Decision I.D. # 44757 Service Date: October 16, 2015

Comment Due Date: November 16, 2015

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Finance Docket No. 35874

LONE STAR RAILROAD, INC. AND SOUTHERN SWITCHING COMPANY

RAIL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION IN HOWARD COUNTY, TEXAS

Information Contact: 

Victoria Rutson, Director 

Office of Environmental Analysis 

Kenneth Blodgett 

Project Manager 

Telephone: 202-245-0305 

Surface Transportation Board 

Patriots Plaza 

395 E Street SW 

Washington, DC 20423-0001
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Washington, DC 20423

Office of Environmental Analysis 

October 16, 2015

Re: Docket No. FD 35874, Lone Star Railroad, Inc. and Southern Switching Company—Rail 

Construction and Operation—Howard County, Texas

Dear Reader:

The Surface Transportation Board’s (Board) Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) is 

pleased to provide you with the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the proposed 

construction and operation of approximately 3.18 miles of rail line by Lone Star Railroad, Inc. 

and Southern Switching Company that would connect to an existing Union Pacific mainline and

provide rail service to an industrial park property near Big Spring, in Howard County, Texas.

This Draft EA discusses the potential environmental impacts that could result from the 

construction and operation of the proposed rail line and includes OEA’s preliminary 

recommendations for mitigating possible environmental effects. The Draft EA reflects OEA’s 

independent analysis and considers the views of federal, state, and local agencies. 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment

OEA has distributed the Draft EA to all parties of record for this docket and the 

environmental distribution list, including key governmental agencies and other appropriate entities. 

OEA has made a hard copy of the Draft EA available for review in the Howard County Library

located at 500 South Main Street in Big Spring, Texas. The Draft EA is also available on the 

Board's website at http://www.stb.dot.gov. 

Public Comment and Review of the Draft Environmental Assessment

OEA invites public comment on all aspects of the Draft EA and is providing a 30-day public 

comment period which begins on October 16, 2015. OEA will consider all comments and respond 

to substantive comments in the Final EA. The Final EA will include OEA’s final conclusions on 

potential impacts that may result from the proposed project and will include OEA’s final 

recommendations, including OEA’s final recommended mitigation measures. The Board will then 

make its final decision regarding this project and any environmental conditions it might impose. 
When submitting comments, please be as specific as possible and substantiate your concerns 

and recommendations. Please mail written comments on the Draft EA and the recommended 

environmental mitigation to the following address:

Ken Blodgett

Attention: Environmental filing, Docket No. FD 35874

Surface Transportation Board

395 E Street SW

Washington, DC 20423-0001

Comments may also be filed electronically on the Board’s web site,

www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on the “E-FILING” link. The comment period will close on 

November 16, 2015. Please refer to Finance Docket No. 35874 in all correspondence, including efilings, addressed to the Board.

Thank you for your interest and participation in the environmental review process. If you would 

like additional information about the environmental review process, please contact Kenneth 

Blodgett at (202) 245-0305 or by email at blodgettk@stb.dot.gov. 

Sincerely,

Victoria Rutson

Director

Office of Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Summary of Major Conclusions

The Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) has conducted a review of the potential 

environmental impacts that could from the proposed action, a new rail line approximately 

3.18 miles long that would connect to an existing Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) 

mainline and provide rail service to an industrial park property near Big Spring in Howard 

County, Texas. OEA has reached the following major conclusions based on the information 

available to date; consultation with federal, state, and local agencies and other organizations; 

and its own independent environmental analysis:

1) Lone Star Railroad, Inc. (LSR) and Southern Switching Company (SSC) (the 

Applicants) seek authority to construct and operate approximately 3.18 miles of new 

rail line that would connect to an existing UP mainline and provide rail service to an 

industrial park property near Big Spring in Howard County, Texas. 

2) The proposed rail line would provide more effective service to the extensive Permian 

Basin shale oil activity located west and south of Big Spring by allowing for the 

efficient transloading of frac sand by rail to trucks at the industrial park. At this 

uncongested location, frac sand would be staged, transloaded to trucks, and delivered 

to crude oil wellheads in the Permian Basin near Midland and Odessa, Texas. 

3) The proposed rail line would eventually support an average of five trains per week 

(including both inbound and outbound trains) consisting of up to 100 hopper cars of 

frac sand per train, resulting in 1,000 truckload shipments of frac sand per week.

4) The only federally endangered species currently listed for Howard County is the 

black-capped vireo. There is no suitable habitat to support breeding black-capped 

vireos and no documented occurrences within the wildlife survey area for this Draft 

EA. Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, OEA has determined that 

the construction and operation of the proposed project would have no effect on blackcapped vireo. OEA also consulted with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

(TPWD) regarding species designated by TPWD as rare, threatened, or endangered

and has determined that, with the implementation of OEA’s recommended mitigation 

measures, impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed rail 

line on these species would not be likely.

5) OEA examined the addition of frac sand truck traffic to the roadways adjacent to the 

proposed rail line. OEA concluded that the addition of frac sand truck traffic to the 

roadways would result in increases in annual average daily traffic (AADT) ranging 

from 0.24 percent for Interstate 20 to 2.22 percent for Highway 176. These predicted 

increases in truck traffic would not result in a significant increase in AADT and 

represents a negligible impact on traffic and transportation in the project area. 
Summary of Major Conclusions

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

6) OEA prepared a noise contour analysis to determine if noise impacts from the 

operation of the proposed rail line would result in adverse impacts on sensitive noise 

receptors. Rail noise from the operation of the proposed rail line in combination with 

the existing rail traffic would be less than 65 DNL at all receptor locations and DNL 

values at the closest receptor would be essentially unchanged. Consequently, there 

would be no adverse noise impacts resulting from the operation of the proposed rail 

line. 

7) OEA conducted a survey within the proposed rail line right-of-way to identify 

prehistoric, historic, and cultural resources and to assess the significance of those 

resources and their potential to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). Three historic/prehistoric sites were identified during the 

survey, with portions of the sites located both within and outside the proposed rail line 

right-of-way. The portions of the sites within the proposed rail line right-of-way were 

determined to have no potential for the NRHP. Should rail line construction activities 

outside the proposed rail line right-of-way be required, OEA has recommended 

mitigation to address potential impacts to the portions of the sites located outside the 

proposed rail line right-of-way. The Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 

has concurred with OEA’s Section 106 determination of “no historic properties 

affected.” 

8) OEA determined that there are no surface waters, wetlands, floodplains, or recorded 

groundwater wells within close proximity to the proposed rail line right-of-way and 

concluded that it is unlikely that drainage from the proposed rail line right-of-way 

would reach mapped waterbodies and wetlands. Groundwater aquifer recharge is 

limited in the proposed project area. Existing flood-storage capacity and the course of 

the existing floodways are unlikely to be affected. Consequently, the construction and 

operation of the proposed rail line would not likely result in impacts on surface waters,

groundwater, wetlands, and floodplains.
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   i October 2015

Contents

List of Figures......................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables.......................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations....................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................ES‐1

ES.1 Statement of Proposed Action............................................................................................. ES‐1

ES.2 Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... ES‐3

ES.3 Description of the Affected Environment ............................................................................ ES‐4

ES.4 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action .................................................................. ES‐5

ES.4.1 Physical Environment..................................................................................................... ES‐5

ES.4.2 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... ES‐7

ES.4.3 Transportation and Safety ............................................................................................. ES‐8

ES.4.4 Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................... ES‐8

ES.4.5 Cultural........................................................................................................................... ES‐9

ES.4.6 Land Use......................................................................................................................... ES‐9

ES.4.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Sites....................................................... ES‐10

ES.4.8 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................... ES‐10

ES.4.9 Cumulative................................................................................................................... ES‐10

ES.5 OEA’s Recommendation for Mitigation ............................................................................. ES‐11

ES.6 Preliminary Conclusions..................................................................................................... ES‐12

ES.7 Request for Comments....................................................................................................... ES‐13

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................. 1‐1

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1‐1

1.2 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................. 1‐1

1.3 Outreach and Consultation .................................................................................................... 1‐3

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives..................................................................................... 2‐1

2.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 2‐1

2.1.1 Construction.....................................................................................................................2‐3

2.1.2 Operation......................................................................................................................... 2‐5

2.1.3 Maintenance.................................................................................................................... 2‐5

2.2 No Action Alternative............................................................................................................. 2‐5

Chapter 3 Affected Environment....................................................................................................... 3‐1

3.1 Physical Environment............................................................................................................. 3‐1

3.1.1 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................. 3‐1

3.1.2 Water Resources.............................................................................................................. 3‐2

3.1.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 3‐5
    Contents

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ii October 2015

3.2 Biological Resources............................................................................................................... 3‐5

3.2.1 Vegetation........................................................................................................................ 3‐6

3.2.2 Wildlife............................................................................................................................. 3‐6

3.2.3 Special‐Status Species...................................................................................................... 3‐8

3.3 Transportation and Safety...................................................................................................... 3‐9

3.4 Noise and Vibration.............................................................................................................. 3‐10

3.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................ 3‐11

3.6 Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 3‐12

3.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Sites................................................................3‐13

3.8 Socioeconomics.................................................................................................................... 3‐14

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action............................................................. 4‐1

4.1 Physical Resources ................................................................................................................. 4‐1

4.1.1 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................. 4‐1

4.1.2 Water Resources.............................................................................................................. 4‐2

4.1.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 4‐3

4.2 Biological Resources............................................................................................................... 4‐5

4.2.1 Vegetation........................................................................................................................ 4‐5

4.2.2 Wildlife............................................................................................................................. 4‐6

4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species.............................................................................. 4‐8

4.3 Transportation and Safety...................................................................................................... 4‐9

4.4 Noise and Vibration.............................................................................................................. 4‐11

4.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................ 4‐15

4.6 Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 4‐16

4.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Sites................................................................4‐17

4.8 Socioeconomics.................................................................................................................... 4‐17

4.9 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................................................. 4‐18

4.9.1 Physical Resources......................................................................................................... 4‐19

4.9.2 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 4‐21

4.9.3 Transportation and Safety ............................................................................................. 4‐21

4.9.4 Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................... 4‐22

4.9.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................... 4‐22

4.9.6 Land Use......................................................................................................................... 4‐22

4.9.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Sites.........................................................4‐22

4.9.8 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................. 4‐23

Chapter 5 Recommendations for Mitigation  and Request for Comments ......................................... 5‐1

5.1 Overview of OEA’s Approach to Environmental Mitigation...................................................5‐1

5.2 Limits of the Board’s Conditioning Power.............................................................................. 5‐1

5.3 Voluntary Mitigation and Negotiated Agreements................................................................5‐2

5.4 Preliminary Nature of Environmental Mitigation................................................................... 5‐2
    Contents

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   iii October 2015

5.5 Applicants’ Voluntary Mitigation Measures........................................................................... 5‐3

5.5.1 Transportation and Safety ............................................................................................... 5‐3

5.5.2 Noise and Vibration ......................................................................................................... 5‐3

5.6 OEA’s Preliminary Recommended Mitigation Measures.......................................................5‐3

5.6.1 Physical Resources – Geology and Soils,  

Water Resources, and Air Quality.................................................................................... 5‐3

5.6.2 Biological Resources – Vegetation, Wildlife,  

and Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................................... 5‐4

5.6.3 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................... 5‐4

5.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 5‐5

5.8 Request for Comments........................................................................................................... 5‐5

Chapter 6 References........................................................................................................................ 6‐1

Appendix A Agency Outreach and Consultation 

Appendix B Board and Petitioner’s Correspondence 

Appendix C Lone Star Railroad Emissions Estimates 

Appendix D Noise Impact Assessment Methods
    Contents

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   iv October 2015

List of Figures

Figure ES‐1.  Proposed Rail Line .............................................................................................................. ES‐2

Figure 1‐1.   Proposed Project Area.......................................................................................................... 1‐2

Figure 2‐1.   Proposed Rail Line ................................................................................................................ 2‐2

Figure 2‐2.   Typical Rail Cross‐Sections.................................................................................................... 2‐4

Figure 3‐1.   Biological Resources Survey Area ......................................................................................... 3‐7

Figure 4.4‐1. Typical Day‐Night Average Noise Levels  

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1974) ...................................................................4‐12

Figure 4.4‐2. Proposed Rail Line and Existing Mainline Combined 65 DNL Contour...............................4‐14

List of Tables

Table 3.1‐1. Soil Associations in the Proposed Rail Line Right‐of‐way, Industrial Park

Property and within 0.5 mile buffer ..................................................................................... 3‐2

Table 3.2‐1 Special Status Species and Subspecies Listed for Howard County .......................................3‐9

Table 3.8‐1. Population in the Proposed Project Area, 2010‐2010........................................................3‐14

Table 3.8‐2. Employment in Howard County by Industry, 2013 ............................................................3‐15

Table 4.1‐1. Air Emissions as a Result of Proposed Rail Line Operation...................................................4‐4

Table 4.1‐2. Air Emissions as a Result of Frac Sand Truck Shipment........................................................4‐5

Table 4.3‐1. Potential Frac Sand Shipment Routes and Predicted AADT Increase.................................4‐10

Table 4.4‐1. Train Operational Data ....................................................................................................... 4‐13
    Contents

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   v October 2015

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AADT average annual daily traffic 

APE area of potential effects 

Board Surface Transportation Board 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EDC Economic Development Corporation 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

GMA Groundwater Management Area 

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission 

LSR Lone Star Railroad, Inc. 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

OEA Office of Environmental Analysis 

PLJV Playa Lakes Joint Venture 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SSC Southern Switching Company 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

UP Union Pacific Railroad Company 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐1 October 2015

Executive Summary

ES.1 Statement of Proposed Action

Lone Star Railroad, Inc. (LSR) and Southern Switching Company (SSC) (collectively 

referred to hereafter as the Applicants) seek authority to construct and operate approximately 

3.18 miles of new rail line (Tracks A, B, A-1, and B-1—the proposed action) as shown in 

Figure ES-1. The construction of Tracks A-1 and B-1 would be dependent on future land 

acquisition. The proposed action would connect to an existing Union Pacific Railroad 

Company (UP) mainline and would provide rail service to an industrial park property owned 

by the Applicants near Big Spring in Howard County, Texas. LSR would construct and SSC 

would operate the proposed rail line. 

The primary purpose for the proposed rail line is the efficient delivery of frac sand by rail to 

the industrial park, where it would be transloaded to trucks and delivered to crude oil 

wellheads in the Permian Basin near Midland and Odessa, Texas. The production of crude 

oil requires large quantities of frac sand, which is mined primarily in Wisconsin and 

Minnesota and transported to West Texas by rail. The Applicants indicate that the proposed 

rail line would help to better serve the extensive Permian Basin shale oil activity located west 

and south of Big Spring by allowing for the efficient transloading of frac sand from rail to 

truck at an uncongested location for staging and delivery to the wellhead locations. 

The Applicants proposal to construct the rail line would require approximately 37.6 acres for 

the rail line right-of-way to accommodate an average construction corridor of 50 feet from 

the each side of the rail centerline. Construction of the proposed rail line and rail bed would 

follow methods approved by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way 

Association and the Federal Railroad Administration. The majority of the proposed rail line 

would be located within the industrial park property. Construction details are provided in 

Chapter 2. 

SSC would operate over the proposed rail line to provide service to shippers and receivers in 

the industrial park property. Although the Applicants anticipate that the proposed rail line 

would primarily be used to receive shipments of frac sand, the proposed rail line could also 

be used to ship and receive other supplies associated with shale oil production. While it is 

difficult to predict the likely train traffic volumes resulting from a volatile crude oil market, 

the Applicants anticipate that the proposed rail line would eventually support an average of 

five trains per week (including both inbound and outbound trains), consisting of up to 100 

hopper cars of frac sand per train. In addition to commodities supporting shale oil activities, 

the proposed rail line could provide opportunities for non-shale commodities to originate, 

terminate, or be transloaded at the industrial park property. 
Draft Environmental Assessmentfor the Lone Star Railroad ES‐2 

Figure E
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐3 October 2015

On March 13, 2015 the Applicants submitted a written request to the Surface Transportation 

Board (the Board) for a waiver of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) as required by the Board’s environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105.06(a) (Appendix B, 

Exhibit 5). On March 25, 2015, the Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) granted the 

EIS waiver (Appendix B, Exhibit 6) indicating that the preparation of an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) is the appropriate level of environmental documentation based on a number 

of factors outlined in Section 1.3 Outreach and Consultation, of this Draft EA. 

ICF International, with corporate headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, was retained by the 

Applicants as an independent third party consultant to assist OEA in the preparation of this 

Draft EA. The use of third party consultants is addressed at 49 CFR 1005.4(j). Under the 

direction, supervision, and approval of OEA, the third party consultant is generally 

responsible for gathering technical data required to complete the environmental review of the 

proposed action. The Applicants’ request for use of a third party consultant and OEA’s 

response approving the Applicants’ selection is provided in Appendix B, Exhibits 2 & 4. 

ES.2 Alternatives  

NEPA regulations require federal agencies to consider a reasonable range of feasible 

alternatives to the proposed action. However, NEPA does not mandate consideration of 

every conceivable variation of an alternative, nor does NEPA require the evaluation of 

alternatives that do not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. OEA has taken a 

hard look and determined that, because of the limits of the industrial park space, no 

alternative configurations of the rail line within the industrial park property would allow the 

Applicants to efficiently utilize the industrial park property for the delivery of frac sand by 

rail. OEA further determined that consideration of rail alternatives outside of the industrial 

park property are not warranted for this project as those alternatives would not reasonably 

and feasibly meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. 

As part of its analysis, OEA considered the environmental impacts of the proposed action 

and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the Board would not 

license the Applicants to construct and operate a common carrier rail line to provide service 

to the industrial park in Howard County. LSR would continue to use the industrial park 

property to support commercial and industrial activities. The continued use and future 

development of the industrial park property is considered to be part of the No Action 

Alternative. 
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐4 October 2015

ES.3 Description of the Affected Environment

The proposed rail line is located in Howard County, Texas outside the city limits of Big 

Spring. Chapter 3 contains a detailed discussion of the affected environment. 

Much of the proposed project area is nearly flat and is largely former agricultural land, with 

petroleum extraction wells scattered across the landscape. The topography has been locally 

altered in areas where there has been development of petroleum extraction wells, roads, and 

other structures. Soils at or near the surface consist of windblown sand and silt, alluvium, 

and lacustrine deposits. Resistant caliche underlies the surface sediments and forms a 

resistant material known as caprock between 4 and 18 feet below the ground surface between 

the surface deposits and the Ogallala Formation that underlies that caliche. The Dockum 

Group— composed largely of shale—underlies the Ogallala Formation and is largely 

impermeable to water. 

There are no surface waters located within the proposed rail line right-of-way or within the 

industrial park property. The closest mapped waterbody is Big Sandy Draw, which flows 

south into Beals Creek and is located approximately 1.4 miles to the northwest of the 

proposed rail line at its closest point. There are no mapped wetlands or floodplains within 

the proposed rail line right-of-way or within the industrial park property. The closest 

mapped wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) appear to be artificially-created 

and are located approximately 0.5 mile to the west of the proposed rail line. The majority of 

NWI-mapped wetlands are mapped as freshwater ponds that are either temporarily or 

seasonally flooded. There are no recorded groundwater wells located in the proposed rail 

line right-of-way or industrial park. Groundwater levels in the proposed project area 

typically occur between 35 to 50 feet below the ground surface. 

The proposed project area is not within an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

designated Air Quality Control Region. Air quality in the proposed project area is 

categorized as “attainment” for all criteria pollutants. “Attainment” means that the 

concentration of each criteria pollutant is below the concentration designated by EPA for the 

protection of air quality (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007). 

Overall species diversity is low in the proposed project area. Vegetation consists of a variety 

of cropland, mixed-grass prairie, and mesquite shrubland. Wildlife species that occur in the 

proposed project area are likely to be tolerant of human presence and adapted to disturbed 

areas. The black-capped vireo is the only federally endangered species currently listed for 

Howard County. There is no black-capped vireo designated critical habitat within the 

proposed project area and no suitable habitats or individuals were identified during the 

ground survey conducted for this Draft EA. There are seven mammal species, thirteen bird 

species and subspecies, two reptile species, and one plant species in Howard County that are 

designated as rare, threatened, or endangered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

(TPWD). Although suitable habitat exists for some of these species and they may potentially 
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐5 October 2015

occur in or near the proposed rail line right-of-way, none have been recorded in the area 

where the habitat assessment survey was conducted for this Draft EA. 

Existing public roadways in the vicinity of the proposed rail line include North Midway 

Road, North Moss Lake Road, U.S. Interstate 20 (I-20), Route 820, Route 350, and County 

Road 26. 

The primary sources of ambient noise in the proposed project area include rail traffic along 

the existing UP mainline, vehicle traffic along I-20, and operations at existing businesses. 

OEA conducted an intensive pedestrian archaeological survey within the proposed rail line 

right-of-way to identify prehistoric, historic, and cultural resources and to assess the 

significance of those resources and their potential eligibility for inclusion in the National 

Register. OEA’s investigation revealed three historic/prehistoric sites consisting of thin 

scatters of artifacts and one isolated object. 

Land use within the proposed project area is predominantly industrial and agricultural and 

the land is experiencing ongoing disturbance with industrial activities. The “Moss Lake 

Road Groundwater Plume” is the only confirmed and registered site of hazardous material 

contamination identified within 0.5 mile of the proposed rail line right-of-way and the 

industrial park property. 

The proposed rail line is located entirely in Howard County, Texas. The 2012 population of 

Howard County was 35,471. As of 2013, the main industries providing employment in 

Howard County were retail trade, mining, manufacturing, construction, and accommodation 

and food services. 

ES.4 Synopsis of Environmental Impacts of the

Proposed Action

As discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, the construction and operation of the proposed rail 

line would not be likely to have significant environmental impacts with the implementation 

of the voluntary and recommended mitigation measures. 

ES.4.1 Physical Environment

ES.4.1.1 Geology and Soils

Because of the relatively flat topography, cut-and-fill activities related to the construction of 

the proposed rail line would result in minimal alteration of the terrain. The proposed rail line 

right-of-way would be approximately 100 feet wide and would require approximately 37.6 

acres of land. Soils in the proposed rail line right-of-way have been previously disturbed by 

agricultural activity and crude oil development. Construction-related cut-and-fill activities 

would increase the likelihood of wind-erosion. OEA’s recommended mitigation measures 
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐6 October 2015

requiring the Applicants to use water trucks and best management practices during rail line 

construction and limit construction activities to the rail line right-of-way would help control 

and suppress fugitive dust emissions during rail line construction. Overall, the construction 

and operation of the proposed rail line would not likely result in a significant impact on 

geology and soils. 

ES.4.1.2 Water Resources

There are no surface waters, wetlands, floodplains, or recorded groundwater wells within 

close proximity to the proposed rail line right-of-way. It is unlikely that drainage from the 

proposed rail line right-of-way would reach the Big Sandy Draw, which is the closest 

mapped waterbody and is located over 1.0 mile to the west of the proposed rail line at its 

closest point. The proposed rail line construction would not result in any disturbance near a 

mapped wetland. Construction and operation of the proposed rail line would not likely 

change existing flood-storage capacity or alter the course of the existing floodways. 

Groundwater aquifer recharge from surface water infiltration is limited in the proposed 

project area because there is a caprock barrier between the surface soils and the aquifer. 

OEA’s recommended mitigation measures would require the implementation of erosion and 

sedimentation control measures which would minimize potential impacts from stormwater 

runoff on water resources in the proposed project area. Overall, the construction and 

operation of the proposed rail line would not result in impacts on surface waters, wetlands, 

and floodplains and would not likely result in impacts on groundwater. 

ES.4.1.3 Air Quality

Fugitive dust could be generated during the construction of the proposed rail line as a result 

of soil-disturbing activities and equipment movement on unpaved surfaces. Fugitive dust 

emissions during construction would be temporary. The implementation of OEA’s 

recommended mitigation measures, which would require the Applicants to use water trucks 

and best management practices during rail line construction and limit construction activities 

to the rail line right-of-way, would minimize fugitive dust emissions. Air emissions from 

construction equipment exhaust, delivery vehicle exhaust, and employee vehicle exhaust 

would be temporary and localized to the proposed rail line right-of-way and nearby areas. 

Overall, the construction of the proposed rail line would not result in significant impacts on 

air quality. 

Locomotive diesel emissions related to the operation of the proposed rail line would not 

likely adversely affect local or regional air quality because of the relatively small number of 

train movements and the short distances traveled. Likewise, truck diesel emissions related to 

the movement of frac sand would not be likely to adversely affect local or regional air 

quality. Overall, the operation of the proposed rail line would not likely adversely affect 

local and regional air quality. 
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐7 October 2015

ES.4.2 Biological Resources

ES.4.2.1 Vegetation

Construction of the proposed rail line would permanently disturb some areas within the 

37.6-acre rail line right-of-way, and temporarily disturb other areas. Because of the high 

level of previous disturbance in the proposed project area, vegetation communities in the 

proposed rail line right-of-way have already been heavily altered from their natural state. 

Vegetation cover types and the species that comprise them are common in the proposed 

project area and the area of permanent loss of vegetation would be small. Construction 

impacts from fugitive dust emissions on vegetation would be temporary, localized, and 

minimized through the implementation of OEA’s recommended mitigation measures. 

Overall, the construction of the proposed rail line would not likely result in significant 

impacts on vegetation. 

During the operation of the proposed rail line, maintenance activities may include the control 

of vegetation in the rail line right-of-way by mechanical methods or by the application of 

herbicides. Maintenance activities could also result in a small volume of petroleum leaks and 

spills from maintenance vehicles and equipment. Because the likelihood of leaks and spills 

from maintenance vehicles and the volumes associated with these occurrences is low, only 

minor impacts on the overall plant ecosystem would be likely. Overall, the operation of the 

proposed rail line would not likely result in significant impacts on vegetation. 

ES.4.2.2 Wildlife

Construction and operation of the proposed rail line could increase mortality rates of wildlife, 

but species that would be affected are common in the region and are generally adapted to 

human presence and disturbance activities. Noise related to construction and operation 

activities could also cause species intolerant of human activity to avoid the proposed rail line 

right-of-way and the nearby surrounding area. Wildlife utilizing habitats in and around the 

proposed rail line would be expected to adapt to disturbances associated with rail line 

operations. Impacts on wildlife populations protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) would be minimized with the implementation of OEA’s recommended mitigation 

measures. The amount of habitat that would be lost, degraded, altered, or fragmented by the 

construction and operation of the proposed rail line is relatively small. Human alteration and 

disturbance to wildlife habitat is already common in and around the proposed project area. 

Overall, the construction and operation of the proposed rail line would not likely result in 

significant impacts on wildlife or wildlife habitat. 
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐8 October 2015

ES.4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

The only federally endangered species currently listed for Howard County is the blackcapped vireo. There is no suitable habitat to support breeding black-capped vireos and no 

documented occurrences within the wildlife survey area. The construction and operation of 

the proposed rail line would have no effect on this species. 

The potential for the occurrence of species designated by TPWD as rare, threatened, or 

endangered in the proposed project area is low. There have been no documented 

observations of these species in the proposed project area, nor were they observed during the 

wildlife field survey conducted for this Draft EA. With the implementation of OEA’s 

recommended mitigation measures, impacts on these wildlife species resulting from the 

construction and operation of the proposed rail line would not be likely. 

ES.4.3 Transportation and Safety

Temporary increases in local vehicle traffic during construction of the proposed rail line 

would represent a low increase in daily traffic volumes on I-20, highways, and county roads 

in the proposed project area. Overall, the construction of the proposed rail line would not 

likely significantly impact traffic operation. 

No public roads would be crossed by the proposed rail line. There would therefore be no 

emergency vehicle response delays, passenger vehicle delays, or crossing safety concerns as 

a result of the proposed rail line construction and operation. 

Up to 286 frac sand truck trips per day could be generated on area roadways as a result of the 

construction and operation of the proposed rail line. The anticipated primary transportation 

routes for frac sand shipments would include I-20, Highway 137, Highway 87, Highway 176, 

Highway 349, Highway 158, and Highway 33. The traffic increase on these roadways 

resulting from frac sand truck trips would range from 0.24 percent for I-20 to 2.22 percent for 

Highway 176. These predicted increases in truck traffic would not result in a significant 

increase in AADT and would have a negligible impact on traffic and transportation on area 

roadways. 

The implementation of the Applicants’ voluntary mitigation would lead to road planning and 

design improvements in collaboration with local transportation authorities to accommodate 

the anticipated level of increased traffic on North Moss Lake Road, the likely access point to 

the industrial park. Overall, the operation of the proposed rail line would not likely result in 

significant impacts on traffic and transportation. 

ES.4.4 Noise and Vibration

No noise-sensitive receptors were identified within a half-mile of the of the proposed rail line 

to the east, north and west. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the proposed rail line are 

residences to the south of the proposed rail line in the community of Sand Springs. With the 
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐9 October 2015

implementation of the Applicants’ voluntary mitigation to use industry best practices to 

minimize noise in the residential area to the south of the proposed rail line construction, and 

because of the distance of the residences from construction activities and the masking effects 

of existing train traffic noise from the UP mainline, temporary noise generated during 

construction of the proposed rail line should have minimal, if any, impacts on noise-sensitive 

receptors. 

Noise contours were developed for the No Action Alternative (existing UP mainline noise 

conservatively assuming 7 trains per day) and for the proposed rail line (5 trains per week or 

0.7 train per day), which would be the combination of UP mainline rail noise and rail noise 

from the operation of the proposed rail line. Rail noise from the operation of the proposed 

rail line would be less than 65 DNL at all receptor locations and DNL values at the 

residences south of the mainline would be essentially unchanged. Consequently, there would 

be no adverse noise impacts resulting from the operation of the proposed rail line. 

In addition to the noise generated by the construction and operation of the proposed rail line, 

noise in the proposed project area would be generated by new frac sand truck 

activity. Because of the high volume of existing traffic—including heavy freight truck 

traffic—on I-20 and the existing train traffic and train horn noise at road crossings along the 

UP mainline, the impacts from new truck traffic associated with the proposed rail line would 

be likely to be minimal. 

ES.4.5 Cultural

OEA conducted a survey within the proposed rail line right-of-way to identify prehistoric, 

historic, and cultural resources and to assess the significance of those resources and their 

potential to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Three historic/prehistoric sites were identified during the survey, with portions of the sites 

located both within and outside the proposed rail line right-of-way. The portions of the sites 

within the proposed rail line right-of-way were determined to have no potential for the 

NRHP. Should rail line construction activities outside the proposed rail line right-of-way be 

required, OEA has recommended mitigation to address potential impacts to the portions of 

the sites located outside the proposed rail line right-of-way. 

By letter dated August 5, 2015, OEA requested that the Texas SHPO concur with a Section 

106 finding of “no historic properties affected.” On August 24, 2015, the SHPO concurred 

with the OEA's determination. 

ES.4.6 Land Use

Land outside of Big Spring city limits does not have official zoning designations. The 

proposed rail line is located in an area that is already developed and being utilized for 

industrial purposes. Because industrial development including rail transportation is prevalent 

in the proposed project area, the construction and operation of the proposed rail line would be 
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐10 October 2015

consistent with the existing land uses in the area. Additionally no public parks or recreation 

areas were identified adjacent to or near the proposed rail line. The construction and 

operation of the proposed rail line would not result in significant impacts on land use. 

ES.4.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Sites

OEA conducted a records search to determine whether any hazardous materials and 

hazardous waste sites are located along or in the vicinity of the proposed rail line right-ofway. Two records were found representing a single documented groundwater plume of 

tetrachloroethylene on Moss Lake Road, approximately 0.7 mile to the east of the proposed 

rail line. Given the documented extent of the plume and the direction of groundwater flow, it 

is unlikely that the groundwater beneath the proposed rail line has been affected by the 

plume. The construction and operation of the proposed rail line would have no effect on 

existing hazardous materials or hazardous waste sites. The construction and operation of the 

proposed rail line would have no effect on hazardous materials or hazardous waste sites. 

ES.4.8 Socioeconomics

The Applicants estimate that 30 construction workers may be employed for up to six months 

during the construction of the proposed rail line. Up to 10 full time staff members would be 

employed for the operation of the proposed rail line. Because these numbers constitute less 

than 0.2 percent of the current labor force in the county and 0.02 percent of the population 

within commuting distance, OEA expects that there would be no changes in current 

populations or employment trends. No high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects were identified in Chapter 4 of this Draft EA. No disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects would be expected on minority or low-income 

populations as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed rail line. 

ES.4.9 Cumulative

OEA consulted with local, state, and federal agencies as well as the Applicants, and 

conducted public outreach activities to identify other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions in the proposed project area. OEA determined that the further 

development of the industrial park property owned by LSR is the only project that overlaps 

with the proposed rail line in terms of geographic area and time frame. Because the 

development and operation of the industrial park property has the potential to impact some of 

the same resources as the rail line at about the same time as the rail line construction and 

operation, OEA determined that the analysis of the industrial park property is an appropriate 

part of the cumulative analysis for this case. 

The cumulative impacts analysis for this Draft EA evaluated the potential impacts that may 

result when the impacts of constructing and operating the proposed rail line are added to the 

impacts of further development of the industrial park property. All resources described and 

evaluated in Chapters 3 and 4 of this Draft EA were considered in the cumulative impacts 
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐11 October 2015

analysis. OEA concluded that no significant impacts would result on any of the resources 

evaluated. For a detailed description of cumulative impacts, see Section 4.9 Cumulative 

Impacts. 

ES.5 OEA’s Recommendation for Mitigation

Based on independent analysis of the project and comments received from various agencies 

consulted with prior to and during the preparation of this Draft EA (see Appendix A), OEA 

recommends that if the Board grants the Applicants the authority to construct and operate the 

proposed rail line, such authority be subject to the voluntarily and recommended mitigation 

measures identified below. 

 VM-1. The Applicants shall consult with Howard County, Texas regarding curb cut and 

road planning in the vicinity of the proposed rail line construction. 

 VM-2. The Applicants shall use industry best practices in order to minimize noise in the 

residential area to the south of the proposed track construction. 

 MM-1. The Applicants shall use water trucks as appropriate during rail line construction 

activities in order to minimize fugitive dust emissions and shall employ best management 

practices in the control and suppression of fugitive dust emissions. 

 MM-2. The Applicants shall limit rail line construction activities, vegetation clearing, 

and soil disturbance to the rail line right-of-way in order to minimize fugitive dust 

generation. 

 MM-3. The Applicants shall comply with the reasonable requirements of all applicable 

federal, state, and local regulations regarding the control of fugitive dust related to rail 

line construction activities. 

 MM-4. Should federal funds be used by the Applicants in the construction of the rail 

line, the Applicants shall consult with the United States Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service regarding the requirements of the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act. 

 MM-5. The Applicants shall implement soil erosion and sedimentation control measures 

to minimize impacts on surface waters in the project area from stormwater runoff during 

rail line construction activities. 

 MM-6. The Applicants shall develop and implement a plan to prevent spills of oil or 

other petroleum products during rail line construction, operation, and maintenance. The 

plan shall address fuel storage and transfer practices to prevent spills and leaks, first 

response procedures for spills, and reporting and notification procedures. 

 MM-7. The Applicants shall clear vegetation in preparation for rail line construction 

before or after the bird nesting season (March 1 to August 31) to avoid inadvertent 

removal of active nests (nesting adults, young, or eggs) and to ensure compliance with 
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐12 October 2015

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If vegetation clearing for the rail line construction is 

required during bird nesting season, the Applicants shall consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service regarding the implementation of appropriate nest survey methods to 

ensure that no migratory bird nests, eggs, or young are disturbed by construction 

activities until the eggs have hatched and the young have fledged. 

 MM-8. To address the concerns of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 

the Applicants shall conduct ground-disturbing activities related to rail line construction 

to before or after the Texas horned lizard hibernation season (September/October to 

March/April – when ambient temperatures fall below 75o

 F) to avoid destruction of 

hibernating Texas horned lizards. If ground-disturbing activities for the rail line 

construction are required during the hibernation season of the Texas horned lizard, the 

Applicants shall consult with TPWD regarding the implementation of appropriate preconstruction surveys to determine the presence of Texas horned lizards. If Texas horned 

lizards are present, the Applicants shall contact TPWD to develop plans for their 

relocation. 

 MM-9. Should any rail line construction activities take place adjacent to but outside the 

rail line right-of-way in the vicinity of the three sites recorded during OEA’s pedestrian 

archeological resources survey, Applicants shall, prior to conducting those construction 

activities, consult with OEA and the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer regarding 

additional archeological investigations that may be necessary. 

 MM-10. In the event that any unanticipated archaeological sites, human remains, 

funerary items, or associated artifacts are discovered during rail line construction , the 

Applicants shall immediately cease all work and notify OEA and the Texas State Historic 

Preservation Officer pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.13(b). OEA shall then consult with the 

SHPO, the Applicants, and other consulting parties, if any, to determine whether 

appropriate mitigation measures are necessary. 

ES.6 Preliminary Conclusions

Based on available information provided from all sources to date, OEA preliminarily 

concludes that, as currently proposed, construction and operation of the Applicants’ proposed 

rail line would not significantly affect the quality of the natural or human environment 

provided that the voluntary and recommended mitigation measures as set forth in this Draft 

EA are implemented. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is unnecessary in this 

proceeding. 

This Draft EA considers the potential environmental impacts of the construction and 

operation of approximately 3.18 miles of rail line in Howard County, Texas. The proposed 

rail line would provide rail service to an industrial park property near Big Spring, Texas to 

allow for the efficient delivery of frac sand by rail to the industrial park, where it would be 

transloaded to trucks and delivered to crude oil wellheads in the Permian Basin near Midland 
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   ES‐13 October 2015

and Odessa, Texas. OEA recommends that, if the Board grants the Applicants authority to 

construct and operate the proposed rail line, the Applicants be required to implement the 

mitigation measures recommended above and in Chapter 5 of this Draft EA. OEA will 

consider all comments received in response to this Draft EA in rendering its final 

recommendations to the Board. 

ES.7 Request for Comments

OEA invites comments on all aspects of this Draft EA. OEA will consider all comments 

received in response to the Draft EA in making its final recommendations to the Board. The 

Board will consider OEA’s final recommendations and the environmental comments in 

making its final decision in this proceeding. 

Please send any comments on this Draft E A by November 16, 2015 to: 

Kenneth Blodgett 

Attention: Environmental filing, Docket No. FD 35874 

Surface Transportation Board 

395 E Street SW 

Washington, DC 20423-0001 

Environmental comments may also be filed electronically on the Board’s website, 

www.stb.gov, by clicking on the “E-FILING” link. Please refer to Finance Docket No. 

35874 in all correspondence, including e-filings, addressed to the Board. If you have any 

questions regarding this Environmental Assessment, please contact Kenneth Blodgett by 

phone at (202) 245-0305 or email at blodgettk@stb.dot.gov. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 1-1

October 2015

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

On February 24, 2015, Lone Star Railroad, Inc. (LSR) and Southern Switching Company 

(SSC) (collectively referred to hereafter as the Applicants) filed a petition for exemption with 

the Surface Transportation Board (Board),1pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(a) and 49 C.F.R. 

1121.1 et seq. LSR proposes to construct and SSC proposes to operate approximately 3.18 

miles of rail line (the proposed action) that would connect to an existing Union Pacific 

Railroad Company (UP) mainline and provide rail service to an industrial park property near 

Big Spring, in Howard County, Texas. The Board is the agency responsible for granting the 

authority to construct and operate proposed rail lines and associated facilities under 49 

U.S.C. § 10901. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board must exempt the proposed construction 

of a rail line from the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 if it finds that regulation of the 

project: (1) is not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10102; and (2) 

either: (a) the transaction or service is of limited scope, or (b) the application of a subdivision 

of subtitle IV of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 is not needed to protect shippers from the 

abuse of market power.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The primary purpose for the proposed action is the efficient delivery of frac sand2by rail to 

the industrial park property, where it would be transloaded to trucks and delivered to crude 

oil wellheads in the Permian Basin near Midland and Odessa, Texas. Figure 1-1 provides an 

overview of the project area. 

 

1 The Surface Transportation Board is a bipartisan, decisionally independent adjudicatory body, organizationally housed

within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The Board was established by the Interstate Commerce 

Commission (ICC) Termination Act of 1995 (49 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.; 104-88, December 29, 1995) to assume certain 

regulatory functions that the ICC administered. The Board has jurisdiction over rail constructions, rail abandonments, rail 

rates, railroad acquisitions, and consolidations. Other functions of the ICC were either eliminated or transferred to different 

agencies within DOT.

2 Frac sand is quartz sand of a specific grain size and shape that is suspended in fluid and injected into oil and gas wells under 

very high pressure. The fluid pressure opens and enlarges fractures as well as creates new ones. Sand grains are carried into 

these fractures and prop them open after the fluid is pumped out (University of Wisconsin-Extension 2013). 
Chapter 1.

Purpose and Need

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 1-2

October 2015

Figure 1-1. Proposed Project Area
Chapter 1.

Purpose and Need

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 1-3

October 2015

The production of crude oil requires large quantities of frac sand and lesser quantities of 

other commodities, including several kinds of pipes. Frac sand for crude oil production is 

mined primarily in Wisconsin and eastern Minnesota and transported to west Texas by rail. 

Frac sand is typically transported long distances by rail and delivered to the wellhead 

locations by truck. The Applicants believe that the proposed action would allow for the 

efficient transloading of frac sand from rail to truck at an uncongested location somewhat 

removed from wellhead sites for more orderly staging and delivery to the wellhead locations. 

The Applicants indicate that the proposed action would serve the extensive Permian Basin 

shale oil activity located west and south of Big Spring. The Permian Basin is the largest 

crude oil producing region of the United States. The Midland Basin, centered around 

Midland and Odessa, is the largest of the three major basins in the Permian Basin (U.S. 

Energy Information Administration 2014). Development in the oil and gas industry is the 

main driver of growth in this region (Center for Community and Business Research 2014). 

The Applicants believe the proposed action would address this growth by transloading frac 

sand at an industrial park that could accommodate the shipment of frac sand located a short 

distance from Interstate Highway I-20. 

1.3 Outreach and Consultation

The Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) is the office within the Board responsible for 

carrying out the Board’s responsibilities under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

42 U.S.C. § 4332, and related environmental laws. On January 9, 2015, OEA sent 

consultation letters to federal, state, and local agencies and tribal organizations that might 

have an interest or regulatory oversight role in the project. OEA has incorporated agency 

comments and concerns into this Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and provided 

responses where applicable. The comment letters may be found in Appendix A and are 

summarized below. 

 By letter dated January 23, 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) indicated that soils of statewide importance are 

found in the project area and no hydric soils are listed in the project area, which would 

require an evaluation under Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) if federal financial 

assistance were requested by the Applicants. The Applicants do not intend to use federal 

funds for this project; therefore, the proposed rail line is exempt from FPPA regulations. 

 By letter dated January 27, 2015, Howard County Road and Bridge cited concerns about 

the capacity of county roads to handle traffic that may be generated by the proposed 

action. They also indicated that they do not anticipate a significant noise impact from the 

proposed action.

 By letter dated January 30, 2015, the Texas Historical Commission’s State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) indicated that, according to their maps, the proposed project 
Chapter 1.

Purpose and Need

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 1-4

October 2015

is in an area that has the potential for cultural resources and that several archeological 

sites have previously been recorded in the vicinity. The SHPO recommended that a 

professional archeologist survey the project area. OEA conducted intensive pedestrian 

surveys in May 2015 and on August 5, 2015, OEA provided the SHPO with the 

Archeological Report for the proposed rail line and a letter requesting concurrence with a 

finding of “no historic properties affected.” On August 24, 2015, the SHPO concurred 

with the OEA's determination. 

 By email dated February 6, 2015, the U.S. National Park Service indicated that they had 

no comments on the proposed action. 

 By letter dated March 11, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth 

District indicated that it had determined that the proposed action would not involve 

activities subject to the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which 

regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, 

including wetlands. They also indicated that the proposed action would not involve 

activities subject to the requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899, which regulates any work in, or affecting, navigable waters of the United States. 

 By letter dated May 8, 2015, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 

provided information, comments, and recommendations based on their review of the 

proposed rail line. Information provided by TPWD is described in Section 4.2 Biological 

Resources of this Draft EA, 

The Applicants conducted early outreach and consultation with a number of local agencies, 

officials, and interested parties. The Applicants received feedback from local stakeholders, 

including statements of support from the Mayor of Big Spring and the Chairman of the Big 

Spring Economic Development Corporation (EDC). 

On March 13, 2015, the Applicants submitted a written request to the Board requesting a 

waiver from the Board’s requirement for the preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), which is normally required by the Board’s regulations for rail line 

construction proposals. On March 25, 2015, OEA granted the waiver from the requirement 

to prepare an EIS, indicating that the preparation of an EA is the appropriate level of 

environmental documentation based on the following factors (included in Appendix B). 

 The proposed track is short in length and would not cross any public roads.

 The area is not heavily populated; therefore, safety impacts are not expected to be 

significant. 

 There would be no diversion of existing freight traffic to or from other transportation 

systems or modes.

 The proposed action is not expected to conflict with any existing land use plans.

 No significant impact to local or regional air quality is expected. 
   

Chapter 1.

Purpose and Need

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   1‐5 October 2015

 It does not appear that the proposed action would have a lasting, adverse impact on 

surface or groundwater resources. 

 There are no wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, or national or state parks or forests that would 

be affected by the proposed action. 

 No historic structures or other potential historic or archeological resources were observed 

during the site visit. 

 Any potential impacts resulting from the proposed action could most likely be addressed 

through appropriate mitigation measures. 

The Board, through OEA, is the agency responsible under NEPA for preparing this Draft EA 

that identifies and evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the 

proposed action and alternatives. 

OEA is issuing this Draft EA for public review and comment. The Board will consider the 

entire environmental record, comprising the Draft EA and Final EA, public and agency 

comments submitted on the Draft EA, and OEA’s environmental recommendations in 

making its final decision on the Applicants’ proposal to construct and operate 3.18 miles of 

new track. The Board will decide whether to approve, approve with conditions (which could 

include conditions designed to mitigate environmental impacts), or deny the proposed action. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 2-1

October 2015

Chapter 2

Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action consists of the construction and operation of a rail line approximately 

3.18 miles in length (including Tracks A, B, A-1, and B-1 as shown in Figure 2-1) to provide 

service to an industrial park property located east of the city limits of Big Spring, in Howard 

County, Texas (Figure 1-1). LSR would construct and SSC would operate the proposed rail 

line, which would extend north from sidetrack that UP plans to construct between North 

Midway Road and North Moss Lake Road and parallel to the existing UP Toyah Subdivision 

mainline.

LSR owns over 600 acres of land adjacent to UP’s planned sidetrack, which is being

developed as an industrial park property (Figure 2-1). The proposed rail line includes

approximately 2.14 miles of rail line for Tracks A and B that would be located on land 

presently owned by LSR and approximately 1.04 miles of rail line for Tracks A-1 and B-1. 

Approximately 0.74 mile of Track B-1 would not be located on property presently owned by 

LSR. LSR is currently engaged in negotiations to acquire a narrow strip of property on which 

most of Track B-1 would be located. If LSR acquires this land, Tracks A-1 and B-1 would be 

constructed and operated. Although the construction and operation of Tracks A-1 and B-1 

depend on future land acquisition, the potential environmental impacts related to the 

construction and operation of these tracks are evaluated as part of this Draft EA. If LSR does 

not acquire the land to construct and operate Tracks A-1 and B-1, LSR would proceed with 

the construction and operation of the 2.14 miles of track associated with Tracks A and B, 

pending the approval of the proposed action by the Board.

The Applicants anticipate that the industrial park property would be used as a staging area for 

frac sand to be transloaded onto trucks for delivery to crude oil wellheads near the industrial 

park property if the proposed rail line is approved and constructed. A number of other 

commodities supporting shale oil drilling could be shipped, received, or transloaded at the 

industrial park property including line pipe, drill pipe, casing pipe, aggregate, natural gas, 

drilling mud, and liquid materials. The industrial park property could also support future 

temporary regional rail car storage. At present, the industrial park property is being used for 

other commercial and industrial purposes, such as crude oil extraction and transport, electric

transmission, pipe staging and pipe storage. 
Chapter 2.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 2-2

October 2015

Figure 2-1. Proposed Rail Line
Chapter 2.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 2-3

October 2015

To support customer rail operations within the industrial park property, a number of private 

customer tracks and a rail service yard would be constructed; however, the extent and 

specific configuration of private rail development is not known at this time and would be 

determined in the future based on shipper needs. Transloading equipment and storage 

facilities for frac sand would be required on the site. Other facilities that could be developed 

in the industrial park property include: a shop for maintenance and repair of locomotives, one 

or more unpaved private roads to connect facilities within the industrial park property to 

North Moss Lake Road, an office building that would likely be located in the southeast 

corner of the industrial park property, and a private well on the property to provide potable 

water and a contained septic system. 

2.1.1 Construction

The proposed action evaluated in this Draft EA includes the construction of Tracks A, B, 

A-1, and B-1 as presented in Figure 2-1 above. It is not anticipated that all four tracks would 

be constructed by the Applicants to meet the project’s purpose and need. The construction of 

Tracks A-1 and B-1 is dependent on future land acquisition by the Applicants. Tracks A and 

B could be constructed and operated without the land acquisition. Although the outcome of 

the Applicants land acquisition is uncertain at this time, the potential environmental impacts 

related to the construction and operation of Tracks A-1 and B-1 are evaluated as part of the 

proposed action for this Draft EA. All tracks would be constructed with rail ranging in 

weight from 110 pounds per yard to 119 pounds per yard. The proposed rail line would be 

designed to support railcar loads up to 286,000 pounds. Construction of the proposed rail line 

and rail bed would follow methods approved by the American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance-of-Way Association and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). LSR has 

indicated that the construction of the proposed rail line would take four to six months to 

complete and that construction of the proposed rail line would employ approximately 30 

construction workers. 

Construction of the proposed rail line would initially involve clearing a right-of-way that 

would extend approximately 50 feet from each side of the rail centerline. The rail bed and an 

adjacent drainage ditch would be located within the proposed rail line right-of-way. Rail bed

construction would include grading and compacting earth to create a flat surface for the rail 

track, and excavating to create a 4-foot wide drainage ditch. The track would be secured to 

rail ties built on 8 inches of ballast, which would rest on top of 8 inches of subballast. The 

subballast layer would extend a distance of 12 feet from each side of the rail centerline. 

Figure 2-2 shows a typical cross section for the proposed rail line including areas where only 

one track would be located and areas where two tracks would be configured closely together. 

There would be no public road crossings or crossings of identified waterbodies for the entire 

length of the proposed rail line.
Chapter 2.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 2-4

October 2015

Figure 2-2. Typical Rail Cross-Sections
Chapter 2.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 2-5

October 2015

2.1.2 Operation

SSC would operate over the proposed rail line to provide service to shippers and receivers in 

the industrial park property. The Applicants anticipate that the proposed rail line would 

primarily be used to receive shipments of frac sand originating in Wisconsin and Minnesota. 

The proposed rail line could also be used to ship and receive other supplies associated with 

shale oil production. While it is difficult to predict the likely train traffic volumes resulting 

from a volatile crude oil market, LSR anticipates that the proposed rail line would eventually 

support an average of five trains per week (including both inbound and outbound trains). 

LSR has indicated that the proposed rail line would have the capacity to handle trainload 

shipments of 100 cars or more. The site could also receive manifest1railcar traffic. 

Locomotives would be disconnected from incoming trains and used to move released2rail 

cars from the industrial park property. Depending on business demands, a permanent staff 

size of approximately 10 full-time employees is anticipated to operate the proposed rail line.

Each incoming unit train would include up to 100 hopper cars of frac sand, which would be 

transloaded onto trucks and delivered to crude oil wellheads located to the south and west of 

the industrial park property within an approximately 60-mile distance. LSR has indicated that 

four trucks would be required to ship one hopper car of frac sand. Therefore, for each 100-car 

unit train of frac sand received at the industrial park property, 400 truck trips would be 

required to deliver the frac sand to the wellheads.

2.1.3 Maintenance

The proposed rail line would be inspected for safety as required by FRA track standards. 

Additional inspections would be carried out, as necessary and when warranted by other 

operating conditions. Inspections and maintenance work would be performed by SSC. 

2.2 No Action Alternative

NEPA regulations require federal agencies to consider a reasonable range of feasible 

alternatives to the proposed action. However, NEPA does not mandate consideration of every 

conceivable variation of an alternative, nor does NEPA require the evaluation of alternatives 

that do not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. OEA has taken a hard look 

and determined that, because of the limits of the industrial park space, no alternative 

configurations of the rail line within the industrial park property would allow the Applicants 

to efficiently utilize the industrial park property for the delivery of frac sand by rail. OEA 

further determined that consideration of rail alternatives outside of the industrial park 

 

1 A manifest train refers to a freight train with a mixture of car types and cargoes.

2 Released rail cars are those, empty or full, being removed from the industrial park property by means of a locomotive.
Chapter 2.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 2-6

October 2015

property are not warranted for this project as those alternatives would not reasonably and 

feasibly meet the purpose and need for the proposed action.

In addition to the proposed action, OEA is considering the No Action Alternative. Under the 

No Action Alternative, the Board would not license the Applicants to construct and operate a 

common carrier rail line to provide rail service to an industrial park property in Howard 

County, Texas and the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation 

of the proposed rail line and increased truck traffic would not occur. 

OEA has determined that, under the No Action Alternative, LSR would continue to use the 

industrial park property to support a number of commercial and industrial activities such as 

crude oil extraction, energy transmission, and staging and storage of heavy equipment and 

machinery. Although there would be some differences in the configuration of facilities and 

specific activities that would take place in the industrial park property under the No Action 

Alternative, the continued use and future development of the industrial park property is 

considered to be part of the No Action Alternative. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-1

October 2015

Chapter 3

Affected Environment 

This chapter describes the existing environment in the area where the Applicant’s proposed 

rail line would be constructed and operated. 

3.1 Physical Environment

3.1.1 Geology and Soils

The proposed project area is located in Howard County, Texas (Figure 1-1). The topography 

of the proposed project area is gently undulating, ranging from approximately 2,450 feet 

above sea level to approximately 2,560 feet above sea level (TopoQuest 2015). Much of the 

proposed project area is nearly flat. The land is largely former agricultural land, with 

petroleum extraction wells scattered across the landscape (Texas General Land Office n.d.). 

Topography in the proposed project area has been locally altered in areas where there has 

been development of petroleum extraction wells, roads, and other structures. 

Soils at or near the surface in the proposed project area consist of windblown sand and silt1, 

alluvium2, and lacustrine3deposits. These lacustrine sediments are fine-grained and form 

sand sheets

4

, sand dunes, and sand dune ridges. The thickness of these deposits in the 

proposed project area ranges from 0 to 10 feet (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

2010). Resistant caliche, formed from leaching of carbonate and silica from the surface soils 

and deposition of these minerals below the surface, underlies the surface sediments. This 

caliche forms a resistant material known as caprock5between 4 and 18 feet below the ground 

surface between the surface deposits and the Ogallala Formation that underlies that caliche 

(Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2010). 

Ogallala sediments consist of alternating sequences of fine to coarse-grained clastics6, 

medium- to coarse-grained sands, and larger particles from pea-sized gravels to cobbles to 

boulders. Ogallala sediments are encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 64 feet below 

ground surface in the proposed project area (North Plains Groundwater Conservation District 

2011, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2010). Aquifers are present within the 

water-bearing sediments of the Ogallala Formation. 

 

1 Silt is a term for loose particles of rock or mineral that are finer than sand, but coarser than clay.

2 Alluvium is a general term for clay, silt, sand, or gravel deposited by flowing streams in a river valley or delta.

3 Lacustrine is a general term for a sedimentary deposit laid down on the floor of, or along the shore of, a lake. 

4 Sand sheets are flat or gently undulating areas of sand that generally exist where sand particle size is too large, or wind 

speeds are too low to form sand dunes. 

5 Caprock is a layer of hard, impervious rock which lies immediately above a source rock. Because of its impervious nature, 

caprock acts as a barrier preventing the migration of hydrocarbons or water.

6 Clastic refers to rock or sediments made up primarily of broken fragments of pre-existing rocks or minerals. 
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-2

October 2015

The Dockum Group underlies the Ogallala Formation. It is composed largely of shale and is 

largely impermeable to water. In the proposed project area, the Dockum Group lies at depths 

approximately 35 to 65 feet below ground surface (Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality 2010). 

OEA identified five soil associations in the proposed rail line right-of-way and the nearby 

area, including the industrial park property and a surrounding 0.5-mile buffer. Soil 

associations consist of two or more dissimilar components occurring in a regularly repeating 

pattern. Table 3.1-1 summarizes the soil associations in the proposed rail line right-of-way, 

industrial park property, and within a 0.5-mile buffer. 

Table 3.1-1. Soil Associations in the Proposed Rail Line Right-of-way, Industrial Park Property and 

within 0.5 mile buffer

Soil Association

Erodibility 

Hazard, Water

Erodibility 

Hazard, Wind a

Ponding 

Frequency b

Amarillo loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Slight 2 None

Brownfield fine sand, thick surface Slight 1 None

Patricia fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Slight 1 None

Springer loamy fine sand, undulating Slight 2 None

Circleback fine sand Slight 1 None

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service 2015.

Notes:

a. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least 

susceptible. 

b. Ponding is standing water in a closed depression that can only be removed by evaporation, percolation, transpiration, or a 

combination of these processes. A Ponding Frequency of “None” indicates that there is no reasonable possibility of 

ponding.

While pockets of prime farmland are found in the proposed project area, the proposed rail 

line right-of-way, the industrial park property, and most of the immediately surrounding area 

do not include prime farmland (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2015). As indicated 

by the NRCS in their comment letter, neither the proposed rail line right-of-way nor the

industrial park property contains hydric soils. However, NRCS indicated that the proposed 

rail line would cross soils of statewide importance which would require an evaluation under 

FPPA if federal financial assistance were requested by the Applicants. The Applicants do 

not intend to use federal funds for this project; therefore, the proposed rail line is exempt 

from FPPA regulations. 

3.1.2 Water Resources

3.1.2.1 Surface Water

The proposed project area is located in the Llano Estacado subregion of the High Plains 

ecoregion, which is described as a dry, elevated plain surrounded by escarpments on three 

sides, with the Edwards Plateau to the south (Griffith et al. 2004). This region is 

characterized as having a cold semiarid climate with long, hot summers, cold winters, and 
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-3

October 2015

extremely low rainfall. As a result of the limited precipitation, the fact that this landform is 

cut off from mountain surface waters, and the limited slope across the landscape, the density 

of streams and surface drainages present in this region is low (Griffith et al. 2004). Most of 

the surface water occurs in small intermittent ponds or playa lakes7that hold seasonal rainfall

(Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2015a). Impounded stock ponds and reservoirs are 

also common, with the larger regional reservoirs used for municipal water supply and 

recreation. 

The proposed project area lies within the Beals Creek subbasin of the Colorado River basin. 

Beals Creek is the main drainageway in this subbasin and consists of an approximately 67.0

mile-long intermittent stream that originates from a salt lake approximately 4.0 miles west of 

Big Spring (Texas State Historical Association 2010). It flows east to the Colorado River of 

Texas, which drains into the Gulf of Mexico. The Beals Creek subbasin drains 

approximately 25.1 square miles and extends into Howard, Sterling, Mitchell, and Glasscock 

counties (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015). 

No surface waters occur directly within the proposed rail line right-of-way or within the 

industrial park property. The closest mapped waterbody is Big Sandy Draw, which is located 

approximately 1.4 miles to the northwest of the proposed rail line at its closest point (U.S. 

Geological Survey 1971a). This intermittent drainage flows south to Beals Creek. Other 

surface waterbodies in the proposed project area include Refinery Lake, Red Draw Reservoir, 

and Moss Creek Lake (U.S. Geological Survey 1971b). Refinery Lake is an approximately 

26-acre impounded reservoir located about 1.0 mile to the southwest of the proposed rail line 

at its closest point (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2015). Red Draw Reservoir is located 

approximately 3.5 miles to the south of the proposed rail line on the Red Draw River at its 

closest point. It is owned by Colorado River Municipal Water District and is part of their

Diverted Water System for water quality improvement purposes (Texas Water Development 

Board 2015). Moss Creek Lake is located approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast of the 

proposed rail line at its closest point. It was constructed in 1938 by the City of Big Spring 

and the USACE as a surface water source. This water source provides drinking water for 

Howard County and several surrounding counties, in addition to serving as a recreational 

facility (City of Big Spring 2015). 

3.1.2.2 Wetlands

No wetlands within the proposed rail line right-of-way or the industrial park property were 

identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory 

(NWI) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015a). The closest wetlands mapped in the NWI are 

located approximately 0.5 mile to the west of the proposed rail line and the majority are 

mapped as freshwater ponds that are either temporarily or seasonally flooded. Most of these 

areas appear to be artificially-created (e.g., excavated, impounded) ponds associated with oil 

wells and other industrial activities. An additional wetland is mapped approximately 1.5

 

7 Playa lakes are shallow, circular-shaped seasonal wetlands that go through frequent, unpredictable wet and dry cycles 

(Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2015a).
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-4

October 2015

miles to the east of the proposed rail line and is characterized as a freshwater emergent 

wetland. It appears to have been partially disturbed by oil extraction activities. 

Wetlands in this region often occur as playa lakes. During wet years, playa lakes support the 

production of annual plants that provide an important food source for migrating waterfowl. 

They also provide a critical recharge source for the underlying Ogallala Aquifer. Playa 

Lakes Joint Venture (PLJV) maintains spatial database of probable playa lakes for portions 

of Texas and five other states. The closest PLJV-mapped playa lake occurs approximately 

2.3 miles to the northeast of the proposed rail line and corresponds with an NWI-mapped 

freshwater pond wetland (Playa Lake Joint Venture 2015). 

3.1.2.3 Floodplains

Floodplains mapped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood 

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) in the proposed project area include the floodplain associated 

with Big Sandy Draw to the west of the proposed rail line, the floodplain associated with 

Sandy Hollow Creek, and three isolated floodplains to the east of the proposed rail line

(Federal Emergency Management Agency 2010a, 2010b). None of these floodplains extend 

into the proposed rail line right-of-way or the industrial park property.

3.1.2.4 Groundwater

The proposed project area is underlain by the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the major aquifers in 

the Texas panhandle region and the largest aquifer in the United States (Texas Water 

Development Board 2014a). The Ogallala Aquifer is composed of coarse to medium-grained 

sand and gravel in the lower strata, grading upward to fine clay, silt, and sand in the upper 

strata (Freese and Nichols, Inc. et al. 2015). Recharge of the water in the aquifer typically 

occurs through infiltration of precipitation on the surface, with the highest recharge 

infiltration rates occurring in areas overlain by sandy soils and in some playa lake basins. 

The proposed project area is located in Texas Groundwater Management Area (GMA) 2 

(Texas Water Development Board 2014b). GMAs are geographically defined areas for the 

joint planning and management of groundwater resources in the state. These areas are 

further divided into Groundwater Conservation Districts, which are required to develop and 

implement a plan for the effective management of their groundwater resources. The 

proposed project area is located in the Permian Basin Underground Water Conservation and 

Supply District (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2015). 

Howard County is not part of a Priority Groundwater Management Area8. According to 

water well logs maintained in the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) groundwater 

database, there are no recorded groundwater wells located in the proposed rail line right-of-

 

8 Priority Groundwater Management Areas are areas designated and delineated by the Texas Commission of Environmental 

Quality that are experiencing, or are expected to experience within 50 years, critical groundwater problems including 

shortages of surface water or groundwater, land subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal, and contamination of 

groundwater supplies (Texas Commission of Environmental Quality 2015).
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-5

October 2015

way or the industrial park property (Texas Water Development Board 2002). Groundwater 

levels in the proposed project area typically occur between 35 to 50 feet below the ground 

surface. Most irrigation water comes from the underlying Ogallala Aquifer (Texas Water 

Development Board, 2014). Groundwater pumped from this aquifer is also used for 

municipal water supply and industrial uses. As discussed above in Section 3.1.1 Geology 

and Soils of this Draft EA, the soils of the proposed project area includes a subsurface layer 

of caliche, which occurs at 4 to 18 feet below ground surface and forms a caprock barrier 

between the surface deposits and the Ogallala Aquifer formation. Because of the caprock 

barrier, only limited aquifer recharge from surface water infiltration is likely in the proposed 

project area.

3.1.3 Air Quality

The proposed project area is not within an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

designated Air Quality Control Region. Air quality in the proposed project area is 

categorized as “attainment” for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81). “Attainment” means that 

the concentration of each criteria pollutant is below the concentration designated by EPA for 

the protection of air quality (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007). Criteria 

pollutants include sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, oxides of nitrogen, lead, and 

particulate matter. The proposed project area is located approximately 250 miles from the 

Big Bend National Park and approximately 208 miles from the Guadalupe Mountain 

National Park, which are both Class I regions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014). 

Under the Clean Air Act, Class I areas are designated areas in which visibility is protected 

more stringently than under the national ambient air quality standards. Class I areas tend to 

include national parks, wilderness areas, monuments, and other areas of special national and 

cultural significance (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014). Emissions associated 

with the construction and operation of the proposed rail line are not expected to impact 

visibility within these Class I regions. Air emissions in the proposed project area currently 

include emissions from vehicle traffic on roadways and railroad locomotive engines. There 

are twelve point emission sources9located within Howard County which include refineries, 

gas processing plants, and pipeline facilities (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

2014). 

3.2 Biological Resources

This section describes vegetation communities, available wildlife habitats, and wildlife 

resources known to occur in the proposed project area. To identify wildlife features and 

populations and determine the special-status species that could be present in Howard County, 

Texas and in the proposed project area, OEA reviewed online database records maintained by 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015b), consulted with representatives from the 

 

9 Point emission sources are a single identifiable source of air emissions.
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-6

October 2015

USFWS Austin Ecological Services Field Office (LeBlanc pers. comm.), and consulted with 

the TPWD Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program. OEA also obtained data from the Texas 

Natural Diversity Database, which maintains records of observations of federal and state 

listed and tracked threatened, endangered, and rare species (Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department 2014).

OEA also conducted a survey that included a habitat assessment and general reconnaissance 

in order to characterize the habitats present within the proposed project area and identify 

habitats that could support Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species and other species of 

concern. The wildlife survey area, depicted in Figure 3-1 below, comprises approximately 

8.8 square miles and includes the proposed rail line right-of-way and a 1.0-mile buffer 

around the proposed rail line right-of-way.

3.2.1 Vegetation

The predominant vegetation cover types that were observed in the survey area include 

cropland, mixed-grass prairie, and mesquite (Prosopis spp.) shrubland. The dominant crop 

observed in the survey area was cotton. Cotton was observed in the proposed rail line rightof-way; however these fields are no longer actively cultivated. Mixed-grass prairies were 

found interspersed throughout the survey area, but vegetation was dormant during the survey, 

making species identification difficult. Based on limited observations during the survey of 

grass seed heads and the knowledge of dominant species in this ecoregion10, grass species are 

expected to include blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), buffalograss (Bouteloua dactyloides), 

and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula). Yucca (Yucca spp.) and cactus (Opuntia spp.) 

were commonly observed, but overall species diversity appeared to be low throughout the 

survey area. Shin oak (Quercus sinuata) was also found intermixed with grasses in the 

survey area. Mesquite shrublands were observed primarily in the southwestern portion of the 

survey area, but isolated mesquite stands were found scattered in patches throughout the 

survey area. In the southwestern portion of the survey area, mesquite was observed in fairly 

dense thickets with a dense vegetation understory. 

3.2.2 Wildlife

Due to the high disturbance level as a result of existing human activity within the proposed 

project area, wildlife species that occur in the proposed project area are likely to be tolerant 

of human presence and adapted to disturbed areas. Some species common to the Texas High 

Plains region where the proposed project area is located include: coyote (Canus latrans), 

collared peccary (Pecari tajacu), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), pocket gophers 

(Geomys spp.) hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus), scaled quail (Callipepla 

squamata), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis),

plains spadefoot toad (Spea bombifrons), spotted chorus frog (Pseudacris clarkia), and plains 

black-headed snake (Tantilla nigriceps) (U.S. Forest Service, 1996). 

 

10 Ecoregions are large areas of similar climate where ecosystems recur in predictable patterns.
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-7

October 2015

Figure 3-1. Biological Resources Survey Area
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-8

October 2015

Species that were recorded during the survey in the survey area included: mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella 

magna), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), 

pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis sinuatus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), spotted towhee (Pipilo 

maculatus), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and western ornate box turtle 

(Terrapene ornate). Plains pocket gopher (Geomys bursarius) mounds and snake burrows

were recorded in the survey area. Sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) were observed flying 

over the survey area, but were not recorded using habitats within the survey area. 

3.2.3 Special-Status Species

Special-status species include plant and animal species listed as candidate, threatened, or 

endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act or species considered rare, threatened, 

or endangered by TPWD. Table 3.2-1 identifies special-status species and subspecies listed

for Howard County by USFWS and TPWD. 

There is currently one federally endangered species listed for Howard County: the blackcapped vireo. The black-capped vireo is a bird that was listed as endangered throughout its 

range in 1987 and occurs in northern Mexico, central Texas, and southern Oklahoma. 

Breeding habitat for the black-capped vireo consists primarily of deciduous shrublands in 

poor soils with rocky substrates. Suitable shrublands are irregular in height and patchy with 

open areas interspersed and contain thickets of shrubs with high vegetation densities. A 

variety of shrub species are associated with nesting substrates, but oaks (Quercus spp.) are 

the most common (Grzybowski, 1991, 1995; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007). There is 

no black-capped vireo designated critical habitat within the survey area and no suitable 

habitats or individuals were identified during the ground survey. Also, no known records of 

black-capped vireo exist in the survey area.

As identified above in Table 3.2-1, there are seven mammal species, thirteen bird species and 

subspecies, two reptile species, and one plant species in Howard County that are designated 

as rare, threatened, or endangered by TPWD. One bird and one mammal are designated as 

endangered, three birds and one reptile are designated as threatened, and the remaining are 

designated as rare. Due to the level of disturbance and human activity within the survey area, 

suitable habitats are not present for many of these species; however, there is a remote 

possibility that habitats within the survey area could be used for stopover during migration. 

Species that could potentially occur within the survey area include swift fox, Baird’s 

sparrow, mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), western burrowing owl, and Texas horned 

lizard; however, none have ever been recorded in the survey area. 
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-9

October 2015

Table 3.2-1. Special Status Species and Subspecies Listed for Howard Countya

Common Nameb Scientific Name

Texas State 

Status

USFWS 

Status

Mammals

Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis Rare

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Rare

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Rare

Cave myotis bat Myotis velifer Rare

Gray wolf Canis lupus Endangered

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Rare

Swift fox Vulpes velox Rare

Birds

Baird’s Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Rare

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened

Black-capped vireo Vireo atricapilla Endangered

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Rare

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus Rare

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Threatened

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Threatened

Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius Rare

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus Rare

Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Rare

Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii Rare

Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea Rare

Whooping Crane Grus americana Endangered

Amphibians and Reptiles

Spot-tailed earless lizard Holbrookia lacerata Rare

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum Threatened

Plants

Irion County wild-buckwheat Eriogonum nealleyi Rare

Sources: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2015b and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015b.

Notes:

a Other species are listed by USFWS for Howard County, but only need to be considered for wind energy projects. 

These include the Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa), Least tern (Sterna antillarum), and the Piping plover (Charadrius 

melodus).

b Common and scientific names that are indented in the table indicate a subspecies of the species above them. 

3.3 Transportation and Safety

Howard County is part of the Abilene Transportation District within the Texas Department of 

Transportation System. Vehicle miles traveled have increased throughout the county from 

2002 to 2012, ranging from a 35 percent increase to an 85 percent increase depending on the 

year and location considered (Texas Department of Transportation 2014). The major 

transportation route to and from the proposed project area is Interstate 20 (I-20) with a

recorded average annual daily traffic (AADT) between 15,757 and 19,978 vehicles in 2013
   

Chapter 3.

Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   3‐10 October 2015

depending on the location recorded11. In the proposed project area, I-20 is a major 4-lane 

divided interstate highway running east-west (Texas Department of Transportation 2013). 

The closest public roadways to the proposed rail line are North Midway Road and North 

Moss Lake Road which are both two lane undivided rural roadways with no current AADT 

values recorded. The closest roadway with recorded traffic count data is Route 820, with a 

recorded AADT of 484 vehicles in 2013 (Texas Department of Transportation 2013). There 

are two permanent traffic counters within Howard County. One permanent counter (M1275) 

is located along Highway 87, which runs north-south through Big Spring, and recorded an 

AADT of 2,230 vehicles in 2015. Another permanent counter (M1105) is located along 

Route 350, which runs in a northeast direction from Big Spring, and recorded an AADT of 

2,205 vehicles in 2015 (Texas Department of Transportation 2015). 

A mainline railroad track owned by UP extends east-west through Howard County and is 

located adjacent to the southern boundary of the industrial park property. This line handles 

approximately 7-16 trains per day with some switching activity along the section between 

Baird and Toyah subdivisions (Federal Railroad Administration 2015). 

3.4 Noise and Vibration

Primary sources of ambient noise in the proposed project area include rail traffic along the 

existing UP mainline, vehicle traffic along I-20, and operations at existing businesses. 

Approximately 7-16 trains per day operate on the UP mainline near the proposed rail line and 

generate wayside noise throughout the area. There are two existing at-grade rail crossings of 

public roads near the proposed rail line where trains are required to sound their horns when 

crossing. One at-grade crossing is located at the intersection of the UP mainline and North 

Moss Lake Road, approximately 0.7 mile southeast of the proposed rail line. The other atgrade crossing is located at the intersection of the UP mainline and Midway Road, 

approximately 0.3 mile to the west of the proposed rail line. There are a few residences 

located to the south of both at-grade crossings. As noted in Section 3.3 Transportation and 

Safety of this Draft EA, I-20 had a recorded AADT in 2013 of between 15,757 and 19,978 

vehicles. At its closest point, the proposed rail line would be located approximately 0.5 mile 

to the north of I-20. According to the Texas Department of Transportation (2015a), heavy 

trucks make up approximately 43 percent of the traffic along I-20 in this location. The 

industrial park property is adjacent to North Moss Lake Road. Other local roadways are also 

found in the proposed project area. Traffic along all of these roadways generates noise in the 

proposed project area. Other sources of nearby noise in the proposed project area include 

operations at the Alon USA Refinery and the Sid Richardson Carbon Company, both located 

to the west of the industrial park property. 

 

11 The traffic data range for I-20 represents monitored traffic data in 2013 along different points of the highway. Due to 

several intersections and potential traffic sinks (e.g. large housing developments or stores) traffic levels will vary at 

different points along a roadway. 
   

Chapter 3.

Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   3‐11 October 2015

3.5 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal 

agencies to “take into account how each of its undertakings could affect historic properties.” 

Historic properties include buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts and archaeological 

resources that are at least 50 years of age and have been identified as being listed on or 

eligible for listing on the National Register. 

OEA initiated the Section 106 cultural resource process for this project by conducting a 

preliminary search of the National Register and Texas Historical Commission website. The 

research revealed no historic or cultural resources immediately surrounding the proposed rail 

line right-of-way. On January 9, 2015, OEA sent a consultation letter to the Texas Historical 

Commission, who responded in writing on January 30, 2015, indicating that, according to 

their maps, the proposed rail line is in an area that has the potential for cultural resources and 

that several archeological sites have previously been recorded in the vicinity. The Texas 

Historical Commission recommended that a professional archeologist survey the proposed 

project area. 

OEA conducted an intensive pedestrian archaeological survey within the proposed rail line 

right-of-way from May 4 to May 8, 2015 to identify prehistoric, historic, and cultural 

resources, to assess the significance of those resources and their potential to be eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register, and to make recommendations for the treatment of those 

resources. The pedestrian survey covered 100 percent of the proposed rail line right-of-way, 

which is also the area of potential effects (APE) of the undertaking. 

During the five days of fieldwork, a total of 96 shovel tests were excavated for the 

archaeological investigation, and these revealed three historic/prehistoric sites and one 

isolated object. The sites were delineated by a combination of shovel testing and 

examination of surface expression. A total of 57 prehistoric artifacts were recovered from 

the sites and numerous historic and prehistoric artifacts were observed on the surface but not 

collected. The sections of these three sites that fell within the APE were thin scatters of 

artifacts that are relatively shallow in depth that exhibited low artifact density and diversity. 

Consequently, OEA determined that portions of the site that fall within the proposed rail line 

right-of-way (i.e., within the project APE) have no potential to meet the standards for being 

potentially eligible for the National Register and have no further research value. 

OEA also sent letters requesting comment on the proposed rail line to three federallyrecognized tribes which were identified as having a possible interest in the proposed project 

area to determine the potential impacts on tribal resources and land-use in the area. These 

included the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, the Comanche Nation, and the Kiowa Indian Tribe 

of Oklahoma. There has been no response from these tribes indicating concerns about tribal 

cultural resources within the proposed project area. 
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-12 October 2015

3.6 Land Use

Land use within the proposed project area is predominantly industrial and agricultural. 

Several oil rigs, access roads, and associated ancillary facilities are scattered throughout the 

proposed project area. UP sidetracks for railroad car storage are located to the southwest of 

the proposed rail line along the UP mainline near North Midway Road. Active cotton fields 

are located to the north of the proposed rail line. Some land in the proposed project area is 

also used for cattle grazing. 

The land in and around the proposed project area is experiencing ongoing disturbance with 

industrial activities such as the pipe storage and oil extraction activities currently taking 

place. There is a small pipeline that crosses the industrial park property and two high-voltage 

transmission lines on the west side of the industrial park property. The Sid Richardson 

Carbon and Energy Company is located approximately 0.4 mile to the northwest and the 

Alon USA Refinery is located approximate 0.4 mile to the southwest of the proposed rail line

along North Midway Road. 

At its closest point, the proposed rail line would be located approximately 400 feet north of 

the existing UP mainline. The nearest transportation corridors are I-20 to the south, North 

Moss Lake Road to the east, and North Midway Road to the west. Other local roads 

(unpaved and paved) are located in the proposed project area. There are few residential 

properties in the vicinity of the proposed rail line with the closest located approximately 0.16 

mile southeast of the proposed rail line in the Sand Springs community between I-20 and the 

existing UP mainline. 

The proposed rail line is located within Howard County and outside the city limits of Big 

Spring. Land outside of Big Spring city limits does not have zoning designations because 

counties in Texas do not have zoning capacity (Klinksiek pers. comm.). The Applicants 

presently own most of the land in which the proposed rail line would be located and plan to 

acquire an additional small parcel of land from the Big Spring EDC where the proposed 

Track B-1 would be constructed. 

No recreational areas or activities are found in or near the proposed rail line right-of-way or 

the industrial park property. Big Spring State Park is located approximately 6.5 miles 

southwest from the proposed rail line. Big Spring State Park provides dramatic views off a

200 foot bluff and contains a Civilian Conservation Corps built road that loops around the 

382-acre park (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2015c). Within the Big Spring city 

limits, there are two golf courses. Big Spring also has several attractions including the 

Heritage Museum, Hangar 25 Air Museum, Big Spring Vietnam War Memorial, and the 

Potton House (City of Big Spring 2015). Other recreational areas in and around the proposed 

project area include Lake Colorado City Park, Comanche Trail Park and Historical Spring, 

and Moss Creek Lake (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2015c).
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-13 October 2015

3.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste 

Sites

The land in the proposed project area is predominantly used for extraction of crude petroleum 

and natural gas. Aboveground conveyance piping and petroleum storage facilities are 

prevalent in the proposed project area. OEA conducted a search of federal, state, local, and 

Native American tribal records to determine whether any hazardous materials/waste sites 

occur in the proposed rail line right-of-way, industrial park property, and a 0.5-mile buffer 

around the proposed rail line right-of-way and industrial park property. 

Although the record search identified 19 sites, only the Moss Lake Road Groundwater Plume 

represents a confirmed and registered site of hazardous material contamination

(Environmental Data Resources 2015). This groundwater plume of tetrachloroethylene was 

first identified in 2007 during routine groundwater testing by the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2014). Since 

its original discovery, the plume has been mapped at multiple groundwater monitoring wells. 

The plume is located just outside the eastern border of the industrial park property on North 

Moss Lake Road, approximately 0.7 mile from the proposed rail line. The plume is at a 

depth of 40–65 feet below ground surface and is flowing southeast (Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality 2010, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2015, Daniel B. Stephens 

& Associates, Inc. 2015). In 2012, soil borings were sampled to determine the source of the 

groundwater contamination, but the source remains unidentified (Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality 2014). 

Another groundwater plume with the same contaminant listed as “proposed to registry” was 

identified during the records search (Environmental Data Resources 2015). This site is 

approximately 0.25 mile to the southeast of the confirmed and registered site identified 

above. Because of their proximity, because they contain the same contaminant, and because 

of the direction of groundwater flow, it is likely that these two records identify the same 

groundwater contamination.

Surface water and soil are not contaminated from these sites (Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality 2010). The TCEQ has installed and maintains granular activated 

carbon water filtration systems at points of use where tetrachloroethylene concentrations 

exceeded maximum contaminant levels (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

2014). 

None of the other sites discovered in the search of federal, state, local, and Native American 

tribal records for hazardous materials/waste sites in the proposed project area represent 

sources of contamination (Environmental Data Resources 2015). No sources of 

contamination other than the groundwater plume on North Moss Lake Road were identified. 
   

Chapter 3.

Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   3‐14 October 2015

3.8 Socioeconomics

Howard County has an estimated population of 35,471 (Table 3.8-1, 2012 estimate). 

Approximately 78 percent of this population (27,593) resides in the county seat of Big 

Spring. Other population concentrations include Sand Springs (population 841) and 

Coahoma (population 838), both located along I-20 to the east of Big Spring. Based on the 

2010 Census of Population, 80 percent of the population of Howard County is classified 

urban with over 96 percent of the urban population living in Big Spring. Most of the 

population outside of Big Spring is classified as rural (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The 

population in the county is expected to grow at an annual rate of 0.45 percent between 2010 

and 2020. Howard County’s population by city or town and projected growth in comparison 

to the state are shown in Table 3.8-1. 

Table 3.8‐1.  Population in the Proposed Project Area, 2010‐2020

 2010 2012 2020 

Annual Growth 

Rate 2010-2020 

Texas 25,145,561 26,059,203 27,238,610 0.80% 

Howard County 35,012 35,471 36,604 0.45% 

Big Springs 27,282 27,593 28,523 0.45% 

Sand Springs 835 841 873 0.45% 

Coahoma 817 838 854 0.45% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010. 

Notes: 

Data for 2012 are July estimates, data for 2020 are projections. Projections for places are based on projected growth rate 

for Howard County. 

Population concentrations in neighboring counties within an hour drive of the proposed rail 

line along I-20 include Midland (population 118,624) and Odessa (population 105,320) to the 

west and Colorado City (population 4,214) and Sweetwater (population 10,974) to the east 

(Texas Office of the State Demographer 2015)12. 

Based on U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 2010 data, there is one census block within 0.5 mile 

of the proposed rail line where there are more minorities present than in Howard County as a 

whole. This census block had 32 residents in 2010, of which 18 (56 percent) belonged to a 

minority group. Minority groups make up 46 percent of the population of Howard County as 

a whole. 

The share of the population of Howard County in poverty13 was 15.0 percent, per 2013 data 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2013a). Based on USCB 2013 data, there were no census block groups 

within 0.5 mile of the proposed rail line where the share of the population in poverty was 

greater than that for Howard County as a whole. However, some communities in the 

 

12 Population estimates are for 2012. 

13 Determined using the USCB 2013 poverty thresholds. The USCB uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by 

family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, 

then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. 
Chapter 3.

Affected Environment 

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 3-15 October 2015

proposed project area have poverty rates above that of Howard County. These include the 

city of Big Spring with 16.6 percent of the population in poverty, and Sand Springs with 15.7 

percent of the population in poverty. 

As of 2013, the main industries providing private employment in Howard County were retail 

trade, mining, manufacturing, construction, and accommodation and food services (see 

Table 3.8-2).

Table 3.8-2. Employment in Howard County by Industry, 2013

Industry Jobs Share of Total

Total Employment 17,043 100.00%

Farm Employment 516 3.03%

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 68 0.40%

Mining 1,609 9.44%

Utilities 255 1.50%

Construction 1,129 6.62%

Manufacturing 1,284 7.53%

Wholesale trade 440 2.58%

Retail trade 1,748 10.26%

Transportation and warehousing 334 1.96%

Information 126 0.74%

Finance and insurance 552 3.24%

Real estate and rental and leasing 505 2.96%

Professional, scientific, and technical services 409 2.40%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 119 0.70%

Accommodation and food services 1,261 7.40%

Government and government enterprises 3,649 21.41%

Other a 3,039 17.83%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2013. 

Note:

a. Includes, among other services, various industries not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information such as 

management of companies and enterprises, administrative and waste management services, educational services and 

health care and social assistance. 

In 2012, approximately 19 percent of county general fiscal revenues were generated by 

intergovernmental revenue14, 48 percent were generated by taxes, and 33 percent were 

generated by charges and other miscellaneous sources other than taxes and intergovernmental 

revenue (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). The main source of Howard County tax revenues is the 

property tax, which includes tax on mineral, industrial, real and personal property, and 

intangible property. In 2013, approximately 41 percent of total assessed value for property 

taxation in Howard County (before exemptions) was for mineral property, 26 percent was for 

industrial property, and 33 percent was for real and personal property. The total assessed 

value for property taxes (before exemptions) was approximately $4.1 billion (Howard 

County 2013). 

 

14 Intergovernmental revenue includes amounts received from other governments as fiscal aid in the form of shared revenues 

and grants-in-aid, as reimbursements for performance of general government functions and specific services (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2013b).
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-1

October 2015

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

This chapter discusses the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction 

and operation of the proposed rail line. 

4.1 Physical Resources

4.1.1 Geology and Soils

The topography of the project area is gently undulating, with local disturbance that has 

slightly altered the terrain. Because of the relatively flat topography present, minimal 

alteration of the terrain in the proposed rail line right-of-way would result from cut-and-fill 

activities necessary for the construction of the proposed rail line. No significant impact on 

local topography would be likely. 

Impacts on existing geology and soils would primarily be limited to the proposed rail line 

right-of-way, which includes 3.18 miles of track. The proposed rail line right-of-way 

includes the rail bed and an adjacent drainage ditch and would be approximately 100 feet 

wide, requiring approximately 37.6 acres. Soils in the proposed rail line right-of-way have 

been previously disturbed by agricultural cultivation and crude oil developments including 

well pads, access roads, and pipelines. 

Soils in the proposed rail line right-of-way are identified as having low susceptibility to water 

erosion and high susceptibility to wind erosion. Construction-related cut-and-fill activities 

would mobilize soil and increase the likelihood of wind-erosion impacts. OEA’s 

recommended Mitigation Measure MM-1 would require the use of water trucks to be 

employed as necessary to mitigate fugitive dust emissions and would also require best 

management practices to be employed to control and suppress fugitive dust emissions. 

Mitigation Measure MM-2 would require the Applicants to limit proposed rail line 

construction activities, vegetation clearing, and soil disturbance to the proposed rail line 

right-of-way to minimize fugitive dust emissions. OEA’s recommended Mitigation Measure 

MM-3 would require that the Applicants comply with the reasonable requirements of 

applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding the control of fugitive dust related to 

proposed rail line construction activities (see Chapter 5 Mitigation of this Draft EA). With 

implementation of OEA’s recommended mitigation measures, wind erosion resulting from 

the construction and operation of the proposed rail line would not likely result in significant 

impacts on soils. 

Based on a review of the NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database and confirmed in a letter 

from the NRCS dated January 23, 2015, the proposed rail line right-of-way would not cross 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-2

October 2015

any soils identified as prime or prime if irrigated (Natural Resources Conservation Service 

2015). NRCS indicated that the proposed rail line would cross soils of statewide importance 

which would require an evaluation under FFPA if federal financial assistance were requested 

by the Applicants. The Applicants do not intend to use federal funds for this project; 

therefore, the proposed rail line is exempt from FFPA regulations. Should the Applicants’

decision on the use of federal funding change, NRCS’ concerns would be addressed by 

OEA’s recommended Mitigation Measure MM-4 which would require the Applicants to 

comply with the provisions of the FPPA. 

4.1.2 Water Resources

4.1.2.1 Surface Water

There are no surface waters occurring directly in, adjacent to, or in close proximity to the 

proposed rail line right-of-way. The closest mapped waterbody—the Big Sandy Draw—is 

located over 1.0 mile to the west of the proposed rail line at its closest point. There is a small 

natural hill located between the proposed rail line and Big Sandy Draw as well as paved and 

unpaved roads and industrial retention ponds, making it unlikely that drainage from the 

proposed rail line would reach the Big Sandy Draw. Furthermore, OEA’s recommended 

Mitigation Measure MM-5 would require the Applicants to implement erosion and 

sedimentation control measures to minimize potential impacts from stormwater runoff on 

surface waters in the proposed project area. Therefore, with implementation of OEA’s 

recommended mitigation measure, the construction and operation of the proposed rail line 

would not result in impacts on surface waters. 

4.1.2.2 Wetlands

There are no mapped wetlands occurring directly in or adjacent to the proposed rail line 

right-of-way. The closest mapped wetland is located over 0.5 mile to the west of the 

proposed rail line at its closest point. As noted in Section 3.1.2 Water Resources of this Draft 

EA, this and other nearby wetland features are mapped as freshwater ponds that are 

artificially created and are often part of industrial facilities such as retention ponds. Because 

the proposed rail line would not result in any fill in or disturbance near a mapped wetland 

and the implementation of OEA’s recommended Mitigation Measure MM-5 would minimize 

the potential impacts from soil erosion and sedimentation, the construction and operation of 

the proposed rail line would not result in impacts on wetlands. 

4.1.2.3 Floodplains

As identified in Section 3.1.2 Water Resources of this Draft EA, there are no FEMA-mapped 

floodplains located in, adjacent to, or near the proposed rail line right-of-way. Construction 

and operation of the proposed rail line would not likely change existing flood-storage 

capacity or alter the course of the existing floodways; therefore, the construction and 

operation of the proposed rail line would not result in impacts on floodplains. 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-3

October 2015

4.1.2.4 Groundwater

As described in Section 3.1.2 Water Resources of this Draft EA, there are no recorded 

groundwater wells located in, adjacent to, or near the proposed rail line right-of-way. The 

proposed rail line is underlain by the Ogallala Aquifer, from which water is pumped for 

agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses. As noted in Section 3.1.2 Water Resources of 

this Draft EA, there is a caprock barrier between the surface soils and the aquifer and aquifer 

recharge from surface water infiltration is limited in the proposed project area. Therefore, 

the construction and operation of the proposed rail line would not likely result in impacts on 

groundwater.

4.1.3 Air Quality

During the construction of the proposed rail line, there would be temporary and localized

diesel emissions from heavy construction equipment, emissions from construction crew 

vehicles, and fugitive dust emissions in the immediate area along the proposed rail line rightof-way. Fugitive dust could be generated during proposed rail line construction, travel on 

unpaved surfaces, and other soil-disturbing activities. As noted above, OEA’s recommended 

Mitigation Measure MM-1 would require the use of water trucks to be employed as 

necessary to mitigate fugitive dust emissions; Mitigation Measure MM-2 would require the 

Applicant to limit proposed rail line construction activities, vegetation clearing, and soil 

disturbance to the to the proposed rail line right-of-way to minimize fugitive dust emissions; 

and Mitigation Measure MM-3 would require that the Applicants comply with the reasonable 

requirements of applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding the control of 

fugitive dust related to proposed rail line construction activities. Because fugitive dust 

emissions would be temporary and the implementation of OEA’s proposed mitigation 

measures would minimize the amount of fugitive dust emissions, the construction of the 

proposed rail would not result in significant impacts on air quality from fugitive dust 

emissions. 

Air emissions from construction of the proposed rail line would also originate from 

construction equipment exhaust, delivery vehicles, and employee vehicle exhaust. Because 

the increase in vehicle emissions from construction equipment would be temporary and 

localized to the proposed rail line right-of-way and nearby areas, the impacts on air quality 

from construction-related vehicle emissions would be considered negligible.

The operation of the proposed rail line would result in the operation of diesel-electric 

locomotives to move trains to, from, and along the proposed rail line. Rail operations can 

affect air quality through emission of air pollutants from locomotive diesel fuel combustion. 

As described in Section 3.1.3 Air Quality of this Draft EA, the proposed project area is not 

within an EPA-designated Air Quality Control Region, and it is over 200 miles from the 

closest Class I area. Howard County is in attainment for all criteria air pollutants. At a 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-4

October 2015

maximum, the proposed action would result in the operation of 5 trains per week or 0.7 train 

per day (including both inbound and outbound). 

Air emission increases for key pollutants resulting from the operation of the proposed rail 

line are presented below in Table 4.1-1. OEA compared the results of its analysis to the 

EPA’s emissions thresholds set forth under the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule (40 

C.F.R. Part 93.153). The rule applies to Federal agencies that exercise continuing program 

control over the operation of a project. Although the Board does not exercise continuing 

program control over rail operation and would not exercise such control over the proposed 

rail line, the rule establishes useful indicators for assessing potential impacts on air quality 

through emissions thresholds, or de minimis levels, for use in evaluating the conformity of a 

project. 

Table 4.1-1. Air Emissions as a Result of Proposed Rail Line Operation

Pollutant

General Conformity 

Thresholds (tons/year)

Proposed Project Emission 

Levels (tons/yeara)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 0.13

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 0.86

Particulate Matter ≤ 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10)

100 0.03

Particulate Matter ≤ 2.5 microns in 

diameter (PM2.5)

100 0.03

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 100 0.00

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 100 0.05

Notes:

a. Emission rates conservatively based on use of Tier 0 locomotives generating 3,000 horsepower each. Tier 0 includes 

locomotives manufactured between 1973-2001 (Environmental Protection Agency 2009). 

No thresholds are currently established for mobile emission sources, such as locomotives. 

Therefore, OEA used emissions thresholds set forth under the Clean Air Act General 

Conformity Rule. For a project that is subject to conformity, if the net emission increases 

due to a project would be less than these thresholds, the project is presumed to conform and 

no further conformity evaluation is necessary. For a project that is not subject to conformity, 

these thresholds can be used to indicate whether further analysis may be warranted. 

Emissions for each pollutant were calculated in tons per year, and are shown in Appendix C.

Diesel emissions resulting from the operation of the proposed rail line would not exceed EPA 

thresholds because of the small number of train locomotives and the short distances traveled 

by them each day. The operation of the proposed rail line would not likely adversely affect 

local or regional air quality.

The construction and operation of the proposed rail line could generate additional traffic on 

roadways in the proposed project area, including trucks to transport frac sand from the 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-5

October 2015

industrial park property to crude oil wellheads. As described in Section 4.3 Transportation 

and Safety of this Draft EA, up to 1,000 truckloads of frac sand per week would be shipped, 

resulting in approximately 143 loaded and 143 unloaded truck trips per day on average. 

Air emission increases for key pollutants resulting from the shipment of frac sand by heavy 

truck are presented in Table 4.1-2 below. 

Table 4.1-2. Air Emissions as a Result of Frac Sand Truck Shipment

Pollutant

General Conformity 

Thresholds (tons/year)

Proposed Frac Sand Truck 

Emission Levels (tons/yeara)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 15.47

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 48.54

Particulate Matter ≤ 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10)

100 2.69

Particulate Matter ≤ 2.5 microns in 

diameter (PM2.5)

100 2.71

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 100 0.10

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 100 2.21

Notes:

a. Emission factors were based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) heavy duty reports. CARB uses stricter 

ambient air quality standards than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and applies a greater emissions factor 

to diesel combustion in heavy trucks. Therefore, frac sand truck emissions levels presented in this table are inherently 

conservative. 

Using conservative methods, diesel emissions resulting from the shipment of frac sand by 

truck associated with the operation of the proposed rail line would not exceed EPA 

thresholds and; therefore, would not likely adversely affect local or regional air quality.

4.2 Biological Resources

4.2.1 Vegetation

Construction of the proposed rail line would require clearing, excavating, and filling, which 

would result in temporary and permanent loss or alteration of vegetation. Construction 

would permanently disturb some areas within the 37.6-acre proposed rail line right-of-way 

and temporarily disturb other areas. Although it is unlikely that the entire proposed rail line 

right-of-way would be disturbed during construction, the exact locations of permanent and 

temporary disturbance within the proposed rail line right-of-way would be determined during 

final engineering and design. As described in Section 3.2.1 Vegetation of this Draft EA, 

vegetation cover types affected would include mixedgrass prairie and mesquite shrubland. 

These cover types and the species that comprise them are common in the general project area 

and a small loss of vegetation as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed 

rail line would not result in significant impacts on vegetation.
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-6

October 2015

Construction of the proposed rail line could also affect vegetation by the introduction of 

noxious weeds, soils compaction, and dust deposition. Introduced noxious weeds can outcompete native vegetation and result in an altered vegetation structure and a reduction in 

plant species richness. Because of the high level of previous disturbance in the proposed 

project area, vegetation communities are already heavily altered. The potential introduction 

of noxious weeds from the construction of the proposed rail line would not result in 

significant impacts on vegetation because the existing vegetation habitats are already heavily 

altered by human disturbance. The movement of heavy equipment used during proposed rail 

line construction could temporarily compact the ground surface and soil, which can inhibit 

seed germination and root penetration. Revegetation could occur in temporarily disturbed 

areas as soils return to pre-compacted conditions over time. Fugitive construction dust and 

its deposition on plants in and near the proposed rail line right-of-way could also affect 

vegetation by reducing photosynthesis and inhibiting plant growth. The extent of such 

impacts would vary based on the affected vegetation, relative abundance of vegetation, soil 

conditions, topography, and the extent of topographic modification required for the proposed 

rail line construction. Because fugitive dust emissions would be temporary, localized, and 

minimized through the implementation of OEA’s’ recommended Mitigation Measures MM-1 

and MM-2, fugitive dust deposition resulting from the construction of the proposed rail line 

would not likely result in significant impacts on vegetation.

During the operation of the proposed rail line, maintenance activities may include controlling 

vegetation in the proposed rail line right-of-way either by mechanical methods or by the 

application of herbicides. Such activities would be infrequent and brief, but could 

permanently alter vegetation. Proposed rail line maintenance activities could result in a small 

volume of petroleum leaks and spills from maintenance vehicles and equipment. Any 

mobilized sediment, spilled chemicals, or petroleum products could reach and damage 

adjacent vegetation, affecting plant density and diversity. Because of the existing level of 

human-caused disturbance of vegetation within the proposed rail line right-of-way, the low 

likelihood of leaks and spills anticipated from maintenance vehicles, and the low volumes 

associated with these occurrences, only minor impacts on the overall plant ecosystem would 

be likely. Furthermore, OEA’s recommended Mitigation Measure MM-6 would require the 

Applicants to implement a plan to prevent spills of oil or other petroleum products during 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed rail line. With the implementation 

of OEA’s recommended mitigation, maintenance activities conducted during the operation of 

the proposed rail line would not likely result in significant impacts on vegetation. 

4.2.2 Wildlife

Construction and operation of the proposed rail line could increase mortality rates of 

individual wildlife species; however, species that could be affected are common within the 

region and are generally adapted to human presence and disturbance activities. Whereas 

most wildlife could avoid construction activities, some smaller species such as burrowing 

rodents and reptiles might not be able to escape land-clearing activities and higher mortality 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-7

October 2015

rates could occur. Construction and operation of the proposed rail line could also result in

mortality of wildlife if collisions with construction equipment, maintenance equipment, and 

truck traffic occurs. However, due to the high level of human presence and disturbance 

already prevalent within the proposed project area, wildlife utilizing habitats in and around 

the proposed rail line would be expected to adapt to disturbances associated with operations 

and increases in mortality would not be detrimental to wildlife populations as a whole. 

Higher noise levels due to construction or operation activities could also cause species 

intolerant of human activity to avoid the proposed rail line and surrounding area or move to 

other habitats. However, due to the level of human presence and disturbance already 

occurring within the proposed project area, increased noise levels may cause wildlife to be 

displaced temporarily, but would not cause permanent species composition changes.

Individual wildlife species that may be affected by the proposed action include a number of 

bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Taking, capturing, and 

killing of migratory birds, their eggs, and their nests is prohibited under the MBTA. OEA’s 

recommend Mitigation Measure MM-7 would require the Applicants to clear vegetation in 

preparation for proposed rail line construction only before or after the breeding bird nesting 

season to avoid inadvertent removal of active nests and to ensure compliance with the 

MBTA. If clearing for proposed rail line construction is required during the nesting season, 

OEA’s recommended Mitigation Measure MM-7 would also require the Applicants to 

consult with the USFWS regarding the implementation of appropriate nest survey methods to 

ensure that no migratory bird nests, eggs, or young would be disturbed by construction 

activities until the eggs have hatched and the young have fledged.

Wildlife habitats could be affected by construction and operations of the proposed rail line. 

Wildlife habitats that would be affected by the proposed rail line are consistent with the 

vegetative cover types described in Section 3.2.1 Vegetation of this Draft EA. Impacts 

specific to habitats include habitat loss, habitat degradation, habitat alteration, and habitat 

fragmentation. 

Approximately 37.6 acres of potential habitat required for the proposed rail line right-of-way 

could be lost or altered by construction activities. Construction and maintenance activities 

could affect habitats within and adjacent to the proposed rail line right-of-way due to 

increased fugitive dust emissions, as dust would affect the quality of forage for wildlife. 

Land-clearing activities and subsequent revegetation of the proposed rail line right-of-way

would alter vegetation communities from their current habitat types and the presence of the 

proposed rail line would permanently alter wildlife habitat. Also, increased disturbance of 

the vegetation communities and vegetation maintenance (physical and chemical) to keep the 

proposed rail line right-of-way clear may lead to the colonization of invasive species, which 

would also reduce the quality of forage for wildlife. Fragmented habitats are currently found 

within and around the proposed project area, and additional fragmentation is not expected to 

impede wildlife movements or impact wildlife populations as species occurring in the area 

will adapt to new disturbances as they have to past development. Further habitat 

fragmentation in the area could result in vegetation changes, microclimate changes, and 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-8

October 2015

increased habitat edge. Because of the relatively small amount of habitat that could be lost, 

degraded, altered, or fragmented by the construction and operation of the proposed rail line 

and because human alteration and disturbance is already common in and around the proposed 

project area, the construction and operation of the proposed rail line would not likely result in 

significant impacts on wildlife or their habitat.

4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

There is currently one federally endangered species listed for Howard County—the blackcapped vireo. There is no suitable habitat to support breeding black-capped vireos and no 

documented occurrences within the wildlife survey area; therefore, the construction and 

operation of the proposed rail line is not expected to affect this species. Thus, under Section 

7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, OEA has determined that the construction and 

operation of the proposed project would have no effect on black-capped vireo.

In Howard County, TPWD has designated seven mammals, ten birds, two reptiles, and one 

plant as rare, threatened, or endangered. Only six of these species, including swift fox, 

Baird’s sparrow, mountain plover, western burrowing owl, spot-tailed earless lizard, and 

Texas horned lizard, could potentially occur within the area where OEA conducted the 

wildlife survey; however, none have ever been documented within the wildlife survey area 

and none were recorded during the wildlife survey conducted by OEA. 

In a letter dated May 8, 2015, TPWD indicated that suitable habitat for the Texas horned 

lizard may be present in the proposed project area. TPWD noted that, if they are present in 

the proposed project area, Texas horned lizards could be impacted by construction activities 

when hibernating in loose soils a few inches below ground during the cool months from 

September/October to March/April. TPWD recommended that pre-construction surveys be 

conducted to determine if horned lizards are present in or directly adjacent to the construction 

area. TPWD further recommended that, if horned lizards were identified during preconstruction surveys, coordination with TPWD should take place to develop plans to relocate 

the individuals discovered. In order to avoid impacts on the Texas horned lizard, OEA has 

recommended Mitigation Measure MM-8, which would require the Applicants to conduct 

ground-disturbing construction activities before or after the Texas horned lizard hibernation 

season to avoid destruction of hibernating individuals and to ensure compliance with Texas 

State Laws. If ground-disturbing construction actives are required during the hibernation

season of the Texas horned lizard, OEA’s recommended Mitigation Measure MM-8 would 

also require the Applicants to consult with the TPWD regarding the implementation of 

appropriate pre-construction surveys and the potential relocation of individual Texas horned 

lizards, if present.

Because of the low potential for the occurrence of species designated by TPWD as rare, 

threatened, or endangered, the lack of documented observations of these species, the absence 

of these species during the field survey, and OEA’s recommended mitigation measures 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-9

October 2015

described above, impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed rail 

line on species designated by TPWD would not be likely.

4.3 Transportation and Safety

During construction of the proposed rail line, there may be temporary impacts on the 

transportation network in the proposed project area from increased local truck traffic due to 

delivery of rail construction materials. An average of 30 construction workers per day would 

also commute to the location of the proposed rail line during the construction of the proposed 

rail line. The closest major roadway to the proposed rail line, located less than one mile to 

the south, is I-20. As noted in Section 3.3 Transportation and Safety of this Draft EA, I-20 

has a measured AADT of between 15,757 and 19,978 vehicles per day.

1

 Other nearby 

roadways with a measured AADT on record include Highway 87 (AADT 2,230), Route 350 

(AADT 2,205) and Route 820 (AADT 484). Temporary construction traffic generated by 

workers and equipment deliveries would represent a low increase in daily traffic volumes on 

I-20, highways, and county roads in the proposed project area. 

Construction-related traffic could cause traffic delay on roadways in the proposed project 

area when construction equipment and workers travel to and from the construction site using 

I-20, County Road 26, and other local county roads. These impacts would be temporary and 

are not likely to substantially impact traffic operation. 

No public roads would be crossed by the proposed rail line. Therefore, there would be no 

emergency vehicle response delays, safety concerns, or passenger vehicle delays resulting 

from crossings of public roads. Once the proposed rail line is operational, frac sand from 

Wisconsin and Minnesota would be shipped via rail to the industrial park property. It is 

estimated that for every one hopper car of frac sand delivered by rail, four freight truckloads 

would be required to deliver the frac sand to oil wellheads. At full capacity, the operation of 

the proposed rail line would result in up to 5 trains per week (including inbound and 

outbound) consisting of 100 cars. This would result in 1,000 truckload shipments of frac 

sand per week, increasing the AADT of area roadways. 

Because the anticipated wellhead destinations for frac sand are to the west and south and 

within 60 miles of the proposed rail line, anticipated primary transportation routes for frac 

sand shipments would include I-20, Highway 137, Highway 87, Highway 176, Highway 349, 

Highway 158, and Highway 33. The precise traffic routes the trucks would follow and the 

volume of truck traffic along those routes is unknown at this time and would likely depend 

on the end market for the frac sand. 

Because the proposed action would serve the extensive Permian Basin shale oil activity 

located west and south of Big Spring and because the primary route leading to western and 

 

1 The traffic data range for I-20 represents monitored traffic data in 2013 along different points of the highway. Due to 

several intersections and potential traffic sinks (e.g. large housing developments or stores) traffic levels will vary at 

different points along a roadway.
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-10 October 2015

southern roadways is I-20, OEA assumed that 100 percent of all frac sand trucks leaving the 

proposed rail line would initially follow I-20 west from the proposed rail line toward Big 

Spring. Along the segment between the proposed rail line and Big Spring, I-20 has an 

AADT of 19,978 vehicles per day (Texas Department of Transportation 2015a). The 

shipment of 1,000 truckloads of frac sand would require 2,000 truck trips as each shipment of 

sand would include a loaded truck trip and an unloaded truck trip. An addition of 2,000 truck 

trips per week (or 286 truck trips per day) would result in a 1.4 percent increase in traffic 

along I-20 in this location, a negligible impact on traffic on I-20. As they continue west, 

trucks would exit I-20 onto other arterial and collector roadways and the number of frac sand 

trucks travelling on I-20 would decrease. 

In addition to the I-20 segment between the industrial park property and Big Spring, there are 

a number of other roadways classified as collectors and arterials to the west and south of the 

proposed rail line and within a 60-mile distance. These roadways include I-20 west of Big 

Spring, Highway 137, Highway 87, Highway 176, Highway 349, Highway 158, and 

Highway 33. Although the analysis for this Draft EA assumes that, after travelling from the 

industrial park property to Big Spring, 286 frac sand trucks would travel these roadways each 

day, it is unknown what proportion of frac sand truck traffic would occur along each 

roadway. In order to reasonably predict the potential number of frac sand truck trips on these 

roadways, OEA reviewed the most recent AADT and truck traffic data to determine current 

usage patterns. OEA then assigned proportions of anticipated frac sand truck traffic (286 

truck trips per day) to each roadway based on current truck traffic percentages. Table 4.3-1 

presents historical 2013 AADT and truck traffic percentage, predicted addition of frac sand 

trucks, predicted total AADT, and percentage increase in AADT for the roadways identified 

above. 

Table 4.3-1. Potential Frac Sand Shipment Routes and Predicted AADT Increase

Roadway

2013 

AADT

Existing Truck 

Traffic (% of 

2013 AADT)

Frac Sand 

Truck Trips 

Added per Day

Total

AADT

Increase 

in AADT

(%)

I-20 (west of Big Spring, TX) 18,911 30% 46 18,957 0.24%

Highway 137 4,013 12% 18 4,031 0.45%

Highway 349 3,786 30% 46 3,832 1.21%

Highway 158 6,432 30% 46 6,478 0.71%

Highway 33 7,576 23% 35 7,611 0.46%

Highway 87 9,429 30% 46 9,475 0.48%

Highway 176 2,263 33% 50 2,313 2.22%

Source of 2013 AADT levels and truck traffic: Texas Department of Transportation 2015a.
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-11 October 2015

As presented in Table 4.3-1, the addition of frac sand truck traffic to the roadways would 

result in increases in AADT ranging from 0.24 percent for I-20 to 2.22 percent for Highway 

176. These predicted increases in truck traffic would not result in a significant increase in 

AADT and represent a negligible impact on traffic and transportation along the roadways. 

Increased traffic to and from the industrial park property served by the proposed rail line 

during operations would result in heavy truck traffic along North Moss Lake Road, the likely 

access point to the industrial park property. This could result in greater wear and tear on this 

smaller road which is presently not designed to accommodate this level of traffic. The 

Applicants have proposed Voluntary Mitigation VM-1 requiring that the Applicants shall 

consult with Howard County, Texas regarding curb cuts and road planning in the vicinity of 

the proposed rail line construction. The implementation of the Applicants’ voluntary 

mitigation would lead to road planning and design improvements in collaboration with local 

transportation authorities to accommodate the anticipated level of increased truck traffic on 

North Moss Lake Road. With the implementation of the Applicants’ voluntary mitigation, 

impacts on North Moss Lake Road resulting from the construction and operation of the 

proposed rail would not likely be significant. 

4.4 Noise and Vibration

OEA reviewed the location of noise-sensitive receptors (such as schools, libraries, hospitals, 

residences, retirement communities, and nursing homes) in the vicinity of the proposed rail 

line. OEA identified very few receptors within a mile to the east, north, and west of the 

proposed rail line. No noise-sensitive receptors were identified within a half-mile of the 

proposed rail line to the east, north and west. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the 

proposed rail line are residences to the south in the community of Sand Springs. At its 

closest point, the proposed rail line is approximately 850 feet to the north of the closest 

residence in this community. The existing UP mainline is located approximately 300 feet 

north of this residence, between the residence and the proposed rail line.

OEA performed a noise contour analysis to determine if the noise impacts from the operation 

of the proposed rail line would result in adverse noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. 

Potential impacts were analyzed based on the following criteria: 

 An increase in noise exposure as measured by a day-night average noise level (DNL)2

of 3 A-weighted decibels (dBA)3or more.

 An increase to a noise level of 65 DNL or greater.

 

2 DNL is the energy average of A-weighted decibels (dBA) sound level over a 24-hour period. DNL includes an adjustment 

factor for noise between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for the greater sensitivity of most people to noise during the night. 

The effect of nighttime adjustment is that one nighttime event, such as a train passing by between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., is 

equivalent to 10 similar events during the daytime.

3 A-weighted decibels (dBA) is a measure of noise level used to compare noise from various sources. A-weighting 

approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-12 October 2015

Both of these two components (3 dBA increase and 65 DNL) are employed to determine an 

upper bound of any area of potential noise impact. Both components must be met to cause an 

adverse noise impact (Surface Transportation Board 1998; Coate 1999). That is, the Board 

would find an adverse noise impact in any location the proposed rail line noise levels both 

increase by 3 dBA or more and are equal to at least 65 DNL. If the estimated noise levels 

would exceed these criteria, the number of affected receptors would then be estimated. For 

reference, Figure 4.4-1 shows typical noise levels (DNL) for selected community 

environments. 

Figure 4.4-1. Typical Day-Night Average Noise Levels (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1974)

During construction of the proposed rail line, daytime noise levels in the proposed project 

area would increase temporarily due to increased truck traffic and heavy equipment use. The 

Applicants have proposed Voluntary Mitigation VM-2, requiring that the Applicants use 

industry best practices in order to minimize noise in the residential area to the south of the 

proposed track construction where the closest noise-sensitive receptors are located. As 

described in Section 3.6 Land Use of this Draft EA, there are few residential properties in the 

vicinity of the proposed rail line with the closest located approximately 0.16 mile southeast 

of the proposed rail line in the Sand Springs community between I-20 and the existing UP 

mainline. 

With the implementation of the Applicants’ voluntary mitigation and because of the distance 

from construction activities as well as the masking effects of existing train traffic noise on 

the mainline, temporary noise generated during construction of the proposed rail line should 

have minimal, if any, impacts on noise-sensitive receptors. 

Rail operations on the proposed rail line would consist of up to 5 trains per week or 0.7 trains 

per day, including both inbound and outbound trains. Existing train traffic along the nearby 

UP mainline consists of 7 to 16 trains per day. Noise contours were developed for the

existing mainline noise conservatively assuming 7 trains per day and for the proposed rail 

line which would be the combination of mainline rail noise and rail noise from the operation 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-13 October 2015

of the proposed rail line. Noise contours were generated using Computer Aided Noise 

Abatement (CADNA), an internationally accepted environmental noise software program.

Table 4.1-1 shows the train operational data used in the noise modeling as well as calculated 

distances to the 65 DNL noise contour line. Appendix D presents the equations and data 

used to calculate these wayside noise level contour distances. 

Table 4.4-1. Train Operational Data

Existing Main Linea Proposed Rail Lineb

Train Volume (trains per day) 7 0.7

Number of locomotives 3 3

Locomotive Length (ft) 68 75

Number of cars 110 100

Car Length (ft) 72 42

Total train length (ft) 8,124 4,425

Train Speed (mph) 55 10

Distance from centerline to 65 

DNL contour (ft)

310 60

Notes:

a. Existing mainline train data is representative of a typical freight train operating along the mainline using publically 

available freight train data from the Texas Department of Transportation, Union Pacific, and CSX.

b. Proposed train data represents an anticipated typical frac sand unit train. 

Figure 4.4-2 presents the results of the noise modeling including the existing mainline 65 

DNL contour with the combined effect of noise generated from Tracks A and B and Tracks 

A1 and B14. 

The closest residence to the south of the mainline would fall just outside the existing Union 

Pacific mainline’s 65 DNL contour. In addition, the modeled noise level at this same 

residence would essentially remain unchanged as a result of the additional noise associated 

with the operation of the proposed rail line. The reason for this is due to the much more 

dominant mainline noise source as well as the residence’s closer proximity to the mainline 

versus the proposed rail.

In summary, rail noise from the operation of the proposed rail line would be less than 65 

DNL at all receptor locations and DNL values at the residences south of the mainline would 

be essentially unchanged (i.e., the increase in noise level would be less than 3 dBA). 

Consequently, there would be no adverse noise impacts resulting from the operation of the 

proposed rail line.

 

4 This figure is for presentational purposes only. The proposed rail noise contours were generated assuming that 0.7 trains per 

day would be on each track set (Tracks A and B and Tracks A1 and B1). Consequently, the noise contour figure overstates 

the noise level that would be generated in practice.
   

Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   4‐14 October 2015

Figure 4.4‐2.  Proposed Rail Line and Existing Mainline Combined 65 DNL Contour

As described above in Section 4.3 Transportation of this Draft EA, if the proposed rail line 

was constructed and operated, up to 1,000 truckloads per week of frac sand would be shipped 

to wellheads within approximately 60 miles of the proposed rail line. Presently it is not 

known precisely which road segments the truck traffic would follow to reach their 

destinations; however, OEA anticipates that most trucks carrying frac sand from the 

proposed rail line would travel south on North Moss Lake Road to reach I-20. 

Trucks travelling south to I-20 would follow a segment of North Moss Lake Road measuring 

approximately 0.5 mile between the existing UP mainline and I-20. In this area, several 

residences are situated along the east and west sides of North Moss Lake Road. Residences 

towards the northern end of this segment presently experience noise impactsresulting from 

train traffic along the existing UP mainline, and train horns that are sounded as trains 

approach the at-grade rail crossing of North Moss Lake Road. As noted in Section 3.3 

Transportation and Safety of this Draft EA, between 7 and 16 trains per day travel along the 

UP mainline in this area, each of which would be required to sound its horn before crossing 

North Moss Lake Road. Residences towards the southern end of this segment of North Moss 

Lake Road presently experience noise impacts from existing vehicular traffic on I-20. As 

described in Section 3.3 Transportation and Safety of this Draft EA, AADT on I-20 ranges 

between 15,757 and 19,978 vehicles and approximately 43 percent of this traffic consists of 

heavy freight trucks (Texas Department of Transportation 2015b). All residences along this 

segment of North Moss Lake Road presently experience noise impacts resulting from 

existing vehicular traffic that currently travels along North Moss Lake Road. 

In addition to the noise generated by the construction and operation the proposed rail line, 

noise would be generated by frac sand truck activity associated with the proposed rail line. 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-15 October 2015

This would increase noise levels in this area, but because of the high volumes of traffic—

including heavy freight truck traffic—on I-20 and the frequency of train traffic noise and 

train horn noise along the existing UP mainline, the impacts from new truck traffic associated 

with the proposed rail line are likely to be minimal. 

4.5 Cultural Resources

A preliminary search of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and Texas 

Historical Commission website revealed no historic or cultural resources in the proposed rail 

line right-of-way or immediately nearby. OEA sent letters requesting comments regarding 

the proposed rail line to three federally-recognized tribes which were identified as having a 

possible interest in the project area to determine the potential impacts on tribal resources and 

land-use in the area. These included the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, the Comanche Nation, 

and the Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma. There has been no response from these tribes 

indicating concerns about tribal cultural resources within the project area. 

OEA consulted with the Texas Historical Commission’s SHPO. In a letter dated January 30, 

2015, the SHPO indicated that the proposed rail line is in an area that has the potential for 

cultural resources and that several archeological sites have previously been recorded in the 

vicinity. The SHPO recommended that a professional archeologist survey the project area. 

OEA conducted an intensive pedestrian archaeological resources survey within the proposed 

rail line right-of-way from May 4 to May 8, 2015 to identify prehistoric, historic, and cultural 

resources, to assess the significance of those resources and their potential to be eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP, and to make recommendations for the treatment of those resources. 

The pedestrian archeological resources survey covered 100 percent of the proposed rail line 

right-of-way, which is also the area of potential effects (APE) of the undertaking. 

A total of 96 shovel tests were excavated for the archaeological investigation, and these 

revealed three historic/prehistoric sites and one isolated object. The sites were delineated by 

a combination of shovel testing and examination of surface expression. Portions of the 

identified sites were located within the APE, though the site boundaries as determined by 

surface examination also extend outside the proposed rail line right-of-way. The accessible 

portions of the sites (i.e., within the project APE and where shovel testing was conducted) 

were determined to have no potential for the NRHP and no further research value. 

Because the historic/prehistoric sites extend beyond the boundaries of the proposed rail line 

right-of-way, additional archeological investigations would be necessary prior to any ground 

disturbance adjacent to, but outside the proposed rail line right-of-way within the vicinity of 

the newly recorded sites to determine the extent, integrity, and potential significance of the 

sites. In the unlikely event that future rail line construction activities would take place 

outside the proposed rail line right-of-way, OEA is recommending Mitigation Measure 

MM-9, which would require that the Applicants shall, prior to conducting construction 

activities, consult with OEA and the SHPO regarding additional archaeological 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-16 October 2015

investigations that may be necessary. Furthermore, OEA is recommending Mitigation 

Measure MM-10, requiring that in the event that any unanticipated archaeological sites, 

human remains, funerary items or associated artifacts are discovered during proposed rail 

line construction, Applicants shall immediately cease all work and notify OEA and the 

SHPO.

By letter dated August 5, 2015, OEA requested that the Texas SHPO concur with a Section 

106 finding of “no historic properties affected.” On August 24, 2015, the SHPO concurred 

with the OEA's determination.

Pursuant to the Section 106 regulations of the NHPA at 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(b), and following 

consultation with the SHPO and the public, OEA has determined that the construction of the 

proposed rail line would not affect historic properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the 

NRHP. The documentation for this finding, as specified at 36 C.F.R. § 800.11(e), consists 

of all relevant correspondence and this Draft EA, which have been provided to the SHPO and 

made available to the public through posting on the Board’s website at 

http://www.stb.dot.gov.

4.6 Land Use

Construction and operation of the proposed rail line would have a minimal impact on land 

use in the proposed project area. Land outside of Big Spring city limits does not have official 

zoning designations; however, the proposed rail line is located in an area that is already 

developed and being utilized for industrial purposes. The proposed rail line is adjacent to the 

UP mainline and the Alon Refinery and the Sid Richardson Carbon Black Plant are nearby. 

The Alon Refinery is located approximately 0.4 mile to the northwest of the proposed rail, 

and the Sid Richardson Carbon Black plant is located approximately 0.4 mile to the 

southwest of the proposed rail line. Because industrial development including rail 

transportation is prevalent in the proposed project area, the construction and operation of the 

proposed rail line would be consistent with the existing land uses in the area and would not 

result in significant impacts on land use.

The Applicants intend to purchase land from the Big Spring EDC where the construction and 

operation of Track B-1 would occur parallel to the existing UP mainline. Although not 

presently in use, this land is being offered for sale as an industrial site that can accommodate 

permittable industrial operations (Big Spring Economic Development Corporation 2015). 

While this would result in a change in land ownership, the use of this land for the proposed 

rail line would be consistent with existing and planned land uses in the area. 

As described in Section 3.6 Land Use of this Draft EA, no public parks or recreation areas 

were identified adjacent to or near the proposed rail line. Therefore, the construction and 

operation of the proposed rail line would have no impact on recreation. 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-17 October 2015

4.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste 

Sites

OEA conducted a search of federal, state, local, and Native American tribal records to 

determine whether any hazardous materials and hazardous waste sites are located along or in

the vicinity of the proposed rail line right-of-way. Two records were found representing a 

single documented groundwater plume of tetrachloroethylene on Moss Lake Road, 

approximately 0.7 mile to the east of the proposed rail line (Environmental Data Resources, 

Inc. 2015). The plume is at a depth ranging from 40 to 65 feet below ground surface in an 

area where direction of the groundwater flow, and hence the plume, is southward. Given the 

documented extent of the plume and the direction of groundwater flow, it is unlikely that the 

groundwater beneath the proposed rail line has been affected by the plume. The construction 

and operation of the proposed rail line would have no effect on existing hazardous materials 

or hazardous waste sites. 

4.8 Socioeconomics

Construction and operation of the proposed rail line would generate employment 

opportunities in Howard County. There is no formal estimate of the number of workers 

needed during construction, but initial expectations from the Applicants suggest 30 

construction workers could be needed for a construction period of up to 6 months. In 

addition, 10 full time staff would be employed during operations. Because these numbers are 

less than 0.2 percent of the current labor force in Howard County and less than 0.02 percent 

of the population within commuting distance of the proposed rail line, OEA expects that 

there would be no changes in current population and employment trends as a result of the 

construction and operation of the proposed rail line. Because no changes in population 

trends are expected, OEA also does not expect that there would be changes in current trends 

in demand for housing and public services in Howard County as a result of the construction 

and operation of the proposed rail line. 

Employment opportunities and associated expenditures would constitute a stimulus to the 

local economy. This stimulus would be temporary during construction and based on the 

employment estimates described, would not perceptibly alter current economic trends. The 

proposed rail line would also provide opportunity for additional businesses to locate along 

the line, with potential to create more employment opportunities. As described in Section 3.8 

Socioeconomics of this Draft EA, the main source of county tax revenues in Howard County 

is the property tax, including taxes on industrial property and mineral property. The 

construction and operation of the proposed rail line will directly contribute to local property 

tax revenues and contribute to tax revenues indirectly through support of the oil and gas 

industry. 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-18 October 2015

As described in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need of this Draft EA, the Applicants have indicated 

that the proposed rail line would serve the extensive Permian Basin shale oil activity located 

south and west of Big Spring. By servicing the oil and gas industry, it would support a major 

economic activity and source of employment for Howard County and would not be expected 

to alter the current livelihood of Howard County families, nor affect current values associated 

with those livelihoods. 

OEA analyzed the effects of the proposed rail line on low-income and minority populations 

in accordance with the procedures outlined in Executive Order 12898: "Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." 

Pursuant to the Executive Order, an adverse environmental justice impact would only occur 

if any high and adverse effect were to fall disproportionately on a low-income or minority 

population. Because no high and adverse human health or environmental effects were 

identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.8 of this Draft EA, no disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects would be likely on minority or low-income 

populations as a result of the construction and operations of the proposed rail line. 

4.9 Cumulative Impacts

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA define a 

cumulative impact as, “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (federal, or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. To assist federal agencies 

in assessing cumulative impacts under NEPA, CEQ developed a handbook titled Considering 

Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (Council on Environmental 

Quality 1997). OEA followed CEQ’s guidelines in its evaluation of whether the potential 

impacts of the proposed rail line construction and operation in combination with projects in 

the area would cumulatively result in significant adverse environmental impacts.

OEA consulted with local, state, and federal agencies as well as the Applicants, and 

conducted public outreach activities to identify other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions in the proposed project area. Although a number of potential future 

developments and projects were identified, many of them were not considered to be 

reasonably foreseeable and others would be located too far away geographically to have 

potential overlapping impacts on the same resources as the proposed rail line. 

OEA determined that the further development of the industrial park property owned by LSR

is the only project that overlaps with the proposed rail line in terms of geographic area and 

time frame. Because the development and operation of the industrial park property has the 

potential to impact some of the same resources as the proposed rail line at about the same 

time as the proposed rail line construction and operation, OEA determined that the analysis 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-19 October 2015

of the industrial park property is an appropriate part of the cumulative analysis for this case. 

Thus, OEA’s cumulative analysis has assessed the combined effects of the proposed rail line 

and the further development of the industrial park property on the environment. 

As described in Section 2.1 Proposed Action of this Draft EA, and depicted in Figure 2-1, 

LSR owns over 600 acres of land on which most of the proposed rail line would be 

constructed. This industrial park property is adjacent to the existing UP mainline, which is 

located to the south. The Applicants have indicated that if the Board grants a license to 

construct and operate the proposed rail line, they would develop the industrial park property 

into a staging area for frac sand to be transloaded onto trucks and shipped to crude oil 

wellheads within approximately 60 miles of the industrial park property. The Applicants 

have also noted that a number of other commodities could be shipped from the industrial 

park property including line pipe, drill pipe, casing pipe, aggregate, natural gas, drilling mud, 

and liquid materials. The industrial park property may also accommodate future rail car 

storage. To support customer rail operations within the industrial park property, a number of 

private customer tracks and a rail service yard would be required. Transloading equipment 

and storage facilities for frac sand would be required on the site. The Applicants have 

indicated that a shop for maintenance and repair of locomotives may be constructed within 

the industrial park property. One or more unpaved private roads would connect facilities 

within the industrial park property to North Moss Lake Road. An office building would 

likely be located in the southeast corner of the industrial park property. The Applicants 

would dig a private well on the property to provide potable water and a contained septic 

system would be installed. 

Although a number of conceptual facilities and developments within the industrial park 

property have been identified by the Applicants, at this time it is unknown the precise 

location and type of facilities that would be developed. The final layout and design of the 

industrial park property would depend on the clients that locate there and the commodities 

and products that are shipped to and from the industrial park property along the proposed rail 

line. At present, LSR is using the industrial park property for commercial and industrial 

purposes, including pipe staging and storage. There are also oil extraction wells, pipelines, 

and transmission lines active in the industrial park property. 

OEA provides the cumulative impacts analysis below, separated into environmental resource 

categories. OEA evaluated cumulative impacts on those environmental resource areas which 

both the proposed action and the proposed industrial park property could cause 

environmental impacts. 

4.9.1 Physical Resources

Geology and Soils: The industrial park property does not contain any soils classified as 

prime or unique soils by NRCS; however, there are approximately 105 acres of soil of 

statewide importance within the industrial park property. As noted in Section 4.1.1 Geology 

and Soils of this Draft EA, conversion of these soils would require an evaluation under FPPA 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-20 October 2015

if federal funding were used in the development of the industrial park property. The 

topographic characteristics and soil types present in the industrial park property are largely 

similar to those described in 3.1.1 Geology and Soils of this Draft EA. It is not anticipated 

that the development of the industrial park property would require extensive earthwork or 

deep excavations. Impacts from the future development of the industrial park property would 

be similar to that of the proposed rail line. Therefore, the proposed rail line, when combined 

with the industrial park property development, would result in minor cumulative impacts on 

geology and soils. 

Water Resources: As described in Section 4.1.2 Water Resources of this Draft EA, the 

construction and operation of the proposed rail line would not result in impacts on surface 

waters, wetlands, floodplains, or groundwater. Because there are no surface waters or 

mapped wetlands inside the industrial park property or within 0.5 mile of the property, it 

would also not likely have impacts on surface waters and wetlands. The private customer 

tracks, rail service yard, locomotive shop, and other buildings anticipated for the industrial 

park property would not require deep excavation and would not be likely to result in impacts 

on groundwater. LSR has indicated that a private water well may be constructed in the 

industrial park property, but withdrawals would be limited to potable water for the full time 

staff and would not result in a noticeable loss in the quality or availability of groundwater. 

One small, isolated, FEMA-mapped floodplain was identified inside the industrial park

property. This area was mapped as Zone A, which is defined as a special flood area subject 

to inundation by 100-year flood levels; however, the floodway is not associated with any 

surface waters, nor is it connected to a FEMA-identified floodway. Overall, impacts on 

water resources resulting from the combination of impacts from the proposed rail line and the 

impacts from the industrial park property would not result in a significant cumulative impact 

on water resources. 

Air Quality: The construction of future facilities within the industrial park property could 

lead to impacts on air quality from fugitive dust and vehicle and equipment emissions. If the 

construction of facilities in the industrial park property overlapped with the construction of 

the proposed rail line, there may be a temporary and localized cumulative impact on air 

quality; however, the cumulative impact would be minor due to the relatively small and 

isolated size of the construction area and the mitigation measures that would be implemented 

for the construction of the proposed rail line. The operation of the proposed rail line may 

contribute to air quality impacts when combined with the operations of the future industrial 

park property. However, the contribution of the proposed rail line would be minor and while 

there may be some emission-generating equipment required, it is not likely that the operation 

of transloading equipment, small office facilities, and other equipment in the industrial park 

property would result in significant emissions that would adversely affect regional air 

quality. Overall, cumulative impacts on air quality from the proposed action and the 

development of the industrial park property would be minor. 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-21 October 2015

4.9.2 Biological Resources

Vegetation: Construction of the industrial park property could impact up to an additional 600 

acres of vegetation communities. Most of this area has been converted and used for 

agricultural and industrial purposes and has little natural vegetation cover. It is unlikely that 

all 600 acres of the vegetation in the industrial park property would be cleared. The 

development of the industrial park property could lead to impacts on vegetation similar to 

those described for the proposed rail line; however, due to the relative abundance of similar 

vegetation types in and around the proposed project area and the high level of human-caused 

disturbance to vegetation communities already present in the region, cumulative impacts on 

vegetation would be minor. 

Wildlife: Wildlife habitat types in the industrial park property are largely identical to those 

found in the right-of-way for the proposed rail line. As such, the development of the 

industrial park property would result in similar impacts as the proposed rail line on up to 600 

acres of wildlife habitats. However, it is unlikely that all 600 acres of wildlife habitat would 

be cleared, altered or degraded in the industrial park property. Because human alteration and 

disturbance is already common in and around the project area, the proposed rail line when 

combined with the development of the industrial park property would not result in significant 

cumulative impacts on wildlife or their habitat.

Threatened and Endangered Species: Because the habitat found in the industrial park 

property is nearly identical to that in the right-of-way for the proposed rail line, it is likely 

that threatened and endangered species would have the same likelihood of occurrence in the 

industrial park property. As noted in Section 4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species of 

this Draft EA, the proposed rail line would not result in impacts on any federal or state listed 

species. As such, the proposed action would not contribute to any incremental impacts on 

threatened and endangered species.

4.9.3 Transportation and Safety

Similar to the proposed rail line, the development of the industrial park property would not 

physically affect any existing roadways in the proposed project area. During future 

construction of the facilities within the industrial park property, there may be additional 

traffic from construction workers and construction materials to and from the industrial park

property. If the construction period of industrial park property facilities overlapped with the 

construction period of the proposed rail line, this could result in a small, localized, and 

temporary cumulative impact on traffic and safety. Operation of the facilities within the 

industrial park property would require additional employees to commute to and from the 

industrial park property daily, leading to small increases in traffic volumes during limited 

periods of the day. When combined with the traffic increases expected from the operation of 

the proposed rail line, this would lead to a minor cumulative impact on transportation and 

safety. Additionally, if the other commodities identified in Section 4.9 Cumulative Impacts, 

are shipped from the industrial park property, this may also lead to increases in truck traffic 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-22 October 2015

volume. However the volume of truck traffic and roadways used will depend on the types 

and volumes of other commodities shipped through the industrial park property, which is not 

known at this time.

4.9.4 Noise and Vibration

Construction and installation of facilities in the industrial park property would likely result in 

localized and temporary noise impacts. The intensity and duration of this noise is not known 

at this time and would depend on the type of facilities to be constructed, the equipment used 

in construction, and the timing of construction. If construction and installation of facilities 

for the industrial park property overlaps with the construction period for the proposed rail 

line, temporary and localized cumulative increases in noise levels would result. Due to the 

limited number of nearby sensitive noise receptors, construction noise levels resulting from 

the combination of the proposed rail line and the industrial park property would be minor. 

Operations of equipment in the industrial park property would also contribute to operational 

noise in the proposed project area; however, the intensity of these noise sources is not known 

at this time and would depend on the specific types of equipment used. Due to the presence 

of existing and ongoing noise sources including the traffic along the existing UP rail line, as 

well as the relatively limited number of nearby sensitive noise receptors, the cumulative 

operational noise impacts would be minor. 

4.9.5 Cultural Resources

As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources of this Draft EA, the construction and 

operation of the proposed rail line would not affect historic properties listed in or eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP. As such, the proposed rail line would not result in a contribution to 

incremental impacts when combined with the potential impacts from the development of the 

industrial park property. 

4.9.6 Land Use

Similar to the proposed rail line, future development of the industrial park property in the 

project area would be consistent with the existing land uses in the area and the development 

of the industrial park property would not result in land use impacts. Therefore, no adverse 

cumulative impacts on land use would be likely from the combination of the proposed rail 

line and the development of the industrial park property. 

4.9.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Sites

As noted in Section 4.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Sites of this Draft EA,

the proposed rail line would have no effect on hazardous materials and hazardous waste sites. 

As such, it would not result in a contribution to incremental impacts when combined with the 

potential impacts from the development of the industrial park property. 
Chapter 4.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 4-23 October 2015

4.9.8 Socioeconomics

To the extent that additional industrial clients make use of the rail services, the development 

of the industrial park property would provide additional employment opportunities and 

income to the local economy. Therefore, a minor beneficial cumulative impact would be 

likely from the combination of the proposed rail line and the development of the industrial 

park property. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 5-1

October 2015

Chapter 5

Recommendations for Mitigation 

and Request for Comments

This chapter describes OEA’s recommended mitigation measures that, if imposed by the 

Board in any decision granting the Applicants the authority to construct and operate the 

proposed rail line, would avoid, minimize, or compensate for the potential environmental 

impacts related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed rail line. 

OEA developed the preliminary mitigation measures based on information available to date, 

consultations with appropriate agencies, comments from interested parties, and extensive 

environmental analyses. In addition, the Applicants have proposed voluntary mitigation

measures that include ongoing consultation with Howard County, Texas and the use of best 

management practices. 

5.1 Overview of OEA’s Approach to 

Environmental Mitigation

In conducting this environmental review, OEA has taken a hard look at the environmental

consequences of the proposed action and the No Action Alternative. The potential 

environmental effects that OEA identified would be both beneficial and adverse. Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action of this 

Draft EA discuss in detail the affected environment and potential environmental impacts

related to the proposed rail line construction and operation. OEA’s environmental analysis 

and its resulting mitigation recommendations reflect the variety of the environmental issues 

and offer a reasonable and feasible way of minimizing some of the environmental impacts

discovered during the course of OEA’s environmental review. OEA also encourages 

negotiations between applicants and potentially affected communities, or others, to reach 

mutually acceptable solutions to address the parties’ concerns. The mitigation in this Draft 

EA includes both mitigation developed by OEA and voluntary mitigation offered by the 

Applicants.

5.2 Limits of the Board’s Conditioning Power

The Board has the authority to impose conditions to mitigate environmental impacts. As a 

government agency, the Board can only impose conditions that are consistent with its 

statutory authority. Accordingly, any mitigation measure the Board imposes must relate 

directly to the transaction before the Board, must be reasonable, and must be supported by 

the record before the Board. The Board’s consistent practice has been to mitigate only those 
Chapter 5.

Recommendations for Mitigation and Request for Comments

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 5-2

October 2015

impacts that result directly from the proposed action. The Board typically does not require 

mitigation for preexisting environmental conditions.

5.3 Voluntary Mitigation and Negotiated 

Agreements

OEA encourages applicants to propose voluntary mitigation. In some situations, voluntary 

mitigation could replace, supplement, or reach farther than mitigation measures the Board 

might otherwise impose. Because applicants gain a substantial amount of knowledge about 

the issues associated with a proposed rail line during project planning, and because they 

consult with regulatory agencies during the permitting process, they are often in a position to 

offer relevant voluntary mitigation. In that regard, the Applicants have proposed voluntary 

mitigation, which is discussed below. 

OEA encourages applicants to negotiate mutually acceptable agreements with affected 

communities and other government entities to address potential environmental impacts, if 

appropriate. Negotiated agreements could be with neighborhoods, communities, counties, 

cities, regional coalitions, states, and other entities. If the Applicants submit to the Board any 

such negotiated agreements, the Board would require compliance with the terms of any such 

agreements as environmental conditions in any final decision authorizing construction and 

operation of the proposed rail line. Any potential negotiated agreement would supersede any 

environmental conditions for that particular community or other entity that the Board might 

otherwise impose.

5.4 Preliminary Nature of Environmental 

Mitigation

OEA’s preliminary mitigation measures are based on the information available to date, 

consultation with appropriate agencies, and the environmental analyses presented in this 

document. These preliminary mitigation measures could be imposed by the Board in 

addition to the Applicants’ voluntary mitigation measures.

OEA will make its final recommendations on mitigation to the Board in the Final EA after 

considering all public comments on this Draft EA. The Board will then make its final 

decision regarding the proposed rail line and any conditions it might impose. In making its 

decision, the Board will consider this Draft EA, the Final EA, public and agency comments, 

and OEA’s final mitigation recommendations.
Chapter 5.

Recommendations for Mitigation and Request for Comments

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 5-3

October 2015

5.5 Applicants’ Voluntary Mitigation Measures

The Applicants have offered two voluntary mitigation measures for the Board to consider. 

OEA has reviewed the voluntary mitigation measures and recommends that the Board, 

should the proposed rail line be approved, require the Applicants to comply with both of the

voluntary mitigation measures submitted. These voluntary mitigation measures are set forth

below. 

5.5.1 Transportation and Safety

 VM-1. The Applicants shall consult with Howard County, Texas regarding curb cut and 

road planning in the vicinity of the proposed rail line construction.

5.5.2 Noise and Vibration

 VM-2. The Applicants shall use industry best practices in order to minimize noise in the 

residential area to the south of the proposed track construction.

5.6 OEA’s Preliminary Recommended Mitigation 

Measures

Based on available project information and comments received during the consultation 

process, OEA considered preliminary recommended mitigation measures to address the 

potential environmental impacts of the proposed action in the following resource areas: 

geology and soils, water resources, air quality, vegetation, wildlife, threatened and 

endangered species, and cultural resources. These recommended mitigation measures would 

supplement the Applicants’ proposed voluntary mitigation. 

5.6.1 Physical Resources – Geology and Soils, Water 

Resources, and Air Quality

 MM-1. The Applicants shall use water trucks as appropriate during rail line construction 

activities in order to minimize fugitive dust emissions and shall employ best management 

practices in the control and suppression of fugitive dust emissions. 

 MM-2. The Applicants shall limit rail line construction activities, vegetation clearing, 

and soil disturbance to the rail line right-of-way in order to minimize fugitive dust 

generation. 

 MM-3. The Applicants shall comply with the reasonable requirements of applicable 

federal, state, and local regulations regarding the control of fugitive dust related to rail 

line construction activities. 
Chapter 5.

Recommendations for Mitigation and Request for Comments

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad 5-4

October 2015

 MM-4. Should federal funds be used by the Applicants in the construction of the rail 

line, the Applicants shall consult with the United States Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service regarding the requirements of the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act. 

 MM-5. The Applicants shall implement soil erosion and sedimentation control measures 

to minimize impacts on surface waters in the project area from stormwater runoff during 

rail line construction activities.

5.6.2 Biological Resources – Vegetation, Wildlife, and 

Threatened and Endangered Species

 MM-6. The Applicants shall develop and implement a plan to prevent spills of oil or 

other petroleum products during rail line construction, operation, and maintenance. The 

plan shall address fuel storage and transfer practices to prevent spills and leaks, first 

response procedures for spills, and reporting and notification procedures.

 MM-7. The Applicants shall clear vegetation in preparation for rail line construction 

before or after the bird nesting season (March 1 to August 31) to avoid inadvertent 

removal of active nests (nesting adults, young, or eggs) and to ensure compliance with 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If vegetation clearing for the rail line construction is 

required during bird nesting season, the Applicants shall consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service regarding the implementation of appropriate nest survey methods to 

ensure that no migratory bird nests, eggs, or young are disturbed by construction 

activities until the eggs have hatched and the young have fledged.

 MM-8. To address the concerns of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 

the Applicants shall conduct ground-disturbing activities related to rail line construction 

to before or after the Texas horned lizard hibernation season (September/October to 

March/April – when ambient temperatures fall below 75o F) to avoid destruction of 

hibernating Texas horned lizards. If ground-disturbing activities for the rail line 

construction are required during the hibernation season of the Texas horned lizard, the 

Applicants shall consult with TPWD regarding the implementation of appropriate preconstruction surveys to determine the presence of Texas horned lizards. If Texas horned 

lizards are present, the Applicants shall contact TPWD to develop plans for their 

relocation.

5.6.3 Cultural Resources

 MM-9. Should any rail line construction activities take place adjacent to but outside the 

rail line right-of-way in the vicinity of the three historic/prehistoric sites recorded during 

OEA’s pedestrian archeological resources survey, Applicants shall, prior to conducting 

those construction activities, consult with OEA and the Texas State Historic Preservation 

Officer regarding additional archeological investigations that may be necessary. 
   

Chapter 5.

Recommendations for Mitigation and Request for Comments

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad   5‐5 October 2015

 MM-10. In the event that any unanticipated archaeological sites, human remains, 

funerary items, or associated artifacts are discovered during rail line construction , the 

Applicants shall immediately cease all work and notify OEA and the Texas State Historic 

Preservation Officer pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.13(b). OEA shall then consult with the 

SHPO, the Applicants, and other consulting parties, if any, to determine whether 

appropriate mitigation measures are necessary. 

5.7 Conclusion

Based on available information provided from all sources to date, OEA preliminarily 

concludes that, as currently proposed, construction and operation of the Applicants’ proposed 

rail line would not significantly affect the quality of the natural or human environment 

provided that the recommended mitigation measures as set forth in this Draft EA are 

implemented. 

5.8 Request for Comments

OEA invites comments on all aspects of this Draft EA, including the scope and adequacy of 

the recommended mitigation. OEA emphasizes that the identified mitigation measures are 

preliminary and invites public and agency comments on these proposed mitigation measures. 

For OEA to assess the comments effectively, it is critical that the public be specific regarding 

any desired mitigation and the reasons why the suggested mitigation would be appropriate. 

OEA will consider all comments received in response to the Draft EA in making its final 

recommendations to the Board. The Board will consider OEA’s final recommendations and 

the environmental comments in making its final decision in this proceeding. 

Please send any comments on this Draft EA to: 

Kenneth Blodgett 

Attention: Environmental filing, Docket No. FD 35874 

Surface Transportation Board 

395 E Street SW 

Washington, DC 20423-0001 

Environmental comments may also be filed electronically on the Board’s website, 

www.stb.gov, by clicking on the “E-FILING” link. Please refer to Finance Docket No. 

35874 in all correspondence, including e-filings, addressed to the Board. If you have any 

questions regarding this Environmental Assessment, please contact Kenneth Blodgett by 

phone at (202) 245-0305 or email at blodgettk@stb.dot.gov. 
Draft Environmental Assessment  

for the Lone Star Railroad 6‐1 October 2015

Chapter 6

References

Big Spring Economic Development Corporation. 2015. Web page: Permian Industrial 

Center. Updated June 21, 2015. Available: http://www.permianindustrialcenter.com. 

Accessed: June 21, 2015. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2013. Web page: Regional Economic Accounts. Local Area 

Personal Income and Employment. Available: http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm. 

Accessed: April 24, 2015. 

Center for Community and Business Research. 2014. Web page: Economic Impact of Oil 

and Gas Activities in the West Texas Energy Consortium Region. Available: 

http://wtxec.org/download/studies_&_reports/WTxEC%20Region%20EIS%20Executive

%20Summary_Compressed.pdf. Accessed: March 19, 2015. 

City of Big Spring. 2015. Web page: Moss Creek Lake. Available: 

http://www.mybigspring.com/moss_lake. Accessed: April 24, 2015. 

Coate, D. 1999. Annoyance Due To Locomotive Warning Horns. Transportation Research 

Board, Transportation Noise and Vibration Subcommittee A1FO4. San Diego, CA. 

August 1-4, 1999. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Web page: Considering Cumulative Effects under 

the National Environmental Policy Act. Available: 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQConsidCumulEffects.pdf. Accessed: June 21, 2015. 

Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 2015. Remedial Investigation Technical 

Memorandum, Groundwater Sampling Events November 10-11, 2014 and January 19-20, 

2015, Moss Lake Road Groundwater Proposed State Superfund Site, SUP167. March 17. 

Prepared for Texas Council on Environmental Quality. 

Environmental Data Resources Inc. 2015. Lonestar Railroad EA, Big Spring, TX 79720: 

EDR DataMapTM Area Study. (Inquiry Number: 4269562.2s.) April 21. Shelton, CT. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2010a. Flood Insurance Rate Map: Howard 

County Texas and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 48227C0320C. Effective Date: 

October 6. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2010b. Flood Insurance Rate Map: Howard 

County Texas and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 48227C0350C. Effective Date: 

October 6. 
 Chapter 6.

References

Draft Environmental Assessment  

for the Lone Star Railroad 6‐2 October 2015

Federal Railroad Administration. 2015. Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory Data. Available: 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Downloaddbf.aspx. Accessed: 

April 14, 2015. 

Freese and Nichols Inc. and LBG-Guyton Associates, Inc. 2015. 2016 Region F Water Plan. 

Volume I: Main Report Initially Prepared Plan. May. Prepared for Texas Water 

Development Board, Region F Water Planning Group. 

Griffith, G.E., Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Rogers, A.C., Harrison, B., 

Hatch, S.L., and Bezanson, D., 2004. Ecoregions of Texas (color poster with map, 

descriptive text, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 

1:2,500,000). 

Grzybowski, J. A. 1991. Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus) recovery plan. Final. 

Albuquerque, NM. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2. 

Grzybowski, J. A. 1995. Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla). In A. Poole (Ed.), The 

Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

doi:doi:10.2173/bna.181 

Howard County. 2013. Web page: Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended 

September 30, 2013. Available: 

http://www.co.howard.tx.us/default.aspx?Howard_County/Financial.CAFR. Accessed: 

April 24, 2015. 

Klinksiek, Brian. County Engineer. Howard County Road and Bridge. Howard County, 

TX. April 24, 2015-Telephone Conversation. 

LeBlanc, Darren. Texas Transportation Liaison. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin 

Ecological Services Field Office. Austin, Texas. February 27, 2015—Email 

communication with Amanda Nicodemus of ICF International. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Web page: Custom Soil Resource Report for 

Howard County, Texas. Available: 

http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed: April 24, 2015. 

North Plains Groundwater Conservation District. 2011. Web page: Ogallala Aquifer: 

General Geology, Stratigraphy, and Hydrology. Available: 

http://www.northplainsgcd.org/science-a-technology/ogallala-aquifer.html. Accessed: 

May 5, 2015. 

Playa Lake Joint Venture. 2015. Web page: Probable Playas in Howard County, Texas. 

Available: http://www.pljv.org/PPv4_MapBook/PPv4_TX_Howard_County.pdf. 

Accessed: May 12, 2015. 

Surface Transportation Board. 1998. Final Environmental Impact Statement No. 980194, 

Conrail Acquisition (Finance Docket No. 33388) by CSX Corporation and CSX 
 Chapter 6.

References

Draft Environmental Assessment  

for the Lone Star Railroad 6‐3 October 2015

Transportation Inc., and Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway 

Company (NS). July, 1998. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 2010. Web page: Hazard Ranking System 

State Documentation Record: Moss Lake Road Groundwater Site, Big Spring, Howard 

County, Texas. Prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Superfund 

Program, Austin, Texas. Available: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/ 

remediation/superfund/mosslake/mosslakeroad_hrs.pdf. Accessed: April 24, 2015. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 2014. Web page: Point Source Emissions 

Inventory. Available at: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/point-source-ei/psei.html. 

Accessed: April 14, 2015. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 2015. Web page: Groundwater Conservation 

Districts. Available: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/groundwater/groundwater/districts.html. 

Assessed April 25, 2015. 

Texas Department of Transportation. 2013. Web page: Traffic Maps: Abilene District. 

Available: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/traffic_counts/2013/abl_base.pdf. 

Accessed: April 14, 2015. 

Texas Department of Transportation. 2014. Web page: County Mapbook. Available at: 

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/apps-cg/grid_search/_includes/countymapbook/ 

Pages/2014_MapbookLegend.pdf. Accessed: April 14, 2015. 

Texas Department of Transportation. 2015a. Web page: Texas Department of 

Transportation Statewide Planning Map. Available: 

http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html. Accessed: 

August 18, 2015. 

Texas Department of Transportation. 2015b. Web page: Permanent Traffic Counts. 

Available: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/traffic/traffic_counts/permanent/ 

2015/abilene.pdf. Accessed: April 14, 2015. 

Texas General Land Office. n.d. Web page: Interactive Land Lease Mapping Program. 

Available: http://gisweb.glo.texas.gov/glomap/index.html. Accessed: May 4, 2015. 

Texas Office of State Demographer. 2015. Web page: Estimates and Projections. 

Available: http://osd.state.tx.us/Index.aspx. Accessed: April 24, 2015 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2014. Wildlife Division, Diversity and Habitat 

Assessment Programs. County Lists of Texas' Special Species. Howard County. October 

20. 
 Chapter 6.

References

Draft Environmental Assessment  

for the Lone Star Railroad 6‐4 October 2015

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2015a. Web page: Panhandle Playa Lakes. 

Available: 

https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/habitats/high_plains/wetlands/playa.phtml. 

Accessed: May 8, 2015. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2015b. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of 

Texas. Annotated County Lists of Rare Species. Howard County. Last Revision: March 

23, 2015. Available at: http://tpwd.texas.gov/gis/rtest/. Accessed: May 15, 2015. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2015c. Web page: Big Spring State Park. Available: 

http://tpwd.texas.gov/state-parks/big-spring. Accessed: April 22, 2015. 

Texas State Historical Association. 2010. Web page: Handbook of Texas Online: Beals 

Creek. Available: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/rbb44. Accessed: 

May 08, 2015. 

Texas Water Development Board. 2002. Web page: Wells in Texas Water Development 

Board Groundwater Database-Texas. Available: 

http://wiid.twdb.texas.gov/ims/wwm_drl/viewer.htm?. Accessed: May 14, 2015. 

Texas Water Development Board. 2014a. Major Aquifers of Texas. Available: 

https://www.twdb.texas.gov/mapping/doc/maps/Major_Aquifers_8x11.pdf. Accessed: 

April 24, 2015. 

Texas Water Development Board. 2014b. Groundwater Management Areas of Texas. 

Available: https://www.twdb.texas.gov/mapping/doc/maps/GMAs_8x11.pdf. Accessed: 

April 24, 2015. 

Texas Water Development Board. 2015. Web page: Texas Lakes & Reservoirs: Red Draw 

Reservoir (Colorado River Basin). Available: https://www.twdb.texas.gov/surfacewater/ 

rivers/reservoirs/red_draw/index.asp. Accessed: May 7, 2015. 

TopoQuest. 2015. Web page: USGS Map Name: Big Spring North, TX. Available: 

https://www.topoquest.com/map-detail.php?usgs_cell_id=3846. Accessed: April 24, 

2015. 

University of Wisconsin-Extension. 2013. Web page: Wisconsin Geological & Natural 

History: Mining: Frac Sand. Available: https://wgnhs.uwex.edu/wisconsin-geology/fracsand-mining/. Accessed: April 2, 2015. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2015. Web page: Corps Map: National Inventory of Dams.

Available: http://nid.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=838:7:0::NO. Accessed: May 7, 2015. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Web page: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census. Summary File 1. 

Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed: April 

24, 2015. 
 Chapter 6.

References

Draft Environmental Assessment  

for the Lone Star Railroad 6‐5 October 2015

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Web page: State and Local Government Finance. Texas, 2012. 

Available: http://www.census.gov/govs/. Accessed: April 24, 2014 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013a. Web page: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 

2009-2013. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

Accessed: April 24, 2015. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. Web page: Federal, State, & Local Governments: Definitions. 

Available: https://www.census.gov/govs/definitions/index.html#i. Accessed: June 28, 

2015. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. Web page: Today in Energy: Six formations 

are responsible for the surge in Permian Basin crude oil production. July 9. Available: 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=17031. Accessed April 2, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Web page: Information on Levels of 

Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate 

Margin of Safety. Available: http://www.fican.org/pdf/EPA_Noise_Levels_Safety_ 

1974.pdf. Accessed: April 14, 2015.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Web page: Currently Designated 

Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants. EPA Green Book. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ancl3.html. Accessed: April 14, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Emission Factors for Locomotives. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf. Accessed: April 14, 

2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Web page: Class I Regions. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/visibility/class1.html. Accessed: April 14, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Web page: Watershed Assessment, Tracking 

& Environmental Results. Available: http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_ 

watershed.control?p_huc=12080007&p_state=TX&p_cycle=2010&p_report_type=T. 

Accessed: April 24, 2015. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) 5-year review: 

Summary and evaluation. Final. Arlington, TX. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. National Wetlands Inventory: Wetlands Mapper. 

Available: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed: April 23, 2015. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Environmental Conservation Online System: 

Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPaC), Howard County, Texas. June 

19. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac. Accessed: April 23, 2015. 
 Chapter 6.

References

Draft Environmental Assessment  

for the Lone Star Railroad 6‐6 October 2015

U.S. Forest Service. 1996. Southwest Plateau and plains dry steppe and shrub. In W. H. 

McNab & P. E. Avers (Eds.), Ecological subregions of the United States. Available 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/U.S. Geological Survey 1971a 3.1.2 water 

resources surface water page 3-3. Accessed: April 24, 2015. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1971a. Big Spring North, Texas. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. 

Reston, VA. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1971b. Coahoma, Texas. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Reston, VA. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

APPENDIX A

Agency Outreach and

Consultation
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Appendix A 

Agency Outreach and Consultation 

Exhibit 1 Environmental Consultation Letter 

Environmental Consultation Mailing List 

Exhibit 2 Correspondence with United States Department of Agriculture - Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 

Exhibit 3 Correspondence with Howard County Road & Bridge 

Exhibit 4 Correspondence with National Park Service 

Exhibit 5 Correspondence with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Exhibit 6 Correspondence with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

Exhibit 7 Correspondence with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Exhibit 8 Correspondence with Texas Historical Commission 
 

Appendix A

Agency Outreach and Consultation

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 1

Environmental Consultation

Letter, Environmental

Consultation Mailing List
This environmental consultation letter was sent to all addresses on the attached mailing list.

EO-2462




Environmental Consultation Mailing List


 

Appendix A

Agency Outreach and Consultation

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 2

Correspondence with United

States Department of Agriculture

ͲNatural Resources Conservation

Service
EI-20931









 

Appendix A

Agency Outreach and Consultation

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 3

Correspondence with Howard

County Road & Bridge 
EI-20908
 

Appendix A

Agency Outreach and Consultation

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 4

Correspondence with National

Park Service


 

Appendix A

Agency Outreach and Consultation

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 5

Correspondence with U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers
EI-20952
 

Appendix A

Agency Outreach and Consultation

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 6

Correspondence with Texas Parks

and Wildlife Department


PWD 1059 – W7000 (05/11) Page 1 of 3 

Project Coordination and Review Requests 

(Including Threatened and Endangered Species) 

EARLY PROJECT COORDINATION 

If you are in the information gathering phase of project coordination and assessment, in lieu of submitting a 

Project Review form or a letter request, you may obtain information from the following Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department (TPWD) sources regarding sensitive resource information for use in your analyses. 

TPWD recommends you use at least the following two sources of information when analyzing for project 

impacts to sensitive resources, including before submitting a request for TPWD review and 

recommendations.

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF TEXAS BY COUNTY - This database includes lists of 

species known to occur and potentially occurring in Texas at the county level. It can be accessed 

online at: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/maps/gis/ris/endangered_species/ or by contacting 

our administrative staff at (512) 389-4571. Appropriate use and interpretation of the county level lists 

are the responsibility of the recipient. 

TEXAS NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE (TXNDD) – The TXNDD is publicly available location specific 

data on rare, threatened and endangered species, natural communities and other significant features of 

conservation concern to TPWD. This information can be obtained by submitting a data request to 

txndd@tpwd.state.tx.us. Response to a data request will include available TXNDD records, reports, 

and geographic information system compatible shapefiles of recorded locations for species and other 

rare resources on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle of the project 

and surrounding area. Responses generally take a maximum of five business days from receipt of the 

request. Appropriate use and interpretation of TXNDD data are the responsibility of the recipient. 

WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT (WHAB) PROGRAM REVIEW 

PROJECT REVIEW REQUESTS – The WHAB Program can provide a review of your assessment, after your 

analysis for impacts using the above two data sources. Please complete the WHAB Review Request form 

(attached; use Word format for fill-in version), or use the form as an outline of information to include with 

your letter request. The WHAB Program response will provide an evaluation of your environmental 

assessment for impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, including rare, threatened, and endangered 

species, other significant resources and concerns presently known or potentially occurring in the vicinity of 

your project. WHAB Program responses generally take 4 to 6 weeks on average from receipt, depending 

on the size of your request. 

The request should include all the information listed on the next two pages and be sent to the address 

shown on the last page. The more pertinent information you provide, the more customized our review, and 

the faster our turnaround. Review requests submitted without adequate project detail may cause a delay in 

our response as we will need to contact you and wait for supplemental information. The potential for 

adverse impacts to natural resources from project activities varies based on the type of activity; location; 

season; vegetation; present physical features (both natural and man-made); degree of disturbance; planned 

avoidance, minimization, mitigation, enhancement, and restoration measures; species-specific tolerance 

levels; etc. Current color photographs and aerial photographs of the site greatly facilitate the review 

process. Complete information allows us to more accurately assess the potential for project impacts, as 

well as, assists us in narrowing the list of rare, threatened, and endangered species and other natural 

resources that may need to be addressed further.
PWD 1059 – W7000 (05/11) Page 2 of 3 

WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 

Review Requests 

(Including Threatened and Endangered Species) 

Name: Date: 

Your Company: Phone: ( ) 

Your Company Address: Fax: ( ) 

City, State, Zip: E-mail: 

Project Title, Number 

and Site Location: County(ies): 

1. Scope of Project: 

(a) What regulations will this review help you to comply with? OR, if not regulatory, why is the review being 

requested? Who is the project sponsor? 

 

(b) What and where is the project site? What activities will be conducted at the site? (Especially activity types, 

extent, boundaries, length & width, waterways, vegetation disturbance, and total acreage of site and acreage 

of the site that will be disturbed) 

 

(c) If this request is for a site investigation or risk assessment, why is the site being investigated? If applicable, 

what contaminant pathways are being evaluated? 

 

(d) Schedule of activities – Approximately when (which calendar months, how many years) will the project be 

active on the site? 

 

2. Vegetation: Species, dominant plants, structure and composition, vegetation layers, height of layers, natural 

vegetation community types. 

 

3. Other Natural Resources/Physical Features: 

(a) Soils, geology, watercourses, aquifers, flood zones, etc. 

 

(b) Habitat, animals, animal assemblages, other sensitive features, etc. 

 

4. Existing Site Development: Extent of pavement, gravel, shell, or other cover; buildings, landscaped, 

xeriscaped, drainage system, etc. 

 

5. Historic Use/Function of Site: Pasture, forest, urban, row crops, rangeland, wetland, etc. If the request is for a 

risk assessment, when was, or for how long, has the site been active, inactive? Are cultural resources present 

on the site or will the project cross or impact state or federal lands, local parklands? 

 

6. Has a threatened and endangered species survey or assessment, wetland delineation, or other biological 

assessment already been performed? (In general, TPWD recommends an on-site habitat assessment be 

performed.) Yes No

(a) If yes, provide surveyor name, qualifications, methods or protocols, acreage surveyed, level of effort, weather 

conditions, time of day, and dates the survey was performed. 

 
PWD 1059 – W7000 (05/11) Page 3 of 3 

WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 

Review Requests (Continued)

(Including Threatened and Endangered Species) 

6. (b) If yes, please provide results and copy of survey/assessment report. 

7. Could current on-site or adjacent habitat support rare species? Yes No

Specifically, explain why or why not. 

 

8. Provide a description of potential negative direct and indirect impacts from proposed project activities or 

former and current site activities, such as types of habitat and acreage to be degraded or lost, temporarily and 

permanently. Also, describe cumulative effects that could be anticipated from the project on the natural 

environment. 

 

9. Provide a description of planned beneficial mitigation and enhancements or restoration efforts. Be sure 

to note the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures planned to address the threat of 

negative impacts (e.g. which erosion control measures will be used, what will site restoration activities 

encompass, etc.). 

 

10. Include copies of coordination with other agencies relevant to impacts or enhancements of natural 

resources for this project, or agency & contact name. 

11. Clearly delineate exact location of site and its boundaries using an applicable USGS quad (most 

preferable) as the base layer or best map available. The topographic map citation should include the USGS 

quad name. The map must contain identifiable features and a scale that allows us to find your site and

accurately pinpoint your site boundaries. When using internet maps, provide both a location map (zoomed out 

for highway reference) and a layout map (zoomed in for site features, boundaries, and neighboring street 

reference) .

12. Originals or color-copy photographs of site and surrounding area with captions or narratives. 

13. Aerial photographs with pertinent features labeled. Aerials should show the year photograph was taken. 

Send completed form to: 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

Wildlife Division 

Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program 

4200 Smith School Road 

Austin, Texas 78744-3291 

(512) 389-4571 (Phone) (512) 389-4599 (Fax) 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department maintains the information collected through this form. With few exceptions, you are entitled to be informed 

about the information we collect. Under Sections 552.021 and 552.023 of the Texas Government Code, you are also entitled to receive and 

review the information. Under Section 559.004, you are also entitled to have this information corrected. 
From: Nicodemus, Amanda

To: whab@tpwd.texas.gov

Cc: Richard Hanson; Kevin Mote

Subject: RE: LoneStar Railroad project outside Big Spring, TX

Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:22:00 AM

Attachments: LoneStarRailroad_pwd_1059_w7000_coordination_and_review.doc

LSR_Project_Features_Map.pdf

See attached.

From: Richard Hanson [mailto:Richard.Hanson@tpwd.texas.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 6:38 AM

To: Nicodemus, Amanda; Kevin Mote

Cc: Moelter, Chris

Subject: RE: LoneStar Railroad project outside Big Spring, TX

Amanda,

Could you fill out the attached project coordination and review request form and submit the form

and any other documentation to whab@tpwd.texas.gov so the project can be tracked in our

database? Thanks.

Rick Hanson

Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

1702 Landmark Lane, Suite 3

Lubbock, TX 79415

Office: (806) 761-4936

Richard.Hanson@tpwd.texas.gov

From: Nicodemus, Amanda [mailto:Amanda.Nicodemus@icfi.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 4:21 PM

To: Richard Hanson; Kevin Mote

Cc: Moelter, Chris

Subject: LoneStar Railroad project outside Big Spring, TX

Rick and Kevin:

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me this morning. The basic project description is

as follows: The Lone Star Railroad, Inc. (LSR) intends to file a petition with the Surface

Transportation Board requesting authority to construct a new rail line that would provide

service to a growing industrial park area near Big Spring, Texas. An affiliate of LSR,

Southern Switching Company, proposes to operate on the newly constructed track. At this

time, it is estimated that rail traffic along the new LSR rail line would consist of

approximately 5 trains per week including inbound and outbound trains. The proposed line

would be approximately 16,750 feet (3.2 miles) long and would connect to an industrial lead

track, planned by Union Pacific Railroad Company, at two points between N. Midway Road

and N. Moss Lake Road. Please find attached the proposed project footprint.
We have already obtained the TXNDD data for this project site and there were no rare,

threatened, or endangered species known to occur in this area. Also, in our conversations this

morning, no potential wildlife concerns were identified. After you have had time to review

the project site information, could you please confirm that there are no wildlife concerns or

issues with this project; or if after review Texas Parks and Wildlife identifies a certain

species or taxa group that are of particular concern, please let me know.

Again thanks and it was good to talk with you!

Amanda

Amanda Nicodemus

Project Manager/Wildlife Biologist

307.687.4763 office

307.247.2992 cell

amanda.nicodemus@icfi.com

ICF INTERNATIONAL | icfi.com | 405 Boxelder Road, Suite A-5, Gillette, WY 82718

3Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
PWD 1059 – W7000 (05/11) Page 1 of 3 

Project Coordination and Review Requests

(Including Threatened and Endangered Species)

EARLY PROJECT COORDINATION

If you are in the information gathering phase of project coordination and assessment, in lieu of submitting a

Project Review form or a letter request, you may obtain information from the following Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department (TPWD) sources regarding sensitive resource information for use in your analyses. 

TPWD recommends you use at least the following two sources of information when analyzing for project 

impacts to sensitive resources, including before submitting a request for TPWD review and 

recommendations.

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF TEXAS BY COUNTY - This database includes lists of 

species known to occur and potentially occurring in Texas at the county level. It can be accessed 

online at: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/maps/gis/ris/endangered_species/ or by contacting

our administrative staff at (512) 389-4571. Appropriate use and interpretation of the county level lists 

are the responsibility of the recipient.

TEXAS NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE (TXNDD) – The TXNDD is publicly available location specific 

data on rare, threatened and endangered species, natural communities and other significant features of 

conservation concern to TPWD. This information can be obtained by submitting a data request to

txndd@tpwd.state.tx.us. Response to a data request will include available TXNDD records, reports,

and geographic information system compatible shapefiles of recorded locations for species and other 

rare resources on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle of the project 

and surrounding area. Responses generally take a maximum of five business days from receipt of the 

request. Appropriate use and interpretation of TXNDD data are the responsibility of the recipient.

WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT (WHAB) PROGRAM REVIEW

PROJECT REVIEW REQUESTS – The WHAB Program can provide a review of your assessment, after your 

analysis for impacts using the above two data sources. Please complete the WHAB Review Request form

(attached; use Word format for fill-in version), or use the form as an outline of information to include with 

your letter request. The WHAB Program response will provide an evaluation of your environmental 

assessment for impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, including rare, threatened, and endangered

species, other significant resources and concerns presently known or potentially occurring in the vicinity of 

your project. WHAB Program responses generally take 4 to 6 weeks on average from receipt, depending 

on the size of your request. 

The request should include all the information listed on the next two pages and be sent to the address 

shown on the last page. The more pertinent information you provide, the more customized our review, and 

the faster our turnaround. Review requests submitted without adequate project detail may cause a delay in 

our response as we will need to contact you and wait for supplemental information. The potential for 

adverse impacts to natural resources from project activities varies based on the type of activity; location; 

season; vegetation; present physical features (both natural and man-made); degree of disturbance; planned 

avoidance, minimization, mitigation, enhancement, and restoration measures; species-specific tolerance 

levels; etc. Current color photographs and aerial photographs of the site greatly facilitate the review 

process. Complete information allows us to more accurately assess the potential for project impacts, as 

well as, assists us in narrowing the list of rare, threatened, and endangered species and other natural 

resources that may need to be addressed further.
PWD 1059 – W7000 (05/11) Page 2 of 3 

WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

Review Requests

(Including Threatened and Endangered Species)

Name: Amanda Nicodemus Date: April 13, 2015

Your Company: ICF International Phone: ( 307 ) 687-4763

Your Company Address: 405 West Boxelder Road, Suite A-5 Fax: ( )

City, State, Zip: Gillette WY 82718 E-mail: amanda.nicodemus@icfi.com

Project Title, Number

and Site Location:

LoneStar Railroad, just east of Big Spring, 

TX County(ies): Howard

1. Scope of Project:

(a) What regulations will this review help you to comply with? OR, if not regulatory, why is the review being 

requested? Who is the project sponsor?

NEPA - Lone Star Railroad has filed a petition with the Surface Transportatin Board requesting authority to construct 

a new rail line

(b) What and where is the project site? What activities will be conducted at the site? (Especially activity types, 

extent, boundaries, length & width, waterways, vegetation disturbance, and total acreage of site and acreage

of the site that will be disturbed)

The proposed line would be approximately 16,750 feet (3.2 miles) long and would connect to an industrial lead track, 

planned by Union Pacific Railroad Company, between N. Midway Road and N. Moss Lake Road. The project site is 

located in an industrail park area approximately 5 miles east of Big Spring, Texas just north of I-20.

(c) If this request is for a site investigation or risk assessment, why is the site being investigated? If applicable, 

what contaminant pathways are being evaluated?

Site is being investigated to determine the impacts of the proposed project on the human environment

(d) Schedule of activities – Approximately when (which calendar months, how many years) will the project be 

active on the site?

Construction would begin if/when permit was issued and an active rail line would be present indefinitely

2. Vegetation: Species, dominant plants, structure and composition, vegetation layers, height of layers, natural 

vegetation community types.

Major habitat types that occurred within the study area included cropland, mixedgrass prairie, and mesquite 

(Prosopis spp.) shrubland. The dominant crop in the area was cotton and occurred in irrigated fields. Mixedgrass 

prairies were found throughout the study area, but due to survey timing, vegetation was dormant which made 

species identification difficult. However, based on limited observations of grass seed heads and the dominant 

species in this ecoregion grass species probably included blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), buffalograss (Bouteloua 

dactyloides), and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula). Yucca (Yucca spp.) and cactus (Opuntia spp.) were 

common, but overall species diversity appeared to be low throughout these areas. Vegetation density was moderate 

with dense leaf litter and average vegetation height was approximately 0.5 meter. Shin oak (Quercus sinuata) was 

also found intermixed with grasses in these areas, but were was taller than the surrounding grasses. Mesquite 

shrublands occurred primarily in the southwestern portion of the study area, but isolated mesquite stands were 

scattered in isolated patches throughout much of the study area. Mesquite was mostly uniform in height and 

averaged approximately 3 meters. In the southwestern portion of the study area, mesquite grew in fairly dense 

thickets with a dense vegetation understory which was taller than in the surrounding mixedgrass prairies.

3. Other Natural Resources/Physical Features:

(a) Soils, geology, watercourses, aquifers, flood zones, etc.

Soils were sandy in composistion. Open water was isolated to the ponds associated with the carbon black refinery 

plant. No other water was noted; however, a few depression areas that could potentially hold water in wetter years 

were found in the central portion of the study area.

(b) Habitat, animals, animal assemblages, other sensitive features, etc.
PWD 1059 – W7000 (05/11) Page 3 of 3 

No designated critical habitat or sensitive habitats present in the study area. No known record of any species of 

concern occuring in the study area. Species that were recorded in the study area during the ground survey included: 

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), 

loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis sinuatus), 

song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia 

leucophrys), and western ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornate). Also, evidence of plains pocket gopher (Geomys 

bursarius) and snakes were recorded in the study area. Sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) were also seen flying over 

the study area, but were not recorded using habitats within the study area.

4. Existing Site Development: Extent of pavement, gravel, shell, or other cover; buildings, landscaped, 

xeriscaped, drainage system, etc.

Much of the study area is utilized for industrial and agricultural purposes. Several oil rigs were scattered throughout 

the study area as well as access roads and ancillary facilities. A carbon black refinery plant was located in the 

southwestern portion and sidetracks for railroad car storage were located along the main rail line as well as 

associated facilities. Cotton fields were located primarily in the northern portion of the study area, but one small 

section was noted in the south eastern portion as well. Also, cattle grazing was present in the central portion of the 

study area. 

Other development in the study area included roads and residential areas. Several county roads both paved and 

gravel occur within the study area as well as I-20 which runs through the southern portion of the study area. Two 

high voltage power lines bisect the central portion of the study area and several other power lines are located 

throughout the study area for residential, agricultural, and industrial needs. Several residences also occur 

throughout the study area.

5. Historic Use/Function of Site: Pasture, forest, urban, row crops, rangeland, wetland, etc. If the request is for a 

risk assessment, when was, or for how long, has the site been active, inactive? Are cultural resources present 

on the site or will the project cross or impact state or federal lands, local parklands?

Historic use - row crops (cotton) and rangeland (cattle); current use described above.

6. Has a threatened and endangered species survey or assessment, wetland delineation, or other biological 

assessment already been performed? (In general, TPWD recommends an on-site habitat assessment be 

performed.) X Yes No

(a) If yes, provide surveyor name, qualifications, methods or protocols, acreage surveyed, level of effort, weather 

conditions, time of day, and dates the survey was performed.

Amanda Nicodemus, M.S. in biology/3 yr working as environmental consultant/2 yr as field technician on Fort Hood 

working with golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo, habitat assessment and standard clearance survey for 

species of concern, surveyed project site and 1 mile perimeter, weather - overcast mid 60s breezy, time of day 9:00-

17:00, March 3, 2015 
PWD 1059 – W7000 (05/11) Page 4 of 3 

WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

Review Requests (Continued)

(Including Threatened and Endangered Species)

6. (b) If yes, please provide results and copy of survey/assessment report.

7. Could current on-site or adjacent habitat support rare species? Yes X No

Specifically, explain why or why not.

Habitats are extremely fragmented, native habitats are completely altered, and level of disturbance is extremely 

high

8. Provide a description of potential negative direct and indirect impacts from proposed project activities or 

former and current site activities, such as types of habitat and acreage to be degraded or lost, temporarily and 

permanently. Also, describe cumulative effects that could be anticipated from the project on the natural 

environment.

9. Provide a description of planned beneficial mitigation and enhancements or restoration efforts. Be sure 

to note the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures planned to address the threat of 

negative impacts (e.g. which erosion control measures will be used, what will site restoration activities 

encompass, etc.).

Standard construction timining limitation stipulation will be proposed to avoid vegetation clearing activities during 

the bird breeding season to avoid destroying ground nesting attempts.

10. Include copies of coordination with other agencies relevant to impacts or enhancements of natural 

resources for this project, or agency & contact name.

11. Clearly delineate exact location of site and its boundaries using an applicable USGS quad (most 

preferable) as the base layer or best map available. The topographic map citation should include the USGS 

quad name. The map must contain identifiable features and a scale that allows us to find your site and

accurately pinpoint your site boundaries. When using internet maps, provide both a location map (zoomed out 

for highway reference) and a layout map (zoomed in for site features, boundaries, and neighboring street 

reference).

12. Originals or color-copy photographs of site and surrounding area with captions or narratives.

13. Aerial photographs with pertinent features labeled. Aerials should show the year photograph was taken.

Send completed form to: 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

Wildlife Division

Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program

4200 Smith School Road 

Austin, Texas 78744-3291 

(512) 389-4571 (Phone) (512) 389-4599 (Fax) 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department maintains the information collected through this form. With few exceptions, you are entitled to be informed 

about the information we collect. Under Sections 552.021 and 552.023 of the Texas Government Code, you are also entitled to receive and 

review the information. Under Section 559.004, you are also entitled to have this information corrected.
EI-20987




 

Appendix A

Agency Outreach and Consultation

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 7

Correspondence with U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service
1

Nicodemus, Amanda

From: LeBlanc, Darren <darren_leblanc@fws.gov>

Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:18 PM

To: Nicodemus, Amanda

Subject: Re: Lone Star Railroad EA project - Big Spring TX

Thanks Amanda. The Service doesnt have any additional trust resource concerns for the mapped area other than 

what was provided by iPAC. 

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Nicodemus, Amanda <Amanda.Nicodemus@icfi.com> wrote: 

Darren:

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me this afternoon. As discussed, please find attached the proposed 

project footprint. This is preliminary at this point, but the final footprint will be similar to what is 

shown. Also, if you determine if there is a contact person in the Austin Field Office that I also need to 

coordinate with, please let me know. 

Again thanks and it was good to talk with you! 

Amanda 

Amanda Nicodemus

Project Manager/Wildlife Biologist

307.687.4763 office

307.247.2992 cell

amanda.nicodemus@icfi.com

ICF INTERNATIONAL | icfi.com | 405 Boxelder Road, Suite A-5, Gillette, WY 82718 

3Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
 

Appendix A

Agency Outreach and Consultation

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 8

Correspondence with Texas

Historical Commission
EI-20929
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Washington, DC 20423

Office of Environmental Analysis

August 5, 2015 

Marc Wolfe 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Texas Historical Commission 

108 W. 16th Street 

Austin, TX 78701 

Attn: Tiffany Osburn 

Re: Project review under the National Historic Preservation Act: 

STB Docket No. FD 35874, Lone Star Railroad, Inc. and Southwestern Switching 

Company, Proposed Operation and Construction, Howard County (Surface 

Transportation Board; Track #201504494) 

Dear Mr. Wolfe: 

Thank you for your letter dated January 30, 2015, regarding the above referenced proposed rail 

line construction near Big Spring in Howard County, Texas. The Surface Transportation Board is the 

federal agency that will decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny Lone Star 

Railroad, Inc.'s and Southern Switching Company’s (the Applicants) request for a license to construct 

and operate the proposed rail line, which makes it an undertaking subject to review under Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act. In your letter, you recommended that a professional 

archaeologist survey the proposed project area and that a report of those investigations be submitted to 

your office for review. The Board’s Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) conducted a 

professional archeological survey and is attaching the report to this letter. The results of the 

investigation are summarized below. 

In May of 2015, Moore Archeological Consulting, Inc. of Houston, Texas conducted the 

archaeological investigation under Texas Antiquities Permit Number 7258. The pedestrian cultural 

resources survey covered 100% of the proposed right-of-way (ROW), which is also the area of 

potential effects (APE) of the undertaking. The proposed ROW width is roughly 15.25 meters (50 

feet) for the bulk of the alignment, and in no place will be wider than 30 meters (100 feet). The precise 

depth of impact is not known, however, the rail line construction is likely to result in significantly deep 

(as far as archeology is concerned) excavations. 

A total of 96 shovel tests were excavated for the archaeological investigation, and these 

revealed three historic/prehistoric sites and one isolated object. The sites were delineated by a 

combination of shovel testing and examination of surface expression. These sites were initially 

designated Temporary Sites 1-4 (Temporary 2 being the isolate), but the sites have since been given 

the state of Texas issued trinomials 41HW134, 41HW135, and 41HW136. 

Based on the shovel tests excavated and the surface examinations of the sites, the 

archaeological investigation recommended that, should the Board grant authority for Applicants to 

construct and operate the proposed line, construction of the rail line should be allowed to proceed 
without further archeological investigations. This is based on the accessible portions of the sites (i.e., 

within the project APE) being determined to have no potential for the National Register of Historic 

Places and having no further research value. However, because the sites extend beyond the boundaries 

of the current proposed construction, the investigation also recommended that should any future work 

that is subject to state, federal, or local governmental jurisdiction or oversight be proposed adjacent to, 

but outside the rail line ROW within the vicinity of the newly recorded sites, additional archeological 

investigations should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance to determine the extent, integrity, 

and potential significance of the sites. 

Based on the results of the archaeological investigation, the Board’s OEA is requesting your 

concurrence at this time with a Section 106 finding of “no historic properties affected.” In the unlikely 

event that future rail line construction activities would take place outside the proposed ROW close to 

these sites, OEA will recommend a mitigation measure on any decision granting the construction and 

operation authority requiring that the Applicants shall, prior to construction, consult with OEA and the 

SHPO about the scope of additional archaeological investigations that may be necessary. In addition, 

OEA will also recommend a mitigation measure requiring that in the event that any unanticipated 

archaeological sites, human remains, funerary items or associated artifacts are discovered during rail 

line construction activities, Applicants shall immediately cease all work and notify OEA and the 

SHPO. 

If you have any questions concerning agency coordination and responses, the Board's 

environmental review process, or need specific information about the proposed project, please feel free 

to contact Kenneth Blodgett, OEA's Environmental Project Manager, by phone at (202) 245-0305 or 

by email at Kenneth.Blodgett@stb.dot.gov. We look forward to your comments and appreciate your 

assistance.

 Very truly yours, 

 Victoria Rutson 

 Director 

 Office of Environmental Analysis 

Enclosure:

- An Archeological Investigation of the Proposed Lone Star Railroad Project in Howard County, 

Texas


Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

APPENDIX B

Board and Petitioner’s

Correspondence
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Appendix B 

Board and Petitioner’s Correspondence 

([KLELW $SSOLFDQWV¶5HTXHVWIRU:DLYHURI6L[0RQWK3UHILOLQJ1RWLFH

([KLELW $SSOLFDQWV¶5HTXHVWIRU5HWHQWLRQRI,&)DVWKH7KLUG3DUW\&RQVXOWDQW

([KLELW %RDUG¶V5HVSRQVHWR$SSOLFDQWV¶:DLYHURIWKH6L[0RQWK3UHILOLQJ1RWLFH 

([KLELW %RDUG
V5HVSRQVHWR$SSOLFDQWV
5HTXHVWIRU5HWHQWLRQRI,&)DVWKH7KLUG3DUW\

&RQVXOWDQW

([KLELW $SSOLFDQWV
5HTXHVWIRU:DLYHURI(,65HTXLUHPHQWV

([KLELW %RDUG
V5HVSRQVHWR$SSOLFDQWV
5HTXHVWIRU:DLYHURI(,65HTXLUHPHQWV

([KLELW $SSOLFDQWV
3URSRVHG9ROXQWDU\0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
Appendix B

Board and Petitioner’s Correspondence

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 1

Applicants’ Request for Waiver of

Six Month PreͲfiling Notice
EI-20579

 

Appendix B

Board and Petitioner’s Correspondence

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 2

Applicants’ Request for Retention

of ICF as the ThirdͲParty

Consultant
EI-20580
 

Appendix B

Board and Petitioner’s Correspondence

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 3

Board’s Response to Applicants’

Waiver of the Six Month PreͲfiling

Notice 
EO-2401

 

Appendix B

Board and Petitioner’s Correspondence

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 4

Board’s Response to Applicants’

Request for Retention of ICF as

ThirdͲParty Consultant
EO-2402

 

Appendix B

Board and Petitioner’s Correspondence

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 5

Applicants’ Request for Waiver of

EIS Requirements
EI-20951

 

Appendix B

Board and Petitioner’s Correspondence

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 6

Board’s Response to Applicants’

Request for Waiver of EIS

Requirements
EO-2524

 

Appendix B

Board and Petitioner’s Correspondence

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Exhibit 7

Applicants’ Proposed Voluntary

Mitigation Measures
EI-20991
Draft Environmental Assessment 

for the Lone Star Railroad 

October 2015 

APPENDIX C 

Lone Star Railroad 

Emissions Estimates 
 

Appendix C 

 Lone Star Railroad Emissions Estimates 

Draft Environmental Assessment 

for the Lone Star Railroad 

October 2015 

C.1 Emission Estimates 

Table 1. Truck Emissions (tons per year) 

Pollutant General Conformity Threshold 

(tons/year)1

Proposed Truck Emission Levels 

(tons/year)2

CO 100 15.47

NOx 100 48.54

PM10 100 2.69

PM2.5 100 2.71

SO2 100 0.10

VOCs 100 2.21

Notes:

1 General Conformity threshold is used to demonstrate that an action would not contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.

2 Emission factors were based on the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB) heavy duty reports. These are conservative 

estimates due to CARB's stricter AAQS.

Table 2. Locomotive Emissions (tons per year) 

Pollutant General Conformity Threshold 

(tons/year)2

Proposed Project Emission Levels 

(tons/year)1

CO 100 0.13

NOx 100 0.86

PM10 100 0.03

PM2.5 100 0.03

SO2 100 0.00

VOCs 100 0.05

Notes:

1 Emission rates conservatively based on use of Tier 0 locomotives generating 3000 horsepower each. Tier 0 includes 

locomotives manufactured from 1973-2001.

2 General Conformity threshold is used to demonstrate that an action would not contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.

Source: EPA. 2009. Emission Factors for Locomotives. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf. 

Accessed: April 14, 2015.
 

Appendix C 

 Lone Star Railroad Emissions Estimates 

Draft Environmental Assessment 

for the Lone Star Railroad 

October 2015 

C.2 Inputs 

Table 3. Train Activity Calculations 

Train (Moving) train miles/day ton-miles/day fuel consumption

(gal/day) work (bhp-hr/day)

Loaded 1.14 16659 20.0 415.5

Unloaded 1.14 3257 3.9 81.2

Table 4. Truck Emission Factors 

Emission Factors (g/mile)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOCs

2.24 7.03 0.39 0.39 0.02 0.32

Notes:

Source: California Air Resources Board. 2013. Section 10.0 Heavy Duty Trucks Emission Factors Development. Available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/tsd/HDT_Emissions_New.pdf. Accessed: September 17, 2015.

Table 5. Locomotive Emission Factors 

Pollutants Tier 0 Tier 0+ Tier 1 Tier 1+ Tier 2 Tier 2+ Tier 3 Tier 4

Criteria Pollutants 

(g/bhp-hr)

CO 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28

NOx 8.6 7.2 6.7 6.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0

PM10 0.32 0.20 0.32 0.20 0.18 0.08 0.08 0.02

PM2.5 0.31 0.19 0.31 0.19 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.01

SO2 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005

VOCs 0.51 0.32 0.49 0.31 0.27 0.14 0.14 0.04

Notes:

Source: EPA. 2009. Emission Factors for Locomotives (EPA-420-F-09-025). Table 1. Available at: 

http://www3.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf. Accessed: September 17, 201

. 
 

Appendix C 

 Lone Star Railroad Emissions Estimates 

Draft Environmental Assessment 

for the Lone Star Railroad 

October 2015 

Table 6. General Inputs 

Description Value Unit

Weights

Cars per train 100 cars

Coal payload per car 118 tons/car

Max gross weight of car 286,000 lb/car

or 143 tons

Avg. weight of locomotive 368,000 lb/loco

or 184 tons/loco

No. of locomotives per train 2 locomotives/train

Gross weight of loaded train 14,668 tons/train

Empty weight of car 25 tons/car

Gross weight of unloaded train 2,868 tons/train

Number of train trips 2 one-way trips

Fuel

Fuel efficiency 834 gross ton-mi/gal diesel

Fuel energy content conversion factor 20.8 bhp-hr/gal diesel

Time

Weeks in a year 52 weeks

Days in a year 365 days

Days in a week 7 days

Conversion Factors

One ton = 907184.7 grams

1 lb = 453.59 grams

1 million tons = 1000000 tons

Track Mileage

Mileage 3.18 miles

Truck Mileage

Total vehicle miles travelled (VMT) 60 miles

Number of Truck Trips 286 Per day

Operational Days 365 Days per year
Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

APPENDIX D

Noise Impact Assessment

Methods
Appendix D

Noise Impact Assessment Methods

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

D.1 Wayside Noise Models

Wayside noise refers to all noise generated by rail cars and locomotives (but not including 

horn noise). OEA used noise measurements from past noise studies (Surface Transportation 

Board 1998a, 1998b) as the basis for the wayside noise level projections for the proposed rail 

line. 

The basic equation used for the wayside noise model is as follows. 

SELcars = Leqref + 10log(Tpassby) + 30log(S/Sref)

For locomotives, which can be modeled as moving monopole point sources, the 

corresponding equation is as follows. 

SELlocos = SELref + 10log(Nlocos) – 10log(S/Sref)

The total train sound exposure level is computed by logarithmically adding SELlocos and 

SELcars.

DNL100’ = SEL + 10log(Nd + 10*Nn) – 49.4 

DNL = DNL100’ + 15log(100/D) 

The following parameters apply to the equations above. 

SELcars = Sound exposure level of railcars (A-weighted decibels [dBA]) 

Leqref = Level equivalent of railcar 

Tpassby = Train passby time, in seconds 

S = Train speed, in miles per hour 

Sref = Reference train speed 

SELlocos = Sound exposure level of locomotive 

SELref = Reference sound exposure level of locomotive 

DNL = Day-night average noise level 

Nlocos = Number of locomotives 

Nd = Number of trains during daytime 

Nn = Number of trains during nighttime 

D = Distance from tracks, in feet 

Table D-1 shows the reference wayside noise levels used in this study and Figure X-1 shows 

the wayside noise frequency spectrum used in the calculations. 
 

Appendix D

Noise Impact Assessment Methods

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

Table DͲ1.Reference Wayside Noise Levels

Description Average Level (dBA) 

Locomotive SEL (40 miles per hour at 100 feet) 95 

Railcar Leq 82 

Source: Surface Transportation Board 1998a, 1998b 

dBA = A-weighted decibels; SEL = sound exposure level; Leq = level equivalent 

Figure D-1. Wayside Noise Spectrum (Surface Transportation Board 2002) 

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

Relative Sound Pressure Level

31 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

Frequency (Hertz)
 

Appendix D

Noise Impact Assessment Methods

Draft Environmental Assessment

for the Lone Star Railroad

October 2015

D.2 References

Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

May. (FTA-VA-90-1003-06.) Available: 

<http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf>.

Surface Transportation Board. 1998a. Final Environmental Impact Statement No. 980194, 

Conrail Acquisition (Finance Docket No. 33388) by CSX Corporation and CSX 

Transportation Inc., and Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway 

Company (NS). 

Surface Transportation Board. 1998b. Draft Environmental Assessment Canadian 

National/Illinois Central Railroad Acquisition.

Surface Transportation Board. 2002. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Construction 

and Operation of a Rail Line from the Bayport Loop in Harris County, Texas. December. 

Surface Transportation Board. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Construction 

and Operation of a Rail Line from the Bayport Loop in Harris County, Texas. May. 

D.3 Glossary

Term Definition

Ambient noise The sum of all noise (from human and naturally occurring sources) at 

a specific location over a specific time is called ambient noise. 

Day-night

average sound 

level

The energy average of A-weighted decibel sound levels over 24 hours, 

which includes a 10-decibel adjustment factor for noise between 10 

p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for the greater sensitivity of most people to 

noise during the night. The effect of nighttime adjustment is that 1 

nighttime event, such as a train passing by between 10 p.m. and 7 

a.m., is equivalent to 10 similar events during the daytime. 

Decibel (dB) A standard unit for measuring sound pressure levels based on a 

reference sound pressure of 0.0002 dyne per square centimeter. This 

is nominally the lowest sound pressure that people can hear. 

Decibel, Aweighted (dBA) A measure of noise level used to compare noise from various sources. 

A-weighting approximates the frequency response of the human ear. 

Hertz (Hz) A unit of frequency equal to one cycle per second.