along the coast, and maritime hammock
or mangrove swamp communities further inland. On barrier islands it also occurs as patches of shrubs
within coastal grasslands. Typical components of the shrub stratum of this habitat include saw palmetto,
sand live oak, sea grape, Spanish bayonet, myrsine, buttonsage, white indigoberry, Spanish stopper, wild
lime, coinvine, and gray nicker. Common groundcover species include seaoats, railroad vine, coral
dropseed, and seashore paspalum.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-82 September 2014

Scrub occurring near the coast is important habitat for endangered beach mice populations during and
after storm events that destroy the fore‐dunes. Coastal scrub is also important for gopher tortoise.
Mixed Rangeland
Mixed rangeland includes habitat composed of an intermixture (greater than 33 percent composition) of
both dry prairie or shrub dominated habitats (FDOT 1999). The Project Study Area includes this habitat
type within Orange, Brevard, Indian River, and St. Lucie Counties. The natural community within this land
cover type includes grasses, forbs, and shrubs that provide grazing opportunities as well as a mix of the
vegetation described for herbaceous (dry prairie) and palmetto prairie.
Pine Flatwoods
Pine flatwoods typically has an open canopy of tall pines and dense groundcover of low shrubs, grasses,
and forbs. In northern and central Florida longleaf pine and slash pine are the dominant canopy species.
In south Florida the canopy is typically dominated by south Florida slash pine. The shrub stratum consists
of saw palmetto, fetterbush, tarflower, and winged sumac. Subshrubs include dwarf live, running oak,
shiny blueberry, Darrow's blueberry, and dwarf huckleberry. The herbaceous layer consists primarily of
grasses, including wiregrass, dropseed, witchgrasses, panicgrass, and bluestem among others. Typical
forbs include goldenrod, slender flattop goldenrod, chaffhead, and gayfeather.
Listed wildlife species found in pine flatwoods in the Project Study Area include the eastern indigo snake,
grasshopper sparrow, red‐cockaded woodpecker, Florida pine snake, Sherman’s fox squirrel, Big Cypress
fox squirrel, and Florida black bear. Dry pine flatwoods may also be utilized by Florida mouse, Florida
scrub‐jay, gopher tortoise, and associated species such as the gopher frog. Bald eagles will nest in pine
trees near water bodies within pine flatwoods.
Sand Pine
Sand Pine occurs in xeric habitats and has an open canopy of widely spaced sand pine with an understory
consisting of low grasses and shrubs. Other canopy species may include turkey oak and long leaf pine.
The shrub layer consists of saw palmetto, rusty staggerbush, and scrub oak species. Common subshrubs
include dwarf live oak, running oak, dwarf huckleberry, gopher apple, Adam’s needle, and shiny
blueberry. Grasses include wiregrass, bluestem, and little bluestem. Forbs include coastal plain
honeycomb head, narrowleaf silkgrass, October flower, and pricklypear. Key wildlife species are similar
to those species utilizing pine flatwoods.
Upland Hardwood Forests
Upland hardwood forest includes any natural forest stand with a canopy providing greater than
10 percent cover that is dominated (greater than 66 percent) by hardwood tree species (FDOT 1999).
The Project Study Area includes upland hardwood forest in Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie,
Martin, and Palm Beach Counties.
A wide variety of wildlife species utilize upland hardwood forests including Florida black bear, eastern
indigo snake, Audubon’s crested caracara, Florida panther, Sherman’s fox squirrel, and Big Cypress fox
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-83 September 2014

squirrel. Bald eagles utilize pine trees found within hardwood forest or hardwood – coniferous mixed
forest for nesting.
Xeric Oak
Xeric oak, also called scrub, is a community composed of evergreen shrubs and is found on dry, infertile,
sandy ridges. This habitat is dominated by three shrub oak species, myrtle oak, sand live oak, and
Chapman’s oak. Associated shrub species include rusty staggerbush and saw palmetto. Florida rosemary
and sand pine may also be present. The overall structure of this habitat consists of a dense shrub layer
with patches of open ground with patchy cover of grasses and herbs. Herbaceous species are typically
dominated by threeawn, sedges, and subshrubs such as pinweed and jointweed, and ground lichens.
Central Florida scrub habitat is utilized by a number of listed wildlife species including several found only
on the Lake Wales Ridge (not within the Project Study Area). Additional species endemic to scrub and
other xeric habitats in Florida include the sand skink, Florida mouse, and the short‐tailed snake. Scrub is
also important for gopher tortoise.
Brazilian Pepper
Brazilian pepper is dominated by the exotic hardwood species Brazilian pepper. Brazilian pepper creates
dense pure stands with little light penetration and sparse groundcover vegetation. This habitat is usually
found in areas disturbed by human activity or natural process such as wildfire, although Brazilian pepper
has been documented as a highly invasive species and can completely overgrow native habitats. Brazilian
pepper has historically been utilized as an ornamental landscape species in Florida.
Melaleuca
Melaleuca is dominated by the exotic hardwood species melaleuca. Like Brazilian pepper, melaleuca
creates dense pure stands with little light penetration and sparse groundcover vegetation. This habitat is
usually found in areas disturbed by human activity or natural process such as wildfire. Melaleuca has
been documented as a highly invasive species and can completely overgrow native habitats. Melaleuca
has historically been utilized as an ornamental landscape species in Florida.
Live Oak
Live oak is a mesic upland hammock dominated by live oak. Associated canopy species include laurel oak,
water oak, and sand live oak. Cabbage palm, southern magnolia, and pignut hickory may occasionally be
present in the subcanopy. The shrubby understory is typically composed of a mix of saw palmetto,
American beautyberry, gallberry, sparkleberry, highbush blueberry, and wax myrtle. The herb layer is
often sparse or patchy due to a dense canopy and subcanopy, including panicgrass, witchgrasses,
woodsgrass, longleaf woodoats, and tailed bracken.
Cabbage Palm
Cabbage palm is a mesic upland hammock dominated by cabbage palm. Associated canopy species
include live oak, laurel oak, water oak, southern magnolia, and pignut. The shrubby understory is typically
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-84 September 2014

composed of a mix of saw palmetto, American beautyberry, gallberry, sparkleberry, and highbush
blueberry. Tropical shrubs such as Simpson’s stopper, myrsine, and wild coffee are common in south
Florida mesic hammocks. The groundcover is often sparse or patchy due to a dense canopy and
subcanopy and includes panicgrass, witchgrass, woodsgrass, longleaf woodoats, and tailed bracken.
Hardwood – Coniferous Mixed
Hardwood – Coniferous Mixed is typically a closed‐canopy forest with a diverse mixture of coniferous and
hardwood tree species on mesic soils. Characteristic canopy trees include southern magnolia, pignut
hickory, sweetgum, live oak, laurel oak, water oak, slash pine, cabbage palm, red maple, American elm,
longleaf pine, and sugarberry. Typical shrubs species include saw palmetto, American beautyberry,
sparkleberry, and wax myrtle, among others. The groundcover is composed of shade tolerant species
such as Virginia creeper, muscadine grape, tailed bracken, and saw greenbriar.
Australian Pines
Australian pines is dominated by the exotic Australian pine species. Like Brazilian pepper and melaleuca,
Australian pine creates dense pure stands with little light penetration and sparse groundcover vegetation.
This habitat is usually found in areas disturbed by human activity although Australian pine has
historically been utilized to stabilize beaches and provide shade in coastal recreational areas in Florida.
Preserves, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Wildlife Corridors
Although the existing transportation corridors, including SR 528 and the FECR Corridor, do not provide
important wildlife habitat and present a barrier to wildlife movement within the Project Study Area,
several preserves, sanctuaries, and wildlife corridors important to upland biodiversity are present
adjacent to the corridors.
Hal Scott Regional Preserve
The Hal Scott Regional Preserve (HSR Preserve) is located in eastern Orange County, southeast of Orlando
and north of SR 528. The preserve was established as part of the mitigation for beltway construction in
the southern part of Orange County. County funding provided the partnership to establish this regional
preserve, which protects the natural resources of the Econlockhatchee River.
The Florida Wildlife Corridor
The Florida Wildlife Corridor project is a collaborative effort to connect natural lands, waters, forests,
working farms, and ranches from the Everglades to Georgia, protecting a functional ecological corridor.
The goals of the project (Florida Wildlife Corridor 2013) are:
 Protect and restore habitat and migration corridors essential for the survival of the diverse
wildlife of Florida, including wide‐ranging species such as panthers and black bears;
 Restore water levels in the Everglades and maintain the water supply of south Florida;
 Protect the St. Johns River and water supply for central and north Florida;
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-85 September 2014

 Sustain food production, economies, and cultural legacies of working ranches and farms;
 Bolster local economies through opportunities such as hunting, fishing, birdwatching, and other
forms of eco‐tourism;
 Provide native wildlife and plants opportunities to adapt to a changing climate and sea level rise;
and
 Provide an important linkage within the Project Study Area (Figure 4.3.5‐1) via the Florida
Wildlife Corridor between wildlife habitat areas north and south of SR 528.
Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area
The Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area covers 30,701 acres along 19 miles of the St. Johns River in
eastern Orange County. Dominant natural communities include freshwater marsh, hardwood swamp,
mesic hammocks, pine flatwoods, cypress, and rivers and streams. These habitats, and those of adjacent
public lands, are essential to maintaining water quality and the ecological integrity of the St. Johns River
(FWC 2008).
Helen and Allan Cruikshank Sanctuary
The Helen and Allan Cruickshank Sanctuary is part of the Brevard County Environmentally Endangered
Lands (EEL) Program. The approximately 140‐acre site is located in Rockledge, Florida. Natural
communities within the sanctuary include pine flatwoods and sand pine along with other upland and
wetland habitats. Approximately 1,000 feet of the eastern boundary of the sanctuary abuts the existing
FECR Corridor between Mile Post (MP) 176 and 177. Wildlife species present within the sanctuary
include migratory birds, Florida scrub‐jay, northern bobwhite, raptors, gopher tortoise, and eastern
indigo snake (Brevard County, Florida 2013a).
Jonathan Dickinson State Park
The 11,500‐acre Jonathan Dickinson State Park was established in 1950 and is located south of Stuart in
Martin and Palm Beach Counties along the east end of the Loxahatchee River. Thirteen natural
communities are found within the park, including pine flatwoods, sand pine scrub, mangrove swamp, and
river swamps. The Loxahatchee River, Florida's first federally designated Wild and Scenic River, runs
through the park (Florida State Parks n.d.).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-86 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-87 September 2014

Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge
Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, established in September 1969, is a coastal refuge located in Martin
County and bisected by the Indian River Lagoon into two separate tracts of land totaling over 1,000 acres.
The 735‐acre Jupiter Island tract located on the north half of the island provides some of the most
productive sea turtle nesting habitat in the United States. The 300‐acre mainland tract located
immediately east of Jonathan Dickinson State Park is dominated by the native sand pine scrub habitat
much of which has been lost to development in Florida (USFWS 2013c). The Project Study Area is adjacent
to the west boundary of the mainland tract.
Hypoluxo Scrub Natural Area (Lantana)
The Hypoluxo Scrub Natural Area is a 92‐acre site owned and managed by Palm Beach County. This
site is mostly scrub and scrubby flatwoods. Most of the site was cleared in the early 1960s and the
natural communities are still in the process of regenerating. A small Florida scrub‐jay population lives
on this site and also uses several nearby smaller scrub sites.
Seacrest Scrub Natural Area (Boynton Beach)
The Seacrest Scrub Natural Area is a 54‐acre site owned and managed by Palm Beach County. This site
is predominantly scrub and scrubby flatwoods. Most of the area was cleared in the 1920s for pineapple
farming and the natural communities are still in the process of regenerating.
Leon M. Weekes Environmental Preserve (Delray Beach)
The Leon M. Weekes Environmental Preserve is a 12‐acre site co‐owned by Palm Beach County and
the Town of Delray Beach. The Preserve is managed by the Town of Delray Beach. The site is scrub
habitat with paved and natural trails. The old sand pine scrub burned in late 1990s near the railroad and
now is mostly occupied by scrub oaks. Gopher tortoise burrows are found on the property.
Rosemary Ridge Preserve (Boca Raton)
The Rosemary Ridge Preserve is a 7‐acre site owned and managed by the City of Boca Raton. The site
consists of xeric sand pine scrub.
Gopher Tortoise Preserve (Boca Raton)
The Gopher Tortoise Preserve is a 9‐acre site owned and managed by the City of Boca Raton. The site
consists of xeric sand pine scrub.
Highland Scrub Natural Area (Pompano Beach)
The Highland Scrub Natural Area is a 34‐acre site owned and managed by Broward County. The site
consists of scrub oak and sand pine and is considered one of Broward County’s last substantial remaining
sand pine scrub communities. The site is characterized by loose white sand with a canopy of sand pine
and scrub oak and a subcanopy of saw palmetto, small scrub oaks, gopher apple, and prickly pear cactus.
A gopher tortoise was identified on site during field visits.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-88 September 2014

Colohatchee Park (Wilton Manors)
Colohatchee Park is a 7‐acre site owned and managed by the City of Wilton Manors. The site consists of
a mangrove preserve along the Middle River dominated by red and white mangroves.
Greynolds Park (North Miami Beach)
Greynolds Park is a 241‐acre site owned and managed by Miami‐Dade County. Once the site of a rock
quarry, the site consists of a variety of habitats, including 1 acre of pineland, 18 acres of hammock,
26 acres of coastal habitat, and 31 acres of lake. The hammock is one of the last well‐protected natural
areas of northern Miami‐Dade County.
Oleta River State Park (North Miami)
Oleta River State Park is a 1,033‐acre site owned by Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund
and managed by FDEP. Florida's largest urban park, Oleta River State Park, borders the north shore of
Biscayne Bay and contains the mouth of the Oleta River. Along the Oleta River, at the north end of the
park, a large stand of mangrove forest is present. The bulk of the uplands are dredge spoil, and exotic
species are a major problem, but natural vegetation has reclaimed 468 acres of tidal swamp.
Arch Creek Park (North Miami Beach)
Arch Creek Park is a 9‐acre site owned and managed by the Miami‐ Dade County. The site consists of
7 acres of hammock and 1 acre of coastal habitat. The park was created around a natural limestone
bridge formation that was once part of an important Indian trail and is designated as a Florida State
Historical Preserve.
Essential Fish Habitat
EFH is defined as those waters and substrates necessary to support fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or
growth to maturity. Reauthorization of the Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
in 1966 required NMFS to coordinate with federal and state agencies, resource users, and others to protect,
conserve, and enhance EFH. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) is responsible for the
conservation and management of fish stocks within the federal 200‐mile limit of the Atlantic Ocean off the
coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and eastern Florida to Key West. SAFMC is also
responsible for the development of fishery management plans and amendments to ensure sustainable
fisheries. Implementation of the regulations, including federal management of permits for some fisheries, is
the responsibility of NMFS. The rule also identifies Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). HAPC are
subsets of EFH that are particularly important to the long‐term productivity of populations of one or more
managed species, or are particularly vulnerable to human induced degradation.
There are no EFHs or HAPCs located within the MCO Segment or the E‐W Corridor. EFH and HAPC are
located within the N‐S Corridor associated with waterways and bridge crossings. EFH for sites along the
FECR Corridor from West Palm Beach to Miami were previously identified in Section 3.1.5.1 of the
2012 EA.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-89 September 2014

NMFS indicated that EFH for the snapper/grouper complex, spiny‐lobster, and penaeid shrimp, as well as
HAPC for snapper/grouper complex, is present at one or more of the bridge project locations. A figure of
the locations of EFH and HAPC located within or adjacent to the Project boundaries is provided in
Appendix 4.3.5‐A. The list of the managed species groups that may utilize aquatic habitat along the
N‐S and WPB‐M Corridors is presented in Table 4.3.5‐4.

Table 4.3.5-4 Essential Fish Habitat within the Project Study Area
County Site EFH
1
HAPC
1

Brevard Horse Creek Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
None
Eau Gallie River Spiny Lobster
Snapper-Grouper Complex
None
Crane Creek Spiny Lobster Snapper-Grouper
Complex
None
Turkey Creek Spiny Lobster Snapper-Grouper
Complex
None
Goat Creek Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Snapper-Grouper Complex
St. Sebastian River Spiny Lobster
Snapper-Grouper Complex
None
Indian River North Canal Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
None
Main Canal
2
None None
South Canal Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
None
Moores Creek Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Warner Creek
2
None None
Unnamed Creek Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Martin St. Lucie River Bull Shark
Blacktip Shark
Spiny Lobster
Snapper-Grouper Complex
None
Unnamed Tributary
2

(MP 266.58)
Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Unnamed Tributary
1

(MP 266.86)
Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Tributary to Manatee Creek
2

(MP 267.34)
Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
None
Tributary to Manatee Creek
1

(MP 267.70)
Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
None

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


Affected Environment 4-90 September 2014

Table 4.3.5-4 Essential Fish Habitat within the Project Study Area (Continued)
County Site EFH
1
HAPC
1

Palm Beach County Loxahatchee River Spiny Lobster
Snapper-Grouper Complex
None
Earman River
2
None None
Canal C-51
2
None None
Hillsboro Canal Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Boynton Beach Canal Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
-
Broward County North Fork of the Middle River Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Snapper-Grouper Complex
South Fork of the Middle
River
Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Hillsboro Canal Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Comples
Cypress Creek Canal Spiny Lobster -
New River Spiny Lobster -
Tarpon River Spiny Lobster -
Dania Cut-off Canal Spiny Lobster -
Miami-Dade County Oleta River Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Arch Creek Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Snapper-Grouper Complex
Biscayne Park Canal Spiny Lobster
Penaeid Shrimp
-
Little River Penaeid Shrimp -
Source: NMFS. 2010. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies- South Atlantic
Region. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation District Southeast Regional Office.
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide_2010.pdf. September 2010. Accessed March 7, 2013; NOAA. 2013.
EFH Mapper. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html. Accessed March 7, 2013.
1 Identified based on site assessment of habitat and literature review (NMFS 2010; NOAA 2013)
2 Water control structure downstream of these bridge locations

Migratory Bird Habitat
Florida is on the Atlantic flyway, a major migratory route stretching more than 3,000 miles from Baffin
Island to northern South America (Ducks Unlimited n.d.). Florida provides important overwintering
habitat to many migratory bird species (Rapoza 2007). Common migratory species include many
waterfowl (gadwall, American widgeon, blue‐winged teal, northern shoveler, northern pintail,
green‐winged teal, American coot), raptors (northern harrier, American kestrel, sharp‐shinned hawk),
shorebirds (black‐bellied plover, semipalmated plover, greater yellowlegs, ruddy turnstone, red knot,
least sandpiper, short‐billed dowitcher), and passerine landbirds (eastern phoebe, palm warbler,
yellow‐rumped warbler, gray catbird, American robin, ruby‐crowned kinglet, chipping sparrow,
Baltimore oriole). Birds that overwinter on the Caribbean islands also migrate through Atlantic coastal
Florida in spring and fall, including shorebirds, flycatchers, warblers, and thrushes and tanagers (Rapoza
2007). Passerine migrants are found in hardwood hammocks and other forested habitats, waterfowl on
lakes and impoundments, and shorebirds on beaches and flooded agricultural fields (Rapoza 2007).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-91 September 2014

4.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) defines an endangered species as “any species which
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act also defines a
threatened species as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The ESA protects species listed as
endangered or threatened on a national basis. The current list of federally protected wildlife is provided
within the 50 CFR part 17.11 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, published October 1, 2012. The current
list of federally protected plants is provided within 50 CFR part 17.12 Endangered and Threatened Plants,
published October 1, 2012.
State‐listed species are protected under Article IV, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and
are classified as Endangered, Threatened, or Species of Special Concern. An Endangered species is a species
native to Florida that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within
Florida. A Threatened species is a species native to Florida that is likely to become endangered in Florida in
the foreseeable future. Species of Special Concern are those species native to Florida for which biological
research has documented a decline in population that could threaten the species if the decline continues
unchecked, or those species native to Florida that occur in such small numbers or with such a restricted
distribution that they could easily become threatened within the state. Chapter 68A‐27.003‐.005 FAC,
updated January 2013, lists protected wildlife species regulated by the State of Florida. Plant species listed
in Chapter 5B‐40.0055, FAC, adopted April 22, 2004, are regulated by the State of Florida and are classified
as Endangered, Threatened, or Commercially Exploited.
4.3.6.1 Methodology
Databases maintained by the regional offices of USFWS (USFWS 2012a) and by the FNAI Biodiversity
Matrix (FNAI n.d.) were consulted to identify listed species within each county. These databases provide
information on state and/or federally protected species documented or expected to occur in or near the
Project Study Area.
In addition, the FWC bald eagle locator (FWC 2012a), red‐cockaded woodpecker database (USFWS 2004a),
and wading bird colony locator (FWC 2009) were utilized to determine the presence of nests and rookeries
of these species in relation to the Project Study Area. Low altitude aerial photography was utilized to identify
areas which may provide suitable habitat for particular listed species.
The records search provided a list of species with potential to occur within or adjacent to the Project
Study Area, their habitat requirements, and life history information. Wildlife within the Project Study Area
were observed during pedestrian field surveys (where plant and animals species were identified).
Windshield surveys of habitat, benthic seagrass surveys, low altitude aerial surveys to identify eagle nests,
and surveys to evaluate Florida scrub‐jay habitat were also conducted. Seagrass survey details, field
survey methods and details of specific surveys for Audubon’s crested caracara, bald eagle, and Florida
scrub‐jay are provided in Appendix 4.3.6‐A.
Several of the species may use habitat types that were not included in assumptions listed in Table 4.3.6‐1.
For example, gopher tortoises may utilize areas within residential developments and road or railroad
rights‐of‐way if the soil conditions are appropriate.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-92 September 2014


Table 4.3.6-1 Rare Species and Habitat (Land Use) Assumptions for Terrestrial Species
Species Assumed Cover Type Use (FLUCCS Codes)
Bald Eagle None
Wood Stork 510, 520, 530, 610, 620, 630, 640
Sand Skink None (Habitat based on soils and elevation, not cover or land use)
Eastern Indigo Snake 310, 320, 330, 411, 434, 617, 625, 630, 641, 643
Audubon’s Crested Caracara 310, 330, 411, 625, 641, 643
Florida Scrub-Jay 320, 330, 411
Everglades Snail Kite None
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 411, 625
Sherman’s Fox Squirrel 310, 330, 411, 434, 625, 630
American Alligator 510, 525, 530, 641
Sandhill Crane 310, 330, 510, 530, 641, 643
Southeastern American Kestrel 310, 330, 411, 625, 641, 643
Gopher tortoise 310, 320, 330, 411
Burrowing Owl 310, 320, 330, 411
Florida Mouse 310, 320, 330, 411
Pine Snake 310, 320, 330, 411
Short-Tailed Snake 310, 320, 330, 411
Rim Rock Crowned Snake None
Gopher Frog 310, 320, 330, 411
Mangrove Rivulus 612
Limpkin 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646
Little Blue Heron 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646
Roseate Spoonbill 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646
Reddish Egret 612
Snowy Egret 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646
Tricolored Heron 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646
White Ibis 510, 520, 530, 617, 618, 621, 625, 630, 641, 643, 646
Source: SFWMD. Undated. GIS Data Catalog. http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed: August 31, 2013;
SJRWMD. 2013a. GIS Data Download Table. http://floridaswater.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed: August 31, 2013.

4.3.6.2 Affected Environment
The desktop survey identified 38 plant and animal species that are both federally and state listed
(Tables 4.3.6‐2 and 4.3.6‐3) and 36 plant and animal species listed only by the State of Florida
(Tables 4.3.6‐4 and 4.3.6‐5) that may occur within or adjacent to the Project Study Area.
The MCO Segment, E‐W Corridor, and N‐S Corridor intersect USFWS Consultation Areas for: West Indian
(Florida) manatee (Figure 4.3.6‐4), Florida scrub‐jay, red‐cockaded woodpecker, Everglade snail kite,
Audubon’s crested caracara, piping plover, and Atlantic salt marsh snake (USFWS 2003a, 2003b, 2003c,
2003d, , 2003e, 2003f, and 2004a). Appendix 4.3.6‐B provides figures depicting Consultation Areas for
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-93 September 2014

these species in relation to the Project Study Area. Figure 4.3.6‐1 shows the location of listed bird species
habitats in relation to the E‐W Corridor.

Table 4.3.6-2 Federal and State Protected Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within Project Study
Area Counties
Listed Species Scientific Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Preferred Habitat
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E E Coastal waters, bays, rivers, lakes
Southeastern Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris E T Sand dunes
Florida panther Puma concolor coryi E E Large blocks of forested upland or wetland
Florida scrub-jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T T Fire-dominated low-growing oak scrub
Red knot Calidris canutus rufa C Not listed Beaches
Audubon’s crested caracara Caracara cheriway T T Open country with cabbage palm
Piping plover Charadrius melodus T T Beaches and tidal mudflats
Kirtland’s Warbler Dendroica kirtlandii E E Dense scrub
Wood stork Myceteria americana E E Freshwater wetlands
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E E Open mature pine woodland
Everglade snail kite Rostrhamnus socialibis plumbeus E E Large open freshwater marshes
American alligator Alligator mississippinesis SAT SSC Permanent bodies of freshwater
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta T T Coastal and oceanic waters
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas E E Coastal and oceanic waters
Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E E coastal and oceanic waters
Hawksbill sea turtle Eremochelys imbricata E E Coastal and oceanic waters
Leatherback sea turtle Demochelys coriacea E E Coastal and oceanic waters
Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus C T Dry sandy uplands
Florida sand skink Neoseps reynoldsii T T Sparse dry scrub
Atlantic salt marsh snake Nerodia clarkia taeniata T T Coastal salt marshes
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T Wide range of upland and wetland habitats
Striped newt Notophthalmus parstriatus C Not listed Xeric uplands
Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata T T Estuaries, bays, tidal creeks
E Endangered
T Threatened
C Candidate
SAT Threatened because of similarity of appearance
SSC State Special Concern

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


Affected Environment 4-94 September 2014



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


Affected Environment 4-95 September 2014


Numerous natural areas, parks, refuges and other open spaces are adjacent to the Project Study Area in
several locations. Protected species populations utilize some of these open space areas. These natural
areas provide primary habitat as well as refugia for a wide variety of plant and animal species. Boundary
fences are located adjacent to the FECR Corridor and SR 528 along many of the natural areas typically
with a maintained buffer of 10 to 20 feet between the rail line and the natural area fence. The Project
Study Area is in close proximity to wood stork nesting colonies, other active wading bird rookeries,
red‐cockaded woodpecker nesting sites, and a bald eagle nest (Figures 4.3.6‐2 and 4.3.6‐3).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-96 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-97 September 2014



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


Affected Environment 4-98 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-99 September 2014

Table 4.3.6-3 Federal and State Protected Plant Species Known to Occur Within Project Study
Area Counties
Listed Species Scientific Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Preferred Habitat
Four-petal pawpaw Asimina tetramera E E Sand pine scrub
Florida bonamia Bonamia grandiflora T E Open or disturbed sand scrub
Fragrant prickly-apple Ceereus eriophorus var. fragrans E E Scrub flatwoods and xeric hammocks
Florida perforated cladonia Cladonia perforata E E Rosemary scrub
Okeechobee gourd Cucurbita okeechobeensis E E Swamps along Lake Okeechobee
Beautiful pawpaw Deeringothamnus pulchellus E E Open longleaf pine woods
Lakela’s mint Dicerandra immaculata E E Atlantic coastal ridge scrub
Scrub wild buckwheat Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium T E Various scrub upland habitats
Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii T T Tidal deltas, mouths of canals
Beach jacquemontia Jacquemontia reclinata E E Dunes, coastal strand
Papery whitlow-wort Paronychia chartacea T E Lake Wales ridge scrub
Tiny polygala Polygala smallii E E Scrub, sandhill
Sand lace Polygonella myriophylla E E Open sandy scrub
Scrub plum Prunus geniculata E E Sandhill and oak scrub
Carter’s mustard Warea carteri E E Sandhill, inland and coastal scrub
E Endangered
T Threatened

Table 4.3.6-4 State-only Protected Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within Project Study Area Counties
Listed Species Scientific Name
State
Status Preferred Habitat
Florida mouse Podomys floridanus SSC Xeric sandy uplands
Sherman’s fox squirrel Sciurus niger shermani SSC Sandhill, pine flatwoods, pastures
American oystercatcher Haematopus palliates SSC Beaches, sandbars, mudflats
Black skimmer Rynchops niger SSC Coastal waters
Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis SSC Coastal shallow estuarine waters
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SSC Sparsely vegetated sandy uplands
Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis ST Prairies, pasture, freshwater marshe
Least tern Sterna antillarum ST Beaches
Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC Mangroves, marshes, wetlands
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea SSC Shallow open wetlands
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens SSC Tidal flats and shores
Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja SSC Coastal mangroves, tidal flats
Snowy egret Egretta thula SSC Inland and coastal wetlands
Southeastern american kestrel Falco sparverius paulus ST Open pine habitats, prairies, pastures
Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor SSC Coastal and inland wetlands
White ibis Eudocimus albus SSC Freshwater and brackish marshes
Florida pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus SSC Open upland forests on dry sandy soils
Rim rock crowned snake Tantilla oolitica ST Tropical hardwood hammocks, disturbed habitats
Gopher frog Lithobates capito SSC Dry sandy uplands near water
Mangrove rivulus Rivulus marmoratus SSC Mangrove forests
SSC Species of Special Concern
ST State Threatened

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


Affected Environment 4-100 September 2014

Table 4.3.6-5 State-only Protected Plant Species Known to Occur Within Project Study Area Counties
Listed Species Scientific Name
State
Status Preferred Habitat
Curtiss’ sandgrass Calamovilfa multiflorus ST Wet flatwoods
Many-flowered grass-pink Calopogon multiflorus SE Dry to moist longleaf pine forest
Sand dune spurge Chamaesyce cumulicola SE Beach dunes
Piedmont joint grass Coelorachis tuberculosa ST Freshwater marshes
Large-flowered rosemary Conardina grandiflora ST Coastal scrub
Nodding pinweed Lechea cernua ST Scrub and scrubby flatwoods
Pine pinweed Lechea divaricata SE Scrub and scrubby flatwoods
Celestial lily Nemastylis floridana SE Wet prairies, marshes, cabbage palm hammocks
Simpson’s zephyrlily Zephyranthes simpsonii ST Peaty-sandy soil
ST State Threatened
SE State Endangered

The waters along the coastline and intra‐coastal waterway east of the N‐S Corridor contain seagrass
populations and habitat. Johnson’s seagrass is a federally threatened species. Potential seagrass habitat
near the bridge crossings consists of shallow areas less than 7 feet deep, with stable sediments and slow
currents. No Johnson’s seagrass populations were identified in or adjacent to the Project Study Area
during benthic surveys. Seagrass species located in the vicinity of the existing bridges but outside the
footprints of the bridges proposed for construction work include manatee grass and shoal grass, which
are not listed.
The federally protected bald eagle was observed during the field surveys, along with suitable nesting
habitat.
State and federal listed species, Florida scrub‐jay, Audubon’s crested caracara, wood stork, and gopher
tortoise were observed during the field surveys. Suitable habitat for eastern indigo snake, West Indian
(Florida) manatee, Florida scrub‐jay, smalltooth sawfish, and Audubon’s crested caracara were observed
within the Project Study Area during the field investigations, along with wood stork foraging and wading
bird nesting and foraging.
Several federal species identified as present within the counties through which the Project would pass
are not within the Project Study Area because either habitat is lacking or the Project Study Area is outside
the accepted range of the species. These species include: Florida panther, southeastern beach mouse,
piping plover, Kirtland’s warbler, Everglades snail kite, and Atlantic salt marsh snake. Plant species for
which the accepted range does not include the Project Study Area are: Florida bonamia, pygmy fringe
tree, Okeechobee gourd, scrub wild buckwheat, scrub lupine, Britton’s beargrass, papery whitlow‐wort,
and Carter’s mustard. Plant species for which known populations do not occur within the Project Study
Area include: fragrant prickly apple, Lakela’s mint, beach jacquemontia, sand lace, scrub plum, and
clasping warea.
Areas within and adjacent to the WPB‐M Corridor also may provide habitat for listed species.
Table 4.3.6‐6 and Table 4.3.6‐7 list the protected species reported for the three counties crossed by the
WPB‐M Corridor.

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


Affected Environment 4-101 September 2014

Table 4.3.6-6 Federal and State Listed Animal Species Potentially in WPB-M Corridor Project Area
Listed Species Scientific Name Federal Status State Status
Mangrove Rivulus Rivulus marmoratus N/A SSC
Smalltooth Sawfish Pristis pectinata E E
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SAT SAT
American Crocodile Crocodylus acutus T T
Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas E E
Gopher Frog Lithobates capito N/A SSC
Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus N/A T
Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricate E E
Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E
Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta T T
Rim Rock Crowned Snake Tantilla oolitica N/A T
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Delisted Delisted
Everglades Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus E E
Florida Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia floridana N/A SSC
Florida Scrub-jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T T
Kirtland's Warbler Dendroica kirtlandii E E
Piping Plover Charadruis melodus T T
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea N/A SSC
Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa C N/A
Snowy egret Egretta thula N/A SSC
Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor N/A SSC
White ibis Eudocimus albus N/A SSC
Wood stork Mycteria americana E E
Florida Bonneted bat Eumops floridanus C T
Florida mouse Podomys floridanus N/A SSC
Southeastern Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotusniveiventris T T
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E/CH E/CH
E Endangered
T Threatened
C Candidate
CH Critical Habitat
SAT Threatened because of similarity of appearance
SSC State Special Concern

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


Affected Environment 4-102 September 2014

Table 4.3.6-7 Federal and State Listed Plant Species Potentially in WPB-M Corridor Project Area
Listed Species Scientific Name Federal Status State Status
Bahama Brake Pteris bahamensis N/A T
Bahama Sachsia Sachsia polycephala N/A T
Banded Wild-pine Tillandsia flexuosa N/A T
Blodgett's Wild-mercury Argythamnia blodgettii N/A E
Celestial Lily Nemastylis floridana N/A E
Christmas Berry Crossopetalum ilicifolium N/A T
Clamshell Orchid Encyclia cochleata var. triandra N/A E
Coastal Vervain Glandularia maritima N/A E
Cutthroat Grass Panicum abscissum N/A E
Eaton's Spike Moss Selaginella eatonii N/A E
Florida Lantana Lantana depressa var. depressa N/A E
Florida Royal Palm Roystonea elata N/A E
Giant Orchid Pteroglossaspis ecristata N/A T
Golden Leather Fern Acrostichum aureum N/A T
Johnson’s Seagrass Halophila johnsonii T/CH T/CH
Large-flowered Rosemary Conradina grandiflora N/A T
Lignum-vitae Guaiacum sanctum N/A E
Nodding Pinweed Lechea cernua N/A T
Pine Pinweed Lechea divaricata N/A E
Pineland Jacquemontia Jacquemontia curtissii N/A T
Porter's Broad-leaved Spurge Chamaesyce porteriana N/A E
Redmargin Zephyrlily Zephyranthes simpsonii N/A T
Rockland Painted-leaf Euphorbia pinetorum N/A E
Sand-dune Spurge Chamaesyce cumulicola N/A E
Small's Flax Linum carteri var. smallii N/A E
Tiny polygala Polygala smallii E E
Two-keeled Helmet Orchid Galeandra bicarinata N/A E
West Indies Mahogany Swietenia mahagoni N/A T
E Endangered
T Threatened
CH Critical Habitat

4.4 Social and Economic Environment
This Section provides information on the existing human environment, including communities and
demographics, environmental justice communities, economics, public health and safety, cultural
resources, recreation, and other Section 4(f) resources, visual and scenic resources, utilities, and energy.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-103 September 2014

4.4.1 Communities and Demographics
This section provides an overview of existing community structure and demographic profiles within the
Project Study Area.
4.4.1.1 Methodology
Information collected from the United States Census Bureau (USCB), county websites (Orange, Brevard,
Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach), and municipal websites (Orlando, Cocoa, Melbourne,
Vero Beach, Fort Pierce, Jupiter, Palm Beach Gardens, Riviera Beach, and West Palm Beach) was reviewed
and incorporated, as appropriate, to describe the community structure and demographic profiles within
the Project Study Area.
4.4.1.2 Affected Environment
The MCO Segment is located within MCO, which is in the City of Orlando. MCO is the 13
th
busiest airport
in the United States and the 29
th
busiest airport in the world (MCO 2012b). Orlando is the most visited
destination in the United States with over 50 million domestic and international visitors each year
(Orange County Office of Economic Development 2013).
According to 2007‐2011 American Community Survey (ACS) 5‐year Estimates, the City of Orlando has a
total population of 236,532 (Table 4.4.1‐1) (USCB 2011). Between 2000 and 2011, the total population of
the city increased by 27.2 percent (USCB 2000). Orlando has a land area of 102.4 square miles; its
population density is approximately 2,310 persons per square mile (USCB 2013).
The E‐W Corridor extends from Orlando to Cocoa. Outside of these municipalities, the remaining areas
along the E‐W Corridor predominantly consist of transportation, cropland and pastureland, and
undeveloped areas. Cocoa is located within Florida’s Space Coast, the most concentrated high‐tech
economy in the state (Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast 2011a). According to
2007‐2011 ACS 5‐year Estimates, the City of Cocoa has a total population of 17,302 (Table 4.4.1‐1)
(USCB 2011). Between 2000 and 2011, the total population of Cocoa increased by 5.4 percent
(Table 4.4.1‐1) (USCB 2000). Cocoa has a land area of 13.3 square miles; its population density is
approximately 1,301 persons per square mile (USCB 2013).
The N‐S Corridor is within the existing FECR Corridor, and passes through numerous incorporated
municipalities: Cocoa, Melbourne, Vero Beach, Fort Pierce, Jupiter, Palm Beach Gardens, Riviera Beach,
and West Palm Beach. Among these municipalities, West Palm Beach has the highest total population
(98,795), while Vero Beach has the lowest total population (15,664) (USCB 2011). Between 2000 and
2011, Jupiter experienced the largest population gain of these communities, on a percentage basis
(37.1 percent) (USCB 2000). Vero Beach was the only incorporated municipality in the Project Study Area
whose population declined between 2000 and 2011 (‐11.5 percent) (USCB 2000). Table 4.4.1‐1 lists the
total population, by county, in 2000 and 2011 for each of the incorporated municipalities within the
Project Study Area.

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


Affected Environment 4-104 September 2014

Table 4.4.1-1 Total Population (2000 and 2011) of Incorporated Municipalities Crossed by the
Project, by County
County Municipality
Total Population
(2000)
Total Population
(2011)
Percent Increase in
Total Population
(2000 to 2011)
Orange Orlando 185,951 236,532 27.2
Brevard Cocoa 16,412 17,302 5.4
Melbourne 71,382 76,538 7.2
Indian River Vero Beach 17,705 15,664 -11.5
St. Lucie Fort Pierce 37,516 42,373 12.9
Palm Beach Jupiter 39,328 53,935 37.1
Palm Beach Gardens 35,058 47,483 35.4
Riviera Beach 29,884 32,508 8.8
West Palm Beach 82,103 98,795 20.3
Source: USCB. 2000. Census 2000. http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed August 13, 2013; USCB. 2013. State and County
Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1260975.html. Accessed August 14, 2013.

A brief description of the other incorporated municipalities within the Project Study Area is provided
below.
 Melbourne is in the southern portion of Brevard County, on Florida’s Space Coast
(Melbourne, Florida 2012). Melbourne has a land area of 33.9 square miles; its population density
is approximately 2,258 persons per square mile (USCB 2013).
 Vero Beach’s tourist attractions are an important part of the city’s economy and the greater
region known as the “Treasure Coast” (Vero Beach, Florida n.d.). Recreational activities and
attractions in Vero Beach include golfing, water sports, fishing, beaches, museums, and nature
tours (Visit Florida 2013b). Vero Beach has a land area of 11.4 square miles; its population density
is approximately 1,374 persons per square mile (USCB 2013).
 Fort Pierce is one of the oldest communities on the eastern coast of Florida and has been the hub of
St. Lucie County for over 100 years (Fort Pierce, Florida 2010). Fort Pierce has a land area of
20.6 square miles; its population density is approximately 2,057 persons per square mile
(USCB 2013).
 Jupiter is a coastal community, and one of the northernmost suburbs of the Miami‐Fort
Lauderdale‐Pompano Beach Metropolitan Statistical Area. Jupiter has a land area of 21.5 square
miles; its population density is approximately 2,509 persons per square mile (USCB 2013).
 Palm Beach Gardens is the largest land area in Palm Beach County. Over 50 percent of the city’s
land mass is either forested or landscaped green space (Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 2008). Palm
Beach Gardens has a land area of 55.1 square miles; its population density is approximately
862 persons per square mile (USCB 2013).
 Riviera Beach has a robust waterfront, occupied by shops, restaurants, and other attractions such
as the Port of Palm Beach (City of Riviera Beach, Florida 2013). Riviera Beach has a land area of
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-105 September 2014

8.5 square miles; its population density is approximately 3,824 persons per square mile
(USCB 2013).
 West Palm Beach includes numerous shopping districts, historic and scenic neighborhoods
(Northwood Village, Old Northwood, Flamingo Park, and El Cid), and year‐round outdoor
festivals. West Palm Beach has a land area of 55.3 square miles; its population density is
approximately 1,787 persons per square mile (USCB 2013).
The additional two municipalities served by proposed stations are described below.
 The City of Fort Lauderdale has a land area of 34.8 square miles; its population density is
approximately 4,791 persons per square mile (USCB 2010a and 2011).
 The City of Miami has a land area of 35.9 square miles and has a population density of
approximately 11,041 persons per square mile (USCB 2010a and 2011).
The total population of the 117 census tracts within the Project Study Area is 535,868, which represents
15.1 percent of the total population of the six counties and 2.9 percent of the total population of the entire
state. The highest concentrations of population in the Project Study Area are within Brevard County
(158,623) and Palm Beach County (115,597). Table 4.4.1‐2 provides the total population for each of the
six counties crossed by the Project, the census tracts within the Project Study Area (by county), and the
State of Florida (USCB 2010a).

Table 4.4.1-2 Total Population of Census Tracts Crossed by the Project, by County
Geography
(No. of Census Tracts) Total Population
Total Population of the
Census Tracts
Transected by the Project
Florida 18,688,787 --
Six County Total 3,541,985 535,868
Orange (8) 1,133,087 78,632
Brevard (32) 542,320 158,623
Indian River (17) 137,004 69,533
St. Lucie (10) 274,693 35,131
Martin (20) 145,480 78,352
Palm Beach (30 - N-S Corridor) 1,309,401 115,597
Palm Beach (46 - WPB-M Corridor) 1,320,134
1
170,687
1

Broward (52) 1,748,066
1
220,308
1

Miami-Dade (38) 2,496,435
1
157,769
1

Source: USCB. 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Total Population. http://factfinder2.census.gov/.
Accessed August 13, 2013; AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida
Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed
September 12, 2013.
1 Population data, as presented in Section 3.3.3 of the 2012 EA, derives from the 2010 U.S. Census

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


Affected Environment 4-106 September 2014

Section 4.4.2, Environmental Justice, presents demographic information pertaining to minority and
low‐income populations identified within the Project Study Area.
4.4.2 Environmental Justice
This section provides an overview of the existing conditions related to minority and low‐income
populations within the Project Study Area. EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Population and Low‐Income Populations, was issued in February 1994 and requires that federal
agencies consider whether a proposed project would have a disproportionately high adverse impact on
minority or low‐income populations.
CEQ has oversight of the federal government’s compliance with NEPA, including EO 12898. CEQ, with
input from the EPA and other affected agencies, developed a guidance document to assist federal agencies
with their NEPA procedures so that environmental justice concerns are effectively identified and
addressed. CEQ’s guidance document indicates that
“minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected
area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully
greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit
of geographic analysis. A minority population also exists if there is more than one minority group
present and the minority percentage, as calculated by aggregating all minority persons, meets one of
the above‐stated thresholds,” (CEQ 1997b).
4.4.2.1 Methodology
This evaluation uses demographic data collected from the 2010 U.S. Census and 2010 ACS. The Project
Study Area includes census tracts within 1,000 feet of the proposed or existing railroad alignments.
Because impacts to environmental justice communities are dependent on the potential for significant
impacts in other environmental categories, the area of analysis for environmental justice is the area of
potential significant impacts for the other environmental impact categories, including cumulative
impacts.
Thresholds to determine meaningfully greater high minority and low‐income populations include census
tracts where minority populations are 10 percent higher than the combined total for the six counties
crossed by the Project (37.4 percent) between Orlando and West Palm Beach, and census tracts where
low‐income populations are 10 percent higher than the combined total for the census tracts crossed by
the alignments (23.3 percent).
Poverty information was obtained from the USCB American Fact Finder website for poverty status in the
past 12 months at the state, county, and census tract levels within the Project Study Area (USCB 2010b).
There is a portion of the population whose poverty status cannot be determined. These populations include
individuals under the age of 15 that do not live with a family member such as foster children; and people in
college dormitories, military barracks, and institutional quarters such as prisons or nursing homes
(USCB 2012). The percentage of the population below the poverty level is based on the population for which
poverty status has been determined, rather than the total population in a given area.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-107 September 2014

4.4.2.2 Affected Environment
Race
For this analysis, the minority or ‘non‐White’ population refers to persons who reported their ethnicity
and race as something other than ‘White alone’ during the 2010 Census (USCB 2010a). The ‘non‐White’
population was calculated by subtracting the ‘White’ population from the total population for each area.
The ‘non‐White’ population includes individuals of American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific
Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic racial heritage. Table 4.4.2‐1 summarizes the
‘non‐White’ populations identified at the state, county and census tract levels within the Project Study
Area. Census tracts with a meaningfully greater percentage of minority populations (≥37.4 percent of the
population, which is 10 percent higher than the percent minority population calculated for the combined
six counties crossed by the Project) and minority populations greater than 50 percent are listed by county
in Table 4.4.2‐2 and shown in Appendix 4.4.2‐A.

Table 4.4.2-1 Summary of the Minority/’Non-White’ Populations per County

Minority/‘Non White’
Population Percent ‘Non-White’
Florida 4,692,148 25.0
Orange County 417,161 36.4
Brevard County 92,449 17.0
Indian River County 21,682 15.7
St. Lucie County 78,453 28.2
Martin County 18,627 12.7
Palm Beach County 350,013 26.5
Six County Total 978,385 27.4
Project Study Area Census Tracts within:

Orange County (8) 21,684 27.6
Brevard County (32) 28,557 18.0
Indian River County (17) 14,782 21.3
St. Lucie County (10) 11,812 33.6
Martin County (20) 10,374 13.2
Palm Beach County (30) 48,162 41.7
Project Study Area Total 135,371 25.3
Source: USCB. 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Total Population. http://factfinder2.census.gov/.
Accessed August 13, 2013.

As shown in Table 4.4.2‐1, 25.3 percent of the total population within the Project Study Area is
‘non‐White’. This is lower than the total percentage of the population considered ‘non‐White’ within the
six counties crossed by the Project Study Area (27.4 percent), but nearly equal to the total percentage of
the population considered ‘non‐White’ within the entire state (25.0 percent). Meaningfully higher
populations of ‘non‐White’ persons at the county level occur in St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties. Among
the counties within the Project Study Area, Orange County has the highest concentration of minority
populations (36.4 percent), while Martin County has the lowest concentration of minority populations
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-108 September 2014

(12.7 percent). The highest concentrations of minority populations within the Project Study Area were
found to be in Palm Beach County (41.7 percent), St. Lucie County (33.6 percent), and Orange County
(27.6 percent). Of the 117 census tracts within the Project Study Area, 24 census tracts (20.5 percent)
have minority populations greater than 50 percent and two tracts (1.7 percent) have minority
populations greater than 37.4 percent (Table 4.4.2‐2).

Table 4.4.2-2 Minority Population Concentrations
Census Tract
Percent Minority
Population ≥37.4 %
Percent Minority
Population >50 %
Brevard
062301 -- 60.2
062302 38.2 --
062600 -- 78.2
062900 38.5 --
064902 -- 53.1
065124 -- 70.2
Indian River 050302 -- 79.0
St. Lucie
380901 -- 57.8
380100 -- 66.7
380200 -- 94.9
380500 -- 51.4
Martin 000800 -- 58.5
Palm Beach
001101 -- 67.9
001200 -- 72.8
001301 -- 85.6
001302 -- 98.6
001404 -- 97.3
001403 -- 98.5
001402 -- 91.0
001500 -- 85.8
001600 -- 64.1
001700 -- 50.2
001801 -- 83.4
002200 -- 95.1
002300 -- 51.4
002400 --
93.1
Source: USCB. 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Total Population. http://factfinder2.census.gov/.
Accessed August 13, 2013.

For the WPB‐M Corridor evaluated in Section 3.3.3 of the 2012 EA (138 census tracts in Palm Beach,
Broward, and Miami‐Dade Counties), 39.7 percent of the population was ‘non‐White’ and 25.7 percent
Hispanic, which is 10.0 percent greater than the tri‐county ‘non‐White’ population and 15.9 percent less
than the tri‐county Hispanic population. Based on the CEQ guidelines, the 10.0 percent higher ‘non‐White’
population represents a proportion of the impacted area that is deemed “meaningfully greater” when
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-109 September 2014

compared to the regional population; therefore, minority populations subject to protection under
Executive Order 12898 are present within the WPB‐M Corridor.
Low Income
CEQ’s guidance for environmental justice indicates that low‐income populations in an affected area
“should be identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’
Current Population Reports, Series P‐60 on Income and Poverty (CEQ 1997b).” USCB uses a set of income
thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine poverty status. Official poverty
thresholds do not vary geographically, but are updated for inflation (USCB 2012). USCB reports poverty
data from several major household surveys and programs, including the ACS, which is an ongoing
statistical survey that samples a small percentage of the population every year. Information from the ACS
is used to help determine how federal and state funds are distributed each year (USCB 2011). Weighted
average poverty thresholds for 2010 ranged from $10,458 to $11,344 annual income for individuals, and
$14,218 to $45,220 for households, depending on age and the number of people in the household.
Table 4.4.2‐3 summarizes low‐income populations identified at the state, county, and census tract levels
within the Project Study Area. Census tracts with a meaningfully greater percentage of the population
below the poverty level (≥23.3 percent of the population, which is 10 percent higher than the percent of
the population below poverty calculated for the combined six counties) and populations below poverty
greater than 50 percent are listed by county in Table 4.4.2‐4 and figures in Appendix 4.4.2‐B.

Table 4.4.2-3 Summary of Poverty Data Status in the past 12 months at the State, County, and
Census Tract Level within the Project Study Area

Population for
which Poverty is
determined
Population
Below Poverty
Percent Below
Poverty
Median
Household
Income
Florida 18,107,049 2,502,365 13.8 $47,827
Orange County 1,097,169 147,225 13.4 $49,731
Brevard County 532,304 55,981 10.5 $50,068
Indian River County 134,445 16,984 12.6 $46,363
St. Lucie County 265,682 36,457 13.7 $44,947
Martin County 141,536 14,724 10.4 $53,612
Palm Beach County 1,281,333 156,759 12.2 $52,951
Six County Total 3,452,469 428,130 12.4
Affected Census Tracts (117) within:
Project Study
Area Weighted
Average
Orange County (8) 71,324 6,495 9.1 $66,704
Brevard County (32) 154,662 18,353 11.9 $51,269
Indian River County (17) 68,002 11,175 16.4 $42,270
St. Lucie County (10) 35,127 5,977 17.0 $35,629
Martin County (20) 75,856 7,764 10.2 $54,002
Palm Beach County (30) 108,645 18,611 17.1 $55,004
Project Study Area Total 513,616 68,375 13.3
Source: USCB. 2010b. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: S0801, Commuting Characteristics by Sex.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 12, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-110 September 2014

As shown in Table 4.4.2‐3, 13.3 percent of the total population within the Project Study Area has been
below the poverty level within the last 12 months. This is slightly higher than the total percent of the
population below poverty within the six counties (12.4 percent), but slightly lower than the percent
below poverty within the entire state (13.8 percent). Meaningful levels of low‐income persons are present
in Indian River, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach Counties. St. Lucie County has the highest percent below the
poverty level (13.7 percent), while Martin County has the lowest percent below the poverty level
(10.4 percent). Of the 117 census tracts within the Project Study Area, three (2.6 percent) reported
poverty greater than 50 percent and 20 (19.7 percent) reported poverty greater than 23.3 percent
(Table 4.4.2‐4). The three census tracts with poverty greater than 50 percent occur in St. Lucie and Palm
Beach Counties, and were also identified as counties with greater than 50 percent minority populations.
Nearly half (10) of the census tracts with poverty greater than 23.3 percent are in Palm Beach County and
are the same tracts identified as having a high percent minority population.

Table 4.4.2-4 Low-Income Population Concentrations
Census Tract
Percent Low-Income Population
≥23.3 percent
Percent Low-Income Population
>50 percent
Brevard
062301 38.5 --
062302 40.2 --
062400 23.6 --
062600 36.2 --
064700 27.0 --
064902 40.8 --
065124 23.4 --
Indian River
050302 29.1 --
050401 46.9 --
St. Lucie
380100 -- 51.6
380200 42.9 --
381000 26.5 --
Martin 000800 35.6 --
Palm Beach
001200 24.8 --
001301 23.7 --
001302 31.4 --
001402 24.7 --
001403 -- 51.6
001500 24.8 --
001700 35.1 --
002200 -- 56.0
002300 33.8 --
002400 46.1 --
Source: USCB. 2010b. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: S0801, Commuting Characteristics by Sex.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 12, 2013.

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


Affected Environment 4-111 September 2014

In addition to data pertaining to minority and low‐income populations, information on language usage
identifies areas within the Project Study Area where mitigation measures, such as the use of translators
during public meetings, may be necessary. In Orange and Brevard Counties, 12.8 percent and 3.1 percent
of the total population (5 years old and over) speak English less than “very well,” respectively. Among the
combined total population (5 years old and over) within the counties crossed by the N‐S Corridor,
9.6 percent speak English less than “very well.” The highest concentration of persons that speak English
less than “very well” were found to be in Palm Beach County (13.0 percent) (USCB 2010b).
For the WPB‐M Corridor evaluated in Section 3.3.3 of the 2012 EA, 20.4 percent of the population was
below the poverty level. This is 8.9 percent higher than the tri‐county average, which represents a
proportion of the impacted area that is deemed “meaningfully greater” when compared to the regional
population as per the CEQ guidelines. Low‐income populations subject to protection under Executive
Order 12898 are present within the WPB‐M Corridor.
4.4.3 Economic Conditions
This section provides an overview of existing labor force and general employment sector conditions for
the six counties within the Project Study Area.
4.4.3.1 Methodology
Data obtained from the 2007‐2011 ACS, “Selected Economic Characteristics,” and information collected
as part of a literature review were examined and incorporated, as appropriate, to describe the economic
characteristics of the Project Area.
4.4.3.2 Affected Environment
Orlando and Orange County are the most visited destinations in the United States with over 50 million
domestic and international visitors each year (Orange County Office of Economic Development 2013).
The tourism sector alone provides $27.6 billion in total economic impact to Metro Orlando
(Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission 2012). Theme parks such as Walt Disney World
Resort, Universal Orlando Resort, and SeaWorld Orlando are some of the area’s main attractions. Walt
Disney World Resort is the largest amongst these attractions, and includes several theme parks and water
parks: Magic Kingdom, Epcot Center, Disney’s Hollywood Studios, Disney’s Animal Kingdom, Disney’s
Typhoon Lagoon, and Disney’s Blizzard Beach (Disney n.d.). The nation’s second largest convention
facility is the Orange County Convention Center, which hosts approximately 1 million visitors per year
and provides $1.9 billion in total economic impact to the Central Florida economy (Orange County
Convention Center 2013).
The area from Cocoa to Melbourne in Brevard County is within Florida’s Space Coast. The Space Coast
stretches 72 miles along the state’s eastern coastline, and is the most concentrated high‐tech economy in
the state (Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast 2011a). This high‐tech economy
includes communications, electronics, aerospace, advanced security, and emerging technologies
(Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast 2011a). The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) Kennedy Space Center and United States Air Force (USAF) Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station operate within the Space Coast, and are two of the region’s largest employers
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-112 September 2014

(Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast 2011b). The Kennedy Space Center Visitor
Complex hosts over 1.5 million visitors per year. The Space Coast also includes the Merritt Island National
Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) and Canaveral National Seashore, which draw over 550,000 visitors per year.
Port Canaveral, one of the busiest ports in the nation, served over 3 million passengers in 2011 and has
an estimated economic impact of $48 million of state and local taxes (Canaveral Port Authority 2009).
According to the ACS, three industry categories typically employed the greatest percentage of the labor
forces in the six counties transected by the Project Study Area: educational services, health care, and social
assistance; professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste management services; and
retail trade (USCB 2011) (Table 4.4.3‐1).

Table 4.4.3-1 Existing Labor Force and General Employment Data
County
Population in
Labor Force
Industry Type (Percent of Workforce)
Percent
Unemployed
Educational
Services, Health
Care and Social
Assistance
Retail
Trade
Professional, Scientific,
Management,
Administrative and Waste
Management Services
Orange 627,702 17.5 12.5 13.9 7.2
Brevard 263,218 20.8 13.3 12.9 6.2
Indian River 62,322 20.9 13.9 12.7 6.7
St. Lucie
128,691 20.8
16.8 10.0 8.2
Martin
66,999 20.2
14.7 13.1 5.8
Palm Beach 647,885 20.0 13.4 14.0 6.3
Source: USCB. 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Total Population. http://factfinder2.census.gov/.
Accessed August 13, 2013.

Agriculture is one of the major industries in Palm Beach County; commercial agriculture provides over
$2 billion in total economic impact to Palm Beach County’s economy. Approximately 37 percent of the
total land in the county is occupied by agricultural land use (Palm Beach County, Florida 2013).
Agriculture, natural resources and related industries are significant economic contributors within the five
counties crossed by the N‐S Corridor. This industry group generates 189,489 direct jobs and
approximately $15.4 billion in direct revenues; it has an overall economic impact of approximately
$18 billion (Table 4.4.3‐2). Among the five counties crossed by the N‐S Corridor, the largest economic
impact from agriculture, natural resources and related industries is found in Palm Beach County
($11.6 billion) (Rahmani et al. 2008).






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


Affected Environment 4-113 September 2014

Table 4.4.3-2 Summary of Economic Impacts of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related
Industries Along the N-S Corridor
Direct Employment
(Jobs)
Revenue
($ billions)
Economic Impact
($ billions)
Brevard 29,493 2.1 2.2
Indian River 14,919 1.1 1.2
St. Lucie 18,612 1.3 1.6
Martin 14,217 1.2 1.4
Palm Beach 112,248 9.7 11.6
Five County Total 189,489 15.4 18.0
Source: Rahmani, Mohammad, Alan W. Hodges, and Rodney L. Clouser. 2008. Economic Contributions of Agriculture, Natural
Resources, and Related Industries in Florida Counties, 2008. http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/economic-impact-
analysis/pdf/Florida%20Counties%20Main.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2013.

Recreational boating activities bring revenue for local businesses and governments. According to the
SFWMD and the Florida Center for Environmental Studies, fishing in the Indian River Lagoon brought in
$82.1 million in Martin and St. Lucie Counties in 1995, with boating adding an additional $12.4 million
(SFWMD and Florida Center for Environmental Studies 1999). According to the Recreational Marine
Research Center, which conducted a study commissioned by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, the total spending on boat trips by boat owners registered in Martin County in 2006 is
estimated to be over $65 million, and nearly $170 million in Palm Beach County. If the estimated annual
spending on recreational boating, not including purchases of boats, is added to that, the economic
significance of trip spending and annual boating spending by boats registered in Martin County is
estimated to have a value of over $90 million. In Palm Beach County, these numbers are estimated with a
value over $280 million (Recreational Marine Research Center n.d.). According to recreational boat traffic
surveys, recreational boating in Broward County has an economic impact of approximately $8.8 billion
(Mote 2005). These estimates include lodging, marina services, restaurants, groceries, boat fuel, auto fuel,
marine supplies, recreation, entertainment, and shopping, and encompass an area much larger than the
Project Study Area. Section 4.1.3, Navigation, provides additional information on the economics of the
maritime industry.
4.4.4 Public Health and Safety
This section describes the existing and proposed conditions within the Project Study Area with respect to
the health and safety of the residents and communities that may be affected by the construction and
long‐term operation of the Project.
FRA has primary regulatory authority over railroad safety. FRA’s regulations govern aspects of railroad
safety, including rail operations, track, and signaling, as well as rolling stock, such as locomotives and
freight cars (49 CFR parts 200‐299). The State of Florida also has an important role in freight rail safety,
especially at highway/rail at‐grade crossings. Other groups that establish standards and practices for the
industry include the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association (ASLRRA), and the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way
Association (AREMA).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-114 September 2014

Where a roadway, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway crosses the track at the same elevation, this is
called an at‐grade crossing. Where a roadway, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway passes over the
tracks via an overpass bridge structure or passes under a railroad track via an underpass bridge structure,
these crossings are referred to as grade separated. FHWA and FRA have regulatory jurisdiction over
safety at crossings, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (HSA) (23 USC § 401 et seq.). The HSA
governs the distribution of federal funds to states aimed at eliminating hazards at highway‐rail grade
crossings. USDOT has issued regulations that address crossing safety and provides federal funding for the
installation and improvement of warning devices through state departments of transportation. In
addition to federal oversight and funding, states also monitor crossings and, in many cases designate
funding to complement the federal funds. Jurisdiction over highway‐rail grade crossings falls primarily to
the states. This authority is set forth in the Railroad‐Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (FHWA 2007).
Each state department of transportation is required to periodically inspect highway‐rail grade crossings
and to determine the adequacy of warning devices at each location, as well as to order safety
improvements. USDOT oversees and approves the state determinations. Within Florida, FDOT’s Rail
Office maintains responsibility for grade crossings.
4.4.4.1 Methodology
Highway/rail at‐grade crossing information was collected from the FRA Grade Crossings database
(FRA n.d.). This database provides spatial crossing information that originates from the National
Highway‐Rail Crossing Inventory Program.
The description of geological hazards, considered as a public safety issue, was developed using existing
available information (Institute of Food and Agricultural Service 1998 and 2005)

and applicable data
obtained from geotechnical surveys (soil borings) conducted for the Project Study Area, including
information and data obtained to describe existing conditions and potential consequences associated
with sinkholes

and seismic hazard zones (Beck, Berry and Sinclair 1986; NOAA n.d.).
Data related to soils were collected using the following GIS analysis techniques:
 Creating a polygon that represents a 100‐foot buffer of the N‐S Corridor;
 Creating a polygon that represents a 60‐foot buffer of the E‐W Corridor;
 Dividing the polygons into county segments using the Intersect geoprocessing tool in ArcGIS; and
 Using the Intersect geoprocessing tool to intersect the county buffer polygons with the Soil Survey
Geographic database soils feature classes created by the NRCS USDA.
4.4.4.2 Affected Environment
This section describes the existing conditions within the Project Study Area with respect to the health and
safety of the residents and communities that may be affected by the construction and long‐term
operations of the Project.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-115 September 2014

Public Safety
The N‐S Corridor between Cocoa and West Palm Beach is within an existing rail right‐of‐way known as
the FECR Corridor. Freight rail service is currently provided in this corridor as described in Section 4.1.2,
Transportation. Passenger rail service is not currently provided in the corridor.
FRA’s Track Safety Standards are based on classifications of track that determine maximum operating
speed limits, inspection frequencies, and standards of maintenance, among other issues (49 CFR
part 213). Higher track classes require more stringent maintenance standards to support higher
allowable maximum operating speed. The existing track in the N‐S Corridor is Class 4, allowing maximum
speeds up to 79 mph. Existing maintenance and inspection requirements, as documented in the existing
service plan, meet FRA Class 4 standards.
The N‐S Corridor crosses approximately 171 at‐grade crossings. Two of these, located in Palm Beach
County, do not have signals or safety equipment. The remaining 169 at‐grade crossings are protected with
various forms of at‐grade crossing controls, including actively protected grade crossing predictor
technology with gates and flashing light signals. An inventory of accidents at N‐S Corridor at‐grade
crossings was conducted for a 5‐year period (2007 through 2012) using the FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis
database (Table 4.4.4‐1). In general, the total number of accidents by county is minimal, and only one
crossing (Babcock Street, Brevard County) has had more than one accident in the last 5 years.

Table 4.4.4-1 N-S Corridor At-Grade Crossing Accident Data by County
Brevard
Indian
River St. Lucie Martin
Palm
Beach
Total Number of Grade Crossings 52 31 27 26 35
Number of Grade Crossings with Accidents (Year 2012
1
) 1 1 0 1 1
Number of Grade Crossings with Accidents (2011) 0 0 0 0 1
Number of Grade Crossings with Accidents (2010) 2 0 0 0 1
Number of Grade Crossings with Accidents (2009) 1 0 0 0 0
Number of Grade Crossings with Accidents (2008) 2 0 0 1 2
Total Number of Accidents 6 1 0 2 5
Number of Grade Crossings with Signals 52 31 27 26 33
Number of Grade Crossings without Signals 0 0 0 0 2
Source: FRA. 2013b. Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis.
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/default.aspx. Accessed September 18, 2013.
1 Palm Beach and Brevard County numbers exclude crossings north of SR 528 and south of the proposed West Palm Beach
stations. Numbers for all counties exclude grade crossings on sidings and off of the FECR Main Line.

Accidents occurring along the FECR right‐of‐way (and not at grade crossings) are listed in Table 4.4.4‐2.
These may include a range of accident types, including derailments, accidents between trains, trains and
humans, or between trains and objects on the tracks.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-116 September 2014


Table 4.4.4-2 FECR Accidents, Cocoa to Miami – Years 2011 to 2007
1

Year
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Total Accidents 14 12 10 11 38
Fatalities 3 3 2 1 1
Source: FRA. 2013b. Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis.
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/default.aspx. Accessed September 18, 2013.
1 Accident locations are based on counties; data represents Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian
River and Brevard counties.

The primary roads in the Project Study Area are I‐95 and Florida’s Turnpike (SR 91), providing
north‐south connections, and SR 528, providing the east‐west connection. Table 4.4.4‐3 below provides
five years of accident data for the regional roadway system within the Project Study Area.

Table 4.4.4-3 Primary Regional Roadway System Traffic Accidents – Years 2011 to 2007
1

Accidents
Year
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
I-95 (Cocoa to Miami)
Total Accidents 7903 8957 8232 8464 9174
Fatalities 65 68 72 91 84
Turnpike (Orlando to Miami)
Total Accidents 1771 2239 2438 2868 3017
Fatalities 22 22 15 19 32
SR 528 (MCO to Cocoa)
Total Accidents 213 245 253 322 301
Fatalities 3 3 0 9 7
Source: FDOT. 2013c. Florida Traffic Safety Portal. http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/trafficsafetywebportal/. Accessed September 31, 2013.
1

Accident locations are based on counties; data represents Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian
River and Brevard counties.

The prevailing train control system on the existing FECR Corridor is commonly known as a cab with
wayside type system. It uses wayside color light signals at interlockings that control safe switching of
trains from mainline track to mainline track, or mainline track to controlled sidings. These signals are
remotely controlled by dispatchers from an operations control center in Jacksonville, Florida. Safe
braking distance is maintained through automatic signals (also color lights) used as intermediates
between controlled interlocking signals. The control is route‐signaling augmented by in‐cab signals that
display the state of the wayside signals continuously in the locomotive cab through electronic coded track.
This electronic coded track also provides information on broken rail detection.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-117 September 2014

Freight trains traveling along the FECR Corridor are currently equipped to haul hazardous materials.
Although there is no set schedule, hazardous materials are hauled on an average of once per week
(see Table 4.2.4‐2). FECR adheres to a safety program for existing freight service that includes:
 Education and Awareness: All FECR employees receive training throughout the year as required
by law and by company policy.
 Test/Audits: FECR management teams conducts unannounced safety and compliance audits to
ensure that employees are working in the safest environment possible.
 Compliance/Prevention: FECR ensures that potentially unsafe behaviors or circumstances are
addressed immediately and any incidents are investigated in a timely manner.
 Recognition: Employee recognition is a key component of any successful safety program. FECR
employees share in the success of the safety program through functions designed to promote safe
work habits and recognize safety accomplishments throughout the year.
FECR has consistently been recognized for their safety record through receipt of performance rewards,
including five E.H. Harriman Awards since 2005. The E.H. Harriman Award is an annual award presented
to American railroad companies in recognition for outstanding safety achievements.
Security
In the current security climate, rail line security continues to be a prominent concern. Access points are
of particular concern.
The FECR Corridor from Cocoa to West Palm Beach includes buildings and rail yards (Cocoa‐Rockledge
Yard, Ft. Pierce Yard, Port of Palm Beach Yard, and West Palm Beach Yard), bridges, right‐of‐way, and
underpasses. The safety and security for this rail infrastructure is identified in FECR’s Safety Rules and
Company Policies (FECR 2012b). The plan provides for overall right‐of‐way safety and security objectives
and the reporting of safety and security performance and details the arrangements for managing safety
and security. Standard FECR security practices are listed in Table 4.4.4‐4.
Safety and security in the N‐S Corridor is accomplished through the combined facilities and services of
FECR and the support from local police departments in each town/city in the corridor, other state and
county law enforcement departments and other local emergency service providers.
FECR has the responsibility for rail line safety and security along the existing FECR Corridor. At‐grade
crossings have warning controls as required by applicable federal law (49 CFR Part 222). Trains sound
their horns as they travel through at‐grade crossings. Other existing controls range from active warning
systems and crossings with passive warning systems.

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


Affected Environment 4-118 September 2014

Table 4.4.4-4 FECR Safety and Security Practices
Rail Infrastructure Current Practice
Buildings
 Abandoned
 Instrument Houses
 Storage Facilities
 Wayside Headquarters

Secured with locks or made inaccessible by boarding openings. Instrument housing
and communication housings generally contain unauthorized entry alarm systems
and electronic fire detection devices. Generally, headquarters, towers and storage
facilities are not alarm protected. County and city police patrols provide additional
security.
Right-of-Way
 Fencing
 Inter-Track Platforms
 Inter-Track Fencing
 Grade Crossings
 Yards

Fencing is installed in specific areas throughout the FECR Corridor. Where
appropriate fencing with locked gates are provided. At some locations security
is regulated by inner-track fencing. Switch machines and signal housings are
locked. County and city police patrols provide additional security.
Bridges
 Moveable
 Overhead
 Signal
 Undergrade

Generally bridges are protected from trespassing to the same extent as any
ROW area with fencing provided in specific areas. Certain wooden deck bridges
have fire circuits incorporated into the signal circuits. Some areas are secured
with locked gates and fencing. Locked anti-climb barriers on ladders protect
signal bridges.
Underpasses Generally underpasses are protected from trespassing to the same extent as any
ROW area. Evacuation points to underpasses are provided and maintained.

Formerly Used Defense Sites
The East/West Corridor will bisect the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Pinecastle Jeep Range
(USACE n.d.). The former range is a 12,483‐acre site located near Orlando International Airport. Between
1943 and 1946, the government leased the site for small arms training and military demonstrations of
weapons and warfare capabilities. In the late 1940s, when the military no longer needed the property, it
was returned to the original property owners. Private citizens and units of government now own much
of the land, and it is used for schools, homes, and businesses.
At Pinecastle, the military leased most of the land to accommodate small arms training (bullets 1/2 inch
in diameter or less). When fired, these bullets can travel a long distance, so it is likely that expended
.50 caliber projectiles are throughout the former range. These bullets present a negligible risk, as they are
just pieces of metal with no explosives.
A small portion of the site was used for bombing, rocketry, and gunnery demonstrations. Information
from surface clearance efforts after military use indicates that, of the total 12,483‐acre site, the
demonstration area, which has the highest potential for the presence of explosive munitions hazards, was
concentrated on only about 500 acres south of Lee Vista Boulevard. As an added precaution, the USACE
expanded its investigation to extend 3,000 feet from the identified target locations, which includes
portions of neighborhoods north of Lee Vista Boulevard and west of Highway 417. The proposed segment
is outside of the USACE investigation area.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-119 September 2014

Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped
The existing rail and highway infrastructure do not provide any barriers to the elderly or handicapped. The
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on
disability and includes accessibility requirements for public transit facilities (42 USC § 12101 et seq.). This
section provides information pertaining to the elderly/senior population that was identified within census
tracts that occur along or within 1,000 feet of the Project Study Area (Table 4.4.4‐5) and that may be affected
by future operations. The elderly/senior population is identified as individuals 65 years or older.
According to the USCB, 20.87 percent of the population within the Project Study Area buffer (117 census
tracts within 1,000 feet of the rail corridor) is 65 years or older (Table 4.4.4‐5). Of the 117 census tracts
within the Project Study Area, eight (6.8 percent) reported poverty greater than 50 percent and
26 (22.2 percent) reported senior populations greater than 30.87 percent. The 20 census tracts identified
within the Project Study Area in Martin County have a combined senior population of 28.92 percent.

Table 4.4.4-5 Elderly/Senior Population Identified in Census Tracts within 1,000 feet of the
Project Alignment
Senior (65+) Population Percent Elderly/Senior
Orange 5,150 6.55
Brevard 36,715 23.15
Indian River 17,108 24.60
St. Lucie 9,569 27.24
Martin 22,661 28.92
Palm Beach 20,623 17.84
Total 111,826 20.87
Source: USCB. 2010a. Census 2010. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 13, 2013.

Geological Conditions
Geological conditions were investigated to determine if there were existing geological conditions such as
sinkholes or seismic hazard zones that could pose a threat to public safety during passenger rail
operations.
Sinkholes are a natural and common geologic feature in areas underlain by limestone and other rock
types that are soluble in natural water. The term sinkhole is used for closed depressions in the land
surface that are formed by surficial solution or by subsidence or collapse of surficial materials owing to
the solution of near‐surface limestone or other soluble rocks. This discussion refers to sinkhole
occurrence in limestone and dolomite, the most common rock types in Florida.
Sinkholes occur in a variety of shapes from steep‐walled “natural wells” to funnel‐shaped or bowl‐shaped
depressions. The movement of groundwater to the limestone layers enhances the development of sinkholes
by causing raveling of the overlying soils into limestone solution channels and interconnected caverns over
a period of thousands of years. Sinkholes are of interest in Florida because they are one of the most
predominant features of the state; their development may be sudden, resulting in possible loss of life and
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-120 September 2014

property; they may cause flooding during storms; and they may provide an avenue for pollutants on the
land surface to more rapidly seep into the underlying limestone and dolomite.
The Project Study Area is located in a region of incohesive, permeable sand ranging from 20 to 200 feet
thick (FDEP 1985). Small cover subsidence sinkholes are the most common type, with less common
collapse sinkholes forming in areas with clayey overburden sediments. Table 4.4.4‐6 lists sinkholes
within a 1‐ to 4.5‐mile radius of the Project alignment (FDEP 2013c).

Table 4.4.4-6 Identified Sinkholes in the Project Study Area
Sinkhole ID County Latitude Longitude
Approximate
Distance from
Project
75-594 Orange 28.499722 -81.27722 3.5 miles
75-075 Orange 28.492109 -81.27597 3.2 miles
75-593 Orange 28.488575 -81.070328 2.3 miles
70-001 Brevard 28.463833 -80.791778 1.1 miles
75-049 Orange 28.463822 -81.383767 1.2 miles
75-511 Orange 28.461994 -81.3644 1.1 miles
75-595 Orange 28.46111 -81.36 1 mile
75-047 Orange 28.450833 -81.3575 4.4 miles
93-004 Palm Beach 26.783738 -80.058446 2.3 miles
93-003 Palm Beach 26.690833 -80.0675 0.8 miles
Source: FDEP. 2013c. Subsidence Incident Report locations in a KMZ file.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/gisdatamaps/SIRs_database.htm. Accessed March 31, 2013.

Seismic Zones / Hazard Zones
Florida is in a region that is classified as stable with regards to earthquakes; that is, earthquakes in the
state of Florida are not probable. The state is on the passive margin of the North American Plate and has
a very low incidence of earthquakes. An earthquake (magnitude of 5.8) occurred on September 10, 2006
in the Gulf of Mexico and was not linked to any specific fault. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Seismicity
Map of Florida – 1973 to Present indicated no seismic activities within the Project Study Area during this
period (USGS n.d.). The Seismic Hazard Map of Florida indicated that the Project Study Area is within a
0.02 to 0.04 g seismic zone / hazard zone (USGS n.d.). The seismic design category, which reflects the
likelihood of experiencing earthquake shaking of various intensities, indicates that the state of Florida has
a very small probability of experiencing damaging earthquake effects.
4.4.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, are
any “prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places” (NRHP). Cultural resources are found both above and below
ground. Archaeological sites or archaeological resources represent the locations of prehistoric and
historic activities. The term “historic structures” includes houses, buildings, bridges, and constructed
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-121 September 2014

features that, with few exceptions, are at least 50 years old. Historic landscapes consist of lands that have
been culturally modified. Linear historic resources can include canals, roads, railroads or other manmade
linear features. Historic districts consist of historic structures and other elements that retain identity and
integrity as a whole. Sacred sites, cemeteries, and burial places are also considered cultural resources,
although they are generally not considered eligible for NRHP listing.
Section 106 of the NHPA requires all federal agencies to take into account, prior to authorizing an
undertaking, the effect of that undertaking on cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP
(16 USC 470(f)). NHPA establishes specific criteria for eligibility to the NRHP: (1) association with events
that significantly contribute to our history; (2) associated with persons significant in our history; (3)
embodying distinctive architectural styles or methods, high artistic values, or representing a significant
entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (4) have the potential to yield information
important to prehistory or history. A key factor in determining eligibility is an evaluation of the integrity of
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association of the resources under
consideration (National Park Service 2002). AAF, as a non‐federal party, is assisting FRA in meeting its
obligations under Section 106, and has conducted studies to determine if any cultural resources exist in the
Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) that are listed in or eligible for listing on the NRHP.
4.4.5.1 Methodology
All cultural resource investigations and consultations were conducted in accordance with Section 106
and its implementing regulations for Protection of Historic Properties at 36 CFR part 800. The
investigations and consultations also complied with the field methods, data analysis, and reporting
standards embodied in the Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) Cultural Resource
Management (CRM) Standards and Operational Manual (Florida Department of State 2002), and
Chapter 1A‐46 (Archaeological and Historical Report Standards and Guidelines), Florida Administrative
Code (FAC). All work conformed to professional guidelines set forth in the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716, as amended).
AAF conducted initial consultation with FDHR, which is the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), on
March 28, 2013 prior to the initiation of the cultural resources survey to establish a methodology and APE.
A copy of the meeting minutes is provided in Appendix 4.4.5‐A1 On July 8, 2013, FRA and SHPO held a
conference call to discuss the cultural resource survey methodology, APE, and Section 106 process timeline.
The methodology has been developed in conjunction with SHPO and is similar to previous
SHPO‐approved methodologies that have been applied to other large‐scale transit projects. This proven
methodology provides key information such as identifying existing historic and archaeological resources,
and the potential for additional unrecorded cultural resources. Archival research pertinent to the APE
was conducted to determine the types, chronological placement, and location patterning of known
cultural resources within the APE. This included a search of federal, state, county, and local site
inventories, published and unpublished CRM reports, county Property Appraiser records, historic maps,
and other relevant historical research materials. Field surveys, including subsurface testing, were
conducted to identify other archaeological and historic resources eligible for listing on the NRHP. A
Cultural Resources Assessment Survey Report (CRAS) was prepared for the SR 528 corridor between
SR 520 and Cape Canaveral that identifies NRHP listed and eligible resources (Janus Research, Inc. 2005).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-122 September 2014

A separate Section 106 Determination of Effects Case Study Report was also prepared to determine
potential effects of the Project on NRHP listed and eligible resources.
After consultation with the SHPO, FRA determined that the MCO Segment and the VMF had been
adequately addressed by the GOAA in two previous environmental assessments (FAA and GOAA 1998;
FAA 2013). In general, the methodology for the E‐W Corridor complied with FDHR standards for
undeveloped acreage. The methodology for the N‐S Corridor was consistent with that used in
Section 3.3.7 of the 2012 EA.
Area of Potential Effect
FRA established an appropriate APE for the Project in coordination with SHPO. The APE includes the
geographic area or areas in which the Project may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or
use of archaeological and historic properties, if such properties exist. The APE was influenced by the scale
and nature of the undertaking as well as its geographical setting. The APE included measures to identify
and evaluate both archaeological and historical resources. Normally, archaeological and other
below‐ground resources will be affected by ground disturbing activities and changes in ownership status.
Structural resources and other above ground sites, however, are often impacted by those activities, as
well as alterations to setting, access and appearance. Indirect impacts, such as noise, vibration, and visual
impacts, may also affect historic resources. As a consequence, the survey methodologies for these two
broad categories of sites differ.
FRA’s coordination with SHPO considered what improvements and activities would occur in the
E‐W Corridor and in the N‐S Corridor, and how the Project may impact cultural resources listed or eligible
for the NRHP. The APE is based on the approved APE for the 2012 EA (Section 3.3.7).
For the alternative considered for the MCO Segment and the VMF, the archaeological APE included the
limits of disturbance. For historic resources, the APE for the MCO Segment was 200 feet on either side of
the railroad centerline, and for the VMF, the APE was the 47‐acre area.  
For the E‐W Corridor, the archaeological APE included the limits of disturbance for the alternatives to be
considered (approximately 100‐foot average width). The archaeological archival research and
reconnaissance APE for the E‐W Corridor included all alignment alternatives. For historic resources, the
APE was 200 feet on either side of the centerlines for the alternatives considered.
For the N‐S Corridor, the archaeological resources APE was limited to the footprint of subsurface activities
within the existing approximately 100‐foot wide FECR Corridor. The historic resources APE included the
N‐S Corridor as well as 150 feet on either side of the N‐S Corridor to allow for the consideration of indirect
impacts. Figure 4.4.5‐1 shows an example of the direct and indirect APE for the N‐S Corridor.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-123 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-124 September 2014

Consultation
FRA formally initiated the Section 106 process as part of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the DEIS
for the Project (FRA 2013c). As part of the NOI, FRA provided information about the Project and identified
that FRA is seeking participation and input of interested federal, state, and local agencies, Native American
groups, and other private organizations and individuals. FRA is coordinating compliance of Section 106
with the preparation of the DEIS. The Project is being coordinated with appropriate potential consulting
parties pursuant to Section 106 and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) guidance (36 CFR
Part 800). Consultation materials are provided in Appendix 4.4.5‐A1‐5.
At an initial March 28, 2013 consultation meeting between AAF and SHPO, SHPO determined that unlike
the West Palm Beach to Miami AAF Passenger Rail Project, the Project was not crossing or near historic
districts and would not be affecting railroad terminals except at the MCO. Therefore, the level of
coordination with local preservation planning representatives used in Phase I was not warranted In
Phase II. During a July 8, 2013 conference call, FRA, SHPO, and AAF discussed potential consulting parties.
SHPO concurred with FRA’s determination that consultation with local entities was not required for
Phase II.
Five public scoping meetings were held in May 2013 (see Chapter 8, Public Involvement). At these meetings,
information about the Section 106 process was available for the public and other interested parties and a
cultural resources specialist was made available as well to address any questions raised. SHPO has
confirmed that these public meetings provided adequate opportunity for consultation (see
Appendix 4.4.5‐A1‐5).
Due to previous Section 106 consultation meetings in affected communities (West Palm Beach, Fort
Lauderdale, and Miami), SHPO determined that no additional separate Section 106 meetings were
necessary. To date, FRA has not received written requests from individuals or organizations to participate
as consulting parties.
FRA sent a letter concerning the Project to USFWS because a known archaeological site is located near
the Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge (Appendix 4.4.5‐A1‐5). To date, FRA has not received a request
by the USFWS to be a consulting party.
On April 23, 2013, FRA initiated consultation via e‐mail and letter with five Native American Nations to
determine whether traditional use areas or sacred lands would be crossed by the Project. The list of Native
American tribes to be consulted was compiled in consultation with SHPO, and used prior contacts with
Native American tribes for FRA regulated projects in Florida. Efforts to identify other interested Native
American tribes included requesting all those who received letters to notify FRA and AAF of any additional
groups or individuals who might be interested in providing comment. A list of Native American tribes
contacted is included in Table 4.4.5.1. Copies of consultation letters and responses are included in
Appendix 4.4.5‐A1‐5. To date, only the Seminole Tribe of Florida Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO)
has responded to FRA. The THPO (June 6, 2013 response letter) provided no scoping comments concerning
the Project, but did request Project updates and a copy of the completed DEIS (see Appendix 4.4.5‐A1‐5).

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


Affected Environment 4-125 September 2014

Table 4.4.5-1 Native American Consultation Contacts
Agency (Native American) Contact Name
Date of
Correspondence
Date of
Response
Miccosukee Tribe of Florida Steve Terry, Land Resource Manager April 23, 2013 No Response to Date
Muscogee Creek Nation Emman Spain, THPO April 23, 2013 No Response to Date
Poarch Band of Creek Indians Robert Thrower, THPO April 23, 2013 No Response to Date
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Chief Leonard M. Harjo April 23, 2013 No Response to Date
Seminole Tribe of Florida Paul Backhouse, THPO April 23, 2013 June 6, 2013

Coordination between FRA, SHPO, and the Section 106 consulting parties will continue throughout the
development of the EIS for the Project.
Four Certified Local Governments (CLG) and two local informants were also contacted regarding
information on locally designated historic resources. Three CLGs responded to these inquiries.
Table 4.4.5‐2 summarizes this coordination.

Table 4.4.5-2 Certified Local Government/Local Informant Contacts Regarding Potential Locally
Designated Cultural Resources Located Within the Phase II APE (Orlando to West
Palm Beach)
City/Town
CLG Contact/
Local Informant Response
Contact
Date
Response
Date County
City of Melbourne Kelly Delmonico,
Planner
No locally designated
resources within 150 feet of
the rail line. Property list of
locally designated resources
provided.
June 10, 2013 June 17, 2013 Brevard
Town of Lake Park Nadia Di Tommaso,
Community Development
Director
Property list of locally
designated resources
provided
July 9, 2013 July 10, 2013 Palm Beach
Town of Jupiter David M. Kemp, AICP
Principal Partner
Property list of locally
designated resources
provided
July 9, 2013 July 10, 2013 Palm Beach
City of Ft. Pierce Kori Benton,
Historic Preservation Officer
No response July 9,2013 N/A St. Lucie
N/A Christian Davenport,
County Archaeologist
No response July 10, 2013 N/A Palm Beach
N/A Leslie Olson,
Planning Manager
No response June 10, 2013 N/A St. Lucie

4.4.5.2 Affected Environment
This section categorizes the existing cultural resources within the APE. The NRHP Criteria of Eligibility
describe what makes a property historically significant (36 CFR 60.4). These criteria were used to
evaluate the significance of the surveyed historic architectural and archaeological resources within the
APE. To be eligible for the National Register, districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects must possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-126 September 2014

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history;
b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
MCO Segment
The MCO Segment and VMF are located within Orange County and are depicted on the Pine Castle USGS
topographic quadrangle map.
Archival research conducted on the VMF was based on the studies prepared for areas previously
surveyed and assessed for cultural resources during the development of the GOAA NEPA EA for the South
Terminal Complex at MCO (FAA and GOAA 1998; FAA 2013). One previously recorded archaeological site
has been identified within the MCO Segment (Table 4.4.5‐3). No historic structures have been identified
within the MCO Segment (including the VMF) APE. Since no NRHP listed or eligible cultural resources
were identified within the VMF APE during the previous surveys, no additional archival or cultural
resources field work is, therefore, necessary for the VMF APE. This information is summarized in the
CRAS and Section 106 Determinations of Effects Case Study Report. Appendix 4.4.5‐B1‐3 provides maps
of cultural resources in proximity to the MCO Segment and VMF.

Table 4.4.5-3 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources Within the MCO Segment
FMSF # Site Name / Address Style National Register Status
8OR8277 South Terminal Northeast Low-density pre-Columbian artifact scatter Determined Ineligible for the National
Register by SHPO

East-West Corridor
For identification of cultural resources, Alignment Alternative E was used to define the APE, as it
represents the maximum limit of disturbance.
Historic Resources
The E‐W Corridor between Orlando and Cocoa is located within portions of Orange and Brevard Counties,
and is depicted on the Courtenay, Lake Poinsett NW, Narcoossee NE, Narcoossee NW, Pine Castle, and
Sharpes USGS topographic maps.
The Florida Master Site File (FMSF), county and local site inventories, published and unpublished CRM
reports, county Property Appraiser’s records, and other relevant historical research materials were
reviewed to identify known historic resources within the APE for the E‐W Corridor Alternative E, the
alternative with the largest footprint on undisturbed land.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-127 September 2014

Pertinent literature and records of the surrounding region as well as archaeological and historical
assessments of other tracts of land within or adjacent to the E‐W Corridor with Alternative E were
reviewed to determine the locations of any previously recorded archaeological and historic resources.
This background research identified 28 previously conducted cultural resource surveys that have been
performed within or adjacent to the E‐W Corridor with Alternative E. Fieldwork was conducted to
identify archaeological and historic resources in these areas.
Within the E‐W Corridor APE, the only NRHP‐eligible resource was the previously identified FECR
Railway District (see Tables 4.4.5‐4 through 4.4.5‐6).

Table 4.4.5-4 Previously Recorded Historic Linear Resources within the E-W Corridor APE
FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Group Type National Register Status
8OR9850 Bull Slough Drainage Ditches Historic Linear Resource Determined Ineligible for the NRHP by SHPO
8BR1870 Florida East Coast Railway Historic Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO
8BR2697 US Highway 1/Cocoa Blvd Historic Linear Resource Portions Determined Ineligible for the NRHP by SHPO

Table 4.4.5-5 Previously Recorded Historic District within the E-W Corridor APE
FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Group Type National Register Status
8OR9851 Gee Bee Resource Group Mixed District Determined Ineligible for the NRHP by SHPO

Table 4.4.5-6 Previously Recorded Historic Resources Adjacent to the E-W Corridor APE
FMSF # Site Name / Address
Construction
Date Style National Register Status
8BR1735 Altered Image Tattoo /
2417 N Cocoa Blvd.
c. 1949 Frame Vernacular Determined Ineligible for the NRHP by
SHPO
8BR1735 Jumping Flea Market /
2507 N Cocoa Blvd.
c. 1940 Masonry Vernacular Determined Ineligible for the NRHP by
SHPO

Three additional historic resources are within the APE for the E‐W Corridor (Table 4.4.5‐7). Two of these
resources are 1960s residences located in Brevard County. The third is a 1963 industrial structure located
in Brevard County. None of these resources appear to be eligible for the NRHP (see Appendix 4.4.5‐A1‐5).
Cultural resources identified within the E‐W Corridor APE are shown on maps in Appendix 4.4.5‐B1‐5.

Table 4.4.5-7 Newly Identified E-W Corridor Historic Resources
FMSF # Site Name/Address
Construction
Date Style
SHPO Evaluation of National
Register Significance
8BR3066 5161 Palm Avenue c. 1963 Masonry vernacular Considered ineligible
8BR3067 3800 Pine Street c. 1965 Masonry vernacular Considered ineligible
8BR3068 2800 Clearlake Road c. 1963 Industrial vernacular Considered ineligible

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


Affected Environment 4-128 September 2014

Archaeological Resources
A search of literature and records of the surrounding region and archaeological and historical
assessments of other tracts of land within or adjacent to the E‐W Corridor APE was conducted to
determine the locations of previously recorded archaeological resources. This background research
identified 28 previously conducted cultural resource surveys that have been performed within or
adjacent to the E‐W Corridor APE. No known archaeological sites are located within the 100‐foot
right‐of‐way of the centerlines of the three alternative alignments considered for the E‐W Corridor. A field
survey of the E‐W Corridor for areas located outside of the boundaries of the CRA Survey of the Proposed
Magnolia Ranch Development Site, Orange County, Florida (FMSF Survey No. 2420) and CRA Survey for the
SR528 Study From State Road 520 to the Port Canaveral Terminal B Interchange, Orange and Brevard
Counties (FMSF Survey No. 11594) was completed in summer 2013.
For the approximately 32.5‐mile E‐W Corridor, Table 4.4.5‐8 identifies estimated mileage and acreage for
previously surveyed areas and evaluates the probability for identifying new archaeological sites in the
areas that have not been surveyed. Various factors must be considered when assessing the potential of
an area to contain prehistoric and/or historic archaeological sites. Among these are topographic setting;
soils; proximity to water; location along major routes of transportation; and the extent of ground
disturbances within the area resulting from erosion, construction, maintenance, or agricultural activities.
Generally speaking, high site potential areas are defined as those areas of moderately well drained to
excessively drained upland locales near a wetland or body of water. These areas were tested at 25‐meter
(82‐foot) intervals. Generally speaking, moderate site potential zones are defined as those poorly to very
poorly drained locales near a wetland or body of water. Moderate potential areas were tested at 50‐meter
(164‐foot) intervals. Low potential zones are defined as those areas of very poorly drained to excessively
drained upland locales not otherwise designated as high or medium potential. Areas of low potential were
tested judgmentally at 100‐meter (328‐foot) intervals.

Table 4.4.5-8 E-W Corridor Areas and Estimated Mileage and Acreage of Areas Previously
Surveyed and by Probability Classification for Areas Unsurveyed
Testing Miles Acreage
Percent
of Total
Previously Surveyed 14.0 282.9 35.0
High Archaeological Site Potential (shovel testing planned) 1.3 26.3 3.3
Moderate Archaeological Site Potential (shovel testing planned) 0.8 15.7 1.9
Low Archaeological Site Potential (pedestrian survey planned) 22.9 462.8 57.4
Low Archaeological Site Potential (judgmental if shovel testing appropriate) 1.0 19.4 2.5

Archaeological field testing in the previously unsurveyed portions of the E‐W Corridor did not identify
any cultural material and did not identify any additional environmental features indicative of increased
archaeological site potential. The survey team was not able to gain access to a portion of the E‐W Corridor
located on one private property. Once access is obtained, a supplemental survey will be conducted to
complete the pedestrian survey and subsurface testing within the E‐W Corridor.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-129 September 2014

North-South Corridor
Historic Resources
The N‐S Corridor between Cocoa and West Palm Beach is located within portions of Brevard, Indian River,
St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties, and is depicted on the Ankona, Cocoa, Courtenay, Eau Gallie,
Eden, Fellsmere, Fort Pierce, Gomez, Grant, Hobe Sound, Indrio, Jupiter, Melbourne East, Melbourne West,
Oslo, Palm Beach, Palm City, Riviera Beach, Sebastian, Sharpes, St. Lucie Inlet, and Vero Beach USGS
topographic maps.
For the N‐S Corridor, historic resources included individual resources and historic districts located along
the FECR Corridor and on adjacent properties/parcels. The historic resources were identified through
background research and a reconnaissance survey. Research identified 127 previously conducted
cultural resource surveys that have been performed within or adjacent to the N‐S Corridor. Historic
resource forms (architectural, linear, and district) from FMSF identified previously recorded architectural
and historical resources greater than 50 years of age and properties listed in the NRHP. Appendix 4.4.5‐B
shows the locations of known cultural resources relative to the N‐S Corridor APE.
Background research identified 19 architectural/historical resources in Brevard County; three
architectural/historical resources in Indian River County; three architectural/historical resources in
St. Lucie County; six architectural/historical resources in Martin County; and three architectural/historical
resources in Palm Beach County.
Previous studies and coordination with SHPO have identified the FECR Corridor (8BR1870/8IR1497/
8IR1518/8SL3014/ MT1391/8MT1450/8PB12102) as eligible for listing on the NRHP as a linear district
(Table 4.4.5‐9). FECR retains historical importance due to its associations with development and
transportation of the east coast of Florida. Built primarily in the last quarter of the 19th century and the
first decade of the 20th century, the FECR Corridor was a project of Henry Morrison Flagler. Flagler, who
originally worked with John D. Rockefeller in building the Standard Oil Trust, became known for
developing resorts, industries, and communities along Florida's eastern coast. The FECR Corridor is
considered eligible for listing in the NRHP as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the categories
of Transportation, and Community Planning and Development.

Table 4.4.5-9 Historic Linear Resources Previously Identified in the N-S Corridor APE
FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Group Type National Register Status
8BR1870 Florida East Coast Railway Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO
8IR1497/ 8IR1518 Florida East Coast Railway Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO
8SL3014 FECR Railway-Lake Harbor Branch Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO
8MT1391/8MT1450 Florida East Coast Railway Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO
8PB12102 Florida East Coast Railway Linear Resource Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO

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


Affected Environment 4-130 September 2014

In addition, within the FECR Corridor, four bridges (8BR3058, 8BR3062/8IR1569, 8MT1382, and
8PB16041) have been identified as individually eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A and
Criterion C (Table 4.4.5‐10). These four bridges are also considered contributing elements to the
FECR Railway Historic District. An additional nine bridges are not considered individually eligible for
listing on the NRHP but are still considered contributing elements to the FECR Railway Historic District.
SHPO concurrence is expected for these eligibility recommendations. A request for concurrence with
FRA’s eligibility determination was submitted to SHPO on October 31, 2013 (see Appendix 4.4.5‐A3).

Table 4.4.5-10 Historic Railway Bridges Identified Within the N-S Corridor APE
Mile
Post County FMSF # Site Name / Address
Date
Estimate National Register Status
190.47 Brevard 8BR3058 Fixed Railway Bridge over the Eau
Gallie River – Steel
1925 Individually Eligible, Contributing
to an Eligible FECR Railway
Linear Historic District
194.34 Brevard 8BR3059 Fixed Railway Bridge over the Crane
Creek and Melbourne Street – Steel
1925 Contributing to an Eligible FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
197.7 Brevard 8BR3060 Fixed Railway Bridge over the Turkey
Creek – Steel
1925 Contributing to an Eligible FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
202.59 Brevard 8BR3061 Fixed Railway Bridge over the Goat
Creek – Steel
1959 Contributing to an Eligible FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
212.07 Brevard and
Indian River
8BR3062/
8IR1569
Fixed Railway Bridge over the
Sebastian River – Steel
1926 Individually Eligible; Contributing
to an Eligible FECR Railway
Linear Historic District
240.1 St. Lucie 8SL3191 Fixed Bridge over the Taylor Creek -
Concrete with Steel Beam Span
1961 Contributing to an Eligible FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
241.22 St. Lucie 8SL3192 Fixed Bridge over “C” Avenue –
Concrete
1912/
2003
Ineligible
259.95 Martin 8MT1623 Fixed Bridge over the Rio Waterway -
Steel and Timber Piles
1958 Contributing to an Eligible FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
260.93 Martin 8MT1382 Movable Bridge over the St. Lucie
River – Steel
1938 Individually Eligible; Contributing
to an Eligible FECR Railway
Linear Historic District
266.86 Martin 8MT1624 Fixed Bridge over the Salerno
Waterway - Steel and Timber Piles
1958 Contributing to an Eligible FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
267.34 Martin 8MT1625 Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to
Manatee Creek 1 - Steel and Timber Piles
1962 Contributing to an Eligible FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
267.70 Martin 8MT1626 Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to
Manatee Creek 2 - Steel and Timber Piles
1962 Contributing to an Eligible FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
282.58 Palm Beach 8PB16041 Movable Bridge over the Loxahatchee
River – Steel
1935 Individually Eligible; Contributing
to an Eligible FECR Railway
Linear Historic District

On properties adjacent to the FECR Corridor, one NRHP‐listed site (Florida Power & Light Co. Ice Plant,
8BR215), one NRHP‐eligible historic district (Union Cypress Saw Mill Historic District, 8BR2173;
Table 4.4.5‐11), one other NRHP‐eligible linear resource (FECR Railway‐Lake Harbor Branch, 8SL3014;
Table 4.4.5‐12), and ten other NRHP‐eligible historic resources (residences, stores, and cemeteries) were
identified (Table 4.4.5‐13).

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


Affected Environment 4-131 September 2014

Table 4.4.5-11 Historic Resources Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE
FMSF # Site Name / Address
Construction
Date Style National Register Status
8BR215 Florida Power & Light Co. Ice Plant /
1604 S, Harbor City Boulevard
1926 Industrial Vernacular NRHP–Listed
8BR759 Whaley, Marion S Citrus Packing
House/2275 Rockledge Blvd W.
1930 Frame Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible
by SHPO
8BR1710 Jorgensen's General Store/5390 US Hwy 1 1894 Frame Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible
by SHPO
8BR1723 Cocoa Cemetery Storage Building/
101 N. Cocoa Blvd.
c. 1931 Masonry Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible
by SHPO
8BR1739 Ashley's Cafe & Lounge/
1609 Rockledge Blvd. W.
c. 1932 Tudor Revival ca.1890-
1940
Determined NRHP–Eligible
by SHPO
8BR1741 Rockledge Gardens Nursery &
Landscaping/2153 Rockledge Blvd. W.
c. 1930 Industrial Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible
by SHPO
8BR1744 Harvey's Groves/3700 US Hwy. 1 E. c. 1939 Masonry Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible
by SHPO
8BR1765 Bohn Equipment Company/ 255 Olive St c. 1927 Industrial Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible
by SHPO
8BR2779 317 Rosa Jones Dr. Residence c. 1962 International ca. 1925-
present
Determined NRHP–Eligible
by SHPO
8IR1049 Florida East Coast Railroad Platform
Structural Remains
20
th
century American Railroad Fence
and Platform Supports
Considered NRHP–Ineligible

Table 4.4.5-12 Historic District Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE
FMSF # Site Name / Address
Resource
Group Type National Register Status
8BR2173 Union Cypress Saw Mill Historic District Mixed District Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO

Table 4.4.5-13 Historic Cemeteries Previously Identified Adjacent to the N-S Corridor APE
FMSF # Site Name / Address Date Est. National Register Status
8BR1777 Cocoa Cemetery c. 1890 Determined NRHP–Eligible by SHPO
N/A Unnamed Cemetery on West Railroad Avenue c. 1960 Further Research Needed
8BR2808 Pinecrest Colored Cemetery c. 1949 Further Research Needed

Archaeological Resources
Five archaeological resources were identified within the N‐S Corridor from the record search
(Table 4.4.5‐14 and Appendix 4.4.5‐B3). All of these sites have experienced some level of previous
disturbances. Four of the archaeological sites have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility by the SHPO
and one site was previously determined not NHRP eligible by SHPO (Appendix 4.4.5‐A). One known
archaeological site was identified in Indian River County and one archaeological site was identified in
Martin County. Three known archaeological sites were identified in St. Lucie County. No known
archaeological sites were identified in the N‐S Corridor in Brevard and Palm Beach Counties.

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


Affected Environment 4-132 September 2014

Table 4.4.5-14 Archaeological Sites Located within the N-S Corridor APE
FMSF # Site Name / Address Site Type National Register Significance
1
8IR846 Railroad Malabar-Period Shell Midden and
Artifact Scatter
Not Evaluated by SHPO
8MT1287 Hobe Sound National Wildlife
Refuge #3
Prehistoric Campsite and Prehistoric
Shell Midden
Not Evaluated by SHPO
8SL41 Fort Capron Historic Fort Not Evaluated by SHPO
8SL1136 Pineapple Surface Scatter, Campsite,
Homestead, and Farmstead
Ineligible
8SL1772 Avenue A-Downtown Fort Pierce Precolumbian Habitation, Midden,
Campsite, and extractive Site;
Historic American Building Remains,
Refuse, and Artifact Scatter
Not Evaluated by SHPO
1 As recorded in the FMSF; may require re-evaluation

WPB-M Corridor
Historical Resources
The SHPO determined that the FECR Corridor itself is considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP
(FRA 2013a). Section 3.3.7.1 of the 2012 EA described eight historic railway bridges within the
WPB‐M Corridor (Table 4.4.5‐15). The 2012 CRA identified the bridges. Each identified bridge is
considered a contributing resource within a potential FECR Railway Linear Historic District. Potential
NRHP eligibility on an individual basis was not determined, consistent with the evaluation methods
developed with the SHPO/FDHR for the 2010 FECR Amtrak Passenger Rail Project and the SHPO/FDHR
methods established for that project.

Table 4.4.5-15 Historic Railway Bridges Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE
County FMSF # Site Name / Address
Date
Estimate National Register Status
Palm Beach 8PB15951

Fixed Railway Bridge over the C-15 Canal 1962 Contributing to a Potential FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
Broward 8BD4860 Fixed Railway Bridge over the
Cypress Creek/ C-14 Canal
1960 Contributing to a Potential FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
Broward 8BD4861 Fixed Railway Bridge over the
North Fork of Middle River
1957 Contributing to a Potential FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
Broward 8BD4862 Fixed Railway Bridge over the
South Fork of Middle River
1959 Contributing to a Potential FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
Broward 8BD4863

Fixed Railway Bridge over the
Dania Cut-Off Canal
1927 Contributing to a Potential FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
Miami-Dade 8DA12596 Fixed Railway Bridge over the
Oleta River
1963 Contributing to a Potential FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
Miami-Dade 8DA12597 Fixed Railway Bridge over the
Royal Glades/C-9 Canal
1956 Contributing to a Potential FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
Miami-Dade 8DA12598 Fixed Railway Bridge over the Arch Creek 1930 Contributing to a Potential FECR
Railway Linear Historic District
Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West
Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.

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


Affected Environment 4-133 September 2014

Nineteen historic districts were identified within the WPB‐M Corridor (Table 4.4.5‐16). The FMSF
identified four NRHP– listed districts. Fifteen districts have been determined NRHP–eligible by the SHPO
or the 2012 CRA. The FMSF also identified four historic linear resources that have been determined
NRHP–eligible by the SHPO or the 2012 CRA (Table 4.4.5‐17). Thirty significant historic buildings are
located within the WPB‐M Corridor (Table 4.4.5‐18). The FMSF identified six NRHP‐listed buildings.
Twenty‐four buildings have been determined NRHP‐eligible by the SHPO or the 2012 CRA.
Four significant historic stations or railway related resources (Table 4.4.5‐19) and two historic
cemeteries (Table 4.4.5‐20) were identified within the WPB‐M Corridor APE.

Table 4.4.5-16 Historic Districts Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE
County FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Group Type National Register Status
Palm Beach 8PB5980 Northwest Neighborhood Historic
District
Historic District NRHP–Listed
Palm Beach 8PB9905 Lake Lucerne Commercial
Historic District
Historic District NRHP–Listed
Palm Beach 8PB10350 Grandview Heights Historic District Historic District NRHP–Listed
Palm Beach 8PB13713 Camino Real Historic District Historic District Determined NRHP–Eligible
Palm Beach 8PB14285 Del-Ida Park Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible
Palm Beach 8PB15380 Atlantic Avenue Historic District Historic District Determined NRHP– Eligible
Palm Beach N/A Pearl City Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible
Broward 8BD181 Downtown Fort Lauderdale
Historic District
Historic District Determined NRHP–Eligible
Broward 8BD3284 Hollywood Boulevard Historic
Business District
FMSF Building Complex NRHP–Listed
Broward N/A Northwest Pompano Historic
District
Historic District Considered NRHP-Eligible
Broward N/A Old Business District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible
Broward N/A Old Pompano Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible
Miami-Dade 8DA378 Greynolds Park Designed Historic Landscape Considered NRHP–Eligible
Miami-Dade 8DA3536 Miami Shores Golf Course Designed Historic Landscape Considered NRHP–Eligible
Miami-Dade N/A Miami Shores Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible
Miami-Dade N/A Biscayne Park Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible
Miami-Dade N/A El Portal Historic District Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible
Miami-Dade N/A MiMo/Biscayne Boulevard
HistoricDistrict
Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible
Miami-Dade N/A Palm Grove Neighborhood
HistoricDistrict
Historic District Considered NRHP–Eligible
Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West
Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.

Table 4.4.5-17 Linear Resources Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE
County FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Group Type National Register Status
Palm Beach 8PB10311 Hillsboro Canal Linear Resource Determined NRHP– Eligible
Palm Beach 8PB10331 West Palm Beach Canal Linear Resource Determined NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD3229 Hillsboro Canal Linear Resource Determined NRHP– Eligible
Miami-Dade N/A El Portal – Little River - Seawall Linear Resource Considered NRHP– Eligible
Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West
Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-134 September 2014


Table 4.4.5-18 Historic Structures Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE
County FMSF # Site Name / Address
Construction
Date Style National Register Status
Palm Beach 8PB169 Administration Building/
Dixie Highway & Camino Real
1925 Mediterranean Revival
ca. 1880-1940
NRHP–Listed
Palm Beach 8PB240 Hoot, Toot & Whistle/
290 E. Atlantic Avenue
c.1926 Mission Considered NRHP–Eligible
Palm Beach 8PB513 Andrews House/
306 SE 1
st
Avenue
c.1909 Frame Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible
Palm Beach 8PB835 Peninsular Plumbing Company
Warehouse/501-513 Fern Street
c. 1938 Masonry Vernacular Determined Ineligible by the
SHPO; Noted as Eligible by
Friederike Mittner West Palm
Beach Historic Preservation
Planner
Palm Beach 8PB8232 Seaboard Air Line Dining Car 6113/747
S. Dixie Highway
1947 Moderne ca. 1920-1940 NRHP–Listed
Palm Beach 8PB8233 Seaboard Air Line Lounge Car 6603/747
S. Dixie Highway
1947 Moderne ca. 1920-1940 NRHP–Listed
Palm Beach 8PB14806 470 Fern Street c. 1930 Mediterranean Revival Determined NRHP– Eligible
by the SHPO
Palm Beach 8PB14808 500 Fern Street c. 1949 Mediterranean Revival Determined NRHP– Eligible
by the SHPO
Palm Beach N/A Arc Rib Storage/502 Kanuga Drive Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible
Palm Beach N/A Delray Beach Antique Mall/
1350 N. Federal Highway
Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible
Palm Beach N/A Goodwill/1640 N. Federal Highway Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible
Palm Beach N/A Lantana Chamber of Commerce/
212 Iris Avenue
Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP–Eligible
Palm Beach N/A Woodlawn Cemetery Gate/
1500 S. Dixie Highway
Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible
Palm Beach N/A 3615 Henry Avenue c.1925 Frame Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD62 King-Cromartie House/229 SW 2nd
Avenue
1907 Frame Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD63 New River Inn/229 SW 2
nd
Avenue 1906 Masonry Vernacular NRHP–Listed
Broward 8BD143 Hotel Poinciana/
141 NW 1st

Avenue
c.1920 Mission Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD212 Philemon Bryan House/
227 SW 2nd

Avenue
1906 Neo-Classical Revival
ca. 1880-1940
Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD227 Bryan, Tom M. Building/
201-213 Himmarshee Street
c.1925 Mediterranean Revival
ca. 1880-1940
Determined NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD376 The Hollywood Publishing
Company/219 N 21st Avenue
1924 Masonry Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD574 Ingram Arcade/
2033-2051 Hollywood Blvd.
1921 Commercial Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD1976 Progresso Plaza/901 Progresso Drive c.1925 Mediterranean Revival
ca. 1880-1940
Determined NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD2237 Hamilton's Pharmacy/ McClellan
Drugs/126 N Flagler Avenue
1925 Art Deco ca. 1920-1940 Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD2258 Pompano Mercantile Company/
114 N Flagler Avenue
1924 Mission Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward 8BD4179 Hollywood Armory/910 N Dixie Highway
W
c.1954 Other Determined NRHP– Eligible
Broward N/A Antique Car Museum/1527 SW 1st
Avenue
Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward N/A Sears Town/901 N Federal Highway Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible
Miami-Dade 8DA165 Reassembled Spanish Monastery AD
1141/16711 W Dixie Highway
1952 Masonry Vernacular NRHP– Listed
Miami-Dade 8DA355 Dade County Courthouse/
Miami City Hall/73 W Flagler Street
1925 Neo-Classical Revival
ca. 1880-1940
NRHP–Listed
Miami-Dade N/A N. Miami Beach/Peoples Gas Building/
System/15779 W. Dixie Highway
Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible
Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West
Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-135 September 2014


Table 4.4.5-19 Historic Stations or Railroad Related Resources within the WPB-M Corridor APE
County FMSF # Site Name / Address
Construction
Date Style National Register Status
Palm Beach 8PB96 FECR Railway Station/
S. Dixie Highway at SE 8th

Street
1929 Mediterranean
Revival ca. 1880-1940
NRHP–Listed
Palm Beach N/A Delray Beach FECR Depot and
Water Tower/220 NE 1st Street
Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward N/A Florida East Coast Freight House
and Platform Machine Ramp/
1801 SW 1st

Avenue
1948; 1956 Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible
Broward N/A Florida East Coast Rail Yard/
3125 S. Andrews Avenue
Not Available Not Available Considered NRHP– Eligible
Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West
Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.

Table 4.4.5-20 Historic Cemeteries Identified within the WPB-M Corridor APE
County FMSF # Site Name / Address Date Est. National Register Status
Palm Beach N/A Woodlawn Cemetery Not Available Considered NRHP-Eligible
Miami-Dade 8DA1090 City of Miami Cemetery 1897 NRHP–Listed
Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West
Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 

The FECR Corridor is located within the APE for each of the proposed station locations. During previous
cultural resources assessment projects that have involved the FECR Corridor, the SHPO determined that
the FECR Corridor itself is considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Additional resources located
directly within the APE for the station locations are discussed below.
Two NRHP‐eligible historic buildings are located within the West Palm Beach Station North Site APE for
Historic Resources (Table 4.4.5‐21). The FMSF identified one historic building determined by the SHPO
to be NRHP‐eligible. The 2012 CRA identified one historic building as NRHP‐eligible.
The FMSF identified one NRHP‐listed historic district within the APE for the West Palm Beach Station
Central Site (Table 4.4.5‐21). Within this district, the 2012 CRA identified seven buildings that are
contributing to the NRHP‐listed historic district but are not individually eligible and three contributing
buildings to the historic district that are individually NRHP‐eligible. The FMSF also identified one
NRHP‐listed building and three buildings determined NRHP‐eligible by SHPO. The 2012 CRA identified
two buildings as NRHP‐eligible.
The FMSF identified one NRHP‐eligible historic district within the Fort Lauderdale Station North Site
APE for Historic Resources (Table 4.4.5‐21); this APE is applicable to the Relocated Fort Lauderdale
Station site. Within this district, the FMSF identified one building that is contributing to the district and
is NRHP‐listed, two buildings that are contributing to the district and have previously been determined
to be NRHP‐eligible by SHPO, and one building that is a contributing element to the district but is not
individually eligible. The 2012 CRA identified two additional buildings that are contributing to the
NRHP‐eligible historic district and are considered NRHP‐eligible and one building that is contributing
to the NRHP‐eligible historic district and is considered individually ineligible.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-136 September 2014

The FMSF identified one NRHP‐eligible historic district within the APE for the Fort Lauderdale Station South
Site (Table 4.4.5‐21). The FMSF identified one building that is contributing to the district and is NRHP‐listed
and two buildings that are contributing to the district and are determined NRHP‐eligible by the SHPO. The
2012 CRA identified two additional buildings that are contributing to the district and are considered NRHP‐
eligible and two buildings that are contributing and considered ineligible for the NRHP.
The FMSF identified one NRHP‐listed Historic District within the APE for the Miami–Central site
(Table 4.4.5‐21). The 2012 CRA identified one contributing resource within the NRHP‐listed Historic
District, which is ineligible on an individual basis. The FMSF also identified two buildings which are
NRHP‐listed or eligible. The 2012 CRA identified one NRHP‐eligible building within the Historic
Resources APE established for the Miami ‐ Central Elevated Site.
An additional reconnaissance survey was conducted as part of the 2012 CRA to evaluate resources
within one block of the proposed elevated railway track improvements for the Miami–Central Elevated
Site. This resulted in the identification of one NRHP‐eligible resource: X‐Ray Clinic/171 NW 11th

Street.
Within the Miami–South Site the FMSF identified one NRHP‐listed historic district and five contributing
buildings that are determined NRHP‐eligible on an individual basis by SHPO. The 2012 CRA identified
one contributing building within the NRHP‐listed Historic District which is considered NRHP‐eligible
and one building that is considered is ineligible. The FMSF identified two additional NRHP‐listed or
eligible buildings within the Miami–South At Grade Site APE. The 2012 CRA identified one additional
individually NRHP‐eligible building (Table 4.4.5‐21).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-137 September 2014

Table 4.4.5-21 Historic Resources within the WPB-M Corridor APE for Historic Resources Stations
Site FMSF # Site Name / Address
Construction
Date Style National Register Status
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB574 513-515 Clematis
Street
c. 1921 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP–Listed Clematis
Street Historic Commercial District
(8PB10348)
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB575 517-519 Clematis
Street
c. 1929 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis
Street Historic Commercial District
(8PB10348)
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB576 518-520 Clematis
Street
1924 Masonry Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis
Street Historic Commercial District
(8PB10348)
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB577 521-527 Clematis
Street
c. 1920 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis
Street Historic Commercial District
(8PB10348)
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB578 522 Clematis Street 1919 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis
Street Historic Commercial District
(8PB10348)
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB579 526 Clematis Street 1923 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis
Street Historic Commercial District
(8PB10348)
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB580 W. E. Pope
Building/529- 531
Clematis Street
1921 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis
Street Historic Commercial District
(8PB10348)
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB581 528 Clematis Street 1929 Art Deco Considered NRHP– Eligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis
Street Historic Commercial District
(8PB10348)
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB582 533 Clematis Street 1925 Neoclassical Revival Considered NRHP– Eligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis
Street Historic Commercial District
(8PB10348)
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB585 540 Clematis Street c. 1925 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Listed Clematis
Street Historic Commercial District
(8PB10348)
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB593 Alma Hotel/
534 Datura Street
c. 1926 Mediterranean
Revival
Considered NRHP– Eligible
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB690 Ferndix Building/
321-325 S. Dixie
Highway
1925 Mission NRHP–Listed in 1999
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB835 Peninsular Plumbing
Company
Warehouse/
501-513 Fern Street
c. 1938 Masonry Vernacular Considered NRHP– Eligible
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB10348 Clematis Street
Historic Commercial
District
Various Various NRHP–Listed
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB14806 470 Fern Street c. 1930 Mediterranean
Revival
Determined NRHP– Eligible by the SHPO

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


Affected Environment 4-138 September 2014

Table 4.4.5-21 Historic Resources within the WPB-M Corridor APE for Historic Resources Stations
(Continued)
Site FMSF # Site Name / Address
Construction
Date Style National Register Status
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB14807 West Palm Beach
Employee Health
Center/464 Fern Street
c. 1930 Mediterranean
Revival
Determined NRHP– Eligible by the SHPO
West Palm
Beach Central
8PB14808 Ballet Florida/
500 Fern Street
c. 1949 Mediterranean
Revival
Determined NRHP– Eligible by the SHPO
Fort Lauderdale
North
8BD62 King-Cromartie
House/
229 SW 2nd

Avenue
1907 Frame Vernacular Considered NRHP–Eligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Eligible Ft.
Lauderdale Historic District (8BD181)
Fort Lauderdale
North
8BD63 New River Inn/
231 SW 2nd Avenue
1906 Masonry Vernacular NRHP–Listed; Contributing Resource
within NRHP–Eligible Ft. Lauderdale
Historic District (8BD181)
Fort Lauderdale
North
8BD181 Ft. Lauderdale
Historic District
Various Various Determined NRHP–Eligible by the SHPO
Fort Lauderdale
North
8BD212 Philemon Nathanial
Bryan House/
227 SW 2nd

Avenue
1906 Neoclassical Revival Considered NRHP–Eligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Eligible Ft.
Lauderdale Historic District (8BD181)
Fort Lauderdale
North
8BD213 Davis Acetylene
Building/N of 229 SW
2nd

Avenue
c. 1905 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP– Eligible Ft.
Lauderdale Historic District (8BD181)
Fort Lauderdale
North
8BD227 Tom Bryan Building/
201-211 Himmarshee
Street
c. 1925 Mediterranean
Revival
Determined NRHP–Eligible by the SHPO;
Contributing Resource within NRHP–
Eligible Ft. Lauderdale Historic District
(8BD181)
Fort Lauderdale
North
8BD237 ROK:BRGR/
208 Himmarshee
Street
c. 1939 Masonry Vernacular Determined Ineligible by the SHPO;
Contributing Resource within NRHP–
Eligible Ft. Lauderdale Historic District
(8BD181)
Fort Lauderdale
North
8BD239 Briny Irish Pub/
214-220 SW 2nd
Street
c. 1937 Masonry Vernacular Determined NRHP–Eligible by the SHPO;
Contributing Resource within NRHP–
Eligible Ft. Lauderdale Historic
District(8BD181)
Miami Central 8DA271 Salvation Army
Citadel/
49 NW 5th

Street
c. 1925 Gothic Revival Determined NRHP-Eligible by the SHPO
Miami Central 8DA1164 212-222 N Miami
Avenue
c. 1922 Masonry Vernacular Considered Ineligible; Contributing
Resource within NRHP Listed Downtown
Miami Historic District (8DA10001)
Miami Central 8DA2397 Lyric Theater/
819 NW 2nd

Avenue
c. 1914 Masonry Vernacular NRHP-Listed
Miami Central 8DA10001 Downtown Miami
Historic District
Various Various NRHP-Listed
Miami Central 8DA12603 201 NW 1st

Avenue c. 1914 Masonry Vernacular Considered NRHP-Eligible
Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West
Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.

Archaeological Resources
As noted in Section 3.3.7.1 of the 2012 EA, the FMSF identified no previously recorded archeological sites
within the Palm Beach County segment of the FECR Corridor Archaeological APE. The FMSF also listed no
previously recorded NRHP‐listed or eligible archaeological sites within the Miami‐Dade County portion
of the FECR Corridor Main Line Archaeological APE. Based on digital files available from the City of Miami
illustrating the locations of Archaeological Conservation Areas, the Miami‐Dade County segment of the
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-139 September 2014

FECR Corridor Main Line Archaeological APE intersects one City of Miami Archaeological Conservation
Area, which extends from the north bank of the Little River approximately 0.4 miles to the south.
One previously recorded archaeological site, Brickell Block (8BD2916), extends into the archaeological APE
for the Broward County segment of FECR Corridor within the WPB‐M Corridor. The Brickell Block is in an
urban setting beneath a multi‐story shopping and entertainment complex, and associated hardscape,
including a parking lot. The significance of this site has not been evaluated by SHPO, but it is recorded as
containing sensitive material. The Broward County segment also traverses through two areas defined by
the City of Fort Lauderdale as archaeologically sensitive zones. These zones are between the New River and
SW 4
th
Court, and approximately 500 feet to both the north and south of the Tarpon River.
The FMSF identified no previously recorded significant archaeological sites within the Archaeological
APE established for the West Palm Beach Station North Site, West Palm Beach Station Central Site, Miami
Station Central Site, Miami Station South Site, and the Fort Lauderdale Station North Site (including the
Relocated Fort Lauderdale Station Site). 
4.4.6 Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources
This section describes existing recreational properties along with properties that are protected under
Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303 et seq.) and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965 (16 USC § 460L) (other than the historic resources described in Section 4.4.5,
Cultural Resources).
Section 4(f) resources are identified as parks, recreation areas, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance that are available to the public. A park or recreation area is afforded
federal protection under Section 4(f) if:
 It is publicly owned, meaning the property is owned and operated by a public entity, or the public
entity has a proprietary interest in the property, such as an easement;
 It is open to the public for visitation for more than a select group of the public at any time during
normal hours of operation;
 The primary purpose of the property is recreation (lands used primarily for non‐recreational
purposes but that host recreational activities do not have recreation as a primary purpose); and
 It is significant as a park or recreation area, meaning that the resource plays an important role in
meeting the park and recreational objectives of the community, as determined by the official with
jurisdiction over the property.
Section 6(f) resources are all parks and other recreational facilities that have been the subject of Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act grants of any type. Section 6(f)(3) contains strong provisions to protect
federal investments and the quality of assisted resources. Section 6(f)(3) states that no Section 6(f)
resource shall be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses without approval of the
Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary may approve conversions only if he/she finds it to be in
accordance with the existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-140 September 2014

4.4.6.1 Methodology
This evaluation used GIS data derived from the Florida Natural Area Inventory and the University of
Florida. In addition, EDR provided environmental data to identify facilities that are within the Project
Study Area. The EDR database review identified natural areas that included federal wilderness areas,
preserves, sanctuaries, refuges and wild and scenic rivers. Property appraiser’s websites for each county
within the Project Study Area and aerial photography were also evaluated to identify additional resources
not identified in the above referenced data sources. Local land use plans for the six counties within the
Project Study Area were reviewed to determine if there are any planned recreational resources within
300 feet of the Project alignment. A list of the sources used in this evaluation is provided in Table 4.4.6‐1.

Table 4.4.6-1 Section 4(f) Evaluation Sources
Title Author Date
Florida Managed Areas (GIS) Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) June 2012
Florida Parks and Recreational Facilities (GIS) University of Florida 2009
The EDR National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) check Report
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) Site- Johnson Boulevard,
Inquiry Number 3532737.8s
Environmental Data Resources February 2013
Orange County Property Appraiser Orange County 2013
Brevard County Property Appraiser Brevard County 2013
Indian River County Property Appraiser Indian River County 2013
St. Lucie County Property Appraiser St. Lucie County 2013
Martin County Property Appraiser Martin County 2013
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Palm Beach County 2013
Google Earth Imagery Google 2011
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, Orange County Orange County 2012
Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter III: Recreation and Open
Space Element
Brevard County 2009
Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10: Recreation
and Open Space Element
Indian River County 2010
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan: Recreation Element St. Lucie County 2010
Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, Martin County Martin County 2013
Palm Beach County 1989 Comprehensive Plan Palm Beach County 2012

4.4.6.2 Affected Environment
Thirty‐two Section 4(f) resources were identified within 300 feet of the Project alignment (Table 4.4.6‐2;
Appendix 4.4.6‐A). Two of the identified Section 4(f) resources are along the E‐W Corridor, while the
remaining 30 are along the N‐S Corridor. No Section 4(f) resources were identified along the MCO Segment.
Two of the identified Section 4(f) resources were also identified as Section 6(f) resources: North Sebastian
Conservation Area and Sawfish Bay Park. Both Section 6(f) resources are along the N‐S Corridor. The
counties’ comprehensive planning documents showed that there are no Section 4(f) resources (parks,
recreational areas, or wildlife refuges) planned within 300 feet of the Project alignment.

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


Affected Environment 4-141 September 2014

Table 4.4.6-2 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Conservation, and
Recreation Areas within the Orlando-West Palm Beach Project Study Area
Map
ID
Recreational
Resource County Description
E-W Corridor
1 Tosohatchee Wildlife
Management Area
(WMA)
Orange The WMA is managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC) bisected by the proposed alignment. Recreational
activities include: hiking, bicycling, camping, horseback riding, fishing,
limited hunting and wildlife viewing (FWC 2013a).
2 Canaveral Marshes
Conservation Area
Brevard Conservation area managed by SJRWMD bisected by the proposed
alignment. Recreational activities include: fishing, hiking, bicycling,
canoeing, boating, and wildlife viewing (SJRWMD 2013b).
N-S Corridor
3 Helen and Allan
Cruickshank Sanctuary
Brevard Wildlife sanctuary managed by Brevard County. Recreational activities
include hiking and wildlife viewing (Brevard County, Florida 2013b).
4 Rotary Park at Suntree Brevard Community park managed by Brevard County. Recreational facilities
include a playground and a pavilion (Brevard County, Florida 2013c).
5 Jordan Scrub Sanctuary Brevard Wildlife sanctuary managed by Brevard County. Recreational activities
include: hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, and wildlife viewing
(Brevard County, Florida 2013b).


6 South Mainland
Community Center
Brevard Community Center managed by Brevard County. Recreational facilities
include a gymnasium and playground. A nature trail is in the planning
process (Brevard County, Florida 2013b).
7 North Sebastian
Conservation Area
1

Indian River Conservation area managed by Indian River County. Primary intended
use is the protection of scrub habitat for the Florida scrub-jay. A plan
for environmental education and passive recreation (hiking) was
proposed (Indian River County, Parks Division 2013).
8 Pocahontas Park Indian River Community park managed by Indian River County. Facilities include
playground, tennis courts, shuffle board, water fountains, and shaded
park benches (Indian River County, Parks Division 2013).
9 Harmony Oaks
Conservation Area
Indian River Conservation area managed by Indian River County. Intended use of
the park is to maintain a scenic shoreline for boaters. There are no
existing trails, but the County has identified this area for future trails
(locations unknown) (FWC 2013a).
10 Harbor Branch Natural
Area
St. Lucie Natural Area managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational activities
include: hiking, picnicking, disc golf, horseshoes and volleyball
(St. Lucie County, Environmental Resources Department n.d.).
11 D.J. Wilcox Preserve St. Lucie Preserve managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational activities include:
hiking, birding and wildlife viewing (St. Lucie County, Florida 2013a).
12 Indrio Scrub Preserve St. Lucie Preserve managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational activities include
hiking and wildlife viewing (St. Lucie County, Florida 2013a).
13 St. Lucie Village
Heritage Park
St. Lucie Park managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational activities include:
Interpretive hiking trails, birding, picnic, volleyball, disc golf, and grilling
(St. Lucie County, Florida 2013a).


14 Central Open Space –
SLV
St. Lucie Park managed by St. Lucie County. Park consists of a vacant lot with no
facilities (St. Lucie County, Office of the Property Appraiser 2013).
15 Old Fort Historical Site St. Lucie Historical site managed by St. Lucie County. No recreational facilities were
identified on the site and no information regarding the park was available
on the County website (St. Lucie County, Florida 2013a).
16 Savannas Outdoor
Recreation Area
St. Lucie Recreational area managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational
activities include: camping, boating, fishing, hiking, biking, wildlife
viewing and picnicking (St. Lucie County, Florida 2013b).
17 Savannas Preserve
State Park
St. Lucie Park managed by the State of Florida. Recreational activities include:
hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, canoeing, kayaking, fishing and
wildlife viewing (Florida State Parks 2013).
18 Walton Scrub Preserve St. Lucie Preserve managed by St. Lucie County. Recreational activities include
hiking, bicycling, fishing, and wildlife viewing (St. Lucie County, Florida
2013b).
19 Rio Nature Park Martin Nature park managed by Martin County. Recreational activities include
picnicking and wildlife viewing (Martin County, Department of Parks
and Recreation 2011a).

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


Affected Environment 4-142 September 2014

Table 4.4.6-2 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Conservation, and
Recreation Areas within the Orlando-West Palm Beach Project Study Area
(Continued)
Map ID
Recreational
Resource County Description
N-S Corridor
20 Sailfish Ballpark Martin Ball Park managed by the City of Stuart. Recreational facilities include
baseball fields, racquetball courts, tennis courts and picnicking facilities
(City of Stuart, Community Services n.d.).
21 Martin County
Fairgrounds
Martin Fairgrounds managed by Martin County. Intended use is to entertain
and promote communities' traditions, talents, diversity, vision and
agricultural heritage (Martin County Fair Association, Inc. 2013).
22 Station 30 Park Martin Community park managed by Martin County. Recreational facilities
include picnicking facilities and playground (Martin County Property
Appraiser 2012).
23 Broward St.
Boat Ramp
Martin Boat ramp managed by Martin County. Primary function is the loading
and removing of boats from manatee pocket (Martin County,
Department of Parks and Recreation 2011b).
24 Seabranch
Preserve State
Park
Martin Park managed by the State of Florida. Recreational activities include:
hiking, picnicking, and wildlife viewing (Florida State Parks 2013).


25 William G. "Doc"
Meyers Park
a.k.a. "South
County Ball
Park"
Martin Ball Park managed by Martin County. Recreational facilities include
softball/baseball fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, multi-purpose
football and soccer fields, a batting cage, and concessions (Martin
County, Department of Parks and Recreation 2011b).


26 Saturn Ave
Addition
Martin Park managed by Martin County. Park consists of a vacant lot with no
facilities (Martin County, Department of Parks and Recreation 2011b).
27 Hobe Sound
National Wildlife
Refuge
Martin Wildlife refuge managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) bisected by the proposed alignment. Recreational activities
include: wildlife viewing, surf fishing, beach use, hiking and
environmental education (USFWS 2013c).
28 Jonathan
Dickinson State
Park
Martin Park managed by the State of Florida bisected by the proposed
alignment. Recreational activities include: biking, hiking, boating,
camping, swimming, picnicking, horseback riding, and wildlife viewing
(Florida State Parks 2013).


29 Sawfish Bay
Park
1

Palm Beach Park managed by the Town of Jupiter. Recreational activities include:
picnicking, fishing, canoeing and kayaking (Town of Jupiter, Parks
Department 2013).
30 Lake Park
Scrub Natural
Area
Palm Beach Natural area managed by Palm Beach County. Recreational activities
include hiking and wildlife viewing (Palm Beach County, Environmental
Resources Management 2013).
31 Northwood
Community
Center
Palm Beach Community park managed by the Boy and Girls Club of Palm Beach
County. Recreational facilities include: outdoor basketball court,
playground and recreational fields (Boys and Girls Clubs of Palm
Beach County 2013).
32 Nathaniel
Adams Park
Palm Beach Community park managed by the City of West Palm Beach. Recreation
facilities include a playground and basketball courts (City of West Palm
Beach n.d.).
Source: FNAI. 2012. Florida managed Areas-June 2012. Using: ArcGIS 10.1. Redlands, California: ESRI 2012. Tallahassee,
Florida.; University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2009. Florida Parks and Recreational Facilities 2009. Using: ArcGIS 10.1.
Redlands, California: ESRI 2012. Gainesville, Florida.
1 Section 6(f) Resources

Section 3.3.8 of the 2012 EA listed an additional 45 Section 4(f) recreational resources within 300 feet of
the WPB‐M Corridor (Table 4.4.6‐3). Twenty of these recreational properties are within 100 feet of the
corridor.

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


Affected Environment 4-143 September 2014

Table 4.4.6-3 Recreational Resources within 300 feet and 100 feet of the West Palm Beach –
Miami Corridor
Resource Name County/Municipality
Within
300 feet
Within
100 feet
Flamingo Park West Palm Beach X
Mary Brandon Park
West Palm Beach X
City of West Palm Beach Municipal Golf Course West Palm Beach X X
City of West Palm Beach Recreational Center West Palm Beach X X
Hypoluxo Scrub Natural Area Palm Beach County X X
Seacrest Scrub Natural Area Palm Beach County X X
Lake Worth Shuffleboard Courts Lake Worth X
Lake Worth Recreation Center Lake Worth X
Veterans Park Boyton Beach X
Bicentennial Park Boyton Beach X
Pence Park
BoytonBeach X
Palm Beach CountyRecreation Center BoytonBeach X
Worthing Park Delray Beach X
Currie Commons Park Delray Beach X
Miller Park Delray Beach X
Leon M. WeekesEnvironmental Preserve Delray Beach X X
Boca Isles Park Boca Raton X
City of Boca RatonRecreation Center Boca Raton X X
City of Boca Raton GopherTortoise Preserve Boca Raton X X
Rosemary Ridge Preserve Boca Raton X X
Poinciana Park/DogPark Hollywood X
Dowdy Baseball Park Hollywood X
Byrd Park Dania X
Jaco Pastorius Park and Community Center Oakland Park X X
Tarpon River Park
Fort Lauderdale X
Florence C. Hardy Park Fort Lauderdale X
Sistrunk Park Fort Lauderdale X X
Oakland Park Boat Ramp Fort Lauderdale X
Midway Park Fort Lauderdale X
City of Fort Lauderdale SW 9
th
Street Recreation Center Fort Lauderdale X X
Florence C. Hardy Park and Southside Cultural Center Fort Lauderdale X
Highlands Scrub Natural Area Broward County X X
Broward County Planned Park Broward County X X
Colohatchee Park
Winton Manors X X
Aqua Bowl Park North Miami Beach X
Arthur I. Snyder Tennis Complex North Miami Beach X
Oleta River State Park
Miami-Dade County X
Arch Creek Park Miami-Dade County X X
Arch Creek Park Addition Miami-Dade County X X
Greynolds Park
Miami-Dade County X X
Dorsey Park City of Miami X
Woodson/Miami Design Park City of Miami X X
Ed Abdella Field House and Athletics City of Miami X X
El Portal Tot Lot Village of El Portal X X
Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West
Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.

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


Affected Environment 4-144 September 2014

4.4.7 Visual and Scenic Resources
Visual and scenic resources include natural and man‐made features that give a particular landscape its
aesthetic properties. Visual resources include sites, objects, and landscapes features that contribute to the
visual character of the surrounding area and/or are valued for their scenic qualities. They can include
designated scenic routes and views within natural areas, parks, and urban areas identified as having
historical or cultural significance.
4.4.7.1 Methodology
Three crossing locations along the E‐W Corridor (at the Econlockhatchee River, St. Johns River, and I‐95)
were selected as representative sites that illustrate the potential impact that the new rail line would have
on its surroundings (Figure 4.4.7‐1). No photo renderings were developed for the N‐S Corridor as this is
currently a developed rail corridor and restoring the second track is not anticipated to substantially
change the visual environment.
A mosaic of hundreds of high‐resolution digital pictures was used as a backdrop on which the rendered
rail alignment and bridges could be placed. Two points of view were chosen for the St. Johns River Bridge
visual analyses to show the viewshed from the point of view of the driver on SR 528 looking toward the
proposed railroad bridge and from the St. Johns River looking north toward the bridge. Viewpoints and
camera views were arranged in the modeling software, 3D Studio Max, to match the perspective views of
the photographs. The bridges, earth retaining walls, trains, guardrails and barriers were all modeled. Each
element was assigned a material and color, which was then rendered by the software. Several revisions
of the renderings were required to assure that the shade and shadows matched the photographs. The
renderings were melded into the existing photographs using Adobe Photoshop. Existing and proposed
renderings were developed in order to display potential impacts to visual and scenic resources.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-145 September 2014


4.4.7.2 Affected Environment
The visual and scenic resources associated with the MCO Segment and VMF generally consist of SR 528,
MCO, and associated airport infrastructure such as parking lots.
The E‐W Corridor would be located parallel and adjacent to SR 528, where there is currently no rail line.
The areas outside of the current transportation right‐of‐way generally consist of undeveloped wooded
areas, agricultural pasture, wetlands, and road crossings. The current E‐W Corridor area provides scenic
views to motorists on SR 528 and recreational users of roads and trails in the Tosohatchee Wildlife
Management Area and the St. Johns River. Motorists traveling on SR 528 and crossing the
Econlockhatchee River currently see a narrow view of the river and associated dense floodplain
vegetation. Figure 4.4.7‐2a shows the existing view of the Econlockhatchee River looking south from
SR 528. Motorists traveling on SR 528 crossing the St. Johns River see a broad view of the river with an
open floodplain and meandering river channel. Views from the St. Johns River looking north towards
SR 528 are wide and open with the low SR 528 bridge crossing the river. Figures 4.4.7‐3a and 4.4.7‐4a
provide existing views of the St. Johns River looking southeast from SR 528 and from the St. Johns River
looking north. Motorists traveling on I‐95 towards the SR 528 overpass currently see sparse vegetation
on the right and left sides of the roadway with the overall view dominated by the SR 528 overpass.
Figure 4.4.7‐5a shows the existing view of the SR 528 overpass from I‐95.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-146 September 2014

The visual and scenic resources associated with the N‐S Corridor generally consist of the previously
disturbed FECR Corridor. The N‐S Corridor is visible from roadways that cross at‐grade. Motorists’ views
at these at‐grade roadways are limited to grade crossings, lights, gates, and flashers. In a few locations,
especially urban areas, the N‐S Corridor is visible from nearby buildings. Views currently consist of one
or two tracks, railroad ballast, and infrastructure. In more suburban areas, vegetation generally screens
the views of the railroad. Boaters traveling on navigable waterways, such as Crane Creek, the Sebastian
River and the St. Lucie River, have a view of the existing FECR Corridor bridges. In most locations, these
consist of an active, maintained bridge and a parallel out‐of‐service, poor condition, structure.
Visual and scenic resources associated with the WPB‐M Corridor are similar to the N‐S Corridor.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Affected Environment 4-147 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-148 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-149 September 2014


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


Affected Environment 4-150 September 2014



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


Affected Environment 4-151 September 2014

4.4.8 Utilities and Energy Resources
This section describes the public utilities and energy facilities and providers within the Project Study
Area.
4.4.8.1 Methodology
The affected environment for public utilities and energy resources was determined based upon the
following web‐based resources:
 Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) – Service Area Map;
 Orange County – Planning and Development Map;
 USDOT – Pipeline Mapping System;
 Waste Management‐Class III Landfills; and
 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services – Annual Motor Gasoline and Diesel
Report.
4.4.8.2 Affected Environment
Existing utilities (water systems, stormwater management systems, energy production/transmission
facilities) were identified for each of the three project corridor segments.
Existing utilities within the MCO Segment include power and subsurface utilities associated with MCO.
The E‐W Corridor contains the following utilities, based on information provided by AAF:
 Stormwater management system for SR 528;
 Overhead transmission lines owned by Florida Power and Light (FPL), OUC, and Progress Energy
Florida LLC/TECO Energy Inc.; and
 Two existing pipelines (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2007), owned
by Florida Gas Transmission Company LLC.
Electrical service providers within the E‐W Corridor include FPL, OUC, and Progress Energy. Electrical
service providers within the N‐S Corridor include FPL and the City of Vero Beach.
The N‐S Corridor contains underground fiber‐optic duct banks containing FECR communications and
signals systems. Several overhead and underground utilities are also present within the FECR
right‐of‐way, under license to FECR.

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


Affected Environment 4-152 September 2014

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-1 September 2014

5 Environmental Consequences
This chapter describes the consequences of the No‐Action Alternative and three Action Alternatives
(Alternatives A, C, and E) to the environmental resources specified in Federal Railroad Administration’s
(FRA) Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545). The discussion of environmental
consequences includes any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, the relationship
between short‐term uses of environmental resources and the maintenance and enhancement of long‐
term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved
in the Project should it be implemented. This chapter also includes a summary of the environmental
consequences of Phase I, West Palm Beach to Miami Passenger Rail, as presented in the 2012 EA.
Mitigation for any unavoidable impacts is discussed in Chapter 7, Mitigation.
5.1 Land Use, Transportation, and Navigation
This section provides a description of the potential consequences of the Project with respect to land uses,
transportation (regional and local roadways), and navigation (boat traffic and related economics).
5.1.1 Land Use
This section identifies the potential direct, indirect, and secondary effects to land and land uses for each
Alternative. As required by NEPA regulations (40 CFR § 1502.16(c)), this section also includes a
discussion of “possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of federal, regional, state,
and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area
concerned.”
As documented below, each Action Alternative would convert up to approximately 423 acres of land to
transportation use through All Aboard Florida (AAF)’s acquisition of private property and leasing land
from public entities including the Greater Orlando Airport Authority (GOAA), Orlando‐Orange County
Expressway Authority (OOCEA), and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The Project is
consistent with all local and regional land use plans.
5.1.1.1 Environmental Consequences
The impacts of the Project on land include areas where property would be acquired through fee or lease
and where existing non‐transportation land uses would be converted to transportation. This section also
includes an evaluation of the consistency of each alternative with local land use plans.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, construction and operation of the Project would not take place. Existing
commuter railway services and opportunities would remain unchanged, and no changes to local land use
patterns would occur. Land use development would continue consistent with the approved and adopted
local comprehensive, master, and/or visioning plans.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-2 September 2014

Alternative A
MCO Segment
The MCO Segment is entirely within MCO; it would not require acquisition of privately owned property.
The Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) portion of the MCO Segment would require the lease of 80 acres
from GOAA. Land that is part of this lease agreement would convert from utilities (wastewater treatment
plant and infiltration ditch) and undeveloped lands to transportation use.
The MCO Segment would be consistent with land use plans (described below) of Orlando and Orange
County.
The City of Orlando’s Growth Management Plan supports higher speed rail; it recognizes rail as an
alternative to automobile and airline travel (City of Orlando, Planning Division 2011). The City desires to
conduct annual coordination with GOAA to identify transportation alternatives to serve MCO. The City
has also expressed an interest in becoming the hub of a statewide intercity railway system, and to work
with FDOT to identify appropriate corridors and sites for stations and ancillary components associated
with the system. The MCO Segment is consistent with Orlando’s planning goals and objectives.
Orange County recognizes the need for alternative modes of transportation, and supports the
development of high‐capacity transit systems. The county also supports the expansion of commuter rail
stations to major employment centers such as MCO, International Drive, and the Central Florida Research
Park (Orange County Planning Division 2012). The MCO Segment is consistent with Orange County
planning goals and objectives.
East-West Corridor
OOCEA plans to acquire an additional 538 acres of right‐of‐way south of the existing State Road 528
(SR 528) right‐of‐way along an approximate 17‐mile stretch in Orange County. This land acquisition will
allow for future expansion of SR 528, as well as the Project. SR 528 is owned by FDOT in Brevard County:
FDOT’s expansion plans for SR 528 do not require the acquisition of additional right‐of‐way. However, in
order for the Project to accommodate FDOT’s SR 528 expansion plans, AAF intends to acquire
approximately 44 acres east of the Interstate 95 (I‐95) interchange.
The E‐W Corridor under Alternative A is predominantly within the current SR 528 right‐of‐way. Direct
effects to land use from the E‐W Corridor under Alternative A would be limited to the use of 44 acres of
privately owned property in Brevard County east of I‐95. Property acquisition would be limited to a small
portion of one parcel (Parcel 24 35 10 00‐1) outside the SR 528 right‐of‐way. Use of this property would
permanently convert 44 acres (15.7 percent) of the parcel’s approximately 280 acres from undeveloped
land use to transportation use.
As described above, OOCEA plans to acquire property in Orange County adjacent to the existing SR 528
right‐of‐way that would be converted to a transportation corridor. All of this land is currently
undeveloped. For the E‐W Corridor under Alternative A, OOCEA would lease approximately 245 acres of
the newly acquired land to AAF.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-3 September 2014

The E‐W Corridor under Alternative A would be consistent with the land use plan (described below) of
Brevard County. As explained in the MCO Segment discussion, the Project is consistent with growth
management policies adopted by Orange County.
Brevard County’s plan encourages the expansion of transportation, including rail facilities, for the safe,
efficient, and timely movement of passengers and goods (Objective 5) (Brevard County, Planning and
Development 2011). The County also supports the development and maintenance of a comprehensive
railway system to meet current and future needs as well as to further economic growth (Policy 5.2) (Brevard
County, Planning and Development 2011). The E‐W Corridor under Alternative A would be consistent with
Brevard County planning goals and objectives.
North-South Corridor
The N‐S Corridor is entirely within the existing Florida East Coast Railway (FECR) Corridor; it would not
require acquisition of privately owned property, and there would be no land use conversions.
The N‐S Corridor would be consistent with the local land use plans of Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and
Palm Beach Counties (described below). As explained in the E‐W Corridor discussion, the Project is
consistent with growth management policies adopted by Brevard County. Indian River County does not
have a passenger rail service, but supports future planning to secure access to the FECR Corridor for future
passenger rail. The County also supports future coordination with the FDOT and Florida East Coast
Industries (FECI) about a passenger rail service (Policy 6.7) (Indian River County, Planning Division 2010).
The N‐S Corridor would be consistent with Indian River County planning goals and objectives.
According to the St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan, St. Lucie County supports the reestablishment of passenger
rail along the eastern coast of Florida (St. Lucie, County Planning Division 2010). It also supports the
establishment of rail stations in Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and/or within the County’s urban service area.
One of the goals of St. Lucie County is to provide safe and efficient multi‐modal transportation systems that
address the movement of people and goods. The N‐S Corridor would be consistent with St. Lucie County
planning goals and objectives.
Martin County discusses the many positive effects of higher speed rail on transportation systems in its
Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (Martin County, Division of Community Planning 2013). One of
the goals of the County is to develop and implement a transportation network that is coordinated and
consistent with municipal, county, regional, state, and federal planning programs. Martin County desires to
plan for comprehensive long‐range transportation needs, including a Florida higher speed railway. The
County further desires to collaborate with the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA) and a rail service
provider to establish service between Martin County and nearby major regional hubs such as Port St. Lucie,
Palm Beach County, and points beyond. The N‐S Corridor would be consistent with Martin County planning
goals and objectives.
The Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan does not include objectives or policies regarding constructing
higher speed railway in the county (Palm Beach County, Planning Division 2013); however, it does describe
the Tri‐Rail, South Florida's existing commuter rail system. The county encourages the use of this railway
for commuter transportation through incentive programs. Palm Beach County designs and implements
these incentive programs through coordination with Tri‐Rail and the Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning
Organization. The N‐S Corridor would be consistent with Palm Beach County planning goals and objectives.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-4 September 2014

Phase I – West Palm Beach to Miami Corridor
As stated in Section 3.3.2 of the 2012 EA, the WPB‐M Corridor, which includes the Preferred Build System
Alternative and the Preferred Build Station Alternatives, would not have a significant effect on land use or
property acquisition. Proposed improvements to the mainline are occurring within existing right‐of‐way
and the existing corridor is identified as a transportation land use in all three counties (Palm Beach,
Broward, and Miami‐Dade). Property acquisition would be required for the proposed West Palm Beach
Station and relocated Fort Lauderdale Station. These property acquisitions would not have significant,
adverse impacts on property owners or land use, as documented in the 2012 EA (Section 3.3.2).
Alternative C
The E‐W Corridor is the only component under Alternative C that differs from Alternative A. The
E‐W Corridor under Alternative C straddles the current SR 528 right‐of‐way and the newly acquired land
by OOCEA in the segment of the corridor owned by OOCEA. This straddle design would require the same
land acquisition and access arrangements with OOCEA, GOAA, and FDOT as described in the E‐W Corridor
under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, however, OOCEA would lease 374 acres of the newly acquired
land to AAF, which would result in the use of 418 acres of land through either acquisition or leasing
(44 acquired, 374 leased).
The E‐W Corridor under Alternative C would be consistent with local land use plans. As explained under
Alternative A, the Project is consistent with growth management policies adopted by Orange and Brevard
Counties.
Alternative E
The E‐W Corridor is the only component under Alternative E that differs from Alternatives A and C. The
E‐W Corridor under Alternative E would be offset approximately 200 feet south of the existing SR 528 right‐
of‐way, and completely within the newly acquired land by OOCEA in the portion of the E‐W Corridor that
lies adjacent to the land currently owned by OOCEA. This offset would require the same land acquisition
and access arrangements with OOCEA, GOAA, and FDOT as described in the E‐W Corridor under
Alternatives A and C. Under Alternative E, OOCEA would lease 374 acres of the newly acquired land to AAF,
which would result in the use of 418 acres of land through either acquisition or leasing (44 acquired,
374 leased).
The E‐W Corridor under Alternative E would be consistent with local land use plans. As explained under
Alternative A, the Project is consistent with growth management policies adopted by Orange and Brevard
Counties.
5.1.1.2 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
The Project would not result in induced growth; no changes to land use due to induced growth would
occur. The only potential growth‐inducing Project component proposed under the No‐Action Alternative
is the new intermodal station at MCO to be constructed by GOAA. No transit‐oriented development would
occur at this station, as it is entirely within MCO property boundaries; it would not be a nucleus for
induced growth.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-5 September 2014

The evaluation of potential indirect effects includes a review of population projections for Orange County,
as the only station under Phase II of the Project is at MCO. The MCO Intermodal Station would be developed
by GOAA as a separate action from the Project. Rail stations are potential growth inducers due to associated
transit‐oriented development, which provides increased economic activity and housing options. Transit‐
oriented development is not anticipated at this location, as the station will be within MCO and is part of the
planned South Terminal complex.
According to projections from the University of Florida, Orange County will add nearly 670,000 residents
by 2040 (BEBR 2011b). Orange County will need to accommodate this projected growth. According to
the county’s Infill Master Plan, the county prioritizes infill and redevelopment, activity centers and mixed‐
use corridors (Orange County, Planning Division 2008). An increasing population, however, will put
pressure on Orange County to expand services, such as water and sewer, to undeveloped lands. These
conditions are independent of the Project; they represent baseline conditions that would occur under the
No‐Action Alternative. The MCO Segment and N‐S Corridor under the Action Alternatives would not bisect
any privately owned properties, no partial acquisition of parcels is required, and no adjacent land uses
would change. The E‐W Corridor under Alternatives A, C, and E would require the use of one privately
owned property outside the SR 528 right‐of‐way. AAF would acquire a small portion of this parcel; however,
the amount of acres acquired would not be substantial enough to induce a land use conversion on the acres
remaining under private ownership. The remainder of this parcel would continue as undeveloped and
would be available for future development.
Phase I of the Project (see Section 1.6 of the 2012 EA) includes development in the vicinity of each of the
proposed stations. At West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, there will be 10,000 square feet of retail
space within the station. At Miami, the Project includes 30,000 square feet of retail within the station, and
additional 75,000 square feet of transit‐oriented retail, 300,000 square feet of office space, 400 residential
units, and a 200‐room hotel. As described in Section 3.5 of the EA, these connected actions as well as
potential development and redevelopment outside of the station are consistent with the future land use
plans for these counties.
5.1.1.3 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Constructing the Action Alternatives would not require permanent land acquisition for constructing
staging areas or access. Temporary construction impacts to land use would include short‐term
construction easements on privately owned properties.
The Action Alternatives would not require construction easements for the MCO Segment, N‐S Corridor,
or WPB‐M Corridor; all construction staging areas would be located on vacant lands within MCO or the
existing FECR Corridor.
Temporary construction impacts to land use along the E‐W Corridor would be limited to areas outside
the SR 528 right‐of‐way. Construction easements would result in temporary land use conversions;
however, pre‐construction land use patterns would return once the construction period concludes. At
this stage in the development of the Project, the number and location of required construction easements
for the E‐W Corridor alternatives are unknown.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-6 September 2014

5.1.2 Transportation
This section provides an analysis of the potential impacts of the Project on transportation systems. For
the purposes of this transportation evaluation, the Project Study Area includes the MCO Segment, the
E‐W Corridor, and the N‐S Corridor. The impacts of the Project on transportation systems in the WPB–M
Corridor were evaluated in the 2012 EA and 2013 FONSI. This evaluation considers impacts on all
transportation modes and infrastructure, including automobile, motorbus, pedestrian, train, and aviation.
There would be no significant impact to transportation as a result of the Project. The Project would not
adversely impact (and will benefit) current freight train service on the FECR Corridor by increasing
freight speeds and providing additional passing track, and would improve conditions on regional
highways by relieving congestion. Increased train traffic will result in minor degradation of local road
traffic conditions at certain at‐grade crossings and nearby intersections.
5.1.2.1 Methodology
This analysis focuses on the impacts of increased train frequency on local roads, caused by more frequent
trains and at‐grade crossing closures. Annual Average Daily Volume (AADT) traffic data are available from
FDOT for arterials in the Project Study Area. These were sorted and the largest two arterials by volume
for each county were selected for analysis. Nine major arterials with highway‐rail grade crossings on the
existing FECR Corridor were analyzed (Table 5.1.2‐1).

Table 5.1.2-1 Grade Crossing Locations Evaluated
County Location
Annual Average Daily Volume
(AADT) (2011)
Brevard Pineda Causeway 40,000
Palm Bay Road 26,000
Indian River Oslo Road 12,400
19
th
Place/20
th
Place 11,500
St. Lucie Seaway Drive 6,600
North Causeway 8,200
Martin SE Indian Street 16,200
E Monterey Road 15,900
Palm Beach Banyan Boulevard 39,500
Northlake Boulevard 40,000

Highway capacity analysis for the 10 at‐grade railroad crossings and intersections were conducted in
accordance with the methodology presented in the Highway Capacity Manual utilizing Synchro/
Simtraffic software, Version 8 (TRB 2010).
Level of service (LOS) provides a qualitative relationship between operational conditions. Signalized LOS
ranges from “A” through “F,” with “A” being the most free operating condition and “F” being the most
restrictive. Generally, LOS “D” or better is considered acceptable. LOS for signalized intersections is
measured by control or signal delay per vehicle. Unsignalized LOS ranges from “A” through “H,” with “A”
being the most free operating condition and “H” being the most restrictive. Generally, LOS “D” or better is
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-7 September 2014

considered acceptable. LOS for unsignalized intersections is calculated using the Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) method by taking a sum of critical volume to saturation flow ratios. Table 5.1.2‐2
provides the delay ranges for the signalized and unsignalized LOS. No significant adverse impacts would
occur if the future LOS is D or better, and if the LOS below “D” does not deteriorate.

Table 5.1.2-2 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria
Level of Service
Signalized Intersections - Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Unsignalized Intersections – Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU)
A <10 <55
B 10.1 to 20.0 >55 <64
C 20.1 to 35.0 >64 <73
D 35.1 to 55.0 >73 <82
E 55.1 to 80.0 >82 <91
F > 80.0 >91 <100
G >100 <109
H >109

For the Project, intersections and railroad crossings were analyzed with conditions similar to the projected
evening (PM) Peak Hour, to represent the maximum traffic volume during the day. Each location was
analyzed without train crossings, with freight train crossings, and with passenger train crossings.
The operation includes a clearance phase prior to the arrival of the train to clear any queues present on the
railway and adjacent approaches. Then the train‐crossing event is simulated. During the train‐crossing
event, the traffic movements not in conflict with the train crossing continue to operate normally.
Since the train crossings occur approximately three times during the peak hour, the closure time for each
crossing was calculated without train crossing, with freight train crossing, and with passenger train crossing
closures. However, the combined freight train and passenger train schedules could result in more than three
trains per hour at various times of day and at various locations.
Queue lengths were obtained for the 95
th
percentile queue as calculated by the Synchro/Simtraffic software.
The 95
th
percentile queue represents the queue length that is not expected to be reached 95 percent of the
time. Results for closure times, LOS, and queue length were calculated for each crossing and adjacent
intersections for 2016 (Appendix 3.3‐B). LOS and queue length with the freight train crossings are
considered to be equivalent to the No‐Action condition.
5.1.2.2 Environmental Consequences
This section presents the potential impacts of the Project on rail transportation, highways, and local roads,
in comparison to the No‐Action Alternative in the same analysis year (2016, projected to be the first year of
revenue service).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-8 September 2014

No-Action Alternative
The No‐Action Alternative would not cause significant adverse impacts to rail transportation. Under the No‐
Action Alternative, there would be no passenger train service added from Cocoa to West Palm Beach and
the existing freight infrastructure would be maintained. Freight train configurations would be expected to
incorporate the anticipated annual cargo growth of approximately 3 percent through increases in train
length and/or speed. The No‐Action Alternative would not result in any delays or impacts related to
construction of stations or other infrastructure required for the Project. The upgrades to the FECR Corridor
contemplated as part of the Project would not, however, occur in the near term as part of the No‐Action
Alternative, and freight speeds would not increase. The demand for freight capacity is expected to grow
along the N‐S Corridor. Based on anticipated operations data for the 2016 opening year, the number of
freight trains per day is expected to increase from 18 (in 2011; 14 in 2013) to 20 in 2016 along with an
increase in the average train length to 8,150 feet (AMEC 2014a). The projected annual increase in freight
would result in minor increases in local roadway crossing closures, but total impacts relative to existing
conditions would be minimal.
Given the projected increase in intercity traffic, the No‐Action Alternative has the potential to contribute to
future adverse transportation impacts on SR 528, I‐95, and Florida’s Turnpike by not aiding in the reduction
of the projected increase in total automobile volume on these roads. Without the added capacity provided
by the proposed passenger service, these roads would be forced to absorb the majority of this increase.
The No‐Action Alternative would not have a significant impact on local vehicular traffic. Based on data
provided in Table 5.1.2‐3, the projected annual increase in freight operations would increase local roadway
crossing closure times. Table 5.1.2‐3 shows the at‐grade closure times for the No‐Action Alternative
(freight), based on 22 trains per day (2019 conditions). Closure times would range from an average of 2.5
to 2.8 minutes per hour, with the longest closures occurring in Martin County. This is an increase from the
existing average of 1.2 minutes per hour (see Table 4.1.2‐4), but would not have a significant impact on
traffic.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
The Project would have the same impacts as a result of Alternatives A, C, or E. The route alternatives for the
E‐W Corridor would have the same impact on rail transportation, other modes of transportation, and
highway and local traffic, as they would include the same impacts on existing rail and highway
infrastructure, have the same ridership and effects on vehicle miles traveled, and would have the same
number and locations of at‐grade crossings. Table 5.1.2‐3 shows the predicted diversion from other modes
of transportation in 2019 (when passenger volumes are predicted to reach steady levels).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-9 September 2014

Table 5.1.2-3 Passenger Diversion from Other Modes of Transportation
Mode Percent Diverted Annual Ridership Daily Ridership
Long-Distance Market
Air 10 152,630 418
Rail 2 30,526 84
Bus 10 152,630 418
Short-Distance Market
Bus 22 427,790 1,172
Source: Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September 2013. Prepared
for Florida East Coast. Report.

Rail Impacts
The Project passenger operations would include 16 round‐trip passenger trains per day, which amounts
to a maximum frequency of two passenger trains crossings per hour. Maximum operating speeds would
range from 79 to 125 mph, depending upon the location along the E‐W or N‐S Corridors. Operating speeds
will be greatest along the E‐W Corridor where there are no highway‐rail grade crossings. From the station
at MCO to the station at West Palm Beach, service would be nonstop, as there are no intermediate stations
proposed.
The N‐S Corridor has been designed to cause no adverse impact on freight operations, and has an
assumed beneficial impact on freight operations. The addition of passenger rail service would require
modifying the mostly single‐track system to a mostly double track system, which would be used by both
passenger and freight operations. This will improve freight efficiency by increasing average operating
speeds. As a result, the Project would have beneficial impacts on future freight traffic along the N‐S
Corridor. There are no existing freight rail operations within the E‐W Corridor; therefore, no impacts to
freight rail operations would occur in the E‐W Corridor with Alternatives A, C, or E.
The Project would also have a beneficial impact on the passenger rail transportation network between
Orlando and Miami by providing potential customers with an alternative means of rail transportation.
The Project is designed to provide a direct, nonstop rail service from MCO to West Palm Beach, which is
a different service geographically and functionally compared to the existing Amtrak service. The Project
would also provide more frequent and regular service, which would result in more flexibility to potential
customers.
Riders for AAF are expected to be primarily diverted from automobile modes (69 percent of forecast
ridership). However, 2 percent of the AAF ridership is forecast to accrue from competing passenger rail
services, which would include the existing Amtrak service. In 2019, this amounts to approximately
30,526 annual trips (Table 5.1.2‐3) diverted from Amtrak, which is about 4 percent of Amtrak’s FY2012
ridership along the Silver Star (425,794) and Silver Meteor (375,164) corridors (Amtrak 2012). No
diversion from Tri‐Rail is anticipated. Tri‐Rail provides frequent commuter‐rail service between West
Palm Beach and Miami, with multiple stops and relatively low fares. The infrequent intercity passenger
rail service provided by AAF would have fewer stops and higher fares, and would not be expected to
divert a significant number of riders.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-10 September 2014

Inter-City Motorbus Service Impacts
The proposed passenger train service would divert 10 percent of its long‐distance riders and 22 percent
of its short‐distance riders from private inter‐city motorbus services (Table 5.1.2‐3). This totals
approximately 152,630 annual bus passenger‐trips per year in the long‐distance market and
427,790 trips per year in the short‐distance market.
Local Transit Service Impacts
The Project is not anticipated to impact local transit services, as intercity passenger rail would not
compete with local transit services for long‐distance riders due to the stations served and the higher fares.
Local transit providers (such as LYNX in Orlando) would be expected to carry more passengers locally as
a result of the rail service as these passengers will be seeking connections to their ultimate destinations
from the AAF station.
Aviation Impacts
The proposed passenger train service would attract approximately 10 percent of its riders from the air
service market (Louis Berger Group 2013). This totals approximately 152,630 annual aviation passenger
trips per year (418 per day) who could potentially choose train service based on convenience and cost.
This does not represent a significant diversion from the overall air passenger market between central and
southeast Florida.
Regional Roadway Impacts
The FDOT “Vision Plan” discussed in the Purpose and Need Statement estimates that the total intercity
travel person trips between Miami and Orlando will increase from 9.5M in 2000 to 18.5M by 2020, with
further increase to 30.5M by 2040 (FDOT 2006a). This will result in several roadway segments exceeding
capacity.
The ridership analysis projected that 335,628 auto vehicle trips per year would be removed from the
roads as a result of the Project in 2016 and 1.2M vehicles would be removed per year in 2019 (Louis
Berger Group 2013).
The Project would have a beneficial impact on regional roadway transportation networks by providing
additional transportation capacity between Orlando and Miami. Construction and operation of the Project
would reduce the cumulative traffic volume on I‐95, Florida’s Turnpike, and SR 528 by removing vehicles
and providing an easily accessible and efficient alternative means of transport to residents and visitors
between the Orlando, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami areas.
Local Traffic Impacts
The proposed VMF would have a negligible impact on local vehicular transportation. Assuming facility
operations would require 100 employees per day and each employee, in addition to arriving and leaving
from work each day, left an average of once during the day for lunch, meetings, and errands. The
estimated maximum number of trips that would be generated each day is 400. This traffic would access
the station via Boggy Creek Road from either the northwest or southeast. In 2012, the AADT for these
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-11 September 2014

portions of Boggy Creek Road were 13,000 and 9,300, respectively. If employee access is distributed
evenly between both access directions, the increase in AADT would consume 1.5 percent of current
capacity in the northwest direction and 2.2 percent in the southeast direction. This is considered minor,
as the threshold for a major impact is a five‐percent loss of capacity. In existing conditions, Boggy Creek
Road is operating at a LOS E. The Project is not anticipated to change the LOS during peak periods.
The Project would not impact local vehicular traffic along the E‐W Corridor, as there would be no at‐grade
crossings and no public road closures.
Along the N‐S Corridor, passenger rail service would result in minor increased traffic delays at existing
roadway crossings. The Project would result in some degradation in LOS at the grade crossings and
intersections studied, with greater percentages of time within an hour of operation under unacceptable
roadway conditions than in the No‐Action Alternative. With just three train crossings per hour, the
majority of each hour of operation would not be affected by the introduction of passenger train service.
However, at some locations, more than three trains per hour are scheduled and greater percentages of
those hours would operate under unacceptable levels of service than under the No‐Action Alternative.
The increase in number of crossing events due to the addition of 16 passenger rail round trips per day
would cause additional closures, but closures from passenger trains would be much shorter than closures
from existing freight traffic (Table 5.1.2‐4). On average, an at‐grade crossing requires 30 seconds to
activate and close the gates, and 15 seconds to bring the gate back up. FRA regulations require 20 seconds
to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the railroad crossing and 10 seconds to bring the
gate back up. FDOT uses 30 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the railroad
crossing and 15 seconds to bring the gate back up. To account for the worst‐case scenario, FDOT timings
were used in this analysis. For freight trains (average length 8,150 feet and average speed approximately
51 mph), a single train crossing results in an average crossing closure of 155 seconds (ranging from 147 to
170 seconds), which equates to 2.6 minutes. For passenger trains (average length 725 to 900 feet and
average speed 93 mph), a single train crossing results in an average crossing closure of 51 seconds.
As shown in Table 5.1.2‐4, typical at‐grade crossings (intersections of local roads with the FECR Corridor)
would be closed an average of 54 times per day (three times per hour), with closure times ranging from
1.7 minutes (passenger) to 2.8 minutes (freight). The total hourly closure would range from 4.2 minutes
per hour to 4.5 minutes per hour, an increase of approximately 2 minutes per hour in comparison to the
No‐Action Alternative.
Detailed traffic impact analyses were done for the nine highest‐volume at‐grade crossings along the
N‐S corridor between Cocoa and West Palm Beach (Table 5.1.2‐1). Several of the intersections where the
N‐S Corridor crosses local roads are also adjacent to other intersections. The analyses evaluate the
impacts on local traffic for the road crossing the FECR Corridor as well as the adjacent connected
intersections, with respect to level of service and the duration of the adverse impact (Table 5.1.2‐4).

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


Environmental Consequences 5-12 September 2014

Table 5.1.2-4 At-grade Crossing Closures (2019)
Freight Passenger Total
County
Number of
at-grade
crossings
1

Number
of trains/
day
Train
speed
(mph)
Maximum
closure
(min/hour)
2

Number
of trains/
day
Train
speed
(mph)
Maximum
closure
(min/hr)
Maximum
closure
(min/hr)
Brevard 55 22 53.8 2.5 32 98.1 1.7 4.2
Indian River 30 22 54.2 2.5 32 106.6 1.7 4.2
St. Lucie 20 22 47.8 2.7 32 92.6 1.7 4.4
Martin 25 22 44.4 2.8 32 79.5 1.7 4.5
Palm Beach 26 22 54.3 2.5 32 89.2 1.7 4.2
Source: AMEC. 2013 e. Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to
West Palm Beach, Florida. September 2013. Report.
1 Maximum crossings per hour include northbound and southbound trains combined.
2 Maximum closure per hour calculated as the total time to activate and clear multiplied by the maximum crossings per hour,
divided by 60.

Average delays for both the No‐Action Alternative and the Project alternatives at several of these
intersections are much lower than the gate closure times predicted for passenger and freight trains.
Although there may be some variability in when automobiles arrive at a closed intersection, some of the
automobiles crossing at this location would experience a delay at least as long as the gate closure time.
At several locations described below, the at‐grade crossing is adjacent to several other at‐grade crossings.
The high traffic volumes combined with the potential that numerous adjacent roadways could also have
their crossing gates deployed at the same time could have greater impacts on traffic operations.
The analyses show that the Project would have a minor, but not significant, impact on local traffic by
increasing the frequency of at‐grade crossing closures. As shown in Table 5.1.2‐5, the majority of
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS A to LOS C) in both the No‐Action Alternative
and with the Project, for the majority of the PM Peak Hour. The level of service degrades to LOS E or LOS F
when a train passes. Two intersections (Pineda Causeway and Northlake Boulevard) operate at poor
levels of service (LOS D to LOS E) for most of the PM Peak Hour, and degrade to LOS F for short periods
due to train passage. As noted above, with the Project the PM Peak Hour train traffic would include one
freight and two passenger trains. The Project would increase the amount of time that each intersection
experiences LOS F conditions, in comparison to the No‐Action Alternative, by 0 to 7.5 minutes in the PM
Peak Hour. The greatest impact to local traffic would occur on Seaway Drive in Fort Pierce, at the FECR
railroad crossing.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-13 September 2014

Table 5.1.2-5 Intersection Level of Service, N-S Corridor (minutes per hour) – 2016 PM Peak Hour
Intersection Condition LOS
A
LOS
B
LOS
C
LOS
D
LOS E LOS F
Pineda Causeway – Holy Trinity Road No-Action 0 0 0 54.5 3 1.5
Action Alternatives 0 0 0 56.5 2 1.5
Oslo Road – FECR No-Action 57.5 0 0 0 0 2.5
Action Alternatives 52.5 0 0 0 0 7.5
Oslo Road – Old Dixie Highway No-Action 0 58.5 0 0 0 1.5
Action Alternatives 0 55.5 0 0 0 4.5
19
th
Place/20
th
Place – FECR No-Action 58 0 0 0 0 2
Action Alternatives 53.5 0 0 0 0 6.5
20
th
Place-Commerce Ave No-Action 58 0 0 0 0 2
Action Alternatives 53.5 0 0 0 0 6.5
Seaway Drive – FECR No-Action 56 0 0 0 0 4
Action Alternatives 48.5 0 0 0 0 11.5
Seaway Drive – U.S. 1 No-Action 0 0 57.5 0 0 2.5
Action Alternatives 0 0 52.5 0 0 7.5
North Causeway-Old Dixie Highway No-Action 0 58.5 0 0 0 1.5
Action Alternatives 0 55.5 0 0 0 4.5
SE Indian Street – FECR No-Action 59 0 0 0 1 0
Action Alternatives 57 0 0 0 3 0
SE Dixie Hwy – SE Indian St No-Action 58 0 0 0 0 2
Action Alternatives 54.5 0 0 0 0 5.5
East Monterey Rd - FECR No-Action 59 0 0 0 1 0
Action Alternatives 57 0 0 0 3 0
Monterey Rd – SE Dixie Hwy No-Action 58 0 0 0 0 2
Action Alternatives 56 0 0 0 0 4
Banyan Blvd-FECR No-Action 0 0 0 0 57 3
Action Alternatives 0 0 0 0 51 9
Northlake Blvd-Old Dixie Hwy No-Action 0 0 0 58 0 2
Action Alternatives 0 0 0 54 0 6
Northlake Blvd-Hwy 811 No-Action 0 0 0 0 58 2
Action Alternatives 0 0 0 0 53 7
Source: AMEC

Phase I - West Palm Beach to Miami
As stated in the 2013 FONSI, Phase I of the Project (which was analyzed to include impacts resulting from
existing freight service, as well as projected freight growth and the proposed passenger service) would
not have a significant impact on traffic operations at railroad crossings between West Palm Beach and
Miami. The impact on delay, queuing, and LOS is limited to signal cycles immediately following a train
crossing event and are minimal on a peak‐hour basis. The passenger train is proposed to clear a typical
crossing in 52 seconds. With only one such crossing event during peak hours, the impact on traffic
operations on adjacent roadways is expected to be minor. Signal and circuit upgrades performed as part
of the track construction, improvement, and rehabilitation would occur within the FECR Corridor, and
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-14 September 2014

would not substantially impact traffic on intersecting roadways. There are no permanent road closures
contemplated as a result of the railroad system portion of the Project. There are, however, crossing
closures anticipated for the station elements of the Project that are necessary to accommodate the
proposed platforms. As documented in the 2012 EA (Section 2.5.1), the contemplated crossing closures
would only occur at low‐volume, local streets and would not impact local circulation significantly as there
are alternate routes located in close proximity to the proposed closures so as to avoid dead‐end
conditions and result in minimal changes to the existing traffic patterns. Access to existing properties
would not be impacted by the proposed crossing closures. There would be one roadway closure at both
the West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale Stations, and two at the Miami Station. As required by the
FONSI, AAF prepared supplemental traffic analyses for the three Phase 1 stations to evaluate intersection
operations. The analysis showed that all intersections would operate under acceptable conditions
without mitigation. All three reports can be found at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0590.
5.1.2.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
The Project would enhance regional roadway transportation by reducing vehicles on the regional
roadway network. The three proposed stations for the WPB‐M Corridor (in West Palm Beach, Fort
Lauderdale, and Miami) may result in secondary effects such as creating potential for development and
redevelopment outside the development directly associated with the stations. This additional
development may also create impacts such as induced traffic generated by those developments.
5.1.2.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
The Project would result in minor, short‐term impacts to freight rail transportation, regional highways,
and local vehicular traffic during construction. New track construction required for the Project would be
performed according to best management practices (BMPs), which are defined as methods designed to
minimize adverse impacts to the environment, so that minimal temporary adverse impacts to existing
freight operations would be experienced. Any required maintenance or rehabilitation of the existing
single track would also be done using planning and construction practices that would minimize impacts
to existing freight traffic. Future required maintenance and rehabilitation would also be done more
efficiently as track operators would be able to use planning practices that utilize the additional tracks to
mitigate temporary delays. AAF plans to use BMPs and previously successful methods to reduce or
eliminate potential impacts such as delays or downtime.
As stated in Section 3.4 of the 2012 EA, existing at‐grade crossings along the WPB‐M Corridor will be
modified to include second tracks and crossing protection devices relocated as required. These
improvements will require temporary closures of individual lanes or complete streets. All closure plans
involve the coordination and involvement of state and local governments due to the crossing agreements
in place, and will only be implemented with the full collaboration of the agencies. Temporary lane or full
crossing closures may create temporary construction impacts to traffic during construction from the
operation of equipment and potential temporary, short‐term closure of local streets. The typical duration
of any closures ranges from 2 to 3 days for minor crossings to up to 1 week for major arterial crossings.
Proper planning and implementation and maintenance of mitigation measures (e.g., maintenance of
traffic plans) will be specified and required for construction.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-15 September 2014

5.1.3 Navigation
This section provides the analysis of proposed navigational conditions for the No‐Action Alternative and
the Project for the bridges over navigable waters that require replacement or reconstruction, including
the New River Bridge (Figure 4.3.1‐1 and 4.3.1‐4). These include:
 The proposed new fixed railroad bridge over the St. Johns River.
 The existing single‐track drawbridge over the St. Lucie River. The existing structure is planned
to be rehabilitated, and train frequencies would increase.
 The existing double‐track drawbridge over the Loxahatchee River (also known as the Jupiter
River), which is currently operated as a single‐track bridge. For the Project, the out‐of‐service
second track would be reconstructed.
 The existing double‐track drawbridge over the New River. No construction is planned at this
bridge, but train frequencies would increase.
 The five fixed bridges that will be replaced (Eau Gallie River, Crane Creek, Turkey Creek,
St. Sebastian River, Hillsboro Canal).
Freight traffic is predicted to increase under the No‐Action Alternative from 14 trains under 2013 existing
conditions to a projected 20 trains by 2016, increasing the number of bridge closures and vessel wait
times at the St. Lucie River, Loxahatchee River, and New River Bridges.
Under Project conditions, an additional 16 round‐trip passenger trains (32 total) would pass over these
bridges in addition to the 20 freight trains. The bridge and track infrastructure would be improved,
resulting in increased train speeds. The Project would increase the number of bridge closures and vessel
wait times at the three moveable bridges, however there would not be a substantial increase in the length
of time for any single closure.
All alternatives would alter the existing fixed bridges at other navigable waterways by either replacing
the existing track bridge with a new double‐track bridge, or adding a second single‐track bridge parallel
to the existing bridge. Navigation on the waterways with fixed bridges would not be impacted due to the
increase in train traffic.
For commercial and recreational vessels, increased wait times and queue lengths anticipated under the
No‐Action Alternative would result in increased costs, which are estimated to be $76,285 annually at the
St. Lucie River Bridge, $45,625 annually at the Loxahatchee River Bridge, and $136,145 annually at the
New River Bridge (AMEC 2014a). Under Project conditions, no adverse economic impacts to marine jobs,
economic growth, or development are anticipated. Increases in vessel wait times would result in minor
increases in costs of less than 0.1 percent when compared to the marine industry values at the St. Lucie
River, Loxahatchee River, and New River Bridges. Increased vessel wait times and queue lengths would
have minor economic impacts to commercial destinations (e.g., boat/yacht repair and support facilities)
along the New River; however, these types of establishments would not incur any decline in business
along the St. Lucie and Loxahatchee Rivers. Cruise ships, commercial freighters, and other large
oceangoing vessels do not access the St. Lucie, Loxahatchee, or New River Bridges; therefore, the Project
would not impact the existing or future operations of these types of vessels.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-16 September 2014

5.1.3.1 Methodology
This section explains how effects to navigation and marine‐related economics were evaluated for the
future No‐Action Alternative and Project. Details of the methodology are provided in Appendix 4.1‐3‐C.
Operations Modeling
Estimates of rail traffic arrivals are based on the existing schedule. A model to predict this schedule was
generated using Rail Traffic Controller (RTC)
2
modeling. Freight train arrivals were grouped by day‐of‐
week and time‐of‐day. The RTC model simulation includes variations in departure times and delays in
route. The model generates train arrivals at the bridges using arrival times with a variance of ±10 minutes
to maintain some randomness in the forecasted train arrivals. Passenger train arrivals provided by the
RTC model are at regular intervals, approximately once per hour in each direction. The RTC data provide
no variability in passenger train arrival times because the predictability of the passenger service schedule
is critically important to overall performance (AMEC 2014a).
Infrastructure changes as a result of the Project include extending the double track of the mainline across
Loxahatchee River Bridge and up to the St. Lucie River Bridge; the St. Lucie River Bridge will remain single
tracked. This change will allow a train to be staged closer to the bridge while waiting for a second train to
cross the bridge. This action would reduce delays for trains that currently have to slow or stop to yield to
oncoming train traffic. The model assumes that trains encountering oncoming traffic are delayed
5 minutes under the 2016 Project conditions. The New River Bridge is currently double tracked, so there
are no delays realized in either the 2013 or the 2016 model scenarios (AMEC 2014a). It is also assumed
that due to improved infrastructure under Project conditions, future trains will operate at a faster speed
than trains under the No‐Action Alternative. Table 5.1.3‐1 depicts average train speeds under Project
conditions, as compared to the No‐Action Alternative.

Table 5.1.3-1 Average Speeds of Passenger and Freight Trains
County
No-Action Alternative Project
Freight Train Speed
(mph)
Passenger Train Speed
(mph)
Freight Train Speed
(mph)
Broward 23 61 38
Palm Beach 33 76 39
Martin 32 77 36
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

RTC modeling was used to determine the times that trains would occupy the span over the waterway. A
secondary process used the RTC model data to determine the times that the water way would be
unavailable to vessel passage; this included the time the water way is unavailable during the bridge
closing process before a train’s arrival. A bridge must be closed several minutes prior to the train’s arrival
to allow for safe passage; under existing conditions, this closure time is approximately 12 minutes. Train

2 Rail Traffic Controller is a rail traffic simulation tool developed by Berkeley Simulation Software. It is the de facto simulation tool
used by all Class I carriers (the seven largest North American railroads) and the majority of rail consulting firms.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-17 September 2014

speeds are expected to increase as a result of the Project and will allow closure times prior to the train’s
arrival to be reduced to approximately 7 minutes. The waterway remains unavailable as the bridge is
raised. The RTC model was run for the average number of marine vessels arriving per day (AMEC 2014a).
Economic Analysis
This analysis considers the potential effects of the Project as compared to the No‐Action Alternative to
obtain the average economic effect that bridge closure delays would have on the local economy. The
bridge operations model included in the 2014 Navigation Discipline Report (Appendix 4.1‐3‐C) and was
used to determine the total number of minutes of waiting time resulting from the Project to both
recreational and commercial boaters by multiplying the daily number of vessels by the average amount
of wait time per vessel. The waiting time was then multiplied by the cost per hour of operating
recreational and commercial vessels on each of the rivers included in this analysis. The sum of these costs
constitutes the total value to the marine industry and recreational boaters associated with increased
bridge closures on account of the Project (AMEC 2014a).
5.1.3.2 Navigation Impacts
This section describes the projected impacts to navigation under the No‐Action Alternative and Project.
Appendix 4.1‐3‐C provides a detailed analysis, including modeling results.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, freight traffic on the FECR Corridor is predicted to increase. FECR
operated 24 daily trains in 2006 and had projected growth of 5 to 7 percent between today and 2016.
However, due to delays in the expansion of the Panama Canal and other factors, it is now expected that
freight operations will increase from the current number of trains to 20 trains per day by 2016, and at a
3 percent annual growth after 2016. Under the No‐Action Alternative, the infrastructure would not be
improved; train speeds would not increase and, therefore, the amount of overall closure time would
increase. Approximately 20 freight trains would pass over the St. Lucie, Loxahatchee, and New River
Bridges on any given day (AMEC 2014a). Approximately half of the trains would pass during daytime
hours (7 AM to 10 PM). As shown in Table 5.1.3‐2, at the St. Lucie River Bridge this would result in
18 closures per day, with an average time of 20 minutes per closure. The average of the total weekday
closure time would be 397.4 minutes (6.6 hours). The average of the total weekend closure time at the
St. Lucie River Bridge would be 213 minutes (3.6 hours). The Loxahatchee River (Jupiter Inlet) bridge
would result in 16 closures per day, with an average time of 20 minutes per closure. The average of the
total weekday closure time would be 350.8 minutes (5.8 hours) and the average of the total weekend
closure time would be 216 minutes (3.6 hours). The New River Bridge would be closed 16 times per day,
with an average time of 19 minutes per closure. The average of the total weekday closure time would be
360 minutes (6.0 hours) and the average of the total weekend closure time would be 197 minutes
(3.3 hours).

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


Environmental Consequences 5-18 September 2014

Table 5.1.3-2 Moveable Bridge Closures
Year
Number
of
Closures
1

Average
Single Weekly
Closure Time
(minutes)
Average of
Total
Weekday
Closure time
(minutes)
Average of
Total
Weekday
Closure time
(hours)
Average of
Total
Weekend
Closure Time
(minutes)
Average of
Total
Weekend
Closure Time
(hours)
St Lucie River Bridge
2013 10 21 241 4.0 165 2.7
2016 No-Action 18 20 397 6.6 213 3.6
2016 Project 42 15 588 9.8 458 7.6
Loxahatchee River Bridge (Jupiter Inlet)
2013 10 19 214 3.6 156 2.6
2016 No-Action 16 20 351 5.8 216 3.6
2016 Project 42 12 515 8.6 434 7.2
New River Bridge
2013 10 19 147 3.5 147 2.5
2016 No-Action 16 19 360 6.0 197 3.3
2016 Project 30 13 414 6.9 314 5.2
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

St. Lucie River Bridge
The total number of vessels that wait and the average vessel wait times at the St. Lucie River Bridge would
increase under the 2016 No‐Action Alternative.
Approximately 20 freight trains would pass over the St. Lucie River Bridge on any given day. As shown in
Table 5.1.3‐2, at the St. Lucie River Bridge this would result in 18 closures per day, with an average time
of 20 minutes per closure. The average of the total weekday closure time would be 397.4 minutes
(6.6 hours). The average of the total weekend closure time at the St. Lucie River Bridge would be 213
minutes (3.6 hours).
Under the No‐Action Alternative, an increase in obstruction of passage compared to Existing Conditions
is projected. This increase in obstruction of passage is due to a greater number of bridge closures as a
result of the increased freight traffic. The number of vessels that experience a wait time would increase
from 7 percent to 14 percent, which represents approximately 10.8 additional vessels per day. The
average queue time for vessels experiencing a wait will increase by approximately 1.7 minutes. With the
exception of a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length under the No‐Action Alternative rarely
exceeds 10 vessels; it is projected that the queue length will be 10 vessels or fewer for 97.8 percent of the
time. Table 5.1.3‐4 presents vessel wait times for the St. Lucie River Bridge under the No‐Action
Alternative.
Loxahatchee River Bridge
The total number of vessels that wait and the average vessel wait times at the Loxahatchee River Bridge
would increase under the No‐Action Alternative.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-19 September 2014

Approximately 20 freight trains would pass over the Loxahatchee River Bridge on any given day. As
shown in Table 5.1.3‐2, rail traffic over the Loxahatchee River (Jupiter Inlet) bridge would result in
16 closures per day, with an average time of 20 minutes per closure. The average of the total weekday
closure time would be 350.8 minutes (5.8 hours) and the average of the total weekend closure time would
be 216 minutes (3.6 hours).
Under the No‐Action Alternative, an increase in obstruction of passage compared to existing conditions
is projected. This increase in obstruction of passage is due to a greater number of bridge closures as a
result of the increased freight traffic. The number of vessels that experience a wait time increases from
7 percent to 25 percent, which represents approximately 7 additional vessels. The average queue time
for vessels experiencing a wait will increase by approximately 1.1 minutes. With the exception of a few
specific hour periods, the vessel queue length under the No‐Action Alternative rarely exceeds 10 vessels;
it is projected that the queue length will be 10 vessels or fewer for 98.3 percent of the time. Table 5.1.3‐6
presents vessel wait times for the Loxahatchee River Bridge under the No‐Action Alternative.
New River Bridge
The total number of vessels that wait and the average vessel wait times at the New River Bridge would
increase under the 2016 No‐Action Alternative.
Approximately 20 freight trains would pass over the New River Bridge on any given day. As shown in
Table 5.1.3‐2, the New River Bridge would be closed 16 times per day, with an average time of 19 minutes
per closure. The average of the total weekday closure time would be 360 minutes (6.0 hours) and the
average of the total weekend closure time would be 197 minutes (3.3 hours).
Under the No‐Action Alternative, an increase in obstruction of passage compared to existing conditions
is projected. This increase in obstruction of passage is due to a greater number of bridge closures as a
result of the increased freight traffic. Combined, these factors increase the number of vessels that
experience a wait time from 14 percent to 23 percent, which represents approximately 20 additional
vessels per day. The average wait time for vessels that wait will increase by approximately 2 minutes.
With the exception of a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length under the No‐Action Alternative
rarely exceeds 10 vessels; it is projected that the queue length will be 10 vessels or fewer for 97.8 percent
of the time. Table 5.1.3‐8 presents vessel wait times for the New River Bridge under the No‐Action
Alternative.
Fixed Bridges
Under the No‐Action Alternative, fixed bridges at other navigable waterways would not be altered. The
waterways include the Eau Gallie River, Crane Creek, Turkey Creek, St. Sebastian River, and the
Hillsboro Canal. The projected increase in the number of freight trains in 2016 would not affect
navigation at these bridges.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
The effects to navigation from the Project would be the same for Alternatives A, C, and E, as each would
include the same bridge improvements and the same number of passenger trains at each of the bridges
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-20 September 2014

under consideration. Navigation impacts were modeled for 2016 using the number of freight trains
projected under the No‐Action Alternative. However, with the Project’s infrastructure improvements, the
freight trains would be operating at higher speeds. The project analysis includes both freight and
passenger trains since it is not possible to separate their effects at moveable bridges (a single bridge
closure could accommodate both).
St. Johns River
The proposed new rail bridge over the St. Johns River would provide the same clearance that the existing
SR 528 bridge provides. The proposed rail bridge would provide 16 feet vertical clearance above the
mean high water level of river, resulting in no loss of existing clearance. The Project would not impede or
interfere with navigation.
St. Lucie River
The St. Lucie River Bridge would be rehabilitated as part of the Project. There would be no change in the
structure or the dimensions of the opening. The bridge would continue to operate in accordance with the
bridge regulations at 33 CFR 111.317(c). The proposed passenger train operations would increase the
amount of time that the bridge would be closed. Table 5.1.3‐2 shows the effect of the additional train trips
on bridge closure times. Under Project conditions, 16 round‐trip (32) passenger trains and 20 freight
trains would pass over the St. Lucie River Bridge on any given day. Future train speeds at this location are
shown in Table 5.1.3‐1. Appendix 4.1.3‐D also provides detailed information on hourly bridge closures.

Table 5.1.3-3 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the St. Lucie River Bridge
St. Lucie River Bridge No-Action Alternative
1
Project
2

Average Single Closure Time (minutes)
3
20 15
Total Number of Daily Closures 18 42
Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Minutes) 397.4 588
Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Hours) 6.6 9.8
Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Minutes) 213 458
Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Hours) 3.6 7.6
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.
1 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations with closure times verified with existing field conditions
and under the assumption that infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action do not occur.

2 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations for both freight and passenger rail with the planned
infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action.
3 Multiple trains (freight and passenger) can cross under a single bridge closure.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-21 September 2014

The Project would result in an additional 24 closures per day of the St. Lucie River Bridge (Table 5.1.3‐3).
These additional closures result in a higher number of vessels experiencing wait times for both
commercial and recreational vessels. Additionally, the increased frequency of closures results in vessel
queuing that would affect the vessel movement on the St. Lucie River and associated waterways.

Table 5.1.3-4 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge (2016)
Units
No-Action
Alternative Project
Total Vessels
Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 157 157
Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 135 90
% Vessels with Zero Wait Time
86% 58%
Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 22.5 66.7
% Vessels With Wait Time
14% 42%
Avg. Wait Time (all)
1
(min) 1.4 3.4
Avg. Wait Time
2
(min) 9.9 8.1
Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) <18.3 <17.6
Commercial Vessels
Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 9 9
Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 7 4
% Vessels with Zero Wait Time
78% 51%
Vessels with Wait Time (#/day) 2 4
% Vessels With Wait Time
22% 49%
Avg. Wait Time (all)
1
(min) 1.8 3.7
Avg. Wait Time
2
(min) 8.1 7.7
Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) <18.3 <16.6
Recreational Vessels
Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 148 148
Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 127 86
% Vessels with Zero Wait Time
86% 58%
Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 21 63
% Vessels With Wait Time
14% 42%
Avg. Wait Time (all)
1
(min) 1.4 3.4
Avg. Wait Time
2
(min) 10.1 8.1
Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) <18.3 <17.7
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.
1 Average time all vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge (average between vessels with wait time and vessels
with no wait time)
2 Average time

queue vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge

Based on the current proposed operational plan provided by AAF, with the Project, the St. Lucie River
Bridge would be closed 42 times per day, with an average time of 15 minutes per closure. The average of
total weekday closure time would be 588 minutes (9.8 hours) per day under Project conditions, an
increase of 190.6 minutes (3.2 hours) over the No‐Action Alternative. The average of total weekend
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-22 September 2014

closure time would be 458 minutes (7.6 hours) per day under Project conditions, which is an increase of
245 minutes (4.0 hours) over the No‐Action Alternative. Model results for the No‐Action Alternative and
Project bridge operations for the St. Lucie River Bridge are presented in Table 5.1.3‐3 (AMEC 2014a).
Table 5.1.3‐4 shows the model results for marine traffic wait times for both commercial and recreational
vessels at the St. Lucie River Bridge. Under Project conditions, the percentage of vessels that experience
a wait under Project conditions would increase from 14 percent under the No‐Action Alternative to
42 percent under the Project (approximately 44 additional vessels per day). The average wait time for all
vessels (inclusive of those vessels that wait and those that do not wait) would increase from 1.4 minutes
under the No‐Action Alternative to 3.4 minutes under the Project. The average wait time of delayed
vessels would decrease, from 9.9 minutes to 8.1 minutes. The most likely vessel wait time would be less
under Project conditions as compared to the No‐Action Alternative (AMEC 2014a). With the exception of
a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length rarely exceeds 10 vessels. The likelihood of a queue
length greater than 10 in any given hour would increase from 0.2 percent (No‐Action Alternative) to
4.3 percent under the Project conditions.
Vessel delays for the St. Lucie River Bridge are based on the modeled average of 157 arrivals per day. In
actuality, there would be a range in the number of vessel arrivals depending on the day and time. For the
St. Lucie River Bridge, arrivals ranged from 46 to 413 vessels during the 2014 Video Survey and arrivals
were higher than 157 vessels 29 percent of the time. On peak days, navigation impacts may be
substantially greater than what is depicted in Table 5.1.3‐4.
Loxahatchee (Jupiter) River
The Project would reconstruct the second track at the Loxahatchee River Bridge. There would be no
change in the structure or the dimensions of the opening. The bridge would continue to operate in
accordance with the bridge regulations at 33 CFR 111.299. The proposed passenger train operations
would increase the amount of time that the bridge would be closed. Table 5.1.3‐2 shows the effect of the
additional train trips on bridge closure times. A total of 16 round‐trip (32) passenger trains and 20 freight
trains would pass over the Loxahatchee River Bridge on any given day. Future train speeds at this location
are shown in Table 5.1.3‐1.

The Project would result in an additional 26 closures per day of the Loxahatchee River Bridge
(Table 5.1.3‐5). These additional closures result in a higher number of vessels experiencing wait times
for both commercial and recreational vessels. Additionally, the increased frequency of closures results in
vessel queuing that would affect the vessel movement on the Loxahatchee River and associated
waterways.
Based on the current proposed operational plan provided by AAF, with the Project the Loxahatchee
(Jupiter Inlet) River Bridge would be closed 42 times per day with an average time of 12 minutes per
closure. The average of the total weekday closure time would be 515 minutes (8.6 hours) per day, an
increase of 164.2 minutes (2.8 hours) over the No‐Action Alternative. The average of the total weekend
closure time would be 434 minutes (7.2 hours) per day, an increase of 218 minutes (3.6 hours) over
the No‐Action Alternative. There would be no direct effect on navigation of the Intracoastal Waterway,
as the Loxahatchee River Bridge does not cross the waterway directly.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-23 September 2014

Model results for the bridge operations under the Project and No‐Action Alternative for the Loxahatchee
River Bridge are presented in Table 5.1.3‐5. Appendix 4.1.3‐D also provides detailed information on
hourly bridge closures.

Table 5.1.3-5 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the Loxahatchee River Bridge
Loxahatchee River Bridge No-Action Alternative
1
Project
2
Average Single Closure Time (minutes)
3
20 12
Total Number of Daily Closures 16 42
Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Minutes) 351 515
Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Hours) 5.8 8.6
Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Minutes) 216 434
Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Hours) 3.6 7.2
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.
1 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations with closure times verified with existing field conditions
and under the assumption that infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action do not occur.

2 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations for both freight and passenger rail with the planned
infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action.
3 Multiple trains (freight and passenger) can cross under a single bridge closure.

Table 5.1.3‐6 shows the model results for marine traffic wait times for both commercial and recreational
vessels at the Loxahatchee River Bridge. Under Project conditions, the percentage of vessels that
experience a wait under Project conditions would increase from 25 percent under the No‐Action
Alternative to 42 percent under the Project conditions (approximately 31 additional vessels per day). The
average wait time for all vessels (inclusive of those vessels that wait and those that do not wait) would
increase from 1.2 minutes under the No‐Action Alternative to 2.2 minutes under the Project. The average
wait time of delayed vessels would decrease, from 9.4 minutes to 5.7 minutes. The most likely vessel wait
time is less under Project conditions as compared to the No‐Action Alternative (AMEC 2014a). With the
exception of a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length rarely exceeds 10 vessels. The likelihood
of a queue length greater than 10 in any given hour would decrease from 1.7 percent (No‐Action
Alternative) to 0.5 percent under the Project conditions.
Vessel delays for the Loxahatchee River Bridge are based on the modeled average of 121 arrivals per day.
In actuality, there would be a range in the number of vessel arrivals depending on the day and time. For
the Loxahatchee River Bridge, arrivals ranged from 19 to 502 vessels in the 2014 Video Survey and
arrivals were higher than 121 vessels 43 percent of the time. On peak days, navigation impacts may be
substantially greater than what is depicted in Table 5.1.3‐6.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-24 September 2014

Table 5.1.3-6 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the Loxahatchee River Bridge (2016)
Units
No-Action
Alternative Project
Total Vessels
Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 121 121
Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 105 74
% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 87% 61%
Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 16 47
% Vessels With Wait Time 25% 42%
Avg. Wait Time (all)
1
(min) 1.2 2.2
Avg. Wait Time
2
(min) 9.4 5.7
Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.7 9.8
Commercial Vessels
Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 4 4
Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 4 2
% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 84% 56%
Vessels with Wait Time (#/day) 1 2
% Vessels With Wait Time 16% 44%
Avg. Wait Time (all)
1
(min) 1.2 2.4
Avg. Wait Time
2
(min) 6.7 5.4
Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 15.7 10.1
Recreational Vessels
Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 116 116
Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 101 71
% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 87% 61%
Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 15 45
% Vessels With Wait Time 13% 39%
Avg. Wait Time (all)
1
(min) 1.2 2.2
Avg. Wait Time
2
(min) 9.5 5.7
Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.8 9.8
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.
1 Average time all vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge (average between vessels with wait time and vessels
with no wait time)
2 Average time

queue vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge

New River
The Project would not require any action at the New River Bridge. There would be no change in the
structure or the dimensions of the opening. The bridge would continue to operate in accordance with the
bridge regulations at 33 CFR 111.313(b). The proposed passenger train operations would increase the
amount of time that the bridge would be closed. Table 5.1.3‐2 shows the effect of the additional train trips
on bridge closure times. Under Project conditions, 16 round‐trip (32) passenger trains and 20 freight
trains would pass over the New River Bridge on any given day. Future train speeds at this location are
shown in Table 5.1.3‐1.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-25 September 2014

The Project would result in an additional 14 closures per day of the New River Bridge (Table 5.1.3‐7).
These additional closures would result in a higher number of vessels experiencing wait times for both
commercial and recreational vessels. Additionally, the increased frequency of closures results in vessel
queueing that would affect the vessel movement on the New River.
Based on the current operational plan provided by AAF, with the Project the New River Bridge would be
closed 30 times per day with an average time of 13 minutes per closure (Table 5.1.3‐7). Under Project
conditions, the average of the total weekday closure time would be 414 minutes (6.9 hours) per day and
the average of the total weekend closure time would be 314 minutes (5.2 hours) per day. The estimated
effect of the Project on the New River Bridge on weekdays is approximately 54 minutes (0.9 hours) of
additional bridge closure time per day as compared to the No Action Alternative. The estimated effect of
the Project on the New River Bridge on weekends is approximately 117 minutes (1.9 hours) of additional
bridge closure time per day as compared to the No‐Action Alternative. Model results for the projected
bridge operations, under the No‐Action Alternative and Project, for the New River Bridge are presented
in Table 5.1.3‐7 (AMEC 2014a). Appendix 4.1.3‐D also provides detailed information on hourly bridge
closures.

Table 5.1.3-7 Summary of Projected Bridge Operations for the New River Bridge
New River Bridge No-Action Alternative
1
Project
2
Average Weekly Closure Time (minutes)
3
19 13
Total Number of Daily Closures 16 30
Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Minutes) 360 414
Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Hours) 6.0 6.90
Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Minutes) 197 314
Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Hours) 3.3 5.23
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.
1 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations with closure times verified with existing field
conditions and under the assumption that infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action do not occur.

2 Results based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations for both freight and passenger rail with the planned
infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action.
3 Multiple trains (freight and passenger) can cross under a single bridge closure.

Table 5.1.3‐8 shows the model results for marine traffic wait times for both commercial and recreational
vessels at the New River Bridge. Under Project conditions the percentage of vessels that experience a wait
would increase from 23 percent under the No‐Action Alternative to 36 percent (approximately 27
additional vessels per day). The average wait time for all vessels (inclusive of those vessels that wait and
those that do not wait) would increase from 1.8 minutes under the No‐Action Alternative to 2.2 minutes
under the Project. The average wait time of delayed vessels would decrease, from 7.9 minutes to 6.3
minutes. The most likely vessel wait time is less under Project conditions as compared to the No‐Action
Alternative (AMEC 2014a). With the exception of a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length
rarely exceeds 10 vessels. The likelihood of a queue length greater than 10 in any given hour would
decrease from 2.2 percent (No‐Action Alternative) to 2.0 percent under the Project conditions.
Vessel delays for the New River Bridge are based on the modeled average of 215 arrivals per day. In
actuality, there would be a range in the number of vessel arrivals depending on the day and time. For the
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-26 September 2014

New River Bridge, arrivals ranged from 37 to 508 vessels during the 2014 Video Survey and arrivals were
higher than 215 vessels 36 percent of the time. On peak days, navigation impacts may be substantially
greater than what is depicted in Table 5.1.3‐8.

Table 5.1.3-8 Navigation Simulation Model Results for the New River Bridge (2016)
Units
No-Action
Alternative Project
Total Vessels
Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 215 215
Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 165 139
% Vessels with Zero Wait Time
77% 64%
Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 50 76
% Vessels With Wait Time
23% 36%
Avg. Wait Time (all)
1
(min) 1.8 2.2
Avg. Wait Time
2
(min) 7.9 6.3
Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.4 12.2
Commercial Vessels
Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 49 49
Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 35 29
% Vessels with Zero Wait Time
71% 59%
Vessels with Wait Time (#/day) 14 20
% Vessels With Wait Time
29% 41%
Avg. Wait Time (all)
1
(min) 2.1 2.6
Avg. Wait Time
2
(min) 7.3 6.3
Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 17.0 12.9
Recreational Vessels
Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 165 165
Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 130 109
% Vessels with Zero Wait Time
79% 66%
Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 35 56
% Vessels With Wait Time
21% 34%
Avg. Wait Time (all)
1
(min) 1.7 2.1
Avg. Wait Time
2
(min) 8.1 6.3
Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.3 12.0
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.
1 Average time all vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge (average between vessels with wait time and vessels
with no wait time)
2 Average time queue vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge

Fixed Bridges
All alternatives would alter the existing fixed bridges at other navigable waterways (Eau Gallie River,
St. Sebastian River, Crane Creek, Turkey Creek, and the Hillsboro Canal) by either replacing the existing
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-27 September 2014

track bridge with a new double‐track bridge, or adding a second single‐track bridge parallel to the existing
bridge. At these waterways, the new bridge would have the same horizontal and vertical clearances as
the existing bridge and would not affect navigation.
The USCG requested that AAF evaluate alternatives that would raise these bridges and increase the
vertical clearance below the bridge, as the low clearance under these structures currently limits
navigation. AAF has evaluated alternatives that would raise the bridge elevation and concluded that these
are not feasible. A primary consideration in the use of elevated structures is track grade or incline. Trains,
as opposed to automobiles, are much more restricted in the grades they can navigate safely and efficiently.
For the FECR Corridor, freight trains represent the limiting factor for grade, which is a one‐percent grade
based on AREMA design standards (AREMA 2003). To provide a 1‐percent grade, for each foot in
elevation a bridge is raised, an additional 100 linear feet of embankment is needed at each end of the
bridge. For example, if the bridge is raised 20 feet, the track work for 2,000 feet on either end of the bridge
will require substantial infrastructure improvements to support the grade increase, resulting in a total
impact of 4,000 feet (0.75 mile).
Raising the track on the approaches to the bridges would require retaining walls to keep the additional
fill within the railroad right‐of‐way, and may require property acquisition to accommodate the new
embankment and structures. At‐grade crossings are often close to the bridge, and raising the bridge
would require either closing the grade crossing or raising the surface road. For example, major surface
roads are located less than 0.2 miles from the Eau Gallie River and St. Sebastian River bridges (SR 505).
These infrastructure improvements and supporting activities would have significant additional costs as
a result of:
 Building large, costly retaining walls to minimize the footprint of the large embankments and
fill required to maintain track grades;
 Abandoning, rebuilding, or relocating the existing grade crossings adjacent to the bridges;
 Mitigating any increased environmental impacts to wetlands, important habitat, etc.;
 Mitigating increased noise impacts to any residences near the elevated structure; and
 Protecting or purchasing buildings or nearby community structures of significance which will
be impacted by the larger footprint of the bridge.
The use of elevated bridge structures would result in significant cost increase; preliminary cost estimates
indicate at least an increase in costs of two to three times planned activities. Time of overall project
execution would also increase, thereby affecting AAF’s goal to be operational in 2016. Purchasing
additional property, if available, would negatively impact project costs and the project schedule.
Moreover, AAF does not have condemnation authority, so there is no guarantee that AAF would be able
to purchase the needed land. Community impacts would also result from closing, moving or modification
of at‐grade crossings and the impacts of construction and operations to structures in the vicinity of the
expanded footprint that would be needed.
In summary, FRA has determined that the significant delays, costs, and risks associated with the use of
elevated structures make raising any of the corridor bridges not feasible.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-28 September 2014

5.1.3.3 Economic Impacts
This section provides an overview of the economic impacts associated with the No‐Action Alternative and
the Project for the St. Lucie River, Loxahatchee River, and New River Bridges.
No-Action Alternative
As noted in Section 5.1.3.2, Navigation Impacts, freight traffic on the FECR Corridor is predicted to
increase from 14 trains to 20 trains per day by 2016 under the No‐Action Alternative. Under the
No‐Action Alternative, the infrastructure would not be improved and train speeds would not increase;
therefore, the amount of overall closure time would increase.
St. Lucie River
The anticipated increase in average vessel wait times associated with additional bridge closures and
unimproved infrastructure would result in an increase in vessel queues of 11 vessels per day. These
increased vessel wait times were considered when evaluating economic impacts to commercial
developments along the St Lucie River. The increase in average vessel wait times is estimated to result in
an economic impact under the No‐Action Alternative (Table 5.1.3‐9) of $209 per day or $76,285 annually.
This value is the difference between the estimated economic impacts from the No‐Action Alternative
compared to the impact of Existing Conditions. This represents less than a 0.1 percent increase in the total
cost of vessel delays per day on the marine industry under the No‐Action Alternative (AMEC 2014a).

Table 5.1.3-9 Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge for Existing Conditions
and No-Action Alternative
Units Existing Conditions No-Action Alternative
Total Daily Wait Time for All Vessels min/day 96 223
Commercial Industry
Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 2 15
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 15 26
Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0006 0.0011
Recreational Industry
Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 10 21
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 143 341
Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0065 0.0156
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

There are no cruise ships, commercial freighters, or other large oceangoing vessels that access the
St. Lucie River; therefore, the No‐Action Alternative is not expected to impact the existing or future
operations of these types of vessels (AMEC 2014a).
Individual commercial vessels could potentially experience an increase in vessel queue times at the
St. Lucie River Bridge. However, there are very few commercial destinations on the St. Lucie River, and
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-29 September 2014

they would not be anticipated to incur any decline in business as a result of the moderate impacts to
navigation under the No‐Action Alternative (AMEC 2014a).
Loxahatchee River
The anticipated increase in average vessel wait times associated with additional bridge closures and
unimproved infrastructure would result in an increase in vessel queues of seven vessels per day. These
increased vessel wait times were considered when evaluating economic impacts to commercial
developments along the Loxahatchee River. The increase in average vessel wait times is estimated to
result in an economic impact under the No‐Action Alternative (Table 5.1.3‐10) of $125 per day or $45,625
annually. This value is the difference between the estimated economic impacts from the No‐
Action Alternative compared to the impact of Existing Conditions. This represents less than a 0.1 percent
increase in the total cost of vessel delays per day on the marine industry under the No‐Action Alternative
(AMEC 2014a).

Table 5.1.3-10 Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River Bridge for Existing
Conditions and No-Action Alternative
Units Existing Conditions No-Action Alternative
Total Daily Wait Time for All Vessels min/day 74 147
Commercial Industry
Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 1 1
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 7 9
Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0005 0.0006
Recreational Industry
Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 8 15
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 118 241
Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0089 0.0182
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

There are no cruise ships, commercial freighters, or other large oceangoing vessels that access the
Loxahatchee River; therefore, the No‐Action Alternative is not expected to have an impact on operations
of these types of vessels (AMEC 2014a).
Individual commercial vessels could potentially experience an increase in vessel queue times at the
Loxahatchee River Bridge. However, there are very few commercial destinations on the Loxahatchee
River, and they would not be anticipated to incur any decline in business as a result of the bridge closures.
Therefore, there is no impact under the No‐Action Alternative (AMEC 2014a).
New River
The anticipated increase in average vessel wait times associated with additional bridge closures and
unimproved infrastructure would result in an increase in vessel queues of 18 vessels per day. These
increased vessel wait times were considered when evaluating economic impacts to commercial
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-30 September 2014

developments along the New River. The increase in average vessel wait times for commercial and
recreational vessels is estimated to result in an economic impact under the No‐Action Alternative
(Table 5.1.3‐11) of $373.00 per day or $136,145 annually. This value is the difference between the
estimated economic impacts from the No‐Action Alternative compared to the impact of Existing
Conditions. This represents less than a 0.1 percent increase in the total cost of vessel delays per day on
the marine industry under the No‐Action Alternative (AMEC 2014a).

Table 5.1.3-11 Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge for Existing Conditions and
No-Action Alternative
Units Existing Conditions No-Action Alternative
Total Daily Wait Time for All Vessels min/day 178 390
Commercial Industry
Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 11 14
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 101 196
Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0016 0.0031
Recreational Industry
Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 20 35
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 215 493
Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0040 0.0092
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

Port Everglades is located east of the New River Bridge; however, cruise ships, commercial freighters, and
other large oceangoing vessels do not access the New River. Therefore, the No‐Action Alternative would
have no impact to existing or future commercial freighter or cruise ship operations at Port Everglades
(AMEC 2014a).
Commercial destinations on the New River are primarily boat/yacht repair and support facilities, which
would not be anticipated to incur any decline in business because of impacts to navigation, as the services
they offer are primarily need‐based and would less likely be procured by transient waterway boaters.
Therefore, the No‐Action Alternative is not expected to have impacts to such businesses (AMEC 2014a).
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
The economic effects of extended bridge closures to the local economy would be the same for Alternatives
A, C, and E, as each would include the same bridge improvements and the same number of passenger trains.
St. Lucie River
As noted in Section 6.6 of the 2014 Navigation Discipline Report, the Project would potentially result in
minor economic impacts to jobs, economic growth, and development. The estimated economic impact
under the Project Alternatives (Table 5.1.3‐12) is $520 per day or $189,800 annually (an increase of $311
per day or $113,515 annually when compared to the No‐Action Alternative). This is the impact of the
increased total vessel delay per day on the marine industry under the Project Alternatives and represents
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-31 September 2014

less than a 0.1‐percent increase in the percent cost of waiting compared to the marine industry value at
the St. Lucie River (AMEC 2014a).

Table 5.1.3-12 Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge No-Action Alternative and
Combined Effect
Units
Existing
Conditions
Project
Alternatives Difference
Average Wait Time for all Vessels min 223 239 16
Commercial Industry
Vessels Experiencing Wait Time #/day 9 4 (5)
Cost of Vessel Delay to Marine Industry $/day 26 55 29
Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0011 0.0023 0.0012
Recreational Industry
Vessels Experiencing Wait Time #/day 148 165 17
Cost of Vessel Delay to Marine Industry $/day 341 832 491
Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0156 0.0381 .0225
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

Commercial destinations on the St. Lucie River are primarily vessel/yacht repair and support facilities,
which would not be anticipated to incur any decline in business as a result of the impacts of the Project
on navigation and, therefore, the Project would have minimal impact to such businesses (AMEC 2014a).
There are no cruise ships, commercial freighters, or other large oceangoing vessels that access the
St. Lucie River; therefore, implementation of the Project would have no impact to existing or future
operations of these types of vessels (AMEC 2014a).
Loxahatchee River
As noted in Section 6.5 of the 2014 Navigation Discipline Report (Appendix 4.1‐3‐C), the Project would
potentially result in minor economic impacts to jobs, economic growth, and development. The estimated
economic impact under the Project Alternatives (Table 5.1.3‐13) is $208 per day or $75,920 annually (an
increase of $83 per day or $30,295 annually when compared to the No‐Action Alternative). This is the
impact of the increased total vessel delay per day on the marine industry under the Project Alternatives
and represents less than a 0.1 percent increase (AMEC 2014a).
There are very few commercial destinations on the Loxahatchee River, as most of the waterfront
development is residential. The few commercial destinations are not expected to incur any decline in
business as a result of the impacts of the Project on navigation (AMEC 2014a).
There are no cruise ships, commercial freighters, or other large oceangoing vessels that access the
Loxahatchee River; therefore, the Project would have no impact to existing or future operations of these
types of vessels (AMEC 2014a).

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


Environmental Consequences 5-32 September 2014

Table 5.1.3-13 Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River FECR Bridge No-Action
Alternative and Combined Effect
Units
Existing
Conditions
Project
Alternatives Difference
Average Wait Time for all Vessels min 147 269 122
Commercial Industry
Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 1 2 1
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 9 18 9
Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0006 0.0012 0.0006
Recreational Industry
Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 15 45 30
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 241 440 199
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry Value % 0.0182 0.0331 0.0150
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

New River
As noted in Section 6.4 of the 2014 Navigation Discipline Report (Appendix 4.1‐3‐C), the Project is not
anticipated to result in adverse economic impacts to jobs, economic growth, and development. The
increase in average vessel wait times results in minor economic impact under the Project Alternatives
(Table 5.1.3‐14), which is estimated at $161 per day or $58,765 annually (a decrease in loss of $212 per
day or $77,380 annually when compared to the No‐Action Alternative versus Existing Conditions). This
is the cost of the total vessel delay per day on the marine industry under the Project Alternatives, and
creates a minimal impact as there is a less than 0.1 percent increase in the cost of waiting compared to
the marine industry value at the New River, when compared to the No‐Action Alternative (AMEC 2014a).

Table 5.1.3-14 Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge No-Action Alternative and
Combined Effect
Units
Existing
Conditions
Project
Alternatives Difference
Average Wait Time for all Vessels min 390 481 91
Commercial Industry
Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 14 20 6
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 196 239 43
Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value % 0.0031 0.0038 0.0007
Recreational Industry
Vessels Experiencing a Wait #/day 35 56 21
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry $/day 493 611 117
Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry Value % 0.0092 0.0114 0.0022
Source: AMEC. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2014.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-33 September 2014

Commercial destinations on the New River are primarily boat/yacht repair and support facilities. These
facilities are anticipated to incur minor impacts to their business as a result of the moderate impacts of
the Project on vessel wait times and queue lengths (AMEC 2014a).
Port Everglades is located east of the New River Bridge. Cruise ships, commercial freighters, and other
large oceangoing vessels do not access the New River; therefore, the Project would have no impact to
existing or future operations at Port Everglades (AMEC 2014a).
5.2 Physical Environment
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the Project on the physical environment in the Project
Study Area, with respect to air quality, noise and vibration, farmland soils, hazardous materials and solid
waste, coastal zone management, and climate change. Geology, which is not a resource that FRA requires
to be evaluated in an EIS, is considered in Section 5.4.4, Public Health and Safety, as it concerns the safety
of the Project with respect to sinkholes and other geological threats to public infrastructure.
5.2.1 Air Quality
This section describes the potential impacts to air quality from the Project. The air quality provisions that
are applicable to the Project include the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and the NEPA
requirements as specified in the CEQ’s Regulations for Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508) (EPA 2008a; CEQ 2005a).
The CAAA require that a Project does not:
 Cause any new violation of the NAAQS;
 Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations; or
 Delay attainment of any NAAQS.

As demonstrated in this section, for all alternatives the Project would provide a net regional air quality
benefit as compared to the No‐Action Alternative. The air quality study demonstrates that the Project
would decrease emissions of all regulated pollutants. Air quality in the region would be improved through
the diversion of vehicles from the roads and highways in central‐east Florida.
5.2.1.1 Methodology
The analysis considered emissions of regulated pollutants from passenger trains and other vehicles.
Passenger Train Emissions Methodology
Air pollutant emissions resulting from the operation of passenger trains associated with the Project and
switching occurring at the VMF were calculated based upon the number and types of locomotives (two
diesel engines per train, with eight trainsets operating concurrently), the horsepower rating of the
engines (4,000 horsepower), and the assumption that the locomotives would be compliant with EPA
Tier 4 rail emission standards. Criteria pollutant emission factors for the locomotives were obtained from
the EPA.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-34 September 2014

Vehicular Emissions Methodology
Overall vehicle miles travelled (VMT) reductions were calculated based upon estimates of auto vehicle trips
avoided as auto passengers are diverted to the new rail service for long‐distance service (travel between
central and southeast Florida). Daily vehicle trip reductions were calculated based on values for total annual
trips diverted based on the AAF ridership report (Louis Berger Group 2013) (Appendix 3.3‐F) Air pollutant
emission reductions resulting from reduced VMT as a consequence of the Project were determined using a
conservative approach. All VMT reductions were assumed to result from motorcycles, cars and light trucks
(SUVs, light pickups, etc.). Emission factors for cars, motorcycles, and light trucks for speeds above 40 mph
were taken from data generated from the 2007 on‐road mobile source inventory developed for the
Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. (AMEC 2013a). For the purposes of this estimation
procedure, all vehicles were assumed to be gasoline burning vehicles since that fuel type represents the
majority of vehicles in the passenger vehicle categories included in this evaluation.
5.2.1.2 Environmental Consequences
This section describes the potential impacts to air quality that could result from the Project. Air quality
impacts would be the same for each of the Action Alternatives, as each would include the same train miles
and automobile diversions; this analysis, therefore, does not differentiate between Alternatives A, C, and E.
The CAAA require that federal agency activities conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) with
respect to achieving and maintaining attainment of NAAQS and addressing air quality effects (58 FR
62188). The EPA General Conformity Rule requires that a conformity analysis be performed which
demonstrates that a proposed action does not:
1) Cause or contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS in the area;
2) Interfere with provisions in the SIP for maintenance or attainment of any NAAQS;
3) Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS; or
4) Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS, any interim emission reduction, goals, or other milestones
included in the SIP (58 FR 63214).
Provisions in the General Conformity Rule allow for exemptions from performing a conformity
determination only if total emissions of individual nonattainment area pollutants resulting from the
proposed action fall below the significant threshold values.
The Project Study Area (Phase 2) is located in Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm
Beach Counties. All six counties are designated as attainment areas for all criteria pollutants. As the Project
is in attainment areas, it is not subject to review under the EPA’s General Conformity Rule. Pursuant to this
exclusion, a development, or select analysis, of emissions inventories of criteria pollutants of the proposed
action would not be necessary and would not be performed for General Conformity evaluation purposes.
However, emissions of the criteria pollutants, as related to reductions in new passenger trains, freight trains,
and on‐road VMT, are reviewed to assess whether the passenger trains emissions would affect regional air
quality and to assess the effects of VMT reduction on regional air quality.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-35 September 2014

The 2013 FONSI for Phase I found that the Project would provide a net regional air quality benefit as
compared to current conditions, and would reduce regional criteria pollutants, mobile source air toxics,
and greenhouse gas emissions because motor vehicle use would decrease.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, VMT within the Orlando to West Palm Beach area would continue to
increase as population in southeastern and central‐eastern Florida continues to grow. This population
increase would result in an ongoing increase in VMT, with few alternative public transportation options that
could be utilized by a large number of residents and visitors. VMT reductions that would be realized under
the Proposed Action would not occur; therefore, moderate adverse air quality impacts would occur.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Air quality impacts of the three Action Alternatives (Alternative A, Alternative C, and Alternative E) would
be identical, as each alternative would provide a similar travel time and would have the same ridership and
VMT reductions. As shown in Table 5.2.1‐1, the Project for the Orlando to West Palm Beach service would
remove 344 daily vehicle‐trips from area highways in 2016, 1,214 daily trips in 2019, and 1,453 daily trips
in 2030. With a 377‐mile round‐trip distance, this would result in an annual VMT reduction of 42,313,720 in
the start‐up year (2016), and an annual VMT reduction of 149,328,070 by 2019, the year that near‐full
ridership is anticipated. In 2030, VMT reductions of 178,726,265 are anticipated.
The entire Project would provide a net regional air quality benefit as compared to the No‐Action
Alternative. Air quality in the region would be improved through the reduction of vehicles from the roads
and highways as riders move instead to the proposed passenger rail service between Orlando and West
Palm Beach.

Table 5.2.1-1 Projected Ridership, Vehicle-Trips Removed and VMT Reductions for
Orlando-West Palm Beach Service
2016 2019 2030
Daily Vehicle-Trips Removed 344 1,214 1,453
Annual Vehicle-Trips Removed 125,560 443,110 530,345
Annual VMT Reductions
1
42,313,720 149,328,070 178,726,265
Source: Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September 2013. Prepared
for Florida East Coast. Report.
1 Based on a 337-mile round trip between Orlando and West Palm Beach

As shown in Table 5.2.1‐2, the difference between reductions in emissions related to VMT and increases
related to passenger train emissions, as measured in tons per year, was estimated for CO, NOx, SO
2
, VOCs,
PM
10
, PM
2.5
, CO
2
, CH
4
, and N
2
O. Emissions for all pollutants, except CO
2
in 2016, show an overall decrease.
The lone exception is CO
2
if the Project is considered independently of the cumulative impacts in the
Project Study Area. Under that analysis, CO
2
shows an increase of just over 23,000 tons per year, related
primarily to the increase in passenger train emissions and the modest decrease in vehicular traffic in
2016. This analysis is based only on a review of the 344 vehicles per day being removed as a result of train
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-36 September 2014

ridership for 2016 for the extension of proposed passenger rail service from West Palm Beach to Miami.
Under that limited analysis, the modest decrease in vehicular traffic from the Project in 2016 is not
sufficient to offset the emissions increase for CO
2
from the trains themselves (which are calculated on the
basis of the entire Project).

Table 5.2.1-2 Summary of Emissions (tons/year) for Orlando to West Palm Beach, 2016-2030
1

Pollutant Year VMT Reduction
Automobile
Total
Passenger
Train
Train
Switching
Train
Total
Net
Emissions
CO 2016 42,313,720 -354.0 55.4 1.6 57.0 -296.9
2019 149,328,070 -1249.1 55.4 1.6 57.0 -1192.1
2030 178,726,265 -1495.1 55.4 1.6 57.0 -1438.1
NOx 2016 42,313,720 -51.6 43.4 1.3 44.5 -7.1
2019 149,328,070 -182.1 43.4 1.3 44.5 -137.6
2030 178,726,265 -218.0 43.4 1.3 44.5 -173.4
SO2 2016 42,313,720 -0.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 -0.6
2019 149,328,070 -2.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 -2.6
2030 178,726,265 -3/3 0.2 0.0 0.2 -3.1
VOC 2016 42,313,720 -12.7 1.8 0.1 1.9 -10.8
2019 149,328,070 -44.9 1.8 0.1 1.9 -43.0
2030 178,726,265 -53.7 1.8 0.1 1.9 -51.8
PM10 2016 42,313,720 -1.3 0.6 0.0 0.7 -0.6
2019 149,328,070 -4.5 0.6 0.0 0.7 -3.8
2030 178,726,265 -5.4 0.6 0.0 0.7 -4.7
PM2.5 2016 42,313,720 -1.1 0.6 0.0 0.6 -0.4
2019 149,328,070 -3.8 0.6 0.0 0.6 -3.2
2030 178,726,265 -4.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 -3.9
CO2 2016 42,313,720 -16,978.0 40,234,9 NA 40,234.9 23,256.9
2019 149,328,070 -59,916.5 40,234,9 NA 40,234.9 -19,618.7
2030 178,726,265 -71,212,3 40,234,9 NA 40,234.9 -31,477.4
CH4 2016 42,313,720 -1.4 0.4 NA 0.4 -1.0
2019 149,328,070 -5.1 0.4 NA 0.4 -4.7
2030 178,726,265 -6.1 0.4 NA 0.4 -5.7
N2O 2016 42,313,720 -1.5 0.2 NA 0.2 -1/3
2019 149,328,070 -5.3 0.2 NA 0.2 -5.0
2030 178,726,265 -6.3 0.2 NA 0.2 -6.1
Source: AMEC. 2013b. Technical Memorandum No. 10: Environmental Consequences for All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail
Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. Report.
1 Emissions reductions are presented as negative numbers (-)

By 2019, the reduction in automobile travel from the Project would offset all CO
2
emissions from the
passenger trains and provide an overall reduction in all pollutants including CO
2
. The CO
2
reduction
would approximate 20,000 tons by 2019, and 31,000 tons by 2030.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-37 September 2014

Table 5.2.1‐3 summarizes the cumulative air quality benefits of the Project in combination with the
Phase I ‐ West Palm Beach to Miami service analyzed in Section 3.1.1 of the 2012 EA. The Project for all
alternatives would provide a net regional air quality benefit as compared to the No‐Action Alternative.
The air quality study demonstrates that the Project would decrease emissions of CO, NOx, SO
2
, VOC, PM
10
,
and PM
2.5
. Air quality in the region would be improved through the diversion of vehicles from the roads
and highways in central‐east Florida. By 2030, the combined project would reduce CO emissions by
1,654 tons, NOx by 192 tons, VOCs by 59 tons, and PM
10
by 7 tons.
The 2013 FONSI for Phase I stated that the selected alternative would provide a net regional air quality
benefit as compared to the current conditions, and that operation of the selected alternative would reduce
regional criteria pollutants, mobile source air toxics, and greenhouse gas emissions because motor vehicle
emissions would decrease in the region based on the reduction of VMTs.

Table 5.2.1-3 Summary of Emissions Reductions (tons/year) for Orlando to Miami, 2019-2030
Pollutant Year Segment
Estimated VMT
Reduction
Estimated Pollutant
Reduction
(tons/year)
CO 2018/2019 Orlando to West Palm Beach 149,328,070 1,249.1
West Palm Beach to Miami 44,229,342 273.5
Net Reduction 1,522.6
2030 Orlando to West Palm Beach 178,726,265 1,438.1
West Palm Beach to Miami
51,345,672 215.7
Net Reduction 1,653.8
NOx 2018/2019 Orlando to West Palm Beach 149,328,070 182.1
West Palm Beach to Miami 44,229,342 49.6
Net Reduction 132.5
2030 Orlando to West Palm Beach 178,726,265 173.4
West Palm Beach to Miami 51,345,672 19.0
Net Reduction 192.4
VOC 2018/2019 Orlando to West Palm Beach 149,328,070 44.9
West Palm Beach to Miami 44,229,342 14.5
Net Reduction 59.4
2030 Orlando to West Palm Beach 178,726,265 51.8
West Palm Beach to Miami 51,345,672 7.1
Net Reduction 58.9
PM10 2018/2019 Orlando to West Palm Beach 149,328,070 4.5
West Palm Beach to Miami 44,229,342 0.1
Net Reduction 4.6
2030 Orlando to West Palm Beach 178,726,265 4.7
West Palm Beach to Miami 51,345,672 2.2
Net Reduction 6.9
Source: AMEC. 2013b. Technical Memorandum No. 10: Environmental Consequences for All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail
Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-38 September 2014

Vehicle Maintenance Facility and Station
The Project includes a dedicated VMF on GOAA property south of MCO. There would be some electrical
requirements for the VMF but the emissions related to the minimal electrical requirements are
considered negligible. In addition, the additional vehicular trips related to the MCO Intermodal Station
are projected to be minimal (less than 100 employees) and are considered negligible in relation to the
entire Project’s estimated annual VMT reductions of 42,313,720 in 2016 and 149,328,070 in 2019. The
Project’s VMT and associated pollutant reductions dominate the air quality benefits.
Intersections
Section 3.1.1 of the 2012 EA prepared for the West Palm Beach to Miami section modeled air quality
emissions at intersections and grade crossings, where vehicle congestion may occur, using a CO hotspot
screening method. Motor vehicles emit CO at high rates when they are operating a low speeds or idling in
queues. Section 3.1.1 of the 2012 EA evaluated the most congested intersections (in terms of LOS, delay,
and traffic volumes) in the vicinity of the proposed stations and railroad crossings. The modeling showed
that traffic did not exceed air quality criteria in either the opening year or the build‐out year at any of the
intersections or grade crossings.
The highest‐volume grade crossing evaluated in Section 3.1.1 of the 2012 EA had an AADT of
47,200 (Hillsboro Boulevard, Broward County). As documented in Section 4.1.2, Transportation, the
highest‐volume grade crossings for the Project carry 40,000 AADT. Traffic volumes and congestion at the
Project’s grade crossings, and therefore CO emissions, are projected to be lower than those presented in
Section 3.1.1 of the 2012 EA and therefore would not exceed air quality criteria. As Section 3.1.1 of the
2012 EA showed that traffic delays at the higher‐volume grade crossing did not exceed air quality criteria,
a detailed hot‐spot CO modeling evaluation was not conducted for this EIS.
5.2.1.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
The areas surrounding the proposed stations are already developed; the Project is not anticipated to
result in induced growth or development that could generate additional emissions of criteria pollutants,
and would not result in indirect or secondary effects to air quality. Section 3.1 of the 2012 EA documented
that there would be no indirect or secondary effects to air quality associated with Phase I of the Project.
5.2.1.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
The emissions from construction activities are expected to be minimal, controlled using BMPs, and
temporary in nature. Combustion emissions would be associated with construction‐related equipment,
workers’ vehicles, and transportation/delivery of construction materials. Emissions associated with
construction equipment would be minimal because most equipment would be driven to and kept at
affected sites for the duration of construction activities. In addition, BMPs routinely performed at
construction sites would serve to keep emissions of PM (the primary pollutant emitted) to a minimum
during the temporary construction activities. Emissions associated with construction workers
commuting and the transport of materials would also be minimal given the temporary nature of the
activities. Contractors will be required to use BMPs during construction, such as soil watering to reduce
fugitive dust emissions, that would be effective in substantially reducing potential emissions during
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-39 September 2014

construction. Any potential temporary impacts will be avoided and/or minimized through BMPs and
mitigation requirements applied pursuant to all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, regulations
and ordinance, if and as applicable, such that any such temporary construction impacts would cease
immediately after construction activities are completed.
5.2.2 Noise and Vibration
This section identifies the impacts of the Project on properties and residents within the Project Study Area
due to changes in noise and vibration. Section 4.2.2 defines noise and vibration and provides information
on existing noise and vibration levels. AAF has committed to installing stationary wayside horns at each of
the 159 grade crossings between Cocoa and West Palm Beach where severe, unmitigated impacts would
occur using locomotive‐mounted horns. Therefore, the noise analysis assumes that wayside horns will be
implemented as part of the Project. Stationary pole‐mounted wayside horns at grade crossings will
reduce future noise levels along the N‐S Corridor by eliminating train‐mounted warning horns for both
future freight trains and AAF passenger trains. Using wayside horns at the intersection instead of the
locomotive horn has been shown to substantially reduce the noise footprint without compromising safety
at the grade crossing.
The Project would result in long‐term noise and vibration adverse impacts to residents and properties,
primarily along the N‐S Corridor. The Project would result in noise impacts along some elevated sections
of the E‐W Corridor. Noise impacts would be the same for the three alignments, Alternatives A, C, and E.
The Project will result in minor vibration impacts along the N‐S Corridor due to the increase
(approximately doubling) of vibration events as a result of adding passenger train service to the existing
freight operations. There is no potential vibration impact along the MCO Segment because of low train
speeds and the absence of sensitive receptors. Along the E‐W Corridor, minor vibration impacts would
occur where residences are close to the proposed tracks. Vibration levels are not projected to exceed
structural damage levels (100 VdB) at any location.
5.2.2.1 Methodology
Noise and vibration have been assessed according to guidelines specified in FRA’s High‐Speed Ground
Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (FRA Manual), the Federal
Transit Administration’s (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual, and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines as defined for Florida application by FDOT for traffic
operations (FRA 2012a; FTA 2006; FDOT 2011c). These guidelines provide the methodology for
identifying the affected environment and assessing potential impact from transit projects such as the
Project.
The methodology for assessing potential short‐ and long‐term noise and vibration impacts of the Project
includes: identifying noise and vibration‐sensitive land uses within the area of potential impact; modeling
existing noise and vibration conditions at these sensitive receptors based on existing freight operations,
highway traffic conditions, and general ambient sources; projecting future noise and vibration conditions
from the proposed alternatives; assessing potential long‐term noise and vibration impact; and
considering noise and vibration mitigation.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-40 September 2014

The distances to potential impact have been used to create noise contours and to identify the number of
potential impacts. The noise impacts have been calculated assuming that wayside horns will be
implemented as part of the Project. Noise impacts were calculated for 2016, the first year of full revenue
service, for all at‐grade intersections and along the Project corridor with respect to operational noise and
vibration.
Noise
Noise generated from the proposed passenger rail operations was calculated based on average operating
characteristics for each county and projected service schedules. Table 5.2.2‐1 shows the noise calculation
inputs for the proposed passenger rail operations. The train schedule assumes an average of two operations
per hour between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and 0.22 operations per hour between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, for
a total of 16 roundtrip trains per day during the 2016 build‐out year. For this analysis, total passenger train
length was assumed to be 810 feet, consisting of two 65‐foot long locomotives and eight 85‐foot long
passenger cars.
Speeds will vary depending upon the location along the route. Except for Orange County, speeds were
averaged by county. For Orange County, operations were split into Orange (East) and Orange (West) of
SR 417 because projected operating speeds would be substantially less west of SR 417.
Distances to potential moderate and severe noise impacts have been calculated and impact assessed by
comparing the Project noise level with the existing noise level. As both existing and Project noise levels
decrease with increasing distance from the source, comparisons were made at 5‐foot intervals moving
outward from the alignment until the Project noise would no longer exceed the impact criteria. As existing
noise is in part a function of population density, which varies on either side of the track, impact contours
are not always necessarily symmetrical.

Table 5.2.2-1 Proposed Passenger Rail Operations (2016)
County
Speed
(mph)
Average
Daily
Trains
Trains/
Hour Daily
Trains/
Day
(7:00 AM-
10:00 PM)
2
Trains/
Hour Day
Trains/
Night
(10:00 PM-
7:00 AM)
2
Trains/
Hour Night
East-West Corridor
Orange (West) 34.2 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22
Orange (East) 103.5 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22
Brevard 94.6 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22
North-South Corridor
Brevard 98.1 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22
Indian River 106.6 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22
St. Lucie 92.6 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22
Martin 79.5 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22
Palm Beach 89.2 32 1.33 30 2 2 0.22
Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. AAF. 2013a. Modeling Assumptions. May 2013.
1 Average speeds calculated from CA20 TPC Runtimes
2 Relative distribution of day/night activity for Passenger Operations
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-41 September 2014


Noise impacts within the MCO Segment were determined using FRA impact criteria. In the vicinity of the
VMF, noise from idling locomotives was added to the noise generated from moving trains. The Ldn from
moving and idling trains is 68.8 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (FTA 2006).
Along the E‐W Corridor, the Project includes 13 bridges over roads. In these areas, the proposed track
will be elevated and noise generated from the passenger trains would therefore propagate farther. To
account for this increased noise exposure, a correction of +4 dBA was added to these sections. These areas
are indicated as “Elevated” in Table 5.2.2‐8, while non‐elevated portions of track are indicated as “At
Grade.” In order to account for the varying distances between SR 528 and the track alignment for each
alternative alignment in the OOCEA segment, the corridor was divided into nine sections (HW1 through
HW9) based on the average distance between SR 528 and the track alignment. Existing and Project noise
levels were computed as a function of distance from the respective sources and impacts assessed
according to FRA criteria.
A summary of the nine sections is given in Table 5.2.2‐2 and illustrated in Appendix 5.2.2‐A. Distance
between the alignment centerline and SR 528 was calculated for each section, and is measured from the
alternative alignment centerline to the centerline of the near lane. Generally, the alternative alignments
are located south of SR 528. However, in Section HW9, the alternative alignment is north of SR 528.
Noise impact criteria for trains are defined by FTA and FRA. The criteria are based on potential future
increases in noise exposure and are defined using a sliding scale that incorporates existing noise
conditions. For example, introducing new noise sources in relatively quiet areas would have a greater
potential for impact than in noisier areas. Future noise levels would include the contributions of existing
noise sources and new project noise sources.

Table 5.2.2-2 Summary of Distance between SR 528 and Alternative Alignment
SR 528
Section
Rail Noise
Section From To
Offset Distance (feet)
1

Alt. A Alt. C Alt. E
HW1 Orlando (West) SR 436 GOAA Property Boundary 50 70 130
HW2
Orlando (East)
GOAA Property Boundary SR 417 100 100 100
HW3 SR 417 Int. Corp Park Blvd 80 140 260
HW4 Int. Corp Park Blvd Dallas Blvd 80 140 250
HW5 Dallas Blvd SR 520 80 550 260
HW6 SR 520 Brevard County Line 80 80 70
HW7
Brevard (EW)
Orange County Line SR 407 50
HW8 SR 407 East side of I-95
Interchange
70
HW9 East of I-95 Interchange SR 524 80
Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013.
1 Distance measured from alternative alignment centerline to SR 528 near lane centerline. Section H9 located north of SR 528.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-42 September 2014

The noise criteria include two levels of potential noise impact. The interpretation of these two levels of
impact is summarized below and shown in Figure 5.2.2‐1:
 Severe: FRA strongly encourages noise abatement for projects where severe noise impacts
are identified. Severe noise impacts represent the most compelling need for mitigation as they
have the greatest potential for adverse impact on the community.
 Moderate: In this range of noise impact, several project‐specific factors are considered to
determine the magnitude of the impact. These factors include where impact falls within the
moderate range, what the existing noise levels are and what future noise levels would exist,
and the types and number of noise‐sensitive land uses impacted.

Figure 5.2.2-1 Noise Impact Criteria

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-43 September 2014

Vibration
Vibration levels are estimated based on the FTA generalized curve that predicts the overall ground‐borne
vibration level outside buildings as a function of distance from the source. Adjustments were applied to this
generalized curve to account for factors such as vehicle speed, building type and propagation characteristics.
For this assessment, vibration was projected based on a composite approach that incorporated modeling
methods recommended by FRA and measured vibration levels from another project along the existing N‐
S Corridor (FRA and FDOT 2010). The combined approach establishes existing vibration conditions based
on measured data and then extrapolates these data for the proposed track conditions and train speeds.
In a noise and vibration assessment prepared in July 2010 as part of the Amtrak EA (FRA and FDOT 2010)
for a separate proposed passenger rail service expansion along the existing FECR Corridor, vibration
measurements were conducted at representative locations 70 feet from the track centerline in Jacksonville,
Vero Beach, and West Palm Beach. These vibration measurements are representative of the existing freight
rail traffic and passenger rail operations.
A baseline curve was established according to the average measured vibration level from the Amtrak
study for each type of train: freight and passenger. For freight operations, a total of 11 train events with
speeds ranging from 30 to 49 mph (average 39 mph) generated vibration levels ranging from 79 to
86 VdB (average of 82 VdB). For passenger operations, a total of four train events with speeds ranging
from 71 to 72 mph (average 72 mph) generated vibration levels ranging from 80 to 83 VdB (average
81 VdB).
The average measured results for passenger and freight operations were adjusted according to the FTA
generalized curve for “Locomotive Powered Passenger or Freight” operations incorporate the specific
source and soil propagation characteristics associated with FRA and FTA “Adjustment Factors” for these
specific source and propagation characteristics. Figure 4.2.2‐4 shows the generalized curve for
“Locomotive Powered Passenger or Freight” operations at 50 mph and the freight and passenger curves
based on measurements in the Amtrak EA. Vibration estimates for the proposed passenger operations
were then adjusted for the average train speed along the project segment.
Ground‐borne noise predictions were made using the same curves generated for ground‐borne vibration
with adjustments for the frequency spectra of the type of train and soil characteristics. Based on the
characteristics of freight and passenger trains and that the majority of soils along the N‐S and
E‐W Corridors are sandy, an adjustment of ‐50 dB was used to calculate ground‐borne noise levels (dBA)
from ground‐borne vibration levels (VdB).
FTA and FRA vibration impact criteria are based on human and structural responses to ground‐borne
vibration and GBN. The criteria are based on the type of land use and the frequency of
vibration‐generating events. Just as with noise impacts, more frequent vibration events will cause a
greater impact than less frequent events. Table 5.2.2‐3 lists the vibration impact criteria for the three
major land use categories, according to frequency of vibration events.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-44 September 2014

Table 5.2.2-3 Ground-borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria
Land Use Category
Ground Borne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB)
Ground Borne Noise Impact Levels
(dB)
Frequent
Events¹
Occasional
Events²
Infrequent
Events³
Frequent
Events¹
Occasion
al Events²
Infrequent
Events³
Category 1: Buildings where
vibration would interfere with
interior operations
65 VdB
4

65 VdB
4

65 VdB
4

N/A
5

N/A
5

N/A
5

Category 2: Residences and
buildings where people normally
sleep
72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 VdA 38 VdA 43 VdA
Category 3: Institutional land uses
with primarily daytime use
75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 VdA 43 VdA 48 VdA
Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006.
1 Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day.
2 Occasional Events is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same kind per day.
3 Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day.
4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes.
Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring
lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors.
5 Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise.

There are some buildings that can be very sensitive to vibration and noise but do not fit into any of the
three land use categories listed in Table 5.2.2‐3. These buildings can include concert halls, TV and
recording studios, auditoriums, and theaters, and warrant special attention when assessing potential
vibration impacts. The impact criteria for these special buildings are given in Table 5.2.2‐4.

Table 5.2.2-4 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for Special
Buildings
Land Use Category
Ground Borne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB)
Ground Borne Noise Impact Levels
(dB)
Frequent
Events¹
Occasional
Events²
Infrequent
Events³
Frequent
Events¹
Occasional
Events²
Infrequent
Events³
Concert Halls 65 65 65 25 25 25
TV Studios 65 65 65 25 25 25
Recording Studios 65 65 65 25 25 25
Auditoriums 72 80 80 30 38 38
Theaters 72 80 80 35 43 43
Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006.
1 Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day.
2 Occasional Events is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same kind per day.
3 Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-45 September 2014

Construction
Construction noise impacts were estimated following the general assessment methodologies in the FRA
Manual. Based on these guidelines, 1‐hour L
eq
noise levels were projected for the two loudest pieces of
equipment used for typical construction activities. For bridge construction, the two loudest pieces of
equipment are a pile driver and a bulldozer. For non‐bridge construction including track construction,
the two loudest pieces of equipment are a rail saw and a bulldozer. The distances to potential construction
noise impact are shown in Table 5.2.2‐5.

Table 5.2.2-5 Distances to Potential Construction Noise Impact 
Construction Condition Land Use
Distance to Impact (feet from corridor centerline)
Day
(7 AM-10 PM)
Night
(10 PM-7 AM)
1 – Bridge Residential 175 565
Commercial 55 55
Industrial 55 55
2 – Non-Bridge Residential 55 180
Commercial 0 0
Industrial 0 0
Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report.

Construction vibration was assessed to determine the potential for human annoyance‐related impacts as
well as potential structural damage to vibration‐sensitive buildings. Based on methodologies outlined in
the FRA Manual, vibration levels from a pile driver and a large bulldozer were used to predict vibration
levels and assess potential impact.
The distances to potential structural damage from pile driving operations are 50 feet for
reinforced‐concrete, steel or timber structures and up to 135 feet for extremely vibration‐sensitive
structures. The distance to potential structural damage from a large bulldozer does not extend beyond the
typical working clearance of the bulldozer to structures. The tables in Appendix 5.2.2‐B summarize the
distances to potential vibration impact for structural damage for pile driving and a large bulldozer.
5.2.2.2 Environmental Consequences
This section describes the noise and vibration impact assessment results for the No‐Action Alternative
and the Action Alternatives for the Project. As documented below, the Project would result in long‐term
noise and vibration adverse impacts to residents and properties, primarily along the N‐S Corridor. The
impacts of Alternatives A, C, and E would be similar.
Noise
Noise impacts along the E‐W Corridor would primarily be due to the sound created by train passage. Along
the N‐S Corridor, noise impacts would primarily be due to the increased frequency of warning horn use at
at‐grade crossings. According to FRA guidelines, minimizing or eliminating horn blowing and other types of
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-46 September 2014

audible warning signals can reduce noise impacts, but must be compliant with safety regulations and FRA
guidelines. Wayside horns are a commonly used example warning signal, and noise levels resulting from
their implementation are well documented. Using wayside horns at the intersection instead of the
locomotive horn has been shown to substantially reduce the noise footprint without compromising safety
at the grade crossing. A wayside horn does not need to be as loud as a locomotive horn, but the real
advantage is the focusing of the warning sound only on the area where it is needed. AAF has committed to
installing stationary wayside horns at each of the 159 grade crossings where severe, unmitigated impacts
would occur using locomotive‐mounted horns. These mitigation measures would eliminate all severe noise
impacts for residential and institutional receptors along the N‐S Corridor. Where compliant with safety
regulations and FRA guidelines, AAF is also working with local communities that would like to create quiet
zones as an alternate noise abatement measure to wayside horns.
3

No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, there would be increases in existing freight train operations and highway
traffic volumes. Along the E‐W Corridor, projected increases in intercity transit between Orlando and Miami
will likely result in increased traffic volumes along SR 528, which will likely result in marginal changes in
future noise conditions. Along the N‐S Corridor, freight operations are expected to continue with a planned
annual growth of 3 percent. This continued growth will likely result in marginal increases in noise levels
through possible increases in train speed, frequency, and length. It is important to note that the FTA noise
and vibration assessment methodology specifies that noise and vibration impact is assessed based on a
comparison of existing to future Proposed Action conditions and not to the No‐Action Alternative.
Therefore, there would be no noise impact associated with the No‐Action Alternative.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
MCO Segment
The Project would not result in adverse noise impacts within the MCO Segment. Table 5.2.2‐6 shows the
distance to impact contours for the impact analysis conducted according to FRA methods and impact
criteria assuming a background L
dn
of 65 dBA. There are no noise‐sensitive receptors within these distances.

Table 5.2.2-6 Summary of FRA Impact Contour Distances for MCO Segment
Operating
Condition
1
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Moderate
Impact
(feet)
Severe
Impact (feet)
Moderate
Impact
(feet)
Severe
Impact
(feet)
Moderate
Impact
(feet)
Severe
Impact
(feet)
Moving Trains 85 none 90 none none None
Idling Trains 165 70 120 50 75 None
Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report.


3 Please note that AAF cannot create a quiet zone; the public entity must go through the application process with FRA.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-47 September 2014

Table 5.2.2‐7 shows the total noise at 50 feet from each source, along with the distances to the 65 and
70 Ldn contours. The 65 and 70 Ldn contours are shown in Appendix 5.2.2‐A along with potentially
incompatible land uses. No incompatible land use exists within the 65 Ldn Contour associated with
proposed passenger train operations or the VMF.

Table 5.2.2-7 Noise Calculations for 65 Ldn Contours within MCO
Project Noise Source
Existing
Noise
Exposure
(Ldn)

Noise at 50 feet from Source
Distance to
65 Ldn
Contour
(feet)
Distance to
70 Ldn
Contour
(feet)

Project Noise
Exposure
(Ldn)
Total Noise
Exposure
(Ldn)
Inbound/Outbound Rail

65 65 68 50 NA

VMF

65 69 70 80 60

Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report.

East‐West Corridor
For the E‐W Corridor, passenger rail operations adjacent to SR 528 would increase future noise levels and
potential noise impacts. Table 5.2.2‐8 provides a summary of noise impacts within the E‐W Corridor.
Existing highway noise results in a calculated L
dn
of 65 dBA. The Project would result in noise levels of
63 dBA on at‐grade sections and 67 dBA at elevated sections, for a total future noise level of 67 dBA on
at‐grade sections and 69 dBA at elevated sections. As a result of the Project, noise levels would increase
by 2.0 to 2.3 dBA in at‐grade sections and by 4.0 to 4.4 dBA in elevated sections.
West of SR 520, there would be one potential severe Category 2 (residential) noise impact. East of SR 520,
in Brevard County, there is the potential for 105 moderate and four severe noise impacts at Category 2
(residential) land use and one moderate impact at Category 3 (institutional) land use.

Table 5.2.2-8 Summary of Project Noise Levels for Residential Receptors at 50 ft. (dBA Ldn)
along the E-W Corridor
County Condition Existing
Project
(Passenger
Trains) Total Future
Change
(Total Future
vs Existing)
Orange At-grade 65 63 67 2.3
Elevated 65 67 69 4.4
Brevard At-grade 65 63 67 2.0
Elevated 65 67 69 4.0
Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-48 September 2014

North‐South Corridor
Passenger rail operations would be added to existing freight operations within the N‐S Corridor, resulting
in an increase in future noise levels and the potential for noise impacts. As shown in Table 5.2.2‐9, the
Project (passenger rail trains only, with wayside horns) would result in daytime noise levels (Leq)
ranging from 62.1 to 63.9 dBA close to at‐grade crossings (average 62.5 dBA) and ranging from 61.4 to
63.5 dBA along the mainline tracks. The noise levels of passenger trains, measured as L
dn
(residential
receptors) would range from 62.2 to 64.1 dBA at grade crossings, and from 61.6 to 63.6 dBA along the
mainline. Table 5.2.2.‐9 also shows the impact criteria for each land use category, based on existing noise
levels.

Table 5.2.2-9 Summary of Project Noise Levels - North-South Corridor
Total Noise at 50 ft. (dBA)
Day (Leq) Night (Leq) Ldn
County
At-Grade
Crossing Mainline
At-Grade
Crossing Mainline
At-Grade
Crossing Mainline
Brevard 63.4 62.9 53.9 53.3 63.6 63.1
Indian River 63.9 63.5 54.4 53.9 64.1 63.6
St. Lucie 63.1 62.5 53.5 52.9 63.2 62.6
Martin 62.1 61.4 52.6 51.9 62.3 61.6
Palm Beach 62.8 62.2 53.3 52.7 63.0 62.4
Impact Criteria (moderate)
Cat 1 – Quiet Setting 65 62 - - - -
Cat 2 – Residential - - - - 65 65
Cat 3 – Institutional and
Recreational
70 62 - - - -

Table 5.2.2‐10 summarizes the noise analysis results for residential receptors along the N‐S Corridor. The
table shows the existing noise levels for mainline segments and at‐grade crossings (based on freight
locomotives with train‐mounted horns), noise resulting from the Project (passenger trains with wayside
horns) and the total future noise (future passenger trains and freight, all with wayside horns). The Project
would reduce noise levels compared to existing noise levels. With the installation of wayside horns, total
future noise levels would be comparable to existing levels, generally increasing by 0.2 to 0.3 dBA, along
the mainline. Future noise levels would be substantially lower than existing noise levels at grade
crossings, generally by 7 dBA. As shown in Table 5.2.2‐10, no receptors along the N‐S Corridor would
experience noise levels that exceed impact criteria.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-49 September 2014

Table 5.2.2-10 Summary of Noise Levels for Residential Receptors at 50 feet (dBA, Ldn) along
the N-S Corridor
County Location Existing
Project
(Passenger
Trains) Total Future
Change
(Total Future
vs Existing)
Brevard
Mainline 75 63 75 0.3
At-grade Crossing 82 64 75 -7.1
Indian River
Mainline 75 64 75 0.3
At-grade Crossing 82 64 75 -7.0
St, Lucie
Mainline 74 63 74 0.3
At-grade Crossing 82 63 74 -7.0
Martin
Mainline 74 62 74 0.3
At-grade Crossing 82 62 74 -8.1
Palm Beach
Mainline 75 62 75 0.2
At-grade Crossing 82 63 75 -7.1

Phase I ‐ West Palm Beach – Miami
The 2012 EA for the WPB‐M Corridor included an evaluation of operational noise and vibration, noise
and vibration associated with stations, and station traffic (2012 EA Section 3.1.7.3). The analysis found
that there were no noise‐sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the proposed station sites and, therefore,
station noise would be negligible. The traffic noise impacts associated with traffic changes around the
proposed stations were evaluated for 2012 (existing) and 2035 (future) conditions. The analysis found
that no traffic noise impacts would be caused by traffic increases around the proposed stations. Adding
passenger trains on the WPB‐M Corridor (with the use of wayside horns to reduce noise at grade
crossings) would have moderate adverse impacts to 199 residential and six institutional receptors, and
severe noise impacts to four residential receptors.
Summary
The distances to potential impact have been used to create noise contours and to identify the number of
potential impacts. Appendix 5.2.2‐A shows the noise impact contours along the corridor for all alternatives.
Table 5.2.2‐11 shows a summary of the total number of impacted parcels for each corridor and alternative.
There would be no noise impact in the MCO Segment. Along the E‐W Corridor, noise impacts would be the
same for the three alignments, Alternatives A, C, and E. There would be 105 moderate and four severe noise
impacts at residential receptors and one moderate impact at a Category 1 (quiet) receptor. Along the
N‐S Corridor, the Project would have no permanent noise impacts as a result of the use of wayside horns.
Phase I evaluated in the 2012 EA would add 199 moderate and four severe residential impacts, and
six moderate institutional impacts. FRA found, in the 2013 FONSI, that this would not constitute a significant
adverse impact.



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


Environmental Consequences 5-50 September 2014

Table 5.2.2-11 Summary of Noise Impacts (number of parcels)
Corridor Segment
Category 1
(Quiet)
Category 2
(Residential)
Category 3
(Institutional)
Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe
MCO 0 0 0 0 0 0
East-West 1 0 105 4 0 0
North-South 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 1 0 105 4 0 0
West Palm Beach to Miami 0 0 199 4 6 0
Totals 1 0 304 8 6 0
Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from Orlando
to Miami, Florida. July 2013. AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger
Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.
Vibration
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, freight train operations would increase along the N‐S Corridor, with a
planned annual growth of 3 percent. This continued growth will likely result in small increases in the
number of vibration events, but there would be no increase in the amplitude of vibration events since the
train speeds would not be expected to change. Therefore, there would be no vibration impact associated
with the No‐Action Alternative.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
New passenger rail service along the MCO Segment and E‐W Corridor, and addition of passenger rail
service to the N‐S Corridor, has the potential to cause vibration impacts. Along the N‐S Corridor there is a
potential for impact due to the increase in the number of train events. The analysis demonstrates that
there would be no differences in vibration impacts among Alternatives A, C, and E.
MCO Segment
Along the MCO Segment, ground‐borne vibration levels were estimated based on average operating
speeds of the trains. There would be no potential vibration impacts along the MCO Segment (Table 5 in
Appendix 5.2.2‐C).
East‐West Corridor
Along the E‐W Corridor, ground‐borne vibration levels were estimated based on average operating
speeds of the trains and whether the track was at‐grade or on elevated structure. There are 13 locations
along the E‐W Corridor where the proposed alignment would be elevated. Vibration levels associated
with trains on elevated structures are approximately 10 VdB lower than for at‐grade trains.
As shown in Table 5.2.2‐12, the Project would result in vibration impacts to 118 residential properties
and 12 institutional properties (Tables 6 through 8 in Appendix 5.2.2‐C).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-51 September 2014

Table 5.2.2-12 Summary of Vibration Impacts
Land Use Category
Corridor
Total MCO Segment East-West North-South WPB-M
Category 1 (highly sensitive) 0 0 0 0 0
Category 2 (residential) 0 118 3,317 0 3,435
Category 3 (institutional) 0 12 513 0 525
Concert Halls 0 0 0 0 0
TV Studios 0 0 3 0 3
Recording Studios 0 0 3 0 3
Auditoriums 0 0 9 0 9
Theaters 0 0 3 0 3
Total 0 130 3,848 0 3,978
Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from Orlando
to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report.

North‐South Corridor
Ground‐borne vibration levels already exceed the FRA criteria along the N‐S Corridor due to the
frequency and nature of current freight operations. FRA guidance for assessing project impacts along such
“heavily used rail corridors” (more than 12 trains per day) states that additional impact would occur if
the project approximately doubled the number of trains (FRA 2012a). For the Project, although vibration
levels would not increase from the passenger trains, the frequency of events will approximately double.
Appendix 5.2.2‐C summarizes distances to vibration impact and the number of impacts by county for the
N‐S Corridor. Impact contours are also illustrated in Appendix 5.2.2‐A3.
As shown in Table 5.2.2‐12, the Project would result in minor vibration impacts to 3,317 residential
receptors and 513 institutional receptors, as well as 18 other vibration‐sensitive land uses (TV studios,
recording studios, auditoriums, and theaters).
Phase I ‐ West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor
The 2012 EA included an evaluation of operational vibration along the WPB‐M Corridor, and vibration
associated with stations (2012 EA Section 3.1.7.3). The analysis concluded that none of the residential or
institutional buildings in the Project Study Area would experience levels exceeding the FTA limits for
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise.
Summary
The greatest potential for vibration impact is along the N‐S Corridor due to the increase (approximately
doubling) of vibration events as a result of adding passenger train service to the existing freight
operations. There is no potential vibration impact along the MCO Segment. Along the E‐W Corridor,
vibration impacts would be the same for each of the three alignments, Alternatives A, C, and E. There is
the potential for vibration impact at 118 Category 2 and 12 Category 3 receptors. There would be
potential vibration impact at a total of 3,317 Category 2 receptors, 513 Category 3 receptors, three TV
studios, three recording studios, nine auditoriums, and three theatres along the N‐S Corridor. Vibration
levels at all receptors will be less than 100 VdB, the threshold for minor structural damage to fragile
buildings, and therefore vibration is not anticipated to cause structural damage to buildings. A summary
of ground‐borne vibration impacts from the Action Alternatives is provided in Table 5.2.2‐12. Vibration
mats will be used where appropriate to mitigate vibration impacts.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-52 September 2014

5.2.2.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
The Project is not anticipated to cause any specific growth or development that could increase noise or
vibration conditions in the Project Study Area. There will likely be redevelopment around the stations,
however these areas are already developed. Therefore, there would be no indirect or secondary impacts
associated with Phase II of the Project. The Phase I, 2012 EA considered the indirect and secondary effects
associated with the three new stations and station‐area development, and found that there were no traffic
noise impacts associated with this development (Section 3.1.7.3).
5.2.2.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Construction Noise
Constructing the Project could cause short‐term noise and vibration impacts from construction activities.
Potential impact from construction noise has been assessed according to FTA guidelines to screen for
potential construction noise impacts. Table 5.2.2‐13 presents the FTA criteria based on 1‐hour L
eq
limits
at residential, commercial and industrial land uses.

Table 5.2.2-13 Construction Noise Impact Criteria 
Land Use
One-Hour L
eq
Day (7:00 AM-10:00 PM) Night (10:00 PM -7:00 AM)
Residential 90 80
Commercial 100 100
Industrial 100 100
Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-
1003-06, May 2006.

In addition to FRA construction noise impact criteria, various local noise ordinances apply to the Project.
In general, each county enforces noise limits that are based on time of day and surrounding land use. Each
county prohibits general nighttime construction. However, provisions are in place within the local
ordinances to allow for temporary exemptions to these limitations, provided that proper permits are
obtained prior to construction. In all cases, it will be the responsibility of AAF to apply for all applicable
local permits prior to construction. Applicable county noise ordinances include:
 Orange County – Code of Ordinances. Part II – Orange County Code. Chapter 15 –
Environmental Control. Article V. Noise Pollution Control (Orange County, Florida 2013).
 Brevard County – Code of Ordinances. Chapter 62 Land Development Regulations. Sec. 62‐
2271 (Brevard County, Florida 2012).
 Indian River County – Code of Ordinances. Chapter 974. Section 974.04(2) (Indian River
County, Florida 2012).
 St. Lucie County – Code of Ordinances. Chapter 1‐13.8 Noise Control. Sec. 1‐13.8‐19(n) (St.
Lucie County, Florida 2009).
 Martin County – County Code and Ordinances. Ordinance No. 531. Section 5B: Specific Noise
Prohibitions (Martin County, Florida 2012).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-53 September 2014

 Palm Beach County – Unified Land Development Code. Article 5 – Supplementary Standards.
Supplement No. 14 (Palm Beach County, Florida 1992).
Two main categories of construction activity were assumed for the construction noise impact assessment:
bridge construction and non‐bridge construction (that is, track construction). The primary difference
between the categories is the presence or absence of pile drivers, one of the noisiest pieces of construction
equipment commonly used for rail projects. Table 5.2.2‐14 presents a summary of the construction noise
impacts within the distances to potential impact. The construction impacts in Palm Beach, Broward and
Miami‐Dade counties would result from bridge construction, particularly from pile‐driving activities.

Table 5.2.2-14 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts – Project
County
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Bridge Non-Bridge Bridge Non-Bridge Bridge Non-Bridge
Day Construction
E-W Corridor
Orange - Alternative A 0 0 1 0 0 3
Orange - Alternative C 0 0 1 0 0 3
Orange - Alternative E 0 0 1 0 0 4
Brevard 0 0 34 0 0 0
N-S Corridor
Brevard 0 0 17 618 0 0
Indian River 0 0 0 86 0 0
St. Lucie 0 0 4 523 0 0
Martin 0 0 25 194 0 0
WPB-M Corridor
Palm Beach 0 0 34 0 3 0
Broward 0 NA 60 NA 3 NA
Miami-Dade 0 NA 18 NA 6 NA
Totals 0 0 195 1,421 12 10
Night Construction
E-W Corridor
Orange - Alternative A 0 0 43 0 0 3
Orange - Alternative C 0 0 19 0 0 3
Orange - Alternative E 0 0 3 0 0 4
Brevard 0 0 128 111 0 0
N-S Corridor
Brevard 0 0 135 1149 0 0
Indian River 0 0 0 223 0 0
St. Lucie 0 0 24 830 0 0
Martin 0 0 236 646 0 0
WPB-M Corridor
Palm Beach 0 0 153 608 0 0
Broward 0 NA 231 NA 3 NA
Miami-Dade 0 NA 23 NA 6 NA
Totals 0 0 995 3,567 9 10
Source: AMEC. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-54 September 2014

For Phase I, the analysis presented in Section 3.1.7.3 of the 2012 EA established that the Project would
result in construction noise impacts as shown in Table 5.2.2‐15. Table 5.2.2‐14 shows that nighttime
construction of the seven bridges over waterways in the WPB‐M Corridor would result in daytime and
nighttime noise impacts to residential and institutional properties in proximity to the bridges.

Table 5.2.2.15 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts –West Palm Beach to Miami Corridor
(Excluding Bridges)
Day Construction
County Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Palm Beach 0 1 0
Broward 0 0 0
Miami-Dade 0 0 0
Night Construction
Palm Beach 0 373 0
Broward 0 94 0
Miami-Dade 0 133 0
Total
Palm Beach 0 374 0
Broward 0 94 0
Miami-Dade 0 133 0
Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West
Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.

Construction Vibration
The distances to potential structural damage from pile driving operations are 50 feet for
reinforced‐concrete, steel or timber structures and up to 135 feet for extremely vibration‐sensitive
structures. The distance to potential structural damage from a large bulldozer does not extend beyond
the typical working clearance of the bulldozer to structures. No structures are present within 50 feet of
the Project; therefore there would be no potential construction vibration impacts for structural damage.
On the E‐W Corridor, pile driving would potentially result in 143 residential and 41 institutional vibration
impacts for human annoyance. Large bulldozer construction would potentially result in 83 residential
and 12 institutional impacts. On the N‐S Corridor, pile driving would potentially result in 693 residential
and 61 institutional vibration impacts for human annoyance. The use of large bulldozers would
potentially impact four highly sensitive land uses, 1,551 residential land uses, and 217 institutional
properties, as well as one auditorium. Tables 18 and 19 in Appendix 5.2.2‐C summarize the distances to
potential vibration impact for human annoyance for pile driving and a large bulldozer, and the number of
impacts in the E‐W Corridor and N‐S Corridor, respectively.
For Phase I, Section 3.1.7.4 of the 2012 EA stated that neither impacts nor damage from construction
vibration are anticipated as a result of the Project.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-55 September 2014

5.2.2.5 Summary
The Project is anticipated to result in four severe and 105 moderate noise impacts to residential and
institutional receptors in the absence of mitigation. The Project includes the use of stationary wayside
horns at grade crossings, replacing locomotive‐mounted horns, to minimize noise impacts. The Project
would also result in vibration impacts to 3,978 receptors. In total, noise from the Project would affect
304 receptors at a moderate level and 11 receptors at a severe level, in the absence of mitigation.
Mitigation measures proposed for noise impacts (noise barriers or other measures as appropriate) and
for vibration impacts (wheel and rail maintenance) would substantially reduce or eliminate these adverse
impacts. AAF has committed to mitigate the adverse impacts of construction noise by a range of measures
including time of construction, modifications to construction equipment, and selection of construction
routes.
5.2.3 Farmland Soils
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 USC Chapter 73) limits the conversion of significant
agricultural lands to non‐agricultural uses as a result of federal actions. The determination of whether or
not farmlands are subject to FPPA requirements is based on soil type; the land does not have to be actively
used for agriculture.
The Project would result in a loss of prime and unique farmlands within the E‐W Corridor. The total
disturbed area would comprise a negligible percent of the farmland in Orange and Brevard Counties
(AAF and NRCS 2013). The locations of the E‐W Corridor alternative alignments within or proximate to
the existing SR 528 corridor ensure that losses of prime or unique farmland soils and farm operations
would be limited to the margins of active or potential agricultural areas. Farmland impacts would be the
same for Alternatives C and E, and slightly less for Alternative A. Implementing any of the alternatives
would not result in significant adverse impacts to farmlands.
5.2.3.1 Methodology
Part I of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects and Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating forms were completed and submitted to NRCS on June 10, 2013 for the MCO Segment,
E‐W Corridor, and the N‐S Corridor. Farmlands with any level of designation by the NRCS were identified
and mapped relative to the Project (Figure 4.2.3‐1).
5.2.3.2 Environmental Consequences
Impacts to prime farmland and unique farmland areas were defined and quantified based on a
construction footprint of 60 or 100 feet in width, depending upon the Action Alternative alignment. This
section describes the direct effects to soils, prime farmlands, and unique farmlands anticipated from
constructing and operating the Project.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-56 September 2014

No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed. The Project Study Area as it exists
today would remain the same with no development or construction changes relevant to the Project. In
the No‐Action Alternative, there would be no impacts, adverse or otherwise, to soils or farmlands.
Alternative A
Alternative A consists of the MCO Segment (including the VMF), E‐W Corridor Alternative A, and the
N‐S Corridor. Direct effects to each of these areas are discussed below.
MCO Segment
The MCO Segment, including the VMF, does not contain any prime or unique farmland areas so there will
be no impacts to this resource.
East-West Corridor
Constructing E‐W Corridor Alternative A would result in the loss of 19.3 acres of prime farmland and
unique farmland soils.
North-South Corridor
The N‐S Corridor is not subject to the FPPA because, according to the NRCS, the corridor’s existing
right‐of‐way was purchased before August 4, 1984 and no farmland is being converted to
non‐agricultural use. The N‐S Corridor does not contain any prime or unique farmlands, so there would
be no impacts to these resources.
Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor
The southern section of the passenger rail service, from West Palm Beach to Miami, would not impact
mapped farmland soils. As stated in Section 3.0 of the 2012 EA, the WPB‐M Corridor is not subject to the
FPPA because, according to the NRCS, the corridor’s existing right‐of‐way was purchased before
August 4, 1984 and no farmland is being converted to non‐agricultural use. The WPB‐M Corridor does
not contain any prime or unique farmlands, so there would be no impacts to these resources.
Alternative C
Alternative C consists of the MCO Segment (including the VMF), E‐W Corridor Alternative C, and the
N‐S Corridor. Direct effects to farmland soils within the MCO Segment and the N‐S Corridor would be
identical to Alternative A. Within the E‐W Corridor, Alternative C would result in direct conversion of
31.8 acres of mapped prime and unique farmland soils.
Alternative E
Alternative E consists of the MCO Segment (including the VMF), E‐W Corridor Alternative E, and the
N‐S Corridor. Direct effects to farmland soils within the MCO Segment and the N‐S Corridor would be
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-57 September 2014

identical to Alternative A. Within the E‐W Corridor, Alternative E would result in the conversion of
31.8 acres of mapped prime and unique farmland soils.
Summary of Direct Impacts
Impacts to prime and unique farmland soils from constructing the Project are limited to the E‐W Corridor
for all three alternatives. The direct effects to soils from the No‐Action and three Action Alternatives are
summarized in Table 5.2.3‐1. The relative value for agricultural production of the farmland to be
converted (as determined by NRCS and described below) by the Project compared to the relative value
of other farmland in the area (for example, the average relative value for the proposed site) is also
provided in Table 5.2.3‐1.

Table 5.2.3-1 Summary of Soil and Farmland Losses for the No-Action and Build Alternatives
(acres)
Soil/Farmland Characteristic No-Action Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E
Total acres of prime and unique farmland
converted
0 19.3 31.8 31.8
Relative value of farmland (out of 100)
1
0 46.9 46.9 46.7
Percentage of farmland in county with
same or higher relative value
0 18.7 18.7 18.7
Total points 0 77.9 81.9 81.7
Source: AAF and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type
Projects. June 7, 2013.

AAF, in accordance with the FPPA, has completed USDA’s NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
(NRCS Form AD 1006). These Forms (provided in Appendix 5.2.3‐A) were submitted to NRCS and were
completed by NRCS and returned on June 12, 2013. In completing the AD 1006 Form, NRCS conducted a
two‐part evaluation of each alignment alternative, consisting of an assessment of the relative value of the
potentially impacted farmland and an overall site assessment. An overall score is calculated (out of
260 points) of the relative value of farmland to be converted. Sites most suitable for protection under
these criteria receive the highest total scores, and sites least suitable receive the lowest scores. Sites
where the total points equal or exceed 160 must consider alternative actions, such as alternative sites,
modifications, or mitigation. According to the results of the NRCS evaluation and as shown in
Table 5.2.3‐1, none of the alignment alternatives exceed the 160‐point threshold: Alternative A received
a total of 77.9 points, Alternative C 81.9 points and Alternative E 81.7 points. These low scores indicate
no significant adverse impact to farmland soils.
5.2.3.3 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Temporary impacts are those that occur in association with construction related activities and cease
following the completion of construction. Temporary impacts to farmland soils would occur where areas
of farmland soils would be used for construction staging, construction access, or other temporary
occupancy of farmland. The impacts on farmland soils could include soil compaction in staging and traffic
areas, dust generation, and erosion. Vehicle and heavy equipment use, as well as storing heavy materials,
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-58 September 2014

can compact the soils. Compaction reduces the transmission of air and water into the soil, increases
runoff, and makes vegetation establishment more difficult. Construction activities remove the vegetation
coverage and root structure that helps to maintain the soil. These exposed soils are more susceptible to
loss from wind as dust or being eroded by rain and stormwater runoff. The Project is not anticipated to
have a temporary adverse impact on farmland soils as there are no construction staging or access areas
proposed within areas of mapped farmland soils.
5.2.4 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal
This section describes the potential impacts that may occur as the result of existing or potential releases
and regulated materials in the Project Study Area. Constructing the Project has the potential to encounter
contaminated soils or groundwater, or to require the removal of waste material such as railroad ties,
creosote‐treated bridge timbers, or demolition material, as described below. The potential impacts of
Alternatives A, C, and E would be the same. The Project would not generate hazardous materials or solid
waste. Implementing the Action Alternatives would not change the potential for indirect effects along the
N‐S Corridor, as there is no anticipated change in frequency or quantity of hazardous materials
transported by freight.
5.2.4.1 Methodology
Risk ratings were assigned to every contamination site identified within the EDM reports. Sites were
identified as “No,” “Low,” “Medium” or “High” risk indicating the degree for potential contamination
related impacts to the Project. Risk ratings were assigned according to the criteria outlined in the FDOT
PD&E Guidelines summarized in Section 4.2.4.
5.2.4.2 Environmental Consequences
This section identifies the potential impacts that may occur as the result of existing or potential releases
and regulated materials in the Project Study Area. Direct, indirect, and secondary effects were
characterized by comparing each alternative with the locations and nature of the areas of concern
(potential and confirmed sources of subsurface contamination and/or waste materials).
Direct effects are defined as immediate consequences to the environment as a result of the
implementation of the alternatives. As used in this section, a direct effect would occur if construction of
an alternative encountered contaminated soils or groundwater. In comparison to the Action Alternatives,
the No‐Action Alternative is expected to encounter relatively inconsequential amounts of contaminated
soils or groundwater or generate relatively inconsequential amounts of solid waste during routine
subsurface maintenance activities, if conducted in the vicinity of a release
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed. The Project Study Area as it exists
today would remain the same with no development or construction changes relevant to the Project.
Existing contaminated sites within the Project Study Area would continue to be addressed in accordance
with the regulatory framework. Potentially contaminated sites not previously identified would not be
assessed or mitigated without the implementation of the Project.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-59 September 2014

Action Alternatives A, C, and E
The Action Alternatives have the potential to encounter contaminated soils or groundwater, or to require
the removal of waste material such as railroad ties, creosote‐treated bridge timbers, or demolition material,
as described below. The potential impacts of Alternatives A, C, and E would be the same.
MCO Segment
A total of 27 potentially contaminated sites were reported by EDM within the 500‐foot detailed evaluation
area for the MCO Segment (including the VMF) on the GOAA property. However, the site location
information provided by EDM did not appear to accurately represent specific site locations. GOAA
maintains environmental records for known contaminated areas within the airport property and
reviewed the EDM data. GOAA reported that no contaminated sites were located within 500 feet of the
Project. All EDM‐mapped sites are included in the database summary included as Appendix 5.2.4‐A.
East-West Corridor
Sixteen potentially contaminated sites were within the 500‐foot detailed evaluation area for the
E‐W Corridor. Construction activities along the E‐W Corridor are anticipated to involve subsurface work
and may include underground utility installations and stormwater pond construction. However,
potentially contaminated sites identified for the E‐W Corridor were outside the planned construction
areas and impacts from the existing contaminated areas are not anticipated. The E‐W Corridor may also
require limited property acquisition of undeveloped properties adjacent to the SR 528 right‐of‐way. Prior
to property acquisition, further assessment may be conducted to determine if contamination is present
and to identify any regulatory obligations and associated cost premiums as a result of contamination that
could be present on these properties.
North-South Corridor
A total of 337 potentially contaminated sites were identified within the 200‐foot detailed evaluation area
along the 128.5‐mile N‐S Corridor. However, the proposed work for this portion of the Project is
anticipated to be completely within the existing FECR Corridor and would result in minimal subsurface
disturbance. Impacts from existing contaminated areas are not anticipated. Any contamination that is
discovered in the existing FECR Corridor and associated structures as a result of current or historical
usage will be managed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local law or regulations.
Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor
According to information provided in Section 3.3.6 of the 2012 EA, there are 199 Low Risk sites;
13 Medium Risk sites; and 14 High Risk sites along the WPB‐M Corridor. Preliminary subsurface
investigations to establish the presence of soil or groundwater contamination will be conducted prior to
construction activities for sites receiving a High or Medium risk ranking that may be impacted by
acquisition, drainage features, underground utilities, or dewatering activities.
Construction requirements and methodology for the proposed system upgrades within the
FECR Corridor will result in minimal subsurface disturbance; consequences to existing contaminated
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-60 September 2014

areas are not anticipated. Construction impacts will be minimized through the avoidance of areas of
known or suspected contamination during the design of the drainage, lighting, and foundations.
Contamination areas will be verified prior to construction and remedial actions will be developed and
implemented to further minimize consequences if necessary. Any contaminated or hazardous wastes
encountered through ground‐disturbing activities during construction for any of the alternatives will
be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. If potentially
contaminated sites cannot be avoided through project engineering all applicable state and federal laws
will be followed to minimize impacts.
5.2.4.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
An indirect effect related to subsurface contamination or waste materials management would exist if an
alternative has the potential to impact ongoing remediation of known releases, would produce additional
sources of subsurface contamination or waste materials following construction, or would transport waste
to another site. The scope and magnitude of the indirect effects for each Action Alternative would be
generally the same, as described below. No indirect effects were identified for the No‐Action Alternative.
A secondary effect related to subsurface contamination or waste materials management would exist if an
alternative has the potential to cause an impact in another time or place.
No-Action Alternative
The No‐Action Alternative could potentially result in indirect impacts associated with spills from freight
trains. Freight trains traveling along the N‐S Corridor are currently equipped to haul hazardous materials
and will continue to do so. Although there is no set schedule, hazardous materials are transported on an
average of once per week. Table 5.2.4‐1 contains a list of hazardous materials hauled by freight trains
along the FECR Corridor.

Table 5.2.4-1 Hazardous Materials Currently Transported on FECR Corridor
Liquid Propane Gas Rocket Motors Chemicals not elsewhere classified
Ethanol Potassium Chloride Phosphoric Acid
Sodium Hydroxide/Caustic Soda Carbon Dioxide Explosives
Alcohol in Bond Ammonium Polyphosphate Methanol
Hydrogen Chloride Sulfur Dioxide Pesticide/Chemicals not elsewhere classified
Bleach-Sodium Hypochlorite Fuel Oil Tail Oil Pitch
Ammonium Nitrate

Source: AMEC. 2013f. Technical Memorandum No. 6: Contaminated Sites Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail
Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. Report.

Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Implementing the Action Alternatives would not change the potential for indirect effects along the
N‐S Corridor, as there is no anticipated change in frequency or quantity of hazardous materials transported
by freight. The proposed VMF has the potential for spills and soils or groundwater contamination. Planned
operations at the VMF, such as vehicle fueling, maintenance and repair, and washing, would include use of
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-61 September 2014

hazardous materials (primarily petroleum products, lubricants, and degreasers). The Project would not
include use or storage of hazardous materials outside the VMF. The typical materials that would be stored
and used at the VMF include diesel fuel, motor oils, lubricants, and degreasers. Table 5.2.4‐2 provides an
inventory of the typical materials stored at existing VMF facilities and is considered representative of the
types and quantities of hazardous materials that are anticipated at the Project VMF.

Table 5.2.4-2 Anticipated Hazardous Products Storage at the VMF – Above-Ground Storage
Tanks (ASTs)
Capacity Quantity Contents
10,000-gallon AST
1
2 Diesel Fuel
500-gallon AST 1 Gasoline
250-gallon AST 1 Conventional Oil
250-gallon AST 1 Hydraulic Oil
250-gallon AST 1 Waste Oil
Source: AAF
1 AST = aboveground storage tank

All hazardous products would be stored at the VMF in double‐walled storage containers or double‐walled
above‐ground storage tanks (ASTs). Hazardous materials would be used and stored according to
accepted industry BMPs. Planned operations at the VMF are similar to operations currently ongoing at
MCO and are considered minor in respect to the overall operations and land use at the airport.
The Project could result in off‐site disposal of construction materials. During construction, contaminated
materials and regulated waste would require disposal at off‐site facilities including landfills, recycling
centers, and treatment/asphalt batch plants. If not handled properly, the disposal of these materials could
potentially cause soil, groundwater, or air contamination at these facilities or during transport to them.
Regional facilities for disposing of construction debris, contaminated materials and regulated waste have
sufficient capacity to dispose of the anticipated volume of material.
The Project would include only passenger trains along the E‐W Corridor. Freight trains would not operate
over the E‐W Corridor. With the exception of on‐board fuel, lubricants, and relatively small quantities of
materials required for operation of the passenger trains, there would be no hazardous material
transportation associated with passenger trains, or along the E‐W Corridor, associated with the Project.
5.2.4.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
In the event that construction activities occur in or near contaminated areas, a Phase II investigation may
need to be conducted. If subsurface activities impact contaminated sites and cannot be avoided, technical
special provisions such as Remedial Action Plans would be developed as part of the Phase II investigation.
If contamination is identified prior to construction, remedial actions can be implemented to minimize
impacts. Any contaminated or hazardous wastes encountered through ground‐disturbing activities
during construction would be handled and disposed in accordance with regulatory requirements.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-62 September 2014

For dewatering activities, potentially contaminated sites within a 500‐foot radius of the construction site
will need to be re‐evaluated and addressed before applying for a dewatering permit to avoid potentially
exacerbating a contaminant plume, and to determine proper groundwater management for such sites.
Construction activities have the potential to generate new releases/spills as a result of the storage and
use of hazardous materials such as diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic oil, and lubricating oils associated with
the construction equipment, storage tank removal, and pipeline relocation activities. New USTs and ASTs
would be installed as part of the construction of any of the Action Alternatives, including an expanded
tank farm at the airport. AAF would construct new facilities in accordance with all applicable regulations,
and a new Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan would be implemented to reduce the risk
of accidental releases.
The Project would generate construction and demolition debris such as used railroad ties, creosote‐treated
bridge timbers, steel rail, excess soil, rock, organic material, asphalt, concrete, or wood. All construction and
demolition debris would be handled according to federal, state, and local regulations and industry BMPs. To
the extent practical, materials would be recycled. Debris that requires disposal would be transported under
applicable transportation manifests and disposed of at licensed disposal facilities.
The recommendations for mitigation measures during construction may include special waste handling,
dust control, and management and disposal of contaminated soil and ground water in order to prevent
construction delays and to provide adequate protection to workers and any nearby sensitive receptors. All
Remedial Action Plans actions must ensure that any nearby or adjacent receptors are adequately protected
and the assessment and management of contaminated media encountered during the Project would be
handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Contaminated sites
have been identified within 150 feet of the FECR right‐of‐way in the WPB‐M Corridor and in the vicinity of
the Preferred Build Station Alternatives identified in Section 3.3.6 of the 2012 EA. None of the Project
elements described in the 2012 EA are anticipated to impact known contaminated or hazardous waste sites
within the Project Study Area; avoidance techniques will be maximized during the design phase.
5.2.5 Coastal Zone Management
Under provisions of Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the State of Florida has
authority to review any federal activity that impacts the coastal resources of Florida for consistency with
the Florida Coastal Management Plan (FCMP). Federal activities subject to review include:
 Activities conducted by or on behalf of a federal government agency;
 Federal licenses or permits;
 Permits issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for offshore minerals exploration
or development; and
 Federal assistance to state and local governments (FDEP 1981).
The Florida State Clearinghouse coordinates the review of proposed federal activities, requests for federal
funds, and applications for federal permits other than permits issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Consistency reviews of federal permits issued under those
Acts are conducted in conjunction with Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) applications by the FDEP or
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-63 September 2014

the Waste Management Districts (WMDs). The FCMP provides each partner agency an opportunity to
comment on the merits of the proposed action, address concerns, make recommendations and state
whether the project is consistent with its statutory authorities under the FCMP. Regional planning councils
and local governments also may participate in the federal consistency review process by advising the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) on the local and regional effect of proposed federal
actions. In the event a state agency determines a proposed federal activity is inconsistent, the agency must
identify the statute with which the activity conflicts and provide alternatives for the project to maintain
consistency with the FCMP.
As the designated lead coastal agency for the state, FDEP communicates the agency comments and the
final consistency decision of the state to federal agencies and applicants for all actions other than permits
issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The
consistency decisions on those permits are made through the approval or denial of the ERP issued under
Chapter 373, Part IV, FS. Federal consistency is the requirement that federal actions that impact any land
or water use or natural resource of a state’s coastal zone must be consistent with the enforceable policies
of the state. The FCMP federal consistency process consists of a network of 24 Florida Statutes (that is,
enforceable policies) administered by FDEP and a group of partner agencies responsible for
implementing the statutes. Consistency is based on effects rather than geographic boundaries;
consequently, there are no categorical exclusions from the consistency requirement. Any federal activity
that would have an impact on a state's coastal zone is subject to a consistency review, unless specifically
exempted by federal law. Impacts are determined by assessing reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect
effects on any coastal use or resource.
As documented in this section, the Project is consistent with Florida’s Coastal Zone Management Act.
5.2.5.1 Environmental Consequences
This section evaluates the direct effects to coastal resources, including coastal barrier beaches, Coastal
and Aquatic Managed Areas, and natural resources within the coastal zone.
Direct effects to the “natural resources of the coastal zone” (both aquatic and marine resources) will result
from all elements of the Project, including construction of the VMF, bridge and rail construction along the
E‐W Corridor, and bridge construction along the N‐S Corridor. A full discussion of the impacts on these
resources is provided in the appropriate sections of this EIS. Portions of the N‐S Corridor are within or
adjacent to Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas identified in Section 4.2.5. Bridge
construction/reconstruction would impact small areas of aquatic resources within the Indian River and
the Jensen Beach‐Juniper Inlet Aquatic Reserve. Coastal barrier resources are associated with
unconsolidated shorelines and are on the east side of the Intracoastal Waterway; therefore, none of the
WPB‐M Corridor Project elements (which are west of the Intracoastal Waterway) considered in the
2012 EA would impact any coastal barrier resources.
5.2.5.2 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
The Project is not anticipated to result in direct impacts to coastal resources, and would not result in
development or induced growth in coastal natural resources. The Project therefore would not have
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-64 September 2014

indirect or secondary effects to coastal natural resources or designated Coastal and Aquatic Managed
Areas.
5.2.5.3 Draft Consistency Determination
This section provides a draft Consistency Determination under CZMA Section 307, 15 CFR
part 930 Sub‐part C, Chapter 380 FS, Part II, Coastal Planning and Management. This federal consistency
determination addresses the proposed extension of passenger rail service from Orlando to West Palm
Beach, which would include the MCO Segment, the E‐W Corridor, and the N‐S Corridor. Additionally, this
federal consistency determination includes all in‐water bridge work for the seven bridges along the
66.5‐mile WPB‐M Corridor (AAF 2012).
4
The FDEP, as the designated coastal agency for the state, will
participate in consistency decisions on permits issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act through the state’s ERP process. Both of these permitting
processes are applicable to the Project.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no
adverse impact on land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Table 5.2.5‐1 documents the consistency of the Project with the FCMP. There would be no difference in
consistency between the three Action Alternatives evaluated in this EIS. The scope of each relevant statute
and the Project’s consistency with the provisions of the statute is provided.
As stated in the 2013 FONSI for the WPB‐M Corridor, the Florida State Clearinghouse has reviewed the
South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis, a similar project to the Phase I to the WPB‐M Corridor
described in the 2012 EA. The South Florida project was determined to be consistent with the FCMP, and
the State Clearinghouse determined that this consistency determination would be valid for the AAF
project because the AAF Project Area is fully encompassed within the South Florida East Coast Corridor
Transit Analysis area which was found to be consistent in 2006 and there have been no relevant changes
in the CZMA or FCMP criteria that would affect that determination.
As documented in the following Table 5.2.5‐1, the Project (all alternatives) is consistent with each of the
relevant CZM statutes and standards.


4 This 66.5-mile rail segment was analyzed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard
Florida (AAF) Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida (2012). However, the 2012 EA did not include analysis
of in-water bridge work that is contemplated as part of this Proposed Action. Therefore, that work is included as the subject of
the Build Alternatives being considered herein.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-65 September 2014


Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review
Statute Scope Consistency
Chapter 161
Beach and Shore
Preservation
This statute provides policies for
the regulation of construction,
reconstruction, and other physical
activities related to the beaches
and shores of the state.
Additionally, this statute requires
the restoration and maintenance
of critically eroding beaches.
The Project would not impact beach and shore management
along Florida’s East Coast, specifically as it pertains to:
 The Coastal Construction Permit Program.
 The Coastal Construction Control Line Permit Program.
 The Coastal Zone Protection Program.
All construction activities associated with the N-S Corridor would
occur within the existing FECR Corridor. Additionally, the
E-W Corridor would not be sited on beach or dune habitat.
Chapter 163, Part II
Growth Policy;
County and Municipal
Planning; Land
Development
Regulation
Requires local governments to
prepare, adopt, and implement
comprehensive plans that
encourage the most appropriate
use of land and natural resources in
a manner consistent with the public
interest.
The Project would be consistent with local, regional, and state
comprehensive plans. Consistency with these plans has been
included in the purpose and need criteria matrix used to
develop the Action Alternatives.
Chapter 186
State and Regional
Planning
Details state-level planning efforts.
Requires the development of
special statewide plans governing
water use, land development, and
transportation.
The Project, including the proposed mitigation measures
aimed at reducing the severity of impacts to physical and
biological resources, is generally consistent with the State
Comprehensive Plan as adopted under Florida Statue Title
8 Planning and Development Section 187.101.
Specifically, the Project meets the adopted air quality, energy,
urban and downtown revitalization, and transportation policies,
including the following listed below:
 Ensure that developments and transportation systems are
consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality.
 Ensure emergency efficiency in transportation design and
planning and increase the availability of more efficient modes
of transportation.
 Enhance the linkages between land use, water use, and
transportation planning in state, regional, and local plans for
current and future designated areas.
 Encourage the development of mass transit systems for
urban centers, including multimodal transportation feeder
systems, as a priority of local metropolitan, regional, and state
transportation planning.
The proposed rail system is also consistent with the adopted
transportation goal that Florida shall direct future transportation
improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall
have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air,
mass transit, and transportation modes.
Additionally, mitigation measures included as part of the Project
meet the intent of Natural Systems and Recreation Lands goal
that Florida shall protect and acquire unique natural habitats and
ecological systems, such as wetlands, and restore degraded
natural systems to a functional condition. Further, soil and water
quality mitigation measures meet the intent of water resources
policies directing the protection of surface and groundwater
quality in the state.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-66 September 2014

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued)
Statute Scope Consistency
Chapter 186
State and Regional
Planning (contd.)
Details state-level planning efforts.
Requires the development of
special statewide plans governing
water use, land development, and
transportation.
The Project is located within the East Central Florida and
Treasure Coast regional planning council districts. The
proposed rail system meets the transportation goals in the
Strategic Regional Policy Plans (SRPPs) for each of these
districts including Policy 5.12 of the East Central Florida SRPP
which encourages that multi-modal design options should take
precedence over the expansion of existing roads or the
construction of new roads where feasible as well as Policy
7.1.3.4 of the Treasure Coast SRPP which encourages the
reduction of vehicle miles traveled per capita by private
automobile within the region through a combination of means,
including the expansion of commuter rail and intermodal
connections.
Chapter 252
Emergency
Management
Provides for planning and
implementation of the state’s
response to, efforts to recover
from, and the mitigation of natural
and manmade disasters.
The Project would include the development of a passenger rail
system within an existing rail corridor and along an existing
highway ROW. The E-W Corridor would be located outside of
the defined storm surge zones and hurricane evacuation
areas for Brevard and Orange counties. Within the N-S
Corridor the rail line would be located within Florida Division of
Emergency Management-defined storm surge zones;
however the development would occur entirely within the
FECR Corridor and would be consistent with the existing
transportation uses. While the proposed rail system would
encourage regional connection as well as growth in the vicinity
of the supporting stations, growth would be focused in
previously developed areas and would be consistent with
existing commercial and industrial land uses.
Consequently, the Project would not affect the state’s
vulnerability to natural disasters and would not affect
emergency response and evacuation procedures. Further the
Project would be consistent with the emergency preparedness
policies within the East Central Florida and Treasure Coast
SRPPs.
Chapter 253
State Lands
Addresses the state’s
administration of public lands and
property of this state and provides
direction regarding the acquisition,
disposal, and management of all
state lands.
The proposed rail line would be located within the privately
owned FECR Corridor as well as along the SR 528 ROW.
OOCEA is pursuing the acquisition of additional ROW along
SR 528, which would affect the viability of certain E-W Corridor
alternatives. E-W Corridor Alternative A would occur entirely
within the SR 528 ROW; consequently, this alternative would
not adversely impact state lands. Under E-W Corridor
Alternative C and Alternative E would require acquisition of
additional ROW easement along 14 miles of the alignments
between SR 417 and SR 520. However, any impacts to public
lands and property of the state outside of the existing SR 528
ROW would be mitigated by permit requirements and the
implementation of standard construction BMPs. Additionally,
the E-W Corridor would include bridges where necessary to
avoid significant impacts to wetlands, streams, and rivers,
including the St. Johns River and Econlockhatchee River;
some of which may include State-owned Sovereign
Submerged Lands. Proposed bridges would meet U.S. Coast
Guard navigational requirements and would therefore not
interfere with public use of sovereign submerged lands.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-67 September 2014

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued)
Statute Scope Consistency
Chapter 258
State Parks and
Preserves
Addresses administration and
management of state parks and
preserves.
The N-S Corridor is entirely within the existing FECR Corridor.
Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to state parks
and preserves. E-W Corridor Alternative A would be sited
within the SR 528 ROW. Although this alignment would
traverse the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area and
Canaveral Marsh Conservation Area, the proposed rail line
would be located within the SR 528 ROW, which is owned by
FDOT in this segment and includes wetlands that have been
delineated (with the exception of the portion of the alignment
identified as the Cocoa Curve). Many of the wetland boundaries
have been inspected and confirmed by the USACE; however,
a binding Jurisdictional Determination has not been completed
at this time. The St. Johns River WMD has also inspected and
confirmed these delineated wetlands. The E-W Corridor
Alternatives C and E would require additional ROW
acquisition along the 14-mile segment between SR 417 and
SR 520. While impacts to the Tosohatchee Wildlife
Management Area and Canaveral Marsh Conservation Area,
located east of SR 520, would remain the same as those
described for E-W Corridor Alternative A, additional area
within the Hal Scott Preserve would not be affected by the
development of a rail corridor to the north (outside) of the SR
528 ROW. Impacts to these state lands would be mitigated
through the implementation of standard construction BMPs
(e.g., erosion controls) as well as the acquisition and/or
restoration of wetland habitats as required by Section 404
Individual Permit requirements. Wetland delineations have not
been completed for the portions of the E-W Corridor
Alternatives C and E that lie beyond the SR 528 ROW.
Chapter 259
Land Acquisition for
Conservation or
Recreation
Authorizes acquisition of
environmentally endangered lands
and outdoor recreation lands.
The Project would likely result in beneficial impacts;
compensatory mitigation would be required including the
potential acquisition of environmentally endangered lands.
Impacts to delineated wetlands would require mitigation as
required by Section 404 Individual Permits. Consequently, while
the implementation of the Project would remove wetlands from
the N-S and E-W Corridors, compensatory mitigation would
include the potential acquisition of environmentally sensitive
habitat types.
Chapter 260
Florida Greenways
and Trails Act
Established in order to conserve,
develop, and use the natural
resources of Florida for healthful
and recreational purposes.
The N-S Corridor would not impact any of the greenways and
trails as defined in the Florida Greenways and Trails System
Plan. The E-W Corridor would cross the St. Johns River, which
is designated as a Priority Land Trail and as an Existing Trail in
Priority Network to the north of the SR 528.
SR 528 crosses this area via a bridge approximately 550 feet
long. For the Project, this Priority Land Trail would be bypassed
via a railroad bridge, which would pass over the Priority Land
Trail providing for continued trail linkage. The Project would not
significantly adversely impact the trail and would generally be
consistent with the strategies and goals outlined in the
Greenways and Trails System Plan.
Additionally, the E-W Corridor would cross the proposed Florida
Wildlife Corridor, which is envisioned to secure a connected
landscape from the Everglades to Georgia. The proximity of the
E-W Corridor alignment to existing SR 528 infrastructure would
limit the Project’s contribution to fragmentation of natural
landscapes and watersheds.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-68 September 2014

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued)
Statute Scope Consistency
Chapter 267
Historical Resources
Addresses management and
preservation of the state’s
archaeological and historical
resources.
FRA has formally initiated the National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 consultation process with the Florida State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) as a part of the Notice of Intent
(NOI) to prepare this EIS. Additionally, FRA has separately
initiated consultation with five Native American Nations.
Coordination between FRA, SHPO, and Section 106 consulting
parties will continue through the Project.
Chapter 267
Historical Resources
(contd.)
Addresses management and
preservation of the state’s
archaeological and historical
resources.
During a 2009 SHPO meeting regarding the South Florida East
Coast Corridor Study, there was agreement that the use of the
historic rail line within the FECR Railway District and restoration
of passenger rail on the line would not constitute an adverse
effect. Consequently, the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP)-eligible FECR Railway District would not be adversely
affected by the N-S Corridor.
Within the FECR Corridor, four bridges have been identified as
individually eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A and
Criterion C. These four bridges are also considered contributing
elements to the FECR Railway Historic District. An additional
eight bridges are not considered individually eligible for listing on
the NRHP but are still considered contributing elements to the
FECR Railway Historic District. For the AAF FONSI, a no
adverse effect determination was conditioned on the
reconstruction or rehabilitation work to the bridges being
developed in consultation with the SHPO to avoid and/or
minimize effects. For the Project, a similar no adverse effect
finding is anticipated based on the condition that consultation
with the SHPO would continue through the design process in
order to ensure compatibility and appropriate sensitivity to the
bridge resources and FECR Railway Historic District.
Based on the information available, the Project would have no
adverse effect on archaeological sites along the N-S Corridor.
The no adverse effect finding is based on the condition that
consultation with the SHPO would continue through the design
process, as needed, in order to ensure appropriate sensitivity to
the previously recorded archaeological sites located within the
area of potential effect (APE).
Similarly, the E-W Corridor is anticipated to have no adverse
effect on the FECR Railway Historic District. Field surveys have
determined that no archaeological resources occur in the E-W
Corridor. The Project would be consistent with Florida’s statutes
and regulations regarding the state’s archaeological and
historical resources.
Chapter 288
Commercial
Development and
Capital Improvements
Promotes and develops general
business, trade, and tourism
components of the state economy.
The Project would provide linkages between regional and
statewide multi-modal transportation networks and promote
commercial development within the vicinity of the transit stations
consistent with the East Central Florida and Treasure Coast
SRPPs. The Project would be consistent with Smart Growth and
Sustainability Policies 4.1 and 4.3 in the East Central Florida
SRPP as well as Policy 4.13, which encourages efforts that
connect regional airports, rail systems, and seaports to gain a
competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Further, the
Project would be consistent with Regional Goal 3.5 in the
Treasure Coast SRPP, which encourages multimodal linkages
throughout the region, including the provision of commuter and
long distance passenger service on the FECR corridor.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-69 September 2014

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued)
Statute Scope Consistency
The Project would have an indirect beneficial effect on future
business opportunities and would likely promote tourism in the
region.
Chapter 334
Transportation
Administration
Addresses the state’s policy
concerning transportation
administration.
The Project would be consistent with the transportation code
as well as the mission, goals, and object of FDOT. Specifically
the Project would be consistent with Section 334.30 regarding
public-private transportation facilities.
Chapter 339
Transportation
Finance and Planning
Addresses the finance and
planning needs of the state’s
transportation system.
The Project would be funded by a loan under the RRIF
Program pursuant to 49 CFR part 260. The Project would be
consistent with the 2060 Florida Transportation Plan, which
includes new measures encouraging a greater reliance on
public transportation systems for moving people, including a
statewide passenger rail network and enhanced transit
systems in Florida’s major urban areas. The Project would
support the long range objective of the plan to develop and
operate a statewide intercity passenger rail system connecting
all regions of the state and linking to public transportation
systems in rural and urban areas. The Project would not have
an adverse impact on transportation finance and would result
in beneficial impacts with regard to transportation planning.
Chapter 373
Water Resources
Addresses sustainable water
management; the conservation of
surface and ground waters for full
beneficial use; the preservation of
natural resources, fish, and
wildlife; protecting public land; and
promoting the health and general
welfare of Floridians.
The Project would impact surface waters including wetlands
within the N-S and E-W Corridors. However, these corridors
are currently impacted by the existing FECR Corridor as well
as the SR 528 ROW. To the extent feasible, direct effects to
surface water bodies would be avoided through the
construction of bridges. Additionally, standard construction
BMPs would be employed to limit offsite construction-related
impacts.
Section 404 Individual Permits would be required for the N-S
and E-W Corridors, and compensatory mitigation measures
would be implemented as a part of the Project.
Chapter 373
Water Resources
(contd.)
Addresses sustainable water
management; the conservation of
surface and ground waters for full
beneficial use; the preservation of
natural resources, fish, and
wildlife; protecting public land; and
promoting the health and general
welfare of Floridians.
Additionally, applicable permitting requirements would be
satisfied in accordance with Florida Administrative Code
(FAC) 62-25 and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). AAF would submit a Notice of Intent (NOI)
to use the generic permit for stormwater discharge under the
NPDES program prior to project initiation according to Florida
Statute Section 403.0885. The Project would also require
coverage under the generic permit for stormwater discharge
from construction activities that disturb one or more acres of
land (FAC 62-621).
The Project would be consistent with Florida’s statutes and
regulations regarding the water resources of the state.
Chapter 375
Outdoor Recreation
and Conservation
Lands
Develops comprehensive
multipurpose outdoor recreation
plan to document recreational
supply and demand, describe
current recreational opportunities,
estimate need for additional
recreational opportunities, and
propose means to meet the
identified needs.
The Project would be consistent with Florida’s Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. The passenger rail
service would provide additional transportation linkages
between recreational areas throughout the state. Additionally,
as the Project is within existing transportation corridors, the rail
line would not substantially directly impact recreational areas
or recreational opportunities in the immediate vicinity.
Chapter 376
Pollutant Discharge
Regulates transfer, storage, and
transportation of pollutants, and
cleanup of pollutant discharges.
Construction activities associated with the Project may require
the use of hazardous materials, and hazardous waste may be
generated. However, the Project would not substantially
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-70 September 2014

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued)
Statute Scope Consistency
Prevention and
Removal
increase operational hazardous material or hazardous waste.
The Project would include proper handling, use and disposal of
hazardous materials and waste and would be compliant within
all appropriate tracking and reporting requirements. The Project
would not impact the transfer, storage, or transportation of
pollutants.
Chapter 377
Energy Resources
Addresses regulation, planning,
and development of oil and gas
resources of state.
The Project would not impact energy resource production,
including oil and gas, and/or the transportation of oil and gas.
Chapter 379
Fish and Wildlife
Conservation
Addresses the management and
protection of the state of Florida’s
wide diversity of fish and wildlife
resources.
Pursuant to the NEPA Section 2, 102(H), avoidance and
minimization of potential impacts to federally and
state-protected species have been considered for the Project.
Protected species habitat was avoided to the extent possible
when developing the alternatives for the Project. Further,
consultation with NOAA – NMFS, FWS, and FWC has been
conducted to ensure full compliance with the federal and state
Endangered Species Act (ESA); Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA); and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
A Biological Assessment (BA) is under preparation for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with the Final ESA
Section 7 Consultation Handbook (USFWS 1998).

The BA is
intended to provide documentation necessary for informal
consultation with the USFWS and NMFS in order to comply with
Section 7 of the ESA (7 USC §136; 16 USC §1531 et seq.).
Chapter 379
Fish and Wildlife
Conservation (contd.)
Addresses the management and
protection of the state of Florida’s
wide diversity of fish and wildlife
resources.
While no significant impacts to sensitive species are
anticipated, USFWS- and FWC-recommended species-
specific mitigation measures would be implemented for each
potentially affected federally or state-listed species. Therefore
the Project would be consistent with the state’s policies
concerning the protection of wildlife.
Chapter 380
Land and Water
Management
Establishes land and water
management policies to guide and
coordinate local decisions relating
to growth and development.
The Project would occur within existing transportation
corridors, which span six counties in eastern Florida. Changes
to coastal infrastructure would include the repair or
construction of railroad track as well as the construction of 18
bridges within the FECR Corridor. The Project would result in
impacts to upland habitats as well as surface water resources,
including wetland habitats. However, these degraded habitats
occur within the existing ROWs. Management of state lands
outside of the existing transportation corridors would remain
unchanged. Additionally, surface waters and storm water
runoff would be consistent with all applicable policies including
FS Section 380.06, which outlines policies for developments
of region impact that may have effects on the health, safety or
welfare of citizens of more than one county.
Chapter 381
Public Health,
General Provisions
Establishes public policy
concerning the state’s public
health system.
The Project would not affect the state’s policies concerning the
public health system.
Chapter 388
Mosquito Control
Addresses mosquito control effort
in the state.
The Project would not affect mosquito control efforts.
Chapter 403
Environmental
Control
Establishes public policy
concerning environmental control
in the state.
AAF would coordinate all applicable permits in accordance
with the FAC.
The Project would adversely impact surface water bodies,
including wetlands along the N-S and E-W Corridors.
However, standard BMPs would be implemented during
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-71 September 2014

Table 5.2.5-1 Florida Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (Continued)
Statute Scope Consistency
construction activities and compensatory mitigation measures
for impacts to wetlands would be required.
During construction activities, AAF would take all reasonable
precautions to minimize fugitive particulate (i.e., dust)
emissions during any construction activities in accordance
with FAC 62-296.
Net increases to operational emissions, both from stationary
and mobile sources would be less than significant as a result
of the Project. Total emissions would remain below de minimis
levels and any adverse impacts to air quality would also be
less than significant. Additionally, beneficial impacts to air
quality would occur as a result of the potential reduction in
vehicle miles traveled.
The Project would not significantly increase hazardous
material or hazardous waste generated within the existing
transportation corridors.
Therefore, the Project would not impact water quality, air
quality, pollution control, solid waste management, or other
environmental control efforts.
Chapter 582
Soil and Water
Conservation
Addresses means to conserve soil
and water.
All applicable standard construction BMPs, such as erosion
and sediment controls and stormwater management
measures would be implemented to minimize erosion and
storm water run-off, and to regulate sediment control during
construction.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the Florida’s
statutes and regulations regarding soil and water conservation
efforts.
Source: AMEC. 2013b. Technical Memorandum No. 10: Environmental Consequences for All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail
Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. Report.

5.2.6 Climate Change
This section describes climate change effects related to the Project. Transportation systems are
vulnerable to extreme weather and climate change effects such as increased temperatures, sea level rise,
and more intense storm events; these effects increase the vulnerability of transportation systems
(FHWA 2013). Climate change adaptation is critical to protecting transportation systems. Reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is important for long‐term climate change effects, but the reduction of
GHGs will likely have little impact on the expected climate change effects over the next 20 or 30 years
(FHWA 2012).
The climate change provisions that are applicable to the Project include:
 EO 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance;
 USACE Circular 1165‐2‐212: Sea‐Level Change Considerations for Civil Works Programs; and
 CEQ Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (CEQ Draft NEPA Guidance).
Executive Order 13514 calls for federal leadership in environmental, energy, and economic performance.
The CEQ Draft NEPA Guidance outlines climate change considerations for federal agencies. Federal agencies
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-72 September 2014

should consider the effects of GHG emissions and climate change in their evaluation of proposals. The
relationship of climate change effects to a proposed action should be considered; this includes proposal
design, environmental impacts, mitigation, and adaptation measures. If a proposed action is anticipated to
cause direct emissions of 25,000 metric tons or more of CO
2
‐equivalent GHG emissions on an annual basis,
a quantitative and qualitative assessment may be meaningful to decision makers and the public.
Environmental documents should reflect the global context of climate change and be realistic in focusing on
information that will be useful to decision makers. GHG emissions and mitigation opportunities should be
evaluated and compared between alternatives. According to the CEQ Draft NEPA Guidance, climate change
effects should be considered in the analysis of projects that are designed for long‐term utility and located in
areas that are considered vulnerable to specific climate change effects (CEQ 2010).
As documented in this section, the Project would reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute
to climate change. The N‐S and WPB‐M Corridors of the Project are vulnerable to climate change effects
in the near future. Both of these corridors are along the Florida coast and cross several coastal water
bodies. Bridge structures, particularly those with lower elevation, will have increased vulnerability over
time, and potential infrastructure damage may result from flooding, tidal damage, and/or storms.
5.2.6.1 Methodology
The analysis of climate change effects considers local climate change scenarios. Major concerns for Florida
in the coming decades include sea level rise and more intense storm events. Two main planning horizons
for climate change are considered in this EIS: 2030 and 2060. The 2030 horizon represents near‐term
impacts and the 2060 horizon represents longer‐term impacts. These representative years are also
frequently referenced in climate change literature for the region. By 2030 a sea level rise of 3 to 7 inches
is anticipated and by 2060 a rise of 9 to 24 inches is anticipated. The region will also be vulnerable to an
increasing number of intense storm events.
USACE Circular 1165‐2‐212 provides guidance for incorporating the direct and indirect physical impacts of
projected future sea‐level change across a project life cycle. Potential relative sea‐level change must be
considered in every USACE Civil Works coastal activity as far inland as the extent of estimated tidal
influence. Planning and design must consider how sensitive and adaptable natural and human systems are
to climate change. Planning and design for both existing conditions and Project alternatives should consider
and evaluate alternatives for the entire range of possible future rates of sea‐level change over the project
life cycle. The Circular recommends that alternatives should be evaluated using “low,” “intermediate,” and
“high” rates of future sea‐level change for both “with” and “without” project conditions. The historic rate of
sea‐level change should be used as the “low” rate; “intermediate” and “high” rates should be estimated using
equations described in the Circular. Alternative plans and designs should be formulated and evaluated for
the three sea‐level change scenarios. Sensitivity to the rates of future sea‐level change should be determined
for plan alternatives; how this sensitivity affects calculated risk and design measures to minimize adverse
impacts and maximize benefits should also be addressed.
GHG emissions factors were obtained from the EPA (EPA 2008b). GHG emission factors for intercity rail
travel were used for this estimation process. The GHG emissions from switch engines are anticipated to
be negligible. Passenger miles for GHG emission estimates were based on estimates of total ridership in
2019 and 2030. Section 5.2.1 of this DEIS provides a detailed description of air quality analysis methods.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-73 September 2014

5.2.6.2 Local Context: Florida Climate Scenarios
Florida faces direct, immediate, and severe impacts from climate change through rising sea level and the
possibility of more intense storms. There is also increased likelihood of more severe droughts and periods
of torrential rain. Due to these predictions, Florida’s commitment to address climate change is increasing.
Florida’s Resilient Coasts: A State Policy Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change provides a
framework for state actions (FAU 2007).
Southeast Florida is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, especially sea level rise. As
mentioned above, two important planning horizons, referencing the year 2010 as the start date, are
2030 and 2060. These representative years are also frequently referenced in climate change literature
for the region. Sea level is predicted to rise 1 foot from the 2010 level between 2040 and 2070, but a 2‐foot
rise is possible by 2060. By 2060 sea level is projected to be rising by 2 to 6 inches per decade. It will be
important to review projections as scientific understanding improves. Sea levels will continue to rise even
if mitigation efforts to reduce GHG emissions are successful at stabilizing or reducing atmospheric CO
2

(Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact 2011).
Florida will also be susceptible to more intense storm events. It is likely that in the future there will be
fewer total storms but a higher number of intense storms according to Climate Scenarios: A Florida‐Centric
View (Misra et al. 2011). The damage caused by future storms is expected to increase by about 30 percent
despite the decrease in the total number of storms. Potential impacts of climate change and variability for
Florida include the displacement of communities, damage to infrastructure, and damage to natural
systems (Misra et al. 2011).
5.2.6.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHGs include water vapor, CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, ground‐level O
3
, and fluorinated gases such as
chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere and
regulate the Earth’s temperature. Global climate change is a transformation in the average weather of the
Earth, which is measured by changes in temperature, wind patterns, and precipitation. Scientific
consensus has identified human‐related emission of GHGs above natural levels as a significant
contributor to global climate change (NCADAC 2013).
GHG emissions for carbon dioxide (CO
2
), methane (CH
4
) and nitrous oxide (N
2
O) were calculated for this
project. As shown in Table 5.2.1‐2, the Project would decrease emissions as a result of decreased
automobile VMT. CO
2
emissions are calculated to decrease by 19,617 tons/year in 2019 and
31,477 tons/year in 2030. CH
4
emissions would decrease by 4.7 and 5.7 tons/year, respectively, and N
2
O
emissions by 5 and 6.1 tons/year in 2019 and 2030.
5.2.6.4 Climate Change Vulnerabilities and Adaptation
Tables 5.2.6‐1 and 5.2.6‐2 display sea level rise projections for Southeast Florida, with the year 2010 as a
baseline. Using the USACE methodology and as described above, by 2030 a rise of 3 to 7 inches is
anticipated and by 2060 a rise of 9 to 24 inches is anticipated. A rise of 1 foot is predicted between 2040
and 2070 and 2 feet between 2060 and 2115. The rate of sea level rise is expected to increase each decade.
Sea level rise projections should be reviewed as the scientific understanding of climate change grows.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-74 September 2014


Table 5.2.6-1 Projected Total Sea Level Rise and Sea Level Rise Acceleration
Time Range Decadal Rate of Rise

Projected Rise
(inches)
Historic
(inches/decade)
Projected Rate of Sea
Level Rise
(inches/decade)
0.82-0.94
2010-2020 1.5-3.0 1.4-3.2
2020-2030 3.0-7.0 1.6-4.0
2030-2040 5.0-12.0 1.8-4.8
2040-2050 7.0-17.5 2.0-5.6
2050-2060 9.0-24.0 2.2-6.3
Source: Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. 2011. A Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida.
http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/pdf/Sea%20Level%20Rise.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2014

Table 5.2.6-2 Estimated Timeframes for Sea Level Rise in Southeast Florida
Projected Sea Level Rise Estimated Time Occurrence
1 foot 2040-2070
2 feet 2060-2115
3 feet 2078-2150
Source: Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. 2011. A Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida.
http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/pdf/Sea%20Level%20Rise.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2014

The N‐S Corridor and WPB‐M Corridor were assessed for vulnerability, as these corridors are along the
coast and cross several coastal water bodies. Climate change effects for the MCO Segment and
E‐W Corridor are anticipated to be minimal for the 2030 and 2060 planning horizons as these segments
of the Project are at higher elevations and further from the coast. Track and bridge heights are assessed
given current sea level and projected sea level.
Track and bridge elevations average from 15 to 18 feet (NAVD88). The current 100‐year flood elevation
averages 5.0 to 5.6 feet (NAVD88) and the mean high water level averages 0.0 feet (+ 0.3 feet).
Two bridges were chosen as a representative sample to assess vulnerability: Horse Creek in the
N‐S Corridor and Arch Creek in the WPB‐M Corridor. Both of these bridges would be reconstructed as
part of the Project.
Table 5.2.6‐3 shows current and projected bridge conditions at Horse Creek and Arch Creek under the
highest sea level rise projection for 2030 and 2060, respectively.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-75 September 2014

Table 5.2.6-3 Current and Projected Future Bridge Conditions (Horse Creek and Arch Creek)
2013
2030
(7-inch sea level
rise)
2060 (24 inch sea
level rise)
Horse Creek Bridge
Top-of-bridge elevation 16.8 feet
Bottom cord 12.2 feet
100-year flood level 8.1 feet 8.8 10.1
Mean high water level -0.58 feet 0 2.0
Arch Creek Bridge
Top-of-bridge elevation 12.75 feet
Bottom cord 6.0 feet
100-year flood level 5.4 feet 6.0 7.4
Mean high water level 0.28 feet 1.7 2.28
Source: AAF. 2013d. General Plans and Elevations for the Horse Creek and Arch Creek Bridges. Transystems Corporation.

Bridge structures will have increased vulnerability over time; potential infrastructure damage may result
from flooding, tidal damage, and/or storms. More frequent and severe flooding is predicted and it is
possible that the 100‐year floodplain could increase in lateral extent. Bridges with a lower elevation, such
as Arch Creek, will have increased vulnerability by the 2030 time frame during storm and flood events.
Based on the 2030 projection, the 100‐year flood level will rise to meet the bottom chord of the bridge; at
high tide the water level may surpass the bottom chord (Table 5.2.6‐3). This vulnerability will increase as
sea level rises. As a result, there may be increasing periods of time where the train is out of service during
storm events.
5.3 Natural Environment
This section describes the potential impacts of the Project on the natural resources within the Project
Study Area, including water resources, wild and scenic rivers, wetlands, floodplains, biological resources
and natural ecological systems, and threatened and endangered species. For each alternative, the analysis
includes the impacts of the Project in the WPB‐M Corridor, based on information provided in Section 3.0
of the 2012 EA and the impacts of new Project elements in that corridor that were not evaluated in the
2012 EA.
5.3.1 Water Resources
Water resources analyzed for the Project include surface water and groundwater. This section also
provides the analysis of proposed navigational conditions. The Project would have negligible impacts on
surface or groundwater resources.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-76 September 2014

5.3.1.1 Methodology
Impacts to surface and groundwater resources were evaluated by overlaying the Project footprint on GIS
mapping of water resources, and assessing the potential impacts to water quality based on changes to the
quality and quantity of stormwater runoff.
5.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed or operated. The Project Area
would remain the same as it exists today with no development or construction changes relevant to the
Project, and no adverse impacts to water resources would occur.
Alternative A
Direct effects to water resources within each segment of Alternative A are discussed below with respect
to impacts on surface waters and water quality, outstanding Florida waters (OFWs), groundwater, sole
source aquifers (SSAs), wellfield protection, and drinking water safety. Alternative A would result in
minor impacts to surface and groundwater resources through construction of 21 new and
10 replacement bridges over waterways, of which six would cross OFWs. This alternative would convert
161 acres of vegetated pervious areas to railroad, and 139 acres of new impervious surfaces (buildings,
parking lot, roads) would be constructed. These facilities would be designed with appropriate BMPs so
as to not substantially increase the volume of runoff. BMPs would also mitigate for potential impacts to
water quality and water quantity. Alternative A, in the western section, would cross the Biscayne Bay SSA
streamflow and recharge source zones. AAF will implement BMPs to protect discharge water quality and
ensure that freshwater recharge to the SSA was maintained.
Table 5.3.1‐1 summarizes the surface waters impacted by Alternative A as described in the following
paragraphs.

Table 5.3.1-1 Surface Water Impacts, Alternative A
Segment
New
Bridges Replaced or Reconstructed Bridges Outstanding Florida Waters
MCO Segment 1 0 0
E-W Corridor 5 0 2
(Econolockhatchee River,
St. Johns River)
N-S Corridor 0 18 3
(Goat Creek,
Loxahatchee River,
St. Lucie River)
WPB-M Corridor 0 7 1
(Oleta River)
Total 6 25 6

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


Environmental Consequences 5-77 September 2014

MCO Segment
The MCO Segment, including the VMF, would increase impervious area and one new bridge would be
required over a surface water body. No construction would occur within or in the vicinity of designated
OFWs or navigable waters.
Direct permanent impacts to surface waters would be limited to installing concrete pilings and abutments
within surface waters during bridge construction at Boggy Creek. This alternative would change
approximately 20 acres of pervious surface area and 30 acres of impervious surfaces to railroad ballasted
railbed along the MCO Segment. The VMF would convert approximately 75 acres of pervious surface area
to impervious surface area (buildings, parking lots, and roads) and ballasted railbed. Converting 75 acres
of pervious surface area to impervious would alter groundwater recharge and change surface drainage
patterns.
Portions of the MCO Segment traverse areas of the airport facilities with a constructed stormwater
management system consisting primarily of wet detention ponds. A new wet detention pond is proposed
to treat stormwater runoff from the VMF. A required road would require filling an existing detention pond
and another pond would be expanded to accommodate the displaced treatment volume. Drainage swales
would be used to treat runoff from the rail areas. All stormwater facilities on airport property will comply
with FAA regulations (40 CFR part 60).
The MCO Segment and VMF would increase impervious surfaces; however, this would not result in a
substantial impact to groundwater recharge over the length of the corridor or within localized areas of
increased impervious surfaces. Therefore, only minor impacts to groundwater would occur.
The MCO Segment and VMF would overlap a SSA protection zone in Orange County. Proposed
construction would increase impervious surfaces in the Biscayne Aquifer SSA streamflow and recharge
source zones. Water quality and quantity BMPs for the additional impervious surface area in the form of
stormwater treatment would be required as part of the ERP process and would provide a form of
recharge. Therefore, impacts to SSAs would be minor.
The MCO Segment and VMF are not located within a wellfield protection zone or source water assessment
and protection program (SWAPP) zone. Orange County does not have a wellfield protection ordinance;
however, they follow FDEP regulations (Mercado 2013). The Project would comply with all FDEP and
local ordinances; therefore, no adverse impact to drinking water resources would occur.
East-West Corridor
Direct permanent impacts associated with the E‐W Corridor would include installing concrete pilings and
abutments within surface waters during bridge construction and converting approximately 72 acres of
vegetated pervious surface area to ballasted railbed.
Stormwater runoff would be designed primarily to flow to the SR 528 drainage ditch. This may require
expanding the capacity of the ditch/swale to accommodate the additional runoff volume from the Project.
West of SR 417 the Project would require realigning a drainage canal and constructing a wet detention
pond at the south‐west corner of Narcoossee Road. A new wet detention pond would also be constructed
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-78 September 2014

to treat stormwater runoff at the SR 528/SR 407 interchange, with three new ponds constructed at the
I‐95/SR 528 interchange.
Alternative A would cross two OFWs, the Econlockhatchee River and the St. Johns River, on new bridges.
Stormwater treatment BMPs would be installed to accommodate any increases in runoff associated with
the Project.
Orange County has designated a portion of the Econlockhatchee River and its tributaries as the
Econlockhatchee River Corridor Protection Zone. According to Chapter 15, Article VIII, Section 15‐825 of
the Orange County Code of Ordinance, in processing development applications, there shall be no
additional crossing by road, rail or utility corridors of the Econlockhatchee River Corridor Protection
Zone unless the following conditions are met:
1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the crossing;
2) All possible measures to minimize harm to the resources of the basin will be implemented;
3) The crossing supports an activity that is clearly in the public interest as determined by the board;
and
4) The wildlife crossing is adequately sized to maintain wildlife movement.
Orange County development permits would be required as part of the permitting process. Orange County
review of the Project would ensure impacts to the Econlockhatchee River Corridor Protection Zone are
kept to a minimum and meet the code.
Converting vegetated areas to ballasted railbed would not result in a substantial impact to groundwater
recharge over the length of the corridor or within localized areas. Therefore, only minor impacts to
groundwater recharge or quality would occur.
The westernmost 20 miles of the E‐W Corridor would overlap a SSA protection zone in Orange County.
The proposed construction would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces in the Biscayne Aquifer
SSA streamflow and recharge source zones. Water quality mitigation would be addressed as part of the
ERP process. FDEP would oversee the ERP permitting process with the St. Johns River Water
Management District (SJRWMD) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD); the ERP
requirements protect the discharge water quality, which in turn avoids and minimizes potential effects
to the SSA. Therefore, impacts to SSAs would be minor.
Alternative A crosses several wellfield protection zones or SWAPP zones in Brevard County, which have
wellfield protection ordinances to protect drinking water supplies from contamination. Wellfield
protection criteria are found in Chapter 62, Article X, Division 2, and Section 62‐3631 of the Brevard
County Natural Resource Ordinances. Orange County does not have a wellfield protection ordinance;
however, they follow FDEP regulations. In these counties, the transportation of any regulated substances
through the wellfield protection zones is exempt from the provisions of the county/state ordinances,
provided that the transporting vehicle is in continuous transit. No adverse impact to wellfield resources
would occur.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-79 September 2014

North‐South Corridor
The N‐S Corridor follows the FECR Corridor. The Project would include improvements to the existing
mainline and reconstruction of the second tracks on the existing track beds. Constructing the Project in
the N‐S Corridor would not create new impervious surface. As described for the WPB‐M Corridor in
Section 3.1.2 of the 2012 EA, the proposed mainline improvements will not increase the existing
impervious surface area or alter the existing drainage system because the Project will utilize an existing
rail corridor. The original construction of the corridor included two rail lines. The majority of the original
second line was previously removed, but the track bed remains. The Project would include reconstruction
of the second line on the existing track bed. Reconstructing the second rail line within the existing roadbed
would not create new impervious area. Adjacent surface drainage would also not be impacted with the
reconstruction of the second line. Existing cross drainage facilities on the adjacent roadways span the
entire right‐of‐way width and would not require modification to account for the installation of the rail
line on existing roadbed.
Water quality and quantity concerns associated with reconstructing the railbed to add a second track will
be addressed as part of the Florida Environmental Resource Permit process. Drainage would be
accommodated using an existing channel along the north or south side of the right‐of‐way. In some cases,
this would require relocating existing drainage channels. With the implementation of BMP measures
determined by and in compliance with permit requirements, the Project would result in negligible impacts
to water quality within and in the vicinity of the N‐S Corridor. No construction would occur that would
potentially contact or impact groundwater supply. Constructing the rail in this corridor would not result in
a substantial impact to groundwater recharge and only minor impacts to groundwater would occur.
Surface water resources would experience minor direct effects as a result reconstructing or replacing
18 bridges (Table 5.3.1‐1). Figures depicting the bridge crossing locations are provided in Appendix 5.3.1‐A.
Direct permanent impacts would include installing concrete pilings and abutments within surface waters.
No permanent adverse impacts to surface water quality would be caused by the bridges.
The N‐S Corridor would pass over two OFWs: Goat Creek and the Loxahatchee River (Table 5.3.1‐1). The
Loxahatchee River Bridge would be rehabilitated as part of the Project. The existing FECR rail bridge over
Goat Creek would be removed and replaced with a double‐track railroad bridge. These actions would
have no adverse impact on the OFWs.
The N‐S Corridor would overlap an SSA protection area within Palm Beach County along the eastern
border of the aquifer protection area. The proposed improvements would not increase impervious
surfaces in the Biscayne Aquifer SSA streamflow and recharge source zones. Stormwater treatment
would be required as part of the ERP process. No adverse impacts to SSAs would occur.
The N‐S Corridor passes through several wellfield protection zones or SWAPP zones in the following
counties: Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach. Each of these counties has policies and
regulations, in the form of wellfield protection ordinances, to protect drinking water supplies from
contamination, as described above. The Project would comply with all local ordinances for protection of
the wellfields, therefore, no impact to wellfield resources would occur.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-80 September 2014

Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor
According to Section 3.1.2 of the 2012 EA, the proposed mainline improvements will not increase the
existing impervious surface area or alter the existing drainage system because the project will utilize an
existing rail corridor. The original construction of the corridor included two rail lines. The majority of the
original second line was previously removed, but the track bed remains. The Project would include
reconstruction of the second line on the existing track bed. Reconstructing the second rail line within the
existing roadbed would not create new impervious area. Adjacent surface drainage would also not be
impacted with the reconstruction of the second line. Existing cross drainage facilities on the adjacent
roadways span the entire right‐of‐way width and would not require modification to account for the
installation of the rail line on existing roadbed.
Improvements associated with the proposed stations in Miami and West Palm Beach would include
minor changes to impervious surface areas for the station buildings, parking facilities, and platforms. No,
or minimal, upgrades to existing off‐site municipal drainage systems (conveyance structures) would
result from the proposed stations; there will be little change in the pre‐ versus post‐runoff condition in
these cases.
The WPB‐M Corridor and stations are over the sole source Biscayne Aquifer. Minor mainline
modifications are required to accommodate the increase in train speeds and the replacement of the
second rail on existing base material. The proposed improvements would not change the existing runoff
points of discharge; they would also not significantly increase the existing amount of impervious area or
the pollutant loading of the runoff. SFWMD ERP requirements protect the discharge water quality, which
in turn avoids impacts. None of the project elements considered in the 2012 EA would impact sole source
aquifers (Section 3.1.2.2).
The FECR Corridor within Broward and Palm Beach Counties travels through several wellfield protection
zones; however, none of the proposed stations are within any wellfield protection zones. The Project
would comply with all local ordinances for protection of the wellfields, including those noted above. None
of the project elements considered in the 2012 EA would impact wellfield resources (Section 3.1.2.3).
As part of Phase II, new construction is proposed at four bridges within the WPB‐M Corridor, and an
additional three bridges would be reconstructed. This would consist of replacing the existing bridges with
two new single‐track rail bridges, or adding a new single‐track bridge parallel to the existing bridge. The
impacts of these bridge replacements were not evaluated in the 2012 EA because they are part of Phase II.
Alternative C
Impacts to surface and groundwater resources associated with Alternative C would be identical to
Alternative A, except within the E‐W Corridor. The direct effects to surface waters for Alternative C are
the same acreage as Alternative A, but will occur slightly to the south. Constructing the rail in the
E‐W Corridor for Alternative C would change approximately 93 acres of vegetated pervious surface area
to ballasted railroad bed (Appendix 5.3.1‐A). Stormwater from the proposed rail line would drain to its
own, new stormwater management system and would not comingle with SR 528 drainage.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-81 September 2014

Alternative E
Impacts to surface and groundwater resources associated with Alternative E would be identical to
Alternative A, except within the E‐W Corridor. The direct effects to surface waters in the E‐W Corridor for
Alternative E are the same acreage (3 acres) as Alternative A, but will occur farther to the south.
Constructing the rail in the E‐W Corridor for Alternative E would change approximately 93 acres of
vegetated pervious surface area to ballasted railroad bed (Appendix 5.3.1‐A). Stormwater from the
proposed rail line would drain to its own, new stormwater management system (it would not comingle
with SR 528 drainage) and some existing stormwater ponds would need to be relocated.
5.3.1.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
As discussed in Section 5.1.1, Land Use, the Project is not anticipated to result in induced growth or
development other than as described in the EA in the vicinity of stations, and therefore would not have
indirect effects on water quality.
5.3.1.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Construction could potentially have localized site‐specific temporary impacts on hydrology and water
quality on surface waters that would be crossed by bridges or that are adjacent to the railroad. Substantial
quantities of suspended solids can be released as a result of construction activities, when large areas of
exposed soil may be present. AAF will develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during
final design that will identify BMPs that would be used to protect receiving waters from sediment
discharges or spills during the construction period. AAF would use all appropriate BMPs to construct new
bridge pilings in surface waters, including sediment control structures, turbidity curtains, silt booms, and
silt fence.
5.3.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers
The closest Wild and Scenic River designated segment is on the Loxahatchee River approximately
four river miles upstream from the N‐S Corridor in Palm Beach County. The Project would not impact
Wild and Scenic Rivers. The railroad would not be located in or visible from a Wild and Scenic River
segment.
5.3.3 Wetlands
The Project would result in impacts to the aquatic environment. The CWA defines “aquatic environment”
and “aquatic ecosystem” as waters of the United States, including wetlands that serve as habitat for
interrelated and interacting communities and populations of plants and animals. Alternative A would
result in 128 acres of direct impacts to aquatic resources (wetlands and surface waters). Alternative C
would directly affect 165 acres of aquatic resources (wetlands and surface waters), and Alternative E
would directly affect 157 acres of aquatic resources (wetlands and surface waters)
Wetlands within the Project Study Area are protected under state and federal regulatory programs.
Within the State of Florida, activities conducted in wetlands are regulated by Part IV, Chapter 373, FS.
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-82 September 2014

the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. EO 11990 also protects wetlands by directing federal
agencies to avoid new construction in wetlands where there is a practicable alternative.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 CFR 320‐332) regulates discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. The CWA requires compliance
with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. Part 230, developed jointly by the EPA and USACE. CWA
compliance requires a sequential evaluation process which includes verification all jurisdictional wetland
impacts have been avoided to the greatest extent practicable, unavoidable impacts have been minimized
to the greatest extent practicable, and unavoidable impacts have been mitigated in the form of wetlands
creation, restoration, enhancement or preservation. AAF has not yet submitted its application for Section
404 authorization to USACE. USACE will complete its Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines analysis and public
interest review in its record of decision following publication of the Final EIS.

This section discusses wetland impacts relative to the alternatives for the Project. These direct and
indirect impacts are discussed along with potential mitigation efforts and how they relate to the state and
federal regulatory process.
The types of direct impacts and the indirect impacts to wetlands that may result from the Project include:
 Discharging fill material into wetlands (loss of) – reduction in wetland size, fragmentation and
edge effects, introduction of human activity (noise, disturbance) to wetland, change in
hydrology, vegetation, or habitat;
 Change in hydrology, fragmentation, introduction of disturbed non‐wetland conditions,
creation of new “edge” conditions, interruption of migratory routes, alteration of water levels
or flow patterns;
 Installing a new culvert or changing existing culvert – alteration water levels or flow patterns;
 Removing canopy or other vegetation – change of light regimes, water temperature, or plan
community structure; and
 New discharges of stormwater – alteration of water levels or flow patterns, or introduction of
sediments or nutrients.
5.3.3.1 Methodology
Direct wetland impacts within the MCO Segment and the E‐W Corridor Alternatives A, C, and E were
calculated as the area of wetland within a 100‐foot wide corridor, 50 feet on each side of the planned
railroad center line for each alternative alignment. This approximates the footprint of the constructed
railroad corridor including the tracks, access road, and stormwater management system. This analysis
assumes that wetlands identified within the 100‐foot corridor and footprint of the VMF would be filled
for the Project.
Direct wetland impacts for the N‐S Corridor were estimated based on the proposed limit of work overlain
on the field delineation of wetlands in areas where the footprint of the existing railroad corridor would
change due to third track addition, curve reduction, or bridge improvement. The USACE has not
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-83 September 2014

completed a preliminary jurisdictional determination of the N‐S Corridor. Indirect effects to wetlands and
other waters include the following impacts that could be caused by the placement of fill within the
wetlands, but occur at a different location or time:
 Changes in wetland functions; or
 Changes in wetland physical/biological characteristics as a result of the direct effects (loss of
wetland).
Indirect effects to wetlands were assessed for wetlands within 100 feet of the assumed 100‐foot wide
railroad corridor and within 500 feet of the proposed VMF footprint. Wetlands were identified utilizing
land use data categorized according to FLUCCS (FDOT 1999). The assessment was based on the functions
and values each wetland provides and the type and extent of the direct wetland impacts and work
adjacent to the wetland which is the cause of the secondary effect.
5.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences
Direct effects are defined as those “which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place”
(CEQ 2005a). Direct effects may include the discharge of dredge or fill material into aquatic resources,
removal of vegetation, alteration of hydrology, and pollutant discharge.
No-Action Alternative
In the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed or operated. As a result no wetland
loss would occur.
Alternative A
Alternative A would result in the loss of approximately 128 acres of aquatic resources, including 17 acres
of surface waters and 111 acres of wetlands of which 70 acres are forested and 41 acres are non‐forested.
Table 5.3.3‐1 provides acreages of direct effects to wetlands and surface waters for the MCO Segment, E‐
W Corridor, N‐S Corridor, and WPB‐M Corridor under Alternative A, as described in detail in the following
paragraphs. Effects of the Project on wildlife and important wildlife habitats are described in Section 5.3.5.
MCO Segment
The MCO Segment would directly affect approximately 43 acres of aquatic resources including canals,
marshy lake, reservoirs, mixed wetland hardwoods, cypress, wetland forested mixed, and freshwater
marsh. Stormwater management ponds comprise the majority of wetlands affected by the Project.
The wetlands located within the footprint of the VMF provide moderate quality wetland wildlife habitat.
Wetlands within the MCO Segment have sustained limited disturbance and provide moderate quality
wildlife habitat for those species tolerant of the airplane noise. Much of the wetland habitat present along
the MCO Segment has been affected by either airport development activities or tree harvesting that has
occurred near the south end of the GOAA property. Wetlands from which trees have been harvested
provide some low to moderate wildlife habitat while the wetland remnants and stormwater ponds within
the airport itself provide minimal resources for wildlife utilization.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-84 September 2014

The loss of wetlands associated with the MCO Segment and VMF has been partially approved by the
USACE under a prior permit issued to GOAA (USACE 1996).

Table 5.3.3-1 Alternative A - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres)
FLUCCS Description
MCO
Segment
E-W
Corridor
N-S
Corridor
WPB-M
Corridor Total
510 Streams and Waterways 0.5 3.2 1.6 <0.1 7.5
525 Marshy Lake 0.5 0 0 0 0.5
530 Reservoirs 1.4 7.3 0 0 8.7
610-612 Wetland Hardwood Forest 0 0 0.3 <0.1 0.4
617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 24.0 10.1 0 0 34.1
618 Willow and Elderberry 0 1.2 0 0 1.2
621 Cypress 6.9 3.9 0 0 10.8
625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 0 2.4 0 0 2.4
630 Wetland Forested Mixed 5.6 18.7 0 0 24.3
640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1
641 Freshwater Marsh 4.5 7.0 0 0 12.5
643 Wet Prairie 0 4.8 0 0 4.8
646 Treeless Hydric Savannah 0 23.5 0 0 23.5
Total Direct Effects (loss) 43.4 82.1 2.0 0.1 127.7
Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog.
http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD -
GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013.

East-West Corridor
Alternative A would directly affect approximately 82 acres of wetlands, including streams and waterways,
reservoirs, mixed wetland hardwoods, willow and elderberry, cypress, hydric pine flatwoods, wetland
forested mixed, freshwater marsh, wet prairie, and treeless hydric savannah. Table 5.3.3‐1 provides
acreages of direct effects to wetlands and aquatic habitats based upon the assumed 100‐foot wide
railroad corridor.
Direct wetland impacts would include wetlands within the St. Johns River 100‐year floodplain and the
floodplain of the Econlockhatchee River, an OFW. The FNAI and FWC prioritized wetland habitats
throughout the state for conservation. Geographical Information System (GIS) data indicate several
wetlands within the E‐W Corridor that the FNAI and FWC ranked as the highest priority for conservation.
These wetlands include several large, contiguous cypress strands east of SR 417 and the contiguous
system of hydric pine flatwoods and mixed forested wetlands associated with the St. Johns River
floodplain (FNAI 2011). Wet prairies and hydric pine flatwoods are often considered valuable wetlands
due to the high degree of wildlife utilization of these habitats. Due to their narrow hydroperiods, it is also
somewhat difficult to establish the required hydrologic regimes for these wetlands in mitigation sites.
The proposed communications towers would be sited in uplands, and would not increase impacts to
wetlands.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-85 September 2014

North-South Corridor
Direct wetland and aquatic habitat losses within the N‐S Corridor would total approximately 2.0 acres
due to bridge construction. These include streams and waterways, wetland hardwood forest, mangrove
swamps and treeless hydric savannah. Table 5.3.3‐1 provides acreages of direct effects to wetlands based
upon the anticipated construction activities. Wetland wildlife habitat would experience minor impacts
due to bridge reconstruction.
Phase 1 - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor
Bridge construction and reconstruction in the WPB‐M Corridor would impact surface waters as a result
of installing new concrete pilings, and would impact mangrove wetlands within the footprint of the new
or widened bridge. The total wetland loss would be approximately 0.1 acres, as shown in Table 5.3.3‐1.
Phase I (West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor) as evaluated in the 2012 EA would not affect surface waters.
Alternative C
Alternative C would result in the loss of approximately 165 acres of aquatic resources, including 7 acres
of surface waters/aquatic habitat and 159 acres of wetlands, of which 98 acres are forested and 60 acres
are non‐forested. Table 5.3.3‐2 provides acreages of direct effects to wetlands and surface waters for the
MCO Segment, E‐W Corridor, N‐S Corridor, and WPB‐M Corridor under Alternative C.

Table 5.3.3-2 Alternative C - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres)
FLUCCS

Description
MCO
Segment
E-W
Corridor
N-S
Corridor
WPB-M
Corridor Total
510 Streams and Waterways 0.5 1.4 1.6 <0.1 3.6
525 Marshy Lake 0.5 0 0 0 0.5
530 Reservoirs 1.4 1.0 0 0 2.4
610-612 Wetland Hardwood Forest 0 0 0.3 <0.1 0.4
617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 24.0 15.1 0 0 39.1
618 Willow and Elderberry 0 1.8 0 0 1.8
621 Cypress 6.9 20.3 0 0 27.2
625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 0 2.8 0 0 2.8
630 Wetland Forested Mixed 5.6 21.3 0 0 26.9
640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1
641 Freshwater Marsh 4.5 11.6 0 0 16.1
643 Wet Prairie 0 11.0 0 0 11.0
646 Treeless Hydric Savannah 0 33.1 0 0 33.1
Total Direct Effects 43.4 119.4 2.0 0.1 164.9
Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog.
http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD -
GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-86 September 2014

Alternative C would have the same effects as Alternative A within the MCO Segment and the N‐S Corridor.
Within the E‐W Corridor, Alternative C would result in the loss of approximately 119 acres of streams and
waterways, reservoirs, mixed wetland hardwoods, willow and elderberry, cypress, hydric pine flatwoods,
wetland forested mixed, freshwater marsh, wet prairie, and treeless hydric savannah.
Direct effects to aquatic resources would include larger portions of undisturbed area within the St. Johns
River 100‐year floodplain and the floodplain of the Econlockhatchee River. Alternative C would impact a
higher acreage of wet prairies, hydric pine flatwoods, and areas ranked by FNAI and FWC as the highest
priority for conservation, than would Alternative A.
Alternative E
Table 5.3.3‐3 provides acreages of direct effects to aquatic resources for the MCO Segment, E‐W Corridor,
N‐S Corridor, and WPB‐M Corridor under Alternative E. Alternative E would result in the loss of
approximately 157 acres of aquatic resources, including 6 acres of surface waters/aquatic habitat and
152 acres of wetlands, of which 100 acres are forested and 53 acres are non‐forested.
Alternative E would have the same effects as Alternative A within the MCO Segment and the N‐S Corridor.
Within the E‐W Corridor, Alternative E would result in the loss of approximately 112 acres of aquatic
resources, including streams and waterways, reservoirs, mixed wetland hardwoods, willow and
elderberry, cypress, hydric pine flatwoods, wetland forested mixed, freshwater marsh, wet prairie, and
treeless hydric savannah.
Wetlands impacted by Alternative E would include larger portions of undisturbed area within the
St. Johns River 100‐year floodplain and the floodplain of the Econlockhatchee River although the total
acreage of aquatic resource effects would be comparable to those which would occur with Alternative C.
Alternative E would result in the loss of less area of wet prairies and greater acreage of hydric pine
flatwoods, and a larger acreage of wetlands ranked by FNAI and FWC as highest priority for conservation,
than would Alternatives A or C.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-87 September 2014

Table 5.3.3-3 Alternative E - Direct Aquatic Resource Effects (acres)
FLUCCS Description
MCO
Segment
E-W
Corridor
N-S
Corridor
WPB-M
Corridor Total
510 Streams and Waterways 0.5 1.4 1.6 <0.1 3.6
525 Marshy Lake 0.5 0 0 0 0.5
530 Reservoirs 1.4 0.3 0 0 1.7
610-612 Wetland Hardwood Forest 0 0 0.3 <0.1 0.4
617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 24.0 13.4 0 0 37.4
618 Willow and Elderberry 0 1.5 0 0 1.5
621 Cypress 6.9 18.0 0 0 24.9
625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 0 6.7 0 0 6.7
630 Wetland Forested Mixed 5.6 22.6 0 0 28.2
640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1
641 Freshwater Marsh 4.5 9.4 0 0 13.9
643 Wet Prairie 0 7.7 0 0 7.7
646 Treeless Hydric Savannah 0 30.9 0 0 30.9

Total Direct Effects 43.4 111.9 2.0 0.1 157.5
Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog.
http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - GIS
Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013.

Summary of Direct Impacts
Table 5.3.3‐4 provides a comparison of acreages of direct effects to aquatic resources for all alternatives.
No loss of aquatic resources would occur with the No‐Action Alternative. Alternative A would result in
128 acres of direct loss, of which 111 acres would be forested and herbaceous wetlands. Alternative C
would directly affect 165 acres (159 acres of wetlands), and Alternative E would directly affect 158 acres
(152 acres of wetlands). For each alternative, the greatest loss of wetlands would be to the mixed wetland
hardwoods category, followed by treeless hydric savannah and wetland forested mixed wetlands. Losses
of forested wetlands would be the least with Alternative A (70 acres) and Alternative C and Alternative E
would result in an equivalent loss of approximately 100 acres of forested wetland.
Alternative A would result in the lowest acreage of loss of aquatic resources while Alternative C would
result in the highest loss. Direct effects would consist of removing all wetland area through filling with
ballast for the railroad bed, constructing bridges, and installing culverts. Placing ballast within wetland
areas would eliminate most wetland functions and values. New culverts and bridges would have minimal
effects on water storage, flow volume, and wildlife habitat but would result in less adverse impacts than
removing aquatic resources.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-88 September 2014

Table 5.3.3-4 Total Direct Aquatic Resources Effects Resulting from Each Alternative (acres)
FLUCCS Description No-Action A C E
510 Streams and Waterways 0 7.5 3.6 3.6
525 Marshy Lake 0 0.5 0.5 0.5
530 Reservoirs 0 8.7 2.4 1.7
610 Wetland Hardwood Forest 0 0.4 0.4 0.4
617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 0 34.1 39.1 37.4
618 Willow and Elderberry 0 1.2 1.8 1.5
621 Cypress 0 10.8 27.2 24.9
625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 0 2.4 2.8 6.7
630 Wetland Forested Mixed 0 24.3 26.9 28.2
640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetland 0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
641 Freshwater Marsh 0 12.5 16.1 13.9
643 Wet Prairie 0 4.8 11.0 7.7
646 Treeless Hydric Savannah 0 23.5 33.1 30.9
Total Direct Effects 0 127.7 164.9 157.5
Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog.
http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD -
GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013.

Table 5.3.3-5 Total Direct Aquatic Resources Effects Resulting from Each Alternative (acres)
Description No-Action A C E
Surface Waters/Aquatic Habitat 0 16.7 6.5 5.8
Vegetated Wetlands

Forested Wetland 0 70.5 98.2 99.2
Non-forested Wetland 0 40.9 60.3 52.6
Total Vegetated Wetland 0 127.7 164.9 157.5

5.3.3.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that “secondary effects are effects on an aquatic ecosystem that are
associated with a discharge of dredged or fill materials, but do not result from the actual placement of the
dredged or fill material.” (40 CFR part 230.11). Although not specifically addressing impacts to aquatic
resources, the CEQ regulations define indirect effects as “effects, which are caused by the action and are later
in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects many include …
related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (40 CFR part 1508.8).”
Indirect effects are therefore the consequences of the direct effects of a proposed action. For example, while
the direct effect of filling a wetland would be the loss of the filled wetland area and the functions and values
provided by that specific area, the indirect effects of that wetland fill would result from the associated
changes to the overall size of the wetland, hydrology, cover type, species assemblage, or degree of habitat
fragmentation. These types of effects could adversely impact the ability of the wetland to provide functions
and values, or could diminish the functions and values to a degree greater than would be attributed simply
due to the loss of area. Isolated fragments of wetlands or waterways may have reduced habitat value, no
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-89 September 2014

longer provide viable fish or wildlife habitat, or be so isolated that the wetland or waterway fragments are
rendered inaccessible to many fish or other aquatic species.
Secondary and/or indirect effects are changes in the ability of a wetland to provide functions, and do not
affect a wetland uniformly (except for some small wetlands). These functional effects occur as gradients
with the highest intensity occurring closest to the disturbance and decreasing with distance. Each resource
affected may also experience the effects differently (for example, the effects of a canopy gap do not affect all
wildlife species in the same way, or at the same distance). While some researchers have considered an
indirect effect to alter the entire wetland, others have documented that the impacts of highways, or railways,
are not uniformly distributed across a wetland (Forman and Deblinger 2000; Eigenbrod, Hecnor, and Fahrig
2009). For example, impacts on the ability of a wetland to support production export are different in type
and location than impacts on the ability of a wetland to provide sediment/toxicant retention or nutrient
transformation.
There are numerous published studies that document that road construction may adversely impact the
hydrology of wetlands upstream and downstream of a new road, and may adversely impact the movement
of nutrients, sediment, or wildlife between wetlands (Biglin and Dupigny‐Giroux 2006; Fahrig and
Rytwinski 2009; Forman and Deblinger 2000; Van der Ree et al. 2011). For newly constructed roads, these
effects have been documented to extend 200 to 300 meters from the road. Other studies have focused on
the impacts of roads, particularly highways, on wetland‐dependent wildlife and have shown that roads have
adverse impacts on aquatic wildlife populations as a result of loss of habitat, either directly or indirectly, or
as a result of noise, particularly for multi‐lane major highways (Eigenbrod, Hecnor, and Fahrig 2009).
Forman and Deblinger (2000) coined the phrase “Road‐Effect Zone” for the combined area of highway‐
related secondary and/or indirect effects to natural ecosystems, and considered (based on research by
others) that 300 meters was the maximum distance that ecological effects would occur from a highway.
Subsequent studies have shown that highway effects are highly species‐specific and are correlated with the
width of the highway, the volume of traffic, and the night/day traffic distribution (Eigenbrod, Hecnor, and
Fahrig 2009).
Eigenbrod et al. (2009) have shown that the ability of a wetland to provide wildlife habitat functions is
multivariate, and includes size, edge: interior ratio, cover type, connectivity, microhabitat diversity, soil
moisture, and other factors. Their work has shown that the most important variable is wetland size, and
that changes in wetland size in small wetlands has a much greater impact on wildlife species richness than
changes in size in larger wetlands.
Loss of part of a wetland would create a new ecotone at the wetland/fill boundary causing an “edge effect.”
An ecotone is a zone which lies at the boundary between two biomes, or habitats and typically contain
species characteristic of both habitats. Community composition varies due to interspecific competition
which opens these areas to generalist species tolerant of fluctuating conditions and typically consisting of
weedy and invasive exotic species. The introduction of a new edge also reduces biodiversity, which is a
function of the length of the edge of the habitat versus the area of the habitat, within a habitat. A change in
the light regime may cause a shift in the understory community from species requiring shade to species
more tolerant of direct sunlight.
Placing fill within a wetland would result in alterations in hydrology. Because fill reduces the volume of
available storage, water levels within adjacent wetland areas that were not directly affected would increase.
The water level increase is a function of the volume of fill placed in the wetland and the size of the remaining
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-90 September 2014

wetland. Increased water levels may impact wetlands by: shifting the composition of the vegetation
community to species tolerant of deeper water, causing hydrologic stress to trees which are less tolerant of
fluctuations in water level, and providing the opportunity for invasive exotic wetland vegetation to recruit
into areas where the vegetation is reduced by hydrologic stress. The introduction of fill into a wetland would
also cause an alteration in the flow regime/drainage patterns of adjacent wetlands although ballast utilized
for railroad corridors allows some reduced hydrologic connectivity between wetlands. The upstream
impoundment of water caused by reduced flow rates through the ballast may further increase water levels
within remaining wetland fragments.
Minimal alteration of the existing hydrologic regime would occur due to the proposed construction activities
for several reasons. The railroad corridor was constructed over 100 years ago and the hydrology within
adjacent areas has adjusted to the presence of hydrologic barrier formed by the railroad. Proposed wetland
impacts are small in number and size in all areas of the corridor, and effects would occur in separate wetland
systems in different watersheds thus minimizing the collective impact of the Project. The proposed bridge
construction would not require dredging of the associated stream and canal channels and would not alter
the existing flow regimes at any of the bridge locations.
No-Action Alternative
In the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed or operated. As a result no new indirect
wetland impacts would occur. Continued maintenance of wetland vegetation within the SR 528 and
FECR Corridor would alter wetland vegetation and wildlife habitat characteristics, and stormwater runoff
from SR 528 could continue to impact wetland functions.
Alternative A
Alternative A would result in minor secondary and indirect effects to wetlands along the E‐W Corridor,
although these impacts would be minimal due to the proximity to SR 528.
MCO Segment
Constructing the railroad and VMF in the MCO Segment would result in minor impacts to wildlife. Although
the new rail corridor within the MCO Segment, and the new VMF, would introduce barriers to wildlife
movement, fragment habitat, and increase human activity on the site, these activities would be in areas that
have already been developed and are in close proximity to roads, the Orlando wastewater treatment plant,
airport facilities, and parking lots.
East-West Corridor
The E‐W Corridor is characterized by a mixture of disturbed and undisturbed wetland habitats. Many of the
previously disturbed wetland areas are wetland fragments along SR 528 that have previously experienced
indirect effects from the roadway. Alternative A would remove wetland area and stormwater management
ponds and increase the width of the wildlife barrier created by SR 528. Indirect effects to remaining wetland
areas include alterations in wetland hydrology, reduction in habitat size, creation of a new “edge,”
introduction of additional human activity and noise, and alteration of the light regime associated with
removal of canopy.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-91 September 2014

Indirect effects to wetland functions of groundwater recharge, floodflow alteration, sediment and pollutant
retention, and nutrient removal would also occur due to reduction of wetland size and water storage
capacity. The value of wetlands as wildlife habitat varies widely within the SR 528 right‐of‐way. The Project
would reduce the amount of forested wetland habitat, particularly of several cypress wetlands with the
appropriate characteristics to support wood stork and other wading bird rookeries.
North-South Corridor
The N‐S Corridor would have negligible impacts on wetland functions. The existing developed (ballasted)
railroad bed and tracks has a maintained canopy gap and forms a partial barrier to wildlife movement. No
indirect wetland effects are anticipated in areas in which the ballast footprint and right‐of‐way width would
remain the same.
The existing railroad corridor and adjacent development activities previously affected many of the wetlands
that would be impacted by the Project, although several wetlands provide moderate quality wildlife habitat.
Direct effects to forested wetlands would total 2.58 acres and this canopy removal would alter the light
regimes within the forest interior. Bridge construction activities would require trimming mangroves
adjacent to bridges, which would reduce the quality of the existing habitat as well as altering the light regime
within these wetland areas.
Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor
Track, signal, and related infrastructure improvements for Phase I of the Project, according to Section 3.1.5
of the 2012 EA, would not have a significant impact on aquatic resources. The wetlands adjacent to or
abutting the FECR Corridor are limited to sporadic fringe mangrove wetlands, associated in most cases, with
larger wetland systems (waterways). The fringe mangrove wetlands are along the perimeter edge of the
right‐of‐way and no work is proposed in the immediate vicinity of these wetlands. Any intrusion into these
edge wetlands will be avoided or minimized through project design, such as using cross‐sections of
minimum practicable width to fully avoid intrusion.
Mainline modifications to accommodate the increase in train speeds or additional capacity (proposed areas
of double tracking) will occur within the FECR Corridor, predominately on already established trackbed.
There are no planned modifications to wetlands as a result of the bridge rehabilitation as described in
Section 3.1.5 of the 2012 EA. BMPs would be employed during construction to avoid temporary impacts to
the wetland systems. Bridge construction activities would require trimming mangroves adjacent to bridges,
which would reduce the quality of the existing habitat as well as altering the light regime within these
wetland areas. No wetland alteration is required for the three stations or the WPB Rail Yard.
Phase II construction of new or replacement bridges at seven waterways (West Palm Beach Canal, Boynton
Canal, Hillsboro Canal, North Fork Middle River, South Fork Middle River, Oleta River, Arch Creek) would
result in the cumulative loss of approximately 0.1 acre of aquatic resources on the WPB‐M Corridor
(Table 5.3.3‐1) from new pilings and abutments, and would require removing some vegetation beneath the
new structures.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-92 September 2014

Alternative C
Indirect wetland effects of Alternative C would be the same as for Alternative A within the MCO Segment,
the N‐S Corridor, and the WPB‐M Corridor. Within the E‐W Corridor, Alternative C would increase the width
of the wildlife barrier formed by SR 528. Indirect effects to remaining wetland areas would alter wetland
hydrology, reduce habitat size, create new “edge” conditions, introduce additional human activity and noise,
and alter the light regime associated with removal of canopy.
Indirect effects to wetland systems from Alternative C would be similar to indirect effects under
Alternative A although the intensity of the effects would be greater. Alternative C would also bisect a number
of wetlands, creating small wetland fragments between the rail and highway. Hydrologic effects to wetland
fragments remaining between SR 528 and the railroad corridor would occur because hydrologic
connectivity to both the north and the south would be reduced whereas Alternative A would reduce
connectivity to the north only. Alternative C would further reduce the size of cypress wetlands with the
potential to be used as wood stork or wading bird rookeries.
Alternative E
Indirect wetland effects of Alternative E would be the same as for Alternative A within the MCO Segment,
the N‐S Corridor, and the WPB‐M Corridor. Alternative E would fill wetlands within the E‐W Corridor and
create a new barrier to wildlife movement within wetlands and along riparian corridors. Indirect effects to
remaining wetland areas would include altering wetland hydrology, reducing habitat size, creating a new
“edge” condition, introducing additional human activity and noise, and altering the light regime associated
with removal of canopy.
Indirect effects to wetland systems from Alternative E would be similar to indirect effects from Alternative A
and Alternative C, although the intensity of the effects would be greater. Alternative E would also bisect a
number of wetlands, fragmenting wetlands and wildlife habitat. Hydrologic effects to wetland fragments
remaining between SR 528 and the railroad from reduced hydrologic connectivity would be somewhat less
than Alternative C due to the additional wetland area and increased water storage capacity. Alternative E
would further reduce the size of cypress wetlands with the potential for utilization as wood stork or wading
bird rookeries.
5.3.3.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Temporary impacts are those that occur in association with construction related activities and cease
following construction. Constructing the railroad track and associated structures requires excavating
unsuitable material (muck), placing fill or retaining walls, and use of materials such as limerock and
concrete. Demucking is anticipated at most of the wetland sites and would be controlled by Section 120 of
the FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Unsuitable materials would be
disposed of on‐ or off‐site. Debris would be removed in accordance with local and state regulatory agencies
permitting this operation. Temporary erosion control features, as specified in the FDOT’s Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 104, would consist of temporary grassing, sodding,
mulching, sandbagging, slope drains, sediment basins, sediment checks, silt fences, and berms.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-93 September 2014

5.3.4 Floodplains
The Project would result in impacts to floodplains but would not result in a significant adverse impact on
the beneficial values of floodplains, and would not adversely impact any federal flood control project. All
three of the action alternatives under consideration would require construction within the mapped
100‐year floodplain, with effects ranging from approximately 138 to195 acres. These impacts are not
avoidable due to the extent of floodplains throughout the Project Study Area. The E‐W Corridor parallels
SR 528 to maximize the use of existing transportation corridors, and crosses several floodplains, primarily
those associated with the Econolockhatchee River and the St. Johns River. The N‐S Corridor would use the
existing FECR Corridor to maximize the use of existing infrastructure. The FECR Corridor crosses numerous
floodplains, primarily associated with coastal waters and estuaries. The construction design would
minimize potential harm to the floodplain by retaining existing elevations where feasible, constructing
stormwater mitigation measures and retention ponds and minimizing fill in sensitive areas.
This section summarizes the impacts of the Project on floodplains. EO 11988 (Floodplain Management)
requires agencies to assess the impacts that their actions may have on floodplains and to consider
alternatives to avoid adverse impacts and incompatible development on floodplains. U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, contains the USDOT's
implementing procedures to fulfill the requirements of the EO.
5.3.4.1 Methodology
For this analysis, the areas subject to flooding and protected under EO 11988 were obtained using the base
flood elevation published on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) through GIS analysis. Special
Flood Hazard Areas depicted on the FIRMs include Flood Zones A or V, also referred to as the 100‐year
floodplain. The proposed right‐of‐way width was used to calculate floodplain effects along the E‐W Corridor.
The Project construction footprint was used to calculate effects for the MCO Segment and the N‐S Corridor.
Floodplain impacts for the WPB‐M Corridor, provided in Section 3.1.4 of the 2012 EA, are included here for
a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the entire Project.
5.3.4.2 Environmental Consequences
This section describes the direct floodplain effects anticipated as part of the Project. Appendix 5.3.4‐A shows
the areas within floodplains along the Project Study Area that fall within the proposed alignment. As
described below, the Project would impact 138 acres (Alternative A) to 195 acres of floodplains
(Alternatives C and E) from Orlando to West Palm Beach. Reconstructing the existing railroad infrastructure
from West Palm Beach to Miami would require construction within an additional 145 acres of floodplains,
but with no loss of flood storage. This section also considers the effects to federal flood projects. Section 14
of the Rivers and Harbors Act states any proposed modification to an existing USACE project (either
federally or locally maintained) that go beyond those modifications required for normal Operation and
Maintenance require approval under 33 USC 408. 33 USC 408 also states that there shall be no temporary
or permanent alteration, occupation or use of any public works including but not limited to levees, sea walls,
bulkheads, jetties and dikes for any purpose without the permission of the Secretary of the Army. Under the
terms of 33 USC 408, any proposed modification requires a determination by the Secretary of the Army that
such proposed alteration or permanent occupation or use of a Federal project is not injurious to the public
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-94 September 2014

interest and will not impair the usefulness of such work. The authority to make this determination and to
approve modifications to Federal works under 33 USC 408 has been delegated to the Chief of Engineers.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed or operated. The Project Study Area
as it exists today would remain the same with no development or construction changes relevant to the
Project.
Alternative A
Alternative A would impact a total of 138.3 acres within the mapped 100‐year floodplain, as shown in
Table 5.3.4‐1.

Table 5.3.4-1 Floodplains (acres)
County Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E
MCO Segment

Orange County 11 11 11
E-W Corridor

Orange County 28.8 65.9 75.2
Brevard County 29.9 49.8 39.8
N-S Corridor

Brevard County 31.6 31.6 31.6
Indian River County 5.3 5.3 5.3
St Lucie County 5.2 5.2 5.2
Martin County 13.8 13.8 13.8
Palm Beach County 12.7 12.7 12.7
Subtotal 138.3 195.3 194.6
WPB-M Corridor

Palm Beach County 1.3 1.3 1.3
Broward County 121.7 121.7 121.7
Miami-Dade County 22.2 22.2 22.2
Subtotal 145.2 145.2 145.2
Totals 284.0 340.5 339.8

MCO Segment
The MCO Segment and VMF footprint would affect 11.0 acres of 100‐year floodplain. According to AAF,
GOAA has stated that a large portion of the VMF footprint within the floodplain was previously permitted.
Other encroached floodplain areas, primarily those associated with the rail corridor of the MCO Segment,
would be permitted through the SFWMD. AAF would optimize the use of the existing MCO stormwater
management system, and incorporate BMPs to minimize and compensate for floodplain encroachment.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-95 September 2014

East-West Corridor
Alignment Alternative A would affect 58.7 acres of 100‐year floodplains. This alternative would impact the
least amount of floodplain area, as it is primarily within the SR 528 right‐of‐way boundaries. Displaced flood
storage would have minor impacts due to the length of the corridor, the small amount of fill in any single
location, and the large lateral extent of the floodplains. No Federal projects are located within the East‐West
Corridor.
North-South Corridor
The impacted area of 100‐year floodplain within the N‐S Corridor would total 68.6 acres, ranging from
5.2 acres in St. Lucie County to 31.6 acres in Brevard County. Floodplain management for the N‐S Corridor
is not a concern, as the Project would be limited to the existing FECR Corridor, minimizing the any new land
fill required. Flood‐prone areas occurring within the FECR Corridor were filled during the historic
construction of the rail line between Cocoa and West Palm Beach. AAF proposes to improve or replace
existing crossings of eight CS&F projects located in Table 4.3.4‐3. The USACE has turned over all of the CS&F
identified in Table 4.3.4‐3 to the SFWMD for operation and maintenance. Each modified CS&F project will
be independently evaluated by the USACE and documented in the USACE Record of Decision.
Filling would be essentially limited to third track and curve reduction areas. Reductions in flood storage
volume resulting from any nominal amount of placement of fill would be insignificant. The N‐S Corridor is
not anticipated to promote future incompatible floodplain development or increase potential for flood‐
related property damage or human life. Work within the 100‐year floodplain has been minimized to comply
with EO 11988 and the Project would conform to applicable state and local floodplain standards (the Project
would be required to meet local floodplain standards). Therefore, moderate impacts to floodplains would
be anticipated.
The N‐S Corridor crosses several federal flood control watersheds and waterways, including the Earman
River and Taylor Creek. No construction is proposed at Taylor Creek. Adding a new single‐track bridge
parallel to the existing Earman River bridge, with the same hydraulic opening, would not affect flooding.
Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor
Section 3.1.4 of the 2012 EA stated that the reconstruction of railroad infrastructure along this portion of
the Project would require work in 145.2 acres of the mapped 100‐year floodplain in Palm Beach (1.3 acres),
Broward (121.7 acres), and Miami‐Dade (22.2 acres) Counties, but that no work would be performed below
the 100‐year floodplain elevation and that there would be no permanent impact to the 100‐year floodplain.
The Phase I WPB‐M Corridor crosses six federal flood control watersheds and waterways, including the
C1 Canal, the Boynton Beach Canal, and three un‐named waterways. The Miami Canal is south of the
terminus of the Project. New single‐track parallel bridges are proposed at the C1 Canal and Boynton Beach
Canal. These would be built with the same hydraulic opening as the existing bridges and would not affect
flooding.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-96 September 2014

Alternative C
Alternative C would impact a total of 195.3 acres within the 100‐year floodplain. Floodplain impacts for
Alternative C would be identical to Alternative A for the MCO Segment, the N‐S Corridor, and the
WPB‐M Corridor. Within the E‐W Corridor, alignment Alternative C would impact 115.7 acres of 100‐year
floodplain (Table 5.3.4‐1). Displaced flood storage would have minor impacts due to the length of the
corridor, the small amount of fill in any single location, and the large lateral extent of the floodplains.
Alternative E
Alternative E would impact a total of 194.6 acres within the 100‐year floodplain. Floodplain impacts for
Alternative E would be identical to Alternative A for the MCO Segment, the N‐S Corridor, and the
WPB‐M Corridor. Within the E‐W Corridor, alignment Alternative E would impact 115.0 acres of 100‐year
floodplain (Table 5.3.4‐4). Displaced flood storage would have minor impacts due to the length of the
corridor, the small amount of fill in any single location, and the large lateral extent of the floodplains.
5.3.4.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
Secondary effects, such as groundwater contamination of post‐development flood‐prone areas from the
operation of the railway, are expected to be minor as BMPs would be put in place to prevent degradation of
water quality in downstream waters and flood‐prone areas.
5.3.4.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Temporary impacts to floodplains would occur where areas of floodplains would be used for construction
staging, construction access, or other temporary occupancy of floodplains. The Project is not anticipated to
have a temporary adverse impact on floodplains as there are no construction staging or access areas
proposed within areas of mapped floodplains.
5.3.5 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems
This section describes effects of the Project on natural upland habitats; wildlife and wildlife habitats;
preserves, wildlife sanctuaries, and wildlife corridors; essential fish habitat (EFH); and migratory bird
habitats in accordance with the CEQ guidance Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations Into Environmental
Impact Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1993). The Project would have minor
impacts on biological resources and natural ecological systems as a result of the loss of natural vegetation
along the E‐W Corridor, south of SR 528. The Project would not contribute to habitat fragmentation or loss
of important natural systems, and would not have a substantial adverse impact on EFH or migratory bird
habitat. The Project would not impact any wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, or corridors.
5.3.5.1 Methodology
The analysis of direct effects to natural upland habitat was based on the calculation of upland habitat area
within a 100‐foot wide corridor, 50 feet on each side of the railroad center line, which approximates the
footprint of the constructed railroad corridor including the tracks, access road, and stormwater
management system. Upland habitat was identified from land use data categorized according to the FLUCCS
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-97 September 2014

(SFWMD n.d.; SJRWMD 2013a; FDOT 1999). This analysis also included uplands identified within the
footprint of the VMF. Upland habitats identified within the 100‐foot corridor and footprint of the VMF would
be removed when constructing the Project.
The assessment of indirect effects to upland resources and habitats involved identifying potential impacts
of construction of the railroad corridor and operation of the passenger service. Potential impacts are
described qualitatively in terms of the potential source and magnitude of impact on the wildlife population
and biodiversity of the upland habitats adjacent to the proposed railroad corridor.
5.3.5.2 Natural Upland Habitats
This section addresses the environmental impacts of each alternative of the Project with respect to upland
ecological systems and plant communities. Alternative A would cause 93 acres of direct loss of upland
vegetation. Alternative C would directly affect approximately 122 acres of uplands, and Alternative E would
directly affect approximately 109 acres of uplands. For each alternative, the greatest loss of upland habitat
would be to forested plant communities, primarily pine flatwoods and hardwood‐coniferous mixed forest.
No-Action Alternative
In the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed or operated. As a result no impacts to
biological resources would occur except for the loss of cleared and graded land for construction of the MCO
Intermodal Station.
Alternative A
As shown in Table 5.3.5‐1, Alternative A would result in a loss of 93 acres of natural upland habitats, of which
the largest is pine flatwoods (49 acres); there would be no loss of natural upland habitats in the N‐S Corridor
or the WPB‐M Corridor.

Table 5.3.5-1 Alternative A – Effects to Upland Communities (acres)
FLUCCS Description MCO Segment E-W Corridor Total
190 Open Land 0.5 0 0.5
310 Dry Prairie 0 3.9 3.9
320 Shrub and Brushland 0 4.5 4.5
330 Mixed Rangeland 6.1 3.0 9.1
411 Pine Flatwoods 28.0 20.7 48.7
420 Upland Hardwood Forest 2.9 0.1 3
434 Hardwood-Coniferous Mixed 21.0 2.3 23.3

Total Direct Effects 58.5 34.5 93.0
Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog.
http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD -
GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-98 September 2014

MCO Segment
The MCO Segment would result in the loss of 58.5 acres of upland habitats, including open land, mixed
rangeland, pine flatwoods, upland hardwood forest, and hardwood‐coniferous forest. Table 5.3.5‐1
provides acreages of direct effects to upland habitats based upon the assumed 100‐foot wide railroad
corridor and the footprint of the VMF.
FNAI and FWC identified natural habitats that they consider “underrepresented” and of greater
conservation concern in Florida (FNAI 2011). These underrepresented habitats include pine flatwoods,
which are present within the MCO Segment at the south end of the Project Study Area.
The natural ecological systems within the footprint of the VMF have sustained limited disturbance and
provide moderate to high quality wildlife habitat for those species. Much of the upland habitat present
along the proposed railroad corridor has been impacted by either airport development activities or pine
trees harvesting that occurred near the south end of the line. Upland ecosystems from which trees have
been harvested provide some low to moderate wildlife habitat while remnant upland systems within the
airport itself provide minimal resources for wildlife utilization.
East-West Corridor
The E‐W Corridor would result in the loss of 34.5 acres of natural upland communities that include: dry
prairie, shrub and brushland, mixed rangeland, pine flatwoods, upland hardwood forest, and
hardwood‐coniferous mixed. Table 5.3.5‐1 provides acreages of direct effects to uplands based upon the
assumed 100‐foot wide railroad corridor.
Habitats identified by FNAI and FWC as being of greater conservation concern include pine flatwoods and
scrub, or scrubby flatwoods. Pine flatwoods occurs throughout the length of the corridor, and scrubby
flatwoods occur between MCO and the Econlockhatchee River.
Wildlife habitat within the maintained areas of the SR 528 right‐of‐way is limited although some species
will forage within areas that are regularly mowed due to the ease of spotting prey and the high
productivity of maintained grasses.
North-South Corridor
All construction activities proposed for the N‐S Corridor would occur within previously disturbed areas
in the FECR Corridor and would not impact natural communities. Limited wildlife habitat exists within
the N‐S Corridor although field surveys indicate some utilization of disturbed habitats.
Phase I - West Palm Beach – Miami Corridor
As described in Section 3.2.1 of the 2012 EA, there are no sensitive ecological areas in the vicinity of the
proposed stations in the WPB‐M Corridor; therefore, the proposed stations will not impact terrestrial
ecological systems. Terrestrial ecological systems will not be impacted because this alternative only
involves the removal of open maintained areas within the FECR Corridor or adjacent disturbed urban
areas. There is a 10‐ to 20‐foot roadway buffer maintained between the inside of the property fence and
the natural area, where the public lands run parallel to the FECR right‐of‐way. None of the project
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-99 September 2014

elements considered in the 2012 EA would result in significant impacts to existing ecological systems
along the WPB‐M Corridor, including the area in the vicinity of the proposed stations and the area to be
modified within the existing FECR Corridor or facilities.
Alternative C
Under Alternative C wildlife habitat availability and quality within the MCO Segment, the N‐S Corridor,
and the WPB‐M Corridor would be the same as under Alternative A. As shown in Table 5.3.5‐2,
Alternative C would result in the loss of 121.8 acres of natural upland habitat along the E‐W Corridor.

Table 5.3.5-2 Alternative C – Effects to Upland Communities (acres)
FLUCCS Description MCO Segment E-W Corridor Total
190 Open Land 0.5 0 0.5
310 Dry Prairie 0 10.5 10.5
320 Shrub and Brushland 0 10.8 10.8
330 Mixed Rangeland 6.1 4.9 11
411 Pine Flatwoods 28.0 32.7 60.7
420 Upland Hardwood Forest 2.9 0.2 3.1
434 Hardwood-Coniferous Mixed 21.0 4.2 25.2

Total Direct Effects 58.5 63.3 121.8
Source: SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html.
Accessed August 31, 2013.

Direct effects to habitats identified by FNAI and FWC as being of greater conservation concern include a
larger area of pine flatwoods and scrubby flatwoods. Pine flatwoods losses (61 acres) would occur
throughout the length of the E‐W Corridor, and scrubby flatwoods losses between the Econlockhatchee
River and MCO.
Natural upland ecosystems affected by Alternative C provide higher quality wildlife habitat than the areas
affected by Alternative A because these are in more undisturbed areas outside the SR 528 right‐of‐way.
Maintained areas of the right‐of‐way represent a smaller proportion of the area affected by Alternative C.
Alternative E
As shown in Table 5.3.5‐3, Alternative E would result in the loss of approximately 109 acres of natural
upland habitat along the E‐W Corridor.
Direct effects to habitats identified by FNAI and FWC as being of greater conservation concern include a
lower acreage of pine flatwoods and scrubby flatwoods. Pine flatwoods losses (54 acres) would occur
throughout the length of the E‐W Corridor, and scrubby flatwoods between the MCO and the
Econlockhatchee River.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-100 September 2014

Table 5.3.5-3 Alternative E – Effects to Upland Communities (acres)
FLUCCS Description MCO Segment E-W Corridor Total
190 Open Land 0.5 0 0.5
310 Dry Prairie 0 9.7 9.7
320 Shrub and Brushland 0 7.9 7.9
330 Mixed Rangeland 6.1 3.5 9.6
411 Pine Flatwoods 28.0 26.4 54.4
420 Upland Hardwood Forest 2.9 0.1 3
434 Hardwood-Coniferous Mixed 21.0 3.3 24.3

Total Direct Effects 58.5 50.9 109.4
Source: SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD - GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html.
Accessed August 31, 2013.

Summary of Direct Impacts
Table 5.3.5‐4 provides acreages of direct effects to natural upland ecosystems for all alternatives. No
direct upland effects would occur with the No‐Action Alternative. Alternative A would cause 93 acres of
direct loss of upland communities. Alternative C would directly impact approximately 122 acres of
uplands, and Alternative E would directly impact approximately 109 acres of uplands. For each
alternative, the greatest loss of upland habitat would be to forested plant communities, primarily pine
flatwoods and hardwood‐coniferous mixed forest.

Table 5.3.5-4 Total Direct Upland Effects from Each Alternative (acres)
FLUCCS Description No-Action A C E
190 Open Land 0 0.5 0.5 0.5
310 Dry Prairie 0 3.9 10.5 9.7
320 Shrub and Brushland 0 4.5 10.8 7.9
330 Mixed Rangeland 0 9.1 11.0 9.6
411 Pine Flatwoods 0 48.7 60.7 54.4
420 Upland Hardwood Forest 0 3.0 3.1 3.0
434 Hardwood-Coniferous Mixed 0 23.3 25.2 24.3

Total Direct Effects 0 93 121.8 109.4
Source: SFWMD. Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data Catalog.
http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed September 27, 2013; SJRWMD. 2013a. SJRWMD -
GIS Data Download Table. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013.
Indirect and Secondary Impacts
Indirect effects to upland systems may include habitat fragmentation and associated “edge” effects, the
loss of genetic diversity of plant and animal populations, increased competition for resources, and
physical or psychological restrictions on movements caused by some feature within a corridor that
wildlife are unwilling or unable to cross. A railroad may act as a barrier that interferes with the movement
of some mammals, amphibians, birds, and reptiles from one habitat to another. The width of a railroad
corridor can influence the frequency of wildlife crossings, as well as the mortality associated with
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-101 September 2014

potential collisions with rail or vehicular traffic. The rail itself can create a barrier to smaller species such
as amphibians, reptiles, and smaller mammals. Another potential indirect effect is the introduction of non‐
native invasive plant species along the linear corridors of disturbed land.
Under Alternative C and Alternative E, a greater degree of impacts to upland habitats would occur for
upland areas remaining between SR 528 and the railroad. The two alignments would create hydrologic
barriers to the north and south, impounding water between them. The barriers would force the water
between them to flow either east or west to a culvert or bridge location. The impounded water would
cause frequent flooding of the adjacent uplands and may lead to community‐wide shifts from upland to
wetland vegetation, most likely consisting of invasive exotic species, and loss of canopy.
Alteration of Light Regime in Forested Systems
Removal of the forest canopy on the proposed railbed could potentially alter the physical conditions
(light, wind, temperature) in adjacent forested areas. No adverse impacts are anticipated to herbaceous
or shrub‐dominated communities, since there would be no change in the light, wind, or temperature
regimes. The canopy gap for the rail alternatives would vary with the width of the limit of work and
adjacent land uses. In locations along the N‐S Corridor where curve reduction or third track installation
activities would occur, or for the E‐W Corridor alternatives where the proposed railroad corridor will
share the SR 528 right‐of‐way, the canopy gap may only increase slightly. For the E‐W Corridor
Alternatives C and E in locations where the railroad would be located south of the SR 528 right‐of‐way,
the canopy gap would vary from 60 to 100 feet wide. However, since this would be within or adjacent to
SR 528, impacts would be minimal.
Along the E‐W Corridor, new forest edges would predominantly face north, and would result in minor
changes to interior forest microclimate or habitat. Indirect effects caused by removal of forest canopy
would occur in a limited number of areas along the N‐S Corridor. Within the majority of the corridor, the
footprint of the railroad corridor would not change and the “closed edges” defined above have formed
along the edge of the existing alignment.
Introduction of Invasive Species
Construction along any active or inactive rail corridor, or constructing a new rail line, may increase the
width of the canopy gap over the railbed and would likely require removing existing vegetation on the
elevated railbed. This linear gap, extending through natural communities, may allow invasive exotic plant
species to colonize the railbed or adjacent areas.
As per EO 13112, invasive species may be defined as “alien species whose introduction does or is likely
to cause economic or environmental harm.” The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC) defines
invasive exotic plants as “an exotic that not only has naturalized, but is expanding on its own in Florida
native plant communities” (FLEPPC 2011). The FLEPPC distinguishes between two classes of invasive
exotic plant species:
 Category I species that are characterized as “invasive exotics that are altering native plant
communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological
functions, or hybridizing with natives;” and
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-102 September 2014

 Category II species that are characterized as “invasive exotics that have increased in
abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent
shown by Category I species” (FLEPPC 2011).
The FLEPPC does not categorize invasive exotic species based upon the economic severity or geographic
range of the problem, but on the documented ecological damage caused by a species.
There is a wide range of invasive exotic species known to occur in Florida, occurring in many habitats
from ponds and lakes to xeric scrub and sandhills. The primary Category I potential invasive species that
could affect the upland and wetland habitats within and adjacent to the railroad corridor include:
 Casuarina spp., Australian pine;
 Dioscorea alata, winged yam;
 Dioscorea bulbifera, air potato;
 Eichhornia crassipes, Common water‐hyacinth;
 Imperata cylindrica, cogongrass;
 Ludwigia peruviana, Peruvian primrosewillow;
 Lygodium japonicum, Japanese climbing fern;
 Lygodium microphyllum, Old World climbing fern;
 Melaleuca quinquenervia, punktree;
 Paederia foetida, skunkvine;
 Panicum repens, torpedograss;
 Pistia stratiotes, water lettuce; and
 Schinus terebinthifolius, Brazilian pepper.
Vine species such as winged yam, air potato, Japanese climbing fern, Old World climbing fern, and
skunkvine recruit into areas where the forest canopy has been disturbed by either natural or artificial
processes. These vines quickly establish themselves and create a monospecific community covering
everything and climbing the healthy trees at the edge of the clearing. These species have very high growth
rates and will begin to topple trees with the added weight. In some cases the rachis created by the vines
conducts ground fire into the canopy where it spreads from tree to tree destroying large tracts of forest.
Forest edges and openings, whether upland or wetland, may be colonized by invasive species dispersed
by birds that perch in trees at the edge of the boundary. This creates the potential for establishment of
Australian pine, punktree, and Brazilian pepper on or along the edges of the right‐of‐way. The potential
for these species to recruit into disturbed areas is particularly high. These species tends to create an
impenetrable monospecific understory layer within upland and wetland forests which prevent normal
canopy species regeneration eventually leading to complete loss of the forest as the mature trees die.
Australian pine becomes large enough to directly compete, and then outcompete, with the established
forest canopy. Australian pine leaves, which are analogous to pine needles, often form a thick layer on the
forest floor smothering understory species.
Seeds of cogongrass could be carried by wind or wildlife to disturbed areas within the Project Area.
Cogongrass is particularly invasive in disturbed upland soils and is tolerant of the low nutrient and
undeveloped microbial conditions within clean sands utilized as fill in construction projects. Cogongrass
spreads quickly by rhizomes and seeds, may potentially be allelopathic, and is tolerant of mesic to wet
conditions.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-103 September 2014

Peruvian primrosewillow and torpedograss typically occur in wetlands, although they may survive in
mesic uplands. Torpedograss seeds can be carried by seed eating birds or will float from upstream
wetland areas. Peruvian primrose willow has very small sticky seeds which will float or stick to birds and
other wildlife. Water lettuce and common water‐hyacinth typically float on the water surface in aquatic
environments. Seeds are usually spread by water fowl, and aquatic environments with a recently cleared
canopy providing access to water birds and increased direct sunlight are particularly subject to
infestation by these species.
The Project has the potential to increase invasive species occurrences in natural habitats, particularly
along the E‐W Corridor, where new disturbance would occur adjacent to natural communities. However,
this does not represent a significant change, as the existing SR 528 corridor provides opportunities for
the spread of invasive species.
Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Temporary impacts to biological resources and natural ecological systems would occur where
undeveloped areas would be utilized for construction staging or construction access. The impacts on
ecological resources could include clearing of vegetation, soil compaction in staging and traffic areas, dust
generation, erosion, and incidental mortality of wildlife entering the construction zone. In addition to the
temporary loss of wildlife habitat, construction activities may lead to soil compaction which reduces the
permeability of the soil to water absorption and gas exchange increasing surface water run‐off and
erosion. The effects of soil compaction and the removal of vegetation subsequently affect the soil’s
microbial community which requires a commensal relationship with plant species to maintain a balanced
ecosystem. The Project is not likely to impact natural habitats adjacent to the N‐S Corridor because
staging areas are anticipated to be located in existing developed areas such as parking lots and the
majority of supplies and equipment will be brought to the construction site by rail. Temporary impacts
may occur along the E‐W Corridor although the location and extent of those impacts cannot be
determined until the locations of staging areas and access roads are determined.
5.3.5.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
The Project would result in the loss of wetland and upland wildlife habitat, as described in Sections 5.3.2
and 5.3.5.2. These habitat losses would largely occur at the proposed VMF and along the 17‐mile section
of the E‐W Corridor west of SR 520, where the proposed railroad is outside of the existing SR 528 right‐of‐
way. The loss of habitat would not eliminate any habitat patches, but would reduce the size of available
habitat areas slightly although this is not likely to displace wildlife populations. The Project would not
result in the loss of habitat within any of the important wildlife conservation areas listed in Section 4.3.5.2,
nor would it interrupt any existing wildlife corridors. The proposed communications towers described in
Section 3.3.3.6 along the E‐W Corridor would be monopole or lattice‐type poles, less than 100 feet in
height, and would not require guy wires. These towers would be consistent with USFWS guidance on
communications towers (USFWS 2012c), and would not have an adverse effect on wildlife or birds.
Other potential indirect effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats would result from habitat fragmentation
and operational noise, as described below.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-104 September 2014

Habitat Fragmentation
Fragmentation is defined as the subdivision of once large and continuous tracts of habitat into smaller
patches. It results from agriculture, urbanization, and transportation (or other rights‐of‐way) (Rosenfield
et al. 1992). Habitat fragmentation is associated with ‘edge effects’ when there is a disturbed or developed
area created adjacent to a natural and/or forested area. Edge effects may include the spread of invasive
species, increase in the canopy gap, and a decrease in species dependent on undisturbed habitat. In
general, fragmentation of habitat is viewed as detrimental when considering original native, climax
species composition and abundance, natural history, and relative ecological stability of unmanaged plant
and animal populations. In particular, habitat fragmentation increases the amount of edge relative to the
amount of interior habitat (Primack 2008). Scientific experts agree that preservation of continuous forest
blocks is essential to the long‐term protection of biodiversity. Fragmentation of forested tracts has been
cited as a major cause in the decline of bird communities. Fragmentation occurs at several spatial scales,
from local, which includes edge effects, to landscape, which encompasses differences in size and shape of
forest tracts, to regional, where differences in canopy cover are studied to determine the effects on
breeding birds (Robinson 1998). The majority of the available literature has focused on large‐scale
fragmentation that breaks existing forest blocks into disconnected remnants across a landscape by major
roadways, residential subdivisions, and clear cuts.
A railroad corridor may act as a barrier that interferes with the movement of amphibians and reptiles
from one habitat to another. The width of a railroad corridor can influence the frequency of wildlife
crossings, as well as the mortality associated with potential collisions with rail traffic. The railbed on
which the tracks are laid can itself create a barrier to smaller species such as amphibians, reptiles, and
smaller mammals. Traffic density and traffic speed may also influence wildlife avoidance of
transportation corridors (Reijnen et al. 1995; Forman and Alexander 1998).


Indirect effects to reptile and amphibian populations could include lowered reproductive success of existing
amphibian populations if rail collisions affect amphibian mortality rates. If the rail is experienced as a barrier
by migrating amphibians, existing populations may be divided into subpopulations. This, in turn, may result
in a reduced gene pool in the remaining subpopulations, which could result in loss of the population if the
remaining genetic variation is not diverse enough to offset the joint action of natural selection and genetic
drift. Preserving genetic diversity is important because it allows populations the potential to adapt by
“saving” genes that may be useful during future environmental changes. However, the rail would not create
a complete barrier to movement between the eastern and western sides of the right‐of‐way, which would
limit the fragmentation effect.
Indirect effects to mammals from fragmentation include potentially lowered reproductive success rates
from interruption of migration routes to breeding areas (restricted gene flow), increased predation on
small mammals due to lack of cover on the ballasted railroad embankment, and general disturbance of
mammalian communities immediately adjacent to the right‐of‐way. These disturbances include
alterations to foraging, denning, and overwintering habitat due to changes in vegetative cover, light, and
temperature regimes. There may be minor indirect effects to small mammals but this is not expected to
affect population stability because of their small home ranges. Deer and other large mammals are
expected to continue to cross the tracks with minimal impedance.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-105 September 2014

Fragmentation effects are expected to be minimal from any of the alternatives, since the existing SR 528
alignment, immediately to the north of Alternatives A, C, or E, has already caused fragmentation of large
blocks of existing natural habitat. Widening the gap is not anticipated to significantly change the effects
of the existing transportation corridor on habitat quality or continuity. The Project along the N‐S Corridor
and the WPB‐M Corridor would not create or exacerbate fragmentation effects and the FECR Corridor
would not be widened.
Noise Impacts on Wildlife
Noise from train operations and horns at grade crossings may have indirect effects on wildlife.
Scientific literature and other relevant publications concerning the impacts of train pass‐by noise on
wildlife were reviewed. Many of the available studies are from western states; far less is known about the
effects in the eastern United States, presumably because highway and rail infrastructure was largely
already in place well in advance of the advent of modern wildlife ecology and conservation biology, and
also because of the proportionately larger numbers of endangered mammals long displaced in the east
and now confined to the less‐developed west. As documented in the National Park Service’s (2011)
Annotated Bibliography – Impacts of Noise on Wildlife, the effects of noise on wildlife have been studied
for roads (where noise is continuous), aircraft, boats, and off‐road vehicles and snowmobiles. No specific
studies on the effects of the episodic noise from trains are listed in this bibliography.
It is possible that the Project would displace some individuals of wildlife populations that are sensitive to
noise and vibration, causing increased competition for nearby suitable habitat. Most of the scientific studies
conducted on noise and wildlife involve assessing effects from roads, and there is limited scientific data for
impacts to wildlife from rail. Most studies show that noise associated with high‐density roads affects avian
communities by interfering with communication during courtship and brood‐rearing. However, the
continuous noise resulting from highways is substantially different from the infrequent noise produced by
trains. Noise impacts are expected to be minor because of the moderate numbers of trains.
Although limited data exist to relate noise exposure levels to effects on wildlife, criteria to identify possible
impacts are available. Table 5.3.5‐5 provides wildlife impact criteria based on a summary of recent literature
that can be found in Appendix A of the FRA High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment (FRA 2012a). The criteria are based on the assumption that impacts occur when a noise event
is sufficiently loud enough to generate an observable effect in domestic livestock or wildlife.

Table 5.3.5-5 Summary of Wildlife Noise Impact Criteria
Animal Category Class Noise Metric
Noise Level
(dBA)
Domestic Mammals (Livestock) Sound exposure level (SEL) 100

Birds (Poultry) SEL 100
Wild Mammals SEL 100

Birds SEL 100
Source: FRA. 2012a. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, USDOT Report Number
DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1238511. Accessed September 27, 2013.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-106 September 2014

Based on the impact criteria listed in Table 5.3.5‐5, effects to wildlife could occur at sound levels exceeding
100 dBA. Along the E‐W Corridor, noise and vibration disturbance from the operation of the railroad
would disturb wildlife for very short, discrete periods of time, but would not affect wildlife as much as the
constant noise from the highway. As documented in Section 5.1. 2, train pass‐by will not exceed 70 dBA,
and will not affect wildlife. There would be no new crossings along the MCO Segment or the E‐W Corridor
and consequently no noise impacts on wildlife from wayside horns.
Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Temporary impacts are those that occur in association with construction related activities and cease
following the completion of construction. Short‐term temporary indirect effects can be caused by the
increased noise and visual disturbance from land‐clearing, earth‐moving, and construction machinery
during construction.
Temporary impacts to biological resources and natural ecological systems could also occur where
undeveloped areas would be utilized for construction staging or construction access. The effects on
ecological resources could include clearing vegetation, soil compaction in staging and traffic areas, dust
generation, erosion, and incidental mortality of wildlife entering the construction zone. The Project is not
likely to impact natural habitats adjacent to the N‐S Corridor because staging areas are anticipated to be
located in existing developed areas such as parking lots and the majority of supplies and equipment will
be brought to the construction site by rail. Temporary effects may occur along the E‐W Corridor although
the location and extent of those effects cannot be determined until the locations of staging areas and
access roads are determined.
5.3.5.4 Preserves, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Wildlife Corridors
The Project would not incorporate land from any of the preserves or wildlife sanctuaries described in
Section 4.3.5, and would not affect the ability of these properties to protect wildlife or wildlife habitat. The
Project would also not adversely impact any wildlife corridor. As described in Section 7.2.9, all alternatives
would include wildlife crossings along the E‐W Corridor to maintain or improve wildlife passage.
5.3.5.5 Essential Fish Habitat
EFHs and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) that potentially could be impacted by the Project
are Estuarine Intertidal Scrub‐shrub (Mangroves), Estuarine Subtidal Open Water/Water Column
(Estuarine Planktonic), and Tidal Creeks (Mud/Sand and Sand/Shell Bottom). Within each of the bridge
project areas, EFH is equivalent to wetland and/or surface water habitats. Constructing the Project could
affect EFH and HAPC as a result of placing rip‐rap/fill for the bridge approaches, placing bridge pilings,
and excavating where existing timber pilings will be replaced.
Enhancement/replacement is proposed for 34 bridges between Cocoa and Miami; however, only 21 of
these bridges will require in‐water work or a change in the footprint of the bridges. Four of the bridges
were determined to be upstream of salinity barriers. Bridges over water bodies with downstream salinity
barriers are not included in this assessment, as these sites are not accessible to marine species and do not
include EFH. This assessment focuses on the bridges along the N‐S Corridor and the WPB‐M Corridor that
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-107 September 2014

require construction within EFH. Each bridge project area is defined as the footprint of that bridge, as well
as the area upstream and downstream within the limits of construction.
The USACE determined that the Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on EFH or federally
managed fishery species based on the proposed mitigation. On October 28, 2013 the NMFS agreed with
this determination (Appendix 5.3‐6‐B4). This determination did not include the additional bridge
replacement proposed in Brevard and St. Lucie Counties. Consultation has been initiated with NMFS,
Habitat Conservation Division regarding potential impacts to EFH associated with these bridges.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative the Project would not be constructed or operated; there would be no
impacts to EFH.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
This section discusses the direct, indirect, and temporary impacts to EFH and HAPC associated with the
21 bridge project areas and potential implications to their associated fisheries communities. Direct, indirect,
and temporary impacts are expected to be generally similar for all fisheries; therefore, the presentation of
impacts is for all species. The potential impacts to EFH and HAPC would be the same for each of the Action
Alternatives, as the impacts would only occur along the common N‐S and WPB‐M Corridors.
Habitats within the bridge project areas have been identified as EFH and HAPC. As shown in Table 4.3.6‐1,
these areas provide EFH for at least seven fishery species managed by the SAFMC during some portion of
their life cycle: goliath grouper, gray snapper, mutton snapper, spiny lobster, pink shrimp, white shrimp,
and brown shrimp.
At each bridge project area (with the exception of Arch Creek), piles would be driven to load bearing
capacity for E80 live loads plus the dead load. Piles would be driven with a steel pile driving template
placed to prevent movement of the pile group. Multiple piles are connected by a cast‐in‐place pile bent
cap or end bent at the abutments. The piling driver equipment would be placed on the abutment or on a
barge in larger systems (Eau Gallie River, St. Sebastian River, Hillsboro River, North Fork of the Middle
River, and South Fork of the Middle River). Silt fences and floating turbidity barriers would be installed
and maintained during construction in accordance with performance standards for erosion and sediment
control and stormwater treatment set forth in Section 62‐40.432, FAC.
The effect of pilings would be limited to the total footprint of pilings placed in EFH, totaling approximately
760 square feet (<0.1 acre). The effects of the rip‐rap/fill at the location of the abutments has been calculated
as the total area of rip‐rap/fill placed in surface waters, which totals approximately 5,000 square feet
(0.1 acre). Approximately 0.73 acre of the substrate would be shaded. Shading effects were calculated as the
footprint of the new bridges at each bridge project area. No seagrasses were observed within the bridge
project areas. Approximately 940 square feet (0.02 acre) of wetland (primarily mangroves) would be
permanently removed, and approximately 4,000 square feet (0.09 acre) of mangroves would be trimmed
in accordance with FDEP Mangrove Trimming Guidelines, which are designed to avoid defoliation, removal,
or destruction of the mangrove tree itself.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-108 September 2014



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


Environmental Consequences 5-109 September 2014

The new pilings would have a variable impact on the managed species. Pilings could ultimately result in a
beneficial impact to species/life stages that prefer such structures as habitat, such as adult goliath grouper,
gray snapper, and mutton snapper. Permanent effect of the removal of mangrove wetlands could adversely
impact species/life stages that prefer mangrove habitat, such as juvenile goliath grouper, post
larval/juvenile grey snapper, and juvenile mutton snapper. Impacts to wetlands (mangroves), calculated as
the aerial extent of mangroves to be permanently removed by the Project, would be minor.
Indirect and Secondary Impacts
Indirect effects to EFH from ongoing operations and maintenance would be minimal, as active railroad
bridges are currently located at all of the bridge project areas.
Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Temporary construction‐related impacts would be limited to the area immediately adjacent to and under
each of the bridge project areas. Most of the species of concern are mobile and can actively avoid
construction activities, although some benthic fauna could potentially be affected at the site of the piles.
Due to the small footprint of in‐water work at each bridge, mortality levels would be negligible.
Temporary impacts resulting from construction activities could occur from temporary disturbance,
increased sediment loads, and increased turbidity in the water column. These effects would be minimized
by implementing BMPs including silt fencing and turbidity curtains during construction. Additional
temporary effect would potentially occur through the disruption/burial of aquatic habitats at the location
of the bridge abutments and piles.
Pile driving (percussive or vibratory) can result in temporary effects on fish and other aquatic organisms
during construction of a bridge (Popper 2005). Potential impacts to eggs, larvae, and adults of invertebrates
and fishes associated with pile driving are noise and vibration, sediment deposition, and crushing. Factors
that affect the physical interaction of sound with fish include the size of the fish relative to the wavelength
of sound, the mass of the fish, its anatomical variation, and the location of the fish in the water column
relative to the sound source (Kent and McCauley 2006). Fish may be divided into two broad groups based
on hearing sensitivity, ‘hearing specialists’ and ‘hearing generalists’. ‘Hearing specialists’ show high
sensitivity to sound with levels as low as 60 dBA re 1 microPascal at 1 meter across a broad frequency range.
The hearing sensitivity of ‘hearing generalists’ is lower than that of ‘hearing specialists’. ‘Hearing generalists’
rely on the detection of particle displacement for sensing sound. The highly variable auditory sensitivity of
fish means that it is impossible to generalize on the effect of impulse signals from one species to another
(Kent and McCauley 2006).
Invertebrates also vary in their sensitivity to sound. Sand shrimp exhibited a significant reduction in
growth and reproduction rates, and an increase in aggression and mortality when exposed to noise levels
of 30 dBA in the 25‐ to 400‐hertz bandwidth in aquaria (Kent and McCauley 2006). Noise from pile driving
during construction could affect federally managed species; however, the use of bubble curtains during
pile driving would help to dampen noise by about 5 to 22 dBA depending on the pile type and other
conditions (Howard 2013). NMFS has recommended that bubble curtains be used when effects could
occur. Air bubble curtains will be used during pile driving to minimize the potential impacts on federally
managed species.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-110 September 2014

5.3.5.6 Migratory Bird Habitat
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 states that, unless permitted by regulations, it is illegal to
“pursue, hunt, take, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer for purchase,
purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport,
cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment,
transportation or carriage, or export, at any time or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in
the terms of this Convention … or any part, nest, or egg of such bird (16 USC 703(a).”
As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) states, “we regulate most aspects of the taking, possession,
transportation, sale, purchase, barter, exportation, and importation of migratory birds (50 CFR parts 10
and 21).” The USFWS does not, through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, explicitly prohibit or regulate the
incidental take of birds, bird nests, or bird eggs caused by land clearing.
EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, requires each federal agency
taking actions that are likely to have a measurable negative impact on migratory bird populations to
develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the USFWS, to promote conservation of migratory bird
populations. The EO also requires all NEPA analyses to evaluate the effects of actions on migratory birds
and minimize “incidental takes” of migratory birds.
The Project would not adversely impact the majority of habitats important to migratory birds
(see Section 4.3.5), such as flooded agricultural fields, open water bodies or deep marshes, or intertidal
beaches or mudflats. Each of the three action alternatives under consideration would result in the loss of
forested uplands and wetlands, such as wetland and upland hardwood forest, which may provide
important migratory habitat. These habitat losses would occur in small areas, at the periphery of larger
forested stands, and would have a minor overall impact on the availability of habitat for migratory birds.
As previously mentioned, the proposed communications towers along the E‐W Corridor would be
monopole or lattice‐type poles, less than 100 feet in height, and would not require guy wires. These
towers would be consistent with USFWS guidance on communications towers (USFWS 2012c), and
would not have an adverse impact on wildlife or birds.
5.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
The USACE, a cooperating agency with respect to this EIS, is the lead federal agency with ESA Section 7
responsibilities for the Project. As described below, the USACE has evaluated the effects of the Project on
federally listed species and determined that the Project would not jeopardize any listed species or modify
any designated critical habitat. The USACE has made determinations of “no effect” or “no adverse effect”
for each of the listed species within the Project Area. The agencies charged with administering the ESA,
the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the NOAA‐NMFS, have concurred with these determinations
(Appendix 5.3.6‐B).
The ESA authorizes the determination and listing of species as Endangered or Threatened and prohibits
unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species. Section 7 of the Act requires
federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or to modify their critical habitat. USFWS
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-111 September 2014

administers the Act, but NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for the stewardship of the offshore
living marine resources of the nation and their habitat.
FWC regulates wildlife species protected by the State of Florida. Chapter 68A‐27.003(1)(a), FAC
provides “no person shall take, possess, or sell any of the endangered or threatened species…or parts
thereof or their nests or eggs except as allowed by specific federal or state permit authorization.”
Chapter 68A‐27.005(1)(a), FAC additionally stipulates “no person shall take, possess, transport, or
sell any species of species concern…or parts thereof or their nests or eggs except as authorized by
permit from the executive director, permits being issued upon reasonable conclusion that the
permitted activity will not be detrimental to the survival potential of the species.” The Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) regulates protected plant species and
limits the harvest, transport and sale of plant species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or
Commercially Exploited in Chapter 5B‐40, FAC.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) serves to protect bald and golden eagles by
prohibiting anyone from taking eagles, their nests, or their eggs, without a permit issued by the Secretary
of the Interior. The Act specifically defines a taking as pursuing, shooting, shooting at, poisoning,
wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, collecting, molesting, or disturbing the species (USFWS 1972).
Violating the Act could result in fines, imprisonment, or both for first offenses.
5.3.6.1 Methodology
Direct effects were calculated through the use of GIS models. This model quantified effects by intersecting
the proposed work areas with land use polygons of habitat that may be utilized by protected species. The
model quantified all loss of habitat along the Project based on the limit of permanent alteration. Areas
within permanent alteration limits that are already disturbed, such as ballasted railbed and roads, were
not counted as habitat loss. Impacts to wetland habitats along the N‐S Corridor were calculated based on
the wetland delineations conducted for the project. The land use data was acquired from SFWMD (n.d.)
and SJRWMD (2013a).
The USACE assessed the effects of the Project on federally listed species using the appropriate
species‐specific Effects Determination Keys developed by the USACE and USFWS (USFWS 2008 and
2010a through d).
5.3.6.2 Environmental Consequences
Direct effects to protected species may include effects from construction, grading, vegetation
management, and mortality associated with potential collisions with rail traffic. These activities may
result in degradation of ecological function and loss of habitat, as well as loss of rare plant and animal
species. Permanent impacts may include losses or changes in habitat and rare plant and wildlife species
through clearing, grading, construction, and the potential introduction of undesirable, invasive species.
Habitat loss is a direct effect of transportation projects. Habitat loss occurs if an area that previously
provided food, cover, water, and/or breeding resources to a rare species is cleared, paved, filled, or altered
in such a way that it no longer provides one or more of these resources.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-112 September 2014

No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative the Project would not be constructed or operated. Consequently, adverse
impacts to threatened and endangered species and their habitats would not occur under the
No‐Action Alternative.
Alternative A
Alternative A would impact habitats potentially used by federally and state listed wildlife species as
indicated in Table 5.3.6‐1. The discussion of the effects of Alternative A includes Phase I, the West Palm
Beach to Miami corridor.

Table 5.3.6-1 Alternative A - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat (acres)
Common Name MCO Segme
nt
E-
W Corridor
N-S Corridor Total
Federally Listed Wildlife Species
Florida Scrub-Jay 34.1 28.2 0 62.3
Audubon’s Crested Caracara 38.7 39.3 0 78
Wood Stork 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 28.0 23.0 0 51
American Alligator 6.2 17.5 6.8 30.5
Eastern Indigo Snake 99.0 81.2 2.8 183
Wildlife Species Listed Only by the State of Florida
Florida Mouse 34.1 32.1 0 66.2
Sherman’s Fox Squirrel 60.6 50.9 0 111.5
Burrowing Owl 34.1 32.1 0 66.2
Florida Sandhill Crane 12.5 22.3 6.2 41
Limpkin 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2
Little Blue Heron 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2
Roseate Spoonbill 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2
Snowy Egret 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2
Southeastern American Kestrel 38.7 41.6 0 80.3
Reddish Egret 0 0 0.1 0.1
Tricolored Heron 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2
White Ibis 43.3 81.9 9.0 134.2
Gopher tortoise 34.1 32.1 0 66.2
Florida Pine Snake 34.1 32.1 0 66.2
Short-Tailed Snake 34.1 32.1 0 66.2
Gopher Frog 34.1 32.1 0 66.2
Mangrove rivulus 0 0 0.1 0.1
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-113 September 2014

Federal Species
Bridge construction activities would impact West Indian manatee critical habitat, and potential habitat
for sea turtles and the smalltooth sawfish, but construction activities would not disturb seagrass beds or
require dredging.
Field surveys for Audubon’s crested caracara nests would be completed subsequent to the selection of
the final E‐W Corridor alignment. Construction activities proposed along the N‐S Corridor would not
impact suitable caracara habitat or existing nest trees. Direct effects to potential caracara habitat which
would occur with the Project total approximately 78 acres. Caracara may also utilize pasture, but pasture
was not included in the analysis.
Bald eagle nest OR‐065, in Orange County, may be affected by the Project within the MCO Segment
(Figure 4.3.6‐3). The proposed railroad alignment is less than 200 feet from the nest, placing it within the
primary and secondary nest buffer zones. Eagle nest OR‐079, also in Orange County (Figure 4.3.6‐1), is
approximately 600 feet from the proposed alignment, potentially within the nest buffer zone
(FWC 2012a).
Two wood stork rookeries are within 2,500 feet of the N‐S Corridor in Brevard County (USFWS 2010a). All
activities for the Project except construction of the bridges over the Oleta River and Arch Creek would take
place within at least one Core Foraging Area (CFA) (USFWS 2010b). Direct effects to a total of 134.2 acres of
Suitable Foraging Habitat (SFH) would occur with the implementation of Alternative A.
Florida scrub‐jay metapopulations are within the vicinity of the N‐S Corridor throughout Brevard, Indian
River, St. Lucie, and Marin Counties, with a few located in Palm Beach County. Although the presence of
scrub‐jays along the E‐W Corridor has not been fully evaluated, the Florida Scrub‐Jay Umbrella Habitat
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment indicates the presence of documented breeding
populations within the vicinity of the Project in Orange County (USFWS 2012b). Potential scrub‐jay
habitat occurs within the Project Study Area outside the maintained areas of the SR 528 right‐of‐way, and
direct effects would total approximately 62.3 acres under Alternative A.
A review of GIS data of documented red‐cockaded woodpecker nest cavities indicated no nests occur
within the Project Study Area. Direct effects to red‐cockaded woodpecker habitat which would occur with
Alternative A total approximately 51 acres within the E‐W Corridor.
Potential habitat for the American alligator occurs throughout the Project Study Area for Alternative A.
Direct effects to potential alligator habitat would total approximately 30.5 acres. Although the American
alligator is no longer listed by the USFWS as a threatened species, it retains federal protection because of
its similarity of appearance to the American crocodile, which is a listed species.
Alternative A would impact undeveloped (unpaved) sand skink soils within the footprint of the VMF and
along the MCO Segment (Figure 5.3.6‐1). Surveys to confirm the presence of sand skinks have not been
completed. Areas providing potential habitat for the Eastern indigo snake include many habitats located
within the Project Study Area. The maintained areas within MCO Segment, the SR 528 right‐of‐way along
the E‐W Corridor, and the FECR Corridor are generally not considered suitable habitat for the indigo
snake. However, indigo snakes are known to enter developed and maintained areas adjacent to large
undeveloped tracts of land. Direct effects to potential eastern indigo snake habitat would total
approximately 183 acres.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-114 September 2014

A known population of beautiful pawpaw occurs in southeast Orange County in pine flatwoods adjacent to
the St. Johns River in the E‐W Corridor. Johnson’s seagrass may occur in a number of the waterways that
intersect with the existing N‐S Corridor. Seagrass surveys conducted at the stream crossings indicated
Johnson’s seagrass is not located within the Project Study Area and would not be directly affected by the
Project. Due to the disturbed habitat located in the FECR Corridor, it is unlikely any terrestrial federally listed
plant species would occur within the Project Study Area, but several species have been documented within
Jonathan Dickinson State Park in sand pine scrub, which is found adjacent to the railroad corridor, including
four‐petal pawpaw, Florida perforated cladonia, and tiny polygala.
On November 20, 2012, USFWS confirmed FRA’s finding that no adverse effect would result from Phase I of
the Project, as documented in the 2013 FONSI (FRA 2013a).

State Species
Habitat for Sherman’s fox squirrel, a state‐listed species, is located throughout the MCO Segment and along
the E‐W Corridor. Direct effects to potential fox squirrel habitat would total approximately 111.5 acres.
Potential sandhill crane habitat consists of upland and shallow wetland areas with little or no canopy. Direct
effects to potential sandhill crane habitat would total approximately 41 acres. No nests were identified
within the Project Study Area during the wetland delineation field work.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-115 September 2014

The southeastern American kestrel utilizes similar habitat to the Audubon’s crested caracara.
Appropriate habitats consist of open areas with low vegetation and scattered or adjacent trees for
perching. Direct effects to potential kestrel habitat would total approximately 80 acres. Habitat for the
burrowing owl occurs within the Project Study Area in dry upland areas. Direct effects to potential
burrowing owl habitat would total approximately 66 acres. Field reconnaissance did not identify any owl
burrows within the Project Study Area.
Gopher tortoise habitat occurs within the xeric uplands of the Project Study Area including the E‐W Corridor
and the N‐S Corridor, which were not included in the habitat analysis. Field reconnaissance indicated
Alternative A would directly impact gopher tortoise burrows. Effects to burrows would potentially impact
eastern indigo snake, Florida mouse, Florida pine snake, and gopher frog populations by removing potential
refuges and nesting locations from the area. Direct effects to potential gopher tortoise, Florida mouse,
Florida pine snake, short‐tailed snake, and gopher frog habitat would total approximately 66 acres.
Subsequent to the selection of the final railway alignment, a FWC‐compliant gopher tortoise survey would
be completed to accurately characterize gopher tortoise utilization of the habitats.
Two wading bird rookeries within 1,500 feet of the Project Study Area at distances of approximately
550 feet and 1,400 feet, respectively, may also be affected by the Project. Both are visually blocked from the
alignment by screens of thick vegetation, placing the Project outside of the buffer zones for both rookeries.
Potential habitat for the American oyster catcher occurs at several bridge locations along the N‐S Corridor
and the WPB‐M Corridor. Although oyster beds are not mapped in the GIS land use data acquired from
SFWMD and SJRWMD, they were identified within the Hillsboro Canal, North Fork of the Middle River, South
Fork of the Middle River, and the Oleta River.
Habitat for the reddish egret and mangrove rivulus is also present in mangroves at bridge locations along
the N‐S and WPB‐M Corridors and direct effects to mangrove habitat would total 0.1 acre. Because
Mangrove rivulus are amphibious and may be found out of water in wet logs or leaf matter within mangrove
swamps, construction may result in an incidental take of the rivulus.
Field surveys have not been completed for the MCO Segment or the E‐W Corridor, but potential habitat for
state listed plant species occurs throughout the Project Study Area. Field survey will be completed once the
final E‐W Corridor alignment has been selected.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission sent a letter to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection on November 26, 2012 in support of the Project and to confirm its finding that
no significant adverse impact would result from Phase I of the Project.
Alternative C
Alternative C would result in the loss of natural habitats potentially used by federally and state listed wildlife
species as shown in Table 5.3.6‐2. Alternative C would have the same impacts on the habitat of protected
species as Alternative A within the MCO Segment and the N‐S Corridor. The difference in impacts between
Alternative A and Alternative C would occur within the 17‐mile stretch of the E‐W Corridor between SR 520
and SR 417 where the proposed route for Alternative C would be south of the proposed route for
Alternative A and includes some habitat located south of the SR 528 right‐of‐way.

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


Environmental Consequences 5-116 September 2014

Table 5.3.6-2 Alternative C - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat (acres)
Common Name MCO Segmen
t
E-W Corridor N-S Corridor Total
Federally Listed Wildlife Species
Florida Scrub-Jay 34.1 48.4 0 82.5
Audubon’s Crested Caracara 38.7 70.1 0 108.8
Wood Stork 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 28.0 32.9 0 60.9
American Alligator 6.2 14.0 6.8 27
Eastern Indigo Snake 99.0 122.5 2.8 224.3
Wildlife Species Listed Only by the State of Florida
Florida Mouse 34.1 58.8 0 92.9
Sherman’s Fox Squirrel 60.6 73.8 0 134.4
Burrowing Owl 34.1 58.8 0 92.9
Florida Sandhill Crane 12.5 116.9 6.2 135.6
Limpkin 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2
Little Blue Heron 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2
Roseate Spoonbill 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2
Snowy Egret 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2
Southeastern American Kestrel 38.7 70.9 0 109.6
Reddish Egret 0 0 0.1 0.1
Tricolored Heron 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2
White Ibis 43.3 116.9 9.0 169.2
Gopher Tortoise 34.1 58.8 0 92.9
Florida Pine Snake 34.1 58.8 0 92.9
Gopher Frog 34.1 58.8 0 92.9
Mangrove rivulus 0 0 0.1 0.1

Although the presence of scrub‐jays along the E‐W Corridor has not been fully evaluated, documented
breeding populations occur within the vicinity of the Project Study Area in Orange County
(USFWS 2012b). Alternative C would impact approximately 83 acres of potential scrub‐jay habitat.
The route for Alternative C would place the railroad alignment farther from the highway than the route
for Alternative A. This would lead to greater effects to potential caracara habitat than would occur under
Alternative A and a greater likelihood of a caracara nest located within the railroad footprint. Direct
effects to caracara habitat with Alternative C would total approximately 108.8 acres.
The Project areas close to the bald eagle nests, wood stork nesting colonies, and wading bird rookeries
described for Alternative A are no different under Alternative C, therefore effects to nesting areas would
remain the same. All activities for the Project except constructing bridges over the Oleta River and Arch
Creek would take place within at least one wood stork CFA (USFWS 2010b). Direct effects to a total of
approximately 169 acres of SFH would occur with the implementation of Alternative C.
Although implementing Alternative C would not result in the removal of any documented red‐cockaded
woodpecker nest cavities, it would affect approximately 60.9 acres of potential habitat.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-117 September 2014

Direct effects to wetlands would be greater with Alternative C than with Alternative A due entirely to the
difference in alignments between SR 520 and SR 417 in Orange County. The difference in wetland effects
would impact habitat for American alligator, Florida sandhill crane, and the state listed wading birds, and
may potentially impact foraging habitat for Audubon’s crested caracara, southeastern American kestrel,
and eastern indigo snake (Table 5.3.6‐2).
Alternative C would also impact undeveloped sand skink soils within the footprint of the VMF. Surveys to
confirm the presence of sand skinks have not been completed. Field surveys indicate direct effects under
Alternative C would most likely occur to gopher tortoise burrows.
Alternative E
Alternative E would result in the loss of natural habitats potentially used by federally and state listed
wildlife species as shown in Table 5.3.6‐3. Alternative E would have the same impacts on the habitat of
protected species as Alternative A within the MCO Segment and the N‐S Corridor. The difference in
impacts between Alternative A and Alternative E would occur within the 17‐mile stretch of the
E‐W Corridor between SR 520 and SR 417 where the proposed route for Alternative E would be south of
the proposed route for Alternative A and include some habitat located south of the SR 528 right‐of‐way.
Although the presence of scrub‐jays along the E‐W Corridor has not been fully evaluated, documented
breeding populations occur in Orange County (USFWS 2012b). Alternative E would impact approximately
72 acres of potential scrub‐jay habitat.
A survey of Audubon’s crested caracara nests would not be completed along the E‐W Corridor until the
final alignment for the railroad is selected. Alternative E would impact approximately 102 acres of
potential caracara feeding habitat. There would also be a greater potential for caracara nest trees located
within the Project Study Area. The Project areas close to the bald eagle nests, wood stork nesting colonies,
and wading bird rookeries described above for Alternative A would not be different under Alternative E.
All activities except construction of the bridges over the Oleta River and Arch Creek would take place
within at least one wood stork CFA (USFWS 2010b). Alternative E would affect a total of approximately
164 acres of SFH.
Field surveys for the presence of red‐cockaded woodpecker nest cavities would be conducted subsequent
to the selection of the final alternative for the Project. Although implementing Alternative E would not
result in the removal of any documented red‐cockaded woodpecker nest cavities, it would affect 61 acres
of potential habitat.
Wetland losses would impact habitat for wood stork, American alligator, Florida sandhill crane, and the
state listed wading birds, and may potentially impact foraging habitat for Audubon’s crested caracara,
southeastern American kestrel, and eastern indigo snake (Table 5.3.6‐3).

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


Environmental Consequences 5-118 September 2014

Table 5.3.6-3 Alternative E - Direct Effects to Potential Protected Wildlife Species Habitat (acres)
Common Name MCO Segment E-W Corridor N-S Corridor Total
Federally Listed Wildlife Species
Florida Scrub-Jay 34.1 37.8 0 71.9
Audubon’s Crested Caracara 38.7 63.4 0 102.1
Wood Stork 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 28.0 33.1 0 61.1
American Alligator 6.2 11.1 6.8 24.1
Eastern Indigo Snake 99.0 110.7 2.8 212.5
Wildlife Species Listed Only by the State of Florida
Florida Mouse 34.1 47.5 0 81.6
Sherman’s Fox Squirrel 60.6 72.1 0 132.7
Burrowing Owl 34.1 47.5 0 81.6
Florida Sandhill Crane 12.5 32.0 6.2 50.7
Limpkin 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2
Little Blue Heron 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2
Roseate Spoonbill 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2
Reddish Egret 0 0 0.1 0.1
Snowy Egret 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2
Southeastern American Kestrel 38.7 63.4 0 102.1
Tricolored Heron 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2
White Ibis 43.3 111.9 9.0 164.2
Gopher Tortoise 34.1 47.5 0 81.6
Florida Pine Snake 34.1 47.5 0 81.6
Short-Tailed Snake 34.1 47.5 0 81.6
Gopher Frog 34.1 47.5 0 81.6
Mangrove rivulus 0 0 0.1 0.1

Alternative E would also impact undeveloped sand skink soils within the footprint of the VMF. Surveys to
confirm the presence of sand skinks have not been completed. Field surveys indicate direct effects from
Alternative E would most likely occur to gopher tortoise burrows the effects of which would potentially
impact eastern indigo snake, Florida mouse, Florida pine snake, and gopher frog populations by removing
potential refuges and nesting locations from the area.
5.3.6.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
Indirect effects to threatened or endangered species may include habitat fragmentation and associated
edge effects; the loss of genetic diversity of rare plant and animal populations, increased competition for
resources, and physical or psychological restrictions on movements caused by some feature within a
corridor that wildlife are unable or unwilling to cross. Indirect effects can be caused by the increased noise
and visual disturbance from land‐clearing, earth‐moving, and construction machinery during
construction. Noise and vibration associated with the active rail line may cause indirect effects if wildlife
avoid habitat near the embankment.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-119 September 2014

Section 5.3.5, Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems, provides a broader analysis of the
indirect effects to natural habitats and communities.
Few studies on wildlife responses to noise resulting from rail operations have been conducted in the
United States, but there is a well‐documented negative correlation between transportation corridors and
wildlife health/diversity (Rosenfield et al. 1992). Summers et al. (2011) found that distance away from
roads was the most important determinant of songbird species richness but were not able to demonstrate
that this was due to traffic noise. A study conducted in central Florida on the federally threatened Florida
scrub‐jay found mortality was significantly higher in roadside territories and reproductive success was
higher in non‐roadside territories (Mumme et al. 2000). Noise does not always indicate lower
reproductive success in birds. A study on the impact of percussive and military aircraft (helicopter) noise
on nesting success and behavior of the federally endangered red‐cockaded woodpecker found
(Delaney et al. 2000) that:
 Experimental noise (maximum level = 104 dB) did not impact red‐cockaded woodpecker
reproductive success;
 Flush response increased closer to the noise source;
 Red‐cockaded woodpeckers returned to their nests relatively quickly after being flushed; and
 Noise levels within the nest cavities were substantially louder than noise levels at the base of
the nest tree.
Based on these analyses, the Project would not have an adverse indirect effect on federal or state‐listed
species.
5.3.6.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Proposed construction activities (for example, using construction equipment, operating barges or boats,
and placing and securing piling structures) associated with in‐water bridge work may temporarily
disturb manatees, sea turtles, and smalltooth sawfish in the vicinity of the Project Study Area through
temporary effects to water quality (for example, increased turbidity), noise, boat collisions, and
unintentional “harassment” of individuals within or adjacent to the Project Study Area.
As described above in Section 5.3.5.5 for EFH, pile driving (percussive or vibratory) has the potential to
have temporary impacts on threatened or endangered fish and other aquatic organisms during
construction of a bridge. The highly variable auditory sensitivity of fish means that it is impossible to
generalize on the effect of impulse signals from one species to another. In terrestrial habitats, noise and
human activity from construction could temporarily cause bird and other vertebrate species to avoid
areas near construction sites.
5.3.6.5 Section 7 Consultation and Draft Findings
The USACE has facilitated several discussions with USFWS and NMFS regarding ESA consultation for this
project. These discussions have aided in clarification of the details required in the Biological Assessment
(BA), which is being prepared in accordance with the Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook
(USFWS 1998). Meeting minutes are provided in Appendix 5.3.6‐A. The consultation has been performed
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-120 September 2014

in coordination with the following agencies: USFWS (Jacksonville and Vero Beach offices), NMFS,
Protected Resources Division (PRD), and FWC. The BA is intended to provide documentation necessary
for informal consultation with the USFWS and NMFS in order to comply with Section 7 of the federal ESA
(50 CFR 402).
Protected species coordination was initiated on September 6, 2012, with a meeting at the USACE office in
Cocoa, which included representatives from the USFWS offices for North Florida and South Florida, and
NMFS. USFWS determined the construction conditions would be required for protecting manatees,
smalltooth sawfish, indigo snakes, and sea turtles. Adjacency to Florida scrub‐jay habitat was a concern,
so scrub‐jay surveys would also be required to determine how the operation of the rail would affect the
species. NMFS required effects to Johnson seagrass and smalltooth sawfish be determined and provided
an ESA checklist for the bridge locations and the EFH federal mandate.
On October 12, 2012, an email was sent to USFWS requesting confirmation of listed species occurrence
and requirements for the Project Study Area. A response from the South Florida Office of the USFWS was
received on October 30, 2012 confirming the species of concern included: wood stork, Florida scrub‐jay,
Audubon’s crested caracara, bald eagle, eastern indigo snake, and red‐cockaded woodpecker. The North
Florida Office of the USFWS confirmed the list of species of concern at a meeting at the USFWS Office in
Jacksonville. The species list was confirmed to include: West Indian manatee, wood stork, red‐cockaded
woodpecker, eastern indigo snake, Audubon’s crested caracara, Florida scrub‐jay, and bald eagle.
BAs were completed and submitted in September 2013 for species under USFWS and NMFS jurisdiction.
Based upon the BA submitted to the USFWS, the USACE issued an effects determination letter on
September 19, 2013, for the South Florida portion of the Project extending from Miami north through
Indian River County, and on September 24, 2013 for the northern section of the Project extending from
Indian River County to Orlando. Within this area it was determined the Project would have “no effect” to
the Florida panther, Everglade kite snail, red‐cockaded woodpecker, and piping plover based on the lack
of suitable habitat, known species range within the Project Study Area, and/or lack of visual confirmation
during surveys. USACE has made the specific findings listed below (Appendix 5.3.6‐B). According to
USACE, the Project is:
 Not likely to adversely impact the wood stork. This determination is based on the Project not
being located within 2,500 feet of an active colony site. Although the Project includes
construction within SFH and within the CFA of a colony site, prior to construction AAF would
provide SFH compensation in accordance with the Habitat Management Guidelines to replace
lost foraging value.
 Not likely to adversely impact the eastern indigo snake. This determination is based on the
Project not being located in open water, and the commitment by AAF to follow the USFWS’s
Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake during construction.
 May affect, but is not likely to adversely impact the West Indian manatee. This determination
is based on the fact that the Project is not located in an Important Manatee Area; does not
include dredging; will have minimal adverse effects on aquatic vegetation or mangroves; and
the commitment by AAF to follow standard manatee conditions for in‐water work.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-121 September 2014

 May effect, but is not likely to adversely impact the Florida scrub‐jay. Habitat documented to
be used by this species is outside of the proposed work area.
 May affect, but is not likely to adversely impact the blue‐tailed mole skink or the Florida sand
skink. AAF has identified areas of suitable habitat for these species and is completing surveys.
 Will have no effect to the Atlantic sturgeon or shortnose sturgeon based on the proposed work
occurring outside of their known range.
 Will have no effect to Johnson’s seagrass based on the absence of the species within the
proposed work area.
 May affect, but is not likely to adversely impact swimming sea turtles based on AAF'’s
agreement to follow the Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions during
construction.
 May affect, but is not likely to adversely impact smalltooth sawfish based on AAF's proposed
compensatory mitigation for the loss of red mangrove habitat, absence of seagrass beds within
the in‐water work areas, and AAF's agreement to follow the Smalltooth Sawfish Construction
Conditions during construction.
USFWS, Jacksonville Field Office and NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division have provided letters of
concurrence with USACE’s findings, as documented in Appendix 5.3.6‐B. Consultation is ongoing with
USFWS, Vero Beach Field Office and NMFS, PRD.
5.4 Social and Economic Environment
This section evaluates the effects of the Project on the human environment, including communities and
demographics, environmental justice communities, economics, public health and safety, cultural
resources, recreation and other Section 4(f) resources, visual and scenic resources, and utilities and
energy.
5.4.1 Communities and Demographics
This section describes the potential impacts to existing community structure and demographic profiles
within the Project Study Area. The Project under all Action Alternatives would not result in residential
displacement, neighborhood fragmentation, or the loss of continuity between neighborhoods.
5.4.1.1 Environmental Consequences
This section evaluates potential direct effects of the Project to communities and demographics under the
No‐Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. Potential direct effects would include long‐term
residential displacement and neighborhood fragmentation or the loss of continuity between
neighborhoods.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-122 September 2014

No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed or operated. Existing commuter
railway services would remain unchanged, and no changes to communities and demographics would
occur.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Potential direct effects of the Project on communities and demographics would be the same under all
Action Alternatives.
MCO Segment
The MCO Segment is entirely within GOAA property boundaries; it would not result in residential
displacement, neighborhood fragmentation or the loss of continuity between neighborhoods.
East-West Corridor
The E‐W Corridor would be predominantly within the SR 528 right‐of‐way between Orlando and Cocoa.
The right‐of‐way already bisects these municipalities; therefore, the E‐W Corridor would not result in
new neighborhood fragmentation or loss of continuity among these neighborhoods.
The E‐W Corridor would not cross any residential neighborhoods outside Orlando and Cocoa; no
neighborhood fragmentation would occur. The E‐W Corridor would pass just south of the unincorporated
community of Wedgefield, which is north of SR 528 and west of the SR 520 interchange. Wedgefield is
already isolated from other neighborhoods; there are no adjoining neighborhoods.
The E‐W Corridor would not require acquisition of residential properties; no residential displacements
would occur.
North-South Corridor
The N‐S Corridor would not result in residential displacement, neighborhood fragmentation, or the loss
of continuity between neighborhoods. The N‐S Corridor is within the existing FECR Corridor, and would
not displace residences or businesses. The existing FECR Corridor has supported freight and/or
passenger service on a continuous basis for more than 100 years, and existing neighborhoods largely
developed around these conditions.
Phase I - West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor
Similar to the N‐S Corridor, infrastructure improvements along the FECR Corridor for the
WPB‐M Corridor would not result in residential displacement, neighborhood fragmentation, or the loss
of continuity between neighborhoods. Property acquisition will be required for the proposed stations at
West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale; however, no significant adverse impacts would result to existing
local community structure or demographic profiles.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-123 September 2014

5.4.1.2 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
The Project would have an indirect beneficial effect to communities; it would improve accessibility and
mobility between Orlando and Miami, as well as other communities in southeast Florida. Despite
accessibility and mobility improvements, the Project would not result in measurable population shifts.
According to projections from the University of Florida, Orange County will add nearly 670,000 residents
by 2040 (BEBR 2011b). This forecast is independent of the Project and it represents baseline conditions
that would occur under the No‐Action Alternative.
As noted in Section 4.1.1, Land Use, the only potential growth‐inducing component of the Project is use of
the MCO Intermodal Station. Since this station is located within MCO property boundaries, there would
be no associated transit‐oriented development. The station at MCO would not be a nucleus for growth or
promote population shifts.
According to the 2006 South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis (SFECCTA), Southeast Florida
has been growing rapidly due to immigration and high birth rates and is expected to continue to grow in
the foreseeable future (FDOT 2006b). By 2030, the number of households along the WPB‐M Corridor is
projected to increase by 36 percent compared to 28 percent for Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami‐Dade
counties combined. Population will increase even more with 34 percent growth in the region and
46 percent along the WPB‐M Corridor, bringing the total population within 1 mile of the FECR Corridor
to over 1 million by 2030. Automobile ownership and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are expected to
increase even more dramatically than population.
As stated in Section 3.5 of the 2012 EA, transportation improvement projects, such as the proposed
stations, have been shown to induce new residential and new commercial development. However,
changes in population density and growth rate are projected to occur along the WPB‐M Corridor
regardless of the Project. The WPB‐M Corridor would provide an efficient transportation alternative that
addresses highway congestion and current and future travel demand between major South Florida cities.
The WPB‐M Corridor would increase the ability of nearby populations to travel to jobs, education, health
care, and leisure activities.
5.4.1.3 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
Constructing the Project may temporarily disrupt automobile traffic. Upgrades at grade crossings and
bridge rehabilitations would adversely impact travel between adjacent neighborhoods and could
potentially impede emergency responders, particularly along the N‐S Corridor. As discussed in
Section 5.1.2, AAF will work with local communities to minimize disruption to traffic and to maintain
emergency access.
5.4.2 Environmental Justice
This section describes the potential effects to minority and low‐income populations within the Project
Study Area that could result from the Project. EO 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Population and Low‐Income Populations was issued in February 1994 and requires that federal
agencies consider whether a Project would have a disproportionately high adverse impact on minority or
low‐income populations.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-124 September 2014

CEQ’s guidance also indicates that the analysis should identify if a disproportionately high adverse human
health or environmental impact occurs on minority or low‐income populations. Furthermore, USDOT
Order 5610.2(a) establishes USDOT policy to consider environmental justice principles in all USDOT
programs, policies and activities. USDOT Order 5610.2(a) also sets forth the steps to prevent
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low‐income populations.
The Project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low‐income
populations. There would be no adverse impacts to environmental justice communities resulting from
residential displacement, job loss or neighborhood fragmentation due to the use of property. Although
changes in noise would affect residents along the E‐W Corridor, none of the affected parcels are within
environmental justice communities. There would be no adverse noise or vibration impacts to
environmental justice communities along the E‐W Corridor under any of the Action Alternatives, and
mitigation would limit any changes in vibration along the N‐S Corridor such that there would be no
resulting vibration impacts.
5.4.2.1 Methodology
A high‐level quantitative analysis was conducted for Phase I pursuant to Executive Order 12898, to
determine the potential for disproportionately high or adverse impacts to sensitive communities. Based
on the result of the demographic assessment, minority populations subject to protection under Executive
Order 12898 are present within the West Palm Beach to Miami Corridor Area. Although there are
Environmental Justice communities of concern present along the FECR Corridor, the implementation of
directional, wayward, or crossing mounted horns would dramatically reduce the existing footprint of
warning horn noise and would minimize the number of existing and potential noise impacts in the Project
Area. Further, Phase I would not displace any businesses or residences and would not adversely impact
the demographics of the Project Area. The Project would further benefit residents by providing additional
transportation options to residents and tourists within walking distance of the CBDs in the three cities
where stations are proposed. The 2013 FONSI (FRA 2013) found that the Selected Alternative will not
result in a disproportionately high or adverse effect on those sensitive populations and Environmental
Justice communities of concern considered under Executive Order 12898 after noise mitigation measures
have been implemented, such as directional, wayward or crossing mounted horns.
This evaluation used demographic data collected from the 2010 U.S. Census and 2010 ACS. Because
impacts to environmental justice communities are dependent on the potential for significant impacts in
other environmental categories, the area of analysis for environmental justice is the area of potential
significant impacts for the other environmental impact categories, including cumulative impacts. The
Project Study Area for this evaluation includes census tracts within 1,000 feet of the proposed or existing
railroad alignments.
Thresholds to determine meaningfully greater high minority and low‐income populations include census
tracts where minority populations are 10 percent higher than the combined total for the six counties
crossed by the Project (37.4 percent) and census tracts where low‐income populations are 10 percent
higher than the combined total for the census tracts crossed by the alignments (23.3 percent).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-125 September 2014

5.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences
This section includes an evaluation of potential direct effects of the Project to environmental justice
communities under the No‐Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. Potential direct effects to
environmental justice communities would include residential or job displacement due to property
acquisition, neighborhood fragmentation, increases in noise levels and effects to other resources. This
evaluation includes a comparison between the potential direct effects to environmental justice
communities with those same impacts to non‐environmental justice communities to determine if adverse
impacts would be predominantly borne by minority and/or low‐income populations.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed or operated. Existing commuter
railway services and opportunities would remain unchanged, and there would be no disproportionate
adverse impacts to minority or low‐income populations. However, minority populations in Orlando, Miami,
and other communities would not have access to efficient intercity rail service.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Potential direct effects of the Project to environmental justice communities would be the same under all
Action Alternatives. Alternatives A, C, and E would have identical impacts to environmental justice
communities because they would cross the same census tracts.
MCO Segment
The MCO Segment is entirely within Census Tract 168.02. According to 2010 USCB data, this census tract
does not meet the established environmental justice thresholds. No environmental justice communities
exist along the MCO Segment; therefore, there would be no disproportionate adverse impacts to minority
or low‐income populations.
East-West Corridor
As noted in Sections 5.4.1, Communities and Demographics, and 5.4.3, Economic Conditions, the Project
would not result in residential displacement, job loss, or neighborhood fragmentation due to required
property acquisitions along the E‐W Corridor. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate impacts to
environmental justice communities from changes in land use under any of the Action Alternatives.
The E‐W Corridor passes through two census tracts that meet the established environmental justice
thresholds, Census Tracts 623.02 and 624.00. The current sound environment along these portions of the
E‐W Corridor predominantly includes roadway traffic along SR 528. As described in Section 5.2.2, Noise
and Vibration, changes to noise along the E‐W Corridor would affect 109 (105 moderate and four severe
impacts) residential parcels. None of the affected residential parcels are within environmental justice
communities; therefore, there would be no disproportionate adverse impacts from noise in
environmental justice communities along the E‐W Corridor.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-126 September 2014

The Project would result in vibration impacts to 118 residential parcels along the E‐W Corridor, none of
which are within environmental justice communities. There would be no disproportionate adverse
impacts from vibration in environmental justice communities along the E‐W Corridor.
The E‐W Corridor would not require use of land within a Section 4(f) resource. There would be no
disproportionate adverse impacts to Section 4(f) resources within environmental justice communities
along the E‐W Corridor.
North-South Corridor
As noted in Sections 5.4.1, Communities and Demographics, and 5.4.3, Economic Conditions, the Project
would not result in residential displacement, job loss, or neighborhood fragmentation due to required
property acquisitions along the N‐S Corridor. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to
environmental justice communities from changes in land use.
The N‐S Corridor passes through 29 census tracts that meet the established environmental justice
thresholds (Tables 4.4.2‐2 and 4.4.2‐4). The future No‐Action sound environment along these portions of
the N‐S Corridor predominantly includes freight traffic along the existing FECR Corridor and noise from
surrounding population density. As described in Section 5.2.2, Noise and Vibration, adding passenger
trains along the N‐S Corridor would not result in adverse noise impacts. Potential impacts resulting from
changes to noise in environmental justice communities would not be appreciably more severe or greater
in magnitude than the impacts experienced by non‐environmental justice communities along the
N‐S Corridor.
The Project would result in vibration impacts to 3,317 residential parcels along the N‐S Corridor,
820 (24.7 percent) of which are within environmental justice communities. All vibration impacts (including
those within environmental justice communities) would be mitigated using ballast mats beneath rail lines,
“frogs” at selected switch locations with nearby sensitive receptors, and special pile‐driving methods at
selected locations near sensitive receptors during construction. There would be no disproportionate
adverse impacts from vibration in environmental justice communities along the N‐S Corridor with the
implementation of these measures.
The N‐S Corridor would not require use of land within a park, recreational area or wildlife Section 4(f)
resource. There would be no disproportionate adverse impacts within environmental justice
communities along the N‐S Corridor as a result of the loss of Section 4(f) recreational or park resources.
Phase I - West Palm Beach - Miami Corridor
As stated in Section 3.3.3 of the 2012 EA, the Project would not impact minority or low‐income
populations in a disproportionate manner. The relocated Fort Lauderdale Station (as compared to the
Fort Lauderdale Station North Site) would also not disproportionately impact minority or low‐income
populations. Implementation of crossing‐mounted horns would offset all severe impacts in Broward and
Miami‐Dade Counties and more than 99 percent of all severe impacts in Palm Beach County. As required
by the 2013 FONSI, AAF conducted a supplemental study of the Phase 1 Projects’ effects on environmental
justice communities (AMEC 2014b) and found no disproportionate adverse effect.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-127 September 2014

Summary
Direct effects to environmental justice communities along the MCO Segment, E‐W Corridor, N‐S Corridor,
and WPB‐M Corridor would be the same for all Action Alternatives. There would be no impacts to
environmental justice communities along the MCO Segment, as there are no minority or low‐income
populations within the census tract encompassing this segment. Neither the E‐W Corridor nor the
N‐S Corridor would result in residential displacement, job loss, or neighborhood fragmentation due to the
use of property; therefore, there would be no disproportionate impacts to environmental justice
communities from changes in land use. Although changes in noise would affect 109 (105 moderate and four
severe) residential parcels along the E‐W Corridor, none of these parcels are within environmental justice
communities. Changes in train frequency along the N‐S Corridor would not result in adverse noise impacts
to environmental justice communities. There would be no adverse vibration impacts to environmental
justice communities along the E‐W Corridor under any Action Alternative, and mitigation would limit any
changes in vibration along the N‐S Corridor, such that there would be no resulting vibration impacts. Finally,
there would be no acquisition of land within a Section 4(f) resource along the E‐W Corridor or N‐S Corridor,
and no disproportionate adverse impacts to environmental justice communities.
5.4.2.3 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
By offering an alternative transportation option, the Project would improve access and mobility between
Orlando, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami and would have a beneficial effect on minority
and low income populations in these communities.
5.4.2.4 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
The Project would benefit environmental justice communities by providing job opportunities during the
construction period. AAF would hire local workers to the greatest extent practicable. Section 5.4.3,
Economic Conditions, discusses these benefits in detail.
5.4.3 Economic Conditions
This section describes the potential effects to local economic conditions that could result from the Project.
The Project would not reduce municipal property tax revenues along the MCO Segment or N‐S Corridor.
Partial acquisition of one privately owned parcel outside the SR 528 right‐of‐way would be required along
the E‐W Corridor, and would result in a negligible loss of property tax revenues for Brevard County. The
relocated Fort Lauderdale Station within the WPB‐M Corridor requires acquisition of three parcels
adjoining the FECR Corridor. Some businesses would be displaced but are expected to relocate elsewhere
in Fort Lauderdale. The Project would not displace any other existing businesses or result in the loss of
jobs. The Project would have beneficial regional economic impacts from increased economic activity, tax
revenues, construction jobs, and associated spending.
5.4.3.1 Environmental Consequences
Potential long‐term direct and adverse effects to local economic conditions would include the loss of
municipal property tax revenue from the acquisition of privately owned properties, permanent
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-128 September 2014

displacement of existing businesses and associated revenues, and employment displacement. Potential
long‐term direct and beneficial effects to local economic conditions would include expenditures
associated with Project operations such as labor, fuel costs, equipment maintenance, insurance,
maintenance of right‐of‐way, and lease payments.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed or operated. Existing commuter
railway services would remain unchanged, and no anticipated changes to local economic conditions
would occur.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Potential direct effects of the Project on local economic conditions would be the same under all Action
Alternatives.
The Project would increase federal, state, and local government revenues and have other direct economic
benefits to local populations. The Washington Economics Group, Inc. (WEG) performed an economic
benefits analysis for the Project (WEG 2014), which followed professionally accepted and widely utilized
methodologies using the IMPLAN methodology (developed by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.).
Table 5.4.3-1 Summary of Economic Benefits of AAF Construction and Operations
Category
Operations
Construction Average Annual
Total
(2016-2021)
Jobs Over 10,000 1,603 1,603
Labor Income $1.2 Billion $75 Million $442 Million
Gross Domestic Product $1.7 Billion $105 Million $619 Million
Total Economic Value $3.4 Billion $150 Million $887 Million
Federal. State and Local Taxes $291 Million $21 Million $126 Million
Source: WEG 2014

Increases in tax revenue, including growth in real estate taxes, corporate income taxes, and sales taxes as
well as benefits to be realized from reemployment insurance, could reduce local tax burdens and/or be
utilized to address community‐specific needs (schools, parks, public works, police, and fire protection).
Potential adverse effects to other elements of the transportation industry, due to diversion of riders, was
also evaluated as a potential economic effect. The Project would divert an estimated 10 percent of the
proposed long‐distance passenger rail ridership from airplane passengers to passenger rail service. This
equates to approximately 400 air passengers per day. Based on 2014 airline flight schedules (Orlando
Airports 2014) and load factors (DOT 2014) as well as industry average revenue per passenger mile and
the annual operating revenues of the airlines currently providing direct service between Orlando and
South Florida (American Airlines, Spirit Airlines, and Silver Airways), the lost revenue from diversion of
air passengers would account for less than 0.01 percent of the airlines’ combined annual operating
revenue. Therefore, the forecast diversion of air travelers to the AAF service would not have a significant
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-129 September 2014

economic impact to the airlines currently serving the two markets. The potential diversion from other
intercity rail services and bus services is also not anticipated to result in a significant economic impact
from lost revenue.
The analysis also evaluated the potential economic effects of property acquisition within each project
segment, as described below.
MCO Segment
The MCO Segment would not require acquisition of privately owned property as it is entirely within
MCO property boundaries. Since no land acquisition is necessary, the MCO Segment would not result in
the reduction of municipal tax revenue, commercial displacements, or job loss.
East-West Corridor
The E‐W Corridor would require partial acquisition of one parcel, which in 2013 had a total taxable value
of $1,420,960 (Brevard County, Property Appraiser 2013). Acquisition would be limited to 15.8 percent
of the overall parcel acreage, and a proportional taxable value of $224,145. Because AAF is only
purchasing a portion of the parcel, effects on Brevard County are limited. The loss of municipal property
tax revenues attributable to the E‐W Corridor would not be significant enough to adversely impact
government services.
As noted in Section 5.1.1, Land Use, partial land acquisition for the E‐W Corridor under Alternative A
would neither change the land use of the remainder of the parcel, nor result in commercial displacement
or job losses. Current land use on the remainder of the parcel would continue as undeveloped.
North-South Corridor
The Project would not require acquisition of privately owned property along the N‐S Corridor, as the
N‐S Corridor is entirely within the existing FECR Corridor. Since no land acquisition is necessary, the
Project would not result in the reduction of municipal tax revenue, commercial displacements, or job loss
along the N‐S Corridor.
Phase I - West Palm Beach-Miami Corridor
The WPB‐M Corridor would require acquisition of private property for the proposed stations at
West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale. Any direct loss in real estate taxes, however, would be offset by
revenues from increased property values in areas adjacent to these stations. The relocated Fort
Lauderdale Station requires acquisition of three parcels, one of which is occupied by an office building
that would be demolished to make way for the station lobby building. Tenants within the office building
would be displaced by the Project, but are expected to relocate within Fort Lauderdale with no loss of
jobs or income tax revenue.
5.4.3.2 Indirect and Secondary Impacts
This section includes an evaluation of potential indirect and secondary effects of the Project to local
economic conditions, which would include job creation and economic development stemming from
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-130 September 2014

increased goods and services and re‐spending patterns as well as the effects of the construction and
operation of transit‐oriented development (TOD) that will be created by AAF at and around the stations in
Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach. As noted in the economic benefits analysis prepared by WEG,
potential indirect and secondary effects of the Project on local economic conditions are summarized in Table
5.4.3‐2, and include construction and operational benefits of jobs, income, GDP increases, and tax revenues.

Table 5.4.3-2 Summary of Economic Benefits of TOD Construction and Operations
Category
Operations
Construction Average Annual Total (2016-2021)
Jobs 1,695 389 389
Labor Income $658.8 Million $20 Million $66 Million
Gross Domestic Product $980.5 Million $60 Million $204 Million
Total Economic Value $1.8 Billion $80 Million $284 Million
Federal. State and Local Taxes $187.4 Million $14 Million $48 Million
Source: WEG 2014

Additional indirect economic benefits of the Project could be realized through savings associated with
reduced highway maintenance costs. The operation of passenger rail service would relieve road
congestion, which would prolong the lifespan of highway infrastructure more than if the passenger rail
service were not operating.
5.4.3.3 Temporary Construction-Period Impacts
This section includes an evaluation of the potential direct, indirect, and secondary effects of the Project
during the anticipated construction period (mid‐2014 to mid‐2016), which would include job creation
and investments associated with the design, engineering, and construction of rail, bridges,
communications infrastructure, support facilities, and train stations as well as equipment purchases. As
shown in Table 5.4.3‐1, constructing the Project is expected to generate over 10,000 jobs, with a total
economic benefit of $3.4 Billion.
5.4.4 Public Health and Safety
This section describes the proposed conditions within the Project Study Area with respect to the health
and safety of the residents and communities that may be affected by the construction and long‐term
operation of the Project. The Project would comply with all relevant health and safety regulations and
would not adversely impact the public’s health or safety. Measures would be in place to protect the
security of the railroad infrastructure and the traveling public.
The 2013 FONSI for Phase I (FRA 2013) found that the addition of passenger trains to the FECR Corridor
and the development of the corresponding stations will not negatively impact public health or safety. The
Project would result in enhancing public safety with improvements to grade crossing signal equipment
for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Also, the benefits resulting from decreased congestion and the
potential for fewer vehicular crashes and fewer air emissions indicate that there will be no significant
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-131 September 2014

negative impacts on public health and safety. According to the 2013 FONSI, Phase I of the Project will not
result in significant adverse impacts on public health and safety.
5.4.4.1 Regulatory Framework
The following publications and resource materials from FRA and other USDOT agencies were reviewed
for general safety information. The Project would be constructed and operated in compliance with these
regulations:
 Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110‐432). The Rail Safety Improvement
Act reauthorized funding to enable FRA to oversee the nation's rail safety program between
2009 and 2013. One aim of the statute is to improve conditions of rail bridges and tunnels. The
Rail Safety Improvement Act also requires that railroads implement Positive Train Control
(PTC) systems to prevent train‐to‐train collisions on certain rail lines by the end of 2015.
 Federal Railroad Administration (49 CFR Volume 4, Chapter II, part 200 to 299). FRA
regulations for railroad transportation safety, including standards, rules, and practices, are
listed in 49 CFR parts 200‐299.
 U.S. Code on Railroad Safety (49 U.S.C. §§ 20101 et seq.). Part A of Subtitle V of Title 49 of
the United States Code contains a series of statutory provisions affecting the safety of railroad
operations.
 Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration (49 CFR
part 1580). Part 1580, Rail Transportation Security, codifies the Transportation Security
Administration inspection program. It includes security requirements for freight railroad
carriers; intercity, commuter, and short‐haul passenger train service providers; rail transit
systems; and rail operations at certain fixed‐site facilities that ship or receive specified
hazardous materials by rail.
 Transportation Security Administration ‐ Security Directives for Passenger Rail
Security. Directives RAILPAX‐04‐01 require rail transportation operators to implement
15 protective security measures, which include reporting potential threats and security
concerns to the Transportation Security Administration, and designate a primary and
alternate security coordinator.
 Emergency Planning and Community Right‐to‐Know Act. The objectives of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right‐to‐Know Act are to allow state and local planning for chemical
emergencies, provide for notification of emergency releases of chemicals, and address a
community's right‐to‐know about toxic and hazardous chemicals(42 USC 116).
 Guide to Developing a Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Plan. FRA’s Guide to
Developing a Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Plan assigns railroad operators the
responsibility for developing and implementing an emergency preparedness plan that
complies with applicable laws and regulations, based on the specific circumstances of the
proposed railroad’s operations (FRA 2010a).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-132 September 2014

 FDOT Rail Handbook. The Rail Handbook identifies rail processes, guidelines, and
responsibilities for the development and implementation of programs which include
Highway‐Rail Grade Crossing Inventory, Highway‐Rail Grade Crossing Safety Improvement
Program, Construction and Maintenance Project Management Program, Public Highway‐Rail
Grade Crossing Opening – Closure Program, Railroad Safety Inspection Program, Florida Rail
System Plan, Rail Emergency Management Plan, and the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway‐
Rail Grade Crossings and Quiet Zone Application Process (FDOT 2012a).
FDOT provides railroad Safety Inspectors to ensure each railroad is in compliance with 49 CFR part 200
et seq. , which includes but is not limited to, inspections of:
 Railroad operating and safety rules;
 Federal regulations concerning training and testing of operating personnel;
 Protection of employees working on track and equipment;
 Drug and alcohol prohibitions;
 Railroad communications; and
 Train identification.
FECR has established operational rules based on FRA guidelines under which they operate. These
guidelines are included as Section 6, Method of Operation, in FECR’s Operating Rules (FECR 2012a).
FECR’s Method of Operation includes the following major operational rules and supporting information:
 General Signal Rules (Signals Imperfectly Displayed Governing Signal, Manual Block Territory);
 Interlocking Rules (Automatic Block and Interlocking Signals);
 Automatic Block Signal (ABS) Rules;
 Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) Signal System Rules (Automatic Train Control System);
 Control Station Rules; and
 Rules for Railroad Communications.
5.4.4.2 Environmental Consequences
The No‐Action Alternative would continue to be operated consistent with the regulations applicable to
the existing FECR freight operations. The Project Alternatives and equipment would be constructed,
maintained and operated consistent with FRA safety regulations.
Design elements of the Project include: enhancing signal and train control systems; reducing the potential
for accidents at highway‐rail at‐grade crossings; and limiting access to rail infrastructure by trespassers
and other unauthorized persons. These design elements support safe railroad operations for passengers,
employees, pedestrians, and motorists. Consolidated control of both freight and passenger train
movement, plus the added rail infrastructure, will allow freight operations to continue to operate reliably
without adverse impact from the restoration of intercity passenger rail services within the N‐S Corridor.
The Project would not appreciably affect public health, safety, and security in the rail corridor. While
greater frequency of trains may increase the frequency of opportunities for conflict between trains and
vehicles or people, safety improvements at crossings, an upgraded PTC system, enhanced security, and
improved communications among emergency responders would be a beneficial effect, serving to
minimize potential conflicts and their consequences. AAF will develop a comprehensive safety program
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-133 September 2014

for the Project including guidelines and plans including: a passenger train emergency preparation plan, a
safety and security certification plan, track safety standards, an operations system safety program plan, a
right‐of‐way safety and security plan, and several FECR safety procedures, including, for example, FECR’s
Emergency Preparedness Plan (FECR 2012c).
Public Safety
Public safety concerns include at‐grade crossings, train control systems, and transport of hazardous
materials. The E‐W Corridor and adding passenger trains to the N‐S Corridor are not expected to adversely
impact public health or safety. Any of the Project Alternatives under consideration would elevate public
safety by improving grade‐crossing signal equipment for vehicular and pedestrian traffic and upgrading
current crossing equipment with signals interconnected with highway traffic signals, constant warning time
activation through the railroad signal system, and other devices and measures as required by pertinent
laws, regulations, and local safety plans. Upgrades to road‐crossings will be coordinated with and/or
communicated to local emergency responders, as activations at the road crossings are expected to be more
frequent with the increased frequency of train traffic. However, the delays are also expected to be minimal,
as the passenger trains should clear a typical crossing in less than a minute.
No-Action Alternative
In the No‐Action Alternative, the existing signal system along the N‐S Corridor would remain in place, and
all at‐grade crossings would be protected as they currently are. There would be no change to public safety.
There are no anticipated changes in frequency or quantity of hazardous materials to be transported along
the N‐S Corridor; however, given the number of ports along the corridor, growth could occur. Hazardous
materials would continue to be transported consistent with applicable statutes, rules and regulations, and
there would be no effect to health and safety due to the transportation of these materials.
The No‐Action Alternative is not expected to have a positive effect on public health and safety in the
Project Study Area, as vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic safety would not be enhanced with
upgraded at‐grade crossings. The number of freight trains is projected to increase from 14 (2014) to 20
(2016).
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Alternatives A, C, and E are anticipated to have the same effects on public safety.
At‐Grade Crossings
As is described in Chapter 3, Alternatives, the E‐W Corridor would be entirely grade separated at roadways.
Existing roads would either be crossed using bridges or would be closed, eliminating any potential safety
concerns. As part of the Project, existing crossings along the N‐S Corridor would be upgraded in accordance
with applicable laws regarding safety requirements, with the need for improvements being determined by
a crossing‐by‐crossing diagnostic approach. During the winter of 2013‐2014, AAF contacted FRA and FDOT
requesting both agencies’ assistance in conducting a diagnostic safety review of the existing grade crossings
along the FECR corridor to make objective judgments about the physical and operational characteristics at
roadway rail crossings, and to recommend modifications to the crossings based on a consensus
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-134 September 2014

determination concerning crossing safety needs. The Diagnostic Team consisted of representatives from
FDOT, FRA, FECR and AAF, as well as local officials. The Diagnostic Team concluded the on‐site review in
Cocoa having looked at 349 total grade crossings in all. FRA will be publishing recommendations for those
respective grade crossings based on FRA’s Highway‐Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High‐Speed
Passenger Rail (http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03536). 
Upgrades to road‐crossings would be coordinated with and/or communicated to local emergency
responders, as activations at the road crossings are expected to be more frequent with the increased
frequency of train traffic (32 additional passenger train crossings per day). Recommendations for
crossings may include flashing lights and gates, pedestrian lights and gates, advance warning signs,
additional signage, motion sensors, raised medians or barriers, improved crossing geometry, improved
sight distances, or other modifications.
 While the increased number of train crossings would increase the delay to local traffic at grade crossings
as compared to the No‐Action Alternative, the local area traffic would not be affected for the majority of
the day. The trains should clear a typical crossing in less than 1 minute and the grade crossing would
reopen for traffic in approximately 50 seconds for a passenger train and between 147 and 170 seconds
for a freight train. Although not quantifiable, additional public health and safety benefits will be realized
from the anticipated decrease in roadway congestion and the potential for fewer vehicular accidents on
existing parallel roadways such as U.S. 1 and I‐95, as well as a decrease in air emissions.
Train Operations
According to the operating plan, some trains are scheduled to pass or “meet” at or in the immediate
vicinity of grade crossings. As part of the diagnostic review, “Next Train Coming” notification signs or
Operation Lifesaver Education forums will be considered to notify the public of a change in grade crossing
operations.
The new signal system to be implemented along both the N‐S and E‐W Corridors as part of the Project
would retain the same system currently in use (route‐signaling augmented by in‐cab signals
5
), as well as
provide a PTC overlay system with a back office server in the operations control center to achieve
compliance with 49 CFR part 229, Positive Train Control Systems; Final Rule.
As stated in Section 3.3.5 of the 2012 EA, the WPB‐M Corridor would enhance public safety with
improvements to existing grade‐crossing signal equipment for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. This
would include upgrading current crossing equipment with signals interconnected with highway traffic
signals, constant warning time activation through the railroad signal system, reballasting of track at the
crossings to improve drainage, and other devices and measures as required. No adverse impacts to public
safety for residential and recreational land uses adjacent to the proposed improvements along the
WPB‐M Corridor would occur. The WPB‐M Corridor includes stops in the central business districts of
West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. Each station would be ADA complaint and include safety
features such as cameras in stations and parking lots, and regular police patrols.

5 The current train control system on the FEC North-South Corridor is “Route-signaling” augmented by in cab signals that display
the state of the wayside signals continuously in the locomotive cab via electronic coded track. This electronic coded track also
provides for broken rail detection.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-135 September 2014

Security
Security considers the effects of the Project on the security of the rail system.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the existing fencing and other protection systems along the N‐S Corridor
would remain in place with no upgrades.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Alternatives A, C, and E are anticipated to have the same effects on security. For the E‐W Corridor standard
FDOT highway fencing, or its equivalent, would be added throughout the length of the corridor where the
track is at‐grade that will restrict and seal the railroad right‐of‐way from public access. Based on
coordination with the natural resource agencies, the standard fencing may be modified or substituted
with fencing appropriate to discourage wildlife crossings. Fencing on the N‐S Corridor would be upgraded
based on existing public access locations and the potential for conflicts with the increased train frequency.
Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped
The Project would benefit elderly and handicapped individuals by providing a transportation option that
will enhance mobility and livability in their communities. During the design phase, federal, state, and local
provisions related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 compliance would be followed. The
ADA provides for equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities to access public and private facilities.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, there would be no change to access by the elderly and handicapped. The
new MCO Intermodal Facility and new passenger rail stations proposed as part of the WPB‐M Corridor
would be fully accessible.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Alternatives A, C, and E are anticipated to have the same effects on accessibility. The passenger trains
would comply with ADA requirements. AAF trains will be single level, fully accessible coaches, with no
stairs or other obstacles to impede movement on board trains. Every coach car would have
ADA‐compliant restrooms.
As stated in Section 3.3.4 of the 2012 EA, the WPB‐M Corridor would not result in significant adverse
impacts in terms of barriers to the elderly and handicapped populations. Designated ADA‐compliant
parking spaces at the three stations would be provided to ensure availability of parking and decrease the
distance for elderly and disabled passengers to travel to the train platform. In addition, all station facilities
and platforms would have elevator access and level boarding, and individuals with disabilities would not
encounter stairs in boarding or departing from trains.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-136 September 2014

Geological Conditions
Geological conditions may be a safety concern if subsurface conditions are favorable to sinkhole
formation or geological faulting. No geological faults are known within the Project Study Area.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, risks posed by sinkholes would be unchanged.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Alternatives A, C, and E are anticipated to have the same risks to public safety posed by sinkholes. The
potential for collapse of sinkholes along any segment of the Project is anticipated to be low. However, if
sinkholes were to occur in the railway alignment or any public areas, the sinkholes would be immediately
reported to local law enforcement and cordoned‐off for public safety.
As stated in Section 3.0 of the 2012 EA, the WPB‐M Corridor would not require tunneling or subterranean
construction activities. Thus, no potential impact to geology or geologic resources exists.
Hazardous Materials
Planned operations at the VMF, such as vehicle fueling, maintenance, repair, and washing will include use
of hazardous materials (primarily petroleum products, lubricants and degreasers). The Project does not
include use or storage of hazardous materials outside the VMF. The typical materials that would be stored
and used at the VMF include diesel fuel, motor oils, lubricants, and degreasers. All hazardous products
would be stored in double‐walled storage containers or double‐walled ASTs. Hazardous materials would
be used and stored at the VMF according to accepted industry BMPs. Planned operations at the VMF are
similar to operations currently ongoing at MCO, and are considered minor in the respect to the overall
operations and land use at the airport, as explained in Section 5.2.4.
There are no anticipated changes in frequency or quantity of hazardous materials to be transported along
the N‐S Corridor; however, given the number of ports along the corridor, growth could occur. Hazardous
materials would continue to be transported consistent with applicable statutes, rules and regulations and
there would be no anticipated effect to health and safety due to the transportation of these materials.
Formally Used Defense Sites (FUDS)
The USACE completed a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the entire former Pinecastle
Jeep Range (PJR) property in 2010, which is located along the E‐W Corridor, north of SR 528 between
Narcoossee Road and SR 417. . The PJR property was formerly used as an Army weapons demonstration
range and training facility. The purpose was to determine where and what type of contamination was
present. During the RI/FS, crews searched for munitions and collected soil and water samples. They dug
over 51,000 objects and collected almost 200 samples. Over 800 of the metallic items were debris related
to munitions (such as casings and fragments), but only 24 were actual munitions. The remaining objects
were nails, fencing and the like. The munitions and munitions debris were found primarily on
undeveloped land and none were found in residential lots. No munitions, pieces of munitions, or soil or
water contamination were found north of Lee Vista Boulevard. No environmental contamination was
identified in any of the residential areas.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-137 September 2014

The site was divided into four Munitions Response Sites (MRS) based on what was found during the
RI/FS. The MRSs are: Demonstration Range North, Demonstration Range South, Demonstration Range
East, and Remaining Area. The demonstration ranges are south of Lee Vista Boulevard, north of Beachline
Expressway, and from the western boundary of the property east to the Orange County landfill.
Demonstration Range South is a portion of the undeveloped property known as Mockingbird.
Demonstration Range East includes Beltway Commerce Center and a portion of the landfill property.
Demonstration Range North is south of Lee Vista Boulevard and includes Odyssey Middle School, Tivoli
Gardens, and Lee Vista Square. All the residential neighborhoods except those in Demonstration Range
North are in the Remaining Area MRS.
No‐Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the PJR would not be traversed.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Alternatives A, C, and E traverse the Remaining Area MRS, within the SR 528 ROW. The USACE has
determined no munitions were located in these areas and no further action is required.
5.4.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, are
any “prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).”
Section 106 of the NHPA requires all federal agencies to take into account, prior to authorizing an
undertaking, the effect of that undertaking on cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the
NRHP. Under Section 106, an adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly,
any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a
manner that would diminish the property’s integrity. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable
effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be
cumulative. AAF, as a project applicant, is assisting the FRA in meeting its obligations under Section 106.
Therefore, studies were conducted to determine the potential project effects, if any, on cultural resources.
This section of the DEIS constitutes FRA’s Findings of Effect under Section 106 of the NHPA. No
NRHP‐listed or eligible resources were identified within the MCO Segment and VMF APE, or within the
E‐W Corridor. NRHP‐listed or eligible resources were identified within the N‐S Corridor, and include the
FECR Railway Historic District and several historic railroad bridges as described in Section 4.4.5 of this
EIS. For Phase I, FRA determined that the Project would have no adverse effect on these resources, and
SHPO has concurred that the use of the historic rail line and restoration of passenger rail service would
not constitute an adverse effect.
For Phase II, FRA has determined that the Project would have an adverse effect on the two bridges (the
Eau Gallie River and St. Sebastian River Bridges) that are individually eligible for the NRHP. None of the
bridges within the WPB‐M Corridor are individually eligible for the NRHP. The Project will have no
adverse effect on the FECR Railway Historic District. The Project would have no direct or indirect effects
(noise, vibration, change in setting) to the historic resources located adjacent to the N‐S Corridor.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-138 September 2014

5.4.5.1 Methodology
All cultural resource investigations and consultations were conducted in accordance with Section 106 of
the NHPA and its implementing regulations for Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 800).
In consultation with the SHPO, FRA determined that the MCO Segment and the VMF had been adequately
addressed by the GOAA in two previous environmental assessments (FAA and GOAA 1998 and FTA,
FDOT, and GOAA 2005). In general, the methodology for the E‐W Corridor complied with FDHR standards
for undeveloped acreage. FRA issued a FONSI for the 2012 EA that covered the WPB‐M Corridor in
January 2013 (FRA 2013a). To the extent that actions have not changed since the 2012 EA, these would
not be evaluated by FRA as part of the current Project. The methodology for the balance of the
N‐S Corridor was consistent with that used in the 2012 EA.
5.4.5.2 Environmental Consequences
This section identifies the potential beneficial and adverse effects to cultural resources from the Project.
Under Section 106, an adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any
of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner
that would diminish the property’s integrity. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects
caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative.
No-Action Alternative
The No‐Action Alternative is not anticipated to have any effect on cultural resources.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
The effects of Alternatives A, C, and E would be identical with respect to cultural resources. This section
provides a summary of impacts to cultural resources and FRA’s recommendations of effects. The SHPO
will use this DEIS as FRA’s recommendations and will make a Section 106 finding based on the DEIS.
MCO Segment
The MCO Segment (including the VMF) APE has been previously surveyed and assessed for cultural
resources during the development of the EA for the South Terminal Complex at the MCO (FAA and
GOAA 1998). No NRHP‐listed or eligible cultural resources were identified within the MCO Segment and
VMF APE during the previous survey. FRA determined that the MCO Segment and VMF would have no
effect on cultural resources.
East-West Corridor
Large portions of the E‐W Corridor APE were surveyed in 1990 and 2005 (Piper Archaeology 1990; Janus
Research, Inc. 2005). The remaining portions, with the exception of one area where access was not
allowed, were surveyed in the summer of 2013 (Janus Research, Inc. 2013). One NRHP‐eligible resource
has been identified adjacent to the APE for the E‐W Corridor—the FECR Railway Historic District, at the
end of the E‐W Corridor in Cocoa. FRA determined that the E‐W Corridor would have no adverse effect
on the FECR Railway Historic District.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-139 September 2014

The E‐W Corridor has been determined to lack any cultural material and has no features indicative of
archaeological site potential. Construction of the railroad and infrastructure would have no effect on
cultural resources. New communications towers are proposed along the E‐W Corridor to support the PTC
system and other communications systems. Although the locations of these towers have not yet been
identified, AAF would site new towers in locations that have been determined to contain no above‐ or
below‐ground cultural resources.
North-South Corridor
The N‐S Corridor APE contains several NRHP‐eligible cultural resources, including the FECR Railway
Historic District, the Union Cypress Sawmill historic district, four bridges, and 10 other historic resources.
There are also five identified archaeological sites.
FECR Railway Historic District
The N‐S Corridor was originally built as a double‐track railroad, but today it is mostly a single‐track
railroad with several long sidings. The railbed for the second track still exists and would be used for the
additional track improvements. The Project would return the N‐S Corridor to a dual‐track system.
Infrastructure improvements, such as bridge replacements and curve improvements, are planned to be
completed within the existing right‐of‐way (no additional right‐of‐way acquisition is anticipated). The
addition of the second track will return the corridor to its historic configuration and historic use as a
passenger rail line.
The NRHP‐eligible FECR Railway Historic District, which is the central resource of the N‐S Corridor, would
not be adversely affected by the Project. During a 2009 SHPO meeting regarding the South Florida East Coast
Corridor Study (SFECC), there was agreement that the use of the historic rail line and restoration of
passenger rail on the line would not constitute an adverse effect. Phase I (The AAF Passenger Rail Project –
West Palm Beach to Miami ) was determined to not have an adverse effect on the NRHP‐eligible FECR
Railway Historic District. The Project would include similar improvements for the N‐S Corridor in Phase II.
FRA has made a recommendation of no adverse effect to the FECR Railway Historic District. SHPO
concurrence is expected for this determination.
NRHP-Eligible Bridges and Contributing Element Bridges
Within the N‐S Corridor, four bridges (Eau Gallie River, St. Sebastian River, St. Lucie River, and
Loxahatchee River) have been identified as individually eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A
and Criterion C. These four bridges are also considered contributing elements to the FECR Railway
Historic District. Eight additional bridges (see Section 4.4.5) are not considered individually eligible for
listing on the NRHP but are still considered contributing elements to the FECR Railway Historic District.
As described in Section 3.3, Alternatives Studied in Detail in the EIS, AAF proposes to demolish the Eau
Gallie River and St. Sebastian River bridges and construct two new single‐track bridges within the same
footprint. Demolishing these two bridges is an adverse effect which cannot be avoided (as documented
in Chapter 6, Section 4(f) Evaluation). The St. Lucie River and Loxahatchee River bridges would be
rehabilitated, as described in Section 3.3.3, but would not be substantially altered.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-140 September 2014

For Phase I, SHPO issued a no adverse effect determination conditioned on the reconstruction or
rehabilitation work to the bridges being developed in consultation with SHPO to avoid and/or minimize
effects. For Phase II, AAF will continue to consult with SHPO through the design process in order to ensure
compatibility and appropriate sensitivity to the bridge resources and FECR Railway Historic District.
The adverse effect to the two historic bridges (the Eau Gallie River Bridge and the St. Sebastian River
Bridge) would also constitute a “use” under Section 4(f) and requires a Section 4(f) evaluation, provided
in Chapter 6, Section 4(f) Evaluation.
Adjacent Historic Resources
Improvements within the N‐S Corridor would remain within the existing right‐of‐way, and will not
require right‐of‐way acquisition from any adjacent historic districts or individual NRHP‐listed or eligible
historic resources. Therefore, the Project will have no effect on historic resources adjacent to the
N‐S Corridor or adjacent to at‐grade crossings.
Archaeological Resources
The Project would return the existing FECR Corridor to a dual‐track system. Infrastructure improvements
are planned to be completed within the existing right‐of‐way (no additional right‐of‐way acquisition is
anticipated). Five previously identified archaeological sites have been recorded within the N‐S Corridor
APE. Four of the archaeological sites were not previously evaluated for NRHP eligibility by SHPO. The
Pineapple Site (Site 8SL1136) was determined not NRHP‐eligible by SHPO. All of these archaeological
sites have experienced some level of previous disturbances.
Two of the archaeological sites – Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge #3 Site (8MT1287) and the Fort
Capron Site (8SL41) – initially appeared to have the potential to be affected by the Project.
The Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge #3 Site consists of a thin scatter of shell and a few aboriginal
ceramic potsherd fragments situated on a dune bluff that was bisected during the construction of the
railroad in the early part of the last century. Located at Mile Post 275.30, this is in an area where the rail
line curves to the west. Preliminary engineering specified a curve modification at this location and this
action would have caused disturbance of potentially intact portions of the archaeological site. As an
avoidance and protection measure, this curve modification was eliminated and instead construction in
this area will consist of installing rail tracks in their historic locations. No subsurface excavation will be
required. Preliminary discussions with SHPO indicated that this design change would avoid the Hobe
Sound National Wildlife Refuge #3 Site.
The Fort Capron Site consists of the archaeological remains of a 1850s military fort. Currently, the only
visible remnants of Fort Capron are several ditches that extend to the east down towards the Indian River.
The fort is located at Mile Post 238.3. Construction in this area will consist of installing rail tracks in their
historic locations. No subsurface excavation will be required and no additional right‐of‐way will be
needed. Therefore, there would be no effects to the archaeological site caused by the Project.
Based on the information available, the Project would have no adverse effect on archaeological sites
within the N‐S Corridor. The no adverse effect finding is based on the condition that consultation with
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-141 September 2014

SHPO will continue through the design process, as needed, in order to ensure appropriate sensitivity to
the previously recorded archaeological sites located within the APE.
Phase I - West Palm Beach - Miami Corridor
As stated in the 2013 FONSI, FRA consulted with the Florida SHPO pursuant to NHPA Section 106, and
received concurrence on November 6, 2012 with FRA’s finding that the Project would have no significant
adverse effect on any of the historic and/or cultural resources found along the WPB‐M Corridor. The
concurrence is conditional, and requires continued consultation with the SHPO and locally affected
parties, including the Cities of West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami, through the station design
process. The SHPO also concurred with FRA’s finding that the relocated Ft. Lauderdale Station would have
no adverse effect on historic resources (Appendix 3.3‐A).
No additional work proposed within the West Palm Beach‐ Miami Corridor as part of Phase II would have
an effect on any historical resource.
5.4.5.3 Indirect and Secondary Effects
Indirect and secondary effects can include visual changes, increased noise and vibration, and increased
development associated with the Project.
No-Action Alternative
There would be no indirect or secondary effects from the No‐Action alternative.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Additional private development along the E‐W Corridor would not generally be required to comply with
the cultural resource protections afforded by Section 106. However, SHPO does afford a level of historic
preservation and protection, as do Florida state environmental regulations and permitting. Local
government historic preservation commissions and ordinances provide some protection for historic sites
and districts.
The Project would increase noise and vibration minimally above existing conditions in the N‐S Corridor.
While the proposed passenger trains are lighter and faster than the existing freight train traffic, overall
there will be more train traffic/operations occurring each day. Secondary and cumulative noise effects
are anticipated to be minimal to moderate. The noise and vibration changes will have no indirect adverse
effects to cultural resources. None of the adjacent cultural resources are sensitive to noise, and vibration
will not exceed damage thresholds (see Section 5.2.2). Therefore, it is anticipated that there will be no
indirect adverse effects due to changes in noise or vibration to either the setting or physical structure of
any historic property. The Project will not require soundproofing of any historic structure.
By returning the FECR Corridor to its historic configuration and historic use as a passenger rail line, the
Project could indirectly benefit nearby cultural resources if historic structures and infrastructure are
preserved, restored, or maintained due to increased funding or interest in historic preservation resulting
from the Project. At this time, it is not known where any secondary development would occur and for this
reason additional cultural resource surveys would not be practical. Potential negative indirect effects
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-142 September 2014

could occur if increased development results in pressure to demolish or destroy cultural resources. FDHR
and local historic and planning commissions (such as the West Palm Beach Historic Preservation Board
and Planning Board) do afford a level of historic preservation and protection (for example, West Palm
Beach Ordinance 4265‐10 identifies development standards for the City’s historic districts).
5.4.5.4 Temporary Construction-Period Effects
Temporary construction period effects generally consist of noise, dust, vibration, and traffic related to
construction. These construction effects are temporary and would occur during and immediately
following construction. Some specific construction effects cannot be estimated at this time because they
depend on several factors yet to be determined, such as: final design, location of material staging, access
to work areas, materials to be used, specific construction methodologies, and identification of borrow
areas or excess material placement areas, if necessary. If any access, staging, borrow, or excess material
placement areas are not located within the existing rights‐of‐way, these areas would be surveyed.
For the E‐W Corridor, access would be primarily from public areas or the highway right‐of‐way (SR 528)
but some private access may be required. Material staging areas would be located within the proposed
railroad right‐of‐way. Site access has not yet been identified and therefore, construction effects have not
been assessed. Construction activities will be conducted in a manner to avoid effects to known cultural
resources listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP, as stipulated in the MOA.
Within the N‐S Corridor, access to work areas will be primarily from public access points and therefore,
will not affect cultural resources. If private property is proposed to be used for site access or for material
staging, AAF will conduct such activities in such a manner to avoid effects to known cultural resources
listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP, as stipulated in the MOA. Any construction staging areas not
currently within the right‐of‐way will be surveyed.
As stated in Section 3.4 of the 2012 EA, the WPB‐M Corridor will include construction primarily on
existing exclusive right‐of‐way, and, therefore, would have no temporary effects on historic or
archaeological resources.
5.4.5.5 Regulatory Compliance
This section outlines the regulatory compliance requirements for cultural resources. Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (36 CFR 800) provides the regulatory framework
for the compliance guidelines for the identification and evaluation of cultural resources. Other relevant
legislation and regulations include Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of Cultural
Environment, and the Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties (Appendix C) at 33 CFR part 325,
Processing of Department of the Army Permits.
Mitigation measures for adverse effects to historic resources include avoidance, minimization, data
recovery, and photographic recordation. The documentation for any of these mitigation measures must
provide evidence that consultation has been completed with the SHPO, concerned Indian Tribes, and any
other identified consulting parties. Actions that the parties agree upon to resolve adverse effects will be
detailed in a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement, which is a legally binding
agreement among the FRA, other participating federal agencies, the SHPO, and the Advisory Council on
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-143 September 2014

Historic Preservation. A draft MOA will be included in the Final EIS. Once the agreement is signed by all
appropriate parties and the filed with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Section 106
process is completed. FRA’s Section 106 responsibilities are fulfilled when the agreement’s stipulations
are implemented.
The next steps in Section 106 compliance for the Project include SHPO review and concurrence with FRA’s
finding of adverse effect to the Eau Gallie River Bridge and St. Sebastian River Bridge, and developing a MOA
or PA that stipulates measures to mitigate for these adverse effects, measures to address unanticipated
discoveries of archaeological resources during construction, and measures to ensure that construction of
new communications towers is consistent with the requirements of Section 106.
5.4.6 Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources
This section describes the potential effects to existing recreational properties along with properties that
are protected under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (publicly owned land of a public park,
recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state or local significance) and Section 6(f)
of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (other than the historic resources described in
Section 5.4.5, Cultural Resources) (49 USC 303, et seq., 16 USC 460L‐460L‐11).
A use of a Section 4(f) resource must be avoided unless there is no feasible and prudent avoidance
alternative to use of the resource and all possible planning to minimize harm (such as avoidance,
minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) is implemented or there is a de minimis impact
determination. De minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources are those effects that would have no adverse
effect on the protected resource.
Section 6(f) resources are all parks and other recreational facilities that have been the subject of Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act grants of any type. Section 6(f)(3) contains strong provisions to protect
federal investments and the quality of assisted resources. Section 6(f)(3) states that no Section 6(f)
resource shall be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses without approval of the
Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary may approve conversions only if he/she finds it to be in
accordance with the existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan.
As documented below the Project would not require the use of any Section 4(f) property related to parks,
recreation areas and wildlife or waterfowl refuges and would not result in a constructive use of any such
Section 4(f) property. No Section 6(f) properties would be used by the Project. Chapter 6 of this EIS
provides a detailed Section 4(f) Evaluation.
5.4.6.1 Methodology
Direct impacts to Section 4(f) recreation resources were characterized based on physical impacts to park
and recreational properties, including:
 Land permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;
 Temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute's preservation purpose;
that is, when one of the following criteria for temporary occupancy are not met:
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-144 September 2014

o The duration of the occupancy must be less than the time needed for the construction of the
project, and no change of ownership occurs.
o Both the nature and magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) land are minimal.
o No permanent adverse physical changes, nor interference with activities or purposes of the
resources on a temporary or permanent basis, are anticipated.
o The land must be returned to a condition that is at least as good as existed prior to the project.
o There is documented agreement with the appropriate federal, state, or local officials having
jurisdiction over the land that the above conditions have been met.
Indirect impacts (constructive use) were also evaluated. A constructive use can occur when the
transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) resource, but the project's proximity
effects are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for
protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.
5.4.6.2 Environmental Consequences
Potential direct effects to Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) recreation resources could include the acquisition
and permanent incorporation of land within these resources. The Project would not require the use of
any Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) recreation area, park, or wildlife refuge.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed or operated. Existing commuter
railway services and opportunities would remain unchanged, and no use of Section 4(f) or Section 6(f)
recreation resources would occur.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
Potential direct effects of the Project to Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) recreation resources would be the
same under all Action Alternatives. The Project would not incorporate any Section 4(f) recreation area,
park, or wildlife refuge.
MCO Segment
The MCO Segment would not require the use of Section 4(f) recreation resources. The MCO Segment is
within the property boundaries of MCO; there are no Section 4(f) recreation resources or Section 6(f)
lands within MCO, which is entirely within the property of the Orlando International Airport.
East-West Corridor
The E‐W Corridor is adjacent to two Section 4(f) recreation resources east of the SR 528 and SR 520
interchange: the Tosohatchee WMA and Canaveral Marshes Conservation Area. Constructing the
E‐W Corridor would not require acquisition of new right‐of‐way within the property limits of these
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-145 September 2014

Section 4(f) recreation resources, as the new railroad would be entirely within the SR 528 right‐of‐way
owned by FDOT. No new communications towers would be placed in a Section 4(f) resource.
The E‐W Corridor would cross Long Bluff Road in the Tosohatchee WMA (Figure 5.4.6‐1). Long Bluff Road
is a designated multi‐use path that provides access from the north to parking and fishing areas in the
southern portion of the Tosohatchee WMA; it is the only road providing access across SR 528 within the
Tosohatchee WMA. SR 528 also crosses over Long Bluff Road at this location. The Project would cross
Long Bluff Road on a new overpass and no permanent land acquisition would be required.
AAF is in discussion with the Tosohatchee State Reserve (TSR) Land Manager
6
concerning the possibility
of obtaining material for railway embankments from three ponds on the reserve lands that were
originally created as borrow pits for the original SR 528 construction. According to AAF, the TSR desires
that these three ponds be expanded and reshaped with the addition of habitat‐friendly littoral shelves.
AAF is currently surveying the pond areas to evaluate the existing ecological conditions and determine
whether borrow material from the ponds would be suitable for constructing the Project. This activity is
considered a temporary but beneficial occupancy of a Section 4(f) property with a de minimis effect.
Section 6.4.3 of this EIS provides additional information on this use of the Tosohatchee WMA.

6 The Tosohatchee State Reserve is the umbrella for properties under the jurisdiction of multiple state agencies, and includes the
Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-146 September 2014


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


Environmental Consequences 5-147 September 2014

North-South Corridor
Thirty Section 4(f) recreation resources are along the N‐S Corridor. The existing FECR Corridor bisects
two of these resources: the Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge and Jonathan Dickinson State Park. All
construction would take place within the existing FECR‐owned right of way, and would not require
acquisition of new right‐of‐way within these Section 4(f) resource property limits.
The N‐S Corridor crosses two roads within Jonathan Dickinson State Park: the Florida Trail (East Loop)
and Southeast Jonathan Dickinson Way (Figure 5.4.6‐2). Based on information provided by the Jonathan
Dickinson State Park Manager (Nelson 2013) the Florida Trail (East Loop) is no longer open due to safety
concerns related to existing freight traffic along the FECR Corridor. Southeast Jonathan Dickinson Way is an
at‐grade access road that connects Jonathan Dickinson State Park to US 1. The N‐S Corridor would not result
in the permanent closure of Southeast Jonathan Dickinson Way. All construction would take place within
the existing FECR‐owned right‐of‐way, and no land acquisition would be required. To ensure the safety of
the users of Jonathan Dickinson State Park, AAF would implement at‐grade crossing improvements where
the N‐S Corridor crosses Southeast Jonathan Dickinson Way. Safety improvements would include upgraded
warning devices such as flashing lights, signage and pavement markings; median barriers; and a four‐
quadrant gate, which blocks both sides of each traffic lane. Electronic warning systems would be
implemented, which would monitor and communicate train locations and speeds, and would stop the train
if the crossing is not clear. Current safety measures at the existing at‐grade crossing of the freight railway
and Southeast Jonathan Dickinson Way include passive signage, flashing lights, and a two‐quadrant gate.
Two of the 30 identified Section 4(f) recreation resources along the N‐S Corridor are also Section 6(f)
resources: North Sebastian Conservation Area and Sawfish Bay Park. No land acquisition within either
resource would be required.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-148 September 2014


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


Environmental Consequences 5-149 September 2014

Phase I - West Palm Beach - Miami Corridor
As stated in Section 3.3.8 of the 2012 EA, the WPB‐M Corridor would not require direct property
acquisition or additional right‐of‐way within any of the Section 4(f) properties that are adjacent to the
right‐of‐way. Phase I does not require direct acquisition of any Section 4(f) protected resources that
would constitute a use under Section 4(f). The FRA, in the FONSI, found that Phase I would not use
properties subject to the requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 or
have a significant impact on recreational resources.
5.4.6.3 Constructive Use
A constructive use can occur when a transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f)
resource, but the project’s proximity effects are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes
that qualify the resources for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. Substantial
impairment is determined to occur when there is a substantial diminishment of the activities, features, and
attributes of the Section 4(f) recreation resources. This evaluation of constructive use of Section 4(f)
recreation resources for the Project reviewed potential noise, vibration, aesthetics and access effects.
Noise
Changes in noise from the operation of the Project would not result in a constructive use to Section 4(f)
recreation resources within or adjacent to the Project Study Area, for the following reasons:
 The Section 4(f) recreation resources currently experience vehicular traffic noise disturbance
(automobile and truck traffic within the SR 528 corridor) and/or rail noise disturbance
(freight traffic within the existing FECR Corridor).
 Noise disturbance from additional train traffic would be intermittent, and limited to only a few
minutes per hour under the highest levels of rail traffic.
 Train noise from individual passenger trains along the N‐S Corridor would likely be lower and
occur for shorter periods of times, even though more frequently, than with current freight rail
operations.
Section 5.2.2, Noise and Vibration discusses changes in noise associated with the Project. The Project
would be compatible with the intended uses of Section 4(f) recreation resources, as parklands are
compatible with these noise levels (FAA 2004).
As stated in Section 3.3.8 of the 2012 EA, one Section 4(f) resource appears to have a potential effect from
noise along the WPB‐M Corridor: the El Portal Tot Lot – Miami‐Dade County. However, based on committed
mitigation measures (for example, stationary grade crossing horns), all severe and moderate effects related
to recreational land uses are eliminated, including noise impact to the El Portal Tot Lot.
Vibration
Vibration, even at a severe level, would not interfere with the intended use of Section 4(f) recreation
resources within the Project Study Area. Any increase in vibration resulting from the Project would not
create adverse effects, and would be scarcely noticeable to the surroundings. The Project would cross
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-150 September 2014

Long Bluff Road in the Tosohatchee WMA by means of an overpass. Vibration effects at this crossing
would be less than those projected for the at‐grade portions of the E‐W Corridor, as the trains would be
elevated and disconnected from the ground. Vibration associated with existing freight traffic along the
N‐S Corridor, including the crossing of Southeast Jonathan Dickinson Way in Jonathan Dickinson State
Park, is greater than vibration associated with the proposed passenger train traffic. Changes in vibration
from the Project would not result in constructive use to Section 4(f) recreation resources within or
adjacent to the Project Study Area, as the intended use of these resources is compatible with any increases
in vibration. Section 5.2.2, Noise and Vibration discusses changes in vibration associated with the Project.
Aesthetic
The Project along the E‐W Corridor would be constructed primarily within or adjacent to the SR 528 right‐
of‐way. SR 528 dominates the existing viewshed along the majority of the E‐W Corridor; modifications
proposed for this corridor would not substantially change existing aesthetic conditions for the two
Section 4(f) properties present along this segment. The N‐S Corridor is within the existing FECR Corridor,
and modifications proposed for this corridor would maintain the general aesthetics of this active rail line.
Changes to aesthetics/viewshed associated with the Project would not result in constructive use to
Section 4(f) recreation resources within or adjacent to the Project Study Area. Section 5.4.7, Visual and
Scenic Resources, discusses changes to aesthetics associated with the Project.
Access Alteration
None of the Section 4(f) recreation resources within the Project Study Area would require alteration to
existing access. The Project crosses Long Bluff Road and Southeast Jonathan Dickinson Way in the
Tosohatchee WMA and Jonathan Dickinson State Park, respectively. The Project would cross Long Bluff
Road on an elevated track structure, and would maintain existing accessibility. The N‐S Corridor would
be entirely within the existing FECR Corridor, which currently crosses Southeast Jonathan Dickinson Way.
Although these Section 4(f) recreation resources would not experience direct use associated with the
Project, there may be temporary access restrictions to these roads during construction but that would
not affect their use.
5.4.6.4 Temporary Construction-Period Effects
At Long Bluff Road, construction of a new railroad bridge would require temporary occupancy of an
adjacent area of the Tosohatchee WMA to accommodate erosion and sediment control, construction
staging areas, and traffic coordination. If temporary road or lane closures are necessary, AAF, in
association with FRA, would coordinate with the land managing agency of the Section 4(f) recreational
resources (FWC). As described in Chapter 6, Section 4(f) Evaluation, this would not constitute a
constructive use of the Tosohatchee WMA.
5.4.6.5 Mitigation
The E‐W Corridor would be constructed as an overpass so as not to interrupt the intended use of Long
Bluff Road within the Tosohatchee WMA. Construction of the overpass may require the temporary
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-151 September 2014

occupancy of construction areas within the Tosohatchee WMA; however, the construction areas would
be stabilized with grass and mulch and the land returned to pre‐construction conditions.
5.4.7 Visual and Scenic Resources
This section addresses the potential effects of the Project on visual and scenic resources, the natural and
man‐made features that give a particular landscape its aesthetic properties. Visual resources include sites,
objects and landscapes features that contribute to the visual character of the surrounding area and/or
are valued for their scenic qualities.
The Project is anticipated to have only minor effects on visual and scenic resources, primarily associated
with new bridges over waterways and new communications towers along the E‐W Corridor.
5.4.7.1 Methodology
As described in Section 4.4.7, Visual and Scenic Resources, three crossing locations along the E‐W Corridor,
at the Econlockhatchee River, at the St. Johns River, and at I‐95, were selected as representative sites that
illustrate the potential effect the new rail line would have on its surroundings. No photo renderings were
developed for the N‐S Corridor as this is currently a developed rail corridor and restoring the second track
is not anticipated to substantially change the visual environment.
5.4.7.2 Environmental Consequences
This section describes the visual and scenic resource effects resulting from the Project. Potential historic
landscapes, wildlife refuges, parks, and other visual and scenic resources proximate to the MCO Segment,
E‐W Corridor, and N‐S Corridor including potential viewshed effects, are also evaluated within other
sections (Section 5.4.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 5.4.6, Recreation and Other Section 4(f) Resources)
of this DEIS.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed or operated. The Project Study
Area, including viewsheds, would remain the same with no passenger rail related development or
construction changes. In the No‐Action Alternative, there would be no effects, adverse or otherwise, to
visual and scenic resources.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
The visual effects of Alternatives A, C, and E are expected to be similar.
MCO Segment
The existing viewshed of the MCO Segment would remain primarily unchanged as the existing area
includes mainly the developed MCO. Development of the MCO Segment would not significantly affect
visual and scenic resources in this area as the existing transportation land use would not change because
of the Project. Airport visitors would see a new rail line parallel to an existing roadway, which would have
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-152 September 2014

minimal effect on the visual conditions. AAF passengers traveling along the MCO Segment would see the
existing SR 528, MCO terminals, roadways, parking lots, and undeveloped land.
East-West Corridor
The E‐W Corridor primarily crosses undeveloped wooded areas, wetlands, and agricultural pasture,
parallel to SR 528. The design and construction of the railroad through the E‐W Corridor would comply
with FDOT and FRA guidelines, and would include aesthetic features such as standard mechanically
stabilized earth walls pursuant to FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and
the FDOT’s standard Design‐Build Guidelines (FDOT 2012b and 2013a). Motorists traveling along SR 528
would generally be able to see the new railroad to the south. For Alternatives A and C, vegetation within
the south side of the highway right‐of‐way would be removed, opening up views to the south and
increasing motorists’ views of the railroad and adjacent undeveloped lands. For Alternative E, motorists
would be less likely to see the passenger rail line as the vegetation near the highway would be retained
and the rail line would be farther from the highway.
Three locations along the E‐W Corridor were selected as representation sites to illustrate potential
impacts of new rail line on surrounding viewsheds: the Econlockhatchee River, the St. Johns River, and
I‐95. If the E‐W Corridor were to be developed, the viewshed of motorists traveling east on SR 528
crossing the Econlockhatchee River would change minimally. For Alternatives A and C, the rail line would
be relatively close to SR 528 and visible to motorists traveling on SR 528. Motorists would be able to see
the rail bridge’s long retaining walls parallel to SR 528. For Alternative E, the rail line would be farther
away from SR 528 and therefore less visible. Motorists would be able to see a small portion of the new
passenger rail line through existing vegetated areas. A narrow, restricted view of the rail bridge settled
within the existing views of the Econlockhatchee River’s natural features would be visible at this location.
Figure 4.4.7‐2b shows a photo rendering of the Econlockhatchee River viewshed looking south from SR
528 for Alternative E.
The viewshed of motorists traveling east on SR 528 crossing the St. Johns River would be somewhat
obstructed because the rail bridge would be higher than the SR 528 bridge. Those motorists traveling in
small passenger vehicles would no longer have an extensive view of the St. Johns River from SR 528.
Motorists in larger vehicles such as sport utility vehicles or trucks would likely be able to view the St. Johns
River over the railroad bridge and embankment as drivers in these vehicles sit at greater heights. The
views for boaters on the St. Johns River looking north towards SR 528 would not change substantially as
the rail bridge would be parallel to SR 528 and would be similar to the size and structure of SR 528 over
the river. Figures 4.4.7‐3b and 4.4.7‐4b are photo renderings of St. Johns River views looking southeast
from SR 528 and from the St. Johns River looking north. Views would be the same for Alternatives A, C
and E as all three alternatives would be on the same alignment at this location.
The viewshed of motorists traveling on I‐95 towards the SR 528 overpass would change minimally. The
new rail overpass would be constructed parallel to SR 528 and would be similar to the size and structure
of the SR 528 bridge over I‐95. Motorists traveling on I‐95 would see another overpass similar to SR 528.
Figure 4.4.7‐5b shows a photo rendering of the I‐95 approach to the SR 528 overpass. Views would be the
same for Alternatives A, C and E as all three alternatives would be on the same alignment at this location.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-153 September 2014

Motorists traveling northbound on other intersecting highways, such as Narcoosee Road, SR 417 and SR
520, approaching SR 528 would see a similar view as the I‐95 approach to SR 528. Motorists on these
highways would see a new overpass in front of and similar to the existing SR 528 overpass. The only
minor change in appearance of the new overpass would be instead of seeing grass side slopes, such as the
ones associated with SR 528 overpasses, motorists would see concrete retaining walls similar to those
shown in Figure 4.4.7‐5b.
New communications towers would be required along the E‐W Corridor to support the communications
systems. These towers would be either monopole or lattice‐type towers, generally 60 feet tall or less.
While these towers would be visible to motorists on SR 528, they would not substantially change views
along this corridor.
North-South Corridor
The existing viewshed along the N‐S Corridor would remain largely unchanged. Modifications proposed
for this corridor are expected to maintain the general aesthetics of this active rail line. Project
improvements, including restoring the double‐track system along the N‐S Corridor, would occur within
the existing right‐of‐way. Construction within the N‐S Corridor is not expected to affect visual and scenic
resources in this area as the existing transportation land use would not be changed because of the Project.
The existing rail corridor would continue to be used with minimal removal of vegetation and no changes
to at‐grade crossings except for upgrades to signals in some locations.
The N‐S Corridor would be visible from roadways that cross at‐grade. Motorists’ views at these at‐grade
roadways would be limited to grade crossings, lights, gates, and flashers. In a few locations, especially
urban areas, the N‐S Corridor would be visible from nearby buildings. Views currently consist of one or
two tracks, railroad ballast, and infrastructure. In more suburban areas, vegetation would generally
screen the views of the railroad. These visual conditions are not anticipated to change because of the
Project. Boaters traveling underneath existing FECR Corridor bridges on navigable waterways would not
see a substantial change because of the Project, although some dilapidated bridges on timber pilings
would be replaced with new structures supported on concrete pilings. Boaters’ views would continue to
consist of the railroad bridges, as proposed improvements would restore the tracks or reconstruct the
bridges within the same location as the existing structures.
AAF passengers would see a variety of undeveloped and developed land use types, such as residential areas,
highways, commercial and industrial developments, golf courses, wetlands, forested areas, parks,
agriculture, and water bodies while traveling the N‐S Corridor. The trains would travel through areas of high
density associated with urban centers and areas of low density associated with natural areas.
Phase I - West Palm Beach - Miami Corridor
As stated in Section 3.3.11 of the 2012 EA, the existing viewshed of the FECR Corridor from the surrounding
land uses would be maintained. The proposed station concepts include aesthetic features such as
architectural components, landscaping, and ADA‐compliant parking and pedestrian features. These
improvements are anticipated to result in an enhancement to the existing communities. It is also anticipated
that the proposed station construction would be compatible with surrounding land uses. During the design
phase of the WPB‐M Corridor, complete engineering and architectural details for station facilities (including
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-154 September 2014

canopy columns and railings), platforms, signing, lighting, and landscaping plans would be developed in
accordance with all applicable codes and laws and pursuant to all required permitting reviews.
The stations located adjacent to NRHP‐eligible historic districts will incorporate aesthetic features
consistent with the historic architecture of the surrounding community and will be developed in
coordination with local historic preservation groups and organizations and subject to review by SHPO.
Boaters traveling underneath existing FECR Corridor bridges on navigable waterways would not see a
substantial change because of the Project, although some dilapidated bridges on timber pilings would be
replaced with new structures supported on concrete pilings. Boaters’ views would continue to consist of
the railroad bridges, as proposed improvements would restore the tracks or reconstruct the bridges
within the same location as the existing structures.
5.4.8 Utilities and Energy Resources
This section describes the potential effects of the Project on public utilities and energy supplies. The
Project would have no, or negligible, effects on utilities and energy resources.
5.4.8.1 Environmental Consequences – Utilities
The Project may require that some of the existing utilities be relocated outside of the track footprint.
Where the proposed track crosses underground utilities, relocation may be necessary to provide an
adequate depth below the tracks. Where the proposed track crosses under overhead utilities, relocation
or reconstruction may be necessary to provide the required vertical clearance over the tracks to
accommodate utilities lines and equipment. During final design, AAF will coordinate with all of the
affected utilities.
No-Action Alternative
The No‐Action Alternative would not affect existing public utilities.
Action Alternatives A, C, and E
The effects to utilities from Alternatives A, C, and E are expected to be similar, with some slight variations
in the alternative alignments through the OOCEA section of the E‐W Corridor.
MCO Segment
Some buried utilities may be present in the MCO Segment. Coordination with the affected utilities is
required and planned; coordination and final relocation plans will be established during the detailed
design stage of the Project. The proposed VMF, on GOAA property near the MCO, is currently served by
all necessary utilities (OUC 2013). Constructing the VMF would affect a large infiltration ditch originally
constructed to serve the City of Orlando wastewater treatment facility but which is no longer functioning.
Constructing the VMF, therefore, would not affect any utilities.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-155 September 2014

East-West Corridor
The E‐W Corridor crosses several stormwater management features associated with SR 528. The Project
has been designed to provide replacement stormwater management ponds and infrastructure, and
would not have a long‐term adverse effect on stormwater management.
The E‐W Corridor crosses several overhead electrical transmission lines. Vertical relocation (raising) the
aerial electrical transmission lines crossing the E‐W Corridor right‐of‐way may also be required, although
preliminary analyses by AAF suggest that raising lines to maintain adequate vertical clearances is not
likely necessary. The Project would require that an existing access road between Farm Access Road #2
and the major Florida Power and Light (FPL) overhead transmission line west of SR 520 be relocated, for
a distance of approximately 1 mile. For Alternative A, the access road would be accommodated within the
existing SR 528 right‐of‐way using retaining walls for the railroad. For Alternatives C and E, a new
maintenance access road would be constructed south of the railroad, and would be a shared maintenance
road with AAF. AAF would coordinate with the affected utilities during final design.
According to the National Pipeline Mapping Service, the Project may intersect two existing pipelines
(PHMSA 2007) that are within the SR 528 right‐of‐way, parallel to the existing road. Alternative A may
require that portions of these pipelines be relocated. Measures that would be used to ensure that natural
gas pipelines or any other pipelines crossing beneath the proposed new rail may include the use of casing
and maintaining at least 4.5 feet of cover between the top of the casing and the rail bed. AAF will
coordinate with the pipeline owners and operators during final design. Any relocation would require
approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Coordination with the affected utilities
is required and planned; coordination and final relocation plans will be established during the detailed
design stage of the Project.
North-South Corridor
Electrical transmission/distribution lines, above and below ground, are located along and within the
FECR Corridor. In some locations, poles will require relocation in order to accommodate the new mainline
track and upgraded crossings. AAF would coordinate with the affected utilities during final design and
prior to construction. Pole relocation is expected to be minimal, and associated with grade crossings and
limited sections of the rail corridor where new track is required.
Electrical service providers within the N‐S Corridor include FPL and the City of Vero Beach. Improving
the railroad crossings could impose temporary and minor disturbances on electrical service and could
result in a slight increase in electricity to operate the new crossings and switch stations.
Phase I - West Palm Beach - Miami Corridor
Phase I of the Project is also served by FPL. An existing FPL substation, located between Datura and North
Clematis Streets at the intersection of the FECR rail line, would serve the Project. The main service for the
site is routed through aboveground distribution lines adjacent to the WPB‐M Corridor. No utility
relocations would be required for Phase I.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-156 September 2014

5.4.8.2 Environmental Consequences - Energy Use
This section evaluates the changes in energy use associated with the Project. The No‐Action Alternative
would be expected to result in increasing energy consumption for private automobiles, commensurate
with the increase in annual vehicle‐miles traveled.
The evaluation of energy consumption took into account energy requirements for locomotives (train
operations), facility operations, and the off‐setting decrease in energy usage by personal automobiles.
Alternatives A, C, and E would have negligible effects on energy consumption. As defined by the EPA,
negligible energy effects are those that would result in a slight measurable increased use of energy but
are very close to the existing conditions.
Operational, safety improvements and upgrades are necessary due to the increased passenger train
speeds and frequency. These improvements and upgrades require minimal electrical demand. Electrical
consumption would increase with the addition of a second mainline track along the N‐S Corridor from
Cocoa to Miami, along with the increase in maximum authorized speed. This minor increase is a result of
additional interlockings, which provide the operational flexibility for mixed freight and passenger service.
In addition to the increase of interlockings, PTC adds electrical loads not currently seen. These PTC loads
are derived from associated equipment, including wayside interface units and radio towers for
transmission of information between wayside locations and each train. Another area of increase is at
highway‐rail grade crossings. Additional equipment is required due to adding a second mainline track,
increasing track speed, and the proposed PTC system. To help offset any increases in energy demand at
crossings, AAF will replace existing incandescent lamps with LED flashers. Additional minor increases in
energy usage would occur with new surveillance cameras at locations where high vandalism occurs, and
where potential storage of track maintenance equipment is likely to take place.
Additional electrical service would be required to operate new rail crossings or switch stations. Electrical
service providers within the corridor include FPL, Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), and Progress
Energy. The increase in electrical service/demand is minimal and would require no major changes or
construction of electrical or other utility infrastructure. No other electrical utilities would be affected by
the construction or operation of Project elements within the N‐S Corridor.
As stated in Section 3.3.10 of the 2012 EA, electrical energy requirements directly related to the operation
of the stations and ancillary activities along the WPB‐M Corridor are anticipated to average
81,600,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) annually.
Locomotives
AAF will operate each train with two locomotives. Each locomotive will be designed in accordance with
New Generation DE Locomotive PRIIA 305‐005 technical specification and all FRA standards and
regulations. The dual set will provide maximum reliability, improved acceleration, and a high level of
safety from the locomotive’s incorporated crash energy management system.
Each locomotive will be equipped with a state‐of‐the‐art, 4,000‐horsepower diesel engine that will
provide sufficient traction power for up to nine single‐level cars for a sustained maximum operating
speed of 125 mph. Emission limits are according to EPA Tier 4 (Rail) (EPA 2011b). Fuel consumption and
exhaust will be reduced significantly by using a highly efficient diesel‐electric traction system with
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-157 September 2014

rheostatic braking which will enable significant fuel savings with significant reduction of exhaust. The
electrical brake will provide electrical energy to feed auxiliaries.
According to Section 3.3.10 of the 2012 EA, approximately 1.3 million gallons of diesel fuel would be
consumed by the Project (in total) on an annual basis. In 2011, the State of Florida consumed
approximately 1.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
2012). The Project fuel needs represent approximately 0.09 percent of existing diesel fuel use. Based on
the estimated annual quantities of diesel consumption, the effect on energy resources would be negligible.
Facility Operations
Operating the VMF at the northern terminus would require additional energy through existing electrical
services. Electrical requirements related directly to the operation of the stations and ancillary activities
are anticipated to average 81.6 million kWh annually, which is compared with 8.5 trillion kWh produced
by the OUC annually (OUC 2013). Adequate energy supplies are available to support the operation of the
VMF. As stated in the EA (Section 3.3.10), electrical energy would be required for Phase I stations.
Electrical requirements related directly to the operation of the stations and ancillary activities are
anticipated to average 81,600,000 kWh annually.
Personal Vehicle Use
Based on the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure Regional Transportation Model
Highway Evaluation output and the investment‐grade ridership study (Louis Berger Group 2013), AAF
estimates that roadway VMT would be reduced by the proposed Orlando to West Palm Beach service by
149,328,070 miles in 2019 and by 178,726,265 miles in 2030 (see Table 5.2.1‐1), respectively. Using the
U.S. average of 22.1 miles per gallon (mpg) for 2011, this represents a saving of 6,756,926 gallons per
year (gpy) in 2019 and 8,087,161 gpy in 2030. The analysis indicates that the Project would result in a
net reduction in petroleum‐based fuels consumed and VMTs within the State of Florida and, therefore,
would have a beneficial or enhanced effect on energy use.
As stated in Section 3.1.1 of the 2012 EA, the WPB‐M Corridor would reduce roadway VMT by
44,229,342 in 2018 and by 51,345,672 in 2030, respectively. Using the average 22.1 mpg, this represents
a saving of 2,001,327.6 and 2,323,333.5 gpy, respectively, in gasoline (energy) consumption. This
reduction in VMT would generate a corresponding reduction in regional highway congestion levels.
5.4.8.3 Temporary Construction-Period Effects
The Project would require the use of various types of fossil fuels, electrical energy, and other resources
during construction. These resources are considered to be irretrievably committed to the Project. At this
time, these resources are not in short supply and are considered readily available. As a result, the use of
these resources is not expected to result in an adverse effect upon their continued availability.
The Project would consume energy, primarily as diesel fuel, during construction. According to the current
design plans for the N‐S Corridor, the materials and equipment required to reconstruct the railroad bridges
and the additional rail lines would be transported via the existing railway. Due to the reduced energy
demands associated with rail travel, the energy needed to construct the Project in the N‐S Corridor is
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-158 September 2014

substantially less than compared to an infrastructure project that requires a roadway mobilization
(FRA 2010b). Construction phasing could greatly reduce energy consumption associated with construction
in the E‐W Corridor and VMF by allowing materials to be transported by rail.
The Project would require the commitment of various types of construction materials, including steel,
aggregate, cement, asphalt (bituminous materials), electrical supplies, piping, and other raw materials
such as metal, stone, sand and fill material. Large amounts of labor and other natural resources would be
committed to the fabrication and preparation of these construction materials. This commitment of
resources is irretrievable but the resources are not in short supply and their use would not result in any
adverse effect upon their continued availability.
The initial operation of the Project may result in a slight increase in energy consumption when compared
to the No‐Action Alternative. The Project would be expected to result in a long‐term decrease in energy
consumption through increased travel efficiency along new transit routes during operation.
Contractors would use phasing and hire professional utility locators to identify any potential conflicts in
order to prevent or limit any interruptions in utility service. Potential outages could occur depending
upon the utilities network, which may have the ability to reroute those circuits in order to minimize any
temporary disruption of service. The relocation of poles is expected to be minimal, and associated with
grade crossings and limited sections of the rail corridor where new track is required. Contractors will be
required to follow standard safety practices when working below power lines, including signage,
restrictions on equipment height, and protecting wires.
5.4.9 Cumulative Impacts
The Project would result in direct or indirect, adverse and/or beneficial effects to a range of resources, as
described in the prior sections of Chapter 5. Some of the Project‘s impacts, whether minor or major, when
combined with the effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions may result in
substantive effects to environmental or social (human) resources. These combined impacts are referred
to as cumulative impacts.
The analysis provided in this section evaluates direct and indirect changes to the environment resulting
from the Project and because of past and reasonably foreseeable future actions, consistent with CEQ and
other agency guidance documents:
 Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997a);
 Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis (CEQ 2005b);
 Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Highway Project Development Process
(FHWA 1992);
 Interim Guidance: Questions and Answers Regarding Indirect and Cumulative Impact Considerations
in the NEPA Process (FHWA 2003); and
 Cumulative Effects Evaluation Handbook (FDOT 2012c).

The CEQ regulations define a cumulative impact as “the impact on the environment which results from
the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-159 September 2014

future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non‐Federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking
place over a period of time (40 CFR § 1508.7).”
As documented in this section, the Project is not anticipated to result in cumulative impacts which would
be collectively significant and adverse. With respect to transportation, air quality, and economic
resources, the Project would have beneficial cumulative impacts.
5.4.9.1 Methodology
The purpose of a cumulative impacts analysis is to identify effects that may be minimal and therefore
neither significant nor adverse when examined within the context of the proposed action, but that may
accumulate and become both significant and adverse over a large number of actions. This section
describes the methodology used to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Project alternatives.
The cumulative effects of the Project were analyzed for each of the alternatives, as compared to the
baseline condition (the No‐Action Alternative). The evaluation was conducted for a selected set of
resources within certain temporal and spatial boundaries, in reference to historical trends or effects from
specific other projects, and that are (for the most part) regulated by various governmental agencies.
Resources Evaluated
Sections 5.1.1 through 5.4.8 cover the potential direct and indirect effects of the Project for a broad range
of resources, including environmental media (air, water), ecosystems (biodiversity, wetlands, protected
species), and human communities (historical and archaeological resources, the economy). Some
resources are expected to be little affected by any of the Project alternatives; others may be substantively
affected positively or negatively, either directly or indirectly, or through induced growth. Some resources
have experienced substantial historical impact from other projects or human activity, may experience
substantial future impact from other projects or activities, or are of specific interest to decision‐makers,
regulators, and the residents of the Central and South Florida region. The cumulative impacts evaluation
focuses on those resources affected by the Project:
 Land Use;
 Transportation;
 Air quality;
 Noise;
 Water resources;
 Floodplains;
 Wetlands;
 Protected species; and
 Social and economic environment.
The other resources evaluated in Chapter 5 of this DEIS are expected to be little affected or not affected
by any of the Project alternatives and/or would not be adversely impacted by past or reasonably
foreseeable actions in the Project Study Area.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-160 September 2014

Although not a “reasonably foreseeable future action” in the traditional sense of cumulative impacts
analysis, the possible effects of climate change on resources such as wetlands and threatened and
endangered species has been taken into consideration to the extent possible.
Federal, state, or local governmental agencies regulate most of the resources selected for the cumulative
impacts evaluation. The regulatory programs drive many of the trends for improving resource values
(such as air quality, water quality, and wetlands area) and are thus an important factor in the resource
effects of the Project and other regional projects. The regulatory programs typically control effects to the
resources by prohibiting impacts except for as authorized by a permit. Regulatory agencies are charged
with reviewing permit applications and, generally, only authorize activities that provide the least impact
to the resource while still meeting the Project’s purpose and need. For this cumulative impacts evaluation,
the existing permitted facilities and proposed actions provide an indication of the current and likely
future impacts to the resources.
The agencies responsible for administering these programs are typically charged with managing the
resources on a project‐by‐project basis, but in the context of the common good. For example, the federal
government has a “no net loss” policy regarding wetlands: project proponents seeking permits to fill
wetland areas are commonly required to offset losses by replacing filled wetlands at a negotiated ratio.
These replacement ratios, in part, make up for historical wetland loss in addition to the project‐specific loss.
Thus, certain regulated resources are experiencing improvements, rather than degradations, over time.
Temporal and Spatial Boundaries
The cumulative impacts analysis defines a time frame and geographic range for the evaluation, and takes
into account changes from other projects within this time frame that contribute to cumulative effects on
the resources listed above. Historical impacts have been evaluated for two time periods.
For most resources, prior changes have been evaluated for the period 2000 to 2012. The year 2000 was
selected as the starting date because this is a prior census year, it was in the midst of a period of economic
downturn, and it establishes a reasonable baseline condition. The baseline reflects conditions in
2012/2013, taking into consideration publication delays for the availability of the most recent data. Future
impacts have been evaluated to the year 2019, the planning year for the Project at which time full ridership
is anticipated to be reached. Spatial boundaries for the analysis varied by resource, according to the specific
characteristics of the resource, regulatory jurisdictions, and the availability of meaningful data.
The analysis used readily available data sources for past and future changes. For each resource, the
analysis took into consideration past changes to the selected resources that resulted from development
trends or major projects within the Project Study Area. Future changes to the selected resources are based
on historic or recent trends, or specific projects, including all reasonably foreseeable projects (those
projects that are undergoing or have completed major environmental permitting actions or NEPA
reviews) and that are programmed for construction. Each of these projects is briefly described below.
Because the majority of these projects are in early planning stages and are at the conceptual design stage,
effects to environmental resources have largely not been quantified. The cumulative impacts of these
projects are therefore assessed qualitatively based on the assumed level of impact.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-161 September 2014

Projects Considered in this Analysis
The analysis of cumulative impacts includes projects within the Central‐Southeast Florida study area that
are reasonably foreseeable – that are planned and programmed for construction within the time frame of
this analysis, or which are likely to occur outside of the public planning process. Projects that have been
proposed and evaluated, but which are not likely to proceed in this time frame, are not included in the
analysis.
MCO Intermodal Station
Multimodal improvements proposed at MCO include two new Intermodal Centers for passengers and the
associated passenger rail and light rail (LRT) alignments within MCO. These improvements provide
connections to intercity passenger rail and regional light rail. The Intermodal Centers provide
interconnectivity to multi‐modes of transportation within the region’s current and future transportation
system and increase capacity through additional passenger processing, ground operations and parking
immediately adjacent to the terminals to the south (FTA, FDOT, and GOAA 2005). Construction of the
Intermodal Centers would occur with or without the Project, as they would potentially accommodate other
rail projects (that is, commuter rail [SunRail] and light rail [North‐South Light Rail Alignment]), along with
an expanded LYNX bus service, large‐scale garage parking, rental car facilities, taxi accommodations, and
other ground transportation options (MCO 2010).
GOAA has programmed construction of this facility for 2014 through 2016 (MCO 2012a). The Intermodal
Terminal Complex, at the site of the future South Terminal, would consist of a terminal building housing
the airport’s Automated People Mover, a bus terminal, passenger rail tracks, platforms and lobby, and
future commuter rail tracks and platforms. A 3,500‐car parking garage would be constructed as part of
this complex. This terminal complex would be constructed by GOAA even if the AAF project were not
advanced, and is therefore not part of the Project.
In accordance with NEPA, the FTA and the FDOT, in cooperation with GOAA, prepared an EA that
evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed intermodal improvements at MCO (FTA,
FDOT, and GOAA 2005). In December 2005, the FTA issued a FONSI based on the information in the Final
EA (FTA 2005). The FAA issued a re‐evaluation of the EA for the South Terminal Complex and Intermodal
Center, and concluded that the proposed intermodal improvements at MCO do not require a new or
supplemental EA (FAA 2013).
Orlando International Airport East Airfield Development Area
GOAA is proposing to develop an approximately 1,325‐acre area on the east side of the airport property,
south of SR 528 and west of Narcoossee Road. The proposed development would require FAA approval
of a modified Airport Layout Plan and is therefore subject to NEPA. The Project was described in a draft
EA issued for public comment in November 2009, and in an unpublished revised draft (November 2010)
available on the GOAA website (GOAA 2009). The Project includes a flexible conceptual development
master plan to provide large‐scale aviation uses with efficient airfield access, potentially including a fuel
farm; airport support uses such as maintenance, manufacturing, hangars or cargo facilities, and flight
training centers; stormwater management areas; roadways and open space; and buffers to the adjacent
communities.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-162 September 2014

Development along the SR 417 Corridor
Development along SR 417 southeast of the MCO has been occurring since the early 2000s, and has
included large private institutional developments (including the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, the
Sanford‐Burnham Medical Research Institute, and Nemours Children’s Hospital, all located at the Lake
Nona Medical City area) and residential communities (Randal Park, North Lake Park). Comparison of
2003 and 2013 aerial photographs illustrates the increased development in this area. Other private
developments are planned (such as International Corporate Park and Magnolia Ranch) and growth is
anticipated to continue as Central Florida recovers from the recession.
The Wewahootee property (formerly known as Innovation Place) is a 1,284‐acre mixed use master
planned community located at the southeast quadrant of the SR 528 and SR 417 interchange. The project
area was recently annexed into the City of Orlando from unincorporated Orange County and is entitled
for over 2,000 residential units and 1.3 million square feet of non‐residential use (retail, office). A
construction phasing schedule has not yet been established or approved by the City of Orlando.
State Road 528 Corridor Improvements
FDOT, in consultation with FHWA, is proposing to widen the existing SR 528 corridor from four lanes to
six lanes. Additionally, the OOCEA evaluated proposed improvements in the 2008 SR 528 corridor study,
which included expanding existing corridors and/or constructing new multi‐use corridor(s) that may
include, but not be limited to, a limited‐access toll roadway, a multi‐use utility corridor for pipelines,
power, communication, and/or water facilities; transit features and/or freight rail service. The project
study limits for FDOT’s SR 528 PD&E Study extend from the SR 520 interchange in unincorporated
Orange County to the Port Canaveral Terminal B interchange (George King Boulevard) in unincorporated
Brevard County, approximately 24 miles in length. This area includes portions of unincorporated areas
of eastern Orange County, the City of Cocoa, and unincorporated areas of Brevard County. Generally, the
purpose of the project is to enhance the integrity of the highway while accommodating future traffic
demands, improving overall safety, and meeting current design standards. In addition to providing
improved emergency evacuation and response/recovery time, the proposed improvements are intended
to serve existing and approved land uses along the SR 528 corridor.
The PD&E study completed in 2006 by FDOT provides the documented information necessary for FDOT
to reach a decision on the type, design, and location of improvements to SR 528, and this project has been
identified in FDOT’s Five Year Work Program. No funding for design, right‐of‐way, or construction has
been allocated.
The SR 528 Multi‐Use/Multi‐Modal Corridor Study was completed in 2008 by OOCEA. Next steps include
a PD&E study for multi‐use/multi‐modal improvements. No funding for design, right‐of‐way, or
construction has been allocated (OOCEA 2008).
In July 2013, OOCEA agreed to purchase approximately 500 acres of undeveloped land from Deseret
Ranches (OOCEA 2013). The purchase agreement includes a 200‐foot wide strip south of the existing
SR 528 right‐of‐way for future highway improvements and to accommodate the multi‐use/multi‐modal
corridor identified in the authority’s 2030 Master Plan.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-163 September 2014

Interstate 95 Widening
The portion of I‐95 under study by FDOT and FHWA stretches for 222 miles, from the Indian River County/
Brevard County border at the southern limit to the Georgia border at the northern limit, and includes
six counties and 12 municipalities. Roadway widening projects along the I‐95 corridor involve increasing
lane counts from between four and eight lanes to between six and 12 lanes. The I‐95 corridor serves and
connects several key facilities including major airports, intermodal freight‐rail terminals, passenger
terminals, seaports, and a spaceport. The primary purpose of the I‐95 Sketch Interstate Plan is to outline a
course of action to improve users/travelers mobility within the I‐95 corridor by identifying mainline
concepts to provide the mobility that will adequately serve high volume travel, facilitating interstate and
regional commerce and long distance trips (FDOT, Systems Planning Office 2010).
Some portions of I‐95 expansion near Cocoa in Brevard County have been funded or identified for funding
by FDOT. Design‐build proposals for the 12.4 miles from SR 528 south to SR 519 were received in
September 2006. Construction of the 10 miles from SR 528 north to SR 50 was funded in Fiscal Year
2009/2010. The FDOT PD&E to improve the I‐95 corridor from north of Oakland Park Boulevard
(SR 816) near Fort Lauderdale in Broward County to south of Glades Road (SR 808) near Boca Raton in
Palm Beach County is anticipated in July 2013, followed by implementation phases (FDOT 2013b).
Potential Future Projects Not Considered in this Analysis
Several transportation projects within the Project Study Area have been proposed or are currently in
preliminary planning stages. The Tri‐Rail Coastal Link Study is being undertaken by FDOT, and is evaluating
the use of the FECR Corridor for the Tri‐Rail service, which currently operates on the CSX‐controlled railroad
right‐of‐way west of the FECR Corridor (FDOT 2014). The NEPA process for that study is anticipated to
begin in 2014. In 2010, a draft Environmental Assessment was completed for a project that contemplated
Amtrak service on the FECR Corridor between Jacksonville and Miami (FRA and FDOT 2010). That project
has not advanced due to lack of funding, and no funding is reasonably foreseeable.
5.4.9.2 Cumulative Impacts
This section describes the past, reasonably foreseeable future, and cumulative impacts to those
environmental resources within the Project Study Area that would be affected by the Project. Cumulative
impacts are described for the Project as a whole, and identify any differences among the three alternatives
evaluated in this DEIS.
Land Use
Past Effects
Within the analysis period, land use within and adjacent to the Project Study Area has not changed
substantially, with the exception of the area east and southeast of MCO along SR 417. Development of the
Lake Nona area and other residential/commercial projects have resulted in the conversion of
undeveloped land and agricultural land to residential, commercial and institutional land uses.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-164 September 2014

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Effects (without the Project)
Development of the area east and southeast of MCO, along SR 417 and further east along Innovation Way
is expected to continue, with additional conversion of undeveloped land. The East End Development Area
at MCO would convert approximately 115 acres of undeveloped land to airport support facilities, with an
additional 204 acres of stormwater management areas, and approximately 346 acres to other land uses
(transportation and open space). Full build‐out, however, may not occur within the planning horizon of
the Project.
The MCO Intermodal Facility, SR 528 corridor improvements, and I‐95 expansion would be located within
existing transportation facilities or corridors and would not affect land use. Although the conceptual plans
(see Appendices 3.3‐A2 and 3.3‐A3) for the SR 528 corridor show potential future interchanges, these
would only be constructed as needed to support future development along SR 528. This development is
speculative and would not occur within the time frame of this analysis.
Cumulative Impacts of the Project
The Project would result in minor changes to land use within GOAA property (for the VMF), within the
SR 528 corridor, and to land acquired to facilitate construction of the Cocoa Curve connection between
the E‐W and N‐S Corridors. The Project, considered in combination with past and reasonably foreseeable
future effects to land, would not result in a substantially greater change in land use or loss of undeveloped
land within the Project Study Area.
The passenger rail and multi‐modal stations proposed for the WPB‐M Corridor project would affect land
at the proposed station sites. However, station construction would have only a minor change to
surrounding land uses and would not effectuate change in land use and planning for adjacent areas,
though regionally additional infill development is expected as governed by local land use and zoning
regulations and ongoing adjustments
Transportation
Past Impacts
Regional increases in population and recent developments within and adjacent to the Project Study Area
have increased traffic demand on local and regional roadways, increasing congestion and delays, as
documented in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project)
The projects included in this analysis would provide transportation benefits resulting from capacity
increases on SR 528 and I‐95, and may benefit communities located along the east coast and the State of
Florida as a whole by improving flow of traffic and increasing mobility. Construction of the
MCO Intermodal Facility would improve transportation connectivity for airport passengers and
employees. Further development of the East Airfield Area and the area southeast of MCO would increase
traffic demand on SR 417 and SR 528, as well as other local roads; however, traffic mitigation measures
would be incorporated into development permits for these projects. The proposed SR 528 Master Plan
development would improve capacity and traffic flow.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-165 September 2014

Cumulative Impacts of the Project
The cumulative impact would be beneficial to the regional transportation system because of capacity
increases. Any adverse impacts would be limited to temporary delays and detours during construction
phasing. The improvements to regional transportation would further benefit communities located along the
east coast and the State of Florida as a whole with improved flow of traffic and increased mobility.
Air Quality
Past Impacts
Current air quality conditions within the Project Study Area, as described in Section 4.2.1, reflect the
contributions of air pollutants from a range of sources, and the effects of state and federal air pollution
regulations that have improved regional air quality.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project)
The I‐95 widening project, the SR 528 improvements, and the WPB‐M Corridor project involve
improvements to existing highway and rail corridors. Cumulative air quality effects are associated with
increased vehicle capacity of the expanded roadway, and take into account the beneficial effects of
regulatory programs.
Cumulative Impacts of the Project
The Project is anticipated to have a beneficial effect on air quality due to the offsetting effect of increased rail
ridership to reduce vehicular travel. Increased ridership through expanded rail service is expected to
alleviate to a minor extent the demand for vehicular travel and offset related emissions. No cumulative
adverse effect is therefore anticipated. The Project is anticipated to be constructed at a different time than
the other future projects included in this analysis, and therefore would not contribute to cumulative air
quality effects from construction.
Increased development associated with increased economic activity in the vicinity of the WPB‐M Corridor
transit nodes would potentially result in increased emissions indirectly associated with building operation
or commercial activity. Air quality effects from construction will be temporary and will primarily be in the
form of exhaust emissions from trucks and construction equipment as well as fugitive dust from
construction sites.
Noise
Past Impacts
Many areas in the vicinity of MCO, along SR 528, and along the FECR Corridor experience noise because of
vehicular and freight train traffic, as well as aviation noise and general urban noise levels.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-166 September 2014

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project)
The projects included in the analysis primarily involve improvements to existing highway and rail corridors,
or within an existing airport. Increased vehicle capacity of the expanded roadway system would likely
increase vehicular noise and, to a lesser extent, vibration. The FECR Corridor currently operates with freight
rail, which generates noise and vibration. Any noise impacts to adjacent residences or sensitive land uses
along the SR 528 or I‐95 corridors resulting from shifting vehicle traffic closer to residences would be
mitigated as required by FHWA guidelines. Temporary noise and vibration impacts may be generated by
heavy equipment and construction activities such as pile driving and vibratory compaction of
embankments.
Cumulative Impacts of the Project
The Project is not anticipated to result in noise impacts within the MCO Segment or the E‐W Corridor due
to the lack of receptors, and would not result in cumulative noise impacts in these areas. The N‐S Corridor
is approximately 1 to 15 miles east of I‐95. Due to this physical separation, the construction and operation
of the rail facilities are not likely to cumulatively generate noise or vibration impacts for adjacent
communities. The addition of new structures or uses associated with the I‐95 widening in proximity to the
existing N‐S Corridor would result in minimal cumulative effects from the introduction of noise and
vibration‐sensitive uses in adjacent developed areas or areas of potential future urban development. The
Project would reduce noise within the N‐S and WPB‐M Corridors by using pole‐mounted horns at grade
crossings.
The N‐S Corridor and the WPB‐M Corridor are within the existing FECR Corridor. Noise and vibration
impacts may be generated by heavy equipment and construction activities such as pile driving and vibratory
compaction of embankments during construction phases only, but would not cumulatively increase noise
and vibration when considered with the Project.
Water Resources
Past Impacts
As documented in Section 4.3.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment discussion, the surface waters
throughout the Project Study Area have been adversely affected by past human activities (agriculture,
wastewater discharge, urban development) and are considered impaired for fecal coliform, dissolved
oxygen, mercury, copper, and high nutrient levels (eutrophication).
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project)
Each of the reasonably foreseeable future projects considered in this analysis would impact water resources
due to the effects of increased surface runoff from impermeable surfaces and redirection of natural water
bodies. However, impacts are expected to be minor, as all projects are expected to include BMPs put in place
to prevent degradation of water quality in downstream waters and flood‐prone areas. Impacts to water
resources are anticipated to be minimal on a regional scale. Proposed development would not be
anticipated to result in potential effects to water bodies, creeks, streams, and rivers in the vicinity as
regulatory agencies require appropriate BMPs prior to issuing permits. The FAA EA/FONSI for the MCO
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-167 September 2014

Intermodal Facility determined that there is no significant pollution discharge associated with the surface
waters within MCO, and that the existing stormwater management system could accommodate the
proposed rail extensions within the MCO property with little if any modification. Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) would be required for all phases of projects to cumulatively avoid effects to
water resources. The MCO East End Development has committed to more than 200 acres of stormwater
management to mitigate for potential effects to water resources. On a regional basis, groundwater aquifers
are predicted to be affected by climate change and sea level rise (Koch‐Rose, Mitsova‐Boneva, and Root
2011).
Cumulative Impacts of the Project
The Project is expected to have minor impacts on surface and groundwater, as all surface water effects
would be mitigated in accordance with applicable state and local laws regarding appropriate compensation
and permitting. The Project would result in minimal amounts of impervious surfaces, with new impervious
surface proposed only at the VMF. Improvements associated with the proposed station alternatives in
Miami and Fort Lauderdale will include minor changes to impervious surface areas for the proposed
stations, parking facilities, and platforms as outlined in Table 3‐1.9 of the 2012 EA. Because there will be
little change in the pre‐ versus post‐runoff condition in these cases, no, or minimal, upgrades to existing off‐
site municipal drainage systems (conveyance structures) are anticipated as a result of the proposed stations
and facilities. 
The remainder of the Project would be constructed as railroad bed and ballast and would not affect surface
or groundwater. The Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on groundwater. The cumulative
impacts of the Project and other reasonably foreseeable future effects would be minor and would be
mitigated as required by regulatory agencies. Cumulative impacts of construction (release of silt or
sediment) are not likely because the Project would not be constructed at the same time as the other future
projects.
Floodplains
Past Impacts
It is likely that past development actions have encroached on the 100‐year floodplain at locations within the
Project Study Area; however, the effects of these actions have not been documented.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project)
Each of the reasonably foreseeable future projects considered in this analysis would require construction
in 100‐year flood prone areas, however, the existing master stormwater system in place is expected to
compensate for flood storage volumes and prevent cumulative increases in onsite or offsite flooding.
Proposed SR 528 widening would be likely to affect areas within the 100‐year floodplain, and would require
improvements to the stormwater system to compensate for flood storage volumes and prevent cumulative
increases in onsite or offsite flooding. With predicted sea level rise and climate change, future 100‐year flood
elevations are expected to increase, and future improvements to SR 528 or I‐95 may require design features
to improve resiliency in extreme flood events.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-168 September 2014

Cumulative Impacts of the Project
The Project would require construction within the 100‐year floodplain in several locations. Cumulative
impacts are expected to be minor, as all floodplain effects would be mitigated in accordance with applicable
state and local laws regarding appropriate compensation and permitting.
Wetlands
Past Impacts
Wetlands throughout the Project Study Area have been altered by previous human activities, including road
construction, urban and suburban development, construction of MCO, and agricultural activities. These
impacts have included wetland loss, fragmentation of wetlands and riparian habitats, and a decreased
ability for wetlands to provide important functions such as flood storage, groundwater recharge/discharge,
pollutant attenuation, and wildlife habitat. In recent years, wetland effects have been compensated by
constructing new wetlands in wetland mitigation banks, and some large‐scale wetland restoration projects
have been advanced. For example, over the last decade, large‐scale wetland restoration and enhancement
projects have been undertaken at Indian River Lagoon, St. Lucie River, Hobe Sound, and Loxahatchee River.
Much of the restoration conducted within these areas was completed or supported as part of the Indian
River Lagoon National Estuary Program, which includes dozens of small and large‐scale wetland
enhancement and restoration projects. Projects range in size from less than 1 acre to over 500 acres and
include activities such as hydrology restoration, exotic species removal, native plant installation, and trash
removal (SJRWMD 2013c).
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project)
Under the reasonably foreseeable future conditions, existing wetlands would likely be filled or experience
impaired functions and values because of constructing the East End Development. Approximately 260 acres
of wetlands would be converted to uplands and stormwater management system for this development, The
SR 528 improvements, the I‐95 widening, and future private development projects would also result in
wetland losses, which have not been quantified. Discharges of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional
wetlands are required to be mitigated pursuant to the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, either by the
purchase of wetland mitigation credits at approved mitigation banks or in lieu fees or by permittee‐
responsible compensatory mitigation, in accordance with applicable permit conditions.
Cumulative Impacts of the Project
The Project is anticipated to result in minor losses of wetlands in all of the project segments, and would
affect wetland functions and values. Potential adverse impacts to future populations of wetland‐dependent
wildlife and/or aquatic species from loss of habitat through project construction and cumulative projects in
the vicinity of the Project are also expected to be minor. Cumulative impacts to wetland resources are
anticipated to be minimal on a regional scale, and are proposed to be fully mitigated through the purchase
of mitigation bank credits.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-169 September 2014

Protected Species
Past Impacts
Numerous plant and wildlife species within the Project Study Area are currently protected by the federal
and state endangered species acts. Although some of these are rare due to species‐specific restricted habitat
distributions, population dynamics, or other natural causes, many are threatened or endangered due to
historic effects of human activity (habitat loss, hunting, pesticides), which have been most severe on species
which have highly restricted habitat requirements or existed in small populations. However, several
previously‐listed species (including the bald eagle and American alligator) have recovered and populations
expanded due to federal protection and are no longer considered imperiled. Other species continue to be at
low or declining population sizes due to a variety of factors, including development and habitat change.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project)
Some of the Projects within the Project Study Area may have a direct or indirect effect on protected species.
Although the SR 528 and the I‐95 improvements are planned for existing transportation corridors that
provide low quality habitat, wildlife species are at risk for fatal or injurious encounters with vehicles, and
the proposed improvements may result in the loss of habitat for reptiles such as gopher tortoise or indigo
snake. Potential adverse effects to future populations of wildlife or plants from loss of habitat through
project construction and cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project are expected to be minor. All
Projects would require review by USFWS and NMFS to ensure that effects to listed species were avoided to
the extent feasible, and mitigated as needed, in conformance with the ESA.
Cumulative Impacts of the Project
Cumulative impacts to protected species are anticipated to be minimal on a regional scale and limited to
incidental takes from transportation uses and minor losses of habitat. As the proposed passenger trains
would pass through the E‐W and the N‐S Corridors relatively infrequently, introduction of the trains along
these transportation corridors would not be anticipated to result in a measurable increase in takings of
special status species such as gopher tortoise or Florida scrub‐jay. The USFWS and NMFS are anticipated to
concur with the USACE’s finding of “effect but not adverse effect” for all listed species. The WPB‐M Corridor
project would have no adverse impact on federal listed species and no significant adverse impact to state
listed species.
Social and Economic
Past Impacts
Between 2003 and 2006, Florida experienced substantial increases in total population, averaging yearly
expansions of about 426,000 persons per year (Office of Economic and Demographic Research 2011).
Significant economic growth accompanied population increases, as Florida’s gross state product rose
27.4 percent from $574.4 million in 2003 to $731.5 million in 2006 (BEA 2013). Economic expansion turned
to decline following one of the worst national financial disasters since the 1930s, the Great Recession. From
the onset of the Great Recession in December 2007 to its end in June 2009, the unemployment rate in the
State of Florida increased from 4.7 percent to 10.5 percent (NBER 2010; BLS 2013). During the same 18‐
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Environmental Consequences 5-170 September 2014

month period, the unemployment rates in the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) within the Project
Study Area collectively increased from 4.5 percent to 11.0 percent (BLS 2013).
7

While the Great Recession officially ended at the national level in June 2009, the Florida economy continued
to decline until the statewide unemployment rate peaked at 11.4 percent in February 2010 (NBER 2010;
BLS 2013). The statewide economy (as evidenced by unemployment) has slowly improved, but has not fully
recovered to pre‐recession levels. As of June 2013, the statewide unemployment rate was 7.1 percent (BLS
2013). Although this represents the state’s lowest unemployment level since September 2008, it is
2.4 percent above the state’s unemployment level at the onset of the Great Recession. Similar to the
statewide economy, the economies of the MSAs within the Project Study Area have improved, and have not
fully recovered to pre‐recession levels. As of June 2013, the combined unemployment rate in the MSAs
within the Project Study Area was 7.6 percent (BLS 2013). According to IHS Global Insight Inc., the economy
of the State of Florida will not return to pre‐recession employment levels until 2016 (BusinessWire 2013).
Land development activity peaked in 2007, followed by several years of low activity corresponding with the
economic recession. The land development market began to recover in 2012 as master developers and
homebuilders cleared existing inventory. In September 2013, the Orlando metropolitan area was identified
as Number 5 in the U.S. among the top 10 “booming” real estate markets (Orlando Business Journal 2013).
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Impacts (without the Project)
Construction and operation of these projects would not substantially extend into surrounding land uses or
change land use and planning for adjacent areas. At MCO, new construction of intermodal improvements
would be limited to existing MCO property and would not extend into or partition existing neighborhoods
or populations. OOCEA’s property acquisition would change land use but would not affect the economic
viability of Deseret Ranch (a 300,000‐acre property). Removing these 500 acres from the tax rolls would
have a negligible effect on the tax revenues of Orange County. None of the reasonably foreseeable future
actions would result in splitting, relocating, or isolating neighborhoods and would not isolate a portion of
an ethnic group or neighborhood, separate residences from community facilities, or substantially change
local traffic travel patterns. The construction and operation of these facilities would likely introduce new
jobs and revenue into local communities over the life of both projects and would have a beneficial effect to
the adjacent communities, where additional jobs, community reinvestment/redevelopment, and improved
tourism to local business and attractions may occur.
Cumulative Impacts of the Project
The cumulative impacts of the Project in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects would be
beneficial to communities since these projects would result in additional jobs, community reinvestment/
redevelopment, and improved tourism to local business and attractions. The WPB‐M Corridor would also
have slight beneficial contributions to cumulative impacts. The addition of passenger rail service would also
encourage transit‐oriented development adjacent to the proposed stations and would promote local
economic growth in these areas.

7 The MSAs along the Project Corridor include Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, Palm Bay-
Melbourne-Titusville, Port St. Lucie and Sebastian-Vero Beach.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-1 September 2014

6 Section 4(f) Evaluation
6.1 Introduction
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 requires Department of Transportation
(DOT) agencies to protect certain public resources when making transportation improvements. These
resources, collectively referred to as Section 4(f) resources, include publicly owned parks, recreation
areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or historical properties of national, state, or local significance. This
chapter describes Section 4(f) resources that would be impacted by the alternatives under consideration
for the Proposed Action. If a prudent and feasible alternative exists that avoids Section 4(f) resources and
it meets the Project purpose and need, the DOT agencies may not select the alternative that uses a Section
4(f) resource. This chapter contains a prudent and feasible alternatives analysis, and discusses mitigation
measures that would be employed to minimize harm to Section 4(f) properties resulting from use.
Section 4(f) properties in the Project Study Area that will not be subject to a physical or constructive use
under Section 4(f), were evaluated in Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences.
6.2 Project Purpose and Description
The purpose of the Project is to provide reliable and convenient intercity passenger rail transportation
between Orlando and Miami, Florida (the Project Corridor), by extending (in Phase II) the previously
reviewed Phase I All Aboard Florida (AAF) passenger rail service between Miami and West Palm Beach
and by maximizing the use of existing transportation corridors. This transportation service would offer a
safe and efficient alternative to automobile travel on Interstate 95 (I‐95), the primary highway connecting
Orlando and Miami; add transportation capacity to communities within the I‐95 corridor; and encourage
connectivity with other modes of transportation such as light rail, commuter rail, and air transportation.
The additional purpose of Phase I of the Project, as stated in the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), is to “provide intercity passenger rail service that addresses South Florida’s current and future
needs to enhance the transportation system by providing a transportation alternative for Floridians
and tourists, supporting economic development, creating jobs, and improving air quality.”
The Project includes four segments: the MCO Segment, which includes the proposed vehicle maintenance
facility (VMF) and new railroad infrastructure between the VMF and the E‐W Corridor; the E‐W Corridor
on new alignment between MCO and Cocoa, paralleling State Road (SR) 528; the N‐S Corridor within the
Florida East Coast Railroad (FECR) right‐of‐way between Cocoa and West Palm Beach (WPB), and the
WPB‐M Corridor within the FECR right‐of‐way. Since the publication of the 2012 EA and FONSI, AAF has
determined that additional construction is necessary within the Phase I area, including reconstructing
seven bridges over waterways, and modifying the turnout at the Miami Viaduct. Other changes to the
Phase I segment include relocating the Fort Lauderdale Station and moving the Vehicle Maintenance
Facility (from Fort Lauderdale to West Palm Beach). The Fort Lauderdale Station was cleared by FRA in
a Re‐Evaluation, and a separate Supplemental EA has been prepared for the West Palm Beach VMF.
Generally, the Project includes additional rail infrastructure improvements from Orlando to West Palm
Beach, including new track, new bridges, drainage systems, and the development of all communications,
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-2 September 2014

signaling, safety, and security systems. A new signal system would be implemented as part of the Project
that will provide a Positive Train Control overlay system with a back office server in the operations
control center to achieve compliance with 49 CFR part 229.
AAF submitted two separate loan applications to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking
financial assistance to support the phased implementation. This action triggered the need for review
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
6.3 Section 4(f) Applicability
Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act (23 U.S.C. 138, 49 USC, Subtitle I, Section 303(c)) provides protection for
publicly owned parks, recreation areas, public school playgrounds, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and
historic properties or archaeological sites on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places (the National Register). The DOT Act outlines Section 4(f) as follows:
“The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior,
Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States, in developing transportation
plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of lands crossed
by transportation activities or facilities… The Secretary may approve a transportation program or
project…requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significant, or land of an historic site of national, State, or
local significance (as determined by Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park,
area, refuge or site) only if:
 There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and
 The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation
area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.”
The “use” of a property protected under Section 4(f) (23 U.S.C. 138 and re‐codified at 49 USC, Subtitle
I, Section 303(c)) has a very specific meaning and is defined as:
 When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;
 When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s
preservationist purposes … ; or
 When there is a constructive use of land.
In certain circumstances a constructive use can be found. “Constructive use occurs when the
transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) resource but the project’s
proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a
resource for protection under Section 4f) are substantially impaired. Substantial impairment occurs
only when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the resource are substantially diminished.”
6.4 Description and Use of Section 4(f) Resources
The following sections describe the context of the Section 4(f) historical and recreational properties
that would be used by the Project, and the use of properties afforded protection under Section 4(f).
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-3 September 2014

At this time, the FRA does not anticipate any temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) properties during
construction as a result of the need for temporary construction easements or activities.
For each property that would be incorporated into the Project, this section provides an evaluation of
location and design alternatives that would avoid the use of and/or minimize harm to Section 4(f)
properties. Section 4(f) defines a “feasible and prudent alternative” as one that “avoids using
Section 4(f) property and does not cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially
outweighs the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) property,” as defined in 23 CFR 774. A
detailed analysis of the alternatives reviewed to avoid use of Section 4(f) properties is provided in
this section.
Publicly owned parks, wildlife refuges, and National Register‐eligible historic resources protected under
Section 4(f) are located along the entire proposed Project corridor. These resources are identified in
Chapter 4, Affected Environment (see Section 4.4.5 for identification of cultural resources and Section 4.4.6
for parks, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges). Of these resources, two will be impacted by the Project
and constitute a use under Section 4(f). Specifically, the Project activities will result in a Section 4(f) use
(have an adverse effect to) two historic bridges. The Project will also result in a de minimis use of a public
recreation area/wildlife refuge, as described below. Section 4(f) regulations, at 23 CFR 774.17, define a
“de minimis impact” to parks, recreation areas and wildlife refuges, as “one that will not adversely affect
the features, attributes, or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f)”. Section
4(f) evaluations for these three resources are presented in the following sections.
6.4.1 Eau Gallie River Bridge
The Project requires that the Eau Gallie Bridge, a structure located within the FECR right‐of‐way, be
demolished to construct a new structurally sound bridge able to accommodate the future passenger rail
traffic.
6.4.1.1 Description of Bridge and Status of Historical Designation
The original railroad crossing of the Eau Gallie River in Melbourne, Brevard County, was constructed in
1925 as a fixed viaduct bridge with two tracks on an open deck. The bridge has 15 spans and is
approximately 600 feet long. The substructure consists of steel bents on concrete piles, with cross‐ties
between bents. At some point during its operating history, the railroad was reduced to a single active
track on the eastern side of the deck. The western tracks were not maintained and are in a state of
dilapidation and disrepair.
The existing bridge is eligible for listing in the National Register both as an individual resource and as a
contributing resource to the FECR Corridor linear historic district (see Section 4.4.5 in Chapter 4 for
additional information and determinations of eligibility for both the Eau Gallie Bridge and the FECR
Corridor linear historic district). FRA is continuing to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) regarding concurrence with the FRA’s adverse effect determination and mitigation measures.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-4 September 2014

6.4.1.2 Proposed Use
AAF proposes to construct a new twin 575‐foot independent ballast deck bridge that will be located to
the east of the existing railroad bridge. The existing bridge will be demolished. The demolition and
removal of the existing bridge is necessary to protect navigation uses on the waterway, as determined by
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). The demolition of the bridge is an adverse effect under Section 106 (see
Section 5.4.5 in Chapter 5 for the finding of adverse effect) and therefore constitutes a use under Section
4(f). The bridge is within the FECR right‐of‐way and no property acquisition is required.
6.4.1.3 Avoidance Alternatives
A comprehensive set of avoidance alternatives was considered to avoid demolishing the bridge, including
the No‐Action Alternative, rehabilitating and reusing the bridge, and retaining the bridge while
constructing a new parallel bridge. These alternatives are described below.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the bridge would be retained in its current condition, and no new bridge
would be constructed. The Project would operate with a single track crossing at this location, on the
existing bridge.
This alternative was not selected because a second track is required at this crossing to provide integrity
with the rest of the system, which is being proposed as a two track system to support the additional
number of trains and frequency of trips. A bottleneck at this location would increase travel times and
would not meet the project purpose. This alternative is therefore not prudent.
Rehabilitate and Reuse Existing Bridge
This alternative would rehabilitate and reuse the existing bridge, and restore the second track on the west
side of the deck. AAF assessed the condition of the existing bridge and determined it was not feasible to
rehabilitate the bridge superstructure due to its condition and the condition of the substructure. The
proposed passenger trains will operate at 110 mph in this segment, and require a higher bridge loading
factor than the existing freight trains, which operate at 28 mph. The existing substructure and
superstructure, even if rehabilitated, would not meet the required loading rating. This alternative would
not meet the project purpose and is neither feasible nor prudent.
Construct New Bridge and Retain Existing Bridge
This alternative would construct a new bridge east of the existing bridge. The existing bridge would be
retained but abandoned. This alternative is not prudent, as the USCG has determined the bridge must be
removed to allow for safe navigation of vessels on the Eau Gallie River at this location (USCG 2014).
Bridges that are not used for the convenience of land transportation are considered unreasonable
obstructions to navigation. There is a condition in all USCG bridge permits for removal of bridges no
longer used for transportation purposes.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-5 September 2014

6.4.1.4 Measures to Minimize Harm and Mitigate Impacts
AAF proposes to conduct historic research and prepare a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) and
Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) for the bridge prior to its demolition. FRA is continuing to
consult with the SHPO regarding concurrence with the FRA’s adverse effect determination and mitigation
measures.
6.4.2 St. Sebastian River Bridge
The Project requires that the St. Sebastian River Bridge, a structure located within the FECR right‐of‐way,
be demolished to construct a new structurally‐sound bridge able to accommodate the future passenger
and freight traffic.
6.4.2.1 Description of Bridge and Status of Historical Designation
The original railroad crossing of the St. Sebastian River in Brevard and Indian River counties was
constructed in 1926 as two deck plate girder bridges supported by a common substructure. Each bridge
superstructure has an open deck and single track. The substructures consist of steel towers on concrete
foundations with steel ties. The bridges span an approximately 1,635‐foot crossing. At some point during
its operating history, the railroad was reduced to a single active track on the easternmost bridge. The
westernmost bridge has not been maintained. The rails were removed and the deck and substructure
have fallen into disrepair.
The existing bridges are eligible for listing in the National Register both as individual resources and as
contributing resources to the FECR Corridor linear historic district (see Section 4.4.5 in Chapter 4 for
additional information and determinations of eligibility for both the St. Sebastian Bridge and the FECR
Corridor linear historic district).
6.4.2.2 Proposed Use
AAF proposes to construct a new twin independent ballast deck structure with concrete piers, located to
the east of the existing railroad bridges. The demolition and removal of the westernmost bridge is
necessary to protect navigation uses on the waterway, as determined by the USCG. The demolition of the
bridge is an adverse effect under Section 106 (see Section 5.4.5 in Chapter 5 for the finding of adverse
effect) and therefore constitutes a use under Section 4(f). The bridge is within the FECR right‐of‐way and
no property acquisition is required.
6.4.2.3 Avoidance Alternatives
A comprehensive set of avoidance alternatives was considered to avoid demolishing the bridge, including
the No‐Action Alternative, rehabilitating and reusing, and retaining the bridge while constructing a new
parallel bridge. These alternatives are described below.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-6 September 2014

No-Action Alternative
Under the No‐Action Alternative, the westernmost bridge would be retained in its current dilapidated
and unused condition, and no new bridge would be constructed. The Project would operate with a single
crossing at this location, on the existing single track bridge.
This alternative is not prudent because a second track is required at this crossing to provide integrity with
the rest of the system, which is being proposed as a two track system to support the additional number
of trains and frequency of trips. A bottleneck at this location would increase travel times and would not
meet the project purpose. This alternative is therefore not prudent.
Rehabilitate and Reuse Existing Bridge
This alternative would rehabilitate and reuse the existing westernmost bridge, and restore it to use as the
second track at this location. AAF assessed the condition of the existing westernmost bridge and
determined it was not feasible to rehabilitate the bridge due to its condition. The proposed passenger
trains will operate at 110 mph in this segment, and require a higher bridge loading factor than the existing
freight trains, which operate at 28 mph. The existing substructure and superstructure, even if
rehabilitated, would not meet the required loading rating. This alternative would not meet the project
purpose and is neither feasible nor prudent.
Construct New Bridge and Retain Existing Bridge
This alternative would construct a new bridge to the east of the existing bridges. The westernmost bridge
would be retained in its current abandoned state. This alternative is not prudent, as the USCG has
determined the bridge must be removed to allow for safe navigation of vessels on the St. Sebastian River
at this location (USCG 2014). Bridges that are not used for the convenience of land transportation are
considered unreasonable obstructions to navigation. There is a condition in all Coast Guard Bridge
Permits for removal of bridges no longer used for transportation purposes.
6.4.2.4 Measures to Minimize Harm and Mitigate Impacts
AAF proposes to conduct historic research and a prepare HABS/HAER documentation for the
westernmost bridge prior to its demolition. FRA is continuing to consult with the SHPO regarding
concurrence with the FRA’s adverse effect determination and mitigation measures.
6.4.3 Tosohatchee WMA
The Project will include two temporary uses of the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area (WMA), as
described below.
6.4.3.1 Description of Property
The Tosohatchee WMA covers 30,701 acres along 19 miles of the St. Johns River in eastern Orange County.
The purpose of the WMA is to provide both wildlife conservation and recreational opportunities for
visitors. The E‐W Corridor parallels the Tosohatchee WMA (see Figure 5.4.6‐1 in Chapter 5) south of
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-7 September 2014

SR 528 between SR 520 and the St. Johns River. The new railroad will be constructed within the layout of
SR 528 at this location and does not require the use of land within the WMA.
6.4.3.2 Proposed Pond Use
AAF is evaluating using three ponds (former borrow pits) located within the WMA for borrow materials to
construct the railroad embankment. These manmade ponds are south of SR 528 and are the result of the
prior excavation of “borrow” materials to provide fill for the construction of SR 528. These three ponds,
known as “T‐shirt Pond,” “Peek‐a‐boo Pond,” and “Utah Pond,” were originally cut in very sharp lines, and
do not provide natural shorelines or typical shoreline vegetation zonation supportive of wildlife or fish. As
shown on the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area trails map, there are public parking areas at these
ponds and they are designated for fishing (see http://myfwc.com/media/305331/tosohatchee_trails.pdf).
Currently, none of these ponds are used for stormwater treatment, but “Utah Pond” is planned as a future
stormwater facility for the six‐lane widening of SR 528.
AAF proposes to excavate material from and adjacent to these ponds, and to then rehabilitate the ponds
by creating more natural shorelines, reshaping the ponds, and adding littoral shelves. These actions will
enhance the fisheries habitat, increase the zonation of wetland plant communities, improve wildlife
habitat, and expand the function of the ponds as a recreational resource. The Land Manager for the
Tosohatchee State Reserve (TSR), which acts as the umbrella organization for properties under the
jurisdiction of multiple state agencies and includes the Tosohatchee WMA, has indicated that this
arrangement would be beneficial, and that a prior similar approach to a fourth borrow pond has proved
beneficial. AAF is currently surveying the pond areas to evaluate the existing ecological conditions and
determine whether borrow material from the ponds would be suitable for constructing the Project.
6.4.3.3 Proposed Construction Staging - Long Bluff Road
At Long Bluff Road, construction of a new railroad bridge would require temporary occupancy of an
adjacent area of the Tosohatchee WMA to accommodate erosion and sediment control, construction
staging areas, and traffic coordination. If temporary road or lane closures are necessary, AAF, in
association with FRA, would coordinate with the land managing agency of the Section 4(f) recreational
resources, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).
6.4.3.4 De Minimis Determination
FRA has determined that the proposed pond reconfiguration and removal of fill material would be a
temporary occupancy of a Section 4(f) resource, and that it is a de minimis use. The use is de minimis
because it will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the WMA for
protection under Section 4(f). Specifically, it will have a net benefit on the wildlife conservation and
recreational attributes of the three borrow ponds by providing natural shoreline topography and
increasing suitable conditions for emergent aquatic vegetation beneficial to fisheries and wildlife. FRA is
coordinating with the Land Manager regarding the use of the ponds and the FRA determination of the use
as de minimis.
FRA has determined that the construction staging area at Long Bluff Road would be a temporary
occupancy of a Section 4(f) resource, and that it is a de minimis use. The use is de minimis because it will
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-8 September 2014

not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the WMA for protection under
Section 4(f). Specifically, it will have a temporary effect on land immediately adjacent to the existing road,
which will be restored to a natural condition following construction. FRA is coordinating with the Land
Manager regarding the FRA determination of this temporary occupancy as a de minimis impact.
6.5 Findings
There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the demolition of the Eau Gallie River and St. Sebastian
River bridges. New bridges are required at these locations to upgrade these crossings to double track
crossings, and retaining the bridges presents an unacceptable safety risk to navigation of vessels on the
waterways below. To mitigate the loss of these historic resources, AAF proposes to conduct historic
research and to prepare HABS/HAER documentation for the westernmost bridges prior to their
demolition. Consultation with the SHPO is ongoing.
The use of borrow ponds located within the Tosohatchee WMA and their subsequent reconstruction and
rehabilitation is found to be a de minimis impact under Section 4(f), as is the temporary occupancy of a
portion of the WMA for bridge construction. The improvements proposed to these ponds will enhance
their function as wildlife habitat and use for recreation, thus furthering the goals of the WMA, and the
construction staging area is a temporary use, which will be fully restored with no loss of function.

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


Mitigation Measures and 7-1 September 2014
Project Commitments
7 Mitigation Measures and Project
Commitments
7.1 Introduction
According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), project proponents shall, to the fullest extent possible:
“Use all practicable means consistent with the requirements of the Act and other essential
considerations of nation policy, to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid
or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions on the quality of the human environment
(40 CFR § 1500.2(f)).”
In accordance with the NEPA regulations, this chapter identifies and evaluates measures that would
avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts that would result from the Project. Measures to minimize impacts
by limiting the degree or magnitude of impacts associated with the proposed All Aboard Florida (AAF)
passenger rail service and its implementation are described. As documented in this chapter, effects to
various environmental resources are unavoidable due to the proposed location of the new MCO Segment
and East‐West Corridor (E‐W Corridor) connecting with the existing Florida East Coast Railway (FECR)
(the North‐South Corridor [N‐S Corridor]); therefore, measures that minimize adverse effects have been
identified. A detailed analysis of proposed compensatory mitigation measures is included for areas in
which replacing lost resources is necessary.
This chapter provides a description of mitigation for short‐term construction‐period effects, permanent loss
of protected resources, and long‐term effects of Project operations. Mitigation is addressed with respect to
hazardous materials and solid waste disposal, wetlands, biological resources and natural ecological
systems, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and threatened and endangered species. This chapter also describes
consultation with federal and state agencies pertaining to mitigation. In addition, this chapter summarizes
the mitigation commitments for Phase I, the West Palm Beach to Miami Corridor, as set out in the 2013
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (FRA 2013).
7.2 Project Commitments
This section describes the proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated in the Project as well
as mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Mitigation measures are proposed for noise and vibration impacts,
navigation effects, wetlands, biological resources and natural ecological systems, EFH, and threatened and
endangered species. For each resource, the analysis describes efforts to avoid consequences, minimize
impacts, and provide compensatory mitigation. Table 7.2‐1 provides a summary of construction‐period
BMPs and mitigation measures proposed for environmental resources that would be affected by the Project.
These construction‐period BMPs were also required by the FONSI for the WPB‐M Corridor. Table 7.2‐2
provides a summary of BMPs that would be incorporated into the Project and additional mitigation
measures proposed for unavoidable impacts as a result of the Project.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-2 September 2014
Project Commitments
Table 7.2-1 Project BMPs and Mitigation Measures – Construction Period
Environmental Resource BMPs and Mitigation Measures
Transportation  Implement traffic management BMPs during construction activities
Air Quality  Implement BMPs (such as soil watering to reduce fugitive dust emissions) to keep emissions to a
minimum
 Keep construction equipment on site for duration of construction
Noise and Vibration  Avoid nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods
 Locate stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noise sensitive sites
 Re-route construction-related truck traffic along roadways that will cause the least disturbance to
residents
 Monitor and maintain equipment to meet noise limits
 Minimize the use of generators to power equipment
 Limit use of public address systems
 Limit or avoid certain noisy activities, such as aboveground jackhammering and impact pile driving,
during nighttime hours
 Use augers (as opposed to pile drivers) where practicable
 Operate earthmoving equipment on the construction lot as far away from vibration-sensitive sites
as practicable.
 Phase demolition, earthmoving, and ground-impacting operations so as not to occur in the same
time period.
 Select low-impact demolition methods where possible.
 Avoid vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas.
Hazardous Materials and Solid
Waste Disposal
 Use appropriate special waste handling techniques
 Implement dust control measures
 Use proper technique for management/disposal of contaminated soil/groundwater
Water  Implement sediment control BMPs (turbidity curtains and silt fences)
Essential Fish Habitat  Use silt fences and turbidity curtains
 Develop and implement an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
Threatened and Endangered
Species and Other Protected
Species
 Siltation/turbidity barriers would be made of material that would not entrap/entangle species, and
would not impede species movement.
 Water vessels would operate at no wake/idle speeds at all times and in water depths where the
draft of the vessel provides less than a 4-foot clearance from the sediment. Vessels would follow
routes of deep water.
 Personnel would be instructed in the potential presence of threatened and endangered species in
the vicinity. Personnel would be advised of the civil and criminal penalties for harming species.
 If a manatee comes within 50 feet of the construction area or barrier, activities would cease,
including vessels being shutdown, until the animal has moved on its own volition beyond the 50-
foot radius of the construction operation.
 Signs regarding species would be posted before and during in-water construction activities.
 Feeding sites shall not be subjected to water management practices.
 Construction would comply with the Bald Eagle Management Plan.
 A Bald Eagle Disturbance Permit will be obtained.
 An eastern indigo snake monitoring report would be submitted to the appropriate federal and local
field offices.
 Construction activities would occur during daylight hours in areas that might be visible from any
sea turtle nesting beaches.
 Construction completed from the water would utilize floating barges and turbidity barriers.
 Use bubble curtains during pile driving.
 Prior to ground disturbing activities, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-compliant
gopher tortoise surveys shall be completed by a qualified gopher tortoise agent.

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


Mitigation Measures and 7-3 September 2014
Project Commitments
Table 7.2-2 Project Mitigation Measures for Unavoidable Impacts – Operational Period
Environmental Resource Mitigation Measure
Traffic and Grade Crossings  Work with State and local traffic officials to adjust traffic signal timing as needed
in Project Area
 Implement or fund grade crossing safety enhancements identified in the
Diagnostic Team Report (see Section 5.4.4.2)
Noise and Vibration  Install noise barriers along the E-W Corridor where effective in reducing noise
impacts near elevated structures
 Maintain train wheels and rails to minimize vibration
 Install pole-mounted horns at grade crossings
Water  Implement stormwater treatment BMPs (surface infiltration through swales,
ditches, and over-land flow; installation of underground French drain systems;
deep injection wells to drain water via gravity or pumping; and/or wet detention
and retention ponds)
Navigation
 Manage train schedules to minimize bridge closures
 Provide marine industry with bridge closure schedules to facilitate planning by
boaters
 Develop a set schedule for the down times of each bridge location. This schedule
will include both freight and passenger rail service.
 Provide that schedule of bridge closures in an internet-accessible format to offer the
public with access to that information, including the boating community and marinas.
This will be posted on the AAF website and/or the US Coast Guard website.
 Implement a notification sign/signal at each bridge location with warning count
downs to indicate the times at which the bridge will begin to close and open and how
long before a train will arrive.
 Develop formal contact with first responders and emergency personnel.
 Develop coordination plans between AAF and local authorities during peak vessel
travel times on holidays and major public events
 Install a bridge tender at the New River Bridge
Wetlands  Purchase wetland mitigation credits
Biological Resources and
Natural Ecological Systems
 Develop designs to provide wildlife passage under bridges and through culverts
in critical areas.
 Install wildlife crossing within the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area
 Revegetate cleared areas when required by standard BMPs and applicable
laws.
Essential Fish Habitat  Obtain Section 404 permit and follow wetland mitigation conditions

7.2.1 Transportation
AAF does not propose any new road crossings in the Project. The increase in number of crossing events
along the N‐S Corridor and WPB‐M Corridor due to the addition of 32 passenger trains each day would
cause additional closure events at each at‐grade crossing, but closures from passenger trains will be much
shorter than closures from existing freight traffic. AAF will work with state and local traffic officials to
adjust traffic signal timing along the N‐S Corridor and WPB‐M Corridor to reduce potential traffic impacts.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-4 September 2014
Project Commitments
AAF will perform new track construction required for the Project according to BMPs so that minimal
temporary adverse impacts to existing freight operations will be experienced. Any required maintenance
or rehabilitation of the existing single track will also be done using planning and construction practices
that will minimize impact to existing freight traffic. Future required maintenance and rehabilitation will
also be done more efficiently as track operators will be able to use planning practices that utilize the
additional tracks to mitigate temporary delays.
The FONSI required AAF to coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and
Southern Florida Rail Transportation Agency (SFRTA) to develop a plan for integrated passenger rail
services in the South Florida region.
7.2.2 Navigation
AAF will implement a series of mitigation measures to reduce vessel delay and queueing at the three
operable bridges (St. Lucie River, Loxahatchee River, and New River). These include:
 Develop a set schedule for the down times of each bridge for passenger rail service. Passenger
rail service is anticipated to operate on consistent daily schedules that are both predictable and
reliable with minimal deviations. Local mariners should be able to predict approximate crossing
times once they are familiar with the passenger rail schedule, which will be consistent and
unchanging from week to week. Mariners will be able to plan travel times and avoid unnecessary
wait times according to the posted schedule.
 Provide public access to the bridge closure schedules in an internet accessible format updated
daily with anticipated crossing times for each bridge. Schedules for each bridge will be posted on
the AAF website and/or the United States Coast Guard (USCG) website. Internet sites will provide
estimated bridge crossing times so mariners may access real‐time data from the water and plan
appropriately. Schedules and/or information may also be made available at local marinas and
tackle shops. This will allow the boating community to plan their trips to avoid wait times.
 Implement a notification sign/signal/horn at each bridge location with countdowns to indicate
the times at which the bridge will begin to close and open. Similar to a road crossing, the
notification system will alert mariners within the vicinity of a bridge that a train is approaching.
The signal will also provide a countdown for bridge closings and openings. This system can help
mariners within the vicinity of the bridge plan trips accordingly and will also help to ease boater
frustration for those that wait.
 Develop formal contact with first responders and emergency personnel. A point of contact will
be established to ensure that emergency personnel can coordinate with the dispatch center when
access is necessary to respond to waterway emergencies.
 Develop coordination plans between AAF and local authorities during peak vessel travel times on
holidays and major public events. Local authorities will have the ability to contact AAF in order
to coordinate plans for certain special events and occasions in an effort to establish adjustments
to train schedules that will allow a bridge to be open for specified periods of time.
 Develop a coordination plan between AAF and the USCG to communicate bridge operating
schedules to the commercial and recreational boating communities. Such a plan will allow
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-5 September 2014
Project Commitments
updates to the bridge operating schedule to be disseminated throughout these communities.
Communication will be through the USCG, local marinas, and on the official scheduling website.
 Install a bridge tender at the New River Bridge. The New River Bridge has the greatest amount of
commercial traffic (as compared to the Loxahatchee River Bridge and the St. Lucie River Bridge).
The addition of a bridge tender at this location will allow better communication with commercial
vessels. The tender could be contacted directly by mariners with a need for information so that
they could plan accordingly and minimize wait times.
7.2.3 Air Quality
The Project will have a beneficial effect on air quality as the daily vehicle trips will be reduced on
roadways and annual vehicle miles traveled will decrease. These changes will result in emissions
reductions and provide an overall net benefit for regional air quality.
Potential emissions associated with construction equipment will be kept to a minimum as most equipment
will be driven to and kept at affected sites for the duration of construction activities. In addition, routine
BMPs will be performed at construction sites to keep emissions of particulates (the primary pollutant
emitted) to a minimum during the temporary construction activities. Emissions associated with
construction workers commuting and the transport of materials will also be minimal given the temporary
nature of the activities. The use of BMPs during construction, such as soil watering to reduce fugitive dust
emissions, will be effective in substantially reducing potential emissions during construction.
7.2.4 Noise and Vibration
AAF will implement mitigation measures as part of the project design to reduce noise and vibration
impacts from passenger train operations as well as construction.
7.2.4.1 Noise Mitigation
Along the E‐W Corridor, noise impacts will be primarily due to the increased noise propagation from
elevated portions of track. Proposed noise mitigation in these areas includes sound barriers on the edge
of the elevated structures to mitigate potential severe effects. Sound barriers are effective in mitigating
noise when they break the line‐of‐sight between source and receiver. The necessary height of a barrier
depends on such factors as the source height and the distance from the source to the barrier. For example,
if a barrier is located very close to a train noise source, it typically only needs to be 3 to 4 feet above the
top of rail to provide noise reductions of 6 to 10 dBA. Constructing noise barriers along these portions of
track will effectively eliminate all severe noise impacts anticipated along the E‐W Corridor and reduce the
number of moderate noise impacts to only 33 residential receptors.
Noise along the N‐S Corridor and the WPB‐M Corridor will be reduced by the use of pole‐mounted horns
at grade crossings, as described in Section 5.2 and required by the FONSI (FRA 2013). With this
mitigation, there will be no significant noise impacts along the rail corridor. However, stakeholders in the
affected communities along the N‐S Corridor are considering the institution of quiet zones (which
prohibit horns to be sounded in specified areas) at certain at‐grade crossings. This involves instituting
alternate safety measures such as four‐quadrant gates and non‐mountable median dividers. In addition,
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-6 September 2014
Project Commitments
supplementary safety measures must be installed and a risk analysis must be prepared to demonstrate
that safety would not be compromised by eliminating train horns in the area receiving “quiet zone”
designation. The governmental entities or other authorities pursuing these quiet zones will act as the
sponsors of such efforts and will be responsible for the application process and the associated costs,
including the costs of any improvements. AAF is committed to cooperating with local jurisdictions and
funding the necessary improvements should they seek to establish quiet zones in lieu of pole‐mounted
horns.
7.2.4.2 Vibration Mitigation
The purpose of vibration mitigation is to minimize the adverse effects that the Project’s ground‐borne
vibration will have on sensitive receptors, such as annoyance and rattling. Vibration impacts are not as
common a problem as environmental noise, and the mitigation approaches have not been as well defined.
In some cases, it is necessary to develop project‐specific approaches to mitigate for unacceptable
vibration impacts. This is partly due to the fact that vibration characteristics are difficult to calculate, and
depend on numerous project and environmental factors.
Vibration impacts will be minimized by wheel and rail maintenance that will control unacceptably high
vibration levels. According to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines, problems with rough
wheels or rails can increase vibration levels by as much as 20 dB, negating the effects of even the most
effective vibration control measures. Where necessary and appropriate, ballast mats will be installed.
7.2.4.3 Construction Noise Mitigation
AAF will monitor construction noise to verify compliance with the relevant noise limits. The contractor
will have the flexibility to meet the Federal Transit Administration construction noise limits in the most
efficient and cost‐effective manner. In that regard, the contractor may either prohibit certain
noise‐generating activities during nighttime hours or provide additional noise control measures to meet
the noise limits. To meet required noise limits, AAF will implement the following noise control mitigation
measures:
 Avoid nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods;
 Locate stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noise sensitive sites;
 Re‐route construction‐related truck traffic along roadways that will cause the least disturbance
to residents;
 Monitor and maintain equipment to meet noise limits;
 Minimize the use of generators to power equipment;
 Limit use of public address systems; and
 Limit or avoid certain noisy activities during nighttime hours such as aboveground
jackhammering and impact pile driving.
To avoid noise impacts related to pile driving (if needed), AAF’s constructor would use an auger to install
the piles instead of a pile driver which would reduce noise levels substantially. If pile driving is necessary
for station construction, the time of day that the activity can occur will be limited to daytime hours.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-7 September 2014
Project Commitments
7.2.4.4 Construction Vibration Mitigation
Vibration from construction activities does not often reach the levels that can damage structures, but it may
be audible or perceptible in buildings very close to construction activities. The construction activity that
typically generate the most severe vibrations is impact pile driving. To mitigate construction vibration,
AAF’s contractor will be required to implement equipment location and processes, as listed below.
Construction Equipment and Haul Routes:
 Route heavily loaded trucks away from residential streets, if possible. Select streets with fewest
homes, if no alternatives are available.
 Operate earthmoving equipment on the construction lot as far away from vibration‐sensitive
sites as practicable.
Sequence of Operations:
 Phase demolition, earthmoving, and ground‐impacting operations so as not to occur in the same
time period. Unlike noise, the total vibration level produced could be significantly less when each
vibration source operates separately.
 Avoid nighttime activities. People are more aware of vibration in their homes during the
nighttime hours.
Alternative Construction Methods:
 Avoid impact pile driving where practicable in vibration‐sensitive areas. Drilled piles or the use
of a sonic or vibratory pile driver causes lower vibration levels where the geological conditions
permit their use.
 Select demolition methods not involving impact, where possible. For example, sawing bridge
decks into sections that can be loaded onto trucks results in lower vibration levels than impact
demolition by pavement breakers, and milling generates lower vibration levels than excavation
using clam shell or chisel drops.
 Avoid vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas.
Pile driving is potentially the greatest source of vibration associated with equipment used during
construction of a project. However, there are some additional vibration effects of vibratory pile drivers
that may limit their use in sensitive locations. A vibratory pile driver operates by continuously shaking
the pile at a fixed frequency, literally vibrating it into the ground. Continuous operation at a fixed
frequency may be more noticeable to nearby residents, even at lower vibration levels. Further, the steady‐
state excitation of the ground may increase resonance response of building components. Resonant
response may be unacceptable in cases of fragile buildings or vibration‐sensitive manufacturing
processes. Impact pile drivers, in contrast, produce a high vibration level for a short time with sufficient
time between impacts to allow any resonant response to decay.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-8 September 2014
Project Commitments
7.2.5 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Disposal
AAF would implement BMPs during construction and include special waste handling, dust control, and
management and disposal of contaminated soil and ground water in order to prevent construction delays
and to provide adequate protection to workers and any nearby sensitive receptors. All remedial action
plans must ensure that any nearby or adjacent receptors are adequately protected and the assessment
and management of contaminated media encountered during the Project will be handled in accordance
with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
7.2.6 Surface and Groundwater
AAF will provide water quality measures in the form of stormwater treatment (retention, detention, and
treatment) as part of the Project to mitigate for creating additional impervious surface area and
converting vegetated areas to ballasted railbed. Specific measures would be determined by and in
compliance with permit requirements.
Temporary effects to surface waters and groundwater during construction activities will be minimized
through the application by AAF of BMPs. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is
responsible for issuing and enforcing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
These permits identify activities during construction to assure an acceptable standard of water quality.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit program requires that construction stormwater
management and construction practices be addressed, including erosion prevention, sediment control,
and in‐water work. Regulatory agencies will closely review these practices to minimize effects.
During construction, AAF will use sediment control BMPs, including installation of turbidity curtains and
silt fencing, to protect surface waters. Accidental spills of material such as fuels, lubricants, solvents, or
other liquids that could harm surface waters will be cleaned up in a timely manner in accordance with a
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan and BMPs to be prepared by contractors and
approved by AAF. These measures would minimize the potential for temporary effects.
AAF will provide water‐quality mitigation for additional impervious and semi‐impervious surface areas in
the form of stormwater treatment (retention, detention, and treatment) as part of the Project. BMP
measures would be determined by and in compliance with permit requirements.
7.2.7 Wetlands
As part of the Project, AAF will secure wetland permits including Environmental Resource Permits issued
by the South Florida Water Management District and St. Johns River Water Management District, a CWA
Section 404 Dredge and Fill permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a Rivers and
Harbors Act Section 10 permit also issued by the USACE, and a NPDES permit issued by the FDEP. Some
of these permits may be jointly covered under a Joint Environmental Resource Permit.
AAF will minimize impacts to wetlands to the greatest extent practicable during the final design process
as required by the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This analysis will be included in USACE’s Record
of Decision for AAF’s application for CWA Section 404 authorization. AAF has proposed measures to
avoid and minimize wetland losses through the use of retaining walls and other methods. AAF will
mitigate all unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in compliance with the U.S. Environmental
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-9 September 2014
Project Commitments
Protection Agency and USACE’s joint mitigation rule, 33 CFR Part 332. AAF has proposed to mitigate
impacts through the purchase of in‐kind mitigation bank credits. Because AAF has not yet submitted a
permit application to the USACE for Section 404 authorization, and has not received a determination that
the proposed alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), USACE
cannot determine the amount of compensatory mitigation credit required to offset unavoidable effects.
USACE’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines analysis, determination of the LEDPA, and the required
compensatory mitigation will be included in the USACE’s record of decision for AAF’s Section 404 permit
application.
7.2.8 Floodplains
AAF will mitigate all floodplain impacts in accordance with applicable state and local laws regarding
appropriate compensation and permitting. The construction design would minimize potential harm to
the floodplain by retaining existing elevations where feasible, constructing stormwater mitigation
measures and retention ponds, and minimizing fill in sensitive areas.
7.2.9 Biological Resources and Natural Ecological Systems
Impacts to biological resources and natural ecological systems have been minimized due to the fact that
the E‐W Corridor would be developed immediately adjacent to an existing transportation corridor and
would not significantly increase fragmentation and noise impacts that do not already exist in this area.
The same is true for the N‐S Corridor as it will be developed on an existing rail corridor. No new at‐grade
crossings are proposed along the E‐W Corridor that would have potential noise effects to wildlife related
to warning horns typically utilized at at‐grade crossings.
AAF will minimize effects to upland habitats and wildlife through implementation of standard
construction BMPs and mitigation measures including:
 Designs to provide wildlife passage under bridges and through culverts in critical areas
(Figure 5.3.5‐1); and
 Cleared areas may be revegetated when required by standard BMPs and applicable laws.
AAF will design bridges and culverts along the E‐W Corridor to facilitate wildlife passage, consistent with
the existing bridges and culverts along SR 528 and with the Orlando Orange County Expressway
Authority and FDOT’s future plans. AAF will construct a new wildlife crossing approximately 4,100 feet
east of Long Bluff Road, and will provide a passage with 8 to 10 feet of vertical clearance and
approximately 50 feet of horizontal clearance. This wildlife crossing will match the wildlife crossing
proposed by FDOT as part of the future SR 528 widening. The railroad wildlife crossing (along with the
SR 528 crossing when constructed by FDOT) will enhance wildlife passage between the northern and
southern sections of the Tosohatchee Preserve, and will function as part of the Florida Wildlife Corridor.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-10 September 2014
Project Commitments
7.2.10 Essential Fish Habitat
Through consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division (NMFS HCD),
USACE has assisted in identifying species groups with designated EFH and recommended the use of
mitigation methods such as avoiding impacts to mangroves.
To mitigate for impacts to EFH, AAF will construct bridges over waterways in a manner to reduce erosion
and sedimentation through implementation of BMPs (such as the use of silt fences and turbidity curtains)
in accordance with an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan approved by NMFS to prevent further
impacts to EFH. The placement of fill and rip‐rap in wetlands resulting from bridge construction is
considered a permanent impact to jurisdictional wetlands. As a result, AAF will obtain an appropriate
Section 404 permit from USACE prior to construction, and implement mitigation as required by the
wetland permit conditions (see Section 5.2.2).
7.2.11 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Protected Species
USACE has facilitated several discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NMFS
Protected Resource Division (PRD) regarding Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation for this project.
These discussions have aided in clarification of the details required in the Biological Assessment (BA) that
was prepared by AAF in accordance with the Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook (USFWS 1998)
and submitted in September 2013. Based on the BA, effect findings were determined for species found
throughout the project corridor also in September 2013. Consultation with USFWS and NMFS PRD has
also helped develop mitigation methods for minimizing effects to threatened and endangered species.
Specific measures will be implemented by AAF to mitigate for potential temporary and permanent
impacts to the habitat of federally listed species, as described below. In addition to these measures, AAF
has committed to conducting pre‐construction surveys for the following species:
 Audubon’s crested caracara
 Florida scrub‐jay
 Red‐cockaded woodpecker
 Sand skinks
 State‐listed plant species
None of the alternatives considered for this analysis would be expected to result in significant adverse
impacts to protected species or protected species habitat. However, AAF is committed to these measures
to address any significant, unmitigated impacts that may arise as a result of the Project.
7.2.11.1 West Indian Manatee Mitigation Measures
AAF will conduct construction activities in accordance with Standard Manatee Construction Conditions for
In‐Water Work, which shall include, but are not limited to, the following BMPs (USFWS 2011):
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-11 September 2014
Project Commitments
 Siltation/turbidity barriers will be made of material that would not entrap/entangle the manatee,
and would not impede manatee movement. Barriers would be properly secured and routinely
monitored to ensure manatees are not entangled.
 Within the construction area, water vessels associated with construction will operate at no
wake/idle speeds at all times and in water depths where the draft of the vessel provides less than
a 4‐foot clearance from the sediment. Vessels will follow routes of deep water when possible.
 All personnel associated with the construction and operational phases of the Project will be
instructed in the potential presence of manatees in the water. Construction site personnel
associated with operating water craft will be advised of the civil and criminal penalties for
harming, harassing, or killing species that are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, ESA, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act.
 If a manatee comes within 50 feet of the construction area or barrier, activities would cease,
including vessels being shutdown, until the animal has moved on its own volition beyond the
50‐foot radius of the construction operation. The animals would not be herded away or harassed
into leaving.
 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission‐approved (FWC) temporary signs regarding
manatees will be posted before and during in‐water construction activities.
In the event of a collision with a manatee, the on‐site construction manager would immediately notify the
FWC hotline (1‐888‐404‐3922) and USFWS in Jacksonville for north Florida (1‐904‐731‐3336) and Vero
Beach for south Florida (1‐772‐563‐3909).
7.2.11.2 Wood Stork Mitigation Measures
All personnel associated with the construction and operational phases of the Project will be instructed
about the potential presence of wood storks. The construction site personnel will also be informed of the
civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing species that are protected. Personnel would
avoid operating noise‐making equipment unnecessarily if wood storks are present and wood storks
would never be intentionally forced to fly.
Feeding sites shall not be subjected to water management practices that alter traditional water levels or
seasonally normal drying patterns and rates.
7.2.11.3 Bald Eagle Mitigation Measures
In order to avoid a take under the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act, in constructing the Project AAF will
comply with the FWC Bald Eagle Management Plan, which prescribes buffer areas around linear
transportation projects and recommend that construction activities occur outside of breeding seasons
(FWC 2008). AAF will also apply for a Bald Eagle Disturbance Permit, as required by FWC, in order to
work within the buffer for nest OR‐065.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-12 September 2014
Project Commitments
7.2.11.4 Indigo Snake Mitigation Measures
AAF will construct the Project in accordance with Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo
Snake (USFWS August 12 2013). Construction specifications will include the Species Conservation
Guidelines: Eastern Indigo Snake (USFWS 2004b).
All personnel associated with the construction and operational phases of the Project will be instructed in
the potential presence of the eastern indigo snake. The construction site personnel will also be informed
of the civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing species that are protected.
AAF will develop a management plan for all construction personnel to follow. Informational signs shall
be posted throughout the construction site and along any proposed access road to contain the following
information:
 A description of the eastern indigo snake, its habits, and protection under federal law;
 Instructions not to inquire, harm, harass, or kill this species;
 Directions to cease activities and allow the eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move away
from the site on its own before resuming; and
 Telephone numbers of pertinent agencies to be contacted if a dead eastern indigo snake is
encountered.
AAF will submit an eastern indigo snake monitoring report to the appropriate USFWS and FWC field office
within 60 days of the conclusion of the construction phases. The report should be submitted whether or
not eastern indigo snakes are observed. The report should contain the following information:
 Any sightings of eastern indigo snakes; and
 Other obligations required by the USFWS, as stipulated in the permit.
7.2.11.5 Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Mitigation Measures
AAF will construct the Project in accordance with Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction
Conditions (NMFS Revised March 23, 2006) which include, but are not limited to the following BMPs:
 Siltation barriers would be made of material that would not entrap/entangle a sea turtle, and
would not block sea turtle access from designated critical habitat. Barriers shall be properly
secured and routinely monitored to ensure turtles are not entangled.
 Water vessels associated with construction would operate at no wake/idle speeds at all times in
the construction area, and in water depths where the draft of the vessel provides less than a 4‐foot
clearance from the sediment.
All personnel associated with the construction and operational phases of the Project will be instructed in
the potential presence of protected sea turtles. Further, AAF will inform the construction site personnel
and personnel associated with operating the ferry of the civil and criminal penalties for harming,
harassing, or killing species that are protected.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-13 September 2014
Project Commitments
Construction activities will occur during daylight hours only in areas that might be visible from any
nesting beach. No nighttime construction activities would be conducted in areas which project lighting
could be visible from a nesting beach.
Construction completed from the water will be done from a floating barge using floating turbidity barriers
made of materials that would not allow sea turtles to become entangled. Spill response kits will be
maintained on board during construction.
In the unlikely event that a protected sea turtle species approaches the Project during construction, work
would immediately cease until the turtle moves at least 50 feet away on its own volition.
Noise from pile driving during construction could potentially affect federally managed species. The use of
bubble curtains during pile driving will help to dampen noise by 5 to 22 dB depending on the pile type
and other conditions (Howard 2013). NMFS has recommended that bubble curtains be used when
impacts could occur. It is anticipated that the air bubble curtains would be utilized during pile driving to
minimize the potential effects on federally managed species.
7.2.11.6 Johnson’s Sea Grass Mitigation Measures
Bridge crossings that would require in‐water work for bridge retrofits and/or construction of new
bridges will be permitted individually through the USACE and the applicable state regional water
management districts. Additionally, AAF will observe water quality protection measures at all of the
in‐water construction areas to protect manatees and sea turtles and would also provide protection to
downstream populations of seagrass and other submerged aquatic vegetation.
7.2.11.7 Gopher Tortoise Mitigation Measures
Prior to commencement of any ground disturbing activities, AAF will complete FWC‐compliant gopher
tortoise surveys by a qualified gopher tortoise agent. If any tortoises, burrows, or other sign of tortoises
are encountered within the Project footprint, AAF will obtain appropriate relocation permits, which
would include specific mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to this species.
7.2.12 Cultural Resources
The Project would have an adverse effect on two bridges determined to be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, the Eau Gallie River Bridge and the St. Sebastian River Bridge. Both bridges
would be demolished in order to construct new bridges capable of carrying the proposed passenger
trains. As mitigation, AAF will conduct historic research and prepare Historic American Buildings Survey
and Historic American Engineering Record documentation for each bridge prior to its demolition. FRA is
continuing to consult with the SHPO regarding concurrence with the FRA’s adverse effect determination
and potential mitigation measures.
7.2.13 Section 4(f) Resources
The Project would not require a use of Section 4(f) resources except for certain historic railroad bridges,
as described in Chapter 6, Section 4(f) Evaluation. During construction, two roads within Section 4(f)
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Mitigation Measures and 7-14 September 2014
Project Commitments
properties (the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area and Jonathan Dickinson State Park) would be
temporarily affected by construction activities.
The E‐W Corridor would be constructed as an overpass so as to not interrupt the intended use of Long
Bluff Road within the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area. Construction of the overpass may require
construction areas within the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area; however, the construction areas
would be stabilized with grass and mulch and the land returned to pre‐construction conditions.
AAF proposes to excavate material from and adjacent to three man‐made ponds within the Tosohatchee
Wildlife Management Area, and to then rehabilitate the ponds by creating more natural shorelines,
reshaping the ponds, and adding littoral shelves. These actions will enhance the fisheries habitat, increase
the zonation of wetland plant communities, improve wildlife habitat, and expand the function of the
ponds as a recreational resource. The Land Manager for the Tosohatchee State Reserve, which acts as the
umbrella organization for properties under the jurisdiction of multiple state agencies and includes the
Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area, has indicated that this arrangement would be beneficial, and
that a prior similar approach to a fourth borrow pond has proved beneficial. AAF is currently surveying
the pond areas to evaluate the existing ecological conditions and determine whether borrow material
from the ponds would be suitable for constructing the Project.
To ensure the safety of the users of Jonathan Dickinson State Park, AAF will implement at‐grade crossing
improvements where the N‐S Corridor crosses Southeast Jonathan Dickinson Way. Safety improvements
would include upgraded warning devices such as flashing lights, signage and pavement markings; median
barriers; and a four‐quadrant gate, which blocks both sides of each traffic lane. Electronic warning
systems would be implemented, which would monitor and communicate train locations and speeds, and
would stop the train if the crossing is not clear. Current safety measures at the existing at‐grade crossing
of the freight railway and Southeast Jonathan Dickinson Way include passive signage, flashing lights, and
a two‐quadrant gate.

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


Summary of Public Involvement 8-1 September 2014
Process and Tribal Coordination
8 Summary of Public Involvement
Process and Tribal Coordination
Public, agency, and tribal consultation and coordination on the Project was undertaken in accordance
with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations at
40 CFR parts 1500‐1507 and U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.C. The public involvement
process was conducted to obtain meaningful public input regarding the Project, which is described and
analyzed in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Specifically, the public involvement
process was undertaken to:
 Make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing NEPA procedures;
 Hold or sponsor public information meetings or statutorily required public hearings;
 Provide public notice of NEPA‐related hearings, public meetings, and the availability of environmental
documents to inform individuals and agencies who may be interested or affected; and
 Solicit input from the public.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the lead agency for this DEIS. Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) are Cooperating Agencies on
the DEIS, in accordance with NEPA and CEQ regulations (40 CFR part 1501.6). FRA and USACE have a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for this Project that establishes an agreement between FRA and
USACE regarding the procedures to be followed in preparing this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
USACE’s role in the DEIS has focused on its requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
Sections 10, 12, and 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. USACE has also taken the lead role with respect to
Endangered Species Act Section 7 and Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marines Fishery Service (NMFS).
FAA’s involvement in the DEIS was focused on the effects at the Project’s northern terminus at Orlando
International Airport. USCG’s role has focused on navigation and bridges requiring USCG Bridge Permits.
This chapter summarizes the consultation and coordination process through which federal, state, and
local agencies, elected officials, members of the public, and other interested entities were involved in the
NEPA process for this DEIS. The scoping process is described in Section 8.1, agency coordination in
Section 8.2, tribal coordination in Section 8.3, and public involvement in Section 8.4.
8.1 Scoping
Scoping is an early, open, and on‐going part of the NEPA process used to determine the range of
alternatives, issues, and effects that the DEIS will address in detail. The process includes consultation with
appropriate federal, state, regional, and local agencies and occurs early in the NEPA process before final
decisions have been made on the types of studies to be conducted, the Project Study Area, or content of
the DEIS. Scoping provides agencies and the public with the opportunity to contribute to the technical
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary of Public Involvement 8-2 September 2014
Process and Tribal Coordination
direction and analysis of the DEIS, and to contribute information that could be relevant to evaluation of
the effects of the Project.
FRA initiated the formal scoping process for the Project on April 15, 2013 by publishing a Notice of Intent
(NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register. A copy of the NOI is included in Appendix 8.1‐A. The NOI
provided a description of the Project and outlined the environmental review process. The NOI also
included an announcement of the FRA’s intent to conduct public and agency scoping meetings. Comments
were invited on the scope of the DEIS, including the purpose and need, alternatives to be considered,
effects to be evaluated, and methodologies to be used in the evaluation. Comments on the scope were
requested by May 15, 2013.
8.1.1 Agency Scoping Meeting
Representatives of federal, state, regional, and county agencies, and Native American Sovereign Nations,
were invited to participate in the scoping process and to participate in an agency/tribal scoping meeting
on May 1, 2013 at the Renaissance Orlando Airport Hotel, in Orlando, Florida. Federal agencies invited to
participate included the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department
of Defense, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Transportation, and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. State agencies invited included the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Regional
and county agencies invited to participate included the St. Johns River Water Management District
(SJRWMD), South Florida Water Management District , Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA), and
Broward, Miami‐Dade, and Orange Counties. Representatives from USACE, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, USFWS, FAA, FDEP, Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), FWC, SJRWMD, Miami‐Dade and
Orange Counties, SHPO, National Park Service (NPS), USCG, and GOAA attended the agency scoping
meeting.
At the meeting, FRA introduced the attendees, provided an overview of the Project with background
information, and outlined the next steps in the NEPA process. Presentations by FRA and All Aboard Florida,
LLC (AAF) provided the overview. The FRA also held a question‐and‐answer session, and solicited agency
comments.
Agency comments on the DEIS scope were received from FAA, USCG, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NPS,
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the Seminole Tribe of Florida Tribal Historic
Preservation Office. The comments were reviewed by FRA. Comments from agencies pertained to land
use and planning, Section 4(f) resources, surface transportation, and waterways.
8.1.2 Public Scoping Meetings
Following the publication of the NOI, in May 2013 five public scoping meetings were held in five different
communities (Orlando, Miami, West Palm Beach, Fort Pierce, and Fort Lauderdale). Table 8.1‐1 provides
the locations, dates, number of attendees, and number of comments received at these public scoping
meetings.
The first four public meetings were advertised in several newspapers and available in various locations
near the Project Study Area, including Florida Today, Orlando Sentinel, The Palm Beach Post, Sun Sentinel,
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary of Public Involvement 8-3 September 2014
Process and Tribal Coordination
St. Lucie News Tribune, La Voz, El Nuevo Herald, Miami Herald, el Sentinel, El Latino Semanal, and Haiti en
Marche. The last public meeting was advertised in the Sun Sentinel and el Sentinel. Notices were published
on several dates between April 17th and April 27, 2013. The notices were published in English, Spanish,
and Haitian Creole.

Table 8.1-1 Public Scoping Meetings
Public Scoping
Meeting Location Date
Number of
Attendees
Number of
Comment
Forms
Received
at the Meeting
Orlando Renaissance Orlando Airport Hotel May 1, 2013 135 61
Miami Culmer Center May 6, 2013 125 63
West Palm Beach Gaines Park Community Center May 7, 2013 138 67
Fort Pierce Havert L. Fenn Center May 9, 2013 75 38
Fort Lauderdale Holiday Park Social Center May 29, 2013 80 19
Total 553 248
Source: VHB, 2013.

Approximately 550 participants attended the five public scoping meetings. Attendees included elected
officials, local government representatives, members of the business community, and residents from the
communities in or near the Project Study Area. The meeting format was an open house style with
attendees encouraged to view the various exhibits placed around the room. Questions were directed to
representatives of FRA present at the meeting. A continuous loop visual presentation provided attendees
with information about the Project, including the background and general information about NEPA and
the scoping processes. Large aerial maps depicting the Project Study Area were also displayed at each
scoping meeting.
Attendees wanting to submit a written comment were able to do so by filling out a comment form. Written
comments could either be submitted during the public scoping meeting or mailed to the FRA. A total of
248 comment letters were received during the 30‐day scoping period (April 15 to May 15, 2013). Each
comment received was reviewed and analyzed, and was considered by the FRA during the preparation of
this DEIS. Comments received from municipalities and the public pertained to alternatives, floodplains,
hazardous materials, natural resources, noise and vibration, public outreach, safety, social, community,
socio‐economics, surface transportation, wetlands and waterways, wildlife, environmental justice,
purpose and need, and water quality. Appendix 8.1‐B, Scoping Report, provides a more detailed review of
the scoping process and comments received.
8.2 Agency Coordination
AAF initially coordinated with federal, state, regional, and county agencies regarding the Project from
March 2012 through April 2013. These preliminary efforts focused on satisfying requirements for the
submittal of environmental permit applications. Through this process AAF identified concerns of
stakeholders and requirements of regulatory agencies that are relevant to the NEPA process.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary of Public Involvement 8-4 September 2014
Process and Tribal Coordination
As mentioned above, FRA initiated the NEPA process by publishing the NOI to prepare an EIS on
April 15, 2013. The NOI provided a description of the Project and outlined the environmental review
process. The NOI also announced FRA’s intent to conduct public and agency scoping meetings (see
Section 8.1). FRA coordinated with a range of Federal agencies throughout this process.
This coordination informed AAF and FRA regarding the regulatory requirements and critical
environmental concerns of these agencies, as well as concerns of state and local authorities. Coordination
included the agencies and entities listed below.
Federal agencies
 Federal Aviation Administration
 Federal Highway Administration
 Federal Railroad Administration
 National Marine Fisheries Service
 United States Army Corps of Engineers
 United States Coast Guard
 United States Fish and Wildlife Service
State government authorities, agencies, and elected officials
 Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 Florida Department of Transportation
 Florida Division of Historical Resources/State Historic Preservation Officer
 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
 Florida House of Representatives
 Florida Senate
 Florida Transportation Commission
Local government authorities, agencies, and elected officials
 Counties:
o Orange
o Osceola
o Brevard
o Indian River
o St. Lucie
o Martin
o Palm Beach
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary of Public Involvement 8-5 September 2014
Process and Tribal Coordination
o Broward
o Miami/Dade
 Cities:
o Aventura
o Cocoa
o Dania Beach
o Fort Lauderdale
o Fort Pierce
o J upiter
o Lake Park
o Lake Worth
o Melbourne
o Miami Gardens
o North Miami Beach
o Orlando
o Palm Bay
o Palm Beach Gardens
o Pompano Beach
o Port St. Lucie
o Sebastian
o Stuart
o St. Lucie
o El Portal
o Vero Beach
o West Palm Beach
 Elected Officials:
o District 4 Mayors/Managers
o Miami-Dade City Managers
 Other Organizations:
o East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
o Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary of Public Involvement 8-6 September 2014
Process and Tribal Coordination
o Martin Metropolitan Planning Organization
o Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization
o Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority
o Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization
o Port of Palm Beach
o South Florida Water Management District
o Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization
o St. J ohns River Water Management District
o St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization
8.3 Tribal Coordination
Native American Sovereign Nations were invited to participate in the scoping process and participate in
the scoping meeting on May 1, 2013 along with federal, state, and county agencies. The Native American
Sovereign Nations invited to participate were the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida, Muscogee Creek Nation,
Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Seminole Tribe of Florida. Comments
from the Native American Sovereign Nations were received and reviewed by FRA, and were considered
during development of the DEIS.
8.4 Public Involvement
Since AAF publicly announced the Project, it has employed a public outreach strategy including meetings,
social media, and press releases to provide and solicit information relevant to the Project to and from
agencies and the public. The public outreach strategy also served to keep local officials, community
members, and other parties informed about the process and status of the DEIS. AAF participated in
numerous meetings with residents, businesses and community leaders, and public agencies throughout
the state. Two websites (http://www.allaboardflorida.com/ and https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0672), a
Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/AllAboardFlorida), a Twitter account (@AllAboardFlorida),
and email distribution list have also been created to increase outreach efforts to the public. AAF’s public
involvement effort has also included a series of press releases to Florida press outlets and over national
wire services.
Meetings and/or presentations were held to ensure agencies, communities, and other representatives
were informed about the Project and development, in addition to the NEPA public outreach activities.
AAF met with representatives from the following non‐governmental organizations during the NEPA
process:
 Admiral’s Cove Homeowners Association
 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Miami Chapter
 Associated Builders & Contractors
 Barefoot Bay Homeowners Association
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary of Public Involvement 8-7 September 2014
Process and Tribal Coordination
 Black Archives
 Broward County Marine Steering Committee/Advisory Board
 Broward County National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
 Central Florida Hotel and Lodging Association
 Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches
 City View Townhomes Association
 Cocoa Beach Regional Chamber of Commerce
 Council of Fort Lauderdale Civic Associations
 Downtown Fort Lauderdale Civic Association
 Efficient Transportation for the Community
 Federation of Boca Raton Homeowners Association
 Flagler Village Civic Association
 Florida Council of 100
 Florida Planning & Zoning Association
 Gold Coast League of Cities
 Indian River Freeholders Association
 International Drive Chamber of Commerce
 Kiwanis Club of West Palm Beach
 Leadership Orlando
 Martin County Chamber of Commerce
 MetroPlan Orlando
 Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission
 Miami‐Dade County Citizen’s Independent Transportation Trust
 Northern Palm Beach Chamber of Commerce
 Orlando Sentinel Transportation Forum
 Palm Beach Business Forum
 Palm Beach County Marine Industries Association
 Palm Beach County Realtors Association
 Palm Beach County Tourist Development Council
 Rotary Club of Orlando
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Summary of Public Involvement 8-8 September 2014
Process and Tribal Coordination
 SeaWorld Orlando
 South Andrews Business Association
 St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce
 St. Lucie Economic Development Council
 St. Lucie River Working Group
 Town Square Neighborhood Development Corporation
 Treasure Coast Joint Advisory Committee
 Universal Studios
 Village of Biscayne Park
 Visit Orlando
 Vista Lakes Homeowners Association
 Walt Disney World
 West Palm Beach Downtown Development Authority
 Women in Transportation
8.5 Post-Scoping Comments
Numerous members of the public have submitted comments to FRA following the scoping comment
period. More than 160 comments have been received since July 2013. The vast majority of the concerns
have focused on quality of life (including noise and safety) and potential impacts to the boating
community as a result of increased bridge closures.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-1 September 2014

9 References
All Aboard Florida (AAF). 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard
Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013.
________. 2013a. Modeling Assumptions. May 2013. Report.
________. 2013b. West Palm Beach to Miami Project, Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
Program. March 2013. Loan Application.
________. 2013c. FECR Grade Crossing Estimate Spreadsheet. Received via email from Alex Gonzales on
March 7, 2013.
________. 2013d. General Plans and Elevations for the Horse Creek and Arch Creek Bridges. Transystems
Corporation.
AAF and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for
Corridor Type Projects. June 7, 2013. Report.
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2013a. On‐Road Mobile Source Emissions Factors for the
Southeastern Modeling Analysis and Planning (SEMAP) States. Prepared for Southeastern States Air
Resources Managers, Inc. March 21, 2013. Report.
_______. 2013b. Technical Memorandum No. 10: Environmental Consequences for All Aboard Florida
Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. Report.
________. 2013c. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Noise and Vibration for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail
Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. July 2013. Report.
________. 2013d. Supplemental Bridge Information for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to Miami, Florida. Report.
________. 2013e. Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail
Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida. September 2013. Report.
________. 2013f. Technical Memorandum No. 6: Contaminated Sites Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida
Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. Report.
________. 2014a. Navigation Discipline Report for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami,
Florida. July 2014. Report.
________. 2014b. Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment for the All Aboard Florida Passenger
Rail Project from West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. June 2014. Report.
________. 2014c. Addendum to Technical Memorandum 3 Screening Analysis for Alternatives Identification for
the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida. January 2014. Report.
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA). 2003. Practical Guide to Railway
Engineering. http://www.engsoc.org/~josh/AREMA/. Accessed July 11, 2014.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-2 September 2014

Amtrak. 2012. Amtrak Sets New Ridership Record. http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/636/294/Amtrak‐Sets‐
New‐Ridership‐Record‐FY2012‐ATK‐12‐092.pdf. Accessed December 31, 2013.
________. 2014. Amtrak Silver Service/Palmetto On‐Time Performance. http://www.amtrak.com/silver‐
service‐palmetto‐train&mode. Accessed March 27, 2014.
Barry, T.M. and J. Regan. 1978. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA‐RD‐77‐108. USDOT,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Washington, D.C.
Bearden, H.W. 1972. Water Available in Canals and Shallow Sediments in St. Lucie County, Florida.
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001249/00001/1x. Accessed September 27, 2013.
Beck, Berry F. and William C. Sinclair. 1986. Sinkhole Zones in Florida: An Introduction.
http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/FGS/FGS_Publications/FGS%20Library%20Documents/Sinkhol
esInFlaAnIntroBeck1986a.pdf. The Florida Sinkhole Research Institute at the University of Central
Florida. Accessed August 31, 2013.
Biglin, Kevin and Lesley‐Ann Dupigny‐Giroux. 2006. Mapping the Road‐effect Zone to Assess Impacts of
Proposed Road Segments.
http://www.journalconsplanning.org/2006/volume2/bb8b/finalmanuscript.pdf. Accessed
September 27, 2013.
Bond, P. 1987. Geology and Waste Disposal in Florida, Map Series 112. Department of Environmental
Protection, Florida Geological Survey. Tallahassee, Florida.
Boys and Girls Clubs of Palm Beach County. 2013. Florence De George Boys & Girls Club.
http://www.bgcpbc.org/index.php?page=west‐palm‐beach. Accessed June 13, 2013.
Brevard County, Florida. 2012. Code of Ordinances County of Brevard, Florida.
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10473. Accessed March 2013.
________. 2013a. Helen & Allen Cruickshank Sanctuary.
http://www.brevardcounty.us/EELProgram/Areas/Cruickshank/Home. Accessed August 18, 2013.
________. 2013b. The Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program.
http://www.brevardcounty.us/EELProgram/Home. Accessed June 13, 2013.
________. 2013c. Brevard County Parks & Recreation South Area.
http://www.brevardcounty.us/ParksRecreation/South. Accessed June 13, 2013.
Brevard County, Planning and Development. 2011. The 1988 Brevard County Comprehensive Plan.
http://www.brevardcounty.us/PlanningDev/CompPlan. December 2011. Accessed August 7, 2013.
Brevard County, Property Appraiser. 2013. Property Details (24‐35‐10‐00‐00001). https://www.bcpao.us/.
Accessed September 21, 2013.
Brookings. 2013. U.S. Passenger Rail Ridership.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/amtrakroutes. March 2013. Accessed
December 13, 2013.
Broward County Transit. 2013. Fixed Route Bus Facts.
http://www.broward.org/BCT/About/Documents/factsheet.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2014.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-3 September 2014

Brown, D.W., et al. 1962. Water Resources of Brevard County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey (FGS)
Report of Investigations No. 28.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2013. Regional Economic Accounts: NAICS All GDP Components.
http://www.bea.gov/regional/downloadzip.cfm. U.S. Department of Commerce. Accessed
September 22, 2013.
Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). 2011a. Florida Population: Census Summary 2010.
http://www.floridarealtors.org/Research/upload/2‐Fla‐Census_Summary_2010.pdf. Warrington
College of Business Administration, University of Florida. Accessed September 12, 2013.
________. 2011b. Orange County Expected to Lead Florida Growth. http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/news/orange‐
expected‐lead‐florida‐growth. Accessed September 4, 2013.
________. 2013. 2003‐2013: Population Estimates for Florida Counties. University of Florida. April 2013.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2013. Local Area Unemployment Statistics.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=la. Accessed September 21, 2013.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 2013. Summary Statistics, Origin and Destination Airport:
January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2013.
http://apps.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/ddisp/OntimeSummarySelect.xml?tname
=OntimeSummaryBothData. Accessed September 12, 2013.
BusinessWire. 2013. Just Over One Third of the States Will Return to Prerecession Peak Employment by End
of 2013, According to IHS.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130918005168/en/States‐Return‐Prerecession‐
Peak‐Employment‐2013‐HIS. Accessed September 22, 2013.
Canaveral Port Authority. 2009. Economic Impact Study Summary.
http://www.portcanaveral.com/general/economics.php. Accessed August 15, 2013.
Central Florida Geographic Information Systems (CFGIS). 2012. District 5 LOS Spreadsheet for 2012.
http://www.cfgis.org/FDOT‐Resources/TrafficData.aspx. Accessed May 7, 2012.
City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 2007. Fort Lauderdale: Building a Livable Downtown: Consolidated
Downtown Master Plan.
http://www.fortlauderdale.gov/planning_zoning/downtown_masterplan.htm. Accessed
December 13, 2013.
________. 2011. Official City of Fort Lauderdale Historic Resources Maps as Amended August, 2011.
https://www.fortlauderdale.gov/planning_zoning/historic_preservation/pdf/hist_resources.pdf.
Accessed February 10, 2014.
City of Miami, Florida. 2009. Downtown Miami: Epicenter of the Americas: 2025 Downtown Miami Master Plan.
http://www.miamidda.com/pdf/DDA_Master_Plan_2009_LR.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2013.
City of Orlando, Planning Division. 2011. Growth Management Plan, City of Orlando: Transportation
Element.
http://www.cityoforlando.net/planning/cityplanning/PDFs/GMP/2012/jan/04_Transportation_
GOPs_Supp_5.pdf. December 2011. Accessed August 7, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-4 September 2014

City of Riviera Beach, Florida. 2013. Government. http://www.rivierabch.com/content/1484/default.aspx.
Accessed August 14, 2013.
City of Stuart, Community Services. Undated. Sailfish Ball Park. http://cityofstuart.us/index.php/park‐
facility‐availability/faciliies/sailfish‐ball‐park. Accessed June 13, 2013.
City of West Palm Beach, Florida. Undated. Nathaniel Adams Park. http://wpb.org/park/nathaniel‐adams‐
park/#tabs. Accessed June 13, 2013.
________. 2009. West Palm Beach Master Plan Update. http://wpb.org/planning/master‐plan‐update/.
Accessed December 13, 2013.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1981. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations (40 Fed. Reg. 18026). http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/G‐
CEQ‐40Questions.pdf. March 23, 1981. Accessed September 20, 2013.
________. 1993. Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations into Environmental Impact Analysis Under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G‐CEQ‐
BiodiversityConsiderations.pdf. January 1993. Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 1997a. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G‐CEQ‐
ConsidCumulEffects.pdf. January 1997. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 1997b. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf. December
10, 1997. Accessed August 31, 2013.
________. 2005a. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ‐ 40 CFR Parts 1500 ‐ 1508: Regulations for Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NEPA‐40CFR1500_1508.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2013.
________. 2005b. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G‐CEQ‐
PastActsCumulEffects.pdf. June 24, 2005. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2010. Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/CEQ_Draft_Guidance‐
ClimateChangeandGHGemissions‐2.18.10.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2014.
Crane, L., G.H. Hughes and L. Snell. 1975. Water Resources of Indian River County, Florida. Florida Geological
Survey (FGS) Report of Investigations No. 80. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001267/00001/3j. Accessed
September 27, 2013.
Delaney, D.K., L.L. Pater, T.J. Hayden, L. Swindell, L. Carlile and E. Spadgenske. 2000. Assessment of Training
Noise Impacts on the Red‐cockaded Woodpecker: 1999 Results. United States Army Corps of
Engineers. Technical Report.
Disney. Undated. Walt Disney World. https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/. Accessed August 13, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-5 September 2014

Ducks Unlimited. Undated. DU Projects: Atlantic Flyway. http://www.ducks.org/conservation/where‐we‐
work/flyways/du‐projects‐atlantic‐flyway. Accessed February 5, 2014.
Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast (EDC). 2011a. Florida’s Space Coast:
America’s High Tech Titan. http://www.spacecoastedc.org. Accessed June 2013.
________. 2011b. Major Public and Private Employers.
http://www.spacecoastedc.org/portals/0/informationcenter/workforce/major%20public%20a
nd%20private%20employers.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2013.
Eigenbrod, F., S.J. Hecnor and L. Fahrig. 2009. Quantifying the Road‐effect Zone: Threshold Effects of a
Motorway on Anuran Populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecology and Society. 14, 24.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2013. Radius Map Report with Geocheck for GOAA Site. EDR
Inquiry Number 3532737.2s.
Fahrig, L. and T. Rytwinski. 2009. Effects of Roads on Animal Abundance: an Empirical Review and
Synthesis. Ecology and Society. 14, 21.
Farmland Information Center. 2014. Florida Statistics. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/statistics/florida.
Accessed March 28, 2014.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2004. 14 CFR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning; Final
Rule.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/federal_register_notices/media/environm
ental_69fr57622.pdf. Accessed December 30, 2013.
________. 2007. Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/environmental_desk_ref/media/desk_ref_chap7.pd
f. Chapter 7, Section 4(f) Resources. October 2007. Accessed July 9, 2014.
________. 2013. Written Re‐Evaluation; 1998 Final Environmental Assessment for South Terminal Complex and
Related Aviation Support Areas and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision. December
2013. Report.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA). 1998.
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South Terminal Complex at the Orlando International
Airport. Report.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2013a. Flood Zones. http://www.fema.gov/floodplain‐
management/flood‐zones. August 16, 2013. Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 2013b. Floodway. http://www.fema.gov/floodplain‐management/flood‐way. August 16, 2013.
Accessed September 27, 2013.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1992. NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking – Secondary
and Cumulative Assessment in the Highway Project Development Process.
www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdm2_c_imp.asp. Accessed April 23, 2006.
________. 2003. Questions and Answers Regarding Indirect and Cumulative Impact Considerations in the NEPA
Process. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/qaimpact.asp. Accessed September 18, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-6 September 2014

________. 2005. Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced Strategies for Congestion Mitigation.
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/chapter4.htm. Accessed September 12, 2013.
_______ . 2007. Railroad‐Highway Grade Crossing Handbook – Revised Second Edition August 2007.
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/. Accessed October 14, 2013.
________. 2010. 23 CFR 774: Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites
(Section 4(f)). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR‐2010‐title23‐vol1/pdf/CFR‐2010‐title23‐
vol1‐part774.pdf. Accessed September 31, 2013.
________. 2012. Climate Change Adaptation.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/. Accessed January 21, 2014.
________. 2013. Assessment of the Body of Knowledge on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures into
Transportation Projects.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/resources_and_publications/tran
sportation_projects/transportationprojects.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2014.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Undated. Highway‐Rail Crossing Inventory Data.
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Downloaddbf.aspx. Accessed March 11, 2013.
________. 1999. 64 FR 28545: Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐1999‐05‐26/pdf/99‐13262.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2013.
________. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Florida High Speed Rail, Tampa to Orlando.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L01397. Accessed February 4, 2014.
________. 2010a. Guide to Developing a Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Plan.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/2134. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2010b. National Rail Plan Progress Report. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/1336.
Accessed March 21, 2013.
________. 2012a. High‐Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, USDOT Report
Number DOT/FRA/ORD‐12/15. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1238511. Accessed
September 27, 2013.
________. 2012b. Track and Rail and Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manual : Volume II ‐ Chapter 1 ‐
Track Safety Standards ‐ Classes 1 through 5. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04404.
Accessed February 4, 2014.
________. 2012c. Track and Rail and Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manual : Volume II ‐ Chapter 2 ‐
Track Safety Standards ‐ Classes 6 through 9. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04405.
Accessed February 4, 2014.
________. 2013a. Finding of No Significant Impact for the All Aboard Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach
to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Details/L04277. September 12, 2013.
________. 2013b. Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis.
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/default.aspx. Accessed September 18, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-7 September 2014

________. 2013c. Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS for the All Aboard Florida Miami‐Orlando Passenger Rail
Project. Federal Register. 78(72), 22363‐4.
________. 2014. NEPA Preliminary Environmental Re‐Examination Consultation. March 27, 2014.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2010. Draft
Environmental Assessment and 4(f) Statement for the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Study: Jacksonville
(Duval County) to Miami (Miami‐Dade County), Florida.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/FECAmtrak/0901%20‐%20Draft%20EA%20‐
%20August%202010.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2013.
________. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA‐VA‐90‐1003‐06,
May 2006.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2005. Finding of No Significant Impact, OIA Intermodal Center and
Associated High Speed Rail and Light Rail Alignments.
http://business.sunrail.com/uploads/docs/17.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2014.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), FDOT, and GOAA. 2005. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
OIA Intermodal Center and Associated High Speed Rail and Light Rail Alignments.
http://business.sunrail.com/uploads/docs/17. Accessed September 13, 2013.
Florida Atlantic University (FAU). 2007. Florida’s Resilient Coasts: A State Policy Framework for Adaptation
to Climate Change. http://www.ces.fau.edu/files/projects/climate_change/Fl_ResilientCoast.pdf.
Accessed January 7, 2014.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2012. 2011 Florida Motor Gasoline and Diesel
Fuel Report.
http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/30865/762562/2011_Gas_Report.pdf.
August 2012. Accessed March 21, 2013.
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO). 2013. Employment Projections.
http://www.floridajobs.org/labor‐market‐information/data‐center/statistical‐
programs/employment‐projections. Accessed January 20, 2014.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1972. Florida Water Resources Act of 1972:
Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/docs/ch373.pdf. Accessed September 13,
2013.
________. 1981. Florida Coastal Management Program: Chapter 380, Part II, Florida Statutes.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300‐
0399/0380/0380PartIIContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2013&Title=‐%3E2013‐
%3EChapter%20380‐%3EPart%20II. Accessed September 13, 2013.
________. 1985. Sinkhole Type, Development, and Distribution in Florida – Map Series No. 110.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/publications/sinkholetype3.pdf. Accessed September 31, 2013.
________. 1994. 62‐340, FAC: Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters.
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=62‐340. Accessed October 13, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-8 September 2014

________. 2008. Source Water Assessment and Protection Program (SWAPP) Areas.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gis/datadir.htm. Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 2010. Chapter 62‐302 Surface Water Quality Standards.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62‐302/62‐302.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 2011. Air Monitoring Report. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/air_quality/techrpt/amr11.pdf.
Accessed August 9, 2013.
________. 2012a. Chapter 62‐303: Identification of Impaired Surface Water.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62‐303/62‐303.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 2012b. Outstanding Florida Waters: Run 44‐ October 2012.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gis/datadir.htm. Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 2012c. Verified Impaired Florida Waters: Run 44‐ October 2012.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/download.htm. Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 2013a. 24 Florida Statutes of the Florida Coastal Management Program.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/federal/24_statutes.htm. July 30, 2013. Accessed September 27,
2013.
________. 2013b. Florida’s Air Quality System (FLAQS).
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/air_quality/airdata.htm. September 11, 2013. Accessed April 2013.
________. 2013c. Subsidence Incident Report locations in a KMZ file.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/gisdatamaps/SIRs_database.htm. Accessed March 31, 2013.
Florida Department of State. 2002. Compliance and Review: Cultural Resources Management Standards &
Operational Manual. Division of Historical Resources.
http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/compliance/manual.cfm. Accessed March 28, 2014.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification
System (FLUCCS) – Handbook.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf.
January 2013. Accessed August 7, 2013.
________. 2003. Florida Intrastate Highway System Program Development Procedure (Topic 525‐030‐255).
May 21, 2003. Report.
________. 2006a. Florida Intercity Passenger Rail “Vision Plan.”
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/FECAmtrak/16G1%20‐
%20Florida%20Passenger%20Rail%20Vision%20Plan%20‐%202006.pdf. Accessed February
11, 2014.
________. 2006b. South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis Study.
http://www.soflo.fau.edu/report/SFECC_Summary_Prior_Studies_Tech_Memo.pdf. Gannett
Fleming and Carter Burgess. Accessed January 7, 2014.
________. 2008. Project Development and Environment Guidelines Manual (PD&E Manual).
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/pdeman1.shtm. Accessed September 13, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-9 September 2014

________. 2009. The Florida Rail System Plan: Policy Element.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/FECAmtrak/16G2%20‐
%20Florida%20Rail%20System%20Plan%20‐%20Policy%20Element%20‐%202009.pdf.
March 2009. Accessed September 12, 2013.
________. 2010. The Economic Cost of Traffic Congestion in Florida: BDK75 977‐19.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research‐center/Completed_Proj/Summary_OP/FDOT_BDK75_977‐
19_rpt.pdf. August 2010. Accessed September 12, 2013.
________. 2011a. 2011 SHS LOS Maps. Secure download from Chon Wong, District 4 Contact. Received May 2013.
________. 2011b. Florida’s Turnpike AADT and LOS Request. Email from Kim Cromartie Samson, Florida’s
Turnpike Enterprise to author. Received May 2013.
________. 2011c. Florida Department of Transportation, Project Development and Environment Manual.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/Pt2ch17_052411‐current.pdf. May 24, 2011.
Accessed October 16, 2013.
________. 2012a. Rail Handbook. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/publications/handbook.pdf. January 2012.
Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2012b. Design‐Build Guidelines.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/DesignBuild/DBRules/DesignBuildGuidelines.pdf.
August 8, 2012. Accessed September 31, 2013.
________. 2012c. Cumulative Effects Evaluation Handbook. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/CEE/CEE‐
Handbook‐2012‐1218.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2013a. Standard Specifications Library for Road and Bridge Construction.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/specificationsoffice/Implemented/SpecBooks/2013/Files/2013eBoo
k.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2013b. I‐95 PD&E Study. http://i95study.com/index.html. Accessed September 31, 2013.
________. 2013c. Florida Traffic Safety Portal. http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/trafficsafetywebportal/. Accessed
September 31, 2013.
________. 2014. Tri‐Rail Coastal Link South Florida East Coast Corridor (SFECC) Transit Analysis Study.
http://www.tri‐railcoastallinkstudy.com/. Accessed February 10, 2014.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Systems Planning Office. 2010. I‐95 Sketch Interstate Plan
Summary Report, Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) for Interstate 95 (I‐95) From the Indian River/Brevard
County Line to the Florida/Georgia State Line: Executive Summary.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/corridor/Sketch/I‐95/Summary.pdf. October
2010. Accessed September 31, 2013.
Florida Division of Historic Resources. 2013. Meeting with All Aboard Florida on March 28, 2013. Meeting
Minutes.
Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (FECR). 2012a. Operating Rules. Report.
________. 2012b. Safety Rules and Company Policies. Report.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-10 September 2014

________. 2012c. Emergency Preparedness Plan. Report.
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC). 2011. List of Invasive Species.
http://www.fleppc.org/list/2011plantlist.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2013.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2008. Bald Eagle Management Plan.
http://myfwc.com/media/427567/Eagle_Plan_April_2008.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2009. FWC. Wading Bird Rookery Surveys (WBROOK99). Tallahassee, Florida. Using: ArcGIS 10.1.
Redlands, California: ESRI 2012.
________. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Species Act: Title 28 Chapter 379.2291 of the Florida Statutes.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/379.2291. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2012a. Eagle Nest Locator. https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx.
Accessed September 28, 2013.
________. 2012b. Boating Accident Statistic Report. http://myfwc.com/boating/safety‐education/boating‐
accidents. Accessed October 10, 2013.
________. 2013. Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area.
http://myfwc.com/viewing/recreation/wmas/lead/tosohatchee/. Accessed August 13, 2013.
Florida Geological Survey. 2012. Lithologic Well Logs: sfwmd1.zip.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/gisdatamaps/litholog‐temp.htm. Accessed September 27,
2013.
Florida House of Representatives. 2009. HB 1B – Transportation.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=42784. Accessed
September 21, 2013.
Florida Inland Navigation District. 2011. December 2011. Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s
Waterways in Florida, Main Report (Appendices J, K, L, and M).
http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list. Accessed July 6, 2014.
Florida Legislature. 2012. Title XI, Chapter 163, 163.31.61: Community Planning Act.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL
=0100‐0199/0163/Sections/0163.3161.html. Accessed August 15, 2013.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). Undated. Biodiversity Matrix.
http://lotmaps.freac.fsu.edu/bio05/index.html. Accessed September 29, 2013.
________. 2011. Critical Lands Identification Project (CLIP). http://www.fnai.org/clip.cfm. Accessed
September 20, 2013.
________. 2012. Florida managed Areas‐June 2012. Using: ArcGIS 10.1. Redlands, California: ESRI 2012.
Tallahassee, Florida.
________. 2013. Natural Communities Data. http://www.fnai.org/. Accessed September 27, 2013.
Florida Rail Enterprise. 2009. Preapplication HSIPR Program.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/economicstimulus/rail/HSR‐Pre‐Application.pdf. August 27,
2009. Accessed August 18, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-11 September 2014

Florida Sinkhole Research Institute. 1989. Reported Sinkholes in Orange County. University of Central
Florida, Orlando Florida.
Florida State Parks. Undated. Jonathan Dickinson State Park.
http://www.floridastateparks.org/jonathandickinson/. Accessed August 18, 2013.
________. 2013. Florida State Parks. http://www.floridastateparks.org. Accessed June 13, 2013.
Florida Wildlife Corridor. 2013. The Florida Wildlife Corridor. http://www.floridawildlifecorridor.org/.
Accessed August 18, 2013.
Forman, Richard T. T. and Lauren E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their Major Ecological Effects. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics. 29, 207‐231.
Forman, Richard T. and R. D. Deblinger. 2000. The Ecological Road‐effect Zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A.)
Suburban Highway. Conservation Biology. 14, 36‐46.
Fort Pierce, Florida. 2010. The City of Fort Pierce. http://www.cityoffortpierce.com. Accessed
August 31, 2013.
Gorzelany, Jay F. 2005. Recreational Boat Traffic Surveys of Broward County, Florida.
http://www.broward.org/Manatees/Documents/recreational_boat_survey.pdf. Accessed
December 30, 2013.
________. 2013. A Characterization of Recreational Boating Activity and Boater Compliance with Posted Speed
Zones in Palm Beach County. http://www.co.palm‐
beach.fl.us/erm/coastal/manatees/pdf/2012BoaterSpeedZoneComplianceStudy.pdf. Accessed
September 5, 2013.
Greater Miami Convention Center and Visitors Bureay. 2012.
http://www.travel.miami_and_beaches.com/partners/tools_and_resources/research_and_statisti
cs. Accessed February 11, 2014.
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA). 2009. Environmental Assessment for the East Airfield
Development Area at Orlando International Airport.
http://www.orlandoairports.net/east_airfield/. Accessed September 31, 2013.
_________. 2012a. Tiger IV Grant Application, March 19, 2012. Phase 1 Multi‐Modal Connection at Orlando
International Airport. Long Range Transit Vision – Airport and Medical City Area Map.
http://www.orlandoairports.net/planning/tiger4/docs/airport_medical_city_Maps.pdf.
_________. 2012b. Tiger IV Grant Application, March 19, 2012. Phase 1 Multi‐Modal Connection at Orlando
International Airport. Long Range Transit Vision – Airport to Lake Nona Medical City Connectivity
Maps (2). http://www.orlandoairports.net/planning/tiger4/docs/airport_medical_city_Maps.pdf.
_________. 2013. Tiger V Grant Narrative, June 3 2013. Phase 1 Multi‐Modal Connection at Orlando
International Airport.
Greyhound. 2014. Tickets. https://www.greyhound.com/default.aspx. Accessed March 28, 2014.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-12 September 2014

Hicks, R.W. Marting Jr. and A. Stodghill. 1988. Fort Pierce Utility Authority 25
th
Street Wellfield
Contamination – St. Lucie County, Florida. FDEP Bureau of Waste Cleanup Groundwater
Investigation Report No. 88‐01.
HNTB. 2003. Florida High Speed Rail Authority: Orlando‐Miami Planning Study.
http://www.floridabullettrain.com/fhsra/uploaddocuments/p25/Orlando‐
Miami%20Final%20Planning%20Study.pdf. Florida High Speed Rail Authority. March 2013.
Accessed October 14, 2013.
Howard, Brandon. 2013. Personal Communication with Brandon Howard, Fisheries Biologist with NOAA.
September 2012 – February 2013.
I‐95 Corridor Coalition. 2013. I‐95 Facts and Stats.
http://www.i95coalition.org/i95/Home/I95CorridorFacts/tabid/173/Default.aspx. Accessed
September 12, 2013.
Indian River County, Florida. 2012. Code of Ordinances County of Indian River, Florida.
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=12232. Accessed March 2013.
Indian River County, Parks Division. 2013. Indian River County Conservation Lands Program.
http://www.ircgov.com/Departments/General_Services/Parks/Conservation. Accessed June 13,
2013.
Indian River County, Planning Division. 2010. Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
http://www.irccdd.com/Planning_Division/Comp_Plan.htm. Accessed August 7, 2013.
Institute of Food and Agricultural Service (IFAS). 1998. Publication DH 1805 of the Disaster Handbook, a
component of the Comprehensive Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Education Module.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/department_disaster_handbook. Accessed October 13, 2013.
_________. 2005. Florida’s Geological History: WEC189/UW208. Department of Wildlife Ecology and
Conservation, University of Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw208. Accessed October 13, 2013.
Janus Research, Inc. 2005. CRAS for SR 528 PD&E Study, from SR 520 to the Port Canaveral Terminal B
Exchange. Technical Report.
________. 2013. Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from
Orlando to West Palm Beach. Technical Report.
Kent, C.S. and R. McCauley. 2006. Review of “Environmental Assessment of the Batholiths Marine Seismic
Survey, Inland Waterways and Near‐Offshore, Central Coast of British Columbia.” Center for Marine
Science and Technology, Curtin University.
Koch‐Rose, Marguerite, Diana Mitsova‐Boneva, and Tara Root. 2011. Florida Water Management and
Adaptable in the Face of Climate Change. http://floridaclimate.org/docs/water_managment.pdf.
State University System of Florida. Accessed January 7, 2014.
Lane, E. M. Knapp and T. Scott. 1980. Environmental Geology Series Fort Pierce Sheet. FGS Map Series No.
80.
Lichtler, W., W. Anderson, and B. Joyner. 1968. Water Resources of Orange County, Florida. Florida
Geological Survey (FGS) 50: 7,8,9,10,Fig.6, 15‐22,82,83,86,87,88,90‐99,128,133.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-13 September 2014

Louis Berger Group. 2013. All Aboard Florida Ridership and Revenue Study: Summary Report. September
2013. Prepared for Florida East Coast. Report.
Marella, R. 1999. Water Withdrawals, Use, Discharge, and Trends in Florida, 1995.
http://fl.water.usgs.gov/PDF_files/wri99_4002_marella.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2013.
Martin County, Florida. 2012. Code of Ordinances County of Martin, Florida.
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11203&stateId=9&stateName=Florida.
Accessed March 31 2013.
Martin County, Department of Parks and Recreation. 2011a. Rio Nature Park.
http://www.martin.fl.us/portal/page?_pageid=354,3437495&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p
ark_id=674. Accessed June 13, 2013.
________. 2011b. Martin County Park and Recreation.
http://ap3server.martin.fl.us:7778/portal/page?_pageid=354,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL.
Accessed June 13, 2013.
Martin County, Division of Community Planning. 2013. Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management
Plan. http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=13591. April 2013. Accessed August 7,
2013.
Martin County Fair Association, Inc. 2013. Martin County Fair.
http://www.martincountyfair.com/directions.html. Accessed June 13, 2013.
Martin County Property Appraiser. 2012. Martin County Florida – Property Appraiser’s Office.
http://www.mcpropertyappraiser.com/. Accessed February 26, 2013.
Mercado, Arnaldo. 2013. Environmental Programs Administrator, Orange County Environmental
Protection Division. Personal Communication. March 14, 2013.
Melbourne, Florida. 2012. Welcome to the Harbor City, About Melbourne, Florida.
http://www.melbourneflorida.org/info/. Accessed August 31, 2013.
Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission. 2012. Economy. http://www.orlandoedc.com/Data‐
Center/economy.shtml. Accessed August 13, 2013.
Miami International Airport (MIA). 2013. Miami‐Dade Aviation: Facts at a Glance. http://www.miami‐
airport.com/facts.asp. Accessed July 2013.
Miami Orlando Shuttle Bus. 2014. Miami Orlando Shuttle Bus.
http://www.miamiorlandoshuttle.com/miami‐to‐orlando.html. Accessed March 28, 2014.
Miller, James A. 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South
Carolina, HA 730‐G. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_g/. Accessed September 27, 2013.
Misra, V., et al. 2011. Climate Scenarios: A Florida‐Centric View; A White Paper on Climate Scenarios for Florida.
http://floridaclimate.org/docs/climate_scenario.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2014.
Mote Marine Laboratory. 2005. Recreational Boat Traffic Surveys of Broward County, Florida.
http://www.broward.org/Manatees/Documents/recreational_boat_survey.pdf/. Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation. Accessed January 6, 2014.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-14 September 2014

Mumme, R.L., S.J. Schoech, G.E. Woolfenden and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 2000. Life and Death in the Fast Lane:
Demographic Consequences of Road Mortality in the Florida Scrub Jay. Conservation Biology. 14,
501‐512.
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). September 20, 2010. Business Cycle Dating Committee,
National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html. Accessed
September 21, 2013.
National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC). 2013. Draft Climate
Assessment Report. http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11‐2013‐
publicreviewdraft‐fulldraft.pdf. January 11, 2013. Accessed August 9, 2013.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation
Mandate for Federal Agencies: South Atlantic Region. Technical Report. NOAA NMFS Habitat
Conservation Division, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida.
________. 2008. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies –
South Atlantic Region. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation District Southeast
Regional Office. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide_2008.pdf. August 2008.
Accessed March 7, 2013.
________. 2010. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies‐
South Atlantic Region. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation District Southeast
Regional Office. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide_2010.pdf. September
2010. Accessed March 7, 2013.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Undated. U.S. Earthquake Intensity Database.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=35&d=35. Accessed September 14,
2013.
________. 2006. Part 930 – Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐
idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=15:3.1.2.2.13&idno=15. Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 2012. Recommendations for Sampling Halophila johnsonii at a Project Site.
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/docs/JSG%20Survey%20Guidelines.pdf/. Accessed
October 10, 2013.
________. 2013. EFH Mapper. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html. Accessed
March 7, 2013.
National Park Service (NPS). 2002. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation Bulletin.
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/. Accessed August 31, 2013.
________. 2011. Annotated Bibliography – Impacts of Noise on Wildlife.
http://www.nature.nps.gov/sound/assets/docs/Wildlife_AnnotatedBiblio_Aug2011.pdf.
Accessed September 29, 2013.
National Wild and Scenic River Systems. 1985. Loxahatchee River, Florida.
http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/loxahatchee.php. Accessed August 27, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-15 September 2014

________. 2010. Wekiva River, Florida. http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/wekiva.php. Accesses August 27, 2013.
Nelson, Mark. 2013. Manager, Jonathan Dickinson State Park. Personal Communication. August 5, 2012.
Office of Economic and Demographic Research. 2011. Florida Population Estimates for Counties –
Countywide, Unincorporated, and Incorporated Totals: 1972‐2011.
http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/population‐demographics/data/FLcopops_2011.xls. Accessed
September 22, 2013.
________. 2013. Total County Population: April 1, 1970‐2040. http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/population‐
demographics/data/CountyPopulation.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2013.
Orange County, Florida. 2013. Orange County Code.
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10182. Accessed October 10, 2013.
Orange County Convention Center. 2013. Economic Impact.
http://www.occc.net/Community/Economic.asp. Accessed August 13, 2013.
Orange County Office of Economic Development. 2013. Key Industries: Orange County’s Economic Basis.
http://www.ocfl.net/EconomicDevelopment/KeyIndustries.aspx. Accessed June 2013.
Orange County, Planning Division. 2008. Infill Master Plan.
http://www.orangecountyfl.net/Portals/0/resource%20library/planning%20‐
%20development/Infill_Master_Plan.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2013.
________. 2012. Orange County, Florida, Comprehensive Plan 2010‐2030, Destination 2030.
http://www.orangecountyfl.net/Portals/0/resource%20library/planning%20‐
%20development/Comprehensive%20Plan%20GOPS%202012.pdf . June 2012. Accessed August
7, 2013.
________. 2013. Innovation Way Economic Development Corridor.
http://www.orangecountyfl.net/PlanningDevelopment/InnovationWayEconomicDevelopmentC
orridor.aspx. Access September 17, 2013.
Orlando Business Journal. 2013. Orlando is Nation’s Fifth ‘Booming’ Housing Market.
http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/blog/2013/09/orlando‐is‐nations‐fifth‐booming.html.
September 19, 2013. Accessed September 31, 2013.
Orlando International Airport (MCO). Undated. Traffic Statistics. www.orlandoairports.net/statistics.
Accessed July 2013.
________. 2010. Recommendations, High Speed Rail Station & Maintenance Facility Locations & Related Issues.
http://www.orlandoairports.net/poitras/HSR_presentation20100317.pdf. Accessed December
31, 2013.
________. 2012a. Phase I Multimodal Connector at Orlando International Airport, Tiger IV Grant Application.
http://www.orlandoairports.net/planning/tiger4/index.htm. Accessed May 28, 2013.
________. 2012b. Orlando International Airport Information. http://mco.airport‐viewer.com/. Accessed
August 13, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-16 September 2014

Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA). 2008. SR 528 Multi‐Use/Multi‐Modal Corridor
Study, Concept Development and Evaluation Study Report: Final Report.
https://www.oocea.com/Portals/0/docs/Future‐Plans‐and‐Studies/Concept‐
Studies/SR%20528%20Multi‐Use%20Multi‐
Modal%20Corridor%20Study/SR528MM_ExecutiveSummaryConclusion.pdf. July 2008. Accessed
September 12, 2013.
________. 2013. Contract of Sale and Purchase (Deseret Ranch).
https://www.oocea.com/Portals/0/2013%20board%20meetings/July%2024/Deseret%20Ranc
h%20Agr.pdf. Accessed December 30, 2013.
Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC). 2013. History of OUC. http://www.ouc.com/about‐ouc/history‐of‐
ouc. Accessed March 22, 2013.
Palm Beach County, Environmental Resources Management. 2013. Lake Park Scrub Natural Area.
http://www.pbcgov.com/erm/natural/natural‐areas/lake‐park‐scrub/. Accessed June 13, 2013.
Palm Beach County, Florida. 1992. Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code. Article 14 Chapter
B, Wellfield Protection Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Best Management Practices.
http://www.pbcgov.com/erm/permitting/water‐resources/wellfield/pdf/affidavit‐of‐
notification‐form.pdf. Accessed March 2013.
________. 2013. Agricultural Economics in Palm Beach County.
http://www.pbcgov.com/coextension/agriculture/development/. Accessed August 13, 2013.
Palm Beach County, Planning Division. 2013. Palm Beach County, 1989 Comprehensive Plan.
http://www.co.palm‐beach.fl.us/pzb/planning/comprehensiveplan/Transportation.pdf.
April 2013. Accessed August 7, 2013.
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. 2008. Municipal Services. http://www.pbgfl.com/content/74/. Accessed
August 31, 2013.
PBS&J. 2009. Palm Beach County Vessel Traffic Study. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Report.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 2007. National Pipeline Mapping
System. http://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/. USDOT. Accessed June 31, 2013.
Piper Archaeology. 1990. CRAS of the Proposed Magnolia Ranch Development Site. Technical Report.
Popper, A.N. 2005. What do we know about pile driving and fish? In Proceedings of the 2005 International
Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by Irwin, C.L., Garrett, P. and McDermott, K.P.
Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Primack, R.B. 2008. A Primer of Conservation Biology, 4
th
Edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Rahmani, Mohammad, Alan W. Hodges, and Rodney L. Clouser. 2008. Economic Contributions of
Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Industries in Florida Counties, 2008.
http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/economic‐impact‐analysis/pdf/Florida%20Counties%20Main.pdf.
Accessed August 18, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-17 September 2014

Rapoza, Brian. 2007. Birding Florida. Falcon Guides. Guilford, Connecticut. 292 pp.
Recreational Marine Research Center. Undated. Florida Online Boating Economic Impact Model.
http://www.floridaboatingeconomics.com. Accessed September 5, 2013.
RedCoach USA. 2014. West Palm Beach Bus Schedule. http://www.redcoachusa.com/buses‐west‐palm‐
beach. Accessed March 28, 2014.
Reijnen, R., Ruud Foppen, Cajo Ter Braak and Johan Thissen. 1995. The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding
Bird Populations in Woodland. III. Reduction of Density in Relation to the Proximity of Main
Roads. Journal of Applied Ecology. 32, 187‐202.
Robinson, S.K. 1998. Another Threat Posed by Forest Fragmentation: Reduced Food Supply. The Auk. 115,
1‐3.
Rosenfield, R.N., C.M. Morasky, J. Bielefeldt, and W.L. Loope. 1992. Forest Fragmentation and Island
Biogeography: A Summary and Bibliography. U.S. Department of the Interior. Technical Report.
Schiner, G.R., C.P. Laughlin and D.J. Toth. 1988. Geohydrology of Indian River County, Florida.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1988/4073/report.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2013.
Schlueb, Mark. 2013. Orlando Population Growth 2
nd
in State. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013‐
05‐28/news/os‐orlando‐population‐growth‐20130528_1_population‐growth‐sunshine‐state‐
cities‐report. Orlando Sentinel. Accessed September 12, 2013.
Silver Airways Corp., 2012. First Year Progress Report, June 13, 2012.
http://www.airlineinfo.com/ostpdf84/725.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2014.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998a. Final Essential Habitat Plan.
http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/Ecosystem%20Management/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabit
atPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFHAm/. Accessed March 7, 2013.
________. 1998b. Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Fishery Management Plans
of the South Atlantic Region.
http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPla
n/tabid/80/Default.aspx. Accessed March 7, 2013.
Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. 2011. A Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast
Florida. http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/pdf/Sea%20Level%20Rise.pdf. Accessed January
7, 2014.
South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA). 2013a. Tri‐Rail: Train Schedule.
http://www.tri‐rail.com/. Accessed October 14, 2013.
________. 2013b. South Florida Regional Transportation Authority: Transit Development Plan FY 2013‐2022
Annual Update.
http://www.sfrta.fl.gov/docs/planning/TDP/Draft_TDP_Annual_Update_FY_2013_FULL.pdf.
Accessed September 13, 2013.
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Undated. SFWMD – GIS Data Distribution: GIS Data
Catalog. http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?. Accessed
September 27, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-18 September 2014

________. 2008. Land Use Land Cover 2008.
http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?query=unq_id=2184. Accessed
August 7, 2013.
________. 2012. Water Body.
http://my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?query=unq_id=1959. Accessed
September 27, 2013.
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and Florida Center for Environmental Studies. 1999.
Focus on the St. Lucie River.
http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/stlucie.pdf.
Accessed October 14, 2013.
Spencer, S.M. and E. Lane. 1995. Florida Sinkhole Index ‐ Florida Geological Survey Open‐File Report No. 58.
St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 2009. St. Johns River Water Management District
Land Use and Cover 2009. ftp://secure.sjrwmd.com/disk6b/lcover_luse/lcover2009/. Accessed
August 7, 2013.
________. 2012. SJRWMD Waterbodies. http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html.
Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 2013a. SJRWMD ‐ GIS Data Download Table.
http://www.sjrwmd.com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html. Accessed August 31, 2013.
________. 2013b. SJRWMD Recreational Guide. http://www.sjrwmd.com/recreationguide/. Accessed June
13, 2013.
________. 2013c. It’s Your Lagoon, The Indian River Lagoon: An estuary of national significance.
http://floridaswater.com/itsyourlagoon/. Accessed December 30, 2013.
St. Lucie County, Florida. 2009. St. Lucie County Florida Land Development Code.
http://search.municode.com/html/14641/MCC_TOC.html. Accessed March 2013.
________. 2013a. Nature Preserves & Recreational Opportunities.
http://www.stlucieco.gov/beaches/preserves.htm. Accessed June 13, 2013.
________. 2013b. Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department. http://www.stlucieco.gov/parks/index.htm.
Accessed June 13, 2013.
St. Lucie County, Environmental Resources Department. Undated. The St. Lucie County Environmental
Lands Brochure. http://www.stlucieco.gov/pdfs/WEBSITE_‐_All_Sites_Brochure.pdf. Accessed
June 13, 2013.
St. Lucie County, Office of the Property Appraiser. 2013. Office of the Property Appraiser.
http://www.paslc.org/#home. Accessed February 26, 2013.
St. Lucie County, Planning Division. 2010. St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan.
http://www.stlucieco.gov/planning/comp_plan.htm. October 2010. Accessed August 7, 2013.
Summers, P.D., G.M. Cunnington and L. Fahrig. 2011. Are the Negative Effects of Roads on Breeding Birds
Caused by Traffic Noise? Journal of Applied Ecology. 48, 1527.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-19 September 2014

The Washington Economics Group, Inc. (WEG). 2014. Economic Impacts of the All Aboard Intercity Passenger
Rail Project. May 20, 2014. Prepared for All Aboard Florida. Report.
The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. 2009. Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership in
Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/2009fedleader_eo_rel.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2014.
Toth, D. Ph.D. and C. Huang Ph.D. 1998. Investigation of the Groundwater Resources in Central Indian River
County, Florida. Special Publication SJ98‐SP19.
http://www.sjrwmd.com/technicalreports/pdfs/SP/SJ98‐SP19.pdf. Accessed September 27,
2013.
Town of Jupiter, Parks Department. 2013. Sawfish Bay Park.
http://apps.jupiter.fl.us/ParksRecreation/Parks/Sawfish‐Bay.cfm. Accessed June 13, 2013.
Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, D.C.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Department of Homeland Security. 2004. Security
Directives: RAILPAX‐04‐01. Department of Homeland Security.
________. 2011. 49 CFR Part 1580: Rail Transportation Security. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR‐2011‐
title49‐vol9/pdf/CFR‐2011‐title49‐vol9‐part1580.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2013.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Undated. Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Missions/MilitaryProjects/FormerlyUsedDefenseSites(FUDS).as
px. Accessed April 2, 2014.
________. 1986. 33 CFR part 329: Definition of Waters of the United States.
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/FederalRegul
ation.aspx. Accessed October 2, 2013.
________. 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual. http://www.wetlands.com/regs/tlpge02e.htm. Accessed
October 10, 2013.
________. 1998. Department of the Army Permit, Permit No. 199800201 (IP‐ME). Greater Orlando Aviation
Authority. U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville.
________. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf
Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble, eds. U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
________. 2011. Circular No. 1165‐2‐212: Sea‐Level Change Considerations for Civil Works Programs.
http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/library/ECs/EC11652212Nov2011.pdf. Accessed
January 7, 2014.
United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. Census 2000. http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed
August 13, 2013.
________. 2010a. Census 2010. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 13, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-20 September 2014

________. 2010b. 2006‐2010 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates: S0801, Commuting
Characteristics by Sex. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed September 12, 2013.
________. 2011. 2007‐2011 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates: Total Population.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed August 13, 2013.
________. 2012. Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division: Poverty.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty. Accessed March 31, 2013.
________. 2013. State and County Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed August
14, 2013.
United States Coast Guard (USCG). 2013a. Letter from Evelyn Smart, Environmental Protection Specialist
with the United States Coast Guard to Alex Gonzalez, Corporate Development Manager with
Florida East Coast Industries. May 1, 2013.
________. 2013b. Letter from Barry Dragon, Director Bridge Branch with the United States Coast Guard to
Mary D. Hassell with the U.S. Department of Transportation. July 24, 2013.
________. 2014. Letter from Evelyn Smart, Environmental Protection Specialist with the United States Coast
Guard to Lisa A. Standley, Chief Environmental Scientist with Vanasse, Hangen, Brustlin, Inc.
April 4, 2014.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2012.
Prime and Unique Farmlands.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1187178.pdf. Accessed
December 30, 2013.
________. 2013. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed
December 30, 2013.
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2012. Transportation Statistics Annual Report ‐
2012. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/tsar_2012.pdf.pdf. Accessed July 2,
2014.
________. 2013. Domestic Airline Consumer Airfare Report. http://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation‐
policy/domestic‐airline‐fares‐consumer‐report. August 8, 2013. Accessed August 6, 2013.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Population Distribution of the United States as
a Function of Outdoor Noise Level, Report 550/9‐74‐009.
http://www.hmmh.com/cmsdocuments/PopulationDistribution_US_FunctionOutdoorNoiseLevel
.pdf. June 1974. Accessed September 13, 2013.
________. 1976. About Sound. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise
Abatement and Control.
________. 1997. 40 CFR part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or
Fill Material. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐
idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr230_main_02.tpl. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2008a. Clean Air Act. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/. Accessed August 9, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-21 September 2014

________. 2008b. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Core Module Guidance – Optional
Emissions from Commuting, Business Travel and Product Transport.
http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/resources/commute_travel_product.pdf.
Office of Air and Radiation. Accessed September 13, 2013.
________. 2008c. The National Emissions Inventory. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html.
Accessed October 14, 2013.
________. 2009. Emission Factors for Locomotives – Technical Highlights.
http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf. April 2009. Accessed September 13, 2013.
________. 2011a. Office of Water’s 2011 SSA Database. http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp.
Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 2011b. 40 CFR part 1039: Control of Emissions from New and In‐Use Nonroad Compression‐Ignition
Engines. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐
idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr1039_main_02.tpl. Accessed March 21, 2013.
________. 2012a. Green Book of Attainment. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/. Accessed August 9,
2013.
________. 2012b. 40 CFR part 50: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/. December 14, 2012. Accessed August 9, 2013.
________. 2013. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/. June 11,
2013. Accessed September 27, 2013.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Undated. USGS Topographic Maps.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands‐Mapper.html. Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 1972. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/midwestbird/eaglepermits/bagepa.html. Accessed August 31,
2013.
________. 1977. 50 CFR part 17: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐
bin/text‐
idx?c=ecfr&sid=3a9ffb73ce00042c403283999da3d41b&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title50/50cfr17a_mai
n_02.tpl. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 1998. Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa‐
library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2003a. Audubon’s Crested Caracara Consultation Area Map.
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/CrestedCaracaraConsultationArea.pdf. July 14, 2003.
Accessed August 31, 2013.
________. 2003b. West Indian Manatee Consultation Area Map.
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MammalsPDFs/WestIndianManateeConsultation Area.pdf.
September 19, 2003. Accessed August 31, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-22 September 2014

________. 2003c. Florida Scrub‐Jay Consultation Area Map.
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/SLOPESScrubJayConsultationArea.pdf.
October 16, 2003. Accessed August 31, 2013.
________. 2003d. Everglades Snail Kite Consultation Area Map.
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/SnailKiteConsultationArea.pdf. October 30, 2003.
Accessed August 31, 2013.
________. 2003e. Piping Plover Consultation Area Map.
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/PipingPloverConsultationArea.pdf.
September 29, 2003. Accessed October 14, 2013.
________. 2003f. Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake Consultation Area Map.
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/ReptilesPDFs/AtlanticSaltMarshSnakeConsultationArea.pdf.
September 29, 2013. Accessed October 13, 2013.
________. 2004a. Species Conservation Guidelines, South Florida, Red‐cockaded Woodpecker.
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/200407SlopesCompleteRedCockadedWoodpecker.p
df. July 12, 2004. Accessed August 31, 2013.
________. 2004b. Species Conservation Guidelines: Eastern Indigo Snake.
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/ReptilesPDFs/EasternIndigoSnakeConservationGuidelines.pdf.
Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2008. Wood Stork Key for Central and North Peninsular Florida.
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/Documents/20080900_JAXESO_WOST_Key.pdf.
September 2008. Accessed December 16, 2013.
________. 2010a. Florida Nesting Colony GIS Shapefiles.
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood‐storks.htm. February 2010. Accessed
September 13, 2013.
________. 2010b. Florida Nesting Colony Core Foraging Areas GIS Shapefiles.
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood‐storks.htm. February 2010. Accessed
September 13, 2013.
________. 2010c. North and South Florida Eastern Indigo Snake Key.
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/IndigoSnakes/20130813_ltr_Update_addendum_2010_COE_Pr
ogrammatic_EIS_Key.pdf. Accessed December 16, 2013.
________. 2010d. 50 CFR Parts 10 and 21, General Provisions: Migratory Birds Revised List and Permits; Final
Rules. Federal Register vol. 75 No. 39, p. 9282. March 1, 2010.
________. 2011. Standard Manatee Construction Conditions for In‐Water Work.
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MammalsPDFs/2011%20Standard%20Manatee%20Constructi
on%20Conditions.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2013.
________. 2012a. Species Database. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/2012918USGSESData.html. Accessed
August 31, 2013.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


References 9-23 September 2014

________. 2012b. Florida Scrub‐Jay Umbrella Habitat Conservation plan and Environmental Assessment.
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Scrub‐
Jays/Docs/Umbrella/20121000_ver_FSJ_Umbrella_HCP_EA.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2013.
________. 2012c. Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning
Recommendations. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/telecomguidance.html.
Accessed February 10, 2014.
________. 2013a. National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed
September 27, 2013.
________. 2013b. Wood Stork Rookery Information. http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood‐
storks.htm. Accessed September 27, 2013.
________. 2013c. Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.fws.gov/hobesound/. April 19, 2013.
Accessed August 18, 2013.
United States Geological Society (USGS). Undated. Florida: Seismic Hazard Map.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/florida/hazards.php. Accessed March 28, 2014.
University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2009. Florida Parks and Recreational Facilities 2009. Using:
ArcGIS 10.1. Redlands, California: ESRI 2012. Gainesville, Florida.
Wilson, W. et. al. 1987. Hydrogeologic Factors Associated with Recent Sinkhole Development in the Orlando
Area, Florida. Florida Sinkhole Research Institute Report. 87‐88‐4. University of Central Florida,
Orlando, Florida. pp. 3,4,7‐17,29.
Van der Ree, R., J.A. Jaeger, E.A. van der Grift and A.P. Clevenger. 2011. Effects of Roads and Traffic on
Wildlife Populations and Landscape Function: Road Ecology is Moving Toward Larger Scales.
Ecology and Society. 16, 48.
Vero Beach, Florida. Undated. Welcome to the City of Vero Beach. http://www.covb.org. Accessed
August 31, 2013.
Visit Florida. 2013a. Research – Official Newsroom, VisitFlorida.com. http://www.visitflorida.com/en‐
us/media/research.html. Accessed August 6, 2013.
Visit Florida. 2013b. Vero Beach. http://www.visitflorida.com/en‐us/cities/vero‐beach.html . Accessed
August 14, 2013.
Visit Orlando. 2014. Visitor Statistics. Http://www.
corporate.visitorlando.com/research_and_statistics/Orlando‐visitor‐statistics. Accessed
February 11 2014.

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


References 9-24 September 2014

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


List of Preparers 10-1 September 2014

10 List of Preparers
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Dr. Lisa A. Standley
Chief Environmental Scientist
Technical Document Lead
Ph.D., Botany, University of Washington
M.S., Botany, Cornell University
B.S., Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University

26 years of experience in environmental consulting
and 21 years of experience in preparing NEPA
documents
Lauren Ballou
Environmental Planner
DEIS Preparation
M.A., Global Leadership and Sustainable
Development, Hawaii Pacific University
B.A., Biology, Environmental Policy, Boston
University

2 years of experience in environmental policy and
management
Terry Byrne
Senior Project Manager
Transit and Rail Operations, and Train Control
39 years of experience in transit and rail industry
specific to train control systems and rail operations
Rick Carey, P.E.
Northern New England Director of Transit & Rail
Rail Engineering
M.B.A., Bryant College
B.S., Engineering, Civil, Mechanical, University of
Rhode Island

27 years of experience in passenger and freight rail
design and construction initiatives
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


List of Preparers 10-2 September 2014

Lisa DiTaranti, P.E.
Northeast Director of Transit & Rail
Rail Operations, Transportation, Ridership
B.S., Civil Engineering, Villanova University

29 years of experience in railroad planning and
engineering consulting and 25 years of experience in
preparing NEPA documents
Colin Foley, AICP
Transportation Planner
Alternatives Analysis
M.C.P., Transportation Planning, University of
Pennsylvania
B.S., History, Boston College

8 years of experience in transportation and
environmental planning
Donny Goris‐Kolb, AICP, LEED Green Associate
Environmental Planner
Social and Economic Impacts, Environmental
Justice

M.U.P., University at Buffalo
B.A., Sociology, Binghamton University

6 years of experience in environmental consulting
and preparing NEPA documents
Marianne Iarossi
Environmental Planner
DEIS Preparation
M.R.P., Environmental Planning, University of
Massachusetts
B.S., Environmental Science, Geography and
Regional Planning, Westfield State University

2 years of experience in environmental consulting
and preparing NEPA documents
John Jennings, ASLA
Principal
Visual and Aesthetic Impacts
B.A., Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon

42 years of experience in design consulting of public
open space and infrastructure projects
Mike McArdle
Director, Transit & Rail
Rail Operations and Engineering
B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Lowell

26 years of experience in transit and rail
infrastructure projects
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


List of Preparers 10-3 September 2014

Kate McEneaney
Permitting Specialist
Section 4(f), DEIS Preparation
M.A., Energy and Environmental Analysis, Boston
University
B.A., Environmental Policy, Boston University

12 years of experience in permitting efforts for
linear projects
Paul McKinlay, PG, LSP
Director, Oil and Hazardous Materials Services
Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste

M.A., Geology, Boston University
B.A., Geology, Boston University
Professional Geologist, New Hampshire and
Licensed Site Professional in Massachusetts

17 years of experience in Oil and Hazardous
Materials
Sean Murray
Environmental Scientist
Wetlands, Uplands, Wildlife, Threatened and
Endangered Species
B.A., Biology and Environmental Science, University
of Virginia

10 years of experience in environmental consulting
and 3 years of experience in biological research
Curtis Ostrodka, AICP, LEED AP
Senior Project Manager, Planning
Social and Economic Impacts, Land Use
M.U.P, University of Virginia
B.S., Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences,
University of Illinois

10 years of experience in environmental and land
use planning consulting

Heidi Richards
Project Manager/Associate
Air Quality
B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Vermont

22 years of experience in transportation planning
consulting and 15 years of experience in preparing
information for NEPA documents
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


List of Preparers 10-4 September 2014

Christopher Rife
Senior Project Manager
Lead Document Author
M.S., Environmental Policy and Management,
University of Denver
B.A., Philosophy, Humboldt State University

21 years of experience in environmental consulting
and 16 years of experience in preparing NEPA
documents
Clayton Robertson
Principal Environmental Scientist
Biological Resources and Natural Ecological
Systems; Wetlands
B.S., Natural Sciences, Zoology, University of South
Florida

38 years of experience in regulatory and
environmental consulting including ecological
assessments, regulatory permitting and biological
resource impact analyses
Gary Serviss, LEED AP
Principal Scientist
Farmlands Soils and Water
M.S., Biological Sciences, Florida Institute of
Technology
B.S., Marine Biology, Florida Institute of Technology

31 years of experience in environmental consulting
and 9 years of experience in preparing NEPA
documents
Tom Wholley
Director, Air Quality and Noise Services
Air Quality
B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Massachusetts

42 years of professional experience in air quality
and noise analyses
Autumn Young Ward
Airport Planner
Lead Technical Reviewer
M.S., Aeronautics, Embry Riddle Aeronautical
University
B.S., Aviation Business Administration, Embry
Riddle Aeronautical University

11 years of experience in aviation with 9 years of
experience in preparing NEPA documents
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


List of Preparers 10-5 September 2014

Paul Yeargain, P.E., CFM
Director of Water Resources
Water, Floodplain Impacts
M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Central Florida
B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Maryland

22 years of experience in stormwater management,
floodplain management, and permitting
HMMH
Jason Ross, P.E.
Vice President
Noise and Vibration
M.E., Acoustics, Pennsylvania State University
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado,
Boulder

15 years of experience in environmental consulting
and rail and transit noise and vibration
South Arc
Martin Dickinson, RPA
President
Cultural Resources
M.A., Anthropology (Archaeology), University of
Florida
B.A., Anthropology, University of South Florida

33 years of experience in cultural resource
management and environmental consulting and
preparation of EA/EIS/NEPA documentation
Lucy Wayne, Ph.D., RPA
Vice President
Cultural Resources
Ph.D., Architecture (Preservation Planning),
University of Florida
M.A., Anthropology (Archaeology), University of
Florida
B.A., Art History, Mary Washington College

31 years of experience in cultural resource
management consulting and preparation of
EA/EIS/NEPA documentation


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


List of Preparers 10-6 September 2014

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Distribution List 11-1 September 2014

11 Distribution List
This DEIS is being distributed to Federal, state and municipal agencies and to the interested parties listed
below. This list includes those entities that the Federal Railroad Administration’s Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts require as part of the review of the document, including
representatives of government agencies and community groups concerned with the Proposed Project.
Copies of this DEIS are also available at the libraries listed below and through the FRA website
(https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0672). For more information regarding this document or for additional
copies of this report please contact:
John Winkle
FRA Environmental Specialist
Office of Railroad Policy and Development
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE
Washington, D.C. 20590
(202) 493‐6067
[email protected]
Federal Elected Officials
(Receives an executive summary of the DEIS and a CD of the full DEIS)
 Senator Bill Nelson
 Senator Marco Rubio
 Representative Bill Posey (District 8)
 Representative Alan Grayson (District 9)
 Representative Daniel Webster (District 10)
 Representative Patrick Murphy (District 18)
 Representative Alcee Hasting (District 20)
 Representative Theodore Deutch (District 21)
 Representative Lois Frankel (District 22)
 Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (District 23)
 Representative Frederica Wilson (District 24)
Federal Agencies
(Receives an executive summary of the DEIS and a CD of the full DEIS)
 Federal Aviation Administration
 Federal Highway Administration
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ‐ National Marine Fisheries Service
 National Park Service
 United States Army Corps of Engineers
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Distribution List 11-2 September 2014

 United States Coast Guard
 United States Environmental Protection Agency (Washington D.C. and Regional)
 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (North Florida Ecological Services Office and South Florida
Ecological Services Office
State Elected Officials
(Receives an executive summary of the DEIS and a CD of the full DEIS)
 Governor Rick Scott
 Representative Linda Stewart (District 47)
 Representative Victor M. Torres, Jr. (District 48)
 Representative Tom Goodson (District 50)
 Representative Steve Crisafulli (District 51)
 Representative Ritch Workman (District 52)
 Representative John Tobia (District 53)
 Representative Debbie Mayfield (District 54)
 Representative MaryLynn Magar (District 82)
 Representative Gayle Harrell (District 83)
 Representative Larry Lee, Jr. (District 84)
 Representative Pat Rooney, Jr. (District 85)
 Representative Mark Pafford (District 86)
 Representative Dave Kerner (District 87)
 Representative Bobby Powell (District 88)
 Representative Bill Hager (District 89)
 Representative Gwyndolen Clarke‐Reed (District 92)
 Representative George Moraitis (District 93)
 Representative Perry E. Thurston, Jr. (District 94)
 Representative Elaine J. Schwartz (District 99)
 Representative Joseph Gibbons (District 100)
 Representative Shevrin D. Jones (District 101)
 Representative Barbara Watson (District 107)
 Representative Daphne D. Campbell (District 108)
 Representative Cynthia A. Stafford (District 109)
 Representative David Richardson (District 113)
 Senator Andy Gardiner (District 13)
 Senator Darren Soto (District 14)
 Senator Thad Altman (District 16)
 Senator Joseph Abruzzo (District 25)
 Senator Jeff Clemens (District 27)
 Senator Jeremy Ring (District 29)
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Distribution List 11-3 September 2014

 Senator Christopher Smith (District 31)
 Senator Joe Negron (District 32)
 Senator Eleanor Sobel (District 33)
 Senator Maria Sachs (District 34)
 Senator Gwen Margolis (District 35)
 Senator Oscar Braynon II (District 36)
 Senator Dwight Bullard (District 39)
 Senator Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (District 40)
State Agencies
(Receives an executive summary of the DEIS and a CD of the full DEIS)
 Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 Florida Department of Transportation
 Florida Division of Historical Resources/State Historic Preservation Officer
 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
 State Environmental Management Office
County Elected Officials and Departments
(Receives an executive summary of the DEIS and a CD of the full DEIS)
 County Commissioners and County Managers:
o Brevard
o Broward
o Indian River
o Martin
o Miami‐Dade
o Orange
o Osceola
o Palm Beach
o St. Lucie County
Local/Regional Agencies and Organizations
(Receives an executive summary of the DEIS and a CD of the full DEIS)
 East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
 Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
 Martin Metropolitan Planning Organization
 Miami‐Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization
 MetroPlan Orlando
 Orange County Environmental Protection
 Orlando‐Orange County Expressway Authority
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Distribution List 11-4 September 2014

 Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization
 South Florida Water Management District
 South Florida Regional Planning Council
 Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization
 St. Johns River Water Management District
 St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization
 Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
Municipalities
(Receives an executive summary of the DEIS and a CD of the full DEIS)
 Aventura
 Boca Raton
 Cocoa
 Dania Beach
 Edgewood
 Fort Lauderdale
 Fort Pierce
 Jupiter
 Lake Park
 Lake Worth
 Melbourne
 Miami Gardens
 North Miami Beach
 Orlando
 Palm Bay
 Palm Beach Gardens
 Pompano Beach
 Port St. Lucie
 Riviera Beach
 Sebastian
 Stuart
 St. Lucie
 El Portal
 Vero Beach
 West Palm Beach

Libraries
(Receives the full DEIS and a CD of the full DEIS)
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Distribution List 11-5 September 2014

 Cocoa
 Delray Beach
 Fort Lauderdale
 Fort Pierce
 Jupiter
 Melbourne
 Miami
 Orlando
 Palm Bay
 Port St. Lucie
 Sebastian
 Stuart
 West Palm Beach
Native American Sovereign Nations
(Receives an executive summary of the DEIS and a CD of the full DEIS)
 Miccosukee Tribe of Florida
 Muscogee Creek Nation
 Poarch Band of Creek Indians
 Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
 Seminole Tribe of Florida
Other Interested Parties
(Receives an executive summary of the DEIS and a CD of the full DEIS)
 1000 Friends of Florida (Charles Pattison, President)
 Council of Fort Lauderdale Civic Association (Marilyn Mammano, President)
 Eagle’s Nest Property Owners Association
 Farmland Reserve (David Wright)
 Gulfstream Sailing Club (Luis Oliveira)
 Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. (Frank Matthews)
 Jonathan Dickinson State Park (Mark Nelson, Manager)
 Jupiter Inlet District (Mike Grella)
 Marine Industries Association of South Florida
 The Palms at Boca Teeca (Robert Trainor, Vice President)
 Rails‐to‐Trails Conservancy
 Sierra Club (John Puhek)
 Tosohatchee State Preserve

An additional 120 persons were notified by email that the DEIS was available on the FRA’s website.
This page intentionally left blank.

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


Distribution List 11-6 September 2014


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


Index 12-1 September 2014

12 Index
Agency Coordination ............................................. 8‐3 
Air Quality ........................ S‐10, 4‐30, 5‐33, 5‐165, 7‐5 
All Aboard Florida ........................................... S‐1, 1‐1 
Alternative A (defined) .................................... S‐6, 3‐27 
Alternative C (defined) ................................. S‐6, 3‐42 
Alternative E (defined) .................................. S‐7, 3‐42 
Alternatives..................................................... S‐5, 3‐1 
Alternatives Screening, Level 1 .............................. 3‐4 
Alternatives Screening, Level 2 ............................ 3‐12 
Alternatives Screening, Level 3 ............................ 3‐17 
Aquatic Resources ............................. S‐13, 5‐63, 5‐81 
Aquifer Protection ...................................... 4‐63, 5‐79 
Archaeological Resources ....................... 4‐120, 5‐137 
At‐Grade crossings ............................... 3‐12, 4‐15, 5‐6 
Aviation System ................................................... 4‐10 
Bald Eagles ....................................... 4‐91, 4‐97, 5‐113 
Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped ........... 4‐119 
Bridge replacement .............. 3‐37, 5‐80, 5‐106, 5‐139 
Bridges (proposed action) ........................................... 
 ..................................... 3‐25, 3‐27, 3‐39, 3‐42, 4‐16 
Climate Change ........................................... S‐12, 5‐71 
Coastal Zone ...................................... S‐12, 4‐51, 5‐62 
Coastal Zone Consistency Determination ............ 5‐64 
Communities and Demographics ... S‐16, 4‐103, 5‐121 
Construction noise ............................................... 5‐45 
Construction vibration ......................................... 5‐54 
Contaminated sites ............................ S‐12, 4‐49, 5‐58 
Crane Creek ................................................ 4‐25, 4‐57 
CSX Route ..................................................... 3‐7, 3‐10 
Cultural Resources ................ S‐18, 4‐120, 5‐137, 7‐13 
Cumulative Impacts .................................. S‐20, 5‐158 
Defense Sites .......................................... 4‐118, 5‐136 
DOT Act Section 4(f)  ............... S‐18, 4‐139, 5‐143, 6‐1 
Drainage ........................ 3‐31, 3‐37, 4‐66, 4‐127, 5‐77  
East‐West Corridor (defined) ........................ 1‐4, 3‐29 
Eau Gallie River ......................... 3‐39, 4‐25, 5‐137, 6‐3 
Economic Analysis .................. S‐17, 4‐29, 4‐111, 5‐17 
Economic Impacts to Maritime Industry ............. 4‐18 
Employment ...................................................... 5‐128 
Energy Use ................................................ S‐20, 5‐156 
Environmental Justice Communities ........................... 
 ................................................... S‐16, 4‐106, 5‐123 
ESA Section 7 ............................................ 5‐110, 7‐10 
Essential Fish Habitat ................................ 4‐78, 5‐106 
FAA ........................................................................  1‐6 
Farmland Soils ................................... S‐11, 4‐45, 5‐55 
FECR Railway Historic District  ....... S‐18, 4‐130, 5‐139 
 
Finding of No Significant Impact ...................................... 
   .......................................... S‐1, 1‐3, Appendix 1.1‐A 
Floodplains ........................................ S‐14, 4‐72, 5‐93 
Florida East Coast Industries ................................. 1‐3 
Florida East Coast Railroad ....................... S‐1, 1‐1, 3‐9 
Florida’s Turnpike Route ........................................ 3‐7 
Fort Lauderdale Station ................................... 1‐3, 3‐40 
Freight Operations ... 3‐26, 4‐15, 4‐38, 5‐8, 5‐39, 5‐43 
Geological Conditions ............................. 4‐119, 5‐136 
GOAA ..................................................... 1‐3, 3‐4, 3‐13 
Greenhouse gas emissions ......................... 5‐35, 5‐73 
Groundwater .............................. S‐11, 4‐47, 5‐58, 7‐8 
Hazardous Materials ................... S‐11, 4‐47, 5‐58, 7‐8 
Highway System ............................................ 2‐5, 4‐11 
Hillsboro Canal ................................... 3‐40, 4‐26, 5‐15 
Historic Resources  .. S‐18, 4‐121, 4‐126, 4‐129, 5‐140 
I‐95 Route .............................................................. 3‐9 
Inter‐City Motorbus Service ....................... 4‐10, 5‐10 
Intercity Passenger Rail ............  1‐1, 2‐1, 3‐1, 5‐9, 6‐1 
Invasive species ............................. 4‐83, 5‐101, 5‐104 
Jonathan Dickinson State Park  .................................... 
 ............................................ S‐19, 4‐85, 5‐147, 7‐15 
Lakes .................................................................... 4‐54 
Land acquisition ........................ 3‐5, 3‐11, 4‐65, 5‐129 
Land Use .................................................. S‐8, 4‐1, 5‐1 
Legislative authority .............................................. 1‐5 
Local Transit ......................................... 2‐6, 4‐10, 5‐10 
Loxahatchee River ....................................................... 
 ............................ 3‐39, 4‐22, 5‐18, 5‐22, 5‐29, 5‐31 
Manatees .................................................. 5‐119, 7‐11 
MCO Intermodal Facility ............................. 3‐4, 5‐161 
MCO Segment ............................................... 1‐4, 3‐29 
Miami Station ...................................... 3‐7, 4‐15, 4‐139 
Migratory Bird Habitat .............................. 4‐90, 5‐110 
Mitigation Measures ............................................. 7‐1 
Natural Upland Habitats .................... S‐14, 4‐79, 5‐97 
Navigation ..................................................... S‐9, 4‐16 
Navigation impacts .............................................. 5‐15 
Navigation Mitigation ............................................ 7‐5 
New River ................................... 4‐23, 5‐19, 5‐24, 7‐6 
NHPA Section 106 .......................... 4‐121, 5‐137, 5‐141 
No‐Action Alternative ..................... S‐5, 3‐26, 5‐1, 6‐6  
Noise ........................................................... S‐10, 4‐35 
Noise Barriers ........................................................ 7‐5 
Noise impacts ...................................................... 5‐39 
North‐South Corridor (defined) .................... 1‐4, 3‐33 
Notice of Intent ........................... S‐4, Appendix 8.1‐A 
OOCEA ................................. 3‐2, 3‐17, 3‐42, 4‐11, 5‐1 
All Aboard Florida Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation


Index 12-2 September 2014

Operations ........................................................... 3‐44 
Outstanding Florida Waters ........................ 4‐55, 5‐76 
Parks .............................................. S‐18, 4‐139, 5‐143 
Permits and approvals ........................................... 1‐6 
Phase I .......................................................... 1‐1, 3‐25 
Phase II ......................................................... 1‐3, 3‐27 
Pinecastle Jeep Range.................... 4‐51, 4‐118, 5‐136 
Plants ........................................................... 4‐78, 4‐92 
Population, Employment, and Tourism Growth .... 2‐7 
Positive Train Control System ................ 3‐5, 3‐41, 6‐2 
Preserves .................................................. 4‐85, 5‐106 
Proposed Action .................... 1‐4, 3‐1, 4‐54, 5‐1, 5‐34 
Public Health and Safety Impacts .. S‐17, 4‐114, 5‐130 
Public Involvement ................................................ 8‐1 
Public Safety ........................................... 4‐114, 5‐130 
Purpose and Need ................................................. 2‐1 
Quiet Zones .................................................... 5‐46, 7‐6 
Rail legislation ........................................................ 2‐9 
Railroad  Rehabilitation  and  Improvement  Financing 
Program ............................................................... S‐1, 1‐1 
Recreation Resources ............................. 4‐140, 5‐143 
Reservoirs ............................................................ 4‐67 
Ridership .................................. 2‐5, 3‐5, 3‐45, 4‐4, 5‐8 
Roadway Network ............................................... 4‐11 
Scoping .................................................................. 8‐1 
Section 106 Consultation ........................ 4‐124, 5‐137 
Section 4(f)........................... See DOT Act Section 4(f) 
Security ................................................... 4‐117, 5‐135 
Seismic Zones .................................................... 4‐121 
Sole Source Aquifer .................................... 4‐63, 5‐76 
St. Johns River ....... 3‐15, 4‐20, 4‐145, 5‐20, 5‐151, 6‐6 
St. Lucie River ....... 3‐37, 4‐20, 4‐146, 5‐18, 5‐20, 5‐30  
St. Sebastian River .................... 3‐39, 4‐25, 5‐137, 6‐5 
Surface Waters ............................................. 4‐57, 7‐9 
Threatened and Endangered Species .......................... 
 ..................................... S‐15, 3‐6, 4‐91, 5‐110, 7‐11 
Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area .................... 
 .............................................. 4‐85, 5‐145, 6‐6, 7‐14 
Traffic impacts ..................................................... 5‐10 
Tribal Coordination ................................................ 8‐6 
Turkey Creek ........................................................ 4‐25 
USACE ................... 1‐5, 4‐65, 5‐82, 5‐83, 5‐110, 5‐120 
USCG ............................................. 1‐5, 1‐6, 4‐16, 5‐27 
Utilities ........................................... S‐20, 4‐152, 5‐154 
Vehicle Maintenance Facility (Orlando) .............. 3‐40 
Vehicle Maintenance Facility (West Palm Beach) ....... 
 ......................................................................... 3‐40 
Vessel Survey ....................................................... 4‐18 
Vibration ............................................ S‐10, 4‐35, 5‐39 
Visual and Scenic Resources .......... S‐19, 4‐145, 5‐121 
Water Resources ............................... S‐13, 4‐54, 5‐75 
West Palm Beach ‐ Miami Corridor ............................. 
 .............................................. 1‐5, 3‐39, 4‐47, 5‐122 
Wetland impacts, direct ...................................... 5‐81 
Wetland impacts, indirect ...................................... 5‐90 
Wetlands ..................................................... S‐13, 4‐65 
Wild and Scenic Rivers ....................... S‐13, 4‐64, 5‐81 
Wildlife ........................................................ 4‐78, 5‐96 
Wildlife Corridors .......................................... 4‐78, 5‐96