THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND TERMS ...................................................................................................................III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................V

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1.1 Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................................. 1-1

1.1.2 Transportation Technology Center ............................................................................... 1-1

1.1.3 Transportation Technology Center, Inc. ....................................................................... 1-3

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED............................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................... 1-6

1.4.1 Summary of Key Federal Compliance Requirements.................................................... 1-6

1.4.2 Other Federal, State, and Local Compliance Requirements: ........................................ 1-6

2.0 CURRENT ACTIVITY CONDUCTED AT TTC ...................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Operational Activities.................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Routine Site Activities.................................................................................................... 2-5

2.1.3 Disturbed Area............................................................................................................. 2-10

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................. 3-12

3.1 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................................... 3-12

3.1.1 Site Development Plan................................................................................................. 3-12

3.1.2 Anticipated Activities................................................................................................... 3-13

3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................................................... 3-15

3.3 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 3-15

3.4 RESOURCES NOT REQUIRING FURTHER STUDY ....................................................................... 3-15

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................ 4-1

4.1 OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS APPROACH........................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 AIR QUALITY......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed Action ................... 4-2

4.2.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments........................................... 4-5

4.3 SURFACE WATER, FLOODPLAINS, AND WETLANDS.................................................................. 4-10

4.3.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed Action ................. 4-10

4.3.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments......................................... 4-14

4.4 GROUNDWATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZARDOUS WASTE ....................................... 4-17

4.4.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................................. 4-18

4.4.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments......................................... 4-19

4.5 SOILS.................................................................................................................................. 4-27

4.5.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed Action ................. 4-27

4.5.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments......................................... 4-29

4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................... 4-30

4.6.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed Action ................. 4-31

4.6.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments......................................... 4-39

4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................... 4-46

4.7.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed Action ................. 4-47

4.7.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments......................................... 4-47

4.8 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................... 4-49

4.8.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed Action ................. 4-49

4.8.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments......................................... 4-50

4.9 NOISE................................................................................................................................. 4-52

4.9.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed Action ................. 4-52
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents ii

4.9.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments......................................... 4-54

4.10 SOCIOECONOMICS ................................................................................................................ 4-56

4.10.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed Action ................. 4-56

4.10.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments......................................... 4-59

4.11 SAFETY,HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.............................................. 4-61

4.11.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed Action ................. 4-61

4.11.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments......................................... 4-64

4.12 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................ 4-65

4.12.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Development........................................................................ 4-65

4.12.2 Cumulative Environmental Effects for Resource Topic .............................................. 4-66

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................................ 5-1

6.0 CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 7-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Previous Environmental Analyses at TTC for NEPA Compliance1 .................. 1-5

Table 2-1 Approximate Disturbed Acreage at TTC1 ........................................................ 2-10

Table 3-1 Resources Potentially Affected s...................................................................... 3-17

Table 4-1 Air Emissions Estimates for Proposed Action .................................................. 4-5

Table 4-2 Emission Estimates for C-4 Detonations ........................................................... 4-7

Table 4-3 Soil Series Mapping Units on the TTC Property.............................................. 4-27

Table 4-4 Vegetation Communities/Land Types at the TTC Property .......................... 4-33

Table 4-5 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species for TTC Property............. 4-36

Table 4-6 Typical Sound Levels......................................................................................... 4-53

Table 4-7 Estimated Annual Economic Contributions and Expenditures at TTC ........ 4-59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Site Location Map............................................................................................... 1-2

Figure 2-1 Site Facilities ...................................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-2 Core Area Buildings ........................................................................................... 2-3

Figure 4-1 Flood Zones and Watersheds within the TTC Project Vicinity..................... 4-12

Figure 4-2 Soils Mapping for the TTC Property............................................................... 4-28

Figure 4-3 Vegetation Mapping for the TTC Property..................................................... 4-32

Figure 4-4 Project Area with Noise Receptors................................................................. 4-55

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A CORE AREA BUILDING

APPENDIX B AIR EMISSION CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX C WILDLIFE RANGE MAPS
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Acronyms and Terms iii

Acronyms and Terms

AAR – Association of American Railroads

ACOE – Army Corps of Engineers

ACHP – Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

APCD – Air Pollution Control Division

APE – Area of Potential Effect

APEN – Air Pollution Emission Notice

AQCC – Air Quality Control Commission

AST – above ground storage tank

BCC – Birds of Conservation Concern

CAA – Clean Air Act

CE – Categorical Exclusion

CBTC – Communications-Based Train Control

CCC – Care, Custody, and Control Agreement

CDPHE – Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

CEM – Crash Energy Management

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CPW – Colorado Parks and Wildlife

CNHP – Colorado Natural Heritage Program

CSB – Center Services Building

CTA – Chicago Transit Authority Rectifier Substation

CTL – Components Test Laboratory

CWA – Clean Water Act

dB – Decibel

dBA – “A-weighting” Decibels

DC – Direct Current

DHS – Department of Homeland Security

DOD – Department of Defense

DOT – Department of Transportation

EA– Environmental Assessment

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

EDOP – Engineering Design and Operations Plan

ESA – Endangered Species Act of 1973

FAST – Facility for Accelerated Service Testing

FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency

FRA – Federal Railroad Administration

FSB – Flammable Storage Building

GOCO – Government Owned Contractor Operated

gpm – gallons per minute

HAP – Hazardous Air Pollutant

HTL – High Tonnage Loop

HWMPH – Hazardous Waste Management Plan Handbook

MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

mph – miles per hour

MSU – Mini Shaker Unit

MW - megawatts

NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NDIS – Natural Diversity Information Source

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NFPA – National Fire Protection Association
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Acronyms and Terms iv

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP – National Register of Historic Places

NSPS – New Source Performance Standards

OPS – Operations Building

OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PCAPP – Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant

PM2.5 – Particulate Matter, less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (fine particles)

PM10 – Particulate Matter, between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter (coarse particles)

PMB – Project Management Building

PSB – Passenger Rail Service Building

PTACV – Prototype Track Air Cushion Vehicle 

PTC – Positive Train Control

PTT – Precision Test Track

RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RDTF – Rail Defect Test Facility

R&D – Research and Development

RDL – Rail Dynamics Lab

RTT – Railroad Test Track

SDWA – Safe Drinking Water Act

SERTC – Security and Emergency Response Training Center

SIP – State Implementation Plan

SMB – Storage Maintenance Building

SMU – Simuloader

SOP – Standard Operating Procedure

SPCC – Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure

TDT – Train Dynamics Track

TLRV – Tracked Levitated Air Cushion Vehicle

TMB – Transit Maintenance Building

TNT – Trinitrotoluene

TSA – Transportation Security Administration

TSCA – Toxic Substances Control Act

TSDF – Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility

TSP – Total Suspended Particulates 

TTC – Transportation Technology Center

TTCI – Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

TTL – Tight Turn Loop

TTT – Transit Test Track

TTX – TTX Company

TWA – Time-Weighted Average

URB – Urban Rail Building

U.S. DOT – U.S. Department of Transportation

U.S. EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. FWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UST – Underground Storage Tank

VOC – Volatile Organic Compound

VTU – Vibration Test Unit

WLF – Warehouse Laboratory Facility

WRM – Wheel-Rail Mechanism
Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Executive Summary v

Executive Summary

This programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects on the human and natural environment resulting from 

the continued and future operation of the Transportation Technology Center (TTC). The 

TTC property is located on a 33,280-acre site located northeast of the City of Pueblo, CO. 

The Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has 

exercised the first of two 50 year renewal options, extending the lease of the site to 

August 22, 2070. The Department has the option to renew the lease of the site with the 

state of Colorado for an additional 50 year period. The buildings and facilities are

owned by FRA and currently operated by Transportation Technology Center, Inc. 

(TTCI). The site includes more than 50 miles of railroad track, 14 buildings, substations, 

communication systems, interior roadways, an electrical power grid, water and 

sanitation systems, solid and hazardous waste management systems, and fuel storage 

areas. 

Since the 1970s, TTC has been the site of transportation research and testing to serve 

the railroad industry. Currently, TTCI conducts tests for all categories of freight and 

passenger rolling stock, vehicle and track components, and safety. In addition, TTCI 

provides services in engineering, rail performance monitoring, computer modeling, 

defect testing, and transportation security, including transportation security activities 

focused on rail infrastructure and equipment against potential terrorist threats. TTCI’s 

staff of engineering and technical experts routinely plan and perform destructive and 

nondestructive tests in support of these services.

TTC is also home to the Security and Emergency Response Training Center (SERTC), a 

business unit of TTCI. SERTC is designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a 

member of its National Domestic Preparedness Consortium specializing in developing 

and providing training related to surface transportation. SERTC is also designated by 

the State of Colorado as the Colorado State Training Center for Domestic Preparedness. 

SERTC provides courses for the transportation industry addressing emergency 

response related to hazardous materials and terrorism. Training is also provided to 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees and emergency responders 

using realistic training scenarios. Training scenarios include use of real and simulated 

fire and explosives, in, on, and around railcars and rail infrastructure.

TTCI would be responsible for implementation of any minimization or best 

management practices identified in this EA.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of TTC is to provide the rail industry and public agencies with a facility to 

conduct the research, testing, and training related to the development and operation of 

a safe railroad system.

TTC's mission is to maintain state-of-the-art research and test capabilities to support 

DOT and other governmental and private entities in problem solving, personnel 

training, product evaluation and the support of research and development of new 

emerging technologies to improve the safety, security, efficiency and environmental 

impact of transportation.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Executive Summary vi

TTC's strategy to fulfill this mission is to provide a unique, secure, and secluded, 

research and test facilities to support and offer partnering opportunities to federal and 

state agencies, the railroad industry and suppliers for transportation research & 

development, test and security training activities.

Private companies and federal, state and local governments need a secure and isolated 

facility to conduct specialized research and testing that supports continued 

technological advancements and improved safety in the rail industry. 

Further development and maintenance at TTC is necessary to enable the facility to meet 

its mission in a safe, efficient, and environmentally sound manner; and to conduct 

business activities including research, testing, and training related to the efficient and 

safe operation of railroads. 

Scope of the EA

The Proposed Action will ensure that continued activities, as well as anticipated 

business at TTC, are conducted in an efficient and environmentally sound manner. This 

EA evaluates following general categories of business activities at TTC: Testing, 

Research, Training, and Infrastructure. In addition to those categories, the Proposed 

Action is also evaluated for the effects of anticipated activities. 

Anticipated activities include a new high-speed track (above 165 mph); more terrain 

props (static 3D props that is constructed as part of the environment/terrain for 

training exercises) to be used by Department of Homeland Security and TSA for motor 

carrier, bus, and rail safety research; blast effects on transportation vehicles; research 

for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 

Department of Defense (weapons research); off-road vehicle tests for the U.S. Army; and 

research related to tunnels and bridges.

The No Action Alternative is defined as maintaining the status quo and is used as a 

comparative baseline. Under this Programmatic EA, status quo is the continuation of 

existing TTC operations. Operations and routine assistance activities at TTC would 

continue at current levels and would not expand or change. Infrastructure would not be 

constructed, upgraded, or improved, eliminating the potential for growth. Not only 

would the No Action Alternative eliminate the potential for growth, but it may also 

cause a decrease in activities at TTC due to the inability of the aging infrastructure to 

support ongoing projects. The No Action Alternative does not include major 

remediation activities, facility upgrades, or decommissioning.

Resource areas considered in this EA for potential effects include: air; surface water, 

floodplains, and wetlands; groundwater and hazardous materials/hazardous waste; 

soil; biological resources including vegetation, wildlife, and threatened, endangered, and 

State species of Special Concern; cultural resources; land use and transportation; noise; 

and socioeconomics. In addition the potential cumulative effect of past, present, 

proposed, and reasonably foreseeable projects at the TTC facility are evaluated with 

respect to these resources.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Executive Summary vii

Description of the Alternatives

This EA analyzes two alternatives: the Proposed Action Alternative and a No Action 

alternative. 

Proposed Action Alternative

The Proposed Action Alternative would consist of the continued development of

program activities, new or expanded operations, and improved facilities and services at 

TTC. The Proposed Action Alternative includes anticipated projects as outlined in the 

TTC Master Plan (TTCI 2012), and discussed below.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative consists of current operations but would not include

continued program development, investment, or implementation of the Master Plan. 

Major cleanup activities, facility upgrades, or decommissioning would not occur under 

the No Action Alternative. Operational and routine site activities at TTC would continue 

at the current level and would not expand or change. The Master Plan would not be 

fully implemented, the infrastructure would not be constructed or upgraded, and new 

anticipated activities would not occur. 

Summary of Potential Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action

Potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action for the individual resource areas 

are summarized below. 

Air

The Proposed Action would be comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards,

Colorado standards, and the Colorado State Implementation Plan and would result in 

negligible, if any, short-term effects on air quality. Any short-term effects would only be 

expected to occur during testing or training activities. Air quality effects resulting from 

testing would generally range from moderate, in the immediate vicinity of the test, to 

minor, in areas extending away from the site to the boundary of TTC. 

Surface Water, Floodplains, and Wetlands

Surface water, floodplains, or wetlands are found at the Black Squirrel Creek drainage 

near the west boundary of the project area and the Haynes Creek drainage located near 

the southern boundary of the project area. 

Existing roads and track that are located within the Haynes Creek floodplain have not 

affected the function of the floodplain. Any new construction would likely avoid the 

designated 100-year floodplains for Black Squirrel Creek and Haynes Creek. However, if 

a new facility were constructed within the boundaries of these floodplains, there would 

likely be negligible, adverse, direct short-term or long-term effects to be determined at 

that time and construction would be implemented to avoid wetlands. However, if a 

new facility might impact existing wetlands, an accurate delineation of potentially 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Executive Summary viii

affected wetlands would be completed and the Section 404 permitting process initiated 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

From a water supply perspective, TTC is expected to have adequate decreed 

groundwater rights and augmentation water arrangements to continue operations at its 

current level, provided TTC complies with the replacement requirements of the 

augmentation plan. 

The augmentation plan is a court-approved plan, which is designed to protect existing 

water rights by replacing water consumed on-site by TTC and to provide replacement 

water to the Arkansas River Basin. Augmentation plans are usually required in areas 

where there is a shortage of water during part or all of the year. However, expansion of 

site activities that necessitate use or consumption of additional water may require 

modification of the site’s water augmentation plan to allow withdrawal of additional 

groundwater from the alluvial aquifer and acquisition of additional replacement water 

from the Arkansas River basin. 

Continued activities at TTC may involve hazardous materials. These materials are 

managed with standard procedures, including proper containment, separation of 

incompatible and reactive chemicals, worker warning and protection systems, handling 

procedures to ensure safe operations, and training. Therefore, no significant effects due 

to hazardous materials are expected.

In the event of a spill or release from the waste pretreatment system or during handling 

of secondary wastes, groundwater could be adversely, yet indirectly, affected. The 

potential effect would be site-specific, but there could be a larger scale effect if 

contamination entered groundwater and migrated. The duration of the potential effect 

would be long-term. The impact would be fairly limited, depending on the facility in 

question and the materials handled. Negligible to minor effects would apply to most 

facilities where (a) groundwater occurrence beneath the facilities is minor and (b) 

ongoing inspections, operations, maintenance, and monitoring of the pretreatment 

system and waste management procedures are performed in accordance with TTCI 

protocols, as outlined in their Waste Water Treatment Operations and Maintenance 

Manual, Waste Water Treatment Room Operations, Hazardous Waste Management Plan 

Handbook, Engineering Design and Operations Plan, and Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure Plan. These best practices and procedures minimize unintended 

releases, but do not always extend to floor drains, sumps, and single-walled buried 

pipelines that service the Rail Dynamics Lab, Center Services Building, and wastewater 

impoundment facilities. Integrity testing is not currently performed on these floor 

drains, sumps, and pipelines.

Best management practices for the floor drains, sumps, and single-walled buried 

pipelines that service the Rail Dynamics Lab, Center Services Building, and wastewater 

impoundment facility will be performed in the future. TTC will develop and implement 

an inspection and integrity testing program for these components to verify they do not 

leak. At a minimum, inspection and testing will be performed annually, with results 

reported to TTCI management and documented in the project files. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Executive Summary ix

Soil and Wetlands

Total disturbance acreages associated with anticipated developments are unknown but 

would be relatively minor in relation to the total extent of soil resources across the TTC 

property. These disturbances would be permanent except for laydown and construction 

sites that would be reclaimed after construction was complete. It is assumed that 

construction of facilities would avoid areas of wetlands and associated soils with 

moderate to high levels of alkalinity and soluble salts. Because of the highly erosive 

nature of soils on the TTC property, recommended stabilization and revegetation 

measures would be implemented on temporary disturbance sites to minimize excessive 

erosion.

Biological Resources

Vegetation

Seven major vegetation communities and one land use type were mapped within the 

TTC property boundaries. They are sand sage/short-grass prairie, short-grass prairie, 

cholla/sand sage/short-grass prairie, cholla/rabbitbrush/sand sage/short-grass prairie, 

greasewood bottomland, wetland, and disturbed/developed. Alkaline meadow and salt 

flat are subtypes within the wetland vegetation type. Disturbed/developed areas cover 

approximately 5 percent of the TTC property, and wetlands cover less than 1 percent of 

the property. Total vegetation cover is highly variable within the project area and 

ranges from near zero in blowout areas along ridges to 25 to 60 percent total cover in 

undisturbed areas with stable vegetation cover.

Relatively minor losses of vegetation would result from construction activities. The 

minor disturbances to vegetation resources associated with the Proposed Action may be 

permanent or temporary. Where disturbances are temporary, revegetation efforts are 

likely to be successful with the recommended soil stabilization measures. 

Wildlife

The project area provides habitat for numerous wildlife species associated with native 

prairie habitats. Two big game species, mule deer and pronghorn, are relatively 

common in the region. There would be minor disturbances to wildlife habitat associated 

with planned developments; some of those disturbances may be permanent. Effects on 

wildlife and wildlife habitat resulting from facility upgrades would be minor, adverse, 

short-term, and long-term. 

Threatened, Endangered, and State Species of Special Concern

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife list of State Threatened, Endangered, and species of 

Special Concern was reviewed for species’ potential presence on the TTC property. No 

species are federally listed as threatened or endangered are known to reside on the site. 

Based on species’ ranges and habitat preferences, it was determined that several statelisted species of Special Concern are potential inhabitants of the property or the 

surrounding areas. The State Special Concern species are black-tailed prairie dog, swift 

fox, ferruginous hawk, mountain plover, massasauga, and leopard frogs. One statethreatened species, the burrowing owl, may also be found on the TTC property. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Executive Summary x

Measures recommended by officials would be employed to preclude any potential 

disturbance of locally listed species, burrowing owl or mountain plover nest sites.

Effects on wildlife associated with habitat loss would be relatively minor, short-term, 

and long-term. Effects related to noise would result in short-term, relatively minor 

adverse effects on wildlife near the test sites, but significant adverse long-term effects 

are unlikely. 

Cultural Resources

Cultural resource inventories indicate that low-density historic and prehistoric 

occupation likely existed at TTC. Today, TTC’s Research and Development (R&D) focus

has resulted in, and will likely continue to result in, the creation of objects and 

properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Although none yet meet the NRHP 50-year age requirement, the machinery and 

research and development infrastructure have already achieved significance for their 

contributions to history and for the distinctive characteristics of the type or method of 

construction. 

FRA is responsible for complying with Section 106 and Section 110 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 for all undertakings at TTC. FRA will ensure 

that future undertakings are reviewed for their potential effect on historic properties 

which include architectural and archeological resources. Specifically, for future 

undertakings that include the potential for ground disturbing activities, FRA would 

consult with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and if needed, any other 

interested parties to identify the Area of Potential Effect (APE), the presence or absence 

of cultural resources, the effects of that particular federal undertaking/action would 

have on those resources, and avoidance or environmental commitments if appropriate.

Land Use and Transportation

No residential developments, businesses, or other populated areas are located in the 

surrounding area. A few rural residences are located near TTC. Surrounding lands are 

expanses of open rangeland that are privately owned, or public lands that are state or 

federally owned. The nearest development is located along the U.S. 50 highway corridor 

approximately 17 miles to the south of the project. The isolated nature and vacant land 

buffer characterizing the TTC property ensures that TTC operations do not conflict with 

neighboring land uses. All access roads to the TTC property are paved and in excellent 

condition and are well maintained throughout the year. 

Effects on land use and transportation are anticipated to be direct, short- to long-term,

and negligible. The Proposed Action is not expected to result in any significant increase 

in demand for local infrastructure such as roads. The Proposed Action would not 

disrupt the transportation systems in the area or highway vehicle traffic to TTC. 

Construction related to anticipated activities would have negligible-to-minor, adverse, 

direct, short-term or long-term effects on transportation and land use. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Executive Summary xi

Noise

Explosive testing or impact testing could have noise-related effects on the outdoor 

environment. However, most noise related to such tests would not have an effect on the 

few neighboring residential properties. Landowners would receive notification prior to

testing involving large amounts of explosives (50 pounds or larger) so that livestock 

could be moved out of the area to eliminate the potential for effects on livestock. TTC 

anticipates performing only a few such tests per year.

The Hearing Conservation Program1 implemented by TTCI mitigates effects related to 

noise in the indoor environment; therefore, personnel working on-site are not expected 

to experience measurable noise effects.

Socioeconomics

TTC currently has approximately 270 permanent employees. Approximately 92 percent 

of the employees at TTC live in Pueblo County, another 8 percent live in El Paso County, 

and an additional 20 to 30 customer employees may be on-site for specific test 

activities. Employees typically commute on a daily basis to and from the facility. TTCI 

has inspectors traveling within the United States to perform facility inspections for rail 

vehicle maintenance certifications, and some engineers work remotely from TTC.

The Proposed Action would continue and expand existing actions at TTC and is also not 

anticipated to disproportionately or adversely affect low-income or minority 

populations as there are no low-income or minority populations adjacent to the Project 

area. Under the Proposed Action, the facility will continue to support local economic 

activity.

Continued permanent and contract employment at TTC from the Proposed Action 

would provide socioeconomic benefits to the local area. Additional employment would 

be generated by customers and employees visiting the site for various activities and 

participants in testing, training, and future activities. However, it is anticipated that 

operations would continue as they have done in past years. New projects are expected 

to bring in additional revenue which would require continuing or increased 

employment at TTC.

Safety, Health, Environmental and Emergency Services

TTC maintains site security 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The entire perimeter of the 

TTC property is fenced. Gates at supplementary access roads are locked and warning 

signs are posted around the entire perimeter of the facility. TTCI currently has a fulltime Fire Chief on 24-hour call to coordinate emergency response efforts. TTC security 

personnel are trained Emergency Medical Technicians and firefighters. TTCI also 

maintains a pool of Fire Brigade Responders to supplement and support the security 

staff, jointly serving as primary responders force s during normal business hours; they

remain on call during afterhours. Security and medical support personnel, equipped 

 

1 The Hearing Conservation Program is an approach developed by TTC to address noise 

issues, generally indoor noise, but can applicable to noise levels in general generated at the 

facility.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Executive Summary xii

with communications equipment, are on standby during all testing. These personnel 

provide emergency medical care to TTC personnel, in addition to emergency treatment 

and response during accidents. 

Standard protocol at TTC is to implement a Range Safety Plan for any unique activities 

at the facility. A Range Safety Plan is developed and followed by on-site employees, 

contractors, and visitors to ensure safety protocol is followed during test activities. TTCI 

firefighters are on standby during applicable test, research, or training events. TTCI 

provides Doss Aviation at the Pueblo Municipal Airport with a 24-hour notice prior to 

significant tests and training to ensure their flight activities are not conducted in close 

proximity to the test areas.

TTC anticipates no major effects on public health or safety as a result of the Proposed 

Action.

Cumulative Environmental Effects 

The Proposed Action is not expected to contribute to any cumulative effects at TTC or in 

the greater Pueblo region. However, the improvements through training and testing 

would have long-term beneficial impacts to safety and the environment.

Summary of Potential Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative is not expected to have significant effects on the natural or 

human environment. Any adverse effects have been minimized and best management 

practices will be implemented as appropriate.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Background 1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

TTC is a railroad research and training facility located northwest of Pueblo, CO (Figure 

1-1). It is owned by FRA and operated by TTCI. Activities that are conducted at TTC 

include research testing, safety training and performance testing of rail equipment 

including crash and accident testing of railroad cars and locomotives.

1.1.1 Federal Railroad Administration

FRA is an operating administration of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and was 

created as part of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Its mission includes 

the promulgation and enforcement of rail safety regulations, administration of railroad 

financial assistance programs, and execution of research and development (R&D)

programs in support of improved rail safety and national rail transportation policy.

1.1.2 Transportation Technology Center

Development of a Transportation Technology Center was authorized by The High Speed 

Ground Transportation Act, Public Law 90-423, 90th Congress, H.R 16024, dated July 24, 

1968, which granted the Secretary of Transportation the authority for test site 

acquisition. The site near Pueblo was selected from an original list of 75 candidate sites 

throughout the United States. 

A substantial portion of the TTC site was developed from the early 1970s through 1981. 

FRA operated the facility, with the strong presence and collaboration of the Urban Mass 

Transportation Administration, through September 1982. The mission of federally 

funded R&D efforts changed with the Reagan Administration, resulting in a Care, 

Custody, and Control (CCC) Agreement issued between FRA and the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR), who took over operation and maintenance of TTC in October 

1982. AAR represents primarily the major freight railroads of North America (Canada, 

Mexico, and the United States). AAR works to improve the efficiency, safety, and service 

of the railroad industry; one way is by maintaining responsibility for the industry’s 

interchange rules and equipment specifications. FRA retains its role as owner of the 

facility and remains a primary customer at TTC by funding railroad research with an 

emphasis on safety.

TTC is located on a remote and secure 33,280-acre site approximately 21 miles 

northeast of the City of Pueblo, CO. The TTC property is located in Range 68 West 

Township 18 and 19 North and encompasses multiple facilities including 14 office, 

storage or combined maintenance buildings, 2 direct current (DC) rectifier substations, 

communication systems, an array of 16 specialized test tracks/facilities with more than 

50 miles of railroad track and yard and storage track that enable isolated testing for all 

categories of freight and passenger rolling stock, vehicle and track components, interior 

roadways, electrical power grid, water and sanitation systems, solid and hazardous 

waste disposal, and fuel storage areas. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Background 1-2

Figure 1-1 Site Location Map
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need 1-3

1.1.3 Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

In 1997, TTCI was formed as a subsidiary of AAR to assume operation of TTC effective 

January 1, 1998. In 2011, FRA and TTCI signed a new contract for the CCC Agreement of 

TTC, extending the period of performance through September 30, 2022. TTCI 

concentrates on conducting transportation research and testing to serve the railroad 

industry. TTC is home to the Security and Emergency Response Training Center 

(SERTC), which is a business unit of TTCI. SERTC is designated by the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) as a member of its National Domestic Preparedness 

Consortium to specialize in developing and providing training related to surface 

transportation. SERTC is also designated by the State of Colorado as the Colorado State 

Training Center for Domestic Preparedness. SERTC provides courses addressing 

emergency response related to hazardous materials and terrorism for the 

transportation industry.

The CCC contract requires TTCI to invest a set amount into maintaining and upgrading 

the facility, subject to approval of the upgrades by FRA. In many instances, TTCI makes 

leasehold investments and capital equipment purchases that then become part of the 

government’s inventory at TTC. The CCC agreement between FRA and TTCI enhances 

the use of the facilities for transportation research, development, security, training, and 

test activities. FRA encourages broad use of TTC facilities by other government agencies 

and the private sector. Over the past 40 years, TTCI has made changes to the facilities as 

a result of program needs, environmental compliance, technical advances, and a 

changing industry.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of TTC is to provide the rail industry and public agencies with a facility to 

conduct the research, testing, and training related to the development and operation of 

a safe railroad system.

TTC's mission is to maintain state-of-the-art research and test capabilities to support 

DOT and other governmental and private entities in problem solving, personnel 

training, product evaluation and the support of research and development of new 

emerging technologies to improve the safety, security, efficiency and environmental 

impact of transportation”.

TTC's strategy to fulfill this mission is to provide a unique, secure, and secluded, 

research and test facilities to support and offer partnering opportunities to federal and 

state agencies, the railroad industry and suppliers for transportation research & 

development, test and security training activities”.

Private companies, federal, state and local governments need a secure and isolated 

facility to conduct specialized research and testing that supports continued 

technological advancements and improved safety in the rail industry. 

Further development and maintenance at TTC is necessary to enable the facility to meet 

its mission in a safe, efficient, and environmentally sound manner. Anticipated business 

activities at TTC includes research, testing, and training related to the efficient and safe 

operation of railroads. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Framework for Analysis 1-4

1.3 Framework for Analysis

This Programmatic EA assesses the Proposed Action to determine the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative environmental effects of continued activities at TTC as well as future 

projects (e.g. those identified in the TTC Master Plan). The Proposed Action includes

future activities similar to those generic and common activities currently occurring at 

various sites at TTC. 

This Programmatic EA evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed 

Action that have similar characteristics to past, present, and anticipated activities at the 

site. This Programmatic EA also sets up a mechanism for analyzing time- and locationspecific aspects of future proposed activities at TTC through Project-level NEPA 

documentation (i.e. tiered EAs or categorical exclusions, as appropriate). Any required 

subsequent environmental documents will be able to rely on the pertinent information 

from the Programmatic EA, without duplicating analysis from a previous assessment. 

Environmental review of future projects at TTC will begin by determining whether the 

proposed project is within the scope of activities and impacts presented here as the 

Proposed Action identified and evaluated within this Programmatic EA, where the 

action is not analyzed in this Programmatic EA further environmental review will be 

required. If the proposed project raises any the following issues, coordination with FRA 

headquarters environmental staff to determine the level of NEPA evaluation or reexamination, is required if the action meets the following criteria:

a. Unique situations presented by specific proposals, such as scientific controversy 

about the environmental effects of the proposal;

b. Uncertain effects or effects involving unique or unknown risks; 

c. Unresolved conflicts concerning alternate uses of available resources within the 

meaning of Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA; or

d. Where it is reasonable to anticipate cumulatively significant effects on the 

environment.

Prior NEPA analysis has been performed for projects occurring at TTC. Two previous 

EAs and multiple categorical exclusions have been completed for actions occurring at

TTC, as shown in Table 1.4-1. This Programmatic EA uses the analysis and data from 

these past NEPA documents. The following table shows environmental analyses that 

have been completed for various projects at TTC. The table will be updated as other 

projects are approved or permitted.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Framework for Analysis 1-5

Table 1-1 Previous Environmental Analyses at TTC for NEPA Compliance1

Environmental Study Subject Analysis Date Completed Agency

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE) Wayside Track 

Installation on the West 

Tangent of the Transit 

Test Track (TTT)

Proposal to build a 

5,000 foot wayside 

track along the outside 

west tangent section of 

the TTT at TTC

January 15, 2013 FRA

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE) for Automated 

Cracked Wheel 

Detector 

Project to evaluate 

cracked wheel 

detection systems on 

site at TTC to improve 

the state of the art of 

automated cracked 

wheel detection by 

bringing forward 

promising 

technologies

December 21, 2012 FRA

Final Explosive and 

Fire Testing At TTC EA

Proposal to establish a 

test bed to perform 

tests on rail cars and 

rail assets at TTC to 

verify and investigate 

rail car explosion and 

fire vulnerability

November 8, 2012 TSA/FRA

Draft Environmental 

AssessmentTransportation 

Technology Center, Inc. 

Solar Generation 

Facility

Proposal to develop 

and implement 

sustainable energy 

solutions for TTC 

facilities

January 20, 2011 FRA

CE for Underground 

Rail Security Testing 

Facility

A tunnel and 

substation test bed for 

testing and training 

associated with 

homeland security and 

related activities

April 20, 2009 FRA

High Speed Ground 

Test Center 

Conservation Plan

Resource Conservation 

Plan to complete 

inventories on climate, 

soils, vegetation, 

wildlife, hydrology, 

geology and minerals, 

archaeology and 

history, and fire 

control to select 

alternative land uses 

and conservation 

treatments

1972 SCS

1All above documents are on file at FRA.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Regulatory Framework 1-6

1.4 Regulatory Framework

The Proposed Action will comply with applicable requirements, including the statutes, 

regulations, and permit requirements listed below. Other federal, state, and local 

requirements may apply to individual activities. This EA has been prepared to comply 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq), the 

Council of Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-

1508) and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts 64 FR 28546, May 

26, 1999.

1.4.1 Summary of Key Federal Compliance Requirements

Key Federal Environmental Compliance laws in addition to NEPA that apply to TCC 

include:

 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 303(c)); 

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108)

 The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7609(a)); 

 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536); Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA) 16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712; and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 668-668c)

1.4.2 Other Federal, State, and Local Compliance Requirements:

Other Environmental regulations which may apply to the Proposed Action include:

 Endangered Species Act, and implementing regulations at 50 CFR Part 17 

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 50 CFR Part 600 

Public Law 91-190, 

 Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC § 1251-1376 Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC § 401 

 Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1344 

 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 16 USC § 460 

 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 

1970, as amended, 42 USC § 61 Executive Order 11988, 

 Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951, signed May 24, 1977 Executive Order 

11990, 

 Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, signed May 24, 1977 Executive Order 

12898, 

 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, signed February 11, 1994 Executive 

Order 13166, 

 Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, 65 

FR 50121, signed August 11, 2000
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Regulatory Framework 1-7

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Regulatory Framework Current Activities 2-1

2.0 Current Activity Conducted at TTC

Figure 1-1 shows the general location of the TTC facilities and land ownership in the 

surrounding area. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the TTC site and all facilities and core area 

buildings. Provided below are descriptions of existing core area buildings, laboratories, 

engineering tracks, other facilities and infrastructure, training programs and services, 

other services, and anticipated activities. Detailed descriptions of these core area 

testing, research, training facilities and infrastructure can be found in the 2012 TTC 

Master Plan (TTCI 2012) attached.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Regulatory Framework Current Activities 2-2

Figure 2-1 Site Facilities
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Regulatory Framework Current Activities 2-3

Figure 2-2 Core Area Buildings
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-1

2.1.1 Operational Activities

This Section 2.1.1 describes the operational activities at TTC, including testing, research, 

training, and other anticipated activities.

2.1.1.1 Testing

Examples of testing at TTC include the following: explosive effects research and testing 

on vehicles, structures, and their components; dynamic vehicle qualifications test of 

new freight and passenger cars and locomotives to assess compliance with federal 

regulations and industry standards; low speed impact tests to assess draft gear and 

coupler systems; low speed derailment tests; vehicle and component fire testing; crash 

tests consisting of train to impact barrier, train to train, and train to road vehicle 

scenarios; vehicle and component fatigue tests; and ride quality tests.

Engineering Tracks

As shown in Figure 3-1, TTC has more than 50 miles of specialized test track and yard 

and storage track. Extensive track facilities for electric and dual mode high-speed 

passenger, transit, commuter, and freight testing are available. Test tracks are used 

daily for track structure and vehicle performance testing, specification compliance, 

track and service worthiness, life-cycle and component reliability, and ride comfort 

evaluation. Testing of vehicles at operating speeds up to 165 miles per hour (mph) is 

possible on TTCI’s Railroad Test Track, and TTCI can accumulate more than 1 million 

gross ton-miles per day on its High Tonnage Loop. See TTC Master Plan Section II, 

Existing Facilities and Utilities, for more detailed information on Engineering Tracks. 

The tracks include:

 High Tonnage Loop (HTL) – 2.7 miles of infrastructure and rolling stock 

capabilities utilizing Heavy Axle Loads.

 Railroad Test Track (RTT) – 13.5 miles of high-speed vehicle testing, max 

speed 165 mph, 12.5-50 kV AC overhead catenary.

 Balloon Loop Track – allows the turning of a group of rail vehicles making 

up a train.

 Transit Test Track (TTT) and Tight Turn Loop (TTL) (Screech Loop) – 9.1 

miles, max speed 80 mph, 1150V DC electrified third rail. A tight-turn or 

“screech loop” that is used to investigate wheel noise, car curving 

performance and suspension system stability is located within the TTT.

 Precision Test Track (PTT) – 6.2 mile track used for vehicle dynamic 

testing, pitch and bounce, twist and roll, yaw and sway.

 Wheel-Rail Mechanism Track (WRM) – 3.5 miles of vehicle and dynamic 

curve testing.

 Facility for Accelerated Service Testing (FAST) – 4.8 mile test loop 

including a fueling station with above-ground fuel tanks, dispensing 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-2

stations for locomotives, and a separate dispensing station for heavy 

equipment.

 Impact Facility Track (north of Impact Wall) and Impact Wall – 0.75 mile 

track that facilitates destructive full scale impact testing. The wall itself is 

capable of taking an impact load of approximately 3,000,000 pounds. The 

track leading to the barrier is approximately 2,500 feet in length. 

Testing Laboratories 

Testing laboratories at TTC include:

 Vibration Test Unit (VTU);

 Simuloader (SMU);

 Mini-Shaker Unit (MSU);

 Rolling Load Test Machines;

 Wheel/Brake Shoe Dynamometer;

 Train Air Brake Research Facility;

 Roller Bearing Test Facility;

 Center Plate Liner Tester; 

 Metallurgical Component Testing Laboratory and

 Rolling Contact Fatigue Simulator (RCFS).

These laboratories are used to evaluate the structural integrity and suspension 

characteristics of rail, wheels, suspension system (including railway trucks or bogies)

and vehicles. See TTC Master Plan Section II, Existing Facilities and Utilities, for more 

detailed information on laboratories. Table 3-1 shows the locations of the laboratories.

Other testing and research facilities at TTC include the following: 

 One Million Pound Squeeze Test Fixture, used to show compliance with 

compressive end load tests for freight and to test crash energy management 

systems for passenger cars;

 Prototype Track Air Cushion Vehicle Guideway (PTACV) designed to 

accommodate the Prototype Track Air Cushion Vehicle at speeds up to 150 mph 

(no longer used for testing, but serves as a sub base for an anticipated test loop); 

and

 TLRV Guideway (used between 1973 and 1976). A spur track has been installed 

on the Guideway slab that extends to the Vehicle Impact Wall.

Additional information about other TTC facilities is available in the Master Plan Section 

II, Existing Facilities and Utilities.

2.1.1.2 Research

Examples of research that occurs at TTC include the following: 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-3

 FAST runs a freight train containing heavily loaded cars all night long for most of 

the year to accumulate mileage on rail, wheels, ties, bearings, car bodies, and 

other components in order to identify any equipment failures;

 Operating electric rail vehicles;

 Vehicle fuel economy studies; and 

 Noise emission studies.

Onboard & Wayside Measurements

Typical vehicle dynamic measurements are made with a computer-equipped 

instrumentation car that accompanies the test car and collects data pertinent to the test. 

On the track, sensors installed in specific test sections take dynamic measurements, 

while wayside computers collect the data. TTCI measurement systems are portable and 

are frequently mounted on customer locomotives, railcars, and transit vehicles.

2.1.1.3 Training 

Training services are provided at TTC for customers. Some programs are provided 

regularly while others are given on demand and customized to meet individual needs. 

See TTCI Capabilities Guide (2008) for more detailed information on training programs. 

Training Courses offered at TTC include but are not limited to the following:

 Vehicle Dynamics

 Derailment Analysis

 Vehicle Characterization

 Passenger Car Dynamics

 Wheel-Rail Theory

 Vehicle Suspension Systems

 Dynamic Behavior of Tracks

 Nondestructive Rail Flaw Analysis

 Tank Car Nondestructive Testing 

 Crude Oil Emergency Response

 Bridges Evaluation for Heavy Axle Loads

 Heavy Axle Loads

 NUCARS® Modeling

 Train Operation and Energy Simulator (TOESTM)/ Simulation of Train Action to 

Reduce Cost of Operations (STARCOTM)

 Train Energy Model (TEMTM) 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Training Services

An important training component at TTC involves the prevention of hazardous 

materials accidents. The training sessions provide key services to improve 

transportation safety for shippers, carriers, and the public in the areas of research, 

development, testing, training, and consulting. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-4

Security Emergency Response Training Center

The SERTC, operated by TTCI, was established in 1985. The original mission of the 

school was to train railroad officials to safely handle incidents involving tank cars 

carrying hazardous materials and crude oil. SERTC now serves not only the 

transportation service industry, but also public emergency responders, the arduous 

materials container makers and repair facilities, the chemical industry, government 

agencies, and emergency response contractors from all over the world. Since its 

inception, SERTC has trained more than 38,000 students worldwide. SERTC offers 

hands-on training based on the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) regulations 29 CFR 1910.120 (q) and the National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) standards 472 requirements through Hazmat Awareness, Operations, 

Technician, Specialist Level Courses and Incident Commander training, as well as 

advanced refresher courses. Intensive training on fire suppression using the Crude by 

Rail incident response training facility has significantly added to the number of students 

trained by the center. SERTC’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Technician Course has 

been recently approved by the U. S. Office for Domestic Preparedness and is part of the 

current curriculum. 

The training center is equipped with more than 20 highway cargo tanks, 60 railcars, a 

locomotive, 4 full-scale simulated derailments, and a full-scale mockup of a chemical 

barge. Audiovisual equipment and a computer resource center, where students are 

taught to use the latest in air dispersion modeling to predict chemical dispersion and 

toxicity, also complement the center. Some routine training activities include use of 

explosives and burning of hydrocarbon fuels (to simulate railcar fires).

2.1.1.4 Other Services 

TTCI provides numerous test tracks and test facilities which, together with the Wireless 

Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) Test Beds it has developed, facilitate 

CBTC systems’ development and testing, including benchmarking existing systems and 

safety/interoperability/compliance testing in a controlled railroad environment 

without interference to or from revenue rail operations. TTCI is not a supplier of CBTC 

systems and can therefore act as an advocate for customers to ensure they implement, 

efficiently and cost-effectively, a system tailored to their needs.

Methods for analysis, prevention, detection, and response to terrorism in the rail sector 

are rapidly evolving. TTCI is responding by offering facilities and training to keep people 

safe and protect the railways.

TTCI is currently involved with organizations that are responsible for the security of the 

transit, intercity rail passenger, and freight rail systems and their providers. Destructive 

and nondestructive tests of new technology are routinely planned and performed. With 

an experienced staff of engineering and technical experts, and a 52-square-mile isolated 

and secure facility, TTCI can design and carry out assessments of new safety, security, 

and emergency response technology, simulating virtually any type of situation for any 

level of protection.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-5

2.1.2 Routine Site Activities

2.1.2.1 Infrastructure Management and Maintenance 

Routine Site Activities at TTC include management and maintenance of existing 

infrastructure such as core area buildings, roadways, electrical power, communication 

systems, water and sanitation systems, hazardous waste management, and fuel storage 

areas. 

See TTC Master Plan Section II, Existing Facilities and Utilities, for more detailed 

information on infrastructure.

Core Area Buildings

Core area buildings are located adjacent to several of the test tracks on the eastern side 

of the site, as shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. The buildings consist of: 

 Building 1 – Operations Building (OPS) is the main office building for TTCI. This 

building houses 120 of the 270 employees at the site.

 Building 2 – Project Management Building (PMB) is currently vacant and 

eventually will be renovated. 

 Building 3 – Rail Dynamic Laboratory (RDL) is used for testing, labs, and some 

offices.

 Building 4 – Center Services Building (CSB) is used for support services and 

offices. 

 Building 5 – Warehouse Laboratory Facility (WLF) and Air Brake Lab. 

 Building 6 – Security Emergency Response Training Center (SERTC) Building 

includes the classrooms and warehouse with equipment for the training 

programs conducted at TTC.

 Building 7 – Transit Maintenance Building (TMB) is used for maintenance of all 

locomotives and transportation-related vehicles.

 Building 8 – Storage Maintenance Building (SMB).

 Building 9 – Urban Rail Building (URB) is used for storage of customer 

locomotives.

 Building 10 – Passenger Rail Service Building (PSB) is used for passenger and 

rail servicing and TSA training.

 Building 11 – Impact Wall.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-6

See Appendix A for more detailed information on age, size, as well as current and 

anticipated uses of the core area buildings. 

Some examples of routine site activities for infrastructure management, construction, 

and maintenance at TTC include the following:

 Construction activities of new facilities (including labs and offices), roads, 

tracks, burying test equipment and cables, grading short sections of roadway for 

access to test areas, upgrading test facilities; 

 Maintenance activities including fueling and operating locomotives, road 

vehicles, repairing railcars and other equipment. For example, construction of a 

new high speed track would require grading, ballasting, laying track, 

construction of catenary and/or third-rail power equipment and maintenance of 

all equipment. Burning fuel for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning, 

pumping ground water, and discharging sewage;

 Handling and temporary storage of hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos, leadbased paint, Freon, and cleaning solvents) in connection with testing and 

maintenance activities;

 On-site solid waste consolidation coupled with off-site transportation and 

disposal; and 

 Maintenance of fire breaks throughout TTC site.

The Project Management Building (PMB – Building 2) is currently vacant and when 

renovated would represent another 3 percent of the energy sustainability requirement. 

Building layout is intended for multi-use purposes, including conferencing, classroom 

training, meetings, and project offices. Refurbishment design will comply with LEED 

Silver/Sustainable Buildings to meet executive orders for federal buildings. Funding for 

this upgrade is being solicited in the FY 2017 budget. Upgrades to the PMB could 

possibly be completed by the end of 2018 if funding becomes available.

Some or all buildings at TTC may be upgraded, updated, or renovated in the anticipated 

(consistent with Executive Orders 13514 and 13423). These modifications would be 

considered routine site activities.

Roadways

The overpass bridge crossing the PTT at the eastern entrance to the core area is part of 

TTC property. The Pueblo County Road and Bridge Department maintains the paved 

access road up to the overpass bridge. TTC maintains all other roads on-site. A network 

of internal roadways leads to each of the test areas and building sites for maintenance, 

operations, and emergency response. Additional pioneer roads have been established in 

the more remote locations to aid in firefighting wildland-type fires. There are 

approximately 6 miles of bituminous paved roadways and 65 miles of gravel surfaced 

roads on-site. Most roads are approximately 20 feet wide.

Track maintenance, creating fire breaks throughout the property, and some road 

building occurs periodically as necessary at TTC.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-7

Electrical Power

Power to TTC is provided through a 115-kilovolt overhead transmission line located 

along the east side of the IL Road (and the TTC property). The line is approximately 12.5 

miles long, coming from the Boone Substation. Power is metered and switched at the 

Main Substation located directly east of the CSB and PTT. Black Hills Energy is the 

regional distributor, with most of the power from this area coming from the Comanche 

Power Plant located in southeast Pueblo, approximately 30 miles from TTC. Maximum 

rated load on the transmission line is 55 megawatts (MW) at 95 percent power factor.

A 115-killovolt overhead line is extended to the DC Rectifier Substations, PTACV 

Substations, RTT Substation, and main core area (RDL/CSB) Substation. 

Substations

Two substation buildings were constructed in 1976 to house the DC Rectifiers and 

associated controls for the TTT loop. The units are DC Substation #1 located on the east 

side of the TTT near Post 85 road crossing and DC Substation #2 near the west side of 

TTT. 

Communications Systems

TTC is presently using a 75-watt, 25 kHz bandwidth, two-way radio system with nine 

VHS radio base stations. To supplement this system, numerous portable five-watt 

transmitter-receivers are used, with some locomotives equipped with 20-watt 

transmitter receivers. CenturyLink supplies telephone service at TTC. An additional 

communications tower is located adjacent to the Chicago Transit Authority Rectifier 

Substation (CTA) inside the TTT Loop. The tower belongs to TTC. Verizon Wireless 

Communications has installed repeater station equipment to the tower for shared use to 

improve coverage in the area. A new fiber line extension from Pueblo was installed in 

2012, along with other on-site fiber line extensions which will eventually replace the 

microwave system.

Water System

TTC has two groundwater wells in the unconsolidated alluvium known as the Black 

Squirrel/Haynes Creek Basin, a part of the Arkansas River Basin. The wells are 

permitted under the Colorado Division of Water Resources, State Engineers Office—

under Permit # 15829-F for the main well and #20730-F-R for the backup well. The 

wells are permitted for 40 acre-feet per year combined, under Case No. 81CW24. The 

maximum pumping rate of the main well is listed at 850 gallons per minute (gpm), and 

the maximum pumping rate on the backup well is listed at 120 gpm. An augmentation 

plan for the wells is maintained through the Arkansas Groundwater Users Association. 

The augmentation plan provides replacement water to the Arkansas River Basin for 

water consumed on-site as a condition of well use.

The main well and chlorination system are housed in the main well pump house. The 

backup well is located in an adjacent pump house. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-8

Sanitation System

Domestic Wastewater 

All major facilities at TTC are served by septic tanks and leaching fields for domestic 

wastewater disposal. Each building or group of buildings is served by a separate system. 

Industrial Wastewater

TTC uses a double-lined surface impoundment system for industrial wastewater 

disposal. The system consists of an oil-water separation system for pretreatment of 

wastewater and a Class I designed surface impoundment with two membrane layers of 

45 mil reinforced (HPDE) polyethylene liners.

The system includes pretreatment equipment to remove and collect suspended and 

floating oils from the wastewater before discharging them into the surface 

impoundment. The pretreatment equipment is housed in a room attached to the CSB 

High Bay. 

Solid Waste

Solid wastes generated at TTC consist of garbage, glass, plastic, paper, metal, wood, 

miscellaneous construction waste, used grease and oil, septic tank solids, etc. Presently, 

all solid wastes are removed from TTC by truck and hauled to appropriate licensed 

receiving facilities off-site. Efforts are in place to recycle as much of the solid waste 

stream as practical by setting up containers and collection areas for sorting and 

accumulation.

Hazardous Waste Management 

TTC has a Hazardous Waste Management Plan in place to operate as a “generator,” 

along with established satellite accumulation areas for waste collection, a main 

accumulation area, and drum storage/accumulation areas. TTC generally operates as a 

“conditionally exempt small quantity generator” under Colorado Law; however, 

activities associated with testing and maintenance may elevate the classification to a 

higher level. The main accumulation area is a single–room, masonry/pre-cast concrete 

construction, 20 ft by 20 ft storage building designed as a Flammable Storage Building 

(FSB) and located inside the SMB security fenced area. The structure meets Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

requirements for hazardous materials/waste storage.

Fuel Storage Areas

Oil storage and handling facilities on-site are identified in the Spill Prevention, Control 

and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan for the site (see TTCI Document Number SI-002-

PP04). The plan identifies the size and location of each tank, product type, construction, 

operational use, and containment and diversionary structure in place to control a 

potential release of product, should it occur. Tanks not listed in this reference document 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-9

include propane tanks, which are not regulated by the Oil Pollution Prevention 

requirements under 40 CFR, Part 112.

Heating oil (diesel) is used in mechanical boilers for hot water circulation systems in 

the, WLF/CTL, and URB buildings. A propane-fired boiler is used in the PMB. Propanefired unit heaters are used at the OPS, CSB, SMB, SERTC, PSB, and FAST Facility 

buildings. TMB uses diesel-fired unit heaters. The RDL and DC Rectifier Substations use 

electric unit heaters for building heat. Natural gas is currently not available to the site.

Two primary diesel storage and dispensing areas located at the FAST Service Facility 

and CSB Service Facility are used for locomotive servicing. Both have large capacity 

above ground tanks to receive fuel in bulk quantities by truck transport. Fuel at both 

stations can be dispensed to locomotives, heavy equipment, and on-site fuel transfer 

trucks for remote fuel dispensing. Building fuel tanks are serviced directly by truck 

transport, or with on-site fuel transfer trucks. Gasoline is dispensed to on-site road 

vehicles at a service station facility located adjacent to the southwest corner of the CSB 

motor pool area.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-10

2.1.3 Disturbed Area

Table 3-2 shows total disturbed acreage by type of use at the TTC site.

Table 2-1 Approximate Disturbed Acreage at TTC1

Use Total Acres Disturbed

Buildings

Operations Building – OPS – 1 0.65

Project Management Building – PMB – 2 0.41

Rail Dynamic Building – RDL – 3 1.41

Center Services Building – CSB – 4 1.32

Warehouse Laboratory Facility – WLF – 5 0.80

Components Test Lab – CTL – 5 0.20

Security Emergency Response Training Center –

SERTC – 6

0.27

Transit Maintenance Building – TMB – 7 0.18

Storage Maintenance Building – SMB – 8 0.83

Urban Rail Building – URB – 9 0.46

Passenger-Rail Service Building – PSB – 10 0.95

Substation 0.20

Total Buildings 7.40

Total Core Area (Yellow circle area on Master Site Plan

Figure 3-1) 697

Tracks

Railroad Test Track – RTT 18.01

Transit Test Track – TTT 13.38

High Tonnage Loop – HTL 4.63

Wheel Rail Mechanism – WRM 5.21

Balloon Loop – BLN 6.23

Train Dynamics Track – TDT 3.46

PTACV Guideway 27.19

Precision Test Track – PTT 13.50

Core Area Tracks 2.86

Total Track 107.53

Roadways

Unnamed 379.69

Black Squirrel Road 12.31

Express Ave 14.90

Farm House Road 8.50

Milky Way Road 3.81

North Farm House Road 3.93

Pool Fire Road 1.92

Windmill Road 3.18

DOT Road 17.47

Power Line Road 10.04

Total Roadway 455.76

Grand Total (Buildings, Track and Roadways) 570.69

Grand Total (including Core Area estimate) 1,260.5

1The TTC site has a total area of approximately 33,492 acres.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Operational and Site Activities 2-11

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Resources Not Requiring Further Study 3-12

3.0 Description of Alternatives

Two alternatives, the Proposed Action Alternative and No Action Alternative, are

evaluated in this Programmatic EA. The Proposed Action in the context of a 

Programmatic NEPA review encompasses anticipated activities. “Near-term” proposed 

projects are proposed projects that would typically be initiated within 5 to 10 years and 

that can be described with sufficient specificity for their potential effects on the 

environment to be evaluated. Near-term proposed projects include facility upgrades, 

modifications, and renovations, as well as new construction projects. Section 3.1 

discusses existing facilities and services, as well as near-term proposed additional 

projects.

In the context of this EA, the Proposed Action Alternative will be compared with a No 

Action Alternative that consists of continued current baseline operations without 

expansion or change. Section 3.2 discusses the No Action Alternative. 

3.1 Proposed Action Alternative

The Proposed Action Alternative is to continue to develop program activities with new 

or expanded operations, and improved facilities and services at TTC. The Proposed 

Action Alternative includes anticipated projects as outlined in the TTC Master Plan 

(TTCI 2012), and discussed below. 

3.1.1 Site Development Plan

Section III, Site Development Plan, of the TTC Facilities Master Plan includes the 

following anticipated plans for the site. These proposed modifications or additions to 

the existing infrastructure should be viewed as conceptual, from which alternative 

conceptual studies and plans would be developed if the concepts are to advance to an 

implementation stage. More detail on the proposed improvements can be found in the 

TTC Facilities Master Plan (TTCI 2012).

 Anticipated Building Construction:

o Anticipated Main Guard Station

o Operations Building Extension

o Passenger Rail Services Building (PSB)

o Education Training Campus

o Emergency Services Building

o Customer/Project Storage Areas

o Heavy Equipment Maintenance Building

 Anticipated Tracks Facilities Improvements

o Ultra High Speed Stability Test Loop

o High Speed Stability Test Loop

o Yard Tracks/Extensions

o PTACV Guideway Modifications

o Facility for Underground Rail Security Testing

o Intermodal Training Facility
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Resources Not Requiring Further Study 3-13

o Passenger Station Platform

o Rail and Equipment Static Displays

o SERTC Highway and Rail Training Station Improvements

o Classroom Training facility

o RTT Broken Rail Detection System Signals

 Anticipated Utilities Improvements

o Power Systems

o Water System

o Wastewater Handling System

o Communications System

o Natural Gas

 Anticipated Environmental Improvements

o PMB Asbestos Remediation

o ATTC Environmental Audit

o Blast Test Training Area

 Anticipated Roads and Grounds Improvements

o TTT/RTT Underpass

o Pavement Extensions/Parking

o North Access Road

3.1.2 Anticipated Activities

TTCI conducts isolated tests for all categories of freight and passenger rolling stock, 

vehicle and track components, and safety. In addition, TTCI provides services in 

engineering, rail performance monitoring, computer modeling, defect testing, and 

transportation security, including transportation security activities focused on 

hardening rail infrastructure and equipment against potential terrorist threats. In 

support of that goal, destructive and nondestructive tests are routinely planned and 

performed by TTCI’s staff of engineering and technical experts. TSA and TTCI also 

provide training to TSA employees and emergency responders, respectively, using

realistic training scenarios. Both destructive testing and training scenarios include use 

of real and simulated fire and explosives, in, on, and around railcars and rail 

infrastructure.

Anticipated activities at TTC include implementation of parts of Section III, Site 

Development Plan, in the TTC Master Plan. Other activities also may include additional 

types of testing and research for various national and international governmental 

agencies. Anticipated activities as currently known are summarized below. 

These projects have been proposed in the Master Plan for program development. These 

projects include:

 Facility for Underground Rail Security Testing – would develop a tunnel and 

substation test bed for testing and training associated with homeland security 

and related activities.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Resources Not Requiring Further Study 3-14

 Passenger Railcar Security and Integrity Training Facility Plan – to receive a 

variety of passenger cars at TTC to initiate activity in this area. 

 Ultra-High Speed Test Loop – the concept was in the original Facilities Master 

Plan and was reviewed as a potential consideration with the RTT Restoration 

Project which retrofitted the RTT with a switch point indication/broken rail 

detection system in 1997. Although no current activity is in place, the concept is 

presented for future consideration. Two options for the high speed test loop 

include: (1) a track that could accommodate 165 mph, or (2) a track that could 

accommodate 187 to 200 mph on tangent. Currently, no funding is available for 

this expansion project. A cost estimate for a 6-mile expansion of the RTT line for 

high speed testing is $25 million (Catenary alone is $3 million.) (Maal 2013).

It is difficult to predict projects that may occur in the future that are not included in the 

TTC Master Plan. However, possible projects may include the following: burning tests; 

heating large pressure container until burnt; aeronautical projects; development of 

additional terrain props for DHS and TSA for motor carrier, buses, and rail safety 

research; blast effects on transportation vehicles; research for FBI and CIA; Department 

of Defense (DOD) weapons research; off road vehicle tests for the U.S. Army; and 

perhaps research related to tunnels and bridges for the science and technology division 

of TSA.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Resources Not Requiring Further Study 3-15

3.2 No Action Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) requires

discussion of the environmental effects of the No Action Alternative, which would serve 

as a benchmark for comparison with the action alternative. In the context of this 

programmatic EA, the No Action Alternative consists of current operations only without 

continued program development and investment or implementation of the Master Plan. 

Major cleanup activities, facility upgrades, or decommissioning would not occur with 

the No Action Alternative. Operational and routine site activities at TTC would continue 

at the current level and would not expand or change. The Master Plan would not be 

fully implemented, the infrastructure would not be constructed or upgraded, and new 

anticipated activities would not occur. 

The No-Action Alternative would include the current on-going activities that exist today 

and that are described in Section 2 of this EA. FRA considers these activities as part of 

the baseline so the impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative can be compared against 

a consistent baseline.

3.3 Potential Effects on Resources

FRA determined the resources for analysis in this EA based on the likelihood that the 

resource would be affected by the Proposed Action. The resources analyzed in the EA 

include air quality, surface water, floodplains, wetlands, ground water, hazardous 

materials, hazardous waste, soils, biological resources (wildlife, vegetation, threatened 

and endangered species), cultural resources, land use, transportation, noise, 

socioeconomics, safety, health, environmental and emergency services. Table 3-4 

presents a summary of services provided by the Proposed Action and No Action 

alternatives, along with environmental, land, or socioeconomic resources that could 

potentially be affected by those services. Activities are categorized as operational 

activities (testing, research, training, and anticipated activities) and routine site 

activities (infrastructure management and maintenance, including facility and land 

management as well as construction projects).

As shown in Table 3-4 the potential for environmental, land, or socioeconomic effects

from operational and routine site activities has been organized into five categories. The 

potential impacts to resources resulting from the Proposed Action are provided for both 

the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives in Section 4.0 of this Programmatic EA.

3.4 Resources Not Requiring Further Study

In an effort to execute a concise analysis of the alternatives, some resource areas were 

eliminated from further detailed analysis under the Programmatic EA. The following 

section discusses resource areas eliminated from a more detailed analysis along with 

supporting justification. 

Environmental Justice – Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to address 

environmental and human health considerations in low-income and minority 

communities and avoid disproportionate adverse impacts on low-income and minority 

populations. Because of the remote location of the TTC property, the Proposed Action 

and No Action alternatives are not expected to result in major effects on the local 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Resources Not Requiring Further Study 3-16

community including both minority and low income populations. Therefore, it is 

reasonable to conclude that there will be no disproportionate effect low-income or 

minority populations.

Recreation – TTC is not accessible to the public; therefore, no recreational activities 

occur on the site or in the project vicinity. Adjacent land to TTC is used for grazing and 

no developed or undeveloped recreational areas are within proximity of TTC.

Prime Farmland – The TTC facility has been in operation since the 1970s and does not 

contain any property designated as prime farmland. Therefore, potential impacts of the 

Proposed Action to prime farmland within TTC’s boundaries will not be explored.\

Section 4(f) – There are no properties meeting the Section 4(f) definition within the TTC 

facility or affected nearby. Adjacent lands to TTC are not 4(f) properties. Thus, there 

are no impacts to 4(f) properties analyzed in this EA.

Visual Resources – TTC is an isolated, inaccessible site located miles from any sensitive 

receptors. The closest rural residents are between 4 and 9 miles from the proposed test 

sites. The nearest development is the Pueblo Chemical Depot which does not conduct 

any activities that are sensitive to visual impacts. In addition, activities at TTC typically 

do not affect off-site visual resources. 
3.0 Description of Alternatives

Resources Not Requiring Further Study 3-17

Table 3-1 Resources Potentially Affected by Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives

Activity Type Description Potential for 

Resource 

Area to be 

Affected

Resource Areas Potentially 

Affected

 Operational Activities

 Testing Product evaluation, new car performance, locomotive 

performance, track components, train operations Yes

Air, Surface Water, Ground Water, 

Vegetation, Wildlife, Land Use, 

Noise, Public Safety, 

Socioeconomics 

 Research Cooperative research in improved suspension systems, 

top-of-rail lubrication, improved wheel and rail profiles, 

performance-based track geometry systems, center plate 

lubrication, effects of heavy axle loads, track-integrity 

monitoring systems, and improved ride quality.

Yes

Air, Surface Water, Ground Water, 

Vegetation, Wildlife, Land Use, 

Noise, Public Safety, 

Socioeconomics

 Training Security and emergency response; derailment 

prevention/mechanisms; vehicle dynamics; special 

operations; nondestructive testing. TSA training for 

dismantling and removal of bombs, training for operation 

of new technology.

Yes

Air, Surface Water, Ground Water, 

Vegetation, Wildlife, Land Use, 

Noise, Public Safety, 

Socioeconomics

Activities at TTC (Only 

applicable to Proposed 

Action Alternative) 

High speed track (above 165 mph), burning tests, heating 

large pressure container until burnt, aeronautical types of 

projects, more terrain props to be utilized by DHS and TSA 

for motor carrier, bus and rail safety research, blast effects 

on transportation vehicles, research for FBI and CIA, DOD 

–weapons research, off road vehicle tests for the U.S. Army

and likely possibility of research related to terrain props, 

tunnels and bridges for science and technology division of 

TSA and other governmental entities.

Yes

Air, Surface Water, Ground Water, 

Vegetation, Wildlife, Land Use, 

Noise, Public Safety, 

Socioeconomics

 Routine Site Activities

 Infrastructure Buildings, water supply, domestic wastewater treatment, 

fire protection, and tracks, roads, power transmission, and 

drainage features that support ongoing operations at TTC.

Yes

Air, Surface Water, Ground Water, 

Vegetation, Wildlife, Public Safety,

Source: TTCI (2008) Capabilities Guide

*not all resources are affected by site activities in an effort to execute a concise analysis of the alternatives, some resource areas were eliminated from 

further detailed analysis under the Programmatic EA. The following section discusses resource areas eliminated from a more detailed analysis along with 

supporting justification.
3.0 Description of Alternatives

Resources Not Requiring Further Study 3-18

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Overview of Analysis Approach: 4-1

4.0 Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

4.1 Overview of Analysis Approach

This Programmatic EA evaluates relevant resources with the potential for effects

considering type, context, duration, and intensity. 

As discussed in Section 3.3, the potential for environmental, land, or socioeconomic 

effects is organized by:

 Operational Activities (testing, research, training, and anticipated

activities) and 

 Routine Site Activities (infrastructure including construction, 

maintenance, and land management). 

Potential effects identified in this Programmatic EA are described in terms of type, 

context, duration, and intensity to determine level of effect. General definitions of these 

terms are below.

 Type describes the effect as beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect.

o Beneficial: A positive change in the condition or appearance of the 

resource or a change that moves the resource toward a desired 

condition.

o Adverse: A change that moves the resource away from a desired 

condition or detracts from its appearance or condition.

o Direct: An effect on a resource by an action at the same place and time. 

For example, soil compaction from construction traffic affects soils 

directly.

o Indirect: An effect from an action that occurs later or perhaps at a 

different place and often to a different resource, but is still reasonably 

foreseeable. For example, removing vegetation may increase soil erosion 

and cause increased sediment in a stream.

o Cumulative: Effects on resources that are added to existing effects from 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. For 

example, surface water sediment runoff from the project, added to the 

sediment load from other unrelated projects in the area, may produce an 

additional decrease in surface water quality.

 Context describes the area (site-specific) or location (local or regional) in which 

the effect will occur.

 Duration is the length of time an effect will occur.

o Short-term effects generally occur during construction or for a limited 

time thereafter (generally less than 2 years), by the end of which the 

resources recover their pre-construction conditions. For example, 

increased traffic during construction activities would be short-term 

since traffic would return to normal levels once construction was

completed.

o Long-term effects last beyond the construction period, and the resources 

may not regain their pre-construction conditions for a longer period of 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Air Quality: 4-2

time. For example, visual effects from a new facility being built would be 

long-term since they continue as long as the project is in place.

 The intensity of an effect is based on how the Proposed Action would affect each 

resource. This EA uses terms to describe the intensity to determine if any affect 

would be considered “significant” under NEPA to require further analysis.

4.2 Air Quality

4.2.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed 

Action

TTC is a 52-square mile, secure and remote site operates with a vast array of specialized 

laboratories and track. TTC enables isolated testing for all categories of freight and 

passenger rolling stock, vehicle and track components, and safety devices. With an 

elevation of 4,662 feet above sea level, TTC is located in the high plains desert 

surrounding Pueblo, CO at about 4,300 feet above sea level.

4.2.1.1 Climate

Information on climate is provided primarily as background information pertinent to 

the air quality analysis. Specifically, climatic (atmospheric) conditions are what 

determine the dispersion and transport of pollutants. Certain climatic conditions are not 

only responsible for the dispersion and transport of pollutants, but can also be 

responsible for the generation of pollutants, specifically fugitive dust (particulate 

matter). Periods with dry and windy conditions may result in the generation of fugitive 

dust from disturbed areas, such as unpaved roads, where soil is exposed.

The project is located in what the Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) classifies as the South

Central Region (CDPHE-AQCC 2013). From a climatological standpoint, the project area 

is considered semi-arid, with the potential for wind-blown dust being high, similar to 

the rest of the intermountain west. 

Available wind data from Pueblo, CO, indicate that annual average wind speeds in the 

project area are approximately 8 mph. The predominant winds are either from the east 

or the west, occurring just less than 11 percent and just more than 9 percent of the time,

respectively. Calm conditions occur almost 17 percent of the time. Wind speeds fall 

between 4 and 13 mph approximately 58 percent of the time (WRCC 2012).

As expected in a semi-arid area, annual average precipitation totals for the project area 

are low at approximately 12 inches (WRCC 2012). April through August is the wettest 

period, with August being the wettest month.

The project area experiences fairly large diurnal variations in temperature due to the 

relatively high elevation and dry conditions. For example, diurnal temperature 

variations in excess of 30 degrees Fahrenheit occur in both February and July (WRCC 

2012). January is the coldest month of the year with daytime temperatures ranging 

from the mid-teens in the morning to highs in the mid-40s during the afternoon. 

Average July temperatures range from around 60 degrees in the morning to the low 90s 

in the afternoon.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Air Quality: 4-3

From an air quality standpoint, the above climatic conditions indicate that the potential 

exists for stable atmospheric conditions. This means that if air pollutants are released 

into the air during periods of stable conditions, the pollutants will not disperse as well, 

resulting in higher pollutant concentrations.

4.2.1.2 Air

Applicable Laws and Regulations

The Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.) is implemented at the federal, state, 

and local government levels. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the 

federal agency primarily responsible for implementing the CAA, and in Colorado the 

CDPHE-APCD is the state agency responsible for its administration. To comply with the 

requirements of the CAA, Colorado established Air Quality Control Regulations and 

developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The air quality regulations set forth 

permitting, monitoring, and reporting requirements, among other tasks, to meet the 

requirements of the CAA. In addition, the SIP outlines the steps and timelines that 

Colorado will follow to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements of the CAA.

Part of USEPA’s role is to develop and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Although the project area is climatologically predisposed to dustiness, the 

entire project area is located within an “attainment” area (in compliance with the 

NAAQS) for all criteria pollutants (CDPHE-AQCC 2013). This includes standards for 

carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead 

(Pb), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Colorado also defines criteria pollutants 

to include oxides of nitrogen (NOx), fluorides, sulfur acid mist, hydrogen sulfide, total 

reduced sulfur, reduced sulfur compounds, and municipal waste combustor organics, 

metals, and acid gases.

The Colorado Air Quality Regulations (CDPHE-AQCC 2012), Regulation No. 3, Air 

Pollution Emission Notices Permits, establishes different permitting requirements 

based on the following actual uncontrolled emissions of any criteria pollutant in an 

attainment area.

 No permit is required if emissions are less than 2 tons per year.

 An Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) must be obtained if emissions are 

greater than 2 tons per year but less than 5 tons per year.

 An APEN and a Construction Permit are required if emissions are greater than 5 

tons per year for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and PM10 and PM2.5; 

greater than 10 tons per year for total suspended particulates (TSP), CO, SO2, 

and NOx; greater than 200 pounds per year for Pb; and greater than 2 tons per 

year for the remaining Colorado criteria pollutants.

Prior to initiating anticipated activities, TTCI would be required to prepare a detailed 

emissions inventory to determine what level of permitting, if any, would be required. 

The facility currently has no active air quality permits (CDPHE-APCD, 2012). However, 

TTC does have existing APENs for the Center Services Building Boiler (12PB062), the 

CTL/WLF Boiler (07PB0518), and Operations Building Boiler (91PB231 (2)). These 

APENs were last issued in 2009 and are scheduled for renewal in 2014. Assuming 

sources and operations are unchanged; APENs are typically renewed every 5 years. The 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Air Quality: 4-4

Operations Building diesel-fired boiler was replaced in 2012 with a propane-fired boiler 

and will therefore be exempt from APEN requirements.

Air Pollutants of Potential Concern

The air pollutants of potential concern include criteria pollutants, listed above, and 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). In general terms, activities involving internal 

combustion, such as operation of the locomotives, vehicles, boilers, and generators, as 

well as construction activities, windblown dust, and volatilization of fuels from storage 

and refueling operations, will be the primary sources of criteria pollutant emissions. 

Emission estimates for the proposed alternative for the following sources are provided 

in Table 4-1 (ALTUS, 2013). 

 Above Ground Storage Tanks

 Underground Storage Tanks

 Boilers and Furnaces

 Material Handling

 Cooling Towers

 Dynamometer

 Fuel Dispensing

 Internal Combustion Engines

 Oil Water Separator

 Evaporation Pond

 Locomotive Idling

 Fire Training

 Machine Part Washing
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Air Quality: 4-5

Table 4-1 Air Emissions Estimates for Proposed Action

Criteria Pollutants

(tons per year)

PM10 2.2

SO2 2.3

NOx 1.2

CO 0.6

VOCs 12.5

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)

(pounds per year)

ethylbenzene 0.9

toluene 8.5

chlorobenzene 0.1

formaldehyde 2.1

hexane 7.5

isomers of xylene 2.9

benzene 0.3

1,1,2-trichloroethane 0.1

1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.01

napthalene 0.1

o-xylene 1.2

cumene 0.04

isomers of hexane 15.8

Appendix B provides air emissions calculations.

4.2.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments

4.2.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would:

 Be in compliance with the NAAQS, Colorado standards, and the Colorado SIP; 

and

 Result in negligible, if any, short-term off-site increases in air quality levels. Any 

short-term increases would only be expected to occur during testing or training 

activities.

This Section discusses the potential effects of operational activities (testing, research, 

training, anticipated activities, including construction of new facilities) and routine site 

activities (infrastructure management and maintenance) on air quality. For the 

purposes of these discussions, potential effects on air quality are discussed in terms of 

emissions of air pollutants that may result from the activity being discussed. Air 

emissions that may result from these activities contribute to the overall estimates 

presented in Table 4-1, as more specifically discussed below.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Air Quality: 4-6

Operational Activities

Testing

The primary contributors to air emissions during testing activities would likely be 

related to explosives, fire, high temperature burning, and blast effects on transportation 

vehicles. Because of the nature of the sources associated with these activities is 

intermittent and diverse in nature, it is not particularly feasible to quantify the amount 

of pollutants to be released on an annual basis. Rather, a case-by-case basis would be 

more appropriate to measure potential releases per event.

For explosive testing, the primary emissions resulting from the detonation of explosive 

charges, presumed to be C-4, consist of the pollutants resulting from the detonation of 

the explosive charge itself, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), and the particulate matter 

that is generated from the disturbance as a result of the explosive charge. Lesser 

amounts of other contaminants may also be released. Table 4-2 provides a summary of 

the quantity of pollutants estimated to be released on a per charge basis. A more 

detailed discussion can be reviewed in the Final Explosive and Fire Testing at TTC EA 

(TSA/FRA, 2012).

Emissions generated by fire or high temperature burn testing would result from the 

pyrolysis or combustion of the polymeric materials that make up the components of the 

rail cars; those components include seat coverings, seat cushions, carpeting, side panels, 

ceiling panels, and overhead racks. Because the generation of the gases (pollutants) is 

dependent on the temperature and degree of combustion, it is not possible to quantify 

the amount and rate of pollutant production from the fire testing. Additionally, the 

production of pollutants varies by pollutant based on fire conditions and may be greater 

or less under flaming conditions versus smoldering conditions (Rakaczky 1980). The 

following is a list of the major constituents likely to be present during the burning of a 

passenger rail car, hazardous materials including but not limited to crude oil. 

 Acetone

 Actaldehyde

 Ammonia

 Aromatic Amines

 Carbon Dioxide

 Carbon Monoxide

 Cyanogen

 Formaldehyde

 Halogen

 Hydrocarbons

 Hydrogen Bromide

 Hydrogen Chloride

 Hydrogen Cyanide

 Hydrogen Fluoride

 Hydrogen Sulfide

 Isocyanate

 Nitriles

 O-Cresol
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Air Quality: 4-7

 P-Alkylphenol

 Phenol

 Propionaldehyde

 Sulfur Dioxide

 Toluene Diisocyanate

Table 4-2 Emission Estimates for C-4 Detonations

Pollutant

Emission 

Factor 

(lb/lb 

C-4)

500 Pound 

TNT 

Equivalent 

Detonation 

(lb of 

pollutant)

50 Pound 

TNT 

Equivalent 

Detonation 

(lb of 

pollutant)

2 Pound 

TNT 

Equivalent 

Detonation 

(lb of 

pollutant)

1 Pound 

TNT 

Equivalent 

Detonation 

(lb of 

pollutant)

Aluminuma 0.00017 0.0664071 0.0066402 0.0002652 0.0001326

Carbon 

Dioxide (CO2)

b

0.63 246.0969 24.6078 0.9828 0.4914

Carbon 

Monoxide 

(CO)b

0.021 8.20323 0.82026 0.03276 0.01638

Ethylenea 0.00011 0.0429693 0.0042966 0.0001716 0.0000858

Formaldehydea 0.00011 0.0429693 0.0042966 0.0001716 0.0000858

Hydrogen 

Cyanide 

(HCN)a

0.00042 0.1640646 0.0164052 0.0006552 0.0003276

Lead (Pb)a 0.00014 0.0546882 0.0054684 0.0002184 0.0001092

Methane 

(CH4)

b

0.0013 0.507819 0.050778 0.002028 0.001014

Nitric Acida 0.00099 0.3867237 0.0386694 0.0015444 0.0007722

Oxides of 

Nitrogen 

(NOx)

b

0.0063 2.460969 0.246078 0.009828 0.004914

Particulate 

Matter (PM)10b

0.021 8.20323 0.82026 0.03276 0.01638

PM2.5b 0.015 5.85945 0.5859 0.0234 0.0117

Total 

Suspended 

Particles 

(TSP)

b

0.026 10.15638 1.01556 0.04056 0.02028

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2)

b

0.00012 0.0468756 0.0046872 0.0001872 0.0000936

aAP-42 Table 15.9.1-2 (USEPA 2011)

bAP-42 Table 15.9.1-1 (USEPA 2011)
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Air Quality: 4-8

A more detailed discussion can be reviewed in the Final Explosive and Fire Testing at

TTC EA (TSA/FRA, 2012).

Effects from testing will be adverse and direct. However, due to the very nature of the 

testing, those effects will typically be limited to the project site (site-specific), although 

the potential does exist for local effects beyond the property boundaries. For any given 

testing scenario, the magnitude and extent of any local effects will be dependent upon 

the prevailing wind direction and atmospheric conditions at the time of testing. Because 

of the relatively short duration of the emissions generating portion of the tests, any 

effects would be considered short-term. In addition, these type of tests are generally a 

“per-event” test and are not regular or re-occurring. . Air quality effects resulting from 

testing would generally range from moderate, in the immediate vicinity of the test, to 

minor, as pollutants disperse as they travel from the test site. It is important to note that 

from an air quality standpoint (e.g., the CAA), any emissions from testing activities will 

occur within the TTC boundaries and will not be in areas where the general public can 

access. 

Research

Air emissions associated with research activities will predominantly result from the 

following source categories and will consist of both criteria pollutants and HAPs.

 Dynamometer

 Fuel Dispensing

 Internal Combustion Engines

 Locomotive Idling

See Table 4-1 and Appendix B for category specific estimates.

Air quality effects resulting from research activities will be adverse, direct, site specific,

and short-term. They range from minor to negligible, decreasing with distance from the 

source of the emissions.

Training

Air emissions associated with training activities will primarily result from emergency 

training activities and the burning of crude oil or diesel fuel for practice in extinguishing 

fires and will consist of both criteria pollutants and HAPs emissions. There will also be 

emissions associated with internal combustion engines for fire fighting vehicles and 

support equipment. See Table 4-1 and Appendix A for category specific estimates.

Effects from training will be adverse and direct. They will be site-specific, although as 

with testing, the potential does exist for local effects beyond the property boundaries. 

Effects will be short-term . Air quality effects resulting from training would generally 

range from moderate, in the immediate vicinity of the training, to minor, as pollutants

disperse as they travel from the training site toward the property line and beyond.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Air Quality: 4-9

Anticipated Activities

Potential effects of anticipated activities include the release of additional emissions of 

criteria and HAPs from the source categories discussed for the proposed alternative, 

with the potential inclusion of construction activities. If future projects do not fall 

within this environmental assessment it would have to be evaluated to determine the 

need to for air quality permits prior to construction.

Effects resulting from anticipated activities will be direct, adverse, and primarily site 

specific with the potential for some local effects, as discussed above. The effects will be 

both long-term, resulting from the more continuous nature of emissions associated with 

the facility’s infrastructure, and short-term, with increases in effects primarily resulting 

from testing and training activities. Effects will range from minor to negligible, 

decreasing with distance from the source(s) of emissions.

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

Air emissions associated with operation and maintenance of the infrastructure will 

primarily result from the following source categories and will consist of both criteria 

pollutants and HAPs.

 Above Ground Storage Tanks

 Underground Storage Tanks

 Boilers and Furnaces

 Material Handling

 Cooling Towers

 Fuel Dispensing

 Internal Combustion Engines

 Oil-Water Separator

 Evaporation Pond

 Parts Washing

 Maintenance of paved and gravel roads

See Table 4-1 and Appendix A for category specific estimates.

Effects resulting from infrastructure management and maintenance will be adverse and 

direct. They will alternate between site specific and local, predominately because the 

emissions associated with the infrastructure is more continuous, long-term, than the 

other activities. However, the fact that APENs are only required for the Center Services 

Building Boiler, the CTL/WLF Boiler, and the Operations Building Boiler is an indication 

of how relatively minor the infrastructure, and indeed the entire facility, is from an air 

quality standpoint. Effects will range from minor to negligible with distance from the 

point where emissions are released. There will be no cumulative effects.

4.2.2.2 Effects of the No Action Alternative

Potential effects on air quality from the No Action Alternative would be identical to 

those of the Proposed Action, without anticipated activities.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Surface Water, Floodplains, and Wetlands: 4-10

4.2.2.3 Best Management Practices

Best management practices may include one or more of the following:

 Minimizing disturbed areas;

 Minimizing the number and speeds of vehicles;

 Minimizing locomotive idling times;

 Ensuring that all vehicles and equipment are in proper operating condition;

 Implementing an effective fire suppression procedure;

 Conducting explosive, fire, and burn testing on days that have favorable climatic 

conditions to minimize the amount of fugitive dust generated;

 Conducting explosive, fire, and burn testing and emergency fire training on days 

that have favorable climatic conditions to maximize dispersion of pollutants; 

and

 Conducting explosive, fire, and burn testing and emergency fire training on days 

with prevailing winds blowing away from populated areas.

4.3 Surface Water, Floodplains, and Wetlands

Federal regulations that protect water resources include the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The CWA regulates pollutant discharge into 

streams, rivers, and wetlands. The SDWA protects drinking water resources and 

requires strategies to prevent pollution. The USEPA has established primary and 

secondary water quality standards. The CDPHE implements the standards set by the 

USEPA, regulates the discharge of pollutants into surface and groundwater, and 

enforces the Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to ensure 

their actions minimize the effects of floods on human health and safety, and restore the 

natural and beneficial values of floodplains. 

Authorizations from the ACOE under Section 404 of the CWA are required when there is 

a discharge of dredge or fill material into Waters of the United States, including 

wetlands.

4.3.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed 

Action

4.3.1.1 Surface Water

The project area is located in headwaters of the Haynes Creek drainage, which 

encompasses approximately 210 square miles. Haynes Creek is an ephemeral stream 

with intermittent reaches and is tributary to the Arkansas River. The Black Squirrel 

Creek drainage is immediately west of the Haynes Creek drainage. The Black Squirrel 

Creek drainage (approximately 264 square miles) is tributary to Chico Creek (drainage 

area of approximately 261 square miles), which is tributary to the Arkansas River. 

A stream channel for Haynes Creek is only present south of the PTT (Precision Test 

Track) located at the southern end of the TTC property. Stormwater occurs rarely in 

Haynes Creek or Black Squirrel Creek, and only when there is a high-volume storm 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Surface Water, Floodplains, and Wetlands: 4-11

event. This is because of the high permeability of streambed soils and the relatively flat 

slope of the stream channels. Stormwater drainage is also minimal across the site 

because of the rapid percolation of precipitation. The absence of erosional channels on

site indicates that normal storm events result in limited runoff (TTCI 2011c). 

A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (TTCI 2011c) describes the 

drainage pathways for the entire property. As shown in Figure 4-1, drainage from the 

TTC Core Area infrastructure is contained within the property. In the 1970s, three 

drainage culverts were installed where Haynes Creek crosses the Railroad Test Track 

and the Transit Test Track. The RTT and TTT form a 10-foot barrier at the southern end 

of their loops. Shortly following installation, the culverts became blocked with sand and 

vegetation, indicating little to no stormwater conveyance through them.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Surface Water, Floodplains, and Wetlands: 4-12

Figure 4-1 Flood Zones and Watersheds within the TTC Project Vicinity

No stormwater flow has been observed at the culverts since TTC was constructed (TTCI 

personal communication). Then, in the mid-1990s, the culverts were intentionally 

sealed to prevent stormwater drainage from leaving the property. In 2003, a 100-year 

storm event occurred with 3.5 inches of precipitation in 6 hours. This storm event did 

not result in stormwater flow leaving the TTC Core Area infrastructure (TTCI 2011c). 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Surface Water, Floodplains, and Wetlands: 4-13

Another set of sealed culverts located where Haynes Creek crosses the Precision Test 

Track (PTT) acts as an additional barrier to capture any stormwater drainage in the 

area between the RTT and PTT. Other stormwater conveyance features consist of 

ditches located in the Core Area and connected to a retention basin positioned between 

the CSB and the WLF. The intended function of these ditches is to collect and route 

stormwater from the bulk fuel storage area to the retention basin.

There are only two locations within the project area where surface water occurs, as was 

observed during a field visit on April 30, 2013. The two locations are:

 a wetland area in the Black Squirrel Creek drainage near the far west border of

the project area, and

 a wetland area associated with Haynes Creek located near the south end of the 

PTT. 

Minimal flow was observed in the Black Squirrel Creek wetland area. Flow originates 

from springs and is perennial. The tributary fed by these springs flows in a southwest 

direction for approximately 2.5 miles before exiting the west property boundary of the 

project area. There are no facilities or roads located within the wetland area. The RTT is 

located immediately east of this wetland area.

Standing water was also observed in the wetland area associated with the Haynes Creek

drainage immediately upstream of the sealed culverts located at the PTT. Any localized 

stormwater drainage that occurs in the track areas or the core area of the TTC property 

within the Haynes Creek drainage is contained immediately upstream of the blocked 

culverts. 

4.3.1.2 Floodplains

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map panel 0801470150B 

encompasses the project area (FEMA 1989). As shown in Figure 4-1, there are two 

designated floodplains on the TTC property. One is associated with the Haynes Creek 

drainage and the other with the Black Squirrel Creek drainage. The Haynes Creek 

floodplain is a narrow band that extends north-south through the southern half of the 

property. Several tracks and roads cross the floodplain, but no buildings are located 

within it. The Black Squirrel Creek floodplain is located in the northwest corner of the 

property and in a small area along the western boundary of the property. There are no 

roads, tracks, or buildings in those areas. As mentioned previously, a 100-year storm 

event occurred in 2003. Stormwater flow did not damage any tracks or other facilities, 

and no stormwater flow exited the TTC Core Area infrastructure. 

4.3.1.3 Wetlands

The field reconnaissance of the TTC property and review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Mapping (USFWS 2013) indicate 

wetlands within the Black Squirrel drainage near the western property boundary and in 

the Haynes Creek drainage near the southern property boundary (see Figure 4-3 in 

Section 4.6). Both drainages are tributaries to the Arkansas River, and, therefore, these 

drainages are likely classified as jurisdictional. The Black Squirrel drainage wetlands are 

associated with the Keynar soil mapping unit and the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) Salt Meadow Range Site, while the Haynes Creek drainage wetlands are 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Surface Water, Floodplains, and Wetlands: 4-14

associated with the Arvada soil mapping unit and the NRCS Salt Flat Range Site (see 

Section 4.5). Both of these soil mapping units and range sites exhibit moderate to high 

levels of alkalinity and soluble salts, and wetland vegetation species supported in these 

areas are adapted to these soil conditions.

At the less mesic and apparently more alkaline wetland areas, saltgrass (Distichlis 

spicata), poverty sumpweed (Iva axillaris), pursh seepweed (Suaeda calceoliformis), 

alkali sakaton (Sporobolus airoides), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and three-square 

(Schoenoplectus pungens) are the dominant species. These areas are depicted as alkaline 

meadow wetland in Figure 4-3. Accumulations of surface salt were often visible in the 

alkaline meadow wetland areas. The more mesic wetland sites (depicted as wetland in 

Figure 4-3) support broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), Nebraska sedge (Carex 

nebrascensis), sedges (Carex spp.), scratchgrass (Muhlenbergia asperifolia), prairie 

cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), common reed (Phragmites australis), Nuttall’s sunflower 

(Helianthus nuttallii), showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), and willows (Salix sp.). Sites 

supporting these vegetation species typically exhibited open, shallow areas of surface 

water or soils saturated to the surface.

4.3.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments

4.3.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

Surface Water and Floodplains

This section discusses potential effects on surface water and floodplains of operational 

activities such as testing, research, training, anticipated activities, and routine site 

activities (i.e., infrastructure management and maintenance).

Operational Activities

Testing

There would be no effects from testing on the 100-year floodplain associated with Black 

Squirrel Creek because there are no facilities, roads, or tracks located in the floodplain

and therefore it is not likely that testing will occur within that floodplain. The roads and 

tracks located within the Haynes Creek floodplain do not currently impede the natural 

action or function of the floodplain. The 100-year storm event that occurred in 2003 did 

not result in damage to any roads or track. It did not produce stormwater that exited the 

TTCI property. There would be negligible, adverse, direct, short-term or long-term 

effects from these activities on the Haynes Creek floodplain.

Research and Training

There are no potential effects on surface water or floodplains from these activities. 

Anticipated Activities

Anticipated activities that might affect surface water include construction of a new highspeed track (above 165 mph); more terrain props to be utilized by DHS and TSA for 

motor carrier, bus, and rail safety research; blast effects on transportation vehicles; 

research for FBI and CIA; DOD weapons research; off road vehicle tests for the U.S. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Surface Water, Floodplains, and Wetlands: 4-15

Army; and possible research related to tunnels and bridges for the science and 

technology division of TSA. Construction related to these anticipated activities would 

have minor short-term adverse, indirect, effects on surface water. As with infrastructure 

maintenance and repair, a stormwater management plan would be required for any 

new construction activity. The plan would be approved by the Facilities Engineer at 

TTCI. The stormwater management plan would incorporate erosion control measures In 

addition, the potentially affected areas are drained by stormwater conveyance ditches 

that lead to closed-basin retention facilities. 

Any new construction would likely avoid the designated 100-year floodplains for Black 

Squirrel Creek and Haynes Creek. Existing roads and track located within the Haynes 

Creek floodplain have not affected the function of the floodplain, and the 2003 storm 

event had no effect on them. 

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

North of the CSB, the bulk fuel storage area is equipped with:

 two 15,000 gallon above ground storage tanks (ASTs) for #2 diesel with 

secondary containment;

 one 2,000 gallon, double-walled AST for highway diesel;

 one 4,000 gallon AST for lubrication oil with secondary containment; and

 a lubrication oil delivery system with secondary containment. 

Stormwater retained in the secondary containment basins is pumped to the wastewater 

pretreatment system. 

A locomotive refueling and lubrication facility at the CSB is equipped with:

 one 120-foot long spill pan;

 one 3,000 gallon double-walled underground storage tank (UST) for retention of 

leaked oil and/or spilled fuel;

 A 3,000 gallon UST for wastewater retention. 

Collected oil and fuel are recycled. Collected wastewater is pumped to the wastewater 

pretreatment system. See discussion of USTs in Section 4.4.2.1. 

The URB has a 3,000 gallon diesel AST to fuel a building boiler. The tank and piping are 

protected by concrete secondary containment. 

The TMB has an 8,000 gallon diesel AST to fuel building boilers. The tank is protected by 

concrete secondary containment. Fuel is delivered to the boilers by buried doublewalled fiberglass pipe. 

Inspections and maintenance are performed in accordance with the SPCC Plan (TTCI 

2011c) for all of the above-ground tanks, secondary containment systems, and doublewalled below-ground piping systems. In addition, secondary containments associated 

with the pretreatment system are inspected and maintained in accordance with the 

Waste Water Treatment Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual) (FESI 

1999) and Waste Water Treatment Room Operations standard operating procedures 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Surface Water, Floodplains, and Wetlands: 4-16

(SOPs) (TTCI 2013). These activities have potentially adverse, direct, short-term effects 

on surface water resources. As long as a spill or release is cleaned up in a timely 

manner, the effect is considered negligible to minor because (a) ideally, secondary 

containment systems contain spills or releases, preventing them from entering drainage

channels, (b) no stormwater from these test facilities leaves the site, and (c) fuels that 

could potentially enter surface water courses are amenable to natural biodegradation in 

soils and groundwater. 

Maintenance and repair of roads and tracks in existing infrastructure likely pose the 

only potential effects to surface water. Prior to any maintenance activities at the site, the 

Facilities Engineer at TTCI require a stormwater management plan that includes best 

management practices which include measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation 

from construction activities. The impacts from construction and maintenance activities 

would be minimized because erosion control measures are standard practice as part of 

road and track repair, and most of the potentially affected areas are drained by 

stormwater conveyance ditches that lead to closed-basin retention facilities. 

There would be no adverse direct or indirect effects on floodplains from construction or 

maintenance activities related to infrastructure at the site.

Wetlands

Potential effects on wetlands from testing, research, training, infrastructure, and 

anticipated activities are discussed below. 

Operational Activities

Testing

Existing testing areas and facilities are located well away from wetlands on the TTC 

property. It is anticipated that future testing activities will occur within the already 

existing areas and facilities and therefore these activities would not affect wetlands.

Research and Training

These activities have no potential effects on wetlands as the activities involved in 

research and training do not occur in or near the TTC wetland areas.

Anticipated Activities

Any new construction would likely avoid the designated 100-year floodplains for Black 

Squirrel Creek and Haynes Creek, and wetlands would not be affected. If a new facility 

were to be constructed within existing wetlands, a delineation of potentially affected 

wetlands would need to be completed and the Section 404 permitting process initiated 

with the ACOE. Development resulting in a wetland fill area from a tenth up to one-half 

acre would require the issuance of a Nationwide Permit from the ACOE. Development 

requiring more than one-half acre of wetland fill would require the issuance of an 

Individual Permit. Any a Section 404 permits would likely include environmental 

commitments and mitigation measures therefore the effects on wetlands resulting from 

construction would be minor.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste: 4-17

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

Existing facilities are located well away from wetlands on the TTC property, and these 

existing facilities would not affect wetlands during management and maintenance 

activities.

4.3.2.2 Effects of the No Action Alternative

Potential effects of the No Action Alternative on surface water would be identical to 

those of the Proposed Action.

4.3.2.3 Environmental Commitments

There are no minimization or mitigation measures required as long as there is 

continued implementation of best management practices along with existing plans, 

procedures, and conventional erosion control practices during earthwork, road repair,

and any other construction within the project area, as discussed above.

4.4 Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

State regulations protect groundwater resources, both from a water supply perspective 

and a water quality perspective. For more than 125 years, the Colorado Division of 

Water Resources has been empowered to administer all water rights according to the 

Appropriation Doctrine (i.e. 1st in time, 1st in right). The Division of Water Resources

employs water commissioners to ensure the priority system is followed, enforcing the 

decrees and water laws of the State of Colorado. The Colorado Ground Water Law of 

1957 established the permitting requirement of ground water wells, and by 1969, 

surface and ground water rights were administered together. 

The Colorado Water Quality Control Division regulates the discharge of pollutants into 

the State’s surface and groundwater under the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality 

Control Act of 1974. Protection and maintenance of water quality is achieved by issuing 

permits specifying the types and amounts of pollutants that may be discharged without 

violating the State water quality standards. This EA assumes that groundwater quality 

standards established under Regulation 41 (Basic Standards for Ground Water) 

applicable because TTC withdraws groundwater for potable water supply from the 

alluvial aquifer that is tributary to the Arkansas River. 

Finally, management of hazardous materials and hazardous waste is regulated under 

the RCRA that is administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. RCRA rules that 

pertain to the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous 

waste, and the installation, inspection, and monitoring of above-ground and USTs, are 

applicable to TTC. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste: 4-18

4.4.1 Affected Environment

This section contains a discussion of the geologic and hydrogeologic settings of the 

project area, as well as the potentially hazardous material/hazardous waste that could 

affect groundwater quality. 

4.4.1.1 Geology

The uppermost bedrock underlying the TTC property consists of the Cretaceous Pierre 

Shale, which is composed of thinly bedded, dark gray-to-black shale and sandy shale, 

with some iron concretions and limestone lenses (Watts and Ortiz 1990). The Pierre 

Shale is reported to be several thousand feet thick beneath the TTC property. The 

regional upper surface of the Pierre Shale slopes approximately 25 feet/mile to the 

south (Welder and Hurr 1971); however, the direction and magnitude of the slope vary 

locally. For example, beneath the western half of the site, the bedrock surface slopes to 

the south at approximately 29 feet/mile, generally consistent with the regional bedrock 

topography. Beneath the eastern half of the site, the bedrock surface slopes to the 

southwest at approximately 70 feet/mile. The south-sloping bedrock surface beneath 

the western half of the site is eroded into a gently incised north-south oriented 

paleochannel. The paleochannel elevation is lower than that of the bedrock surface 

underlying the eastern half of the site. Thus, the eastern bedrock surface forms the 

eastern flank of the paleochannel underlying the western half of the site. 

Overlying the eroded bedrock surface are typically older alluvium and eolian (windblown) deposits (Romero 1992). The older alluvium immediately overlies the Pierre 

Shale and is comprised of fine to coarse sand interbedded with clay. The basal layers of 

the older alluvium are commonly iron-cemented sand and gravel (Romero 1992) and 

commonly fill the eroded features of the bedrock surface. 

Across the site, eolian deposits overlie the older alluvium and extend to the ground 

surface (Romero 1992). These deposits consist of unconsolidated very fine to medium 

sand, silt, and clayey, sandy silt. The deposits are in the form of generally stabilized sand 

dunes. All of the dunes are oriented in a northwest-southeast direction. They are locally 

hummocky and have no distinct external drainage. The surface soils are stabilized with 

vegetation.

The combined thicknesses of the older alluvium and eolian deposits at the site range 

from approximately 50 feet on the eastern edge of the Core Area to more than 200 feet 

in the northwest corner of the site (Romero 1992 and TTCI 2012). 

4.4.1.2 Hydrogeology

The eolian deposits serve as catchment material that allows for rapid downward 

percolation of precipitation to the underlying older alluvium. Further downward 

infiltration is inhibited by the underlying Pierre Shale, which has relatively low

hydraulic conductivity and acts as an aquitard. Therefore, the older alluvium is 

considered the uppermost aquifer. Once groundwater enters the older alluvium, it tends 

to migrate laterally along the erosional features of the bedrock surface. 

No groundwater is reported to be present in the alluvium/eolian deposits along the 

eastern boundary of the site, or beneath most of the Core Area buildings (Romero 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste: 4-19

1992). However, some localized alluvial/eolian groundwater may occur in the Core Area 

because of recharge from the domestic wastewater leach fields and from stormwater 

conveyance ditches and retention basins within the Core Area. The saturated thickness 

of the alluvium/eolian deposits begins at zero along the eastern side of the site and 

gradually increases to 70-80 feet in the western half of the site. In the vicinity of the two 

water supply wells, the saturated thickness is approximately 65 feet (Romero 1992). 

These ranges in saturated thickness are consistent with the presence of a relatively 

shallow bedrock surface along the eastern side of the site, increasing in depth toward 

the west and southwest as the deeper bedrock paleochannel is approached. 

The depth to the groundwater surface ranges from approximately 40 feet near the 

eastern boundary of the site where groundwater is present to approximately 140 feet in 

the northwestern corner of the site. In the vicinity of the water supply wells, the depth 

to the groundwater surface is approximately 115 feet (Romero 1992 and TTCI 2012). 

The regional direction of groundwater flow is to the southwest (Radian 1991 and 

Romero 1992). However, beneath the western half of the site, groundwater movement 

is predominantly southward following the bedrock paleochannel. Groundwater 

movement beneath the eastern half of the site is southwestward toward, then into the 

paleochannel (Romero 1992). 

Groundwater is recharged primarily by percolation/infiltration of direct precipitation 

and intermittent stormwater flow in Haynes and possibly Black Squirrel Creeks. 

Groundwater leaves the site along the southern boundary of the site then migrates to 

the south-southeast toward the Arkansas River. 

The two TTC water supply wells are positioned in the center of the Railroad Test Track

loop, approximately 2 miles west of the Core Area buildings (see Figure 3-1). Both wells 

are located in the older alluvial deposits that infill the paleochannel. These are the only 

active supply wells on site and are collectively permitted for a total of 40 acre-feet per 

year. The maximum pumping rates for the Main Well and Backup Well are 850 gpm and 

120 gpm, respectively. Because the supply wells extract alluvial groundwater that is 

tributary to the Arkansas River, as a condition of well use the site augmentation plan 

requires TTC to provide replacement water to the Arkansas River Basin for water 

consumed on site. This replacement water is provided through surface water rights 

acquired by TTC. 

4.4.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments

4.4.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

The sections below discuss potential effects on groundwater from operational activities

like testing, research, training, and anticipated activities, as well as routine site 

activities. 

Operational Activities

Testing

Facilities associated with testing that could potentially affect groundwater include the 

RDL and the CSB. Hydraulic fluids and lubrication oils used by the testing equipment 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste: 4-20

could leak and spill onto floors within the RDL. Floor drains route liquids to a common 

sump from where they are pumped via buried pipe to the industrial wastewater 

pretreatment facility at the CSB. At the CSB, lubrication oil from locomotive and rail 

vehicle maintenance are collected in service pits and recycled, to the extent practicable.

Those that mix with aqueous liquids and cannot be recycled are pumped to the 

industrial wastewater pretreatment facility via single-walled buried PVC piping. 

Hydraulic fluids and oils could seep through cracks or expansion joints in floor slabs, 

drains, or collection sump. Also, process water conveyed via buried pipe to the 

wastewater pretreatment facility could leak into underlying bedding material and soil. 

The integrities of the floor drains, sumps, and conveyance lines at both facilities are not 

inspected and groundwater quality beneath and adjacent to the facilities is not 

monitored. The type of effect on groundwater from these activities is potentially 

adverse and direct. The potential effect is site-specific, but could extend beyond site 

boundaries if contamination from either facility were to enter the groundwater and 

migrate. Even though there is minor groundwater occurrence beneath the facilities and 

the fluids and oils of concern are amenable to natural biodegradation in soils and 

groundwater, a prolonged undetected leak could negatively impact subsurface soils and,

ultimately, groundwater. 

The pretreatment facility at the CSB consists of oil-water separation and solids 

precipitation. Oils are recovered and recycled in accordance with the Waste Water 

Treatment Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual) (FESI 1999), Waste 

Water Treatment Room Operations (TTCI 2013), Hazardous Waste Management Plan 

Handbook (HWMPH) (TTCI 2011a), and Engineering Design and Operations Plan (TTCI 

2011b). Solids are removed and transported off-site as industrial waste. Aqueous 

liquids are pumped to the wastewater impoundment facility via single-walled buried 

PVC pipe and evaporated in the lined facility. Should there be a spill or release from the 

pretreatment system, a break in the buried conveyance piping, or a mishandling of the 

secondary wastes, groundwater could be indirectly yet adversely affected. While 

secondary containment at the pretreatment facility and interstitial space between liners 

at the impoundment facility are routinely monitored, the integrity of the buried PVC 

piping is not tested. Consequently, the potential effect of a spill or release is site-specific, 

but could extend beyond site boundaries if contamination were to enter the 

groundwater and migrate. Even though there is minor groundwater occurrence beneath 

the pretreatment and impoundment facilities, a prolonged undetected leak in the buried 

conveyance piping could negatively impact subsurface soils and, ultimately, 

groundwater. However, the detection of a leak would be possible through the 

observations of material present, or lack thereof, in the lined facility which would 

minimize the release impacts. 

At the RDL, blowdown waters from noncontact cooling towers are routed to an 

underground holding tank from where they are piped to and evaporated in the 

wastewater impoundment facility. A release from buried piping or the impoundment 

facility could adversely and directly affect groundwater. The potential effect is sitespecific, but as stated in the previous sections, could extend beyond site boundaries if 

contamination were to enter the groundwater and migrate. However, standard 

procedures, maintenance and monitoring are in place that would identify and minimize 

any accidental releases.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste: 4-21

Parts washers containing hazardous solvents are used in the RDL and CSB. Spent 

solvents are containerized and recycled by a contract vendor. Solvent wipes and rags 

are containerized and disposed off-site in a licensed RCRA Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal Facility (TSDF). Should there be a spill or release of solvents, groundwater 

could be indirectly yet adversely affected. The potential effect is site-specific, but could 

extend beyond site boundaries if contamination were to enter the groundwater and 

migrate. The duration of the potential effect is long-term. The intensity of the effect is 

considered negligible because (a) there is minor groundwater occurrence beneath the 

impoundment and (b) the solvents, wipes, and rags are containerized and managed in

strict accordance with the HWMPH (TTCI 2011a).

Adjacent to the CSB is a Motor Pool gasoline refueling station. It is equipped with a 

10,000 gallon UST and above-ground fuel dispenser. The UST is double-walled with an 

interstitial sump that provides leak detection. In the event of release from either the 

UST or buried piping servicing the fuel dispenser, groundwater could be adversely and 

directly affected. The potential effect is site-specific, but the effect could be larger scale

if contamination were to enter the groundwater and migrate. The duration of the 

potential effect is long-term. The intensity of the effect is considered negligible because 

(a) there is minor groundwater occurrence beneath the refueling station, (b) the UST 

and fueling system are monitored weekly in accordance with Colorado UST regulations, 

and (c) gasoline is amenable to natural attenuation via volatilization and biodegradation 

in soils and groundwater. 

The Infrastructure section of the report discusses the potential effect on groundwater of 

domestic wastewater systems servicing the testing facilities.

Research

Facilities associated with research that could potentially affect groundwater consist of 

the Warehouse Laboratory Facility (WLF) and Air Brake Lab, as well as the Components 

Test Laboratory (CTL). A parking area for fuel trucks and a wastewater truck is located 

adjacent to the WLF. The parking area has secondary containment that drains to a 

12,000 gallon fiberglass double-walled UST with leak detection. Water from the tank is 

pumped to the wastewater pretreatment system. In the event of a spill or release from 

either the UST or buried piping, groundwater could be adversely and directly affected. 

The potential effect is site-specific, but the effect could be larger scale if contamination 

were to enter the groundwater and migrate. The duration of the potential effect is longterm. The intensity of the effect is considered negligible because (a) liquids retained in 

the UST will likely be a diluted mixture of fuel with water, (b) there is minor 

groundwater occurrence beneath the parking area, UST, and buried piping, (c) the spill 

management system and UST leak-detection and containment systems are inspected, 

operated, and maintained in accordance with the SPCC Plan (TTCI 2011c) and Colorado 

UST regulations, respectively, and (d) hydrocarbon fuels are amenable to natural 

attenuation via volatilization and biodegradation in soils and groundwater. 

At the CTL, parts washers containing hazardous solvents are used. Spent solvents are 

containerized and recycled by a contract vendor. Solvent wipes and rags are 

containerized and disposed off-site in a licensed RCRA TSDF. Should there be a spill or 

release of solvents, groundwater could be indirectly yet adversely affected. The 

potential effect is site-specific, but the effect could be larger scale if contamination were 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste: 4-22

to enter the groundwater and migrate. The duration of the potential effect is long-term. 

The intensity of the effect is considered negligible because (a) there is minor 

groundwater occurrence beneath the CTL and (b) the solvents, wipes, and rags are 

containerized and managed in strict accordance with the HWMPH (TTCI 2011a).

There is a potential effect on groundwater from domestic wastewater systems servicing 

the testing facilities. This is discussed under Infrastructure.

Training

Small quantities of chemicals are used in chemical demonstrations at the SERTC to 

display the different hazard classes. Some explosives are also used, as is propane to 

simulate vehicle fires, and crude oil or diesel fuel used in burn pots to generate smoke . 

Of these chemicals and fuels, the only potential effect on groundwater is from diesel that 

might spill onto the ground around the burn pots. Should there be a spill or release of 

diesel, groundwater could be adversely and directly affected. The potential effect is sitespecific, but the effect could extend beyond site boundaries if contamination were to 

enter the groundwater and migrate. The duration of the potential effect is long-term. 

The intensity of the effect is considered negligible because (a) the volume of potential 

release will be small (less than a few gallons), (b) the depth to groundwater beneath the 

SERTC is at least 50 feet, and (c) diesel fuel is readily biodegradable in soils. 

In addition, there is a potential effect on groundwater from domestic wastewater

systems servicing the training facilities. This is discussed under Infrastructure.

Anticipated Activities

Anticipated activities may affect the adequacy of both water supply and domestic 

wastewater treatment. 

Water Supply

If major track or building construction projects occur, as proposed in the 2012 Facilities 

Master Plan, temporary supplemental and possibly long-term water may be needed. 

Similar to existing conditions, the type of potential effect on groundwater is adverse and 

direct, and the potential effect is site-specific. The duration of the potential effect may be 

short- or long-term, depending on the rate of aquifer recharge versus the rate of 

groundwater withdrawal. Variables affecting recharge consist of meterological 

conditions, potential changes to surface drainage patterns by new construction, and 

potential increase of impermeable surface area due to new tracks, parking areas, or 

buildings. The intensity of the effect is considered minor to moderate, as the expansion 

plans do not include a significant amount of new freshwater (such as new water tanks, 

hoses or sprayers).

Domestic Wastewater Treatment 

An assessment of probable regulatory modifications indicates that the existing septic 

systems should provide adequate wastewater treatment for the foreseeable future. 

However, anticipated operations could result in increased waste flows or unexpected 

operational considerations—either one of which could increase loadings of nitrates and 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste: 4-23

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) to groundwater, which would in turn have an adverse and 

direct effect on groundwater quality. The potential effect is site-specific, but the effect 

could have a larger-scale effect if contaminants mobilize in groundwater. The duration 

of the potential effect is long-term. The intensity of the effect would be negligible to 

moderate, depending on the volume and concentration of additional wastewater 

introduced to the groundwater system. 

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

Potential effects of infrastructure on groundwater are associated with water supply, 

domestic wastewater treatment, and temporary storage of hazardous and industrial 

wastes.

Water Supply

The two TTC water supply wells have been permitted with the State Engineer. While 

withdrawals will affect the alluvial groundwater aquifer, such withdrawals are

allowable provided replacement waters are available and are returned to the Arkansas 

River basin in accordance with the augmentation plan. An augmentation plan is a courtapproved plan, which is designed to protect existing water rights by replacing water 

consumed on-site by TTC and to provide replacement water to the Arkansas River 

Basin. Augmentation plans are usually required in areas where there is a shortage of 

water during part or all of the year. Historical consumption records at TTC since 1972 

show that the facility has had problems in some years remaining within the annual 40 

acre-feet allocation decreed for the supply wells, whereas in dry years TTC has had 

difficulty acquiring sufficient augmentation water to meet its 40-acre-feet allocation. 

The former condition was addressed with the State Engineer and should not recur in the 

future. The latter condition was evident with the regional drought conditions 

experienced between 2000 and 2004, when available replacement water was reduced 

to an annual low of 16 acre-feet. Consequently, the type of potential effect on

groundwater is adverse and direct. Provided the replacement requirements of the 

Augmentation Plan are complied with, the potential effect would be site-specific—only 

the local groundwater resource would be affected. The duration of the potential effect 

may be short- or long-term, depending on the rate of aquifer recharge. Variables 

affecting recharge primarily consist of meteorological conditions, such as the rate, 

volume, and seasonal timing of precipitation. 

Domestic Wastewater Treatment

Domestic wastewater treatment is provided by septic tanks and leach fields positioned 

adjacent to buildings equipped with restrooms. Under the Federal Facility Compliance 

Act, septic systems fall under State and local regulations for corrective maintenance and 

construction. Five of the building septic systems are classified as Large Capacity Septic 

Systems and were reviewed for compliance as a post condition by CDPHE and Pueblo 

County. A Site Application Approval (#4459) was given for the systems in 2001, and a 

Discharge Permit has been issued by CDPHE for the five systems under the Colorado 

water discharge regulations. However, treated wastewater that flows into leach fields 

may contain elevated levels of nitrates and total dissolved solids (TDS), which could 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste: 4-24

affect groundwater quality. Thus, the type of potential effect on groundwater is adverse 

and direct. The potential effect is site-specific, but could have a larger-scale effect if 

contaminants are mobilized in groundwater. The duration of the potential effect is longterm. The intensity of the effect is considered negligible because CDPHE determined 

that effluent limits for domestic wastewater treatment are met at the point of 

compliance through a combination of treatment and attenuation/land treatment in the 

vadose zone (CDPS). Moreover, in an amendment to the Discharge Permit, CDPHE is not

requiring groundwater quality monitoring.

Hazardous and Industrial Waste Storage

The SMB and adjacent FSB are used to temporarily store hazardous and industrial 

wastes until a contract vendor removes them and relocates them off-site to a RCRAlicensed treatment, storage, or disposal facility. The FSB is used as the main hazardous 

waste accumulation area for TTC. Hazardous wastes are stored in sealed 55-gallon 

drums and temporarily staged for pickup. In addition, small quantities of hazardous 

wastes are temporarily stored in flame-resistant storage cabinets inside the FSB until 

they can be packaged into lab packs and removed by a disposal contractor. Industrial 

solid wastes (oily rags and wipes) are placed in 55-gallon drums and temporarily staged 

in a drum cabinet within the SMB laydown area. Used antifreeze is also stored in drums 

and temporarily staged in the SMB laydown yard drum cabinet. In the event of a spill or 

release, groundwater could potentially be indirectly, yet adversely, affected. The 

potential effect is site-specific, but the effect could be larger-scale if contaminants were 

to enter the groundwater and mobilize. The duration of the potential effect is long-term. 

The intensity of the effect is considered negligible because (a) all stored wastes are 

protected by secondary containment, (b) timeframes for stored wastes are limited by 

regulation, and (c) all waste management procedures are conducted, inspected, and 

audited in accordance with the HWMPH (TTCI 2011a). 

4.4.2.2 Effects of the No Action Alternative

Potential effects on groundwater from the No Action Alternative would be identical to 

those of the Proposed Action.

4.4.2.3 Environmental Commitments

The same environmental commitments are recommended for both the Proposed Action 

and No Action alternatives. They consist of the following best management practices.

Operational Activities

Testing, Research, and Training 

For the RDL and CSB facilities, the staff at TTCI will develop and implement when 

required an inspection and integrity testing program for the floor drains, sumps, and 

single-walled buried pipelines to verify that these components do not leak. At a 

minimum, inspection and testing will be performed annually, with results reported to 

TTCI management and documented in the project files. An alternate approach would be 

to install a groundwater and/or soil vapor monitoring network immediately adjacent to 

or beneath the floor drains, sumps, and buried piping that would effectively provide 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste: 4-25

detection monitoring. At a minimum, the frequency of groundwater and/or soil vapor 

monitoring would also be annual, with results reported to TTCI management and 

documented in project files. 

For all UST systems, TTC will continue to inspect, operate, maintain, and monitor leak 

detection and secondary containment systems in accordance with Colorado UST 

regulations and the SPCC Plan (TTCI 2011c).

For the pretreatment system at the CSB and surface impoundment, TTC will continue to 

inspect, operate, maintain, and monitor the treatment system, impoundment system, 

and waste management practices in accordance with the O&M Manual (FESI 1999), 

Wastewater Treatment Room Operations (TTCI 2013), HWMPH (TTCI 2011a), and 

EDOP (TTCI 2011b). The manuals and SOPs will be updated regularly to reflect changes 

in process waste streams, treatment requirements, and treatment equipment. 

For all parts washers that use hazardous solvents that generate solvent wipes and/or 

rags, TTC will continue to containerize and recycle the spent solvents, used wipes, and 

used rags in accordance with the HWMPH (TTCI 2011a). 

For the SERTC training area, TTC will continue to handle chemicals and fuels so as to 

minimize the potential for spill or release. In the event of a spill or release, immediate 

containment and cleanup will be performed in accordance with the SPCC Plan (TTCI 

2011c), and appropriate regulatory agencies would be notified. 

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

For the water supply system, TTC will continue to comply with the limitations, 

replacement flows, and reporting requirements of the approved augmentation plan for 

TTC. In addition, to avoid shortages during periods of drought and to allow for

anticipated growth of the facility, TTC should obtain supplemental capacity by acquiring 

additional augmentation water rights and adding decreed pumping capacity. The 

Colorado Land Board (CLB) owns the rights to seven other wells located on TTC 

property, as well as the right to develop and pump the water off-site. TTC should pursue 

purchasing or leasing the decreed rights from the CLB. The CLB North Antelope Well, 

also located on-site, consists of a small windmill with a stock tank. This well has been 

tagged by the State Engineer’s Office to prevent operation due to noncompliance with 

the Arkansas River Basin operating rules. The well has been decreed a pumping rate of 

0.04 cfs absolute (max. 29 acre-feet, continuous annual pumping). In order to use the

well for TTC purposes, the well would need to be re-drilled and developed, electrical 

power would need to be extended to the well, a pump house with metering and 

chlorination would need to be installed, and a transmission line between the well site 

and the FAST Service Facility buildings would need to be installed. Augmentation water 

would also need to be purchased to meet the operating rules for the basin.

Another option for additional water supply is the CLB Appelt 23 well. This was an 

exploratory well drilled on-site but never developed. It does not exist as a structure in 

the field. However, it has a conditional water decree that potentially could be developed 

under the current permit and operating rule process. The appropriated pumping rate of 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste: 4-26

4 cfs could be considered high capacity if pumped continuously, but a moratorium 

against such pumping is proposed for this groundwater basin. Thus, time is working 

against the development of this well at its implied potential. Augmentation 

requirements also apply. Nonetheless, should the water right be developed, one or more 

wells would need to be drilled, and a distribution line would need to be extended from 

the FAST Maintenance area to the well location(s) inside the HTL. Power is available 

nearby at the communications tower inside the oval and directly south of the well 

locations. 

For domestic wastewater treatment systems, TTC will continue to train and remind 

TTCI employees, contractors, and visitors that cleaning solutions, solvents, or anything 

other than domestic sanitary wastes are not to be disposed of in the domestic 

wastewater systems. Septic tanks will continue to be pumped annually. Should 

additional treatment capacity become necessary in the future, topography of the Core 

Area lends itself to locating a central wastewater treatment unit in its southwest corner,

in what is now the Post 85 Laydown Area. Collection lines would then extend to the 

various septic systems, as discussed in the Master Plan. The wastewater would receive a 

type of secondary treatment to biologically treat it to a more finished level, with a leach 

field to return the treated water to recharge the alluvial aquifer. 

For the management of hazardous and industrial wastes, TTC will continue to minimize 

the volume and toxicity of wastes generated on-site, as well as implement the waste 

handling, inspection, tracking, RCRA training, and manifesting procedures detailed in 

the HWMPH (TTCI 2011a). This handbook will also be updated regularly to reflect 

changes in RCRA and U.S. DOT regulations.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Soils: 4-27

4.5 Soils

4.5.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed 

Action

National Resource Conservation Service soil mapping for the TTC property indicates 

there are 18 soil series units mapped for the TTC Property (Table 4-3, Figure 4-2) 

(NRCS 2013). Descriptions of the soil profiles, characteristics of these mapping units, 

and Range Site descriptions are provided in USDA, SCS (1972).

The mineral parent material for soils on the TTC property consists of unconsolidated 

deposits of Pleistocene and Recent Age. Much of the property is covered with deposits of 

fine to medium sand having a dune-like relief. This sand is the parent material of the 

Valent soils. This soil mapping unit includes small wind eroded areas (“blow-outs”) up 

to 5 acres in size. These blow-outs are generally clustered along dune ridges, often 

arranged in a northwest to southeast orientation.

A mixture of wind-sorted fine sands and silt with nearly level to gently undulating relief 

is the parent material for Olney and Vonid soils. By contrast, the parent materials of 

Arvada, Gilcrest, Otero, and Stoneham soils are not as well sorted by wind as the Valent, 

Vona, and Olney soils. They contain, more or less, heterogeneous mixtures of silt, clay, 

sand, and gravel.

Table 4-3 Soil Series Mapping Units on the TTC Property

Soil Series Name Mapping 

Symbol NRCS Range Site Acres

Arvada AR Salt Flat 892.94

Bankard sand Bk Sandy Bottomland 175.32

Gilcrest sandy loam GcA Sandy Plains 1,013.70

Glenberg-Haverson complex Gh Sandy Bottomland 319.87

Haverson silt loam Ha Saline Overflow 355.75

Keynar Ke Salt Meadow 668.08

Limon silty clay LoA Salt Flat 242.55

Manzanola clay loam MpA Saline Overflow 395.75

Otero dry sandy loam OdA Sandy Plains 39.50

Olney loamy sand Oe Sandy Plains 3,318.26

Olney sandy loam Of Sandy Plains 1,466.01

Olney sandy loam, dry OfB Sandy Plains 62.74

Otero gravelly sandy loam OrD Sandy Plains 43.90

Stoneham loam Sh Loamy Plains 448.22

Valent Va Deep Sand 15,688.66

Vonid loamy sand Vn Sandy Plains 5,375.69

Vonid sandy loam Vo Sandy Plains 1,114.04

Vonid sandy loam, dry VoC Sandy Plains 825.67

Total 32,446.47

Alluvium of Recent Age is the parent material for Bankard, Glenberg, Haverson, Keynar, 

Limon, and Manzanola soils. These soils are not as widespread as the sand- and siltderived soils and are restricted to the floodplains of streams and drainages within the 

TTC property boundaries. The textures of these soils range from clay to gravelly sand.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Soils: 4-28

Figure 4-2 Soils Mapping for the TTC Property
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Soils: 4-29

Because of the sandy consistency of the majority of soils within the TTC property, wind 

erosion hazard is high, and most are well-drained with a high water intake rate and low 

water holding capacity. Blowing sand can be an issue with soils disturbed by surface 

and building activities that remove or disrupt vegetation cover.

The Arvada, Haverson, Keynar, Limon, and Manzanola soils are more stable than the 

sandy soils, but pose constraints for revegetation because of moderate to high levels of 

alkalinity and soluble salts. Restoration of vegetation on these soils, if they are

disturbed, would need to rely on vegetation species adapted to moderate to high levels 

of alkalinity and soluble salts.

4.5.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments

4.5.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

This Section discusses the potential effects on soils of testing, research, training, 

infrastructure, and anticipated activities. 

Operational Activities

Testing

The construction of props for testing activities would cause a relatively minor 

disturbance to surface soil layers. Although these possible surface disturbance effects

would not be significant, there would be minor disturbances to surface soil resources 

associated with these developments, some of which may be permanent. Wind erosion 

could result in minor losses of soils resources at these disturbances. However, soil 

losses would be relatively minor, and revegetation efforts are likely to be successful 

with the recommended soil stabilization measures (see Section 4.6.2.3). 

Research and Training

Research and training activities would occur within existing facilities, and there would 

be no additional effects on soils resources within the TTC property boundaries.

Anticipated Activities

Construction of additional facilities would disturb or cover additional areas of soil 

resources in the vicinity of the proposed facilities. Total disturbance acreages associated 

with these possible developments are unknown but would be relatively minor in 

relation to the total extent of soils resources across the TTC property. These 

disturbances would be permanent with the exception of laydown and construction sites 

that would be reclaimed after construction was complete. Wind erosion could result in 

additional minor losses of soils resources at these disturbances. However, soil losses 

would be relatively minor, and revegetation efforts are likely to be successful with the 

recommended soil stabilization measures (see Section 4.6.2.3). It is assumed that 

construction of facilities would avoid areas of wetlands and associated soils with 

moderate to high levels of alkalinity and soluble salts. As long as vegetation restoration 

efforts utilize suitable native plant material and appropriate soil stabilization measures, 

effects on soils resources resulting from construction would be minor, adverse, and 

short-term.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-30

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

Existing infrastructure and land and facility management would have no additional 

effects on existing soils resources beyond those that occurred during the construction of 

the facilities.

4.5.2.2 Effects of the No Action Alternative

Potential effects on soils from the No Action Alternative would be identical to those of 

the Proposed Action, without anticipated activities. 

4.5.2.3 Environmental Commitments

To prevent the potential for wind erosion resulting from land disturbance associated 

with testing and possible construction activities, best management practices will be 

employed such as temporary soil stabilization measures, as appropriate, over areas of 

exposed surface soils. Temporary stabilization would be accomplished with mulches, 

wind fences, and erosion mats or netting. Once testing and construction activities were 

completed, permanent soil stabilization would be accomplished by planting native, 

deep-rooted grass species adapted to the area and to sandy soils. Supplemental 

watering may be necessary for initial establishment of these grasses during periods of 

prolonged drought.

There is a minor risk for leaching of explosive particles and/or by-product constituents 

from the soil into the underlying groundwater system. Therefore based from previous 

studies completed at TTC, it is recommended that following completion of any explosive 

testing, surface soil sampling be conducted in the immediate vicinity of the test sites to 

assess the nature and extent of potential soil contamination.

4.6 Biological Resources

The assessments contained within this EA are based upon information obtained from 

several sources: (1) published literature, (2) unpublished reports and data from various 

agencies, (3) Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) database search, (4) Colorado 

Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS) 

mapping system, and (5) field reconnaissance. The CNHP database search for 

threatened, endangered, and other species of concern was requested for the entire TTC 

property. Results of the CNHP database search request were received on September 4,

2013 (CNHP 2013). The CPW NDIS mapping system was accessed on July 28, 2013 

(NDIS 2013) to obtain distribution and range information for state game species of 

concern addressed in this analysis.

FRA requested a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Colorado Ecological Services 

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed species list for the TTC property in Pueblo 

County. This list was received from the USFWS on-line Information, Planning, and 

Conservation (IPaC) decision support system on July 24, 2013.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-31

A field reconnaissance of the TTC property was conducted from April 30 through May 2, 

2013, to review habitat conditions within the property boundaries. During this 

reconnaissance, survey personnel noted habitat conditions, dominant vegetation 

species, and wildlife and wildlife signs. Survey personnel were also alert to identify any 

important wildlife habitat features such as raptor nesting habitat, wetlands, or springs. 

4.6.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed 

Action

4.6.1.1 Vegetation

The TTC property is fenced and there has been no livestock grazing since the mid1970s. As a result, undisturbed or undeveloped portions of the property are good 

examples of native sandhills prairie unmodified by grazing activities. Seven major 

vegetation communities and one land use type were mapped within the TTC property 

boundaries (see Figure 4-3). They are sand sage/short-grass prairie, short-grass prairie, 

cholla/sand sage/short-grass prairie, cholla/rabbitbrush/sand sage/short-grass prairie, 

greasewood bottomland, wetland, and disturbed/developed. Alkaline meadow and salt 

flat are subtypes within the wetland vegetation type. Short-grass prairie-burned is a 

subtype of short-grass prairie that has burned in relatively recent history, and as a 

result, exhibits reduced amounts of vegetation diversity and density. Dominant 

vegetation species and acreages for each vegetation/land use type are listed in Table 4-

4. 

As indicated in Table 4-4, sand sage/short-grass prairie and short-grass prairie are the 

dominant vegetation communities within the property boundaries, occupying 21,855 

acres (or about 67 percent) of the 32,446-acre property. These two vegetation 

communities are widespread through the TTC property and are associated with the 

Sandy Bottomland, Sandy Plains, Deep Sand, and Loamy Plains Range Sites, as classified 

by the NRCS (see Section 4.5). Cholla/sand sage/short-grass prairie and 

cholla/rabbitbrush/sand sage/short-grass prairie communities are also common and 

occupy similar soil and range sites but exhibit a strong shrub component of cholla, sand 

sage, and/or rabbitbrush.

Greasewood bottomland and wetland communities are associated with drainages and 

drainage floodplains primarily in the western and southern portions of the TTC 

property. These communities occur within the Black Squirrel and Haynes Creek 

floodplain areas and are associated with the Salt Flat, Saline Overflow, and Salt Meadow 

Range Sites, as classified by the NRCS (see Section 4.5). Vegetation supported in the 

greasewood bottomland and wetland communities is adapted to moderate to high levels 

of alkalinity and soluble salts.

Total vegetation cover is highly variable within the project area and ranges from near 

zero, in blowout areas along ridges, to 25 to 60 percent total cover in undisturbed areas 

with stable vegetation cover.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-32

Figure 4-3 Vegetation Mapping for the TTC Property
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-33

Table 4-4 Vegetation Communities/Land Types at the TTC Property

Vegetation Community/

Land Type Dominant Vegetation Species1

Acres Within 

TTC 

Boundaries

Sand Sage/Short-Grass 

Prairie

Dominant grasses similar to short-grass prairie, 

but with sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) 

added as a dominant shrub component

12,300

Short-Grass Prairie

Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), buffalograss 

(Bouteloua dactyloides), little bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparium), sand bluestem 

(Andropogon hallii), sandhill muhly (Muhlenbergia 

pungens), needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa 

comata), yellow Indiangrass (Sorghastrum 

nutans), prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia), 

blowout grass (Redfieldia flexuosa), sand dropseed 

(Sporobolus crytandrus), and purple three-awn 

(Aristida purpurea)

9,555

Cholla/Sand Sage/ShortGrass Prairie

Dominant grasses similar to short-grass prairie, 

but with cholla cactus (Cylindropuntia imbricata) 

and sand sagebrush added as dominant shrub 

components

4,500

Short-Grass PrairieBurned

Similar species to short-grass prairie but 

vegetation diversity and density has been reduced 

by fire

1,775

Cholla/Rabbitbrush/Sand 

Sage/Short-Grass Prairie

Similar species to cholla/sand sage/short-grass 

Prairie but with rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria 

nauseosus) added as a dominant shrub component

1,515

Greasewood Bottomland

Greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), rubber 

rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), alkali sacaton 

(Sporobolus airoides), switchgrass (Panicum 

virgatum), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum 

smithii), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), prairie 

cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), and green 

needlegrass (Nassella viridula)

907

Wetlands

(includes Alkaline 

Meadow and Salt Flat as 

subtypes within the 

wetland category)

In alkaline meadow and salt flat areas: saltgrass, 

poverty sumpweed (Iva axillaris), pursh seepweed 

(Suaeda calceoliformis), alkali sacaton, Baltic rush 

(Juncus balticus), and three-square 

(Schoenoplectus pungens)

In more mesic/less alkaline areas: broadleaf 

cattail (Typha latifolia), Nebraska sedge (Carex 

nebrascensis), sedges (Carex spp.), scratchgrass 

(Muhlenbergia asperifolia), prairie cordgrass, 

common reed (Phragmites australis), Nuttall’s 

sunflower (Helianthus nuttallii), switchgrass, 

showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), Baltic rush, 

and willows (Salix sp.). (Wetlands are discussed in

Section 4.3)

285

Cholla/Short-Grass 

Prairie

Dominant grasses similar to short-grass prairie, 

but with cholla cactus added as a dominant shrub 

component

131

Developed/Disturbed Developed areas or bare ground with some annual 

weeds 1,479
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-34

Vegetation Community/

Land Type Dominant Vegetation Species1

Acres Within 

TTC 

Boundaries

Total Acres 32,447

1Scientific nomenclature follows USDA, NRCS Plants Database. Available online at:

http://plants.usda.gov/java/

4.6.1.2 Wildlife

The topography and vegetation within the project area provide habitat for numerous 

wildlife species associated with native prairie habitats. A multi-strand barbed wire 

fence exists around the entire TTC facility property boundary to keep livestock from the 

property. The lack of livestock grazing means relatively high quality sandhill prairie 

habitat for native wildlife species associated with this habitat type. The fencing is 

approximately 4 feet high and does not create a significant barrier to wildlife 

movement. Smaller mammals can easily pass under it while mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus) can easily jump the fence and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) can 

typically crawl under the lowest strand.

Big Game

Two big game species, mule deer and pronghorn, are relatively common in the project 

area region. The project area is located within CPW Game Management Unit 123. Mule 

deer occupy all ecosystems in Colorado from grasslands to alpine tundra (Fitzgerald et 

al. 1994). They are most abundant in shrubland habitats in broken terrain that provides

abundant forage and cover. The project area lies entirely within the overall range for 

mule deer (NDIS 2013) indicating that they can be found in the area year-round. The 

extreme southwest corner of the TTC property is also located within a mule deer 

concentration area (see range map in Appendix B). A concentration area is defined as 

the part of the overall range where higher quality habitat supports significantly higher 

densities than surrounding areas.

Pronghorn inhabit most of eastern Colorado. NDIS (2013) mapping indicates the entire 

TTC property is within pronghorn overall range. Most of the property is also within 

winter range with the exception of the extreme southeast and southwest corners (see 

range map in Appendix B). Portions of a pronghorn winter concentration area make up 

the western two-thirds of the property, as well. A winter concentration area is defined 

as the part of the winter range where densities are at least 200 percent greater than the 

surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in 

the average five winters out of ten.

Pronghorn prefer native grasslands and semi-desert scrublands and are the most 

common big game animal in the region. TTC personnel suggest that the TTC facility 

creates a “refuge” effect for pronghorn since no hunting is allowed within the TTC 

property boundaries. As a result, TTC occasionally asks the CPW to reduce pronghorn 

numbers on the TTC property. Trapping excess pronghorn on the property and 

relocating them elsewhere is the usual method employed to control pronghorn 

population numbers (White 2012).
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-35

No part of the TTC property is located within mule deer or pronghorn severe winter 

range.

Other Mammals

A variety of mammalian predators and small mammal species, including bats, are 

present on the TTC property. Most of these species are relatively widespread and 

common and are not likely to be management concerns with respect to anticipated uses

by TTCI. The exceptions are black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludoviciana) and swift fox 

(Vulpes velox). Both species are listed by the CPW (2013) as species of Special Concern 

and are discussed in Section 4.6.1.3.

Raptors

Raptors are protected under state and federal laws, including the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Raptor use of the TTC 

property is primarily open-country associated species. Raptor species that are typically 

present as yearlong residents or summer breeders within the project area include the 

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk 

(Buteo jamaicensis), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo 

swainsoni), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), 

and barn owl (Tyto alba) (Kingery 1998). Burrowing owl is State-listed as Threatened 

and the ferruginous hawk is a State species of Special Concern. These species are 

discussed in Section 4.6.1.3. The several additional species from the region may hunt 

over the project area, but suitable nesting habitats (e.g., trees, cliffs, rock outcrops, 

buttes, etc.) are not present for them on the TTC property.

Other Birds

A number of songbirds and other bird species may be found on the TTC property, but 

songbird diversity is restricted by relatively low vegetation. Most are open-country 

species associated with grasslands, and most songbirds migrate to and from the area 

and are present only as summer residents. Yearlong residents and breeders include the 

horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). 

Many of the summer residents are Neotropical migrants that winter in Central and 

South America. The MBTA provides federal legal protection for all migratory bird 

species listed under 50 CFR 10.13. The USFWS places the highest management priority 

on Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) identified in USFWS (2008). The BCC list was 

developed as a result of a 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. 

This Act mandated that the USFWS “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all 

migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to 

become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” The 

goal of the BCC list is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by 

implementing proactive management and conservation actions; these species would be 

consulted on in accordance with Executive Order 13136, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (USFWS 2008). 

The BCC list for the short-grass prairie (USFWS 2008) and habitats and ranges of the 

species were reviewed to create another list of BCC possibly found in habitats on the 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-36

TTC property. The only birds on this list that are potential breeders in the project area 

are the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), burrowing owl, and lark bunting 

(Calamospiza melanocorys) (Kingery 1998). The remaining species on the BCC list for 

short-grass prairie have ranges outside of the project area, or a suitable breeding 

habitat is not supported on the TTC property. Burrowing owl and mountain plover are

discussed in Section 4.6.1.3.

Lark buntings are migrants that winter in the southwestern United States and farther 

south into Mexico. These birds breed in grassland and prairie habitats of the Northern 

Great Plains (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Unlike other prairie nesting species, this species 

generally prefers moister and taller grassland vegetation (Kingery 1998), and the sandy 

soils present in the project area are unlikely to support the grassland habitats preferred 

by this species. Therefore, lark bunting is considered an unlikely breeder on the TTC 

property and its presence was not documented by field surveys.

Pollinators

On June 20th, 2014, the White House issued a memorandum2 for creating a federal 

strategy to promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators. Agencies were 

asked to assess the lands held by the government for pollinator habitat and support. 

This facility is rather large, with a lot of undeveloped land suitable for pollinators. The 

natural field-ecology that comprises the undeveloped acreage in the facility hosts 

pollinators. Since much of the land on the facility is undeveloped and not managed with 

herbicides or pesticides, the TTC facility supports habitat suitable for pollinators3

though none of the pollinators are listed as endangered or threatened. 

4.6.1.3 Threatened, Endangered, and State Species of Special Concern

The project biologist requested and received a USFWS Colorado Ecological Services 

species list for the TTC property from the Service’s online Information, Planning, and 

Conservation (IPaC) decision support system on July 24, 2013. Table 4-5 lists the 

species provided by the IPaC system. As indicated, there is no suitable habitat for any 

federally listed wildlife or plant species in the project area.

Table 4-5 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species for TTC Property

Species Common 

and Scientific 

Name

Status Potential 

to Occur? Reason For Exclusion

Arkansas darter

Etheostoma cragini Candidate No No suitable aquatic habitat is present in project area.

 

2 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/presidentialmemorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b. Last checked 1/29/2015

3

See “Selecting Plants for Pollinators: A Regional Guide for Farmers, Land Managers, and 

Gardners in the Intermountain Semidesert and Desert Province” published by the North 

American Pollinator Campaign. Available at 

http://pollinator.org/PDFs/Guides/IntermtSemiDsrtDesertrx4FINAL.pdf Last checked 

1/29/2015
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-37

Species Common 

and Scientific 

Name

Status Potential 

to Occur? Reason For Exclusion

Black-footed ferret

Mustela nigripes Experimenta

l Population,

Nonessential

No

Extirpated in State except for 

experimental reintroduction sties. 

No reintroductions have occurred 

within or near TTC property 

boundaries.

Canada lynx

Lynx canadensis Threatened No

Preferred habitats of montane and 

subalpine forests are not present in 

project area.

Greenback cutthroat 

trout

Oncorhynchus clarki 

stommias

Threatened No

No suitable aquatic habitat is 

present in project area.

Mexican spotted owl

Strix occidentalis 

lucida Threatened No

Preferred habitats of late-seral, 

closed canopy forest, or steep-sided 

moist canyons are not present in 

project area.

North American 

wolverine

Gulo gulo luscus

Candidate No

Remote subalpine and spruce/fir 

forests are not present in the 

project area.

The CPW (2013) wildlife list of State Threatened, Endangered, and species of Special 

Concern was reviewed for the species’ potential presence on the TTC property. Based 

on species’ ranges and habitat preferences, it was determined that seven State-listed 

species of Special Concern could be potential inhabitants in or near the property. They 

are black-tailed prairie dog, swift fox, ferruginous hawk, mountain plover, massasauga, 

(Sistrurus catenatus), northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), and plains leopard frog 

(Lithobates blairi). One State-listed Threatened species, the burrowing owl, was also 

found to be a potential inhabitant on or near the TTC property. The State Special 

Concern classification is not a statutory category.

USFWS published notice in the Federal Register on February 4, 2000, stating that the 

status of the black-tailed prairie dog warranted its listing, but higher priority species 

deserving of more immediate attention precluded the listing of the black-tailed prairie 

dog at that time. Since that notice was published, most western States have updated 

population and distribution information for the species and have developed habitat and 

species management plans to address conservation of the black-tailed prairie dog. 

Colorado’s Conservation Plan for Grassland Species was finalized in November 2003 

(CDOW 2003). In light of the updated information provided by many western States, the 

USFWS has removed this species from its list of Candidate species (USFWS 2009). Blacktailed prairie dog is currently listed by Colorado as a species of Special Concern (CPW 

2013).

Black-tailed prairie dogs inhabit grasslands and sparse shrublands. An earlier resource 

report (USDA, SCS 1972) and the late April-early May 2013 field reconnaissance 

documented the presence of this species on the TTC property. Current prairie dog town 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-38

boundaries were delineated based on the presence of prairie dog burrows visible on 

2011 NAIP aerial photography obtained for the TTC property (see range map in 

Appendix B). Based on this mapping and NRCS soils mapping for TTC property (see 

Section 4.5), prairie dog presence on the TTC property appears to be restricted to the 

more stable (non Valent loamy sand) soils in the western and southern portions of the 

property.

Swift fox inhabit short-grass and mid-grass prairies over most of the Great Plains, 

including eastern Colorado. The swift fox has never been abundant in Colorado, but it is 

likely to be present anywhere on the eastern plains where native grasslands are present 

(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). They excavate their own dens, which are typically located along 

slopes or ridges that provide good views of surrounding areas (Fitzgerald et al. 1994).

No observations of swift fox or its dens were recorded by field surveys, but it is a

possible inhabitant of the TTC property.

Ferruginous hawk inhabit grasslands, shrublands, and steppe-deserts of the Western 

United States. It is a summer resident and breeder in Colorado (Kingery 1998). During 

the winter months, the hawks migrate to similar habitats in the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico (Terres 1980). Foraging habitat consists of nonforested, 

nonmountainous areas such as desert shrub and grassland communities. Habitat 

occupied by ferruginous hawks in Colorado consists of mixed-grass prairie, shrubgrasslands, grasslands, grass-sagebrush complex, and sagebrush steppe (Kingery 1998). 

Nesting occurs on bluffs, buttes, rock outcrop or pillars, ridge tops, high points on open 

ground, and in isolated trees and large shrubs. This species may hunt over the TTC 

property, but no suitable nesting habitat is present on or near the property.

Mountain plover is a migratory species in Colorado. This species resides in Colorado 

from the spring through fall and breeds on the eastern plains. This species is an 

inhabitant of arid, short-grass prairie dominated by blue grama and buffalograss with 

scattered clumps of cacti and forbs (Dinsmore 2003). It is considered a disturbedprairie or a semi-desert species. Mountain plovers are very selective in choosing nest 

sites, preferring expansive, arid flats with very short-grass and a high proportion of bare 

ground. In parts of its breeding range, the mountain plover selectively nests in prairie 

dog towns, disturbed sites, overgrazed areas, and previously burned areas with low 

vegetation cover. Previously burned areas and prairie dog towns within the TTC 

property boundaries may provide suitable nesting habitat for mountain plover.

Massasauga is a venomous pit viper that is relatively common throughout the southern 

Great Plains, Midwest, and Great Lakes regions in river bottoms, wet prairies, swamps, 

bogs, and dry grasslands. In Colorado it is found in dry plains grasslands and sandhill 

habitats in the southeast portion of the State (Hammerson 1999). CNHP database 

records indicate that massasauga is relatively common in and near the project area 

since there are occurrence records for every Section in Township 18 South, Range 62 

West. CPW (NDIS 2012) range mapping for this species indicates it is likely to be found 

in all but the far western edge of the TTC property (see range map in Appendix B). This 

snake hibernates in burrows from late October to mid-April in Colorado (Hammerson 

1999). It can be found hunting on the surface during daylight hours, but generally hunts 

from early evening through early morning during the hotter summer months 

(Hammerson 1999).
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-39

The northern leopard frog can be found throughout much of Colorado along the banks 

and in the shallow water areas of marshes, ponds, streams, lakes and reservoirs 

(Hammerson 1999). Northern leopard frogs are a highly aquatic species and are usually 

found in close proximity to the banks and shallow water areas of permanent marshes, 

ponds, streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Water bodies with rooted aquatic vegetation are 

preferred, although adult frogs can travel into moist, grassy meadows away from 

aquatic habitat to forage during the summer months (Hammerson 1999). Within the 

TTC property boundaries, wetlands and open water areas along the Black Squirrel 

drainage represent the only suitable habitat for northern leopard frog.

The distribution of plains leopard frog in Colorado includes southeast Colorado and the 

Arkansas River drainage. This species inhabits the margins of streams, natural and 

artificial ponds, reservoirs, creek pools, irrigation ditches, and other water bodies 

within plains grassland habitats, although, it may disperse away from water during mild 

and wet weather conditions (Hammerson 1999). The northern leopard frogs are active 

primarily from March or April through October and winter underwater at the bottom of 

ponds or deep pools (Hammerson 1999). Within the TTC property boundaries, 

wetlands and open water areas along the Black Squirrel drainage represent the only 

suitable habitat for plains leopard frog.

Burrowing owls are a migratory species in Colorado. This species resides in Colorado 

from spring through fall (March through October), typically in grasslands and mountain 

parks in or near prairie dog towns. Families of owls remain together in a prairie dog 

town into September until they migrate south to Mexico and Central America to spend 

the winter. Burrowing owls may use prairie dog towns located on the TTC property (see 

prairie dog range map in Appendix B) for breeding, nesting, and rearing young before 

they migrate south to Mexico and Central America.

4.6.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments

4.6.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

Vegetation

Operational Activities

Testing

There would be relatively minor losses of vegetation associated with construction of 

props for testing activities. These possible surface disturbance effects would not be 

significant. There would be minor disturbances to vegetation resources associated with 

these developments, some of which may be permanent. Wind erosion would result in 

minor losses of soils resources at these disturbances. However, soil losses would be 

relatively minor, and revegetation efforts are likely to be successful best management 

practice with the recommended soil stabilization measures (see Section 4.6.2.3). As a 

result, effects on vegetation resulting from testing would be minor, adverse, short-term, 

and long-term.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-40

Research

Research activities would occur within existing facilities, and there would be no 

additional effects on vegetation resources within the TTC property boundaries.

Training

Training activities would occur within existing facilities, and there would be no 

additional direct effects on vegetation resources within the TTC property boundaries. 

Beyond the training area perimeters, there is a slight risk that minor grass fires could 

occur in association with possible explosives removal or fire-fighting scenarios. 

Unintended grass fires would be quickly extinguished by TTC’s on-site firefighting 

equipment, and burned areas would be reclaimed in accordance with the TTC 

Revegetation Plan. Therefore, additional effects on vegetation resources would be 

minor, adverse, and short-term.

Anticipated Activities

Construction of additional facilities would affect areas of vegetation resources in the 

vicinity of the proposed facilities. Total disturbance acreages associated with these 

possible developments are unknown but would be relatively minor in relation to the 

total extent of vegetation resources across the TTC property. These disturbances would 

be permanent except for laydown and construction sites that would be reclaimed after 

construction was complete. Wind erosion could result in additional minor losses of soils 

resources at these disturbances. However, soil losses would be relatively minor, and 

revegetation efforts are likely to be successful with the recommended soil stabilization 

measures (see Section 4.6.2.3). Effects on vegetation resulting from construction would 

be minor, adverse, short-term, and long-term.

Weapons research, blast testing, and off-road vehicle use have the additional potential 

to spark grass fires beyond the training area perimeters. Unintended grass fires would 

be quickly extinguished by TTC’s on-site firefighting equipment, and burned areas 

would be reclaimed in accordance with the TTC Revegetation Plan. Therefore, 

additional effects on vegetation resources would be minor, adverse, and short term.

In the event that a listed or threatened species is identified, then FRA would perform the 

necessary actions to comply with Section 7 and other requirements on a future project 

by project basis, as there are no existing or future projects that affect listed species.

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

Existing infrastructure would have no additional effects on existing vegetation 

resources beyond those that have already occurred with the construction of the 

facilities.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-41

Wildlife

Operational Activities

Testing

There would be relatively minor loss of wildlife habitat associated with construction of 

props for testing activities. Surface disturbance activities proposed for the project could

result in effects that are not expected to be significant. There would be minor 

disturbances to wildlife habitat associated with these developments, some of which may 

be permanent. There is also the potential for mule deer or pronghorn fatalities from rail 

car movement, especially along the high-speed tracks. However, based on past observed 

incidences of these collisions, the risk of train and big game collisions is very low. As a 

result, effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat resulting from testing would be minor, 

adverse, short-term, and long-term.

Research

Research activities would occur within existing facilities, and there would be no 

additional effects on wildlife or wildlife habitat within the TTC property boundaries.

Training

Training activities would occur within existing facilities, and there would be no 

additional direct effects on wildlife or wildlife habitat within the TTC property 

boundaries. Beyond the training area perimeters, there is a slight risk that minor grass 

fires could occur in association with possible explosives removal or fire-fighting 

scenarios. Unintended grass fires would be quickly extinguished by TTC’s on-site 

firefighting equipment, and burned areas would be reclaimed in accordance with the 

TTC Revegetation Plan. Therefore, additional effects on wildlife habitat would be minor, 

adverse, and short term.

Anticipated Activities

As indicated in the vegetation section, there would be relatively minor, short-term and 

long-term losses and disturbance to wildlife habitats associated with construction of 

new facilities, either from direct disturbance or from unintended grass fires. Habitat 

loss could result in (1) minor direct losses of smaller, less mobile species of wildlife such 

as small mammals and reptiles and (2) displacement of more mobile species to adjacent 

undisturbed habitats until construction is complete. Populations of most small 

mammals and reptiles would be expected to recover upon completion of construction

because of their relatively high reproductive potentials. Displacement could result in 

some local wildlife population reductions if adjacent undisturbed habitats are at 

carrying capacity. Total disturbance acreages associated with these possible 

developments are unknown but would be relatively minor in relation to the total extent 

of available habitat across the TTC property. These disturbances would be permanent 

except for laydown and construction sites that would be reclaimed after construction 

was complete.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-42

New facilities’ development in undisturbed habitat areas would also have the potential 

to inadvertently adversely affect nesting songbirds if ground-clearing and grading 

activities were to occur during the nesting season (April 1 through July 31). Groundclearing and grading activities in existing prairie dog towns during the nesting season 

has the potential to inadvertently adversely affect nesting mountain plovers, which is 

listed as a BCC by the USFWS (2008). Loss of mountain plover or other migratory bird 

nests would be a violation of the MBTA.

Weapons research, blast testing, and off-road vehicle use have the added potential to 

spark grass fires beyond the training area perimeters. Unintended grass fires would be 

quickly extinguished by TTC’s on-site firefighting equipment, and burned areas would 

be reclaimed in accordance with the TTC Revegetation Plan. As described under Testing, 

there is also the potential for mule deer or pronghorn fatalities from rail car movement 

along the proposed high-speed track, which would traverse a greater area of terrain 

than the tracks currently used. The risk for rail car and big game collisions is likely to 

remain low based on the rarity of past occurrences.

Another potential direct adverse effect would be the risk of explosion debris striking 

and causing injury to wildlife in the vicinity of a test blast area. Debris would not include 

hazardous materials, but would include solid objects and particles. Initial estimates are 

that sheet metal separated from the test items may be as large as 1 meter (3 feet) in 

diameter. Debris pieces of this size are expected to travel far less than 150 feet from the 

blast site. Most debris pieces are expected to be much smaller, ranging to microscopic 

sizes. The level of risk for wildlife strikes by explosion debris is impossible to predict, 

but is likely to be very low because of the relative infrequency of larger blasts that 

would create debris fields beyond the immediate blast area.

A final potential effect on resident wildlife species would be the direct effect of loud 

noise associated with explosive and weapons testing. Reaction of animals to noise varies 

depending on the intensity of the noise source and whether it is continuous or 

intermittent. Infrequent, loud noises, like explosions and weapons firing, generally 

provoke alarm responses (Busnel 1978). Loud noises also have the potential to displace 

wildlife from a larger area than the immediate test area. The total extent of habitat lost 

as a result of wildlife avoidance response is impossible to predict for most species since 

the degree of alarm response may vary from species to species and even between 

individuals of the same species.

The effects of noise on wildlife have been evaluated by large numbers of studies, and the 

results of these studies have been summarized and reviewed by a number of authors 

(Busnel 1978; Larkin no date; Radle 2007; Turina and Barber 2011). Alarm responses 

can cause physiological stress such as an increased heart rate, a change in metabolism,

shifts in hormone balance, and behavioral reactions such as head raising, body shifting, 

increased alertness, trotting short distances, flapping of wings (birds), and panic and 

escape behavior. Depending on the length and duration of noise effects, some studies 

indicate the coupling of these effects has the potential to cause bodily injury, energy 

loss, a decrease in food intake, habitat avoidance and abandonment, and reproductive 

losses (Radle 2007). Overall, the level of alarm response would correlate to proximity to 

the noise source and intensity/duration of noise. Noise levels associated with larger 

proposed explosives testing would create noise levels similar to a jackhammer within a 

few miles of the test site. However, these larger explosion events would be very 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-43

infrequent. Less disruptive events (in terms of noise levels) would be more typical but 

limited to seven additional smaller explosion tests (between 5 and 50 lb). Because of

the infrequency of larger explosions and brief duration of all explosion tests, wildlife 

species’ responses are unlikely to result in any long-term changes in wildlife presence 

and distribution. This conclusion is corroborated by a review of studies (Larkin, no 

date) evaluating military and civilian blast noise that concluded that intermittent large 

blasts appear to have no measurable long-term effects on wildlife, although the risk of 

hearing damage has not been evaluated.

In summary, effects related to wildlife habitat loss would be relatively small, adverse, 

short-term, and minimal. Effects related to noise effects would result in short-term, 

relatively minor adverse effects to wildlife near the test sites, but significant adverse 

long-term effects are unlikely. Therefore, additional effects related to wildlife habitats 

would be both short-term and long-term but relatively small; significant, adverse, longterm effects are unlikely.

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

Existing infrastructure would have no additional effects on wildlife or wildlife habitat 

beyond those that have already occurred with the construction of these facilities.

Threatened, Endangered, and State Special Concern Species

Since no federally listed Threatened or Endangered species are found in or near the test 

areas, there would be no significant direct or indirect effects on these species.

Seven State species of Special Concern (black-tailed prairie dog, swift fox, ferruginous 

hawk, mountain plover, massasauga, northern leopard frog, and plains leopard frog) 

and one State species designated Threatened (burrowing owl) are known to live or 

could potentially be found within the TTC property boundaries. The discussions of 

effects provided for general wildlife would apply to the seven State Special Concern 

species and the one State Threatened species. Additional species-specific discussions 

are provided where pertinent in this section.

Operational Activities

Testing, Research, Training, and Infrastructure

Effects of testing, research, training, and infrastructure on Threatened, Endangered, and 

State Special Concern Species are the same as discussed under wildlife.

Anticipated Activities

Effects of anticipated activities on Threatened, Endangered, and State Special Concern 

species are the same as discussed under wildlife. Additional analysis specific to the 

seven State Special Concern species and one State Threatened species are as follows.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-44

Habitat loss could result in minor direct losses of less mobile species of wildlife, such as

massasauga and black-tailed prairie dog. Loss of members of these species on the TTC 

property would be relatively minor since the total acreage of disturbance would be 

small in relation to remaining available undisturbed habitats. Minor losses of both 

species may result in a short-term reduction of overall population size within the TTC 

property, but is unlikely to result in downward population trend of these species in the 

TTC property region. Any new construction would likely avoid the designated 100-year 

floodplains for Black Squirrel Creek and Haynes Creek, and wetlands would not be 

impacted so direct habitat loss or impacts to populations of northern and plains leopard 

frog are not likely to occur.

Anticipated development activities could result in minor displacement of foraging 

ferruginous hawks or swift fox on the TTC property. There would be no effect on 

breeding ferruginous hawks since no nest sites or suitable nesting habitats are located 

within or near the TTC property. Minor displacement of foraging birds during 

construction activities would not adversely affect local populations of this highly mobile 

and wide-ranging species. There is a slight risk that new construction during the swift 

fox parturition and early pup-rearing season (March through June) could result in the 

loss of a swift fox den and swift fox pups. Proposed environmental commitments would 

prevent the risk of swift fox den loss due to construction (see Section 4.6.2.3).

The construction of new facilities in existing prairie dog towns has the potential to 

inadvertently adversely affect burrowing owls or mountain plover and nests of these 

species if construction occurs during the nesting and brood rearing season. If a prairie 

dog town is being used by breeding burrowing owls or mountain plovers, nests of these 

birds can be destroyed inadvertently during grading and other site preparation 

activities. Federal (MBTA) and state laws prohibit the killing of burrowing owls, 

mountain plovers, or the inadvertent loss of occupied nests. Proposed environmental 

commitments would reduce the risk of burrowing owl or mountain plover nest loss due 

to construction (see Section 4.6.2.3).

In summary, habitat loss effects on State Threatened and Special Concern species would 

be relatively small, adverse, short-term, and long-term. Effects related to noise would 

result in short-term, relatively minor adverse effects to wildlife near the test sites, but 

significant adverse long-term effects are unlikely. Therefore, additional effects on State 

Threatened and Special Concern species and their habitats would be both short-term 

and long-term but relatively small. Significant, adverse, long-term effects are unlikely. 

Potential loss of burrowing owl or mountain plover nests would be in violation of state 

and federal (MBTA) laws and would be precluded by recommended best management 

practices (see Section 4.6.2.3).

4.6.2.2 Effects of the No Action Alternative

Vegetation

Potential effects on vegetation from the No Action Alternative would be identical to 

those of the Proposed Action.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources: 4-45

Wildlife

Potential effects on wildlife from the No Action Alternative would be identical to those 

of the Proposed Action.

Threatened, Endangered, and State Special Concern Species

Potential effects on Threatened, Endangered, or State Special Concern species from the 

No Action Alternative would be identical to those of the Proposed Action.

4.6.2.3 Environmental Commitments

Vegetation

As a result of the high potential for wind erosion related to soil disturbances associated 

with testing and anticipated construction activities, it is recommended that best 

management practices and minimization techniques be employed such as temporary 

soil stabilization measures over areas of exposed surface soils to ensure revegetation 

success. Temporary stabilization can be accomplished with mulches, wind fences, and 

erosion mats or netting. Once testing and construction activities are completed, 

permanent soil stabilization can be best accomplished by planting native, deep-rooted 

grass species adapted to the area and sandy soils. Supplemental watering may be 

necessary for initial establishment of these grasses during periods of prolonged 

drought. If wetlands soils, with moderate to high levels of alkalinity and soluble salts, 

are disturbed, vegetation restoration efforts will need to rely on vegetation species 

adapted to soils with these revegetation constraints.

Wildlife

Measures to stabilize soils and restore vegetation should be a best management practice 

implemented to ensure the restoration of wildlife habitat for temporary disturbance 

sites associated with testing, training, or new facility construction.

To the extent possible, initiation of new construction (ground clearing and grading) 

should not occur in existing undisturbed habitats during the migratory bird-nesting 

season (April 1 through July 31) to avoid the inadvertent loss of migratory bird nests, 

which would be a violation of the MBTA. If early construction ground preparation 

cannot avoid the migratory bird-nesting season, nest clearance surveys will be 

completed prior to construction to document a lack of nests prior to construction. If any 

occupied nests are located, construction activities would need to avoid the nest by 

creating an appropriate buffer zone until the young are successfully fledged.

Threatened, Endangered, and State Species of Concern

It is recommended that testing, training, and new facility construction avoid active 

prairie dog towns to the extent possible to minimize potential adverse effects on this 

State Special Concern species.

If future construction does occur in a prairie dog town, the construction should occur 

outside of the burrowing owl nesting and brood-rearing season (March 1 to October 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Cultural Resources: 4-46

31). If construction cannot be avoided in prairie dog towns during these time periods,

the towns should be surveyed on two consecutive mornings to confirm the lack of 

burrowing owl presence prior to potential ground-disturbance activities between 

March 1 and October 31. If nesting burrowing owls are determined to be present, the 

CPW recommends maintaining a 150-foot no human intrusion zone around the nest, or 

site preparation activities should be completed between November 1 and the end of 

February to ensure burrowing owl young or nests are not inadvertently disturbed or 

destroyed. For mountain plovers, it is recommended that prairie dog towns be surveyed 

as per USFWS (March 2002) guidelines for mountain plover presence if a prairie dog 

town would be disturbed between April 1 and July 31. If an occupied mountain plover 

nest is located, construction activities should not occur within 1⁄4 mile of the nest site 

during the breeding season (April through July) in order to avoid disturbance of 

possible nesting birds and violation of the MBTA. 

Depending on the location and timing of anticipated construction activities, additional 

surveys to update prairie dog burrow locations and determine presence or absence of 

burrowing owls may be necessary. As long as the recommended measures are followed, 

initiation of ground disturbance activities would have no adverse effects on breeding 

burrowing owls or mountain plovers.

Prior to any new construction activities in undisturbed habitats within the TTC property 

from March through June, the construction area should be surveyed for the presence of 

any swift fox dens. If an occupied natal den is located, construction within the 

parturition and early young rearing period should maintain a minimum of a 300-foot 

non-disturbance buffer zone around the den until the end of June.

4.7 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are the remains of prehistoric and historic human activity, 

occupation, or endeavor as reflected in districts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, 

artifacts, ruins, works of art, architecture, and natural features that were of importance 

in human history. Cultural resources may include the physical remains themselves, the 

areas where significant human events occurred (even if evidence of the event no longer 

remains), or the environment surrounding the actual resource. 

The NHPA of 1966 and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 provide for 

the protection of significant cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA describes the 

process that federal agencies must follow to identify, evaluate, and coordinate their 

activities with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Nations, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and other consulting parties and recommendations 

concerning cultural resources. Significant cultural resources are defined as those listed 

in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. A cultural resource may be considered eligible for 

listing in the National Register if it retains sufficient integrity (of location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association) and meets a specific set of 

criteria described below:

• The resource must be associated with events that have made a 

significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history (Criterion 

A);
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Cultural Resources: 4-47

• The resource must be associated with the lives of persons significant in 

our past (Criterion B);

• The resource must embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, 

period, or method of construction; must represent the work of a master;

must possess high artistic values; or must represent a significant and 

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction 

(Criterion C); or

• The resource must have yielded, or be likely to yield, information 

important in prehistory or history (Criterion D).

4.7.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed 

Action

Regional reviews of the history and prehistory of the region can be found in Colorado 

Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin (Gilmore et al. 1999), Colorado History: 

A Context for Historical Archaeology (Church and Cassells 2007), and Colorado Plains 

Historic Context (Mehls 1984). 

Very little of the TTC property has been subjected to intensive cultural resource 

inventory, most of which has occurred in the last decade in conjunction with new 

development within the facility (see Table 1-1). Off-facility cultural resource inventories 

indicate that a low-density prehistoric occupation likely existed at TTC and is likely 

expressed as isolated artifacts and a few large sites. There was a historic occupation of 

TTC, as evidenced by ranching structures on the facility.

TTC’s R&D focus has resulted in, and will likely continue to result in, the creation of 

objects and properties considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. None of the objects 

or properties meet the 50-year age requirements under the NRHP criteria, there is 

potential in the future they would meet Criterion A for contributions to the broad 

patterns of history and Criterion C for the distinctive characteristics of the type or 

method of construction. 

4.7.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments

Effects on cultural resources that are caused directly or indirectly by government 

activities would be significant only if they were to occur to a cultural resource 

considered eligible for or listed in the NRHP. 

4.7.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

The ACHP has set procedures (36 CFR 800) to be followed to determine the effect a 

project may have on significant cultural resources and how to mitigate that effect if it is 

determined to be adverse. When no sites or properties eligible to or listed in the NRHP 

are located in the APE, a proposed undertaking can be determined to have “No Historic 

Properties Affected,” or “No Potential to Affect” and FRA may proceed with the 

undertaking. If any site(s) currently in or eligible for nomination to the NRHP is present 

in the APE, FRA must determine whether the undertaking will adversely affect those 

properties. In addition, SHPO will be consulted as needed on a project-by-project basis.

If the federal agency determines the undertaking will result in an adverse effect to the 

resource, the agency will identify the appropriate steps will be taken to avoid or 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Cultural Resources: 4-48

mitigate the adverse effects on the cultural property. An action is considered to have an 

adverse effect when it may diminish the integrity of the significant property’s location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects may 

include but are not limited to:

• Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property

• Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the 

property’s setting, when the character contributes to the property’s 

eligibility to the NRHP

• Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospherical elements that are out of 

character with the property or alter its setting

• Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration and destruction

• Transfer, lease, or sale of the property

Operational Activities

Testing and Research

FRA would be responsible for complying with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 for 

existing and anticipated actions that impact those cultural resources determined to be 

eligible for listing in or listed in the National Register. TTCI and FRA would consult with 

the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and any other interested parties to 

identify the APEs, the presence or absence of cultural resources, the effects an action 

would have on those resources, and the appropriate avoidance or minimization 

measures. 

Training

Continued training activities within the current facilities do not have the potential to 

affect Historic Properties as the training activities occur within previously analyzed 

facility areas and do not have actions that would affect these properties. 

Potential Activities

Direct effects on prehistoric and historic archaeological sites could occur as a result of 

ground-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, burial, earth moving), which would occur 

in conjunction with any future activity. New development has the potential to cause 

effects to Historic Properties will be considered through the Section 106 process. 

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

Continued maintenance of infrastructure within the current facilities does not have the 

potential to affect Historic Properties. 

4.7.2.2 Effects of the No Action Alternative

There are no effects to cultural resources, because the No Action Alternative is the same 

as the current existing conditions.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Land Use and Transportation: 4-49

4.7.2.3 Environmental Commitments 

SHPO will be consulted as needed on a project-by-project basis.

4.8 Land Use and Transportation

4.8.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed 

Action

The TTC property is located on rural land owned by the State of Colorado and leased to 

FRA on August 22, 1970. This lease agreement, covering 33,492.13 acres (135,533.78 

hectares) approximately 5.5 miles wide and 9 miles long, is for a 50-year period ending 

on August 22, 2020, with an option to renew for two more 50-year periods with no 

change in the terms of the lease agreement. The first extension option has been 

exercised, with the lease period extended to August 22, 2070.

Under this lease agreement, the U.S. Government (U.S. DOT-FRA) has the right to drill 

wells for water and to use this water for industrial and domestic purposes. At present, 

TTC has adjudicated water rights to 40 acre-feet of water annually.

U.S. DOT FRA has a lease for the surface use of the said land only, while the State of 

Colorado retains all rights to the minerals of the site. U.S. DOT-FRA cannot explore, drill,

or mine for any minerals on the land.

The project area is situated on an undeveloped area approximately 21 miles northeast 

of the City of Pueblo. TTC is located on semi-arid rangeland which largely consists of 

rolling plains. Most of the land is void of erosional channels due to the high permeability 

of the soil. Some normally dry/shallow arroyos exist to the south and west where clay 

soils surface. The terrain is generally treeless, covered mainly with sparse bunchgrass, 

sagebrush, tumbleweed, and cactus. While generally dry, there are a few places where 

surface water exists intermittently.

Elevations vary from 5,300 feet (1,615 m) above sea level in the northeast part of TTC to 

about 4,830 feet (1,472 m) in the southwest. The surface varies from gently sloping and 

slightly undulating terrain in the south and west parts of the site to progressively more 

sharply rolling sand hills to the north and east.

Surrounding lands are vacant expanses of open rangeland that are privately owned, or 

state and/or federally owned public lands. Vegetative cover is primarily grasses and 

sagebrush. Adjacent property owners include the following: the Colorado State Land 

Board and one private land owner to the north; the Bureau of Land Management, 

Colorado State Land Board, and private lands to the east; the Department of Defense, 

Colorado State Land Board, and one parcel of private land to the south; and the 

Colorado State Land Board to the west. Outlying land ownership includes other private 

land owners and the Colorado State Land Board. Historically, land uses have been 

agricultural, primarily involving livestock grazing. The TTC property was a working 

cattle ranch prior to 1970. Since that time, no grazing has occurred on-site; however, 

grazing does occur on land adjacent to the site.

No residential developments, businesses, or other populated areas are located in the 

surrounding area. The nearest development is located along the U.S. 50 highway 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Land Use and Transportation: 4-50

corridor approximately 17 miles to the south of the project (SEH 2011). The isolated 

nature and vacant land buffer characterizing the TTC property ensures that TTC 

operations do not conflict with neighboring land uses. Yet, TTC is close enough to 

Pueblo to enable a reasonable commuter distance for TTC employees.

Six rural residences border the TTC site and are potential noise receptors. 

4.8.1.1 Land Use Regulations

Pueblo County is divided into nearly two dozen districts or zones for the purpose of 

land use regulation. Each of these zone districts identifies permitted land uses, both byright and by-review, along with regulations governing minimum lot area, building sizes, 

building heights, setbacks of structures from property lines, parking requirements, and 

other development standards. Pueblo County Ordinance, Title 17 Land Use Division I 

Zoning, sets these zone districts (Pueblo County Zoning Maps 2013).

The zoning designation for the TTC facility is Agricultural One (A-1). According to Title 

17.12 of Pueblo County’s land use ordinances, the standards for this district are 

designed to promote and maintain the appropriate use of dry range and irrigated lands, 

as well as encourage open use of the land in keeping with its natural characteristics and 

agricultural functions (Pueblo County Code 2013). Surrounding lands are also zoned A1 and consist of vacant expanses of open rangeland owned by government and private 

entities. 

4.8.1.2 Transportation

As mentioned earlier, TTC is located approximately 21 miles from the City of Pueblo and 

is accessed from I-25 off U.S. Highway 50/State Highway 96. The primary access is via 

Paul Harvey Boulevard to United Avenue east past the Pueblo Memorial Airport. From 

this point, access to the site is via Pueblo County Road 3, commonly called the DOT Road 

or DOT Test Road. The DOT Road ends at the site. All access roads are paved and in 

excellent condition. The roads are well maintained throughout the year. A second access 

route on IL Road is parallel to the eastern boundaries of TTC and the Pueblo Chemical

Depot. This is a gravel-surfaced county road, with access a mile west of Boone, CO, on 

Colorado 96. Boone is 17 miles east of Pueblo on Colorado 96.

The overpass bridge crossing the Precision Test Track at the eastern entrance to the 

core area is part of the TTC property. The Pueblo County Road and Bridge Department 

maintains the paved access road up to the overpass bridge. TTCI maintains all other 

roads on-site. A network of internal roadways leads to each of the test areas and 

building sites for maintenance, operations, and emergency response. Additional twotrack roads have been established in the more remote locations to aid in firefighting 

wild land type fires. There are approximately 6 miles of bituminous paved roadways 

and 65 miles of gravel surfaced roads on-site. Most roads are approximately 20 feet 

wide.

4.8.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments 

4.8.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

Potential effects on land use and transportation from testing, research, training, 

infrastructure, and anticipated activities are discussed below.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Land Use and Transportation: 4-51

No significant effects are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. The Proposed 

Action is consistent with previous and current activities at TTC, which has been in 

operation for more than 40 years. Vehicle trips per day, Monday through Friday, are 

estimated at 209 of which 20 are delivery or heavy trucks. An additional 10 to 25 

student vehicles are driven to the external parking lot outside the main gate when 

Hazmat Training is in session. No significant increases in traffic are anticipated as a 

result of the anticipated activities as described further below.

Effects on land use and transportation are anticipated to be direct, short- to long-term 

and negligible. However, the resulting information from testing and training is expected 

to provide future safety benefits in rail transportation and response to emergency 

situations.

Operational Activities

Testing

Effects on land use and transportation caused by testing activities could be related to 

noise from explosive testing or impact testing. The neighboring properties would 

generally be out of visual range of most of the tests conducted, but large blasts would be 

heard. However, most noise related to these types of tests would not have a significant 

effect on the few neighboring residential properties. To eliminate the potential for 

effects on livestock, landowners would receive notification before detonation of tests 

utilizing larger amounts of explosives (50 pounds or larger) so that they would be able 

to move their livestock. It is anticipated that very few of the tests that would be 

performed per year would require notification. Fire testing including crude oil tests in 

rail cars would not be expected to occur often during any given year.

Noise from explosive tests would be extremely brief in duration, and where appropriate, 

adjacent owners would be notified before initiation of the testing. 

Research

Research activities are not anticipated to have direct or indirect effects on adjoining 

land uses in the project area. Transportation systems both externally and internally may 

be somewhat affected if materials are transported to the site for research activities or 

new roads are constructed to provide access to new rails or research sites that may be 

required for various research activities.

Training

Effects on land use and transportation would be similar to those potential effects

discussed under testing. However, the potential short-term noise and air quality effects

are anticipated to be negligible and short-term. Additional props for training activities 

could be brought on site and stored in other locations on TTC property.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Noise: 4-52

Anticipated Activities

Anticipated activities that might affect land use and transportation consist of a new 

high-speed track (more than 165 mph); more terrain props to be utilized by DHS and 

TSA for motor carrier, bus, and rail safety research; blast effects on transportation 

vehicles; research for FBI and CIA, DOD–weapons research; off-road vehicle tests for the 

U.S. Army; and possible research related to tunnels and bridges for the science and 

technology division of TSA. The potential effects related to anticipated activities would 

be similar to those discussed above as relates to transportation and land use. 

Construction related to these anticipated activities would have negligible to minor, 

adverse, direct, short-term or long-term effects on transportation and land use. 

Resulting information from testing and training is expected to provide future safety 

benefits in rail transportation and response to emergency situations.

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

The Proposed Action is not expected to result in any substantial increase in the use of

local infrastructure such as roads. The Proposed Action would not disrupt the 

transportation systems in the area or highway vehicle traffic to TTC. Any increase in 

traffic would be associated with test personnel, test observers, or deliveries of materials 

and supplies. Visitors typically obtain hotel accommodations and rental vehicles to 

travel to and from TTC. The additional traffic generated by visitors traveling to the site 

is likely to be minimal and vary depending on tests being conducted. 

Research and testing activities may require some new internal roads to test sites or for 

additional fire breaks —generally gravel roads with average widths of less than 20 feet. 

If the roads are not used for anticipated operation they would eventually be reclaimed 

by revegetation efforts.

4.8.2.2 Effects of the No Action Alternative

Potential effects on land use and transportation from the No Action Alternative would 

be identical to those of the Proposed Action, without anticipated activities. 

4.8.2.3 Environmental Commitments 

There are no environmental commitments required for this resource area. 

4.9 Noise

4.9.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed 

Action

The perception of noise is affected by several factors, including the intensity of the noise 

and the frequencies involved. Intensity of sound is measured in dB units. Sound 

measured in dB assumes that low frequency sound is perceived with the same clarity as 

higher frequency sounds. However, the human ear perceives low frequency sound as 

less loud than higher frequency sound. To adjust the actual intensity of sound to the 

perceived intensity of sound, a filter is used to weight the sound intensity. The most 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Noise: 4-53

commonly referenced weighting is “A-Weighting” dB(A). A-Weighting produces a 

numerical value proportional to the human perception of the strength of that sound 

independent of frequency. Sound level meters (dosimeters) are used to measure Aweighted (dBA). Audible sounds are measured in a range from 0 dBA (“threshold of 

hearing”) to approximately 120 dBA (“threshold of pain”). 

Table 4-6 provides examples of typical sound levels in dBA.

Table 4-6 Typical Sound Levels

Sound Sources dBA

Threshold of hearing 0

Quiet house interior or rural nighttime 20

Quiet rural area 40

Ordinary conversation 60

Passing car at 10 feet or garbage disposal at 3 feet 80

Passing bus or truck at 10 feet or food blender at 3 feet 90

Passing subway train at 10 feet or gas lawn mower at 3 feet 100

Night club with band playing 110

Source: Vanderheiden, G. 2004.

Noise and vibration occur from numerous activities at the TTC facility. Examples of 

these activities are railroad testing, testing locomotive horns, using heavy machinery, 

construction activities, explosive testing, and more. Many activities occurring outdoors 

as well as indoors generate noise levels that are equal to or exceed an 8-hour TimeWeighted Average (TWA) of 85 dBA. TTCI has a formal Hearing Conservation Program 

in place to protect the safety and health of its employees (or visitors) at the TTC 

property (TTCI 2012). Procedures have been developed to:

 Determine if individual exposure exceeds the TWA of 85 dBA;

 Educate employees about the effects of noise on hearing, the purpose and 

requirements for wearing hearing protection, screening program and limits of 

exposure to loud noise;

 Monitor and measure high-noise exposure areas randomly as well as annually;

 Provide hearing tests for all new employees who are working in high level noise 

areas where noise limits are exceeded;

 Ensure all visitors, customers, contractors, and employees have adequate 

hearing protection while visiting or working on TTC property.

There are six residences located within an approximate 9-mile radius of the center of 

the track facility area on the TTC property. Residences within this radius are shown on 

Figure 4-4. Land surrounding the TTC property is open rangeland used for grazing.

Sound propagation can be significantly attenuated by vegetation (including trees and 

grasses) as well as ground contour. Rolling hills exist within the project area and near 

all receptors. These hills provide sound dispersion. Attenuation occurs from both sound 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Noise: 4-54

absorption and dispersion. Sound propagation is also affected by the direction and 

speed of wind. 

4.9.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments 

4.9.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

The Proposed Action includes programs of testing, research, training, infrastructure,

and anticipated projects that may create noise in both the outdoor and indoor 

environments at TTC. 

Operational Activities

Testing, Research, Training, Anticipated Activities

TTC implemented the Hearing Conservation Program in order to protect the health of 

all individuals visiting or working at the site. Personal Noise Exposure procedures 

described above have been developed and are strictly adhered to at TTC. Notices are 

posted at all facility locations where there is a possibility of elevated noise exposure. 

Hearing protection is provided at those locations. Visual cues include flashing red lights 

that warn of upcoming noise exposure. Written notifications are also used in advance of 

any planned testing that will generate elevated noise levels.

Any individual testing, research, or training program likely to create noise is required to 

include a safety plan that outlines specific measures to be taken to limit noise exposure 

for that particular activity. 

With a few exceptions, including explosives testing, ongoing testing at the track facilities 

does not typically create noise levels that can be heard off-site. As described in the 

environmental assessment “Explosive and Fire Testing at the Transportation 

Technology Center” (TSA/FRA 2012), noise generated by explosives testing was not 

expected to result in significant effects on personnel on-site or to nearby property 

owners. Subsequent completion of these explosives tests confirmed this prediction. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Noise: 4-55

Figure 4-4 Project Area with Noise Receptors
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Socioeconomics: 4-56

Noise exposure from testing, research, training, or anticipated activities is not expected 

to result in measurable effects on personnel on-site or to nearby property owners. 

Personnel Noise Exposure procedures limit the exposure for on-site workers and 

visitors, while the remote location of the TTC property limits the exposure to off-site 

receptors. The potential adverse effects are anticipated to be minor to moderate for 

testing, research, training, or anticipated activities at the TTC facilities. Duration of 

exposure varies by activity and is closely monitored by the Hearing Conservation 

Program. 

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

There would be no noise effects from management and maintenance activities at TTC. 

Any construction activities associated with infrastructure development or maintenance 

would have the same effects as those listed above and would be mitigated by specific 

safety plans and the Personnel Noise Exposure policies. 

4.9.2.2 Effects of the No Action Alternative

Potential noise effects from the No Action Alternative would be identical to those of the 

Proposed Action.

4.9.2.3 Environmental Commitments 

The Proposed Action includes implementation of the Hearing Conservation Program, 

including the Personnel Noise Exposure policy for any individual working on or visiting 

the TTC property. 

Each proposed testing, research, or training program includes a safety plan that will 

ensure on-site personnel are taking necessary precautions for noise protection. Any test 

that would possibly result in an outdoor noise exposure of more than 85 dBA will have a 

safety plan in place prior to execution of the test. Any residences within 5 miles of a test 

that is expected to generate excessive noise (explosive tests, for example) would be 

notified prior to execution of the test. Property owners would be instructed to remove 

any livestock near the test area.

4.10Socioeconomics

4.10.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed 

Action

The City of Pueblo is the nearest population center within proximity of the TTC facility. 

The population in Pueblo in 2012 was estimated at 107,772 with a county population of 

160,852. In 2012, the population was 59.8 percent White, 40.2 percent Hispanic, and 6.3

percent other races. The median household income in Pueblo was $34,750 compared 

with the Colorado median household income of $56,685. The poverty rate in Pueblo 

County was estimated at 22 percent compared with the Colorado estimate of 12.5

percent. The most recent unemployment rate in Pueblo is 9.5 percent; this is 1.3 percent

higher than the Colorado average unemployment rate (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). 

Employment is somewhat diverse since Pueblo is a relatively large metropolitan area; 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Socioeconomics: 4-57

with the majority of residents employed in the manufacturing, retail sales, government, 

and health care sectors. Typically, income levels in Pueblo fall below those in other 

metropolitan areas in the area because there are generally less employment 

opportunities in lower paying sectors of the economy found in Pueblo County.

Pueblo County, the City of Pueblo, and other outlying areas all have the infrastructure

necessary to provide adequate housing, water, sewer, utilities, streets, schools, fire, 

police protection, ambulance, health care, recreation, and transportation for personnel 

at TTC.

TTC, built in 1970, is located approximately 21 miles from the City of Pueblo. 

Employment was at a high in 1979 and 1980, with approximately 550 personnel and an 

additional 50 contractors working on-site. FRA was managing the facility with an 

operations and maintenance contractor and miscellaneous test program contractors. On 

October 1, 1982, AAR took over operation of the facility with a little less than 200 

employees. Employment since that time has ranged from a high of more than 300 in 

2000, to the current level in 2013 of approximately 270 permanent employees. An 

additional 19 skilled and unskilled contract personnel (from custodians to test 

engineers) are contracted by TTCI and assigned to TTC on a long-term basis (Meeks 

2013).

Approximately 92 percent of the employees at TTC live in Pueblo County; another 8

percent live in El Paso County; and an additional 20 to 30 employees brought in by 

customers of TTCI may be on-site. Employees typically commute on a daily basis to and 

from the facility. TTCI has inspectors traveling within the United States to perform 

facility inspections for rail vehicle maintenance certifications, and some engineers work 

remotely from TTC. 

TTCI invests in capital infrastructure at the site for equipment (vehicles, computers, 

software, tools, instrumentation equipment, etc.), leasehold improvements, and internal 

R&D equipment. For the past several years these expenditures have averaged 

approximately $4 million annually. In 2013, FRA had a budget of approximately $1.2 

million for construction projects at TTC.

TTCI contracts its security and EMT operation, as well as site maintenance, including 

building and road maintenance. TTCI has an on-site volunteer fire department staffed 

by employees of which 14 have been certified as firefighters and now serve on the fire 

department in addition to working their regular jobs. The fire department has one fire 

engine, two brush trucks, one pumper truck, and one ambulance. Some of this 

equipment is owned by FRA and some is owned by TTCI.

TTCI provides leased vehicles to approximately 20 field inspectors. These inspectors are 

located throughout the country. Local employees are not provided vehicles, but there 

are vehicles on-site that are used by employees (small pickup trucks, larger trucks, and

emergency response vehicles). FRA has 17 vehicles in its fleet, including the fire truck. 

TTCI has 112 vehicles in its fleet.

A breakdown for local and nonlocal annual expenses for labor, including permanent 

employees with fringe benefits and consultants, is currently estimated at $29.4 million 

for local labor and $6.9 million for nonlocal labor. Local versus nonlocal annual 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Socioeconomics: 4-58

expenditures for diesel fuel, materials for test projects, other materials, utility costs, and 

other direct costs, including property taxes to Pueblo County, is currently estimated at 

$6.6 million and $5.4 million, respectively (Meeks 2013). An additional $130,000 is paid 

in sales taxes in more than 40 States.

Operations at TTC are one shift per day, except for FAST which has a night shift 

operation of approximately five employees and site security which is 24 hours a day. .

Other Activities at TTCI

TTCI conducts an annual 2-day conference in Pueblo that approximately 500 

participants attend to see technical presentations on current research at TTC. These 

participants typically stay 2 nights (Estimated annual local hotel, meals, and other travel 

expenses are $250,000.). Another conference is periodically held in Pueblo. This 

conference has an estimated 100 to 200 attendees and can generate upwards of

$100,000 in local direct expenditures.

In addition, local customers traveling to TTC spend approximately $1 million per year 

within the local economy (Meeks 2013).

SERTC trains approximately 2,150 students (2013) per year at TTCI. The local direct 

expenditures for motels, car rentals, meals, and miscellaneous expenses are estimated 

at $2.6 million annually (Meeks 2013).

Table 4-7 shows approximate direct and some indirect economic contributions to the 

local, regional, and national economies from operations at TTC. In addition to the mostly 

direct expenditures shown in the table, a multiplier for indirect and induced effects 

would considerably increase the positive effect on the economy.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Socioeconomics: 4-59

Table 4-7 Estimated Annual Economic Contributions and Expenditures at TTC 

(2013)

Local Local/ Nonlocal Nonlocal

Employment

 Permanent 270 30

 Contract 19

Total Employment 289 30

$ (in millions)

Labor Related Expenditures

 Permanent and Contract $26.9 $4.4

 Consultant $2.5 $2.5

Total Labor Expenditure $29.4 $6.9

Materials and Services Expenditures $6.6 $5.4

Sales Tax $0.13

Other Activities

 Annual Conference $0.25

 Periodic Conference $0.10

Total Direct Expenditures by Participants $2.95

Total Potential Annual Direct and Indirect 

Expenditures from Activities at TTC $38.95 $0.13 $12.30

Source: David Meeks, TTCI, CFO 2013

4.10.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments

4.10.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

Operational Activities

Testing, Research, Training, Anticipated Activities

The Proposed Action would provide socioeconomic benefits to the local area through 

continued permanent and contract employment at TTC. Additional indirect employment 

opportunities would be generated by customer employees visiting the site for various 

activities and participants in testing, training, and anticipated and unplanned activities. 

These direct customer employees at TTCI would require lodging, meals, and would 

generate other retail sales in the area. The cost of additional TTCI employees to support 

the Proposed Action cannot be estimated at this time since the anticipated activities and 

levels of ongoing testing, research, and training have not yet been projected. However, it 

is anticipated that operations would continue as they have done in past years. New 

projects are expected to bring in additional revenue which would entail continuing or 

increased employment at TTCI. The Proposed Action would result in contractors and 

observers traveling to Pueblo and the TTC property. While in Pueblo, the contractors 

and visitors would buy goods and services such as lodging and meals, contributing to 

the economy of the local region.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Socioeconomics: 4-60

No effects on the socioeconomics of the Pueblo area are anticipated due to the Proposed 

Action. Population, housing, public facilities or services in Pueblo, Pueblo County, or 

outlying areas would not likely be dramatically affected by future actions at the facility. 

The only anticipated direct or indirect effect of the Proposed Action is the long-term 

benefit of contributing to the sustained employment of current TTC staff and the shortterm economic benefits associated with visiting contractor and observer expenditures. 

Routine Site Activities

Infrastructure Management and Maintenance

The TTC Site Development Plan lists a number of projects that have been proposed for 

program development, and funds are being solicited. Additional personnel for 

construction activities would be required and would increase development on the site. 

The Plan is looked at as a conceptual plan depending upon potential customer and 

program needs over time. It represents a moderate approach to proposed growth over 

the long-term, based on program-driven development. The Plan assumes that the 

primary support facilities are in place, with extensions added when existing capacity is 

reached.

TTC does have a large degree of infrastructure and space available for incorporation of 

new facilities, with minimal site development requirements. Roads, utilities, tracks, and 

space allocations were installed with expansion in mind. The original Facilities Master 

Plan provides insight into the decisions made with the construction layout of existing 

facilities and improvements at TTC. 

The Site Development Plan emphasizes the provisions of flexibility for unforeseen 

development and efficient major external access and internal circulation patterns. 

Flexibility for anticipated development is provided by large areas of uncommitted use 

within existing infrastructure boundaries, typically track test loops.

The Proposed Action would continue and expand existing actions at TTC and is also not 

anticipated to disproportionately or adversely affect low-income or minority 

populations. There are no low-income or minority populations within miles of the 

facility, and, to the extent the facility provides jobs or economic activity, the continued 

use of the facility supports that economic activity

The socioeconomic effects related to anticipated development would be considered 

minor to moderate, short- to long-term, direct and indirect, and beneficial, and would be

primarily related to employment, income, and local government and private revenue 

generation.

4.10.2.2 Effects of the No Action Alternative

Potential socioeconomic effects of the No Action Alternative would be similar to those of 

the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative would result in zero change to the 

activities currently being conducted at TTC. No action would result in no incremental 

positive or adverse effects on the local socioeconomic environment. Future testing and 

training or expansion of the workforce would provide economic benefits to the region.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Safety, Health, Environmental and Emergency Services: 4-61

4.10.2.3 Environmental Commitments 

There are no environmental commitments required for this resource area. 

4.11Safety, Health, Environmental and Emergency Services

4.11.1 Affected Environment – Environmental Setting for the Proposed 

Action

The responsibilities and duties of the Safety, Health, Environmental and Emergency 

Services Staff at TTC include establishing and/or providing:

• Site Security and Visitor Control Procedures

• Fire Prevention and Fire Suppression Services

• Emergency Medical Services

• Safety Compliance and Injury Prevention Programs

Site security at TTC is provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The entire perimeter of 

the TTC property is fenced. Gates at supplementary access roads are locked and 

warning signs are posted around the entire perimeter of the facility. Additional security 

fencing is provided around some restricted areas and facilities. The main entrance to 

the facility is a controlled access point with personnel operating 24 hours a day.

TTCI operates the center as a private facility. Public tours are by invitation only. TTC 

and authorized contractor personnel, as well as official visitors, are issued badges, 

which authorize access to the facility in general. Visitors and some contractor personnel 

have restricted access or escort requirements, depending on the type of business being 

conducted. Entrance to specific test areas is further controlled by verification against an 

approved access list, or by an authorized TTCI employee or designee.

TTCI currently has a full-time Fire Chief on 24-hour call to coordinate emergency 

response efforts. TTC security personnel are trained Emergency Medical Technicians. 

TTCI maintains 24-hour, 7-day-a-week coverage at TTC, while also handling security 

control at the Main Gate. Fire Prevention and Security roves are performed after hours 

and on weekends and are verified by radio contact, with all radio transmissions 

recorded on a master tape.

TTCI maintains a pool of Fire Brigade Responders (currently 14 members) to serve as 

primary responders during normal business hours and to remain on call during 

afterhours. Fire Brigade members are from different on-site departments; members are 

radio equipped and respond as needed in case of a fire rescue emergency.

Present equipment of the Fire Department includes:

• 1 – 1,000 GPM pumper truck with a 750 gallon water storage capacity

• 1 – Type #1 ambulance with 2-wheel drive

• 1 – Tank truck with 1,500 gallon capacity; used for secondary fire suppression 

water 

supply in remote TTC locations

• 2 – Brush trucks with 650 gallon capacity; used for ground cover firefighting
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Safety, Health, Environmental and Emergency Services: 4-62

Security and medical support personnel equipped with communications equipment are 

on standby during all testing. In addition to providing emergency response in the event 

of an accident, these personnel also provide emergency medical care to TTC personnel. 

Any case of a serious injury or illness is transported by ambulance to health care 

providers or a hospital in Pueblo, 25 miles away. If appropriate and as an additional 

resource, TTC has the option to use Colorado’s Flight for Life emergency medical 

helicopters from either Pueblo or Colorado Springs. Periodic training is conducted with 

the flight and nursing crews of the service.

All new employees, contractor personnel, customers, and long term visitors must 

receive relevant safety briefings to access the various facilities on-site. TTC is 

considered a multi-employer work site for safety compliance. TTCI, as the primary 

operator of the facility, coordinates the safety compliance requirements under OSHA 

regulations with the various contractors, vendors, and customers who perform work at 

TTC.

TTCI considered the potential third parties that could be affected by its activities and 

identified Doss Aviation. Doss Aviation is a privately owned company in Colorado 

Springs that conducts activities in airspace in proximity to the TTC property and its test 

areas. 

4.11.1.1 Regulatory Requirements

The following list of regulatory requirements and policies is implemented at TTC to 

ensure safety, health, environmental, and emergency service compliance:

 Hazardous Assistance for Medical Rescue and Search Emergencies

 Industrial Hygiene Technical Report (for Industrial Hygiene Air and Noise 

Sampling at TTCI – April 2013)

 Safety Rule Book at TTC (revised June 2013)

 Operating Rule Book at TTC (revised June 2013)

 SI-002-PP04 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan

 SI-002-PP05 Handling Equipment Inspection and Proof Load Testing

 SI-004-PP04 Fire Prevention Program Handbook

 SI-005-PP04 Emergency Reporting and Response Fire/Medical

 SI-006-PP04 Infection Control and Universal Precautions Plan: Bloodborne 

Pathogens

 SI-007-PP04 Respirator Protection, Use and Selection

 SI-008-PP04 Personnel Noise Exposure

 SI-009-PP04 Chemical Hygiene Plan

 SI-010-PP04 Control of Hazardous Energy Sources: Lockout/Tagout Safety Plan

 SI-011-PP04 Response to Weather Hazards

 SI-012-PP04 Confined Space Entry

 SI-013-PP04 Procedure for Hazardous Operating Permit (HOP)

 SI-014-PP04 Safety Guidelines for Welding, Cutting & Burning

 SI-015-PP04 Bomb Threat Response

 SI-016-PP04 Hazardous Waste Management Plan Handbook
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Safety, Health, Environmental and Emergency Services: 4-63

 SI-017-PP04 Hazardous Material Control and Communications Plan

 SI-018-PP04 Workplace Violence and Security Plan, and

 SI-024-PP04 Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Safety, Health, Environmental and Emergency Services: 4-64

4.11.2 Environmental Effects and Environmental Commitments 

4.11.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

Operational and Routine Site Activities

Testing, Research, Training, Anticipated Activities, and Infrastructure

No major effects on public health or safety are anticipated as a result of the Proposed 

Action. A Range Safety Plan for any unique activities at the facility is standard protocol 

at TTCI. The Range Safety Plan will ensure that employees, contractors, and visitors at 

the TTC site for research, tests, or training adhere to established safety protocols, and it 

will eliminate the potential for adverse effects. 

The Range Safety Plan will potentially include a description of safety devices and 

equipment that would be placed at the test, research, or training sites. Safety devices 

and equipment that could be used include range flags notifying personnel of ongoing 

explosives events, lockable gates for restricted entry, and warning signs to prevent 

unauthorized access. In addition, large tests would have surveillance cameras and 

monitoring equipment with remote displays to allow personnel to remain a safe 

distance away from the test site.

When conducting some tests, research, or training, there may be a minor threat of fire 

within the area. In response to this threat, TTCI maintains on-site firefighting 

equipment. TTCI’s full-time Fire Chief directs a firefighter staff that routinely assists in 

the control of wildland fires both on-site and off-site through mutual aid agreements;

this staff would be on standby in the event of an emergency. Firefighting equipment 

includes all-terrain brush trucks with tanks/pumping equipment, conventional pumper 

trucks, and a conventional ambulance.

Doss Aviation conducts flight activities near the TTC property, and is ultimately not 

expected to be affected by the operation. As a precaution, Doss Aviation will be 

informed of testing at least 24-hours in advance so they can avoid areas near TTC. 

4.11.2.2 Effects of the No Action Alternative

Potential Safety and health effects from the No Action Alternative would be identical to 

those of the Proposed Action, with no future activities.

4.11.2.3 Environmental Commitments 

To ensure safety protocol is followed at TTC during test activities, a Range Safety Plan 

will be developed and observed by on-site employees, contractors, and visitors. TTCI 

firefighters will be on standby during applicable test, research, or training events in case 

there is a need to respond. TTCI will provide Doss Aviation with a 24-hour notice prior 

to significant tests and training to ensure their flight activities are not conducted in 

close proximity to the test areas. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Secondary and Cumulative Effects: 4-65

4.12Secondary and Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those additive or interactive effects that would occur due to the 

Proposed Action or No Action alternatives in relation to other past, present, and 

reasonable foreseeable actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or 

person undertakes such actions.

The following sections describe activities that are planned within the study area to 

determine if the Proposed Action contributes to effects from other actions and results in 

significant effects on the surrounding area. 

4.12.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Development

While successful execution of the Proposed Action could result in an increased demand 

on TTC for similar services, research and services provided would likely remain similar 

to current ongoing activities. Potential effects would be mitigated as described in each 

resource section or as mitigated in prior tests, research, or training exercises. Based 

upon historic employment data, it is reasonable to expect that operations at the TTC 

facilities would remain relatively constant into the future and would not result in effects 

on the TTC property or surrounding region. 

Reasonably foreseeable projects planned in the study area include the following:

TTCI Solar Generation Facility

TTCI has planned to build a solar array for electric power generation, a separate project 

not associated with the Proposed Action. The Solar Array installation project is 

currently on hold with no date identified for future implementation. The project was 

developed to implement sustainable energy solutions for the TTC facilities. TTC requires 

a substantial amount of power to operate its testing facilities and therefore has its own 

electric substations and power distribution system. Presently, any renewable power 

delivered to TTC is sourced from public utility providers in the region.

The site for the 50-acre proposed solar generation facility is immediately east of the 

TTC buildings and core operational area and is immediately adjacent to the existing 

substation. The existing access road would remain, but all other vehicle access to each 

array would be provided by a simple two-track unmaintained road.

The project elements would include photovoltaic solar panels and mounts, a two-acre 

surface water impoundment for water storage, two-track vehicle access paths running 

parallel to each array of solar panels, and a conduit below ground to conduct ACgenerated solar energy to a converter, then onward as DC power to the substation for 

transmission into the TTC facility.

FRA must obtain legislative approval to enter into a long-term contractual agreement in 

order to begin the solar project. 

Once initiated, this project would likely reduce electrical consumption at the site, but 

would have no further impact on infrastructure, testing, training, research, or 

anticipated activities at the site. Since the solar array would be located outside the core 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Secondary and Cumulative Effects: 4-66

area and away from other major facilities, construction activities would not impact 

operations at TTC. However, native vegetation at the construction site would be 

overlaid with solar arrays and temporary impacts to vegetation would occur. Land use 

would change from native vegetation to industrial use.

FRA issued an Environmental Assessment and signed a FONSI in December, 2104 for 

this project. 

Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP)

The Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant, or PCAPP, is being built to safely 

and efficiently destroy a stockpile of chemical weapons currently in storage at the U.S. 

Army Pueblo Chemical Depot. The Pueblo Chemical Depot is located immediately south 

of the TTC property on 23,000 acres. The pilot plant will utilize neutralization followed 

by biotreatment as the technology to destroy munitions containing 2,600 tons of

mustard agent. 

The contract to design, construct, systemize, pilot test, operate, and close the plant was 

awarded in September 2002. Currently, the plant is under construction and work is 

progressing on a variety of facilities to support chemical agent processing, energetic 

processing, control and storage, munitions storage, biotreatment, entry control, utility, 

laboratory, personnel maintenance, and other tasks. The PCAPP is located near the 

storage site and employs approximately 800 craft workers and subcontractors. 

Inside PCAPP are numerous rooms filled with high-powered machines designed to 

destroy the chemical weapon, each with a specific purpose. The mustard agent will be 

destroyed in a neutralization process using water and heat to make the chemical less 

toxic. However, before the weapons destruction process can take place, a series of tests 

must be conducted to show the U.S. Army and the Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment that no chemicals will be released into the atmosphere.

Many of the major construction activities at PCAPP were completed during the first 

quarter of 2012. The plant is scheduled to start operations in 2015. All weapons must be 

destroyed by 2017 as stated by an international treaty. Additional time may be needed 

to complete the overall demolition of chemical weapons since construction of the 

facilities is behind by 2 years.

This ongoing project and the completion of the new facility for it have increased 

industrial land use at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. However, the project does not have 

any negative synergistic effect on either operations at the Chemical Depot or at TTC. 

Land use is consistent with ongoing operations in the project area. 

No other reasonably foreseeable projects are proposed in the area.

4.12.2 Cumulative Environmental Effects for Resource Topic

The Proposed Action has the potential to provide positive cumulative impacts in terms 

of railroad safety from the training and testing performed at the facility. However, 

because of the relative minor nature of the impacts from the Proposed Action, it is 

unlikely to result in any Long-term cumulative impacts to the environment In the short 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Secondary and Cumulative Effects: 4-67

term, if construction projects occur at the same time, it is possible that there will be 

minor cumulative impacts. However, large scale development of the site is not expected

and all construction impacts will be avoided or minimized through the implementation 

of the appropriate BMPs. 

Impacts to the greater Pueblo region may include additional economic benefits. 

Build out of the Master Plan is consistent with current uses at the site. Individual 

projects related to implementation of the Master Plan may affect specific resources; 

however, these potential impacts will be analyzed when the scope of the specific project 

is identified. 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Secondary and Cumulative Effects: 4-68

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

List of Preparers 5-1

5.0 List of Preparers

Air Quality

Asoian Associates LLC, Mark J. Asoian

Education: B.S., Meteorology, Lowell Technological Institute

Project 

Responsibility:

Climate and Air Quality

Experience: Senior Air Quality Scientist – 34 years providing air quality 

permitting, impact assessment, emissions inventory 

development, and NEPA compliance services. Air quality 

practice leader and project manager, EIS and EA discipline 

leader.

Water Resources and Floodplains, Wetlands, Air Quality

JNS, Inc., Janet N. Shangraw, PH

Education: B.S., Watershed Science/Hydrology, Colorado State University

Project 

Responsibility:

Surface Water and Floodplains, Noise, Assistant Project 

Manager

Experience: Professional Hydrologist – American Institute of Hydrology; 

more than 30 years of experience in surface water hydrology; 

NEPA experience as an interdisciplinary team member and 

project manager on EIS and EA documents for utility projects, 

timber sales, timber restoration projects, and mining projects.

Groundwater, Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste

EMSI, Timothy Shangraw, PE

Education: B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Massachusetts

M.S., Civil/Environmental Engineering, University of Colorado, 

Boulder

Project 

Responsibility:

Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, and Hazardous Waste

Experience: Professional Engineer in Colorado with more than 30 years of 

experience in hydrogeology, hazardous waste management, 

environmental remediation, and NEPA and RCRA permitting. 

Soils and Biological Resources

Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., T. Michael Phelan, CWB

Education: B.A., Zoology, University of California at Los Angeles 

Post Graduate Studies, Ecology, San Diego State University

Project Responsibility: Soils, Wildlife, Vegetation, Threatened, Endangered, and 

Other State Species of Concern, Wetlands

Experience: President of Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.; Certified Wildlife 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

List of Preparers 5-2

Biologist - The Wildlife Society; 34 years of experience in 

environmental consulting, field analysis, impact assessment, 

and mitigation planning in the biological sciences including 

project management and technical contribution to numerous 

NEPA compliance EIS and EA documents for a variety of 

energy development, mining, and other industrial 

development projects.

Cultural Resources

Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc, Kimberly Redman, M.A., RPA

Education: M.A., Anthropology, Washington State University

Project Responsibility: Cultural Resources

Experience: Twenty years of experience as an archaeologist and 10 years 

of experience writing cultural resources sections of EIS and 

EA documents.

Land Use and Transportation, Socioeconomics, Public Health and Safety

Kathol & Company, Jennifer Kathol

Education: B.S., Natural Resource Economics, Colorado State University

Project Responsibility: Land Use, Socioeconomics, Transportation, and Public Health 

and all miscellaneous sections of EA. EA Project Manager 

responsible for coordination of consultant resource 

specialists and EA document preparation.

Experience: President of Kathol & Company; 30 years NEPA experience 

completing and managing projects and Human Resources 

sections of EIS, EA, EIR, and international environmental 

documents.

Technical Editing and Desktop Publishing

Georgia A. Doyle

Education: M.S. Hydrology/Hydrogeology, University of Nevada, Reno

B.S. Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona

Project Responsibility: Technical Editing and Desktop Publishing

Experience: Twenty years of experience researching, writing and editing 

scientific publications; preparation of EIS and EA documents.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Consultation 6-1

6.0 Consultation 

Chapter 3

Maal, L. 2013. On-site Resident Engineer-Program Manager, USDOT-Federal Railroad 

Administration, Pueblo, CO. Conversation with Jennifer Kathol, Kathol & 

Company, Fort Collins, CO. May 2013.

Air Quality

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division 

(CDPHE-APCD) 2012. Personal communication between Mr. Michael Harris, 

Permit Engineer CDPHE-APCD and Mr. Mark Asoian, President Asoian 

Associates, LLC, August 27, 2012.

Maal, L. 2013. On-site Resident Engineer-Program Manager, USDOT-Federal Railroad 

Administration, Pueblo, CO. Conversation with Mark Asoian, Air Quality 

Specialist Asoian Associates, Inc. Vail, CO.

Pieratt, S. 2013. Principal Geologist, Altuse Environmental LLC, Pueblo, CO. 

Conversation with Mark Asoian, Air Quality Specialist Asoian Associates, Inc. 

Vail, CO. July 2013.

Surface Water

Casper, M. 2013. Senior Engineer PE. TTCI. Personal conversation with Janet Shangraw, 

Hydrologist. July 2013.

Biological Resources

Maal, L. 2013. On-site Resident Engineer-Program Manager, USDOT-Federal Railroad 

Administration, Pueblo, Colorado. Conversation with Michael Phelan, Wildlife 

Biologist, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, CO. August 8, 2013.

White, Mark. 2012. Senior Engineer II, TTCI, Pueblo, CO. Conversation with Michael 

Phelan, Wildlife Biologist, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, CO. 

Noise

Terrill, T. 2013. Safety Manager TTCI. Personal communication with Janet Shangraw, 

Noise Specialist. July 2013.

Socioeconomics

Meeks, David. TTCI. VP and Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Personal communication with 

Jennifer Kathol, Kathol & Company. July 2013.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Consultation 6-2

Safety, Health, and Emergency Services

Terrill, T. 2013. Safety Manager TTCI. Personal communication with Jennifer Kathol, 

Kathol & Company. July 2013.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

References 7-1

7.0 References

Chapter 3

Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI). 2012. Transportation Technology Center 

Facilities Master Plan. Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Railroad Administration. March 2012.

Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI). 2008. Capabilities Guide.

Climate and Air Quality

ALTUS Environmental. 2013. Email from Mr. Scott Pieratt, Principal Geologist to Mr. 

Mark Asoian, President, Asoian Associates LLC, June 13, 2013. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE-CAQCC). 2013.

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Report to Public 2011-2012. 

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPHE-AQCC/CBON/1251592949477

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division 

(CDPHE-AQCC). 2012. Air Quality Control Commission Regulations, Regulation 

Number 3. http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/airregs/index.html

Rakaczky, J.A. 1980. Fire and flammability characteristics of materials used in rail 

passenger cars, a literature survey. U.S. Army Armament Research and 

Development Command Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, Maryland. Memorandum Report ARBRL-MR-03009.

Transportation Security Administration/Federal Railroad Administration (TSA/FRA). 

2012. Final Explosive and Fire Testing At TTC EA, Document No. TSA/FRA

12TSAOSHE006EA, November 8, 2012.

U.S. Environmental Protection (USEPA). 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42 Volume I Fifth Edition. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/

U.S. Environmental Protection (USEPA). 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Clean Air Act, http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2012. Western Regional Climate Center Web 

Site, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu

Surface Water, Floodplains, and Wetlands

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1989. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 

Unincorporated Areas of Pueblo County, Colorado, Community Panel Number 

0801470150B, Pueblo County, CO. Purchased through FEMA.gov.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

References 7-2

Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI). 2011c. Transportation Technology 

Center Inc. Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan. Document 

number SI-002-PP04, November 10, 2011.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands 

Mapper. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. 

Last updated July 8, 2013.

Groundwater and Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS). 2008. CDPS General Permit for Domestic 

Wastewater Treatment Works With No Groundwater Monitoring Requirements, 

Permit No. COX-622000, Amendment 1 - Effective March 2, 2008. 

Frontier Environmental Services, Inc. (FESI). 1999. Operations and Maintenance Manual 

for Modifications to the Oily Water Treatment System at CSB, August 1999.

Radian. 1991. Final Report, RCRA Facility Investigation at Transportation Test Center, 

prepared for Federal Railroad Administration and Association of American 

Railroads. File 238-014-04-00.

Romero, J.C. 1992. The Lower Black Squirrel, Chico, and Haynes Creek Basin, El Paso and 

Pueblo Counties, Colorado, Office of the State Engineer Division of Water 

Resources. 

Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI). 2011a. Hazardous Waste Management 

Plan Handbook. Document #SI-016-PP04, prepared by TTCI. March 22, 2011.

Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI). 2011b. Waste Water Impoundment 

Facility Design and Operations Report, prepared for Federal Railroad 

Administration and TTCI by KRW Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011.

Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI). 2011c. Spill Prevention, Control and 

Countermeasure Plan, Document #SI-002-PP04, prepared by TTCI. November 

10, 2011.

Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI). 2012. Transportation Test Center 

Facilities Master Plan, prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation and 

Federal Railroad Administration by TTCI. March 2012.

Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI). 2013. Wastewater Treatment Room 

Operations, standard operating procedures prepared by TTCI. May 2013.

Watts, K.R., and R.F. Ortiz. 1990. Geohydrogeology and ground-water quality at the 

Pueblo Army Depot Activity Landfill near Pueblo, CO: USGS Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 89-4143.

Welder, F. and T. Hurr. 1971. Appraisal of shallow ground-water resources, Pueblo 

Army Depot, CO: USGS Open File Report 71006.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

References 7-3

Soils

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. Soil survey area for the TTC 

property. Custom soils report available from:

websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (site accessed July 24, 

2013).

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USDA, SCS). 1972. 

Conservation plan, resource inventories & management alternative, Department 

of Transportation High Speed Ground Test Center, Pueblo, CO. Prepared by 

USDA, SCS for Federal Railroad Administration, June 1973.

Biological Resources

Busnel, R. G. 1978. Introduction, pp. 7-22 In: Fletcher, J. L. and R. G. Busnel (eds.). 1978. 

Effects of Noise on Wildlife. Academic Press, New York.

Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2013. State species of Special Concern. 

CPW website listing available at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/ 

SpeciesOfConcern/Pages/SpeciesOfConcern1.aspx. Accessed on July 24, 2013.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2003. Conservation plan for grassland species in 

Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado Grassland Species Working 

Group.33 pp. + appendices. Available online at:

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WILDLIFESPECIES/GRASSLANDSPECIES/Pages/gras

slandsplan.aspx

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2013. Results of Database Query for the 

TTC Property. August, 2013.

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook, a field guide to 

the natural history of North American birds. Simon & Schuster Inc., New York. 

785 pp.

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver 

Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. Niwot, Colorado. 

467 pp.

Dinsmore, S.J. 2003. Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WILDLIFESPECIES/GRASSLANDSPECIES/Pages/gras

slandsplan.aspx. Accessed on November 11, 2008.

Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado (second edition). 

University of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Niwot, Colorado. 484 

pp.

Kingery, H. E. (editor). 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas 

Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 636 pp.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

References 7-4

Larkin, R.P. no date. Effects of military noise on wildlife: a literature review. Center for 

Wildlife Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois. 

unpublished report available at: 

http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/noise_and_wildlife.pdf. 87 pp.

Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). 2013. Colorado Division of Parks and 

Wildlife Online Mapping System. Available at: 

http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/Maps/. Accessed on July 24, 2013.

Radle, A. L. 2007. The effects of noise on wildlife: a literature review. University of 

Oregon, unpublished report available at: 

http://wfae.proscenia.net/library/articles/radle_effect_noise_wildlife.pdf. 16 

pp.

Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. 

Knopf, New York. 1109 pp.

Turina F. and J. Barber. 2011. Impacts of noise on wildlife, annotated bibliography. 

Natural Sounds Program, National Park Service. Unpublished report available at: 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/pdf_docs/wildlifebiblio_Aug2011.p

df. 71 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USDA, SCS). 1972. 

Conservation plan, resource inventories & management alternative, Department 

of Transportation High Speed Ground Test Center, Pueblo, CO. Prepared by 

USDA, SCS for Federal Railroad Administration, June 1973.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Mountain plover survey guidelines. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Report available online at:

http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Arlington, Virginia.87 pp. [Online version available at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog as 

threatened or endangered. Federal Register 74(231):63344-63366.

Cultural Resources

Church, M.C. and S.C. Cassells. 2007. Colorado History: A Context for Historical 

Archaeology. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists. 600 pp.

Gilmore, K.P., M. Tate, M.L. Chenault, B. Clark, T. McBride, and M. Woodl. 1999. Colorado 

Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional 

Archaeologists. 453 pp.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

References 7-5

Mehls, S.F. 1984. Colorado Plains Historic Context. Office of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation, Colorado Historical Society, Denver, CO.

Land Use and Transportation

Pueblo County Code. 2013. http://www.codes.co.pueblo.co.us/

Pueblo County Zoning Map. 2013. http://maps.co.pueblo.co.us/pueblocounty/

Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH). 2011. Draft Environmental Assessment 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc. Solar Generation Facility, Pueblo, CO.

Noise

Transportation Security Administration/Federal Railroad Administration (TSA/FRA). 

2012. Final Explosive and Fire Testing At TTC EA, Document No. TSA/FRA

12TSAOSHE006EA, November 8, 2012.

Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI). 2012. Personnel Noise Exposure. 

Document Number SI-009-PP04. April 5, 2013, Pueblo, CO.

Vanderheiden, Gregg. 2004. About Decibels (dB). Trace R&D Center, University of 

Wisconsin – Madison. Available at: http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/2004-About-dB/

Socioeconomics

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Quick Facts. U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. 

Data derived from Population Estimates, Census of Population and Housing, 

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit 

Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, 

Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds 

Report Accessed via the internet at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

References 7-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Appendix A Core Area Buildings

APPENDIX A

CORE AREA BUILDINGS
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Programmatic Environmental Assessment A-1 Appendix A Core Area Buildings

Buildings at TTC

Building Name Location/ 

Building 

Number

Size Date 

Built

Use Other

Operations 

Building (OPS)

Core Area/

1

31,700 sq ft

(1st floor)

21,500 sq ft

(2nd floor)

6,300 sq ft

(basement)

1975 Primary office and administration, 

conference room, data processing, 

cafeteria, data retention.

Ongoing improvements to OPS to meet 

LEED certification standards. Per Executive 

Order 13514 and 13423 FRA 

Environmental Management System 

provides guidance requirements and 

oversight to attain reductions in building 

energy intensity and consumption to meet 

the net zero energy goal.

Project 

Management 

Building 

(PMB)

Core 

Area/2

17,400 sq ft

(1-story)

1972 Office and administration, and test 

program office.

Currently not in use. Funds have been 

solicited for renovation of the PMB to meet 

LEED certification standards.

Rail Dynamics Lab 

(RDL)

Core Area/

3

36,565 sq ft 

with 55 foot 

height 

in high bay;

2- 13,200 sq 

ft floor levels 

in low bay

1972-

74

Vibration Test Unit (VTU) 1977

Simuloader 1980’s

Primary testing occurs in high bay.

Support and service in low bay including 

offices, bearing lab, craft repair, staging and 

storage.

2- 100 ton overhead cranes with hook 

height of 42 feet serve high bay.

High bay divided into two test areas for 

Simuloader and Vibration Test Unit.

Built in measures to reduce noise and 

vibration in low bay permit most activities 

to continue in low bay while test activities 

are being conducted in high bay.

Center Services 

Building (CSB)

Core Area/

4

36,700 sq ft

with 50 foot 

height in high 

bay;

Low bay

Primary maintenance facility for minor 

overhauling, repair, maintenance and test 

preparation of test vehicles in the high bay. 

The facility also provides office space, 

motor pool area, parts storage, and craft 

shop areas for vehicle and building 

maintenance; 4 tracks enter high bay from 

west; 6 additional tracks north of the 

building serve as storage tracks, with one 

2- 30 ton cranes with 43.6 foot hook 

height;

Repair pits have air, water and power, 

drive-on, under wheel-truing machine;

areas include a machine/weld, electrical, 

wood, plumbing, motor pool, locksmith, 

and rail vehicle maintenance shops.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Programmatic Environmental Assessment A-1 Appendix A Core Area Buildings

Building Name Location/ 

Building 

Number

Size Date 

Built

Use Other

leading to the million pound squeeze 

fixture (Track #7) and one to the loading 

dock (Track #8). Also includes 3,600 sq ft

of office space.

CSB Storage 

Building (TTX)

4,800 sq ft 2007 Field office and storage for TTX Long term use by TTX who is longtime 

customer of TTC.

Warehouse 

Laboratory Facility 

(WLF) and 

Components Test 

Laboratory (CTL)

Core Area/

5

53,428 total 

sq ft (2 

floors)

1979-

80

WLF contains a warehouse facility with a 

21' high ceiling, storage racks, forklift 

access, loading docks, receiving area, walkin freezer, and a flammable materials 

storage room and air brake laboratory, and 

Metallurgy Laboratory. CTL currently 

houses dynamic test equipment, such as; 

the dynamometer for railroad wheel / 

brake testing, rolling load machines for rail 

and component wear and fatigue testing, 

and tie wear machine.

Security 

Emergency 

Response Training 

Center (SERTC)

Core Area/

6

7,200 sq ft

4,800 sq ft

1973

1995

Hazardous materials training facility (1985 

modification to building);

4-auditorium classrooms added;

Plus a series of modular buildings and 

trailers used to house instructors and 

support technicians.

The SERTC training grounds include train 

derailment sites that have been retrofitted 

to provide life-like lading conditions that 

might be present at a “live” setting, 

including such conditions as: fires, 

explosions, commodities under pressure 

and product leaks, with students working 

under human environmental protection 

conditions. A similar training area has been 

set up for highway type motor vehicles to 

allow students to train in response to 

typical accident scenarios. Training areas 

have also been set up for lading transfers, 

leak containment, propane fire control, and 

spill control on water.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Programmatic Environmental Assessment A-1 Appendix A Core Area Buildings

Building Name Location/ 

Building 

Number

Size Date 

Built

Use Other

Transit 

Maintenance 

Building (TMB)

Core Area/

7

7,680 sq ft 1973 Project maintenance facility with single 

track through building.

Parallel track to southeast of building.

Storage 

Maintenance 

Building (SMB)

Core Area/

8

36,010 sq ft 1973 One-story high bay metal building with 

single track through building. Used for craft 

material storage, lading and damage 

material staging, and emergency response 

vehicle staging. Areas available for project 

use include ballasted track through the 

building for staging (no jacking), limited 

inside secured and unsecured storage, 

outside secured storage, large office space 

area (4000 sq ft), which includes separate 

offices, conference rooms, a break room 

with kitchen, and restrooms with showers.

Gravel, fenced lay-down yard lies 

northwest of the building and occupies an 

area approximately the same size as the 

building. This secured area is for outdoor 

storage of material, supplies, and 

equipment, which cannot be housed in the 

building.

Urban Rail 

Building (URB)

Core Area/

9

19,380 sq ft 1980 Permanent maintenance facility for Transit 

Vehicles using the Transit Test Track. A 

Wye track configuration extends to the 

building from the TTT to allow turning of 

vehicles for logistics purposes without 

leaving the TTT test area. Third rail power 

is extended along the Wye Tracks into the 

building, with the power source controlled 

from the building. A portable stinger 

system can move the cars from the end of 

the 3rd rail into the building. The D.C. power 

supply is separate from the TTT, allowing 

isolation of the URB facility from TTT 

testing.

Two yard tracks extend through the 

building and an additional 350 feet to the 

west of the facility. Two additional yard 

tracks were added to the facility on the 

north side of the main access track. 

Rooms are provided along the south wall, 

including a break room, offices, equipment 

storage, and restrooms with shower 

facilities.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Programmatic Environmental Assessment A-1 Appendix A Core Area Buildings

Building Name Location/ 

Building 

Number

Size Date 

Built

Use Other

Passenger Rail 

Services Building 

(PSB) (includes 

original Japan Rail 

Facility (JRF))

Core Area/

10

9,200 sq ft

36,960

1999-

2000

2005-

2009

Originally Japan Rail Facility – metal 

building with single track running through 

building and 12ft x 82ft track service pit.

With new modifications Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) performs1 

rail transportation training using the PSB 

facilities.

Facility has both high bay (27,000 sq ft) 

and low bay (6,975 sq ft). Three tracks 

extend through the building: one with 

catenary power; the two remaining tracks 

have 2-75 ton overhead cranes with 10-ton 

auxiliary hoists to service vehicles on 

tracks. A service pit was also installed for 

anticipated 125-ton, 3-Axle Drop Table 

unit to span the distance between the two 

tracks. The service top and bi-fold doors 

have been integrated into the floor slab in 

preparation for the unit. A wheel truing pit 

was also installed in Track #3 for 

anticipated in-floor, CNC Wheel Truing 

Machine. In addition to the tracks that 

extend through the building, Track #4 runs 

parallel to the building on the east side of 

the building. All 4 tracks extend 

approximately 300 feet north of the 

building. 

FAST 

Maintenance/ 

Office Buildings

See Figure 

3-1 Master 

Site Plan

8,400 sq ft The FAST facility contains two primary 

structures to house project personnel and 

to perform routine maintenance on 

equipment and vehicles associated with the 

program. The maintenance building has 

two service tracks extending through the 

building, with a service pit under one of the 

tracks. 

The FAST Modular Unit is 3,600 sq ft in 

size, containing offices, restrooms, and a 

break room. 

Source: TTCI 2012
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Appendix B 

APPENDIX B

AIR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Appendix B 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-1 Appendix B 

Table A-1 Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank Emission Estimates Actual Potential

Actual Potential Average Annual Annual Average Annual Annual Potential APEN/Permit Basis

Annual Annual Vapor Breathing Working Annual VOC Vapor Standing Working Annual VOC Status

Throughput Throughput Pressure Losses Losses Emissions Pressure Losses Losses Emissions

Description (gal/yr) (gal/yr) (psia) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs/yr) (psia) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs/yr)

ASTs CSB

15,000 gal. diesel (boiler, locomotive 

and heavy equipment fueling) 60,335 ** 0.008 3.31 1.50 4.81   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

fff. (< 400,000 gal diesel) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

ASTs CSB

15,000 gal. diesel (boiler, locomotive 

and heavy equipment fueling) 60,335 ** 0.008 3.31 1.50 4.81   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

fff. (< 400,000 gal diesel) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

USTs CSB

3,000 gal. used oil storage tank 

(loco service facility) 545 ** 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

aaa. (< 40,000 gal used oil) and 

Part B, III.D.1.a.

USTs CSB

3,000 gal. used oil storage tank 

(WW Room) 1,973 ** 0.005 0.00 0.03 0.03   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

aaa. (< 40,000 gal used oil) and 

Part B, III.D.1.a.

ASTs CSB 4,000 gal. (locomotive engine oil) 2,512 ** 0.003 0.00 0.02 0.02   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

aaa. (< 40,000 gal lube oil) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

ASTs CSB

2000 gal. diesel (company vehicle 

fueling) 5,623 ** 0.005 0.45 0.10 0.55   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

ccc. (< 400 gal day) and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

ASTs FAST

25,000 gal. diesel (locomotive and 

heavy equipment fueling) 189,424 ** 0.005 5.52 3.21 8.73   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

fff. (< 400,000 gal diesel) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

ASTs FAST

25,000 gal. diesel (locomotive and 

heavy equipment fueling) 189,424 ** 0..005 5.52 3.21 8.73   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

fff. (< 400,000 gal diesel) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

ASTs RDL

7,500 gal. hydraulic oil (equipment 

maintenance) 2,225 ** 0.0079 1.96 0.04 2.00   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

aaa. (< 40,000 gal lube oil) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

ASTs TMB 8,000 gal. diesel (TMB furnace fuel) 6,409 ** 0.008 1.72 0.11 1.83   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

fff. (< 400,000 gal diesel) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

ASTs URB 4,000 gal. diesel (URB boiler fuel) 4,864 ** 0.008 0.90 0.08 0.98   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

fff. (< 400,000 gal diesel) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

ASTs TGB 2,000 gal. diesel (turbine generator) 250 ** 0.005 0.45 0.00 0.45   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

fff. (< 400,000 gal diesel) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

USTs CSB 10,000 gal. gasoline (motor pool) 32,429 ** 5.988 0.00 287.00 287.00   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR, 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.ccc. 

2/22/94 CDPHE letter if 46,500 

gal/yr.

USTs OPS 10,000 gal. diesel (OPS boiler fuel) 4,766 ** 0.005 0.00 0.07 0.07   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

fff. (< 400,000 gal diesel) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

USTs WLF 6,000 gal. diesel (WLF boiler fuel) 10,311 ** 0.005 0.00 0.16 0.16   **  ** Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a. and 

fff. (< 400,000 gal diesel) and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

Total (lb/yr) 23.14 297.04 320.18 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total (tpy) 0.16 0.00

(1) Actual annual throughputs provided by TTCI from fuel usage for the 2012 year.

(2) VOC emissions presented were calculated using EPA TANKS4.09D program.

(3) Tank provides storage of fuel used in furnace or boiler. Therefore maximum potential annual throughput is based on potential maximum fuel usage of boiler or furnace. 

(**) Because the non-exempt sources are significantly below Title V thresholds, the potential-to-emit for sources which are exempt or 

 insignificant with respect to Title V have not been calculated.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-2 Appendix B 

Table A-2 Boiler and Furnace Emission Estimates

Rating LPG Consumption Fuel Oil Consumption Actual Emissions/Consumption Maximum Potential Emissions/Consumption Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs

APEN/Permit Status Basis Actual Potential Actual Potential Number of PM10 SO2 NOx CO VOC PM10 SO2 NOx CO VOC benzene ethylbenzene formaldehyde napthalene 1,1,1-trichloroethane toluene o-xylene Description mmBtu/hr gal/yr gal/yr gal/yr gal/yr Units (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr)

ERTC - propane-fired heaters (5 total)

APEN exempt/permit 

exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1 and Part B, III.D.1.a. 6,510

propane heaters 0.25 3,166 23,934 2 6.33E-04 6.43E-05 0.02 3.01E-03 4.75E-04 0.01 9.72E-04 0.34 0.05 0.01

propane heaters 0.176 3,344 16,850 3 6.69E-04 6.79E-05 0.02 3.18E-03 5.02E-04 0.01 1.03E-03 0.35 0.05 0.01

FAST propane-fired heaters (5 total) 

APEN exempt/permit 

exempt 12,000 gal/yr on APEN 0.25 4,552 23,934 5 9.10E-04 9.24E-05 0.03 0.00 6.83E-04 0.02 2.43E-03 0.84 0.11 0.02

PMB

American Standard hot water 

propane-fired boiler 

Previous 91PB231(3)/APEN 

exempt/permit exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1 and Part B, III.D.1.a.- 2/22/94 CDPHE letter if < 62,551 gal/yr. 0.936 0 89,610 1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.02 1.82E-03 0.63 0.09 0.01

SMB - propane-fired heaters (7 total) 

APEN exempt/permit 

exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1 and Part B, III.D.1.a., APEN 

specifies 8,300 gal/yr 6,551 65,213 total

propane heaters 0.15 854 14,361 1 1.71E-04 1.73E-05 0.01 8.12E-04 1.28E-04 2.87E-03 2.92E-04 0.10 0.01 2.15E-03

propane heaters 0.4 2,279 38,295 1 4.56E-04 4.63E-05 0.02 2.16E-03 3.42E-04 0.01 7.77E-04 0.27 0.04 0.01

propane heaters 0.12 3,418 11,489 5 6.84E-04 6.94E-05 0.02 3.25E-03 5.13E-04 0.01 1.17E-03 0.40 0.05 0.01

JRF propane-fired heaters (8 total) 

APEN exempt/permit 

exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1 and Part B, III.D.1.a. 0.16 4,118 15,318 8 8.24E-04 8.36E-05 0.03 3.91E-03 6.18E-04 2.45E-02 2.49E-03 0.86 0.12 1.84E-02

PSB propane-fired heaters (10 Total)

APEN exempt/permit 

exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1 and Part B, III.D.1.a. 0.2 10,838 19,148 10 2.17E-03 2.20E-04 0.08 1.03E-02 1.63E-03 3.83E-02 3.89E-03 1.34 0.18 2.87E-02

32,569

CSB Superior Aztec diesel-fired boiler 12PB062/permit exempt

2/22/94 CDPHE Corresp - permit 

exempt if <64,950 gal/yr 12.6 36,657 788,400 1 0.04 1.30 0.37 0.09 0.01 0.79 27.99 7.88 1.97 0.13 0.01 2.33E-03 1.21 0.04 0.01 0.23 4.00E-03

OPS Weil-McLain diesel-fired boiler

91BPB231(2)/permit 

exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1.a.- 

2/22/94 CDPHE letter if < 

120,960 gal/yr. 2.8 4,766 175,200 1 0.00 0.17 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.18 6.22 1.75 0.44 0.03 0.00 3.03E-04 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.03 5.19E-04

TMB

Jackson & Church Building Unit oilfired furnaces (6 total)APEN exempt/permit 

exempt

5 CCR, 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1. 

and Part B, III.D.1.a.- 2/22/94 CDPHE letter if annual 

consumption < 9000 gal/yr. 0.173 6,409 10,825 6 0.01 0.23 0.06 0.02 1.09E-03 0.06 2.31 0.65 0.16 0.01 1.37E-03 4.08E-04 0.21 0.01 1.51E-03 0.04 6.99E-04

URB Weil-McLain diesel-fired boiler 

Previous 96PB423/APEN 

exempt/permit exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, II.D.1 and 

III.D.1.a.- 7/11/96 CDPHE letter 

if < 20,000 gal/yr. 3.1 4,864 193,971 1 0.00 0.17 0.05 0.01 8.27E-04 0.19 6.89 1.94 0.48 0.03 1.04E-03 3.09E-04 0.16 0.01 1.15E-03 0.03 5.30E-04

WLF(CTL) hot water diesel-fired boiler 12PB391/permit exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, III.D.5. CDPHE letter of 2/22/94 if <33,000 gal/yr 1.54 10,311 96,360 1 0.01 0.37 0.10 0.03 0.002 0.10 3.42 0.96 0.24 0.02 2.21E-03 6.56E-04 0.34 0.01 0.00 0.06 1.12E-03

63,007

Total 0.07 2.24 0.86 0.19 0.02 1.47 46.84 18.31 3.99 0.33 0.01 0.00 2.08 0.07 0.01 0.39 0.01

*Granted exempt status on 02/22/94.

Data: Calculation: Heating value for fuel oil/diesel 140,000 Btu/gal The appropriate emission factors (shown at left) are used to determine emissions Heating value for LPG 91,500 Btu/gal ton/yr PM10 = (Gas Usage[gal/yr])*(Emission Factor [lb/1000 gal])/(2,000 lbs/ton)/1000 Maximum Operating Hours 8760 hours/yr Potential Gas Usage is calculated using maximum operating hours and rating in gal/hr (note: potential is for individual unit) Gas Usage [gal/yr] = (Rating[mmBtu/hr]*8,760 hrs)*(number of units)/(heating value[Btu/gal]) Emission Factors lb/yr HAP = (gas usage [gal/yr]*HAP Emission Factor [lb/1000gal])/1000 Fuel Oil Combustion Emission Factors (Utility and Commercial/Institutional Boilers): PM10 - 2 lb/10^3 gal SO2 - 142 S lb/10^3 gal gallons/hr = (btu rating of unit)(1000000)(no. of units)\140000 btu/gal (propane) NOx - 20 lb/10^3 gal Next assign percentage of usage/hr for each type of unit. CO - 5 lb/10^3 gal Multiple percentage time total actual gals/yr for the building. VOC - 0.34 lb/10^3 gal Emission Factors for speciated organic compounds:

benzene 2.14E-04 lb/10^3 gal

ethylbenzene 6.36E-05 lb/10^3 gal

formaldehyde 3.30E-02 lb/10^3 gal

napthalene 1.13E-03 lb/10^3 gal gals/hr %

1,1,1-trichloroethane 2.36E-04 lb/10^3 gal SMB Heaters 1.07 0.130

toluene 6.20E-03 lb/10^3 gal SMB Heaters 2.86 0.348

o-xylene 1.09E-04 lb/10^3 gal SMB Heaters 4.29 0.522 Emission Factor for VOCs is 0.556 lb/10^3 gal, 39% is methane 8.21 1.000 Sulfur content = 0.5%, therefore S=0.5 Fuel Oil Combustion factors were obtained from AP-42, 5th Edition, including Supplement A and B, Section 1.3, Table 1.3-1, 1.3-2, and 1.3-8 ERTC 3.57 0.486 Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion 3.77 0.514 Emission Factors (Commercial Boilers, 0.3 - <10 mmBtu/hr): 7.34 1.000 PM10 - 0.4 lb/10^3 gal SO2 - 0.10 S lb/10^3 gal NOx - 14 lb/10^3 gal CO - 1.9 lb/10^3 gal VOC - 0.3 lb/10^3 gal Emission Factor for VOCs is 0.5 lb/10^3 gal, 40% is methane Sulfur content = 0.0005% (by weight), therefore S=0.406 gr/100 ft^3(2)

LPG factors were obtained from AP-42, 5th Edition, including Supplement A and B, Section 1.5, Table 1.5-1.

(1) Actual LPG & Fuel Oil consumption provided by TTCI from fuel usage records for the 2012 year.

(2) Sulfur content of LPG provided by supplier, Phillips Chemical Company.

(**) Because the non-exempt sources are significantly below Title V thresholds, the potential-to-emit for sources which are exempt or 

 insignificant with respect to Title V have not been calculated.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-3 Appendix B 

Table A-3 Cooling Tower Emission Estimates

Throughput Operating Hours PM10 Emissions APEN/PERMIT Basis

Maximum Drift Factor Total Drift Avg. TDS Actual Maximum Actual Maximum Status

Description (gal/hr) (%) (gal/hr) (lb/gal) (hrs/yr) (hrs/yr) (tpy) (tpy)

Cooling Tower #1 30,000 0.02% 6.0 0.0959 2,022 8,760 0.58 2.52 Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Cooling Tower #2 30,000 0.02% 6.0 0.0959 2,022 8,760 0.58 2.52 Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Cooling Tower #3 30,000 0.02% 6.0 0.0959 2,022 8,760 0.58 2.52 Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Total (tpy) 1.75 7.56

Calculation:

Data:

Drift Factor: 0.02% from AP-42, Table 13.4-1

Avg TDS: 0.0959 lb/gal (estimated from AP-42, table 13.4-1)

Calculation:

Total Drift [gal/hr] = (Throughput[gal/hr]) * (Drift Factor[%])

Emissions [tpy] = (Total Drift [gal/hr]) * (Avg.TDS[lb/gal]) * (Operating Hours[hrs/yr])/(2,000 lbs/ton)

(1) Actual based on using actual 2012 operating hours (per TTCI) at maximum design flowrate for equipment

(2) Potential based on maximum design flowrate for 8760 hours.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-4 Appendix B 

Table A-4 Dynamometer Emission Estimates

Loss from Process Control PM10 Emissions Permit/APEN Basis

Actual Factor Actual Status

(lbs/yr) (%) (tpy)

Brake Pad Testing 0.2 99.9994% 6E-10 Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Total (tpy) 6E-10

(1) 2010 data on material lost from the process provided by TTCI (Tom Johnson).

Calculation:

Emissions [tpy] = (Loss from Process [lbs/yr])(1-Control Factor[%])/(2,000 lbs/ton)

(1) Material loss from process provided by TTCI for 2012 year.

(2) Control factor of 99.9994% based on manufacturer information provided by FARR 

 for the cartridge dust and fume collector.

(**) Because the non-exempt sources are significantly below Title V thresholds, the potential-to-emit for sources which are exempt or 

 insignificant with respect to Title V have not been calculated.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-5 Appendix B 

Table A-5 Fuel Dispensing Emission Estimates

Usage Actual Potential Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Actual HAPs Permit/APEN Basis

Actual Potential VOC Emissions VOC Emissions ethylbenzene Toluene chlorobenzene Hexane isomers of xylene Benzene 1,1,2-trichloroethane napthalene o-xylene cumene isomers of hexane Status

Description gal/yr gal/yr (tpy) (tpy) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr)

CSB gasoline refueling (motor pool) 32,429 ** 0.19 ** 0.83 8.01 0.08 7.06 2.88 5.99 0.08 0.04 1.18 0.04 15.29 Exempt

5 CCR, 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.ccc (<400 gal/day)

CSB heavy equipment diesel refueling 5,227 ** 4.44E-05 ** 1.24E-03 4.18E-03 2.13E-03 4.53E-03 Exempt

5 CCR, 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.ccc (<400 gal/day)

FAST heavy equipment diesel refueling 9,245 ** 7.86E-05 ** 2.20E-03 7.39E-03 3.77E-03 8.02E-03 Exempt

5 CCR, 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.ccc (<400 gal/day)

CSB locomotive diesel refueling 78,785 ** 6.70E-04 ** 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.07 Exempt

<2 tpy, 5 CCR 1001-5, 

Part A, II.D.1.a. and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

FAST locomotive diesel refueling 369,604 ** 3.14E-03 ** 0.09 0.30 0.15 0.32 Exempt

<2 tpy, 5 CCR 1001-5, 

Part A, II.D.1.a. and Part 

B, III.D.1.a.

FAST fuel truck diesel refueling & load 55,890 ** 9.50E-04 ** 2.66E-02 8.93E-02 4.56E-02 9.69E-02 Exempt

5 CCR, 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.ccc (<400 gal/day)

Total 0.19 0.83 8.14 0.08 7.52 2.88 0.23 0.08 0.04 1.18 0.04 15.79

Emission Factors Gasoline Displacement losses (uncontrolled) 11.0 lb/1000gal Calculation:

Spillage 0.7 lb/1000gal

Speciation factors:

ethylbenzene 0.22 wt % The appropriate emission factors (shown at left) are used to determine emissions

toluene 2.11 wt % ton/yr VOC = (Fuel Usage[gal/yr])*(Emission Factor [lb/1000 gal]))/(2,000 lbs/ton)/1000

chlorobenzene 0.02 wt % lb/yr HAPs = (actual VOC emissions [tpy]*((speciation factor [wt%])/100)*2,000 lb/ton

hexane 1.86 wt %

isomers of xylene 0.76 wt %

benzene 1.58 wt %

1,1,2-trichloroethane 0.02 wt %

napthalene 0.01 wt %

o-xylene 0.31 wt %

cumene 0.01 wt %

isomers of hexane 4.03 wt %

Emission factors were obtained from AP-42, 5th Edition, 1/95, Section 5.2.

Speciation factors from SPECIATE. Diesel (heavy vehicle)

Total Displacement losses 0.017 lb/1000gal

Speciation factors:

toluene 1.4 wt %

hexane 4.7 wt %

benzene 2.4 wt %

isomers of hexane 5.1 wt %

Assume displacement losses similar to loading losses.

AP-42, 5th Edition, 1/95, Section 5.2., S=1.0, P=0.0054 psia (diesel), M=130 (diesel), T=515 deg. R (Pueblo)

Assume spillage losses are negligible for diesel.

Speciation factors from SPECIATE. Diesel

Locomotive refueling loading losses 0.017 lb/1000 gal

AP-42, 5th Edition, 1/95, Section 5.2., S=1.0, P=0.0054 psia (diesel), M=130 (diesel), T=515 deg. R (Pueblo)

(1) Actual fuel dispensing numbers provided by TTCI from fuel records for 2012 year.

(**) Because the non-exempt sources are significantly below Title V thresholds, the potential-to-emit for sources which are exempt or 

 insignificant with respect to Title V have not been calculated.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-6 Appendix B 

Table A-6 Internal Combustion Engine Emission Estimates

Usage Actual Emissions/Consumption Maximum Potential Emissions/Consumption Permit/APEN Basis

Number Actual Potential PM10 SO2 NOx CO VOC PM10 SO2 NOx CO VOC Status

Description of Units (hrs/yr) (hrs/yr) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)

SMB Fire department backup generator 1 13 500 3.32E-05 2.79E-05 5.42E-04 0.02 1.01E-03 1.28E-03 1.07E-03 0.02 0.80 0.04 Exempt 5 CCR, 1001-5, Part A, II

TGB turbine generator 1 4.8 500 1.90E-03 1.78E-03 2.71E-02 5.83E-03 2.21E-03 0.20 0.19 2.82 0.61 0.23 Exempt 5 CCR, 1001-5, Part A, II

Total (tpy) 1.94E-03 1.81E-03 0.03 0.03 3.22E-03 0.20 0.19 2.84 1.41 0.27

Capacity of generators:

SMB 0.05115 MMBtu/hr

TGB 2.558 MMBtu/hr

Emission Factors 

Gasoline Calculation:

PM10 - 0.100 lb/MMBtu

SO2 - 0.084 lb/MMBtu ton/yr PM10 = (Actual usage [hrs/yr])*Capacity [MMBtu/hr] * (Emission Factor [lb/MMBtu])/(2,000 lbs/ton)

NOx - 1.630 lb/MMBtu

CO - 62.700 lb/MMBtu

VOC - 3.030 lb/MMBtu

VOC taken from table as TOC for this emission factor

Emission factors were obtained from AP-42, 5th Edition, including Supplement A and B, Section 3.3.

Diesel

PM10 - 0.310 lb/MMBtu

SO2 - 0.290 lb/MMBtu

NOx - 4.410 lb/MMBtu

CO - 0.950 lb/MMBtu

VOC - 0.360 lb/MMBtu

VOC taken from table as TOC for this emission factor

Emission factors were obtained from AP-42, 5th Edition, including Supplement A and B, Section 3.3.

(1) Actual usage based on data provided by TTCI for the 2011 year.

(2) Potential based on 500 hrs/yr - Memo: calculating PTE for emergency generators, from: John S. Seitz, Director, Sept. 6, 1995

(**) Because the non-exempt sources are significantly below Title V thresholds, the potential-to-emit for sources which are exempt or 

 insignificant with respect to Title V have not been calculated.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-7 Appendix B 

Table A-7 Locomotive Idling Emission Estimates

Fuel Oil Consumption Actual Emissions/Consumption Permit/APEN Basis

Number Duration Fuel Usage Actual Potential PM10 SO2 NOx CO VOC Status

Description of Units (hrs/week) (gal/hr) gal/yr gal/yr (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)

Locomotive(s) Idling in CSB 3 2 5 1,173 ** 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.04 0.01 Exempt

5 CCR, 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.ppp.

Total (tpy) 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.04 0.01

Emission Factors (Line Haul Locomotive): Calculation:

PM10 - 0.0116 lb/gal Calculation:

SO2 - 0.0360 lb/gal Fuel Consumption [gal/yr] = (Number of Units * Duration [hrs/week] * Fuel Usage [gal/hr] * 6570 [hrs])/(24 hrs per day * 7 day per week)

NOx - 0.4931 lb/gal ton/yr PM10 = (Fuel Consumption [gal/yr])*(Emission Factor [lb/gal])/(2,000 lbs/ton)

CO - 0.0626 lb/gal

VOC - 0.0211 lb/gal

Emission Factor for SO2 based on a fuel sulfur content of 0.25% (by weight)

Emissions Factors obtained from AP-42, "Procedures for Emission Inventory

Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources", 1992

(1) Data on number of units, duration and fuel usage during testing was provided by Mr. Dave H. (TTCI)

(**) Because the non-exempt sources are significantly below Title V thresholds, the potential-to-emit for sources which are exempt or 

 insignificant with respect to Title V have not been calculated.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-8 Appendix B 

Table A-8 Fire Training Emission Estimates

Diesel Use Actual Emissions/Consumption Maximum Potential Emissions/Consumption Permit/APEN Basis

Actual Potential PM10 SO2 NOx CO VOC PM10 SO2 NOx CO VOC Status

Description gal/yr gal/yr (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)

SERTC training exercises 540 11,639 0.37 0.00 0.01 0.39 0.09 8.06 0.02 0.12 8.43 2.02 Exempt

5 CCR, 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.q. open burning, 

and II.D.1.z. fire training

Total (tpy) 0.37 0.00 0.01 0.39 0.09 8.06 0.02 0.12 8.43 2.02

Fire Training

Emission Factors

PM10 - 0.195 lb/lb Calculation:

SO2 - 0.0004 lb/lb

NOx - 0.003 lb/lb The appropriate emission factors (shown at left) are used to determine emissions

CO - 0.204 lb/lb ton/yr PM10 = (Fuel Usage[gal/yr])*7.1 [lb/gal]*(Emission Factor [lb/lb]))/(2,000 lbs/ton)

VOC - 0.049 lb/lb

Fire training emission factors were obtained from AQUIS, Section 3.2.3

(1) Actual usage based on data provided by TTCI for the 2012 year.

(2) Potential based on 52 classes per year, and related increased fuel usage.

(**) Because the non-exempt sources are significantly below Title V thresholds, the potential-to-emit for sources which are exempt or 

 insignificant with respect to Title V have not been calculated.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-9 Appendix B 

Table A-9 Material Handling Emission Estimates

Emissions Permit/APEN Basis

Actual Usage (1) Actual PM-10 Status

(tpy) (tpy)(2)(3)

Ballast Handling 1434 9.46E-05 Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Silica sand/locomotives 0.0 0.00E+00 Exempt

5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, 

II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Total (tpy) 9.46E-05

Truck Unloading: 1.60E-05 lb/ton Calculation:

Truck Loading: 0.0001 lb/ton Ballast:

Crushed Stone Processing Operations factors were obtained from AP-42, Emissions [tpy] = (Usage [tpy]*(2*truck unloading EF [lb/ton] + truck loading EF [lb/ton]))/(2000 lbs/ton)

5th Edition, 1/95, Section 11.19.2. Silica Sand:

Emissions [tpy] = (Usage [tpy]*(truck loading EF [lb/ton]))/(2000 lbs/ton)

(1) Actual usage number for 2012 obtained from TTCI. 

(2) For ballast handling, assume dumped from truck or rail car, loaded, and dumped again.

(3) For silica sand, sand is loaded in locomotives by sand tower. Therefore assume single loading operation. 

No sand purchased in 2010 and no means to evaluate volume in sanding tower.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-10 Appendix B 

Table A-10 Oil Water Separator Emission Estimates

TTCI

Water 9 Emissions Calculations

24 August, 2006

OIL/WATER SEPARATOR EMISSIONS

(g/s) (lb/hr) (tons/year)

Emission Factor: AP-42 5th ed., Section 5.1, Petroleum Industry

1, 2 Dichlorobenzene 1.28E-07 1.02E-06 4.45E-06

1, 4 Dichlorobenzene 5.28E-06 4.19E-05 1.84E-04

Methylene Chloride 6.08E-07 4.83E-06 2.11E-05 Equation: E = (Q)(EF)

2 Butanone 7.71E-07 6.12E-06 2.68E-05

Ethylbenzene 4.04E-07 3.21E-06 1.40E-05 E = VOC Emission Rate (lb/hr)

Total VOCs 2.50E-04 Q = Oil Water Separator Volumetric Loading Rates

EF = Oil Water Separator Emission Factor (lb total VOC/1000 gal wastewater) = 0.2

Annual throughput = 93,030 gallons/year

Hourly throughput = 10.61 gal/hr

Annual Average: E = (93,030*0.2/1,000/2,000) = 0.0093 TPY

Maximum Hourly: E = (10.61*0.2/1,000) = 0.0021 lb/hr

Compound*

Evaproation Pond
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-11 Appendix B 

Table A-11 Parts Washer Emission Estimates

wt% Light Aliphatic Emissions Emissions Permit/APEN Basis

Surface Area Usage Naptha (LAN) Actual VOC Pot. VOC Status

Description (in2

) (hr/yr) (tpy) (tpy)

Parts Washers CSB 35 gal. dip tank, electric shop 811 8760 0.9 1.78 1.78 Exempt

<2 tpy, 5 CCR 1001-5, Part 

A, II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Parts Washers CSB 35 gal. dip tank, rail vehicle maintenance 704 8760 0.9 1.54 1.54 Exempt

<2 tpy, 5 CCR 1001-5, Part 

A, II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Parts Washers CSB Sink on Drum (SOD), motor pool 704 8760 0.9 1.54 1.54 Exempt

<2 tpy, 5 CCR 1001-5, Part 

A, II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Parts Washers CTL SOD, highbay 811 8760 0.9 1.78 1.78 Exempt

<2 tpy, 5 CCR 1001-5, Part 

A, II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Parts Washers FAST 35 gal. dip tank, maintenance 811 8760 0.9 1.78 1.78 Exempt

<2 tpy, 5 CCR 1001-5, Part 

A, II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Parts Washers RDL 35 gal. dip tank 811 8760 0.9 1.78 1.78 Exempt

<2 tpy, 5 CCR 1001-5, Part 

A, II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Parts Washers RDL 35 gal. dip tank, highbay 811 8760 0.9 1.78 1.78 Exempt

<2 tpy, 5 CCR 1001-5, Part 

A, II.D.1.a.and Part B, 

III.D.1.a.

Total (tpy) 11.96 11.96

Emission Factor 0.08 lb/hr/ft^2 Calculation:

Data:

AP-42, Table 4.6-2 Usage = 8760 hrs

Weight % LAN =99

Calculation:

Emissions [tpy] = (Surface Area [in^2] * Usage [hrs] * (Weight % LAN)/100 * Emission Factor [lb/hr/ft^2])/(144 in^2/ft^2*2000 lbs/ton)

(1) Actual and potential based on 8760 hrs/yr.

(2) Weight % light aliphatic naptha (LAN) obtained from Safety Kleen 105 MSDS. No HAPs specifically identified on product MSDS.

(**) Because the non-exempt sources are significantly below Title V thresholds, the potential-to-emit for sources which are exempt or 

 insignificant with respect to Title V have not been calculated.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

B-12 Appendix B 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Appendix C 

APPENDIX C

WILDLIFE RANGE MAPS
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Appendix C 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

C-1 Appendix B 

Figure B-1 Mule Deer Range Mapping for the TTC Property
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

C-2 Appendix B 

Figure B-2 Pronghorn Range Mapping for the TTC Property
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

C-3 Appendix B 

Figure B-3 Prairie Dog Town Mapping for the TTC Property
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

C-4 Appendix B 

Figure B-4 Massasauga Range Mapping for the TTC Property