Tier one environmental assessment for north Section of the South Central High Speed Rail Corridor in Oklahomafinal_draft-NEPA |
Previous | 1 of 7 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
TIER 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NORTHERN SECTION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SEPTEMBER 2009 TIER ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR NORTH SECTION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR IN OKLAHOMA Located In Oklahoma, Lincoln, Creek and Tulsa Counties, Oklahoma The focus of this document is to provide a Tier 1 Environmental Assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This documentation will focus on broad issues such as purpose and need, general location of alternatives, and avoidance and minimization of potential environmental effects for the North (Oklahoma City/Tulsa) Section for Oklahoma's portion of the South Central High Speed Rail Corridor. Prepared For: Oklahoma Department of Transportation & Federal Railroad Administration Prepared By: Able Consulting 9225 North 133rd East Avenue Owasso, Oklahoma 74055 September 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 I TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION ...................................................................................................... 5 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ...................................................................................... 8 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ......................................................................................................... 9 3.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................................... 10 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED ................................................................ 10 3.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (TURNPIKE CORRIDOR) ................................................................... 11 3.4 URBAN CONNECTIONS ............................................................................................................. 11 3.5 PREFERRED CORRIDOR ...................................................................................................... 12 4.0 SERVICE LEVEL NEPA - TIERED PROCESS .................................................................................. 14 5.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................. 15 5.1 LAND USE ............................................................................................................................... 15 5.2 FARMLAND ............................................................................................................................. 17 5.3 RIGHT OF WAY AND DISPLACEMENTS ............................................................................... 18 5.3.1 ESTIMATED DISPLACEMENTS ................................................................................ 18 5.3.2 ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS ...................................................... 19 5.3.3 TRIBAL LAND ............................................................................................................. 19 5.4 EFFECTS ON PUBLIC PARKS, WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES .......................... 19 5.4.1 PARKS ........................................................................................................................ 20 5.4.2 WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES ................................................................ 20 5.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .................. 21 5.5.1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................... 21 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 II 5.5.2 ECONOMIC PROFILE ................................................................................................ 22 5.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ..................................................................................... 22 5.6 NOISE ..................................................................................................................................... 24 5.7 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................... 25 5.8 VIBRATION .............................................................................................................................. 26 5.9 WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................................... 26 5.9.1 WATER BODIES ........................................................................................................ 27 5.9.2 AQUIFERS .................................................................................................................. 27 5.10 POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS ................................................. 29 5.11 FLOODPLAINS ........................................................................................................................ 29 5.12 THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES AND OTHER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......... 30 5.13 HISTORIC/ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION ................................................................... 32 5.14 HAZARDOUS WASTE INFORMATION ................................................................................... 35 5.15 VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 36 5.16 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 36 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION .............................................................. 36 6.1 SOLICITATION LETTERS ....................................................................................................... 36 6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................................... 37 LIST OF TABLES TABLE E.1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED FOR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA SECTION FOR SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL ........................ 4 TABLE 5.1: LAND USE ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR ............................. 15 TABLE 5.2: PRIME FARMLAND ALONG PROPOSED HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 18 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 III TABLE 5.3: POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 18 TABLE 5.4: PARKS AND REFUGES ................................................................................................ 21 TABLE 5.5: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU DATA - POPULATION CHANGE (2008) ................................ 21 TABLE 5.6: 2008 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU DATA - HOUSING AND INCOME ............................... 22 TABLE 5.7: HSROK CENSUS TRACK SUMMARY DATA ................................................................ 23 TABLE 5.9: NOISE IMPACT DISTANCES ........................................................................................ 24 TABLE 5.10: RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS WITHIN HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 25 TABLE 5.11: RESIDENTIAL HOMES WITHIN 100 FEET OF HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 26 TABLE 5.12: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP DATA ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .............................................................................................. 29 TABLE 5.13: MAPPED FLOODPLAINS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR ...... 30 TABLE 5.14: THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 31 TABLE 5.15: CULTURAL RESOURCES DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR ........................................................................ 32 TABLE 5.16: ISA DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 35 TABLE6.1: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ........................................................ 38 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1: VISION FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL IN AMERICA BY CONGRESS (2001) ........................ 6 FIGURE 1.2: SOUTH CENTRAL REGION HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR ........................................ 7 FIGURE 3.1: OKLAHOMA CITY / TULSA SECTION OF SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED RAIL LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................................ 13 FIGURE 5.1: OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR LAND USE .......... 15 FIGURE 5.2: MAJOR GROUNDWATER AQUIFERS .......................................................................... 28 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 IV APPENDICES APPENDIX A .............................. ITEMS NORMALLY CONSIDERED DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX B .................................................................................. TRIBAL LAND PROPERTY CARD DATA APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................... NOISE ANALYSIS APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................. VIBRATION ANALYSIS APPENDIX E ......... ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC., DATA ATLAS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX F ............................................................................ SOLICITATION LETTER AND RESPONSES APPENDIX G ............................ PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDEES AND WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 1 PREFACE The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) has initiated a Tier 1 NEPA Environmental Assessment for environmental analysis for a high speed rail initiative from Oklahoma City to Tulsa, approximately 106 miles located in Oklahoma, Lincoln, Creek and Tulsa Counties. This section is part of the South Central Rail Corridor, one of ten national corridors identified by Congress in 2001. If this Tier 1 document is approved, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued by the Federal Railroad Administration, the project may advance to Tier 2. A Tier 2 NEPA document(s) would address site specific project impacts, costs, mitigation measures and alignment adjustments. Solicitation letters regarding this action were submitted to a variety of public and private agencies to provide input. Two public meetings were held on September 14 and 15, 2009, in Oklahoma City and Tulsa to discuss the initial proposals. Environmental data on existing conditions and potential impacts has been gathered and is presented in this report. The proposed improvements are based on the recommendations found in the report entitled “Oklahoma High-Speed Rail Initiative: Oklahoma City to Tulsa High Speed Rail Corridor Study”, completed in 2002. To forward Oklahoma Rail initiatives, other reports and studies have also been conducted over the past 10 years. Establishing connections to the national passenger rail system in Oklahoma’s two major economic centers, Tulsa and Oklahoma City has been a continued focus and goal. The history of Oklahoma Rail finds Oklahoma continuing to focus on conquering operating challenges that are similar in nature to those originally overcome by the builders of the original rail infrastructure in Oklahoma. Passenger or freight operations from Tulsa have always been subject to influence through eastern and northern connections, while Oklahoma City is subject to influence through southern and western connections. The challenges of providing freight and passenger rail service between Oklahoma’s two major economic centers since the completion of the Turner Turnpike have been insurmountable when the efficiency of currently available modes is evaluated. AMTRAK STUDY Amtrak conducted a study at the request of the ODOT Rail Programs Division that was completed in February 1999 and ultimately led to the reestablishment of passenger rail service in Oklahoma after a 20 year absence. The result of this study was the start of Oklahoma's Heartland Flyer Service from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth, Texas. Service to Tulsa was evaluated under each Tier Three scenario with a stub connection to the Perry, Oklahoma, route or a through connection via the Sapulpa, Oklahoma, route. Each scenario took into consideration the potential for enhanced national service with a connection between Kansas City and Fort Worth in addition to the potential service that could be provided to the Oklahoma communities along the route. The report provided an analysis of the total travel demand for each corridor, simulated passenger train travel times and ridership forecasts for each of the routes to help establish the potential cost. OKLAHOMA PASSENGER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY After the Amtrak Study prompted the initiation of Oklahoma’s Heartland Flyer Service, on June 14, 1999, ODOT went to work on evaluating potential connections for the Tulsa region as well as service expansion opportunities to other regions of the State. The Passenger Rail Feasibility Study was conducted through the ODOT Rail Programs Division assessing the feasibility of passenger rail ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 2 service and establishing an efficient phased implementation plan for providing expanded passenger rail service in Oklahoma. The Final Report was issued in March 2001 at the conclusion of the technical analysis evaluating passenger rail service throughout several corridors in Oklahoma and options for extending those services to surrounding states to establish another national passenger rail system connection. The Revised Final Report dated January 2002 reflects revisions made based on comments received from ODOT staff and during presentations to the Oklahoma State Senate on May 9, 2001, and to the City of Tulsa/INCOG on June 28, 2001. The findings of the initial ODOT Passenger Rail Feasibility Report indicated that expanded passenger rail services would benefit both residents of Oklahoma and passengers traveling on the national passenger rail system. Short-term initiation of passenger rail service and longer-term service expansion and rail capital investments in the State of Oklahoma would be necessary to connect the State passenger rail system with the national passenger rail network with a sustainable system providing additional mobility, potential for economic growth, and long-term air quality benefits to the citizens of Oklahoma. The results of the Passenger Rail Feasibility Study underscored the importance of a solid passenger rail connection between Oklahoma’s largest economic centers to facilitate the ridership and the connectivity necessary to develop sustainable passenger rail service through State of Oklahoma that connected to the remainder of the region. A significant accomplishment of the original Passenger Rail Feasibility Study was the completion of a successful application for designation by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) as a high speed rail corridor from Ft. Worth to Tulsa. This designation increased the potential for the availability of Federal funding to further develop and enhance rail service to Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Establishing and developing rail service between Tulsa and Oklahoma City would foster the development of an additional connection to the national passenger rail system east of Oklahoma. Kansas City, Missouri, appears to be the most feasible connection to Tulsa and could potentially be implemented on existing railroad routes with only standard improvements for conventional service that could ultimately become competitive with automobile travel times. St. Louis, Missouri, is another possible connection point evaluated and was noted as more appealing to the State of Missouri. However, a connection from Tulsa to St. Louis was found to require extensive capital improvements and corresponding investment for the implementation of sustainable service. The success of any eastern connection by rail from Tulsa was determined to be highly dependent on the development of an acceptable travel time and connection between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The focus of this document is to provide a Tier 1 Environmental Assessment – in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in compliance with the NEPA regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500-1508), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (23 CFR 771) , and the FRA Procedures found in 64 Federal Register 28545. This Environmental Assessment also complies with the U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.1C and the guidance provided in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A. No construction related activities will be authorized as a result of the Tier 1 decision. As part of the South Central Rail Corridor – one of ten national corridors identified by Congress in 2001 – the proposed Oklahoma City to Tulsa section of the South Central Rail will expand over 106 miles and cover four counties in Oklahoma (Oklahoma, Lincoln, Creek and Tulsa). It will begin in Oklahoma City, at the Santa Fe Station, proceeding via the abandoned Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad right-of-way extending from the western edge of Harter Yard north to the terminus of the Turner Turnpike (I-44) approximately 12 miles. The rail line will then travel parallel to the Turner Turnpike on new alignment to the north approximately 75 miles. Near Sapulpa, the rail line will cross I-44 and connect to the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) track for the remaining 19 mile route into Tulsa to Union Station on existing alignment. For this study, a 280 foot corridor is being used to gather data on the north side of the I-44. Existing rail alignments are being used for the urban areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, with only limited amounts of right-of- way required from the Oklahoma City rail line. No new right-of-way is expected from the Tulsa section using the BNSF track. A summary of impacts identified for the Oklahoma City to Tulsa section of the South Central Rail Corridor are listed in Table E.1, next page. The 106 mile corridor has been segmented by county to facilitate the review and assessment of possible environmental impacts. As anticipated, potential impacts to various environmental conditions (such as wetlands, residential and commercial relocations, noise impacts, and cultural resources) were identified. It is believed, however, that mitigation and avoidance options exist to obtain federal environmental clearance, and these will be further identified and refined in the Tier 2 environmental process. One potential Section 4(f) property was identified as the Lincoln Park East Golf Course in Oklahoma City. Consultation with the City of Oklahoma City, FRA and the DOT will be necessary during the Tier 2 process to determine whether or not the proposed action will constitute a use of a 4(f) resource. It is also noted that the proposed corridor alignment currently impacts the Creek County fairgrounds, Creek County. Shifting the alignment to the south would enable the avoidance of the fairgrounds. Public involvement was undertaken to assist in the environmental process and inform the public about the Departments intention to construct a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail in the State of Oklahoma. Two public meetings were held, one in Oklahoma City and one in Tulsa, on September 14, 2009, and September 15, 2009, respectively. The objective of the meetings was to discuss initial proposals and collect public comment. Additionally, solicitation letters were also sent to a variety of public and private agencies to solicit comment. The following sections of this report provide detailed description of the purpose and need for the project as well as alternatives considered and indentified impacts of the proposed alignment. Additional information, such as noted public comments and noise and vibrations studies, have been appended to this report. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 4 TABLE E.1: SUMMARY OF CORRIDOR LEVEL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED FOR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA SECTION FOR SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SOCIAL , ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS UNITS TOTAL COUNTY OKLAHOMA LINCOLN CREEK TULSA Prime Farmland Acres 905 195 193 507 10 Estimated Residential Relocations Units 41 19 7 15 0 Estimated Commercial Relocations Units 27 8 12 7 0 Tribal Lands Crossed Units 3 0 1 2 0 Public Parks/Fairgrounds Units 3 2 0 1 0 Wildlife Refuges Units 0 0 0 0 0 Population Density Persons /sq.mil 931.5 33.5 70.5 988.2 Noise Impacts Severe (142 feet) / Moderate (142 to 356 feet) Units 46 /391 22 / 205 7 / 0 17 / 142 0 / 44 Vibration Impacts (100 feet each side of line) Units 58 39 6 13 0 Stream Crossings Units 152 34 58 56 4 Aquifers Crossed Units 2 Garber- Wellington Vamoosa-Ada Vamoosa-Ada Garber- Wellington Potential Wetlands Acres 46 5 19 22 0 Floodplains Units 41 17 not available 22 2 T&E Species (by county listing) Units 4 Whooping crane, interior least tern Whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover piping plover, interior least tern, American burying beetle piping plover, interior least tern, American burying beetle Known NHRP Historic Properties Eligible Bridges Units 3 0 0 2 1 Known NHRP Historic Properties Buildings/Historic Districts/Route-66 Units 5 / 5 / 5 5 / 3/ 0 0 0 / 0 / 4 0 / 2 / 1 Potential Historic Structures (Pre-1964 Structures to be Evaluated) Units 95 0 7 80 8 Recorded Archeological Sites Units 2 0 1 1 0 Potential Hazardous Waste Sites Units 11 5 1 2 3 Underground Storage Tanks Units 8 4 2 0 2 Oil/Gas Wells Units 15 6 7 2 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION The focus of this document is to provide a Tier 1 Environmental Assessment – in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in compliance with the NEPA regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500-1508) and by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (23 CFR 771), and FRA Procedures found in 64 Federal Register 28545. This Draft Environmental Assessment also complies with the U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.1C and the guidance provided in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A. No construction related activities will be authorized as a result of the Tier 1 decision. If Tier 1 is approved, the project may advance to Tier 2. A Tier 2 NEPA document(s) would address site specific project impacts, costs, mitigation measures and alignment adjustments. The corridor could be broken into segment/projects each having logical end points and independent utility for detailed study, mitigation/avoidance and federal approval. The vision for high speed rail in America is an initiative brought forth by Congress in 2001 (Figure 1.1). Oklahoma was designated and included in this rail system through the South Central Region. Figure 1.2, page 7, shows the connection of Texas and Oklahoma and connects the Cities of San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas; Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Texarkana and Little Rock, Arkansas. This document focuses on the high speed corridor route from Oklahoma City to Tulsa, Oklahoma. This document will identify the location of a feasible rail alignment to connect passenger rail service between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, the majority of which is on a new alignment. The remaining designated high speed corridor route in Oklahoma from Oklahoma City south to the Texas State line is currently an active passenger route used by the Heartland Flyer. Proposed improvements to the existing rail line will all be within existing alignments and are addressed in existing Categorical Exclusions that are either in place or will be prepared to address any improvement planned in the Oklahoma City south to Texas State line section, by October 23, 2009. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 6 FIGURE 1.1: VISION FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL IN AMERICA BY CONGRESS (2001) ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 7 FIGURE 1.2: SOUTH CENTRAL REGION HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 8 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT Initiatives discussed by Oklahoma and surrounding states over the course of the last three decades focused on the reimplementation of through passenger rail service and have included the evaluation of several routes throughout the South Central Region. The initial efforts were directed toward Oklahoma City and Tulsa initially because of the increasing awareness that an adequate ridership base would be required to establish a sustainable service that could be expanded into other areas of the State. Present day rail operations and the alignments of the major routes around the State’s two largest metropolitan areas were a major factor in the selection of the Oklahoma City to Fort Worth for Oklahoma’s first modern area passenger rail service. While the establishment of an initial service providing national rail network connectivity was considered a major accomplishment, the intent of the program has always been focused on reestablishing through service for both Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Tulsa lies on one of the original rail alignments placed in the State of Oklahoma. The older alignments were placed utilizing the terrain of “least resistance” where the terrain dictated the placement of the track to meet the grade restrictions associated with rail planning, design and construction. Consequently, the geometrics of the alignments around the Tulsa region present much more of a challenge when attempting to establish modern day travel times that are competitive with modern day interstate highways and especially a turnpike whose speed limits are presently set at 75 mph. The initial studies pointed to the conclusion that establishing a “foothold” for rail service in Oklahoma would be much easier and more cost effective in the Oklahoma City market. Extensive additional studies were conducted to evaluate and establish the most efficient manner in which to establish similar service in the Tulsa market. The higher costs associated with upgrading the alignments between Tulsa and Oklahoma City and from east of Afton, Oklahoma, to Springfield, Missouri, and ultimately St. Louis, indicate that the easiest and most economical national rail connection for Tulsa would be from Kansas City via eastern Kansas. The need for a national through connection is a key component for establishing sustainable rail service throughout the State of Oklahoma and provided an opportunity for the ODOT Rail Programs Division to successfully apply and receive a portion of very limited federal funding designated to help identify high speed rail corridor routes. All of the information previously compiled, has placed the State of Oklahoma in a position establish competitive High Speed rail service between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. The purpose for this project is to provide a faster, more efficient transportation option between the Cities of Tulsa and Oklahoma City. There is an initiative from the current (2009) administration in Washington to improve energy conservation and consumption in the United States and high speed passenger rail is proven to be more energy efficient than the current "highway only" mode of transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 9 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A growing interest in intercity rail passenger service, increasing roadway congestion, and increasing interest in high speed rail transportation as well as proposed funding mechanisms throughout the United States led to the development of the original Passenger Rail Feasibility Study for the State of Oklahoma. Included in the Passenger Rail Feasibility Study was an evaluation of the existing routes between “Oklahoma City and Tulsa”. The extensive evaluation of various alternatives to connect Oklahoma City to Tulsa resulted in the realization that the existing travel time on the Turner Turnpike (I-44) would dictate the type of service necessary to provide a sustainable service. The corresponding successful application designating the Fort Worth to Tulsa route as a high-speed corridor was the precursor for Senate Joint Resolution 12 to evaluate the feasibility and establish associated costs for high-speed rail operations up to 150 miles per hour (mph) but not less than 125 mph between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The Oklahoma City to Tulsa segment has been identified as an extremely important component of sustainable High-Speed passenger rail service for the South Central High Speed Rail Corridors because of the potential for through service to Kansas City or St. Louis. A connection to either of those destinations would facilitate a link between the South Central High-Speed corridors and the Chicago Hub Network (formerly referred to as the Midwest Regional Rail System). The State of Kansas conducted a parallel passenger rail study during the completion of the original Oklahoma Amtrak study, the results of which indicated that the Tulsa to Kansas City route had the second highest potential for successful high-speed rail operations in the State of Kansas just behind a proposed high-speed connection between Wichita and Kansas City. The establishment of competitive rail service between Oklahoma City and Tulsa has been determined to be critical for the development of high speed passenger and passenger rail service in the State of Oklahoma as well as the surrounding region. One significant challenge for the development of the Oklahoma City to Tulsa corridor is to develop a service that would be competitive with existing automobile travel times on I-44. Operations that compete with existing travel time via automobile on the segment between Oklahoma City and Tulsa will require speeds in excess of 90 mph. The present automobile travel time from Oklahoma City to Tulsa via I-44 is approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes from city center to city center under favorable conditions. Preliminary travel time forecasts for high speed rail indicate that high speed rail service could be established that would facilitate a travel time of just over an hour between the two largest central business districts in the State of Oklahoma. This type of service would provide the connectivity needed to establish sustainable through rail service from Tulsa to the north or east as well as provide more opportunity for daily employment or other travel commuting between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The findings of the original studies prompted and helped justify additional federal funds in 2002 to further evaluate the proposed Oklahoma City to Tulsa high speed route. The “fly mapping” funding received from Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in 2002 was a component of the only funding mechanism established in the United States specifically for the development of high speed rail operations and a precursor to present day high-speed development opportunities. The fly mapping information collected on the corridor alternatives established between Oklahoma City and Tulsa provided the survey information necessary for the final design of the corridor. That event further positioned the State of Oklahoma to compete for funding at a ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 10 national level and efficiently establish true high speed operations between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. 3.1 No Build Alternative The "do nothing" or No Build alternative for this project has been considered. Continued use of the I-44 (Turner Turnpike) corridor and the use of the automobile would continue for intercity traffic as well as state to state traffic. This would result in continued dependence on the automobile and continued energy use of fossil fuels. The vision for high speed rail in America has been to relieve congestion on our nation's roads and improve energy conservation. As traffic volumes continue to grow, congestion levels will increase, further increasing travel times on the existing transportation system between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. The No Build alternative does not address the purpose and need for this project. 3.2 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed The existing ODOT owned route on the Sooner Subdivision through Sapulpa was evaluated for the feasibility of passenger rail operations by Amtrak in 1996 and 1999 as well as re-evaluated in the original ODOT Passenger Rail Study. The existing track infrastructure would require a significant amount of realignment and upgrade in order to facilitate any type of rail service that would be competitive with present automobile travel times on I-44. This route is also utilized for freight operations by the Stillwater Central Railroad Company and preliminary investigations have been conducted to investigate the potential for mutual benefit between passenger and freight operations on the route. Passenger rail operations on the existing track infrastructure under mixed track utilization resulted in operating service projections that would be inhibited and inhibit freight operations as well. Extensive track infrastructure upgrades would be required to become more competitive with existing automobile travel times in additional to those necessary to co-exist with present and future freight operations. The proposed rail connection between Oklahoma City and Tulsa was developed initially using two primary corridors with various alternative options on either end of the core corridors for the final connections to the Santa Fe Station located in the Bricktown Area of downtown Oklahoma City and to Union Station in downtown Tulsa. The number of core corridors potentially available for consideration as alternative routes were limited by the stringent operating requirements necessary to compete with the existing I-44. The average length of the corridors evaluated range between 105 and 111 miles depending on the core route and the end connection alternatives selected. All of the corridors proposed would facilitate an overall travel time of less than 75 minutes when operated at 125 mph and just over an hour when operated at 150 mph. The core corridors development for the placement of a high speed route between Oklahoma City and Tulsa included a totally new alignment designated as the Southern Corridor and an alignment that centers on utilizing the existing “transportation corridor” adjacent to the I-44 alignment, designated as the Turnpike Corridor. The Southern Corridor was deemed much more intrusive to private landowners and the overall way of life in the central region of Oklahoma between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The right-of-way acquisition and associated damages are estimated to be substantially higher for the Southern ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 11 Corridor. The proposed Southern Corridor was selected to avoid as many grade issues as possible, and consequently traverses several prime wildlife areas and hobby farm development areas with a substantially higher percentage of wetland issues. Again, the requirement for the system to be competitive with current automobile travel on I-44 limited the number of feasible options available for alternate “core” alignments. The overall length and associated travel time of the Southern Corridor would be slightly longer and the overall estimated costs of the proposed corridor combinations for high speed service between Oklahoma City and Tulsa were roughly one-third more costly than the Turnpike Corridor. While the Department would have an advantage by using a rail line it already owns (Southern Corridor), the alignment goes through several town and was deemed much more intrusive to private landowners. The overall reason the Southern Corridor was rejected was due to slower travel times and overall estimated costs of improving the track line to handle high speeds. 3.3 Build Alternative (Turnpike Corridor) The two core corridors evaluated for high speed operations between Oklahoma City and Tulsa each had individual benefits and obstacles that required consideration during the public involvement process. All of the estimates formulated for the various options associated with each of the two core corridors have been based on the best FRA and DOT design information presently available. The Turnpike Corridor provides the primary benefit of not disturbing an entirely new corridor for the construction of high speed rail infrastructure between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, which resulted in lower estimated total project costs and an estimated reduction in the amount of time and effort necessary to acquire the needed right-of-way. The concept of utilizing right-of-way adjacent to the present I-44 alignment provided an opportunity to minimize the amount of visual, noise, and aesthetic impacts associated with the construction of the proposed infrastructure as well. The proposed Turnpike Corridor is slightly shorter than the proposed Southern Corridor resulting in travel times anticipated to be one hour or less. The acquisition of right-of-way has been identified as a major factor impacting the corridor selection process and the certainty of the time that will be necessary to complete the improvements. Less resistance has been anticipated from fewer landowners who already have a transportation infrastructure disruption near their property. 3.4 Urban Connections The availability of right-of-way in both urban areas provided similar results in the selection of the urban alignments based on anticipated cost and the amount of effort necessary to construct and maintain the least intrusive high-speed rail possible. The Urban Connections in Tulsa and Oklahoma City are to connect the downtown depots of the cities with the true high speed rail segment alternative (150 mph) that is selected. Tulsa section: There are several options to connect the alternative alignments to downtown Tulsa. The existing segment of Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) track south of Sapulpa proposed for the eastern connection of the Southern Corridor in one of the connection alternatives evaluated for Tulsa is presently a high volume coal route. Passenger train movements on this route would most likely raise capacity issues on the existing trackage. Consequently, the cost estimate for improvements associated with that proposed alternative connection include provisions for the construction of additional parallel track to the BNSF ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 12 connection in Sapulpa. One alternative associated with each core corridor connects to an existing ODOT line west of Sapulpa. The cost estimates for the alternatives utilizing segments of the ODOT line include provisions to upgrade the existing track to the desired operating speeds as well as upgrade existing at-grade crossing locations. The proposed routing from Sapulpa to downtown Tulsa would utilize the same segment of BNSF track for all of the alternatives from either the core Southern or Turnpike Corridors with the exception of one Turnpike Corridor alternative where the connection was routed through northeast Sapulpa then connecting with the existing BNSF route north of Sapulpa. All of the proposed Tulsa connections would require the installation of a bypass track around the BNSF Cherokee Yard to avoid capacity issues and maintain good operating speeds through the yard which would provide access to a river crossing ultimately facilitating the desired Tulsa Central Business District connection. Oklahoma City section: The Oklahoma City alternative best suited for high speed rail was an abandoned rail line that runs from downtown Oklahoma City north, past the turnpike. These connections will be evaluated in more detail in the Tier 2 project level NEPA analysis. 3.5 Preferred Corridor The preferred corridor selection was based on numerous factors but the major factor to overcome in Oklahoma for high speed passenger rail from Oklahoma City to Tulsa was to be competitive with the Turner Turnpike (I-44). In order to be competitive, the train has to be able to reach higher (90-150 mph) speeds to reduce travel time. High speed rail between these cities has to develop a service that would be faster or highly competitive with existing automobile travel times (approximately 1hour and 45 minutes) on the Turner Turnpike. All of the corridors proposed would facilitate an overall travel time of less than 75 minutes when operated at 125 mph and just over an hour when operated at 150 mph. The Turnpike Corridor provides the primary benefit of being located adjacent to an existing transportation corridor, which resulted in lower estimated total project costs and faster travel times because the route is shorter. Due to previous studies and the summary provided above, the Turnpike Alignment has been selected as the preferred alignment and is described below. Begin in Oklahoma City, at the Santa Fe Station in the Bricktown area, and then use the abandoned Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad right-of-way extending from the western edge of Harter Yard north to the terminus of I-44, which is approximately 12 miles. The rail line will then proceed parallel to I-44 on new alignment to the north approximately 75 miles. Near Sapulpa, the rail line will cross I-44 on new alignment and connect to the existing BNSF track for the remaining 19 mile route into Tulsa to Union Station on existing alignment. For this study, a 280 foot corridor is being used to gather data on the north side of I-44. Existing rail alignments are being used for the urban areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, with only limited amounts of right-of-way required from the Oklahoma City rail line. No new right-of-way is expected from the Tulsa section using the BNSF track. Refer to Figure 3.1 for an illustration of the proposed alignment. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 13 FIGURE 3.1: OKLAHOMA CITY / TULSA SECTION OF SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED RAIL LOCATION MAP ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 14 4.0 SERVICE LEVEL NEPA - TIERED PROCESS Tiered documents are for making broad program decisions for large expanse corridors where projects: 1) are too big to be addressed in detail in one document; 2) are phased over time; 3) where future phases are not fully defined; or 4) when major routing or service alternatives need to be evaluated. This Tier 1 Environmental Assessment falls into the category of being too big to fully address the potential impacts with the limited time frame available. Also projects within this corridor may be phased in over time depending on funding and priority. For this high speed rail corridor from Oklahoma City to Tulsa covering over 106 miles and four counties, a preferred alignment has been selected and introduced to the public. The previous studies and interest in high speed rail in Oklahoma has prepared the State for this mode of travel. A plan for implementing project improvements has also been developed. If a Finding of No Significant Impact is forthcoming for the Tier 1 Corridor Evaluation, then projects with independent utility with narrower scope and magnitude will be evaluated for Tier 2 Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, whichever is appropriate. The narrower projects envisioned at this time for future Tier 2 environmental analysis include main line rail improvements on existing rail alignment from Santa Fe Station in Oklahoma City North to the Edmond Park and Ride Lot (also known as the Santa Fe Station HSR connector), which includes the UPRR Harter Yard Bypass, then connecting to new alignment along the Turner Turnpike, then continuing on to downtown Tulsa, known as the BNSF Subdivision, Madill Subdivision and Cherokee Yard Improvements. These improvements would be considered one project for detailed project level environmental analyses, identifying impacts, and mitigation measures to be included in the project. This project segment is anticipated to be an Environmental Assessment with sufficient avoidance, mitigation and best management practices to existing environmental conditions to obtain a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Other projects are also envisioned to be evaluated as Tier 2 Environmental Review, with independent utility. These projects are anticipated to be reviewed as Categorical Exclusions due to their limited scope and little to no new right-of-way requirements. These include the following projects: • Oklahoma City Station Platform and Facility • Oklahoma City HSR Refueling and Layover Facility • Edmond Park and Ride Lot Facility • Stroud Maintenance Facility • Sapulpa Park and Ride Facility • Tulsa Layover Facility • Tulsa Depot Rehabilitation ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 15 5.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Appendix A lists social, economic, and environmental factors normally considered during project development. Only the resources with the potential to be impacted by the Oklahoma City to Tulsa rail corridor are discussed in this Section. Initially, several alternatives were considered and were rejected due to engineering requirements. Those alternatives and the reasons for their elimination can be found in Section 3.0 Alternatives. This study on the social, economic and environmental impacts will focus on the alignment identified as preferred in Section 3.0. Figure 3.1 provides a location map of the Oklahoma City to Tulsa section of the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR). The rail-line will start in Oklahoma City, at the Santa Fe Station in the Bricktown area, and then use the abandoned Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad right-of-way extending from the western edge of Harter Yard north to the terminus of I-44 approximately 12 miles. The rail line will then proceed parallel to I-44 on new alignment to the north approximately 75 miles. Near Sapulpa, the rail line will cross I-44 on new alignment and connect to the existing BNSF track for the remaining 19 mile route into Tulsa to Union Station on existing alignment. For this study, a 280 foot corridor is being used to gather data on the north side of the I-44. Existing rail alignments are being used for the urban areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, with only limited amounts of right-of-way required from the Oklahoma City rail line. No new right-of-way is expected from the Tulsa section using the BNSF track. 5.1 Land Use Land use surrounding the HSIPR from Oklahoma City to Tulsa located in Oklahoma, Lincoln, Creek and Tulsa counties contains two main land uses – developed and rural. Developed land uses include residential, commercial, industrial and open space at varying rates of intensity. Urban areas with developed land have zoning and/or land use plans in place, and many of these areas are fully established. The rural areas contain forest, grassland, pasture, cultivated crop land and open water. Table 5.1 provides the number of acres impacted by the Oklahoma City to Tulsa corridor. Figure 5.1 provides a map of the land use for this rail corridor. TABLE 5.1: LAND USE ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR Land Use Type Total Acres For Corridor Oklahoma County Acres Within Corridor Lincoln County Acres Within Corridor Creek County Acres Within Corridor Tulsa County Acres Within Corridor Open Water 13.5 2.59 3.18 5.05 2.70 Developed, Open Space 546.3 128.91 214.57 186.94 15.83 Developed, Low Intensity 87.0 28.34 5.68 28.36 24.57 Developed, Medium Intensity 65.4 24.01 4.40 20.96 16.02 Developed, High Intensity 64.2 12.66 1.46 13.84 36.23 Deciduous Forest 1,183.5 271.74 330.51 581.19 0.02 Evergreen Forest 2.3 0.00 2.26 0.00 0.00 Grassland/Herbaceous 883.8 203.34 404.14 271.91 4.41 Pasture/Hay 198.7 18.86 65.03 105.62 0.20 Cultivated Crops 24.0 0.02 17.47 6.46 0.00 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 16 FIGURE 5.1: OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 17 Approximately 3,060 acres comprise the 280-feet rail corridor from Oklahoma City to Tulsa. Of that sum, approximately 762 acres (25%) are located within developed areas and 2,283 acres (75%) are located in undeveloped land use areas. In Tulsa, additional right-of-way is not expected as an existing rail line is being used for the alignment, although for planning purposes a 100 foot wide area for resources was assumed. For the remainder of the corridor, additional right-of-way is expected to be necessary. As anticipated, the land use for the rail corridor located in Oklahoma City is predominately developed, near the Santa Fe Station and heading north. As the alignment heads north to I-44, the intensity of development decreases and forest and grassland are encountered. Similarly, the land use as the corridor approaches Sapulpa and Tulsa become more intense. The land use within the Tulsa area is predominately developed with some smaller undeveloped land areas. The land use for the corridor parallel to the I-44 roadway is mixed with predominantly undeveloped use of forest, pasture and crop land. These areas are mainly used for grassing, cattle production, hay or forest harvesting. As cities such as Chandler, Stroud and Bristow, Oklahoma, are encountered, the land use intensifies with residential, industrial and business areas. Scattered rural homes are located along the undeveloped area between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The land for the corridor north of I-44 is generally undeveloped, with an increasing population growth and development noted south of existing I-44. Because I-44 is a fully controlled access facility, its crossings are limited to section line roads and State Highways, thus restricting growth patterns. The project will be using existing railroad alignments in the urban areas of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and therefore, land use patterns would remain the same. The new right-of-way required between Tulsa and Oklahoma City will follow the I-44 corridor and current land use patterns are not expected to change. In other words, construction of the rail corridor is not expected to increase the development potential for any lands adjacent to the HSIPR Oklahoma City/Tulsa Line; thus, current land use patterns are expected to remain unaffected. 5.2 Farmland The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires federal agencies to consider a project's impacts to farmland and consider steps to minimize the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to other uses. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) data on Prime and Unique Farmland in each county has been analyzed to determine potential impacts that would result from the HSIPR Oklahoma City/Tulsa Line. Prime and Unique Farmland classification is based on soil types, slopes, and current land uses. Table 5.2 provides the total acreage of Prime Farmland per County and the acreage of Prime Farmland expected to be impacted by the proposed rail line. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 18 TABLE 5.2: PRIME FARMLAND ALONG PROPOSED HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County Total Acres Per County Total Acres Prime Farmland Per County Corridor Acres Prime Farmland Oklahoma 459,507 156,600 195 (0.13%) Lincoln 617,649 147,880 193 (0.13%) Creek 620,421 270,816 507 (0.19%) Tulsa 375,582 158,564 10 (0.006%) TOTAL 2,073,158 733,860 905.47 (0.123%) In accordance with the current 7 CFR Part 658 - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Parts I and III of Form AD-1006 will be completed for each project segment and sent to Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) for new alignments. The NRCS has 45 days to respond. For the entire rail corridor, approximately 905 acres or 0.123 percent of the acres are considered prime farmland. In the four counties an average of 34.08% of the land is considered prime farmland and the corridor is estimated to impact 0.123% of prime farmlands. While the project would impact prime farmland, paralleling the existing I-44 corridor will minimize impacts. In the urban areas of Tulsa of Oklahoma City, impacts are reduced further by utilizing existing rail lines. 5.3 Right of Way and Displacements 5.3.1 Estimated Displacements For this corridor study, relocations were determined utilizing 2008 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Digital Orthophoto Mosaic graphics. Based on this preliminary evaluation, it was estimated that up to 41 residential structures and 27 commercial structures would potentially require acquisition within the 106 mile corridor. These figures are expected to decrease as detailed plans of the rail line are developed and the corridor width is reduced within the study area. Table 5.3 provides these estimated displacements separated by County. The estimated displacements in Oklahoma County are likely to decrease once plans are available to better estimate right-of-way requirements. TABLE 5.3: POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County Residential Commercial Oklahoma 19 8 Lincoln 7 12 Creek 15 7 Tulsa 0 0 TOTAL 41 27 Relocation resources are available to all residential and business relocates without discrimination. Right-of-way acquisition would be in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970, as amended. ODOT's Relocation Assistance Program provides financial assistance for relocation expense and advisory assistance ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 19 in relocation resources available within the area. A relocation plan will be developed if required for each project during the Tire 2 environmental analysis. 5.3.2 Estimated Right-of-Way Requirements A summary of the anticipated right-of-way requirements for the rail corridor is provided below broken into three rail line segments. A. Oklahoma City - Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad Section The abandoned Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad right-of-way extending from Santa Fe Station in Bricktown, Oklahoma City, north to near the western terminus of I-44 is approximately 12 miles in length and is approximately 50 feet in width. The majority of this alignment remains in place, however, development in the Lincoln Park and Remington Park areas are of concern. A corridor width of 100 feet was evaluated for data collection purposes. The ownership of the rail alignment is in both private and public ownership. B. North of I-44 Section The majority of the new right-of-way expected will be from this section. As proposed this section will parallel I-44 to the north with a corridor width of 280 feet for approximately 75 miles. Near Stroud and Sapulpa, the line shifts further north to avoid structures and the transportation network of I-44, thereby requiring additional right-of-way. C. Tulsa - BNSF Railroad Section No new right-of-way is expected in this area as the active rail line of the BNSF will be utilized for approximately 19 miles. For data collection purposes 100 foot area was evaluated. 5.3.3 Tribal Land Property card data was obtained for Oklahoma, Creek and Lincoln counties to determine if any of the anticipated new right-of-way was located on tribal land. Since no new right-of-way is expected in Tulsa County, no data was obtained. Three tribal land properties were determined to be within the corridor. The parcel maps and property card data is located in Appendix B. One parcel is owned by the Sac and Fox Tribal Nation in Lincoln County and the other two properties are owned by the Satoe-Wynette Tribal Nation in Creek County. As the project segments are developed, these tribal lands will be avoided if possible. 5.4 Effects on Public Parks, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department were contacted via E-mail and requested to provide information on any known public parks and wildlife and waterfowl refuges that may be ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 20 located within the corridor. Also, maps and graphics were evaluated for known parks. Table 5.4 provides a listing of the parks and refuges within or near the rail corridor. 5.4.1 Parks Ten properties were identified during the data search at or near the rail corridor that may be Section 4(f) eligible. In Oklahoma City, four golf courses and three parks were identified. Two golf courses and the Creek County Fairgrounds were identified in Creek County, while no parks were found in Lincoln or Tulsa Counties at or near the rail corridor. The abandoned rail line goes through the Lincoln Park East Golf Course operated by the City of Oklahoma City. Consultation with Oklahoma City, FRA and the DOT will need to take place in the respective Tier 2 environmental document, and once further plans are developed regarding the Lincoln Park East Golf Course. This property could be afforded protection under Section 4(f) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968, which specified that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl area of national, state or local significance or any land from a historic site of national, state or local significance may be used for Federal Aid projects only if there is no feasible and prudent alternate to the use of such land, and such projects include all possible planning to minimize harm to the 4(f) land resulting from such use. Additional mitigation measures would be required to satisfy the provisions of Section 6(f) which are areas that have used Land and Water Conservation Funds (federal funds) in its development. In Oklahoma City, Washington Park is located to the north of the abandoned railroad near N.E. 4th Street and borders the corridor. At this time, it is probable that no new right-of-way will be needed at Washington Park and any impacts avoided. The Creek County Fairgrounds has been identified as Section 4(f) eligible and measures to avoid this property will be evaluated in the Tier 2 environmental analysis. Several local attractions exist at or near the rail corridor, most of which are privately owned and operated where Section 4(f) protection does not apply, such as Remington Park Racetrack, Railroad Museum, and ASA Hall of Fame Stadium which are all located in Oklahoma City. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) issues will require further investigation during project level Tier 2 analysis including consultation with property owners to determine eligibility and proper action. The final decision on applicability of Section 4(f) to this golf course is made by FRA. In reaching this decision, however, consultation with the City of Oklahoma City will be needed to identify the activities or functions that take place and to determine ownership of the rail rights-of- way in the area. This action, as well as development of avoidance alternatives, if appropriate, can take place during the respective Tier 2 document process. 5.4.2 Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation noted that no ownership or refuges along the corridor route were seen. The data gathering effort did not identify any refuges within the corridor. Refer to Table 5.4 for a listing of Parks and Refuges in the project area. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 21 TABLE 5.4: PARKS AND REFUGES County Parks Refuges Oklahoma - 7 River Oaks Golf Club (1,300 feet from Corridor boundary) Lincoln Park West Golf Course (210 feet from Corridor boundary) Lincoln Park East Golf Course (Corridor runs thru this facility) Creston Hills Park (200 feet from Corridor boundary) Washington Park (touches Corridor boundary) None Lincoln - 0 None None Creek -3 Sapulpa Municipal Golf Course (70 feet from Corridor boundary) Creek County Fairgrounds (corridor runs thru this property) None Tulsa - 0 None None 5.5 Social and Economic Impacts including Environmental Justice 5.5.1 Population Characteristics The United States Census Bureau data estimates the total population in the State of Oklahoma at 3,642,361 people in 2008, an increase of 5.6% from a population of 3,450,640 in 2000. Table 5.5 shows the increase in population per county crossed by the rail corridor. Within the two largest cities, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, the number of people per square mile is the largest; therefore, providing a rail travel option to this larger population base would greatly benefit these communities. TABLE 5.5: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU DATA - POPULATION CHANGE (2008) County Population 2008 Population 2000 Percent Change Persons Per Square Mile (2000) State of Oklahoma 3,642,361 3,450,640 5.6% 50.3 Oklahoma 706,617 660,450 7.0% 931.5 Lincoln 32,153 32,080 0.2% 33.5 Creek 69,822 67,369 3.6% 70.5 Tulsa 591,982 563,303 5.1% 988.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau The United States Census Bureau data lists the total number of housing units in the State of Oklahoma at 1,623,010 for 2007, providing for a home ownership rate of 68.4% (in 2000). The median household income (2007) in the State is $41,551, while the percentage of people below poverty level is 15.8% for the State (Table 5.6). Lincoln and Creek counties indicated a higher percentage of poverty at 0.6% above the norm. This may be due to the rural nature of these counties and limited job opportunities. TABLE 5.6: 2008 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU DATA - HOUSING AND INCOME County Housing Units 2007 Homeownership Rate 2000 Median Household Income 2007 Persons Below Poverty 2007 State of Oklahoma 1,623,010 68.4% $41,551 15.8% ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 22 Oklahoma 319,972 60.4% $41,598 15.9% Lincoln 14,241 80.0% $38,204 16.4% Creek 29,603 78.0% $41,745 16.4% Tulsa 262,063 61.8% $45,313 14.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau No changes to population or housing are expected as a result of the rail line. Acquisition of residential and commercial property is expected with the new right-of-way required, although no significant impacts to housing patterns or community cohesion are foreseen. 5.5.2 Economic Profile The Oklahoma City and Tulsa Metropolitan Areas are major economic centers for the State of Oklahoma. Both cities provide various types of homeownership, employment and entertainment opportunities. The Santa Fe Station in Oklahoma City is located very close to the Bricktown Downtown District, a growing area for dining, nightlife, attractions, hotels and shopping. Some of the larger Oklahoma City venues that would benefit from Tulsa commuters are AT&T Bricktown Ballpark, Civic Center, Cox Convention Center, Ford Center, and the Oklahoma City National Memorial. Union Station is located in the center of the Tulsa downtown area. This area is experiencing recent growth and development with the opening of the BOK Center in 2008. Tulsa also has dining, nightlife, shopping and hotels located downtown. Some of the larger venues of interest include the Cain's Ballroom, Tulsa Convention Center, Oklahoma Jazz Hall of Fame and the Performing Arts Center. The rail corridor would result in an improved transportation system and access to activity centers throughout the region. There are positive impacts to economic resources such as increased employment for construction workers and the presence of a larger workforce in the area would have both a direct and a secondary beneficial impact on economic conditions. The use of locally sourced materials would also be a positive economic impact. In the long-term, beneficial impacts are expected as a result of a safer and improved transportation system for the corridor. This would decrease travel and transport times and costs, reduce safety concerns and likely draw more users to the corridor. Enhanced access into and out of the area and improved connections to the regional transportation system may indirectly increase economic development within both cities. 5.5.3 Environmental Justice In February 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 requiring federal agencies to incorporate consideration of environmental justice into the NEPA evaluation process. The purpose of this Presidential Order was to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts to minority and low-income populations and minority-owned businesses as a result of federal actions. Analysis of 2000 Census data does reveal the existence of census tracts within the rail corridor for which the percentage of minorities is greater than the county average, plus census tracts with a higher percentage of the population below the derived low-income threshold. Of the 28 tracts of census data evaluated for the 106 miles corridor, 15 of the tracts contained ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 23 minority populations greater than the County average, the remaining 13 did not. The numbers were similar for household income as well. While these populations are higher than the county average, the census data reveals no disproportionately higher levels for minority or low-income populations. Refer to Table 5.7 for details. TABLE 5.7: HSROK CENSUS TRACK SUMMARY DATA County Name County Code Tract Populati on Total Total White Pop Total Minority Population Percent Minority County Minority Percent Average Median Household Income in 1999 County Wide Median Creek 037 020102 1667 1264 403 24.18 19.26 $30,072 $33,168 Creek 037 020601 5136 3998 1138 22.16 19.26 $37,565 $33,168 Creek 037 020602 3712 3014 698 18.80 19.26 $29,155 $33,168 Creek 037 020702 3343 2727 616 18.43 19.26 $35,270 $33,168 Creek 037 020707 1809 1425 384 21.23 19.26 $34,231 $33,168 Creek 037 020900 2898 2402 496 17.12 19.26 $33,939 $33,168 Creek 037 021102 3487 2865 622 17.84 19.26 $35,160 $33,168 Creek 037 021201 2133 1794 339 15.89 19.26 $50,174 $33,168 Creek 037 021202 4090 3131 959 23.45 19.26 $32,625 $33,168 Creek 037 021300 2533 2031 502 19.82 19.26 $23,920 $33,168 Totals 30808 24651 6157 19.99 19.26 $34,211 $33,168 Lincoln 081 981100 4886 4085 801 16.39 14.85 $27,132 $31,187 Lincoln 081 981300 4168 3574 594 14.25 14.85 $32,390 $31,187 Lincoln 081 981600 2786 2415 371 13.32 14.85 $29,405 $31,187 Lincoln 081 981700 4953 4069 884 17.85 14.85 $31,667 $31,187 Totals 16793 14143 2650 15.78 14.85 $30,149 $31,187 Oklahoma 109 101300 3311 87 3224 97.37 35.19 $17,623 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 102800 2757 155 2602 94.38 35.19 $11,038 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 102900 461 21 440 95.44 35.19 $26,140 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 103102 0 0 0 0.00 35.19 $0 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 103800 165 17 148 89.70 35.19 $7,864 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 106000 2122 672 1450 68.33 35.19 $51,118 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 106100 3401 551 2850 83.80 35.19 $27,750 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 108101 1929 1602 327 16.95 35.19 $75,635 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 108103 5120 4258 862 16.84 35.19 $50,525 $35,063 Totals 19266 7363 11903 61.78 35.19 $29,744 $35,063 Tulsa 143 002500 3653 2068 1585 43.39 26.92 $20,587 $38,213 Tulsa 143 002700 3854 2288 1566 40.63 26.92 $27,898 $38,213 Tulsa 143 004700 2077 1677 400 19.26 26.92 $30,913 $38,213 Tulsa 143 006507 1512 1146 366 24.21 26.92 $46,570 $38,213 Tulsa 143 006600 3191 2514 677 21.22 26.92 $37,739 $38,213 Totals 14287 9693 4594 32.16 26.92 $32,741 $38,213 = Census Tracts with Minority populations greater that the County Average ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 24 5.6 Noise The FRA document “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (HMMH Report No. 293630-4 October 2005) authored by Harris Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) identifies train noise as coming from three primary sources. These include the train’s engine(s), the train’s wheels and rails, and the air that rushes past the train while it is in motion. The noise from each of these sources is dependent upon the speed at which the train is traveling, and at any given speed one of these noise sources may be the dominant noise source. The HMMH document partitions the speed range into three distinct regimes. Regime 1 is when the engine is the dominant noise source. This occurs at lower speeds. At greater speeds the wheels and tracks become the dominant noise source. This is referred to as regime 2. At high speeds, the air rushing past the train becomes the dominant noise source. This is regime 3. The aerodynamic noise of air rushing past the train typically does not become appreciable until the train speed exceeds about 160 mph. Since this analysis assumes that the maximum operating speed of the train is 150 mph, aerodynamic noise will not be dominant. Usually the train will be operating in regime 2 and the wheel/rail interaction will be the primary source of noise. Noise that occurs during regime 1 will be during the time when the train is operating at slower speed when it is approaching or departing from a train terminal. In addition to using the FTA and HMMH manuals to gauge noise impacts, noise levels at given distances from the proposed high-speed rail line had to be estimated. Estimating noise levels was accomplished by using the FRA High-Speed Rail noise model. This noise model incorporates noise prediction algorithms that estimate the rail noise levels under varying conditions. The noise model requires certain information about both the trains that will run along the rail line as well as the local topography that exists adjacent to the rail line. Table 5.9 shows the distances from the railroad track for the three impact severity levels. If there are to be no noise impacts to residential neighborhoods, the train track must be at least 356 feet away from residences. If the train track is less than 356 feet, but greater than 142 away from any residence, the project will cause a moderate noise impact. If the train track is less than 142 feet away from residences the project will cause a severe noise impact. These distances are valid if the noise modeling assumptions were valid. Alteration of the modeling assumptions will alter the value of the noise impact distances. TABLE 5.9: NOISE IMPACT DISTANCES Existing Noise Exposure Ldn (dBA) D = Distance from Railroad Track (feet) No Impact Moderate Impact Severe Impact 45 D>356 142<=D<=356 D<142 The number of residential receptors within the distance from the railroad track is listed in Table 5.10. When preliminary plans are developed further noise modeling should be conducted. Mitigation measures of potential noise impacts should also be investigated at that time. The presence of noise barriers, cut sections, and in some cases elevated sections could reduce the noise impact zones considerably. Refer to Appendix C for a complete copy of the Noise Analysis Report. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 25 TABLE 5.10: RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS WITHIN HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR Total Oklahoma County Lincoln County Creek County Tulsa County Number of Residential Receptors - Severe 46 22 7 17 0 Number of Residential Receptors - Moderate 391 205 0 142 44 For each segment that has noise impacts, a noise study will be completed in the respective Tier 2 environmental document to determine if adverse impact on noise sensitive areas exists based on improvement criterion. Before noise mitigation can be incorporated into a project, it must be both feasible and reasonable. The noise report will determine if noise barriers are feasible and reasonable for each segment, where applicable, and incorporate into future project plans. A final decision to construct noise barriers will be made upon completion of the public involvement process and final project design. 5.7 Air Quality The State of Oklahoma is currently in attainment for all six priority pollutants determined to be potentially harmful to human health and welfare. By being in attainment, the State of Oklahoma is not subject to the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act (CAA), including the 1990 Amendments, provides for the establishment of standards and programs to evaluate, achieve, and maintain acceptable air quality in the U.S. Under the CAA, the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established a set of standards, or criteria, for six pollutants determined to be potentially harmful to human health and welfare. The USEPA considers the presence of the following six criteria pollutants to be indicators of air quality: • Ozone (O3); • Carbon monoxide (CO); • Nitrogen dioxide (NO2); • Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5); • Sulfur dioxide (SO2); and, • Lead (Pb). It can be expected that carbon monoxide would be reduced with a diesel train versus using a automobile, while hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide emissions will be higher. More efficient diesel locomotive engines and other improvements, such as regenerative braking, are being developed (Center for Clean Air Policy, January 2006) to reduce these emissions. Initially the high speed rail is planned to use fossil fuels to power the train (diesel train), although the rail line would be constructed to ultimately switch to electric rail line. An electric rail line greatly reduces emissions from particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 26 5.8 Vibration A preliminary investigation into the potential vibration-related impacts to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of a rail line that would facilitate high-speed train service between Tulsa and Oklahoma City was conducted. Vibration is characterized as having changing amplitude that has a net displacement of zero. Oscillatory motion that has a time dependence that varies like a sine wave is one example of vibration that has a definite frequency. In general, vibration will consists of an admixture of many different frequencies, and the changing amplitude of motion is more complex than that of a sine wave. Railroad vibration is caused by the interaction of the train with the rail track and its supporting structures. This is the only type of vibration that is analyzed in the report included in Appendix D. Although it is assumed that the source of the vibrations results from railroad facilities, the vibration levels that occur at various distances from the rail line is heavily dependent upon the local soil characteristics that exist in the vicinity of the rail line. Some soils are better than other in attenuating ground vibrations. The report concluded that when the trains are operating at a speed greater than or equal to 100 mph, but less than 200 mph, and when passbys are infrequent, residential land uses could be impacted if the distance from the land to the rail line is less than 100 feet. Table 5.11 shows the number of residential homes within 100 feet of the rail line. As this is worst case, it is expected that in the urban areas, the vibration impacts would be lower as the operation speeds are lower. TABLE 5.11: RESIDENTIAL HOMES WITHIN 100 FEET OF HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR Total Oklahoma County Lincoln County Creek County Tulsa County Number of Residential Receptors – Vibration 58 39 6 13 0 For each segment that has vibration impacts, a future vibration study will be completed to determine if adverse impact on structures exists based on improvement criterion. Mitigation for vibration impacts may involve track and train equipment and construction methods to isolate vibration and limit transmission to the ground. The vibration report will be conducted in the respective Tier 2 Environmental document to determine if mitigation is possible for each segment, where applicable, and incorporate into future project plans. A final decision on vibration mitigation will be made upon completion of the public involvement process and final project design. 5.9 Water Quality Potential impacts to water quality as a result of the HSIPR Oklahoma City/Tulsa Line would include both short (construction-related) and long-term (operation-related) impacts. Construction activities have the potential to cause minor impacts to these water bodies as a result of runoff/sedimentation from grading nearby areas, filling, or accidental spills of fuel or other chemicals. Other activities associated with impacts to water quality include clearing, culvert installation, pier/abutment work associated with reconstructing bridges, borrow pit excavation, etc. During construction activities, a temporary increase of sediments in surface runoff may ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 27 occur. In addition, increased stream sedimentation may occur during the construction of structures at stream crossings. There is a potential for long term impacts to water quality with the increased semi-impervious surface that would accompany the rail line. These long-term impacts to surface water quality would result primarily from runoff, compounded by runoff from nearby properties. Rail runoff may contain contaminants such as oil, grease and heavy metals. This runoff is directed into streams by way of storm water systems, thereby increasing contaminants discharged into the watershed, particularly at the beginning of storm events. The increase of impervious surface associated with a new rail line is considered minor. Mitigation of impacts to water resources from construction activities will incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and reduce sediment deposit in bodies of water within the corridor. Pollution prevention measures would be implemented to prevent pollution from equipment oil, grease, lubricants and fuels on surface waters. Filling and grading activities would be performed in compliance with the Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (OPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities. Improvements would be constructed and operated in compliance with all federal and state laws relating to minimization of water quality impacts. Use of vegetative swales for drainage has been shown to reduce pollutant loads in stormwater runoff and will be constructed where appropriate. 5.9.1 Water Bodies Water resources in the corridor consist of ponds, lakes, perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams. There are 142 stream crossings within the rail corridor. Of those, at least 24 are considered permanent with the remaining either intermittent or ephemeral stream crossings. There are 63 ponds or lakes within the corridor, totaling about 13.5 acres, mostly all manmade farm ponds. 5.9.2 Aquifers Numerous major groundwater aquifers are located in the State of Oklahoma. Figure 5.2, page 28, shows the major groundwater aquifer map of Oklahoma. The rail corridor will be located over two bedrock aquifers – the Garber Wellington and the Vamoosa-Ada. The Garber-Wellington formation is the major aquifer in Central Oklahoma, and the water-bearing portions of the Garber and Wellington formations cover an area roughly two thousand square miles, containing approximately 5 trillion gallons of water. Over 400 public water-supply wells and more than 20,000 domestic wells tap into this resource. The Vamoosa-Ada aquifer underlies about 2,320-square miles of parts of Osage, Pawnee, Payne, Creek, Lincoln, Okfuskee, and Seminole Counties. Approximately 75 percent of the water withdrawn from the Vamoosa-Ada aquifer is for municipal use. Rural domestic use and water for stock animals account for most of the remaining water withdrawn. As these are deep aquifers, it is believed that the quality of this resource will not be adversely impacted. As previously mentioned, the use of vegetative swales for drainage will be constructed where appropriate. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 28 FIGURE 5.2: MAJOR GROUNDWATER AQUIFERS ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 29 5.10 Potential Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Potential wetlands located within the corridor were identified by the use of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Data (NWI). Table 5.12 shows the total acres of NWI for each county and provides an estimated wetland impact assuming a 280-feet corridor. Construction of the rail line along the north side of I-44 could result in an impact to approximately 46 acres of potentially jurisdictional wetlands. In the four counties an average of 3.33 percent of the land is considered potential jurisdictional wetlands and 0.066 percent of the wetlands may be impacted by the corridor. Twenty-four potentially jurisdictional water crossings were observed along the 106 mile corridor. These water crossings were identified from the U.S. Geological Survey maps as a permanent stream (blue-line streams). For each project segment exhibiting the characteristics of a jurisdictional waterway and/or potentially jurisdictional wetlands, field surveys and coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to identify and delineate potentially jurisdictional wetlands will be completed and will be identified in the respective Tier 2 Environmental document. When plans are finalized such that the linear extent and volume of dredge and/or fill operations below the ordinary high water mark of the channel may be determined, the proposed construction activities will be evaluated to ensure that the appropriate Clean Water Act Section 404 permit application is made, and an appropriate compensatory mitigation plan is developed. Compensatory mitigation plans typically consist of wetland restoration, on the project site, in the project vicinity, or purchase of credits from wetlands mitigation banks. The mitigation plan will be subject to public and agency review and comment as part of the Corps of Engineers permit process. TABLE 5.12: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP DATA ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County Total Acres Total Acres NWI Data Corridor Acres NWI Data Oklahoma 459,507 12,362 4.92 (0.040%) Lincoln 617,649 19,503 18.93 (0.097%) Creek 620,421 31,278 21.82 (0.070%) Tulsa 375,582 5,877 0.00 (0.000%) Total 2,073,158 690,020 45.67 (0.066%) 5.11 Floodplains The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulates alterations to, or development within, floodplains as mapped on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These maps were analyzed to determine impact to floodplains. The rail corridor would cross 41 floodplain areas (see Table 5.13). These floodplain areas could be impacted by the placement of fill below the base floodplain elevation to construct the rail bed for the new lines. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 30 TABLE 5.13: MAPPED FLOODPLAINS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County Number of Floodplain Crossings Number of Stream Crossings Total Floodplain Acres in Corridor Oklahoma 17 34 2,193 Lincoln Not Available 58 Not Available Creek 22 56 42,744 Tulsa 2 4 803 Total 41 152 45,740 Under FEMA regulations, no alteration of flood zones shall result in an increase in the 100-year base flood elevation (BFE) or in an increase in the velocity of floodwaters without FEMA approval. For each project segment that contains floodplains, coordination between ODOT, FEMA, and local floodplain administrators will occur prior to construction in the floodplain. Any activities that may affect floodplains, such as placement of fill, shall be permitted. These agencies would evaluate the project, provide recommendations and prescribe mitigation options for impacts to floodplains, if necessary. 5.12 Threatened/Endangered Species and Other Biological Resources The project occurs in an area where there are federally listed endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. Table 5.14 provides a listing of species encountered within each county, as well as a review of potential impact on critical habitats. The project may affect the endangered Interior Least Tern, endangered Whooping Crane and threatened Piping Plover at various locations along the proposed route. In Oklahoma, Lincoln and Creek counties, these affects should be insignificant or discountable, resulting in an unlikely to adversely affect determination. In Tulsa County, the project may have an adverse affect on the Interior Least Tern in the area of the Arkansas River. There is a known tern nesting colony along the Arkansas River in Zink Lake within the City of Tulsa. Any construction activities in this area would need to be conducted between September 1and April 30 (outside of the Interior Least Tern nesting season). The project will also have an adverse affect on the endangered American Burying Beetle in Tulsa and Creek Counties. Acres of suitable habitat within the project area would need to be accounted for in the existing ODOT/USFW mitigation plan in place for this species. Bald Eagles nest upriver near Keystone Dam and elsewhere along the Arkansas River corridor. Eagles frequently hunt along the river near the proposed project area. Any construction activities in the area of Bald Eagle nests would need to be conducted according the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. A formal biological review including field surveys and coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) to determine impact to these species is to be completed for each project segment. Mitigation and or best management practices will be incorporated into each segment and project plans and will be identified in the respective Tier 2 environmental document and informal or formal section 7 consultation, as appropriate, will be completed. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 31 TABLE 5.14: THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR Oklahoma County Species Listing Status Status within Oklahoma County & Project Area Interior Least Tern Endangered Documented breeding occurrences occur within the Cimarron River and its associated watersheds that drain portions of the county. The County is also situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration, primarily at Lake Hefner and Lake Arcadia. The proposed project location is not located within a watershed associated with occupied water bodies. No suitable breeding habitat occurs within the proposed project area. Migratory stopover habitat can be found at Lake Arcadia adjacent to the proposed footprint. Piping Plover Threatened The county is situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration, primarily at Lake Hefner. Suitable stopover habitat exists within and adjacent to the project footprint in the Lake Arcadia area. Lincoln County Species Listing Status Status within the Lincoln County & Project Area Interior Least Tern Endangered The county is situated within the current probable migratory pathway between breeding and winter habitats, and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. No suitable stopover habitat, however, exists within the proposed footprint. Whooping Crane Endangered The county is situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. There are no documented occurrences within the county, either historic or current. No suitable habitat exists within the project footprint in Lincoln County. Piping Plover Threatened The county is situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. No suitable stopover habitat, however, exists within the proposed footprint. Creek County Species Listing Status Status within Creek County & Project Area American Burying Beetle Endangered County is within the documented historic range. Surveys within the last 15 years are lacking or insufficient to determine presence of the ABB within the county. Suitable habitat, however, is present and this county is adjacent to at least one county with current positive findings. Acres of suitable habitat within the project area need to be accounted for in the appropriate mitigation plan in place for this species. Interior Least Tern Endangered Documented breeding occurrences occur within the Arkansas River and its associated watersheds within the county. The County is also situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. The project location is located within watersheds associated with occupied water bodies for this species. But no suitable habitat occurs within the project footprint. Piping Plover Threatened The county is situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. No suitable stopover habitat occurs within the project footprint. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 32 Tulsa County Species Listing Status Status within Tulsa County & Project Area American Burying Beetle Endangered County is within the documented historic range with confirmed presence within the last 15 years. Acres of suitable habitat within the project area need to be accounted for in the appropriate mitigation plan in place for this species. Interior Least Tern Endangered Documented breeding occurrences occur within the Arkansas River and its associated watersheds within the county. The County is also situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. The project location crosses the Arkansas River in the City of Tulsa where a known breeding colony resides. However, since the proposed project at this point will consist of the existing BNSF track on existing alignment, no additional impacts to the species are expected. Piping Plover Threatened The county is situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. Suitable migratory stopover habitat occurs within the project footprint. However, since the proposed project at this point will consist of the existing BNSF track on existing alignment, no additional impacts to the species are expected. Bald Eagle Endangered Bald Eagle potentially occupied habitat exists very near the project area in the Tulsa region along the Arkansas River. However, since the proposed project at this point will consist of the existing BNSF track on existing alignment, no additional impacts to the species are expected. 5.13 Historic/Archeological Preservation A database search for existing historic properties, structures, and archeological sites was conducted by the ODOT Cultural Resources Program. The file review investigated State archeological site files at Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office National Register of Historic Places list and Determination of Eligibility list and Oklahoma Historic Bridge Survey. Table 5.15 presents search findings related to potential resources within the rail corridor. Future studies of cultural resources, including a cultural resources survey in consultation with the Oklahoma Archeological Survey, the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and appropriate Native American Tribes, is to be conducted following preliminary plans. It should be noted that any original or early rail features associated with the old MKT rail line in Oklahoma City may be NRHP eligible structures and would require survey and mitigative efforts. TABLE 5.15: CULTURAL RESOURCES DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County NHRP Eligible Bridges NHRP/DOE Listed Buildings NHRP/DOE Listed Historic Districts/Rt. 66 Potential Historic Structures (l Pre- 1964 Structures to be Evaluated) Known Archeological Sites Oklahoma 0 5 3 0 0 Lincoln 0 0 0 7 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 33 County NHRP Eligible Bridges NHRP/DOE Listed Buildings NHRP/DOE Listed Historic Districts/Rt. 66 Potential Historic Structures (l Pre- 1964 Structures to be Evaluated) Known Archeological Sites Creek 2 0 4 - Rt. 66 80 1 Tulsa 1 0 2/ 1 Rt. 66 8 0 Total 3 5 10 95 2 Three National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) listed bridges are within or near the rail corridor as summarized below. − 1925 RR Trestle – within rail corridor, contributing property crossing the NRHP listed “West Ozark Trail" portion of Historic Route 66, Creek County. − Rock Creek Bridge – 50 feet south of proposed rail corridor, contributing property crossing the NRHP listed "West Ozark Trail" portion of Historic Route 66, Creek County. − 11th Street Bridge – 150 to 300 feet east of rail alignment. Historic Route 66 structure spanning the Arkansas River, Tulsa County. There are several State Historic Preservation Office National Register of Historic Places Determination of Eligibility listed properties located within or near the rail corridor. A. Buildings: − Santa Fe Depot (100 E.K. Gaylord, OKC) - 20 feet west of proposed alignment; − Avery Building (15 E. California, OKC) -- 250 feet east of proposed alignment; − J.I. Case Plow Works Bldg (2 E. California, OKC) - 250 feet east of proposed alignment; − Sherman Machine & Iron Works (26 E. Main, OKC) - 250 feet east of proposed alignment; and − Stanford Furniture Co. Building (1 E. Sherman, OKC) - 250 feet east of proposed alignment. B. Historic Districts: − Carverdale Historic District (OKC)--100' south of proposed alignment; − Creston Historic District (OKC)--800' west of proposed alignment; − Edwards Heights Historic District (OKC)--proposed alignment is presently located within the confines of this district; ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 34 − Irving Historic District (Sand Springs)--100' west of proposed alignment; and − Tulsa Downtown Historic District (Tulsa)--100' north of proposed alignment. C. Historic Route 66 − S.E. end of the NRHP Listed "Tank Farm Loop" of Historic Rt. 66 (Lake Heyburn vicinity)--600' north of proposed alignment; − NRHP Listed "West Ozark Trail" segment of Historic Rt. 66 (Kellyville vicinity); includes the 1925 RR Trestle carrying the old SL-SF line over Rt. 66 (NRHP eligible contributing resource)--Trestle: within proposed alignment; "West Ozark Trail": traverses then parallels proposed alignment (~50' south); − Continuation of the NRHP listed "West Ozark Trail" portion of Historic Rt. 66 (Kellyville vicinity)--~50' south, paralleling the proposed alignment; − East end of the NRHP listed "West Ozark Trail" portion of Historic Rt. 66 (Kellyville vicinity)--~50' south paralleling the proposed alignment; NRHP listed Rock Creek Bridge (Structure #19E0706N3860000 --contributing property to the NRHP listed "West Ozark Trail" portion of Historic Rt. 66), Sapulpa vicinity--50' south of proposed alignment; − NRHP listed Arkansas River (11th Street) bridge (Structure #72 No Number) on Historic Rt. 66--150-300' east of proposed alignment. D. Archeological Sites − 34LN30 (Stroud vicinity) - early-20th Century (Lily Springs) townsite; not assessed for NRHP eligibility; bisected by the presently proposed alignment, Lincoln County; and − 34CR26 (Lake Heyburn vicinity) - Late Prehistoric Period camp; not assessed for NRHP eligibility; bisected by the presently proposed alignment, Creek County. There are 95 potential pre-1964 structures in the rail corridor identified by Oklahoma Archeological Survey maps as 20th century buildings that will need to be assessed for eligibility to be listed on National Register of Historic Places. Of the above listed site, four are within the corridor alignment, the 1925 RR Trestle in Creek County; the Santa Fe Depot in Oklahoma County; the Edwards Heights Historic District (OKC); and areas that intersect Historic Route 66. If in the Tier 2 environmental analysis of future projects it is determined that the project may adversely effect historic properties indentified per 36 CFR Part 800.4, the Department will consider feasible and prudent alternative designs as part of a Section 4(f) evaluation to avoid and /or minimize the adverse effect. This typically involves evaluation of alternative alignments that avoid use of the historic property and would also require 4f evaluation and documentation. If the adverse effect cannot be eliminated, the Department will execute and implement a Memorandum of Agreement per 36 CFR Part 800.6 with SHPO and/or THPO and all interested parties in order to mitigate the adverse effect. Mitigation measures for ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 35 impacts to historic properties typically involve Historic American Buildings Survey and Historic American Engineering (HABS/HAER) documentation for impacted structures such as buildings and bridges, extensive archival research for all impacted historic properties, and data recovery for historic properties such as archeological sites eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria D. 5.14 Hazardous Waste Information A database search for potential hazardous waste sites and underground storage tanks within the rail corridor was completed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc., (EDR) on September 8, 2009. Federal and state environmental records were reviewed to determine their presence within the rail corridor. Table E.1, located in Appendix E, contains properties listed in the database search within the corridor that may have potential hazardous waste concerns. Due to the number of pages contained in the EDR report (over 1,000), the entire report can be provide upon request. Appendix F does contain the Executive Summary from the report. The search identifies recognized environmental conditions, meaning the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum product on the property indicating an existing or past release, into structures, the ground water and/or soil. Hazardous waste sites which may have recognized environmental conditions would be, but are not limited to, service stations, industrial facilities, landfills and mining sites. Once potentially contaminated sites have been identified, the rail line alignment may be modified to avoid such sites. Other measures are also available to minimize impact of these sites on to the project. Twenty-one potential sites with contamination issues were identified in the rail corridor. If right-of- way acquisition or subsurface utilities are involved in these facilities, further investigation is warranted. These sites are summarized in Table 5.16. TABLE 5.16: ISA DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County Potential Hazardous Waste Sites Under/ Above Ground Storage Tanks Brownfield Sites Oil/Gas Wells Oklahoma 5 4 0 6 Lincoln 1 2 0 7 Creek 2 0 0 2 Tulsa 3 2 2 0 TOTAL 11 8 2 15 An initial site assessment will be conducted during the preparation of the respective Tier 2 Environmental document to identify sites with the potential to adversely impact area soils, air, surface water, and/or groundwater for each project segment. Efforts will be made to avoid and minimize involvement with these sites. Sites with potential environmental concern located within the likely area of construction will have a preliminary site investigation (PSI) performed to determine the location and extent of any potential contamination. The location of any contaminated areas identified by the PSI, along with any necessary mitigation procedures will be identified. If the area cannot be avoided proper redial efforts can be performed prior to construction. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 36 5.15 Visual Resources Visual resources within the rail corridor can best be described as being undeveloped (pasture and forest) or urban developed. The terrain is generally made up of rolling sandstone hills and stream crossings on uplands. Land uses are predominantly rural with undeveloped lands, consisting of open fields and heavy, mixed-type forests. Scenic quality is an important aspect of the corridor and train travel. The traveler would experience both urban and rural settings within the route from Oklahoma City to Tulsa. Consequences of the rail corridor to visual resources would be both temporary and permanent. Temporary impacts would include views of the construction activities and loss of some vegetation. Permanent impacts would include increased visibility of rail corridor from I-44 due to the parallel alignment and some loss of vegetation. The vegetation loss may also be evident to travelers on the highway. As the preferred corridor was either historically a rail route, or parallels an existing highway route, no significant visual impacts are anticipated. 5.16 Conclusion After reviewing the impacts identified within the Northern Section of the South Central High Speed Rail Corridor, considering the context and setting of the preferred corridor, the relative lack of intensity of the impacts on the natural and human environment after considering the potential avoidance and mitigation opportunities available in the future project level environmental analysis, the lack of concern from agency solicitations, and the overwhelming positive public support, it is believed that the proposed action (Tier 1 Environmental Assessment) will not have a foreseeable impact on the quality of the human environment. Once a FONSI is received, Tier 2 project level environmental analysis can begin. Consultation with resources agencies and the FRA will determine the appropriate class of action for the projects in Tier 2 review. 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 6.1 Solicitation Letters Letters describing the proposed project and soliciting comments were sent to State and Federal agencies on September 4, 2009. The solicitation letter described the Tulsa to Oklahoma City rail corridor as well as the entire HSIPR Oklahoma City/Tulsa Corridor (part of South Central High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor) located in Tulsa, south through Oklahoma City, and then south to the Texas State Line. A total of five responses were received, and a copy of each letter is provided in Appendix F. Following is a summary of the responses received. • The U.S. Corps of Engineers assigned No. SWT-2009-725 to this rail corridor and asked that all future correspondence reference this number. They indicated that the construction of new rail line crossings, as well as improvements to existing rail line crossings, in waters of the United States would most likely require a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 37 Response: The Department will use this number and will submit required permit applications(s) as the project(s) are developed. • An Oklahoma State Representative commented on his reservations regarding this project and did not see a practical, efficient, revenue-producing aspect of a high-speed intercity passenger rail program. Response: This comment is noted. • The Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office requested to be a consulting party on the project and has a vital interest in protecting its historic and ancestral cultural resources. Response: This comment is noted and initiation for Section 106 will begin when a project is programmed by the Department. The Osage Nation does fall within the area for the high speed rail and will definitely be contacted when and if Section 106 consultation begins on this project. • The Corporation Commission stated they will address any abandoned well sites within the corridor that are found to be out of compliance with the requirements for construction of the rail line. Contacts will be supplied when requested by ODOT. Response: This comment is noted and once project segments are developed that require new right-of-way, the Corporation Commission will be contacted. • The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated they had no objection to the continued program planning. When specific impacted properties are identified, they requested that documentation in order to issue an opinion on the effect of the program on Oklahoma's cultural and historical resources. Response: This comment is noted and SHPO will be consulted as projects are developed. 6.2 Public Involvement Public meetings were held on September 14 and 15, 2009, in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, respectively. The focus of the public meetings was to formally introduce the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program and discuss this South Central Corridor as one of ten national corridors identified by Congress. The environmental process was briefly discussed and the public was asked to provide comments to assist in the process to gain environmental clearance. The public meetings were held in Oklahoma City at the Metro Technology Centers (BCC/Auditorium 1900 Springlake Drive) with 75 people in attendance. The Tulsa meeting was held at the downtown Central Library (400 Civic Center) and 97 people were in attendance. The same information was presented at each meeting. At these public meetings the public was introduced to the entire rail corridor within the State of Oklahoma. For the Oklahoma City to Tulsa section, in which new alignment is required, public comment was solicited regarding the ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 38 project and any environmental concerns. Information including attendees and comments may be found in the Appendix G. The vast majority of the comments received have been favorable. The comments were supportive of high speed rail in Oklahoma, and numerous comments were received to extend the rail into other regions. The basis of comments received against high speed rail focused on the belief that this initiative is not a cost effective use of tax payer dollars. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the public comments received. TABLE 6.1: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED Comment Positive Negative Support for High Speed Rail (HSR) in Oklahoma 39 Technical Advice on Signals, Crossings, Cabin Features 2 Support HSR and Request Train Car Ferry 3 Passenger Rail is Environmentally Friendly 4 Support for the Tulsa to OKC Connection 30 Support Extending Connection to Chicago 1 Rail Line Would Help Economy 3 Support HSR But Need Bus and Metro Rail Conductivity 7 Support for Extending Connections to Texas, Kansas City, OKC, Tulsa and Chicago 9 Support HSR and Request Bicycle Transportation / Bike Racks 9 Support Extending Connection from Tulsa to Kansas City 1 Support Extending Connection to DFW 1 Support Extending Connection to East Coast 1 HSR is a Waste of Money 4 Do Not Want Taxes To Go Up 1 HSP will Remove the US Away From Dependence on Oil 2 Support Improving Existing Rail Line Between OKC and Tulsa 2 Support HSP and Request Stop at Existing Park-In-Ride Stop at Turnpike 1 Support HSR and Use of Electric Trains 1 Need to Financially Support Rail Operations in Future 1 Comparing Rail Corridor to NAFTA Corridor 1 Questioning Need for Rail Over Automobile 2 No Need for HSR Service in Oklahoma 3 Would Rather See Money Used on Roads and Bridges 1 Total 117 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 APPENDIX A Items Normally Considered During Project Development ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 ITEMS NORMALLY CONSIDERED DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 1. Purpose and Need for Project 2. Alternatives 3. Affected Environment and Possible Environmental Consequences in Regards to the Following Areas: Land Use Farmlands Social Resources Relocation Impacts/ Right-of-Way Acquisition Joint Development Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists Air Quality Environmental Justice Noise Water Quality Permits Wetlands Water Bodies Wildlife Floodplains Wild and Scenic Rivers Rechannelization Threatened or Endangered Species Historic and Archaeological Preservation Hazardous Waste Sites Underground Storage Tanks Visual Resources Energy and Utilities Construction Relationship of Local Short-Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Effects on Public Parks, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites 4. Comments 5. Drainage Concerns 6. Accidents and Safety Concerns ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 APPENDIX B Tribal Land Graphics and Property Card Data Sac_&_Fox_Nation L II NCOL N COU N T Y OKLAHOMA HIGH-SPEED RAIL INITIATIVE TRIBAL PROPERTY ConAsbulleting 0 200 400 Feet I- 44 N3570 Rd 26th St 15th Ave 17th St 3rd St W 7th St Golf Dr Tanger Dr 26th St 15th Ave 17th St 38 40 39 37 41 Legend Tribal Properties HSROK Rail Corridor County Line Section Lines Ponds and Lakes Railroads Intermittent Streams Permanent Streams 1 inch = 200 feet OTCFORM959-COM '?'/'-15.~ T",u)'" COMMERCIAL ~ I Sac & Fox Nation Rt 2 Box 246 Stroud, OK 74079 Bg 8W/C NW/4 E-777' N-66' E-23.36' N27°45'20" E-319.07' N-151' E-400.18' 'U'! to pob th E-1272.99' 8-80.Ql' W-21 0' 8-420' E-149.41' to pt on Nr1y R/W \ 0,-) lWI' 'I\y\ \ Turner Turnpike 8-71 "38'47" W-1282.29' N-909.06' to pob ~} NOTES: 1. LOW 2. AVG. 3. GOOD 4. EXC. 1. GABLE 2. HIP 3. FLAT 4. MANSARD 5. GAMBREL 6. SAWTOOTH 7. BOW 8. SHED 9.IRREG. 2. B/uTAR , 3. COMPo 4. WOOD 5. SHAKE 6. ROLL COMPo 7. METAL a. CONCRETE 9. TILE 1. PLY.II-IDB. 2. ASBESTOS 3. ALNL SDNG. 4. SHINGLE 5. STUCCO 6. C-BLOCK 7. BRK. VEN. a.STN. VEN. 9. FAB. METAL 1. NONE 2. ASPH. TILE 3. VINYL ASBEST. 4. SHEET VINYL 5. SOFTWOOD 6. HARDWOOD 7. CARPETING a. BRICK 9. QUARRY TILE 10. SLATE 11. CERAM. TILE 12. MARBLE 10. CORR. METAL If------' 11. TILT-UP 12. CONCRETE 13_ BRICK 14. STONE 15. GLASS & MET. 16. TILE 17. NONE 1. WINDOW 2.CH. WATER 3. CENTRAL 4. HEAT PUMP 5. INDIV. HiA 6. NONE 1. WALL FURN. 2. FLOOR FURN. 3. CENTRAL 4. HEAT PUMP 5. STOVE 6. INDIV. H/A 7. SPACE a.STEAM 9. NONE CEMEMTERY Satoe_Wynette Satoe_Wynette CR E E K COU N T Y OKLAHOMA HIGH-SPEED RAIL INITIATIVE TRIBAL PROPERTY ConAsbulleting 0 200 400 800 Feet I- 44 N3730 Rd W 221st St S N3743 Rd Old Hwy 66 W 201st St S N3740 Rd W 2 11th St S 50 51 52 49 53 Legend Tribal Properties HSROK Rail Corridor County Line Section Lines Ponds and Lakes Railroads Intermittent Streams Permanent Streams 1 inch = 400 feet : Il 024-11 024-05 CEMETERY + R SCHUMACHER 045-00 24-13 024-14 J BETHEL 024-10 W SATOE o 051-00 T BORTS 049-00 J SHIRLEY NWiV4 NW 20-16N-09 SATOE + 052-00 F WEBB 024-01 J ONEAL This map is for assessment purposes only and is not intended for preparing legal descriptions or for making conveyances of properties. Copyrighted 1991-2006 by the CREEK COUNTY ASSESSOR-(MIMS MAPPING) PARCEL OWNER ADDR1 ADDR2 CITY STATE ZIP SITUS LEGAL 1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 LEGAL5 LEGAL6 BOOKPAGE USE ACRES ASSD ACRES AG ACRES SECONDARY INTEREST LAND IMPR MOBILE HOMESTEAD DBLE HS TAX SCHOOL FREEZE CAP LATLONG CHANGED UPDATED 0000-20-016-009-0-024-10 8ATOE WYNETTE NON-TAXABLE INDIAN LAND 402 E LOUISIANA ANADARKO OK 730050000 INDIAN LAND 20-16-9 TR IN 8 8W NW BEG AT 8W C NW 889°26'35" E65' TO POB Noo01'52"W489.87' TH S89° E 534.26' TH S23°50'03" E 321.2' TH 426/1778-3 7 6.00 6.120 0.00 0.00100 o o o o o 0.00 02R 0000/00/00 0000/00/00 96.38589W 35.85074N 8/23/2000 9/ 1/2009 5159 PARCEL OWNER ADDR1 ADDR2 CITY STATE ZIP SITUS LEGAL 1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 LEGALS LEGAL6 BOOKPAGE USE ACRES ASSD ACRES AG ACRES SECONDARY INTEREST LAND IMPR MOBILE HOMESTEAD DBLE HS TAX SCHOOL FREEZE CAP LATLONG CHANGED UPDATED 0000-20-016-009-0-024-18 SATOE WYNETTE NON TAXABLE INDIAN LAND 402 E LOUISIANA ANADARKO OK 7300S0000 214TH STREET S W INDIAN LAND 20-16-9 BEG SW COR OF NW NW TH S8 9*20'39"E793.34' NOO*Ol'S S"W331.67' S89*19'11"ES27 SOO*02'S3"E997.19' N 61*10'08"W373.02' S66*09' 7 426/1778-3 19.06 19.337 0.00 0.00100 o o o o o 0.00 02R 0000/00/00 0000/00/00 96.38S00W 3S.8S303N 3/17/2004 9/ 1/2009 03S193 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 APPENDIX C Noise Analysis Report Noise Analysis for High Speed Rail Between Tulsa and Oklahoma City Prepared For: ABLE CONSULTING 13105 East 89th Street North Oswasso, OK 74055 Prepared By: MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES DIVISION OF LANDRUM & BROWN Fred Greve, P.E. 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 949•349•0671 September 11, 2009 Project No. 507601 Mestre Greve Associates Noise Analysis for High-Speed Rail Page 2 Purpose This report presents the results of a preliminary investigation into the potential noise impacts to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of a rail line that would facilitate high-speed train service between Tulsa, Oklahoma and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The purpose of this report is to provide an estimate of the distance from the railroad track to where noise impacts would occur. Noise Criteria Background Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in terms of the “A-weighted decibel,” abbreviated dBA. Sound levels decrease as a function of distance from the source as a result of wave divergence, atmospheric absorption and ground attenuation. As the sound wave form travels away from the source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area, thereby dispersing the sound power of the wave. Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels that are received by the observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant fluctuations. The degree of absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the air. Turbulence and gradients of wind, temperature and humidity also play a significant role in determining the degree of attenuation. Intervening topography can also have a substantial effect on the effective perceived noise levels. Noise Assessment Metrics When discussing noise impacts it is essential that some method is established to quantitatively gauge the magnitude of the noise impact, and for this purpose several rating scales (or metrics) have been developed for the measurement of community noise. These metrics account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. They are designed to account for the known health effects of noise on people described previously. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact Mestre Greve Associates Noise Analysis for High-Speed Rail Page 3 people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of noise scales have been developed to account for this observation. This report is really only concerned with the Leq and Ldn metrics since the noise impact guidelines are expressed in terms of these two metrics. A description of each of these metrics follows. Leq is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period. Leq is the “energy” average noise level during the time period of the sample. Leq can be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for 1 hour. This 1-hour noise level can also be referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL). It is the energy sum of all the events and background noise levels that occur during that time period. Ldn, the day-night scale is a time weighted 24-hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The time-weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. In the Ldn scale, those noise levels that occur during the night (10 pm to 7 am) are penalized by 10 dB. This penalty was selected to attempt to account for increased human sensitivity to noise during the quieter period of a day, where home and sleep is the most probable activity. One consequence of the time weighting is that noise levels measured with the Ldn metric will always have a noise level that is at least as great, if not greater than the Leq metric that is calculated for the same time period. Source of Railroad Generated Noise The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) document “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (HMMH Report No. 293630-4 October 2005) authored by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) identifies train noise as coming from three primary sources. These include the train’s engine(s), the train’s wheels and rails, and the air that rushes past the train while it is in motion. The noise from each of these sources is dependent upon the speed at which the train is traveling, and at any given speed one of these noise sources may be the dominant noise source. The HMMH document partitions the speed range into three distinct regimes. Regime 1 is when the engine is the dominant noise source. This occurs at lower speeds. At greater speeds the wheels and tracks become the dominant noise source. This is referred to as regime 2. At high speeds, the air rushing past the train becomes the dominant noise source. This is regime 3. The aerodynamic noise of air rushing past the train typically does not become appreciable until the train speed exceeds about 160 mph. Since this analysis assumes that the maximum operating speed of the train is 150 mph, aerodynamic noise will not be dominant. Usually the train will be operating in regime 2 and the wheel/rail interaction will be the primary source of noise. Noise that occurs during regime 1 will be during the time when the train is operating at slower speed when it is approaching or departing from a train terminal. Mestre Greve Associates Noise Analysis for High-Speed Rail Page 4 Methodology The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has created a document “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” manual (FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006) that provides guidance in evaluating noise impacts that result from mass transit projects. The document “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (HMMH Report No. 293630-4 October 2005) provide additional information about evaluating noise impacts due to high-speed trains. Both of these documents were referenced to help estimate noise impacts resulting from the proposed project. Included in the FTA manual are noise impact thresholds. These thresholds, which are expressed in terms of the standard noise metrics Ldn and Leq, set the criteria that are used to determine whether or not a mass transit project generates noise impacts. The values of the thresholds are not fixed, but instead depend upon the land use category of the property that will be impacted, as well as the ambient (or pre-existing) noise levels. Noise impacts fall into three distinct severity levels depending upon the size of the impact. Projects will either produce no noise impacts, moderate noise impacts, or severe noise impacts. Noise levels that are below a certain threshold are deemed to be low enough so that no noise impact results from the project. Projects that produce noise levels that are at or above this threshold, but less than or equal to a higher threshold are categorized as producing only moderate noise impacts. Any project that produces a noise level that is greater than the upper threshold is classified as producing severe noise impacts. Table 1 shows the noise thresholds for each land use category, noise impact severity, and ambient noise level. Table 2 gives a brief description of each land use category. Table 1 Noise Impact Thresholds Project Noise Impact Exposure,* Leq(h) or Ldn (dBA) Category 1 or 2 Sites Category 3 Sites Existing Noise Exposure Leq(h) or Ldn (dBA) No Impact Moderate Impact Severe Impact No Impact Moderate Impact Severe Impact <43 < Ambient+10 Ambient + 10 to 15 >Ambient+15 < Ambient+15 Ambient + 15 to 20 >Ambient+20 43 <52 52-58 >58 <57 57-63 >63 44 <52 52-58 >58 <57 57-63 >63 45 <52 52-58 >58 <57 57-63 >63 46 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64 47 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64 48 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64 49 <54 54-59 >59 <59 59-64 >64 50 <54 54-59 >59 <59 59-64 >64 51 <54 54-60 >60 <59 59-65 >65 52 <55 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65 53 <55 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65 54 <55 55-61 >61 <60 60-66 >66 55 <56 56-61 >61 <61 61-66 >66 56 <56 56-62 >62 <61 61-67 >67 Mestre Greve Associates Noise Analysis for High-Speed Rail Page 5 57 <57 57-62 >62 <62 62-67 >67 58 <57 57-62 >62 <62 62-67 >67 59 <58 58-63 >63 <63 63-68 >68 60 <58 58-63 >63 <63 63-68 >68 61 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69 62 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69 63 <60 60-65 >65 <65 65-70 >70 64 <61 61-65 >65 <66 66-70 >70 65 <61 61-66 >66 <66 66-71 >71 66 <62 62-67 >67 <67 67-72 >72 67 <63 63-67 >67 <68 68-72 >72 68 <63 63-68 >68 <68 68-73 >73 69 <64 64-69 >69 <69 69-74 >74 70 <65 65-69 >69 <70 70-74 >74 71 <66 66-70 >70 <71 71-75 >75 72 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76 73 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76 74 <66 66-72 >72 <71 71-77 >77 75 <66 66-73 >73 <71 71-78 >78 76 <66 66-74 >74 <71 71-79 >79 77 <66 66-74 >74 <71 71-79 >79 >77 <66 66-75 >75 <71 71-80 >80 Source: FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006 Table 2 Land Use Category Descriptions Land Use Category Noise Metric (dBA) Description of Land Use Category 1 Outdoor Leq(h)* Tracts 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)* 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 and parks are also included. * Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. Source: FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006 In addition to using the FTA and HMMH manuals to gauge noise impacts, noise levels at given distances from the proposed high-speed rail line had to be estimated. Estimating noise levels was accomplished by using the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) High-Speed Rail noise model. This noise model incorporates noise prediction algorithms that estimate the rail noise levels under varying conditions. The noise model requires Mestre Greve Associates Noise Analysis for High-Speed Rail Page 6 certain information about both the trains that will run along the rail line as well as the local topography that exists adjacent to the rail line. In order to estimate the noise levels around high-speed trains, the high-speed rail noise model requires input concerning the following conditions. Land Use Category: Noise levels need to be reported in the appropriate noise metric as specified by its land use category as specified in Table 1. Residential land use was assumed for the model. Residential uses (Land Use Category 2) is representative of most of the sensitive land uses along the proposed rail line. The noise threshold for Land Use Category 2 (residential) is specified using the Ldn metric. Intervening Building Rows/Topography: This report assumes that there are no buildings, cut sections, or other obstacles interspersed between the railroad tracks and the sensitive receivers. As a result, the estimated noise levels are higher than they would be if there were intervening buildings and topography. This is a worst-case assumption. Train Details: The model requires specific information about the trains that will be running along the tracks including the type of trains (electric, fossil fuels, maglev), the speed of the trains, the length of the cars, the track geometry and number of trains per day. These include: Type: Fossil Fuels Speed: 150 mph Length of Power Car: 66 feet Length of Passenger Car: 43 feet Number of Power Cars: 1 Number of Passenger Cars: 12 Track Geometry: Tracks at grade Number of Trains Per Day: 12 Daytime/Nighttime Schedule: It was assumed that trains would be running with equal probability at any time during the day or night. Therefore, it was assumed that 7.5 trains would run during the daytime period, and 4.5 would run during the night. Ambient Noise Levels: No noise measurements in the vicinity of the project area were taken or consulted when determining noise impacts for this noise report. Since the noise impacts resulting from the project depend u
Object Description
Description
Title | Tier one environmental assessment for north Section of the South Central High Speed Rail Corridor in Oklahomafinal_draft-NEPA |
OkDocs Class# | T1300.3 T564o 2009 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/recovery/hs_rail/pdfs-archive/final_draft-NEPA.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | TIER 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NORTHERN SECTION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SEPTEMBER 2009 TIER ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR NORTH SECTION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR IN OKLAHOMA Located In Oklahoma, Lincoln, Creek and Tulsa Counties, Oklahoma The focus of this document is to provide a Tier 1 Environmental Assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This documentation will focus on broad issues such as purpose and need, general location of alternatives, and avoidance and minimization of potential environmental effects for the North (Oklahoma City/Tulsa) Section for Oklahoma's portion of the South Central High Speed Rail Corridor. Prepared For: Oklahoma Department of Transportation & Federal Railroad Administration Prepared By: Able Consulting 9225 North 133rd East Avenue Owasso, Oklahoma 74055 September 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 I TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION ...................................................................................................... 5 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ...................................................................................... 8 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ......................................................................................................... 9 3.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................................... 10 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED ................................................................ 10 3.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (TURNPIKE CORRIDOR) ................................................................... 11 3.4 URBAN CONNECTIONS ............................................................................................................. 11 3.5 PREFERRED CORRIDOR ...................................................................................................... 12 4.0 SERVICE LEVEL NEPA - TIERED PROCESS .................................................................................. 14 5.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................. 15 5.1 LAND USE ............................................................................................................................... 15 5.2 FARMLAND ............................................................................................................................. 17 5.3 RIGHT OF WAY AND DISPLACEMENTS ............................................................................... 18 5.3.1 ESTIMATED DISPLACEMENTS ................................................................................ 18 5.3.2 ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS ...................................................... 19 5.3.3 TRIBAL LAND ............................................................................................................. 19 5.4 EFFECTS ON PUBLIC PARKS, WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES .......................... 19 5.4.1 PARKS ........................................................................................................................ 20 5.4.2 WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES ................................................................ 20 5.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .................. 21 5.5.1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................... 21 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 II 5.5.2 ECONOMIC PROFILE ................................................................................................ 22 5.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ..................................................................................... 22 5.6 NOISE ..................................................................................................................................... 24 5.7 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................... 25 5.8 VIBRATION .............................................................................................................................. 26 5.9 WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................................... 26 5.9.1 WATER BODIES ........................................................................................................ 27 5.9.2 AQUIFERS .................................................................................................................. 27 5.10 POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS ................................................. 29 5.11 FLOODPLAINS ........................................................................................................................ 29 5.12 THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES AND OTHER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......... 30 5.13 HISTORIC/ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION ................................................................... 32 5.14 HAZARDOUS WASTE INFORMATION ................................................................................... 35 5.15 VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 36 5.16 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 36 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION .............................................................. 36 6.1 SOLICITATION LETTERS ....................................................................................................... 36 6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................................... 37 LIST OF TABLES TABLE E.1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED FOR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA SECTION FOR SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL ........................ 4 TABLE 5.1: LAND USE ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR ............................. 15 TABLE 5.2: PRIME FARMLAND ALONG PROPOSED HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 18 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 III TABLE 5.3: POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 18 TABLE 5.4: PARKS AND REFUGES ................................................................................................ 21 TABLE 5.5: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU DATA - POPULATION CHANGE (2008) ................................ 21 TABLE 5.6: 2008 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU DATA - HOUSING AND INCOME ............................... 22 TABLE 5.7: HSROK CENSUS TRACK SUMMARY DATA ................................................................ 23 TABLE 5.9: NOISE IMPACT DISTANCES ........................................................................................ 24 TABLE 5.10: RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS WITHIN HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 25 TABLE 5.11: RESIDENTIAL HOMES WITHIN 100 FEET OF HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 26 TABLE 5.12: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP DATA ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .............................................................................................. 29 TABLE 5.13: MAPPED FLOODPLAINS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR ...... 30 TABLE 5.14: THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 31 TABLE 5.15: CULTURAL RESOURCES DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR ........................................................................ 32 TABLE 5.16: ISA DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR .................................................................................................................... 35 TABLE6.1: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ........................................................ 38 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1: VISION FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL IN AMERICA BY CONGRESS (2001) ........................ 6 FIGURE 1.2: SOUTH CENTRAL REGION HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR ........................................ 7 FIGURE 3.1: OKLAHOMA CITY / TULSA SECTION OF SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED RAIL LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................................ 13 FIGURE 5.1: OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR LAND USE .......... 15 FIGURE 5.2: MAJOR GROUNDWATER AQUIFERS .......................................................................... 28 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 IV APPENDICES APPENDIX A .............................. ITEMS NORMALLY CONSIDERED DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX B .................................................................................. TRIBAL LAND PROPERTY CARD DATA APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................... NOISE ANALYSIS APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................. VIBRATION ANALYSIS APPENDIX E ......... ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC., DATA ATLAS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX F ............................................................................ SOLICITATION LETTER AND RESPONSES APPENDIX G ............................ PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDEES AND WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 1 PREFACE The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) has initiated a Tier 1 NEPA Environmental Assessment for environmental analysis for a high speed rail initiative from Oklahoma City to Tulsa, approximately 106 miles located in Oklahoma, Lincoln, Creek and Tulsa Counties. This section is part of the South Central Rail Corridor, one of ten national corridors identified by Congress in 2001. If this Tier 1 document is approved, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued by the Federal Railroad Administration, the project may advance to Tier 2. A Tier 2 NEPA document(s) would address site specific project impacts, costs, mitigation measures and alignment adjustments. Solicitation letters regarding this action were submitted to a variety of public and private agencies to provide input. Two public meetings were held on September 14 and 15, 2009, in Oklahoma City and Tulsa to discuss the initial proposals. Environmental data on existing conditions and potential impacts has been gathered and is presented in this report. The proposed improvements are based on the recommendations found in the report entitled “Oklahoma High-Speed Rail Initiative: Oklahoma City to Tulsa High Speed Rail Corridor Study”, completed in 2002. To forward Oklahoma Rail initiatives, other reports and studies have also been conducted over the past 10 years. Establishing connections to the national passenger rail system in Oklahoma’s two major economic centers, Tulsa and Oklahoma City has been a continued focus and goal. The history of Oklahoma Rail finds Oklahoma continuing to focus on conquering operating challenges that are similar in nature to those originally overcome by the builders of the original rail infrastructure in Oklahoma. Passenger or freight operations from Tulsa have always been subject to influence through eastern and northern connections, while Oklahoma City is subject to influence through southern and western connections. The challenges of providing freight and passenger rail service between Oklahoma’s two major economic centers since the completion of the Turner Turnpike have been insurmountable when the efficiency of currently available modes is evaluated. AMTRAK STUDY Amtrak conducted a study at the request of the ODOT Rail Programs Division that was completed in February 1999 and ultimately led to the reestablishment of passenger rail service in Oklahoma after a 20 year absence. The result of this study was the start of Oklahoma's Heartland Flyer Service from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth, Texas. Service to Tulsa was evaluated under each Tier Three scenario with a stub connection to the Perry, Oklahoma, route or a through connection via the Sapulpa, Oklahoma, route. Each scenario took into consideration the potential for enhanced national service with a connection between Kansas City and Fort Worth in addition to the potential service that could be provided to the Oklahoma communities along the route. The report provided an analysis of the total travel demand for each corridor, simulated passenger train travel times and ridership forecasts for each of the routes to help establish the potential cost. OKLAHOMA PASSENGER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY After the Amtrak Study prompted the initiation of Oklahoma’s Heartland Flyer Service, on June 14, 1999, ODOT went to work on evaluating potential connections for the Tulsa region as well as service expansion opportunities to other regions of the State. The Passenger Rail Feasibility Study was conducted through the ODOT Rail Programs Division assessing the feasibility of passenger rail ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 2 service and establishing an efficient phased implementation plan for providing expanded passenger rail service in Oklahoma. The Final Report was issued in March 2001 at the conclusion of the technical analysis evaluating passenger rail service throughout several corridors in Oklahoma and options for extending those services to surrounding states to establish another national passenger rail system connection. The Revised Final Report dated January 2002 reflects revisions made based on comments received from ODOT staff and during presentations to the Oklahoma State Senate on May 9, 2001, and to the City of Tulsa/INCOG on June 28, 2001. The findings of the initial ODOT Passenger Rail Feasibility Report indicated that expanded passenger rail services would benefit both residents of Oklahoma and passengers traveling on the national passenger rail system. Short-term initiation of passenger rail service and longer-term service expansion and rail capital investments in the State of Oklahoma would be necessary to connect the State passenger rail system with the national passenger rail network with a sustainable system providing additional mobility, potential for economic growth, and long-term air quality benefits to the citizens of Oklahoma. The results of the Passenger Rail Feasibility Study underscored the importance of a solid passenger rail connection between Oklahoma’s largest economic centers to facilitate the ridership and the connectivity necessary to develop sustainable passenger rail service through State of Oklahoma that connected to the remainder of the region. A significant accomplishment of the original Passenger Rail Feasibility Study was the completion of a successful application for designation by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) as a high speed rail corridor from Ft. Worth to Tulsa. This designation increased the potential for the availability of Federal funding to further develop and enhance rail service to Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Establishing and developing rail service between Tulsa and Oklahoma City would foster the development of an additional connection to the national passenger rail system east of Oklahoma. Kansas City, Missouri, appears to be the most feasible connection to Tulsa and could potentially be implemented on existing railroad routes with only standard improvements for conventional service that could ultimately become competitive with automobile travel times. St. Louis, Missouri, is another possible connection point evaluated and was noted as more appealing to the State of Missouri. However, a connection from Tulsa to St. Louis was found to require extensive capital improvements and corresponding investment for the implementation of sustainable service. The success of any eastern connection by rail from Tulsa was determined to be highly dependent on the development of an acceptable travel time and connection between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The focus of this document is to provide a Tier 1 Environmental Assessment – in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in compliance with the NEPA regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500-1508), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (23 CFR 771) , and the FRA Procedures found in 64 Federal Register 28545. This Environmental Assessment also complies with the U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.1C and the guidance provided in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A. No construction related activities will be authorized as a result of the Tier 1 decision. As part of the South Central Rail Corridor – one of ten national corridors identified by Congress in 2001 – the proposed Oklahoma City to Tulsa section of the South Central Rail will expand over 106 miles and cover four counties in Oklahoma (Oklahoma, Lincoln, Creek and Tulsa). It will begin in Oklahoma City, at the Santa Fe Station, proceeding via the abandoned Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad right-of-way extending from the western edge of Harter Yard north to the terminus of the Turner Turnpike (I-44) approximately 12 miles. The rail line will then travel parallel to the Turner Turnpike on new alignment to the north approximately 75 miles. Near Sapulpa, the rail line will cross I-44 and connect to the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) track for the remaining 19 mile route into Tulsa to Union Station on existing alignment. For this study, a 280 foot corridor is being used to gather data on the north side of the I-44. Existing rail alignments are being used for the urban areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, with only limited amounts of right-of- way required from the Oklahoma City rail line. No new right-of-way is expected from the Tulsa section using the BNSF track. A summary of impacts identified for the Oklahoma City to Tulsa section of the South Central Rail Corridor are listed in Table E.1, next page. The 106 mile corridor has been segmented by county to facilitate the review and assessment of possible environmental impacts. As anticipated, potential impacts to various environmental conditions (such as wetlands, residential and commercial relocations, noise impacts, and cultural resources) were identified. It is believed, however, that mitigation and avoidance options exist to obtain federal environmental clearance, and these will be further identified and refined in the Tier 2 environmental process. One potential Section 4(f) property was identified as the Lincoln Park East Golf Course in Oklahoma City. Consultation with the City of Oklahoma City, FRA and the DOT will be necessary during the Tier 2 process to determine whether or not the proposed action will constitute a use of a 4(f) resource. It is also noted that the proposed corridor alignment currently impacts the Creek County fairgrounds, Creek County. Shifting the alignment to the south would enable the avoidance of the fairgrounds. Public involvement was undertaken to assist in the environmental process and inform the public about the Departments intention to construct a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail in the State of Oklahoma. Two public meetings were held, one in Oklahoma City and one in Tulsa, on September 14, 2009, and September 15, 2009, respectively. The objective of the meetings was to discuss initial proposals and collect public comment. Additionally, solicitation letters were also sent to a variety of public and private agencies to solicit comment. The following sections of this report provide detailed description of the purpose and need for the project as well as alternatives considered and indentified impacts of the proposed alignment. Additional information, such as noted public comments and noise and vibrations studies, have been appended to this report. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 4 TABLE E.1: SUMMARY OF CORRIDOR LEVEL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED FOR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA SECTION FOR SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SOCIAL , ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS UNITS TOTAL COUNTY OKLAHOMA LINCOLN CREEK TULSA Prime Farmland Acres 905 195 193 507 10 Estimated Residential Relocations Units 41 19 7 15 0 Estimated Commercial Relocations Units 27 8 12 7 0 Tribal Lands Crossed Units 3 0 1 2 0 Public Parks/Fairgrounds Units 3 2 0 1 0 Wildlife Refuges Units 0 0 0 0 0 Population Density Persons /sq.mil 931.5 33.5 70.5 988.2 Noise Impacts Severe (142 feet) / Moderate (142 to 356 feet) Units 46 /391 22 / 205 7 / 0 17 / 142 0 / 44 Vibration Impacts (100 feet each side of line) Units 58 39 6 13 0 Stream Crossings Units 152 34 58 56 4 Aquifers Crossed Units 2 Garber- Wellington Vamoosa-Ada Vamoosa-Ada Garber- Wellington Potential Wetlands Acres 46 5 19 22 0 Floodplains Units 41 17 not available 22 2 T&E Species (by county listing) Units 4 Whooping crane, interior least tern Whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover piping plover, interior least tern, American burying beetle piping plover, interior least tern, American burying beetle Known NHRP Historic Properties Eligible Bridges Units 3 0 0 2 1 Known NHRP Historic Properties Buildings/Historic Districts/Route-66 Units 5 / 5 / 5 5 / 3/ 0 0 0 / 0 / 4 0 / 2 / 1 Potential Historic Structures (Pre-1964 Structures to be Evaluated) Units 95 0 7 80 8 Recorded Archeological Sites Units 2 0 1 1 0 Potential Hazardous Waste Sites Units 11 5 1 2 3 Underground Storage Tanks Units 8 4 2 0 2 Oil/Gas Wells Units 15 6 7 2 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION The focus of this document is to provide a Tier 1 Environmental Assessment – in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in compliance with the NEPA regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500-1508) and by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (23 CFR 771), and FRA Procedures found in 64 Federal Register 28545. This Draft Environmental Assessment also complies with the U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.1C and the guidance provided in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A. No construction related activities will be authorized as a result of the Tier 1 decision. If Tier 1 is approved, the project may advance to Tier 2. A Tier 2 NEPA document(s) would address site specific project impacts, costs, mitigation measures and alignment adjustments. The corridor could be broken into segment/projects each having logical end points and independent utility for detailed study, mitigation/avoidance and federal approval. The vision for high speed rail in America is an initiative brought forth by Congress in 2001 (Figure 1.1). Oklahoma was designated and included in this rail system through the South Central Region. Figure 1.2, page 7, shows the connection of Texas and Oklahoma and connects the Cities of San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas; Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Texarkana and Little Rock, Arkansas. This document focuses on the high speed corridor route from Oklahoma City to Tulsa, Oklahoma. This document will identify the location of a feasible rail alignment to connect passenger rail service between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, the majority of which is on a new alignment. The remaining designated high speed corridor route in Oklahoma from Oklahoma City south to the Texas State line is currently an active passenger route used by the Heartland Flyer. Proposed improvements to the existing rail line will all be within existing alignments and are addressed in existing Categorical Exclusions that are either in place or will be prepared to address any improvement planned in the Oklahoma City south to Texas State line section, by October 23, 2009. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 6 FIGURE 1.1: VISION FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL IN AMERICA BY CONGRESS (2001) ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 7 FIGURE 1.2: SOUTH CENTRAL REGION HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 8 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT Initiatives discussed by Oklahoma and surrounding states over the course of the last three decades focused on the reimplementation of through passenger rail service and have included the evaluation of several routes throughout the South Central Region. The initial efforts were directed toward Oklahoma City and Tulsa initially because of the increasing awareness that an adequate ridership base would be required to establish a sustainable service that could be expanded into other areas of the State. Present day rail operations and the alignments of the major routes around the State’s two largest metropolitan areas were a major factor in the selection of the Oklahoma City to Fort Worth for Oklahoma’s first modern area passenger rail service. While the establishment of an initial service providing national rail network connectivity was considered a major accomplishment, the intent of the program has always been focused on reestablishing through service for both Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Tulsa lies on one of the original rail alignments placed in the State of Oklahoma. The older alignments were placed utilizing the terrain of “least resistance” where the terrain dictated the placement of the track to meet the grade restrictions associated with rail planning, design and construction. Consequently, the geometrics of the alignments around the Tulsa region present much more of a challenge when attempting to establish modern day travel times that are competitive with modern day interstate highways and especially a turnpike whose speed limits are presently set at 75 mph. The initial studies pointed to the conclusion that establishing a “foothold” for rail service in Oklahoma would be much easier and more cost effective in the Oklahoma City market. Extensive additional studies were conducted to evaluate and establish the most efficient manner in which to establish similar service in the Tulsa market. The higher costs associated with upgrading the alignments between Tulsa and Oklahoma City and from east of Afton, Oklahoma, to Springfield, Missouri, and ultimately St. Louis, indicate that the easiest and most economical national rail connection for Tulsa would be from Kansas City via eastern Kansas. The need for a national through connection is a key component for establishing sustainable rail service throughout the State of Oklahoma and provided an opportunity for the ODOT Rail Programs Division to successfully apply and receive a portion of very limited federal funding designated to help identify high speed rail corridor routes. All of the information previously compiled, has placed the State of Oklahoma in a position establish competitive High Speed rail service between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. The purpose for this project is to provide a faster, more efficient transportation option between the Cities of Tulsa and Oklahoma City. There is an initiative from the current (2009) administration in Washington to improve energy conservation and consumption in the United States and high speed passenger rail is proven to be more energy efficient than the current "highway only" mode of transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 9 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A growing interest in intercity rail passenger service, increasing roadway congestion, and increasing interest in high speed rail transportation as well as proposed funding mechanisms throughout the United States led to the development of the original Passenger Rail Feasibility Study for the State of Oklahoma. Included in the Passenger Rail Feasibility Study was an evaluation of the existing routes between “Oklahoma City and Tulsa”. The extensive evaluation of various alternatives to connect Oklahoma City to Tulsa resulted in the realization that the existing travel time on the Turner Turnpike (I-44) would dictate the type of service necessary to provide a sustainable service. The corresponding successful application designating the Fort Worth to Tulsa route as a high-speed corridor was the precursor for Senate Joint Resolution 12 to evaluate the feasibility and establish associated costs for high-speed rail operations up to 150 miles per hour (mph) but not less than 125 mph between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The Oklahoma City to Tulsa segment has been identified as an extremely important component of sustainable High-Speed passenger rail service for the South Central High Speed Rail Corridors because of the potential for through service to Kansas City or St. Louis. A connection to either of those destinations would facilitate a link between the South Central High-Speed corridors and the Chicago Hub Network (formerly referred to as the Midwest Regional Rail System). The State of Kansas conducted a parallel passenger rail study during the completion of the original Oklahoma Amtrak study, the results of which indicated that the Tulsa to Kansas City route had the second highest potential for successful high-speed rail operations in the State of Kansas just behind a proposed high-speed connection between Wichita and Kansas City. The establishment of competitive rail service between Oklahoma City and Tulsa has been determined to be critical for the development of high speed passenger and passenger rail service in the State of Oklahoma as well as the surrounding region. One significant challenge for the development of the Oklahoma City to Tulsa corridor is to develop a service that would be competitive with existing automobile travel times on I-44. Operations that compete with existing travel time via automobile on the segment between Oklahoma City and Tulsa will require speeds in excess of 90 mph. The present automobile travel time from Oklahoma City to Tulsa via I-44 is approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes from city center to city center under favorable conditions. Preliminary travel time forecasts for high speed rail indicate that high speed rail service could be established that would facilitate a travel time of just over an hour between the two largest central business districts in the State of Oklahoma. This type of service would provide the connectivity needed to establish sustainable through rail service from Tulsa to the north or east as well as provide more opportunity for daily employment or other travel commuting between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The findings of the original studies prompted and helped justify additional federal funds in 2002 to further evaluate the proposed Oklahoma City to Tulsa high speed route. The “fly mapping” funding received from Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in 2002 was a component of the only funding mechanism established in the United States specifically for the development of high speed rail operations and a precursor to present day high-speed development opportunities. The fly mapping information collected on the corridor alternatives established between Oklahoma City and Tulsa provided the survey information necessary for the final design of the corridor. That event further positioned the State of Oklahoma to compete for funding at a ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 10 national level and efficiently establish true high speed operations between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. 3.1 No Build Alternative The "do nothing" or No Build alternative for this project has been considered. Continued use of the I-44 (Turner Turnpike) corridor and the use of the automobile would continue for intercity traffic as well as state to state traffic. This would result in continued dependence on the automobile and continued energy use of fossil fuels. The vision for high speed rail in America has been to relieve congestion on our nation's roads and improve energy conservation. As traffic volumes continue to grow, congestion levels will increase, further increasing travel times on the existing transportation system between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. The No Build alternative does not address the purpose and need for this project. 3.2 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed The existing ODOT owned route on the Sooner Subdivision through Sapulpa was evaluated for the feasibility of passenger rail operations by Amtrak in 1996 and 1999 as well as re-evaluated in the original ODOT Passenger Rail Study. The existing track infrastructure would require a significant amount of realignment and upgrade in order to facilitate any type of rail service that would be competitive with present automobile travel times on I-44. This route is also utilized for freight operations by the Stillwater Central Railroad Company and preliminary investigations have been conducted to investigate the potential for mutual benefit between passenger and freight operations on the route. Passenger rail operations on the existing track infrastructure under mixed track utilization resulted in operating service projections that would be inhibited and inhibit freight operations as well. Extensive track infrastructure upgrades would be required to become more competitive with existing automobile travel times in additional to those necessary to co-exist with present and future freight operations. The proposed rail connection between Oklahoma City and Tulsa was developed initially using two primary corridors with various alternative options on either end of the core corridors for the final connections to the Santa Fe Station located in the Bricktown Area of downtown Oklahoma City and to Union Station in downtown Tulsa. The number of core corridors potentially available for consideration as alternative routes were limited by the stringent operating requirements necessary to compete with the existing I-44. The average length of the corridors evaluated range between 105 and 111 miles depending on the core route and the end connection alternatives selected. All of the corridors proposed would facilitate an overall travel time of less than 75 minutes when operated at 125 mph and just over an hour when operated at 150 mph. The core corridors development for the placement of a high speed route between Oklahoma City and Tulsa included a totally new alignment designated as the Southern Corridor and an alignment that centers on utilizing the existing “transportation corridor” adjacent to the I-44 alignment, designated as the Turnpike Corridor. The Southern Corridor was deemed much more intrusive to private landowners and the overall way of life in the central region of Oklahoma between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The right-of-way acquisition and associated damages are estimated to be substantially higher for the Southern ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 11 Corridor. The proposed Southern Corridor was selected to avoid as many grade issues as possible, and consequently traverses several prime wildlife areas and hobby farm development areas with a substantially higher percentage of wetland issues. Again, the requirement for the system to be competitive with current automobile travel on I-44 limited the number of feasible options available for alternate “core” alignments. The overall length and associated travel time of the Southern Corridor would be slightly longer and the overall estimated costs of the proposed corridor combinations for high speed service between Oklahoma City and Tulsa were roughly one-third more costly than the Turnpike Corridor. While the Department would have an advantage by using a rail line it already owns (Southern Corridor), the alignment goes through several town and was deemed much more intrusive to private landowners. The overall reason the Southern Corridor was rejected was due to slower travel times and overall estimated costs of improving the track line to handle high speeds. 3.3 Build Alternative (Turnpike Corridor) The two core corridors evaluated for high speed operations between Oklahoma City and Tulsa each had individual benefits and obstacles that required consideration during the public involvement process. All of the estimates formulated for the various options associated with each of the two core corridors have been based on the best FRA and DOT design information presently available. The Turnpike Corridor provides the primary benefit of not disturbing an entirely new corridor for the construction of high speed rail infrastructure between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, which resulted in lower estimated total project costs and an estimated reduction in the amount of time and effort necessary to acquire the needed right-of-way. The concept of utilizing right-of-way adjacent to the present I-44 alignment provided an opportunity to minimize the amount of visual, noise, and aesthetic impacts associated with the construction of the proposed infrastructure as well. The proposed Turnpike Corridor is slightly shorter than the proposed Southern Corridor resulting in travel times anticipated to be one hour or less. The acquisition of right-of-way has been identified as a major factor impacting the corridor selection process and the certainty of the time that will be necessary to complete the improvements. Less resistance has been anticipated from fewer landowners who already have a transportation infrastructure disruption near their property. 3.4 Urban Connections The availability of right-of-way in both urban areas provided similar results in the selection of the urban alignments based on anticipated cost and the amount of effort necessary to construct and maintain the least intrusive high-speed rail possible. The Urban Connections in Tulsa and Oklahoma City are to connect the downtown depots of the cities with the true high speed rail segment alternative (150 mph) that is selected. Tulsa section: There are several options to connect the alternative alignments to downtown Tulsa. The existing segment of Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) track south of Sapulpa proposed for the eastern connection of the Southern Corridor in one of the connection alternatives evaluated for Tulsa is presently a high volume coal route. Passenger train movements on this route would most likely raise capacity issues on the existing trackage. Consequently, the cost estimate for improvements associated with that proposed alternative connection include provisions for the construction of additional parallel track to the BNSF ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 12 connection in Sapulpa. One alternative associated with each core corridor connects to an existing ODOT line west of Sapulpa. The cost estimates for the alternatives utilizing segments of the ODOT line include provisions to upgrade the existing track to the desired operating speeds as well as upgrade existing at-grade crossing locations. The proposed routing from Sapulpa to downtown Tulsa would utilize the same segment of BNSF track for all of the alternatives from either the core Southern or Turnpike Corridors with the exception of one Turnpike Corridor alternative where the connection was routed through northeast Sapulpa then connecting with the existing BNSF route north of Sapulpa. All of the proposed Tulsa connections would require the installation of a bypass track around the BNSF Cherokee Yard to avoid capacity issues and maintain good operating speeds through the yard which would provide access to a river crossing ultimately facilitating the desired Tulsa Central Business District connection. Oklahoma City section: The Oklahoma City alternative best suited for high speed rail was an abandoned rail line that runs from downtown Oklahoma City north, past the turnpike. These connections will be evaluated in more detail in the Tier 2 project level NEPA analysis. 3.5 Preferred Corridor The preferred corridor selection was based on numerous factors but the major factor to overcome in Oklahoma for high speed passenger rail from Oklahoma City to Tulsa was to be competitive with the Turner Turnpike (I-44). In order to be competitive, the train has to be able to reach higher (90-150 mph) speeds to reduce travel time. High speed rail between these cities has to develop a service that would be faster or highly competitive with existing automobile travel times (approximately 1hour and 45 minutes) on the Turner Turnpike. All of the corridors proposed would facilitate an overall travel time of less than 75 minutes when operated at 125 mph and just over an hour when operated at 150 mph. The Turnpike Corridor provides the primary benefit of being located adjacent to an existing transportation corridor, which resulted in lower estimated total project costs and faster travel times because the route is shorter. Due to previous studies and the summary provided above, the Turnpike Alignment has been selected as the preferred alignment and is described below. Begin in Oklahoma City, at the Santa Fe Station in the Bricktown area, and then use the abandoned Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad right-of-way extending from the western edge of Harter Yard north to the terminus of I-44, which is approximately 12 miles. The rail line will then proceed parallel to I-44 on new alignment to the north approximately 75 miles. Near Sapulpa, the rail line will cross I-44 on new alignment and connect to the existing BNSF track for the remaining 19 mile route into Tulsa to Union Station on existing alignment. For this study, a 280 foot corridor is being used to gather data on the north side of I-44. Existing rail alignments are being used for the urban areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, with only limited amounts of right-of-way required from the Oklahoma City rail line. No new right-of-way is expected from the Tulsa section using the BNSF track. Refer to Figure 3.1 for an illustration of the proposed alignment. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 13 FIGURE 3.1: OKLAHOMA CITY / TULSA SECTION OF SOUTH CENTRAL HIGH SPEED RAIL LOCATION MAP ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 14 4.0 SERVICE LEVEL NEPA - TIERED PROCESS Tiered documents are for making broad program decisions for large expanse corridors where projects: 1) are too big to be addressed in detail in one document; 2) are phased over time; 3) where future phases are not fully defined; or 4) when major routing or service alternatives need to be evaluated. This Tier 1 Environmental Assessment falls into the category of being too big to fully address the potential impacts with the limited time frame available. Also projects within this corridor may be phased in over time depending on funding and priority. For this high speed rail corridor from Oklahoma City to Tulsa covering over 106 miles and four counties, a preferred alignment has been selected and introduced to the public. The previous studies and interest in high speed rail in Oklahoma has prepared the State for this mode of travel. A plan for implementing project improvements has also been developed. If a Finding of No Significant Impact is forthcoming for the Tier 1 Corridor Evaluation, then projects with independent utility with narrower scope and magnitude will be evaluated for Tier 2 Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, whichever is appropriate. The narrower projects envisioned at this time for future Tier 2 environmental analysis include main line rail improvements on existing rail alignment from Santa Fe Station in Oklahoma City North to the Edmond Park and Ride Lot (also known as the Santa Fe Station HSR connector), which includes the UPRR Harter Yard Bypass, then connecting to new alignment along the Turner Turnpike, then continuing on to downtown Tulsa, known as the BNSF Subdivision, Madill Subdivision and Cherokee Yard Improvements. These improvements would be considered one project for detailed project level environmental analyses, identifying impacts, and mitigation measures to be included in the project. This project segment is anticipated to be an Environmental Assessment with sufficient avoidance, mitigation and best management practices to existing environmental conditions to obtain a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Other projects are also envisioned to be evaluated as Tier 2 Environmental Review, with independent utility. These projects are anticipated to be reviewed as Categorical Exclusions due to their limited scope and little to no new right-of-way requirements. These include the following projects: • Oklahoma City Station Platform and Facility • Oklahoma City HSR Refueling and Layover Facility • Edmond Park and Ride Lot Facility • Stroud Maintenance Facility • Sapulpa Park and Ride Facility • Tulsa Layover Facility • Tulsa Depot Rehabilitation ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 15 5.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Appendix A lists social, economic, and environmental factors normally considered during project development. Only the resources with the potential to be impacted by the Oklahoma City to Tulsa rail corridor are discussed in this Section. Initially, several alternatives were considered and were rejected due to engineering requirements. Those alternatives and the reasons for their elimination can be found in Section 3.0 Alternatives. This study on the social, economic and environmental impacts will focus on the alignment identified as preferred in Section 3.0. Figure 3.1 provides a location map of the Oklahoma City to Tulsa section of the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR). The rail-line will start in Oklahoma City, at the Santa Fe Station in the Bricktown area, and then use the abandoned Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad right-of-way extending from the western edge of Harter Yard north to the terminus of I-44 approximately 12 miles. The rail line will then proceed parallel to I-44 on new alignment to the north approximately 75 miles. Near Sapulpa, the rail line will cross I-44 on new alignment and connect to the existing BNSF track for the remaining 19 mile route into Tulsa to Union Station on existing alignment. For this study, a 280 foot corridor is being used to gather data on the north side of the I-44. Existing rail alignments are being used for the urban areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, with only limited amounts of right-of-way required from the Oklahoma City rail line. No new right-of-way is expected from the Tulsa section using the BNSF track. 5.1 Land Use Land use surrounding the HSIPR from Oklahoma City to Tulsa located in Oklahoma, Lincoln, Creek and Tulsa counties contains two main land uses – developed and rural. Developed land uses include residential, commercial, industrial and open space at varying rates of intensity. Urban areas with developed land have zoning and/or land use plans in place, and many of these areas are fully established. The rural areas contain forest, grassland, pasture, cultivated crop land and open water. Table 5.1 provides the number of acres impacted by the Oklahoma City to Tulsa corridor. Figure 5.1 provides a map of the land use for this rail corridor. TABLE 5.1: LAND USE ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR Land Use Type Total Acres For Corridor Oklahoma County Acres Within Corridor Lincoln County Acres Within Corridor Creek County Acres Within Corridor Tulsa County Acres Within Corridor Open Water 13.5 2.59 3.18 5.05 2.70 Developed, Open Space 546.3 128.91 214.57 186.94 15.83 Developed, Low Intensity 87.0 28.34 5.68 28.36 24.57 Developed, Medium Intensity 65.4 24.01 4.40 20.96 16.02 Developed, High Intensity 64.2 12.66 1.46 13.84 36.23 Deciduous Forest 1,183.5 271.74 330.51 581.19 0.02 Evergreen Forest 2.3 0.00 2.26 0.00 0.00 Grassland/Herbaceous 883.8 203.34 404.14 271.91 4.41 Pasture/Hay 198.7 18.86 65.03 105.62 0.20 Cultivated Crops 24.0 0.02 17.47 6.46 0.00 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 16 FIGURE 5.1: OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 17 Approximately 3,060 acres comprise the 280-feet rail corridor from Oklahoma City to Tulsa. Of that sum, approximately 762 acres (25%) are located within developed areas and 2,283 acres (75%) are located in undeveloped land use areas. In Tulsa, additional right-of-way is not expected as an existing rail line is being used for the alignment, although for planning purposes a 100 foot wide area for resources was assumed. For the remainder of the corridor, additional right-of-way is expected to be necessary. As anticipated, the land use for the rail corridor located in Oklahoma City is predominately developed, near the Santa Fe Station and heading north. As the alignment heads north to I-44, the intensity of development decreases and forest and grassland are encountered. Similarly, the land use as the corridor approaches Sapulpa and Tulsa become more intense. The land use within the Tulsa area is predominately developed with some smaller undeveloped land areas. The land use for the corridor parallel to the I-44 roadway is mixed with predominantly undeveloped use of forest, pasture and crop land. These areas are mainly used for grassing, cattle production, hay or forest harvesting. As cities such as Chandler, Stroud and Bristow, Oklahoma, are encountered, the land use intensifies with residential, industrial and business areas. Scattered rural homes are located along the undeveloped area between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The land for the corridor north of I-44 is generally undeveloped, with an increasing population growth and development noted south of existing I-44. Because I-44 is a fully controlled access facility, its crossings are limited to section line roads and State Highways, thus restricting growth patterns. The project will be using existing railroad alignments in the urban areas of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and therefore, land use patterns would remain the same. The new right-of-way required between Tulsa and Oklahoma City will follow the I-44 corridor and current land use patterns are not expected to change. In other words, construction of the rail corridor is not expected to increase the development potential for any lands adjacent to the HSIPR Oklahoma City/Tulsa Line; thus, current land use patterns are expected to remain unaffected. 5.2 Farmland The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires federal agencies to consider a project's impacts to farmland and consider steps to minimize the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to other uses. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) data on Prime and Unique Farmland in each county has been analyzed to determine potential impacts that would result from the HSIPR Oklahoma City/Tulsa Line. Prime and Unique Farmland classification is based on soil types, slopes, and current land uses. Table 5.2 provides the total acreage of Prime Farmland per County and the acreage of Prime Farmland expected to be impacted by the proposed rail line. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 18 TABLE 5.2: PRIME FARMLAND ALONG PROPOSED HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County Total Acres Per County Total Acres Prime Farmland Per County Corridor Acres Prime Farmland Oklahoma 459,507 156,600 195 (0.13%) Lincoln 617,649 147,880 193 (0.13%) Creek 620,421 270,816 507 (0.19%) Tulsa 375,582 158,564 10 (0.006%) TOTAL 2,073,158 733,860 905.47 (0.123%) In accordance with the current 7 CFR Part 658 - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Parts I and III of Form AD-1006 will be completed for each project segment and sent to Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) for new alignments. The NRCS has 45 days to respond. For the entire rail corridor, approximately 905 acres or 0.123 percent of the acres are considered prime farmland. In the four counties an average of 34.08% of the land is considered prime farmland and the corridor is estimated to impact 0.123% of prime farmlands. While the project would impact prime farmland, paralleling the existing I-44 corridor will minimize impacts. In the urban areas of Tulsa of Oklahoma City, impacts are reduced further by utilizing existing rail lines. 5.3 Right of Way and Displacements 5.3.1 Estimated Displacements For this corridor study, relocations were determined utilizing 2008 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Digital Orthophoto Mosaic graphics. Based on this preliminary evaluation, it was estimated that up to 41 residential structures and 27 commercial structures would potentially require acquisition within the 106 mile corridor. These figures are expected to decrease as detailed plans of the rail line are developed and the corridor width is reduced within the study area. Table 5.3 provides these estimated displacements separated by County. The estimated displacements in Oklahoma County are likely to decrease once plans are available to better estimate right-of-way requirements. TABLE 5.3: POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County Residential Commercial Oklahoma 19 8 Lincoln 7 12 Creek 15 7 Tulsa 0 0 TOTAL 41 27 Relocation resources are available to all residential and business relocates without discrimination. Right-of-way acquisition would be in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970, as amended. ODOT's Relocation Assistance Program provides financial assistance for relocation expense and advisory assistance ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 19 in relocation resources available within the area. A relocation plan will be developed if required for each project during the Tire 2 environmental analysis. 5.3.2 Estimated Right-of-Way Requirements A summary of the anticipated right-of-way requirements for the rail corridor is provided below broken into three rail line segments. A. Oklahoma City - Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad Section The abandoned Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad right-of-way extending from Santa Fe Station in Bricktown, Oklahoma City, north to near the western terminus of I-44 is approximately 12 miles in length and is approximately 50 feet in width. The majority of this alignment remains in place, however, development in the Lincoln Park and Remington Park areas are of concern. A corridor width of 100 feet was evaluated for data collection purposes. The ownership of the rail alignment is in both private and public ownership. B. North of I-44 Section The majority of the new right-of-way expected will be from this section. As proposed this section will parallel I-44 to the north with a corridor width of 280 feet for approximately 75 miles. Near Stroud and Sapulpa, the line shifts further north to avoid structures and the transportation network of I-44, thereby requiring additional right-of-way. C. Tulsa - BNSF Railroad Section No new right-of-way is expected in this area as the active rail line of the BNSF will be utilized for approximately 19 miles. For data collection purposes 100 foot area was evaluated. 5.3.3 Tribal Land Property card data was obtained for Oklahoma, Creek and Lincoln counties to determine if any of the anticipated new right-of-way was located on tribal land. Since no new right-of-way is expected in Tulsa County, no data was obtained. Three tribal land properties were determined to be within the corridor. The parcel maps and property card data is located in Appendix B. One parcel is owned by the Sac and Fox Tribal Nation in Lincoln County and the other two properties are owned by the Satoe-Wynette Tribal Nation in Creek County. As the project segments are developed, these tribal lands will be avoided if possible. 5.4 Effects on Public Parks, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department were contacted via E-mail and requested to provide information on any known public parks and wildlife and waterfowl refuges that may be ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 20 located within the corridor. Also, maps and graphics were evaluated for known parks. Table 5.4 provides a listing of the parks and refuges within or near the rail corridor. 5.4.1 Parks Ten properties were identified during the data search at or near the rail corridor that may be Section 4(f) eligible. In Oklahoma City, four golf courses and three parks were identified. Two golf courses and the Creek County Fairgrounds were identified in Creek County, while no parks were found in Lincoln or Tulsa Counties at or near the rail corridor. The abandoned rail line goes through the Lincoln Park East Golf Course operated by the City of Oklahoma City. Consultation with Oklahoma City, FRA and the DOT will need to take place in the respective Tier 2 environmental document, and once further plans are developed regarding the Lincoln Park East Golf Course. This property could be afforded protection under Section 4(f) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968, which specified that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl area of national, state or local significance or any land from a historic site of national, state or local significance may be used for Federal Aid projects only if there is no feasible and prudent alternate to the use of such land, and such projects include all possible planning to minimize harm to the 4(f) land resulting from such use. Additional mitigation measures would be required to satisfy the provisions of Section 6(f) which are areas that have used Land and Water Conservation Funds (federal funds) in its development. In Oklahoma City, Washington Park is located to the north of the abandoned railroad near N.E. 4th Street and borders the corridor. At this time, it is probable that no new right-of-way will be needed at Washington Park and any impacts avoided. The Creek County Fairgrounds has been identified as Section 4(f) eligible and measures to avoid this property will be evaluated in the Tier 2 environmental analysis. Several local attractions exist at or near the rail corridor, most of which are privately owned and operated where Section 4(f) protection does not apply, such as Remington Park Racetrack, Railroad Museum, and ASA Hall of Fame Stadium which are all located in Oklahoma City. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) issues will require further investigation during project level Tier 2 analysis including consultation with property owners to determine eligibility and proper action. The final decision on applicability of Section 4(f) to this golf course is made by FRA. In reaching this decision, however, consultation with the City of Oklahoma City will be needed to identify the activities or functions that take place and to determine ownership of the rail rights-of- way in the area. This action, as well as development of avoidance alternatives, if appropriate, can take place during the respective Tier 2 document process. 5.4.2 Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation noted that no ownership or refuges along the corridor route were seen. The data gathering effort did not identify any refuges within the corridor. Refer to Table 5.4 for a listing of Parks and Refuges in the project area. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 21 TABLE 5.4: PARKS AND REFUGES County Parks Refuges Oklahoma - 7 River Oaks Golf Club (1,300 feet from Corridor boundary) Lincoln Park West Golf Course (210 feet from Corridor boundary) Lincoln Park East Golf Course (Corridor runs thru this facility) Creston Hills Park (200 feet from Corridor boundary) Washington Park (touches Corridor boundary) None Lincoln - 0 None None Creek -3 Sapulpa Municipal Golf Course (70 feet from Corridor boundary) Creek County Fairgrounds (corridor runs thru this property) None Tulsa - 0 None None 5.5 Social and Economic Impacts including Environmental Justice 5.5.1 Population Characteristics The United States Census Bureau data estimates the total population in the State of Oklahoma at 3,642,361 people in 2008, an increase of 5.6% from a population of 3,450,640 in 2000. Table 5.5 shows the increase in population per county crossed by the rail corridor. Within the two largest cities, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, the number of people per square mile is the largest; therefore, providing a rail travel option to this larger population base would greatly benefit these communities. TABLE 5.5: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU DATA - POPULATION CHANGE (2008) County Population 2008 Population 2000 Percent Change Persons Per Square Mile (2000) State of Oklahoma 3,642,361 3,450,640 5.6% 50.3 Oklahoma 706,617 660,450 7.0% 931.5 Lincoln 32,153 32,080 0.2% 33.5 Creek 69,822 67,369 3.6% 70.5 Tulsa 591,982 563,303 5.1% 988.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau The United States Census Bureau data lists the total number of housing units in the State of Oklahoma at 1,623,010 for 2007, providing for a home ownership rate of 68.4% (in 2000). The median household income (2007) in the State is $41,551, while the percentage of people below poverty level is 15.8% for the State (Table 5.6). Lincoln and Creek counties indicated a higher percentage of poverty at 0.6% above the norm. This may be due to the rural nature of these counties and limited job opportunities. TABLE 5.6: 2008 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU DATA - HOUSING AND INCOME County Housing Units 2007 Homeownership Rate 2000 Median Household Income 2007 Persons Below Poverty 2007 State of Oklahoma 1,623,010 68.4% $41,551 15.8% ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 22 Oklahoma 319,972 60.4% $41,598 15.9% Lincoln 14,241 80.0% $38,204 16.4% Creek 29,603 78.0% $41,745 16.4% Tulsa 262,063 61.8% $45,313 14.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau No changes to population or housing are expected as a result of the rail line. Acquisition of residential and commercial property is expected with the new right-of-way required, although no significant impacts to housing patterns or community cohesion are foreseen. 5.5.2 Economic Profile The Oklahoma City and Tulsa Metropolitan Areas are major economic centers for the State of Oklahoma. Both cities provide various types of homeownership, employment and entertainment opportunities. The Santa Fe Station in Oklahoma City is located very close to the Bricktown Downtown District, a growing area for dining, nightlife, attractions, hotels and shopping. Some of the larger Oklahoma City venues that would benefit from Tulsa commuters are AT&T Bricktown Ballpark, Civic Center, Cox Convention Center, Ford Center, and the Oklahoma City National Memorial. Union Station is located in the center of the Tulsa downtown area. This area is experiencing recent growth and development with the opening of the BOK Center in 2008. Tulsa also has dining, nightlife, shopping and hotels located downtown. Some of the larger venues of interest include the Cain's Ballroom, Tulsa Convention Center, Oklahoma Jazz Hall of Fame and the Performing Arts Center. The rail corridor would result in an improved transportation system and access to activity centers throughout the region. There are positive impacts to economic resources such as increased employment for construction workers and the presence of a larger workforce in the area would have both a direct and a secondary beneficial impact on economic conditions. The use of locally sourced materials would also be a positive economic impact. In the long-term, beneficial impacts are expected as a result of a safer and improved transportation system for the corridor. This would decrease travel and transport times and costs, reduce safety concerns and likely draw more users to the corridor. Enhanced access into and out of the area and improved connections to the regional transportation system may indirectly increase economic development within both cities. 5.5.3 Environmental Justice In February 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 requiring federal agencies to incorporate consideration of environmental justice into the NEPA evaluation process. The purpose of this Presidential Order was to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts to minority and low-income populations and minority-owned businesses as a result of federal actions. Analysis of 2000 Census data does reveal the existence of census tracts within the rail corridor for which the percentage of minorities is greater than the county average, plus census tracts with a higher percentage of the population below the derived low-income threshold. Of the 28 tracts of census data evaluated for the 106 miles corridor, 15 of the tracts contained ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 23 minority populations greater than the County average, the remaining 13 did not. The numbers were similar for household income as well. While these populations are higher than the county average, the census data reveals no disproportionately higher levels for minority or low-income populations. Refer to Table 5.7 for details. TABLE 5.7: HSROK CENSUS TRACK SUMMARY DATA County Name County Code Tract Populati on Total Total White Pop Total Minority Population Percent Minority County Minority Percent Average Median Household Income in 1999 County Wide Median Creek 037 020102 1667 1264 403 24.18 19.26 $30,072 $33,168 Creek 037 020601 5136 3998 1138 22.16 19.26 $37,565 $33,168 Creek 037 020602 3712 3014 698 18.80 19.26 $29,155 $33,168 Creek 037 020702 3343 2727 616 18.43 19.26 $35,270 $33,168 Creek 037 020707 1809 1425 384 21.23 19.26 $34,231 $33,168 Creek 037 020900 2898 2402 496 17.12 19.26 $33,939 $33,168 Creek 037 021102 3487 2865 622 17.84 19.26 $35,160 $33,168 Creek 037 021201 2133 1794 339 15.89 19.26 $50,174 $33,168 Creek 037 021202 4090 3131 959 23.45 19.26 $32,625 $33,168 Creek 037 021300 2533 2031 502 19.82 19.26 $23,920 $33,168 Totals 30808 24651 6157 19.99 19.26 $34,211 $33,168 Lincoln 081 981100 4886 4085 801 16.39 14.85 $27,132 $31,187 Lincoln 081 981300 4168 3574 594 14.25 14.85 $32,390 $31,187 Lincoln 081 981600 2786 2415 371 13.32 14.85 $29,405 $31,187 Lincoln 081 981700 4953 4069 884 17.85 14.85 $31,667 $31,187 Totals 16793 14143 2650 15.78 14.85 $30,149 $31,187 Oklahoma 109 101300 3311 87 3224 97.37 35.19 $17,623 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 102800 2757 155 2602 94.38 35.19 $11,038 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 102900 461 21 440 95.44 35.19 $26,140 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 103102 0 0 0 0.00 35.19 $0 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 103800 165 17 148 89.70 35.19 $7,864 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 106000 2122 672 1450 68.33 35.19 $51,118 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 106100 3401 551 2850 83.80 35.19 $27,750 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 108101 1929 1602 327 16.95 35.19 $75,635 $35,063 Oklahoma 109 108103 5120 4258 862 16.84 35.19 $50,525 $35,063 Totals 19266 7363 11903 61.78 35.19 $29,744 $35,063 Tulsa 143 002500 3653 2068 1585 43.39 26.92 $20,587 $38,213 Tulsa 143 002700 3854 2288 1566 40.63 26.92 $27,898 $38,213 Tulsa 143 004700 2077 1677 400 19.26 26.92 $30,913 $38,213 Tulsa 143 006507 1512 1146 366 24.21 26.92 $46,570 $38,213 Tulsa 143 006600 3191 2514 677 21.22 26.92 $37,739 $38,213 Totals 14287 9693 4594 32.16 26.92 $32,741 $38,213 = Census Tracts with Minority populations greater that the County Average ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 24 5.6 Noise The FRA document “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (HMMH Report No. 293630-4 October 2005) authored by Harris Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) identifies train noise as coming from three primary sources. These include the train’s engine(s), the train’s wheels and rails, and the air that rushes past the train while it is in motion. The noise from each of these sources is dependent upon the speed at which the train is traveling, and at any given speed one of these noise sources may be the dominant noise source. The HMMH document partitions the speed range into three distinct regimes. Regime 1 is when the engine is the dominant noise source. This occurs at lower speeds. At greater speeds the wheels and tracks become the dominant noise source. This is referred to as regime 2. At high speeds, the air rushing past the train becomes the dominant noise source. This is regime 3. The aerodynamic noise of air rushing past the train typically does not become appreciable until the train speed exceeds about 160 mph. Since this analysis assumes that the maximum operating speed of the train is 150 mph, aerodynamic noise will not be dominant. Usually the train will be operating in regime 2 and the wheel/rail interaction will be the primary source of noise. Noise that occurs during regime 1 will be during the time when the train is operating at slower speed when it is approaching or departing from a train terminal. In addition to using the FTA and HMMH manuals to gauge noise impacts, noise levels at given distances from the proposed high-speed rail line had to be estimated. Estimating noise levels was accomplished by using the FRA High-Speed Rail noise model. This noise model incorporates noise prediction algorithms that estimate the rail noise levels under varying conditions. The noise model requires certain information about both the trains that will run along the rail line as well as the local topography that exists adjacent to the rail line. Table 5.9 shows the distances from the railroad track for the three impact severity levels. If there are to be no noise impacts to residential neighborhoods, the train track must be at least 356 feet away from residences. If the train track is less than 356 feet, but greater than 142 away from any residence, the project will cause a moderate noise impact. If the train track is less than 142 feet away from residences the project will cause a severe noise impact. These distances are valid if the noise modeling assumptions were valid. Alteration of the modeling assumptions will alter the value of the noise impact distances. TABLE 5.9: NOISE IMPACT DISTANCES Existing Noise Exposure Ldn (dBA) D = Distance from Railroad Track (feet) No Impact Moderate Impact Severe Impact 45 D>356 142<=D<=356 D<142 The number of residential receptors within the distance from the railroad track is listed in Table 5.10. When preliminary plans are developed further noise modeling should be conducted. Mitigation measures of potential noise impacts should also be investigated at that time. The presence of noise barriers, cut sections, and in some cases elevated sections could reduce the noise impact zones considerably. Refer to Appendix C for a complete copy of the Noise Analysis Report. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 25 TABLE 5.10: RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS WITHIN HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR Total Oklahoma County Lincoln County Creek County Tulsa County Number of Residential Receptors - Severe 46 22 7 17 0 Number of Residential Receptors - Moderate 391 205 0 142 44 For each segment that has noise impacts, a noise study will be completed in the respective Tier 2 environmental document to determine if adverse impact on noise sensitive areas exists based on improvement criterion. Before noise mitigation can be incorporated into a project, it must be both feasible and reasonable. The noise report will determine if noise barriers are feasible and reasonable for each segment, where applicable, and incorporate into future project plans. A final decision to construct noise barriers will be made upon completion of the public involvement process and final project design. 5.7 Air Quality The State of Oklahoma is currently in attainment for all six priority pollutants determined to be potentially harmful to human health and welfare. By being in attainment, the State of Oklahoma is not subject to the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act (CAA), including the 1990 Amendments, provides for the establishment of standards and programs to evaluate, achieve, and maintain acceptable air quality in the U.S. Under the CAA, the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established a set of standards, or criteria, for six pollutants determined to be potentially harmful to human health and welfare. The USEPA considers the presence of the following six criteria pollutants to be indicators of air quality: • Ozone (O3); • Carbon monoxide (CO); • Nitrogen dioxide (NO2); • Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5); • Sulfur dioxide (SO2); and, • Lead (Pb). It can be expected that carbon monoxide would be reduced with a diesel train versus using a automobile, while hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide emissions will be higher. More efficient diesel locomotive engines and other improvements, such as regenerative braking, are being developed (Center for Clean Air Policy, January 2006) to reduce these emissions. Initially the high speed rail is planned to use fossil fuels to power the train (diesel train), although the rail line would be constructed to ultimately switch to electric rail line. An electric rail line greatly reduces emissions from particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 26 5.8 Vibration A preliminary investigation into the potential vibration-related impacts to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of a rail line that would facilitate high-speed train service between Tulsa and Oklahoma City was conducted. Vibration is characterized as having changing amplitude that has a net displacement of zero. Oscillatory motion that has a time dependence that varies like a sine wave is one example of vibration that has a definite frequency. In general, vibration will consists of an admixture of many different frequencies, and the changing amplitude of motion is more complex than that of a sine wave. Railroad vibration is caused by the interaction of the train with the rail track and its supporting structures. This is the only type of vibration that is analyzed in the report included in Appendix D. Although it is assumed that the source of the vibrations results from railroad facilities, the vibration levels that occur at various distances from the rail line is heavily dependent upon the local soil characteristics that exist in the vicinity of the rail line. Some soils are better than other in attenuating ground vibrations. The report concluded that when the trains are operating at a speed greater than or equal to 100 mph, but less than 200 mph, and when passbys are infrequent, residential land uses could be impacted if the distance from the land to the rail line is less than 100 feet. Table 5.11 shows the number of residential homes within 100 feet of the rail line. As this is worst case, it is expected that in the urban areas, the vibration impacts would be lower as the operation speeds are lower. TABLE 5.11: RESIDENTIAL HOMES WITHIN 100 FEET OF HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR Total Oklahoma County Lincoln County Creek County Tulsa County Number of Residential Receptors – Vibration 58 39 6 13 0 For each segment that has vibration impacts, a future vibration study will be completed to determine if adverse impact on structures exists based on improvement criterion. Mitigation for vibration impacts may involve track and train equipment and construction methods to isolate vibration and limit transmission to the ground. The vibration report will be conducted in the respective Tier 2 Environmental document to determine if mitigation is possible for each segment, where applicable, and incorporate into future project plans. A final decision on vibration mitigation will be made upon completion of the public involvement process and final project design. 5.9 Water Quality Potential impacts to water quality as a result of the HSIPR Oklahoma City/Tulsa Line would include both short (construction-related) and long-term (operation-related) impacts. Construction activities have the potential to cause minor impacts to these water bodies as a result of runoff/sedimentation from grading nearby areas, filling, or accidental spills of fuel or other chemicals. Other activities associated with impacts to water quality include clearing, culvert installation, pier/abutment work associated with reconstructing bridges, borrow pit excavation, etc. During construction activities, a temporary increase of sediments in surface runoff may ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 27 occur. In addition, increased stream sedimentation may occur during the construction of structures at stream crossings. There is a potential for long term impacts to water quality with the increased semi-impervious surface that would accompany the rail line. These long-term impacts to surface water quality would result primarily from runoff, compounded by runoff from nearby properties. Rail runoff may contain contaminants such as oil, grease and heavy metals. This runoff is directed into streams by way of storm water systems, thereby increasing contaminants discharged into the watershed, particularly at the beginning of storm events. The increase of impervious surface associated with a new rail line is considered minor. Mitigation of impacts to water resources from construction activities will incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and reduce sediment deposit in bodies of water within the corridor. Pollution prevention measures would be implemented to prevent pollution from equipment oil, grease, lubricants and fuels on surface waters. Filling and grading activities would be performed in compliance with the Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (OPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities. Improvements would be constructed and operated in compliance with all federal and state laws relating to minimization of water quality impacts. Use of vegetative swales for drainage has been shown to reduce pollutant loads in stormwater runoff and will be constructed where appropriate. 5.9.1 Water Bodies Water resources in the corridor consist of ponds, lakes, perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams. There are 142 stream crossings within the rail corridor. Of those, at least 24 are considered permanent with the remaining either intermittent or ephemeral stream crossings. There are 63 ponds or lakes within the corridor, totaling about 13.5 acres, mostly all manmade farm ponds. 5.9.2 Aquifers Numerous major groundwater aquifers are located in the State of Oklahoma. Figure 5.2, page 28, shows the major groundwater aquifer map of Oklahoma. The rail corridor will be located over two bedrock aquifers – the Garber Wellington and the Vamoosa-Ada. The Garber-Wellington formation is the major aquifer in Central Oklahoma, and the water-bearing portions of the Garber and Wellington formations cover an area roughly two thousand square miles, containing approximately 5 trillion gallons of water. Over 400 public water-supply wells and more than 20,000 domestic wells tap into this resource. The Vamoosa-Ada aquifer underlies about 2,320-square miles of parts of Osage, Pawnee, Payne, Creek, Lincoln, Okfuskee, and Seminole Counties. Approximately 75 percent of the water withdrawn from the Vamoosa-Ada aquifer is for municipal use. Rural domestic use and water for stock animals account for most of the remaining water withdrawn. As these are deep aquifers, it is believed that the quality of this resource will not be adversely impacted. As previously mentioned, the use of vegetative swales for drainage will be constructed where appropriate. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 28 FIGURE 5.2: MAJOR GROUNDWATER AQUIFERS ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 29 5.10 Potential Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Potential wetlands located within the corridor were identified by the use of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Data (NWI). Table 5.12 shows the total acres of NWI for each county and provides an estimated wetland impact assuming a 280-feet corridor. Construction of the rail line along the north side of I-44 could result in an impact to approximately 46 acres of potentially jurisdictional wetlands. In the four counties an average of 3.33 percent of the land is considered potential jurisdictional wetlands and 0.066 percent of the wetlands may be impacted by the corridor. Twenty-four potentially jurisdictional water crossings were observed along the 106 mile corridor. These water crossings were identified from the U.S. Geological Survey maps as a permanent stream (blue-line streams). For each project segment exhibiting the characteristics of a jurisdictional waterway and/or potentially jurisdictional wetlands, field surveys and coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to identify and delineate potentially jurisdictional wetlands will be completed and will be identified in the respective Tier 2 Environmental document. When plans are finalized such that the linear extent and volume of dredge and/or fill operations below the ordinary high water mark of the channel may be determined, the proposed construction activities will be evaluated to ensure that the appropriate Clean Water Act Section 404 permit application is made, and an appropriate compensatory mitigation plan is developed. Compensatory mitigation plans typically consist of wetland restoration, on the project site, in the project vicinity, or purchase of credits from wetlands mitigation banks. The mitigation plan will be subject to public and agency review and comment as part of the Corps of Engineers permit process. TABLE 5.12: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP DATA ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County Total Acres Total Acres NWI Data Corridor Acres NWI Data Oklahoma 459,507 12,362 4.92 (0.040%) Lincoln 617,649 19,503 18.93 (0.097%) Creek 620,421 31,278 21.82 (0.070%) Tulsa 375,582 5,877 0.00 (0.000%) Total 2,073,158 690,020 45.67 (0.066%) 5.11 Floodplains The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulates alterations to, or development within, floodplains as mapped on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These maps were analyzed to determine impact to floodplains. The rail corridor would cross 41 floodplain areas (see Table 5.13). These floodplain areas could be impacted by the placement of fill below the base floodplain elevation to construct the rail bed for the new lines. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 30 TABLE 5.13: MAPPED FLOODPLAINS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County Number of Floodplain Crossings Number of Stream Crossings Total Floodplain Acres in Corridor Oklahoma 17 34 2,193 Lincoln Not Available 58 Not Available Creek 22 56 42,744 Tulsa 2 4 803 Total 41 152 45,740 Under FEMA regulations, no alteration of flood zones shall result in an increase in the 100-year base flood elevation (BFE) or in an increase in the velocity of floodwaters without FEMA approval. For each project segment that contains floodplains, coordination between ODOT, FEMA, and local floodplain administrators will occur prior to construction in the floodplain. Any activities that may affect floodplains, such as placement of fill, shall be permitted. These agencies would evaluate the project, provide recommendations and prescribe mitigation options for impacts to floodplains, if necessary. 5.12 Threatened/Endangered Species and Other Biological Resources The project occurs in an area where there are federally listed endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. Table 5.14 provides a listing of species encountered within each county, as well as a review of potential impact on critical habitats. The project may affect the endangered Interior Least Tern, endangered Whooping Crane and threatened Piping Plover at various locations along the proposed route. In Oklahoma, Lincoln and Creek counties, these affects should be insignificant or discountable, resulting in an unlikely to adversely affect determination. In Tulsa County, the project may have an adverse affect on the Interior Least Tern in the area of the Arkansas River. There is a known tern nesting colony along the Arkansas River in Zink Lake within the City of Tulsa. Any construction activities in this area would need to be conducted between September 1and April 30 (outside of the Interior Least Tern nesting season). The project will also have an adverse affect on the endangered American Burying Beetle in Tulsa and Creek Counties. Acres of suitable habitat within the project area would need to be accounted for in the existing ODOT/USFW mitigation plan in place for this species. Bald Eagles nest upriver near Keystone Dam and elsewhere along the Arkansas River corridor. Eagles frequently hunt along the river near the proposed project area. Any construction activities in the area of Bald Eagle nests would need to be conducted according the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. A formal biological review including field surveys and coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) to determine impact to these species is to be completed for each project segment. Mitigation and or best management practices will be incorporated into each segment and project plans and will be identified in the respective Tier 2 environmental document and informal or formal section 7 consultation, as appropriate, will be completed. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 31 TABLE 5.14: THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR Oklahoma County Species Listing Status Status within Oklahoma County & Project Area Interior Least Tern Endangered Documented breeding occurrences occur within the Cimarron River and its associated watersheds that drain portions of the county. The County is also situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration, primarily at Lake Hefner and Lake Arcadia. The proposed project location is not located within a watershed associated with occupied water bodies. No suitable breeding habitat occurs within the proposed project area. Migratory stopover habitat can be found at Lake Arcadia adjacent to the proposed footprint. Piping Plover Threatened The county is situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration, primarily at Lake Hefner. Suitable stopover habitat exists within and adjacent to the project footprint in the Lake Arcadia area. Lincoln County Species Listing Status Status within the Lincoln County & Project Area Interior Least Tern Endangered The county is situated within the current probable migratory pathway between breeding and winter habitats, and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. No suitable stopover habitat, however, exists within the proposed footprint. Whooping Crane Endangered The county is situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. There are no documented occurrences within the county, either historic or current. No suitable habitat exists within the project footprint in Lincoln County. Piping Plover Threatened The county is situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. No suitable stopover habitat, however, exists within the proposed footprint. Creek County Species Listing Status Status within Creek County & Project Area American Burying Beetle Endangered County is within the documented historic range. Surveys within the last 15 years are lacking or insufficient to determine presence of the ABB within the county. Suitable habitat, however, is present and this county is adjacent to at least one county with current positive findings. Acres of suitable habitat within the project area need to be accounted for in the appropriate mitigation plan in place for this species. Interior Least Tern Endangered Documented breeding occurrences occur within the Arkansas River and its associated watersheds within the county. The County is also situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. The project location is located within watersheds associated with occupied water bodies for this species. But no suitable habitat occurs within the project footprint. Piping Plover Threatened The county is situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. No suitable stopover habitat occurs within the project footprint. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 32 Tulsa County Species Listing Status Status within Tulsa County & Project Area American Burying Beetle Endangered County is within the documented historic range with confirmed presence within the last 15 years. Acres of suitable habitat within the project area need to be accounted for in the appropriate mitigation plan in place for this species. Interior Least Tern Endangered Documented breeding occurrences occur within the Arkansas River and its associated watersheds within the county. The County is also situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. The project location crosses the Arkansas River in the City of Tulsa where a known breeding colony resides. However, since the proposed project at this point will consist of the existing BNSF track on existing alignment, no additional impacts to the species are expected. Piping Plover Threatened The county is situated within the probable migratory pathway and contains sites that could provide stopover habitat during migration. Suitable migratory stopover habitat occurs within the project footprint. However, since the proposed project at this point will consist of the existing BNSF track on existing alignment, no additional impacts to the species are expected. Bald Eagle Endangered Bald Eagle potentially occupied habitat exists very near the project area in the Tulsa region along the Arkansas River. However, since the proposed project at this point will consist of the existing BNSF track on existing alignment, no additional impacts to the species are expected. 5.13 Historic/Archeological Preservation A database search for existing historic properties, structures, and archeological sites was conducted by the ODOT Cultural Resources Program. The file review investigated State archeological site files at Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office National Register of Historic Places list and Determination of Eligibility list and Oklahoma Historic Bridge Survey. Table 5.15 presents search findings related to potential resources within the rail corridor. Future studies of cultural resources, including a cultural resources survey in consultation with the Oklahoma Archeological Survey, the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and appropriate Native American Tribes, is to be conducted following preliminary plans. It should be noted that any original or early rail features associated with the old MKT rail line in Oklahoma City may be NRHP eligible structures and would require survey and mitigative efforts. TABLE 5.15: CULTURAL RESOURCES DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County NHRP Eligible Bridges NHRP/DOE Listed Buildings NHRP/DOE Listed Historic Districts/Rt. 66 Potential Historic Structures (l Pre- 1964 Structures to be Evaluated) Known Archeological Sites Oklahoma 0 5 3 0 0 Lincoln 0 0 0 7 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 33 County NHRP Eligible Bridges NHRP/DOE Listed Buildings NHRP/DOE Listed Historic Districts/Rt. 66 Potential Historic Structures (l Pre- 1964 Structures to be Evaluated) Known Archeological Sites Creek 2 0 4 - Rt. 66 80 1 Tulsa 1 0 2/ 1 Rt. 66 8 0 Total 3 5 10 95 2 Three National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) listed bridges are within or near the rail corridor as summarized below. − 1925 RR Trestle – within rail corridor, contributing property crossing the NRHP listed “West Ozark Trail" portion of Historic Route 66, Creek County. − Rock Creek Bridge – 50 feet south of proposed rail corridor, contributing property crossing the NRHP listed "West Ozark Trail" portion of Historic Route 66, Creek County. − 11th Street Bridge – 150 to 300 feet east of rail alignment. Historic Route 66 structure spanning the Arkansas River, Tulsa County. There are several State Historic Preservation Office National Register of Historic Places Determination of Eligibility listed properties located within or near the rail corridor. A. Buildings: − Santa Fe Depot (100 E.K. Gaylord, OKC) - 20 feet west of proposed alignment; − Avery Building (15 E. California, OKC) -- 250 feet east of proposed alignment; − J.I. Case Plow Works Bldg (2 E. California, OKC) - 250 feet east of proposed alignment; − Sherman Machine & Iron Works (26 E. Main, OKC) - 250 feet east of proposed alignment; and − Stanford Furniture Co. Building (1 E. Sherman, OKC) - 250 feet east of proposed alignment. B. Historic Districts: − Carverdale Historic District (OKC)--100' south of proposed alignment; − Creston Historic District (OKC)--800' west of proposed alignment; − Edwards Heights Historic District (OKC)--proposed alignment is presently located within the confines of this district; ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 34 − Irving Historic District (Sand Springs)--100' west of proposed alignment; and − Tulsa Downtown Historic District (Tulsa)--100' north of proposed alignment. C. Historic Route 66 − S.E. end of the NRHP Listed "Tank Farm Loop" of Historic Rt. 66 (Lake Heyburn vicinity)--600' north of proposed alignment; − NRHP Listed "West Ozark Trail" segment of Historic Rt. 66 (Kellyville vicinity); includes the 1925 RR Trestle carrying the old SL-SF line over Rt. 66 (NRHP eligible contributing resource)--Trestle: within proposed alignment; "West Ozark Trail": traverses then parallels proposed alignment (~50' south); − Continuation of the NRHP listed "West Ozark Trail" portion of Historic Rt. 66 (Kellyville vicinity)--~50' south, paralleling the proposed alignment; − East end of the NRHP listed "West Ozark Trail" portion of Historic Rt. 66 (Kellyville vicinity)--~50' south paralleling the proposed alignment; NRHP listed Rock Creek Bridge (Structure #19E0706N3860000 --contributing property to the NRHP listed "West Ozark Trail" portion of Historic Rt. 66), Sapulpa vicinity--50' south of proposed alignment; − NRHP listed Arkansas River (11th Street) bridge (Structure #72 No Number) on Historic Rt. 66--150-300' east of proposed alignment. D. Archeological Sites − 34LN30 (Stroud vicinity) - early-20th Century (Lily Springs) townsite; not assessed for NRHP eligibility; bisected by the presently proposed alignment, Lincoln County; and − 34CR26 (Lake Heyburn vicinity) - Late Prehistoric Period camp; not assessed for NRHP eligibility; bisected by the presently proposed alignment, Creek County. There are 95 potential pre-1964 structures in the rail corridor identified by Oklahoma Archeological Survey maps as 20th century buildings that will need to be assessed for eligibility to be listed on National Register of Historic Places. Of the above listed site, four are within the corridor alignment, the 1925 RR Trestle in Creek County; the Santa Fe Depot in Oklahoma County; the Edwards Heights Historic District (OKC); and areas that intersect Historic Route 66. If in the Tier 2 environmental analysis of future projects it is determined that the project may adversely effect historic properties indentified per 36 CFR Part 800.4, the Department will consider feasible and prudent alternative designs as part of a Section 4(f) evaluation to avoid and /or minimize the adverse effect. This typically involves evaluation of alternative alignments that avoid use of the historic property and would also require 4f evaluation and documentation. If the adverse effect cannot be eliminated, the Department will execute and implement a Memorandum of Agreement per 36 CFR Part 800.6 with SHPO and/or THPO and all interested parties in order to mitigate the adverse effect. Mitigation measures for ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 35 impacts to historic properties typically involve Historic American Buildings Survey and Historic American Engineering (HABS/HAER) documentation for impacted structures such as buildings and bridges, extensive archival research for all impacted historic properties, and data recovery for historic properties such as archeological sites eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria D. 5.14 Hazardous Waste Information A database search for potential hazardous waste sites and underground storage tanks within the rail corridor was completed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc., (EDR) on September 8, 2009. Federal and state environmental records were reviewed to determine their presence within the rail corridor. Table E.1, located in Appendix E, contains properties listed in the database search within the corridor that may have potential hazardous waste concerns. Due to the number of pages contained in the EDR report (over 1,000), the entire report can be provide upon request. Appendix F does contain the Executive Summary from the report. The search identifies recognized environmental conditions, meaning the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum product on the property indicating an existing or past release, into structures, the ground water and/or soil. Hazardous waste sites which may have recognized environmental conditions would be, but are not limited to, service stations, industrial facilities, landfills and mining sites. Once potentially contaminated sites have been identified, the rail line alignment may be modified to avoid such sites. Other measures are also available to minimize impact of these sites on to the project. Twenty-one potential sites with contamination issues were identified in the rail corridor. If right-of- way acquisition or subsurface utilities are involved in these facilities, further investigation is warranted. These sites are summarized in Table 5.16. TABLE 5.16: ISA DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS ALONG HSIPR OKLAHOMA CITY/TULSA CORRIDOR County Potential Hazardous Waste Sites Under/ Above Ground Storage Tanks Brownfield Sites Oil/Gas Wells Oklahoma 5 4 0 6 Lincoln 1 2 0 7 Creek 2 0 0 2 Tulsa 3 2 2 0 TOTAL 11 8 2 15 An initial site assessment will be conducted during the preparation of the respective Tier 2 Environmental document to identify sites with the potential to adversely impact area soils, air, surface water, and/or groundwater for each project segment. Efforts will be made to avoid and minimize involvement with these sites. Sites with potential environmental concern located within the likely area of construction will have a preliminary site investigation (PSI) performed to determine the location and extent of any potential contamination. The location of any contaminated areas identified by the PSI, along with any necessary mitigation procedures will be identified. If the area cannot be avoided proper redial efforts can be performed prior to construction. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 36 5.15 Visual Resources Visual resources within the rail corridor can best be described as being undeveloped (pasture and forest) or urban developed. The terrain is generally made up of rolling sandstone hills and stream crossings on uplands. Land uses are predominantly rural with undeveloped lands, consisting of open fields and heavy, mixed-type forests. Scenic quality is an important aspect of the corridor and train travel. The traveler would experience both urban and rural settings within the route from Oklahoma City to Tulsa. Consequences of the rail corridor to visual resources would be both temporary and permanent. Temporary impacts would include views of the construction activities and loss of some vegetation. Permanent impacts would include increased visibility of rail corridor from I-44 due to the parallel alignment and some loss of vegetation. The vegetation loss may also be evident to travelers on the highway. As the preferred corridor was either historically a rail route, or parallels an existing highway route, no significant visual impacts are anticipated. 5.16 Conclusion After reviewing the impacts identified within the Northern Section of the South Central High Speed Rail Corridor, considering the context and setting of the preferred corridor, the relative lack of intensity of the impacts on the natural and human environment after considering the potential avoidance and mitigation opportunities available in the future project level environmental analysis, the lack of concern from agency solicitations, and the overwhelming positive public support, it is believed that the proposed action (Tier 1 Environmental Assessment) will not have a foreseeable impact on the quality of the human environment. Once a FONSI is received, Tier 2 project level environmental analysis can begin. Consultation with resources agencies and the FRA will determine the appropriate class of action for the projects in Tier 2 review. 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 6.1 Solicitation Letters Letters describing the proposed project and soliciting comments were sent to State and Federal agencies on September 4, 2009. The solicitation letter described the Tulsa to Oklahoma City rail corridor as well as the entire HSIPR Oklahoma City/Tulsa Corridor (part of South Central High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor) located in Tulsa, south through Oklahoma City, and then south to the Texas State Line. A total of five responses were received, and a copy of each letter is provided in Appendix F. Following is a summary of the responses received. • The U.S. Corps of Engineers assigned No. SWT-2009-725 to this rail corridor and asked that all future correspondence reference this number. They indicated that the construction of new rail line crossings, as well as improvements to existing rail line crossings, in waters of the United States would most likely require a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 37 Response: The Department will use this number and will submit required permit applications(s) as the project(s) are developed. • An Oklahoma State Representative commented on his reservations regarding this project and did not see a practical, efficient, revenue-producing aspect of a high-speed intercity passenger rail program. Response: This comment is noted. • The Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office requested to be a consulting party on the project and has a vital interest in protecting its historic and ancestral cultural resources. Response: This comment is noted and initiation for Section 106 will begin when a project is programmed by the Department. The Osage Nation does fall within the area for the high speed rail and will definitely be contacted when and if Section 106 consultation begins on this project. • The Corporation Commission stated they will address any abandoned well sites within the corridor that are found to be out of compliance with the requirements for construction of the rail line. Contacts will be supplied when requested by ODOT. Response: This comment is noted and once project segments are developed that require new right-of-way, the Corporation Commission will be contacted. • The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated they had no objection to the continued program planning. When specific impacted properties are identified, they requested that documentation in order to issue an opinion on the effect of the program on Oklahoma's cultural and historical resources. Response: This comment is noted and SHPO will be consulted as projects are developed. 6.2 Public Involvement Public meetings were held on September 14 and 15, 2009, in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, respectively. The focus of the public meetings was to formally introduce the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program and discuss this South Central Corridor as one of ten national corridors identified by Congress. The environmental process was briefly discussed and the public was asked to provide comments to assist in the process to gain environmental clearance. The public meetings were held in Oklahoma City at the Metro Technology Centers (BCC/Auditorium 1900 Springlake Drive) with 75 people in attendance. The Tulsa meeting was held at the downtown Central Library (400 Civic Center) and 97 people were in attendance. The same information was presented at each meeting. At these public meetings the public was introduced to the entire rail corridor within the State of Oklahoma. For the Oklahoma City to Tulsa section, in which new alignment is required, public comment was solicited regarding the ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 38 project and any environmental concerns. Information including attendees and comments may be found in the Appendix G. The vast majority of the comments received have been favorable. The comments were supportive of high speed rail in Oklahoma, and numerous comments were received to extend the rail into other regions. The basis of comments received against high speed rail focused on the belief that this initiative is not a cost effective use of tax payer dollars. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the public comments received. TABLE 6.1: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED Comment Positive Negative Support for High Speed Rail (HSR) in Oklahoma 39 Technical Advice on Signals, Crossings, Cabin Features 2 Support HSR and Request Train Car Ferry 3 Passenger Rail is Environmentally Friendly 4 Support for the Tulsa to OKC Connection 30 Support Extending Connection to Chicago 1 Rail Line Would Help Economy 3 Support HSR But Need Bus and Metro Rail Conductivity 7 Support for Extending Connections to Texas, Kansas City, OKC, Tulsa and Chicago 9 Support HSR and Request Bicycle Transportation / Bike Racks 9 Support Extending Connection from Tulsa to Kansas City 1 Support Extending Connection to DFW 1 Support Extending Connection to East Coast 1 HSR is a Waste of Money 4 Do Not Want Taxes To Go Up 1 HSP will Remove the US Away From Dependence on Oil 2 Support Improving Existing Rail Line Between OKC and Tulsa 2 Support HSP and Request Stop at Existing Park-In-Ride Stop at Turnpike 1 Support HSR and Use of Electric Trains 1 Need to Financially Support Rail Operations in Future 1 Comparing Rail Corridor to NAFTA Corridor 1 Questioning Need for Rail Over Automobile 2 No Need for HSR Service in Oklahoma 3 Would Rather See Money Used on Roads and Bridges 1 Total 117 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 APPENDIX A Items Normally Considered During Project Development ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 ITEMS NORMALLY CONSIDERED DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 1. Purpose and Need for Project 2. Alternatives 3. Affected Environment and Possible Environmental Consequences in Regards to the Following Areas: Land Use Farmlands Social Resources Relocation Impacts/ Right-of-Way Acquisition Joint Development Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists Air Quality Environmental Justice Noise Water Quality Permits Wetlands Water Bodies Wildlife Floodplains Wild and Scenic Rivers Rechannelization Threatened or Endangered Species Historic and Archaeological Preservation Hazardous Waste Sites Underground Storage Tanks Visual Resources Energy and Utilities Construction Relationship of Local Short-Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Effects on Public Parks, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites 4. Comments 5. Drainage Concerns 6. Accidents and Safety Concerns ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 APPENDIX B Tribal Land Graphics and Property Card Data Sac_&_Fox_Nation L II NCOL N COU N T Y OKLAHOMA HIGH-SPEED RAIL INITIATIVE TRIBAL PROPERTY ConAsbulleting 0 200 400 Feet I- 44 N3570 Rd 26th St 15th Ave 17th St 3rd St W 7th St Golf Dr Tanger Dr 26th St 15th Ave 17th St 38 40 39 37 41 Legend Tribal Properties HSROK Rail Corridor County Line Section Lines Ponds and Lakes Railroads Intermittent Streams Permanent Streams 1 inch = 200 feet OTCFORM959-COM '?'/'-15.~ T",u)'" COMMERCIAL ~ I Sac & Fox Nation Rt 2 Box 246 Stroud, OK 74079 Bg 8W/C NW/4 E-777' N-66' E-23.36' N27°45'20" E-319.07' N-151' E-400.18' 'U'! to pob th E-1272.99' 8-80.Ql' W-21 0' 8-420' E-149.41' to pt on Nr1y R/W \ 0,-) lWI' 'I\y\ \ Turner Turnpike 8-71 "38'47" W-1282.29' N-909.06' to pob ~} NOTES: 1. LOW 2. AVG. 3. GOOD 4. EXC. 1. GABLE 2. HIP 3. FLAT 4. MANSARD 5. GAMBREL 6. SAWTOOTH 7. BOW 8. SHED 9.IRREG. 2. B/uTAR , 3. COMPo 4. WOOD 5. SHAKE 6. ROLL COMPo 7. METAL a. CONCRETE 9. TILE 1. PLY.II-IDB. 2. ASBESTOS 3. ALNL SDNG. 4. SHINGLE 5. STUCCO 6. C-BLOCK 7. BRK. VEN. a.STN. VEN. 9. FAB. METAL 1. NONE 2. ASPH. TILE 3. VINYL ASBEST. 4. SHEET VINYL 5. SOFTWOOD 6. HARDWOOD 7. CARPETING a. BRICK 9. QUARRY TILE 10. SLATE 11. CERAM. TILE 12. MARBLE 10. CORR. METAL If------' 11. TILT-UP 12. CONCRETE 13_ BRICK 14. STONE 15. GLASS & MET. 16. TILE 17. NONE 1. WINDOW 2.CH. WATER 3. CENTRAL 4. HEAT PUMP 5. INDIV. HiA 6. NONE 1. WALL FURN. 2. FLOOR FURN. 3. CENTRAL 4. HEAT PUMP 5. STOVE 6. INDIV. H/A 7. SPACE a.STEAM 9. NONE CEMEMTERY Satoe_Wynette Satoe_Wynette CR E E K COU N T Y OKLAHOMA HIGH-SPEED RAIL INITIATIVE TRIBAL PROPERTY ConAsbulleting 0 200 400 800 Feet I- 44 N3730 Rd W 221st St S N3743 Rd Old Hwy 66 W 201st St S N3740 Rd W 2 11th St S 50 51 52 49 53 Legend Tribal Properties HSROK Rail Corridor County Line Section Lines Ponds and Lakes Railroads Intermittent Streams Permanent Streams 1 inch = 400 feet : Il 024-11 024-05 CEMETERY + R SCHUMACHER 045-00 24-13 024-14 J BETHEL 024-10 W SATOE o 051-00 T BORTS 049-00 J SHIRLEY NWiV4 NW 20-16N-09 SATOE + 052-00 F WEBB 024-01 J ONEAL This map is for assessment purposes only and is not intended for preparing legal descriptions or for making conveyances of properties. Copyrighted 1991-2006 by the CREEK COUNTY ASSESSOR-(MIMS MAPPING) PARCEL OWNER ADDR1 ADDR2 CITY STATE ZIP SITUS LEGAL 1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 LEGAL5 LEGAL6 BOOKPAGE USE ACRES ASSD ACRES AG ACRES SECONDARY INTEREST LAND IMPR MOBILE HOMESTEAD DBLE HS TAX SCHOOL FREEZE CAP LATLONG CHANGED UPDATED 0000-20-016-009-0-024-10 8ATOE WYNETTE NON-TAXABLE INDIAN LAND 402 E LOUISIANA ANADARKO OK 730050000 INDIAN LAND 20-16-9 TR IN 8 8W NW BEG AT 8W C NW 889°26'35" E65' TO POB Noo01'52"W489.87' TH S89° E 534.26' TH S23°50'03" E 321.2' TH 426/1778-3 7 6.00 6.120 0.00 0.00100 o o o o o 0.00 02R 0000/00/00 0000/00/00 96.38589W 35.85074N 8/23/2000 9/ 1/2009 5159 PARCEL OWNER ADDR1 ADDR2 CITY STATE ZIP SITUS LEGAL 1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 LEGALS LEGAL6 BOOKPAGE USE ACRES ASSD ACRES AG ACRES SECONDARY INTEREST LAND IMPR MOBILE HOMESTEAD DBLE HS TAX SCHOOL FREEZE CAP LATLONG CHANGED UPDATED 0000-20-016-009-0-024-18 SATOE WYNETTE NON TAXABLE INDIAN LAND 402 E LOUISIANA ANADARKO OK 7300S0000 214TH STREET S W INDIAN LAND 20-16-9 BEG SW COR OF NW NW TH S8 9*20'39"E793.34' NOO*Ol'S S"W331.67' S89*19'11"ES27 SOO*02'S3"E997.19' N 61*10'08"W373.02' S66*09' 7 426/1778-3 19.06 19.337 0.00 0.00100 o o o o o 0.00 02R 0000/00/00 0000/00/00 96.38S00W 3S.8S303N 3/17/2004 9/ 1/2009 03S193 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2009 APPENDIX C Noise Analysis Report Noise Analysis for High Speed Rail Between Tulsa and Oklahoma City Prepared For: ABLE CONSULTING 13105 East 89th Street North Oswasso, OK 74055 Prepared By: MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES DIVISION OF LANDRUM & BROWN Fred Greve, P.E. 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 949•349•0671 September 11, 2009 Project No. 507601 Mestre Greve Associates Noise Analysis for High-Speed Rail Page 2 Purpose This report presents the results of a preliminary investigation into the potential noise impacts to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of a rail line that would facilitate high-speed train service between Tulsa, Oklahoma and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The purpose of this report is to provide an estimate of the distance from the railroad track to where noise impacts would occur. Noise Criteria Background Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in terms of the “A-weighted decibel,” abbreviated dBA. Sound levels decrease as a function of distance from the source as a result of wave divergence, atmospheric absorption and ground attenuation. As the sound wave form travels away from the source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area, thereby dispersing the sound power of the wave. Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels that are received by the observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant fluctuations. The degree of absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the air. Turbulence and gradients of wind, temperature and humidity also play a significant role in determining the degree of attenuation. Intervening topography can also have a substantial effect on the effective perceived noise levels. Noise Assessment Metrics When discussing noise impacts it is essential that some method is established to quantitatively gauge the magnitude of the noise impact, and for this purpose several rating scales (or metrics) have been developed for the measurement of community noise. These metrics account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. They are designed to account for the known health effects of noise on people described previously. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact Mestre Greve Associates Noise Analysis for High-Speed Rail Page 3 people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of noise scales have been developed to account for this observation. This report is really only concerned with the Leq and Ldn metrics since the noise impact guidelines are expressed in terms of these two metrics. A description of each of these metrics follows. Leq is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period. Leq is the “energy” average noise level during the time period of the sample. Leq can be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for 1 hour. This 1-hour noise level can also be referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL). It is the energy sum of all the events and background noise levels that occur during that time period. Ldn, the day-night scale is a time weighted 24-hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The time-weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. In the Ldn scale, those noise levels that occur during the night (10 pm to 7 am) are penalized by 10 dB. This penalty was selected to attempt to account for increased human sensitivity to noise during the quieter period of a day, where home and sleep is the most probable activity. One consequence of the time weighting is that noise levels measured with the Ldn metric will always have a noise level that is at least as great, if not greater than the Leq metric that is calculated for the same time period. Source of Railroad Generated Noise The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) document “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (HMMH Report No. 293630-4 October 2005) authored by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) identifies train noise as coming from three primary sources. These include the train’s engine(s), the train’s wheels and rails, and the air that rushes past the train while it is in motion. The noise from each of these sources is dependent upon the speed at which the train is traveling, and at any given speed one of these noise sources may be the dominant noise source. The HMMH document partitions the speed range into three distinct regimes. Regime 1 is when the engine is the dominant noise source. This occurs at lower speeds. At greater speeds the wheels and tracks become the dominant noise source. This is referred to as regime 2. At high speeds, the air rushing past the train becomes the dominant noise source. This is regime 3. The aerodynamic noise of air rushing past the train typically does not become appreciable until the train speed exceeds about 160 mph. Since this analysis assumes that the maximum operating speed of the train is 150 mph, aerodynamic noise will not be dominant. Usually the train will be operating in regime 2 and the wheel/rail interaction will be the primary source of noise. Noise that occurs during regime 1 will be during the time when the train is operating at slower speed when it is approaching or departing from a train terminal. Mestre Greve Associates Noise Analysis for High-Speed Rail Page 4 Methodology The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has created a document “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” manual (FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006) that provides guidance in evaluating noise impacts that result from mass transit projects. The document “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (HMMH Report No. 293630-4 October 2005) provide additional information about evaluating noise impacts due to high-speed trains. Both of these documents were referenced to help estimate noise impacts resulting from the proposed project. Included in the FTA manual are noise impact thresholds. These thresholds, which are expressed in terms of the standard noise metrics Ldn and Leq, set the criteria that are used to determine whether or not a mass transit project generates noise impacts. The values of the thresholds are not fixed, but instead depend upon the land use category of the property that will be impacted, as well as the ambient (or pre-existing) noise levels. Noise impacts fall into three distinct severity levels depending upon the size of the impact. Projects will either produce no noise impacts, moderate noise impacts, or severe noise impacts. Noise levels that are below a certain threshold are deemed to be low enough so that no noise impact results from the project. Projects that produce noise levels that are at or above this threshold, but less than or equal to a higher threshold are categorized as producing only moderate noise impacts. Any project that produces a noise level that is greater than the upper threshold is classified as producing severe noise impacts. Table 1 shows the noise thresholds for each land use category, noise impact severity, and ambient noise level. Table 2 gives a brief description of each land use category. Table 1 Noise Impact Thresholds Project Noise Impact Exposure,* Leq(h) or Ldn (dBA) Category 1 or 2 Sites Category 3 Sites Existing Noise Exposure Leq(h) or Ldn (dBA) No Impact Moderate Impact Severe Impact No Impact Moderate Impact Severe Impact <43 < Ambient+10 Ambient + 10 to 15 >Ambient+15 < Ambient+15 Ambient + 15 to 20 >Ambient+20 43 <52 52-58 >58 <57 57-63 >63 44 <52 52-58 >58 <57 57-63 >63 45 <52 52-58 >58 <57 57-63 >63 46 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64 47 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64 48 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64 49 <54 54-59 >59 <59 59-64 >64 50 <54 54-59 >59 <59 59-64 >64 51 <54 54-60 >60 <59 59-65 >65 52 <55 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65 53 <55 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65 54 <55 55-61 >61 <60 60-66 >66 55 <56 56-61 >61 <61 61-66 >66 56 <56 56-62 >62 <61 61-67 >67 Mestre Greve Associates Noise Analysis for High-Speed Rail Page 5 57 <57 57-62 >62 <62 62-67 >67 58 <57 57-62 >62 <62 62-67 >67 59 <58 58-63 >63 <63 63-68 >68 60 <58 58-63 >63 <63 63-68 >68 61 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69 62 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69 63 <60 60-65 >65 <65 65-70 >70 64 <61 61-65 >65 <66 66-70 >70 65 <61 61-66 >66 <66 66-71 >71 66 <62 62-67 >67 <67 67-72 >72 67 <63 63-67 >67 <68 68-72 >72 68 <63 63-68 >68 <68 68-73 >73 69 <64 64-69 >69 <69 69-74 >74 70 <65 65-69 >69 <70 70-74 >74 71 <66 66-70 >70 <71 71-75 >75 72 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76 73 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76 74 <66 66-72 >72 <71 71-77 >77 75 <66 66-73 >73 <71 71-78 >78 76 <66 66-74 >74 <71 71-79 >79 77 <66 66-74 >74 <71 71-79 >79 >77 <66 66-75 >75 <71 71-80 >80 Source: FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006 Table 2 Land Use Category Descriptions Land Use Category Noise Metric (dBA) Description of Land Use Category 1 Outdoor Leq(h)* Tracts 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)* 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 and parks are also included. * Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. Source: FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006 In addition to using the FTA and HMMH manuals to gauge noise impacts, noise levels at given distances from the proposed high-speed rail line had to be estimated. Estimating noise levels was accomplished by using the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) High-Speed Rail noise model. This noise model incorporates noise prediction algorithms that estimate the rail noise levels under varying conditions. The noise model requires Mestre Greve Associates Noise Analysis for High-Speed Rail Page 6 certain information about both the trains that will run along the rail line as well as the local topography that exists adjacent to the rail line. In order to estimate the noise levels around high-speed trains, the high-speed rail noise model requires input concerning the following conditions. Land Use Category: Noise levels need to be reported in the appropriate noise metric as specified by its land use category as specified in Table 1. Residential land use was assumed for the model. Residential uses (Land Use Category 2) is representative of most of the sensitive land uses along the proposed rail line. The noise threshold for Land Use Category 2 (residential) is specified using the Ldn metric. Intervening Building Rows/Topography: This report assumes that there are no buildings, cut sections, or other obstacles interspersed between the railroad tracks and the sensitive receivers. As a result, the estimated noise levels are higher than they would be if there were intervening buildings and topography. This is a worst-case assumption. Train Details: The model requires specific information about the trains that will be running along the tracks including the type of trains (electric, fossil fuels, maglev), the speed of the trains, the length of the cars, the track geometry and number of trains per day. These include: Type: Fossil Fuels Speed: 150 mph Length of Power Car: 66 feet Length of Passenger Car: 43 feet Number of Power Cars: 1 Number of Passenger Cars: 12 Track Geometry: Tracks at grade Number of Trains Per Day: 12 Daytime/Nighttime Schedule: It was assumed that trains would be running with equal probability at any time during the day or night. Therefore, it was assumed that 7.5 trains would run during the daytime period, and 4.5 would run during the night. Ambient Noise Levels: No noise measurements in the vicinity of the project area were taken or consulted when determining noise impacts for this noise report. Since the noise impacts resulting from the project depend u |
Date created | 2011-08-10 |
Date modified | 2011-10-28 |
Tags
Add tags for Tier one environmental assessment for north Section of the South Central High Speed Rail Corridor in Oklahomafinal_draft-NEPA