Appendix F 

Water Quality Technical Study

In coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

 

Water Quality 

Technical Study 

 

July 2016 

TBG092914072712SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page iii 

Contents 

Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. vii

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Service Type Descriptions .............................................................................................. 1-4

1.1.1 Conventional Rail .......................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.1.2 Higher-Speed Rail ......................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.1.3 High-Speed Rail ............................................................................................................. 1-4 

1.2 Alternative Descriptions ................................................................................................. 1-5

1.2.1 No Build Alternative ...................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.2.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth ....................................... 1-6 

1.2.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio ............................................. 1-7 

1.2.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas .......................................................... 1-9 

1.2.5 Station Cities ............................................................................................................... 1-10 

2.0 Regulatory Context and Purpose ............................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Regulatory Environment ................................................................................................. 3-1

 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Orders ...................................................................... 3-1 

 State Regulations ......................................................................................................... 3-3 

 Other Permitting Agencies ............................................................................................ 3-4 

3.3 Regional Climate ............................................................................................................. 3-5

3.4 Surface Waters ................................................................................................................ 3-5

 Hydrologic Units .......................................................................................................... 3-10 

 Floodplains .................................................................................................................. 3-10 

 Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters .................................................................... 3-11 

 Designated Waters ..................................................................................................... 3-17 

3.5 Erosion .......................................................................................................................... 3-17

3.6 Groundwater ................................................................................................................. 3-19

4.0 Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................. 4-1

5.0 Water Quality Effects ................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 No Build Alternative ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Potential Effects .............................................................................................................. 5-1

 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth ....................................... 5-1 

 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio ............................................. 5-5 

 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas ........................................................ 5-10 

 Summary of Potential Effects .................................................................................... 5-13 

5.3 Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ...... 5-15

6.0 References ............................................................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 7-1
TBG092914072712SCO 

Contents 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page iv 

List of Figures 

1-1: Build Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 1-2

3-1: Surface Waters, Hydrologic Units Sub-basins, and Floodplains within the Vicinity of the 

Northern Section EIS Study Area .................................................................................................... 3-7

3-2: Surface Waters, Hydrologic Units Sub-basins, and Floodplains within the Vicinity of the 

Central Section EIS Study Area ....................................................................................................... 3-8

3-3: Surface Waters, Hydrologic Units Sub-basins, and Floodplains within the Vicinity of the 

Southern Section EIS Study Area ................................................................................................... 3-9

3-4: Impaired Waters Crossed and Soils with High (Severe and Very Severe) Erosion Potential 

within the Vicinity of the Northern EIS Study Area ..................................................................... 3-14

3-5: Impaired Waters Crossed and Soils with High (Severe and Very Severe) Erosion Potential 

within the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area ........................................................... 3-15

3-6: Impaired Waters Crossed and Soils with High (Severe and Very Severe) Erosion Potential 

within the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area ....................................................... 3-16

3-7: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area .............................. 3-22

3-8: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area .............................. 3-23

3-9: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area ................................. 3-24

3-10: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area .............................. 3-25

3-11: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area ........................... 3-26

3-12: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area ........................... 3-27

 

List of Tables 

1-1: Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Evaluation ................................................................... 1-3

1-2: Cities with Potential Stations ....................................................................................................... 1-10

3-1: Surface Waters Crossed with the EIS Study Area ......................................................................... 3-6

3-2: Hydrologic Units Crossed within the EIS Study Area .................................................................. 3-10

3-3: Surface Waters Classified as Impaired Crossed by the EIS Study Area ................................... 3-12

3-4: Soils Crossed within the EIS Study Area ..................................................................................... 3-17

3-5: Aquifers Crossed within the EIS Study Area ............................................................................... 3-19

5-1: Surface Waters, Listed 303(d) Impaired Waters, and NWSR Designated Waters Crossed 

within the Northern Section EIS Study Area .................................................................................. 5-1

5-2: Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year Floodplain) Crossed within the Northern Section EIS 

Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 5-2

5-3: Areas with High Erosion Potential that are Crossed by the Northern Section EIS Study Area ... 5-4

5-4: Aquifers Crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area ..................................................... 5-4

5-5: Surface Waters, Listed 303(d) Impaired Waters, and NWSR Designated Waters Crossed 

within the Central Section EIS Study Area ..................................................................................... 5-6

5-6: Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year Floodplain) Crossed within the Central Section EIS 

Study Area. ....................................................................................................................................... 5-6

5-7: Areas with High Erosion Potential that are Crossed by the Central Section EIS Study Area 

Central .............................................................................................................................................. 5-8
TBG092914072712SCO 

Contents 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page v 

5-8: Aquifers Crossed within the Central Section EIS Study Area ....................................................... 5-9

5-9: Surface Waters, Listed 303(d) Impaired Waters, and NWSR Designated Waters Crossed 

within the Southern Section EIS Study Area ............................................................................... 5-10

5-10: Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year Floodplain) crossed within the Southern Section 

EIS Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 5-10

5-11: Areas with High Erosion Potential that are Crossed by the Southern Section EIS Study 

Area. ............................................................................................................................................ 5-12

5-12: Aquifers Crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area ............................................... 5-13

5-13: Summary of Potential Effects and Qualitative Assessment .................................................... 5-14

TBG092914072712SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page vii 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

GIS Geographic Information System 

IH-35 Interstate Highway 35 

KCS Kansas City Southern 

mph miles per hour 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

NWSR National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

ODEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

Program Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program 

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic (database) 

Study Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TRE Trinity Railway Express 

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

TBG092914072712SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 1-1 

1.0 Introduction 

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), along with the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), is preparing a service-level Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate intercity 

passenger rail service alternatives for the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program (Program). The 

purpose of the Program is to enhance intercity mobility by providing enhanced passenger rail 

service as a transportation alternative that is competitive with automobile, bus, and air travel. 

Preparation of the service-level EIS, in support of which this technical study has been prepared, is 

one of two primary objectives of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (Study). In addition to 

the service-level EIS, TxDOT and FRA are preparing a service development plan for the corridor to 

guide further development and capital investment in passenger rail improvements identified in the 

EIS Record of Decision. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is a partnering state agency 

for the Study and the EIS. 

The 850-mile corridor analyzed for the Study runs north-south and roughly parallels Interstate 

Highway 35 (IH-35), with the northern point in Edmond, Oklahoma (i.e., northern end of the 

Oklahoma City portion of the corridor), and the southern end in south Texas, potentially in Corpus 

Christi, Brownsville, Laredo, or the Rio Grande Valley, as shown on Figure 1-1. For this service-level 

analysis, a preliminary alignment was developed to represent each EIS alternative, based on 

conceptual engineering that considered and avoided obvious physical or environmental constraints. 

These alignments were not refined to optimize performance, reduce cost, avoid specific properties 

or individual environmental resources, or for any other such considerations. If an alternative is 

selected at the service-level for further development, the above considerations would be assessed 

at the project level. A broad corridor of study with a width of 500 feet has been identified along 

each route (EIS Study Area). This EIS Study Area provides an envelope that could accommodate 

areas for associated effects, including necessary roadway shifts, grade separations, construction 

activities, and affiliated features such as stations and parking, traction-power substations, power 

lines, and maintenance-of-way facilities. The area for which data were collected is identified as the 

Study Vicinity. Typically, county-wide data were collected for counties partially or completely within 

the Study Area. 

The analysis provides quantitative information about water resources within the EIS Study Area for 

each alternative and compares it against the No Build Alternative and other build alternatives in the 

same geographic region. The discussion of effects also provides qualitative differences in 

permanent, temporary, and direct and indirect effects that are associated with the service type 

(conventional rail, higher-speed rail, or high-speed rail) relative to the environmental context. 

However, because the 500-foot EIS Study Area does not represent the actual footprint of operation 

or construction phases, the analysis is primarily comparative, based on the presence of the 

resource within the EIS Study Area and the likelihood of effects appropriate for this service-level 

analysis. 

 
TBG092914072712SCO 

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 1-2 

Figure 1-1: Build Alternatives 
TBG092914072712SCO 

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 1-3 

The build alternatives are divided into the following three geographic sections based on the key 

regional markets that could be served by passenger rail improvements: 

 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

In addition, the alternatives consist of both a route, which refers to the specific corridor that a 

potential alignment follows, and a service type, which refers to the speed or category of rail 

transportation (conventional rail, higher-speed rail, or high-speed rail). The alternatives that have 

been carried forward for analysis in the EIS, including their geographic sections, routes, and service 

types, are listed in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1: Alternatives Carried Forward for Further 

Evaluation 

Route Service Type a 

Northern Section 

N4A CONV 

Central Section 

C4A 

HrSR 

HSR 

C4B HrSR 

HSR 

C4C HrSR 

HSR 

Southern Section 

S4 HrSR 

S6 HrSR 

HSR 

a CONV = conventional rail (up to speeds of 79 to 90 miles per hour 

[mph]); HrSR = higher-speed rail (up to speeds of 110 to 125 mph); 

HSR = high-speed rail (up to speeds of 220 to 250 mph) 

The route alternatives were based on the alignments of existing transportation networks with 

corridors potentially suitable for passenger rail operations (i.e., the existing railroad network and 

the existing interstate highway network) (the term “operations” includes maintenance of the 

facilities as well), or they were located on new alignments outside existing transportation corridors. 

Potential alignments described as “following” railway corridors share existing tracks, are located 

within an existing right-of-way, or are generally adjacent to existing tracks, depending on the service 
TBG092914072712SCO 

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 1-4 

type. Alternatives that are outside the existing transportation corridor could have greater indirect 

effects than those located in the existing transportation corridor; for example, alternatives outside 

existing corridors could divide neighborhoods or wildlife communities or create a potential new 

barrier. 

1.1 Service Type Descriptions 

The three service types (conventional rail, higher-speed rail, and high-speed rail) considered in this 

EIS are described below. 

1.1.1 Conventional Rail 

Conventional rail typically includes diesel-powered, steel-wheeled trains operating on steel tracks. 

Roadway crossings may be grade-separated depending on the type of roadway and amount of 

traffic, and rail rights-of-way may be fenced. Conventional rail would be operated at speeds up to 

79 to 90 mph and would mostly use existing railroad rights-of-way. For conventional rail 

alternatives, existing railroad track may be used, or in some cases, modifications such as doubletracking could be constructed within the existing right-of-way to accommodate additional trains. 

1.1.2 Higher-Speed Rail 

Higher-speed rail is similar to conventional rail in several respects. In many cases, higher-speed rail 

trains can run on the same steel tracks that support conventional rail, but higher speeds can 

require improvements such as upgrading wooden ties with concrete ties, improving signaling, and 

upgrading roadway crossings. In this case, higher-speed rail trains are assumed to be dieselpowered. Higher-speed rail would be operated at speeds up to 110 to 125 mph. Where proposed 

within an existing railroad right-of-way, a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and 

passenger services would be constructed. Because of its maximum speed and because train 

frequency would be similar to conventional rail, higher-speed rail could operate on a single track 

with passing locations and would not require double-tracking. Where higher-speed rail is proposed 

outside an existing transportation corridor, the new alignment would be designed with curves and 

other features that could accommodate high-speed rail service if warranted by ridership and 

economically feasible in the future. However, unlike high-speed rail, the design would not include 

electrification or a full double track, and some grade crossings would remain. 

1.1.3 High-Speed Rail 

High-speed rail includes electric trains powered by an overhead power supply system. Train sets are 

steel wheel on steel rail, but are designed to operate at high speeds with an aerodynamic shape, 

and suspension and braking systems are designed for high-speed travel. High-speed rail would be 

operated at speeds up to 220 to 250 mph. The entire right-of-way would be fenced and fully gradeseparated. The alignment would be electrified and double-tracked. This service type could only 

reach its maximum speeds outside existing transportation corridors because existing railroad 

alignments are not compatible with the speeds required and they do not have the required space 
TBG092914072712SCO 

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 1-5 

for separation of freight and high-speed rail. In areas where this service type is within existing 

transportation corridors, it would operate at lower speeds. 

1.2 Alternative Descriptions 

For this service-level analysis, a preliminary alignment was developed to represent each route 

alternative, based on conceptual engineering that considered obvious physical or environmental 

constraints. They are not detailed alignments that have been refined to optimize performance, 

reduce cost, avoid specific properties or individual environmental resources, or similar 

considerations, which would be assessed at the project-level phase for alternatives carried forward 

for further analysis. 

The alternatives evaluated in the service-level EIS, shown on Figure 1-1, have been developed to a 

level of detail appropriate for a service-level analysis: the route alternatives represent a potential 

corridor where rail improvements could be implemented but do not specify the precise location of 

the track alignment. When a route alternative is refined to include a service type (conventional, 

higher-speed, or high-speed rail), it is then referred to as an alternative. Alternatives in the 

Northern, Central, and Southern sections could be built as individual, stand-alone projects or in 

combination with alternatives in another section. In addition, more than one alternative in the 

Central Section and Southern Section could be built in the future because the alternatives provide 

different service types for independent destinations. Details on connecting the alternatives would 

be determined during project-level studies. 

Potential alignments are described below in terms of nearby transportation corridors and cities. For 

example, potential alignments are described as “following” railway corridors, which could mean that 

they are sharing existing tracks, within an existing right-of-way or generally adjacent to existing 

tracks depending on the service type. 

The Southern Section alternatives include a potential extension to Monterrey, Mexico. The EIS 

evaluates alignment corridors only within the United States; however, the potential extension to 

Monterrey has been included for ridership analysis purposes, and FRA and TxDOT have initiated 

coordination with the Mexican government about the potential extension. 

1.2.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not fulfill the Program’s purpose and need but is carried forward as 

a baseline alternative against which the build alternatives are compared. The No Build Alternative 

would consist of the existing transportation network, including roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel in the Study Vicinity and committed improvements to these systems. The No Build Alternative 

includes existing and planned roadway, passenger rail, and air travel in the Study Vicinity (including 

operation, maintenance, and expansion). Information was collected from current regional 

transportation plans within the Study Vicinity and websites describing services such as train 

schedules. These improvements and their evaluation at this service-level stage would require 
TBG092914072712SCO 

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 1-6 

project-specific assessment. Conducting detailed project-specific assessments at this stage of the 

program development process is not feasible, except from a cumulative analysis perspective. 

1.2.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Based on initial ridership and cost information, only one route alternative with one service type was 

considered feasible in the Northern Section: Alternative N4A with conventional rail. 

1.2.2.1 Alternative N4A Conventional Rail 

Alternative N4A would begin in Edmond and follow the BNSF rail 

alignment south to Oklahoma City. The alternative would 

continue south along the BNSF rail alignment to Norman, 

Oklahoma; through Metro Junction, near Denton, Texas; and on 

to Fort Worth (as does the Heartland Flyer). From Fort Worth, the 

alternative would continue east to Dallas following the Trinity 

Railway Express (TRE) tracks. From Edmond, Oklahoma, to 

Dallas, the route would be approximately 260 miles long. 

Because existing freight traffic would not preclude passenger 

service along this section of track, the route would provide 

passenger rail service on the existing BNSF track, with potential 

improvements within the existing BNSF right-of-way. 

Alternative N4A would provide several improvements over the 

existing Heartland Flyer service. Alternative N4A would increase 

the number of daily round trips along this route (the Heartland 

Flyer currently offers one round trip per day), and the N4A route 

would extend from Fort Worth to Dallas without requiring a 

transfer (the Heartland Flyer service currently terminates in Fort Worth). In addition, Alternative N4A 

would provide improvements to existing station facilities and new train equipment with more 

onboard amenities, including business class available for a premium price. 

Alternative N4A assumes diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running three to six daily round trips. 

Two or three of the round trips would operate on an accelerated schedule, making roughly seven 

stops, with the remaining local trains making up to 12 stops. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 1-7 

1.2.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Three route alternatives, each with higher-speed and high-speed rail options, were evaluated in the 

Central Section: Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C. 

The Central Section alternatives would provide several improvements over the existing Texas Eagle 

service in this corridor. All of the alternatives would increase the number of daily round trips along 

this route (the Texas Eagle currently offers one round trip per day). The high-speed rail alternatives 

would provide faster service between Dallas and Fort Worth and Antonio — 2 hours versus 8 hours 

for the Texas Eagle Service. In addition, the Central Section alternatives would provide 

improvements to existing station facilities and new train equipment. 

1.2.3.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A would begin in Fort Worth and follow the TRE 

tracks east to Dallas. From Dallas, it would follow the BNSF 

alignment south toward Waxahachie where it would enter a 

new alignment outside existing highway and rail corridors to 

accommodate maximum operating speeds. Though outside 

existing transportation corridors, the southern portion of 

Alternative C4A would generally follow the BNSF alignment for 

about 250 miles, traveling south from Waxahachie through 

Hillsboro, Waco, Temple, Taylor, and Austin to San Antonio. 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail assumes new highperformance diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running six to 

12 daily round trips. Express trains would likely make seven 

stops, and local trains would make up to 12 stops. 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered, 

high-speed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express 

trains would likely make six stops, and local trains would make 

up to nine stops. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 1-8 

1.2.3.2 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B would serve both Fort Worth and Dallas, with 

trains following a new elevated high-speed rail alignment over 

IH-30. In Arlington (between Dallas and Fort Worth), the 

alternative would turn south to Hillsboro on an alignment 

outside existing transportation corridors. The alternative would 

then follow the same high-speed rail alignment as Alternative 

C4A from Hillsboro to San Antonio. 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail assumes new highperformance diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running six to 

12 daily round trips. Express trains would likely make seven 

stops, and local trains would make up to 12 stops. 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered, 

high-speed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express 

trains would likely make six stops, and local trains would make 

up to eight stops. 

1.2.3.3 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C would follow the same potential alignment as 

Alternative C4A from Fort Worth east to Dallas and south to San 

Antonio, but would include a link from Hillsboro directly to Fort 

Worth parallel to the UPRR alignment. Service on the Alternative 

C4C route would operate in a clockwise direction, running from 

Hillsboro to Fort Worth, to Dallas, back to Hillsboro, and south to 

San Antonio in order to serve Fort Worth directly (while also 

being compatible with the general service for Alternative C4A). 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail assumes new highperformance diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running six to 

12 daily round trips. Express trains would likely make seven 

stops, and local trains would make up to 12 stops. 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered 

high-speed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express 

trains would likely make six stops, and local trains would make 

up to nine stops. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 1-9 

1.2.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Two route alternatives were evaluated in the Southern Section: Alternative S4, with higher-speed 

rail, and Alternative S6, with higher-speed and high-speed rail options. 

1.2.4.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 would begin in San Antonio and travel southeast 

along the UPRR alignment to George West, where it would 

continue outside existing transportation corridors to Alice. At 

Alice, the alternative would divide into three legs at a stop. The 

first leg would travel west along the Kansas City Southern (KCS) 

Railway to San Diego, Texas; it would then travel outside 

existing transportation corridors to east of Laredo in an 

alignment that would allow higher speeds and rejoin the KCS 

Railway to enter the highly developed Laredo area. The second 

leg would travel south along abandoned railroad tracks to 

McAllen and east to Harlingen and Brownsville. The third leg 

would travel east along the KCS Railway to Corpus Christi. 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail assumes new highperformance diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running four 

to six daily round trips. Depending on corridor demand model 

forecasts, the primary service may be designated as LaredoAlice-San Antonio and Corpus Christie-Alice-San Antonio, with a 

connecting feeder from Brownsville, Harlingen, and McAllen. 

1.2.4.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 would begin in San Antonio and travel south on a 

new alignment outside existing transportation corridors to a 

station near the Laredo-Columbia Solidarity Bridge, which 

crosses the Rio Grande north of Laredo. The alternative would 

then cross on a new railway bridge to join a new rail line being 

constructed in Mexico, which would continue to Monterrey. This 

study only examines the physical effects of the U.S. component 

of this new line, but it does consider the ridership effect of such 

a connection. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail assumes new highperformance diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running four 

to six daily round trips between San Antonio and Laredo, which 

would be the only U.S. stops for the alternative. If an extension 
TBG092914072712SCO 

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 1-10 

from Laredo to Monterrey were to be added, the frequency of trips to Monterrey is assumed to be 

the same as those from San Antonio to Laredo. 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered, high-speed service running eight to 

12 daily round trips between San Antonio and Laredo. If an extension from Laredo to Monterrey is 

added, the frequency of trips to Monterrey is assumed to be the same as those from San Antonio to 

Laredo. 

1.2.5 Station Cities 

The study does not evaluate specific station locations, and no conclusion about the exact location 

of stations will be made as part of the service-level EIS process. However, based on ridership data 

and transit connectivity information developed as part of the alternatives analysis (TxDOT 2014), 

and based on stakeholder input, the cities in which stations would most likely be located have been 

assumed. The size and design of stations would be appropriate for the service type and the route of 

the alternative. Cities that could have stations are listed in Table 1-2. 

Table 1-2: Cities with Potential Stations 

Oklahoma 

Edmond Pauls Valley 

Oklahoma City Ardmore 

Norman 

Texas 

Gainesville Austin 

Fort Worth San Antonio 

Arlington Alice 

Dallas Corpus Christi 

Waxahachie Harlingen 

Waco McAllen 

Temple (also serving Killeen) Brownsville 

Taylor Laredo 

 
TBG092914072712SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 2-1 

2.0 Regulatory Context and Purpose 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts states: “There should be an assessment 

of the consistency of the alternatives with federal and state standards concerning drinking water, 

storm sewer drainage, sedimentation control, and non-point source discharges such as runoff from 

construction operations. The need for any permits under Sections 402 and 404 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1342, 1344) for the discharge of 

dredged or fill material shall be discussed” (64 Federal Register 28554). 

This technical study identifies surface water and groundwater resources by using Geographic 

Information System (GIS) data within the EIS Study Area that could be affected by stormwater 

runoff, erosion, discharge of dredged or fill material, or the introduction of contaminants. This study 

also identifies potential effects and potential Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with 

the alternatives. 

TBG092914072712SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-1 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

3.1 Study Area 

As a first step in the water quality analysis, the project GIS database in ARC/View was used to 

identify the various resources within the EIS Study Area. The EIS Study Area was defined by the 

geographic area that could be affected by stormwater runoff, erosion, or contaminants. The extent 

of the water quality analysis conducted for the route alternative, including the various sections and 

station locations, was limited to a 500-foot-wide area. These threshold limits for potential effects 

were used to create a potential “zone of effect” for the entire route alternative by using GIS. 

3.2 Regulatory Environment 

Applicable federal, state, and local legislation, regulations, and orders pertaining to water quality 

within the EIS Study Area are summarized below. Additional local and regional laws, regulations, 

and orders may be applicable and will be addressed in project-level analysis. 

Federal Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

3.2.1.1 Clean Water Act (CWA) 

 Section 401 (33 U.S.C. 1341 and 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 121). Section 401 of 

the CWA requires a water quality certification from the State Water Resources Control Board or 

appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Boards whenever a project involves the placement 

of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. 

 Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342 and 40 CFR 122). Establishes a permitting system for the 

discharge of all pollutants (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the U.S. A National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required for all point source 

discharges of pollutants to surface waters. A point source is a discernible, confined, and 

discrete conveyance, such as by pipe, ditch, or channel. 

 Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344, 33 CFR Part 323, and 40 CFR Part 230). Establishes a permit 

program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which regulates the discharge of 

dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands). Section 404(b)(1) 

guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the aquatic system only if there is 

no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts. 

3.2.1.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as Amended (16 U.S.C. 1271–1287) 

The purpose of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is to preserve and protect wild and scenic rivers and 

immediate environments for the benefit of present and future generations. The act is applicable to 

all projects that affect designated wild, scenic, and recreational rivers and immediate environment, 

and rivers under study for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). The 

act prohibits federal agencies from undertaking activities that would adversely affect the values for 

which the river was designated. The act is administered by a variety of state and federal agencies. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-2 

Designated river segments flowing through federally managed lands are administered by the landmanaging agency (e.g., U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or National Park Service 

[NPS]). River segments flowing through private lands are administered by the state in conjunction 

with local government agencies. On projects that affect designated rivers or their immediate 

environments, consultation will occur through the NEPA process between the state lead agency and 

the land-managing agencies. 

The following three categories of rivers are protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: 

 Designated Rivers – Rivers included in the NWSRS and their tributaries are protected under 

Section 7(a) of the act. 

 Study Rivers – Potential additions to the NWSRS are protected under Section 7(a) of the act. 

 Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) – Rivers believed to possess one or more “outstandingly 

remarkable” natural or cultural values with more than local or regional significance are 

protected under Section 5 (d) of the act. 

Entire rivers or river segments may be protected. An environmental review of potential impacts on 

protected rivers is initiated when projects occur within 1 mile from a National Wild and Scenic River 

(NWSR), within 20 miles upstream from an NWSR, within 10 miles downstream from an NWSR, or 

are located on a tributary in close proximity to an NWSR. Projects within these thresholds are 

required to consult with the federal agency having jurisdiction over the NWSR. 

3.2.1.3 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as Amended (42 U.S.C. 300[f]) 

The purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Act is to ensure public health and welfare through safe 

drinking water. The act is applicable to all public drinking water systems and reservoirs (including 

rest area facilities). It is also applicable to actions that may have a significant impact on an aquifer 

or wellhead protection area that is the sole or principal drinking water. This act requires 

coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when an area designated as a 

principal or Sole Source Aquifer may be affected by a proposed project. 

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management; USDOT Order 5650.2 

Executive Order 11988 directs all federal agencies to avoid all short-term and long-term adverse 

impacts associated with floodplain modification and to avoid direct and indirect support of 

development within 100-year floodplains when there is a reasonable alternative available. 

Projects that encroach upon 100-year floodplains must be supported with additional specific 

information. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 5650.2, Floodplain 

Management and Protection, prescribes “policies and procedures for ensuring that proper 

consideration is given to the avoidance and mitigation of adverse floodplain impacts in agency 

actions, planning programs, and budget requests.” The order requires that attention be given and 

findings made in environmental review documents indicating all risks, impacts, and support from 

the proposed transportation facility. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-3 

3.2.1.4 Flood Disaster Protection Act (42 U.S.C. 4001–4128) 

The purpose of the Flood Disaster Protection Act is to identify flood-prone areas and provide 

increased insurance coverage. The act requires purchase of insurance for buildings in special floodhazard areas. The act is applicable to any federally assisted acquisition or construction project in 

an area identified as having special flood hazards. Projects should avoid construction in, or develop 

a design to be consistent with, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-identified floodhazard areas. 

State Regulations 

3.2.2.1 1955 Oklahoma Water Pollution Control Act 

The 1955 Oklahoma Water Pollution Control Act declared that it is the public policy of the state "to 

conserve the waters of the state and to protect, maintain and improve the quality thereof for public 

water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and aquatic life and for domestic, agricultural, 

industrial, recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses." The act made it unlawful to pollute 

state waters. It is further forbidden for any person to carry on certain activities that cause the 

discharge of waste into waters or lead to a related reduction in water quality without first securing a 

permit from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 

Subsequent changes in roles and responsibilities regarding administration of the act have 

transferred various water quality and related programs and functions of several agencies to the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 

3.2.2.2 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Civil Law from Title 28 of third Partida; Water 

Code §11.096. Obstruction of Navigable Streams) 

According to this Texas civil law, no person may obstruct the navigation of any stream that can be 

navigated by steamboats, keelboats, or flatboats by cutting and felling trees or by building on or 

across the stream a dike, milldam, bridge, or other obstruction. Under Section 11.096, the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) shall be notified prior to projects that construct 

bridges or dam, or that places obstructions in streams that are determined to be navigable in fact. 

A historical legal decision, Trice v. State, 712 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.App. Waco 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.),

addressed who is allowed to bridge Texas streams under the laws then in effect. The court noted 

(p. 847): 

“The State, through legislative action, has also authorized certain entities to erect bridges 

over the navigable waters within its boundaries. [citing statutes pertaining to counties, 

municipalities, railroads, and toll road corporations] However, except for its tidal waters, the 

State has not authorized an individual to construct a bridge over its navigable waters. 

Furthermore, the State has not created an agency or designated any public official to 

regulate bridge construction over its navigable waters.” 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-4 

Under a change in the law in 1993, the Commissioner of the General Land Office was granted 

limited permitting power to allow private road crossings over public streams. See Natural Resources 

Code §51.291 (quoted in section on OBSTRUCTIONS) (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2004). 

3.2.2.3 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Edwards Aquifer Protection Program. 

Before building on the recharge, transition, or contributing zones of the Edwards Aquifer, an 

Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan must be reviewed and approved by the TCEQ Edwards Aquifer 

Protection Program. Once a plan is approved, the site is monitored for compliance throughout 

construction and operation. The Edward Aquifer Protection Plan should outline the BMPs that will 

be implemented and maintained — both during and after construction activities — to prevent 

contaminants found in stormwater from reaching the Edwards Aquifer. 

All projects must be consistent with the state Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program 

(Section 319). 

Other Permitting Agencies 

3.2.3.1 County Agencies 

The current alternatives cross up to 7 county jurisdictions in Oklahoma and 29 county jurisdictions 

in Texas. Potential exists for each county to regulate construction activities within the county as it 

pertains to water quality or water conservation. Divisions of county public works departments or 

county districts that focus on land development, protection of natural resources, flood control, 

water conservation, or construction stormwater could require permits. The types of permits may 

include floodplain protection, grading, waterway crossing, construction stormwater, building, or 

encroachment permits. County permit requirements and regulations would need to be investigated, 

meetings held with each county, and a permitting strategy developed for each county that would 

address all conditions and permits consistent with county programs. 

3.2.3.2 Individual Cities 

Under the CWA (and regulations promulgated pursuant to the CWA), communities with a population 

greater than 100,000 are required to apply for a municipal permit under the NPDES program. In 

some cases, individual cities join with counties, water districts, and flood control districts to apply 

for joint permits. Cities that are joint permittees with counties are required to implement programs 

to make sure that city-permitted projects adhere to the conditions of NPDES permits; this may 

include programs to ensure that BMPs and other stormwater quality protection measures are 

incorporated into grading and building permits, and that regulatory and site inspection programs 

are developed. Individual water quality protection measures, including BMPs, are developed at the 

county level; hence the counties and cities are jointly responsible for compliance. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-5 

3.3 Regional Climate 

The EIS Study Area spans approximately 850 miles in a general north to south orientation, from 

central Oklahoma to southern Texas. The route alternatives are spread across a broad geographic 

area with generally semi-arid, humid subtropical, and modified subtropical conditions with mild 

winters and hot summers. The area generally lies along low-elevation basins and valleys associated 

with the rolling terrain in the Great Plains and the Coastal Plains in the most southern extent of the 

EIS Study Area. The areas are either developed or vegetated with open grasslands, agricultural 

land, shrub land, or forests. The climate is characterized by a regime of moderate to hot summer 

drought and winter rain. Winter rains occurs as a result of low-pressure depressions associated 

with Pacific and Arctic fronts (University of Oklahoma 2014; Texas Climate Data 2014). 

Precipitation in the Northern Section averages about 48 inches per year near Oklahoma City and 

37 inches per year near the Dallas and Fort Worth area. In the Central Section, precipitation 

averages 36 inches in Waco to 34 inches in Austin, and in the Southern Section it ranges from 32 

inches in San Antonio to 20 inches in Laredo. Precipitation is generally rain except during winter in 

the Northern Section, from Dallas and Fort Worth to Oklahoma, where snowfall is possible. The 

daily high temperature ranges on average from 50 to 94 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the Northern 

Section to 67 to 100°F in the Southern Section; however, temperatures of over 100°F are 

common in summer throughout the entire EIS Study Area (U.S. Climate Data 2014). 

3.4 Surface Waters 

Surface waters and associated channels are sensitive resource areas because (1) they convey 

floodwaters and may enhance adjacent flooding or may attenuate downstream flooding risk by 

storing floodwater, (2) they typically provide important native species habitat and may support 

wetland and riparian habitats, (3) they provide direct pathways of contamination to downstream 

ecological or human resources, and (4) they provide locations for groundwater recharge. 

For the purpose of this technical study, surface waters include lakes, rivers, and streams identified 

using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale digital line graphs. Blue-line streams and 

bodies of water on the digital line graphs are generally under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Most surface waters within the EIS Study Area are associated with significant drainage 

channels or are within coastal areas. These include improved flood control drainage channels, 

intermittent river and stream channels, perennial river and stream channels, ponds, lakes, 

reservoirs, coastal estuaries lagoons, and intertidal sloughs. Table 3-1 identifies surface waters 

crossed by the EIS Study Area for each alternative. Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 show the location of 

surface waters, boundaries of hydrologic units, and extent of floodplains within the vicinity of the 

EIS Study Area. 

 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-6 

Table 3-1: Surface Waters Crossed with the EIS Study Area 

Water Body Classification Number Crossed 

Northern Section 

Alternative N4A (Conventional Rail)

Perennial Stream 43 

Intermittent Stream 300 

Open Water – Lake/Pond 163 

Open Water – Reservoir 31 

Total 537 

Central Section 

Alternative C4A (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Perennial Stream 75 

Intermittent Stream 362 

Open Water – Lake/Pond 246 

Open Water – Reservoir 17 

Total 700 

Alternative C4B (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Perennial Stream 42 

Intermittent Stream 374 

Open Water – Lake/Pond 222 

Open Water – Reservoir 12 

Total 650 

Alternative C4C (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Perennial Stream 82 

Intermittent Stream 459 

Open Water – Lake/Pond 291 

Open Water – Reservoir 18 

Total 850 

Southern Section 

Alternative S4 (Higher-Speed Rail) 

Perennial Stream 4 

Intermittent Stream 310 

Open Water – Lake/Pond 113 

Open Water – Reservoir 16 

Total 443 

Alternative S6 (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Perennial Stream 2 

Intermittent Stream 196 

Open Water – Lake/Pond 53 

Open Water- Reservoir 4 

Total 255 

Source: USGS (2014).
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-7 

Figure 3-1: Surface Waters, Hydrologic Units Sub-basins, and Floodplains within the 

Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-8 

Figure 3-2: Surface Waters, Hydrologic Units Sub-basins, and Floodplains within the 

Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-9 

Figure 3-3: Surface Waters, Hydrologic Units Sub-basins, and Floodplains within the 

Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-10 

Hydrologic Units 

The EIS Study Area crosses portions of Oklahoma and Texas. Within these states, the study area 

includes 43 hydrologic unit sub-basins. Each unit generally consists of individual watersheds or 

sub-watersheds and in some cases contains more than one watershed. Table 3-2 lists these 

hydrologic units by state. Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 show the boundaries of the hydrologic units 

within the vicinity of the EIS Study Area. 

Table 3-2: Hydrologic Units Crossed within the EIS Study Area 

Hydrologic Unit State Hydrologic Unit State 

Deep Fork Oklahoma Lower Frio Texas 

Farmers-Mud Oklahoma Lower Nueces Texas 

Little Oklahoma Lower West Fork Trinity Texas 

Lower Canadian-Walnut Oklahoma Medina Texas 

Lower Cimarron-Skeleton Oklahoma Middle Brazos-Lake Whitney Texas 

Lower North Canadian Oklahoma Middle Guadalupe Texas 

Middle Washita Oklahoma Middle Nueces Texas 

Lake Texoma Oklahoma and Texas Palo Blanco-Richland Texas 

Atascosa Texas San Fernando Texas 

Austin-Travis Lakes Texas San Gabriel Texas 

Baffin Bay Texas San Marcos Texas 

Central Laguna Madre Texas San Miguel Texas 

Chambers Texas South Corpus Christi Bay Texas 

Cibolo Texas South Laguna Madre Texas 

Denton Texas Upper Frio Texas 

Elm Fork Trinity Texas Upper Nueces Texas 

Hondo Texas Upper San Antonio Texas 

Leon Texas Upper Trinity Texas 

Little Texas International Falcon 

Reservoir 

Texas 

Lower Brazos-Little Brazos Texas San Ambrosia-Santa Isabel Texas 

Lower Colorado-Cummins Texas 

Source: USGS (2014). 

Floodplains 

For the purpose of this document, floodplains are Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), as defined by 

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, with the following zone designations: 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-11 

 Zone A: Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. 

 Zone AO: Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are between 1 and 3 feet; average 

depths of inundation are known, but no flood hazard factors are determined. 

 Zone AH: Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are between 1 and 3 feet; base flood 

elevations are known, but no flood hazard factors are determined. 

 Zone A1-A30: Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations known and flood hazard factors 

determined. 

 Zone V: Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave action); base flood elevations and 

flood hazard factors not determined. 

 Zone V1-V30: Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave action); base flood elevations 

and flood hazard factors determined. 

Areas with the following designations are not considered floodplains for the purposes of this 

analysis: 

 Zone B: Generally includes areas above the 100-year flood but below the 500-year flood, except 

small drainages where areas below the 100-year flood may be included. 

 Zone C: Areas of minimal flooding. 

 Zone D: Areas of undetermined, but possible flood hazard. 

 Zone X: Areas of unknown flood hazard. 

Floodplains are important because (1) they provide floodwater storage and attenuation of 

downstream flooding risk, (2) they typically provide important native species habitat, (3) they 

provide water quality improvement through deposition of sediments and other contaminants and 

natural treatment, and (4) they may provide locations for groundwater recharge. 

Most floodplains within the EIS Study Area are associated with significant drainage channels or 

riparian areas or are within coastal areas. Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 show the locations of 

floodplains associated with surface waters within the vicinity of the EIS Study Area.

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Section 303(d) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1250, et seq., at 1313[d]), requires states to identify waters 

that do not meet water quality standards after applying certain required technology-based effluent 

limits (“impaired” bodies of water). States are required to compile this information in a list and 

submit the list to EPA for review and approval. This list is known as the Section 303(d) list of 

impaired waters. As part of the listing process, states are required to prioritize waters and 

watersheds for future development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). In Oklahoma, the ODEQ 

has ongoing efforts to monitor and assess water quality to prepare the Section 303(d) list and 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-12 

subsequently to develop TMDLs. The most recent Section 303(d) list was approved in 2013 and 

contains 4,203 bodies of water; many are listed as being impaired for multiple pollutants. 

In Texas, the TCEQ has the responsibility to monitor and assess the water quality, prepare the 

Section 303(d) list, and develop TMDLs. The most recent Section 303(d) list in Texas was approved 

in 2013 and contains 1,214 bodies of water under evaluation; of those, 568 are listed as impaired. 

The 303(d) list can identify areas where there already is a significant degradation of water quality, 

providing an indication of where additional contaminants resulting from the Program would have 

the most impact. 

Table 3-3 identifies the number of perennial and intermittent streams and the Section 303(d) 

impaired waters within the EIS Study Area. Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 show Section 303(d) waters 

crossed within the EIS Study Area, based on review of the Texas and Oklahoma 303(d) lists. 

Table 3-3: Surface Waters Classified as Impaired Crossed by the EIS Study Area 

Water Body Classification Number Crossed 

Northern Section 

Alternative N4A (Conventional Rail)

Perennial Stream 43 

Intermittent Stream 300 

Impaired Streams 14 

Percent 4.0% 

Central Section 

Alternative C4A (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Perennial Stream 75 

Intermittent Stream 362 

Impaired Streams 17 

Percent 3.9% 

Alternative C4B (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Perennial Stream 42 

Intermittent Stream 374 

Impaired Streams 21 

Percent 5.0% 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-13 

Water Body Classification Number Crossed 

Alternative C4C (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Perennial Stream 82 

Intermittent Stream 459 

Impaired Streams 18 

Percent 3.3% 

Southern Section 

Alternative S4 (Higher-Speed Rail) 

Perennial Stream 4 

Intermittent Stream 310 

Impaired Streams 7 

Percent 2.2% 

Alternative S6 (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Perennial Stream 2 

Intermittent Stream 196 

Impaired Streams 5 

Percent 2.5% 

Source: USGS (2014). 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-14 

Figure 3-4: Impaired Waters Crossed and Soils with High (Severe and Very Severe) 

Erosion Potential within the Vicinity of the Northern EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-15 

Figure 3-5: Impaired Waters Crossed and Soils with High (Severe and Very Severe) 

Erosion Potential within the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-16 

Figure 3-6: Impaired Waters Crossed and Soils with High (Severe and Very Severe) 

Erosion Potential within the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-17 

Designated Waters 

No surface waters designated as NWSR or Study Rivers within the NWSRS occur within Oklahoma. 

However, eight rivers and river segments included in the NRI occur within Oklahoma. The only NRI 

river or river segment that is within the Northern Section EIS Study Area is a 20-mile segment of the 

Washita River in Carter and Murray counties (NPS 2014). This segment of the river is listed in the 

NRI for the outstanding, remarkable values it possesses including scenery, recreation, geology, fish 

populations, and fish and wildlife habitat. The segment of the river is within the migration route of 

the federal endangered whooping crane and contains important fish and wildlife habitat. It has 

been identified as a potential State Scenic River passing through the Arbuckle Mountains, with 

numerous observable geologic processes. Recreational activities on the river include floating, 

camping, and fishing (NPS 2014). 

There are no Study Rivers within the NWSRS within Texas (NWSRS 2014). Nineteen rivers and river 

segments that are included in the NRI occur within Texas. No designated waters in Texas occur 

within the EIS Study Area. 

3.5 Erosion 

Soils susceptible to erosion within the EIS Study Area may include soils with a high erodibility factor 

and steep slopes with few rock fragment inclusions, which may result in suspension and transport 

of materials, slumping, or landslides, and consequent erosion. Regional soil data in the Soil Survey 

Geographic (SSURGO) database provide information on susceptibility to erosion. Soil erosion is 

influenced by several factors including soil texture, slope, climate, and vegetative cover. The 

SSURGO database includes an Erosion Hazard of Forest Roads and Trails – Dominant Component 

category that is calculated using erodibility factor (kfact), slope (slopeh) and content of rock 

fragments for each individual soil map unit. For the purpose of this analysis, susceptibility of soils to 

erosion is evaluated based on the Erosion Hazard of Forest Roads and Trails – Dominant 

Component index. Table 3-4 summarizes SSURGO soil types crossed by the alternatives and 

identifies potential severe and very severe soil erosion potential conditions. Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 

3-6 show areas within the vicinity of the EIS Study Area with severe and very severe soil erosion 

potential. Erosive soil data for the area within the vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area is 

limited and available data were used for tabular summaries and graphical depictions. 

Table 3-4: Soils Crossed within the EIS Study Area 

Erosion Hazard Classification Number Crossed 

Northern Section 

Alternative N4A (Conventional Rail)

Not Rated 31 

Slight 651 

Moderate 420 

Severe 77 

Very Severe 20 

Total 1,199 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-18 

Erosion Hazard Classification Number Crossed 

Central Section 

Alternative C4A (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Not Rated 29 

Slight 874 

Moderate 439 

Severe 68 

Very Severe 33 

Total 1,443 

Alternative C4B (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Not Rated 32 

Slight 836 

Moderate 428 

Severe 85 

Very Severe 31 

Total 1,412 

Alternative C4C (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Not Rated 33 

Slight 1044 

Moderate 531 

Severe 82 

Very Severe 41 

Total 1,731 

Southern Sectiona 

Alternative S4 (Higher-Speed Rail) 

Not Rated 29 

Slight 1102 

Moderate 190 

Severe 3 

Very Severe 19 

Total 1,340 

Alternative S6 (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Not Rated 5 

Slight 349 

Moderate 81 

Severe 0 

Very Severe 4 

Total 439 

a Availability of erosive soil data for the area within the vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area is limited. 

Source: SSURGO (2014). 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-19 

3.6 Groundwater 

Groundwater is a significant resource for freshwater across the EIS Study Area in Texas and 

Oklahoma because it is a major source of potable and irrigation water in the region. Eleven major 

and six minor groundwater aquifers occur within the EIS Study Area. Oklahoma aquifers within the 

EIS Study Area are listed in Table 3-5. Aquifers in Oklahoma contain an estimated 320 million acrefeet of fresh water, of which about half is considered recoverable for use. The aquifers supply more 

than 60 percent of the water used in the state, particularly where less surface water is available. 

Aquifers in Oklahoma include six in bedrock and six in Quaternary-age alluvium and terrace 

deposits. Bedrock aquifers typically consist of sandstone, sand, limestone, dolomite, gypsum, or 

fractured novaculite and chert. These aquifers range in thickness from 100 feet to several 

thousand feet. The depth to fresh water typically ranges from several feet to greater than 1,000 

feet. Alluvium and terrace aquifers typically consist of unconsolidated sand, silt, clay, and gravel 

deposited by rivers and streams. The thickness of these aquifers ranges from 10 to 100 feet 

(Oklahoma Historical Society 2014). Major aquifers crossed by the EIS Study Area in Oklahoma 

include Garber-Wellington, Canadian River, Washita River, Antlers, Red River, Arbuckle-Simpson, 

North Canadian River, and Trinity aquifers. The entire area of the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer is 

considered a recharge area. These aquifers include alluvial terrace (unconfined) and bedrock types 

(confined). The Pennsylvanian (unconfined) is the only minor aquifer crossed in Oklahoma by the 

EIS Study Area. 

Table 3-5: Aquifers Crossed within the EIS Study Area 

Aquifer Name Type 

Oklahoma – Major Aquifers 

Garber-Wellington Confined 

Canadian River Unconfined 

Washita River Unconfined 

Antlers Confined 

Red River Unconfined 

Arbuckle-Simpsona Confined 

North Canadian River Unconfined 

Oklahoma – Minor Aquifers 

Pennsylvanian Unconfined 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

 Carrizo Confined, unconfined, not defined 

 Brazos River Alluvium Unconfined 

 Edwardsa Confined 

 Gulf Coast Unconfined 

Trinity Confined 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-20 

Aquifer Name Type 

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Woodbine Confined, unconfined 

Yegua Jackson Unconfined 

Sparta Confined, unconfined 

Queen City Confined, unconfined 

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer 

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a). 

The eastern portion of the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer is the only EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer 

in Oklahoma within the EIS Study Area.The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer underlies approximately 500 

square miles in southern Oklahoma and is the principle water source for 39,000 people within the 

region. The aquifer is a source for several rivers including the Blue River and Delaware Creek, which 

are tributaries of the Washita River, and nearly 100 springs including Byrds Mill Spring, which is the 

primary drinking water source for the city of Ada (Oklahoma Historical Society 2014). The entire 

aerial extent of the aquifer is considered a recharge area (Oklahoma Geologic Society 1983). 

Within Oklahoma, the EIS Study Area crosses over seven major aquifers including the confined 

areas of the Garber-Wellington, unconfined areas of the Canadian River, unconfined areas of the 

Washita River, confined areas of the Antlers, unconfined areas of the Red River, unconfined areas 

of the otherwise confined Arbuckle-Simpson, and unconfined areas of the North Canadian River. 

One minor aquifer, the unconfined area of the Pennsylvanian, underlies the EIS Study Area in 

Oklahoma. 

Aquifers in Texas provide about 60 percent of the 16.1 million acre-feet of water available within 

the state. Nine major and 21 minor aquifers are recognized and monitored for water quality in 

Texas (Texas Water Development Board 2014b). The aquifers include alluvial aquifers in sediments 

deposited by rivers and streams in the Cenozoic, coastal aquifers composed of layers of sand, 

gravel, and clay deposited in the Cenozoic, and bedrock aquifers in Cretaceous rocks such as 

sandstone and limestone found across the middle of the state. The alluvial and coastal aquifers are 

typically shallow and intensively used for irrigation. The bedrock aquifers can be as deep as 

3,000 feet and may have complex connections to adjacent aquifers via caves and fractures 

(University of Texas 2004). 

The Edwards Aquifer (designated Edwards 1 and Edwards 2) is the only designated Sole Source 

Aquifer in Texas. The aquifer underlies approximately 3,600 square miles within Kinney, Uvalde, 

Medina, Bexar, Comal, and Hayes counties. The aquifer has three primary zones: the contributing 

zone, the recharge zone, and the artesian zone. The contributing zone collects rainfall as source 

water for the aquifer and occurs north of the other zones on the Edwards Plateau. The aquifer is 

considered one of the most prolific artesian aquifers in the world and serves approximately 2 

million people with water (San Antonio Water System 2014). The recharge area (unconfined) for the 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-21 

aquifer underlies approximately 1,250 square miles and follows the Balcones Fault escarpment 

from Bracketville through San Antonio and north to Austin (TCEQ 2014). Across much of the 

aquifer, the recharge and artesian zones (confined) are interspersed, except on the western end 

where the artesian areas extend approximately 10 to 20 miles south and on the eastern end where 

the artesian areas extend only a few miles to the south (San Antonio Water System 2014). Major 

springs produced by the Edwards Aquifer include San Pedro, San Antonio, Comal, San Marcos, and 

Hueco Springs (Edwards Aquifer Website 2014). 

Within Texas, the EIS Study Area crosses over five unconfined and confined areas of the Carrizo, 

unconfined areas of the Brazos River alluvium, confined areas of the Trinity, confined areas of the 

Edwards, and unconfined areas of the Gulf Coast aquifers. Four minor aquifers underlie the EIS 

Study Area in Texas including unconfined areas of the Yegua Jackson and unconfined and confined 

areas of the Sparta, the Queen City, and the Woodbine aquifers. 

Aquifers crossed within the EIS Study Area are listed in Table 3-5. Major and minor aquifers within 

the vicinity of the EIS Study Area are shown on Figure 3-7 through Figure 3-12. 

 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-22 

Figure 3-7: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-23 

Figure 3-8: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-24 

Figure 3-9: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-25 

Figure 3-10: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-26 

Figure 3-11: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

3.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 3-27 

Figure 3-12: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area 

TBG092914072712SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 4-1 

4.0 Evaluation Methods 

The methodology employed for effect evaluation consists of a combination of qualitative and 

quantitative assessments. A qualitative assessment was used for general comparisons of the 

alternatives when discussing issues such as sedimentation and groundwater resources, which 

required a more detailed approach than warranted for this technical study. 

The general conclusions for the qualitative effects support the relative change in effects among the 

alternatives. The effects assessment and conclusions are focused on surface water, runoff, 

erosion, and groundwater and are detailed in Section 3.2.4, Environmental Consequences. Effects 

related to runoff were strictly qualitative while those for groundwater included a combination of 

both qualitative and quantitative assessments. Effects related to surface water and erosion were 

quantitative. All quantitative assessments were based on the number of features (e.g., Section 

303[d] waters and erosive soils) potentially crossed and the size of the features. The quantitative 

effects conclusions were determined based on a comparison of the magnitude of potential effects. 

The No Build Alternative is the primary basis of comparison. 

The effects as a result of the route alternatives are characterized as negligible, moderate, or 

substantial compared to the No Build Alternative. A threshold or value for which an effect is 

determined to be negligible, moderate, or substantial is not feasible or appropriate for this servicelevel analysis. A threshold would not provide an accurate means of comparison as the alternatives 

have varying lengths both between and within the geographical sections (Northern, Central, and 

Southern). Additionally, alternatives within any given geographical section cannot be compared with 

those in other sections as the Program will require that alternatives be selected from each of the 

three sections. Effects determinations considered the service-type and route construction 

requirements (e.g., use of existing tracks), as well as minimization, avoidance, and mitigation 

strategies. These terms are defined as follows: 

 Negligible intensity effects from construction and operation of an alternative are those that 

would have a slight change in water quality and surface water and groundwater hydrology, but 

are very close to the existing conditions. 

 Moderate intensity effects from construction and operation of an alternative are those with a 

noticeable change in water quality and surface water and groundwater hydrology, but would not 

have an adverse residual effect on water resources, such as streams, rivers, lakes, and 

reservoirs. 

 Substantial intensity effects from construction and operation of an alternative are those that 

would have a noticeable change in water quality and surface water and groundwater hydrology 

and would be highly likely to have an adverse residual effect on water resources, such as 

streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. 

Additional potential effects on hydrology and water quality could include increased or decreased 

runoff and stormwater discharge caused by changes in the area of paved surfaces, increased or 
TBG092914072712SCO 

4.0 Evaluation Methods 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 4-2 

decreased contribution of automotive-based nonpoint source contamination, and impacts on areas 

of groundwater discharge or infiltration. 

For the quantitative assessment, readily available information, such as stream locations, effects on 

areas with existing water quality problems, and soil information, was used to assess the magnitude 

of potential effect. Water resources within the vicinity of the EIS Study Area are also discussed to 

provide context for the effect evaluations. To evaluate the quantitative effects on water quality 

caused by the alternatives, the following activities were conducted: 

 The acreage of lakes and the linear feet of rivers and streams within the EIS Study Area were 

determined. For this analysis, surface waters are defined as lakes, rivers, and streams identified 

using USGS 1:24,000 scale digital line graphs. Surface water linear feet were calculated as the 

flow-path length of rivers and streams within the EIS Study Area. Lake surface areas represent 

the impoundment at maximum capacity. 

 The locations of surface waters designated by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-

542; 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq.), which includes specific designated river segments (Designated 

Rivers), Study Rivers, and NRI segments within the EIS Study Area, were determined. 

 The locations of impaired waters, which are defined as waters on the CWA Section 303(d) list 

(USGS 2014), within the EIS Study Area were determined. 

 The locations of potential erodible conditions were identified as those areas with a combination 

of erodible soils and high slopes, evaluated as the product of kfact (an erodibility factor that is 

adjusted for the effect of rock fragments) and slopeh (the maximum value for the range of slope 

of a soil component within a map unit). The SSURGO includes an Erosion Hazard of Forest 

Roads and Trails - Dominant Component category that is calculated using erodibility factor 

(kfact), slope (slopeh), and content of rock fragments for each individual soil map unit (Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 2014). For this analysis, susceptibility of soils to erosion is 

evaluated based the Erosion Hazard of Forest Roads and Trails - Dominant Component index. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-1 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

5.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Section 1.2.1 of this document and in the introduction to 

Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS, is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would 

not implement the Program of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and 

would not meet the purpose and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not 

affect water quality and hydrology. The No Build Alternative assumes that city and county 

stormwater systems are in place and that standards are met. 

5.2 Potential Effects 

Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

5.2.1.1 Surface Waters 

Table 5-1 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, streams) within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative N4A (conventional rail); this includes acreage of surface waters (lakes and 

ponds) or linear feet (rivers and streams) crossed within the EIS Study Area. Although a relatively 

high number of potential crossings of surface waters are possible with Alternative N4A, overall 

effects would be negligible as compared to the No Build Alternative because Alternative N4A would 

use existing railway infrastructure and corridors. Additionally, project design and BMPs would 

protect or improve water quality and reduce negative hydrology impacts on surface waters. 

Table 5-1: Surface Waters, Listed 303(d) Impaired Waters, and NWSR Designated 

Waters Crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area 

Water Body 

Classification Number Crossed Linear Feet Acres 

Alternative N4A CONV 

Streams and Rivers 343 317,365 - 

Lakes and Reservoirs 194 - 103 

303(d) Waters 14 15,368 - 

Designated Waters 1 - - 

Source: USGS (2014).

5.2.1.1.1 Floodplains 

Table 5-2 identifies potential effects on SFHAs (100-year floodplain) within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative N4A. This includes the acreage of 100-year floodplains within the EIS Study Area. As 

indicated in Table 5-2, 195 areas, representing 2,349 acres of SFHAs, could be affected by 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-2 

Alternative N4A. Actual impacts on SFHAs would depend on construction techniques and crossing 

methods (e.g., bridges and culverts) used at each individual crossing. 

Table 5-2: Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year Floodplain) 

Crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area 

Alternative Number of 

SFHAs Crossed Acres 

Alternative N4A (Conventional 

Rail)

195 2,349 

Source: FEMA (2011). 

5.2.1.1.2 Designated Waters 

As described in Section 3.4.4, the Washita River is the only designated water in Oklahoma. A 20-

mile stretch of the river in Carter and Murray counties is designated as an NRI river segment (NPS 

2014). Alternative N4A would operate completely within the existing BNSF right-of-way from 

Edmond, Oklahoma, to Fort Worth and completely within the TRE right-of-way from Fort Worth to the 

Northern Section terminus at Dallas Union Station. Where feasible, existing railroad track would be 

used. Modifications within the existing BNSF and TRE rights-of-way, such as double-tracking, would 

accommodate additional trains in areas where shared track is not feasible. Alternative N4A would 

potentially include improvements to the existing crossings of the Washita River and may also 

include up to 20 new river crossings, depending on the improvements and their proximity to the 

river. The types and construction of the spans will be defined for project-level NEPA documentation. 

Effects from improvements on existing or new crossings of rivers may include long term effects 

such as clearing of the riparian buffer, grading, and fill. These effects could alter the Washita River, 

resulting in increased nutrient and sediment inputs and changes in channel flow characteristics 

and water temperature. However, the effects would likely be localized in the area of new crossings 

over the river and would be avoided or minimized through implementation of measures listed in 

Section 5.3, Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. The 

potential discharge of construction materials to the river would be negligible because effects would 

be minimized during the design process and implementation of BMPs during construction. Although 

a relatively high number of potential crossings of an NRI river (Washita River) is possible with 

Alternative N4A, overall effects would be negligible because the alternative would use existing 

railway infrastructure and corridors. Additionally, project design and BMPs would reduce water 

quality and hydrology impacts related to designated waters. 

No surface waters designated as NWSR, Study Rivers, or NRI occur within the Texas portion of the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-3 

5.2.1.1.3 Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 5-1 identifies potential effects on linear feet of surface waters for listed Section 303(d) 

waters in the Northern Section EIS Study Area. Alternative N4A could involve the construction of 

improvements, including new river crossings or sidings, in the vicinity of 303(d) impaired water 

bodies. Overall effects on 303(d) waters from Alternative N4A would be negligible because of the 

relatively low magnitude (number and length) of 303(d) impaired water bodies crossed within the 

EIS Study Area and the use of existing railway infrastructure and corridors. Potential effects would 

be avoided or minimized through implementation of measures listed in Section 5.3, Subsequent 

Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures. 

5.2.1.2 Runoff 

Under Alternative N4A (conventional rail), additional impervious surface associated with the 

stations would be constructed. However, most rail construction would use permeable material; 

therefore, Alternative N4A would not be expected to contribute significantly to runoff. In many 

cases, the improvements would occur in existing urbanized areas, resulting in the addition of less 

impervious surface than the suburban and rural areas. However, where railway segments or 

facilities are constructed in undeveloped areas, increased runoff could result. The quantity of 

increased runoff has not been determined but, if substantial, would result in increased surface 

flows downstream and potentially greater flooding risk. This potential increase may be offset by 

reduced automobile use and a correlating reduction in impervious surfaces associated with parking 

lots and roadways throughout the region, potentially resulting in a net beneficial effect on runoff. To 

further reduce the potential for an adverse effect on runoff from Alternative N4A, facility designs 

would include measures to reduce impervious surfaces or provide on-site retention and treatment. 

Increases in runoff from the construction of new impervious surfaces would be reduced through the 

implementation of structural stormwater management practices and construction BMPs (Section 

5.3, Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures). The project-level 

NEPA process will evaluate the effects on runoff from impervious surfaces associated with the 

project design, assess potential effects on existing stormwater structures, and propose specific 

measures to address those potential effects. 

5.2.1.3 Erosion 

Table 5-3 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas within the EIS Study Area for Alternative 

N4A (conventional rail). This table shows areas of potential effects on surface water quality. 

Because the erodible index is slope-sensitive, only areas that exceed slope thresholds (slope 

steepness at which a given soil will begin to erode) within the indicated acreage meet criteria for 

erodible areas. Overall potential increases in erosion from Alternative N4A would be moderate due 

to the low acreage of erosive soils crossed. The construction of new stations would potentially 

increase erosion and sedimentation of surface waters during construction. However, these effects 

would likely be mitigated by implementing BMPs during construction (Section 5.3, Subsequent 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-4 

Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures). Operation of new stations would 

not likely increase localized erosion of sediments into surface waters. 

Table 5-3: Areas with High Erosion Potential that are Crossed by the Northern 

Section EIS Study Area 

Erosion Classification Number Crossed Acres 

Alternative N4A CONV 

Severe 77 800 

Very Severe 20 505 

Approximate Total 97 1,305 

Source: SSURGO (2014). 

5.2.1.4 Groundwater 

The EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A crosses eight major and three minor aquifers systems in 

Oklahoma and Texas (see Table 5-4). The largest major aquifer crossed is the Trinity Aquifer, which 

is primarily confined. The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer is a Sole Source Aquifer that also underlies the 

EIS Study Area. Effects from construction and operational activities would most likely affect 

unconfined and Sole Source Aquifer systems because they have a direct connection to the ground 

surface and are the primary source of water for adjacent populations. Long-term effects may 

include groundwater contamination caused by runoff from created impervious surfaces and spills 

of construction materials such as hydraulic fluid, fuel, paint, and solvents. These impacts on 

groundwater resources would be negligible compared to the No Build Alternative because the 

alternative would use existing railway infrastructure and corridors and because the stormwater 

treatment measures and BMPs that would be implemented during construction and operation 

would reduce the potential for contaminants associated with impervious surfaces and spills to 

affect groundwater (Section 5.3, Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

Measures). 

Table 5-4: Aquifers Crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area 

Aquifer Name Type 

Alternative N4A 

CONV (acres) 

Alternative N4A CONV 

Oklahoma – Major Aquifers 

Garber-Wellington Confined 2,540 

Canadian River Unconfined 2,080 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-5 

Aquifer Name Type 

Alternative N4A 

CONV (acres) 

Washita River Unconfined 1,940 

Antlers Confined 1,305 

Red River Unconfined 700 

Arbuckle-Simpsona Confined 165 

North Canadian River Unconfined 145 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Trinity Confined 6,435 

Approximate Total 15,310 

Oklahoma – Minor Aquifers 

Pennsylvanian Unconfined 1,760 

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Woodbine Confined 955 

Woodbine Unconfined 385 

Approximate Total 3,100 

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer 

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a). 

Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

5.2.2.1 Surface Waters 

Table 5-5 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4A (higher- and high-speed rail), Alternative C4B (higher- and high-speed 

rail), and Alternative C4C (higher- and high-speed rail). This includes the acreage (lakes and ponds) 

and linear feet (rivers and streams) of surface waters crossed within the EIS Study Area. Potential 

effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of measures listed in Section 5.3, 

Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Potential effects on 

surface waters from each of the three alternatives (both service types) would be moderate 

compared with the No Build Alternative because of the total linear feet and acreage of surface 

waters crossed by the alternative. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-6 

Table 5-5: Surface Waters, Listed 303(d) Impaired Waters, and NWSR Designated 

Waters Crossed within the Central Section EIS Study Area 

Water Body 

Classification Number Crossed Linear Feet Acres 

Alternative C4A (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Streams and Rivers 437 316,909 - 

Lakes and Reservoirs 263 - 153 

303(d) Waters 17 24,187 - 

Designated Waters 0 - - 

Alternative C4B (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Streams and Rivers 416 293,669 - 

Lakes and Reservoirs 234 - 99 

303(d) Waters 21 18,870 - 

Designated Waters 0 - - 

Alternative C4C (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Streams and Rivers 541 400,363 - 

Lakes and Reservoirs 309 - 164 

303(d) Waters 18 23,084 - 

Designated Waters 0 - - 

5.2.2.1.1 Floodplains 

Table 5-6 identifies potential impacts on SFHAs (100-year floodplain) crossed within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative C4A (both service types), Alternative C4B (both service types), and Alternative 

C4C (both service types). 

Table 5-6: Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year Floodplain) Crossed within the 

Central Section EIS Study Area 

Alternative Number of 

SFHAs Crossed Acres 

Alternative C4A (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 219 2,038 

Alternative C4B (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 217 1,980 

Alternative C4C (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 551 3,812 

Source: FEMA (2011). 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-7 

The actual effects on SFHAs would depend on construction techniques and crossing methods (e.g., 

bridges and culverts) used at each individual crossing. 

5.2.2.1.2 Designated Waters 

There are no designated waters in the EIS Study Area for the Central Section (Table 5-5). Therefore, 

no effects on designated waters are anticipated from the Central Section alternatives. 

5.2.2.1.3 Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 5-5 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters in the Central 

Section EIS Study Area. Potential impacts on 303(d) waters from each of the Central Section 

alternatives (both service types) would be negligible compared to the No Build Alternative because 

of the low amount of linear feet of surface waters crossed within the EIS Study Area. Potential 

effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of measures listed in Section 5.3, 

Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures.

5.2.2.2 Runoff 

Under Alternative C4A (higher- and high-speed rail), Alternative C4B (higher- and high-speed rail), 

and Alternative C4C (higher- and high- speed rail), additional impervious surface associated with 

the stations would be constructed. Most rail construction would use permeable material, so the 

alignments would not be expected to contribute significantly to runoff. In many cases, the 

improvements would occur in existing urbanized areas, resulting in the addition of less impervious 

surface than the suburban and rural areas. However, where segments or facilities are constructed 

in undeveloped areas, increased runoff will result. The amount of increased runoff has not been 

determined but, if substantial, would result in increased surface flows downstream and potentially 

greater flooding risk. This potential increase may be offset by reduced automobile use and a 

correlating reduction in impervious surfaces associated with parking lots and roadways throughout 

the region, resulting in a net beneficial effect on runoff. To further reduce the potential for adverse 

effects on runoff from the Central Section alternatives (both service types), facility designs would 

include measures to reduce impervious surfaces or provide on-site retention and treatment. 

Increases in runoff from the construction of new impervious surfaces would be reduced through the 

implementation of structural stormwater management practices and construction BMPs (Section 

5.3, Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures). The project-level 

NEPA process will evaluate effects on runoff from impervious surfaces associated with the project 

design, assess potential effects on existing stormwater structures, and propose specific measures 

to address those potential effects. Therefore, overall potential increases in runoff from Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible through implementation of avoidance and minimization 

measures. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-8 

5.2.2.3 Erosion 

Table 5-7 lists the acreage of potentially erosive areas within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A 

(higher- and high-speed rail), Alternative C4B (higher- and high-speed rail), and Alternative C4C 

(higher- and high-speed rail); this represents areas of potential effects on surface waters. Because 

the erodible index is slope-sensitive, only areas that exceed slope thresholds within the indicated 

acreage meet criteria for erodible areas. Potential effects on water quality from erodible soils 

crossed (number and acres) within Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail are similar to Alternative C4B 

(both service types) and less than Alternative C4C (both service types). Overall potential effects 

from crossing erodible soils are similar in magnitude among the Central Section alternatives (both 

service types). The potential effects from increases in erosion from the Central Section alternatives 

would be moderate. Construction of the alternative and stations would potentially increase erosion 

and sedimentation in surface waters during construction. However, some of these effects would 

likely be reduced by implementing BMPs during construction (Section 5.3, Subsequent Analysis and 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures). Operation of the alternative and stations would 

not likely increase localized erosion of sediments into surface waters. 

Table 5-7: Areas with High Erosion Potential that are Crossed by the Central Section 

EIS Study Area Central 

Erosion Classification Number Crossed Acres 

Alternative C4A (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Severe 68 573 

Very Severe 33 851 

Approximate Total 101 1,424 

Alternative C4B (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Severe 85 828 

Very Severe 31 567 

Approximate Total 116 1,395 

Alternative C4C (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Severe 82 654 

Very Severe 41 1,052 

Approximate Total 123 1,706 

5.2.2.4 Groundwater 

The Central Section EIS Study Area crosses over Trinity and Edwards aquifers, which are confined 

major aquifers (see Table 5-8). Minor aquifers that underlie the Central Section EIS Study Area 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-9 

include the Woodbine (confined and unconfined) and Brazos River aquifers. The EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4C crosses the greatest areal extent of aquifers, followed by the Alternative C4A and 

Alternative C4B study areas. All three alternatives overlay the same areal extent of the Edwards 

Aquifer (designated Edwards 1 and Edwards 2), which is designated as a Sole Source Aquifer; 

however, none of the alternatives cross the recharge zone where groundwater would be more 

susceptible to surface disturbances and potential impacts from construction activities. The EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4A crosses the greatest areal extent of unconfined minor aquifers, 

followed by the Alternative C4B and Alternative C4C study areas. Effects from construction and 

operations activities would potentially most affect unconfined aquifers because they have a direct 

connection to the ground surface. Effects on Sole Source Aquifers would be negligible compared to 

the No Build Alternative because the Central Section alternatives do not cross recharge areas. 

Long-term effects may include groundwater contamination caused by runoff from created 

impervious surfaces and spills of construction materials such as hydraulic fluid, fuel, paint, and 

solvents. The effects on groundwater resources from each of the Central Section alternatives would 

be negligible because stormwater treatment measures and BMPs would be implemented during 

construction and operation (Section 5.3, Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and 

Mitigation Measures). Short-term effects on groundwater resources caused by construction and 

operation activities would be negligible compared to the No Build Alternative. 

Table 5-8: Aquifers Crossed within the Central Section EIS Study Area 

Aquifer Name Type 

Alternative 

C4A Area 

(acres) 

Alternative 

C4B Area 

(acres) 

Alternative 

C4C Area 

(acres) 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Trinity Confined 16,770 15,315 20,355 

Edwardsa Confined 1,540 1,540 1,540 

Approximate Total 18,310 16,860 21,895 

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Woodbine Unconfined 6,830 5,540 1,505 

Woodbine Confined 465 590 8,390 

Brazos River 

Alluvium 

Unconfined 170 170 170 

Approximate Total 7,465 6,300 10,065 

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer 

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a). 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-10 

Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

5.2.3.1 Surface Waters 

Table 5-9 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative S4 (higher-speed rail) and Alternative S6 (higher- and high-speed rail). 

This includes the acreage of surface waters (lakes and ponds) and linear feet (rivers and streams) 

crossed within the EIS Study Area. Potential impacts on surface waters from Alternative S4 and 

Alternative S6 (both service types) would be moderate compared to the No Build Alternative 

because the total linear feet and acreage of surface waters crossed by the alternative. 

Table 5-9: Surface Waters, Listed 303(d) Impaired Waters, and NWSR Designated 

Waters Crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area 

Water Body 

Classification Number Crossed Linear Feet Acres 

Alternative S4 (Higher-Speed Rail) 

Streams and Rivers 314 247,448 - 

Lakes and Reservoirs 129 - 74 

303(d) Waters 7 13,928 - 

Designated Waters 0 - - 

Alternative S6 (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Streams and Rivers 198 120,488 - 

Lakes and Reservoirs 57 - 29 

303(d) Waters 5 2,921 - 

Designated Waters 0 - - 

5.2.3.1.1 Floodplains 

Table 5-10 identifies potential impacts on SFHAs (100-year floodplain) within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative S4 and Alternative S6 (both service types). 

Table 5-10: Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year Floodplain) 

crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area 

Alternative Number of SFHAs 

Crossed Acres 

Alternative S4 (Higher-Speed Rail) 118 3,046 

Alternative S6 (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 14 431 

Source: FEMA (2011). 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-11 

The actual impacts on SFHAs would depend on construction techniques and crossing methods 

(e.g., bridges and culverts) used at each individual crossing. 

5.2.3.1.2 Designated Waters 

There are no designated waters in the EIS Study Area for the Southern Section (Table 5-9). 

Therefore, no effects on designated waters are anticipated from any of the Southern Section 

alternatives. 

5.2.3.1.3 Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 5-9 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters for the Southern 

Section EIS Study Area. Potential effects on 303(d) waters from each of the Southern Section 

alternatives (both service types) would be negligible compared to the No Build Alternative because 

of the low amount of linear feet of surface waters crossed within the EIS Study Area. 

5.2.3.2 Runoff 

Under Alternative S4 (higher-speed rail) and Alternative S6 (higher- and high-speed rail), additional 

impervious surface associated with the stations would be constructed. Most rail construction would 

use permeable material, so the alignments would not be expected to contribute significantly to 

runoff. In many cases, the improvements would occur in existing urbanized areas, resulting in no 

increase in impervious surfaces. However, where segments or facilities are constructed in 

undeveloped areas, increased runoff would result. The quantity of increased runoff has not been 

determined but, if substantial, could result in increased surface flows downstream and potentially 

greater flooding risk. This potential increase may be offset by reduced automobile use and related 

improvements. It is anticipated that reductions in automobile use would have a correlating 

reduction in impervious surfaces associated with parking lots and roadways throughout the region, 

potentially resulting in a net beneficial effect on runoff. To further reduce the potential for adverse 

effects on runoff from the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 and Alternative S6 (both service types), 

facility designs would include measures to reduce impervious surfaces or provide on-site retention. 

Potential effects from increases in runoff from the Southern Section alternatives would be 

negligible because increases in runoff from the construction of new impervious surfaces would be 

minimized through the implementation of structural stormwater management practices and 

construction BMPs (Section 5.3, Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

Measures). The project-level NEPA process will evaluate the impacts on runoff from impervious 

surfaces associated with the project design, assess potential impacts on existing stormwater 

structures, and propose specific measures to address those potential impacts. 

5.2.3.3 Erosion 

Table 5-11 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas crossed within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative S4 (higher-speed rail) and Alternative S6 (higher- and high-speed rail), which represents 

areas of potential effects on surface waters. Because the erodible index is slope-sensitive, only 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-12 

areas that exceed slope thresholds within the indicated acreage meet criteria for erodible areas. 

Soil erosion data for the area within the vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area are limited, 

and available data were used for tabular summaries and graphical depictions. Potential effects on 

water quality from erodible soils crossed (number and acres) within Alternative S4 would be similar 

to Alternative S6 (both service types). The potential effects from increases in erosion from the 

Southern Section alternatives would be negligible. Construction of the alternatives and stations 

would potentially increase erosion and sedimentation in surface waters during construction. 

However, some of these effects would likely be reduced by implementing BMPs during construction 

(Section 5.3, Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures). 

Operation of the alternative and stations would not likely increase localized erosion of sediments 

into surface waters. 

Table 5-11: Areas with High Erosion Potential that are Crossed by the Southern 

Section EIS Study Area 

Erosion Classification Number Crosseda Acresa 

Alternative S4 (Higher-Speed Rail) 

Severe 3 62 

Very Severe 19 616 

Approximate Total 22 678 

Alternative S64 (Higher- and High-Speed Rail) 

Severe 0 678 

Very Severe 4 13 

Approximate Total 4 691 

a Availability of soil erosion data for the area within the vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area is 

limited. 

5.2.3.4 Groundwater 

The EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 crosses the greatest areal extent of aquifers, followed by the 

Alternative S6 Study Area (see Table 5-12). Both study areas cross the Edwards Aquifer; however, 

neither of them crosses the recharge zone where groundwater would be more susceptible to 

surface disturbances and potential effects from construction activities. The EIS Study area for 

Alternative S4 crosses the greatest areal extent of unconfined minor aquifers followed by the 

Alternative S6 Study Area. Effects from construction and operational activities would most likely 

affect unconfined aquifers because they have a direct connection to the ground surface. Effects on 

Sole Source Aquifers would be negligible compared to the No Build Alternative because the 

alternatives do not cross recharge areas. Long-term effects may include groundwater 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-13 

contamination caused by runoff from created impervious surfaces and spills of construction 

materials such as hydraulic fluid, fuel, paint, and solvents. The effects on groundwater resources 

would be negligible compared to the No Build Alternative because stormwater treatment measures 

and BMPs would be implemented during construction and operation (Section 5.3, Subsequent 

Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures). Short-term effects on 

groundwater resources caused by construction and operation activities would be negligible 

compared to the No Build Alternative. 

Table 5-12: Aquifers Crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area 

Aquifer Name Type Alternative S4 Area 

(acres) 

Alternative S6 Area 

(acres) 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Gulf Coast Unconfined 17,570 - 

Carrizo Unconfined 130 1,645 

Carrizo Not defined 780 - 

Carrizo Confined 2,950 5,595 

Trinity Confined 205 2,005 

Edwardsa Confined 210 2,000 

Approximate Total 21,845 11,245 

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Yegua Jackson Unconfined 3,245 - 

Sparta Unconfined 110 - 

Sparta Confined 925 - 

Queen City Confined 1,105 - 

Queen City Unconfined 380 1,205 

Approximate Total 5,765 1,205 

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer 

 Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a). 

Summary of Potential Effects 

Table 5-13 includes a summary of effects and a qualitative assessment (negligible, moderate, or 

substantial) for the alternatives and sections. As previously stated, it is important to note that the 

acreages listed in Table 5-13 are not the actual areas of effects associated with construction and 

operation of any of the alternatives. The construction of a passenger rail alignment can reasonably 

occur within a 100-foot-wide boundary, which would leave an extra 400-foot-wide corridor for the 

alternatives. The purpose of this service-level analysis is to use the EIS Study Area, or “corridor,” to 

determine the types of resources that may be affected, and more importantly, the relative 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-14 

magnitude of impacts on resources that may be affected. It is also important to note that some 

routes (Northern, Central, or Southern sections) could be built alone, combined with other section 

routes; more than one alternative in the Central or Southern sections could be built in the future 

because the alternatives provide different service types for the independent destinations. Details 

about how alternatives might connect would be analyzed at the project-level EIS phase.

Table 5-13: Summary of Potential Effects and Qualitative Assessment 

Potential 

Effects 

No 

Build 

Northern 

Section Central Section Southern Section 

N4A 

(CONV) 

C4A 

(HrSR and 

HSR) 

C4B 

(HrSR 

and 

HSR) 

C4C 

(HrSR and 

HSR) 

S4 

(HrSR) 

S6 

(HrSR 

and 

HSR) 

Surface Waters 

Total Number of 

Surface Waters 

Crossed 

0 537 700 650 850 443 255 

Streams and 

Rivers 

(linear feet) 

0 317,365 316,909 293,669 400,363 247,448 120,488 

Lakes and 

Reservoirs (acres) 

0 103 153 99 164 74 29 

Qualitative 

Analysis 

None Negligible Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 

303(d) Waters 

(linear feet) 

0 15,368 24,187 18,870 23,084 13,928 2,921 

Qualitative 

Analysis 

None Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Designated 

Waters 

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Qualitative 

Analysis 

None Negligible None None None None None 

Runoff 

Qualitative 

Analysis 

None Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Erosiona 

Highly Erodible 

Soils Crossed 

(number) 

0 97 101 116 123 22 4 

Highly Erodible 

Soils Crossed 

(acres) 

0 1,305 1,424 1,395 1,706 678 691 

Qualitative 

Analysis 

None Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Negligible Negligible 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-15 

Potential 

Effects 

No 

Build 

Northern 

Section Central Section Southern Section 

N4A 

(CONV) 

C4A 

(HrSR and 

HSR) 

C4B 

(HrSR 

and 

HSR) 

C4C 

(HrSR and 

HSR) 

S4 

(HrSR) 

S6 

(HrSR 

and 

HSR) 

Groundwater 

Aquifers Crossed 

(acres) 

0 18,410 25,775 23,160 31,965 27,610 12,450 

Qualitative 

Analysis 

None Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 

a Availability of soil erosion data for the area within the vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area is limited. 

5.3 Subsequent Analysis and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 

Once a Preferred Alternative is selected, field investigations or surveys would be conducted to 

determine during subsequent analysis the likelihood of effects on water quality and floodplains 

within the EIS Study Area. A project-level NEPA study should identify each stream and floodplain 

crossing, evaluate water quality and floodplain effects, and analyze the expected effects on any 

existing impaired stream segments. The project-level analysis will focus on stream crossings 

located or associated with areas of high runoff and soils that have a high potential for erosion 

because these areas could be a significant source of potential water quality impacts during 

construction activities. These areas would represent the most risk to maintaining state and federal 

water quality standards and compliance with NPDES construction stormwater permits. Avoidance 

and minimization of effects will be incorporated when feasible. If effects cannot be avoided or 

minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented. Sediment and erosion control BMPs during 

construction would need to be assessed as part of the project-level analysis. Potential impacts may 

also result where new rail facilities intercept and are constructed within surface water areas. 

Impacts may include the following: 

 Loss of flood conveyance potential and alteration of flood elevations 

 Short- and long-term alteration in coastal hydrology and hydraulics in tidal lagoons where 

facilities are constructed within coastal surface waters; may include short-term construction 

dewatering and long-term effects resulting from permanent placement of structures 

 Short- or long-term loss of native riparian habitats caused by construction and/or permanent 

installation of facilities within surface waters, resulting in loss of water quality remediation and 

water storage potential of native habitats 

Potential impacts on water quality may also result from the alternatives, including and based on the 

following: 
TBG092914072712SCO 

5.0 Water Quality Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 5-16 

 Short-term increases in sediment and reductions in water quality may result during construction 

activities, where material is transported to surface water channels or coastal lagoons. At a 

program-level analysis, the extent of potential effects is currently not known, but all identified 

effects would require site specific measures to address the potential effects, including the 

potential need for temporary and permanent mitigation measures. 

 Assuming an alternative results in a general reduction in motor vehicle use compared to what 

would occur under the No Build Alternative, there would be a potential beneficial effect on water 

quality in downstream watercourses. This benefit would be due to less impervious parking and 

roadways and a general reduction in the amount of automobile-generated nonpoint source 

contamination, including petroleum products and brake linings. This would be a net effect 

potentially realized over the entire region because construction of station facilities associated 

with the alternatives, including supporting parking lots, would result in some local increase in 

impervious surfaces. 

For this service-level EIS, the extent of effects has not been discretely defined. The intensity of a 

potential effect has been classified as negligible, moderate, or substantial, along with the potential 

for beneficial effects under select circumstances. The ability to analyze, determine, and mitigate for 

future project-level impacts should include the incorporation of construction and operational BMPs 

that would provide structural remedies to potential water quality effects. Construction BMPs would 

include the following: 

 Erosion: 

- Phasing and construction sequencing 

- Temporary seeding of cleared areas 

- Mulching 

- Erosion control blankets 

- Reinforced matting 

 Sedimentation: 

- Hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and baffles 

- Stabilized construction access 

- Controlled temporary stock pile areas 

 Runoff: 

- Runoff diversion measures 

- Level spreaders 

- Subsurface drains
TBG092914072712SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 6-1 

6.0 References 

Edwards Aquifer Website. 2014. Hydrogeology of the Edwards Aquifer. Available at 

http://edwardsaquifer.net/geology.html. Accessed August 11, 2014. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2011. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL). 

Available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer-nfhl. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2014. Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Program: Oklahoma Segments. 

Available at http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/states/ok.html. Accessed July 24, 

2014. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). 2014. Wild & Scenic Rivers Studies. Available at 

http://www.rivers.gov/study.php. Accessed July 24, 2014. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed July 24, 2014. 

Oklahoma Geologic Society 1983. Maps Showing Principle Ground-water Resources and Recharge 

Areas in Oklahoma. Available at 

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/MAPS/MISCmap/Groundwater_sheet1.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2014. 

Oklahoma Historical Society. 2014. Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture: Aquifers. 

Available at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/A/AQ001.html. Accessed 

July 21, 2014. 

San Antonio Water System. 2014. About the Edwards Aquifer. Available at 

http://www.saws.org/your_Water/aquifer/aboutaquifer.cfm. Accessed August 11, 2014. 

Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). Available at 

http://www.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=a23eb436f6ec4ad6

982000dbaddea5ea. Accessed July 2014. 

Texas Climate Data. 2014. Available at http://web2.airmail.net/danb1/climate.htm. Accessed April 

23, 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014. Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone – 

Chapter 213 Rules. Available at 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/gis/metadata/edw_tsms_met.html. Accessed August, 11, 2104. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Route 

Alternatives Analysis. June. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2004. Overview of Laws Regarding the Navigation of Texas 

Streams. Available at 
TBG092914072712SCO 

6.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 6-2 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/water_issues/rivers/navigation/ridd

ell/index.phtml. Accessed April 17, 2014. 

Texas Water Development Board. 2014a. Major Aquifers. Available at 

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/aquifer/major.asp.

Texas Water Development Board. 2014b. Groundwater. Available at 

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/. Accessed July 24, 2014. 

U.S. Climate Data. 2014. Temperature - Precipitation - Sunshine – Snowfall. Available at 

http://usclimatedata.com/. Accessed April 23, 2014. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), original dataset. 

Available at http://nhd.usgs.gov/wbd.html. Accessed July 2014. 

University of Oklahoma. 2014. Oklahoma Climatology Survey: Climate of Oklahoma. Available at 

http://climate.ok.gov/index.php/site/page/climate_of_oklahoma. Accessed April 23, 2014. 

University of Texas. 2004. Aquifers of Texas 2001. Revised 2004. Available at 

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/fieldguides/texasaquifers.html. Accessed July 24, 2014. 
TBG092914072712SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Water Quality Technical Study Page 7-1 

7.0 Preparers 

Jason Speights/CH2M/Biologist

B.S., 2005, Biology, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas 

M.S., 2007, Forestry: Emphasis Avian Ecology, Stephen F. Austin State University, 

Nacogdoches, Texas 

Years of Experience: 7 

 

Steven Eakin/CH2M/Environmental Scientist

B.S. 1995, Environmental Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 

Blacksburg, Virginia 

M.S. 2001, Aquatic Ecology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 

Years of Experience: 20 
This report was written on behalf of the Texas Department of Transportation by 

www.ch2m.com