Appendix J 

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological 

Cultural Resources Technical Study

Historic, Architectural, and NonArchaeological Cultural Resources 

Technical Study

Prepared by 

July 2016

TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page iii

Contents 

Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... v 

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............................................................................................................. 1-5

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

1.2.1 No Build Alternative ...................................................................................................... 1-6

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 Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Service-Level Analysis.....................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Data Sources...................................................................................................................3-2

3.3 Data Collection................................................................................................................3-2

3.4 NRHP Significance Criteria.............................................................................................3-3

3.5 Adverse Effects ...............................................................................................................3-4

4.0 Baseline/Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 EIS Study Area.................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Brief Cultural Background of Region .............................................................................4-1

4.2.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth.......................................4-1

4.2.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio .............................................4-5

4.2.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas .......................................................... 4-8

4.3 Structures from the Historic Period ............................................................................ 4-12

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources .................... 5-1

5.1 No Build Alternative ........................................................................................................5-3

5.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth.........................................5-3

5.2.1 Alternative N4A Conventional ...................................................................................... 5-3

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

5.3.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail .............................................................................. 5-5

5.3.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.................................................................................. 5-6

5.3.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail .............................................................................. 5-8

5.3.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail.................................................................................. 5-9

5.3.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail ............................................................................5-11

5.3.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail................................................................................5-12
TBG100814163221SCO

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page iv

5.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas ......................................................... 5-13

5.4.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail...............................................................................5-13

5.4.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail...............................................................................5-14

5.4.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail..................................................................................5-14

6.0 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies .............................................................. 6-1

7.0 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 7-1

8.0 References ............................................................................................................................... 8-1

9.0 Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 9-1

List of Figures 

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

4-1: Index Map of Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area ..................................................... 4-25

4-2: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area ............................................................................ 4-26

4-3: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area ............................................................................ 4-27

4-4: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area ............................................................................ 4-28

4-5: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area ............................................................................ 4-29

4-6: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area ............................................................................ 4-30

4-7: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area ............................................................................ 4-31

4-8: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area ............................................................................ 4-32

4-9: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area ............................................................................ 4-33

4-10: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area.......................................................................... 4-34

4-11: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area.......................................................................... 4-35

4-12: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area.......................................................................... 4-36

4-13: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area.......................................................................... 4-37

List of Tables 

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

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

4-1: Historic Resources – Northern Section ...................................................................................... 4-13

4-2: Historic Resources – Central Section ......................................................................................... 4-15

4-3: Historic Resources – Southern Section...................................................................................... 4-22

5-1: Number of Historic Sites by Route Alternative..............................................................................5-1

7-1: Potential Intensity of Effects on Historic Resources.....................................................................7-1
TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page v

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

CCSD&RG Corpus Christi, San Diego, and Rio Grande Railway 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CONV conventional rail

EIS environmental impact statement 

ENV TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

GC&SF Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe Railway

HABS Historic American Building Survey 

HAER Historic American Engineering Record 

HrSR higher-speed rail

HSR high-speed rail

IH-30 Interstate Highway 30

IH-35 Interstate Highway 35 

KCS Kansas City Southern 

mph miles per hour

n.d. no date

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

Program Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SLB&M St. Louis, Brownsville, & Mexican Railroad

Study Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study 

TRE Trinity Railway Express 

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation 

WWI World War I

WWII World War II

TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources 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. Unless described differently, for each environmental resource being analyzed, this 500-

foot EIS Study Area1 is the area in which potentially affected environmental resources are identified 

in proximity to each alternative. 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 historic, architectural, and non-archaeological 

cultural 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 

 

1 Some environmental resource issues, such as transportation, air quality, and noise and vibration, use broader study 

areas to determine impacts.
TBG100814163221SCO

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 1-2

Figure 1-1: Build Alternatives
TBG100814163221SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 1-3

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 as appropriate for this service-level analysis.

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 79 to 90 miles per hour [mph]); HrSR = 

higher-speed rail (up to 110 to 125 mph); HSR = high-speed rail (up to 

220 to 250 mph)
TBG100814163221SCO

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 1-4

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 

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.
TBG100814163221SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 1-5

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

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 in 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 and Southern sections 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.
TBG100814163221SCO

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 1-6

1.2.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not fulfil 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 

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 

Due to feasibility 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, Oklahoma, 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 existing Heartland Flyer service). From 

Fort Worth, the alternative would continue east to Dallas 

following the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) tracks. From Edmond 

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.
TBG100814163221SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 1-7

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.

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 options

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.
TBG100814163221SCO

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources 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.
TBG100814163221SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources 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 assumes new high-performance diesel-locomotive 

hauled equipment running four to six daily round trips. 

Depending on corridor demand model forecasts, the 

primary service may be designated as Laredo-Alice-San Antonio 

and Corpus Christi-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. 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 

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.
TBG100814163221SCO

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 1-10

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 2014a), 

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
TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 2-1

2.0 Regulatory Context and Purpose 

This technical study outlines potential effects on historic, architectural, and non-archaeological

cultural resources (henceforth referred to as historic resources) at the service level. Therefore, this 

technical study does not require a Section 106 analysis of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) or the Antiquities Code of Texas because there is no proposed undertaking associated at 

the Program level. Documentation in accordance with Section 106 and Antiquities Code of Texas

will be required at the project level. 

The service-level EIS includes a corridor-level evaluation of reported historic resources in proximity 

to alternatives; it does not include the detailed evaluation of individual potential resources and 

properties.

This technical study identifies and describes the general areas of development and types of

resource sites and areas within the EIS Study Area. This study does not discuss archaeological

sites, tribal resources, or traditional cultural properties. Those property types are discussed in the 

Archaeological Sites Technical Study (TxDOT and FRA 2016; see Appendix K of the Draft EIS).

TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 3-1

3.0 Evaluation Methods 

This service-level analysis used a broad approach to determine the potential effects on historic 

resources along the alternatives. The EIS Study Area for historic resources was defined in 

consultation with FRA. The service-level analysis of potential historic resources was conducted at a 

corridor level as opposed to a specific alignment of the alternatives. As such, the EIS Study Area

used to identify potential historic resources and areas of high sensitivity was defined as a 500-footwide corridor for each of the alternatives. Future studies conducted at the project level would likely 

define a specific Area of Potential Effects through the development of a Programmatic Agreement 

among FRA, TxDOT, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and the Texas and Oklahoma 

State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs).

3.1 Service-Level Analysis 

The following activities were conducted during this service-level analysis:

 Delineated an EIS Study Area for each alternative to evaluate historic resources. The EIS Study 

Area is a 500-foot-wide buffer within which the rail alignment would be positioned. 

 Prepared a general historic context using primary and secondary sources. Presented the history

of the areas where alternatives lie to provide the general context to evaluate historic resources 

identified in the EIS Study Area.

 Identified known historic resources (that is, those that are listed or determined eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP], including historic resources such as 

buildings, sites, structures, objects, and historic districts).

 Identified areas where there might be historic resources within the EIS Study Area that have not 

been evaluated but may meet NRHP eligibility (to be further assessed and formal 

determinations of NRHP eligibility to be completed at the project level). To allow for delays in 

Program planning, a survey cutoff date of 1970 was used for identification of potentially NRHPeligible historic districts within the EIS Study Area. The cutoff date may need to be modified at 

the project level based on the actual date of Program construction. Additional historic resources 

may be identified at the project level that were constructed after 1970. 

 Conducted a preliminary assessment of the potential effects on historic resources for each 

alternative. The assessment of potential effects was based on preliminary information and 

research conducted at the service level; potential effects may need to be reassessed based on 

changes to the proposed Program and the actual date of construction. Formal determination of 

effects pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the NHPA

would be made during the project-level NEPA process and would require field investigations to 

identify potential historic resources. 
TBG100814163221SCO

3.0 Evaluation Methods

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 3-2

3.2 Data Sources 

Primary and secondary information on potential historic resources was obtained from electronic 

databases and online resources including the following:

 Texas Historic Sites Atlas (Texas Historical Commission 2014)

 Oklahoma’s National Register Handbook (Oklahoma Historical Society 2014)

 National Park Service’s (NPS) Google Earth layer of NRHP-listed resources in Texas and 

Oklahoma

 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division’s (ENV) internal database of resources with previous 

determinations of NRHP eligibility

 Irrigation District Engineering and Assistance (Texas A&M University 2014)

 City planning and preservation department websites 

In addition to these electronic resources from both Oklahoma and Texas, hard-copy files of previous 

surveys were reviewed at the Texas SHPO and TxDOT ENV offices. These files provided information 

about historic resources with previous determinations of NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study Area. 

Similar information was not available for Oklahoma. City preservation and planning departments 

with city preservation officers were contacted if information about locally designated historic 

resources was not available online.

3.3 Data Collection 

Data were collected to identify NRHP-listed properties, previously determined NRHP-eligible 

properties or historic districts, or potentially NRHP-eligible historic districts within the EIS Study Area 

of the alternatives. For information regarding the NRHP criteria, see Section 3.4, NRHP Significance 

Criteria.

Investigations focused primarily on areas that had the potential for large concentrations of historic 

resources, such as NRHP-listed, locally designated, or potentially NRHP-eligible historic districts. 

Because of the broad nature of the service-level analysis, review and evaluation of NRHP-eligibility 

of all individual buildings and structures along the alternatives were not conducted. However, 

individual historic resources that were already NRHP-listed were included in this analysis. 

Additionally, individual historic resources were included if available information at the Texas SHPO 

or TxDOT offices revealed that they were previously determined NRHP-eligible.

The preparers of this technical study researched the websites listed in Section 3.2, Data Sources, 

and visited the TxDOT ENV office to review previous survey files. TxDOT ENV staff provided a KMZ

file (geographically referenced electronic file) that showed the locations of resources for which 

TxDOT had made determinations of eligibility, including those that had been previously determined 

NRHP-eligible and those that had previously been determined not NRHP-eligible. This service-level 
TBG100814163221SCO

3.0 Evaluation Methods

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 3-3

analysis only includes those resources that had been previously determined NRHP-eligible within 

the EIS Study Area.

The preparers also reviewed survey files at the Texas SHPO office. The Historic Sites Atlas only 

includes the locations of NRHP-listed individual resources and historic districts in Texas. As 

necessary, the preparers used current and historic aerial imagery and Google Earth Street View to 

confirm the location of the NRHP-listed individual resources and historic districts included in the 

Historic Sites Atlas. Because the Historic Sites Atlas does not include sites and districts that were 

previously determined NRHP-eligible for listing, the preparers reviewed Texas SHPO survey files in 

the EIS study area for each alternative to determine the presence of historic districts and individual 

historic properties that had previously been determined NRHP-eligible.

To identify additional potentially NRHP-eligible historic districts within or partially within the EIS 

Study Area of each alternative, the preparers reviewed current and historic aerial imagery and 

Google Earth Street View to identify concentrations of residential and commercial development. In 

particular, efforts focused on identifying residential neighborhoods from the post-World War II era 

and historic commercial downtown cores. For more information on the identification of potentially 

eligible historic districts, see Section 3.4, NRHP Significance Criteria.

In addition, cemeteries not listed on the NRHP or previously determined NRHP eligible were 

identified and noted as potentially NRHP-eligible resources. These and the other potentially NRHPeligible resources and historic districts would be evaluated for their NRHP significance during the 

project-level analysis.

The NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible individual resources and historic 

districts identified during data collection are listed in Section 4, Baseline/Affected Environment.

3.4 NRHP Significance Criteria 

Although this technical study is not intended for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, 

Section 106 standards were used to determine the presence of potentially NRHP-eligible historic 

districts. This service-level analysis does not evaluate individual buildings and structures for NRHP 

significance. However, large concentrations of commercial and residential development were 

identified as potentially NRHP-eligible historic districts. The NRHP significance criteria are 

summarized below.

Section 101 of the NHPA states districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects may be eligible for 

the NRHP if they meet one of the following four criteria for significance:

 Criterion A: Event – Significant historical associations with events, trends, or patterns.

 Criterion B: Person – Significant associations with persons of transcendent importance.

 Criterion C: Design/Construction – Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or 

method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values; or 
TBG100814163221SCO

3.0 Evaluation Methods

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 3-4

represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual 

distinction.

 Criterion D: Archaeology - Have yielded or may yield information important to prehistory or 

history.

For a concentration of historic resources to qualify as an NRHP-eligible historic district, the 

resources within the district must convey a sense of unity, continuity, and interrelation. For 

example, a residential historic district should represent a cohesive collection of resources and 

amenities that display an overarching design or development scheme. Features such as schools, 

parks, playgrounds, and community centers often indicate that residential resources were 

constructed as part of a planned community and, as a result, are more likely to convey 

cohesiveness and a distinct place in time. In reviewing the EIS Study Area for potentially 

NRHP-eligible residential historic districts, the preparers focused on residential neighborhoods that 

exhibited these features, as well as other indicators of planned communities such as curvilinear 

streets and themed street names. In addition, downtown commercial areas were analyzed to 

identify potentially NRHP-eligible historic commercial districts, because commercial historic districts 

are often in the downtown core of cities and towns and adjacent to transportation networks such as 

rail lines or major roadways. During data collection, current and historic aerial photography and 

Google Earth Street View were reviewed to identify potentially eligible historic districts.

Although historic districts are typically composed of resources within the same geographic area, the 

NPS states that a historic district may consist of multiple significant areas separated by nonsignificant areas. Non-contiguous historic districts are appropriate when contributing features are 

spatially divided, but the space between features does not negatively affect the significance of the 

district. For example, during this service-level analysis, potentially NRHP-eligible or NRHP-listed 

Santa Fe Railroad Depots were identified within the EIS Study Area, and additional potentially 

NRHP-eligible railroad depots within the EIS Study Area may be identified at the project level. 

Although further research would be required at the project level, these railroad depots may be 

eligible for the NRHP as a non-contiguous historic district. As a result, these individual resources 

have been included in this technical study.

3.5 Adverse Effects 

Although this technical study is not intended for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, Section 

106 standards were used as the basis for understanding potential effects on historic resources 

within the EIS Study Area. The criteria for eligibility for the NRHP are outlined in Section 3.4, NRHP 

Significance Criteria. The analysis of potential effects on historic resources is based on the Criteria 

of Adverse Effect described in regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.5). Under these regulations, an undertaking has an effect on a 

historic property when the undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, the characteristics of the 

property that may qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP [36 CFR Part 800.5(a)]. An effect is 

considered adverse when the effect on an NRHP-eligible property may diminish the integrity of the 
TBG100814163221SCO

3.0 Evaluation Methods

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 3-5

property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration 

is given to qualifying characteristics of a historic property during effects analysis, including those 

that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for 

the NRHP. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking 

that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative.

Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property.

 Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, 

hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent 

with the Interior Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68; NPS

1995) and applicable guidelines.

 Removal of the property from its historic location.

 Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s 

setting that contribute to its historic significance.

 Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

property’s significant historic features.

 Neglect of a property that causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration 

are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to a Native American 

tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

 Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and 

legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property’s 

historic significance.

The intensity of an effect as a result of the route alternatives is characterized as negligible, 

moderate, or substantial compared to the No Build Alternative. In relation to historic, architectural, 

and non-archaeological cultural resources (which include buildings, structures, and districts), these 

terms are defined as follows:

 Negligible intensity effects are those that would result in no permanent change in the setting or 

character-defining features that make the historic resource eligible for, or listed in, the NRHP.

 Moderate intensity effects are those that would result in a change or alteration to the historic 

resource but would not diminish the setting or character-defining features that make the 

resource eligible for, or listed in, the NRHP.

Substantial intensity effects are those that would result in a permanent alteration, relocation, or 

removal of the resource that would result in a loss of character-defining features that make it 

eligible for, or listed in, the NRHP.

TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-1

4.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

4.1 EIS Study Area 

This service-level analysis did not identify the locations of potential easements and constructionrelated facilities such as equipment staging areas, access roads, and utilities. The locations of 

these facilities will be identified during the project-level analysis, and a specific Area of Potential 

Effect will be defined during development of a Programmatic Agreement.

4.2 Brief Cultural Background of Region 

4.2.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

4.2.1.1 Edmond, Oklahoma, to the Oklahoma/Texas Border 

Prior to Euro-American settlement, central Oklahoma was home to numerous nomadic Native 

American tribes. By the mid-19th century, passage of the Indian Removal Act allocated much of the 

land west of the Mississippi to specific Native American tribes who were removed from the 

southeastern United States. Five of the tribes—the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and 

Seminole Nations—are credited with bringing ranching to Oklahoma and Indian Territory during the 

mid-19th century. However, nearly 2 million acres of land at the crossroads of five rivers in central 

Oklahoma remained unassigned and became the focus of homesteading in the late 1800s.

Large-scale settlement in Oklahoma and the first sign of major Anglo-American expansion into the 

region began with the arrival of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad to Guthrie in 1887 

(Crowder and Hoig 2008). That same year, several towns including Edmond (at the northern limit of 

the EIS Study Area), Oklahoma Station (present-day Oklahoma City), and Ardmore were established 

as stops along the railroad. The passage of the federal Homestead Act in 1889 furthered 

settlement to the region by opening the unassigned lands, and a flood of homesteaders arrived in 

Oklahoma to claim the nearly 11,000 agricultural homesteads (Hoig 2007). The Oklahoma Territory 

and its official boundaries were established and included all of the formerly unassigned lands and 

numerous Native American Tribe reservations in 1890. At the same time, seven large counties were 

initially established, including Cleveland and Oklahoma counties at the northern end of the EIS 

Study Area. That same year, Oklahoma City was officially incorporated. The town of Norman was 

also established in 1890, and 2 years later, the University of Oklahoma opened in the town (Levy 

2007). Norman grew to 2,225 residents in 1900, up from 787 in 1890 (O’Dell 2007). Ardmore was 

officially incorporated in 1899, and by 1900, its population was 5,681, up from 2,500 residents in 

1890 (Bamburg 2007). 

The first few decades of the 20th century were shaped by Oklahoma’s statehood, its agricultural 

industry, and oil discoveries. In 1906, Garvin County was officially established. One year later, 

Oklahoma was officially declared a state, and Ardmore became the county seat of the newly formed 

Carter County. Love, Murray, and McClain counties were founded at the same time as Oklahoma’s 

statehood. In 1910, Oklahoma City was designated as the state capitol, and the population of the 

city reached 64,205, up from 10,037 in 1900 (Wilson 2007). Although Oklahoma City became a 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-2

major urban center in the early 20th century and an interurban railway stretched from Edmond 

through Oklahoma City to Norman, the economy of the surrounding area and the state still relied on 

agriculture. Cattle ranching and corn, cotton, and wheat cultivation were the leading agricultural 

pursuits (Hager 2008). By 1910, the number of farms in the state had risen to nearly 190,192 (Fite 

2007). A shift in Oklahoma’s economic focus began in the 1910s with the discovery of oil in the 

state. Healdton Field, one of the largest oil fields in Oklahoma, was discovered in the first decade of 

the 20th century near Ardmore, and operation of the oil field began in 1913 (DeJarnett 2007). In 

the 1920s, oil was discovered in large quantities throughout the state, beginning a decade-long oil 

boom that lasted until the Great Depression, when oil prices plummeted. 

The supremacy of agriculture in Oklahoma weakened in the mid-1920s as market prices for corn, 

cotton, wheat, and livestock declined and the cost to maintain farms rose. The severe drought and 

Dust Bowl of the 1930s and 1940s further devastated the agricultural industry, forcing many 

farmers and ranchers to move to cities to find work. They found work in the recovering oil industry 

and in aviation production, both of which provided economic relief to Oklahoma during the 1930s 

and 1940s. The oil industry bounced back after its plummet during the Great Depression. In 1935,

oil fields in Oklahoma City alone produced approximately 409 million barrels of crude oil, and 

approximately 95 oil-related companies employed nearly 12,000 people in the area (Wilson 2007). 

In 1943, the West Edmond Field was first tapped, and by 1944, it had produced 7,752,000 barrels 

of oil (Weaver 2007). Additionally, the aviation industry in Oklahoma began in the 1940s with the 

construction of several airfields used by the U.S. armed forces, including an airbase in Ardmore, the 

Max Westheimer Field in Norman, and the Oklahoma City Air Depot and the Midwest City Douglas 

Aircraft Company Plant in Oklahoma City (O’Dell 2007; Fugate 2007).

Although the price of agricultural goods and livestock rose during World War II (WWII), Oklahoma’s 

agricultural sector never fully recovered from the events of the first half of the 20th century. 

Technological advances in farming equipment and the consolidation of small farms across the 

state led to the creation of large-scale farms and ranches. By 1950, Oklahoma only had 

142,246 farms, down from 213,325 in 1935 (Fite 2007). Oklahoma City began experiencing urban 

sprawl, and significant advances in transportation networks, combined with increased automobile 

use, essentially transformed towns like Edmond and Norman into bedroom communities during the 

second half of the 20th century. The passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act in 1956 resulted in 

the construction of interstate highways throughout the country. The improvement to transportation 

networks assisted the urbanization shift. In 1959, IH-35 was completed through the western part of 

Norman. By the early 1960s, more than half the population of the state lived in or adjacent to 

Oklahoma City or Tulsa (Baird and Goble 2008). The population of Oklahoma City rose from 

243,504 in 1950 to 368,164 in 1970 (Wilson 2007). By 1980, only 72,000 farms remained in the 

state, and the average size of farms had grown to approximately 480 acres (Fite 2007).

4.2.1.2 Oklahoma Border to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Before the early 19th century, much of the land in north Texas was occupied by Native American 

tribes, with scattered ranchers, Indian traders, and Texas Rangers. Settlement of north Texas began 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-3

slowly after the Mexican War, when the Republic of Texas was established in 1836. The new Texas 

government began parceling out land following the Spanish colonial system of empresarios, which 

granted large pieces of land to individuals who would be responsible for enticing settlers and 

further dividing the land (Wade 2010). The 1840s and 1850s in north Texas were characterized by 

continual settlement and establishment of counties and towns. The majority of residents in these 

newly established towns were farmers and ranchers. 

In 1841, Dallas was founded on land within one of the large empresarios. Five years later, Dallas 

and Denton counties were established, followed by Cooke County in 1848 and Tarrant County in 

1849. In 1850, Dallas was named the county seat of Dallas County. Birdville was named the first 

county seat of Tarrant County, and Gainesville was established as the county seat of Cooke County. 

In the 1850s, to protect against Indian raids and conflicts with Mexican forces, the U.S. military 

established several posts in north Texas including Fort Worth, Fort Chadbourne, and Fort Griffin. 

Denton was founded in 1857 as the new county seat of Denton County. By the end of the 1850s, 

Fort Worth was elected as the new county seat of Tarrant County.

The latter half of the 19th century in north Texas was characterized by the establishment of cattle 

trails and the arrival of the railroads. The economy of north Texas was based largely in agriculture, 

predominantly livestock ranching. When Texas fever infected cattle in Texas in the late 1860s and 

early 1870s, neighboring states enforced embargos and quarantines on Texas cattle, affecting the 

cattle industry for several years (Haygood 2010). However, a Texas rancher and entrepreneur 

circumvented these embargos by constructing cattle pens, stockyards, and loading facilities outside 

the quarantine area in Abilene, Kan. (Worcester 2010). In 1868, the Chisholm Trail opened, and 

Fort Worth was one of the last northern outposts for cattlemen before reaching the stockyards in 

Abilene (Sanders and Tyler 1973). The cattle drives solidified Fort Worth as one of the main 

livestock trade and market hubs in the south. The city itself was officially incorporated in 1872. 

The arrival of the railroads in the mid-1870s further opened north Texas to larger and far-reaching 

markets. Railroads, including the Houston and Texas Central Railroad and the Texas and Pacific 

Railway, had profound impacts on population, commercial, and agricultural growth in the region. 

While Fort Worth had a slower growth rate with 6,663 residents in 1880, the population of Dallas 

increased tremendously, from just 678 residents in 1860 to more than 10,000 in 1880 (Sanders 

and Tyler 1973; McElhaney and Hazel 2010). Banking and insurance had become major 

commercial enterprises in Dallas. In addition, the first Dallas State Fair was held in 1886, and by 

1890, the population of Dallas exploded to 38,067 residents (McElhaney and Hazel 2010). 

Denton’s population also grew during this time due to the arrival of the Texas and Pacific Railway 

and the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railway in the early 1880s. By 1890, the North Texas Normal 

College (present-day University of North Texas) was established, and Denton’s population was 

2,558 residents, more than double its population in 1880 (Odom 2010). As the railroads opened 

the region to larger markets, farming also increased with corn, wheat, and cotton production

leading cultivation in the region during the 1880s and 1890s. 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-4

The north Texas economy flourished in the first two decades of the 20th century. Denton continued 

its foray into higher education with the establishment of the Girls’ Industrial College (present-day 

Texas Woman’s College) in 1903 (Odom 2010). The meat processing and packing industry in Fort 

Worth contributed to the city’s population boom of the early 20th century, which increased from 

26,688 in 1900 to 73,312 in 1910 (Sanders and Tyler 1973). Around the same time, the city 

began annexing neighboring communities, and eventually the Fort Worth city limits expanded to 

cover 16.83 square miles (Schmelzer 2010). 

Oil discoveries in west and north Texas in the first few decades of the 20th century resulted in jobs 

in oil companies and oil-related services in Fort Worth and Dallas. By 1918, oil companies and 

refineries in the Fort Worth area were processing nearly 80 percent of Texas’s crude oil (Selcer 

2004). At the same time, during the 1920s, the agricultural sector and the price of cotton fell 

drastically. The onset of the Great Depression further affected farming and ranching in north Texas. 

The Dust Bowl also destroyed crops, and many farmers and ranchers moved to cities, beginning the 

urbanization trend that affected other parts of the region. As the urban areas grew, new 

infrastructure facilities were established in the cities. Meacham Field in Fort Worth opened in 1927 

as the first municipal airport in north Texas. That same year, Love Field in Dallas was converted to a 

municipal airport, and by 1928, Dallas Love Field Airport operated flights to Houston and San 

Antonio (Selcer 2004). 

The mid-1930s and 1940s in north Texas were marked by recovery from the Great Depression and 

by WWII. Dallas outbid Houston and San Antonio to host the Texas Centennial Exposition, and in 

1936, more than 6.4 million visitors came to the state fairgrounds (now called Fair Park). To 

improve the region’s economy, cities courted industrial product companies to the area. WWII 

contributed to the expansion of manufacturing in Dallas, and by 1947, approximately 

1,068 manufacturing facilities supported nearly 38,936 employees in Dallas County (Maxwell 

2010). In 1949, 13 new plants opened in Dallas every month (McElhaney and Hazel 2010). 

The post-WWII era in north Texas was a period of immense growth as the region shifted away from 

the agricultural sector with the escalation of the aviation industry, construction of manufacturing 

facilities, and improved transportation networks. Dallas, Tarrant, and Denton counties all 

experienced population booms, largely concentrated in the Cities of Dallas, Fort Worth, and Denton. 

In 1950, nearly 90 percent of Dallas County residents were considered urban, and the population 

of Dallas totaled 434,462 (Hill 1996). That same year, the population of Fort Worth was recorded 

at 385,164, and by 1955, the city limits covered 127 square miles, up from 62 in 1940 (Schmelzer 

2010; Selcer 2004). The proliferation of automobile culture during the post-war years led to the 

upgrade and construction of several interstate highways throughout Texas and the region. 

Construction of the Dallas–Fort Worth Turnpike began in 1955 and was completed by 1957 (TxDOT 

2014b). The improved facility led to the formation of bedroom communities, including Arlington and 

Grand Prairie. The 1960s also marked the designation, construction, and upgrade of existing 

facilities to form the IH-35 corridor and the IH-35 West (IH-35W) and IH-35 East (IH-35E) split in 

Fort Worth and Dallas, respectively. 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-5

In 1963, one of the pinnacle events in the history of both Dallas and the nation occurred when 

President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in a motorcade traveling through Dealey Plaza.

Already widely considered a den of right-wing conservatism, Dallas received enormous backlash 

from the event. However, in 1964, Erik Jonsson was elected mayor of Dallas and began to reinvent 

the city, creating the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, completed in 1974. The largest airport 

in the world at the time of its construction, it linked Fort Worth to Dallas, creating the Metroplex. 

IH-35 was completed from Dallas to the Oklahoma border in 1965. By 1967, the interstate had 

been upgraded to Austin, and the IH-35W segment from Fort Worth to Denton was complete (TxDOT 

2014c). The Dallas–Fort Worth Turnpike was also transferred to the Interstate Highway System and 

designated as IH-30 in 1970 (TxDOT 2014b). By 1980, the population of Dallas had reached 

904,078, and the city was approximately 378 square miles (Hazel 1997). That same year, the 

population of Fort Worth was 447,619 (Schmelzer 2010). 

4.2.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

The early history of central Texas centers on San Antonio. Established as a mission in the early 18th

century and later the first civil settlement in what is now the state of Texas, San Antonio played a 

crucial role in the development of central Texas and the surrounding area (Richardson et al. 2005). 

The Catholic Church initially established several missions in the area, including the Mission San 

Antonio de Valero (the chapel is now the Alamo) and San José y San Miguel de Aguayo. The 

communities in and around San Antonio constructed a complex system of irrigation canals, known 

as acequias, which were used to water farmland. At the same time, the Catholic Church operated

large ranches on big parcels of land outside the missions (Moore et al. 2013). 

The 1820s and early 1830s in central Texas were marked by settlements of large land grants and 

land disputes. San Antonio was named the county seat of Bexar County in 1836, and Austin was 

founded along the Colorado River in 1839, serving as the capitol of the Republic of Texas. 

Similar to settlement in north Texas, the 1840s and 1850s in central Texas were marked by the 

establishment of towns and the delineation of counties. Travis County was founded in 1840, 

followed by Guadalupe and Comal counties in 1846. The marked difference between the 

development of central Texas and the rest of the state was the influx of German immigrants that 

began in the 1830s and continued into the 1840s. The towns of Fredericksburg and New Braunfels 

were founded in 1845 and 1846, respectively, with largely German immigrant populations. By the 

late 1840s, German settlers outnumbered all other foreign-born immigrants in the region 

(Richardson et al. 2005).

In 1848, Williamson, Caldwell, Hays, and Medina counties were established. One year later, Waco 

Village (present-day Waco) was founded, and Ellis County was carved out of Navarro County. The 

year 1850 marked a banner year for the establishment of counties and communities within central 

Texas. Austin was voted the official state capitol of Texas with a population of 1,001 residents 

(Humphrey 2010). Bell County was established, and Nolan Springs (later renamed Belton) was 

named county seat (Long 2010a). That same year, McLennan and Falls counties were founded. By 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-6

1850, Bexar County’s population was recorded at 5,633, and San Antonio had grown to 3,488 

(Long 2010b). The year 1852 marked the establishment of Hill County, followed by Johnson County 

in 1854. In 1856, Waco Village was incorporated as Waco, with 759 residents by 1859 (Conger 

2010). 

The first few decades following the U.S. Civil War were difficult in central Texas. During the 

reconstruction era, agricultural production slowed, particularly for cotton. Many farmers turned to 

livestock raising, realizing that the tall native grasses of the Blackland Prairies were ideal for 

grazing. Many of the cattle trails, including the Chisholm Trail, Shawnee Trail, and Western Trail, 

traveled through San Antonio, Austin, and Waco before heading north through Oklahoma Territory 

toward the large railroad shipping points in the Midwest. Eventually, the invention of barbed wire in 

the 1870s reigned in the massive herds roaming central Texas, preventing livestock from grazing 

on farmland and reviving farming in central Texas.

In the latter half of the 19th century, railroads and improved infrastructure and transportation 

networks proliferated, connecting central Texas to larger state and national markets, causing a 

significant boon to the region’s economy. In 1870, the Waco Bridge Company completed a 

475-foot-long tolled suspension bridge over the Brazos River, the largest in the world at the time. In 

1871, the Waco Railroad Company finished a tap line that connected to the Central Railway in 

Millican (Conger 1964). That same year, the Houston and Texas Central Railway arrived in Austin. In 

1877, the Galveston, Harrisburg, and San Antonio Railway reached San Antonio. The expansion of 

the railroads through central Texas, including the International & Great Northern and the Gulf, 

Colorado, and Santa Fe Railway (GC&SF), created numerous new towns along their routes. In 1881,

Temple was established along the GC&SF, quickly becoming a rival for its neighbor Belton 

approximately 8 miles southwest (Long 2010a). Institutions of higher learning, including Baylor 

University and the University of Texas, were established in the early and mid-1880s. Municipal 

improvements, such as street paving, sewage and water systems, telephone lines, and hospitals,

were installed in San Antonio, and by 1900, the city had become the biggest in Texas with 53,321 

residents (Fehrenbach 2010).

The turn of the century marked a shift in the agricultural economy of central Texas. Advances in 

milk processing introduced dairying to the region. Additionally, although ranching was still prevalent 

in central Texas, crop cultivation, particularly cotton, increased significantly at this time (Moore et 

al. 2013). Other industries also came to the forefront. During World War I (WWI), the federal 

government chose an approximately 10,000-acre plot in northwest Waco for the construction of 

Camp MacArthur, a military facility for nearly 35,000 troops throughout the war, which created a 

substantial demand for housing within the city. In San Antonio, Government Hill (originally 

established in the mid-1870s and renamed Fort Sam Houston in 1890) had become one of the

largest army posts in the U.S. South (Conger 2010; Manguso 2010).

During the post-WWI years, the following factors increased urbanization in central Texas: the rising

automobile culture, improved transportation networks, the discovery of oil in south and north Texas, 

rampant industrialization, and the return of servicemen looking for employment. By 1920, Austin’s 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-7

population was 34,876, and San Antonio’s population was 161,379 (Humphrey 2010; Humphrey 

and Crawford 2001; Fehrenbach 2010). Following portions of the Meridian Highway, which traveled 

from Canada to Mexico through Texas, the highway department designated U.S. Highway 81 in 

1927. The road traveled through Texas from the Oklahoma border through Fort Worth, Waco, 

Austin, San Antonio, and Laredo, forming the major north-west corridor through the state and 

central Texas (TxDOT 2014d).

Central Texas fared slightly better in the 1930s and 1940s than the Texas panhandle and U.S. 

Plains States. With the center of the state government in Austin, the establishment of several 

military facilities and the higher education institutions diversified the economic base of the region.

Military facilities were constructed throughout central Texas including the Del Valle Army Air Base 

(later Bergstrom Air Force Base) in Austin and Camp Hood (later Fort Hood) in Killeen. The Waco 

area also added more bases, including the Waco Army Flying School and the Blackland Army Air 

Field. 

Austin’s economic mainstays were government and education based. As a result, the dropping 

prices in crops, livestock, oil and gas, and manufactured products had little impact on the city. In 

fact, Austin’s population grew significantly during the 1930s, increasing from 53,000 to 88,000 

(Humphrey and Crawford 2001). San Antonio also had military facilities and, like Austin, had 

become a center of higher education. In 1942, Trinity University decided to relocate from 

Waxahachie to San Antonio, joining several institutions already in the city including St. Mary’s 

University (founded in the 19th century), University of the Incarnate Word (1881), and Our Lady of 

the Lake University (ca. 1911). Construction of the Trinity University campus, designed by renowned 

architect O’Neil Ford, was completed in 1952 (Everett 2010).

The mid-20th century was characterized by dramatic changes in the agricultural system both 

nationally and in central Texas. Mechanization of farming equipment required less manpower to 

run agricultural properties. This consolidated many small farms and ranches and led to the 

corporatization of the agricultural industry. Continued advances in transportation networks, as well 

as the introduction of large trucking and hauling vehicles, improved the movement of large 

quantities of goods (Moore et al. 2013). In 1952 Waco’s population reached 84,300, and the 

economic future of the city looked bright (Conger 2010). In 1959, IH-35 was completed and was 

one of the most significant developments in transportation infrastructure in central Texas and 

throughout the state (TxDOT 2014e). Urban renewal programs began in the late 1950s to revitalize

urban centers, and in 1967, Waco was chosen to be one of the federal government’s “Model 

Cities.” As with most urban renewal programs across the country, low income housing was 

demolished to provide for middle-class housing and shopping centers, displacing minority and low 

income communities (Conger 2010). 

San Antonio and Austin were also changing during this time. In 1959, the Brooks Air Force Base in 

San Antonio transitioned from a military facility to a medical research and education center,

becoming headquarters to the Aerospace Medical Center. The following year, aviation ceased at the 

facility, and in 1961, it was renamed the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, playing a 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-8

major role in the national space program that gained national attention during the Cold War years 

(Alcott 2010). By 1960, the population of San Antonio was 587,718 (Fehrenbach 2010). In Austin, 

the University of Texas expanded its scientific research facilities, which fostered a burgeoning new 

industry in technology, engineering, and manufacturing. As a result, in the late 1960s and 1970s,

technology companies, including IBM, Texas Instruments, and Motorola, located their offices in the 

city, a trend that has continued to the present day (Humphrey 2010). 

4.2.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The south Texas region was first occupied by numerous Native American tribes, followed by Spanish 

settlement in the region beginning in the mid-18th century (Garza 2010a). Referred to as “the 

father of the lower Rio Grande Valley,” José de Escandón was tasked by the Spanish crown with 

colonizing the area between the Pánuco River in Mexico and the Guadalupe River in Texas and with 

establishing permanent settlements, which created the town of Laredo. The land bordering the Rio 

Grande was divided into long, narrow lots that extended north and south of the river called 

porciones (Knight 2009). Areas further removed from the river were parceled out into much larger 

land grants. A majority of the development during the late 18th through mid-19th centuries was 

concentrated along the Rio Grande. Much of the vast expanse of land between San Antonio and 

south Texas remained largely unpopulated, primarily due to lack of sufficient permanent water 

sources and adequate means of transportation. 

The Texas Revolution in the 1830s, followed by the Mexican War in the 1840s, led to political 

upheaval and disputed territory. Laredo residents sided with Mexico during the Texas Revolution, 

and skirmishes between Mexican and Texan forces were commonplace. Although Texas officially 

declared land north of the Rio Grande part of Texas in 1836, the area remained disputed for the 

next decade, and the area between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers became a “no man’s land” 

(City of Laredo 2014). In 1836, San Patricio County was established, and in 1839, businessmen 

established Kinney’s Trading Post (present-day Corpus Christi) along the bay. Its proximity to Mexico

made the area ideal for trading. Present-day Brownsville was also established in the mid-19th 

century, when General Zachary Taylor arrived in the area to secure the Rio Grande as the southern 

border of the U.S., and immediately began construction on a temporary fort later named Fort 

Brown. In 1846, Corpus Christi became the Nueces County seat (Long 2010c).

After the end of the border fighting between Mexico and the U.S., both countries signed the Treaty 

of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. This treaty firmly established the Rio Grande as the southern border 

of Texas (Richardson et al. 2005). That same year, Nueces County was divided to form three new 

counties: Cameron, Starr, and Webb counties. Brownsville was officially founded in 1848 and 

1 year later was named the county seat of Cameron County (Garza and Long 2010). At that time, 

Laredo was designated the county seat of Webb County. The U.S. military also set up a makeshift 

military camp in 1849 approximately 1 mile west of Laredo; it was named Camp Crawford, then 

renamed Fort McIntosh 1 year later. It was essential in protecting the border town and operated 

almost continuously until 1947 (Cuéllar 2010). In 1852, Hidalgo County was officially established,

and La Habitación was renamed Edinburg and selected as the county seat (Garza 2010a). 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-9

The second half of the 19th century marked a significant establishment of Anglo-American 

settlement in the region. In 1850, Richard King and Mifflin Kenedy formed the Mifflin Kenedy and 

Company steamship business. The company operated steamships up the Rio Grande, which was 

navigable as far inland as Mier and connected to Camargo (Mexico), Edinburg, and Brownsville 

(Kearney 1989). Two years later, Richard King established the King Ranch in 1852, encompassing 

parts of Nueces, Kenedy, Kleberg, and Willacy counties (Ashton and Sneed 2010). Ranching 

remained the area’s economic mainstay in the region. For example, in 1860, Nueces County had 

approximately 56,454 cattle and 8,554 horses, and farms other than subsistence farms were

virtually non-existent (Long 2010d). 

During the U.S. Civil War, Corpus Christi served as a crossroads for the Confederate army; however, 

the town was eventually occupied by Union forces, which remained until the 1870s. Despite the 

occupation, the economy of the town grew, largely due to the livestock ranching operations of the 

surrounding area. This led to Corpus Christi becoming a leading market for wool. In 1876, a city 

charter was formally adopted, establishing a city government. With its location on the Gulf Coast 

and its protective bay, Corpus Christi became one of the leading economic and commercial centers 

of the region during the late 19th century. 

The towns along the Texas border did not significantly grow until the arrival of the railroads. The first 

border town in Texas to receive rail service was Laredo in 1881. The Corpus Christi, San Diego, and 

Rio Grande Railway (CCSD&RG) connected Laredo to Corpus Christi, opening up extensive trade 

opportunities for both cities and the surrounding regions. In 1887, the Mexican National Railway 

arrived in Nuevo Laredo in Mexico. This railroad traveled to Mexico City and combined with the 

CCSD&RG, constituting the Tex-Mex Railway (DaCamara 1949). This connection exposed Laredo to 

national and international markets and established the city as a gateway to Mexico. With improved 

streets, municipal facilities, and schools, the population of Laredo nearly quadrupled from 3,521 to 

13,429 between 1880 and 1900 (Cuéllar 2010). In 1889, the city established an electric street 

railway and the first international bridge, known as the Foot and Wagon Bridge, between Laredo 

and Nuevo Laredo (City of Laredo 2014).

In 1904, Brownsville received rail service when the St. Louis, Brownsville, & Mexican Railroad 

(SLB&M) connected the area to Corpus Christi. In doing so, the region was opened to larger state 

and national markets; the construction of the SLB&M served as a watershed event for the area

from Corpus Christi to Brownsville and throughout the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Developers flocked 

to the areas where the railroad line traversed, platting and establishing new towns throughout the 

region. For example, in 1904, John McAllen and James Ballí McAllen, along with their business 

partners, formed McAllen Townsite Company for the creation of a town at the train depot, which 

later became McAllen (Garza 2010b). In 1904, Lon C. Hill Harlingen founded Harlingen, 

approximately 30 miles east of McAllen along the Arroyo Colorado, a former outlet of the Rio 

Grande. Harlingen intended to create a commercial waterway that would make the town a hub of 

commerce and trade. In 1910, the town was officially incorporated and its population reached

1,126 (Gilbert 2010). 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-10

Although attempts at installing irrigation systems in the Lower Rio Grande Valley had begun as early 

as 1870, the arrival of the SLB&M led to a major boom in the creation of private irrigation 

companies and increased settlement to the area. By 1910, at least 20 major irrigation companies 

were in operation along the Rio Grande, resulting in a significant impact on the region’s agricultural 

production (Knight 2009). Soon, the economy of the area primarily consisted of agriculture, 

particularly cotton and vegetables (Gilbert 2010). Simultaneously, newly settled residents wanted

to be closer to county seats and government centers, leading to the division and formation of 

additional counties from existing larger counties: Brooks and Willacy counties in 1911, Jim Wells 

County in 1912, Kleburg County in 1913, and Kenedy County in 1921.

Access to water was essential to successful farming operations and, therefore, proximity to the Rio 

Grande was essential for profitable cultivation. In the areas north of Edinburg and Harlingen that 

were farther from the river, the availability of shallow surface water allowed construction of wells to 

service livestock, and ranching continued to be the primary agricultural pursuit. Large ranches were 

scattered throughout the majority of the EIS Study Area in south Texas. The population was largely 

dispersed with a few small communities established at large ranch headquarters that typically had 

a school, supply store, and cemetery.

The onset of the Mexican Revolution led to unstable conditions along the U.S./Mexico border in the 

second decade of the 20th century. WWI created more chaos in the region because Germany 

supplied weapons and ammunition to varying factions within Mexico (Richardson et al. 2005). In 

1916, nearly 20,000 troops arrived in McAllen from New York and the population increased from 

1,200 in 1916 to 6,000 in 1920 (Garza 2010b). The population of Brownsville increased from 

6,000 in 1900 to 22,021 in 1930 (Garza and Long 2010). 

The inter-war years in south Texas were characterized by the arrival of new industries and shifts in 

previous industrial trends. By 1920, Corpus Christi had several railroad lines serving the city and 

had become a tourist destination for beachgoers (Long 2010c). Oil was discovered in south Texas, 

leading to a booming oil industry and the growth of refineries in the area (Richardson et al. 2005). 

In addition, the first hard-surfaced highways in south Texas were constructed (including present-day 

U.S. Highway 77), which led to the growth of the truck farming industry (Ficker and Barron 2010). A 

new and deeper ship channel opened in Corpus Christi in 1926, allowing for larger vessels to enter 

the bay. The discovery of oil in the 1920s, combined with growing transportation networks, shifted 

the economies of Laredo, Brownsville, and Corpus Christi from primarily agricultural to industrialand manufacturing-based. The Brownsville ship channel opened in 1936, providing deep-water 

access to Brownsville, which was instrumental to the city’s growth and establishment as a center 

for trade, industry, and commerce (“Port of Brownsville, Serving Two Nations” 1955).

Like other areas of Texas and Oklahoma during WWII, in south Texas, construction of military 

facilities increased. The Harlingen Army Air Field was installed 3 miles northwest of the town, and it 

was shut down in 1946 at the end of the war (“Harlingen Air Force Base” 2010). Located on an 

international border, south Texas was considered of strategic significance during the war, and 

numerous other military facilities were constructed or expanded in the area during the 1940s, 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-11

including Corpus Christi’s University of the Air, the Laredo Army Air Field, and the continued use of 

Fort Brown in Brownsville. 

Following WWII, the economy and industries of south Texas shifted. In 1949, the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway was extended to Brownsville, and the ship channel was widened to allow the entry of 

much larger ships, which facilitated transporting produce to larger markets. Although citrus

production became one of south Texas’ most significant crops by 1950, the 1940s and 1950s 

were a difficult time for agricultural production in the valley. The construction of Falcon Dam, 

combined with increased regulation of the Rio Grande, restricted much needed access to water 

required for citrus growth. Furthermore, a series of bad weather events also destroyed many of the 

citrus crops during the mid-20th century, and many of the smaller farms could not survive. This, 

combined with improved agricultural technology, replaced many farm laborers with machines, and 

smaller farms were consolidated into larger landholdings (Knight 2009). To diversify the economy, 

the Lower Rio Grande Valley became a destination for tourists attracted by the warm, sunny 

climate. 

The latter half of the 20th century in south Texas was defined by changes to military and aviation 

operations, improved transportation networks, and booming manufacturing and oil and gas 

industries. The Harlingen Army Air Field reopened as the Harlingen Air Force Base during the 

Korean War, increasing the population of Harlingen from 23,000 in 1950 to 41,000 in 1960 

(Gilbert 2010). Military functions at the base ended in 1962, and the facilities were repurposed, 

partially for use as the Rio Grande Valley International Airport (“Harlingen Air Force Base” 2010).

Construction of IH-37, approximately following the existing U.S. Highway 181 route, began in the 

1960s and was completed in the 1980s (TxDOT 2014f; Beaumont, et al. no date [n.d.]). Also during 

this time, the old U.S. Highway 81 roadway that extended from Laredo to the Minnesota/Canada 

border was upgraded and incorporated into the interstate system as IH-35 (TxDOT 2014d, 2014e).

These upgrades to existing transportation facilities and the construction of new facilities were major 

contributors to the economic growth in south Texas. 

Cities and counties during this period grew and expanded. Corpus Christi experienced a rising

manufacturing industry, which ranged from petrochemical production to food processing, storage, 

and freezing facilities. In 1966, the city had nearly 167 manufacturing companies that employed 

more than 10,000 residents (Munz 1966). By the 1970s, Laredo had established itself as the 

largest inland port in the U.S. and had cultivated thriving industries in commerce, trade, tourism, 

and manufacturing (Elliott n.d.). In the late 20th century, the production of natural gas in the area 

increased significantly, and in 1989, Webb County was the leading producer of natural gas in Texas 

(Parish 1989). During the latter half of the 20th century, numerous new industries, including 

petrochemicals, frozen and canned foods, and metal products, arrived in Brownsville. By 1990, the 

population reached more than 107,000, approximately 80 percent of which were of Mexican 

descent (Garza and Long 2010). 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-12

4.3 Structures from the Historic Period 

Historic resources within the EIS Study Area consist of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and 

districts that serve residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and transportation functions. 

These resources include residential buildings, stores, municipal buildings, railroad depots, bridges, 

educational complexes, and agricultural facilities that are at least 50 years old. Cemeteries are also

within the EIS Study Area; however, the exact age of the cemeteries was not verified for this servicelevel analysis. 

As mentioned in Section 4.2, Brief Cultural Background of Region, prior to 1900 a majority of the 

EIS Study Area was rural and was characterized by sporadic agricultural settlements, ranches, and 

small towns. Transportation networks were not adequate for large-scale settlement and urban 

growth. Resources from this period consist largely of agricultural buildings and structures such as 

main farm and ranch houses, barns, sheds, corrals, pens, and fences. 

The arrival of the railroads to the region at the turn of the century opened Texas and Oklahoma to 

much larger regional and national markets and contributed to significant growth. As a result, 

historically significant railroad-related resources, including depots and stations, were identified 

within the EIS Study Area. Although the agricultural industry continued to be a mainstay of the 

economy, the discovery of oil in Texas and Oklahoma also contributed to a boon to industrial 

development during this time period. Some residential, commercial, and industrial resources were 

likely constructed as a result of the economic growth brought by the booming oil industry.

The arrival of the automobile had a major impact on the growth of the state and the nation in the 

early 20th century. In addition to increased access to transportation networks and advanced 

mobility, the proliferation of the automobile led to new commercial resources associated with 

transportation, including gas stations, motels, hotels, auto repair shops, and drive-through 

restaurants. 

During WWI, numerous military and aviation facilities were constructed and manufacturing 

industries serving the war effort increased in the region. This trend continued throughout the mid20th century and, combined with the economic devastation by the Dust Bowl and the Great 

Depression, led to urbanization and suburban growth. Residential construction was prolific in the 

post-WWII era, and neighborhoods were designed as cohesive communities with amenities such as 

parks, community centers, and schools. 

NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible historic resources, divided by the Northern, 

Central, and Southern sections of the EIS Study Area, are listed in Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3, 

respectively. Locations of historic resources are shown on Figures 4-1 through 4-13. Cemeteries 

were also identified as part of the EIS Study Area. However, because this is a service-level analysis, 

the cemeteries are listed as potentially NRHP-eligible, pending further investigations. Because of

the late addition of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail, and to 

maintain the project schedule for the service-level analysis, additional structures and historic 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-13

districts identified along these alternatives are listed in non-sequential order in Table 4-1 and on 

Figures 4-1 through 4-13.

Table 4-1: Historic Resources – Northern Section

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name Location (Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

1

Figure 4-2

Edgemere Park Historic District 35.50639/ 

-97.514683

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

2

Figure 4-2

Mesta Park and Heritage Hills Historic 

Districts

35.491974/

-97.513299

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

3

Figure 4-2

Cain's Coffee Building 35.48141681/

-97.5122159

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

4

Figure 4-2

Automobile Alley Historic District 35.47801715/ 

-97.51249716

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

5

Figure 4-2

Sherman Machine and Iron Works 

Building

35.4678438/ 

-97.51156819

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

6

Figure 4-2

Stanford Furniture Company Building 35.46663246/ 

-97.51186181

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

7

Figure 4-2

J.I. Case Plow Works Building 35.4650558/ 

-97.5118831

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

8

Figure 4-2

Sooner Theater Building 35.22114837/

-97.4432098

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

9

Figure 4-2

Santa Fe Depot 35.21993512/ 

-97.4429154

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

10

Figure 4-2

Norman Historic District 35.219368/

-97.442376

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

11

Figure 4-2

Miller Historic District 35.217936/ 

-97.441167

Potentially NRHPEligibleN4A CONV

12

Figure 4-2

DeBarr Historic District 35.21183909/ 

-97.43882983

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

13

Figure 4-2

U.S. Highway 77 Bridge at Canadian River 35.01374298/ 

-97.35678374

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

14

Figure 4-2

Purcell Train Station 35.01191388/

-97.35728219

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

15

Figure 4-2

Santa Fe Depot 34.74137837/ 

-97.21791761

Potentially NRHPEligibleN4A CONV

16

Figure 4-2

Pauls Valley Historic District 34.74067683/ 

-97.21744851

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

17

Figure 4-3

Arbuckle Historical Museum/ 

Davis Santa Fe Depot

34.50361524/

-97.1217722

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

18

Figure 4-3

Ardmore Commercial Historic District 34.1716344/

-97.12609074

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-14

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name Location (Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

19

Figure 4-3

Marietta Main Street Historic District 33.93723476/ 

-97.11732243

Potentially NRHPEligibleN4A CONV

20

Figure 4-3

Santa Fe Depot 33.93670828/ 

-97.11677581

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

21

Figure 4-3

Saint Paul's Church 33.62597124/

-97.14132663

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV

22

Figure 4-3

Santa Fe Passenger Depot 33.62501115/

-97.140706

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

23

Figure 4-3

Gainesville Commercial Historical District 33.624124/ 

-97.140743

Potentially NRHPEligibleN4A CONV

24

Figure 4-4

Krum Cemetery 33.244875/

-97.243899

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryN4A CONV

25

Figure 4-4

Fort Worth Stockyards Historic District 32.793943/

-97.343368

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

26

Figure 4-4

Samuels Avenue Historical District 32.768609/

-97.328688

Potentially NRHPEligibleN4A CONV

27

Figure 4-4

Pioneers Rest Cemetery 32.765624/

-97.327955

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryN4A CONV

28

Figure 4-4

Hampton-Peach Streets Historical District 32.763048/ 

-97.32699

Potentially NRHPEligibleN4A CONV

29

Figure 4-4

Allen Chapel AME Church 32.75897211/

-97.32752389

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV

30a

Figure 4-4

Montgomery Ward and Company Building 32.75401418/ 

-97.32647395

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

31 a

Figure 4-4

Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railroad 

Passenger Station

32.74916071/ 

-97.32410681

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV

32 a

Figure 4-4

Calloway Cemetery 32.810561/

-97.089142

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryN4A CONV

33 a

Figure 4-4

Rock Island Railroad Bridge 32.81315531/ 

-96.86163747

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV

34 a

Figure 4-4

Turtle Creek Pump Station 32.80004162/ 

-96.81644069

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

35 a

Figure 4-4

West End Historic District 32.779764/

-96.809595

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-15

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name Location (Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

a Indicates a resource that is also located in the Central Section.

Sources: Baird and Goble (2008); Bamburg (2007); Beaumont et al. (n.d); Crowder and Hoig (2008); Fite (2007);

Fugate (2007); Google Maps (2014); GoogleEarth (1950 – 2014); Hager (2008); Hazel (1997); Hill (1996); Hoig 

(2007); Levy (2007); Long (2010a); Maxwell (2010); McElhaney and Hazel (2010); Moore et al. (2013); NPS (2014);

NPS (1995); NETROnline (2014); O’Dell (2007); Odom (2010); Oklahoma Historical Society (2014); Richardson (2005);

Sanders and Tyler (1973); Schmelzer (2010); Selcer (2004); TxDOT (2014b); TxDOT (2014c); TxDOT (2014d); TxDOT 

(2014e); TxDOT (2014g); TxDOT and FRA (2014); Texas Historical Commission (2014); Wade (2010); Weaver (2007);

Wilson (2007); Worcester (2010).

Table 4-2: Historic Resources – Central Section

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

30 a

Figure 4-4

Montgomery Ward and 

Company Building

32.75401418/ 

-97.32647395

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR 

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR 

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

31 a

Figure 4-4

Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe 

Railroad Passenger Station

32.74916071/ 

-97.32410681

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

32 a

Figure 4-4

Calloway Cemetery 32.810561/

-97.089142

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

33 a

Figure 4-4

Rock Island Railroad Bridge 32.81315531/ 

-96.86163747

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

34 a

Figure 4-4

Turtle Creek Pump Station 32.80004162/ 

-96.81644069

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-16

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

35 a

Figure 4-4

West End Historic District 32.779764/

-96.809595

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR 

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR 

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

36

Figure 4-4

White Lake Hills Historic

District

32.759264/ 

-97.256597

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4B HrSR

C4B HSR

37

Figure 4-4

Hollandale Historic District 32.729643/

-97.061774

NRHP-Eligible C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

38

Figure 4-4

Vought Manor Historic 

District

32.728696/

-97.063174

NRHP-Eligible C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

39

Figure 4-4

Grand Prairie Historic 

District

32.758908/

-96.976517

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4B HrSR 

C4B HSR

40

Figure 4-4

Scott Cemetery 32.776438/

-96.830282

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4B HrSR

C4B HSR

41

Figure 4-4

Dealey Plaza Historic 

District

32.777795/ 

-96.808461

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

42

Figure 4-4

Dallas Union Terminal 32.775551/ 

-96.807861

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

43

Figure 4-4

Houston Street Viaduct 32.772899/ 

-96.806363

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

44

Figure 4-4

Cadiz Street Overpasses 

and Underpasses

32.76992438/

-96.80142353

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

45

Figure 4-4

Proctor & Gamble 

Manufacturing Complex

32.753842/ 

-96.776522

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

46

Figure 4-4

Red Oak Cemetery 32.502635/

-96.812177

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-17

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

47

Figure 4-4

Ellis County Centennial 

Marker

32.48502864/

-96.82699143

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

48

Figure 4-4

Waxahachie City Cemetery 32.3879/ 

-96.85707

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

49

Figure 4-4

Rogers Street Bridge 32.38304891/ 

-96.85079886

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

50

Figure 4-4

Ellis County Courthouse 

Historic District

32.382978/ 

-96.85001

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

51

Figure 4-4

Waxahachie Train Depot 32.38288238/

-96.84953313

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

52

Figure 4-5

Joe E. Turner House 32.17286616/ 

-97.09188122

NRHP-Listed C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

53

Figure 4-5

John Stubblefield Cemetery 32.17234802/

-97.09126114

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4B HrSR

C4B HSR

54

Figure 4-5

Abbott Cemetery 31.89251/ 

-97.072992

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR, 

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

55

Figure 4-5

First Street Cemetery 31.55413275/ 

-97.1196492

NRHP-Eligible

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-18

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

56

Figure 4-5

Baylor University Historic 

District

31.548335/

-97.123263

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

57

Figure 4-5

10th Street Bridge at Waco 

Creek

31.54413021/ 

-97.12581695

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

58

Figure 4-5

Elite Café 31.52468786/ 

-97.13297609

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR, 

C4A HSR, 

C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

59

Figure 4-5

Waco Memorial Park

Cemetery

31.474495/ 

-97.161357

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

60

Figure 4-5

Chapel Hill Memorial Park

Cemetery

31.461623/

-97.169368

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

61

Figure 4-5

Cox Cemetery 31.336606/

-97.227864

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

62

Figure 4-5

Eddy 3rd Street Historic 

District

31.29517312/

-97.2531277

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-19

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

63

Figure 4-5

1st National Bank 31.29511263/ 

-97.25298717

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

64

Figure 4-6

Jefferson Historic District 31.120135/ 

-97.343249

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

65

Figure 4-6

Santa Fe Depot 31.09562772/

-97.34519641

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

66

Figure 4-6

St. Mary’s Catholic

Cemetery

30.579728/

-97.403508

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

67

Figure 4-6

Taylor Black Cemetery 30.577043/

-97.402118

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

68

Figure 4-6

Taylor City Cemetery 30.575672/

-97.402164

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

69

Figure 4-6

Rosehill Cemetery 30.372299/

-97.524404

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-20

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

70

Figure 4-7

Withers House 29.87087726/ 

-97.72733176

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

71

Figure 4-7

Guadalupe Valley Memorial 

Park Cemetery

29.647161/

-98.039395

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

72

Figure 4-7

Holy Cross Cemetery 29.599446/

-98.338229

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

73

Figure 4-7

Schulmeier Cemetery 29.55242338/

-98.42829685

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

74

Figure 4-7

Olmos Park Historic District 29.482189/

-98.490498

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

75

Figure 4-7

Beacon Hill Historic District 29.451135/

-98.50622

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-21

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

76

Figure 4-7

International & Great 

Northern Railroad 

Passenger Station

29.42704679/

-98.50563435

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

77

Figure 4-7

San Fernando #1 Cemetery 29.414107/

-98.510484

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

78

Figure 4-7

Capt. Jose Antonio 

Menchaca Centennial 

Marker

29.41392268/ 

-98.51049747

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

79

Figure 4-7

Jose Antonio Navarro 

Centennial Marker

29.41390188/ 

-98.51057822

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

80

Figure 4-7

Col. Jose Francisco Ruiz 

Centennial Marker

29.41387101/ 

-98.51054135

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

81

Figure 4-7

Don Juan Ximenes 

Centennial Marker

29.41385003/

-98.51063199

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

118

Figure 4-4

South Main Street Overpass32.723962/

-97.32639

NRHP-Eligible C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

119

Figure 4-4

Kimbell Milling Company 

Historic District

32.723317/

-97.325975

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-22

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

120

Figure 4-4

J.W. Hall House 32.705324/

-97.32921

NRHP-Eligible C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

121

Figure 4-4

Ullman/Bungee Elevators 32.694673/

-97.329103

NRHP-Eligible C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

122

Figure 4-4

Burleson Main Street 

Historic District

32.542028/

-97.321191

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4C HrSR

C4C HSR

123

Figure 4-5

Antioch Rest Cemetery 32.3090451/

-97.1933298

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4C HrSR

C4C HSR

124

Figure 4-5

Railroad Truss Bridge 32.291411/

-97.179735

Potentially NRHPEligibleC4C HrSR

C4C HSR

125

Figure 4-5

Itasca City Cemetery 32.1490201/

-97.1481092

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4C HrSR

C4C HSR

126

Figure 4-5

Luke Tipton Cemetery 32.1475415/

-97.1473631

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryC4C HrSR

C4C HSR

127

Figure 4-5

609 Hawkins Street 

Residence

32.002807/

-97.132713

NRHP-Eligible C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

a Indicates a resource that is also located in the Northern Section.

Sources: Beaumont et al. (n.d); Everett (2010); Google Maps (2014); GoogleEarth (1950 – 2014); Humphrey (2010);

Humphrey and Crawford (2001); Long (2010b); Manguso (2010); Moore et al. (2013); NPS (2014); NPS (2015);

NETROnline (2014); Richardson (2005); TxDOT (2014d); TxDOT (2014e); TxDOT (2014g); TxDOT and FRA (2014); Texas 

Historical Commission (2014); Worcester (2010).

Table 4-3: Historic Resources – Southern Section

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

82

Figure 4-12

Alice Cemetery 27.738462/ 

-98.077518

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryS4 HrSR

83

Figure 4-12

Hotel Brendel 27.7878792/ 

-97.66149443

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

84

Figure 4-12

King Ranch Historic District 27.527646/

-98.10017

NRHP-Listed S4 HrSR

85

Figure 4-12

One-story Wood House 27.22840748/

-98.13982955

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

86

Figure 4-13

Southern Pacific Depot 26.30145346/ 

-98.16842767

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-23

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

87

Figure 4-13

Casa de Palmas 26.20511172/ 

-98.23488877

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

88

Figure 4-13

Restaurant 26.20341706/ 

-98.23139302

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

89

Figure 4-13

Louisiana--Rio Grande Canal 

Company Irrigation System 

Historic District

26.196429/ 

-98.191846

NRHP-Listed S4 HrSR

90

Figure 4-13

San Juan Hotel 26.18945199/

-98.15687578

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

91

Figure 4-13

Early 20th Century Tile 

Decorated Storefront

26.18939291/

-98.15619621

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

92

Figure 4-13

Moderne Style Service 

Station/Muffler Shop

26.18201284/

-98.11508722

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

93

Figure 4-13

Crest Fruit Company 

Warehouse

26.18237037/ 

-98.11337202

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

94

Figure 4-13

Concrete Commercial Building 26.17662498/ 

-98.08187689

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

95

Figure 4-13

Hanson House 26.17562512/ 

-98.08117409

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

96

Figure 4-13

Donna Irrigation Historic 

District

26.172009/

-98.058142

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

97

Figure 4-13

Art Moderne Southern Mosaic 

Tile Factory

26.16488336/

-98.02111419

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

98

Figure 4-13

Cortez Hotel 26.15938574/ 

-97.99100852

NRHP-Listed S4 HrSR

99

Figure 4-13

Commercial Building 26.15053982/

-97.91245295

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

100

Figure 4-13

Former Hidalgo County 

Irrigation District #5 Offices

26.15031853/

-97.91249016

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

101

Figure 4-13

Quonset Hut 26.15042375/ 

-97.90431001

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

102

Figure 4-13

Moderne Stucco Gas Station 26.15750842/ 

-97.82839521

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

103

Figure 4-13

Moderne Gas Station 26.15846407/

-97.8253208

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

104

Figure 4-13

La Feria Canning Co. 26.15886264/ 

-97.82343175

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-24

Map ID# 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

105

Figure 4-13

Texas Citrus Fruit Growers 26.15897524/ 

-97.82300438

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

106

Figure 4-13

La Feria Irrigation Historic 

District

26.160936/

-97.818269

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

107

Figure 4-13

International Style Cinder 

Block Fence

26.16414182/ 

-97.80606571

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

108

Figure 4-13

Restlawn Cemetery 26.166681/ 

-97.797061

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryS4 HrSR

109

Figure 4-13

Adams Gardens Irrigation 

Historic District

26.169652/ 

-97.787909

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

110

Figure 4-13

Spanish Revival Petrified Stone 

Gates

26.17159694/ 

-97.7828932

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

111

Figure 4-13

Santos Lozano Building 26.1926212/

-97.69721701

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

112

Figure 4-13

Travis Historic District 26.185728/ 

-97.691487

Potentially NRHPEligibleS4 HrSR

113

Figure 4-13

RR Parker Through Truss 

Bridge

26.1773826/ 

-97.68292121

Potentially NRHPEligibleS4 HrSR

114

Figure 4-13

Cameron County Irrigation 

District #2 Historic District

26.14208/ 

-97.643964

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

115

Figure 4-13

CCWC Irrigation District #6 

Historic District

25.974444/ 

-97.523804

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

116

Figure 4-13

West Brownsville Historic

District

25.91883/ 

-97.519924

Potentially NRHPEligibleS4 HrSR

117

Figure 4-13

Brownsville Downtown Overlay 

Historic District

25.907635/ 

-97.511476

Potentially NRHPEligibleS4 HrSR

Sources: Alcott (2010); Ashton and Sneed (2010); Beaumont et al. (n.d); Conger (1964); Conger (2010); City of Laredo 

(2014); Cuéllar (2010); DaCamara (1949); Elliott (n.d); Fehrenbach (2010); Ficker and Barron (2010); Garza (2010a);

Garza (2010b); Garza and Long (2010); Gilbert (2010); Google Maps (2014); GoogleEarth (1950 – 2014); Harlingen Air 

Force Base (2010); Kearney (1989); Knight (2009); Long (2010c); Long (2010d); Manguso (2010); Munz (1966); NPS

(2014); NPS (2015); NETROnline (2014); Parish (1989); “Port of Brownsville, Serving Two Nations.” (1955); Richardson 

(2005); Texas A&M University (2014); TxDOT (2014d); TxDOT (2014e); TxDOT (2014f); TxDOT (2014g); TxDOT and FRA 

(2014); Texas Historical Commission (2014); Worcester (2010).
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-25

Figure 4-1: Index Map of Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-26

Figure 4-2: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-27

Figure 4-3: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-28

Figure 4-4: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-29

Figure 4-5: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-30

Figure 4-6: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-31

Figure 4-7: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area 
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-32

Figure 4-8: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-33

Figure 4-9: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-34

Figure 4-10: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-35

Figure 4-11: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-36

Figure 4-12: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area
TBG100814163221SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 4-37

Figure 4-13: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area

TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-1

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources 

This section analyzes the potential effects on historic resources identified within the EIS Study Area 

(see Table 5-1). Individual property surveys were not conducted. Additional historic resources would 

likely be identified at the project level when a detailed field survey and evaluation would be 

conducted, and they should be considered when evaluating the alternatives during the project-level

analysis. The effects analysis is presented by geographic location (Northern, Central, and Southern 

sections) and by build alternative. The analysis presents anticipated permanent direct and indirect 

effects within urban, suburban, and rural areas for each alternative and associated stations.

Table 5-1: Number of Historic Sites by Route Alternative

 

N4A 

CONV 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR a 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR a 

C4C-HrSR and 

HSR 

a S4 HrSR 

S6 HrSR 

and HSR 

NRHP-Listed or 

NRHP-Eligible 

Historic Districts

9 4 4 3 7 0

Potentially NRHPEligible Historic 

Districts

5 4 6 6 3 0

NRHP-Listed or 

NRHP-Eligible 

Individual Resources

17 19 12 22 23 0

Potentially NRHPEligible Individual 

Resources

1 2 1 3 1 0

NRHP-Listed or 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemeteries

0 1 1 1 0 0

Potentially NRHPEligible Cemeteries

3 15 14 17 2 0

Total Historic 

Resources 35 45 38 52 36 0 

a These alternatives are listed together because the total number of historic resources within the EIS Study Area is the 

same for both.
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-2

The discussion of effects below reflects a level of assessment for the historic resources appropriate 

for a service-level analysis. For this service-level analysis, the details of the alignment, construction 

footprint, profile of the railway or the specific station locations were not available. Therefore, the 

analysis is based on information gathered regarding the route and service type to determine the 

likelihood the historic resources may be permanently acquired and removed. Other effects that can 

occur during construction include vibratory effects on nearby historic structures; however, best 

management practices can be implemented to avoid these effects. For this service-level analysis 

then, construction effects are limited to the potential for removal of historic properties. 

Noise and vibration effects could also cause an indirect adverse effect on non-archaeological

historic resources under Section 106 if the resource’s setting and landscape are integral to its 

historic significance or are considered character-defining features. However, based on 36 CFR 

800.5 and the project team’s experiential insight, direct or indirect impacts from noise are only 

considered if a historic resource’s quiet environment is considered a character-defining feature of 

its historic significance or if a historic resource’s specific use or function is integral to its historic 

significance. For this service-level analysis, no known historic resources meet these criteria. 

Increased noise levels would not likely affect the continued use of historic properties within the EIS 

Study Area and, therefore, would not likely diminish the integrity of significant historic features. 

Different rail service could cause indirect vibration effects on historic resources. However, vibration 

effects that might damage the building and diminish the historic significance are rare and 

dependent on building material types. Typically, vibration effects only occur during construction if 

avoidance measures are not incorporated into the construction planning.

A more detailed noise and vibration impact assessment would be completed on individual historic 

resources during the project-level analysis because detailed alignment, station locations, and grade 

separations have not yet been identified. Nevertheless, it is assumed that noise and vibration 

effects, which would be otherwise mitigated for sensitive receptors’ (e.g., residential, libraries, and 

schools) uses, would not directly result in damage or indirectly result in diminishing the characterdefining feature of its historic significance or altering the historic resource’s specific use or function

integral to its historic significance. Noise and vibration effects are not discussed further.

Based on 36 CFR 800.5 and the Program team’s experiential insight, visual impacts on historic 

resources occur when new features are introduced to a landscape that may physically or visually 

affect the historic setting or the elements of the resource that make it eligible for the NRHP. These 

impacts may constitute an indirect effect under Section 106. The introduction of new visual 

features to the surrounding setting does not necessarily constitute an adverse effect on historic 

resources under Section 106, unless the resource’s setting and landscape are integral to its 

historic significance or are considered character-defining features.

Visual impacts would most likely occur during the operational phase for higher-speed and highspeed rail service because of the potential for new railroad-related facilities and stations. Highspeed rail service may require stations and grade crossings to be elevated, which would impose 

new large-scale features on the surrounding landscape and would result in substantial visual 
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-3

effects, potentially affecting the historic setting. In rural areas, these visual impacts would be 

mitigated using vegetative screening, as discussed in Section 6.0, Avoidance, Minimization, and

Mitigation Strategies. A more detailed assessment of visual impacts on individual historic resources 

would occur during the project-level analysis because station locations and grade separations have 

not yet been identified. Nevertheless, it is assumed that conventional rail and higher-speed rail 

would result in negligible visual effects and high-speed rail would result in substantial visual effects 

on historic resources, specifically in urban and suburban areas near historic districts where grade

separations are required. As these locations are not defined in this phase of engineering, visual 

impacts are not discussed further in this section.

5.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not result in property acquisition or changes to transit operations. 

The No Build Alternative is used as a basis for comparison with the alternatives. Because this 

alternative would not include the construction, alteration, or improvement of transportation 

facilities in relation to the construction of the route alternatives, it would not affect nonarchaeological historic resources. 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 historic resources. 

5.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

In the Northern Section, only one alternative was carried forward for further evaluation. Alternative 

N4A Conventional would follow the same general alignment within Dallas and Fort Worth as several 

alternatives in the Central Section. As a result, historic resources identified within the EIS Study 

Area are in both the Northern and Central sections. These overlapping historic resources are 

identified in Table 5-1. The service-level analysis for the Northern Section outlines the potential 

construction and operational effects and associated station locations along Alternative N4A

Conventional. In addition, the analysis includes an assessment of the effects within context of 

urban, suburban, and rural areas.

5.2.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Data collection revealed nine NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic districts and five potentially 

NRHP-eligible historic districts within the N4A EIS Study Area. The historic districts are largely 

concentrated in developed areas such as Oklahoma City, Dallas, and Fort Worth, although several 

are in smaller towns and cities along the EIS study area of Alternative N4A Conventional. The 

service-level analysis also revealed 17 individual NRHP-listed or previously determined NRHPeligible resources within the N4A EIS Study Area. In addition, three potentially NRHP-eligible 

cemeteries are within the EIS Study Area (see Table 5-1). Although detailed survey to identify

potentially NRHP-eligible individual historic resources was not part of this analysis, the prevalence 

of historic Santa Fe Railroad Depots along the Alternative N4A route led to the identification of one 

previously unevaluated Santa Fe Railroad Depot (Map ID #15) in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma. This 

depot has been included as a potentially NRHP-eligible resource. Because of the prevalence of 
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-4

historically significant Santa Fe Railroad Depots along the alternative, there is also potential for a 

discontinuous Santa Fe Railroad historic district (see Section 3.4, NRHP Significance Criteria). This 

discontinuous rail-related historic district would be evaluated at the project level.

Alternative N4A Conventional would likely have negligible acquisition effects on urban, suburban, 

and rural historic resources compared to the No Build Alternative. Because Alternative N4A 

Conventional would primarily use existing railroad infrastructure or would be directly adjacent to 

existing railroad facilities and tracks, minimal new right-of-way and easements would be required. 

In urban and suburban areas, railroad-related historic resources within existing railroad rights-ofway, including the historic railroad depots (Map ID #9, 15, 17, 20, 22, and 31) and the Rock Island 

Railroad Bridge (Map ID #33), would have the greatest potential for effects. However, effects on

these resources could be avoided in most situations at the project level, and therefore, this 

alternative would have a negligible effect on historic resources. As long as Alternative N4A 

Conventional remains within the existing rail right-of-way, it would not affect other historic resource 

types and historic districts in urban and suburban areas because they are located outside the 

existing railroad right-of-way. 

The expansion of existing stations and new stations within urban and suburban areas could result 

in moderate effects on historic resources within the EIS Study Area. Because several stations are 

NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible, expansion and reconstruction of historically significant buildings and 

structures may be required to accommodate increased ridership. Such work would be completed 

using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995) 

when possible to avoid effects on the depots. If effects on existing historically significant depots

cannot be avoided, effects would be mitigated as discussed in Section 6.0, Avoidance, 

Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Although increased or additional parking facilities may be 

required, siting parking facilities would attempt to avoid significant historic resources. In addition, 

the construction of new stations in urban and suburban areas could result in effects on historic 

resources; such effects would be assessed during the project-level analysis.

As in urban and suburban areas, Alternative N4A Conventional would use existing railroad facilities 

or closely parallel existing facilities in rural locations. Therefore, Alternative N4A Conventional and 

associated stations would likely have a negligible effect on historic resources at the construction 

phase. Few rural historic resources and districts were identified, and avoidance of these resources 

would be considered during the project-level analysis. Even though additional individual historic 

resources and rural historic districts may be identified during project-level analysis, these resources 

would historically have railroad facilities adjacent to or on their property. The introduction of 

passenger rail service on existing railroad facilities or a new railroad line alongside existing facilities 

would not change the setting or character of the landscape. Furthermore, if additional historically 

significant resources or historic districts are identified, potential impacts on these resources from a

new station would be evaluated during the project-level analysis.

During operation of the proposed rail lines, Alternative N4A Conventional and associated stations 

would likely result in negligible effects on urban, suburban, and rural historic resources. The historic 
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-5

resources within the EIS Study Area have historically been close to a railroad facility. Therefore,

vibration effects from additional passing trains would likely be minimal on historic resources within 

the EIS Study Area. For conventional rail service that operates at less than 100 mph, vibration 

would be felt approximately 60 feet on either side of the alignment centerline for residential 

resources and 20 feet on either side for institutional resources. Potential vibration and associated 

adverse effects, as outlined in Section 106, would be assessed during the project-level analysis.

5.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

In the Central Section, the six alternatives under evaluation follow the same alignment from 

Hillsboro south to San Antonio, with the exception of several small variations along Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail (see Figures 1-1, 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7). The 

following sections outline the potential construction and operational effects and associated station 

locations along these alternatives within urban, suburban, and rural areas for each alternative.

5.3.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

A total of 45 NRHP, NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible unique resources were identified 

within the C4A Higher-Speed rail EIS Study Area. The service-level data collection revealed 19 

individual NRHP-listed or previously determined NRHP-eligible structures within the EIS Study Area. 

Also, 15 potentially NRHP-eligible cemeteries and one NRHP-eligible cemetery are within the EIS 

Study Area (see Table 5-1). The data collected revealed four documented NRHP-listed or NRHPeligible historic districts and four potentially NRHP-eligible historic districts within the C4A HigherSpeed Rail EIS Study Area. The historic districts are largely concentrated in developed areas such 

as Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, although several are in smaller towns and cities along the 

build alternative. 

Although potentially NRHP-eligible individual historic resources were not surveyed in this servicelevel analysis, during data collection, two potentially NRHP-eligible railroad depots were identified, 

one in Waxahachie (Map ID #51) and one in Temple (Map ID #65). Because of their proximity to the 

alternative, there is a high potential for property acquisitions to affect historic resources and the 

potentially discontinuous rail-related historic district (see Section 3.4, NRHP Significance Criteria).

Where existing railroad rights-of-way are present, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would likely use

or improve existing railroad stations and depots. However, new stations may be required along 

corridors planned outside existing rail rights-of-way.

Compared to the No Build Alternative, the C4A Higher-Speed Rail would likely result in substantial 

effects on historic resources in urban areas. The densest concentration of urban development and 

thus potential for concentrations of historic resources is near the northern and southern termini of 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, largely within Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. In these 

areas, the alternative would be within existing railroad rights-of-way, and construction would likely 

be directly adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks, thus requiring new right-of-way or 

easements. In urban areas where existing railroad rights-of-way would be used, railroad-related 

historic resources, including historic railroad depots (Map ID #31, 42, 65, and 76) and the Rock 
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-6

Island Railroad Bridge (Map ID #33), would have the greatest potential for effects. Where new 

alignments may be necessary, such as through downtown Waco, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail

would likely have substantial property acquisition on historic resources. For example, the 

alternative may pass through portions of Baylor University (Map ID #56), which has been identified 

as a potentially NRHP-eligible historic district. Further evaluation would be required at the project 

level to determine if the property is eligible for the NRHP, and, if so, if contributing features to the 

historic district would be affected. 

Stations associated with Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail within urban areas would also result in

substantial effects on historic resources. Several existing railroad terminals are NRHP-listed or 

NRHP-eligible, including the GC&SF Passenger Station (Map ID #31), the Dallas Union Terminal 

(Map ID #42), and International & Great Northern Passenger Station (Map ID #76). If these 

facilities are considered for expansion and reconstruction, such work would be completed 

incompliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

(NPS 1995) when possible to avoid effects on the depots, or effects would be mitigated as 

discussed in Section 6.0, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Although increased or 

additional parking facilities may be required, construction of parking facilities would attempt to 

avoid significant historic resources. 

Unless the right-of-way can remain within the existing rights-of-way, the greatest potential for 

permanent effects on historic resources within suburban areas would be in areas with previously 

designated or potentially eligible NRHP-eligible historic districts (such as Map ID #56, 62, and 64). 

But, where the alternative would be constructed within existing railroad rights-of-way, the 

alternative may still affect railroad-related historic resources, such as the train depot in Waxahachie 

(Map ID #51) or the Santa Fe Depot in Temple (Map ID #65). Therefore, Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail may result in substantial effects in the suburban areas.

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail in rural areas would likely have negligible effects on historic 

resources along both existing and new alignments. Only one historically significant agricultural 

property, the Withers House near Lockhart (Map ID #70), was identified within the EIS Study Area. 

However, additional agricultural resources or rural historic landscapes may be identified within the

EIS Study Area during the project-level analysis. In suburban and rural areas, locations that require 

new stations would likely have a negligible effect on historic resources. Suburban and rural areas 

have more available space than dense urban areas; therefore, historic resources could be avoided

during site selection. 

In areas where a new corridor is proposed, operational and long-term effects on historic resources 

would likely be limited to visual effects; however, these effects would be moderate and mitigated

(see Section 6.0, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies).

5.3.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

The Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail EIS Study Area is the same as the Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail study area; therefore, the same historic resources are potentially affected. The 
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-7

difference is the service type: high-speed rail would require more property acquisition than higherspeed rail because high-speed rail must be completely grade separated. Grade separation would 

require elevated guideways (providing physical support structure to guide the train along the tracks) 

or roadways to cross over or under the guideway. In both cases, more property is necessary to build 

the grade separations. Similarly, high-speed rail stations may be larger and require larger parking 

areas than conventional or higher-speed stations. 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would likely result in substantial permanent effects in the urban 

areas for the guideway and station areas. This is a higher potential effect compared to Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail, which may be able to avoid and minimize property impacts in urban areas 

by remaining at-grade rather than utilizing grade separations and thus result in moderate effects on 

historic resources. Both C4A alternatives may result in moderate effects in suburban areas and 

negligible effects in rural areas. This is because there are fewer potential historical resources and 

lower density development in these areas and thus a greater possibility of avoiding these 

resources.

Stations associated with Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail within urban areas have the potential for 

substantial effects on historic resources. Several existing stations along the alternative are 

NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible, including the GC&SF Passenger Station (Map ID #31), the Dallas 

Union Terminal (Map ID #42), Santa Fe Depot (Map #65), and International & Great Northern 

Passenger Station (Map ID #76). Because high-speed rail service typically requires the construction 

of new station facilities or extensive alterations to existing facilities, construction of this alternative 

could result in the alteration, relocation, or demolition of historic resources. Because these stations

would be in dense urban areas that typically have limited flexibility in terms of land availability, it is 

unlikely that effects on these resources could be avoided. These impacts would be assessed during 

the project-level analysis and mitigated as discussed in Section 6.0, Avoidance, Minimization, and 

Mitigation Strategies. 

Although increased or additional parking facilities may be required, efforts to locate parking 

facilities would attempt to avoid significant historic resources. In suburban areas, locations that 

require new stations would likely have a negligible effect on historic resources. As previously 

mentioned, several potentially eligible historic districts were identified within the EIS Study Area in 

suburban areas. However, if these districts are determined NRHP-eligible, effects would be 

assessed during the project-level analysis. Effects on historic resources in rural areas through 

construction of new stations would be negligible, because there is more available space than in 

dense urban areas, and effects on historic resources may be avoided during site selection. Such 

work would be completed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995).

Because high-speed rail can result in the potential for relatively more elevated profile and grade 

separations, the Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail may result in substantial visual effects, thereby 

indirectly affecting the historic setting. However, these effects may be minimized through mitigation 

(see Section 6.0, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies).
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-8

5.3.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

The data collected revealed 38 NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible or potentially NRHP-eligible unique 

resources within the C4B EIS Study Area. This is the lowest number of historic resources among the 

central section alternatives. Although Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail does not affect 14 of the 

resources potentially affected by the C4A alternatives, it does potentially affect 7 additional 

resources not originally affected by the C4A alternatives. Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

potential effects are the same as for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, resulting in substantial 

effects on historic resources in urban areas, moderate effects in suburban areas, and negligible 

effects in rural areas.

The 38 resources identified within the Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail EIS Study Area include

four NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic districts and six potentially NRHP-eligible historic districts.

The historic districts are largely concentrated in dense urban areas, including Dallas, Fort Worth,

and San Antonio. The service-level analysis also revealed 12 individual NRHP-listed or previously 

determined NRHP-eligible resources within the EIS Study Area. In addition, 14 potentially 

NRHP-eligible cemeteries and 1 NRHP-eligible cemetery were identified (see Table 5-1). Although 

this technical study does not evaluate individual resources along the route and alternatives were 

not evaluated for potential NRHP eligibility during the data collection phase of the analysis, there is

one potentially NRHP-eligible railroad depot (Map ID #65) within the C4B Higher-Speed Rail EIS 

Study Area.

Within urban areas, most of the alternative alignment would likely follow existing railroad rights-ofway or existing roadway rights-of-way (such as IH-30 and State Highway 360), thus requiring 

minimal new rights-of-way or easements. One exception would be one short new alignment east of 

downtown Fort Worth. The greatest potential for effects within the urban areas, specifically in Dallas 

and Fort Worth, would be if new right-of-way or easements are required from NRHP-listed 

resources, such as the West End Historic District in downtown Dallas (Map ID #35). Furthermore, 

where existing railroad rights-of-way would be used, railroad-related historic resources including 

historic railroad depots (Map ID #31, 65, and 76) would have great potential for effects.

In urban areas where new alignments outside of existing right-of-way may be necessary, such as 

through downtown Waco, Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would likely have substantial 

permanent effects on historic resources. For example, the alternative may pass through portions of 

Baylor University (Map ID #56), which has been identified as a potentially NRHP-eligible historic 

district. Further evaluation would be required at the project level to determine if the property is 

eligible for the NRHP, and, if so, whether contributing features to the historic district would be 

affected. If new rights-of-way are required from historic resources along the new alignment portion 

of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail, impacts would be assessed during the project-level analysis 

and would be mitigated as discussed in Section 6.0, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

Strategies.
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-9

The greatest potential for effects during construction within suburban areas would be if new rightsof-way or easements are required from NRHP-eligible suburban neighborhoods in Dallas and Fort 

Worth (such as Map ID #36, 37, and 38), or where the alternative would be constructed within 

existing railroad rights-of-way and railroad-related historic resources are present, such as the train 

depot in Waxahachie (Map ID #51) or the Santa Fe Depot in Temple (Map ID #65). Effects in the 

suburban areas may be moderate in intensity, but they have the potential to be substantial,

depending on the final alignment.

Only two historically significant agricultural properties, the Joe E. Turner House (Map ID #52) and 

the Withers House (Map ID #70), were identified within the rural areas of the EIS Study Area. As 

previously stated, higher-speed rail design refinements could avoid these resources.

The stations associated with Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail within urban areas may result in

moderate effects on historic resources. Because several stations are NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible, 

including the GC&SF Passenger Station (Map ID# 31), Santa Fe Depot (Map ID #65), and 

International & Great Northern Passenger Station (Map ID #76), expansion and rehabilitation of 

historically significant buildings and structures may be required to accommodate increased 

ridership. Such work would be completed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995) when possible to avoid effects on 

the depots. If effects on existing historically significant depots cannot be avoided, the effects would 

be mitigated as discussed in Section 6.0, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. 

Although increased or additional parking facilities may be required, construction of parking facilities 

would attempt to avoid significant historic resources. In suburban and rural areas, locations that

require the construction of new stations would likely have a negligible effect on historic resources

because suburban and rural areas have more available space than do dense urban areas and 

therefore would allow more flexibility during site selection. 

During the operational phase, Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would have the same potential for 

moderate visual effects on resources as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. These impacts would 

be assessed for specific resources in the project-level analysis.

5.3.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

The C4B High-Speed Rail EIS Study Area is the same as the study area for C4B Higher-Speed Rail; 

therefore, the same historic resources are potentially affected. However, high-speed rail would

require more property acquisitions than higher-speed rail because high-speed rail must be 

completely grade separated. Grade separation would require elevated guideways or roadways to 

cross over or under the guideway. In either case, more property would be necessary to build grade

separations. In addition, high-speed rail stations may be larger and would require large parking 

areas.

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would result in substantial permanent effects in urban areas for 

the guideway and station areas. This is a higher potential effect compared to Alternative C4B

Higher-Speed Rail, which may be able to avoid and minimize property effects in urban areas by 
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-10

remaining at-grade. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail may result in substantial effects in suburban 

areas compared to Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail, which could have moderate intensity effects. 

Both C4B alternatives are likely to result in negligible effects on historic resources in rural areas. 

This is because there are fewer potential resources and lower density development, so there is a 

higher possibility of avoiding these resources. 

Some differences are that Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail may not be able to avoid some 

resources that the higher-speed rail could avoid. Within the EIS Study Area, the White Lake Hills 

Historic District (Map ID #36), the Hollandale Historic District (Map ID #37), the Vought Manor 

Historic District (Map ID #38), and the Grand Prairie Historic District (Map ID #39) are more likely to 

be affected by Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. A new railroad right-of-way would be anticipated, 

and large resources such as historic districts may be affected by substantial property acquisitions. 

Most of this alternative between Fort Worth and Dallas would be within the existing IH-30 corridor, 

but a small portion of the alternative would require a new transportation corridor adjacent to 

potentially NRHP-eligible White Lake Hills Historic District (Map ID #36). If this alternative is 

selected, a formal determination of NRHP eligibility would be conducted during the project-level

analysis, and if minimization of effects or avoidance are not feasible, mitigation would be 

conducted.

Stations associated with Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail within urban and suburban areas have 

the potential for substantial effects on historic resources. Several existing stations along the 

alternative are NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible, including the GC&SF Passenger Station (Map ID #31) 

and the Dallas Union Terminal (Map ID #42). Because high-speed rail service typically requires new 

station facilities or extensive alterations to existing facilities, this alternative could result in the 

alteration, relocation, or demolition of historic resources. Because the stations would be in dense 

urban areas that typically have limited flexibility in terms of land availability, it is unlikely that 

effects on these resources could be avoided, and the effects would be mitigated as discussed in 

Section 6.0, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. In suburban areas, locations that 

require a new high-speed train stations would have a negligible effect on historic resources. As 

previously mentioned, several potentially eligible historic districts were identified within the EIS 

Study Area in suburban areas. However, if these districts are determined NRHP-eligible, impacts 

would be assessed during the project-level analysis, depending on where contributing features are 

located in relation to the alternative. Although increased or additional parking facilities may be 

required, parking facilities would be sited to avoid significant historic resources. Effects on historic 

resources in rural areas for a new station would be negligible, because there is more available 

space than in dense urban areas, which would allow more flexibility during site selection. 

The potential substantial visual effects of operations on nearby historic resources of the Alternative 

C4B High-Speed Rail would be the same as those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. 

These impacts would be assessed on a project-specific basis, and mitigated accordingly. 
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-11

5.3.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

The C4C EIS Study Area represents the highest potential for effects on historic resources, with 52

identified NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible resources. The C4C Higher-Speed 

Rail EIS study area travels much of the same route as the C4A Higher-Speed Rail EIS Study Area. 

Although Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would not affect three of the resources potentially 

affected by the C4A alternatives, it does potentially affect 10 additional resources not originally 

affected by the C4A alternatives. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would result in substantial 

effects in urban areas, moderate effects in suburban areas, and negligible effects in rural areas. 

The 52 resources identified within the Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail EIS Study Area include

four NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic districts and six potentially NRHP-eligible historic districts.

The historic districts are largely concentrated in dense urban areas, including Dallas, Fort Worth, 

and San Antonio. The service-level analysis also revealed 22 individual NRHP-listed or previously 

determined NRHP-eligible resources within that study area. In addition, 17 potentially NRHP-eligible 

cemeteries and 1 NRHP-eligible cemetery were identified (see Table 5-1). This technical study did 

not evaluate individual resources along the route, and alternatives were not evaluated for potential 

NRHP eligibility during the data collection phase of the analysis. However, there are three

potentially NRHP-eligible resources within the EIS Study Area for the Alternative C4C Higher-Speed 

Rail.

In urban areas where new alignments outside existing rights-of-way may be necessary, such as 

through downtown Waco, Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would have substantial effects on 

historic resources. For example, the alternative may pass through portions of Baylor University (Map 

ID #56), which has been identified as a potentially NRHP-eligible historic district. Further evaluation 

would be required at the project level to determine if the property is eligible for the NRHP, and, if so, 

whether contributing features to the historic district would be affected. If new rights-of-way are

required from historic resources along the new alignment portion of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed 

Rail, effects would be mitigated as discussed in Section 6.0, Avoidance, Minimization, and 

Mitigation Strategies.

Like C4A Higher-Speed Rail, Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would likely have a moderate 

permanent effect on suburban resources in areas where the alternative would be constructed 

within the existing railroad right-of-way. In these areas, railroad-related historic resources such as 

the train depot in Waxahachie (Map ID #51) and the Santa Fe Depot in Temple (Map ID #65) would 

have the greatest potential to be affected. On the portions of the alternative that would require new 

alignments outside the existing right-of-way, effects on historic resources in suburban areas would 

be negligible, unless the presence of more resources are found during the project-level analysis. 

Likewise, Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would have the same potential for negligible effects in 

rural areas as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail.
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-12

The potential moderate visual effects of operations of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be 

the same as those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. These impacts would be 

assessed during the project-level analysis, and mitigated accordingly. 

5.3.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail EIS Study Area is the same as the Alternative C4C Higher-Speed 

Rail study area; therefore, the same historic resources are potentially affected. The difference is

that high-speed rail would require more property acquisitions than higher-speed rail because highspeed rail must be completely grade separated. Grade separation would require elevated 

guideways or roadways to cross over or under the guideway. In both cases, more property would be

necessary to build grade separations. Similarly, high-speed rail stations may be large and require 

large parking areas.

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would result in substantial permanent effects in urban areas for 

the guideway and station areas. This is a greater potential effect compared to Alternative C4C

Higher-Speed Rail, which may be able to avoid and minimize property effects in urban areas by 

remaining at-grade. Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail may result in substantial effects in the 

suburban areas compared to Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, which could have moderate 

intensity effects. Both C4C alternatives are likely to result in negligible effects on historic resources 

in rural areas. This is because there are fewer potential resources and lower density development

in rural areas and therefore a greater likelihood of avoiding these resources. 

Of particular note, under Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail, areas either within or adjacent to historic 

districts may have the most potential for permanent removal of historic resources, such as the 

potentially NRHP-eligible Kimbell Milling Company in Fort Worth (Map ID #119), the West End 

Historic District in Dallas (Map ID #35), the Ellis County Courthouse Historic District in Waxahachie 

(Map ID #50), or potentially NRHP-eligible Baylor University in Waco (Map ID #56). 

Stations associated with Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail within urban areas have the potential for 

substantial effects on historic resources. Several existing stations along the alternative are NRHPlisted or NRHP-eligible, including the GC&SF Passenger Station (Map ID #31), the Dallas Union 

Terminal (Map ID #42), Santa Fe Depot (Map #65), and International & Great Northern Passenger 

Station (Map ID #76). Because high-speed rail typically requires new station facilities or extensive 

alterations to existing facilities, this alternative could result in the alteration, relocation, or 

demolition of historic resources. Because these stations would be located in dense urban areas

that typically have limited flexibility in terms of land availability, it is unlikely that effects on these 

resources could be avoided. In suburban and rural areas, the differences between the C4C 

alternatives is minimal regarding permanent effects.

The potential substantial visual effects of operations on nearby historic resources from the 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be the same as those described for Alternative C4A HighSpeed Rail. These impacts would be assessed during a project-level analysis, and mitigated 

accordingly. 
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-13

5.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The service-level analysis for the Southern Section outlines the potential construction and 

operational effects and associated station locations along these alternatives. 

5.4.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

The data collected revealed 36 NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible or potentially NRHP-eligible unique 

resources within the Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail EIS Study Area. Among these resources are

seven NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic districts and three potentially NRHP-eligible historic 

districts. The historic districts include rural and urban historic districts composed of agricultural 

properties, residential neighborhoods, and irrigation districts. In addition, there are 23 individual 

NRHP-listed or previously determined NRHP-eligible resources within the Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail EIS Study Area. Although potentially NRHP-eligible individual resources were not 

identified at a property level, one potentially NRHP-eligible individual resource and two potentially

NRHP-eligible cemeteries were identified within the EIS Study Area (see Table 5-1).

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be located adjacent to existing rights-of-way in the urban 

areas of San Antonio and Lower Rio Grande Valley area (from Edinburg to McAllen and from 

McAllen to Brownsville). In this case, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have moderate effects

on urban historic resources compared to the No Build Alternative. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

would be designed within existing railroad rights-of-way for a majority of the alignment, and at-grade 

railroad crossings and grade-separated crossings are already in place in the densely populated 

areas. Therefore, effects on historic resources would be avoided. It appears that only one historic 

railroad depot (Map ID #86) is within the existing railroad right-of-way along the alternative.

In suburban and rural areas, the majority of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be developed 

within the right-of-way of the abandoned railroad. Because of the limited number of suburban and 

urban resources, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail could be designed to avoid effects on historic 

resources. Although Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would extend through portions of and also be

adjacent to the 1-million-acre NRHP-listed (and National Historic Landmark) King Ranch, the 

alternative would be within the abandoned Texas and New Orleans Railroad (later Southern Pacific 

Railroad) right-of-way. During construction, King Ranch operations would not be hindered, and 

access to gates would be maintained with the use of phased construction. Because numerous 

complexes on the King Ranch are near U.S. Highway 77 and are several miles from the EIS Study 

Area of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, it would likely have a negligible effect on the King Ranch 

or other rural historic resources.

The expansion of existing stations or new stations would result in moderate effects on the historic 

resources identified in this service-level analysis. Because at least one existing rail station (Map ID 

#86) near Edinburg is NRHP-eligible, expansion and reconstruction of this historically significant 

building could be completed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995). Although increased or additional parking facilities 
TBG100814163221SCO

5.0 Effects on Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 5-14

would be required, siting of the parking facilities during the project-level analysis would avoid 

historic resources.

The potential moderate visual effects of operation of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be the 

same as those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. During operation of the proposed 

rail lines, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail and associated stations would have negligible effects on 

urban, suburban, and rural historic resources. Because Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be 

within existing railroad rights-of-way within the urban areas, the historic resources within the EIS 

Study Area have historically been close to a railroad facility. Additionally, with few historic resources

in rural locations, effects would be negligible during the operational phase. Because the complexes 

associated with the King Ranch are several miles from Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, there 

would be no long-term effects from the operation of a higher-speed railroad facility adjacent to this 

large cattle ranch. The details of operational impacts would be assessed during the project-level 

analysis, and mitigated accordingly.

5.4.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would primarily pass through rural and undeveloped areas. No 

known historic resources were identified within the EIS Study Area for this alternative. Therefore, 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have negligible acquisition effects on historic resources. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have no construction or operational effects on known 

historic resources identified in this service-level analysis (see Table 5-1). Historic resources would

be identified during the project-level analysis; based on the existing topography and landscape, 

such historic resources would likely be agricultural.

5.4.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would follow the same route as Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail; 

therefore, it would have negligible acquisition effects on historic resources. A property survey would 

be conducted during the project-level evaluation to confirm this conclusion.
TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 6-1

6.0 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies for specific historic resources should be 

evaluated at the project level. The project-level review would include a more detailed analysis of 

potentially moderate or substantial effects and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 

to reduce such effects. For actions that would result in moderate or substantial effects on historic 

resources that could not be avoided or minimized, Section 106 of the NHPA would require a more 

detailed evaluation and determination of specific impacts and proposed mitigation strategies. 

Similarly, for uses of historic resources, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act 

requires a more detailed evaluation and determination of specific impacts and proposed mitigation 

strategies. Often these evaluations will result in mitigation agreements among agencies that may 

be executed through a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement.

For this service-level analysis, a wide range of mitigation strategies could be used in cases where 

moderate or substantial effects could not be avoided or minimized. These mitigation strategies 

could include sound barriers, vegetative screening, and landscaping. Documentation of the historic 

property prior to construction could also be a mitigation strategy and may include Historic American 

Building Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation, NRHP 

nominations, historic property management and treatment plans, and educational materials for 

public outreach including brochures, displays, and websites. Sound barriers, vegetative screening, 

and landscaping would be appropriate mitigation strategies during the construction phase. HABS or 

HAER documentation, NRHP nominations, and management and treatment plans would be 

appropriate mitigation strategies before the construction phase. Information gathering would occur

before construction (including necessary documentation of the historic property), and development 

and distribution of education materials would occur throughout the Program. 

In urban and suburban areas where there is a higher density of historic resources, mitigation 

strategies would include sound barriers, vegetative screening, landscaping, or any combination of 

these. HABS or HAER documentation, NRHP nominations, management and treatment plans, and 

public educational materials would also be appropriate in cases where a historic property is directly 

adjacent to the proposed railroad track and the proposed Program would have substantial effects. 

In rural areas, historic resources generally have larger acreages than urban and suburban historic 

resources (with the exception of depots or other structures and buildings that may be directly 

adjacent to the railroad tracks). As such, sound barriers would likely not be applicable. Instead, 

vegetative screening and landscaping may be suitable for these rural historic resources. 

Additionally, HABS or HAER documentation, NRHP nominations, management and treatment plans, 

and public education materials would be appropriate for rural historic resources, particularly in 

cases where effects would be substantial and avoidance or minimization of these effects is not 

possible. 

TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 7-1

7.0 Summary 

The potential intensity of effects on historic resources is shown in Table 7-1. Effects of the 

alternatives cannot be added across the three geographic sections. Each alternative would have

termini within large cities and independent utility, which may overlap with the alternative from the 

adjacent geographic section. Each alternative could be constructed alone or in combination with 

other alternatives. Multiple alternatives could be constructed within each region as well because

each alternative provides separate service-type options for different locations.

Table 7-1: Potential Intensity of Effects on Historic Resources 

Section Alternatives 

Number of NRHP-Listed, 

NRHP-Eligible, or Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible Historic Resources 

Potential Intensity of 

Effectsa 

Northern N4A CONV 35 Moderate

Central

C4A HrSR 45 Substantial

C4A HSR 45 Substantial

C4B HrSR 38 Substantial

C4B HSR 38 Substantial

C4C HrSR 52 Substantial

C4C HSR 52 Substantial

Southern

S4 HrSR 36 Moderate

S6 HrSR 0 Negligible

S6 HSR 0 Negligible

a The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table. However, alternatives may include additional,

less intense effects depending on urban, suburban or rural locations.

All alternatives, except for the No Build Alternative, Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, and 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail, would potentially affect known historic resources. No survey efforts 

other than a literature and aerial mapping review has been completed to provide a complete list of 

historic resources present. Alternative N4A Conventional may best avoid historic resources because

it may remain within existing rail rights-of-way. Therefore, there would be a negligible effect on

historic resources in the Northern Section within existing rail rights-of-way. The Central Section 

alternatives would affect historic resources because of the potential for acquisitions, which would 

likely result in the alteration, removal, or demolition of some historic resources. Noise and vibration 

effects are not likely to result in adverse effects, but the project-level analysis would review these 

impacts. High-speed rail alternatives may result in a greater number of effects than the higherspeed rail alternatives, because of the potential for a larger footprint at stations (existing railway 

stations are historic resources) and potential roadway overpasses or underpasses, which would 

result in more property acquisitions. Neither of the S6 alternatives have known historic resources 

present. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail may have moderate effects in urbanized parts of the EIS 
TBG100814163221SCO

7.0 Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 7-2

Study Area that would be difficult to avoid; however, avoidance efforts may result in negligible 

effects in suburban and rural areas.

Based on the service-level analysis of potential effects on historic resources, the highest intensity of 

effects would occur within the Central Section because of the potential for acquisitions and 

demolition of historic properties. The alternatives in the Central Section would travel through major 

urban areas that have the densest concentration of historic resources, including historic districts. In 

addition, because high-speed rail service would require grade-separated structures and new 

alignments outside existing rights-of-way, high-speed rail service would have the greatest potential 

for permanent effects. 

No historic resources were identified in the EIS Study Area for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail or

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail; therefore, effects on historic resources would be negligible. 

Although historic resources are present in the EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A Conventional and 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, these alternatives would require minimal new rights-of-way and 

would have the potential to use existing facilities; therefore, effects on historic resources along 

these alternatives would be minor, and effects may be easily avoided or mitigated.

.
TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 8-1

8.0 References 

Alcott, E.B. 2010. "Brooks Air Force Base." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qbb05. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014.

Ashton, J. and E.P. Sneed. 2010. "King Ranch." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/apk01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014.

Baird, D.W. and D. Goble. 2008. Oklahoma: A History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 

2008.

Bamburg, M. 2007. “Ardmore.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History. Available at

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/A/AR008.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 19, 2014.

Beaumont, P., R. Brinkmann, D. Ellis, C. Pourteau, and B.V. Webb (Beaumont et al.). n.d. The 

Development of the Interstate Highway System in Texas.

City of Laredo. 2014. “The History of Laredo.” Available at http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/history.html. 

Accessed March 21, 2014.

Conger, R.N. 1964. A Pictorial History of Waco. Texian Press, Waco, TX. 1964.

Conger, R.N. 2010. "Waco, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdw01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 27, 2014.

Crowder, J.L. and S. Hoig. 2008. “Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RR.” Edmond Historical Society & 

Museum. Available at http://www.edmondhistory.org/edmond-history/atchison-topekasanta-fe-rr/. Accessed March 17, 2014.

Cuéllar, C.E. 2010. "Laredo, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdl02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 10, 2014.

DaCamara, 1949. K. Laredo on the Rio Grande. San Antonio: The Naylor Company Press, San 

Antonio, TX. 

DeJarnett, J.R. 2007. “Healdton Field.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/H/HE003.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 19, 2014.

Elliott, K. n.d. “Laredo: Border Boomtown.” Texas Parade. Available at Dolph Briscoe Center, Laredo 

Vertical File.
TBG100814163221SCO

8.0 References

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 8-2

Everett, D.E. 2010. "Trinity University." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/kbt32. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014.

Fehrenbach, T.R. 2010. "San Antonio, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hds02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 2, 2014.

Ficker, M. and M. Barron. 2010. “Reconnaissance Level Historic Resources Survey Report: US 77 

Upgrade Project from IH 37 in Corpus Christi to US 83 in Brownsville.” Texas Department of 

Transportation, Austin, Texas. November 2010. 

Fite, G.C. 2007. “Farming.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/F/FA019.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 12, 2014.

Fugate, T.D. 2007. “Midwest City Douglas Aircraft Company Plant.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma 

History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/M/MI010.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 18, 2014.

Garza, A.A. 2010a. "Hidalgo County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hch14. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014.

Garza, A.A. 2010b. "McAllen, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdm01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 20, 2014.

Garza, A.A. and C. Long. 2010. "Brownsville, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdb04. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014.

Gilbert, M. 2010. "Harlingen, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdh02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 20, 2014.

Google Maps. 2014. “Streetview.” Available at https://maps.google.com/. Accessed April and May 

2014.

GoogleEarth Aerial Imagery. 1950-2014. Available at http://www.google.com/earth/. Accessed 

April and May 2014.

Hager, N.W. 2008. “Edmond Firsts.” Edmond Historical Society & Museum. Available at 

http://www.edmondhistory.org/edmond-history/edmond-firsts/. Accessed March 12, 2014.
TBG100814163221SCO

8.0 References

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 8-3

"Harlingen Air Force Base." 2010. Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qbh01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 20, 2014.

Haygood, T.M. 2010. "Texas Fever." Handbook of Texas Online. 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/awt01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed May 12, 2014.

Hazel, M.V. 1997. Dallas: A History of Big D. Texas State Historical Association, Austin, TX.

Hill, P.E. 1996. Dallas: The Making of a Modern City. Austin: University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Hoig, S. 2007. “Land Run of 1889.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/L/LA014.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 12, 2014.

Humphrey, D.C. 2010. "Austin, TX (Travis County)." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hda03. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 28, 2014.

Humphrey, D.C. and W.W. Crawford, Jr. 2001. Austin: An Illustrated History. American Historical 

Press, Sun Valley, CA.

Kearney, M, editor. 1989. More Studies in Brownsville History. Pan American University at 

Brownsville, Brownsville, TX.

Knight, L. 2009. A Field Guide to Irrigation in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Available at 

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/public/upload/preserve/survey/survey/Irrigation.pdf. Prepared 

for the Texas Department of Transportation. Accessed March 7, 2014.

Levy, D.W. 2007. “University of Oklahoma.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. 

Available at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/U/UN010.html. 

Published by the Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 18, 2014.

Long, C. 2010a. “Belton, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/heb06. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 4, 2014.

Long, C. 2010b. "Bexar County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcb07. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 31, 2014.

Long, C. 2010c. "Corpus Christi, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdc03. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014.
TBG100814163221SCO

8.0 References

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 8-4

Long, C. 2010d. "Nueces County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcn05. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 21, 2014.

Manguso, J. 2010. "Fort Sam Houston." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qbf43. Modified on February 20, 

2014. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014.

Maxwell, L.C. 2010. "Dallas County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcd02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014.

McElhaney, J. and M.V. Hazel. 2010. "Dallas, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdd01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 1, 2014.

Moore, D.W., M. Freeman, and M. Russo (Moore et al.). 2013. Agricultural Theme Study for Central 

Texas. Available at https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/420-03-gui.pdf.

Prepared for Texas Department of Transportation. Accessed April 2, 2014. 

Munz, O.H. 1966. “Corpus Christi.” Texas Industry, October. Available at the UT Dolph Briscoe 

Center for American History, Corpus Christi Vertical File.

National Park Service (NPS). 1995. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties. Available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_8_2.htm. 

Accessed April 2, 2014.

National Park Service (NPS). 2014. National Register of Historic Places: Download Center. Available 

at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html#spatial. Accessed April 2, 2014.

National Park Service (NPS). 2015. National Register of Historic Places: Download Center. Available 

at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html#spatial. Accessed January 6, 

2015.

NETROnline. “Historic Aerials.” Available at http://www.historicaerials.com/. Accessed May 2014.

O’Dell, L. 2007. “Norman.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/N/NO006.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 12, 2014.

Odom, D.E. 2010. "Denton, TX (Denton County)." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hed05. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed May 27, 2014.

Oklahoma Historical Society. 2014. Oklahoma’s National Register Handbook. Available at 

http://www.okhistory.org/shpo/NRHANDBK.htm. Accessed April 2, 2014.
TBG100814163221SCO

8.0 References

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 8-5

Parish, J. 1989. “Webb, Zapata 1-2 in natural gas production.” Laredo Morning Times. Laredo, TX. 

April 30. Available at the UT Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, Laredo Vertical file. 

“Port of Brownsville, Serving Two Nations.” 1955. World Ports. Available at the Dolph Briscoe 

Center for American History, Brownsville Vertical File.

Richardson, Rupert N., Adrian Anderson, Cary D. Wintz, and Ernest Wallace (Richardson et al.). 

2005. Texas: The Lone Star State, Ninth Edition. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey.

Sanders, L. and R.C. Tyler. 1973. How Fort Worth Became the Texasmost City. Amon Carter 

Museum of Western Art, Fort Worth, TX.

Schmelzer, J. 2010. "Fort Worth, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdf01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 4, 2014.

Selcer, R.F. 2004. Fort Worth. Texas State Historical Association, Austin, TX.

Texas A&M University. 2014. Irrigation District Engineering Assistance. Available at 

http://idea.tamu.edu/. Accessed April 15, 2014.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014a. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Route 

Alternatives Analysis. June.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014b. “IH 30 Corridor Study – Study Area Map.” 

Available at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/FTW/mis/ih30/history.htm. Accessed May 21, 2014.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014c. “IH 35W Corridor Timeline.” Available at 

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/fort-worth/i-35w/timeline.html. 

Accessed May 21, 2014.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014d. Highway Designation File, U.S. Highway No. 

81. Available at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0081.htm. Accessed April 3, 

2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014e. Highway Designation File, Interstate Highway 

No. 35. Available at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ih/ih0035.htm. Accessed April 3, 

2014.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014f. Highway Designation File, U.S. Highway No. 

37. Available at https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ih/ih0037.htm. Accessed April 3, 

2014.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014g. “TxDOT Database Survey Properties.” KMZ file 

provided by TxDOT-ENV offices.
TBG100814163221SCO

8.0 References

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 8-6

Texas Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration (TXDOT and FRA). 2016. 

Texas –Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Archaeological Sites Technical Study. July

Texas Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration (TXDOT and FRA). 2014. 

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study.

Texas Historical Commission. 2014. Texas Historic Sites Atlas. Available at 

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/preserve/texas-historic-sites-atlas. Accessed May 21, 2014.

Wade, H.E. 2010. "Peter’s Colony." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/uep02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014.

Weaver, B.D. 2007. “West Edmond Field.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available 

at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/W/WE013.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 17, 2014.

Wilson, L.D. 2007. “Oklahoma City.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OK025.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 13, 2014.

Worcester, D.E. 2010. "Chisholm Trail." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ayc02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014.
TBG100814163221SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study Page 9-1

9.0 Preparers 

Rebecca Wallisch 

M.S., Historic Preservation, University of Texas at Austin; B.A. European Studies and History, Scripps 

College. Four years of experience in historic resources management and environmental analysis.

Alexis Reynolds 

M.S., Historic Preservation, Eastern Michigan University; B.A. American Studies, Skidmore College. 

Eight years of experience in historic resources management and environmental analysis.

Maryellen Russo 

M.A. Public History, Appalachian State University; B.A. History Appalachian State University. 

Fourteen years of experience in historic resources management and environmental analysis. 


This report was written on behalf of the Texas Department of Transportation by

Blanton & Associates, Inc. 

and

www.ch2m.com