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.

              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