1

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

AMONG

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION,

TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD,

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – FORT WORTH DISTRICT,

UNITES STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – GALVESTON DISTRICT,

THE TEXAS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, AND

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

REGARDING THE DALLAS TO HOUSTON HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM

WHEREAS, Texas Central Railroad, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates propose to construct and operate the 

Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) system, a 240-mile for-profit, high-speed passenger rail 

connecting Dallas and Houston based on the Japanese N700 Tokaido Shinkansen technology (the 

Project); and 

WHEREAS, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has broad authority to prescribe regulations and 

issue orders, as necessary, for every area of railroad safety (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 20103; 49 

Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] § 1.89 and parts 200-299), and on March 10, 2020 published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to establish a comprehensive set of minimum safety standards 

for the TCRR HSR rail system through a rule of particular applicability (regulations that apply to a specific 

railroad or a specific type of operation), compliance with which is required for TCRR to operate the 

Dallas to Houston HSR system; and 

WHEREAS, FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project pursuant to 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) and has coordinated the NEPA 

process with consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 

U.S.C. § 306108) (NHPA), as amended, and its implementing regulations at 36 C.F.R. § 800 (collectively 

referred to as “Section 106”) and is serving as the Lead Federal Agency responsible for compliance with 

NEPA and Section 106; and

WHEREAS, TCRR (including its affiliated companies) may pursue financial assistance from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) including, but not limited to, a direct loan under the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Loan Program (45 U.S.C. § 821 et seq.), credit 

assistance under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Improvement Act (TIFIA) (23 U.S.C. Parts 

601-609) or other federal assistance to finance a portion of the Project; and 

WHEREAS, the Secretary of USDOT (Secretary) delegated responsibility to the Build America Bureau 

(Bureau) on July 20, 2016, to enter into credit assistance agreements under the RRIF Loan Program and 

the TIFIA Credit Programs; and 

WHEREAS, FRA’s regulatory action and USDOT approval of Federal financial assistance would constitute 

an undertaking requiring compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and FRA considers the undertaking 

to be a rail project; and 

WHEREAS, under 49 C.F.R. § 1.81(a)(6), FRA will carry out the Secretary’s responsibilities under Section 

106 of the NHPA for this rail project if the USDOT is requested to and provides financial assistance to the 

undertaking; and 
2

WHEREAS, construction of the Project requires a Department of the Army permit from both the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Fort Worth and Galveston Districts (permit numbers SWF-2011-

00483 and SWG-2014-00412) for activities which result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into 

jurisdictional wetlands and/or other waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act and activities occurring in or affecting navigable waters of the United States pursuant to 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; and 

WHEREAS, construction of the Project requires permission from the USACE Fort Worth District for the 

temporary or permanent alteration of a USACE Civil Works project including alterations to the Dallas 

Floodway and the Dallas Floodway Extension, which are federally authorized civil works projects, and 

require 33 U.S.C. Section 408 compliance; and

WHEREAS, issuance of the USACE Section 10 and 404 permits by the USACE are undertakings requiring 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA; and

WHEREAS, issuance of the Section 408 permission is an undertaking requiring compliance with Section 

106 of the NHPA by the USACE, except for impacts to the Dallas Floodway as described by Public Law 

111-212 Section 405(a); and

WHEREAS, the USACE designated FRA as the Lead Federal Agency to act on its behalf for purposes of 

compliance with Section 106 (Fort Worth District on December 7, 2018 and Galveston District on April 9, 

2019) and FRA invited USACE to participate in this Programmatic Agreement (PA) as an Invited Signatory 

and USACE accepted; and 

WHEREAS, in the EIS, FRA analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as the No 

Build Alternative and identified Build Alternative A and the Houston Northwest Mall Terminal Station as 

the Preferred Alternative for the Project, as described in the Final EIS (FEIS) issued by FRA on May 29,

2020; and 

WHEREAS, FRA, in consultation with the Texas Historical Commission, which is the Texas State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), has determined that it is appropriate to enter into this PA pursuant to 36 

C.F.R. § 800.6 and 36 C.F.R. § 800.14(b) of the Section 106 regulations; and

WHEREAS, FRA initiated formal consultation with the SHPO on February 23, 2015; and

WHEREAS, through consultation with the SHPO in a letter dated October 16, 2015, as shown in 

Appendix A, FRA identified the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for historic (above ground) resources as: 

350 feet beyond the limits of disturbance in urban settings, 700 feet beyond the limits of disturbance in 

suburban settings, and 1,300 feet beyond the limits of disturbance in rural settings; and through 

consultation with the SHPO on December 14, 2015, as shown in Appendix A, the APE for archeological 

resources is comprised of the construction footprint, including: any permanent and temporary 

easements, access roads, drainage swales, all locations of ancillary facilities (e.g., passenger stations, rail 

car and track maintenance facilities, electrical substations, maintenance roads, and signal houses), utility 

relocation areas, borrow areas, staging areas, 404 mitigation sites, drainage crossings, and any other

Project-specific locations proposed by TCRR; and

WHEREAS, the areas requiring the USACE Section 10 and 404 permits are contained within the APE for 

the FRA’s review of the undertaking and are considered USACE permit areas, shown on maps referenced 

in Stipulation V.B; and
3

WHEREAS, the areas requiring the USACE 408 permission are contained within the APE for the FRA’s 

review of the undertaking; and

WHEREAS, through consultation with SHPO, FRA determined a phased process for compliance with 

Section 106, as provided for in 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(b)(2), is appropriate given the combined length and size 

of the Project and because historic and archeological investigations are still in process and have not 

been completed on all land due to a lack of permission to enter private landholdings within the APE 

where access is needed; and 

WHEREAS, as part of the phased process, FRA conducted comprehensive literature review and intensive 

background research for 100 percent of the APE prior to the start of field investigations for cultural 

resources, and results from these activities led to initial field investigations of both historic and 

archeological resources; and

WHEREAS, field investigations for historic resources within the APE, which FRA conducted from the 

public right-of-way, is approximately 92 percent complete for the preferred alternative as of the date 

this PA was executed; and 

WHEREAS, field investigation for archeological resources within the APE is approximately 27 percent

complete for the preferred alternative as of the date this PA was executed; and

WHEREAS, the archeological investigations performed on property owned, operated, or maintained by 

the State of Texas or a political subdivision of the State of Texas fall under the purview of the Antiquities 

Code of Texas and are being conducted under Texas Antiquities Permit No. 7497 issued by the SHPO on 

December 14, 2015 (see Appendix A); and 

WHEREAS, FRA documented the results of these ongoing historic and archeological investigations in 

separate interim reports; and

WHEREAS, FRA prepared historic resources interim reports and addenda for each of the ten counties of 

Dallas, Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris that provided the 

results of the phased historic resources survey within the Project’s APE and included literature review;

background research; fieldwork; National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluations for resources 

documented during fieldwork; available information for resources to be documented during a 

subsequent phase of fieldwork; and effects assessment for documented historic properties; and 

WHEREAS, FRA prepared an archeological resources interim report for Ellis County and a combined 

interim report for all ten counties, that provided the results of the phased archeological resources 

survey within the Project’s APE and included literature review; background research; fieldwork; NRHP 

evaluations for resources documented during fieldwork; and methods to be utilized for the subsequent 

phases of fieldwork; and

WHEREAS, FRA submitted the historic and archeological resources interim reports to the SHPO for 

consultation between July 15, 2016 and August 23, 2019 (SHPO response letters can be found in 

Appendix B); and 

WHEREAS, through the interim reporting, FRA determined the historic and archeological resources can 

be classified as 1) not eligible for listing in the NRHP, 2) eligible for listing in the NRHP, and 3) 

undetermined eligibility for listing in the NRHP and require further investigation or field verification; and
4

WHEREAS, FRA, in consultation with the SHPO, determined the Project will have an adverse effect on

the above ground and sub-surface historic properties identified in Appendix C and SHPO concurred in 

several letters dated between June 2017 and December 2019 (Appendix B); and 

WHEREAS, FRA, in consultation with the SHPO, TCRR, USACE, ACHP and Additional Consulting Parties, 

determined that TCRR will implement Standard Treatment Measures or Property-Specific Memoranda 

of Agreement (MOAs) to resolve adverse effects as stated in Stipulation IV.B. and Stipulation IV.D; and 

WHEREAS, FRA continues to conduct phased cultural resources investigations to identify and evaluate 

historic properties in accordance with the research designs (see Appendix A) agreed upon between FRA 

and the SHPO in letters dated October 16, 2015 (historic resources) and October 29, 2015 (archeological 

resources); and 

WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(a)(1) and 36 C.F.R. § 800.14(b)(1)(ii), FRA notified the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on February 25, 2015, of its adverse effect 

determination and intention to enter into a PA due to effects on historic properties that cannot be fully 

determined prior to the approval of the undertaking and the ACHP, in a response letter dated March 20, 

2015, elected to participate in the consultation pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(a)(1)(iii); and

WHEREAS, TCRR, as the Proponent of the Project, will have roles and responsibilities in the 

implementation of this PA if construction of the Project occurs and FRA invited TCRR to participate in 

this PA as an Invited Signatory; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(4), FRA authorized TCRR to initiate consultation and prepare 

any necessary analyses, documentation, and recommendations on its behalf, but FRA remains legally 

responsible for all findings and determinations, including determinations of eligibility and effects of the 

Project; and 

WHEREAS, in letters dated February 19, 2015, FRA contacted the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, 

Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, Cherokee 

Nation, Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, The Delaware Nation, Kiowa 

Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, 

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 

Indians, and Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, and in letters dated January 25, 2018, FRA notified the 

previously listed tribes, as well as the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Cherokee Nation of 

Oklahoma, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Kialegee Tribal Town, Kickapoo Tribe 

of Oklahoma, Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, Osage Nation, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Quapaw 

Tribe of Oklahoma, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, and Ysleta Del Sur 

Pueblo of Texas (collectively referred to as “Native American tribes” in this PA), Federally recognized 

sovereign Indian Nations that have a government-to-government relationship with the United States 

and an interest in the ten Texas counties affected by the undertaking and invited each of these Native 

American tribes to consult in the development of this PA (Appendix D); and

WHEREAS, no Native American tribes accepted FRA’s invitation to consult in the Section 106 process, 

but the Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas, The Cherokee Nation, Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, 

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, and Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma requested they be notified of postreview and unanticipated human remain discoveries that may have cultural significance; and 

WHEREAS, FRA, in consultation with the SHPO, identified Additional Consulting Parties listed in 

Appendix E including federal, state, regional or local agencies and local organizations with a 
5

demonstrated interest in the Project pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c), and were invited by FRA to 

participate in this consultation and are invited to sign this PA as Concurring Parties; and

WHEREAS, FRA sought and considered the views of the public regarding Section 106 for this Project 

through the NEPA process by holding 12 public scoping meetings - six during October 2014 in Dallas, 

Corsicana, Teague, Bryan, Huntsville, and Houston, and six during December 2014 in Jewett, 

Waxahachie, Waller, Madisonville, Tomball, and Navasota; as well as 11 public meetings related to the 

Draft EIS during January, February, and March 2018 in Dallas, Corsicana, Ennis, Jewett, Fairfield, Mexia, 

Cypress, Madisonville, Navasota, Waller, and Houston; and

WHEREAS, USACE issued a public notice for the Project on December 22, 2017, and extended the 

comment period from February 20, 2018, to March 9, 2018, through coordination with FRA to maintain 

consistency with FRA’s schedule; and

WHEREAS, FRA made the Draft PA available to the public for review and comment from May 29, 2020 

to June 29, 2020 through the following [Project website:https://railroads.dot.gov/currentenvironmental-reviews/dallas-houston-high-speed-rail/dallas-houston-high-speed-rail and FRA website: 

https://railroads.dot.gov/], and FRA considered comments received when finalizing the PA; and

NOW, THEREFORE, the FRA, TCRR, USACE - Fort Worth District, USACE - Galveston District, SHPO, and 

ACHP (collectively referred to as Signatories) hereby agree the Project covered by this PA will be 

implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to consider the effect of each 

element of the Project on historic properties and that these stipulations will govern compliance of the 

Project with Section 106 of the NHPA. 

STIPULATIONS

FRA, with the assistance of TCRR, will ensure the following stipulations are implemented:

GENERAL

A. Applicability

1. FRA and the USACE will use the terms and conditions of this agreement to fulfill their

Section 106 responsibilities and those of other Federal agencies who designate FRA as the 

Lead Federal Agency for the Project pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(a)(2). Federal agencies 

that do not designate FRA as the Lead Federal Agency remain individually responsible for 

their compliance with Section 106.

2. In the event that a federal agency or other agency issues federal funding, other federal 

financial assistance, or approvals for undertakings associated with the Project as described 

herein, such funding or approving agency may comply with Section 106 by agreeing in 

writing to the terms of this PA and notifying and consulting with FRA, TCRR, USACE, SHPO, 

and ACHP. Any necessary amendments will be considered in accordance with Stipulation X

of this PA.

3. This PA applies to the undertaking and only binds FRA if FRA takes regulatory action or 

USDOT provides financial assistance to the undertaking.
6

4. The term historic property(ies) as used in this PA refers to historic resources and 

archeological resources listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the NRHP pursuant to 

36 C.F.R. § 800.4(c)(2) and pursuant to the definition of historic property in 36 C.F.R. § 

800.16(l).

B. Timeframes and Notifications

1. All time designations are in calendar days unless otherwise stipulated. If a review period 

ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the review period will be extended until the 

first business day following the Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. 

2. Unless otherwise stipulated in this PA, all review periods are thirty (30) calendar days, 

starting on the day the documents are provided to the relevant parties which constitutes 

notification.

3. All notifications required by this PA will be sent by e-mail and/or other electronic means, 

with larger documents uploaded to a SharePoint site. Notifications to the Signatories will be 

delivered to the Principal Contacts. However, SHPO does not accept submissions for 

consultation via e-mail. Therefore, all submissions to the SHPO will be transmitted through 

their eTRAC portal, or in hard copy.

C. Roles and Responsibilities

1. FRA

a. Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(a)(2), FRA has the primary responsibility to ensure the 

provisions of this PA are carried out. 

b. FRA is responsible for all government-to-government consultation with federallyrecognized Native American tribes. 

c. FRA is responsible for all identification, evaluation, consultation, final determinations of 

eligibility, and findings of effect as well as resolution to objections or dispute resolution.

d. FRA will provide USACE and the other Signatories with 90-day notice should they need 

to terminate their role as Lead Federal Agency.

e. As a Signatory, FRA has the authority to execute, seek an amendment to, and/or 

terminate this PA.

2. TCRR

a. TCRR, in cooperation with FRA, will conduct investigations and produce analyses, 

documentation and recommendations in a timely manner to address historic properties 

within the APE not recorded in the field prior to the Record of Decision, pursuant to the 

FRA authorization granted under 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(4). 

b. TCRR is responsible for continued compliance with all commitments outlined in this PA 

and will comply, or ensure compliance, with all conditions of this PA until such time as 

the terms of this PA are complete or this PA is terminated or expires.
7

c. TCRR is responsible for the successful completion and funding of any mitigation 

measures to resolve adverse effects concurred upon in writing during the consultation 

process.

d. As an Invited Signatory, TCRR has the authority to seek an amendment to and/or 

terminate this PA.

3. USACE

a. USACE will review Project submittals according to the timeframes defined within this 

PA, and participate in consultation, as requested by FRA.

b. As an Invited Signatory, USACE has the authority to seek an amendment to and/or 

terminate this PA.

4. SHPO

a. SHPO will provide background data to FRA and TCRR regarding historic properties listed 

and eligible for listing in the NRHP.

b. SHPO will review Project submittals according to the timeframes defined within this PA,

and participate in consultation, as requested by FRA.

c. As a Signatory, SHPO has the authority to execute, seek an amendment to, and/or 

terminate this PA.

5. ACHP

a. The ACHP is responsible for providing technical guidance, participating in dispute 

resolution upon request, and advising FRA on ACHP participation for property-specific

MOAs as appropriate under Stipulation IV.D to resolve adverse effects. 

b. As a Signatory, ACHP has the authority to execute, seek an amendment to, and/or 

terminate this PA.

6. Additional Consulting Parties

a. As per 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)1-5, Additional Consulting Parties include those individuals or 

entities identified in Appendix E that have a demonstrated interest in the Project who 

have already participated as Consulting Parties in the Section 106 process, along with 

individuals or organizations who may later join as Consulting Parties due to the nature 

of their legal or economic relation to the Project or affected properties, or their concern 

with the Project’s effects on historic properties. Additional Consulting Parties

hereinafter are referred to as Consulting Parties.

b. Consulting Parties identified in Appendix E have been provided the opportunity to 

actively participate in the development of this PA and to assist in the resolution of 

adverse effects pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6.

c. Pursuant to 36 CFR§ 800.6(c)(3), Consulting Parties are invited to sign this PA as 

Concurring Parties, however the refusal of any Consulting Party to concur does not 

invalidate or affect the effective date of this PA. Consulting Parties who choose not to 

sign this PA as a Concurring Party will continue to receive and have an opportunity to
8

review and comment upon No Adverse Effect and Adverse Effect determinations;

associated documentation and analyses; and proposed resolution of adverse effects

once this PA is executed.

d. If a Consulting Party does not provide written comments within the timeframes

specified in this PA, FRA and TCRR will proceed to the next step in the review process 

without taking additional steps to seek comments from such party. Any determinations 

made by FRA prior to the written comments of a Consulting Party will not be 

reconsidered on the basis of that Consulting Party not having the opportunity to review 

and comment on the determination or resolution of adverse effects.

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS STANDARDS

FRA and TCRR will ensure all actions prescribed by this PA that involve the identification, evaluation, 

analysis, recording, treatment, monitoring, or disposition of historic properties, or involve reporting 

or documentation of such actions in the form of reports, forms, or other records, will be carried out 

by or under the direct supervision of a person who meets the appropriate Secretary of the Interior’s 

Professional Qualifications Standards (48 Federal Regulation [F.R.] 44738-9) in an applicable 

discipline.

PHASED APPROACH FOR IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, AND APPLICATION OF CRITERIA OF 

ADVERSE EFFECTS

A. Project Review

1. TCRR, in cooperation with FRA, will conduct phased identification and evaluation of historic 

properties and apply the criteria of adverse effect in a phased manner pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 

§ 800.4(b)(2) and 800.5(a)(3), and Stipulation I. 

2. TCRR, in cooperation with FRA, will identify historic properties not recorded or surveyed 

prior to the issuance of the Record of Decision, determine effects on historic properties, and 

consult with Signatories, Consulting Parties, and Native American tribes, as appropriate, 

concerning measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects prior to beginning 

any ground disturbing and/or construction activities within the relevant segment as 

provided in Stipulation III.D.1.c and d and Stipulation V.

3. TCRR and FRA may concurrently address multiple steps in 36 C.F.R. § 800.3 – 800.5 to 

expedite consultation pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(g).

B. Level of Effort

FRA, in cooperation with TCRR, will make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic 

properties in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(b)(1) and the guidelines set forth in the ACHP’s 

Meeting the “Reasonable and Good Faith” Identification Standard in Section 106 Review.

C. Methodology

1. The methodology for the continued phased identification and evaluation of, and application 

of the criteria of adverse effects to historic properties, including literature review, 

background research, and field survey, will be consistent with the interim reports and will 

continue to follow the approved Research Designs provided as Appendix A.
9

2. Survey in all USACE jurisdictional areas will include shovel testing and deep mechanical 

trenching in accordance with Council of Texas Archeologists (CTA) guidelines.

D. Documentation and Review 

1. Documentation 

a. As historic and archeological resources are further identified, evaluated, and assessed 

for effects under this phased approach, including anything resulting from changes to the 

APE, TCRR will prepare addenda consistent with the Research Designs provided in

Appendix A and the CTA guidelines.

b. All documentation that supports the findings and determinations made under this PA 

will be consistent with 36 C.F.R. § 800.11 and any subsequent amendments to this PA.

c. For archeological resources addenda to interim reports, and to facilitate the Section 106 

process, TCRR shall consolidate its submission of interim reports to include the largest 

geographical areas reasonably possible to minimize the number of submissions. Reports 

will consist of: 1) individual stations and known facility locations as a whole; 2) linear 

aspects of the Project including linear segments comprised of contiguous parcels within

a specified county and/or adjacent counties. To the minimum extent possible, parcels 

for which access to a property has not been granted and is not anticipated to occur in 

the immediate future, may be excluded; and/or 3) areas subject to USACE Section 10 

and 404 permits and 408 permission within a specified county and/or adjacent counties. 

Report titles will clearly specify the content to identify the type of survey sections or 

some combination thereof (facilities, linear segments, USACE Section 10 and 404 

permits and 408 permissions) the report addresses.

d. FRA and Signatories may allow for a deviation in the interim reporting defined in 

Stipulation III.D.1.c at the advanced request of TCRR, with a minimum thirty (30) day 

notice, when FRA and Signatories deem it reasonable based on access, timing, or other 

Project development contingencies. 

e. The number of final technical reports, which are to include the consolidated results of 

the interim and addenda reports for each county, shall not exceed ten total historic 

resources and ten total archeological resources reports.

f. Reports and documentation to be generated by TCRR may include:

i. Historic and/or archeological resources addenda to interim reports, which may 

combine identification, evaluation, and assessment of effects as the phased 

approach is employed; and/or

ii. Final historic and/or archeological resources technical reports that will summarize

the information in the various interim reports and subsequent addenda; and/or

iii. Supplemental historic and archeological resources addenda, if additional 

information needs to be added to any final historic and/or archeological resources 

technical report.
10

2. Document Review

a. TCRR will provide draft documentation to FRA for review and approval. FRA shall review 

the draft documentation within thirty (30) calendar days. Following receipt of FRA 

approval, TCRR will submit documentation to the Signatories and Consulting Parties, and 

in the event of identified prehistoric resources, Native American tribes as appropriate,

to review and provide written comments.

b. The Signatories, Consulting Parties, and Native American tribes will have thirty (30)

calendar days for review as provided for in Stipulation I.B.2. At FRA’s discretion, FRA 

may consider written requests timely received and with adequate justification to extend 

this review period. FRA will notify the Signatories, Consulting Parties and Native 

American tribes of its decision in writing.

c. TCRR will forward a written summary of all comments received from Signatories, 

Consulting Parties, and Native American tribes to FRA immediately at the end of the

thirty (30) calendar day review period (or agreed upon review period) and TCRR, in 

consultation with FRA, will ensure that any written comments received within the 

timeframe are considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into the documentation.

d. If the Signatories, Consulting Parties, or Native American tribes do not provide written 

comments to TCRR within the thirty (30) calendar day review period (or agreed upon 

review period), TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will proceed to the next step of the 

consultation process without taking additional steps to seek comments from such party. 

e. If the Signatories, Consulting Parties, or Native American tribes object or recommend 

extensive revisions to submissions, TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will work 

expeditiously to respond to objections and resolve disputes. FRA may elect to follow the 

dispute resolution process identified in Stipulation XI to resolve any such dispute. 

E. Evaluation of Historic Properties

1. Consistent with the criteria established for evaluating the NRHP eligibility of a resource as 

defined in 36 C.F.R. § 60.4 (a-d), TCRR will propose eligibility determinations to FRA as 

outlined in Stipulation III.D.1 and provide a document review and comment period process 

as outlined in Stipulation I.B. 

2. TCRR will not reevaluate eligibility determinations that have received concurrence from 

SHPO as documented in Appendix B, unless new information is provided that would change 

the eligibility determination of a previously evaluated resource.

3. If the SHPO disagrees with a determination of eligibility, FRA will further consult and provide 

additional information to the SHPO in an effort to reach a consensus. If a consensus cannot 

be made, FRA will obtain a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the NRHP 

pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2).
11

F. Assessment of Effects

1. No Adverse Effect

a. Consistent with 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(b) and (d)(1), TCRR will propose a finding of No 

Adverse Effect on a historic property to FRA as outlined in Stipulation III.D.1 when:

i. the effects of the undertaking would not meet the Criteria of Adverse Effect in

accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(1);

ii. the Project is modified to avoid adverse effects; or

iii. if conditions agreed upon by SHPO, such as subsequent review of plans for 

rehabilitation by the SHPO to ensure consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 C.F.R. § 68) and applicable

guidelines, are imposed to avoid adverse effects.

b. TCRR will not reevaluate No Adverse Effect findings that have already received 

concurrence from SHPO as documented in Appendix B unless new information is 

provided that would change the effects determination.

2. Adverse Effects

a. Consistent with 36 C.F.R. § 800.6, TCRR will propose an Adverse Effect on a historic 

property to FRA as outlined in Stipulation III.D.1.

b. If FRA determines a historic property will be affected by the Project, TCRR will make a 

reasonable and good faith effort to resolve adverse effects to historic properties located

within the APE through the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures.

G. Archeological Monitoring 

1. TCRR will ensure archeological monitoring of construction excavations by personnel who 

meet the requirements in Stipulation II. Monitoring will take place under the following 

conditions:

a. In areas where deeply buried archaeological sites are known to be present or have the 

potential to be present as identified in the reports and documentation submitted by 

TCRR as described in Stipulation III.D.1, but are beyond the reach of standard survey 

methods and cannot be fully investigated.

b. At historic properties or cemeteries to ensure impacts to those resources are avoided, 

and/or to ensure no unmarked burials are present within the APE.

c. Following an unanticipated discovery during construction or in cases where a known 

historic property has the potential to be affected in an unanticipated manner.

d. Any unanticipated or post-review discoveries (see Stipulation VII) subsequently 

identified that would warrant monitoring.

2. Unanticipated discoveries resulting from archaeological monitoring will follow the processes 

outlined in Stipulation VII as appropriate.
12

3. If no archeological materials are identified in the monitoring areas, ground disturbing and/or 

construction activities may proceed.

4. Reporting: Following the completion of all archeological monitoring during construction, 

TCRR will provide documentation to FRA as outlined in Stipulation III.D.1.

H. Changes to the Approved APE

1. If there are modifications to the Project that require changes to the agreed upon APEs, 

TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will submit the proposed revised APE in writing to the SHPO. 

TCRR will not commence ground disturbing and/or construction activities within the 

changed APE prior to the completion of the Section 106 process required by this PA. Other 

ongoing ground disturbing and/or construction activities for which Section 106 actions are 

complete in accordance with the phased approach outlined in this PA, and meet the 

requirements of Stipulation V including those segments listed in Appendix H, would not be 

affected by the proposed revised APE.

2. SHPO will have thirty (30) calendar days to review and concur on the APE. If SHPO does not 

concur, TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will revise the APE based upon SHPO comments and 

resubmit for concurrence. SHPO will have another ten (10) calendar days to review and 

concur on the revised APE.

3. TCRR, will notify the Signatories and Consulting Parties or Native American tribes, as 

appropriate, of any changes to the approved APE.

4. TCRR and FRA, in consultation with the SHPO, will determine if the identification of 

additional Consulting Parties pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(f) is warranted as a result of the 

change in the APE. TCRR will provide any newly identified Consulting Parties with a written

invitation to consult and an opportunity to sign this PA as a Concurring Party.

RESOLUTION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS

A. General

1. If FRA determines the Project will adversely affect historic properties, it will resolve the 

adverse effects of the Project in consultation with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and

Native American tribes, as appropriate. All treatment measures will be prepared by staff (or 

consultants) who meet the qualifications set forth in Stipulation II. 

2. To resolve adverse effects, TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will propose either implementing 

Standard Treatment Measures through an expedited consultation process or developing a

property-specific MOA, as described below, depending upon the nature of the adverse 

effect, the severity of the adverse effect, and the determination of the historic property’s 

significance on a National, State, or Local level. 

3. Document review will follow the processes and timeframes outlined in Stipulation III.D.2

and Stipulation I.B unless a deviation is specified in a particular Standard Treatment 

Measure or Stipulation IV.C.

4. TCRR will prepare and maintain a tabular listing of adversely effected properties, agreed 

upon treatment measures, and status of the implementation of those treatment measures, 
13

in the form provided in Appendix C. TCRR will provide an updated version of the table to 

the Signatories and Consulting Parties along with the Quarterly Progress Report identified in 

Stipulation VII.

5. Treatment Measures:

a. Any treatment measures may serve an equal or greater public benefit in promoting the 

preservation of historic properties in lieu of property-specific treatment measures.

b. Once approved by SHPO, TCRR will upload to SharePoint digital copies or send hard 

copies of final documentation stipulated below, as appropriate, upon request and at no 

charge to FRA and to other Signatories, Consulting Parties and/or Native American 

tribes.

6. Following resolution of adverse effects through the expedited consultation process or a 

property specific MOA, TCRR may commence activity in the relevant segments in 

accordance with Stipulation V. Oral history documentation, Public Interpretation and/or 

Aesthetic Treatments may be completed after the commencement of ground disturbing 

and/or construction activities provided SHPO concurrence is received while complying with

Stipulation IV.C and D.

B. Standard Treatment Measures

FRA, in consultation with the Consulting Parties, has determined the following Standard 

Treatment Measures, either alone or in combination, will be applied to resolve adverse effects

when an Expedited Consultation Process is utilized per Stipulation IV.C. The role of Signatories, 

Consulting Parties, and/or Native American tribes may vary according to treatment measure. 

Therefore, this section details which and how specific Signatories, Consulting Parties and/or 

Native American tribes are involved in the development and implementation of each. The use 

of these Standard Treatment Measures will not require the execution of a property-specific 

MOA.

1. Recordation

Per Section 110(b) of the NHPA, prior to any substantial alteration or demolition of a nonarcheological historic property, one of the following will be utilized at a minimum to resolve 

adverse effects on individual historic properties that are significant at the National, State 

and/or Local level and meet the standards cited in the National Park Service’s NRHP

Photograph Policy Factsheet dated May 2013 or subsequent revision 

(https://www.nps.gov/Nr/publications/bulletins/photo policy/index.htm).

a. Digital Photography Package: A digital photography package is appropriate to resolve 

adverse effects for resources significant at a State or Local level. The digital photography 

package will include a comprehensive collection of photographs of both interior and 

exterior views showing representative spaces and details of significant architectural 

features and typical building materials. Once approved by SHPO, TCRR will submit a 

copy of the approved documentation to a State or Local historical society, archive, 

and/or library for permanent retention.
14

b. Historic American Building Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), 

and/or Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) Level III Documentation: 

HABS/HAER/HALS documentation is appropriate to resolve adverse effects for resources 

significant at the National level. The documentation shall be prepared to 

HABS/HAER/HALS standards as defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation for Architectural and Engineering 

Documentation, and further described in the National Park Service guidelines. Once 

approved by SHPO, TCRR will submit the approved documentation to the Library of 

Congress via the Intermountain Regional office of the National Park Service, and an 

additional set of prints and documentation to State or Local historical society, archive, 

and/or library for permanent retention. HABS/HAER/HALS Level III documentation shall 

include:

i. Archival quality prints of large-format black and white photographs documenting 

the resource’s appearance and major structural or decorative details.

ii. Written report following the outline format provided for by the National Park 

Service.

iii. Sketch plan of the resource and site.

iv. Reproductions of supplementary documentation including field notes and historic 

images. 

2. Design Review

Design review is appropriate to resolve adverse effects for historic properties significant at 

the National, State or Local level. A design review requires the drafting of architectural and 

engineering plans and specifications that will, to the greatest extent feasible, preserve the 

basic character of a building with regard to the design, scale, massing, and materials of the 

original building and/or the eligible or listed National Register Historic District following the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Prior to 

Project implementation, including any demolition, ground disturbing, or construction 

activities that would adversely affect the historic property for which this standard treatment 

is proposed, TCRR shall submit the design review proposal including plans, drawings, and 

specifications, to the SHPO for review and approval. TCRR will submit design drawings in the 

earliest schematic stages as possible and in subsequent phases to Signatories, Native 

American tribes as appropriate and Consulting Parties for their review and comment.

3. Resource Protection Plan

A resource protection plan is appropriate to resolve adverse effects for resources significant 

at the National, State or Local level. A resource protection plan may include one of the 

following or a combination of both:

a. The drafting of a protection plan to avoid construction-related damage to a historic 

property(ies) within close proximity to Project ground disturbing and/or construction 

activities. The plan may focus on the property as a whole and/or its character defining 

features. The protection plan will describe the construction procedures in the vicinity of

the historic property and measures that will be taken to avoid construction impacts to 

the resource.
15

b. For character-defining features of a historic property that will be affected by the Project, or

historic properties that are part of the National Register eligible or listed multiple-property 

listing or historic district, protection plans may propose preservation measures for those 

resources. The protection plan will describe the measures that will be taken to preserve 

the property(ies) according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. TCRR will submit 

the resource protection plan in the earliest schematic stages as possible and in subsequent 

phases to Signatories, Native American tribes as appropriate and Consulting Parties for 

their review and comment.

4. National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmark Nominations

A National Register nomination is appropriate to resolve adverse effects for resources 

significant at the National, State or Local level. A National Historic Landmark nomination is 

appropriate to resolve adverse effects for resources significant at the National level. TCRR, 

in consultation with FRA, will submit a completed draft National Register nomination to the 

SHPO and address any comments. If the property owner does not object to National 

Register listing, TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will formally submit the draft nomination to 

SHPO for consideration by the State Board of Review (SBR). TCRR, in consultation with FRA,

will then address any SBR comments and submit a revised draft to SHPO to forward to the 

National Park Service for review and acceptance. If the property owner does object to 

National Register listing, the draft nomination addressing SHPO comments will be sufficient.

5. Public Interpretation

A public interpretation plan is appropriate to resolve adverse effects for resources 

significant at the National, State or Local level. TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will work 

with Signatories, Native American tribes as appropriate and Consulting Parties to design an 

educational interpretive plan. The plan may include historic markers, displays, educational 

pamphlets (brochure or booklet), posters, websites, workshops, public lectures or other 

similar mechanisms to educate the public on historic properties within the local community, 

state, or region. Once an interpretive plan has been agreed to, TCRR, in consultation with 

FRA, will continue to consult with Signatories, Native American tribes as appropriate and 

Consulting Parties throughout implementation of the plan until all agreed upon actions have 

been completed.

6. Oral History Documentation

Oral history documentation is appropriate to resolve adverse effects for resources 

significant at the National, State or Local level. TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will work 

with Signatories, Native American tribes as appropriate and Consulting Parties to determine 

oral history documentation needs and agree upon a topic and list of interview candidates. 

Once the parameters of the oral history project have been agreed upon, TCRR, in 

consultation with FRA, will continue to consult with the Signatories, Native American tribes

as appropriate and Consulting Parties, through the data collection, drafting of the 

document, and delivery of the final product.

7. Aesthetic Treatments

Aesthetic treatments are appropriate to resolve adverse effects for resources significant at 

the National, State or Local level. Aesthetic camouflaging treatments such as use of veneers, 
16

paints, texture compounds and other surface treatments and/or use of sympathetic infill 

panels and landscaping features per the review and approval of a Secretary of the Interior’s

qualified Historic Architect. Once the Aesthetic Treatment has been agreed upon by the 

Signatories, Native American tribes as appropriate and Consulting Parties, TCRR, in 

consultation with FRA, will continue to consult with the Signatories, Native American tribes

as appropriate and Consulting Parties throughout implementation of the treatment until all 

agreed upon actions have been completed.

8. Preservation-in-Place of Archeological Sites Listed or Eligible for the National Register or 

State Antiquities Landmark Designation

Preservation-in-Place is appropriate to resolve adverse effects for resources significant at 

the National, State or Local level, or designated State Antiquities Landmark (SAL) under the 

Antiquities Code of Texas. Given the non-renewable nature of archeological sites, if an 

archeological site can be practically preserved in place for future study or other use, TCRR, 

in consultation with FRA, will work with the Signatories and Native American tribes as 

appropriate , to establish preventative monitoring programs, or SAL designation. A SAL

Nomination Form is provided in Appendix F. Consulting Parties will be involved in 

consultation to the extent possible pursuant to Stipulation IX.

9. Archeology Data Recovery Plan

An Archaeology Data Recovery Plan is appropriate to resolve adverse effects for resources 

listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP or designated as a SAL. TCRR, in consultation with 

FRA, and in consultation with the Signatories and Native American tribes as appropriate, will 

develop and carry out data recovery plans, where appropriate, in order to resolve adverse 

effects to historic properties that would be destroyed by ground disturbing and/or

construction activities directly related to the Project. Consulting Parties will be involved in 

consultation to the extent possible pursuant to Stipulation IX. An outline of anticipated 

components of an archeology data recovery plan is provided in Appendix G and a draft of it

will be submitted when this Standard Treatment Measure is proposed to resolve adverse 

effects.

C. Expedited Consultation Process to Resolve Adverse Effects

1. After taking into consideration the NRHP-eligibility of the historic property(ies) affected, the 

severity of the adverse effect(s), and avoidance or minimization of the adverse effect(s),

TCRR will propose in writing to FRA a process to resolve adverse effects through the 

application of one or more Standard Treatment Measures outlined in Stipulation IV.B. After 

receiving FRA approval of the proposed process, TCRR will then submit the proposal in 

writing to the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and Native American tribes, as appropriate. 

2. The following written responses to TCRR will be accepted:

a. Signatories and Native American tribes may respond by: 

i. accepting the proposal;

ii. providing comments on the proposal; or 
17

iii. objecting to the use of the expedited consultation process for the specific historic 

property(ies). In the objection, the Signatory or Native American tribe must specify

why they believe the expedited consultation process is not appropriate for the 

resource(s) and suggest treatment measures that are not reflected in Stipulation 

IV.B.

b. Consulting Parties may provide comments on the proposal.

3. If TCRR receives an objection to the proposal, TCRR will notify the Signatories, Consulting 

Parties, and Native American tribes as appropriate, of the objection within seven (7) 

calendar days. TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will work to expeditiously resolve the 

objection, or FRA may elect to resolve the adverse effect(s) through the development of a 

property-specific MOA as outlined in Stipulation IV.D. 

4. Unless a Signatory or Native American tribe objects within thirty (30) calendar days of 

receipt of the proposal, TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will take into account any comments 

timely submitted by a Signatory, Consulting Party or Native American tribe. TCRR will 

summarize the comments, provide written notification to the Signatories, Consulting Parties 

and Native American tribes of any decisions, and proceed with the implementation of the 

Standard Treatment Measure(s). 

5. TCRR will provide written notice to the Signatories, Native American tribes, and Consulting 

Parties , as appropriate, within sixty (60) calendar days of the completion of the required

Standard Treatment Measure(s). 

D. Property-Specific Memorandum of Agreement

1. If a Signatory or Native American tribe objects to the expedited consultation process and 

FRA elects to develop a property-specific MOA in accordance with Stipulation IV.C.3 or FRA 

elects to develop a property-specific MOA without any objections from a Signatory or Native 

American tribe, TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will initiate development of the MOA within 

thirty (30) calendar days of FRA’s decision.

2. The MOA will be developed pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6 and may address multiple 

properties or multiple property types.

3. TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will notify the ACHP pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(a)(1) and 

request the ACHP determine if they will participate in the adverse effect consultation to 

develop a property-specific MOA.

4. The executed MOA will be filed with the ACHP pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(b) if the ACHP is 

not participating in the consultation for that specific MOA.

5. Public notification and review/comment period for a property-specific MOA shall be 

implemented as follows:

a. In consultation with SHPO, FRA will identify and invite any additional Consulting Parties 

not already listed in Appendix E to participate in the specific MOA development 

pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(a)(2).
18

b. FRA will provide a draft of the MOA to all Consulting Parties for distribution to their

networks pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(a)(3) and (4) for a period of thirty (30) calendar 

days.

c. The draft MOA will be posted for general public review and comment on the Project 

website maintained by TCRR and the FRA website pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(a)(4) for 

a period of thirty (30) calendar days.

6. A copy of the final executed MOA will be shared with the Consulting Parties who 

participated in the consultation for that specific MOA.

PROCESS FOR COMMENCEMENT OF GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES

A. In accordance with the phased approach outlined in this PA, segments of the Project for which 

Section 106 actions are complete, and therefore ground disturbing and/or construction 

activities may commence, are provided in both tabular format and depicted on maps in 

Appendix H. 

B. TCRR shall not commence construction within the Section 408 permission area or USACE permit 

areas prior to receiving permission from the USACE. Permission and permit areas where ground 

disturbing and/or construction activities may commence are depicted on maps in Appendix H. 

The USACE shall not grant 408 permission prior to documenting compliance with Section 106 of 

the NHPA.

C. The Project APE has the likelihood for deeply buried archeological sites that would be identified 

in reports and documentation submitted by TCRR as described in Stipulation III.D.1, typically 

necessitating deep mechanical trenching. This PA requires all field efforts conducted in areas 

designated for mechanical trenching be completed prior to construction and will be coordinated 

in accordance with Stipulation III.D.2.

D. TCRR may concurrently conduct ground disturbing and/or construction activities in multiple 

segments along the alignment.

CURATION

A. Collections from Private Lands

TCRR will ensure all prehistoric and historic artifacts collected from archeological investigations 

are either returned to the landowner at their request, or else prepared for curation according to 

relevant Texas certified curatorial facility specifications. TCRR will include information regarding 

the return of materials to private landowners or the specified Texas certified curatorial facility in 

accordance with Stipulation III.D.1. 

B. Collections from Public Lands

TCRR will ensure all cultural materials collected from state and/or federal lands will be curated 

in accordance with Title 13, § 2, Chapter 26, Subchapter C, Rule 26.17 of the Texas 

Administrative Code (TAC) – Principal Investigator’s Responsibilities for Disposition of 

Archeological Artifacts and Data; and the Texas Natural Resources Code, Title 9, Chapter 191, as 

well as 36 C.F.R. § 79 as applicable. If the archeological materials are determined to be of Native 
19

American origin, curation will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 43 C.F.R. § 10

as applicable. 

C. Records

TCRR will ensure all records generated from archeological investigations (field maps, shovel test 

records, field journals, photographs, etc.) and the final technical report will be prepared and 

curated according to relevant Texas certified curatorial facility specifications.

UNANTICIPATED AND POST-REVIEW DISCOVERIES

A. Prior to conducting any ground disturbing and/or construction activities, TCRR will ensure that

all construction crew and field personnel receive copies of the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and

attend on-site basic training in order to have a basic understanding of, and sensitivity to, the 

possibility of discovering cultural resources and/or human remains. The Unanticipated Discovery 

Plan can be found in Appendix I and the training documents are provided as Appendix J. The 

Unanticipated Discovery Plan provides for field personnel to be partners in the process by 

setting out stop work authority for the 150-foot buffer zone and the reporting structure to 

secure the review of TCRR’s cultural resources staff (or consultant) who meets the qualifications 

set forth in Stipulation II.

B. Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources 

In accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.13(a)(1-2), as determined by staff (or consultant) who meet 

the qualifications set forth in Stipulation II, if a previously undiscovered archeological resource 

that is or could reasonably be a historic property is encountered during construction, or a

previously known historic property will be affected in an unanticipated manner, TCRR will 

implement the following procedures. Each step within these procedures will be completed 

within seven (7) calendar days unless otherwise specified:

1. TCRR will immediately cease all ground disturbing and/or construction activities within a 

150-foot radius buffer zone of the discovery. TCRR will secure the buffer zone through the 

installation of protective fencing. TCRR will not resume ground disturbing and/or 

construction activities within the identified buffer zone until the specified Section 106 

process required by this PA is complete.

2. TCRR will notify FRA and the SHPO within 24 hours of any unanticipated discovery or 

unanticipated effect. TCRR will also notify the USACE within 24 hours of any unanticipated 

discovery or unanticipated effect within USACE jurisdictional areas. TCRR, in consultation 

with FRA, may seek written SHPO concurrence during notification that a smaller buffer is 

allowable based on facts in the field specific to the unanticipated discovery.

3. Following notification of an unanticipated discovery, TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will 

propose determinations regarding National Register eligibility and effects to the Signatories,

Native American tribes as appropriate, Consulting Parties and any newly identified

Consulting Parties who have a specified interest in the discovery. Signatories, Native 

American tribes as appropriate, Consulting Parties including any newly identified Consulting 

Parties will review and provide written comments. If SHPO and/or Native American tribes do 

not concur with the eligibility or effects determination, FRA may elect to assume eligibility 

and/or adverse effects for expediency. FRA will make the final determination of eligibility 
20

and assessment of effects based on the information obtained during and within this 

consultation period. 

4. If the unanticipated discovery is determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register 

for which adverse effects cannot be avoided, TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will propose in 

writing to Signatories, Native American tribes as appropriate, Consulting Parties including 

any newly identified Consulting Parties, to resolve adverse effects through the application of 

Standard Treatment Measure(s) identified in Stipulation IV.B. This step may be combined 

with Stipulation VII.B.3. The following written responses to TCRR will be accepted:

a. Signatories and Native American tribes may respond by: 

i. accepting the proposal;

ii. providing comments on the proposal; or 

iii. objecting to the use of the expedited consultation process for the specific historic 

property(ies). In the objection, the Signatory or Native American tribes must specify 

why they believe the expedited consultation process is not appropriate for the 

resource(s) and suggest treatment measures that are not reflected in Stipulation 

IV.B.

b. Consulting Parties including any newly identified Consulting Parties may provide 

comments on the proposal.

5. If TCRR receives an objection to the proposal, TCRR will notify the Signatories, Native 

American tribes as appropriate, Consulting Parties including any newly identified Consulting 

Parties of the objection. TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will work to expeditiously resolve 

the objection, or FRA may elect to resolve the adverse effect(s) through the development of 

a property-specific MOA as outlined in Stipulation IV.D or resolve the objection per 

Stipulation XI. 

6. Unless a Signatory or Native American tribe objects to the proposal, TCRR, in consultation 

with FRA, will take into account any comments timely submitted by a Signatory, Native 

American tribe, or Consulting Party, or newly identified Consulting Party. TCRR will 

summarize the comments, provide written notification of any decisions to all parties 

mentioned, and proceed with the implementation of the Standard Treatment Measure(s). 

7. TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will provide written notice to the Signatories, Native 

American tribes as appropriate, and Consulting Parties of the completion of the agreed upon 

Treatment Measure(s) required to be completed before the commencement of ground 

disturbing and/or construction activities. SHPO will provide concurrence that consultation 

and any agreed upon treatment measures necessarily completed prior to construction are 

concluded.

8. After receiving written concurrence from SHPO, TCRR may immediately resume the 

activities that were halted to address the discovery.

C. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and/or Funerary Objects

Any human remains discovered during the implementation of the terms of this PA, including 

those that are not subject to Section 106, are subject to the requirements of the Texas Health 
21

and Safety Code Chapter 711, Title 13 § 2 Chapter 22, Rule 22.4(b) of the TAC - Unknown and 

Abandoned Cemeteries, and Rule 22.5 of the TAC – Removal of Remains from an Abandoned or 

Unknown Cemetery. Any area determined to contain the intentional burial of human remains is 

considered a cemetery under current Texas law. Cemeteries are protected under provisions of 

the Texas Health and Safety Code in Chapters 711-715, Title 13 § 2, Chapter 22 of the TAC, and 

in Section 28.03(f) of the Penal Code. Any area determined to contain the intentional burial of 

human remains is considered a cemetery under current Texas law, including those that may be 

encountered during any ground disturbing and/or construction activities in the APE. Should 

human remains or unmarked burials be encountered during construction, TCRR will ensure 

compliance with any applicable State and local laws pertaining to human remains, funerary 

objects, and cemeteries, in addition to implementing the following procedures under Section 

106: 

1. TCRR will immediately cease all ground disturbing/construction activities within a 150-foot

radius buffer zone from the discovery to avoid impacting the remains. TCRR will secure the

buffer zone through the installation of protective fencing. TCRR will not resume ground

disturbing and/or construction activities within the identified buffer zone until SHPO

concurrence is received that the Section 106 processes required by this PA are complete.

TCRR, in consultation with FRA, may seek written SHPO concurrence during notification that

a smaller buffer is allowable based on facts in the field specific to the unanticipated

discovery.

2. TCRR will notify FRA, the SHPO, the USACE if within their jurisdictional areas, and the

applicable County Coroner and Sheriff (see Appendix I) of the unanticipated discovery of

human remains within 24 hours. The relevant medical examiner will make the official ruling

on the nature of the remains, being either forensic or archeological.

3. If the remains are determined to be Native American, FRA will consult with the appropriate

Tribal representatives in addition to SHPO to determine a treatment plan for the avoidance,

recovery or reburial of the remains. FRA and TCRR will follow the guidelines outlined in the

ACHP’s Policy Statement Regarding Treatment of Human Burial Sites, Human Remains and

Funerary Objects. If the remains are discovered within USACE jurisdictional areas, USACE

will lead the consultation with Native American tribes and SHPO.

4. If the remains are determined not to be Native American, TCRR, in consultation with FRA,

will consult with the Signatories, and Consulting Parties as appropriate, to determine if the

discovery or previously unidentified cemetery is a historic property, take into account the

effects on the historic property, and resolve adverse effects per Stipulations IV if necessary.

D. Removal of Human Remains

In accordance with the Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 711, Section 711.004, any activity

related to the Project that would disturb unknown and/or unmarked graves contained within an

abandoned, unknown, or unverified cemetery, a justice of the peace acting as coroner or

medical examiner under Chapter 49, Code of Criminal Procedure, or a person described by

Section 711.0105(a) (cemetery keeper, licensed funeral director, medical examiner, coroner, or

professional archeologist) may investigate or remove remains without written order of the state

registrar or the state registrar's designee. A district court of the county must issue an order

prior to the cemetery being de-dedicated and, if all human remains on the property have not
22

previously been removed, order removal of the human remains from the cemetery to a 

perpetual care cemetery or a municipal or county cemetery.

REPORTING

Following the effective date of this PA, until it expires or is terminated, TCRR will prepare a Quarterly 

Progress Report every three (3) months detailing work undertaken pursuant to its terms. TCRR will 

provide the Quarterly Progress Report to all Signatories and Consulting Parties. Such report will 

include: a summary of activities completed to comply with the terms of the PA; any scheduling 

changes proposed; any problems encountered; any disputes or objections received in carrying out 

the terms of this PA; maps illustrating the progress of the Project as sections are cleared for 

construction or constructed; and an updated table identifying adverse effects, agreed upon 

treatment measures to resolve adverse effects, and status of the implementation. The Signatories 

may agree in writing to modify the frequency of TCRR’s reporting without amending the PA. Due to 

the phased approach of the Project, and in conjunction with the Quarterly Progress Report, TCRR 

will schedule regular coordination meetings with the Signatories and Consulting Parties to review

the Report and outline outstanding items required to comply with Stipulations III-VII. Coordination 

meetings will be held at least every three (3) months unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by the 

Signatories.

CONFIDENTIALITY

A. If disclosure of location information could result in the disturbance of a cultural resource, all 

Signatories to this PA will ensure shared data, including data concerning the precise location and 

nature of historic properties, archeological sites, and properties of religious and cultural 

significance to Native American tribes, are protected from public disclosure to the greatest 

extent permitted by law, in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.11(c), Section 304 of the NHPA, 

Section 9 of the Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, and Executive Order No. 13007

on Indian Sacred Sites dated May 24, 1996.

B. Consulting Parties are not entitled to receive information protected from public disclosure.

AMENDMENTS

A. If any amendment is required or any Signatory to this PA or Native American tribe requests that

it be amended, the Signatories will first notify the Consulting Parties and then consult for no 

more than thirty (30) calendar days (or another time period agreed upon by all Signatories) to 

consider such amendment. The amendment will be effective on the date it is signed by all the 

Signatories.

B. Revisions to any Appendix to this PA may be proposed in writing by any Signatory by submitting 

a draft of the proposed revisions to all Signatories. FRA will notify Consulting Parties and Native 

American tribes, as appropriate, of the proposal to revise the Appendix. The Signatories will 

consult for no more than thirty (30) calendar days (or another time period agreed upon by all 

Signatories) to consider the proposed revisions to the Appendix. If the Signatories unanimously 

agree in writing to revise the Appendix, TCRR, in consultation with FRA, will provide a copy of 

the revised Appendix to the other Signatories and Consulting Parties. The revised Appendix will

go into effect on the date TCRR transmits the revision to the Signatories and Consulting Parties.

Revisions to any Appendix to this PA will not require an amendment to the PA.
23

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

A. Any Signatory to this PA or Native American tribe may object to any proposed action(s) or the 

manner in which the terms of this PA are implemented by submitting its objection to FRA in 

writing, after which FRA will consult with all Signatories to resolve the objection. If FRA 

determines such objection cannot be resolved, FRA will, within fifteen (15) days of such 

objection:

1. Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including FRA’s proposed resolution, to 

the ACHP (with a copy to the Signatories). ACHP will provide FRA with its comments on the 

resolution of the objection within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving documentation.

2. If the ACHP does not provide comment regarding the dispute within thirty (30) calendar 

days, FRA will make a final decision on the dispute and proceed accordingly. 

3. FRA will document this decision in a written response that takes into account any timely 

comments received regarding the dispute from ACHP and the Signatories and provide them 

with a copy of the response. 

4. FRA will then proceed according to its final decision.

5. The Signatories remain responsible for carrying out all other actions subject to the terms of 

this PA that are not the subject of the dispute.

B. A Consulting Party to this PA or a member of the public may object to the manner in which the 

terms of this PA are being implemented by submitting its objection to FRA in writing. FRA will 

notify the other Signatories of the objection in writing and take the objection into consideration. 

FRA will consult with the objecting party, and if FRA determines it is appropriate, the other 

Signatories for not more than thirty (30) calendar days. Within fifteen (15) calendar days after 

closure of this consultation period, FRA will provide the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and the 

objecting party with its final decision in writing.

TERMINATION AND WITHDRAWAL

A. If any Signatory to this PA determines its terms will not or cannot be carried out, that party will 

immediately consult with the other Signatories to develop an Amendment per Stipulation X. If 

within thirty (30) calendar days (or another time period agreed upon by all Signatories) an 

amendment pursuant to Stipulation X cannot be reached, any Signatory may terminate this PA 

upon written notification to the other Signatories. In the event of termination of this PA, prior to 

work continuing on the Project, FRA will either execute a new PA pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 

800.14(b) or request, take into account, and respond to comments of the ACHP under 36 C.F.R.

§ 800.7. FRA will notify the Signatories as to the course of action it will pursue. 

B. If at any time the USACE disagrees with the manner in which the terms of this PA are carried 

out, the USACE may object in writing to FRA. FRA will follow Stipulation XI in resolving the 

objection. FRA’s responsibility to carry out the terms of this PA for all aspects of the undertaking 

that are not the subject of objection shall remain unchanged. If the USACE and FRA are unable 

to come to agreement, the USACE may withdraw from participation in this PA entirely upon 30

(thirty) calendar days written notification to all Signatories, leaving the PA in full force and 

effect.
24

EFFECTIVE DATE

This PA will become effective immediately upon execution by all Signatories pursuant to 36 C.F.R. §

800.14(b)(2)(iii). The effective date of this document is not contingent upon the signature of 

Consulting Parties. 

DURATION

Unless amended or terminated as outlined in Stipulation X and Stipulation XII, this PA shall remain in 

effect for a period of ten (10) years from the date the PA goes into effect or until the Stipulations set 

forth in the PA are complete. This PA may be extended for a second ten-year (10) term without 

amendment with the written consent of all the Signatories. The Signatories to this PA will consult six 

(6) months prior to expiration to determine if there is a need to extend or amend this PA. Upon 

completion of the Stipulations set forth above, TCRR will provide a letter (with attached 

documentation) of completion to FRA, with a copy to the Signatories. If FRA, USACE and SHPO

concurs the Stipulations are complete within thirty (30) calendar days, FRA will notify TCRR, the 

Signatories, and Consulting Parties in writing and this PA will expire, at which time the Signatories

will have no further obligations hereunder. 

PRINCIPAL CONTACTS

Contact information may be updated, as needed, without an amendment to this PA. It is the 

responsibility of each Signatory to immediately inform all Signatories and Consulting Parties in 

writing of changes to the name or contact information for any point of contact. The principal 

contacts for this PA are provided in Appendix K.

EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTION 

Execution and implementation of this PA evidences that FRA and USACE have taken into account the 

effects of this undertaking on historic properties, has afforded the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to 

comment, and FRA and USACE have satisfied their responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA 

and its implementing regulations.


27

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

AMONG

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION,

TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD,

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – FORT WORTH DISTRICT,

UNITES STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – GALVESTON DISTRICT, 

THE TEXAS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, AND

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

REGARDING 

THE DALLAS TO HOUSTON HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM

Signatory:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

_________________________________________________________ Date: __________

John M. Fowler, Executive Director

8/25/20



31

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

AMONG

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION,

TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD,

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – FORT WORTH DISTRICT,

UNITES STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – GALVESTON DISTRICT,

THE TEXAS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, AND

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

REGARDING 

THE DALLAS TO HOUSTON HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM

Concurring Party:

_________________________________________________________ Date: ______________

Signature

______________________________________________________________________________

Print Name and Title
Appendix A

Historic Resources and Archeological Resources Research Designs


1

McDougall, Tanya

From: melissa.hatcher@dot.gov

Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 12:01 PM

To: Linda.Henderson@thc.state.tx.us

Cc: Elizabeth.Brummett@thc.state.tx.us; McDougall, Tanya; Inman, Megan

Subject: RE: Texas SHPO comment and question on Dallas to Houston rail project

Attachments: Section_106_Consulting_Parties_Invite_List.xlsx

Hi Linda,

Thanks for your comments on concurrence with the research design for non‐archeological resources. As you suggested, I

will add Boren Reagor Springs Historical Society to the list of potential consulting parties. Formal written invitations to

consulting parties based on the attached list were sent out in late February 2015. Those highlighted in green accepted

the formal invitations. Harris County was the only one to formally decline. Please let me know if there are other parties

that should be considered. We plan to contact all of these parties during the survey effort to request information on

historic resources now that we have identified the alignments that are being evaluated.

The public outreach plan is broad and covers all agency and public involvement for the EIS, including Section 106. I will

gladly share the most recent version with you if requested. However, it may not be the most appropriate or succinct

document to attach to the research design. For Section 106, the outreach plan is relatively generic talking about the

general time periods in which consultation will be sought. On behalf of the EIS team at FRA and AECOM (URS), we will

continue to work with you and the THC team on consultation and coordination pursuant to Section 106.  

Best regards,

Melissa

Melissa Hatcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

(202) 493‐6075

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Linda Henderson [mailto:Linda.Henderson@thc.state.tx.us]  

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 1:35 PM

To: Hatcher, Melissa (FRA)

Cc: Elizabeth Brummett

Subject: Texas SHPO comment and question on Dallas to Houston rail project

Melissa,

Hello! We received this query through our website, and I am sharing my response with you so you are aware of it.

Would you please make sure that the Boren Reagor Springs Historical Society is listed as a potential consulting party for

Ellis County/Boren Cemetery?

That's the one thing I am going to comment on in my response on the non‐archeological survey methodology‐‐

consulting parties. I know we talked about them generally but I do not recall making specific recommendations relative

to this research design submittal. Do you think it's appropriate to include them in the survey methodology? Their input

can be important to knowing more about properties as we evaluate them. Do you have a public outreach plan you can
2

share that I can attach to what we're currently reviewing? Other than that question, I am in concurrence with what is

outlined in the methodology, and once I've heard from you, I'll get our response out.

Thanks,

Linda

Linda Henderson

Historian, Federal Programs

History Programs Division

Texas Historical Commission

P.O. Box 12276

Austin, Texas 78711‐2276

phone: 512/463‐5851

www.thc.state.tx.us

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Linda Henderson  

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 12:28 PM

To: 'kacod@sbcglobal.net'

Subject: FW: Form submission from: Need Help? Ask Us.

Mr. Cooke,

Bob Brinkman forwarded me your question. I am one of our agency's reviewers for the Dallas‐to‐Houston high‐speed

train project. I apologize in advance for what is going to seem like a very bureaucratic answer, but I wanted to give you

as much information as possible.

We are currently reviewing the research design for the rail project's consultants, and they have already flagged the

Boren Cemetery as a property to be studied.  We will be evaluating the property as part of our review of the proposed

rail project under the federal Section 106 regulations.  

Even with state recognition, like the Historic Texas Cemetery designation, cemeteries are most often not considered

"historic properties" under Section 106, which uses that phrase to mean "eligible for or listed in the National Register of

Historic Places." Under the National Register criteria, a cemetery must have special qualities that distinguish it from

other cemeteries. The state marker and HTC designation is focused more on identifying cemeteries‐‐to get them noted

on maps and in deed records, so they do not have those same criteria.  

As part of the survey work that will be done for the proposed rail project, consultant historians and archeologists will be

reviewing all historic‐age properties‐‐including Boren Cemetery‐‐to see if they are eligible for National Register listing,

and we will have an opportunity once that work is done to agree or disagree with their findings.  

They should also be holding public meetings and reaching out to local historical commissions and groups, so I will be

sure to give them your contact information! We value your feedback and will ensure that your comments are included in

their analysis.  

The Federal Rail Administration is the agency coordinating with our office, and you can find project information on their

website: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0700. There is a place there for the public to send in comments, and you and
3

your group should definitely get on their radar! Be sure to identify yourself and that you are concerned about a historic

cemetery.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Best,

Linda  

Linda Henderson

Historian, Federal Programs

History Programs Division

Texas Historical Commission

P.O. Box 12276

Austin, Texas 78711‐2276

phone: 512/463‐5851

www.thc.state.tx.us

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Bob Brinkman  

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 10:27 AM

To: Linda Henderson

Subject: FW: Form submission from: Need Help? Ask Us.

Bob Brinkman

Coordinator, Historical Markers Program

History Programs Division

Texas Historical Commission

P.O. Box 12276

Austin, Texas 78711‐2276

512.463.8769

512.475.3122 fax

www.thc.state.tx.us

  

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: admin@thc.state.tx.us [mailto:admin@thc.state.tx.us]  

Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:05 AM

To: Bob Brinkman

Subject: Form submission from: Need Help? Ask Us.

Submitted on Tuesday, November 17, 2015 ‐ 11:04am Submitted by anonymous user: [66.196.202.14] Submitted values

are:

Category: Historical Markers

Ask a Question: I am on the Board for the Boren Reagor Springs Historical
4

Society.   We oversee the preservation of the Boren Cemetery. It has a

historical marker and is a Historic Texas Cemetery.  Neighbors have contacted us that they have been contacted by land

surveyors regarding the Bullet Train project.  We have not yet been contacted.  Is our cemetery, with its designation and

marker, protected from such a project?  Thanks.  ‐‐kyle cooke Email (for a response): kacod@sbcglobal.net

    ‐‐Historical Markers‐‐ 

    Historical Markers Email: bob.brinkman@thc.state.tx.us

The results of this submission may be viewed at:

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/node/1715/submission/4131



ANTIQUITIES PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (CONTINUED) 

Il. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Proposed Starting Date of Fieldwork ------'"N'--o"'-v-'e'--m-'b�e_r'"'-20"'-1�5 __________________ _ Requested Permit Duration 2 Years O Months (1 year minimum) 

Scope of Work (Provided an Outline of Proposed Work) See Attachment A: Research Design 

Ill. CURA TION & REPORT

Temporary Curatorial or Laboratory Facility __ AE_C----'-""""OM_-_D_�al .... las-'--'-_T_ex'-a""'s ________ ______ _

Permanent Curatorial Facility Texas Archeological Research Laboratory 

IV. LAND OWNER'S CERTIFICATION

I, as legal representative of the Land Owner, 

-------- ----------------� do certify that I have reviewed the plans and

research design, and that no investigations will be preformed prior to the issuance of a peJTI1it by the Texas Historical 

Commission. Furthermore, I understand that the Owner, Sponsor, and Principal Investigator are responsible for

completing the terms of the permit. 

Signature Date ___________ _

V. SPONSOR'S CERTIFI�N 

� 

I, k_ -e... \ v', "- (::. K � c..,l.cAA..c.""'-J � V- • as legal representative of the Sponsor,

Texas Central High-Speed Railway, LLt , do certify that I have review the plans 

���· ons will be performed prior to the issuance of a permit by the Texas His tori cal

r1 ..... 11.t., ... d tha the Spo or, Owner, and Principal Investigator are responsible for

=----::�::::::::::::�����=:_ ____ Date !)..0 Q cl dQ /J

VI. INVESTIGATOR'S CERTIFICATION

I, Steve Ahr as Principal Investigator employed by 

AECOM (Investigative Firm), do certify that I will 

execute this project according to the submitted plans and research design, and will not conduct any work prior to the 

issuance of a permit by t�e�cal Commission. Furthermore, I understand that the Principal Investigator (and

the Investigative Firm);'.'.as��d Sponsor, are responsible for completing the terms of this=

errnit. 

Signature � - Date / O - ;? � - ls-' 

Principal Investigator must attach a research design, a copy of the USGS quadrangle showing project boundaries, and any

additional pertinent information. Curriculum vita must be on file with the Archeology Division. 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Reviewer ________________ Date Permit Issues--------------- Permit Number Pennit Expiration Date --------------

Type of Permit Date Received for Data Entry -----------

Texas Historical Commission

Archeology Division 

P.O. Box 12276, Austin, TX 78711-2276

Phone 512/463�6096 

www .thc.state.tx.us 

3/3/09 

The St41e Agency for Historic Presorr•atlon 

5 X
Deliberative Draft

Attachment A

RESEARCH DESIGN

ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR THE DALLAS TO HOUSTON 

HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT

(Dallas, Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, 

Waller, and Harris Counties)

Prepared for

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Prepared by

AECOM

1950 North Stemmons Freeway

Dallas, Texas 75207

December 2015
Deliberative Draft

2

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has initiated a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

evaluation of Texas Central High-Speed Railway, LLC’s (TCR) and its affiliates (Project Proponent) 

proposal to construct and operate a high-speed passenger railroad (Project) between Dallas and 

Houston, Texas (Figure 1). As required by NEPA, FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) to accomplish this evaluation. AECOM, under contract with FRA, proposes to conduct the 

archeological resources survey for the Project in support of the EIS, as well as to assist in meeting 

applicable requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as 

amended, and the Antiquities Code of Texas.

As a federal agency, FRA has the authority to regulate the safety of railroads, including the Project, and 

must make specific safety determinations regarding the type of trainset proposed to be constructed and 

operated as part of the Project prior to initiation of passenger service. For this Project, FRA may issue a 

Rule of Particular Applicability (regulations that apply to a specific railroad or a specific type of 

operation), a series of waivers, or another action that will ensure the Project is operated safely. This 

constitutes a federal action and triggers an environmental review under NEPA and Section 106. In 

accordance with Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations pertaining to the 

protection of historic properties (36 CFR 800), federal agencies are required to assess the effects of their 

undertaking on historic properties prior to issuing permits or funding. Historic properties are defined as 

those properties that are included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). Therefore, the Project is subject to review by the Texas State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO), formally known in Texas as the Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

A total of six end-to-end draft alignment alternatives have been developed for the Project, which cross 

portions of Dallas, Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris

Counties (see Figure 1). The non-overlapping portions of these draft alignment alternatives represent a 

combined total of approximately 442 linear miles of potential impacts. Construction of the high-speed 

rail line will consist of entirely new track. Due to the length of the Project, however, it is anticipated that 

access to properties will be restricted during the EIS process, and as allowed by 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), a 

phased approach for the identification and evaluation of historic properties will be necessary. 

While a majority of the Project is located on private property, various portions of the Project fall within 

non-federal public land, or land that is under the ownership or control of a political subdivision of the 

State of Texas. As a result, these areas are within the purview of the Antiquities Code of Texas, which 

requires the THC to review actions that have the potential to disturb prehistoric or historic sites within 

the public domain. Regulations pertaining to the code can be found within Title 13, Part 2, Chapter 26 of 

the Texas Administrative Code (TAC). THC issues Antiquities Permits that stipulate the conditions under 

which survey, discovery, excavation, demolition, restoration, or scientific investigations can occur.

Therefore, AECOM is submitting this research design in support of an Antiquities Permit application for 

conducting an intensive archeological survey (13 TAC 26.13 and 26.15).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

TCR is a Texas-based company formed in 2009 to bring high-speed passenger rail to Texas. TCR has 

taken a private-sector approach for the deployment of high-speed rail in Texas. Working closely with 

Central Japan Railway Company (JRC), TCR is promoting the deployment of a high-speed rail system 
Deliberative Draft

3

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

based on JRC’s N700-I Bullet System (known as Shinkansen) that will have a maximum operating speed 

of 205 miles per hour (mph) and a travel time of less than 90-minutes between the two cities. 

The Project will extend approximately 240 miles long, with an estimated right-of-way (ROW) width of 

approximately 100 feet (ft), and varying depths of impact. Additional acreage is expected to be utilized 

for ancillary facilities consisting of passenger stations, rail car and track maintenance facilities, electrical 

substations, maintenance roads, and signal houses. To date, design efforts have focused on the rail 

alignment, the principal component of the Project. Once the rail alignment is fixed, siting and conceptual 

design of the ancillary facilities will begin. 

To minimize the impacts of the Project’s construction and operation on the land and communities 

through which it travels, the Project will consist of entirely new track that will be completely gradeseparated, meaning that all crossings would be under or over the rail line and not at the same elevation 

as the high-speed tracks, and reserved for the exclusive use of the N700-I Bullet System.

The Project will involve construction of two general rail design concepts: the first is at-grade 

construction where the rail is located on an embankment structure and separated from other 

transportation modes; and the second is an elevated concept (pier and beam) where the rail is located 

on an elevated viaduct structure. The alignment will consist of a mixture of these two general types of 

construction and will also include an assortment of culverts, short span bridges, and long span crossings 

as required to address site-specific requirements and to mitigate impacts. Based on preliminary 

construction schematics/plans, the Project maximum height at-grade will be approximately 50 ft and for 

elevated structures the maximum height will be approximately 70 ft.

At-Grade Rail Design

The high-speed rail technology and operating philosophy requires that no other vehicle (car, truck, or 

train) be allowed to access or cross the rails, leading to a design of a completely grade-separated 

railroad system. Various types of crossing methods are available, and the type used would be based on 

the unique characteristics at each crossing. The available crossing methods are:

Rail over road; and

Road over rail; 

 

The initial alignment studies, and subsequent studies of the alignment alternatives, included between 

250 and 350 crossings, of which approximately 75 percent are grade crossings. All at-grade crossings 

will be replaced with grade-separated crossings. To incorporate these treatments, solutions may include 

changing the location of frontage or side roads, or cloverleaf bridges in tight sections where the road is 

closer to the track. 

At-grade track may be used where the ground is relatively flat, and in rural areas where there is limited 

potential to interfere with local roadways. The at-grade track would be built on compacted soil and 

ballast material (a thick bed of angular rock) to prevent subsidence or changes in the track surface from 

soil movement. To avoid potential disruption of service from floodwater, the rail would be constructed 

above the 100-year floodplain. The height of the at-grade profile may vary to accommodate slight 

changes in topography, provide clearance for storm water culverts and structures in order to allow 

water flow, and sometimes wildlife movement. 
Deliberative Draft

4

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Roadway overcrossings would be utilized when a typical roadway would be grade-separated over an atgrade high-speed rail track alignment. Roadway under crossings may be required for grade-separation 

below an at-grade high-speed rail track alignment. Elevated high-speed rail road crossings may be built 

in downtown urban areas where the use of an elevated rail may be the only means to access downtown 

areas.

Elevated Rail Design (Viaduct)

Elevated structure will be used to maintain the design grade for the track and to potentially avoid

sensitive environmental features. Larger floodplains and select infrastructure would be crossed with 

elevated structures when a ground level design is not suitable. The initial alignment studies identified 

approximately 175 locations where a bridge may be required; conceptual engineering is ongoing to 

determine optimal use of elevated structures versus at-grade. Piers may be spaced at 120 feet (36.6 m) 

and the beams may have an air gap of 18 feet (5.5 m). Depths of impacts will depend on geotechnical 

site conditions, but could be as deep as 70 feet below ground surface.

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT 

As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), an Area of Potential Effect (APE) is “the geographic area or areas within 

which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic 

resources, if any such resources exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature 

of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.” The 

archeological APE is defined on the basis of the current Project understanding at the time of this permit 

application. The archeological APE will be comprised of the construction footprint of the six draft 

alignment alternatives (approximately 100 feet [30.48 m] in width), any permanent and temporary 

easements, access roads, drainage swales, all locations of ancillary facilities (e.g., passenger stations, rail 

car and track maintenance facilities, electrical substations, maintenance roads, and signal houses), and 

any other Project-specific locations designated by the Proponent. The APE is focused on any potential 

direct effects resulting from ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the railway. 

Ground disturbing activities may include excavation, grading, cut-and-fill, easements, staging areas, 

utility relocation, or drilling. Location specific conditions will dictate the depth of subsurface 

disturbance. 

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The draft alignment alternatives cross a variety of environmental settings, which are introduced here in 

a very broad regional manner. The Project spans the east-central portion of Texas through ten counties 

from north to south; Dallas, Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and 

Harris. 

Hydrology

The Project traverses through the Trinity River Basin, skirting to the east of the Brazos River Basin, and 

ending within the San Jacinto River Basin in Houston (BEG 1996a). Numerous named and unnamed 

intermittent and ephemeral streams are located along the draft alignment alternatives.
Deliberative Draft

5

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Physiography

The Project spans the physiographic region of the Gulf Coastal Plains, with the low rolling topography of 

the south and east tilting geologic beds of chalks and marls of the Blackland Prairies in the northern 

counties of Dallas, Ellis, and Navarro; the parallel ridges and valleys of the Gulf tilting geologic beds of 

unconsolidated sands and muds of the Interior Coastal Plains in the central counties of Freestone, 

Limestone, Leon, Madison, and Grimes; and the nearly flat prairie of geologic deltaic sands and muds of 

the Coastal Prairies in the southern counties of Waller and Harris. The Gulf Coastal Plains range in 

elevation from 0 to 1,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (BEG 1996b).

Geology

The draft alignment alternatives cross 11 geological groups and formations defined by the Bureau of 

Economic Geology (BEG), ranging in age from the Cretaceous through the Pleistocene (BEG 1968, 1970, 

1972, 1974, 1992). The geologic groups and formations, decreasing in age from northwest to southeast, 

consist of the Austin, Eagle Ford, Woodbine, and Upper Washita Groups; the Navarro and Taylor Groups; 

the Wilcox and Midway Groups; the Claiborne Group; the Yegua Formation; the Jackson Group; the 

Catahoula Formation; the Fleming and Oakville Formations; the Willis Formation; the Lissie Formation; 

and the Beaumont Formation. 

Beginning in Dallas County, the Cretaceous-age Austin Chalk formation (Kau) underlies the Project (BEG 

1970, 1972). In Ellis and Navarro Counties, the Project is underlain by the Cretaceous-age Navarro and 

Taylor Groups, which include marls and sandy marls of the Ozan Formation (Ko), the Wolf City 

Formation (Kwc), and Marlbrook Marl (Knm). Upland soils developed upon these formations within the

Blackland Prairies are comprised mainly of clay-rich, expansive Vertisols that formed within calcareous 

clays and marls. Given the residual nature of these soils, and their high shrink-swell potential, there is 

little likelihood that any cultural materials would be buried in primary context in these upland settings. 

However, nearer stream crossings it is possible that cultural materials are present in floodplain deposits 

and on older soil surfaces beneath younger Holocene overbank veneers. 

Southeast from Freestone and Limestone Counties, the Project moves from Cretaceous-age chalk and 

marls, to traversing a basinward series of down-dipping, fluvial-deltaic formations that are Paleogene 

through Quaternary in age (BEG 1968, 1970, 1974, 1992). Most of these formations are comprised of 

weakly-consolidated sedimentary rocks of cross-bedded quartz sand, intercalated with thin beds of clay, 

sandy clay, and ironstone concretions. The Paleocene Wilcox and Midway Groups make up much of the 

bedrock geology of Freestone and Limestone Counties, with the Tehuacana Member of Kincaid (Kwc), 

Hooper (Eh), Simsboro (Esb), and Calvert Bluff Formations (Ecb) from northwest to southeast. The 

underlying Eocene geology within Leon, Madison, and Grimes Counties is comprised of the Carrizo Sands

(Ec), Reklaw (Er), Queen City Sand (Eqc), Sparta Sand (Es), Stone City (Esc), Cook Mountain (Ecm), Yegua 

(Ey), Wellborn (Ewb), Caddell (Eca), the Manning Formation (Em), and Whitsett (Eow) Formations. 

Sandy loam soils are typically found capping the upland surfaces associated with Tertiary formations 

across the Gulf Coastal Plain. These soils are taxonomically classified as Alfisols, which formed on 

ancient, stable landscapes that are at least Pleistocene in age, or older. These soils often exhibit strong, 

coarse-over-fine textural contrasts between the upper and lower parts of the solum. The sandier A

through E horizons are referred to by archeologists as the sandy mantle, which often contains buried 

archeological deposits, sometimes in correct stratigraphic order, while cultural materials are absent 

from the lower clayey subsoil horizons (Bruseth and Martin 2001; Frederick et al. 2002; Heinrich 1986; 

Mandel 1987; Thoms 1993). The ages of these upland soils, along with artifact burial process and 
Deliberative Draft

6

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

integrity potential, has been strongly debated (Ahr et al. 2012, 2013; Frederick et al. 2002). It has been

suggested that the burial and stratification of cultural materials within the sandier horizons in upland 

settings occurred contemporaneously with widespread geomorphic activity, such as eolian deposition 

during more arid phases of the Holocene, and that this resulted in the burial and preservation of some 

sites and features (Boutler et al., 2007, 2010; Frederick et al., 2002). Recent research, however, suggests 

that such a geomorphic event did not occur on a regional basis, though small-scale localized erosion and 

deposition could have resulted under certain geomorphic and pedologic conditions (Ahr et al. 2012).

Absent any geomorphic burial agents, artifact movement down profile in upland settings would have 

resulted from bioturbation and gravity. Thus, while sandy upland areas of the Project likely offer good

potential for containing archeological materials, the degree of archeological integrity is not likely to be 

high due to the potential for soil mixing. Recent (Holocene) alluvial deposits associated with floodplains 

offer greater preservation potential for buried archeological sites. But, because of poor drainage and 

frequent saturation, they may have been less desirable for prehistoric habitation.

The Miocene-age Catahoula (Mc) and Fleming (Mf) Formations in southern Grimes County give way to 

Pleistocene-age clay, silt, and sand deposits of the Willis Formation (Qwl and Qwc), which continue on 

into Waller and Harris Counties (BEG 1968, 1974, 1992). The Willis Formation consists of fluvial clay, silt, 

sand, and gravel deposits and is subdivided into two members based on the degree of weathering and 

age (BEG 1992; Bradley 1985; Duessan 1924; Fisk 1938; Bernard 1950). The less weathered Willis 

member (Qwl) is comprised of clay, silt, sand and siliceous gravels, deeply weathered and lateritic, and 

indurated by clay and cemented by iron oxides (BEG 1968, 1992). This member is strongly dissected into 

upland remnants surrounded by middle-Miocene deposits. The strongly weathered Willis member 

(Qwc) is preserved as prominent outcrop scarps and contains abundant iron concentrations and ferric 

concretions (BEG 1968, 1992). Toward the coast, these deposits give way to Pleistocene-age Lissie (Ql)

deposits, and the Beaumont (Qb) Formation that extends from the Texas-Louisiana border to southwest 

of Corpus Christi. 

The Beaumont Formation occurs as an offlapped sequence of coastwise, alluvial-deltaic plain sediments

that were deposited during the latest interglacial highstand, from the middle to the late Pleistocene 

(Blum and Aslan 2006; Blum and Price 1994; Winkler 1982). Beaumont surfaces have been mapped and 

differentiated into numerous cross-cutting meanderbelt facies, with intervening floodplain depositional 

environments (BEG 1992; DuBar et al. 1991; Blum and Aslan 2006; Blum and Price 1994). The spatial

distribution of clay, silt, and fine sand within the Beaumont formation reflect the distribution of these 

major channel, point bar, levee, and backswamp facies. Sandy clays and sands are present in multistoried stacks of flood basin mud and splay sands (Blum et al. 1995). Developed on these are thick A and 

E horizons in the sandier regions, and well-developed Bt and Bk horizons in the more clayey regions. The 

non-sandy portions of the Beaumont surface are characterized by clay-rich Vertisols, with high shrinkswell capacity, representing floodbasin, backswamp, and abandoned channel-fill muds with low 

permeability, high water holding capacity, high compressibility, high to very high shrink-swell potential, 

poor drainage, level to depressed relief, low shear strength, and high plasticity (BEG 1992). The

Beaumont Formation has been dated to more than 35,000 to 40,000 years before present (B.P.) by 

radiocarbon analysis (Birdseye and Aronow 1991), and to between approximately 70,000 to 115,000 

years B.P. by thermoluminescence (TL) dating (Blum and Price 1994; Blum et al. 1995; Durbin et al. 

1997). Given the age of the Beaumont Formation, which predates human occupation of North America, 

low geoarchaeological potential exists (Abbott 2001). 

Pleistocene terraces and recent Holocene-age valley fills comprise the bulk of Late Quaternary 

depositional units traversed by the draft alignment alternatives. On the coastal plain, terrace landforms 
Deliberative Draft

7

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

are informally known as “Deweyville terraces” (Bernard 1950), and are mapped stratigraphically 

between Holocene floodplain deposits and the Pleistocene-age Beaumont surface (Blum et al. 1995). 

Large abandoned arcuate meander scars along valley walls are the principal distinguishing geomorphic 

characteristic of these older terrace deposits and suggest greater discharge regimes than modern 

stream systems (Barton 1930). 

Holocene-age deposits are extensive within the stream valleys traversed by the Project and are of the 

appropriate age to contain cultural materials. Alluvial stratigraphic studies in Central Texas suggest that 

many Texas alluvial valleys began to aggrade sometime during the late Pleistocene or early Holocene. 

Except in valleys that have undergone significant erosion, early Holocene alluvium likely comprises a 

significant portion of the valley floors within the Project area. The extent to which older Holocene 

alluvial fills are preserved is not currently known, however, and is largely dependent upon variations in 

floodplain evolution, such as avulsions and cutting and filling rates, within a valley. As such, deep 

prospection would be needed to confirm this.

Soils

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) county soil surveys were used to identify and 

characterize the soils within the Project area, which offer insights into the burial and preservation 

potential of archeological sites. By grouping the soils into general soil associations (Table 1), general 

observations regarding site integrity potential can be made. In general, level, deep soils on floodplains 

offer greater potential to contain deeply buried and preserved sites, while clayey, residual soils on 

upland plains or moderately sloping uplands exhibit lower overall burial potential and may contain 

shallow site deposits that are mixed.

Table 1 

Project Area Soils

Soil Association County Description

Houston Black-Heiden Dallas Nearly level to strongly sloping, deep, clayey soils; on uplands

Trinity-Frio Dallas Nearly level, deep, clayey soils; on flood plains

Austin-Houston Black Dallas Nearly level to sloping, moderately deep, clayey soils; on uplands

Houston Black-Houston Ellis Gently sloping, very deep, clayey soils; on upland ridges and plains

Burleson-Houston BlackLewisvilleEllis Nearly level to sloping, very deep, clayey soils; on terraces and valley slopes

Trinity-Frio Ellis Nearly level, deep, clayey soils; on flood plains

Crockett-Wilson Navarro Moderately sloping, deep, clayey soils, on uplands and stream terraces

Houston Black-Heiden Navarro Deep, Nearly level to strongly sloping, deep, clayey soils; on uplands

Trinity-Kaufman Navarro Nearly level, very deep, clayey soils; on flood plains

Crockett Freestone Nearly level to moderately sloping, very deep, loamy soils; on uplands

Whitesboro Freestone Nearly level, very deep, loamy soils; on flood plains of large creeks

Edge-Tabor Freestone Nearly level to strongly sloping, very deep, loamy soils; on uplands and high 

stream terraces

Padina-Silstid Freestone Gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, sandy soils; on uplands

Silawa-Gasil-Tabor Freestone Nearly level to strongly sloping, loamy soils; on stream terraces and uplands

Silstid-Gasil-Padina Limestone Gently sloping to strongly sloping, very deep, sandy soils; on uplands

Edge-Tabor Limestone Nearly level to strongly sloping, very deep, loamy soils; on uplands and high 

stream terraces

Axtell-Rader Limestone Nearly level and gently sloping, very deep, loamy soils; on stream terraces

Uhland-Nahatche Limestone Nearly level, very deep, loamy soils; on flood plains

Padina-Hilstid-Hearne Leon Gently sloping to moderately steep, deep, sandy and loamy soils; on 

savannahs
Deliberative Draft

8

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Table 1 

Project Area Soils

Soil Association County Description

Padina-Arenosa Leon Gently sloping to moderately steep, deep, sandy soils; on savannahs

Crockett-Benchly-Wilson Leon Nearly level to strongly sloping, deep, loamy soils; on prairies

Axtell-Radar Leon Nearly level to strongly sloping, deep, loamy soils; on savannahs

Margie-Jedd-Lexton Leon Gently sloping to steep, deep and moderately deep, loamy soils; on 

savannahs

Crockett-Benchley-Dimebox Madison Nearly level to gently sloping, loamy and clayey soils; on uplands

Rader-Gredge-Chazos Madison Very gently sloping to moderately sloping, loamy and sandy soils; high 

terraces and uplands

Rader-Derly Madison Nearly level and very gently sloping, loamy soils; on terraces

Gowker-Nahatche Madison Nearly level, loamy soils; on flood plains

Zulch-Zock-Boonville Grimes Nearly level to gently sloping, loamy soils; on flat ridges and foot slopes

Axtell-Lufkin-Gredge Grimes Nearly level to strongly sloping, loamy soils; on ridges and slopes

Singleton-Burlewash-Shiro Grimes Nearly level to strongly sloping, sandy and loamy soils; on hilltops and 

hillsides

Gomery-Shiro-Elmiina Grimes Gently sloping or moderately sloping, sandy soils; on broad ridgetops

Falba-Shiro-Greenvine Grimes Gently sloping or moderately sloping, sandy, loamy, and clayey soils; on 

ridgetops and side slopes

Freisburg-Crockett-Brenham Grimes Gently sloping or moderately sloping, loamy and clayey soils; on ridges and 

side slopes

Depcor-Fetzer-Huntsburg Grimes Gently sloping or moderately sloping, loamy and clayey soils; on ridgetops 

and slopes

Depcor-Splendora-Boy Waller Nearly level to gently sloping, sandy and loamy soils; on ridgetops and side 

slopes near streams

Hockley-Wockley-Monaville Waller Nearly level to gently sloping, loamy and sandy soils; on hillsides and ridges

Segno-Hockley Harris Nearly level to gently sloping, loamy soils; on uplands

Wockley-Gessner Harris Nearly level, loamy soils; on prairies

Clodine-Addicks-Gessner Harris Nearly level, loamy soils; on prairies

Katy-Aris Harris Nearly level, loamy soils; on prairies

Sources: Brooks et al. 1992; Coffee et al. 1980; Greenwade 1996; Greenwade 1984; Griffin 1998; Janak and Griffin 2002; Meade et al. 1974; 

Neitsch 1994; Neitsch et al. 1989; Wheeler 1976

Ecoregions and Land Use

The Project traverses three major ecoregions, comprised of similar soils, vegetation, climate, and 

topography. These ecoregions, from northwest to southeast, consist of the Texas Blackland Prairies, the 

East Central Texas Plains, and the Western Gulf Coastal Plains. Data regarding Texas ecoregions was 

obtained primarily from Griffith et al. (2007) who prepared a report on Texas ecoregions for the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the USDA, and 

other interested parties. The final report defined 12 Level III ecoregions and 56 Level IV ecoregions

compatible with EPA ecoregion framework. The following provides general information on each of the 

level III and level IV ecoregions which will be crossed by the draft alignment alternatives. Where 

relevant and/or necessary, additional references and source material are cited in-text. 

Texas Blackland Prairies

The Blackland Prairie Region is primarily typified by rolling to nearly level plains, and is distinguished 

from surrounding regions by soils, vegetation, and geology (Griffith et al. 2007:61). Prior to 

Euroamerican settlement, an array of animal species were present in the region although the variety of 

species has declined over time and current game species typically include dove, quail, and fox squirrel 

along bottomlands (Griffith et al. 2007:61). The Blackland Prairie contains a high percentage of cropland 

and many areas have been converted from native grass communities to use for urban and industrial 
Deliberative Draft

9

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

purposes (Griffith et al. 2007:61). Native grass communities began to decline with the introduction of 

ranching and agriculture. The farming of cotton and other crops promoting extensive clearing of land 

resulted in the loss of much of the native prairie grasses (Griffith et al. 2007:62). Non-native grasses, 

introduced to the Blackland Prairie during the 19th and 20th centuries, include Johnson grass, Bermuda 

grass, and King Ranch Blustem. Frequent historic and prehistoric fires have shaped the ecology of the 

region by promoting new vegetation growth and preventing the encroachment of woodlands, although 

some wooded areas do exist (Griffith et al. 2007:61-62). The Blackland Prairie is bisected by the broad 

floodplains and terraces of the Trinity, Brazos, and Colorado Rivers. These floodplains typically contain 

the aforementioned areas of forest and can include species of oak, hackberry, elm, ash, cottonwood, 

and pecan (Griffith et al. 2007:65). As with much of the other areas of the Blackland Prairie, many of 

these floodplains and terrace settings have been cleared over time for agricultural purposes.

East Central Texas Plains

The East Central Texas Plains Region is comprised mainly of post oak savannah vegetation (Griffith et al. 

2007:66). This region exhibits a varied topography, with level to gently rolling landscapes in the north, 

and more highly dissected landscapes to the south (Griffith et al. 2007:66). Consequently, agricultural 

development has been more prominent in the north while urbanization and mineral resources 

exploration was focused on the south (Griffith et al. 2007:66-68). The local habitat supports white-tailed 

deer, turkey, quail, and several species of squirrel. Within this post oak savannah setting are grassland 

ecoregions known as Prairies and Outliers. The Prairies and Outliers are defined largely by an 

approximately 100 mile stretch of narrow, isolated prairie (e.g., String Prairie) that runs along the Old 

San Antonio Road (Griffith et al. 2007:69). This prairie provided prime farmland along a major 

transportation route, which in turn promoted settlement of the area without the need to clear 

surrounding forests. The Prairies and Outliers also include distinct areas of mixed prairies between the 

Sulfur and Red Rivers. These mixed prairies contain grasses as well as dispersed woodland and have 

been utilized for ranching (Griffith et al. 2007:70). Floodplain bottomlands and low terrace areas contain 

numerous hardwood tree species.

Western Gulf Coastal Plains

The Western Gulf Coastal Plains region is characterized by flat topography, and vegetation transitioning 

from the forest and savannahs to the west, to increasing grasslands and marshlands to the east along 

the coastline (Griffith et al 2007:73). River bottomlands, in particular, may contain woodlands although 

agriculture and urbanization in the area has resulted in significant impacts to native animal habitats. 

Bird, fish, and shrimp habitats remain important to native and migratory species. The Gulf Coastal 

Prairies in the area are very similar to those in the Texas Blackland Prairies with regard to vegetation 

composition and present species (Griffith et al. 2007:74). As such, the area was ideal grazing territory 

for bison and other animals prior to the arrival of European Americans. Recognizing the potential for 

grazing, cattle were brought in and ranching became a popular industry. As in the Texas Blackland 

Prairie, the grasslands were sustained through time with periodic fires that rejuvenated vegetation and 

prevented significant impediment of forests. Humans have, upon arrival, also utilized fire for this 

purpose although regular controlled burns had become the norm. In this region, floodplain bottoms and 

low terraces are covered by decreased diversity in tree species than in neighboring ecoregions. Much of 

these native species have been cleared, leaving a ground cover of mixed forest, cropland, and pasture 

(Griffith et al. 2007:77). Freshwater is readily available in a number of drainages within the floodplains 

and is split between the needs of aquatic life in bays and estuaries near the coast and human needs and 

uses of the surface water further inland (Griffith et al. 2007:77).
Deliberative Draft

10

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

RECORDS REVIEW

The Texas Archeological Sites Atlas (TASA) was consulted to identify any previously recorded 

archeological sites, NRHP-listed properties, State Antiquities Landmarks (SALs), and recorded cemeteries 

within a study area that extends for 1,000 m on either side of the draft alignment alternatives. TASA 

review indicates there are 234 archeological sites (Table 2) that had been previously recorded within 

this study area (TASA 2015). Out of the total recorded sites, 115 contain only prehistoric cultural 

materials, while 94 sites contain only historic materials, and 20 sites contain both historic and 

prehistoric materials. The cultural and temporal association was unknown for five sites. 

Common prehistoric site types in the region include campsites, lithic procurement sites, burned rock 

and shell middens, and sites within alluvial terrace deposits (Fields et al. 1996). Of the prehistoric sites

within the study area, 49 percent are lithic scatters, 47 percent are open campsites, 2 percent are 

middens, and 2 percent are lithic procurement sites. Historic site types in the region commonly include 

farmsteads, ranches, cemeteries, stone walls, mills, lime kilns, artifact or trash scatters, and industrial 

sites. Of the historic sites recorded in the study area, 67 percent are farmstead, homestead, or ranchrelated sites (including buildings or other features), 15 percent are historic dumps or trash scatters, 11

percent of the historic sites are bridge or railroad related, and the remaining 7 percent represent 

historic cemeteries classified as recorded archeological sites. In addition to the cemeteries classified as 

archeological sites, 40 historic cemeteries are also located within the study area, of which three are 

described as “unknown graves.” The presence of these previously recorded sites indicates the high 

potential for previously unrecorded prehistoric and historic sites to be present in the APE.

Table 2

Previously Recorded Archeological Sites Within the Study Area.

County Prehistoric

Only

Historic

Only

Prehistoric and 

Historic 

Components

Unknown

Period Total Sites

Dallas 14 13 1 0 28

Ellis 8 8 1 3 20

Navarro 10 4 3 1 18

Freestone 17 17 1 0 35

Limestone 4 0 0 0 4

Leon 34 39 12 0 85

Madison 6 2 0 0 8

Grimes 18 4 0 1 23

Waller 2 0 2 0 4

Harris 2 7 0 0 9

Total Sites 115 94 20 5 234

 Source: THC 2015

A review of the TASA indicates that 130 cultural resources investigations have been performed within

the study area. Previous archeological investigations have consisted primarily of linear and areal cultural 

resources surveys (Table 3).
Deliberative Draft

11

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Table 3

Previously Conducted Archeological Surveys Within the Study Area.

County Areal Surveys Linear Surveys Total Surveys

Survey Area within 

Current Alignments

(miles)

Dallas 12 10 22 6.4

Ellis 6 4 10 0.8

Navarro 14 0 14 0.8

Freestone 9 2 11 5.0

Limestone 4 0 4 0.0

Leon 17 4 21 3.9

Madison 1 2 3 6.9

Grimes 9 3 12 2.8

Waller 1 0 1 0.0

Harris 24 8 32 8.3

Total Surveys 97 33 130 34.9

 Source: THC 2015

ARCHEOLOGICAL PROBABILITY

Background research indicates that the APE has a high likelihood for containing archeological sites.

Historic sites generally have a greater surface visibility because they are usually either not buried as 

deeply as prehistoric sites, or are not buried at all. They are also often associated with surface features, 

such as wells and buildings, and, as a rule, contain a much higher density of artifacts. Historic sites often 

occur along old roads, and are more common in the uplands than on floodplains. During the survey,

high historic probability areas will be identified for investigation by examining historic maps and overlays 

along specific project routes. When appropriate, intensive pedestrian survey in high historic probability 

areas will be supplemented with shovel testing to locate potential buried historic sites.

Prehistoric sites typically are found within relatively level, well-drained soils, on terraces and floodplains, 

interfluve summits, shoulder- and toe-slopes overlooking valley floors, natural levees, upland-valley wall 

margins, and at stream confluences. Paleoindian through Middle Archaic sites are common within the 

lower slope portions of interfluves along small streams (Fields et al. 1996; Prikryl 1993; Thoms et al. 

2004), while Late Archaic and later sites are often situated on landforms adjacent to tributary stream 

floodplains, on sandy knolls, and on high terraces (Story 1990). Of the 140 prehistoric archeological sites 

that occur within the study area, 98 percent are located within 500 m of a stream. 

Based on the likelihood for the presence of archeological sites in the region, the APE was stratified into 

zones of High, Medium, and Low Archeological Potential. High Archeological Potential (HAP) areas 

possess the greatest potential for containing prehistoric sites, including deep, well-drained loamy soils in 

relatively close proximity to natural water sources. Of the previously recorded prehistoric sites in the 

study area, 86 percent are within 300 m of a stream. 

Moderate Archeological Potential (MAP) areas are less likely to contain archeological sites, due to 

increased distance to water, or other factors such as sloping topography or poor soil drainage. MAP 

areas include outer margins of wide floodplains, older terrace settings, and upland-valley wall margins. 

Of the previously recorded prehistoric sites in the study area, 12 percent are found at distances between 

300 and 500 m from a stream.
Deliberative Draft

12

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Low Archeological Potential (LAP) areas are those areas in which prehistoric archeological sites are 

unlikely to be present because of steeply sloping topography (>20%), poor soil drainage, or significant 

distance to water (>500 m). Of the previously recorded prehistoric sites in the study area, only 2

percent are found at distances greater than 500 m from a stream.

The above stratification relies on assumptions about prehistoric cultural preferences (e.g., behavior) for

sites to be located near loamy, well-drained soils, and certain topographic settings (e.g., elevated areas 

with level ground above water), and proximity to streams. Based on the current level of background 

research, these assumptions appear to be valid and confirmed by the distribution of extant sites within 

the study area. While this model favors identifying where sites are likely to be found, it fails to take into 

account the dynamic nature of the landscape, and thus, the potential for different areas to exhibit 

integrity potential. 

Integrity potential refers to the likelihood that an area exhibits natural conditions conducive to the 

burial and preservation of archeological materials in such a way as to maintain the systemic site context. 

Integrity potential is considered relevant, because the Section 106 compliance processes require an 

evaluation of the effects of an undertaking on historic properties, which are sites that are listed in, or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. In order to be a historic property, and therefore worthy of protection, the 

site must meet the legal criteria spelled out in 36 CFR 60.4, and it must possess integrity. For 

archeological sites, integrity commonly refers to the degree to which intra- and inter- site components 

have been preserved within its unique environmental site setting (i.e., systemic context). Similarly, at 

the state level, under Title 13, Part 2, Chapter 26, Subchapter C, Rule 26.10 of the Texas Administrative 

Code, an archeological site under the ownership or control of the State of Texas may also merit official 

designation as a SAL if it has the ability to contribute to a better understanding of history or prehistory, 

and if it is relatively well-preserved. 

In order to account for the integrity aspect for the Project, the APE was further stratified into areas of 

High, Medium, and Low Integrity Potential. High Integrity Potential (HIP) areas include active 

depositional environments, such as floodplains, which are ideal for deep site burial and preservation. 

Other important depositional areas, such as natural levees, eolian deposits, and shoulder- and toeslopes, are also present in the APE. Because site burial typically proceeds within a low-energy 

environment, preservation of systemic site context is enhanced, and sites in these settings often have 

enormous research potential due in part to vertical separation of different cultural components. Deeplyburied sites are also further removed from surface and near-surface impacts, but tend to be less visible 

due to great burial depth. Because the APE traverses numerous stream crossings and floodplain settings, 

where Holocene-age deposits often exceed 1 m in thickness, HIP conditions exist in numerous places 

within the APE. 

Moderate Integrity Potential (MIP) areas include upland and older terrace settings that are less likely 

than HIP areas to exhibit the geologic conditions necessary for the deep burial of cultural materials. MIP 

areas exist where recent (Holocene) overbank sediments have shallowly buried cultural materials resting 

on older geologic surfaces, as well as colluvial slopes along valley walls and older terrace-valley wall 

settings that have undergone small-scale, localized sedimentation (e.g., minor slopewash episodes or 

the formation of thin overbank veneers). These areas are very slowly aggrading, with very limited 

potential for deep site burial. Due to the shallow depths of any artifact-bearing sediments, archeological 

materials may be bioturbated, and archeological integrity potential is lowered. 
Deliberative Draft

13

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Low Integrity Potential (LIP) areas exist where there is no potential for the presence of buried 

archeological sites with reasonable integrity. Such areas include non-aggrading environments, including 

exposed bedrock, residual soils on uplands, or areas undergoing net soil erosion (e.g., lag setting). LIP 

areas also include those places that have been destroyed by construction impacts, such as roadways, 

easements, buried utilities, borrow pits, rutting, etc., or are otherwise physically inaccessible to standard 

survey methods. 

It should be emphasized that assigning integrity potential was based solely upon environmental 

variables (e.g., geomorphological and depositional setting, soil types, past disturbances, etc.), rather 

than on the likelihood that sites may be present. Such an integrity-based approach is similar to the 

TxDOT-Houston District’s Potential Archeological Liabilities Mapping (PALM) (Abbott 2001). Unlike the 

Houston PALM, however, the model developed for the Project integrates behavioral-based archeological 

potential with environmental-based integrity potential. As a result of this integration, nine Evaluation 

Mapping Units (EMUs) were developed for the APE. Each EMU represents a unique set of cultural and 

environmental conditions requiring varying levels of field survey intensity. Table 4 summarizes the 

probability and integrity modeling, which in turn provides a useful framework for efficiently carrying out 

fieldwork to conform to THC’s Archeological Survey Standards for Texas. Because this model is based 

solely on remotely sensed environmental data and known site distributions, unexpected field conditions 

may require field-methodological adjustments during the survey. Thus, a certain degree of flexibility in 

the survey effort is built into each of the EMUs in order to correspond to such unanticipated conditions. 

Where deviations are needed in field efforts, adequate justifications will be presented in the field survey 

report. 

Table 4

Probability Matrix of Archeological and Integrity Potential of the APE

Evaluation 

Mapping Unit Potential Conditions Proposed Work

1 HAP-HIP Areas near water, typically within 300 m of a 

stream, with level, well-drained loamy soils, 

mainly in medium to large stream valleys. 

Includes constructional surfaces such as 

Holocene-age floodplains and terraces, areas 

near stream confluences, springs, natural 

levees, larger valley shoulder- and toe-slopes, 

and eolian features at upland-valley wall 

margins. These areas tend to be conducive to 

rapid sedimentation and deep burial of 

archeological deposits. 

Intensive backhoe trenching recommended 

due to likelihood for deeply buried deposits 

with reasonable integrity. 

2 HAP-MIP Areas near water, typically within 300 m of a 

stream, with level, well-drained loamy soils. 

This occurs mainly in small, narrow stream 

valleys that are either non-aggrading, or very 

slowly aggrading. Such areas are less 

conducive to rapid sedimentation and deep 

burial of archeological deposits. Includes 

narrow floodplains with possible thin overbank 

alluvial veneers, as well as some shoulder 

slope settings, side slopes, and upland-valley 

wall margins.

Intensive shovel testing recommended due to 

the potential for relatively shallow 

archeological materials. Backhoe trenching 

may be needed if Holocene-age sediments 

are deeper than anticipated, exceeding 1 m 

in depth. 
Deliberative Draft

14

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Table 4

Probability Matrix of Archeological and Integrity Potential of the APE

Evaluation 

Mapping Unit Potential Conditions Proposed Work

3 HAP-LIP Areas near water, typically within 300 m of a 

stream, with level, well-drained loamy soils. 

Limited to narrow, non-aggrading or erosional 

stream settings, with no potential for deep 

burial of archeological materials. In larger 

valley settings, the area exhibits low integrity 

potential due mainly to extensive impacts 

from construction, buried utilities, borrow pits, 

rutting, standing water, the presence of largescale infrastructure, or other factors. As a 

result, these areas are unlikely to contain 

archeological materials in good context. 

Pedestrian walkover survey of exposed, 

stable, and eroded soil surfaces. No 

subsurface excavations recommended due to 

prior disturbances. 

Document extant disturbances, noting any 

observed cultural materials. No further work 

unless field conditions reveal presence of 

intact soils. 

4 MAP-HIP Areas located between 300 and 500 m from 

water, including distal margins of wide 

floodplains, older terrace settings, and uplandvalley wall margins within generally narrow 

stream valleys. Recent (Holocene) floodplain 

sediments and overbank veneers are likely to 

have buried cultural materials on older 

geologic surfaces. Such areas are generally 

slowly aggrading, but exhibit good potential 

for archeological deposits in good preservation 

context. 

Intensive shovel testing recommended. 

Limited backhoe trenching may be warranted 

if soils are deeper than anticipated (>1 m). If 

archeological materials are found, intensive 

trenching may be necessary.

5 MAP-MIP Areas located between 300 and 500 m from 

water, including older terrace settings, toeand shoulder slopes, and upland-valley wall 

margins in relatively wide stream valleys. 

These areas have likely been subjected to 

localized sedimentation, possibly during

slopewash episodes or during the formation of 

overbank veneers on older terrace settings. 

Such areas are very slowly aggrading and are 

less likely to exhibit the geologic conditions 

necessary for the deep burial of cultural 

materials. 

Limited shovel testing recommended. 

Backhoe trenching may be needed if 

Holocene-age sediments are found to extend 

below 1 m. 

6 MAP-LIP Areas located between 300 and 500 m from 

water, typically within relatively narrow, nonaggrading stream valleys. While cultural 

materials have moderate potential to be 

present, there is low probability that these 

materials would be buried deeply due to 

stable and/or eroded surfaces.

Pedestrian walkover survey of stable and/or 

eroded soil surfaces. Documentation only for 

built areas of APE. No subsurface excavations 

recommended due to prior disturbances and 

soil erosion, unless field conditions reveal 

presence of intact soils.

7 LAP-HIP Areas with strongly sloping topography (e.g., 

>20% slopes), very poorly drained soils, or 

significant distance (>500 m) to water. 

Includes undisturbed net-depositional areas, 

such as might exist in backswamp, swale, 

paleochannel, bog, marsh, or clayey oxbow 

channel fill settings. While these areas might 

exhibit high integrity potential, it is assumed 

that such settings were unattractive as 

occupation sites. 

Pedestrian walkover assessment of field 

conditions; judgmental shovel testing to 

determine presence/absence of buried 

cultural material and soil depth and integrity. 

If archeological materials are found, backhoe 

trenching may be needed. 
Deliberative Draft

15

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Table 4

Probability Matrix of Archeological and Integrity Potential of the APE

Evaluation 

Mapping Unit Potential Conditions Proposed Work

8 LAP-MIP Areas with strongly sloping topography (e.g., 

>20% slopes), very poorly drained soils, or 

significant distance (>500 m) to water. 

Includes very slowly aggrading settings that 

may have received minor sediment inputs 

from thin overbank veneers, eolian deposits, 

or from colluvium on sideslopes within 

undulating uplands. These areas may have also 

been moderately impacted by natural forces 

or construction activities (e.g., roadways, 

easements, borrowing, buried utilities, etc.). 

May include bioturbated upland sand sheet 

deposits along upland divides and valley 

margins. Vertical component separation is 

possible, mainly due to soil mixing.

Pedestrian walkover assessment of field 

conditions; judgmental shovel testing to 

determine presence/absence of buried 

cultural material and soil depth and integrity. 

If archeological materials are found, 

additional shovel testing may be needed. 

Backhoe trenching may also be required if 

shovel testing reveals artifacts extend to at 

least 1 m below the surface.

9 LAP-LIP Areas with strongly sloping topography (e.g., 

>20% slopes), very poorly drained soils, or 

significant distance (>500 m) to water. 

Includes non-aggrading to erosive settings. 

These areas may have also been heavily 

impacted by natural forces or construction 

activities (e.g., roadways, easements, 

borrowing, buried utilities, etc.), or may be 

covered by existing infrastructure.

Documentation-only for built areas of APE. 

No subsurface excavations due to prior 

disturbances, unless field conditions reveal 

undisturbed areas with intact soils.

FIELD METHODS

The Project will traverse the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, 

Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. AECOM will conduct an intensive archeological survey of each nonoverlapping segment of the six draft alignment alternatives, which totals approximately 442 miles. The

survey will conform to THC’s Archeological Survey Standards for Texas, and all archeological 

investigations will be supervised by an archeological professional meeting the U.S. Secretary of the 

Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and 

professional qualfification requirements for Principal Investigator (13 TAC 26.4). Components of the 

survey may include pedestrian reconnaissance, stream cutbank recording, shovel testing and/or 

mechanical subsurface testing, artifact inventories, site recording, and impact assessment. 

With the exception of extensively disturbed portions of the APE, which will be subjected only to 

photographic and written documentation of disturbances, the remainder of the study area will typically

be surveyed using two parallel transects within the 100-ft ROW corridor, and exposed ground surfaces 

will be examined for evidence of archeological resources. With consideration to the proposed levels of 

field efforts outlined in Table 4, shovel tests will be excavated in settings that have potential for buried 

cultural materials, including those areas where a high probability for historic sites is indicated by historic 

map overlay review. Shovel tests will be dug whenever there is less than 30 percent ground surface 

visibility, except on slopes greater than 20 percent. In accordance with THC Survey Standards, a shovel 

test intensity of at least 16 shovel tests per mile will be utilized, except where ground conditions (e.g., 

disturbances, standing water, steep slope, outcropping bedrock, or safety hazards) obviate the need for 

subsurface testing. Shovel tests will be 30 centimeters in diameter and excavated to the bottom of 
Deliberative Draft

16

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Holocene deposits, if possible. Shovel tests will be dug in 20 centimeter levels and all excavated soil 

screened through 1⁄4 inch mesh, unless high clay or water content requires that they be troweled 

through. Location, depth, soil strata, and presence/absence of cultural materials will be recorded for 

each shovel test. All shovels tests will be backfilled upon completion.

If there is a potential for deeply buried cultural deposits within the depth of impacts, deeper subsurface 

investigations (such as backhoe trenches) will be required. The need for backhoe trenches in the APE 

was initially assessed on the basis of the site probability and integrity potential (see Table 4). This 

assessment will be further evaluated and refined during the subsequent pedestrian survey and shovel 

testing phases of fieldwork. 

Backhoe trenches will be excavated approximately 4 m in length, 1 m wide, and from 1 to 3 m deep, 

depending on the depth of Holocene deposits. In accordance with the Texas Utility Code, at least 48 

hours of prior notification would be given to Texas Excavation Safety System (Texas811) damage 

prevention service before any trench excavations occur. Trench walls will be closely inspected for 

cultural materials and subjected to detailed soil descriptions. Entry into trenches will be limited to the 

upper 5 feet, in accordance with OSHA trench safety standards. One wall section (typically 1-m wide) in 

each trench will be selected for description following NRCS standards for soil profile descriptions 

(Schoenberger et al. 2002). Trenches will be photographed and then immediately backfilled to the 

original level.

Site Recording

If archeological deposits are identified during the survey, site boundaries will be delineated using a 

minimum of 6 shovel tests within the APE, or if more appropriate due to field conditions with greater 

than 30 percent ground surface visibility, site boundaries would be delineated by the surficial extent of 

artifacts or surface features. The field team will investigate the extent and integrity potential of the 

cultural materials, within the limits of applicable OSHA safety standards. The location of each site will be 

recorded with a handheld sub-meter GPS unit, and a sketch map will be drawn showing the location of 

all shovel tests, trenches, features, and other salient features of the site. A temporary field designation 

will be assigned to each site, and a TexSite form would be completed and submitted to the Texas 

Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL) for assignment of a permanent trinomial designation.

Site Assessment

All newly discovered sites will be assessed to determine if they could be eligible for the NRHP (and thus 

designated as a historic property). The criteria for eligibility are spelled out in 36 CFR 60.4, which states:

“...the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture 

is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patters of 

our history; or 

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that 

represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a 

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.”
Deliberative Draft

17

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

In order to be considered eligible for the NRHP, a site must satisfy at least one of the four criteria listed 

above (a through d), and it must retain integrity. For archeological sites, integrity generally means that 

components of a site must be in their original depositional context, such that the stratigraphic 

relationships of site components are maintained. 

At the state level, an archeological site under the ownership or control of the State of Texas may merit 

official designation as a SAL, if any of the following criteria are met:

1. the site has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the prehistory and/or 

history of Texas by the addition of new and important information; 

2. the site's archeological deposits and the artifacts within the site are preserved and intact, 

thereby supporting the research potential or preservation interests of the site; 

3. the site possesses unique or rare attributes concerning Texas prehistory and/or history; 

4. the study of the site offers the opportunity to test theories and methods of preservation, 

thereby contributing to new scientific knowledge; 

5. there is a high likelihood that vandalism and relic collecting has occurred or could occur, and 

official landmark designation is needed to ensure maximum legal protection, or alternatively, 

further investigations are needed to mitigate the effects of vandalism and relic collecting when 

the site cannot be protected (13 TAC 26.10).

Both Section 106 and the Antiquities Code recognize that the eligibility of archeological sites should 

hinge on the ability of a site to contribute an important understanding to prehistory, as well as a 

demonstration that such sites are preserved well enough to convey this importance.

Phased Process for Cultural Resources Surveys

A phased process for compliance with Section 106, as provided for in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), is appropriate 

for the Project due to limited access to the properties within the draft alignment alternatives under 

consideration. Completion of the identification of historic properties, determination of effects on these 

historic properties, and consultation concerning measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate if needed, any 

adverse effects may be delayed due to no right-of-entry (ROE) and will be carried out prior to any notice 

to proceed for construction. In situations where identification of historic properties cannot be 

completed due to access denials, subsequent Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) or Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) will provide for the development and implementation of a post-review identification 

and evaluation effort as applicable. Due to the numerous stream crossings along the draft alignment 

alternatives that may require backhoe trenching, separate ROE requests will be made. 

REPORT

After completion of the archeological resources research, surveys, evaluations, assessments, and tribal 

consultations, technical reports will be prepared to document the findings and identification effort. 

Technical reports will be submitted by FRA, via transmittal letter, to TCR, SHPO, and Federallyrecognized Native American tribes, as appropriate, in both hard copy and electronic format. 

Because of the phased nature of investigation proposed for the Project, it may be prudent for numerous 

interim-based reports to be produced and coordinated as the Project progresses. Such interim reports 

will be in the form of a summary letter and will present information on the methods of the survey, 
Deliberative Draft

18

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

descriptions of the cultural resources identified, and recommendations regarding the eligibility and 

treatment of each site. The information in any interim reports will be specific enough to allow FRA and 

the THC to make determinations regarding the Project’s effects on cultural resources. 

Following the completion of all fieldwork, interim reporting, and post-field analyses, AECOM will prepare 

and submit a draft technical report to FRA for review and transmittal to the THC, which summarizes the 

findings of the archeological resources survey and recommendations for further work or no further 

work, with appropriate justifications. The draft report will fully incorporate the information contained in 

any and all interim reports previously coordinated with the THC. The draft survey report will include all 

documentation for the identification and NRHP evaluation of archeological resources. This includes all 

resources identified within the APE. The report will conform to Council of Texas Archeologists’ guidelines 

for cultural resources management reports. One printed copy of the draft survey report will be 

submitted to the THC for review. After addressing comments to the draft report, AECOM will furnish 

THC with one printed copy of the final report that contains at least one map with the plotted locations 

of any and all sites recorded, and two copies of a tagged PDF format of the report on an archival quality 

CD or DVD. One of the tagged PDF CD or DVD will include the plotted locations of any and all sites 

recorded and the other will not include the site location data.

CURATION

Pursuant to 13 TAC 26.17, any collected artifacts will be prepared for curation according to relevant 

specifications and would be submitted to TARL, or other regional Texas facility that meets federal 

standards 36 CFR 79, for permanent curation after acceptance of the final report by the THC. These 

artifacts would be washed, catalogued, and analyzed according to TARL curation standards. Artifacts 

collected from publically-owned land would be kept separate from those on privately-owned land. All 

records and final report produced from this undertaking will be prepared in accordance with the 

Stipulations and Procedures for the Preparation of Archeological Records and Photographs and 

permanently curated at TARL in Austin, Texas. 
Deliberative Draft

19

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

REFERENCES

Ahr, S.W., Nordt, L.C., and S.G. Driese

2012 Assessing Lithologic Discontinuities and Parent Material Uniformity within the Texas 

Sandy Mantle and Implications for Archaeological Burial and Preservation Potential in 

Upland Settings. Quaternary Research 78, 60-71. 

Ahr, S.W., Nordt, L.C., and S.L. Forman

2013 Soil Genesis, Optical Dating and Geoarchaeological Evaluation of Two Upland Alfisol 

Pedons within the Tertiary Gulf Coastal Plain. Geoderma 192, 211-226.

Abbott, J.T.

2001 Houston Area Geoarcheology: A Framework for Archeological Investigation, 

Interpretation, and Cultural Resource Management in the Houston Highway District. 

Report No. 27. Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs DivisionArcheological Studies Program, Austin.

Barton, D.C.

1930 Surface Geology of Coastal Southeast Texas. AAPG Bulletin 14, 1301-1320.

Bernard, H.A.

1950 Quaternary Geology of Southeast Texas. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, 

Baton Rouge. 

Birdseye, H.A., and S. Aronow

1991 New Evidence for a Young Late Wisconsin Age for the Prairie Formation, Texas, USA. 

Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 23, no. 5, p. A223.

Blair, W.F.

1950 The Biotic Provinces of Texas. The Texas Journal of Science 2(1):93-116. 

Blum, M.D., and A. Aslan

2006 Signatures of Climate vs. Sea-level Change within Incised Valley Fill Successions: 

Quaternary Examples from the Texas Gulf Coast. Sedimentary Geology 190, 177-211.

Blum, M.D., R.A. Morton, and J.M. Durbin

1995 Deweyville Terrace and Deposits of the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain. Transactions of the Gulf 

Coast Association of Geological Societies, v. XLV, p. 53-60.

Blum, M.D., and D.M. Price

1994 Glacio-eustatic and Climatic Controls on Quaternary Alluvial Plain Deposition, Texas 

Coastal Plain. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Transactions, v. 44, p. 85-

92.

Boulter, C., Bateman, M.D., and C.D. Frederic 

2007 Developing a Protocol for Selecting and Dating Sandy Sites in East Central Texas: 

Preliminary Results. Quaternary Geochronology 2, 45-50. 
Deliberative Draft

20

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

2010 Understanding Geomorphic Response to Environmental Change: a 19,000-year Case 

Study from Semi-Arid Central Texas, USA. Journal of Quaternary Science 25 (6), 889-902.

Bradley, R.S. 

1985 Quaternary Paleoclimatology: Methods of Paleoclimatic Reconstruction. Allen and 

Unwin, Boston.

Bruseth, J.E., and W.A. Martin

2001 OSL Dating and Sandy Mantle Sites in East Texas. Current Archeology in Texas 3, 12-17.

Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG)

1968 Houston Sheet. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, the University of 

Texas at Austin.

1970 Waco Sheet. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, the University of 

Texas at Austin.

1972 Dallas Sheet. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, the University of 

Texas at Austin.

1974 Austin Sheet. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, the University of 

Texas at Austin.

1992 Beaumont Sheet, revised. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, The 

University of Texas at Austin.

1996a Physiographic Map of Texas.

1996b River Basin Map of Texas.

Brooks, C.A., Rogers, C.A., Mayberry, J.H., McSpadden, J.O., Jr., Mitchell, W.D., and J.W. Huntsinger

1992 Soil Survey of Ellis County, Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College 

Station.

Coffee, D.R., Hill, R.H., and D.D. Ressel

1980 Soil Survey of Dallas County, Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College 

Station.

Diamond, D.D., Riskind, D.H., and S.L. Orzell

1987 A Framework for Plant Communities Classification and Conservation in Texas. Texas 

Journal of Science 39(3):203-221.
Deliberative Draft

21

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

DuBar, J.R., Ewing, T.E., Lundelius, E.G., Otvos, E.G., and C.D. Winkler

1991 Quaternary Geology of the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain. In The Geology of North 

America, Volume K2: Quaternary Non Glacial Geomorphology, Conterminous United 

States, ed., R.B. Morrison, pp. 583-610. Geological Society of America, Boulder.

Duessan, A. 

1924 Geology of the Texas Coastal Plain West of the Brazos River. United States Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 126. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Durbin, J.M., Blum, M.D., and D.M. Price

1997 Late Pleistocene Stratigraphy of the Lower Nueces River, Corpus Christi, Texas: GlacioEustatic Influences on Valley-Fill Architecture. Gulf Coast Association of Geological 

Societies, Transactions, v. 47, p. 119-129.

Fields, R., Howard, M., Cruse, M., and D. Peter

1996 Draft Standards for Intensive Archeological Survey in Texas. Council of Texas 

Archeologists Newsletter 20(2). 

Fisk, H.N. 

1938 Geology of Grant and LaSalle Parishes. Geological Bulletin No. 10. Louisiana Department 

of Conservation, Baton Rouge.

Frederick, C., Bateman, M., and R. Rogers

2002 Evidence for Eolian Deposition in the Sandy Uplands of East Texas and the Implications 

for Archaeological Site Integrity. Geoarchaeology 17, 191-217.

Greenwade, J.M.

1984 Soil Survey of Waller and Austin Counties, Texas. United States Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment 

Station, College Station.

1996 Soil Survey of Grimes County, Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College 

Station.

Griffin, E.L.

1998 Soil Survey of Limestone County, Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College 

Station.

Griffith, G.E., Bryce, S.B., Omernik, J.M., and A. Rogers 

2007 Ecoregions of Texas. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Austin, TX. 

Heinrich, P.V. 

1986 Geomorphology of Seven Sites at the Jewett Mine Project. In Fields, R.C., Lisk, S.V., 

Jackson, J.M., Freeman, M.D., Bailey, G.L. (Eds.), National Register Assessments of 

Archeological and Historical Resources at the Jewett Mine, Leon County, Texas. Reports 

of Investigations, 48. Prewitt and Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas, pp. 191–223.
Deliberative Draft

22

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Janak, E.F., Jr., and E.L. Griffin

2002 Soil Survey of Freestone County, Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College 

Station.

Mandel, R. 

1987 Geomorphological Investigations. In Bement, L.C., Mandel, R.D., de la 

Teja, J.F., Utley, D.K., and Turpin, S.A. (Eds.), Buried in the Bottoms: The Archaeology of 

Lake Creek Reservoir, Montgomery County, Texas. Texas Archeological Survey Research 

Report, 97. University of Texas at Austin.

Meade, W., Chervenka, W.G., and J.M. Greenwade

1974 Soil Survey of Navarro County, Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College 

Station.

Neitsch, C.L.

1994 Soil Survey of Madison County, Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College 

Station.

Neitsch, C.L., Castille, J.J., and M.R. Jurena

1989 Soil Survey of Leon County, Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College 

Station.

Prikryl, D.J.

1993 Regional Preservation Plan for Archeological Resources, Prairie-Savanna Archeological 

Region. In Archeology in the Eastern Planning Region, Texas: A Planning Document, by 

N.A. Kenmotsu and T.K. Perttula, 190-204. Cultural Resources Management Report No. 

3. Department of Antiquities Protection, Texas Historical Commission.

Schoenberger, P.J., Wysocki, D.A., Benham, E.C., and W.D. Broderson (Eds)

2002 Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils. Version 2.0. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.

Story, D.A.

1990 Cultural History of the Native Americans. Vol. 1, In The Archeology and Bioarcheology of 

the Gulf Coastal Plain, by D.A. Story, et al., 163-366. Arkansas Archeological Survey, 

Research Series No. 38.

Texas Historical Commission (THC)

2015 Texas Archeological Sites Atlas. Electronic database, http://nueces.thc.state.tx.us/,

accessed January 2015.

2015 Texas Historic Sites Atlas. Electronic database, 

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/preserve/texas-historic-sites-atlas, accessed January 2015.
Deliberative Draft

23

For agency review only, not for public distribution Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Thoms, A.V. (Ed.) 

1993 The Brazos Valley Slopes Archaeological Project: Cultural Resources Assessments for the 

Texas A&M University Animal Science Teaching and Research Complex, Brazos County, 

Texas. Archaeological Research Laboratory, Reports of Investigations, 14. Texas A&M 

University, College Station.

Thoms, A.V., Mason, J.B., Judjahn, S.K., and S.A. Minchak

2004 Native American Land Use in the Yegua Creek Basin and Vicinity: Ethnohistoric and 

Archeological Records. In Yegua Creek Archaeological Project: Survey Results from Lake 

Somerville State Parks and Trailway, East-Central Texas, edited by A.V. Thoms, 35-48. 

Report of Investigations No. 5, Center for Ecological Archaeology, Texas A&M University.

Wheeler, F.F.

1976 Soil Survey of Harris County, Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College 

Station.

Winkler, C.D.

1982 Cenozoic Shelf Margins, Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the Gulf Coast 

Association of Geological Societies 32, 427-448.
HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS

NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,

GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,

MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

0 10 20 40

Miles

Copyright:© 2013 National

Geographic Society, i-cubed

± Draft Alignment

Alternatives

Figure 1:

Draft Alignment

Alternatives

Common Alignments

BA-Base

BA-2

CR-1

CR-Base

HC-4

IH45-Alt

IH45-Base

MD-Base

Deliberative Draft Document, 

for agency review - not for public distribution
MAPS REDACTED DUE TO CULTURALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION



Appendix B

Texas State Historic Preservation Office Section 106 Consultation Letters






























TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 

real places telling real storIes 

May 24,2019 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Railroad Administration 

u.s. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Prqject Review under Section 106 oj the National Historic Preservation Act, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Drqft 

Interim Historic Resources Survry Report, Addendum No.1, Navarro County, Texas (FRA/ 106, ABCOM Report 

NA.042017H.02, THC#201908313 &201707517) 

Ms. Zeringue: 

Thank you for your correspondence of May 16,2019, regarding the above-referenced project. This letter serves as 

comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the 

Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

As described in your letter, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering issuance of a Rule of 

Particular Applicability to establish safety regulations for the proposed Texas Central High-Speed Railway (TCRR) 

as a railroad operating at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour. Issuance of such a Rule constitutes a federal 

undertaking subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The TCRR and FRA are considering six build alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston 

line, encompassing a combined non-overlapping length of over 386 linear miles and 16,000 acres of potential 

impacts. Given the scope and complexity of the project, THC previously concurred with a phased approach to 

identifying historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

This Addendum No.1 to the draft interim historic resource survey report was prepared by AECOM on behalf of 

FRA and covers only the identification of non-archeological historic resources within the APE for the 68.6 linear 

miles of build alternatives (Segments 3a, 3b, and 3c; Alternatives A- F) that cross central Navarro County. This 

report evaluates the National Register eligibility of 15 historic-age resources on 11 properties; the initial draft interim 

historic resource survey report (reviewed by THC in June 2017) evaluated 82 historic-age resources on 48 

properties, all of which were determined to be not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Non-archeological resources within other counties and all identification of archeological resources will be 

coordinated separately. 

THC previously concurred that the APE established for this report (properties wholly or partially within a radius of 

1300 feet from the limits of disturbance, following the project's established APE guidelines for rural areas), the 

literature review, and background research were appropriate. Based on this Addendum No.1, THC concurs that the 

following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register: 

• House (AECOM Survey No. NA.005a- b) • House (NA.029) 

• House (NA.009) • Barn (NA.031) 

• Garage & Outbuilding (NA.Ol1a- b) • Shed (NA.033) 

• Ruinous Building (NA.014) • Storage Building (NA.l09) 

• Storage Building (NA.020) • House, Garage, & Shed (NA.111a-c) 

• House (NA.028) 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Drcift Interim Historic Resources S urvry Report, Navarro County, Texas 

THC #201908313 & 201707517, AECOM Report NA.042017H.02 

Mqy24, 2019 

Page 2 of2 

After revisions and refinements to the project's build alternatives and APE, an additional 11 historic-age resources 

on 9 properties are believed to have not yet been field verified and their eligibility for listing in the National Register 

has not been evaluated. THC expects that these remaining resources will be surveyed and eV:;lluated as part of the 

post-review evaluation efforts that will be incorporated into the project's Programmatic Agreement, which is still 

currently in development. 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster 

effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this federal review process, and for your efforts 

to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our review, or if we can be of 

further assistance, please contact Justin I<:'ockritz at 512-936-7403 or justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov. 

Sincerely, 

1Jttr 

Justin I<:.ockritz, Historian, Federal Programs 

For: Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer 

cc: Tanya McDougall, AECOM, via email 

Bruce McManus, Chair, Navarro County Historical Commission, via email 

GREG ABBOTT , GOVERNOR • JOHN l. NA U, II I, CHAIR • MARK WOLFE , EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

DO sex 12~IS l.\!JST1~1 T~X,!\S . 78-11-22'""0 . :) 5~ 2 ·J63 -61 JO . F 512-475-48"'7: . Te] 1-800-735-2989 . the eXJS gO'1 
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 

real places telling real storIes 

May 24,2019 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Railroad Administration 

u.s. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Prqject Review under Section 106 oj the National Historic Preservation Act, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Drqft 

Interim Historic Resources Survry Report, Addendum No.1, Navarro County, Texas (FRA/ 106, ABCOM Report 

NA.042017H.02, THC#201908313 &201707517) 

Ms. Zeringue: 

Thank you for your correspondence of May 16,2019, regarding the above-referenced project. This letter serves as 

comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the 

Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

As described in your letter, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering issuance of a Rule of 

Particular Applicability to establish safety regulations for the proposed Texas Central High-Speed Railway (TCRR) 

as a railroad operating at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour. Issuance of such a Rule constitutes a federal 

undertaking subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The TCRR and FRA are considering six build alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston 

line, encompassing a combined non-overlapping length of over 386 linear miles and 16,000 acres of potential 

impacts. Given the scope and complexity of the project, THC previously concurred with a phased approach to 

identifying historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

This Addendum No.1 to the draft interim historic resource survey report was prepared by AECOM on behalf of 

FRA and covers only the identification of non-archeological historic resources within the APE for the 68.6 linear 

miles of build alternatives (Segments 3a, 3b, and 3c; Alternatives A- F) that cross central Navarro County. This 

report evaluates the National Register eligibility of 15 historic-age resources on 11 properties; the initial draft interim 

historic resource survey report (reviewed by THC in June 2017) evaluated 82 historic-age resources on 48 

properties, all of which were determined to be not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Non-archeological resources within other counties and all identification of archeological resources will be 

coordinated separately. 

THC previously concurred that the APE established for this report (properties wholly or partially within a radius of 

1300 feet from the limits of disturbance, following the project's established APE guidelines for rural areas), the 

literature review, and background research were appropriate. Based on this Addendum No.1, THC concurs that the 

following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register: 

• House (AECOM Survey No. NA.005a- b) • House (NA.029) 

• House (NA.009) • Barn (NA.031) 

• Garage & Outbuilding (NA.Ol1a- b) • Shed (NA.033) 

• Ruinous Building (NA.014) • Storage Building (NA.l09) 

• Storage Building (NA.020) • House, Garage, & Shed (NA.111a-c) 

• House (NA.028) 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Drcift Interim Historic Resources S urvry Report, Navarro County, Texas 

THC #201908313 & 201707517, AECOM Report NA.042017H.02 

Mqy24, 2019 

Page 2 of2 

After revisions and refinements to the project's build alternatives and APE, an additional 11 historic-age resources 

on 9 properties are believed to have not yet been field verified and their eligibility for listing in the National Register 

has not been evaluated. THC expects that these remaining resources will be surveyed and eV:;lluated as part of the 

post-review evaluation efforts that will be incorporated into the project's Programmatic Agreement, which is still 

currently in development. 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster 

effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this federal review process, and for your efforts 

to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our review, or if we can be of 

further assistance, please contact Justin I<:'ockritz at 512-936-7403 or justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov. 

Sincerely, 

1Jttr 

Justin I<:.ockritz, Historian, Federal Programs 

For: Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer 

cc: Tanya McDougall, AECOM, via email 

Bruce McManus, Chair, Navarro County Historical Commission, via email 

GREG ABBOTT , GOVERNOR • JOHN l. NA U, II I, CHAIR • MARK WOLFE , EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

DO sex 12~IS l.\!JST1~1 T~X,!\S . 78-11-22'""0 . :) 5~ 2 ·J63 -61 JO . F 512-475-48"'7: . Te] 1-800-735-2989 . the eXJS gO'1 
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 

real places telLing real stories 

July.3, 2019 

I<Catherine Zeringue 

Federal Railroad Administration 

U.S. Department 6fTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Prqject Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Draft 

Interim Historic Resources Survry Report, Addendum No.1, Waller Counry, Texas (FRAj 106, AECOM Report 

WA.042017H.02, THC #201909291 & 201707227) 

Ms. Zeringue: 

Thank you for your correspondence of June 7, 2019, regarding the above-referenced project. This letter serves as 

comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the 

Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

As described in your letter, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering issuance of a Rule of 

Particular Applicability to establish safety regulations for the proposed Texas Central High-Speed Railway (TCRR) 

as a railroad operating at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour. Issuance of such a Rule constitutes a federal 

undertaking subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The TCRR and FRA are considering six build alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston 

line, encompassing a combined non-overlapping length of over 386 linear m4es and 16,000 acres of potential 

impacts. Given the scope and complexity of the project, THC previously concurred with a phased approach to 

identifying historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

This Addendum No. 1 to the draft interim historic resource survey report was prepared by AECOM on behalf of 

FRA and covers only the identification of non-archeological historic resources within the APE for the 8.85 linear 

miles of build alternatives (Segment 5; Alternatives A-F) that cross northeastern Waller County. This report 

addendum evaluates the National Register eligibility of 14 historic-age resources on 9 properties; the initial draft 

interim historic resource survey report (reviewed by THC in June 2017) included background research, a literature 

review, and historic context, but did not evaluate the eligibility of any of the historic-age resources for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. Non-archeological resources within other counties and all identification of 

archeological resources will be coordinated separately. 

THC previously concurred that the APE established for this report (properties wholly or partially within a radius of 

/' / 1,300 feet from the limits of disturbance, following the project's established APE guidelines for rural areas), the 

literature review, and background research were appropriate. Based on this Addendum No.1, THC concurs that the 

following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register: 

• House & Outbuildings (WA.001) • Barn (WA.007) 

• Barns (W A.003a-d) • House & Outbuilding (W A.008a-b) 

• House & Outbuilding (W A.004a-b) • House (W A.009) 

• Utilitarian Building (W A.005) • House (WA.010) 

• Gas Station (W A.006) 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No. 1, Drcift Inten:m Historic Resources S urvry Report, Waller County 

THC #201909291 & 201707227, ABCOM Report WA.042017H.02 

JulY 3, 2019 

Page 2 of2 

After revisions and refmements to the project's build alternatives and APE, an additional one (1) historic-age 

resource (W A.002) on one (1) property is believed to have not yet been field verified and its eligibility for listing in 

the National Register has not been evaluated. THC expects that this remaining resource will be surveyed and 

evaluated as part of the post-review evaluation efforts that will be incorporated into the project's Programmatic 

Agreement, which is still currently in development. 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster 

effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this federal review process, and for your efforts 

to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our review, or if we can be of 

further assistance, please contact Justin I<:'ockritz at 512-936-7403 or justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov. 

Justin I<:.ockritz, Historian, Federal Programs 

For: Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer 

cc: Tanya McDougall, AECOM, via email 

Truett Bell, Chair, Waller County Historical Commission, via email 

GREG BBO T. GOVE NOR . JOH L NAU, III, CHAIR • MARK WOLFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 

real places telling real stories 

July 12,2019 

I<.atherine Zeringue 

Federal Railroad Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Prqject Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preseroation Act, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Drift 

Interim Historic Resources S urory Report, Addendum No.1, Grimes County, Texas (FRA/ 106, ABCOM Report 

GR042017H.02, THC #201909603 & 201707234) 

Ms. Zeringue: 

Thank you for your correspondence of June 14, 2019, regarding the above-referenced project. This letter serves as 

comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the 

Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

As described in your letter, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering issuance of a Rule of 

Particular Applicability to establish safety regulations for the proposed Texas Central High-Speed Railway (TCRR) 

as a railroad operating at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour. Issuance of such a Rule constitutes a federal 

undertaking subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The TCRR and FRA are considering six build alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston 

line, encompassing a combined non-overlapping length of over 386 linear miles and 16,000 acres of potential 

impacts. Given the scope and complexity of the project, THC previously concurred with a phased approach to 

identifying historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

Addendum No.1 to the draft interim historic resource survey report was prepared by AECOM on behalf of FRA 

and covers only the identification of non-archeological historic resources within the APE for the 45.62 linear miles 

of build alternatives (Segments 4 and 5; Alternatives A- F) that cross central Grimes County. The addendum 

evaluates the National Register eligibility of 111 historic-age resources on 44 properties; the initial draft interim 

historic resource survey report (reviewed by THC in June 2017) included background research, a literature review, 

and historic context, but did not evaluate the National Register eligibility of any historic-age resources. Nonarcheological resources within other counties and all identification of archeological resources will be coordinated 

separately. 

THC previously concurred that the APE established for this report (properties wholly or partially within a radius of 

1,300 feet from the limits of disturbance, following the project's established APE guidelines for rural areas), the 

literature review, and background research were appropriate. Based on this Addendum No.1, and barring any 

additional information to the contrary, THC concurs that the following 44 properties are not eligible for listing in the 

National Register: 

• Shiloh Baptist Church (GR.002) • House & Outbuildings (GR.042a-d) 

• Pankey-Shiloh Cemetery (GR.003) • House & Outbuilding (GR.044a-b) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.004a-c) • House & Outbuilding (GR.045a-b) 

• House (GR.007) • House & Outbuildings (GR.046a-c) 

• House & Outbuilding (GR.Ol0a-b) • Mason Cemetery (GR.050) 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Draft Interim Historit' Resourtes S urvry Report, Grimes County 

THC #201909603 & 201707234, ABCOM Report GR042017H.02 

• House & Outbuilding (GR.011a- b) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.013a-e) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.014a-c) 

• Agricultural Outbuildings (GR.016a- b) 

• House & Outbuilding (GR.018a- b) 

• House (GR.020) 

• Agricultural Outbuilding (GR.021) 

• Outbuildings (GR.022a- c) 

• Barn (GR.023) 

• Singleton Cemetery (GR.024) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.025a-c) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.028a-n) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.032a- h) 

• Old Oakland Cemetery (GR.034a- b, also 

known as Old Oakland-Roans Prairie 

Cemetery) 

• House (GR.037) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.038a-d) 

• Agricultural Building (GR.039) 

• House & Outbuilding (GR.040a- b) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.051a-c) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.052a-d) 

JulY 12,2019 

Page 2 of 3 

• Agricultural Building (GR.056, demolished 

circa 2017) 

• House (GR.057) 

• House (GR.058) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.060, demolished 

circa 2017) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.061a-c) 

• House (GR.063) 

• House (GR.064) 

• Agricultural Building (GR.065) 

• House & Outbuildings (GR.066a-c) 

• Agricultural Buildings (GR.067a-c, demolished 

circa 2017) 

• House & Outbuilding (GR.070a- b) 

• House (GR. 074) 

• Barn (GR.076) 

• House (GR.077) 

The following 28 properties containing historic-age resources have not yet been field verified and their eligibility for 

listing in the National Register has not been evaluated. THC expects that these remaining resources will be surveyed 

and evaluated as part of the post-review evaluation efforts that will be incorporated into the project's Programmatic 

Agreement, which is still currently in development: 

• GR.005 • GR.019 • GR.041 • GR.059 

• GR.006 • GR.026 • GR.043 • GR.062 

• GR.008 • GR.027 • GR.047 • GR.069 

• GR.009 • GR.029 • GR.048 • GR.072 

• GR.012 • GR.033 • GR.049 • GR.073 

• GR.015 • GR.035 • GR.054 • GR.075 

• GR.017 • GR.036 • GR.055 • GR.078 

After revisions and refinements to the project's build alternatives and APE, the following six (6) historic-age 

properties are now outside of the project APE and will not be evaluated unless the project APE changes: 

• GR.001 • GR.053 

• GR.003 • GR.068 

• GR.031 • GR.071 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster 

effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this federal review process, and for your efforts 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Draft Interim Historic Resources S urvry Report, Grimes County 

THC #201909603 & 201707234, ABeOM Report GR042017H.02 

JulY 12,2019 

Page 3 of3 

to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our review, or if we can be of 

further assistance, please contact Justin K.ockritz at 512-936-7403 or justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov. 

Sincerely, 

f\1dt\ 

Justin I<:.ockritz, Historian, Federal Programs 

For: Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer 

cc: Tanya McDougall, AECOM, via email 

Joe Fultz, Grimes County Historical Commission, via email 

Vanessa Burzynski, Grimes County Historical Commission, via email 

Russell Cushman, Grimes County Historical Commission, via email 

GREG ABBOTT. GOVERNOR • JOHN l NAU, III CHAIR . MARK WOLFE. EXECUTIVE OIRECTOR 

POBOX 12270 - AUST, TEXAS - ,8711 -2276 . p 5~ 2-463-6100 - F 512-4'5-~3'2 . TDO 1-800-735-2989 . 'nc texas gO'1 
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 

real places telling real stories 

August 16, 2019 

K.atherine Zeringue 

Federal Railroad Administration 

u.s. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Prqject Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Draft 

Interim Historic Resources survry Report, Addendum No.1, Ellis Counry, Texas (PRA/ 106, ABCOM Report 

EL042017H.02, THC#201910875 & 201707409) 

Ms. Zeringue: 

Thank you for your correspondence of July 17,2019, regarding the above-referenced project. This letter serves as 

comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the 

Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

As described in your letter, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering issuance of a Rule of 

Particular Applicability to establish safety regulations for the proposed Texas Central High-Speed Railway (TCRR) 

as a railroad operating at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour. Issuance of such a Rule constitutes a federal 

undertaking subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The TCRR and FRA are considering six build alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston 

line, encompassing a combined non-overlapping length of over 386 linear miles and 16,000 acres of potential 

impacts. Given the scope and complexity of the project, THC previously concurred with a phased approach to 

identifying historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

Addendum No. 1 to the draft interim historic resource survey report was prepared by AECOM on behalf of FRA 

and covers only the identification of non-archeological historic resources within the APE for the approximately 30 

linear miles of build alternatives (Segments 1, 2a, and 3a, Alternative A) that cross central Ellis County. The 

addendum evaluates the National Register eligibility of 56 historic-age resources on 30 properties; the initial draft 

interim historic resource survey report (reviewed by THC in June 2017) included background research, a literature 

review, and historic context, and evaluated 27 historic-age resources on 20 properties. Non-archeological resources 

within other counties and all identification of archeological resources will be coordinated separately. 

THC previously concurred that the APE established for this report (properties wholly or partially within a radius of 

1,300 feet from the limits of disturbance, following the project's established APE guidelines for rural areas), the 

literature review, and background research were appropriate. 

Based on this Addendum No.1, THC concurs with your fmding that the Boren-Reagor Springs Cemetery 

(EL.040) is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C for its design, meeting Criteria Consideration 

D for cemeteries. However, THC Division of Architecture staff, led by Christopher Meyers, requests a simulated 

view of the proposed elevated structure and traction power substation as viewed from the entry gate of the 

cemetery before we can concur with your proposed fmding of no adverse effect to this historic property. 

THC also concurs that the following 29 properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register: 

• House & Outbuildings (EL.002a-c) • House (EL.039) 
Vallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Vrqft Interim Historic Resources Survey Report, Ellis County 

THC #201910875 & 201707409, AECOM Report EL.042017H.02 

• House (EL.003) 

• Agricultural Building (EL.004) 

• House (EL.005) 

• Agricultural Building (EL.017) 

• Agricultural Building (EL.022) 

• House & Garage (EL.026a-b) 

• Agricultural Building (EL.028) 

• House & Outbuildings (EL.029a-d) 

• House & Outbuildings (EL.031a- c) 

• Agricultural Building (EL.032) 

• Agricultural Building (EL.033) 

• House & Outbuildings (EL.034a- c) 

• House & Outbuildings (EL.036a- g) 

• House & Outbuildings (EL.037a- b) 

• House (EL.038) 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

House & Outbuildings (EL.042a- d) 

House (EL.043) 

House & Outbuilding (EL.045a- b) 

August 16, 2019 

Page 2 of2 

House & Outbuildings (EL.046a- c 

Agricultural Building (EL.048, demolished by 

private property owner circa 2018) 

Agricultural Building (EL.051 demolished by 

private property owner circa 2018) 

Agricultural Buildings (EL.055a- b) 

Agricultural Building (EL.060) 

Agricultural Building (EL.064) 

House & Outbuildings (EL.067a-c) 

Agricultural Building (EL.068) 

House (EL.069) 

Properties EL.030 and EL.066 have not yet been field verified and its eligibility for listing in the National Register 

has not been evaluated. THC expects that these remaining properties will be surveyed and evaluated as part of the 

post-review evaluation efforts that will be incorporated into the project's Programmatic Agreement, which is still 

currently in development: 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster 

effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this federal review process, and for your efforts 

to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our comments regarding 

National Register eligibility, please contact Justin K.ockritz at 512-936-7403 or justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov; for any 

questions concerning our comments regarding the project's potential effects to historic properties, please contact 

Christopher Meyers at 512-463-6183 or Christopher.Meyers@thc.texas.gov. 

Sincerely, 

/fs 11k 

Justin IZockritz, Historian, Federal Programs 

For: Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer 

cc: Tanya McDougall, AECOM, via emaii 

Sylvia Stanford-Smith, Chair, Ellis County Historical Commission, via emaii 

GREG ABBOTT, GOVERNOR • JOHN l. NA U, III, CHA IR • MARK WOLFE , EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

POBOX 12276 . AUSTI~J TEXAS . 78711-2276 . P 512-463-6100 . F 512-475-48i2 . TOO 1-800-735-2989 . the texas gov 
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 

real places telling real stories 

August 16, 2019 

I<atherine Zeringue 

Federal Railroad Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Prqject Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Drcift 

Interim Historic Resources Survry Report, Addendum No. I, Freestone Counry, Texas (FRAj 106, ABCOM Report 

FR042017H.02, THC #201910527 & 201706993) 

Ms. Zeringue: 

Thank you for your correspondence of July 10,2019, regarding the above-referenced project. This letter serves as 

comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the 

Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

As described in your letter, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering issuance of a Rule of 

Particular Applicability to establish safety regulations for the proposed Texas Central High-Speed Railway (fCRR) 

as a railroad operating at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour. Issuance of such a Rule constitutes a federal 

undertaking subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The TCRR and FRA are considering six build alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston 

line, encompassing a combined non-overlapping length of over 386 linear miles and 16,000 acres of potential 

impacts. Given the scope and complexity of the project, THC previously concurred with a phased approach to 

identifying historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

Addendum No.1 to the draft interim historic resource survey report was prepared by AECOM on behalf of FRA 

and covers only the identification of non-archeological historic resources within the APE for the approximately 20 

linear miles of build alternatives (Segment 4, Alternative A) that cross western Freestone County. The addendum 

evaluates the National Register eligibility of 13 historic-age resources on 8 properties; the initial draft interim 

historic resource survey report (reviewed by THC in June 2017) included background research, a literature review, 

and historic context, and evaluated 49 historic-age resources on 31 properties. Non-archeological resources within 

other counties and all identification of archeological resources will be coordinated separately. 

THe previously concurred that the APE established for this report (properties wholly or partially within a radius of 

1,300 feet from the limits of disturbance, following the project's established APE guidelines for rural areas), the 

literature review, and background research were appropriate. Based on this Addendum No.1, and barring any 

additional information to the contrary, THC concurs that the following 8 properties are not eligible for listing in the 

National Register: 

• House (FR.003) • Agricultural Buildings (FR.Olla-e) 

• Agricultural Building (FR.004) • House & Outbuilding (FR.013a- b) 

• Agricultural Building (FR.009) • House (FR.023) 

• Outbuilding (FR.Ol0) • Agricultural Building (FR.057) 

Property FR.058 has not yet been field verified and its eligibility for listing in the National Register has not been 

evaluated. THC e:cpects that this remaining property ~ill be surveyed and evaluated as part of the post-review 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Draft Interim Historit, Resources S urvry Report, Freestone County 

THC # 201910527 & 201706993, AECOM Report FR052017H.02 

August 16, 2019 

Page 2 of2 

evaluation efforts that will be incorporated into the project's Programmatic Agreement, which is still currently in 

development: 

In June 2017 (#201706993), THC concurred that the Furney Richardson School complex (FR.016a- g) is eligible 

for listing in the National Register under Criterion A for its association with education and social history, and that 

the proposed boundaries and list of contributing features are appropriate. We also concurred that the Furney 

Richardson School building itself is individually eligible under Criterion A for education and social history and 

Criterion C for its architecture. 

The Division of Architecture staff, led by Pam Opiela has completed their review of the preliminary effects 

assessment contained in the addendum. Based on the information received, it appears the undertaking may have 

vibration and noise effects on the Furney Richardson School complex. Efforts should be made to nlinimize these 

effects through shielding methods and placement of track at a maximum feasible distance from the properties and 

their setting. You state that the conclusions you come to regarding indirect effects are based on limited 

"preliminary" assessments. You imply that more information regarding an assessment is forthcoming. To determine 

the likely effects on the historic properties, we should review a thorough assessment of the possible indirect effects. 

Please submit this information to our office when it is available; 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster 

effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this federal review process, and for your efforts 

to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our comments regarding 

National Register eligibility, please contact Justin K.ockritz at 512-936-7403 or justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov; for any 

questions concerning comments regarding the project's potential effects to historic properties, please contact Pam 

Opiela at 512-463-8952 or Pamela.Opiela@thc.texas.gov. 

Sill /K 

Justin IZockritz, Historian, Federal Programs 

For: Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer 

cc: Tanya McDougall, AECOM, via email 

Brad Pullin, Chair, Freestone County Historical Commission, via email 

GREG ABBOTT. GOVERNOR • JOHN l. NAU , III, CHAIR . MARK WOLFE , EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

POBOX 12276 . AUSTI N TEXAS . 78711-22:-6 . P 512-463 -6110 • F 512-.+75-4872 • TOO 1-800-73.5-2989 • trc teXJS gov 
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 

real places telling real stories 

August 23, 2019 

I<atherine Zeringue 

Federal Railroad Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New J ersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Prqject Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Draft 

Interim Historic Resources Survry Report, Addendum No.1, Madison Counry, Texas (PRA/ 106, ABCOM Report 

MA.042017H.02, THC#201911190 &201707963) 

Ms. Zeringue: 

Thank you for your correspondence of July 25, 2019, regarding the above-referenced project. This letter serves as 

comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the 

Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

As described in your letter, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering issuance of a Rule of 

Particular Applicability to establish safety regulations for the proposed Texas Central High-Speed Railway (TCRR) 

as a railroad operating at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour. Issuance of such a Rule constitutes a federal 

undertaking subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The TCRR and FRA are considering six build alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston 

line, encompassing a combined non-overlapping length of over 386 linear miles and 16,000 acres of potential 

impacts. Given the scope and complexity of the project, THC previously concurred with a phased approach to 

identifying historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

Addendum No.1 to the draft interim historic resource survey report was prepared by AECOM on behalf of FRA 

and covers only the identification of non-archeological historic resources within the APE for the approximately 15 

linear miles of build alternatives (Segment 4, Alternative A) that cross west-central Madison County. The addendum 

evaluates the National Register eligibility of 67 historic-age resources on 33 properties; the initial draft interim 

historic resource survey report (reviewed by THC in June 2017) included background research, a literature review, 

and historic context, but did not evaluate the eligibility of any of the historic-age resources for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. Non-archeological resources within other counties and all identification of archeological 

resources will be coordinated separately. 

THC previously concurred that the APE established for this report (properties wholly or partially within a radius of 

1,300 feet from the limits of disturbance, following the project's established APE guidelines for rural areas), the 

literature review, and background research were appropriate. Based on this Addendum No.1, and barring any 

additional information to the contrary, THC concurs that the following 32 properties are not eligible for listing in the 

National Register: 

• Agricultural Building (MA.001) • House (MA.020) 

• House (MA.002) • House (MA.021) 

• Agricultural Buildings (MA.004a-c) • House (MA.022) 

• House & Outbuilding (MA.005a-b) • House (MA.023) 

• House & Outbuildings (MA.006a-d) • House (MA.024) 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Drcift Interim Historic Resources S urvry Report, Madison County 

THC # 201911190 & 201707963, ABCOM Report MA.042017H.02 

• House (MA.007) • 

• Agricultural Buildings (MA. 00 8 a-b) • 

• Union Baptist Church (MA.009, circa 1889 church • 

demolished by private owner in 2016) • 

• Ten Mile Cemetery (MA.010) • 

• Mobile Home & Outbuilding (MA.011a- b) • 

• House (MA.012) • 

• House (MA.013) • 

• House & Outbuildings (MA.015a- e) • 

• House & Outbuilding (MA.016a- b) • 

• House & Outbuilding (MA.017a- b) • 

• House (MA.018) 

House & Outbuilding (MA.025a- b) 

House (MA.026) 

House (MA.027) 

Agricultural Buildings (MA.031 a-n) 

House & Outbuilding (MA.032a- b) 

House (MA.033) 

House (MA.036) 

House (MA.037) 

House & Outbuildings (MA.060a- d) 

House & Outbuildings (MA.061a- c) 

House (MA.063) 

August 23,2019 

Page 2 of2 

At this time, THC cannot concur with your determination that the Randolph Cemetery (MA.03) is not eligible for 

listing in the National Register. If the earliest burials do date to the 1850s, even before the formal organization of 

Madison County, it may meet Criteria Consideration D due to its age, or for the distinctive design features like the 

obelisk markers. Was any information found about why the cemetery is named "Randolph" if the earliest burials are 

named Rogers? Was any information found on why the cemetery is located here, as there do not appear to be any 

associated churches or communities in the immediate vicinity? Are there any significant historical associations with 

the Childress family, many of whom appear to be buried in the older sections of the cemetery? The large obelisk 

markers are not typical for a rural community cemetery, and several of them appear to pre-date the nearby railroads. 

To complete our review, THC requests either an intensive evaluation to determine if the cemetery, or some portion 

of it, are eligible for listing in the National Register, or that for the purposes of Section 106 the cemetery be treated 

as eligible for listing and an assessment of any potential direct or indirect effects be completed. 

Five properties (MA.014, MA.028, MA.038, MA.039, and MA.062) have not yet been field verified and their 

eligibility for listing in the National Register has not been evaluated. THC expects that these remaining properties 

will be surveyed and evaluated as part of the post-review evaluation efforts that will be incorporated into the 

project's Programmatic Agreement, which is still currently in development: 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster 

effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this federal review process, and for your efforts 

to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact 

Justin I<:'ockritz at 512-936-7403 or justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Jusfr-Federal Programs For: Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer 

cc: The Honorable Byron Rider, Leon County Judge, c/o Tammy Sanders, via email 

Tanya McDougall, AECOM, via email 

GREG ABBOTT , GOVERNOR • JOHN L. NAU . III. CHAIR • MARK WOLFE , EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

p 0 80 X 1 22- 3 • ,~u S TIN T c '< AS . - 8 ~ ~ 1 ·2 r 6 • D J 1 2 -463 -6 1 () 0 • F 51 2 -'+ - S -18 - 2 • TOO 1 -800 -735 -298 9 • The : e x ~:3 go" 
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 

real places telling real stories 

August 23, 2019 

K.atherine Zeringue 

Federal Railroad Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Prqject Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preseroation Act, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Drcift 

Interim Historic Resources SuroeyReport, Addendum No.1, Leon Counry, Texas (PRA/ 106, ABCOM Report 

IE.042017H.02, THC #201911363 & 201706988) 

Ms. Zeringue: 

Thank you for your correspondence of July 30, 2019, regarding the above-referenced project. This letter serves as 

comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the 

Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

As described in your letter, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering issuance of a Rule of 

Particular Applicability to establish safety regulations for the proposed Texas Central High-Speed Railway (TCRR) 

as a railroad operating at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour. Issuance of such a Rule constitutes a federal 

undertaking subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The TCRR and FRA are considering six build alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston 

line, encompassing a combined non-overlapping length of over 386 linear miles and 16,000 acres of potential 

impacts. Given the scope and complexity of the project, THC previously concurred with a phased approach to 

identifying historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

Addendum No. 1 to the draft interim historic resource survey report was prepared by AECOM on behalf of FRA 

and covers only the identification of non-archeological historic resources within the APE for the approximately 30 

linear miles of build alternatives (Segments 4, Alternative A) that cross western Leon County. The addendum 

evaluates the National Register eligibility of 17 historic-age resources on 15 properties; the initial draft interim 

historic resource survey report (reviewed by THC in June 2017) included background research, a literature review, 

and historic context, and evaluated 24 historic-age resources on 17 properties. Non-archeological resources within 

other counties and all identification of archeological resources will be coordinated separately. 

THC previously concurred that the APE established for this report (properties wholly or partially within a radius of 

1,300 feet from the limits of disturbance, following the project's established APE guidelines for rural areas), the 

literature review, and background research were appropriate. Based on this Addendum No.1, and barring any 

additional information to the contrary, THC concurs that the following 15 properties are not eligible for listing in the 

National Register: 

• House (LE.003) • House (LE.016) 

• House (LE.004) • Agricultural Building (LE.017) 

• House (LE.006) • House (LE.025) 

• House (LE.007) • House (LE.051) 

• House (LE.009) • House and Outbuildings (LE.052a-c) 

• Agricultural Building (LE.010) • House (LE.053) 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Drcift Interim Historic Resources S urvry Report, Leon Counry 

THC #201911363 & 201706988, ABCOM Report LE.042017H.02 

• House (LE.012) • Perry Cemetery (LE.Oss) 

• House (LE.013) 

August 23,2019 

Page 2 of2 

Properties LE.019 and LE.Os4 have not yet been field verified and its eligibility for listing in the National Register 

has not been evaluated. THe expects that these remaining properties will be surveyed and evaluated as part of the 

post-review evaluation efforts that will be incorporated into the project's Programmatic Agreement, which is still 

currently in development: 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster 

effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this federal review process, and for your efforts 

to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact 

Justin K.ockritz at 512-936-7403 or justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov. 

Sincerely, 

JU Orian, Federal Programs 

F or: Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer 

cc: The Honorable Byron Rider, Leon County Judge, c/o Tammy Sanders, tammy.sanders@co.leon.tx.us 

Tanya McDougall, AECOM, via email 

GREG ABBOTT , GOVERNOR • JOH L NAU , III. CHAIR • MARK WOLFE , EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

v BOX 1 ~~-6 e l\UST N TEX,LiS . -371 1 -22-6 . ;:J 5~ ~ --l63-61 1)0 . : .s i 2-473-48-2 . TJC 1 300 ·735-2989 . ;r.c teXJ) go 
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 

real places telling real stories 

September 16, 2019 

I<atherine Zeringue 

Federal Railroad Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New J ersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Prqject Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Draft 

Interim Historic Resources Survey Report, Addendum No.1, Dallas County, Texas (FRA/ 106, AECOM Report 

DA.052017H.02, mc #201912508 & 201708852) 

Ms. Zeringue: 

Thank you for your correspondence of August 20, 2019, regarding the above-referenced project. This letter serves 

as comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of 

the Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

As described in your letter, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering issuance of a Rule of 

Particular Applicability to establish safety regulations for the proposed Texas Central High-Speed Railway (TCRR) 

as a railroad operating at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour. Issuance of such a Rule constitutes a federal 

undertaking subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The TCRR and FRA are considering six build alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston 

line, encompassing a combined non-overlapping length of over 386 linear miles and 16,000 acres of potential 

impacts. Given the scope and complexity of the project, THC previously concurred with a phased approach to 

identifying historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

Addendum No.1 to the draft interim historic resource survey report was prepared by AECOM on behalf of FRA 

and covers only the identification of non-archeological historic resources within the APE for the 16.85 linear miles 

of build alternatives (Segment 1; Alternatives A- F) that cross central and southern Dallas County. The addendum 

evaluates the National Register eligibility of 105 historic-age resources on 83 properties; the initial draft interim 

historic resource survey report (reviewed by THC in August 2017) included background research, a literature 

review, and historic context, and evaluated 168 historic-age resources on 141 properties. Non-archeological 

resources within other counties and all identification of archeological resources will be coordinated separately. 

THC previously concurred that the APE established for this report (properties wholly or partially within a radius of 

350 feet, 700 feet, and 1300 feet from the limits of disturbance, following the project's established APE guidelines 

for urban, suburban, and rural areas, respectively), the literature review, and background research were appropriate. 

Based on this Addendum No.1, and barring any additional information to the contrary, THC concurs that all of the 

following 83 properties surveyed in this Addendum are not eligible for listing in the National Register: 

• Commercial Building (DA.039) • Agricultural Building (DA.200) 

• Vehicle Maintenance Facility (DA.060a- b) • House & Outbuildings (DA.201 a-c) 

• Commercial Buildings (DA.069a-c) • House & Outbuilding (DA.202a- b) 

• Commercial Building (DA.097) • House & Outbuildings (DA.203a- c) 

• Commercial Building (DA.098) • House & Outbuilding (DA.204a-b) 

• Commercial Building (DA.099) • House (DA.205) 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Draft Interim Historit Resourtes S urvry Report, Dallas County 

THe #201912508 & 201708852, ABCOM Report DA.052017H.02 

• Commercial Buildings (DA.1 02a-b) • 

• House (DA.151) • 

• House & Garage (DA.158a-b) • 

• House (DA.159) • 

• House (DA.160) • 

• House (DA.161) • 

• House (DA.162) • 

• House (DA.163) • 

• House & Outbuilding (DA.164a-b) • 

• House (DA.165) • 

• House (DA.166) • 

• Bilco Brick Manufacturing Company (DA.168) • 

House & Outbuilding (DA.206a-b) 

Wall Street Substation (DA.207) 

Warehouses (DA. 20 8 a-b) 

Commercial Building (DA.209) 

Commercial Building (DA.210) 

Commercial Building (DA.211) 

Commercial Building (DA.212) 

Commercial Building (DA.213) 

Commercial Buildings (DA.214a-b) 

Commercial Building (DA.215) 

House & Garage (DA.216a- b) 

House & Garage (DA.217a-b) 

September 16, 2019 

Page 2 of2 

• Macedonia Baptist Church (DA.192) • Highland Hills Neighborhood (DA.218-DA.262) 

• House & Outbuildings (DA.195a-£) 

Properties DA.167 and DA.196 have not yet been field verified and their eligibility for listing in the National 

Register has not been evaluated. THC expects that these remaining properties will be surveyed and evaluated as part 

of the post-review evaluation efforts that will be incorporated into the project's Programmatic Agreement, which is 

still currently in development: 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster 

effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this federal review process, and for your efforts 

to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact 

Justin I<:'ockritz at 512-936-7403 or justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov. 

Sincerely, 

J t~istOrian, Federal Programs 

For: Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer 

cc: Mark Doty, City of Dallas, Historic Preservation Section, via email 

Richard Stewart, Dallas County Historical Commission, Chair, via email 

David Preziosi, Preservation Dallas, Executive Director, via email 

Tanya McDougall, AECOM, via email 

GREG ABBOTT , GOVERNOR • JOHN L NAU, III , CHAIR • MARK WOLFE . EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

D::; BOX 12276 . AUS TIN TEXAS . 78711-22 . P 512-463-6100 . 1= 512--+~5-,+8 :- . TOO 1-300-735-2989 . the tex.1S gov 
September 20, 2019 

K.atherine Zeringue 

TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 

real places telling real stories 

Federal Railroad Administration 

u.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Prqject Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Drcift 

Interim Historic Resources Survry Report, Addendum No.1, Harris Counry, Texas (FRA/ 106, ABCOM Report 

HA.022017H.02, THC #201912668 & 201708972) 

Ms. Zeringue: 

Thank you for your correspondence of August 23,2019, regarding the above-referenced project. This letter serves 

as comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of 

the Texas Historical Commission (THC). 

As described in your letter, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering issuance of a Rule of 

Particular Applicability to establish safety regulations for the proposed Texas Central High-Speed Railway (TCRR) 

as a railroad operating at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour. Issuance of such a Rule constitutes a federal 

undertaking subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The TCRR and FRA are considering six build alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston 

line, encompassing a combined non-overlapping length of over 386 linear miles and 16,000 acres of potential 

impacts. Given the scope and complexity of the project, THC previously concurred with a phased approach to 

identifying historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

Addendum No.1 to the draft interim historic resource survey report was prepared by AECOM on behalf of FRA 

and covers only the identification of non-archeological historic resources within the APE for the 38.2 linear miles of 

build alternatives (Segment 5; Alternatives A- F) that cross northwestern and central Harris County. The addendum 

evaluates the National Register eligibility of 144 historic-age resources on 109 properties; the initial draft interim 

historic resource survey report (reviewed by THC in August 2017) included background research, a literature 

review, and historic context, and evaluated 256 historic-age resources on 138 properties. Non-archeological 

resources within other counties and all identification of archeological resources will be coordinated separately. 

THC previously concurred that the APE established for this report (properties wholly or partially within a radius of 

350 feet, 700 feet, and 1300 feet from the limits of disturbance, following the project's established APE guidelines 

for urban, suburban, and rural areas, respectively), the literature review, and background research were appropriate. 

Based on this Addendum No.1, and barring any additional information to the contrary, THC concurs that 108 of 

the properties surveyed in this Addendum are not eligible for listing in the National Register. A list of these 

properties is enclosed. 

However, before we can concur with your determination that the House Estate (HA.018a- c) is not eligible for 

listing in the National Register, we request additional information to evaluate the property under Criterion B. Are 

there any members of the House family associated with this property that are historically significant? The 

Handbook of Texas Online indicates that the nearby settlement of Hockley was known as Houseville in the 1850s, 

and much of the western side of Tomball is located within the Joseph House Survey; is there any connection 

between these place names and this property? 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Drcift Interim Historic Resources S unJry Report, Hams County 

THe #201912668 & 201708972, ABCOM Report HA.022017H.02 

September 20, 2019 

Page 2 of 3 

Properties HA.022, HA.043, HA.051, HA.113, HA.145, HA.164, HA.168, HA.193, and HA.225 have not yet been 

field verified and their eligibility for listing in the National Register has not been evaluated. THC expects that these 

remaining properties will be surveyed and evaluated as part of the post-review evaluation efforts that will be 

incorporated into the project's Programmatic Agreement, which is still currendy in development. 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster 

effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this federal review process, and for your efforts 

to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact 

Justin K.ockritz at 512-936-7403 or justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov. 

Justin K.ockritz, Historian, Federal Programs 

F or: Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer 

Enclosure 

cc: City of Houston Historic Preservation Office, via email 

Charles Duke and Janet Wagner, Harris County Historical Commission, via email 

David Bush, Preservation Houston, Executive Director, via email 

Tanya McDougall, AECOM, via email 

GREG ABBOTT. GOVERNOR • JOHN l NAU, III, CHAIR • MARK WOLFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

PO. BOX 12276 . AUSTI N TEX,~S . 78711-22-6 • P 512-463 -6100 • F S 12-:.175-<+872 • TOO 1 -800-:-35-2989 • the ~eXJS gov 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Addendum No.1, Draft Interim Historic Resources S urvry Report, Harris County 

THC # 20 1912668 & 201708972, ABCOM Report HA.022017H.02 

September 20, 2019 

Page 3 of 3 

THe concurs that the following 108 historic-age properties, which were evaluated in this Addendum No.1, are not 

eligible for listing in the National Register: 

• House & Outbuildings (HA.OOla-e) • Commercial Building (HA.089, • House (HA.233) 

• Agricultural Building (HA.007, not demolished ~:2016) • House (HA.234) 

historz"c age) • House (HA.098) • House (HA.235) 

• Agricultural Buildings (HA.008a-d) • Commercial Building (HA.l06) • House (HA.236) 

• Agricultural Buildings (HA.009a-b) • Commercial Building (HA.114, not • House (HA.237) 

• House (HA.013, demolished ~:2013) historic age) • House (HA.238) 

• House (HA.014) • Commercial Building (HA.115) • House (HA.239) 

• Well Shelter (HA.017) • Commercial Building (HA.141) • Commercial Building (HA.240) 

• Agricultural Building (HA.019) • Commercial Buildings (HA.156a-b) • Industrial Building (HA.241) 

• Agricultural Building (HA.020) • Commercial Building (HA.157) • Commercial Building (HA.242) 

• House & Outbuildings (HA.021a-d) • Indus trial Building (HA.158) • Commercial Building (HA.243) 

• House (HA.027, demolished c.2016) • Houston Parks and Forestry • House (HA.244) 

• House (HA.028, demolished t:2016) Department Building (HA.160) • Commercial Building (HA.245) 

• House (HA.030) • Commercial Building (HA.163) • Commercial Building (HA.246) 

• House (HA.031) • \Varehouse (HA.165) • House (HA.247) 

• Cy-Fair High School (HA.032a-b) • Commercial Building (HA.176, not • House (HA.248) 

• Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post historic age) • House (HA.249) 

8905 (HA.033) • House & Outbuilding (HA.178a-b) • House (HA.250) 

• House & Garage (HA.034a-b) • Commercial Building (HA.182, not 

• House (HA.251) 

• House (HA.035) historic age) • House (HA.252) • House & Outbuilding (HA.186a-b) • House (HA.036) • House (HA.253) • Commercial Buildings (HA.195a-b) • House & Outbuildings (HA.037, • House (HA.254) 

demolished c.2017) • Commercial Buildings (HA.196a-b) 

• House (HA.255) 

House (HA.038) • Commercial Building (HA.203) • • House (HA.256) 

House & Garage (HA.039a-b) • Commercial Buildings (HA.204a -b) • • House (HA.257) 

Agricultural Buildings (HA.040a-d) • Beth Yeshurun-Post Oak Cemetery • Commercial Building (HA.258) (HA.212) • 

• House & Garage (HA.041a-b) Commercial Building (HA.259) Commercial Building (HA.214, • 

Commercial Buildings (HA.042a-b) • • Commercial Building (HA.260) demolished t:20 15) • 

• Commercial Building (HA.045) 

• Commercial Building (HA.215) • Commercial Building (HA.261) 

• House (HA.046) Houston Independent School • House (HA.216) • 

• House & Outbuilding (HA.047a-b) District, Dyer Stadium (HA.262a-d) • House & Outbuildings (HA.217a-e) • Warehouses (HA.050a-d) 

• House & Outbuilding (HA.218a-b) • Commercial Building (HA.052) 

• Agricultural Buildings (HA.219) • Commercial Building (HA.053) 

• Agricultural Buildings (HA.220) • Commercial Building (HA.054) 

• House (HA.221) • Satsuma Substation (HA.055) 

• House (HA.222) • Railroad Culvert (HA.057) 

• House (HA.223) • Warehouse (HA.063) 

• House (HA.224) • Houston Police Department, 

Northwest Substation (HA.073) • House (HA.226) 

Commercial Building (HA.082, • House (HA.227) • 

demolished ~:2017) • House (HA.228) 

• Commercial Building (HA.085, • House (HA.229) 

demolished :2016) • House (HA.230) 

• Commercial Building (HA.088) • House (HA.231) 

• House (HA.232) 
This Correspondence sent to tanya.mcdougall@aecom.com on 12-04-2019

Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities 

Code of Texas

Permit 7497

202002814

DHHSR Archeological Monitoring of Mechanical Scraping of Adjacent Parcel to Honey Springs 

Cemetery

4019 Bulova Street

Dallas,TX 

Dear Tanya McDougall:

Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the 

comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The review staff led by Rebecca Shelton and Justin Kockritz has completed its review and has made 

the following determinations based on the information submitted for review:

Archeology Comments

• No historic properties present or affected. However, if buried cultural materials are 

encountered during construction or disturbance activities, work should cease in the immediate 

area; work can continue where no cultural materials are present. Please contact the THC's 

Archeology Division at 512-463-6096 to consult on further actions that may be necessary to 

protect the cultural remains.

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Draft report acceptable. Please submit another copy as a final report along with shapefiles 

showing the area where the archeological work was conducted. Shapefiles should be submitted 

electronically to Archeological_projects@thc.texas.gov. 

We have the following comments: We concur with the recommendations for construction 

monitoring for any elements of the DHHSR project that will impact the western extent of the study 

area that was not scraped during these investigations. In addition, we agree that no further 

archeological investigations are required in the areas mechanically scraped. Please confirm previous 

telephone discussions regarding the SOW for this project indicated that this portion of the project 

under the cemetery investigations was on private property, and not under to antiquities code permit. 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will 

foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for 

your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our 

review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: 

Page 1 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202002814/EmailResponse202... 12/17/2019
rebecca.shelton@thc.texas.gov, justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov.

Sincerely,

For Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission

Please do not respond to this email.

Page 2 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202002814/EmailResponse202... 12/17/2019
This Correspondence sent to tanya.mcdougall@aecom.com on 12-04-2019

Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities 

Code of Texas

Permit 7497

202002814

DHHSR Archeological Monitoring of Mechanical Scraping of Adjacent Parcel to Honey Springs 

Cemetery

4019 Bulova Street

Dallas,TX 

Dear Tanya McDougall:

Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the 

comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The review staff led by Rebecca Shelton and Justin Kockritz has completed its review and has made 

the following determinations based on the information submitted for review:

Archeology Comments

• No historic properties present or affected. However, if buried cultural materials are 

encountered during construction or disturbance activities, work should cease in the immediate 

area; work can continue where no cultural materials are present. Please contact the THC's 

Archeology Division at 512-463-6096 to consult on further actions that may be necessary to 

protect the cultural remains.

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Draft report acceptable. Please submit another copy as a final report along with shapefiles 

showing the area where the archeological work was conducted. Shapefiles should be submitted 

electronically to Archeological_projects@thc.texas.gov. 

We have the following comments: We concur with the recommendations for construction 

monitoring for any elements of the DHHSR project that will impact the western extent of the study 

area that was not scraped during these investigations. In addition, we agree that no further 

archeological investigations are required in the areas mechanically scraped. Please confirm previous 

telephone discussions regarding the SOW for this project indicated that this portion of the project 

under the cemetery investigations was on private property, and not under to antiquities code permit. 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will 

foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for 

your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our 

review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: 

Page 1 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202002814/EmailResponse2020... 4/15/2020
rebecca.shelton@thc.texas.gov, justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov.

Sincerely,

For Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission

Please do not respond to this email.

Page 2 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202002814/EmailResponse2020... 4/15/2020
This Correspondence sent to tanya.mcdougall@aecom.com on 03-18-2020

Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities 

Code of Texas

THC Tracking #202009736

Dallas to Houston High Speed Rail - Harris County

NA

Houston,TX 

Dear Tanya McDougall:

Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the 

comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The review staff led by Justin Kockritz has completed its review and has made the following 

determinations based on the information submitted for review:

Above-Ground Resources

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Property/properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

We have the following comments: Based on all available information, including this intensive 

survey, THC concurs with your determination that the House Estate (HA.018â€“c) is not eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Based on this determination, THC supports 

eliminating references to the House Estate in the draft of the project Programmatic Agreement.

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will 

foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for 

your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our 

review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: 

justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov

This response has been sent through the electronic THC review and compliance system (eTRAC). 

Submitting your project via eTRAC eliminates mailing delays and allows you to check the status of 

the review, receive an electronic response, and generate reports on your submissions. For more 

information, visit http://thc.texas.gov/etrac-system.

Sincerely,

Page 1 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202009736/EmailResponse20200... 4/9/2020
For Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission

Please do not respond to this email.

Page 2 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202009736/EmailResponse20200... 4/9/2020
This Correspondence sent to tanya.mcdougall@aecom.com on 04-02-2020

Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities 

Code of Texas

THC Tracking #202010332

Dallas to Houston High Speed Rail - Madison County

N/A

Madisonville,TX 

Dear Tanya McDougall:

Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the 

comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The review staff led by Rebecca Shelton, Justin Kockritz and Pam Opiela has completed its review 

and has made the following determinations based on the information submitted for review:

Above-Ground Resources

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Property/properties are eligible for listing or already listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places.

• Adverse effects on historic properties.

• THC/SHPO unable to complete review at this time based on insufficient documentation. A 

supplemental review must be submitted, and the 30-day review period will begin upon receipt 

of adequate documentation.

Archeology Comments

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Property/properties are eligible for listing or already listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places.

• THC/SHPO has comments on the draft report submitted to this office for review.

We have the following comments: Randolph Cemetery is eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places under Criterion C for its design and meets Criteria Consideration D for cemeteries. 

Using the existing property boundary or fence line of the cemetery as the National Register boundary 

appears to be appropriate, but we note that archeological investigations may be necessary to 

determine if any unmarked burials are present outside of the known boundary. Please fill out a site 

form and have an archeological trinomial assigned to the cemetery. We concur that the project will 

have an adverse visual effect on Randolph Cemetery. We await your determination of direct effects 

before we can comment on direct effects.

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will 

Page 1 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202010332/EmailResponse20201... 4/9/2020
foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for

your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our 

review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: 

rebecca.shelton@thc.texas.gov, justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov, pamela.opiela@thc.texas.gov

This response has been sent through the electronic THC review and compliance system (eTRAC). 

Submitting your project via eTRAC eliminates mailing delays and allows you to check the status of 

the review, receive an electronic response, and generate reports on your submissions. For more 

information, visit http://thc.texas.gov/etrac-system.

Sincerely,

For Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission

Please do not respond to this email.

Page 2 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202010332/EmailResponse20201... 4/9/2020
This Correspondence sent to tanya.mcdougall@aecom.com on 05-01-2020

Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities 

Code of Texas

THC Tracking #202012352

Dallas to Houston High Speed Rail - Harris County

NA

Houston,TX 

Dear Tanya McDougall:

Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the 

comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The review staff led by Justin Kockritz has completed its review and has made the following 

determinations based on the information submitted for review:

Above-Ground Resources

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

We have the following comments: Thank you for this submission updating Interim Report 

Addendum #1 (AECOM Report Number HA.022017H.02, previously THC #201912668) of the 

Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Historic Resources Survey for Harris County, Texas. We 

understand that this update makes only minor changes to the text and photographs related to the 

House Estate (HA.018aâ€“c) that do not impact FRAâ€TMs determination that the property is not 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; THC concurs with this determination 

that the property is not eligible. THC comments on all other properties contained in our letter of 

September 20, 2019, remain unchanged. We will add this updated material to our project files.

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will 

foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for 

your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our 

review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: 

justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov

This response has been sent through the electronic THC review and compliance system (eTRAC). 

Submitting your project via eTRAC eliminates mailing delays and allows you to check the status of 

the review, receive an electronic response, and generate reports on your submissions. For more 

information, visit http://thc.texas.gov/etrac-system.

Page 1 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202012352/EmailResponse20201... 5/4/2020
Sincerely,

For Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission

Please do not respond to this email.

Page 2 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202012352/EmailResponse20201... 5/4/2020
This Correspondence sent to tanya.mcdougall@aecom.com on 12-04-2019

Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities 

Code of Texas

Permit 7497

202002814

DHHSR Archeological Monitoring of Mechanical Scraping of Adjacent Parcel to Honey Springs 

Cemetery

4019 Bulova Street

Dallas,TX 

Dear Tanya McDougall:

Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the 

comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The review staff led by Rebecca Shelton and Justin Kockritz has completed its review and has made 

the following determinations based on the information submitted for review:

Archeology Comments

• No historic properties present or affected. However, if buried cultural materials are 

encountered during construction or disturbance activities, work should cease in the immediate 

area; work can continue where no cultural materials are present. Please contact the THC's 

Archeology Division at 512-463-6096 to consult on further actions that may be necessary to 

protect the cultural remains.

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Draft report acceptable. Please submit another copy as a final report along with shapefiles 

showing the area where the archeological work was conducted. Shapefiles should be submitted 

electronically to Archeological_projects@thc.texas.gov. 

We have the following comments: We concur with the recommendations for construction 

monitoring for any elements of the DHHSR project that will impact the western extent of the study 

area that was not scraped during these investigations. In addition, we agree that no further 

archeological investigations are required in the areas mechanically scraped. Please confirm previous 

telephone discussions regarding the SOW for this project indicated that this portion of the project 

under the cemetery investigations was on private property, and not under to antiquities code permit. 

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will 

foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for 

your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our 

review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: 

Page 1 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202002814/EmailResponse2020... 4/15/2020
rebecca.shelton@thc.texas.gov, justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov.

Sincerely,

For Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission

Please do not respond to this email.

Page 2 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202002814/EmailResponse2020... 4/15/2020
This Correspondence sent to tanya.mcdougall@aecom.com on 03-18-2020

Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities 

Code of Texas

THC Tracking #202009736

Dallas to Houston High Speed Rail - Harris County

NA

Houston,TX 

Dear Tanya McDougall:

Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the 

comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The review staff led by Justin Kockritz has completed its review and has made the following 

determinations based on the information submitted for review:

Above-Ground Resources

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Property/properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

We have the following comments: Based on all available information, including this intensive 

survey, THC concurs with your determination that the House Estate (HA.018â€“c) is not eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Based on this determination, THC supports 

eliminating references to the House Estate in the draft of the project Programmatic Agreement.

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will 

foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for 

your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our 

review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: 

justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov

This response has been sent through the electronic THC review and compliance system (eTRAC). 

Submitting your project via eTRAC eliminates mailing delays and allows you to check the status of 

the review, receive an electronic response, and generate reports on your submissions. For more 

information, visit http://thc.texas.gov/etrac-system.

Sincerely,

Page 1 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202009736/EmailResponse20200... 4/9/2020
For Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission

Please do not respond to this email.

Page 2 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202009736/EmailResponse20200... 4/9/2020
This Correspondence sent to tanya.mcdougall@aecom.com on 04-02-2020

Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities 

Code of Texas

THC Tracking #202010332

Dallas to Houston High Speed Rail - Madison County

N/A

Madisonville,TX 

Dear Tanya McDougall:

Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the 

comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The review staff led by Rebecca Shelton, Justin Kockritz and Pam Opiela has completed its review 

and has made the following determinations based on the information submitted for review:

Above-Ground Resources

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Property/properties are eligible for listing or already listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places.

• Adverse effects on historic properties.

• THC/SHPO unable to complete review at this time based on insufficient documentation. A 

supplemental review must be submitted, and the 30-day review period will begin upon receipt 

of adequate documentation.

Archeology Comments

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Property/properties are eligible for listing or already listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places.

• THC/SHPO has comments on the draft report submitted to this office for review.

We have the following comments: Randolph Cemetery is eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places under Criterion C for its design and meets Criteria Consideration D for cemeteries. 

Using the existing property boundary or fence line of the cemetery as the National Register boundary 

appears to be appropriate, but we note that archeological investigations may be necessary to 

determine if any unmarked burials are present outside of the known boundary. Please fill out a site 

form and have an archeological trinomial assigned to the cemetery. We concur that the project will 

have an adverse visual effect on Randolph Cemetery. We await your determination of direct effects 

before we can comment on direct effects.

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will 

Page 1 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202010332/EmailResponse20201... 4/9/2020
foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for

your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our 

review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: 

rebecca.shelton@thc.texas.gov, justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov, pamela.opiela@thc.texas.gov

This response has been sent through the electronic THC review and compliance system (eTRAC). 

Submitting your project via eTRAC eliminates mailing delays and allows you to check the status of 

the review, receive an electronic response, and generate reports on your submissions. For more 

information, visit http://thc.texas.gov/etrac-system.

Sincerely,

For Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission

Please do not respond to this email.

Page 2 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202010332/EmailResponse20201... 4/9/2020
This Correspondence sent to tanya.mcdougall@aecom.com on 05-01-2020

Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities 

Code of Texas

THC Tracking #202012354

Dallas to Houston High Speed Rail - Harris County

NA

Houston,TX 

Dear Tanya McDougall:

Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the 

comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The review staff led by Justin Kockritz has completed its review and has made the following 

determinations based on the information submitted for review:

Above-Ground Resources

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Property/properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

We have the following comments: Thank you for this submission updating the Intensive Survey for

the House Estate (previously THC #202009736), part of the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Historic Resources Survey for Harris County, Texas. We understand that this update makes only 

minor changes to the text related to the House Estate (HA.018aâ€“c) that do not impact FRAâ€TMs 

determination that the property is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; 

THC concurs with this determination that the property is not eligible. We will add this updated 

material to our project files.

We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will 

foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for 

your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our 

review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: 

justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov

This response has been sent through the electronic THC review and compliance system (eTRAC). 

Submitting your project via eTRAC eliminates mailing delays and allows you to check the status of 

the review, receive an electronic response, and generate reports on your submissions. For more 

information, visit http://thc.texas.gov/etrac-system.

Page 1 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202012354/EmailResponse20201... 5/4/2020
Sincerely,

For Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission

Please do not respond to this email.

Page 2 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202012354/EmailResponse20201... 5/4/2020
This Correspondence sent to tanya.mcdougall@aecom.com on 05-01-2020

Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities 

Code of Texas

THC Tracking #202010787

Dallas to Houston High Speed Rail - Dallas County

NA

Dallas,TX 

Dear Tanya McDougall:

Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the 

comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The review staff led by Rebecca Shelton, Justin Kockritz and Christopher Meyers has completed its 

review and has made the following determinations based on the information submitted for review:

Above-Ground Resources

• Property/properties are eligible for listing or already listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places.

• Adverse effects on historic properties.

Archeology Comments

• THC/SHPO concurs with information provided.

• Draft report acceptable. Please submit another copy as a final report along with shapefiles 

showing the area where the archeological work was conducted. Shapefiles should be submitted 

electronically to Archeological_projects@thc.texas.gov. 

We have the following comments: THC concurs with your finding that the former Linfield 

Elementary School is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A 

for its association with the civil rights and desegregation movement in Dallas County. We recommend 

using the existing parcel boundary as the National Register boundary, including the Smith Family 

Cemetery within the boundary as a non-contributing resource. THC concurs that demolition of the 

school would be an adverse effect on historic properties. We look forward to further consultation to 

resolve any adverse effects and to review the Section 4(f) evaluation, when available. We also concur 

with your finding that the Smith Family Cemetery is not eligible for listing in the National Register 

individually. However, the Texas Health and Safety Code still applies and archeological 

investigations may be necessary in the project APE to determine if any unmarked burials are present 

outside of the known cemetery boundary. We note that in the second paragraph of Section 3.2 of the 

report, there appears to be a typo - it was Heman (not Herman) Marion Sweatt who was denied 

acceptance to the University of Texas School of Law.

Page 1 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202010787/EmailResponse20201... 5/4/2020
We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will 

foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for 

your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our 

review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: 

rebecca.shelton@thc.texas.gov, justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov, christopher.meyers@thc.texas.gov

This response has been sent through the electronic THC review and compliance system (eTRAC). 

Submitting your project via eTRAC eliminates mailing delays and allows you to check the status of 

the review, receive an electronic response, and generate reports on your submissions. For more 

information, visit http://thc.texas.gov/etrac-system.

Sincerely,

For Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission

Please do not respond to this email.

Page 2 of 2

https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/reviewDocs/2020/202010787/EmailResponse20201... 5/4/2020
Appendix C

Known Adverse Effects on Historic Properties
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Historic Properties with Known Adverse Effects 

Historic Properties with Known Adverse Effects

Identification 

Number County Property Name / Location NRHP Status Adverse Effects Proposed Resolution of Adverse Effects

DA.023 Dallas Cadiz Street Underpass NRHP Eligible Indirect Adverse Effect

DA.056 Dallas Corinth Street Underpass NRHP Eligible Indirect Adverse Effect

DA.076a Dallas

Guiberson Corporation 

Machine Shop / 

1000 Forest Avenue

NRHP Eligible Direct Adverse Effect / Demolition 

of resource

DA.076b Dallas Guiberson Residence / 

1000 Forest Avenue 

NRHP Eligible Indirect Adverse Effect / Change in 

setting and association

DA.082 Dallas

Honey Springs Cemetery / 

Bulova Street and Cotton 

Lane

NRHP Eligible Indirect Adverse Effect / Visual

DA.110b Dallas NRHP Eligible Direct Adverse Effect / Demolition 

of resource 

DA.194 Dallas 

W. S. Strain House Historic 

District 

NRHP Listed Indirect Adverse Effect / Visual 

Ellis 

Boren-Reagor Springs 

Cemetery NRHP Eligible Indirect Adverse Effect 

FR.016a-g Freestone Furney Richardson School NRHP Eligible Indirect Adverse Effect 

MA.003 Madison Randolph Cemetery NRHP Eligible Indirect Adverse Effect 

MA.019 Madison Oxford Cemetery NRHP Listed Indirect Adverse Effect 

HA.004a Harris House on Castle Road NRHP Eligible Indirect Adverse Effect 

HA.208 Harris Tex-Tube NRHP Eligible Direct Adverse Effect 

EL.040 

Linfield Elementary School / 

3820 E. Illinois Avenue 
Appendix D

Federally Recognized Native American Tribe Consultation Letters






























From: Welch, Jim

To: Hartsfield, Shelley

Subject: FW: Gov to Gov Consultation for Dallas to Houston HSR

Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:07:16 PM

Attachments: image002.gif

From: melissa.hatcher@dot.gov [mailto:melissa.hatcher@dot.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:48 PM

To: ofreeman@mcn-nsn.gov

Cc: Welch, Jim

Subject: RE: Gov to Gov Consultation for Dallas to Houston HSR

Dear Ms. Freeman,

Thank you for your prompt response. FRA will continue to include you on the project mailing list so

 that you will be informed as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process advances. Should

 you change your mind at any point or should the project change to involve the Muscogee (Creek)

 Nation historic area of interest, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Melissa Hatcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

(202) 493-6075

From: Odette Freeman [mailto:ofreeman@mcn-nsn.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:28 PM

To: Hatcher, Melissa (FRA)

Subject: Gov to Gov Consultation for Dallas to Houston HSR

Thank you the correspondence regarding the Dallas to Houston High Speed Rail project. This

 project is outside of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation historic area of interest. We respectfully

 defer to the other Tribes that have been contacted. If you have any further questions or

 concerns, please give us a call.

Odette Freeman

Historic and Cultural Preservation Department, Manager’s Assistant

Muscogee (Creek) Nation

P. O. Box 580 | Okmulgee, OK 74447

T 918.732.7758

F 918.758.0649

ofreeman@mcn-nsn.gov

www.MCN-nsn.gov

This e-mail and any attachments contain AECOM confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive

this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this

information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
From: Welch, Jim

To: Hartsfield, Shelley

Subject: FW: Texas Central Railway project

Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:40:14 AM

Please add to project files and update the spreadsheet.

From: melissa.hatcher@dot.gov [mailto:melissa.hatcher@dot.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:14 PM

To: NAlligood@delawarenation.com

Cc: CSmith@delawarenation.com; Welch, Jim

Subject: RE: Texas Central Railway project

Dear Nekole,

Thank you for letting me know that none of the counties involved in the proposed railway are part of

the Delaware Nation’s area of interest. Your response is greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Melissa Hatcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

(202) 493-6075

From: Nekole Alligood [mailto:NAlligood@delawarenation.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 4:12 PM

To: Hatcher, Melissa (FRA)

Cc: Corey Smith

Subject: Texas Central Railway project

Good afternoon.  I apologize for not getting back with you within the 30 day review period, although

I must inform you that none of the counties involved in the proposed rail way are part of the

Delaware Nation’s area of interest in Texas.  Therefore, there are no concerns surrounding the

location of the proposed rail line.

Best of luck with the project!

Nekole Alligood

Director of Cultural Preservation

Delaware Nation

31064 HWY 281

PO Box 281

Anadarko, OK 73005

Phone: 405-247-2448

Fax: 405-247-8905
This e-mail and any attachments contain AECOM confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive

 this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this

 information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies.

From: Welch, Jim

To: Hartsfield, Shelley

Subject: FW: Dallas to Houston High-SPeed Rail Project

Date: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:47:21 AM

From: melissa.hatcher@dot.gov [mailto:melissa.hatcher@dot.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 7:30 AM

To: ukbthpo-larue@yahoo.com

Cc: hnoe@unitedkeetoowahband.org; Welch, Jim

Subject: RE: Dallas to Houston High-SPeed Rail Project

Dear Ms. Baker,

Thank you for your prompt response. FRA will continue to consult and coordinate with federally

 recognized tribes with a more established historic interest in the project area. Should you have

 questions or concerns in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Melissa Hatcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

(202) 493-6075

From: Lisa LaRue-Baker - UKB THPO [mailto:ukbthpo-larue@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:45 PM

To: Hatcher, Melissa (FRA)

Cc: Holly Noe

Subject: Dallas to Houston High-SPeed Rail Project

The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma thanks you for initiating consultation with us.

We respectfully defer to federally recognized tribes with a more established historic interest in this particular

 area of Texas (ours if further North).

Thank you again,

Lisa C. Baker 

Acting THPO

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma

PO Box 746

Tahlequah, OK 74465

c 918.822.1952 

ukbthpo-larue@yahoo.com

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended

 solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

 If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.

 This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the

 individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not

 disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender

 immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete

 this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are

 notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in

 reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
Please FOLLOW our historic preservation page and LIKE us on FACEBOOK

This e-mail and any attachments contain AECOM confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive

 this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this

 information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies.

1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Ms. Edwina Butler-Wolfe, Governor

Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

2025 S. Gordon Cooper Dr.

Shawnee, OK 74801

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Butler-Wolfe,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Joseph Blanchard, THPO

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

2025 S. Gordon Cooper Dr.

Shawnee, OK 74801

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Blanchard,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Ms. JoAnne Battise, Chairperson

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

571 State Park Rd. 56

Livingston, TX 77351

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Battise,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Bryant Celestine, Historical Preservation Clerk

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

571 State Park Rd. 56

Livingston, TX 77351

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Celestine,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Tarpie Yargee, Chief

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town

P.O. Box 187

Wetumka, OK 74883

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Yargee,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Bobby Komardley, Chairman

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

511 E. Colorado

Anadarko, OK 73005

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Komardley,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Ms. Tamara Michelle Francis Four-killer, Chairperson

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 487

Binger, OK 73009

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Four-killer,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Phil Cross, THPO

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 487

Binger, OK 73009

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Cross,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Michael Attocknie, Tribal Administrator

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 487

Binger, OK 73009

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Attocknie,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January25, 2018

Mr. Bill John Baker, Principal Chief

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 948

Tahlequah, OK 74465

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Baker,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Bary Batton, Chief

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Drawer 1210

Durant, OK 74702

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Batton,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Dr. Ian Thompson, THPO

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Drawer 1210

Durant, OK 74702

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Dr. Thompson,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Willie Nelson, Chairman

Comanche Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 908

Lawton, OK 73502

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Nelson,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Ms. Susan Nahwoosky

Comanche Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 908

Lawton, OK 73502

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Nahwoosky,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Lovelin Poncho, Chairman

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

P.O. Box 818

Elton, LA 70532

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Lovelin Poncho, Chairman

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Ms. Linda Langley, THPO

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

P.O. Box 818

Elton, LA 70532

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Langley,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Kerry Holton, President

The Delaware Nation

P.O. Box 825

Anadarko, OK 73005

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Holton,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified t0he Delaware Nation regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 2015. 

The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated information 

on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed the Draft EIS 

for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on December 22, 

2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as the No Build 

Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project. For analytical 

purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; Figure 1).

After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has identified 

Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Wainwright Velarde, President

Jicarilla Apache Nation

P.O. Box 507

Dulce, NM 87528

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Velarde,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Jicarilla Apache Nation regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Jeffrey Blythe, THPO

Jicarilla Apache Nation

P.O. Box 507

Dulce, NM 87528

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Blythe,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Jicarilla Apache Nation regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Mekko-Tiger Hobia

Kialegee Tribal Town

P.O. Box 332

Wetumka, OK 74883

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Hobia

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Kialegee Tribal Town regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. David Pacheco, Chairperson

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 70

McLoud, OK 74851

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Pacheco,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Estavio Elizondo, Chairperson

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas

2212 Rosita Valley Road

Eagle Pass, TX 78852

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Elizondo,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Matthew Komalty, Chairperson

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 369

Carnegie, OK 73015

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Komalty,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Danny H. Breuninger, Sr., President

Mescalero Apache Tribe

P.O. Box 227

Mescalero, NM 88340

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Breuninger, Sr.,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Mescalero Apache Tribe regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Ms. Holly Houghten, THPO

Mescalero Apache Tribe

P.O. Box 227

Mescalero, NM 88340

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Houghten,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Mescalero Apache Tribe regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. James Floyd, Principal Chief

Muscogee (Creek) Nation

P.O. Box 580

Okmulgee, OK 74447

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Floyd,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Muscogee (Creek) Nation regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Ms. Corain Lowe-Zepeda, THPO

Muscogee (Creek) Nation

P.O. Box 580

Okmulgee, OK 74447

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Lowe-Zepeda,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Muscogee (Creek) Nation regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Geoffrey Standingbear, Principal Chief

Osage Nation

P.O. Box 779

Pawhuska, OK 74056

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Standingbear,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Osage Nation regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 2015. The 

purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated information on 

the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed the Draft EIS for 

the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2017. 

The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as the No Build 

Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project. For analytical 

purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; Figure 1).

After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has identified 

Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Ms. Stephanie Bryan, Chairman

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

5811 Jack Springs Road

Atmore, AL 36502

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Bryan,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Poarch Band of Creek Indians regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Robert Thrower, THPO

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

5811 Jack Springs Road

Atmore, AL 36502

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Thrower,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Poarch Band of Creek Indians regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. John L. Berrey, Chairman

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 765

Quapaw, OK 74363

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Berrey,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Everett Bandy, THPO

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 765

Quapaw, OK 74363

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Bandy,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Leonard M. Harjo, Principal Chief

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 1498

Wewoka, OK 74884

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Harjo,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Ryan Morrow, Town King

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town

P.O. Box 188

Okemah, OK 74859

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Morrow,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Emman Spain, THPO

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town

P.O. Box 188

Okemah, OK 74859

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Spain,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town regarding the Project by letter dated February 19, 

2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Russell Martin, President

Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

1 Rush Buffalo Rd

Tonkawa, OK 74653

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Martin,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Marshall Sampson, Sr., Co-Administrator

Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana

P.O. Box 1589

Marksville, LA 71351

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Sampson, Sr.,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Ms. Beverly Chapman-Rachal, Co-Administrator

Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana

P.O. Box 1589

Marksville, LA 71351

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Chapman-Rachal,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Earl J. Barbry, Jr., THPO

Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana

P.O. Box 1589

Marksville, LA 71351

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Barbry, Jr.,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana regarding the Project by letter dated 

February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with 

updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA 

signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well 

as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the 

Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments 

(Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, 

FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Joe Bunch, Chief

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

P.O. Box 746

Tahlequah, OK 74465

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Bunch,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians regarding the Project by letter 

dated February 19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you 

with updated information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS 

process, FRA signed the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the 

Federal Register on December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives 

(Alternatives A-F) as well as the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or 

authorization for the Project. For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided 

into eight segments (Table 1; Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No 

Build Alternative, FRA has identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Ms. Terri Parton, President

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

P.O. Box 729

Anadarko, OK 73005

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Parton, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1 of 3

January 25, 2018

Mr. Carlos Hisa, Governor

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas

P.O. Box 17579

El Paso, TX 79917

RE: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal 

Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Mr. Hisa,

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project (Project), as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project would intersect the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. Texas Central High Speed 

Railway’s, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates are the applicants and will provide all project information and 

design, as necessary, to support the continued Project development. 

FRA previously notified the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas regarding the Project by letter dated February 

19, 2015. The purpose of this current letter is to continue consultation and provide you with updated 

information on the progress of the review required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR Part 800). As part of the EIS process, FRA signed 

the Draft EIS for the Project on December 15, 2017, and it was published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2017. The Draft EIS analyzed six end-to-end Build Alternatives (Alternatives A-F) as well as 

the No Build Alternative. The Draft EIS does not provide any approvals or authorization for the Project.

For analytical purposes, the six end-to-end Build Alternatives were divided into eight segments (Table 1; 

Figure 1). After evaluating the six end-to-end Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, FRA has 

identified Build Alternative A as the preferred alternative (see Figure 1). 

Table 1: Build Alternatives A Through F Segment Sequences

Build Alternative Segment Sequences

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F 1, 2b, 3c, 5

3 of 3

Figure 1: HSR six end-to-end Build Alternatives showing segment locations.
1

McDougall, Tanya

From: Inman, Megan

Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:37 AM

To: Hartsfield, Shelley; McDougall, Tanya

Subject: FW: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American 

Tribal Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

Please save a copy of this email to the files. Thanks!

From: Wright, Kevin (FRA) [mailto:kevin.wright@dot.gov] 

Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:30 AM 

To: Inman, Megan 

Subject: FW: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribal Governments 

pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

FYI

Kevin

202‐493‐0845

From: Daniel R. Ragle [mailto:dragle@choctawnation.com]  

Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 3:50 PM

To: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov>

Subject: RE: Continuation of Government‐to‐Government Consultation with Native American Tribal Governments

pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Dallas to Houston High‐Speed Rail Project Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

Thank you for the correspondence regarding the above referenced project.  This project lies outside of our area of

historic interest.  Therefore, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma respectfully defers to the other Tribes that have been

contacted.  If you have any questions, please contact me by email.

Daniel Ragle

Compliance Review Officer

Historic Preservation Dept.

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

(800) 522‐6170 Ext. 2727

dragle@choctawnation.com

www.choctawnation.com

www.choctawnationculture.com
2

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt 

from disclosure. If you have received this message in error, you are hereby notified that we do not consent to any reading, dissemination, distribution or copying of 

this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the transmitted information. Please note that any 

view or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Choctaw Nation.
1

McDougall, Tanya

From: Inman, Megan

Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 3:00 PM

To: McDougall, Tanya; Hartsfield, Shelley

Subject: FW: US DOT - Dallas to Houston High - Speed Rail Project 

See below.

From: David Proctor [mailto:Davidp@MCN‐NSN.gov]  

Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 10:19 AM

To: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov>

Subject: US DOT ‐ Dallas to Houston High ‐ Speed Rail Project  

Michael Johnsen

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

Mr. Johnsen:

Thank you for the correspondence regarding the proposed Dallas to Houston High‐Speed Rail Project located in Dallas,

Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Leon Madison, Grimes, Waller and Harris Co., TX.  Portions of Texas Counties are within the

area of interest to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. Upon closer review of the specific project location, the location does

not lie within our area of interest. We respectfully defer to the other Tribes that have been contacted.  If you have any

further questions or concerns, please give us a call.

Thank You,

David J. Proctor 

Historic and Cultural Preservation Department, Traditional Cultural Advisor 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation 

P.O. Box 580 / Okmulgee, OK 74447 

T 918.732.7732 

F 918.758.0649 

Davidp@MCN-nsn.gov

http://www.muscogeenation-nsn.gov/

Federal and state agencies, museums, and consulting partners, as of October 1, 2015 please send all Section 106 

project notices as well as all NAGPRA notices to our section 106 email: section106@mcn-nsn.gov. If you have 

any questions, please give us a call at 918-732-77

THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE COVERED BY THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT, 18 U.S.C. §§2510 et seq. AND 

CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. ANY RECIPIENT OTHER THAN THE 

INTENDED RECIPIENT IS ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, RETENTION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THE MESSAGE WITHOUT 

PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER 

IMMEDIATELY.
1

McDougall, Tanya

From: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 7:09 AM

To: Inman, Megan

Subject: FW: Kiowa Response: Dallas to Houston Rail project

FYI

From: Ivy Smith [mailto:Ivy@tribaladminservices.org]  

Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:11 PM

To: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov>

Cc: Kellie J. Lewis <kellie@tribaladminservices.org>

Subject: Kiowa Response: Dallas to Houston Rail project

Good Afternoon,

The Kiowa Tribe is in receipt of your recent correspondence (January 25, 2018) regarding the Dallas to 

Houston High-speed Rail. 

At this time the Kiowa Tribe has no objection to this project. However, 

please be advised undiscovered properties may be encountered and must be immediately reported to the Kiowa 

Tribe Office of Historic Preservation under NHPA and NAGPRA regulations. 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Have a great week!

Ivy Smith

Kiowa Tribe Office of Historic Preservation

PO Box 50

Carnegie,OK 73015

"Doubt kills more dreams than failure ever will"- Suzy Kassem
February 19, 2018

Michael Johnsen

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, MS-20

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Mr. Michael Johnsen:

The Cherokee Nation (CN) is in receipt of your correspondence about Dallas to Houston HighSpeed Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and appreciates the opportunity to 

provide comment upon this project.

The CN maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre-historic resources in this 

area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project’s legal 

description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins 

such resources. Thus, the CN does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee cultural 

resources at this time.

However, the CN requests that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) halt all project activities 

immediately and re-contact our Offices for further consultation if items of cultural significance are 

discovered during the course of this project.

Additionally, the CN requests that the FRA conduct appropriate inquiries with other pertinent

Tribal and Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not included 

in the CN databases or records.

If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Wado,

Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office

elizabeth-toombs@cherokee.org

918.453.5389

CC: Kevin Wright
COMANCHE NATION P.O. BOX 908 / LAWTON, OK 73502 

PHONE: 580-492-4988 TOLL FREE:1-877-492-4988

COMANCHE NATION

 Federal Railroad Administration

 Attn: Mr. Kevin Wright

 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, MS-20 

 Washington, D.C., 20590

 March 15, 2018

 Re: Continuation of Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American 

 Tribal Governments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

 Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed 

 Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Wright:

In response to your request, the above reference project has been reviewed by staff of this office

to identify areas that may potentially contain prehistoric or historic archeological materials. The

location of your project has been cross referenced with the Comanche Nation site files, where an

indication of “No Properties” have been identified. (IAW 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)).

Please contact this office at (580) 595-9960/9618) if you require additional information on this

project.

This review is performed in order to identify and preserve the Comanche Nation and State

cultural heritage, in conjunction with the State Historic Preservation Office.

Regards

Comanche Nation Historic Preservation Office

Theodore E. Villicana , Technician

#6 SW “D” Avenue, Suite C

Lawton, OK. 73502
1

McDougall, Tanya

From: Inman, Megan

Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 9:52 AM

To: McDougall, Tanya; Hartsfield, Shelley

Subject: FW: Dallas to Houston HSR Project Section 106 Consultation

Response from Caddo Nation.  

From: Wright, Kevin (FRA) [mailto:kevin.wright@dot.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 9:48 AM 

To: Zeringue, Katherine (FRA); Inman, Megan 

Subject: FW: Dallas to Houston HSR Project Section 106 Consultation 

FYI

From: pcross@caddonation.org [mailto:pcross@caddonation.org]  

Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:41 AM

To: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov>

Subject: RE: Dallas to Houston HSR Project Section 106 Consultation

Kevin. 

This to confirm that the Caddo Nation has no objection to the proposed Dallas to Houston HighSpeed Rail (HSR) Project (Project). But should any inadvertent discoveries be made please notify us 

immediately. 

Phil Cross 

Culture Preservation Officer, Acting THPO 

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma 

117 Memorial Lane 

P.O. Box 487 

Binger, Ok 73009 

Tel 405-656-2344 x2068 

From: Wright, Kevin (FRA) [mailto:kevin.wright@dot.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 9:30 AM 

To: pcross@caddonation.org

Cc: Zeringue, Katherine (FRA) 

Subject: Dallas to Houston HSR Project Section 106 Consultation 

Mr. Cross,

Thank you again for your voicemail that you originally left me on February 1, 2018.  This email is to provide you with the

letter that FRA originally sent to the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma on January 25, 2018 regarding consultation under

Section 106 for the Dallas to Houston High‐Speed Rail project.  It looks like we actually sent the letter to three different

contacts, yourself included.  Following up on our phone conversation from this morning, would you please provide me a

written response to the attached letter regarding the Caddo Nation’s opinion on the project and continued consultation

with FRA under Section 106?
2

Also, as requested, all future documentation regarding this project will be addressed directly to you.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully,

Kevin

Kevin Wright

Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

202‐493‐0845
Appendix E

Section 106 Consulting Parties
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Organization Contact Primary Method of Contact

Letter of 

Invitation 

(5/14/18)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #1 

(5/31/18)

Letter of 

Invitation 

(10/14/19)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #2 

(11/7/19)

Advisory Council 

on Historic 

Preservation

Christopher Wilson cwilson@achp.gov X X

Advisory Council 

on Historic 

Preservation

Sarah Stokely sstokely@achp.gov X X X

Texas Central 

Railway Bill Tucker btucker@texascentral.com X

Texas Central 

Railway Steve Andersen sandersen@texascentral.com X

Federal Highway 

Administration Catherine Dobbs catherine.dobbs@dot.gov X

Texas Historical 

Commission Mark Wolfe SHPO mark.wolfe@thc.state.tx.us X X

Texas Historical 

Commission Bill Martin bill.martin@thc.texas.gov X X

Texas Historical 

Commission Rebecca Shelton rebecca.shelton@thc.texas.gov X X X

Texas Historical 

Commission Justin Kockritz justin.kockritz@thc.texas.gov X X X

Texas Historical 

Commission Lydia Woods lydia.woods@thc.texas.gov X X

Texas Historical 

Commission Christopher Myers christopher.myers@thc.texas.giv

USACE, Fort 

Worth District Darvin Messer darvin.messer@usace.army.mil X X X X

USACE, Fort 

Worth District

Jimmy Barrera

Regulatory Archaeologist james.e.barrera@usace.army.mil X X X

USACE, Fort 

Worth District Leslie Crippen leslie.a.crippen@usace.army.mil X

USACE, Fort 

Worth District Jennifer Walker jennifer.r.walker2@usace.army.mil X X X

USACE, Fort 

Worth District Brandon Mobley brandon.w.moobley@usace.army.mil
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Organization Contact Primary Method of Contact

Letter of 

Invitation 

(5/14/18)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #1 

(5/31/18)

Letter of 

Invitation 

(10/14/19)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #2 

(11/7/19)

USACE, Fort 

Worth District Chandler Peter chandler.j.peter@usace.army.mil X

USACE, Fort 

Worth District Joseph Murphey joseph.s.murphey@usace.army.mil X

USACE, Fort 

Worth District Jason Story jason.e.story@usace.army.mil X

USACE, Fort 

Worth District Randall Merchant rancall.c.merchant@usace.army.mil X

USACE, Galveston 

District

Felicity Cunningham

Regulatory Project 

Manager

felicity.a.cunningham@usace.army.

mil X X X

USACE, Galveston 

District

Jerry Androy

Regulatory Archaeologist jerry.l.androy@usace.army.mil X X X X

USACE, Galveston 

District Mark Newman mark.newman@usace.army.mil X

USACE, Galveston 

District Katharine Talbot katharine.s.talbot@usace.army.mil X X

Texas Department 

of Transportation Mark Werner mark.werner@txdot.gov X X

Texas Department 

of Transportation Sue Theiss sue.theiss@txdot.gov X X

Texas Department 

of Transportation Chad Coburn chad.coburn@txdot.gov X

Texas Department 

of Transportation Linda Henderson linda.henderson@txdot.gov X X

Texas Department 

of Transportation Lindsey Kimmitt lindsey.kimmett@txdot.gov

Preservation 

Texas

Evan Thompson

Executive Director info@preservationtexas.org X X

Historic Bridge 

Foundation

Kitty Henderson

Executive Director kitty@historicbridgefoundation.com X X

Dallas County 

Historical 

Commission

Don Baynham baynham@dcccd.edu X X
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Organization Contact Primary Method of Contact

Letter of 

Invitation 

(5/14/18)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #1 

(5/31/18)

Letter of 

Invitation 

(10/14/19)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #2 

(11/7/19)

Dallas County 

Historical 

Commission

Fred Durham, Chairman fldurhamjr@gmail.com X X

Dallas County 

Historical 

Commission

Richard Stewart rgstewartjr@sbcglobal.net X

Preservation 

Dallas

David Preziosi

Executive Director director@preservationdallas.org X X X

City of Dallas Rosa Gallegos Rosa.gallegos@dallascityhall.com X X

Remembering 

Black Dallas

George Keaton, Jr.

Executive Director rbdallasinc@yahoo.com X X

City of Lancaster Bester Munyaradzi

Planning Division bmunyaradzi@lancaster-tx.com X X X

University of 

Texas at Arlington

Kate Holliday

Associate Professor kholliday@uta.edu X X

City of Ennis

Marty Nelson

Economic Development 

District/CLG

mnelson@ennistx.gov X X X X

City of Ennis

Becky McCarty

Ennis Main Street 

Program Manager

bmccarty@ennistx.gov X X

City of Ennis 

Historic Landmark 

Commission

Ross Massengill

Chairman ross.massengill@ennistexas.gov X X

Ellis County 

Historical 

Commission

Rex Carey rjcarey1@gmail.com X X X

Ellis County 

Historical 

Commission

Sylvia Stanford-Smith

Chairperson sylsmithro@att.net X X

City of 

Waxahachie

Anita Brown Simpson

HPO abrown@waxahachie.com X X X X

Boren Reagor 

Springs Historical 

Society

Nancy Boren Solohubow

President nancysolo47@yahoo.com X X X
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Organization Contact Primary Method of Contact

Letter of 

Invitation 

(5/14/18)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #1 

(5/31/18)

Letter of 

Invitation 

(10/14/19)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #2 

(11/7/19)

City of Corsicana

Karie Denny

Main Street 

Manager/HPO

kdenny@ci.corsicana.tx.us X X

Navarro County 

Historical 

Commission

Bruce McManus

Chairman bmcmanus@nctv.com X X

Navarro County 

Historical 

Commission

Mary Jane McReynolds

Chair mmcreyno@austincc.edu X X X

Freestone County 

Historical 

Commission

Brad Pullin

Chairman borger52@aol.com X X

Limestone County 

Historical 

Commission

William Reagan mail@limestonechc.com X X

Limestone County 

Historical 

Commission

Dixie Hoover hooverdf@aol.com X X

Leon County

Historical 

Commission

Charlcie Casey mawcasey@hotmail.com X X

Leon County

Historical 

Commission

Ray Gaskin

Chairman gaskin47@icloud.com X X

Leon County 

Judge Honorable Byron Rider tammy.sanders@co.leon.tx.us X

Madison County 

Historical 

Commission

Bonne Hendrix bonneh@sbcglobal.net X X X X

Madison County 

Historical 

Commission

Clark Osborne X

Madison County 

Historical 

Commission

Sonny Knight jstewart@knightfirm.com X X
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Organization Contact Primary Method of Contact

Letter of 

Invitation 

(5/14/18)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #1 

(5/31/18)

Letter of 

Invitation 

(10/14/19)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #2 

(11/7/19)

Grimes County 

Historical 

Commission

Denise Upchurch r.upchurch@bediasbank.com X X

Grimes County 

Historical 

Commission

Russell Cushman

Chairman rcush403@aol.com X X

Grimes County 

Historical 

Commission

Joe Fultz

Vice Chairman joe@tpfinc.com X X X

Grimes County 

Historical 

Commission

Al Peeler al.peeler@grimescountytexas.gov X X

Grimes County 

Historical 

Commission

Vanessa Burzynski Vanessa.burzynski@grimescountytex

as.gov

X X

Grimes County 

Historical 

Commission

Joe Fauth joe.fauth@grimescountytexas.gov

Waller County 

Historical 

Commission

Truett Bell truettbell@consolidated.net X X

Rick Welch mrprspctor@aol.com X X X X

Harris County 

Historical 

Commission

Janet Wagner

Chairperson hchc.janet@gmail.com X X

Harris County 

Historical 

Commission

Charles Duke

President dukelaw1@sbcglobal.net X

City of Houston Diana DuCroz

HPO planningdepartment@houstontx.gov X X

City of Houston Kareem Heshman X

Houston Mod Steven Curry

Board President info@houstonmod.org X X
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Section 106 Consulting Parties

Organization Contact Primary Method of Contact

Letter of 

Invitation 

(5/14/18)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #1 

(5/31/18)

Letter of 

Invitation 

(10/14/19)

Consulting Party 

Meeting #2 

(11/7/19)

Preservation 

Houston

Deborah Keyser

President contact@preservationhouston.org X X

Preservation 

Houston

David Bush

Executive Director dbush@preservationhouston.org X X X

National Trust for 

Historical 

Preservation 

(Houston)

Amy Webb AWebb@savingplaces.org X

Strain House Carol Strain Burk cstrainburk@msn.com

Darrell Bushman dbushman@suddenlink.net
Appendix F

State Antiquities Landmark Nomination Form
STATE ANTIQUITIES LANDMARK NOMINATION FORM

1. Property Name

Name of Property or Archeological Site/Trinomial_____________________________________________________________

Address _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

City _________________________________________ County ______________________________ Zip _____________

2. Ownership (check all that apply)

□ Public

□ Nomination prepared by property owner

□ Nomination prepared by third party (indicate relationship to owner _____________________________ )

□ Nomination prepared by Texas Historical Commission

□ Private

□ Nomination prepared by property owner

□ Nomination prepared by third party (indicate relationship to owner _____________________________ )

□ Nomination prepared by Texas Historical Commission

3. Property Type & Significance (check all that apply)

□ Archeological

□ Historic

□ Prehistoric

Criteria for Archeological Sites (check all that apply) 

□ The site has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the prehistory and/or history of Texas by the addition of

new and important information;

□ The site's archeological deposits and the artifacts within the site are preserved and intact, thereby supporting the research

potential or preservation interests of the site;

□ The site possesses unique or rare attributes concerning Texas prehistory and/or history;

□ The study of the site offers the opportunity to test theories and methods of preservation, thereby contributing to new scientific

knowledge; and

□ There is a high likelihood that vandalism and relic collecting has occurred or could occur, and official landmark designation is

needed to ensure maximum legal protection, or alternatively, further investigations are needed to mitigate the effects of

vandalism and relic collecting when the site cannot be protected.

□ Shipwreck

Criterion for Shipwrecks:

□ The shipwreck is located on land owned or controlled by the State of Texas or one of its political subdivisions; the shipwreck is

pre-twentieth century or is otherwise historically significant and is 50 years old or older in age; the remains consist of a

shipwreck sunken, abandoned, or a wreck of the sea, or are represented by the ship's remains and/or contents or related

embedded treasure.

□ Cache / Collection

Criteria for Caches / Collections (check all that apply)

□ The cache or collection was assembled with public funds or taken from public lands;

□ The preservation of materials is adequate to allow the application of standard archeological or conservation techniques;

□ The cache or collection is of research value, thereby contributing to scientific knowledge; or

□ The cache or collection is of historic value or contributes to a theme.

Continued on next page 
 State Antiquities Landmark Form 

Page 2 of 4 

 

□ Buildings, structures, objects, districts, and non-archeological sites (check all that apply) 

□ Building (must be listed in National Register of Historic Places) 

□ Individually listed 

□ Contributes to significance of a listed district 

□ Structure (must be listed in National Register of Historic Places)

□ Individually listed 

□ Contributes to significance of a listed district 

 □ Site 

 □ Object 

□ District (must be listed in the National Register of Historic Places if buildings or structures are included) 

Criteria for buildings, structures, non-archeological sites, objects (check all that apply): 

□ The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, 

including importance to a particular cultural or ethnic group; 

□ The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; 

□ The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represents the work of 

a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction; 

□ The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in Texas culture or history; 

4. Geographic Data

Archeological properties (including shipwrecks) 

UTM Zone ______________ NAD datum ______________ 

NE Corner Easting _______________________ Northing _______________________ 

SE Corner Easting _______________________ Northing _______________________ 

SW Corner Easting _______________________ Northing _______________________ 

NW Corner Easting _______________________ Northing _______________________ 

Site Centroid Easting _______________________ Northing _______________________ 

 USGS quad name and number ________________________________________ 

 Acreage of nominated property________________________________________ 

 Attach USGS map with boundary and UTM coordinates or shapefiles 

Description of Site 

Location: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Site Type and Cultural Affiliation: ________________________________________________________________________ 

Buildings/Structures, or Districts with Buildings/Structures

 Attach scale map with boundary (survey map preferred) 

 Attach deed or legal description. Indicate here if: 

□ Deed 

□ Metes and bounds 

□ Block & Lot description with plat map 

□ Survey map 

□ Written boundary description (with reference to landmarks, property boundaries, and/or other fixed points) 

□ Indicate if boundary is the same as in the National Register nomination 
 State Antiquities Landmark Form 

Page 3 of 4 

 

5. Application Preparer 

Name ______________________________________________________________________________ 

Address ____________________________________________________________________________ 

City _______________________________ County __________________________ State __________ 

Telephone# _________________________________________________________________________ 

Email Address _______________________________________________________________________ 

Nominator’s Signature __________________________________________________ Date __________ 

6. Property Owner

Name ______________________________________________________________________________ 

Address ____________________________________________________________________________ 

City _______________________________ County __________________________ State __________ 

Telephone# _________________________________________________________________________ 

Email Address _______________________________________________________________________ 

□ Additional owner information is attached. 

7. Acknowledgments by Private Property Owners

I, _______________________________________________, as owner of this property, understand that if this site is accepted and 

entered into the Commission’s records as a State Antiquities Landmark, it will thereafter be protected by, and its use governed by, 

the Antiquities Code of Texas insofar as provided in that Code. Furthermore, I understand that if the site is designated as a State 

Antiquities Landmark, a “Notice of Designation as a State Antiquities Landmark,” will be recorded in the deed records in the 

county in which the property is located. Furthermore, if the nominated property is building or structure, I understand that I must 

purchase a State Antiquities Landmark medallion. Furthermore, I understand that, in accordance with Section 191.097 of the 

Antiquities Code of Texas, the Commission may remove the designation of State Antiquities Landmark from the site if it is 

determined that such designation is no longer warranted. Furthermore, I swear that I am the owner of the parcel of land nominated 

for designation as a State Antiquities Landmark, or have consent of a legal authority to make this nomination, subject to penalty 

of law as provided by Texas Penal Code, Sec. 37.10. 

Owner’s Signature: ______________________________________________________ Date ___________________ 

 Each private property owner must sign a copy of the nomination. 

8. Nomination by Third Party Applicant of Properties owned by Cities and Counties 

Any private individual or private group that desires to nominate a property owned by a political subdivision as a landmark must

complete and return to the commission a nomination form, and must give notice of the nomination at the individual's or group's 

own expense, in a newspaper of general circulation published in the city, town, or county in which the building, structure or site is 

located. If no newspaper of general circulation is published in the city, town, or county, the notice must be published in a 

newspaper of general circulation in an adjoining or neighboring county that is circulated in the county of the applicant's residence. 

 The notice must be printed in 12-point boldface type; include the exact location of the building or site; and include the 

name of the group or individual nominating the building or site. 

 An original copy of the notice and an affidavit of publication signed by the newspaper's publisher must be submitted to 

the commission with a nomination form. 

□ I have complied with this requirement (attach proof of publication)

 
 State Antiquities Landmark Form 

Page 4 of 4 

 

9. Attachments (indicate which items are included in application) 

□ Current photographs, sufficient for THC staff to confirm the property’s eligibility (digital files not accepted in lieu 

of prints) 

□ Maps 

□ Deed 

□ Proof of Publication 

□ Fiscal Impact Statement (Optional. For a building or structure owned by a political subdivision, the nomination may 

be accompanied by a statement assessing fiscal impacts of the potential designation on the political subdivision. The 

political subdivision may also supply a fiscal impact statement to be considered by the Commission). 

□ National Register form (to be attached by THC staff) 

□ Archeological site data form 

□ Other supporting documentation (briefly describe) ____________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

10. Evaluation by THC Staff (for buildings and structures only) 

□ Building/Structure is listed in the National Register of Historic Places 

□ Individually listed 

□ District (nominated in its entirety as an SAL) 

□ Contributes to significance of a listed district 

 

Name of District __________________________________________________________________________ 

Certified by _______________________________________________ Date __________________________ 

11. Evaluation by THC Executive Director 

□ The nomination is complete and acceptable. 

□ The property retains integrity at the time of the nomination and is eligible for designation. 

Signature: ___________________________________________________________ Date: __________________________ 

Texas Historical Commission 

P.O. Box 12276 

Austin, TX 78711-2276 

Phone 512/463-6100 

www.thc.state.tx.us 
Appendix G

Data Recovery Plan Template
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Archeology Data Recovery Plan

1

ARCHEOLOGY DATA RECOVERY PLAN

Once an archeological site is determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP), and it has been determined the undertaking may have an adverse effect on the site per 

36 CFR § 800.5, Assessment Of Adverse Effects, and in accordance with Stipulation IV.B.9 of this 

Programmatic Agreement, potential adverse effects to an NRHP-eligible archeological site within the 

Area of Potential Effects of the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail may be resolved through data 

recovery. Data recovery is a treatment measure to mitigate the adverse effect by recovering significant 

data or information prior to disturbance or destruction. A site-specific recovery plan will be written in 

coordination with the Texas Historical Commission / State Historic Preservation Office for each historic 

property identified for data recovery. 

The purpose of this document is to 1) provide the data recovery permit requirements as stated in the 

Texas Administrative Code (Title 13, Part 2, Chapter 26, Subchapter C, Rule 26.15; Archeological Permit 

Categories), and 2) an outline of the reporting criteria as stated in the Council of Texas Archeologists’ 

Guidelines for Cultural Resource Management Reports.

1. Data Recovery Texas Antiquities Permit

As per the Texas Administrative Code, “this permit category is for the purpose of full investigation and 

extensive excavation of particular archeological site or sites. Data recovery must be based on a research 

design approved by the commission. The evidence from a skillfully accomplished archeological 

excavation provides a detailed picture of the human activities at the site; emphasis is placed on the 

information that can be elicited rather than on the artifacts. In data recovery, the archeological deposits 

are removed by digging and are, therefore destroyed. Permission for construction to proceed may be 

granted depending upon the results of this level of investigation. Specific requirements may be set forth 

by the commission in the permit. The destruction can be justified only if:

A. it is done with such care that antiquities and cultural and environmental data in the area

excavated are discovered, and if possible, preserved;

B. information has been accurately recorded, whether its importance is immediately recognized or

not, to remain available after the site has disappeared; and

C. the record and results of the investigation are made available through publication.”

2. Council of Texas Archeologists’ Reporting Criteria for Full Report, Mitigation (4.3.5)

A. Abstract / Management Summary (4.2.1 / 4.2.2)

B. Introduction (4.2.3)

C. Environmental Background (4.2.4)

D. Research Questions and Research Design (4.2.5)

• Discussion of the potential of the archeological site, including research questions directly

pertinent to those data sets (i.e. regional subsistence; settlement patterns; raw material
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Archeology Data Recovery Plan

2

procurement; trading networks) qualifying the property for inclusion in the NRHP under 

Criterion D

• Explanation of why it is in the public interest to pursue answers to these research questions and 

how the public may benefit from the information recovered prior to the disturbance or 

destruction of the archeological site/resource

• Development of a Research Design tailored to the specific site type, demonstrating the costs of 

the data recovery are prudent and reasonable

• Avoidance or protection measures taken to ensure the preservation of the archeological 

site/resource

E. Previous Investigations and NRHP Significance (4.2.6)

• An overview of previous investigations conducted for the archeological resource and a 

description of the findings

• The justification for the previous recommendation and/or determination of eligibility and 

significance of the historic property

F. Investigations, Field Methods, and Laboratory Methods (4.3.5.2)

• Proposed investigations and additional data needed to address research questions, including 

special studies such as archival research and oral histories for historic sites

• Field methods discussing:

o Excavation plan including the size and number of test units and total square meters to be 

excavated; mechanical removal of sediments and vegetation prior to excavation, if 

necessary

o Unit level depth by arbitrary or natural levels, including stratigraphic and geomorphic 

context

o Recovery techniques including wire mesh size of sifting/shaker screens; artifact and sample 

collection policy; feature identification policy

• Laboratory methods discussing:

o Types of artifact processing and analysis, including discussion of the identification and 

treatment of human skeletal remains

o Methods and techniques for sample analysis (charcoal, bone, botanical remains) and dating, 

if appropriate

o Methods and techniques for artifact, data, and record management

o Treatment and disposition, including curation, of collections and records in accordance with 

36 CFR § 79 Curation Of Federally-Owned And Administered Archeological Collections

G. Results and Recommendations (4.3.5.2)

• Detailed description and analysis of data recovered, integrating previous investigations results 

and collections

• Recommendations including the need for additional investigations, avoidance, protection, 

and/or monitoring
Appendix H

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing and/or Construction-Related Activities 

Pursuant to Section 106
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

1

Appendix H: Areas Cleared for Ground Disturbing Activities

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Dallas County

Dallas TX-DA-AM-006-000 0.58

Dallas TX-DA-148.000 6.57

Dallas TX-DA-147.000 4.39

Dallas TX-DA-146.370 1.29

Dallas TX-DA-138.900 8.22

Dallas TX-DA-146.365 0.95

Dallas TX-DA-146.900 1.59

Dallas TX-DA-146.210 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-146.200 0.14

Dallas TX-DA-146.000 2.04 0.07

Dallas TX-DA-146.300 0.14

Dallas TX-DA-146.220 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-145.284 0.17

Dallas TX-DA-145.900 1.63 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-145.000 52.17 0.65

Dallas TX-DA-138.900 8.22 0.37

Dallas TX-DA-145-340 2.11

Dallas TX-DA-145.328 8.11

Dallas TX-DA-AM-007.000 0.40

Dallas TX-DA-145.282.900 1.68

Dallas TX-DA-AM-003.000 0.46

Dallas TX-DA-AM-002.000 1.11

Dallas TX-DA-143.000 0.45 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-142.900 0.17
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

2

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Dallas TX-DA-142.000 0.17

Dallas TX-DA-141.000 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-140.215 2.09

Dallas TX-DA-138.900 0.09

Dallas TX-DA-138.900 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-138.900 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-140.308 0.43

Dallas TX-DA-139.370 2.16

Dallas TX-DA-140.310 0.53

Dallas TX-DA-140.205 0.93

Dallas TX-DA-140.200 2.26

Dallas TX-DA-139.000 5.27 0.3

Dallas TX-DA-140.205.900 0.05 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-136.900 0.23

Dallas TX-DA-136.100 0.19 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-136.000 2.17 0.12

Dallas TX-DA-133.900 0.48

Dallas TX-DA-135.900 0.18 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-133.900 0.48

Dallas TX-DA-135.000 0.78 0.11

Dallas TX-DA-134.120 0.34 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-134.100 <0.01

Dallas TX-DA-134.110 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-133.900 0.75 0.11

Dallas TX-DA-132.000 21.79

Dallas TX-DA-131.000 4.85 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-130.000 2.14 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-129.000 2.12 0.13
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

3

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Dallas TX-DA-128.000 4.48 0.3

Dallas TX-DA-127.000 1.85 0.13

Dallas TX-DA-126.310 0.60 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-AM-005.000 1.32 0.14

Dallas TX-DA-125.000 26.35 0.79

Dallas TX-DA-124.210 0.32

Dallas TX-DA-124.200 0.61

Dallas TX-DA-125.200 1.14

Dallas TX-DA-124.000 2.25 0.14

Dallas TX-DA-123.000 5.98

Dallas TX-DA-122.000 1.00 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-120.900 0.27 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-119.330 0.65 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-120.000 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-119.000 1.38 0.1

Dallas TX-DA-118.900 0.37 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-114.300 0.88

Dallas TX-DA-105.900 0.37

Dallas TX-DA-116.000 0.17

Dallas TX-DA-116.001 0.31

Dallas TX-DA-114.000 1.10 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-113.000 1.07 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-113.320 0.16 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-112.320 0.16 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-113.300 0.09

Dallas TX-DA-112.310 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-108.900 0.14 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-108.330 0.35 0.03
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

4

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Dallas TX-DA-108.320 0.12

Dallas TX-DA-105.000 0.31 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-103.000 0.32 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-104.320 0.09

Dallas TX-DA-104.330 0.14 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-103.330 0.11

Dallas TX-DA-100.900 0.08 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-099.310 0.20 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-094.000 0.45 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-098.300 0.29 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-095.300 0.09

Dallas TX-DA-093.300 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-091.000 0.92 0.07

Dallas TX-DA-090.900 0.20 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-090.000 8.77 0.13

Dallas TX-DA-090.330 0.24

Dallas TX-DA-090.340 0.23

Dallas TX-DA-090.350 0.23

Dallas TX-DA-090.360 0.23

Dallas TX-DA-090.300 0.16

Dallas TX-DA-089.000 4.14 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-088.900 6.42 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-088.000 5.90 0.12

Dallas TX-DA-082.900 0.28 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-087.300 0.06

Dallas TX-DA-087.000 0.17 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-086.000 0.15 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-085.000 0.04
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

5

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Dallas TX-DA-084.000 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-083.000 0.06

Dallas TX-DA-082.000 0.07

Dallas TX-DA-082.300 0.17

Dallas TX-DA-078.900 0.20 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-080.300 0.17

Dallas TX-DA-081.000 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-080.000 0.06

Dallas TX-DA-079.000 0.07

Dallas TX-DA-077.000 0.24 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-078.000 0.14

Dallas TX-DA-076.000 19.56 0.52

Dallas TX-DA-076.000 0.27 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-075.000 0.57 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-074.935 0.13

Dallas TX-DA-074.930 0.11

Dallas TX-DA-074.920 0.05

Dallas TX-DA-074.915 0.05

Dallas TX-DA-074.910 0.05

Dallas TX-DA-074.904 0.06

Dallas TX-DA-074.902 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-074.900 0.09 0.23

Dallas TX-DA-074.000 3.80 0.26

Dallas TX-DA-073.210 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-073.200 0.44

Dallas TX-DA-071.200 0.30

Dallas TX-DA-058.910 1.18

Dallas TX-DA-073.000 3.89 0.02
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

6

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Dallas TX-DA-074.300 0.25

Dallas TX-DA-072.300 1.50

Dallas TX-DA-073.305 0.61

Dallas TX-DA-073.310 1.36

Dallas TX-DA-073.320 0.73

Dallas TX-DA-072.000 3.45 0.22

Dallas TX-DA-071.000 8.45 0.57

Dallas TX-DA-069.310 0.59

Dallas TX-DA-069.000 5.30 0.25

Dallas TX-DA-069.300 0.42

Dallas TX-DA-066.900 2.95 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-066.250 1.84

Dallas TX-DA-066.255 3.27

Dallas TX-DA-058.910 1.41

Dallas TX-DA-068.210 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-068.000 5.90 0.13

Dallas TX-DA-068.310 0.34

Dallas TX-DA-067.000 0.83 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-067.310 0.34

Dallas TX-DA-065.000 1.64 0.1

Dallas TX-DA-067.300 1.72

Dallas TX-DA-066.000 0.48 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-063.000 2.10 0.13

Dallas TX-DA-062.000 0.80 0.05

Dallas TX-DA-061.000 0.65 0.05

Dallas TX-DA-060.000 39.35 0.4

Dallas TX-DA-059.000 24.47 0.24

Dallas TX-DA-058.000 23.38 0.15
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

7

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Dallas TX-DA-057.000 15.74

Dallas TX-DA-056.900 0.05 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-055.210 0.14 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-056.000 4.09 0.28

Dallas TX-DA-055.940 0.32 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-055.000 2.57 0.18

Dallas TX-DA-054.900 0.34 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-054.000 5.71 0.38

Dallas TX-DA-053.000 0.50 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-052.000 0.53 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-051.000 1.21 0.06

Dallas TX-DA-050.000 2.26 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-048.000 13.46 0.26

Dallas TX-DA-047.250 0.09

Dallas TX-DA-047.240 0.33

Dallas TX-DA-047.230 1.46

Dallas TX-DA-047.220 0.60 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-047.900 1.16 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-047.200 3.61 0.16

Dallas TX-DA-045.260 9.88 0.32

Dallas TX-DA-052.500 3.51 0.1

Dallas TX-DA-045.210 4.21 0.12

Dallas TX-DA-051.500 5.05 0.15

Dallas TX-DA-050.500.900 0.22 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-050.500 2.50 0.18

Dallas TX-DA-049.500 2.94 0.18

Dallas TX-DA-045.900 1.43 0.09

Dallas TX-DA-050.500.300 0.46
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

8

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Dallas TX-DA-043.210 28.47 0.21

Dallas TX-DA-043.212 2.52 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-048.500.900 0.28 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-048.500 10.88 0.23

Dallas TX-DA-048.500.210 1.27

Dallas TX-DA-048.500.213 0.42

Dallas TX-DA-048.500.200 0.60

Dallas TX-DA-047.500 3.65 0.04

Dallas TX-DA-046.500 13.07 0.23

Dallas TX-DA-045.500 10.51 0.27

Dallas TX-DA-044.500 4.05 0.21

Dallas TX-DA-044.500.900 3.32 0.09

Dallas TX-DA-043.500.900 0.21 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-043.500 7.28 0.58

Dallas TX-DA-042.500 0.16 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-041.500.900 0.19 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-041.500.210 24.36

Dallas TX-DA-041.500 20.72 0.18

Dallas TX-DA-041.500.200 26.34

Dallas TX-DA-040.500 46.37 0.37

Dallas TX-DA-039.500 1.65 0.07

Dallas TX-DA-038.500.900 0.32 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-038.500 29.86 0.87

Dallas TX-DA-038.500.300 0.51

Dallas TX-DA-037.500.300 1.42

Dallas TX-DA-037.500.301 1.17

Dallas TX-DA-036.500 3.82 0.06

Dallas TX-DA-037.500.310 0.97
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

9

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Dallas TX-DA-035.500 7.79 0.22

Dallas TX-DA-035.500.200 1.67

Dallas TX-DA-034.500 0.35 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-033.500 1.02 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-032.500 3.09 0.22

Dallas TX-DA-031.500 0.08 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-030.500 1.13 0.09

Dallas TX-DA-030.500.200 0.30

Dallas TX-DA-029.500 0.45 0.03

Dallas TX-DA-028.500 1.35 0.05

Dallas TX-DA-027.500 2.03 0.05

Dallas TX-DA-011.210.900 0.24 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-024.500 14.12 0.26

Dallas TX-DA-026.500.220 0.30

Dallas TX-DA-026.500.210 0.38

Dallas TX-DA-026.500.225 1.16

Dallas TX-DA-025.500.200 5.49

Dallas TX-DA-026.500 2.36 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-025.500 6.44 0.05

Dallas TX-DA-026.500.200 5.78

Dallas TX-DA-024.500 14.12 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-023.500.900 1.50 0.01

Dallas TX-DA-013.501 0.26

Dallas TX-DA-023.500.200 1.06

Dallas TX-DA-022.500.200 1.67

Dallas TX-DA-023.500 3.77 0.19

Dallas TX-DA-023.500.350 1.05

Dallas TX-DA-023.500.340 0.66
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

10

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Dallas TX-DA-023.500.330 1.45

Dallas TX-DA-020.500.304 1.12

Dallas TX-DA-022.500 0.35 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-021.500 0.34 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-020.500 0.34 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-019.500 0.39 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-018.500 0.38 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-017.500 0.43 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-016.500 0.44 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-015.500 0.42 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-014.500 0.43 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-013.500 0.44 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-012.500 0.45 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-011.500 0.59 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-010.500 0.48 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-009.500 0.63 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-008.500 0.58 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-007.500 0.43 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-006.500 0.44 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-005.500 0.46 0.02

Dallas TX-DA-004.500.200 1.12

Dallas TX-DA-004.500 1.24 0.08

Dallas TX-DA-003.500.001 0.37

Dallas TX-DA-002.500 1.03 0.07

Dallas TX-DA-003.500 0.74

Ellis County

Ellis TX-EL-160.500 2.68 0.19
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

11

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Ellis TX-EL-159.500 0.78 0.09

Ellis TX-EL-158.500 43.98 0.24

Ellis TX-EL-157.500 10.51 0.48

Ellis TX-EL-156.500 3.72 0.26

Ellis TX-EL-140.900 0.18 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-155.500 0.62 0.06

Ellis TX-EL-155.500.200 0.12

Ellis TX-EL-154.500 0.55 0.05

Ellis TX-EL-155.500.210 0.21

Ellis TX-EL-AM-006.000 0.01 0.02

Ellis TX-EL-152.500 2.40 0.04

Ellis TX-EL-153.500 6.30 0.15

Ellis TX-EL-152.500 4.68 0.24

Ellis TX-EL-140.205 1.51

Ellis TX-EL-152.500.100 16.1 0.48

Ellis TX-EL-152.500.105 0.18 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-151.500.001 0.73 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-151.500 2.49 0.13

Ellis TX-EL-152.500.200 0.22 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-136.900 0.83 0.03

Ellis TX-EL-131.220 2.76 0.07

Ellis TX-EL-132.210 22.46 0.31

Ellis TX-EL-132.000 16.82 0.31

Ellis TX-EL-131.210 7.21 0.18

Ellis TX-EL-131.210.100 0.28

Ellis TX-EL-131.000 3.32 0.17

Ellis TX-EL-131.200 0.11

Ellis TX-EL-130.250 1.74 0.13
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

12

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Ellis TX-EL-128.200 0.04

Ellis TX-EL-126.220 1.44 0.11

Ellis TX-EL-125.240 1.30 0.09

Ellis TX-EL-125.242 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-129.900 0.04 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-126.200 0.07 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-125.200 0.53 0.03

Ellis TX-EL-126.200 0.13 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-125.210 1.91 0.03

Ellis TX-EL-122.000 49.62 0.26

Ellis TX-EL-124.000 2.11 0.12

Ellis TX-EL-121.200 0.28

Ellis TX-EL-120.000 24.69 0.82

Ellis TX-EL-119.100 7.42 0.33

Ellis TX-EL-119.000 0.28 0.02

Ellis TX-EL-118.000 1.01 0.06

Ellis TX-EL-117.000 0.30 0.02

Ellis TX-EL-115.000 3.28 0.14

Ellis TX-EL-114.000 1.14 0.07

Ellis TX-EL-113.000 1.18 0.07

Ellis TX-EL-112.000 1.11 0.04

Ellis TX-EL-112.200 3.78

Ellis TX-EL-112.300 2.37

Ellis TX-EL-111.000 6.79 0.1

Ellis TX-EL-109.000 3.34 0.19

Ellis TX-EL-110.360 2.69

Ellis TX-EL-110.350 0.08

Ellis TX-EL-108.000 1.20 0.08
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

13

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Ellis TX-EL-107.000 11.36 0.35

Ellis TX-EL-105.260 0.65

Ellis TX-EL-106.000 2.32 0.07

Ellis TX-EL-101.000 29.14 0.48

Ellis TX-EL-104.000 1.75 0.05

Ellis TX-EL-105.000 0.60

Ellis TX-EL-103.200 0.02

Ellis TX-EL-103.000 1.34 0.05

Ellis TX-EL-102.000 0.23 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-100.900 0.39

Ellis TX-EL-101.000 0.32 0.32

Ellis TX-EL-096.000 6.55 0.42

Ellis TX-EL-098.000 0.63 0.05

Ellis TX-EL-097.000 0.29 0.02

Ellis TX-EL-095.000 31.38 0.99

Ellis TX-EL-092.900 0.14 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-092.100 8.24 0.47

Ellis TX-EL-092.000 1.44 0.07

Ellis TX-EL-089.000 0.58 0.04

Ellis TX-EL-088.000 0.85 0.06

Ellis TX-EL-087.000 0.45 0.03

Ellis TX-EL-083.100 0.47 0.03

Ellis TX-EL-083.000 6.77 0.55

Ellis TX-EL-084.000 3.29 0.22

Ellis TX-EL-080.900 0.21 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-081.000 1.79 0.1

Ellis TX-EL-082.000 3.29 0.22

Ellis TX-EL-080.000 9.47 0.4
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

14

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Ellis TX-EL-079.000 3.59 0.94

Ellis TX-EL-078.000 0.57 0.04

Ellis TX-EL-076.000 23.11 0.94

Ellis TX-EL-075.000 1.79 0.12

Ellis TX-EL-074.000 29.81 0.12

Ellis TX-EL-073.900 0.27 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-072.000 91.48 0.48

Ellis TX-EL-071.000 6.97 0.16

Ellis TX-EL-070.000 5.42 0.38

Ellis TX-EL-067.000 1.58 0.11

Ellis TX-EL-064.000 11.69 0.65

Ellis TX-EL-063.000 10.70 0.35

Ellis TX-EL-062.000 3.84 0.18

Ellis TX-EL-060.000 17.37 0.34

Ellis TX-EL-058.000 3.14 0.22

Ellis TX-EL-056.000 2.61 0.15

Ellis TX-EL-055.000 2.42 0.17

Ellis TX-EL-053.000 8.30 0.34

Ellis TX-EL-051.000 10.9 0.15

Ellis TX-EL-050.000 0.16 0.01

Ellis TX-EL-048.900 2.41 0.04

Ellis TX-EL-048.000 2.99 0.17

Ellis TX-EL-049.300 3.08

Ellis TX-EL-048.310 1.28

Ellis TX-EL-047.000 2.39 0.17

Ellis TX-EL-046.000 0.23 0.02

Ellis TX-EL-045.110 1.19 0.09

Ellis TX-EL-045.120 1.17 0.07
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

15

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Ellis TX-EL-045.000 0.52 0.03

Ellis TX-EL-044.000 14.19 0.31

Ellis TX-EL-042.100 0.27

Ellis TX-EL-043.900 4.57 0.03

Ellis TX-EL-042.000 1.12

Ellis TX-EL-044.000 4.12 0.03

Ellis TX-EL-041.000 17.29 0.77

Ellis TX-EL-038.000 32.43 0.53

Ellis TX-EL-037.000 0.86 0.02

Ellis TX-EL-036.000 10.04 0.38

Ellis TX-EL-034.000 5.07 0.14

Ellis TX-EL-033.000 4.97 0.14

Ellis TX-EL-032.000 8.77 0.26

Ellis TX-EL-031.000 8.33 0.27

Ellis TX-EL-030.000 9.55 0.14

Ellis TX-EL-028.000 14.31 0.43

Ellis TX-EL-027.210 0.19

Ellis TX-EL-027.200 1.06

Ellis TX-EL-027.000 9.74 0.24

Ellis TX-EL-026.000 0.27

Ellis TX-EL-025.000 0.19

Ellis TX-EL-020.100 0.31

Ellis TX-EL-024.000 31.09 0.38

Ellis TX-EL-019.210 58.24 0.79

Ellis TX-EL-014.282 4.67 0.26

Ellis TX-EL-014.281 0.03

Ellis TX-EL-014.225 5.13 0.21

Ellis TX-EL-014.250 0.58
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

16

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Ellis TX-EL-014.240 0.62

Ellis TX-EL-014.230 0.62

Ellis TX-EL-014.220 20.00 0.69

Ellis TX-EL-014.221 28.78 1.24

Ellis TX-EL-009.205 30.61 0.87

Ellis TX-EL-009.207 3.15

Ellis TX-EL-009.206 9.57

Ellis TX-EL-009.000 1.09

Ellis TX-EL-008.200 27.04 0.5

Ellis TX-EL-006.205 10.89 0.5

Ellis TX-EL-005.200 35.73 1.05

Navarro County

Navarro TX-NA-108.200 9.20 0.66

Navarro TX-NA-106.200 6.27 0.44

Navarro TX-NA-103.000 41.00 1.06

Navarro TX-NA-103.200 0.98

Navarro TX-NA-101.200 3.72 0.17

Navarro TX-NA-101.900 0.13 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-101.000 0.09

Navarro TX-NA-100.210 0.97 0.05

Navarro TX-NA-100.000 12.72 0.2

Navarro TX-NA-098.220 5.10 0.27

Navarro TX-NA-099.000 18.42 0.55

Navarro TX-NA-100.200 0.98 0.04

Navarro TX-NA-099.300 1.01

Navarro TX-NA-098.210 0.35

Navarro TX-NA-098.000 12.71 0.79

Navarro TX-NA-098-910 0.13 0.01
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

17

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Navarro TX-NA-097.210 19.09

Navarro TX-NA-097.240 1.01

Navarro TX-NA-097.200 3.53

Navarro TX-NA-097.000 20.46 0.27

Navarro TX-NA-096.000 6.61 0.47

Navarro TX-NA-095.900 0.07 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-094.000 7.08 0.7

Navarro TX-NA-093.000 5.69 0.2

Navarro TX-NA-092.000 5.59 0.31

Navarro TX-NA-091.900 0.10 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-091.000 12.52 0.48

Navarro TX-NA-090.000 13.34 0.28

Navarro TX-NA-089.210 0.36

Navarro TX-NA-089.000 3.04 0.05

Navarro TX-NA-088.000 8.20 0.04

Navarro TX-NA-087.910 1.00 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-087.000 13.6 0.13

Navarro TX-NA-085.000 17.54 0.32

Navarro TX-NA-084.900 0.33 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-084.000 17.04 0.34

Navarro TX-NA-083.000 8.52 0.22

Navarro TX-NA-082.000 7.14 0.23

Navarro TX-NA-081.000 4.07 0.16

Navarro TX-NA-080.000 10.13 0.21

Navarro TX-NA-079.000 12.4 0.36

Navarro TX-NA-078.000 25.72 0.51

Navarro TX-NA-077.000 5.30 0.15

Navarro TX-NA-077.100 0.18
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

18

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Navarro TX-NA-076.000 16.50 0.35

Navarro TX-NA-075.000 8.65 0.32

Navarro TX-NA-074.000 12.45 0.57

Navarro TX-NA-072.000 12.21 0.6

Navarro TX-NA-071.100 13.05 0.31

Navarro TX-NA-071.000 6.69 0.13

Navarro TX-NA-070.000 12.66 0.26

Navarro TX-NA-069.000 1.21

Navarro TX-NA-O7-047.001 0.20

Navarro TX-NA-070.200.100 0.69 0.05

Navarro TX-NA-068.000 7.59 0.27

Navarro TX-NA-067.170 0.23 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-067.160 2.20 0.07

Navarro TX-NA-067.130 0.92 0.06

Navarro TX-NA-067.140 1.75 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-067.120 1.35 0.06

Navarro TX-NA-067.100 1.95 0.07

Navarro TX-NA-067.110 0.85

Navarro TX-NA-067.000 0.35 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-066.900 2.81

Navarro TX-NA-066.000 8.73 0.28

Navarro TX-NA-065.000 0.86 0.06

Navarro TX-NA-065.310 0.71 0.04

Navarro TX-NA-061.910 0.22 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-061.900 1.39 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-064.000 30.95 0.22

Navarro TX-NA-064.900 0.07 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-063.100 4.53 0.18
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

19

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Navarro TX-NA-063.320 2.94

Navarro TX-NA-063.310 5.89 0.23

Navarro TX-NA-O7-036.002 10.17 0.21

Navarro TX-NA-O7-036.001 33.32 1.03

Navarro TX-NA-O7-031.000 4.69 0.33

Navarro TX-NA-053.900 0.09 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-053.000 5.68 0.4

Navarro TX-NA-049.000 5.27 0.67

Navarro TX-NA-O7-030.000 11.17 0.47

Navarro TX-NA-O7-029.000 6.04 0.44

Navarro TX-NA-047.000 3.90 0.39

Navarro TX-NA-045.000 13.84 0.49

Navarro TX-NA-O7-028.000 24.67 0.42

Navarro TX-NA-O9-001.001 2.36

Navarro TX-NA-043.900 2.20 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-043.000 26.41 0.08

Navarro TX-NA-O7-027.000 2.99 0.35

Navarro TX-NA-042.000 47.59 0.73

Navarro TX-NA-041.000 6.90 0.49

Navarro TX-NA-040.000 2.60 0.19

Navarro TX-NA-O7-026.000 1.67 0.09

Navarro TX-NA-O7-024.001 36.87 1.27

Navarro TX-NA-O6-007.120 16.34 0.18

Navarro TX-NA-O6-007.110 3.20 0.09

Navarro TX-NA-O6-007.100 3.36 0.09

Navarro TX-NA-O6-007.000 2.52 0.09

Navarro TX-NA-O6-006.110 2.48 0.09

Navarro TX-NA-O6-006.100 1.86 0.07
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

20

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Navarro TX-NA-O6-004.200 5.93 0.28

Navarro TX-NA-O6-004.000 1.50 0.05

Navarro TX-NA-O6-003.000 2.67 0.09

Navarro TX-NA-032.000 39.95 0.54

Navarro TX-NA-032.000 30.92 0.18

Navarro TX-NA-O6-002.004 47.93 0.16

Navarro TX-NA-O6-002.003 18.39 0.13

Navarro TX-NA-O6-002.002 4.06 0.25

Navarro TX-NA-029.900 0.06 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-O6-002.001 0.30 0.02

Navarro TX-NA-O6-002.001 1.85 0.13

Navarro TX-NA-O6-002.000 1.47 0.11

Navarro TX-NA-O6-001.000 2.25 0.16

Navarro TX-NA-029.000 5.10 0.22

Navarro TX-NA-026.000 9.03 0.22

Navarro TX-NA-026.100 8.71 0.2

Navarro TX-NA-O6-001.004 4.13

Navarro TX-NA-O6-001.003 11.26 0.18

Navarro TX-NA-025.000 4.24 0.09

Navarro TX-NA-024.000 2.65 0.1

Navarro TX-NA-O6-001.002 5.71 0.22

Navarro TX-NA-023.000 1.85 0.07

Navarro TX-NA-022.000 2.03 0.06

Navarro TX-NA-021.000 2.62 0.07

Navarro TX-NA-020.000 0.95 0.02

Navarro TX-NA-019.000 3.18 0.06

Navarro TX-NA-015.000 4.62 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-018.000 3.27 0.05
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

21

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Navarro TX-NA-017.000 2.26 0.05

Navarro TX-NA-016.000 1.73 0.05

Navarro TX-NA-O6-001.001 2.35 0.11

Navarro TX-NA-014.000 3.83 0.19

Navarro TX-NA-013.900 0.06 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-013.125 1.97 0.16

Navarro TX-NA-013.120 2.36 0.17

Navarro TX-NA-013.115 0.71 0.05

Navarro TX-NA-013.110 0.79 0.06

Navarro TX-NA-013.105 0.92 0.07

Navarro TX-NA-013.100 1.14 0.08

Navarro TX-NA-013.000 1.60 0.06

Navarro TX-NA-007.900 0.46 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-007.240.900 0.15 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-012.000 2.59 0.05

Navarro TX-NA-011.000 12.13 0.17

Navarro TX-NA-010.000 9.78 0.17

Navarro TX-NA-009.000 6.80 0.17

Navarro TX-NA-008.000 6.90 0.17

Navarro TX-NA-007.000 7.08 0.18

Navarro TX-NA-007.910 0.04 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-005.000 2.33 0.16

Navarro TX-NA-004.000 6.03 0.43

Navarro TX-NA-003.000 1.15 0.08

Navarro TX-NA-001.900 0.13 0.01

Navarro TX-NA-001.000 6.58 0.28

Navarro TX-NA-001.200 13.22

Freestone County
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

22

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Freestone TX-NA-001.200 13.21 0.56

Freestone TX-FR-102.000 161.51 0.87

Freestone TX-FR-102.102 46.83 0.04

Freestone TX-FR-102.100 1.57 0.06

Freestone TX-FR-101.200 1.77 0.03

Freestone TX-FR-100.000 1.13 0.07

Freestone TX-FR-099.900 0.24 0.01

Freestone TX-FR-099.000 3.09 0.12

Freestone TX-FR-098.000 7.09 0.15

Freestone TX-FR-095.900 3.13 0.01

Freestone TX-FR-096.000 8.70 0.2

Freestone TX-FR-095.200 3.72

Freestone TX-FR-097.000 6.17

Freestone TX-FR-094.000 14.06 0.29

Freestone TX-FR-091.000 13.24 0.22

Freestone TX-FR-092.000 11.00 0.1

Freestone TX-FR-095.000 12.45

Freestone TX-FR-093.000 4.88

Freestone TX-FR-090.000 4.20 0.26

Freestone TX-FR-089.000 7.71 0.27

Freestone TX-FR-088.000 4.01 0.09

Freestone TX-FR-086.000 10.20 0.33

Freestone TX-FR-083.000 1.59 0.09

Freestone TX-FR-082.000 14.71 0.88

Freestone TX-FR-081.000 0.88 0.05

Freestone TX-FR-078.900 0.38 0.01

Freestone TX-FR-079.100 7.82 0.32

Freestone TX-FR-078.000 0.60 0.11
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

23

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Freestone TX-FR-077.000 0.20 0.13

Freestone TX-FR-076.000 0.43 0.01

Freestone TX-FR-075.000 1.94 0.05

Freestone TX-FR-074.000 5.81 0.15

Freestone TX-FR-073.000 0.16 0.05

Freestone TX-FR-074.310 0.86

Freestone TX-FR-072.000 13.27 0.18

Freestone TX-FR-071.000 1.17 0.27

Freestone TX-FR-O3-190.007 1.01 0.07

Freestone TX-FR-070.000 1.36 0.1

Freestone TX-FR-O3-190.006 5.09 0.16

Freestone TX-FR-O3-190.005 4.19 0.13

Freestone TX-FR-067.000 2.71 0.07

Freestone TX-FR-066.000 4.89 0.15

Freestone TX-FR-O3-190.003 2.36 0.17

Freestone TX-FR-063.204 4.08 0.15

Freestone TX-FR-063.100 4.67 0.14

Freestone TX-FR-063.201 0.59 0.02

Freestone TX-FR-063.000 1.20 0.06

Freestone TX-FR-O3-190.000 1.41 0.1

Freestone TX-FR-O3-189.000 4.26 0.18

Freestone TX-FR-060.000 7.28 0.23

Freestone TX-FR-O3-188.004 22.06 0.43

Freestone TX-FR-O3-188.220 16.85 0.43

Freestone TX-FR-054.250 3.38 0.19

Freestone TX-FR-054.240 1.50 0.09

Freestone TX-FR-050.250 1.45 0.09

Freestone TX-FR-050.240 0.51 0.03
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

24

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Freestone TX-FR-051.220 10.03 0.36

Freestone TX-FR-051.210 8.48 0.18

Freestone TX-FR-051.200 9.97 0.16

Freestone TX-FR-048.215 5.37 0.12

Freestone TX-FR-050.210 0.14

Freestone TX-FR-048.210 7.09 0.24

Freestone TX-FR-050.200 1.58

Freestone TX-FR-048.000 12.87 0.39

Freestone TX-FR-045.220 9.78 0.32

Freestone TX-FR-045.210.100 3.84 0.12

Freestone TX-FR-045.200 4.60 0.32

Freestone TX-FR-044.000 13.69 0.51

Freestone TX-FR-042.210.100 10.08 0.37

Freestone TX-FR-044.200 0.06

Freestone TX-FR-043.000 0.14 0.17

Freestone TX-FR-042.210.102 6.47 0.21

Freestone TX-FR-042.210 0.25 0.01

Freestone TX-FR-042.900 0.93 0.01

Freestone TX-FR-041.220 2.16 0.08

Freestone TX-FR-042.000 7.01 0.12

Freestone TX-FR-041.000 0.04

Freestone TX-FR-040.000 27.73 0.3

Freestone TX-FR-039.000 26.46 0.19

Freestone TX-FR-038.200 1.75

Freestone TX-FR-038.000 12.75 0.21

Freestone TX-FR-037.000 2.78 0.03

Freestone TX-FR-036.900 12.14 0.3

Freestone TX-FR-036.200 9.40
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

25

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Freestone TX-FR-036.000 13.18 0.38

Freestone TX-FR-035.000 0.76 0.05

Freestone TX-FR-034.000 1.36 0.1

Freestone TX-FR-033.000 1.11 0.27

Freestone TX-FR-032.000 0.27 0.02

Freestone TX-FR-031.000 2.09 0.15

Freestone TX-FR-030.000 1.33 0.08

Freestone TX-FR-030.200 0.26 0.02

Freestone TX-FR-029.100 2.17 0.15

Freestone TX-FR-029.000 1.65 0.12

Freestone TX-FR-029.200 0.65

Freestone TX-FR-026.900 0.22 0.01

Freestone TX-FR-028.000 4.63 0.3

Freestone TX-FR-026.000 7.62 0.23

Freestone TX-FR-025.000 4.92 0.08

Freestone TX-FR-024.000 3.60 0.1

Freestone TX-FR-021.000 5.22 0.36

Freestone TX-FR-019.000 2.53 0.12

Freestone TX-FR-019.100 2.81 0.09

Freestone TX-FR-018.000 3.55 0.08

Freestone TX-FR-018.100 1.17 0.07

Freestone TX-FR-017.000 1.17 0.05

Freestone TX-FR-016.000 1.06 0.05

Freestone TX-FR-015.000 1.02 0.05

Freestone TX-FR-014.000 0.77 0.04

Freestone TX-FR-013.150 0.93 0.04

Freestone TX-FR-013.140 1.01 0.04

Freestone TX-FR-013.130 1.02 0.04
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

26

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Freestone TX-FR-013.000 1.32 0.04

Freestone TX-FR-012.000 2.43 0.07

Freestone TX-FR-012.100 0.02 0.01

Freestone TX-FR-011.120 1.43 0.04

Freestone TX-FR-011.110 3.86 0.12

Freestone TX-FR-011.100 4.13 0.12

Freestone TX-FR-011.000 10.63 0.24

Freestone TX-FR-010.140 5.96 0.4

Freestone TX-FR-010.130 0.22

Freestone TX-FR-010.150 0.79 0.08

Freestone TX-FR-008.000 15.13 0.64

Freestone TX-FR-007.000 2.44 0.07

Freestone TX-FR-006.000 2.56 0.08

Freestone TX-FR-005.000 2.09 0.06

Freestone TX-FR-004.000 2.30 0.06

Freestone TX-FR-003.000 2.64 0.07

Freestone TX-FR-002.000 21.40 0.61

Freestone TX-FR-001.000 19.92 0.54

Limestone County

Limestone TX-LI-040.000 12.71 0.35

Limestone TX-FR-001.310 1.54 0.03

Limestone TX-LI-038.000 7.14 0.25

Limestone TX-LI-037.000 6.64 0.19

Limestone TX-LI-036.000 2.42 0.1

Limestone TX-LI-035.000 14.60 0.35

Limestone TX-LI-033.000 11.13 0.12

Limestone TX-LI-032.000 0.04

Limestone TX-LI-031.100 4.60 0.18
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

27

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Limestone TX-LI-031.000 7.58 0.24

Limestone TX-LI-030.000 18.44 0.41

Limestone TX-LI-029.000 3.69 0.12

Limestone TX-LI-028.220 4.32 0.16

Limestone TX-LI-028.180 1.46 0.09

Limestone TX-LI-028.208 0.14

Limestone TX-LI-028.170 10.88 0.29

Limestone TX-LI-028.130 10.74 0.26

Limestone TX-LI-028.120 4.16 0.12

Limestone TX-LI-028.201 0.82 0.06

Limestone TX-LI-028.000 5.73 0.48

Limestone TX-LI-027.250 7.00 0.5

Limestone TX-LI-027.205 2.64 0.19

Limestone TX-LI-027.220.100 4.61 0.22

Limestone TX-LI-027.220 10.32 0.4

Limestone TX-LI-027.210 3.22 0.07

Limestone TX-LI-027.213 4.09 0.21

Limestone TX-LI-027.212 3.30 0.21

Limestone TX-LI-027.211 3.30 0.2

Limestone TX-LI-024.216 4.17 0.19

Limestone TX-LI-024.213 28.65 0.15

Limestone TX-LI-024.216 4.15 0.09

Limestone TX-LI-024.214 2.02

Limestone TX-LI-024.210.120 8.94 0.21

Limestone TX-LI-024.210.110 0.65 0.43

Limestone TX-LI-024.210 2.80 0.13

Limestone TX-LI-024.204 5.73 0.18

Limestone TX-LI-024.201 5.44 0.36
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

28

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Limestone TX-LI-021.280 2.11 0.16

Limestone TX-LI-021.290 4.57 0.35

Limestone TX-LI-021.270 1.84

Limestone TX-LI-017.230 15.6 0.54

Limestone TX-LI-017.000 0.12

Limestone TX-LI-017.200 6.56 0.31

Limestone TX-LI-013.000 0.12

Limestone TX-LI-012.900 0.19 0.01

Limestone TX-LI-015.220 1.14 0.08

Limestone TX-LI-015.220.100 0.15 0.01

Limestone TX-LI-015.210 6.65 0.37

Limestone TX-LI-011.210 4.41 0.19

Limestone TX-LI-011.220 7.46 0.29

Limestone TX-LI-009.000 2.17 0.16

Limestone TX-LI-005.900 0.06 0.01

Limestone TX-LI-005.210 6.57 0.39

Limestone TX-LI-003.900 0.53 0.01

Limestone TX-LI-007.100 1.18 0.08

Limestone TX-LI-009.910 0.08 0.01

Limestone TX-LI-006.200 4.15 0.28

Limestone TX-LI-003.203 4.06 0.13

Limestone TX-LI-003.202 3.90 0.1

Limestone TX-LI-003.201 3.87 0.08

Limestone TX-LI-001.200 5.16 0.34

Leon County

Leon TX-LE-099.200 1.74

Leon TX-LE-099.250 10.10 0.07

Leon TX-LE-099.240 5.03 0.07
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

29

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Leon TX-LE-099.230 2.04 0.08

Leon TX-LE-099.220 4.46 0.08

Leon TX-LE-099.215 41.41 1.15

Leon TX-LE-099.205 7.34 0.28

Leon TX-LE-095.000 32.74 0.63

Leon TX-LE-090.300 2.22 0.22

Leon TX-LE-095.910 5.30 0.01

Leon TX-LE-091.000 5.66 0.23

Leon TX-LE-090.000 15.34 0.52

Leon TX-LE-088.000 19.83 0.5

Leon TX-LE-086.000 15.37 0.31

Leon TX-LE-085.000 1.84 0.12

Leon TX-LE-084.000 2.47 0.12

Leon TX-LE-083.100 20.64 0.27

Leon TX-LE-083.000 4.14 0.26

Leon TX-LE-083.210 0.35

Leon TX-LE-082.100 0.59 0.02

Leon TX-LE-082.000 12.30 0.53

Leon TX-LE-082.110 0.45

Leon TX-LE-081.000 1.91

Leon TX-LE-080.105 8.35 0.24

Leon TX-LE-080.100 9.02 0.26

Leon TX-LE-079.110 1.06 0.03

Leon TX-LE-079.100 5.30 0.23

Leon TX-LE-079.000 2.93

Leon TX-LE-078.000 12.69 0.42

Leon TX-LE-074.900 0.38 0.01

Leon TX-LE-074.000 4.26 0.29
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

30

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Leon TX-LE-074.920 2.39 0.01

Leon TX-LE-073.000 28.19 0.25

Leon TX-LE-072.000 35.02 0.13

Leon TX-LE-074.305 101.51

Leon TX-LE-072.300 3.65

Leon TX-LE-072.320 0.72

Leon TX-LE-070.000 62.1 0.63

Leon TX-LE-069.000 33.76 0.44

Leon TX-LE-066.000 17.77 0.8

Leon TX-LE-065.000 6.56 0.36

Leon TX-LE-063.000 17.01 0.3

Leon TX-LE-062.000 9.03 0.28

Leon TX-LE-061.000 18.59 0.72

Leon TX-LE-060.000 11.76 0.48

Leon TX-LE-059.000 2.93 0.13

Leon TX-LE-059.105 0.23

Leon TX-LE-059.100 3.54 0.2

Leon TX-LE-T-084.900 0.50

Leon TX-LE-057.100 2.15 0.15

Leon TX-LE-056.100 1.69 0.12

Leon TX-LE-056.000 24.95 0.37

Leon TX-LE-055.310 0.38

Leon TX-LE-56.116 0.63

Leon TX-LE-055.120 7.41 0.13

Leon TX-LE-055.110 6.53 0.1

Leon TX-LE-055.100 6.29 0.17

Leon TX-LE-055.000 2.32 0.1

Leon TX-LE-054.000 0.58 0.03
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

31

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Leon TX-LE-052.000 3.27 0.1

Leon TX-LE-052.100 14.15 0.14

Leon TX-LE-052.305.100 0.23

Leon TX-LE-052.305.102 0.02

Leon TX-LE-051.910 0.60 0.02

Leon TX-LE-051.105 0.41 0.03

Leon TX-LE-051.100 2.11 0.08

Leon TX-LE-051.115 3.38 0.09

Leon TX-LE-050.900 0.50 0.01

Leon TX-LE-050.000 3.18 0.06

Leon TX-LE-049.000 26.89 0.29

Leon TX-LE-048.320 0.12

Leon TX-LE-O3-002.005.110 2.78

Leon TX-LE-O3-002.005.255 0.03

Leon TX-LE-048.000 5.61 0.11

Leon TX-LE-048.001 1.01 0.05

Leon TX-LE-047.000 4.50 0.16

Leon TX-LE-O3-002.005.250 0.54

Leon TX-LE-046.000 5.51 0.12

Leon TX-LE-044.000 4.44 0.13

Leon TX-LE-043.000 2.80 0.15

Leon TX-LE-041.000 0.22 0.01

Leon TX-LE-040.000 3.13 0.23

Leon TX-LE-039.000 0.29 0.01

Leon TX-LE-038.000 30.90 0.78

Leon TX-LE-037.000 9.48 0.19

Leon TX-LE-036.000 16.60 0.53

Leon TX-LE-032.000 27.57 1
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

32

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Leon TX-LE-028.000 17.28 0.82

Leon TX-LE-027.100 10.32 0.37

Leon TX-LE-027.110 4.76 0.15

Leon TX-LE-025.310 11.62 0.2

Leon TX-LE-026.000 37.51 0.88

Leon TX-LE-025.000 13.76 0.65

Leon TX-LE-023.000 14.70 0.59

Leon TX-LE-024.000 1.45 0.01

Leon TX-LE-023.300 11.99 0.44

Leon TX-LE-022.000 1.47 0.04

Leon TX-LE-020.000 24.00 0.73

Leon TX-LE-017.310 0.74

Leon TX-LE-018.000 34.02 0.85

Leon TX-LE-017.100 10.84 0.2

Leon TX-LE-017.105 4.44 0.13

Leon TX-LE-014.900 0.39 0.01

Leon TX-LE-014.345 2.80 0.18

Leon TX-LE-014.340 6.71 0.26

Leon TX-LE-015.000 22.27 0.43

Leon TX-LE-015.310 0.47

Leon TX-LE-015.300 2.40

Leon TX-LE-014.320 7.21

Leon TX-LE-014.320.100 1.43

Leon TX-LE-014.002 3.25 0.08

Leon TX-LE-014.100 7.14 0.08

Leon TX-LE-014.001 5.89 0.15

Leon TX-LE-014.000 7.06 0.17

Leon TX-LE-014.300 6.47 0.17
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

33

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Leon TX-LE-014.300.100 0.39 0.01

Leon TX-LE-011.310 6.92 0.2

Leon TX-LE-011.300 6.78 0.22

Leon TX-LE-009.300 0.77 0.01

Leon TX-LE-011.305 1.54 0.06

Leon TX-LE-007.000 24.00 0.86

Leon TX-LE-006.000 1.87 0.07

Leon TX-LE-005.000 9.40 0.24

Leon TX-LE-004.000 9.26 0.26

Leon TX-LE-003.000 1.46 0.03

Leon TX-LE-002.000 6.85 0.23

Leon TX-LE-001.000 8.31 0.41

Leon TX-LE-O3-001.029 1.32 0.09

Madison County

Madison TX-MA-070.000 56.42 0.23

Madison TX-MA-068.000 33.00 0.72

Madison TX-MA-067.000 7.16 0.48

Madison TX-MA-067.100 0.16 0.01

Madison TX-MA-066.000 5.11 0.25

Madison TX-MA-065.000 8.91 0.22

Madison TX-MA-064.000 4.52 0.22

Madison TX-MA-064.320 0.11

Madison TX-MA-064.330 2.02

Madison TX-MA-062.000 4.02 0.23

Madison TX-MA-061.000 0.32 0.01

Madison TX-MA-060.000 6.49 0.14

Madison TX-MA-059.000 6.43 0.19

Madison TX-MA-058.000 4.18 0.11
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

34

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Madison TX-MA-057.000 3.20 0.17

Madison TX-MA-055.000 1.58 0.09

Madison TX-MA-056.000 0.13 0.01

Madison TX-MA-054.100 0.19 0.01

Madison TX-MA-054.000 0.62 0.04

Madison TX-MA-052.900 0.30 0.01

Madison TX-MA-053.000 4.51 0.29

Madison TX-MA-052.000 4.65 0.27

Madison TX-MA-051.000 20.61 0.47

Madison TX-MA-049.900 1.08

Madison TX-MA-049.000 22.20 0.29

Madison TX-MA-049.320 8.97

Madison TX-MA-O3-001.016 6.39

Madison TX-MA-048.100 11.80 0.07

Madison TX-MA-048.000 29.78 0.56

Madison TX-MA-047.000 3.26 0.08

Madison TX-MA-047.300 0.07 0.1

Madison TX-MA-045.000 3.10 0.07

Madison TX-MA-044.000 1.72 0.02

Madison TX-MA-043.000 14.96

Madison TX-MA-042.000 4.51 0.13

Madison TX-MA-041.000 8.89 0.14

Madison TX-MA-O3-001.015 0.33

Madison TX-MA-040.000 1.08 0.04

Madison TX-MA-039.000 6.32 0.27

Madison TX-MA-038.000 3.22 0.18

Madison TX-MA-037.000 7.33 0.23

Madison TX-MA-032.000 15.80 0.04
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

35

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Madison TX-MA-031.000 25.62 1

Madison TX-MA-029.910 0.53

Madison TX-MA-029.000 10.51 0.46

Madison TX-MA-030.000 2.35 0.11

Madison TX-MA-029.100 1.82 0.07

Madison TX-MA-028.210 19.54 0.53

Madison TX-MA-027.300 0.42

Madison TX-MA-028.200 5.66 0.01

Madison TX-MA-027.000 2.34 0.07

Madison TX-MA-026.000 14.49 0.44

Madison TX-MA-023.900 0.53

Madison TX-MA-025.000 44.77 0.33

Madison TX-MA-024.000 1.17 0.23

Madison TX-MA-023.000 1.60 0.09

Madison TX-MA-022.000 0.60 0.04

Madison TX-MA-021.000 0.83 0.06

Madison TX-MA-020.000 1.20 0.08

Madison TX-MA-019.000 1.13 0.08

Madison TX-MA-018.000 6.63 0.3

Madison TX-MA-017.000 5.53 0.24

Madison TX-MA-016.000 0.47 0.04

Madison TX-MA-O3-001.003 0.05

Madison TX-MA-015.000 4.17 0.28

Madison TX-MA-014.000 4.79 0.18

Madison TX-MA-013.000 11.76 0.49

Madison TX-MA-012.000 22.12 0.7

Madison TX-MA-011.000 0.15 0.01

Madison TX-MA-009.200 0.22 0.02
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

36

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Madison TX-MA-009.000 4.57 0.21

Madison TX-MA-010.000 1.09 0.01

Madison TX-MA-008.000 2.83 0.12

Madison TX-MA-007.000 2.47 0.1

Madison TX-MA-006.000 2.36 0.11

Madison TX-MA-005.000 1.92 0.07

Madison TX-MA-003.000 24.18 0.72

Madison TX-MA-004.000 9.91 0.37

Madison TX-MA-002.000 1.17

Madison TX-MA-001.000 27.08 0.69

Grimes County

Grimes TX-GR-247.001 <0.01

Grimes TX-GR-247.000 3.51 0.15

Grimes TX-GR-246.120 1.29 0.09

Grimes TX-GR-246.100 14.2 0.82

Grimes TX-GR-246.000 4.57 0.32

Grimes TX-GR-244.000 4.99 0.19

Grimes TX-GR-243.000 12.98 0.5

Grimes TX-GR-242.110 7.56 0.13

Grimes TX-GR-242.100 5.46 0.23

Grimes TX-GR-242.000 5.98 0.26

Grimes TX-GR-241.110 4.88 0.34

Grimes TX-GR-241.100 1.90 0.12

Grimes TX-GR-241.000 4.27 0.24

Grimes TX-GR-240.000 18.07 0.53

Grimes TX-GR-239.000 19.45 0.83

Grimes TX-GR-238.000 1.96 0.09

Grimes TX-GR-237.000 2.89 0.08
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

37

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-236.000 5.62 0.18

Grimes TX-GR-235.000 3.38 0.11

Grimes TX-GR-234.000 24.13 0.47

Grimes TX-GR-233.000 132.54 3

Grimes TX-GR-231.000 14.62 0.63

Grimes TX-GR-230.000 15.15 0.51

Grimes TX-GR-229.000 10.22 0.5

Grimes TX-GR-228.000 9.91 0.42

Grimes TX-GR-227.000 4.42 0.1

Grimes TX-GR-226.000 5.42 0.13

Grimes TX-GR-225.100 4.13 0.14

Grimes TX-GR-225.000 3.16 0.12

Grimes TX-GR-224.000 8.17 0.3

Grimes TX-GR-223.000 6.65 0.16

Grimes TX-GR-221.110 24.43 0.1

Grimes TX-GR-222.000 1.17 0.07

Grimes TX-GR-221.100 32.08 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-221.105 2.21 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-221.000 3.60 0.14

Grimes TX-GR-219.200 0.61

Grimes TX-GR-220.000 60.55 0.29

Grimes TX-GR-219.000 3.44 0.22

Grimes TX-GR-218.000 4.33 0.3

Grimes TX-GR-217.000 4.11 0.28

Grimes TX-GR-215.000 3.34 0.22

Grimes TX-GR-216.200 0.10

Grimes TX-GR-216.000 0.09

Grimes TX-GR-213.000 16.10 1.05
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

38

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-214.300 5.16

Grimes TX-GR-214.000 1.02 0.09

Grimes TX-GR-211.000 8.57 0.35

Grimes TX-GR-210.000 13.60 0.3

Grimes TX-GR-209.000 16.07 0.36

Grimes TX-GR-207.000 6.00 0.21

Grimes TX-GR-206.100 3.46 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-206.000 2.96 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-205.000 4.18 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-204.100 1.44

Grimes TX-GR-204.102 5.19 0.12

Grimes TX-GR-203.200 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-203.300 4.02

Grimes TX-GR-204.000 6.03 0.16

Grimes TX-GR-203.000 5.78 0.16

Grimes TX-GR-202.000 12.03 0.27

Grimes TX-GR-201.000 21.61 0.6

Grimes TX-GR-201.100 0.42

Grimes TX-GR-201.110 0.15

Grimes TX-GR-200.000 24.32 0.22

Grimes TX-GR-199.000 0.34 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-197.000 5.08 0.35

Grimes TX-GR-196.000 5.45 0.38

Grimes TX-GR-195.000 0.15 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-194.000 32.09 1.02

Grimes TX-GR-193.000 0.62 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-192.100 1.20 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-192.000 0.23 0.01
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

39

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-191.000 18.64 0.92

Grimes TX-GR-190.000 3.33 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-190.110 0.70

Grimes TX-GR-189.000 6.61 0.23

Grimes TX-GR-188.000 4.41 0.1

Grimes TX-GR-187.000 0.81 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-186.000 15.00 0.62

Grimes TX-GR-185.000 9.42 0.39

Grimes TX-GR-182.000 8.92 0.29

Grimes TX-GR-183.000 4.87

Grimes TX-GR-184.000 5.62 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-179.210 0.18

Grimes TX-GR-181.200 0.30

Grimes TX-GR-181.210 0.59

Grimes TX-GR-184.300 1.32

Grimes TX-GR-180.200 1.21

Grimes TX-GR-179.130 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-179.000 1.11

Grimes TX-GR-179.120 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-179.110 0.13

Grimes TX-GR-181.000 6.60 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-178.100 7.66 0.32

Grimes TX-GR-180.100 1.63

Grimes TX-GR-180.300 0.64

Grimes TX-GR-180.310 0.41

Grimes TX-GR-178.000 7.14 0.31

Grimes TX-GR-180.000 1.80

Grimes TX-GR-177.000 16.47 0.68
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

40

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-176.000 25.07

Grimes TX-GR-175.000 13.59 0.73

Grimes TX-GR-175.300 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-173.000 16.50 0.66

Grimes TX-GR-172.000 1.51 0.11

Grimes TX-GR-171.000 0.74

Grimes TX-GR-170.000 18.38 0.65

Grimes TX-GR-168.340 0.19

Grimes TX-GR-169.200 0.33

Grimes TX-GR-168.200 0.10

Grimes TX-GR-169.000 1.55

Grimes TX-GR-167.000 13.07 0.52

Grimes TX-GR-168.330 0.95

Grimes TX-GR-167.000 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-165.000 16.11 0.79

Grimes TX-GR-163.000 17.9 0.74

Grimes TX-GR-162.000 7.14 0.26

Grimes TX-GR-161.000 0.45 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-160.000 0.92 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-159.000 0.67 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-158.320 0.80

Grimes TX-GR-158.000 0.62 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-158.350 0.35

Grimes TX-GR-157.000 0.78 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-156.320 0.48

Grimes TX-GR-156.000 0.60 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-155.320 0.50

Grimes TX-GR-155.000 0.49 0.04
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

41

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-154.320 0.46

Grimes TX-GR-154.000 0.37 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-153.330 0.50

Grimes TX-GR-154.240 0.87

Grimes TX-GR-153.000 0.44 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-152.310 0.16

Grimes TX-GR-150.220 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-150.240 0.72

Grimes TX-GR-149.230 0.12

Grimes TX-GR-149.240 0.32

Grimes TX-GR-152.000 0.36 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-151.340 0.54

Grimes TX-GR-151.000 0.21 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-150.370 0.29

Grimes TX-GR-150.000 0.24 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-150.340 0.61

Grimes TX-GR-148.220 0.13

Grimes TX-GR-149.000 0.14 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-149.300 0.60

Grimes TX-GR-147.220 0.21

Grimes TX-GR-148.000 0.20 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-147.210 0.29

Grimes TX-GR-146.000 0.21 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-147.000 0.65 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-147.340 0.07

Grimes TX-GR-145.210 0.44

Grimes TX-GR-144.000 0.68 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-145.000 0.58 0.01
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

42

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-145.310 0.43

Grimes TX-GR-146.200 0.20

Grimes TX-GR-144.200 1.10

Grimes TX-GR-135.200 0.13

Grimes TX-GR-135.210 0.72

Grimes TX-GR-143.000 0.30 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-144.300 0.82

Grimes TX-GR-142.000 0.18

Grimes TX-GR-141.000 0.19 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-140.000 0.21 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-139.000 0.19 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-138.000 0.16 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-137.000 0.16 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-136.000 0.16 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-135.000 0.16 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-134.000 0.16 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-133.000 0.16 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-132.000 0.16 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-131.000 0.17 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-130.000 0.18 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-129.000 0.23 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-128.000 0.23 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-127.000 0.23 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-126.000 0.22 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-125.000 0.22 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-124.000 0.21 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-123.000 0.21 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-122.000 0.21 0.01
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

43

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-121.000 0.21 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-120.000 0.21 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-119.000 0.22 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-118.000 0.20 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-117.000 0.32 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-135.200 0.11

Grimes TX-GR-135.210 0.68

Grimes TX-GR-134.200 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-AM-005.000 1.38

Grimes TX-GR-132.220 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-132.200 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-131.240 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-130.210 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-130.200 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-128.240 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-128.230 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-127.210 0.19

Grimes TX-GR-126.240 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-126.200 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-124.200 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-124.210 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-123.210 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-122.220 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-122.210 <0.01

Grimes TX-GR-120.210 <0.01

Grimes TX-GR-120.200 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-118.240 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-117.200 0.14
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

44

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-118.250 0.09

Grimes TX-GR-116.220 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-115.200 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-138.300 0.36

Grimes TX-GR-138.310 0.16

Grimes TX-GR-136.300 0.37

Grimes TX-GR-136.310 0.07

Grimes TX-GR-133.300 0.38

Grimes TX-GR-133.310 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-131.300 0.37

Grimes TX-GR-131.310 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-128.300 0.35

Grimes TX-GR-128.310 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-126.300 0.35

Grimes TX-GR-126.310 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-123.300 0.42

Grimes TX-GR-122.300 0.20

Grimes TX-GR-121.300 0.17

Grimes TX-GR-120.300 0.17

Grimes TX-GR-119.300 0.17

Grimes TX-GR-118.300 0.18

Grimes TX-GR-117.300 0.16

Grimes TX-GR-116.300 0.23

Grimes TX-GR-116.000 0.19 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-115.000 0.19 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-115.300 0.67

Grimes TX-GR-114.000 0.17 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-114.300 0.36
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

45

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-113.000 0.19 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-113.300 0.32

Grimes TX-GR-112.000 0.17 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-112.300 0.29

Grimes TX-GR-111.000 0.21 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-111.300 0.31

Grimes TX-GR-110.000 0.16 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-109.300 0.34

Grimes TX-GR-109.000 0.16 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-108.300 0.39

Grimes TX-GR-108.310 0.47

Grimes TX-GR-108.000 0.56 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-107.000 0.57 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-106.000 0.81 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-105.000 0.74 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-104.000 0.55 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-103.000 0.34 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-102.000 0.28 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-101.000 0.15

Grimes TX-GR-100.000 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-098.000 8.57 0.1

Grimes TX-GR-098.100 0.20 0.01

Grimes TX-GR-097.100 19.42 1

Grimes TX-GR-097.000 2.63 0.11

Grimes TX-GR-096.000 9.84 0.26

Grimes TX-GR-095.000 5.23 0.58

Grimes TX-GR-094.100 6.62 0.43

Grimes TX-GR-094.000 1.35 0.09
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

46

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-093.000 2.66 0.18

Grimes TX-GR-092.000 2.55 0.19

Grimes TX-GR-091.100 0.88 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-091.000 1.03 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-090.000 1.12 0.07

Grimes TX-GR-088.100 0.73 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-088.000 0.69 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-087.100 0.45 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-087.000 0.13

Grimes TX-GR-088.300 0.56

Grimes TX-GR-084.000 22.39 0.44

Grimes TX-GR-086.000 0.23

Grimes TX-GR-085.000 3.17 0.22

Grimes TX-GR-083.000 1.20 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-081.300 0.36 0.1

Grimes TX-GR-080.000 2.41 0.13

Grimes TX-GR-080.110 1.20 0.2

Grimes TX-GR-075.300 2.88 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-079.000 0.65

Grimes TX-GR-078.000 0.38

Grimes TX-GR-077.000 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-076.000 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-075.000 11.59 0.67

Grimes TX-GR-075.100 3.26 0.22

Grimes TX-GR-071.300 1.34 0.1

Grimes TX-GR-072.000 5.75

Grimes TX-GR-071.000 127.16 0.26

Grimes TX-GR-069.000 3.36 0.23
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

47

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-068.300.100 2.74 0.09

Grimes TX-GR-068.300.110 0.81 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-068.300 1.61 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-065.310.100 0.07

Grimes TX-GR-059.310 7.83 0.2

Grimes TX-GR-059.000 0.64

Grimes TX-GR-058.000 0.71

Grimes TX-GR-054.000 (1/2) 2.57 0.09

Grimes TX-GR-054.000 (1/2) 5.83 0.24

Grimes TX-GR-053.000 3.75 0.14

Grimes TX-GR-052.000 3.21 0.14

Grimes TX-GR-049.000 5.73 0.28

Grimes TX-GR-051.000 1.90 0.14

Grimes TX-GR-050.000 0.16

Grimes TX-GR-048.000 6.83 0.25

Grimes TX-GR-047.000 5.58 0.24

Grimes TX-GR-046.000 5.98 0.28

Grimes TX-GR-045.000 6.39 0.27

Grimes TX-GR-044.000 2.04 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-043.000 2.03 0.09

Grimes TX-GR-042.000 2.32 0.1

Grimes TX-GR-041.000 3.80 0.12

Grimes TX-GR-040.000 8.26 0.14

Grimes TX-GR-039.000 6.17 0.26

Grimes TX-GR-039.220 0.22

Grimes TX-GR-038.000 2.97 0.13

Grimes TX-GR-037.000 1.97 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-036.000 0.14
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

48

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-035.000 6.72 0.3

Grimes TX-GR-034.000 1.36 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-033.000 2.28 0.11

Grimes TX-GR-033.310 0.57 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-032.100 4.53 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-032.000 1.12 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-031.000 1.12 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-030.000 0.61 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-030.100 0.54 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-029.000 0.72 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-028.000 0.72 0.05

Grimes TX-GR-027.100 0.59 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-027.000 0.50 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-026.000 0.80 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-025.000 0.61 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-024.000 0.23

Grimes TX-GR-023.000 1.33 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-022.000 1.29 0.08

Grimes TX-GR-020.000 2.41 0.14

Grimes TX-GR-019.000 1.05 0.06

Grimes TX-GR-018.000 0.77 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-017.000 1.71 0.07

Grimes TX-GR-016.000 1.07 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-015.000 0.70 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-014.000 1.07 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-013.000 0.75 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-012.000 0.89 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-011.000 0.66 0.03
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

49

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Grimes TX-GR-010.000 0.53 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-009.000 0.53 0.02

Grimes TX-GR-008.000 0.52 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-007.000 0.69 0.03

Grimes TX-GR-006.000 0.83 0.03

Grimes TX-WA-O1-029-000 0.17

Grimes TX-GR-006.210 2.40

Grimes TX-GR-005.000 0.77 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-004.000 0.89 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-003.000 0.88 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-002.000 0.92 0.04

Grimes TX-GR-001.000 0.18 0.01

Waller County

Waller TX-WA-O1-053.000 0.22 0.01

Waller TX-WA-053.360 0.91

Waller TX-WA-O1-044.000 0.72 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-043.000 0.62 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-042.000 0.62 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-041.000 0.62 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-040.000 0.63 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-039.000 0.63 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-038.000 0.66 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-029.000 3.22

Waller TX-WA-AM-001.000 0.36

Waller TX-WA-O1-037.000 0.75 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-030.300 0.39

Waller TX-WA-O1-030.345 0.11

Waller TX-WA-O1-036.000 0.67 0.03
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

50

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Waller TX-WA-029.208 0.03

Waller TX-WA-029-206 0.06

Waller TX-WA-029.200 1.78

Waller TX-WA-O1-035.000 0.70 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-034.000 0.66 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-033.000 0.40 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-032.000 0.39 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-031.000 0.36 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-030.000 0.62 0.03

Waller TX-WA-050.900 0.54 0.01

Waller TX-WA-053.000 3.02 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-052.000 2.72 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O2-050.001 0.86

Waller TX-WA-O1-051.000 2.16 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O2-050.110 0.43

Waller TX-WA-O1-028.000 1.56 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O2-050.100 1.29

Waller TX-WA-O1-027.000 1.29 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O2-050.000 2.07 0.02

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.014 0.95 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O2-049.110 3.25 0.08

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.013 3.49

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.012 0.94

Waller TX-WA-O2-049.100 3.70 0.08

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.011 1.06 0.04

Waller TX-WA-O2-049.000 3.72 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.010 0.97 0.07

Waller TX-WA-048.000 1.63
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

51

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.009 1.13 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.008 1.45 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.007 1.63 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.006 1.47 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-026.225 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.005 2.74 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.004 3.15 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.003.900 0.28

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.002 0.47

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.003 3.51 0.18

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.004.100 0.40

Waller TX-WA-O1-026.000 6.40 0.37

Waller TX-WA-O2-025.001 55.54 1.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-023.200 0.06

Waller TX-WA-O1-025.000 0.83 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-024.000 3.40 0.12

Waller TX-WA-O1-023.000 3.08 0.1

Waller TX-WA-O1-022.000 14.75 0.34

Waller TX-WA-O1-021.100 7.50 0.2

Waller TX-WA-O1-021.000 1.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.010 0.15

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.009 2.73 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.008 2.80 0.06

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.007 7.64 0.08

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.004 0.64

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.005 4.21 0.17

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.006 2.22

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.900 0.22 0.01
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

52

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.001 0.29 0.01

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.002 2.01 0.16

Waller TX-WA-O1-019.320 0.02

Waller TX-WA-O1-020.000 15.06 0.85

Waller TX-WA-O1-018.900 1.54 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-018.000 0.88

Waller TX-WA-O1-019.000 0.29

Waller TX-WA-O1-019.310 0.11 0.05

Waller TX-WA-O1-015.910 0.63 0.01

Waller TX-WA-O1-015.100 5.48 0.13

Waller TX-WA-O1-015.900 2.85 0.08

Waller TX-WA-O1-017.100 0.47 0.13

Waller TX-WA-O1-017.000 3.90 0.19

Waller TX-WA-O1-016.310 0.47

Waller TX-WA-O1-016.300 0.36

Waller TX-WA-O1-016.000 2.27 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-016.100 0.09

Waller TX-WA-O1-015.110 2.45 0.07

Waller TX-WA-O1-015.120 5.15 0.12

Waller TX-WA-O1-0174.900 0.78 0.01

Waller TX-WA-O1-014.003 1.47 0.05

Waller TX-WA-O1-014.002 1.69 0.05

Waller TX-WA-O1-014.001 1.77 0.05

Waller TX-WA-O1-014.000 1.24 0.03

Waller TX-WA-O1-013.000 1.41 0.04

Waller TX-WA-O1-011.000 3.22 0.04

Waller TX-WA-O1-012.300 0.12

Waller TX-WA-O1-012.000 1.05 0.05
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

53

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Waller TX-WA-O1-010.000 1.75 0.06

Waller TX-WA-O1-009.000 6.22 0.05

Waller TX-WA-O1-007.100 5.10 0.05

Waller TX-WA-O1-007.000 4.28 0.13

Waller TX-WA-O1-005.000 15.45 0.29

Waller TX-WA-O1-004.000 27.44 0.55

Waller TX-WA-O1-003.000 19.32 0.52

Waller TX-WA-O1-002.000 1.52

Waller TX-WA-O1-001.000 30.57 1.09

Harris County

Harris TX-HA-O1-058.320 0.68

Harris TX-HA-O1-058.300 2.81

Harris TX-HA-O1-056.000 1.60 0.11

Harris TX-HA-O1-056.110 0.60 0.04

Harris TX-HA-O1-056.100 0.93 0.07

Harris TX-HA-O1-055.000 1.66 0.12

Harris TX-HA-O1-052.000 6.85 0.44

Harris TX-HA-O1-050.000 70.07 0.44

Harris TX-HA-O1-049.000 3.65 0.06

Harris TX-HA-O1-048.000 4.15 0.06

Harris TX-HA-O1-046.000 3.37 0.06

Harris TX-HA-O1-045.000 3.30 0.06

Harris TX-HA-O1-042.310 0.17

Harris TX-HA-O1-042.000 3.20 0.06

Harris TX-HA-O1-039.100 0.29

Harris TX-HA-O1-038.310 5.60

Harris TX-HA-O1-038.300 10.04 0.26

Harris TX-HA-O1-042.300 5.60
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

54

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Harris TX-HA-O1-042.320 0.64

Harris TX-HA-O1-042.330 0.93

Harris TX-HA-O1-042.340 1.66

Harris TX-HA-O1-038.230 0.06

Harris TX-HA-O1-038.000 0.52

Harris TX-HA-O1-036.310 0.66

Harris TX-HA-O1-036.300 0.69

Harris TX-HA-O1-030.310 6.10 0.26

Harris TX-HA-O1-030.000 4.68

Harris TX-HA-O1-033.340 0.84

Harris TX-HA-O1-033.330 1.06

Harris TX-HA-O1-033.360 0.17

Harris TX-HA-O1-037.000 2.5

Harris TX-HA-O1-036.000 6.55

Harris TX-HA-O1-033.000 9.77 0.25

Harris TX-HA-O1-032.000 4.80 0.12

Harris TX-HA-O1-031.000 12.59 0.4

Harris TX-HA-O1-030.900 0.49 0.01

Harris TX-HA-O1-030.000 10.08 0.64

Harris TX-HA-O1-027.900 2.11 0.07

Harris TX-HA-O1-027.000 18.92 0.86

Harris TX-HA-O1-026.900 0.05

Harris TX-HA-O1-025.000 14.36 0.32

Harris TX-HA-O1-022.000 48.98 0.04

Harris TX-HA-O1-022.360 4.46

Harris TX-HA-O1-020.000 7.02 0.16

Harris TX-HA-O1-018.000 2.58 0.19

Harris TX-HA-O1-016.000 2.71 0.19
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

55

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Harris TX-HA-O1-014.000 10.40 0.26

Harris TX-HA-O1-012.000 4.68 0.33

Harris TX-HA-O1-009.000 58.55 0.83

Harris TX-HA-O1-006.300 3.85 0.39

Harris TX-HA-O1-006.000 2.96 0.3

Harris TX-HA-O1-004.000 6.70 0.48

Harris TX-HA-O1-002.000 24.64 1.05

Harris TX-HA-O1-003.200 1.12

Harris TX-HA-O1-001.009 0.48 0.03

Harris TX-HA-169.000 5.22 0.34

Harris TX-HA-170.900 0.27 0.01

Harris TX-HA-169.910 0.22

Harris TX-HA-166.100 2.19 0.15

Harris TX-HA-168.000 19.82 0.46

Harris TX-HA-166.000 1.55

Harris TX-HA-163.100 4.28 0.3

Harris TX-HA-162.000 6.41 0.45

Harris TX-HA-O1-001.006 2.48 0.17

Harris TX-HA-159.000 344.86 2.15

Harris TX-HA-158.000 17.76 1.22

Harris TX-HA-157.000 14.06 0.71

Harris TX-HA-156.000 32.25 0.73

Harris TX-HA-155.000 2.28 0.15

Harris TX-HA-153.000 3.86 0.28

Harris TX-HA-152.000 2.31 0.18

Harris TX-HA-151.000 6.79 0.61

Harris TX-HA-150.000 1.34 0.12

Harris TX-HA-149.000 1.02 0.11
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

56

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Harris TX-HA-147.000 4.61 0.40

Harris TX-HA-146.000 2.14 0.19

Harris TX-HA-145.000 0.04

Harris TX-HA-144.000 1.22 0.11

Harris TX-HA-142.000 0.22 0.03

Harris TX-HA-139.900 0.70 0.06

Harris TX-HA-139.000 3.62 0.32

Harris TX-HA-141.213 <0.01 0.01

Harris TX-HA-136.100 3.62

Harris TX-HA-136.000 2.94 0.37

Harris TX-HA-134.000 0.22 0.19

Harris TX-HA-133.000 <0.01 0.12

Harris TX-HA-132.000 0.17 0.01

Harris TX-HA-131.000 0.06 0.32

Harris TX-HA-130.000 0.06 0.36

Harris TX-HA-129.000 <0.01 0.12

Harris TX-HA-128.000 <0.01 0.14

Harris TX-HA-127.000 0.26

Harris TX-HA-126.000 0.67 0.03

Harris TX-HA-125.000 9.99 0.27

Harris TX-HA-087.000 <0.01 0.44

Harris TX-HA-062.000 2.13 0.25

Harris TX-HA-060.000 <0.01 0.08

Harris TX-HA-059.000 <0.01 0.23

Harris TX-HA-058.000 5.31 0.05

Harris TX-HA-057.000 <0.01 0.13

Harris TX-HA-054.000 2.85 0.14

Harris TX-HA-056.000 <0.01 0.02
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

57

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Harris TX-HA-055.000 0.01 <0.01

Harris TX-HA-051.000 <0.01 0.18

Harris TX-HA-050.000 2.83 0.14

Harris TX-HA-049.000 1.66 0.08

Harris TX-HA-047.000 0.91 0.04

Harris TX-HA-046.000 1.67 0.14

Harris TX-HA-044.000 6.67 0.18

Harris TX-HA-042.000 4.30 0.36

Harris TX-HA-041.000 0.05 0.10

Harris TX-HA-040.000 0.01 0.13

Harris TX-HA-040.100 0.01 0.09

Harris TX-HA-039.000 1.75 0.16

Harris TX-HA-038.000 1.27 0.11

Harris TX-HA-037.000 2.48 0.22

Harris TX-HA-035.000 <0.01 0.03

Harris TX-HA-034.000 4.27 0.16

Harris TX-HA-031.000 2.86 0.19

Harris TX-HA-029.000 <0.01 0.07

Harris TX-HA-028.000 0.23 0.03

Harris TX-HA-027.000 0.01 0.10

Harris TX-HA-026.000 <0.01 0.15

Harris TX-HA-025.000 0.32 0.03

Harris TX-HA-024.000 1.46 0.13

Harris TX-HA-023.000 0.24 0.02

Harris TX-HA-022.000 <0.01 0.04

Harris TX-HA-020.000 1.61 0.13

Harris TX-HA-019.000 <0.01 0.08

Harris TX-HA-018.000 <0.01 0.08
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

58

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Harris TX-HA-017.900 <0.01 0.01

Harris TX-HA-016.000 10.61 0.24

Harris TX-HA-014.000 1.20 0.07

Harris TX-HA-013.270 <0.01 0.17

Harris TX-HA-013.260 0.05 0.07

Harris TX-HA-013.245 <0.01 0.08

Harris TX-HA-013.235 0.49 0.03

Harris TX-HA-013.210 1.72 0.09

Harris TX-HA-013.200 2.35 0.13

Harris TX-HA-013.200.100 1.48 0.09

Harris TX-HA-012.255 0.08 0.02

Harris TX-HA-012.251 1.25 0.09

Harris TX-HA-013.000 0.70

Harris TX-HA-012.249 <0.01 0.24

Harris TX-HA-012.247 1.58 0.12

Harris TX-HA-012.242 <0.01 0.11

Harris TX-HA-012.239 0.64 0.12

Harris TX-HA-012.241 0.56

Harris TX-HA-012.000 1.09 0.14

Harris TX-HA-001.001 <0.01 7.14

Harris TX-HA-011.000 0.02 0.35

Harris TX-HA-010.000 <0.01 0.50

Harris TX-HA-009.000 <0.01 0.05

Harris TX-HA-008.000 <0.01 1.05

Harris TX-HA-006.000 0.03 0.70

Harris TX-HA-004.360 <0.01

Harris TX-HA-004-355 0.66

Harris TX-HA-004.352 1.89
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

59

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Harris TX-HA-004.346 2.77 0.05

Harris TX-HA-004.343 0.91 0.02

Harris TX-HA-004.342 <0.01

Harris TX-HA-004.340 0.56 0.02

Harris TX-HA-004.338 0.62 0.02

Harris TX-HA-004.331 0.22 <0.01

Harris TX-HA-004.327 0.12 0.02

Harris TX-HA-004.324 0.81 0.03

Harris TX-HA-004.321 0.64 0.05

Harris TX-HA-004.317 0.01

Harris TX-HA-004.316 1.87 0.05

Harris TX-HA-004.315 0.02

Harris TX-HA-004.314 0.01

Harris TX-HA-004.312 0.54 0.03

Harris TX-HA-004.311 0.03

Harris TX-HA-004.310 0.97 0.03

Harris TX-HA-004.309 0.06

Harris TX-HA-004.308 0.47

Harris TX-HA-004.307 0.14

Harris TX-HA-004.306 0.42

Harris TX-HA-004.305 1.87 0.06

Harris TX-HA-004.304 1.01

Harris TX-HA-004.303 0.90

Harris TX-HA-004.302 0.79 0.04

Harris TX-HA-004.301 0.60

Harris TX-HA-004.300 0.33 <0.01

Harris TX-HA-004.000 0.01

Harris TX-HA-003.300 0.03
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Areas Cleared for Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities

Areas Cleared Indicated by Green Shading

60

County Parcel ID Acreage Linear Miles of 

Center Line Comment Recommendation

Harris TX-HA-002.900 6.04 0.14

Harris TX-HA-002.300 0.55

Harris TX-HA-002.000 <0.01

Harris TX-HA-001.205 <0.01 0.12

Harris TX-HA-001.001 6.24 0.15

Harris TX-HA-001.001.940 0.04

Harris TX-HA-O1-001.003.910 3.64 0.03

Harris TX-HA-O1-001.003.900 3.42 0.02

Harris TX-HA-O1-001.003 3.42 0.09

Harris TX-HA-O1-001.002.300 0.43

Harris TX-HA-O1-001.002 43.75 0.14

Harris TX-HA-O1-001.001.100 3.00

Harris TX-HA-O1-001.001 7.56

Harris TX-HA-AM-002.000 6.77

Harris TX-HA-NW-001.001.900 3.18

Harris TX-HA-NW-026.500 0.02

Harris TX-HA-NW-026.505 0.06

Harris TX-HA-NW-026.510 0.05

Harris TX-HA-NW-026.200 0.01

Harris TX-HA-NW-026.000 <0.01
MALCOLM X BLVD

KENT

ST

ALMA ST

INEZ ST

AVENUE L

ALEX ST

NOAH ST

MCKEE ST

RICHST

BUDD ST

MILL PL

15TH ST

REESE DR

AVENUE F

BALCH DR

CANAL ST

AVENUE J

JORDAN ST

WALL ST

COVE DR

E 11TH ST

WELLS ST

EADS AVE

SPENCE ST

PEAR ST

ESSEX AVE

AVENUE I

LYONS ST

SPRING AVE

GHENT ST

SCOTT ST

NOME ST

LUZON ST

DATHE ST

AVENUE H

PILGRIM

DR

OLETA DR

MARLA DR

SEAY DR

CANYON ST

CARTER RD

OAKLEY AVE

SUSSEX AVE

ALCORNAVE

MENGER AVE

GUARD DR

POPLAR ST

MOUSER LN

SUNBEAM AVE

MILLARD ST CLAUDE ST

TODD ST

YOUNG

DUNBAR ST

HAVANA ST

COOPER DR

TUNE AVE

STARKS AVE

N ATOLL DR

BRIGHAM LN

CAPE COD DR

E 5TH ST

DUDLEY AVE

GANO ST

YORK ST

ATHA DR

1ST AVE

HARRELL AVE

AUDREY ST

MUNICIPAL ST

EUGENE ST

COPELAND ST

CICERO ST

RENNER DR

RECTOR ST

MERLIN ST

DYSON ST

MAYWOOD AVE

CASON ST

SILKWOOD ST

LELAND AVE

HARRISON AVE

S LONGACRE LN

LOWERY ST

DUGALD PL

CREST AVE

SPORTS ST

ALSBURY

ST

JEFFRIES ST

VANNERSON DR

CARSON ST

DENHAM DR

BROWDER ST

E 10TH ST

HOOPERST

MARBURG ST

VERMONT AVE

OZONA ST

FENWAY ST

EXLINE ST

BELKNAP AVE

PARK AVE

AVE E

E 9TH ST

RAILROAD AVE

WOODBINE ST

SIDNEY ST

WOODBINEAVE

S

PAUL

ST

CAUTHORN DR

AVENUE B

KINGCOLE DR

STIRLING AVE

UTAH AVE

PINE ST

POWER DR

FERRIS ST

LANARK AVE

W DAVIS ST

GRIFFIN ST

DALVIEW AVE

CUSTER DR

KISKA ST

CANARY DR

BOURQUIN ST

MCGOWAN ST

LOGAN ST

STELLA AVE

REUNION

E BLVD

HULL AVE

PARNELL ST

IOWA AVE

HOLMES ST

DORRIS ST

SUNNYVALE ST

TACOMA ST

ARROW RD

LATIMER ST

SARAH LEE LN

CARL ST

MORRELL AVE

NOLEN

ST

LONSDALE AVE

GRACELAND ST

S FITZHUGH AVE

PENELOPE ST LAMONT AVE

E MCVEY ST

HICKORY ST

FORDHAM RD

BRADSHAWST

DICEMAN AVE

PEABODY AVE

COMPTON ST

ROCHESTER ST

VALENTINE ST

ALMEDA DR

BEAUMONT ST

N MOORE ST

STONEPORT DR

EAGLE DR

SKYLARK DR

HAMILTON AVE

LA VERNEAVE

S 2ND AVE

MEYERS ST

AVENUE G

JAMES

DR

FELLOWS LN

NEOMI ST

HELENA ST

ELKHART AVE

ELSBERRY AVE

BETHPAGE AVE

CLEVELAND ST

EZEKIAL AVE

SANGER AVE

GILLETTEST

KOLLOCH DR

ELWAYNE AVE

HARDING ST

BIRDSONG DR

GOULD ST

GODFREY AVE

CADILLAC DR

WILKES AVE

SPRINGVIEW AVE

ATLANTA ST

E CORNING AVE

11TH ST

CANTON

ST

WENDELKIN ST

HANCOCK ST

DAY ST

HUTCHINS RD

MAGNA VISTA DR

MALLORY DR

S EWING AVE

N DENLEY DR

ROMINE AVE

WINTERS ST

BIGLOW DR

SOUTHERN OAKS

GLOVER PASS

S TRUNK AVE

HENDRICKS AVE

MILITARY PKWY

CARPENTER AVE

VILLAGE WAY

REED LN

SECO BLVD

CROZIER ST

GALLOWAY AVE

WOFFORD AVE

DEER PATH DR

SOUTHLAND ST

BELGRADE AVE

JAMAICA ST

GENOA AVE

E WOODIN BLVD

GEORGIA AVE

VOLGA AVE

LAWNVIEW

E MONTANA AVE

MEADOW ST

STRICKLAND ST

VANDERVOORT DR

FRANK ST

LATTA ST

JEANE ST

OVERLOOK DR

EXETER AVE

E ELMORE AVE

DONNA DR

WILHURT AVE

JONELLE ST

PROSPERITY AVE

FRIO DR

LAWRENCE ST

FAIRWAY AVE

E OHIO AVE

MACON ST

S GOOD LATIMER EXPY

E WACO AVE

CARDINAL DR

LUCY ST

GARRISON AVE

BISBEE

DR

SEATON DR

DIXON AVE

WARREN AVE

METROPOLITAN AVE

N EWING AVE

WOODMONT DR

MARFA AVE

ELAM RD

J B JACKSON JR BLVD

SPRING

HUDSPETH AVE

BRITTON DR

LAKE JUNE RD

ELLA AVE

S M

OORE ST

CEASAR CHAVEZ BLVD

STOVALL DR

LAGOW ST

E 8TH ST

S AKARD ST

BONNIE

VIEW

RD

EDGEMONT AVE N LANCASTER AVE

CARBONDALE ST

VAN CLEAVE DR

N MARSALIS AVE

JEFFERSON VIADUCT

MYRTLE ST

LEA CREST DR

FERNWOOD AVE

SUNNYVALE

EASTER AVE

LINFIELD RD

BEXAR ST

COLONIAL AVE

KELLOGG AVE

CORINTH

S LANCASTER RD

PARKDALE DR

HOUSTON ST

IDAHO AVE E JEFFERSON BLVD

E CLARENDEN

DR

S HARWOOD ST

SOUTH BLVD

PEMBERTON HILL

HOLLIS AVE

MORRELL

SUTTER ST

MLK BLVD

GRAND AVE

S

CORINTH

ST

CORINTH ST

S ERVAY ST

BRUTON RD

PENNSYLVANIA

HARLANDALE AVE

MARYLAND AVE

SOUTHERLAND AVE

PINE

OVERTON

SARGENT RD

ALASKA AVE

2ND AVE

CEDAR

CREST BLVD

S EWING ST

S DENLEY DR

HATCHER ST

S MARSALIS AVE

KIEST BLVD

E ILLINOIS AVE

E ILLINOIS AVE

LAMAR

LAMAR

UV12

UV310

UV352

£¤175

§ ̈¦30

§ ̈¦35E

§ ̈¦45

Cedar Creek

Ho ney Springs Branch

White Rock Cree k

Little Ce dar Cr eek

Kings Branch

Trinity River

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Page 1 of 43
OLD

OX

RD

E LEDBETTER DR

LEC LN

TELEPHONE RD

DANIEL LN

RIPPLE RD

50TH ST

AYERS

DALLAS

KAHN ST

WATSON DR

AZTEC DR

SEBRING

DR

OPAL AVE

RONDO DR

FIVE MILE DR

INCA DR

S

DENTON ST

STATEOAKDR

DOYLE LN

FLORAL DR

BIRD LN

DELL AVE

BIGLOW DR

CUMMINGS ST

KANADY RD

COLLEGE WAY

IVY LN

JOHNSON LN

ELKINS AVE

KOOL AVE

IVY RIDGE ST

CORRIGAN DR

EDWARDS ST

FROSTY TRL

BARREE DR

GARRISON AVE

QUARTET DR

SERENADE LN

PORTWOOD DR

CATANBO LN

MICHAEL ST

FIREBIRDDR

HORIZON DR

EASTER AVE

BENROCK ST

ARDEN RD

LEAF ARBOR DR

WHEATLAND

MOFFATT AVE

DAHLIA DR

N GOODE RD

EXETER AVE

PENTAGON

MOONGLOW DR

GLENHAVEN DR

HUDSPETH AVE

PINE ROW

KAVASAR DR

HONEYSUCKLE LN

CASTLE HILLS DR

RIVERSIDE RD

OAK

CREEK

DR

GLADEWATERRD

MARIGOLD DR

FRANKLIN ST

KRISTEN DR

HIGHLAND ST

PERCY ST

JAPONICA LN

YOUNGBLOOD RD

BARTLETT AVE

LYLE ST

LOVINGOOD DR

KILDARE AVE

KILBURN AVE

ROBERTSON DR

SAN JOSE AVE

CRANFILL

DR

BLUFFMAN

DR

HAAS DR

FERNWOOD AVE

CARAVAN TRL

LEANA AVE

PORT BLVD

WILHURT AVE

SAX LEIGH DR

YOUNGBLOOD

TRIPPIE ST

ALAMAIN DR FOREST

PKWY

VETERANS DR

SANTA ROSA WAY

BRONX AVE

AMBROSE DR

MENTOR AVE

SOFTCLOUD DR

ATLAS DR

BURNSIDE AVE

MARJORIE AVE

FATIMAAVE

TEAGUE DR

GIVENDALE RD

S DENLEY DR

PALO ALTO DR

N DENTON ST

DUET DR

LA GRANGE DR

WADSWORTH DR

W HICKMAN ST

51ST ST

VANDERBILTRD

VOLGA AVE

NICHOLS DR

PINEBROOK DR

TALCO DR

R VI ERWOOD RD

KEMROCK DR

CORRIGAN AVE

55TH ST

RIVER OAKS RD

PLUM

DALE RD

CLEVELAND RD

CROUCH RD

STAG RD

KINGSLEY DR

TEXAS COLLEGEDR

LEANING OAKS ST

CHERRY VALLEY BLVD

MEHALIA DR

MILLERS

FERRY RD

MEMORY LANE BLVD

JUDGE DUPREE DR

HAPPYCANYON DR

FORDHAME RD

E FRIO DR

MAIN

SCOTLAND DR

SKYLINE DR

PERSIMMON RD

TRACY RD

BLANCO

DR

SUNNYVALE

NANDINA DR

CUSTER DR

HIGHLANDHILLS DR

ANN ARBOR AVE

E WINTERGREEN RD

PACESETTER DR

MORGAN DR

E WHEATLAND RD

E ANN ARBOR AVE

LAZY RIVER DR

SILVERHILL DR

WAGON WHEELS TRL

JJ LEMMON

PALESTINE

E CAMP WISDOM RD

MOJAVE DR

DOWDY FERRY RD

56TH ST

52ND ST

S

MILLERS FERRY

RD

CEDARDALE RD

MCCOMMAS BLUFF RD

DANIELDALE RD

TIOGA ST

S LANCASTER RD

LANGDON

CEDARDALE DR

JJ LEMMON

RD

LANCASTER HUTCHINS RD

LANGDON RD

SIMPSON STUART RD

BONNIE VIEW RD

BONNIE VIEW RD

UV310

UV12

UV342

§ ̈¦20

§ ̈¦45

§ ̈¦45

§ ̈¦20

§ ̈¦20

Fivemile Creek

E al m

Cr ee k

Newton Creek

Floyd Branch

Trinity River

Rick etts Branch

W hite s Branch

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Page 2 of 43
N JEFFERSON ST

PINTO RD

VANDERBILT RD

RAYRD

E 6TH ST

E 5TH ST

OAK ST

E 4TH ST

DELLA

W 4TH ST

FULGHUM RD

ALICIA LN

PAYNE DR

MARTIN DR

BARRY LN

YALE DR

JOHNSON

MELROSE

LOIS DR

DIANN ST

TRAVIS TRL

WALDROP DR

LITTLE ST

KATY ST

REA AVE

WINTERGREEN

SUMMERS

ST

VERONA RD

WILSON ST

SUFFOLK LN

LAUREL ST

ALEXANDER ST

COLLEGE

ASPEN ST

SEQUOIA DR

N DALLAS

HALL ST

CYPRESS LN

POINSETTIA DR KISSELL

IRENE AVE

FINN RD

E 3RD ST

OAK BLUFF DR

S STATE ST

JOHNS

DEWITT ST

WAYNELEE DR

ARBOR LN E COLONIAL DR

LONG BRANCH DR

DEWBERRY ST

SWANGO RD

WILLOWOOD LN

W 5TH ST

S ALBA RD

W BELTLINE RD

GRIFFIN ST

LANCASTER PARK

N HENRY ST

NANCY LN

S STEWART AVE

BALKIN DR

ENCHANTED LN

W MAIN

NI DUSTRIA

SL

T

E 2ND ST

FRANCIS ST

STANFORD DR

DEWBERRY BLVD

ROAN DR

GREENBRIAR LN

S MAIN ST

SOUTHRIDGE DR

HARVEST HILL LN

OAKBLUFF DR

AMBER

WAVES

LN

ROSEWOOD LN

S

DALLAS AVE

SUNNY MEADOWS RD

DIZZY DEAN DR

BAYPORT DR

N GOODE RD

W TELEPHONE RD

CORNELL RD

BROOKHAVEN DR

W 6TH ST

W 8TH ST

BUMBLE BEE DR

WEST RIDGE

W REDBUD LN

GOODE

DONLEE RD

ROGERS

TELEPHONE RD

MEADOW CREEK DR

N ELM ST

TEN MILE RD

WITT RD

BONNIE VIEW RD

BLANCO DR

OLD RED OAK RD

SUNRISE RD

GREENE RD

NOKOMIS

FERRIS

W PLEASANT RUN RD

N BLUEGROVE RD

S BLUE GROVE RD

MILLERS FERRY

W MAIN ST

W BELTLINE RD

E BELTLINE RD

E PLEASANT RUN RD

E PLEASANT RUN RD

TALCO RD

MASON

LANCASTER

HUTCHINS

RD

GREENE

FAIR

WEATHER

DR

MORELAND

FERRIS RD

BELTLINE RD

W WINTERGREEN RD

SUNRISE

VAN RD

NOKOMIS RD

WILSON

LAVENDER

UV342

§ ̈¦45

Newto nCre ek

Mill Branch

Whites Branch

Tenmile C reek

Dee p Branch

Flo yd Branch

C o ttonw ood C ree k

Kelle r Branch

HallsBranch

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Page 3 of 43
PRATT RD

ALLEY

E 5TH ST

OAK ST

W 12TH ST

N BAKER ST

HORNET ST

E 9TH ST

STAINBACK CT

N BIRCH ST

10TH ST

S MABLE ST

E 3RD ST

5TH ST

NOKOMIS

W 1ST ST

BATCHLER

N WOOD ST

ASH ST

HIDDEN CREEK

N CHURCH ST

N MAIN ST

TOM DRIVER RD

WH SI PER NI G WAY

S CHURCH ST

CRUMP CIR

EWINGST

S WOOD ST

S MAIN ST

WOLF SPRINGS RD

PRATT

RUGGED DR

REINDEER

FERRIS RD

LINK CT

CLARKDR

FERRIS

HIGH RIDGE

PIERCE RD PARK CRST

OAK CREEK

STEEL DUST

HILL

ALVIS LN

RANCH ONE RD

TREE HOUSE

ROCK HILL DR

DANNY MILL

SHELBY CIR

LINK DR

WATERMILL

HENRY LN

EMETT CIR

SLEEPY HOLLOW

TANNERS FARM

RD

MARGARET

LYNN ANNE SHADY BROOK

PEDIGREE

HEARNE LN

PRESTON

BENT TRL

MEGELLAN CIR

THUMBULL RD

ROCK CREEK

SUMMERALL CT

STAINBACK

MEADOWLARK LN

RACHELLE DR

SHADY CREEK CIR

LITTLE DOC RD

HUNSUCKER RD

NOLANRD

PALMYRA

FESTUS

NOKOMIS RD

HASH

E RIDGE CIR

TRUMBULL RD

VINSON

EWING

BLUFF SPRINGS

BATCHLER RD

WESTER RD

FM 2377

FM 660

FM 664

FM 664

FM 983

FM 983

FM 983

UV561

Ellis County

Dallas County

§ ̈¦45J

§ ̈¦45

§ ̈¦45

Te nmile Creek

Bear Creek

Cottonwood Creek

Long Branch

Bru shyCreek

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Page 4 of 43
JOY LN

DICK ST COSEY ST

OATES RD

ST

EP

H

AN

I

E

DR

CALLOWAY ST

SUNSET BLVD

S SHERMAN ST N STACKS ST S MAIN ST

E

LAMAR ST

E GREEN ACRES DR BLUEBONNET LN

GARRELL

ORR

CIR

CHOICE DR

FESTUS

TEXAS

BOBSRUN

OTTER

CREEKVEIW DR SOUTHWICK

VINEYARD VIEW

CLOUSE

RD

NECK

THUMBULL RD

PARKER

R

D

CAMPUS

MATT RD

GOLIAD

C

I

R

OATES

PACE RD

HUNSUCKER RD

CR 335

ALMAND DR

NORMAN

NEWTON HAMPEL RD

RISINGER RD

E

P

P

S

RD

SUTTON

RUTHERFORD RD

FARRAR

FARRAR

PALMYRA

PALMYRA

FM 983

FM 878

FM

813

FM 813

UV561§ ̈¦45H§ ̈¦45§ ̈¦45

RedOak Cre

e

k

Grove Creek

Bru

s

hy

Creek

Bone

B

ra

n

ch

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Page 5 of 43
GARRELL

WILSON RD

WILLOW CREEK RD

CAMPUS

PONY RD

NORMAN

COTTONWOOD

RUTH RD

CHILDRESS RD

MUSTANG RD

BOYC

E

FIRST

ST

GIBSON

N EBENEZER RD

TURNER PRACHYL RD

DUNKERLY RD

IKE

PARK SCHOOL HOUSE RD

SLOVACEK RD EBENEZER RD

WILSON

STEVENS RD

GARRETT AVE

MOSELEY RD

BOYCE RD

BOYCE RD

WILSON

FM 1722

FM 878

FM 878

FM 879

FM 879

§ ̈¦45H§ ̈¦45

Mu

sta

n

g

C

re

ek

Cottonwood

Creek

Gro

v

e

Cre

ek

Bo

ne Bra

n

ch

Boyc

e

Creek

Wolf Br anc h

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Page 6 of 43
UNNAMED

PIMLICO DR

OLD BOYCE RD

BOREN DR

CORRAL RD

SHAW RD

SLOVAK S RD MOSELEY RD

W ROAD

WALKER RD

BOYCE RD

MUSTANG RD

JENKINS RD

OLD HWY 287

GETZENDANER RD

DUNKERLY RD

HOWARD

OLD PARK RD

COOKE RD

OLD CHURCH

PIGG RD

OLD WAXAHACHIE RD

FM 984

FM

984

FM 877

£¤287

£¤287

Must ang

Creek

Wa

xah a

ch

ie

Cree k

Lo ng Br a

n

ch

E lm

Bra n c

h

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Page 7 of 43
ELM ST

ASH ST COMMERCE ST BEULAH ST

HIGH VIEW MARINA RD UNNAMED

SULLIVAN

BOZEK LN

HIGHVIEW

GOODWIN RD

OX LN

ROACH S RD

ANTHONY

KRAJCA RD

E B LN

ANTHONY RD

ROACH N RD

FEASTER LONG BRANCH CIR

FARMERS

MCCRADY RD

CANE

HODGE

BACAK RD

CARTWRIGHT RD

FM 985

FM 984

FM 985

FM 877

FM 877

FM 984

UV34

UV34

UV34

Littl e O n

i

on

Cre

ek

Big

On

io

n

C

re

ek

E lm

Bran

ch

Cl ea

rCr e

e

k

Long Branch

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Page 8 of 43
CR 4783

VEREDALN

CR

478

8

CR 1230

AUSTONIA RD

ST. CLAIR RD

DAVIES

CR 4776

CR 4780

CR 4787

CR 4858

CR 4778

ARROYO LN

GORMAN RD

CR 4781

CR 4786

CR 4791

CR 4774

ARMSTRONG RD

CR 4779

CR 4785

RAMON

RD

SULLIVAN

CR 4777

BASSINGER RD

FM 984

FM 985

FM 1126

FM 2930

Ellis County Navarro County

M

i

l

l

C r

eek

Cry e rCr eek

Bria

r

C

reek

Pec an

Creek

Clear Creek

Ch

a

mb

e

rs

C

r

e

e

k

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Page 9 of 43
W

SOUTH

FRONT

S

T

CR

4826

CR 826

CR 4823

CR 4864

CR 4857

CR 4822

CR 5087

CR 4859

CR 4861

CR 5137

CR 4865

CR 5088

CR 1230

CR 4788

CR 4827

CR 1220

CR 4858

CR 4821

CR 4825

CR 4790

CR 4860

CR 4863

CR 4824

CR 4856

CR 4862

FM2930

FM 1126

FM 1126

UV22

UV22

Briar Cr eek

Cry erCr eek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 10 of 43
TRAILRIDGE DR

SHUMARD

OAK

LN

PAYNE ST

LIBERTY DR

PARK ROW

CR 5142

CR 5147

CR 4832

CR 5057

CR 4835

CR 5123

CR 5148

CR 4862

CR 5132 CR 5120

CR 5141

CR 5059 CR 5060

CR 5143

CR 5145

CR 5124

CR

4829

CR 5146

CR 5127

CR 5088

CR 4824

CR 5131

CR 5058

CR 5061

CR 5086

CR 5122

CR 5129

FM 744

F

M

744

FM 2452

FM

2452

FM 1126

UV31

UV31

UV31

CedarCre ek

Me

l

t

on Bra

n

c

h

Briar Creek

Ru

sh

Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 11 of 43
CR 4210

CR 2029

CR 5160

CR 2030

CR 2020

CR 2040

CR 2010

CR 5159

CR 2050

CR 30

CR 30

FM 642

FM 1394

FM 2452 FM 3194

FM 3194

FM 709

FM 709

FM 709

Pin

Oak

C r e ek

Rush Creek

Melt o

n

Bran ch

Briar Cre e

k

R

i

c

h

l

a

n d Creek

Cedar

Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 12 of 43
CR2025

CR 2220

C

R

2188

CR 2307

CR 2305

CR 2180 CR 2170

CR 2100

CR 2140 CR 2160

CR 2230

CR 2120

CR 2150 CR 2210

CR 2340

CR 2300

CR 2400

CR 2090

CR 2130 CR 2410

CR 2380

CR 2200

CR 2110

CR 2190

CR 2390

FM 3194

FM

641

FM 1394

FM 1394

UV14

UV14

§ ̈¦45

Pi n OakCreek

Mes q u

i

t

e Cr ee k

Littl

e

Pin

Oa k

Cree k

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 13 of 43
OAK ST

W RILEY ST N 4TH ST

N 2ND ST

S 2ND ST

S AVE B

S AVE C

S 5TH ST

E MAIN ST

W BRAZOS AVE N 5TH ST

N AVE D

W MAIN ST

S AVE D

S 4TH ST

S 1ST ST

COUNTY ROAD 1000

N MARTIN LUTHER KING AVE

E BRAZOS AVE

CR 996

CR 1041

CR 992

CR 991

CR 1071

CR 1031 CR 1070

CR 2410

CR 2230

CR 1081

CR 1021

CR 1000

CR 1001

CR 2420

CR 1020

CR 995

CR 995

FM 27

FM 27

FM 246

FM 246

UV14

UV14

Navarro County Freestone County

Teh

u

a

c ana Creek

Ja ckson Branch

Little

Teh uacanaCre ek

Cedar C reek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 14 of 43
CEDAR ST MAIN

S

T

SHUMATE ST

PECAN ST

WALNUT ST

CR 957

C

R

9

8

1

CR 972

CR 955

CR 947

CR 963

CR 1071

CR 978

C

R

1

022

CR 969

CR 951

CR 968

CR 974

CR 937

CR 948

CR 1070

CR 980

CR 1080

CR 964

CR 950

CR 960

CR 975

CR 961

CR 970

CR 971

FM 1449

FM 80

FM 1366

FM 80

FM 1366

FM 27

FM 27

Elm

C r e ek

Ro cky Branch

White

RockC reek

Little Tehuacana Creek

Wil lowC r e

ek

Grindstone Creek

Tehuacana Cre

e k

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 15 of 43
FAY ST

ALTA ST

G

R

AY

S

O

N

S

T

HEIGHTS ST

CR 966

CR 856

CR 924

CR 1721

CR 867

CR 857

CR 903

CR

888

CR 902

CR 905

C

R

956

CR 932

CR 929

CR 901

CR 869

C

R

95

2

CR 881

CR 933

CR 864

CR 861

C

R

888

W

CR 1502

CR 961

CR 931

CR 865

CR 925

CR 862

CR 900

CR 937

CR 935

CR 976

CR 868

CR 975

CR 1731 CR 911

CR 866

CR 1500

CR 920

C

R

930

CR 930

FM

1

365

FM 1366

FM 2777

FM 80

FM 80

£¤84

£¤84

Freestone County Limestone County

Grove Island

C

reek

White Rock Creek

Little Tehuaca na Creek

Holman C re

ek

Hausler

Cre

ek

Pa

tto n

Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 16 of 43
COX AVE

SNIPES AVE

J A BROOKS DR

TYLER ST

ADAMS ST

W MAIN ST

G

R

E

E

NW

O

O

D

R

D

JEFFERSON ST

CR 442

CR 822

CR 840

CR 881

C

R

1

5

0

9

CR 451

CR 866

CR 885

CR 517

CR 1501

CR

427

CR1500

CR 826

CR 509

CR 438

CR 820 CR 851

CR 846

CR 853

CR

830

CR 436

CR 855

CR 426

CR 426

CR 844

CR 443

CR 890

CR 841

FM 39

FM 1365

FM

1

36

5

Freestone County Limestone County

Cha

mbersCreek

East Fork C h

a

mbersCreek

Pa

t

ton

C reek

Grove

Isla

n

d

Cree

k

Perry Cree k

Sand Br anch

West

Fork

C hambers

Creek

Holman C reek

C at

C re ek

Wh iteR ock C re ek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 17 of 43
CR 822

CR 800

CR 447

CR 802

CR 812

CR 820

CR 838

CR 449

CR 806

CR 813

CR 814

CR 808

CR 801

CR 840

CR 731

CR

444

CR 836

CR 448

CR 445

CR 800

CR 446

CR 841

CR 811

FM 3371

FM 489

FM 39

FM 39

FM 39

UV164

UV164

Freestone County Limestone County

C amp Cre

e k

M ill

B

ran

ch

Sp ringCreek

Ch

a

m

b

e

rs

Cre

ek

Gibso

n

Bran

ch

Bi g

C

re

ek Ho ml a n Cre ek

Ced ar Cre

ek

Eze

ll

Bra n

ch

Pin o a

k

Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 18 of 43
CR 821

CR 848

CR 884

CR 816

CR 847

CR 823

CR 878

CR 824

CR 812

CR 864

CR 850

CR 870

CR 866

CR 885

CR 854

CR 751

CR 822

CR 862

CR 832

CR 852

CR 828

CR 882

FM 1512

FM 39

FM 39 Freestone County Limestone County

Lies Branch

Co

o

ts

Branch

P

e

a

r B

ranch

Na

v

a

s

o

t

a

Riv

e

r

Sanders Creek

Dry

Cre ek

Doole y Creek

E zell Branch

Big

Creek

P i

n

oak

Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 19 of 43
CR 878

CR

895

CR 375

CR 1898 CR 897

ECR

372 CR 374 CR371

CR 906

CR 1896

CR 904 CR 905

CR 899

CR 353

CR 896

CR 903

CR 880

CR 366

CR 893

CR 891

CR

377

CR 900

CR 898

CR 885

CR 879

C

R

35

3

1

CR 894

CR 369

CR 1892

CR 886

CR346

CR 902

CR 892

CR 884

CR 890

CR 373CR 368

CR 367 FM 1146

FM

3

9

FM 1469

FM 1469

FM 1512

FM 1512

FM

1512

Leon County

Limestone County

Leon County Limestone County

Cottonwood

Springs Branch

Birc h Cre

e k

Ho lly Branch

Spri n g Br an ch

Lamb

s

Creek

Ly n nCreek

Min

e

Creek

Li e

s Bran ch

Starrett

B ranch

Lon

g

Branch

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 20 of 43
CR 3451

CR 392

CR 350

CR 3461

CR 3221

CR 390

CR 382

CR 379

CR 383

CR 391

CR 349

CR 346

CR 384

CR 321

W CR 344

CR 348

CR 348

CR 347

CR 347

FM 39

FM 39

£¤79

£¤79

Yellow

B ranch

Litt le Bru

s

h

y

Creek

Bi

rch

Cre

e k

Li ttl e KeechiCre ek

Starrett Branch

Hogpen Branch

Shaw Branch

Mustang

C reek

CedarCree k

B rushy

Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 21 of 43
CR 417

CR 493

CR 322

CR

393

CR 421

CR 3211

CR 491

CR 494

CR 492

CR 498

CR 392

CR 497

CR 391

CR 348

CR 495

CR 415

CR 321

CR 321

FM 39

FM 39

UV7

UV7

CurtissSp

ring B

r anch

Sp

ring

C reek

Mill Branch

Reed Creek

Spring Branch

B uck

C

re

e

k

Buzz a

r d Bran

c

h

Big

B

ranc

h

S

impson

B

ranch

Boggy

Creek

BoydBranch

McDanielCreek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 22 of 43
CR 451

CR 447

CR 463

CR 453

CR473

CR

448

CR 452

CR 422

CR 437

CR 5502

CR 441

CR 475

CR

436 CR 440

CR 450

CR 471

CR 417 CR 418

CR 427

CR 410

CR

490

CR 419

FM 977

FM 977

FM 39

FM 39

Cercey

Branch

Sp ring Bra nch

Cl

e

a

r

C reek

Sp

ri n

g

Cree k

Boggy

Cre e

k

Yellow

Br anch

Long Glade Branch Bates Bra n ch

Must an g Creek

McDaniel C re

ek

Ro

cky

Branch

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 23 of 43
CR 409

CR 489 CR 472 CR 461

CR 460

CR 5502

CR 405

CR 407 CR 408

CR 408

CR 403

CR 403

CR 452

FM 39

FM 977

FM

977

UVOSR

Leon County

Madison County

East

Ca

n

eyCre ek

Copela n dBran ch

Ni xon

Bran

c h

Yell ow

B r anch

D eadma n

Ho llow

B ranc

h

Po ndBra n ch

Salt Cree k

Mustang

Cre e

k

Rock y Branc h

Ril e y Cre ek

Ho

l

l

is

Bran c h

Mi ddl e

Br anc h

R

iley

Cre e

k

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 24 of 43
CR 407

COLE RD

SPARROW RD

CR 486

MUSGROVE RD

SKAINS RD

BATSON LOOP

BATSON RD

POTEET RD

DAWKINS RD

FM 978

FM

2289

FM 2289

FM 2289

UVOSR

Leon County Madison County

Ir on Creek

Ca n

ey

Cre ek

Pond Br a

nch

Brus hy

Creek

Sand Bra nc h

Hollis Branc h

Ri ley Creek

Sa

lt

Creek

Ea

s

t

Can

ey

Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 25 of 43
LONE STAR RD

JAKE COLE LN

HOLLIS RD

BRIDGES RD

CALDWELL RD

JINKINS RD

MUSGROVE RD

OXFORD

CEM

ETE

RY

RD

FM 2289

FM 978

FM 978

FM 1452

FM 1452

£¤190

£¤190

Kick a p

oo

Cr e

e k

Po oles Branc

h

Fe

rry

B

ran

ch

Foards Branch

Iron

Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 26 of 43
BEASLEY RD

VERNON RD

GRANT RD

BUSA RD

PIN

OAK

LN

DUGGAN LN

UNION RD

CRANE LN

DENMAN RD

POST OAK LN

LONE STAR RD

COTTONW

OOD

RD

LEE LN

RED OAK RD

CLARK RD

CEDAR CREEK RD

NEW RD

BETHEL CEMETERY RD

LONE STAR RD

STRAWTHER RD

F

M

1

3

7

2

FM 1372

FM 1372

£¤190Grimes County Madison County

Kick

ap

o

o

Creek

Bowman

Cree k

B ed

ia

s

Cre e k

Big Turk ey C re

ek

Pa n ky Creek

Fo a rds

Bran c h

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 27 of 43
COUNTY ROAD 130

CR 117

CR 113A

CR 120

CR 116

CR 125

CR 124

CR 119

CR 114

CR 115

CR 115

FM 1696

FM

1

696

UV361UV90

Grimes County Madison County

Bo wmanC reek

Twist ed Creek

Simes

Cre

ek

Panky Creek

Wren

Bra

n ch

Bis hop Cree k

Bi g Turkey C r e

e

k

Nee leyCre

e k

No r thBedias Creek

Be d iasCreek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 28 of 43
CR 168 CR 160

CR 159

CR 129

CR 167

CR 156

CR 144

CR 157

CR 145

CR 130

CR 127

CR 125

CR 124 CR 126 CR 123

CR 123

FM

2620

FM 39

FM 39

UV90

UV90

G ibbon sCreek

Bowman

Creek

Rock y

Branch

Ande rson

Cre ek

Tu rkey

Cre e

k

No rth

Bedia sCre ek

Wils on Bran ch

P ine Branch

So

u

th

B

edias

C reek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 29 of 43
DEERRIDGE

CR 157

CR 154

CR 177

CR 151

CR 150

CR 153

CR 155

CR 178

CR 179

CR 152

CR 176

FM 39

FM 39 UV90

Cat

Creek

Moo ringCr eek

Sulph

u

r

Creek

Anderson Creek

Gibb

o

ns

Cre

ek

Wilson Bra n ch

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 30 of 43
CR 181

CR 239

CR 260

CR 242 A

CR 218

W

I

NDI

NG

MEADOW DEER RIDGE

CR 229

CR

238

CR 261

CR 225

CR 217

CR 177

CR 226

CR 219

CR 242

CR 179

CR 180

UV

FM 2562

90UV90

UV30

UV30

Roc k y

C

re

e

k

Lake

Creek

Garretts Creek

Su

lp

h

u

r

Cree k

Flagtail

Creek

Spr

ing Bran ch

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 31 of 43
CEDAR ST

HILL ST

CR

221

CR 278C

CR 211

CR 241

CR 277

CR 217

CR

214

CR 237

CR 180

CR 219

CR

220

CR 222

CR222

FM 244 FM 149

FM 1774

FM 2562

FM 2562

FM 2819

FM 2819

FM 149

FM 149

UV429

UV90

UV90

Nebletts Cr eek

Geter

C

reek

Holla nd

Creek

Pin e

C

re

e

k

Ga

rr

e

t

t

s

Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 32 of 43
CR

214

LOFTY PINES

CR 213

C

R

2

4

7

CR 248

CR 245

CR 246

CR 211

CR 210

CR 448

CR 208

CR

406

CR 215

CR 215

CR

2

1

5

FM 1774

FM 1774

FM 1774

T homas

Creek

Ge t e

r

Cr

eek

L

i

ttle

Ca n

e

y

Cr

e

e

k

G rassyCree k

Ca

n

ey

Creek

Bums

Cre

ek

Hollan dCre

ek

Floyds Cre ek

N ebletts Creek

Haynie

Cre

ek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 33 of 43
HIGH OAKS DR

CR 337

CR 205

CR 207 A

CR 209

CR 331

CR

206

A

S OAKS DR

CR 333

C

R

30

6

C

R

3

4

5

CR 342

CR 308

CR 207

CR 407

CR 311

CR 206

CR 313

CR 313

CR 309

FM 1748

FM 2445

FM 1774

UV234

UV105

UV105

Sand Creek

Hu rr ica

ne

Cree k

Flo yds

Creek

Caney

Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 34 of 43
LEGGE

SLOT

R

D

CR 354

MAGGIE

WALNUT RD

POST OAK RD

WILLOW PL

CEMETERY RD

CR 355

RIDGE RD

KNOB HILL RD

MATA RD

RUSTLING OAKS

CR

357

CREEK VIEW

POST OFFICE RD

HICKORY HILL RD

CR 305

PHILLIPS RD

NORTHWEST PASSAGE

CR 359

PIN OAK DR

C

H

E

R

R

Y

LAUREL LN

JOUBERT RD

CR 351

RC

PA E MYRTLE

LN

PAVLOCK

DEER CREEK

TIERRA BUENA RD

NORTH HILL RD

MICREA RD

TALL PINE RD

CR 201

LOOP

TAWNEYBERRY LN

EVERGREEN

FOREST LN

CR

203

CR 306

PINEBROOK DR

CR 344

MILLSTONE DR

CR 201

CR 202

CR 304 CR 304

CR 302

CR 302

FM 1774

FM 1774

UV105

Walnut

Creek

Mi

l

l

C

reek

Kic

k

ap

oo

C re

e

k

Hurric

an

e

Creek

Birch Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 35 of 43
WILLOW BND

MILL CREEK DR

WYRICK

HOLLY CT

DOBBINS LN

PARKVIEW

WALNUT RD

PECAN RD

CRAWFORD RD

ALDER RD

MATA RD

HOLLY HILL RD

BOWLER RD

SUMAC RD

N

LAKEDR

CR 1303

D

O

G

W

O

O

D

LN

RUST CI LN

OAK ST

ROYAL FOREST

FOXWOOD DR

MAGNOLIA DR

ROYAL OAK RD

MCGILL RD

CAMEL AI LN

OAKBOURNE DR

CURTIS RD

WHOLLY HILL RD

HORSESHOE BND

COUNTRY LN

W

W HOLLYHILL RD

OOD FOREST

OAK FORREST DR

TREE BEND

BUCKEYE RD

PINYON RD

EL INDIO RD

LAKE RD

POST OAK RD

E HOLLYHILL DR

NEWLAND DR

CR 303

THOMPSON RD

STONE BRIDGE

TEXAS OAK RD

PINE LN

LIVELY RD

GRAND FLOWER RD

CARTER RD

AZALEA LN

MAGAN RD

HICKORY RD

TERRACE OAKS

N REIDS PRAIRIE RD

PAPPAS RD

KYLE RD

BROOKS RD

WALNUT RIDGE DR

LAZY RIDGE DR

CR 302

CEDAR RD

LONE STAR RD

C

R

3

02

REIDS PRAIRIE RD

HOWELL RD

C

LAR

K

R

D

RILEY RD

FM 1774

Waller County Grimes County

Brushy

Creek

M i

ll Cree k

Walnut

Creek

Bir c

h

Cre

ek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 36 of 43
HOLUB RD

W GI WAM TRL

PETTY RD

W

I

N

T

E

R

S

R

D

DEER TRL

W BROOK DR

SQUAW VALLEY TRL

BUNTING RD ROBIN WOOD

RD

GLASS RD

TEPEE TRL

BRUSHY CREEK R

D

SHEFIELD RD

BRUNER RD

GIBONEY RD

FIELDS STORE RD

HOWELL RD

SCROGGINS LN

KICKAPOO RD

BOWLER RD

HEGAR RD

RICE RD

JOSEPH RD

J

O

S

EP

H

R

D

FM 362

FM 1488

FM 1488

Waller County Harris County

Waller County Harris County

Sprin g

Cre

e

k

Walnut

Cre

e

k

Thr e

e

mile

Creek

B rushy C ree

k

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 37 of 43
D ST

C ST

PINE

B ST

GREEN

ASHFORD

ROSS

MAIN ST

MILLS

SMITH ST

CHERRY

BRAZEAL

WALLER TOMBALL

DAUGHERTY ST

A ST

TAYLOR PENICK RD KEY ST

WASHINGTON

SLEDGE

FIELDS STORE

FARR ST

WALLER ST

ALLIANCE ST

REINKE RD

CR 7

CAMERON RD

CYRUS LN

KICKAPOO RD

KICKAPOO RD

MAGNOLIA RD

OWENS RD

KREZDORN RD

OLD HOUSTON

B

I

N

F

O

R

D

P

L

MARGERSTADT RD

VINING RD

KERMIER RD

KIKAPOO RD

KNEBEL RD

WALLER SPRINGS RD

WALLER SPRING CREEK RD

MAYER RD

HEGAR RD

HEGAR RD

BINFORD RD

IMHOF RD

CASTLE RD

STOKES RD

FIELDS STORE RD

FIELDS STORE RD

FM 362

FM 362

F

M

2

9

2

0 FM 2920

£¤290

£¤290

Waller County Harris County

Waller County

Harris County

Sp

ri ng

Cr e ek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 38 of 43
MAIN E

STOKES RD

WALNUT ST

MAIN ST

MILLS

ELM ST WASHINGTON

PENICK RD

CAMBY ST

JAMES ST

WARREN ST

MATHIS RD

TORREY RD

AUSTIN ST

BETKA RD

MOUND CREEK RD

C

H

A

RT

E

R

L

N

BELL ST

ZUBE RD

POHL RD

BADTKE RD

CRAYTON RD

GRIMES RD

PREMIUM DR

KICKAPOO RD

KIKAPOO RD

ROCHEN RD

PENICK RD

KERMIER RD

BAUER HOCKLEY RD

PENICK ST

HEGAR RD

BURTON CEMETERY RD

MOUND RD

BETKA RD

OLD WASHINGTON RD

OLD WASHINGTON RD

FM 2920

£¤290

£¤290

Waller County Harris County

Li tt elMo und Cr eek

M ound Cre

ek

Lit

t

l

e

Cyp

ress

Creek

S n

a

k

e

Cre ek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 39 of 43
LOUETTA RD

PALO DURA DR

FIR KNOLL WAY

MERLE RD

ROBERTS RD

MEDLEY

G

R

E

EN

DR

CARYDO

UG

LAS

DR

ESCHER RD

THOMAS

R

I

DG

E

LN

RUNNING IRON DR

FIELD

GREEN

DR

EDWORTHY RD

DUNHAM

LAKEDR

BAR KAY LN

TOWNSHIP GLEN LN

RANCH COUNTRY DR

SHORELANDSRD

REDBUD

LEAF LN

FIRST BEND

D

R

CHESTNUT FALLS DR

LAKELAND

HAVEN

D

R

BECKER RD

COUNTRY FAIR

LN

JACK RD

CHAPPELL

KNOLL

DR

CYPRESS

C

H

U

R

C

H

R

D

HOUSE AND HAHL RD

BAUER RD

CUMBERLAND

R

I

DG

E

D

R

HOUSE RD

MAP

L

E

V

I

L

L

A

G

E

DR

SCHIEL RD

FAIRFIELD PLACE DR

MASON RD

N

BRIDGELAND

LAKE

P

KWY

MUESCHKE RD

CYPRESSWOOD

DR

KATY HOCKLEY RD

KATY HOCKLEY RD

UV99 UV99

£¤290

£¤290

Cypress Creek

Dry Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.51

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 40 of 43
AMADO DR

CHEVAL DR

MAXIM DR

14TH ST

BRECHIN LN

MANNING DR

CICERO RD

VERNON RD

JASPER LN

MORLEY DR

LINDSAY RD

RETREAT TRL

SCHMIDT ST

PANTANO DR

ROSEGLADE DR

PECAN OAK DR

CAMPOS DR

PINE BELT

PINE SPRING LN

ROUSSEAU

DR

MATZKE DR

BELLA DR

MCCLEARLEY DR

MILE DR

HEMWICK

DR

ABERGREEN TRL

DEN OAK DR

HOUSTON DR

MOUND RD

CELLINI DR

TARA OAK DR

MONTEIGNELN

WEST DR

MCCAMEY DR

KELLERTON LN

ADVANCE DR

PINEY OAKS

CLOVERCREST DR

MYSTICBEND DR

JACKRABBIT RD

HAMBLIN RD

RAVENS CHASE LN

BIRDCALL LN

MONTAIGNE DR

MEISTER WOOD DR

WHITE CLIFF DR

PORT ERROLL DR

WALNUT LAKE DR

PLEASANT GROVE DR

MAXWELL RD

ABERDEEN TRAILS DR

CYPRESS POINT DR

WHITE OAK RIDGE DR

CANYON ECHO DR

WINDSHIRE DR

LITTLE RIATA DR

TOWNE LAKE PKWY

OAK LEDGE DR

W NI D NI G STAR LN

CYPRESS CHASE BLVD

CHETMAN DR

COPPERCOVE DR

VERLAINE DR

SHERBURNMANOR DR

CARSON FIELD LN

KIOWA RIVER LN

SHAFT DR

LEWIS DR

ENCHANTED VALLEY DR

PINE DR

TEXAS ARMYTRL

FLEURDE LIS DR

CYPRESSWOOD DR

DUNDEE RD

TERREBONE DR

ASTE LN

E SHADOW LAKE DR

ABERDEEN GREEN DR

RAVEN S DR

MARRS DR

SWANSBURY DR

LOYOLA DR

BLOSSOMHEATHRD

GENTRY RD

LAKECREST DR

S KOLBE RD

DAKAR DR

WORTHAM CENTER DR

SOUTH DR

W SHADOW LAKE DR

QUEENSLAKE DR

GREENWOOD MANOR DR

PARK FOREST TRL

FOXBURO DR

FALLBROOKDR

COPPER GROVE RD

RAVENSWAY DR

CYPRESS

CREEK

BEND

DR

COLES CROSSING N DR

CYPRESS ROSEH LI L RD

WHISPERING VALLEY DR

WOODWORTH DR

TIMBERLAKE DR

KLUGE RD

COLES CROSSING DR

TALL FOREST DR

HEMPSTEAD RD

WORTHAM BLVD

RIATA RANCH BLVD

SKINNER RD

RED RUGOSA DR

N ELDRIDGE PKWY

HOUSE AND HAHL RD

BARKER CYPRESS RD

BARKER CYPRESS RD

SPRING CYPRESS RD

JARVIS RD

FRY RD

QUEENSTON BLVD

TUCKERTON RD

CYPRESS NORTH HOUSTON RD

GREENHOUSE RD

GREENHOUSE RD

TELGE RD

HUFFMIESTER RD

HUFFM EI STER RD

FM 1960

UV6

£¤290

£¤290

Cypress Creek

Dry Creek

Horsepen Creek

Whiteoak Bayou

Little Cypre ss Creek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 41 of 43
LAKEVIEW

W GULFBANKRD

N ELDRIDGE PKWY

NYOKO

ROSPRIM

RUFFIAN DR

TILSON LN

EQUITY DR

CHARLES RD

TALLEY LN

SMITH ST

JERSEY DR

GROVER LN

SUSSEX LN

COMANCHE LN

HARDISON LN

ALFRED LN

JAMEEL RD

WELWYN DR

LEGHORN ST

PHILLIPEANES

HAWAII LN

DILLARD DR

CAPRI DR

SHANGHAI ST

BAYTHORNE DR

SOLOMON ST

LAWFORD LN

FLINTLOCK RD

SECURITYWAY

ROTHWAY ST

TEAGUE RD

TRIWAY LN

KOESTER ST

VILLAGEGREEN

DR

JUNEAU LN

KAISER ST

GOODRUM RD

WINDFERN RD

SEATTLE SLEW DR JERSEY MEADOW DR

STEFFANI LN

TALINA WAY

CARLSBAD ST

HOLLOW HOOK RD

HONOLULU ST

HELIER ST

ELWOOD DR

BAMBOO RD

TANGIERS RD

MOROCCO RD

CRAWFORDST

WEST ST

FAWNDALE LN

DANCY RD

CRAWFORD RD

CLARA RD

PACKARD ST

W

BY NORTHWEST BLVD

TEAGUE

WALL ST

CHERRYHILLS DR

BUSINESS PARK DR

STEEPLE WAY BLVD

STONINGTON ST

ARGENTINA ST

SEATTLE ST

TAHOE DR

ASTON ST

DE LOZIER ST

SINGAPORE LN

ALGIERS RD

FISHER RD

PAPALOTE ST

CASTLEBRIDGE DR

JONES RD

ACAPULCO DR

W WINGFOOTRD

BRITMOORE

PORTO RICO RD

JONES

CONGO LN

W TIDWELL RD

TANNER

W LITTLE YORK

GENARD RD

CAMPBELL

RIO GRANDE

JERSEY

OKANELLA

SENATE AVE

BLALOCK

SOMMERMEYER GESSNER S

HEMPSTEAD

BLAZEY DR

CIENNA DR

KAY LN

DANCY ST

RICABY DR

MELBA LN

SHERRY LN

KIRWIN LN

DYSON LN

BART LN

MANSOR DR

MAIZE LN

MINTURN LN CR 8351

PEARL DR

ADAGIO AVE

DUDE LN

LAUREL

TRCE

CEDARVIEW LN

TIGER LN

CORNETT DR

GUHN RD

FLINTLOCK ST

CLARION WAY

GAILEY LN

SUMMERTREE DR

ANDANTE DR

OAKLAND DR

BRYSTONE DR

WARREN RD

CABIN

CREEK DR

DONYS DR

W WILLOW DR

BO JACK DR

REGAL ROW CONCORD LN

PRISTINE PARK DR

B GI BRANCH DR

ELDRIDGE PLACE DR

BALLINGER DR

HARMS RD

LITTLE RIVER RD

OLD MEADOW LN

FLAXEN DR

BATTLEOAK DR

LEEDWICK DR

WEIMAN RD

BROOKRIVER DR

ROUND BANK DR

PRARIE DR

LAWNCLIFF LN

MAYARD DR

SIGNAT DR

SATSUMA DR

LITTLE YORK

KITE HILL DR

IVAN REID DR

BENT OAK DR

FAIRBANKS WHITE OAK

TAYLOR RD

ALLEGRO DR

CONCORD BRIDGE DR

SKYVIEW DR

WINDFOREST DR

CHIMNEYSWEEP DR

W

WESTFAIR DR

BREEN RD

WAYNEMER

WAY

EMP RI E CENTRAL DR

HARPERS BRIDGE DR

JACKRABBIT RD

PLUM RIDGE

WHEATLANDDR

PHILIPPINE ST

ELDRIDGE GLEN DR

ZAKA RD

W WESTLAND BLVD

WOODLAND W DR

LOG CRADLE DR

RODNEY RAY BLVD

STEEPLEPARK DR

HEMPSTEAD RD

THOMAS RD

RIO GRANDE DR

CANAAN BRIDGE DR

SUMMER SNOW DR

MAUNALOA LN

HOLLY HILL LN

FAIRVIEW RD

WRIGHT RD

EMMOTT RD

GULF BANK

EMMETT RD

CUNNINGHAM RD

BRITTMOORE PARK DR

W LITTLE YORK RD

BRITTMOORE RD

TANNER RD

GESSNER RD

WIND FERN RD

WEST RD

WEST RD

W LITTLE YORK RD

FAIRBANKS - N HOUSTON

FM 529

UV8

UV8

£¤290

£¤290

Rolling Fork

Turkey

Creek

Whiteoak Bayou

Cole Creek

LanghamCreek

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 42 of 43
AMELIA RD

ORA

POCO

RYSON

SOWAY

PINEY POINT RD

TYNE ST

W 15 1/2

W TEX DR

PIFER RD

ALBA RD

BADE ST

NEELEY DR

NEUENS RD

CLOVIS RD

RAMUS ST

RIDGEMORE

MINOLA ST

RENO

MALIBU DR

MC DADE

KATY ST

LODGE ST

CRANWAY DR

BEN HUR DR

KRIST DR

COTTON DR

ALDRICH ST

SPENWICK

ELDORA DR

RANGELY DR

WICKFORD DR

DUNSMERE ST

BURKHART RD

MAXIE ST

MICKEY WAY

EDGEWAY DR

CLEMSON ST

BELLEWOOD

W 34 1/2

TULSA

RADCLIFFE ST

NORTHRUP DR

NORTON DR

WHEATLEY ST

APOLLO ST

PECOS ST

N LOU AL DR

LANELL LN

EUREKA ST

CAMPBELL RD

W 19TH ST

HACKETT DR

HAMMAN ST

P NI E CHASE

HIALEAHDR

TELUCO STZORA ST

FLINT RIVER DR

MALL DR

BAYTHORNE DR

LATEXO DR

HILL OAK DR

BACE DR

HARDWAY ST

BRON HOLLY DR

PECH RD

BURR OAK DR

NORCREST DR

BROOKMEREDR

OUTPOST DR

BROOM ST

BLANDFORD LN

GREINER DR

BROOM DR

BRIAN HAVEN DR

SAXET ST

ROLLA ST

MARCELLA ST

MC DADE ST

APRIL LN

CORBINDALE

LEGHORN ST

WESTCREST DR

RONSON RD

TED ST

ALDERLEY DR

BRIMBERRY ST

FISHER ST

N POST OAK LN

KNOLL ST

WILDE ROCK WAY W 30TH ST

BOBBITT LN

ROMA ST

ELIZABETH RD

MONA LEE LN

ACORN ST

VOGUE LN

KUHLMAN RD

COUCH ST

ALCOTT DR

W CREEKSIDEDR

DERRIKDR

WALTWAY DR

CREEK DR

TURQUOISE LN

BEINHORN

SANBORN

RATON ST

JALNA ST

KINLEYLN

DANBURY RD

OVERHILL ST

RENA ST

RIDGEVIEW DR

CAYWOOD LN

LAZY SPRING DR

ANNE ST

DAYCO ST

SPRING BRANCH

LIDO LN

LONGACRE

DR

KURY LN

W 20TH ST

CAROUSEL LN

AWTY SCHOOL LN

WISTER LN

BROGDEN

BLALOCK

MINIMAX DR

BOLIVIA BLVD

BENBOW WAY

THEYSEN DR

ALABONSON RD

CLARK

RANDON

BETHEL BLVD

FLOWERDALE ST

MARLBOROUGH DR

NORTHFIELD LN

ROSSLYN

HURFUS DR

SOWAY ST

HILLMONT ST

GUHN RD

DE LANGE LN

SHELTERWOODDR

WESCOTT

BAYRAM DR

LYNNVIEW DR

GAYLORD DR

PINEHAVENDR

VERDOME LN

PINE TIMBERS

OLD KATY RD

LONGRIDGE DR

SHAVELSON ST

H

N

A

O

R

R

T

THAMPTON WAY LAND ST

GALWAY LN

W 31ST ST

LARKIN ST

DIRECTORSROW

CENT

RAL PARKWAY DR

HOUSMAN ST

W 21ST ST

FALLEN OAKS DR

GEORGI LN

CEDEL DR

SHIRKMERE RD

MORNINGV EI W DR

OAK SHADOWS DR

LAZYBROOK DR

GARDENDALE DR

WILLOWVIEW LN

LOU ELLEN LN

KERRWOOD LN

JANAK DR

DARLING ST

COUNTER POINT DR

PINE CHASE DR

MARNEL RD

GLOURIE DR

MONARCH OAKS DR

COUNTRY LN

PITNER

LAVERNE ST

HILLENDAHL BLVD

WILLOWBY DR

BAYOU VISTA DR

GRANITE ST

BROOKTREE DR

CONFEDERATE RD

ASCOT LN

STORY ST

HAVERHILL DR

MORITZ DR

COLLEEN

RANNIE RD

S PINEMONT

FRONTIER DR HOSKINS DR

NINA LEE LN

DROXFORD DR

W FRIARTUCK LN

ECHO

SUE BARNETT DR

DEL NORTE ST

W 42ND ST

CINDY LN

CHAMBOARD LN

THONIG RD

CURTIN ST

FRIES RD

VOSS RD

LA MONTE LN

W 41ST ST

JIM ST

WOODVINE DR

SONNEVILLE DR

POINCIANADR

BUCKINGHAM DR

PEPPERMILL RD

HARLAND DR

SPENW CI K DR

PORTWEST DR

LIBBEY DR

KARBACH ST

BARNEY RD

R DI GECREST DR

BAUER DR

JUDIWAY ST

DE MILO DR

PETTY ST

VOSS

RAYSON RD

GOLDEN FOREST DR

WAKEFIELD

PINEY

WOODS

DR

MILWEE ST

FELDSPAR ST

KIAM ST

LANGFIELD RD

FRIENDSHIP RD

RICHELIEU LN

WIRT

RIDGELEY DR

MITCHELLDALE ST

CHIMNEY ROCK

W DONOVAN ST

W 26TH ST

CANDLELIGHT LN

W 24TH ST

BOLIN RD

MARTIN ST

AFTON ST

THORNTON RD

TANNEHILL DR

LINDYANN LN

BROOK WOODS DR

GLEBE RD

STONECREST DR

MERLIN DR

VIKING DR

SEAMIST DR

W 22ND ST

W 23RD ST

SAXON DR

W 25TH ST

UNDERHILL ST

BLANKENSHIP DR

GROVEWOOD LN

TODD ST

JUDIWAY

TILSON LN

EBONY LN

BINGLE RD

WESTVIEW DR

JOHANNA DR

HUGE OAKS ST

SOUTHERLAND RD

GOLF DR

ADKINS RD

BETHLEHEM ST

JACQUELYN DR

THORNWALL ST

BLALOCK RD

LANG RD

MEMORIAL LOOP

SCHILLER ST

SHADY VILLA LN

ALBA

HURST ST

COSTA R CI A RD

SHERWOOD LN

WASHINGTON AVE

BEVIS ST

LEHMAN ST

ANSBURY DR

WOODCREST DR

PECH

SOWDEN

KANSAS

DONNA BELL LN

OAK TREE DR

HEWITT DR

OJEMAN RD

WATONGA BLVD

CHIPPENDALE RD

DU BARRY LN

WAKEFIELD DR

CLAY RD

KATY

GARDENIA DR

W 11TH ST

DACOMA ST

LAMONTE LN

HOLLISTER RD

EMNORA LN

CHESHIRE LN

CHANTILLY LN

W 12TH ST

N POST OAK RD

ALTHEA DR

SILBER RD

W 18TH ST

MEMORIAL

MANGUM

E TC JESTER

BLVD

CREEKMONT DR

CAMPBELL

KEMPWOOD DR

HAMMERLY

ELLA

ELLA

BINGLE

BINGLE

W 34TH ST

W 34TH ST

LONG POINT RD

LONG POINT RD

ANTOINE

ANTOINE

W TC JESTER

BLVD

W 43RD ST

W 43RD ST

PINEMONT DR

PINEMONT DR

£¤290

§ ̈¦610

§ ̈¦10

§ ̈¦10

Cole Creek

Briar Branch

Spring Branch

Whi teoak Bayou

Dallas to Houston

High-Speed Rail Project

Appendix H

Areas Cleared for 

Ground Disturbing Activities

Legend

HSR Area of Potential Effects

Cleared Area

Parcel Boundary

County Boundary

USACE Jurisdictional Areas

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Intermittent Stream/River

Perennial Stream/River

Artificial Stream/River

Lake/Pond

Reservoir

Swamp/Marsh

National Wetland Inventory (NWI)

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

μ

HARRIS

LEON

ELLIS NAVARRO

DALLAS

GRIMES

LIMESTONE

FREESTONE

MADISON

WALLER

Data Sources: County Boundaries - U.S. Census TIGER 2015; 

Roads - TXDOT 2018; NWI - USFWS 2018; NHD - USGS 2018 

Aerial: NAIP 2016

Page 43 of 43
Appendix I

Unanticipated Discovery Plan
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources and/or Human Remains

1

UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY PLAN FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES AND/OR HUMAN 

REMAINS

PROTOCOL FOR PROJECT PERSONNEL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS

1. Introduction

Texas Central Railroad, LLC (TCRR) and its affiliates propose to construct the 240-mile Dallas to Houston 

High-Speed Rail (Project) through the Texas counties of Dallas, Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, 

Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris. TCRR recognizes that despite the intensive cultural field 

investigations performed prior to Project construction, archeological and historic sites have the 

potential to be discovered during the construction process, and compliance with applicable federal and 

state laws and regulations regarding cultural resources and human remains must be followed. In order

to provide additional safeguards against the possibility that the construction of the Project might impact 

cultural resources, including human remains, this Unanticipated Discovery Plan (Plan) has been 

developed as guidance to project consultants, project personnel, and construction contractors in the 

proper procedures and protocol to be followed when dealing with unanticipated discoveries of 

archeological resources, historic resources, and/or human remains.

The purpose of the Plan is to provide an overview of the Project specific resources along the route, so 

both construction contractors and project personnel will be aware of the kinds of unanticipated cultural

resources, including human remains, which may be encountered in the field, and will emphasize the 

exact procedures to be followed. These procedures are to ensure lines of communication with the 

appropriate project personnel and government authorities are clearly established prior to the start of 

construction so discoveries can be addressed in a timely manner, minimizing the impacts to the 

construction schedule to the greatest extent possible.

2. Definitions

• Area of Potential Effect (APE): Is the area identified where ground disturbing activities from

project construction and project operation have the potential to disturb cultural resources,

including historic structures, archeological sites, unidentified graves, and unmarked graves.

• Archeological Site: An archeological site may be composed of a collection of artifacts, an

archeological feature, or human remains.

• Artifact: An artifact may be defined as an object that has been intentionally made, produced or

modified for a certain purpose by a human being.

o Common historic artifacts: bottles, glass, pottery, ceramics, bricks, nails, miscellaneous

metal fragments, charcoal, etc.

o Common prehistoric artifacts: projectile points (arrowheads), stone chips or flakes,

rough pottery, stone tools, etc.

• Associated Funerary Objects: Objects that were intentionally buried with human remains,

either made for burial purposes or to contain human remains.

• Cemetery: A place that is used or intended to be used for interment, and includes a graveyard,

burial park, mausoleum, or any other area containing one or more graves.

• Cultural Materials: includes man-made objects and features indicating past human activity.

• Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places: properties formally determined to meet the

National Register Criteria (see National Register of Historic Places).
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources and/or Human Remains

2

• Extenuating Circumstances: An unanticipated discovery that will require more than 30 days of 

work stoppage.

• Feature: A collection of one or more non-portable representations or remains of 

representations of human activity or occupation such as walls, storage pits, foundations, wells, 

middens (a prehistoric or historic dump for domestic waste), burials, etc.

• Historic: Any district, site, building, structure, or object greater than 45 years old.

• Historic Property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included 

in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.

• Interment: The permanent disposition of remains by entombment, burial, or placement in a 

niche.

• Limits of Disturbance (LOD): The areas identified where ground disturbing activities from 

project construction and project operation take place.

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA): Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

• National Register of Historic Places: The official list of the Nation’s historic places worthy of 

preservation; overseen by the National Park Service and enacted by the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

• Midden: Accumulation of occupational debris; organic remains, burned rocks, shells, etc.

• Prehistoric: Remains of human activity that was present prior to recorded or written history.

• Section 106: Part of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 that requires federal agencies 

to consider the effects of their project, or undertaking, on historic properties.

• Survey: Fieldwork to locate historic standing structures and historic and prehistoric 

archeological sites; may include pedestrian (on-foot surface examination), shovel testing, and 

deep trenching by backhoe.

• State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): The Texas Historical Commission (THC) takes the 

role of the SHPO in the state of Texas, which is the state agency for historic preservation.

• Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO): Tribal official appointed by the tribe’s chief 

governing authority who has assumed the responsibilities of the SHPO/THC for purposes of 

Section 106 compliance on tribal lands.

• Unanticipated Discovery: A discovery that would require project construction to stop so that an 

archeologist or architectural historian may evaluate the nature of the find. An unanticipated 

discovery may consist of historic or archeological features, including deposits of non- human 

skeletal material. An unanticipated discovery may also consist of any human remains located 

anywhere in the Project APE/LOD that were not previously identified.

3 Training and Orientation

The on-site supervisor will be responsible for advising construction/contractor personnel on the 

procedures to follow in the event that an unanticipated discovery is made. Training will occur as part of 

the pre-construction on-site training program. 

4. Unanticipated Discovery of Archeological Sites or Historic Structures

This Plan provides the approach to be employed in addressing emergency discoveries and ensure any 

potentially significant archeological or historic resources discovered during construction are dealt with 

in full accordance with State and Federal requirements. Previously undocumented cultural resources
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources and/or Human Remains

3

discoveries that require reporting and notification include any recognizable evidence of human 

occupation (concentrations of artifacts, man-made features, concentration of animal bone, etc.).

• Construction activities within the immediate area of an unanticipated discovery will be halted

within a 150-foot radius buffer zone of the discovery;

• This buffer zone will be secured through the installation of flagging tape and/or protective

fencing;

• Notify the on-site supervisor immediately, who will then contact the project manager and the

designated cultural resource specialists (Table 1);

• Minimize the movement of vehicles and equipment in the area surrounding the discovery;

• Specific THC instructions will be followed on a case by case basis, although, at a minimum,

archeological investigations will be performed to stabilize deposits and protect deposits from

scavengers or looters; and

• Once the discovery has been documented and assessed, the stop-work order will be lifted as

soon as practical.

Table 1 

Company Contact Title Contact Name Phone Number E-mail Address

Project Manager (primary)

Project Manager (alternate)

Archeologist (primary)

Archeologist (alternate)

Architectural Historian 

(primary)

Architectural Historian 

(alternate)

5. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains

Cemeteries are protected under provisions of the Texas Health and Safety Code in Chapters 711-715 

(Title 13, § 2, Chapter 22 of the Texas Administration Code [TAC]), and in Section 28.03(f) of the Penal 

Code. If any prehistoric or historic human remains or unmarked burials are encountered at any point 

during construction, the area of the remains should be avoided until a qualified person, as defined by 

§711.0105(a) under the Texas Health and Safety Code, can determine the status of the remains. Any

area determined to contain the intentional burial of the remains is considered a cemetery under current

Texas law. All cemeteries are protected and cannot be disturbed. The Texas Penal Code provides that

intentional damage or destruction inflicted on a human burial site is a state jail felony.

Should a cemetery be encountered during construction all construction activities shall cease 

immediately so as to avoid impacting the remains. The THC must be notified immediately of the finding 

by contacting the History Programs Division at (512) 463-5853 and the Archeology Division at (512) 

463-6096.

The discovery or disturbance of human remains (including, but not limited to, bones, teeth, hair, ashes, 

etc.) and/or associated burial objects is a sensitive issue that must be addressed in the event that a 

burial site, an unmarked grave, or a cemetery is impacted by planned construction. Human remains and 

grave goods should not be removed. Construction personnel will follow the procedures below:
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources and/or Human Remains

4

6. Procedures for the Discovery of Human Remains

• All human remains, burial sites, or burial related materials that are discovered during

construction will at all times be treated with dignity and respect;

• Construction activities within the immediate area of an unanticipated discovery of human

remains and/or related objects will be halted within a 150-foot radius buffer zone of the

discovery;

• Special attention should be given to the possible extension of the new found human remains 

and/or related objects beyond the APE/LOD, this buffer zone will be secured through the 

installation of flagging tape and/or protective fencing;

• Notify the on-site supervisor, who will then contact the project manager and designated

archeologist (see Table 1). The designated archeologist will then contact the THC, county sheriff, 

and the appropriate law enforcement agency, coroner, medical examiner, or justice of the 

peace within 24 hours of the discovery (Table 2);

• In cases of inclement weather, the human remains should be protected with tarps;

• Minimize the movement of vehicles and equipment in the area surrounding the discovery;

• Specific THC instructions will be followed on a case by case basis, although, at a minimum,

archeological investigations will be performed to stabilize deposits and protect deposits from

scavengers or looters;

• Work within this area will not resume until cleared by the appropriate personnel; and

• File a Notice of Existence of a Cemetery with the County Clerk within 10 days

(http://www.thc.texas.gov/search?query=notice+of+existence+cemetery&form_token=&form_i

d=search_form&cx=004905124693252667962%3Asxyaskemxxg&ie=UTF-8)

Table 2

County Agency Phone Number

All Counties THC History Programs Division 512.463.5853

All Counties THC Archeology Division 512.463.6096

Dallas Dallas County Sheriff 214.653.3450

Dallas Dallas County Medical Examiner 214.920.5900

Ellis Ellis County Sheriff 972.825.4901

Ellis Ellis County Justice of the Peace – Precinct One 972.825.5319

Navarro Navarro County Sheriff 903.654.3002

Navarro Navarro County Justice of the Peace – Precinct One 903.654.3055

Navarro Navarro County Justice of the Peace – Precinct Three 903.654.3063

Navarro Navarro County Justice of the Peace – Precinct Four 903.654.3092

Freestone Freestone County Sheriff 903.389.3236

Freestone Freestone County Justice of the Peace *N/A

Limestone Limestone County Sheriff 254.729.3278

Limestone Limestone County Justice of the Peace – Precinct Four 254.562.7113

Leon Leon County Sheriff 903.536.2749

Leon Leon County Justice of the Peace *N/A

Madison Madison County Sheriff 936.348.2755

Madison Madison County Justice of the Peace – Precinct Three 936.348.5151

Madison Madison County Justice of the Peace – Precinct Four 936.348.5151

Grimes Grimes County Sheriff 936.873.2151

Grimes Grimes County Justice of the Peace – Precinct One 936.394.2060
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources and/or Human Remains

5

Grimes Grimes County Justice of the Peace – Precinct Two 936.873.6452

Waller Waller County Sheriff 979.826.8282

Waller Waller County Justice of the Peace – Precinct Two 936.372.2193

Harris Harris County Sheriff 713.221.6000

Harris Harris County Medical Examiner 713.796.9292

Source: AECOM 2020

*N/A: Not Available

In construction situations where Native American human remains are discovered, consultation with Native 

American tribes may be required. If Native American human remains are encountered during construction, 

TCRR will follow the procedures for such discoveries in accordance with State and Federal regulations, 

including NAGPRA and its implementing regulations (43 CFR § 10). This will involve FRA in consultation with 

the THC or THPO and appropriate interested parties in an effort to identify and notify next of kin, closest 

lineal descendant, or the Native American tribes who may be culturally affiliated with the remains, and to 

determine appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains. 

A plan for the avoidance of any further impact to the human remains and/or mitigative excavation, reinterment, or a combination of these treatments will be developed in consultation with the THC and, if 

applicable, appropriate Native American tribes or closest lineal descendants. All parties will be expected to 

respond with advice and guidance in an efficient time frame. Once the plan is agreed to by all parties, the 

plan will be implemented.
Appendix J

Construction Personnel Plan and Procedures
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Plan and Procedures for Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources

1

Plan and Procedures for the 

Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources 

During Construction of the Dallas to Houston 

High-Speed Rail

1 Introduction

Texas Central Railway, LLC (TCRR) plans to construct the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail 

Project (HSR). Following are procedures, in accordance with state and federal laws, to be 

followed if cultural materials or human remains are discovered. Cultural resources include 

prehistoric and historic sites, objects, landscapes, and structures significant to the State of Texas 

and the United States. Cultural resources surveys have been completed prior to construction, 

however; there is a possibility that additional cultural resources may be encountered during the 

construction phase of this project.

Cultural resources are generally broken into two categories: Archeology and Historic Resources;

typically, below ground and above ground, although not all archeological resources are below 

ground and not all historic resources are above ground.

2 Recognizing Cultural Resources

Archeology

Archeological resources are defined as sites containing the remains of past human activity. The 

types of archeological sites that could be encountered during construction are:

• Prehistoric campsites, prehistoric quarries, burned rock middens, prehistoric lithic

scatters (i.e. arrowheads, stone chips), rock shelters, human burials, hearths, and

masonry structures

• Historic farmstead or ranch related structures, historic dumps or artifact scatters

(clusters of glass, metal, pottery, bricks, or agricultural equipment), military-related

components, historic dams, buried railroad tracks, historic stone fences and walls, wells,

cisterns, and silos
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Plan and Procedures for Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources

2

Historic Resources

Historic resources include structures that are 45 years old or older. Prior to construction, a 

historic resources survey was conducted to identify and record all historic resources within 

the project area. However, there is still potential that unidentified historic resources could 

be encountered on the construction site. These resources could be: 

• Buildings, structures, complexes, cemeteries, historic markers, bridges, and culverts

The types most likely to be encountered are bridges and culverts. These resources are

typically smaller, low to the ground, and may be difficult to see through thick or overgrown

vegetation. Construction materials for these resources include concrete, wood, and brick.

Some historic culverts may have a date stamp, which indicates the year the structure was

constructed.

When in doubt, assume the material is a cultural resource.

3 On-Site Responsibilities

Step 1: Stop Work. If any employee, contractor, or subcontractor believes that he or she has 

uncovered a cultural resource at any point in the project, all work within 150 feet of the 

discovery must stop. Vehicles, equipment, or unauthorized personnel are not permitted at the 

discovery site.

Step 2: Secure the Area. The discovery location should be secured immediately with flagging 

tape, a tarp, or orange fencing.

Step 3: Notify Supervisor. Notify the on-site supervisor immediately, who will then contact 

the project manager and the designated cultural resource specialists (Table 1).

Table 1 

Company Contact Title Contact Name Phone 

Number

E-mail Address

Project Manager (primary)

Project Manager 

(alternate)

Archeologist (primary)

Archeologist (alternate)

Architectural Historian 

(primary)

Architectural Historian 

(alternate)
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Training: Presentation Notes

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic sites, objects, landscapes, and structures significant to 

the State of Texas and the United States. Cultural resources surveys have been completed prior to 

construction, however; there is a possibility that additional cultural resources may be encountered 

during the construction phase of this project.

Cultural resources are generally broken into two categories: Archeology and Historic, typically below 

ground and above ground, although not all archeological resources are below ground and not all historic 

resources are above ground. 

Archeology

Archeological resources can be defined as sites containing the remains of past human activity. The types 

of archeological sites that could be encountered on construction projects such as the High Speed Rail

project are those that contain:

• Skeletal remains and evidence of burials

• Projectile points and tools made of stone or bone

• Pottery, glass, metal, or brick fragments; and 

• Historic features

Sites with skeletal remains and evidence of burials include a single grave and abandoned cemeteries 

that often have damaged or missing headstones or markers. Here are a few examples of what these 

types of sites may look like, if encountered during construction.

Projectile points, which are commonly known as arrowheads, and tools made of stone or bone, are 

typically small objects that fit in your hand. When these types of artifacts are found it may appear to be 

an isolated find; however, the artifact may actually be part of a larger site that contains additional 

artifacts. For this reason, it is important that if these types of resources are encountered, work in the 

area stop so the site is not destroyed and the limits of the site can be determined.

Other types of small artifacts that could be encountered include fragments of pottery, glass, metal, or

brick. These types of artifacts may also be part of larger archeological sites.

Archeological resources also include historic features such as wells and cisterns. Cisterns were used to 

collect rain water, generally from the roof of a structure that is no longer present. Historic wells are also 

typically associated with a structure that is no longer present. These images show some typical 

construction methods for historic wells and cisterns.

Because archeological sites are either below ground or on the ground surface, these resources may be 

encountered during clearing and earth moving activities. If you encounter evidence of an archeological 

site, stop work in the area immediately and contact your supervisor. Prior to the continuation of 

construction, coordination and clearance with the Texas Historical Commission is required.
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Training: Presentation Notes

Historic

Historic resources include structures that are 45 years old or older. Prior to construction, a historic 

resources survey was conducted to identify and record all historic resources within the project area. No 

further evaluation of these resources was required.

However, there is still a potential that unidentified historic resources could be encountered on the 

construction site including buildings, bridges, culverts, and wells. The types most likely to be 

encountered are culverts and wells. These resources are typically smaller, low to the ground, and may 

be difficult to see through thick or overgrown vegetation. Construction materials for these resources 

include concrete, wood, and brick. Some historic culverts may have a date stamp, which indicates the 

year the structure was constructed. 

If a historic resource that has not been previously identified is encountered on the construction site, 

stop work in the immediate area and notify your supervisor. Prior to the demolition of any structures, 

coordination and clearance with the Texas Historical Commission is required. 
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Cultural Resources Training
• 240-mile high-speed passenger rail 

between Dallas and Houston

• Bullet train technology – N700 

Tokaido Shinkansen

• 90-minute travel time with speeds up 

to 205 mph

• “Closed” railroad system (dedicated 

to high-speed rail lines)

• Terminal stations in Dallas and 

Houston with an intermediate station 

in Grimes County

• Privately funded

Project Overview

2
Cultural Resources include prehistoric and historic sites, 

objects, landscapes, and structures significant to the state of 

Texas and the United States, and are generally broken into two 

categories: Archeology (below ground) and Historic (above 

ground).

What are Cultural Resources?

3

Archeology Historic
4

Archeological Resources:

Sites containing the remains of past human 

activity, including:

 Skeletal remains and evidence of burials

 Projectile points and stone tools

 Pottery, glass, or brick fragments

 Historic features
5

Archeological Resources:

• Skeletal Remains and Evidence of Human Burials:

Isolated Burial

Deteriorated Headstone

Abandoned Cemetery

http://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/cemetery-preservation/cemetery-laws
• Projectile Points (commonly known as arrowheads)

• Stone or Bone Tools

6

Archeological Resources:
• Pottery, glass, metal, and bricks

7

Archeological Resources:
8

Archeological Resources:

• Historic Features (wells, cisterns, and trash dumps)
Include structures that are 45 years old or 

older.

 Buildings

 Bridges

 Culverts

9

Historic Resources:
• Buildings

10

Historic Resources:
11

Historic Resources:

• Bridges
• Culverts

12

Historic Resources:
• Encounter an Archeological or Historic 

Resource?

• STOP WORK 

• Secure the area with Caution Tape or 

Temporary Fencing (150-foot radius)

• Contact: Field Supervisor

13

What do I do?
• Encounter a Cemetery or Human Remains?

• STOP WORK 

• Secure the area with Caution Tape or 

Temporary Fencing (150-foot radius)

• Contact: Field Supervisor

14

What do I do?
• TCRR (Name and Phone Number)

• THC History Programs Division 

(512.463.5853)

• THC Archeology Division (512.463.6096)

• FRA (Name and Phone Number)

• Local County Sheriff (911)

15

Who do I contact next?
Appendix K

Principal Contacts
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Programmatic Agreement Principal Contacts

Principal Contacts

FRA

Katherine Zeringue, Federal Preservation Officer

Email: katherine.zeringue@dot.gov

Phone: (202) 493-7007

Mailing Address: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590

USACE – Fort Worth District

a. James Barrera

Email: James.E.Barrera@usace.army.mil

Phone: (817) 886-1838

Mailing Address: 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102

b. Darvin Messer

Email: Darvin.Messer@usace.army.mil

Phone: (817) 886-1744

Mailing Address: 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102

c. Leslie Crippen

Email: Leslie.A.Crippen@usace.army.mil

Phone: (817) 886-1470

Mailing Address: 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102

USACE – Galveston District

a. Jerry Androy

Email: Jerry.L.Androy@usace.army.mil

Phone: (409) 766-3821

Mailing Address: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas 77550

b. Felicity Cunningham

Email: Felicity.A.Cunningham@usace.army.mil

Phone: (409) 766-3105

Mailing Address: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas 77550

c. Robert Heinly

Email: Robert.W.Heinly@usace.army.mil

Phone: (409) 766-3992

Mailing Address: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas 77550

SHPO eTRAC website: https://xapps.thc.state.tx.us/106Review/

a. Archaeology Division

Rebecca Shelton

Email: Rebecca.Shelton@thc.texas.gov

Phone: (512) 463-6043

Mailing Address: 1511 Colorado Street, Austin, TX 78701
Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail

Programmatic Agreement Principal Contacts

b. History Programs Division

Justin Kockritz

Email: Justin.Kockritz@thc.texas.gov

Phone: (512) 936-7403

Mailing Address: 1511 Colorado Street, Austin, TX 78701

ACHP

Sarah Stokely, Program Analyst

Email: sstokely@achp.gov

Phone: (202) 517-0224

Mailing Address: 401 F Street, NW, Suite 308, Washington, DC 20001-2637

TCRR

Stephen Andersen

Email: SAndersen@texascentral.com

Phone: (844) 896-7246

Mailing Address: 1409 South Lamar Street, Suite 1022, Dallas, TX 75215

Contact information may be updated, as needed, without an amendment to this PA. It is the 

responsibility of each Signatory to immediately inform all Signatories and Concurring Parties in writing of 

changes to the name or contact information for any point of contact.