In coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Service-Level Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Prepared by 

 

July 2016 

 



TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-1 

Executive Summary 

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

(FRA), is preparing this environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate intercity passenger rail 

service alternatives for the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program (Program), extending from 

Oklahoma City1 to the Texas-Mexico border. Preparation of this service-level EIS is one of two 

primary objectives of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (Study). In addition to this EIS, the 

Study includes preparation of a service development plan for the corridor to guide further 

development and capital investment in passenger rail improvements identified in the EIS Record of 

Decision. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) is a partnering state agency for the 

Study and the EIS. 

This EIS evaluates a reasonable range of corridor alternatives and passenger rail service types and 

will recommend a preferred alternative within the EIS study corridor, location of train service 

termini, and type of service. A No Build Alternative and multiple build alternatives are evaluated. 

The build alternatives include infrastructure improvements in existing or prior rail corridors, the 

development of one or more new rail corridors, or a combination of both. 

ES.1 Program Overview 

The Program could provide new and upgraded intercity passenger rail service along an 850-mile 

corridor extending approximately from Oklahoma City to south Texas. 

The Program corridor runs north-south and roughly parallels Interstate Highway (IH)-35, with the 

northern point in Edmond, Oklahoma (northern end of the Oklahoma City portion of the corridor), 

and the southern end of the corridor in south Texas, potentially in Corpus Christi, Brownsville, 

Laredo, or the Rio Grande Valley (Figure ES-1). The corridor was divided into three geographic 

sections to address travel markets both within each segment and among all three; they are: 

 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth

 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio

 Southern Section: San Antonio to south Texas (Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Laredo, and the Rio 

Grande Valley) with the option to extend to Monterrey, Mexico 

FRA and TxDOT will use a tiered process, as provided for in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

(40 CFR 1508.28), to conduct the environmental review of the Study. This service-level EIS 

addresses broad corridor issues and alternatives. A preliminary alignment was developed to 

represent each alternative, based on conceptual engineering that considered, and avoided obvious 

physical or environmental constraints. These alignments were not refined to optimize performance, 

 

1 Edmond, Oklahoma, was selected as the northern point of the Northern Section alternatives based on preliminary 

ridership forecasts and early stakeholder input obtained during the alternatives analysis process. While Edmond is 

used in the EIS analysis as the actual northern terminus, Oklahoma City is the city name used in the overall 

descriptions. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-2 

Figure ES-1: Build Alternatives
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-3 

reduce cost, avoid specific properties or individual environmental resources, or for any other such 

considerations. If an alternative is selected at the service level for further development, the above 

considerations would be assessed in subsequent project-level National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) evaluations that will analyze site-specific projects based on the service-level analyses. 

If a build alternative is selected at the conclusion of this service-level EIS, project-level NEPA 

analysis will be conducted prior to implementation of the Program elements within the selected 

alternative and, where appropriate, will incorporate by reference the data and evaluations included 

in this service-level EIS. Subsequent NEPA analysis will concentrate on the issues specific to the 

component of the alternative selected and analyze the environmental consequences and measures 

necessary to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential environmental effects of the component 

projects.

ES.2 Program History and Prior Planning Activities 

High-speed passenger rail has been under consideration in Texas since the late 1980s. In the 

1990s, a private consortium was awarded a franchise to design, build, and operate high-speed rail 

in the state. Although the consortium’s study of demand appeared to support the development of 

high-speed rail, lack of funding and other obstacles prevented that project from moving forward. 

Since then, other proposals for high-speed rail in Texas have been submitted to FRA, with each 

proposal showing revenues that exceed operating expenses but requiring funding to build. In 2000, 

FRA designated the South Central Corridor, including the area between San Antonio and Dallas and 

Fort Worth, as a future high-speed rail corridor. In 2010, TxDOT received a grant from FRA to study 

passenger rail in that corridor. 

In cooperation with TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, the Texas A&M Transportation 

Institute (TTI) completed a study in 2010 evaluating the potential for development of an intercity 

rail and express bus system in Texas. The TTI study examined long-distance intercity and 

interregional corridors to determine which corridors are most likely to need additional intercity 

travel capacity in the coming decades. The results of the study indicated a critical need for efficient 

travel scenarios for both freight and passenger demand. The study developed a preliminary concept 

plan with potential costs and benefits for intercity transportation corridors that would be served by 

an intercity rail/express bus system and would not preclude a future rail system capable of 

operating at higher speeds (TTI 2010). 

ES.3 Purpose and Need 

The purpose and need statement for the Program identifies two levels of discussion. The first level 

addresses the overall purpose and need for the entire 850-mile Program corridor from Oklahoma 

City to south Texas (Figure ES-1). The second level addresses the purpose and need specific to 

each of the three geographic sections that compose the Program corridor. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-4 

ES.3.1 Overall Program 

The purpose of the Program is to enhance intercity mobility by providing new or enhanced 

passenger rail service as a transportation alternative that is competitive with automobile, bus, and 

air travel. The objectives of the overall Program are to: 

 Provide high-quality intercity rail service that will offer competitive travel times, schedule 

reliability, and traveler comfort. 

 Encourage more efficient and environmentally sensitive modes of intercity travel. 

 Provide an equitable and affordable intercity travel alternative. 

 Enhance interconnectivity between intercity rail services, regional transit services, and major 

regional airports.

 Enhance environmental sustainability by facilitating regional land use and transit-oriented 

development plans within the Program corridor.

 Enhance interregional access to employment, entertainment, recreation, health, and shopping 

opportunities within the Program corridor.

 Coordinate and avoid conflicts with freight rail operations and facilities.

 Be a cost-efficient investment where the projected train service revenue meets or exceeds the 

following percentages of operation and maintenance costs:

- Conventional rail (speeds up to 90 miles per hour [mph]) = 50 percent 

- Higher-speed rail (speeds up to 125 mph) = 75 percent

- High-speed rail (speeds up to 220 to 250 mph) = 100 percent

The need for the Program is to meet current and future mobility needs in the Program corridor, 

including the following: 

 Population and economic growth will increase travel demand, generate additional roadway and 

aviation congestion, and reduce automobile, aviation, and transit reliability, thereby requiring 

regional mobility alternatives. 

 Limited intercity passenger rail service and capacity and lack of interregional connectivity 

restrict both mobility and economic development.

 Declining air quality resulting from increased travel demand and congestion requires more 

environmentally sustainable modes of travel. 

 Growth in truck and rail freight has negative effects on the safety of the transportation system.

ES.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

The purpose of the Program in the Northern Section is to provide efficient and reliable intercity 

passenger rail service along the corridor from Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth that is 

competitive with other travel options. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-5 

Population and economic growth in the Northern Section are projected to increase intercity 

passenger travel demand beyond what the existing highway, intercity passenger rail, and air travel 

systems in the Northern Section can accommodate. Specific needs for the Northern Section include 

the following: 

 Increasing population density and changes in demographic profile require alternatives in 

regional mobility.

 Existing constrained passenger rail service that competes with freight for rail line capacity is 

affected by delays and makes it difficult to attract business or short-travel riders. 

 Inefficient connections with other modes of travel reduce the attractiveness of passenger rail as 

an intercity travel alternative. 

 Local governments require regional support to improve interregional connectivity. 

ES.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

The purpose of the Program in the Central Section is to provide efficient and reliable intercity 

passenger rail service along the corridor from Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio that is 

competitive with other travel options. 

Multiple transportation, land use, socioeconomic, and environmental considerations drive the need 

for the Program in the Central Section, including the following: 

 Changing transportation demand of an increasing transit-dependent population requires an 

alternative mode.

 Inefficient and infrequent rail service limits ridership. 

 Increasing congestion and unreliable travel times on both the existing highway and rail services 

require an alternative interregional service. 

 Poor and declining air quality requires more sustainable modes of travel. 

ES.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The purpose of the Program in the Southern Section is to provide efficient and reliable intercity 

passenger rail service from San Antonio to south Texas that is competitive with other mode options. 

Population and economic growth in the Southern Section will increase intercity passenger travel 

demand beyond what the existing highway and air travel systems can accommodate. Air service 

options available in the Southern Section are limited. Specific needs for the Southern Section 

include the following: 

 Regional and cross-border travel is constrained by uncompetitive trip times, poor reliability, and 

low levels of passenger convenience. 

 Poor and declining air quality requires more sustainable modes of travel.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-6 

ES.4 Alternatives Considered 

The service-level EIS analyzes the No Build Alternative and 10 build alternatives in the three 

geographic sections (see Figure ES-1). The build alternatives consist of both a “route,” which refers 

to the specific corridor that a potential alignment follows, and a “service type,” which refers to the 

speed or category of rail transportation (conventional rail, higher-speed rail, or high-speed rail). The 

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

service types, are listed in Table ES-1 and described in the following sections.

Table ES-1: Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis

Route Service Typea 

No Build Alternative 

Northern Section 

N4A CONV

Central Section 

C4A

HrSR

HSR

C4B

HrSR

HSR

C4C

HrSR

HSR

Southern Section 

S4 HrSR

S6

HrSR

HSR

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

(see Section ES.4.1, below for a description of service types)

ES.4.1 Service Types 

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

EIS are described below. 

Conventional Rail Service 

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

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

of traffic, and rail rights-of-way may be fenced. Conventional rail service in Oklahoma and Texas are 

shared-use corridors, meaning that the passenger rail service operates on a freight rail line owned 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-7 

by a “host” railroad, such as BNSF Railway or UPRR. Conventional rail would typically operate at top 

speeds of up to 79 to 90 mph. This service type would primarily use existing railroad rights-of-way 

and existing railroad track; in some cases, modifications such as double-tracking could be 

constructed within the existing right-of-way to accommodate additional trains. 

Higher-Speed Rail Service 

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

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

can require improvements such as upgrading wooden ties to concrete ties and grade separating 

roadway crossings. Higher-speed service can use diesel-powered, steel-wheeled trains operating on 

steel tracks that are shared with freight trains or it can operate on dedicated passenger tracks. This 

service type can be an electrified rail system powered by overhead catenary lines, but for the 

purposes of this EIS, higher-speed rail trains are assumed to be diesel-powered. Higher-speed rail 

would be operated at top speeds of up to 110 to 125 mph. 

Where proposed within an existing railroad right-of-way, higher-speed rail would share right-of-way 

with the existing host railroad, but would construct separate tracks for the passenger service. 

Because of its maximum speed and because train frequency would be similar to conventional rail, 

higher-speed rail could operate on a single track with passing locations and would not require 

double-tracking. Where higher-speed rail is proposed outside an existing transportation corridor, the 

new alignment would be designed with curves and other features that could accommodate highspeed rail service, if warranted by ridership and economically feasible, in the future. For the 

purposes of this EIS, unlike high-speed rail, the design would not include electrification and would 

include a mixture of single and double track, and some at-grade crossings would remain. In some 

short segments in dense urban areas, existing track shared with freight may be used by new 

passenger rail, operated at reduced speeds. Newly constructed track would be dedicated 

exclusively to passenger rail service. 

High-Speed Rail Service 

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

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

shape and specialized suspension and braking systems. High-speed rail would operate at top 

speeds of up to 220 to 250 mph. 

The entire right-of-way would be enclosed and fully grade-separated. The alignment would be 

electrified and double-tracked and would be dedicated entirely to passenger rail service. Freight 

trains and other non-high-speed rail systems would be prohibited from using the high-speed rail 

tracks. This service type could only reach its maximum speeds outside existing transportation 

corridors because existing railroad alignments are not compatible with the speeds required, and 

they do not have the required space for separation of freight and high-speed rail. In areas where 

this service type is within existing transportation corridors, it would operate at lower speeds.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-8 

ES.4.2 Alternative Descriptions 

The No Build Alternative and the 10 build alternatives are shown on Figure ES-1. The build 

alternatives have been developed to a level of detail appropriate for a service-level analysis; 

preliminary alignments represent potential corridors where rail improvements could be 

implemented but do not specify the precise location of the track alignment. The preliminary 

alignments are based on conceptual engineering that considers and avoids obvious physical or 

environmental constraints. These alignments have not been refined to optimize performance, 

reduce cost, or avoid specific properties or individual environmental resources. If an alternative is 

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

at the project level. 

A 500-foot-wide EIS Study Area has been identified along the route of each build alternative, 

providing an envelope that could accommodate areas for associated effects, including roadway 

shifts, grade separations, construction activities, and affiliated features such as stations and 

parking, traction-power substations, power lines, and maintenance-of-way facilities. 

Alternatives in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections could be built as individual, standalone projects or in combination with alternatives in another section. In addition, more than one 

alternative in the Central Section and Southern Section could be built in the future because the 

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

alternatives would be determined during project-level studies. 

The route alignments are described in terms of nearby transportation corridors and cities. For 

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

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

to existing tracks depending on the service type.

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

Alternative S6, an extension from Laredo to Monterrey could follow an alignment that has been 

studied by Mexico, and is therefore considered feasible. The EIS evaluates alignment corridors only 

within the United States; however, the potential extension to Monterrey has been included for 

ridership analysis purposes for Alternative S6, and FRA and TxDOT have initiated coordination with 

the Mexican government about the potential extension.

No Build Alternative 

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

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

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

travel in the Study Vicinity, as well as maintenance and planned improvements to these systems. 

The sections below describe existing and planned roadway, passenger rail, and air travel in the 

Study Vicinity. Information was collected from current regional transportation plans within the Study 

Vicinity, as well as web sites describing services such as train schedules. These improvements and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-9 

their analysis at this service-level stage would require project-specific assessment. Conducting 

project assessments at this stage of the program development process would be speculative; 

however, the evaluation and assessment of potential environmental effects from a cumulative 

perspective has been conducted and is included in the introduction to Chapter 3, Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences. 

Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Due to feasibility based on initial ridership and cost information, one route alternative with one 

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

Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A would begin in Edmond, Oklahoma, and follow 

the BNSF rail alignment south to Oklahoma City. The alternative 

would continue south along the BNSF rail alignment to Norman, 

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

to Fort Worth (as does the existing Amtrak Heartland Flyer). 

From Fort Worth, the alternative would continue east to Dallas 

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

to Dallas, the route would be approximately 260 miles long. 

Because existing freight traffic would not preclude passenger 

service along this section of track, the route would provide 

passenger rail service on the existing BNSF track, with potential 

improvements within the existing BNSF right-of-way.

Alternative N4A would provide several improvements over the 

existing Heartland Flyer service. Alternative N4A would increase 

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

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

would extend from Fort Worth to Dallas without requiring a 

transfer (the Heartland Flyer service currently terminates in Fort 

Worth). In addition, Alternative N4A would provide improvements to existing station facilities, and 

new train equipment with more onboard amenities, including business class available for a 

premium price.

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

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

stops, with remaining “local” trains making as many as 12 stops.

Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

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

Central Section: Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-10 

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

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

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

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

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

improvements to existing station facilities, and new train equipment.

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A would begin in Fort Worth and follow the TRE 

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

alignment south toward Waxahachie where it would enter a new 

alignment outside existing highway and rail corridors to 

accommodate maximum operating speeds. Though outside 

existing transportation corridors, the southern portion of 

Alternative C4A would generally follow the BNSF alignment for 

about 250 miles, extending south from Waxahachie through 

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

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail assumes new diesellocomotive hauled equipment running six to 12 daily round trips. 

Express trains would likely make seven stops with local trains 

making 12 stops.

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail assumes electric-powered, highspeed rail service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express 

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

up to nine stops.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-11 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B would serve both Fort Worth and Dallas, with 

trains following a new elevated high-speed rail alignment over 

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

alternative would turn south to Hillsboro on an alignment outside 

existing transportation corridors. The alternative would then 

follow the same high-speed rail alignment as Alternative C4A 

from Hillsboro to San Antonio.

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail assumes new diesellocomotive hauled equipment running six to 12 daily round trips. 

Express trains would likely make seven stops, and local trains 

would make up to 12 stops.

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail assumes electric-powered, highspeed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express trains 

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

eight stops.

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C would follow the same potential alignment as 

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

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

Worth parallel to the UPRR alignment. Service on the Alternative 

C4C route would operate in a clockwise direction, running from 

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

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

compatible with the general service for C4A alternatives). 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail assumes new diesellocomotive hauled equipment running six to 12 daily round trips. 

Express trains would likely make seven stops, and local trains 

would make up to 12 stops.

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail assumes electric-powered highspeed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express trains 

would likely make six stops, while local trains would make up to 

nine stops.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-12 

Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

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

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

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 would begin in San Antonio and travel southeast 

along the UPRR alignment to George West, where it would 

continue outside existing transportation corridors to Alice. At 

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

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

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

existing transportation corridors to east of Laredo in an 

alignment that would allow higher speeds and rejoin the KCS 

Railway to enter the highly developed Laredo area. The second 

leg would travel south along abandoned railroad tracks to 

McAllen and east to Harlingen and Brownsville. The third leg 

would travel east along the KCS Railway to Corpus Christi.

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail assumes new diesellocomotive hauled equipment running four to six daily round 

trips. Depending on corridor demand model forecasts, the 

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

and Corpus Christie-Alice-San Antonio, with a connecting feeder 

from Brownsville, Harlingen, and McAllen. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

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

new alignment outside existing transportation corridors to a 

station near the Laredo-Columbia Solidarity Bridge, which 

crosses the Rio Grande north of Laredo. The alternative would 

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

constructed in Mexico, which would continue to Monterrey. This 

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

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

a connection. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail assumes new diesellocomotive hauled equipment running four to six daily round 

trips between San Antonio and Laredo, which would be the only 

U.S. stops for the alternative. If an extension from Laredo to 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-13 

Monterrey were added, the frequency of trips to Monterrey is assumed to be the same as those 

from San Antonio to Laredo.

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail assumes electric-powered, high-speed service running eight to 12 

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

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

Laredo. 

ES.4.3 Preferred Alternative 

Recommended preferred alternatives have been identified based on differentiating metrics for 

each of the geographic sections in the Study. Metrics that differentiate between alternatives are 

based on the overall Study purpose and need, as well as the purpose and need for each geographic 

section (see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need; see Chapter 2, Alternatives, for additional information 

on the analysis and selection of the preferred alternatives). Preferred alternatives are 

recommended for each geographic section separately because the Study does not analyze 

alternatives that extend between Oklahoma City and Laredo/Brownsville, but rather to the endpoint 

cities of each geographic section (Northern, Central, and Southern). In addition, more than one 

alternative in the Central Section or Southern Section could be built in the future to provide 

different service options or serve different cities. Recommendation of these preferred alternatives 

does not preclude connectivity between geographic sections of the Study, but it does not assume 

connectivity either. Details about how preferred alternatives might connect would be analyzed 

during project-level analysis after completion of the service-level EIS. 

The recommended preferred alternatives for each geographic section are as follows: 

 Northern Section 

- N4A Conventional

 Central Section

- C4A High-Speed Rail

- C4B High-Speed Rail

- C4C High-Speed Rail

 Southern Section

- S4 Higher-Speed Rail

- S6 Higher-Speed Rail or High-Speed Rail, but only with a connection to Monterrey, Mexico 

ES.4.4 Station Cities 

This service-level EIS does not evaluate specific station locations, and no conclusion about the 

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

ridership data and transit connectivity information developed as part of this EIS, and based on 

stakeholder input, the cities in which stations would most likely be located have been assumed. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-14 

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

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

Table ES-2: Cities with Potential Stations

Oklahoma 

Edmond Pauls Valley

Oklahoma City Ardmore

Norman

Texas 

Gainesville Austin

Fort Worth San Antonio 

Arlington Alice

Dallas Corpus Christi

Waxahachie Harlingen

Waco McAllen

Temple (also serving Killeen) Brownsville

Taylor Laredo

ES.5 Summary of Effects 

This section summarizes the potential effects of implementation of the build alternatives based on 

the analysis of the social, economic, and environmental resources documented in Chapter 3. The 

No Build Alternative does not meet the Program’s purpose and need, but is carried forward as a 

baseline alternative against which the build alternatives are compared. The potential effects, and 

differences in effects among alternatives, are described in each resource section and are 

summarized in Tables ES-3 through ES-5 for the Northern, Central, and Southern sections, 

respectively. Station locations have not yet been selected, but general considerations regarding 

station effects are discussed when applicable. 

The potential for effects and comparison of effects among alternatives are based on the presence 

of resources within the 500-foot-wide EIS Study Area for each alternative. The 500-foot EIS Study 

Area contains more land than the ultimate Program would require, which allows for avoidance of 

key resources and flexibility in future project-level design. The EIS Study Area also provides space 

for associated effects, such as roadway modifications, grade separations, construction activities, 

and maintenance-of-way facilities. The identification of resources within the EIS Study Area allows 

for a comparison of effects among alternatives and provides information about key resources that 

may need to be considered during project-level design. It does not represent the actual impacts 

that would occur from implementation of a future project (project-level impacts would be 

anticipated to be less). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-15 

Table ES-3: Summary of Resource Effects in the Northern Section 

Resource N4A Conventional 

Air Quality Negligible (adverse) short-term (construction) and negligible (benefit) long-term 

regional (operation) effects. 

Water Quality

Surface waters: Waterbodies crossed by the EIS Study Area would experience 

negligible effects based on the use of existing railway infrastructure and corridors, 

and through project design and implementation of BMPs.

Runoff: Negligible effect due to low amount of impervious surfaces and 

implementation of structural stormwater management practices and construction 

BMPs.

Erosion: Moderate effect due to the acreage of erosive soils crossed which would be 

minimized with use of construction BMPs.

Groundwater: Negligible effect as a result of no Sole Source Aquifer recharge area 

crossings, low acreage of unconfined aquifer crossings, and implementation of 

BMPs.

Noise and Vibration Noise and vibration-sensitive land uses are present in the EIS Study Area and would 

be subject to moderate effects.

Noisea

Category 2 receivers: 15,395 acres

Category 3 receivers: 245 facilities

Vibration 

Category 1 receivers: 1 land use

Category 2 receivers: 11,247 acres

Category 3 receivers: 24 facilities

Solid Waste Disposal Negligible effects to landfills. 

Natural Ecological 

Systems and Wildlife

85 acres of wildlife corridors and assemblages.

10% of EIS Study Area composed of higher ecological value land coverage.

Alignment would not likely be fenced, making wildlife movement vulnerable to 

increased risk for strikes from additional rail traffic. Moderate effects on wildlife 

corridors and communities associated with operation. All other effects would be 

negligible.

Wetlands Wetlands and other waterbodies are present in the EIS Study Area and would 

experience negligible effects. 

Waterbodies: 537 waterbodies; 103 acres; 317,365 linear feet. 

Wetlands: 271 wetlands; 363 acres.

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Sensitive plant species: Negligible effects since there are no occurrences of 

sensitive plant species. 

Wildlife species: 5 federally listed and 1 other sensitive wildlife species. Negligible 

effects during construction and moderate effects during operation.

Critical Habitat: 34 acres of Arkansas River shiner critical habitat. Negligible effects.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-16 

Resource N4A Conventional 

Flood Hazards and 

Floodplain 

Management

Floodplains and floodways are present in the EIS Study Area and would experience 

negligible effects.

Floodplains: 2,005 acres

Floodways: 410 acres

Coastal Zone 

Management

N/A, there are no coastal zone management areas.

Energy Negligible adverse effects during construction and negligible beneficial effects 

during operation.

Annual energy savings: 114,000 MBTUs

Utilitiesb 361 utility crossings. Negligible effects.

Geologic Resourcesc Geologic risks could be avoided or minimized by meeting building standards. 

Moderate effects from geologic hazards. No change in access to, or reduction of, 

high-value minerals. Negligible effects on mineral resources.

Aesthetics and Visual 

Quality 

49 miles of the alignment near sensitive viewers. 

46 miles would have negligible effects, 1 mile, would have moderate effects, and 2 

miles would have substantial effects. The overall effect would be negligible. 

Land Use and Prime 

Farmland 

Land use: High land use compatibility. Negligible effects.

Prime Farmland: 6,140 acres of prime farmland. Low potential prime farmland 

conversion and bisection. Negligible effects.

Environmental 

Justice and 

Socioeconomics

Socioeconomics: Negligible effects.

Environmental Justice: Negligible effects.

Public Health Negligible (adverse) effects relating to air quality during construction. Negligible 

(benefit) long-term effects relating to air quality during operation. Negligible effects 

relating to groundwater and hazardous materials.

Public Safety and 

Hazardous Materials

Public Safety: Would improve crossing safety but would continue to have collision 

risk associated with crossings. Negligible effects.

Hazardous Materials: 8 sites. Negligible effects.

Recreational Areas 

and Opportunitiesd

Negligible effects from construction activities and property acquisition.

56 recreational resources.

Historic Resourcesd Moderate effects from acquisition or rehabilitation, restoration, or expansion of 

existing railroad-related historic resources.

35 known NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible historic resources.

Archaeological 

Resourcesd

Moderate effects from demolition or disturbance of resources.

1 NRHP-eligible site and 14 undetermined eligible archaeological sites.

Section 4(f)/Section 

6(f)

65 Section 4(f) properties and 3 Section 6(f) properties in the EIA Study Area. The 

alternative may avoid Section 4(f) resources by remaining inside existing rail or 

transportation right-of-way. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-17 

Resource N4A Conventional 

Travel Demand and 

Transportation

Effects on Transit Providers: 50 and 44 percent of bus and air passengers would be 

diverted to rail, respectively. This would have substantial (negative) effects on both 

bus and air service providers.

Change in VMT: Negligible (beneficial) effects. 0.6% reduction in VMT. Potential 

secondary beneficial effect (reduced congestion) to bus service providers.

a Category 1 noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses are those that are set aside for serenity and quiet such as outdoor 

amphitheaters. Category 2 noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses include residences and hotels. Category 3 land uses 

include churches, schools, recreation areas, and similar land use activities with which noise and vibration could 

interfere. 

b. The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table; however, alternatives may include additional 

less intense effects depending on urban or rural locations, density of utilities, and if existing or new track would be 

constructed.

c The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table. However, alternatives may include additional, 

less intense effects depending on specific geologic hazards. d The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table. However, alternatives may include additional 

less intense effects depending on urban, suburban, or rural locations. 

BMP = best management practice

MBTU = million British thermal units

N/A = not applicable

NRHP = National Register of Historic Places

VMT = vehicle miles traveled
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-18 

Table ES-4: Summary of Resource Effects in the Central Section by Alternative

Resource C4A HrSR C4A HSR C4B HrSR C4B HSR C4C HrSR C4C HSR 

Air Quality Substantial (adverse) short-term 

(construction) effects and substantial 

(benefit) long-term regional (operation) 

effects.

Substantial 

(adverse) shortterm 

(construction) 

effects and 

moderate 

(benefit) longterm regional 

(operation) 

effects. 

Moderate 

(adverse) shortterm 

(construction) 

effects and 

substantial 

(benefit) longterm regional 

(operation) 

effects.

Substantial (adverse) short-term 

(construction) effects and 

substantial (benefit) long-term 

regional (operation) effects.

Water Quality Surface waters: More waterbodies 

than C4B, fewer than C4C (700 

features; 24,187 linear feet of listed 

Section 303(d) impaired waters). 

Moderate effects due to the acreage 

and linear feet crossed.

Runoff: Negligible effect due to low 

amount of impervious surfaces and 

implementation of structural 

stormwater management practices 

and construction BMPs.

Erosion: Less erosive soils crossed 

than C4B and C4C (101 crossed). 

More acreage than C4B and less than 

C4C (1,424 acres). Moderate effect 

due to the acreage of erosive soils 

crossed which would be minimized 

with use of construction BMPs.

Groundwater: More aquifers crossed 

than C4B and less than C4C (25,775

acres crossed). Negligible effect as a 

Surface waters: Fewer waterbodies 

than C4A and C4B (650 features; 

18,870 linear feet of listed Section 

303(d) impaired waters). Moderate 

effects due to the acreage and linear 

feet crossed.

Runoff: Negligible effect due to low 

amount of impervious surfaces and 

implementation of structural 

stormwater management practices 

and construction BMPs.

Erosion: More erosive soils crossed 

than C4A and less crossed than C4C 

(116 crossed). Less acreage than C4A 

and C4C (1,395 acres). Moderate 

effect due to the acreage of erosive 

soils crossed which would be 

minimized with use of construction 

BMPs.

Groundwater: Less aquifers crossed 

than C4A and C4C (23,160 acres). 

Surface waters: More waterbodies 

than C4A and C4B (850 features; 

23,084 linear feet of listed Section 

303(d) impaired waters). Moderate 

effects due to the acreage and 

linear feet crossed.

Runoff: Negligible effect due to low 

amount of impervious surfaces and 

implementation of structural 

stormwater management practices 

and construction BMPs.

Erosion: More erosive soils crossed 

(123 crossed) and more acreage 

(1,706 acres) than C4A and C4B. 

Moderate effect due to the acreage 

of erosive soils crossed which 

would be minimized with use of 

construction BMPs.

Groundwater: More aquifers 

crossed than C4A and C4B (31,900 

acres). Negligible effect as a result 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-19 

Resource C4A HrSR C4A HSR C4B HrSR C4B HSR C4C HrSR C4C HSR 

result of no Sole Source aquifer 

recharge area crossings, low acreage 

of unconfined aquifer crossings, and 

implementation of stormwater 

treatment measures and BMPs.

Negligible effect as a result of no Sole 

Source aquifer recharge area 

crossings, low acreage of unconfined 

aquifer crossings and implementation 

of stormwater treatment measures 

and BMPs.

of no Sole Source aquifer recharge 

area crossings, low acreage of 

unconfined aquifer crossings and 

implementation of stormwater 

treatment measures and BMPs.

Noise and Vibration Higher amount of noise- and vibrationsensitive land uses than C4B, but 

lower amount than C4C. C4A HSR 

effects more receivers than C4A HrSR, 

however, both would have moderate 

effects. 

Lowest amount of noise- and vibrationsensitive land uses. C4B HSR effects 

more receivers than C4B HrSR, 

however, both would have negligible 

effects. 

Highest amount of noise- and 

vibration-sensitive land uses. C4C 

HSR effects more receivers than 

C4C HrSR; however, both would 

have moderate effects.

Noisea

Category 2 

receivers: 7,937 

acres 

Category 3 

receivers: 100 

facilities 

Vibration

Category 2 

receivers: 8,686 

acres

Category 3 

receivers: 32 

facilities 

Noise a

Category 2 

receivers: 19,466 

acres 

Category 3 

receivers: 227 

facilities 

Vibration

Category 2 

receivers: 11,919 

acres

Category 3 

receivers: 39 

facilities 

Noise a

Category 2 

receivers: 6,560 

acres 

Category 3 

receivers: 81 

facilities 

Vibration

Category 2 

receivers: 6,917 

acres

Category 3 

receivers: 26 

facilities 

Noise a

Category 2 

receivers: 15,549 

acres 

Category 3 

receivers: 179 

facilities 

Vibration Category 

2 receivers: 

9,566 acres

Category 3 

receivers: 35 

facilities 

Noise a

Category 2 

receivers: 9,284 

acres 

Category 3 

receivers: 110 

facilities 

Vibration

Category 2 

receivers: 9,019 

acres

Category 3 

receivers: 37 

facilities 

Noise a

Category 2 

receivers: 

22,799 acres 

Category 3 

receivers: 256 

facilities 

Vibration 

Category 2 

receivers: 

12,387 acres

Category 3 

receivers: 44 

facilities 

Solid Waste Disposal Landfills present in the counties affected by the EIS Study Area would experience negligible effects.

Natural Ecological 

Systems and Wildlife

62% non-developed land covers.

107 acres of wildlife corridors and 

assemblages. 

64% non-developed land covers.

66 acres of wildlife corridors and 

assemblages. 

62% non-developed land covers.

107 acres of wildlife corridors and 

assemblages. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-20 

Resource C4A HrSR C4A HSR C4B HrSR C4B HSR C4C HrSR C4C HSR 

628 acres of sensitive plant 

communities. 

18% of EIS Study Area composed of 

higher ecological value land coverage.

Substantial effects during construction 

and moderate effects during operation 

on non-developed lands, wildlife 

corridors and assemblages, and areas 

of high ecological importance. Higher 

overall potential for effects to wildlife 

corridors and communities from HSR 

than HrSR because HSR noise and 

vibration would travel farther than that 

generated by HrSR.

628 acres of sensitive plant 

communities. 

18% of EIS Study Area composed of 

higher ecological value land coverage.

Substantial effects during construction 

and moderate effects during operation 

on non-developed lands, wildlife 

corridors and assemblages, and areas 

of high ecological importance. Higher 

overall potential for effects to wildlife 

corridors and communities from HSR 

than HrSR because HSR noise and 

vibration would travel farther than that 

generated by HrSR. 

628 acres of sensitive plant 

communities. 

15% of EIS Study Area composed 

of higher ecological value land 

coverage.

Substantial effects during 

construction and moderate effects 

during operation on non-developed 

lands, wildlife corridors and 

assemblages, and areas of high 

ecological importance. Higher 

overall potential for effects to 

wildlife corridors and communities 

from HSR than HrSR because HSR 

noise and vibration would travel 

farther than that generated by 

HrSR. 

Wetlands More waterbodies and wetlands than 

C4B, but fewer than C4C. Moderate 

effects.

Waterbodies: 700 waterbodies; 153 

acres; 316,909 linear feet.

Wetlands: 349 wetlands; 312 acres.

Fewest waterbodies and wetlands. 

Moderate effects.

Waterbodies: 650 waterbodies; 99 

acres; 293,669 linear feet.

Wetlands: 309 wetlands; 181 acres.

Most waterbodies and wetlands. 

Moderate effects.

Waterbodies: 850 waterbodies; 

164 acres; 400,363 linear feet.

Wetlands: 391 wetlands; 345 

acres.

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

No occurrences of sensitive plant 

species. Negligible effect.

1 federally listed and 1 other sensitive 

wildlife species. Substantial effect for 

construction and moderate effect for 

operation.

No critical habitat. Negligible effect. 

No occurrences of sensitive plant 

species. Negligible effect.

1 federally listed and 1 other sensitive 

wildlife species. Substantial effect for 

construction and moderate effect for 

operation.

No critical habitat. Negligible effect. 

No occurrences of sensitive plant 

species. Negligible effect.

1 federally listed and 1 other 

sensitive wildlife species. 

Substantial effect for construction 

and moderate effect for operation.

No critical habitat. Negligible effect.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-21 

Resource C4A HrSR C4A HSR C4B HrSR C4B HSR C4C HrSR C4C HSR 

Flood Hazards and 

Floodplain Management

More floodplains and floodways than 

C4B, but fewer than C4C. Negligible 

effects.

Floodplains: 2,212 acres

Floodways: 815 acres

Fewest floodplains and floodways. 

Negligible effects.

Floodplains: 2,193 acres

Floodways: 582 acres

Most floodplains and floodways. 

Negligible effects.

Floodplains: 2,691 acres

Floodways: 961 acres

Coastal Zone 

Management

N/A; there are no coastal zone management areas.

Energy Moderate adverse 

effects during 

construction, and 

moderate 

beneficial effects 

during operation.

Annual energy

savings: 668,832 

MBTUs

Substantial 

adverse effects 

during 

construction, and 

substantial 

beneficial effects 

during operation.

Annual energy 

savings: 

1,812,892 

MBTUs

Moderate adverse 

effects during 

construction, and 

moderate 

beneficial effects 

during operation. 

Annual energy 

savings: Not 

estimated. 

Substantial 

adverse effects 

during 

construction, and 

substantial 

beneficial effects 

during operation.

Annual energy 

savings: 

2,264,999 

MBTUs

Moderate adverse 

effects during 

construction, and 

moderate 

beneficial effects 

during operation.

Annual energy 

savings: Not 

estimated. 

Substantial 

adverse 

effects during 

construction, 

and 

substantial 

beneficial 

effects during 

operation.

Annual energy 

savings: 

1,413,391 

MBTUs

Utilitiesb 424 utility 

crossings. 

Moderate effect.

424 utility 

crossings. 

Substantial effect.

315 utility 

crossings. 

Substantial 

effect.

315 utility 

crossings. 

Substantial effect.

744 utility 

crossings. 

Substantial effect.

744 utility 

crossings. 

Substantial 

effect.

Geologic Resourcesc Geologic risks could be avoided or minimized by meeting building standards. Moderate effects from geologic hazards. 

None of the alternatives would affect access or availability of high-value minerals. Negligible effects on mineral 

resources.

Aesthetics and Visual 

Quality 

47 miles of the alignment near 

sensitive viewers. 

C4A HSR would affect more sensitive 

viewers than C4A HrSR. 

49 miles of the alignment near 

sensitive viewers. 

C4B HSR would affect more sensitive 

viewers than C4B HrSR. 

62 miles of the alignment near 

sensitive viewers. 

C4C HSR would affect more 

sensitive viewers than C4C HrSR. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-22 

Resource C4A HrSR C4A HSR C4B HrSR C4B HSR C4C HrSR C4C HSR 

C4A HSR: 0 miles would have 

negligible effects, 36 miles would have 

moderate effects, and 11 miles would 

have substantial effects. Overall, the 

effect of C4A HSR would be 

substantial. 

C4A HrSR: 36 miles would have 

negligible effects, 10 miles would have 

moderate effects, and 1 mile would 

have substantial effects. Overall, the 

effect of C4A HrSR would be 

moderate.

C4B HSR: 0 miles would have 

negligible effects, 36 miles would have 

moderate effects, and 13 miles would 

have substantial effects. Overall, the 

effect of C4B HSR would be 

substantial. 

C4B HrSR: 36 miles would have 

negligible effects, 11 miles would have 

moderate effects, and 2 miles would 

have substantial effects. Overall, the 

effect of C4B HrSR would be 

moderate.

C4C HSR: 0 miles would have 

negligible effects, 51 miles would 

have moderate effects, and 11 

miles would have substantial 

effects. Overall, the effect of C4C 

HSR would be substantial. 

C4C HrSR: 51 miles would have 

negligible effects, 10 miles would 

have moderate effects, and 1 mile 

would have substantial effects. 

Overall, the effect of C4C HrSR 

would be moderate.

Land Use and Prime 

Farmland 

Land use 

compatibility: 

Medium land use 

compatibility. 

Moderate effects.

Prime farmland: 

10,440 acres. 

Moderate effects.

Land use 

compatibility: 

Medium land use 

compatibility. 

Moderate effects.

Prime farmland: 

acres. 10,440 

Moderate effects.

Land use 

Compatibility: Low 

land use 

compatibility. 

Moderate effects.

Prime farmland: 

10,217 acres. 

Substantial 

effects.

Land use 

Compatibility: Low 

land use 

compatibility. 

Moderate effects.

Prime farmland: 

10,217 acres. 

Substantial 

effects.

Land use 

Compatibility: 

Medium land use 

compatibility. 

Substantial

effects.

Prime farmland: 

12,435 acres. 

Substantial 

effects.

Land use 

Compatibility: 

Medium land 

use 

compatibility. 

Substantial

effects.

Prime 

farmland: 

12,435 acres. 

Substantial 

effects.

Environmental Justice 

and Socioeconomics 

Environmental Justice: Moderate effects.

Socioeconomics: Moderate effects.

Public Health Moderate (adverse) effects during construction related to air quality. Negligible (benefit) long-term effects relating to 

air quality during operation. Negligible effects relating to groundwater and hazardous materials. 

Public Safety and 

Hazardous Materials

Public Safety:

Would improve crossing safety over No 

Build Alternative. C4A HrSR would 

have more at-grade crossings and 

Public Safety:

Would improve crossing safety over No 

Build Alternative. C4B HrSR would 

have the fewest at-grade crossings 

Public Safety:

Would improve crossing safety over 

No Build Alternative. C4C HrSR 

would have the most at-grade 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-23 

Resource C4A HrSR C4A HSR C4B HrSR C4B HSR C4C HrSR C4C HSR 

collision risk than C4B HrSR, but fewer 

at-grade crossings and less collision 

risk than C4C HrSR. However, effects 

would be negligible through

implementation of project design 

features and mitigation measures, 

such as following safety design 

standards for track and roadway 

design. 

and least collision risk of the HrSR 

alternatives. Effects would be 

negligible through implementation of 

project design features and mitigation 

measures, such as following safety 

design standards for track and 

roadway design. 

crossings and collision risk of the 

HrSR alternatives. However, effects 

would be negligible through

implementation of project design 

features and mitigation measures, 

such as following safety design 

standards for track and roadway 

design. 

HSR alternatives would have no at-grade crossings and no associated collision risk. Negligible effects.

Hazardous Materials:

More sites (9) than C4B, but fewer 

than C4C. Negligible effects for 

C4A HrSR and moderate effects for 

C4A HSR.

Hazardous Materials:

Fewest sites (8). Moderate effects.

Hazardous Materials:

Most sites (12). Negligible effects 

for C4C HrSR and moderate effects 

for C4C HSR.

Recreational Areas and 

Opportunitiesd

More recreational resources than C4B, 

but fewer than C4C. Substantial 

effects from construction activities 

and property acquisition.

57 recreational resources: 28 in 

urban, 17 in suburban, 12 in rural 

areas. 

Fewest recreational resources. 

Substantial effects from construction 

activities and property acquisition.

51 recreational resources: 28 in 

urban, 15 in suburban, 8 in rural 

areas.

Most recreational resources. 

Moderate effects for C4C HrSR and 

substantial effects for C4C HSR 

from construction activities and 

property acquisition.

62 recreational resources: 33 in 

urban, 17 in suburban, 12 in rural 

areas.

Historic Resourcesd More known NRHP-listed, NRHPeligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible 

historic resources than C4B, but fewer 

than C4C. Substantial effects from 

acquisition or rehabilitation, 

restoration, or expansion of existing 

railroad-related historic resources. 

45 known NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, 

or potentially NRHP-eligible historic 

resources. 

Fewest known NRHP-listed, NRHPeligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible 

historic resources. Substantial effects 

from acquisition or rehabilitation, 

restoration, or expansion of existing 

railroad-related historic resources. 

38 known NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, 

or potentially NRHP-eligible historic 

resources. 

Most known NRHP-listed, NRHPeligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible 

historic resources. Substantial 

effects from acquisition or 

rehabilitation, restoration, or 

expansion of existing railroadrelated historic resources. 

52 known NRHP-listed, NRHPeligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible 

historic resources. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-24 

Resource C4A HrSR C4A HSR C4B HrSR C4B HSR C4C HrSR C4C HSR 

Archaeological 

Resourcesd

More identified sites than C4B, but 

fewer than C4C. Moderate (C4A HrSR) 

to substantial (C4A HSR) effects from 

disturbance or demolition of 

resources. 

1 NRHP-eligible site and 25 

undetermined eligible archaeological 

sites.

Fewest identified sites. Moderate (C4B 

HrSR) to substantial (C4B HSR) effects 

from disturbance or demolition of 

resources.

2 NRHP-eligible sites and 18 

undetermined eligible archaeological 

sites.

Most identified sites. Moderate 

(C4C HrSR) to substantial (C4C 

HSR) effects from disturbance or 

demolition of resources. 

1 NRHP-eligible site and 26 

undetermined eligible 

archaeological sites.

Section 4(f)/ Section 

6(f)

64 Section 4(f) properties and 3 Section 6(f) properties in the EIS Study Area. All of the Central Section alternatives 

are likely to result in a potential use of Section 4(f) resources. Design refinements to avoid specific Section 4(f) 

properties and/or to minimize harm will be addressed at the project level.

Travel Demand and 

Transportation

Effects on Transit 

Providers: 14% 

and 38% of bus 

and air 

passengers would 

be diverted to 

rail. Resulting in 

moderate and 

substantial 

effects on bus 

and air service 

providers, 

respectively.

Change in VMT: 

Moderate 

(beneficial) 

effects. 3.1% 

reduction in VMT.

Potential 

secondary 

beneficial effect 

(reduced 

congestion) to 

Effects on Transit 

Providers: 22% 

and 68% of bus 

and air 

passengers would 

be diverted to rail. 

Resulting in 

moderate and 

substantial 

effects on bus 

and air service 

providers, 

respectively.

Change in VMT: 

Substantial 

(beneficial) 

effects. 8.6% 

reduction in VMT.

Potential 

secondary 

beneficial effect 

(reduced 

congestion) to bus 

Travel demand 

modeling not 

conductede

Effects on Transit 

Providers: 23% 

and 70% of bus 

and air 

passengers would 

be diverted to rail. 

Resulting in 

moderate and 

substantial 

effects on bus 

and air service 

providers, 

respectively.

Change in VMT: 

Substantial 

(beneficial) 

effects. 9% 

reduction in VMT.

Potential 

secondary 

beneficial effect 

(reduced 

congestion) to 

Travel demand 

modeling not 

conductede

Effects on 

Transit 

Providers: 

21% and 62% 

of bus and air 

passengers 

would be 

diverted to 

rail. Resulting 

in moderate 

and 

substantial 

effects on bus 

and air service 

providers, 

respectively.

Change in 

VMT: 

Substantial 

(beneficial) 

effects. 7.2% 

reduction in 

VMT. Potential 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-25 

Resource C4A HrSR C4A HSR C4B HrSR C4B HSR C4C HrSR C4C HSR 

bus service 

providers. For air 

carriers the 

potential benefits 

may include the 

opportunity to 

shift from shorthaul to longerhaul flight 

operations, which 

may include more

reliable 

scheduling and 

increased 

revenue.

service providers.

For air carriers the 

potential benefits 

may include the 

opportunity to 

shift from shorthaul to longerhaul flight 

operations, which 

may include more

reliable 

scheduling and 

increased 

revenue.

bus service 

providers. For air 

carriers the 

potential benefits 

may include the 

opportunity to 

shift from shorthaul to longerhaul flight 

operations, which 

may include more

reliable 

scheduling and 

increased 

revenue.

secondary 

beneficial 

effect 

(reduced 

congestion) to 

bus service 

providers. For 

air carriers the 

potential 

benefits may 

include the 

opportunity to 

shift from 

short-haul to 

longer-haul 

flight 

operations, 

which may 

include more

reliable 

scheduling 

and increased 

revenue.

a Category 2 noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses include residences and hotels. Category 3 land uses include churches, schools, recreation areas, and 

similar land use activities with which noise and vibration could interfere.

b. The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table; however, alternatives may include additional less intense effects depending on urban or 

rural locations, density of utilities, and if existing or new track would be constructed.

c The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table. However, alternatives may include additional, less intense effects depending on specific 

geologic hazards.

d The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table. However, some alternatives may include additional less intense effects depending on 

urban, suburban, or rural locations.

e For this service-level analysis, the travel demand modeling for Alternatives C4B and C4C Higher-Speed Rail was not conducted to the same level of detail, but 

instead relied upon a proportional relationship based on full travel demand modeling conducted for the C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

alternatives. Refer to Section 3.20, Travel Demand and Transportation.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-26 

Table ES-5: Summary of Resource Effects in the Southern Section by Alternative

Resource 

Alternative 

S4 HrSR S6 HrSR S6 HSR 

Air Quality

Substantial (adverse) short-term 

(construction) and long-term regional 

(operation) effects.

Moderate (adverse) short-term 

(construction) effects and long-term 

regional (operation) effects.

Substantial (adverse) short-term 

(construction) effects and negligible 

(benefit) long-term regional (operation) 

effects.

Water Quality Surface waters: More waterbodies than 

S6 (443 features; 13,928 linear feet of 

listed Section 303(d) impaired waters). 

Moderate effects due to the acreage 

and linear feet crossed.

Runoff: Negligible due to amount of 

impervious surfaces and structural 

stormwater management practices and 

construction BMPs.

Erosion: More erosive soils crossed (22 

crossed) but less acreage (678 acres) 

than S6. Negligible effect due to the 

acreage of erosive soils crossed which 

would be minimized with use of 

construction BMPs.

Groundwater: More aquifers crossed 

(27,610 acres) than S6. Negligible 

effect as a result of no Sole Source 

aquifer recharge area crossings, 

acreage of unconfined aquifer crossings 

and implementation of stormwater 

treatment measures and BMPs. 

Surface waters: Fewer waterbodies than S4 (255 features; 2,921 linear feet of 

listed Section 303(d) impaired waters). Moderate effects due to the acreage and 

linear feet crossed.

Runoff: Negligible due to amount of impervious surfaces and structural stormwater 

management practices and construction BMPs.

Erosion: Less erosive soils crossed (4 crossed) but more acreage (691 acres) than 

S4. Negligible effect due to the acreage of erosive soils crossed which would be 

minimized with use of construction BMPs.

Groundwater: Less aquifers crossed (12,450 acres) than S4. Negligible effect as a 

result of no Sole Source aquifer recharge area crossings, acreage of unconfined 

aquifer crossings and implementation of stormwater treatment measures and 

BMPs.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-27 

Resource 

Alternative 

S4 HrSR S6 HrSR S6 HSR 

Noise and 

Vibration

Highest amount of noise- and vibrationsensitive land uses. Moderate effects.Lowest amount of noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses. S6 HSR effects more 

receivers than S6 HrSR, however, both would have negligible effects. 

Noisea:

Category 2 receivers: 

8,753 acres

Category 3 receivers:

62 facilities

Vibration: 

Category 2 receivers: 2,181 acres 

Category 3 receivers: 

17 facilities

Noise a:

Category 2 receivers:

687 acres

Category 3 receivers: 

1 facility

Vibration:

Category 2 receivers: 

172 acres

Category 3 receivers:

0 facilities

Noise a:

Category 2 receivers:

1,586 acres

Category 3 receivers:

3 facilities

Vibration:

Category 2 receivers: 

240 acres

Category 3 receivers:

0 facilities

Solid Waste 

Disposal

Landfills present in the counties affected by the EIS Study Area would experience negligible effects.

Natural 

Ecological 

Systems and 

Wildlife 

68% non-developed land covers. 

Moderate effect.

No wildlife corridors or assemblages. 

Negligible effect.

15% of EIS Study Area composed of 

higher ecological value land coverage. 

Substantial effects during construction 

and moderate effects during operation. 

92% non-developed land covers. Substantial effects during construction and 

moderate effects during operation.

No wildlife corridors or assemblages or sensitive plant communities. Negligible to 

moderate effects. There is higher potential for effects from HSR than HrSR because 

HSR noise and vibration would travel farther than that generated by HrSR.

21% of EIS Study Area composed of higher ecological value land coverage. 

Substantial effects. 

Wetlands Most waterbodies and wetlands. 

Moderate effects. 

Waterbodies: 443 waterbodies; 74 

acres; 247,448 linear feet.

Wetlands: 189 wetlands; 142 acres.

Fewest water bodies and wetlands. Moderate effects.

Waterbodies: 255 waterbodies; 29 acres; 120,488 linear feet.

Wetlands: 83 wetlands; 57 acres.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-28 

Resource 

Alternative 

S4 HrSR S6 HrSR S6 HSR 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

5 federally listed and 13 other sensitive 

plant species. Substantial effects during 

construction and negligible effects 

during operation.

2 federally listed and 11 other sensitive 

wildlife species. Substantial effects 

during construction and moderate 

effects during operation. 

No critical habitat. Negligible effects. 

No occurrences of sensitive plant species. Negligible effects.

1 sensitive wildlife species. Negligible effects during construction and moderate 

effects during operation.

No critical habitat. Negligible effects.

Flood Hazards 

and Floodplain 

Management

Cannot compare against S6 because of 

data constraints. Negligible effects.

Floodplains: 3,011 acres

Floodways: 4 acres

National Flood Hazard Layer data missing for much of EIS Study Area. Negligible 

effects.

Floodplains: 453 acres, based on limited data

Floodways: 12 acres, based on limited data

Coastal Zone 

Management

10 miles of alignment in Nueces County 

Coastal Management Zone. Negligible 

effects.

N/A, there are no coastal zone management areas.

Energy Moderate adverse effects during 

construction and moderate beneficial 

effects during operation.

Annual energy savings: 229,024 MBTUs

Moderate adverse effects during 

construction and moderate beneficial 

effects during operation.

Annual energy savings: 295,143 MBTUs

Substantial adverse effects during 

construction and substantial beneficial 

effects during operation.

Annual energy savings: 398,507 MBTUs

Utilitiesb 847 utility crossings. Moderate effect. 84 utility crossings. Moderate effect. 84 utility crossings. Moderate effect.

Geologic 

Resourcesc

Geologic risks could be avoided and minimized by meeting building standards. Moderate effects from geologic hazards. None 

of the alternatives would affect access or availability of high-value minerals. Negligible effects on mineral resources.

Aesthetics and 

Visual Quality

50 miles of the alignment near sensitive 

viewers. 

36 miles would have negligible effects, 

6 miles would have moderate effects, 

18 miles of the alignment near sensitive viewers. 

S6 HSR would affect more sensitive viewers than S6 HrSR. S6 HSR: 0 miles would 

have negligible effects, 0 miles would have moderate effects, and 18 miles would 

have substantial effects. Overall, the effect of S6 HSR would be substantial. S6 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-29 

Resource 

Alternative 

S4 HrSR S6 HrSR S6 HSR 

and 8 miles would have substantial 

effects. Overall, the effect would be 

moderate.

HrSR: 0 miles would have negligible effects, 16 miles would have moderate effects, 

and 2 miles would have substantial effects. Overall, the effect of S6 HrSR would be 

moderate.

Land Use and 

Prime Farmlands

Land use: Low land use compatibility. 

Moderate effects.

Prime farmland: 11,814 acres. 

Substantial effects.

Land use: Low land use compatibility. Substantial effects.

Prime farmland: 4,810 acres. Substantial effects.

Environmental 

Justice and 

Socioeconomics

Environmental Justice: Substantial effects.

Socioeconomics: Moderate effects.

Public Health Moderate (adverse) effects during 

construction related to air quality. 

Moderate (adverse) long-term regional 

effects during operation associated with 

diesel trains and vehicle idling near high 

concentrations of sensitive populations. 

Negligible effects relating to 

groundwater and hazardous materials.

Moderate (adverse) effects during 

construction related to air quality. 

Negligible (adverse) long-term regional 

effects during operation. Negligible 

effects relating to groundwater and 

hazardous materials.

Moderate (adverse) effects during 

construction related to air quality. 

Negligible (benefit) long-term regional 

effects during operation. Negligible 

effects relating to groundwater and 

hazardous materials.

Public Safety and 

Hazardous 

Materials

Public Safety:

Would improve crossing safety over No 

Build Alternative. Would have most atgrade crossings and collision risk. 

However, effects would be negligible 

through implementation of project 

design features and mitigation 

measures, such as following safety 

design standards for track and roadway 

design. 

Public Safety:

Would improve crossing safety over No 

Build Alternative. Would have fewer atgrade crossings and less collision risk 

than S4 HrSR, but more than S6 HSR. 

However, effects would be negligible 

through implementation of project design 

features and mitigation measures, such 

as following safety design standards for 

track and roadway design.

Public Safety:

Would improve crossing safety over No 

Build Alternative. Would have no atgrade crossings and no collision risk. 

Negligible effects.

Hazardous Materials:

4 sites. Negligible effects.

Hazardous Materials: 0 sites. Negligible effects.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-30 

Resource 

Alternative 

S4 HrSR S6 HrSR S6 HSR 

Recreational 

Areas and 

Opportunitiesd

Highest number of recreational 

resources, but effects reduced because 

of greater use of existing rail right-ofway. Moderate effects from construction 

activity and property acquisition. 

54 recreational resources: 38 in urban, 

4 in suburban, 12 in rural areas. 

Fewest number of recreational resources. Negligible effects from construction 

activity and property acquisition.

3 recreational resources: 1 in urban, 0 in suburban, 2 in rural areas.

Historic 

Resourcesd

Most known NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, 

or potentially NRHP-eligible historic 

resources. Moderate effects from 

acquisition or rehabilitation, restoration, 

or expansion of existing railroad-related 

historic resources.

36 known NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, or 

potentially NRHP-eligible historic 

resources.

No known NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible historic 

resources. Negligible effects.

Archaeological 

Resourcesd

Most identified sites. Potential for 

moderate effects.

1 NRHP-eligible site and 20 

undetermined eligible archaeological

sites.

Potential for moderate effects.

0 NRHP-eligible sites and 7 

undetermined eligible archaeological 

sites.

Potential for substantial effects.

0 NRHP-eligible sites and 7 

undetermined eligible archaeological 

sites.

Section 4(f)/ 

Section 6(f)

62 Section 4(f) properties and 2 Section 6(f) properties in the S4 HrSR Study Area. 1 Section 4(f) property and 0 Section 6(f) 

properties in the S6 HrSR and HSR Study areas. Southern Section alternatives may avoid Section 4(f) resources by remaining 

inside existing rail or transportation right-of-way or by implementing variations of the evaluated alternatives at the project-level 

that would traverse areas where no Section 4(f) resources have been identified.

Travel Demand 

and 

Transportation

Effects on Transit Providers: 23% and 

64% of bus and air passengers would 

be diverted to rail. Resulting in 

moderate and substantial effects on 

Effects on Transit Providers: 9% of bus 

passengers would be diverted to rail, 

resulting in moderate effects on bus 

Effects on Transit Providers: 15% of bus 

passengers would be diverted to rail, 

resulting in moderate effects on bus 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-31 

Resource 

Alternative 

S4 HrSR S6 HrSR S6 HSR 

bus and air service providers, 

respectively.

Change in VMT: Negligible (beneficial) 

effects. 0.2% reduction in VMT.

Potential secondary beneficial effect 

(reduced congestion) to bus service 

providers. For air carriers the potential 

benefits may include the opportunity to 

shift from short-haul to longer-haul flight 

operations, which may include more

reliable scheduling and increased 

revenue.

service providers. No effect on air 

carriers.

Change in VMT: Negligible (beneficial) 

effects. 0.4% reduction in VMT. Potential 

secondary beneficial effect (reduced 

congestion) to bus service providers. 

service providers. No effect on air 

carriers.

Change in VMT: Negligible (beneficial) 

effects. 0.9% reduction in VMT.

Potential secondary beneficial effect 

(reduced congestion) to bus service 

providers. 

a Category 2 noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses include residences and hotels. Category 3 land uses include churches, schools, recreation areas, and similar 

land use activities with which noise and vibration could interfere.

b The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table; however, alternatives may include additional less intense effects depending on urban or 

rural locations, density of utilities, and if existing or new track would be constructed.

c The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table. However, alternatives may include additional, less intense effects depending on specific 

geologic hazards. 

d The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table. However, some alternatives may include additional less intense effects depending on 

urban, suburban, or rural locations.
TBG092314012951SCO 

Executive Summary 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ES-32 

ES.6 Summary of Mitigation 

In a service-level analysis, the description of effects and their severity is not detailed enough to 

formulate specific mitigation measures. Therefore, each resource analysis in Chapter 3 includes a 

list of mitigation strategies that would be considered and further developed at the project-level EIS 

phase. Mitigation strategies include conceptual avoidance and minimization measures for the next 

phase of design, suggestions for programmatic agreements, and descriptions of options for 

replacing or re-establishing the affected resources. 

ES.7 Next Steps 

The public review and comment period on the service-level Draft EIS will provide agencies and 

members of the public the opportunity to review the document, attend public hearings, and provide 

comments to inform decision-making. As reflected in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, the Draft EIS has

identified the preferred alternative by geographic section and provided a summary explanation 

regarding the basis for the selection. A Final EIS will summarize the basic content of the Draft EIS, 

list changes to the Draft EIS that occurred as a result of agency and public input, and respond to 

substantive environmental comments received on the Draft EIS. 

FRA will issue a single Final EIS and Record of Decision document pursuant to Pub. L. 112-141, 

126 Stat. 405, Section 1319(b), unless FRA determines statutory criteria or practicability 

considerations preclude issuance of a combined document pursuant to Section 1319. Both the 

Draft and Final EIS are full-disclosure documents that provide descriptions of the proposed action, 

the affected environment, alternatives considered, and the expected beneficial or adverse 

environmental effects. Future project-level analyses will develop detailed design alternatives and 

quantify impacts for individual project decisions and implementation.
TBG092314012951SCO 

 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page iii

Contents 

 

Section Page 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... ES-1

ES.1 Program Overview ......................................................................................................... ES-1

ES.2 Program History and Prior Planning Activities ............................................................. ES-3

ES.3 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ ES-3

ES.3.1 Overall Program ............................................................................................... ES-4 

ES.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth ......................... ES-4 

ES.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio ................................ ES-5 

ES.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas ............................................. ES-5 

ES.4 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................ ES-6

ES.4.1 Service Types ................................................................................................... ES-6 

ES.4.2 Alternative Descriptions .................................................................................. ES-8 

ES.4.3 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... ES-13

ES.4.4 Station Cities ................................................................................................. ES-13

ES.5 Summary of Effects .................................................................................................... ES-14

ES.6 Summary of Mitigation .............................................................................................. ES-32

ES.7 Next Steps .................................................................................................................. ES-32

1.0 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1-4

Program Corridor Description ........................................................................... 1-5 

History ................................................................................................................ 1-6 

Related Planning Activities ............................................................................... 1-6 

1.3 Overall Program – Purpose and Need ........................................................................... 1-7

Overall Program – Purpose ............................................................................... 1-7 

Overall Program – Need .................................................................................... 1-8 

1.4 Northern Section – Purpose and Need ...................................................................... 1-16

Northern Section – Purpose .......................................................................... 1-16

Northern Section – Need ............................................................................... 1-16

1.5 Central Section – Purpose and Need ......................................................................... 1-19

Central Section – Purpose ............................................................................. 1-19

Central Section – Need .................................................................................. 1-20

1.6 Southern Section – Purpose and Need ...................................................................... 1-24

Southern Section – Purpose .......................................................................... 1-24

Southern Section – Need ............................................................................... 1-24

2.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process ....................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Initial Feasibility Screening ............................................................................... 2-2
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page iv

Section Page 

2.1.2 Route Alternatives Analysis............................................................................... 2-5

2.2 No Build Alternative ..................................................................................................... 2-10

2.2.1 Planned Roadway Projects ............................................................................ 2-12

2.2.2 Planned Passenger Rail Service .................................................................... 2-13

2.2.3 Planned Airport Projects ................................................................................ 2-17

2.3 Build Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 2-17

2.3.1 Service Type Descriptions .............................................................................. 2-17

2.3.2 Alternative Descriptions ................................................................................. 2-19

2.3.3 Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................... 2-24

2.3.4 Station Cities ................................................................................................... 2-27

2.4 Costs and Funding ....................................................................................................... 2-28

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration ...................... 2-28

2.5.1 Northern Section ............................................................................................ 2-29

2.5.2 Central Section ............................................................................................... 2-29

2.5.3 Southern Section ............................................................................................ 2-30

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .................................................. 3.0-1

3.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 3.1-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ..................................................................... 3.1-1 

Methodology .................................................................................................. 3.1-6 

Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3.1-9 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.1-14

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ................................. 3.1-25

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................... 3.1-26

3.2 Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 3.2-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ..................................................................... 3.2-1 

Methodology .................................................................................................. 3.2-4 

Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3.2-6 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.2-31

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ................................. 3.2-59

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................... 3.2-60

3.3 Noise and Vibration .................................................................................................... 3.3-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ..................................................................... 3.3-1 

Methodology .................................................................................................. 3.3-1 

Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3.3-7 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.3-10

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ................................. 3.3-17

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................... 3.3-18
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page v 

Section Page 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal .................................................................................................. 3.4-1

3.4.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ..................................................................... 3.4-1 

3.4.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 3.4-1 

3.4.3 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3.4-2 

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 3.4-9 

3.4.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ................................. 3.4-16

3.4.6 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................... 3.4-16

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife ................................................................... 3.5-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ..................................................................... 3.5-1 

Methodology .................................................................................................. 3.5-1 

Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3.5-2 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.5-30

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ................................. 3.5-39

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................... 3.5-40

3.6 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ..................................................................... 3.6-1 

3.6.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 3.6-3 

3.6.3 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3.6-5 

3.6.4 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.6-14

3.6.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ................................. 3.6-24

3.6.6 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................... 3.6-25

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................... 3.7-1

Regulatory Environment ................................................................................ 3.7-1 

Methodology .................................................................................................. 3.7-4 

Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3.7-5 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.7-27

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ................................. 3.7-35

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................... 3.7-36

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management ............................................................ 3.8-1

3.8.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ..................................................................... 3.8-1 

3.8.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 3.8-2 

3.8.3 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3.8-3 

3.8.4 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 3.8-9 

3.8.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ................................. 3.8-17

3.8.6 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................... 3.8-18

3.9 Coastal Zone Management ........................................................................................ 3.9-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ..................................................................... 3.9-1 

Methodology .................................................................................................. 3.9-3 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page vi

Section Page 

Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3.9-3 

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 3.9-4 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ................................... 3.9-9 

Subsequent Analysis ..................................................................................... 3.9-9 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources .......................................................................................... 3.10-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.10-1 

Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.10-1 

Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.10-3 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.10-7 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.10-17

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.10-17

3.11 Utilities ....................................................................................................................... 3.11-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.11-1 

Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.11-2 

Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.11-3 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3.11-13

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.11-19

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.11-19

3.12 Geologic Resources .................................................................................................. 3.12-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.12-1 

Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.12-1 

Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.12-3 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.12-9 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.12-14

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.12-15

3.13 Aesthetic and Visual Resources ............................................................................... 3.13-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.13-1 

Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.13-1 

Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.13-5 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3.13-11

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.13-20

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.13-21

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland ................................................................................ 3.14-1

3.14.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.14-1 

3.14.2 Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.14-2 

3.14.3 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.14-4 

3.14.4 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.14-8 

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page vii

Section Page 

3.14.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.14-13

3.14.6 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.14-14

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ........................................................... 3.15-1

3.15.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.15-1 

3.15.2 Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.15-2 

3.15.3 Public Involvement ...................................................................................... 3.15-4 

3.15.4 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.15-4 

3.15.5 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.15-9 

3.15.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.15-14

3.15.7 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.15-15

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials .................................................................. 3.16-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.16-1 

Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.16-3 

Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.16-6 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3.16-15

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.16-31

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.16-33

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities .................................................................... 3.17-1

3.17.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.17-1 

3.17.2 Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.17-2 

3.17.3 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.17-3 

3.17.4 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3.17-37

3.17.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.17-47

3.17.6 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.17-47

3.18 Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources ..................... 3.18-1

3.18.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.18-1 

3.18.2 Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.18-2 

3.18.3 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.18-3 

3.18.4 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3.18-31

3.18.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.18-41

3.18.6 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.18-42

3.19 Archaeological Sites .................................................................................................. 3.19-1

3.19.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.19-1 

3.19.2 Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.19-3 

3.19.3 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.19-5 

3.19.4 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3.19-26

3.19.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.19-31

3.19.6 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.19-32

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page viii

Section Page 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation ......................................................................... 3.20-1

3.20.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.20-1 

3.20.2 Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.20-2 

3.20.3 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.20-6 

3.20.4 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3.20-13

3.20.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.20-45

3.20.6 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.20-46

3.21 Public Health ............................................................................................................. 3.21-1

Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.21-1 

Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.21-1 

Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.21-1 

Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.21-4 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies ............................... 3.21-16

Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................. 3.21-17

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .................................... 3.22-1

3.22.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ................................................................... 3.22-1 

3.22.2 Methodology ................................................................................................ 3.22-1 

3.22.3 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3.22-2 

3.22.4 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3.22-2 

3.22.5 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................................... 3.22-5 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources ................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act .......................................... 4-1

Section 4(f) Criteria ........................................................................................... 4-1 

Use of Section 4(f) Resource ............................................................................ 4-3 

Determination of De Minimis Use .................................................................... 4-3 

Service-Level EIS Evaluation of Section 4(f) Potential Use ............................. 4-4 

4.2 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act ......................................... 4-4

4.3 Potential Use by Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-5

Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth ........................ 4-23

Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio ............................... 4-28

Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas ............................................ 4-42

Summary of Potential 4(f) and 6(f) Use Analysis ......................................... 4-48

4.4 Avoidance Alternatives ................................................................................................ 4-49

Avoidance Alternatives Evaluation ................................................................ 4-50

Avoidance Alternatives for the Central Section ............................................ 4-50

Avoidance in the EIS Study Area for the Central Section ............................. 4-53

4.5 Least Harm Analysis .................................................................................................... 4-53

4.6 Agency Coordination .................................................................................................... 4-54
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page ix

Section Page 

4.7 Potential Mitigation Strategies .................................................................................... 4-54

4.8 Subsequent Analysis .................................................................................................... 4-56

5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ................................................................................................... 5-1

Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth ......................................... 5-2

Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio ............................................... 5-2

Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas ............................................................ 5-4

6.0 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2.1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis .......................................... 6-2

6.2.2 Time Frame for Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................................... 6-2

6.2.3 Resources .......................................................................................................... 6-3

6.3 Projected Growth Trends and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ..................... 6-3

6.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth ........................... 6-3

6.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio ............................... 6-10

6.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas ............................................ 6-11

6.4 Cumulative Effects Analysis ........................................................................................ 6-12

6.4.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 6-13

6.4.2 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 6-15

6.4.3 Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................ 6-16

6.4.4 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife ....................................................... 6-18

6.4.5 Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 6-20

6.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................... 6-22

6.4.7 Energy .............................................................................................................. 6-24

6.4.8 Utilities............................................................................................................. 6-24

6.4.9 Geologic Resources ........................................................................................ 6-24

6.4.10 Aesthetics and Visual Quality ........................................................................ 6-25

6.4.11 Land Use and Prime Farmland ...................................................................... 6-27

6.4.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ................................................ 6-27

6.4.13 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 6-27

6.4.14 Recreational Areas and Opportunities .......................................................... 6-28

6.4.15 Historic and Archaeological Resources ......................................................... 6-29

6.4.16 Transportation ................................................................................................ 6-31

6.4.17 Public Health ................................................................................................... 6-33

7.0 Permits ..................................................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Agency Involvement ........................................................................................................ 8-1
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page x 

Section Page 

 

8.1.1 Federal Agency Coordination ............................................................................ 8-2 

8.1.2 State Agency Coordination ................................................................................ 8-3 

8.1.3 Tribal Coordination ............................................................................................ 8-4 

8.1.4 Regional/Local Coordination ............................................................................ 8-5 

8.2 Public Coordination and Outreach ................................................................................. 8-5

8.2.1 Public Scoping Meetings ................................................................................... 8-6 

8.2.2 Alternatives Analysis Public Meetings .............................................................. 8-8 

8.3 Future Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Activities ................................... 8-9

9.0 List of Preparers ....................................................................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Texas Department of Transportation ............................................................................. 9-1

9.2 List of Consultants .......................................................................................................... 9-1

10.0 Distribution List ...................................................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Repository Locations ................................................................................................... 10-1

10.2 Federal Agencies .......................................................................................................... 10-1

10.3 State Agencies ............................................................................................................. 10-4

10.4 Elected Officials ........................................................................................................... 10-4

10.4.1 Federal Elected Officials ................................................................................ 10-5 

10.4.2 State Elected Officials .................................................................................... 10-6 

10.5 Regional/Local Agencies ............................................................................................. 10-7

10.6 Organizations and Businesses .................................................................................. 10-10

10.7 Native American Contacts ......................................................................................... 10-11

11.0 References ............................................................................................................................. 11-1

Appendixes 

 

A Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program Scoping Report (available on CD)

B Initial Development of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

C Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Route Alternatives Analysis

D Draft Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Alternatives Analysis Report 

E Air Quality Technical Study 

F Water Quality Technical Study 

G Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife Technical Study

H Threatened and Endangered Species Technical Study 

I Aesthetics and Visual Resources Technical Study

J Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study 

K Archaeological Sites Technical Study

L Transportation Technical Study

M Population and Demographics Data 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xi

List of Figures 

 

Figure Page 

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

1-1: Geographic Sections and Alternatives ........................................................................................... 1-2 

1-2: Passenger Rail Routes in the Program Corridor ......................................................................... 1-13

2-1: Screened Initial Route Alternatives ................................................................................................ 2-4 

2-2: Route Alternatives Carried Forward into the Route Alternatives Analysis ................................... 2-6 

2-3: Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Evaluation in This EIS ............................................... 2-11

2-4: Existing or Planned Passenger Rail in the Dallas and Fort Worth Area .................................... 2-15

2-5: Existing or Planned Passenger Rail in the Austin and San Antonio Areas ............................... 2-16

3.2-1: Surface Waters and Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins within the Vicinity of the Northern 

Section EIS Study Area ............................................................................................................ 3.2-7 

3.2-2: Impaired Water Crossings and Soils with High Erosion Potential within the Vicinity of 

the Northern Section EIS Study Area .................................................................................... 3.2-10

3.2-3: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area ........................ 3.2-13

3.2-4: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area ........................ 3.2-14

3.2-5: Surface Waters and Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins within the Vicinity of the Central Section 

EIS Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 3.2-16

3.2-6: Impaired Waters Crossed and Soils with High Erosion Potential within the Vicinity of the 

Central Section EIS Study Area ............................................................................................. 3.2-18

3.2-7: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area .......................... 3.2-21

3.2-8: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area .......................... 3.2-22

3.2-9: Surface Waters and Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins within the Vicinity of the Southern 

Section EIS Study Area .......................................................................................................... 3.2-24

3.2-10: Impaired Waters Crossed and Soils with High Erosion Potential within the Vicinity of 

the Southern Section EIS Study Area ................................................................................... 3.2-26

3.2-11: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area ..................... 3.2-29

3.2-12: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area ..................... 3.2-30

3.4-1: Turkey Creek Landfill ............................................................................................................... 3.4-5 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xii

Figure Page 

3.5-1: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Northern Section Alternative ........... 3.5-6 

3.5-2: REAP Composite Scores – Northern Section Alternative ...................................................... 3.5-8 

3.5-3: REAP Composite Scores – Northern Section Alternative ...................................................... 3.5-9 

3.5-4: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Central Section Alternatives .......... 3.5-13

3.5-5: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Central Section Alternatives .......... 3.5-14

3.5-6: REAP Composite Scores – Central Section Alternatives ..................................................... 3.5-17

3.5-7: REAP Composite Scores – Central Section Alternatives ..................................................... 3.5-18

3.5-8: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Southern Section Alternatives ....... 3.5-21

3.5-9: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Southern Section Alternatives ....... 3.5-22

3.5-10: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Southern Section Alternatives .... 3.5-23

3.5-11: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Southern Section Alternatives .... 3.5-24

3.5-12: REAP Composite Scores – Southern Section Alternatives ............................................... 3.5-26

3.5-13: REAP Composite Scores – Southern Section Alternatives ............................................... 3.5-27

3.5-14: REAP Composite Scores – Southern Section Alternatives ............................................... 3.5-28

3.5-15: REAP Composite Scores – Southern Section Alternatives ............................................... 3.5-29

3.6-1: NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Vicinity of the Northern Section .......... 3.6-7 

3.6-2: NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Vicinity of the Central Section ........... 3.6-10

3.6-3: NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Vicinity of the Southern Section ........ 3.6-13

3.7-1: Critical Habitat – Northern Section Alternative .................................................................... 3.7-16

3.7-2: Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrences – Central Section Alternatives ............................ 3.7-17

3.7-3: Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrences – Central Section Alternatives ............................ 3.7-18

3.7-4: Sensitive Plant Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 ....................................................... 3.7-20

3.7-5: Sensitive Plant Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 ....................................................... 3.7-21

3.7-6: Sensitive Plant Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 ....................................................... 3.7-22

3.7-7: Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 ................................................... 3.7-24

3.7-8: Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 ................................................... 3.7-25

3.7-9: Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 ................................................... 3.7-26

3.11-1: Utilities within the Vicinity of the Alternatives (Map 1) ..................................................... 3.11-5 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xiii

Figure Page 

 

3.11-2: Utilities within the Vicinity of the Alternatives (Map 2) ..................................................... 3.11-6 

3.11-3: Utilities within the Vicinity of the Alternatives (Map 3) ..................................................... 3.11-7 

3.11-4: Utilities within the Vicinity of the Alternatives (Map 4) ..................................................... 3.11-8 

3.11-5: Utilities within the Vicinity of the Alternatives (Map 5) ..................................................... 3.11-9 

3.12-1: Physiographic Provinces in the EIS Study Area ................................................................. 3.12-4 

3.12-2: Map of Areas with Potential Karst Hazards for the EIS Study Area ................................. 3.12-6 

3.16-1: Hazardous Materials Sites, Oklahoma to Dallas and Fort Worth ..................................... 3.16-9 

3.16-2: Hazardous Materials Sites, Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio ................................ 3.16-12

3.16-3: Hazardous Materials Sites, San Antonio to South Texas ................................................ 3.16-14

3.16-4: Hazardous Materials Sites, Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio, RSR Corp – Murph 

Metals, NPL Site ................................................................................................................ 3.16-25

3.16-5: Hazardous Materials Sites, San Antonio to South Texas, R&H Oil, NPL Site ............... 3.16-28

3.17-1: Index Map ............................................................................................................................. 3.17-9 

3.17-2: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 1) ........................................... 3.17-10

3.17-3: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 2) ........................................... 3.17-11

3.17-4: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 3) ........................................... 3.17-12

3.17-5: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 4) ........................................... 3.17-22

3.17-6: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 5) ........................................... 3.17-23

3.17-7: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 6) ........................................... 3.17-24

3.17-8: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 7) ........................................... 3.17-25

3.17-9: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 8) ........................................... 3.17-32

3.17-10: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 9) ........................................ 3.17-33

3.17-11: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 10) ...................................... 3.17-34

3.17-12: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 11) ...................................... 3.17-35

3.17-13: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 12) ...................................... 3.17-36

3.18-1: Index Map ........................................................................................................................... 3.18-16

3.18-2: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 1) ................................................... 3.18-17

3.18-3: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 2) ................................................... 3.18-18
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xiv

Figure Page 

3.18-4: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 3) ................................................... 3.18-19

3.18-5: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 4) ................................................... 3.18-20

3.18-6: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 5) ................................................... 3.18-21

3.18-7: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 6) ................................................... 3.18-22

3.18-8: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 7) ................................................... 3.18-23

3.18-9: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 8) ................................................... 3.18-24

3.18-10: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 9) ................................................. 3.18-25

3.18-11: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 10) ............................................... 3.18-26

3.18-12: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 11) ............................................... 3.18-27

3.18-13: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 12) ............................................... 3.18-28

3.19-1: Archaeological Cultural Resources Index Map ................................................................ 3.19-13

3.19-2: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 1) ......................... 3.19-14

3.19-3: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 2) ......................... 3.19-15

3.19-4: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 3) ......................... 3.19-16

3.19-5: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 4) ......................... 3.19-17

3.19-6: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 5) ......................... 3.19-18

3.19-7: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 6) ......................... 3.19-19

3.19-8: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 7) ......................... 3.19-20

3.19-9: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 8) ......................... 3.19-21

3.19-10: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 9) ....................... 3.19-22

3.19-11: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 10) ..................... 3.19-23

3.19-12: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 11) ..................... 3.19-24

3.19-13: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 12) ..................... 3.19-25

3.20-1: Alternative N4A Ridership Composition (2035) .............................................................. 3.20-16

3.20-2: Alternative C4A HrSR Ridership Composition .................................................................. 3.20-20

3.20-3: Alternative C4A HSR Ridership Composition ................................................................... 3.20-24

3.20-4: Alternative C4B HSR Ridership Composition ................................................................... 3.20-29

3.20-5: Alternative C4C HSR Ridership Composition ................................................................... 3.20-34

3.20-6: Alternative S4 HrSR Ridership Composition .................................................................... 3.20-38

3.20-7: Alternative S6 HrSR Ridership Composition .................................................................... 3.20-41
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xv

Figure Page 

3.20-8: Alternative S6 HSR Ridership Composition ..................................................................... 3.20-44

4-1: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 1) ......................................... 4-6 

4-2: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 2) ......................................... 4-7 

4-3: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 3) ......................................... 4-8 

4-4: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 4) ......................................... 4-9 

4-5: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 5) ...................................... 4-10

4-6: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 6) ...................................... 4-11

4-7: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 7) ...................................... 4-12

4-8: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 8) ...................................... 4-13

4-9: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 9) ...................................... 4-14

4-10: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 10).................................. 4-15

4-11: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 1) .................................................................................. 4-16

4-12: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 2) .................................................................................. 4-17

4-13: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 3) .................................................................................. 4-18

4-14: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 4) .................................................................................. 4-19

4-15: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 5) .................................................................................. 4-20

4-16: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 6) .................................................................................. 4-21

4-17: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 7) .................................................................................. 4-22

4-18: Screened Initial Route Alternatives in the Central Section ..................................................... 4-51

6-1: Northern Section Projected 2035 Population ............................................................................... 6-4 

6-2: Central Section Projected 2035 Population .................................................................................. 6-5 

6-3: Southern Section Projected 2035 Population .............................................................................. 6-6 

6-4: Northern Section Projected 2035 Land Development ................................................................. 6-7 

6-5: Central Section Projected 2035 Land Development .................................................................... 6-8 

6-6: Southern Section Projected 2035 Land Development ................................................................. 6-9 

 

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xvi

List of Tables 

 

Table Page 

ES-1: Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis .................................................................................. ES-6 

ES-2: Cities with Potential Stations ................................................................................................... ES-14

ES-3: Summary of Resource Effects in the Northern Section ......................................................... ES-15

ES-4: Summary of Resource Effects in the Central Section by Alternative .................................... ES-18

ES-5: Summary of Resource Effects in the Southern Section by Alternative ................................ ES-26

1-1: 2002 and 2035 Forecast Traffic Data and Projections by City Pair ......................................... 1-11

1-2: 2011 and 2040 Airport Data and Projections by Major Airports in the EIS Program Corridor 1-12

1-3: Segment-Level Air Service Summary for Program Corridor – 2012 Actual .............................. 1-22

2-1: Route Alternatives Considered in the Initial Feasibility Screening .............................................. 2-2 

2-2: Route Alternatives Analysis Screening Criteria ............................................................................. 2-7 

2-3: Route Alternatives Analysis Recommendations ............................................................................ 2-8 

2-4: Overview of Roadway Projects within the Study Vicinity by Project Type ................................. 2-12

2-5: Summary of Roadway Projects along IH-35 within the Study Vicinity by Project Year ............ 2-12

2-6: Summary of Roadway Projects along IH-35 within the Study Vicinity by Project Type ............ 2-13

2-7: Planned Passenger Rail Routes in the Study Vicinity ................................................................ 2-14

2-8: Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Evaluation ................................................................. 2-17

2-9: Cities with Potential Stations ....................................................................................................... 2-28

3.1-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................ 3.1-2 

3.1-2. General Climate and Existing Air Quality Conditions ........................................................... 3.1-10

3.1-3. Summary of Operational Regional Air Quality Emissions .................................................... 3.1-16

3.1-4. Potential Effects on Air Quality .............................................................................................. 3.1-25

3.2-1: Surface Waters Crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area ................................. 3.2-8 

3.2-2: Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins Crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area .............. 3.2-8 

3.2-3: Surface Waters Classified as Impaired Crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area

 .................................................................................................................................................. 3.2-9 

3.2-4: Erodible Soils Crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area .................................. 3.2-11

3.2-5: Aquifers Crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area ........................................... 3.2-12
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xvii

Table Page 

3.2-6: Surface Waters Crossed within the Central Section EIS Study Area ................................. 3.2-15

3.2-7: Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins Crossed within the Central Section EIS Study Area ............... 3.2-17

3.2-8: Surface Waters Classified as Impaired Crossed within the Central Section EIS Study 

Area ......................................................................................................................................... 3.2-17

3.2-9: Erodible Soils Crossed within the Central Section EIS Study Area ..................................... 3.2-19

3.2-10: Aquifers Crossed within the Central Section EIS Study Area ............................................ 3.2-20

3.2-11: Surface Waters Crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area ............................ 3.2-23

3.2-12: Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins Crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area ......... 3.2-25

3.2-13: Surface Waters Classified as Impaired Crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study 

Area ......................................................................................................................................... 3.2-27

3.2-14: Erodible Soils Crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area ............................... 3.2-27

3.2-15: Aquifers Crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area ........................................ 3.2-28

3.2-16: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters Crossed within the 

Northern Section – Alternative N4A Conventional .............................................................. 3.2-32

3.2-17: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Northern Section – Alternative 

N4A Conventional .................................................................................................................. 3.2-34

3.2-18: Aquifers Crossed within the Northern Section – Alternative N4A Conventional ............. 3.2-35

3.2-19: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters Crossed within the 

Central Section – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail .............. 3.2-36

3.2-20: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail ............................................................... 3.2-38

3.2-21: Aquifers Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and 

C4A High-Speed Rail .............................................................................................................. 3.2-38

3.2-22: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters Crossed within the 

Central Section – Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail .............. 3.2-41

3.2-23: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative 

C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail ............................................................... 3.2-42

3.2-24: Aquifers Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and 

C4B High-Speed Rail ............................................................................................................. 3.2-43

3.2-25: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters Crossed within the 

Central Section – Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and C4C High-Speed Rail .............. 3.2-45

3.2-26: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative 

C4C Higher-Speed Rail and C4C High-Speed Rail ............................................................... 3.2-46

3.2-27: Aquifers Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and 

C4C High-Speed Rail .............................................................................................................. 3.2-47
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xviii

Table Page 

3.2-28: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters Crossed within the 

Southern Section – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail ........................................................ 3.2-49

3.2-29: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Southern Section – Alternative 

S4 Higher-Speed Rail ............................................................................................................ 3.2-51

3.2-30: Aquifers Crossed within the Southern Section – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail ....... 3.2-52

3.2-31: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters Crossed within the 

Southern Section – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 High-Speed Rail ............... 3.2-53

3.2-32: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Southern Section – Alternative 

S6 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 High-Speed Rail .................................................................... 3.2-54

3.2-33: Aquifers Crossed within the Southern Section – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and 

S6 High-Speed Rail ................................................................................................................ 3.2-55

3.2-34: Summary of Effects on Surface Waters ............................................................................. 3.2-57

3.2-35: Summary of Effects on Related to Runoff ......................................................................... 3.2-58

3.2-36: Summary of Effects Related to Erosion ............................................................................. 3.2-58

3.2-37: Summary of Effects on Groundwater ................................................................................. 3.2-59

3.3-1: Land Use Categories and Metrics for Higher-Speed and High-Speed Train Noise 

Effect Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 3.3-3 

3.3-2: Land Use Categories and Metrics for Conventional, Higher-Speed, and High-Speed Train 

Vibration Effect Criteria ........................................................................................................... 3.3-4 

3.3-3: Screening Distances for Noise Assessments for Higher- and High-Speed Rail ................... 3.3-5 

3.3-4: Screening Distance for Noise Assessments for Conventional Rail ...................................... 3.3-5 

3.3-5: Screening Distances for Vibration Assessments for Higher- and High-Speed Rail ............. 3.3-6 

3.3-6: Screening Distances for Vibration Assessment for Conventional Rail ................................. 3.3-6 

3.3-7: Noise-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the Northern Section ............... 3.3-7 

3.3-8: Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the Northern Section .......... 3.3-7 

3.3-9: Noise-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the Central Section .................. 3.3-8 

3.3-10: Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the Central Section .......... 3.3-9 

3.3-11: Noise-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the Southern Section ............ 3.3-9 

3.3-12: Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the Southern Section ..... 3.3-10

3.3-13: Summary of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses and Potential Effects ........................................ 3.3-15

3.3-14: Summary of Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses and Potential Effects ................................... 3.3-16
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xix

Table Page 

3.4-1: Waste Management Facilities in the Northern Section......................................................... 3.4-3 

3.4-2: Waste Management Facilities in the Central Section ........................................................... 3.4-6 

3.4-3: Waste Management Facilities in the Southern Section ........................................................ 3.4-8 

3.4-4: Effects on Solid Waste Facilities ........................................................................................... 3.4-15

3.5-1: National Land Cover Database Land Cover Types ................................................................ 3.5-3 

3.5-2: Acres of Potential NLCD Land Cover Types within EIS Study Area – Alternative N4A ......... 3.5-5 

3.5-3: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – Alternative N4A ............... 3.5-7 

3.5-4: Acres of Potential Land Cover Types – Alternative C4A ...................................................... 3.5-10

3.5-5: Acres of Potential Land Cover Types – Alternative C4B ...................................................... 3.5-11

3.5-6: Acres of Potential Land Cover Types – Alternative C4C ...................................................... 3.5-12

3.5-7: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – Alternative C4A ............. 3.5-15

3.5-8: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – Alternative C4B ............. 3.5-16

3.5-9: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – Alternative C4C ............. 3.5-16

3.5-10: Acres of Potential Land Cover Types within EIS Study Area – Alternative S4 ................. 3.5-19

3.5-11: Acres of Potential Land Cover Types within EIS Study Area – Alternative S6 ................. 3.5-20

3.5-12: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – Alternative S4 ............. 3.5-25

3.5-13: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail .................................................................................................................. 3.5-25

3.5-14: Summary of Effects on Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife .................................... 3.5-41

3.6-1: USFWS Classification System – Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the EIS 

Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 3.6-4 

3.6-2: Summary of Waterbodies within the Northern Section ......................................................... 3.6-6 

3.6-3: Summary of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Northern Section .................... 3.6-6 

3.6-4: Summary of Waterbodies within the Central Section ............................................................ 3.6-8 

3.6-5: Summary of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Central Section ....................... 3.6-9 

3.6-6: Summary of Waterbodies within the Southern Section ...................................................... 3.6-11

3.6-7: Summary of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Southern Section .................. 3.6-12

3.6-8: Waterbodies within the Northern Section – Alternative N4A Conventional ....................... 3.6-15

3.6-9: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Northern Section – Alternative N4A 

Conventional .......................................................................................................................... 3.6-15
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xx

Table Page 

3.6-10: Waterbodies within the Central Section – Alternatives C4A Higher-Speed Rail and 

C4A High-Speed Rail .............................................................................................................. 3.6-16

3.6-11: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Central Section – Alternatives C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail .................................................................... 3.6-17

3.6-12: Waterbodies within the Central Section – Alternatives C4B Higher-Speed Rail and 

C4B High-Speed Rail ........................................................................................................... 3.6-17

3.6-13: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Central Section – Alternatives C4B 

Higher-Speed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail ..................................................................... 3.6-18

3.6-14: Waterbodies within the Central Section – Alternatives C4C Higher-Speed Rail and C4C 

High-Speed Rail ................................................................................................................... 3.6-18

3.6-15: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Central Section – Alternatives C4C HigherSpeed and C4C High-Speed Rail ........................................................................................ 3.6-19

3.6-16: Waterbodies within the Southern Section – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail .............. 3.6-19

3.6-17: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Southern Section – Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail ................................................................................................................ 3.6-20

3.6-18: Waterbodies within the Southern Section – Alternatives S6 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 

High-Speed Rail ................................................................................................................... 3.6-20

3.6-19: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Southern Section – Alternatives S6 

Higher-Speed and S6 High-Speed Rail .............................................................................. 3.6-21

3.6-20: Summary of Effects on Waterbodies .................................................................................. 3.6-22

3.6-21: Summary of Effects on Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats ............................................. 3.6-23

3.7-1: Sensitive Plant Species within the EIS Study Area ................................................................ 3.7-6 

3.7-2: Sensitive Wildlife Species within the EIS Study Area ............................................................ 3.7-8 

3.7-3: Acres of Potential Sensitive Plant Occurrences within EIS Study Area – Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail .................................................................................................................. 3.7-19

3.7-4: Acres of Potential Sensitive Wildlife Habitat within EIS Study Area – Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail .................................................................................................................. 3.7-23

3.7-5: Summary of Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Critical 

Habitat .................................................................................................................................... 3.7-37

3.8-1: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within the EIS Study Area for Route Alternative N4A .. 3.8-4 

3.8-2: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within EIS Study Area of Alternatives C4A Higher-Speed 

and High-Speed Rail ................................................................................................................ 3.8-5 

3.8-3: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within the EIS Study Area of Alternatives C4B HigherSpeed and High-Speed Rail .................................................................................................... 3.8-6 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xxi

Table Page 

3.8-4: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within the EIS Study Area of Alternative C4C .............. 3.8-7 

3.8-5: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within the EIS Study Area of Alternative S4 ................ 3.8-8 

3.8-6: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within the EIS Study Area of Alternative S6 ................ 3.8-9 

3.8-7: Summary of Floodplain and Floodway Effects by Alternative ............................................. 3.8-16

3.9-1: TCMP Policies for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail ............................................................. 3.9-5 

3.9-2: Potential Intensity of Effects on Coastal Management Zone Areas ..................................... 3.9-8 

3.10-1: Existing Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Northern Section Alternative 

(2013) .................................................................................................................................. 3.10-4 

3.10-2: Existing Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) for the Northern Section Alternative 

(2013) .................................................................................................................................. 3.10-5 

3.10-3: Existing Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Central Section Alternatives 

(2013) .................................................................................................................................. 3.10-5 

3.10-4: Existing Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) for the Central Section Alternatives 

(2013) .................................................................................................................................. 3.10-6 

3.10-5: Existing Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Southern Section Alternatives 

(2013) .................................................................................................................................. 3.10-6 

3.10-6: Existing Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) for the Southern Section Alternatives 

(2013) .................................................................................................................................. 3.10-7 

3.10-7: Passengers per Year for the Program – All Alternatives ................................................... 3.10-8 

3.10-8: Projected Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Northern Section Alternative 

(2035) .................................................................................................................................. 3.10-9 

3.10-9: Projected Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) for the Northern Section Alternative 

(2035) .................................................................................................................................. 3.10-9 

3.10-10: Projected Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Central Section Alternatives 

(2035) ............................................................................................................................... 3.10-10

3.10-11: Projected Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) for the Central Section Alternatives 

(2035) ............................................................................................................................... 3.10-11

3.10-12: Potential Short-Term Impacts on Energy Consumption During Construction ............. 3.10-13

3.10-13: Potential Net Benefits to Energy During Operation ....................................................... 3.10-13

3.10-14: Projected Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Southern Section Alternatives 

(2035) ............................................................................................................................... 3.10-14

3.10-15: Projected Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) the Southern Section Alternatives 

(2035) ............................................................................................................................... 3.10-14
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xxii

Table Page 

3.10-16: Potential Short-Term Impacts on Energy Consumption During Construction ............. 3.10-15

3.10-17: Potential Net Benefits to Energy During Operation ....................................................... 3.10-15

3.10-18: Summary of Energy Effects by Alternative ..................................................................... 3.10-16

3.11-1 Summary of Potential Utility Crossings for Alternatives ..................................................... 3.11-4 

3.11-2: Summary of Utility Effects ................................................................................................. 3.11-18

3.12-1: Summary of Geology and Soil Effects .............................................................................. 3.12-14

3.13-1: Typical Viewer Sensitivity Categories and Types ............................................................... 3.13-2 

3.13-2: Likelihood That Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail Alignment Types Would Affect 

the Visual Quality of Views Seen by Sensitive Viewers ....................................................... 3.13-5 

3.13-3: Miles of Existing Sensitive Viewer Types Adjacent to Each Alternative ........................... 3.13-9 

3.13-4: Miles of Effects near Areas with Sensitive Viewers ......................................................... 3.13-19

3.14-1: Prime Farmland within the Northern Section Alternative ................................................. 3.14-4 

3.14-2: Prime Farmland within the Central Section Alternatives .................................................. 3.14-5 

3.14-3: Prime Farmland within the Southern Section Alternatives ............................................... 3.14-7 

3.14-4: Summary of Land Use Effects by Alternative ................................................................... 3.14-12

3.14-5. Summary of Potential Farmland Effects by Alternative .................................................. 3.14-13

3.15-1: Existing and Forecasted Population ................................................................................... 3.15-4 

3.15-2: Northern Section Population Characteristics .................................................................... 3.15-5 

3.15-3: Northern Section Housing Characteristics ......................................................................... 3.15-5 

3.15-4: Northern Section Employment Characteristics ................................................................. 3.15-6 

3.15-5: Central Section Population Characteristics ....................................................................... 3.15-6 

3.15-6: Central Section Housing Characteristics ........................................................................... 3.15-7 

3.15-7: Central Section Employment Characteristics .................................................................... 3.15-7 

3.15-8: Southern Section Demographic Characteristics ............................................................... 3.15-8 

3.15-9: Southern Section Housing Characteristics ........................................................................ 3.15-8 

3.15-10: Southern Section Employment Characteristics ............................................................... 3.15-8 

3.15-11: Summary of Potential Socioeconomic Effects by Alternative....................................... 3.15-13
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xxiii

Table Page 

3.15-12: Summary of Potential Environmental Justice Effects by Alternative ........................... 3.15-14

3.16-1: Existing Crossings of BNSF and TRE Rail Lines in the Northern Section EIS 

Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 3.16-7 

3.16-2: Hazardous Materials Sites in the Northern Section EIS Study Area ................................ 3.16-7 

3.16-3: Existing Crossings of Rail Lines in the Central Section EIS Study Area ........................... 3.16-8 

3.16-4: Hazardous Materials Sites in the Central Section EIS Study Area ................................. 3.16-10

3.16-5: Existing Crossings of Rail Lines in the Southern Section EIS Study Area ...................... 3.16-11

3.16-6: Hazardous Materials Sites in the Southern Section EIS Study Area .............................. 3.16-13

3.16-7: Summary of Effects on Public Safety by Alternative ....................................................... 3.16-30

3.16-8: Summary of Effects Related to Hazardous Materials by Alternative ............................. 3.16-31

3.17-1: Recreational Resources – Northern Section ..................................................................... 3.17-4 

3.17-2: Recreational Resources – Central Section ...................................................................... 3.17-14

3.17-3: Recreational Resources – Southern Section ................................................................... 3.17-26

3.17-4: Summary of Intensity of Effects on Recreational Resources ......................................... 3.17-46

3.18-1: Historic Resources by Alternative within the EIS Study Area ............................................ 3.18-4 

3.18-2: Historic Resources – Northern Section .............................................................................. 3.18-5 

3.18-3. Historic Resources – Central Section................................................................................. 3.18-8 

3.18-4. Historic Resources – Southern Section ........................................................................... 3.18-29

3.18-5: Screening Distance of Potential Vibration Effects ........................................................... 3.18-33

3.18-6: Potential Intensity of Effects on Historic Resources ....................................................... 3.18-41

3.19-1: Archaeological Sites—Northern Section ............................................................................. 3.19-5 

3.19-2: Archaeological Sites—Central Section ................................................................................ 3.19-7 

3.19-3: Archaeological Sites—Southern Section .......................................................................... 3.19-10

3.19-4: Summary of Archaeological Sites by Section .................................................................. 3.19-26

3.19-5: Summary of Archaeological Sites by Alternative ............................................................. 3.19-27

3.19-6: Summary of Effects on Archaeological Sites ................................................................... 3.19-31
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xxiv

Table Page 

3.20-1: Travel Demand Model Outputs ........................................................................................... 3.20-2 

3.20-2: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative N4A ............................................. 3.20-14

3.20-3: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative N4A ........................................... 3.20-15

3.20-4: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative N4A ............................................................. 3.20-17

3.20-5: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative N4A .............................................................. 3.20-17

3.20-6: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4A Higher- Speed Rail ............. 3.20-19

3.20-7: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4A Higher- Speed Rail ........... 3.20-19

3.20-8: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail ............................... 3.20-20

3.20-9: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail ............................... 3.20-21

3.20-10: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4 High-Speed Rail ................. 3.20-22

3.20-11: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.............. 3.20-23

3.20-12: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail ................................ 3.20-24

3.20-13: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail ................................ 3.20-25

3.20-14: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4B Higher- Speed Rail ......... 3.20-26

3.20-15: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail ............... 3.20-28

3.20-16: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail ............. 3.20-29

3.20-17: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail ............................... 3.20-30

3.20-18: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail ................................ 3.20-30

3.20-19: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail ............... 3.20-33

3.20-20: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail ............. 3.20-34

3.20-21: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail ............................... 3.20-35

3.20-22: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail ................................ 3.20-35

3.20-23: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail .............. 3.20-36

3.20-24: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail ............ 3.20-37

3.20-25: 2035 Intercity Ridership – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail ...................................... 3.20-38

3.20-26: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail ............................... 3.20-39

3.20-27: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail .............. 3.20-40

3.20-28: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail ............ 3.20-40

3.20-29: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail .............................. 3.20-41

3.20-30: 2035 Changes in Vehicle Miles Traveled ...................................................................... 3.20-42

3.20-31: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail ................. 3.20-42
TBG092314012951SCO 

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xxv

Table Page 

3.20-32: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail ................ 3.20-43

3.20-33: Summary of Travel Demand and Transportation Effects by Alternative ..................... 3.20-44

3.21-1: Summary of Public Health Effects by Alternative ............................................................ 3.21-16

3.22-1: Comparative Summary of Resource Use by Alternative ................................................... 3.22-4 

3.23-1: Comparative Summary of Resource Use by Alternative ................................................... 3.23-4 

4-1: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas – Northern Section ................... 4-23

4-2: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources – Northern Section ................................................................. 4-25

4-3. Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas – Central Section ...................... 4-28

4-4: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources – Central Section .................................................................... 4-33

4-5. Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas – Southern Section ................... 4-42

4-6: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources – Southern Section ................................................................. 4-44

4-7: Number of Section 4(f)- and Section 6(f)-Protected Properties by Alternative 

(in the 500-foot EIS Study Area) .................................................................................................. 4-48

4-8: Route Alternatives Considered in Study Screenings .................................................................. 4-52

TBG092314012951SCO 

 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xxvii

List of Acronyms 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

AADT average annual daily traffic 

ACOG Association of Central Oklahoma Governments 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

APE Area of Potential Effect 

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

BEA U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

BMP best management practice

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes 

Btu British thermal unit 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAMPO Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Capital Metro Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLIS Comprehensive Emergency Response Compensation and Liabilities 

Information System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH2M CH2M HILL 

CMZ coastal management zone

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COG Council of Governments 

CONV conventional rail

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMP coastal zone management program

DAL Dallas Love Field Airport

DART Dallas Area Rapid Transit

dB decibel 

dBA decibel A-weighted 
TBG092314012951SCO 

List of Acronyms

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xxviii

 

DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport

DHHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

diesel PM diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases 

DUS Dallas Union Station

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

EIS environmental impact statement

ENV Environmental Affairs Division

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FM Farm-to-Market Road 

FR Federal Register 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GDP gross domestic product

GHG greenhouse gas

GIS geographic information system

GLO General Land Office 

HCMPO Hidalgo County Metropolitan Planning Organization

HOU William P. Hobby Airport

HOV high-occupancy vehicle

HrSR higher-speed rail

HSR high-speed rail 

IAH Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport

IH Interstate Highway 

ITC Intermodal Transportation Center

KCS Kansas City Southern 

KOP key observation point
TBG092314012951SCO 

List of Acronyms

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xxix

 

kV kilovolt 

L&WCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

LEP limited English proficiency

Leq(h) hourly equivalent sound level 

LUST leaking underground storage tank

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MBtu million British thermal units

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

mph miles per hour

MPO metropolitan planning organization 

MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristic Consortium 

MT metric ton

MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NCTCOG North Central Texas Council of Governments

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHD National Hydrographic Dataset

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NLCD National Land Cover Database

NLD National Levee Database 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx

 nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL National Priority List

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetland Inventory 
TBG092314012951SCO 

List of Acronyms

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xxx

 

NWSR National Wild and Scenic River

O3 ozone

OAS Oklahoma Archeological Survey 

ODEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

ODOT Oklahoma Department of Transportation

ODWC Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

OKC Will Rogers World Airport 

OWRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PB Parsons Brinckerhoff 

PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter or less

PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less 

PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act

Program Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program 

PUC Public Utility Commission

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

REAP Regional Ecological Assessment Protocol

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SAL State Antiquities Landmark 

SAT San Antonio International Airport

SH State Highway 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SIP state implementation plan 

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SP Stated Preference 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database

Study Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study 

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TBG092314012951SCO 

List of Acronyms

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page xxxi

 

TAC Texas Administrative Code 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TCMP Texas Coastal Management Program 

TCP traditional cultural property 

THC Texas Historical Commission

The T Fort Worth Transportation Authority

TMP Traffic Management Plan 

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

TRE Trinity Railway Express

TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute

TWDB Texas Water Development Board 

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation 

TXNDD Texas Natural Diversity Database

U.S.C. U.S. Code

UDP Unanticipated Discovery Plan 

US U.S. Highway 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

V/C volume to capacity (ratio)

VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program

VIA VIA Metropolitan Transit

VMT vehicle miles traveled 

VOC volatile organic compound

WSRA Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-1 

1.0 Purpose and Need

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

(FRA), is preparing this service-level environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate intercity 

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

Preparation of this EIS is one of two primary objectives of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study 

(Study). In addition to this EIS, the Study includes preparation of a service development plan for the 

corridor to guide further development and capital investment in passenger rail improvements 

identified in the EIS Record of Decision. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) is a

partnering state agency for the Study and the EIS. 

This service-level EIS evaluates a reasonable range of corridor alternatives and passenger rail 

service types and will recommend a preferred corridor, location of train service termini, and type of 

service. A No Build Alternative and multiple build alternatives are evaluated. The build alternatives 

include infrastructure improvements in existing or prior rail corridors, the development of one or 

more new rail corridors, or a combination of both. 

This chapter describes the need for a transportation program that addresses the inadequacies of 

existing passenger rail service and other modes of transportation to meet current and future 

mobility needs in the EIS Study Area. The EIS Study Area includes the passenger rail improvement

alternatives that were developed within the Program corridor to meet the EIS purpose and need. 

Issues addressed in the EIS Study Area include increased travel demand, congestion, air quality, 

restricted mobility and economic development, and safety. This chapter also describes how 

improved intercity transportation, provided by enhanced passenger rail service, would meet future 

intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce travel times, and improve connections with 

regional public transit services.

1.1 Introduction 

The Program would provide enhanced passenger rail service along an 850-mile corridor extending 

approximately from Oklahoma City to south Texas (Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Laredo, and the Rio 

Grande Valley, including McAllen, Harlingen, and Brownsville, and surrounding communities along 

the Rio Grande River). 

The Program corridor runs north-south and roughly parallels Interstate Highway 35 (IH-35), with the 

northern point in Edmond, Oklahoma (the northern end of the Oklahoma City portion of the 

corridor), and the southern end in south Texas, potentially in Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Laredo, or 

the Rio Grande Valley (Figure 1-1). Although Edmond was selected as the northern point based on 

preliminary ridership forecasts and early stakeholder input, Oklahoma City is the city name used in 

general descriptions of the corridor because of its larger size and name recognition. The corridor 

analysis addresses the interrelationships of the key regional markets within the Program corridor 

EIS in the following three geographic sections: 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-2 

Figure 1-1: Geographic Sections and Alternatives 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-3 

 Northern Section: Edmond, Oklahoma, to Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas 

 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio

 Southern Section: San Antonio to south Texas (Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Laredo, and the Rio 

Grande Valley) with the option to extend to Monterrey, Mexico 

FRA and TxDOT will use a tiered process, as provided for in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

1508.28, to conduct the environmental review of the Study. This service-level EIS addresses broad 

corridor issues and alternatives. Subsequent project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

evaluations will analyze site-specific projects based on the service-level evaluations. This servicelevel EIS addresses the following: 

 Confirm the purpose and need for the proposed action.

 Confirm the EIS Study Area appropriate to assess reasonable alternatives.

 Identify a comprehensive set of goals and objectives for the corridor in conjunction with 

stakeholders. These goals and objectives will be crafted to allow comprehensive evaluation of 

study alternatives necessary to achieve the goals, including train operations, vehicles, and 

infrastructure. 

 Develop alternative evaluation criteria based on purpose and need, goals, and objectives. 

 Identify the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered, consistent with the current and 

planned use of the corridor and the existing services within and adjacent to the EIS Study Area. 

 Identify the general corridor alignment(s) and right-of-way requirements for the build 

alternatives. 

 Identify, at the corridor planning level, the infrastructure and equipment investment 

requirements for the build alternatives. 

 Evaluate the No Build Alternative as the baseline for comparison with the build alternatives. The 

No Build Alternative represents other transportation modes, such as auto, air travel, intercity 

bus, and existing rail, and the physical characteristics and capacities as they exist at the time of 

the service-level EIS, with planned and funded improvements that will be in place at the time 

rail improvements would become operational.

 Evaluate and describe, at the corridor planning level, the potential environmental consequences 

(benefits and adverse impacts on the human and natural environment) associated with the 

build alternatives. 

 Establish the timing and sequencing and future NEPA processes for component projects to 

implement the proposed action.

 Identify preferred alternatives for corridor route alignment within each of the three geographic

sections.
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-4 

If a build alternative is selected at the conclusion of this service-level EIS process, project-level 

assessment(s) will address component projects to be implemented within the selected alternative 

and, where appropriate, will incorporate by reference the data and evaluations included in this

service-level EIS. Subsequent evaluations will concentrate on the issues specific to the component 

of the alternative selected and analyze the environmental consequences and measures necessary 

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential environmental impacts of the component projects.

1.2 Background 

The 850-mile EIS Study Area corridor extends from Edmond, Oklahoma, located just north of 

Oklahoma City, through Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio to south Texas, including 

Laredo, Corpus Christi, and Brownsville. The IH-35 corridor extends from Duluth, Minnesota, to 

Laredo, and is a congressionally identified Corridor of National Significance. IH-35 is one of the 

fastest growing corridors in the United States (Parsons Brinckerhoff [PB] and ODOT 2010). It 

extends through six of the largest urban areas and nine of the 50 largest cities in the United States.

International truck traffic demand, intercity truck traffic demand, and passenger travel demand 

compete for highway capacity, creating substantial congestion inside the urban areas through 

which IH-35 runs. Average speeds along IH-35 from Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio are 

projected to drop from 55 to 15 miles per hour (mph) by 2035 (Texas A&M Transportation Institute 

[TTI] 2010). 

Transportation plans for Texas and Oklahoma have identified substantial population growth and 

population aging within the Program corridor. Texas’s population is expected to increase by 

39 percent from 2010 to 2035. The population of the Texas Triangle (the region of Texas bounded 

by Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio) has increased rapidly over the last several decades, with 

growth rates as high as 27 percent in some areas (TxDOT 2010a). Texas is the second-most 

populous state in the United States, with most of the state’s population centered in the eastern 

half, along and east of the IH-35 corridor. Oklahoma City’s population is expected to increase by 

25 percent from 2000 to 2035, with intensified population densities in the metropolitan area

(PB and ODOT 2010). Populations within the Program corridor are aging, with the population of 

people over 65 years old expected to increase from about 13 percent to nearly 20 percent by 2030 

in Oklahoma and from 10 percent to more than 17 percent in Texas. The aging population is 

expected to rely more on public transportation modes such as intercity rail. Long-range 

transportation plans in Texas and Oklahoma have identified the need to improve passenger rail 

services to meet the future demand created by the aging population. 

Existing passenger rail service includes intercity service on the Heartland Flyer (Oklahoma City to 

Fort Worth), Texas Eagle (Fort Worth to San Antonio), and Sunset Limited (Los Angeles to New 

Orleans through San Antonio) operated by Amtrak and regional/commuter rail service on the Trinity 

Railway Express (TRE) (Dallas to Fort Worth) and Capital MetroRail (Austin) operated by Texas 

operators. Intercity passenger rail between Oklahoma City and San Antonio provides service to 

cities and communities along the IH-35 corridor. This EIS evaluates alternatives to provide
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-5 

enhanced passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand and to improve rail 

facilities, reduce travel times, and improve connections with regional public transit services. These 

improvements are needed to address the increasing congestion on highways and rail services along 

the IH-35 corridor. 

Program Corridor Description 

Although a common need exists for increased passenger rail service across the Program corridor, 

the corridor has been divided into three geographic sections where the passenger rail needs and 

opportunities, while interdependent, are distinct. Each section is evaluated separately and as part 

of the overall rail corridor in this EIS. 

The Northern Section has intercity passenger rail service (Heartland Flyer) with one train in each 

direction per day, where annual ridership has increased by as much as 10 percent within the last 

3 years. Without this train, more than 60 percent of train passengers would have taken 

automobiles and up to 29 percent of passengers would not have traveled (ODOT 2012). This 

passenger rail service is constrained by operation on a busy freight railroad line, resulting in delays 

and inconvenient layovers for connecting with other rail or transit services in Fort Worth. Rail 

improvement planning in this section has identified the need for enhanced railroad facilities and 

better coordination with other connecting passenger rail services to increase the attractiveness of 

rail as a travel option. Additional needs in the Northern Section include direct connection to the City 

of Dallas and the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), improved train control systems to 

increase train speed and allow safe operation of the increased numbers of freight and passenger 

trains within the rail corridor, and additional roadway/railroad grade separations to enhance safety 

where rail and roadways cross.

The Central Section has intercity passenger rail service provided by the Texas Eagle, the 

southernmost portion of daily Amtrak service between Chicago and San Antonio. From Fort Worth, 

daily connections with the Heartland Flyer provide intercity rail service north to Oklahoma City. From 

San Antonio, connections with the Sunset Limited operate three times per week east to New 

Orleans and west to Los Angeles. Approximately 23 percent of Amtrak trips ending in Texas 

originate within the state. 

The Central Section is characterized by the highest level of intercity travel demand in Texas. This is, 

in part, a result of its linking three of the four largest metropolitan areas within the state, all of 

which are projected to grow in the future. The Central Section, through the IH-35 corridor, is 

characterized by substantially higher automobile and truck volumes than any other intercity corridor 

in the state. These volumes are projected to increase steadily through 2035, by which time traffic 

volumes are projected to reduce freeway speeds to as low as 15 mph, causing substantial delays. 

Air travel between the Central Section termini (Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio) is 

characterized by higher passenger volumes than any other intrastate connection. With the 

exception of the connection from Dallas and Fort Worth to Houston, air travel demand from Dallas 

and Fort Worth to San Antonio is more than twice the demand of any other intrastate intercity 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-6 

connection. Enhanced passenger rail service in the Central Section would assist in meeting the 

strong demand for intercity travel in this highly populated corridor, thereby reducing current and 

projected automobile and truck volumes.

The Southern Section does not have passenger rail service. Instead, Amtrak provides passenger 

service south of San Antonio by motor coach. Brownsville and Laredo have heavy commercial truck 

traffic on the highways and heavy freight traffic along freight railroad lines. The increasing

congestion in these border cities affects the economic viability of the region. Other intercity public 

transportation, including transportation to other destinations in the United States and Mexico, is 

provided by motor coaches operated by Mexican and U.S. operators. Travel options are needed to 

address future passenger travel demand in this area and reduce roadway congestion caused by the 

passenger buses and commercial truck traffic. Rail service in this section would provide an 

efficient, safe, equitable, and affordable option to highway, bus, or air travel. In the Southern 

Section, cross-border travel demand to Mexican destinations such as Monterrey, a major business 

hub, results in strong potential passenger rail demand.

History 

High-speed passenger rail has been under consideration in Texas since the late 1980s. In the 

1990s, a private consortium was awarded a franchise to design, build, and operate high-speed rail 

in the state. Although demand appeared to support the development of high-speed rail, lack of 

funding and other obstacles prevented the project from moving forward. Since then, other 

proposals for high-speed rail in Texas have been submitted to FRA, with each proposal showing

revenues that exceed operating expenses but requiring funding to build. In 2000, FRA designated 

the South Central Corridor, including the area between San Antonio and Dallas and Fort Worth, as a 

future high-speed rail corridor. In 2010, TxDOT received a grant from FRA to study passenger rail in 

that corridor. 

Related Planning Activities 

In cooperation with TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, TTI studied the potential for 

development of an intercity rail and express bus system in Texas. The TTI study examined long

distance intercity and interregional corridors to determine which corridors are most likely to need 

additional intercity travel capacity in the coming decades. TTI examined specific corridor 

characteristics for 18 intercity corridors and ranked the corridors to identify those needing more 

intercity transit capacity in the future. TTI based its analysis of corridors on several factors, 

including the following: 

 Current and future population and demographic projections along 18 intercity corridors in the 

state. 

 Projected future intercity travel demand based on forecasts by the Texas State Demographer 

and other state agencies. 

 Current transportation network capacity and routes for intercity highway, bus, air, and rail travel. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-7 

The TTI study was completed in 2010, and the final report was published in May 2010. This report 

indicated that there is a critical need to provide efficient travel scenarios for both freight and 

passenger demand. Expanding the existing roadway network would be difficult because of the 

surrounding development within the major urban areas. Options for highway loops built around the 

areas to accommodate traffic would lengthen the distance to travel through those areas. The TTI 

study developed a preliminary concept plan with potential costs and benefits for the intercity 

transportation corridors. The intercity transportation corridors within the state would be served by 

an intercity rail/express bus system and not preclude an enhanced passenger rail system to meet 

the travel demand identified in existing highway and rail corridors. Local and regional development 

of improved bus, light rail, and commuter rail systems would continue within the major urban areas 

of the state to transport travelers from stations potentially served by a statewide transit system. 

Potential enhancements to transportation systems and their sustainability include the planning and 

implementation of land uses that reduce total travel trips or the need for private vehicle trips. 

Metropolitan areas within the Program corridor are incorporating transit and passenger rail into 

their plans for intermodal facilities, which support transit-oriented development (Association of 

Central Oklahoma Governments [ACOG] 2011). Transit-oriented development provides a variety of 

land uses close to transit and rail stations. The higher density of commercial and residential uses 

increases transit access, encourages ridership, and promotes interregional connectivity with other 

economic centers. Transit-oriented development reduces the area needed for parking and 

increases the proximity and density of mixed uses. In other national centers, passenger rail service 

has spawned development near rail stations that combines residential, commercial, and job 

centers, which reduces the need for private vehicles. For example, the Fort Worth Intermodal 

Transportation Center (ITC) connects intercity rail with the TRE, operated by Dallas Area Rapid 

Transit (DART) and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, and with regional public transit service. 

Examples under development include a planned intermodal transit hub in Oklahoma City and a 

transit center in San Antonio that previously had passenger rail service. The Program should 

evaluate other opportunities for reducing trips and the need for private vehicles, enhancing transit 

facilities and potential locations for transit-oriented development. 

1.3 Overall Program – Purpose and Need 

This purpose and need statement for the Program identifies two levels of discussion. The first level 

addresses the overall purpose and need for the entire 850-mile Program corridor from Oklahoma 

City to south Texas (Figure 1-1). The second level addresses the purpose and need specific to each 

of the three geographic sections that compose the Program corridor. 

Overall Program – Purpose 

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

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

The objectives of the overall Program are the following: 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-8 

 Provide high-quality intercity rail service that will offer competitive travel times, schedule 

reliability, and traveler comfort. 

 Encourage more efficient and environmentally sensitive modes of intercity travel. 

 Provide an equitable and affordable intercity travel alternative. 

 Enhance interconnectivity between intercity rail services, regional transit services, and major 

regional airports.

 Enhance environmental sustainability by facilitating regional land use and transit-oriented 

development plans within the Program corridor.

 Enhance interregional access to employment, entertainment, recreation, health, and shopping 

opportunities within the Program corridor.

 Coordinate and avoid conflicts with freight rail operations and facilities.

 Be a cost-efficient investment where the projected train service revenue meets or exceeds the 

following percentages1 of operations and maintenance costs: 

- Conventional rail (speeds up to 90 mph) = 50 percent 

- Higher-speed rail (speeds up to 125 mph) = 75 percent

- High-speed rail (speeds up to 220 to 250 mph) = 100 percent

Overall Program – Need 

The need for the Program arises from the inadequacies of existing passenger rail service and other 

modes of transportation to meet current and future mobility needs in the EIS Program corridor, 

which are the following: 

 Population and economic growth will increase travel demand, generate additional roadway and 

aviation congestion, and reduce automobile, aviation, and transit reliability, thereby requiring 

regional mobility alternatives. 

 Limited intercity passenger rail service and capacity and lack of interregional connectivity 

restrict both mobility and economic development. 

 Declining air quality resulting from increased travel demand and congestion requires more 

environmentally sustainable modes of travel. 

 Growth in truck and rail freight has negative effects on the safety of the transportation system.

 

1 For this EIS, cost efficiency is defined as the estimated percentage of operating cost (including operations and 

maintenance of the service) that could be recovered through service revenue such as passenger fares. The higher the 

percentage, the greater the cost efficiency. Capital costs such as the cost of rail construction and purchase of train sets 

is not included the evaluation of cost efficiency. The three different cost-efficiency thresholds reflect the expectation 

that higher-speed rail, and to an even greater extent, high-speed rail, is capable of higher rates of cost recovery (higher 

cost efficiency) compared with conventional rail service. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-9 

The following sections discuss the considerations that drive the need for the overall Program. 

1.3.2.1 Population and economic growth will increase travel demand, generate additional 

roadway and aviation congestion, and reduce automobile, aviation, and transit reliability, thereby 

requiring regional mobility alternatives. 

Demographics are changing transportation demand in the Program corridor. Statewide 

transportation plans for Texas and Oklahoma have identified substantial population growth and an

increasingly higher percentage of older people within the Program corridor. The population in the 

Texas Triangle has increased rapidly over the past several decades, with growth rates as high as 

27 percent in some areas. The population in Texas is expected to increase even more rapidly, by 

39 percent from 2010 to 2035, with 92 percent of the population growth between 2010 and 2030 

in metropolitan areas (TxDOT 2010a). Texas is the second-most populous state in the United 

States. Most of the state’s population resides in the eastern half, along and east of the IH-35 

corridor. Similarly, the population in Oklahoma City is expected to increase by 25 percent between 

2000 and 2035, with intensified population densities in the metropolitan area (PB and ODOT

2010). Population forecasts anticipate that the population of people over 65 years old will increase 

from about 13 percent to nearly 20 percent by 2030 in Oklahoma (PB and ODOT 2010) and from 

10 percent to more than 17 percent in Texas (TxDOT 2010a). Generally, an aging population relies 

more on public transportation modes such as intercity rail as a safer means of accessibility, and as 

the population ages, this segment of demand is expected to increase (PB and ODOT 2010; TxDOT

2010b). The change in demographics is likely to increase the demand for options to the automobile 

for intercity travel. 

Economic growth in Texas has outpaced national economic output. Forecasts predict that economic 

growth in Texas will more than double between 2010 and 2035, with the manufacturing and 

information sectors expected to have the highest growth rates. In addition, Texas freight volumes 

are expected to increase overall by about 82 percent between 2008 and 2035. In this timeframe, 

rail and rail/truck volume (a combination of freight in rail cars and truck trailers shipped by rail) will 

increase by 91 percent and truck volume will increase by 77 percent (TxDOT 2010a). 

Over time, the economy of Oklahoma has evolved, transitioning from natural resources and 

agriculture to the manufacturing and services sectors, with additional stability provided by a large 

military presence. The Oklahoma economy is expected to grow at a moderate pace, and, led by the 

services sector, will continue to diversify. Freight volume in Oklahoma is expected to increase at a 

moderate pace from 2010 to 2020, at a rate of 1.7 percent per year, and then to 2035 at about 

1.5 percent per year (PB and ODOT 2010). 

The growth in freight volume in both Texas and Oklahoma will add congestion to the already

stressed highway and freight rail systems. The increase in regional traffic volumes will also increase 

travel time congestion. For persons traveling between major economic centers, the cost associated 

with increased travel time will increase. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-10 

The Program corridor experiences heavy congestion on the region’s highway system. The public 

highway and commercial aviation systems have served the intercity travel needs of the residents of 

Texas and Oklahoma. The combined growth of the population and economy add intercity 

transportation demand that will worsen travel conditions. 

Transportation investments are needed to reduce travel delay and improve the competitiveness of 

and access to economic markets. The IH-35 corridor is a congressionally identified Corridor of 

National Significance and is one of the fastest-growing regions in both population and economic 

expansion in the United States (PB and ODOT 2010). It extends through six of the largest urban 

areas and nine of the 50 largest cities in the United States. International truck traffic demand, 

intercity truck traffic demand, and passenger travel demand compete for highway capacity, creating 

substantial congestion inside and between the urban areas through which IH-35 runs (TTI 2010). In 

Oklahoma, long-range planning identified the need for expansion of IH-35 to six lanes south of 

Oklahoma City, but has not identified funding for this capacity enhancement (PB and ODOT 2010). 

From Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio, traffic levels on IH-35 are higher than on any 

comparable corridor in Texas, with the exception of the Dallas and Fort Worth to Houston Interstate 

Highway 45 (IH-45) corridor. Truck traffic on IH-35 is the highest of any highway corridor in Texas. 

These high traffic volumes will increase through 2035. Projections for the Central Section of the 

Program corridor show average speeds along IH-35 will drop from 55 to 15 mph by 2035 (TTI 

2010). South of San Antonio, both truck traffic and intercity bus traffic contribute to highway 

congestion, with truck traffic expected to increase by 175 percent and 125 percent on IH-35 and 

Interstate Highway 37 (IH-37), respectively, between 2002 and 2035 (TTI 2010). In south Texas, 

motor coach service across the Mexico border from Laredo and north into Texas creates localized 

congestion in the urban areas and at the border crossings. The extensive truck and motor coach 

congestion increases travel times and inefficient intercity travel for passengers unable or unwilling 

to travel by private passenger vehicles or by air. 

Table 1-1 shows the 2002 and 2035 forecast average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes, volumeto-capacity (V/C) ratios, and average speeds for the major highway corridors in the Central and 

Southern sections (TTI 2010).

The AADT and V/C ratios projected for the highway corridors between the city pairs show that 

demand will increase far beyond recent historical trends to expand highway capacity. The V/C ratios 

are projected to be at or over 1.0, which means that, on average, traffic volumes will be at or above 

the available highway capacity, which will decrease average travel speeds and increase average 

travel times and delays. These changes will affect automobile travelers and bus carrier services. 

The busiest intercity travel corridor in the Program corridor, Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio, is 

projected to have a V/C ratio of 1.90 by 2035 — almost double the corridor average capacity. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-11 

Table 1-1: 2002 and 2035 Forecast Traffic Data and Projections by City Pair 

Geographic 

Section of 

Corridor City Pair 

2002 2035 

AADT 

V/C 

Ratio 

Average 

Speed AADT 

V/C 

Ratio 

Average 

Speed 

Central Dallas and 

Fort Worth to 

San Antonio

71,952 0.80 55 mph 178,452 1.90 15 mph

Southern San Antonio to 

Brownsville 

(via Corpus 

Christi) 

22,391 0.46 58 mph 49,173 1.00 45 mph

Southern San Antonio to 

Brownsville 

(via Laredo)

23,783 0.44 53 mph 60,529 1.05 37 mph

Source: TTI (2010). 

Additionally, Texas and Oklahoma state transportation plans identify a substantial number of 

commercial air passengers traveling to or from the major metropolitan areas within the Program 

corridor (TxDOT 2010b; PB and ODOT 2010; TTI 2010), as shown in Table 1-2. Although many 

passengers travel by air between cities in the Program corridor, market changes in the air travel 

industry have changed air carrier schedules and eliminated service at some airports as airlines opt 

for longer haul flights that create higher revenue (Holloway 2003; TTI 2010). City pairs within the 

Program corridor that have lost air carrier service since 2007 include Austin-Midland and Corpus 

Christi-Dallas Love Field, while air carrier service between Brownsville and DFW was added 

(TTI 2010). Austin-Corpus Christi also lost air carrier service in the same timeframe, but as of 2013, 

it does have limited air carrier service. As the air travel industry evolves, air carriers may consider 

additional reductions in intercity services to reduce costs associated with rising aviation fuel prices. 

In addition, the aviation system is vulnerable to disruption caused by adverse weather locally or in 

other parts of the country, creating reliability issues. 

Because airports are not located near commercial centers, passengers require additional 

connections upon arrival. For example, both DFW and San Antonio International Airport (SAT) have 

identified a need for direct connection with passenger rail (DFW 2009), and the Will Rogers World 

Airport in Oklahoma City has identified the need for direct connectivity with regional transit systems. 

Providing intermodal connectivity is a stated objective of airport host cities, and with air service 

emphasizing long-distance flights, efficient intercity travel options for air passengers would 

enhance accessibility options. There is a need to coordinate intermodal service to expand 

accessibility options.
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-12 

Table 1-2: 2011 and 2040 Airport Data and Projections by Major Airports in the EIS 

Program Corridor

Airport 

2011 Actual 

(thousands) 

2040 Forecast 

(thousands) 

Compound Annual 

Growth Ratea 

2011-2040 

Enplanements 

Waco (ACT) 60 132 2.76%

Austin (AUS) 4,410 9,130 2.54%

Brownsville (BRO) 84 151 2.04%

Corpus Christi (CRP) 328 445 1.06%

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 3,842 6,483 1.82%

Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 27,464 49,421 2.05%

Harlingen (HRL) 362 676 2.18%

Killeen (GRK) 189 176 -0.25%

Laredo (LRD) 106 219 2.53%

McAllen (MFE) 335 626 2.18%

Oklahoma City (OKC) 1,721 2,911 1.83%

San Antonio (SAT) 3,968 7,651 2.29%

Operations 

Waco (ACT) 32 43 1.02%

Austin (AUS) 180 275 1.47%

Brownsville (BRO) 41 42 0.08%

Corpus Christi (CRP) 103 87 -0.58%

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 178 293 1.73%

Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 650 1077 1.76%

Harlingen (HRL) 52 58 0.38%

Killeen (GRK) 13 12 -0.28%

Laredo (LRD) 68 125 2.12%

McAllen (MFE) 65 66 0.05%

Oklahoma City (OKC) 128 145 0.43%

San Antonio (SAT) 179 300 1.80%

a Compound annual growth rate represents the average annual rate of demand increase across the time span 

where individual year demand growth would be higher or lower than the average annual. 

Source: Federal Aviation Administration (2014). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-13 

The viability of travel alternatives and options needs to be evaluated to provide efficient access and 

mobility between major population and economic centers, increase safety, reduce overall travel 

time, and increase convenience and comfort for travelers. 

1.3.2.2 Limited intercity passenger rail service and capacity and lack of interregional 

connectivity restrict both mobility and economic development. 

Passenger rail options exist in the 

Northern and Central sections of the 

Program corridor; however, the 

constrained capacity and availability of rail 

lines limit operations. Intercity passenger 

rail in the Program corridor operates 

predominantly on host Class I railroads2

that are privately owned and primarily in 

the business of high-volume freight 

movement, such as UPRR and BNSF

Railway. Competing needs for track usage 

creates operational problems that can 

delay passenger rail service within the 

Program corridor. 

Amtrak provides intercity passenger rail 

service on the Heartland Flyer, Texas 

Eagle, and Sunset Limited lines, as shown 

on Figure 1-2. There is no passenger rail 

service in Texas south of San Antonio. 

Intercity ground-based passenger service 

south of San Antonio is provided primarily 

by motor coaches operated by private bus 

operators, with destinations in Mexico and 

the United States. The limited travel options 

and the congestion in Texas along the 

border with Mexico and ports prolong international trips and affect this region’s economic 

connectivity with other areas of the state. 

Although currently the demand on the transportation system is high and increasing, intercity and 

regional travel options are limited. Intercity passenger rail service could be an effective option for 

travel in the Program corridor. For example, the Heartland Flyer diverted 39,000 vehicle trips in 

 

2 Class I railroads are the largest railroad operators in the United States, with annual operating revenues of at least 

$250 million.

Figure 1-2: Passenger Rail Routes in the Program 

Corridor 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-14 

2009, with a reduction of 7.9 million vehicle-miles traveled (ODOT 2012). Two primary factors limit 

passenger ridership: (1) long travel times with frequent delays, and (2) lack of interregional 

connectivity. 

The first factor limiting passenger ridership involves the robust freight rail business with the host 

Class I railroads. To avoid affecting current operation or future growth of freight rail, options to 

expand the intercity passenger rail service on the existing infrastructure are limited. Because of the 

limited intercity rail service schedules, passengers can have long layovers at rail stations before 

boarding other intercity rail services or connecting with regional rail or transit services. In addition, 

the intercity passenger trains are subject to delays, most of which (85 percent for Heartland Flyer 

and 71 percent for Texas Eagle) result from delays associated with the host railroad (ODOT 2012; 

TxDOT 2010a). These delays increase travel times, affect schedule reliability, and affect the ability 

of passengers to connect with other services. Faster, more reliable passenger rail service is needed 

to enhance its attractiveness as an intercity travel option. Evaluating options for improved 

passenger rail service and preparing a service development plan are two of the short-term 

objectives of the Texas Rail Plan (TxDOT 2010a). 

The second factor limiting ridership on passenger rail lines is the lack of interregional connectivity

with high-speed transit service between communities and destinations. The limited service 

schedules of the three intercity passenger rail lines — Heartland Flyer, Texas Eagle, and Sunset 

Limited — result in substantial layovers and delays for passengers transferring from one service to 

another and limited connectivity to other modes due to infrequent service. These rail lines also do 

not link all of the vital economic centers within the Program corridor or provide intermodal 

connections with other local rail lines or commercial airports. This lack of connectivity limits the 

attraction of passenger rail as an intercity travel option. 

1.3.2.3 Declining air quality resulting from increased travel demand and congestion requires 

more environmentally sustainable modes of travel. 

The counties in the Dallas and Fort Worth area do not meet the federal air quality standard for 

ozone, which is a byproduct of internal combustion engines (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

[EPA] 2016). High vehicle volumes and the resulting congestion on IH-35 is a major contributor to 

this condition. As discussed above, traffic congestion on IH-35 is projected to worsen. In south 

Texas, the Corpus Christi area currently meets air quality standards, but is near the limits of 

compliance, and Laredo has concerns with dust emissions from extensive traffic movement, 

including heavy vehicles (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ] 2007). Although 

Austin and San Antonio are in attainment, they have taken early action and implemented rules to 

reduce ozone precursors because they are close to the nonattainment threshold. Traffic congestion 

associated with the increased travel demand may increase localized vehicle emissions because of

the reduced speed and increased idling time of the vehicles. Environmentally sustainable travel 

options will relieve traffic congestion and reduce vehicle emissions, which is beneficial to the local 

and regional air quality. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-15 

In addition, greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide emitted by the combustion of fossil 

fuels, increase global average temperatures, which changes the climate and melts land-based ice, 

causing sea levels to rise. Climate change affects local weather, changing temperatures, wind 

patterns, precipitation, and the intensity and frequency of storms. More energy-efficient travel and 

reduced fuel consumption would reduce GHG emissions. 

Nationwide fuel use data show that rail is the most fuel-efficient mode of land-based freight 

movement and is more fuel-efficient than truck movement (TxDOT 2010a). Between 1980 and 

2009, the fuel efficiency of freight rail increased by 104 percent, and further efficiencies are being 

made as a result of improvements in equipment and rail yard operations (TxDOT 2010a). According 

to Amtrak, rail travel is more energy-efficient than either air travel or automobiles, using almost 

20 percent less fuel than domestic airline travel and 30 percent less fuel than automobile travel on 

a per-passenger-mile basis. Improvements in passenger rail technology, including the use of 

modern train equipment and new service that avoids delays, would further reduce fuel 

consumption of passenger trains (Amtrak 2013). Along with the improvement in fuel consumption, 

expanding passenger rail options would reduce GHG emissions (TxDOT 2010a). Rail (combined 

freight and passenger rail) contributes just 2.7 percent of transportation-related GHG emissions, 

and efforts are under way to improve rail fuel economy and reduce GHG emissions in the Program 

corridor, such as projects to reduce rail bottlenecks (TxDOT 2010a). 

1.3.2.4 Growth in truck and rail freight has negative effects on the safety of the transportation 

system. 

As discussed in Section 1.3.1, Overall Program – Purpose, economic growth will continue to create 

higher volumes of heavy truck movement on IH-35. Large trucks have been involved in an 

increasing number of fatal crashes in all categories — large-truck occupants, occupants of other 

vehicles, and non-occupants (USDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2012a). With 

increasing heavy truck traffic, options are needed for intercity passengers traveling within this 

corridor that would reduce on-road vehicle accidents. For safety reasons, passenger rail should be 

evaluated as an intercity travel option to traveling on highways shared with heavy trucks. 

The top rail safety priority in Texas is to enhance safety for all transportation system users, 

including improvements in safety (such as fewer injuries and fatalities) and at rail grade crossings 

(TxDOT 2010a). Texas has the most rail miles and the most grade crossings of any state in the 

United States. Although Texas has ranked highest nationally in number of grade-crossing accidents 

and fatalities, the accident rate has steadily decreased over the last decade. Texas has provided 

grade-separated crossings or safe crossings where grade separations are not possible. The state’s 

plan addresses crossings that have been identified as safety concerns. The approach includes

implementing improvements to crossing surfaces, highway median barriers, grade-crossing signals, 

and pedestrian crossings; installing reflector systems; consolidating grade crossings; and 

addressing trespasser issues (TxDOT 2010a). The 2010-2035 Statewide Oklahoma Long Range 

Transportation Plan also identified a lack of grade separation for passenger rail routes, the safest 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-16 

operational environment, which is a deficiency found with most passenger rail routes (PB and ODOT

2010).

For those corridors where passenger trains would operate in a shared right-of-way with freight 

services, many of the grade separations would consist of highway overpasses/underpasses, which 

produce a collateral safety benefit for freight because a potentially dangerous highway grade 

crossing for both the new passenger trains and adjacent freight lines would be removed. 

Furthermore, given the well-recognized and documented higher level of safety for passengers 

traveling on intercity or high-speed rail versus riding or driving in automobiles, every passenger-mile 

diverted from automobile to rail would be approximately 20 times safer or less likely to incur a 

fatality (National Association of Railroad Passengers 2001). 

1.4 Northern Section – Purpose and Need 

Northern Section – Purpose 

The purpose of the Program in the Northern Section is to provide efficient and reliable intercity 

passenger rail service along the Northern Section of the Program corridor that is competitive with 

other travel options. The specific objectives are the following: 

 Provide faster and more frequent intercity connections between central Oklahoma and 

communities in southern Oklahoma and the state of Texas, specifically the Dallas and Fort 

Worth region in north Texas. These potential improvements in speed and frequency would also 

apply to local transit connections in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, as well as a connection to 

the national intercity rail network. 

 Enhance opportunities for rail service that is connected with current and planned intercity 

passenger rail and air passenger services, such as linking with DFW.

 Reduce delays and bottlenecks to create competitive rail service travel times compared with

other modes of intercity travel, including private vehicles, buses, and air carriers. 

 Provide intercity passenger rail service that supports the transit-oriented development 

objectives of the Intermodal Transportation Hub Master Plan for Central Oklahoma (ACOG 

2011). 

 Protect the carrying capacity of freight rail. 

 Provide mode alternatives that help meet the region’s air quality attainment goals.

Northern Section – Need 

Population and economic growth in the Northern Section are projected to increase intercity 

passenger travel demand beyond that which can be accommodated by the existing highway, 

intercity passenger rail, and air travel systems in the Northern Section. Specific needs for the 

Northern Section are the following: 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-17 

 Increasing population density and changes in demographic profile require alternatives in 

regional mobility.

 Existing constrained passenger rail service that competes with freight for rail line capacity is 

impacted by delays and makes it difficult to attract business or short-travel riders. 

 Inefficient connections with other modes of travel reduce the attractiveness of passenger rail as 

an intercity travel alternative. 

 Local governments require regional support to improve interregional connectivity. 

The following sections discuss the specific considerations that drive the need for the Program in the 

Northern Section. 

1.4.2.1 Increasing population density and changes in demographic profile require alternatives in 

regional mobility. 

Changing demographics and economic growth will affect transportation demand in the Oklahoma 

region. The population of Oklahoma is expected to increase to 4.3 million people by 2035, a 

25 percent increase from 2000, with intensified population densities in the metropolitan areas (PB 

and ODOT 2010). Land use planning in the state encourages higher-density development and infill 

development within urbanized areas. Oklahoma City already has significant peak-hour highway 

congestion along IH-35. The growing population and increased densities in the metropolitan regions 

will increase congestion if alternative intermodal access is not provided. In addition, the overall 

population age is expected to rise, with the population over 65 years old increasing from 

13 percent in 2000 to almost 20 percent in 2030 (PB and ODOT 2010). Elderly individuals 

historically have a higher rate of transit ridership than any other age group (TxDOT 2010b). With the 

aging population increasing, the available transit options cannot meet the demand on public 

transportation. 

Although the drop in natural resource prices in the 1980s and the national economic downturn in 

2009 affected the economy of Oklahoma, the negative impact was contained by stability in the 

state’s housing market. Oklahoma remains one of the nation’s largest producers of livestock and 

wheat, but new economic drivers include manufacturing, healthcare, and finance service sectors. 

Oklahoma anticipates moderate but steady economic growth of 2.5 percent through 2038 (PB and 

ODOT 2010). 

1.4.2.2 Existing constrained passenger rail service that competes with freight for rail line 

capacity is impacted by delays and makes it difficult to attract business or short-travel riders. 

Passenger rail service is limited between Oklahoma City and Dallas and Fort Worth. The Heartland 

Flyer, operated by Amtrak, provides intercity passenger rail between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, 

generally following IH-35. The Heartland Flyer operates one round-trip per day and stops in 

Oklahoma City, Norman, Purcell, Pauls Valley, and Ardmore, Oklahoma, and in Gainesville and Fort 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-18 

Worth, Texas. In past years, demand for passenger rail in the Northern Section has increased. The 

Heartland Flyer carried 81,000 riders in 2010, an 11 percent increase over 2009, and ridership 

continued to increase in 2011. According to the Texas Rail Plan, about 58 percent of rail 

passengers were diverted from vehicle trips (39,000 vehicle trips in 2009). While passenger

satisfaction has scored higher than other state-sponsored or short-distance Amtrak trains (95 out 

of 100 versus scores in the 80s for other trains), speed, reliability, and frequency of operation need 

to be addressed. The current travel time from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth averages 4.25 hours, 

about 45 minutes longer than the same trip by private vehicle. A 15-month study of delay times 

between March 2011 and May 2012 showed that the average total delay time per month was 

2,405 minutes (ODOT 2012). Eight to five (8 to 5) percent of these delays were caused by the host 

railroad, BNSF, because freight demand uses most of the capacity available on the rail corridor

(TxDOT 2010a). These delays and limited trip frequency make it difficult to attract business or 

short-trip travelers because commuting from Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth in the same 

day is difficult. In addition to travel time reductions and increases in train frequency, improved 

reliability is needed to increase the attractiveness of rail travel. 

As noted above, the Heartland Flyer operates one round-trip per day from Oklahoma City to Fort 

Worth (departing Oklahoma City at 8:25 am and arriving in Fort Worth at 12:39 pm and departing 

Fort Worth at 5:25 pm and arriving in Oklahoma City at 9:39 pm). The service schedule only allows 

brief day trips for traveling from Oklahoma to Texas. Except for a short trip confined to an afternoon 

in Texas, any visit of longer duration or planned for a different time of day requires at least a 1-night 

stay to provide a full day in the Dallas and Fort Worth area. In the other direction, a 2-night stay is

required in Oklahoma.

1.4.2.3 Inefficient connections with other modes of travel reduce the attractiveness of 

passenger rail as an intercity travel alternative. 

The current passenger rail service is not competitive with other modes of travel. Because the 

Heartland Flyer terminates at Fort Worth on the BNSF line, there is no direct rail connection to 

Dallas. There is also no direct rail connection with DFW to transfer travel mode from rail to air 

carrier. Travel to Dallas requires a connection with the TRE commuter rail service or other regional 

transit, as noted above. Because the Heartland Flyer and TRE schedules are not coordinated at Fort 

Worth, a rider must wait more than 1 hour to continue to Dallas or DFW. Coordinating the 

commuter rail schedule with the Heartland Flyer would improve service to the Dallas market. 

Limitations in the intercity rail service and poor coordination among carriers, particularly with one 

intercity train per day, create delays and inefficient connections. There is a 1.5-hour wait between 

Heartland Flyer and Texas Eagle connections in either direction, and there is a 5-hour layover in 

Fort Worth between the southbound arriving and northbound departing Heartland Flyer3. An earlier 

 

3 The schedule for the Heartland Flyer can be found at http://heartlandflyer.com/schedule/, and the schedule for the 

Texas Eagle can be found at http://www.texaseagle.com/cgi-bin/via.pl?id=21,22,421,422. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-19 

departure from Fort Worth would reduce the wait, but would limit the ability to remain in Fort Worth 

without an overnight stay. Leisure travelers to Fort Worth account for a much higher percentage of 

riders than those who connect with the Texas Eagle, so an earlier departure might discourage day 

trippers. TRE does not coordinate its schedule with the Heartland Flyer, so there can be a long 

delay for passengers traveling to DFW (ODOT 2012). 

The Oklahoma Long Range Transportation Plan (PB and ODOT 2010) identified the lack of local 

intermodal connections at the Heartland Flyer station in Oklahoma City. A collaboration of agencies 

in central Oklahoma has planned for an intermodal transit hub that includes passenger rail service 

(including high-speed rail), local transit service, and adjacent transit-oriented development. The 

plan focuses on the Santa Fe Station, which is the current location of the Heartland Flyer service. 

The Oklahoma Long Range Transportation Plan identified the following passenger rail weaknesses 

related to inefficient connections:

 Rail congestion with Class I railroads causes passenger rail delays. 

 Regional, rural, high-speed, and Amtrak services are operating or being pursued, but there is a 

lack of coordination between these efforts. 

 Heartland Flyer connection times with the Texas Eagle are long, with a scheduled 1.5-hour delay 

in either direction, which discourages passenger rail use.

 A single round-trip per day for the Heartland Flyer discourages use. 

1.4.2.4 Local governments require regional support to improve interregional connectivity. 

As outlined in the Oklahoma Long Range Transportation Plan, to meet environmental and 

sustainability goals, the urbanized areas are planning for increased sustainability in development 

and transportation. A collaboration of agencies in central Oklahoma has planned for an intermodal 

transit hub that would include passenger rail service (including high-speed rail), local transit 

service, and adjacent transit-oriented development (ACOG 2011). Intermodal connectivity and 

transit-oriented development require collective actions from multiple levels of transportation 

planning, and these plans need to be considered for any enhanced passenger rail that would serve 

Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Long Range Transportation Plan rail weaknesses described above 

require regional transportation agency coordination and support to improve interregional 

connectivity. 

1.5 Central Section – Purpose and Need 

Central Section – Purpose 

The purpose of the Program in the Central Section is to provide efficient and reliable intercity 

passenger rail service along the corridor from Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio that is 

competitive with other travel options. Specific objectives include the following: 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-20 

 Provide efficient intercity rail service to DFW, as a more environmentally sustainable option to 

commuter flights, and provide regional connectivity for long-distance passengers upon arrival 

and departure.

 Provide connecting service to major regional air carrier services such as Austin-Bergstrom 

International Airport (AUS) and DFW, where passenger rail becomes the regional leg of a longdistance domestic or international journey. 

 Provide a viable transportation option compared to continued expansion of IH-35. 

 Avoid conflicts with freight rail operations and congested track areas.

 Provide direct, intercity rail service between Dallas and Fort Worth. 

 Provide opportunities for interconnected service with other planned intercity passenger rail 

services (such as the proposed high-speed rail from Dallas to Houston).

 Provide intermodal connections with transit in served urban areas.

 Protect the carrying capacity of freight rail. 

Central Section – Need 

Multiple transportation, land use, socioeconomic, and environmental considerations drive the need 

for the Program in the Central Section, including the following: 

 Changing transportation demand of an increasing transit-dependent population requires an 

alternative mode.

 Inefficient and infrequent rail service limits ridership. 

 Increasing congestion and unreliable travel times on both the existing highway and rail services 

require an alternative interregional service. 

 Poor and declining air quality requires more sustainable modes of travel. 

The following sections discuss the specific considerations that drive the need for the Program in the 

Central Section.

1.5.2.1 Changing transportation demand of an increasing transit-dependent population requires 

an alternative mode. 

The Central Section of the Program corridor connects three of the four largest metropolitan areas in 

Texas, extending 247 miles from Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio, through Austin, the state 

capitol. The Central Section’s growing and increasing transit-dependent population is changing

travel demands. The U.S. Census Bureau (2011) lists populations of 1,981,967 for Dallas and Fort 

Worth; 1,359,758 for San Antonio; and 820,611 for Austin. With the exception of the Dallas and 

Fort Worth to Houston corridor, which had a 2000 population of 9,983,833, the Central Section 

had the highest 2000 population, at 8,667,241 (TTI 2010). The population along the Central 

Section corridor is projected to increase by 2.15 percent per year through 2040 (TTI 2010), which 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-21 

increases the highway congestion and travel demand, as described in Section 1.5.2.3. In addition, 

increasingly congested highways, particularly during peak travel hours, and air travel delays 

associated with lengthy lines for security checks and adverse weather conditions make other travel 

modes more attractive. 

Changing demographics and land use patterns create a need for travel options. Development in 

Texas is concentrated along its intercity corridors. Compared to other intercity corridors in Texas, 

the Central Section has the highest elderly and student populations, both of which are dependent 

on transit. By 2040, the Central Section is projected to have the highest percentage (18.6 percent) 

of persons over 65 years old and the greatest number (3,908,853) of elderly persons (TTI 2010). 

As their ability to safely drive automobiles decreases, the elderly will seek alternatives (PB and 

ODOT 2010). One option is intercity bus service, which is primarily provided by Greyhound, with 

additional services provided by Megabus, offering four trips per day along the IH-35 corridor and

serving Dallas, Grand Prairie, Austin, and San Antonio. Passenger rail can provide another travel 

option. 

1.5.2.2 Inefficient and infrequent rail service limits ridership. 

Linking three of the four largest metropolitan areas in Texas, the Central Section has the highest 

level of intercity travel demand in the state. Therefore, the Central Section has substantially higher 

automobile and truck volumes than any other intercity corridor in the state, primarily concentrated 

on IH-35. These volumes are projected to increase steadily through 2035, increasing congestion

(TTI 2010).

Intercity passenger rail service is limited between the urban centers in the Central Section. The 

Texas Eagle is the only passenger rail service in this part of the Program corridor, providing the 

southernmost portion of daily Amtrak service between Chicago and San Antonio and traveling from 

Fort Worth to San Antonio through Temple and Austin. In Fort Worth, there is a connection with the 

Heartland Flyer with one train in each direction to Oklahoma City. In San Antonio, there is a 

connection with the Sunset Limited running three days per week in each direction between Los 

Angeles and New Orleans, with seven stops in Texas. Most passenger train travelers are not 

engaged in intercity service within Texas; only 23 percent of Amtrak rail trips ending in Texas 

originate within the state. As an option to intercity passenger rail and to supplement limited 

passenger rail service, Greyhound Lines and Amtrak Thruway motor coach provide intercity travel 

services. With limited passenger train service and delays, vehicle travel is faster and more efficient 

than intercity passenger rail (TTI 2010). 

In contrast to rail ridership, air travel between the Central Section termini (Dallas and Fort Worth to

San Antonio) is characterized by the highest passenger volumes of any other intrastate air service 

connection. With the exception of the Dallas and Fort Worth to Houston connection (about 3 million 

passengers in 2008), air travel demand from Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio is more than 

twice the demand of any other Texas intrastate air travel connection. However, air passengers do 

not arrive or depart from the point of final destination; they require another mode to get to the 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-22 

airport and their destination. Regional planning agencies, including the North Central Texas Council 

of Governments, have identified as a priority connecting communities to airports that provide longhaul flights and provide a modal option to short-haul flights (TTI 2010). Table 1-3 shows segmentlevel air service for 2012 in the Central Section. 

As noted by Amtrak, passenger rail service is more fuel-efficient and environmentally sustainable 

than air and automobile travel (Amtrak 2013). However, limitations in intercity passenger rail 

service in the Central Section may discourage passengers from changing to a passenger rail travel 

option. While commuter rail systems provide service in several metropolitan areas in the Central 

Section, they do not provide interregional connections. Planning for a regional passenger rail 

service between Austin and San Antonio has been underway for over 10 years by the Lone Star Rail 

District, but that proposed service remains in the planning phase as it addresses the need for 

access to the existing freight rail line and evaluates options for design and construction funding.

Commuter rail systems include the TRE, operated by DART and the Fort Worth Transportation 

Authority; the A-Train north of Dallas, operated by the Denton County Transportation Authority; and 

MetroRail, operated by the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Austin. A light rail 

system also operates in Dallas; a light rail service had been planned in Austin but funding for that 

proposed service was not supported in a November 2014 bond measure. Intermodal connections 

between intercity passenger rail and these regional systems are not coordinated and are not 

efficient for travelers (TxDOT 2010a). Although inefficient and infrequent rail service limits 

patronage, high volumes of air passengers prove there is demand for interregional connectivity, 

which would be enhanced by intermodal connections.

Table 1-3: Segment-Level Air Service Summary for Program Corridor – 2012 Actual

Airport Pair Annual Passengers Annual Seats Annual Scheduled Departures 

DFW-ACT 88,644 135,458 2,780

DFW-AUS 1,178,168 1,375,156 9,812

DFW-GRK 187,134 300,167 6,131

DFW-LRD 75,387 115,039 2,539

DFW-MFE 111,396 172,411 1,283

DFW-OKC 542,303 654,928 4,727

DFW-SAT 1,146,608 1,320,858 7,326

DAL-AUS 727,298 993,924 7,326

DAL-OKC 257,822 415,849 3,044

DAL-SAT 807,168 1,109,772 8,260

AUS-HRL 56,455 89,124 656

BRO-DFW 40,012 62,752 1,310

CRP-DFW 183,711 238,268 5,023

HRL-SAT 84,534 186,284 1,152
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-23 

Airport Pair Annual Passengers Annual Seats Annual Scheduled 

Departures 

ACT = Waco Regional Airport

AUS = Austin-Bergstrom International Airport

BRO = Brownsville/South Padre Island International 

Airport 

CRP = Corpus Christi International Airport

DAL = Dallas Love Field

GRK = Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport

HRL = Valley International Airport

LRD = Laredo International Airport

MFE = McAllen International Airport

OKC = Will Rogers World Airport

SAT = San Antonio International Airport

Source: USDOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2012b). 

1.5.2.3 Increasing congestion and unreliable travel times on both the existing highway and rail 

services require an alternative interregional service. 

The Central Section closely parallels the IH-35 corridor connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, Austin, 

and San Antonio. In 2006, traffic levels in this corridor, at 66,939 vehicles per day, were higher 

than on any comparable corridor in Texas, with the exception of the Dallas and Fort Worth to 

Houston corridor (TTI 2010). By 2035, traffic volume on the Central Section of IH-35 will reach 

178,452 vehicles per day, representing an average increase of almost 3.5 percent per year 

(TTI 2010). This projected traffic volume is nearly double the rated roadway capacity and will create 

extensive travel delays, with peak-hour travel speeds reduced to as low as 15 mph without 

additional capacity improvements. As stated in Section 1.3.2.1, congestion and intensity of freight 

movement affect traveler and business connectivity. Automobile and bus transportation are 

vulnerable to delays caused by congestion, and these delays increase costs for business and 

travelers. 

There is also congestion in the rail corridors serving the Central Section. In the Fort Worth area, a 

centrally located rail intersection poses a rail congestion and safety challenge. At Tower 55, 11 

major North American freight and passenger rail routes converge in a single intersection where 

two north-south lines cross an east-west line. This major crossing is close to the Fort Worth ITC, and 

as a result, passenger trains serving the transportation center are delayed by freight train traffic 

transiting through the crossing. Congestion along the north-south corridor is anticipated to increase 

over the next 20 years. One hundred trains per day use this intersection, which is operating above 

90 percent capacity, making it one of the most congested rail intersections in the United States. 

Options have been suggested to address this key crossing, and a third north-south line was 

completed in 2014 as a short-term solution; however, no long-term solution to Tower 55 has moved 

forward. Increasing congestion on both the highway and rail lines requires an alternative 

interregional service. 

1.5.2.4 Poor and declining air quality requires more sustainable modes of travel. 

As discussed in Section 1.3.2.3, the counties surrounding the northern portion of the Central 

Section do not meet the federal air quality standard for ozone. The high vehicle volumes and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-24 

resulting congestion on IH-35 could further increase localized ozone concentrations by emitting 

ozone precursors (nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds). Traffic congestion in the Central 

Section is projected to increase considerably because this section not only connects the other 

regions of Texas, but also the larger IH-35 corridor across the central United States. Improving air 

quality with more sustainable travel options, described in Section 1.3.2.3, is beneficial to local and 

regional air quality and is urgent for the Central Section with ozone concentrations that exceed the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

1.6 Southern Section – Purpose and Need 

Southern Section – Purpose 

The purpose of the Program in the Southern Section is to provide efficient and reliable intercity 

passenger rail service from San Antonio to south Texas that is competitive with other mode options. 

Specific objectives include the following: 

 Provide an equitable and affordable intercity travel alternative. 

 Meet future intercity travel demand along the IH-35, IH-37, and U.S. Highway 281 (US-281) 

corridors.

 Provide opportunity for efficient international cross-border travel. 

 Coordinate with and do not negatively affect freight rail operations or facilities. 

 Meet the region’s air quality attainment goals.

In addition, there is a desire to have an option to extend passenger rail service to Monterrey, 

Mexico, based upon previous passenger rail operation and upon the interest and support 

expressed for this option during the EIS scoping period.

Southern Section – Need 

Population and economic growth in the Southern Section will increase intercity passenger travel 

demand beyond that which can be accommodated by the existing highway and air travel systems. 

Air service options available in the Southern Section are limited. Specific needs for the Southern 

Section include the following: 

 Regional and cross-border travel is constrained by uncompetitive trip times, poor reliability, and 

low levels of passenger convenience. 

 Poor and declining air quality requires more sustainable modes of travel.

The following sections discuss the specific considerations that drive the need for the Program in the 

Southern Section. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-25 

1.6.2.1 Regional and cross-border travel is constrained by uncompetitive trip times, poor 

reliability, and low levels of passenger convenience. 

In the Southern Section, travel issues include capacity limitations, lack of passenger rail, and high 

cost and limited connectivity associated with air travel.

1.6.2.1.1 Travel demand and capacity limitations 

Between 2000 and 2010, the Brownsville area added more than 70,000 residents — an overall 

growth rate of 21.2 percent and a compound annual growth rate of 1.94 percent (Texas 

Department of State Health Services 2010). These growth rates are slightly higher than the Texas 

average. The population in Corpus Christi and surrounding areas, including Nueces and San 

Patricio Counties, increased by 14.1 percent between 2000 and 2010 with more than 54,000 

additional residents (Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization 2009). The population in 

the Laredo area has more than doubled since 1970 and is expected to increase at an annual rate 

of 2.7 percent. Population growth increases the highway congestion and travel demand described 

in Section 1.3.2.3. 

Commercial truck traffic is heavy on highways and freight traffic is heavy on freight railroad lines in 

the border areas of Brownsville and Laredo. Between San Antonio and Brownsville (via Corpus 

Christi), average daily vehicle and truck traffic is expected to increase by approximately 120 

percent and 125 percent, respectively, from 2002 to 2035. Average speed is expected to decrease 

from 58 to 45 mph between 2002 and 2035 (Table 1-1). Between San Antonio and Brownsville (via 

Laredo), average daily vehicle and truck traffic is expected to increase by approximately 153 

percent and 175 percent, respectively, from 2002 to 2035. Average speed is expected to decrease 

from 53 to 37 mph between 2002 and 2035 (Table 1-1) (TTI 2010). Longer delays occur as 

travelers compete with freight traffic crossing the Texas-Mexico border and using the transportation 

network near the border. 

Both sides of the Texas-Mexico border depend on continued growth of freight movement. 

Brownsville and Laredo are along an industrialized international border, which increases truck and 

freight movement on the highway and freight rail system. There is increasing freight movement 

demand from oil and gas industry operations, resulting in increasing numbers of trucks hauling 

hazardous materials. Truck and freight movement creates competing demands with vehicle travel 

along the roadways. Intercity passenger rail service in the Southern Section corridor would provide 

a reliable travel option to avoid increasingly congested highways associated with the industrialized 

international border. 

1.6.2.1.2 Lack of intercity passenger rail service and travel demand 

Passenger rail service is not currently available in the Southern Section. Although bus and air 

transportation options are available, there is no reliable linkage between the industrial 

development areas in south Texas and the other economic centers to meet increasing traveler 

demand. Greyhound, other bus operators, and Amtrak provide motor coach service from San 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-26 

Antonio to the southern border region. Mexico-based bus companies, some of which are 

subsidiaries of U.S. companies, provide intercity motor coach service between and through many 

Texas cities along their routes. Key points of U.S. entry from Mexico in the Program corridor include 

Laredo and Brownsville. 

Multiple, robust freight rail lines serve the border areas in the Southern Section, operating on the 

following three Class I railroads: UPRR, BNSF, and Kansas City Southern. At Brownsville and Laredo, 

freight rail service extends into Mexico. Future passenger rail service using these railroad lines 

would need to preserve the freight rail service and allow for future growth in freight rail (TxDOT

2010a). 

Private bus operators provide cross-border travel. However, these services are vulnerable to 

congested roadways and have long border wait times as buses queue to cross the border daily. 

These bus services can be delayed because of increased truck movement, and they need to stop 

frequently, which affects passenger convenience. Greyhound is the primary carrier along the 

Program corridor, and its subsidiary Valley Transit operates most of the service in the Southern 

Section. Valley Transit/Greyhound operates 15 trips per day in each direction over the Dallas/Fort 

Worth/San Antonio/Laredo route and nine trips in each direction between San Antonio and 

southern Texas. The Valley Transit/Greyhound Service connects the Lower Rio Grande Valley to 

Houston, San Antonio, and Laredo. In addition, the Valley Transit/Greyhound lines provide direct 

intercity bus services from Corpus Christi to Houston, San Antonio, and Laredo. 

The Central Section and the Laredo portion of the Southern Section have an estimated average of 

2,900 to 4,200 daily bus passenger trips (1,450 to 2,100 in each direction), and approximately 

1,900 to 2,600 of those daily passenger trips are within the Program corridor (Goldberg 2013). The 

remaining 1,100 to 1,600 trips have an origin or destination outside the Program corridor 

(predominantly in Mexico). 

Several Hispanic intercity bus companies provide service in Texas, especially along the LaredoDallas corridor. Turimex Internacional, Omnibus Express, Tornado, El Expreso, and El Conejo are the 

primary Hispanic carriers operating in Texas cities. Private buses provide intercity connections from 

Laredo and Brownsville to San Antonio and areas farther north (as far as Chicago). In some cases, 

these bus companies have developed station hubs in Texas. Existing station hubs in the Program 

corridor include San Antonio, Laredo, and Brownsville. 

More than 80 percent of bus operations in the Southern Section continue beyond San Antonio to 

the Mexican border. Many of these buses cross the border and provide service to Mexico. 

Approximately 50 percent of the passengers along these routes are making a cross-border trip. 

Intercity bus traffic in the Southern Section corridor could be diverted to passenger rail. 

The Brownsville/Corpus Christi/McAllen portion of the Southern Section has less intercity bus 

service than the Laredo portion. Greyhound, El Expreso, and Tornado provide nearly 20 round-trips 

per day between this region and Houston, while Valley Transit/Greyhound and El Expreso provide

only 10 round-trips per day to San Antonio and locations along the IH-35 corridor. This portion of 
TBG092314012951SCO 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 1-27 

the Southern Section generates 540 to 700 passenger trips per day (250 to 350 in each direction) 

to San Antonio.

Greyhound provides intercity bus services from Laredo to San Antonio, where passengers can 

connect with passenger rail services, specifically with the daily Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited 

trains, which operate three times per week. Other intercity bus services from Laredo are provided 

by Greyhound/Valley Transit and Americanos USA to Austin, Dallas, and Houston.

1.6.2.1.3 Airport access and connectivity 

Commercial airports in the Southern Section are in Laredo, Corpus Christi, McAllen, Harlingen, and 

Brownsville. Regional airlines provide most of the commercial air operations for these airports 

(other than SAT), including service to other destinations in Texas. Enplanements at these airports 

are expected to increase from 2010 through 2025, and none of these airports is expected to 

exceed capacity. Only SAT has a planned capacity enhancement project, to be implemented by 

2025; none of the other airports requires such a project (TTI 2010). While capacity is not an issue, 

an efficient and safe intercity travel option is needed for travelers who cannot afford or choose not 

to use commercial air service. In addition, access to and from these airports requires additional 

transportation modes. 

1.6.2.2 Air quality concerns require more sustainable modes of travel. 

The Corpus Christi area is in air quality attainment, but historically was close to exceeding federal 

air quality standards (TCEQ 2007; EPA 2016). The area is considered an urban airshed, in which air 

emissions from sources interact to influence the level of ambient air pollution in the community. 

There is a concentration of mobile and point sources of air emissions, including power plants, 

chemical plants, military facilities, petroleum refineries, and on-road and off-road vehicles. 

Laredo is in an air quality attainment area; however, airborne particulate matter caused by dry 

climate, frequent winds, unpaved streets, diesel trucks, and traffic congestion are becoming a 

concern in the Laredo metropolitan area. Increasing truck and vehicle traffic can affect the spread 

of particulate matter. As noted in Section 1.3.2.4, the Southern Section needs to improve air 

quality, which supports investigating a more sustainable travel option such as intercity passenger 

rail. 

TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-1 

2.0 Alternatives 

This chapter describes the alternatives evaluated in this service-level environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (Study). Section 2.1 describes the 

alternatives development and screening process. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 describe the No Build 

Alternative and build alternative routes and service types.1 Section 2.4 discusses costs and funding 

for future implementation of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program (Program). Section 2.5 

describes those alternatives considered during the screening process, but eliminated from further 

consideration. 

2.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process 

This section describes the process used to develop and evaluate alternatives for passenger rail 

within the Study Vicinity.2 The alternatives screening process included the following steps: 

collecting stakeholder input; developing a range of initial route alternatives; performing an Initial 

Feasibility Screening of the route alternatives; and performing a structured route alternatives 

analysis to identify alternatives to be evaluated further. 

Stakeholder input was collected during the Study scoping process. Public scoping meetings and

individual meetings with key stakeholder groups (including local jurisdictions, local transportation 

planning groups, and railroads) were held in March and April 2013. Key components of this scoping

effort are described in Appendix A, Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program Scoping Report (Texas 

Department of Transportation [TxDOT] 2013a). General issues identified through public and 

stakeholder comments included reducing impacts on farmland and natural resources, integrating

new passenger rail with existing or planned transportation and transit, and identifying potential 

station locations. After the scoping process, a range of initial route alternatives and three service 

types (conventional rail, higher-speed rail, and high-speed rail) that could provide additional or new 

passenger rail service between Oklahoma City3 and south Texas were developed. Route 

alternatives followed the existing railroad network or the existing interstate highway network when 

possible, and followed new alignment corridors when necessary to accommodate higher operating 

speeds. An Initial Feasibility Screening assessed the route alternatives for fatal flaws, such as 

 

1 In this service-level EIS, “route alternative” refers to the specific route or corridor that a potential alignment follows 

(for example, the C4A route alternative), and “service type” refers to the speed or category of rail transportation (i.e., 

conventional rail, higher-speed rail, high-speed rail), while “alternative” refers specifically to a route alternative inclusive 

of a service type (e.g., Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail).

2 For descriptions of EIS Study Area and Study Vicinity, see Chapter 3.0, Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences. 

3 Edmond, Oklahoma, was selected as the northern point of the Northern Section alternatives based on preliminary 

ridership forecasts and early stakeholder input obtained during the alternatives analysis process. While Edmond is 

used in the EIS analysis as the actual northern terminus, Oklahoma City is the city name used in the overall 

descriptions. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-2 

inability of route corridors to accommodate necessary design speeds or conflicts with freight rail. 

This screening process is described in detail in Appendix B, Initial Development of Alternatives 

Technical Memorandum (CH2M 2013). The potentially feasible route alternatives identified in the 

initial screening were carried forward for a route alternatives analysis. 

The route alternatives analysis compared route alternatives and service-type options in three 

geographic sections (Northern, Central, and Southern) against evaluation criteria that focused on 

access, cost, operations, infrastructure, and environmental impact. Route alternatives that did not 

perform well against the evaluation criteria were eliminated from further consideration. The route 

alternatives analysis, and subsequent stakeholder input, resulted in a set of route alternatives 

carried forward for further evaluation. The sections below provide more detail about the Initial 

Feasibility Screening and the route alternatives analysis.

2.1.1 Initial Feasibility Screening 

As part of the Initial Feasibility Screening, route alternatives with service types were developed for 

three geographic areas: the Northern Section (Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth), Central 

Section (Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio), and Southern Section (San Antonio to South Texas). 

In addition, Metroplex alternatives were developed to connect Dallas and Fort Worth. The route 

alternatives were based on the alignments of existing transportation networks with corridors 

potentially suitable for passenger rail operations (the existing railroad network and the existing 

interstate highway network), or were located on new alignments outside existing transportation 

corridors. In subsequent steps of the alternative selection process, additional route alternatives 

were added as a result of stakeholder input, including for example, additional high-speed rail 

alternatives between Dallas and Fort Worth. 

The range of route alternatives considered in the Initial Feasibility Screening, with their respective 

service types for each geographic section, are listed in Table 2-1. 

Table 2-1: Route Alternatives Considered in the Initial Feasibility Screening

Geographical 

Section Endpoints 

Initial Route 

Alternative Service Typesa 

Northern Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort 

Worth

N1 HrSR, HSR

N2 HrSR, HSR

N3 CONV 

N4 CONV, HrSR

Central Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio

C1 CONV, HrSR

C2 HrSR, HSR

C3 CONV 

Southern San Antonio to South Texas

S1 CONV 

S2 CONV, HrSR

S3 CONV 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-3 

Geographical 

Section Endpoints 

Initial Route 

Alternative Service Typesa 

S4 HrSR, HSR

S5 CONV, HrSR

Metroplex Dallas and Fort Worth

M1 CONV, HrSR

M2 HrSR, HSR

M3 CONV, HrSR

a CONV = conventional rail (up to 79 to 90 miles per hour [mph]); HrSR = higher-speed rail (up to 110 to 125 mph); 

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

These routes were initially screened to determine overall feasibility by considering two sources of 

information. The first source of information was the Oklahoma City to South Texas Infrastructure 

Analysis (TxDOT 2013b). That report evaluated the possibility of operating high-speed or higherspeed rail in the rights-of-way of interstate highways within the Study Vicinity. The findings of that 

report established that interstate highways are designed with curve radii too small for high- or 

higher-speed rail operation, that railroad vertical clearance needs are often higher than highway 

clearances at existing overpasses, and that many operational limitations of both highways and 

railroads make shared rights-of-way problematic for all but short stretches of a new rail alignment. 

The second source was information provided by the Class 1 railroads (owners of the existing major 

operating rail lines in the EIS Study Area) regarding the level of existing and potential future freight 

rail traffic and how that freight traffic might affect the feasibility of adding or expanding passenger 

rail service on these rail lines. 

Figure 2-1 shows the route alternatives considered in the Initial Feasibility Screening. Some route 

alternatives include alignment options, which are identified separately on the figure (e.g., 

Alternatives N4A and B, or S4A, B, and C). 

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-4 

Figure 2-1: Screened Initial Route Alternatives
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-5 

Route alternatives were eliminated from further consideration for two reasons. Some were 

eliminated because they would use a railroad right-of-way where the addition of passenger rail 

traffic would be infeasible due to existing and potential future freight traffic volume. Others were 

eliminated because they use a shared highway right-of-way for most of their length, which would be 

infeasible because, as noted above, the highway designs would not be compatible with passenger 

train operation. Additionally, these highway corridors are constrained by existing dense 

development and, therefore, locating the routes adjacent to the highways would also not be 

feasible. For these reasons, the following route alternatives were eliminated: 

 N3 (uses Interstate Highway [IH]-35 corridor) 

 C3 (uses IH-35 corridor)

 S1 (uses IH-35 corridor)

 S3 (uses IH-37 corridor)

 M3 (uses railroad right-of-way)

One of the highway alignment alternatives considered at this screening level (high-speed rail over 

IH-30 between Dallas and Fort Worth) was retained because the North Central Texas Council of 

Governments has reserved space on the highway for an elevated high-speed railway alignment 

(CH2M 2012) and requested that it be included in the EIS.

2.1.2 Route Alternatives Analysis 

The alternatives carried forward for the route alternatives analysis are shown on Figure 2-2. These 

alternatives include both those carried forward from the Initial Feasibility Screening, as well as the 

following three route alternatives that were added based on stakeholder input:

 C4A. This route alternative would be similar to Alternative C2B, but would use corridors outside 

existing transportation networks to allow high-speed rail beginning north of Hillsboro and 

continuing to San Antonio. This alternative was added based on stakeholder interest in

expanded use of high-speed rail and reduced journey times in one of the most heavily traveled 

portions of the corridor. 

 C4B. This route alternative would extend south from Arlington between Fort Worth and Dallas to 

Hillsboro, then would follow the same alignment as Alternative C4A. This alternative was added 

in response to stakeholder interest in an option providing direct, high-speed service from the 

Arlington area to points south without having to go to Dallas or Fort Worth first. 

 S6. This route alternative would extend from San Antonio to the Laredo-Colombia Solidarity 

Bridge northwest of Laredo in a corridor outside existing transportation networks to allow highspeed rail. It was added as a result of stakeholder meetings in Laredo.

In addition, to streamline the route alternatives analysis, the Metroplex alternatives were 

incorporated into Northern Section and Central Section route alternatives. For example, Alternative 

N4A was combined with Alternative M2 so that Alternative N4A would extend from Edmond, 

Oklahoma (just north of Oklahoma City) to Fort Worth and then Dallas.
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-6 

Figure 2-2: Route Alternatives Carried Forward into the Route Alternatives Analysis 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-7 

To evaluate and compare the route alternatives, screening criteria were established to determine 

how well the route alternatives would fulfill the Program’s purpose and need and meet local and 

regional goals, the level of stakeholder support, and the potential for environmental impacts. The 

criteria were grouped into the following four categories: alternative attributes, operational criteria, 

infrastructure criteria, and environmental criteria. The criteria and the measure used to evaluate 

each are listed in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Route Alternatives Analysis Screening Criteria 

Criterion 

No. Criterion Measure 

ALTERNATIVE ATTRIBUTES 

1a Access to stations Total population of cities served by stations

1b Access to stations with endpoint 

cities removed

Total population of cities served by stations with 

endpoint cities removed

2 Ridership for each alternative Ridership (annual trips)

3 Length of route Length of route in miles

4 Cost to construct alternative Total capital cost for alternative ($)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA 

5 Revenue/operating cost ratio Revenue/operating cost (%)

6 Reduce travel times Time reduction versus automobile 

7 Enhance mode share on rail Rail mode share (%)

INFRASTRUCTURE CRITERIA 

8 Capital cost per passenger-mile Capital cost per passenger-mile ($)

9 Minimize right-of-way/real estate 

impacts 

Acres of non-transportation right-of-way within EIS 

Study Area

10 Provide additional improvements 

to national railroad network

Professional judgment (value of improvements and 

risk reduction evaluation)

ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIAa 

Minimize Impacts on Natural Resources 

11a Wetlands Acres within EIS Study Area

11b Critical habitat Acres within EIS Study Area

Minimize Impacts on Cultural/Recreational Resources 

12a National and State Historic Places Number of historic sites
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-8 

Criterion 

No. Criterion Measure 

12b River and stream crossings Number of river and stream crossings (proxy for 

likelihood of finding cultural resources along 

alternative because archaeological resources are 

often found along waterways)

12c Parks and open space Acres within EIS Study Area

Minimize Impacts on Social Resources 

13a Prime farmland Acres within EIS Study Area

13b Sensitive receptors Number of schools, places of worship, and hospitals 

within study area

13c Environmental justice Number of census blocks with % minority greater than 

state

a In the route alternatives analysis, the EIS Study Area for environmental impacts was a 500-foot-wide area along 

each alternative, unless the alternative used existing infrastructure. 

Route alternatives screening was based on the measures and methodology established for each 

criterion (for detailed methodologies and results tables, see Appendix C, Texas-Oklahoma 

Passenger Rail Study Route Alternatives Analysis [TxDOT 2014a]). Alternatives were eliminated 

that did not meet a criterion threshold or that ranked considerably lower than other alternatives 

within the same geographic section. Table 2-3 lists the alternatives and indicates whether each was 

recommended to be dismissed or carried forward for further evaluation. 

Table 2-3: Route Alternatives Analysis Recommendations

Route Alternativea Service Typeb 

Routes Alternative Analysis 

Recommendation 

N1A CONV and HrSR Dismiss 

N1B CONV and HrSR Dismiss 

N2 HrSR and HSR Dismiss 

N4A

CONV Carry Forward 

HrSR Dismiss 

N4B CONV and HrSR Dismiss 

N4C CONV and HrSR Dismiss 

C1 CONV and HrSR Dismiss 

C2A CONV and HrSR Dismiss 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-9 

Route Alternativea Service Typeb 

Routes Alternative Analysis 

Recommendation 

C2B

CONV Carry Forward 

HrSR Dismiss 

C4A HrSR and HSR Carry Forward 

C4B HrSR and HSR Carry Forward 

S2 CONV and HRSR Dismiss 

S4

HrSR Carry Forward 

HSR Dismiss 

S5

CONV Carry Forward 

HrSR Dismiss 

S6

HrSR Carry Forward 

HSR Carry Forward 

a N = Northern Section, C = Central Section, S = Southern Section.

b CONV = conventional rail (up to 79 to 90 mph); HrSR = higher-speed rail (up to 110 to 125 mph); HSR = high-speed 

rail (up to 220 to 250 mph). 

The rationale for carrying alternatives forward is described below, and the rationale for dismissing 

route alternatives is included in Section 2.5, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Future 

Consideration. 

 Alternative N4A (Conventional). This alternative would include most of the same rail line that 

has been upgraded by TxDOT and Oklahoma Department of Transportation as part of an 

ongoing passenger rail improvement program and, therefore, would represent a good use of 

resources that can be further built-upon. Although Alternative N4A would not meet the revenueto-operating-cost threshold, it would have the lowest capital cost per passenger-mile of the 

Northern Section route alternatives. 

 Alternative C2B (Conventional). This alternative would have the lowest capital cost of the 

Central Section alternatives and among the highest revenue-to-operating-cost ratios. It would 

also avoid crossing the congested Tower 55 rail intersection in Fort Worth.

 Alternative C4A and Alternative C4B (Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail). These 

alternatives would have the highest revenue-to-operating-cost ratio and the biggest travel time 

savings compared to automobile travel. In addition, these alternatives would be comparable to 

other alternatives in the Central Section in terms of potential environmental impacts. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-10 

 Alternative S4 (Higher-Speed Rail). Although this alternative would have the greatest potential 

impact on parks and open space, it is the longest alternative, by a factor of 2 or 3, to serve the 

population centers that contribute to operational performance. So although the environmental 

criterion value would be highest for this alternative, this condition could be avoided with projectlevel refinement of the route and would not be expected to be a fatal flaw. 

 Alternative S5 (Conventional) and Alternative S6 (Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail). 

These alternatives would allow extension to Monterrey, Mexico. Without that extension, these 

alternatives would not be recommended to be carried forward because they would not meet the 

revenue-to-operating-cost ratio threshold. Alternative S5 would have the highest revenue-tooperating-cost ratio and the lowest capital cost per passenger-mile for the Southern Section 

alternatives. 

After the route alternatives analysis, input from stakeholders eliminated two additional alternatives 

and added one alternative. Alternatives C2B Conventional and S5 Conventional were eliminated

because of potential conflicts with existing freight rail service. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed and 

High-Speed Rail was added as a result of input from stakeholders in Fort Worth. This alternative 

would be identical to Alternative C4A but would connect Hillsboro to Fort Worth, which would allow 

direct service to Fort Worth. With these changes, the following alternatives have been carried 

forward for further evaluation: 

 Northern Section: Alternative N4A with conventional rail

 Central Section: Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C with higher-speed rail and high-speed rail

 Southern Section: Alternative S4 with higher-speed rail and Alternative S6 with higher-speed rail

and high-speed rail

These alternatives are shown on Figure 2-3 and are described in Section 2.3, Build Alternatives. 

2.2 No Build Alternative 

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

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

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

travel in the Study Vicinity, as well as maintenance and planned improvements to these systems. 

The sections below describe existing and planned roadway, passenger rail, and air travel in the 

Study Vicinity. Information was collected from current regional transportation plans within the Study 

Vicinity, as well as web sites describing services such as train schedules. These improvements and 

their evaluation at this service-level stage would require project-specific assessment. Conducting 

project assessments at this stage of the program development process would be speculative; 

however, the evaluation and assessment of potential environmental effects from a cumulative 

perspective has been conducted and is included in Chapter 3.0, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-11 

Figure 2-3: Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Evaluation in This EIS 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-12 

2.2.1 Planned Roadway Projects 

Planned roadway improvement projects within the EIS Study Vicinity were compiled using 

transportation planning documents developed by regional metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in the Study Vicinity. The projects are listed by type and MPO in Table 2-4. 

Table 2-4: Overview of Roadway Projects within the Study Vicinity by Project Type

MPO/County New Road New Toll New HOV Widen Total 

Association of Central Oklahoma 

Governments 

2 18 20

Capital Area MPO 26 16 63 105

Corpus Christi MPO 3 9 12

Harlingen-San Benito MPO 1 1 

Hidalgo County MPO 1 2 37 40

Killeen-Temple MPO 4 7 11

North Central Texas COG 2 62 29 77 170

San Antonio-Bexar County MPO 3 11 7 21

Sherman-Denison MPO 7 7 

Waco MPO 1 11 12

Webb County 1 1 2 

Total 40 94 29 238 401

HOV = high-occupancy vehicle 

Within the Study Vicinity, 49 projects are planned to increase the capacity along IH-35 by 2035. 

Table 2-5 summarizes IH-35 improvements under development according to the planned 

completion date, and Table 2-6 tallies the number of projects by type of improvement. 

Table 2-5: Summary of Roadway Projects along IH-35 within the Study Vicinity by 

Project Year

MPO 2010 2020 2030 2035 Total 

Association of Central Oklahoma 

Governments 3 2 5 

Killeen-Temple MPO 1 2 3 

North Central Texas COG 7 28 1 36

San Antonio-Bexar County MPO 3 3 

Waco MPO 1 1 

Total 1 16 30 1 48
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-13 

Table 2-6: Summary of Roadway Projects along IH-35 within the Study Vicinity by 

Project Type

MPO/County Widen New Toll New HOV Total 

Association of Central 

Oklahoma Governments 5 5 

Killeen-Temple MPO 3 3 

North Central Texas COG 12 10 14 36

San Antonio-Bexar County MPO 3 3 

Waco MPO 1 1 

Webb County 1 1 2 

Total 16 10 23 49

 

2.2.2 Planned Passenger Rail Service 

Passenger rail service in the Study Vicinity includes two Amtrak routes and a network of commuter 

rail service in major metropolitan areas. The Amtrak routes within the Study Vicinity are the 

Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth and the Texas Eagle, which extends from Los 

Angeles to Chicago, with stops in San Antonio, San Marcos, Austin, Taylor, Temple, McGregor, 

Cleburne, Fort Worth, and Dallas. The Heartland Flyer is a conventional rail service running one 

train per day in each direction between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. Studies have been 

performed to consider a second daily round-trip for the Heartland Flyer, but no committed plans 

have been made. The Texas Eagle is a conventional rail service running one train per day in each 

direction between Chicago and San Antonio, with service from Chicago to Los Angeles on Sunday, 

Tuesday, and Friday. There are currently no plans to increase service on the Texas Eagle. 

Passenger rail service in the Study Vicinity also includes regional and commuter rail in the Dallas, 

Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio areas. Additional future planned passenger rail service was 

identified using transportation plans of MPOs within the Study Vicinity. Currently, although other 

MPOs (such as ACOG) are considering future passenger rail, additional passenger rail service 

(including improvements to existing service and new routes) has only been formally planned in the 

Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio areas.

Improved service is planned for two existing commuter rail lines in the Study Vicinity. In the Dallas 

and Fort Worth area, the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) plans to increase the speed and frequency of 

service as demand and budget allow. The METRO Red Line in the Austin area plans to increase 

frequency of service and extend hours of operation. In addition, several new passenger rail lines 

are planned. In some cases, improvement and expansion of commuter rail may depend on 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-14 

availability of funding, which could include bonds or other sources that require approval through a 

ballot measure. These new lines range from expanding existing commuter rail service, such as the 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit, to the new regional high-speed rail service from Dallas to Houston, the 

Texas Central Railway. Planned rail lines are listed in Table 2-7 and are shown on Figures 2-4 and 

2-5. 

Table 2-7: Planned Passenger Rail Routes in the Study Vicinity

Route Name Type of Service (Mode)a Year of Introduction 

Dallas and Fort Worth Area 

Cotton Belt Line Commuter rail 2025

TEX Rail Commuter rail 2020

Cleburne Line Commuter rail 2030

Frisco Line Commuter rail 2030

McKinney Line Regional rail 2030

Mansfield Line Commuter rail 2035

Midlothian Line Commuter or light rail 2035

Scyene Line Light rail 2035

Speedway Line Commuter rail 2035

East/West Line Commuter rail 2035

Waxahachie Line Commuter rail 2030

Dallas – Houston Area 

Texas Central High-speed rail 2021

Austin Area 

Elgin Rail Diesel light rail 2030

Austin and San Antonio Area 

Lone Star Regional rail 2030b

a Commuter rail is defined as passenger service between urbanized areas and outlying areas.

 Diesel light rail is defined as a light rail system using diesel-powered trains.

 High-speed rail is defined as electric rail service operating speeds as high as 220 to 250 mph.

 Light rail is defined as urban street-car type passenger rail service.

 Regional rail is defined as passenger rail service connecting two urban areas.

b Lone Star commuter rail between Austin and San Antonio is a plan and is not included in any of the MPO 

transportation plans.
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-15 

Figure 2-4: Existing or Planned Passenger Rail in the Dallas and Fort Worth Area 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-16 

Figure 2-5: Existing or Planned Passenger Rail in the Austin and San Antonio Areas
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-17 

2.2.3 Planned Airport Projects 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently assessed future airport capacity needs, 

identifying airports and metropolitan areas with the greatest need for additional capacity (FAA

2007). The FAA study examined U.S. airports in the years 2007, 2015, and 2025. No Texas airports 

showed a capacity improvement need for 2007. One airport in the Study Vicinity, San Antonio 

International, showed a need for additional capacity in 2015 and 2025 if planned improvements do 

not occur. According to the San Antonio International Airport Master Plan (San Antonio Airport 

System 2010), capacity-building improvements planned by 2030 include extending one existing 

terminal and building one new terminal.

2.3 Build Alternatives 

The alternatives carried forward for further evaluation are listed in Table 2-8, and shown on 

Figure 2-3. The three service types are described in Section 2.3.1, Service Type Descriptions, and 

the route alternatives are described in Section 2.3.2, Route Alternative Descriptions. 

Table 2-8: Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Evaluation

Route Alternative Service Type 

Northern Section 

N4A CONV

Central Section 

C4A

HrSR

HSR

C4B

HrSR

HSR

C4C

HrSR

HSR

Southern Section 

S4 HrSR

S6

HrSR

HSR

2.3.1 Service Type Descriptions 

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

EIS are described below. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-18 

2.3.1.1 Conventional Rail Service 

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

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

of traffic, and rail rights-of-way may or may not be fenced. Conventional rail service in Oklahoma 

and Texas are shared-use corridors, meaning that the passenger rail service operates on a freight 

rail line owned by a “host” railroad, such as BNSF or UPRR. Amenities on conventional rail trains 

may include dining cars, sleeping cars, and other services, such as wireless internet. The Amtrak 

Texas Eagle is an example of conventional rail.

Conventional rail would typically be operated at speeds 

of 79 to 90 mph and would mostly use existing railroad 

rights-of-way. For conventional rail, existing railroad 

track may be used, or in some cases, modifications 

such as double-tracking (adding a track parallel to an 

existing track or adding a siding to pull trains to the side 

for passing trains) could be constructed within the 

existing right-of-way to accommodate additional trains. 

In general, stops for conventional rail service would 

typically be between 15 and 60 miles apart, and on 

average three to six trains per day would run in each direction, with a maximum of 12 trains per 

day.

2.3.1.2 Higher-Speed Rail Service 

Higher-speed rail is similar to conventional rail in 

several respects. In many cases, higher-speed rail trains 

can run on the same steel tracks that support 

conventional rail service, but higher speeds can require 

improvements such as upgrading wooden ties to 

concrete ties and grade-separating roadway crossings. 

Higher-speed service can use diesel-powered, steelwheeled trains operating on steel tracks that are shared 

with freight trains, or it can operate on dedicated 

passenger tracks or be an electrified rail system 

powered by overhead catenary lines. For the purposes 

of this EIS, higher-speed trains are assumed to be diesel-powered. Amenities offered on higherspeed rail trains are similar to conventional rail. The British First Great Western, operating in 

southern England, is an example of higher-speed rail.

Higher-speed rail would be operated at speeds up to 110 to 125 mph. Where proposed within an 

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

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

Texas Eagle Conventional Rail at 

McGregor Texas 

Photo credit: Brian Hausknecht

British First Great Western Higher 

Speed Rail 

Photo credit: Bruce Horowitz
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-19 

be similar to conventional rail, higher-speed rail could operate on a single track with passing 

locations and would not require double-tracking. Where higher-speed rail is proposed outside an 

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

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

economically feasible in the future. For the purposes of this EIS, unlike high-speed rail, the design

would not include electrification and would include a mixture of single and double track, and some 

at-grade crossings would remain. In some short segments in dense urban areas, existing track 

shared with freight may be used by new passenger rail operated at reduced speeds. Newly 

constructed track would be dedicated exclusively to passenger rail service. 

In general, stops for higher-speed rail service would typically be between 30 and 90 miles apart, 

and on average four to eight trains per day would run in each direction, with a maximum of 12 

trains per day.

2.3.1.3 High-Speed Rail Service 

High-speed rail service includes electric trains powered by 

an overhead power supply system. Train sets are steel 

wheel on steel rail, but are designed to operate at high

speeds with an aerodynamic shape and specialized 

suspension and braking systems. The Shinkansen in 

Japan, the TGV in France and the Chinese High-Speed Rail 

are examples of high-speed rail service. The Dallas to 

Houston High-Speed Rail Project proposed by Texas 

Central High-Speed Railway, LLC and the California HighSpeed Rail Program are other examples of high-speed rail 

service. 

High-speed rail would be operated at speeds up to 220 to 250 mph. The entire right-of-way would 

be enclosed and fully grade-separated. The alignment would be electrified and double-tracked and 

would be dedicated entirely to passenger rail service. Freight trains and other non-high-speed rail 

systems would be prohibited from using the high-speed rail tracks. This service type could only 

reach its maximum speeds of 220 to 250 mph outside existing transportation corridors because 

existing railroad alignments are not compatible with the speeds required and they do not have the 

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

existing transportation corridors or within constrained right-of-way that may impede the design, it 

would operate at lower speeds.

In general, stops for high-speed rail service would typically be between 50 and 100 miles apart, and 

on average 12 to 24 trains per day would run in each direction.

2.3.2 Alternative Descriptions 

The alternatives evaluated in this EIS, shown on Figure 2-3, have been developed to a level of detail 

appropriate for a service-level analysis: the route alternatives represent a potential corridor where 

High-Speed Rail at Shanghai 

Station, China 

Photo Credit: Brian Hausknecht
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-20 

rail improvements could be implemented, but do not specify the precise location of the track 

alignment. Route alternatives in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections could be built as 

individual, stand-alone projects or in combination with alignments in another section. In addition, 

more than one alternative in the Central or Southern sections could be built in the future because 

the alternatives provide service options for different destinations. Details on connecting the

alternatives would be determined during project-level studies. 

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

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

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

to existing tracks depending on the service type. 

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

Alternative S6, an extension from Laredo to Monterrey could follow an alignment that has been 

studied by Mexico, and is therefore considered feasible. This EIS evaluates alignment corridors only 

within the United States; however, the potential extension to Monterrey has been included for 

ridership analysis purposes for Alternative S6, and the Federal Railroad Administration and TxDOT 

have initiated coordination with the Mexican government about the potential extension.

2.3.2.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Due to feasibility based on initial ridership and cost information, only one route alternative and 

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

2.3.2.1.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A would begin in Edmond and follow the BNSF rail 

alignment south to Oklahoma City. The alternative would 

continue south along the BNSF rail alignment to Norman, 

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

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

alternative would continue to Dallas following the TRE tracks. 

From Edmond, Oklahoma, to Dallas, the route would be 

approximately 260 miles long. Because existing freight traffic 

would not preclude passenger service along this section of 

track, the route would provide passenger rail service on the 

existing BNSF track, with potential improvements within the 

existing BNSF right-of-way.

Alternative N4A would provide several improvements over the 

existing Heartland Flyer service. Alternative N4A would increase 

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

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

would extend from Fort Worth to Dallas without requiring a 

transfer (the Heartland Flyer service currently terminates in Fort Worth). In addition, Alternative N4A 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-21 

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

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

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

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

stops, with remaining “local” trains making as many as 12 stops.

2.3.2.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

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

Section: Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C. 

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

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

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

would provide much faster service between Dallas and Fort Worth and Austin and San Antonio—2 

hours versus 8 hours for the Texas Eagle Service. In addition, the Central Section alternatives would 

provide improvements to existing station facilities, and new train equipment. 

2.3.2.2.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A would begin in Fort Worth and follow the TRE 

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

alignment south toward Waxahachie where it would enter a new 

alignment outside existing highway and rail corridors to 

accommodate maximum operating speeds. Though outside

existing transportation corridors, the southern portion of 

Alternative C4A would generally follow the BNSF alignment for 

about 250 miles, extending south from Waxahachie through 

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

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail assumes new diesellocomotive hauled equipment running six to 12 daily round 

trips. Express trains would likely make seven stops with local 

trains making 12 stops.

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail assumes electric-powered, 

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

Express trains would likely make six stops, while local trains 

would make up to nine stops.
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-22 

2.3.2.2.2 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B would serve both Fort Worth and Dallas, with 

trains following a new elevated high-speed alignment over IH-30. 

In Arlington (between Dallas and Fort Worth), the alternative 

would turn south to Hillsboro on an alignment outside existing 

transportation corridors. The alternative would then follow the 

same high-speed alignment as Alternative C4A from Hillsboro to 

San Antonio.

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail assumes new diesellocomotive hauled equipment running six to 12 daily round trips. 

Express trains would likely make seven stops, and local trains 

would make up to 12 stops.

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail assumes electric-powered, highspeed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express trains 

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

eight stops. 

2.3.2.2.3 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed and High Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C would follow the same potential alignment as 

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

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

Worth parallel to the UPRR alignment. Service on the Alternative 

C4C route would operate in a clockwise direction, running from 

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

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

also being compatible with the general service for the C4A

alternatives).

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail assumes new diesellocomotive hauled equipment running six to 12 daily round trips. 

Express trains would likely make seven stops, and local trains 

would make up to 12 stops.

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail assumes electric-powered highspeed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express trains 

would likely make six stops, while local trains would make up to 

nine stops.
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-23 

2.3.2.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

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

rail, and Alternative S6, with higher-speed rail or high-speed rail and a future extension to 

Monterrey. 

2.3.2.3.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 would begin in San Antonio and continue 

southeast along the UPRR alignment to George West, where it 

would continue outside existing transportation corridors to Alice. 

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

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

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

transportation corridors to just east of Laredo in an alignment 

that would allow higher speeds and rejoin the KCS Railway to 

enter the more highly developed Laredo area. The second leg 

would travel south along abandoned railroad tracks to McAllen 

and east to Harlingen and Brownsville. The third leg would travel 

east along the KCS Railway to Corpus Christi.

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail assumes new diesel-locomotive 

hauled equipment running four to six daily round trips. 

Depending on corridor demand model forecasts, the primary 

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

Corpus Christi-Alice-San Antonio, with a connecting feeder from 

Brownsville, Harlingen, and McAllen. 

2.3.2.3.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

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

new alignment outside existing transportation corridors to a 

station near the Laredo-Columbia Solidarity Bridge, which 

crosses the Rio Grande north of Laredo. The alternative would 

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

constructed in Mexico, which would continue to Monterrey. This 

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

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

a connection. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail assumes new diesel-locomotive 

hauled equipment running four to six daily round trips between 

San Antonio and Laredo, which would be the only U.S. stops for 

the alternative. If an extension from Laredo to Monterrey were 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-24 

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

Laredo. 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail assumes electric-powered, high-speed service running eight to 12 

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

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

Laredo. 

2.3.3 Preferred Alternative 

Recommended preferred alternatives have been identified based on differentiating metrics for 

each of the geographic sections in the Program. Metrics that differentiate between alternatives are 

based on the Program purpose and need, as well as the purpose and need for each geographic 

section (see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need). Preferred alternatives are recommended for each 

geographic section separately because the Program does not analyze alternatives that extend 

between Oklahoma City and Laredo/Brownsville, but rather to the endpoint cities of each 

geographic section (Northern, Central, and Southern). In addition, more than one alternative in the 

Central or Southern sections could be built in the future to provide different service options or serve 

different cities. Recommendation of these preferred alternatives does not preclude connectivity 

between geographic sections of the Program, but it does not assume connectivity either. Details 

about how preferred alternatives might connect would be analyzed during project-level analysis 

after completion of the service-level EIS. 

2.3.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Due to feasibility based on initial ridership and cost information, only one route alternative and 

service type is considered feasible in the Northern Section, Alternative N4A Conventional Rail. 

During operation, this alternative would have similar environmental effects as the No Build 

Alternative except for a beneficial effect on passenger transportation because of the proposed 

incremental system and service improvements. Temporary impacts during construction would be 

slightly more than the No Build Alternative. However, the No Build Alternative would not meet the 

purpose and need for the Northern Section and there is a build alternative that is feasible and 

would meet the purpose and need; therefore, the No Build Alternative is not recommended as a 

preferred alternative. Alternative N4A Conventional Rail is the recommended preferred alternative 

for the Northern Section. 

2.3.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

In the Central Section, four key metrics were identified using studies completed for the TexasOklahoma Passenger Rail Study (TxDOT 2016a, 2016b, 2016c) that could be used to differentiate 

between alternatives: 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-25 

 Break-even or profitability4: revenue to operating cost ratio, or the ability for an alternative to 

pay for itself. 

 Capital cost investment5: cost to construct an alternative.

 User (train rider) and Non-user Societal Benefits6: 

- Safety – former highway users switching by choice to train (measured by passenger miles 

traveled diverted from automobile to train); reduction in fatal and non-fatal accidents. 

- Value-of-time – former highway users (and users of other modes, like bus or sometimes air) 

switching by choice to rail (measured by estimated mode-specific number of hours saved); 

less time traveling from ultimate trip origin to ultimate trip destination.

- Cars off the road – reduction in automobile usage.

 Environmental effects: the conclusions on effects for resources analyzed as part of the Study 

Area EIS do not identify important differences between alternatives in the Central Section for 

this service-level evaluation (see Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences). However, there are differences in quantitative measures that can be used to 

support a general ranking of the alternatives, in conjunction with the other differentiating 

metrics.

Based on these differentiating metrics, the recommended preferred alternatives for the Central 

Section are Alternatives C4A High-Speed Rail, C4B High-Speed Rail, and C4C High-Speed Rail. 

Alternatives C4A High-Speed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail are recommended for two primary 

reasons. First, the revenue to operating cost ratio of these two alternatives suggests profitability, 

which in turn would support private investment in construction of the project. Second, the capital 

cost of the C4A and C4B routes would be the lowest among the Central Section alternatives. 

In addition, while conclusions on effects for environmental resources (discussed in Chapter 3, 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences) do not differ greatly between the Central 

Section alternatives, impacts of Alternatives C4A and C4B would likely be quantitatively the lowest 

of the Central Section alternatives because they are the shortest routes (they do not include the 

additional leg between Hillsboro and Fort Worth). Both Alternatives C4A High-Speed Rail and C4B 

High-Speed Rail are recommended as preferred alternatives because a differentiation cannot be 

made between the two routes at the service-level analysis phase. Alternatives C4A and C4B with 

the Higher-Speed Rail service level, however, are not recommended as preferred alternatives 

 

4 Based on analysis completed as part of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study EIS-Phase Business and Financial 

Plan (TxDOT 2016c).

5 Based on analysis competed as part of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study EIS-Phase Capital Investment Plan 

(TxDOT 2016a).

6 Based on analysis competed as part of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study EIS-Phase Public Benefits 

Assessment (TxDOT 2016b).
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-26 

because their potential profitability (as implied by the revenue to operating cost ratio) does not 

likely support privately-funded construction of the higher-speed rail service level for these routes. 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail is not recommended as a preferred alternative for three key 

reasons: a lack of potential profitability (similar to Alternatives C4A and C4B Higher-Speed), 

operating conflicts at the rail intersection known as “Tower 55” located south of Fort Worth, and 

failure to support the Program Purpose and Need by not providing local transportation benefits. 

Operational conflicts at Tower 55 would occur because Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail trains 

would cross the Tower 55 rail intersection at grade a minimum of 14 times per day, which would 

not be compatible with freight operations in one of the most heavily used rail “intersections” in the 

United States. In addition, Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would provide little local area 

transportation benefit in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex because the highly constrained Tower 55 

area would limit operation to clockwise-only service in the Fort Worth-Dallas-Hillsboro loop. 

Passengers returning from Dallas to Fort Worth would have to travel through Hillsboro where they 

wound have to change trains for their return trip to Fort Worth. In contrast, Alternatives C4A and 

C4B would provide symmetrical two-way transportation in the corridor. Because of this lack of local 

transportation benefits, these two alternatives would not support the Program Purpose and Need 

(see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need).

Though Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail shares some of the disadvantages of Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail, strong local stakeholder support for this alternative supports the Program 

Purpose and Need. Therefore, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail is recommended as a preferred 

alternative. There are two ways in which Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail performs better than 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed. First, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would avoid crossing the 

Tower 55 rail intersection at grade by tunneling under or bridging over it. This could cause 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail to be more expensive in terms of capital costs than other Central 

Section alternatives, but it would be feasible to construct and operate. Also, though Alternative C4C 

High-Speed Rail shares the same low level of local transportation benefits in the Dallas-Fort Worth 

Metroplex as Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, it would generate effectively the same level of 

intercity ridership and revenue as the other Central Section alternatives. 

The No Build Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for the Central Section and because 

there are build alternatives that are feasible and would meet the Purpose and Need, the No Build 

Alternative is not recommended as a preferred alternative. 

2.3.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

In the Southern Section, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail is recommended as a preferred 

alternative because this alternative provides public benefits that include meeting more local 

transportation need than any other alternative, which supports the Southern Section purpose and 

need. While potential environmental effects are quantitatively greater for this alternative than the 

other Southern Section alternatives, because it is a longer route, the overall effects conclusions for 

this alternative are the same or less than the other Southern Section alternatives. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-27 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail are recommended as 

preferred alternatives, but only if the alternatives include a connection to Monterrey, Mexico. This is 

because three-fourths of potential ridership on this route would occur only with the connection to 

Monterrey. The higher-speed versus high-speed service levels for this route cannot be further 

analyzed without more information about the Monterrey connection. For example, electric-powered 

high-speed rail would be more compatible with the recommended preferred alternatives in the 

Central Section, which are both high-speed alternatives; however, if higher-speed rail is more 

compatible with the infrastructure in Mexico, it could be preferred. 

The No Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Southern Section. Because 

there are build alternatives that are feasible and would meet the purpose and need, the No Build 

Alternative is not recommended as a preferred alternative. 

2.3.3.4 Conclusion for the Preferred Alternative 

In conclusion, the recommended preferred alternatives for the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail 

Study for each geographic section are as follows:

 Northern Section 

- N4A Conventional

 Central Section

- C4A High-Speed Rail

- C4B High-Speed Rail

- C4C High-Speed Rail

 Southern Section

- S4 Higher-Speed Rail

- S6 Higher-Speed Rail or High-Speed Rail, but only with a connection to Monterrey, Mexico 

2.3.4 Station Cities 

This EIS did not evaluate specific station locations, and no conclusion about the exact location of 

stations will be made as part of this service-level EIS. However, based on ridership data and transit 

connectivity information developed as part of the alternatives analysis (see Appendix D; TxDOT 

2014b) for this EIS, the cities in which stations could potentially be located have been determined. 

In some cities, based on stakeholder input, station locations have been assumed for the purpose of 

this EIS, but a final decision on exact station locations will not be made as part of this EIS. The size 

and design of stations would be appropriate for the service type of the associated route alternative. 

Cities that could have stations are listed in Table 2-9.
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-28 

Table 2-9: Cities with Potential Stations

Oklahoma 

Edmond Pauls Valley

Oklahoma City Ardmore

Norman

Texas 

Gainesville Austin

Fort Worth San Antonio 

Arlington Alice

Dallas Corpus Christi

Waxahachie Harlingen

Waco McAllen

Temple (also serving Killeen) Brownsville

Taylor Laredo

2.4 Costs and Funding 

As part of the alternatives analysis (see Appendix D; TxDOT 2014b), conceptual costs per mile for 

the alternatives were estimated based on standard infrastructure costing categories. As reflected in 

the preferred alternative discussion, a more detailed conceptual-level estimate for capital 

infrastructure costs, rolling stock fleet, operations and maintenance costs, fuel and utility costs, 

and a capital replacement budget for long-life items has been utilized in the evaluation and 

selection process. These estimates were developed in conjunction with the Service Development 

Plan, which includes more refined service plans, potential schedules, train set requirements, and 

other related information. 

Appropriate funding sources for the expected infrastructure investment and next steps will be 

identified. Funding sources could include opportunities for grants, loans, private investment, publicprivate partnership, or joint development efforts by multiple agencies or governments. These 

options will be evaluated in the service development plan after the preferred alternative for the 

service-level EIS has been selected. 

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration 

Based on the route alternatives analysis, as well as subsequent stakeholder input, certain 

alternatives were recommended to be eliminated from further consideration (see Appendix D, 

TxDOT 2014b). These alternatives and a summary of the rationale for eliminating them are 

discussed below. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-29 

2.5.1 Northern Section 

 Alternative N1 (Conventional Rail and Higher-Speed Rail). The revenue-to-operating-cost ratio for 

this alternative (including Alternatives N1A and N1B) would not meet the required threshold for 

conventional service (50 percent cost recovery) or higher-speed service (75 percent cost 

recovery). The anticipated ridership and population access to the proposed station would be 

lower than the other Northern Section alternatives. The significant investment in infrastructure 

required for this alternative would not produce a commensurate increase in ridership. The 

environmental benefits of this route would be similar to other higher-ranked alternatives, which 

provided no compelling reason to further study of this alternative. 

 Alternative N2 (Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail). The revenue-to-operating-cost ratio for 

this alternative would not meet the required threshold for higher-speed service (75 percent cost 

recovery) or high-speed service (100 percent cost recovery). This alternative would have the 

highest potential impact on non-transportation right-of-way, affecting a large number of farm 

properties, and potential environmental effects would be similar to Alternative N4A, which 

ranked higher in terms of operational criteria. The significant investment in infrastructure 

required for this alternative would not produce a commensurate increase in ridership.

 Alternative N4A (Higher-Speed Rail). This alternative would have a capital cost per passengermile six times the cost of other alternatives, and the alternative would provide a lower revenueto-operating-cost ratio than the conventional rail option, indicating that the market for riders is 

saturated at the conventional rail service type and that higher-speed rail would not attract 

additional riders. 

 Alternative N4B (Conventional and Higher-Speed Rail). This alternative would have a much 

higher capital cost per passenger-mile than similar alternatives (N4A and N4C). In addition, this 

alternative would enter the TRE tracks at a location that would make handling the additional 

trains difficult and would require reversing the trains in Dallas Union Station, which would not 

be required by other alternatives. 

 Alternative N4C (Conventional and Higher-Speed Rail). This alternative would have the greatest 

potential for environmental impacts, including the greatest potential impacts on wetlands and

parks and open space. It would traverse a long looping arc through suburban Dallas, creating 

grade-crossing issues and potential delays at a KCS yard along the route. 

2.5.2 Central Section 

 Alternative C1 (Conventional and Higher-Speed Rail). This alternative would have the least 

benefit in terms of travel time, the lowest potential ridership, the lowest revenue-to-operatingcost ratio, the highest cost per passenger-mile, and the potential for significant environmental 

impacts. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

2.0 Alternatives

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 2-30 

 Alternative C2A (Conventional). This alternative would be comparable to Alternative C2B in 

operating performance and environmental issues, but would require trains to cross the 

congested Tower 55 rail intersection in Fort Worth. Obtaining consistent operating slots for 

passenger rail would be unlikely for this crossing, which would severely limit service options.

 Alternative C2A and Alternative C2B (Higher-Speed Rail). These alternatives would have 

significantly higher costs per passenger-mile, but the same revenue-to-operating-cost ratio when 

compared to the Alternative C4 Higher-Speed Rail option. In addition, there would be significant 

capital cost risk in coordinating a joint right-of-way with UPRR. 

 Alternative C2B (Conventional Rail). Subsequent to the route alternatives analysis, input from 

stakeholders resulted in eliminating Alternative C2B (Conventional Rail) because of potential 

conflicts with existing freight rail service.

2.5.3 Southern Section 

 Alternative S2 (Conventional Rail and Higher-Speed Rail). This alternative would have the lowest 

revenue-to-operating-cost-ratio of all the conventional and higher-speed rail alternatives. In 

addition, its cost per passenger-mile would be three times higher than any of the other 

alternatives. 

 Alternative S4 (High-Speed Rail). This alterative would have significantly higher capital cost per 

passenger-mile and a lower revenue-to-operating-cost ratio than the higher-speed rail option, 

indicating that the market for riders is saturated at the higher-speed rail service type and that 

high-speed rail would not attract additional riders. 

 Alternative S5 (Higher-Speed Rail). This alterative would have a significantly higher capital cost 

per passenger-mile with a similar revenue-to-operating-cost ratio compared to the conventional 

rail option. The S4 Higher-Speed Rail option is one-fourth the cost per passenger-mile of the S5 

Higher-Speed Rail option, indicating that there would be no advantage in pursuing this 

alternative. In addition, this alternative would have the highest area of potential wetland effects. 

 Alternative S5 (Conventional Rail). Subsequent to the route alternatives analysis, input from 

stakeholders resulted in eliminating Alternative S5 (Conventional Rail) because of potential 

conflicts with existing freight rail service.
Additional footer style TBG092314012951SCO (JETTNo)

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.0-1 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

This chapter addresses existing environmental conditions and provides an analysis of potential 

effects of the intercity passenger rail service alternatives for the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail 

Study (Study), as required for a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) service-level 

environmental impact statement (EIS). A service-level analysis only evaluates a preliminary 

alignment to represent each EIS alternative, based on conceptual engineering that considered and 

avoided obvious physical or environmental constraints. The service-level analysis reviews 

generalized effects for a large swath within which the project area may occur and reports both the 

potentially adverse and beneficial effects without knowing the exact footprint of the alignment. 

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

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

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

at the project level. The project-level analysis will determine specific project impacts while the 

service-level analysis analyzes and describes the general effects by alternative. The service-level 

analysis includes best management practices (BMPs), design features, and mitigation strategies 

that address effects on a broad, service-level scale. The subsequent project-level analysis would 

include, but not be limited to, these BMPs, design features, and mitigation strategies. 

A broad corridor of study with a width of 500 feet has been identified along each route (EIS Study 

Area). Unless described differently in the resource sections, the EIS Study Area1 is the area, for 

each environmental resource being analyzed, in which potentially affected environmental resources 

in proximity to each alternative are identified. This EIS Study Area provides an envelope that could 

accommodate areas for associated effects, such as necessary roadway shifts, grade separations, 

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

substations, power lines, and maintenance-of-way facilities, as described in Chapter 2, Alternatives. 

Data for potentially affected counties were obtained from the Texas Department of Transportation 

(TxDOT). The area for which the data were collected is identified as the “Study Vicinity.” Typically, 

county-wide data were collected for counties partially or completely within the EIS Study Area. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, the route alternatives were based on the alignments of existing 

transportation networks (i.e., the existing railroad network and the existing interstate highway 

network) with corridors potentially suitable for passenger rail operations,2 or they were located on 

new alignments outside existing transportation corridors. Potential alignments described as 

“following” railway corridors share existing tracks, are located within an existing right-of-way, or are 

generally adjacent to existing tracks, depending on the service type. Alternatives that are outside of 

the existing transportation corridor could have greater indirect effects than those located in the 

 

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

areas to determine impacts and are described in the respective sections for those resources.

2 The term “operations” includes maintenance of passenger rail facilities.
Additional footer style TBG092314012951SCO (JETTNo)

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.0-2 

existing transportation corridor; for example, alternatives outside existing corridors could divide 

neighborhoods or wildlife communities by creating potential new barriers (e.g., to existing roadways 

or wildlife habitat or crossings). 

NEPA requires the consideration of potential environmental impacts in the evaluation of any 

proposed federal agency action. General NEPA procedures are set forth in the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508). This 

chapter organizes the affected environment and environmental consequences discussions into 

environmental resource issues according to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)’s Procedures 

for Considering Environmental Impacts, as set forth in 64 Federal Register 29545, May 26, 1999 

(Environmental Procedures), which includes the evaluation of the following environmental resource 

disciplines: 

 Air Quality

 Water Quality 

 Noise and Vibration

 Solid Waste Disposal

 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

 Wetlands

 Threatened and Endangered Species 

 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

 Coastal Zone Management 

 Energy 

 Utilities

 Geologic Resources 

 Aesthetics and Design Quality Impacts

 Land Use and Prime Farmland

 Environmental Justice, Socioeconomic Environment, and Elderly and Handicapped

 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

 Historic, Architectural, and Non-archaeological Cultural Resources 

 Archaeological Sites

 Travel Demand and Transportation 

 Public Health 
Additional footer style TBG092314012951SCO (JETTNo)

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Project July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.0-3 

In this chapter, each resource analysis contains the following sections, which are described below:

1. Laws, Regulations, and Orders

2. Methodology 

3. Affected Environment 

4. Environmental Consequences

5. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

6. Subsequent Analysis

The Laws, Regulations, and Orders section lists and briefly describes the federal, state, and local 

laws, regulations, and orders applicable to the resource discussion. If one of these levels of 

regulation (federal, state, and local) is not listed, then there are no laws, regulations, or orders of 

that type that apply to the environmental resource being discussed.

The Methodology section provides readers with the process used to gather data and to assess and 

evaluate potential effects. The methodology section lists resource-specific impact types for both 

construction and operations phases of the Program, as well as the implications of conventional, 

higher-speed, and high-speed rail technology, if applicable, to the analysis. 

The Affected Environment section provides the existing context for each environmental resource 

and its basis for analysis of potential impacts. This section describes the presence of the resource 

and the existing environment in the EIS Study Area based on the most recent publicly available data 

or on data collected during field reviews in 2013 and 2014. Existing conditions are described either 

broadly for all Study alternatives within the Northern, Central, and Southern sections or, when 

available, for the EIS Study Area for each alternative, including the No Build and build alternatives. 

For certain environmental resource areas, such as travel demand and transportation, land use, and 

air quality, adopted and programmed land use plans, projected growth, and infrastructure 

improvements can be quantified and used as the basis of comparison for the build alternatives. For 

these resources, the future 2035 condition is described for the No Build Alternative. 

As described in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Service Type Descriptions, there are three passenger rail 

service-types proposed for the Program: 1) conventional rail (which has a higher frequency of trips 

compared with the other service types), 2) higher-speed rail (reaching speeds of up to 110 to 

125 miles per hour [mph]), and 3) high-speed rail (speeds up to 220 to 250 mph). The analyses 

describe whether impacts would differ among rail service types. Several alternatives share the 

same EIS Study Area but are still described separately because there are differences among 

conventional, higher-speed, and high-speed technology that affect the analysis. 

The recommended preferred alternatives are identified in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3, based on 

differentiating metrics for each of the geographic sections in the Study. Metrics that differentiate 

between alternatives are related to the overall Study purpose and need, as well as the purpose and 

need for each geographic section (see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need). The recommended preferred 

alternatives for the Study for each geographic section are as follows: 
Additional footer style TBG092314012951SCO (JETTNo)

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.0-4 

 Northern Section

- N4A Conventional

 Central Section

- C4A High-Speed Rail

- C4B High-Speed Rail

- C4C High-Speed Rail

 Southern Section

- S4 Higher-Speed Rail

- S6 Higher-Speed Rail or High-Speed Rail, but only with a connection to Monterrey, Mexico 

As reflected in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, the No Build Alternative would not fulfill the Program’s 

purpose and need; however, the No Build Alternative is used as a baseline alternative against 

which the build alternatives are compared. The No Build Alternative consists of the existing 

transportation network, including roadway, passenger rail, and air travel, as well as planned 

improvements to these systems. These improvements and their evaluation at this service-level 

stage would require project-specific assessment. Conducting project assessments at this stage of 

the program development process would be speculative; however, the evaluation and assessment 

of potential environmental effects from a cumulative perspective has been conducted and is 

included in Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts. In addition to presenting the No Build Alternative, this 

chapter discusses the Northern, Central, and Southern sections and the 10 alternatives in the 

following order, generally proceeding geographically from north to south: 

 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth

- Alternative N4A Conventional

 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio

- Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail

- Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail

- Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail

- Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail

- Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail

- Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail

 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas (U.S./Mexico border)

- Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail

- Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail

- Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail
Additional footer style TBG092314012951SCO (JETTNo)

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Project July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.0-5 

The Environmental Consequences section presents quantitative and qualitative differences in 

effects among alternatives. The discussion of different effect types describes how the analysis 

incorporates regulatory requirements and standard implementation of specific BMPs. 

This section does not provide a summary of effects for the entire route between Oklahoma City and 

Laredo/Brownsville. More than one alternative in the Central Section or Southern Section could be 

built in the future to provide different service options or serve different cities. Details about how 

alternatives might connect would be analyzed during project-level analysis after completion of this 

service-level EIS. This service-level analysis does not preclude connectivity, but it does not assume 

connectivity either. The analysis provides quantitative information about the presence of resources 

within the EIS Study Area for each alternative and compares it against the No Build Alternative and 

other build alternatives in the same geographic region. The discussion of effects also provides 

qualitative differences in permanent, temporary, and direct and indirect effects that are associated 

with the service-type (conventional, higher-speed, high-speed rail) relative to the environmental 

context (Affected Environment). However, because the 500-foot EIS Study Area does not represent 

the actual footprint of operation or construction phases, the analysis is primarily comparative, 

based on the presence of the resource within the EIS Study Area and the likelihood of effects as 

appropriate for this service-level analysis. 

The potential effects of the build alternatives for each geographic section (Northern, Central, and 

Southern) are described and then categorized by the potential severity of the effect. For this 

service-level analysis, severity of effects is described using the terms negligible, moderate, or 

substantial, which are defined for each resources in the subsequent sections. 

The Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies section presents BMPs, design features, 

and mitigation strategies for each resource evaluation on a broad service-level scale. Each resource 

evaluation includes a list of mitigation strategies that would be further developed during projectlevel analysis. Strategies listed in this section include conceptual avoidance and minimization 

measures for the next phase of design, suggestions for programmatic agreements, and 

descriptions of a range of options for replacing or re-establishing the affected resources. 

The Subsequent Analysis section identifies whether further analysis is needed and recommends 

next steps for each environmental issue area as the Program advances into more detailed analysis 

of the selected alternative. 

TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-1 

 

3.1 Air Quality 

This section describes the air quality effects related to the No Build Alternative and build 

alternatives. Preliminary avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies and further analyses 

needed in the project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis are identified at the 

end of the section. The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the environmental impact statement 

(EIS) Study Area and use of terms such as Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, along with the 

standard organization of each analysis. 

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable legislation, regulations, and orders pertaining to air quality are described below. 

Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and will be addressed 

in project-level analysis. 

3.1.1.1 Federal 

Clean Air Act and National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and CAA Amendments of 1990 established the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for specific criteria pollutants in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50 

to protect public health and welfare. The primary standards are intended to protect the public 

health with an adequate margin of safety. The secondary standards are intended to protect the 

nation’s welfare and account for air-pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, vegetation, and other 

aspects of the general welfare. NAAQS sets standard for the following major air pollutants. These 

pollutants, known as criteria pollutants, are carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), ozone, particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter or less (PM10), particulate 

matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less (PM2.5), and lead (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

[EPA] 2016a). The NAAQS are shown in Table 3.1-1. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) have adopted the 

NAAQS as their state standards (ODEQ 2013a; TCEQ 2014a). 

The criteria pollutants of concern for transportation-related sources such as the Texas-Oklahoma 

Passenger Rail Program (Program) include PM10 and PM2.5 due to diesel locomotive emissions 

(referred to as diesel particulates), CO and NOx due to roadway vehicle emissions, and ozone. 

Ozone is formed in the atmosphere through photochemical reactions between precursor gases 

including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Sources of VOCs and NOx

include emissions from internal combustion engines such as those associated with roadway 

vehicles and diesel locomotives. Diesel and gasoline combustion result in similar levels of VOCs 

and carbon dioxide (CO2) on a gallon-per-gallon comparison. Diesel combustion has slightly higher 

emission rates of NOx than gasoline; however, the difference in NOx emissions rates on a gallon-pergallon basis between gasoline and diesel is not substantial (California Air Resources Board 2013). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-2 

 

Table 3.1-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Primary / 

Secondary 

Concertation 

Averaging Time NAAQS Threshold 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

(CO) 

Primary 8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per 

year 1-hour 35 ppm 

Lead Primary and 

Secondary 

Rolling 3-month 

averagea 

0.15 

μg/m3 

Not to be exceeded 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

(NO2) 

Primary 1-hourb 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 

Primary and 

Secondary 

Annualc 53 ppb Annual mean 

Ozone (O3) Primary and 

Secondary 

8-hour (2015 

Standard)d 

0.070 

ppm 

Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-

hr concentration, averaged over 3 years 

Particulate 

Matter 

(PM2.5) 

Primary Annual 12 

μg/m3

Weighted annual mean, averaged over 

3 years 

Secondary Annual 15 

μg/m3

Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 

Primary and 

Secondary 

24-hour 35 

μg/m3

98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 

Particulate 

Matter 

(PM10) 

Primary and 

Secondary 

24-hour 150 

μg/m3

Not to be exceeded more than once per 

year on average over 3 years 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

(SO2) 

Primary 1-hour 75 ppbe 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years 

Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per 

year 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-3 

 

Pollutant Primary / 

Secondary 

Concertation 

Averaging Time NAAQS Threshold 

a Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect 

until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for 

the 1978, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard 

are approved. 

b To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each 

monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb. 

c The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose 

of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard. 

d Final rule signed October 26, 2015. 

e Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in that same 

rulemaking. However, these standards remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 

standard, except in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in 

effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved. 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

ppb = parts per billion 

ppm = parts per million 

Source: EPA (2016a). 

The CAA requires EPA to classify areas in the country as attainment or nonattainment, with respect 

to each criteria pollutant, depending on whether the areas meet the applicable NAAQS. Areas 

classified as “attainment areas” comply with the applicable NAAQS. Areas once classified as 

nonattainment that have since demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS are classified as 

“maintenance areas.” Maintenance areas are required to implement the EPA-approved 

maintenance plan to maintain the standard under NAAQS. Areas not in compliance with the NAAQS 

are classified as “nonattainment areas.” The CAA requires each state to produce and regularly 

update a state implementation plan (SIP) for each criteria pollutant that violates the applicable 

NAAQS. SIP is an enforceable plan developed at the state level that serves as a tool to avoid and 

minimize emissions of pollutants to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. 

General Conformity 

The EPA Final Conformity Rule implements Section 176(c) of the CAA, as amended in 42 United 

States Code 7506(c). This rule was originally published in the Federal Register on November 30, 

1993, and took effect on January 31, 1994. In March 2010, EPA revised the Final Conformity Rule 

and published it in the Federal Register in April 2010. EPA’s conformity rule requires federal 

agencies to ensure that any federal action resulting in emissions of any nonattainment or 

maintenance criteria pollutants conforms with the approved or promulgated state or federal 

implementation plans for attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically, this means ensuring that 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-4 

 

the federal action will not (1) cause a new violation of NAAQS, (2) increase the frequency or severity 

of existing violations of NAAQS, or (3) delay the timely attainment of NAAQS interim or other 

attainment milestones. 

NEPA 

Signed into law on January 1, 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental 

effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions. In 1978, the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) issued regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) to implement NEPA. These regulations 

are binding on all federal agencies. The regulations address the procedural provisions of NEPA and 

the administration of the NEPA process, including the preparation of environmental assessments 

and EIS documents to assess the likelihood of impacts from alternative courses of action. 

Air Toxics 

In addition to the criteria pollutants, EPA also regulates air toxic emissions. Controlling air toxic 

emissions became a national priority with the passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990, whereby 

Congress mandated that EPA regulates 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. EPA 

has assessed this expansive list in its latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a 

group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in its Integrated Risk 

Information System (http://www.epa.gov/iris/). In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with 

significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale 

cancer risk drivers from its 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/); these compounds are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, 

diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, 

naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While EPA has regulations to limit the emissions of air 

toxics, there are currently no federal or state ambient air quality concentration standards for air 

toxics. 

Greenhouse Gases 

In addition to regulating criteria pollutants, in accordance with the CAA Section 202(a) and the Final 

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings, greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutants are also 

regulated at the federal level (EPA 2014). CEQ released revised draft guidance on the consideration 

of GHG in NEPA documents for all federal actions on December 18, 2014. The revised guidance 

established a reference point of 25,000 metric tons of CO2-e emissions on an annual basis, below 

which a quantitative GHG emissions analysis is not warranted (CEQ 2014). The draft CEQ guidance 

is still under review, and currently there is not a quantitative federal threshold to address GHG 

emissions and the impacts on climate change at the project level. 

Since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 clarified that CO2 is an “air pollutant” subject to regulation 

under the CAA, EPA embarked on developing requirements and standards for GHG emissions from 

mobile and stationary sources under the CAA. However, currently there are no NAAQS or de minimis
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-5 

 

thresholds in place for GHG. The following summarizes the main GHG regulatory initiatives recently 

undertaken by EPA in the transportation sector: 

 EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are taking steps to enable the 

production of a new generation of clean vehicles, through the reduction of GHG emissions and 

improved fuel use. Together, the enacted and proposed standards are expected to save more 

than 6 billion barrels of oil through 2025 and reduce more than 3,100 million metric tons (MT) 

of CO2 emissions (EPA 2016b). 

 EPA is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation 

fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. By 2022, the 

Renewable Fuel Standard Program, which was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

anticipates reducing GHG emissions by 138 million MT, equivalent to the annual emissions of 

27 million passenger vehicles (EPA 2016b). 

GHGs are air emissions that are addressed on a regional or national level. Although no ambient air 

quality standards have been established for GHGs, the federal government has established a goal 

of reducing GHG emissions from transportation-related activities. The goal will be attained by 

implementing the following four strategies: 

1. Use low carbon fuels including ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, 

synthetic fuels, hydrogen, and electricity. 

2. Increase vehicle fuel efficiency by developing and bringing to market advanced engine and 

transmission designs, lighter-weight materials, improved vehicle aerodynamics, and reduced 

rolling resistance, which would result in lower fuel use (U.S. Department of Transportation 

2010). 

3. Improve transportation system efficiency through traffic management and bottleneck relief, 

as well as by lowering speed limits on national highways. 

4. Reduce carbon-intensive transit activity by implementing transportation pricing strategies, a 

few examples being a fee per vehicle-mile traveled (VMT) of about 5 cents per mile, an 

increase in the motor fuel tax of about $1.00 per gallon, or pay-as-you-drive insurance. Also, 

significant expansion of urban transit services, in conjunction with land use changes and 

pedestrian and bicycle improvements, would be included (U.S. Department of Transportation 

2010). 

To date, no national standards have been established regarding GHGs, nor has EPA established 

criteria or thresholds for ambient GHG emissions pursuant to its authority to establish motor vehicle 

emission standards for CO2 under the CAA. However, there is considerable scientific literature 

addressing the sources of GHG emissions and their effects on climate, including reports from the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, EPA, and other 

federal agencies. Given their characteristic rapid dispersion into the global atmosphere, GHGs are 

different from other air pollutants evaluated in federal environmental reviews because the effects 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-6 

 

are not localized or regional. From a quantitative perspective and in terms of both absolute 

numbers and types, global climate change is the cumulative result of numerous and varied natural 

and anthropogenic emissions sources (Texas Department of Transportation 2015). 

3.1.1.2 State 

Air quality is regulated in Oklahoma at the state level by ODEQ as specified by the Oklahoma 

Administrative Code Title 252 Chapter 100 (ODEQ 2013a). Oklahoma has a Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan consistent with federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations to 

protect the state’s one Class 1 area, the Wichita Mountains, which is located 60 to 90 miles west of 

the EIS Study Area (ODEQ 2013b). Oklahoma does not have any areas that are classified as 

nonattainment or maintenance areas according to the NAAQS. 

Although all regions of Oklahoma are in attainment or unclassified with the NAAQS, the Association 

of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG) participated in the EPA 8-Hour Ozone Flex program to 

implement voluntary reduction measures to control ground level ozone formation and set a 5-year 

plan in place for Central Oklahoma in June 2008 (40 CFR Part 81 Subpart C Section 107). Activities 

associated with the 5-year plan concluded in June 2013. In 2012, ACOG registered with EPA for 

participation in the EPA’s Ozone Advance Program, where participants have agreed to take 

proactive steps toward improving air quality. EPA will assist these areas to help identify, evaluate, 

select, and implement measures and programs tailored to their needs (ACOG 2012). Programs that 

are being implemented as a part of ACOG’s advance voluntary program are the Oklahoma City 

metro area’s Compressed Natural Gas and Alternative Fuels Programs (EPA 2013). Oklahoma 

currently has two SIP revisions pending submission to EPA in regards to the NAAQS 2008 primary 

and secondary 8-hour ozone standards and the 2010 primary SO2 standard (ODEQ 2014). 

Air quality is regulated in Texas at the state level by under Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Part 1 

Chapters 101 through 122 (TCEQ 2013a). Texas has developed a SIP to manage emissions on a 

state-wide and regional basis. Revisions to the SIP incorporate changes in regulations and 

attainment status of regions. The most recent state-wide revision was the Regional Haze update, 

which was approved by EPA in March 2014. Texas has also adopted SIP revisions for the Dallas 

and Fort Worth area, which predominantly target stationary sources in the region and the AustinRound Rock, San Antonio, and Corpus Christi area ozone planning activities (TCEQ 2014a). 

Methodology 

The methodology for analysis adheres to the regulatory review requirements which are outlined in 

the section above. The general approach was to determine the existing ambient air quality 

conditions using data collected by national ambient air quality stations, evaluate the potential 

change in air emission under the Program and across the proposed alternatives relative to the No 

Build Alternative, and evaluate the changes relative to the existing conditions. 

3.1.2.1 Types of Impacts Evaluated 

Potential regional and/or localized air quality impacts were evaluated for the following general 

categories: 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-7 

 

 Short-term Construction Effects: Construction effects on air quality are generally short term and 

are due to the emissions from construction equipment, fugitive dust from ground-level 

disturbances, on-site materials processing and handling such as concrete plants, and vehicle 

emissions from increases in local traffic congestion. The potential construction impacts on air 

quality are evaluated based on the intensity of the construction activities and duration of the 

construction of the Program and corresponding alternatives. The longer the construction period 

and the more non-road construction equipment used (such as cranes, bulldozers, heavy duty 

trucks, and concrete batch plants), the greater the potential for construction effects on air 

quality. 

 Long-term Regional Effects: Long-term regional effects on air quality were evaluated based on 

both the direct and indirect emissions from operation of the Program. Ridership data from the 

Federal Railroad Administration’s CONNECT model were used to determine the ridership and 

mode share information. Detailed emission evaluations are in Appendix A of the Air Quality 

Technical Study (see Appendix E of this Draft EIS). Long-term regional effects were evaluated 

based on emissions from the following sources. 

- On-Road Vehicle Emissions: The Program would reduce passenger VMT and subsequently 

reduce vehicle emission in the region due to people switching from driving to riding the 

trains. Regional vehicle emissions were evaluated based on the VMTs within the EIS Study 

Area and the vehicles emission factors from EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator model. 

- Diesel Locomotive Emissions: Railroad activity releases emissions, primarily from fuel 

combustion during diesel-powered train operations. Emissions from diesel locomotives were 

calculated using Emission Factors for Locomotives (EPA 2009) and the train schedules 

developed in the Transportation Technical Study (see Appendix L of this Draft EIS). 

- Airplane Emissions: The Program could potentially change emissions from airplanes when 

passengers select traveling by trains instead of airplanes. The number of airplanes per day 

in each region was obtained from the travel demand model. The Federal Aviation 

Administration’s Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System estimates the emissions 

generated from a specified number of landing and take-off cycles and was used to estimate 

airplane emissions. Emissions from airport ground support equipment were also included in 

this evaluation. 

- Power Generation Emissions: Electrical train operation requires additional power to be 

generated by power plants. While these emissions would not be located directly adjacent to 

the railway, they are accounted as indirect emissions from the Program in the regional 

emissions evaluations. The power demands due to propulsion of the electrical trains were 

calculated based on average engine size and the associated electrical demand. Indirect 

emissions from power demand of the stations and other supporting facilities are expected to 

be minimal in comparison to the emissions from other Program emission sources; therefore, 

these emissions are not included in this service-level analysis. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-8 

 

- Localized Vehicle Emissions: Localized vehicle emissions would occur if a large amount of 

diesel vehicles or equipment congregate at a single location because substantial emissions 

of criteria pollutants or air toxics from mobile or stationary sources would accumulate. 

Localized emissions effects were evaluated qualitatively in this analysis, because detailed 

localized impacts evaluation of CO, PM, or air toxics requires project-specific information 

that is not currently available. 

 GHG Effects: GHG emissions from the Program would be due to fossil fuel combustion of 

vehicles, diesel trains, airplanes, and power plants that provides electricity to meet the 

Program’s power demand. Potential change in GHG emissions from implementation of the 

Program were calculated for the same sources and categories as identified above for long-term 

regional effects. 

3.1.2.2 Intensity of Effects Criteria 

The air quality effects are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial as compared to the 

No Build Alternative. 

A substantial effect on air quality would have some or all of the following characteristics: 

 Short-Term Construction Effects: Construction emissions would be determined to have 

substantial adverse short-term effects if construction activities would generate air emissions in 

a quantity and location that would have the potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of 

an ambient air quality standard or generate fugitive dust or other pollutants to a level that would 

be a nuisance. There are no beneficial short-term effects from construction for air quality. 

 Long-Term Regional Operational Effects: 

- Regional Adverse Effects: Regional adverse effects would be substantial if the net increase 

in emissions of criteria pollutants is greater than 100 tons per year between the No Build 

Alternative and the build alternatives. 

- Regional Beneficial Effects: Substantial beneficial effects on air quality are based on a 

noticeable reduction in air emissions due to the Program. Although a substantial reduction 

may not directly result in a change of attainment status for a region, it would cause or 

contribute to an overall measureable and continued improvement to the air quality in the 

region. The improvement could be due to a reduction of criteria pollutants, air toxics, or GHG 

emissions. A regional beneficial effect on GHG emissions would occur if the Program is 

consistent with federal, state, or local GHG reduction strategies. 

 Localized Adverse Effects: A localized adverse effect would occur if the Program would cause a 

localized air emissions increase with the potential to cause violation of the NAAQS; cause or 

contribute to a substantial air toxic emission increase that exposes sensitive populations to a 

high level of air toxic concentrations; or result in a stationary source that could not be permitted 

by the local regulatory agency due to a local increase in air emissions. For this service-level 

analysis, there is insufficient project-specific data available to make a determination regarding 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-9 

 

potential for substantial local effects. Therefore, where an alternative would have a higher 

potential for localized vehicle emissions of CO, PM, or air toxics, a detailed project-level localized 

effects analysis is recommended. 

 GHG Effects: Substantial regional adverse effects would occur when the Program or the 

Program design are inconsistent with federal, state, and local emission reduction goals. A 

regional beneficial effect would occur if the Program is consistent with the federal, state, or 

local GHG-reduction goals. 

 A moderate effect would be noticeable, but overall the emissions and effects would be less than 

a substantial effect. Specifically, the effects would be moderate if the net increase in emissions 

from operations of criteria pollutants is less than 100 tons per year between the No Build 

Alternative and the build alternatives. A proportional reduction in short-term constructionrelated emissions and fugitive dust would result in a moderate effort. 

 A negligible effect is one that would result in similar or limited emissions compared to the No 

Build Alternative and would result in no noticeable change. Construction emissions would be 

determined to have negligible short-term effects if construction activities generate air emissions 

in a quantity and location that would not have the potential to cause or contribute to any 

exceedance of an ambient air quality standard and would also not generate fugitive dust or 

other pollutants to a level that would be a nuisance. 

3.1.2.3 General Conformity 

For project areas located in nonattainment and maintenance areas under NAAQS, the project would 

be subject to the general conformity rule and required to demonstrate compliance with the 

conformity requirements. The EPA Final Conformity Rule requires that total direct and indirect 

emissions of nonattainment and maintenance criteria pollutants, including ozone precursors (VOC 

and NOx), be considered in determining conformity. If a federal action meets de minimis

requirements established in 40 CFR 93.153(b), detailed conformity analyses are not required. 

General conformity applicability analysis (e.g., to demonstrate that project emissions would be less 

than the general conformity de minimis levels) would be conducted at the project level for each 

project that is located in Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment or maintenance areas. Further conformity 

determination will be required if the emissions exceed the de minimis levels for the nonattainment 

or maintenance pollutants. 

Affected Environment 

3.1.3.1 Overview 

The EIS Study Area for air quality is composed of the regional air basins that the Program corridor 

would go through. Air quality in nearby air basins could also be affected by changes in travel 

patterns, VMT, and regional pollutant transport resulting from the alternatives, but likely at a much 

lower level than in the Program corridor. For this service level analysis, potential effects on air 

quality are evaluated only for the air basins (i.e., regions) that physically contain the alternatives. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-10 

 

Table 3.1-2 summarizes the general climate, existing air quality, attainment status, and major 

emission sources for each of the regions in the EIS Study Area. Of all these regions, only the DallasFort Worth area is designated as nonattainment for ozone and lead 2008 standard, and in 

maintenance for lead 1978 standard. The Dallas-Fort Worth area is in attainment or unclassified 

for all other pollutants. Other regions of the study area are in attainment or unclassified for all 

pollutants. Specific details about the air quality plans and activities and the ambient air quality 

conditions of each region are included in the sections below. 

Table 3.1-2. General Climate and Existing Air Quality Conditions 

Study 

Segment 

Air Basin 

(Region) 

Counties and 

Main Cities 

Attainment/ 

nonattainment a 

Weather / 

Topography 

Main Sources 

of Air 

Emissions 

Northern 

Section: 

Oklahoma 

City to 

Dallas-and 

Fort Worth 

Central 

Oklahoma 

Intrastate Air 

Quality Control 

Region 

Oklahoma City; 

Garvin, 

Murray, Carter, 

and Love 

Counties 

Oklahoma: 

Attainment for all 

criteria pollutants 

Frequent winds, 

long hot summers 

and shorter 

milder winters; b,c

mostly flat with 

rolling hills 

Power plants, 

industrial, and 

mobile 

sources j

Northern Texas Cooke County Attainment 

Central 

Section: 

Dallas andFort Worth 

to San 

Antonio 

Dallas-Fort 

Worth – 

Arlington Basin 

Dallas, Fort 

Worth, 

Arlington; 

Denton, 

Tarrant, 

Dallas, 

Johnson, Ellis, 

and Collins 

Counties 

Dallas-Fort WorthArlington Area: 

Nonattainment 8-

hour ozone 

Collins County: 

Nonattainment, 

lead (2008 

standard), 

Maintenance 

(1978 standard) 

Attainment/unclas

sified for other 

criteria pollutants 

Humid 

subtropical 

climate with hot 

summers; 

continental 

climate with 

generally mild 

winters; d

rolling hills 

Power plants, 

industrial, and 

mobile 

sources (onroad and offroad) i

Austin-Round 

Rock 

Austin, San 

Antonio; Hill, 

McLennan, 

Falls Bell, 

Williamson, 

Travis, and 

Caldwell 

Counties 

Attainment: 

Unclassified for all 

criteria pollutants 

Humid 

subtropical 

climate with hot 

summers and 

relatively mild 

winters but with 

sudden cold 

fronts; e 

elevations range 

from 400 feet to 

1,000 feet above 

sea level 

Power plants, 

industrial, and 

mobile 

sources i
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-11 

 

Study 

Segment 

Air Basin 

(Region) 

Counties and 

Main Cities 

Attainment/ 

nonattainment a 

Weather / 

Topography 

Main Sources 

of Air 

Emissions 

Southern 

Section: 

San 

Antonio to 

South 

Texas 

San Antonio Guadalupe 

and Bexar 

Counties 

Attainment/ 

unclassified for all 

criteria pollutants 

Humid 

subtropical 

climate with hot 

summers and 

relatively mild 

winters; elevation 

ranges from 550 

to 1,000 feet 

above sea level f

In rural areas, 

agricultural 

dust and soil 

disturbances; 

In other areas: 

power plants, 

industrial, and 

mobile 

sources (onroad and offroad) i

Southern 

Texas 

Laredo / Along 

the TexasMexico border; 

sparsely 

populated.g

Attainment/ 

unclassified for all 

criteria pollutants 

Semi-arid region 

results in lower 

precipitation than 

other Gulf Coast 

regions; low, 

rolling hills. 

In rural areas 

Agricultural 

dust and soil 

disturbances; 

In other areas 

Power plants, 

industrial, and 

mobile 

sources (onroad and offroad) i

Corpus Christi 

in the Rio 

Grande Valley 

Region 

Attainment/ 

unclassified 

Subtropical 

climate h

a EPA (2016c). 

b Oklahoma Climatological Survey (2014). 

c U.S. Census (2013); Oklahoma Climatological Survey (2014). 

d National Climatic Data Center (2014); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2014a). 

e U.S. Census (2013); NOAA (2014b). 

f

 National Climatic Data Center (2014); NOAA (2014c). 

g U.S. Census (2013). 

h National Climatic Data Center (2014). 

i

 TCEQ (2014a). 

j

 ODEQ (2013b). 

GHG emissions are not limited to regional boundaries but are global. GHG emissions from 

transportation have been growing steadily in recent decades. In 2014, GHG emissions from 

transportation accounted for about 26 percent of total GHG emissions in the United States, making 

it the second largest contributor of U.S. GHG emissions after the electricity sector. GHG emissions 

from transportation have increased by 17 percent since 1990 (EPA 2016b). The majority of 

transportation sector GHG emissions result from fossil fuel combustion. CO2 is the largest 

component of these GHG emissions. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-12 

 

3.1.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

While all of Oklahoma is in attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants under NAAQS, ACOG 

has been proactive in its planning to reduce mobile source emissions—cars and trucks—which 

account for approximately 60 percent of the region’s pollution, and is currently implementing plans 

to increase participation in public fleet conversions, the use of public transportation, and ridesharing programs. Also, ACOG is participating in EPAs 8-hour Ozone Flex Program to implement 

voluntary reduction measures to control ground-level ozone formation (ACOG 2012; EPA 2008). 

Oklahoma’s Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind 

Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 Air Quality Standards was partially 

approved by EPA in 2012, with a revision submitted in 2013 pending EPA approval. The SIP 

demonstrates that Oklahoma does not have a significant impact on ozone or PM2.5 nonattainment 

for any other state, and does not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (ODEQ 

2013b). 

In Texas, the counties in the Dallas and Fort Worth area, including Denton, Tarrant, Dallas, Johnson, 

and Ellis are designated as moderate nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard 

and serious nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. To show progress towards 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, on July 2, 2014, TCEQ adopted the Attainment 

Demonstration SIP Revision that includes the Dallas and Fort Worth area, a Reasonable Further 

Progress SIP Revision, and revisions to Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Chapter 115 into the 

Texas SIP. EPA approval of these revisions is pending (TCEQ 2014b). 

Starting at the northern border of Denton County, this area is in a nonattainment area for ozone. 

Consequently, activities in this region are subject to the TCEQ 2014 Five-Year Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan Revision (TCEQ 2014c) and emissions of ozone precursors, NOx and VOC, are 

more tightly regulated. TCEQ adopted the 2014 Five-Year Regional Haze SIP Revision on February 

26, 2014, which implements further reductions in the NOX emissions caps for electricity-generating 

units that went into place in 2015 and continues with clean diesel and motor vehicle programs as 

the primary method to address the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

A portion of Collin County is a nonattainment area for the 2008 lead standard and a maintenance 

area for the 1978 lead standard (TCEQ 2013b). 

As required by general conformity, because the alignment passes through an ozone nonattainment 

area, the Program must be consistent with the SIP and not create a local violation of an air quality 

standard. A detailed conformity demonstration would be performed at the project level for 

alternatives located within the nonattainment or maintenance areas. 

3.1.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, as 

published on April 30, 2004 (69 Federal Register 23858) are eligible to participate in EPA’s 8-Hour 

Ozone Flex Program. The program is implemented through a voluntary intergovernmental 

agreement (Memorandum of Agreement [MOA]) among EPA, TCEQ, and the local communities. The 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-13 

 

proposed alignment travels through Austin, which is a participant in the MOA (EPA 2008). The 

Austin-Round Rock 8-Hour Ozone Flex MOA commits the Austin-Round Rock area to continuing the 

implementation of the Early Action Compact SIP and voluntary emission reduction measures. The 

MOA also includes applying for Texas Emission Reduction Plan grants, when available; 

Transportation Emission Reduction Measures; regional rideshare program; inviting five or more 

additional cities to join the area's Clean Air Coalition and becoming signatories to the MOA; 

implementing a watch/warning ozone alert system for the area; implementing AirCheck Texas local 

initiative projects with Low Income Repair Assistance Program funds; and road paving projects. 

From the Austin-Round Rock air basin, the proposed alignment travels along Interstate Highway 35 

into the San Antonio air basin, traversing Guadalupe and Bexar counties, which are in the San 

Antonio air basin. The San Antonio air basin was designated as attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard by EPA on April 2, 2008 (Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 64, pages 17897 to 

17901). There are no further SIP requirements for the existing standard as long as the area 

continues to be in monitor attainment for the standard. 

In the region south of the Dallas-Fort Worth air basin to the Austin-Round Rock air basin, and 

between the Austin-Round Rock air basin and San Antonio air basin area, sources including 

agricultural dust and soil disturbances are major contributors to air pollution. In the Austin-Round 

Rock air basin and San Antonio air basin, the predominant contributors to air pollution are point 

sources, including power plants and industrial facilities, and mobile emissions combined (both road 

and non-road) (TCEQ 2014a). 

3.1.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The areas in the Southern Section are in attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants under 

NAAQS. The areas in the southwestern portion of Texas have historically lower ambient background 

concentrations of air pollutants than those found in more developed counties. The Corpus Christi 

area manages ozone precursors in accordance with the Ozone Flex Plan (TCEQ 2007). 

Corpus Christi was designated as attainment by EPA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A 5-year 

agreement was signed in 2007 for Nueces and San Patricio counties to participate in the Ozone 

Flex Program for the 8-hour ozone standard, which encourages 8-hour ozone attainment areas 

nationwide to reduce ozone emissions to continue to meet the NAAQS for ozone (EPA 2008; TCEQ 

2014a). 

In the rural regions, outside the San Antonio air basin and Corpus Christi air basin, the predominant 

contributors to air pollution are area sources including agricultural dust and soil disturbances. In 

the San Antonio air basin and Corpus Christi air basin, the predominant contributors to air pollution 

are point sources, including power plants and industrial facilities, and mobile emissions combined 

(both on-road and off-road) (TCEQ 2014a). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-14 

 

Environmental Consequences 

3.1.4.1 Overview 

This sections discusses the air quality effects due to the implementation of the Program. Impacts 

were evaluated for the short-term construction emissions, long-term regional operational 

emissions, localized impacts of vehicle emissions of CO, PM, and air toxics, and GHG emissions. 

Determinations of level of impacts are based on the impact criteria presented in Section 3.1.2.2. 

In general, alternatives located in a nonattainment or maintenance area would have a greater 

potential for effects on air quality due to the already degraded state of air quality. Additionally, 

alternatives that have higher concentrations of air pollutants located near areas of higher 

population have the potential to expose more people to air pollutions. Each type of service 

(conventional rail, higher-speed rail, and high-speed rail) has general characteristics that would 

have similar effects regardless of alternative. Construction effects were evaluated not on the type 

of service, but based on the potential size and scale of construction. The operational effects by type 

of service are summarized, and the long-term regional effects are similar for all alternatives 

evaluated unless otherwise noted. 

3.1.4.1.1 Short-Term Construction Effects 

The Program would involve construction of the rails and other facilities, such as stations and 

maintenance yards, that support the operation of the rail system. These construction activities can 

result in short-term increases in dust and equipment-related emissions in and around the 

construction site. Exhaust emissions during construction would be generated by fuel combustion in 

motor vehicles and construction equipment, and particulate emissions would result from soil 

disturbance, earthwork, and other construction activities. Construction vehicle activity and 

disruption of normal traffic flow may result in increased motor vehicle emissions within certain 

areas. 

Construction of the build alternatives would have the potential to cause temporary air quality 

impacts, and the extent of the impact would vary slightly based on alternative. In general, the 

degree of adverse construction effects is proportional to length of new rail proposed to be 

constructed, number of grade separations, number and size of new facilities, relationship of the 

alignment to populated areas, and the duration of construction at each site. The more non-road 

construction equipment used; the greater the potential for construction effects on air quality. 

Therefore, the alternatives with shorter alignments, smaller right-of-way footprints, and/or using 

existing infrastructure and alignments would result in fewer effects on air quality from construction. 

Construction sites located farther from populated areas would have less potential to cause air toxic 

effects on sensitive populations. Additionally, within the EIS Study Area, the Dallas and Fort Worth 

area is classified as a nonattainment area for ozone. Therefore, construction activities in the Dallas 

and Fort Worth area would have a greater potential effect on air quality than other regions due to 

the higher ambient background of ozone and ozone precursors. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-15 

 

Regardless of the differences in alternative service types (i.e., higher-speed, high-speed, or 

conventional), potential air quality impacts from each construction project would be short-term, 

occurring at a location only while construction work is in progress. Construction activities will 

comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and best management practices will be 

implemented to minimize emissions. 

3.1.4.1.2 Long-Term Regional Operational Effects 

Operation of the build alternatives would generally result in a long-term net benefit to air quality by 

reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, air toxics, and GHG. There are several factors which would 

contribute to the extent to which the operation of the alternative has a long-term effect on air 

quality. These include the locomotive power source (diesel versus electric), operation of the stations 

and other supporting facilities, the forecasted ridership of the rail system, and the subsequent 

vehicle and airplane emission change due to the shift of travel mode. 

Alternatives that use electric-powered trains (high-speed rail) would result in much lower direct 

effects on air quality due to a decrease in overall fuel consumption compared to alternatives that 

use diesel locomotives (conventional rail and higher-speed rail). Electric-powered trains would have 

lower regional emissions, fewer local incidences of increased pollutant concentrations due to train 

idling, and fewer potential health effects from diesel PM. 

While electric-powered trains would result in indirect emissions from power plants, these indirect 

emissions would be at much lower levels compared to the diesel locomotive emissions. About 

50 percent of electric power production for Texas and Oklahoma is from coal, with the remainder of 

production from the combustion of natural gas and renewable sources, which generate fewer 

emissions than the combustion of diesel (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2014). 

Alternatives with higher ridership would have the potential to shift more passengers from driving to 

riding the trains, thus decreasing the regional VMT and associated vehicle emissions. In addition, 

longer route segments would provide access to more locations and would likely have a greater 

reduction in regional VMT. Since the high-speed rail service type is projected to have greater 

ridership than higher-speed rail for the same alignment, it would result in a greater reduction of air 

emissions in the region due to the combined effects of using electric-powered trains and higher 

ridership. Therefore, compared to higher-speed rail, the high-speed rail service types for the same 

alignment have a larger reduction in regional air pollutant emissions and a greater net benefit to air 

quality. 

Long-term regional effects of the build alternatives were evaluated based on the total direct and 

indirect emissions associated with Program operation, as discussed in Sections 3.1.2.1 and 

3.1.2.2. Long-term operational emissions from trains, regional VMT changes, airplanes, and power 

generation are calculated for each Program alternative, except C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail. The traffic demand modelling for C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4C Higher-Speed 

Rail was not performed at the same levels as other alternatives, therefore, emissions of these two 

alternatives were not quantified. Total emissions of each alternative are summarized in Table 3.1-3. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-16 

 

Detailed discussion of long-term regional effects of the No Build Alternative and the build 

alternatives are discussed in Section 3.1.4.2 and Sections 3.1.4.3 through 3.1.4.5, respectively. 

Table 3.1-3. Summary of Operational Regional Air Quality Emissions 

Evaluation Years VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 

N4A Conventional: Emissions Tons per year 

2013 256 7,271 2,257 11 66 45 619,797

2035 No Build 20 2,857 256 4 59 15 569,972

2035 Project 

Alternative 

20 2,841 255 4 59 15 566,919

C4A HSR: Emissions Tons per year 

2013 261 7,096 2,312 12 67 45 647,748

2035 No Build 44 4,126 1,051 8 90 29 990,694

2035 Build Alternative 23 3,104 133 5 70 15 880,246

C4A HrSR- Diesel: Emissions Tons per year 

2013 234 7,294 1,578 12 47 25 620,683

2035 No Build 40 4,028 827 7 88 27 938,132

2035 Build Alternative 29 3,543 357 6 79 19 771,182

C4B HSR: Emissions Tons per year 

2013 226 7,014 1,529 12 46 24 597,632

2035 No Build 41 4,042 938 7 88 28 957,194

2035 Build Alternative 22 3,090 132 5 69 15 901,358

C4C HSR: Emissions Tons per year 

2013 225 6,972 1,521 12 46 24 594,172

2035 No Build 44 4,112 1,050 8 89 29 987,791

2035 Build Alternative 23 3,137 134 5 70 15 936,978

S4 HrSR - Diesel: Emissions Tons per year 

2013 485 16,236 2,521 24 75 31 1,226,662

2035 No Build 83 12,945 442 16 261 57 2,408,974

2035 Build Alternative 86 13,049 599 17 262 60 2,449,934

S6 HrSR - Diesel: Emissions Tons per year 

2013 97 3,232 516 5 16 7 246,172

2035 No Build 8 1,307 47 2 27 6 246,083

2035 Build Alternative 9 1,296 102 2 26 6 253,037

S6 HSR: Emissions Tons per year 

2013 97 3,232 516 5 16 7 246,172

2035 No Build 8 1,307 47 2 27 6 246,083

2035 Build Alternative 8 1,230 45 2 25 6 343,919
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-17 

 

Evaluation Years VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 

There was no projected change in air traffic or bus travel from 2013 to 2025 due to the build alternatives. 

The Northern and Central sections have existing rail travel that was assumed to grow similar to alternatives and that 

is diesel fueled, based on the existing infrastructure. The Southern Section does not have rail except for that 

associated with the build alternatives. 

Traffic data provided by Steer Davies Gleave, March 1, 2016, version 2252703 – TOPRS Phase 3. 

HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail 

3.1.4.1.3 Localized Impacts 

It is anticipated that the build alternatives would reduce overall traffic congestion in the region by 

removing passenger vehicles from roadways. Because localized CO and PM emissions tend to occur 

at locations with a large number of vehicles idling, such as at congested intersections, the program 

would be beneficial to reduce localized vehicle emissions by relieving traffic congestions. 

While the conventional and potentially higher-speed service types could add new at-grade rail 

crossings that would increase localized vehicle emissions at those isolated locations, other service 

types, such as high-speed rail, would have grade-separated crossing and, therefore, would not 

increase localized vehicle emissions at these crossings. Traffic congestions and localized impacts 

of CO and PM may also occur near large rail stations on routes that passengers use to travel to and 

from the stations. 

Localized air toxic emissions from Program operation would have the potential to expose nearby 

population to air toxics such as diesel PM. Potential localized air toxic emissions associated 

Program operation would be mostly from diesel locomotives idling. However, localized air toxic 

emissions from diesel train travel are expected to be limited due to the low number of diesel 

locomotives that would idle at particular locations. Localized air toxic effects would be higher in 

urban or populated areas due to the exposure of sensitive receptors. Alternatives and facilities 

located mostly in rural areas, such as those in the Southern Section, would likely have lower 

potential to cause localized air toxic exposure then alternatives in the Central Section, where there 

are more densely populated areas. 

Electric trains idling would not emit air pollutants to increase local concentrations of pollutants near 

the alignment, nor would they increase the exposure of sensitive populations to toxic pollutants. 

Therefore, the high-speed rail alternatives would result in fewer local effects on air quality and air 

toxic exposure than the alternatives that would use diesel trains. 

Increased travel speeds associated with the high-speed rail service type would have the potential to 

generate more fugitive dust compared to operation of the higher-speed rail service type. This would 

be minimized through the design and materials of the track as well as the grade separation 

requirement. 

As discussed above, the Program would be beneficial in reducing localized effects in some cases 

and would have adverse effects in other cases. Final conclusions of localized effects would depend 

on design details and information on affected locations and the corresponding traffic data that are 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-18 

 

not available as part of this service-level evaluation. Therefore, localized effects of the Program 

would be evaluated at the project level when specific information becomes available and are not 

discussed further in this EIS. 

3.1.4.1.4 General Conformity 

For alignments that are located in the Dallas and Fort Worth area that is designated as 

nonattainment for ozone, the Program would be subject to conformity requirements. A general 

conformity determination would be required during project-level analysis if construction and 

operation emissions would exceed the general conformity de minimis levels. Because project-level 

information is not currently available, analysis related to general conformity will be performed 

during project-level analysis, and a conclusion is not made in this service-level analysis. 

The following sections outline the potential effects of the short-term construction effects and the 

long-term regional operation effects on air quality of the proposed build alternatives relative to the 

No Build Alternative. 

3.1.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline to evaluate the air quality effects of the build alternatives. The No Build 

Alternative would not implement the Program of rail improvements associated with this servicelevel evaluation and would not meet the purpose and need of the Program. Existing air quality, 

compared to air quality in 2035 without the Program, would be affected by two key factors: regional 

growth and air quality regulatory actions. Regional growth, such as increased residential 

development and density, along with additional industry, results in more and greater sources of air 

emissions. These increases in air emissions are offset by transportation projects which generally 

reduce traffic congestion, thus minimizing local effects for emission hot spots, as well as vehicle 

regulatory programs that control the level of emissions from on-road and non-road vehicles. 

Due to the Texas Motor Vehicle Fuel Programs, the Texas Emission Reduction Plan, and the Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, it is expected that pollutant burdens for VOC, CO, NOx, and 

PM will continue to decrease from the current conditions to 2035 (TCEQ 2014d). The fuel programs 

such as the Texas Low Emission Diesel Fuel Program initially implemented in 2005 will continue to 

reduce emissions in the region (TCEQ 2014e). Reduction from the Texas Emission Reduction Plan 

and the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program will continue due to the phasing of 

implementation dates (TCEQ 2014d). Additionally, under the No Build Alternative, several roadway 

and mass transit projects, as discussed in Chapter 2, Alternatives, are designed to alleviate 

congestion through the entire region. The effect of the federal mobile vehicle emission reduction 

programs are included in Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator emission factors and reflected in the 

2035 alternative emissions. Regional program reductions would further reduce the future emission 

for all alternatives. 

The No Build Alternative would not require construction and operation of any component of the 

Program. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-19 

 

3.1.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.1.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional Rail 

Construction 

Alternative N4A would primarily use existing rail infrastructure and would require minimal 

construction activities to implement. Due to the limited construction emissions associated with 

these minimal construction activities, short-term effects on air quality would be negligible for 

Alternative N4A. 

Operation 

Relative to the No Build Alternative, Alternative N4A would slightly decrease the amount of travel by 

personal vehicles, which are typically gasoline-fueled. Therefore, Alternative N4A would result in 

slightly lower regional emissions from personal vehicles compared to the No Build Alternative. 

Alternative N4A would use Tier 4 or similar diesel locomotive engines. As shown in Table 3.1-3, 

there would be a negligible reduction (less than 1 percent) in CO, NOx, and CO2 pollutants relative to 

the No Build Alternative. Because regional criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from Alternative 

N4A would be similar or slightly lower relative to the No Build Alternative, the overall benefit in 

regional air quality would be negligible 

3.1.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

All Central Section alternatives would result in construction period air quality impacts, but each 

build alternative would result in long-term VMT reductions and resultant air quality benefits. 

3.1.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher–Speed Rail 

Construction 

Construction of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be a major infrastructure project and 

would occur in an area that is currently designated as nonattainment for ozone. It is anticipated 

that the construction of C4A Higher-Speed Rail would generate substantial short-term regional air 

quality emissions. 

Operation 

Operation of the alternative would reduce criteria pollutants and GHG emissions compared to No 

Build Alternative, as shown in Table 3.1-3. Emissions of criteria pollutants with this alternative 

would be reduced by 10 to 57 percent compared to No Build Alternative, with NOx having the 

greatest reduction, attributed mostly to the reduced travel time of the higher-speed rail service 

types and their resulting reduced fuel usage. 

GHG emissions are generated from the combustion of fossil fuels. As shown in Table 3.1-3, the 

regional reduction in emissions would be approximately 167,000 tons per year, or 18 percent, for 

CO2 compared to the No Build Alternative. Emission reductions of GHG are mainly due to the 

reduced travel time and resulting reduced fuel usage. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-20 

 

Because the air pollution emissions would be greatly reduced, C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have 

substantial regional benefits. 

3.1.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Construction 

Alternative C4A High Speed Rail would result in higher short-term construction emissions compared 

the higher-speed rail service type because it would require more grade-separated segments, a 

larger construction footprint, and more mobilization effort due to the high-speed rail track and 

station design requirements. The scale of construction would likely result in a substantial effect on 

regional air quality. 

Operation 

Operation of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have greater regional beneficial impacts on air 

quality due to the higher ridership (reducing reliance on vehicles) and use of electric trains. As 

shown in Table 3.1-3, emissions of criteria pollutants would be reduced by 25 to 87 percent 

compared to No Build Alternative, with NOx having the highest reduction, attributed mostly to the 

use electric-powered trains. 

The regional reduction in emissions would be approximately 110,000 tons per year, or 11 percent, 

for CO2 compared to the No Build Alternative, mostly due to the use of electric-powered trains and 

the passenger vehicle emission reduction when people switch from driving to riding the trains. 

Because the air pollution emissions would be greatly reduced, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

would have substantial long-term regional benefits. 

3.1.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Construction 

Similar to Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, construction of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

would also represent a major infrastructure project in an area that is currently designated as 

nonattainment for ozone. However, as the shortest rail alignment with the smallest right-of-way, 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail is expected to result in fewer short-term effects on air quality 

from construction than C4A Higher-Speed Rail would. There is a potential for substantial short-term 

effects on air quality. 

Operation 

For this service-level analysis, the travel demand modeling for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

was not conducted to the same level of detail as it was for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, but 

instead relied upon a proportional relationship based on full travel demand modeling conducted for 

the C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternatives. This appropriate level of detail 

applied for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail is supported by a linear proportional adjustment in 

ridership and demand, which is based on the relationship between the C4A High-Speed Rail and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-21 

 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternatives, thereby producing reasonably accurate estimates for 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. 

The higher-speed rail service type would use diesel train during operation. However, the overall 

emissions of each criteria pollutant and GHG are expected to decrease compared to the No Build 

Alternative, similar to C4A Higher-Speed Rail but at a reduced level due to the shorter alignment 

and relatively fewer vehicles being removed from road. The air pollution emissions would be 

reduced, similar to Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail; the corresponding reductions, taking into 

account the shorter alignment, would have moderate regional benefits. 

3.1.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Construction 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have design of rail tracks, facilities, and grade-separated 

crossings similar to Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail but would have a shorter rail alignment and 

smaller right-of-way. Air quality effects from construction of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would 

likely be fewer than those associated with Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4B HighSpeed Rail would likely have short-term moderate effects on air quality. 

Operation 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have a shorter alignment than Alternative C4A High-Speed 

Rail and as a result VMT reductions would be smaller. Operation of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

would result in similar but slightly fewer benefits than Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, as 

compared to the No Build Alternative. As shown in Table 3.1-3, emissions of criteria pollutants 

would be reduced by 22 to 86 percent compared to No Build Alternative, with NOx having the 

highest reduction, attributed mostly to the use electric-powered trains. The regional reduction in 

CO2 emissions would be approximately 56,000 tons per year, or 18 percent, compared to the No 

Build Alternative. 

Because the air pollution emissions would be greatly reduced, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

would have substantial long-term regional benefits. 

3.1.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Construction 

Air quality effects from construction of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be similar to but 

greater than those identified for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail due to the longer alignment for 

the C4C alternative. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would likely have substantial short-term 

effects on air quality. 

Operation 

For this service-level analysis, the travel demand modeling for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

was not conducted to the same level of detail as for C4A Higher-Speed Rail, but instead relied upon 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-22 

 

a proportional relationship based on full travel demand modeling conducted for the C4A HighSpeed Rail and C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternatives. This appropriate level of detail applied for 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail is supported by a linear proportional adjustment in ridership and 

demand, which is based on the relationship between the C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A HigherSpeed Rail alternatives, thereby producing reasonably accurate estimates for Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail. 

Air quality effects from operation of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be similar to those 

discussed for C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Similar to Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, but with a 

slightly increased level due to the longer alignment and more vehicles removed from the road, the 

air pollution emissions would be reduced; the corresponding reductions, taking into account the 

longer alignment, would have substantial regional benefits. 

3.1.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Construction 

Construction emissions of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be higher than those related to 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail due to the construction of grade-separated crossing. Alternative 

C4C High-Speed Rail would likely have substantial short-term effects on air quality. 

Operation 

Operation of the Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would result in similar but slightly fewer benefits 

than Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, as compared to the No Build Alternative. As shown in Table 

3.1-3, emissions of criteria pollutants would be reduced by 21 to 87 percent compared to No Build 

Alternative, with NOx having the highest reduction, attributed mostly to the use electric-powered 

trains. The regional reduction in CO2 emissions would be approximately 51,000 tons per year, or 5 

percent, compared to the No Build Alternative. 

Because the air pollution emissions would be greatly reduced, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

would have substantial long-term regional benefits. 

3.1.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.1.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Construction 

Construction of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be a major infrastructure project. While the 

area is in attainment for ozone there is active management of ozone precursors in accordance with 

the Ozone Flex Plan. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be located in a mostly rural area and 

the station capacity is expected to be less than half that of the stations associated with the Central 

Section alternatives. However, there is minimal existing rail infrastructure in the Southern Section, 

as shown in Section 3.20, Transportation, which indicates there would be no existing or future 

passenger rail service in the area without the Program. Therefore, the major infrastructure 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-23 

 

construction required for this alternative would result in a substantial short-term effect on air 

quality. 

Operation 

The regional emissions associated with Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, compared to the No Build 

Alternative, are included in Table 3.1.3. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail is expected to have an 

increase in criteria pollutants and GHG emissions compared to the No Build Alternative. This is 

because, although there would be a reduction in personnel VMT, the traffic modeling evaluation 

projected no change in bus or air miles traveled, and there is no future rail travel included in the No 

Build Alternative. Therefore, while Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would provide additional modes 

of transport in the region, the use of diesel-powered trains would increase emissions compared to 

the No Build Alternative for all pollutants evaluated. For NOx and CO, the increase is estimated to be 

approximately 157 and 104 tons per year, respectively. The CO2 emissions increase would be 

approximately 41,000 tons per year, or 2 percent, compared to the No Build Alternative. The 

increase in other pollutants would be negligible. 

Because the emission increases associated with Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be greater 

than 100 tons per year for CO and NOx, it would have substantial regional adverse effects during 

operation. 

3.1.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Construction 

The alignment length of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail is approximately one third the length of 

the S4 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 High-Speed Rail alternative alignments. Therefore, Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail would have lower construction emissions than S4 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 

High-Speed Rail. Construction of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would likely result in moderate 

effects on air quality. 

Operation 

While Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail has a much longer alignment than S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

and is projected to have a lower level of ridership than Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, there 

would be a proportionally greater reduction in regional VMT with Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

compared to S4 Higher-Speed Rail. As shown in Table 3.1-3, Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

would have a negligible reduction in emissions of PM and CO compared to the No Build Alternative. 

NOx would increase by approximately 55 tons per year, and GHG would increase by 7,000 tons per 

year. Increases of NOx and GHG emissions are mostly due to the use of diesel-powered trains for 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and the extremely low baseline emissions of the No Build 

Alternative. Because the alternative would cause criteria pollution emissions less than 100 tons per 

year, it would have moderate adverse effect on air quality during operation. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-24 

 

3.1.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Construction 

Construction of Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have potential for higher short-term air quality 

effects than Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail due to the increased construction footprint and 

elevated structures required. Construction of Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would likely result in 

short-term substantial effects on air quality. 

Operation 

Operation of the Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have greater beneficial effects than 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail due to the use of electric-powered trains. Although the high-speed 

rail service type would result in increases in emissions from power production, the associated 

indirect increase in emissions from power generation would be lower than emissions associated 

with diesel locomotives in Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. These criteria and GHG emissions 

would not be local and would be distributed throughout the state’s existing power supply sources, 

which are required to operate within their permit limits. The permits are issued on the basis that 

operation of the power plants will not result in an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. 

The reduction in regional emissions associated with Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be 

negligible to moderate, or less than 7 percent, compared to No Build Alternative, for the pollutants 

evaluated except for CO2. There would be an increase in CO2 emissions due to the indirection 

emissions from power generation. Although there is projected to be an increase in GHG emissions 

for this alternative, it is primarily due to the addition of a transportation mode that did not 

previously exist in the region. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be consistent with long-term 

federal and state goals to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels for new transportation alternatives 

because it would use electricity rather than direct combustion of diesel. 

Due to the minimal emission reduction of criteria pollutant, Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would 

have negligible long-term regional benefits. 

3.1.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Table 3.1-4 presents the short- and long-term regional effects on air quality from the construction 

and operation of the build alternatives. As discussed in Section 3.1.2.3, general conformity 

applicability analysis would be performed during project-level analysis when project construction 

and operational information are available to quantify the emissions. A conformity demonstration 

will be performed if the project’s emissions exceed general conformity de minimis levels. Localized 

impacts of CO, PM, and air toxics during operation would be performed during project-level analysis 

when project-specific information is available and would be only for alternative operations that are 

determined to have the potential to increase localized emissions substantially. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-25 

 

Table 3.1-4. Potential Effects on Air Quality 

Alternative Short-Term Effects Long-Term Regional Effects 

Northern Section 

N4A Negligible (adverse) Negligible (benefit) 

Central Section 

C4A HrSR Substantial (adverse) Substantial (benefit) 

C4A HSR Substantial (adverse) Substantial (benefit) 

C4B HrSR Substantial (adverse) Moderate (benefit) 

C4B HSR Moderate (adverse) Substantial (benefit) 

C4C HrSR Substantial (adverse) Substantial (benefit) 

C4C HSR Substantial (adverse) Substantial (benefit) 

Southern Section 

S4 HrSR Substantial (adverse) Substantial (adverse) 

S6 HrSR Moderate (adverse) Moderate (adverse) 

S6 HSR Substantial (adverse) Negligible (benefit) 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

3.1.5.1 Construction Phase 

Temporary, short-term emissions increases associated with construction activities, and potential 

localized air pollution increases associated with traffic near proposed stations would be 

substantially reduced by the application of mitigation strategies and design practices. Potential 

emission reduction measures include but are not limited to: 

 Use of low-emissions vehicles during construction, and use of newer and well-maintained 

equipment. 

 Effects from concrete and asphalt batch plants would be limited by placing these facilities 

farther from sensitive populations, such as schools, hospitals, and residences, to the extent 

possible. 

 Potential fugitive dust effects would be mitigated through best management practices such as 

water sprays during demolition; wetting, paving, or landscaping exposed earth areas; covering 

dust-producing materials during transport; limiting dust-producing construction activities during 

high wind conditions; and providing street sweeping and tire washes for trucks leaving the site. 

 Traffic congestion emissions can be reduced using site-specific traffic management plans; 

temporary signage and other traffic controls; designated staging areas, worker parking lots (with 

shuttle bus service if necessary), and truck routes; and prohibition of construction vehicle travel 

during peak traffic periods. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.1 Air Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.1-26 

 

Localized air pollutant increases associated with traffic near construction sites would be addressed 

by mitigation strategies discussed in Section 3.20, Transportation, as well as by implementing 

enhanced accessibility and signal design practices. 

3.1.5.2 Operation Phase 

Avoidance and minimization of effects at the project-level would be incorporated when feasible. If 

effects cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies would be implemented. Strategies for 

managing emissions from diesel trains could addressed by using Tier 4 locomotive engines and 

implementing additional measures to reduce diesel locomotive idling times. Locating the tracks, 

stations, and other supporting facilities away from populated areas and sensitive receptors would 

minimize and reduce the potential exposure to air toxics from diesel combustion. 

Subsequent Analysis 

3.1.6.1 Construction and Operation Emissions 

A detailed quantification of construction emissions based on the proposed segment and station 

construction will be conducted during project-level analysis. Project operation analysis will include 

emissions from operating the trains and stations of the alternatives and will include regional 

changes in emissions due to mode change. Based on the refined segment options, a detailed 

evaluation of the potential changes in VMT for all modes affected, including personal vehicles, 

airplanes, buses, and conventional train, will be included in subsequent analysis. The evaluation 

will also include the quantification of both direct and indirect air emissions during operation. 

3.1.6.2 Localized Impacts 

Localized impacts of CO, PM, and air toxics during operation will be performed during project-level 

analysis when project-specific information is available and will only be for alternative operations 

that are determined to have potential to increase localized emissions substantially. If a quantitative 

modeling analysis is triggered, air dispersion modeling of CO or PM will be conducted for locations 

that would have the potential to cause an exceedance of NAAQS, even with mitigation. 

3.1.6.3 General Conformity 

For alternatives located in the Dallas and Fort Worth area that is designated as nonattainment or 

maintenance for ozone, construction and operation emission evaluations will be performed and 

compared to the general conformity de minimis levels to demonstrate compliance with general 

conformity requirements. A general conformity evaluation is not required for projects located in 

attainment areas. 

3.1.6.4 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 

GHG emissions and the associated climate change impacts due to project emissions will be 

analyzed for the alternatives. GHG emissions from project operation in the study area will be 

quantified. In addition, a qualitative discussion of project adaptation to the effects of climate 

change will be included in the project-level analysis. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-1 

3.2 Water Quality 

This section describes water resources within the environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area 

and assesses potential effects on these resources by the build alternatives. The analysis of water 

resources includes surface waters (waters deemed impaired under Section 303[d] of the Clean 

Water Act [CWA], and rivers designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act), erosion, and 

groundwater (hydrologic unit sub-basins). The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study 

Area and use of terms, such as Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, along with the standard 

organization of each analysis.

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

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

within the EIS Study Area are listed and described below. Additional local and regional laws, 

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

3.2.1.1 Federal 

 CWA. Restores and maintains the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's 

waters through prevention and elimination of pollution. It is applicable to any discharge of a 

pollutant into waters of the U.S. Key sections of the CWA include the following:

- Section 401 (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 1341 and 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] 121). Section 401 of the CWA requires a water quality certification from the State 

Water Resources Control Board or Regional Water Quality Control Boards when a project 

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

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

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

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required for point discharges of 

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

conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, or channel. 

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

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

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

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

is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts.

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

and protects wild and scenic rivers and immediate environments for the benefit of present and 

future generations. The WSRA is applicable to all projects that affect designated wild, scenic, 

and recreational rivers and their immediate environments and rivers under study for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers (NWSR) System. The WSRA prohibits federal agencies from 

undertaking activities that would adversely affect the values for which the river was designated. 

The WSRA is administered by a variety of state and federal agencies. Designated river segments 

flowing through federally managed lands are administered by the land-managing agency (e.g., 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-2 

U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or the National Park Service). River segments 

flowing through private lands are administered by the state in conjunction with local 

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

environments (Designated Waters), consultation will occur through the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) process between the state lead agency and the land-managing agencies.

The following three categories of rivers are protected by the WSRA: 

1. Designated Rivers – Rivers designated as an NWSR, and their tributaries, are protected 

under Section 7(a) of the WSRA. 

2. Study Rivers – Potential additions to the NWSR System are protected under Section 7(a) of 

the WSRA. 

3. National Rivers Inventory – Rivers believed to possess one or more “outstandingly 

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

protected under Section 5 (d) of the WSRA. 

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

on protected rivers is initiated when projects occur within 1 mile of an NWSR, within 20 miles 

upstream of an NWSR, within 10 miles downstream of an NWSR, or are located on a tributary in 

close proximity to an NWSR. Projects within these thresholds are required to consult with the 

federal agency having jurisdiction over the NWSR. 

 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as Amended (42 U.S.C. § 300[f]). Protects public health and 

welfare through safe drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act is applicable to public drinking 

water systems and reservoirs (including rest area facilities). It is also applicable to actions that 

may have a significant impact on an aquifer or wellhead protection area that is the sole or 

principal drinking water source. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires coordination with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency when an area designated as a principal or Sole Source Aquifer 

may be affected by a proposed project. 

 Flood Disaster Protection Act (42 U.S.C. § 4001–4128; U.S. Department of Transportation 

Order 5650.2). Identifies flood-prone areas and provides insurance. The Flood Disaster 

Protection Act requires purchase of insurance for buildings in special flood-hazard areas. The 

Flood Disaster Protection Act is applicable to any federally assisted acquisition or construction 

project in an area identified as having special flood hazards. Projects should avoid construction 

in, or develop a design consistent with, Federal Emergency Management Agency flood hazard 

areas.

3.2.1.2 State 

 1955 Oklahoma Water Pollution Control Act. The 1955 Oklahoma Water Pollution Control Act 

declared that it is the public policy of the state “to conserve the waters of the state and to 

protect, maintain and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation 

of wildlife, fish and aquatic life and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other 

legitimate beneficial uses.” The Oklahoma Water Pollution Control Act made it unlawful to 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-3 

pollute state waters. It was further forbidden for any person to carry out certain activities that 

cause the discharge of waste into waters, or could lead to a related reduction in water quality 

without first securing a permit from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board.

Subsequent changes in roles and responsibilities regarding administration of the 1955 

Oklahoma Water Pollution Act have transferred various water quality and related programs and 

functions of several agencies to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. As a 

result, one permit issued under NPDES would apply to federal and state regulations. 

 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Civil Law from Title 28 of Third Partida; 

Water Code §11.096: Obstruction of Navigable Streams. No person may obstruct the navigation 

of any stream that can be navigated by steamboats, keelboats, or flatboats by cutting and 

felling trees or by building on or across the stream a dike, milldam, bridge, or other obstruction. 

Under Section 11.096, TCEQ shall be notified prior to projects that construct bridges, dams, or 

places obstructions in streams that are determined to be navigable in fact. 

Trice v. State, 712 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.App. Waco 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) addressed who is allowed 

to bridge Texas streams under the laws then in effect. The court noted (at p. 847): “The State, 

through legislative action, has also authorized certain entities to erect bridges over the 

navigable waters within its boundaries (citing statutes pertaining to counties, municipalities, 

railroads, and toll road corporations). However, except for tidal waters, the State has not 

authorized an individual to construct a bridge over its navigable waters. Furthermore, the State 

has not created an agency or designated any public official to regulate bridge construction over 

its navigable waters. Under a change in the law in 1993, the Commissioner of the General Land 

Office was granted limited permitting power to allow private road crossings over public streams. 

See Natural Resources Code §51.291 (quoted in section on OBSTRUCTIONS)” (Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department 2004).

 TCEQ: Edwards Aquifer Protection Program. Before building on the recharge, transition, or 

contributing zones of the Edwards Aquifer, an Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan must be 

reviewed and approved by the TCEQ Edwards Aquifer Protection Program. Once a plan is 

approved, the site is monitored for compliance throughout construction and operation. The 

Edward Aquifer Protection Plan should outline the best management practices (BMPs) that will 

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

contaminants found in stormwater from reaching the Edwards Aquifer. 

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

(Section 319).

3.2.1.3 Local 

 County Agencies. The current alternatives cross up to 7 county jurisdictions within Oklahoma 

and 29 county jurisdictions in Texas. Potential exists for each county to regulate construction 

activities within the county as it pertains to water quality or water conservation. Divisions of 

county public works departments or county districts that focus on land development, protection 

of natural resources, flood control, water conservation, or construction stormwater could require 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-4 

permits. These may include floodplain protection, grading, waterway crossing, construction 

stormwater, building, or encroachment permits. County permit requirements and regulations 

would need to be investigated, meetings held with each county, and a permitting strategy 

developed for each county that would address conditions and permits consistent with county 

programs. 

 Individual Cities. Under the CWA (and regulations promulgated pursuant to the CWA), 

communities with a population greater than 100,000 are required to apply for a municipal 

permit under the NPDES program. In some cases, individual cities join with counties, water 

districts, and flood control districts to apply for joint permits. Cities that are joint permittees with 

counties are required to implement programs to verify that city-permitted projects adhere to 

conditions of NPDES permits; this may include programs to confirm that BMPs and other 

stormwater quality protection measures are incorporated into grading and building permits, and 

that regulatory and site inspection programs are developed. Individual water quality protection 

measures, including BMPs, are developed at the county level, making the counties and cities 

jointly responsible for confirming compliance.

Methodology 

The methodology employed for the water quality and hydrology effect evaluation consisted of a 

combination of qualitative and quantitative assessments. A qualitative assessment was used for 

general comparisons of the alternatives when discussing issues, such as sedimentation and 

groundwater resources, which required a more detailed approach than warranted for this EIS. The 

qualitative general conclusions support the relative change in effects among the alternatives. The 

effects assessment and conclusions are focused on surface water, runoff, erosion, and 

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

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

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

quantitative. All quantitative assessments were based on the number of features (e.g., 303[d] 

waters and erosive soils) potentially crossed and the size of the features. The quantitative 

conclusions were determined based on a comparison of the magnitude of potential effects. The No 

Build Alternative is the primary basis of comparison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

strategies. These terms are defined as follows: 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-5 

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

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

are very close to the existing conditions.

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

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

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

reservoirs. 

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

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

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

streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. 

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

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

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

of groundwater discharge or infiltration.

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

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

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

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

caused by the alternatives, the following activities were conducted: 

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

determined. For the purpose of this analysis, surface waters are defined as lakes, rivers, and 

streams identified using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale Digital Line Graphs. 

Surface water linear feet were calculated as the flow-path length of rivers and streams within 

the EIS Study Area. Lake surface areas represent the impoundment at maximum capacity. 

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

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

Rivers), Study Rivers, and National Rivers Inventory segments within the EIS Study Area, were 

determined. 

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

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

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

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

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

of a soil component within a map unit). The Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database

includes an Erosion Hazard of Forest Roads and Trails – Dominant Component category that is 

calculated using erodibility factor (kfact), slope (slopeh), and content of rock fragments for each 

individual soil map unit (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2014). For the purpose of this 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-6 

analysis, susceptibility of soils to erosion is evaluated based the Erosion Hazard of Forest Roads 

and Trails – Dominant Component index. 

Affected Environment 

3.2.3.1 Overview 

The EIS Study Area alternatives are spread across a broad geographic area characterized as 

generally low-elevation basins and valleys associated with the rolling terrain in the Great Plains and 

the Coastal Plains in the most southern extent of the alternatives. These areas are either developed 

or vegetated, with open grasslands, agricultural land, shrub land, or forests. The climate is 

characterized as generally semi-arid to humid subtropical to modified subtropical conditions with 

mild winters and hot summers. Precipitation regimes include periods of hot summer drought and 

winter rain. Winter rain occurs as a result of low-pressure depressions that are associated with 

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

precipitation decreases southward along the EIS Study Area and ranges from 48 inches near 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to 20 inches in Laredo, Texas (U.S. Climate Data 2014). 

3.2.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.2.3.2.1 Surface Waters 

Surface waters and associated channels are sensitive resource areas that provide the following 

functions: 

 Convey floodwaters that may enhance adjacent flooding or may attenuate downstream flooding 

risks by storing floodwater

 Provide important native species habitat and support wetland and riparian habitats

 Provide direct pathways of nutrients and contamination to downstream ecological or human 

resources 

 Provide locations for groundwater recharge and discharge

For the purpose of this document, surface waters including lakes, rivers, and streams are identified 

by using USGS 1:24,000 scale Digital Line Graphs. Blue-line streams and bodies of water on the 

Digital Line Graphs are generally under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Most 

surface waters within the Northern Section EIS Study Area are associated with significant drainage 

channels and riparian areas. These include improved flood control drainage channels, intermittent 

river and stream channels, perennial river and stream channels, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. Table 

3.2-1 identifies surface water classifications crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area. 

Figure 3.2-1 shows surface waters within the vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-7 

Figure 3.2-1: Surface Waters and Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins within the 

Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-8 

Table 3.2-1: Surface Waters Crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area

Water Body Classification Number Crossed 

Alternative N4A CONVa 

Perennial Stream 43

Intermittent Stream 300

Open Water – Lake/Pond 163

Open Water – Reservoir 31

Approximate Total 537 

a CONV = conventional rail 

Source: USGS (2014).

Hydrologic Units 

The Northern Section EIS Study Area crosses Oklahoma and Texas and includes 13 hydrologic unit 

sub-basins. Each unit generally consists of individual watersheds or subwatersheds and in some 

cases contains more than one watershed. Table 3.2-2 identifies the hydrologic unit sub-basins by 

state crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area. Figure 3.2-1 shows the boundaries of the 

hydrologic unit sub-basins within the vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area.

Table 3.2-2: Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins Crossed within the Northern Section EIS 

Study Area 

Hydrologic Unit State Hydrologic Unit State 

Deep Fork Oklahoma Lake Texoma Oklahoma and Texas

Farmers-Mud Oklahoma Denton Texas

Little Oklahoma Elm Fork Trinity Texas

Lower Canadian-Walnut Oklahoma Little Texas

Lower Cimarron-Skeleton Oklahoma Lower West Fork Trinity Texas

Lower North Canadian Oklahoma Upper Trinity Texas

Middle Washita Oklahoma 

Source: USGS (2014).

Designated Waters 

The majority of the Northern Section EIS Study Area is within Oklahoma. No surface waters 

designated as National Wild and Scenic Rivers or Study Rivers within the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System occur within Oklahoma. However, eight rivers and river segments included in the 

National Rivers Inventory occur within Oklahoma. The only National Rivers Inventory river or river 

segment within the Northern Section EIS Study Area is a 20-mile segment of the Washita River, in 

Carter and Murray counties (National Park Service 2014). This segment of the Washita River is

listed in the National Rivers Inventory for the outstanding, remarkable values it possesses,
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-9 

including scenery, recreation, geology, fish populations, and fish and wildlife habitat. This segment 

of the river is within the migration route of the federal endangered whooping crane and contains 

important fish and wildlife habitat. It has been identified as a potential State Scenic River passing 

through the Arbuckle Mountains, with numerous observable geologic processes. Recreational 

activities on the river include floating, camping, and fishing (National Park Service 2014). No 

National Rivers Inventory river segments are located within the Texas portion of the Northern Study 

Area. 

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

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

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

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

submit the list to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for review and approval. This list is 

known as the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. As part of this listing process, states are 

required to prioritize waters and watersheds for future development of total maximum daily loads. 

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and TCEQ have the responsibility to monitor 

and assess water quality, to prepare the Section 303(d) list, and subsequently to develop total 

maximum daily loads in Oklahoma and Texas, respectively. The most recent Section 303(d) list for 

Oklahoma was approved in 2013 and contains 4,203 bodies of water, many listed as being 

impaired for multiple pollutants. The most recent Section 303(d) list for Texas was approved in 

2013 and contains 1,214 bodies of water under evaluation; of those, 568 were impaired. The 

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

providing an indication of where additional contaminants resulting from the Program and 

alternatives potentially would have the most effect. 

Table 3.2-3 identifies the total number of perennial and intermittent streams and the Section 

303(d) waters crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area. Figure 3.2-2 shows 303(d) 

waters crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area, based on a review of the Texas and 

Oklahoma 303(d) lists. 

Table 3.2-3: Surface Waters Classified as Impaired Crossed within 

the Northern Section EIS Study Area 

Water Body Classification Number Crossed 

Alternative N4A 

Total Perennial and Intermittent Streams 343

Impaired Streams 14

Percent of Impaired Streams 4.0% 

Source: USGS (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-10

Figure 3.2-2: Impaired Water Crossings and Soils with High Erosion Potential within 

the Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-11

3.2.3.2.2 Erosion 

Table 3.2-4 summarizes SSURGO soil types crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area. 

Figure 3.2-2 shows areas within the vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study Area with severe and 

very severe soil erosion potential. 

Table 3.2-4: Erodible Soils Crossed within the Northern Section EIS 

Study Area 

Erosion Hazard Classification Number Crossed 

Alternative N4A 

Not Rated 31

Slight 651

Moderate 420

Severe 77

Very Severe 20

Approximate Total 1,199 

Source: SSURGO (2014). 

3.2.3.2.3 Groundwater 

Groundwater is a significant resource for fresh water throughout the EIS Study Area in Texas and 

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

minor groundwater aquifers occur within the EIS Study Area. Aquifers in Oklahoma contain an 

estimated 320 million acre-feet of fresh water, of which about half is considered recoverable for 

use. The aquifers supply more than 60 percent of the water used in the state, particularly where 

less surface water is available. Six aquifers in Oklahoma are in bedrock and six are in Quaternaryage alluvium and terrace deposits. Bedrock aquifers typically consist of sandstone, sand, 

limestone, dolomite, gypsum, or fractured novaculite and chert (Section 3.12, Geology). The 

aquifers range in thickness from 100 feet to several thousand feet. The depth to fresh water 

typically ranges from several feet to more than 1,000 feet. Alluvium and terrace aquifers typically 

consist of unconsolidated sand, silt, clay, and gravel deposited by rivers and streams. The thickness 

of these aquifers ranges from 10 to 100 feet (Oklahoma Historical Society 2014). Major aquifers in 

the Northern Section include Garber-Wellington, Canadian River, Washita River, Antlers, Red River, 

Arbuckle-Simpson, North Canadian River, and Trinity aquifers. The entire area of the ArbuckleSimpson aquifer is considered a recharge area. These aquifers include alluvial terrace (unconfined) 

and bedrock types (confined). Minor aquifers crossed include the Pennsylvanian and Woodbine 

aquifers (both confined and unconfined) (University of Texas 2004). 

Aquifers crossed within the Northern Section EIS Study Area are listed in Table 3.2-5. Major and 

minor aquifers within the vicinity of the EIS Study Area are shown on Figures 3.2-3 and 3.2-4, 

respectively. The only aquifer system within the Northern Section designated as a Sole Source 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-12

Aquifer by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the eastern portion of the Arbuckle-Simpson 

Aquifer. 

The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer underlies approximately 500 square miles in southern Oklahoma 

and is the principle water source for 39,000 people within the region. The aquifer is a source for 

several rivers including the Blue River and Delaware Creek, which are tributaries of the Washita 

River, and nearly 100 springs including Byrds Mill Spring, which is the primary drinking water 

source for the city of Ada (Oklahoma Historical Society 2014). The entire aerial extent of the aquifer 

is considered a recharge area (Oklahoma Geologic Society 1983).

Table 3.2-5: Aquifers Crossed within the Northern Section EIS 

Study Area 

Aquifer Name Type 

Oklahoma – Major Aquifers 

Garber-Wellington Confined

Canadian River Unconfined

Washita River Unconfined

Antlers Confined

Red River Unconfined

Arbuckle-Simpsona Confined 

North Canadian River Unconfined

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Trinity Confined

Oklahoma – Minor Aquifers 

Pennsylvanian Unconfined

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Woodbine Confined, unconfined

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-13

Figure 3.2-3: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study 

Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-14

Figure 3.2-4: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Northern Section EIS Study 

Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-15

3.2.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.2.3.3.1 Surface Waters 

Most surface waters within the Central Section EIS Study Area are similar to the Northern Section 

and are associated with significant drainage channels and riparian areas. These include improved 

flood control drainage channels, intermittent river and stream channels, perennial river and stream 

channels, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. Table 3.2-6 identifies surface waters crossed within the 

Central Section EIS Study Area. Figure 3.2-5 shows surface waters within the vicinity of the Central 

Section EIS Study Area.

Table 3.2-6: Surface Waters Crossed within the Central 

Section EIS Study Area 

Water Body Classification Number Crossed 

Alternative C4A HrSR and C4A HSRa 

Perennial Stream 75

Intermittent Stream 362

Open Water – Lake/Pond 246

Open Water – Reservoir 17

Approximate Total 700 

Alternative C4B HrSR and C4B HSR 

Perennial Stream 42

Intermittent Stream 374

Open Water – Lake/Pond 222

Open Water – Reservoir 12

Approximate Total 650 

Alternative C4C HrSR and C4C HSR 

Perennial Stream 82

Intermittent Stream 459

Open Water – Lake/Pond 291

Open Water – Reservoir 18

Approximate Total 850 

a HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

Source: USGS (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-16

Figure 3.2-5: Surface Waters and Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins within the 

Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-17 

 

Hydrologic Units 

The Central Section EIS Study Area is entirely within Texas and consists of 16 hydrologic unit subbasins. Each unit generally consists of individual watersheds or subwatersheds, and in some cases 

contains more than one watershed. Table 3.2-7 identifies the hydrologic unit sub-basins crossed 

within the Central Section EIS Study Area. Figure 3.2-5 shows the boundaries of the hydrologic unit 

sub-basins within the vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area. 

Table 3.2-7: Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins Crossed within the Central Section EIS Study 

Area 

Hydrologic Unit State Hydrologic Unit State 

Austin-Travis Lakes Texas Lower West Fork Trinity Texas 

Chambers Texas Middle Brazos-Lake Whitney Texas 

Cibolo Texas Middle Guadalupe Texas 

Elm Fork Trinity Texas Richland Texas 

Leon Texas San Gabriel Texas 

Little Texas San Marcos Texas 

Lower Brazos-Little Brazos Texas Upper San Antonio Texas 

Lower Colorado-Cummins Texas Upper Trinity Texas 

Source: USGS (2014). 

Designated Waters 

There are no designated surface waters in the EIS Study Area for the Central Section alternatives. 

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-8 identifies the total number of perennial and intermittent streams and the Section 

303(d) waters classified as impaired crossed within the Central Section EIS Study Area. Figure 

3.2-6 shows listed 303(d) waters crossed within Central Section EIS Study Area, based on a review 

of the Texas 303(d) list. 

Table 3.2-8: Surface Waters Classified as Impaired Crossed within the Central 

Section EIS Study Area 

Water Body Classification Number Crossed 

Alternative C4A HrSR and C4A HSR 

Total Perennial and Intermittent Streams 437 

Impaired Streams 17 

Percent of Impaired Streams 3.9% 

Alternative C4B HrSR and C4B HSR 

Total Perennial and Intermittent Streams 416 

Impaired Streams 21 

Percent of Impaired Streams 5.0% 

Alternative C4C HrSR and C4C HSR 

Total Perennial and Intermittent Streams 541 

Impaired Streams 18 

Percent of Impaired Streams 3.3% 

Source: USGS (2014). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-18

Figure 3.2-6: Impaired Waters Crossed and Soils with High Erosion Potential within 

the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-19

3.2.3.3.2 Erosion 

Table 3.2-9 summarizes SSURGO soil types crossed within the Central Section EIS Study Area. 

Figure 3.2-6 shows areas within the vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area with severe and 

very severe soil erosion potential.

Table 3.2-9: Erodible Soils Crossed within the Central Section EIS 

Study Area 

Erosion Hazard Classification Number Crossed 

Alternative C4A HrSR and C4A HSR 

Not Rated 29

Slight 874

Moderate 439

Severe 68

Very Severe 33

Approximate Total 1,443 

Alternative C4B HrSR and C4B HSR 

Not Rated 32

Slight 836

Moderate 428

Severe 85

Very Severe 31

Approximate Total 1,412 

Alternative C4C HrSR and C4C HSR 

Not Rated 33

Slight 1,044

Moderate 531

Severe 82

Very Severe 41

Approximate Total 1,731 

Source: SSURGO (2014). 

3.2.3.3.3 Groundwater 

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

state. There are 9 major and 21 minor aquifers recognized and monitored for water quality in Texas 

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

deposited by rivers and streams in the Cenozoic, coastal aquifers composed of layers of sand, 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-20

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

sandstone and limestone, found across the middle of the state (see Section 3.12, Geology). 

Typically, the alluvial and coastal aquifers are shallow and intensively used for irrigation. The 

bedrock aquifers can be as deep as 3,000 feet and may have complex connections to adjacent 

aquifers via caves and fractures (University of Texas 2004). 

The Edwards Aquifer is the only designated Sole Source Aquifer in Texas. The aquifer underlies 

approximately 3,600 square miles within Kinney, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar, Comal, and Hays counties. 

The aquifer has three primary zones: the contributing zone, the recharge zone, and the artesian 

zone. The contributing zone collects rainfall as source water for the aquifer and occurs north of the 

other zones on the Edwards Plateau. The aquifer is considered one of the most prolific artesian 

aquifers in the world and provides water to approximately 2 million people (San Antonio Water 

System 2014). The recharge area (unconfined) for the aquifer underlies approximately 

1,250 square miles and follows the Balcones Fault escarpment from Bracketville through San 

Antonio and north to Austin (TCEQ 2014). Across much of the aquifer, the recharge and artesian 

zones (confined) are interspersed, except on the western end where the artesian areas extend 

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

few miles to the south (San Antonio Water System 2014). Major springs produced by the Edwards 

Aquifer include San Pedro, San Antonio, Comal, San Marcos, and Hueco Springs (Edwards Aquifer 

Website 2014).

The Trinity and Edwards aquifers are confined major aquifers within the Central Section 

(Table 3.2-10 and Figure 3.2-7). Minor aquifers that underlie the Central Section EIS Study Area 

include the Woodbine (confined and unconfined) and Brazos River aquifers (see Table 3.2-10 and 

Figure 3.2-8).

Table 3.2-10: Aquifers Crossed within the Central Section EIS Study Area 

Aquifer Name Type 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Trinity Confined

Edwardsa Confined

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Woodbine Unconfined

Woodbine Confined

Brazos River Alluvium Unconfined

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-21

Figure 3.2-7: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-22

Figure 3.2-8: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-23

3.2.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.2.3.4.1 Surface Waters 

The majority of surface waters within the Southern Section EIS Study Area are similar to the surface 

waters described for the Northern and Central sections. They are associated with significant 

drainage channels and riparian areas, or they are within coastal areas. These include improved 

flood control drainage channels, intermittent river and stream channels, perennial river and stream 

channels, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, coastal estuarine lagoons, and intertidal sloughs. Table 3.2-11 

identifies surface waters crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area. Figure 3.2-9 shows 

surface waters within the vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area.

Table 3.2-11: Surface Waters Crossed within the Southern 

Section EIS Study Area 

Water Body Classification Number Crossed 

Alternative S4 HrSR 

Perennial Stream 4

Intermittent Stream 310

Open Water – Lake/Pond 113

Open Water – Reservoir 16

Approximate Total 443 

Alternative S6 HrSR and S6 HSR 

Perennial Stream 2

Intermittent Stream 196

Open Water – Lake/Pond 53

Open Water – Reservoir 4

Approximate Total 255 

Source: USGS (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-24

Figure 3.2-9: Surface Waters and Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins within the Vicinity of the 

Southern Section EIS Study Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-25

Hydrologic Units 

The Southern Section EIS Study Area is entirely within Texas and consists of 18 hydrologic unit subbasins. Two of the sub-basins extend into Mexico. Each unit generally consists of individual 

watersheds or subwatersheds, and in some cases contains more than one watershed. Table 3.2-12 

identifies the hydrologic unit sub-basins crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area. 

Figure 3.2-9 shows the boundaries of the hydrologic unit sub-basins within the vicinity of the 

Southern Section EIS Study Area. 

Table 3.2-12: Hydrologic Unit Sub-basins Crossed within the Southern Section EIS 

Study Area 

Hydrologic Unit State Hydrologic Unit State 

Atascosa Texas San Fernando Texas

Baffin Bay Texas San Miguel Texas

Central Laguna Madre Texas South Corpus Christi Bay Texas

Hondo Texas South Laguna Madre Texas

Lower Frio Texas Upper Frio Texas

Lower Nueces Texas Upper Nueces Texas

Medina Texas Upper San Antonio Texas

Middle Nueces Texas International Falcon Reservoir Texas

Palo Blanco Texas San Ambrosia-Santa Isabel Texas

Source: USGS (2014). 

Designated Waters 

There are no designated surface waters in the EIS Study Area for the Southern Section alternatives. 

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-13 identifies the total number of perennial and intermittent streams and the Section 

303(d) impaired waters crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area. Figure 3.2-10 shows 

listed 303(d) waters crossed within Southern Section EIS Study Area, based on a review of the 

Texas 303(d) list.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-26

Figure 3.2-10: Impaired Waters Crossed and Soils with High Erosion Potential within 

the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-27

Table 3.2-13: Surface Waters Classified as Impaired 

Crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area 

Water Body Classification Number Crossed 

Alternative S4 HrSR 

Total Perennial and Intermittent Streams 314

Impaired Streams 7

Percent of Impaired Streams 2.2% 

Alternative S6 HrSR and S6 HSR 

Total Perennial and Intermittent Streams 198

Impaired Streams 5

Percent of Impaired Streams 2.5% 

Source: USGS (2014).

3.2.3.4.2 Erosion 

Table 3.2-14 summarizes SSURGO soil types crossed within the Southern Section EIS Study Area. 

Figure 3.2-10 shows areas within the vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study Area with severe 

and very severe soil erosion potential. Soil erosion data for the area within the vicinity of the 

Southern Section EIS Study Area are limited; the available data were used for tabular summaries 

and graphical depictions.

Table 3.2-14: Erodible Soils Crossed within the Southern 

Section EIS Study Area 

Erosion Hazard Classification Number Crosseda 

Alternative S4 

Not Rated 29

Slight 1,102

Moderate 190

Severe 3

Very Severe 19

Approximate Total 1,340 

Alternative S6 

Not Rated 5

Slight 349

Moderate 81
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-28

Erosion Hazard Classification Number Crosseda 

Severe 0

Very Severe 4

Approximate Total 439 

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

Source: SSURGO (2014). 

3.2.3.4.3 Groundwater 

The Southern Section EIS Study Area crosses over four major aquifers that include unconfined 

areas of the Gulf Coast, unconfined and confined areas of the Carrizo, confined areas of the Trinity, 

and confined areas of the Edwards aquifers (Table 3.2-15 and Figure 3.2-11). Three minor aquifers 

underlie alternatives within the Southern Section EIS study Area including unconfined areas of the 

Yegua Jackson, unconfined and confined areas of the Sparta, and unconfined and confined areas 

of the Queen City aquifers (Table 3.2-15 and Figure 3.2-12).

Table 3.2-15: Aquifers Crossed within the Southern Section 

EIS Study Area 

Aquifer Name Type 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Gulf Coast Unconfined

Carrizo Confined, unconfined, not defined

Trinity Confined

Edwardsa Confined

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Yegua Jackson Unconfined

Sparta Confined, unconfined

Queen City Confined, unconfined

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-29

Figure 3.2-11: Major Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study 

Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-30

Figure 3.2-12: Minor Aquifers within the Vicinity of the Southern Section EIS Study 

Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-31

Environmental Consequences 

3.2.4.1 Overview 

Effects for the alternatives and associated infrastructure can be broadly classified as construction 

effects and operational effects (including maintenance). Construction-related effects are typically 

short-term effects. Construction activities such as the use of construction equipment, site access, 

and site grading could potentially result in increased erosion and sedimentation entering surface 

waters. Construction activities could result in construction materials such as tar, oil, grease, and 

solvents being released into surface waters. In some locations, temporary dewatering of surface 

waters and/or surficial groundwater would be necessary for excavations or the construction of pier 

foundations. These construction activities would potentially lower the water quality and availability 

for drinking, recreation, and wildlife use. During construction activities, effects would be minimized 

by implementing BMPs (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Potential effects from the operation of the Program would be mostly long-term effects, including 

expansion of impervious surfaces, placement of fill material, and the reduction of groundwater 

infiltration in aquifer recharge areas. Effects on surface waters and floodplains (Section 3.8, Flood 

Hazards and Floodplain Management) would occur if these resources are displaced, redirected, or 

altered (e.g., confining the watercourse with bridge structures and culverts). These effects would 

occur for the Program, and depending on the alternative, changes to the nearby infrastructure may 

be necessary to accommodate grade separations and roadway realignments, which could also 

affect water bodies. Additional operational effects on designated surface waters and groundwater 

could be short-term but recurring. These include potential releases of grease, tar, oil, solvents, or 

metals to water bodies from the operations and maintenance of trains and guideway. During 

operation activities, effects would primarily be minimized by implementing required stormwater 

management regulations and BMPs (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

Strategies). 

Because this is a service-level EIS, details regarding the alignment, the structures, and station 

locations are not known. Therefore, as described in Section 3.2.2, Methodology, the surface waters, 

runoff, erodible soils, and groundwater aquifers within the EIS Study Area for each alternative 

provides an indication of the potential effects on water quality and hydrology for the construction 

and operational phases of the Program. There are no substantial differences regarding surface 

waters or groundwater for high-speed or higher-speed rail technologies, and station locations would 

not influence the effect descriptions in this service-level EIS. A detailed assessment of these 

features will be performed as part of the project-level EIS. 

3.2.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this Service Level evaluation, and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program, and therefore the No Build Alternative would not affect water quality and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-32

hydrology. The No Build Alternative assumes that city and county stormwater systems are in place 

and that standards are met. 

3.2.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.2.4.3.1 Surface Waters 

Table 3.2-16 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the 

Northern Section EIS Study Area. This includes the acreage of surface waters (lakes and ponds) and

linear feet (rivers and streams) crossed within the EIS Study Area. While a relatively high number of 

potential crossings of surface waters are possible with Alternative N4A Conventional, overall effects 

would be negligible as defined in Section 3.2.2, Methodology, when compared to the No Build 

Alternative because the N4A Alternative would use existing railway infrastructure and corridors.

Additionally, project design and BMPs would reduce water quality and hydrology related impacts 

related to surface waters.

Table 3.2-16: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters 

Crossed within the Northern Section – Alternative N4A Conventional 

Water Body 

Classification Number Crossed Linear Feet Acres 

Alternative N4A CONV 

Streams and Rivers 343 317,365 -

Lakes and Reservoirs 194 - 103

303(d) Waters 14 15,368 -

Designated Waters 1 - -

Source: USGS (2014).

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-16 identifies potential effects on Section 303(d) waters for the Northern Section EIS 

Study Area. Alternative N4A could involve the construction of improvements, including new river 

crossings or sidings, in the vicinity of 303(d) impaired water bodies. Overall effects on 303(d) 

waters from Alternative N4A Conventional would be negligible because of the relatively low 

magnitude (number and length) of 303(d) impaired water bodies crossed within the EIS Study Area. 

Additionally, the alternative would use existing railway infrastructure and corridors. Potential effects 

would be avoided or minimized through implementation of measures listed in Section 3.2.5, 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-33

Designated Waters 

Alternative N4A Conventional would operate completely within the existing BNSF right-of-way from 

Edmond, Oklahoma, to Fort Worth, Texas, and completely within the Trinity Railway Express right-ofway from Fort Worth to the Northern Section terminus at Dallas Union Station. Where feasible, 

existing railroad track would be used. Modifications within the existing BNSF and Trinity Railway 

Express rights-of-way, such as double-tracking, would accommodate additional trains in areas 

where shared track is not feasible. Alternative N4A Conventional would potentially include 

improvements to the existing crossings of the Washita River, a National Rivers Inventory river, and 

may also include up to 20 new river crossings, depending on the improvements proposed and their 

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

documentation. Effects from improvements to existing or new crossings of rivers may include longterm effects such as clearing of the riparian buffer, grading, and fill. These effects could potentially 

alter the Washita River, resulting in increased nutrient and sediment inputs and changes in channel 

flow characteristics and water temperature. However, the effects would likely be localized in the 

area of new crossings over the river, and would be avoided or minimized through implementation of 

measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. The potential 

discharge of construction-related materials into the river would be negligible because effects would

be minimized during the design process and BMPs would be implemented during construction. 

While a relatively high number of potential crossings of a National Rivers Inventory river (Washita 

River) are possible with Alternative N4A Conventional, overall effects would be negligible because

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

and BMPs would reduce water quality and hydrology related impacts related to designated waters.

No surface waters designated as National Wild and Scenic Rivers, Study Rivers, or National Rivers 

Inventory occur within the Texas portion of the EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A Conventional. 

3.2.4.3.2 Runoff 

With construction of Alternative N4A Conventional, additional impervious surface associated with 

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

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

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

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

constructed in undeveloped areas, increased runoff would result. The quantity of increased runoff 

has not been determined but, if substantial, could result in increased surface flows downstream 

and potentially greater flooding risk (Section 3.8, Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management). This 

potential increase may be offset because of reduced automobile use and a correlating reduction in 

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

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

runoff from Alternative N4A Conventional, facility designs would include measures to reduce 

impervious surfaces or provide on-site retention and treatment. Increases in runoff from the 

construction of new impervious surfaces would be reduced through the implementation of 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-34

structural stormwater management practices and construction BMPs (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, 

Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). The project-level NEPA process would evaluate the effects 

on runoff from impervious surfaces associated with the project design, assess potential effects on

existing stormwater structures, and propose specific measures to address those potential effects. 

Therefore, overall potential increases in runoff from Alternative N4A Conventional would be 

negligible with avoidance and minimization measures. 

3.2.4.3.3 Erosion 

Table 3.2-17 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas crossed within the Northern Section EIS 

Study Area. This table shows areas of potential effects on surface water quality. Because the 

erodible index is slope sensitive, only areas that exceed slope thresholds (slope steepness at which 

a given soil will begin to erode) within the indicated acreage meet criteria for erodible areas. Overall 

potential increases in erosion from Alternative N4A Conventional would be moderate because of 

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

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

likely be mitigated by implementing BMPs during construction to prevent erosion (Section 3.2.5, 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Operation of new stations would not likely 

increase localized erosion of sediments into surface waters.

Table 3.2-17: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Northern Section 

– Alternative N4A Conventional

Erosion Classification Number Crossed Acres 

Alternative N4A CONV 

Severe 77 800

Very Severe 20 505

Approximate Total 97 1,305 

Source: SSURGO (2014). 

3.2.4.3.4 Groundwater 

The EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A Conventional crosses eight major aquifers systems in 

Oklahoma and Texas (Table 3.2-18). The largest major aquifer crossed is the Trinity Aquifer, which 

is primarily confined. The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer also underlies the EIS Study Area. Effects from 

construction and operational activities would most likely affect unconfined and Sole Source Aquifer 

systems because they have a direct connection to the ground surface and are the primary source of 

water for adjacent populations. Long-term effects may include groundwater contamination caused 

by rainfall runoff from created impervious surfaces and spills of construction materials, such as 

hydraulic fluid, fuel, paint, and solvents. The effects on groundwater resources from Alternative N4A 

Conventional would be negligible because the stormwater treatment measures and BMPs that 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-35

would be implemented during construction and operation would reduce the potential for 

contaminants associated with impervious surfaces and spills to affect groundwater (refer to 

Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Table 3.2-18: Aquifers Crossed within the Northern Section – Alternative N4A 

Conventional

Aquifer Name Type 

Alternative N4A 

CONV (acres) 

Alternative N4A CONV 

Oklahoma – Major Aquifers 

Garber-Wellington Confined 2,540

Canadian River Unconfined 2,080

Washita River Unconfined 1,940

Antlers Confined 1,305

Red River Unconfined 700

Arbuckle-Simpsona Confined 165

North Canadian River Unconfined 145

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Trinity Confined 6,435

Approximate Total 15,310 

Oklahoma – Minor Aquifers 

Pennsylvanian Unconfined 1,760

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Woodbine Confined 955

Woodbine Unconfined 385

Approximate Total 3,100 

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-36

3.2.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.2.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Surface Waters 

Table 3.2-19 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. This includes acreage of surface waters 

(lakes and ponds) and linear feet (rivers and streams) crossed within the EIS Study Area. Potential 

effects on surface waters within the EIS Study Area are greater than Alternative C4B (both service 

types) and less than Alternative C4C (both service types), but overall are similar in magnitude. 

Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of measures listed in 

Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Compared to the No Build 

Alternative, potential effects on surface waters from Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be 

moderate. 

Table 3.2-19: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters 

Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A 

High-Speed Rail 

Water Body Classification 

Number 

Crossed Linear Feet Acres 

Alternative C4A HrSR and C4A HSR 

Streams and Rivers 437 316,909 -

Lakes and Reservoirs 263 - 153

303(d) Waters 17 24,187 -

Designated Waters 0 - -

Source: USGS (2014).

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-20 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. This alternative has the greatest potential effects 

on 303(d) waters followed by Alternative C4C (both service types) and Alternative C4B (both service 

types), but overall, the magnitude of the effects is similar. Potential effects on 303(d) waters from 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible because of the low magnitude of linear feet 

of surface waters crossed within the EIS Study Area. Potential effects would be avoided or 

minimized through implementation of measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, 

and Mitigation Strategies.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-37

Designated Waters 

Table 3.2-20 identifies potential effects on the linear feet and acreages of surface waters within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. There are no designated waters in the EIS 

Study Area for the Central Section. Therefore, no effects on designated waters are anticipated from 

any of the Central Section alternatives. 

Runoff 

Under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, additional impervious surface associated with the

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

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

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

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

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

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

greater flooding risk (Section 3.8, Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management). This potential 

increase may be offset because of reduced automobile use and a correlating reduction in 

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

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

runoff from Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, facility designs would include measures to reduce 

impervious surfaces or provide on-site retention and treatment. Increases in runoff from the 

construction of new impervious surfaces would be reduced through the implementation of 

structural stormwater management practices and construction BMPs (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, 

Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). The project-level NEPA process would evaluate the effects 

on runoff from impervious surfaces associated with the project design, assess potential effects on

existing stormwater structures, and propose specific measures to address those potential effects. 

Therefore, overall potential increases in runoff from Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be 

negligible through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. 

Erosion 

Table 3.2-20 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, which represents areas of potential effects on surface waters. 

Because the erosive index is slope sensitive, only areas that exceed slope thresholds within the 

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

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

C4B (both service types) and less than Alternative C4C (both service types). Overall potential effects 

from crossing erodible soils would be similar in magnitude among the Central Section alternatives 

(both service types). The potential effects from increases in erosion from Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail would be moderate. Construction of the alternative corridor and stations would 

potentially increase erosion and sedimentation in surface waters during construction. However, 

some of these effects would likely be reduced by implementing BMPs during construction to 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-38

prevent erosion (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Operation of 

the alternative and stations would not likely increase localized erosion of sediments into surface 

waters.

Table 3.2-20: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Central Section – 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail 

Erosion Classification Number Crossed Acres 

Alternative C4A HrSR and C4A HSR 

Severe 68 573

Very Severe 33 851

Approximate Total 101 1,424 

Source: SSURGO (2014). 

Groundwater 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail crosses over Trinity and Edwards confined major aquifers 

(Table 3.2-21). Minor aquifers that underlie this alternative include the Woodbine aquifer (confined 

and unconfined) and Brazos River aquifer (unconfined). Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail overlays 

the Edwards Aquifer, which is designated as a Sole Source Aquifer. Effects on Sole Source Aquifers 

would be negligible because Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail does not cross recharge areas 

where groundwater would be more susceptible to surface disturbances and potential effects from 

construction activities. Potential effects on groundwater resources (total acres of all aquifer types 

crossed) from Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail is greater than Alternative C4B (both service types) 

and less than Alternative C4C (both service types). Effects from construction- and operation-related 

activities would potentially affect unconfined aquifers because they have a direct connection to the 

ground surface. Long-term effects on unconfined aquifers may include groundwater contamination 

caused by rainfall runoff from created impervious surfaces, and spills of construction materials 

such as hydraulic fluid, fuel, paint, and solvents. The effects on groundwater resources from 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible because of the stormwater treatment 

measures and BMPs that would be implemented during construction and operation (Section 3.2.5, 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Table 3.2-21: Aquifers Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail 

Aquifer Name Type Acres 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Trinity Confined 16,770

Edwardsa Confined 1,540

Approximate Total 18,310 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-39

Aquifer Name Type Acres 

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Woodbine Unconfined 6,830

Woodbine Confined 465

Brazos River Alluvium Unconfined 170

Approximate Total 7,465 

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a). 

3.2.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Surface Waters 

Table 3.2-19 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have the 

same effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of 

measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Compared to 

the No Build Alternative, potential effects on surface waters from Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

would be moderate.

Designated Waters 

Table 3.2-19 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of designated waters within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have the same 

effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would follow 

the same route. There are no designated waters in the EIS Study Area for the Central Section. 

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

alternatives.

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-19 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have the 

same effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. Potential effects on 303(d) waters from Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

would be negligible because of the low magnitude of linear feet of surface waters crossed within 

the EIS Study Area. Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of 

measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-40

Runoff 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on surface waters from runoff as the 

higher-speed rail option because both service types would follow the same route. BMPs used during 

construction and operation of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be the same as the higherspeed rail option and would provide the same minimization functions in regards to runoff (Section 

3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Overall potential increases in runoff 

from Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be negligible with avoidance and minimization 

measures. 

Erosion 

Table 3.2-20 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on 

surface waters from erosion as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. BMPs used during construction and operation of Alternative C4A High-Speed 

Rail would be the same as the higher-speed rail option and would provide the same minimization 

functions in regards to erosion (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Overall potential increases in erosion from Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be moderate. 

Groundwater 

Table 3.2-21 lists the acreage and types of aquifers crossed by Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. 

Potential effects on these groundwater resources would be the same effects as the higher-speed 

rail option because both service types would follow the same route. BMPs used during construction 

and operation of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be the same as the higher-speed rail option

and would provide the same mitigation functions in regards to potential effects on groundwater 

resources (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Overall potential 

effects on groundwater from Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be negligible through

implementation of avoidance and minimization measures.

3.2.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Surface Waters 

Table 3.2-22 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. This includes acreage of surface waters 

(lakes and ponds) and linear feet (rivers and streams) crossed within the EIS Study Area. Relative 

effects comparisons among the Central Section alternatives (both service types) were previously 

presented. Potential effects on surface waters from Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be 

moderate because of the total linear feet and acreage of surface waters crossed. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-41

Table 3.2-22: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters 

Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4B 

High-Speed Rail

Water Body 

Classification Number Crossed Linear Feet Acres 

Alternative C4B HrSR and C4B HSR 

Streams and Rivers 416 293,669 -

Lakes and Reservoirs 234 - 99

303(d) Waters 21 18,870 -

Designated Waters 0 - -

Source: USGS (2014).

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-22 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. Relative effects comparisons among the Central 

Section alternatives (both service types) were previously presented. Potential effects on 303(d) 

waters from Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible because of the low magnitude of 

linear feet of surface waters crossed within the EIS Study Area. Potential effects would be avoided 

or minimized through implementation of measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, 

and Mitigation Strategies.

Designated Waters 

Table 3.2-22 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of designated waters within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. There are no designated waters in the EIS Study Area 

for the Central Section. Therefore, no effects on designated waters are anticipated from any of the 

Central Section alternatives. 

Runoff 

Under Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail, additional impervious surface associated with the 

stations would be constructed. The alternative’s rail construction measures are the same as the 

other Central Section alternatives (both service types) and have been previously discussed in 

regards to increases in runoff. The amount of increased runoff has not been determined. Offsets 

from these potential increases have also been previously discussed and would be the same for 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. The use of construction and operational BMPs would also be the 

same for each of the Central Section alternatives (both service types). The project-level NEPA 

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

design, assess potential effects on existing stormwater structures, and propose specific measures 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-42

to address those potential effects. Overall potential increases in runoff from Alternative C4B HigherSpeed Rail would be negligible through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures

(Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Erosion 

Table 3.2-23 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail, which represents areas of potential effects on surface waters. 

Relative effects comparisons among the Central Section alternatives (both service types) were 

previously presented. Overall potential increases in erosion from Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

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

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

would likely be reduced by implementing BMPs during construction to prevent erosion (Section 

3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Operation of the alternative and stations 

would not likely increase localized erosion of sediments into surface waters.

Table 3.2-23: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Central Section – 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail

Erosion Classification Number Crossed Acres 

Alternative C4B HrSR and C4B HSR 

Severe 85 828

Very Severe 31 567

Approximate Total 116 1,395 

Source: SSURGO (2014). 

Groundwater 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail crosses over the same major and minor aquifers as the other 

Central Section alternatives (Table 3.2-24). Relative effects comparisons among the Central 

Section alternatives (both service types) were previously presented. Effects on Sole Source Aquifers 

would be negligible because Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail does not cross recharge areas. 

Effects on groundwater resources from Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible 

because of the stormwater treatment measures and BMPs that would be implemented during 

construction and operation (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Types of potential effects and mitigation BMPs used during construction and operation of 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as the other Central Section alternatives. 

Short- and long-term effects on groundwater resources caused by construction and operation 

activities would be negligible through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-43

Table 3.2-24: Aquifers Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative C4B HigherSpeed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail

Aquifer Name Type Acres 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Trinity Confined 15,315

Edwardsa Confined 1,540

Approximate Total 16,860 

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Woodbine Unconfined 5,540

Woodbine Confined 590

Brazos River Alluvium Unconfined 170

Approximate Total 6,300 

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a).

3.2.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Surface Waters 

Table 3.2-22 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the 

same effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of 

measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Potential 

effects on surface waters from Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be moderate because of the 

total linear feet and acreage of surface waters crossed.

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-22 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the 

same effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. Potential effects on 303(d) waters from Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

would be negligible because of the low magnitude of linear feet of surface waters crossed within 

the EIS Study Area. Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of 

measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-44

Designated Waters 

Table 3.2-22 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of designated waters within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the same 

effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would follow 

the same route. There are no designated waters in the EIS Study Area for the Central Section. 

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

alternatives. 

Runoff 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on surface waters from runoff as the 

higher-speed rail option because both service types would follow the same route. BMPs used during 

construction and operation of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be the same as the higherspeed rail option and would provide the same mitigation functions in regards to runoff (Section 

3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Potential effects from increases in 

runoff from Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be negligible. 

Erosion 

Table 3.2-23 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on 

surface waters from erosion as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. BMPs used during construction and operation of Alternative C4B High-Speed 

Rail would be the same as the higher-speed rail option and would provide the same mitigation

functions in regards to erosion (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Overall potential increases in erosion from Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be moderate with 

avoidance and minimization measures.

Groundwater 

Table 3.2-24 lists the acreage and types of aquifers crossed by Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. 

Potential effects on these groundwater resources would be the same effects as the higher-speed 

rail option because both service types would follow the same route. BMPs used during construction 

and operation of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be the same as the higher-speed rail option

and would provide the same mitigation functions in regards to potential effects on groundwater 

resources (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Short- and long-term 

effects on groundwater resources caused by construction and operation activities would be 

negligible through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. 

3.2.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Surface Waters 

Table 3.2-25 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. This includes acreage of surface waters 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-45

(lakes and ponds) and linear feet (rivers and streams) crossed within the EIS Study Area. Relative 

effects comparisons among the Central Section alternatives (both service types) were previously 

presented. Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of measures 

listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Potential effects on 

surface waters from Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be moderate because of the total 

linear feet and acreage of surface waters crossed.

Table 3.2-25: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters 

Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and C4C 

High-Speed Rail

Water Body 

Classification Number Crossed Linear Feet Acres 

Alternative C4C HrSR and C4C HSR 

Streams and Rivers 541 400,363 -

Lakes and Reservoirs 309 - 164

303(d) Waters 18 23,084 -

Designated Waters 0 - -

Source: USGS (2014).

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-25 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. Relative effects comparisons among the Central 

Section alternatives (both service types) were previously presented. Potential effects on 303(d) 

waters from Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible because of the low magnitude of 

linear feet of surface waters crossed within the EIS Study Area. Potential effects would be avoided 

or minimized through implementation of measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, 

and Mitigation Strategies.

Designated Waters 

Table 3.2-25 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of designated waters within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. There are no designated waters in the EIS Study Area 

for the Central Section. Therefore, no effects on designated waters are anticipated from any of the 

Central Section alternatives. 

Runoff 

Under Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, additional impervious surface associated with the

stations would be constructed. The alternative’s rail construction measures are the same as the

other Central Section alternatives (both service types) and have been previously discussed in 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-46

regards to increases in runoff. The amount of increased runoff has not been determined. Offsets 

from these potential increases have also been previously discussed and would be the same for 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. The use of construction and operation BMPs would also be the 

same for each of the Central Section alternatives (both service types) (refer to Section 3.2.5, 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Potential effects from increases in runoff from 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible. The project-level NEPA process would

evaluate the effects on runoff from impervious surfaces associated with the project design, assess 

potential effects on existing stormwater structures, and propose specific measures to address 

those potential effects. 

Erosion 

Table 3.2-26 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, which represents areas of potential effects on surface waters. 

Relative effects comparisons among the Central Section alternatives (both service types) were 

previously presented. Overall potential increases in erosion from Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

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

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

would likely be reduced by implementing BMPs during construction to prevent erosion (Section 

3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Operation of the alternative and stations 

would not likely increase localized erosion of sediments into surface waters.

Table 3.2-26: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Central Section – 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and C4C High-Speed Rail

Erosion Classification Number Crossed Acres 

Alternative C4C HrSR and C4C HSR

Severe 82 654

Very Severe 41 1,052

Approximate Total 123 1,706 

Source: SSURGO (2014). 

Groundwater 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail crosses over the same major and minor aquifers as the other 

Central Section alternatives (Table 3.2-27). Relative effects comparisons among the Central 

Section alternatives (both service types) were previously presented. Effects on Sole Source Aquifers 

would be negligible because Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail does not cross recharge areas. 

Effects on groundwater resources from Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible 

because of the stormwater treatment measures and BMPs that would be implemented during 

construction and operation (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-47

Types of potential effects and mitigation BMPs used during construction and operation of 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as the other Central Section alternatives. 

Short- and long-term effects on groundwater resources caused by construction and operation 

activities would be negligible through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. 

Table 3.2-27: Aquifers Crossed within the Central Section – Alternative C4C HigherSpeed Rail and C4C High-Speed Rail

Aquifer Name Type Acres 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Trinity Confined 20,355

Edwardsa Confined 1,540

Approximate Total 21,895 

Texas – Minor Aquifers 

Woodbine Unconfined 1,505

Woodbine Confined 8,390

Brazos River Alluvium Unconfined 170

Approximate Total 10,065 

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a).

3.2.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Surface Waters 

Table 3.2-25 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have the 

same effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of 

measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Potential 

effects on surface waters from Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be moderate because of the 

total linear feet and acreage of surface waters crossed.

Designated Waters 

Table 3.2-25 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of designated waters within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have the same 

effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would follow 

the same route. There are no designated waters in the EIS Study Area for the Central Section. 

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

alternatives. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-48

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-25 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have the 

same effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. Potential effects on 303(d) waters from Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail

would be negligible because of the low magnitude of linear feet of surface waters crossed within 

the EIS Study Area. Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of 

measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies.

Runoff 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on surface waters from runoff as the 

higher-speed rail option because both service types would follow the same route. BMPs used during 

construction and operation of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be the same as the higherspeed rail option and would provide the same minimization functions in regards to runoff (Section 

3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Potential effects from increases in 

runoff from Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be negligible. The project-level NEPA process 

would evaluate the effects on runoff from impervious surfaces associated with the project design, 

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

address those potential effects.

Erosion 

Table 3.2-26 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on 

surface waters from erosion as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. BMPs used during construction and operation of Alternative C4C High-Speed 

Rail would be the same as the higher-speed rail option and would provide the same minimization

functions in regards to erosion (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Potential effects from increases in erosion from Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be 

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

Groundwater 

Table 3.2-27 lists the acreage and types of aquifers crossed by Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail. 

Potential effects on these groundwater resources would be the same effects as the higher-speed 

rail option because both service types would follow the same route. BMPs used during construction 

and operation of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be the same as the higher-speed rail option 

and would provide the same minimization functions in regards to potential effects on groundwater 

resources (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Short- and long-term 

effects on groundwater resources caused by construction and operation activities would be 

negligible through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-49

3.2.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.2.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Surface Waters 

Table 3.2-28 identifies potential effects on surface waters (e.g., lakes, rivers, and streams) within 

the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. This includes the acreage of surface waters 

(lakes and ponds) and linear feet (rivers and streams) crossed within the EIS Study Area. Potential 

effects on surface waters from Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail are greater than from Alternative 

S6 (both service types). Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of 

measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Compared to 

the No Build Alternative, the potential effects on surface waters from Alternative S4 Higher-Speed 

Rail would be moderate because the total linear feet and acreage of surface waters crossed. 

Table 3.2-28: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters 

Crossed within the Southern Section – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Water Body 

Classification Number Crossed Linear Feet Acres 

Alternative S4 HrSR 

Streams and Rivers 314 247,448 -

Lakes and Reservoirs 129 - 74

303(d) Waters 7 13,928 -

Designated Waters 0 - -

Source: USGS (2014).

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-28 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail has greater 

potential effects on 303(d) waters than Alternative S6 (both service types). Potential effects on 

303(d) waters from Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible because of the low 

magnitude of linear feet of surface waters crossed within the EIS Study Area. Potential effects 

would be avoided or minimized through implementation of measures listed in Section 3.2.5, 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies.

Designated Waters 

Table 3.2-28 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of designated waters within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. There are no designated waters in the EIS Study Area for 

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

Southern Section alternatives.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-50

Runoff 

Under Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, additional impervious surface associated with the stations 

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

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

occur in existing urbanized areas, resulting in no increase in impervious surfaces. However, where 

segments or facilities are constructed in undeveloped areas, increased runoff would result. The 

majority of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would cross undeveloped areas with shallow 

topographic slopes. Runoff from this route would be anticipated to be localized and less likely to 

reach sparse surface waters. The amount of increased runoff has not been determined but could 

result in increased surface flows downstream and potentially greater flooding risk if it did reach 

surface waters (Section 3.8, Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management). This potential increase 

may be offset because of reduced automobile use a correlating reduction in impervious surfaces 

associated with parking lots and roadways throughout the region, potentially resulting in a net 

beneficial effect to runoff. To further reduce the potential for adverse effects on runoff from 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, facility designs would include measures to reduce impervious 

surfaces or provide on-site retention. Potential effects from increases in runoff from Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible because increases in runoff from the construction of new 

impervious surfaces would be minimized through the implementation of structural stormwater 

management practices and construction BMPs (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and 

Mitigation Strategies). The project-level NEPA process would evaluate the effects on runoff from 

impervious surfaces associated with the project design, assess potential effects on existing 

stormwater structures, and propose specific measures to address those potential effects. 

Erosion 

Table 3.2-29 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, which represents areas of potential effects on surface waters. 

However, soil erosion data for the Southern Section EIS Study Area are limited; the available data 

were used for tabular summaries and graphical depictions. Because the erosive index is slope 

sensitive, only areas that exceed slope thresholds within the indicated acreage meet criteria for 

erodible areas. Potential effects on water quality from erodible soils crossed (number and acres) 

within Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be similar to Alternative S6 (both service types). The 

potential effects from increases in erosion from Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be 

negligible. Construction of the alternative and stations would potentially increase erosion and 

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

be minimized by implementing BMPs during construction to prevent erosion (Section 3.2.5, 

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

not likely increase localized erosion of sediments into surface waters.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-51

Table 3.2-29: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Southern 

Section – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Erosion Classification Number Crosseda Acresa 

Alternative S4 HrSR 

Severe 3 62

Very Severe 19 616

Approximate Total 22 678 

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

limited.

Source: SSURGO (2014). 

Groundwater 

The EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail crosses four major aquifers (Gulf Coast, 

Carrizo, Trinity, and Edwards) and three minor aquifers (Yegua Jackson, Sparta, and Queen City). 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail crosses a greater areal extent (acres) of aquifers than Alternative 

S6 (both service types) (Table 3.2-30). Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail crosses the Edwards 

Aquifer, but does not cross the associated recharge zone where groundwater would be more 

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

Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail also crosses a greater areal extent of unconfined minor 

aquifers than Alternative S6 (both service types). Effects from construction- and operation-related 

activities would most likely affect unconfined aquifers because they have a direct connection to the 

ground surface.

Effects on Sole Source Aquifers would be negligible because Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail does 

not cross recharge areas. Long-term effects may include groundwater contamination caused by

rainfall runoff from created impervious surfaces and spills of construction materials, such as 

hydraulic fluid, fuel, paint, and solvents. The effects on groundwater resources would be negligible 

because of stormwater treatment measures and BMPs that would be implemented during 

construction and operation (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Short- and long-term effects on groundwater resources caused by construction and operation 

activities would be negligible through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-52

Table 3.2-30: Aquifers Crossed within the Southern Section – Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail 

Aquifer Name Type Acres 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Gulf Coast Unconfined 17,570

Carrizo Unconfined 130

Carrizo Not defined 780

Carrizo Confined 2,950

Trinity Confined 205

Edwardsa Confined 210

Approximate Total 21,845 

Texas – Minor Aquifers

Yegua Jackson Unconfined 3,245

Sparta Unconfined 110

Sparta Confined 925

Queen City Confined 1,105

Queen City Unconfined 380

Approximate Total 5,765 

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a). 

3.2.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Surface Waters 

Table 3.2-31 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. This includes acreage of surface waters (lakes 

and ponds) and linear feet (rivers and streams) crossed within the EIS Study Area. Relative effect 

comparisons between the Southern Section alternatives (both service types) were previously 

presented. Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of measures 

listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Potential effects on 

surface waters from Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be moderate because of the total 

linear feet and acreage of surface waters crossed. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-53

Table 3.2-31: Surface Waters, Listed Impaired Waters, and Designated Waters 

Crossed within the Southern Section – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 HighSpeed Rail

Water Body 

Classification Number Crossed Linear Feet Acres 

Alternative S6 HrSR and S6 HSR 

Streams and Rivers 198 120,488 -

Lakes and Reservoirs 57 - 29

303(d) Waters 5 2,921 -

Designated Waters 0 - -

Source: USGS (2014).

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-31 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. Relative effects comparisons between the 

Southern Section alternatives (both service types) were previously presented. Potential effects on 

303(d) waters from Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible because of the low 

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

Designated Waters 

Table 3.2-31 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of designated waters within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. There are no designated waters in the EIS Study Area for 

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

of the Southern Section alternatives. 

Runoff 

Under Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, additional impervious surface associated with the stations 

would be constructed. The alternative’s rail construction measures are the same as Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail and have been previously discussed in regards to increases in runoff. The 

amount of increased runoff has not been determined. Runoff from Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail

would likely be less than Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail because of the shorter length of 

Alternative S6 (both service types). Offsets from potential increases have also been previously 

discussed and would be the same as Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. The use of construction and 

operational BMPs would also be the same for the Southern Section alternatives (both service types) 

(Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Potential effects from increases 

in runoff from Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible because increases in runoff 

from the construction of new impervious surfaces would be minimized through the implementation 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-54

of structural stormwater management practices and construction BMPs (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, 

Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). The project-level NEPA process would evaluate the 

impacts on runoff from impervious surfaces associated with the project design, assess potential 

impacts on existing stormwater structures, and propose specific measures to address those 

potential impacts.

Erosion 

Table 3.2-32 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, which represents areas of potential effects on surface waters. 

Relative effects comparisons between the Southern Section alternatives (both service types) were 

previously presented. Construction of the alternative corridor and stations would potentially 

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

effects would likely be reduced by implementing BMPs during construction to prevent erosion 

(Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Operation of the alternative and 

stations would not likely increase localized erosion of sediments into surface waters. Therefore, 

potential effects from increases in erosion from Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be 

negligible. 

Table 3.2-32: Areas with High Erosion Potential Crossed within the Southern 

Section – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 High-Speed Rail 

Erosion Classification Number Crosseda Acresa 

Alternative S6 HrSR and S6 HSR 

Severe 0 678

Very Severe 4 13

Approximate Total 4 691 

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

limited.

Source: SSURGO (2014). 

Groundwater 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail crosses over fewer major and minor aquifers than Alternative S4

Higher-Speed Rail (Table 3.2-33). Major aquifers crossed include Carrizo, Trinity, and Edwards. Only 

the Queen City minor aquifer is crossed by Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. Relative effects 

comparisons between the Southern Section alternatives (both service types) were previously 

presented. Effects on Sole Source Aquifers would be negligible because Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail does not cross recharge areas. Effects on groundwater resources from Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible because of the stormwater treatment measures and BMPs 

that would be implemented during construction and operation (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, 

Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Types of potential effects and mitigation BMPs used
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-55

during construction and operation of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. Short-term effects on groundwater resources caused by

construction and operation activities would be negligible.

Table 3.2-33: Aquifers Crossed within the Southern Section – Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail and S6 High-Speed Rail 

Aquifer Name Type Acres 

Texas – Major Aquifers 

Gulf Coast Unconfined -

Carrizo Unconfined 1,645

Carrizo Not defined -

Carrizo Confined 5,595

Trinity Confined 2,005

Edwardsa Confined 2,000

Approximate Total 11,245 

Texas – Minor Aquifers

Yegua Jackson Unconfined -

Sparta Unconfined -

Sparta Confined -

Queen City Confined -

Queen City Unconfined 1,205

Approximate Total 1,205 

a Designated Sole Source Aquifer

Source: Texas Water Development Board (2014a). 

3.2.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Surface Waters 

Table 3.2-31 identifies potential effects on surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have the 

same effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. Potential effects would be avoided or minimized through implementation of 

measures listed in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Potential 

effects on surface waters from Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be moderate because of the 

total linear feet and acreage of surface waters crossed.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-56

Designated Waters 

Table 3.2-31 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of designated waters within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have the same 

effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would follow 

the same route. There are no designated waters in the EIS Study Area for the Southern Section. 

Therefore, there would be no effects on designated surface waters within the EIS Study Area.

Listed Section 303(d) Impaired Waters 

Table 3.2-31 identifies potential effects on the linear feet of Section 303(d) waters within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have the same 

effects on surface waters as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would follow 

the same route. Potential effects on 303(d) waters from Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be 

negligible because of the low magnitude of linear feet of surface waters crossed within the EIS 

Study Area and through implementation of measures in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, 

and Mitigation Strategies. 

Runoff 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on surface waters from runoff as the 

higher-speed rail option because both service types would follow the same route. BMPs used during 

construction and operation of Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be the same as the higherspeed rail option and would provide the same minimization functions in regards to runoff (Section 

3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Potential effects from increases in 

runoff from Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be negligible through implementation of these 

measures.

Erosion 

Table 3.2-32 lists the acreage of potentially erodible areas within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on 

surface waters from erosion as the higher-speed rail option because both service types would 

follow the same route. BMPs used during construction and operation of Alternative S6 High-Speed 

Rail would be the same as the higher-speed rail option and would provide the same minimization

functions in regards to erosion (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Potential effects from increases in erosion from Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be negligible 

because of the total linear feet and acreage of surface waters crossed and through implementation 

of measures in Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. 

Groundwater 

Table 3.2-33 lists the acreage and types of aquifers crossed by Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail. 

Potential effects on these groundwater resources would be the same effects as the higher-speed 

rail option because both service types would follow the same route. BMPs used during construction 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-57 

 

and operation of Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be the same as the higher-speed rail option 

and would provide the same minimization functions in regards to potential effects on groundwater 

resources (Section 3.2.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Short-term and longterm effects on groundwater resources caused by construction and operation activities would be 

negligible through implementation of measures 

3.2.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Tables 3.2-34 through 3.2-37 provide a summary of effects and a qualitative assessment 

(negligible, moderate, or substantial intensity) for each alternative, compared to the No Build 

Alternative, for surface waters, erosion, runoff, and groundwater, respectively. It is important to 

note that the acreages listed below are not the actual areas of effect associated with construction 

and operation of any of the alternatives. The construction of a passenger rail alignment can 

reasonably occur within a 100-foot-wide corridor, which leaves an extra 400-foot-wide corridor. The 

purpose of this service-level EIS is to use the EIS Study Area, or “corridor,” to determine the types of 

resources that may be affected, but more importantly, the relative magnitude of potential affects to 

those resources. It is also important to note that some routes in the Northern, Central, and 

Southern Sections could be built alone or combined with other section routes; more than one 

alternative in the Central or Southern Section could be built in the future because the alternatives 

provide different service options for the independent destinations. Details about how alternatives 

might connect will be analyzed at the project-level EIS. 

Table 3.2-34: Summary of Effects on Surface Waters 

Section Alternative 

Context 

Potential 

Intensity of 

EffectsSurface 

Waters 

Crossed 

 

Number 

of 

Surface 

Waters 

Crossed 

Designated 

Waters / 

303(d) 

Waters 

(linear feet) 

Potential 

Intensity of 

EffectsDesignated 

Waters/303(d) 

Waters (linear 

feet) 

No Build Alternativea 0 0/0 No effect No effect 

Northern N4A CONV 537 1/15,368 Negligible Negligible 

Central 

C4A HrSR and HSR 700 0/24,187 Moderate Negligible 

C4B HrSR and HSR 650 0/18,870 Moderate Negligible 

C4C HrSR and HSR 850 0/23,084 Moderate Negligible 

Southern 

S4 HrSR 443 0/13,928 Moderate Negligible 

S6 HrSR and HSR 255 0/2,921 Moderate Negligible 

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area. However, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-58

Table 3.2-35: Summary of Effects on Related to Runoff 

Section Alternative 

Context 

Potential Intensity of 

Effects 

Magnitude of 

Impervious Surface 

No Build Alternativea None No effect

Northern N4A CONV Low Negligible

Central 

C4A HrSR and HSR Low Negligible

C4B HrSR and HSR Low Negligible

C4C HrSR and HSR Low Negligible

Southern S4 HrSR Low Negligible

S6 HrSR and HSR Low Negligible 

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area. However, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.

Table 3.2-36: Summary of Effects Related to Erosion 

Section Alternative 

Context 

Potential 

Intensity of 

Effects 

Highly Erodible 

Soils Crossed 

(number) 

Highly Erodible 

Soils Crossed 

(acres) 

No Build Alternativea 0 0 No effect

Northern N4A CONV 97 1,305 Moderate

Central 

C4A HrSR and HSR 101 1,424 Moderate

C4B HrSR and HSR 116 1,395 Moderate

C4C HrSR and HSR 123 1,706 Moderate

Southern a S4 HrSR 22 678 Negligible

S6 HrSR and HSR 4 691 Negligible

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

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area. However, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-59

Table 3.2-37: Summary of Effects on Groundwater

Section Alternative 

Context 

Potential Intensity of 

Effects 

Aquifers Crossed 

(acres) 

No Build Alternativea None No effect

Northern N4A CONV 18,410 Negligible

Central 

C4A HrSR and HSR 25,775 Negligible

C4B HrSR and HSR 23,160 Negligible

C4C HrSR and HSR 31,965 Negligible

Southern S4 HrSR 27,610 Negligible

S6 HrSR and HSR 12,450 Negligible

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area. However, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

For this service-level EIS, the extent of impacts has not been discretely defined. The intensity of a 

potential effect has been classified as negligible, moderate, or substantial (Table 3.2-25), along 

with the potential for beneficial effects under select circumstances. The ability to analyze, 

determine, and mitigate for future project-level impacts should include the incorporation of 

construction and operational BMPs that would provide structural remedies to potential water 

quality impacts. Avoidance and minimization of effects will be incorporated when feasible. If effects 

cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented. Construction BMPs 

would include, but not be limited to, the following: 

 Erosion:

- Phasing and construction sequencing

- Temporary seeding of cleared areas 

- Mulching 

- Erosion control blankets

- Reinforced matting

 Sedimentation:

- Hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and baffles 

- Stabilized construction access 

- Controlled temporary stock pile areas

 Runoff: 

- Runoff diversion measures 

- Level spreaders 

- Subsurface drains
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.2 Water Quality

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.2-60

Operation BMPs would include the use of wet and dry retention/detention ponds, vegetated swales 

and conveyance systems, adequate buffers around or adjacent to water resources and systems 

(e.g., streams, lakes, ponds, stormwater runoff, ground water recharge areas, and erodible soils), 

and the use of most up-to-date industry standards for addressing water quality (e.g., porous

surfacing and pavement). 

Applying these efforts as a means of adhering to the federal, state, regional, and local ordinances, 

policies, and applicable regulatory mechanisms to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential water 

quality impacts will be a required implementation strategy for the project-level EIS during the 

construction and operational stages.

Subsequent Analysis 

Once a Preferred Alternative is selected, field investigations or surveys would be conducted to 

determine the likelihood of water quality impacts within the EIS Study Area. A project-level NEPA 

study should identify individual stream crossings, evaluate water quality impacts on each stream, 

and analyze the expected water quality impacts on existing impaired stream segments. The projectlevel EIS should also focus on stream crossings located or associated with areas of high runoff and 

soil with high potential for erosion because this could be a significant source of water quality 

contamination during construction activities. These areas represent the most risk to maintaining 

state and federal water quality standards and compliance with NPDES construction stormwater 

permits.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-1 

3.3 Noise and Vibration 

This section provides a preliminary assessment of the potential effects on noise- and vibrationsensitive receivers, such as residential areas, schools, and parks. Preliminary mitigation strategies 

and further analysis needed in the project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process 

are identified at the end of this section. The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the environmental 

impact statement (EIS) Study Area and use of terms such as Study Vicinity and transportation 

corridor, along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable federal and state legislation and regulations pertaining to noise and vibration within the 

EIS Study Area are listed and described below. Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and 

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

3.3.1.1 Federal 

 High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Federal Railroad 

Administration [FRA] 2012). This guidance provides procedures for determining the potential 

noise and vibration effects associated with high-speed ground transportation projects. The 

guidance includes procedures for assessing noise and vibration effects during the early stages 

of project development by conducting a preliminary effects screening. 

 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2006). 

This guidance provides procedures for determining potential noise and vibration effects 

associated with conventional rail transportation projects (speeds under 100 miles per hour 

[mph]). This guidance also provides procedures for assessing noise and vibration effects at this 

preliminary stage, consistent with the FRA guidance.

 Federal Noise Emission Compliance Regulation. This regulation (49 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] Part 210) prescribes compliance requirements for enforcing railroad noise emission 

standards adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 40 CFR Part 201.

3.3.1.2 State 

 Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Roadway Traffic Noise (Texas Department of 

Transportation [TxDOT] 2011). Federal Highway Administration regulations governing highway 

noise appear in 23 CFR Part 772. The Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Roadway 

Traffic Noise, enacted in 2011, implement the federal regulations. Texas does not have 

separate guidance for rail noise and vibration. 

Methodology 

This noise and vibration assessment was conducted in accordance with the High Speed Ground 

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FRA 2012) and FTA’s Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). The FRA manual is used to analyze effects of speeds of 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-2 

100 miles per hour (mph) and higher; therefore, screening distances for the higher- and high-speed 

trains will follow guidelines for screening distances set in the FRA manual. The FTA manual is 

intended for trains traveling under 100 mph, and will be followed in this analysis for conventional 

rail, which travels up to 90 mph. In the FRA manual, Chapter 4, Initial Noise Evaluation, and 

Chapter 8, Preliminary Vibration Assessment, specify the analysis that is appropriate for a servicelevel EIS. In the FTA manual, Chapter 4, Noise Screening Procedure, and Chapter 9, Vibration 

Screening Procedures, specify the analysis that is appropriate for a service-level EIS. This analysis 

followed the FRA and FTA noise and vibration initial screening procedure and is based on existing 

land uses along the alternatives. Generally, impact intensities depend on the existing noise levels, 

predicted noise level increases, community views, effectiveness of mitigation measures, and cost of 

mitigating noise to more acceptable levels. These types of impact intensities are not defined at this 

stage of analysis and would be determined through modeling during project-level analysis. 

In this analysis, the intensity of an effect as a result of the route alternatives are characterized as 

negligible, moderate, or substantial compared with the No Build Alternative. The level of intensity is 

determined by the number of noise- and vibration-sensitive receivers and land uses within the EIS 

Study Area and areas of new versus existing rail, and are described as follows:

 Negligible intensity effects occur when there are little to no noise- and vibration-sensitive 

receivers and land uses within the EIS Study Area that would have the potential to be affected 

by noise and vibration levels. 

 Moderate intensity effects depend on project-specific factors, which include the types and 

numbers of noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses affected, and also the noise and vibration 

sensitivity of the properties’ context (e.g., rural vs. urban) that would have the potential to be 

affected by noise and vibration levels. 

 Substantial intensity effects depend on the same project-specific factors as moderate effects, 

but with a higher number of noise- and vibration-sensitive receivers and land uses that would 

have the potential to be affected by noise and vibration levels. 

The data used to conduct this analysis were geographic information system (GIS)-based, and 

include the following: 

 Land use categories and zoning (particularly residential, commercial, and institutional) 

 Business districts (where available)

 Tax assessor data for improvement values

 Parks, schools, hospitals, and community noise-sensitive receivers (e.g., museums, religious 

institutions, and recreational areas)

 Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study alternatives 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-3 

The existing noise environments were initially evaluated by conducting an inventory of existing 

noise-sensitive land uses in the EIS Study Area, using Google Earth (Google Earth 2015) to identify 

noise-sensitive receivers (i.e., by identifying land uses and existing railroads and highways). For 

higher-speed and high-speed trains, land uses were organized based on the categories identified in 

the High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FRA 2012) and are 

shown in Table 3.3-1. For conventional rail, noise-sensitive land uses are not divided into separate 

categories; instead, the screening distances depend on the characteristic of the land use and 

unobstructed areas (rural) versus intervening buildings (suburban/urban). 

Table 3.3-1: Land Use Categories and Metrics for Higher-Speed and High-Speed

Train Noise Effect Criteria

Land Use 

Category 

Noise 

Metric 

(dBA)b Description of Land Use Category 

1 Outdoor Leq(h)a Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended 

purpose. This category includes land set aside for serenity and quiet, and 

such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well 

as national historic landmarks with significant outdoor use. Also included 

are recording studios and concert halls. 

2 Outdoor Ldn Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category 

includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to 

noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. 

3 Outdoor Leq(h)a Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This 

category includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches, where it is 

important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, 

meditation, and concentration on reading material. Places for meditation 

or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, and museums can 

also be considered to be in this category. Certain historical sites, parks, 

campgrounds, and recreational facilities are also included. 

a For the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. 

b dBA = decibels A-weighted; Ldn = day-night sound level; Leq(h) = hourly equivalent sound level 

Source: FRA (2012).

Vibration-sensitive land uses are similar to the noise-sensitive land uses for higher-speed and highspeed rail, as defined in Table 3.3-1. Table 3.3-2 provides more detail on the types of land uses 

included in each of these categories specific to vibration. 

The EIS Study Area was identified by using the noise and vibration screening distances defined in 

the High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FRA 2012) for an 

initial screening. These guidelines prescribe distances within which an effect may occur between a 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-4 

passenger rail noise and vibration source and existing land uses, and then uses those distances 

during initial screening to determine how much sensitive land use may be affected by the 

alternatives. The EIS Study Area for noise analysis varied for each alternative because it is based on 

the existing land uses according to their estimated existing ambient noise (e.g., quiet 

suburban/rural or urban/noisy suburban), the type of corridor the alternative is located in 

(i.e., existing highway, existing railroad, or new alignment), and the proposed speed of the train 

(i.e., conventional rail, higher-speed rail, or high-speed rail). 

Table 3.3-2 also applies to characteristics of conventional rail adapted from Section 8.1.1 of the 

Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). 

Table 3.3-2: Land Use Categories and Metrics for Conventional, Higher-Speed, and 

High-Speed Train Vibration Effect Criteria

Land Use 

Category Description of Land Use Category 

Category 1: 

High Sensitivity 

Locations in which vibration would interfere. This category includes concert halls, 

vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing, hospitals with vibration-sensitive

equipment, and university research operations.

Category 2: 

Residential 

Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, 

hospitals, and hotels where sensitivity during the night is assumed to be of utmost 

importance. 

Category 3: 

Institutional 

Institutional land use that includes schools, places of worship, other institutions, and 

quiet offices that do not use vibration-sensitive equipment but still have the potential 

for activity interference. 

Source: FRA (2012). 

Table 3.3-3, a modified version of Table 8-1 in the High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment (FRA 2012), shows the screening distances based on the 

characteristics of the alternatives. All urban/noisy suburban land uses within the EIS Study Area 

were considered to be unobstructed by intervening buildings, thereby providing a conservative 

estimate of the amount that noise-sensitive land uses could be affected by train operations. Quiet 

suburban/rural land uses are already assumed by FRA guidance to be unobstructed by intervening 

buildings. Regime II screening distances were used for conventional rail and higher-speed rail; 

Regime III screening distances were used for high-speed rail. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-5 

Table 3.3-3: Screening Distances for Noise Assessments for Higher- and High-Speed

Rail

Characteristics of 

Corridor 

Existing Noise 

Environment 

Screening Distance for Speed 

Regimea 

(feet) 

Regime II Regime III 

Existing Railroad Urban/noisy suburban 300 700

Quiet suburban/rural 500 1,200

Existing Highway Urban/noisy suburban 250 600

Quiet suburban/rural 400 1,100

New Alignment (no existing 

railroad or highway)

Urban/noisy suburban 350 700

Quiet suburban/rural 600 1,300

a Regime II = speeds of 100 mph; Regime III = speeds of 180 mph 

Table 3.3-4, a modified version of Table 4-1 in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

(FTA 2006), shows the screening distances for conventional rail. The EIS Study Area for 

conventional rail varies depending on if the land uses are rural and unobstructed, or urban, with 

intervening buildings. 

Table 3.3-4: Screening Distance for Noise Assessments for Conventional Rail

Type of Project 

Screening Distance (feet) 

Unobstructed Intervening Buildings 

Commuter Rail Mainline 750 375

Commuter Rail — Highway 

Crossing with Horns and Bells 

1,600 1,200

The vibration EIS Study Area varies for each alternative for higher- and high-speed trains, based on 

the existing land use (e.g., residential and institutional) and the proposed speed of the train. 

Table 3.3-5 is a modified version of Table 8-1 in the High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment (FRA 2012). Table 3.3-5 shows the screening distances for vibration

for different train speeds and types of land use. The conventional rail alternative used screening 

distances for a train speed of less than 100 mph; the higher-speed rail alternatives used screening 

distances for train speeds between 100 and 200 mph; and the high-speed rail alternatives used 

screening distances for train speeds between 200 and 300 mph. The vibration EIS Study Area’s 

screening distance is also based on the speed of the train for higher- and high-speed rail. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-6 

Table 3.3-5: Screening Distances for Vibration Assessments for Higher- and HighSpeed Rail

Land Use

Screening Distance (feet)

Train Speed 

Less than 100 mph

Train Speed 

100 to 200 mph

Train Speed 

200 to 300 mph

Residential 60 100 140

Institutional 20 70 100

The vibration EIS Study Area varies for the conventional rail based on the land use categories, 

which are shown in Table 3.3-6. These categories represent the sensitivity of the land use to 

vibration.

Table 3.3-6: Screening Distances for Vibration Assessment for Conventional Rail 

Vibration 

Category Description Example 

Critical Distance for Land 

Use Categories’ - Distance 

from Right-of-Way or 

Property Line (feet)a 

Category 1: 

High 

Sensitivity

Buildings where 

vibration would interfere 

with uses within the 

building 

Concert halls, vibrationsensitive research and 

manufacturing 

600

Category 2: 

Residential

Residential land uses 

and buildings where 

people sleep

Residences (no 

differentiation between 

types), hotels 

200

Category 3: 

Institutional 

Buildings without 

vibration-sensitive uses, 

with uses that have the 

potential for activity 

interference

Schools, churches, other 

institutions and quiet 

offices 

120

a The land use categories are defined in Table 3.3-2. Some vibration-sensitive land uses are not included in these 

categories. Examples of these are concert halls and TV studios which, for the screening procedure, should be 

evaluated as Category 1, and theaters and auditoriums, which should be evaluated as Category 2.

Residences typically have a frequent outdoor use, such as a porch or patio, and are considered 

sensitive land uses. Because of the number of residences within the EIS Study Area, instead of 

quantifying every house, the residential acreage is identified for each section. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-7 

Affected Environment 

3.3.3.1 Overview 

All of the alternatives travel through quiet rural and low-density suburban areas, as well as noisy

urban and high-density suburban areas. Category 1 receivers require extreme quiet, are not 

commonly encountered, and only one Category 1 land use was identified within the EIS Study Area

(Route Alternative N4A). Descriptions of the existing environment for each geographic section are 

provided in the following sections. 

3.3.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Alternative N4A Conventional Rail would operate completely within the existing BNSF right-of-way 

from Edmond, Oklahoma, to Fort Worth, Texas, and completely within the Trinity Railway Express 

(TRE) right-of-way from Fort Worth to Dallas. Between the Oklahoma City and Dallas and Fort Worth 

metropolitan areas, farmland is the primary land use. Residential land use, with a number of noiseand vibration-sensitive land uses, are scattered throughout this section, as shown in Tables 3.3-7 

and 3.3-8. Although farmland generally has low ambient noise and vibration levels, existing freight 

and passenger train operations within the EIS Study Area contribute to increased noise and 

vibration because of train movement on the track and the sound of federally mandated warning 

horns near at-grade crossings. The Northern Section EIS Study Area is close to many airports and 

airfields, which also contribute to existing elevated noise levels. In the Oklahoma City and Dallas 

and Fort Worth metropolitan areas, ambient noise levels and vibration are higher because of 

highway traffic combined with existing freight and passenger train operations along the BNSF and 

TRE railroad corridors. 

Tables 3.3-7 and 3.3-8 summarize the noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses within the screening 

distances for the Northern Section identified in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

(FTA 2006). 

Table 3.3-7: Noise-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the Northern 

Section

Alternative 

Residential Acres within the 

Screening Distances 

Number of Noise-Sensitive Land 

Uses within the Screening 

Distances 

N4A 15,395 245

Table 3.3-8: Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the 

Northern Section 

Alternative 

Category 1: Number 

of High-Sensitivity 

Land Uses 

Category 2: 

Residential Land 

Uses (200-foot 

Buffer) 

Category 3: 

Number of 

Institutional Land 

Uses 

N4A 1 11,247 acres 24
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-8 

3.3.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

The Central Section EIS Study Area differs by alternative north of Hillsboro, Texas, but is the same 

for all alternatives south of Hillsboro. Although the alternative alignments differ north of Hillsboro, 

large portions of the different alternative study areas are located within the Dallas and Fort Worth 

metropolitan area, where existing ambient noise levels and vibration are high because of existing 

highway, rail, and air traffic noise. 

Between the Dallas and Fort Worth urbanized area and Hillsboro, the routes are located in rural 

and low-density suburban areas. Route Alternatives C4A and C4C follow Interstate 35 (IH-35) East, 

IH-35 West, and railroad corridors through much of these rural and low-density suburban land uses

north of Hillsboro. Existing highway traffic and freight train operations in these corridors, including 

freight train warning horn soundings near at-grade crossings, contribute to increased ambient noise 

levels and vibration in these EIS Study Areas. Route Alternative C4B follows a new alignment 

outside of existing transportation corridors between Dallas, Fort Worth, and Hillsboro. As a result, 

exposure to existing ambient noise levels and vibration by sensitive land use types and receivers 

are lower along Route Alternative C4B than Route Alternatives C4A and C4C. 

South of Hillsboro, all Central Section route alternatives would be located on a new alignment 

outside of existing transportation corridors, characterized by primarily rural and low-density 

suburban land uses that have low exposure to existing ambient noise levels and vibration. Higher 

levels of exposure to ambient noise levels occur in urbanized and high-density suburban portions of 

the EIS Study Area, which comprise the cities of Waco, Temple, Taylor, Austin, and San Antonio. 

Commercial airports in Austin and San Antonio also contribute to higher noise levels in those 

locations. 

Tables 3.3-9 and 3.3-10 summarize the presence of sensitive land uses within the noise and 

vibration screening distances for each alternative in the Central Section, identified in the High 

Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FRA 2012).

Table 3.3-9: Noise-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the Central 

Section

Alternativea 

Category 2: 

Acreage of 

Residential Land Use 

Category 3: 

Number of Institutional 

Noise-Sensitive Receivers 

C4A HrSR 7,937 100

C4A HSR 19,466 227

C4B HrSR 6,560 81

C4B HSR 15,549 179

C4C HrSR 9,284 110

C4C HSR 22,799 256

a HrSR = Higher-Speed Rail; HSR = High-Speed Rail
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-9 

Table 3.3-10: Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the 

Central Section

Alternativea 

Category 2: Acreage of 

Residential Land Use 

Category 3: Number of Institutional 

Noise-Sensitive Receivers 

C4A HrSR 8,686 32

C4A HSR 11,919 39

C4B HrSR 6,917 26

C4B HSR 9,566 35

C4C HrSR 9,019 37

C4C HSR 12,387 44

a HrSR = Higher-Speed Rail; HSR = High-Speed Rail

3.3.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The Southern Section EIS Study Area differs by alternative. Route Alternative S4 would be located 

on a new alignment outside of existing transportation corridors for most of its length, including rural 

and low-density suburban land uses with low exposure to existing ambient noise levels and 

vibration. Higher levels of exposure to ambient noise levels occur in portions of the EIS Study Area 

for Alternative S4 in existing rail corridors between Alice and Corpus Christi and between McAllen 

and Brownsville due to freight train operations and warning horn soundings near at-grade 

crossings. Adjacent to IH-37, and to a lesser extent U.S. Highway 281 (US-281), existing highway 

traffic causes the higher noise levels. There are also higher ambient noise level exposures 

associated with urbanized environments in the Route Alternative S4 EIS Study Area, including San 

Antonio, Laredo, Alice, Corpus Christi, McAllen, and Brownsville. 

Route Alternative S6 would be located on a new alignment outside of existing transportation 

corridors for its entire length south San Antonio. The route alternative is in an area of rural land 

uses, with low exposure to existing ambient noise levels and vibration. Higher exposure to ambient 

noise levels occurs only in the urbanized area of San Antonio, where the alignment would follow an 

existing railroad corridor. Overall, the existing environment in the Alternative S6 study represents an 

area that is very quiet. Tables 3.3-11 and 3.3-12 summarize the presence of sensitive land uses 

within the noise and vibration screening distances for each alternative in the Southern Section, 

identified in the High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FRA 

2012). 

Table 3.3-11: Noise-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the Southern 

Section

Alternativea 

Category 2: Acreage of 

Residential Land Use 

Category 3: Number of Institutional 

Noise-Sensitive Receivers 

S4 HrSR 8,753 62

S6 HrSR 687 1

S6 HSR 1,586 3

a HrSR = Higher-Speed Rail; HSR = High-Speed Rail
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-10

Table 3.3-12: Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses within Screening Distances in the 

Southern Section

Alternativea 

Category 2 

Acreage of 

Residential Land Use 

Category 3 

Number of Institutional 

Noise-Sensitive Receivers 

S4 HrSR 2,181 17

S6 HrSR 172 0 

S6 HSR 240 0 

a HrSR = Higher-Speed Rail; HSR = High-Speed Rail

Environmental Consequences 

3.3.4.1 Overview 

Construction activities would be temporary and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime 

working hours; however, some construction work may occur at night. Noise from construction 

activities would add to the noise environment in the EIS Study Area. The Transit Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment (FTA 2006) and High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment (FRA 2012) manuals provide guidelines to assess construction noise impact. 

Consistent with the manuals, impacts are experienced when the combined noise level of the two 

noisiest pieces of equipment, assuming they operate at the same time, exceed the following:

 Residential land use: One-hour Leq of 90 dBA during the day and 80 dBA during the night.

 Commercial and industrial land use: One-hour Leq of 100 dBA during the day and night.

The noise level from two equal sources is 3 dB greater than the source pressure level of only one 

source. It is assumed that the loudest pieces of equipment routinely used for construction of the 

alternatives would be diesel-powered heavy equipment. Noise levels from diesel-powered 

equipment range from 80 to 95 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Equipment such as rock drills and pile 

drivers, which are anticipated to be used less frequently than other pieces of diesel-powered heavy 

equipment, could generate louder noise levels. However, with the use of dampers noise levels can 

be reduced. Impact pile drivers with dampers generate sound levels of approximately 95 dBA at a 

distance of 50 feet. Therefore, if two pile drivers with dampers were operating at the same time, 

they would generate sound levels of approximately 98 dBA. Since these two pieces of equipment 

would generate sound levels that exceed the criteria of 90 dBA in the day and 80 dBA in the night, 

they would result in an impact to residential land uses during both day and night. However, neither 

commercial nor industrial land uses would experience impacts. Although the potential for noise 

effects during construction exists where an alternative would be constructed adjacent to sensitive 

land uses, the temporary nature and adherence to local noise ordinances would likely result in less 

than moderate effects. 

Construction activities may produce elevated vibration levels. There are two types of construction 

vibration effects to consider during construction: (1) human annoyance and (2) building damage. 

Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly for extended periods. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-11

Fragile buildings, in particular historic structures, are generally more susceptible to damage from 

ground vibration than newer, less fragile buildings. The potential for moderate or substantial 

vibration effects during construction increases where an alternative is located adjacent to sensitive 

land uses.

The potential for noise and vibration effects resulting from the Program would vary based on the 

speed of the train (the higher the speed, the greater the effect), the sensitivity of the land uses 

surrounding the train corridor, and the location of the train corridor (whether along an existing 

transportation route or on a new alignment). The screening distances used in this analysis take into 

account these variables. As noted in Section 3.3.2, Methodology, sensitive land uses include places 

where activities performed require low levels of noise or vibration. 

During operation, distances within which potential effects may occur are defined based on the 

operations of a typical high-speed rail system. These distances were developed from detailed noise 

models that (1) used empirical measurements of noise levels generated by existing steel-wheel-onsteel-rail high-speed trains, (2) used expected maximum operation levels and speeds, and (3) are 

considered sensitive land uses. The screening distances studied along the alignments are the 

areas in which there is potential for noise or vibration effects, and are defined in 

Section 3.3.2, Methodology. In addition to operational noise within the screening distances, the 

conventional and higher-speed service types would also generate potential noise effects caused by

warning horns and bells near at-grade crossings. Because the high-speed rail would be fully gradeseparated, it would not need to use warning horns or bells and would, therefore, avoid this type of 

noise effect. 

Station locations have not yet been determined, and station noise effects would need to be 

analyzed during subsequent project-level analysis. Noise generated by stations includes both trains 

approaching stations and vehicle traffic traveling to and from stations. 

3.3.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect noise and vibration.

3.3.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.3.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Within the noise effect screening distances identified for the noise analysis for Alternative N4A 

Conventional, there would be 15,395 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 

245 Category 3 noise-sensitive receivers (institutional land uses such as schools, libraries, 

churches, and cemeteries, which require a quiet environment). Within the vibration effect screening 

distances identified for the vibration analysis, there would be one high-sensitivity land use 

(Category 1 receivers), 11,247 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers), and 24 Category 

3 vibration-sensitive receivers. A moderate intensity effect was determined based on the range of 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-12

general land use types the N4A alignment travels through and the combined potential effects on

those land uses. Much of the alignment is located in rural farmland, with noise- and vibrationsensitive receivers and land uses at sparsely scattered locations. Because there are few sensitive 

receivers in these rural areas, intensity effects would be very low. However, in addition to these

rural land uses, there are also portions of densely developed cities along the N4A alignment that 

include concentrations of sensitive noise and vibration receivers and land uses, thereby elevating 

the potential intensity and resulting in a moderate effect. 

3.3.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

In the Central Section, as shown in Tables 3.3-9 and 3.3-10, the C4C Alternatives would have the 

greatest potential for effects on noise-sensitive and vibration-sensitive land uses because of their 

longer length; the C4B alternatives (both speed conventions) would have the least potential for 

effects because of their shorter length. The length of the alternatives within the Central Section is 

important since the length may introduce an increase in noise levels and greater number of 

sensitive receivers being exposed to those increases. This distinction is in reference to the potential 

for an increase in the number of noise impacts based on a longer, and therefore larger, alternative. 

Regardless of route, the high-speed rail alternatives would have a higher potential for effects on

noise-sensitive land uses than the higher-speed rail alternatives because noise generated by highspeed rail travels farther than the noise generated by higher-speed rail. The high-speed rail 

alternatives would also have a greater potential for vibration effects than the higher-speed rail 

alternatives, with one exception: Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have fewer potential 

vibration effects on Category C receivers than Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail because of the 

longer length of Alternative C4C. 

3.3.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Within the noise effect screening distances identified for the noise analysis, there would be 

7,937 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 100 Category 3 noise-sensitive

receivers. Within the vibration effect screening distances identified for the vibration analysis, there 

would be 8,686 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 32 Category 3 vibrationsensitive receivers. Long stretches of the alignment are located on rural land, with noise- and 

vibration-sensitive receivers and land uses at sparsely scattered locations. The intensity of effects 

in these areas would be very low. However, throughout the C4A alignment, there are also areas with 

densely developed cities, which include concentrations of sensitive noise and vibration receivers. 

These factors, along with the presence of existing highways and railroad corridors, elevate the 

intensity of effects to a moderate level. 

3.3.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Within the noise effect screening distances identified for the noise analysis, there would be 

19,466 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 227 Category 3 noise-sensitive

receivers. Within the vibration effect screening distances identified for the vibration analysis, there 

would be 11,919 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 39 Category 3 vibration-
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-13

sensitive receivers. As referenced above, the high-speed rail alternatives would have a higher 

potential for effects on noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses than the higher-speed rail 

alternatives. Additionally, and similar to Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, Alternative C4A HighSpeed Rail includes a range of both rural and densely developed lands, including noise- and 

vibration-sensitive receivers, along the alignment. Based on these conditions, Alternative C4A HighSpeed Rail would result in a moderate intensity effect. 

3.3.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Within the noise effect screening distances identified for the noise analysis, there would be 

6,560 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 81 Category 3 noise-sensitive

receivers. Within the vibration effect screening distances identified for the vibration analysis, there 

would be 6,917 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 26 Category 3 vibrationsensitive receivers. Long stretches of the alignment are located on rural land, with noise- and 

vibration-sensitive receivers and land uses at sparsely scattered locations. The intensity of effects 

in these areas would be very low, and therefore, negligible. 

3.3.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Within the noise effect screening distances identified for the noise analysis, there would be 

15,549 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 179 Category 3 noise-sensitive

receivers. Within the vibration effect screening distances identified for the vibration analysis, there 

would be 9,566 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 35 Category 3 vibrationsensitive receivers. As referenced above, the high-speed rail alternatives would have a higher 

potential for effects on noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses than the higher-speed rail 

alternatives. Additionally, and similar to Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail, Alternative C4B HighSpeed Rail is primarily made up of low-density, rural lands, including noise- and vibration-sensitive 

receivers, along the alignment. Based on these conditions, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would 

result in a negligible intensity effect. 

3.3.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Within the noise effect screening distances identified for the noise analysis, there would be 

9,284 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 110 Category 3 noise-sensitive

receivers. Within the vibration effect screening distances identified for the vibration analysis, there 

would be 9,019 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 37 Category 3 vibrationsensitive receivers. Long stretches of the alignment are located in rural farmland, with noise- and 

vibration-sensitive receivers and land uses at sparsely scattered locations. The intensity effects in 

these areas would be very low. However, throughout the corridor, there are existing highway and 

railroad corridors, elevating the intensity of effects to a moderate level. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-14

3.3.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Within the noise effect screening distances identified for the noise analysis, there would be 22,799 

acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 256 Category 3 noise-sensitive receivers. 

Within the vibration effect screening distances identified for the vibration analysis, there would be 

12,387 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 44 Category 3 vibration-sensitive

receivers. As referenced above, the high-speed rail alternatives would have a higher potential for 

effects on noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses than the higher-speed rail alternatives. 

Additionally, and similar to Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail is 

primarily rural, with existing highways and railroad corridors along the alignment. Based on these 

conditions, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would result in a moderate intensity effect. 

3.3.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Of the Southern Section alternatives, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have the greatest 

potential for effects on noise-sensitive and vibration-sensitive land uses, and Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail would have the least potential for effects, as shown in Tables 3.3-11 and 3.3-12. 

3.3.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Within the noise effect screening distances identified for the noise analysis, there would be 

8,753 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 62 Category 3 noise-sensitive

receivers. Within the vibration effect screening distances identified for the vibration analysis, there 

would be 2,181 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and 17 Category 3 vibrationsensitive receivers. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have more potential for noise and 

vibration effects than the other Southern Section alternatives. Long stretches of the alignment are 

located on low-density, suburban land, with noise- and vibration-sensitive receivers and land uses 

at sparsely scattered locations. The intensity effects in these areas would be very low. However, 

throughout the S4 alignment, there are also areas with densely developed cities, which include 

concentrations of sensitive noise and vibration receivers. These factors, along with the presence of 

existing highways and railroad corridors, elevate the intensity of effects to a moderate level. 

3.3.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Within the noise effect screening distances identified for the noise analysis, there would be 687 

acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and one Category 3 noise-sensitive receiver. 

Within the vibration effect screening distances identified for the vibration analysis, there would be 

172 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and no Category 3 vibration-sensitive

receivers. Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have less potential for noise and vibration effects 

than the other Southern Section alternatives. 

Long stretches of the alignment are located on low-density, rural land, with noise- and vibrationsensitive receivers and land uses at sparsely scattered locations. The intensity of effects for this 

alternative would be negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-15

3.3.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Within the noise effect screening distances identified for the noise analysis, there would be 

1,586 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and three Category 3 noise-sensitive

receivers. Within the vibration effect screening distances identified for the vibration analysis, there 

would be 240 acres of residential land use (Category 2 receivers) and no Category 3 noise-sensitive

receivers. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have more potential for noise and vibration effects 

than Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail but less potential than Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. 

As referenced above, the high-speed rail alternatives would have a higher potential for effects on 

noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses than the higher-speed rail alternatives. Additionally, and 

similar to Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail is made up primarily of 

rural land, including noise- and vibration-sensitive receivers, along the alignment. Long stretches of 

the alignment are located on low-density, rural land, with noise- and vibration-sensitive receivers 

and land uses at sparsely scattered locations. Based on these conditions, Alternative S6 HighSpeed Rail would result in negligible intensity effects. 

3.3.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Longer routes have more potential for effects on noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses than 

shorter routes because of their greater length. A new alignment would introduce noise and vibration 

to existing environments that do not currently have noise and vibration from rail infrastructure. 

However, because new alignments are generally located in rural areas with sparse development, 

there would be few noise- and vibration- sensitive receptors to experience the effects of increased 

or newly introduced noise and vibration.

Regardless of route, the high-speed rail alternatives would have greater potential for effects on 

noise-sensitive land uses than the higher-speed rail alternatives because noise generated by highspeed rail travels farther than the noise generated by higher-speed rail. The high-speed rail 

alternatives would also have more potential for vibration effects than the higher-speed rail 

alternatives in most cases. Tables 3.3-13 and 3.3-14 summarize the amount of sensitive land uses 

within the screening distances for each alternative and the potential effects. 

Table 3.3-13: Summary of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses and Potential Effects

Section Alternative 

Context Potential Intensity of 

Effects (Negligible, 

Moderate, or 

Substantial) 

Category 2 

(acres) 

Category 3 

(No. of 

facilities) 

No Build Alternativea 0 0 Negligible 

Northern N4A CONV 15,395 245 Moderate

Central 

C4A HrSR 7,937 100 Moderate

C4A HSR 19,466 227 Moderate
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-16

Section Alternative 

Context Potential Intensity of 

Effects (Negligible, 

Moderate, or 

Substantial) 

Category 2 

(acres) 

Category 3 

(No. of 

facilities) 

C4B HrSR 6,560 81 Negligible 

C4B HSR 15,549 179 Negligible 

C4C HrSR 9,284 110 Moderate

C4C HSR 22,799 256 Moderate

Southern S4 HrSR 8,753 62 Moderate

S6 HrSR 687 1 Negligible 

S6 HSR 1,586 3 Negligible 

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect 

from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.

Table 3.3-14: Summary of Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses and Potential Effects 

Section Alternative 

Context Potential 

Intensity of 

Effects 

(Negligible, 

Moderate, or 

Substantial) 

Category 1 

(Conventional 

Rail Only) 

Category 2 

(acres) 

Category 3 

(No. of 

facilities) 

No Build Alternativea 0 0 Negligible 

Northern N4A CONV 1 11,247 24 Moderate

Central 

C4A HrSR N/A 8,686 32 Moderate

C4A HSR N/A 11,919 39 Moderate

C4B HrSR N/A 6,917 26 Negligible 

C4B HSR N/A 9,566 35 Negligible 

C4C HrSR N/A 9,019 37 Moderate

C4C HSR N/A 12,387 44 Moderate

Southern 

S4 HrSR N/A 2,181 17 Moderate

S6 HrSR N/A 172 0 Negligible 

S6 HSR N/A 240 0 Negligible 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-17

Section Alternative 

Context Potential 

Intensity of 

Effects 

(Negligible, 

Moderate, or 

Substantial) 

Category 1 

(Conventional 

Rail Only) 

Category 2 

(acres) 

Category 3 

(No. of 

facilities) 

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.

N/A = not available

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

At the service level, detailed avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are only presented as 

proposed strategies. Some future rail traffic noise levels within the EIS Study Area have the 

potential to approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria and would require noise abatement 

consideration. These strategies will be developed to reduce noise and vibration for affected 

communities. 

Generally, the most practical strategy to avoid or reduce direct noise effects in route corridors 

would be to locate the alignment far away from noise-sensitive receivers. If effects cannot be 

avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies would be implemented at the project level. The most 

practical noise mitigation strategy would be the construction of noise barriers, including sound 

walls and vegetative buffers. In some areas, topography may reduce the effectiveness of noise 

barriers (e.g., where receivers are higher than the track). 

Measures to avoid and minimize effects on noise would include, but not be limited to, the following: 

 Construction of noise barriers 

 Alteration of property rights for construction of noise barriers 

 Acquisition of undeveloped land for buffer zones

 Noise berms

 Creation of noise buffer areas

 Noise insulation of buildings

 Adjustment of vertical and horizontal alignments 

Measures to mitigate noise effects would include, but would not be limited to, the following: 

 Evaluate potential operational controls, such as reducing train horn noise in compliance with 

the Quiet Zone requirements in FRA’s whistle ban regulation in the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR 

222).

 During construction, require noise control measures to ensure compliance with all federal and 

local guidelines and noise limits. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.3-18

Measures to avoid vibration effects may include, but would not be limited to, the use of design 

features such as thick slabs in tunnels and floating slabs or rail ties. If effects cannot be avoided or 

minimized, mitigation strategies would be implemented at the project level. Measures to mitigate 

vibration effects may include, but would not be limited to, the following: 

 Select and use equipment and construction techniques that produce the least vibration. 

 Use operational controls, such as restricting vibration-inducing activities to locations that have 

no potentially affected receivers or restricting vibration-inducing activities to less sensitive times 

of day. 

 Use highly resilient rail fasteners which fasten the rail line to the rail tie and reduces vibration.

Future project-specific noise analysis will determine where noise barriers or other techniques would

be an effective mitigation strategy. 

Subsequent Analysis 

A more comprehensive noise and vibration analysis will be performed during project-level studies. 

Specifically, background noise level data will be collected and the Detailed Noise and Vibration 

Analysis procedures outlined in the High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment (FRA 2012) will be used to predict noise and vibration levels specific to each 

subsequent higher-speed and high-speed project, allowing for site-specific effect evaluations and 

mitigations. The Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006) procedures will be 

used to predict noise and vibration levels specific to each conventional speed project. The detailed 

analysis for both noise and vibration will use more precise methods than the initial assessment 

procedures performed for this service-level EIS to account for variations in vertical and horizontal 

geometry, ground absorption, shielding, and equipment used during construction and operations. 

The added detail will provide more accurate predictions for both noise and ground-borne vibrations, 

and when necessary, for evaluation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-1 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

This section identifies solid waste management practices and solid waste management facilities 

within or serving the environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area. Potential effects on waste 

handling and disposal from the alternatives are also assessed in this section. The introduction to 

Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study Area and use of terms such as Study Vicinity and transportation 

corridor, along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

3.4.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to solid waste disposal within the EIS 

Study Area are listed and described below. Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and 

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

3.4.1.1 Federal 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal Laws and Regulations (including the 

Toxic Substances Control Act and Hazardous and Solid Wastes Amendments of 1984 as 

defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations). Provide rules and requirements related to the 

regulation of solid wastes. 

3.4.1.2 State 

 Oklahoma Solid Waste Management Act, 27A Oklahoma Statutes Annotated 2-10-101 to 2-10-

1001. Provides rules for the permitting, construction, operation, and closure of solid waste 

disposal sites. 

 Oklahoma Administrative Code 252:515. Provides authority and applicability to the Oklahoma 

Solid Waste Management Act, applicable to landfills, landfill operations, and solid waste 

collection and transport. 

 Oklahoma Administrative Code 252:515-19-34. Specifies limits on the number of tons that 

landfills can accept per day (with exceptions). 

 Solid Waste Disposal Act, Texas Health and Safety Code 361.001 to 361.912. Outlines the 

state's policies to safeguard the health, welfare, and physical property of people and to protect 

the environment by controlling the management of solid waste, including accounting for 

hazardous waste that is generated. 

3.4.2 Methodology 

The methodology for this evaluation consists of a combination of qualitative and quantitative 

assessments. The specific volume of solid waste generated by the alternatives is not known at this 

service-level EIS. A qualitative assessment was used for general comparisons of the alternatives 

when discussing solid waste issues or other issues that require a more detailed approach than 

what is warranted for this document. General conclusions are generated to support the relative 

change in effects among the alternatives. The No Build Alternative is the primary basis of 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-2 

comparison. The intensity of an effect as a result of the route alternatives, based on a general 

comparison between them and the No Build Alternative, is characterized as negligible, moderate, or 

substantial, compared with the No Build Alternative. For solid waste, these terms are defined as 

follows: 

 Negligible intensity effects would result if only limited quantities of solid waste are added to a 

landfill, which would result in a minor decrease to the remaining capacity (measured in tons) 

that can be accepted at a solid waste facility. 

 Moderate intensity effects are those that would result if quantities of solid waste added to a 

landfill would result in a moderate decrease to the remaining capacity (measured in tons) that 

can be accepted at a solid waste facility. 

 Substantial intensity effects are those that would result if the remaining capacity (measured in 

tons) for which the solid waste facility is permitted for is reached. 

In addition to the effects listed above, changes to the collection, transport, and disposal of solid 

waste could occur. The potential for — and the effect of — these changes will be included in projectlevel assessments. 

Direct physical effects on a landfill facility as the result of an alternative located on or near the 

landfill would be a substantial intensity effect. The presence of landfills within the EIS Study Area is 

included in the following analysis; however, the alignments have not been finalized for this servicelevel EIS. Potential direct effects on and from landfills located within the EIS Study Area will be 

further evaluated during project-level analysis. 

For the quantitative assessment, available solid waste information was used to assess the 

magnitude of the effect. To evaluate the quantitative effects on solid waste from the alternatives, 

the following activities were conducted: 

 Identification and evaluation of the municipalities within the EIS Study Area that either manage 

their own solid waste collection program or contract with a private enterprise to manage a 

program for the municipality. 

 Identification and evaluation of solid waste facilities, facility acceptance practices, and potential 

effects on waste handling from alternative routes. 

 Identification and evaluation of areas where further analysis would be necessary during the 

project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. 

3.4.3 Affected Environment 

The EIS Study Area for solid waste disposal is delineated by the counties intersected by or 

immediately adjacent to the 850-mile north-south corridor that have landfills which may potentially 

accept municipal solid waste or construction and demolition debris generated from construction of 

the alternatives. Within the Northern Section, five counties in Oklahoma and five counties in Texas 

have landfills that would potentially serve the Program. Within the Central Section, 13 counties in 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-3 

Texas have landfills that would potentially serve the Program. Within the Southern Section, 12 

counties in Texas have landfills that would potentially serve the Program. 

Counties in which the EIS Study Area is located collect solid waste using private enterprises, or they 

operate their own solid waste collection program. These programs have a collection and disposal 

system typically using household trash cans and commercial dumpsters emptied into carts or 

trucks that deliver the solid waste to municipal landfills or sorting centers. Based on the type of 

waste, the waste is taken to a landfill or recycling facility. Solid waste containing asbestos or waste 

determined to contain nonhazardous industrial waste may only be disposed of at landfills permitted 

to receive this type of waste (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ] 2013a, 2014). 

Fifty-eight landfills, identified in the following sections, would be potentially available within the EIS 

Study Area to receive solid waste generated from the Program. Additionally, landfills located outside 

the EIS Study Area have available capacity that could be used for solid waste and construction 

debris. 

3.4.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Sixteen landfills were identified within the Northern Section and are listed in Table 3.4-1. No active 

solid waste landfills were identified within the EIS Study Area of Alternative N4A. 

Table 3.4-1: Waste Management Facilities in the Northern Section 

County, State Landfilla, b 

Landfill 

Typec 

2012 

Tonsd 

Remaining 

Tonse 

Remaining 

Years 

(Permitted)b, e 

Alternative N4A 

Oklahoma County, OK Oklahoma 

Landfill 

1 549,606 332,770 0.4 

Oklahoma County, OK SE Oklahoma City 

Landfill 

1 499,460 1,216,312 1.2 

Oklahoma County, OK East Oak Sanitary 

Landfill 

1 525,451 3,104,168 4.3 

Oklahoma County, OK NE Landfill 4 190,552 94,964 0.4 

Canadian County, OK OEMA Landfill 1 77,650 298,348 3.51 

McClain County, OK Newcastle 

Landfill 

(Pinecrest) 

1 94 149,741 1,194 

Garvin County, OK Pauls Valley 

Landfill 

1 47,778 117,205 1.98 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-4 

County, State Landfilla, b 

Landfill 

Typec 

2012 

Tonsd 

Remaining 

Tonse 

Remaining 

Years 

(Permitted)b, e 

Carter County, OK Southern 

Oklahoma 

Regional Disposal 

Landfill 

1 177,451 886,908 4.33 

Grayson County, TX Hillside Landfill 1 62,523 6,079,993 98 

Grayson County, TX TASWA Disposal 

and Recycling 

Facility 

1 123,973 10,775,291 87 

Denton County, TX DFW Landfill 1 1,181,857 12,333,874 10 

Denton County, TX Camelot Landfill 1 334,866 6,899,000 21 

Denton County, TX City of Denton 

Landfill 

1 166,022 6,411,924 39 

Collin County, TX 121 Regional 

Disposal Facility 

1 723,856 76,580,210 106 

Hunt County, TX Republic Maloy 

Landfill 

1 96,622 4,935,598 51 

Parker County, TX IESI Weatherford 

Landfill 

1 174,782 1,875,161 11 

a Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) (2014a). 

b TCEQ (2013b). 

c Description of landfill types: Type 1 facilities are for disposal of municipal solid waste. Type 4 facilities accept only 

brush, construction and debris waste, and other similar waste that will not putrefy. 

d ODEQ (2014b). 

e ODEQ (2014c).

3.4.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Twenty-five landfills were identified within the Central Section and are listed in Table 3.4-2. One 

active solid waste landfill (Turkey Creek Landfill) was identified within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C. The location of the Turkey Creek Landfill is shown on Figure 3.4-1. 

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-5 

Figure 3.4-1: Turkey Creek Landfill 

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-6 

Three landfills within the EIS Study Area for the Central Section are designated as closed and are 

therefore not listed in Table 3.4-2: City of Abbott Landfill, City of Austin Landfill, and Guadalupe 

County Precinct 1 Landfill. These three landfills are discussed in Section 3.16, Public Safety and 

Hazardous Materials. 

Table 3.4-2: Waste Management Facilities in the Central Section 

County, State Landfilla, b 

Landfill 

Typec 

2012 

Tonsd 

Remaining 

Tonse 

Remaining 

Years 

(Permitted)b, e 

Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C 

Tarrant County, TX Southeast Landfill 1 499,311 12,944 24 

Tarrant County, TX Arlington Landfill 1 811,062 11,101,100 14 

Tarrant County, TX IESI Fort Worth C&D 

Landfill 

4 358,922 3,892,951 11 

Dallas County, TX McCommas Bluff 

Landfill 

1 1,419,508 67,806,589 48 

Dallas County, TX City of Grand Prairie 

Landfill 

1 164,031 11,687,758 50 

Dallas County, TX Hunter Ferrell 

Landfill 

1 164,693 10,758,677 65 

Dallas County, TX City of Garland 

Charles M Hinton Jr 

Landfill 

1 358,201 18,068,616 51 

Johnson County, TX City of Cleburne 

Landfill 

1 544 12,944 24 

Johnson County, TX Turkey Creek 

Landfillf

1 437,480 7,864,481 18 

Ellis County, TX Skyline Landfill 1 1,056,230 23,684,880 24 

Ellis County, TX CSC Disposal and 

Landfill 

1 11,344 19,231,334 1,695 

Ellis County, TX ECD Landfill 1 60,451 32,499,604 538 

Hill County, TX Itasca Landfill 1 291,734 46,794,663 160 

Navaro County, TX Corsicana Regional 

Landfill 

1 106,226 12,067,259 115 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-7 

County, State Landfilla, b 

Landfill 

Typec 

2012 

Tonsd 

Remaining 

Tonse 

Remaining 

Years 

(Permitted)b, e 

Coryell County, TX Fort Hood Landfill 1 22,851 1,631,348 34 

McLennan County, TX City of Waco Landfill 1 250,591 3,234,470 13 

McLennan County, TX Lacy Lakeview 

Recycling & Disposal 

Facility 

1 110,388 1,005,454 8 

Bell County, TX Temple Recycling & 

Disposal Facility 

1 356,652 6,317,245 15 

Williamson County, TX Williamson County 

Recycling & Disposal 

Facility 

1 249,158 40,588,678 120 

Travis County, TX Austin Community 

Recycling & Disposal 

Facility 

1 318,721 8,127,194 19 

Travis County, TX BFI Sunset Farms 

Landfill 

1 600,393 5,763,778 4 

Travis County, TX IESI Travis County 

C&D Landfill 

4 139,861 1,720,920 12 

Travis County, TX Texas Disposal 

Systems Landfill 

1 641,120 17,629,696 28 

Guadalupe County, TX Beck Landfill 4 195,418 4,469,776 20 

Bexar County, TX Tessman Road 

Landfill 

1 887,507 53,645,904 65 

a ODEQ (2014a). 

b TCEQ (2013b). 

c Description of landfill types: Type 1 facilities are for disposal of municipal solid waste. Type 4 facilities accept only 

brush, construction and debris waste, and other similar waste that will not putrefy. 

d ODEQ (2014b). 

e ODEQ (2014c). 

f Turkey Creek Landfill is within 250 feet of the EIS Study Area of Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C.

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-8 

3.4.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Seventeen landfills were identified within the EIS Study Area for the Southern Section and are listed 

in Table 3.4-3. Within the EIS Study Area of Route Alternative S4, the Jim Wells Landfill is 

designated as closed and is therefore not listed in Table 3.4-3. This landfill is discussed in Section 

3.16, Public Safety and Hazardous Materials. 

Table 3.4-3: Waste Management Facilities in the Southern Section 

County, State Landfilla, b 

Landfill 

Typec 2012 Tonsd 

Remaining 

Tonse 

Remaining 

Years 

(Permitted)b, e 

Route Alternative S4

Bexar County, TX Covel Gardens 

Landfill 

1 1,281,988 76,286,525 88 

McMullen County, TX McMullen 

County Landfill 

1 500 5,250 11 

Duval County, TX Duval County 

Landfill 

4 7,317 19,404 5 

Jim Wells County, TX City of Alice 

Landfill 

1 40,495 642,926 16 

Nueces County, TX El Centro 

Landfill 

1 174,000 9,965,235 57 

Nueces County, TX Cefe Valenzuela 

Landfill 

1 443,424 74,522,109 96 

Nueces County, TX Gulley Hurst 4 7,013 3,870,253 50 

Zapata County, TX San Ygnacio 

Landfill 

1, 4 2,503 157,744 30 

Brooks County, TX Brooks County 

Landfill 

4 253 59,992 29 

Kleberg County, TX City of Kingsville 

Landfill 

1 31,461 1,414,284 48 

Star County, TX City of Roma 

Landfill 

1 4,137 30,969 7 

Hidalgo County, TX Edinburg 

Regional 

Sanitary Landfill 

1 402,228 4,943,428 11 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-9 

County, State Landfilla, b 

Landfill 

Typec 2012 Tonsd 

Remaining 

Tonse 

Remaining 

Years 

(Permitted)b, e 

Hidalgo County, TX Precinct 3 – 

Penitas Landfill 

1 4,309 47,259 5 

Hidalgo County, TX BFI-Rio Grande 

Valley Landfill 

1 369,980 346,789 1 

Hidalgo County, TX Edinburg 

Regional Type IV 

Landfill 

4 100,046 5,145,701 35 

Cameron County, TX Brownsville 

MSW Landfill 

1 256,164 17,154,690 40 

Route Alternative S6 

Bexar County, TX Covel Gardens 

Landfill 

1 1,281,988 76,286,525 88 

Webb County, TX City of Laredo 

Sanitary Landfill 

1 334,502 3,602,176 11 

a ODEQ (2014a). 

b TCEQ (2013b). 

c Description of landfill types: Type 1 facilities are for disposal of municipal solid waste. Type 4 facilities accept only 

brush, construction and debris waste, and other similar waste that will not putrefy. 

d ODEQ (2014b). 

e ODEQ (2014c).

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.4.4.1 Overview 

Solid waste created during construction and demolition typically consists of asphalt, concrete, and 

metal rebar associated with roadway removal, culvert removal, and bridge renovations. The landfills 

that would receive the construction and demolition material from the Program have not been 

identified. Each landfill has specific permit requirements regarding the acceptance of wastes and 

construction and demolition material, and quantities of waste accepted each day that may 

influence the selection of disposal sites. 

Effects on solid waste disposal facilities are discussed with the understanding that some 

alternatives within the Northern, Central, and Southern sections could be built alone or combined 

with other routes. More than one alternative in the Central or Southern sections could be built in 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-10 

the future because the alternatives provide different service types for different destinations. Details 

on connecting the alternatives would be determined during the project-level analysis. 

Because of the variability in construction possibilities and the lack of detail, this analysis does not 

provide a summary of effects for the entire route from Oklahoma City to Laredo/Brownsville. 

Rather, this analysis provides information about each alternative compared with the No Build 

Alternative and, as appropriate, compared with another alternative for that same section. 

The specific locations of proposed stations are not addressed in this service-level EIS. However, 

based on the cities and communities where construction of stations is being considered 

programmatically, potential effects on solid waste facilities may be assessed based on whether a 

station would be in an urbanized, suburban, or rural/unimproved area. 

Potential effects on solid waste facilities and solid waste handling from implementation of the 

alternatives within the Northern, Central, and Southern sections are described below. 

3.4.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect solid waste disposal 

facilities. 

3.4.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.4.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A Conventional would not substantially affect the landfills within the EIS Study Area 

because this alternative would implement conventional rail using existing railroad facilities and/or 

corridors, thereby generating a limited amount of solid waste from construction or demolition 

activities. Solid waste generated would be limited to construction and demolition debris typically 

associated with roadway removal, culvert removal, and bridge renovations. The potential for 

building demolitions would be determined and evaluated during project-level assessments. 

Stations in the Northern Section would be constructed in suburban or urban areas. If existing 

stations require extensive renovation, the amount of solid waste generated would be equivalent to 

or potentially greater than the solid waste generated from the construction of a new station. 

Although the quantity of solid waste generated cannot be determined for this service-level EIS, 

16 landfills within the Northern Section have a combined average remaining landfill capacity of 

8,255,717 tons and an average combined remaining capacity of 102 years. Therefore, Alternative 

N4A would have a negligible effect on the landfills within the Northern Section compared with the 

No Build Alternative. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-11 

As discussed in Section 3.16, Public Safety and Hazardous Materials, construction would 

potentially generate hazardous waste consisting of welding materials, fuel and lubricant containers, 

paint and solvent containers, unused chemicals, and cement curing products containing strong 

basic or acidic chemicals. Demolition of older buildings, if required, could also generate hazardous 

waste, such as asbestos-containing materials, polychlorinated biphenyl-containing oil or equipment, 

and lead-based paint. The designated contractors for the Program would handle, store, and dispose 

of hazardous waste in accordance with applicable requirements, including the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act and local and state regulations. Properly licensed transport 

companies permitted to transport hazardous waste would deliver the waste to an appropriately 

permitted treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling facility. Generated wastes would be handled 

and disposed of in accordance with all applicable requirements; therefore, the effect would be 

negligible. Operations and maintenance of Alternative N4A would generate minor amounts of solid 

waste from passenger refuse disposal and materials used for maintenance activities. Because 

these operations and maintenance activities would generate small amounts of waste, effects would 

be negligible on the landfills within the Northern Section, compared with the No Build Alternative. 

3.4.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Each alternative in the Central Section has a higher-speed rail and a high-speed rail service type. 

Compared with conventional rail, higher-speed and high-speed rail both increase the potential for 

generating solid waste from construction and demolition activities associated with grade-separated 

crossings, new track next to existing rail, or new track and stations outside existing transportation 

corridors. Construction- and demolition-generated solid waste can result from clearing of 

vegetation, removal of existing asphalt and gravel, and demolition of existing structures. In addition, 

stations in the Central Section would be constructed in suburban or urban areas. If existing stations 

require extensive renovation, the amount of solid waste generated would be equivalent to or 

potentially greater than the solid waste generated from the construction of a new station. 

3.4.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Because of its higher-speed service type, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail has an increased 

potential for generating solid waste from construction and demolition activities associated with 

grade-separated crossings, new track next to existing rail, or new track and stations outside existing 

transportation corridors, compared with conventional rail and the No Build Alternative. The potential 

for construction to generate hazardous waste would be the same as for Alternative N4A 

Conventional and the effect would be negligible. 

Operations and maintenance of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would generate solid waste from 

passenger refuse disposal and materials used for maintenance activities. Because operations and 

maintenance activities would generate small amounts of waste, effects would be negligible on the 

landfills within the EIS Study Area compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Although the quantity of solid waste generated cannot be determined for this service-level EIS, 

25 landfills within the EIS Study Area for the Alternative C4A have a combined average remaining 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-12 

landfill capacity of 16,384,731 tons and an average combined remaining capacity of 127 years. 

Therefore, Alternative C4A would have a negligible effect on the landfills within the EIS Study Area. 

One active solid waste landfill (Turkey Creek Landfill), shown on Figure 3.4-1, was identified within 

the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A. Because this a service-level EIS, the alignments have not 

been finalized; potential impacts on and from this landfill would be further evaluated during projectlevel analysis. 

There are three closed landfills within the EIS Study Area of this alternative: City of Abbott Landfill, 

City of Austin Landfill, and Guadalupe County Precinct 1 Landfill. Potential effects on these landfills 

are discussed in Section 3.16, Public Safety and Hazardous Materials. 

3.4.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

The potential effects on solid waste handling and disposal during construction and operation of 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be the same as described in Section 3.4.4.4.1 for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Because of its high-speed service type, Alternative C4A HighSpeed Rail has an increased potential for generating solid waste from construction and demolition 

activities associated with grade-separated crossings, new track next to existing rail, or new track 

and stations outside existing transportation corridors, compared with conventional rail, higher 

speed rail, and the No Build Alternative. The permitted landfill capacity and operational duration 

described above would accommodate solid wastes generated from construction and operation of 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail and the effect would be negligible. 

3.4.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

The potential effects on solid waste handling and disposal during construction and operation of 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as described in Section 3.4.4.4.1 for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Because of its higher-speed service type, Alternative C4B HigherSpeed Rail has an increased potential for generating solid waste from construction and demolition 

activities associated with grade-separated crossings, new track next to existing rail, or new track 

and stations outside existing transportation corridors, compared with conventional rail and the No 

Build Alternative. The permitted landfill capacity and operational duration described in 

Section 3.4.4.4.1 would accommodate solid wastes generated from construction and operation of 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and the effect would be negligible. 

3.4.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

The potential effects on solid waste handling and disposal during construction and operation of 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be the same as described in Section 3.4.4.4.1 for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Because of its high-speed service type, Alternative C4B HighSpeed Rail has an increased potential for generating solid waste from construction and demolition 

activities associated with grade-separated crossings, new track next to existing rail, or new track 

and stations outside existing transportation corridors, compared with conventional rail, higher 

speed rail, and the No Build Alternative. The permitted landfill capacity and operational duration 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-13 

described above would accommodate solid wastes generated from construction and operation of 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail and the effect would be negligible. 

3.4.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

The potential effects on solid waste handling and disposal during construction and operation of 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as described in Section 3.4.4.4.1 for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Because of its higher-speed service type, Alternative C4C HigherSpeed Rail has an increased potential for generating solid waste from construction and demolition 

activities associated with grade-separated crossings, new track next to existing rail, or new track 

and stations outside existing transportation corridors, compared with conventional rail and the No 

Build Alternative. The permitted landfill capacity and operational duration described in Section 

3.4.4.4.1 would accommodate solid wastes generated from construction and operation of 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and the effect would be negligible. 

3.4.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

The potential effects on solid waste handling and disposal during construction and operation of 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be the same as described in Section 3.4.4.4.1 for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Because of its high-speed service type, Alternative C4C HighSpeed Rail has an increased potential for generating solid waste from construction and demolition 

activities associated with grade-separated crossings, new track next to existing rail, or new track 

and stations outside existing transportation corridors, compared with conventional rail, higher 

speed rail, and the No Build Alternative. The permitted landfill capacity and operational duration 

described above would accommodate solid wastes generated from construction and operation of 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail and the effect would be negligible. 

3.4.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The route alternatives in the Southern Section include the S4 route alternative, which is proposed 

as a higher-speed rail option, and the S6 route alternative, which is proposed as a higher-speed rail 

and a high-speed rail alternative. Compared with conventional rail, higher-speed and high-speed rail 

both increase the potential for generating solid waste from construction and demolition activities 

associated with grade-separated crossings, new track next to existing rail, or new track and stations 

outside existing transportation corridors. Solid waste created during these activities would be 

construction and demolition debris, which typically consists of asphalt, concrete, and metal rebar 

associated with roadway removal, culvert removal, and bridge renovations. In addition, stations in 

the Southern Section would be constructed in suburban, urban areas, or areas outside of existing 

transportation corridors. If existing stations require extensive renovation, the amount of solid waste 

generated would be equivalent to or potentially greater than the solid waste generated from the 

construction of a new station. 

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-14 

3.4.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

As described above and because of its higher-speed service type, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

would have an increased potential for generating solid waste from construction and demolition 

activities compared with conventional rail and the No Build Alternative. 

Although the quantity of solid waste generated cannot be determined for this service-level EIS, 

Sixteen landfills within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 have a combined average remaining 

landfill capacity of 12,163,285 tons and an average combined remaining capacity of 33 years. 

Therefore, Alternative S4 would have a negligible effect on the landfills within the Southern Section 

compared with the No Build Alternative. 

As discussed previously, the closed Jim Wells Landfill is within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail. Potential effects on this landfill are discussed in Section 3.16, Public Safety and 

Hazardous Materials. 

The potential for construction to generate hazardous waste would be the same as for 

Alternative N4A. 

Operations and maintenance of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would generate solid waste from 

passenger refuse disposal and materials used for maintenance activities. Because these 

operations and maintenance activities would generate small amounts of waste, effects would be 

negligible on the landfills within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4. 

3.4.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

The potential effects on solid waste handling and disposal during construction and operation of 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as described in Section 3.4.4.5.1 for 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. Because of its higher-speed service type, Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail has an increased potential for generating solid waste from construction and demolition 

activities associated with grade-separated crossings, new track next to existing rail, or new track 

and stations outside existing transportation corridors, compared with conventional rail and the No 

Build Alternative. 

Although the quantity of solid waste generated cannot be determined for this service-level EIS, two 

landfills within the EIS Study Area for the S6 alternatives have a combined average remaining 

landfill capacity of 39,944,351 tons and an average combined remaining capacity of 50 years. 

Therefore, both Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 High-Speed Rail would have a negligible 

effect on the landfills within the Southern Section compared with the No Build Alternative. 

3.4.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

The potential effects on solid waste handling and disposal during construction and operation of 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be the same as described in Section 3.4.4.5.2 for Alternative 

S6 Higher-Speed Rail. Because of its high-speed service type, Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail has an 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-15 

increased potential for generating solid waste from construction and demolition activities 

associated with grade-separated crossings, new track next to existing rail, or new track and stations 

outside existing transportation corridors, compared with conventional rail, higher-speed rail, and 

the No Build Alternative. The permitted landfill capacity and operational duration described above 

would accommodate solid wastes generated from construction and operation of Alternative S6 

High-Speed Rail and the effect would be negligible. 

3.4.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

There are 58 landfills potentially available within the EIS Study Area to receive solid waste 

generated from the alternatives (Tables 3.4-1 through 3.4-3). Because of the larger number of 

counties intersected by the Central Section EIS Study Area, 25 landfills would be available to 

potentially accept solid waste in that section. The Northern Section has 16 landfills available to 

potentially accept solid waste, and the Southern Section has 17 landfills available to potentially 

accept solid waste. The potential intensity of effects on the 58 landfills are summarized in Table 

3.4-4. 

Table 3.4-4: Effects on Solid Waste Facilities

Section Alternativea 

Potential Landfills 

Available to Accept 

Solid Waste within EIS 

Study Area 

Potential Intensity of 

Effects 

(Negligible, Moderate, 

Substantial) 

No Build Alternativeb 58 None 

Northern N4A CONV 16 Negligible 

Centralc 

C4A HSR 

25 

Negligible 

C4A HrSR Negligible 

C4B HSR Negligible 

C4B HrSR Negligible 

C4C HSR Negligible 

C4C HrSR Negligible 

Southernd 

S4 HrSR 16 Negligible 

S6 HSR 

2 Negligible 

S6 HrSR Negligible 

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail 

b The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.

c The number of landfills within the Central Section does not vary among the alternatives or between service types. 

d The number of landfills within the Southern Section does not vary between Alternative S6 service types. One landfill 

in the Southern Section (Covel Gardens Landfill) would potentially be used by both Alternatives S4 and S6, so it is 

listed twice. However, the total number of landfills in the Southern Section is 17. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.4 Solid Waste Disposal 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.4-16 

During construction, the amount of solid waste generated by Alternative N4A would be limited 

compared with the other build alternatives because the alternative would use existing rail corridors. 

Solid waste would be generated from upgrades or repairs to these rails rather than construction of 

new rails. Comparatively, higher-speed and high-speed rail service types may include construction 

of grade-separated crossings or new track next to existing rail, requiring the clearing of vegetation, 

removal of existing asphalt and gravel, and demolition of existing structures. These activities would 

generate more solid waste and construction debris than conventional rail would. 

3.4.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

The project-level analysis following this service-level EIS would identify impacts on landfills within 

the EIS Study Area. Although quantifiable impacts on the landfills are not known at the service-level 

EIS, potential mitigation strategies can be identified that would be used in project-level analysis 

based on recent rail corridor projects. Avoidance and minimization of effects at the project-level 

would be incorporated when feasible. If effects cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation 

strategies would be implemented. 

When considering mitigation for generation of solid waste from the alternatives, avoidance is the 

most effective way to minimize effects. In circumstances where the generation of solid waste 

cannot be avoided, the contractor would divert construction and demolition waste from landfills by 

reusing or recycling to reduce the amount of solid waste generated. The contractor would either 

segregate and/or recycle the waste at an appropriately permitted recycling facility or contract with 

an authorized agent to collect unsegregated waste and recycle at a permitted recycling facility in 

compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. Reuse and recycling of construction and 

demolition debris could divert much of these wastes from landfills. The landfills that would receive 

the construction and demolition material have not been identified. Each landfill has specific permit 

requirements regarding the acceptance of wastes and construction and demolition material and 

quantities of waste accepted each day that would influence the selection of disposal sites. 

Mitigation strategies related to potential to the active Turkey Creek Landfill identified within the EIS 

Study Areas of the C4A, C4B, and C4C alternatives would need to be further evaluated during the 

project-level analysis. 

3.4.6 Subsequent Analysis 

During project-level assessments, impacts on landfills will be determined based on design, sitespecific mapping, and identifying which landfills would potentially receive project-related solid 

waste or whether any active landfills are within the EIS Study Area. Additional analysis will also be 

conducted to determine the volume of solid waste generated based upon the selected alternative 

and service type. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-1 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife 

This section describes natural ecological systems, wildlife corridors and assemblages, and sensitive 

plant communities within the environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area and assesses 

potential effects on these resources by the alternatives. The introduction to Chapter 3 describes 

the EIS Study Area and use of terms, such as Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, along with

the standard organization of each analysis. 

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

This service-level EIS includes a corridor-level evaluation of reported resources in proximity to the 

build alternatives, not a detailed evaluation of individual resources and habitats. There are no 

specific federal or state laws or regulations that apply to natural ecological systems and wildlife, in 

general. However, there are a number of federal and state legislation and regulations pertaining to 

threatened and endangered species. Details regarding legal and regulatory requirements pertaining 

to threatened and endangered species are included in Section 3.7. The potential effects on natural 

ecological systems and wildlife were analyzed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 4321, et seq.), the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

policies and procedures for considering environmental impacts, and the Texas Department of 

Transportation (TxDOT) Environmental Manual (TxDOT 2004). Additional local and regional laws, 

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

Methodology 

The methodology for this evaluation consists of using existing data to identify natural ecosystem 

and wildlife resources that could be present within the 500-foot EIS Study Area for each build

alternative and evaluating the potential level of effect that each alternative could have if 

constructed. Build alternatives are compared with other alternatives within the same geographical 

section, as well as with the No Build Alternative. The intensity of an effect as a result of the build 

alternatives is characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial compared with the No Build 

Alternative. For natural ecological systems and wildlife, these terms are defined as follows: 

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

would have a slight change to natural ecological systems, wildlife corridors and assemblages 

and sensitive plant communities, and higher ecological importance/value land coverage areas, 

but are very close to the existing conditions. 

 Moderate intensity effects from construction and operation of an alternative would have a 

noticeable effect on natural ecological systems, wildlife corridors and assemblages and 

sensitive plant communities, and higher ecological importance/value land coverage areas, but 

would not have an adverse residual effect on resources. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-2 

 Substantial intensity effects would be long-term or permanent, and would have a noticeable, 

inevitable effect on natural ecological systems, wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive 

plant communities, and higher ecological importance/value land coverage areas within the 

buffer zone. 

Available information, such as land use coverage, wildlife corridors and assemblages, and sensitive 

plant communities, was used to assess the potential magnitude or intensity of the effects. To 

evaluate the potential effects on natural ecological systems and wildlife from construction and 

operation of the alternatives, the following acreages were quantified: 

 Acreage of National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2011 land cover types. Potential effects of 

each build alternative were determined using NLCD 2011 data by comparing acreages of 

developed land covers (low, medium, and high intensity and open space) with non-developed 

land covers (crops, forests, wetlands, pasture, etc.) within the EIS Study Area. The NLCD is 

created through a cooperative project by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) 

Consortium.

 Acreage of potential wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant communities.

Potential effects of each build alternative were determined using acreages of wildlife corridors 

and assemblages and sensitive plant communities within the EIS Study Area. 

To determine the locations of ecologically sensitive areas within the EIS Study Area and to analyze

the overall potential effects of each build alternative on this resource, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Ecological Assessment Protocol (REAP) methodology was used. 

This methodology is a screening-level, rapid assessment tool that uses existing data to assess 

ecoregions in the five states in EPA Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 

Texas). Characteristics assessed in REAP include land cover, contiguous size of undeveloped area, 

vegetation rarity, natural heritage rank, taxonomic richness, rare species richness, regularity of 

ecosystem boundaries, waterway obstructions (i.e., dams), road density, water quality, and air 

quality (EPA 2011). REAP assigns an Ecological Importance Rank to each acre within the EIS Study 

Area. The REAP composite data and the three data layers (diversity, rarity, and sustainability) are 

designed to assess EPA Region 6 by ecoregion and to identify the optimum ecological areas for 

protection and mitigation based on ecological theory (no political boundaries or regulatory 

programs). Higher scores indicate higher ecological importance/value, which are divided into the 

following five groups: 1 (top 1 percent of scores), 10 (top 10 percent of scores), 25 (top 25 percent 

of scores), 50 (top 50 percent of scores), and 100 (all the rest of the scores). Higher scores 

correspond to lower REAP values (1, 10, and 25), which represent the highest ecologically 

important areas. REAP scores were determined to evaluate the potential quantitative effects on 

natural ecological systems and wildlife using a similar basis of comparison across the alternatives. 

Affected Environment 

The Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program (Program) corridor spans 850 miles, from central 

Oklahoma to south Texas. Therefore, the alternatives are spread across a broad geographic area 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-3 

with typical weather patterns that include semi-arid, humid subtropical, and modified subtropical 

conditions. The EIS Study Area generally lies along low-elevation basins and valleys associated with 

the Great Plains in the north and with the Coastal Plains in the south. Land cover types within the 

EIS Study Area include developed, vegetated with open grasslands, agricultural, shrubland, and 

forests. 

In general, the climate in the Study Vicinity is characterized by a regime of moderate to hot summer 

drought and winter rain. Winter rain results from low-pressure depressions associated with Pacific 

and Arctic fronts (University of Oklahoma 2014; Texas Climate Data 2014). In the Northern Section, 

annual precipitation averages 48 inches near Oklahoma City to 37 inches near Dallas and Fort 

Worth. In the Central Section, annual precipitation averages 36 inches in Waco to 34 inches in 

Austin. In the Southern Section, annual precipitation ranges from 32 inches in San Antonio to 

20 inches in Laredo. Precipitation is generally rain except during winter in the Northern Section 

from Oklahoma to Dallas and Fort Worth where snowfall can occur. The daily high temperature 

ranges on average from 50 to 94 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the Northern Section to 67 to 100°F 

in the Southern Section; however, temperatures over 100°F are common in summer throughout 

the entire Study Vicinity (U.S. Climate Data 2014). 

The NLCD is used in this analysis to describe general vegetation characteristics throughout the EIS 

Study Area and to compare areas of developed versus non-developed land covers. The NLCD 2011 

land cover types within the EIS Study Area are defined in Table 3.5-1. 

Table 3.5-1: National Land Cover Database Land Cover Types

Land Cover Type Definition 

Developed, High Intensity Highly developed, where people reside or work in high numbers.

Developed, Medium 

Intensity

Mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces 

account for 50 to 79 percent of the total cover. 

Developed, Low Intensity Mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces 

account for 20 to 49 percent of total cover.

Developed, Open Space Mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form 

of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20 percent of 

total cover.

Barren Land Rock, sand, and clay. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15 

percent of total cover.

Deciduous Forest Dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall and greater than 

20 percent of total vegetation cover.

Evergreen Forest Dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall and greater than 

20 percent of total vegetation cover.

Mixed Forest Dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall and greater than 

20 percent of total vegetation cover.

Shrub/Scrub Dominated by shrubs less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically 

greater than 20 percent of total vegetation.

Grassland/Herbaceous Dominated by gramanoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally greater than 

80 percent of total vegetation.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-4 

Land Cover Type Definition 

Pasture/Hay Grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing 

or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. 

Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total 

vegetation.

Cultivated Crops Used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, 

vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and perennial woody crops, such as 

orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 

percent of total vegetation.

Woody Wetlands Forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of 

vegetative cover, and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or 

covered with water.

Emergent Herbaceous 

Wetlands

Perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for greater than 80 percent of 

vegetative cover, and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated or 

covered with water.

Open Water Open water, generally with less than 25 percent cover of vegetation or soil. 

Source: Homer et al. (2015).

Based on the 2011 Environmental Occurrences for Federal and State Listed and Tracked 

Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species spatial dataset (Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 2012), one 

sensitive terrestrial plant community, Little Bluestem-Indiangrass series (Schizachyrium scopariumsorghastrum nutans series), is located within the EIS Study Area. The Little Bluestem-Indiangrass 

series plant community is an upland prairie, native tall grassland, climax plant community that 

contains native grasses and forbs. Much of north-central Texas was historically native prairies or 

savannahs. Few native prairie sites remain today, although there are extensive grasslands on many 

private ranches in the northern portion of the Fort Worth Prairie (Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department [TPWD] 2014). 

Based on the same dataset, one type of animal assemblage, identified as a “rookery,” is located 

within the EIS Study Area. Rookeries, or breeding grounds of colony-forming species, are important 

in an ecosystem as they are home to migratory and resident wading birds and shorebirds. No other 

natural plant communities or other significant features (e.g., bat caves, prairie dog towns) occur 

within the EIS Study Area. 

3.5.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.5.3.1.1 National Land Cover Database – Land Cover 

Based on the NLCD, approximately 46 percent (6,947 acres) of the 15,108 acres of the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative N4A is composed of developed land coverage types (high, medium, and low 

intensity or open space). The remaining 54 percent (8,161 acres) is composed of non-developed 

land coverage types, with grasslands composing 30 percent, forest composing 12 percent, 

cultivated crops composing 6 percent, and pasture composing 5 percent. Less than 1 percent of 

the EIS Study Area is composed of wetlands and shrubland/scrub. Table 3.5-2 includes the acres of 

NLCD land cover types within the EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A Conventional, as well as the 

detailed percentages of total area for each land cover type. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-5 

Table 3.5-2: Acres of Potential NLCD Land Cover Types within EIS Study Area – 

Alternative N4A 

Land Cover Type 

Alternative N4A 

Acres of Land Cover Types 

within EIS Study Area 

Percentage of Total EIS 

Study Area 

Developed 

High Intensity 1,249 8%

Medium Intensity 1,625 11%

Low Intensity 2,046 14%

Open Space 2,027 13%

Total Developeda 6,947 46% 

Non-developed 

Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 53 <1%

Cultivated Crops 960 6%

Deciduous Forest 1,748 12%

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 8 <1%

Evergreen Forest 15 <1%

Grassland/Herbaceous 4,465 30%

Mixed Forest 0 0%

Open Water 120 1%

Pasture/Hay 783 5%

Shrub/Scrub 2 <1%

Woody Wetlands 7 <1%

Total Non-developed a 8,161 54%

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: MRLC (2011). 

3.5.3.1.2 Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Communities 

Based on the spatial datasets acquired from TXNDD and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation (ODWC) (2014) and shown on Figure 3.5-1, approximately 85 acres of animal 

assemblage area (rookeries) occur within the EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A. No other wildlife 

corridors and assemblages or sensitive plant communities were identified within the EIS Study 

Area. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-6 

Figure 3.5-1: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Northern Section 

Alternative

(Note that wildlife corridors and assemblages are included in figures as Animal Assemblages.)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-7 

3.5.3.1.3 REAP Composite Scores 

As identified in Table 3.5-3, potentially 10 percent (1,535 acres) of the total land coverage of the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A is composed of higher ecological importance/value land 

coverage areas (Ecological Importance Rankings of 1, 10, and 25). As shown on Figures 3.5-2 and 

3.5-3, most lands with higher ecological importance are in areas just south of Norman, Oklahoma, 

near Murray County as the route passes through Love and Grayson counties. All other areas of 

Alternative N4A Conventional consist predominantly of lower ecological value land types.

Table 3.5-3: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – 

Alternative N4A 

Ecological 

Importance Rank 

Alternative N4A 

Acres of Potential REAP 

Ecological Importance 

Ranking Types within EIS 

Study Area 

Total Area of EIS Study Area 

(High Value vs. All Other Land 

Types) 

1 100

10 665 10% (1,535 acres) 

25 770

50 1,829 90% (13,572 acres) 100 11,743

Total (acres)a 15,107 - 

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: EPA (2011). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-8 

Figure 3.5-2: REAP Composite Scores – Northern Section Alternative
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-9 

Figure 3.5-3: REAP Composite Scores – Northern Section Alternative
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-10

3.5.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.5.3.2.1 National Land Cover Database – Land Cover 

Based on NLCD data, approximately 38 percent (7,564 acres) of the 20,129 acres of the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative C4A is composed of developed land coverage types. The remaining 62 percent 

(12,565 acres) is composed of non-developed land coverage types, with grasslands composing 21 

percent, cultivated crops composing 15 percent, shrub/scrub composing 9 percent, and forest and 

pasture each composing 7 percent. Wetlands and open water compose about 2 percent and less 

than 1 percent, respectively. Table 3.5-4 includes the acres of potential land cover types within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A, as well as the detailed percentages of total area for each land 

cover type. The northern extent of Alternative C4A, near Dallas and Fort Worth, would follow the 

Trinity Railway Express (TRE) between Fort Worth and Dallas, then continue south on the BNSF 

alignment; however, most of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, starting at Waxahachie, would 

follow an alignment outside existing transportation corridors.

Table 3.5-4: Acres of Potential Land Cover Types – Alternative C4A 

Land Cover Type 

Alternative C4A 

Acres of Land Cover Types 

within EIS Study Area 

Percentage of Total EIS 

Study Area 

Developed 

High Intensity 1,347 7%

Medium Intensity 1,809 9%

Low Intensity 1,667 8%

Open Space 2,741 14%

Total Developeda 7,564 38%

Non-developed 

Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 48 <1%

Cultivated Crops 3,013 15%

Deciduous Forest 1,284 6%

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 18 <1%

Evergreen Forest 261 1%

Grassland/Herbaceous 4,274 21%

Mixed Forest 63 <1%

Open Water 80 <1%

Pasture/Hay 1,404 7%

Shrub/Scrub 1,720 9%

Woody Wetlands 400 2%

Total Non-developeda 12,565 62%

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: MRLC (2011). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-11

Approximately 36 percent (6,642 acres) of the 18,675 acres of the EIS Study Area for Alternative 

C4B is composed of developed land coverage types. The remaining 63 percent (12,033 acres) is 

composed of non-developed land coverage types, with grasslands composing 21 percent, cultivated 

crops composing 17 percent, shrub/scrub and pasture each composing 9 percent, and forest 

composing 5 percent. Wetlands and open water compose 2 percent and less than 1 percent, 

respectively. Table 3.5-5 includes the acres of potential land cover types within the EIS Study Area 

for Alternative C4B, as well as the percentages of total area for each land cover type. 

Table 3.5-5: Acres of Potential Land Cover Types – Alternative C4B 

Land Cover Type 

Alternative C4B 

Acres of Land Cover Types 

within EIS Study Area 

Percentage of Total EIS 

Study Area 

Developed 

High Intensity 1,318 7%

Medium Intensity 1,810 10%

Low Intensity 1,374 7%

Open Space 2,140 11%

Total Developeda 6,642 36%

Non-developed 

Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 30 <1%

Cultivated Crops 3,252 17%

Deciduous Forest 812 4%

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 10 <1%

Evergreen Forest 237 1%

Grassland/Herbaceous 3,886 21%

Mixed Forest 63 <1%

Open Water 59 <1%

Pasture/Hay 1,602 9%

Shrub/Scrub 1,716 9%

Woody Wetlands 366 2%

Total Non-developeda 12,033 63%

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: MRLC (2011). 

Approximately 38 percent (9,122 acres) of the 23,713 acres of the EIS Study Area for Alternative 

C4C is composed of developed land coverage types. The remaining 62 percent (14,591) is 

composed of grasslands (23 percent), cultivated crops (14 percent), forest (8 percent), shrub/scrub 

(7 percent), and pasture (6 percent). Wetlands and open water compose 2 percent and less than 1 

percent, respectively. Table 3.5-6 includes the acres of potential land cover types within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4C, as well as the percentages of total area for each land cover type. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-12

The northern extent of Alternative C4C, near Dallas and Fort Worth, would follow the TRE between 

Fort Worth and Dallas, then continue south on the BNSF alignment; however, the majority of the 

alternative, starting at Waxahachie, would follow an alignment outside existing transportation 

corridors.

Table 3.5-6: Acres of Potential Land Cover Types – Alternative C4C

Land Cover Type 

Alternative C4C 

Acres of Land Cover Types 

within EIS Study Area 

Percentage of Total EIS 

Study Area 

Developed 

High Intensity 1,533 6%

Medium Intensity 2,080 9%

Low Intensity 2,108 9%

Open Space 3,401 14%

Total Developeda 9,122 38%

Non-developed 

Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 60 <1%

Cultivated Crops 3,350 14%

Deciduous Forest 1738 7%

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 18 <1%

Evergreen Forest 264 1%

Grassland/Herbaceous 5,415 23%

Mixed Forest 63 <1%

Open Water 84 <1%

Pasture/Hay 1,453 6%

Shrub/Scrub 1,728 7%

Woody Wetlands 418 2%

Total Non-developeda 14,591 62%

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: MRLC (2011). 

3.5.3.2.2 Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Communities 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, approximately 107, 66, and 107 acres of 

rookery animal assemblage occur within the EIS Study Areas for Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C, 

respectively. Approximately 628 acres of Little Bluestem-Indiangrass series terrestrial community 

occur within the EIS Study Areas. As identified on Figures 3.5-4 and 3.5-5, most animal 

assemblages and special terrestrial communities identified within the EIS Study Area are located in 

the portions of the alternative outside existing transportation corridors.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-13

Figure 3.5-4: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Central Section 

Alternatives

(Note that wildlife corridors and assemblages are included in figures as Animal Assemblages.)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-14

Figure 3.5-5: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Central Section 

Alternatives

(Note that wildlife corridors and assemblages are included in figures as Animal Assemblages.)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-15

3.5.3.2.3 REAP Composite Scores 

As identified in Table 3.5-7, potentially 18 percent (3,537 acres) of the total acreage of the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4A is composed of higher ecological importance/value land coverage 

areas (Ecological Importance Rankings of 1, 10, and 25). As shown on Figures 3.5-6 and 3.5-7, the 

majority of lands with higher ecological importance are in the portions of Alternatives C4A outside 

existing transportation corridors, in areas just south of McGregor, through Temple, and east of 

Austin and as the corridor passes through Guadalupe County. Areas of Alternative C4A that consist 

of predominantly lower ecological value land types are near Dallas and Fort Worth, where the 

alternative would follow the existing right-of-way of the TRE to Dallas and continue on the BNSF 

alignment. 

Table 3.5-7: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – 

Alternative C4A 

Ecological Importance 

Rank 

Alternative C4A 

Acres of Potential REAP 

Ecological Importance 

Ranking Types within EIS 

Study Area 

Total Area of EIS Study Area 

(High Value vs. All Other 

Land Types) 

1 32

10 1,884 18% (3,537 acres)

25 1,621

50 3,407 82% (16,591 acres) 100 13,184

Total (acres)a 20,128 - 

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: EPA (2011). 

As identified in Table 3.5-8, potentially 18 percent (3,328 acres) of the total acreage of the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4B is composed of higher ecological importance/value land coverage 

areas (Ecological Importance Rankings of 1, 10, and 25). As shown on Figures 3.5-6 and 3.5-7, the 

majority of lands with higher ecological importance are in the portions of Alternative C4B outside 

existing transportation corridors, in areas just south of McGregor, through Temple, and east of 

Austin and as the corridor passes through Guadalupe County. Areas of Alternative C4B that consist 

of predominantly lower ecological value land types are near Dallas and Fort Worth, where the 

alternative would follow a new elevated high-speed rail alignment in the Interstate Highway (IH)-30 

median to Arlington. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-16

Table 3.5-8: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – 

Alternative C4B 

Ecological 

Importance 

Rank 

Alternative C4B 

Acres of Potential REAP Ecological 

Importance Ranking Types within EIS 

Study Area 

Total Area of EIS Study Area 

(High Value vs. All Other 

Land Types) 

1 32

10 1,839 18% (3,328 acres)

25 1,457

50 2,727 82% (15,347 acres) 100 12,621

Total (acres)a 18,675 - 

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: EPA (2011). 

As identified in Table 3.5-9, potentially 15 percent (3,556 acres) of the total acreage of the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail is composed of higher ecological 

importance/value land coverage areas (Ecological Importance Rankings of 1, 10, and 25). As 

shown on Figures 3.5-6 and 3.5-7, the majority of lands with higher ecological importance are in 

the portions of Alternative C4C outside existing transportation corridors, in areas just south of 

McGregor, through Temple, and east of Austin and as the corridor passes through Guadalupe 

County. Areas of Alternative C4C that consist of predominantly lower ecological value land types are 

near Dallas and Fort Worth, where the alternative would follow a new elevated high-speed 

alignment in the IH-30 median to Arlington. 

Table 3.5-9: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – 

Alternative C4C 

Ecological 

Importance 

Rank 

Alternative C4C 

Acres of Potential REAP Ecological 

Importance Ranking Types within EIS 

Study Area 

Total Area of EIS Study Area 

(High Value vs. All Other Land 

Types) 

1 32

10 1,884 15% (3,556 acres)

25 1,640

50 3,613 85% (20,158 acres) 100 16,546

Total (acres)a 23,714 - 

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: EPA (2011). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-17

Figure 3.5-6: REAP Composite Scores – Central Section Alternatives 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-18

Figure 3.5-7: REAP Composite Scores – Central Section Alternatives 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-19

3.5.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.5.3.3.1 National land Cover Database – Land Cover 

Based on the NLCD, approximately 32 percent (7,998 acres) of the 25,194 acres of the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative S4 is composed of developed land coverage types. The remaining 68 percent 

(17,196) is composed of non-developed land coverage types, with shrub/scrub composing 34 

percent, pasture composing 12 percent, grassland and cultivated crops each composing 9 percent. 

Wetlands compose about 2 percent, and forests compose 1 percent. Table 3.5-10 includes the 

acres of potential land cover types within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4, as well as the 

detailed percentages of total area for each land cover type. 

Table 3.5-10: Acres of Potential Land Cover Types within EIS Study Area – Alternative 

S4 

Land Cover Type 

Alternative S4 

Acres of Land Cover Types 

within EIS Study Area 

Percentage of Total EIS 

Study Area 

Developed 

High Intensity 776 3%

Medium Intensity 2,019 8%

Low Intensity 2,888 11%

Open Space 2,315 9%

Total Developeda 7,998 32%

Non-developed 

Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 260 1%

Cultivated Crops 2,174 9%

Deciduous Forest 340 1%

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 64 <1%

Evergreen Forest 41 <1%

Grassland/Herbaceous 2,330 9%

Mixed Forest 24 <1%

Open Water 45 <1%

Pasture/Hay 2,948 12%

Shrub/Scrub 8,574 34%

Woody Wetlands 396 2%

Total Non-developeda 17,196 68%

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: MRLC (2011). 

Only approximately 8 percent (701 acres) of the 8,666 acres of the EIS Study Area for Alternative 

S6 is composed of developed land coverage types. The majority of the land coverage of the EIS 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-20

Study Area is composed of non-developed land coverage types, consisting of shrub/scrub 

(44 percent), grasslands (20 percent), cultivated crops (14 percent), pasture (7 percent), wetlands 

(emergent herbaceous and woody) (3 percent), and forest (deciduous, evergreen, and woody) 

(3 percent). Table 3.5-11 includes the acres of potential land cover types within the EIS Study Area 

for Alternative S6, as well as the detailed percentages of total area for each land cover type. 

Table 3.5-11: Acres of Potential Land Cover Types within EIS Study Area – 

Alternative S6 

Land Cover Type 

Alternative S6 

Acres of Land Cover Types 

within EIS Study Area 

Land Cover Types within EIS 

Study Area 

Developed 

High Intensity 84 1%

Medium Intensity 97 1%

Low Intensity 202 2%

Open Space 318 4%

Total Developeda 701 8%

Non-developed 

Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 108 1%

Cultivated Crops 1,177 14%

Deciduous Forest 112 1%

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 9 <1%

Evergreen Forest 58 1%

Grassland/Herbaceous 1,729 20%

Mixed Forest 52 1%

Open Water 11 <1%

Pasture/Hay 578 7%

Shrub/Scrub 3,852 44%

Woody Wetlands 279 3%

Total Non-developeda 7,965 92%

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: MRLC (2011). 

3.5.3.3.2 Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Communities 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, approximately 678 acres of Little BluestemIndiangrass series terrestrial community and no wildlife corridors and assemblages are located 

within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4. However, as shown on Figures 3.5-8 through 3.5-11, 

the large area of this terrestrial community is in Brooks County, in an area that would be 

constructed on an existing abandoned rail, in areas that were disturbed by prior rail development. 

No wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant communities were identified within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative S6. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-21

Figure 3.5-8: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Southern Section 

Alternatives

(Note that wildlife corridors and assemblages are included in figures as Animal Assemblages.)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-22

Figure 3.5-9: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Southern Section 

Alternatives 

(Note that wildlife corridors and assemblages are included in figures as Animal Assemblages.)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-23

Figure 3.5-10: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Southern Section 

Alternatives

(Note that wildlife corridors and assemblages are included in figures as Animal Assemblages.)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-24

Figure 3.5-11: Wildlife Corridors/Assemblages and Communities – Southern Section 

Alternatives

(Note that wildlife corridors and assemblages are included in figures as Animal Assemblages.)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-25

3.5.3.3.3 REAP Composite Scores 

As identified in Table 3.5-12, potentially 15 percent (3,659 acres) of the total acreage of the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative S4 is composed of higher ecological importance/value land coverage 

areas (Ecological Importance Rankings of 1, 10, and 25). As shown on Figures 3.5-12 through 

3.5-15, the majority of lands with higher ecological importance for Alternative S4 are near Brooks, 

Live Oak, Duval, and Webb counties. 

Table 3.5-12: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – 

Alternative S4 

Ecological Importance 

Rank 

Alternative S4 

Acres of Potential REAP Ecological Importance 

Ranking Types within EIS Study Area 

Total Area of EIS Study Area 

(High Value vs. All Other Land Types) 

1 21

10 1,088 15% (3,659 acres)

25 2,550

50 4,589 85% (21,533 acres) 100 16,943

Total (acres)a 25,192 - 

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: EPA (2011). 

As identified in Table 3.5-13, potentially 21 percent (1,796 acres) of the total acreage of the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail is composed of higher ecological importance/value 

land coverage areas (Ecological Importance Rankings of 1, 10, and 25). As shown on Figures 

3.5-12 through 3.5-15, most lands with higher ecological importance for Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail are in areas near Dimmit and Webb counties.

Table 3.5-13: Acres of Potential REAP Composite Ranking Land Coverages – 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail

Ecological Importance 

Rank 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Acres of Potential REAP Ecological Importance 

Ranking Types Within EIS Study Area 

Total Area of EIS Study Area (High 

Value vs. All Other Land Types) 

1 31

10 538 21% (1,796 acres)

25 1,227

50 2,389 79% (6,901 acres) 100 4,469

Total (acres)a 8,653 - 

a Acreage totals may be slightly different because values were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: EPA (2011). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-26

Figure 3.5-12: REAP Composite Scores – Southern Section Alternatives 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-27

Figure 3.5-13: REAP Composite Scores – Southern Section Alternatives
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-28

Figure 3.5-14: REAP Composite Scores – Southern Section Alternatives 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-29

Figure 3.5-15: REAP Composite Scores – Southern Section Alternatives 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-30

Environmental Consequences 

3.5.4.1 Overview 

Effects from the proposed alternatives and associated infrastructure can be broadly classified into

construction and operations effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term effects on 

natural ecological systems and wildlife would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of the 

build alternatives. Long-term or permanent effects on vegetation, including sensitive plant 

communities, would occur from permanent structures (e.g., track, stations), clearing for 

construction, staging of equipment, and stockpiling of soil, ballast, or other construction materials.

Short-term effects on adjacent habitats and their corresponding wildlife would be caused by noise, 

vibration, and air pollution from construction equipment and activities. In general, conventional rail

would have fewer construction effects on natural because it would follow existing rail alignments, 

with minimal new right-of-way. Higher-speed and high-speed rail service types would have more 

effects during construction because some or all of the alignment would be constructed in a new 

corridor.

Operations effects on wildlife for conventional and higher-speed rail would include making wildlife 

movement vulnerable to an increased risk of strikes from the additional rail traffic along the routes. 

High-speed rail would be completely fenced; therefore, the risk of strikes would be lower for this 

service type. Additionally, construction of new tracks on rail bed elevated above the floodplain could 

create barriers to wildlife movement. High-speed rail would be fully grade-separated; therefore, 

more passages for wildlife would likely be included.

3.5.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and the need of the Program. Therefore, the No Build Alternative is anticipated to have the least 

effect on natural ecosystems and wildlife.

3.5.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.5.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

National Land Cover Database – Land Cover Type Effects 

Alternative N4A Conventional would follow the BNSF rail alignment and the existing TRE tracks. 

Therefore, this alternative would likely be constructed in areas that were disturbed by prior rail 

development. 

The percentage of total non-developed land covers within the EIS Study Area represents a negligible 

effect on undeveloped land when compared with the No Build Alternative. Most effects from this 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-31

alternative would be during construction within existing rights-of-way that were disturbed by prior 

rail development. 

The potential operations effects associated with Alternative N4A Conventional with regard to 

developed land covers within the EIS Study Area would be considered negligible as the service 

would operate within existing rights-or-way.

3.5.4.3.2 Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Community Effects 

The potential construction effects of Alternative N4A Conventional on wildlife corridors and 

assemblages or sensitive plant communities would be negligible because this alternative would be 

constructed within existing rights-of-way that have been disturbed by prior rail development. 

Operations effects for Alternative N4A Conventional would be moderate because this alternative 

would not likely be fenced, making wildlife movement vulnerable to an increased risk for strikes 

from the additional rail traffic along the route. Such effects would have a noticeable effect on 

wildlife, but the effects could be reduced by the use of best management practices (BMPs) (see 

Section 3.5.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

REAP Composite Score Effects 

Most lands with higher ecological importance are in areas just south of Norman, Oklahoma, near 

Murray County as the route passes through Love and Grayson counties. All other areas of 

Alternative N4A Conventional consist predominantly of lower ecological value land types, and in 

these areas, the alternative would not substantially affect areas of higher ecological importance 

within the EIS Study Area. The potential effects associated with construction and operation of 

Alternative N4A Conventional on higher ecological importance/value land coverage types would be 

negligible, as most effects from this alternative would be during construction within existing rightsof-way that were disturbed by prior rail development 

3.5.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.5.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

National Land Cover Database – Land Cover Type Effects 

The northern extent of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, near Dallas and Fort Worth, would follow 

the TRE between Fort Worth and Dallas, then continue south on the BNSF alignment; however, 

most of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, starting at Waxahachie, would follow an alignment

outside existing transportation corridors. Because of the high percentage of total non-developed 

land cover types within the EIS Study Area, and because most of the alternative would follow an 

alignment outside existing transportation corridors, the alternative could have a noticeable, 

inevitable effect on non-developed land within the EIS Study Area. The potential construction 

effects of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail on non-developed land cover types within the EIS Study 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-32

Area would be substantial compared to the No Build Alternative because construction effects on 

vegetation outside existing transportation corridors are considered long-term or permanent. 

The potential operations effects associated with Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail with regard to 

developed land covers within the EIS Study Area would be considered moderate because of

disruption of wildlife species from noise and vibration from the additional rail traffic along the route. 

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Community Effects 

The majority of animal assemblages and special terrestrial communities identified within the EIS 

Study Area are located in the portions of the alternative outside existing transportation corridors. 

Therefore, the potential construction effects of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail on wildlife 

corridors, animal assemblages and terrestrial communities would be substantial when compared 

with the No Build Alternative as construction of the portions of the alternative outside existing 

transportation corridors would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on these resources within the 

EIS Study Area.

The potential operations effects for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be moderate because 

this alternative would not likely be fenced, making wildlife movement vulnerable to an increased 

risk for strikes as a result of the additional rail traffic along the route. Such effects would have a 

noticeable effect on wildlife, but the effects could be reduced by the use of BMPs (see Section 

3.5.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

REAP Composite Score Effects 

The percentages of the total land coverage of the EIS Study Area composed of higher ecological 

importance/value land coverage areas for the alternative represent a substantial effect when 

compared to the No Build Alternative. Construction of the portions of the alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on lands with higher 

ecological importance within the EIS Study Area.

The potential operations effects associated with Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail with regard to 

higher ecological importance/value land coverage areas within the EIS Study Area would be 

considered moderate because of potential disruption of wildlife species from noise and vibration 

from the additional rail traffic along the route. 

3.5.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

National Land Cover Database – Land Cover Type Effects 

Potential effects on NLCD land cover types would be the same as those discussed for Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail, because both service types share the same route. The construction effects 

would be substantial and the operations effects would be moderate.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-33

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Community Effects 

Potential construction effects on wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant 

communities would be the same as those discussed for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail

(substantial) because both service types share the same route. Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail

would likely be fully fenced, lessening the likelihood of strikes when compared to the higher-speed 

rail option. However, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have a higher potential for operations 

effects overall on wildlife corridors and assemblages within the EIS Study Area than the higherspeed rail option as the noise and vibration generated by high-speed rail would travel farther than 

the noise generated by higher-speed rail. Overall, the potential operations effects on wildlife 

corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant communities would be moderate.

REAP Composite Score Effects 

The percentage of the total land coverage composed of higher ecological importance/value land 

coverage area would be the same as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because both service types 

share the same route. The construction effects would be substantial and the operations effects 

would be moderate.

3.5.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

National Land Cover Database – Land Cover Type Effects 

The percentages of total non-developed land covers within the EIS Study Area represent substantial 

potential effects on non-developed land. The northern extent of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail

would follow a new elevated high-speed alignment in the IH-30 median between Fort Worth and 

Dallas and follow an alignment outside existing transportation corridors starting at Arlington and 

continuing south to Hillsboro. Construction of the portions of the alternative outside existing 

transportation corridors would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on non-developed land within the 

EIS Study Area. The potential construction and operations effects associated with Alternative C4B 

Higher-Speed Rail with regard to non-developed land covers within the EIS Study Area would be 

similar to those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because both alternatives share 

the same route outside existing transportation corridors. The construction effects would be 

substantial and the operations effects would be moderate.

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Community Effects 

The animal assemblages and special terrestrial communities identified within the EIS Study Area, 

for the majority, are in the portions of the alternative outside existing transportation corridors. 

Therefore, the potential construction effects associated with construction of Alternative C4B HigherSpeed Rail would be substantial and would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on these resources 

within the EIS Study Area. The effects would be similar to those described for Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail because both alternatives share the same route outside existing transportation 

corridors. Operations effects would have a noticeable and inevitable effect of wildlife, but the 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-34

effects could be mitigated by the use of BMPs as described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, 

therefore operations effects would be moderate. 

REAP Composite Score Effects 

The percentages of the total land coverage of the EIS Study Area composed of higher ecological 

importance/value land coverage areas for the alternative represent a substantial potential effect. 

Construction of the portions of the alternative outside existing transportation corridors would have 

a noticeable, inevitable effect on lands with higher ecological importance within the EIS Study Area. 

The potential operations effects associated with Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail with regard to 

higher ecological importance/value land coverage areas within the EIS Study Area would be 

considered moderate because of potential disruption of wildlife species from noise and vibration 

from the additional rail traffic along the route. 

3.5.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

National Land Cover Database – Land Cover Type Effects 

Potential effects on land cover types would be the same as those discussed for Alternative C4B

Higher-Speed Rail, because both service types share the same route. The construction effects 

would be substantial and the operations effects would be moderate.

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Community Effects 

Potential construction effects on wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant 

communities would be the same as those discussed for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail

(substantial), because both service types share the same route. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail

would likely be fully fenced, lessening the likelihood of strikes when compared to the higher-speed 

rail option. However, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have a higher potential for operations 

effects on wildlife corridors and assemblages because the noise and vibration generated by highspeed rail would travel farther than the noise generated by higher-speed rail. Overall, the potential 

operations effects on wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant communities would be 

moderate.

REAP Composite Score Effects 

The percentage of the total land coverage composed of higher ecological importance/value land 

coverage area would be the same as Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail because both service types 

share the same route. The construction effects would be substantial and the operations effects 

would be moderate.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-35

3.5.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

National Land Cover Database – Land Cover Type Effects 

The northern extent of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, near Dallas and Fort Worth, would follow 

the TRE between Fort Worth and Dallas, then continue south on the BNSF alignment; however, the 

majority of the alternative, starting at Waxahachie, would follow an alignment outside existing 

transportation corridors. Because of the high percentages of total non-developed land covers within 

the EIS Study Area, and because most of the alternative would follow an alignment outside existing 

transportation corridors, the alternative could have a noticeable, inevitable effect on non-developed 

land within the EIS Study Area. The potential construction and operations effects associated with 

C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be similar to those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, 

because both alternatives share the same route outside existing transportation corridors. The 

construction effects would be substantial and the operations effects would be moderate.

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Community Effects 

The animal assemblages and special terrestrial communities identified within the EIS Study Area 

are, for the majority, in the portions of the alternative outside existing transportation corridors. 

Therefore, the potential effects of construction of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be 

substantial because construction of the portions of the alternative outside existing transportation 

corridors would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on these resources within the EIS Study Area. 

The potential construction and operations effects associated with C4C Higher-Speed Rail with 

regard to wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant communities within the EIS Study 

Area would be similar to those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because both 

alternatives share the same route outside existing transportation corridors. Operations effects 

would have a noticeable and inevitable effect of wildlife, but the effects could be mitigated by the 

use of BMPs, as described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, therefore operations effects 

would be moderate.

REAP Composite Score Effects 

The percentages of the total land coverage of the EIS Study Area composed of higher ecological 

importance/value land coverage areas for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail represent a 

substantial potential effect. Construction of the portions of the alternative outside existing 

transportation corridors would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on lands with higher ecological 

importance within the EIS Study Area. 

The potential operations effects associated with Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail with regard to 

higher ecological importance/value land coverage areas within the EIS Study Area would be 

considered moderate because of potential disruption of wildlife species from noise and vibration 

from the additional rail traffic along the route. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-36

3.5.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

National Land Cover Database – Land Cover Type Effects 

Potential effects on land cover types would be the same as those discussed for Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail, because both service types share the same route. The construction effects 

would be substantial and the operations effects would be moderate.

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Community Effects 

Potential construction effects on wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant 

communities would be the same as those discussed for the Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail

(substantial), because both service type options share the same route. Alternative C4C High-Speed 

Rail would likely be fully fenced, reducing the likelihood of strikes when compared to the higherspeed rail option. However, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have a higher potential for 

operations effects overall on wildlife corridors and assemblages within the EIS Study Area than the 

higher-speed rail option because the noise and vibration generated by high-speed rail would travel 

farther than the noise generated by higher-speed rail. Overall, the potential operations effects on 

wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant communities would be moderate.

REAP Composite Score Effects 

The percentage of the total land coverage composed of higher ecological importance/value land 

coverage area would be the same as Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail because both service types 

share the same route. The construction effects would be substantial and the operations effects 

would be moderate.

3.5.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.5.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

National Land Cover Database – Land Cover Type Effects 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have a moderate potential effect on non-developed land. 

Although portions of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be constructed in new alignments

outside existing transportation corridors, significant portions of the alternative would likely be 

constructed within existing routes (e.g., Kansas City Southern Railway and revitalization of 

abandoned tracks) that have been disturbed by prior rail development, mitigating potential effects 

on resources. 

The potential operations effects associated with Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail with regard to 

developed land covers within the EIS Study Area would be considered moderate as significant 

portions of the alternative would operate within existing rights-or-way. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-37

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Community Effects 

The large area of Little Bluestem-Indiangrass terrestrial community within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail is located in Brooks County, in an area that would be constructed 

on an existing abandoned rail and in areas that were disturbed by prior rail development. The 

potential effects of construction and operation of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail on wildlife 

corridors and assemblages or sensitive plant communities would be negligible. This portion of 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be constructed within existing rights-of-way in the areas of 

this resource and would not create new effects on sensitive communities. 

REAP Composite Score Effects 

The portions of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail that cross Brooks and Live Oak counties would be 

constructed on existing rights-of-way and would have a negligible effect on lands with higher 

ecological importance within the EIS Study Area. However, construction of the portions of 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail outside existing transportation corridors, especially near Duval 

and Webb counties, would represent a substantial effect. Overall, the construction of Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail would have a substantial effect (noticeable, inevitable effect) on lands with 

higher ecological importance within the EIS Study Area. 

The potential operations effects associated with Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail with regard to 

higher ecological importance/value land coverage areas within the EIS Study Area would be 

considered moderate because of potential disruption of wildlife species from noise and vibration 

from the additional rail traffic along the route. 

3.5.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

National Land Cover Database – Land Cover Type Effects 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have a substantial potential effect on non-developed land 

within the EIS Study Area because this alternative would follow a new direct high-speed corridor 

outside existing transportation corridors from San Antonio to a station near the Laredo-Columbia 

Solidarity Bridge. Construction of this alternative would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on nondeveloped land within the EIS Study Area. The potential construction effects associated with 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail on non-developed land covers within the EIS Study Area would be 

substantial because construction effects on vegetation outside existing transportation corridors 

would be long-term or permanent. 

The potential operations effects associated with Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail on developed 

land covers within the EIS Study Area would be moderate because of disruption of wildlife species 

from noise and vibration from the rail traffic along the route. However, the route outside existing 

transportation corridors could be designed with alternative pathways or undercrossings to maintain 

wildlife migratory paths or corridors. In addition, the majority of effects on non-developed land 

covers would be during construction of the alternative. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-38

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Community Effects 

No wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant communities were identified within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. Therefore, construction and operation effects 

on wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant communities would be negligible. 

REAP Composite Score Effects 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have a substantial effect on lands with higher ecological 

importance both during construction and operation because construction of this new alignment 

outside existing transportation corridors would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on resources. 

3.5.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

National Land Cover Database – Land Cover Type Effects 

Potential effects on land cover types would be the same as those discussed for Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail, because both service types share the same route. The construction effects 

would be substantial and the operations effects would be moderate.

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant Community Effects 

Potential construction effects on wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant 

communities would be the same as those discussed for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail because 

both service types share the same route. Because no wildlife corridors and assemblages and 

sensitive plant communities were identified within the EIS Study Area, construction and operation 

effects on wildlife corridors and assemblages and sensitive plant communities would be negligible. 

REAP Composite Score Effects 

The percentage of the total land coverage composed of higher ecological importance/value land 

coverage area would be the same as Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and would represent a 

substantial potential effect during construction and operation, because both service types share 

the same route. 

3.5.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

The construction and operation of the build alternatives would affect natural ecological systems 

and wildlife to some degree. Construction of Alternative N4A Conventional would have a negligible 

effect as the alternative would follow existing rail alignments, with minimal new right-of-way. 

However, from an operations standpoint, the alternative would not likely be fenced, making wildlife 

movement vulnerable to an increased risk for strikes from the additional rail traffic that would 

occur. 

The construction of the Central Section build alternatives would have a substantial effect on natural 

ecological systems and wildlife as most alternatives would be constructed in new rights-of-way, 

outside of existing transportation corridors, and also bisect known wildlife corridors and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-39

assemblages and sensitive plant communities. Operational effects on wildlife for the Central 

Section higher-speed rail alternatives would be similar to conventional rail service type, as they 

would not likely be fenced. Conversely, high-speed rail alternatives would be completely fenced and 

fully grade-separated. Therefore, the risk of strikes would be lower. The high-speed rail alternatives 

could also be designed with passages for wildlife, further mitigating operational effects. However, 

the Central Section high-speed rail alternatives would have higher overall potential for effects than 

the higher-speed rail alternatives, because noise and vibration generated by high-speed rail would 

travel farther than that generated by higher-speed rail. 

The Southern Section build alternatives would have a moderate to substantial effect, with either 

portions of the alternative constructed outside existing transportation corridors (Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail), or, in the case of the S6 alternatives, it would be constructed in a new, direct 

route, composed of approximately 92 percent non-developed land covers outside existing 

transportation corridors.

Table 3.5-14 summarizes the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, moderate, or 

substantial) for the alternatives and also includes measures that could be taken to avoid or reduce

the potential effects of the alternatives. Acreages listed below are not the actual areas of effect 

associated with construction and operation of any of the alternatives. This service-level analysis 

uses the 500-foot EIS Study Area to determine the types of resources that may be affected and,

more importantly, the relative magnitude of resources that may be affected. Some alternatives 

could be built alone or combined with other section alternatives. In addition, more than one 

alternative in the Central Section and Southern Section could be built in the future, because the 

alternatives provide different service type options for the independent destinations. Details about 

how alternatives might connect, as well as measures to reduce effects, would be analyzed at the 

project-level EIS phase. 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance and minimization of project-level effects would be incorporated when feasible. If effects 

cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies would be implemented. Mitigation measures 

to reduce or eliminate effects on sensitive habitats and species would be coordinated with federal 

and state agencies. To minimize construction effects and minimize disturbance of terrestrial and 

aquatic habitats and wildlife, BMPs would be used during construction and operations. BMPs would

include but are not limited to the following: 

 Construct multiple and varying crossing structures at a wildlife crossing point to provide 

connectivity for species likely to use a given area. 

 Determine and construct the appropriate number, spacing, and location of crossing structures 

based on species-specific information.

 Monitor structures for obstructions, such as detritus or silt blockages, that impede movement. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-40

 Manage human activity near crossing structures, with use of measures such as fencing and 

signage. 

 Routes outside existing transportation corridors could be designed with alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain wildlife migratory paths or corridors. 

Local ordinances would be followed for erosion, sediment, and stormwater controls during 

construction to minimize potential effects on aquatic resources. For terrestrial habitats that might 

be temporarily disturbed by construction, pre-construction conditions or better would be restored 

once construction is complete. 

Subsequent Analysis 

Once a preferred alternative is selected, field investigations or surveys will be conducted to 

determine the likelihood of impacts on sensitive habitats within the EIS Study Area and to 

determine the extent and type of general and sensitive natural ecological systems and wildlife, 

including formal biological assessments for protected species and consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, TPWD, and ODWC, as needed. The boundaries of sensitive wildlife corridors, 

sensitive plant communities, or areas identified as having a higher ecological importance/value 

land coverage will be confirmed to avoid or minimize effects on these areas. Habitat and species 

assessments will be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-41

Table 3.5-14: Summary of Effects on Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife 

Alternativea 

NLCD 

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant 

Communities REAP 

Construction Operations Construction Operations Construction Operations 

N4A CONV Negligible 

 54% non-developed land covers

 Alternative would be located 

within existing transportation 

corridors, in areas already 

disturbed by rail development

Negligible 

 Majority of effects would be 

during construction

 Alternative would be located 

within existing transportation 

corridors, in areas already 

disturbed by rail development

Negligible 

 85 acres of wildlife corridors and 

assemblages 

 Alternative would be located 

within existing transportation 

corridors, in areas already 

disturbed by rail development 

Moderate 

 Alignment would not likely be 

fenced, making wildlife 

movement vulnerable to 

increased risk for strikes from 

additional rail traffic 

 Best management practices

could mitigate effects

Negligible 

 10% of EIS Study Area composed 

of higher ecological value land 

coverage 

 Alternative would be located 

within existing transportation 

corridors, in areas already 

disturbed by rail development

Negligible 

 Majority of effects would be 

during construction

 Alternative would be located 

within existing transportation 

corridors, in areas already 

disturbed by rail development

C4A HrSR Substantial 

 62% non-developed land covers

 Majority of alternative, starting in 

Waxahachie, would be located 

outside existing transportation 

corridors 

 Effects on vegetation would be 

considered long-term or 

permanent 

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed 

with alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain 

wildlife migratory paths or 

corridors 

Substantial 

 107 acres of wildlife corridors 

and assemblages 

 628 acres of sensitive plant 

communities

 Majority of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

 Effects would be considered longterm or permanent

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed 

with alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain 

wildlife migratory paths or 

corridors 

Substantial 

 18% of EIS Study Area composed 

of higher ecological value land 

coverage 

 Majority of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Majority of alternative, starting in 

Waxahachie, would be located 

outside existing transportation 

corridors 

C4A HSR Same as C4A HrSR Same as C4A HrSR Same as C4A HrSR Moderate 

 Would likely be fully fenced, 

lessening the likelihood of strikes 

when compared to C4A HrSR 

 Higher overall potential for effects 

as noise and vibration generated 

would travel farther than that 

generated by HrSR

Same as C4A HrSR Same as C4A HrSR

C4B HrSR Substantial 

 64% non-developed land covers

 Majority of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed 

with alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain 

wildlife migratory paths or 

corridors 

Substantial 

 66 acres of wildlife corridors and 

assemblages 

 628 acres of sensitive plant 

communities

 Majority of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed 

with alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain 

wildlife migratory paths or 

corridors 

Substantial 

 18% of EIS Study Area composed 

of higher ecological value land 

coverage 

 Majority of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Majority of alternative would be 

located outside existing 

transportation corridors

C4B HSR Same as C4B HrSR Same as C4B HrSR Same as C4B HrSR Moderate 

 Would likely be fully fenced, 

lessening the likelihood of strikes 

when compared to C4B HrSR

 Higher overall potential for effects 

as noise and vibration generated 

would travel farther than that 

generated by HrSR

Same as C4B HrSR Same as C4B HrSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.5-42

Alternativea 

NLCD 

Wildlife Corridors and Assemblages and Sensitive Plant 

Communities REAP 

Construction Operations Construction Operations Construction Operations 

C4C HrSR Substantial 

 62% non-developed land covers

 Majority of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed 

with alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain 

wildlife migratory paths or 

corridors 

Substantial 

 107 acres of wildlife corridors 

and assemblages 

 628 acres of sensitive plant 

communities

 Majority of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed 

with alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain 

wildlife migratory paths or 

corridors 

Substantial 

 15% of EIS Study Area composed 

of higher ecological value land 

coverage 

 Majority of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Majority of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

C4C HSR Same as C4C HrSR Same as C4C HrSR Same as C4C HrSR Moderate 

 Would likely be fully fenced, 

lessening the likelihood of strikes 

when compared to C4C HrSR

 Higher overall potential for effects 

as noise and vibration generated 

would travel farther than that 

generated by HrSR

Same as C4C HrSR Same as C4C HrSR

S4 HrSR Moderate 

 68% non-developed land covers

 Portions of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Majority of effects would be 

during construction

 Significant portions of the 

alternative would be located 

within existing transportation 

corridors, in areas already 

disturbed by rail development

Negligible 

 No wildlife corridors or 

assemblages within EIS Study 

Area 

 678 acres of sensitive plant 

communities located in EIS Study 

Area in portion of alternative

within existing transportation 

corridors 

Negligible 

 Majority of effects would be 

during construction

 Alternative would be located 

within existing transportation 

corridors, in areas already 

disturbed by rail development

Substantial 

 15% of EIS Study Area composed 

of higher ecological value land 

coverage 

 Portions of alternative that

consist of higher ecological value 

land coverage within EIS Study 

Area located outside existing 

transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Portions of the alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors 

would be located in areas of 

higher ecological value

S6 HrSR Substantial 

 92% non-developed land covers

 Alternative would be a new, direct 

route outside existing 

transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed 

with alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain 

wildlife migratory paths or 

corridors 

Negligible 

 No wildlife corridors or 

assemblages or sensitive plant 

communities within EIS Study 

Area 

Negligible 

 No wildlife corridors or 

assemblages or sensitive plant 

communities within EIS Study 

Area 

 Alternative could be designed 

with alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain 

wildlife migratory paths or 

corridors

Substantial 

 21% of EIS Study Area composed 

of higher ecological value land 

coverage 

 Alternative would be a new, direct 

route outside existing 

transportation corridors

Substantial 

 The alternative would be located 

outside existing transportation 

corridors 

 Noticeable and inevitable effect 

on lands of higher ecological 

value

S6 HSR Same as S6 HrSR Same as S6 HrSR Same as S6 HrSR Moderate 

 Would likely be fully fenced, 

lessening the likelihood of strikes 

when compared to S6 HrSR 

 Higher overall potential for effects 

as noise and vibration generated 

would travel farther than that 

generated by HrSR

Same as S6 HrSR Same as S6 HrSR

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-1 

3.6 Wetlands 

This section identifies wetlands within the 500-foot environmental impact study (EIS) Study Area 

and assesses potential effects on these resources from the alternatives. The introduction to 

Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study Area and use of terms such as Study Vicinity and transportation 

corridors, along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

Wetlands provide wildlife habitat, but they can be further classified in terms of their level of 

wildlife/biological habitat and hydrologic and water quality function. Wetlands are defined by soil 

characteristics, hydrology, and dominance of vegetation adapted to wet environments. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) defines wetlands as 

areas that have positive indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils, 

or as:

“Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (USACE 1987).

This service-level analysis focuses on wetlands and aquatic habitats associated with waters of the 

U.S. Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and include waters such as those

used in interstate or foreign commerce; interstate waters including wetlands; intrastate waters such 

as lakes, rivers, and streams; impoundments of waters defined as waters of the U.S.; tributaries to 

the previously listed; and wetlands adjacent to the previously listed. Wetlands fed by or that feed 

into waters of the U.S. are considered jurisdictional waters and are protected under Section 404 of 

the CWA. Impacts including discharge of dredged or fill materials to these wetlands and waters of 

the U.S. require a USACE permit. Waters of the U.S. are also summarized in Section 3.2, Water 

Quality.

3.6.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable federal and state laws and regulations regarding wetlands in the EIS Study Area are 

summarized below. Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable 

and will be addressed in project-level analysis. 

3.6.1.1 Federal 

 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

(42 Federal Register [FR] 26961, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 121), was issued in 1977 by the 

President of the United States. The Executive Order directs federal agencies under the Executive 

Branch to: “avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated 

with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new 

construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative” (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency [EPA] 2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-2 

 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation’s 

Wetlands. USDOT requires that any mass transportation project that may affect wetlands to 

complete an analysis of impacts to comply with the “Order on Preservation of the Nation's 

Wetlands" (5660.1A). The Order states: “If the analysis shows that the project will have a 

significant impact on wetlands, an Environmental Impact Statement will usually be required. 

The environmental analysis should include an assessment of the impacts on wetlands and 

associated wildlife resulting from both construction and operation of the project. It should also 

include measures to minimize adverse impacts and avoid, to the fullest extent possible, 

drainage, filling or other disturbance of wetlands. Alternatives that would avoid new 

construction in wetlands must be studied. If the preferred alternative requires new construction 

in wetlands the analysis must demonstrate that there are no practicable alternatives to the use 

of the wetlands, and all practicable measures to minimize harm have been included” (USDOT 

and Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2014).

 CWA Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10. Section 404 of the CWA (33 United 

States Code [U.S.C.] §1251 et seq.) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 

§401, et seq.) establish the basic structure for regulating discharges (dredge or fill) into waters 

of the U.S., including wetlands. The program is jointly administered by USACE and EPA. USACE 

provides permits and is responsible for the day-to-day administration and permit review. EPA 

develops and interprets policy, guidance, and environmental criteria used in evaluating CWA 

permit applications; reviews and comments on CWA permit applications; prohibits, denies, or 

restricts the use of any defined area as a disposal site for dredge material; and enforces 

Section 404 provisions. The fundamental goal of the program is that no discharge of dredged or 

fill material should be permitted if there is a practicable alternative that would be less damaging 

to waters of the U.S. Permit review and issuance typically involve successive considerations of 

avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on waters of the 

U.S. This sequence is described in Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. §1344[b]) (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2014a). 

3.6.1.2 State 

 CWA, Sections 401 and 404 and Harbors Act, Section 10. Section 401 (33 U.S.C. 1341 and 40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 121) of the CWA requires a Water Quality Certification from 

the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(RWQCB) whenever a project requires a federal license or permit. Certification is also required 

for projects that require a CWA Section 404 permit or Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit. 

401 Water Quality Certifications are administered through the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 

TCEQ and ODEQ review USACE permit applications for 401 Water Quality Certifications for 

discharges (dredge or fill) into waters of the U.S. (TCEQ 2014; ODEQ 2014). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-3 

3.6.2 Methodology 

The methodology for the wetlands evaluation consists of a service-level quantitative assessment, 

not a detailed evaluation of individual potential wetlands. The quantification compares relative 

effects among the build alternatives. A detailed evaluation will be completed for the future projectlevel National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses and will identify permitting requirements 

for construction. 

Wetlands are categories of waters of the U.S., as defined in the CWA regulations (33 CFR Part 328), 

and include intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, 

sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds.

The type and extent of wetlands and deepwater habitats within the EIS Study Area were identified 

from the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/DataDownload.html) maintained by USFWS (2014b). Although NWI data provide the location of 

wetlands, they are derived from aerial photo interpretation with varying limitations due to scale, 

photo quality, inventory techniques, and other factors. To supplement the NWI data, the National

Hydrographic Dataset (NHD) (http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html) was used to identify waterbodies as 

an additional indicator of wetlands. Information for these water resources is more comprehensive 

and complete. Some overlap in the NWI and NHD data is present; however, the overlap is 

consistent for all alternatives and provides a conservative analysis. 

For the purposes of this evaluation, waterbodies and wetlands are often referred to as waters of the 

U.S. To evaluate the quantitative effects on waters of the U.S. from the Program, the following 

activities were conducted:

 Analysis of waterbodies using NHD data determined the linear feet of streams and acreage of 

lakes, ponds, and reservoirs within the EIS Study Area. 

- For this analysis, the NHD data provided the designation of waterbodies in the Northern, 

Central, and Southern sections of the EIS Study Area as perennial streams, intermittent 

streams, lakes/ponds, and reservoirs. A perennial stream has flowing water year-round 

under normal precipitation conditions. The water table is above the streambed for most of 

the year. Groundwater is the primary water source for streamflow, and runoff from rainfall is 

a supplemental water source. An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times 

of the year under normal precipitation conditions, when groundwater provides water for 

streamflow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff 

from rainfall is a supplemental water source for streamflow. 

- Many ephemeral (transient or seasonal) waterbodies may be considered jurisdictional 

waters of the U.S. and likely exist within the EIS Study Area. The current NHD does not define

ephemeral streams, and remote data for these features are insufficient. For this servicelevel EIS, ephemeral streams are omitted and will be addressed in follow-up project-specific 

analysis.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-4 

 The number and acreage of wetlands and deepwater habitats within the EIS Study Area were 

determined using the NWI, which was established by USFWS (2014b). It provides wetland maps 

and geospatial wetland data to aid in wetland conservation efforts. For this analysis, wetlands 

are classified according to the USFWS classification system for wetlands and deepwater 

habitats (Cowardin et al. 1979). A simplification of this classification system was used for this 

analysis and is described in Table 3.6-1. 

Table 3.6-1: USFWS Classification System – Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within 

the EIS Study Area 

System Subsystem Class Analysis 

Category 

Palustrine 

Non-tidal wetlands, typically dominated 

by trees, shrubs, and emergent 

vegetation. Situated shoreward of lakes, 

river channels, or estuaries; on river 

floodplains; in isolated catchments; or 

on slopes. They may also occur as 

islands in lakes or rivers. 

N/A UB – Unconsolidated 

Bottom

Freshwater Pond

N/A AB – Aquatic Bed Freshwater Pond

N/A US – Unconsolidated Shore Freshwater Pond

N/A EM – Emergent Freshwater 

Emergent 

Wetland

N/A SS – Scrub-Shrub Freshwater 

Forested/Scrub 

Wetland

N/A FO – Forested Freshwater 

Forested/Scrub 

Wetland

Riverine 

Includes wetlands and waterbodies 

contained within a channel. Typically 

bounded by the channel bank (including 

natural and man-made levees) or 

adjacent palustrine wetlands.

2 – Lower 

Perennial

UB – Unconsolidated 

Bottom

Riverine

US – Unconsolidated Shore Riverine

4 – Intermittent SB – Stream Bed Riverine

5 – Unknown 

Perennial 

UB – Unconsolidated 

Bottom

Riverine

Lacustrine 

Includes wetlands and waterbodies that 

have a depressed geomorphic position 

or a dammed river channel, lack 

sufficient vegetation, and are generally 

more than 20 acres. Includes 

permanently flooded lakes and 

reservoirs, intermittent lakes, and tidal 

lakes.

1 – Limnetic UB – Consolidated Bottom Lake

N/A = not applicable

Source: Cowardin et al. (1979).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-5 

The estimated number and acreage of waterbodies and wetlands were compared for each of the 

alternatives. The final alignments of the alternatives in the EIS Study Area will not be determined 

until project-level studies are conducted, and therefore the number and acreages of waterbodies 

and wetlands within the EIS Study Area provide an estimate of the magnitude of potential effects. 

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

moderate, or substantial compared with the No Build Alternative. For wetlands, these terms are 

defined as follows: 

 Negligible intensity effects are those that would have no- or few- effects on waterbodies and 

wetlands. Negligible intensity effects are very close to the existing conditions. 

 Moderate intensity effects would have a noticeable effect on waterbodies and wetlands, but 

would not have an adverse residual effect. 

 Substantial intensity effects would have a noticeable effect on waterbodies and wetlands and 

would be highly likely to have an adverse residual effect on resources. 

3.6.3 Affected Environment 

Wetlands compose approximately 2 percent (950,000 acres) of Oklahoma and include bottom-land 

hardwood forests and swamps; marshes and wet meadows; aquatic-bed wetlands characterized by 

submersed or floating plants in ponds, lakes, rivers, and sloughs; and sparsely vegetated wetlands 

such as intermittently flooded playa lakes. Most forested wetlands are in eastern Oklahoma, where 

precipitation is highest and evaporation is lowest. Riparian wetlands and playa lakes in drier 

western Oklahoma are especially valuable to wildlife. Nearly two-thirds of Oklahoma’s original 

wetlands have been lost to agricultural conversions, channelization, impoundment, streamflow 

regulation, and other causes (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1997).

In contrast to Oklahoma, wetlands in Texas are more abundant, estimated at 7.6 million acres 

(4.4 percent of the state). The most extensive wetlands are the bottom-land hardwood forests and 

swamps of east Texas; the marshes, swamps, and tidal flats of the coast; and the playa lakes of the 

High Plains. Wetlands provide flood attenuation, bank stabilization, water quality maintenance, fish 

and wildlife habitat, and areas for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities. Commercial 

fisheries benefit directly from coastal wetlands. About one-half of Texas’s original wetlands have 

been lost to agricultural conversions, overgrazing, urbanization, channelization, water table 

declines, construction of navigation canals, and other causes (USGS 1997).

The following sections describe potential wetlands associated with waters of the U.S. within the 

Northern, Central, and Southern sections of the EIS Study Area. The descriptions and maps for 

waterbodies are provided in Section 3.2, Water Quality.

3.6.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Most waterbodies within the Northern Section are characterized by drainage channels and riparian 

areas including intermittent and perennial streams, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. The largest 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-6 

wetland areas in the Northern Section are composed of freshwater forested/scrub wetlands, 

freshwater emergent wetlands, and freshwater ponds. These palustrine wetlands may also include 

emergent wetlands, marshes, swamps, and wet prairies. The EIS Study Area in the Northern Section 

also includes ponded areas of shallow permanent or intermittent waterbodies (farm ponds and 

man-made lakes). Riverine wetlands in the Northern Section include fringe wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of perennial and intermittent streams and rivers. Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3 provide a 

summary of waters of the U.S. within the Northern Section. 

 Table 3.6-2: Summary of Waterbodies within the Northern Section 

Waterbody Type Number in EIS Study Area 

Alternative N4A 

Perennial Streams 43

Intermittent Streams 300

Lakes/Ponds 163

Reservoirs 31

Total 537 

Source: USGS (2000-2013).

Table 3.6-3: Summary of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Northern 

Section 

Wetland Type Number in EIS Study Area 

Route Alternative N4A 

Lakes 3 

Freshwater Ponds 157

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 36

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 54

Riverine 21

Total 271 

Sources: Cowardin et al. (1979); USFWS (2014a) USFWS (2014b). 

Figure 3.6-1 identifies the NWI wetlands and deepwater habitats within the vicinity of the Northern 

Section. NHD waterbodies within the vicinity of the Northern Section are identified on Figure 3.2-1 

in Section 3.2, Water Quality. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-7 

Figure 3.6-1: NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Vicinity of the 

Northern Section
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-8 

3.6.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Most waters of the U.S. within the Central Section are similar to the Northern Section. Waterbodies

are associated with large drainage channels and riparian areas. These include intermittent and 

perennial streams, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. 

The largest wetland areas in the Central Section are composed of freshwater forested/scrub 

wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands, and freshwater ponds. Similar to the Northern Section, in 

the Central Section, these palustrine wetlands may also include emergent wetlands, marshes, 

swamps, and wet prairies. The Central Section also includes ponded areas of shallow permanent or 

intermittent waterbodies (farm ponds and man-made lakes). Riverine wetlands in the Central

Section include fringe wetlands and deepwater habitats of perennial and intermittent streams and 

rivers. Tables 3.6-4 and 3.6-5 provide a summary of waters of the U.S. within the Central Section. 

Table 3.6-4: Summary of Waterbodies within the Central Section

Waterbody Type Number in EIS Study Area 

Route Alternative C4A 

Perennial Streams 75

Intermittent Streams 362

Lakes/Ponds 246

Reservoirs 17

Total 700 

Route Alternative C4B 

Perennial Streams 42

Intermittent Streams 374

Lakes/Ponds 222

Reservoirs 12

Total 650 

Route Alternative C4C 

Perennial Streams 82

Intermittent Streams 459

Lakes/Ponds 291

Reservoirs 18

Total 850 

Source: USGS (2000-2013).

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-9 

Table 3.6-5: Summary of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Central 

Section 

Wetland Type Number in EIS Study Area 

Route Alternative C4A 

Lakes 9 

Freshwater Ponds 213

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 28

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 47

Riverine 52

Total 349 

Route Alternative C4B

Lakes 7 

Freshwater Ponds 198

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 24

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 29

Riverine 51

Total 309 

Route Alternative C4C 

Lakes 11

Freshwater Ponds 245

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 37

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 46

Riverine 52

Total 391 

Sources: Cowardin et al. (1979); USFWS (2014a); USFWS (2014b). 

Figure 3.6-2 identifies NWI wetlands and deepwater habitats within the vicinity of the Central 

Section. NHD waterbodies within the vicinity of the Central Section are identified on Figure 3.2-5 in 

Section 3.2, Water Quality. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-10

Figure 3.6-2: NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Vicinity of the Central 

Section
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-11

3.6.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Most waters of the U.S. within the Southern Section are similar to those within the Northern and 

Central sections. Waterbodies are associated with drainage channels and riparian areas, or they 

are within coastal areas. These include drainage channels, intermittent river and stream channels, 

perennial river and stream channels, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs, coastal estuarine lagoons, and 

intertidal sloughs. 

The largest wetland areas in the Southern Section are composed of freshwater forested/scrub 

wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands, and freshwater ponds. Similar to the Northern and 

Central sections, in the Southern Section, these palustrine wetlands may also include emergent 

wetlands, marshes, swamps, and wet prairies. The Southern Section also includes ponded areas of 

shallow permanent or intermittent waterbodies (farm ponds and man-made lakes). Riverine 

wetlands in the Southern Section include fringe wetlands and deepwater habitats of perennial and 

intermittent streams and rivers. Tables 3.6-6 and 3.6-7 list waters of the U.S. within the Southern 

Section.

Table 3.6-6: Summary of Waterbodies within the Southern Section 

Waterbody Type Number in EIS Study Area 

Route Alternative S4 

Perennial Streams 4

Intermittent Streams 310

Lakes/Ponds 113

Reservoirs 16

Total 443 

Route Alternative S6 

Perennial Streams 2

Intermittent Streams 196

Lakes/Ponds 53

Reservoirs 4

Total 255 

Source: USGS (2000-2013).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-12

Table 3.6-7: Summary of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Southern 

Section 

Wetland Type Number in EIS Study Area 

Route Alternative S4 

Lakes 9 

Freshwater Ponds 213

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 28

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 47

Riverine 52

Total 349 

Route Alternative S6

Lakes 7 

Freshwater Ponds 198

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 24

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 29

Riverine 51

Total 309 

Sources: Cowardin et al. (1979); USFWS (2014a); USFWS (2014b). 

Figure 3.6-3 identifies NWI wetlands and deepwater habitats within the vicinity of the Southern 

Section. NHD waterbodies in the vicinity of the Southern Section are identified on Figure 3.2-9 in

Section 3.2, Water Quality. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-13

Figure 3.6-3: NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Vicinity of the 

Southern Section
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-14

3.6.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.6.4.1 Overview 

The Program would cross wetlands and other water resources. Direct and indirect effects could be 

temporary or permanent. 

Most effects on wetlands and other water resources would occur during construction when the 

ground is disturbed. During construction, all three service types could result in temporary 

disturbance of wetland areas and functions. Effects could result from vegetation clearing, site 

grading, and filling for construction access to permanent facilities. These activities could decrease 

soil permeability, infiltration, water storage capacity, and vegetation regrowth, which may reduce 

wetland functions. Regulations require that these areas be revegetated and returned to natural 

conditions following construction. For high-speed rail, temporary effects would include alterations to 

wetlands beneath the elevated structures. 

Additionally, fuel oils, chemicals, or concrete leachate could be spilled during construction. An 

increase in sediment loading and turbidity from grading and filling activities could contribute

sediment-laden runoff into wetlands and degrade water quality. Invasive species could be 

introduced and spread as a result of disturbance, thus undermining the function of wetland 

vegetation. After construction is complete, operational effects on waters of the U.S. would be shortterm but recurring from maintenance of structures that cross waters of the U.S. 

Operation or long-term effects would include the permanent placement of fill of wetlands and 

wetland buffers for the permanent rail structures and support infrastructure. In addition, 

permanent effects on wetlands that could persist throughout operation include the following:

 Permanently removing wetland area and function, including wetlands buffer areas.

 Generating runoff from new pollution-generating impervious surfaces (roadway modifications, 

park-and-ride lots, and maintenance facilities), potentially increasing pollutant loads to 

wetlands. 

 Potentially spilling fuel, oil, or chemical spills at maintenance facilities.

In addition, the high-speed rail could permanently shade wetland areas under elevated structures. 

For this service-level analysis, the number and size (linear feet or acreage) of resources that would 

be affected within the EIS Study Area for each alternative were identified and are referenced in the 

following sections (Tables 3.6-8 to 3.6-21). 

3.6.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation, and would not meet the purpose 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-15

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect wetlands or other 

water resources.

3.6.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.6.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Tables 3.6-8 and 3.6-9 list the number and size of waters of the U.S. potentially affected by 

Alternative N4A Conventional, identifying linear feet (for streams and rivers) and acreage (for lakes 

and reservoirs, as well as wetlands and deepwater habitats) within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative N4A. This alternative would result in negligible effects on waters of the U.S. because it 

would remain within existing railway infrastructure and right-of-way. 

Table 3.6-8: Waterbodies within the Northern Section – Alternative N4A Conventional 

Waterbody Type Number of Features Acres Linear Feet 

Alternative N4A CONV 

Streams and Rivers 343 N/A 317,365

Lakes and Reservoirs 194 103 N/A

Total 537 103 317,365 

Source: USGS (2000-2013). 

Table 3.6-9: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Northern Section – 

Alternative N4A Conventional 

Wetland Type Number of Features Acres 

Alternative N4A CONV 

Lakes 3 2 

Freshwater Ponds 157 81

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 36 34

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 54 195

Riverine 21 51

Total 271 363 

Sources: Cowardin et al. (1979); USFWS (2014a); USFWS (2014b).

3.6.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Each route alternative in the Central Section has a higher-speed rail and a high-speed rail service

type; however, the different service types would not change the levels of effect on waters of the U.S. 

The variety in the number, acreage, or linear feet of resources that would be affected in the Central 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-16

Section is related to the potential alignment of each route alternative. Overall, the C4C alternatives 

would have greater effects than the C4A alternatives, and the C4B alternatives would have the 

least effects both on waterbodies and on wetlands and deepwater habitats because each EIS Study 

Area contains respectively fewer linear feet and acres of waters of the U.S. While the potential 

alignments and volume of effects of Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C would differ, the magnitude of 

the effects associated with the alternatives in the Central Section would be similar, and all would 

have effects of moderate intensity compared with the No Build Alternative. 

3.6.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Tables 3.6-10 and 3.6-11 list the number and size of waters of the U.S. in the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Compared with the No Build Alternative, potential effects on 

waters of the U.S. from Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be moderate based on the total 

linear feet potentially affected because portions of the alignment would be built outside of existing 

transportation corridors (or would require new facilities to be built in existing transportation 

corridors). 

3.6.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Tables 3.6-10 and 3.6-11 list the number and size of waters of the U.S. within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, which would have the same effects as Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail because the both alternatives would follow the same alignment. Potential effects on 

waters of the U.S. would be moderate. 

Although station locations, which are not included in the study, might vary between service types, 

effects on waters of the U.S. are not anticipated to differ as a result of different types of service 

along the same alignment except to the extent that high-speed rail may result in a larger area of 

disturbance than higher-speed rail that may affect wetland features. 

Table 3.6-10: Waterbodies within the Central Section – Alternatives C4A HigherSpeed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail

Waterbody Type No. of Features Acreage Linear Feet 

Alternatives C4A HrSR and C4A HSRa 

Streams and Rivers 437 N/A 316,909

Lakes and Reservoirs 263 153 N/A

Total 700 153 316,909 

a HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

Source: USGS (2000-2013).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-17

Table 3.6-11: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Central Section – 

Alternatives C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail

Wetland Type Number of Features Acreage 

Alternatives C4A HrSR and C4A HSR 

Lakes 9 32

Freshwater Ponds 213 82

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 28 54

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 47 96

Riverine 52 48

Total 349 312 

Sources: Cowardin et al. (1979); USFWS (2014a); USFWS (2014b). 

3.6.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Tables 3.6-12 and 3.6-13 provide the potential total effects on waters of the U.S. within the EIS 

Study Area of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. Potential effects on waters of the U.S. from 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be moderate. 

3.6.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Tables 3.6-12 and 3.6-13 list the number and size of waters of the U.S. within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on 

waters of the U.S. as Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail because both alternatives would follow the 

same alignment. Potential effects on waters of the U.S. would be moderate. 

Although station locations, which are not included in the study, might vary between alternatives, 

effects on surface waters are not anticipated to differ as a result of different types of service along 

the same alignment, except for the potential of the high speed rail to disturb a larger area due to 

grade separations requirements.

Table 3.6-12: Waterbodies within the Central Section – Alternatives C4B HigherSpeed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail

Waterbody Type Number of Features Acreage Linear Feet 

Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4B HSR 

Streams and Rivers 416 N/A 293,669

Lakes and Reservoirs 234 99 N/A

Total 650 99 293,669 

Source: USGS (2000-2013).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-18

Table 3.6-13: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Central Section – 

Alternatives C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail

Wetland Type Number of Features Acreage 

Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4B HSR 

Lakes 7 18

Freshwater Ponds 198 68

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 24 13

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 29 32

Riverine 51 50

Total 309 181 

Sources: Cowardin et al. (1979); USFWS (2014a); USFWS (2014b).

3.6.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Tables 3.6-14 and 3.6-15 list the number and size of waters of the U.S. within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. Potential effects on waters of the U.S. from Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail would be moderate.

3.6.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Tables 3.6-14 and 3.6-15 list the number and size of waters of the U.S. within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail, which would have the same effects on waters of the U.S. as 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail because both alternatives would follow the same alignment. 

Potential effects on waters of the U.S. would be moderate. 

Table 3.6-14: Waterbodies within the Central Section – Alternatives C4C HigherSpeed Rail and C4C High-Speed Rail

Waterbody Type Number of Features Acreage Linear Feet 

Alternatives C4C HrSR and C4C HSR 

Streams and Rivers 541 N/A 400,363

Lakes and Reservoirs 309 164 N/A

Total 850 164 400,363 

Source: USGS (2000-2013).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-19

Table 3.6-15: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Central Section – 

Alternatives C4C Higher-Speed and C4C High-Speed Rail 

Wetland Type Number of Features Acreage 

Alternative C4C HrSR and C4C HSR 

Lakes 11 42

Freshwater Ponds 245 94

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 37 58

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 46 103

Riverine 52 48

Total 391 345 

Sources: Cowardin et al. (1979); USFWS (2014a); USFWS (2014b).

3.6.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Like the alternatives in the Central Section, the number, acreage (lakes and reservoirs, as well as 

wetlands and deepwater habitats), or linear feet (streams and rivers) of resources that would be 

affected in the Southern Section is related to the potential alignment and length of the route and 

not to the service type (in the case of the two S6 alternatives). Compared with the No Build 

Alternative, the overall potential effects on waters of the U.S. from all the alternatives in the 

Southern Section would be moderate in intensity; however, the magnitude of the effects associated 

with Alternative S4 would be greater than those of the two S6 alternatives because the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative S4 contains more linear feet and acres of waters of the U.S. 

3.6.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Tables 3.6-16 and 3.6-17 list the number and size of waters of the U.S. potentially affected by 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. Compared with the No Build Alternative, the potential effects on 

surface waters from Alternative S4 would be moderate. 

Table 3.6-16: Waterbodies within the Southern Section – Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail

Waterbody Type Number of Features Acreage Linear Feet 

Alternative S4 HrSR 

Streams and Rivers 314 N/A 247,448

Lakes and Reservoirs 129 74 N/A

Total 443 74 247, 448 

Source: USGS (2000-2013).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-20

Table 3.6-17: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Southern Section – 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Wetland Type Number of Features Acreage 

Alternative S4 HrSR 

Lakes 5 5 

Freshwater Ponds 108 60

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 17 12

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 20 28

Riverine 39 37

Total 189 142 

Sources: Cowardin et al. (1979); USFWS (2014a) USFWS (2014b). 

3.6.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Tables 3.6-18 and 3.6-19 list the number and size of waters of the U.S. within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. Potential effects on waters of the U.S. from Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail would be moderate. 

3.6.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Tables 3.6-18 and 3.6-19 provide a summary of potential effects on waters of the U.S. within the 

EIS Study Area of Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail, which would have the same effects on waters of 

the U.S. as Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail because both alternatives would follow the same 

alignment. Potential effects on waters of the U.S. would be moderate. 

Table 3.6-18: Waterbodies within the Southern Section – Alternatives S6 HigherSpeed Rail and S6 High-Speed Rail

Waterbody Type Number of Features Acreage Linear Feet 

Alternative S6 HrSR and S6 HSR 

Streams and Rivers 198 N/A 120,488

Lakes and Reservoirs 57 29 N/A

Total 255 29 120,488 

Source: USGS (2000-2013).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-21

Table 3.6-19: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats within the Southern Section – 

Alternatives S6 Higher-Speed and S6 High-Speed Rail

Wetland Type Number of Features Crossed Acreage 

Alternative S6 HrSR and S6 HSR 

Lakes 0 0 

Freshwater Ponds 53 27

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands 4 3 

Freshwater Forested/Scrub Wetlands 8 6 

Riverine 18 21

Total 83 57 

Sources: Cowardin et al. (1979); USFWS (2014a); USFWS (2014b). 

3.6.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Tables 3.6-20 and 3.6-21 summarize effects and provide a qualitative assessment (negligible, 

moderate, or substantial) for each alternative, compared with the No Build Alternative, for 

waterbodies and for wetlands and deepwater habitats. While the intensity is based on volume of 

wetlands potentially affected, most wetland effects can be mitigated through wetland replacement 

or wetland banking. The effects listed are not the actual areas of effect associated with 

construction and operation of any of the alternatives. This service-level EIS uses the EIS Study Area 

to determine the types of resources that may be affected, and more importantly, to determine the 

relative magnitude of potential effects on those resources. Alternatives in the Northern, Central, 

and Southern sections could be built as individual, standalone projects or in combination with 

alternatives in another geographic section. More than one alternative in the Central or Southern 

sections could be built in the future because the alternatives provide service type options for 

different destinations. Details on connecting the alternatives would be determined during the 

project-level analysis. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-22

Table 3.6-20: Summary of Effects on Waterbodies

Section Alternative 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 

Streams and 

Rivers 

(linear feet) 

Lakes and 

Reservoirs 

(acres) 

Potential 

Intensity 

of Impact 

No Build Alternativea 0 0 0 None

Northern 

Section 

N4A CONV 537 317,365 103 Negligible 

Central Section C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

700 316,909 153 Moderate

C4B HrSR

C4A HSR

650 293,669 99 Moderate

C4C HrSR

C4A HSR

850 400,363 164 Moderate

Southern 

Section 

S4 HrSR 443 247,448 74 Moderate

S6 HrSR

S6 HSR

255 120,488 29 Moderate

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-23

Table 3.6-21: Summary of Effects on Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats

Section Alternative 

Total 

Number 

of 

Wetlands Lakes (acres) 

Freshwater 

Ponds 

(acres) 

Freshwater 

Emergent 

Wetlands 

(acres) 

Freshwater 

Forested/Scrub 

Wetlands 

(acres) Riverine (acres) 

Total of 

Wetlands 

and 

Deepwater 

Habitats 

(acres) 

Potential 

Intensity 

of Impact 

No Build Alternativea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None

Northern 

Section 

N4A CONV 271 2 81 34 195 51 363 Negligible

Central 

Section 

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

349 32 82 54 96 48 312 Moderate

C4B HrSR

C4A HSR

309 18 68 13 32 50 181 Moderate

C4C HrSR

C4A HSR

391 42 94 58 103 48 345 Moderate

Southern 

Section 

S4 HrSR 189 5 60 12 28 37 142 Moderate

S6 HrSR

S6 HSR

83 0 27 3 6 21 57 Moderate

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel facilities within the EIS 

Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be 

dependent on project-specific analysis.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-24

3.6.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

The environmental planning and review process typically involves successive considerations of 

avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation with regard to waters of the U.S., as 

required under the CWA. Measures to avoid, minimize, and provide compensatory mitigation for 

unavoidable impacts follow USACE rules and guidance, with the goal of no net loss of wetland 

functions and values. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies would be considered in

evaluating waters of the U.S. impacts. Avoidance and minimization of effects will be incorporated 

when feasible. If effects cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented.

Measures implemented to avoid waters of the U.S. impacts may include the following:

 Route selection and route adjustments 

 Temporary work space siting during design iterations

 Demarcation of wetlands outside the construction corridor as “no work zones” 

Measures implemented to minimize waters of the U.S. impacts may include the following:

 Co-location of the proposed Program alternative with previously disturbed construction areas

 Construction methods that limit temporary workspace through waters of the U.S. 

 Topsoil segregation and replacement in temporarily excavated wetlands

 Expedited construction in and around wetlands 

 Storage of fuel, lubricant, and hazardous material or location of equipment refueling areas 

outside waters of the U.S. boundaries

 Right-of-way inspections during and after construction 

 Repair of erosion control or restoration features as necessary until permanent re-vegetation is 

successful

 Restoration of waters of the U.S. to the original contours and flow regimes to the extent practical

 Promotion of natural re-vegetation through the available topsoil seed bank

Where impacts on waters of the U.S. are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation would be required. 

The approach to compensatory mitigation follows the 2008 EPA and USACE Wetland Compensatory 

Mitigation Rules (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, 40 CFR Part 230) emphasizing a watershed-level 

approach to compensation. Previous EPA and USACE guidance favored mitigation close to the 

location of impacts, but the March 2008 Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Rule lists the following 

hierarchy of mitigation preferences: (1) mitigation banks; (2) in-lieu fee programs; and, if the first 

two options are not practicable (3) permittee-responsible mitigation. Consultation with USACE will

determine whether one or a combination of the three mitigation strategies would be appropriate.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.6 Wetlands

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.6-25

3.6.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Subsequent analysis will include waters of the U.S. permitting and mitigation strategies, which are 

discussed below.

3.6.6.1 Waters of the U.S. Permitting 

The lead agency with the broadest level of jurisdiction over the waters of the U.S. permitting 

process is USACE. USACE regulates the discharges of dredge and fill materials into waters of the 

U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 – 1376). Placing structures in or under 

navigable waters is regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. §403), 

which is also administered by USACE. Permit authorizations under Section 404 and Section 10 are 

typically combined into a single permit application. 

Before a USACE permit application is submitted, a waters of the U.S. delineation and habitat 

assessment will be conducted along the Program corridor to identify and map the boundaries of 

waters of the U.S. and to characterize existing habitat. Features will be mapped using submeter 

accurate global positioning system (GPS) receivers and will be photo-documented. 

The results from the waters of the U.S. delineation will be submitted to USACE for an approved or 

preliminary jurisdictional determination. USACE would review the jurisdictional determination

application and provide a ruling on jurisdictional waters within the Program corridor. 

After engineering alignment and facility plans are finalized, a waters of the U.S. impact analysis will

be conducted to determine the level of permitting requirements for unavoidable impacts on waters 

of the U.S. Depending on the impacts on waters of the U.S., the project would require a Nationwide 

Permit or an Individual Permit, both of which are summarized below:

 Nationwide Permit – The USACE Nationwide Permit authorizes activities that have “minimal 

individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects” (USACE 2014a). Each of the 49 

Nationwide Permits contains specific permit requirements and waters of the U.S. impact 

threshold limits. A Pre-Construction Notification may be required depending on waters of the 

U.S. impacts. Nationwide Permits are valid for 5 years and would be subject to regional, state, 

and USACE district conditions. 

 Individual Permit – The USACE Individual Permit is used for significant impacts on waters of the 

U.S. The process involves pre-application meetings with USACE, stakeholders (federal, state, 

and local agencies), and the interested public as appropriate. Upon receipt of an application, 

USACE prepares a public notice (if required), evaluates impacts, considers stakeholders and 

public comments, recommends changes, and delegates drafting of appropriate documentation 

in support of permit decision (USACE 2014b).

TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-1 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 

This section describes threatened and endangered species within the 500-foot Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) Study Area and assesses potential effects on these resources by the 

alternatives. The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study Area and use of terms such as 

Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

Regulatory Environment 

Applicable federal and state legislation and regulations pertaining to threatened and endangered 

species within the EIS Study Area are described below. Additional local and regional laws, 

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

3.7.1.1 Federal 

 Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 1531-1544 and 42 

U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.). The ESA protects and recovers imperiled species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) administer the ESA. USFWS is responsible for terrestrial and 

freshwater organisms, and NMFS is responsible for marine wildlife, including whales, and 

anadromous fish, such as salmon. Under the ESA, species may be listed as either endangered 

or threatened. An endangered species means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species means a species is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future. Species of plants and animals, except pest insects, 

are eligible for listing if they meet the criteria for endangered or threatened classification. The 

ESA and amendments provide guidance for conserving federally listed species and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend. Relevant sections within the ESA are summarized below: 

- Section 4 of the ESA (Listing, Critical Habitat and Recovery). Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

§ 1533) includes the procedures for listing a species and requires species to be listed as 

endangered or threatened solely on the basis of their biological status and threats to their 

existence. When evaluating a species for listing, USFWS considers the following five factors: 

(1) damage to, or destruction of, a species’ habitat; (2) overuse of the species for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) 

inadequacy of existing protection; and (5) other natural or manmade factors that affect the 

continued existence of the species. When one or more of these factors endanger the 

survival of a species, USFWS takes action to protect it. Section 4 also requires USFWS and 

NMFS to designate critical habitat for species listed under the ESA. Critical habitat is defined 

as follows:

o Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 

if those areas contain physical or biological features essential to conservation and if 

those features require special management considerations or protection.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-2 

o Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if those areas are 

essential for conservation. 

In addition, Section 4 directs USFWS and NMFS to develop and implement recovery plans 

for threatened and endangered species, unless such a plan would not promote conservation 

of the species. 

- Section 7 of the ESA (Interagency Consultation and Biological Assessments). Section 7 of 

the ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1536) requires federal agencies to consult with USFWS or NMFS, as 

appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered fish, wildlife, or plant 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for 

any such species. Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration 

that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed 

species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or 

biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly 

delay development of such features. 

- Section 9 of the ESA (Prohibited Acts), and its implementing regulations. Section 9 of the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1538) prohibits the “taking” of any fish or wildlife species listed under the 

ESA as endangered or threatened, unless otherwise authorized by federal regulations. 

“Take” includes the destruction of a listed species’ habitat. “Take” also refers to activities 

that could harm a listed species (e.g., harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct). Section 9 also prohibits 

specified activities with respect to endangered and threatened plants.

- Section 10 of the ESA (Permitting and Conservation Plans). Section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

§ 1539) provides a process by which nonfederal entities may obtain an Incidental Take 

Permit from USFWS or NMFS for otherwise lawful activities that might incidentally result in 

take of endangered or threatened species, subject to specific conditions. Take refers to 

activities that could harm a listed species (e.g., harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 

kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct). 

 USFWS Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. § 661-667, et seq.). This Act applies to any federal 

project where a body of water is impounded, diverted, deepened, or otherwise modified. It 

provides the basic authority for USFWS involvement in evaluating impacts on fish and wildlife 

from proposed water resource development projects. It requires that fish and wildlife resources 

receive equal consideration to other project features. It also requires federal agencies that 

construct, license, or permit water resource development projects to first consult with USFWS 

(and the NMFS in some instances) and state fish and wildlife agencies regarding the impacts on 

fish and wildlife resources and measures to mitigate these impacts. Consultation with USFWS, 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation (ODWC) would occur at the project level. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-3 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. § 703-712). The MBTA protects selected 

species of birds that cross international boundaries (i.e., species that occur in more than one 

country at some point during their life cycle). The law prohibits the take of such species, 

including the removal of nests, eggs, and feathers. The MBTA makes it illegal for anyone to take, 

possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, 

any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird, except under the terms of a valid 

permit issued pursuant to federal regulations.

 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 668-668d, 50 CFR 22). This Act prohibits the 

destruction of bald and golden eagles and their occupied and unoccupied nests. It also makes it 

illegal to take, transport, or possess eagles or use these species in commerce.

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 

U.S.C. §§ 1801-1884). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. 

federal waters. First passed in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act fosters long-term biological 

and economic sustainability of our nation's marine fisheries out to 200 nautical miles from 

shore. 

3.7.1.2 State 

 State of Oklahoma Statute Title 29. This statute gives the state the authority to list a wildlife 

species as threatened or endangered within Oklahoma, although it might not be classified as 

threatened or endangered federally through the ESA. An endangered species refers to any 

wildlife species or subspecies in the wild or in captivity whose prospects of survival and 

reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. It includes those species listed as endangered by the 

federal government and any species or subspecies identified as threatened by Oklahoma 

statute or Commission resolution, as outlined in Oklahoma Statute Title 29. Four wildlife 

species are listed as state-threatened or state-endangered in Oklahoma.

State of Oklahoma Statute Title 29 also prohibits possession, hunting, chasing, harassing, 

capture, shooting at, wounding or killing, taking or attempting to take, trapping or attempting to 

trap any endangered or threatened species or subspecies without specific written permission 

from the Director. In no event, however, may that permission conflict with federal law. 

Consultation with ODWC would occur at the project level.

 Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. The Texas legislature authorized the TPWD to establish a list of 

endangered animals in the state in 1973. State regulations prohibit the taking, possession, 

transportation, or sale of any of the animal species designated as endangered or threatened 

without the issuance of a permit, as outlined in Chapters 6 and 68 of the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Code and 31 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 65.171-65.176. Endangered species 

are those species that the Executive Director of TPWD has identified as being threatened with 

state-wide extinction. Threatened species are those species that the TPWD Commission has 

determined are likely to become endangered in the future. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-4 

State regulations prohibit commerce of threatened and endangered plants and prohibit the 

collection of listed plant species from public land without the issuance of a permit as outlined in 

Chapter 88 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code and 31 TAC § 69.01-69.9. Consultation with 

TPWD would occur at the project level. 

Methodology 

The methodology for this evaluation consists of using existing data to identify threatened and 

endangered species occurrences and critical habitat that could be present within the EIS Study 

Area for each build alternative, and evaluating the potential level of effect that each alternative 

could have if constructed. The build alternatives are compared with other alternatives within the 

same geographic section, as well as with the No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative includes 

the existing transportation network (roadway, passenger rail, and air) in the Study Vicinity and

committed improvements to these systems. The intensity of an effect as a result of the route 

alternatives is characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial, in comparison with the No 

Build Alternative. For threatened and endangered species, these terms are defined as follows: 

 Negligible intensity effects from construction and operation of an alternative would have no 

effect on threatened and endangered species or their designated critical habitat. 

 Moderate intensity effects from construction and operation of an alternative may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat. 

 Substantial intensity effects from construction and operation of an alternative may affect, and 

would likely adversely affect, threatened and endangered species or their designated critical 

habitat.

Available information, such as special-status species occurrences and critical habitat, was used to 

assess the potential magnitude or intensity of the effects. To evaluate the potential effects on 

threatened and endangered species from construction and operation of the alternatives, the 

following acreages were quantified:

 Acreage of special-status plant and wildlife occurrences. Potential effects of each alternative 

were determined using special-status species data by comparing locations of known 

occurrences and acreages of special-status plant and wildlife species within the EIS Study Area.

It should be noted that actual potential habitat for listed species would most likely be more 

widespread and would be determined during focused surveys conducted during a project-level 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Federally and state-listed species in Texas

were identified through a review of the 2011 Environmental Occurrences for Federal and State 

Listed and Tracked Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species spatial dataset, acquired from 

the TPWD Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD) (Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 2012). Oklahoma 

federally and state-listed species were identified through a review of the county-by-county list of 

endangered and threatened species published by ODWC. For the service-level analysis of 

threatened and endangered plant and animal species, only TXNDD data and the county-bycounty list were used. Based on direction received from the Texas Department of Transportation
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-5 

regarding the methods of analysis for each of the environmental disciplines that were 

considered and included in the service-level EIS, data acquired via the Ecological Mapping 

Systems of Texas, the National Land Cover Database, and composite data from the U.S. 

Environmental Project Agency’s Regional Ecological Assessment Protocol were included in the 

Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife Technical Study (Appendix G) and in Section 3.5, 

Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife. Such data were used to assess the potential 

magnitude, or intensity, of the effects on land use coverage, ecoregions, wildlife corridors and 

assemblages, and sensitive plant communities and not incorporated within the threatened and 

endangered species analysis. During subsequent, project-level analysis, data from the 

Ecological Mapping Systems of Texas, National Land Cover Database, and Regional Ecological 

Assessment Protocol, as well as data from TXNDD and ODWC, will be used to determine if 

habitat is present within the study area of a preferred alternative and will be used to conduct a 

detailed analysis to determine actual effects on threatened and endangered species and 

habitats. 

 Acreage of potential critical habitat within the EIS Study Area. Potential effects of each 

alternative were determined using acreages of critical habitat within the EIS Study Area. Data 

used for analysis were obtained from the TXNDD and the Oklahoma Department of 

Transportation, High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail I-35 Corridor, Oklahoma, Data Collection 

Report (Meshek & Associates 2013). 

Affected Environment 

The EIS Study Area spans 850 miles in length from central Oklahoma to south Texas. Therefore, the 

alternatives are spread across a broad geographic area with typical weather patterns that include 

semi-arid, humid subtropical, and modified subtropical conditions. The EIS Study Area generally lies 

along low-elevation basins and valleys associated the Great Plains in the north and with the Coastal 

Plains in the south. Land cover types within the EIS Study Area include developed, vegetated with 

open grasslands, agricultural, shrubland, and forests. Details regarding the general climate of the 

Study Vicinity can be found in Section 3.5, Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife. 

As described previously, federal and state regulations protect imperiled plant species and facilitate 

the recovery of such species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Federal and state 

regulations also provide guidance on how a species is listed and designations (endangered, 

threatened, etc.) of a species’ sensitivity. No threatened, endangered, or rare plant species were 

identified as potentially occurring in the Northern or Central sections. In the Southern Section, 

Alternative S6 also had no threatened, endangered, or rare plant species identified. Table 3.7-1 

lists the 18 sensitive plant species that potentially occur within the EIS Study Area and describes 

each species general habitat type and requirements. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-6 

Table 3.7-1: Sensitive Plant Species within the EIS Study Area 

Common Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Status 

(Federal/State/ 

TPWD Ranking)a General Habitat Type(s) 

Northern Section 

Alternative N4A Conventional 

None 

Central Section 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail 

None

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail 

None

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and C4C High-Speed Rail 

None

Southern Section 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Bailey's ballmoss Tillandsia baileyi -- / -- / S2

An air plant that grows on trees in 

woodland, savanna/open woodland and 

shrubland in Texas

Elmendorf's onion Allium elmendorfii -- / -- / S2

Savanna/open woodland; known only 

from the Carrizo sands of eastern Bexar, 

Frio, Wilson, and Atacosa counties

Falfurrias milkvine Matelea radiata -- / -- / SH Unknown

Green Island 

echeandia Echeandia texensis -- / -- / S1 Grassland; on clay dunes, llanos, and 

open areas in Texas

Johnston's frankenia Frankenia johnstonii LE, PDL / E / S3

Shrubland; found in high-saline, rocky or 

eroding and reddish soil, associated with 

the Maverick soil series. It is found in 

Webb, Zapata, and Starr Counties of 

south Texas; also in northern Mexico

Lila de los llanos Echeandia chandleri -- / -- / S2 Grassland; coastal plains in Texas and 

Mexico (San Luis Potosí, Tamaulipas)

Mexican mud-plantain Heteranthera 

mexicana -- / -- / S1

Freshwater wetland (playas); riparian 

(resacas); populations are located in 

swales and ditches in an area that is 

subject to irregular rainfall

Plains gumweed Grindelia oolepis -- / -- / S2

Grassland; endemic to Texas and 

primarily found along roadsides and 

other disturbed rights-of-way
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-7 

Common Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Status 

(Federal/State/ 

TPWD Ranking)a General Habitat Type(s) 

Runyon's cory cactus

Coryphantha 

macromeris var. 

runyonii

-- / -- / S2

Shrubland (Chihuahuan desert scrub, 

Tamaulipan thorn scrub), on nearly all 

substrates including nearly pure gypsum, 

gravelly soils, usually sandy alluvium or 

clay, rarely crevices or steep slopes in 

New Mexico, Texas and Mexico 

(Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, 

Zacatecas)

Runyon's water-willow Justicia runyonii -- / -- / S2 Shrubland and woodland in Texas, Rio 

Grande Valley and Northern Mexico

Sandhill woolywhite Hymenopappus 

carrizoanus -- / -- / S2 Savanna/open woodland (sandhills), oak 

woodlands on sandy soils

Slender rushpea Hoffmannseggia 

tenella LE / E / S1

Grassland; known to occur in four 

populations in Nueces and Kleberg 

counties in Texas

South Texas ambrosia Ambrosia 

cheiranthifolia LE / E / S2 Grassland; on seasonally wet clay and 

sands in Texas and Mexico (Tamaulipas)

St. Joseph's Staff Manfreda longiflora -- / -- / S2

Shrubland on clay slopes, dry gravelly 

hills or sandy prairies in Texas and 

Mexico (Tamaulipas).

Texas ayenia Ayenia limitaris LE / E / S1

Shrubland; known to occur in only one 

small population of about 20 individuals 

in Hidalgo county

Texas windmill-grass Chloris texensis -- / -- / S2 Grassland (coastal prairie, saline prairie)

Vasey's adelia Adelia vaseyi -- / -- / S2 Shrubland

Walker's manioc Manihot walkerae LE / E / S1

Shrubland; Historically, Walker's manioc 

is known only from the lower Rio Grande 

valley of Texas (Hidalgo and Starr 

counties) and northern Tamaulipas, 

Mexico. Now, located in three different 

areas on the Lower Rio Grande National 

Wildlife Refuge in Starr and Hidalgo 

Counties

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 High-Speed Rail 

None

a Status acronyms:

Federal and State Listing Designations

E – State endangered

DL – Delisted

TPWD Rankings

S1 - Fewer than 6 occurrences known in Texas; critically imperiled in 

Texas; especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-8 

Common Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Status 

(Federal/State/ 

TPWD Ranking)a General Habitat Type(s) 

LE – Federally endangered

LT – Federally threatened

PDL – Proposed delisted

PE – Federally proposed endangered

PT – Federally proposed threatened

T – State threatened

C - Category 1 candidate for listing as 

threatened or endangered by the USFWS

S2 - 6 to 20 known occurrences in Texas; imperiled in the state 

because of rarity; very vulnerable to extirpation from the state

S3 - 21 to 100 known occurrences in Texas; either rare or uncommon in 

the state

S4 - More than 100 occurrences in Texas; apparently secure in the 

state, though it may be rare in some areas of Texas

S5 - Demonstrably secure in Texas

SH - Historical in Texas, not verified within the past 40 years but 

suspected to be extant

SR - Reported from Texas in literature but not verified via specimens or 

field observations

SX - Presumed extirpated from Texas

Source: TPWD (2014b).

Sensitive wildlife species include federally and state-listed endangered species, federally and statelisted threatened species, and federally proposed endangered and proposed threatened species.

Table 3.7-2 lists the 22 sensitive wildlife species and their general habitat requirements that 

potentially occur within the EIS Study Area based on the spatial dataset acquired from the TXNDD. 

Table 3.7-2: Sensitive Wildlife Species within the EIS Study Area 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Status 

(Federal/State/

TPWD 

Rankinga) General Habitat Type(s) 

Northern Section 

Alternative N4A Conventional 

Arkansas River 

shiner

Notropis girardi LT / -- / -- Historically inhabited the main channels of wide, 

shallow, sand-bottomed rivers and larger 

streams of the Arkansas River basin. Adults are 

uncommon in quiet pools or backwaters, and 

almost never occur in tributaries having deep 

water and bottoms of mud or stone. Juveniles 

associated most strongly with current, 

conductivity (total dissolved solids), and 

backwater and island habitat types.

Black-capped vireo Vireo atricapillus LE / -- / -- Rangelands with scattered clumps of shrubs 

separated by open grassland. There are two 

known populations of black-capped vireos in 

Oklahoma. One population is large (more than 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-9 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Status 

(Federal/State/

TPWD 

Rankinga) General Habitat Type(s) 

2,000 birds) and is located in the Wichita 

Mountains of northern Comanche County. The 

other population is small (fewer than 30 birds) 

and occurs in the canyon lands of northern 

Blaine County, north of Watonga.

Black-sided darter Percina maculata -- / T / -- Clear, gravel-bottom, perennial streams.

Interior least tern Sterna antillarum LE / -- / -- Nesting habitat–bare or sparsely vegetated 

sand, shell, and gravel beaches, sandbars, 

islands, and salt flats associated with rivers and 

reservoirs. 

For feeding, needs shallow water with an 

abundance of small fish. Shallow water areas of 

lakes, ponds, and rivers located close to nesting 

areas are preferred. 

Occurs in Oklahoma during the late spring and 

summer breeding season (mid-May through late 

August) on portions of the Arkansas, Cimarron, 

Canadian and Red rivers.

Piping plover Charadrius 

melodus

LT / -- / -- Estuary/estuarine and coastal. 

Winter – beaches, sand flats, mudflats, algal 

mats, emergent sea grass beds, wash-over 

passes, and very small dunes where seaweed 

(sargassum) or other debris has accumulated 

sand; spoil islands along the Intracoastal 

Waterway; bare or sparsely vegetated coastal 

areas. There are two nesting records for the 

piping plover in the Oklahoma panhandle, but it 

is normally a spring and fall migrant through the 

state. Most records for migrating piping plovers 

occur across the main body of the state, with 

recent records including Woodward, Alfalfa, 

Oklahoma, Cleveland, Tulsa, and Washington 

counties.

Whooping crane Grus Americana LE / -- / -- Saltwater wetland and estuary.

Winter – primarily freshwater and brackish 

marshes of south Texas, salt marshes, and tidal 

flats on the mainland and barrier islands 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-10

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Status 

(Federal/State/

TPWD 

Rankinga) General Habitat Type(s) 

dominated by salt grass, saltwort, smooth 

cordgrass, glasswort, and sea ox-eyebut; 

recently a few flocks have used waterbodies 

(e.g., Granger Lake), stopping short of coastal 

destination; shallow, seasonally and semipermanently flooded palustrine wetlands for 

roosting, and various cropland and emergent 

wetlands. During migration, whooping cranes 

pass through the western half of Oklahoma, with 

most sightings occurring west of Interstate 

Highway (IH)-35 and east of Guymon, in the 

panhandle. 

Central Section 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail 

Mountain plover Charadrius 

montanus

PT / -- /S2 Agricultural and grassland.

Winter – shortgrass prairie, heavily grazed 

rangelands and agricultural fields in south 

Texas. 

Breeding – short- and mixed-grass prairie, prairie 

dog colonies, agricultural lands, and semidesert 

habitats in west Texas and panhandle.

Nest locally in the western Great Plains from 

Montana south to New Mexico, in Utah, and in 

Mexico; winter in a broad band from Texas west 

and north to the Central Valley of California.

Texas garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

annectens

-- / -- / S3 Riparian, around lacustrine and cultural aquatic 

sites; marshy, flooded pastureland or meadows, 

particularly in spring when frogs are present in 

numbers; at other times, grassy or brushy terrain 

near hill country streams and ponds. Central and 

north Texas and Oklahoma. 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail 

Mountain plover Charadrius 

montanus

PT / -- /S2 See above.

Texas garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

annectens

-- / -- / S3 See above. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-11

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Status 

(Federal/State/

TPWD 

Rankinga) General Habitat Type(s) 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and C4B High-Speed Rail 

Mountain plover Charadrius 

montanus

PT / -- /S2 See above.

Texas garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

annectens

-- / -- / S3 See above.

Southern Section 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Black-spotted newt Notophthalmus 

meridionalis

-- / -- / S2 Freshwater wetland, riparian, riverine, cultural 

aquatic; edaphically limited: deep, poorly 

drained, clayey sediments (such as the Tiocano 

and Edroy clay soils) with slow permeability allow 

formation of ephemeral ponds or wetlands 

during periods of heavy rain, within a matrix of 

native, intact Tamaulipan thornscrub; 

permanent and temporary ponds, roadside 

ditches, and pools of small streams may also be 

used; breed in shallow ephemeral ponds ranging 

in depth from 0.5 to 2 meters, with firm clay 

bottoms, and some with rooted macrophytes; 

salinities ranging from 0.5 to 1.0%; not found in 

water bodies with predatory fish, high salinity, 

intense cattle usage, or agricultural runoff. Texas 

counties bordering the Gulf Coast, south from 

Aransas and Refugio counties, and the central 

portion of the Tamaulipan Province, south from 

Bexar County.

Black-striped snake Coniophanes 

imperialis

-- / -- / S2 Savannas, thornscrub, agricultural landscapes, 

and edges of wet or marshy areas; semiarid 

coastal sandplain; also survives around 

buildings and in vacant lots in localized 

suburban areas. South Texas along the Gulf 

Coast to Veracruz, Mexico. 

Jaguar Panthera onca LE / E / SH Forest, woodland, and riparian. Broadleaf 

deciduous and mixed mature forest, canyons 

and rocky caves or dense thickets for denning, 

large blocks.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-12

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Status 

(Federal/State/

TPWD 

Rankinga) General Habitat Type(s) 

Jaguarundib Herpailurus 

yaguarondi

LE / E/ S1 Shrubland; dense thornscrub over loamy clay 

soils (holding moisture); riparian areas and 

brushy arroyos.

Keeled earless 

lizard

Holbrookia 

propinqua

-- / -- / S3 Coastal, barren/sparse vegetation, shrubland; 

native coastal grasslands, barrier islands. South 

Texas and along the Gulf Coast of Mexico.

Mexican blackhead 

snake

Tantilla atriceps -- / -- / S1 Shrubland; wooded and grassland/thorn brush 

communities, desert flats to wooded mountain 

canyons. Restricted to two counties (Kleburg 

and Duval) in south Texas. In Mexico, occurs 

from central Coahuila south to San Luis Potosi, 

with isolated populations found in Tamaulipas.

Mexican treefrog Smilisca baudinii -- / -- / S3 Riparian, freshwater wetland, cultural aquatic, 

woodland; nocturnal and most active after rains; 

forested and brushy areas around streams, 

resacas, and roadside ditches; observed in tops 

of palm trees; seek shelter from heat and dry 

conditions under loose tree bark, in tree holes, 

in damp soil, and in the leaves of palms, banana 

plants, and other broadleaves. Restricted to the 

extreme southern tip of Texas, in Cameron and 

Hidalgo counties. 

Northern cat-eyed 

snake

Leptodeira 

septentrionalis

-- / T / S2 Forest, woodland, thornscrub with ponds or 

streams (frogs and toads are primary food). 

Restricted to counties along the Rio Grande 

Valley in the few remaining stretches of 

thornscrub and subtropical habitats.

Reticulate collared 

lizard

Crotaphytus 

reticulatus

-- / T / S2 Desert scrub, scrubland; thorn-scrub vegetation, 

usually on well-drained rolling terrain of shallow 

gravel, caliche, or sandy soils; scattered flat 

rocks below escarpments or isolated rock 

outcrops among scattered clumps of prickly-pear 

and mesquite; mesquite savanna and 

grasslands near rocky outcrops; shrub and rock 

structure in habitat are important. Occurs in the 

Rio Grande Valley of south Texas and Mexico, 

excluding the coastal areas.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-13

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Status 

(Federal/State/

TPWD 

Rankinga) General Habitat Type(s) 

Sheep frog Hypopachus 

variolosus

-- / T / S2 Shrubland, riparian, cultural aquatic; thornscrub, 

oak woodland, mesquite savanna, short and 

mixed grassland, agricultural areas and other 

open areas; ephemeral and permanent wetlands 

key for breeding. Occurs from the eastern half of 

south Texas, from Bee County south to Cameron, 

Hidalgo, and Starr counties.

South Texas siren 

(large form)

Siren sp. 1 -- / T / S2 Freshwater wetland, cultural aquatic, lacustrine; 

wholly aquatic; shallow, muddy, vegetated 

wetlands, resacas, ditches, swamps, ponds and 

larger lakes and streams; structure (thick 

vegetation, rocks, and logs) and muddy bottom 

typically associated with unmanaged or 

unmanipulated waterways. Eastern third of 

Texas, from the lower Rio Grande Valley 

northward along the Gulf Coast to Louisiana.

Texas Indigo Snake Drymarchon 

melanurus 

erebennus

-- / T / S4 Shrubland, savanna; riparian corridors in thorn 

brush woodland, mesquite savanna of the 

coastal plain, mixed-grass prairies, coastal 

sandhills, and desert scrubland; often uses 

small mammal burrows (e.g., gopher [Geomys]). 

Southern Texas south into Mexico.

Texas scarlet snake Cemophora 

coccinea lineri

-- / T / S1 Coastal, shrubland, and desert scrub. Known to 

occur in several counties located along the 

Texas coastal bend and in adjunct south Texas. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 High-Speed Rail 

Texas tortoise Gopherus 

berlandieri

-- / -- / S2 Savanna, shrubland; semi-desert scrub and 

barrier islands, on sand, clay or caliche; lomas 

surrounded by salt flats and marshes; south of a 

line through Del Rio, San Antonio, and Rockport, 

Texas. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-14

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Status 

(Federal/State/

TPWD 

Rankinga) General Habitat Type(s) 

a Status acronyms: 

Federal and State Listing Designations

E – State endangered

DL – Delisted

ET – State threatened

LE – Federally endangered

LT – Federally threatened

PDL – Proposed delisted

PE – Federally proposed endangered

PT – Federally proposed threatened

C = Category 1 candidate for listing as 

threatened or endangered by the USFWS

TPWD Rankings

S1 - Fewer than 6 occurrences known in Texas; critically imperiled in 

Texas; especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state

S2 - 6 to 20 known occurrences in Texas; imperiled in the state because 

of rarity; very vulnerable to extirpation from the state

S3 - 21 to 100 known occurrences in Texas; either rare or uncommon in 

the state

S4 - More than 100 occurrences in Texas; apparently secure in the state, 

though it may be rare in some areas of Texas

S5 - Demonstrably secure in Texas

SH - Historical in Texas, not verified within the past 40 years but 

suspected to be extant

SR - Reported from Texas in literature but not verified via specimens or 

field observations

SX - Presumed extirpated from Texas

b Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) staff noted that jaguarundi are no longer found in Texas; however, the 

species was included in information from the resource agency databases and is therefore referenced in this document. 

TxDOT staff also noted that black bear and ocelot are found in the area. These species were not included in the 

resource agency databases and are, therefore, not referenced in this document. Assessment of these species will be 

included in project-level analysis as appropriate.

Sources: Meshek & Associates (2013); Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (2012); Southwestern Center for Herpetological 

Research (2014); ODWC (2014a); ODWC (2014b); Texas Natural Sciences Center (2014), TPWD (2014a); TPWD 

(2014b) 

3.7.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.7.3.1.1 Sensitive Plant Species 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD and the ODWC endangered and threatened 

species list, no federally or state-listed or state-ranked plant species occur within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative N4A Conventional. 

3.7.3.1.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD and the ODWC endangered and threatened 

species list, and shown in Table 3.7-2, six listed wildlife species potentially occur within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative N4A Conventional. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-15

3.7.3.1.3 Critical Habitat 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD and ODWC, critical habitat for one animal 

species (Arkansas River shiner) is located within the EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A 

Conventional. Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD and ODWC, approximately 34 

acres of designated final critical habitat for the federally threatened Arkansas River shiner are 

located within the EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A Conventional. As shown on Figure 3.7-1, the 

critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner in the EIS Study Area includes the Canadian River that 

follows the existing rail alignment in McClain County, Oklahoma, and intersects perpendicularly to 

the EIS Study Area south of Norman, Oklahoma. No other designated critical habitat areas were 

identified. 

3.7.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.7.3.2.1 Sensitive Plant Species 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, no federally or state-listed or state-ranked plant 

species occur within the EIS Study Areas for the Central Section alternatives. 

3.7.3.2.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, and shown in Table 3.7-2, two special-status 

wildlife species have the potential to occur within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A. Based on 

the dataset, 324 acres of mountain plover habitat and 1,490 acres of Texas garter snake habitat 

potentially occur within the EIS Study Area. As shown on Figures 3.7-2 and 3.7-3, the recorded 

occurrences of sensitive wildlife species identified within the EIS Study Area are represented by 

relatively large areas intersected by the EIS Study Area. In addition, the occurrences are in the 

portions of the alternative outside existing transportation corridors. 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, two special-status wildlife species also have 

the potential to occur within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4B. Based on the dataset, the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4B contains the same number of acres of mountain plover habitat as 

Alternative C4A (324 acres) and slightly more Texas garter snake habitat (1,493 acres, compared 

with 1,490 acres in Alternative C4A). As shown on Figures 3.7-2 and 3.7-3, the recorded 

occurrences of sensitive wildlife species identified within the EIS Study Area are represented by 

relatively large areas intersected by the EIS Study Area. 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, two special-status wildlife species also have 

the potential to occur within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4C. Based on the dataset, the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative C4C contains the same number of acres of mountain plover habitat as 

Alternatives C4A and C4B (324 acres), but more Texas garter snake habitat (1,604 acres, 

compared with 1,490 and 1,493 acres in Alternatives C4A and C4B, respectively). As shown on 

Figures 3.7-2 and 3.7-3, the recorded occurrences of sensitive wildlife species identified within the 

EIS Study Area are represented by relatively large areas intersected by the EIS Study Area. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-16

Figure 3.7-1: Critical Habitat – Northern Section Alternative
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-17

Figure 3.7-2: Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrences – Central Section Alternatives
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-18

Figure 3.7-3: Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrences – Central Section Alternatives 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-19

3.7.3.2.3 Critical Habitat 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, no designated critical habitat areas were 

identified within the EIS Study Areas for the Central Section alternatives. 

3.7.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.7.3.3.1 Sensitive Plant Species 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, and shown in Table 3.7-1, 18 federally and 

state-listed or state-ranked plant species potentially occur within the Southern Section, all within 

the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. Table 3.7-3 lists the acres of potential 

sensitive plant occurrences within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. 

Table 3.7-3: Acres of Potential Sensitive Plant Occurrences within EIS Study Area – 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail

Common Name Acres of Potential Habitat 

Bailey's ballmoss 521

Elmendorf's onion 76

Falfurrias milkvine 600

Green Island echeandia 474

Johnston's frankenia 1

Lila de los llanos 170

Mexican mud-plantain 1,767

Plains gumweed 453

Runyon's cory cactus 384

Runyon's water-willow 304

Sandhill woolywhite 624

Slender rushpea 18

South Texas ambrosia 195

St. Joseph's Staff 546

Texas ayenia 693

Texas windmill-grass 577

Vasey's adelia 120

Walker's manioc 600

Sources: Meshek & Associates (2013); Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (2012)

As shown on Figures 3.7-4 through 3.7-6, most of the known occurrences of the 18 listed plant 

species that intersect with the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail are in Atascosa, 

Bexar, Brooks, Cameron, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, and Nueces Counties, in areas of the alternative that 

would be constructed on an existing abandoned rail and in areas that have already been disturbed 

by prior rail development. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-20

Figure 3.7-4: Sensitive Plant Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-21

Figure 3.7-5: Sensitive Plant Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-22

Figure 3.7-6: Sensitive Plant Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-23

3.7.3.3.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, and shown in Table 3.7-2, 14 listed wildlife 

species potentially occur within the EIS Study Areas for the Southern Section alternatives. 

Table 3.7-4 lists the acres of potential sensitive wildlife habitat within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. 

Table 3.7-4: Acres of Potential Sensitive Wildlife Habitat within EIS Study Area – 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail

Common Name Acres of Potential Habitat 

Black-spotted newt 1,477

Black-striped snake 160

Jaguar 601

Jaguarundia 515

Keeled earless lizard 150

Mexican blackhead snake 151

Mexican treefrog 402

Northern cat-eyed snake 374

Reticulate collared lizard 94

Sheep frog 906

South Texas siren (large form) 1,288

Texas indigo snake 1,195

Texas scarlet snake 3

a TxDOT staff noted that jaguarundi are no longer found in Texas; however, the 

species was included in information from the resource agency databases and is 

therefore referenced in this document. TxDOT staff also noted that black bear 

and ocelot are found in the area. These species were not included in the 

resource agency databases and are, therefore, not referenced in this document. 

Assessment of these species will be included in project-level analysis as 

appropriate.

Sources: Meshek & Associates (2013); Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (2012)

As shown on Figures 3.7-7 through 3.7-9, most of the 13 known occurrences of listed wildlife 

species that intersect with the EIS Study Area of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail are in Brooks, 

Cameron, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, Live Oak, and Nueces Counties, in areas of the alternative that would 

be constructed on an existing abandoned rail. 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, 3 acres of listed wildlife habitat (state-listed 

Texas tortoise) are within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail.

3.7.3.3.3 Critical Habitat 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, no designated critical habitat areas were 

identified within the EIS Study Areas for the Southern Section alternatives. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-24

Figure 3.7-7: Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-25

Figure 3.7-8: Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrences – Alternative S4
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-26

Figure 3.7-9: Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrences – Alternative S4 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-27

Environmental Consequences 

3.7.4.1 Overview 

Effects from the alternatives and associated infrastructure can be broadly classified into 

construction and operations effects.

Long-term or permanent effects and short-term effects on threatened and endangered species and 

habitats would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of the build alternatives. Long-term or 

permanent effects on vegetation, including sensitive plant species, would occur from clearing for 

construction, staging of equipment, and stockpiling of soil, ballast, or other construction materials, 

as well as from permanent structures. Short-term effects on adjacent habitats and their 

corresponding wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, would be caused by noise, 

vibration, and air pollution from construction equipment and activities. In general, conventional rail 

would have fewer construction effects on threatened and endangered species because it would 

follow existing rail alignments, with minimal new right-of-way. Higher-speed and high-speed rail 

service types would have greater effects during construction because some or all of the alternative 

would be constructed in new corridors, outside existing transportation corridors. 

Operations effects on wildlife for conventional and higher-speed rail would include making wildlife 

movement vulnerable to an increased risk of strikes from the additional rail traffic along the routes. 

High-speed rail would be completely fenced; therefore, the risk of strikes would be lower for this

service type. Additionally, construction of new tracks on rail bed elevated above the floodplain could 

create barriers to wildlife movement. High-speed rail would be fully grade-separated; therefore, 

more passages for wildlife would likely be included. 

3.7.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, and Chapter 3, Introduction, is 

used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program of 

rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species, nor any critical habitat. 

3.7.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.7.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Sensitive Plant Effects 

No federally or state-listed plant species occurrences were identified within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative N4A Conventional. Therefore, effects on sensitive plant species from construction and 

operation of Alternative N4A Conventional would be negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-28

Sensitive Wildlife Effects 

Based on the ODWC endangered and threatened species list, six special-status species (five of which 

are federally listed as endangered or threatened) are known to occur in the counties crossed by 

Alternative N4A Conventional. 

However, Alternative N4A Conventional would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

(BNSF) rail alignment and Trinity Railway Express (TRE) tracks. Construction of this alternative 

would likely occur in existing right-of-way, in areas that have already been disturbed by prior rail 

development. Furthermore, the probability of the six listed species occurring within existing rightsof-way is low because of the noise and land disturbances associated with the active rail line 

operation and maintenance. Therefore, construction effects on sensitive wildlife species of 

Alternative N4A Conventional would be negligible. 

Operations effects for Alternative N4A Conventional would be moderate because this alternative 

would not likely be fenced, making wildlife, including the listed species known to occur in the EIS 

Study Area, vulnerable to an increased risk for strikes from the additional rail traffic along the route. 

Additionally, more noise and vibration from the added rail traffic along the route could disrupt listed 

species in the area. Various habitats throughout the EIS Study Area could be potential 

roosting/nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident birds (including federally and statelisted species). Removal of, or disturbance to the habitat during the bird nesting season (February 1 

to September 15) could result in effects on nesting species that are protected by the MBTA. Such 

effects would have a noticeable effect on wildlife, including sensitive species, but could be reduced

by the use of best management practices (BMPs) (see Section 3.7.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and 

Mitigation Strategies).

Critical Habitat Effects 

Construction of this alternative would likely occur in existing transportation corridors, in areas that 

have already been disturbed by prior rail development. Therefore, potential effects on critical 

habitat from construction and operation of Alternative N4A Conventional would be negligible. If 

disturbance outside existing rail corridors are necessary (i.e., vegetation clearance, staging), BMPs

could be implemented during construction and operation to limit potential effects on the small, 

linear area of critical habitat (see Section 3.7.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

Strategies). 

3.7.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Most potential effects on threatened and endangered species would be the same among the 

Central Section alternatives. No occurrences of sensitive plant species or critical habitat were 

identified within the EIS Study Area for any of the alternatives. The EIS Study Area for each 

alternative in the Central Section includes the same acreage of mountain plover habitat, but the 

acreage of Texas garter snake habitat varies. These potential effects are described below. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-29

3.7.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Sensitive Plant Effects 

No federally or state-listed plant species occurrences were identified within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Therefore, construction and operation effects on sensitive plant 

species from Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible when compared with the No 

Build Alternative. 

Sensitive Wildlife Effects 

The potential effects on listed wildlife species of construction of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

would be substantial because construction would occur outside existing transportation corridors 

that would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on these resources within the EIS Study Area. Shortand long-term effects on mountain plover and Texas garter snake could occur as a result of 

constructing Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and could include the temporary clearing of 

potential habitat for construction equipment and the stockpiling of soil, ballast, or other 

construction materials. Additionally, short-term noise, vibration, and air pollution from construction 

equipment and activities could temporarily affect listed species by disrupting life history 

requirements (foraging, nesting). Potential operations effects would be moderate from disruption of 

listed species from noise and vibration from the added rail traffic along the route. Operations 

effects would have a noticeable effect on wildlife, but the effects could be reduced by the use of 

BMPs (see Section 3.7.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Critical Habitat Effects 

No critical habitat was identified within the EIS Study Area for C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Therefore, 

effects on critical habitat from construction and operation would be negligible.

3.7.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Sensitive Plant Effects 

Potential effects on sensitive plants would be the same as those discussed for Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would share the same route. Construction and 

operations effects would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Sensitive Wildlife Effects 

Potential construction effects on sensitive wildlife species would be the same as those discussed 

for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail (substantial) because both service types would share the 

same route. Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would likely be fully fenced, lessening the likelihood of 

strikes when compared with the higher-speed rail option. However, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

would have a higher potential for operations effects because the noise and vibration generated by 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-30

high-speed rail would travel farther than the noise generated by higher-speed rail. Overall, the 

potential operations effects on sensitive wildlife would be moderate.

Critical Habitat Effects 

Potential effects on critical habitat would be the same as those discussed for Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would share the same route. Construction and 

operations effects would be negligible. 

3.7.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Sensitive Plant Effects 

No federally or state-listed plant species occurrences were identified within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. Therefore, effects on sensitive plant species from construction 

and operation would be negligible. 

Sensitive Wildlife Effects 

The potential effects on listed wildlife species from construction of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed 

Rail would be substantial because construction of the portions of the alternative that would be 

located outside existing transportation corridors would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on these 

resources within the EIS Study Area. Short- and long-term effects on mountain plover and Texas 

garter snake could occur as a result of constructing Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and could 

include the temporary clearing of potential habitat for construction equipment and the stockpiling 

of soil, ballast, or other construction materials. Additionally, short-term noise, vibration, and air 

pollution from construction equipment and activities could temporarily affect listed species by 

disrupting life history requirements (foraging, nesting). Potential operations effects would be 

considered moderate because of disruption of listed species from noise and vibration from the 

added rail traffic along the route. Such effects would have a noticeable effect on wildlife, but the 

effects could be reduced by the use of BMPs (see Section 3.7.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and 

Mitigation Strategies). 

Critical Habitat Effects 

No critical habitat was identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. 

Therefore, construction and operations effects on critical habitat would be negligible.

3.7.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Sensitive Plant Effects 

Potential effects on sensitive plants would be the same as those discussed for Alternative C4B 

Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would share the same route. Construction and 

operations effects would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-31

Sensitive Wildlife Effects 

Potential construction effects on sensitive wildlife species would be the same as those discussed 

for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail (substantial) because both service types would share the 

same route. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would likely be fully fenced, lessening the likelihood of 

strikes when compared with the higher-speed rail option. However, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

would have a higher potential for operations effects because the noise and vibration generated by 

high-speed rail would travel farther than the noise generated by higher-speed rail. Overall, the 

potential operations effects on sensitive wildlife would be moderate.

Critical Habitat Effects 

Potential effects on critical habitat would be the same as those discussed for Alternative C4B 

Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would share the same route. Construction and 

operations effects would be negligible because no critical habitat was identified in the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail.

3.7.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Sensitive Plant Effects 

No federally or state-listed plant species occurrences were identified within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. Therefore, effects on sensitive plant species from construction 

and operation of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible. 

Sensitive Wildlife Effects 

The potential effects on listed wildlife species from construction of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed 

Rail would be substantial because construction of the portions of the alternative that would be 

located outside existing transportation corridors would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on these 

resources within the EIS Study Area. 

Short- and long-term effects on mountain plover and Texas garter snake could occur as a result of 

constructing Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and could include the temporary clearing of 

potential habitat for construction equipment and the stockpiling of soil, ballast, or other 

construction materials. Additionally, short-term noise, vibration, and air pollution from construction 

equipment and activities could temporarily affect listed species by disrupting life history 

requirements (foraging, nesting). Potential operations effects would be moderate because of

disruption of listed species from noise and vibration from the added rail traffic along the route. 

Such effects would have a noticeable effect on wildlife, but the effects could be reduced by the use 

of BMPs (see Section 3.7.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). 

Critical Habitat Effects 

No critical habitat was identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-32

Therefore, construction and operations effects on critical habitat from construction and operation 

of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible. 

3.7.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Sensitive Plant Effects 

Potential effects on sensitive plants would be the same as those discussed for Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would share the same route. Construction and 

operations effects would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Sensitive Wildlife Effects 

Potential construction effects on sensitive wildlife species would be the same as those discussed 

for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail (substantial) because both service types would share the 

same route. Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would likely be fully fenced, lessening the likelihood of 

strikes when compared with the higher-speed rail option. However, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

would have a higher potential for operations effects overall on wildlife corridors and assemblages 

within the EIS Study Area because the noise and vibration generated by high-speed rail would travel 

farther than the noise generated by higher-speed rail. Overall, the potential operations effects on 

sensitive wildlife would be moderate.

Critical Habitat Effects 

Potential effects on critical habitat would be the same as those discussed for Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would share the same route. Construction and 

operations effects would be negligible because no critical habitat was identified in the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail.

3.7.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

In the Southern Section, overall potential effects on threatened and endangered species would be

greater under Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail compared with the two S6 alternatives. Alternative 

S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have the same potential construction effects as S6 High-Speed Rail, 

but because noise and vibration from high-speed rail travel farther than they do with higher-speed 

rail, Alternative S6 Higher-Speed rail would have less overall potential operations effects than S6 

High-Speed Rail. These potential effects are described below. 

3.7.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Sensitive Plant Effects 

Although significant portions of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be constructed within 

existing routes (e.g., Kansas City Southern Railway and revitalization of abandoned tracks), effects 

during construction on sensitive plant species along the portions of the route outside existing 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-33

transportation corridors would be considered a substantial potential effect when compared with the 

No Build Alternative. Effects on listed plant species outside existing transportation corridors would 

primarily occur during construction and could include the clearing of vegetation for construction 

equipment and the stockpiling of soil, ballast, or other construction materials. Such effects would 

be considered long-term to permanent for portions of the alternative outside existing transportation 

corridors and would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on listed plant species. 

Effects on sensitive plants are typically related to construction activities such as grading and 

vegetation removal; therefore, operation of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail are not expected to 

cause additional effects, and thus would be considered negligible. 

Sensitive Wildlife Effects 

Although significant portions of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be constructed within 

existing routes, effects on sensitive wildlife species along the portions of the route that would be 

outside existing transportation corridors would be a substantial potential effect. Effects on listed 

wildlife species could occur as a result of constructing the portions of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed 

Rail outside existing transportation corridors. Effects could include the clearing of vegetation for 

construction equipment and the stockpiling of soil, ballast, or other construction materials. Such 

effects would be considered long-term to permanent. Additionally, short-term noise, vibration, and 

air pollution from construction equipment and activities could temporarily affect listed species by 

disrupting life history requirements or causing avoidance behavior. 

Potential operations effects would be moderate because of disruption of listed species from noise 

and vibration from the added rail traffic along the route. Such effects would have a noticeable 

effect on wildlife, but the effects could be reduced by the use of BMPs (see Section 3.7.5, 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation). 

Critical Habitat Effects 

No critical habitat was identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. 

Therefore, effects on critical habitat from construction and operation of Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail would be negligible. 

3.7.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Sensitive Plant Effects 

No federally or state-listed plant species occurrences were identified within the EIS Study Area for

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. Therefore, effects on sensitive plant species from construction 

and operation of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-34

Sensitive Wildlife Effects 

Based on the spatial dataset acquired from TXNDD, 3 acres of listed wildlife habitat (state-listed 

Texas tortoise) are within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. Potential effects 

on sensitive wildlife species from construction of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be 

negligible because effects on this particular species (Texas tortoise) could be reduced with 

preconstruction surveys and monitoring. Potential operations effects would be moderate because 

of disruption of listed species from noise and vibration from the added rail traffic along the route. 

Such effects would have a noticeable effect on wildlife, but the effects could be reduced by the use 

of BMPs. 

Critical Habitat Effects 

No critical habitat was identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. 

Therefore, effects on critical habitat from construction and operation of Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail would be negligible. 

3.7.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Sensitive Plant Effects 

Potential effects on sensitive plants would be the same as those discussed for Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would share the same route. The construction and 

operations effects would be negligible. 

Sensitive Wildlife Effects 

Potential construction effects on sensitive wildlife species would be the same as those discussed 

for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would share the same route. 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would likely be fully fenced, lessening the likelihood of strikes when 

compared with the higher-speed rail option. However, Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have a 

higher potential for operations effects because the noise and vibration generated by high-speed rail 

would travel farther than the noise generated by higher-speed rail. Overall, the potential operations 

effects on sensitive wildlife would be moderate.

Critical Habitat Effects 

Potential effects on critical habitat would be the same as those discussed for Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail because both service types would share the same route. The construction and 

operations effects would be negligible. 

3.7.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

The construction of Alternative N4A Conventional Rail would have a negligible effect on sensitive 

plants, wildlife, and critical habitat because the alternative would be constructed within existing 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-35

transportation corridors, in areas already disturbed by development. However, from an operations 

standpoint, Alternative N4A would have a moderate effect on wildlife species. The alternative would 

not likely be fenced, making wildlife (including listed species) vulnerable to an increased risk for 

strikes from the additional rail traffic that would occur.

The Central Section build alternatives would have a negligible effect on sensitive plant species and 

critical habitat because there are no occurrences of these resources within the EIS Study Area. 

However, construction of the Central Section build alternatives would have a substantial effect on 

sensitive wildlife species because significant acreage of one federally listed and one sensitive 

species are known to occur in the portions of the EIS Study Area. From an operations standpoint, 

effects would be moderate, because disruption of wildlife species from noise and vibration would 

occur.

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail in the southern section would have a substantial effect on 

sensitive plant and wildlife species. Seven federally listed and 24 other sensitive plant and wildlife 

species have the potential to occur within the EIS Study Area. Within portions of the alternative 

outside existing transportation corridors, effects would be long-term or permanent and would likely 

adversely affect threatened and endangered species. Although the S6 alternatives would be 

constructed in a new, direct route, outside existing transportation corridors, construction of the 

alternatives in the Southern Section would be negligible because only 3 acres of one sensitive 

wildlife species (Texas tortoise) and no plant species or critical habitat occurs within the EIS Study 

Area. 

Table 3.7-5 summarizes the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, moderate, or 

substantial) for the alternatives and also includes measures that could be taken to avoid or reduce

the potential effects of the alternatives. As stated previously, this service-level analysis did not 

include detailed fieldwork to identify potential habitats or populations of threatened and 

endangered species. Acreages listed below are not the actual areas of effect associated with 

construction and operation of any of the alternatives. This service-level analysis uses the 500-foot 

EIS Study Area to determine the types of resources that may be affected, and, more importantly, 

the relative magnitude of resources that may be affected. Some alternatives could be built alone or 

combined with other section alternatives. In addition, more than one alternative in the Central and 

Southern sections could be built in the future because the alternatives provide different service 

options for the independent destinations. Details about how alternatives might connect, as well as 

measures to reduce effects, would be analyzed at the project-level EIS phase.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance and minimization of effects will be incorporated when feasible. If effects can’t be 

avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented. All BMPs, design features, and 

mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate impacts on sensitive habitats and species would be 

coordinated with federal and state agencies. To minimize construction effects and minimize 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-36

disturbance of terrestrial and aquatic habitats and wildlife, BMPs used during construction and 

operation would include, but not be limited to, the following: 

 Confirm the boundaries of listed plant and wildlife habitat prior to the start of construction to 

avoid or minimize effects on these areas.

 Conduct preconstruction surveys and monitoring in advance of clearing, grading, or construction 

to identify protected nest sites and avoid these areas until nesting has completed. 

 Implement seasonal restrictions on construction work during key breeding, nesting, migration, 

and growth periods to protect individual species. 

 Construct multiple and varying crossing structures at crossing points to provide connectivity for 

species likely to use a given area. 

 Construct at least one crossing structure within an individual’s home range and where suitable 

habitat for species occurs (if possible) on both sides of the crossing structure.

 Monitor structures for obstructions, such as detritus or silt blockages, that impede movement.

 Manage human activity near crossing structures with the use of fencing, signage, etc.

 Provide for the mitigation of project areas by improving marginal habitats or creating mitigation 

banks at key locations within the affected watersheds and habitat ranges, as necessary. 

Local ordinances would be followed for erosion, sediment, and stormwater controls during 

construction to minimize potential effects on aquatic resources. For terrestrial habitats that might 

be temporarily disturbed by construction, pre-construction conditions or better would be restored 

once construction is complete. 

Subsequent Analysis 

Once a preferred alternative is selected, field investigations or surveys will be conducted to define 

actual critical habitats, to develop avoidance and minimization strategies, and to determine the 

likelihood of impacts on listed species and their habitats within the EIS Study Area during 

subsequent analysis. Critical habitats and species assessments will be conducted in accordance 

with federal and state regulations, including formal biological assessments for protected species 

and consultation with USFWS, TPWD and ODWC, as needed. The boundaries of listed plant and

wildlife habitat will be confirmed to avoid or minimize effects on these areas. Habitat and species 

assessments will be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Specie

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-37

Table 3.7-5: Summary of Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Critical Habitat

Alternativea 

Sensitive Plants Sensitive Wildlife Critical Habitat 

Construction Operations Construction Operations Construction Operations 

N4A CONV Negligible 

 No occurrences

Negligible 

 No occurrences

Negligible 

 5 federally listed species

 1 other sensitive species

 Alternative would be located within 

existing transportation corridors

Moderate 

 Alternative would not likely be 

fenced, making wildlife movement 

vulnerable to increased risk for 

strikes from additional rail traffic 

 Best management practices could 

mitigate effects

Negligible 

 34 acres of Arkansas River shiner 

critical habitat

 Alternative would be located within 

existing transportation corridors

Negligible 

 Most effects would be during 

construction

 Alternative would be located within 

existing transportation corridors, in 

areas already disturbed by rail 

development

C4A HrSR Negligible 

 No occurrences

Negligible 

 No occurrences

Substantial 

 1 federally listed species

 1 other sensitive species

 Most of alternative outside existing 

transportation corridors

 Effects would be considered longterm or permanent and would 

likely adversely affect threatened 

and endangered species

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed with 

alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain wildlife 

migratory paths or corridors

Negligible 

 No critical habitat

Negligible 

 No critical habitat

C4A HSR Same as C4A HrSR Same as C4A HrSR Same as C4A HrSR Moderate 

• Would likely be fully fenced, 

lessening the likelihood of strikes 

when compared with C4A HrSR. 

• Higher overall potential for effects 

as noise and vibration generated 

would travel farther than that 

generated by HrSR

Same as C4A HrSR Same as C4A HrSR

C4B HrSR Negligible 

 No occurrences

Negligible 

 No occurrences

Substantial 

 1 federally listed species

 1 other sensitive species

 Most of alternative outside existing 

transportation corridors

 Effects would be considered longterm or permanent and would 

likely adversely affect threatened 

and endangered species

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed with 

alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain wildlife 

migratory paths or corridors

Negligible 

 No critical habitat

Negligible 

 No critical habitat
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Specie

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-38

Alternativea 

Sensitive Plants Sensitive Wildlife Critical Habitat 

Construction Operations Construction Operations Construction Operations 

C4B HSR Same as C4B HrSR Same as C4B HrSR Same as C4B HrSR Moderate 

• Would likely be fully fenced, 

lessening the likelihood of strikes 

when compared with C4B HrSR

• Higher overall potential for effects 

as noise and vibration generated 

would travel farther than that 

generated by HrSR

Same as C4B HrSR Same as C4B HrSR

C4C HrSR Negligible 

 No occurrences

Negligible 

 No occurrences

Substantial 

 1 federally listed species

 1 other sensitive species

 Most of alternative outside existing 

transportation corridors 

 Effects would be considered longterm or permanent and would 

likely adversely affect threatened 

and endangered species

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed with 

alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain wildlife 

migratory paths or corridors

Negligible 

 No critical habitat

Negligible 

 No critical habitat

C4C HSR Same as C4C HrSR Same as C4C HrSR Same as C4C HrSR Moderate 

• Would likely be fully fenced, 

lessening the likelihood of strikes 

when compared with C4C HrSR

• Higher overall potential for effects 

as noise and vibration generated 

would travel farther than that 

generated by HrSR

Same as C4C HrSR Same as C4C HrSR

S4 HrSR Substantial 

 5 federally listed species

 13 other sensitive species

 Portions of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

 Effects would be considered longterm or permanent and would 

likely adversely affect threatened 

and endangered species

Negligible 

 Most effects would be during 

construction

Substantial 

 2 federally listed species

 11 other sensitive species

 Portions of alternative outside 

existing transportation corridors

 Effects would be considered longterm or permanent and would 

likely adversely affect threatened 

and endangered species

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed with 

alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain wildlife 

migratory paths or corridors

Negligible 

 No critical habitat

Negligible 

 No critical habitat
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Specie

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.7-39

Alternativea 

Sensitive Plants Sensitive Wildlife Critical Habitat 

Construction Operations Construction Operations Construction Operations 

S6 HrSR Negligible 

 No occurrences

Negligible 

 No occurrences

Negligible 

 1 sensitive species

 Effects could be reduced with 

preconstruction surveys, 

translocation, and monitoring

Moderate 

 Disruption of species from noise 

and vibration would occur

 Alternative could be designed with 

alternative pathways or 

undercrossings to maintain wildlife 

migratory paths or corridors

Negligible 

 No critical habitat

Negligible 

No critical habitat

S6 HSR Same as S6 HrSR Same as S6 HrSR Same as S6 HrSR Moderate 

• Would likely be fully fenced, 

lessening the likelihood of strikes 

when compared with S6 HrSR

• Higher overall potential for effects 

as noise and vibration generated 

would travel farther than that 

generated by HrSR

Same as S6 HrSR Same as S6 HrSR

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-1 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management 

This section describes the floodplains and large federal flood-control projects (i.e., levees and manmade floodways) within the environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area and describes a 

preliminary assessment of potential effects on these resources. Preliminary avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation strategies and further analyses needed in the project-level National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process are identified at the end of the section. The introduction to 

Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study Area and use of terms such as Study Vicinity and transportation 

corridor, along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

3.8.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable federal and state legislation, regulations, and orders pertaining to flood hazards and 

floodplain management within the EIS Study Area include the following. Additional local and 

regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and will be addressed in project-level 

analysis.

3.8.1.1 Federal 

 National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, and Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

as amended. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines floodplains as “Any 

land area susceptible to being inundated by flood waters from any source” (44 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] §59.1). The National Flood Insurance Program was established pursuant to 

the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] § 4001), and the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4001), to encourage sound 

floodplain management programs at the state and local levels. To provide a national standard 

without regional discrimination, the 100-year flood has been adopted by FEMA as the “flood 

having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year” (44 CFR § 59.1). 

Regulations promulgated by the Act (44 CFR §§ 59 to 80) also contain the basic policies and 

procedures to regulate floodplain management and analyze, identify, and map floodplains for 

flood insurance purposes. 

 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (1977). Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 

Management (1977) requires federal agencies to avoid adverse impacts on floodplains, to the 

extent possible, and to avoid situations that would support floodplain development if a 

practicable alternative exists. 

 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 2650.2 (1979). USDOT Order 5650.2 

describes policies and procedures for “ensuring that proper consideration is given to avoidance 

and mitigation of adverse floodplain impacts in agency actions, planning programs, and budget 

requests.” 

 Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

under Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 408), 

maintains it is “unlawful for any person or persons to build upon, alter, deface work built by the 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-2 

U.S. to prevent floods unless [the Secretary of the Army] grants permission.” Because the 

Program would include levee crossings, the Section 408 approval process may apply in areas 

where a new alignment would cross a levee and cannot use an existing crossing. 

 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. If a portion of the floodway also qualifies as a 

Water of the United States, placement of dredged or fill material in that area will be regulated by 

USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344). Section 404 requires the 

issuance of a Department of the Army permit by USACE prior to the discharge of dredged or fill 

material into Waters of the United States. 

3.8.1.2 State 

In Texas and Oklahoma, local governments enforce floodplain regulations in their jurisdictions with 

assistance from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and the Oklahoma Water Resources 

Board (OWRB). Most Texas and Oklahoma communities (a county, city, town, or village is 

considered a community) participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Each participating 

community has a designated floodplain administrator whose main responsibility is overseeing the 

management of, and development within, the community’s floodplains. 

 Oklahoma Floodplain Management Act of 1980, as amended. The Oklahoma Floodplain 

Management Act, Title 82, Oklahoma Statute 2001, §1601 – 1618, as amended, was passed 

by the Oklahoma State Legislature in 1980 and establishes a state and local partnership to 

reduce flood damages through sound floodplain management. 

 Texas House Bill 1018 (1999). Texas House Bill 1018 (1999) amended the State Water Code to 

require all communities to adopt floodplain regulations in order to be eligible for inclusion in the 

National Flood Insurance Program. 

3.8.2 Methodology 

Floodplains within the 500-foot EIS Study Area were identified using National Flood Hazard Layer 

data acquired from FEMA. The National Flood Hazard Layer incorporates Digital Flood Insurance 

Rate Map databases published by FEMA and Letters of Map Revision that have been issued 

against those databases since their publication dates. 

In addition to floodplains, the USACE geospatial National Levee Database (NLD) platform was used 

to identify levee crossings and other major flood control projects within the EIS Study Area. Because 

only 10 percent of the nation’s levees fall under USACE management, U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) quadrangle maps were reviewed for the presence of flood control measures in areas where 

the build alternatives would cross major water features. The National Hydrography Dataset was 

also used to identify major stream crossings where flood control measures are likely to be present. 

To compare floodplain effects among alternatives, information from the National Flood Hazard 

Layer and NLD was used to estimate the acreage of floodplains and floodways within the EIS Study 

Area and the number of levees that would be crossed. The final alignments of the alternatives in 

the EIS Study Area will not be determined until project-level studies are conducted, and therefore 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-3 

the acreages of floodplains within the EIS Study Area provide an estimate of the magnitude of 

potential effects. 

Effects as a result of the route alternatives are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial 

compared with the No Build Alternative. For flood hazards and floodplain management, these terms 

are defined as follows:

 Negligible intensity effects are those that would not contribute to a violation of regulatory 

standards or exceed the capacity of the existing facilities. 

 Moderate intensity effects are those that would contribute to a violation of regulatory standards 

or exceed the capacity of existing facilities. An example of a moderate effect to a floodplain 

could include bank re-contouring, riprap, or other grading that changes the hydraulics of the 

stream or causes a rise in floodplain elevation of up to 1 foot. 

 Substantial intensity effects are those that would contribute to a violation of regulatory 

standards or exceed the capacity of existing facilities. An example of a substantial effect to a 

floodplain could include constructing a river crossing that causes the upstream or downstream 

flood elevation to rise more than 1 foot or causes any amount of rise in the regulatory floodway. 

3.8.3 Affected Environment 

3.8.3.1 Overview 

A floodplain is composed of two major parts: the floodway and the area between the floodway and 

the limit of the floodplain. The floodway is the main channel of a watercourse that must be kept 

free of encroachment in order to discharge flood waters. FEMA prohibits development within the 

floodway unless it can be shown that the development does not increase the height of flooding 

during a 100-year equivalent event. Development outside the floodway, but still within the 

floodplain, is permitted provided the development meets National Flood Insurance Program and 

any local floodplain regulations. If a portion of the floodplain is also considered a water of the 

United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a Department of the Army permit is 

required prior to the placement of dredged or fill material.

The floodplains and floodways within the Northern and Central sections are primarily associated 

with Mississippi River tributaries of varying sizes, in addition to several large open water features, 

such as Lake Texoma. In the Southern Section, floodplains and floodways are associated with the 

prominent rivers in the corridor; however, instead of flowing east and ultimately into the Mississippi 

River, these watercourses ultimately flow into the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf). 

3.8.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

The Northern Section includes seven Oklahoma counties (Carter, Cleveland, Garvin, Love, McClain, 

Murray, and Oklahoma) and four Texas counties (Cooke, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant). National 

Flood Hazard Layer data are available for nearly all intersected communities (FEMA 2014). The 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-4 

notable exceptions in data coverage are Murray and Love Counties in Oklahoma, where four out of 

17 communities (including the unincorporated areas) are represented. The National Flood Hazard 

Layer data used in the floodplain analysis identified 815,133 acres of mapped floodplains, 

including 151,237 acres of floodways, within the 11 counties intersected by the EIS Study Area in 

the Northern Section. The NLD identifies 27 levees within the same area, 25 of which are located in 

Tarrant and Dallas counties. 

Three rivers constitute the major sources of floodplain acreages in the Northern Section: the 

Canadian River, the Washita River, and the Red River. All three rivers flow east from their 

headwaters in the Rocky Mountain Front Range and then cross through the EIS Study Area before 

converging with other Mississippi River tributaries and eventually flowing into the Gulf. All three of 

these rivers also have floodways identified along at least part of their reaches. In addition to these 

major floodplain sources, hundreds of their minor tributaries make up most of the remainder of 

mapped floodplains. The largest open water features are Lewisville Lake, Grapevine Lake, and Lake 

Ray Roberts—all located within Denton County, Texas. 

Table 3.8-1 identifies the number of acres of floodplains and floodways within the EIS Study Area 

for Alternative N4A. 

Table 3.8-1: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within the EIS Study Area for Route 

Alternative N4A 

State County Floodplain (acres)a Floodway (acres)a 

OK Oklahoma 19 13

OK Cleveland 130 26

OK McClain 302 124

OK Garvin 530 25

OK Murray N/Ab N/Ab

OK Carter 182 0.0

OK Love N/Ab N/Ab

TX Cooke 208 62

TX Denton 268 75

TX Tarrant 282 31

TX Dallas 84 54

Total 2,005 410 

a Acreage rounded to the nearest whole.

b Floodplain data not available.

N/A = not available

Source: FEMA (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-5 

3.8.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

The Central Section includes 14 Texas counties: Bell, Bexar, Caldwell, Comal, Dallas, Ellis, Falls, 

Guadalupe, Hill, Johnson, McLennan, Tarrant, Travis, and Williamson. National Flood Hazard Layer

is available for all counties except Falls County. The floodplain analysis identified 1,091,182 acres 

of floodplains, including 183,980 acres of floodways, in the counties within the Central Section 

(data not available for Falls County). The NLD indicates 33 levees present within the 14 counties. 

Unlike the Northern Section, where most floodplains and floodways are connected to major 

tributaries of the Mississippi, the floodplains and floodways of the Central Section are connected to 

tributaries flowing directly into the Gulf. The five major water courses in the Central Section are the 

Trinity, Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, and San Antonio rivers—all of which outfall into the Gulf. Each 

of the five rivers has at least one segment of floodways identified within an intersected county. 

Aside from these watercourses, the major open water features in the counties in the Central 

Section include Lake Travis (Travis County), Canyon Lake (Comal County), Belton Lake (Bell County), 

Worth Lake (Tarrant County), Waco Lake (McClellan County), and Whitney Lake (Hill County). 

Tables 3.8-2 through 3.8-4 identify the number of acres of floodplains and floodways within the EIS 

Study Areas of Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C.

Table 3.8-2: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within EIS Study Area of Alternatives 

C4A Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail

State County Floodplain (acres)a Floodway (acres)a 

TX Bell 122 242

TX Bexar 160 5

TX Caldwell 216 0

TX Comal 2 2

TX Dallas 248 320

TX Ellis 211 0

TX Falls N/Ab N/Ab

TX Guadalupe 157 55

TX Hill 79 0

TX McLennan 168 20

TX Tarrant 232 20

TX Travis 426 53

TX Williamson 191 98

Total 2,212 815 

a Acreage rounded to the nearest whole.

b Floodplain data not available.

N/A = not available

Source: FEMA (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-6 

Table 3.8-3: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternatives C4B Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail

State County Floodplain (acres)a Floodway (acres)a 

TX Bell 122 242

TX Bexar 160 5

TX Caldwell 216 0

TX Comal 2 2

TX Dallas 56 49

TX Ellis 166 38

TX Falls N/Ab N/Ab

TX Guadalupe 157 55

TX Hill 135 0

TX Johnson 303 0

TX McLennan 168 20

TX Tarrant 91 20

TX Travis 426 53

TX Williamson 191 98

Total 2,193 582 

a Acreage rounded to the nearest whole.

b Floodplain data not available.

N/A = not available

Source: FEMA (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-7 

Table 3.8-4: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternative C4C

State County Floodplain (acres)a Floodway (acres)a 

TX Bell 122 242

TX Bexar 160 5

TX Caldwell 216 0

TX Comal 2 2

TX Dallas 248 320

TX Ellis 211 0

TX Falls N/Ab N/Ab

TX Guadalupe 157 55

TX Hill 243 10

TX Johnson 272 16

TX McLennan 168 20

TX Tarrant 275 140

TX Travis 426 53

TX Williamson 191 98

Total 2,691 961 

a Acreage rounded to the nearest whole.

b Floodplain data not available.

N/A = not available

Source: FEMA (2014).

3.8.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The Southern Section includes 14 Texas counties: Atascosa, Bexar, Brooks, Cameron, Dimmit, 

Duval, Frio, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, La Salle, Live Oak, Medina, Nueces, and Webb. National Flood 

Hazard Layer data are more limited in the Southern Section than in the other sections. FEMA 

floodplain data in Dimmit County have not been digitized, and no floodplains or floodways have 

been mapped in Frio, Jim Wells, or La Salle counties. Although specific floodplains and floodways 

could not be identified in these counties in the absence of National Flood Hazard Layer data, the 

floodplain data provided from FEMA did include county floodplain acreage totals, which were 

included in the analysis. 

The National Flood Hazard Layer data used in the floodplain analysis identified 1,152,343 acres of 

mapped floodplains, including 4,695 acres of floodways, within nine of the 10 counties intersected 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-8 

by Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail (data not available for Jim Wells County). For Alternative S6, 

National Flood Hazard Layer data identified 559,843 acres of floodplain and 9,353 acres of 

floodway within three of the six intersected counties (data not available for Dimmit, Frio, or La Salle 

counties). The National Levee Database showed one levee in Live Oak County, one levee in Jim 

Wells County for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, and no levees in any county in the EIS Study Area 

for Alternative S6. 

The tributaries in the Southern Section flow into the Nueces, Pecos, and Rio Grande rivers. Closer 

to the Gulf, Nueces Bay, Baffin Bay, and South Bay provide the outfall for these watercourses. 

Major open water features in the Southern Section include Choke Canyon Reservoir and Lake 

Corpus Christi in Live Oak County and Donna Reservoir in Hidalgo County near the southern 

terminus of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. 

Tables 3.8-5 and 3.8-6 identify the number of acres of floodplains and floodways within the EIS 

Study Areas of Alternatives S4 and S6.

Table 3.8-5: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternative S4

State County Floodplain (acres)a Floodway (acres)a 

TX Atascosa 372 0

TX Bexar 117 0

TX Brooks 331 0

TX Cameron 89 0

TX Duval 184 0

TX Hidalgo 376 0

TX Jim Wells N/Ab N/Ab

TX Live Oak 655 0

TX Nueces 467 0

TX Webb 420 4

Total 3,011 4 

a Acreage rounded to the nearest whole.

b Floodplain data not available.

N/A = not available

Source: FEMA (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-9 

Table 3.8-6: Floodplain and Floodway Acreages within the EIS Study Area of 

Alternative S6 

State County Floodplain (acres)a Floodway (acres)a 

TX Bexar N/Ab N/Ab

TX Dimmit N/Ab N/Ab

TX Frio N/Ab N/Ab

TX La Salle 74 12

TX Medina 229 0

TX Webb N/Ab N/Ab

Total 453 12 

a Acreage rounded to the nearest whole.

b Floodplain data not available.

N/A = not available

Source: FEMA (2014).

3.8.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.8.4.1 Overview 

The following sections describe potential encroachments on mapped areas of 100-year floodplains 

and floodways. The installation of tracks on existing former rail embankments, signals, and other 

ancillary facilities would in many instances involve minimal effects on or changes to ground surface 

elevations; installation of new railroad embankments may have a greater effect on surface 

topography. Work for new bridge construction within a floodway may have a greater effect on flood 

elevations. In general, any new embankment material or structures, such as bridges, placed within 

a floodway may alter the 100-year floodplain limits. Changes to existing drainage structures, such 

as culverts through the embankment, or addition of new waterway crossings or culverts may 

change the hydraulic capacity, which could affect peak flow rates and flood elevations upstream 

and downstream of the crossing.

It is assumed for this evaluation that all new structures, embankments, fill, pavement, or other 

modifications to open channels in floodways would be considered a floodplain encroachment. 

Although this study does not include an identification and effect analysis of specific station 

locations, a general discussion of potential effect intensity on floodplains is included for each 

alternative. Encroachments on the floodplain or floodway would not necessarily result in an 

unacceptable rise to the 100-year surface water elevation, but would require hydrologic analysis 

during project-level evaluations to verify site-specific effects on floodplains and floodways. 

Temporary encroachments on the floodplain or floodway may occur during construction. Elements 

of linear construction projects often include access roads, staging areas, temporary access roads, 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-10

and areas of earth excavation or temporary soil storage. These elements may have temporary 

effects on a floodplain through modification of topography and removal of vegetation. The most 

effective way to avoid construction effects on floodplains is to situate construction elements 

outside the floodplain. In circumstances where construction elements are located within a 

floodplain, best management practices (BMPs) are necessary to reduce potential effects (refer to 

Section 3.8.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). With the implementation of 

BMPs throughout the construction period, effects on floodplains and floodways would likely be 

reduced to negligible intensity. 

Table 3.8-7 in Section 3.8.4.6, Summary of Potential Effects, summarizes the floodplain acreage 

for all the alternatives in the EIS Study Area and lists the potential intensity of effects. 

3.8.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect floodplains and 

floodways.

3.8.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Table 3.8-1 identifies the number of acres of floodplains and floodways in the EIS Study Area in the 

Northern Section. Environmental consequences associated with each alternative are detailed 

below. 

3.8.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A Conventional would operate completely within the existing BNSF right-of-way from 

Edmond, Oklahoma to Fort Worth, Texas, and completely within the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) 

right-of-way from Fort Worth to Dallas. Where feasible, existing railroad track would be used. 

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

used to accommodate additional trains in areas where shared track is not feasible. Because 

existing tracks would be used or new tracks would be placed parallel to and at the same elevation 

as existing tracks with matching or larger flood conveyance capacity, incremental flood effects 

would be negligible in comparison to the No Build Alternative. In addition, by using BNSF right-ofway and crossings, the potential to trigger the USACE Section 408 process as a result of levee 

crossings—of which there are three in the Northern Section—would be reduced because Alternative 

N4A Conventional may be able to use existing levee crossings either on existing track or by placing 

new track parallel to existing track within the same existing levee crossing location (33 U.S.C. §408, 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899). 

In instances of large river crossings, such as the Canadian, Red, and Trinity rivers, installing piers in 

the floodplain or floodway would be unavoidable. Alternative N4A Conventional would include 

design features at stream crossings to compensate for pier placement within the floodway or 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-11

floodplain (see Section 3.8.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Additionally, 

Trinity River USACE levee crossings near the Central Wastewater Treatment Facility are anticipated 

with this alternative. Although not all of the 700 water features that would be crossed by Alternative 

N4A Conventional have an associated floodway or floodplain, this alternative would have a 

negligible effect on those that do, in comparison to the No Build Alternative, because the channel 

capacity design features listed above would be included in the design.

Potential station locations have not been identified for the Northern Section. Because Alternative 

N4A would use conventional rail technology, likely on existing infrastructure, station locations are 

not likely to change from the Amtrak Heartland Flyer and Texas Eagle station locations. 

Alternative N4A stations are likely to re-use existing stations and infrastructure and would, 

therefore, cause no or negligible effects on floodplains and floodways in comparison to the No Build 

Alternative because no or limited new construction would take place. 

3.8.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

In the Central Section, the C4C alternatives have the highest potential for effects, based on the 

presence of the greatest amount of floodplains and floodways within the EIS Study Area and 

because of the alternatives’ longer lengths. The C4B alternatives have the least potential for 

effects, based on the least amount of floodplains and floodways within the EIS Study Area and 

because of the alternatives’ shorter lengths. Although station locations, which are not included in 

this study, might vary between alternatives, effects on floodplains and floodways are not 

anticipated to differ as a result of different types of service along the same alignment.

3.8.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Table 3.8-2 identifies the number of acres of floodplains and floodways in the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. From Fort Worth to Dallas, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

shares floodplain and floodway attributes with Alternative N4A Conventional, with the exception of a 

loop that extends to the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). The DFW loop would require 

multiple new crossings of the Bear Creek floodway in addition to approximately 3.5 miles of new 

track within the Bear Creek floodplain south of DFW. Turning south from Dallas, where Alternative 

N4A Conventional ends, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail follows the BNSF track south toward 

Waxahachie before entering a corridor outside of an existing transportation facility to Hillsboro. This 

portion of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail extends from Hillsboro to just northeast of San 

Antonio, near the southern extent of the alternative, and represents the largest segment of the 

alternative. In this segment, large floodplains are encountered at the Brazos River, near Waco, and 

the Colorado River, just southeast of Austin. As the alternative extends to San Antonio, it re-enters 

the railroad right-of-way and enters the Olmos Creek floodplain before terminating east of Lackland 

Air Force Base. 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would require most track to be constructed outside of an existing 

transportation corridor. In instances of large river crossings, such as the Trinity, Colorado, and 

Guadalupe rivers, installing piers in the floodplain or floodway would be unavoidable. Alternative 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-12

C4A Higher-Speed Rail would include design features at stream crossings to compensate for pier 

placement within the floodway or floodplain (see Section 3.8.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and 

Mitigation Strategies). Additionally, Trinity River USACE levee crossings near the Central Wastewater 

Treatment Facility are anticipated with this alternative. Although not all of the 700 water features 

that would be crossed by the alternative have an associated floodway or floodplain, the alternative 

would have a negligible effect on those that do, in comparison to the No Build Alternative, because 

the channel capacity design features would be included in the design. 

Although the Study does not include the identification of specific station locations, new stations 

would be necessary to meet the higher-speed service-type needs in areas outside of existing 

transportation corridors. The longest such segment in this alternative exists from just south of the 

Waxahachie to just north of San Antonio, with the option of direct service to downtown Austin. The 

stations located in the cities between Waxahachie and San Antonio (e.g., Waco, Temple, Austin) 

would likely occur in suburban areas where floodways and floodplains are most likely to have been 

identified. If stations are located at-grade and in a mapped floodway or floodplain, effects would be 

moderate or substantial due to the large space requirements, often several acres, required for 

higher-speed train stations. However, in these instances, effects could be reduced using design 

features such as flood openings and channel training. With the implementation of design features, 

likely effects on floodplains and floodways from stations would be reduced to negligible intensity in 

comparison to the No Build Alternative. 

3.8.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on floodplains, floodways, and levees 

as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because both alternatives would follow the same alignment

(see Tables 3.8-2 and 3.8-7). The alternative would have a negligible effect in comparison to the No 

Build Alternative because channel capacity design features would be included in the design. 

3.8.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Table 3.8-3 identifies the number of acres of floodplains and floodways within the EIS Study Area 

for the C4B alternatives. As Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail extends from Fort Worth to Dallas 

along its east-west segment, encroachments on the Trinity River and immediate tributaries 

represent the greatest potential for effects, especially near the Mountain Creek confluence. By 

using the existing Interstate Highway (IH)-30 infrastructure between Fort Worth and Dallas, 

floodplain effects on the Trinity River and its tributaries would be reduced to negligible intensity. 

The same would be true for the north-south portion of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail, which 

could use the State Highway (SH)-360 infrastructure between the northern pivot point and SH-287. 

South of SH-287, where the alternative would be located outside of existing transportation 

corridors, the greatest potential for floodplain and floodway effects would exist at the Boggy Branch 

Creek and Soap Creek crossings, where the floodway or floodplain extend for 0.5 mile or greater. 

Additionally, Trinity River USACE levee crossings southwest of Dallas are anticipated with this 

alternative. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-13

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would require most of its track to be constructed outside of 

existing transportation corridors. In instances of large river crossings, such as the Trinity River and 

the previously mentioned creeks, installing piers in the floodplain or floodway would be 

unavoidable. Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would include design features at stream crossings

to compensate for pier placement within the floodway or floodplain (see Section 3.8.5, Avoidance, 

Minimization, and Mitigation). Although not all of the 650 water features that would be crossed by 

the alternative have an associated floodway or floodplain, the alternative would have a negligible 

effect on those that do because channel capacity design features would be included in the design.

Although this study does not include the identification of specific station locations, new stations 

would be necessary to meet the higher-speed service type needs in areas outside of existing 

transportation corridors. The longest such segment in this alternative exists from just south of U.S. 

Highway (US)-287 to just north of San Antonio, with the option of direct service to downtown Austin. 

The stations located in the cities between US-287 and San Antonio (e.g., Waco, Temple, Austin) 

would likely occur in suburban areas where floodways and floodplains are most likely to have been 

identified. If stations are located at-grade and in a mapped floodway or floodplain, effects would be 

moderate or substantial due to the large space requirements, often several acres, required for 

higher-speed train stations. However, in these instances, effects could be reduced using design 

features such as flood openings and channel training. With the implementation of design features, 

likely effects on floodplains and floodways from stations would be reduced to negligible intensity. 

3.8.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on floodplains, floodways, and levees 

as Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail because the both alternatives would follow the same 

alignment. Although station locations, which are not included in the study, might vary between 

alternatives, effects on floodplains and floodways are not anticipated to differ as a result of 

different types of service along the same alignment (see Tables 3.8-3 and 3.8-7). The alternative 

would have a negligible effect in comparison to the No Build Alternative because channel capacity 

design features would be included in the design.

3.8.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Table 3.8-4 identifies the number of acres of floodplains and floodways for Alternative C4C HigherSpeed Rail. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail requires most of its track to be constructed outside 

of existing transportation corridors, although a segment from Fort Worth to Hillsboro would occur 

along the existing UPRR corridor. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail shares most of its alignment 

with Alternative C4A, including the large floodplain crossings at the Trinity, Colorado, and 

Guadalupe Rivers. In addition, the same USACE Trinity River Levees would be crossed south of 

Dallas with this alternative. The segment of this alternative not shared with Alternative C4A―from 

Fort Worth to Hillsboro―is most notable for an approximate 6-mile stretch of the Chambers Creek 

floodplain northwest of Alvarado. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-14

In instances of large river crossings, such as the Trinity, Colorado, and Guadalupe rivers, installing 

piers in the floodplain or floodway would be unavoidable. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would 

include design features at stream crossings to compensate for pier placement within the floodway 

or floodplain (see Section 3.8.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Although not 

all of the 850 water features that would be crossed by the alternative have an associated floodway 

or floodplain, the alternative would have a negligible effect on those that do because channel 

capacity design features would be included in the design. 

Although the Study does not include the identification of specific station locations, new stations 

would be necessary to meet the higher-speed service-type needs in areas outside of existing 

transportation corridors. The longest such segment in this alternative exists from just south of the 

City of Waxahachie to just north of San Antonio, with the option of direct service to downtown

Austin. The stations located in the cities between Waxahachie and San Antonio (e.g., Waco, Temple, 

Austin) would likely occur in suburban areas where floodways and floodplains are most likely to 

have been identified. If stations are located at-grade and in a mapped floodway or floodplain, 

effects would be moderate or substantial due to the large space requirements, often several acres, 

required for higher-speed train stations. However, in these instances effects could be reduced 

using design features, such as flood openings and channel training. With the implementation of 

design features, likely effects on floodplains and floodways from stations would be reduced to 

negligible intensity. 

3.8.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on floodplains, floodways, and levees 

as Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail because both alternatives would follow the same alignment. 

Although station locations, which are not included as part of this study, might very between 

alternatives, effects on floodplains and floodways are not anticipated to differ as a result of

different types of service along the same alignment (see Tables 3.8-4 and 3.8-7). The alternative 

would have a negligible effect in comparison to the No Build Alternative because channel capacity 

design features would be included in the design.

3.8.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Of the Southern Section alternatives, Alternative S4 has more potential for effects based on the 

presence of floodplains and floodways within the EIS Study Area than the S6 alternatives; however, 

the data are incomplete for a large portion of the EIS Study Area for the S6 alternatives. Although 

station locations, which are not included as part of this Study, might vary between alternatives, 

effects on floodplains and floodways are not anticipated to differ as a result of different types of 

service along the same alignment. 

3.8.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

As identified in Table 3.8-5 and compared in Table 3.8-7, there are more acres of identified 

floodplains and floodways within the EIS Study Area of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail than exist 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-15

in the EIS Study Areas of the S6 alternatives. However, National Flood Hazard Layer data are not 

available for analysis for a large portion of the EIS Study Area for the S6 alternatives, and those 

floodplains must be identified before an informative comparison can be made. 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail consists of both alignment within existing railroad right-of-way and 

alignment outside of existing transportation corridors. Unlike the Central Section, shared railroad 

right-of-way would occur with the Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) and not with BNSF 

or UPRR. The higher-speed rail service type could potentially share track with existing railroad, and, 

therefore, could potentially use existing infrastructure, such as bridges and other stream crossings, 

to reduce construction- and operation-related effects on floodplains in areas where the alignments 

are shared. USACE levees are crossed at San Diego Creek in two locations north of SH-44. 

In instances of large river crossings, such as the Nueces River and Palo Blanco Creek, installing 

piers in the floodplain or floodway would be unavoidable. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would 

include design features at stream crossings to compensate for pier placement within the floodway 

or floodplain (see Section 3.8.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies). Although not 

all of the 369 water features that would be crossed by the alternative have an associated floodway 

or floodplain, the alternative would have a negligible effect on those that do, in comparison to the 

No Build Alternative, because channel capacity design features would be included in the design. 

Although this study does not include the identification of specific station locations, new stations 

would be necessary to meet the higher-speed service-type needs in areas outside of existing 

transportation corridors. The stations located in the cities between San Antonio and Brownsville

(e.g., Laredo, Corpus Christi, and McAllen) would likely occur in suburban areas where floodways 

and floodplains are most likely to already be identified for insurance purposes. If stations are 

located at-grade and in a mapped floodway or floodplain, effects would be moderate or substantial 

due to the large space requirements, often several acres, required for higher-speed train stations. 

However, in these instances effects could be reduced using design features, such as flood 

openings and channel training. With the implementation of design features, effects on floodplains 

and floodways from stations would be reduced to negligible intensity in comparison to the No Build 

Alternative. 

3.8.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Table 3.8-6 identifies the number of acres of floodplains and floodways within Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail. Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be constructed and operated entirely 

outside of existing transportation corridors. In instances of large river crossings, such as the 

Medina and Rio Grande rivers, installing piers in the floodplain or floodway would be unavoidable. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would include design features at stream crossings to compensate 

for pier placement within the floodway or floodplain (see Section 3.8.5, Avoidance, Minimization, 

and Mitigation Strategies). Additionally, no levee crossings are anticipated with this alternative. 

Although not all of the 700 water features that would be crossed by the alternative have an 

associated floodway or floodplain, the alternative would have a negligible effect on those that do 

because channel capacity design features would be included in the design. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-16

Although this Study does not include the identification of specific station locations, new stations 

would be necessary to meet the higher-speed service-type needs in areas outside of existing 

transportation corridors. The stations located in San Antonio, including downtown and the airport,

would likely occur in areas where floodways and floodplains are most likely to already be identified 

for insurance purposes. If stations are located at-grade and in a mapped floodway or floodplain, 

effects would be moderate or substantial due to the large space requirements, often several acres, 

required for higher-speed train stations. However, in these instances effects could be reduced 

using design features, such as flood openings and channel training. With the implementation of 

design features, effects on floodplains and floodways from stations would be reduced to negligible 

intensity.

3.8.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on floodplains, floodways, and levees 

as Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail because they would follow the same alignment (see 

Tables 3.8-6 and 3.8-7). The alternative would have a negligible effect in comparison to the No 

Build Alternative because channel capacity design features would be included in the design.

3.8.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Each of the alternatives in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections contains floodways and 

floodplains within their respective portions of the larger EIS Study Area. The longest alternatives in 

each geographic section (Alternatives C4C and S4) contain the most floodways and floodplains 

within their EIS Study Areas, and therefore have the greatest potential for effects. However, with the 

implementation of BMPs during construction and design features during operation, effects would 

be reduced to negligible intensity, regardless of the amount of floodplains and floodways within the 

EIS Study Area.

Table 3.8-7 summarizes the floodplain acreage for all alternatives in the EIS Study Area, including 

the No Build Alternative, and lists the potential intensity of effects by alternative. 

Table 3.8-7: Summary of Floodplain and Floodway Effects by Alternative

Section Alternativea 

Context Potential Intensity of Effects 

(Negligible, Moderate, or 

Substantial) Floodplain 

(acres)b 

Floodway 

(acres)b 

No Build Alternativec 0 0 No effect

Northern N4A CONV 2,005 410 Negligible

Central C4A HrSR 2,212 815 Negligible

C4A HSR 2,212 815 Negligible

C4B HrSR 2,193 582 Negligible

C4B HSR 2,193 582 Negligible

C4C HrSR 2,691 961 Negligible

C4C HSR 2,691 961 Negligible
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-17

Section Alternativea 

Context Potential Intensity of Effects 

(Negligible, Moderate, or 

Substantial) Floodplain 

(acres)b 

Floodway 

(acres)b 

Southern S4 HrSR 3,011 4c Negligible

S6 HSR 453d 12 Negligible

S6 HrSR 453d 12 Negligible

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail 

b Acreage rounded to the nearest whole.

c The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis. 

d Floodplain or floodway data not available for a large portion of this alternative.

Source: (FEMA, 2014).

3.8.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Where construction elements are unavoidably located within a floodplain, BMPs are necessary to 

reduce potential effects. BMPs can include creating temporary diversion channels capable of 

handling a flood event, creating cofferdams (or other temporary work structures) so as not to create 

a rise in downstream or upstream flood levels, limiting construction during the rainy season, and 

maintaining vegetative buffers between the construction site and the edge of the right-of-way.

When considering mitigation for floodplain encroachments, avoidance is always the most effective 

way to minimize effects. In circumstances where floodplain avoidance is neither prudent nor 

feasible, project-level mitigation measures and design features can reduce floodplain 

encroachment during operation to a practicable extent. Measures to minimize floodplain effects 

would include, but are not limited to, the following: 

 Maximize the spans of bridges and box culverts to reduce the amount of fill material at the 

approach. Where feasible―and as part of Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT 2004), 

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT 2009) and rail design standards (BNSF/UPRR 

2007)—new stream crossings would take into consideration the 100-year flow and provide 

hydrologic connectivity to the adjacent watercourses. Hydrologic modeling would be used to 

confirm flood capacities are maintained and floodplain extents and depths would not affect 

previously unaffected properties adjacent to the EIS Study Area. 

 Provide compensatory flood storage in other Program areas. 

 Minimize the amount of upstream and downstream channelization. 

 Minimize the amount of soil and vegetation disturbance during construction. 

 Elevate new construction above the 100-year floodplain. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-18

 Provide flood openings in new construction. 

 Provide channel training in areas of ephemeral or intermittent flow. 

 Maintain vegetative buffers between project work and the flooding source (Association of State 

Floodplain Managers 2002). 

The appropriate mitigation strategy is determined by the feasibility, practicability, and site-specific 

conditions of the affected floodplain. Coordination with the emergency management agencies and

departments of natural resources of each state, as well as local floodplain administrators, would be 

initiated to discuss floodplain development permitting and potential mitigation measures. Specific 

mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during project-level 

analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are 

identified, and implemented prior to construction.

If, during a project-level analysis, a floodplain were found to receive a significant impact (more than 

a foot rise in water elevation in floodplain areas or any rise in floodway areas), a Conditional Letter 

of Map Revision followed by a Letter of Map Revision would be prepared to request a modification 

of the applicable Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map(s). Proposed modifications to floodplains would 

be submitted to FEMA, through coordination with the local community, for approval of the 

Conditional Letter of Map Revision prior to construction. Where the floodplain elevations and/or 

limits would be changed by the project, the Letter of Map Revision application must be filed with 

FEMA after construction is complete. 

3.8.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Impacts on the 100-year floodplains and floodways will be assessed during project-level analysis, 

and would include a discussion of the no-rise requirement in floodway areas. In accordance with 

Executive Order 11988 (42 Federal Register 26951), these discussions would also include 

avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts on the natural and beneficial floodplain

values, significant changes in flooding risks or damage, and the potential for incompatible 

floodplain development. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts

states that each project shall determine whether any of the alternatives would affect the base 

(i.e., the 100-year) floodplain. If one or more alternatives would affect a base floodplain, the projectlevel analysis will discuss any risk associated with each such alternative, the degree to which the 

alternative supports incompatible development in the base floodplain, and the adequacy of the 

methods proposed to minimize harm (FRA 2014).

During project-level assessments, impacts on floodplains will be determined based on design, 

site-specific mapping, and hydrologic analysis. Project development in future NEPA phases will 

require coordination at the federal, state, and local levels of floodplain regulation. For counties in 

this service-level EIS analysis where flood maps are not available, the project-level analysis will 

include coordination with FEMA and the local community to identify floodplains in or adjacent to the
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.8-19

EIS Study Area. Potential floodplain impacts in counties where floodplain data have yet to be 

included in the National Flood Hazard Layer will require a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map-level 

review during project-level analysis. 

If floodplain impacts necessitate preparation of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision and Letter of 

Map Revision, the local community and FEMA will be engaged in the subsequent revision to 

effective flood maps. The Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision process 

generally involves the following steps: 

 Complete application and letter of request for conditional approval of a change in the Digital 

Flood Insurance Rate Map, known as a Conditional Letter of Map Revision. 

 Conduct an evaluation of alternatives which, if carried out, would not result in an increase in the 

base flood elevation more than allowed, along with documentation as to why the alternatives 

not selected are not feasible. 

 Provide public notification in the form of documentation of individual legal notice to all affected 

property owners (anyone affected by the increased flood elevations, within and outside of the 

community) explaining the impact of the proposed action on their properties. 

 Receive concurrence, in writing, from the chief executive officer of any other communities 

affected by the proposed actions. 

 Provide certification that no structures are located in areas that would be affected by the 

increased base flood elevation (unless they have been purchased for relocation or demolition). 

 Request revision of base flood elevation determinations in accordance with the provisions of 44 

CFR 65.6 of the FEMA regulations.

TBG092314012951SCO 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.9-1 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management 

This section identifies the managed coastal resources within the 500-foot environmental impact 

statement (EIS) Study Area upon which alternatives encroach and the general extent to which each 

alternative is consistent with approved coastal zone management programs (CZMPs). Preliminary 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies and further analyses needed in the project-level 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process are identified at the end of this section. The 

introduction to Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study Area and use of terms such as Study Vicinity and 

transportation corridor, along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable legislation and regulations pertaining to coastal zone management within the EIS Study 

Area include the following. Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be 

applicable and will be addressed in project-level analysis. 

3.9.1.1 Federal 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (16 U.S. 

Code [U.S.C.] §1451), provides for the preservation, protection, development, and, where feasible, 

restoration and enhancement of the nation’s coastal zone resources. Following the passage of the 

Texas Coastal Coordination Act in 1991 by the Texas Legislature, the Texas Coastal Management 

Program (TCMP) was finalized in 1997 and accepted into the federal Coastal Zone Management 

Program by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1997. The TCMP is 

audited every three years by NOAA to ensure continued compliance with the Coastal Zone 

Management Act. 

3.9.1.2 State 

Texas Coastal Coordination Act of 1991 and TCMP adopted in 1997. The TCMP is based primarily 

on the Texas Coastal Coordination Act (33 Texas Natural Resources Code Ann. 201 et. seq.), as 

amended by House Bill 3226 (1995). That legislation requires development of a comprehensive 

coastal program based on existing statutes and regulations. Key elements of the Texas Coastal 

Coordination Act and its implementation regulations (31 Texas Administrative Code [TAC] §501, 

503, 505, and 506) include establishment of the Coastal Coordination Council for policy 

development and TCMP implementation; foundational legal requirements; program boundaries and 

Areas of Particular Concern; and networked state and local implementation, adherence, and 

enforcement. 

The physical boundary set forth in the TCMP, known as the Texas Coastal Management Zone (CMZ), 

was delineated in accordance with the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), 

federal program development and approval regulations, and the Coastal Coordination Act. Coastal 

waters are considered as waters in the open Gulf of Mexico and waters under tidal influence.

The TCMP seeks to improve the management of Texas Coastal Natural Resource Areas within the 

CMZ and to provide long-term ecological and economic productivity of the coast. The TCMP is 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.9-2 

managed by the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office (GLO) and administered by the 

Coastal Coordination Council, which coordinates state, local, and federal programs and activities 

within the CMZ. Federal actions, including federally issued licenses and permits, within the CMZ 

must be consistent with the goals and policies of the TCMP, focusing on the management of the 

following 16 Coastal Natural Resource Areas identified in 31 TAC §501.31:

 Waters of the open Gulf of Mexico 

 Waters under tidal influence 

 Submerged lands 

 Coastal wetlands 

 Submerged aquatic vegetation 

 Tidal sand and mud flats 

 Oyster reefs 

 Hard substrate reefs 

 Coastal barriers 

 Coastal shore areas 

 Gulf beaches 

 Critical dune areas 

 Special hazard areas 

 Critical erosion areas 

 Coastal historic areas 

 Coastal preserves

Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and Texas Department of 

Transportation (TxDOT) construction and maintenance projects must comply with the following 

transportation policies of the TCMP (31 TAC §501.31):

1. Pollution prevention procedures shall be incorporated into the construction and maintenance of 

transportation projects to minimize pollutant loading to coastal waters from erosion and 

sedimentation, use of pesticides and herbicides for maintenance of rights-of-way, and other 

pollutants from stormwater runoff.

2. Transportation projects shall be located at sites that to the greatest extent practicable avoid 

and otherwise minimize the potential for adverse effects from construction and maintenance of 

additional roads, bridges, causeways, and other development associated with the project; and 

direct release to Coastal Natural Resource Areas of pollutants from oil or hazardous substance 

spills, contaminated sediments, or stormwater runoff.

3. Where practicable, transportation projects shall be located in existing rights-of-way or previously 

disturbed areas if necessary to avoid or minimize adverse effects.

4. Where practicable, transportation projects shall be located at sites at which future expansion 

will not require development in coastal wetlands except where such construction is determined 

to be essential for evacuation in the case of a natural disaster.

5. Construction and maintenance of transportation projects shall avoid the impoundment and 

draining of coastal wetlands. If impoundment or draining cannot be avoided, adverse effects to 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.9-3 

the impounded or drained wetlands shall be mitigated in accordance with the sequencing 

requirements of §501.23 of this title. 

6. Construction of transportation projects shall occur at sites and times selected to have the least 

adverse effects practicable on recreational uses of Coastal Natural Resource Areas and on 

spawning or nesting seasons or seasonal migrations of terrestrial or aquatic species.

7. Beach-quality sand from maintenance of roadways adjacent to Gulf beaches shall be 

beneficially used by placement on Gulf beaches where practicable. Where placement on Gulf 

beaches is not practicable, the material shall be placed in critical dune areas. 

3.9.1.3 Local 

The GLO is the designated lead agency that coordinates the development and implementation of 

the TCMP. The Coastal Coordination Council administers the coastal management program and 

adopts uniform goals and policies to guide decision-making by entities regulating or managing 

natural resource use within the Texas coastal area. Local authorities work with the Coastal 

Coordination Council to identify local issues.

Methodology 

The TCMP was identified as the only CZMP within the EIS Study Area. The locations of build 

alternatives were compared to the TCMP Map Index and the narrative of the TCMP boundary as 

described in 31 TAC §503.1 to determine overlap in boundaries. 

The intensity of an effect resulting from each of the route alternatives is characterized as negligible, 

moderate, or substantial compared with the No Build Alternative. In relation to activities under the 

TCMP, these terms are defined as follows: 

 Negligible intensity effects are those that would not result in perceptible change to the natural 

resources of the coastal zone (consisting of waters under tidal influence, submerged lands, 

coastal wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, tidal sand and mud flats, oyster reefs, hard 

substrate reefs, coastal barriers, coastal shore areas, critical dune areas, Gulf beaches, special 

hazard areas, critical erosion areas, coastal historic areas, and coastal preserves). 

 Moderate intensity effects are those that would result in physical alteration to the natural 

resources within the coastal zone, but not ecological, recreational, or economic effects on the 

coastal zone (see above). 

 Substantial intensity effects are those that would result in altering or changing the coastal area

to the extent of affecting the coastal ecology, recreational values, and/or economic values of 

the natural resources of the coastal zone. 

Affected Environment 

3.9.3.1 Overview 

The boundary of the CMZ extends across 18 coastal counties. Of these 18 counties, the EIS Study 

Area crosses Nueces and Cameron counties. Only Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail in the Southern 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.9-4 

Section passes through the CMZ boundary in Nueces County; therefore, this alternative must 

comply with the TCMP. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail is also in Cameron County; however, it is 

not within the TCMP boundary and, therefore, TCMP requirements do not apply. The other 

geographic sections and alternatives are not discussed. 

3.9.3.2 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail is primarily inland avoiding the CMZ; 

however, the alternative extends eastward from U.S. Highway (US) 281 in Nueces County and 

enters the western boundary of the CMZ near the City of Robstown. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed 

Rail crosses US-77 in Robstown and continues eastward along the north side of State Highway 44 

(SH-44) within the Kansas City Southern (KCS) railroad right-of-way to service Corpus Christi 

International Airport.

An approximately 10-mile segment of the Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail alignment lies within the 

Nueces County CMZ. Of these 10 miles, 4 miles of the alignment parallel Oso Creek from 

approximately US-77 to County Road 71 where it bridges across Oso Creek. 

Environmental Consequences 

The primary effect on coastal areas would be encroachment into the CMZ and the potential for 

inhibiting coastal processes, water flow, or the potential to pollute these ecosystems. These effects 

do not vary by service type. Only Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail must comply with the TCMP. The 

other geographic sections and alternatives are not discussed because no effects would occur. 

3.9.4.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect coastal resources. 

3.9.4.2 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.9.4.2.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail can improve and share the existing KCS railroad track or be 

constructed adjacent to the existing railroad, potentially within its right-of-way. It can also include atgrade roadway crossings and use existing stations or nearby buildings as stations. However, 

compared with the No Build Alternative, it would still encroach in one CMZ area. 

Of the 16 Coastal Natural Resource Areas listed in the TCMP, coastal wetlands are the only natural 

resource area identified within the CMZ that Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would potentially 

affect. The alternative would enter the CMZ as it crosses US-77 eastbound toward Corpus Christi 

International Airport. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would use the existing KCS tracks located on 

the north side of SH-44. A preliminary review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.9-5 

Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping indicates freshwater forested/shrub wetlands adjacent to Oso 

Creek on the south side of SH-44. 

This segment of Oso Creek is not tidally influenced. Because this wetland area is separated from 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail by SH-44, effects on these coastal wetlands are not anticipated. 

Coastal consistency determinations are required for projects within the CMZ that require permit 

authorization under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and/or Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act for impacts on Waters of the U.S. Improvements to the crossing of the Oso Creek 

railroad bridge to accommodate Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would likely require a Section 404 

permit, which would necessitate coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and 

GLO, as well as compliance with TCMP policies for transportation projects.

Table 3.9-1 summarizes the transportation policies and the potential effects of Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have a negligible effect on coastal 

resources and would comply with TCMP policies.

Table 3.9-1: TCMP Policies for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail

No. 

TCMP Policy 

for 

Transportation 

Projects 

Potential 

Environmental 

Consequences 

and the Intensity 

During 

Construction 

Potential 

Environmental 

Consequences and 

the Intensity During 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Potential 

Mitigation 

Strategies 

1 Pollution 

prevention 

procedures 

incorporated into 

construction and 

maintenance

Water quality effects 

from dust, sediment, 

trash, spills, and 

incidental pollutants 

during stormwater 

runoff or high-wind 

events. These effects 

would likely be 

negligible.

Modification of the 

existing rail bridge or 

construction of a new 

rail bridge over Oso 

Creek could result in 

minor filling of the 

creek or adjacent 

wetlands which could 

have moderate 

effects.

Train derailment into Oso 

Creek, diesel spills, oil and 

grease on the track, use of 

herbicides, and resulting 

stormwater water quality 

effects. These potential 

occurrences would be rare 

and therefore considered

negligible, but the effect if 

it were to occur would be 

moderate. 

Potential effects would 

be moderate before 

mitigation, but easily 

mitigated using 

standard approaches. 

Standard train safety 

would minimize the 

risk of train 

derailment. BMPs 

would be incorporated 

into construction and 

maintenance in 

accordance with 

TxDOT policies and 

TCEQ requirements to 

mitigate potential 

effects to Oso Creek 

and the train corridor.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.9-6 

No. 

TCMP Policy 

for 

Transportation 

Projects 

Potential 

Environmental 

Consequences 

and the Intensity 

During 

Construction 

Potential 

Environmental 

Consequences and 

the Intensity During 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Potential 

Mitigation 

Strategies 

2 Located at sites to 

avoid or minimize 

effects from 

construction and 

maintenance of 

additional roads

Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail is within 

or immediately 

adjacent to existing 

facilities. Temporary 

easements may be 

needed during 

construction for site 

access or to facilitate 

construction. Given 

the absence of 

Coastal Natural 

Resource Areas

(based on preliminary 

review of USFWS NWI

mapping), effects 

would be negligible.

Additional roads would not 

be needed during 

operation and 

maintenance.

Additional right-of-way 

required would be

immediately adjacent 

to existing 

facilities/right-of-way. 

Access to the project 

or local traffic 

circulation would use 

the existing roadway 

network.

3 Located within 

existing right-ofway or previously 

disturbed areas

Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail is 

primarily within 

existing right-of-way

or previously 

disturbed areas.

Temporary 

easements may be 

needed during 

construction for site 

access or to facilitate 

construction. Given 

the absence of 

Coastal Natural 

Resource Areas, 

effects would be 

negligible.

Operations and 

maintenance activities 

would not likely require 

additional right-of-way or 

affect undisturbed areas. 

Effects would be 

negligible. 

Additional right-of-way

or easements required 

would be immediately 

adjacent to existing 

facilities/right-of-way. 

The adjacent areas 

have been previously 

disturbed.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.9-7 

No. 

TCMP Policy 

for 

Transportation 

Projects 

Potential 

Environmental 

Consequences 

and the Intensity 

During 

Construction 

Potential 

Environmental 

Consequences and 

the Intensity During 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Potential 

Mitigation 

Strategies 

4 Future expansion 

would not require 

development of 

coastal wetlands 

except for 

evacuation for a 

natural disaster

Future expansion is 

not anticipated; 

therefore, coastal 

wetlands would not 

be affected.

Future expansion is not 

anticipated; therefore, 

coastal wetlands would 

not be affected.

N/A

5 Avoid impounding 

or draining coastal 

wetlands

Impounding or 

draining coastal 

wetlands is not 

anticipated during 

construction.

Impounding or draining 

coastal wetlands is not 

anticipated during 

operation and 

maintenance.

N/A

6 No adverse effects 

on recreational 

values, spawning

or nesting 

seasons, and 

migratory seasons 

for terrestrial and 

aquatic species

Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail is not 

anticipated to affect 

recreational values, 

spawning or nesting 

seasons, and 

migratory seasons for 

terrestrial and 

aquatic species. 

Effects would be 

negligible.

During operations and 

maintenance, migratory 

bird nesting may occur 

within associated 

structures. However, such 

nesting activities typically 

do not conflict with 

operations; thus, effects 

would be negligible.

To comply with the 

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, clearing and 

grubbing vegetation 

would not occur during 

the migratory bird 

nesting season (April 1 

to July 15), or 

measures would be 

implemented to 

discourage birds from 

nesting in existing 

structures.

7 Excess beachquality sand from 

maintenance 

relocated to Gulf 

beaches

The underlying soil 

classification of the 

EIS Study Area is that 

of the Victoria 

Association. These 

soils are composed of 

calcareous heavy 

clays. Beach-quality 

sand would not be 

encountered.

The underlying soil 

classification of the EIS 

Study Area is that of the 

Victoria Association. These 

soils are composed of 

calcareous heavy clays. 

Beach-quality sand would 

not be encountered.

N/A
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.9-8 

No. 

TCMP Policy 

for 

Transportation 

Projects 

Potential 

Environmental 

Consequences 

and the Intensity 

During 

Construction 

Potential 

Environmental 

Consequences and 

the Intensity During 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Potential 

Mitigation 

Strategies 

BMP = best management practice

N/A = not applicable

TCEQ = Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Source: 31 TAC Part 16 Chapter 501 Subchapter B RULE §501.31, Policies for Transportation Projects.

3.9.4.3 Summary of Potential Effects 

Only one alternative, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, may encroach upon coastal areas protected 

by the TCMP. Compared with the No Build Alternative, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would result 

in negligible effects under construction and normal operation. Moderate effects are only possible if 

a derailment were to occur and result in a spill. However, the potential for such an incident is rare 

and, therefore, effects would be negligible. Table 3.9-2 identifies the presence of CMZ and potential 

intensity of effects for each alternative. 

Table 3.9-2: Potential Intensity of Effects on Coastal Management Zone Areas

Section Alternativea Presence of CMZ 

Potential Intensity of 

Effects (negligible, 

moderate, or 

substantial) 

No Build Alternativeb N/A No effect

Northern N4A CONV None N/A

Central 

C4A HrSR None N/A

C4A HSR None N/A

C4B HrSR None N/A

C4B HSR None N/A

C4C HrSR None N/A

C4C HSR None N/A

Southern 

S4 HrSR Presence Negligible 

S6 HrSR None N/A

S6 HSR None N/A

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

b The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.9-9 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance and minimization of effects at the project level would be incorporated when feasible. If 

effects cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies would be implemented at the project

level. Pollution prevention procedures would be incorporated into construction and maintenance 

planning. BMPs would be incorporated into the construction and maintenance of Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail in accordance with TxDOT policies of the TCMP (31 TAC §501.31) and TCEQ 

requirements to mitigate potential effects to stormwater and the train corridor. BMPs for 

stormwater management to address pollution and erosion prevention are published the TxDOT 

publication Storm Water Management Guidelines for Construction Activities (TxDOT 2002), which 

details the department’s procedures and recommended BMPs to be included in a Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan for proposed projects, which is augmented on the Texas Coastal BMPs 

website, specifically under the County Roads and Bridges subdirectory (http://txcoastalbmp.org/). 

These guidelines provide BMPs such as stormwater detention and retention systems, sediment and 

filtration systems to remove debris, suspended solids, and insoluble pollutants, and vegetation 

buffers to reduce transportation of pollutants.

Design development would remain within the existing railroad right-of-way to the extent possible 

and avoid filling within the CMZ beyond current fills. A potential exception could be any filling 

associated with the modification or replacement of the bridge crossing Oso Creek, which will be 

determined at the project level. Additional required rights-of-way would be adjacent to existing 

transportation facilities and rights-of-way. Access to the project or local traffic circulation would use 

the existing roadway network. Design would avoid impounding or draining coastal wetlands to the 

extent possible. 

During operations, standard train safety would minimize the risk of coastal resources affected by 

spills associated with train derailment. 

Subsequent Analysis 

The presence or absence of Coastal Natural Resource Areas will be confirmed during future projectlevel analyses. Section 404 permitting needs within the CMZ would be coordinated with USACE and 

GLO. A Section 404 permit or pre-construction notification would be coordinated with USACE, and a 

Consistency with the Texas Coastal Management Program form would be coordinated with GLO’s 

Coastal Permit Service Center in Corpus Christi.

TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-1 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources 

This section describes the energy sources and needs within the environmental impact statement 

(EIS) Study Area and provides a preliminary assessment of potential effects on these resources. 

Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies and further analyses needed in the project-level 

analysis are identified at the end of this section. The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the EIS 

Study Area and the use of terms, such as Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, along with the 

standard organization of each analysis. 

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable legislation, regulations, and orders pertaining to energy within the EIS Study Area are 

described below. Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and 

will be addressed in project-level analysis. 

3.10.1.1 Federal 

 Energy Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 149.15801 et seq). The Energy Policy Act provides tax incentives 

and loan guarantees for energy production of various types. 

 Energy Independence and Security Act (42 U.S.C. 152). The stated purpose is to move the 

United States toward greater energy independence and security by increasing the production of 

clean renewable fuels, to increase efficiency of energy use, to protect consumers, and to 

improve the energy performance of the federal government. 

 Executive Order 12185, Conservation of Petroleum and Natural Gas (44 Code of Federal 

Regulations § 75093). Executive Order 12185 encourages additional conservation of 

petroleum and natural gas by recipients seeking federal funding. 

3.10.1.2 State 

 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 25, Electric Substantive Rules, § 25.181, was created to 

help the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) meet its goals for energy consumption, 

regulation, and efficiency. PUC goals with respect to electrical services include establishing the 

rights and responsibilities of the electric utilities, including transmission and distribution 

utilities, non-utility wholesale and retail market participants, and electric customers.

Methodology 

For this service-level analysis, the design of the alternatives is conceptual; therefore, the amount of 

energy needed to construct and operate the alternatives is not quantifiable. To evaluate the 

potential effects of the demand for the new rail system, a travel demand model was developed to 

forecast existing and future conditions (year 2035) by mode (auto, passenger rail, intercity bus, and 

air travel) within the EIS Study Area for each alternative. The model outputs were used to compare 

the No Build Alternative against the rail alternatives. The methodology used to estimate the existing

and predicted energy consumptions for the 500-foot-wide EIS Study Area for each alternative is as 

follows: 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-2 

 Developed an order-of-magnitude estimate of the existing and forecasted use and demand for 

energy resources in the study area, including the existing energy use for transportation. For this 

study, energy consumption by mode was calculated by converting the passenger miles traveled. 

 Developed an order-of-magnitude estimate of energy use during construction and operations 

(irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy resources during construction) by 

alternative. 

 Identified the variation/shift in the type of energy that would be consumed by each alternative 

and measures to reduce energy consumption during construction.

Energy was measured in British Thermal Units (Btu) to compare the overall energy effects expected 

to result from the construction and operation of the Program with the No Build Alternative. A Btu is 

defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 

1 degree Fahrenheit. 

Effects as a result of the alternatives are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial 

compared to the No Build Alternative. Because effects on energy resources differ depending on 

energy type (e.g., fossil fuels or renewable sources), effects can be either adverse or beneficial. The 

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

energy, these terms are defined as follows: 

 Negligible intensity adverse effects are those that would have a slightly increased use of energy 

resources (increased annual energy consumption) but are close to existing conditions.

 Moderate intensity adverse effects are those that would have a noticeable increased use of

energy resources (increased annual energy consumption) but would not have wide-ranging 

effects over time. 

 Substantial intensity adverse effects are those that would have a relatively large increased use 

of energy resources (increased annual energy consumption). 

 Negligible intensity beneficial effects are those that would have a slight decrease in use of

energy resources (decreased annual energy consumption) and/or a slight increase in use of 

energy from renewable sources, compared to non-renewable sources, but are close to existing 

conditions. 

 Moderately beneficial effects are those that would have a noticeable decreased use of energy 

resources (decreased annual energy consumption) and/or a noticeable increase in use of 

energy from renewable sources, compared to non-renewable sources, but would not have wideranging effects over time. 

 Substantially beneficial effects are those that would have a relatively large decreased use of

energy resources (decreased annual energy consumption) or a relatively large increase in use of 

energy from renewable compared to non-renewable sources. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-3 

This section uses a slightly different format than the other sections in Chapter 3 to present the 

Environmental Consequences (Section 3.10.4). The format used provides a clearer description of 

the findings.

Affected Environment 

3.10.3.1 Overview 

For transportation projects, energy usage is predominantly influenced by the amount of fuel used. 

The average Btu content of fuel is the heat value (or energy content) per volume of fuel as 

determined from tests of fuel samples. A gallon of gasoline produces approximately 120,476 Btu

(U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2015). Energy can be measured in two ways: direct 

energy, which would be the energy used to maintain and operate the Program, and indirect energy, 

which would be used during construction activities. 

Primary energy sources take many forms, including nuclear energy, fossil energy (coal, oil, and 

natural gas), and renewable resources, such as wind, solar, and hydropower. These primary 

sources are turned into secondary sources, such as electricity. The major primary energy sources 

consumed in the United States are petroleum (oil), natural gas, coal, nuclear energy, and renewable 

energy. The Transportation Energy Data Book (Oak Ridge National Laboratory 2015) reported that 

the United States used 21 percent of worldwide oil consumption in 2013. Petroleum products 

(gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel) make up 92 percent of the U.S. usage of crude oil. Within the U.S. oil 

consumption, 27 percent was used for transportation in 2014. Over half of that energy usage was 

devoted to highway travel with cars and light trucks (EIA 2015). 

In 2013, Texas was sixth in the nation for total energy consumed per capita with 448 million Btu

(MBtu). Oklahoma was ranked 10th with 421 MBtu total energy consumed (EIA 2015). The U.S.

Department of Transportation (USDOT)’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics ranked all 50 states 

for transportation energy consumption per capita in 2012. Texas was ranked ninth with 110.16 

MBtu, and Oklahoma was ranked seventh with 120.14 MBtu. 

In 2013, transportation and construction were the second highest uses of energy in Texas, 

expending 21 percent of total energy consumption each. Oklahoma used 28 percent of its total 

energy use toward transportation. Figure 3.10-1 shows energy usage per mode for Texas and 

Oklahoma during 2013.

As shown on Figure 3.10-2, Oklahoma generates 29 percent of its electricity from renewable 

resources (including hydroelectric), and Texas generates 16 percent. In recent years, there has 

been a push to move toward cleaner, more efficient transportation and renewable energy sources 

that can generate electricity with minimal pollution emissions. Transportation that runs on 

electricity is overall cleaner and has fewer impacts on the environment than petroleum or coalbased fossil fuels. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-4 

3.10.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Table 3.10-1 shows the annual passenger miles of travel for Alternative N4A Conventional. As 

shown, most passengers travel by auto. The least amount of passengers uses passenger rail 

available in the area compared with other travel modes. 

Table 3.10-1: Existing Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Northern Section 

Alternative (2013)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger 

Rail Total 

N4A Conventional 3,097,358,810 19,325,625 17,899,083 13,724,941 3,148,308,459

Residential 

12%

Commercial 

21%

Industrial 

46%

Transportation 

21%

TEXAS ENERGY CONSUMPTION 

2013

Residential 

20%

Commercial

16%

Industrial

36%

Transportation 

28%

OKLAHOMA ENERGY 

CONSUMPTION 2013 

Source: EIA (2015).

Figure 3.10-1: Texas and Oklahoma Energy Usage by Mode

Natural 

Gas-Fired 

47%

Coal-Fired

24%

Hydroelectric 2%

Other 

Renewable

s

27%

OKLAHOMA NET ELECTRICY 

GENERATION BY SOURCE

Hydroelectric 

0%

Natural 

Gas-Fired 

Coal-Fired 52%

25%

Nuclear 

7%

Peteroleu

m-Fired

0%

Other 

Renewabl

es 

16%

TEXAS NET ELECTRICITY 

GENERATION BY SOURCE 

Source: EIA (2015).

Figure 3.10-2: Oklahoma and Texas Electricity Generation by Source
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-5 

Table 3.10-2 shows the annual energy consumption for Alternative N4A Conventional. As shown, 

the existing transportation energy use is heavily composed of auto travel, using most of the total 

energy used along the corridor. 

Table 3.10-2: Existing Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) for the Northern Section 

Alternative (2013)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger 

Rail Total 

N4A 

Conventional 

14,522,653 64,603 54,732 22,351 14,664,339

3.10.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Tables 3.10-3 and 3.10-4 show the annual passenger miles of travel and energy use for the Central 

Section alternatives, respectively. Existing passenger miles traveled and energy consumption for 

the Central Section are similar to those for the Northern Section, as shown in the tables. In the 

Central Section, most passengers travel by auto, and existing transportation energy use is heavily 

composed of auto travel. 

Table 3.10-3: Existing Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Central Section 

Alternatives (2013)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger 

Rail Total 

C4A HigherSpeed Rail 

3,330,631,173 230,771,057 264,509,706 11,281,605 3,837,193,541

C4A HighSpeed Rail 

3,169,453,125 228,446,109 267,532,192 11,281,605 3,676,713,031

C4B HighSpeed Rail 3,205,786,898 234,088,219 272,510,307 11,281,605 3,723,667,029

C4C HighSpeed Rail 

3,220,333,947 236,359,690 270,828,004 11,281,605 3,738,803,246

Note: Because of the type of service and comparable rates of ridership, Alternatives C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail are evaluated based on a proportional relationship between the trends that are seen between 

Alternatives C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail; therefore, Alternatives C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail are not shown in the table. The numerical values shown for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail are 

comparable values for application to Alternatives C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4C Higher-Speed Rail.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-6 

Table 3.10-4: Existing Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) for the Central Section 

Alternatives (2013)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger Rail Total 

C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail 

15,616,402 771,441 808,815 18,372 17,215,029

C4A High-Speed Rail 14,860,683 763,669 818,057 18,372 16,460,780

C4B High-Speed Rail 15,031,042 782,530 833,279 18,372 16,665,222

C4C High-Speed Rail 15,099,249 790,123 828,135 18,372 16,735,878

Note: Because of the type of service and comparable rates of ridership, Alternatives C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail are evaluated based on a proportional relationship between the trends that are seen between 

Alternatives C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail; therefore, Alternatives C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail are not shown in the table. The numerical values shown for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail are 

comparable values for application to Alternatives C4B Higher-Speed Rail and C4C Higher-Speed Rail.

3.10.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Table 3.10-5 provides the annual passenger miles of travel for the Southern Section alternatives. 

Alternative S6 (both service types) would take a different path than Alternative S4, traveling directly 

from San Antonio to a station located outside Laredo and potentially into Mexico. Alternative S6 

(both service types) has significantly less ridership for all modes than Alternative S4 as air and 

passenger rail travel is not currently available in these areas.

Table 3.10-5: Existing Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Southern Section 

Alternatives (2013)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger 

Rail Total 

S4 Higher-Speed Rail 6,941,960,529 169,106,063 22,113,352 0 7,133,179,944

S6 Higher-Speed Rail 1,387,800,691 127,167,538 0 0 1,514,968,229

S6 High-Speed Rail 1,387,800,691 127,167,538 0 0 1,514,968,229

The Southern Section does not currently have passenger rail available as a travel option. This 

significantly increases the numbers for existing auto, bus, and air travel. Of the three Southern 

Section alternatives, Alternative S4 currently consumes the most energy resources annually with 33 

MBtu, as shown in Table 3.10-6. Alternative S6 (both service types) currently consumes the least 

amount of energy resources due to low passenger numbers. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-7 

Table 3.10-6: Existing Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) for the Southern Section 

Alternatives (2013)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger Rail Total 

S4 Higher-Speed Rail 32,548,919 565,302 67,618 0 33,181,839

S6 Higher-Speed Rail 6,507,011 425,106 0 0 6,932,117

S6 High-Speed Rail 6,507,011 425,106 0 0 6,932,117

Environmental Consequences 

This section describes the environmental consequences and effects on energy resources for each 

alternative. 

3.10.4.1 Overview 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of energy resources would include non-renewable uses

of energy, such as petroleum, natural gas, and coal. These effects would be seen during the 

construction of the build alternatives, the operation of the Program, and maintenance of the rails.

The higher the commitments, the more substantial the effects on energy resources become. These 

effects would depend on the length, the alternative selected, and the size and scale of construction 

required. Energy would be consumed during the production of construction materials, operations 

and maintenance of construction machines and equipment, and transportation of material and 

labor to the site. The amount of energy used during construction is roughly proportional to the cost 

of the project. Because costs are not yet available for the Program, it is assumed that the longer the 

length and greater infrastructure needs of each alternative, the higher the cost of that alternative. 

Conventional rail is generally less expensive to construct on a per-mile basis due to use of existing

structures. High-speed rail would have the most construction energy consumption as a result of the 

amount and type of construction required. 

The build alternatives for the Program vary among three types of rail as described. The energy use 

for each rail type varies between diesel-powered and electric.

The energy source for conventional rail is typically diesel-powered, steel-wheeled trains operating 

on steel tracks. Conventional rail would be operated at speeds up to 79 to 90 miles per hour (mph), 

and existing railroad track may be used, which means it would use more fuel than the current trains 

operating at approximately 55 mph. For construction impacts, conventional rail would consume a 

relatively small amount of energy resources during construction because it will continue to use 

existing rail. 

Higher-speed rail would use diesel-powered/petroleum-based resources. The higher-speed rail is 

similar to conventional rail, as it can run on the same alignments as conventional rail. However, the 

higher speeds, 110 to 125 mph, would require additional improvements to existing tracks. 

Construction impacts for higher-speed rail would be slightly higher in energy consumption than the 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-8 

conventional-based track because the existing tracks would have to modified to handle higher 

speeds and some new rail would need to be constructed. 

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

rail would be operated at speeds up to 220 to 250 mph. The entire right-of-way would be fenced 

and fully grade-separated. High-speed rail would run entirely on the electrical grid and would have 

the potential to use renewable generated electricity. The high-speed rail would have the most 

energy impacts during construction because the rail would be built without relying on existing

constructed areas. 

Current statistics (2013) show that along the Program corridor, passenger numbers vary from 52 

million to 89 million passengers per year using auto, air, bus, and passenger rail travel. The No 

Build Alternative and the build alternatives vary because the proposed rail would bring an 

alternative mode of transportation and would increase overall ridership in total. Table 3.10-7 

presents the passengers per year by alternative. 

Table 3.10-7: Passengers per Year for the Program – All Alternativesa,b

Alternativesc Existing (2013) No Build Alternative Build Alternatives 

(2035) 

N4A CONV 22,920,866 38,502,166 38,726,250

C4A HrSR 21,669,993 40,043,865 41,387,072

C4A HSR 20,218,971 37,556,672 41,387,072

C4B HSR 20,379,576 37,588,342 43,138,673

C4C HSR 20,310,579 37,455,567 40,039,488

S4 HrSR 44,270,832 140,864,835 140,931,725

S6 HrSR 9,562,652 15,403,486 15,485,793

S6 HSR 9,562,652 15,403,486 15,438,318

Notes:

a Includes all modes of travel: auto, bus, air and rail.

b Because of the type of service and comparable rates of ridership, Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4C HrSR are 

evaluated based on a proportional relationship between the trends that are seen between Alternatives C4A HrSR 

and C4A HSR; therefore, Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4C HrSR are not shown in the table. The numerical values 

shown for Alternative C4A HrSR are comparable values for application to Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4C HrSR. 

c CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-9 

Passenger rail uses the least amount of energy per passenger miles at approximately 1,608 Btu 

per mile. Auto, which consumes petroleum resources, uses the most at approximately 3,843 Btu 

per mile (USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2015). Bus and air travel are second and third

with 3,304 and 2,366 Btu, respectively. 

3.10.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program. Under the No Build Alternative, there would be potential negative effects 

on future energy use as the result of increased population without provisions for an efficient, 

potentially cleaner mode of travel. 

3.10.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.10.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

In 2013, a total of 3 billion passenger miles were traveled to and from Oklahoma City and the 

Dallas and Fort Worth area. With predicted population growth and rates of travel, the Northern 

Section would increase to 4 billion passenger miles in 2035. Although the total number of projected 

passenger miles in 2035 would not change noticeably between the No Build Alternative and 

Alternative N4A Conventional, a substantial change in travel mode usage is projected. This is most 

noticeable in the number of rail passengers in the build alternative, as shown in Table 3.10-8; 

passenger rail usage would increase by 195 percent under Alternative N4A Conventional. 

Table 3.10-9 shows the predicted annual energy for Alternative N4A Conventional. 

Table 3.10-8: Projected Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Northern Section 

Alternative (2035)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger 

Rail Total 

No Build 4,870,077,397 23,080,357 28,422,931 20,295,439 4,941,876,124

N4A CONV 4,841,296,005 11,871,400 16,302,506 78,757,294 4,948,227,205

Table 3.10-9: Projected Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) for the Northern Section 

Alternative (2035)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger 

Rail Total 

No Build 22,834,437 77,155 86,911 33,051 23,031,554

N4A CONV 22,699,489 39,685 49,850 128,256 22,917,279
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-10 

Under Alternative N4A, reduced reliance on auto, bus, and air travel would decrease total energy 

usage by approximately 114,000 MBtu. The overall energy use would decline due to added rail 

ridership in 2035. The No Build Alternative shows an increase in overall energy mainly due to 

gained usage in auto, bus, and air travel, with little increase in rail ridership. Therefore, operation of 

Alternative N4A Conventional would have a negligible beneficial effect on energy consumption. 

Alternative N4A, at 280 miles in length, would use most of the same rail line that has been 

upgraded as part of an ongoing passenger rail improvement program and would use minimal 

amounts of energy consumption during construction. The overall demand for energy would be 

slightly increased during construction; however, effects would be negligible with implementation of 

measures presented in Section 3.10.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. 

3.10.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

In 2013, annual passenger miles traveled from Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio totaled

around 3 billion miles. In 2035, those numbers are projected to increase to 7 billion. 

3.10.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher- and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would use diesel fuel during operation, and Alternative C4A HighSpeed Rail would use electricity. Table 3.10-10 shows the projected passenger miles for Alternative 

C4A (both service types). 

Table 3.10-10: Projected Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Central Section 

Alternativesa,b (2035)

Alternativec Auto Bus Air Passenger 

Rail Total 

No Build (C4A HrSR) 6,644,406,781 305,350,066 436,578,667 16,682,413 7,403,017,927

C4A HrSR 6,432,373,308 269,688,588 284,455,103 575,301,232 7,561,818,231

No Build (C4A HSR) 6,478,858,003 301,713,412 439,404,869 16,682,413 7,236,658,697

C4A HSR 5,913,368,568 244,505,366 148,627,628 1,195,013,227 7,501,514,789

No Build (C4B HSR) 6,503,779,134 309,854,425 444,716,161 16,682,413 7,275,032,133

C4B HSR 5,896,021,430 246,272,939 140,765,619 1,076,906,224 7,359,966,212

No Build (C4C HSR) 6,515,447,029 312,723,344 443,001,606 16,682,413 7,287,854,392

C4C HSR 6,039,629,396 260,399,225 117,392,438 124,868,579 7,602,289,638

Notes:

a Includes all modes of travel: auto, bus, air and rail.

b Because of the type of service and comparable rates of ridership, Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4C HrSR are 

evaluated based on a proportional relationship between the trends that are seen between Alternatives C4A HrSR 

and C4A HSR; therefore, Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4C HrSR are not shown in the table. The numerical values 

shown for Alternative C4A HrSR are comparable values for application to Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4C HrSR. 

c CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-11 

According to the modeling results shown in Table 3.10-11, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would 

use the least amount of energy to operate and transport passengers in 2035. Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail and the No Build Alternative would use more energy which can be attributed to 

increased petroleum usage. While construction cost and energy use would be relatively high for 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, operation would reduce energy consumption as passengers would 

be more likely to choose rail travel than other forms of transportation. Additionally, operation energy 

consumption would be reduced as compared to Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail as more 

passengers would likely choose bus and air travel with the higher-speed alternative as compared to 

the high-speed alternative. 

As summarized in Table 3.10-11, construction of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have 

substantial adverse effects on energy consumption after mitigation measures are implemented; 

however, the operation of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have substantial beneficial effects 

over time as consumption of non-renewable energy sources would be less. Construction of 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have moderately adverse construction-related effects after 

implementation of the measures included in Section 3.10.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and 

Mitigation Strategies, and would have moderate beneficial operations effects. 

Table 3.10-11: Projected Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) for the Central Section 

Alternativesa,b (2035)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger 

Rail Total 

No Build (C4A HrSR) 31,153,773 1,020,750 1,334,965 27,167 33,536,655

No Build (C4A HSR) 30,377,561 1,008,593 1,343,607 27,167 32,756,928

C4A HrSR 30,159,607 901,538 869,803 936,875 32,867,823

C4A HSR 27,726,138 817,353 454,472 1,946,073 30,944,036

No Build (C4B HSR) 30,494,409 1,035,807 1,359,848 27,167 32,917,231

C4B HSR 27,644,802 823,262 430,431 1,753,736 30,652,232

No Build (C4C HSR) 30,549,116 27,167 1,354,605 27,167 32,976,286

4C HSR 28,318,140 1,831,843 542,428 1,831,843 31,562,895

Notes:

a Includes all modes of travel: auto, bus, air and rail.

b Because of the type of service and comparable rates of ridership, Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4C HrSR are 

evaluated based on a proportional relationship between the trends that are seen between Alternatives C4A HrSR 

and C4A HSR; therefore, Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4C HrSR are not shown in the table. The numerical values 

shown for Alternative C4A HrSR are comparable values for application to Alternatives C4B HrSR and C4C HrSR. 

c CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail 

3.10.4.4.2 Alternative C4B Higher- and High-Speed Rail 

The trends in annual passenger miles between Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative 

C4A High-Speed Rail are applicable to Alternative C4B. As with Alternative C4A, more people would 

likely use higher-speed rail than high-speed rail due to a potentially planned station located in 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-12 

downtown Austin for the higher-speed alternative as opposed to outside of Austin for the highspeed alternative. However, this would not change the intensity of effect on energy consumption. As 

described in Section 3.10.4.1, construction of the high-speed rail alternative would consume more 

energy than the higher-speed rail alternative as a result of the amount and type of construction 

required. However, operation of the high-speed rail alternative would consume less energy than the 

higher-speed rail alternative. The No Build Alternative would result in the most energy consumption. 

Table 3.10-10 provides the annual passenger miles of travel for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. 

Table 3.10-11 shows the predicted annual energy use by Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. 

Construction of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have substantial adverse effects on energy 

consumption after mitigation procedures are implemented; however, the operation of Alternative 

C4B High-Speed Rail would have substantial beneficial effects over time as consumption of nonrenewable energy sources would be less. With implementation of measures presented in Section 

3.10.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies, construction of Alternative C4B HigherSpeed Rail would have moderately adverse construction-related effects and would have moderate 

beneficial operations effects. 

3.10.4.4.3 Alternative C4C Higher- and High-Speed Rail 

As described for Alternative C4B, the trends in annual passenger miles between Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail are applicable to Alternative C4C. As with

Alternative C4A, more people would likely use higher-speed rail than high-speed rail due to the

potential for a station located in downtown Austin for the higher-speed alternative as opposed to 

outside of Austin for the high-speed alternative. However, this would not change the intensity of 

effect on energy consumption. Table 3.10-10 provides the annual passenger miles of travel for 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail Alternative. Table 3.10-11 shows the predicted energy use by 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail. 

Construction of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have substantial adverse effects on energy 

consumption after mitigation procedures are implemented; however, the operation of Alternative 

C4C High-Speed Rail would have substantial beneficial effects over time as consumption of nonrenewable energy sources would be less. Construction of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would 

have moderately adverse construction-related effects after mitigation and would have moderate 

beneficial operations effects. 

3.10.4.4.4 Central Section Alternatives: Summary of Potential Effects 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments to resources during construction are attributed to the 

size and scale of the construction. Of the six build alternatives in the Central Section, the longest 

alternative is Alternative C4C (both service types) at 428 miles. Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

would cost the most to construct and would use the most irretrievable and irreversible resources 

during construction, thereby adding substantial intensity effects after mitigation is implemented. 

Mitigation is discussed in more detail in Section 3.10.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

Strategies. However, because they are elevated, the high-speed rail alternatives result in the most 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-13 

energy savings as long-term net benefits, as discussed in Section 3.10.4.1. In effect and according 

to the results of the demand forecast model, the high-speed rail alternatives would increase the 

initial demand for electricity and energy with substantial construction effects, but would reduce the 

overall demand for energy over time. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be the shortest to 

construct (317 miles) and would entail the lowest energy usage per year compared to the other 

Central Section alternatives. 

Tables 3.10-12 and 3.10-13 present the Central Section alternatives by relative order of effect 

(greatest to least) during construction and operation, respectively, and show that Alternative C4C 

High-Speed Rail is the alternative with the greatest effects during construction and the least longterm benefits during operation. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail brings more long-term net benefits 

and has the least amount of effects during construction among the high-speed rail alternatives. 

Compared with the No Build Alternative, the alternative with the least amount of long-term benefits 

is Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, which has moderate beneficial effects. Alternative C4B HighSpeed Rail has substantial effects during construction; however, as shown in the tables, this 

alternative has the most substantial beneficial effects over time of all the Central Section 

alternatives. 

Table 3.10-12: Potential Short-Term Impacts on Energy Consumption During 

Construction 

Alternative Intensity of Effects 

C4C HSR Substantial Adverse

C4A HSR Substantial Adverse

C4B HSR Substantial Adverse

C4C HrSR Moderate Adverse

C4A HrSR Moderate Adverse

C4B HrSR Moderate Adverse

Table 3.10-13: Potential Net Benefits to Energy During Operation

Alternative Annual Energy Savings (MBtu) Intensity of Effects 

C4B HSR 2,264,999 Substantial Beneficial

C4A HSR 1,812,892 Substantial Beneficial

C4C HSR 1,413,391 Substantial Beneficial

C4B HrSR a Moderate Beneficial

C4A HrSR 668,832 Moderate Beneficial

C4C HrSR a Moderate Beneficial

a The trends in annual passenger miles between Alternative C4A HSR and Alternative C4A HrSR are applicable to

Alternative C4B HSR and Alternative C4B HrSR. This is also true for Alternatives C4C HSR and C4C HrSR. Alternative

C4B HrSR is assumed to have more annual energy consumption savings because of the length of the project.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-14 

3.10.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

In 2013, the annual number of passenger miles traveled varied from 1 billion for Alternative S6

(both service types) to 7 billion for Alternative S4. In 2035, those numbers are expected to increase 

to 2 billion for Alternative S6 (both service types) and 22 billion for Alternative S4. The increase for 

Alternative S4 can be explained by the rapid growth in the cities in the Southern Section connected 

to Alternative S4, but not connected by Alternative S6, which only services San Antonio to Laredo. 

3.10.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Table 3.10-14 provides the annual passenger miles of travel for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail.

The annual energy consumption savings for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be minimal 

compared with the No Build Alternative, as shown in Table 3.10-15. With implementation of 

measures identified in Section 3.10.5, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have moderate 

adverse construction effects as compared to the No Build Alternative, due to the type of rail and the 

length of the project. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have moderate beneficial effects 

during operation as the use of rail, as opposed to other modes of transportation, increases. 

Table 3.10-14: Projected Annual Passenger Miles of Travel for the Southern Section 

Alternatives (2035)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger 

Rail Total 

No Build (S4) 22,502,787,357 200,921,851 33,245,260 0 22,736,954,468

S4 HrSR 22,458,553,217 154,724,916 12,481,483 120,540,661 22,746,300,277

No Build (S6) 2,277,816,643 161,214,415 0 0 2,439,031,058

S6 HrSR 2,178,053,434 145,115,302 0 139,046,225 2,462,214,961

S6 HSR 2,143,289,475 131,389,002 0 203,842,590 2,478,521,067

Table 3.10-15: Projected Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu) the Southern Section 

Alternatives (2035)

Alternative Auto Bus Air Passenger 

Rail Total 

No Build (S4) 105,509,303 671,658 101,657 0 106,282,618

S4 HrSR 105,301,901 196,300 517,227 38,166 106,053,594

No Build (S6) 10,680,048 538,921 0 0 11,218,969

S6 HrSR 10,212,286 485,104 0 226,436 10,923,826

S6 HSR 10,049,287 439,218 0 331,957 10,820,462
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-15 

3.10.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher- and High-Speed Rail 

Table 3.10-14 provides the annual passenger miles of travel for Alternative S6 (both service types), 

and Table 3.10-15 provides the annual energy consumption for the alternative. Alternative S6 (both 

service types) would cover less distance than Alternative S4 and would therefore have noticeably 

fewer passengers and less energy consumption as compared to Alternative S4 in 2035. Projected 

energy consumption for Alternative S6 (both service types) is less than the No Build Alternative. 

Alternative S4 would use significantly more energy per year than Alternative S6 (both service types) 

because of more city linkages by the route. Although the ridership numbers are considerably lower 

than Alternative S4, Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail, out of the three Southern Section alternatives, 

would use the least amount of energy in the future to operate. 

Construction of Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have substantial adverse effects on energy 

consumption after mitigation procedures are implemented; however, the operation of Alternative 

S6 High-Speed Rail would have substantial beneficial effects over time as consumption of nonrenewable energy sources would be less. Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have moderately 

adverse construction-related effects after mitigation and would have moderate beneficial effects 

related to operations. 

Tables 3.10-16 and 3.10-17 present the Southern Section alternatives by relative order of effect 

(greatest to least) during construction and operation, respectively. 

Table 3.10-16: Potential Short-Term Impacts on Energy Consumption During 

Construction 

Alternative Intensity of Effects 

S6 HSR Substantial Adverse

S4 HrSR Moderate Adverse

S6 HrSR Moderate Adverse

Table 3.10-17: Potential Net Benefits to Energy During Operation

Alternative Annual Energy Savings (MBtu) Intensity of Effects 

S6 HSR 398,507 Substantial Beneficial

S6 HrSR 295,143 Moderate Beneficial

S4 HrSR 229,024 Moderate Beneficial

3.10.4.5.3 Southern Section Alternatives: Summary of Potential Effects 

Although Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail is the shortest of the Southern Section alternatives at 

143 miles, it would consume the most energy during construction based on the type of construction 

required. Therefore, it would initially entail the most irretrievable and irreversible commitments and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-16 

more mitigation planning, but would be a benefit to energy resources in the long term through 

annually energy consumption savings during operation. 

The No Build Alternative would increase demand for non-renewable fuel resources as compared to 

each of the Southern Section alternatives. With increasing population under the No Build 

Alternative, travelers would turn to the most convenient and fastest form of travel, which, without 

an improved rail, would be auto and air (where available), followed by buses and existing rail. Auto 

and air travel use the most energy per passenger mile and, in turn, increase the demand for nonrenewable energy resources. 

Operation of the build alternatives would result in a long-term net energy benefit because of change 

in ridership from high-energy consumption modes of travel to the lower energy mode—passenger 

rail. Electric high-speed rail provides the greatest benefits due to a transition from non-renewable 

diesel energy to electricity, a renewable resource. Therefore, Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would 

have substantial effects on energy consumption during construction after mitigation is 

implemented, but would also have the most substantial beneficial effects over time out of the three 

Southern Section alternatives. 

3.10.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

The high-speed rail alternatives would have the greatest construction effects and would require 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies identified in Section 3.10.5; however, the overall 

use of electric energy over time would help to offset the initial effects. In comparison, the No Build 

Alternative would have no energy effects during construction, but would eventually lead to effects 

over time with population growth and more people depending on energy resources for other modes 

of travel, most noticeably increasing auto travel. Table 3.10-18 summarizes the potential intensity 

of effects by alternative. These effects are presented as energy effects during construction and 

predicted effects during operation with implementation of measures described in Section 3.10.5, 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies.

Table 3.10-18: Summary of Energy Effects by Alternative

Section 

Potential Intensity of Effects 

During Construction (Negligible, 

Moderate, or Substantial) 

Potential Effects During 

Operation (Negligible, 

Moderate, or Substantial) 

No Build Alternativea No Effect Substantial Adverse

Northern N4A CONV Negligible Adverse Negligible Beneficial

Central 

C4A HrSR Moderate Adverse Moderate Beneficial

C4A HSR Substantial Adverse Substantial Beneficial

C4B HrSR Moderate Adverse Moderate Beneficial

C4B HSR Substantial Adverse Substantial Beneficial

C4C HrSR Moderate Adverse Moderate Beneficial

C4C HSR Substantial Adverse Substantial Beneficial
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-17 

Section 

Potential Intensity of Effects 

During Construction (Negligible, 

Moderate, or Substantial) 

Potential Effects During 

Operation (Negligible, 

Moderate, or Substantial) 

Southern S4 HrSR Moderate Adverse Moderate Beneficial

S6 HrSR Moderate Adverse Moderate Beneficial

S6 HSR Substantial Adverse Substantial Beneficial

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, 

and air travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of 

effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific 

analysis.

As discussed in Section 3.10.4.2, the No Build Alternative could lead to substantial effects on 

energy use in the future. Alternative N4A Conventional would have negligible impacts during 

construction after mitigation is implemented, and negligible beneficial impacts over time due to a 

slight increase in passenger rail travel from other modes. However, it would still require a nonrenewable energy source (diesel). The higher-speed rail alternatives in the Central and Southern 

sections would have moderate impacts on energy during construction and operation due to diesel 

usage. The high-speed rail alternatives in the Central and Southern sections would have substantial 

effects initially during construction, but during operation, the effects on energy usage would be 

substantially beneficial, with electricity potentially coming from renewable energy sources. 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance of energy resources will be performed to a practicable extent during construction. 

Implementation of minimization and mitigation measures will be required during construction of the 

Program. 

Mitigation strategies would reduce construction impacts. Minimization and mitigation strategies will 

include the following: 

 Use energy-saving equipment and facilities to reduce electricity demand. 

 Develop and implement a construction energy conservation plan. 

 Locate construction material production facilities onsite or within proximity to the project site. 

 Use newer and more energy-efficient construction vehicles. 

 Implement a program to encourage construction workers to carpool or use public transportation 

for travel to and from the construction site. 

Subsequent Analysis 

Once a preferred alternative is selected, field investigations or surveys would be conducted to 

determine the likelihood of energy impacts within the EIS Study Area. A project-level NEPA study 

would use more detailed traffic and electrical input data for the energy consumption analysis. 

Energy consumption will be updated and modeled using the latest available data. When an 

accurate cost has been developed, a more detailed analysis of the energy use per mile during 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.10-18 

construction can be obtained. Detailed construction, staging, sequencing, methods, and practices 

will be necessary to support a quantitative analysis of construction energy consumption. When a 

preferred alternative is selected, a mitigation plan and a project-specific design will be developed. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-1 

3.11 Utilities 

This section describes the major utilities likely to occur within the environmental impact statement 

(EIS) Study Area and describes a preliminary assessment of potential effects on these utilities. This 

analysis presents a preliminary investigation and is not a detailed inventory of utilities along the 

Program alignments. Preliminary avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies and further 

analyses needed in the project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process are 

identified at the end of this section. The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study Area and 

use of terms, such as Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, along with the standard 

organization of each analysis. The existing and predicted energy consumption for the 500-foot-wide 

EIS Study Area is discussed in Section 3.10, Use of Energy Resources. 

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable federal and state legislation, regulations, and orders pertaining to utilities within the EIS 

Study Area are described below. Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be 

applicable and will be addressed in project-level analysis. 

3.11.1.1 Federal 

 Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-620). Section 403(b) of the 

Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act encourages conservation of petroleum and natural gas 

by recipients of federal financial assistance and directs the President to issue an Executive 

Order. Executive Order 12185 was issued and is described below. 

 Executive Order 12185, Conservation of Petroleum and Natural Gas (December 17, 1979, 44 

Federal Register 75093, as amended). This Executive Order encourages conservation of 

petroleum and natural gas by recipients of federal financial assistance.

3.11.1.2 State 

The Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (75 Oklahoma Statute., Sections 250 et seq) requires 

the Secretary of State's Office of Administrative Rules to publish the Oklahoma Administrative 

Code and the Oklahoma Register. Title 165 Corporation Commission, in the Oklahoma 

Administrative Code, provides the authority to the Corporation Commission to regulate public 

services, those business services that are considered essential to the public welfare. These 

businesses include electric, oil and gas, pipeline, telephone, and water utilities (State of Oklahoma 

2016). 

The Texas Administrative Code (TAC) is a compilation of all state agency rules in Texas. The Public 

Utility Commission (PUC) rules are under TAC, Title 16, Part II, and include rules and agreements for 

telecommunications service providers, water and sewer service providers, electric service 

providers, telecommunications service providers, and cable and video service providers (PUC

2016). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-2 

Methodology 

Utilities include natural gas, water, electricity, sewage, communications, and other systems. For this 

service-level analysis, two of the most common major utilities were identified to best represent 

potential utility effects: electrical facilities (electrical transmission lines and substations) and 

natural gas pipelines. Electrical facilities were defined as electrical transmission lines that meet or 

exceed a power rating of 69 kilovolts (kV) and electrical substations.

These utilities within the EIS Study Area were identified using available utility mapping (geographical 

information system [GIS] data) obtained from Platts, a Division of McGraw Hill Financial and an 

independent provider of information including maps and geospatial data for the natural gas and 

electrical power industries (Platts 2013, 2016). In addition to utility mapping, aerial photography 

was reviewed for the presence of utility infrastructure within the EIS Study Area (Google Earth 

2016). The methodology used to assess potential effects included examining available aerial 

photography and overlaying the available utility mapping with the alternative alignments to identify 

major utilities within the EIS Study Area. 

Electrical transmission lines and natural gas pipelines that exist within the EIS Study Area typically 

either cross the study area perpendicular to the alignment or exist within the EIS Study Area parallel 

to the alignment (i.e., within an existing transportation corridor or along an existing railway). 

Because electrical transmission lines and natural gas pipelines are prevalent throughout the EIS 

Study Area in each geographic area of the Program, it was not practical to assess each potential 

crossing. Therefore, estimates of the approximate number of crossings of these utilities within the 

EIS Study Area are based on available GIS data (Platts 2016).

Electrical transmission lines and natural gas pipelines within the EIS Study Area would be unlikely 

to be substantially affected by an alternative because they could be avoided or minimized by 

routing either the utility or the alignment over, under, or around the utility. In addition, avoidance 

measures, such as encasing existing utilities in strong culverts or conduits where new rail 

alignments would cross, would prevent damage and allow utility companies to access and maintain 

utilities as necessary without disturbing the rail alignment. However, alternatives that conflict with 

fixed utilities, such as electrical substations, may result in a substantial effect because relocation 

would require considerable engineering, design, and permitting if it is determined to be feasible.

Effects as a result of the route alternatives are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial 

compared with the No Build Alternative. For utilities evaluated in this service-level analysis, these 

terms are defined as follows:

 Negligible intensity effects would occur in areas where the Program would result in a low 

probability for having to move or relocate existing utilities. This would typically occur in rural 

locations where few utilities exist and in locations where existing track would be used. 

 Moderate intensity effects would occur where utilities are present; however, the utility could be 

moved outside of the Program alignment or could be encased in strong culverts or conduit to 

prevent damage as a result of the Program. This would typically include locations throughout the 

EIS Study Area such as urban areas where utilities are prevalent and the alignment could not be 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-3 

moved to avoid the utility. Moderate intensity effects would also occur in locations where 

existing track would be used for the alternative route and new track would not be constructed. 

In these cases, existing utilities may not require relocation but could require encasement to 

prevent damage, resulting in a moderate intensity effect. In addition, moderate intensity effects 

could occur where fixed utilities (such as electrical substations) are present within the EIS Study 

Area where the alternative route would use existing track, and new track would not be 

constructed. Moderate intensity effects would also occur in rural areas where the alignment 

could be moved to avoid the fixed utility.

 Substantial intensity effects would occur where fixed utilities (such as electrical substations) are

present within the EIS Study Area in urban areas where new or elevated track would be 

constructed and the alignment could not likely be moved to avoid the fixed utility. Substantial 

intensity of effects would also occur in areas where there is a high density of utilities , such as in 

urban areas, where existing track would not be used, and new track would be constructed (i.e., 

for the high-speed rail alternatives). 

For this service-level analysis, any crossing of an existing major utility within the EIS Study Area 

would be considered a potential effect during construction. The level of effect was determined by 

analyzing the density of utility crossings in relation to the probable construction activities that would 

be required for the implementation of each alternative. For example, in rural areas with few utility 

crossings and where existing tracks would be used, the magnitude of construction would be 

minimal, resulting in a negligible effect on utilities for such locations. An area with a higher density 

of utility crossings, and where existing tracks would be used, would result in a moderate effect

because utilities would need to be either relocated or encased during construction. Areas with a

higher density of utilities, or where fixed utilities are present and where new or elevated tracks 

would be constructed, could result in a substantial effect because the magnitude of construction 

activities would be greater and would require considerable engineering, design, and permitting. 

Numerous electrical substations were identified within the EIS Study Area. For electrical substations 

located where existing tracks would be used, a moderate effect would result because it would be 

unlikely that the electrical substation would need to be relocated during construction. However, in 

locations where electrical substations are within the EIS Study Area and new or elevated tracks 

would be constructed, a substantial effect would result because more significant constraints, such 

as routing the alternative alignment over, under, or around the utility, or relocating the fixed utility 

to another location, would be required. It should be noted that potential conflicts could be avoided 

through coordination with utility representatives during design and construction of the alignments.

Affected Environment 

The following sections provide a generalized description of the utilities that occur within the EIS 

Study Area for each geographic section (i.e., Northern, Central, and Southern sections). In general, 

the geographic sections of the Program can be characterized as urban and rural areas. These areas 

typically include aboveground and underground electrical transmission lines, aboveground 

electrical substations, and underground natural gas pipelines that provide power and natural gas 

service to residential, business, manufacturing, and agricultural land uses. The greatest densities 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-4 

of utilities occur in urban areas where there are a greater number of residential, business, and 

manufacturing uses, whereas lower densities of utilities occur in rural areas and areas that are 

mainly used for agricultural purposes.

Table 3.11-1 summarizes the approximate number of utility crossings for each alternative. Further 

detail regarding utilities that cross within the EIS Study Area for each alternative is provided in the 

sections below.

Table 3.11-1 Summary of Potential Utility Crossings for Alternatives

Alternativesa 

Electrical 

Transmission 

Linesb 

Electrical 

Substations 

Natural Gas 

Pipelines 

Total 

Crossings 

N4A CONV 150 5 206 361

C4A HrSR, HSR 253 7 164 424

C4B HrSR, HSR 157 3 155 315

C4C HrSR, HSR 296 8 440 744

S4 HrSR 79 2 766 847

S6 HrSR, HSR 21 0 63 84 

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

b Total number of electrical transmission lines that are either existing or proposed and meet or exceed a 

power rating of 69 kV.

Sources: Platts (2016); Google Earth (2016).

Figures 3.11-1 through 3.11-5 provide an overview of existing electrical transmission lines that 

meet or exceed a power rating of 69 kV, natural gas pipelines of various sizes, and approximate 

locations of electrical substations in relation to the EIS Study Area1. 

3.11.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Electrical transmission facilities and natural gas pipelines within the Northern Section are mapped 

on a regional level as shown on Figures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2, which also show the approximate 

location of electrical substations.

 

1 Electrical substations shown on Figures 3.11-1 through 3.11-5 are representative and do not indicate precise 

substation locations. GIS data mapped electrical substations approximately 30 miles apart, each estimated to be an 

outdoor electric yard of approximately 200 feet square on each side (Platts 2016). Because the locations are 

approximate, the presence of electrical substations within the EIS Study Area was determined by review of alternative 

alignments overlaying aerial photography. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-5 

Figure 3.11-1: Utilities within the Vicinity of the Alternatives (Map 1)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-6 

Figure 3.11-2: Utilities within the Vicinity of the Alternatives (Map 2)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-7 

Figure 3.11-3: Utilities within the Vicinity of the Alternatives (Map 3)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-8 

Figure 3.11-4: Utilities within the Vicinity of the Alternatives (Map 4)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-9 

Figure 3.11-5: Utilities within the Vicinity of the Alternatives (Map 5)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-10 

In the Oklahoma portion of the Northern Section EIS Study Area, key providers of electricity include 

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Central Illinois Light 

Company, and Western Farmers Electric Co-Op. In the Texas portion of the Northern Section EIS 

Study Area, key providers consist of Oncor Electric Delivery Company, AEP Energy Services Inc., TXU 

Electric Company, and Barry Electric Co-Op (Platts 2013). 

In the Oklahoma portion of the Northern Section EIS Study Area, key providers of natural gas 

include Enogex LLC, Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., Oneok Gas Transportation LLC, Southern Star 

Central Gas Pipeline, and Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America. In the Texas portion of the Northern 

Section EIS Study Area, key providers include Atmos Pipeline, Atmos Energy Corporation, Barnett 

Gathering LP, Crosstex North Texas Gathering LP, Enbridge Gathering LP, Energy Transfer Company, 

and Southwestern Gas Pipeline Inc. (Platts 2013). 

3.11.3.1.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A extends through urban areas in Oklahoma City and south from Denton, through 

Fort Worth and Dallas. Notably, from Denton south, there is a high density of utility crossings (see 

Figure 3.11-2). In addition to urban areas, Alternative N4A would extend through rural areas in 

southern Oklahoma and northern Texas where utility crossings are fewer than those in the urban 

areas (see Figures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2). 

Electrical facilities in the vicinity of Alternative N4A include 150 electric transmission lines. Of 

these, 19 have a power rating of 69 kV, 114 have a power rating of 138 kV, 16 have a power rating 

of 345 kV, and one proposed line has a power rating of 765 kV. Of the 150 electrical utilities, 144 

are existing and six are proposed for future construction. All electrical transmission lines are 

overhead with the exception of one line that runs underground and one line that runs both 

overhead and underground (Platts 2013). Review of aerial imagery indicates that there are 

approximately five electrical substations in the vicinity of Alternative N4A (Google Earth 2016). One 

electrical substation is located south of Norman, Oklahoma, along the BNSF alignment, and four 

are located along the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) tracks west of Dallas.

There are approximately 206 natural gas pipelines of various sizes in the vicinity of Alternative N4A 

(Platts 2013). 

3.11.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Figures 3.11-2 and 3.11-3 show electrical transmission facilities, natural gas pipelines, and the 

approximate location of electrical substations in the Central Section EIS Study Area. 

Key providers of electricity in the Central EIS Study Area include Oncor Electric Delivery Company, 

AEP Energy Services Inc., TXU Electric Company, the Lower Colorado River Authority, Constellation 

Power Source Generation, Inc., City Public Service Board of San Antonio, and Barry Electric Co-Op

(Platts 2013). 

Key providers of natural gas in the Central EIS Study Area include Atmos Pipeline, Atmos Energy 

Corporation, Chesapeake Midstream Partners LLC, Barnett Gathering LP, DFW Midstream Services 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-11 

LLC, Energy Transfer Company, Enterprise Products Operating LLC, Gulf South Pipeline Company 

LP, Magellan Pipeline Company LP, Texas Midstream Gas Services, and Southwestern Gas Pipeline 

Inc. (Platts 2013). 

3.11.3.2.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

In the Alternative C4A EIS Study Area, the highest density of utility crossings exists in Fort Worth,

Dallas, and south to Hillsboro (see Figure 3.11-2). Utility crossings are less dense south of Hillsboro 

to San Antonio; however, through urban areas near Austin and San Antonio, there is an increase in 

the number of utility crossings compared to rural areas (see Figure 3.11-3).

Electrical facilities in the vicinity of Alternative C4A include 253 electric transmission lines. Of these, 

45 have a power rating of 69 kV, 174 have a power rating of 138 kV, 33 have a power rating of 

345 kV, and one proposed line has a power rating of 765 kV. Of the 253 electrical utilities, 250 are 

existing and three are proposed for future construction. All electrical transmission lines are 

overhead with the exception of two lines that run both overhead and underground (Platts 2013).

Review of aerial imagery indicates that there are approximately seven electrical substations in the 

vicinity of Alternative C4A (Google Earth 2016). Four electrical substations are located along the 

TRE tracks west of Dallas, one is located along the existing BNSF tracks south of Dallas, and two 

are located north of San Antonio.

There are approximately 164 natural gas pipelines of various sizes in the vicinity of Alternative C4A 

(Platts 2013). 

3.11.3.2.2 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

In the Alternative C4B EIS Study Area, the highest density of utility crossings exists in Fort Worth, 

Dallas, and south to Hillsboro (see Figure 3.11-2). Utility crossings are less dense south of Hillsboro 

to San Antonio; however, through urban areas near Austin and San Antonio, there is an increase in 

the number of utility crossings compared to rural areas (see Figure 3.11-3).

Electrical facilities in the vicinity of Alternative C4B include 157 electric transmission lines. Of 

these, 35 have a power rating of 69 kV, 83 have a power rating of 138 kV, 38 have a power rating 

of 345 kV, and one proposed line has a power rating of 765 kV. Of the 157 electrical utilities, 153

are existing and four are proposed for future construction. All electrical transmission lines in the

vicinity of Alternative C4B are overhead transmission lines (Platts 2013). Review of aerial imagery 

indicates that there are approximately three electrical substations in the vicinity of Alternative C4B 

(Google Earth 2016). One electrical substation is located along the existing BNSF tracks south of 

Dallas, and two are located north of San Antonio.

There are approximately 155 natural gas pipelines of various sizes in the vicinity of Alternative C4B

(Platts 2013). 

3.11.3.2.3 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

In the Alternative C4C EIS Study Area, the highest density of utility crossings exists in Fort Worth, 

Dallas, south to Hillsboro, and in the link from Hillsboro directly to Fort Worth (see Figure 3.11-2). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-12 

As discussed above for Alternatives C4A and C4B, crossings are less dense south of Hillsboro to 

San Antonio; however, through urban areas near Austin and San Antonio, there is an increase in the 

number of utility crossings compared to rural areas (see Figure 3.11-3).

Electrical facilities in the vicinity of Alternative C4C include 296 electric transmission lines. Of 

these, 58 have a power rating of 69 kV, 195 have a power rating of 138 kV, 42 have a power rating 

of 345 kV, and one proposed line has a power rating of 765 kV. Of the 296 electrical utilities, 290

are existing and six are proposed for future construction. All electrical transmission lines are 

overhead with the exception of five lines that run underground and two lines that run both overhead 

and underground (Platts 2013). Review of aerial imagery indicates that there are approximately 

eight electrical substations in the vicinity of Alternative C4C (Google Earth 2016). Four electrical 

substations are located along the TRE tracks west of Dallas, one is located along the existing BNSF 

tracks south of Dallas, one is located north of Hillsboro, and four are located north of San Antonio.

There are approximately 440 natural gas pipelines of various sizes in the vicinity of Alternative C4C

(Platts 2013). 

3.11.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Electrical transmission facilities and natural gas pipelines are mapped for the Southern Section on 

a regional level, as shown on Figures 3.11-4 and 3.11-5. The figures also show the approximate 

location of electrical substations in the Southern Section EIS Study Area.

Key providers of electricity in the Southern EIS Study Area include AEP Energy Services Inc., AEP 

Texas Central Company, Lower Colorado River Authority, Guadalupe Valley Electric Co-Op, Inc., 

South Texas Electric Co-Op, Inc., City Public Service Board of San Antonio, Magic Valley Electric CoOp, Inc., and Mosbacher Operating Ltd. (Platts 2013)

Key providers of natural gas in the Southern EIS Study Area include Conoco Phillips Company, 

Copano Pipelines South Texas LP, DCP Intrastate Network LLC, DCP Midstream LP, Enerfin Field 

Services LLC, Enterprise Products Operating LLC, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Houston Pipe Line 

Company LP, Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC, Koch Midstream Services Co. LLC, Lobo Pipeline 

Company LP, Oxy USA Inc., Southcross CCNG Transmission Ltd, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 

Texas Gas Service Company, Triad Energy Corporation, Enterprise Products Operating LLC, and 

Tercero Navarro, Inc. (Platts 2013). 

3.11.3.3.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

In the vicinity of Alternative S4, the highest density of utility crossings is located near George West 

south to Alice. A high density of utility crossings is located in urban areas east of Laredo (see Figure 

3.11-4), south to McAllen, and east to Corpus Christi (see Figure 3.11-5). The least number of utility 

crossings occurs in rural areas south of San Antonio (see Figure 3.11-4).

Electrical facilities in the vicinity of Alternative S4 include 79 electric transmission lines. Of these, 

24 have a power rating of 69 kV, 43 have a power rating of 138 kV, 11 have a power rating of 345 

kV, and one proposed line has a power rating of 765 kV. Of the 79 electrical utilities, 73 are 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-13 

existing and six are proposed for future construction. All electrical transmission lines in the vicinity 

of Alternative S4 are overhead (Platts 2013). Review of aerial imagery indicates that there are 

approximately two electrical substations in the vicinity of Alternative S4 (Google Earth 2016). One 

electrical substation is located southeast of San Antonio, and one is located near Harlingen, north 

of Brownsville.

There are approximately 766 natural gas pipelines of various sizes in the vicinity of Alternative S4 

(Platts 2013). 

3.11.3.3.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 is located in rural areas, where there is a low density of utility crossings throughout 

the EIS Study Area (see Figure 3.11-4). 

Electrical facilities in the vicinity of Alternative S6 include 21 electric transmission lines. Of these, 

six have a power rating of 69 kV, 13 have a power rating of 138 kV, and two have a power rating of 

345 kV. Of the 21 electrical utilities, 20 are existing and one is proposed for future construction

(Platts 2013). Review of aerial imagery indicates that there are no electrical substations in the 

vicinity of Alternative S6 (Google Earth 2016).

There are approximately 63 natural gas pipelines of various sizes in the vicinity of Alternative S6 

(Platts 2013). 

Environmental Consequences 

3.11.4.1 Overview 

For this service-level analysis, it is anticipated that effects on utilities would not occur during 

operations because once construction is complete, the utilities would be in fixed locations 

operating independently of the Program; therefore, these utilities would not be affected by Program

operations. This includes electromagnetic interference, which is a disturbance from one electrical 

circuit to another (electromagnetic induction or electrostatic coupling). This can either degrade 

performance, interfere with the utility’s function, or result in corrosion of the utility. However, lack of 

attention to this problem could lead to substantial effects. As a result, track and transmission 

designers include insulation in the design details to avoid these impacts during operations; 

therefore, this effect is not discussed further in this service-level analysis. 

For this utility effect analysis, the level of effect was determined by analyzing the density of utility 

crossings in relation to the probable construction activities that would be required for the 

implementation of each alternative. Negligible effect would be anticipated in areas with few utility 

crossings and where existing tracks would be used and minimal improvements would be 

constructed outside of the existing rights-of-way. Moderate effects may occur in areas with a higher 

density of utility crossings where existing tracks would be used because utilities would need to be 

either relocated or encased during construction. Areas with a higher density of utilities, or where 

fixed utilities are present and where new or elevated tracks would be constructed, could result in a 

substantial effect because the magnitude of construction activities would be greater and would 

require considerable engineering, design, and permitting. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-14 

This utilities effect analysis is service-level and addresses only representative major utilities. 

Project-level analysis would address all utilities and local issues once the alignments are defined. In 

locations where a utility conflict exists and the utility would either need to be relocated or encased, 

construction could result in the potential for disruption of service provided by the utility or the 

potential release of a hazardous substance (e.g., natural gas).

3.11.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect existing utilities.

3.11.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Table 3.11-1 identifies the number of utility crossings in the EIS Study Area for the Northern 

Section.

3.11.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A would extend through both urban and rural locations, with a high density of utility 

crossings located in urban areas as discussed in Section 3.11.3.1.1. Alternative N4A Conventional 

would use the existing BNSF and TRE tracks, and minimal improvements would be constructed 

outside of the existing rights-of-way. Therefore, the potential effects on existing utilities would be 

negligible. 

There are approximately five existing electrical substations located within the Alternative N4A EIS 

Study Area, as discussed in Section 3.11.3.1.1. Alternative N4A Conventional would use the 

existing BNSF and TRE tracks, and minimal improvements would be constructed outside of the 

existing rights-of-way. Therefore, the potential effects on electrical substations would be negligible. 

Potential improvements within and directly adjacent to the existing right-of-way would be unlikely to 

require relocation of existing natural gas pipelines. The effect would be negligible. 

3.11.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Each of the Central Section alternatives has a similar number of identified electrical transmission 

line crossings, with Alternative C4B having the least and Alternative C4C having the most. However, 

Alternative C4C has a higher number of natural gas pipeline crossings than either Alternative C4A 

or C4B. Each of the Central Section alternatives contains electrical substations within the EIS Study 

Area, with Alternative C4C having the most and Alternative C4B having the least. 

Table 3.11-1 identifies the number of utility crossings in the EIS Study Area for the Central Section. 

3.11.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

From Fort Worth, east to Dallas and south to Waxahachie, the Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

alignment follows existing tracks through urban areas where there is a high density of electrical 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-15 

transmission line and pipeline utility crossings. However, because minimal improvements would be 

constructed outside of the existing-rights-of-way, the potential effects on existing utility crossings in 

these locations would be considered negligible compared with the No Build Alternative. Five 

electrical substations are located along the TRE and BNSF tracks; however, because minimal 

improvements would be constructed outside of the existing rights-of-way, the potential effects on 

electrical substations would be considered negligible. 

From Waxahachie south to San Antonio, the Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail alignment would 

enter a new alignment and new track would be constructed, although the alignment would 

generally follow the existing BNSF alignment south to San Antonio. These areas are generally rural 

and have fewer electrical transmission line and natural gas pipeline crossings compared with the 

urban areas near Fort Worth and Dallas. From Waxahachie south, there is potential for the existing 

electrical transmission line and natural gas pipelines to be moved outside the alignment or 

encased to prevent damage. In addition, two electrical substations are located north of San Antonio 

in an area where new track would be constructed; however, this is a rural area and the alignment 

could be located to avoid these substations. Because these areas are generally rural and the 

existing utilities could be either moved or encased or the alignment could potentially be located to 

avoid substations, the potential effects on existing utilities for these areas would be considered 

moderate.

3.11.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

From Fort Worth to Dallas and south to Waxahachie, the Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail alignment 

would be constructed on new high-speed railway alignment elevated track. Because this section of 

the alignment would be constructed on new track through urban areas where there is a high 

density of electrical transmission line and gas pipeline utility crossings and electrical substations, 

the potential effects on existing utilities would be considered substantial compared with the No 

Build Alternative. In addition, because of the high density of electrical transmission line and gas 

pipeline crossings and the magnitude of construction, there is a higher potential for disruption of 

utility service. 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have the same potential for moderate effects on utilities as 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail from Waxahachie south to San Antonio because both 

alternatives would follow the same alignment. 

3.11.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

From Fort Worth to Dallas, the Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail alignment follows existing tracks 

through urban areas where a high density of utility crossings exists. In addition, one substation is 

located within the alignment east of Dallas. Because existing track would be used and no new track 

would be constructed in this location, the potential effects on transmission line and pipeline

crossings would be considered negligible, and the potential effects on substations would be 

considered moderate. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-16 

Between Dallas and Fort Worth, the alternative would turn south to Hillsboro on an alignment 

outside of existing transportation corridors in an area with a high density of utility crossings. 

Because this section of the alignment would be constructed on new track through urban areas 

where a high density of electricity transmission line and pipeline crossings exist, the potential 

effects on existing utilities would be considered substantial compared with the No Build Alternative. 

In addition, because of the high density of utility crossings and the magnitude of construction, there 

is a higher potential for disruption of utility service. 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would have a similar potential for transmission line and pipeline

crossings and substations as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail from Hillsboro south to San 

Antonio, as both alternatives would follow the same alignment south of Hillsboro. New track would 

be constructed in a new alignment through areas with a low density of transmission line and 

pipeline crossings, and the alignment could potentially be located to avoid substations. 

3.11.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

From Fort Worth to Dallas, the Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail alignment would be constructed 

on new high-speed railway elevated track. Because this section of the alignment would be 

constructed on new track through urban areas where there is a high density of electricity 

transmission line and pipeline crossings and substations, the potential effects on existing utilities 

would be considered substantial compared with the No Build Alternative. In addition, because of 

the high density of utility crossings and the magnitude of construction, there is a higher potential for 

disruption of utility service. 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the same potential for moderate effects on utilities as 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail from Hillsboro south to San Antonio, as both alternatives would 

follow the same alignment. New track would be constructed in a new alignment through areas with 

a low density of transmission line and pipeline crossings and the alignment could potentially be 

located to avoid substations. 

3.11.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

As discussed in Section 3.11.3.2.3, Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail requires most of its track to 

be constructed outside of existing transportation corridors, although a segment from Fort Worth to 

Hillsboro would occur parallel to the existing UPRR corridor. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

shares most of its alignment with Alternative C4A. 

Because Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail shares most of its alignment with Alternative C4A, the

same potential for moderate effects would occur as discussed above for Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail (with the exception of the segment from Hillsboro to Fort Worth). The segment between 

Hillsboro and Fort Worth would be constructed parallel to the existing UPRR corridor, on new track, 

through an area with a high density of electricity transmission line and pipeline crossings and one 

substation; therefore, the potential effects on existing utilities would be considered substantial 

compared with the No Build Alternative. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-17 

3.11.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have the same potential for effects on utilities as the

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, as both alternatives would follow the same alignment (with the 

exception of the segment from Hillsboro to Fort Worth). The segment between Hillsboro and Fort 

Worth would be constructed on new track, through an area with a high density of electricity 

transmission line and pipeline crossings and one substation; therefore, the potential effects on 

existing utilities would be considered substantial compared with the No Build Alternative. 

3.11.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Of the Southern Section alternatives, Alternative S4 has more potential for effects, based on the 

presence of a higher density of existing utilities, including substations, within the EIS Study Area 

than Alternative S6. 

Table 3.11-1 identifies the number of utility crossings in the EIS Study Area for the Southern 

Section.

3.11.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

As discussed in Section 3.11.3.3.1, Alternative S4 travels through both urban and rural locations, 

with a high density of electricity transmission line and pipeline crossings located in urban areas. In 

locations where existing tracks would be used and no new track would be constructed, the potential 

effects on existing utilities would be considered negligible compared with the No Build Alternative. 

These areas are either rural or urban, with various densities of utilities, and include areas from San 

Antonio to Alice, a portion of the leg from Alice to Laredo (western portion that follows the Kansas 

City Southern [KCS] tracks), and the leg from Alice to Corpus Christie. 

Alternative S4 also includes rural areas with low density of electricity transmission line and pipeline

crossings where new track would be constructed. These areas include a portion of the section 

south of San Antonio, the leg from Alice to Laredo (eastern portion that does not follow the KCS 

tracks), and the leg from Alice to Brownsville. In these areas, the potential effects on existing 

utilities, which include two substations, would be considered moderate compared with the No Build 

Alternative because there is potential for the existing utilities to be moved outside the alignment, 

encased to prevent damage, or the alignment could potentially be located to avoid the substations. 

3.11.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

As discussed in Section 3.11.3.3.2, Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be constructed and 

operated entirely outside of existing transportation corridors in rural areas where there is a low 

density of electricity transmission line and pipeline crossings and no substations. 

Because construction of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would require construction of new track, 

it would pose a moderate potential effect on existing utilities compared with the No Build 

Alternative. However, there is the potential for existing utilities to be moved outside the alignment 

or encased to prevent damage. In addition, in rural areas, the alignment may be able to be located 

to avoid existing utilities.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-18 

3.11.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on utilities as the Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail because it would follow the same alignment and new track would be 

constructed. This alternative would have a moderate potential effect on existing utilities. 

3.11.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Conventional rail would use existing track, and therefore, Alternative N4A would have a lower 

magnitude of effect than the other alternatives. The higher-speed rail alternatives would require 

new track to be constructed along portions of their alignments. Within urban areas, existing track 

would be used, and existing utilities may not need relocation. Therefore, in general, the higherspeed rail alternatives are anticipated to have moderate or substantial effects depending on the 

alignment. The Central Section High-Speed Rail alternatives would require new track along their 

entire alignments, and all travel would occur through urban areas with high density of electricity 

transmission lines, gas pipelines, and substations, thereby resulting in the potential for substantial 

effects. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would require new track along the entire alignment; 

however, this alternative would travel through rural locations, resulting in the potential for moderate 

effects. 

Table 3.11-2 lists the potential intensity of effects on utilities by alternative. 

Table 3.11-2: Summary of Utility Effects

Section Alternative Potential Intensity of Effects (Negligible, Moderate, or Substantial)a, b 

No Build Alternativec No effect

Northern N4A CONV Negligible 

Central 

C4A HrSR Moderate

C4A HSR Substantial

C4B HrSR Substantial

C4B HSR Substantial

C4C HrSR Substantial

C4C HSR Substantial

Southern 

S4 HrSR Moderate

S6 HrSR Moderate

S6 HSR Moderate

Note: This table is a summary of the effects documented in this section. 

a Limited to construction-phase effects only. 

b The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table; however, alternatives may include additional 

less intense effects depending on urban or rural locations, density of utilities, and if existing or new track would be 

constructed. 

c The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area. However, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-19 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Specific impacts on utilities have not been identified, and, therefore, precise mitigation measures 

cannot be recommended at this time. However, it should be possible to minimize most impacts 

through utility operator/owner involvement during preliminary design of an alternative. If utilities 

are affected, coordination with municipalities and utility owners and operators would be conducted 

to develop relocation and construction phasing plans around peak usage hours to minimize utility 

disruptions.

Proposed general mitigation strategies for potential utility conflicts should first focus on avoidance 

of the potential conflicts. If such conflicts are unavoidable, focus should be on reducing and

minimizing the potential impact. The mitigation strategies would be refined during subsequent 

project-specific analysis. 

Potential strategies to avoid and/or mitigate potential utility conflicts would include the following: 

 Relocate utilities outside of the alignments.

 Make adjustments to the rail alignments and profiles to avoid major utility lines or facilities.

 Provide insulation against electromagnetic interference. 

 Encase existing utilities in strong culverts or conduits where new alignments would cross to 

prevent damage. 

 During final design, consult with each utility provider/owner to avoid or reduce potential impacts 

on existing and planned utilities through design refinements. 

If avoidance is not feasible and adjustment of alignments has not removed potential conflict, 

relocation/reconstruction/restoration of the utility, in close consultation and coordination with the 

utility owner, could be considered as a mitigation strategy.

Subsequent Analysis 

The utilities effect analysis is a service-level analysis and addresses only representative utilities; it 

does not address all utilities and levels of utility service. The subsequent analyses required for 

effects on utilities will be assessed during project-level analysis. Areas of further study will include 

the following: 

 Identification of existing utilities

 Coordination with utility providers to determine utility locations

 Development of plans to minimize utility impacts, including electromagnetic interference 

Project-level analysis will focus on project-specific effects that reflect more precise inventory of the 

existing utilities. Subsequent analysis will include detailed information on the following utilities:

 Electrical facilities 

 Water supply lines 

 Wastewater conveyance lines and water pump stations
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.11 Utilities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.11-20 

 Storm drains

 Fiber-optic lines

 Telecommunication lines

 Pipeline identification to include natural gas, crude oil, petroleum, etc. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-1 

3.12 Geologic Resources 

This section describes the existing geologic conditions, topography, soils, and mineral resources 

within the 500-foot environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area. The broader geologic context 

is also provided in this section, which includes a regional description of geologic formations, 

features, hazards, and geologic risks. The geologic considerations influence the type of construction 

methods used, which, if not adequately considered during project design, could affect the long-term 

operation and safety of the Program. This section discusses the effects of the alternatives on 

geology, soils, and seismicity, and how the soil and geology within the EIS Study Area for the 

proposed alternatives may affect project design, construction, or operation. In addition, mineral 

resources are reported to determine if valuable resources and access to them would be affected by 

the Program. Other sections of this EIS discuss attributes of geologic resources, such as soil 

erodibility (see Section 3.2, Water Quality) and drainage classifications (see Section 3.2, Water 

Quality and Section 3.6, Wetlands). The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study Area and 

use of terms such as Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, along with the standard 

organization of each analysis. 

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable state legislation and regulations pertaining to geologic resources within the EIS Study 

Area are listed and described below. Additional local and regional laws, regulations, orders may be 

applicable and will be addressed in project-level analysis. 

3.12.1.1 State 

 International Building Code. The 2006 and 2009 International Building Codes (Chapter 18), 

published by the International Building Council, Inc., have been adopted by Texas and 

Oklahoma, respectively. The codes require geotechnical investigations to be performed to 

assess the soil and bedrock conditions that may affect the proposed structures and facilities. 

The codes provide engineering design standards for foundations and grading based on the 

site-specific conditions. Minimum standards for earthquake design are also provided for all 

portions of the EIS Study Area.

 Texas Natural Resources Code. State guidance relating to mineral resources are contained in 

the Natural Resources Code of the Texas Statutes (Natural Resources Code, Title 2. Public 

Domain, Subtitle D. Disposition of the Public Domain, Chapter 53. Minerals).

Methodology 

Geology, topography, and mineral resource information was obtained from maps and reports 

available from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and others. Soil information was obtained from 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (under the U.S. Department of Agriculture) and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Supplemental information was obtained from websites 

and cited, as appropriate.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-2 

To evaluate the effects of geologic resources, the following resources within the EIS Study Area 

were assessed: 

 Geologic formations, features, and hazards

 Soil types and associated properties

 The presence of recoverable, mined minerals 

General qualitative conclusions were prepared based on a review of the soils and geologic 

conditions within the EIS Study Area to describe the relative difference in effects among the 

alternatives. The No Build Alternative is the primary basis of comparison.

The design and engineering of each of the alternatives would incorporate geotechnical survey 

results and meet applicable design standards which address geologic hazards in the EIS Study 

Area. The design and construction of the alternatives would be required to follow guidelines of the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, American Railway Engineering 

and Maintenance-of-Way Association, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Texas Department 

of Transportation, and International Building Code. 

The principal geotechnical and geologic risk considerations for project operation include low 

soil-bearing strength, soil settlement, shrink-swell characteristics, corrosive soils, slope instability, 

and ground shaking. For a small part of the EIS Study Area in the Southern Section near the gulf 

coast, land subsidence from extraction of underground resources, such as water or gas, and 

tsunamis may present some risk to the Program. However, with proper incorporation of the design 

guidelines listed above, effects on the stations, structures, and railway would be limited. 

Effects as a result of the route alternatives are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial 

compared with the No Build Alternative. For geologic resources, these terms are defined as follows: 

 Negligible intensity effects are those where there is little to no likelihood for detrimental effects 

to the Program from geologic risks (seismic events, faults, sinkholes) and instability of soils. 

Conditions are relatively flat, soils are stable and compact or with excavation and replacement 

foundation soils would become stable, or bedrock is present at a shallow depth. Also, geologic 

resources are abundant and therefore use of construction materials would not threaten 

availability and/or the Program does not impede access to valuable resources.

 Moderate intensity effects are those where there is a likelihood for detrimental effects to the 

Program from geologic risks (seismic events, faults, sink holes) and from slopes that have some 

areas of instability. Also, geologic resources are available but nearby resources are being 

depleted and/or the Program does impede access to valuable resources, but access can be 

designed into the Program at a higher cost.

 Substantial intensity effects are those where there is a high likelihood for detrimental effects to 

the Program from geologic risks (seismic events, faults, sinkholes) and instability of soils. Also, 

geologic resources are already over-mined and therefore the use of construction materials 

would threaten availability and/or the Program does impede access to valuable resources.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-3 

Affected Environment 

The following subsections describe the geology, soil types, and mineral resources that occur within 

each geographic area of the Program. 

3.12.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.12.3.1.1 Geology 

Nearly the entire length of the Northern Section EIS Study Area is in the Osage Plains and Grand 

Prairie physiographic provinces as shown on Figure 3.12-1 (USGS 1970). The Northern Section is 

underlain by Ordovician to Permian shale, sandstone, and limestone bedrock, with quaternary 

alluvial deposits in many of the Northern Section areas (Heran et al. 2003). 

Generally, the topography of the Northern Section is gradually sloped with gently rolling hills. In 

higher relief areas, such as the Arbuckle Mountains, the rail lines follow low relief valley floors. The 

landscape is derived from a shallow continental sea that covered the region during the Cretaceous 

Period, which deposited carbonate rocks that were overlain by sedimentary deposits from the 

Rocky Mountains. The average relief is between 300 and 500 feet. Rivers generally flow from west 

to east because the plains slope in that direction (Oklahoma Historical Society 2007a). 

Historically, seismic hazards have been of moderate concern in the vicinity of the Northern Section. 

In 1952, an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 near El Reno, Oklahoma, caused a 50-foot-long crack in 

the state capitol building. El Reno is located approximately 20 miles to the west of Oklahoma City 

and in the northernmost extent of the Northern Section EIS Study Area. The largest earthquake on 

record, with a magnitude of 5.6, occurred in 2011 approximately 38 miles to the east of the 

Northern Section EIS Study Area, and caused buckling of pavement on U.S. Highway 62, and 

damages to structures (Los Angeles Times 2011). There has been an increase in shallow, lowmagnitude earthquakes in Oklahoma over the last few years. From 1990 to 1999, 788 

earthquakes were recorded; 358 earthquakes were recorded from 2000 to 2009. The recorded 

earthquakes increased to 1,047 events in 2010, 1,470 events in 2011, 980 events in 2012, and 

2,848 events in 2013. The number of earthquakes in 2014 has already exceeded the number from 

2013 (USGS 2013). The cause of these earthquakes is being studied, but the earthquakes are not 

currently associated with known active faults. Some speculate that the increase may be attributed 

to mineral extraction techniques. These earthquakes, although numerous, generally have not 

affected transportation systems in the area because of the small magnitude. The exceptions are 

two earthquakes that exceeded magnitude 5.0 that occurred within approximately 40 miles of the 

Northern Section. 

The proposed alternatives cross through fault zones, but these geologic faults are classified by 

USGS as inactive. One active fault approximately 60 miles west of the existing railway lines, the 

Meers Fault, is capable of generating a magnitude of up to 7.0 (USGS and University of Texas 

2006) and has moderate potential for strong ground motion. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-4 

Figure 3.12-1: Physiographic Provinces in the EIS Study Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-5 

In areas with soluble subsurface rock, such as limestone, karst topography can form from 

dissolution by groundwater. Surface manifestations include sinkholes, voids, and erratic surface 

drainage, all of which may already exist or manifest in the future. Some carbonate karst features 

may exist below the clay soil in the Northern Section EIS Study Area in southern Oklahoma where 

carbonate rock is mapped (see Figure 3.12-2) (Texas Speleological Survey 2007). 

3.12.3.1.2 Soils 

Soils in the Northern Section consist mainly of gravel, sand, silt, and clay in alluvial and terrace 

deposits; and colluvial soil derived from weathered shale, limestone, sandstone, and siltstone

(Heran et al. 2003). These include water-soluble rocks, such as the carbonate limestone 

formations. Based on a review of NRCS soil mapping, dominant soil series within the Northern 

Section EIS Study Area include a mix of Watonga clay, Urban land, Trinity-Urban land complex, 

Sanger clay, Gracemont fine sandy loam, Bastsil-Urban land complex, and Kiti-rock outcrops. These 

soils generally have shallow slopes (0 to 3 percent) and are moderately well drained to well 

drained. 

The clay soils in the Northern Section EIS Study Area are mapped as having low to moderate 

expansive characteristics or low frequency of expansive behavior (U.S. Army 1983; Luza and 

Johnson 2005). During drought years, an increase in damages to pipelines and roads around 

Oklahoma City have been reported, most likely due to shrinking clay (Flanagan & Associates 2013).

There is potential for encountering high expansive clay in this vicinity. 

3.12.3.1.3 Mineral Resources 

Oklahoma ranked 32nd in the United States for non-fuel mineral production in 2012, with a 

production of value of $651 million. Minerals mined in Oklahoma include coal, limestone, sand and 

gravel, gypsum, clay and shale, granite, ash, Tripoli, salt, bentonite, iron ore, asphalt, copper, and 

chat (Oklahoma Mining Commission 2012). Other minerals mined currently and in the past include 

lead, zinc, copper, manganese, titanium, and uranium. Oklahoma is the nation’s sole producer of 

iodine and often leads the nation in production of gypsum (Oklahoma Historical Society 2007b).

The Northern Section also crosses into northern Texas where sources of sand, gravel, gypsum, and 

limestone are present (University of Texas 2010). 

The Northern Section EIS Study Area does not include identified deposits of coal, which is generally 

located in the eastern portion of Texas and Oklahoma. Zinc mines are present in the Arbuckle 

Mountains, but the Northern Section crosses through these mountains in the alluvial valleys and 

would not affect these deposits. It is possible the Northern Section EIS Study Area overlays sand 

and gravel resources within the alluvial and terrace deposits. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-6 

Figure 3.12-2: Map of Areas with Potential Karst Hazards for the EIS Study Area
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-7 

3.12.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.12.3.2.1 Geology 

The Central Section EIS Study Area is located within the Blackland Prairies physiographic province 

of Texas (University of Texas 1996). The geologic structure beneath the Central Section consists of 

sedimentary beds that dip toward the southeast, resulting in the increasing geologic age of exposed 

formations from east to west. A sharp change in elevation is present along the Balcones 

Escarpment, as shown on Figure 3.12-1, which separates the deeply dissected and hilly limestone 

terrain of the Edwards Plateau from the gently sloping, undulating terrain of the Coastal Plain. This 

escarpment is the result of a crustal movement that caused approximately 700 feet of uplift during 

the Cretaceous Era and left behind faults and disturbances throughout the escarpment area. Most 

of the Central Section EIS Study Area passes beneath the eastern edge of this escarpment. The 

exposed formations consist of Cretaceous marine deposits that include shales, marls, and chalks

(USFS 1994).

Landforms in the Blackland Prairies province are level to rolling plains (USFS 1994). The elevation 

along the Central Section EIS Study Area ranges from approximately 450 to 750 feet and increases 

gradually to the north and west, with an abrupt increase in elevation at the Balcones Escarpment. 

Large rivers that cross the area generally flow southeast and east and have broad, shallow valleys. 

The Central Section EIS Study Area crosses numerous fault zones, especially those associated with 

the Balcones Escarpment. The faults in the Balcones Fault Zone do not show evidence of rupture 

since the Miocene Epoch (12 to 27 million years ago) and are classified by USGS as inactive (USGS 

and University of Texas 2006). 

Historical earthquakes larger than magnitude 4.0 have not been recorded in the vicinity of the 

Central Section EIS Study Area during the last 100 years. Earthquakes with magnitude less than 

3.0 are common at the northern end of the Central Section, near Dallas and Fort Worth (USGS 

2013). 

Karst-susceptible areas are generally located west of the Balcones Escarpment, although some 

localized carbonate karst features may exist below the clay soil in the Central Section EIS Study

Area, especially in the vicinity around Dallas (see Figure 3.12-2) (Texas Speleological Survey 2007). 

3.12.3.2.2 Soils 

Soils within the Central Section are formed from the weathering of limestone, marl, chalk, and 

shale deposited during the Cretaceous Period. These major soil orders include vertisols, mollisols, 

alfisols, entisols, and inceptisols. Soils have a thermic temperature regime, ustic or aquic moisture 

regime, and montmorillontic, mixed, or carbonatic mineralogy (Soil Conservation Service 1981). The 

soils are generally deep. Dominant soil series within the Central Section EIS Study Area include a 

mix of Trinity-Urban land complex, Branyon clay, Urban land, Houston Black clay, and Wilson clay. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-8 

The clay soils present in the Central Section include highly expansive clays, especially within 

geologic formations, such as the Del Rio clay. Historically, there has been extensive damage to 

structures caused by expansive behavior. The majority of the Central Section EIS Study Area is 

mapped as having highly expansive soil or high frequency of occurrence in regards to expansive 

behavior (U.S. Army 1983). 

Landslides or slumping slopes are prevalent along the Balcones Escarpment, but the Central 

Section EIS Study Area is generally below the escarpment in the more gently sloped plains. 

3.12.3.2.3 Mineral Resources 

Texas produced more than $2 billion worth of non-fuel mineral resources in 2012. Minerals mined 

in Texas include sand and gravel, crushed stone, and metals, including silver and titanium. Other 

minerals mined include iron ore, salt, phosphate, clay, bauxite, copper, lead, zinc, soda ash, and 

manganese. Commodities mined within the vicinity of the Central Section EIS Study Area include 

crushed stone, limestone, perlite, sand and gravel, sulfur, and clay (University of Texas 2010).

The predominant mined resources in the Central Section are limestone (for cement), sand and 

gravel, and crushed stone. These resources would be important for infrastructure construction such 

as structures, foundations, and embankments associated with the three route alternatives in the 

Central Section. 

3.12.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.12.3.3.1 Geology 

The Southern Section EIS Study Area is located predominantly in the Interior Coastal Plain 

physiographic province; however, a small portion of the EIS Study Area is in the Coastal Prairies 

physiographic province (refer to Figure 3.12-1). Geologic formations beneath the study area are 

Tertiary marine deposits that include sandstone, mudstone, limestone, shales, and marls (USFS

1994).

The land in the Coastal Plains province gradually rises from the gulf coast towards the west and 

northwest. Landforms are mainly irregular plains, with some flat plains and plains with hills (USFS 

1994). The elevation ranges from approximately 100 to 700 feet along the Southern Section EIS 

Study Area. A few rivers cross the area, and generally flow southeast and east with dendritic 

drainage patterns. 

The Southern Section EIS Study Area crosses fault traces that are scattered through the region. 

Evidence of rupture in Quaternary time has not been observed, and these faults are classified by 

the USGS as inactive (USGS and University of Texas 2006). Within approximately 100 miles of the 

Southern Section EIS Study Area, 17 earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from 3.0 to 4.8 have 

occurred during the past 100 years. Of those events, only two events, one in 1993 and one in 

2011, were greater than magnitude 4.0 (USGS 2013). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-9 

Karst-susceptible areas are generally located north and west of the Balcones Escarpment. As 

shown on Figure 3.12-2 (Texas Speleological Survey 2007) the Southern Section EIS Study Area is 

located below the escarpment, and is not underlain by mapped karst-susceptible areas. 

3.12.3.3.2 Soils 

Soils in the Southern Section were formed from the weathering of marine sediments of limestone, 

shale, and sandstone in addition to alluvial plains. Dominant soil series within the EIS Study Area

include a mix of Victoria clay, Hidalgo sandy clay loam, Maverick-Catarina complex, Duval loamy fine 

sand, Falfurrias fine sand, Nueces fine sand, and Urban land. These soils generally have gently 

rolling or gently undulating slopes and are moderately well drained to well drained. Approximately 

one-half of the Southern Section EIS Study Area is mapped as having highly expansive soil or high 

frequency of occurrence in regards to expansive behavior (U.S. Army 1983). Sand dunes are also 

present within the Southern Section EIS Study Area. 

3.12.3.3.3 Mineral Resources 

Mineral resources mined within the vicinity of the Southern Section include uranium, crushed 

stone, sand and gravel, zeolites, clay, aluminum, and barite (University of Texas 2010). Oil and 

natural gas production is ongoing in areas along the Gulf Coast Plains. It is possible in the Southern 

Section that alignments could traverse deposits of these mineral resources. 

Environmental Consequences 

3.12.4.1 Overview 

This section discusses effects common to the build alternatives-related geology, soil, and mineral 

resources. The alternatives in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections would experience the 

same potential geology, soil, and mineral resources effects; as a result, effects are discussed by 

entire section below, rather than by alternative. 

3.12.4.1.1 Geology- and Soil-Related Hazards 

Geologic conditions are complex in the EIS Study Area, because of uplift and displacements along 

ancient faults. The geologic hazards are similar for the construction and operation phases of the 

Program; therefore, they are not separate discussions in this EIS. 

The geology in the EIS Study Area varies from Ordovician rock formations to Quaternary deposits. 

Many of the geologic formations include clay soil with a known propensity of high shrink/swell 

potential, especially around central Texas. In many years, expansive soil is responsible for more 

damage to structures than all other geologic hazards and natural disasters combined. This is a 

concern because of the affects it may have on the Program. 

Water-soluble rocks, such as the carbonate limestone formations in the EIS Study Area, can lead to 

the development of sinkholes from collapsing underground voids. This is a concern because of the 

effects it may have on the Program. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-10 

Historically, seismic hazards have been negligible in the EIS Study Area. However, parts of 

Oklahoma and Texas have a high occurrence of shallow, low magnitude (up to magnitude 5.6)

earthquakes, especially over the last 5 years. The EIS Study Area crosses numerous fault zones, but 

the geologic faults are classified by the USGS as inactive. For purposes of evaluating significance 

for the EIS Study Area, earthquakes less than magnitude 5.0 generally do not result in damage to 

railway systems significant enough to cause closure of the railway. For example, after the 1989 

Loma Prieta earthquake in California (magnitude 6.9), the Bay Area Rapid Transport was placed 

online within 2 hours following the earthquake (Robinson and Kapoor 2009). For the southeastern 

part of the United States, earthquake events at distances greater than 100 miles are unlikely to 

produce strong ground motion sufficient for causing significant damage to structures; earthquakes 

at farther distances are disregarded.

Liquefaction can occur within alluvial sand deposits when subjected to strong ground motion. 

Generally, liquefaction is of low concern where the peak horizontal ground acceleration from 

earthquakes does not exceed 0.3 g, because only very loose sand is subject to potential 

liquefaction at that level of shaking. Less than 5 percent of the EIS Study Area is mapped with 

characteristic peak ground accelerations above 0.05 g, and the peak ground acceleration is 

unlikely to exceed 0.2 g over any part of the EIS Study Area. The risk of liquefaction effects on the 

route alternatives is, therefore, negligible. 

The effects on or from geologic and soil resources are similar for Program construction and 

operation, except for the following areas. First, the exposure to seismic activity is greatest for longterm operation of the rail services compared with the temporary construction period. Second, 

project construction may require a certain quantity of geologic materials for constructing new 

railway foundations or embankments. No additional materials would be used for operation, but the 

reduction in mineral resources is permanent.

Soil types and geologic formations are indications of stability for the Program structures and 

longevity of service. Soils with high clay content often have high shrink/swell potential and are 

generally poorly suited for railway, road, or foundation bases. Such soils may need to be excavated 

and replaced prior to construction, or treated in place to limit effects on proposed structures. Deep 

foundations can also be used to bypass the zone of moisture fluctuation where 

expansion/contraction occurs. Expansive clays have an effect on construction and operation.

Construction activities may disturb or modify the soils and slopes. The effects of these conditions 

must be managed through standard engineering practices and design to avoid and minimize the 

potential risk to the project and safety during both construction and operation. Landslides can 

occur in fill or cut slopes. Cut slope instability is a concern in much of the EIS Study Area for slopes 

steeper than 4 (Horizontal):1 (Vertical) inclination because of the low-strength, high-plasticity clays. 

Because of the existing geologic conditions, volcanic eruptions, liquefaction from earthquake 

shaking, and ground ruptures from faults would have a negligible effect on all of the alternatives. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-11 

3.12.4.1.2 Mineral Resources 

The presence of recoverable minerals is an indication of the potential for the build alternatives to 

result in removing resources that could be irretrievable. Additionally, the build alternatives may 

affect loss of availability or accessibility of known mineral, petroleum, or natural gas resources of 

regional or statewide value. The effects on these resources are long-term and, therefore, are effects 

attributable to both the construction and operation of the alternatives. 

3.12.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect geology, soils, or

mineral resources. 

3.12.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.12.4.3.1 Geology- and Soil-Related Hazards 

Effects on geological resources from Alternative N4A Conventional would be negligible compared 

with the No Build Alternative because disturbances would be limited to surface elevations, and 

excavation and grading would be minimal because the alternative follows existing railway corridors. 

Landslides would have a negligible effect for this alternative because of the low topographic relief. 

The effect of seismic ground-shaking on Alternative N4A Conventional is potentially substantial, but 

it is of low frequency according to historical seismicity, and structures can be designed in 

accordance with building codes to withstand estimated strong ground motions (see Section 3.12.2, 

Methodology). Therefore, the effect of seismic hazards on the Northern Section EIS Study Area 

would be moderate. 

No active faults are identified in the Northern Section EIS Study Area, and the potential for ground 

surface rupture would be negligible. Strong ground shaking is possible even without active faults, 

as is evident from the increase in earthquakes in recent years, some of which have caused 

damages to structures. 

Water-soluble rocks, such as the carbonate limestone formations in the Northern Section, can lead 

to the development of sinkholes from collapsing underground voids. This is a concern because of 

the effects it may have on the Program. 

The potential for effects in the Northern Section EIS Study Area from expansive clay is estimated to 

be negligible for approximately 80 percent of the length, and moderate to substantial for 

20 percent of the length (Luza and Johnson 2005). Where expansive clays are encountered, the 

clay could be over-excavated and replaced with non-expansive material, or the expansive soil could 

be treated in place with lime or other material to avoid vertical displacement in the track over time 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-12 

to reduce the effect to moderate. The required depth of over-excavation or treatment would depend 

on the depth of moisture fluctuation for the specific areas and would be determined as part of the 

project-level analysis. 

3.12.4.3.2 Mineral Resources 

One active sand mining operation was identified in the Northern Section EIS Study Area. The sand 

mine is located in Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Sand is considered a commonly available resource, 

and the effect from Alternative N4A Conventional on sand mining would be negligible. Additionally,

the track would most likely remain on existing railway rights-of-way. 

Some sand and gravel resources would be used if borrow materials are required for construction of 

additional rail lines, but sand and gravel resources are abundant in the EIS Study Area; therefore, 

the effect would be negligible. Construction effects on other minerals would be negligible. 

3.12.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.12.4.4.1 Geology- and Soil-Related Hazards 

Effects on geologic and topographic resources in the EIS Study Area for the Central Section would 

be negligible compared with the No Build Alternative because disturbances would be limited to 

surface elevations, and excavation and grading would be minimal.

The Central Section EIS Study Area is essentially devoid of seismic activity except for a swarm of 

low-magnitude (less than magnitude 4.0) earthquakes over the last 5 years between Dallas and 

Hillsboro. The potential for ground surface rupture is negligible. The potential for ground motion 

strong enough to damage railways is also negligible based on the absence of earthquakes through 

the Central Section of the EIS Study Area. 

Water-soluble rocks, such as the carbonate limestone formations in the EIS Study Area, can lead to 

the development of sinkholes from collapsing underground voids. The Central Section crosses 

through many zones of potential karst hazards, as shown on Figure 3.12-2. This is a concern 

because of the effects it may have on the Program. 

The construction and operational effects of expansive clays could be substantial, but can be 

avoided and minimized to a moderate effect through in-place treatment or excavation and 

replacement with non-expansive foundation materials Increased settlement and low bearing 

pressures are generally also directly correlated to clay soil with high expansive potential. For 

structures such as elevated railways, deep foundations can be designed to bear below the depth of 

moisture fluctuation. The expansive soil that is prevalent in the Central Section EIS Study Area may 

result in the need for deep foundations. 

The Central Section EIS Study Area is located west of the Balcones Escarpment, and the relatively 

low slope topography means that the potential effect of landslides within the EIS Study Area in the 

Central Section would be negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-13 

3.12.4.4.2 Mineral Resources 

Sand and gravel, crushed stone, clay, and limestone mining operations were identified within the

Central Section EIS Study Area. Effects on mineral resources would be negligible because of the 

lack of active mines currently present within the route alternatives and the abundant availability of 

these resources. 

Limestone (for cement), sand, and gravel would be required for construction. Because the reserves 

for these commodities are substantial and would not be significantly depleted by the alternative, 

construction effects on the minerals would be negligible. 

3.12.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.12.4.5.1 Geology- and Soil-Related Hazards 

Effects in the EIS Study Area for the Southern Section would be negligible for geologic and 

topographic resources compared with the No Build Alternative because disturbances would be 

limited to surface elevations, and excavation and grading would be minimal.

Earthquakes are likely to occur in the vicinity of the EIS Study Area; however, the potential for 

damage to the Program from earthquakes would be negligible because of the potential earthquake 

magnitudes being smaller than 5.0. There are no active faults crossing the EIS Study Area, and 

therefore the potential for ground surface rupture would be negligible in the Southern Section. 

The construction and operational effect of expansive clays would be moderate, based on the ability 

to mitigate the expansive clay through in-place treatment or excavation and replacement with 

suitable foundation materials. 

The Southern Section EIS Study Area is not underlain by bedrock that is conducive to karst 

development. As shown on Figure 3.12-2, karst hazards are not identified to be of concern in the 

Southern Section EIS Study Area. 

The potential effect of landslides on the route alternatives in the Southern Section would be

negligible because the terrain is gently sloped. 

3.12.4.5.2 Mineral Resources 

No active non-fuel mining operations were identified within the South Section EIS Study Area. Oil 

and gas resources exist deep below the Southern Section EIS Study Area. Effects on mineral 

resources would be negligible because of the lack of active mines currently present within the 

Southern Section, and the deep oil and gas resources would not be affected by surface 

infrastructure. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-14 

3.12.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Table 3.12-1 presents the potential intensity of effects from geologic hazards during the 

construction and operational phases after engineering standards are applied during the final 

engineering phase. None of the geologic conditions present a substantial effect for any of the 

alternatives. The table also reflects the potential intensity of effects on inhibiting access to and use

of mineral resources due to the implementation of alternatives. Commitment of nonrenewable and 

irretrievable resources is addressed in Section 3.22. 

Table 3.12-1: Summary of Geology and Soil Effects 

Section Alternativea 

Geologic Risk Hazard Mineral Resources 

Potential Intensity of 

Effects (Negligible, Moderate, Substantial)b 

Potential Intensity of 

Effects (Negligible, Moderate, Substantial) 

No Build Alternativec None No Effect

Northern N4A CONV Moderate Negligible 

Central 

C4A HrSR Moderate Negligible 

C4A HSR Moderate Negligible 

C4B HrSR Moderate Negligible 

C4B HSR Moderate Negligible 

Southern 

S4 HrSR Moderate Negligible 

S6 HrSR Moderate Negligible 

S6 HSR Moderate Negligible 

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

b The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table. However, alternatives may include 

additional, less intense effects depending on specific geologic hazards.

c The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect 

from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Effects described for geologic- and soil-related hazards would be considered negligible to moderate 

because they can be avoided or minimized through design practices that address existing geologic 

and soil conditions. Implementation of engineering standards would be in accordance with local 

requirements or industry standards, including the International Building Code. Erosion and 

sediment control plans will be prepared and implemented at the project level. The loss of 

recoverable minerals would be negligible for all route alternatives. At the project-level NEPA 

evaluation, further review of minerals will consider design avoidance strategies.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.12 Geologic Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.12-15 

Subsequent Analysis 

During the project-level NEPA evaluation, review will include site-specific subsurface investigations, 

in addition to information from published maps documenting regional characteristics. 

Characteristics, such as bearing strength, settlement potential, shrink-swell characteristics, and soil 

corrosivity, require laboratory testing and analyses to evaluate potential impacts on proposed 

structures. Subsequent analyses would include the following: 

 Site geotechnical investigations to determine site-specific underlying geologic and soil 

conditions

 Coordination with the Oklahoma Department of Mines and the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality for details regarding mines within the project vicinity.

TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-1 

3.13 Aesthetic and Visual Resources 

This section provides an overview of the existing aesthetic and visual conditions of the 

environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area and describes a preliminary assessment of the 

potential visual and aesthetic effects of the alternatives on sensitive viewers. Preliminary 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies and further analysis needed in the project-level 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process are identified at the end of this section. The 

introduction to Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study Area and use of terms such as Study Vicinity and 

transportation corridor, along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

3.13.1.1 Federal 

NEPA, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 4321. NEPA requires that all major actions 

sponsored, funded, permitted, or approved by federal agencies undergo planning so that 

environmental considerations are given due weight in decision-making. There are no applicable 

laws, regulations, or executive orders regarding the specific assessment of aesthetic and visual 

resources. Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and will be 

addressed in project-level analysis. 

Methodology 

This assessment is based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) visual impact assessment 

methodology. FRA does not have specific visual assessment guidelines, and defers to the FHWA 

guidance for visual impact assessment. The FHWA methodology has been successfully applied by 

FHWA and state highway departments on a variety of transportation projects (such as rail), to 

evaluate impacts from these projects on visual and aesthetic resources. The FHWA methodology, 

published in the Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects, provides a systematic and 

objective approach to evaluating the visual impacts that would potentially result from 

implementation of proposed transportation projects (FHWA 1988). There are several steps in the 

FHWA approach that are common to all visual impact assessments and are used in this servicelevel assessment. They are as follows: 

1. Determine the areas from which a project could be seen (a project’s “area of visual influence”). 

2. Determine the existing landscape character and visual quality of the areas in which a proposed 

project would be located. 

3. Identify the types and locations of sensitive viewers who might view changes caused by a 

proposed project. 

4. Determine the change (enhancement or degradation) to existing landscape character and visual 

quality from a proposed project after application of avoidance and minimization measures. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-2 

The area of visual influence through which the alternatives would extend and potentially be seen by 

sensitive viewers was determined to consist of a corridor within the 500-foot EIS Study Area. 

Landscape character is an objective assessment of a landscape view that is composed of natural 

and human-built elements. Visual quality is determined by assessing the composition of the 

character defining features of a viewed landscape in terms of how vivid (or memorable) the viewed 

landscape is, how intact (the level of disturbance or visual consistency) it is, and how unified (is it 

harmonious or chaotic?) the landscape is. The FHWA methodology assigns visual quality ratings 

that range from 1 (low) to 7 (high). The Aesthetics and Visual Resources Technical Study (see 

Appendix I) describes these concepts in detail. 

Describing the existing conditions of a project of this scale relied heavily on qualitative descriptions 

that were obtained from several sources. To describe the existing conditions of the alternatives, the 

following sources were consulted:

 3-D Google map applications

 Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping data, which include aerial photographs 

 Knowledge of the Oklahoma and Texas environment and landscape types

After consulting the sources identified above, general descriptions of the landscape setting of the 

areas through which the alternatives would extend were developed and summarized in 

Section 3.13.3, Affected Environment. 

The FHWA visual impact assessment methodology recognizes that a project would be seen by a 

variety of people (or viewer types) with different sensitivities to changes in the landscape that they 

view. The degree of sensitivity (high, medium, or low) to changes in the viewed landscape varies 

among viewer types and affects viewer response to changes associated with a project. Viewer 

sensitivity is strongly influenced by a viewer’s awareness of his or her surroundings, the activities 

they are engaged in (which may distract attention away from the nearby landscape), and the 

amount of time spent looking at a view (viewer duration). Table 3.13-1 identifies typical visual 

sensitivity categories (high, medium, low) that are used in this assessment and describes viewer 

types for each sensitivity category. 

Table 3.13-1: Typical Viewer Sensitivity Categories and Types

Sensitive 

Category Viewer Types Justification for Categorization 

High Resident, park user, tourist, 

sightseeing 

Viewers who seek scenic areas; surroundings are likely

to influence their location choice and affect their overall 

experience of the place and/or their quality of life. 

Medium Office worker, business or 

retail customers, students, 

faculty, members of religious 

congregations

Viewers who expect a somewhat pleasant visual setting 

for the establishments they frequent; however, their 

focus is on daily activities other than viewing the 

landscape.

Low Commuters, industrial workers Viewers who cannot be, or are not, attentive to the 

landscape because they may be focusing on other 

activities or are indifferent to views. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-3 

A purpose of the assessment was to identify sensitive viewer types for the alternatives to determine

the likely effects of the alternatives on sensitive viewers. Viewers with high viewer sensitivity would 

likely be most affected by changes to the viewed landscape as a result of the project. This

assessment focused on residents but also considered other viewers with high sensitivity, such as 

park users and visitors to cemeteries. Viewers of all types who view a landscape that currently 

contains major transportation infrastructure, such as railroads or major highways, would be less 

sensitive to changes to the viewed landscape caused by a proposed project compared with viewers 

who do not currently view railroads or major highway. The four types of viewers with high viewer 

sensitivity that are found in the EIS Study Area include: 

 Urban Residential: Densely populated areas found in urban locations. These include multifamily 

buildings or dense groupings of single-family dwellings. In the areas of visual influence through 

which the alternatives would extend, many of the urban residential areas would be located near, 

or along, existing railroads or major highways that extend through urban areas. 

 Suburban Residential: Less dense than urban residential areas and generally composed of 

single-family dwellings. They are generally found in suburban communities or residential areas 

of small towns. Similar to the urban residential area, many of the suburban residential areas, 

particularly in small to mid-sized towns that were built along railroad lines, are also located in 

the vicinity of major highways. 

 Rural Residential: Isolated rural residences, including clusters or concentrations of rural 

residences. Because there are so many small, scattered areas containing clusters of rural 

residences, selected areas were identified and used to represent potential effects on rural 

residential areas.

 Other Areas with Sensitive Viewers: In addition to residential viewers, people engaged in 

activities of recreation and/or visiting cultural and/or historic sites, as well as cemeteries, are 

concerned with the appearance of the landscape surrounding the locations in which they are 

participating in activities. These people are also considered sensitive viewers. 

The GIS data used in the assessment included aerial photographs along with 3-D Google map 

applications to determine where along the alternatives the four sensitive viewer types were located. 

GIS markers were placed at the beginning and end of sections, including sensitive viewer types. In 

these locations the linear distances of the viewer types were measured and aggregated for each 

alternative. 

Although the section lengths contain various types of sensitive viewers, they are not precise due to 

the limitations of GIS aerial photographs. The quantified data are useful for comparing an 

approximation of how many and what kind of sensitive viewers are found for the alternatives. These 

data were also used for estimating and comparing potential effects to sensitive viewers along each 

alternative. It should also be noted that although actual numbers of residents in the areas were not 

obtained, the relative density of residences per mile was assumed by sensitive viewer type. For 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-4 

example, urban residential areas would contain more residents than suburban residential areas, 

which would in turn have more residents than areas classified as rural residential. 

The determination of the intensity of the effects that the various alternatives would have on

sensitive viewers compared with the No Build Alternative (Section 3.13.4.2) considered the likely 

relative change to the visual quality of landscapes that would be seen by sensitive viewers. 

Although the visual quality of areas along the alternatives was not determined as part of this 

assessment, it is assumed that the general visual quality is average, with occurrences of high visual 

quality and low visual quality areas. To determine the intensity of the effects on sensitive viewers, 

the following factors were considered: 

 Existing landscape setting: Primary considerations included whether the alternative would 

closely parallel existing transportation infrastructure such as existing railroads or major 

highways, extend through areas outside existing transportation corridors, or pass through urban, 

suburban, or rural areas. 

 Anticipated changes to the existing viewed landscape by service type: Key physical 

differentiators were reviewed between conventional rail, higher-speed rail, and high-speed rail 

that would be seen in the viewed landscape. 

 Consideration of the degree of viewer sensitivity to infrastructure-induced changes to the 

viewed landscape: This factor is based on the categories of urban, suburban, and rural 

residents, and other sensitive viewers. 

For this assessment, the intensity of effect is classified as negligible, moderate, or substantial, with 

detailed definitions provided as follows:

 Negligible: A negligible effect would have a low potential to change existing visual quality, 

regardless of viewer sensitivity. 

 Moderate: A moderate effect would occur when there would likely be a reduction in visual 

quality so that sensitive viewers would notice the change, but not enough of a change to be 

considered a substantial effect. 

 Substantial: A substantial effect represents the high likelihood that the alternative would lower 

the existing visual quality of the landscape viewed by nearby sensitive viewers. A substantial 

effect would occur where there would likely be a reduction of general visual quality from high to 

average or from average to low. 

Table 3.13-2 provides an overview by speed convention of the level of potential influence the 

alternatives would likely have on the visual quality of views seen by nearby viewers. The overview 

provided by Table 3.13-2 assisted in determining the intensity of effect on sensitive viewers from 

higher-speed rail and high-speed rail alternatives that are discussed and analyzed in Section 

3.13.4, Environmental Consequences. Because the entire length of Alternative N4A would 

essentially use existing railroad rights-of-way, the required modifications would result in relatively 

minor physical changes to the landscape and its contributing features. In addition, because these 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-5 

changes are already present in the views of nearby sensitive viewers they would likely be minor or 

unnoticeable; therefore, Alternative N4A is not included in Table 3.13-2.

Table 3.13-2: Likelihood That Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail Alignment Types

Would Affect the Visual Quality of Views Seen by Sensitive Viewers 

Sensitive Viewer 

Type 

Alignment Type 

New Rail Alignment 

Within or Next to 

Existing Rail Corridor 

New Rail Next to 

Major Highway 

New Rail Alignment 

Outside of Existing 

Transportation 

Corridors 

Higher-Speed Rail Alternatives 

Urban Residential Low Low High 

Suburban Residential Low Low High 

Rural Residential Low Low Medium

Other Areas with 

Sensitive Viewers

Low Low Medium

High-Speed Rail Alternatives 

Urban Residential Medium Medium High 

Suburban Residential Medium Medium High 

Rural Residential Medium Medium High 

Other Areas with 

Sensitive Viewers

Medium Medium High 

Affected Environment 

3.13.3.1 Overview 

The following sections provide a generalized description of the landscape and aesthetic 

environment within the EIS Study Area for the alternatives in the three geographic sections. Due to 

the scale and variety of environments evaluated in this service-level EIS, a determination of the 

high, average, or low visual quality was not made. It can be assumed that the visual quality of most 

of the areas the build alternatives would pass through would be average, which is the most 

common category of visual quality. It can also be assumed that there would be areas of both high 

and low visual quality along the alternatives, although these areas were not identified as part of this 

service-level assessment. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-6 

3.13.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

The northern portion of this section is in southern Oklahoma in an area of gently rolling topography. 

Between Edmond and Norman, Oklahoma, Alternative N4A would follow the BNSF rail corridor as it 

travels through heavily urbanized areas. South of Purcell and Lexington, the landscape is rural and 

composed of rolling hills covered with forests and dispersed areas of field and row crops, and small 

communities. Just north of Pauls Valley, the BNSF corridor starts to parallel the Washita River, and 

extends in a flat valley along the river and through the Arbuckle Mountains. Much of this area is 

devoted to agriculture, but includes forested areas and a number of small communities. South of 

the Arbuckle Mountains the BNSF corridor extends across a rolling, mostly rural landscape and

through a large urbanized area near Ardmore. 

After crossing the Red River into Texas, the BNSF corridor passes through a flat to rolling rural 

landscape containing a series of widely separated communities. As the BNSF corridor leaves Krum

it enters urbanized areas on its way to the Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC). From 

the Fort Worth ITC east to Dallas Union Station (DUS), Alternative N4A would follow the Trinity 

Railway Express (TRE) corridor through a heavily urbanized, flat landscape. 

3.13.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

All three Central Section alternatives would provide access between Fort Worth and Dallas and 

south to Austin and San Antonio. The combinations of routes that would provide access to these 

four cities and areas in between them would differ by alternative. 

3.13.3.3.1 Alternative C4A 

From the Fort Worth ITC east to the DUS, and north via a spur to the Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport, Alternative C4A would pass through urbanized areas composed of residential, commercial, 

industrial, airport related, and vacant lands. From the DUS south to Waxahachie, Alternative C4A 

would extend along a BNSF corridor through areas that are largely urbanized and contain industrial 

areas, lower-density suburban residential areas, and the centers of established communities 

(including residential neighborhoods). South of Waxahachie, the alternative would leave the BNSF 

corridor and urbanized areas and extend along a new rail alignment. The route would generally 

parallel Interstate Highway (IH)-35 to Hillsboro as it passed through largely rural areas composed of 

agricultural lands and scattered communities. 

From Hillsboro to San Antonio, the alternative would follow IH-35 as it passed near or through a 

number of small communities with residential areas, as well as Waco and Temple. After passing

through downtown Waco, the alternative would cross the Brazos River and continue through flat 

agricultural lands to Temple. After departing Temple, the alternative would pass near Granger and 

through Taylor. Before entering Austin, the alternative would pass rural residential areas and cross 

the Colorado River. It would connect with, and extend through, the Austin-Bergstrom International 

Airport. After departing the airport, the alternative would extend along a new rail alignment through 

a largely agricultural landscape containing scattered rural residential areas to the western outskirts 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-7 

of Lockhart. From Lockhart, the alternative would cross the San Marcos River, extend between New 

Braunfels and Seguin, pass over the Guadalupe River, and continue southwest towards San 

Antonio. At Shertz, Alternative C4A would enter the San Antonio urbanized area and pass next to 

residential and commercial developments on its way to the San Antonio International Airport. 

3.13.3.3.2 Alternative C4B 

From the Fort Worth ITC, Alternative C4B would head east along the TRE through a flat area that is 

primarily industrial and would cross over to the median of IH-30 and pass through heavily 

developed residential and commercial areas. From the DUS, Alternative C4B would head south and 

west within the UPRR corridor through industrial areas and several residential neighborhoods. The 

alignment would intersect IH-30 and continue in the median of the freeway to the State Highway 

(SH)-360 (the Angus G. Wynne Jr. Freeway) departure point. 

From the SH-360 departure point, Alternative C4B would travel south through rolling terrain and 

residential areas past Joe Pool Lake to U.S. Highway (US)-287. South of US-287, Alternative C4B 

would leave the SH-360 corridor and continue south along a new rail alignment to just north of 

Hillsboro, where it would connect with the IH-35 corridor and follow the same route to San Antonio 

described above for Alternative C4A. 

3.13.3.3.3 Alternative C4C 

Alternative C4C would form a loop from Hillsboro where it would head north to Fort Worth, east to 

Dallas, and south back to Hillsboro. The portion of the loop between Fort Worth and Dallas and 

south from Dallas to Hillsboro would be the same as the route that would be used for Alternative 

C4A, described above. The portion of the alternative from Fort Worth to Hillsboro is unique and is 

described below. 

From the Fort Worth ITC, Alternative C4C would head south through urbanized Fort Worth along an 

existing BNSF rail corridor and connect with a UPRR corridor. The northern part of this alternative 

would pass a mixture of land uses including industrial, commercial, and urban residential 

neighborhoods. Between the IH-820 loop and the town of Burleson, Alternative C4C would pass 

near a series of residential subdivisions and open areas, including parks. From Burleson south to 

Hillsboro, Alternative C4C would extend through generally flat agricultural lands and small 

communities such as Alvarado, Grandview, and Itasca that contain residential areas before passing 

through Hillsboro and traveling to San Antonio via the route described above for Alternative C4A. 

3.13.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Both of the route alternatives in the Southern Section would begin in San Antonio, but would take 

different routes to the cities located at the alternatives terminus. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-8 

3.13.3.4.1 Alternative S4 

Alternative S4 would follow the UPRR corridor southeast through San Antonio to IH-37 while 

traveling through a mix of land uses that include industrial, commercial, and numerous residential 

areas. The UPRR corridor the alternative would follow generally parallels IH-37/US-281 through the 

Lipan Hills to north of the town of Three Rivers. At Three Rivers it would depart the UPRR corridor 

and extend via a new rail alignment east of US-281 to the town of Alice. The portion of the route 

between the urbanized fringes of San Antonio and Alice would extend through a mixture of 

agriculture, undeveloped areas, and lands that have received extensive energy exploration and 

development. This area is generally sparsely populated, but isolated rural residences and clusters 

of rural residences are found on the outskirts of towns like Leming and Pleasanton. 

From Alice, Alternative S4 has legs that would head in three different directions. The southern leg 

would pass isolated rural residences as well as clusters of rural residences south of Alice, before 

extending through a series of oil fields where exploration activities and production are evident. It 

would parallel US-281 through the towns of Fremont and Falfurrias and would depart US-281 north 

of Encino. From this point, the alternative would extend south through flat sparsely populated areas 

to the Rio Grande Valley and on to McAllen, where it would pass near a number of suburban and 

urban residential areas. From McAllen, Alternative S4 would head east through the Rio Grande 

Valley along an existing rail corridor to Harlingen. This portion of Alternative S4 would pass through 

largely developed areas that include residential areas and a number of small towns. 

The western leg would leave Alice and follow the Kansas City Southern (KCS) railroad corridor past 

scattered residential areas before traveling through the town of San Diego. From San Diego, 

Alternative S4 would extend towards Laredo along a new rail alignment that would traverse a series 

of oil fields and sparsely populated areas. As the alternative would approach Laredo, it would pass 

residential areas and Casa Blanca Lake before ending near Laredo International Airport.

The eastern leg would extend east along the KCS railroad corridor through flat agricultural lands 

and near several small towns, such as Agua Dulce, Banquete, and Robstown. Alternative S4 would 

pass isolated rural residences, clusters of rural residences, and suburban residential areas before 

terminating at Corpus Christi International Airport.

3.13.3.4.2 Alternative S6 

From San Antonio, Alternative S6 (higher-speed and high-speed) would follow the UPRR corridor 

southwest past industrial lands and scattered residential areas. It would pass under the IH-410 

loop and travel to the eastern edge of the Von Ormy Oil Field. The alternative would depart the 

UPRR corridor in the oil field and continue southwest between IH-35 through unpopulated areas 

that are undeveloped and/or have received extensive energy exploration. Alternative S6 would then 

pass the outskirts of small towns such as Lytle, Devine, and Pearsall, where it would pass isolated 

rural residences and clusters of rural residences. The alternative would pass over features such as 

the Nueces River and US-83 before terminating at the Mexico border. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-9 

3.13.3.5 Existing Sensitive Viewers Near the Alternatives 

To assess potential visual and aesthetic effects, it was necessary to establish where sensitive 

viewers were located along the alignment types associated with the alternatives. Table 3.13-3 

identifies existing conditions found along the alignments type alternatives in terms of miles of 

existing sensitive viewers by type. This table is not intended to assess effects of the alternatives on 

sensitive viewers (Table 3.13-4 in Section 3.13.4.6 summarizes the effects of the alternatives on 

sensitive viewers). While actual design development may change the detail of the final alignments, 

for this assessment, higher-speed rail and high-speed rail alternatives that pass through the same 

aesthetic and visual resource study area were assumed to pass by the same existing sensitive 

viewers identified in Table 3.13-3. 

Table 3.13-3: Miles of Existing Sensitive Viewer Types Adjacent to Each Alternative 

Viewer Types 

Alignment Type (miles) 

Total Miles 

Near 

Sensitive 

Viewers 

Existing 

Rail 

Corridor 

New Rail 

Alignment 

New Rail 

Alignment 

Next to Major 

Highway 

Alternative N4A 

Urban Residential 3 1 1 5 

Suburban Residential 22 1 1 24

Rural residential 10 1 2 13

Other Areas with Sensitive Viewers 6 0 1 7 

Total Miles Near 

Sensitive Viewers 41 3 5 49 

Alternative C4A 

Urban Residential 2 0 1 3 

Suburban Residential 16 1 4 21

Rural Residential 3 8 2 13

Other Areas with Sensitive Viewers 6 2 2 10

Total Miles Near Sensitive 

Viewers 27 11 9 47 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-10 

Viewer Types 

Alignment Type (miles) 

Total Miles 

Near 

Sensitive 

Viewers 

Existing 

Rail 

Corridor 

New Rail 

Alignment 

New Rail 

Alignment 

Next to Major 

Highway 

Alternative C4B 

Urban Residential 2 1 9 12

Suburban Residential 10 1 7 18

Rural Residential 3 10 0 13

Other Areas with Sensitive Viewers 3 1 2 6 

Total Miles Near Sensitive 

Viewers 18 13 18 49 

Alternative C4C 

Urban Residential 5 0 1 6 

Suburban Residential 25 1 4 30

Rural Residential 5 8 2 15

Other Areas with Sensitive Viewers 7 2 2 11

Total Miles Near Sensitive 

Viewers 42 11 9 62 

Alternative S4 

Urban Residential 5 1 0 6 

Suburban Residential 16 7 10 33

Rural Residential 3 5 2 10

Other Areas with Sensitive Viewers 0 0 1 1 

Total Miles Near Sensitive 

Viewers 24 13 13 50 

Alternative S6 

Urban Residential 0 0 0 0 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-11 

Viewer Types 

Alignment Type (miles) 

Total Miles 

Near 

Sensitive 

Viewers 

Existing 

Rail 

Corridor 

New Rail 

Alignment 

New Rail 

Alignment 

Next to Major 

Highway 

Suburban Residential 0 2 0 2 

Rural Residential 0 16 0 16

Other Areas with Sensitive Viewers 0 0 0 0 

Total Miles Near 

Sensitive Viewers 0 18 0 18 

Source: The data source for the information in this table was from the GIS data developed internally by CH2M HILL. 

Environmental Consequences 

3.13.4.1 Overview 

This section assesses whether or not the alternatives evaluated in this EIS would lower or 

potentially enhance the visual quality of the existing environment seen by sensitive viewers. 

Because conventional rail would use existing railroad rights-of-way in most places, it would 

introduce limited changes to existing aesthetic and visual conditions and visual quality. In areas 

where new tracks, double tracks, or roadway crossings might be needed, conventional rail could

change the aesthetic and visual conditions of adjacent areas, but the likelihood of the changes 

reducing visual quality would be low. 

Where higher-speed rail alternatives are proposed to be located within or next to existing rail or 

transportation corridors, the presence of the higher-speed tracks would not be out of character for 

a transportation corridor containing major infrastructure elements that are currently part of the 

viewed landscape. The presence of the higher-speed rail alternatives would likely not detract from 

the existing visual quality of views toward portions of the rail corridors that are already seen by 

nearby sensitive viewers. 

Where higher-speed rail alignments would be constructed outside of existing transportation 

corridors, there would be a high potential to lower the visual quality of the areas they would pass 

through that are seen by sensitive viewers. Where new tracks (and support features such bridges 

and fencing) outside of existing transportation corridors would be constructed near sensitive 

viewers in densely populated areas containing urban and suburban residential viewers, it is 

assumed that they would potentially lower visual quality more than other areas, resulting in 

substantial effect to sensitive viewers. Although these potential effects could also be experienced 

by sensitive rural residential and other viewers (e.g., from parks), it is assumed that views of the 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-12 

new higher-speed rail alignments outside of existing transportation corridors would alter the viewed 

landscape to a lesser degree than in more densely populated areas and would likely produce fewer 

changes to visual quality. This is based upon a broad assessment of the rural areas where there 

are fewer viewers than in urban and suburban areas. A service-level review of rural residential 

areas along several alignments using GIS aerial maps indicted that existing vegetation and other 

outbuildings would frequently screen or partially screen views from residences toward the 

alignments. 

High-speed rail alternatives are the least adaptable of the service types in terms of attempting to 

align them in ways that would reduce visual and aesthetic effects. This is because they require 

greater turning radii and more elevated structures to maintain grade-separations than higher-speed 

rail alignments. They also would produce more alteration of the landscape beyond existing rail 

corridors compared with the higher-speed rail alternatives. Therefore, when high-speed rail 

alternatives would extend into or near an existing rail or major highway corridor, the intensity of 

their effects on sensitive viewers would be assumed to be moderate, rather than the negligible

intensity effects associated with higher-speed rail alternatives. New high-speed rail alternatives 

located outside of existing transportation corridors, including areas with rural residents and viewers 

from other sensitive areas located outside of existing transportation corridors, would alter the 

viewed landscape to a greater degree than higher-speed rail alternatives, and would likely be very 

noticeable to all sensitive viewer types. 

3.13.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect visual resources. 

3.13.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.13.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Most of the 49 miles of Alternative N4A Conventional that would pass sensitive viewers would use 

existing railroad rights-of-way, as reflected in Table 3.13-3. Modifications that would be required 

along existing railroad rights-of-way would result in relatively minor physical changes to the 

landscape. These changes would likely be unnoticeable to sensitive viewers and would have 

negligible effects. In areas were new rail would be required next to sensitive viewers in urban and 

suburban areas, the alternative would produce approximately 2 miles of substantial effects. New 

rail next to areas containing scattered rural residences and areas with other sensitive viewers 

would produce moderate effects along approximately 1 mile of the alternative (see Table 3.13-4 in 

Section 3.13.4.6). 

Effects of light and glare would be possible during night-time operation of the trains in areas where 

there is no existing transportation infrastructure, at stations and parking facilities, and at 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-13 

maintenance facility locations. Generally, the larger the infrastructure, the more potential there 

would be for light and glare effects. Therefore, because conventional rail would follow existing rail 

alignments used by trains (which includes light and glare produced by trains, Alternative N4A would 

have the least potential for producing effects from light and glare. Detailed analysis regarding the 

potential for these effects will be conducted during project-level analysis. 

Construction activities that would disrupt the landscape and potentially affect sensitive viewers 

would be temporary and would likely include mobilization and ground preparation, including utility 

relocation and staging areas for storing materials and equipment. Staging and storage would be 

located on vacant land or within rights-of-way, and would likely be surrounded by fencing. 

Mechanized equipment, lights for evening work, material storage and delivery, and the removal of 

excavated material would be seen to varying degrees by sensitive viewers near the construction 

activities. The closer the construction location is to nearby sensitive viewers, the greater the 

likelihood that the viewers would find construction activities aesthetically and visually disruptive. 

Because construction activities would be experienced by the sensitive viewers affected by project 

operations, and because locations where construction-period activities would occur are not known 

at this time, this service-level evaluation does not differentiate between effects associated with 

construction and operation phases. 

Based on the assessment conducted while taking into account the length of this alternative (49 

miles that would pass sensitive viewers) and the context of potential effects (1 mile of moderate 

effects and 2 miles of substantial effects) the overall intensity of effects for Alternative N4A 

Conventional Rail would be negligible. 

3.13.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.13.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would pass approximately 47 miles of sensitive viewers and have

substantial effects along approximately 1 mile of its route, moderate effects along 10 miles, and 

negligible effects along 36 miles (see Table 3.13-4 in Section 3.13.4.6). The 1 mile of substantial 

effects would be attributed to new rail alignments outside existing transportation corridors adjacent 

to scattered residential areas in or near Lancaster, Waco, Lorena, Bruceville-Eddy, Troy, and 

Temple. Approximately 10 miles of moderate effects would occur along new rail alignment in areas 

outside existing transportation corridors along segments in the vicinity of IH-35 between Dallas and 

Waxahachie, Waxahachie and Hillsboro, Hillsboro and Waco, Waco and Temple, Temple and Austin, 

and Austin and the outskirts of San Antonio near Selma. Moderate effects would also occur near 

other areas with sensitive viewers, in areas such as Harmon Field Park and the East Fork Trinity 

River in Fort Worth; sections of the Trinity River in Fort Worth and Dallas; Country View Golf Course 

and Bear Creek Nature Park south of Lancaster; Red Oak Valley Golf Club in Red Oak; Waxahachie 

City Cemetery and Rickards Park in Waxahachie; Lake Waxahachie; Lions Park and Greenwood 

Cemetery in Bellmead; Fort Fisher Park and First Street Cemetery in Waco; a park on S. 11th Street 

and W. Central Avenue in Temple; and Richard Moya Park in Del Valle. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-14 

The potential effects of light and glare described under Alternative N4A Conventional would be 

similar to the sections of this alternative that would require new alignments near sensitive viewers 

and who would also view the light and glare produced from passing trains. As described above, 

detailed analysis regarding the potential for effects from light and glare will be conducted during 

project-level analysis. Construction activities for this alternative would disrupt more of the 

landscape and potentially temporarily affect more sensitive viewers than Alternative N4A 

Conventional. Therefore, the description of construction impacts would be greater than those 

identified for Alternative N4A Conventional due to the additional areas of new rail alignment. 

Based on the assessment and considering the miles of this alternative (47 miles), along with the 

context of potential effects (10 miles of moderate and 1 mile of substantial effects) the overall 

intensity of effects for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be moderate.

3.13.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

The alterations to the landscape that would be required with Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would 

result in substantial effects on sensitive viewers along approximately 11 miles of the 47-miles of 

the route that would be near sensitive viewers and moderate effects along its remaining 36 miles

(see Table 3.13-4 in Section 3.13.4.6). Substantial effects would occur where new rail alignments 

outside of existing transportation corridors would be required near approximately 1 mile of 

suburban residential areas and 8 miles near rural residences along segments of the route in, near, 

or between Lancaster, Waco, Lorena, Bruceville-Eddy, Troy, and Temple. Substantial effects on 

approximately 2 miles of areas where other sensitive viewers are located would occur in or near 

areas such as Harmon Field Park and the East Fork Trinity River in Fort Worth; sections of the 

Trinity River in Fort Worth and Dallas; Country View Golf Course and Bear Creek Nature Park south 

of Lancaster; Red Oak Valley Golf Club in Red Oak; Waxahachie City Cemetery and Rickards Park in 

Waxahachie; Lake Waxahachie; Lions Park and Greenwood Cemetery in Bellmead; Fort Fisher Park 

and First Street Cemetery in Waco; a park on S. 11th Street and W. Central Avenue in Temple; and 

Richard Moya Park in Del Valle. Moderate effects would occur where the alternative would be sited 

in or near existing rail corridors and major highways along the portion of Alternative C4A that would 

follow the TRE between Fort Worth and Dallas and along existing rail and highway corridors 

between Dallas and Waxahachie; within or near Hillsboro and San Antonio; and in communities 

between Hillsboro and San Antonio such as West, Waco, Lorena, Bruceville, Temple, and Taylor. 

The effects of light and glare described under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be similar to 

the sections of this alternative in areas that would require new alignments. This would be 

applicable in areas near sensitive viewers who would view the light and glare produced from 

passing trains. As discussed previously, detailed analysis regarding the potential for effects from 

light and glare will be conducted during project-level analysis. Construction activities for this 

alternative, based on the requirement for a fully access-controlled and grade-separated alignment, 

would likely disrupt more of the landscape and temporarily affect more sensitive viewers than 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Based on the assessment and considering the length of this 

alternative (47 miles), along with the context of potential effects (36 miles of moderate and 11 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-15 

miles of substantial effects), the overall intensity of effects for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

would be substantial.

3.13.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would pass approximately 49 miles of areas containing sensitive 

viewers. Substantial effects would occur along approximately 2 miles of its route, moderate effects 

along 11 miles, and negligible effects along 36 miles, as provided in Table 3.13-4 in Section 

3.13.4.6. The substantial effects would occur near urban and suburban residential areas where 

new rail alignment outside existing transportation corridors would be required along small 

segments of the route between Waco and San Antonio. Moderate effects would occur along a 

series of small rural residential areas near new rail alignments outside existing transportation 

corridors including rural residences between US-287 and Hillsboro, Hillsboro and Waco, Waco and 

Temple, Temple and Austin, and Austin and the outskirts of San Antonio near Selma. Moderate 

effects would also occur near several areas with other sensitive viewers. 

The effects of light and glare described under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be similar to 

the sections of this alternative in areas that would require new alignments in areas containing

sensitive viewers who would view the light and glare produced from passing trains. This is 

particularly applicable to the new elevated alignment over IH-30 in Arlington. As discussed 

previously, detailed analysis regarding the potential for effects from light and glare will be 

conducted during project-level analysis. Construction activities for this alternative would be similar 

to the temporary effects associated with Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. 

Based on the assessment conducted and evaluating the length of this alternative (49 miles near 

sensitive viewers), while also considering the context of potential effects (11 miles of moderate and

2 miles of substantial effects) the overall intensity of effects for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail

would be moderate. 

3.13.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

This high-speed rail alternative would pass near approximately 49 miles of sensitive viewers. 

Substantial effects would occur along approximately 13 miles of the alternative and moderate 

effects along 36 miles. Substantial effects would occur along small segments of the route where 

new rail alignments outside existing transportation corridors would be required. These areas would 

include urban and suburban residential areas between Waco and San Antonio and rural residential 

areas between US-287 and Hillsboro, Hillsboro and Waco, Waco and Temple, Temple and Austin, 

and Austin and the outskirts of San Antonio near Selma. Moderate effects to urban and suburban 

residents would occur were the alternative would follow existing transportation corridors along 

IH-30 between Fort Worth and Dallas and along SH-360 between Arlington and US-287. Moderate 

effects on other sensitive viewers would occur along existing rail corridors between Hillsboro and 

San Antonio and along segments of the route in the vicinity of West, Waco, Lorena, Bruceville, 

Temple, Taylor, and San Antonio. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-16 

The effects of light and glare described under Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be similar 

for this alternative in areas that would require new alignments near sensitive viewers who would 

view the light and glare produced from passing trains. As discussed for the C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

alternative, the new elevated alignment over IH-30 in Arlington would be an additional and 

applicable feature. Also as discussed previously, detailed analysis regarding the potential for 

effects from light and glare will be conducted during project-level analysis. Construction activities 

for this alternative, based on an access-controlled and grade-separated alignment, would likely 

disrupt more of the landscape and temporarily affect more sensitive viewers than Alternative C4B

Higher-Speed Rail. 

Drawing from the assessment conducted and length of this alternative (49 miles), along with the 

context of potential effects (36 miles of moderate and 13 miles of substantial effects), the overall 

intensity of effects for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be substantial.

3.13.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would travel past approximately 62 miles of sensitive viewers. It 

would have substantial effects along approximately 1 mile of its route, moderate effects along 10 

miles, and negligible effects along the remaining 51 miles. Substantial effects on urban and 

suburban residential areas would be found along small segments of the new rail alignment in or 

near Lancaster, Waco, Lorena, Bruceville-Eddy, Troy, and Temple. Moderate effects to rural 

residences and areas with other viewers would occur outside of existing transportation corridors in 

areas between US-287 and Hillsboro, Hillsboro and Waco, Waco and Temple, Temple and Austin, 

and Austin and the outskirts of San Antonio near Selma. 

The effects of light and glare described under Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be similar 

for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail in areas that would require new alignments near sensitive 

viewers who would view the light and glare produced from passing trains. As discussed in the 

previous alternatives, detailed analysis regarding the potential for effects from light and glare will 

be conducted during project-level analysis. Construction activities for this alternative would be 

similar to the temporary effects associated with the C4A and C4B Higher-Speed Rail alternatives. 

Drawing from the assessment conducted and considering the length of this alternative (62 miles 

near sensitive viewers), along with the context of potential effects (10 miles of moderate and 1 mile 

of substantial effects), the overall intensity of effects for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would 

be moderate. 

3.13.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

This high-speed rail alternative would pass near approximately 62 miles of sensitive viewers. 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have substantial effects on the landscape seen by sensitive 

viewers along 11 miles of its route and moderate effects along 51 miles. Substantial effects would 

occur near areas requiring new rail alignments outside existing transportation corridors. 

Approximately 2 miles of the substantial effects would be adjacent to segments of suburban areas 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-17 

in or near Lancaster, Waco, Lorena, Bruceville-Eddy, Troy, and Temple, and 9 miles would be near a 

series of small rural residential areas and areas with other sensitive viewers between US-287 and 

Hillsboro, Hillsboro and Waco, Waco and Temple, Temple and Austin, and Austin and the outskirts 

of San Antonio near Selma. Moderate effects would occur along segments of existing transportation 

corridors between Fort Worth and Dallas, Dallas and Waxahachie, Waxahachie and Hillsboro, 

Hillsboro and San Antonio, and Fort Worth and Hillsboro. 

The effects of light and glare described under Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be similar for 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail in areas that would require new alignments near sensitive 

viewers who would view the light and glare produced from passing trains. As discussed in the 

previous alternatives, detailed analysis regarding the potential for effects from light and glare will 

be conducted during project-level analysis. Construction activities for this alternative, based on an 

access-controlled and grade-separated alignment, would likely disrupt more of the landscape and 

temporarily affect more sensitive viewers than the C4C Higher-Speed Rail alternative. 

Drawing from the assessment conducted and considering the length of this alternative (62 miles 

near sensitive viewers), along with the context of potential effects (11 miles of substantial and 10 

miles of moderate effects), the overall intensity of effects for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would 

be substantial. 

3.13.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.13.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would pass approximately 50 miles of sensitive viewers. 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have substantial effects along 8 miles of its route, 

moderate effects along 5 miles, and negligible effects along the remaining 37 miles. Substantial 

effects on suburban and urban residential areas would be found in and near communities such as 

Alice, Falfurrias, McAllen, Mercedes, and Harlingen. Moderate effects would occur along 5 miles of 

the alternative near a series of rural residential areas, most of which would be along the IH-37 

corridor. 

The effects of light and glare described under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be similar to 

the sections of this alternative in areas that would require new alignments. This would be 

applicable in areas near sensitive viewers who would view the light and glare produced from 

passing trains. As discussed previously, detailed analysis regarding the potential for effects from 

light and glare will be conducted during project-level analysis. Construction activities for this 

alternative would be similar to the temporary effects associated with the C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

alternative. 

Drawing from the assessment conducted and considering the length of this alternative (50 miles 

near sensitive viewers), along with the context of potential effects (8 miles of substantial and 5 

miles of moderate effects) the overall intensity of effects for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would 

be moderate. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-18 

3.13.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would pass near approximately 18 miles of areas with sensitive 

viewers. It would have substantial effects along approximately 2 miles of its route and moderate 

effects along 16 miles. The substantial effects would be on suburban residential areas in San 

Antonio. Moderate effects would occur along areas of new rail alignment that would pass rural 

residential areas between San Antonio and a location west of Dilley. 

The effects of light and glare described under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be similar to 

the sections of this alternative in areas that would require new alignments. This would be 

applicable in areas near sensitive viewers who would view the light and glare produced from 

passing trains. As discussed previously, detailed analysis regarding the potential for effects from 

light and glare will be conducted during project-level analysis. Construction activities for this 

alternative would be similar to the temporary effects associated with Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail.

Drawing from the assessment conducted and considering sensitive viewers within the length of this 

alternative (18 miles near sensitive viewers), along with the context of potential effects (2 miles of 

substantial and 16 miles of moderate effects), the overall intensity of effects for Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail would be moderate.

3.13.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

This high-speed rail alternative would have substantial effects along 18 miles of its route, 2 miles of 

which would occur near suburban residential areas in southwest San Antonio where new rail line 

outside of existing transportation corridors would be required. The rest of the substantial effects 

would occur where new rail line outside of existing transportation corridors would pass residents in 

along the portion of the route south of San Antonio and west of Dilley. 

The effects of light and glare described under Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be similar to 

the sections of this alternative in areas that would require new alignments. This would be 

applicable in areas near sensitive viewers who would view the light and glare produced from 

passing trains. As discussed previously, detailed analysis regarding the potential for effects from 

light and glare will be conducted during project-level analysis. Construction activities for this 

alternative would be similar to the temporary effects associated with Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail. Construction activities for this alternative, based on an access-controlled and grade-separated 

alignment, would likely disrupt more of the landscape and temporarily affect more sensitive viewers 

than Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Drawing from the assessment conducted and considering the length of this alternative (18 miles 

near sensitive viewers), along with the context of potential effects (18 miles of substantial effects), 

the overall intensity of effects for Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be substantial. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-19 

3.13.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Each of the alternatives in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections of the project area contains 

areas where the alternatives would potentially have substantial effects on sensitive viewers. Most

of the alternatives would produce considerably more moderate or negligible effects on sensitive 

viewers than substantial effects, with the exception of the high-speed rail alternatives in the Central 

and Southern sections.

Alternative N4A Conventional would potentially affect the fewest sensitive viewers because most of 

its alignment would follow existing rail corridors. For the Central and Southern section alternatives, 

the primary difference in potential effects is between the higher- and high-speed conventions and 

the corresponding features. Because high-speed rail alignments would be fully access-controlled, 

grade-separated, require greater turning radii, include more elevated structures, and more new rail 

alignment outside of existing transportation corridors than other service types, high-speed rail 

alternatives would have a greater potential to alter the landscape seen by sensitive viewers than 

other service-type alternatives. All of the high-speed rail alternatives would potentially have 

substantial effects on more miles of landscape seen by sensitive viewers than the higher-speed 

alternatives for the same route. The high-speed alternatives would also have more moderate 

effects on sensitive viewers than their corresponding higher-speed rail alternatives. Table 3.13-4 

summarizes the intensity of the effects of the alternatives on sensitive viewers. 

Table 3.13-4: Miles of Effects near Areas with Sensitive Viewers

Section Alternative 

Effect Category (miles) Total Miles 

of Effects 

Near 

Sensitive 

Viewers 

Intensity 

Negligible Moderate Substantial of Effect 

No Build Alternativea 0 0 0 0 

Northern N4A CONV 46 1 2 49 Negligible 

Central 

C4A HrSR 36 10 1 47 Moderate

C4A HSR 0 36 11 47 Substantial

C4B HrSR 36 11 2 49 Moderate 

C4B HSR 0 36 13 49 Substantial

C4C HrSR 51 10 1 62 Moderate 

C4C HSR 0 51 11 62 Substantial

Southern 

S4 HrSR 36 5 8 50 Moderate

S6 HrSR 0 16 2 18 Moderate 

S6 HSR 0 0 18 18 Substantial

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-20 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

At the service level, detailed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies are only presented 

and developed as proposed strategies and according to service type (conventional, higher-speed, or 

high-speed rail). The pursuit of avoidance and minimization of effects will be incorporated when 

feasible. If effects can’t be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented.

The ability to minimize visual disruption during construction and from construction activities will 

include adherence to local jurisdiction’s construction requirements. Additional construction 

minimization elements will include, but not be limited to, the following activities:

 Minimize pre-construction clearing. 

 Limit the removal of buildings to those that would obstruct project components. 

 When possible, preserve existing vegetation, particularly vegetation along the edge of 

construction areas that may help screen views. 

 After construction, regrade areas disturbed by construction, staging, and storage to original 

contours and revegetate with plant material similar in replacement numbers and type.

 Avoid locating construction staging sites within immediate foreground distance (0 to 500 feet) 

of the sensitive viewer types. 

 Minimize light disturbance during construction so that the lighting will be shielded and directed 

downward.

The potential mitigation strategies for operational effects will be adapted to the environment where 

the alternative would be located. The strategies will include use of specific design guidelines

applicable to major design features, while also taking into account the surrounding visual quality 

features where they would be located. Application of the design guidelines to project elements will 

allow for integration into their settings. Additional strategies will include the use of appropriate 

materials, color, finishes, and vegetation evaluated and developed in conjunction with the local 

jurisdictions during final design. 

Minimization strategies will include treatments that would vary by location but will be compatible 

with the context of adjacent areas. Treatments will include, but not be limited to, some or all of the 

following: 

 Minimize visual disruption by screening elevated guideways adjacent to residential areas.

 Establish consultation with local jurisdictions to identify and integrate local design features into 

the key project features and future station designs through a collaborative, context-sensitive 

solutions approach.

 Where appropriate, plant trees along the edges of the rights-of-way in locations adjacent to 

residential areas. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.13 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.13-21 

 Incorporate fencing or screening in areas with new project features in proximity to sensitive 

viewers. 

 Include full shielding of all new and replacement lighting features. 

 Incorporate vegetation around structures, columns, and other components associated with the 

alternatives. 

 Utilize complimentary and consistent colors, patterns, and textures on structures, columns, and 

noise barriers associated with the alternatives. 

 Incorporate pavement treatments at future stations commensurate with context sensitive 

solutions. 

 Utilize vegetation (to block access) and surface coatings on alternative components that would 

be resistant to graffiti and weather. 

 Minimize and mitigate visual disruption from sound barriers by providing surface treatments 

(color and texture) along with the use of alternate materials (transparent mediums where 

appropriate). 

Subsequent Analysis 

More specific engineering data, including locations and components, related to alternatives will be 

evaluated at the project level. Therefore, the project-level evaluation will involve a more detailed 

assessment of the existing visual conditions of the landscape through which each alternative would 

pass. This will involve identifying landscape units that are composed of consistent visual 

characteristics so that the study area can be broken down into smaller, more understandable 

geographic areas. In addition, key observation points (KOPs) will be selected as representative 

views within each landscape unit to establish existing landscape character and visual quality. The 

use of KOPs will also provide the analysts and public reviewers the ability to visualize and assess 

the actual change to visual character and quality of that landscape unit, in terms of the composite 

change on the vividness, intactness, and unity of the landscape. The updated information will be 

based on the current project design features and will allow more specific identification of the 

locations of the various types of sensitive viewers discussed in this technical study, their orientation 

to the alignment if possible, and locations of other types of areas (such as historic areas, parks, 

and trails) that will be considered when identifying locations that might contain sensitive viewers. 

Also, the assessment will describe effects of construction, as well as light and glare. 

TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-1 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland 

This section describes existing generalized land uses and areas of prime farmland within the 

environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area and describes the potential effects on these 

resources. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies and further analyses needed in the 

project-level analysis are identified at the end of this section. The introduction to Chapter 3 

describes the EIS Study Area and the use of terms, such as Study Vicinity and transportation 

corridor, along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

3.14.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable laws, regulations, and orders pertaining to land use and farmland within the EIS Study 

Area are described below. Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be 

applicable and will be addressed in project-level analysis. 

3.14.1.1 Federal 

 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 United States Code [U.S.C] 61). The act provides for uniform and equitable treatment of 

persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by federal and federally assisted 

programs and establishes uniform and equitable land acquisition policies for federal and 

federally assisted programs. 

 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 73). The act is intended to protect farmland 

and requires federal agencies to coordinate with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) if their project or activities may irreversibly 

convert farmland either directly or indirectly to non-agricultural uses.

 Agricultural Act of 2014 (also known as the Farm Bill) (House Resolution 2642; Public Law 

113–79). The act is the primary agricultural and food policy tool of the federal government and 

addresses both agriculture and other affairs under the purview of USDA. A key provision of the

act is the creation of the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. This program provides 

financial and technical assistance to help conserve agricultural lands and wetlands and their 

related benefits. There are options for both permanent easements and 30-year easements, and 

the program is managed by NRCS.

3.14.1.2 State 

 Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 84. The Texas Farm and Ranch Lands 

Conservation Program complements the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's mission to 

conserve natural resources by protecting working lands from fragmentation and development. 

The program maintains and enhances the ecological and agricultural productivity of these lands 

through agricultural conservation easements. The purpose of the program is to enable and 

facilitate the purchase and donation of agricultural conservation easements.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-2 

3.14.1.3 Local 

General plans for the counties and cities in the EIS Study Area contain goals, objectives, and 

policies related to land use, farmland, and socioeconomics and are typically found in the following 

elements: Land Use, Transportation and Circulation, Housing, Open Space and Conservation,

Community Facilities and Services, and Economic Development. The general plans that are 

applicable to the project level will be reviewed as part of future project-level analyses to determine 

the consistency of the project with applicable goals, policies, and objectives. 

3.14.2 Methodology 

The following provides information on the service-level analysis for land use and farmland. Effects 

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

compared with the No Build Alternative. For this analysis, these terms are defined as follows: 

 Negligible intensity effects are those where the likelihood of conversion of existing land uses or 

farmland to transportation-related use would be limited and would be adjacent to existing 

transportation corridors. 

 Moderate intensity effects are those where there is a likelihood of land use or farmland 

conversion, but conversion would be moderate if the existing land use is not associated with 

residential areas or prime farmland and is adjacent to existing transportation corridors.

 Substantial intensity effects are those that have a high likelihood of converting the land use of 

large areas or farmland areas that have low compatibility (see definition below) that would not 

be adjacent to existing transportation corridors. 

3.14.2.1 Land Use 

This service-level analysis for land use considers the existing land uses that could be converted to a 

transportation use as a result of new rights-of-way requirements, as well as the potential 

compatibility of the alternatives with the existing land uses. The evaluation is based on the 

sensitivity of various land uses to the changes that may occur with the introduction of conventional, 

higher-speed, or high-speed passenger rail service and associated infrastructure. For this servicelevel analysis, the potential for land use effects would be minimized if the existing land uses in the 

EIS Study Area are compatible with the alternative. Summarized below are the generalized potential 

compatibility ratings of existing land use types used for the service-level analysis: 

 Low Compatibility: Program would require new rights-of-way, and existing land uses are

residential (single-family and multi-family) both within urban areas and outside of urban areas 

where there are a large number of residences in proximity, open space, and pasture and 

cropland.

 Medium Compatibility: Rights-of-way acquisitions are adjacent to existing transportation 

corridors. Land uses are moderate-density developed areas that include commercial and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-3 

industrial with some residential and larger tracts of land consisting of grasslands (used for 

grazing).

 High Compatibility: Program is within existing transportation corridors and land uses are higherdensity developed areas that include commercial and industrial with limited residential 

development, areas with single-family residential on larger lots, and larger tracts of 

undeveloped land not used for agricultural uses. 

The consistency with regional and local plans and polices would be evaluated during the projectlevel analysis. 

Although cities that could have stations have been identified, the land use analysis does not 

include evaluation related to indirect effects of transit-oriented development. The project-level 

analysis would address transit-oriented development. 

3.14.2.2 Prime Farmland 

Prime farmland, as defined by USDA, is land that has the best combination of physical and 

chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available 

for these uses. It could be cultivated land, pastureland, forestland, or other land, but it is not urban 

or built-up land or water areas. Because of the importance of areas defined as prime farmland for 

agricultural operations, the service-level analysis includes a review of the potential for effects. The 

service-level analysis for effects on farmland is qualitative and based on data from the NRCS 

website for those soils designated as prime farmland.

Geographic information system (GIS) soils data were collected for the 500-foot-wide EIS Study Area 

for each of the alternatives to determine the potential for effects on prime farmland soils that

would result from conversion to a transportation use. The project-specific analysis will include a 

more detailed analysis of the quantitative effects on all farmland, including farmland of statewide 

importance, unique farmland, and farmland of local importance, as required by the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act of 1981. 

The service-level analysis does not consider a parcel-by-parcel analysis and the potential for 

impacts since the details on the project are not known. The service-level analysis reviewed the 

locations where the alternatives do not follow existing transportation corridors using Google Earth 

and the study area boundaries to determine qualitatively the potential for bisection of farmland that 

could isolate areas of prime farmland. The project-specific analysis associated with that level of 

detail will consider parcel-specific effects and if areas would be isolated along with design or 

mitigation measures to avoid or minimize effects.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-4 

3.14.3 Affected Environment 

3.14.3.1 Overview 

The 850-mile corridor passes through all types of communities and land uses, and much of the 

corridor is located in areas outside of urbanized areas and within areas associated with agricultural 

uses. 

3.14.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Table 3.14-1 provides information on the acres of prime farmland within Alternative N4A and the 

percentage of the total area of the alternative that is designated as prime farmland. 

Table 3.14-1: Prime Farmland within the Northern Section Alternative

Alternative EIS Study 

Area (Acres) 

Acres of Prime 

Farmland 

Prime Farmland 

(%) of EIS Study 

Area 

N4A 15,107 6,140 41%

3.14.3.2.1 Alternative N4A Conventional Rail 

Alternative N4A would be located within the existing BNSF corridor. From Edmond to the southern 

end of Norman, Alternative N4A would follow the BNSF corridor as it extends through a heavily 

urbanized area. Much of the land use adjacent to the portions of the rail corridor in Edmond and 

Oklahoma City is industrial and commercial. South of Oklahoma City, residential areas are more 

frequently interspersed along the corridor between the more prevalent commercial and industrial 

areas. South of Norman, the intensity of development adjacent to the corridor decreases, and by 

Purcell, adjacent areas are primarily rural. These rural areas are composed of undeveloped 

grassland and forest areas as well as agricultural lands. In the Washita River Valley, Alternative N4A 

would extend through agricultural areas, forested areas, and small communities including Wayne, 

Paoli, Pauls Valley, Wynnewood, and Davis located at regular intervals along the rail corridor. 

Alternative N4A would pass through the larger city of Ardmore, but most of the areas along the rail 

corridor are rural, consisting of agricultural uses and forested areas. At the Red River, Alternative 

N4A would leave Oklahoma and enter Texas; here, most of the land use is agricultural. As 

Alternative N4A would continue south, it would pass through smaller communities such as 

Gainesville, Sanger, and Krum. Below Saginaw, the urbanized areas become more frequent and 

include more areas of single-family residential adjacent to the rail corridor. From the Tarrant County 

line southward to the Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC), Alternative N4A would 

pass through almost completely urbanized areas with most of the adjacent land associated with 

industrial and commercial uses. From the Fort Worth ITC to Dallas Union Station (DUS), Alternative 

N4A would pass through a heavily urbanized area with a mixture of uses, including single-family 

residential, commercial, industrial, and open spaces.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-5 

3.14.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Table 3.14-2 provides information on the acres of prime farmland within each alternative in the 

Central Section and the percentage of the total area of the alternative that is designated as prime 

farmland. Because there are no differences between higher- and high-speed rail alternatives 

outside of urbanized areas, they are combined in Table 3.14-2. 

Table 3.14-2: Prime Farmland within the Central Section Alternatives

Alternative EIS Study 

Area (Acres) 

Acres of Prime 

Farmland 

Prime 

Farmland (%) 

of EIS Study 

Area 

C4A 20,128 10,440 52%

C4B 18,675 10,217 55%

C4C 23,714 12,435 52%

3.14.3.3.1 Alternative C4A Higher- and High-Speed Rail 

From the Fort Worth ITC east to DUS, Alternative C4A would pass through urbanized areas with a 

mix of land uses that include residential, commercial, industrial, airport, and vacant lands. From 

DUS south to Waxahachie, Alternative C4A would travel along large portions of the BNSF corridor 

where adjacent land uses are primarily single-family residential in urbanized areas and agricultural 

uses outside of the urban areas. South of Waxahachie, Alternative C4A would largely parallel 

Interstate Highway (IH)-35 and travel through a rural landscape containing primarily agricultural 

uses to just north of Hillsboro. 

South of Hillsboro, Alternative C4A would be within the existing railroad corridor to Waco. The 

adjacent land uses along this portion of the alternative are primarily agricultural. Alternative C4A

would pass near smaller communities along this part of its route including Abbot and West before 

entering Waco. In Waco, Alternative C4A would pass through the downtown area, cross the Brazos 

River, and extend near a park, a cemetery, and the Baylor University campus. From Waco to 

Temple, Alternative C4A would travel through more agricultural areas before passing through the 

urban core of Temple next to mostly commercial and industrial lands. Between Temple and Austin, 

Alternative C4A would pass through agricultural areas and extend through communities such as 

Granger and Taylor. As Alternative C4A would approach the northeast side of Austin, it would pass 

more rural residential areas and cross the Colorado River several times before connecting with and 

extending through the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. South of the airport, Alternative C4A

would pass through parklands and continue along a new rail alignment through an agricultural 

landscape with scattered rural residential development. Alternative C4A would pass the western 

outskirts of Lockhart, cross the San Marcos River, extend between New Braunfels and Seguin, pass 

over the Guadalupe River, and continue southwest to San Antonio. At Shertzc, Alternative C4A
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-6 

would enter the San Antonio urbanized region and pass adjacent to areas of residential 

development. After crossing Texas Loop 1604 (Charles Anderson Loop), Alternative C4A would 

follow the UPRR corridor as it extends through heavily urbanized areas with a mix of residential, 

commercial and industrial land uses adjacent to the corridor. As it would extend toward downtown,

Alternative C4A would pass several parks, the San Antonio International Airport, and residential and 

commercial areas. Parts of this section of the UPRR corridor parallel major roads. Alternative C4A

would terminate approximately 1 mile west of downtown San Antonio.

3.14.3.3.2 Alternative C4B Higher- and High-Speed Rail 

This alternative forms a “T”-shape route before connecting with the segment between Hillsboro and 

San Antonio. The upper, horizontal part of the T would begin in Fort Worth and continue east to 

Dallas. The bottom, vertical part of the T would begin between Arlington and Grand Prairie and 

continue south to Hillsboro where it would connect with the route between Hillsboro and San 

Antonio.

From the Fort Worth ITC, Alternative C4B would head east along the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) 

through undeveloped, residential, industrial, and commercial areas. It would continue east along 

the TRE through a flat area that is primarily industrial. At Haltom Road, the alternative would leave 

the TRE corridor and head southeast through largely undeveloped areas to IH-30. Alternative C4B 

would follow the median of IH-30 east to Arlington. The IH-30 corridor cuts through the heavily 

developed residential and commercial areas adjacent to it. Where IH-30 approaches State Highway 

(SH)-360 (the Angus G. Wynne Jr. Freeway) in Arlington, the alternative would make a right turn at 

its SH-360 departure point and head south toward Hillsboro. 

From the east end of the top of the T in Dallas, Alternative C4B would head west from DUS toward 

SH-360 within the UPRR corridor. It would cross along and over the Trinity River on undeveloped 

lands that are part of Trinity Park. The alternative would continue westward in the UPRR corridor 

through industrial areas and several residential neighborhoods. Near West Westmoreland Road, 

the alternative would follow a rail spur that travels southwestwardly to IH-30, where the alternative 

would continue in the median of IH-30 to its SH-360 departure point, where it would make a left 

turn and head south toward Hillsboro. 

From the SH-360 departure point, Alternative C4B would head south in the SH-360 corridor past 

Joe Pool Lake to U.S. Highway (US)-287. This portion of the alternative would travel through heavily 

developed areas, with residential areas separated by undeveloped lands. 

South of US-287, the alternative would leave the SH-360 corridor and continue south along a new 

rail alignment to just north of Hillsboro, where it would connect with the IH-35 corridor and follow 

the same route to San Antonio described above for Alternative C4A. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-7 

3.14.3.3.3 Alternative C4C Higher- and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C would form a loop from Hillsboro that would head north to Fort Worth, east to 

Dallas, and south back to Hillsboro. The portion of the loop between Fort Worth and Dallas and 

south from Dallas to Hillsboro would be the same as the route used for Alternative C4A described 

previously. The portion of the alternative from Fort Worth to Hillsboro is described below. 

From the Fort Worth ITC, Alternative C4C would head south through urbanized Fort Worth along an 

existing BNSF corridor and connect with a UPRR corridor. The northern part of this alternative would 

pass a mixture of land uses including industrial, commercial, and urban residential neighborhoods. 

Between the IH-820 loop and Burleson, Alternative C4C would follow the rail corridor past a series 

of residential subdivisions and open areas, including parks. From Burleson south to Hillsboro, the 

rail corridor route would pass through generally flat agricultural lands and small communities such 

as Alvarado, Grandview, and Itasca before passing through Hillsboro. 

3.14.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Table 3.14-3 provides information on the acres of prime farmland within each alternative in the 

Southern Section and the percentage of the total area of the alternative that is designated as prime 

farmland. Because there are no differences between the higher- and high-speed rail alternatives 

outside of urbanized areas, they are combined in Table 3.14-3. 

Table 3.14-3: Prime Farmland within the Southern Section Alternatives

Alternative EIS Study 

Area (Acres) 

Acres of Prime 

Farmland 

Prime Farmland (%) 

of EIS Study Area 

S4 25,191 11,814 47%

S6 8,666 4,810 56%

3.14.3.4.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

From San Antonio, Alternative S4 would follow the UPRR corridor southeast through a mix of land 

uses that include industrial, commercial, and residential areas. After passing under the IH-410 

loop, the alternative would pass between Texas A&M University-San Antonio and Mitchell Lake and 

weave its way southwest of US-281 past Leming and Pleasanton to IH-37. The UPRR corridor 

generally follows IH-37/US-281 through the Lipan Hills north of Three Rivers. From near Three 

Rivers, the alternative would depart the UPRR corridor and travel via a new rail alignment east of 

US-281 to Alice. The area between San Antonio and Alice is a mixture of agricultural uses and 

undeveloped areas. There are also areas that have received extensive energy exploration and 

development. This area is generally rural with areas of rural residences found on the outskirts of 

towns like Leming and Pleasanton. From Alice, the alternative has legs that would head in three 

directions. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-8 

The Alternative S4 leg that continues south past Alice would first pass areas of rural residences 

before traveling through a series of oil fields where exploration activities and production are 

evident. It would parallel US-281 through Premont and Falfurrias and would depart US-281 north of 

Encino. From this point, the alternative would travel south through rural areas with limited 

development to the Rio Grande Valley and on to McAllen. The alternative would pass near a number 

of residential land uses of mostly single-family residences in the McAllen area. From McAllen, 

Alternative S4 would head east through the Rio Grande Valley along an existing rail corridor to 

Harlingen. This portion of the alternative would pass through urbanized developed areas that 

include residential areas and small towns such as Alamo, Weslaco, and Mercedes. 

The Alternative S4 leg that heads west from Alice would follow the Kansas City Southern (KCS) 

corridor and pass rural residential areas before traveling through San Diego. From San Diego, the 

alternative would travel toward Laredo along a new rail alignment that would traverse rural areas 

with extensive undeveloped lands as well as areas of energy-related development. As the 

alternative approaches Laredo, it would pass residential areas and Casa Blanca Lake before ending 

near the Laredo International Airport. 

The Alternative S4 leg that heads east from Alice would travel along the KCS corridor; it would pass 

through existing agricultural lands and near rural towns, such as Agua Dulce, Banquete, and 

Robstown. The alternative would pass areas of rural residences, clusters of rural residences, and 

suburban residential areas before terminating at the Corpus Christi International Airport.

3.14.3.4.2 Alternative S6 Higher- and High-Speed Rail 

From San Antonio, Alternative S6 would follow the UPRR corridor southwest past industrial lands 

and rural residential areas. Alternative S6 would extend southeast of Kelly Air Force Base and 

through undeveloped, residential, commercial, and industrial lands to the IH-410 loop. It would 

pass under the IH-410 loop and extend to the eastern edge of the Von Ormy Oil Field. The 

alternative would depart the UPRR corridor in the oil field and continue southwest as it roughly 

parallels IH-35 through areas that are undeveloped grasslands and agriculture (including areas of 

irrigated fields). Between approximately Dilley and the terminus of Alternative S6, the alternative 

would pass areas where there has been energy exploration and development. The alternative would 

pass the outskirts of small towns such as Lytle, Devine, and Pearsall, as well as many isolated rural 

residences. 

3.14.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.14.4.1 Overview 

Construction of the Program would result in short-term effects on adjacent land uses and areas 

used for agriculture with temporary increases in noise, vibration, and dust; temporary effects on 

vehicle and non-motorized (including pedestrian) access; and visual effects. Although land use or 

prime farmland acquisitions would occur as part of construction, because of the long-term effects 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-9 

and the permanent changes to existing land uses and prime farmland, the effects are addressed as 

part of operation. 

Where the Program would require acquisitions of new rights-of-way outside of existing 

transportation rights-of-way, there would be a conversion of the existing land uses to a 

transportation use. For those areas with low compatibility, the potential effects would be 

substantial in intensity. For areas outside of the urbanized areas that require new rights-of-way and 

are adjacent to the existing transportation corridors, the compatibility would be medium. Because 

of this proximity to the existing transportation and because these areas are also not associated 

with denser residential land uses, the intensity effects would be moderate. The areas that are 

adjacent and related to agriculture or not adjacent to the transportation corridors would have a low 

to medium compatibility. Based on these types of existing land uses and their proximity, the 

intensity effects would be moderate. Because the alternatives would use existing transportation 

corridors through much of the urbanized areas, there would be a medium to high compatibility with 

existing land uses, and the corresponding intensity effects would be negligible. 

Although this Study does not include the identification of specific station locations, new stations 

would be necessary to meet the higher-speed service-type needs in areas outside of existing 

transportation corridors. Station locations might vary among alternatives, but overall effects on land 

use are not anticipated to differ as a result of different types of service along the same alignment. 

However, potential new station locations could have indirect effects of potential new development 

in the station areas. The type and scale of the development would depend on the need, allowed 

uses in the proposed station areas, and specific plans for station area development. The projectspecific land use analysis will include information on the benefits and potential effects associated 

with stations and the changes to the surrounding land uses. 

For those areas that are designated as prime farmland and where new rights-of-way are required 

outside of the existing transportation corridors, there is the potential to convert prime farmland to 

non-agricultural use. The potential effects would be moderate if the conversion of the prime 

farmland is adjacent to transportation corridors and substantial if they are not adjacent and 

potentially bisecting areas of prime farmland. Because an area may be identified as prime farmland 

does not necessarily mean the area is currently being used for agricultural uses. The current use of 

those areas defined as prime farmland would be verified as part of the project-level analysis, which 

will also include information on other types of farmland and how those areas designated as 

farmland are currently used. 

3.14.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect land use or farmland. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-10 

3.14.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.14.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional Rail 

Alternative N4A would have high compatibility with the land use because this alternative would 

primarily use the existing rail corridor. The adjacent land uses are primarily industrial uses in urban 

areas and single-family residential and agricultural outside of the urban areas. Where additional 

right-of-way would be required, it would be adjacent to existing transportation corridors and would 

not bisect areas of prime farmland. The intensity of the effect on land use and prime farmland 

would be negligible.

3.14.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

In the Central Section, Alternative C4C has the highest potential for effects because of this 

alternative’s longer length and the correspondingly greater potential to convert existing land uses to 

transportation use. Alternative C4B has the least potential for effects because of this alternative’s 

shorter length. 

3.14.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would use existing railroad corridors for portions of the 

alternative, but would also require new rights-of-way including areas that would be adjacent to the 

existing rights-of-way. The new transportation corridor for the alternative would convert existing land 

use and areas of prime farmland to transportation use, but effects related to the isolation of prime 

farmland would be minimized because in many locations the alternative is adjacent to existing 

transportation corridors. A large portion of the EIS Study Area is considered prime farmland (see 

Table 3.14-2), and there would be a high likelihood of effects. However, because most of the area 

to be acquired would be adjacent to existing transportation corridors, the land use compatibility 

would be medium and the intensity of the effect on land use and farmland would be moderate. 

3.14.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would use some existing railroad corridors for portions of the 

alternative but would also require new rights-of-way, and the land use compatibility would be 

medium. Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would convert prime farmland adjacent to existing 

transportation corridors to non-agricultural use. The intensity of the effect would be moderate for 

land use and farmland since large portions of the alternative would be adjacent to existing 

transportation corridors. 

3.14.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

South of Hillsboro, this alternative would have the same effects on land use and farmland as those 

described above under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because the alignment would be the 

same from Hillsboro to San Antonio. Outside of these areas, the alternative would require new 

rights-of-way, and the new transportation corridor would convert existing land use and areas of 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-11 

prime farmland to a transportation-related use. Similar to Alternative C4A, a large portion of 

Alternative C4B has the potential to affect prime farmland (Table 3.14-2). Because most of the area 

to be acquired would not be adjacent to existing transportation corridors, the land use compatibility 

would be low and the intensity of the effect would be moderate for land use. The intensity of the 

effect would be substantial for prime farmland because the new corridor would not be adjacent to 

existing transportation corridors and could isolate areas of prime farmland. 

3.14.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on land use as Alternative C4B 

Higher-Speed Rail because both alternatives would follow the same alignment and require new 

rights-of-way. The land use compatibility would be low, and the intensity of the effect would be 

moderate; in addition, the intensity would be substantial for prime farmland because of the 

potential to isolate areas. 

3.14.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail requires new transportation corridors to be constructed outside 

of existing transportation corridors and would require larger areas that would be converted. The 

land use compatibility would be medium, and the intensity of the effect would be substantial. The 

farmland effect would also be substantial because Alternative C4C has a greater potential to affect 

prime farmland compared to other alternatives in the Central Section (Table 3.14-2). 

3.14.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on land use as Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail because both alternatives would follow the same alignment. The land use 

compatibility would be medium, and the intensity of the effects would be substantial. The intensity 

of the effects would also be substantial on prime farmland because the new corridor has the 

potential to affect a larger area overall given the alignment. 

3.14.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Of the Southern Section alternatives, Alternative S4 has more potential for land use effects within

the EIS Study Area than Alternative S6 because of the greater length of Alternative S4. However, 

because Alternative S6 would be entirely outside of existing transportation corridors, this factor has 

also been considered regarding the potential for land use effects.

3.14.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail consists of both an alignment within existing railroad right-of-way 

and an alignment outside of existing transportation corridors. The higher-speed rail service could 

potentially share track with existing railroad. The new transportation corridor for the alternative 

would convert existing land use to a transportation-related use, and because most of the area to be 

acquired would not be adjacent to existing transportation corridors, the land use compatibility 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-12 

would be low and the intensity of the effect would be moderate. The new transportation corridor 

could convert areas considered prime farmland; nearly 50 percent of the Alternative S4 EIS Study 

Area is considered prime farmland (Table 3.14-3). Because the new corridor would not be adjacent 

to existing transportation corridors and could isolate areas of prime farmland, the intensity of the 

effect would be substantial. 

3.14.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail alignment would be entirely outside of existing transportation 

corridors. As a result, the land use compatibility would be low, and the intensity of the effect would 

be substantial. This alternative would include areas where prime farmland could be converted and 

potentially bisect farmland. Prime farmland is found within 56 percent of the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative S6, and while it has the highest percentage of prime farmland of all sections, it also has 

the smallest area that could be affected (Table 3.14-3). However, because of the potential to bisect 

farmlands, the intensity of the effects would be substantial. 

3.14.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on land use as Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail because they would follow the same alignment. The land use compatibility would be low, 

and the intensity of the effects would be substantial for both land use and farmland. 

3.14.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Each of the alternatives in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections would require the 

conversion of existing land uses to a transportation-related use within their respective portions of 

the larger EIS Study Area. The alternatives that include new alignments outside of existing 

transportation corridors (Alternatives C4B and S6) would have the greatest potential for effect. 

Tables 3.14-4 and 3.14-5 list the potential intensity of effects by alternative for land use and for 

prime farmland, respectively. 

Table 3.14-4: Summary of Land Use Effects by Alternative

Section Alternativea 

Context Potential Intensity of Effects 

(Negligible, Moderate, or Land Use Compatibility Substantial) 

No Build Alternative Not applicable Not applicable

Northern N4A CONV High Negligible 

Central 

 

C4A HrSR Medium Moderate

C4A HSR Medium Moderate

C4B HrSR Low Moderate

C4B HSR Low Moderate

C4C HrSR Medium Substantial

C4C HSR Medium Substantial
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-13 

Section Alternativea 

Context Potential Intensity of Effects 

(Negligible, Moderate, or Land Use Compatibility Substantial) 

Southern 

S4 HrSR Low Moderate

S6 HSR Low Substantial

S6 HrSR Low Substantial

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

Table 3.14-5. Summary of Potential Farmland Effects by Alternative

Section Alternativea 

Context Potential Intensity of 

Effects 

(Negligible, Moderate, or 

Substantial) 

Potential Prime Farmland 

Conversion and Bisection 

No Build Alternative Not applicable Not applicable

Northern N4A CONV Low Negligible 

Central 

 

C4A HrSR Medium Moderate

C4A HSR Medium Moderate

C4B HrSR Low Substantial

C4B HSR Low Substantial

C4C HrSR High Substantial

C4C HSR High Substantial

Southern 

S4 HrSR High Substantial

S6 HSR High Substantial

S6 HrSR High Substantial

3.14.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance and minimization of effects at the project level will be incorporated when feasible. If 

effects cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented. Specific 

mitigation measures for land use and farmland are not identified as part of the service-level 

analysis and will be identified during the project-level analysis when details on the alternatives and 

specific station locations and other facilities are known. 

To avoid land use acquisitions, the project-level analysis will need to consider, to the extent 

feasible, alignment adjustments and design changes. In addition, analysis at the project level will
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.14-14 

consider relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. Coordination with NRCS will also occur during the 

project-level analysis with regard to farmland and potential effects. 

3.14.6 Subsequent Analysis 

The project-level analysis will need to include a quantification of the land use acquisitions to 

determine the number of acres within each section. Coordination will be required with local 

jurisdictions to develop information on existing and future land uses that would be affected by the 

conversion of existing land uses to transportation use. The land use analysis will also require a 

review of applicable plans to determine the consistency of the project with goals, objectives, and 

policies, which would also require coordination with local jurisdictions. In addition, for those areas 

with a station, an analysis of potential transit-oriented development will be prepared. 

GIS data will need to be collected, and information mapped on each alternative to quantify the 

types of farmland, identify areas where prime farmland could be bisected and result in additional 

potential effects, and quantify farmland acquisitions. If farmland effects cannot be avoided through 

design of the project, coordination with NRCS will be needed to address farmland effects and the 

completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106. The subsequent analysis will include a review of regional and 

local plans that address farmland and the information on preserving and protecting these areas. 

The project-level analysis will need to determine the potential effects from construction and 

quantify the area of farmland that will be temporarily affected, as well as determine the potential 

for farm animals to be adversely affected by construction and operation. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-1 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

This section describes socioeconomics within the environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area, 

which includes information on demographic characteristics such as population, housing, 

employment, and environmental justice populations. This section presents a preliminary 

assessment of the potential effects on these resources and information about the regional 

economy and the potential economic effects. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies 

and further analyses needed in the project-level analysis are identified at the end of this section. 

The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study Area and use of terms, such as Study Vicinity 

and transportation corridor, along with the standard organization of each analysis.

3.15.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable laws, regulations, and orders include the following: 

 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. 

This act provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, 

businesses, or farms by federal and federally assisted programs and establishes uniform and 

equitable land acquisition policies for federal and federally assisted programs.

 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, national origin, age, sex, or disability in programs and activities receiving federal financial 

assistance.

 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations. Executive Order 12898 includes the requirement for 

federal agencies to ensure effective public participation and access to information. 

Consequently, a key component of compliance with Executive Order 12898 is outreach to 

potentially affected minority and/or low-income populations to discover issues of importance 

that may not otherwise be apparent. 

 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 5610.2(a). This order establishes the process 

that the Office of the Secretary and each Operating Administration within USDOT will use to 

incorporate environmental justice principles (as embodied in the Executive Order 12898) into 

existing programs, policies, and activities. 

 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (PL 110-325). This act provides for equal 

opportunity for individuals with disabilities to access public and private facilities. 

 Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency. This order requires each federal agency to ensure that recipients of federal financial 

assistance provide meaningful access to their programs and activities by limited English 

proficiency (LEP) applicants and beneficiaries. 

Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and will be addressed 

in project-level analysis. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-2 

3.15.2 Methodology 

The service-level analysis of potential effects was conducted at the corridor level as opposed to a 

specific alignment of the alternative. The evaluation of effects is qualitative with information on 

potential construction and operation effects and the identification of potential mitigation strategies 

for construction or operation effects. The socioeconomic service-level analysis addresses 

demographic characteristics of population such as minority and low-income populations 

(environmental justice), housing, employment, and information on the regional economies. 

Effects as a result of the route alternatives are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial 

compared to the No Build Alternative. For this analysis, these terms are defined as follows: 

 Negligible intensity effects are those effects in which the likelihood of any potential for 

socioeconomic effects is low, including the potential for adverse effects on minority and/or lowincome populations. 

 Moderate intensity effects are those effects that would not result in socioeconomic effects and 

would not negatively affect the social and economic elements (i.e., result in new barriers to 

access or disrupt community interaction). The alternative would also have the potential to result 

in adverse effects that could cause disproportionate effects on minority and/or low-income 

populations.

 Substantial intensity effects are those effects that have a high likelihood of new barriers and 

effects that negatively affect community character. The alternative would have the potential to

result in adverse effects that could cause disproportionate effects on minority and/or lowincome populations. 

3.15.2.1 Demographic Characteristics 

Demographic characteristics include population, housing, and employment characteristics for the 

EIS Study Area. Population characteristics incorporate data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the 

states of Oklahoma and Texas to develop a general profile of the EIS Study Area compared with 

reference geographies including counties and states. Population characteristics data were collected 

on the forecasted population growth, and data on total population, minority population, low-income 

population, elderly, disabled, and LEP populations were collected for the EIS Study Area, as well as 

reference geographies. Data were collected to provide a general profile of housing, the employment 

force, and information on the regional economies. 

The EIS Study Area for each of the alternatives encompasses a number of communities from small 

towns to large urban centers. Because of the large geographic area of the project corridors, 

information is not provided on the community character or the location of any community facilities 

(e.g., schools [public and private] and religious institutions). The project-level analysis will include 

detailed information on the communities and community facilities. Special focus will be placed on 

the communities in the vicinity of stations because of the potential effects the station could have 

on the area. The service-level analysis includes a qualitative analysis of the potential for the 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-3 

alternatives to bisect any of the communities and the potential for effects on those living in the 

communities, which would include noise and vibration, air quality, and access primarily as a result 

of proximity to the project. 

3.15.2.2 Environmental Justice 

The demographic characteristics also provide information on the minority, low-income, and LEP 

populations in the EIS Study Area. The service-level analysis includes a review of the potential for 

adverse effects on environmental justice populations, including evaluations related to acquisitions 

and displacements, transportation, air quality, noise and vibration, public health, water quality, 

hazardous materials, and cultural resources. However, because this service-level analysis does not 

entail specific analysis on the potential for adverse effects, it could not determine as to whether the 

Program would result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and/or low-income 

populations. This is because the analysis for other resources does not include specific/quantitative 

effects or identification of any specific mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize effects on 

environmental justice populations. The project-level analysis will include a review of these 

resources which will be used to determine if the acquisitions will result in effects on those in the EIS 

Study Area. 

For this analysis, a person is considered a minority if he or she meets the following criteria: 

 Black – a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

 American Indian or Alaska Native – a person having origins in any of the original people of North 

America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community 

recognition.

 Asian American – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands.

 Hispanic – a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other 

Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. 

A person is considered to be low-income if his or her median household income is at or below the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) poverty guidelines. In 2016, for a fourperson household with two related children, the poverty threshold is $24,300 (DHHS 2016). 

3.15.2.3 Economics 

The service-level analysis provides qualitative information on the potential economic effects of 

construction and operation of the project, including construction employment, property tax effects, 

and operational benefits. The analysis is based on the type of service associated with the 

alternative, so if the alternative is conventional rail within existing transportation corridors, the 

economic effects would not be the same as a high-speed rail alternative in new corridors with larger 

stations. The project-level analysis will include a quantitative analysis that includes the number of 

short-term benefits associated with construction along with the potential property tax losses 

associated with property acquisitions. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-4 

3.15.3 Public Involvement 

The following section provides information on the public involvement activities that have been 

conducted to date for the project, including information on the targeted outreach to minority and 

low-income populations. A Public Involvement Plan (see Chapter 8) describes the efforts to engage 

the public and targeted stakeholders. The Public Involvement Plan includes goals of the public 

involvement process, which include meeting the regulatory requirements of Executive Order 12898 

and Title VI by using information and outreach activities to solicit public and agency input, providing 

ample notification and access to public and agency involvement opportunities, and assessing 

public values and preferences and integrating those into study planning and documentation. 

The Public Involvement Plan includes a demographic overview of the counties in the project 

corridors, and based on the findings of the overview, recommendations of additional targeted 

outreach where there are higher concentrations of minority and low-income populations. The 

overview also assists the public involvement team in understanding the need to translate 

documents and provide interpreters at public events and meetings. 

For the public events and meetings conducted to date, information has been provided in both 

English and Spanish. This includes the distribution of notices, posters, and newsletters to local 

organizations that then distribute the information to their constituencies. At the meetings, 

PowerPoint presentations and displays boards were made available in Spanish and there were 

Spanish translators to answer questions. In addition, an online open house was conducted where 

people could learn about the project and provide comments. Future meetings and open houses will 

continue to include information in Spanish and ensure targeted outreach is conducted.

3.15.4 Affected Environment 

3.15.4.1 Overview 

Table 3.15-1 provides information on existing and forecasted populations for the Northern, Central, 

and Southern sections and Oklahoma and Texas (refer to Appendix M for further detail). The Northern 

Section, which includes Oklahoma and Texas, is projected to grow faster (percentage change in 

population) than Oklahoma as a whole and is projected to have the lowest annual average growth rate 

of the three sections for the 30-year period between 2010 and 2040. The Southern Section is 

projected to have the highest growth rate of the three sections and to grow faster than Texas as a 

whole. 

Table 3.15-1: Existing and Forecasted Population

Area 2000 2010 2040 

Change in 

Population 2010- 2040 (%) 

Annual Average 

Growth Rate (2010-2040) (%) 

Northern Section 5,124,946 5.985,162 8,305,826 38.8 1.3

Central Section 7,060,093 8,515,602 12,121,834 42.3 1.4

Southern Section 2,987,412 3,682,679 5,545,813 50.6 1.7

Oklahoma 3,450,654 3,751,351 4,581,319 22.1 0.7

Texas 20,851,820 25,145,561 36,550,595 45.4 1.5

Sources: Oklahoma Department of Commerce (2014); Texas State Data Center (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-5 

3.15.4.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.15.4.2.1 Population Characteristics 

Table 3.15-2 summarizes data on the population characteristics for the Northern Section and 

compares the data to the reference population of Oklahoma and Texas (refer to Appendix M for 

further detail). The Northern Section has a higher handicapped population than Texas, but its LEP 

population is lower. The Northern Section also has a lower concentration of low-income population 

than Oklahoma and Texas, and the minority concentration is similar to Texas and higher than 

Oklahoma. 

Table 3.15-2: Northern Section Population Characteristics

Area Total 

Population 

Elderly 

(%) 

Handicapped 

(%) 

Minority 

(%) 

Low 

Income (%) 

LEP 

(%) 

Northern Section 5,985,162 12.7 13.5 51.5 14.9 6.3

Oklahoma 3,751,351 13.4 9.0 31.3 16.2 3.8

Texas 25,145,561 10.3 6.6 54.7 16.8 14.4

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2014a, 2014b).

3.15.4.2.2 Household Characteristics 

Table 3.15-3 provides information on the housing in the Northern Section compared to Oklahoma 

and Texas based on U.S. Census data (refer to Appendix M for further detail). Oklahoma has a 

higher percentage of single-family homes compared to the other areas. The vacancy rates and the 

average household size are similar for all areas. 

Table 3.15-3: Northern Section Housing Characteristics

Area 

Housing Units 

Vacancy 

Rates 

Average 

Household 

Total Size SingleFamily Multifamily Other 

Northern Section 2,366,188 1,574,828 721,742 69,618 13.8 2.6

Oklahoma 1,644,228 1,237,881 250,019 156,328 13.5 2.5

Texas 9,718,470 6,621,453 2,333,546 763,471 12.1 2.8

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2014a, 2014b).

3.15.4.2.3 Regional Economy and Employment Characteristics 

In 2013, Oklahoma’s current-dollar gross domestic product (GDP) was $182.1 billion and ranked 

29th in the United States (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] 2014). Major industries in 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-6 

Oklahoma include government; mining; finance, real estate, and rental and leasing; professional 

and business services; and education services, health care, and social assistance. 

In 2013, Texas’ current-dollar GDP was $1,523.6 billion and ranked second in the United States 

(BEA 2014). Major industries in Texas include finance, real estate, and rental and leasing; mining; 

government; professional and business services; and nondurable goods manufacturing. 

Table 3.15-4 includes historical and current (2013) data on the civilian employment force (refer to 

Appendix M for further detail). The higher unemployment rates in 2010 represent the situation 

shortly after the economic recession began in 2007. On average, based on the 2010 data, the 

counties in Oklahoma had lower unemployment rates than those in Texas and for the Northern 

Section overall. Also, based on the 2010 data, the counties in Oklahoma had lower median 

household incomes than those in Texas.

Table 3.15-4: Northern Section Employment Characteristics

Area 

Labor Force Employed Unemployment Rate 

2010 2013 2010 2013 2010 2013 

Northern 

Section 2,998,315 3,135,545 2,758,530 2,944,835 8.0% 6.1%

Oklahoma 1,775,398 1,816,794 1,653,020 1,718,171 6.9% 5.4%

Texas 12,287,566 12,819,871 11,280,558 12,007,330 8.2% 6.3%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014).

3.15.4.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.15.4.3.1 Population Characteristics 

Table 3.15-5 summarizes the data on the population characteristics for the Central Section and 

compares the data to the reference population of Texas (refer to Appendix M for further detail). 

Overall, the Central Section has a higher concentration of handicapped population and a lower 

concentration of LEP population compared to Texas. The minority and low-income concentrations in 

the Central Section are similar to those in Texas. 

Table 3.15-5: Central Section Population Characteristics

Area Population Elderly 

(%) 

Handicapped 

(%) 

Minority 

(%) 

Low 

Income 

(%) 

LEP 

(%) 

Central Section 8,515,602 11.4 12.7 56.1 15.4 8.9

Texas 25,145,561 10.3 6.6 54.7 16.8 14.4

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2014a, 2014b).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-7 

3.15.4.3.2 Household Characteristics 

Table 3.15-6 provides information on the housing in the Central Section compared to Texas based 

on U.S. Census data (refer to Appendix M for further detail). The Central Section is similar to Texas 

with regard to the overall percentage of single-family homes, the vacancy rate, and the average 

household size. 

Table 3.15-6: Central Section Housing Characteristics

Area 

Housing Units Vacancy 

Rates 

Average 

Household 

Total Size Single Family Multifamily Other 

Central Section 3,301,234 2,171,541 1,004,330 125,363 13.1% 2.7

Texas 9,718,470 6,621,453 2,333,546 763,471 12.1% 2.8

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2014a, 2014b).

3.15.4.3.3 Regional Economy and Employment Characteristics 

In 2013, Texas’ current-dollar GDP was $1,523.6 billion and ranked second in the United States 

(BEA 2014). Major industries in Texas include finance, real estate, and rental and leasing; mining; 

government; professional and business services; and nondurable goods manufacturing. 

Table 3.15-7 includes historical and current (2013) data on the civilian employment force (refer to 

Appendix M for further detail). The higher unemployment rates in 2010 represent the situation 

shortly after the economic recession began in 2007. On average, based on the 2013 data, the 

counties in the Central Section had slightly lower unemployment rates than those at the state level. 

Based on the 2010 data, half (or 7 out of 14) of the counties in the Central Section had lower 

median household income than those in the entire state of Texas (see Appendix M for further 

detail). 

Table 3.15-7: Central Section Employment Characteristics

Area Labor Force Employed Unemployment Rate 

2010 2013 2010 2013 2010 2013 

Central Section 4,228,942 4,435,670 3,892,925 4,164,658 7.9% 6.1%

Texas 12,287,566 12,819,871 11,280,558 12,007,330 8.2% 6.3%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014).

3.15.4.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.15.4.4.1 Population Characteristics 

Table 3.15-8 summarizes data on the population characteristics for the Southern Section and 

compares the data to the reference population of Texas (refer to Appendix M for further detail). The 

Southern Section has higher concentrations of all population characteristics compared to Texas. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-8 

The minority concentration and low-income populations are much higher than Texas with over 

three-quarters considered minority and almost one-quarter low-income. 

Table 3.15-8: Southern Section Demographic Characteristics

Area Population Elderly 

(%) 

Handicapped 

(%) 

Minority 

(%) 

Low 

Income 

(%) 

LEP 

(%) 

Southern Section 3,682,679 13.4 19.2 78.2 23.9 19.6

Texas 25,145,561 10.3 6.6 54.7 16.8 14.4

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2014a, 2014b)

3.15.4.4.2 Household Characteristics 

Table 3.15-9 provides information on the housing in the Southern Section compared to Texas 

based on U.S. Census data (refer to Appendix M for further detail). About two-thirds of the housing 

units in the Southern Section are single-family housing units. The percentage of housing units is 

similar between the Southern Section and Texas as is the average household size. The vacancy rate 

in the Southern Section is higher than Texas. 

Table 3.15-9: Southern Section Housing Characteristics

Area 

Housing Units Vacancy 

Rates 

Average 

Household 

Total Size Single 

Family Multifamily Other 

Southern Section 1,819,057 1,266,903 428,339 123,815 18.1% 2.9

Texas 9,718,470 6,621,453 2,333,546 763,471 12.1% 2.8

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2014a, 2014b).

3.15.4.4.3 Regional Economy and Employment Characteristics 

Table 3.15-10 includes historical and current (2013) data on the civilian employment force (refer to 

Appendix M for further detail). The higher unemployment rates in 2010 are likely due to the 

economic recession that started in 2007. The 2013 unemployment rate in the Southern Section 

remains higher than Texas. 

Table 3.15-10: Southern Section Employment Characteristics

Area Labor Force Employed Unemployment 

Rate 

2010 2013 2010 2013 2010 2013 

Southern Section 1,631,548 1,699,565 1,486,569 1,575,529 8.9% 7.3%

Texas 12,287,566 12,819,871 11,280,558 12,007,330 8.2% 6.3%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-9 

3.15.5 Environmental Consequences 

3.15.5.1 Overview 

It is anticipated that the alternatives would have an overall positive effect on the communities 

along the alignment in terms of generating construction jobs, increasing the potential for new 

employment opportunities around station areas, reducing congestion on highways, and improving 

regional connectivity. 

Wherever a new transportation corridor is required, there is the potential to affect communities 

through bisection, through large numbers of residential and business displacements, or through 

effects on community facilities. Much of the new transportation corridors proposed by the 

alternatives would be in areas outside of existing population centers and would not bisect 

communities. Many of the alternatives also would follow or be within existing transportation 

corridors through urban areas and would not further bisect communities, but could increase the 

intensity of noise effects. Construction of the alternatives would potentially result in temporary 

construction effects including an increase in noise, dust, and traffic congestion, and effects would 

be greater in the urban areas especially where construction occurs close to sensitive uses such as 

residential development and schools. 

3.15.5.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect minority and/or lowincome populations and would not result in beneficial effects on these populations. 

3.15.5.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.15.5.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Because Alternative N4A would improve the existing passenger rail service, the potential for 

beneficial effects would be limited, and adverse effects on socioeconomics would be negligible. The 

alternative is primarily within an existing transportation corridor and would not bisect any 

communities, and because there are already passenger and freight trains actively using this 

corridor, the intensity of the socioeconomic effects would be negligible. Potential effects on 

environmental justice populations would also be negligible. 

3.15.5.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.15.5.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Beneficial and adverse effects on socioeconomics would be limited because Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail would primarily be within an existing transportation corridor, or where new rightsof-way are required, those improvements would be adjacent to an existing transportation corridor in 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-10 

areas with limited populations. Where the alternative is not adjacent to an existing transportation 

corridor, the new corridor required would not bisect any communities because there are limited 

populations in areas where the new transportation corridors would be constructed, and this 

potential effect could be avoided. The additional right-of-way requirements would likely result in the 

acquisition of residential properties and businesses, which would need to be quantified as part of 

the project-level analysis to determine potential effects. The specific displacement of businesses 

and residences resulting from Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would also need to be identified in 

the project-level analysis. Property acquisitions would result in property tax revenue effects 

associated with Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail requirements because properties would be 

converted to a transportation-related use and property tax revenue would no longer be generated or 

would be reduced by partial property acquisitions; however, there would be revenues generated 

from rail services that may offset the lost property tax revenues. The project-level analysis would 

quantify the tax revenues lost and gained as a result of the project. Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail has the potential for effects on environmental justice populations primarily as a result of 

displacements and noise effects. The alternative would provide some benefits including improved 

mobility and access to an alternative mode of transportation, and these benefits would be greatest 

in the areas near stations. Specific effects would be determined during the project-level analysis. 

Based on the factors described above and the assessment conducted, the intensity of the 

socioeconomic and environmental justice effects would be moderate. 

Construction would result in short-term effects on the communities including temporary increases 

in noise, vibration, and dust; temporary vehicle and non-motorized access effects; and visual 

effects. Some additional temporary effects related to roadway closures and detours and public 

utility service interruptions during construction may also occur. Businesses close to the 

construction site could experience disruptions during construction depending on the type, duration, 

and intensity of activities. However, the construction expenditures could have a positive, though 

temporary and limited, impact on local sales tax revenues and jobs creation in the 

counties/communities where these purchases are made and construction occurs. 

3.15.5.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Socioeconomic effects would be similar to those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. 

The improvements would be within an existing transportation corridor, and the potential need for 

improvements outside of this corridor would not bisect communities. The areas outside existing 

transportation corridors are associated with limited population areas outside of the urban and rural 

communities, and therefore, the potential for effects on communities would be limited. However, 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would also result in additional displacements and noise effects, 

which could affect land uses and populations adjacent to the alignment. Alternative C4A HighSpeed Rail has the potential for effects on environmental justice populations primarily as a result of 

displacements and noise effects; however, there are also potential mobility and access benefits. 

The specific details regarding these effects and benefits will be determined during project-level 

analysis. Based on the assessment conducted, the intensity of socioeconomic and environmental 

justice effects would be moderate.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-11 

Construction effects would be similar to those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, but 

the high-speed rail alternative would likely have higher construction expenditures because of the 

grade-separated structures that would be required for operation. As a result, there would be a 

greater potential for short-term construction benefits due to these expenditures. 

3.15.5.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Socioeconomic and environmental justice effects would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Because the alternative includes a new transportation corridor 

through areas not adjacent to existing transportation corridors, there is a potential for bisection of 

communities; however, because the new alignment is in a rural area, the potential bisection of 

communities would be limited. The new corridor could have the potential for displacements and

associated acquisitions that could affect community facilities and environmental justice 

populations depending on how community connections are maintained, including the preservation 

or improvement of existing railroad crossings. Where the new transportation corridor would be 

constructed, the potential property acquisitions would also have a negative effect on property tax 

revenues. However, as referenced above, the new transportation corridor is located in rural areas 

within limited populations, which would minimize potential tax revenue effects. South of Hillsboro, 

the alternative would have the same effects on socioeconomics and environmental justice as those 

described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because the alignment would be the same from 

Hillsboro to San Antonio. The new transportation corridor, from Arlington, between Dallas and Fort 

Worth, to Hillsboro, has the potential for effects on environmental justice populations, but those 

potential effects would be limited based on the rural makeup of the area. The intensity of 

socioeconomic and environmental justice effects would be moderate. 

Construction effects would be similar to those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail.

3.15.5.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Socioeconomic and environmental justice effects and potential mobility and access benefits would 

be similar to those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Additionally, south of Hillsboro, 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the same effects on socioeconomics and 

environmental justice as those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail because the 

alignment would be the same from Hillsboro to San Antonio. The intensity of socioeconomic and 

environmental justice effects would be moderate. 

Construction effects would be similar to those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, but 

the high-speed rail alternative would likely have higher construction expenditures because of the 

grade-separated structures that would be required for operation. As a result, there would be a 

greater potential for short-term construction benefits due to these expenditures. 

3.15.5.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher- and High-Speed Rail 

The potential socioeconomic and environmental justice effects and the intensity would be similar to 

those for both the higher- and high-speed rail as described for Alternative C4A. Alternative C4C 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-12 

does have the potential to affect additional areas given the alignments associated with the 

alternative, but the intensity of the effects would still be moderate for both socioeconomic and 

environmental justice. 

Construction effects would be similar to those described for Alternative C4A Higher- and High-Speed 

Rail, but the high-speed rail alternative would likely have higher construction expenditures because 

of the grade-separated structures that would be required for operation. As a result, there would be 

a greater potential for short-term construction benefits due to these expenditures. 

3.15.5.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The Southern Section alternatives would have similar potential socioeconomic and environmental 

justice effects. Although Alternative S4 is longer, portions of this alternative would be within existing 

transportation corridors. Although Alternative S6 (higher- and high-speed rail) is shorter, it would be 

entirely outside of existing transportation corridors.

3.15.5.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail includes new transportation corridors along parts of the alignment 

that would not be adjacent to existing transportation corridors. The new transportation corridors 

have the potential to bisect communities and act as barriers to interaction, and the associated 

acquisitions could affect community facilities and environmental justice populations. However, the 

new transportation corridors are located in rural areas with limited populations, which could 

minimize the potential effects. The potential for displacements associated with full or partial 

acquisitions would be limited based on the rural makeup of this alternative. Although the 

displacements would be limited, because of the higher concentrations of environmental justice 

populations in the Southern Section, there is a corresponding increase in the potential of effects on

these populations. Property acquisitions would result in property tax revenue effects and rail service 

revenue generation that would offset lost property tax revenues. The project-level analysis would 

quantify the tax revenues lost and gained as a result of the project. The socioeconomic effects 

would have a moderate intensity, and environmental justice would have a substantial intensity. 

Construction effects would be similar to those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and 

would result in short-term effects on the rural communities including temporary increases in noise, 

vibration, and dust; temporary vehicle and non-motorized access effects; and visual effects. 

Businesses close to the construction site may also experience disruptions during construction 

depending on the type, duration, and intensity of activities.

3.15.5.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

The potential socioeconomic and environmental justice effects for this alternative would be similar 

to those described for Alternative S4. Although Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail is substantially 

shorter, the alignment would be entirely within a new transportation corridor and would be located 

in rural areas with limited populations. The socioeconomic effects would have a moderate intensity, 

and environmental justice would have a substantial intensity.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-13 

Construction effects would be similar to those described for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail and 

would result in short-term effects on the rural communities including temporary increases in noise, 

vibration, and dust; temporary vehicle and non-motorized access effects; and visual effects. 

Businesses close to the construction site may also experience disruptions during construction 

depending on the type, duration, and intensity of activities.

3.15.5.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Effects would be the same as those described for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. Alternative S6 

has a new transportation corridor but would be located in rural areas with limited populations. The 

socioeconomic effects would have a moderate intensity, and environmental justice would have a 

substantial intensity.

Construction effects would be similar to those described for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, but 

the high speed rail alternative would likely have higher construction expenditures because of the 

grade-separated structures that would be required for operation. As a result, there would be a 

greater potential for short-term construction benefits due to these expenditures. 

3.15.5.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Tables 3.15-11 and 3.15-12 list each alternative’s potential intensity of socioeconomic effects and 

environmental justice effects, respectively. 

Table 3.15-11: Summary of Potential Socioeconomic Effects by Alternative

Section Alternativea 

Context Potential Intensity of Effects 

(Negligible, Moderate, or 

Substantial) Potential to Negatively Affect 

Communities 

No Build Alternative Not applicable Not applicable

Northern N4A CONV No Negligible 

Central 

 

C4A HrSR Yes Moderate

C4A HSR Yes Moderate

C4B HrSR Yes Moderate

C4B HSR Yes Moderate

C4C HrSR Yes Moderate

C4C HSR Yes Moderate

Southern S4 HrSR Yes Moderate

S6 HSR Yes Moderate

S6 HrSR Yes Moderate

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-14 

Table 3.15-12: Summary of Potential Environmental Justice Effects by Alternative

Section Alternativea 

Context Potential Intensity of Effects 

(Negligible, Moderate, or 

Substantial) 

Potential to Affect 

Environmental Justice 

Populations 

No Build Alternative Not applicable Not applicable 

Northern N4A CONV No Negligible 

Central 

 

C4A HrSR Yes Moderate

C4A HSR Yes Moderate

C4B HrSR Yes Moderate

C4B HSR Yes Moderate

C4C HrSR Yes Moderate

C4C HSR Yes Moderate

Southern S4 HrSR Yes Substantial

S6 HSR Yes Substantial

S6 HrSR Yes Substantial

3.15.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance and minimization of effects will be incorporated when feasible. If effects cannot be 

avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented. Specific mitigation measures are 

not identified as part of the service-level analysis but will be identified during the project-level 

analysis when details on the proposed facilities are known. Potential mitigation strategies for 

socioeconomics and environmental justice that would be considered during project-level analysis 

include the following; 

 Consultation with local governments and planning agencies would be conducted, with 

consideration given to minimizing barrier effects to maintain neighborhood integrity, including

grade-separating planned rail lines and streets, new pedestrian crossings, new cross-connection 

points, improved visual quality of project facilities, and traffic management plans to maintain 

access during and after construction.

 Design strategies would be developed for application at the project level to avoid or minimize 

the temporary or permanent acquisition of residential and nonresidential property.

 Potential displacement and acquisitions (temporary use and/or permanent and nonresidential

property) should be avoided to the extent feasible by considering further alignment adjustments 

and design changes at the project level. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-15 

 Outreach to affected communities would be conducted as part of the decision-making process, 

and this outreach would be documented.

In addition, mitigation measures would be developed for temporary construction-related impacts on 

nearby neighborhoods and communities. Potential mitigation strategies to alleviate or minimize 

community cohesion-related effects could include the following: 

 Provide opportunities for community involvement early in project-level studies. 

 Conduct design workshops within each affected neighborhood to develop an understanding of 

key vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian linkages across the rail corridor so that those linkages can 

be preserved, including the use of grade-separated crossings.

 Ensure that connectivity (pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular crossings) across the rail corridor is

maintained where necessary to maintain neighborhood integrity.

 Develop a traffic management plan to reduce barrier effects during construction. 

 To the extent feasible, maintain connectivity during construction.

Other resources areas analyzed during the project-level analysis, including transportation, air 

quality, noise, and land use, would include mitigation strategies related to socioeconomics as well 

as strategies for minimizing impacts on the minority and/or low income populations. This effort 

would lead to the identification of the appropriate mitigation strategies in the event that an 

alternative would result in bisection of a community. 

3.15.7 Subsequent Analysis 

A community profile discussing cohesion and community facilities will need to be developed 

including additional focus on the communities with stations. A demographic analysis at a smaller 

geography with project-level focus will also need to be conducted to better understand who can be 

affected and who could benefit from construction and operation. The demographic analysis will also 

focus on environmental justice populations to help determine if these populations could be 

adversely affected by construction and/or operation. The environmental justice analysis will review 

all elements of the environment to determine if there are adverse effects that could result in 

disproportionate effects on minority or low-income populations and review the mitigation and 

potential community benefits and enhancements associated with the project. 

Avoiding or minimizing the community-related effects will involve working closely with local 

governments and planning agencies in the refinement and development of the alternatives and 

their corresponding alignments during the project-level analysis. Since Executive Order 12898 

requires federal agencies to ensure effective public participation and access to information, a more 

detailed and comprehensive outreach effort to potentially affected minority and/or low-income 

populations will need to be completed and documented at the project level. This detailed and 

comprehensive outreach effort could help identify issues of importance that would otherwise not be 

apparent. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.15-16 

The project-level analysis will need to include the potential effects on the number of displaced 

housing and businesses as well as identification of the displacement and/or relocation of 

community facilities. To avoid potential residential, business, and community facility displacements 

including construction-related acquisitions, the project-level analysis will need to consider, to the 

extent feasible, further alignment adjustments and design changes. In addition, analysis at the 

project level will consider relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This information will be used to evaluate the 

impact on property tax revenues resulting from the removal of these properties from the tax rolls as 

well as the effects associated with the loss of or relocation of community facilities. Future projectlevel analysis will need to identify any barriers that may result in a loss of community cohesion. 

The project-level analysis needs to include regional economic impact analysis, which will quantify 

the employment opportunities and income generated by the project during construction and 

operation of the project. This will need to be done by section and/or alternative depending on the 

availability of the cost data at these levels. The quantification of the number of jobs created by the 

project will be used to determine the potential effects on other socioeconomic resources such as 

housing, community facilities, and public services including emergency services. Additionally, local 

expenditures during construction and operation will be used to determine the sales tax revenues 

generated by the project. Finally, future project-level analysis will need to include detailed travel 

pattern analysis in concert with a detailed traffic analysis.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-1 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials 

This section describes public safety and security concerns within the environmental impact 

statement (EIS) Study Area, including railroad–highway crossing safety, operational safety, and 

security for the Program. This section also identifies and assesses effects on hazardous materials 

or hazardous materials sites for the alternatives. The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the EIS 

Study Area and use of terms such as Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, along with the 

standard organization of each analysis. 

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

The following sections discuss regulatory requirements for public safety and hazardous materials.

Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and will be addressed 

in project-level analysis.

3.16.1.1 Public Safety 

Applicable federal and state legislation and regulations pertaining to public safety within the EIS 

Study Area are listed and described below. 

3.16.1.1.1 Federal 

 Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 20101, et seq.). The act

directed the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to promulgate new safety regulations and 

other regulations pertaining to railroad safety, such as the number of service hours for railroad 

workers, implementation of positive train control, standards for inspecting track, certifications 

required for locomotive conductors, and safety criteria for railroad–highway grade crossings.

 FRA Railroad Safety Regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 200–299). Parts 

200–299 provide most of the federal regulations pertaining to railroad safety. Part 234 

prescribes the minimum maintenance, inspection, and testing standards for warning systems at 

railroad–highway grade crossings. 

 Railroad Safety (49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq.). Gives FRA authority over railroad safety to promote 

safety in all aspects of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents. 

 Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (49 CFR 1580). The 

Department of Homeland Security regulations are for the purpose of strengthening the security 

of the nation's freight and passenger rail systems. 

 Federal Railroad Safety Act (49 U.S.C. § 20101, et seq.). Gives the Secretary of Transportation 

authority to prescribe regulations for all areas of railroad safety (supplementing existing rail 

safety statutes and regulations) and to conduct necessary research, development, testing, 

evaluation, and training. 

 Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.). Gives the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) and FRA regulatory jurisdiction over safety at railroad–highway grade 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-2 

crossings and governs the distribution of federal funds to states to eliminate hazards at 

crossings. 

 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards (28 CFR 35.151 §36.401 [d][ii]. These revised 

regulations for Titles II and III of the ADA of 1990 set minimum requirements for newly designed 

and constructed or altered state and local government facilities, public accommodations, and 

commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

Infrastructure resulting from the Program would be expected to meet applicable portions of the

ADA standards. Additional detail will be included in the project-level analysis as indicated in 

Section 3.16.6, Subsequent Analysis. 

3.16.1.1.2 State 

 Oklahoma Statute, Title 66. Section 66-1 through 66-334. This Oklahoma statute governs 

railroads and their operations in Oklahoma. 

 Oklahoma Railroad Revitalization Act, 1978 (66 Oklahoma Statute § 66-302.1). This act 

specifies powers and duties of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation related to 

acquisition, construction, repair, operation, and maintenance of railroad right-of-way and 

trackage.

 Texas Transportation Code, Sec. 455.005. Rail Fixed Guideway Mass Transportation System 

Safety Oversight. Provides guidance on oversight of safety and security practices of rail fixed 

guideway mass transportation systems in compliance with 49 U.S.C. Section 5330. 

 Texas, Transportation Code, Title 6, Roadways, Subtitle Z, Misc. Provisions, Chapter 471, 

Railroads and Crossings. Governs safety of railroad crossings. 

 Texas Administrative Code, Title 43, Part 1, Chapter 31, Subchapter F. Provides rail transit 

agency responsibilities under the Rail Fixed Guideway, System State Safety Oversight Program. 

3.16.1.2 Hazardous Materials 

Applicable federal and state legislation and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials within the 

EIS Study Area are listed and described below. 

3.16.1.2.1 Federal 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq.) and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations (40 CFR 261–268, 270–273, and 279–

282). Provides rules and requirements related to the regulation of hazardous wastes including 

classification, generator requirements (e.g., labelling and accumulation), transporter 

requirements, land disposal criteria and requirements, universal waste, and used oil.

 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations (40 CFR 100–185). Provides rules and 

requirements related to the transportation of hazardous wastes.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-3 

 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S.C. § 11004, et seq.) regulations 

(42 CFR 116). Also known as Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Title III, 

provides for the collection and public release of information about the presence and release of 

hazardous or toxic chemicals in the nation's communities. The goal is to help citizens, officials, 

and community leaders to be better informed about toxic and hazardous materials in their 

communities.

3.16.1.2.2 State 

 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), Oklahoma Administrative Code Title 

252, Chapter 205. Provides rules and requirements related to the regulation of hazardous 

wastes in Oklahoma.

 Oklahoma Motor Carrier Safety and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 47 Oklahoma 

Statutes Annotated 230.1–230.16. Provides rules and requirements related to the 

transportation of hazardous wastes in Oklahoma.

 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Title 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 

335. Provides rules and requirements related to the regulation of hazardous and industrial 

wastes in Texas.

 Texas Department of Public Safety, Title 37 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 4.16. Provides 

rules and requirements related to the transportation of hazardous and industrial wastes in

Texas.

Methodology 

3.16.2.1 Public Safety 

Public safety is generally evaluated to understand the effects of passenger rail construction and 

operation on the following: 

 Safety of construction workers and the traveling public during construction

 Public safety at railroad–highway crossings

 Safety of train passengers and operators during passenger rail operation

 Effects of construction and operations on emergency response routes and times

 Crime risk at construction sites and within the passenger rail system during operation

The National Transportation Atlas Database, Highway–Rail Crossings database (USDOT 2013) was 

reviewed to identify preliminary information on locations of the existing railroad–highway crossings 

for each alternative. Federal safety and security rules and design standards were reviewed to 

determine required design and operational practices for passenger rail systems.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-4 

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

moderate, or substantial compared with the No Build Alternative. For public safety, these terms are 

defined as follows:

 Negligible intensity effects are those that would have a slight change in public safety risks or the 

risk of accidents but are very close to the existing conditions. 

 Moderate intensity effects are those that would have a noticeable change in public safety risks 

or the risk of accidents at specific sites or localized areas, but would not have wide-ranging 

effects. 

 Substantial intensity effects are those that would have a noticeable change in public safety 

risks or the risk of accidents on a regional scale. 

3.16.2.2 Hazardous Materials 

It is assumed that recorded hazardous materials sites could potentially affect the acquired rights-ofway in the EIS Study Area. Areas where new rights-of-way may be acquired or where more 

significant earth-disturbing activities would occur (e.g., at proposed station locations or for certain 

service type [conventional rail, higher-speed rail, and high-speed rail] requirements) have increased 

potential to disturb contaminated or potentially contaminated hazardous materials sites.

Disturbance of contaminated sites could affect human health and the environment. 

The hazardous materials sites within the EIS Study Area were identified using search records 

limited to the online federal and state databases that are listed below. These data sources provide 

preliminary information to identify potential presence of hazardous sites within the EIS Study Area. 

The following databases were reviewed for this service-level EIS: 

 National Priority List (NPL) sites (EPA 2014a) 

 Comprehensive Emergency Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System

(CERCLIS) sites (EPA 2014b) 

 Oklahoma NPL site summaries (ODEQ 2014a) 

 Oklahoma RCRA CORRACTS sites (ODEQ 2014b) 

 Oklahoma Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) sites (ODEQ 2014c) 

 Oklahoma Institutional Control Sites (ODEQ 2014d) 

 Oklahoma permitted solid waste facilities (ODEQ 2014e)

 Texas Superfund sites (TCEQ 2014a) 

 Texas VCP cleanups and remediation (TCEQ 2014b) 

 Texas RCRA CORRACTS sites (TCEQ 2014c) 

 Texas municipal solid waste sites (TCEQ 2013)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-5 

For this service-level EIS, the analysis was limited to federal and state databases that list 

hazardous materials sites and hazardous wastes sites with potential for effects on the 

environment. For the purposes of this assessment, sites with potential effects are those included in 

the databases listed above, which are typically sites with serious contamination issues or those, 

such as leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites that would be considered during projectlevel evaluations, when site-specific analysis can be based on detailed alignment plans and 

profiles. No site-specific investigations were conducted for this service-level EIS. 

This analysis focuses on the number of identified sites from the narrowed list of federal and state 

databases within the EIS Study Area. For this service-level comparison of alternatives, the number 

of sites within an alternative’s study area indicates an overall level of potential effect; more sites 

generally imply more potential risks to human health and the environment could occur as a result 

of contamination encountered during construction. 

Conventional rail would mostly use existing railroad rights-of-way. Existing railroad track may be 

used, or in some cases, modifications such as double-tracking could be constructed within the 

existing right-of-way to accommodate additional trains. Because less construction would be 

necessary, the risk of exposure to or release of hazardous materials from disturbed contaminated 

sites would be less than higher-speed or high-speed rail. 

Higher-speed rail can use existing track, but may require improvements such as upgraded concrete 

ties, improved signaling, and upgraded roadway crossings. Additional tracks could be required to 

accommodate separate freight and passenger services within a shared right-of-way. Outside of an 

existing transportation corridor, new alignment would be designed to eventually accommodate highspeed rail service. The risk of exposure to or release of hazardous materials from disturbed 

contaminated sites would be greater than conventional rail as the result of the need for additional 

construction. High-speed rail would be double-tracked and fully grade-separated. Construction 

would be required outside of the existing transportation corridors. The risk of exposure to or release 

of hazardous materials from disturbed contaminated sites would be greater for high-speed rail than 

either conventional rail or higher-speed rail as the need for construction would be greater. 

In this comparison, each type of listing is given equal weight. The service-level analysis does not

include a detailed assessment of the nature or extent of any hazardous materials or wastes that 

may be present at identified sites or the degree and specific nature of potential effects under the 

various alternatives. The analysis and identification of potential hazards within the EIS Study Area is 

useful for comparing alternatives and identifying areas where avoidance may be possible during 

project-level reviews. 

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

moderate, or substantial compared with the No Build Alternative. For hazardous materials, these 

terms are defined as follows:
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-6 

 Negligible intensity effects are those that present no, or only slightly increased risk to the public 

or environment related to the potential for encountering hazardous materials or substances. 

 Moderate intensity effects are those that present a localized increased risk to the public or 

environment related to the potential for encountering hazardous materials or substances. 

 Substantial intensity effects are those that present increased risk to the public or environment 

related to the potential for encountering hazardous materials or substances on a regional scale. 

Affected Environment 

This section describes the affected environment related to public safety and security and 

hazardous materials in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections of the EIS Study Area. 

3.16.3.1 Overview 

3.16.3.1.1 Public Safety 

At-grade crossings present a risk of collisions between trains and other travel modes, as well as a 

risk of collisions between vehicles, particularly rear-end-type crashes when vehicles stop at a 

crossing. Grade-separated crossings eliminate this type of safety risk because trains are separated 

from other travel modes. A study of the safety conditions at each existing crossing will occur during 

project-level analysis.

When emergency response routes cross at-grade crossings, response times can be inconsistent 

because of delays caused by passing trains. Grade-separated crossings are preferable for optimal 

response times and consistency. Emergency response times are generally quicker in urban areas 

where crossings are closer together than in rural areas where crossings are farther apart. Specific 

emergency response routes, times, and service areas will be evaluated during project-level 

analysis. 

3.16.3.1.2 Hazardous Materials 

Hazardous materials sites from the narrowed list of federal and state databases are discussed 

below for the alternatives in the EIS Study Area of each geographic section. 

3.16.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.16.3.2.1 Public Safety 

Table 3.16-1 lists the number of vehicular public and private crossings and pedestrian-only 

crossings of existing rail lines with the Northern Section EIS Study Area. There were 401 vehicular 

public and private crossings and pedestrian-only crossings of the BNSF and Trinity Railway Express 

(TRE) rail lines. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-7 

Table 3.16-1: Existing Crossings of BNSF and TRE Rail Lines in the Northern Section 

EIS Study Area

Alternative 

At-grade Crossings Grade-separated Crossings 

Total 

Vehicular 

Public 

Vehicular 

Private Pedestrian Subtotal 

Vehicular 

Public 

Vehicular 

Private Pedestrian Subtotal 

N4A 225 57 0 282 108 8 3 119 401

Source: USDOT (2013). 

3.16.3.2.2 Hazardous Materials 

Table 3.16-2 lists the hazardous materials sites identified within the Northern Section EIS Study 

Area. Of the eight sites identified, one NPL site, one CERCLIS site, one RCRA site with Corrective 

Action, three VCP sites, and two institutional controls sites were identified. There is also one closed 

landfill. The site designated as a “Superfund1,” site surrounds the existing BNSF rail line in 

Ardmore, Oklahoma. Cleanup at the site was completed; however, there are institutional controls at 

this site that are meant to protect the public from any contamination that remains in place (ODEQ 

2013). The locations of these hazardous materials sites are shown on Figure 3.16-1.

Table 3.16-2: Hazardous Materials Sites in the Northern Section EIS Study Area

Site Location Type Statusa 

Identified 

Contaminants 

Alternative N4A 

Imperial Refining 

Superfund Site

Ardmore, Oklahoma NPL, 

institutional 

controls site

Inactive Arsenic, BTEX, 

chromium, lead, 

nickel, PAH,

selenium, zinc

OKC Educare 

Remediation Site

Southeast Grand 

Blvd and Bryant

Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma

institutional 

controls site

Active Chloride, TPH

Rail yard–Santa Fe

Depot

1501 Jones St

Fort Worth, Texas

VCP Inactive TPH

Buckley Oil Company 1809 Rock Island

Dallas, Texas

VCP Inactive TPH

KOP-COAT, Inc. 801 East Lee Street

Irving, Texas

CERCLIS Closed Metals, VOCs, 

SVOCs, pesticides

 

1 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund, is a federal law 

designed to clean up contaminated sites. The law authorizes EPA or Native American tribes to recover damages 

caused by contamination. EPA identifies the parties that are financially responsible for the cleanup.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-8 

Site Location Type Statusa 

Identified 

Contaminants 

Schnee-Morehead, Inc. 111 N. Nursery 

Road 

Irving, Texas

RCRA –

Corrective 

Action

Active Not listed

MU Hi Line Drive 

Property – North Tract

Hi Line Drive and 

Alamo Drive 

Dallas, Texas

VCP Inactive Metals, petroleum 

hydrocarbons 

Sego Landfill 12700 Calloway 

Cemetery Road 

Euless, Texas

Landfill Closed Municipal solid 

waste

a Active: Some form of remediation or monitoring ongoing. 

Inactive: No active remediation; may include ongoing monitoring; contamination may be present, but controlled

on-site. 

Closed: No longer under active regulatory oversight; may have contamination contained in place with land use or 

institutional controls.

BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; SVOC = semivolatile 

organic compound; TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbon; VOC = volatile organic compound

Sources: EPA (2014a); EPA (2014b); ODEQ (2014a); ODEQ (2014b); ODEQ (2014c); ODEQ (2014d); ODEQ (2014e); 

TCEQ (2014a); TCEQ (2014b); TCEQ (2014c); TCEQ (2013). 

3.16.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.16.3.3.1 Public Safety 

Table 3.16-3 lists the number of vehicular public and private crossings, and pedestrian-only 

crossings of existing rail lines with the Central Section EIS Study Area for each route alternative. 

The study area for Alternative C4C contains the most crossings (361); the study area for C4B 

contains the fewest crossings (176). 

Table 3.16-3: Existing Crossings of Rail Lines in the Central Section EIS Study Area

Alternative 

At-grade Crossings Grade-separated Crossings 

Total Vehicular 

Public 

Vehicular 

Private Pedestrian Subtotal 

Vehicular 

Public 

Vehicular 

Private Pedestrian Subtotal 

C4A 162 27 0 189 78 3 0 81 270

C4B 105 18 2 125 50 1 0 51 176

C4C 215 37 0 252 106 3 0 109 361

Source: USDOT (2013).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-9 

Figure 3.16-1: Hazardous Materials Sites, Oklahoma to Dallas and Fort Worth 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-10 

3.16.3.3.2 Hazardous Materials 

Table 3.16-4 lists the hazardous materials sites identified within the Central Section EIS Study Area. 

Of the sites identified, there is one NPL site, one CERCLIS site, two RCRAs with Corrective Action, 

and six VCP sites. In addition, there are three closed landfills and one active landfill. The locations 

of these hazardous materials sites are shown on Figure 3.16-2.

Table 3.16-4: Hazardous Materials Sites in the Central Section EIS Study Area

Site Location Type Statusa 

Identified 

Contaminants 

Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C 

Buckley Oil Company 1809 Rock Island

Dallas, Texas

VCP Inactive TPH

General Tire, Inc. 600 S Loop Drive

Waco, Texas

RCRA –

Corrective 

Action

Inactive TPH, PAH, PCB

DSR Enterprises, Inc. 901 Peach Street

Waco, Texas

VCP Inactive Aldrin, chlordane, 

DDD, DDE, DDT, 

dieldrin, endrin,

heptachlor, lindane, 

toxaphene 

City of Abbott Landfill Hill County, Texas Landfill Closed Municipal solid 

waste 

City of Austin Landfill Travis County, Texas Landfill Closed Municipal solid 

waste

Guadalupe County 

Precinct 1 Landfill

Guadalupe County, Texas Landfill Closed Municipal solid 

waste

Alternatives C4A and C4C 

KOP-COAT, Inc. 801 E Lee Street

Irving, Texas

CERCLIS Closed Metals, pesticides, 

SVOCs, VOCs 

Schnee-Morehead, Inc. 111 N Nursery Road 

Irving, Texas

RCRA –

Corrective 

Action

Active Not listed

MU Hi Line Drive

Property – North Tract

Hi Line Drive and Alamo Drive

Dallas, Texas

VCP Inactive Metals, petroleum 

hydrocarbons

Alternative C4B 

Arlington Stadium 

Parking Lot

1401 Nolan Ryan Expressway 

Arlington, Texas

VCP Inactive Metals, arsenic, 

cadmium, lead

RSR Corp – Murph 

Metals

Singleton Blvd and 

Westmoreland Road, Texas

NPL Active Metals
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-11 

Site Location Type Statusa 

Identified 

Contaminants 

Alternative C4C 

O.B. Marconi Company 108 Maryland Ave

Fort Worth, Texas

VCP Active Metals, TPH

Plaza de Las Americas 

Center (Texas Steel)

4001 Hemphill Street

Fort Worth, Texas

VCP Inactive Metals, PCBs, TPH, 

VOCs

Turkey Creek Landfill 9100 S IH-35 

Alvarado, Texas

Landfill Active Municipal solid 

waste

a Active: Some form of remediation or monitoring ongoing. 

 Inactive: No active remediation; may include ongoing monitoring; contamination may be present, but controlled on-site

 Closed: No longer under active regulatory oversight; may have contamination contained in place with land use or 

institutional controls.

DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane; DDE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene; DDT= dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl

Sources: EPA (2014a); EPA (2014b); ODEQ (2014a); ODEQ (2014b); ODEQ (2014c); ODEQ (2014d); ODEQ (2014e); 

TCEQ (2014a); TCEQ (2014b); TCEQ (2014c); TCEQ (2013). 

3.16.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.16.3.4.1 Public Safety 

Table 3.16-5 lists the number of vehicular public and private crossings and pedestrian-only 

crossings of existing rail lines with the Southern Section EIS Study Area for each alternative. The 

study area for Alternative S4 has 368 vehicular public and private crossings and pedestrian-only 

crossings of existing rail lines; the Alternative S6 study area has 9 crossings (Table 3.16-5). 

Table 3.16-5: Existing Crossings of Rail Lines in the Southern Section EIS Study Area

Alternative 

At-grade Crossings Grade-separated Crossings 

Total 

Vehic

ular 

Public 

Vehicul

ar 

Private Pedestrian Subtotal 

Vehic

ular 

Public 

Vehicul

ar 

Private Pedestrian Subtotal 

S4 265 96 0 361 7 0 0 7 368

S6 1 5 0 6 3 0 0 3 9 

Source: USDOT (2013).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-12 

Figure 3.16-2: Hazardous Materials Sites, Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-13 

3.16.3.4.2 Hazardous Materials 

Table 3.16-6 lists the hazardous materials sites identified within the Southern Section EIS Study 

Area. No hazardous materials sites were identified in the study area for Alternative S6. Of the sites 

identified in the study area for Alternative S4, two are NPL sites and one is a VCP site. In addition, 

there is one closed landfill. The locations of these hazardous materials sites are shown on 

Figure 3.16-3. 

Table 3.16-6: Hazardous Materials Sites in the Southern Section EIS Study Area

Site Location Type Status 

Identified 

Contaminants 

Alternative S4 

R & H Oil 403 Somerset Road 

Texas

NPL Active Petroleum-related 

waste and plume with 

2-methyl naphthalene, 

arsenic, BTEX, barium, 

naphthalene, zinc

Clark Knapp Motor Company 801 W Business 83, 

McAllen, Texas

VCP Inactive Metals, TPH

Niagara Chemical Commerce Street 

and Adams Ave

Texas

NPL Closed Arsenic, lead, 

pesticides

Jim Wells Landfill Jim Wells County, 

Texas

Landfill Closed Municipal solid waste

a Active: Some form of remediation or monitoring ongoing. 

 Inactive: No active remediation; may include ongoing monitoring; contamination may be present, but controlled onsite

 Closed: No longer under active regulatory oversight; may have contamination contained in place with land use or 

institutional controls.

Sources: EPA (2014a); EPA (2014b); ODEQ (2014a); ODEQ (2014b); ODEQ (2014c); ODEQ (2014d); ODEQ (2014e); 

TCEQ (2014a); TCEQ (2014b); TCEQ (2014c); TCEQ (2013). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-14 

Figure 3.16-3: Hazardous Materials Sites, San Antonio to South Texas 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-15 

Environmental Consequences 

This section describes the environmental consequences and effects on public safety and security 

and hazardous materials for each alternative. 

3.16.4.1 Overview 

3.16.4.1.1 Public Safety 

This section provides an overview of the public safety and security effects that would be common to 

all alternatives in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections. The discussion includes references 

to project design features and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies that would be 

implemented as part of the Program. The features are listed in Section 3.16.5, Avoidance, 

Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. 

Construction 

During construction, common safety effects include accidents, road closures, detours, and potential 

delays for emergency services or responders. These effects can cause risks to human health, 

including injury and death. During construction, a construction transportation plan would be 

implemented to limit the risks. Effects on human health would be negligible with this standard 

safety precautionary measure. 

During construction, some new roadway overcrossings of the rail line would be built. Although 

at-grade crossings are allowed for conventional rail and higher-speed rail, FRA regulations require 

at-grade crossings to be eliminated for high-speed rail (trains that operate at 125 miles per hour or 

greater). Therefore, it is likely that more roadway overcrossings would be constructed for the 

high-speed rail than for conventional and higher-speed rail. 

Two options would be available for roadway overcrossing construction, depending on site 

conditions: (1) the overcrossing would be built parallel to the existing roadway while traffic remains

on the existing roadway or (2) the overcrossing would be built on the existing roadway alignment, 

which would require road closure during the overcrossing construction period. 

For overcrossings built parallel to the existing roadway, traffic would be maintained on the existing 

roadway during the overcrossing construction period. When construction is complete, traffic would 

be moved to the new overcrossing and the existing roadway section removed. Temporary lane 

closures would be required while the final connections are made to the new road overcrossings. 

Because the lane closures would be temporary (likely less than 1 day), the effects on traffic and 

emergency response would be minimal. The resulting effects on public safety would be negligible 

because detour routes would be established if needed, and a construction transportation plan

implemented that specifies the procedures for coordination with emergency service providers. 

For overcrossings built on the existing roadway alignment, the existing roadway would be closed 

and it would be necessary to detour traffic onto other roads. Road closures typically last 8 to 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-16 

10 months, but can be as long as 18 months. Lane closures and detours may distract automobile 

drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists, possibly leading to accidents and increased congestion. 

Increased numbers of accidents or localized congestion could increase response times for law 

enforcement and emergency services. An increase in emergency evacuation times could also occur.

A construction transportation plan would be implemented that specifies the procedures for 

coordination with emergency service providers. Other components of the plan would include traffic 

control measures to address temporary road closures, provisions for detours, and alternative

routes. Because a construction transportation plan and associated traffic control measures would 

be implemented, the resulting effects on public safety and construction workers during construction 

would be negligible. 

Criminal activity at construction sites such as equipment theft or vandalism after work hours are 

typical crimes that can occur at heavy construction sites. Common construction site security 

measures would be instituted, including securing equipment and materials after hours in locked 

storage areas, and the use of security personnel. With these construction security measures in 

place, the resulting effects on security during construction would be negligible. 

Project Operation 

The project-level design would include safety features that follow safety design standards. During 

operation, passenger train traffic routing would comply with federal and state rules for vehicular 

movement, such as right-of-way fencing, contemporary signaling, Positive Train Control systems2, 

and adequate clearance between parallel passenger and freight rail tracks. Conventional rail would 

share track or rights-of-way with existing rail lines. Higher-speed rail would operate on dedicated 

track but could share rights-of-way with existing rail lines. High-speed rail would operate on 

dedicated rights-of-way, eliminating potential conflicts with other trains (such as freight trains) or 

other vehicles. Passenger trains must comply with FRA crash worthiness standards.

Railroad–highway at-grade crossings for conventional and higher-speed rail are required to use 

warning devices for safety, in compliance with FRA regulations. The safety risks associated with 

at-grade crossings include the potential for train collisions with other travel modes and the risk of 

collisions involving vehicles approaching or stopped at crossings. Because no at-grade crossings of 

high-speed rail corridors are allowed, the high-speed rail alternatives would present less risk to 

public safety than the conventional and higher-speed rail alternatives. 

Emergency response times would likely be quicker and more consistent for the high-speed rail 

alternatives than the conventional and higher-speed rail alternatives because all crossings would 

be grade-separated. Grade-separated crossings would not cause the delays that occur when trains 

 

2 Positive Train Control is a technology designed to automatically stop or slow a train before certain accidents occur. In 

particular, Positive Train Control is designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, derailments caused by excessive 

speed and unauthorized movement of trains onto sections of track where repairs are being made or as a result of a 

misaligned track switch (Association of American Railroads no date). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-17 

are passing at-grade crossings. Fewer effects on emergency response times and routes would 

occur in urban areas of the rail alignment because railroad–highway crossings would be closer 

together than in rural areas. Specific emergency response routes, times, and service areas will be 

evaluated during project-level analysis.

Because stations, tracks, or trains could be considered potential terrorist targets, protective 

measures, including access control and security monitoring systems, would be used to deter these 

acts and provide early detection. A safety and security plan will be prepared to cover acts of 

terrorism. These measures would reduce the potential for successful criminal and terrorist acts 

during program operation to a negligible effect. 

Hazardous Materials 

Construction vehicles and equipment have the potential to release hazardous materials, mainly 

petroleum products. Construction activities also increase the likelihood for encountering existing 

and unknown regulated materials. Dewatering activities during construction could potentially alter 

existing groundwater contamination plumes and affect additional properties. Heavy truck traffic 

may also increase during construction, creating an increased potential for hazardous material 

spills. Appropriate construction safety procedures, equipment stockpiling methods, material 

handling plans, and solid waste management procedures would be implemented to protect human 

health and the environment and minimize releases. With these procedures in place, effects related 

to hazardous materials during construction would be negligible. 

As previously described, this service-level EIS was performed on a narrowed list of federal and state 

databases and does not incorporate information from other smaller sites, such as sites with LUSTs, 

which could contribute to local risks. These types of sites would be considered during the projectlevel analysis, when detailed alignment plans and profiles are developed. 

Assuming that a larger number of identified hazardous materials and hazardous waste sites 

increases the potential for hazardous materials and hazardous waste effects, the extent of effects 

and cleanup or remediation would depend on the service type (conventional, higher-speed, or highspeed rail) of the route alternative and the station locations selected, as described in Section 

3.16.1.2. The extent of cleanup or remediation would increase costs for construction, which could 

make a major difference in the practicality or feasibility of an alternative. 

Specific hazardous materials site limits, contamination boundaries, and effects will be analyzed 

during project-level evaluation. The project-level design would avoid the affected sites to the extent 

possible. The nature and extent of the contaminated sites or materials require specific 

environmental health and safety plans and procedures to protect construction workers, 

surrounding communities, and the environment. Material handling plans, personal protection, 

workplace monitoring, alternative designs, and methods of construction would need to be 

evaluated and selected to limit the effect from contaminated materials. With these measures in 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-18 

place, effects related to disturbance and cleanup or remediation of hazardous materials sites 

would be negligible, but could be moderate depending on the extent of effects. 

Program operation would increase the chance of accidental hazardous material releases during 

train refueling, maintenance operations, or from spills during operation of the trains. Such incidents 

can affect water quality if contaminants flow into water bodies. However, by implementing standard

permanent best management practices (BMPs), water quality effects from accidental hazardous 

materials releases would be avoided or minimized and would be negligible. 

3.16.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect safety or hazardous 

materials.

Public Safety 

Existing safety conditions related to the identified rail crossings for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and 

bicyclists would not change under the No Build Alternative. Because the majority of the existing 

tracks in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections are at-grade, there is a potential for train and 

automobile accidents at at-grade crossings, and there are existing safety risks associated with 

pedestrians crossing the tracks illegally. Under the No Build Alternative, the potential for these 

types of occurrences would not change; no improvements or construction of infrastructure or 

stations would occur, and there would be no effects on existing railroad operations. Existing 

security conditions under the No Build Alternative would not change, and emergency response 

plans and procedures would not be affected.

Hazardous Materials 

Under the No Build Alternative, no section of the proposed project would be constructed. There 

would be no effects on hazardous materials sites under the No Build Alternative. In comparison to 

the build alternatives in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections, the No Build Alternative 

would have the least effect related to hazardous materials sites within the project-level EIS Study 

Area; however, the No Build Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the Program 

identified in Chapter 1.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-19 

3.16.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.16.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Public Safety 

Implementation of Alternative N4A Conventional would require changes to existing crossings of the 

BNSF and TRE rail lines. Some crossings would be closed, others would be upgraded to higher 

levels of crossing protection (e.g., four-quadrant gates3), and others would be grade-separated. A 

small number of new crossings (either at-grade or grade-separated) could be required in areas 

where modifications to the existing rail alignment are needed. 

The project-level design would incorporate engineering safety measures and safety BMPs for atgrade and grade-separated rail crossings in accordance with federal and state regulations. These 

safety features would provide a warning system and physical barrier to vehicles, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians when a train is approaching. Because these safety measures would be implemented, 

some crossings would be closed, others would be updated with better crossing protection, and 

others would be grade-separated; crossing safety would be improved over existing conditions and 

the No Build Alternative. The safety risk associated with potential train collisions with vehicles, 

bicyclists, or pedestrians at these crossings would be negligible. 

The operational relationships between passenger rail and freight rail would be assessed during a 

project-level analysis. Current and future freight operations would be considered so that both

services operate without conflicts, and passenger rail vehicles would meet FRA crash-worthiness 

standards. Positive Train Control would need to be provided on any corridor that has not already 

implemented it, in compliance with the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (49 CFR Part 236, 

Subpart I).

Modifications to existing crossings could affect emergency response times, either by increasing 

them in the case of crossing closures or decreasing them when at-grade crossings are gradeseparated. Future project-level analysis would create a comprehensive grade crossing plan that 

addresses a full range of options, such as consolidating groups of crossings, grade-separating 

heavily used crossings, closing selected crossings, and implementing proven techniques for 

reducing hazards at the remaining open at-grade crossings. The grade crossing plan would adhere 

to the practices and standards in the Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (FHWA 2007).

Project-level design would include coordination with emergency responders to incorporate roadway 

modifications that maintain existing traffic patterns and fulfill response route needs. Because the 

grade crossing plan would adhere to national standards and coordination with emergency 

 

3 Four-quadrant gate systems consist of a series of automatic flashing light signals and gates in which the gates extend 

across both the approach and the departure side of roadway lanes. Unlike two-quadrant gate systems, four-quadrant 

gates provide additional visual constraints and inhibit nearly all traffic movements through the crossing after the 

gates are lowered (FHWA 2007). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-20 

responders would occur during project-level design, effects on emergency response times would be 

negligible. 

Passenger safety at stations would comply with FRA and ADA requirements (see Section 3.16.2). 

Stations that are currently used would continue to be used as improvements are made to the 

existing conventional rail service. Stations may be improved, such as adding a second platform, 

while service continues within the station. Safety and ADA access during station improvements 

would be addressed through standard safety precautions, such as textured warning strips along 

platform edges, properly designed lighting, and adequate platform depth to allow passengers to 

stand away from active tracks. Grade-separated pedestrian crossings would allow passengers to 

safely cross tracks and access all station platforms. Other station improvements that promote 

safety may include designating pedestrian and vehicle spaces, and adding passenger pick-up and 

drop-off zones. Because these safety standards would be implemented, the effects of safety risks 

at stations would be negligible.

Hazardous Materials 

Alternative N4A Conventional has the potential to affect eight known hazardous materials sites 

within the Northern Section EIS Study Area, including a closed Superfund site; this site has

institutional controls that are meant to protect the public from any contamination that remains in 

place (ODEQ 2013). Although this alternative would primarily operate on existing track, 

modifications to the existing track, such as curve straightening, would be needed in some locations, 

and associated features (e.g., roadway shifts, grade separations, construction activities, and 

maintenance-of-way facilities) would also occur within the Northern Section EIS Study Area. 

More in-depth investigations would be required to determine the nature and severity of 

contamination at the affected sites. Project-level design would avoid the affected sites to the extent 

possible. Additionally, investigation of other smaller sites, such as LUST sites, would occur during a 

project-level analysis, when detailed alignment plans and profiles are developed. With the 

development of environmental health and safety plans and procedures, effects from hazardous 

materials would be negligible. 

Stations in the Northern Section would use existing facilities and infrastructure. It is possible that 

additional hazardous materials sites may be identified near the station locations. If existing stations 

require renovation to accommodate passenger rail, effects on hazardous materials sites would not 

be expected. During renovation of a station, if hazardous materials are encountered (e.g., asbestos 

or lead-based paint), the applicable federal and state regulations would be followed for removal 

and disposal at an appropriately permitted facility. Because hazardous materials that would be 

potentially encountered during renovation would be removed and disposed in accordance with 

applicable federal and state regulations, effects would be negligible. Station locations have not yet 

been determined, and it is possible that additional listed hazardous materials sites may be 

identified near the station locations. Project-level design would avoid the affected sites to the 

extent possible. Additionally, investigation of other smaller sites would occur during a project-level 

analysis, when detailed station plans are developed. With the development of environmental health 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-21 

and safety plans and procedures, effects from hazardous materials associated with the stations 

would be negligible. 

3.16.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.16.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Public Safety 

Implementation of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would require changes to existing crossings of 

rail lines that would share rights-of-way with the alternative. Some crossings would be closed, 

others would be upgraded to higher levels of crossing protection (e.g., four-quadrant gates), and 

others would be grade-separated. A large number of new crossings (both at-grade and gradeseparated) would be required where the alternative follows a new alignment outside of existing rail 

corridors and in areas where modifications to existing rail are needed. 

Project design would incorporate engineering safety measures and safety BMPs for at-grade and 

grade-separated rail crossings in accordance with federal and state regulations. These safety 

features provide a warning system and physical barrier to vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians when 

a train is approaching. Because these safety measures would be implemented, crossing safety 

would be improved over existing conditions and the No Build Alternative, and the safety risk 

associated with potential for train collisions with vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians at these 

crossings would be negligible. 

Though at-grade crossings would incorporate required crossing protection measures, 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have more chances for collisions than any of the highspeed rail alternatives because the latter would be fully grade-separated. Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail is longer than Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and therefore would likely have more 

at-grade crossings and associated chance of collisions. Inversely, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

is shorter than Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, and therefore would likely have fewer at-grade 

crossings and associated chance of collisions.

Passenger rail tracks that parallel freight rail tracks would maintain adequate separation to prevent 

derailed trains from entering the adjacent trackway, or the design would include physical barriers, 

such as crash walls, in areas where adequate physical separation cannot be attained. These types 

of design features would be determined during the project-level design and analysis, and would 

follow the design and safety standards and recommended practices in the 2014 Manual for 

Railway Engineering (American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association [AREMA]

2014) and federal Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213). 

Modifications to existing crossings could affect emergency response times by increasing them in 

the case of crossing closures or decreasing them when at-grade crossings are grade-separated. In 

areas where Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would follow a new alignment outside of existing 

transportation corridors, some roadways crossing the new alignment could be closed and others 

could be constructed as at-grade or grade-separated crossings. Project-level analysis would include 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-22 

a comprehensive grade crossing plan that addresses a full range of options, such as consolidating 

groups of roadways or crossings into a single crossing, grade-separating heavily used crossings, 

closing selected roadways or crossings, and implementing proven techniques for reducing hazards 

at the remaining open at-grade crossings. The grade crossing plan would adhere to the practices 

and standards in the Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (FHWA 2007).

Project design would include coordination with emergency responders to incorporate roadway 

modifications that maintain existing traffic patterns and fulfill response route needs. Because the 

grade crossing plan would adhere to national standards, and coordination with emergency 

responders would occur during design, effects on emergency response times would be negligible. 

Passenger safety at stations would be the same as discussed under Alternative N4A Conventional, 

and would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail has the potential to affect nine hazardous materials sites 

identified from the narrowed list of federal and state databases within the Central Section EIS Study 

Area, which is fewer than the C4C alternatives and more than the C4B alternatives. Although this 

alternative could use existing track, modifications to the existing track would be needed. Additional 

track would be needed in some locations to accommodate separate freight and passenger 

services. Where located outside an existing corridor, new alignment would be designed to 

eventually accommodate high-speed rail. Project-level design would avoid the affected sites to the 

extent possible. Additionally, investigation of other smaller sites, such as LUST sites, would occur 

during project-level analysis, when detailed alignment plans and profiles are developed. With the 

development of environmental health and safety plans and procedures, the use of existing track 

where feasible, and avoidance of known contamination sites, effects from hazardous materials 

would be negligible, as discussed in Section 3.16.4.1. 

Station locations have not yet been determined, and it is possible that additional listed hazardous 

materials sites may be identified near the station locations. Stations would be either newly 

constructed or renovations of existing stations. If stations require renovation, effects would be the 

same as described for Alternative N4A Conventional. Newly constructed stations would require an 

additional project-level analysis to determine conditions related to hazardous materials 

contamination in the vicinity of the station location. Nonetheless, the effect would be negligible. 

3.16.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Public Safety 

High-speed rail alternatives would operate on a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. 

No at-grade crossings of high-speed rail corridors would be allowed, thus preventing conflicts with 

other modes of travel. Implementation of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would likely result in 

changes to existing crossings of rail lines located adjacent to the alternative, depending on the 

physical distance between the new passenger rail track and the existing rail track. Some crossings 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-23 

would be closed and others would be grade-separated. A large number of new grade-separated 

crossings would be required where the alternative follows a new alignment outside of existing rail 

corridors. Because Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be fully grade-separated, there would be 

no effects or safety risks associated with the potential for train collisions with other modes of travel, 

and crossing safety would be improved over existing conditions and the No Build Alternative. 

Passenger rail tracks that parallel freight tracks would maintain adequate separation to prevent 

derailed trains from entering the adjacent rail trackway, or they would include physical barriers, 

such as crash walls, in areas where adequate physical separation cannot be attained. These types 

of design features would be determined during project-level design and analysis, and would follow 

the design and safety standards and recommended practices in the 2014 Manual for Railway 

Engineering (AREMA 2014) and federal Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213).

Modifications to roadways and existing crossings could affect emergency response times either by 

increasing them in the case of roadway or crossing closures or decreasing them when existing atgrade crossings are grade-separated. Subsequent project-level analysis would create a 

comprehensive grade crossing plan that addresses a full range of options, such as consolidating 

groups of roadways or crossings into a single crossing, closing selected roadways or crossings, and 

grade-separating remaining roadways and crossings. The crossing plan would adhere to the 

standards in the Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (FHWA 2007).

Project design would include coordination with emergency responders to incorporate roadway 

modifications that maintain existing traffic patterns and fulfill response route needs. Because the 

crossing plan would adhere to national standards and coordination with emergency responders 

would occur during design, effects on emergency response times would be negligible. 

Passenger safety at stations would be the same as for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, and 

would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

While both service-types for C4A follow the same route, the effects of Alternative C4A High-Speed 

Rail would be greater than the effects under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because more

construction would be necessary, making the possibility of encountering contamination moderate. 

Although station locations might vary between the alternatives, the same considerations related to 

renovations of existing stations and additional analysis at new station locations would apply. Effects 

from hazardous materials would be negligible. 

3.16.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Public Safety 

Effects on public safety would be the same as those described under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail, because the same types of changes to existing crossings and needs for new crossings would 

occur and the same required safety measures, grade crossing plan, and coordination with 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-24 

emergency responders would be implemented. However, Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would 

likely have fewer chances for collisions than any of the other Central Section higher-speed rail 

alternatives because it is shorter than the other alternatives and would likely have fewer at-grade 

crossings; therefore, the effect would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail has the potential to affect eight hazardous materials sites that 

were identified from the narrowed list of federal and state databases within the Central Section EIS 

Study Area; this is lowest number in all of the Central Section route alternatives. One of these sites, 

RSR Corp – Murph Metals, is a National Priorities List (NPL) site in the Dallas and Fort Worth area, 

and cleanup activities at the site have been ongoing since 2004 (EPA 2012). The location of the 

RSR Corp – Murph Metals NPL site is shown on Figure 3.16-4. More in-depth investigations would 

be required to determine the nature and severity of contamination at the eight hazardous materials 

sites in the Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail EIS Study Area. The project-level design would avoid 

the affected sites to the extent possible. Additionally, investigation of other smaller sites, such as 

LUST sites, would occur during the project-level analysis, when detailed alignment plans and 

profiles are developed. With the development of environmental health and safety plans and 

procedures, effects from hazardous materials would be negligible. 

Station effects would be the same as discussed under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Although 

station locations might vary between alternatives, the same considerations related to renovations 

of existing stations and additional analysis at new station locations would apply. The effect would 

be negligible. 

3.16.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Public Safety 

Effects on public safety would be the same as those described under Alternative C4A High-Speed 

Rail because the same types of changes to existing crossings and needs for new crossings would 

occur, and the same required safety measures, grade crossing plan, and coordination with 

emergency responders would be implemented. The effects would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

While both service types would follow the same alignment, the effects of Alternative C4B HighSpeed Rail would be moderate because more construction would be needed for grade separation. 

Although station locations might vary between alternatives, the same considerations related to 

renovations of existing stations and additional analysis at new station locations would apply. The 

effect would be negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-25 

Figure 3.16-4: Hazardous Materials Sites, Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio, 

RSR Corp – Murph Metals, NPL Site
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-26 

3.16.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Public Safety 

Effects on public safety would be the same as those described under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail because the same types of changes to existing crossings and needs for new crossings would 

occur, and the same required safety measures, grade crossing plan, and coordination with 

emergency responders would be implemented. However, Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would 

likely have more chances for collisions than any of the other Central Section higher-speed rail 

alternatives because it is longer than the other alternatives and would likely have more at-grade 

crossings. Nonetheless, the effect would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail has the potential to affect 12 hazardous materials sites within 

the Central Section EIS Study Area, the most of all of the Central Section route alternatives. More 

in-depth investigations would be required to determine the nature and severity of contamination at 

the sites. The project-level design would avoid the affected sites to the extent possible. Additionally, 

investigation of smaller sites, such as LUST sites, would occur during the project-level analysis, 

when detailed alignment plans and profiles are developed. With the development of environmental 

health and safety plans and procedures, effects from hazardous materials would be negligible. 

Station effects would be the same as discussed under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Although 

station locations might vary between alternatives, the same considerations related to renovations 

of existing stations and additional analysis at new station locations would apply. The effect would 

be negligible. 

3.16.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Public Safety 

Effects on public safety would be the same as those described under Alternative C4A High-Speed 

Rail because the same types of changes to existing crossings and needs for new crossings would 

occur, and the same required safety measures, grade crossing plan, and coordination with 

emergency responders would be implemented. The effect would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

The effects of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be greater than the effects under Alternative 

C4C Higher-Speed Rail because, while both alternatives would follow the same alignment, more 

construction would be necessary for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail; the effect would be 

moderate. 

Although station locations might vary between alternatives, the same considerations related to 

renovations of existing stations and additional analysis at new station locations would apply. Effects 

from hazardous materials would be negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-27 

3.16.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.16.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Public Safety 

Effects on public safety would be the same as those described under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail because the same types of changes to existing crossings and needs for new crossings would 

occur, and the same required safety measures, grade crossing plan, and coordination with 

emergency responders would be implemented. Though at-grade crossings would incorporate 

required crossing protection measures, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have more chances 

for collisions than Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail because the latter would be fully grade-separated. 

Additionally, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail is substantially longer than Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail, and therefore would have more at-grade crossings and associated chance of collisions. 

Nonetheless, the effect would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail has the potential to affect four hazardous materials sites 

identified from the narrowed list of federal and state databases within the Southern Section EIS 

Study Area, which is more than the S6 alternatives which would not affect any of the identified 

hazardous materials sites. Two of these sites located in the Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail EIS 

Study Area include R & H Oil, a Proposed NPL site, and Niagara Chemical, which is a former NPL

site that was deleted from the NPL registry. The location of the R & H Oil NPL site is shown on 

Figure 3.16-5. In-depth investigations would be required to determine the nature and severity of 

contamination at the four hazardous materials sites in the Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail EIS 

Study Area. The project-level design would avoid the affected sites to the extent possible. 

Additionally, investigation of other smaller sites, such as LUST sites, would occur during the projectlevel analysis when detailed alignment plans and profiles are developed. With the development of 

environmental health and safety plans and procedures, effects from hazardous materials would be 

negligible. 

Station locations have not yet been determined, and it is possible that additional hazardous 

materials sites may be identified near the station locations. Stations would be either newly 

constructed or renovations of existing stations. If stations require renovation, effects would be the 

same as described under Alternative N4A Conventional. Newly constructed stations would require 

additional project-level analysis to determine conditions related to hazardous material 

contamination in the vicinity of the station location. The effect would be negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-28 

Figure 3.16-5: Hazardous Materials Sites, San Antonio to South Texas, 

R&H Oil, NPL Site 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-29 

3.16.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Public Safety 

Effects on public safety would be the same as those described under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail because the same types of changes to existing crossings and needs for new crossings would 

occur, and the same required safety measures, grade crossing plan, and coordination with 

emergency responders would be implemented. Though at-grade crossings would incorporate 

required crossing protection measures, Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have more chances 

for collisions than Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail because the latter would be fully grade-separated. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail is substantially shorter than Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail and 

therefore would have fewer at-grade crossings and associated chance of collisions. The effect 

would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

No hazardous materials sites identified from the narrowed list of federal and state databases are 

located within the Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail study area; therefore, no effects related to 

identified hazardous materials sites would occur. Investigation of other smaller sites that have not 

been identified for this service-level EIS, such as LUST sites, would occur during the project-level 

analysis, when detailed alignment plans and profiles are developed. Because no hazardous 

materials sites from the narrowed list of federal and state databases have been identified within 

the EIS Study Area for the S6 alternatives, and with the development of environmental health and 

safety plans and procedures, effects from hazardous materials would be negligible. 

Station effects would be the same as discussed under Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. Although 

station locations might vary between alternatives, the same considerations related to renovations 

of existing stations and additional analysis at new station locations would apply. The effect would 

be negligible. 

3.16.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Public Safety 

Effects on public safety would be the same as those described under Alternative C4A High-Speed 

Rail because the same types of changes to existing crossings and needs for new crossings would 

occur, and the same required safety measures, grade crossing plan, and coordination with 

emergency responders would be implemented. The effect would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

The effects of Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be the same as the effects of Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail because there are no hazardous materials sites identified from the narrowed list 

of federal and state databases and both alternatives would follow the same alignment. Therefore, 

effects would be negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-30 

Although station locations might vary between alternatives, the same considerations related to 

renovations of existing stations and additional analysis at new station locations would apply. With 

the development of environmental health and safety plans and procedures, effects from hazardous 

materials would be negligible. 

3.16.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Public Safety 

The potential intensity of effects on public safety would be negligible for conventional rail and 

higher-speed rail alternatives and would be negligible for high-speed rail alternatives. High-speed 

rail alternatives would be fully grade separated, presenting no risk of collisions between trains and 

other travel modes. Among the higher-speed rail alternatives, those with the shortest routes 

(Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail in the Central Section and Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail in 

the Southern Section) would likely have the fewest at-grade crossings and associated chance of 

collisions. Inversely, higher-speed rail alternatives with the longest routes (Alternative C4C HigherSpeed Rail in the Central Section and Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail in the Southern Section) 

would likely have the most at-grade crossings and associated chance of collisions. Table 3.16-7 

lists the potential intensity of effects associated with existing at-grade and grade-separated 

crossings within the EIS Study Area for each geographic section. All alternatives would improve 

crossing safety over existing conditions and the No Build Alternative. 

Table 3.16-7: Summary of Effects on Public Safety by Alternative

Section Alternativea 

Total Existing At-Grade and 

Grade-Separated Crossings 

within the EIS Study Area 

Potential Intensity of 

Effects 

No Build Alternativeb 0 None

Northern N4A CONV 401 Negligible 

Central 

C4A HrSR 270 Negligible 

C4A HSR 270 Negligible

C4B HrSR 176 Negligible

C4B HSR 176 Negligible

C4C HrSR 361 Negligible

C4C HSR 361 Negligible

Southern 

S4 HrSR 368 Negligible 

S6 HrSR 9 Negligible

S6 HSR 9 Negligible

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

b The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the EIS Study Area. However, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect 

from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-31 

Hazardous Materials 

The potential intensity of effects related to hazardous materials would be negligible to moderate, 

depending on whether hazardous materials sites would be affected and the nature and extent of 

the contamination. Assuming that a larger number of identified hazardous materials sites within the 

study area for each alternative would increase the potential for hazardous materials effects, the 

extent of effects, cleanup, or remediation depends on the route alternative and station locations 

selected. Table 3.16-8 lists the number of known hazardous materials sites by alternative and the 

potential intensity of effects. 

Table 3.16-8: Summary of Effects Related to Hazardous Materials by Alternative

Section Alternative 

Hazardous Material 

Sites within EIS Study 

Area 

Potential Intensity of 

Effects 

No Build Alternativea 0 None

Northern N4A CONV 8 Negligible 

Central 

C4A HrSR 9 Negligible 

C4A HSR 9 Moderate

C4B HrSR 8 Negligible

C4B HSR 8 Moderate

C4C HrSR 12 Negligible

C4C HSR 12 Moderate

Southern S4 HrSR 4 Negligible 

S6 HrSR and HSR 0 Negligible

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, 

and air travel facilities within the EIS Study Area. However, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of 

effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific 

analysis.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Future project-level analyses will identify more specific effects on public safety and hazardous 

materials based on a more advanced understanding of the project design in the three geographic 

sections. Avoidance and minimization of effects will be incorporated when feasible. If effects 

cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented. Project design features 

and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies to address public safety risks and risks 

associated with hazardous materials are described in the following subsections. 

3.16.5.1 Public Safety 

The following mitigation measures, BMPs, and project design features will be considered during 

project-level analysis to address public safety and security risks: 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-32 

 Develop a construction health and safety plan to limit risks to human health. 

 Implement a construction transportation plan that includes traffic control measures to address 

temporary road closures, provisions for detours, alternative routes, and procedures for 

coordination with emergency service providers. 

 Implement construction site security measures, such as securing equipment and materials after 

hours in locked storage areas and use of security personnel.

 Implement operational security measures, such as access control and security monitoring 

systems.

 Follow safety design standards for track and roadway design. 

 Comply with federal and state rules for vehicular movements, such as right-of-way fencing, use 

of contemporary signaling, Positive Train Control systems, and adequate clearance between 

parallel passenger and freight rail tracks. 

 Incorporate engineering safety measures and BMPs for at-grade and grade-separated rail 

crossings in accordance with federal and state regulations. 

 Implement standard safety precautions at stations, such as textured warning strips along 

platform edges, properly designed lighting, adequate platform depth to allow passengers to 

stand away from active tracks, and grade separated pedestrian crossings of rail tracks. Other 

station improvements that promote safety may include designating pedestrian and vehicle 

spaces and adding passenger pick-up and drop-off zones. The FRA Passenger Rail Division 

provides technical expertise and guidance in the development and implementation of rail safety 

programs applicable to commuter and passenger railroads as well as advice and oversight in 

system safety, emergency preparedness, and safety related to shared use with freight rail. 

 Maintain adequate separation between adjacent passenger and freight rail tracks to prevent 

derailed trains from entering the adjacent rail trackway. Include physical barriers, such as crash 

walls, in areas where adequate physical separation cannot be attained. These types of design 

features would follow the design and safety standards and recommended practices in the 2014 

Manual for Railway Engineering (AREMA 2014) and federal Track Safety Standards (49 CFR 

Part 213).

 Coordinate with emergency responders to incorporate roadway modifications that maintain 

existing traffic patterns and fulfill response route needs. 

 Develop and implement an emergency response plan in the event of an act of terrorism, natural 

disasters, and other emergencies. 

 Develop and implement a safety and security plan for services in sealed corridors, such as highspeed rail, where access is limited by fencing or on viaducts (e.g., Dallas to Houston). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-33 

3.16.5.2 Hazardous Materials 

Avoidance and minimization of effects will be incorporated when feasible. If effects cannot be 

avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented. The following mitigation measures 

and BMPs will be considered during project-level analysis to address construction effects related to 

hazardous materials: 

 Use construction safety procedures, equipment stockpiling methods, material handling plans, 

and solid waste management procedures that protect human health and the environment and 

minimize hazardous materials releases during construction.

 Develop specific environmental health and safety plans and procedures that protect 

construction workers, surrounding communities, and the environment. 

 Develop and implement a spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan to handle 

potential hazardous material spills. 

 Develop and implement a soil and material handling plan in the event that undocumented 

contamination is encountered.

 Use personal protection, workplace monitoring, alternative designs, and evaluation of 

construction methods that limit the effect from contaminated materials. 

 Follow applicable federal and state regulations for removal and disposal of hazardous 

materials, such as asbestos or lead-based paint, if such materials are encountered during 

building or structure renovation or demolition.

To the extent feasible, the project design would avoid known hazardous materials sites. Where 

effects on hazardous material sites cannot be avoided, coordination with regulatory agencies and 

responsible parties would occur prior to construction activities to address remediation 

requirements. For locations where subsurface ground disturbance is required at hazardous 

material sites, further evaluation may be required to assess the level of contamination and the 

potential risks to human health and the environment, as well as the method of cleanup prior to the 

construction of the rail line. For construction activities at hazardous material sites, coordination 

would be required with the regulatory agencies and responsible parties. 

Subsequent Analysis 

3.16.6.1 Public Safety 

The operational relationships between passenger and freight rail services will be assessed during 

the project-level analysis. Current and future freight operations will be considered such that freight 

and passenger rail services operate without conflicts.

Project-level analyses will include a comprehensive grade crossing plan that studies safety 

conditions at each existing crossing and addresses a full range of options, such as consolidating 

groups of crossings, grade separating heavily used crossings, closing selected crossings, and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.16-34 

implementing proven techniques for reducing hazards at the remaining at-grade crossings. The 

grade crossing plan will adhere to the practices and standards in the Railroad–Highway Grade 

Crossing Handbook (FHWA 2007).

Specific emergency response routes, times, and service areas will be evaluated in the project-level 

analysis to determine the effects of Program operations on emergency services. 

ADA compliance will be evaluated in the project-level analysis. 

Because oil fields are potentially present in the EIS Study Area, potential safety concerns related to 

explosions or related safety issues will be addressed in the project-level analysis.

3.16.6.2 Hazardous Materials 

Specific hazardous material site limits, contamination boundaries, and effects will be analyzed as 

part of the project-level analysis. Additionally, investigation of other smaller sites, such as LUST 

sites, will occur during the project-level analysis, when detailed alignment plans and profiles are 

developed. Subsequent analysis could include Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and Phase 

II Environmental Site Assessments if determined necessary, which include site reconnaissance, 

additional database searches and assessments, a review of historical land uses and agency 

records, and agency consultations. Additional design modification will be considered to avoid 

known contamination sites as part of project-level analysis.

Project-level analysis will include potential construction-related impacts that could result in 

increased risks to human health and the environment through disturbance of hazardous 

construction materials such as asbestos, lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and 

mercury switches/thermostats. Assessment of potential contaminants typically associated with 

railway corridors (e.g., creosote, arsenic, other heavy metals, PCBs, pesticides, and herbicides) will 

also be addressed, as will transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials during 

construction. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-1 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities 

This section discusses identified park and recreational areas within the 500-foot environmental 

impact statement (EIS) Study Area, including trails. Not only are recreational features important to a 

healthy and sustainable quality of life, park and recreational resources are protected under Section 

4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] 

§ 303) for all federally funded USDOT projects. Section 4(f) resources include “publicly owned land 

of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local 

significance” (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 774.17). The introduction to Chapter 3 

describes the EIS Study Area and use of terms such as Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, 

along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

3.17.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable federal and state legislation and regulations pertaining to recreational areas and 

opportunities are discussed in the following sections. Additional local and regional laws, 

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

3.17.1.1 Federal 

 Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. § 303) and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (L&WCF) Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. § 460). If a publicly owned park or 

recreational resource is considered a significant resource, it is protected under Section 4(f) of 

the USDOT Act of 1966. If a park, trail, or recreation area receives funding under the L&WCF Act 

of 1965, it is protected under Section 6(f) of the L&WCF Act. The federal regulations that apply 

to impacts to parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges under Section 4(f) are 

found in 23 CFR 774. Federal regulations applicable to city parks, trails, and recreation areas 

that receive L&WCF monies are included in 36 CFR 59. Based on a review of the cities that 

received funding under the L&WCF Act, several of the recreational properties identified in this 

service-level EIS may have received Section 6(f) grants for city parks, trails, and recreation 

areas. However, their Section 6(f) protection status would be identified in the project-level 

analysis, when detailed evaluations and agency consultations can be conducted. Therefore, 

information on the Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) protection status of recreational properties 

identified in this service-level EIS is included for informational purposes only and is not a 

complete list of parks and recreational properties potentially protected under Section 4(f) or 

Section 6(f). Detailed descriptions of Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) regulations, applicability, and 

properties are included in Chapter 4, Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources. 

3.17.1.2 State 

 Texas Parks and Wildlife Code – Chapter 26 Protection of Public Parks and Recreational Lands. 

Chapter 26 states that a department, agency, political subdivision, county, or municipality of 

Texas may not approve any program or project that requires the use or taking of any public land 

designated as a park, recreation area, scientific area, wildlife refuge, or historic site unless 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-2 

there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use or taking of such land and that all 

reasonable planning to minimize harm to the public land has been undertaken (3PWC 26.003).

3.17.2 Methodology 

This service-level EIS took a broad approach in determining the potential for effects on recreational 

areas along the proposed alternatives. Identified recreational areas within the 500-foot EIS study 

area included public parks, fields that appeared to be for recreational use, sport courts, wildlife 

refuges, school facilities (including playgrounds and interscholastic athletic fields), recreational 

open spaces, wildlife management areas, amphitheaters, venues, greenways, trails, museums, art 

spaces, amusement and water parks, and motorsports tracks. This service-level EIS is not intended 

to be a complete review of recreational areas; rather, it is a preliminary assessment and inventory 

of properties that would likely require evaluation and documentation in a subsequent project-level 

EIS. An assessment of private and public facilities or identification of specific recreational activities 

at each park resource was not conducted, and the significance of the park resources was not 

verified by the national, state, or local jurisdictions or ownership. When possible, current and 

historical aerial imagery and Google Streetview was used to confirm the location of the resources. 

All schools identified within the EIS Study Area were assumed to contain recreational facilities and 

are included in this EIS. For a complete list of recreational resources identified within the EIS Study 

Area, see Tables 3.17-1 through 3.17-3. 

Information on potential recreational areas was obtained in September and October 2014 from the 

following electronic databases and online resources:

 Oklahoma public schools (ogi.state.ok.us 2014a) 

 Oklahoma private schools (ogi.state.ok.us 2014b)

 Texas Schools Google Earth layer 

(http://www.tea.state.tx.us/School_District_Locator/Data_Download/) 

 The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) 2012 data, the Texas Strategic Mapping 

Program

(http://www.arcgis.com/home/group.html?owner=esri&title=ESRI%20Data%20%26%20Maps&

content=all&focus=layers&start=11&q) 

 National maps (USGS 2014) 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) interactive maps (2014) 

 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department websites for parks and wildlife management areas

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) websites

 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(L&WCF) website (http://www.lwcfcoalition.org/)

 NPS Google Earth layer of National Register of Historic Places-listed resources in Texas and 

Oklahoma (http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html#spatial)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-3 

 Texas Independent School District websites (including Arlington, Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco, 

Brownsville, Bruceville-Eddy, Dallas, Donna, Eagle Mountain-Saginaw, Grand Prairie, Harlingen, 

La Vega, Los Fresnos, McAllen, Northwest [Tarrant County], Pharr-San Juan-Alamo, South Texas 

[Cameron County], Southwest [Bexar County], Troy, and West) (see Chapter 11, References, for 

a list of websites)

 City parks and recreation department websites (including Arlington, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Fort 

Worth, Grand Prairie, Nueces County, San Antonio-Bexar County, and Travis County) (see 

Chapter 11, References, for a list of websites)

 Websites for numerous public and private recreational areas, including Bryan McClain Park 

(Bexar County), Casa Blanca Golf Club (Webb County), International Museum of Art and Science 

(McAllen), River Legacy Foundation (Tarrant County), St. Mark Catholic Youth Organization (San 

Antonio), San Antonio Gun Club, and Southern Oklahoma Speedway (Ardmore) (see Chapter 11, 

References, for a list of websites)

Effects as a result of the route alternatives are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial 

compared to the No Build Alternative. For recreational areas and opportunities, these terms are 

defined as follows: 

 Negligible intensity effects are those that would have a slight effect on (e.g., minor property 

acquisition, offsite construction disturbance), but would not interfere with, a recreational or 

intended use of the open space or park area and no property acquisition is necessary. 

 Moderate intensity effects are those that would have a noticeable effect on park and 

recreational resources, temporarily affecting (e.g., noise or visual intrusion of construction) a 

recreational or intended use of the open space or park area, or resulting in a partial property 

acquisition or relocation of park or recreational resources. 

 Substantial intensity effects are those that would have a noticeable, inevitable effect on park 

and recreational resources, permanently affecting a recreational or intended use of the open 

space or park area, or resulting in a substantial property acquisition that may bifurcate or 

substantially change the resource. 

3.17.3 Affected Environment 

3.17.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Alternative N4A Conventional follows the same general alignment within the Dallas and Fort Worth 

areas as several of the Central Section alternatives. As a result, some recreational resources 

identified within the EIS Study Area are located in both the Northern and Central sections. 

Overlapping resources are identified in Tables 3.17-1 and 3.17-2 (see table note “b”). The six 

Central Section alternatives are discussed in Section 3.17.3.2, Dallas and Fort Worth to San 

Antonio (Central Section). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-4 

3.17.3.1.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

There are 56 recreational resources identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A

Conventional. Most of these resources are public parks and/or trails, baseball, softball and general 

athletic fields, playgrounds and fields associated with public, private and/or charter schools, and 

private and public golf courses. The resources are primarily in urban areas, especially the 

metropolitan areas of Norman, Oklahoma City, Dallas, and Fort Worth. Other resources in the 

Northern Section EIS Study Area include the YMCA of Greater Oklahoma City, two raceways in 

southern Oklahoma, a go-kart track in northern Texas, and the Ray Roberts Lake Wildlife 

Management Area (of which there is approximately 34.41 acres within the EIS Study Area). 

Of the recreational resources within the EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A Conventional, three are 

also located within the EIS Study Area for the C4B alternatives, and 14 were also within the EIS 

Study Area for the C4A alternatives and C4C alternatives. A list of recreational resources in the 

Northern Section EIS Study Area is included in Table 3.17-1, and they are mapped on Figures

3.17-1 through 3.17-4. 

Table 3.17-1: Recreational Resources – Northern Section 

Site ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Locationc 

(Lat/Long) Alternatived 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

1 

3.17-2 

Canyon Park City park City of 

Oklahoma City

Yes 35.5278/-

97.51924 

N4A CONV 3.37 

2 

3.17-2 

Topping Park City park City of 

Oklahoma City

Yes 35.525646/-

97.517796 

N4A CONV 11.91 

3 

3.17-2 

YMCA of 

Greater 

Oklahoma City

Private 

recreation

YMCA of 

Greater 

Oklahoma City

No 35.472351/-

97.512692 

N4A CONV 1.11 

4 

3.17-2 

Bricktown 

Canal and 

Downtown 

Park

Urban park 

and art area

City of 

Oklahoma City

Yes 35.465048/-

97.512146 

N4A CONV 4.01 

5 

3.17-2 

Riverside 

Walking and 

Bicycling Trail 

(north) 

City trail City of 

Oklahoma City

Yes 35.44946/-

97.512823 

N4A CONV 0.20 

6 

3.17-2 

Riverside 

Walking and 

Bicycling Trail 

(south)

City trail City of 

Oklahoma City

Yes 35.447799/-

97.51298 

N4A CONV 0.16 

7 

3.17-2 

Bicycling and 

walking trail

City trail City of 

Oklahoma City

Yes 35.428266/-

97.504351 

N4A CONV 0.11 

8 

3.17-2 

Oklahoma City 

Educare

Private school Oklahoma City 

Educare

No 35.427335/-

97.503259 

N4A CONV 2.08 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-5 

Site ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Locationc 

(Lat/Long) Alternatived 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

9 

3.17-2 

Santa Fe 

South Charter 

High School

Charter school Oklahoma City 

School District

Yes 35.426868/-

97.504211 

N4A CONV 1.48 

10 

3.17-2 

Bella Rose 

Academy

Private school Bella Rose 

Academy

No 35.337939/-

97.483826 

N4A CONV 0.45 

11 

3.17-2 

Pumpkin Shell 

School 

Playground

(daycare)

Private school Pumpkin Shell 

School

No 35.228213/-

97.449336 

N4A CONV 0.07 

12 

3.17-2 

Bicycling and 

walking trail

City trail City of Norman Yes 35.5278/-

97.51924 

N4A CONV 0.75 

13 

3.17-2 

Legacy Park City park and 

trail

City of Norman Yes 35.228936/-

97.449165 

N4A CONV 8.02 

14 

3.17-2 

Andrews Park City park City of Norman Yes 35.224441/-

97.446605 

N4A CONV 4.29 

15 

3.17-2 

University of 

Oklahoma 

Brandt Park

City park University of 

Oklahoma

Yes 35.21998/-

97.442875 

N4A CONV 9.76 

16 

3.17-2 

Jimmie Austin 

University of 

Oklahoma Golf 

Course

University golf 

course

University of 

Oklahoma

Yes 35.205663/-

97.434575 

N4A CONV 15.43 

17 

3.17-2 

Oak Tree Park 

South

City park City of Norman Yes 35.193544/-

97.426991 

N4A CONV 4.53 

18 

3.17-2 

Thunder Valley 

Raceway Park

Drag racing 

track

Thunder Valley 

Raceway Park

Yes 35.187872/-

97.423317 

N4A CONV 9.68 

19 

3.17-2 

Wacker Park City park City of 

Pauls Valley

Yes 35.091482/-

97.384341 

N4A CONV 9.75 

20 

3.17-2 

Santa Fe 

Depot 

Museum and 

Park

City museum 

and park

City of 

Pauls Valley

Yes 34.749634/-

97.227876 

N4A CONV 0.93 

21 

3.17-3 

Davis High 

School 

Football 

Stadium and 

Baseball Field

Public school Davis Public 

Schools

Yes 34.741912/-

97.218958 

N4A CONV 4.16 

22 

3.17-3 

Southern 

Oklahoma 

Speedway 

Race track Southern

Oklahoma 

Speedway 

Yes 34.497429/-

97.119817 

N4A CONV 1.84 

23 

3.17-3 

Motorcycle 

Race Course

Race track Unknown 

(private?)

Yes 34.109627/-

97.143059 

N4A CONV 15.84 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-6 

Site ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Locationc 

(Lat/Long) Alternatived 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

24 

3.17-3 

Thackerville 

Elementary 

School

Public school Thackerville 

Public Schools

Yes 33.829092/-

97.133153 

N4A CONV 0.22 

25 

3.17-3 

Heritage Park City park City of 

Gainesville

Yes 33.79637/-

97.143174 

N4A CONV 3.32 

26 

3.17-3 

Jaycee Park City park City of 

Gainesville

Yes 33.624681/-

97.140138 

N4A CONV 4.54 

27 

3.17-3 

Pecan Creek 

Park

City park City of 

Gainesville

Yes 33.622278/-

97.139605 

N4A CONV 0.27 

28 

3.17-3 

Forsythe 

Transportation 

Skate Park

City park City of 

Gainesville

Yes 33.622638/-

97.139289 

N4A CONV 0.01 

29 

3.17-3 

Home Grown 

Hero Walking 

Trail

City trail City of 

Gainesville

Yes 33.62089/-

97.138977 

N4A CONV 0.49 

30 

3.17-4 

Ray Roberts 

Lake Wildlife 

Management 

Area

Public wildlife 

management 

area

Texas Parks 

and Wildlife 

Department

Yes 33.620662/-

97.139057 

N4A CONV 34.41 

31 

3.17-4 

Baseball and 

Softball Fields

Baseball and 

softball

City of Sanger Yes 33.459994/-

97.15505 

N4A CONV 3.86 

32 

3.17-4 

North Texas 

Karters

Go-kart track North Texas 

Karters

Yes 33.351319/-

97.168138 

N4A CONV 2.90 

33 

3.17-4 

Eddie 

Deussen Jr. 

Park

City park City of Ponder Yes 33.306957/-

97.191264 

N4A CONV 0.51 

34 

3.17-4 

Bishop Park City park City of Justin Yes 33.184533/-

97.287363 

N4A CONV 1.79 

35 

3.17-4 

Northwest 

High School

Public school Northwest 

Independent 

School District

Yes 33.076581/-

97.296061 

N4A CONV 3.22 

36 

3.17-4 

Haslet 

Community 

Park

City park City of Haslet Yes 33.025423/-

97.310695 

N4A CONV 0.40 

37 

3.17-4 

Northwest 

Community 

Park

City park City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.972928/-

97.349907 

N4A CONV 7.95 

38 

3.17-4 

Prairie Vista 

Middle School 

Running Track

Public school Eagle 

MountainSaginaw 

Independent 

School District

Yes 32.892836/-

97.36205 

N4A CONV 2.33 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-7 

Site ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Locationc 

(Lat/Long) Alternatived 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

39 

3.17-4 

KnowlesTowery 

Kiwanis Park

City park City of 

Saginaw

Yes 32.887891/-

97.363409 

N4A CONV 0.19 

40 

3.17-4 

Trader Oak 

Park

City park City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.855602/-

97.36154 

N4A CONV 1.03 

41 

3.17-4 

Arnold Park City park City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.774595/-

97.330768 

N4A CONV 1.48 

42 

3.17-4 

Elm Street 

Park

City park City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.76831/-

97.328741 

N4A CONV 0.28 

43b 

3.17-4 

Harmon Field 

Park and Trails

City park and 

trails

City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.757206/-

97.326293 

N4A CONV 7.54 

44b 

3.17-4 

Riverside 

Trails

City trails City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.758255/-

97.314868 

N4A CONV 0.25 

45b 

3.17-4 

Texas Star 

Golf Course

Private golf 

course

Texas Star 

Golf Course

Yes 32.759051/-

97.312246 

N4A CONV 1.36 

46b 

3.17-4 

River Legacy 

Park

Public park Non-profit 

[503c(3)] 

organization

Yes 32.80783/-

97.105762 

N4A CONV 2.92 

47b 

3.17-4 

Veterans 

Memorial Park

City park City of Irving Yes 32.816414/-

97.06276 

N4A CONV 1.01 

48b 

3.17-4 

Sowers 

Pioneer Park

City park City of Irving Yes 32.814502/-

96.95304 

N4A CONV 0.49 

49b 

3.17-4 

Trinity View 

Park

City park City of Dallas Yes 32.815449/-

96.952377 

N4A CONV 18.47 

50b 

3.17-4 

Campion Trail City park City of Dallas Yes 32.813919/-

96.911518 

N4A CONV 0.03 

51b 

3.17-4 

River Hills 

Park

City park City of Dallas Yes 32.813637/-

96.907025 

N4A CONV 0.55 

52b 

3.17-4 

Trinity River 

Greenbelt 

Park

City trail City of Dallas Yes 32.814734/-

96.90655 

N4A CONV 6.07 

53b 

3.17-4 

Sleepy Hollow 

Park

City park City of Dallas Yes 32.814196/-

96.905096 

N4A CONV 0.15 

54b 

3.17-4 

Hank Haney 

Golf Center

Golf practice 

center 

Hank Haney 

Golf Center

No 32.813843/-

96.862576 

N4A CONV 1.30 

55b 

3.17-4 

Stemmons 

Park

City park City of Dallas Yes 32.806383/-

96.834228 

N4A CONV 3.03 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-8 

Site ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Locationc 

(Lat/Long) Alternatived 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

70b 

3.17-4 

Martyr's Park City park City of Dallas Yes 32.777792/-

96.820677 

N4A CONV 0.34 

a Public Access is based on readily available information. No confirmation of access has been conducted.

b Recreational resources located in both the EIS Study Area for both the Northern and Central sections.

c Lat/Long = latitude/longitude

d CONV = conventional rail

Sources: Arlington Independent School District (2014); Arlington Parks and Recreation Department (2014); City of Dallas 

Parks and Recreation Department (2014); City of Oklahoma City (2014); Dallas Independent School District (2014); Eagle 

Mountain-Saginaw Independent School District (2014); Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (1987); FHWA (2014); 

Fort Worth Parks and Community Services Department (2014); Google Earth (2014); Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Coalition (2014); NPS (2014); NPS (2013); Northwest Independent School District (2014); Oklahoma City Educare (2014); 

River Legacy Foundation (2014); Southern Oklahoma Speedway (2014); Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) 

(2014); TxDOT (2013); Texas Education Agency (2014); Texas Natural Resources Information System (2014); USFWS 

(2014); USGS (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-9 

Figure 3.17-1: Index Map
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-10 

Figure 3.17-2: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 1)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-11 

Figure 3.17-3: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 2)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-12 

Figure 3.17-4: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 3)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-13 

3.17.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.17.3.2.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail 

There are 57 recreational resources identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternatives C4A HigherSpeed Rail and High-Speed Rail. The majority of these resources are public parks, trails, and/or 

playgrounds, baseball, softball, soccer and general athletic fields, playgrounds and fields 

associated with public and/or private schools, and both private and public golf courses. 

Recreational resources are primarily concentrated in urban areas, especially Dallas, Fort Worth, 

and San Antonio. Other resources in the EIS Study Area include a museum, a private campground, 

two college dormitories and/or campuses, a county park, and two USACE-owned public parks. 

A list of recreational resources in the Central Section EIS Study Area is included in Table 3.17-2, 

and they are mapped on Figures 3.17-5 through 3.17-8. 

3.17.3.2.2 Alternatives C4B Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail 

There are 51 recreational resources identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternatives C4B 

Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail. The majority of these resources are public parks, trails, 

and/or playgrounds, baseball, softball, soccer and general athletic fields, playgrounds and fields 

associated with public and/or private schools, and both private and public golf courses. 

Recreational resources within the EIS Study Area for these alternatives are primarily concentrated 

in urban areas, especially Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. Other resources in the EIS Study 

Area include a museum, a private campground, two college dormitories and/or campuses, a county 

park, and two USACE-owned public parks. 

A list of recreational resources in the Central Section EIS Study Area is included in Table 3.17-2, 

and they are mapped on Figures 3.17-5 through 3.17-8. 

3.17.3.2.3 Alternatives C4C Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail 

There were 62 recreational resources identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternatives C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail. The majority of these resources are public parks; trails; 

playgrounds, baseball, softball, soccer, and general athletic fields; fields associated with public and 

private schools; and private and public golf courses. Recreational resources along the alternative 

are primarily concentrated in urban areas, especially Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. Other 

resources in the EIS Study Area include a museum, a private campground, two college dormitories 

and/or campuses, a county park, and two USACE-owned public parks. 

A list of recreational resources in the Central Section EIS Study Area is included in Table 3.17-2, 

and they are they are mapped on Figures 3.17-5 through 3.17-8. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-14 

Table 3.17-2: Recreational Resources – Central Section

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

43b 

3.17-4 

Harmon Field 

Park and Trails

City park and 

trails

City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.757206/-

97.326293 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

7.54 

44b 

3.17-4 

Riverside Trails City trails City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.758255/-

97.314868 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.25 

45b 

3.17-4 

Texas Star Golf 

Course

Private golf 

course

Texas Star 

Golf Course

Yes 32.759051/-

97.312246 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.36 

46b 

3.17-4 

River Legacy 

Park

Public park Non-profit 

[503c(3)] 

organization

Yes 32.80783/-

97.105762 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

2.92 

47b 

3.17-4 

Veterans 

Memorial Park

City park City of Irving Yes 32.816414/-

97.06276 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.01 

48b 

3.17-4 

Sowers 

Pioneer Park

City park City of Irving Yes 32.814502/-

96.95304 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.49 

49b 

3.17-4 

Trinity View 

Park

City Park City of Dallas Yes 32.815449/-

96.952377 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

18.47 

50b 

3.17-4 

Campion Trail City park City of Dallas Yes 32.813919/-

96.911518 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.03 

51b 

3.17-4 

River Hills Park City park City of Dallas Yes 32.813637/-

96.907025 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.55 

52b 

3.17-4 

Trinity River 

Greenbelt Park

City trail City of Dallas Yes 32.814734/-

96.90655 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

6.07 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-15 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

53b 

3.17-4 

Sleepy Hollow 

Park

City park City of Dallas Yes 32.814196/-

96.905096 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.15 

54b 

3.17-4 

Hank Haney 

Golf Center

Golf practice 

center 

Hank Haney 

Golf Center

No 32.813843/-

96.862576 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.30 

55b 

3.17-4 

Stemmons 

Park

City park City of Dallas Yes 32.806383/-

96.834228 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

3.03 

56 

3.17-4 

Gateway Park City park City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.798784/-

96.817144 

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

22.88 

57 

3.17-4 

Nolan Catholic 

High School

Private school Nolan Catholic 

High School

No 32.764402/-

97.262664 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

5.07 

58 

3.17-4 

Waterchase 

Golf Course

Private golf 

course

Waterchase 

Golf Course

Yes 32.759691/-

97.256851 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

10.05 

59 

3.17-4 

Randol Mill 

Park

City park City of 

Arlington

Yes 32.7606/-

97.152959 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

15.45 

60 

3.17-4 

Lamar High 

School Athletic 

Fields

Public school Arlington 

Independent 

School District

Yes 32.759939/-

97.138068 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

6.94 

61 

3.17-4 

Rolling Hills 

Country Club

Golf course Rolling Hills 

Country Club

No 32.760193/-

97.125371 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

1.04 

62 

3.17-4 

Six Flags 

Hurricane 

Harbor

Water park Six Flags 

Hurricane 

Harbor

Yes 32.760382/-

97.112752 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

3.79 

63 

3.17-4 

Six Flags Over 

Texas

Amusement 

Park

Six Flags Over 

Texas

Yes 32.760242/-

97.082033 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

0.66 

64 

3.17-4 

Fish Creek 

Linear Park 

(east) 

City park trail City of 

Grand Prairie

Yes 32.758783/-

97.067868 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

1.67 

65 

3.17-4 

Fish Creek 

Linear Park 

(west) 

City park trail City of 

Arlington

Yes 32.661048/-

97.062882 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

1.49 

66 

3.17-4 

Lloyd Park City park City of 

Grand Prairie

Yes 32.661782/-

97.062126 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

41.98 

67 

3.17-4 

John Adams 

Middle School

Public school Grand Prairie 

Independent 

School District

Yes 32.591584/-

97.077784 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

1.71 

68 

3.17-4 

Thomas A. 

Edison Middle 

School

Public school Dallas 

Independent 

School District

Yes 32.758865/-

97.016232 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

1.22 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-16 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

69 

3.17-4 

Trinity River 

Greenbelt Park

City park City of Dallas Yes 32.776803/-

96.8682 

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

19.94 

70a 

3.17-4 

Martyr's Park City park City of Dallas Yes 32.777792/-

96.820677 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.34c

0.89 

1.81 

71 

3.17-4 

Dealey Plaza 

Park

City park City of Dallas Yes 32.778878/-

96.810691 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.7c

0.1 

0.7 

72 

3.17-4 

Reunion Park City park City of Dallas Yes 32.778177/-

96.808544 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.25 

73 

3.17-4 

Fruitdale Park City park City of Dallas Yes 32.77309/-

96.807441 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.46 

74 

3.17-4 

Country View 

Golf Course

Golf course Country View 

Golf Course

Yes 32.709506/-

96.759119 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR 

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

16.78 

75 

3.17-4 

Bear Creek 

Nature Park

City park City of 

Lancaster

Yes 32.577623/-

96.761461 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR 

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

26.84 

76 

3.17-4 

Red Oak Valley

Golf Club

Golf course Red Oak 

Valley Golf 

Club

Yes 32.569244/-

96.772134 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

39.71 

77 

3.17-4 

Navarro 

College at 

Waxahachie

Public junior 

college

State of Texas Yes 32.49734/-

96.818164 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

7.08 

78 

3.17-4 

Richards Park City park City of 

Waxahachie

Yes 32.418699/-

96.855072 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

3.88 

79 

3.17-4 

Waxahachie 

Creek Hike 

and Bike Trail

City trail City of 

Waxahachie

Yes 32.385806/-

96.854972 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

5.18 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-17 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

80 

3.17-4 

Lions Park City park City of 

Waxahachie

Yes 32.382484/-

96.85065 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

2.86 

81 

3.17-5 

Playground Playground 

and park

City of West Yes 32.368438/-

96.840974 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

2.05 

82 

3.17-5 

West 

Intermediate 

School Athletic 

Fields

School athletic 

fields

West 

Independent 

School District

Yes 31.816967/-

97.088907 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

3.84 

83 

3.17-5 

Baseball fields Baseball fields City of West Yes 31.813805/-

97.089789 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

2.64 

84 

3.17-5 

La Vega High 

School

Public School La Vega 

Independent 

School District

Yes 31.788804/-

97.097041 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.06 

85 

3.17-5 

Lions Park Baseballsoftball fieldsCity of 

Bellmead

Yes 31.600162/-

97.094003 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.01 

86 

3.17-5 

BU Stadium Football 

stadium

BU Yes 31.598133/-

97.093944 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

10.14 

87 

3.17-5 

Riverwalk Public trail City of Waco Yes 31.558662/-

97.117195 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.17 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-18 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

88 

3.17-5 

Fort Fisher 

Park

City park City of Waco Yes 31.556447/-

97.118737 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

9.20 

89 

3.17-5 

Baylor 

University 

buildings

Dormitories 

and grounds

Baylor 

University

No 31.555049/-

97.119244 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

27.52 

90 

3.17-5 

Bruceville-Eddy 

High School 

and Junior 

High School

Public schools BrucevilleEddy 

Independent 

School District

Yes 31.550401/-

97.122129 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR 

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.53 

91 

3.17-6 

Raymond 

Mays Middle 

School

Public school Troy 

Independent 

School District

Yes 31.306691/-

97.247216 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR 

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

2.45 

92 

3.17-6 

Jefferson Park City park City of Temple Yes 31.21018/-

97.312238 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.19 

93 

3.17-6 

Optimist No. 1 

Field

Soccer field City of Temple Yes 31.120739/-

97.342771 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

2.15 

94 

3.17-6 

Woodson Field Soccer field City of Temple Yes 31.112342/-

97.345396 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.52 

95 

3.17-6 

Whistlestop 

Playground

Playground City of Temple Yes 31.103591/-

97.347765 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

2.39 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-19 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

96 

3.17-6 

Santa Fe 

Gardens

Urban park City of Temple Yes 31.097609/-

97.347606 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

6.31 

97 

3.17-6 

Willis Creek 

Park

USACE park USACE Yes 31.095684/-

97.345133 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

22.12 

98 

3.17-6 

Wilson H. Fox 

Park

USACE park USACE Yes 30.649001/-

97.432165 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

40.90 

99 

3.17-6 

Southeast 

Burkett Street 

Park

City park City of Taylor Yes 30.642064/-

97.429926 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

3.84 

100 

3.17-6, 

3.17-7 

Walter E. Long 

Metropolitan 

Park

City park City of Austin Yes 30.573323/-

97.403554 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

30.29 

101 

3.17-6, 

3.17-7 

Richard Moya 

Park

County park Travis County Yes 30.292655/-

97.577155 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

11.31 

102 

3.17-7 

Lazy J 

Paradise

Private 

campground

Lazy J 

Paradise

No 30.170283/-

97.667469 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

8.52 

103 

3.17-7 

McClain Park City park City of 

San Antonio

Yes 29.908734/-

97.704742 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

23.30 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-20 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

104 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8 

Friensenhahn 

Park

City park City of 

San Antonio

Yes 29.589338/-

98.388303 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

5.02 

105 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8 

St. Mark 

Athletic Fields

Athletic fields St. Mark 

Catholic Youth 

Organization

Yes 29.584274/-

98.396811 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.14 

106 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8 

McAllister Park 

/ Time Warner 

Cable Park

Baseballsoftball fieldsCity of 

San Antonio

Yes 29.567232/-

98.417327 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

7.98 

107 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8 

Texas 

Transportation 

Museum

Museum Texas 

Transportation 

Museum 

[503c(3)] 

Yes 29.548551/-

98.433254 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.30 

108 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8 

Salado Creek 

Greenway 

Public trail City of 

San Antonio

Yes 29.547395/-

98.434785 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

10.84 

109 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8 

Quarry Golf 

Club

Golf course Quarry Golf 

Club

Yes 29.542548/-

98.441155 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

12.16 

110 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8 

Olmos Basin 

Golf Course

Public golf 

course

City of 

San Antonio

Yes 29.502553/-

98.479436 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

8.89 

111 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8 

Olmos Basin 

Baseball Fields

Athletic fields City of 

San Antonio

Yes 29.496595/-

98.482744 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

31.33 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-21 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study 

Area 

112 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8 

San Antonio 

Gun Club

Public 

recreation

San Antonio 

Gun Club

Yes 29.491436/-

98.486112 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

17.32 

113 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8 

Kenwood Park City park City of 

San Antonio

Yes 29.48614/-

98.48898 

C4A HrSR and 

HSR

C4B HrSR and 

HSR

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

4.23 

171 

3.17-4 

Hallmark Park City park City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.63757/-

97.33356 

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

12.97 

172 

3.17-4 

Parks of Deer 

Creek Park

City park and 

trails

City of 

Fort Worth

Yes 32.60456/-

97.32922 

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

0.65 

173 

3.17-4 

Sidney H. 

Poynter 

Elementary 

School

Public school Fort Worth 

Independent 

School District

Yes 32.60181/-

97.32869 

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.07 

174 

3.17-4 

Mistletoe Hill 

Park

City park City of 

Burleson

Yes 32.56968/-

97.32425 

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

1.70 

175 

3.17-4 

Bailey Lake City park and 

lake

City of 

Burleson

Yes 32.5292/-

97.31995 

C4C HrSR and 

HSR

6.64 

a Public Access is based on readily available information. No confirmation of access has been conducted.

b Denotes recreational resources located in the EIS Study Area for both the Northern and Central sections. 

c. Acreage within the EIS Study Area is different for the three alignments. 

BU = Baylor University; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

Sources: Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Independent School District (2014); Bruceville-Eddy Independent School District 

(2014); Bryan McClain Park (2014); FHWA (1987); FHWA (2014); Grand Prairie Independent School District (2014); 

Grand Prairie Parks and Recreation Department (2014); Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition (2014); La Vega 

Independent School District (2014); NPS (2014); NPS (2013); River Legacy Foundation (2014); St. Mark Catholic Youth 

Organization (2014); San Antonio Gun Club (2014); San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department (2014); TxDOT 

(2014); TxDOT (2013); Texas Education Agency (2014); Texas Natural Resources Information System (2014); Travis 

County Parks (2014); Troy Independent School District (2014); USFWS (2014); USGS (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-22 

Figure 3.17-5: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 4)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-23 

Figure 3.17-6: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 5)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-24 

Figure 3.17-7: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 6)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-25 

Figure 3.17-8: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 7)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-26 

3.17.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.17.3.3.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

There are 54 recreational resources identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail. The majority of these resources are city parks, trails, courts, fields, public and private 

schools, or golf courses. Recreational resources along the alternative are primarily concentrated in 

urban areas, especially San Antonio, and the cities that line the southernmost stretch of the 

alternative near the border with Mexico (i.e., Edinburg, McAllen, Alamo, Mercedes, Harlingen, San 

Benito, Olmito, and Brownsville). There are two state parks along the alternative: La Casa Blanca 

International State Park in Laredo and Resaca de la Palma State Park in Bixby (Map ID #122 and

154). Approximately 40.67 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge are also 

located within the Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail EIS Study Area, along the southern branch of 

the alternative (Map ID #162). A list of recreational resources for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

is included in Table 3.17-3, and they are mapped on Figures 3.17-9 through 3.17-13.

3.17.3.3.2 Alternatives S6 Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail 

There are three recreational resources identified within the EIS Study Areas for Alternatives S6 

Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail: Lindbergh Park in San Antonio (Map ID #114), Elm Creek 

Elementary School and McNair Middle School in Atascosa (Map ID #117), and the Chaparral 

Wildlife Management Area southwest of Cotulla (Map ID #119). A list of recreational resources for 

the S6 alternatives is included in Table 3.17-3, and they are mapped on Figures 3.17-8 and 3.17-9.

Table 3.17-3: Recreational Resources – Southern Section

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study Area 

114 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8

Lindbergh 

Park

City park Unknown Yes 29.380768/-

98.555422 

S6 HSR 

S6 HrSR

1.99

115 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8

Normoyle 

Park

City park City of 

San Antonio

Yes 29.379631/-

98.540743 

S4 HrSR 9.93

116 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8

Al Forge Park City park City of 

San Antonio

Yes 29.362778/-

98.53903 

S4 HrSR 1.24

117 

3.17-8 

Elm Creek 

Elementary 

School and

McNair 

Middle 

School

Public 

school

Southwest 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 29.277432/-

98.726771 

S6 HSR 

S6 HrSR

0.15
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-27 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study Area 

118 

3.17-7, 

3.17-8

Medina River 

Greenway

City 

greenway 

park

City of San 

Antonio

Yes 29.269584/-

98.496249 

S4 HrSR 5.14

119 

3.17-9 

Chaparral 

Wildlife 

Management Area

State 

wildlife 

management area

Texas Parks 

and Wildlife 

Department

Yes 28.327495/-

99.419841 

S6 HSR 

S6 HrSR

217.32

120 

3.17-10

Unnamed 

Park 1

City park City of 

George West

Yes 28.342326/-

98.099633

S4 HrSR 9.40

121 

3.17-9

Casa Blanca 

Golf Course

County golf 

course

Webb County Yes 27.536689/-

99.45112

S4 HrSR 31.14

122 

3.17-9 

La Casa 

Blanca 

International 

State Park

State park Texas Parks 

and Wildlife 

Department 

/ Webb 

County

Yes 27.536094/-

99.44979 

S4 HrSR 11.76

123 

3.17-12

Lake Findley 

Park

City park 

and lake

City of Alice Yes 27.796567/-

98.057485

S4 HrSR 29.58

124 

3.17-12

Alice Country 

Club

Golf course Alice Country 

Club

Yes 27.771512/-

98.033563

S4 HrSR 2.58

125 

3.17-12

Younts Park City park City of Agua 

Dulce

Yes 27.780929/-

97.909541

S4 HrSR 1.12

126 

3.17-12 

John L. 

Sablatura 

County Park

County 

park

Nueces 

County

Yes 27.795694/-

97.814204 

S4 HrSR 86.42

127 

3.17-12 

Saint 

Anthony 

School

Private 

school

Saint 

Anthony 

School

No 27.789073/-

97.675141 

S4 HrSR 1.11

128 

3.17-12 

Robstown 

Memorial 

Park

City park City of 

Robstown

Yes 27.788062/-

97.663034 

S4 HrSR 0.81

129 

3.17-12 

Charles 

Brazzell Sr. 

Park

City park City of Alice Yes 27.745213/-

98.077557 

S4 HrSR 0.75

130 

3.17-12 

Ben Bolt 

High School

Public 

school

Ben BoltPalito Blanco 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 27.644327/-

98.085525 

S4 HrSR 0.12
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-28 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study Area 

131 

3.17-12

Falfurrias 

Golfers, Inc.

Golf course Falfurrias 

Golfers, Inc.

Yes 27.234552/-

98.139027

S4 HrSR 5.32

132 

3.17-13 

Truman 

Elementary 

School

Public 

school

Edinburg 

Consolidated 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.332708/-

98.164428 

S4 HrSR 6.71

133 

3.17-13

Tennis 

Courts

City tennis 

courts

City of 

Edinburg

Yes 26.306664/-

98.167024

S4 HrSR 0.42

134 

3.17-13 

University of 

Texas-Pan 

Am

Public 

university

University of 

Texas 

System

Yes 26.305375/-

98.168599 

S4 HrSR 3.58

135 

3.17-13

Hike and 

Bike Trail

City trail City of 

Edinburg

Yes 26.265073/-

98.210354

S4 HrSR 0.25

136 

3.17-13

Bill Schupp 

Park

City park City of 

McAllen

Yes 26.251708/-

98.227245

S4 HrSR 4.18

137 

3.17-13 

International 

Museum of 

Art and 

Science

Museum 

and 

playground

Non-profit 

[503c(3)] 

organization

Yes 26.24182/-

98.23341 

S4 HrSR 3.98

138 

3.17-13 

Hike and 

Bike Trail 

(north)

City trail City of 

McAllen

Yes 26.231877/-

98.234572 

S4 HrSR 2.18

139 

3.17-13 

Hike and 

Bike Trail 

(south)

City trail City of 

McAllen

Yes 26.232344/-

98.235178 

S4 HrSR 1.65

140 

3.17-13 

McAllen 

Bicentennial 

Soccer Fields

Athletic 

fields

City of 

McAllen

Yes 26.223748/-

98.23664 

S4 HrSR 2.40

141 

3.17-13 

McAllen High 

School

Public 

school

McAllen 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.221657/-

98.23707 

S4 HrSR 1.28

142 

3.17-13

Municipal 

Park

City park City of 

McAllen

Yes 26.212548/-

98.237799

S4 HrSR 2.08

143 

3.17-13

Archer Park City park City of 

McAllen

Yes 26.204869/-

98.233701

S4 HrSR 0.52

144 

3.17-13

Myers Park City park 

and trail

City of 

McAllen

Yes 26.202183/-

98.220214

S4 HrSR 2.98
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-29 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study Area 

145 

3.17-13 

PSJA Thomas 

Jefferson 

Early College 

High School

Public 

school

Pharr-San 

Juan-Alamo 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.193041/-

98.17552 

S4 HrSR 1.49

146 

3.17-13 

College, 

Career and 

Tech 

Academy

Public 

school

Pharr-San 

Juan-Alamo 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.192185/-

98.170735 

S4 HrSR 0.78

147 

3.17-13 

Premier High 

School of 

San Juan

Private 

school

Premier High 

School of 

San Juan

No 26.186159/-

98.138014 

S4 HrSR 1.10

148 

3.17-13 

Alamo 

Middle 

School

Public 

school

Pharr-San 

Juan-Alamo 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.185321/-

98.133549 

S4 HrSR 3.06

149 

3.17-13

Central Park City park City of Alamo Yes 26.182541/-

98.117874

S4 HrSR 1.82

150 

3.17-13 

Captain 

Daniel 

Salinas II 

Elementary 

School

Public 

school

Donna 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.180237/-

98.105815 

S4 HrSR 2.86

151 

3.17-13 

Truman Price 

Elementary 

School

Public 

school

Donna 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.167834/-

98.032776 

S4 HrSR 2.95

152 

3.17-13 

South Texas 

College MidValley 

Campus

Public 

college

State of 

Texas

Yes 26.161145/-

97.996744 

S4 HrSR 8.60

153 

3.17-13

HEB Civic 

Center Park

City park City of 

Mercedes

Yes 26.150447/-

97.905243

S4 HrSR 0.83

154 

3.17-13 

Resaca de la 

Palma State 

Park

State park Texas Parks 

and Wildlife 

Department

Yes 26.152162/-

97.850569 

S4 HrSR 2.90
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-30 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study Area 

155 

3.17-13 

Stuart Place 

Elementary 

School

Public 

school

Harlingen 

Consolidated 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.178327/-

97.756892 

S4 HrSR 2.27

156 

3.17-13 

Sam 

Houston 

Park

City park City of 

Harlingen

Yes 26.180714/-

97.687183 

S4 HrSR 6.39

157 

3.17-13

Harlingen 

Thicket

City park City of 

Harlingen

Yes 26.178049/-

97.684237

S4 HrSR 3.43

158 

3.17-13 

Arroyo Park 

to McKelvey 

Park Trail

City trail City of 

Harlingen

Yes 26.177238/-

97.682474 

S4 HrSR 0.22

159 

3.17-13 

Secondary 

Alternative 

Center

Public 

school

Harlingen 

Consolidated 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.173065/-

97.677437 

S4 HrSR 3.13

160 

3.17-13 

South Texas 

Academy for 

Medical 

Professions

Public 

school

South Texas 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.156571/-

97.660002 

S4 HrSR 4.04

161 

3.17-13

Kennedy 

Park

City park City of San 

Benito

Yes 26.134876/-

97.635425

S4 HrSR 3.38

162 

3.17-13 

Lower Rio 

Grande 

Valley 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge

National 

wildlife 

refuge

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service

Yes 26.106602/-

97.603301 

S4 HrSR 40.67

163 

3.17-13 

Rancho Viejo 

Country Club

Golf and 

tennis club

Rancho Viejo 

Resort and 

Country Club

No 26.042118/-

97.548028 

S4 HrSR 17.27

164 

3.17-13 

Villareal 

Elementary 

School

Public 

school

Los Fresnos 

Consolidated 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 26.023769/-

97.533859 

S4 HrSR 3.26

165 

3.17-13

Unnamed 

Park 2

State land State of 

Texas

Yes 25.98306/-

97.526364

S4 HrSR 8.89
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-31 

Map ID # 

Figure # 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type Ownership Public Accessa 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

within 

Study Area 

166 

3.17-13 

Mattie A. 

Pullam 

Elementary 

School

Public 

school

Brownsville 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 25.96925/-

97.522885 

S4 HrSR 2.62

167 

3.17-13 

Valley 

International 

Country Club

Golf course Valley 

International 

Country Club

Yes 25.944365/-

97.520126 

S4 HrSR 16.31

168 

3.17-13

Joe and Tony 

Oliveiro Park

City park City of 

Brownsville

Yes 25.937954/-

97.520918

S4 HrSR 7.91

169 

3.17-13

Riverside 

Park

City park City of 

Brownsville

Yes 25.910397/-

97.515085

S4 HrSR 2.93

170 

3.17-13 

Lucille B. 

Skinner 

Elementary 

School

Public 

school

Brownsville 

Independent 

School 

District

Yes 25.909804/-

97.513204 

S4 HrSR 0.69

a Public Access is based on readily available information. No confirmation of access has been conducted.

Sources: Brownsville Independent School District (2014); Casa Blanca Golf Club (2014); Donna Independent School 

District (2014); FHWA (1987); FHWA (2014); Harlingen Consolidate Independent School District (2014); International 

Museum of Art and Science (2014); Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition (2014); Los Fresnos Consolidated 

Independent School District (2014); NPS (2014); NPS (2013); Nueces County Parks and Recreation Department 

(2014); Pharr-San Juan Alamo Independent School District (2014); San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department 

(2014); South Texas Independent School District (2014); Southwest Independent School District (2014); TxDOT (2014); 

TxDOT (2013); Texas Education Agency (2014); Texas Natural Resources Information System (2014); USFWS (2014); 

USGS (2014).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-32 

Figure 3.17-9: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 8)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-33 

Figure 3.17-10: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 9)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-34 

Figure 3.17-11: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 10)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-35 

Figure 3.17-12: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 11)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-36 

Figure 3.17-13: Recreational Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 12)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-37 

3.17.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.4.1 Overview 

Alternatives could potentially have permanent effects on recreational uses through property 

acquisition, crossing park or trail facilities, or by affecting activities that require quiet. If scenic 

surroundings are important to the use of a resource, then the infrastructure may permanently 

affect the visual quality of the resource. 

The alternatives would have temporary effects on recreational resources if construction requires 

easements that displace trails and recreational properties or block access to those resources. This 

service-level analysis determines the likelihood of effects on resources within the EIS Study Area, 

based on the type of rail service: conventional, higher-speed rail, or high-speed rail. The potential 

for operational effects is proportional to the type of rail service. Conventional rail has the potential 

to avoid most recreational resources and would not contribute noticeably higher noise effects or 

changes to the landscape because it would primarily use existing rail right-of-way. Higher-speed rail 

would have a greater potential effect on recreational resources because new rights-of-way and 

station areas would be needed in some areas. If a quiet condition and scenic surroundings are

components of nearby open space resources, higher-speed may affect the use of those resources. 

High-speed rail may result in the greatest potential effects on recreational resources because highspeed rail facilities require large property acquisitions, and noise (short bursts at high volume) has 

the potential to be higher than with higher-speed rail. High-speed rail may also have more visual 

effects on the landscape because of the potential for elevated guideway over roadways or for 

roadways to cross over guideways. Given this context, the following discussion is only a comparative 

review of effects on recreational resources by alternative and type of rail service. 

This analysis describes related recreational effects in terms of resources in urbanized, suburban, or 

rural areas to help represent the context of the effect. Urbanized areas include major cities, such as 

Oklahoma City, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and cities such as Grand Prairie, Arlington, McAllen, 

and Harlingen. Examples of suburban cities include Gainesville, Norman, Temple, Waco, and Alice. 

Rural areas are generally unincorporated, smaller communities between urban and suburban 

cities.

3.17.4.2 No Build Alternative 

Ongoing operation and maintenance of existing facilities is included in the No Build Alternative in 

addition to the potential expansion of existing facilities. Anticipated effects on recreational 

resources in the EIS Study Area under the No Build Alternative would be consistent with existing 

and planned transportation system uses and potential expansions, including incorporation of 

standard practices and best management practices (BMPs). Compared to the build alternatives and 

with the definition provided, the No Build Alternative is anticipated to have the least effect on 

recreational resources. However, as identified in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to 

Chapter 3, the No Build Alternative would not implement the Program of rail improvements 

associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose and need of the 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-38 

Program. The No Build Alternative is used as a basis for comparison for the build alternatives 

discussed in this EIS.

3.17.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.17.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A Conventional has the potential to affect 56 recreational resources, of which 28 are 

in urban areas, 13 in suburban areas, and 15 in rural areas. Because Alternative N4A Conventional 

would predominantly use existing railroad infrastructure, it would have negligible effects on urban, 

suburban, and rural recreational resources. The main potential for effects on recreational resources 

would be the need for temporary construction easements; however, avoidance and minimization 

efforts in design refinement would reduce the total number of affected resources. Additionally, 

although Alternative N4A Conventional would likely be located within existing rights-of-way, 

temporary easements may be required during construction, resulting in temporary detours or 

closures of recreational resources. For example, several city trails are located within or cross 

existing railroad rights-of-way (Map ID #5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 29, 43, 44, and 52) in urban and suburban 

areas. Construction easements may also require the temporary closure of portions of public parks 

(Map ID #19, 27, and 33), golf courses (Map ID #16 and 45), and other recreation areas (Map ID 

#23, 30, and 32). Wherever possible, pedestrian detours would be provided for city trails and 

public parks in order to minimize these effects. Full access and usability of the recreational areas 

would be restored to their previous functions after construction is complete. 

The expansion of existing stations or construction of new stations associated with Alternative N4A 

Conventional is expected to have negligible effects on recreational resources because existing 

railroad stations and depots would likely be used, and construction of new stations and additional 

parking facilities would avoid recreational resources during the project-level analysis. 

Recreational resources within the EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A Conventional have historically 

been close to railroad facilities, and more frequent train noise and vibration are not likely to alter 

recreational activities. For more detailed information on changes in noise and vibration, see 

Section 3.3, Noise and Vibration. Delineations of specific increases in noise and vibration and the 

impacts on recreational resources would be addressed during the project-level analysis. 

3.17.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.17.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail may affect 57 recreational resources, of which 28 are in urban 

areas, 17 in suburban areas, and 12 in rural areas. In the urban areas, Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail would use or be located adjacent to existing transportation corridors; therefore, 

avoidance and minimization of temporary construction easement effects would reduce the total 

affected resources during design refinement. These effects would be moderate compared to the No 

Build Alternative, which would not affect recreational resources. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-39 

The densest concentrations of urban development and recreational resources are located near the 

northern and southern termini of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, which are largely within the 

Fort Worth, Dallas, and San Antonio areas. Due to their location in relation to existing railroad 

infrastructure and Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, city trails in the Dallas-Fort Worth area (Map 

ID #43, 44, and 52) and the Olmos Basin Golf Course and San Antonio Gun Club (Map ID #110 and 

112) in San Antonio have the greatest potential to be affected by temporary easements. 

Construction easements may require the temporary closure of portions of urban trails and/or their 

access points; however, the closures would only be needed during construction and wherever 

possible, pedestrian detours would be provided in order to minimize these effects. Full access 

would be restored following construction. Construction easements may also require the temporary 

closure of portions of other urban recreation areas because of their locations (Map ID #49, 54, 

103, and 111) and pedestrian detours would be provided wherever possible. Such areas would be 

restored to their previous functions after construction and result in negligible effects. 

In suburban areas where alignments would be located outside existing rights-of-way (such as 

through downtown Waco and east of Austin), it is anticipated that Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail

would have substantial effects on recreational resources during the construction and operational 

phases because of the need for temporary construction easements and new right-of-way 

acquisitions. For example, the Riverwalk Trail along the Brazos River in downtown Waco (Map ID 

#87) traverses an existing railroad right-of-way, and it may be temporarily affected, closed, or 

realigned during construction; new railroad infrastructure or acquisitions may have a permanent 

effect. 

In rural areas where the alignments would be located outside existing rights-of-way, it is anticipated 

that Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have substantial effects on recreational resources. 

For example, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would pass through Red Oak Valley Golf Club in Red 

Oak, Texas (Map ID #76), and it would pass through the eastern portion of Walter E. Long 

Metropolitan Park, and the center of Richard Moya Park (Map ID #100 and 101), both of which are 

located outside Austin. 

Two USACE-operated parks, Willis Creek Park and Wilson H. Fox Park (Map ID #97 and 98), are 

recreational resources identified within rural areas of the Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail EIS 

Study Area. Each park’s recreational resources are primarily located along Granger Lake, east of 

the EIS Study Area. In addition, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail passes through undeveloped 

areas of the parks, near places where existing rail infrastructure runs either through or adjacent to 

the parks. As previously stated, potential impacts on these resources would likely be avoided at the 

project level because higher-speed rail construction can accommodate relatively tight horizontal 

curves, and there is space in rural areas to avoid recreational resources; therefore, Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail would result in moderate effects on park resources. 

In suburban and rural locations, where Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would not be near 

existing railroad facilities, there may be additional effects on recreational resources that require 

quiet environments, such as the County View Golf Course in Lancaster (Map ID #74), the Red Oak 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-40 

Valley Golf Club in Red Oak, Texas (Map ID #76) and the Lazy J Paradise campground (Map ID 

#102). For more detailed information on changes in noise and vibration, see Section 3.3, Noise and 

Vibration. Delineations of specific increases in noise and vibration and the impacts on recreational 

resources would be addressed during the project-level analysis. 

The construction of new stations and expansion of existing stations within urban and suburban 

areas would potentially have moderate effects on recreational resources within the Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail EIS Study Area. Additionally, increased parking or additional parking facilities 

may be required; however, construction of parking facilities would likely avoid areas with 

recreational resources during the project-level analysis. Construction of new stations and 

associated parking lots in rural areas would likely be avoided, resulting in negligible effects on 

recreational resources. 

3.17.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

The EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail is the same as Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail; therefore, this high-speed rail alternative may affect up to 57 recreational resources. 

The potential effects previously discussed for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would also be 

applicable to Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. However, the high-speed rail facility poses additional 

effects on recreational resources because it must be constructed on new rights-of-way, it requires 

grade separation from other crossings (e.g., trails, roadways, railways, and wildlife corridors), and it 

requires rigid straights and large radii curvatures. Therefore, in densely developed urban and 

suburban areas, it may be difficult to avoid effects on recreational resources because existing 

railroad rights-of-way cannot be used and new railroad infrastructure would be required. It is 

anticipated that Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have substantial effects on recreational 

resources. Possible avoidance or minimization measures would include providing grade separations 

for trails under or over the guideway. 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail may require that stations and grade crossings be elevated, which 

would impose new large-scale features on the surrounding landscape and may result in visual 

effects that would not be associated with effects potentially caused by Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail. It is anticipated that entirely new station facilities would need to be constructed in 

urban and suburban areas, even if there are existing stations, which could have moderate effects 

on recreational resources. However, recreational resources in urban and suburban areas may be 

avoided during station site selection. It is likely that effects on recreation resources in rural areas 

through the construction of new stations would be moderate because there is more available space 

than in dense urban areas.

3.17.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Fifty-one recreational resources may be affected by Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. It shares a 

similar EIS Study Area as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail; however, it would avoid 20 resources 

that Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail may affect, while potentially affecting 14 other recreational 

resources. Because Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail shares a similar EIS Study Area as 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-41 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail from approximately Hillsboro to San Antonio, the potential for 

effects are the same as previously discussed for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Therefore, in 

the area from Hillsboro to San Antonio, it is anticipated that Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail

would have substantial effects on recreational resources. The remaining discussion focuses on the 

urbanized areas in Dallas and Tarrant counties and the suburban and rural areas in Johnson, Ellis, 

and Hill counties.

Although Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail avoids 13 recreational resources in the Dallas and Fort 

Worth urban areas, it potentially affects 13 other urban recreational resources that Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail would not affect in Arlington, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie, and Dallas. Those 

potentially affected urban recreational resources include Nolan Catholic High School (Map ID #57) 

in Fort Worth, Randol Mill Park (Map ID #59), Lamar High School Athletic Field (Map ID #60), and 

Fish Creek Linear Park (west) (Map ID #65) in the city of Arlington. It also includes Fish Creek Linear 

Park (east) (Map ID #64) and John Adams Middle School (Map ID #67) in city of Grand Prairie. In 

Dallas, Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail may affect Thomas A. Edison Middle School (Map ID #68)

and crosses the Trinity River Greenbelt Park (south) (Map ID #69). In addition, there are two large 

amusement parks in Fort Worth that could also potentially be affected by Alternative C4B HigherSpeed Rail: Six Flags Hurricane Harbor (Map ID #62) and Six Flags over Texas and Gateway Park 

(Map ID #63). Two golf courses, the Rolling Hills Country Club (Map ID #61) in Arlington and the 

Waterchase Golf Course in Fort Worth (Map ID #58), could potentially be affected by Alternative 

C4B Higher-Speed Rail. 

In urban areas where Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail diverges from Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail, Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail is located within or directly adjacent to existing 

transportation corridors, Interstate Highway 30 (IH-30) and State Highway 360 (SH-360). Therefore, 

it is likely that temporary construction easements could lead to temporary closures and detours, 

and minimal right-of-way acquisition would be required. Effects from noise and vibrations on urban 

recreational resources are expected to be minimal because they are already located adjacent to 

major transportation corridors. For more detailed information on changes in noise and vibration, 

see Section 3.3, Noise and Vibration. Delineations of specific increases in noise and vibration and 

the impacts on recreational resources would be addressed during the project-level analysis. As a 

result, Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail (where it diverges from Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail) 

poses moderate effects on urban recreational resources. 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would affect the same suburban recreational resources as 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, except Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail avoids the city of 

Waxahachie and, therefore, would not affect Navarro College (Map ID #77) or Richards Park (Map 

ID #78) in Waxahachie. It is anticipated that Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would have 

substantial effects on suburban recreational resources.

In rural areas, Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would affect the same rural recreational resources 

as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail; however, Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would affect one 

additional rural resource, Lloyd Park (Map ID #66), which is located outside Grand Prairie. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-42 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would result in a moderate effect on rural recreational resources 

because Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail follows SH-360 through Lloyd Park, and the alternative 

would likely be built adjacent to or within existing transportation rights-of-way. 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and associated stations are expected to have moderate effects 

on urban recreational resources due to possible land acquisitions for new stations and parking 

facilities. The associated stations are expected to have the same effects on suburban and rural 

recreational resources as noted for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. 

3.17.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail shares the same EIS Study Area as Alternative C4B Higher-Speed 

Rail. Therefore, both C4B alternatives may potentially affect the same resources. The 51 

recreational resources and the potential effects presented for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail

would also apply to Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. However, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

poses additional effects, particularly on urban recreational resources. The majority of the 

recreational resources within the EIS Study Areas for the C4B alternatives that are different from 

the C4A alternatives are urban recreational resources. In urban areas, high-speed rail facilities have 

the potential for substantial effects on recreational resources because they must be constructed on 

new rights-of-way, they require grade separation structures at all intersections, and they require 

straight alignments and large radii curvatures. As a result, it may be difficult to avoid effects on 

recreational resources because of the need to acquire new rights-of-way and the construction of 

new railroad infrastructure. It is anticipated that Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have 

substantial effects on recreational resources. Possible avoidance or minimization measures would 

include providing grade separations of trails, such as the Trinity River Greenbelt Park (south) (Map 

ID #69) under or over the guideway. 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail may require that associated stations and grade crossings be 

elevated, which would impose new large-scale features on the surrounding landscape and may 

result in visual effects that would not be associated with Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. It is 

anticipated that entirely new station facilities would need to be constructed in urban and suburban 

areas, even if existing stations are already present; this could have moderate effects on

recreational resources. However, recreational resources in urban and suburban areas may be 

avoided during station site selection. It is likely that effects on recreation resources in rural areas 

caused by construction of new stations would be moderate because there is more available space 

than in more densely developed areas. 

3.17.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail shares the same EIS Study Area as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail, except that there are five additional resources in urban areas that may be affected, for a total 

of 33 urban recreational resources potentially affected (62 recreational resources total). Alternative 

C4C Higher-Speed Rail has the potential to affect the most overall and the most urban recreational 

resources in the Central Section. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-43 

All urban recreational resources except the five noted herein have the same potential for effects, 

avoidance, and minimization as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. The five additional urban 

recreational resources include Hallmark Park (Map ID #171), Parks of Deer Creek Park (Map ID 

#172), and Sidney H. Poynter Elementary School (Map ID #173) in Fort Worth, and Mistletoe Hill 

Park (Map ID #174) and Bailey Lake (Map ID #175) in the city of Burleson. Where Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail does not follow Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, it is located close to existing 

railroad rights-of-way; therefore, the urban recreational resources on this portion of Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail may be affected by temporary easements, temporary closures and detours, or 

minimal new right-of-way acquisitions. Effects from noise and vibrations are expected to be minimal 

because Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail follows an existing railroad and there are no known 

recreational areas that require quiet environments. For more details on changes in noise and 

vibration, see Section 3.3, Noise and Vibration. Delineations of specific increases in noise and 

vibration and the impacts on recreational resources would be addressed during the project-level 

analysis. As a result, Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail where it diverges from Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail would result in moderate effects. 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and associated stations are expected to have moderate effects 

on urban recreational resources because of the need to expand existing stations or construct new 

stations and parking facilities. 

All resources in suburban and rural areas have the same potential for moderate effects, avoidance, 

and minimization as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. 

3.17.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail shares the same EIS Study Area as Alternative C4C Higher-Speed 

Rail. Therefore, both C4C alternatives may potentially affect the same recreational resources (62 

recreational resources total). Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail may potentially result in substantial 

effects on the five urban recreational resources within the EIS Study Area. Because high-speed rail 

facilities must be constructed on new rights-of-way and because the facilities require grade 

separation structures at all intersections and large radii curvatures, the potential effects are greater 

in intensity than with higher-speed rail. It is anticipated that Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would 

have substantial effects on recreational resources. Possible avoidance or minimization measures 

would include providing grade separations of trails at locations such as the walking trails at Parks 

of Deer Creek Park (Map ID #172) under or over the guideway. 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail and the associated stations in the Fort Worth and Burleson areas 

may require that the stations and grade crossings be elevated, which would impose new large-scale 

features on the surrounding landscape and may result in visual effects that would not be 

associated with Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. It is anticipated that entirely new station 

facilities would need to be constructed in urban areas, even if existing stations are already present;

this could have moderate effects on recreational resources. However, recreational resources in 

urban areas may be avoided during station site selection. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-44 

All resources in suburban and rural areas have the same potential for moderate effects, avoidance, 

and minimization as Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. 

3.17.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.17.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail may affect 54 recreational resources, of which 38 are in urban 

areas, four are in suburban areas, and 12 are in rural areas. Recreational resources within the EIS 

Study Area for the alignment are located primarily in urban and suburban areas on the south side 

of San Antonio, in smaller communities along the alternative, and along the southern branch of 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (extending south to McAllen and 

east to Brownsville). In urban and suburban areas, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be 

mostly within existing railroad rights-of-way or directly adjacent to existing rights-of-way. In addition, 

existing railroad infrastructure, including at-grade railroad crossings and grade-separated crossings, 

are already in place in the urban and suburban areas along the alignment for Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail. A few hiking and bike trails are located within the existing railroad right-of-way along the 

alignment for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail (Map ID #135, 138, and 139). Construction 

easements may require the temporary closure of these trails and/or their access points, as well as 

temporarily affect recreational resources within the EIS Study Area. Wherever possible, pedestrian 

detours would be provided in order to minimize these effects. Construction easement areas would 

be restored to their previous functions after construction activities. Consequently, there is lower 

potential in urban and suburban areas for effects on recreational resources under Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail, but due to the length of time for construction and the potential for adjacent 

parks to be affected, construction effects would be moderate. 

In rural areas, most of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would require an alignment outside of 

existing rail infrastructure, although some of the alternative would use abandoned railroad 

alignments. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would potentially affect 12 recreational resources, 

such as an unnamed park near George West (Map ID #120), John L. Sablatura County Park (Map ID 

#126) near Banquette, Resaca de la Palma State Park (Map ID #154) in Bixby, and Lower Rio 

Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Map ID #162). Rail through both Resaca de la Palma State 

Park and Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge would be constructed on either existing 

or abandoned railroad alignments that already span those resources. Although a new alignment is 

proposed in the vicinity of the unnamed park near George West and John L. Sablatura County Park, 

the rural areas are on primarily undeveloped or inaccessible land. Therefore, it is anticipated that 

there would be negligible effects on recreational resources from Alternative S4 High-Speed Rail. 

Potential effects caused by Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail and its associated stations are 

expected to have negligible effects on urban, suburban, and rural recreational resources. 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would follow existing rail facilities in urban areas, and the 

potentially affected recreational resources are accustomed to passing trains; therefore, operational 

effects (e.g., noise and visual intrusion) are expected to be negligible. Station areas are expected to 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-45 

avoid park resources and therefore result in negligible effects. Delineations of specific increases in 

noise and vibration and the impacts on recreational resources would be addressed during the 

project-level analysis. 

3.17.4.5.2 Alternatives S6 Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail 

Only three recreational resources were identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternatives S6 

Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail, two urban recreational areas, and one rural recreational area: 

(1) Lindbergh Park in San Antonio (Map ID #114), (2) Elm Creek Elementary School and McNair 

Middle School in Atascosa (Map ID #117), and (3) the Chaparral Wildlife Management Area 

southwest of Cotulla (Map ID #119). 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail may be located within or adjacent to existing railroad rights-of-way 

in the urban areas of San Antonio and south to Atascosa. Lindbergh Park and Elm Creek 

Elementary School and McNair Middle School are adjacent to existing railroad facilities where the 

S6 alternatives would be constructed (on or adjacent to the existing rail alignments). Alternative S6 

High-Speed Rail would be constructed on a new location; however, it is anticipated that it would be 

located close to the existing railroad rights-of-way when possible, and recreational resources would 

be avoided if possible. Potential effects caused by Alternatives S6 Higher-Speed Rail and HighSpeed Rail are expected to have negligible effects on urban recreational resources. 

As Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail extends south, it would require a new alignment through rural 

areas of south Texas. It would bisect Chaparral Wildlife Management Area; however, impacts on 

that resource may be avoided at the project level. There are large areas nearby where the 

alignment could be routed to minimize potential impacts on the wildlife management area. If it can 

be avoided, the construction phase of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have negligible 

effects on recreational resources. 

Lindbergh Park and Elm Creek Elementary School and McNair Middle School have historically been 

close to railroad facilities; therefore, effects due to noise and vibrations from additional passing 

trains would be minimal. Noise and vibrations during construction and operation may have an 

effect on the Chaparral Wildlife Management Area if it keeps wildlife away from the property. For 

more details on changes in noise and vibration, see Section 3.3, Noise and Vibration. Delineations 

of specific increases in noise and vibration and the impacts on recreational resources would be 

addressed during the project-level analysis. 

Alternatives S6 Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail associated stations are expected to have 

negligible effects on recreation resources because there are only three recreational resources and 

as a result it is anticipated that they can be avoided during site selection.

3.17.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Based on this service-level analysis of potential effects on recreational resources, it is anticipated 

that the highest intensity of effects during the construction and operational phases would occur in 

the Central Section, with potentially greater effects caused by high-speed rail because of the nature 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-46 

of high-speed rail (e.g., the need for grade-separated structures, potential elevated tracks and 

stations, and the need for new alignments outside of existing rights-of-way). The alternatives in the 

Central Section travel through major urban areas that have the densest concentration of 

recreational resources. 

Although there are several recreational resources in the Northern and Southern sections, it is 

anticipated that effects on these resources would be negligible except for Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail, which would have moderate effects. Alternative N4A Conventional would use existing 

railroad facilities and infrastructure. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would also use existing 

railroad facilities or abandoned railroad rights-of-way, particularly in areas where the majority of the 

recreational resources are located. Due to the length of time for construction and the potential for 

adjacent parks to be affected, construction effects under Alternative S4 would be moderate in 

urban and suburban areas. Alternatives S6 Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail have relatively 

few recreational resources that would be affected. As a result, effects on recreational resources 

along the Northern and Southern section alignments would be minor and could be easily avoided or 

reduced. Table 3.17-4 lists the number of recreational resources by alternative and the potential 

intensity of effects for each alternative during construction and operation. 

Table 3.17-4: Summary of Intensity of Effects on Recreational Resources

Section Alternative Total Recreational 

Resources 

Potential Intensity of 

Effectsa 

No Build Alternativeb N/A No effects

Northern N4A CONV 56 Negligible

Central

C4A HrSR 57 Substantial

C4A HSR 57 Substantial

C4B HrSR 51 Substantial

C4B HSR 51 Substantial

C4C HrSR 62 Moderate

C4C HSR 62 Substantial

Southern

S4 HrSR 54 Moderate

S6 HrSR 3 Negligible

S6 HSR 3 Negligible

a The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table; however, alternatives may include 

additional less intense effects depending on urban, suburban, or rural locations. 

b The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect 

from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.17-47 

3.17.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance and minimization of effects at the project-level would be incorporated when feasible. If 

effects cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies would be implemented at the project

level. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies during construction would include, but not 

be limited to, minimizing generation of dust and debris, avoiding recreational resources, using 

detours (for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles) and providing partial access to recreational 

resources, recreational resource enhancements, and potential land replacement for long-term 

adverse effects. Proximity effects on parks could be reduced through context-sensitive design, 

plantings, vegetative screenings, and sound barriers. Other construction-phase mitigation would 

include, but not be limited to, preserving public access to and function of remaining park areas 

during construction. Resources, if temporarily affected, would be restored to pre-construction or 

better conditions after construction is complete. Where new rights-of-way would be required, 

shifting and narrowing of the new rights-of-way may minimize effects on recreational resources. 

3.17.6 Subsequent Analysis 

During the project-level analysis of the selected alternative, a detailed data gathering and analysis 

would occur, which will include, but is not limited to, research into the types of activities conducted 

at each resource, identification of the degree of public access and use of the resource, and 

delineation of exact property boundaries. This research will be conducted to determine the extent of 

potential impacts. The project-level analysis will include the following: 

 Specific descriptions of the uses and functions of each resource. 

 Identification of resource boundaries, the acreage of the resources, specific services and 

facilities, and access. 

 Identification of specific potential impacts on each resource as a result of construction, 

operation, infrastructure, and improvement/maintenance of each passenger rail service 

alternative, including property acquisitions, permanent and temporary easements, and proximity 

and/or temporary impacts and the permanent or temporary impact on the functionality of the 

resource. 

 Documentation of consultation with the affected federal, state, and local jurisdictions, as well as 

owners/operators of identified resources. 

 Resource and impact-specific mitigation strategies. 

 Public involvement and outreach to identify the local and regional importance of the resource 

and to notify the public if impacts would occur. 

TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-1 

3.18 Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources 

This section describes the historic, architectural, and non-archaeological cultural resources 

identified within the environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area of the Program and outlines 

potential effects on these resources. These resources include visual landmarks of the communities’ 

development and cultural history. Federal and state statutes recognize the value of preserving the 

historic structures for future generations. Archaeological sites, tribal resources, and traditional 

cultural properties are discussed in Section 3.19, Archaeological Resources. The introduction to 

Chapter 3 describes the EIS Study Area and use of terms, such as Study Vicinity and transportation 

corridor, along with the standard organization of each analysis.

3.18.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable federal and state legislation and regulations pertaining to historic, architectural, and 

non-archaeological cultural resources are discussed in the following sections. Additional local and 

regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and will be addressed in the project-level 

analysis.

3.18.1.1 Federal 

 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 470) and 

Implementing Regulations for Section 106 NHPA (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 

800). Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). Furthermore, it requires that federal agencies provide the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), and other 

consulting parties the opportunity to comment on proposed federal undertaking(s). This 

document outlines potential effects on non-archaeological cultural resources at the service 

level. This service-level analysis does not comply with Section 106 because there is no 

proposed undertaking associated with this study. Compliance documentation in accordance 

with Section 106 would be completed after proposed undertakings are studied at the project

level. 

 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act (49 U.S.C. § 303 and 23 

U.S.C. § 138). Compliance with Section 4(f) would be conducted at the project level. For more 

information on Section 4(f), see Chapter 4, Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources. 

3.18.1.2 State 

 Antiquities Code of Texas (Texas Natural Resource Code, Title 9, Chapter 191). The Antiquities 

Code of Texas established the creation of State Antiquities Landmarks (SALs), which include 

archaeological sites and non-archaeological historic resources (e.g., buildings, structures). Nonarchaeological historic resources designated as SALs must first be listed on the NRHP to be 

designated as a SAL. For non-archaeological historic resources, the Antiquities Code of Texas

mandates that state agencies or any political subdivisions of the State of Texas, including cities, 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-2 

counties, municipal utilities, or school districts, may not alter, remove, damage, or destroy SALs 

(including non-archaeological SALs) without a contract with or permit from the Texas SHPO. 

3.18.2 Methodology 

The historic, architectural, and non-archaeological cultural resources analysis for this service-level 

EIS took a broad approach in determining the potential for effects on historic resources from the 

build alternatives. 

The EIS Study Area for historic, architectural, and non-archaeological cultural resources is defined 

as a 500-foot buffer for each alternative. Using primary and secondary sources outlined below, a 

general historic context was prepared that presents the history of the areas surrounding the 

alternatives and provides a general overview with which to evaluate historic resources within the 

EIS Study Area (for more information on the historic context, see Appendix J).

Information on potential non-archaeological historic resources was obtained from electronic 

databases and online resources including the Historic Sites Atlas (Texas Historical Commission

2014); Oklahoma’s National Register Handbook (Oklahoma Historical Society 2014); the National 

Park Service (NPS) Google Earth layer of NRHP-listed resources in Texas and Oklahoma; the Texas 

Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Environmental Affairs Division (ENV) internal database of 

resources with previous determinations of NRHP eligibility; Irrigation District Engineering Assistance

(Texas A&M University 2014); and city planning and preservation department websites. These 

resources were used to identify known historic resources (i.e., those listed or determined eligible for 

listing in the NRHP, including non-archaeological historic resources like buildings, sites, structures, 

objects, and historic districts). 

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

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

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

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

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

resources was not available online.

This analysis also identified potential non-archaeological historic resources and potential historic 

districts within the EIS Study Area that have not been evaluated to date, but may meet the NRHP 

Criteria of Eligibility. Cemeteries not listed on the NRHP or previously determined NRHP-eligible 

were identified and noted as potentially NRHP-eligible resources. These resources were identified 

for further assessment and formal determinations of NRHP eligibility during the project-level 

analysis. Current and historic aerial imagery and Google Streetview were used to identify these 

previously un-evaluated but potentially NRHP-eligible historic resources within the EIS Study Area. 

From historic aerials, it was possible to identify potential historic districts from the post-World War II 

era and cemeteries more easily than other individual historic resources; however, local jurisdictions 

were called to acquire information on local historic resources to identify resources that should be 

evaluated for eligibility in future phases of project review. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-3 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to make a reasonable and good faith effort in 

identifying historic properties that are 50 years of age or older within the Area of Potential Effect 

(APE). As previously noted, this service-level analysis does not comply with Section 106 because 

there is no proposed undertaking associated with this study. However, Section 106 acted as 

guidance for this initial desktop service-level analysis of the 500-foot EIS Study Area. Cemeteries 

are included as properties that may be 50 years of age or older as part of the reasonable and good 

faith effort. As such, cemeteries appear as part of the findings when conducting this level of 

analysis of potential historic properties in the 500-foot EIS Study Area.

In accordance with the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation, a 50-year cutoff is typically used in the 

identification of potential historic resources. However, to allow for an expected period of time for 

Program planning, properties built in or before 1970 were evaluated as potentially NRHP-eligible 

historic districts within the EIS Study Area. This date may need to be modified during the projectlevel analysis, based on the actual date of construction of the Program. As a result, additional 

historic resources that were constructed after 1970 may be identified during the project-level 

analysis. 

After NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, and potentially NRHP-eligible historic resources were identified for 

each alternative, the magnitude of potential effects on these resources was determined. The 

assessment was based on the data collected during the service-level analysis and may need to be 

reassessed at the project level, depending on changes to the Program and the actual date of 

construction. Formal determination of effects pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and NHPA would be made during the project-level analysis. 

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

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

architectural, and non-archaeological cultural resources (which include buildings, structures, and 

districts), these terms are defined as follows: 

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

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

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

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

resource eligible for, or listed in, the NRHP. 

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

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

eligible for, or listed in, the NRHP.

3.18.3 Affected Environment 

Table 3.18-1 lists the number of known and potential historic resources by alternative within the 

EIS Study Area; the historic resources are discussed in further detail in the following sections. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-4 

Table 3.18-1: Historic Resources by Alternative within the EIS Study Area

Historic Resource 

N4A 

CONV 

C4A 

HrSR 

and 

HSRa 

C4B 

HrSR 

and 

HSRa 

C4C 

HrSR 

and 

HSRa 

S4 

HrSR 

S6 HrSR 

and 

HSR 

NRHP-Listed or NRHP-Eligible Historic 

Districts

9 4 4 3 7 0 

Potentially NRHP-Eligible Historic Districts 5 4 6 6 3 0

NRHP-Listed or NRHP-Eligible Individual 

Resources

17 19 12 22 23 0 

Potentially NRHP-Eligible Individual 

Resources

1 2 1 3 1 0 

NRHP-Listed or NRHP-Eligible Cemeteries 0 1 1 1 0 0

Potentially NRHP-Eligible Cemeteries 3 15 14 17 2 0

Total Historic Resources 35 45 38 52 36 0 

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

the same for both.

CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

3.18.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

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

historic districts within the Northern Section EIS Study Area. The historic districts are largely 

concentrated in Oklahoma City, Dallas, and Fort Worth, although several are in smaller towns and 

cities along the route. The analysis also revealed 17 individual NRHP-listed or previously 

determined NRHP-eligible resources and three potentially NRHP-eligible cemeteries within the 

Northern Section EIS Study Area. 

Although detailed survey to identify potentially NRHP-eligible individual historic resources was not 

part of this analysis, the prevalence of historic Santa Fe Railroad Depots along the Alternative N4A 

route led to the identification of one previously unevaluated Santa Fe Railroad Depot (Map ID #15) 

in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma. This depot has been included as a potentially NRHP-eligible resource. 

Because of the prevalence of historically significant Santa Fe Railroad Depots along the Alternative 

N4A route, there is also potential for a discontinuous Santa Fe Railroad historic district. 

Known and potential historic resources within the Northern Section EIS Study Area are listed in 

Table 3.18.2. Figure 3.18-1 is an index map for the Map ID numbers and figures identified in the 

table, and identified historic resources for all sections are shown on Figures 3.18-2 through 

3.18-13. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-5 

Table 3.18-2: Historic Resources – Northern Section

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long)b 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

1

Figure 3.18-2

Edgemere Park Historic 

District 

35.50639/ 

-97.514683

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

2

Figure 3.18-2

Mesta Park and Heritage 

Hills Historic Districts

35.491974/ 

-97.513299

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

3

Figure 3.18-2

Cain's Coffee Building 35.48141681/

-97.5122159

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

4

Figure 3.18-2

Automobile Alley Historic 

District

35.47801715/ 

-97.51249716

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

5

Figure 3.18-2

Sherman Machine and 

Iron Works Building

35.4678438/ 

-97.51156819

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

6

Figure 3.18-2

Stanford Furniture 

Company Building

35.46663246/ 

-97.51186181

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

7

Figure 3.18-2

J.I. Case Plow Works 

Building

35.4650558/ 

-97.5118831

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

8

Figure 3.18-2

Sooner Theater Building 35.22114837/

-97.4432098

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

9

Figure 3.18-2

Santa Fe Depot 35.21993512/ 

-97.4429154

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

10

Figure 3.18-2

Norman Historic District 35.219368/ 

-97.442376

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

11

Figure 3.18-2

Miller Historic District 35.217936/ 

-97.441167

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible

N4A CONV

12

Figure 3.18-2

DeBarr Historic District 35.21183909/ 

-97.43882983

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

13

Figure 3.18-2

U.S. Highway 77 Bridge at 

Canadian River

35.01374298/ 

-97.35678374

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

14

Figure 3.18-2

Purcell Train Station 35.01191388/ 

-97.35728219

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

15

Figure 3.18-2

Santa Fe Depot 34.74137837/ 

-97.21791761

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible

N4A CONV

16

Figure 3.18-2

Pauls Valley Historic 

District

34.74067683/ 

-97.21744851

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

17

Figure 3.18-3 

Arbuckle Historical 

Museum/ Davis Santa Fe 

Depot

34.50361524/ 

-97.1217722

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-6 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long)b 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

18

Figure 3.18-3

Ardmore Commercial 

Historic District

34.1716344/

-97.12609074

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

19

Figure 3.18-3

Marietta Main Street 

Historic District

33.93723476/ 

-97.11732243

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible

N4A CONV

20

Figure 3.18-3

Santa Fe Depot 33.93670828/ 

-97.11677581

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

21

Figure 3.18-3

Saint Paul's Church 33.62597124/ 

-97.14132663

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV

22

Figure 3.18-3

Santa Fe Passenger 

Depot

33.62501115/ 

-97.140706

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

23

Figure 3.18-3

Gainesville Commercial 

Historical District

33.624124/ 

-97.140743

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible

N4A CONV

24

Figure 3.18-4 

Krum Cemetery 33.244875/ 

-97.243899

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

N4A CONV

25

Figure 3.18-4

Fort Worth Stockyards 

Historic District

32.793943/ 

-97.343368

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

26

Figure 3.18-4

Samuels Avenue 

Historical District

32.768609/ 

-97.328688

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible

N4A CONV

27

Figure 3.18-4 

Pioneers Rest Cemetery 32.765624/

-97.327955

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

N4A CONV

28

Figure 3.18-4

Hampton-Peach Streets 

Historical District

32.763048/ 

-97.32699

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

N4A CONV

29

Figure 3.18-4

Allen Chapel AME Church 32.75897211/ 

-97.32752389

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV

30a

Figure 3.18-4

Montgomery Ward and 

Company Building

32.75401418/ 

-97.32647395

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

31a

Figure 3.18-4 

Gulf, Colorado and Santa 

Fe Railroad Passenger 

Station

32.74916071/ 

-97.32410681

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV

32a

Figure 3.18-4 

Calloway Cemetery 32.810561/ 

-97.089142

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

N4A CONV

33a

Figure 3.18-4

Rock Island Railroad 

Bridge

32.81315531/ 

-96.86163747

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-7 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long)b 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

34 a

Figure 3.18-4

Turtle Creek Pump Station 32.80004162/ 

-96.81644069

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

35a

Figure 3.18-4

West End Historic District 32.779764/ 

-96.809595

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV

a Resource is also in the Central Section. 

b Lat/Long = latitude/longitude

Sources: Baird and Goble (2008); Bamburg (2007); Beaumont et al. (no date [n.d.]); Crowder and Hoig (2008); Fite 

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

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

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

Richardson (2005); Sanders and Tyler (1973); Schmelzer (2010); Selcer (2004); TxDOT (2014a); TxDOT (2014b); 

TxDOT (2014c); TxDOT (2014d); TxDOT (2014e); TxDOT and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2014); Texas 

Historical Commission (2014); Wade (2010); Weaver (2007); Wilson (2007); Worcester (2010). 

3.18.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

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

NRHP-eligible historic districts within the Alternative C4A EIS Study Area. The historic districts are 

largely concentrated in Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, although several are in smaller towns 

and cities along the build alternatives. The analysis also revealed 19 listed or previously 

determined NRHP-eligible resources, one previously identified NRHP-eligible cemetery, and 15 

potentially NRHP-eligible cemeteries within the EIS Study Area. Two potentially NRHP-eligible 

railroad depots were identified: one in Waxahachie (Map ID #51) and one in Temple (Map ID #65). 

Data collection revealed four NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic districts and six potentially 

NRHP-eligible historic districts within the Alternative C4B EIS Study Area. The historic districts are 

largely concentrated in dense urban areas, including Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. The 

analysis also revealed 12 individual NRHP-listed or previously determined NRHP-eligible resources, 

one NRHP-eligible cemetery, and 14 potentially NRHP-eligible cemeteries within the EIS Study Area. 

One potentially NRHP-eligible railroad depot was identified, the Santa Fe Depot in Temple (Map ID 

#65). 

Data collection revealed three NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic districts and six potentially 

NRHP-eligible historic districts within the Alternative C4C EIS Study Area. The historic districts 

include residential neighborhoods, commercial cores, and large industrial complexes. The analysis 

also revealed 22 individual NRHP-listed or previously determined NRHP-eligible resources, one

NRHP-eligible cemetery, and 17 potentially NRHP-eligible cemeteries within the EIS Study Area. 

Three potentially NRHP-eligible railroad-related resources were identified for this alternative: the 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-8 

Santa Fe Depot in Temple (Map ID #65), the Waxahachie Train Depot (Map ID #51), and a Railroad

Truss Bridge north of Grandview (Map ID #124). 

Although identification of potentially NRHP-eligible individual historic resources was not part of this 

analysis, during data collection, potentially NRHP-eligible railroad depots were identified along the 

routes of the Central Section alternatives. Because of the proximity of the resources to the 

alternatives, the high potential for effects on these resources, and the potential for a discontinuous 

rail-related historic district, these resources were included in the assessment of effects. 

Historic resources within the Central Section are listed in Table 3.18.3. 

Table 3.18-3. Historic Resources – Central Section

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

30a

Figure 3.18-4 

Montgomery Ward and 

Company Building

32.75401418/ 

-97.32647395

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

31a

Figure 3.18-4 

Gulf, Colorado and Santa 

Fe Railroad Passenger 

Station

32.74916071/ 

-97.32410681

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

32a

Figure 3.18-4 

Calloway Cemetery 32.810561/ 

-97.089142

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

33a

Figure 3.18-4 

Rock Island Railroad 

Bridge

32.81315531/ 

-96.86163747

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

34a

Figure 3.18-4 

Turtle Creek Pump 

Station

32.80004162/ 

-96.81644069

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

35a

Figure 3.18-4 

West End Historic 

District

32.779764/ 

-96.809595

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-9 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

36

Figure 3.18-4

White Lake Hills Historic 

District

32.759264/ 

-97.256597

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

37

Figure 3.18-4

Hollandale Historic 

District

32.729643/ 

-97.061774

NRHP-Eligible C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

38

Figure 3.18-4

Vought Manor Historic 

District

32.728696/ 

-97.063174

NRHP-Eligible C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

39

Figure 3.18-4

Grand Prairie Historic 

District

32.758908/ 

-96.976517

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

40

Figure 3.18-4 

Scott Cemetery 32.776438/ 

-96.830282 

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

41

Figure 3.18-4 

Dealey Plaza Historic 

District

32.777795/ 

-96.808461

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

42

Figure 3.18-4 

Dallas Union Terminal 32.775551/ 

-96.807861

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

43

Figure 3.18-4 

Houston Street Viaduct 32.772899/ 

-96.806363

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

44

Figure 3.18-4 

Cadiz Street Overpasses 

and Underpasses

32.76992438/ 

-96.80142353

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

45

Figure 3.18-4 

Proctor & Gamble 

Manufacturing Complex

32.753842/ 

-96.776522

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

46

Figure 3.18-4 

Red Oak Cemetery 32.502635/ 

-96.812177

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

47

Figure 3.18-4 

Ellis County Centennial 

Marker

32.48502864/ 

-96.82699143

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-10 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

48

Figure 3.18-4 

Waxahachie City 

Cemetery

32.3879/ 

-96.85707

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

49

Figure 3.18-4 

Rogers Street Bridge 32.38304891/ 

-96.85079886

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

50

Figure 3.18-4 

Ellis County Courthouse 

Historic District

32.382978/ 

-96.85001

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

51

Figure 3.18-4 

Waxahachie Train Depot 32.38288238/ 

-96.84953313

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

52

Figure 3.18-5

Joe E. Turner House 32.17286616/ 

-97.09188122

NRHP-Listed C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

53

Figure 3.18-5 

John Stubblefield 

Cemetery

32.17234802/ 

-97.09126114

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

54

Figure 3.18-5 

Abbott Cemetery 31.89251/ 

-97.072992

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

55

Figure 3.18-5 

First Street Cemetery 31.55413275/ 

-97.1196492

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

56

Figure 3.18-5 

Baylor University Historic 

District

31.548335/ 

-97.123263

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-11 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

57

Figure 3.18-5 

10th Street Bridge at 

Waco Creek

31.54413021/ 

-97.12581695

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

58

Figure 3.18-5 

Elite Café 31.52468786/ 

-97.13297609

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

59

Figure 3.18-5 

Waco Memorial Park 

Cemetery

31.474495/ 

-97.161357

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

60

Figure 3.18-5 

Chapel Hill Memorial 

Park Cemetery

31.461623/ 

-97.169368

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

61

Figure 3.18-5 

Cox Cemetery 31.336606/ 

-97.227864

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

62

Figure 3.18-5 

Eddy 3rd Street Historic 

District

31.29517312/ 

-97.2531277

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

63

Figure 3.18-5 

1st National Bank 31.29511263/ 

-97.25298717

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-12 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

64

Figure 3.18-6 

Jefferson Historic District 31.120135/ 

-97.343249

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

65

Figure 3.18-6 

Santa Fe Depot 31.09562772/ 

-97.34519641

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

66

Figure 3.18-6 

St Mary’s Catholic 

Cemetery

30.579728/ 

-97.403508

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

67

Figure 3.18-6 

Taylor Black Cemetery 30.577043/ 

-97.402118

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

68

Figure 3.18-6 

Taylor City Cemetery 30.575672/ 

-97.402164

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

69

Figure 3.18-6 

Rosehill Cemetery 30.372299/ 

-97.524404

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-13 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

70

Figure 3.18-7 

Withers House 29.87087726/ 

-97.72733176

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

71

Figure 3.18-7 

Guadalupe Valley 

Memorial Park Cemetery

29.647161/ 

-98.039395

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

72

Figure 3.18-7 

Holy Cross Cemetery 29.599446/ 

-98.338229

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

73 

Figure 3.18-7 

Schulmeier Cemetery 29.55242338/ 

-98.42829685

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

74

Figure 3.18-7 

Olmos Park Historic 

District

29.482189/

-98.490498

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

75

Figure 3.18-7 

Beacon Hill Historic 

District

29.451135/ 

-98.50622

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

76

Figure 3.18-7 

International & Great 

Northern Railroad 

Passenger Station

29.42704679/

-98.50563435

NRHP-Listed C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-14 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

77

Figure 3.18-7 

San Fernando #1 

Cemetery

29.414107/ 

-98.510484

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

78

Figure 3.18-7 

Capt. Jose Antonio 

Menchaca Centennial 

Marker

29.41392268/ 

-98.51049747

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

79

Figure 3.18-7 

Jose Antonio Navarro 

Centennial Marker

29.41390188/ 

-98.51057822

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

80

Figure 3.18-7 

Col. Jose Francisco Ruiz 

Centennial Marker

29.41387101/ 

-98.51054135

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

81

Figure 3.18-7 

Don Juan Ximenes 

Centennial Marker

29.41385003/ 

-98.51063199

NRHP-Eligible C4A HrSR

C4A HSR

C4B HrSR

C4B HSR

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

118

Figure 3.18-4

South Main Street 

Overpass

32.723962/

-97.32639

NRHP-Eligible C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

119

Figure 3.18-4

Kimbell Milling Company 

Historic District

32.723317/

-97.325975

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

120

Figure 3.18-4

J.W. Hall House 32.705324/

-97.32921

NRHP-Eligible C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

121

Figure 3.18-4

Ullman/Bungee 

Elevators

32.694673/

-97.329103

NRHP-Eligible C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

122

Figure 3.18-4

Burleson Main Street 

Historic District

32.542028/

-97.321191

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-15 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

123

Figure 3.18-5 

Antioch Rest Cemetery 32.3090451/

-97.1933298

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

124

Figure 3.18-5

Railroad Truss Bridge 32.291411/

-97.179735

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

125

Figure 3.18-5 

Itasca City Cemetery 32.1490201/

-97.1481092

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

126

Figure 3.18-5 

Luke Tipton Cemetery 32.1475415/

-97.1473631

Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible 

Cemetery

C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

127

Figure 3.18-5

609 Hawkins Street 

Residence

32.002807/

-97.132713

NRHP-Eligible C4C HrSR

C4C HSR

a Resource is also in the Northern Section. 

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

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

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

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

3.18.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Data collection revealed seven NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic districts and three potentially 

NRHP-eligible historic districts within the Alternative S4 EIS Study Area. The historic districts include 

agricultural properties, residential neighborhoods, and irrigation districts. The analysis also 

revealed 23 individual NRHP-listed or previously determined NRHP-eligible resources and two

potentially NRHP-eligible cemeteries within the EIS Study Area. Although identification of potentially 

NRHP-eligible individual resources was not part of this analysis, one potentially NRHP-eligible 

individual resource was identified: a Parker through-truss railroad bridge (Map ID #113). 

Alternative S6 (higher-speed and high-speed rail) would primarily pass through rural and 

undeveloped areas; no historic resources were identified within the EIS Study Area for Alternative 

S6. Historic resources may be identified during project-level analysis; however, based on the 

existing topography and landscape, such historic resources would primarily be agricultural. 

Historic resources within the Southern Section are listed in Table 3.18-4 and shown on

Figures 3.18-12 and 3.18-13.
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-16 

Figure 3.18-1: Index Map
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-17 

Figure 3.18-2: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 1)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-18 

Figure 3.18-3: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 2)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-19 

Figure 3.18-4: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 3)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-20 

Figure 3.18-5: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 4)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-21 

Figure 3.18-6: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 5)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-22 

Figure 3.18-7: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 6)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-23 

Figure 3.18-8: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 7)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-24 

]

Figure 3.18-9: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 8)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-25 

Figure 3.18-10: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 9)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-26 

Figure 3.18-11: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 10)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-27 

Figure 3.18-12: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 11)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-28 

Figure 3.18-13: Historic Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 12)
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-29 

Table 3.18-4. Historic Resources – Southern Section

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

82

Figure 3.18-12

Alice Cemetery 27.738462/ 

-98.077518

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryS4 HrSR

83

Figure 3.18-12

Hotel Brendel 27.7878792/ 

-97.66149443

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

84

Figure 3.18-12

King Ranch Historic 

District

27.527646/ 

-98.10017

NRHP-Listed S4 HrSR

85

Figure 3.18-12

One-story Wood 

House

27.22840748/

-98.13982955

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

86

Figure 3.18-13

Southern Pacific 

Depot

26.30145346/ 

-98.16842767

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

87

Figure 3.18-13

Casa de Palmas 26.20511172/ 

-98.23488877

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

88

Figure 3.18-13

Restaurant 26.20341706/ 

-98.23139302

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

89

Figure 3.18-13

Louisiana--Rio Grande 

Canal Company 

Irrigation System 

Historic District

26.196429/ 

-98.191846

NRHP-Listed S4 HrSR

90

Figure 3.18-13

San Juan Hotel 26.18945199/ 

-98.15687578

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

91

Figure 3.18-13

Early 20th Century 

Tile Decorated 

Storefront

26.18939291/ 

-98.15619621

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

92

Figure 3.18-13

Moderne Style 

Service 

Station/Muffler Shop

26.18201284/ 

-98.11508722

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

93

Figure 3.18-13

Crest Fruit Company 

Warehouse

26.18237037/ 

-98.11337202

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

94

Figure 3.18-13

Concrete Commercial 

Building

26.17662498/ 

-98.08187689

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

95

Figure 3.18-13

Hanson House 26.17562512/ 

-98.08117409

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

96

Figure 3.18-13

Donna Irrigation 

Historic District

26.172009/ 

-98.058142

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-30 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

97

Figure 3.18-13

Art Moderne 

Southern Mosaic Tile 

Factory

26.16488336/ 

-98.02111419

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

98

Figure 3.18-13

Cortez Hotel 26.15938574/ 

-97.99100852

NRHP-Listed S4 HrSR

99

Figure 3.18-13

Commercial Building 26.15053982/ 

-97.91245295

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

100

Figure 3.18-13

Former Hidalgo 

County Irrigation 

District #5 Offices

26.15031853/ 

-97.91249016

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

101

Figure 3.18-13

Quonset Hut 26.15042375/ 

-97.90431001

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

102

Figure 3.18-13

Moderne Stucco Gas 

Station

26.15750842/ 

-97.82839521

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

103

Figure 3.18-13

Moderne Gas Station 26.15846407/ 

-97.8253208

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

104

Figure 3.18-13

La Feria Canning Co. 26.15886264/ 

-97.82343175

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

105

Figure 3.18-13

Texas Citrus Fruit 

Growers

26.15897524/ 

-97.82300438

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

106

Figure 3.18-13

La Feria Irrigation 

Historic District

26.160936/ 

-97.818269

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

107

Figure 3.18-13

International Style 

Cinder Block Fence

26.16414182/ 

-97.80606571

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

108

Figure 3.18-13

Restlawn Cemetery 26.166681/ 

-97.797061

Potentially NRHPEligible CemeteryS4 HrSR

109

Figure 3.18-13

Adams Gardens 

Irrigation Historic 

District

26.169652/ 

-97.787909

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

110

Figure 3.18-13

Spanish Revival 

Petrified Stone Gates

26.17159694/ 

-97.7828932

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

111

Figure 3.18-13

Santos Lozano 

Building

26.1926212/

-97.69721701

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

112

Figure 3.18-13

Travis Historic District 26.185728/ 

-97.691487

Potentially NRHPEligibleS4 HrSR

113

Figure 3.18-13

RR Parker Through 

Truss Bridge

26.1773826/ 

-97.68292121

Potentially NRHPEligibleS4 HrSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-31 

Map ID # 

Figure # Site Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

114

Figure 3.18-13

Cameron County 

Irrigation District #2 

Historic District

26.14208/ 

-97.643964

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

115

Figure 3.18-13

CCWC Irrigation 

District #6 Historic 

District

25.974444/ 

-97.523804

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR

116

Figure 3.18-13

West Brownsville 

Historic District

25.91883/ 

-97.519924

Potentially NRHPEligibleS4 HrSR

117

Figure 3.18-13

Brownsville 

Downtown Overlay 

Historic District

25.907635/ 

-97.511476

Potentially NRHPEligible S4 HrSR

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

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

(2010a); Garza (2010b); Garza and Long (2010); Gilbert (2010); Google Maps (2014); Google Earth (1950–2014); 

Harlingen Air Force Base (2010); Kearney (1989); Knight (2009); Long (2010c); Long (2010d); Manguso (2010); 

Munz (1966); NPS (2014); NPS (2015); NETROnline (2014); Parish (1989); “Port of Brownsville, Serving Two 

Nations.” (1955); Richardson (2005); Texas A&M University (2014); TxDOT (2014c); TxDOT (2014d); TxDOT (2014e); 

TxDOT (2014f); TxDOT and FRA (2014); Texas Historical Commission (2014); Worcester (2010).

3.18.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.18.4.1 Overview 

According to Section 106, impacts on historic resources that result in adverse effects occur when 

an undertaking: 

“alters, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the 

property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity 

of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association

(36 CFR 800.5 (a) (1)).” 

These may include impacts such as physical destruction or damage; alterations that do not comply 

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

relocation of a historic resource; neglect; or changes in the physical features of a property’s setting, 

such as visual, atmospheric, or audible intrusions (36 CFR 800.5). Impacts on historic resources 

that result in adverse effects during both operation and construction would be permanent, as they 

would diminish a resource’s ability to convey its historical significance.

Effects that may be common to some or all of the build alternatives are summarized in the following 

sections. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-32 

3.18.4.1.1 Acquisition 

Acquisition impacts on historic resources would occur when new rights-of-way or permanent 

easements are proposed through historic resources before or during construction. The acquisition

of new rights-of-way or permanent easements from NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic resources 

and the acquisition of new rights-of-way or permanent easements from contributing resources to 

historic districts could cause adverse direct effects on historic resources, as outlined in 

Section 106. Acquisition of historic resources for the construction of new rail facilities may result in 

the alteration, removal, or demolition of historically significant resources. In addition, acquisition of 

historic resources may result in a “use” under Section 4(f)1. Details on property acquisition impacts 

would be assessed at the project level, and compliance with Section 106 and Section 4(f) would be 

conducted during the project-level analysis. This assessment reports on the potential likelihood of 

property acquisition or relocations of historic resources, without identifying individual historic 

properties affected. 

If new rights-of-way or permanent easements are required from historic resources and acquisition 

impacts on existing historically significant resources cannot be avoided, impacts would be mitigated 

as discussed in Section 3.18.5, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. 

3.18.4.1.2 Rehabilitation, Restoration, or Expansion of Existing Railroad-Related Historic 

Resources 

Numerous existing railroad stations and railroad-related, non-archaeological historic resources are 

located within the EIS Study Area, including many listed in or eligible for the NRHP. These are 

primarily located within urban and suburban areas. Possible rehabilitation, restoration, or 

expansion of historically significant railroad-related historic resources, such as train depots or 

railroad bridges, may be required to accommodate increased ridership. To avoid adverse effects 

under Section 106, such work would be completed using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67.7). 

If adverse effects on existing historically significant depots or railroad-related resources cannot be 

avoided, such adverse effects would be mitigated as discussed in Section 3.18.5, Avoidance, 

Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Although increased or additional parking facilities may be 

required, acquisition of land for parking facilities would likely avoid significant historic resources. In 

addition, construction of new stations in urban and suburban areas could cause impacts on historic 

resources; these impacts would be assessed during the project-level analysis. 

 

1 “Use” of a Section 4(f) property is defined as: (1) when land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; 

(2) when there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the state’s preservation purpose; (3) when 

there is a constructive use of a 4(f) property, which occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land 

from a Section 4(f) property, but the project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or 

attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired (23 CFR 774.15 and 

774.17). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-33 

3.18.4.1.3 Noise and Vibration 

Faster and more frequent rail service along the higher-speed or high-speed rail routes could cause 

noise or vibration impacts on historic resources within the EIS Study Area, and these effects would 

likely be permanent. Noise and vibration effects could also cause an indirect adverse effect on nonarchaeological historic resources under Section 106 if the resource’s setting and landscape are 

integral to its historical significance or are considered character-defining features. However, based 

on 36 CFR 800.5 and the project team’s experiential insight, direct or indirect impacts from noise 

are only considered if a historic resource’s quiet environment is considered a character-defining 

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

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

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

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

Different rail service could cause indirect vibration impacts on historic resources. Table 3.18-5 lists 

the distance for assessing potential vibration impacts on residential and institutional resources by

service type. However, vibration effects that might damage the building and diminish the historic 

significance is rare and dependent on building material types. Typically, vibration effects only occur 

during construction if avoidance measures are not incorporated into the construction planning.

Table 3.18-5: Screening Distance of Potential Vibration Effects 

Land Use 

CONV Service 

(Less than 100 

mph) 

HrSR Service 

(100 to 200 mph) 

HSR Service 

(200 to 300 mph) 

Residential 60 feet 100 feet 140 feet

Institutional 20 feet 70 feet 100 feet

Source: FRA (2012).

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

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

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

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

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

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

section. 

3.18.4.1.4 Visual 

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

resources occur when new features are introduced to a landscape that may physically or visually 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-34 

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

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

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

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

historical significance or are considered character-defining features. 

Visual impacts would most likely occur during the operational phase for higher-speed and highspeed rail service because of the potential for the construction of new railroad-related facilities and 

stations. Construction of high-speed rail service may require stations and grade crossings to be 

elevated, which would impose new large-scale features on the surrounding landscape and would 

result in substantial visual effects, potentially affecting the historic setting. In rural areas, these 

visual impacts would be mitigated using vegetative screening, as discussed in Section 3.18.5, 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. A more detailed assessment of visual impacts 

on individual historic resources would occur during the project-level analysis because station

locations and grade separations have not yet been identified. Nevertheless, it is assumed that 

conventional rail and higher-speed rail would result in negligible visual effects and high-speed rail 

would result in substantial visual effects on historic resources, specifically in urban and suburban 

areas near historic districts where grade separations are required. As these locations are not 

defined in this phase of engineering, visual impacts are not discussed further in this section. 

3.18.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect historic resources.

3.18.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.18.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A Conventional has the potential to affect nine NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic 

districts and five potentially NRHP-eligible historic districts within the EIS Study Area. Because

Alternative N4A Conventional would primarily use existing railroad infrastructure or would be 

located adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks, minimal new rights-of-way and easements 

would be required. As a result, acquisition effects would be minimal. Based on identified historic 

resources, Alternative N4A would have negligible acquisition effects on urban, suburban, and rural 

historic resources compared to the No Build Alternative. If new rights-of-way or easements are 

required from historic resources, acquisition effects and potential adverse direct effects under 

Section 106 of the NHPA would be assessed during the project-level analysis. 

The expansion of existing stations and new stations within urban and suburban areas could result 

in moderate effects on historic resources within the EIS Study Area. Because several stations are 

NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible, expansion and reconstruction of historically significant buildings and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-35 

structures may be required to accommodate increased ridership. If effects on existing historically 

significant depots cannot be avoided, effects would be mitigated as discussed in Section 3.18.5, 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. Although increased or additional parking 

facilities may be required, siting parking facilities would attempt to avoid significant historic 

resources. In addition, the construction of new stations in urban and suburban areas could result in 

effects on historic resources; such effects would be assessed during the project-level analysis.

Rehabilitation, restoration, or expansion of existing railroad-related historic resources within 

existing railroad rights-of-way, including the historic railroad depots, would have the greatest 

potential for effects. These railroad-related historic resources in the Alternative N4A EIS Study Area 

include six Santa Fe Depots (Map ID #9, 15, 17, 20, 22, and 31) and the Rock Island Railroad 

Bridge (Map ID #33). However, effects on these resources could be avoided at the project level, 

and, therefore, this alternative would have a negligible effect on historic resources. Alternative N4A 

would not affect other non-railroad-related historic resources or historic districts in urban and 

suburban areas during construction because these resources would be located outside the existing 

right-of-way. 

3.18.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.18.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and associated stations would potentially affect 45 NRHP, 

NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible unique resources. This alternative would potentially 

result in substantial acquisition effects on historic resources in urban areas because of the 

potential for removal of historic properties where new rights-of-way may be necessary. For example, 

the alternative may pass through portions of Baylor University (Map ID #56), which has been 

identified as a potentially NRHP-eligible historic district. Further evaluation would be required at the 

project level to determine if the property is eligible for the NRHP, and if so, if contributing features 

to the historic district would be directly affected by the acquisition, causing adverse effects under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. 

The greatest potential for effects within suburban areas would result from acquisition of new rightsof-way or easements from previously designated or potentially eligible NRHP- historic districts, such 

as the Eddy 3rd Street Historic District (Map ID #62) and the Jefferson Historic District (Map ID 

#64).

In rural areas, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have negligible acquisition effects on

historic resources along existing and new alignments. Only one known historically significant 

agricultural property, the Withers House (Map ID #70), was identified within the EIS Study Area. 

Acquisition of this property could be avoided during the project-level analysis. Additional agricultural 

resources or rural historic landscapes may be identified within the EIS Study Area; however, these

impacts would be assessed during the project-level analysis. Although increased or additional 

parking facilities may be required, acquisition of land for parking facilities would avoid significant 

historic resources. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-36 

Where existing railroad rights-of-way would be used, rehabilitation, restoration, or expansion of 

existing railroad-related historic resources would have substantial effects in urban and suburban 

areas along the route of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. The densest concentration of urban 

development is near the northern and southern termini of the alternative, largely within Dallas, Fort 

Worth, and San Antonio. In these areas, the route would be located within existing railroad right-ofway, and new construction would be adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks. 

Some of the existing stations within urban and suburban areas are NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, or 

potentially NRHP-eligible, including the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe Passenger Station (Map ID

#31); the Dallas Union Terminal (Map ID #42); the International & Great Northern Passenger 

Station (Map ID #76); the Waxahachie Train Depot (Map ID #51); and the Santa Fe Depot in 

Temple (Map ID #65). As a result, possible rehabilitation, restoration, or expansion of historically 

significant railroad-related buildings and structures may be required to accommodate increased 

ridership. 

3.18.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have the potential to affect the same historic resources as 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. However, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be constructed 

on new alignment, and as a result, it would require the acquisition of large acreages for new rightsof-way or permanent easements. Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail may also require the alteration, 

relocation, or demolition of historic resources within the EIS Study Area. Because of dense 

development in Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, avoidance of historic resources within the EIS 

Study Area may be difficult, and the potential is high for acquisition effects and resultant adverse 

direct effects under Section 106. In particular, construction in areas either within or adjacent to 

historic districts would have the most potential for effects. Therefore, acquisition effects from 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail within urban and suburban areas are expected to be substantial.

Construction of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail in rural areas would result in the same negligible 

effects as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. 

Because high-speed rail service typically requires either construction of new stations or extensive 

alterations to existing facilities, effects from rehabilitation, restoration, or expansion of existing 

railroad-related resources would be substantial in urban and suburban areas. Construction of 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail stations has the potential to affect the same historic resources as 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail; however, high-speed rail stations may require larger expansion 

than the higher-speed rail stations and, therefore, have a greater intensity of effects. 

3.18.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would have the potential to affect 38 NRHP, NRHP-eligible, or 

potentially NRHP-eligible unique resources. This is the lowest number of historic resources among 

the Central Section alternatives. The effects would be the same historic resources as Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail in the portion of the route from the 

Arlington area south to Hillsboro. Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would have substantial
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-37 

acquisition effects on historic resources in urban and suburban areas because of the potential for 

demolition or removal of historic properties along the route. The greatest potential for acquisition 

effects along this portion of the route would be if new rights-of-way or easements are required from 

NRHP-eligible suburban neighborhoods, such as Hollandale Historic District (Map ID #37) and

Vought Manor Historic District (Map ID #38).

Construction of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail in rural areas would likely have negligible 

acquisition effects on historic resources. Only two historically significant rural agricultural 

properties, the Joe E. Turner House (Map ID #52) and the Withers House (Map ID #70), were 

identified within the EIS Study Area. Because of higher-speed rail construction and the ability to 

construct the railroad line with relatively tight horizontal curves, acquisition of these agricultural 

resources could be avoided. Although additional agricultural resources or rural historic landscapes 

may be identified within the EIS Study Area, impacts on these resources would be assessed at the 

project level. Although increased or additional parking facilities may be required, acquisition of land 

for parking facilities would likely avoid significant historic resources.

Where existing railroad right-of-way would be used, rehabilitation, restoration, or expansion of 

existing railroad-related resources would result in moderate intensity effects in urban and suburban 

locations along the route of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. Some of the existing stations are 

NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible, including the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe 

Passenger Station (Map ID #31); Santa Fe Depot in Temple (Map ID #65); and International & 

Great Northern Passenger Station (Map ID #76). As a result, possible expansion and rehabilitation

of historically significant buildings and structures may be required to accommodate increased 

ridership. Such work would be completed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards 

for Rehabilitation to avoid adverse effects on the depots. If adverse effects on existing historically 

significant depots cannot be avoided, they would be mitigated, as discussed in Section 3.18.5, 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies. 

No historically significant railroad-related resources were identified in rural areas for Alternative 

C4B Higher-Speed Rail. Although there is a potential that additional historic resources could be 

identified, the rural areas are not as constrained as urban and suburban areas; therefore, 

avoidance could be used to reduce effects from Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail to negligible. 

3.18.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would potentially affect the same resources as Alternative C4B 

Higher-Speed Rail, although it may result in a greater intensity of effects on historic resources 

around proposed grade separations. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would result in the same 

types and intensity of effects as described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail for the trackway and 

station areas. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would likely have substantial acquisition effects on 

historic resources within suburban and urban areas. 

Although Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would require the construction of an entirely new rail 

facility, most of the alternative between Dallas and Fort Worth would be located within or adjacent 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-38 

to the existing Interstate Highway 30 corridor and would, therefore, potentially avoid historic 

resources. A small portion of this alternative would require the construction of an entirely new 

transportation corridor adjacent to the potentially NRHP-eligible White Lake Hills Historic District 

(Map ID #36), which may result in an adverse effect on the historic district resulting in a substantial 

intensity of effect. In rural areas, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail could avoid resources, resulting 

in negligible effects. 

3.18.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would have the potential to affect 52 identified NRHP-listed, 

NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible resources. The route for the Alternative C4C HigherSpeed Rail represents the longest alternative and has the most identified historic resources within 

the Central Section. Most of the C4C Higher-Speed Rail route follows the Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail route and, therefore, would result in the same substantial effects in those areas. In 

addition, Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would travel farther south from Fort Worth through 

Burleson to Hillsboro and would split from Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail in Taylor to travel 

through downtown Austin. The differences occur in urban and suburban areas where a new 

alignment outside the existing right-of-way may be necessary. Although Alternative C4C HigherSpeed Rail would not affect three of the resources potentially affected by the C4A alternatives, it 

would potentially affect 10 additional resources. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would result in 

substantial effects in urban areas and moderate effects in suburban areas.

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would have negligible acquisition effects on historic resources in 

rural areas. Only one historically significant agricultural property, the Withers House (Map ID #70), 

was identified within the EIS Study Area. The higher-speed rail design refinements would avoid this 

agricultural resource. Although additional agricultural resources or rural historic landscapes may be 

identified within the EIS Study Area, impacts on these resources would be assessed during the 

project-level analysis. Although increased or additional parking facilities may be required, 

acquisition of land for parking facilities would avoid significant historic resources.

3.18.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would potentially affect the same resources as Alternative C4C 

Higher-Speed Rail, although it may result in a greater intensity of effects on historic resources 

around proposed grade separations and station areas. During construction, Alternative C4C HighSpeed Rail would have a substantial acquisition effect on historic resources in urban and suburban 

areas. In particular, construction in areas either within or adjacent to historic districts would have 

the greatest potential for adverse effects. 

3.18.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.18.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail and associated stations would potentially affect 36 NRHP, 

NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible unique resources. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-39 

would be located within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way in San Antonio and the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley area (from Edinburg to McAllen and from McAllen to Brownsville). In this case, 

acquisition effects on urban historic resources would be moderate. Because existing railroad 

infrastructure, including at-grade railroad crossings and grade-separated crossings, are already in 

place in the densely populated areas, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have moderate 

effects on urban historic resources during construction.

Only one historic Southern Pacific railroad depot (Map ID #86) near Edinburg is within the existing 

railroad right-of-way along the route of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail; therefore, minimal 

rehabilitation, restoration, or expansion of existing railroad-related resources would be required. 

Because of the limited number of suburban and urban historic resources identified for Alternative 

S4 Higher-Speed Rail, design refinements would reduce acquisition effects and avoid adverse 

effects under Section 106. 

In the rural areas, Alternative S4 Higher Speed Rail would extend through and be adjacent to the 

1-million-acre, NRHP-listed (and National Historic Landmark-designated) King Ranch within the 

abandoned Texas and New Orleans Railroad (later Southern Pacific Railroad) right-of-way. During 

construction, King Ranch operations would not be hindered, and access to gates would be 

maintained during phased construction. Because the numerous complexes on King Ranch are near 

U.S. Highway 77 and thus several miles from the construction areas associated with Alternative S4 

High-Speed Rail, construction would have negligible acquisition effects and would not cause 

adverse effects on King Ranch or other rural historic resources. 

No historically significant railroad-related resources were identified in rural areas within the EIS 

Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail; therefore, there would be no effects from 

rehabilitation, restoration, or expansion of existing railroad-related historic resources in rural areas. 

3.18.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would primarily pass through rural and undeveloped areas, and no 

historic resources were identified within the EIS Study Area. Therefore, it appears that Alternative 

S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have negligible acquisition effects on historic resources. 

No historically significant railroad-related resources were identified with the EIS Study Area for

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. As a result, negligible effects would be anticipated as a result of 

rehabilitation, restoration, or expansion of existing railroad-related historic resources. 

3.18.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would travel within the same EIS Study Area as Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail and would result in similar effects, except that Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail

may acquire more land area for grade separations and other transportation infrastructure. 

However, because of the low number of identified historic properties, this alternative would have 

negligible effects. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-40 

No historically significant railroad-related resources were identified with the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail. As a result, no effects would be anticipated as a result of 

rehabilitation, restoration, or expansion of existing railroad-related historic resources. 

3.18.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Potential effects on historic resources include acquisition effects and effects for the rehabilitation, 

restoration, or expansion of existing railroad-related historic resources. According to Section 106, 

these types of impacts are typically characterized as direct adverse effects. Based on this servicelevel analysis, the highest intensity of effects would occur within the Central Section. The 

alternatives in the Central Section would extend within major urban areas that feature the densest 

concentration of historic resources, including historic districts. In addition, because high-speed rail 

construction requires grade-separated structures and new alignments outside existing rights-ofway, this type of service would have the greatest potential for effects. 

Visual, noise, and vibration impacts are typically characterized under Section 106 as indirect 

effects. These effects would be assessed during the project-level analysis; however, a preliminary 

assessment of the intensity of visual, noise, and vibration impacts can be made based on density of 

historic resources and service type and professional knowledge of how these impacts can affect the 

character-defining features or the historic resource’s specific use or function in relation to its 

historic significance. High-speed rail alternatives would have the potential to result in substantial 

changes on the landscape, impacting the setting by changing the appearance of the area, 

particularly in an urbanized area where grade separations would be necessary. Neither higherspeed rail nor conventional rail is anticipated to alter the historic setting to the extent of diminishing 

the historic significance of the extant historic resources. 

Additionally, since none of the historic resources identified were determined to have a quiet 

environment as a character-defining feature of its historic significance, and because noise and 

vibration are mitigated for effects on sensitive receptors, noise and vibration are determined not to 

result in adverse effects on historic resources. 

Like the effects discussed previously, the highest intensity of effects would likely occur within the 

Central Section. The alternatives in the Central Section would extend within major urban areas that 

feature the densest concentration of historic resources, including historic districts. In addition, the 

need for grade-separated structures with high-speed rail service has the potential to alter the 

surrounding visual character. This may alter the setting of historic resources that would adversely 

affect the historic integrity of those resources. Consequently, alternatives with high-speed rail 

service would have the greatest potential for visual effects. 

No non-archaeological historic resources were identified for the S6 alternatives; therefore, effects 

on historic resources for these alternatives would be negligible. Although historic resources are 

present along the route for Alternative N4A Conventional, effects on historic resources for this

alternative would be negligible within the existing railroad right-of-way, and effects would be 

avoided or minimized because these services would require minimal new right-of-way and use of 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-41 

existing facilities. For Alternative N4A Conventional, the expansion of existing stations and new 

stations within urban and suburban areas could result in moderate effects on historic resources. 

Table 3.18-6 lists the potential intensity of effects for each alternative. 

Table 3.18-6. Potential Intensity of Effects on Historic Resources 

Section Alternatives 

Number of NRHP-Listed, 

NRHP-Eligible, or Potentially 

NRHP-Eligible Historic 

Resources 

Potential 

Intensity of 

Effectsa 

No Build Alternativeb Not applicable No effect

Northern N4A CONV 35 Moderate 

Central 

C4A HrSR 45 Substantial

C4A HSR 45 Substantial

C4B HrSR 38 Substantial

C4B HSR 38 Substantial

C4C HrSR 52 Substantial

C4C HSR 52 Substantial

Southern 

S4 HrSR 36 Moderate

S6 HrSR 0 Negligible

S6 HSR 0 Negligible

a The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table. However, alternatives may include additional 

less intense effects depending on urban, suburban, or rural locations.

b The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.

Source: See discussions in Sections 3.18.4.2 through 3.18.4.5.

3.18.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Strategies would begin with avoidance, in accordance with Section 4(f) regulations. Properties that 

are eligible for listing in the NRHP are considered a Section 4(f) resource. The “use” of a Section 

4(f)-protected property is prohibited for transportation purposes unless there are no prudent and 

feasible avoidance alternatives to that use. A project must also include all possible planning to 

minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources. For actions that would result in moderate or substantial 

effects on historic resources that cannot be avoided or minimized, Section 106 requires a more 

detailed evaluation and determination of specific impacts and proposed mitigation strategies. 

Similarly, for uses of historic resources, Section 4(f) requires a more detailed evaluation of prudent 

and feasible alternatives and determination of specific impacts and proposed mitigation strategies. 

Often these evaluations result in mitigation agreements among agencies that would be executed 

through a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

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

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.18-42 

For this service-level analysis, a wide range of mitigation strategies could be used in cases where 

moderate or substantial effects cannot be avoided or minimized. One mitigation strategy would be 

to document the historic property before construction. This may include preparation of Historic 

American Building Survey or Historic American Engineering Record documentation, NRHP 

nominations, or historic property management and treatment plans. Sound barriers, vegetative 

screening, and landscaping would be appropriate mitigation strategies during construction. Another 

mitigation strategy could include development and dissemination of education materials 

throughout the project area. 

3.18.6 Subsequent Analysis 

During the project-level analysis, a reconnaissance-level historic resources survey will be conducted 

in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Identification, Evaluation, and 

Documentation of Historic Resources (NPS 1995), as well as Oklahoma Department of 

Transportation and TxDOT guidelines. The survey will establish an APE through consultation with the 

Oklahoma and Texas SHPOs, and field investigations will be conducted to identify potential historic 

resources within the APE, including those that have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. This will 

include field investigations of cemeteries that were listed as potentially NRHP eligible because of 

the service level of analysis. The survey will include an evaluation of NRHP eligibility for identified 

historic resources and an assessment of adverse effects pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA (36 

CFR Part 800). At the project level, avoidance and minimization of potential impacts on historic 

resources will be conducted prior to mitigation.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-1 

 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

This section describes archaeological sites, including archaeological historic properties, within the 

environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area and summarizes the potential effects on these 

resources. For this analysis, archaeological sites are defined as prehistoric or historic sites 

(generally 50 years of age or older) for which National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility 

may not yet have been formally determined. Archaeological historic properties, specifically, are 

defined as those archaeological sites already listed in the NRHP or that have been formally 

determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are a specific type 

of historic property associated with cultural beliefs or practices of a living community that are 

rooted in history and important to the continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker and 

King 1998). TCPs would not be identified until after tribal consultation and public scoping; 

therefore, specific TCPs were not included in this evaluation. The introduction to Chapter 3 

describes the EIS Study Area and use of terms, such as Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, 

along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

3.19.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Federal and state legislation and regulations pertaining to archaeological sites are described below. 

Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and will be addressed 

in project-level analysis. 

3.19.1.1 Federal 

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] § 470f). Section 106 requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP. Furthermore, it 

requires that federal agencies afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, respective 

State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), and other consulting parties the opportunity to 

comment on the proposed federal undertaking(s). 

This analysis evaluates potential effects on archaeological historic properties at the service 

level. Therefore, this document does not require a Section 106 analysis because there is no 

proposed undertaking at the Program level. Documentation in accordance with Section 106 

would be required during the project-level environmental review. The NHPA also provides for 

consultation with Native American tribes when proposed projects might affect cultural or 

traditional places or resources that have value to a tribe; this value is derived from the role the 

property plays in the community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices (16 U.S.C. 

§ 470a[d]). At the Program level, consultation with Native American tribes was limited to 

informal consultation, which included sending coordination letters to identified tribes in the EIS 

Study Area and meeting with tribes interested in receiving additional information. This 

coordination is further described in Chapter 8, Public Involvement. Additional tribal consultation 

would continue during project-level analysis, as required. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-2 

 

These laws also encourage coordination with the environmental review process required by 

other statutes, including Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 

U.S.C. § 303 and 23 U.S.C. § 138), for which compliance is anticipated during the project-level 

analysis. For more information on Section 4(f), see Chapter 4, Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) 

Resources. 

At the project-level analysis, the investigation may require procedures to adhere to additional 

federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders, as necessary, which may include: 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as amended (U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 21 [I], § 

1996). Requires federal agencies to consult Native American tribes when undertakings have 

the potential to affect tribal rights to the free exercise of traditional religions, including effects 

on religious places and practices. 

 Executive Order 13007 of 1996. Requires federal agencies to accommodate access to and 

ceremonial use of Native American sacred sites on federal land by Native American religious 

practitioners and avoid adverse effects on the physical integrity of such sites. 

 Other Laws. Other federal statutes that may apply include the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. § 470aa-mm), the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. § 3001-3013), the Federal Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 

U.S.C. § 430-433), the Federal Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. § 461-467), the Abandoned 

Shipwreck Act of 1987 (43 U.S.C. § 2101-2106), and the Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act of 1974, as amended (16 USC § 469-469c-2). 

3.19.1.2 State 

At the project-level analysis, the investigation may require procedures to adhere to the following 

state statutes and regulations: 

 Oklahoma Antiquities Law of 1965, as amended in 1985 (Oklahoma Statute Title 53, 

Chapter 20 [§361]). Applies to projects that may affect cultural resources including 

archaeological sites on state-owned land. Under this act, site excavations on state land must be 

conducted by trained researchers under a permit issued by the State Archaeologist at the 

Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS), and collections resulting from such excavations must be 

deposited with a museum or other recognized repository in the state. The statute further states 

that it is illegal to intentionally deface American Indian or aboriginal paintings, pictographs, 

petroglyphs, or other marks that pertain to early American Indian or aboriginal habitation of the 

country and to willingly injure, disfigure, remove, or destroy archaeological resources without 

lawful authority according to provisions of the statute. 

 Oklahoma Burial Desecration Law of 1987 (Oklahoma Statute Title 21, Chapter 47 [§1168.0-

1168.6]). Protects human remains and associated burial goods in unmarked graves on both 

state and privately owned land by making it illegal to knowingly disturb, buy, sell, or barter 

human skeletal remains or associated items from unmarked graves. The statute further states 

that those who encounter or discover unmarked graves and their contents, including federal 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-3 

 

and state agencies in performance of their duties, should stop further disturbance activities, 

report the find to appropriate law enforcement in the county of the find, and comply with other 

provisions of the statute. 

 Texas Antiquities Code of 1969, as amended (Texas Natural Resources Code Title 9, Chapter 

191 [§191.001-191.174]), and associated regulations (Texas Administrative Code [TAC] Title 

13, Chapter 26). These regulations serve to locate, protect, and preserve State Antiquities 

Landmarks located in, on, or under lands owned or controlled by the State of Texas or a political 

subdivision thereof that may be affected by proposed projects. Such landmarks include sites, 

objects, buildings, structures and historic shipwrecks, and locations of historical, archaeological, 

educational, or scientific interest related to the inhabitants, prehistory, history, government, or 

culture of Texas. The code requires notice be provided to the Texas Historical Commission (THC) 

prior to breaking ground at a project location on state or local public land to ensure that the 

project effects on State Antiquities Landmarks, whether or not they have been identified, are 

appropriately considered. 

 Chapter 711 (Cemeteries) of the Texas Health and Safety Code of 1989, as amended 2009 

(Texas Health and Safety Code Title 8, Subtitle C, Chapter 711), and associated regulations 

(TAC Title 13 Part 2, Chapter 22). Chapter 711 of the Texas Health and Safety Code concerns 

the discovery, notification, permits for, and requirements related to the removal of unknown and 

abandoned cemeteries and graves including those over 100 years of age often found in 

conjunction with archaeological sites. Although this service-level analysis is not intended to 

comply with Chapter 711 because it does not include fieldwork-based identification of such 

cemeteries within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), the statute is referenced here for future 

informational purposes. It states that a railroad, street, road, alley, pipeline, telephone, 

telegraph, electric line, wind turbine, cellular telephone tower, or other public utility or 

thoroughfare may not be placed through, over, or across a part of a dedicated cemetery (that is, 

one or more intentional human graves) without consent and includes provisions for discovery, 

removal, and reburial of cemeteries, particularly those considered unidentified, abandoned, or 

otherwise non-perpetual care, within public or private property. Cases where newly discovered 

previously unidentified or abandoned cemeteries may be affected by proposed construction are 

prohibited from further disturbance of the cemetery unless and until the human remains are 

removed in accordance with provisions of the code and its associated regulations.

3.19.2 Methodology 

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

archaeological sites within the EIS Study Areas for the build alternatives. The analysis consisted of 

an evaluation of reported sites within and in proximity to the EIS Study Area for each alternative, 

but did not include a detailed evaluation of all potential archaeological sites. 

The EIS Study Area for archaeological sites was defined as a 500-foot buffer for each alternative. 

Using primary resources outlined below, a general prehistoric context was prepared that includes 

an overview of the prehistory and environmental setting of each alternative. Based on this context, 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-4 

 

archaeological sites identified in the EIS Study Area were evaluated (for more information on the 

prehistoric context, see the Archaeological Sites Technical Study, included as Appendix K). 

Information regarding recorded archaeological sites within the EIS Study Area was obtained from 

electronic databases and physical records at research libraries and institutions including the THC’s 

Texas Historic Sites Atlas online database, the THC/Texas SHPO restricted use library, the 

University of Texas Archeological Research Laboratory’s site file repository and library, and the OAS 

site file repository. These resources were used to identify archaeological sites listed in the NRHP, 

archaeological sites determined NRHP-eligible by the Oklahoma or Texas SHPO, and archaeological 

sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility. Archaeological sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility 

are treated as NRHP-eligible sites because final eligibility determinations have not been made by 

the Oklahoma or Texas SHPO. Archaeological sites that have been determined ineligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP do not require further inquiry and are not addressed in the service-level 

analysis. 

After potential historic resources were identified, the magnitude of potential effects on 

archaeological historic properties and sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility was determined for 

each alternative. The assessment was based on the data collected during the service-level analysis 

and may need to be reassessed during the project-level analysis depending on changes to the 

Program. Formal determination of effects pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

the NHPA would be made during the project-level analysis. 

Effects as a result of the route alternatives are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial 

compared with the No Build Alternative. Because this analysis did not include ground surveys, the 

presence of archaeological resources is only an indication of the types of resources that might be 

present. Additionally, effects on archaeological resources cannot be valued by the number of sites 

affected. Therefore, determination of effects for this service-level analysis is largely a professional 

judgement based on the probability to affect archaeological sites. In relation to archaeological sites, 

these terms are defined as follows: 

 Negligible intensity effects are those that would result in low likelihood of disturbing new areas 

by improving existing railroad infrastructure. 

 Moderate intensity effects are those where ground disturbance is minimal and have a low 

probability of containing archaeological resources. For instance, there would be a moderate 

intensity of effects where the alignment would be placed on fill rather than depressing the 

alignment, or there are areas of low probability of archaeological resources. 

 Substantial intensity effects are those where ground disturbance is deep and occurs in areas 

with a high likelihood of archaeological resources. For example, this may occur for roadway 

undercrossings and pier structure foundations. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-5 

 

3.19.3 Affected Environment 

An overview of identified archaeological sites within the EIS Study Area, including sites listed in the 

NRHP, sites determined NRHP-eligible, and sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility, is provided in 

Table 3.19-1 through 3.19-3. Table 3.19-4 summarizes the number of resources within the EIS 

Study Area for each alternative. Figure 3.19-1 is an index map, and the approximate locations of 

archaeological sites are shown on Figures 3.19-2 through 3.19-13. 

Archaeological sites identified within the EIS Study Area include open camps, villages, lithic 

scatters, fire-cracked rock features, and lithic quarries/workshops that have been dated throughout 

the prehistoric period. Structural ruins and archaeological deposits associated with farmsteads, 

wells, railroad bridges, wagon trails, acequias (irrigation canals), military roads, a naval air station, 

and two cemeteries identified within the EIS Study Area have been dated to the historic period. 

Both cemeteries are within the Central Section of the EIS Study Area; interments at one cemetery 

date between AD 1860 and 1954, and the exact age of the other was not verified. 

3.19.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Results of the data collection regarding identified archaeological sites within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative N4A Conventional are detailed in Table 3.19-2, including six archaeological sites that 

are also located within the Central Section EIS Study Area. Data collection revealed one NRHPeligible archaeological site and 14 archaeological sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility. 

Table 3.19-1: Archaeological Sites—Northern Section 

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status 

Notes/ 

Recommendations Alternativea 

34OK63 

Figure 3.19-2 

Prehistoric open camp; 

possibly Archaic period 

Undetermined Further work needed N4A-CONV 

34OK99 

Figure 3.19-2 

Late Prehistoric period 

open camp 

Undetermined NRHP testing needed N4A-CONV 

34CL179 

Figure 3.19-2 

Norman Historic Naval 

Air 

Station/archaeological 

deposits 

NRHP-eligible Further NRHP assessment 

needed 

N4A-CONV 

34CL57 

Figure 3.19-2 

Prehistoric open camp Undetermined Two site plots, one within 

the EIS Study Area needs 

further assessment 

N4A-CONV 

34GV291 

Figure 3.19-2 

Archaic period 

prehistoric open camp 

Undetermined Site may extend east of 

railroad 

N4A-CONV 

34GV295 

Figure 3.19-2 

Plains Village 

prehistoric open camp 

Undetermined Investigation of subsurface 

needed 

N4A-CONV 

34GV136 

Figure 3.19-2 

Washita River Phase 

prehistoric village 

Undetermined Investigation of subsurface 

needed 

N4A-CONV 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-6 

 

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status 

Notes/ 

Recommendations Alternativea 

34MR110 

Figure 3.19-3 

Prehistoric open camp 

and historic farmstead 

Undetermined Site inventory and full 

recording needed 

N4A-CONV 

34LV27 

Figure 3.19-3 

Archaic period 

prehistoric open camp 

Undetermined None N4A-CONV 

41TR235b 

Figure 3.19-4 

1890s Historic Railroad 

Roundhouse 

Undetermined; 

demolished 

structure 

ineligible 

Possible associated buried 

artifacts 

N4A-CONV 

41TR226b 

Figure 3.19-4 

Historic Walker Branch 

Railroad Bridge 

Undetermined; 

railroad bridgeineligible, 

cleared in past 

Possible associated buried 

artifacts 

N4A-CONV 

41TR70b 

Figure 3.19-4 

Early Archaic through 

Late Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined NRHP testing 

recommended 

N4A-CONV 

41TR140b 

Figure 3.19-4 

Prehistoric open camp Undetermined None N4A-CONV 

41TR3b 

Figure 3.19-4 

Paleoindian period dart 

points, no additional 

data available 

Undetermined None N4A-CONV 

41DL54b 

Figure 3.19-4 

Prehistoric open camp Undetermined Investigation of the 

subsurface and site 

inventory needed; two 

possible site locations; one 

within the EIS Study Area 

N4A-CONV 

a CONV = conventional rail

b Site is also in the Central Section. 

Sources: THC (2014); University of Texas (2014); OAS (2014). 

3.19.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Results of the data collection regarding identified archaeological sites within the EIS Study Area for 

the Central Section alternatives are detailed in Table 3.19-2, including six archaeological sites that 

are also within the Northern Section. Data collection revealed one NRHP-eligible site and 25 sites 

with undetermined NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed and 

High-Speed Rail, and these sites are considered to have moderate to high potential for significant 

archaeological deposits. Data collection revealed two NRHP-eligible sites and 18 sites with 

undetermined NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed and HighSpeed Rail, and these sites have moderate to high potential for significant archaeological deposits. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-7 

 

Data collection revealed one NRHP-eligible site and 26 sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility 

within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail, and these sites 

have moderate to high potential for significant archaeological deposits. 

Table 3.19-2: Archaeological Sites—Central Section 

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status 

Notes/ 

Recommendations Alternativea 

41TR235b 

Figure 3.19-4 

1890s Historic 

Railroad 

Roundhouse 

Undetermined; 

demolished 

structure ineligible 

Possible associated 

buried artifacts 

C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, 

C4C-HrSR, C4C-HSR 

41TR226b 

Figure 3.19-4 

Historic Walker 

Branch Railroad 

Bridge 

Undetermined; 

railroad bridgeineligible, cleared 

in past 

Possible associated 

buried artifacts 

C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41TR70b 

Figure 3.19-4 

Early Archaic 

through Late 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined NRHP testing 

recommended 

C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41TR140b 

Figure 3.19-4 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41TR3b 

Figure 3.19-4 

Paleoindian 

period dart points, 

no additional data 

available 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41DL54b 

Figure 3.19-4 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined Investigation of the 

subsurface and site 

inventory needed; two 

possible site locations; 

one within the EIS 

Study Area 

C4A-HrSR, 

C4A-HSR, 

C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41DL51 

Figure 3.19-4 

Caddoan period 

prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined None C4B-HrSR, C4B-HSR 

41TR48 

Figure 3.19-4 

1890-1940 

Historic Mars 

Tenant Farm 

NRHP-eligible None C4B-HrSR, C4B-HSR 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-8 

 

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status 

Notes/ 

Recommendations Alternativea 

41TR244 

Figure 3.19-4 

Late 19th century 

historic farmstead 

with features 

Undetermined; 

small portion 

ineligible 

None C4B-HrSR, C4B-HSR 

41DL355 

Figure 3.19-4 

No data available Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41DL356 

Figure 3.19-4 

Late Prehistoric 

period open camp 

with features 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41DL273 

Figure 3.19-4 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter and 

historic debris 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41DL277 

Figure 3.19-4 

Historic wagon 

trail 

Undetermined Unlikely intact, later 

paved 

C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41HI255 

Figure 3.19-5 

1890s historic 

recreational 

facility 

Undetermined Most structures 

destroyed; associated 

features intact 

C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41ML96 

Figure 3.19-5 

Prehistoric open 

camp and 1890s 

historic structure 

Undetermined 

(contractor 

recommended 

eligible) 

Good to excellent 

intact buried deposits 

C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41WM22 

Figure 3.19-6 

Lithic and firecracked rock 

scatter 

Undetermined Partly destroyed by 

highway, flooding, and 

illegal dumping 

C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41WM159 

Figure 3.19-6 

Prehistoric quarry 

and workshop 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41WM958 

Figure 3.19-6 

Late 

Prehistoric/NeoAmerican period 

campsite 

Undetermined Extensive site size, full 

boundary unidentified 

C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41TV1344 

Cemetery No. 

TV-C058 

Figure 3.19-6 

Rose Hill 

Cemetery 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-9 

 

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status 

Notes/ 

Recommendations Alternativea 

41TV1221 

Figure 3.19-6 

Prehistoric open 

camp, Paleoindian 

– Late Prehistoric 

periods 

Undetermined NRHP testing 

recommended 

C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41TV1366 

Figure 3.19-6 

Prehistoric open 

camp with historic 

house debris 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41TV1262 

Figure 3.19-6 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter with tools 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41TV1266 

Figure 3.19-6 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter and 

procurement site 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41TV1267 

Figure 3.19-6 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter 

Undetermined Site may not be intact C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41TV1642 

Figure 3.19-6 

Historic 20th 

century house 

Undetermined Further work needed C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41TV285 

Figure 3.19-6 

Archaic period 

prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined, 

ineligible within 

previous survey 

boundary 

Deeply buried with 

clusters of intact 

hearths 

C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41GU130 

Figure 3.19-7 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41BX910 

Figure 3.19-7 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-10 

 

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status 

Notes/ 

Recommendations Alternativea 

BX-C084 

(Cemetery 

Number) 

Schulmeier 

Cemetery 

Figure 3.19-7 

1860-1954 

historic Schaefer/ 

Schulmeier Family 

Cemetery, 

perimeter cast 

iron fence, granite 

gravestones, and 

landscaping

Undetermined Preservation in place 

recommended 

C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

41BX620 

Figure 3.19-7 

Alazan Acequia 

associated with 

San Pedro Springs 

NRHP-eligible None C4A-HrSR, C4A-HSR, 

C4B-HrSR, C4BHSR, C4C-HrSR, 

C4C-HSR 

a HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

b Site is also in the Northern Section. 

Sources: THC (2014); University of Texas (2014). 

3.19.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Results of the data collection regarding identified archaeological sites within the EIS Study Area for 

the Southern Section alternatives are detailed in Table 3.19-3. Data collection revealed one NRHPeligible archaeological site and 20 sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility are within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, and these sites have moderate to high potential for 

significant archaeological deposits. Almost half of these sites are at the terminus of the western 

branch in eastern Laredo and appear to have intact buried deposits; therefore, these sites may 

require NRHP-eligibility testing to determine their significance. Data collection revealed seven 

archaeological sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail, and these sites have moderate to high potential for significant 

archaeological deposits. 

Table 3.19-3: Archaeological Sites—Southern Section 

Site Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/ 

Recommendations Alternatives 

41FR94 

Figure 3.19-8 

Prehistoric open 

camp, possibly 

Early Archaic 

period 

Undetermined; 

ineligible within 

the previous 

survey boundary 

Not investigated beyond 

the pipeline boundary, 

but likely disturbed by 

plowing

S6-HrSR, 

S6-HSR 

41DM95 

Figure 3.19-9 

Middle to 

Transitional 

Archaic period 

prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined High research potential, 

testing recommended 

S6-HrSR, S6-HSR 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-11 

 

Site Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/ 

Recommendations Alternatives 

41DM99 

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined High research potential S6-HrSR, S6-HSR 

41DM112

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined High research potential S6-HrSR, S6-HSR 

41WB726

Figure 3.19-9 

Early-mid 20th 

century historic 

homestead, 

windmill, artifact 

scatter 

Undetermined None S6-HrSR, S6-HSR 

41WB343

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter 

Undetermined NRHP testing 

recommended 

S6-HrSR, S6-HSR 

41WB205

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter with 

tools, debitage, 

tested cobbles, 

cores, and 

biface fragments 

Undetermined: 

prehistoric 

component; 

ineligible: historic 

component 

None S6-HrSR, 

S6-HSR 

41BX629 

Figure 3.19-8 

Prehistoric open 

camp and early 

20th century 

historic 

residence 

NRHP-eligible 

(prehistoric 

component); 

State Antiquities 

Landmark 

Boundary and depth have 

only been estimated 

S4-HrSR 

41AT19 

Figure 3.19-10 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined None S4-HrSR 

41AT20 

Figure 3.19-10 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined None S4-HrSR 

41LK83 

Figure 3.19-10 

Paleoindian 

through Late 

Prehistoric 

period open 

camp 

Undetermined None S4-HrSR 

41LK84 

Figure 3.19-10 

Archaic period 

prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined NRHP testing 

recommended 

S4-HrSR 

41LK339 

Figure 3.19-10 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined The site may be deeply 

buried 

S4-HrSR 

41WB774

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined The site may be partially 

destroyed 

S4-HrSR 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-12 

 

Site Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/ 

Recommendations Alternatives 

41WB380

Figure 3.19-9 

No data 

available 

Undetermined None S4-HrSR 

41WB443

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined Possible buried intact 

deposits 

S4-HrSR 

41WB449

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined NRHP testing 

recommended 

S4-HrSR 

41WB452

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined Possible buried intact 

deposits 

S4-HrSR 

41WB450

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined Intact buried deposits, 

NRHP testing 

recommended 

S4-HrSR 

41WB448

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined One buried occupation S4-HrSR 

41WB463

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined None S4-HrSR 

41WB687

Figure 3.19-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp 

Undetermined None S4-HrSR 

41DV134 

Figure 3.19-11 

Prehistoric 

quarry with lithic 

tools 

Undetermined None S4-HrSR 

41JW1 

Figure 3.19-12 

No data 

available 

Undetermined None S4-HrSR 

41BK5 

Figure 3.19-12 

Historic early 

20th century 

Trosada Well 

and Ruins 

Undetermined Possible station for 

steam train; archival 

research and NRHP 

testing recommended 

S4-HrSR 

41CF208 

Figure 3.19-13 

Historic Old 

Military Road 

Undetermined Good research potential; 

most of the road has 

been paved 

S4-HrSR 

41NU12 

Figure 3.19-12 

No data 

available 

Undetermined None S4-HrSR 

41NU73

Figure 3.19-12 

No data 

available 

Undetermined None S4-HrSR 

Sources: THC (2014); University of Texas (2014). 

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-13 

 

Figure 3.19-1: Archaeological Cultural Resources Index Map 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-14 

 

Figure 3.19-2: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 1) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-15 

 

Figure 3.19-3: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 2) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-16 

 

Figure 3.19-4: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 3) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-17 

 

Figure3.19-5: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 4) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-18 

 

Figure 3.19-6: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 5) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-19 

 

Figure 3.19-7: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 6) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-20 

 

Figure 3.19-8: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 7) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-21 

 

Figure 3.19-9: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 8) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-22 

 

Figure 3.19-10: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 9) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-23 

 

Figure 3.19-11: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 

10) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-24 

 

Figure 3.19-12: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 

11) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-25 

 

Figure 3.19-13: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area (Map 

12) 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-26 

 

3.19.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.19.4.1 Overview 

Effects during the operations phase would primarily be indirect effects of inducing growth 

whereupon other development exposes disturbance to archaeological sites. The growth activities 

indirectly associated with this Program would likely be concentrated around station areas, which 

are identified to be located near or within urbanized areas, where archaeological sites may have 

already been disturbed. These effects are not foreseeable at this time and, therefore, are not 

discussed further. 

Identified archaeological sites are presented by geographic section in Table 3.19- and by 

alternative in Table 3.19-. The number of identified archaeological historic properties does not 

reflect the significance of archaeological sites within each section. The greatest densities of sites 

occur where intensive archaeological investigations have been conducted; these include developed 

areas associated with urban expansion, utility, energy, and transportation projects, as well as park 

and recreational development and expansion. Archaeological sites are often associated with rivers, 

streams, and primary drainages and tributaries, as well as existing and former roads and paths; 

prior to reservoir inundation, intensive investigations of these high probability areas resulted in the 

recording of large clusters of archaeological sites. Other site types, such as lithic procurement sites 

and seasonal camps, generally occur farther away from these waterways. Specific areas of high 

sensitivity (high-probability areas for containing archaeological sites) have not been identified in 

this analysis; areas of high sensitivity would be further refined and assessed during project-level 

analyses. 

For this service-level analysis, each alternative was evaluated as an independent alternative—even 

when overlapping other alternatives. Each alternative has termini within large cities, and each route 

has independent utility. Each alternative could be built alone or in combination with other 

alternatives. In addition, more than one alternative within the Central or Southern sections could be 

built because the alternatives provide different service types for different destinations. 

Table 3.19-4: Summary of Archaeological Sites by Section 

Section NRHPlisted 

NRHPEligible NRHP Eligibility 

Undetermined 

Total 

Sites 

Northern 0 1 14 15a

Central 0 2 28 30a

Southern 0 1 27 28 

Note: This table is a summary of the site tables and figures presented in this section.

a Includes six sites represented twice on overlapping Northern and Central sections. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-27 

 

Table 3.19-5: Summary of Archaeological Sites by Alternative 

Alternative (Service 

Type) 

Total 

NRHPListed 

Sites 

Total 

NRHPEligible 

Sites 

Total NRHP 

Eligibility 

Undetermined 

Total Sites 

No Build NA NA NA 0 

N4A (CONV) 0 1 14 15 

C4A (HrSR and HSR) 0 1 25 26 

C4B (HrSR and HSR) 0 2 18 20 

C4C (HrSR and HSR) 0 1 26 27 

S4 (HrSR) 0 1 20 21 

S6 (HrSR and HSR) 0 0 7 7 

Note: This table is a summary of the site tables and figures presented in this section.

3.19.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect archaeological sites. 

However, as identified in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, the No Build 

Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the Program. Without the Program, the 

opportunity to concentrate growth and development at central urban districts may not be as 

attractive because continued growth would worsen travel and accessibility. This could lead to other, 

more land-consuming transportation infrastructure, thus disturbing more land area and potentially 

affecting more archaeological sites. 

3.19.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.19.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

There are known archaeological sites located in proximity to Alternative N4A Conventional. 

Alternative N4A Conventional would have a negligible effect on urban, suburban, and rural 

archaeological sites during the construction phase if it would involve improvement of existing 

railroad infrastructure and new track, sidings, and other facilities within the existing right-of-way. 

However, if improvements are built parallel and adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks, 

minimal new rights-of-way and easements may be required, resulting in the potential for moderate 

effects on archaeological sites. Renovation of existing stations within urban, suburban, and rural 

areas would pose negligible potential effects on archaeological sites. In addition, construction 

activities, including vehicular and heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, and staging 

areas, would pose moderate potential effects on archaeological sites compared with the No Build 

Alternative. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-28 

 

3.19.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Each of the Central Section alternatives has a similar number of identified archaeological sites. This 

may not be a true indication of the actual presence of archaeological resources, and therefore, the 

variation of effects among Central Section alternatives is the degree of potential ground 

disturbance in areas with high potential for dense archaeological resources. The Central Section 

high-speed rail alternatives would have a larger area of disturbance than higher-speed rail 

alternatives and, thus, have a higher probability of affecting archaeological sites. 

3.19.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have a moderate effect on archaeological sites during the 

construction phase as it would either be built parallel and adjacent to existing railroad facilities and 

tracks or in new alignments. Both of these scenarios would require new rights-of-way and 

easements and disturbance of large subsurface areas. Expansion of existing stations and 

construction of new stations within urban, suburban, and rural areas would pose moderate 

potential effects on archaeological sites. Construction activities, including vehicular and heavy 

equipment access/egress, parking facilities, and staging areas, would also pose moderate potential 

effects on archaeological sites compared with the No Build Alternative. Additionally, expansion of 

existing stations and construction of new stations within urban, suburban, and rural areas would 

pose moderate potential effects on archaeological sites. 

3.19.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

In major urban areas, such as Fort Worth, Dallas, and San Antonio, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

facilities would result in the construction of a new alignment. Archaeological sites may already have 

been substantially disturbed or covered and left intact in the urban areas. Conversely, the dense 

development in these areas may limit the ability to avoid identified archaeological sites; therefore, 

the potential for effects would be moderate for these areas. Likewise, new station facilities and 

construction activities in urban areas, including vehicular and heavy equipment access/egress, 

parking facilities, and staging areas, would potentially pose moderate effects on archaeological 

sites based on the same limitations. 

In suburban and rural areas, effects on archaeological sites would be moderate during the 

construction phase because construction of a new alignment and stations would be required. 

Although suburban areas typically feature more open space than dense urban environments, which 

may enable more flexibility to minimize or avoid project effects, the high-speed rail alignment must 

remain straight or have gradual curvatures, which would limit the ability for avoidance. Additionally, 

high-speed rail service requires crossings to be grade-separated, which would require structural 

support or deep excavation. These factors have potential to result in substantial effects on deeply 

buried archaeological sites within urban, suburban, and rural settings. Conversely, the elevated 

portions of the trackway may be able to span archaeological historic properties. Minimization or 

avoidance of urban, suburban, and rural archaeological historic properties would be conducted at 

the project level to the extent possible to avoid known sites and properties. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-29 

 

3.19.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Although Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail is different and slightly shorter than Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail, the same types of effects on archaeological sites would occur. The potential 

effect of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail on known archaeological resources would be moderate. 

3.19.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail has the same EIS Study Area as Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

and, therefore, would potentially affect the same archaeological resources. As with Alternative C4A 

High-Speed Rail, in major urban and suburban areas, such as Fort Worth, Dallas, Waxahachie, 

Waco, Temple, Austin, and San Antonio, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail facilities may include deep 

excavation for grade separations and pier installation. This alternative would represent the same 

substantial effects on archaeological resources as Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. 

3.19.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail is the longest alternative in the Central Section and therefore 

may affect more archaeological sites. However, the treatment and avoidance measures would be 

the same as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Therefore, this alternative would represent the 

same moderate effects on archaeological resources as the higher-speed rail service type for 

Alternatives C4A and C4B. 

3.19.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail has the same EIS Study Area as Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

and therefore would potentially affect similar archaeological resources. However, because of the 

service type, it would have similar characteristics and effect types as Alternative C4A High-Speed 

Rail. This alternative would represent the same substantial effects on archaeological resources. 

Minimization or avoidance of urban, suburban, and rural archaeological historic properties would 

be conducted at the project level to the extent possible to avoid known sites and properties. 

3.19.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail has a higher number of identified 

archaeological sites than the EIS Study Area for Alternative S6 (both service types). This may not be 

a true indication of the actual presence of archaeological resources, but instead is likely a result of 

intensive archaeological investigations associated with large-scale development projects within the 

Laredo area. 

3.19.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Compared with the No Build Alternative, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have moderate 

effects on archaeological resources because the longer length of the alternative has the potential 

to result in disturbance of more identified and unidentified sites. In areas where Alternative S4 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-30 

 

Higher-Speed Rail would parallel existing transportation corridors, minimization of soil disturbance 

may avoid some sensitive sites. 

3.19.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail has a low number of identified archaeological resources; however, 

the EIS Study Area does not parallel existing transportation facilities for much of the proposed 

route. Therefore, it still has the potential for moderate effects on identified and unidentified 

archaeological resources. Alternative S6 is substantially shorter in linear miles than Alternative S4 

and, therefore, may result in overall lower effects on archaeological resources. 

3.19.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be constructed on a new alignment. Because design criteria 

for high-speed rail require straight and large radii curves, the ability to avoid effects on 

archaeological sites would be difficult. The potential for effects on archaeological sites would be 

moderate for these areas. Likewise, new station facilities and construction-related activities, 

including vehicular and heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, and staging areas, 

would pose moderate potential effects on archaeological sites. Additionally, high-speed rail service 

requires crossings to be grade-separated, which would require structural support or deep 

excavation. These factors have potential to result in substantial effects on deeply buried 

archaeological sites within urban, suburban, and rural settings. 

3.19.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

All alternatives, except the No Build Alternative, have the potential to disturb identified 

archaeological sites (Table 3.19-). Alternative N4A Conventional would have moderate effects on 

archaeological resources because it would primarily remain within the existing rail right-of-way, 

where sites may already have been removed or disturbed, but would still require some ground 

disturbance. Depending on the alternative, the Central Section alternatives could result in 

substantial effects on archaeological resources because of the potential for large areas of soil 

disturbance. Although both higher-speed and high-speed rail service types would likely result in the 

removal of archaeological resources, avoidance may be more difficult for the high-speed rail 

alternatives than the higher-speed rail alternatives because of the larger area of soil disturbance 

where grade separations would be necessary. Additionally, the high-speed rail alternatives have the 

potential for substantial effects where excavation and piers may destroy resources because preconstruction surveys may not be practical. In the Southern Section, the alternatives are likely to 

result in moderate effects on archaeological resources, except Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail, 

which may result in substantial effects for deep excavation or pier construction. 

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-31 

 

Table 3.19-6: Summary of Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Section Alternative 

Context 

Potential Intensity of 

Effects No. of NRHP-listed or a, b

-eligible sites 

No Build Alternativec NA No effect 

Northern N4A-CONV 1 Moderate 

Central 

C4A-HrSR 1 Moderate 

C4A-HSR 1 Substantial 

C4B-HrSR 2 Moderate 

C4B-HSR 2 Substantial 

C4C-HrSR 1 Moderate 

C4C-HSR 1 Substantial 

Southern 

S4-HrSR 1 Moderate 

S6-HrSR 0 Moderate 

S6-HSR 0 Substantial 

Note: This table is a summary of the effects documented in this section. 

a Limited to construction-phase effects only. 

b The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table; however, alternatives may include 

additional less intense effects depending on urban, suburban, or rural locations. 

c The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect 

from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis. 

3.19.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance and minimization of effects at the project-level would be incorporated when feasible. If 

effects cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies would be implemented. Mitigation 

strategies are conceptual measures that are often developed in the early stages of a project, but 

may be applied at various stages of design development. During the project-level analysis, 

avoidance and minimization of potential impacts on archaeological historic resources would be 

conducted, prior to mitigation. Mitigation strategies enable project planners to examine appropriate 

methods to avoid or minimize potential impacts on archaeological historic properties. These 

evaluations would result in agreements, such as a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or 

Programmatic Agreement, executed among agencies. An MOA would be coordinated with both 

Oklahoma and Texas SHPOs, Native American tribes, and other interested parties, as appropriate, 

to review the plan. A Programmatic Agreement would be coordinated with the Federal Railway 

Administration, TxDOT, Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Oklahoma and Texas 

SHPOs. Other agreement documents that could constitute mitigation strategies include an 

Archaeological Sites Monitoring and Treatment Plan or an Unanticipated Discovery Plan (UDP) that 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.19 Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.19-32 

 

would guide archaeological monitoring work during construction. These agreements would likely 

propose that if significant archaeological sites are inadvertently discovered during construction in 

any portion of the project area, ground-disturbing activities would be halted and the procedures of 

the Archaeological Sites Monitoring and Treatment Plan or UDP would be followed. 

Mitigation measures for archaeological historic properties would be further developed in 

consultation with Oklahoma and Texas SHPOs and in consultation with Indian tribes during projectlevel analyses once an archaeological site has been determined eligible for the NRHP. Project-level 

analysis would include a more detailed analysis of potentially moderate or substantial impacts and 

mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. For actions that would result in moderate or 

substantial impacts on archaeological historic properties that cannot be avoided or minimized, 

Section 106 of the NHPA would require a more detailed evaluation and determination of specific 

impacts and proposed mitigation measures at the project level. 

3.19.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Future project-level analyses will establish an APE for archaeological sites for each specific project. 

Once identified, archaeological surveys of portions of each APE not previously investigated will be 

conducted for individual projects when they are proposed. These surveys would be conducted to 

identify potential archaeological sites (including cemeteries) within the APE, including those that 

have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

standards for the identification, evaluation, and documentation of historic properties, as well as 

ODOT and TxDOT guidelines. The survey would include an evaluation of NRHP eligibility of identified 

archaeological sites and an assessment of adverse effects pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800 of the 

NHPA. 

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-1 

 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation 

This section provides a preliminary assessment of potential effects on travel demand and 

transportation. This section is based on the findings of the Transportation Technical Study, which is 

presented in Appendix L. Preliminary avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies and further 

analyses needed in the project-level National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) analysis are 

identified at the end of the section. The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the environmental 

impact statement (EIS) Study Area and the use of such terms as Study Vicinity and transportation 

corridor, along with the standard organization of each analysis. 

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable legislation, regulations, and orders pertaining to transportation are described below. 

Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and will be addressed 

in project-level analysis. 

3.20.1.1 Federal 

3.20.1.1.1 Federal Railroad Administration 

Section 14(n)(13) of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts states: “The EIS should assess the impacts on both passenger and freight 

transportation, by all modes, from local, regional, national and international perspectives. The EIS 

should include a discussion of both construction period and long-term impacts on vehicular traffic 

congestion.” 

3.20.1.1.2 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) (49 USC 22705). 

In 2008, state rail plans took on an increased importance when Congress passed the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] 22705). It laid the 

foundation for an expanded focus on rail planning. PRIIA requires each state to have an approved 

state rail plan as a condition of receiving rail funding in the future for either passenger or freight 

improvements. PRIIA requires each state rail plan to include the following: 

 Inventory of the existing rail transportation network 

 Review of proposed high-speed rail corridors in the state 

 Statement of the state’s objectives related to rail transportation 

 General analysis of rail’s economic, transportation, and environmental impacts 

 Long-range investment program for current and future rail freight and passenger services 

 Discussion of public financing issues for rail projects and listing of current and potential railrelated funding sources 

 Discussion of stakeholder-identified rail infrastructure issues 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-2 

 Review of freight and passenger multimodal rail connections and facilities

 Review of publicly funded rail projects that enhance rail-related safety 

 Performance evaluation of passenger rail services 

 Compilation of previous high-speed rail reports and studies

 Statement that the state’s rail plan complies with PRIIA

3.20.1.2 State 

To improve the coordination of the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of a 

statewide passenger rail system in the State of Texas, S.B. 1382 (Section 201.6012-6013, 

Transportation Code), an act passed by the 81st Texas Legislature and approved by the governor 

on June 19, 2009, requires the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to prepare and update 

annually a long-term plan for a statewide passenger rail system. The plan must include the 

following information useful for the development of the vision, goals, and objectives for the 

passenger rail system for Texas: 

 A description of existing and proposed passenger rail systems 

 Information regarding the status of passenger rail systems under construction 

 An analysis of potential interconnectivity difficulties 

 Ridership projections for proposed passenger rail projects 

 Ridership statistics for existing passenger systems 

Methodology 

To evaluate the potential effects of the demand for the new rail system, a travel demand model was 

developed to forecast existing and future conditions (Year 2035) by mode (auto, passenger rail, 

intercity bus, and air travel) within the EIS Study Area for each alternative. For the purpose of this 

transportation analysis, the EIS Study Area includes the primary routes of travel (e.g., major highway 

corridors) and sets of modeled city pairs within each geographic section. The model outputs were 

then used to compare the No Build Alternative against the rail alternatives. A general description of 

the travel demand model outputs is provided in Table 3.20-1. 

Table 3.20-1: Travel Demand Model Outputs

Context Description Potential Effect Compared 

to the No Build Alternative 

Evaluation of 

Intensity of Effects 

Travel 

Demand/Mode 

Share

Number and percentage of 

intercity trips taken by 

mode. 

A shift in mode share could be a 

beneficial or negative effect 

depending on the mode (e.g., a 

decrease in bus ridership could 

have a negative effect on transit 

service providers).

Negligible: <3%

Moderate: 3%-20% 

Substantial: > 20% 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-3 

Context Description Potential Effect Compared 

to the No Build Alternative 

Evaluation of 

Intensity of Effects 

Travel Time 

Savings

Travel times by mode 

between city pairs. For rail, 

bus, and air, travel time 

includes on-train/on-plane, 

or on-bus time and transfer 

time between city pairs.

Savings in travel time is a 

beneficial effect of the project.

Negligible: <30 mins.

Moderate: 30 mins-60 

mins. 

Substantial: > 60 mins.

Travel Time 

Reliability 

Average variance in travel 

times between city pairs.

Travel time reliability is a 

beneficial effect of the project. 

Trains operate on a scheduled 

service within a dedicated right-ofway. 

Negligible: <30 mins.

Moderate: 30 mins-60 

mins. 

Substantial: >60 mins.

Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (VMT)

Average annual VMT on the 

highways between city pairs 

(for auto travel only).

A reduction in VMT is a beneficial 

effect of the project.

Negligible: <2%

Moderate: 2%-5%

Substantial: > 5%

Level of 

Service (trains, 

buses, and air 

travel)

Daily number of trains, 

buses, or flights between 

city pairs.

Increased (or new) rail service is a 

beneficial effect of the project.

The intensity of the 

effect was not evaluated 

because the analysis 

assumes no change in 

level of service for the 

other modes.

Ridership Ridership (passengers per 

year) by mode between city 

pairs.

Passenger rail travel demand is a 

beneficial effect of the project.

The intensity of the 

effect was not evaluated 

because it is captured in 

other measures (Travel 

Demand Mode Share).

Potential effects, including beneficial effects, were characterized using ratings of negligible, 

moderate, or substantial. These levels of effect determinations are further defined as follows: 

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

that result in minor changes to travel demand, mode share, travel time, and VMT. 

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

that result in noticeable changes to travel demand, mode share, travel time, and VMT. 

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

that result in significant changes to travel demand, mode share, travel time, and VMT, with a 

probability of a residual effect. 

For this service-level analysis, each alternative was evaluated as an independent alternative—even 

when overlapping with other alternatives. Each alternative has termini within large cities and each 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-4 

 

alternative could be constructed alone or in combination with other alternatives. In addition, 

multiple alternatives could be constructed within each region because each alternative provides 

separate service-type options. 

3.20.2.1 Travel Demand 

Ridership travel demand measures the potential attractiveness of new passenger rail service 

investments to the traveling public. Travel demand includes the existing intercity travel demand for 

the EIS Study Area, by mode, and how this travel demand is expected to change due to the 

infrastructure and service improvements of each alternative. 

The service-level analysis included the following tasks: 

 Conducted existing and future-year intercity travel demand forecasts for the EIS Study Area, by 

mode and level of service. 

 Compared the alternatives on their ability to meet the projected intercity travel demand. 

 Assessed the impacts on intercity travel times, by mode, between key destinations, for each 

alternative. 

The travel demand model rail forecasting methodology is based on an inter-urban travel mode 

choice model to predict what percentage of current travelers will divert to the proposed new or 

improved rail service for their trips. The mode choice models place sensitivities on key elements of 

travel, such as time and cost, based on survey respondents’ answers to hypothetical scenarios 

about available travel choices. For this study, a new data collection effort to gather such data was 

undertaken and mode choice model(s) specific to the Program corridors were estimated. 

To assess the attractiveness of proposed improvements in the rail mode relative to other existing 

modes, data about traveler responses to these improvements are needed. These data are often 

obtained from surveys called Stated Preference (SP) surveys. SP surveys are used to elicit traveler 

preferences and tradeoffs involving different modal attributes. Survey data can then be used to 

develop choice models involving the improved mode. 

The survey response data were used to develop mode choice models that calculate traveler 

diversions from existing modes to the rail service with the proposed services. Model development 

also incorporated relevant information from other sources (e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation 

guidance on values of time for intercity travel), and professional judgment based on forecasting 

best practices. 

3.20.2.2 Transportation Conditions 

The evaluation also describes the current and projected traffic conditions in the EIS Study Area, 

including average annual VMT, travel times, level of service, and mode share. Changes to traffic 

conditions due to the infrastructure and service changes proposed by each alternative were 

assessed based on the projected travel demand (developed from the model). However, this service-
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-5 

 

level analysis does not include a detailed evaluation of potential impacts to specific roadways, 

intersections, or specific transportation service providers (bus or air). 

The service-level analysis included the following tasks: 

 Documented existing traffic conditions within the EIS Study Area, including a general analysis of 

existing primary travel routes and travel times by mode. 

 Documented the anticipated changes to traffic conditions within the study area as a result of 

each alternative. Potential effects include changes to travel modes, average speeds, travel time, 

and travel time reliability for both passenger rail and autos. 

 Broadly assessed existing and future freight use of the existing routes and impacts on freight 

travel times, reliability, and areas of conflict. 

 Broadly assessed effects on air carriers. 

 Broadly assessed effects on intercity transit service providers. 

 Identified the likely short-term impacts of construction activities on vehicular traffic congestion. 

With the exception of Table 3.20-33: Summary of Travel Demand and Transportation Effects by 

Alternative, which summarizes the potential intensity of effects, the information reported in all of 

the tables and figures is based on the travel demand model outputs developed as part of the 

Service Development Plan: Initial Service Schedule and Operating Assumptions Texas-Oklahoma 

Passenger Rail Study – Service-Level EIS Phase (TxDOT 2016). The model outputs are presented at 

either the corridor level or the city pair level depending on the context (e.g., travel time vs. mode 

share). The results at the city level are specific to the pair of cities that are modeled, and may not 

reflect the travel demand and transportation conditions occurring at the corridor level. Therefore, a 

comparison between the modeled results at the corridor level versus the city level should not be 

made. Furthermore, because each alternative was evaluated as an independent alternative, the 

travel demand model accounts for the individual market segment identified for each alternative. 

For example, the No Build Alternative would have a different number of total trips (for all modes) 

compared to the total number of trips for Alternative N4A because each alternative is drawing from 

a different market segment. Another example is the model results shown for VMT. For instance, 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail serves both Austin Downtown and Austin Airport, while 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail only serves Austin Airport. As a result, when computing existing 

VMTs, the Austin Downtown market is included for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, but not 

included for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, thus resulting in different VMTs overall. Therefore, 

due to the nuances in the model outputs, a direct comparison between every alternative is not 

always possible. Instead, the model provides a reasonable measure of future changes in travel 

demand, mode share, etc., based on the specific alternative being evaluated. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-6 

Affected Environment 

3.20.3.1 Overview 

The following section provides a general description of the existing transportation facilities (highway 

corridors, passenger rail, intercity bus, and airports) for each geographic section analyzed. The 

information within each geographic section is generally described from north to south. Please refer 

to the Transportation Technical Study in Appendix L for a detailed description of the existing 

transportation conditions (travel demand, mode share, travel times, level of service, and VMT). This 

information is not included in the Draft EIS chapter because the alternatives analysis was 

conducted for the 2035 horizon year only. 

3.20.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

The Northern Section extends approximately 220 miles, beginning in the north in Edmond, Okla., 

and ending in the south in Dallas. From north to south, the route passes through the cities of 

Edmond, Oklahoma City, Moore, Norman, Purcell, Pauls Valley, Ardmore, and Marietta, Oklahoma; 

and Gainesville, Sanger, Denton, Fort Worth and Dallas, Texas. The Northern Section is served 

primarily by passenger and freight rail, highway, intercity bus, and air travel. The existing 

transportation modes and facilities are discussed below.

3.20.3.2.1 General Description of Transportation Facilities 

Passenger and Freight Rail 

Passenger rail service in Oklahoma and North Texas plays a limited role in its transportation 

system. The Heartland Flyer, operated by Amtrak, provides intercity passenger rail service between 

Oklahoma City and Fort Worth and is a 418-mile round-trip route. Amtrak operates one train per day 

in each direction, with station stops in Norman, Purcell, Pauls Valley, Ardmore, and Gainesville, in 

addition to Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. The train departs Oklahoma City in the morning, arrives 

in Fort Worth mid-day, and returns to Oklahoma City in the evening. The Heartland Flyer operates on 

tracks owned by BNSF (Amtrak 2016). 

At the Fort Worth end of the Heartland Flyer route, connections can be made in Fort Worth to 

Amtrak’s Texas Eagle, which operates between Chicago and Los Angeles via San Antonio. 

Connections can also be made to the Trinity Railway Express (TRE), a commuter rail line (described 

below) that provides a connection to Dallas and its public transportation network. 

The TRE is a 35-mile regional commuter train service that operates between downtown Fort Worth 

and downtown Dallas. There are 10 stations between the cities, including the Texas and Pacific 

station in downtown Fort Worth, the Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC), Richland 

Hills, Bell, CentrePort/Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), Downtown Irving Crossing, 

Medical Market Center, Victory Station, and Dallas Union Station. There are 17 weekday departures 

from Fort Worth. Reduced service is offered on Saturday and no service on Sunday. Connections 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-7 

between the Heartland Flyer and TRE are not coordinated at Fort Worth, resulting in significant time 

delays between these services. 

Within the Northern Section, BNSF and UPRR operate north-south routes with significant freight 

traffic through central Oklahoma and Texas. The MidCon route, operated by BNSF, operates 

between Canada and the Gulf Coast and generally parallels the IH-35 corridor. This north-south 

route is vital in connecting ports on the Gulf Coast and markets in Mexico with the central United 

States (Oklahoma Department of Transportation [ODOT] 2012). The number of freight trains per 

day varies significantly depending on the route and segment and ranges from approximately 15 to 

100 trains per day (Texas A&M Transportation Institute [TTI] 2010).

Regional Highway System 

The highway system constitutes the foundation of the region’s overall transportation infrastructure. 

Within the Northern Section, the primary highways, along the corridor, are Interstate Highway (IH)-

35, IH-235, and U.S. Highway (US)-77.

IH-35 begins at the border with Mexico at Laredo, Texas, and terminates at Duluth, Minnesota, 

approximately 200 miles southwest of the Canadian border. Within the EIS Study Area, IH-35 runs 

north-south through central Texas and central Oklahoma. Within Oklahoma, IH-35 connects the 

cities of Blackwell, Perry, Guthrie, Oklahoma City, Moore, Norman, Purcell, Pauls Valley, Ardmore, 

and Thackerville. Within central Texas, IH-35 connects the cities of Denton, Argyle, Corral City, and 

the greater Fort Worth metropolitan area. 

IH-235 is a north-south spur of IH-35 that connects IH-35 and IH-40 in downtown Oklahoma City to 

IH-44, north of downtown. It is also called the Centennial Expressway.

US-77 is a north-south highway that connects Brownsville, Texas in the south with Sioux City, Iowa 

in the north. Within the Northern Section, US-77 connects Edmond to Oklahoma City and generally 

parallels IH-35 to the east, connecting all of the major cities in the Northern Section. 

Intercity Bus 

The Northern Section is served by two traditional intercity motor coach operators—Jefferson Lines 

and Greyhound. Jefferson Lines provides a route that crosses Oklahoma diagonally from the 

northeast, originating in Kansas City, with stops in Bartlesville, Stillwater, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, 

Chickasha, Lawton, and terminating in Wichita Falls, Texas (Jefferson Lines 2016). Greyhound 

provides direct service from Oklahoma City to Dallas and from Norman to Dallas. Indirect service 

(e.g., transfers are required) is provided by Greyhound to all major cities in the area (Greyhound 

2016). 

The Central Oklahoma Transportation & Parking Authority operates Metro Transit, a public transit 

service concentrated into a service area of Oklahoma City and Midwest City with express bus 

service to Norman. The Oklahoma City system has fixed routes that originate from the Downtown 

Transit Center with generally 15-minute headways throughout the day. There are approximately 30 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-8 

routes that serve all areas of the city. Included in these routes are four express routes to suburban 

areas (Central Oklahoma Transportation & Parking Authority 2016).

3.20.3.2.2 Air Service 

The Northern Section is served by three commercial service airports: Will Rogers World Airport 

(OKC), Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Airport, and Dallas Love Field Airport (DAL). 

OKC is located approximately 6 miles from downtown Oklahoma City, near the junctions of IH-35, 

IH-40, and IH-44. OKC handles an average of 150 commercial flights each day, carrying more than 

3.5 million passengers annually. Five commercial carriers operate at OKC with service to 21 

nonstop destinations. Regionally, direct service is provided to Dallas (DAL and DFW) and Houston 

George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) and Houston Hobby Airport (HOU) (Will Rogers World 

Airport 2016; Oklahoma City Department of Airports 2016).

DFW is located within the cities of Irving, Euless, Grapevine, and Coppell, between the major cities 

of Dallas and Fort Worth. DFW is the primary international airport serving the Dallas and Fort Worth 

metropolitan area. DFW is ranked fourth in the world for operations (aircraft movements) and tenth 

in the world for number of passengers served. DFW has 24 passenger airlines and serves over 

60.4 million passengers annually. Within the EIS Study Area, DFW provides direct service to 

Wichita, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Waco, Killeen, Austin, San Antonio, Houston (IAH and HOU), Corpus 

Christi, and Laredo (DFW 2016).

DAL is located 7 miles northwest of the downtown central business district. DAL serves an average 

of over 7 million passengers annually. Within the EIS Study Area, DAL provides direct service to 

Kansas City, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Austin, Houston (IAH and HOU), and San Antonio (Dallas Love 

Field 2016).

3.20.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

The Central Section extends approximately 260 miles, beginning in the north in Dallas and Fort 

Worth and ending in the south in San Antonio. From north to south, the route passes through the 

cities of Fort Worth, Dallas, Arlington, Waxahachie, Hillsboro, Waco, Temple, Taylor, Austin, San 

Marcos, New Braunfels, Schertz, and San Antonio, Texas.

The Central Section EIS Study Area differs by alternative north of Hillsboro but is the same for all 

alternatives south of Hillsboro. The following section provides a general description of the primary 

transportation facilities/services in the Central Section. The section is served primarily by

passenger and freight rail, highway, intercity bus, and air travel. Because the alternatives could be 

built as individual, stand-alone projects, there is some overlap in facilities/services between the 

Northern and Central sections. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-9 

3.20.3.3.1 General Description of Transportation Facilities 

Passenger and Freight Rail 

As previously described, Amtrak currently operates the Heartland Flyer and the Texas Eagle. The 

Texas Eagle operates between Chicago and San Antonio daily and between Chicago and Los 

Angeles three days per week. Within the Central Section, the Texas Eagle stops in Fort Worth, 

Dallas, Cleburne, McGregor, Temple, Taylor, Austin, San Marcos, and San Antonio. Thruway Amtrak 

Motorcoach connections are provided to Shreveport and Houston via Longview; Fort Hood and 

Killeen via Temple; Brownsville and Laredo via San Antonio; and Albuquerque via El Paso.

Regional/commuter rail service is provided on the TRE (Dallas to Fort Worth), as previously 

described, and Capital MetroRail in Austin. Capital MetroRail offers service Monday through Friday 

between Leander and downtown Austin and from Lakeline to downtown on Saturday.

TEX Rail is a 27-mile commuter rail project being constructed by the Fort Worth Transportation 

Authority (“The T”). The line begins in downtown Fort Worth at the existing Texas and Pacific Station 

(currently served by TRE commuter service) and travels through the ITC station, continuing across 

northeast Tarrant County to the cities of North Richland Hills and Grapevine and into DFW. At full 

build-out, the service is projected to have more than 13,600 daily riders using nine rail stations.

As previously described, BNSF and UPRR operate north-south routes with significant freight traffic 

through central Oklahoma and Texas. The MidCon route, operated by BNSF, operates between 

Canada and the Gulf Coast and generally parallels the IH-35 corridor. This north-south route is vital 

in connecting ports on the Gulf Coast and markets in Mexico with the central United States (ODOT 

2012). The number of freight trains per day varies significantly depending on the route and 

segment and ranges from approximately 15 to 100 trains per day (TTI 2010).

Regional Highway System 

IH-35 is the primary north-south highway running through the Central Section. IH-30 is the primary 

east-west highway between Dallas and Fort Worth. 

Intercity Bus 

Within the Central Section, Greyhound serves the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, with four stops in 

Dallas, including Dallas Union Station, and two stops in Fort Worth. Additional Greyhound stations 

are located in Arlington, Dublin, Garland, Lewisville, Richardson, Stephenville, Terrell, Waxahachie, 

Hillsboro, Waco, Killeen, Temple, Weatherford, Round Rock, Austin, Bastrop, Kerrville, San Marcos, 

and San Antonio. Greyhound also provides coordinated schedules and through ticketing services 

for passengers along routes served by All Aboard America, Kerrville Bus Company, Inc., Valley 

Transit Company, Inc.; T.N.M. & O Coaches, Inc., Arrow Trailways (terminal in Round Rock), and 

Concho Coaches provide additional routes, although they do not coordinate with Greyhound and 

passengers wishing to travel on these carriers must obtain schedules and purchase tickets directly 

from the individual bus company (TTI 2010).
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-10 

In addition to the U.S.-based intercity carriers, several Mexican intercity bus companies provide 

service in the state, particularly along the Laredo-Dallas corridor. El Conejo, El Expreso, Tornado, 

Autobus Adame, and Americanos USA are some of the carriers operating in the Central and 

Southern sections. However, finding route and schedule information for these carriers is more 

difficult than for the larger U.S.-based carriers; they advertise primarily in Spanish language 

newspapers and only some provide information online (TTI 2010).

Public transportation services are provided by small and large transit-focused organizations, as well 

as private bus companies. The three largest public agencies include Dallas Area Rapid Transit 

(DART), The T, and the Denton County Transportation Authority. Other local organizations provide 

complementary services that coordinate transit operations in less densely populated areas in northcentral Texas. There are an additional 80 known public, private, and specialized transportation 

service providers in north-central Texas. 

DART serves the cities of Addison, Carrollton, Cockrell Hill, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Garland, Glenn 

Heights, Highland Park, Irving, Richardson, Rowlett, Plano, and University Park. DART’s services 

include 45 miles of light rail and 130 bus routes. DART light rail connects with the TRE for service to 

the DFW and to Fort Worth. DART’s 2030 system plan includes an additional 43 miles of light rail 

service, 77 miles of enhanced bus service corridors, and 20 miles of rapid bus service corridors (TTI 

2010).

The T offers fixed route and express bus service within Fort Worth, plus a “Rider Request” demandresponse circulator service in Richland Hills. Many of The T’s bus routes connect with the TRE at 

either the ITC or the Texas and Pacific Station. 

The Denton County Transportation Authority provides fixed-route service in the cities of Denton, 

Lewisville, and Highland Village. The Denton County Transportation Authority’s Commuter Express 

bus service travels from park-and-rides in Denton and Lewisville to downtown Dallas, the DART 

North Carrollton Transit Center, Texas Women’s University, and the University of North Texas. 

The Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro) provides urban transit service in 

the cities of Austin, Manor, San Leanna, Leander, Jonestown, Lago Vista, Point Venture, Volente, 

and some of the incorporated areas of Travis and Williamson counties. A variety of bus services 

serve different travel markets; options include local, limited-stop and “flyer,” crosstown, and 

express bus routes; feeder routes that connect selected neighborhoods to Capital Metro Transit 

Centers, airport shuttles, downtown circulators; and a dial-a-ride route serving Lago Vista, 

Jonestown, and Leander.

The Hill Country Transit District provides demand-response transit service to Bell, Coryell, Hamilton, 

Lampasas, Llano, Mason, Milam, Mills, and San Saba counties and fixed-route service in the cities 

of Copperas Cove, Killeen, Harker Heights, Nolanville, and Temple. Waco Transit provides fixedroute service within Waco and connects to Greyhound at the Waco Intermodal Center. The Waco 

Streak bus line provides three roundtrips per day from Waco to DFW. The Waco Intermodal Transit 

Center serves Waco Transit as well as Greyhound. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-11 

VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA) provides public transportation services to San Antonio, 13 suburban 

cities, and the unincorporated areas of Bexar County. Services currently include 85 fixed routes and 

four downtown circulator routes. VIA also sponsors commuter vanpools in partnership with 

Enterprise Rent-a-Car; some of these vanpools travel between San Antonio and Austin. 

VIA has opened two new major transit centers connecting the region’s largest employment 

centers—the Westside Multimodal Transit Center and the South Texas Medical Center Transit 

Center—and implemented the region’s first high-capacity transit line, VIA Primo/BRT, on the 

Fredericksburg Road corridor.

Air Service 

DFW and DAL, as described previously, provide commercial air service in the Central Section. 

The Austin-Bergstrom International Airport serves the greater Austin metropolitan area and is 

located approximately 5 miles southeast of downtown Austin. The Austin-Bergstrom International 

Airport has two runways and three helipads. It served nearly 12 million passengers in 2015 and is 

the 35th busiest airport for total passengers in the United States.

San Antonio International Airport is located in northern San Antonio, approximately 8 miles from 

downtown. The airport provides commercial airline service for the south Texas region and 

approximately 8.5 million passengers fly into and out of San Antonio each year. 

Regional airports in the Central Section include Waco Regional Airport/McGregor Executive Airport 

and Killeen/Fort Hood Regional Airport.

3.20.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The Southern Section includes two distinct alignments, and extends approximately 120 to 145 

miles, depending on the alignment. The section begins in the north in San Antonio and ends in 

either Brownsville (Alternative S4) or Laredo (Alternative S6) in southern Texas. With the exception 

of the urban areas of San Antonio, Alice, Corpus Christi, Laredo, Kingsville, Raymondville, McAllen, 

Harlingen, and Brownsville, Texas, the Southern Section is predominately rural.

The following section provides a general description of the primary transportation facilities and 

services in the Southern Section. The section is served primarily by highway and intercity bus travel, 

with some local air service. There is some overlap in facilities and services between the Central and 

Southern sections. 

3.20.3.4.1 General Description of Transportation Facilities 

Passenger and Freight Rail 

There is currently no passenger rail service in the Southern Section. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-12 

Regional Highway System 

IH-35 is the major north-south highway between San Antonio and Laredo. To the west, IH-37 is the 

major north-south highway connecting San Antonio and Corpus Christi.

Intercity Bus 

Valley Transit Company, a Greyhound affiliate company, connects the Lower Rio Grande Valley to 

Houston, San Antonio, and Laredo, with stops in the three primary cities (Brownsville, Harlingen, 

and McAllen). The Valley Transit “Main Line” through the Lower Rio Grande Valley also operates as 

express bus service along US-83 from Brownsville to McAllen. 

The Harlingen Express, a flex-route bus service, provides local service in Harlingen. The Brownsville 

Urban System provides urban transit service within Brownsville and the McAllen Express Transit 

provides urban transit service within McAllen. 

Air Service 

As previously described, San Antonio International Airport provides commercial airline service for 

the south Texas region. 

Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport (BRO) is located approximately 4 miles east of 

downtown Brownsville. The airport is served by three commercial airlines and is a convenient 

airport for flying into the Rio Grande Valley and northern Mexico. The airport has scheduled nonstop 

passenger flights to DFW and IAH. 

Corpus Christi International Airport is approximately 5.5 miles west of downtown Corpus Christi. The 

airport is served by three commercial airlines, with scheduled non-stop passenger flights to DFW 

and IAH, and HOU.

Valley International Airport is located 3 miles northeast of Harlingen. The airport is served by four 

commercial airlines, with scheduled non-stop passenger flights to HOU, IAH, and Austin. Non-stop 

service is also provided on a seasonal basis to Minneapolis/St. Paul and DFW.

Laredo International Airport is located approximately 4 miles northeast of downtown Laredo. The 

airport is served by three commercial airlines, with scheduled non-stop passenger flights to IAH and 

DFW.

McAllen Miller International Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles south of downtown McAllen. 

The airport is served by four commercial airlines, with scheduled non-stop passenger flights to IAH 

and DFW.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-13 

Environmental Consequences 

3.20.4.1 Overview 

This section compares the alternatives on their ability to meet the projected intercity travel demand 

and documents the anticipated changes to traffic patterns by alternative, including changes in 

mode share, travel time, travel time reliability (for passenger rail and autos), and VMT. A qualitative 

discussion of potential effects on air carriers, intercity transit service providers, and freight 

operations is also provided. The analysis presented is for the 2035 conditions only.

With all of the build alternatives, highway, bus, and air travel decreases as users are diverted from 

these modes to the new rail service. Based on the broad assessment conducted, increases in mode 

share to rail could provide both negative and beneficial effects across all mode choices. For 

highway travel, the decrease in mode share would be a beneficial effect, based on users being

encouraged to use transit and reduce congestion on highways, which could also provide a 

secondary benefit to bus service providers. Likewise, the increase in mode share for passenger rail 

is considered a beneficial effect of the project. 

The diversion of intercity bus and air travelers to the rail system may yield additional benefits by 

providing a mode choice for travelers, travel time savings, and increased schedule reliability. For air 

carriers, the potential benefits may include the opportunity to shift from short-haul to longer-haul 

flight operations, which may include more reliable scheduling and increased revenue. 

There are also negative effects for bus and air travel carriers, since a reduction in their mode share 

would affect intercity bus service providers and air carrier operations (e.g., existing demand, 

schedule adjustments/reductions, and revenue). The shift in mode share and the corresponding 

effects are discussed further throughout the alternative sections, and the results vary from 

negligible to substantial, depending on the alternative. 

For example, automobile drivers do not typically switch to transit without significant gains in travel 

time or reductions in cost. Compared with the No Build Alternative, the build alternatives save 

travelers time compared with highway travel in most cases (high-speed service providing the most 

time savings), with time savings generally increasing as the trip length increases or for urban areas 

where congestion levels are forecast to increase and highway travel time increases. 

Travel time reliability is another beneficial effect of the project. Trains operate on a scheduled 

service within a dedicated right-of-way and are not subject to fluctuations in traffic congestion. 

Highway travel time reliability will vary from location to location, depending on future traffic 

conditions in the area. In general, the Build Alternatives provide travel time reliability for train 

travelers, compared with expected increases in highway drive times. A reduction in VMT is also a 

beneficial effect of the project. VMT changes vary by alternative, from negligible changes (less than 

2 percent) to substantial changes (more than 5 percent). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-14 

The potential effects, beneficial or negative, from air carrier operations, which may include shifting 

their existing short-haul flights to longer-haul flights, have not been assessed as part of this servicelevel analysis (see Section 3.20.6, Subsequent Analysis).

3.20.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2) and the introduction to Chapter 3, 

is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program 

of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program. The No Build Alternative is carried forward as a baseline alternative and 

provides an alternative for comparative evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the 

build alternatives. The context of the No Build Alternative is the 2035 horizon year, which is the 

year when the project is projected to occur. Under the No Build Alternative, it is assumed that the 

level of service for rail, bus, and air would remain the same. There would be no increase in rail 

ridership because there would be no expanded rail service and there would be no diversion of bus 

ridership and air to rail. There would be no effect on these modes and no effect on intercity transit 

service providers and air carriers because operations would remain the same. The benefits of fewer 

VMT (lower congestion, increased transit use, etc.) would not be realized with the No Build 

Alternative. Under the No Build Alternative there would be no effects on local transportation (e.g., 

roadway and intersection operations, parking demand, etc.) because there would be no change in 

mode shift or demand. 

3.20.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.20.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A would increase the existing passenger rail service between Oklahoma City and 

Dallas and Fort Worth from one daily train to six daily trains, as well as provide an expanded route 

north to Edmond, Okla. 

Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 3.20-2 presents the projected yearly ridership and mode share for the No Build Alternative 

and Alternative N4A. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-15 

Table 3.20-2: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative N4A

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build N4A No Build N4A 

 Oklahoma City – Dallas and Fort Worth 

Auto 38,115,278 37,875,193 99.0% 97.8%

Passenger Rail 109,028 702,034 0.3% 1.8%

Intercity Bus 130,272 65,711 0.3% 0.2%

Air 147,588 83,313 0.4% 0.2%

Under Alternative N4A, highway, bus, and air travel would decrease as users would be diverted from 

these modes to the new rail service. For highway travel, the decrease in mode share would be a 

beneficial effect. Users would be encouraged to use transit and reduce congestion on highways as 

a result of having a new mode choice. Likewise, the increase in mode share for passenger rail 

would be a beneficial effect for the Northern Section. For bus and air travel, a reduction in mode 

share would be a negative effect as this change would affect intercity bus service providers and air 

carriers’ operations (e.g., demand, schedule, and revenue). 

Under Alternative N4A, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be less than 2 

percent, which would be a negligible effect. The increase in mode share for passenger rail would be

substantial. Passenger rail ridership is forecast to increase to over 700,000 passengers per year, 

which is a 500 percent increase in mode share over the 2035 No Build Alternative. For bus and air, 

the shift in mode share would also be substantial. The mode share for bus would decrease by 33 

percent and the mode share for air would decrease by 50 percent. The ridership data (including 

diverted trips and induced demand) are described in further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership 

section.

Travel Time Savings 

Table 3.20-3 provides a comparison of the projected travel time for the different modes. 

Table 3.20-3: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative N4A

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

 Oklahoma City–Dallas Oklahoma City–Fort Worth Dallas–Fort Worth 

Highways 225 219 40

Passenger Rail 418 238 60

With N4Ab 266 217 41

Intercity Bus 391 473 72

Air 52 59 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build Alternative and Alternative N4A.

b Estimated passenger rail time with Alternative N4A.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-16 

It is assumed that there would be no significant difference in travel time between the No Build 

Alternative and Alternative N4A for autos, bus, and air because these modes would not see a 

significant change in their travel times after the rail service is introduced. While there would be 

travel times saved for those who elect to use the new passenger rail system, there would be no 

significant travel time savings for those users who continue to use their existing modes. For 

example, the removal of a few thousand cars per day on roads with 100,000 cars or more per day, 

such as IH-35, would not affect the congestion significantly enough to improve travel times on the 

road. Similarly, the few hundreds of air and bus travelers removed from the existing planes and 

buses would not affect plane frequency and bus frequency or their travel times, so the remaining 

air and bus travelers (who continue to use air or bus travel) will not see any reduction in their travel 

times.

Therefore, this analysis focuses on the travel time savings for rail users compared to the other 

modes. Under Alternative N4A, rail and highway travel times would be similar; therefore, Alternative 

N4A would have a negligible effect on travel time compared with highway travel. There would be 

improvements in passenger rail travel time under Alternative N4A due to increases in rail 

frequency, as well as better rail connections between the cities in the Northern Section. Passenger 

rail service between Oklahoma City and Dallas would take approximately 2.5 hours less than the No 

Build Alternative, approximately 20 minutes less between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, and 

approximately 20 minutes less between Fort Worth and Dallas. Alternative N4A would have a 

beneficial effect on passenger rail travel time savings. 

Alternative N4A would also provide significant travel time savings compared to intercity bus travel. 

Under Alternative N4A Conventional, passenger rail service would take approximately 3.5 to 4 

hours (217 to 266 minutes) between Oklahoma City and the Dallas and Fort Worth area. However, 

it is predicted that future bus travel would take up to 8 hours (473 minutes). 

Travel Time Reliability 

Highway travel time is projected to increase over the next 20 years as a result of general increases 

in VMT and future highway congestion. By 2035, highway travel time between Oklahoma City and 

Dallas is projected to increase by 16 minutes, travel time between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth is 

projected to increase by 19 minutes, and travel time between Fort Worth and Dallas is projected to 

increase by 4 minutes. These increases in future highway travel time would be minor, so reliability 

for highway travel is expected to remain relatively good. Under Alternative N4A, there would be a 

negligible difference and corresponding effect in travel time reliability for train travelers, compared 

with highway travel. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-17 

Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 3.20-4 provides a summary of the projected rail 

ridership under Alternative N4Aat the corridor level, as 

well as for the Oklahoma City and Dallas urban markets. 

Figure 3.20-1 illustrates the projected rail ridership 

composition for Alternative N4A. It is assumed that the 

rail ridership will be a combination of trips that are 

diverted from other modes to rail and induced demand 

for the new service. 

The table presents the number of trips and the 

percentage of trips that would be diverted from other 

modes to rail. It also shows the composition of the total 

rail trips by mode. For example, there are 38,115,278 

potential auto trips that could be diverted to rail. It is 

projected that 240,085 of these auto trips 

(approximately 1 percent) would be diverted to rail. In total, 702,033 new rail trips are projected. Of 

these new rail trips, 240,085 trips, or 34 percent, are trips that are diverted from auto trips or other 

modes. 

Table 3.20-4: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative N4A

Ridership Composition 

by Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

N4A Rail 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

N4A Rail Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 40,770,643 441,407 1%

Auto 38,115,278 240,085 1% 34%

Local Aira 147,588 64,276 44% 9%

Connect Airb 2,377,505 72,485 3% 10%

Bus 130,272 64,561 50% 9%

Total Urban Ridership 251,550 

Greater Oklahoma Cityc 24,047 4%

Dallas Metroplexd 227,503 34%

Induced Demande 9,076 1%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipf 702,033 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Air travelers for whom only one end of their trip falls within the corridor area.

c Trips that begin and end within the Greater Oklahoma City area.

d Trips that begin and end within the Dallas Metroplex.

e HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

f The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

Figure 3.20-1: Alternative N4A 

Ridership Composition (2035)
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-18 

For the new rail trips (over 700,000 riders), the highest percentage would be shifts from auto trips 

(34 percent), followed by connect air (10 percent), and local air and bus trips (9 percent). Intercity 

bus has the highest percentage of its trips diverted to rail (50 percent), followed by local air (44 

percent), connect air (3 percent), and auto trips (1 percent). 

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Regional and corridor effects on highway congestion can be measured through changes in VMT. 

The ability of the rail alternatives to alter travel patterns on a regional basis can also be evaluated 

through the number of auto trips taken and corresponding changes in VMT. Table 3.20-5 presents 

the estimated changes in annual VMT between the No Build Alternative and Alternative N4A. 

Table 3.20-5: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative N4A 

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build N4A Change 

Oklahoma City – Dallas and Fort Worth 2,047,593,985 2,035,630,281 -11,963,704 / -0.6%

The existing VMT in the Northern Section is projected to increase from 1.3 billion annual VMT to 2.0 

billion annual VMT by 2035 under the No Build Alternative scenario. The increase in VMT by 2035 

is primarily attributed to population growth in the region. The diversion of auto trips to rail under 

Alternative N4A would result in a 0.6 percent reduction in VMT compared with the No Build 

Alternative. This equates to nearly 12 million fewer miles traveled each year. The decrease in VMT 

is a beneficial, although negligible effect of Alternative N4A. 

Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative N4A would primarily use the existing rail infrastructure and stations. It would not likely 

result in permanent grade crossing closures that could impact local circulation. Local traffic 

volumes and parking demand would increase around and at the stations due to increases in 

ridership and longer wait times would occur at grade-crossings. Based on this assessment, the 

qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and parking are moderate.

Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Under Alternative N4A, approximately 50 percent of existing bus riders and 44 percent of air 

passengers would be diverted to rail. While the new rail service would yield benefits for travelers by 

providing an alternative transportation option, transit operators and airlines themselves could be 

negatively affected by a reduction in passengers. This diversion could result in substantial effects 

on service provider operations (e.g., demand, schedule, etc.) and lost revenue as a result of fewer 

customers. 

Alternative N4A would provide passenger rail service on the existing BNSF track, with potential 

improvements within the existing BNSF right-of-way. Once operational, there would be no change to 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-19 

the existing freight routes. Freight operations could be affected by the increase in passing trains, 

from one train per day to six trains per day. The long-term improvements to the rail system would 

offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation 

is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. 

3.20.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

In the Central Section, six build alternatives and the No Build Alternative were carried forward for 

further evaluation. All of the alternatives in the Central Section (Alternative C4A [both service types] 

and Alternative C4B [both service types] and Alternative C4C [both service types]) follow the same 

alignment from Hillsboro south to San Antonio (see Figures 3.20-2 through 3.20-4).

3.20.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 3.20-6 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative 

and Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail.

Table 3.20-6: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build C4A HrSR No Build C4A HrSR 

 Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 

Auto 36,912,196 35,679,819 92.18% 82.71%

Passenger Rail 77,575 5,271,829 0.19% 12.22%

Intercity Bus 1,238,394 1,061,409 3.09% 2.46%

Air 1,815,699 1,125,615 4.53% 2.61%

Under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be 

10 percent, which represents a moderate effect. The increase in mode share for passenger rail 

represents a substantial beneficial effect. Passenger rail ridership is forecast to increase to over 

5 million passengers per year, an increase of more than 6,000 percent in mode share over the 

2035 No Build Alternative. The shift in mode share represents a moderate effect for bus and a 

substantial effect for air. The mode share for bus would decrease by 20 percent and the mode 

share for air would decrease by 42 percent. The ridership data (including diverted trips and induced 

demand) are described in further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership section.

Travel Time Savings 

Table 3.20-7 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed that 

there would be no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail for auto, bus, and air.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-20 

With the exception of air, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would provide significant travel time 

savings across all modes, although to a lesser extent than Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. For 

example, the new passenger rail service would take approximately 3 hours (190 minutes) between 

Dallas and San Antonio, compared with over 5.5 hours (338 minutes) by car. The time savings 

associated with Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be a substantial beneficial effect 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

Table 3.20-7: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail

Mode 

Travel Time (minutes)a 

Dallas – San 

Antonio 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio 

Dallas – 

Austin 

Fort Worth – 

Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 338 332 238 232 103 

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143 

With C4A HrSRb 190 238 131. 179 57 

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95 

Air 62 68 55 62 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4A HrSR.

b Estimated Passenger rail time with Alternative C4A HrSR.

Travel Time Reliability 

As previously discussed, the Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in 

highway travel time by 2035, particularly between the larger metropolitan areas. By 2035, highway 

travel time between Dallas and San Antonio and 

Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to 

increase by approximately 50 minutes as a result 

of general increases in congestion. Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail would provide travel time 

reliability between these areas for train travelers, 

compared to the expected increases in highway 

drive times and potential unexpected delays. 

Under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail there 

would be a substantial difference and 

corresponding effect in travel time reliability 

compared to highway travel.

Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 3.20-8 provides a summary of the projected 

rail ridership under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail at both the corridor level, as well as for the 

Dallas and Austin/San Antonio urban markets. Figure 3.20-2 illustrates the anticipated ridership 

composition for this alternative.

Figure 3.20-2: Alternative C4A HrSR 

Ridership Composition 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-21 

For the new rail trips (approximately 5.3 million riders), the highest percentage would be shifts from 

auto trips (23 percent), followed by connect air (15 percent), local air (13 percent), and bus trips (3 

percent). Local air would have the highest percentage of its trips diverted to rail (38 percent), 

followed by bus (14 percent), connect air (5 percent), and auto trips (3 percent). 

Table 3.20-8: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail

Ridership 

Composition by 

Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

C4A HrSR 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

C4A HrSR 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 55,568,425 2,877,995 5%

Auto 36,912,196 1,232,377 3% 23%

Local Aira 1,815,945 690,084 38% 13%

Connect Airb 15,601,890 778,549 5% 15%

Bus 1,238,394 176,985 14% 3%

Total Urban Ridership 2,256,911 

Dallas Metroplexc 1,865,274 35%

Austin-San Antonio Aread 391,637 8%

Induced Demande 136,923 3%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipf 5,271,829 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Air travelers for whom only one end of their trip falls within the corridor area.

c Trips that begin and end within the Dallas Metroplex.

d Trips that begin and end within the Austin-San Antonio area.

e HrSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

f The sum of diverted and induced demand for HrSR.

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 3.20-9 summarizes the projected 2035 VMT under the No Build Alternative and Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would result in a 3.1 

percent decrease in annual VMT in the Central Section, compared with the No Build Alternative. 

This would be a moderate beneficial effect on VMT. 

Table 3.20-9: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build C4A HrSR Change 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 2,811,060,425 2,722,809,840 -88,250,585/ -3.14%
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-22 

Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on transportation and parking as 

those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. However, unlike high-speed rail, the higherspeed rail design would include some grade crossings, which would affect local traffic circulation. 

Local traffic volumes and parking demand would increase around and at the stations due to both 

increases and new demand in rail ridership and longer wait times would occur at grade crossings. 

Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and 

parking are moderate.

Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on intercity transit providers and air 

carriers as those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, but at a lesser intensity. Under 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, approximately 14 percent of existing bus riders and 38 percent 

of air passengers would be diverted to rail. This diversion could result in moderate (for transit) to 

substantial (for air) effects on service provider operations (e.g., demand, schedule, etc.) and lost 

revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

The design of the higher-speed rail alternative, within existing railroad rights-of-way, would allow for 

a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and passenger services. The long-term 

improvements to the rail system would offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. 

3.20.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 3.20-10 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative 

and Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.

Table 3.20-10: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4 High-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build C4A HSR No Build C4A HSR 

 Dallas and Fort Worth – San Antonio 

Auto 34,453,728 31,668,952 91.74% 76.52%

Passenger Rail 77,575 8,193,483 0.21% 19.80%

Intercity Bus 1,218,438 949,310 3.24% 2.29%

Air 1,806,931 575,327 4.81% 1.39%

Under Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, highway, bus, and air travel would decrease as users are 

diverted from these modes to the new rail service. Under Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, the 

reduction in mode share for highway travel would be 16 percent, which represents a moderate 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-23 

effect. The increase in mode share for passenger rail represents a substantial effect, with 

passenger rail ridership forecast to increase to over 8 million passengers per year, which is a 9,000 

percent increase. For bus and air, the shift in mode share would also represent a substantial effect. 

The mode share for bus would decrease by 29 percent and the mode share for air would decrease 

by 71 percent. The ridership data (including diverted trips and induced demand) are described in 

further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership section.

Travel Time Savings 

Table 3.20-11 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed 

that there would be no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative 

C4A High-Speed Rail for auto, bus, and air.

With the exception of air, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would provide significant travel time 

savings across all modes. For example, the new passenger rail service would take approximately 

2 hours (115 minutes) between Dallas and San Antonio, compared with over 5.5 hours (338 

minutes) by car. The time savings associated with Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail is a substantial 

beneficial effect compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Table 3.20-11: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4A High-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Time (minutes)a 

Dallas – San 

Antonio 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio 

Dallas – 

Austin 

Fort Worth – 

Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 338 332 238 232 103

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143

With C4A HSRb 115 163 74 122 39

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95

Air 62 68 55 62 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4A HSR. 

b Estimated passenger rail time with Alternative C4A HSR. 

Travel Time Reliability 

The Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in highway travel time by 2035, 

particularly between the larger metropolitan areas. For instance, by 2035, highway travel time 

between Dallas and San Antonio and Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to increase by 

approximately 50 minutes. Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would provide travel time reliability 

between these areas for train travelers, compared to the expected increases in highway drive times 

and potential unexpected delays. Under Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail there would be a 

substantial difference and beneficial effect in travel time reliability compared with highway travel. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-24 

Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 3.20-12 provides a summary of the expected 

rail ridership under Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail

at both the corridor level, as well as for the Dallas 

and Austin/San Antonio urban markets. Figure 

3.20-3 illustrates the projected ridership composition 

for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.

For the new rail trips (over 8 million riders), the 

highest percentage would be shifts from auto trips 

(34 percent), followed by local air (15 percent), connect 

air (13 percent) and bus trips (3 percent). Local air 

would have the highest percentage of its trips diverted 

to rail (68 percent), followed by bus (22 percent), auto 

trips (8 percent), and connect air (7 percent). 

Table 3.20-12: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail

Ridership 

Composition by 

Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

C4A HSR 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

C4A HSR 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 53,076,654 5,391,666 10% 

Auto 34,453,728 2,784,776 8% 34%

Local Aira 1,806,931 1,231,604 68% 15%

Connect Airb 15,597,557 1,106,158 7% 13%

Bus 1,218,438 269,128 22% 3%

Total Urban Ridership 2,449,206 

Dallas Metroplexc 1,991,898 24%

Austin - San Antonio 

Aread 457,308 6%

Induced Demande 352,611 5%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipf 8,193,484 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Air travelers for whom only one end of their trip falls within the corridor area.

c Trips that begin and end within the Dallas Metroplex

d Trips that begin and end within the Austin-San Antonio area.

e HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

f The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

Figure 3.20-3: Alternative C4A 

HSR Ridership Composition
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-25 

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 3.20-13 summarizes the projected 2035 VMT under the No Build Alternative and Alternative 

C4A High-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would result in an 8.6 

percent decrease in VMT in the Central Section, compared with the No Build Alternative. This would 

be a substantial beneficial effect on VMT. 

Table 3.20-13: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build C4A HSR Change 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 2,742,367,985 2,507,423,895 -234,944,090/ -8.57%

Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would begin in Fort Worth and follow the TRE tracks east to Dallas. 

From Dallas, it would follow the BNSF alignment south toward Waxahachie where it would enter a 

new alignment outside existing highway and rail corridors. The entire right-of-way would be fenced 

and fully grade-separated. Once constructed, there would be no effect on local traffic circulation 

because of the grade-separated tracks. Local traffic volumes and parking demand would increase 

around and at the stations due to both increases and new demand in rail ridership and longer wait 

times would occur at grade crossings. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that 

the local effects on transportation and parking are moderate. 

Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Under Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, approximately 20 percent of existing bus riders and 70 

percent of air passengers would be diverted to rail. While the diversion of intercity bus and air 

travelers to the rail system will yield benefits for travelers by providing an alternative transportation 

option, transit operators and airlines themselves could be negatively affected by a reduction in 

passengers. This diversion could result in moderate (for transit) to substantial (for air) effects on 

service provider operations (e.g., demand and schedule) and lost revenue as a result of fewer 

customers. 

Within existing transportation corridors, the high-speed rail alternative would not have the required 

space for separation of freight and passenger rail and freight operations could be affected by an 

increase in the number of passing trains. Effects on freight operations within these existing 

transportation corridors will be determined at the project level. The long-term improvements to the 

rail system would offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this assessment, the 

qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. Within proposed 

new transportation corridors, passenger rail tracks would be constructed within a separate right-ofway and there would be no effect on freight operations.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-26 

3.20.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

For this service-level analysis the travel demand modeling for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

was not conducted to the same level of detail, but instead relied upon a proportional relationship 

based on full travel demand modeling conducted for the C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A HigherSpeed Rail alternatives. This appropriate level of detail applied for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed 

Rail is supported by a linear proportional adjustment in ridership and demand, which is based on 

the relationship between the C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternatives, thereby 

producing reasonably accurate estimates for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. Further, the 

observed relationship between the C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail alternatives 

was used to produce a forecast of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail based on Alternative C4B 

High-Speed Rail. An identical methodology was utilized for the observed relationship between 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail based on Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail.

Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would see decreases in ridership demand proportionally similar 

to the decrease in ridership demand between the C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

alternatives. The shift in mode share would also be proportionally similar. For example, the 

ridership demand would be approximately 36 percent less for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

than Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4B would see a similar difference between 

ridership demand between the high-speed rail alternative and higher-speed rail alternative. 

Travel Time Savings 

Travel time information was prepared for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and is summarized in 

Table 3.20-14. Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would result in similar changes to travel time 

savings as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Both alternatives would provide significant travel 

time savings across all modes, although to a lesser extent than the high-speed rail alternatives. The 

new passenger rail service would take approximately 3 hours (195 minutes) between Dallas and 

San Antonio, compared with over 5.5 hours (338 minutes) by car. The time savings associated with 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be a substantial beneficial effect compared with the No 

Build Alternative. 

Table 3.20-14: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4B HigherSpeed Rail

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

Dallas – San 

Antonio 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio 

Dallas – 

Austin 

Fort Worth – 

Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 338 332 238 232 103

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143

With C4B HrSRb 195 202 136 143 57

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95

Air 62 68 55 62 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4B HrSR.

b Estimated passenger rail time with Alternative C4B HrSR.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-27 

Travel Time Reliability 

As previously discussed, the Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in 

highway travel time by 2035, particularly between the larger metropolitan areas, as a result of 

general increases in congestion. By 2035, highway travel time between Dallas and San Antonio and 

Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to increase by approximately 50 minutes. Alternative C4B 

Higher-Speed Rail would provide travel time reliability between these areas for train travelers, 

compared with the expected increases in highway drive times and potential unexpected delays. 

Under Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail there would be a substantial difference and corresponding 

effect in travel time reliability compared with highway travel. 

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would see a reduction in VMT proportionally similar to the 

reduction in VMT between the C4A High-Speed Rail and the C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternatives. The 

reduction in VMT would be approximately 64 percent less for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

than Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4B would see a similar difference between VMT 

changes between the high-speed rail alternative and higher-speed rail alternative. 

Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on transportation and parking as 

those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. However, unlike high-speed rail, the higherspeed rail design would include some grade crossings, which would affect local traffic circulation. 

Local traffic volumes and parking demand would increase around and at the stations due to both 

increases and new demand in rail ridership and longer wait times would occur at grade crossings. 

Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and 

parking are moderate. 

Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on intercity transit providers and air 

carriers as those described for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail, but at a lesser intensity. Under 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail, existing bus riders and air passengers would be diverted to rail. 

However, the percentage of diverted trips would be less with Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

than Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail.

The design of the higher-speed rail alternative, within existing railroad rights-of-way, would allow for 

a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and passenger services. The long-term 

improvements to the rail system would offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-28 

3.20.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 3.20-15 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative 

and Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. 

Table 3.20-15: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4B High-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand (Trips per Year) Mode Share (Percentage by Mode) 

No Build C4B HSR No Build C4B HSR 

 Dallas/Fort Worth – San Antonio 

Auto 34,486,594 31,528,524 91.75% 78.74%

Passenger Rail 77,575 7,039,557 0.21% 17.58%

Intercity Bus 1,218,248 932,764 3.24% 2.33%

Air 1,805,925 538,644 4.80% 1.35%

Under Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be 14 

percent, which represents a moderate effect. The increase in mode share for passenger rail would 

be substantial. Passenger rail ridership is forecast to increase to over 7 million passengers per 

year, an over 8,000 percent increase. For bus and air, the shift in mode share would be substantial. 

The mode share for bus would decrease by 28 percent and the mode share for air would decrease 

by 72 percent. The ridership data (including diverted trips and induced demand) are described in 

further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership section. 

Travel Time Savings 

Table 3.20-16 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed 

that there will no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4B 

High-Speed Rail for auto, bus, and air.

With the exception of air, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would provide significant travel time 

savings across all modes. For example, the new passenger rail service would take approximately 

2 hours (127 minutes) between Dallas and San Antonio, compared with over 5.5 hours (338 

minutes) by car. The time savings associated with Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be a 

substantial beneficial effect compared with the No Build Alternative. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-29 

Table 3.20-16: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4B High-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Time (minutes)a 

Dallas – San 

Antonio 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio Dallas – Austin Fort Worth – Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 338 332 238 232 103

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143

With C4B HSRb 127 134 86 93 39

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95

Air 62 68 55 62 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4B HSR.

b Estimated passenger rail time with Alternative C4B HSR.

Travel Time Reliability 

As previously discussed, the Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in 

highway travel time by 2035, particularly between the larger metropolitan areas as a result of 

general increases in congestion. By 2035, highway travel time between Dallas and San Antonio and 

Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to increase by approximately 50 minutes. Alternative C4B 

High-Speed Rail would provide travel time reliability between these areas for train travelers, 

compared with the expected increases in highway drive times and potential unexpected delays. 

Under Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail there would be a substantial difference and corresponding 

effect in travel time reliability compared with highway travel. 

Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 3.20-17 provides a summary of the 

projected rail ridership with Alternative C4B 

High-Speed Rail at the corridor level, as well 

as for the Dallas and San Antonio urban 

markets. Figure 3.20-4 illustrates the 

projected ridership composition for this 

alternative. 

For the new rail trips (over 7 million riders), 

the highest percentage would be shifts from 

auto trips (42 percent), followed by local air (18 

percent), connect air (5 percent) and bus trips 

(4 percent). Local air would have the highest 

percentage of its trips diverted to rail (70 percent), 

followed by bus (23 percent), auto trips (9 percent), and connect air (2 percent). 

Figure 3.20-4: Alternative C4B HSR 

Ridership Composition
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-30 

Table 3.20-17: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail

Ridership Composition 

by Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

C4B HSR 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

C4B HSR 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 53,116,035 4,867,251 9%

Auto 34,486,594 2,958,069 9% 42%

Local Aira 1,805,925 1,267,281 70% 18%

Connect Airb 15,605,268 356,415 2% 5%

Bus 1,218,248 285,484 23% 4%

Total Urban Ridership 1,709,043 

Dallas Metroplexd 1,251,735 18%

Austin - San Antonio Aread 457,308 6%

Induced Demande 463,263 7%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipf 7,039,557 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Air travelers for whom only one end of their trip falls within the corridor area.

c Trips that begin and end within the Dallas Metroplex.

d Trips that begin and end within the Austin-San Antonio area.

e HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

f The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 3.20-18 summarizes the projected 2035 VMT with the No Build Alternative and Alternative 

C4B High-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would result in a 9 

percent decrease in VMT in the Central Section, compared with the No Build Alternative. This would 

be a substantial beneficial effect on VMT. 

Table 3.20-18: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build C4B HSR Change 

Dallas-Fort Worth-San Antonio 2,748,517,876 2,496,018,505 -252,499,371/ -9.19%

Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have similar effects on transportation and parking as those 

described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. As a high-speed rail alternative, the entire right-ofway would be fenced and fully grade-separated. Once constructed, there would be no effect on local 

traffic circulation because of the grade-separated tracks. Local traffic volumes and parking demand 

would increase around and at the stations due to both increases and new demand in rail ridership 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-31 

and longer wait times would occur at grade crossings. Based on this assessment, the qualitative 

evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and parking are moderate. 

Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Under Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail, approximately 23 percent of existing bus riders and 70 

percent of air passengers would be diverted to rail. This diversion could result in moderate (for 

transit) to substantial (for air) effects on service provider operations (e.g., demand, schedule, etc.) 

and lost revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

Within existing transportation corridors, the high-speed rail alternative would not have the required 

space for separation of freight and passenger rail and freight operations could be affected by an 

increase in the number of passing trains. The long-term improvements to the rail system would 

offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation 

is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. Within proposed new transportation 

corridors, passenger rail tracks would be constructed within a separate right-of-way and there 

would be no effect on freight operations. 

3.20.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

For this service-level analysis, the travel demand modeling for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

was not conducted to the same level of detail, but instead relied upon a proportional relationship 

based on full travel demand modeling conducted for the C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A HigherSpeed Rail alternatives. This appropriate level of detail applied for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed 

Rail is supported by a linear proportional adjustment in ridership and demand, which is based on 

the relationship between the C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternatives, thereby 

producing reasonably accurate estimates for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. Further, the 

observed relationship between the C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail alternatives 

was used to produce a forecast of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail based on Alternative C4C 

High-Speed Rail. 

Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would result in decreases in ridership demand proportionally 

similar to the decrease in ridership demand between the C4A High-Speed Rail and the C4A HigherSpeed Rail alternatives. The shift in mode share would also be proportionally similar. For example, 

the ridership demand would be approximately 36 percent less for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

than Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4B would see a similar difference between 

ridership demand between the high-speed rail and higher-speed rail alternatives. 

Travel Time Savings 

Travel time information was not prepared for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail; however, this 

alternative would result in similar changes to travel time savings as Alternative C4C High-Speed 

Rail, although to a lesser extent. This is because the higher-speed rail alternative would be 

operated at speeds of up to 110 to 125 miles per hour (mph), compared with the faster high speed 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-32 

rail alternatives, which would be operated at speeds of up to 220 to 250 mph. Both alternatives are 

expected to provide substantial travel time savings across all modes.

Travel Time Reliability 

As previously discussed, the Central Section would generally experience moderate increases in 

highway travel time by 2035, particularly between the larger metropolitan areas. By 2035, highway 

travel time between Dallas and San Antonio and Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to 

increase by approximately 50 minutes. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would provide travel time 

reliability between these areas for train travelers, compared to the expected increases in highway 

drive times and potential unexpected delays. Under Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail there would 

be a substantial difference and corresponding effect in travel time reliability compared with 

highway travel. 

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would see a reduction in VMT proportionally similar to the 

reduction in VMT between the C4A High-Speed Rail and the C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternatives. The 

reduction in VMT would be approximately 64 percent less for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

than Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Alternative C4C would see a similar difference between VMT 

changes between the high-speed rail and higher-speed rail alternatives. 

Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on transportation and parking as 

those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. However, unlike high-speed rail, the higherspeed rail design would include some grade crossings, which would affect local traffic circulation. 

Local traffic volumes and parking demand would increase around and at the stations due to both 

increases and new demand in rail ridership and longer wait times would occur at grade-crossings. 

Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and 

parking are moderate. 

Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on intercity transit providers and air 

carriers as those described for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail, but at a lesser intensity. Under

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, existing bus riders and air passengers would be diverted to rail. 

However, the percentage of diverted trips would be less with Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

than with Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail.

The design of the higher-speed rail alternative, within existing railroad rights-of-way, would allow for 

a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and passenger services. The long-term 

improvements to the rail system would offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-33 

3.20.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 3.20-19 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative 

and Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail.

Table 3.20-19: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4C High-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build C4C HSR No Build C4C HSR 

 Dallas and Fort Worth – San Antonio 

Auto 34,355,278 31,986,136 91.72% 81.17%

Passenger Rail 77,575 5,754,286 0.21% 14.60%

Intercity Bus 1,218,378 980,645 3.25% 2.49%

Air 1,804,336 684,830 4.82% 1.74%

Under Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be 11 

percent, which represents a moderate effect. The increase in mode share for passenger rail is 

substantial. Passenger rail ridership is forecast to increase to over 5 million passengers per year, a 

nearly 7,000 percent increase. For bus the shift in mode share would be moderate and for air the 

shift in mode share would be substantial. The mode share for bus would decrease by 23 percent 

and the mode share for air would decrease by 64 percent. The ridership data (including diverted 

trips and induced demand) are described in further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership section.

Travel Time Savings 

Table 3.20-20 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed 

that there will no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4C 

High-Speed Rail for auto, bus, and air.

With the exception of air, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would provide significant travel time 

savings across all modes. Under this alternative, the new passenger rail service would take less 

than 2.5 hours (140 minutes) between Dallas and San Antonio, compared to over 5.5 hours (338 

minutes) by car. The time savings associated with Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be a 

substantial beneficial effect compared with the No Build Alternative. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-34 

Table 3.20-20: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4C High-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Time (minutes)a 

Dallas – San 

Antonio 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio 

Dallas – 

Austin 

Fort Worth – 

Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 338 332 238 232 103

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143

With C4C HSRb 140 140 99 99 39

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95

Air 62 68 55 62 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4C 

HSR.

b Estimated Passenger rail time with Alternative C4C HSR.

Travel Time Reliability 

As previously discussed, the Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in 

highway travel time by 2035, particularly between the larger metropolitan areas. By 2035, highway 

travel time between Dallas and San Antonio and Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to 

increase by approximately 50 minutes as a result of general increase in congestion. Alternative C4C 

High-Speed Rail would provide travel time reliability between these areas for train travelers, 

compared to the expected increases in highway drive times and potential unexpected delays. Under 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail there would be a substantial difference and corresponding effect 

in travel time reliability compared with highway travel. 

Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 3.20-21 provides a summary of 

the projected rail ridership with 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail at the 

corridor level, as well as for the Dallas 

and San Antonio urban markets. Figure 

3.20-5 illustrates the projected ridership 

composition for this alternative. 

For the new rail trips (approximately 5.8 

million riders), the highest percentage 

would be shifted from auto trips (41 percent), 

followed by local and connect air (20 and 19 

percent, respectively), and bus trips (4 

percent). Local air would have the highest percentage of its trips diverted to rail (62 percent), 

followed by bus (21 percent), connect air (7 percent), and auto trips (6 percent).

Figure 3.20-5: Alternative C4C HSR 

Ridership Composition
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-35 

Table 3.20-21: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail

Ridership Composition 

by Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

C4C HSR 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

C4C HSR Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 52,980,507 4,830,777 9%

Auto 34,355,278 2,369,141 6% 41%

Local Aira 1,804,336 1,119,506 62% 20%

Connect Airb 15,602,515 1,104,397 7% 19%

Bus 1,218,378 237,733 21% 4%

Total Urban Ridership 457,308 

Dallas Metroplexc 0%

Austin-San Antonio Aread 457,308 8%

Induced Demande 466,202 8%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipf 5,754,286 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Air travelers for whom only one end of their trip falls within the corridor area.

c Trips that begin and end within the Dallas Metroplex.

d Trips that begin and end within the Austin-San Antonio area.

e HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

f The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 3.20-22 summarizes the projected 2035 VMT with the No Build Alternative and Alternative 

C4C High-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would result in a 

7.2 percent decrease in annual VMT in the Central Section, compared with the No Build Alternative. 

This would be a substantial beneficial effect on VMT. 

Table 3.20-22: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build C4C HSR Change 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 2,731,030,269 2,533,463,242 197,567,027/ -7.23%

Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have similar effects on transportation and parking as those 

described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. As a high-speed rail alternative, the entire right-ofway would be fenced and fully grade-separated. Once constructed, there would be no effect on local 

traffic circulation because of the grade-separated tracks. Local traffic volumes and parking demand 

would increase around and at the stations due to both increases and new demand in rail ridership

and longer wait times would occur at grade crossings. Based on this assessment, the qualitative 

evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and parking are moderate. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-36 

Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Under Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail, approximately 21 percent of existing bus riders and 62 

percent of air passengers would be diverted to rail. This diversion could result in moderate (for 

transit) to substantial (for air) effects on service provider operations (e.g., demand, schedule, etc.) 

and lost revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

Within existing transportation corridors, the high-speed rail alternative would not have the required 

space for separation of freight and passenger rail and freight operations could be affected by an 

increase in the number of passing trains. The long-term improvements to the rail system would 

offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation 

is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. Within proposed new transportation 

corridors, passenger rail tracks would be constructed within a separate right-of-way and there 

would be no effect on freight operations. 

3.20.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

In the Southern Section, three alternatives and the No Build Alternative were carried forward for 

further evaluation. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail serves different destinations than Alternative 

S6 (both service types). Alternative S6 (both service types) would follow an alignment that does not 

follow existing transportation corridors and is considerably shorter than Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail. 

3.20.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would introduce a new passenger rail service between San 

Antonio and southern Texas. It is assumed that there would be no changes in the level of service for 

all other modes. 

Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 3.20-23 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative 

and Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. 

Table 3.20-23: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand (Trips per Year) Mode Share (Percentage by Mode) 

No Build S4 HrSR No Build S4 HrSR 

 San Antonio - Brownsville 

Auto 139,815,235 139,560,919 99.25% 99.03%

Passenger Rail 0 611,106 0.00% 0.43%

Intercity Bus 920,291 713,133 0.65% 0.51%

Air 129,309 46,568 0.09% 0.03%
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-37 

With Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be less 

than 1 percent, which represents a negligible effect. Passenger rail service does not currently exist 

in the Southern Section and there would be a substantial demand for this new service. Passenger 

rail ridership is forecast at 611,100 passengers per year. For bus the shift in mode share would be

moderate and for air the shift in mode share would be substantial. The mode share for bus would

decrease by 14 percent and the mode share for air would decrease by 67 percent. The ridership 

data (including diverted trips and induced demand) are described in further detail in the Passenger 

Rail Ridership section.

Travel Time Savings 

Table 3.20-24 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed 

that there will no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail for auto and bus (direct air service between the modeled city-pairs does not 

exist).

For most of the city pairs, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would provide substantial travel time 

savings compared to highway and intercity bus travel. For example, between Laredo and 

Brownsville, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be nearly 2 hours faster than driving.

Table 3.20-24: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail

Mode 

Travel Time (minutes)a 

San Antonio – 

Laredo 

San Antonio –

Corpus Christi 

Laredo – 

Brownsville 

Corpus Christi – 

Brownsville 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 157 151 320 211 103

Passenger Railb 151 113 213 175 - 

Intercity Bus 160 157 285 231 95

Airc - - - - - 

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build Alternative and Alternative S4 HrSR.

b Passenger rail times shown for the build alternative only. Except for Austin to San Antonio, rail service does not 

currently exist. No new service is proposed between Austin and San Antonio.

c There is no direct air (non-stop) service between these city pairs.

Travel Time Reliability 

The Southern Section will generally experience moderate increases in highway travel time by 2035, 

particularly between the larger cities. For instance, by 2035, highway travel time between 

Brownsville and Laredo is projected to increase by approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes. 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would provide travel time reliability between these areas for train 

travelers, compared to the expected increases in highway drive times and potential unexpected 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-38 

delays. With Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail there would be a substantial difference and 

corresponding effect in travel time reliability compared with highway travel. 

Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 3.20-25 provides a summary of the 

expected rail ridership with Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail at the corridor level 

and for the urban market (McAllen–

Brownsville area). Figure 3.20-6 

illustrates the anticipated ridership 

composition for Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail.

For the new rail trips (approximately 

611,000 riders), the highest percentage 

would be shifted from auto trips (42 percent), 

followed by bus (34 percent), and local air (13 

percent). Local air has the highest percentage of 

its trips diverted to rail (64 percent), followed by 

bus (23 percent). 

Less than 1 percent of auto trips would be diverted to rail. 

Table 3.20-25: 2035 Intercity Ridership – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail

Ridership 

Composition by Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

S4 HrSR Rail 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

S4 HrSR Rail 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 140,864,835 544,215 <1%

Auto 139,815,235 254,316 <1% 42%

Local Aira 129,309 82,741 64% 13%

Connect Air - - - -

Bus 920,291 207,159 23% 34%

Total Urban Ridership 50,514 

McAllen – Brownsvilleb 50,514 8%

Induced Demandc 16,377 3%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipd 611,106 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Trips that begin and end within the McAllen-Weslaco-Harlingen-Brownsville triangle.

c HrSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

d The sum of diverted and induced demand for HrSR.

Figure 3.20-6: Alternative S4 HrSR 

Ridership Composition 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-39 

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 3.20-26 presents the estimated changes in VMT with the No Build Alternative and Alternative 

S4 Higher-Speed Rail. The existing VMT in the Southern Section is projected to increase from 2.9 

billion annual VMT to 9.3 billion annual VMT by 2035, under the No Build Alternative. The increase 

in VMT by 2035 is primarily attributed to population growth in the region. Implementation of 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would result in a 0.2 percent decrease in VMT compared with the 

No Build Alternative. This equates to nearly 18.5 million fewer miles traveled each year. The 

decrease in VMT is a beneficial, although negligible, effect of the project, compared with the No 

Build Alternative. 

Table 3.20-26: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build S4 HrSR Change 

San Antonio-Brownsville 9,364,781,443 9,346,313,854 -18,467,589/ -0.2%

Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on local transportation and parking as 

previously described for the build alternatives in the Central Section. This alternative generally 

traverses through less developed areas and as a higher-speed rail option would be designed with 

some at-grade crossings, which would affect local traffic circulation. New stations would be 

constructed in some locations and would alter traffic patterns in these locations. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and parking are 

moderate. 

Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

With Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, approximately 23 percent of existing bus riders and 64 

percent of air passengers would be diverted to rail. This diversion could result in moderate (for 

transit) to substantial (for air) effects on service provider operations (e.g., demand, schedule, etc.) 

and lost revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

The design of the higher-speed rail alternative, within existing railroad rights-of-way, would allow for 

a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and passenger services. The long-term 

improvements to the rail system would offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-40 

3.20.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 3.20-27 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative 

and Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. 

Table 3.20-27: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand (Trips per Year) Mode Share (Percentage by Mode) 

No Build S6 HrSR No Build S6 HrSR 

 San Antonio - Laredo 

Auto 11,745,072 11,700,826 98.88% 98.48%

Passenger Rail 0 59,440 0.00% 0.50%

Intercity Bus 132,860 120,956 1.12% 1.02%

Air 0 0 0.00% 0.0%

With Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel is less than 1 

percent, which represents a negligible effect. Passenger rail service does not currently exist in the 

Southern Section and there would be a substantial demand for this new service. Passenger rail 

ridership is forecast at 59,440 passengers per year. For bus, the shift in mode share is moderate. 

The mode share for bus will decrease by 9 percent. Direct air service does not exist and there 

would be no effect on this mode. The ridership data (including diverted trips and induced demand) 

are described in further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership section.

Travel Time Savings 

Table 3.20-28 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail would provide service between San Antonio and Laredo. This alternative would 

save travelers approximately 1 hour compared with driving or intercity bus travel. This is a 

moderate beneficial effect of the project. 

Table 3.20-28: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail

Mode 

Travel Time (minutes)a 

San Antonio – 

Laredo 

San Antonio –

Corpus Christi 

Laredo – 

Brownsville 

Corpus Christi – 

Brownsville 

Austin - San 

Antonio 

Auto 157 151 320 211 103

Passenger Railb 101 - - - -

Intercity Bus 160 157 285 231 95

Air - - - - -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build Alternative and Alternative S6 HrSR.

b Passenger rail is for the build alternative only. This service does not currently exist. Service is only proposed between 

San Antonio and Laredo.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-41 

Travel Time Reliability 

By 2035, highway travel time between San Antonio and Laredo is projected to increase by 

approximately 8 minutes. These increases in future highway travel time are minor, so reliability for 

highway travel is expected to remain 

relatively good. With Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail, there would be a negligible 

difference and corresponding effect in 

travel time reliability for train travelers, 

compared with highway travel. 

Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 3.20-29 provides a summary of the 

projected rail ridership with Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail and Figure 3.20-7 

illustrates the projected ridership 

composition.

For the new rail trips (approximately 59,440

riders), the highest percentage is from auto trips (74 percent), followed by bus trips (20 percent). 

Bus has the highest percentage of its trips diverted to rail (9 percent). 

Table 3.20-29: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail

Ridership 

Composition by 

Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

S6 HrSR Rail 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

S6 HrSR Rail 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 11,877,933 56,150 0%

Auto 11,745,073 44,246 0% 74%

Local Aira < 40,000 < 10,000

Connect Air - - -

Bus 132,860 11,909 9% 20%

Induced Demandb 3,289 6%

Total Ridershipc 59,439 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

c The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

Figure 3.20-7: Alternative S6 HrSR Ridership 

Composition
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-42 

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 3.20-30 presents the estimated changes in VMT with the No Build Alternative and Alternative 

S6 Higher-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would result in a 0.4 

percent reduction in VMT compared with the No Build Alternative. This equates to nearly 3 million 

fewer miles traveled each year. The decrease in VMT is a beneficial, although negligible, effect of 

the project, compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Table 3.20-30: 2035 Changes in Vehicle Miles Traveled

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build S6 HrSR Change 

San Antonio - Laredo 745,641,562 742,832,570 -2,808,992/ -0.4%

Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on local transportation and parking as 

previously described for the build alternatives in the Central Section. This alternative generally 

traverses through less developed areas and as a higher-speed rail option would be designed with 

some at-grade crossings, which would affect local traffic circulation. New stations would be 

constructed in some locations and would alter traffic patterns in these locations. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and parking are 

moderate.

Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

With Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, approximately 9 percent of existing bus riders would be 

diverted to rail. This diversion could result in moderate effects on transit service provider operations 

(e.g., demand and schedule) and lost revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

The design of the higher-speed rail alternative would allow for a shared right-of-way with separate 

tracks for freight and passenger services. The long-term improvements to the rail system would 

offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation 

is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. 

3.20.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 3.20-31 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative 

and Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-43 

Table 3.20-31: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S6 High-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build S6 HSR No Build S6 HSR 

 San Antonio – Laredo 

Auto 11,745,072 11,638,144 98.88% 97.88%

Passenger Rail 0 138,500 0.00% 1.17%

Intercity Bus 132,860 113,302 1.12% 0.95%

Air 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

With Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel is 1 percent, 

which represents a negligible effect. Passenger rail service does not currently exist in the Southern 

Section and there would be a substantial demand for this new service. Passenger rail ridership is 

forecast at 138,500 passengers per year. For bus, the shift in mode share is moderate. The mode 

share for bus would decrease by 15 percent. Direct air service does not exist and there would be no 

effect on this mode. The ridership data (including diverted trips and induced demand) are 

described in further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership section.

Travel Time Savings 

Table 3.20-32 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed 

that there will no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative S6 

High-Speed Rail for auto and bus (direct air service does not exist).

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would provide service between San Antonio and Laredo. This 

alternative would provide significant travel time savings compared with highway and intercity bus 

travel between these city pairs. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would save travelers 1 hour and 40 

minutes compared with driving or intercity bus travel, between San Antonio and Laredo. This is a 

substantial beneficial effect of the project.

Table 3.20-32: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S6 High-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Time (minutes)a 

San Antonio – 

Laredo 

San Antonio –

Corpus Christi 

Laredo – 

Brownsville 

Corpus Christi 

– Brownsville 

Austin - San 

Antonio 

Auto 157 151 320 211 103

Passenger Railb 56 - - - -

Intercity Bus 160 157 285 231 95

Air - - - - -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build Alternative and Alternative S6 HSR.

b Passenger rail is for the build alternative only. Rail service does not currently exist. Service is only proposed between San 

Antonio and Laredo.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-44 

Travel Time Reliability 

By 2035, highway travel time between San Antonio and Laredo is projected to increase by 

approximately 8 minutes. These increases in future highway travel time are minor, so reliability for 

highway travel is expected to remain relatively good. With Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail, there 

would be a negligible difference and corresponding effect in travel time reliability for train travelers, 

compared with highway travel (because of an increase of only 8 minutes in highway travel). 

Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 3.20-33 provides a summary of the 

projected rail ridership with Alternative 

S6 High-Speed Rail and Figure 3.20-8 

illustrates the projected ridership 

composition.

For the new rail trips (approximately 

138,500 riders), the highest percentage 

would be shifted from auto trips (77 

percent), followed by bus (14 percent). 

Bus travel has the highest percentage of 

its trips diverted to rail (15 percent). 

Table 3.20-33: Summary of Travel Demand and Transportation Effects by Alternative

Context 

Potential Intensity of Effects 

Northern Central Southern 

N4A CONV C4A/B/C SR C4A HrSR S4 HrSR S6 HSR S6 HrSR 

Travel Demand and Mode Sharea 

Auto Negligible 

(positive) 

Moderate 

(positive)

Moderate 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Transit Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Air Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

No effect No effect

Travel Time Savingsb 

Auto Negligible 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Moderate 

(positive)

Transit Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Moderate 

(positive)

Air Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

No effect No effect No effect 

Travel Time Reliabilityc 

Auto Negligible 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Figure 3.20-8: Alternative S6 HSR Ridership 

Composition
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-45 

Context 

Potential Intensity of Effects 

Northern Central Southern 

N4A CONV C4A/B/C SR C4A HrSR S4 HrSR S6 HSR S6 HrSR 

Change in VMTd

Auto Negligible 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Moderate 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Local Transportatione 

Transportation/Parking Moderate

(negative)

Moderate

(negative)

Moderate

(negative)

Moderate

(negative)

Moderate

(negative)

Moderate

(negative)

Service Providersf and Freight Operationsg 

Transit Substantial 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Air Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

No effect No effect

Freight Negligible

(negative)

Negligible

(negative)

Negligible

(negative)

Negligible

(negative)

Negligible

(negative)

No effect

a Shift in mode share as a result of the project. This could be a beneficial or negative effect depending on mode. 

b Travel time savings compared to all modes. Savings in travel time is a beneficial effect of the project.

c Travel time reliability compared to highway travel. This is a beneficial effect of the project (e.g., as highway travel 

speeds slow, highway travel time reliability decreases).

d A reduction in VMT is a beneficial effect of the project. 

e Potential effects on local traffic circulation and parking were assessed qualitatively.

f Potential effects on transit providers and air carriers.

g Effects on freight operations were assessed qualitatively. 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance and minimization of effects at the project level will be incorporated when feasible. If 

effects cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented. Avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation strategies will also be further developed in consultation with affected 

agencies and providers during the project-level analysis. 

At the project level, measures to minimize transportation effects may include, but would not be 

limited to, preparation and implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) during 

construction. The implementation of any of the build alternatives should include a TMP that would 

minimize effects on existing local traffic as a result of construction activities. The TMP would be 

prepared in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Federal Highway 

Administration 2009) and all applicable requirements of the local reviewing agency, as appropriate. 

The TMP could include, but would not be limited to, the following measures: 

 Prepare temporary traffic control plans for each construction area. The temporary traffic control 

plans will identify the need for full or partial lane closures, detours, flaggers for directing traffic, 

temporary signage, lighting, traffic control devices, and other measures, if required. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-46 

 Identify oversize and overweight load haul routes. Transporters will comply with state and 

county regulations for transportation of oversized and overweight loads on all state, county, and 

city roads. Such regulations typically include provisions for time of day, pilot cars, law 

enforcement escorts, speed limits, flaggers, and warning lights. All material hauling activities 

shall comply with applicable state and local regulations.

 Schedule deliveries of heavy equipment and construction materials during periods of minimum 

traffic flow and determine the need for construction work hours and arrival and departure times 

outside peak traffic periods.

 Post the approved hours of construction activity at the construction site in a place and manner 

that can be easily viewed by any interested member of the public. 

 Identify vehicle safety procedures for entering and exiting site access roads. 

 Notify and coordinate with emergency responders regarding potential road closures prior to 

construction.

 Provide access for emergency vehicles to and around the project sites. 

 Maintain access to adjacent properties, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities along project

routes. 

 Notify residential and commercial occupants of property adjacent to the construction sites of 

the hours of construction activity which may impact the area.

 Notify and coordinate with transit operators regarding potential road closures prior to 

construction. Notify and coordinate with mail service and waste haulers regarding potential road 

closures prior to construction.

 Provide a construction-parking plan that minimizes the effect of construction worker parking in 

the area. Include an estimate of the number of workers that will be present on the site during 

the various phases of construction, indicate where sufficient off-street parking will be used, and 

identify all locations for offsite material deliveries.

 Distribute public information using local news television and radio broadcasts, informational 

flyers and mailers, Web sites, and other outreach options. Signs should be installed and public 

notices should be distributed regarding construction work before disruptions occur; the 

notifications would identify detours to maintain access.

Subsequent Analysis 

Future studies conducted at the project level would likely define a specific Area of Potential Effects 

through the development of a Programmatic Agreement among FRA, TxDOT, and ODOT. At the local 

level, the project-level analysis will include identifying local effects on circulation (roadway and 

intersection level of service), access (vehicular, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access), and parking 

demand in the vicinity of station locations and grade crossings. Additional project-level analysis will 

include an assessment of air carrier operations and any potential operational shifts that may be 

realized based on changes in mode share to rail. The analysis will include an assessment of 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.20-47 

potential benefits and/or impacts that may result with a shift from short-haul to longer-haul flight 

operations. During construction, transportation effects will also be analyzed in the vicinity of new 

station locations, and where new rail infrastructure is proposed.

Updated travel market data, demographic data, and forecasts should be included in the travel 

demand model. The update should include the latest metropolitan planning organization (MPO) 

base year and future year highway networks; the latest MPO and statewide socioeconomic data and 

forecasts; and the latest rail, intercity bus and air travel market data. Subsequent analysis related 

to the travel demand model will also include refined intercity travel demand forecasts by section or 

subsequent project and detailed assessment of potential frequency, costs, travel market data, 

using project-level demographic data and forecasts, and more detailed information on 

future/planned regional and local transportation systems.

Detailed information about how the alternatives could connect would be analyzed at the projectlevel EIS phase. Due to the degree of variability in possibilities and the lack of detail, the Study does 

not provide a summary of effects for the entire route traveling between Oklahoma to South Texas. 

Rather, this analysis provides information about each individual alternative compared against the 

No Build Alternative and in some instances compared with another alternative for that same 

section. 

Review of potential site-specific indirect and cumulative effects would be included during the 

project-level analysis. These actions are not covered in this analysis and therefore are not 

discussed further. 

TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-1 

3.21 Public Health 

This section describes the anticipated overall direct and indirect public health effects within the 

environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area, including applicable information from the other 

relevant individual discussions such as air quality, groundwater quality, and hazardous materials. 

Public safety is addressed in Section 3.16 of the EIS. The introduction to Chapter 3 describes the 

EIS Study Area and use of terms such as Study Vicinity and transportation corridor, along with the 

standard organization of each analysis.

Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Applicable federal laws, regulations and orders pertaining to public health effects relating to air 

emissions, groundwater quality, and hazardous materials within the EIS Study Area are described in 

Section 3.1, Air Quality, Section 3.2, Water Quality, and Section 3.16, Public Safety and Hazardous 

Materials. Additional state, local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and 

will be addressed in project-level analysis. 

Methodology 

The public health effect evaluation consists of a qualitative assessment of the public health effects 

of the alternatives in relation to air quality, groundwater quality, and hazardous materials. 

Groundwater is the primary source of potable drinking water in the EIS Study Area and therefore the 

public health evaluation focuses on potential health effects associated with the use of 

groundwater. For each route alternative, sources of air pollution, groundwater aquifers which supply 

drinking water, and known hazardous materials sites located within the potential right-of-way were 

identified. The No Build Alternative is the primary basis of comparison to the build alternatives. 

Effects of the route alternatives are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial compared 

with the No Build Alternative. For this service-level analysis the definition of negligible, moderate, or 

substantial effects for air quality, water quality, and hazardous materials were used as the basis for 

characterizing potential public health effects. Refer to Section 3.1, Air Quality, Section 3.2, Water 

Quality, and Section 3.16, Public Safety and Hazardous Materials, for the resource-specific 

definitions of negligible, moderate, and substantial. For example, where an alternative would have 

a negligible effect on groundwater it is reasonable to determine that the public health effects 

associated with the use of groundwater for drinking would also be negligible. For air quality, for 

example, where an alternative would have long-term regional effects or benefits, a more 

conservative approach was taken to determine public health effects because of the level of detail 

available at the service level. 

Affected Environment 

The National Environmental Policy Act regulations do not require quantitative analysis regarding 

public health; however, environmental, social, demographic, and economic conditions drive the 

health and well-being of communities. As defined above, the range of issues that can affect human 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-2 

health include exposures to air pollution, groundwater contamination where the water is used for 

drinking, waste disposal, and hazardous substances. Specific discussions regarding air quality, 

groundwater quality, and hazardous materials may be found in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.16, 

respectively; however, aspects within these issue areas pertaining to public health are qualitatively 

assessed in this section. 

3.21.3.1 Overview 

Air pollutants, individually and in combination, degrade the atmosphere and harm human health 

with high concentrations of pollutants, particularly when exceeding acceptable and regulated 

thresholds, thereby creating poor air quality conditions. Pollutants and sources of airborne 

pollutions affecting air quality and attainment status of an area are identified in Section 3.1. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designates areas that are not in compliance with the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as “nonattainment”. Areas once classified as nonattainment 

that have since demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS are classified as “maintenance areas.” 

Groundwater aquifers that occur within the EIS Study Area are identified and discussed in greater 

detail in Section 3.2. Groundwater is a significant resource for freshwater throughout the EIS Study 

Area, including major sourcing of potable and irrigation water in the region. Existing and known 

hazardous sites have the potential to be disturbed or released, including the introduction of

hazardous materials during construction. As stated in Section 3.16, Public Safety and Hazardous 

Materials, known recorded hazardous materials sites were identified within the EIS Study Area. 

3.21.3.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.21.3.2.1 Air Quality 

Oklahoma is designated as in attainment/unclassified for all criteria pollutants under NAAQS (see 

Section 3.1, Air Quality, for detailed discussions on the affected environment). The main 

contributors to air pollution in Oklahoma are point sources including power plants and industrial 

facilities. Mobile emissions from cars and trucks are a minor contributor to pollutants in Oklahoma. 

In northern Texas, the Dallas and Fort Worth counties are designated as nonattainment for ozone; 

portions of Collins County are nonattainment for the 2008 lead standard), and in maintenance for 

the 1978 lead standard. Mobile emissions from cars and trucks are contributors to pollutants in 

Texas. 

3.21.3.2.2 Groundwater Quality 

The groundwater contained in aquifers is one of the most important sources of water. An aquifer is 

a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation which contains sufficient 

saturated, permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs. Eight 

major aquifers and two minor aquifers occur within the Northern Section EIS Study Area and 

overlap with Alternative N4A Conventional, as shown on Figures 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 (Section 3.2 

provides detailed discussions on the affected environment). Specifically, there are seven major 

aquifers in Oklahoma, one major aquifer in Texas and one minor aquifer in both Oklahoma and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-3 

Texas. A major aquifer is generally defined as supplying large quantities of water in large areas. 

Minor aquifers typically supply large quantities of water in small areas or relatively small quantities 

in large areas. Only one of the major aquifers in the Northern Section is designated as a Sole 

Source Aquifer (Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer), which is defined as an aquifer that supplies at least 

50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the overlying area. 

Aquifers in Oklahoma contain an estimated 320 million acre-feet of fresh water, of which 

approximately half is considered recoverable for use. The aquifers supply more than 60 percent of 

the water used in the state, particularly where less surface water is available. Aquifers in Texas 

provide about 60 percent of the 16.1 million acre-feet of water used annually within the state. 

3.21.3.2.3 Hazardous Materials 

Areas where new right-of-way may be developed or where significant earth-disturbing activities 

would occur have an increased potential to disturb contaminated or potentially contaminated 

hazardous materials sites. The exposure to, and potential release of, hazardous materials 

associated with Alternative N4A Conventional has the potential to affect eight known hazardous 

materials sites within the Northern Section EIS Study Area. Section 3.16, Public Safety and 

Hazardous Materials, provides a detailed discussion on the affected environment. 

3.21.3.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.21.3.3.1 Air Quality 

The Dallas and Fort Worth area to the Austin-Round Rock air basin is in attainment or unclassified 

for all criteria pollutants. The main contributors to air pollution include agricultural dust and soil 

disturbances, point sources including power plants and industrial facilities, and mobile emissions 

(both onroad and offroad). 

3.21.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality 

As mentioned above, aquifers in Texas provide approximately 60 percent of the 16.1 million acrefeet of water used annually within the state. Two major aquifers and three minor aquifers occur 

within the Central Section EIS Study Area and overlap with all the Central Section alternatives as 

shown on Figures 3.2-7 and 3.2-8. Only one of the major aquifers, the Edwards Aquifer, is 

designated as a Sole Source Aquifer. The aquifer is considered one of the most prolific artesian 

aquifers in the world and provides water to approximately 2 million people (San Antonio Water 

System 2014). Major springs produced by the Edwards Aquifer include San Pedro, San Antonio, 

Comal, San Marcos, and Hueco Springs (Eckhardt 2014).

3.21.3.3.3 Hazardous Materials 

Nine known hazardous materials sites were identified for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Eight known hazardous materials sites were identified for 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. Twelve known hazardous 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-4 

materials sites were identified for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative C4C HighSpeed Rail (Section 3.16 provides a detailed discussion of the affected environment). 

3.21.3.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.21.3.4.1 Air Quality 

For areas south of San Antonio, all criteria pollutants are in attainment or unclassified under 

NAAQS. In the rural regions outside of the San Antonio air basin and Corpus Christi air basin, the 

predominant contributors to air pollution are area sources including agricultural dust and soil 

disturbances. In the San Antonio air basin and Corpus Christi air basin, the predominant 

contributors to air pollution are point sources, including power plants, industrial facilities, and 

mobile emissions (both onroad and offroad). 

3.21.3.4.2 Groundwater Quality 

Four major aquifers and three minor aquifers occur within the Southern Section EIS Study Area and 

overlap with the Southern Section alternatives, as shown on Figures 3.2-11 and 3.2-12. Only one of 

the major aquifers, the Edwards Aquifer, is designated as a Sole Source Aquifer. 

3.21.3.4.3 Hazardous Materials 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail has the potential to affect four known hazardous materials sites 

within the Northern Section EIS Study Area. No known hazardous materials sites were identified for 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail (Section 3.16 provides a

detailed discussion of the affected environment). 

Environmental Consequences 

3.21.4.1 Overview 

Construction activities, such as the use of construction equipment, site ingress and egress, staging 

areas, and site grading, could potentially result in an increase in pollutants affecting air quality and 

groundwater quality. These activities may also create safety hazards and hazardous conditions for 

construction workers, and result in a release or disturbance of hazardous materials. Potential 

operations effects would be long-term and would include air pollution, groundwater contamination, 

and exposure to hazardous material sites or operations. Operation of the Program would affect air 

quality and can have adverse effect on human health if air pollutants emissions would increase. 

However, operation of the build alternatives would generally result in a long-term net benefit to 

regional air quality by reducing emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics. Localized public 

health effects would occur if large amount of diesel vehicles or diesel trains idle at a particular 

location. An increase in impervious surface area would increase stormwater runoff and in areas of 

groundwater recharge may affect groundwater quality. Known hazardous material sites are not 

anticipated to be disturbed during operation; however, additional hazardous materials sites may be 

discovered during construction. Because oil fields, including pipelines and wells (see Section 3.16, 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-5 

Public Safety and Hazardous Materials), are potentially present in the EIS Study Area, there would 

be potential public health concerns related to passenger rail service operating in close proximity to 

these areas. 

Routine maintenance and operation of passenger trains also create opportunities for unintended 

releases and spills of hazardous materials.

All of the alternatives would result in a net long-term regional benefit to air quality by reducing

vehicle miles traveled. 

Support and ancillary operations at stations could also result in local air quality effects. Increases in 

traffic congestion, especially at high-speed stations, could result in greater health-related effects 

than other alternatives. The type of station may also influence the level of potential health-related 

air quality effects. 

3.21.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, and Chapter 3, Introduction, is 

used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program of 

rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build Alternative would not affect public health. 

3.21.4.3 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

3.21.4.3.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Air Quality 

Construction of Alternative N4A Conventional would have the potential to expose nearby 

populations to short-term air pollution emissions. However, Alternative N4A would primarily use 

existing rail infrastructure and would require minimal construction activities to implement. Due to 

the limited construction emissions associated with construction activities, short-term health effects 

would be negligible for Alternative N4A. 

At a regional level, operation emissions associated with Alternative N4A would be similar or slightly 

lower compared to No Build Alternative, as detailed in Section 3.1, Air Quality. Due to the minor

change in regional emissions, the long-term regional benefits to public health would be negligible. 

Alternative N4A would reduce localized traffic congestion at some of the locations in the region by 

removing passenger vehicles from roadways and reducing vehicle emissions. Therefore, the 

alternative would have beneficial effects of reducing public exposure to air pollutants at locations 

with improved traffic conditions. On the other hand, the alternative would have the potential to 

cause adverse health effects if it causes a large number of diesel vehicles or diesel trains to idle for 

long periods of time, especially at locations near sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, 

and those with existing health concerns. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-6 

As discussed above, Alternative N4A would be beneficial in reducing localized effects in some cases 

but would have the potential to cause localized adverse effects in other cases. For this service-level 

analysis there is not sufficient information to determine potential local health effects. Localized 

health effects of Alternative N4A would be evaluated at the project level when project-specific 

information becomes available. As such, localized health effects from Alternative N4A will be 

analyzed in subsequent analysis and are not further discussed in this study. 

Groundwater Quality 

There are two types of aquifers: confined and unconfined. Confined aquifers generally occur at 

significant depth below the ground surface and are bounded above and below by confining beds. 

The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer, which is a Sole Source aquifer, is a confined aquifer. 

An unconfined aquifer, also called a water-table aquifer, is an aquifer which has the water table as 

its upper boundary and occurs near the ground surface. 

Construction-related activities are most likely to affect unconfined and sole source aquifers 

because they have a direct connection to the ground surface and are the primary source of water 

for adjacent populations. Alternative N4A Conventional would be located in the recharge area for 

the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer, which is an unconfined area (primary recharge is from precipitation 

infiltration with very little vertical leakage) of the otherwise confined aquifer; therefore, there is very 

little potential for groundwater to be affected by surface water runoff during construction. During

construction activities, effects would be minimized by implementing standard best management 

practices (BMPs) that would address runoff as identified in Section 3.2, Water Quality. In general, 

these construction BMPs may include phasing and construction sequencing, temporary seeding of 

cleared areas, mulching, erosion control blankets, reinforced matting, stabilized construction 

access, controlled temporary stockpile areas, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, baffles, runoff diversion, 

level spreaders and subsurface drains. For new construction related to stations, stormwater 

treatment measures and BMPs would also be implemented during construction and operation. 

Short-term effects on groundwater resources caused by construction and operations activities 

would be negligible.

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

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

solvents. During operation activities, effects would primarily be minimized by adhering to the 

required stormwater management regulations and BMPs as identified in Section 3.2, Water Quality. 

In general, these operational BMPs may include wet and dry detention ponds, vegetate conveyance 

systems, maintaining stream and wetland buffers, and porous surfacing. Long-term effects on 

groundwater resources caused by operations activities would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Construction vehicles and equipment have the potential to release hazardous materials (primarily 

petroleum products) or encounter contaminated sites or materials. Dewatering activities during 

construction could potentially alter existing groundwater contamination plumes. Heavy truck traffic 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-7 

may also increase during construction, creating an increased potential for hazardous material 

spills. Appropriate construction safety procedures, equipment stockpiling methods, material 

handling plans, and solid waste management procedures would be implemented to protect human 

health and the environment and minimize releases. With these procedures in place, public health 

effects related to hazardous materials during construction of Alternative N4A Conventional would 

be negligible. 

Alternative N4A Conventional could potentially cause accidental hazardous material releases during 

train refueling, maintenance activities, or spills during operation of the trains. Environmental health 

and safety plans and procedures to address spills, accidental release, and exposure to hazardous

materials would be developed and implemented during operation and maintenance of the 

passenger rail service. With the environmental health and safety plans and procedures, public 

health effects related to hazardous materials would be negligible. 

3.21.4.4 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

3.21.4.4.1 Alternative C4A Higher Speed Rail 

Air Quality 

Construction of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be a major infrastructure project. Section 

3.1, Air Quality, indicates that construction of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would generate 

substantial air emissions in the region. However, construction emissions would be spread 

throughout the construction period and along the rail alignment. Residents and workers would only 

be temporarily exposed to a small portion of the total construction emissions. Therefore, long-term 

exposure to criteria pollutants and air toxics, especially diesel particulate matter from construction 

equipment and vehicles that cause cancer from long-term exposure, would not occur. Therefore, 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have the potential to cause temporary and moderate 

health effects from construction. 

At a regional level, operation emissions associated with Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be 

greatly reduced compared to No Build Alternative, as detailed in Section 3.1, Air Quality. 

Conservatively, it is anticipated that the air pollution emissions reduction would have long-term 

negligible (benefit) effects to public health in the region. 

Similar to localized health effects discussed under Alternative N4A, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail would be beneficial in reducing localized effects at locations where traffic conditions would 

improve. However, it would also have the potential to cause localized adverse effects at added atgrade crossings, near the stations, and at other locations where a large number of diesel vehicles 

and trains idle. Localized health effects of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be evaluated at 

the project level when project-specific information becomes available. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-8 

Groundwater Quality 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail does not cross the Sole Source Aquifer recharge areas of the 

Edwards Aquifer where groundwater would be more susceptible to surface disturbances and 

potential effects from construction and operation activities. Therefore, construction and operations 

activities would have negligible effects on the aquifer, and public health effects relating to 

groundwater would also be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Construction effects related to potential releases of hazardous materials and encounters of 

contaminated sites or materials for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as the 

effects identified for Alternative N4A Conventional. Appropriate construction safety procedures as 

described under Alternative N4A Conventional would be implemented to protect human health and 

the environment and minimize releases. With these procedures in place, public health effects 

related to hazardous materials during construction of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would 

likely be negligible. 

Operation of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail could potentially result in accidental hazardous 

material releases during train refueling, maintenance activities, or spills during operation of the 

trains. Environmental health and safety plans and procedures identified under Alternative N4A 

Conventional would also be developed and implemented during operation and maintenance of the 

passenger rail service under this alternative. With these environmental health and safety plans and 

procedures, public health effects related to hazardous materials would be negligible. 

The locations of potential stations have not been fully defined for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail; however, it is possible that additional listed hazardous materials sites may be identified near 

the stations depending on their ultimate locations. Stations would be either newly constructed or 

renovations of existing stations. If stations require renovations, the effects would be the same as 

described for Alternative N4A Conventional. Newly constructed stations would require an additional 

analysis to determine conditions related to hazardous materials contamination in the vicinity of the 

station location.

3.21.4.4.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Air Quality 

Construction of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would potentially cause more emissions than 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail due to the additional grade-separated crossings. Section 3.1, Air 

Quality, indicates that construction of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would generate substantial 

air emissions in the region. Similar to Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, long-term exposure to 

pollutants and air toxics, especially the diesel particulate matter from construction equipment and 

vehicles that cause cancer, would not occur. Therefore, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have 

the potential to cause temporary and moderate health effects from construction. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-9 

At a regional level, operation emissions associated with Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be 

greatly reduced compared to No Build Alternative, as evaluated in Section 3.1, Air Quality. 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have a greater emission reduction than Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail due to the use of electric-powered trains and anticipated higher ridership. 

Conservatively, it is anticipated that Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have long-term 

negligible (benefit) effects to public health in the region. 

Similar to localized health effects discussed under Alternative N4A, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail

would be beneficial in reducing localized effects at locations with improved traffic conditions. In 

addition, because Alternative C4A High Speed Rail would not have direct emissions from the trains

(trains would be electric rather than diesel), localized health effects from train travel or train idling 

would not occur. However, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would have the potential to cause 

localized adverse effects near the stations where vehicles travel to and from and also idle at the 

stations. Detailed localized health effects of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be evaluated at 

the project level when project specific information becomes available. 

Groundwater Quality 

Potential effects on groundwater resources for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be the same 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would follow the same or similar 

route. The public health effects relating to groundwater would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Potential construction and operations effects associated with hazardous materials and known 

hazardous materials sites for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be the same as Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would follow the same or similar routes. 

Although station locations might vary, the same considerations related to renovations of existing 

stations and potential new stations identified for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would apply for 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. BMPs used during construction and operation of Alternative C4A 

High-Speed Rail would be the same as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and would provide the 

same mitigation functions with regard to hazardous materials. With implementation of BMPs, 

including environmental health and safety plans and procedures, public health effects related to 

hazardous materials would be negligible.

3.21.4.4.3 Alternative C4B Higher Speed Rail 

Air Quality 

Potential construction health effects associated with air quality for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed 

Rail would be similar to Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because the construction requirements 

and potential for exposure of sensitive populations to increased levels of air pollutants and air 

toxics would be similar. As such, health effects for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail during 

construction would be temporary and moderate. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-10 

Long-term health effects during operation of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be similar to

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail due to the use diesel powered trains but at a lower level due to 

the shorter alignment length and the anticipated lower ridership. Conservatively, it is anticipated 

that Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would have long-term negligible (benefit) effects to public 

health in the region. 

As detailed for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would utilize 

diesel locomotive engines and there is potential for local health effects to occur where vehicles and 

diesel trains idle for long periods of time near high concentrations of sensitive populations. For this 

service-level analysis, there is insufficient information to determine potential local health effects. 

Detailed localized health effects of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be evaluated at the 

project level when project-specific information becomes available.

Groundwater Quality 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail does not cross the Sole Source Aquifer recharge areas of the 

Edwards Aquifer. Therefore, construction and operations activities would have negligible effects on 

the aquifer, and public health effects relating to groundwater also would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Potential construction and operations effects associated with hazardous materials and known 

hazardous materials sites for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. BMPs and health and safety plans used during construction and 

operation of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as for Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail and would provide the same mitigation functions with regard to potential effects 

associated with hazardous materials. With implementation of environmental health and safety 

plans and BMPs, public health effects related to hazardous materials would be negligible. 

3.21.4.4.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Air Quality 

Potential construction effects to public health associated Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be 

similar to Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail because the construction requirements and potential for 

exposure of sensitive populations to increased levels of air pollutants and air toxics would be 

similar. Health effects of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be temporary and moderate. 

Section 3.1, Air Quality, indicates that air pollution emissions from Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

would be greatly reduced compared to No Build Alternative. Health effects anticipated with 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be the similar to Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, 

conservatively having long-term negligible (benefit) effects to the public health of the region. 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would utilize electric trains and be grade-separated; therefore, 

local health effects associated with train idling or vehicle idling at crossings would not occur. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-11 

However, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have the potential to cause localized effects near 

the stations. For this service-level analysis, there is insufficient information to determine potential 

local health effects. Detailed localized health effects of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be 

evaluated at the project level when project- specific information becomes available.

Groundwater Quality 

Potential effects on groundwater resources for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be the same 

as for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would follow the same or 

similar route. The public health effects relating to groundwater would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Potential construction and operations effects associated with hazardous materials and known 

hazardous materials sites for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be the same as for Alternative 

C4B Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would follow the same or similar route. BMPs 

used during construction and operation of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be the same as 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail and would provide the same mitigation functions with regard to 

potential effects associated with hazardous materials. With implementation of BMPs and 

environmental health and safety plans and procedures, public health effects related to hazardous 

materials would be negligible.

3.21.4.4.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Air Quality 

Potential health effects associated with Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail during construction 

would be similar to Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because the construction requirements and 

potential for exposure of sensitive populations to increased levels of criteria pollutants and air 

toxics would be similar. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail also has the same types of changes to 

existing crossings and the need for new crossings, as well as the ability to utilize some existing 

track as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Therefore, health effects associated with Alternative 

C4C Higher-Speed Rail during construction would be temporary and moderate.

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would have similar health benefits to the region as Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail, but with a slightly greater benefit due to the longer alignment and greater 

ridership. Conservatively, Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would have long-term regional 

negligible (benefit) effects to public health due to the reduced regional emissions. 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would utilize diesel locomotive engines. There is potential for 

local health effects to occur where vehicles and diesel trains idle for long periods of time near high 

concentrations of sensitive populations. For this service-level analysis, there is insufficient 

information to determine potential local health effects. Detailed localized health effects of 

Alternative C4C-Higher-Speed Rail would be evaluated at the project level when project- specific 

information becomes available.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-12 

Groundwater Quality 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail does not cross the Sole Source Aquifer recharge areas of the 

Edwards Aquifer. Therefore, construction and operation activities would have negligible effects on 

the aquifer, and public health effects relating to groundwater would also be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Potential construction and operations effects associated with hazardous materials and known 

hazardous materials sites for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Although station locations might vary, the same considerations 

related to renovations of existing stations and potential new stations identified for Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail would apply for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. BMPs and health and safety 

plans used during construction and operation of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would be the 

same as for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and would provide the same mitigation functions 

with regard to potential effects associated with hazardous materials. With these environmental 

health and safety plans and procedures, public health effects related to hazardous materials would 

be negligible. 

3.21.4.4.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Air Quality 

Potential construction effects associated with air quality for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would 

be similar to Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail because the construction requirements and potential 

for exposure of sensitive populations to increased levels of particulate matter and air toxics would 

be similar. Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail also has the need for new crossings, new tracks, and 

related infrastructure as Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Therefore, regional health effects 

associated with Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail during construction would be temporary and 

moderate. 

Operation of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would result in substantial emission reduction

compared to the No Build Alternative. Conservatively, it is anticipated that Alternative C4C HighSpeed Rail would have long-term regional negligible (benefit) during operation. 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would utilize electric trains and be grade-separated; therefore, 

localized health effects associated with train or vehicle idling at crossings would not occur. 

However, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have the potential to cause localized effects near 

the stations. For this service-level analysis, there is insufficient information to determine potential 

local health effects. Detailed localized health effects of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be 

evaluated at the project level when project-specific information becomes available. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-13 

Groundwater Quality 

Potential effects on groundwater resources for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be the same 

as for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would follow the same route. 

The public health effects relating to groundwater would be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Potential construction and operations effects associated with hazardous materials and known 

hazardous materials sites for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be the same as Alternative 

C4C Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would follow the same route. BMPs used during 

construction and operation of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be the same as Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail and would provide the same mitigation functions in regards to potential 

effects associated with hazardous materials. With these environmental health and safety plans and 

procedures, public health effects related to hazardous materials would be negligible.

3.21.4.5 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

3.21.4.5.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Air Quality 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would utilize existing railroad corridors (Alice to Corpus Christi), 

but also require construction of some new track and related infrastructure. Potential construction 

effects associated with air quality for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be the similar to the 

effects described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail because of the similar construction 

requirements and potential for exposure of sensitive populations to increased levels of particulate 

matter and air toxics. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have temporary and moderate 

effects. 

As discussed in Section 3.1, Air Quality, during operation, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail is 

expected to cause an increase in regional criteria pollutant emissions compared to the No Build 

Alternative. Because the operational emissions increase would primarily be from diesel train travel 

along the alignment, people who live near the rail corridors would only be exposed to limited 

emissions when trains are passing by. People who live farther away from the rail corridor would 

have minimal exposure to emissions from the trains. Therefore, it is anticipated that Alternative S4 

Higher-Speed Rail would have the potential to cause long-term moderate effects. 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would utilize diesel locomotive engines. There is potential for 

localized health effects at locations where diesel trains idle for long periods of time near high 

concentrations of sensitive populations. For this service-level analysis there is insufficient 

information to determine potential local health effects. Detailed localized health effects of 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be evaluated at the project level when project-specific 

information becomes available. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-14 

Groundwater Quality 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail does not cross the Sole Source Aquifer recharge areas of the 

Edwards Aquifer. Therefore, construction and operations activities would have negligible effects on 

the aquifer, and public health effects relating to groundwater would also be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

Potential construction and operations effects associated with hazardous materials and known 

hazardous materials sites for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail. BMPs used during construction and operation of Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail would be the same as for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and would provide the 

same mitigation functions with regard to potential effects associated with hazardous materials.

With implementation of BMPs and environmental health and safety plans and procedures, public 

health effects related to hazardous materials would be negligible.

3.21.4.5.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Air Quality 

The length of the Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail alignment is approximately one-third the length 

of the S4 Higher-Speed Rail and S6 High-Speed Rail alignments. Therefore, Alternative S6 HigherSpeed Rail would have lower construction emissions than the other Southern Section alternatives. 

Construction of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have the potential to cause moderate 

health effects.

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have a negligible reduction in emissions of particulate 

matter and carbon monoxide and slight increase of nitrogen oxides, as discussed in Section 3.1, Air 

Quality. Increases of nitrogen oxide emissions are mostly due to the use of diesel-powered trains 

and the extremely low baseline emissions of the No Build Alternative. As the emission increases 

would be spread along the rail alignment, exposure of people to air pollutants at any given location 

would be minimal. Therefore, negligible long-term health effects are anticipated to occur during 

operation. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would utilize diesel locomotive engines. There is potential for 

localized health effects at locations where diesel trains idle for long periods of time near high 

concentrations of sensitive populations. For this service-level analysis there is insufficient 

information to determine potential local health effects. Detailed localized health effects of 

Alternative S6- Higher-Speed Rail would be evaluated at the project level when project-specific 

information becomes available. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-15 

Groundwater Quality 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail does not cross the Sole Source Aquifer recharge areas of the 

Edwards Aquifer. Therefore, construction and operation activities would have negligible effects on 

the aquifer, and public health effects relating to groundwater would also be negligible. 

Hazardous Materials 

No effects to known hazardous materials sites would occur with Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

since hazardous materials sites were not identified within the associated EIS Study Area. Potential 

construction and operations effects associated with the handling, storage, and the use of 

hazardous materials for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as for Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail. Should a hazardous materials site be encountered during the construction of 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, the removal and disposal of hazardous materials would follow 

applicable federal and state regulations and effects would be negligible. Although station locations 

have not been identified for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, the same considerations related to 

renovations of existing stations and potential new stations identified for Alternative C4A HigherSpeed Rail would apply for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. BMPs used during construction and 

operation of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would be the same as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail and would provide the same mitigation functions with regard to potential effects from 

hazardous materials. Public health effects as a result of hazardous materials would be negligible. 

3.21.4.5.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Air Quality 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would require construction of new track and related infrastructure. 

Potential construction effects associated with air quality for Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would 

be the similar to those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail because the construction 

requirements and potential for exposure of sensitive populations to increased levels of particulate 

matter and air toxics. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have the potential to result in temporary 

and moderate health effects in the region. 

As discussed in Section 3.1, Air Quality, operation of Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would reduce

regional emissions at negligible to moderate levels. Therefore, it is anticipated that regional health 

benefits for Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be negligible. 

Groundwater Quality 

Potential effects on groundwater resources for Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be the same 

as for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail because both service types would follow the same route. 

The public health effects relating to groundwater would be negligible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-16 

Hazardous Materials 

Similar to Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, no effects to known hazardous materials sites would 

occur with Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail since hazardous materials sites were not identified within 

the associated EIS Study Area because both service types would follow the same route. BMPs used 

during construction and operation of Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would be the same as for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail and would provide the same mitigation functions with regard to 

potential effects from hazardous materials. Public health effects as a result of hazardous materials 

would be negligible. 

3.21.4.6 Summary of Potential Effects 

Table 3.21-1 provides a summary of the potential intensity of effects by alternative. 

Table 3.21-1. Summary of Public Health Effects by Alternative

Section Alternativea 

Potential 

Intensity of 

Effects - Air 

Quality (ShortTerm Effects) 

Potential 

Intensity of 

Effects – Air 

Quality (LongTerm Regional 

Effects) 

Potential 

Intensity of 

Effects - 

Groundwater 

Potential 

Intensity of 

Effects - 

Hazardous 

Materials 

Northern N4A CONV Negligible Negligible (benefit) Negligible Negligible

Central 

 

C4A HrSR Moderate Negligible (benefit) Negligible Negligible

C4A HSR Moderate Negligible (benefit) Negligible Negligible

C4B HrSR Moderate Negligible (benefit) Negligible Negligible

C4B HSR Moderate Negligible (benefit) Negligible Negligible

C4C HrSR Moderate Negligible (benefit) Negligible Negligible

C4C HSR Moderate Negligible (benefit) Negligible Negligible

Southern S4 HrSR Moderate Moderate Negligible Negligible

S6 HrSR Moderate Moderate Negligible Negligible

S6 HSR Moderate Negligible (benefit) Negligible Negligible

Note:

Localized effects to public health associated with air quality would be evaluated in subsequent project-level analyses.

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Future project-level analysis will identify more specific potential effects on public health based on a 

more advanced understanding of the project design in the three geographic sections. Avoidance 

and minimization of effects will be incorporated when feasible. If effects cannot be avoided or 

minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.21 Public Health

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.21-17 

Measures to avoid and minimize public health effects related to air quality during construction will 

be considered during project-level analysis and will include, but not be limited to, use of lowemissions vehicles during construction, use of newer and well-maintained equipment, and reducing traffic 

congestion emissions such as by using site-specific traffic management plans. Strategies for managing 

emissions from diesel trains during operation could include using Tier 4 locomotive engines and 

implementing additional measures to reduce diesel locomotive idling times. Locating the tracks, 

stations, and other supporting facilities away from populated areas and sensitive receptors would 

also minimize and reduce the potential exposure to air toxics from diesel combustion.

Measures to avoid and minimize public health effects related to groundwater contamination require 

the use of surface water runoff BMPs. Construction BMPs will be considered during project-level 

analysis and will include, but not be limited to, runoff diversion measures, level spreaders, and 

subsurface drains. Operation BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the use of wet and dry 

retention/detention ponds, vegetated swales and conveyance systems, adequate buffers around or 

adjacent to groundwater recharge areas, and the use of most up-to-date industry standards for 

addressing water quality (e.g., porous surfacing and pavement). 

The following mitigation measures and BMPs will be considered during project-level analysis to 

address public health effects related to hazardous materials:

 Use construction safety procedures, equipment stockpiling methods, material handling plans, 

and solid waste management procedures that protect human health and minimize hazardous 

materials releases during construction.

 Develop specific environmental health and safety plans and procedures that protect 

construction workers and surrounding communities. 

 Use personal protection, workplace monitoring, alternative designs, and evaluation of 

construction methods that limit the effect from contaminated materials.

 Follow applicable federal and state regulations for removal and disposal of hazardous 

materials, such as asbestos or lead-based paint, if such materials are encountered during 

building or structure renovation or demolition. 

Subsequent Analysis 

Localized health impacts of air toxics associated with the Build Alternatives will be performed 

during project-level analysis when project-specific information is available and will likely only be 

conducted where operations are determined to have the potential to substantially increase 

localized air toxic emissions. 

TBG092314012951SCO 

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.22-1 

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Section 102 (2)(C)(v) requires the analysis of 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources under Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Section 1502.16, Environmental Consequences. A resource commitment is considered 

irreversible when direct and indirect impacts from its use limit future use options. Irreversible 

commitments apply primarily to nonrenewable resources, such as cultural resources, and to 

resources that are renewable only over long periods of time, such as soil productivity, forest health, 

and energy resources such as fossil fuels. A resource commitment is considered irretrievable when 

the use or consumption of the resource is neither renewable nor recoverable for future use. 

Irretrievable commitments apply to loss of production and harvest. 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources could result from development of specific 

future projects within the Program. Each of the alternatives would require the commitment of 

material and energy for construction and operation, and the commitment of land for facilities and 

transportation infrastructure. As described in Chapter 2, Alternatives, the Program would require 

the dedication of land area and an investment in construction materials including rock, aggregate,

and steel. This section describes the implications on land-based resources, construction materials, 

and energy used. 

3.22.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

Irreversible and irretrievable impacts were evaluated in accordance with NEPA [42 United States 

Code § 4332(C)(v)] guidelines published by the White House Council on Environmental Quality 

regarding implementation of NEPA (40 CFR 1502.16) and the Federal Railroad Administration’s 

Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, Section 14(n)(10) Consumption of Energy, (11) 

Use of Natural Resources, and (22) Construction Impacts (64 Federal Register 28545, May 26, 

1999).

3.22.2 Methodology 

For this service-level analysis, design of the alternatives is conceptual; therefore, the amount of 

material or the land area needed to construct and operate the alternatives is not quantifiable. 

Although there are average dimensions and material quantification by typical guideway profiles 

(e.g., at-grade, elevated, retained-cut/trench), this service-level design phase does not yet define 

the profile. Therefore, the irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources to construct each 

alternative is best understood by discussing the different lengths of each alternative in combination 

with the different resources necessary by the rail service type (i.e., conventional, higher-speed rail, 

high-speed rail). Similarly, the details of irreversible impacts on environmental resources cannot be 

reported because this service-level evaluation does not determine the specific impact area, rather it 

reviews the presence of environmental resources within a 500-foot-wide environmental impact 

statement (EIS) Study Area for each alternative and determines the potential effects of the 

alternatives within the EIS Study Area. In reality, the right-of-way for each alternative could be as 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.22-2 

narrow as 50 feet in some areas of the trackway and require 500 feet or more around station 

areas. This evaluation is, therefore, a comparative discussion of likely environmental resources that 

would be irretrievably and irreversibly committed for conventional, higher-speed, and high-speed 

rail service types for each route alternative. Based on the commitment of these resources and the 

length of each alternative, the comparative use of irreversible and irretrievable resources is 

categorized as low, medium, or high for each alternative. For the reasons explained above, the low, 

medium, and high rankings are not defined in quantifiable terms for this service-level analysis. 

3.22.3 Affected Environment 

Section 3.1, Air Quality, through Section 3.20, Transportation, provide information on resources 

that may be disturbed or eliminated within the EIS Study Area, including farmland, wetlands, and 

wildlife habitat. Other resources would likely need to be acquired from outside the EIS Study Area, 

including material resources like steel, petroleum, natural gas, concrete materials, ballast rock, and 

wood. The locations of these resources are not ascertainable at this time, but would be considered 

during a subsequent project-level analysis.

3.22.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.22.4.1 No Build Alternative 

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program would not be implemented, and new commitments of

resources would not occur other than those that would occur for other projects in the EIS Study 

Area. Future energy resources would be consumed at a slightly higher rate by automobiles, buses, 

and airplanes under the No Build Alternative than under the build alternatives. 

3.22.4.2 Build Alternatives 

Commitment of Land and Resources 

The permanent use of land area is proportional to the length of the alternative. Permanent use of 

land would lead to the incremental displacement of critical habitat areas, farmland, historic

resources, community, and residential uses. Some critical habitats, such as wetlands, can be 

mitigated with replacement, while others are more difficult to replace and could incrementally 

affect wildlife species sustainability. Effects on residential and community buildings can be 

mitigated by relocation or reconstruction elsewhere, whereas historic structures and farmland 

cannot be replaced. Additionally, new rail infrastructure would increase the amount of impervious 

surface area, which could incrementally affect water percolation into the groundwater. 

Use of electric power or diesel fuel would be an irreversible commitment of resources to construct 

and/or operate the rail system. Construction would require the use of equipment and construction 

personnel who drive to the site. Most materials would be provided and delivered by truck or rail. 

These modes require use of nonrenewable fuels. In addition, diesel and electric-powered rail 

system alternatives would require the use of nonrenewable fuels. Texas and Oklahoma electric 

power generation predominantly uses natural gas or coal, but both Texas and Oklahoma have
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.22-3 

increased the use of renewable power sources to approximately 16 and 29 percent, respectively 

(see Section 3.10, Use of Energy Resources, for details) (U.S. Energy Information Administration

2015). As detailed in Section 3.10, operation of all the build alternatives would result in reduced 

demand for nonrenewable resources because of change in ridership from high-energy consumption 

modes of travel (i.e., automobile) to the lower energy mode – passenger rail. Electric rail service 

would result in the greatest benefits due to the switch from diesel to more efficient electricity. 

Use of Resources by Service Type 

Conventional Rail: Conventional rail is proposed only in existing rail corridors where passenger rail 

service can use existing rail lines or, in some cases, modifications (i.e., double-tracking) can be built 

within the existing right-of-way to accommodate additional trains. Because conventional rail would 

primarily use existing rail lines, the land area and materials required for implementation of this 

service type are expected to be minimal. Improvements could include straightening rail alignments, 

replacing existing rails, constructing a second track in some locations, improving communication 

systems, and upgrades to station areas. Nonrenewable materials needed to construct the 

improvements would include steel rail, ballast rock, and power for communication lines. Minor 

expansion of rights-of-way may be required in some areas. Because the objective of this service 

type is to use an existing rail line, conventional rail alternatives would not restrict access to other 

resources. 

Higher-Speed Rail: Higher-speed rail could operate within existing railroad rights-of-way with 

separate tracks for freight and passenger services, or within new alignments outside of existing 

transportation corridors. This service type could operate on a single track with passing locations 

and would not require double-tracking. Construction would require typical rail line development 

materials: engineered soil stabilizing subsurface, ballast rock, railroad ties, steel rail, 

communication lines, and materials typical for building station and parking areas (e.g., asphalt). 

The land area for the right-of-way is a nonrenewable resource that would be removed from 

development or farming activities. In some areas along the alignments, creation of right-of-way 

would affect other resources that are difficult to replace or cannot be replaced including wetlands, 

critical habitat, and historic resources. However, because the higher-speed rail alternatives would 

employ only a diesel option, these alternatives could interconnect with existing rail lines through 

urbanized areas to minimize new right-of-way acquisitions. 

High-Speed Rail: High-speed rail would use the largest amount of materials per mile of construction

because these alternatives require fully access-controlled alignments, along with double-tracking

for the entire corridor. In addition, safety requirements for trains operating at speeds of up to 220 

to 250 miles per hour would necessitate grade separation from roadway crossings. This would

result in modifications to existing infrastructure, in addition to constructing the rail system. The 

high-speed rail alternatives would involve the construction of multiple structures either to elevate or 

trench the track or to construct grade-separated roadway crossings. These structures require 

considerable amounts of aggregate, concrete, rebar, and steel materials. In addition, these 

structures require conversion of land uses to transportation rights-of-way. In some areas along the 
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.22-4 

alignments, creation of right-of-way would affect resources that are difficult to replace or cannot be 

replaced including wetlands, historic resources, and farmlands. Because high-speed rail can best 

compete with air service, its rail stations are expected to attract high ridership and require large 

land areas for station-related services (e.g., parking areas and passenger ticketing processing), 

which would also affect resources such as wetlands, farmlands, and historic structures. High-speed 

rail alignments must be as straight as possible and with only large-radii curves. The high-speed rail

alignments may not be able to closely follow existing transportation corridors and, therefore, would

require more land area than the other build alternatives. 

On a per-mile basis, conventional rail would require the least amount of irretrievable and 

irreversible commitment of resources, followed by higher-speed rail; high-speed rail would require 

the most resources. Table 3.22-1 provides a comparative summary of the use of irretrievable and 

irreversible commitment of resources based on the discussion above and considering the linear 

miles of each alternative. 

Table 3.22-1: Comparative Summary of Resource Use by Alternative

Alternative and Service Type Distance (miles) Comparative use of Resources 

Northern Section 

N4A Conventional Rail 280 Low 

Central Section 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail 368 Medium

C4A High-Speed Rail 368 High 

C4B Higher-Speed Rail 317 Medium

C4B High-Speed Rail 317 High 

C4C Higher-Speed Rail 428 High 

C4C High-Speed Rail 428 Higha

Southern Section 

S4 Higher-Speed Rail 416 High 

S6 Higher-Speed Rail 143 Medium

S6 High-Speed Rail 143 Mediumb

a Considering Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail covers more distance and also has greater effects on some 

irretrievable resources (such as historic resources and prime farmland) compared with the other higher-speed rail 

alternatives in the Central Section, the comparative use of resources is ranked higher for this alternative than for the 

other higher-speed rail alternatives in the Central Section. 

b Considering Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail covers less distance and also has less effect on some irretrievable 

resources (such as historic resources) compared with the other high-speed rail alternatives, the comparative use of 

resources is ranked lower for this alternative than for the other high-speed rail alternatives.
TBG092314012951SCO 

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 3.22-5 

3.22.5 Subsequent Analysis 

Future project-level analyses for the Program would identify irretrievable and irreversible 

commitments of resources, including, but not limited to, wetlands and water resources, materials 

used to build transportation facilities, right-of-way, energy resources, natural habitats, cultural 

resources, and land use. 

TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-1 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

This chapter discusses properties protected under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) Act and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) 

Act. 

A service-level environmental impact statement (EIS) may not have the level of detail available that 

is necessary to make final approvals on uses of protected Section 4(f) or 6(f) resources. Therefore, 

this discussion focuses on the potential use of these properties. Final decisions on specific location 

and design will be made at the project level, when more detailed information is available and 

specific properties can be evaluated. 

Data collection and analysis used a 500-foot-wide EIS Study Area (as described in the introduction 

to Chapter 3). Resources identified in the EIS Study Area are potentially eligible for protection under 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] 303) and/or Section 6(f) of 

the L&WCF Act of 1965. Section 3.17, Recreational Areas and Opportunities, and Section 3.18, 

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources, document the methods and 

data sources used to identify the Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources. 

4.1 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as amended, protects publicly owned park and recreation 

areas that are open to the general public, publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and 

publicly or privately owned historic sites of national, state, or local significance from acquisition and 

conversion to transportation use. The term “historic sites” includes prehistoric and historic districts, 

sites, buildings, structures or objects listed in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). This may also include places of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian 

tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that meet the National Register criteria. 

Section 4(f) Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 protects parks, recreation areas, and refuges that meet the 

following criteria: 

 Publicly owned: Public ownership, in relation to protected parks, recreation areas and refuges, 

refers to ownership by a local, state, or federal government agency. There are three types of 

public ownership:

- Fee simple ownership: The land is solely owned by a government entity for park, recreation, 

or refuge purposes. 

- Permanent easement for Section 4(f) purposes: The land is not necessarily owned by a 

government agency, but the agency possesses an easement for Section 4(f) activities.

- Lease agreement for Section 4(f) purposes: Similar to a public easement but with a lease 

agreement typically intended to be long term. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-2 

 Open to the public: A property that is open to the public is one where access is permitted to the 

entire public during normal hours of operation. A property would not be considered open to the 

public if access were permitted only to select groups. Wildlife and waterfowl refuges are an 

exception to this rule, as they may restrict public access either to sensitive areas or during 

certain times of the year for the protection of refuge habitat and/or species. Therefore, a 

publicly owned refuge would not have to provide unrestricted access to the public to be 

considered a Section 4(f) property. 

 Purposed primarily for park, recreation, or refuge activities: The major purpose is related to the 

property’s primary function and how it is intended to be managed. Parks and recreation areas 

typically offer a wide range of activities such as walking, hiking, or camping, as well as organized 

sports like soccer, softball or tennis. Parks can also be fairly passive in nature and may be 

designated open space without a specified recreational purpose. Refuges refer to properties 

that are formally part of the National Wildlife Refuge System or other publicly owned land 

(including waters), where the major purpose of such land is the conservation, restoration, or 

management of endangered species, their habitat, and other wildlife and waterfowl resources 

and their habitat.

 Parks, recreation areas, and refuges must be significant: The term “significant” means that in 

comparing the availability and function of the park, recreation area, or refuge with the park, 

recreation or refuge objectives of the agency, community, or authority, the property in question 

plays an important role in meeting those objectives at the national, state, or local level, except 

for certain multiple-use land holdings. Significance determinations are applicable to the entire 

property, not just to the portion of the property proposed for use by a project. A determination of 

significance is made in coordination with the official with jurisdiction, which is most commonly 

the agency that owns the property. Properties would be presumed significant in the absence of 

a determination by the official with jurisdiction. All determinations of significance are ultimately 

made by the federal lead agency, in this case, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

Unlike the other Section 4(f) property categories (parks, recreation areas, and refuges), historic 

sites (also called cultural resources) can be privately or publicly owned to qualify as a Section 4(f) 

property. A historic site is considered a Section 4(f) property if it is listed in or determined eligible 

for listing in the NRHP. Determinations of NRHP eligibility are typically completed through Section 

106 or Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

Examples of types of Section 4(f)-protected cultural resources include historic buildings, historic 

transportation facilities, archaeological sites, traditional cultural places, historic and archaeological 

districts, and historic trails. However, Section 4(f) applies to archaeological sites that are on or 

eligible for inclusion on the NRHP and that warrant preservation in place, but does not apply to 

those that are chiefly important because of what can be learned by data recovery. For purposes of 

this service-level evaluation, archaeological resources are not included because it is unknown 

which sites would warrant preservation in place.
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-3 

Use of Section 4(f) Resource 

The “use” of a Section 4(f)-protected property is prohibited for transportation purposes unless there 

are no prudent and feasible avoidance alternatives to that use. A project must also include all 

possible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources. Section 4(f) applies when a use of a 

protected property occurs. To determine whether Section 4(f) applies to the proposed project 

alternatives, Section 4(f) properties must be assessed to determine whether a use of the property 

is anticipated. The “use” of a protected Section 4(f) property, as defined in 23 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 774.17, occurs when any of the conditions discussed in the subsections below 

are met: 

 Permanent/Direct Use: A permanent use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when the property is 

permanently incorporated into a proposed transportation facility. This use may occur as a result 

of partial or full acquisition or a permanent easement allowing permanent access onto the 

property for maintenance or other transportation-related purposes. 

 Constructive Use: A constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when a transportation 

project does not permanently incorporate land from the resource, but the project’s proximity 

results in impacts so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify the 

property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. Substantial impairment 

occurs only if the protected activities, features, or attributes of the resource are substantially 

diminished.

 Temporary Occupancy: A temporary use of a Section 4(f) resource results when the Section 4(f) 

property is required for project construction-related activities, the property is not permanently 

incorporated into a transportation facility, and the activity is considered adverse by the agency 

with jurisdiction in terms of the preservation purpose of Section 4(f).

Determination of De Minimis Use 

When impacts to a Section 4(f) property are minor, as agreed to by the agency with jurisdiction over 

that property, Section 4(f) regulations can be satisfied through a de minimis determination. 23 CFR 

774.17 defines a de minimis impact as follows:

 For parks, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de minimis impact is one 

that would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes qualifying the property for 

protection under Section 4(f).

 For historical sites, de minimis impact means that the FRA has determined, in accordance with 

36 CFR 800, that no historical property would be affected by the project or the project would 

have “no adverse effect” on the property in question. The State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if involved, must be notified that the FRA

intends to enter a de minimis finding for properties where the project would result in no adverse 

effect. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-4 

 The officials with jurisdiction must concur in writing with a de minimis determination. For 

recreational or refuge properties, concurrence from the officials having jurisdiction over the 

properties is required. For historical sites, concurrence from the SHPO is required. 

Service-Level EIS Evaluation of Section 4(f) Potential Use 

The term Section 4(f) “potential use” acknowledges that the detail available at the service-level EIS 

phase is not adequate for a “use” determination for two reasons:

1. The design level is not detailed enough to determine property acquisition needs. 

2. Surveys to validate parks, recreation resources, and properties eligible for Section 106 

protection are not complete to verify that all section 4(f) properties have been considered in 

this evaluation. As with “potential Section 4(f) properties,” the term “potential uses” reflects 

an inclusive approach at this level. Any publicly available recreational resource, or any 

property identified as eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP within the 500-foot EIS 

Study Area, is considered protected under Section 4(f) and may result in a “potential use” 

for that alternative. 

4.2 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

Section 6(f) of the L&WCF Act of 1965 preserves, develops, and assures the quality and quantity of 

outdoor recreation resources through purchase and improvement of recreation lands, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, and similar resources. The L&WCF Act provides funding for the federal 

acquisition of park and recreation lands and matching grants for state and local governments. Once 

a property is purchased using these funds, these lands are protected from conversion to land uses 

other than public outdoor recreation uses.

A conversion of a Section 6(f)-protected property occurs when the property is converted to anything 

other than outdoor recreation. A conversion of use must be in accordance with an existing 

statewide outdoor recreation plan and must be approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior. If a 

conversion occurs, the land must be replaced with a property of equivalent value and usefulness. 

The only type of use recognized by Section 6(f) is a permanent incorporation. Constructive use or 

adverse impacts are not considered under Section 6(f), and temporary occupancy during 

construction is not considered a conversion if the property is restored to its original condition after 

construction. 

Typically, an incorporation of Section 6(f) property for project purposes would be considered a 

conversion or change in use; however, if the incorporation is necessary as part of a project that 

would directly enhance the recreational use of Section 6(f) property, such as improving access for 

visitors or emergency personnel, then the incorporation of land may not require a conversion 

because the incorporation would not change or diminish the recreational use of the property. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-5 

4.3 Potential Use by Alternative 

The Section 4(f) and 6(f) properties located within the EIS Study Area for each of the route 

alternatives are also identified in Section 3.17, Recreational Areas and Opportunities (see Tables 

3.17-1 through 3.17-3), and Section 3.18, Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural 

Resources (see Tables 3.18-2 through 3.18-4). The only difference between what is listed in 

Section 3.17 and the locations listed in this chapter, is that Section 4(f) is limited to resources that 

are open to the public. Figures 4-1 through 4-17 show the Section 4(f) and 6(f) properties within the 

EIS Study Area for the build alternatives. 

FRA cannot make a Section 4(f) determination at the service-level analysis because the information 

available at this time is not sufficiently detailed. This evaluation only indicates those resources 

where there may be a Section 4(f) use; however, in many situations, where the alternative’s 

alignment is removed from an existing railway, there is not enough design development to 

determine whether the use would be permanent, temporary, or constructive, and the evaluation 

does not identify uses that may be classified as de minimis impacts. Under Section 6(f), 

discussions of impacts address conversion of Section 6(f) properties from recreational use to nonoutdoor recreational use, which would occur through right-of-way acquisition or creation of 

permanent easements. Additional Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) properties would likely be identified 

at the project-level when detailed field surveys and evaluations would be conducted. Therefore, the 

following analysis presents potential uses of readily available Section 4(f) resources in the urban, 

suburban, and rural settings for each alternative. Where applicable, mitigation measures, such as 

those described in Section 4.7, Potential Mitigation Strategies, would be followed when avoidance 

and minimization of right-of-way acquisition or permanent easements are not prudent or feasible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-6 

Figure 4-1: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 1)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-7 

Figure 4-2: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 2)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-8 

Figure 4-3: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 3)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-9 

Figure 4-4: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 4)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-10 

Figure 4-5: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 5)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-11 

Figure 4-6: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 6)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-12 

Figure 4-7: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 7)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-13 

Figure 4-8: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 8)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-14 

Figure 4-9: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 9)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-15 

Figure 4-10: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas (Map 10)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-16 

Figure 4-11: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 1)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-17 

Figure 4-12: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 2)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-18 

Figure 4-13: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 3)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-19 

Figure 4-14: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 4)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-20 

Figure 4-15: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 5)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-21 

Figure 4-16: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 6)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-22 

Figure 4-17: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources (Map 7)
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-23 

Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 list the Section 4(f) and 6(f) park, refuge, and recreational resources and the 

Section 4(f) cultural resources identified, respectively, for Alternative N4A. 

Table 4-1: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas – Northern 

Section 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-1 

to 4-3) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long)b Alternative 

Acreage 

in EIS 

Study 

Area 

1 Canyon Park City Park X XX Oklahoma City 35.527614/-

97.522212

N4A CONV 3.37 

2 Topping Park City Park X XX Oklahoma City 35.526386/-

97.516755

N4A CONV 11.91

4 Bricktown 

Canal and 

Downtown 

Park

Urban 

Park and 

Art Area

X XX Oklahoma City 35.465113/-

97.511767 

N4A CONV 4.01

5 Riverside 

Walking and 

Bicycling 

Trail (north)

City Trail X XX Oklahoma City 35.449672/-

97.512624 

N4A CONV 0.20

6 Riverside 

Walking and 

Bicycling 

Trail (south)

City Trail X XX Oklahoma City 35.447811/-

97.512944 

N4A CONV 0.16

7 Bicycling and 

Walking Trail

City Trail X XX Oklahoma City 35.228972/-

97.449197

N4A CONV 0.11

12 Bicycling and 

Walking Trail

City Trail X City of Norman 35.42827/-

97.504311

N4A CONV 0.75

13 Legacy Park City Park 

and Trail

X City of Norman 35.21998/-

97.442875

N4A CONV 8.02

14 Andrews 

Park

City Park X City of Norman 35.22398/-

97.447841

N4A CONV 4.29

15 University of 

Oklahoma 

Brandt Park

City Park X University of 

Oklahoma 35.196319/-

97.443662 

N4A CONV 9.76

16 Jimmie 

Austin OU 

Golf Course

University 

Golf 

Course

X X University of 

Oklahoma 35.190076/-

97.429396 

N4A CONV 15.43

17 Oak Tree 

Park South

City Park X City of Norman 35.187735/-

97.423314

N4A CONV 4.53

19 Wacker Park City Park X City of Pauls 

Valley 34.748672/-

97.229205

N4A CONV 9.75

20 Santa Fe 

Depot 

Museum and 

Park

City 

Museum 

and Park

X City of Pauls 

Valley 34.741912/-

97.218958 

N4A CONV 0.93

25 Heritage 

Park

City Park X City of 

Gainesville 33.624681/-

97.140138

N4A CONV 3.32
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-24 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-1 

to 4-3) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long)b Alternative 

Acreage 

in EIS 

Study 

Area 

26 Jaycee Park City Park X City of 

Gainesville 33.622199/-

97.139449

N4A CONV 4.54

27 Pecan Creek 

Park

City Park X City of 

Gainesville 33.622609/-

97.138943

N4A CONV 0.27

28 Forsythe 

Transportatio

n Skate Park

City Park X City of 

Gainesville 33.620795/-

97.138608 

N4A CONV 0.01

29 Home Grown 

Hero Walking 

Trail

City Trail X City of 

Gainesville 33.616274/-

97.134062 

N4A CONV 0.49

31 Baseball and 

Softball 

Fields

Baseball 

and 

Softball

X City of Sanger 33.351165/-

97.166942 

N4A CONV 3.86

33 Eddie 

Deussen Jr. 

Park

City Park X City of Ponder 33.20457/-

97.287657 

N4A CONV 0.51

34 Bishop Park City Park X City of Justin 33.076447/-

97.296318

N4A CONV 1.79

36 Haslet

Community 

Park

City Park X X City of Haslet 32.973517/-

97.35198 

N4A CONV 0.40

37 Northwest 

Community 

Park

City Park X XX City of Fort 

Worth 32.892697/-

97.355036 

N4A CONV 7.95

39 KnowlesTowery 

Kiwanis Park

City Park X City of Saginaw 32.855598/-

97.361576 

N4A CONV 0.19

40 Trader Oak 

Park

City Park X XX City of Fort 

Worth 32.774533/-

97.331604

N4A CONV 1.03

41 Arnold Park City Park X XX City of Fort 

Worth 32.767855/-

97.329034

N4A CONV 1.48

42 Elm Street 

Park

City Park X XX City of Fort 

Worth 32.757206/-

97.326293

N4A CONV 0.28

43* Harmon Field 

Park and 

Trails

City Park 

and Trails

X X City of Fort 

Worth 32.755582/-

97.314229 

N4A CONV 7.54

44* Riverside 

Trails

City Trails X XX City of Fort 

Worth 32.758938/-

97.312293

N4A CONV 0.25

47* Veterans 

Memorial 

Park

City Park X City of Irving 32.81429/-

96.953049 

N4A CONV 1.01

48* Sowers 

Pioneer Park

City Park X City of Irving 32.81729/-

96.95297

N4A CONV 0.49

49* Trinity View 

Park

City Park X XX City of Dallas 32.810382/-

96.909802

N4A CONV 18.47

50* Campion 

Trail

City Park X XX City of Dallas 32.80922/-

96.90684

N4A CONV 0.03
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-25 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-1 

to 4-3) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long)b Alternative 

Acreage 

in EIS 

Study 

Area 

51* River Hills 

Park

City Park X XX City of Dallas 32.81944/-

96.90552

N4A CONV 0.55

52* Trinity River 

Greenbelt 

Park

City Trail X XX City of Dallas 32.802729/-

96.892373 

N4A CONV 6.07

53* Sleepy 

Hollow Park

City Park X XX City of Dallas 32.81399/-

96.86254

N4A CONV 0.15

55* Stemmons 

Park

City Park X XX City of Dallas 32.813988/-

96.862538 

N4A CONV 3.03

70* Martyr's Park City Park X XX City of Dallas 32.777792/-

96.820677

N4A CONV 0.34

* A resource that is also located within the EIS Study Area of an alternative in the Central Section. 

a “X” indicates that a property has been identified as a potential Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) property.

 “XX” indicates that the city has L&WCF monies for its city parks, trails, and/or recreation areas, but there is no

indication of where the funding was used; therefore, additional research is required.

b Lat/Long = latitude/longitude

CONV = conventional rail

Sources: Arlington Independent School District (2014); Arlington Parks and Recreation Department (2014); City of 

Dallas Parks and Recreation Department (2014); City of Oklahoma City (2014); Dallas Independent School District 

(2014); Eagle Mountain-Saginaw Independent School District (2014); Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (1987); 

FHWA (2014); Fort Worth Parks and Community Services Department (2014); GoogleEarth (1950 – 2014); Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Coalition (2014); National Park Service (NPS) (2014); NPS (2013); Northwest Independent 

School District (2014); Oklahoma City Educare (2014); River Legacy Foundation (2014); Southern Oklahoma 

Speedway (2014); Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) (2014a); TxDOT (2013); Texas Education Agency 

(2014); Texas Natural Resources Information System (2014); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2014); U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) (2014).

Note: Map ID #s are discontinuous to remain consistent with resources listed in Section 3.17, Recreational Areas and 

Opportunities.

Table 4-2: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources – Northern Section 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-11 

to 4-13) Resource Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

2a Edgemere Park Historic 

District Boundary

35.506391/-

97.514683 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV 0.08

2b Mesta Park and Heritage 

Hills Historic Districts

35.491974/-

97.513299 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV 0.02

2c Cain's Coffee Building 35.481417/-

97.512216 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-26 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-11 

to 4-13) Resource Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

2d Automobile Alley Historic 

District

35.478017/-

97.512497 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV 0

3a Sherman Machine and Iron 

Works Building

35.467844/-

97.511568 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

3b Stanford Furniture 

Company Building

35.466632/-

97.511862 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

4a J.I. Case Plow Works 

Building

35.465056/-

97.511883 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

13a Sooner Theater Building 35.221148/-

97.44321 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

13b Santa Fe Depot 35.219935/-

97.442915 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

14a Norman Historic District 35.219368/-

97.442376 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV 2.32

14b DeBarr Historic District 35.211839/-

97.43883 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV 8.05

18a US-77 Bridge at Canadian 

River

35.013743/-

97.356784 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

18b Purcell Train Station 35.011914/-

97.357282 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

20a Pauls Valley Historic 

District

34.740677/-

97.217449 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV 7.45

20b Arbuckle Historical 

Museum/Davis Santa Fe 

Depot

34.503615/-

97.121772 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

21a Ardmore Commercial 

District

34.171634/-

97.126091 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV 0.50

22a Santa Fe Depot 33.936708/-

97.116776 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

24a Saint Paul's Church 33.625971/-

97.141327 

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV Building

24b Santa Fe Passenger Depot 33.625011/-

97.140706 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

39a Fort Worth Stockyards 

Historic District

32.793943/-

97.343368 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV 0.46

41a Allen Chapel AME Church 32.758972/-

97.327524 

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV Building

42a* Montgomery Ward and 

Company Building

32.754014/-

97.326474 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-27 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-11 

to 4-13) Resource Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) 

NRHP 

Status Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

42b* Gulf, Colorado and Santa 

Fe Railroad Passenger 

Station

32.749161/-

97.324107 

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV Building

53a* Rock Island Railroad 

Bridge 

32.81315531/

-96.86163747 

NRHP-Eligible N4A CONV Building

54a* Turtle Creek Pump Station 32.80004162/

-96.81644069 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV Building

55a* West End Historic District 32.779764/ 

-96.809595 

NRHP-Listed N4A CONV 6.62

* A property that is also located within the EIS Study Area of an alternative in the Central Section.

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

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

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

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

(2005); Sanders and Tyler (1973); Schmelzer (2010); Selcer (2004); TxDOT (2014b); TxDOT (2014c); TxDOT 

(2014d); TxDOT (2014e); TxDOT (2014f); TxDOT and FRA (2014); Texas Historical Commission (2014); Wade (2010); 

Weaver (2007); Wilson (2007); Worcester (2010). 

There are 65 Section 4(f) properties within the Alternative N4A EIS Study Area, including 39 parks 

or recreational properties (see Table 4-1) and 26 historic resources (see Table 4-2). The Section 

4(f) properties are located largely in urban and suburban areas such as Oklahoma City, Dallas, and 

Fort Worth, although several are located in rural areas and smaller towns. Because Alternative N4A 

would be predominantly located within existing railroad right-of-way, there is little potential for 

permanent use of Section 4(f) properties, especially public parks and recreation areas such as the 

following: Map ID #13, 15, 16, 31, and 42, and cultural resources properties such as Map ID #2a, 

3a, 14a, and 42a (see Figures 4-1, 4-3, 4-11, and 4-13). Where limited new right-of-way and/or 

easements would be required, it is anticipated that Section 4(f) properties would be avoided. 

While most Section 4(f) properties along Alternative N4A would likely not be susceptible to use 

under Section 4(f), there is the potential for uses of transportation-related Section 4(f) properties, 

such as historic railroad depots (Figures 4-11, 4-12, and 4-13: Map ID #13b, 18b, 20b, 22a, 24b, 

and 42b) and historic bridges (Figures 4-11 and 4-13: Map ID #18a and 53a) within the EIS Study 

Area. Possible expansion and reconstruction of railroad Section 4(f) depots and bridges may be 

required to accommodate increased ridership and new tracks. It is anticipated that potential uses 

of these railroad Section 4(f) properties could be avoided or minimized during the project-level 

design. If uses of Section 4(f) properties cannot be avoided or minimized, it is anticipated that 

mitigation measures, as described in Section 4.7, Potential Mitigation Strategies, would be 

followed. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-28 

Construction of Alternative N4A may require temporary detours or short-term closures of Section 

4(f) properties, including trails that are within or traverse existing railroad right-of-way (see Figures 

4-1, 4-2, and 4-3: Map ID #5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 29, 43, 44, and 52), parks that are outside the railroad 

right-of-way but within the EIS Study Area (Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3: Map ID #19, 27, 33), or a 

public golf course (Figure 4-1: Map ID #16). The project-level EIS and further design refinement 

would be needed to determine if a potential temporary occupancy would occur for these properties. 

There are three identified Section 6(f) properties in the EIS Study Area of Alternative N4A: a golf 

course (Map ID #16) and two city parks (Map ID #36 and 43), as shown on Figures 4-1 and 4-3. 

These three properties are not located within existing railroad right-of-way, and limited right-of-way 

or easements may be required for Alternative N4A such that these Section 6(f) properties would be 

avoided. As a result, it is unlikely that the acquisition of land from these Section 6(f) properties 

would be required. 

Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Tables 4-3 and 4-4 list the Section 4(f) and 6(f) park, refuge, and recreational resources and the 

Section 4(f) cultural resources identified, respectively, in the Central Section. Potential uses in the 

Central Section between Hillsboro and San Antonio are the same for all of the alternatives because 

they would follow the same alignment in this area. 

Table 4-3. Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas – Central 

Section 

Map ID # 

(Figures 

4-3 to 4-6) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

43* Harmon 

Field Park 

and Trails

City Park 

and Trails

X X City of Fort 

Worth

32.755582/-

97.314229

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

7.54

44* Riverside 

Trails

City Trails X XX City of Fort 

Worth

32.758938/-

97.312293 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.25

47* Veterans 

Memorial 

Park

City Park X City of Irving 32.81429/-

96.953049 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

1.01

48* Sowers 

Pioneer 

Park

City Park X City of Irving 32.81729/-

96.95297 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.49

49* Trinity View 

Park

City Park X XX City of 

Dallas

32.810382/-

96.909802 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

18.47
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-29 

Map ID # 

(Figures 

4-3 to 4-6) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

50* Campion 

Trail

City Park X XX City of 

Dallas

32.80922/-

96.90684 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.03

51* River Hills 

Park

City Park X XX City of 

Dallas

32.81944/-

96.90552 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR 

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.55

52* Trinity River 

Greenbelt 

Park

City Trail X XX City of 

Dallas

32.802729/-

96.892373 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

6.07

53* Sleepy 

Hollow Park

City Park X XX City of 

Dallas

32.81399/-

96.86254 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.15

55* Stemmons 

Park

City Park X XX City of 

Dallas

32.813988/-

96.862538

C4A HSR 

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

3.03 

56 Gateway 

Park

City Park X XX City of Fort 

Worth

32.798784/-

96.817144

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

22.88

59 Randol Mill 

Park

City Park X City of 

Arlington

32.7606/-

97.152959

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

15.45

64 Fish Creek 

Linear Park 

(East)

City Park 

Trail

X City of 

Grand 

Prairie

32.758783/-

97.067868 

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

1.67

65 Fish Creek 

Linear Park 

(West)

City Park 

Trail

X City of 

Arlington

32.661048/-

97.062882 

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

1.49

66 Loyd Park City Park X City of 

Grand 

Prairie

32.661782/-

97.062126 

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

41.98

69 Trinity River 

Greenbelt 

Park

City Park X XX City of 

Dallas

32.776803/-

96.8682 

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

19.94

70* Martyr's 

Park

City Park X XX City of 

Dallas

32.777792/-

96.820677 

C4A HSR 

and C4A 

HrSR 

C4B HSR

and C4B 

HrSR 

C4C HSR 

and C4C 

HrSR

0.34

0.89 

1.81

71 Dealey 

Plaza Park

City Park X XX City of 

Dallas

32.778878/-

96.810691 

C4A HSR

and

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

and 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

and

C4C HrSR

0.70

0.1 

0.7
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-30 

Map ID # 

(Figures 

4-3 to 4-6) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

72 Reunion 

Park

City Park X XX City of 

Dallas

32.778177/-

96.808544 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

1.25

73 Fruitdale 

Park

City Park X XX City of 

Dallas

32.77309/-

96.807441 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

1.46

75 Bear Creek 

Nature Park

City Park X City of 

Lancaster 32.577623/-

96.761461 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

26.84

78 Richards 

Park

City Park X City of 

Waxahachie

32.418699/-

96.855072 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR 

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

3.88

79 Waxahachie 

Creek Hike 

and Bike 

Trail

City Trail X City of 

Waxahachie

32.385806/-

96.854972 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR 

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

5.18

80 Lions Park City Park X City of 

Waxahachie

32.382484/-

96.85065 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR 

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

2.86

81 Playground Playground 

and Park

X City of West 32.368438/-

96.840974 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

2.05

83 Baseball 

fields 

Baseball 

fields 

X City of West 31.813805/-

97.089789 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

2.64

85 Lions Park Baseballsoftball 

fields 

X City of 

Bellmead 

31.600162/-

97.094003 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

1.01

87 Riverwalk Public trail X City of Waco 31.558662/-

97.117195 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.17

88 Fort Fisher 

Park

City Park X City of Waco 31.556447/-

97.118737 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

9.20
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-31 

Map ID # 

(Figures 

4-3 to 4-6) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

92 Jefferson 

Park

City Park X City of 

Temple 

31.21018/-

97.312238 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.19

93 Optimist No. 

1 Field

Soccer 

Field

X City of 

Temple 

31.120739/-

97.342771 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

2.15

94 Woodson 

Field

Soccer 

Field

X City of 

Temple 

31.112342/-

97.345396 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

1.52

95 Whistle-stop 

Playground

Playground X City of 

Temple 

31.103591/-

97.347765 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

2.39

96 Santa Fe 

Gardens 

Urban Park X City of 

Temple 

31.097609/-

97.347606 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR 

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

6.31

97 Willis Creek 

Park

USACE 

Park

X USACE 31.095684/-

97.345133 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

22.12

98 Wilson H. 

Fox Park

USACE 

Park

X USACE 30.649001/-

97.432165 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

40.90

99 Southeast 

Burkett 

Street Park

City Park X City of 

Taylor

30.642064/-

97.429926 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

3.84

100 Walter E. 

Long Metropolitan Park

City Park X City of 

Austin

30.573323/-

97.403554 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

30.29
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-32 

Map ID # 

(Figures 

4-3 to 4-6) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

101 Richard 

Moya Park

County 

Park

X X Travis 

County

30.292655/-

97.577155 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

11.31

103 McClain 

Park

City Park X XX City of San 

Antonio

29.908734/-

97.704742 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

23.30

104 Friensenhahn ParkCity Park X XX City of San 

Antonio

29.589338/-

98.388303 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

5.02

106 McAllister 

Park/Time 

Warner 

Cable Park

Baseballsoftball 

fields 

X X City of San 

Antonio

29.567232/-

98.417327 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

7.98

108 Salado 

Creek 

Greenway 

Public trail X X City of San 

Antonio

29.547395/-

98.434785 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR 

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

10.84

110 Olmos 

Basin Golf 

Course

Public golf 

course

X City of San 

Antonio

29.502553/-

98.479436 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

8.89

111 Olmos 

Basin 

Baseball 

Fields

Athletic 

fields 

X XX City of San 

Antonio

29.496595/-

98.482744 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

31.33

113 Kenwood 

Park

City Park X XX City of San 

Antonio

29.48614/-

98.48898 

C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR 

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

4.23

171 Hallmark 

Park

City Park X XX City of Fort 

Worth

32.63757/-

97.33356

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

12.97

172 Parks of 

Deer Creek 

Park

City Park 

and Trails

X XX City of Fort 

Worth

32.60456/-

97.32922 

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.65
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-33 

Map ID # 

(Figures 

4-3 to 4-6) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

174 Mistletoe 

Hill Park

City Park X City of 

Burleson

32.56968/-

97.32425

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

1.70

175 Bailey Lake City Park 

and Lake

X City of 

Burleson

32.5292/-

97.31995

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

6.64

* A resource that is also located within the EIS Study Area of an alternative in the Northern Section. 

a “X” indicates that a property has been identified as a potential Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) property.

 “XX” indicates that the city has L&WCF Act monies for its city parks, trails, and/or recreation areas, but there is no 

indication of where the funding was used; therefore, additional research is required. 

Note: Map ID #s are discontinuous to remain consistent with resources listed in Section 3.17, Recreational Areas 

and Opportunities.

HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

Sources: Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Independent School District (2014); Bruceville-Eddy Independent School District 

(2014); Bryan McClain Park (2014); FHWA (1987); FHWA (2014); Grand Prairie Independent School District (2014); 

Grand Prairie Parks and Recreation Department (2014); Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition (2014); La 

Vega Independent School District (2014); NPS (2014); NPS (2013); River Legacy Foundation (2014); St. Mark 

Catholic Youth Organization (2014); San Antonio Gun Club (2014); San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department 

(2014a); San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department (2014b); TxDOT (2014a); TxDOT (2013); Texas Education 

Agency (2014); Texas Natural Resources Information System (2014); Travis County Parks (2014); Troy Independent 

School District (2014); USFWS (2014); USGS (2014).

Table 4-4: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources – Central Section 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-13 to 

4-15) Resource Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

Acreage in EIS 

Study Area 

42a* Montgomery Ward and 

Company Building

32.754014/-

97.326474 

NRHP-Listed C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

42b* Gulf, Colorado and Santa 

Fe Railroad Passenger 

Station

32.749161/-

97.324107 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

53a* Rock Island Railroad 

Bridge 

32.813155/ 

-96.86163747

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

54a* Turtle Creek Pump Station 32.80004162/ 

-96.81644069 

NRHP-Listed C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-34 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-13 to 

4-15) Resource Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

Acreage in EIS 

Study Area 

55a* West End Historic District 32.779764/ 

-96.809595 

NRHP-Listed C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

6.62

55b Dealey Plaza Historic 

District

32.777795/ 

-96.808461 

NRHP-Listed C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.01

63a Hollandale Historic 

District 

32.729643/ 

-97.061774 

NRHP-Eligible C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

5.14

63b Vought Manor Historic 

District

32.728696/ 

-97.063174 

NRHP-Eligible C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

5.49

71a Dallas Union Terminal 32.775551/-

96.807861 

NRHP-Listed C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.01

72a Houston Street Viaduct 32.772899/-

96.806363 

NRHP-Listed C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

0.73

72b Cadiz Street Overpasses 

and Underpasses

32.769924/-

96.801424 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

72c Proctor & Gamble 

Manufacturing Complex

32.753842/-

96.776522 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

2.82

76a Ellis County Centennial 

Marker

32.485029/-

96.826991 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

78a Ellis County Courthouse 

Historic District

32.382978/-

96.85001 

NRHP-Listed C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

8.35

79a Rogers Street Bridge 32.383049/-

96.850799 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

80a Joe E. Turner House 32.172866/-

97.091881 

NRHP-Listed C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

Building

88a First Street Cemetery 31.554133/-

97.119649 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-35 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-13 to 

4-15) Resource Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

Acreage in EIS 

Study Area 

89a 10th Street Bridge at 

Waco Creek

31.54413/-

97.125817 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

89b Elite Café 31.524688/-

97.132976 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

90a Eddy 3rd Street Historic 

District

31.295173/-

97.253128 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

1.21

90b 1st National Bank 31.295113/-

97.252987 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

102a Withers House 29.870877/-

97.727332 

NRHP-Listed C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

113a International & Great 

Northern Railroad 

Passenger Station

29.427047/-

98.505634 

NRHP-Listed C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

113b Capt. Jose Antonio 

Menchaca Centennial 

Marker

29.413923/-

98.510497 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

113c Jose Antonio Navarro 

Centennial Marker

29.413902/-

98.510578 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

113d Col. Jose Francisco Ruiz 

Centennial Marker

29.413871/-

98.510541 

NRHPListed/RTHLC4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

Building
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-36 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-13 to 

4-15) Resource Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

Acreage in EIS 

Study Area 

C4C HrSR

113e Don Juan Ximenes 

Centennial Marker

29.41385/-

98.510632 

NRHP-Eligible C4A HSR

C4A HrSR

C4B HSR

C4B HrSR

C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

171a South Main Street 

Overpass

32.723962/-

97.32639 

NRHP-Eligible C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

171b J.W. Hall House 32.705324/-

97.329210 

NRHP-Eligible C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

171c Ullman/Bungee Elevators 32.694673/-

97.329103 

NRHP-Eligible C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

175a 609 Hawkins Street 

Resident 

32.002807/-

97.132713 

NRHP-Eligible C4C HSR 

C4C HrSR

Building

* Resource is also located within the EIS Study Area of an alternative in the Northern Section.

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

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

NETROnline (2014); Richardson et al. (2005); TxDOT (2014b); TxDOT (2014e); TxDOT (2014f); TxDOT and FRA 

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

4.3.2.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

There are 64 Section 4(f) properties within the EIS Study Area of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, 

including 40 parks or recreational properties (Table 4-3) and 24 historic resources (Table 4-4). The 

densest concentration of Section 4(f) properties is located in the urban and suburban development 

near the northern and southern termini of this alternative, largely within the Fort Worth, Dallas, and 

San Antonio metropolitan areas and suburbs. In these urban and suburban areas, Alternative C4A

would be located within existing railroad right-of-way and new construction outside the existing 

right-of-way would likely be directly adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks. Therefore, 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would require limited new right-of-way or easements in the Fort 

Worth, Dallas, and San Antonio metropolitan areas and suburbs. While most of the Section 4(f) 

properties in the Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail EIS Study Area would likely not be susceptible 

to use under Section 4(f), there is the potential for impacts on railroad Section 4(f) properties 

including historic railroad depots (Map ID #42b, 71a, 113a) and bridges (Map ID #79a, 89a), as 

shown on Figures 4-13, 4-14, and 4-15. It is anticipated that, in most cases, right-of-way acquisition 

or permanent easements from Section 4(f) properties could be avoided or minimized, making a de 

minimis determination possible. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-37 

In rural areas and small towns in the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, the 

alignment would be outside the existing right-of-way, and due to the potential need for right-of-way 

and/or permanent and temporary construction easements, there is potential for use of Section 4(f) 

properties. The Section 4(f) properties in these areas include publicly owned parks (Map ID #75, 

78, 80, 81, and 97), playing fields (Map ID #85, 93, and 94), trails (Map ID #79), individual historic 

properties (such as Map ID #88a and 102a), and historic districts (Map ID #90a), as shown on 

Figures 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-14, and 4-15. Because there is more space in rural areas to avoid 

properties, it is anticipated that acquisitions and easements would be avoided or minimized at the 

project-level, resulting in a Section 4(f) de minimis determination.

Stations and their associated parking facilities along Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail have the 

potential for use of Section 4(f) properties within urban areas due to possible alteration, relocation, 

and demolition of existing historically significant Section 4(f) railroad depots. Several existing 

stations, including the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe Passenger Station (Map ID #42b), the Dallas 

Union Terminal (Map ID #71a), and International & Great Northern Passenger Station (Map ID

#113a), shown on Figures 4-13 and 4-15, have the potential for use. Construction techniques 

would include the Secretary of Interior’s standards for rehabilitation. If use of Section 4(f) depots 

cannot be avoided, mitigation measures, as discussed in Section 4.7, Potential Mitigation 

Strategies, would be implemented. It is anticipated that use of other types of Section 4(f) properties 

in urban areas could be avoided or minimized during station site selection and as part of projectlevel design. While increased or additional parking facilities may also be required, it is anticipated 

that parking facilities would be designed to avoid railroad and other Section 4(f) properties. In 

suburban and rural areas, it is anticipated that locations where new stations would be constructed 

would not likely require use of Section 4(f) properties. Suburban and rural areas feature more 

available space than dense urban areas; as a result, Section 4(f) properties would likely be avoided 

or use would be minimized during site selection.

There are three Section 6(f) properties in this EIS Study Area that are also considered Section 4(f) 

properties: Harmon Field Park and Trails in Fort Worth (Map ID #43), Richard Moya Park in Travis 

County (Map ID# 101), and McAllister Park/Time Warner Cable Park in San Antonio (Map ID #106), 

as shown on Figures 4-3, 4-5, and 4-6. Use of the two urban parks in Fort Worth and San Antonio 

could likely be avoided or minimized because the alternative in these areas would be within or 

directly adjacent to existing transportation alignments. However, Alternative C4A would be outside 

existing transportation alignments in Travis County and would bisect Richard Moya Park (Figure 4-5: 

Map ID #101). It is anticipated that the project-level design of Alternative C4A would avoid use of 

this property, but if Richard Moya Park cannot be avoided, the amount of right-of-way acquisition 

from this property would be minimized, and the minimization efforts would be documented during 

Section 6(f) coordination with the Department of Interior. 

4.3.2.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

There are 64 Section 4(f) properties in the EIS Study Area of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail: 40 

parks or recreational properties (Table 4-3) and 24 historic resources (Table 4-4). Because it is a 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-38 

high-speed rail service type, this alternative would be constructed on new alignment and as a result 

may require new right-of-way acquisition, permanent easements, temporary easements, and 

possible demolition of buildings and structures on Section 4(f) properties. 

Due to dense development in the metropolitan areas of Fort Worth, Dallas, and San Antonio, 

avoidance of Section 4(f) properties in the EIS Study Area may be difficult at the project level. For 

example, use of portions of the Olmos Basin Golf Course (Map ID #110) in San Antonio would likely 

be required where the alternative traverses the golf course. Use of portions of Fort Fisher Park (Map 

ID #88) in Waco would likely be required where the alternative passes through downtown Waco 

(see Figures 4-4 and 4-6). Areas within or directly adjacent to historic districts, such as the West

End Historic District (Map ID #55a) in Dallas, Dealey Plaza Park (Map ID #71) in Dallas, and the 

Ellis County Courthouse Historic District (Map ID #78a) in Waxahachie, as shown on Figure 4-13, 

have a high potential for use through acquisition, permanent easements, and/or temporary 

easements. If avoidance of Section 4(f) properties in urban areas is not possible, it is anticipated 

that right-of-way acquisitions, permanent easements, and temporary easements would be 

minimized where possible, creating only de minimis use of Section 4(f) properties. 

The potential for use of Section 4(f) properties in suburban areas exists due to the need for new 

right-of-way, easements, and grade-separated structures associated with this alternative. Several 

school playgrounds, public parks, city trails, and historic properties are located within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail (Map ID #75, 76a, 79, 80, 81, and 95, as shown on 

Figures 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-13). Suburban areas typically feature more open space than dense 

urban environments do, which may enable more flexibility to avoid these Section 4(f) properties at 

the project level. However, because the high-speed rail service type requires gradual vertical and 

very large horizontal curve changes, avoidance of use in suburban areas may not be possible. 

Because few rural Section 4(f) properties were identified at the service level, construction of 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would not be likely to require use of Section 4(f) properties, such 

as the Wilson H. Fox Park (Map ID #98) and the historic Withers House (Map ID #102a) in Caldwell 

(see Figures 4-5 and 4-15). If use of these properties is required at the project level, it is 

anticipated that the alternative would be modified to avoid or minimize right-of-way acquisition, 

permanent easements, and temporary easements. Although high-speed rail construction requires 

large horizontal curves, the availability of large areas of undeveloped land in rural areas would 

allow the possibility of avoidance and minimization at the project level. 

Stations and their associated parking facilities along Alternative C4A HSR have the potential for use 

of Section 4(f) properties within urban areas. Because the high-speed rail service type typically 

requires the construction of new station facilities or extensive alterations to existing facilities, it is 

possible that construction of this alternative could result in the use of Section 4(f) historic 

properties within the EIS Study Area. It is anticipated that these stations would be located in dense 

urban areas, where land availability is typically limited. As a result, several existing stations, 

including the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe Passenger Station (Map ID #42b), the Dallas Union 

Terminal (Map ID #71a), and International & Great Northern Passenger Station (Map ID #113a), 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-39 

shown on Figures 4-13 and 4-15, have the potential for use. It is possible that construction of 

stations along this alternative would result in the alteration, relocation, or demolition of these 

historic Section 4(f) properties. In suburban areas, it is anticipated that locations where new 

stations would be constructed would not be likely to require use of Section 4(f) properties due to 

the availability of other land. While increased or additional parking facilities may also be required in 

urban and suburban areas, it is anticipated that construction of parking facilities would avoid 

Section 4(f) properties during the project-level design. Finally, it is likely that use of Section 4(f) 

properties in rural areas for construction of new stations would be unlikely because there is 

available vacant land, and Section 4(f) properties would likely be avoided during site selection. 

There are three Section 6(f) properties within the EIS Study Area of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

that are also considered Section 4(f) properties: Harmon Field Park and Trails in Fort Worth (Map ID

#43), Richard Moya Park in Travis County (Map ID #101), and McAllister Park/Time Warner Cable 

Park in San Antonio (Map ID #106), as shown on Figures 4-3, 4-5, and 4-6. Use of the two urban 

parks in Fort Worth and San Antonio may be difficult to avoid because they would be located in 

dense urban environments where there is limited available space for a railroad corridor on new 

alignment. As shown on Figure 4-5, the alternative would bisect Richard Moya Park (Map ID #101). 

Because of its location in a rural part of Travis County, it is anticipated the alternative would be 

refined at the project level to avoid right-of-way acquisition from this park. However, it is possible 

that avoidance of Richard Moya Park may not be feasible because high-speed rail alternatives 

require gradual vertical curve changes. 

Because there are so few Section 6(f) properties in the EIS Study Area of Alternative C4A HighSpeed Rail, construction of new stations in urban, suburban, and rural areas is unlikely to require 

conversion of Section 6(f) properties. It is anticipated that Section 6(f) properties would be avoided 

during the selection of sites for new stations and associated parking lots. 

4.3.2.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

There are 50 Section 4(f) properties in the EIS Study Area of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail: 32 

parks or recreational properties (Table 4-3) and 18 historic resources (Table 4-4). In the urban 

areas of Fort Worth, Dallas, and San Antonio Metropolitan areas, most of the alternative alignment 

would follow existing railroad or roadway rights-of-way, such as IH-30 and SH-360. The only 

exception is a short, new portion of the alternative east of downtown Fort Worth. Otherwise, within 

urban and suburban locations, new construction would likely be within or directly adjacent to 

existing transportation corridors, requiring less new right-of-way or fewer easements than new 

alignment segments. 4(f) properties have the greatest potential for use, specifically in Fort Worth 

and Dallas, if new right-of-way or easements are required, such as from the West End Historic 

District (Map ID #55a) and Dallas Union Terminal (Map ID #71a), shown on Figure 4-13. 

Furthermore, where existing railroad right-of-way would be used, railroad-related historic properties, 

including historic railroad depots and bridges (Map ID #42b, 53a, 71a, and 72a, shown on 

Figure 4-13), would have potential for use under Section 4(f). 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-40 

In suburban areas where new alignments may be necessary, it is anticipated that there would be 

potential use of Section 4(f) properties. The greatest potential for use would be if new right-of-way 

or permanent and/or temporary easements are required from Section 4(f) properties in suburban 

areas such as Arlington and Grand Prairie in the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan area; 

resources in these areas include Randol Mill Park (Map ID #59), Hollandale Historic District (Map ID

#63a), Vought Manor Historic District (Map ID #63b), and West Fish Creek Linear Park (Map ID 

#65), as shown on Figures 4-3 and 4-13. There is also potential for use when the alternative would 

be constructed within existing railroad right-of-way where there are railroad- Section 4(f) properties, 

such as the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe Depot (Map ID #42b, shown on Figure 4-13). 

In rural areas and small towns, Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would generally be constructed 

on new alignment outside of existing transportation corridors. In such areas there is more space 

available to avoid properties, making use of Section 4(f) properties unlikely. As shown on Figures 

4-4, 4-5, 4-14, and 4-15, Section 4(f) properties in rural areas and small towns include publicly 

owned parks (Map ID #97 and 101), playing fields (Map ID #85, 93, and 94), individual historic 

properties (Map ID #80a, 88a, and 102a), and historic districts (Map ID #90a). The permanent use 

of Section 4(f) properties in these areas could occur through the acquisition of new right-of-way and 

permanent easements; however, it is anticipated that the alternative could be modified at the 

project level to avoid or minimize use of these Section 4(f) properties, resulting in a determination 

of de minimis use. Potential use and avoidance of Section 4(f) properties related to stations and 

associated parking facilities for this alternative would be the same as described above for 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail.

The potential impacts on and avoidance of the three 6(f) properties in the EIS Study Area for this 

alternative are identical to those described for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Because there 

are so few Section 6(f) properties in the EIS Study Area of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail, it is 

anticipated that the properties would be avoided during project-level design. 

4.3.2.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

There are 50 Section 4(f) properties in the EIS Study Area of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail: 32 

parks or recreational properties (Table 4-3) and 18 historic resources (Table 4-4). Because it is a 

high-speed rail service type, this alternative would be constructed on new alignment and as a result 

may require new right-of-way acquisition, permanent easements, temporary easements, and 

possible demolition of buildings and structures on Section 4(f) properties. 

Potential use and avoidance of Section 4(f) properties primarily adjacent to existing transportation 

right-of-way within the major metropolitan areas of Fort Worth, Dallas, and San Antonio, including 

Map ID #110, 88, 55a, 71, and 78a, shown on Figures 4-3, 4-4, 4-6, and 4-13, would be the same 

as described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. 

Use of Section 4(f) properties in suburban areas could include school playgrounds, public parks, 

city trails, and historic properties (Map ID #63a, 63b, 64, 65, and 66, shown on Figures 4-3 and 4-

13). Suburban areas typically feature more open space than dense urban environments do, which 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-41 

may enable more flexibility at the project level to avoid these Section 4(f) properties. Potential use 

and avoidance of rural Section 4(f) properties and of Section 4(f) properties related to stations and 

associated parking facilities in urban and suburban areas for this alternative would be the same as 

described above Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.

The potential impacts on, avoidance of, and documentation of the three Section 6(f) properties in 

the EIS Study Area for this alternative are identical to those described for Alternative C4A HighSpeed Rail. It is anticipated that construction of new stations in urban, suburban, and rural areas 

would not be likely to use Section 6(f) properties in the EIS Study Area because they would be 

avoided during site selection. If the conversion of Section 6(f) park land associated with the 

construction of new stations and parking facilities cannot be avoided, the amount of right-of-way 

required from this property would be minimized, and minimization efforts would be documented for 

the Department of Interior. 

4.3.2.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

There are 72 Section 4(f) properties within the EIS Study Area of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail: 

44 parks or recreational properties (Table 4-3) and 28 historic resources (Table 4-4). The densest 

concentration of urban and suburban development and Section 4(f) properties is located near the 

northern and southern termini of this alternative, largely within the Fort Worth, Dallas, and San 

Antonio metropolitan areas and suburbs. In these areas, the alternative would be located within 

existing railroad right-of-way and new construction outside the existing right-of-way would likely be 

directly adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks. Therefore, the alternative would require 

limited new right-of-way or easements in the Fort Worth, Dallas, and San Antonio metropolitan 

areas and suburbs. It is anticipated that right-of-way acquisition or permanent easements from 

Section 4(f) properties could be avoided or minimized, making a de minimis determination possible. 

In urban and suburban areas where existing railroad right-of-way would be used, there is the 

potential for use of railroad-related Section 4(f) properties, including historic railroad depots (Map 

ID #42b, 71a, and 113a) and bridges (Map ID #79a and 89a), as shown on Figures 4-13, 4-14, 

and 4-15. Possible expansion and reconstruction of railroad Section 4(f) depots and bridges may be 

required. It is anticipated that uses of these railroad Section 4(f) properties could be avoided or 

minimized at the project level, making a de minimis determination possible.

Because there are so few Section 6(f) properties in the EIS Study Area for Alterative C4B, it is 

anticipated that Section 6(f) properties would be avoided during project-level design. 

4.3.2.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

There are 72 Section 4(f) properties in the EIS Study Area of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail: 44 

parks or recreational properties (Table 4-3) and 28 historic resources (Table 4-4). Because it is a 

high-speed rail service type, this alternative would be constructed on new alignment and as a result 

may require new right-of-way acquisition, permanent easements, temporary easements, and 

possible demolition of buildings and structures on Section 4(f) properties.
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-42 

Potential use and avoidance of Section 4(f) properties primarily adjacent to existing transportation 

right-of-way within the major metropolitan areas of Fort Worth, Dallas, and San Antonio, including 

Map ID #110, 88, 55a, 71, and 78a, shown on Figures 4-3, 4-4, 4-6, and 4-13, would be the same 

as described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.

Use of Section 4(f) properties in suburban areas is possible due to the need for new right-of-way, 

easements, and grade-separated structures. Several school playgrounds, public parks, city trails, 

and historic properties are located within the EIS Study Area (Map ID #75, 76a, 79, 80, 81, and 95, 

shown on Figures 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-13). Suburban areas typically feature more open space than 

dense urban environments, which may enable more flexibility at the project level to avoid these 

Section 4(f) properties. Potential use and avoidance of rural Section 4(f) properties and of Section 

4(f) properties related to stations and associated parking facilities in urban and suburban areas for 

this alternative would be the same as described above Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.

The potential impacts on, avoidance of, and documentation of the three Section 6(f) properties in 

the EIS Study Area for this alternative would be identical to those described for Alternative C4A 

High-Speed Rail. Because there are so few Section 6(f) properties in the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail, it is anticipated that construction of new stations in urban, 

suburban, and rural areas would not be likely to require conversion of Section 6(f) properties. It is 

anticipated that Section 6(f) properties would be avoided during site selection of new stations and 

associated parking lots. If the conversion of Section 6(f) park land associated with the construction 

of new stations and parking facilities cannot be avoided, the amount of right-of-way required from 

this property would be minimized, and minimization efforts would be document for coordination 

with the Department of Interior. 

Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Tables 4-5 and 4-6 list the Section 4(f) and 6(f) park, refuge, and recreational resources and the 

Section 4(f) cultural resources identified, respectively, in the Southern Section. 

Table 4-5. Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks, Refuges, and Recreation Areas – Southern 

Section 

Map ID # 

(Figures 

4-6 to 4-10) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

in EIS 

Study 

Area 

114 Lindbergh Park City Park X XX City of San 

Antonio

29.380768/-

98.555422

S6 HSR 

S6 HrSR

1.99

115 Normoyle Park City Park X X City of San 

Antonio

29.379631/-

98.540743

S4 HrSR 9.93

116 Al Forge Park City Park X XX City of San 

Antonio

29.362778/-

98.53903

S4 HrSR 1.24

118 Medina River 

Greenway 

City 

Greenway 

Park

X XX City of San 

Antonio

29.269584/-

98.496249 

S4 HrSR 5.14

120 Unnamed 

Park 1

City Park X City of George 

West

28.342326/-

98.099633

S4 HrSR 9.40
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-43 

Map ID # 

(Figures 

4-6 to 4-10) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

in EIS 

Study 

Area 

121 Casa Blanca 

Golf Course

County Golf 

Course

X Webb County 27.536689/-

99.45112

S4 HrSR 31.14

122 La Casa Blanca 

International 

State Park

State Park X X Texas Parks 

and Wildlife 

Department/W

ebb County

27.536094/-

99.44979 

S4 HrSR 11.76

123 Lake Findley 

Park

City Park 

and Lake

X City of Alice 27.796567/-

98.057485

S4 HrSR 29.58

125 Younts Park City Park X City of Agua 

Dulce

27.780929/-

97.909541

S4 HrSR 1.12

126 John L. 

Sablatura 

County Park

County Park X Nueces County 27.795694/-

97.814204 

S4 HrSR 86.42

128 Robstown 

Memorial Park

City Park X City of 

Robstown

27.788062/-

97.663034

S4 HrSR 0.81

129 Charles 

Brazzell Sr. 

Park

City Park X City of Alice 27.745213/-

98.077557 

S4 HrSR 0.75

133 Tennis Courts City Courts X City of Edinburg 26.306664/-

98.167024

S4 HrSR 0.42

135 Hike and Bike 

Trail

City Trail X City of Edinburg 26.265073/-

98.210354

S4 HrSR 0.25

136 Bill Schupp 

Park

City Park X XX City of McAllen 26.251708/-

98.227245

S4 HrSR 4.18

138 Hike and Bike 

Trail (north)

City Trail X XX City of McAllen 26.231877/-

98.234572

S4 HrSR 2.18

139 Mcallen 

Bicentennial 

Soccer Fields

City Athletic 

Fields

X City of McAllen 26.223748/-

98.23664

S4 HrSR 2.40

140 McAllen High 

School

Public 

School

X XX McAllen 

Independent 

School District

26.221657/-

98.23707 

S4 HrSR 1.28

141 Municipal Park City Park X XX City of McAllen 26.212548/-

98.237799

S4 HrSR 2.08

142 Hike and Bike 

Trail (south)

City Trail X XX City of McAllen 26.232344/-

98.235178

S4 HrSR 1.65

143 Archer Park City Park X XX City of McAllen 26.204869/-

98.233701

S4 HrSR 0.52

144 Myers Park City Park 

and Trail

X XX City of McAllen 26.202183/-

98.220214

S4 HrSR 2.98

149 Central Park City Park X City of Alamo 26.182541/-

98.117874

S4 HrSR 1.82

153 HEB Civic 

Center Park

City Park X City of 

Mercedes

26.150447/-

97.905243

S4 HrSR 0.83

154 Resaca de la 

Palma State 

Park

State Park X Texas Parks 

and Wildlife 

Department

26.152162/-

97.850569 

S4 HrSR 2.90

156 Sam Houston 

Park

City Park X City of 

Harlingen

26.180714/-

97.687183

S4 HrSR 6.39

157 Harlingen 

Thicket

City Park X City of 

Harlingen

26.178049/-

97.684237

S4 HrSR 3.43
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-44 

Map ID # 

(Figures 

4-6 to 4-10) 

Resource 

Name 

Resource 

Type 4(f)a 6(f)a Ownership 

Location 

(Lat/Long) Alternative 

Acreage 

in EIS 

Study 

Area 

158 Arroyo Park to 

McKelvey Park 

Trail

City Trail X City of 

Harlingen

26.177238/-

97.682474 

S4 HrSR 0.22

161 Kennedy Park City Park X City of San 

Benito

26.134876/-

97.635425

S4 HrSR 3.38

162 Lower Rio 

Grande Valley 

National 

Wildlife Refuge

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge 

X U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

26.106602/-

97.603301 

S4 HrSR 40.67

165 Unnamed Park 

2

State Land X XX State of Texas 25.98306/-

97.526364

S4 HrSR 8.89

168 Joe and Tony 

Oliveiro Park

City Park X XX City of 

Brownsville

25.937954/-

97.520918

S4 HrSR 7.91

169 Riverside Park City Park X XX City of 

Brownsville

25.910397/-

97.515085

S4 HrSR 2.93

* A resource that is also located within the EIS Study Area of an alternative in the Central Section.

a “X” indicates that a property has been identified as a potential Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) property.

 “XX” indicates that the city has L&WCF monies for its city parks, trails, and/or recreation areas, but there is no indication

of where the funding was used; therefore, additional research is required.

Note: Map ID #s are discontinuous to remain consistent with 4(f)/6(f) resources listed in Section 3.17, Recreational Areas 

and Opportunities.

Sources: Brownsville Independent School District (2014); Casa Blanca Golf Club (2014); Donna Independent School 

District (2014); FHWA (2014); Harlingen Consolidate Independent School District (2014); International Museum of Art and 

Science (2014); Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition (2014); Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School 

District (2014); NPS (2014); NPS (2013); Nueces County Parks and Recreation Department (2014); Pharr-San Juan Alamo 

Independent School District (2014); San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department (2014a); San Antonio Parks and 

Recreation Department (2014b); South Texas Independent School District (2014); Southwest Independent School District 

(2014); TxDOT (2014a); TxDOT (2013); Texas Education Agency (2014); Texas Natural Resources Information System 

(2014); USFWS (2014); USGS (2014).

Table 4-6: Section 4(f) Cultural Resources – Southern Section

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-15 to 4-

17) Resource Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

128a Hotel Brendel 27.7878792/ 

-97.66149443 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

130a King Ranch Historic 

District

27.527646/-

98.10017 

NRHP-Listed S4 HrSR 890.35

131a One story wood house 27.228407/-

98.13983 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

134a Southern Pacific Depot 26.301453/-

98.168428 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

142a Casa de Palmas 26.205112/-

98.234889 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-45 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-15 to 4-

17) Resource Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

143a Restaurant 26.203417/-

98.231393 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

144a Louisiana--Rio Grande 

Canal Company 

Irrigation System 

Historic District

26.196429/-

98.191846 

NRHP-Listed S4 HrSR 979.75

146a San Juan Hotel 26.189452/-

98.156876 

NRHP-Listed S4 HrSR Building

146b Early 20th century tile 

decorated storefront

26.189393/-

98.156196 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

149a Moderne style service 

station/muffler shop

26.182013/-

98.115087 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

149b Crest Fruit Company 

warehouse

26.18237/-

98.113372 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

150a Concrete commercial 

building

26.176625/-

98.081877 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

150b Hanson House 26.175625/-

98.081174 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

150c Donna Irrigation 

District

26.172009/-

98.058142 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR 280.02

151a Art Moderne Southern 

Mosaic Tile Factory

26.164883/-

98.021114 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

152a Cortez hotel 26.159386/-

97.991009 

NRHP-Listed S4 HrSR Building

152b Commercial building 26.150319/-

97.91249 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

152c Hidalgo County 

Irrigation District #5 

Offices

26.150243/-

97.912504 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

153a Quonset Hut 26.150424/-

97.90431 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

154a Moderne stucco gas 

station

26.157508/-

97.828395 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

154b Moderne gas station 26.158464/-

97.825321 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

154c La Feria Canning Co. 26.158863/-

97.823432 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

154d Texas Citrus Fruit 

Growers 

26.158975/-

97.823004 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-46 

Map ID # 

(Figures 4-15 to 4-

17) Resource Name 

Location 

(Lat/Long) NRHP Status Alternative 

Acreage in 

EIS Study 

Area 

154e La Feria Irrigation 

District

26.160936/-

97.818269 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR 212.63

154f International Style 

cinder block fence

26.164142/-

97.806066 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

154g Adams Gardens 

Irrigation District

26.169652/-

97.787909 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR 70.53

154h Spanish Revival 

Petrified Stone Gates

26.171597/-

97.782893 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

155a Santos Lozano 

Building

26.192621/-

97.697217 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR Building

160a Cameron County 

Irrigation District #2

26.14208/-

97.643964 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR 347.24

165a CCWC Irrigation 

District #6

25.974444/-

97.523804 

NRHP-Eligible S4 HrSR 312.19

Note: Map ID #s are discontinuous to remain consistent with 4(f)/6(f) resources listed in Section 3.18, Historic, 

Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources.

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

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

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

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

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

et al. (2005); Texas A&M University (2014); TxDOT (2014b); TxDOT (2014e); TxDOT (2014f); TxDOT (2014g); TxDOT and 

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

4.3.3.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

There are 62 Section 4(f) properties in the EIS Study Area of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail: 32 

parks or recreational properties (Table 4-5) and 30 historic resources (Table 4-6). The Section 4(f) 

properties are located primarily in urban and suburban areas on the south side of San Antonio and 

along the southern leg of the alternative in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, extending south to McAllen 

then east to Brownsville. In these urban areas, the alternative would mostly be within existing 

railroad right-of-way or directly adjacent to existing right-of-way. Existing railroad infrastructure, 

including at-grade railroad crossings and grade-separated crossings, are already in place in the 

urban and suburban areas in the EIS Study Area, and as a result, there is little potential in urban 

areas for use of most of the Section 4(f) properties. The urban and suburban Section 4(f) properties 

with the highest potential for use would be railroad-related resources located within the existing 

railroad right-of-way. At the service-level of analysis, the only railroad Section 4(f) property located in 

the existing railroad right-of-way in the Study Area for this alternative is the Southern Pacific Depot 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-47 

(Map ID #134a, shown on Figure 4-17). If use of this or any other Section 4(f) property is likely, it is 

anticipated that it could be avoided at the project level or minimized to a degree that may result in 

a determination of de minimis use.

There are also Section 4(f) properties located in rural areas and smaller towns along this 

alternative, including public parks (Map ID #122, 123, 125, 128), a wildlife refuge (Map ID #162), 

and the 1-million-acre NRHP-listed (and National Historic Landmark-designated) King Ranch (Map 

ID #130a), shown on Figures 4-7, 4-9, 4-10, and 4-16. Because there are a limited number of 

Section 4(f) parks in the numerous complexes on the King Ranch (Figure 4-16: Map ID #130a) that 

are located near US-77 and are several miles from the EIS Study Area, it is expected that any 

potential use of King Ranch would be considered de minimis. A portion of this alternative would be 

located within the abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad (formerly the Texas and New Orleans 

Railroad) right-of-way; as a result, it is equally likely that the alignment may help in avoiding Section 

4(f) resources or encounter historic resources eligible for Section 4(f) protection. 

Several of the Section 4(f) properties along Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail are trails that are 

within or that traverse existing railroad right-of-way in the EIS Study Area (Map ID #135, 138, and 

139, shown on Figure 4-10). Although construction easements may require the temporary closure 

of trails and access points, such closure would likely only be needed for a short time during 

construction, after which trails and access points would be restored. Similarly, a use may be 

required on of portion of a public parks (Map ID #116, 123, 144, and 156) or a public golf course 

(Map ID #121), shown on Figures 4-6, 4-9, and 4-10. If the use of these facilities is shorter than the 

construction periods and areas are restored to their previous functions after the construction 

activities, it is possible that a determination of temporary occupancy would be possible. Use of 

cultural resource Section 4(f) properties may also be required (Map ID #144a, 154e, and 165a, 

shown on Figure 4-17); however, it is anticipated that project development could avoid the 

properties entirely or avoid adversely affecting their character-defining historic features. 

Two Section 6(f) properties have been identified within the EIS Study Area of Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail: Normoyle Park (Map ID #115) in San Antonio and La Casa Blanca International State 

Park (Map ID #122) in Webb County, shown Figures 4-6 and 4-7. This alternative would be located 

within existing railroad right-of-way near these Section 6(f) properties, but the parks are not located 

within existing railroad right-of-way. As a result, the conversion of these Section 6(f) properties may 

be avoided, and it is unlikely that the acquisition and conversion of land from these Section 6(f) 

properties would be required. 

4.3.3.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

There is one Section 4(f) park property and no historic or Section 6(f) properties identified in the EIS 

Study Area of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail (Table 4-5). Lindbergh Park (Map ID #114) was 

identified as a Section 4(f) property and is located southwest of San Antonio and adjacent to an 

existing railroad, as shown on Figure 4-6. This alternative would use existing railroad infrastructure 

or would be within or directly adjacent to existing railroad right-of-way. As a result, there is little 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-48 

potential for a Section 4(f) use of Lindbergh Park. If new right-of-way or permanent or temporary 

easements would be required from this Section 4(f) property, it is anticipated that such use could 

be avoided or minimized at the project level. 

4.3.3.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Lindbergh Park (Map ID #114, shown on Figure 4-6) is the only Section 4(f) property identified 

along this alternative, and no Section 6(f) properties were identified (Table 4-5). Because highspeed rail alternatives would be constructed on new alignment, there is a potential for use of 

Lindbergh Park. 

Summary of Potential 4(f) and 6(f) Use Analysis 

Table 4-7 demonstrates how many resources are within the EIS Study Area for each alternative of 

the Northern, Central and Southern sections. 

Table 4-7: Number of Section 4(f)- and Section 6(f)-Protected Properties by 

Alternative (in the 500-foot EIS Study Area)

 

Alternative 

N4A CONV 

C4A HrSR/ 

C4A HSR 

C4B HrSR/ 

C4B HSR 

C4C HrSR/ 

C4C HSR S4 HrSR 

S6 HrSR/ 

S6 HSR 

Section 4(f)-

Protected 

Parks

27 24 16 27 20 1 

Section 4(f)-

Protected 

Refuges

0 0 0 0 1 0 

Section 4(f)-

Protected 

Recreation 

Areas

12 16 16 17 11 0 

Section 4(f)-

Protected 

Cultural 

Resources

26 24 18 28 30 0 

Section 6(f)-

Protected 

Properties

3 3 3 3 2 0 

Total Section 

4(f)- and/or 

6(f)-Protected 

Propertiesa

65 64 50 72 62 1 

a Because all Section 6(f) properties are also protected under Section 4(f), the Section 6(f) properties were not 

included in the Total Section 4(f) and/or Section 6(f) Protected Properties row to avoid counting the Section 6(f) 

properties twice.
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-49 

Although several Section 4(f)-protected properties were identified within the EIS Study Area in both 

the Northern and Southern sections, new facilities associated with alternatives in these sections 

would likely use existing railroad infrastructure, be built directly adjacent to existing railroad 

facilities and tracks, or in the case of the Southern Section, be constructed in rural areas with 

limited 4(f) and 6(f) properties. Even expansion of existing stations and new stations within urban 

and suburban areas can avoid an adverse effect under Section 106, by adhering to the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995) and when possible to 

avoid effects on the depots all together. Avoiding an adverse effect on historic resources allows 

some “use” but can result in a de minimis use classification. However, all of the Central Section 

alternatives are likely to result in a potential use of Section 4(f) resources. 

4.4 Avoidance Alternatives 

The requirement of Section 4(f) is to avoid use of these properties unless there is no feasible and 

prudent alternative to the use of such land. Therefore, the first step is to determine whether there 

are feasible and prudent alternatives that would avoid these properties. According to 23 CFR 

774.17, an alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering 

judgment. An alternative is not prudent if the following apply: 

 It would compromise the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project 

in light of its stated purpose and need. 

 It would result in unacceptable safety or operational problems. 

 After reasonable mitigation, it would still cause: 

- Severe social, economic, or environmental impacts, 

- Severe disruption to established communities, 

- Severe disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations, or 

- Severe impacts on environmental resources protected under other federal statutes. 

 It would result in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary 

magnitude. 

 It would cause other unique problems or unusual factors. 

 It would involve multiple factors (listed above) that, while individually minor, cumulatively would 

cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. 

If there is an avoidance alternative that is prudent and feasible, it must be selected. The Section 

4(f) discussion does not further consider an alternative if it is not feasible and prudent. Though 

detailed design information is not yet available to fully characterize the type of use or the extent or 

size of the use of 4(f) properties for the build alternatives, screening has been done as part of this 

service-level EIS to eliminate alternatives deemed not feasible in light of project objectives, which 

include minimization of impacts on cultural and recreational resources. While the FRA cannot make 

a Section 4(f) approval at the service level, steps taken to date that contribute to the selection of 

feasible and prudent alternatives have been evaluated throughout the screening process. The 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-50 

sections below describe these avoidance alternatives, as well as their feasibility and prudence, for 

the different National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) screening levels. 

Avoidance Alternatives Evaluation 

Avoidance alternatives will continue to be refined throughout the environmental process. Because 

the Northern, Central, and Southern sections of the Program could be built as individual, 

standalone projects or in combination with other sections, the Section 4(f) and 6(f) analysis 

considers each geographic section independently.

Based on the evaluation in Section 4.3, each of the build alternatives has the potential to use 4(f) 

resources, including historic or potentially historic properties, parks, recreation areas, and wildlife 

refuges. Table 4-7 in Section 4.3.4 demonstrates how many resources are within the EIS Study 

Area for each alternative. 

As described above, the Northern and Southern sections may avoid Section 4(f) resources; 

however, all of the Central Section alternatives are likely to result in a potential use of Section 4(f) 

resources. Therefore, this avoidance alternatives discussion focuses on the Central Section.

Avoidance Alternatives for the Central Section 

Chapter 2, Alternatives, documents the alternatives screening process carried out for this servicelevel EIS and describes the full range of alternatives considered in its preparation. For the Central 

Section, Table 4-8 lists and Figure 4-18 conceptually illustrates the range of route alternatives 

screened during the alternatives analysis with their respective service types. 

Table 4-8: Route Alternatives Considered in Study Screenings

Geographical 

Section Endpoints 

Initial Route 

Alternative Service Types 

Central Dallas and Fort Worth to San 

Antonio

C1 CONV, HrSR

C2 HrSR, HSR

C3 CONV

Metroplex Dallas and Fort Worth

M1 CONV, HrSR

M2 HrSR, HSR

M3 CONV, HrSR
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-51 

Figure 4-18: Screened Initial Route Alternatives in the Central Section
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-52 

The route alternatives were explored to remain within existing freeway right-of-way or freight rightof-way or in some cases be placed in areas beyond existing urbanized developed areas. Each initial 

route alternative was developed to avoid impacts on existing Section 4(f) resources as well as other 

social, environmental, and economic resources. Initial screening efforts determined feasibility by 

considering two sources of information. The first source of information was the Oklahoma City to 

South Texas Infrastructure Analysis (TxDOT 2013), which evaluated the possibility of operating 

higher- or high-speed rail in the rights-of-way of interstate highways in the Study Vicinity. The 

findings of that report established that interstate highways are designed with curve radii too small 

for higher- or high-speed rail operation, that railroad vertical clearance needs are often higher than 

highway clearances at existing overpasses, and that many operational limitations of both highways 

and railroads make shared rights-of-way problematic for all but short stretches of a new rail 

alignment. The second source was information provided by Class 1 railroads (owners of the existing 

major operating rail lines in the EIS Study Area) regarding the level of existing and potential future 

freight rail traffic and how that freight traffic might affect the feasibility of adding or expanding 

passenger rail service on these rail lines. In light of this review, conventional rail was eliminated 

because additional passenger rail on existing rail would not be feasible over time. Therefore, this 

section considers only higher- and high-speed rail. In addition, freight usage needs restricted some 

opportunities for shared right-of-way. For these reasons, the following Central Section route 

alternatives were eliminated: 

 Conventional passenger rail because it would not be feasible to use existing railroad tracks 

in the Central Section 

 C3 because it would not be feasible to use the IH-35 corridor

 M3 because it would not be feasible to use railroad right-of-way 

Other alternatives, including C1 and C2A, would not be prudent due to overriding cost. In the case 

of C1, the alternative would circumvent the urban development areas. While this would effectively 

avoid many Section 4(f) resources, the alternative would not support the purpose and need of the 

Program to enhance rail service for high-density population centers as efficiently as other 

alternatives. 

The remaining alternatives, specifically C2, M1, and M2, were further refined into a new series of 

alternatives, resulting in Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C, which primarily differ in their connections 

between Fort Worth and Dallas and to the south, where they join at Hillsboro to take the same route 

to San Antonio. Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C would substantially follow the original C2 alignment 

for the southern portion of their routes. These are effectively the alternatives under review in this 

service-level EIS. 

Avoidance in the EIS Study Area for the Central Section 

This evaluation considers that most Section 4(f) resources in the EIS Study Area would have a 

potential use. The EIS Study Area is a 500-foot-wide corridor within which the alignments can shift 

to avoid Section 4(f) resources. The build alternatives are anticipated to require between 50 and 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-53 

100 feet of right-of-way. Therefore, there is room to shift alignments within the 500-foot EIS Study 

Area in the case of Alternative N4A, and this design capability is already assumed for much of the 

qualitative discussions in the Section 4(f) evaluation. However, this may not be possible for the 

Central Section higher- and high-speed rail service types. High-speed rail alternatives must remain 

straight and require grade-separation from other transportation networks; therefore, the flexibility 

for alignment adjustments may be minimal. 

Design refinements to avoid specific Section 4(f) properties and/or to minimize harm will be 

addressed at the project level. In addition, project-level processes will complete the Section 106 

process, which requires formal identification of the APE, a survey of historic resources within the 

APE, and determination of effects, including visual and noise effects. These determinations of 

effect would constitute a use, upon which a Section 4(f) evaluation would be developed. Avoidance

and minimization efforts would engage the SHPO and jurisdictions with authority.

4.5 Least Harm Analysis 

Because there is a high likelihood that Section 4(f) resources cannot be avoided and impacts may 

be too great to determine a de minimis use through minimization and mitigation measures, a least 

harm analysis would be conducted for the Central Section alternatives during the project-level EIS. 

When there is no prudent and feasible alternative to avoid Section 4(f) resources, pursuant to 23 

CFR 774.3(c), a least harm analysis is required. Pursuant to 23 CFR 774.3(c), the FRA may approve 

only the alternative that causes the “least overall harm” in light of the purposes of Section 4(f). The 

regulations require that determining which alternative causes the least overall harm be based upon 

an assessment and balancing of seven factors:

1. The ability of the alternative to mitigate adverse impacts on each Section 4(f) property (including 

any measures that result in benefits to the property) 

2. The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, 

or features that quality each Section 4(f) property for protection 

3. The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property 

4. The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property 

5. The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project 

6. After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts on resources not protected by 

Section 4(f)

7. Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives 

This level of detail is not available at the service-level EIS phase. In addition, it is possible that not 

all Section 4(f) resources have been identified, and therefore this service-level evaluation is 

comparative.

This analysis would likely be equally applicable to Section 6(f) resources that require a full review of 

avoidance and minimization alternatives. Based on the analysis of potential impacts on identified 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-54 

Section 6(f)-protected properties, it is anticipated that the highest intensity of impacts would occur 

along alternatives in the Central Section, which travel through major urban areas that feature the 

densest concentration of Section 6(f) properties. 

4.6 Agency Coordination 

As part of the Study, and pursuant to the requirements of NEPA, TxDOT and FRA have conducted a 

public and agency involvement program in support of the service-level environmental review 

process. Chapter 8, Public Involvement, contains a detailed description of the activities included in 

this effort. Several of these activities involved opportunities for agencies and groups with an 

interest in Section 4(f) properties to provide input on Study alternatives under consideration during 

the different stages of the screening process. 

Prior to the formal scoping period, an agency pre-scoping meeting was held to introduce the Study, 

including an overview of the purpose and need and preliminary information about the Study scope 

and general corridors under consideration. Among the attendees of this meeting were 

representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, 

and the Texas Historical Commission. Agency scoping meetings held in Oklahoma City, Austin, and 

Dallas in March and April 2013 were part of the formal scoping process. Agencies were encouraged 

to submit verbal or written comments during the meetings and throughout the scoping period. 

Tribal coordination has also been initiated for the Study. FRA worked with TxDOT, Oklahoma 

Department of Transportation, and FHWA to develop a list of Native American Tribes that could 

potentially have interest in the Study because of current or historic presence or treaty interest in 

the Study Vicinity. Tribes on the list received letters during the scoping period inviting them to 

participate in public scoping meetings and encouraging comments. In addition, FRA sent letters 

inviting the Tribes to participate in government-to-government consultation pursuant to Section 106 

of the NHPA. 

4.7 Potential Mitigation Strategies 

Project-level review would include a more detailed analysis of any potential temporary, permanent, 

or constructive uses under Section 4(f) or conversion of use under Section 6(f). Project-level review 

would also include an evaluation and determination of proposed mitigation measures and 

strategies to minimize these uses. Often these evaluations would result in mitigation agreements 

between agencies executed through a memorandum of agreement or programmatic agreement. 

Where mitigation measures can eliminate the effect of the use, an agreement with the official with 

jurisdiction could result in FRA determining a de minimis effect, meaning no further Section 4(f) 

evaluation is necessary. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users amended Section 4(f) to allow the FHWA, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and 

FRA to determine that certain uses would have a de minimis impact, or no adverse effect, on a 

protected resource provided that the responsible party with jurisdiction over the affected property 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-55 

agrees in writing. In this context, a de minimis impact is a minor impact that does not adversely 

affect the activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4(f) property. 

When a federally funded transportation project requires the use of a Section 4(f) property, a Section 

4(f) approval by the FHWA, FTA, or FRA is required. If the use of the property would result in impacts 

more substantial than de minimis, a written evaluation must be prepared and submitted to the 

FHWA, FTA, or FRA for approval. There are two types of Section 4(f) evaluations: an individual 

evaluation and a programmatic evaluation. At the project level, each individual evaluation would be 

submitted as part of the environmental process. A programmatic evaluation may be used only for 

projects that meet the application criteria for one of the five following nationwide programmatic 

evaluations that have been approved by FHWA, FTA, and FRA: 

1. Independent Bikeway or Walkway Construction Projects (approved May 23, 1977)

2. Use of Historic Bridges (approved July 5, 1983)

3. Minor Involvement with Public Parks, Recreation Lands, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges 

(approved December 23, 1986)

4. Minor Involvement with Historic Sites (approved December 23, 1986)

5. Transportation Projects that have a Net Benefit to Section 4(f) Property (approved April 20, 

2005)

Individual and programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations describe the Section 4(f) property and the 

proposed Section 4(f) use of the property, include a detailed engineering description of avoidance 

alternatives, provide environmental and engineering considerations associated with all avoidance 

alternatives, summarize coordination with official(s) with jurisdiction, and outline the measures to 

minimize harm and mitigation.

In addition, a wide range of mitigation strategies could be used in cases where a Section 4(f) use 

cannot be avoided or minimized. Mitigation for the use of Section 4(f) properties would be 

commensurate with and correspond directly to the type of Section 4(f) use that would occur at the 

construction or operational phases.

For a use of a cultural resource Section 4(f) property, mitigation options for permanent and 

temporary uses include tangible, beneficial modifications to the Section 4(f) property or 

documentation of the cultural resource Section 4(f) property prior to construction. For example, 

mitigation could include erecting sound barriers, creating vegetative screening, or planting other 

landscaping elements. Documentation may take the form of the preparation of Historic American 

Building Survey or Historic American Engineering Record documentation, NRHP nominations, 

historic property management and treatment plans, and data recovery reports. Developing 

educational materials as part of public outreach is also a mitigation option and could include 

brochures, displays, websites, and public presentations. Development of these educational 

mitigation materials would likely occur in consultation with local historical societies and county 

historical commissions. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-56 

For a noncultural resource Section 4(f) property (such as public parks, recreational areas, and 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges), mitigation could also include sound barriers, vegetative screening, 

landscaping, or replacement of lands where the use would occur with lands of at least comparable 

value and reasonably equivalent usefulness and location. Additional mitigation options could 

include improved parking, access, and trail facilities or construction of improved or new emergency 

entry points for a large Section 4(f) property to allow emergency responders faster access to certain 

areas of the property. In addition, educational material and displays such as brochures and kiosks 

could be created to inform the public about the types of flora and fauna found in parks, trails, 

wildlife refuges, and waterfowl refuges. 

Mitigation options for a Section 6(f) property are more limited than for a Section 4(f) property due to 

the substantive requirement of Section 6(f) regulations: mitigation for the conversion of use of a 

Section 6(f) property is restricted to replacement of converted lands with replacement lands of 

equal fair market value, usefulness, size, and location. 

4.8 Subsequent Analysis 

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) evaluations for specific projects will be completed during project-level 

processes when sufficient design and operational information about improvements are developed 

to determine Section 4(f) use. During project-level analysis of the selected alternatives, more 

detailed research on the types of activities conducted at each resource, the degree of public access 

and use, and the exact property boundaries would be conducted to determine the potential options 

for avoidance and the extent of any potential impacts. For Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) compliance 

during project-level processes, further study of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives and if 

no alternative for that section can avoid all Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources, a least overall 

harm assessment according to 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1)1 will be required. This would include the 

following steps:

 Step 1: Conduct continued coordination with the officials with jurisdiction. This will be done to 

confirm the properties, confirm property boundaries, and obtain input on the effects of the 

project and proposed mitigation. If a de minimis impact is anticipated, obtain concurrence from 

officials with jurisdiction that the impact is indeed de minimis. Coordination with the SHPO will 

also be done to obtain concurrence with eligibility of a property, determination of effects, and 

proposed mitigation. If a “no adverse effect” determination is proposed that will be used to 

determine a de minimis impact, the SHPO will be notified of this intention on the part of TxDOT 

and FRA. 

 Step 2: Conduct a more detailed evaluation to determine if additional Section 4(f) or 6(f) 

properties are located in the Study Area (that were not identified at the service level). Projectlevel processes will also include a step to confirm the eligibility of assumed Section 4(f) 

properties, including ownership details, property boundaries, and NRHP eligibility if the property 

 

1 While this regulation was written for Section 4(f), the analysis equally applies to Section 6(f) resources as well.
TBG092314012951SCO 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 4-57 

is a historic property. In addition, property management practice details from resource 

management plans for refuges, parks, and recreational properties will be reviewed. 

 Step 3: Collect information needed to determine detailed use by alternative. This step will 

include laying the edges of physical disturbance and future right-of-way over the mapping of the 

property boundaries. This information will then be used to determine whether or not the 

anticipated use could be avoided or evaluated as a de minimis impact. This information, along 

with the findings of the noise analysis, access analysis, and visual analysis, will be used to 

determine whether or not an alternative could result in a constructive use. Analysis of temporary 

impacts will be conducted as well to determine if the conditions for temporary occupancy are 

met, as defined in 23 CFR 774.13 (d). 

 Step 4: Conduct Section 4(f) evaluations to determine if a prudent and feasible alternative that 

avoids the Section 4(f) properties exists. Uses of the properties will be considered and 

compared to the service-level alternatives and this evaluation. If there is a substantial change in 

properties used or in the significance of the use, a determination will be made of the need to 

revisit the service-level decision. This evaluation will review additional alignment possibilities 

building upon this service-level EIS. 

 Step 5: Identification of all possible planning to minimize harm. This step will include 

development of full mitigation measures, as well as other measures to minimize harm. 

 Step 6: Development of least harm analysis. If no prudent and feasible avoidance alternative 

exists, and more than one alternative is developed at the project level that use Section 4(f) 

properties, a least harm analysis will be conducted to determine which alternative would cause 

the least overall harm in light of the preservation purpose contained in 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1).

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 5-1 

TBG092314012951SCO 

5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

This chapter describes potentially unavoidable adverse environmental effects identifiable at the 

service level of environmental review that cannot be avoided if specific alternatives are 

implemented. 

This service-level environmental impact statement analyzes the environmental effects of route and 

service type options at the conceptual planning stage. At this service level, it was assumed that 

those adverse environmental effects characterized as substantial would be more likely to also be 

unavoidable (compared to moderate and negligible effects) and therefore this section focuses on 

substantial adverse effects. Many potentially substantial adverse effects described in Chapter 3,

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, would likely be avoided or minimized 

through design refinement or mitigation measures. However, design refinement and mitigation 

measures would not avoid or minimize all adverse effects, and some unavoidable potentially 

substantial adverse effects would be expected to result from implementation of the alternatives. 

The ability of the alternatives to avoid or minimize adverse effects varies by service type. The higher 

the design speed, the more difficult it is to avoid sensitive resources since higher design speeds 

require straighter, longer sections of track and larger radius curves. Moving or curving the 

alignment at higher design speeds may have ripple effects on the alignment for miles, may not 

always be feasible, and may result in equally severe adverse effects on other resources or in other 

locations. The unavoidable adverse effects of the three service types are summarized as follows:

 Conventional rail would have the fewest unavoidable adverse effects because conventional rail 

would typically operate within an existing rail corridor. If right-of-way is needed outside existing 

rail corridors, design speeds are low enough that small alignment shifts are often feasible. 

 Higher-speed rail would have more unavoidable adverse effects because it would operate on 

new alignments outside existing transportation corridors in many locations, and the higher 

design speed provides fewer opportunities to shift the alignment to avoid sensitive resources. 

 High-speed rail would have the most unavoidable adverse effects because, in addition to 

operating on new alignments outside existing transportation corridors in many locations, its 

design speeds are so high that few opportunities are available to shift the alignment to avoid 

sensitive resources.

Potential adverse effects can only be generalized at this service level of review because field 

studies were not conducted, and in most instances the buffer area used for the analysis is many 

times larger than the actual right-of-way that would be needed for the alternatives. Potential 

adverse effects would be studied and clarified during project-level studies, when more specific 

information would be available on the right-of-way needed for the alternatives and on specific 

properties potentially affected. The objective at the project level would be to identify design options 

(plans and profiles) that would avoid sensitive resources to the greatest extent possible. 
5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 5-2 

TBG092314012951SCO 

Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Travel Demand and Transportation. Alternative N4A Conventional would have substantial adverse 

effects on bus and air travel, resulting in a reduction in mode share of 33 and 50 percent, 

respectively, as passengers are diverted to rail. This alternative would also have substantial 

adverse effects on bus and air service provider operations, resulting in a reduction in ridership of 

50 and 44 percent, respectively, and potential lost revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Air Quality. Construction of all of the Central Section alternatives would be a major infrastructure 

project and would occur in an area currently designated as serious nonattainment for ozone. Even 

with mitigation, all of the Central Section alternatives except for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

would likely result in substantial short-term adverse effects on air quality during construction. The 

C4A and C4C high-speed rail alternatives would result in higher short-term construction emissions 

than the higher-speed rail alternatives, as they would require more grade-separation segments, a 

larger construction footprint, and more mobilization effort due to the high-speed rail segment and 

station design requirements.

Natural Ecosystems and Wildlife. Construction of the portions of all of the Central Section 

alternatives located on new alignments outside existing transportation corridors would affect a 

large amount of land and would have a substantial adverse effect, even with mitigation, on the 

following:

 Non-developed lands that support natural ecosystems

 Lands that support animal assemblages and terrestrial communities

 Land coverage of high ecological importance

Threatened and Endangered Species. Construction of the portions of all of the Central Section 

alternatives located on new alignments outside existing transportation corridors would affect a 

large amount of land and would have a substantial adverse effect, even with mitigation, on statelisted and federally listed sensitive wildlife species. 

Energy. The Central Section high-speed rail alternatives would require significantly more structures 

to be built and transported for the new rail alignment and would all have substantial adverse 

effects during construction. However, the high-speed rail alternatives would also have substantial 

beneficial effects during operation, saving between an estimated 1,413,391 and 2,264,999 million 

British thermal units (MBTUs) annually for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail and Alternative C4B 

High-Speed Rail, respectively. 

Utilities. The Central Section high-speed rail alternatives would require new track along their entire 

alignments, and all would pass through urban areas with high density of utilities and fixed utilities, 

thereby resulting in the potential for substantial adverse effects. Within the Central Section, 

Alternatives C4B and C4C Higher-Speed Rail also have the potential for substantial adverse effects 

because of the high density of utility crossings and the magnitude of construction. Alternative C4C 
5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 5-3 

TBG092314012951SCO 

Higher-Speed Rail has significantly more utility crossings than the other higher-speed rail 

alternatives in the Central Section. 

Aesthetics and Visual Quality. All of the Central Section alternatives would have substantial adverse 

effects along portions of the alignment. Substantial adverse effects would occur where new rail 

alignments would be required outside of existing transportation corridors. Therefore, the high-speed 

rail alternatives have greater substantial effects on sensitive viewers than the higher-speed 

alternatives. However, when considering the overall intensity of effects, only the high-speed rail 

alternatives would have substantial adverse effects.

Land Use and Prime Farmland. Alternatives C4B and C4C for both the higher-speed rail and highspeed rail service types would have substantial adverse effects by isolating areas of prime 

farmland. Alternatives C4C Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail would also have substantial 

adverse effects on land use because they require new transportation corridors to be constructed 

outside of existing transportation corridors and would require conversion of larger areas of land 

compared with the other alternatives in the Central Section. 

Recreation. All of the Central Section alternatives (with the exception of Alternative C4C HigherSpeed Rail) would have substantial adverse effects on recreational resources in both urban and 

suburban areas as a result of temporary interruption from construction activities, permanent 

property acquisition, and visual effects of the infrastructure. These adverse effects would likely be 

more intense and more difficult to fully mitigate for high-speed rail than higher-speed rail because 

of the larger footprint needed for stations and more potential for elevated guideways and roadway 

overpasses or underpasses.

Historic Resources. All of the Central Section alternatives would have substantial adverse effects on 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed, NRHP-eligible, or potentially NRHP-eligible 

historic resources because of the potential for acquisition during construction, which may result in 

the alteration, removal, or demolition of historic resources along the alternatives. Although both 

higher-speed and high-speed rail would result in the removal of historic properties, avoidance may 

be more difficult for high-speed rail than higher-speed rail because of the larger footprint needed 

for stations (some existing railway stations are historic resources) and more potential roadway

overpasses or underpasses, which would result in more property acquisition.

Archaeological Resources. The Central Section high-speed rail alternatives would have substantial 

adverse effects on archaeological resources because of the potential for large areas of soil 

disturbance, which may lead to disturbance or destruction of archaeological resources. Although 

both higher-speed and high-speed rail would likely result in the removal of archaeological 

resources, avoidance may be more difficult for high-speed rail than higher-speed rail because of the 

larger area of soil disturbance where grade separations would be necessary. Elevated portions of 

the guideway may result in avoidance of some sites. The higher-speed rail alternatives in the 

Central Section would not have substantial effects.
5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 5-4 

TBG092314012951SCO 

Travel Demand and Transportation. The Central Section Alternatives C4A Higher-Speed Rail and 

High-Speed Rail, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail, and Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have 

substantial adverse effects on air travel, resulting in a reduction in mode share ranging from 

42 percent for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail to 72 percent for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

as passengers are diverted to rail. The Central Section high-speed rail alternatives would have 

substantial adverse effects on bus travel, resulting in a reduction in mode share ranging from 

23 percent for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail to 29 percent for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, C4A High-Speed Rail, C4B High-Speed Rail, and C4C High-Speed 

Rail would have a substantial adverse effect on air service provider operations, resulting in a 

reduction in ridership of 38, 70, 70, and 62 percent, respectively, and potential lost revenue as a 

result of fewer customers. 

Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Air Quality. Construction of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail

would be a major infrastructure project. Even with mitigation, these alternatives would likely result 

in substantial short-term adverse effects on air quality during construction. Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail would also have substantial adverse long-term regional effects on air quality during 

operation. This is because although there would be a reduction in personnel vehicle miles traveled, 

the traffic modeling evaluation projected no change in bus or air miles traveled, and there is no 

future rail travel included in the No Build Alterative. Therefore, while Alternative S4 Higher-Speed 

Rail would provide additional modes of transport in the region, the use of diesel-powered trains 

would increase emissions from Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail compared with the No Build 

Alternative for all pollutants evaluated. 

Natural Ecosystems and Wildlife. Construction of the portions of the Southern Section alternatives 

on new alignments outside existing transportation corridors would likely have a substantial adverse 

effect, even with mitigation, on the following: 

 Non-developed lands that support natural ecosystems (Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail) 

 Land coverage of high ecological importance (all Southern Section alternatives) 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Construction of portions of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail

would affect a large amount of land and would have a substantial adverse effect, even with 

mitigation, on federally listed and sensitive plant and wildlife species.

Energy. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would require significantly more structures to be built and 

transported for the new rail alignment compared with the other alternatives in the Southern 

Section, and would have substantial adverse effects on energy use during construction. However, 

the alternative would also have substantial beneficial effects during operation, saving an estimated 

398,509 MBTUs annually. 
5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 5-5 

TBG092314012951SCO 

Aesthetics and Visual Quality. All of the Southern Section alternatives would have substantial 

adverse effects along portions of the alignment. Substantial adverse effects would occur where 

new rail alignments would be required outside of existing transportation corridors. Therefore, 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail has greater substantial adverse effects on sensitive viewers than 

the higher-speed alternatives. When considering the overall intensity of effects, only Alternative S6 

High-Speed Rail would have substantial adverse effects. 

Land Use and Prime Farmland. Alternatives S6 Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail would be 

located entirely outside of existing transportation corridors and land use compatibility would be low; 

therefore, these alternatives would have substantial effects on land use. All of the Southern Section 

alternatives would have substantial effects on prime farmland, either converting, bisecting, or 

isolating areas of prime farmland.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. All of the Southern Section alternatives would have 

substantial effects on environmental justice populations. The new transportation corridors 

associated with these alternatives would pass through rural areas with higher concentrations of 

environmental justice populations. 

Archaeological Resources. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have substantial effects on 

archaeological resources because of the potential for large areas of soil disturbance, which may 

lead to the disturbance or destruction of buried or previously unidentified archaeological resources 

along the alternatives. In addition, although both higher-speed and high-speed rail would likely 

result in the removal of archaeological resources, avoidance may be more difficult for high-speed 

rail than higher-speed rail because of the larger area of soil disturbance where grade separations 

would be necessary. Elevated portions of the guideway may result in avoidance of some 

archaeological resources. The higher-speed rail alternatives would not have substantial effects.

Travel Demand and Transportation. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have substantial 

adverse effects on air travel, resulting in a reduction in mode share of approximately 67 percent as 

passengers are diverted to rail. With Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, approximately 64 percent of 

air passengers would be diverted to rail. This diversion could result in substantial adverse effects 

on air carrier operations (e.g., demand, schedule, etc.) and potential lost revenue as a result of 

fewer customers. 

TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-1

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

This section presents an analysis of the potential cumulative effects of implementing the Program 

in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may result 

in environmental impacts. The focus of this service-level cumulative effects assessment is (1) to 

evaluate the interrelationships among the transportation network, community resources, and 

environmental resources within the cumulative effects study area; and (2) to identify possible 

cumulative effects that may result from reasonably foreseeable future actions (called the 

“cumulative condition”) and the incremental contribution, if any, of the build alternatives to 

cumulative effects. 

6.1 Laws, Regulations, and Orders 

National Environmental Policy Act. This regulation (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.7 and 

1508.25) requires the analysis of cumulative impacts for federally funded projects. Cumulative 

impacts as those that: 

 Result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

 Can result regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. 

 Can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period 

of time. 

6.2 Methodology 

The cumulative effects analysis identifies the possible cumulative effects of the build alternatives in 

combination with the cumulative condition. The analysis considers whether the Program as a whole 

would contribute to cumulative effects and evaluates any apparent differences in effects among 

corridors or service types. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions consist of the committed transportation projects included in 

the No Build Alternative and projected population and employment growth throughout the 

environmental impact statement (EIS) Study Area (described in the introduction to Chapter 3) that 

will result in increased commercial, industrial, and residential land development and a proportional 

increase in parks, roadways, and civil infrastructure. Growth forecasts and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions through 2035 were used to develop a baseline description of resource health, called 

the “cumulative condition.” 

Information regarding planned future growth within the cumulative effects study area (defined in 

Section 6.2.1, Geographic Scope of Cumulative Analysis) was developed using future population 

growth forecasts coupled with existing population, household, and land use data. Year 2035 

population projections were derived for Oklahoma from the 2012 Demographic State of the State 

Report: Oklahoma State and County Population Projections through 2075 (Oklahoma Department 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-2

of Commerce 2012) and for Texas from the 2014 Population Projections for the State of Texas and 

Counties for 2010-2050 (Texas Data Center 2014). Populations and household data were gathered 

from 2010 U.S. Census data (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Developed land area was gathered from 

the 2011 National Land Cover Database from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 

Consortium, and total land area was gathered from the National Atlas (Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium 2011; U.S. Geological Survey no date [n.d.]). 

A conservative estimate of future land development was identified. The projected acreage of new 

land development needed to accommodate the 2035 population growth was determined, 

assuming the number of people per household remains constant between 2010 and 2035: 

1. Existing (2010) Households per Acre was calculated by dividing 2010 Households by Land Area 

(acres). 

2. Existing (2010) People per Household was calculated by dividing 2010 Population by 2010 

Households; 2035 projections assume the same number of people per household as 2010. 

3. Change in Population (2010–2035) was calculated as the difference between 2035 and 2010 

Population. 

4. The number of 2035 New Households was calculated by dividing the Change in Population 

(2010–2035) by People per Household. 

5. The acreage of 2035 New Developed Land needed was calculated by dividing 2035 New 

Households by 2010 Households per Acre; 2035 projections assume the consumption of land 

(homes, roads, civic businesses, and commercial businesses to support population expansion) 

remains the same in 2035 as in 2010. 

Regional plans were also reviewed to determine future planned density increases and growth plans 

that could influence land development patterns. 

Refer to the methodology sections in Chapter 3 for descriptions of the methodologies used to 

determine the effects of the build alternatives. 

6.2.1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis 

The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis encompasses the counties within which 

the build alternatives are located, as shown on Figures 6-1 through 6-6. 

6.2.2 Time Frame for Cumulative Effects Analysis 

The time frame for the cumulative effects analysis begins with the completion of construction of 

Interstate Highway 35 (IH-35) through the Study Vicinity in the late 1950s and extends to 2035, 

which was the horizon year used in most relevant county and metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) planning documents when preparation of this EIS commenced. The context for the 

cumulative analyses is generalized through the population growth and infrastructure development 

up through today. These changes on the landscape have a cumulative effect on the natural, built, 

and social environments. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-3

6.2.3 Resources 

This cumulative effects analysis evaluates those resources that would experience potential effects 

from the build alternatives. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, the build alternatives would have 

negligible effects on solid waste, floodplains, coastal resources, and public safety. Therefore, these 

resources are not included in the cumulative effects analysis. The resources are presented in the 

same order in this analysis as they are in Chapter 3. 

6.3 Projected Growth Trends and Reasonably Foreseeable Future 

Actions 

Population growth within the cumulative effects study area is projected to be highest, based on 

total increase in population, in the Dallas and Fort Worth area. The population is projected to 

increase by more than 1 million people (around a 20 percent increase) in Dallas, Tarrant, and 

Denton counties alone between 2010 and 2035. The two south Texas border counties, Hidalgo and 

Cameron, are expected to grow by approximately 500,000 people combined (around a 40 percent 

increase), and the metropolitan areas of San Antonio, Austin, and Oklahoma City are each expected 

to grow by approximately 300,000 people (around a 20 percent increase for each metropolitan 

area) between 2010 and 2035. Figures 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 illustrate the projected 2035 populations 

by county (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

New land development and infrastructure would be needed throughout the cumulative effects 

study area to accommodate the additional population. Using the methodology described in 

Section 6.2, Methodology, the acreage of required new land development was calculated, 

assuming that current development density would remain the same through 2035. Figures 6-4, 

6-5, and 6-6 illustrate projected new acres of land development by 2035 using current densities. 

However, many cities and metropolitan areas are planning for higher densities in the future than 

currently exist, and total land development therefore would likely be lower than estimated in this 

analysis. The Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG) anticipates a 36 percent 

increase in population density by 2035 (ACOG 2012). The North Central Texas Council of 

Governments (NCTCOG) anticipates a 30 percent increase in density in central Tarrant and Dallas 

counties and a portion of Collin County and a 9 percent increase in density in outer suburbs and 

separate communities throughout the NCTCOG planning areas (NCTCOG 2010). 

Reasonably foreseeable future transportation projects are described in detail in Chapter 2 (Section 

2.2). Projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis are summarized by geographic section 

below. 

6.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

The Oklahoma City metropolitan area is located within the ACOG planning area. The Encompass 

2035 Plan Report (ACOG 2012) is the current long-range transportation plan for central Oklahoma, 

and it forecasts that both population and employment will see growth between 2005 and 2035, 

with approximately 390,000 new residents (36 percent growth) and 222,000 new jobs (39 percent 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-4

Figure 6-1: Northern Section Projected 2035 Population
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-5

Figure 6-2: Central Section Projected 2035 Population 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-6

Figure 6-3: Southern Section Projected 2035 Population 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-7

Figure 6-4: Northern Section Projected 2035 Land Development 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-8

Figure 6-5: Central Section Projected 2035 Land Development 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-9

Figure 6-6: Southern Section Projected 2035 Land Development 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-10

growth) within the ACOG planning area. Density is anticipated to increase from 516 to 703 persons 

per square mile. Most of the growth (75 percent) will occur in Oklahoma and Cleveland counties. 

With the overall level of densification within the ACOG planning area, most new growth could be 

accommodated within existing developed areas. 

Tarrant, Denton, Dallas, Johnson, and Ellis counties are located in the NCTCOG planning area. 

Vision North Texas, a public-private planning partnership that includes NCTCOG, describes areas of 

higher-density development throughout the region to accommodate future growth more effectively 

(NCTCOG 2010). Within the cumulative effects study area, inner tier areas in Tarrant and Dallas 

counties are anticipated to have the most intense development, with a 30 percent increase in 

density compared with existing conditions, to 5.6 people per acre. Outer tier areas in Tarrant, 

Denton, and Dallas counties and separate communities throughout the NCTCOG planning area are 

anticipated to increase in density by approximately 9 percent to 4.7 persons per acre. The 

remaining land area within the NCTCOG boundaries consist of rural land uses, with an average of 

one household per 10 acres, and natural areas. Vision North Texas anticipates that with these 

planned land uses and densities, population growth will occupy 93 percent of the land area within 

the NCTCOG boundaries by 2050 (NCTCOG 2010). 

The following major transportation projects are planned within the Northern Section cumulative 

effects study area: 

 One highway project is planned to widen 4 miles of U.S. Highway (US)-77 from South 329th 

Street (Etowah Road) in Norman, Oklahoma, south to Banner Road in Lexington, Oklahoma, by 

2030 (ACOG 2012). 

 Two interstate projects are planned to widen IH-35 from four to six lanes in areas of Edmond, 

Oklahoma City, and Goldsby, Oklahoma, by 2035 (ACOG 2012). 

 Four major interstate projects are planned to add capacity to IH-35 from Denton to Dallas 

(IH-35 East) and from the Denton-Tarrant County line to Fort Worth (IH-35 West) by 2035 

(NCTCOG 2013). 

 There is a total of 11 new rail line projects within the Dallas and Fort Worth area that are 

planned to open by 2035. One of these rail line projects would open by 2020, five would open 

by 2030, and the remaining five would open by 2035. The projects range in their level of 

service; nine of the projects are commuter rail, one is light rail, and one is regional rail (NCTCOG 

2013). 

6.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) encompasses the counties in the 

Austin region. The CAMPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (CAMPO 2010) envisions a 2035 

growth scenario where growth and densification occur around major attraction areas, including 

transportation corridors in Travis County. CAMPO forecasts a population increase of 1.8 million 

residents (122 percent growth) and an employment increase of 944,000 jobs (135 percent growth) 

between 2005 and 2035 (CAMPO 2010). CAMPO estimates 31 percent of the regional population 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-11

and 38 percent of regional employment will be located within designated activity centers, the 

largest in the central Austin area (CAMPO 2010). 

The San Antonio-Bexar County MPO document, Mobility 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan 

(San Antonio-Bexar County MPO 2009), describes a combination of infill development and transitoriented development to address future growth in the San Antonio region. The area is expected to 

see an increase in population of approximately 600,000 residents and an increase in employment 

of 450,000 jobs (60 percent increase) by 2035. The plan anticipates that with the planned 

development scenarios in place, most of the population will be located within the boundaries of IH410 and the area between IH-410 and Loop 1604 (San Antonio-Bexar County MPO 2009). 

The following major transportation projects are planned within the Central Section cumulative 

effects study area: 

 In addition to the projects listed in Section 6.3.1, Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and 

Fort Worth, two major projects are planned to add lanes to IH-35 from 8th Street in Dallas to IH20, and from US-77 north of Waxahachie to Bigham Road south of Waxahachie in Ellis County 

by 2035 (NCTCOG 2013). 

 One new interstate project with three parts is planned to widen and reconstruct portions of 

IH-35 within McLennan County starting in 2015. Parts one and two would increase the number 

of lanes from four to six from the Falls County Line to Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 

2063/FM 2113 and from North Loop 340 to the Hill County line. Part three would further 

increase the number of lanes from six to eight from State Highway 6 (SH-6)/West Loop 340 to 

North Loop 340 (Waco MPO 2010). 

 Two interstate projects are planned to widen IH-35 to six lanes from North Loop 363 to North of 

Troy and FM 2843 to FM 2484 in Salado (Central Texas Council of Governments [CTCOG], 

Killeen-Temple MPO 2009). 

 Three interstate projects are planned to add from four to six new lanes to existing six-lane and 

eight-lane portions of IH-35 from the Guadalupe-Comal County lines through Bexar County to 

IH-410 by 2020. One project would add four lanes to an existing six-lane portion of IH-35 from 

US-281/IH-37 East to IH-410 South. A second project would add four new lanes to IH-35 from 

IH-410 South to IH-410 North. A third project would add four new lanes to an existing portion of 

IH-35 from IH-410 North to the Guadalupe-Bexar County Line (Alamo Area MPO 2014). 

 In addition to the rail lines listed in Section 6.3.1, Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and 

Fort Worth, one high-speed rail line from Dallas to Houston is planned to open by 2021 (Federal 

Railroad Administration [FRA] and Texas Department of Transportation [TxDOT] n.d.). 

6.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

With the exception of Webb County and Nueces County, much of the Laredo and Corpus Christi 

MPOs are projected to have less than 1,000 acres of new land development in 2035 (see 

Figure 6-6). The Corpus Christi Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Fiscal Year 2010-2035 

addresses growth within areas of the city of Corpus Christi and parts of Nueces County (Corpus 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-12

Christie MPO 2011). Several large-scale industrial projects are anticipated to add jobs, particularly 

within La Quinta Container Port, which is projected to add approximately 14,000 jobs by 2035 

(Corpus Christie MPO 2011). 

The Laredo 2010-2035 MTP estimates the Laredo MPO/Webb County will add approximately 

257,000 new residents (110 percent increase) and approximately 110,900 jobs from 2008 to 

2035 (Laredo MPO 2009). The Laredo MTP anticipates higher land use densities along Loop 20, 

SH-359, and US-83 through planned developments that are expected to support approximately 

121,300 new residents and 67,000 new jobs (Laredo MPO 2009). 

The Hidalgo County Metropolitan Planning Organization (HCMPO) 2010-2035 MTP describes areas 

of increased densities in Hidalgo County to balance transportation and land use needs. The county 

is anticipated to add approximately 444,000 residents (71 percent increase) and 134,000 new 

jobs (85 percent increase) between 2005 and 2035 (HCMPO 2009). Much of this growth would be 

accommodated by increasing density in planned growth areas along US-83 to address future 

transportation and land use needs. 

Cameron County is located in both the Brownsville MPO and Harlingen-San Benito MPO. The 

Brownsville 2035 MTP addresses future growth and associated needs within Cameron County 

through land use policies that promote a compact urban environment and use of transit systems 

(Brownsville MPO 2009). The Harlingen-San Benito 2035 MTP envisions growth within the southern 

area of Cameron County, which has a current population of approximately 422,000 residents. 

Although population and associated growth is projected within Cameron County, population within 

this area fluctuates due to its proximity to the Mexico border and associated migration of farm 

workers, as well as tourists and second home owners visiting the area (Harlingen-San Benito MPO 

2009). 

Only one major transportation project is planned in the cumulative effects study area: the state 

plans to add four lanes to US-281 from FM 2812 to FM 162 (El Cibolo Road) in Hidalgo County 

(HCMPO 2009). 

6.4 Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Because the Northern, Central, and Southern sections could be built as standalone projects or in 

combination with other section(s), the cumulative analysis considers each geographic section 

independently. It is important to note that the detail presented in the cumulative effects analysis is 

at a level consistent with the information and Program detail available at the service level of 

analysis. A more comprehensive cumulative analysis will be performed during project-level studies. 

In general, cumulative effects are expected in counties where the cumulative effects study area 

includes planned roadway and rail projects and/or population growth. For many resources, 

cumulative effects are most likely to occur in areas where these conditions intersect with a build 

alternative with a new alignment outside of existing transportation corridors (including in the 

Central Section between Hillsboro and San Antonio, and in portions of the Southern Section). For 

some resources (such as air quality and historic resources) cumulative effects are more likely to 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-13

occur in areas where planned transportation projects and population growth in urban areas 

intersect with the cumulative effects study area. 

Alternatives that include conventional rail service type would be expected to contribute least to 

cumulative effects because their alignment would remain within existing railroad corridors, 

predominantly using existing railroad tracks and portions of existing infrastructure. Alternatives with 

higher- or high-speed rail service types would be expected to contribute more to cumulative effects 

because they would include construction of new facilities such as stations, grade separations, and 

roadway modifications, and would be constructed in new alignments outside of existing 

transportation corridors. 

In the Northern Section, under the cumulative condition, future IH-35 highway expansion projects in 

Oklahoma City, its southern suburbs, McClain County, and in Dallas between SH-183 and IH-30, 

and future US-77 expansion in Norman, would be near Alternative N4A Conventional. An estimated 

20 percent population growth and accompanying development in the Oklahoma City and Dallas and 

Fort Worth metropolitan areas would also likely contribute to cumulative effects. 

In the Central Section, under the cumulative condition, future IH-35 expansion projects in Dallas 

between SH-183 and IH-30, in Ellis County, throughout McLennan County, and in Temple would be 

near the build alternatives. Planned transit and rail lines in the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan 

area and in San Antonio also would be adjacent to the build alternatives. Within the Study Vicinity of 

the build alternatives, it is estimated that population will grow by 14 percent in McLennan County, 

26 percent in Bell County, and 15 percent in Williamson County (see Section 6.2, Methodology). 

The Study Vicinity is shown on Figure 6-5. The accompanying development associated with growth 

in these counties, which do not currently contain major urban centers, is likely to contribute to 

cumulative effects. 

In the Southern Section, under the cumulative condition, a future US-281 expansion project in 

Hidalgo County north of Edinburg and McAllen would be adjacent to Alternative S4. A planned rail 

line in San Antonio also would be adjacent to the build alternatives. Several counties within the 

Study Vicinity in the Southern Section are projected to experience population growth. It is estimated 

that the population of Webb County will increase by 45 percent, Nueces County will increase by 

14 percent, Hidalgo County will increase by 41 percent, and Cameron County will increase by 

39 percent (see Section 6.2, Methodology). The accompanying development associated with this 

planned growth is also likely to contribute to cumulative effects. Several portions of the build 

alternatives in the Southern Section would be constructed on a new alignment outside of existing 

transportation corridors, including all of Alternative S6 and parts of Alternative S4. 

6.4.1 Air Quality 

The following sections identify the geographic areas where cumulative air quality effects would be 

most likely to occur with the incremental effects of each build alternative. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-14

6.4.1.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Construction of Alternative N4A Conventional would have negligible air quality effects during 

construction and therefore is not anticipated to have cumulative effects. Based on current ridership 

projections, it is expected that during operation, Alternative N4A Conventional would result in 

slightly lower regional air emissions relative to the No Build Alternative, and the overall benefit in 

regional air quality would be negligible. Therefore, the alternative would result in beneficial 

cumulative effects during operation when combined with other planned rail projects in the Dallas 

and Fort Worth area. 

6.4.1.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Future planned projects and development, such as the planned transit and rail lines in the Dallas 

and Fort Worth area and in San Antonio, which are adjacent to the build alternatives, would have 

the potential to cause cumulative air quality effects during construction if the timing of the projects 

overlap. 

Under the cumulative condition in the Central Section, planned highway expansion projects in 

Dallas, Ellis, and McLennan counties and near Temple would result in more vehicles on the 

roadway and increased emissions of air pollutants. However, as population growth occurs in the 

Dallas and Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio metropolitan areas, there will also be a greater 

number of transportation users, and a potentially greater cumulative shift in mode share as rail 

becomes an effective alternative transportation mode within the corridor. Therefore, the cumulative 

effect of the build alternatives with the planned transit and rail lines in the Dallas and Fort Worth 

metropolitan area and in San Antonio would be to promote decreased reliance on highway travel, 

thus reducing regional emissions of air pollutants. The high-speed rail alternatives relative to the 

higher-speed rail alternatives are anticipated to have larger regional beneficial effects on air quality 

due to the higher ridership and use of electric trains, and therefore would have greater beneficial 

cumulative effects. 

6.4.1.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Similar to the Central Section, where future planned transportation projects and development are 

adjacent to the build alternatives, there is potential for cumulative air quality effects during 

construction if the timing of the projects overlap. For example, cumulative effects could occur along 

the existing US-281 corridor; existing rail corridors in Webb, Jim Wells, and Nueces counties; and in 

Webb, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties where future transportation projects and new development 

would combine with Alternative S4. 

Similar to the Central Section, under the cumulative condition in the Southern Section, highway 

expansion projects in Hidalgo County would result in more vehicles on the roadway and increased 

emissions of air pollutants. Also similar to the Central Section, population growth and 

accompanying development in San Antonio and in Hidalgo and Cameron counties would result in a 

greater number of transportation users, but also a potentially greater cumulative shift in mode 

share as rail becomes an effective alternative transportation mode within the corridor. Because 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-15

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would result in a negligible reduction in emissions, the alternative 

may potentially result in minor beneficial cumulative air quality effects. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed 

Rail is much longer than the S6 alternatives, is projected to have a lower level of ridership, and is 

diesel-powered. Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would also use diesel-powered trains. These 

alternatives would have adverse air quality effects during operation. When these alternatives are 

combined with projected population growth and the highway expansion projects in the area, they 

would have cumulative effects on air quality, the degree to which would depend on the cumulative 

shift in mode share to rail as population growth and development occurs. 

6.4.2 Water Quality 

The following sections identify the geographic areas where cumulative effects on water quality and 

water resources would be most likely to occur with the incremental effects of each build alternative. 

6.4.2.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Under the cumulative condition in the Northern Section, highway expansion projects would result in 

an increase in impervious surfaces, which increases the potential for runoff and pollution impacts 

on water quality and the potential for erosion during construction. Population growth and 

accompanying development in the Oklahoma City and Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan areas 

would also likely contribute to an increase in impervious surfaces and runoff. However, Alternative 

N4A Conventional is a conventional rail alternative that would remain within the existing railroad 

right-of-way, sometimes using existing railroad tracks and portions of existing infrastructure. As a 

result, runoff would have a negligible effect on surface and groundwater quality and water 

resources, and it is unlikely that Alternative N4A Conventional would contribute to cumulative water 

quality effects. Alternative N4A Conventional would have moderate erosion effects and would have 

cumulative erosion effects with other highway transportation projects in the Northern Section. 

Cumulative effects would be minimized with use of construction best management practices 

(BMPs). 

6.4.2.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Under the cumulative condition in the Central Section, highway expansion projects in Dallas, Ellis, 

and McLennan counties and near Temple would result in an increase in impervious surfaces 

causing the potential for runoff and pollution impacts on water quality. Planned transit and rail lines 

in the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan area and in San Antonio would be adjacent to the build 

alternatives; however, the construction of rail projects in these urbanized areas is not likely to 

contribute to substantial additional impacts on water quality because they would not likely result in 

an increase in impervious surfaces and runoff. Because appropriate construction BMPs (required 

by the Clean Water Act) would be expected to be incorporated, erosion effects would be minimal. 

Development associated with growth in several counties including Bell, Williamson, and McLennan 

counties, in the Central Section that do not currently contain major urban centers is likely to 

contribute to an increase in impervious surfaces and runoff which could affect surface water 

quality. Construction BMPs (required by the Clean Water Act) would minimize erosion effects.
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-16

Under the build alternatives, the proposed alignment between Hillsboro and San Antonio would be 

constructed on a new alignment outside of existing transportation corridors. Because appropriate 

design features and construction BMPs (required by the Clean Water Act) would be incorporated, 

effects on surface water bodies and erosion effects are expected to be moderate. Cumulative effect 

on water quality would be expected primarily between Hillsboro and San Antonio, where future 

transportation projects and new development would combine with the build alternatives to result in 

greater potential effects. Effects associated with the build alternatives, in combination with 

development associated with growth and planned highway expansion projects, would likely 

contribute to cumulative erosion effects and effects on surface waterbodies in the Central Section. 

Cumulative effects would be minimized with use of design features and construction BMPs. As 

detailed in Section 3.2, the build alternatives would have negligible effects on groundwater 

resources and on runoff, and therefore would not have cumulative effects. 

6.4.2.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Under the cumulative condition in the Southern Section, planned highway projects in Hidalgo 

County would result in an increase in impervious surfaces that would cause the potential for runoff 

and pollution effects on water quality. A planned rail line in San Antonio would be adjacent to the 

build alternatives; however, the construction of a rail project in this urbanized area is not likely to 

contribute to substantial additional effects on water quality because it would not likely result in an 

increase in impervious surfaces and runoff. The accompanying development associated with 

planned growth, for example in Webb, Nueces, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, is also likely to 

contribute to an increase in impervious surfaces and runoff. Because appropriate construction 

BMPs (required by the Clean Water Act) would be expected to be incorporated, erosion effects 

would be minimal. 

Because several portions of the build alternatives in the Southern Section would be constructed on 

a new alignment outside of existing transportation corridors, effects on surface waterbodies in this 

section are expected to be moderate. Cumulative effects would be expected primarily in these 

areas, particularly in Hidalgo and Cameron counties, where future transportation projects and new 

development would combine with the build alternatives to result in greater potential effects. Effects 

associated with the build alternatives in combination with development associated with growth and 

planned highway expansion projects would likely contribute to a cumulative effect on surface 

waterbodies in the Southern Section. As detailed in Section 3.2, the build alternatives would have 

negligible effects on groundwater resources, runoff and erosion, and therefore would not have 

cumulative effects. 

6.4.3 Noise and Vibration 

The following sections identify the geographic areas where cumulative noise and vibration effects 

would be most likely to occur with the incremental effects of each build alternative. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-17

6.4.3.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Under the cumulative condition in the Northern Section, highway expansion projects would result in 

more vehicles on the roadway and higher noise levels. Population growth and accompanying 

development in the Oklahoma City and the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan areas would also 

contribute to increased noise and vibration levels. During operation, Alternative N4A Conventional 

would have moderate noise and vibration effects on surrounding sensitive land uses. Alternative 

N4A Conventional would result in potential cumulative noise and vibration effects with other 

development in the Northern Section. However, as detailed in Section 3.3.5, noise and vibration 

effects of Alternative N4A Conventional would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the project 

level, which would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. 

Under the cumulative condition in the Northern Section there is potential for cumulative noise and 

vibration effects during construction, particularly where an alternative and future projects would be 

constructed adjacent to sensitive land uses. However, the temporary nature of the construction 

activities, adherence to local noise ordinances, and use of construction BMPs would likely minimize 

the potential for cumulative effects. 

6.4.3.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Under the cumulative condition in the Central Section, planned highway expansion projects in 

Dallas, Ellis, and McLennan counties and near Temple would result in more vehicles on the 

roadway and higher noise levels. Planned transit and rail lines in the Dallas and Fort Worth 

metropolitan area and in San Antonio would be adjacent to the build alternatives and would result 

in higher noise and vibration levels. Population growth and accompanying development in the 

Dallas and Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio metropolitan areas would also contribute to an 

increase in noise and vibration levels. 

Under the build alternatives, there would be greater change in noise and vibration levels along the 

proposed new alignment between Hillsboro and San Antonio where the build alternatives would be 

constructed on a new alignment outside of existing transportation corridors. Cumulative noise and 

vibration effects would be expected primarily in the Dallas and Fort Worth and the San Antonio 

metropolitan areas, particularly adjacent to the IH-35 corridor and new rail and transit corridors; in 

Austin; and in the existing transportation corridor of IH-35 through Ellis and McLennan counties, 

where future transportation projects and new development would combine with the build 

alternatives to generate higher noise and vibration levels along existing and proposed rail corridors. 

The high-speed rail alternatives for Alternatives C4A and C4C would have a higher incremental 

effect than the higher-speed rail alternatives because high-speed rail generates more noise and 

vibration during operation and would therefore affect a larger number of sensitive receptors. 

However, because of the high number of noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses along the 

alignments for both the high-speed and higher-speed alternatives, Alternatives C4A and C4C would 

have moderate noise and vibration effects and potential cumulative effects with other development 

in the Central Section. However, as detailed in Section 3.3.5, noise and vibration effects of 

Alternatives C4A and C4C would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the project level, which 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-18

would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. As detailed in Section 3.3, Alternative C4B 

Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have negligible noise and vibration 

effects and therefore would not result in cumulative effects during operation. 

There is potential for cumulative noise and vibration effects during construction in the Central 

Section, particularly where an alternative and future projects would be constructed adjacent to 

sensitive land uses. Because of the higher number of noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses along 

the alignments of Alternatives C4A and C4C, they would have greater potential for noise and 

vibration effects and potential cumulative effects with other development in the Central Section 

compared to Alternative C4B. However, the temporary nature of the construction activities, 

adherence to local noise ordinances, and use of construction BMPs would likely minimize the 

potential for cumulative effects. 

6.4.3.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Under the cumulative condition in the Southern Section, highway expansion projects in Hidalgo 

County would result in more vehicles on the roadway and higher noise levels. A planned rail line in 

San Antonio would be adjacent to the build alternatives and would result in higher noise and 

vibration levels. Population growth and accompanying development in San Antonio and in Hidalgo 

and Cameron counties would also contribute to increased noise and vibration levels. 

Alternative S4 has a high number of noise and vibration sensitive land uses along its alignment and 

would have moderate effects. Cumulative noise and vibration effects would be expected primarily 

along the existing US-281 corridor, existing rail corridors in Webb, Jim Wells, and Nueces counties, 

and in Webb, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties where future transportation projects and new 

development would combine with Alternative S4 to generate higher noise and vibration levels along 

existing and proposed rail corridors during operation. However, as detailed in Section 3.3.5, noise 

and vibration effects of Alternatives C4A and C4C would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at 

the project level, which would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. As detailed in Section 

3.3, Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have negligible 

noise and vibration effects and are not anticipated to have cumulative effects during operation. 

There is potential for cumulative noise and vibration effects during construction in the Southern 

Section, particularly where an alternative and future projects would be constructed adjacent to 

sensitive land uses. Because of the higher number of noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses along 

the alignment of Alternative S4, it would have greater potential for noise and vibration effects and 

potential cumulative effects with other development in the Southern Section compared to the other 

alternatives. However, the temporary nature of the construction activities, adherence to local noise 

ordinances, and use of construction BMPs would likely minimize the potential for cumulative 

effects. 

6.4.4 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife 

As described in detail in Section 3.5, Natural and Ecological Systems and Wildlife, lands with higher 

ecological value were determined using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-19

Ecological Assessment Protocol (REAP) data, which identify the optimum ecological areas for 

protection and mitigation based on composite scores of diversity, rarity, and sustainability (EPA 

2011). This cumulative analysis focuses on where cumulative effects may affect lands with Higher 

Ecological Importance REAP ranks. The following sections identify the geographic areas where 

cumulative natural ecological systems and wildlife effects would be most likely to occur with the 

incremental effects of each build alternative. 

6.4.4.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Under the cumulative condition in the Northern Section, highway expansion projects would result in 

more vehicles on the roadway and higher noise levels, an increase in air pollution, wildlife dispersal, 

and vehicular wildlife strikes, as well as vegetation clearing during construction. 

Within the Study Vicinity of Alternative N4A Conventional, population growth and accompanying 

development would absorb more land area. Such increases in land development would not 

contribute to a substantial effect on high ecological value lands and wildlife because the areas 

surrounding these urban centers consist predominantly of land types with low ecological value. 

Most lands with high ecological importance are in areas just south of Norman, Oklahoma, near 

Cleveland County, and where Alternative N4A Conventional would pass through Love and Murray 

counties. Future highway and rail projects are not projected for these areas, nor are these areas 

anticipated to see a large increase in population growth. Therefore, Alternative N4A Conventional, 

which would be constructed in existing transportation corridors, would not result in cumulative 

natural ecological systems and wildlife effects on lands with high ecological importance. 

6.4.4.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Under the cumulative condition in the Central Section, highway expansion projects would result in 

more vehicles on the roadway and higher noise levels and would contribute to an increase in air 

pollution, wildlife dispersal, and vehicular wildlife strikes, as well as vegetation clearing during 

construction. Most lands with high ecological importance coincide with areas outside existing 

transportation corridors, in the same areas where the highway expansion projects and the build 

alternatives are planned. 

Planned transit and rail lines in the Dallas and Fort Worth area and in San Antonio are also 

adjacent to the build alternatives. However, the rail projects in these urban centers would not likely 

contribute to a substantial effect on natural ecological systems and wildlife because the area 

consists predominantly of land types with low ecological value, as defined by REAP data. 

However, within the Study Vicinity of the build alternatives, land with high ecological importance are 

located just south and southeast of Waco and McGregor, in McLennan County, and just west of 

Temple, in Bell County, where it is estimated that there will also be an increase in population growth 

within the counties. The development associated with this growth, in addition to the build 

alternatives, planned highway expansion projects in these counties, and preponderance of land 

types with high ecological value would contribute to a substantial effect on natural ecological 

systems and wildlife. Therefore, the build alternatives would result in a potential cumulative effect 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-20

on ecological systems in these areas. As detailed in Section 3.5.4, the effects of the alternatives on 

natural ecosystems and wildlife would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the project level 

when feasible, which would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. 

6.4.4.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Under the cumulative condition, planned transportation projects in the Southern Section would 

result in more vehicles on the roadway and higher noise levels and would contribute to an increase 

in air pollution, wildlife dispersal, and vehicular wildlife strikes, as well as vegetation clearing during 

construction. A planned rail line in San Antonio would be adjacent to the build alternatives; 

however, the rail project in this urban center would not likely contribute to a substantial effect on 

natural ecological systems and wildlife because this area consists predominantly of land types with 

low ecological value, as defined by REAP data. 

Most lands with high ecological importance in Alternative S4 EIS Study Area are in Brooks, Live Oak, 

Duval, and Webb counties. The portions of Alternative S4 that would cross Brooks and Live Oak 

counties would be constructed on existing rights-of-way and would have a negligible effect on 

natural ecological systems and wildlife. However, construction of the portions of Alternative S4 

outside existing transportation corridors, especially in Webb County, where an estimated population 

growth of 45 percent (see Section 6.2, Methodology) is anticipated and where there is a 

preponderance of lands with high ecological value, would result in a potential cumulative effect on 

natural ecological systems and wildlife. Most lands with high ecological importance in the EIS Study 

Area of Alternative S6 (both service types) are also in areas of Webb County. Although no highway 

or rail projects are planned for this area, the S6 alternatives alone would have a substantial effect 

on lands with high ecological importance and would result in a potential cumulative effect on 

natural ecological systems and wildlife due to the anticipated population growth and associated 

development in the county. As detailed in Section 3.5.4, the effects of the alternatives on natural 

ecosystems and wildlife would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the project level when 

feasible, which would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. 

6.4.5 Wetlands 

The following sections identify the geographic areas where cumulative effects on wetlands would be 

most likely to occur with the incremental effects of each build alternative. 

6.4.5.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Under the cumulative condition in the Northern Section, highway expansion projects would result in 

an increase in impervious surfaces that would have the potential to cause additional runoff and 

pollution effects on wetlands. In some areas, such as Oklahoma City and its suburbs and McClain 

County, expansion projects would likely result in permanent removal of wetland area or function. 

Population growth and accompanying development in the Oklahoma City and the Dallas and Fort 

Worth metropolitan areas would also likely contribute to an increase in impervious surfaces, runoff 

pollution, and removal of wetland area. However, Alternative N4A is a conventional rail alternative 

that would remain within the existing railroad right-of-way, predominantly using existing railroad 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-21

tracks and portions of existing infrastructure. As a result, wetlands effects from this build 

alternative are expected to be negligible, and it is unlikely that Alternative N4A would contribute to 

cumulative wetlands effects. 

6.4.5.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Under the cumulative condition in the Central Section, highway expansion projects in Dallas, Ellis, 

and McLennan counties and near Temple would result in an increase in impervious surfaces that 

have the potential to cause additional runoff and pollution effects on wetlands. In some areas, 

expansion projects would likely result in permanent removal of wetland area or function. Planned 

transit and rail lines in the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan area and in San Antonio would also 

be adjacent to the build alternatives; however, the construction of rail projects in these urban 

centers is not likely to contribute to substantial additional effects on wetlands because the land is 

already densely developed. Within the cumulative effects study area, development associated with 

population growth in several counties that do not currently contain major urban centers, including 

Bell, Williamson, and McLennan, is likely to contribute to an increase in impervious surfaces, runoff 

pollution, and removal of wetland area. 

The proposed build alternatives between Hillsboro and San Antonio would be constructed on a new 

alignment outside of existing transportation corridors in areas where there are likely to be 

undisturbed wetlands; therefore, effects on wetlands in the Central Section are expected to be 

moderate. Cumulative effects on wetlands would also be expected primarily in this area, particularly 

in McLennan, Bell, and Travis counties, where future transportation projects and new development 

would combine with the build alternatives to cause greater potential effects on wetlands. Effects 

associated with the build alternatives in combination with development associated with growth and 

planned highway expansion projects would contribute to a cumulative effect on wetlands in the 

Central Section. However, as detailed in Section 3.6.5, the effects of the alternatives on wetlands 

would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the project level when feasible, which would reduce 

the potential for cumulative effects. 

6.4.5.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Under the cumulative condition in the Southern Section, planned highway expansion projects in 

Hidalgo County would result in an increase in impervious surfaces that have the potential to cause 

runoff and pollution effects on wetlands. A planned rail line in San Antonio would be adjacent to the 

build alternatives; however, the construction of rail projects in this urban center is not likely to 

contribute to substantial additional effects on wetlands because the land is already densely 

developed. Several counties within the Study Vicinity in the Southern Section are projected to 

experience population growth, for example in Webb, Nueces, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties. The 

accompanying development associated with this growth is also likely to contribute to an increase in 

impervious surfaces, runoff pollution, and removal of wetland area. 

Several portions of the build alternatives in the Southern Section would be constructed on a new 

alignment outside of existing transportation corridors in areas where there are likely to be 

undisturbed wetlands. Therefore, effects on wetlands in the Southern Section are expected to be 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-22

moderate. Cumulative effects on wetlands would also be expected primarily in these areas, 

particularly in Hidalgo and Cameron counties, where future transportation projects and new 

development would combine with the build alternatives to result in greater potential effects on 

wetlands. Effects associated with the build alternatives in combination with development 

associated with growth and planned highway expansion projects would contribute to a cumulative 

effect on wetlands in the Southern Section. However, as detailed in Section 3.6.5, the effects of the 

alternatives on wetlands would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the project level when 

feasible, which would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. 

6.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The following sections identify the geographic areas where cumulative effects on threatened and 

endangered species would be most likely to occur with the incremental effects of each build 

alternative. 

6.4.6.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Under the cumulative condition in the Northern Section, highway expansion projects could result in 

cumulative effects on threatened and endangered species due to more vehicles on the roadway 

causing higher noise levels and increased air pollution, wildlife dispersal, and vehicular wildlife 

strikes, and vegetation clearing during construction. These effects are particularly important 

because federally listed wildlife species are known to occur in Oklahoma, Cleveland, and McClain 

counties in Oklahoma. 

The construction of Alternative N4A Conventional would have a negligible effect on sensitive plants, 

wildlife, and critical habitat because the majority of the alternative would be constructed within 

existing transportation corridors, in areas already disturbed by development. However, from an 

operations standpoint, the build alternative would have a moderate effect on wildlife species. The 

alternative would not likely be fenced, making wildlife (including listed species known to occur in 

the area) vulnerable to an increased risk for strikes from the additional rail traffic that would occur. 

Additionally, within the Study Vicinity of the build alternative, it is estimated that there will be a 

20 percent population increase in the Oklahoma City and Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan areas 

(see Section 6.2, Methodology). The development associated with this growth, in addition to the 

operation of the build alternative and construction and operation of the planned highway expansion 

projects in these counties, would contribute to an effect on threatened and endangered species. 

Therefore, Alternative N4A Conventional would result in a potential cumulative effect on these 

resources. However, as detailed in Section 3.7.5, the effects of the alternatives on threatened and 

endangered species would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the project level when feasible, 

which would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. 

6.4.6.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Under the cumulative condition in the Central Section, highway expansion projects would result in 

more vehicles on the roadway and higher noise levels and in increased air pollution, wildlife 

dispersal, and vehicular wildlife strikes, as well as vegetation clearing during construction. Planned 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-23

transit and rail lines in the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan area and in San Antonio would also 

be adjacent to the build alternatives. The rail projects in the Dallas and Fort Worth area would not 

likely contribute to a substantial effect on threatened and endangered species because there are 

no known occurrences within these areas. However, there are occurrences of listed plant and 

animal species in Bexar County, in the vicinity of San Antonio. The accompanying development 

associated with the population growth in Bexar County, in addition to construction and operation of 

the build alternatives, the planned highway, and rail expansion projects in the county, may 

contribute to a cumulative effect on identified threatened and endangered species. 

Within the Study Vicinity of the build alternatives, growth is also expected in McLennan and Travis 

counties. Within each of these counties, the state-ranked Texas garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis 

annectens) and the proposed federally threatened and state-ranked mountain plover (Charadrius 

montanus) are known to occur. The accompanying development associated with this growth and 

the planned highway expansion projects in these counties, in addition to the build alternatives, 

would contribute to a substantial effect on threatened and endangered species, especially because 

the alternatives would likely result in a cumulative effect on these important state-listed and 

federally listed species. 

As detailed in Section 3.7.5, the effects of the alternatives on threatened and endangered species 

would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the project level when feasible, which would reduce 

the potential for cumulative effects. 

6.4.6.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Under the cumulative condition in the Southern Section, highway expansion projects would result in 

more vehicles on the roadway and higher noise levels and increased air pollution, wildlife dispersal, 

and vehicular wildlife strikes, as well as vegetation clearing during construction. A planned rail line 

in San Antonio would be adjacent to the build alternatives. Although these rail projects would be 

located in the urban center of San Antonio, there are listed plant and animal species occurrences in 

Bexar County that could also be present in remnant lands among the urbanized areas. Bexar 

County is projected to increase its population 21 percent over the planning horizon, and estimated 

population growth in Webb, Hidalgo, Cameron, and Nueces counties is 45, 42, 39 and 14 percent, 

respectively (see Section 6.2, Methodology). This growth, considered with Alternative S4, may 

contribute to cumulative effects on the seven federally listed and 24 other sensitive plant and 

wildlife species that have the potential to occur in these areas. Therefore, Alternative S4 is likely to 

result in a potential cumulative effect on threatened and endangered species. However, as detailed 

in Section 3.7.5, the effects of the alternatives on threatened and endangered species would be 

avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the project level when feasible, which would reduce the 

potential for cumulative effects. 

Alternative S6 (both service types) would be constructed in a new, direct route, outside existing 

transportation corridors. However, effects related to the construction of Alternative S6 would be 

considered negligible because only 3 acres of one sensitive wildlife species habitat and no plant 

species or critical habitat are known to occur within its EIS Study Area. Although there is an 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-24

anticipated population growth of 45 percent within one county (Webb County; see Section 6.2, 

Methodology) that would be crossed by Alternative S6, no other highway or rail projects are planned 

for this area. Therefore, Alternative S6 would have a low likelihood of resulting in cumulative effects 

on threatened and endangered species. 

6.4.7 Energy 

Under the cumulative condition in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections, future 

transportation projects and new development to accommodate population growth would result in 

consumption of energy during construction. The build alternatives combined with these future 

projects would cumulatively contribute to the consumption of energy during construction. However, 

operation of all build alternatives would result in a long-term net energy benefit because of changes 

in ridership from high-energy consumption modes of travel to the lower-energy mode of passenger 

rail. The build alternatives combined with other future rail projects in the area would have a 

beneficial cumulative effect on energy consumption and would contribute toward offsetting 

increased energy consumption that would result from future road transportation projects and new 

development to accommodate population growth. 

6.4.8 Utilities 

Under the cumulative condition in the Northern, Central, and Southern sections, future 

transportation projects and new development to accommodate population growth have the 

potential to affect existing utilities. All of the build alternatives, but particularly those in the Central 

Section, have the potential to affect existing utilities such as electrical transmission lines, electrical 

substations, and natural gas pipelines during construction (particularly in urban areas where there 

is a high density of utility lines and where new alignments or tracks are required). Therefore, the 

build alternatives would contribute to potential cumulative effects on utilities. However, as detailed 

in Section 3.11.5, the effects of the alternatives on utilities would be avoided, minimized, and 

mitigated at the project level when feasible, which would reduce the potential for cumulative 

effects. 

6.4.9 Geologic Resources 

Geologic resources can both affect and be affected by a project. Effects on a project by geologic 

resources can include risk due to potential seismic activity and soil hazards (in the case of the 

cumulative effects study area, this includes potential effects on structures from swell/shrink 

capacity of clay soils). Effects on geologic resources by a project could include cut and fill activities 

that cause slope instability and landslides, and loss of availability of known mineral, petroleum, or 

natural gas resources. Effects on projects by geologic resources would not be considered 

cumulative because the effects are not incrementally affected by additional projects (for example, 

the effect on a single project by an earthquake or the shrink/swell of clay soils would not be 

affected by other projects in the area). Effects on geologic resources, however, could be 

incrementally affected by multiple projects. Cumulative effects on geologic resources would be 

expected if construction of multiple projects resulted in slope instability in a given area, or if use of 

mineral resources for construction (such as limestone, sand, and gravel) caused a substantial 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-25

overall depletion of these resources. Cumulative effects related to soil erodibility are discussed in 

Section 6.4.2, Water Quality. 

Within the Study Vicinity of the Northern, Central, and Southern sections, slope topography is 

generally low, so potential effects due to slope instability (such as landslides or earthquake-induced 

liquefaction) would be easily addressed during final design. Limestone, sand, and gravel would be 

needed for construction of the build alternatives, but because reserves are plentiful throughout the 

Study Vicinity, none of the alternatives would be expected to contribute to limiting availability or 

access to these resources. Therefore, the build alternatives would be unlikely to result in 

cumulative effects related to geologic resources. 

6.4.10 Aesthetics and Visual Quality 

The following sections identify the geographic areas where cumulative visual effects would be most 

likely to occur with the incremental effects of each build alternative. 

6.4.10.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Future rail projects planned in this section would follow existing transportation corridors past 

sensitive viewers. These planned projects would produce minor changes to the landscape viewed 

by sensitive viewers and would have minimal to no cumulative effects on aesthetics and visual 

quality. Future highway expansion projects in this section would also generally follow existing 

transportation corridors past sensitive viewers. These projects would result in minor changes to the 

landscape viewed by sensitive viewers and would have minimal cumulative effects on aesthetics 

and visual quality. 

The majority of the Alternative N4A Conventional alignment that would pass next to sensitive 

viewers would use existing railroad rights-of-way. Required modifications along existing railroad 

rights-of-way would result in relatively minor physical changes to the landscape seen by sensitive 

viewers. These changes would likely be unnoticeable, or barely noticeable, to sensitive viewers, and 

it is not anticipated that there would be cumulative effects on aesthetics and visual quality. In the 

few locations in urban, suburban, and rural areas were new rail would be required next to sensitive 

viewers, Alternative N4A Conventional would create changes to the viewed landscape that would 

produce negligible to substantial effects, but would have little influence on the overall aesthetics 

and visual quality of this section. The overall cumulative effects of Alternative N4A Conventional on 

aesthetics and visual quality would be minor. The alternative would potentially contribute to 

cumulative effects associated with population growth and related development, particularly in 

suburban and rural areas. 

6.4.10.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Under the cumulative condition in the Central Section, highway expansion projects would result in 

additional highways being built as well as transit and rail lines in the Dallas and Fort Worth 

metropolitan area and in San Antonio. Where these new projects would be built along existing 

transportation corridors near sensitive viewers, they would result in minor changes to the viewed 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-26

landscape and may have minor cumulative effects on aesthetics and visual quality. Where the 

highway projects would be built along new alignments near sensitive viewers there would be a 

likelihood that they would produce changes to the viewed landscape. These changes would 

produce cumulative effects on aesthetics and visual quality. Where higher-speed rail alternatives 

are proposed to be located in, or parallel to, existing rail and highway corridors, the new tracks 

would have a low likelihood of changing the landscape seen by sensitive viewers, and it is not 

anticipated that there would be cumulative effects on aesthetics and visual quality. The portions of 

the higher-speed build alternatives in this section that would have the greatest effect on aesthetics 

and visual quality would occur along portions of routes that would require new rail alignments 

outside of existing transportation corridors that would be adjacent to sensitive viewers. Most of 

these locations would be in suburban and rural areas, particularly between Hillsboro and San 

Antonio. Where new tracks (and support features such bridges and fencing) outside of existing 

transportation corridors would be constructed near sensitive viewers, there would be changes to 

the viewed landscape that would result in cumulative effects on aesthetics and visual quality. 

High-speed alternatives would require greater radii, more elevated structures to maintain grade 

separations than the other service types, possibly longer bridges, and would result in more 

alteration of the landscape beyond existing rail corridors that would be viewed by sensitive viewers 

than would be required for the higher-speed rail alternatives. Most of these locations would be in 

suburban and rural areas, particularly between Hillsboro and San Antonio. New high-speed rail 

alternatives near sensitive viewers that would be located outside of existing transportation corridors 

would alter the viewed landscape and could be noticeable to sensitive viewers. In these situations, 

the build alternatives would potentially contribute to cumulative effects on aesthetics and visual 

quality associated with population growth and related development, particularly in suburban and 

rural areas. 

6.4.10.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The cumulative effects from higher-speed and high-speed rail described for the Central Section 

would apply to the Southern Section. However, the build alternatives in this section would require 

relatively few miles of new rail alignment outside of existing transportation corridors adjacent to 

sensitive viewers. The greatest changes to the landscape viewed by sensitive viewers from the build 

alternatives would occur in suburban and rural areas and small communities, particularly in areas 

southwest of San Antonio. The effects on aesthetics and visual quality from higher-speed rail in 

these areas would range from negligible to moderate. The effects from high-speed rail in these 

areas would range from moderate to substantial. These build alternatives would potentially 

contribute to cumulative effects associated with population growth and related development, 

particularly in suburban and rural areas. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-27

6.4.11 Land Use and Prime Farmland 

Of the build alternatives, only Alternative N4A Conventional would have negligible effects and 

therefore would not have the potential for cumulative effects with planned future transportation 

projects and population growth. 

For the other build alternatives, cumulative effects on land use and farmlands could occur if future 

development and transportation projects result in additional land use conversions. Future 

transportation projects could have cumulative effects with the build alternatives depending on 

whether the projects are located within or outside of existing transportation corridor rights-of-way. 

Where planned projects are within existing transportation corridors, it is not anticipated that there 

would be cumulative effects. However, if existing land uses and areas of prime farmland are 

converted to transportation-related use, there would be cumulative effects with the build 

alternatives if the conversions are adjacent to or outside the existing transportation corridor and 

result in areas being bisected or isolated. 

6.4.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

For all of the alternatives, the Program in conjunction with the future transportation projects could 

result in a number of beneficial socioeconomic and environmental justice cumulative effects. The 

station areas could encourage redevelopment in the surrounding area and the potential for transit 

oriented development. These additional developments could provide additional employment 

opportunities and new housing opportunities to address the projected employment and population 

growth. The potential for development around each station would depend on the type of station 

planned, which would be determined during the project-level analysis. Any new development in the 

station areas would also result in the potential for additional property tax and sales tax revenues, 

which would benefit the counties where the stations are located. The Program and the future 

transportation projects would also improve regional access and reduce travel times, allowing goods, 

services, and people to move more efficiently through the region. 

The potential for new employment opportunities and the improvements in regional access would 

provide cumulative benefits to all populations including environmental justice populations. 

Depending on the existing uses in the station areas there is the potential for adverse effects on 

environmental justice populations as a result of acquisitions and displacements, especially in areas 

where there are high concentrations of these populations. Future transportation projects following 

existing transportation corridors would not create any new barriers or disruptions that would result 

in cumulative effects. However, cumulative effects may result where future transportation projects 

do not follow existing alignments and create new barriers or disruptions. 

6.4.13 Hazardous Materials 

Cumulative effects related to hazardous materials would occur in metropolitan areas and in 

counties where population growth, land development, and associated transportation and other 

infrastructure projects would increase the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous 

materials and would affect contaminated sites. The build alternatives would contribute 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-28

incrementally to effects on contaminated sites, depending on how many sites would be affected 

and the nature and extent of the contamination. Because environmental health and safety plans 

and procedures would be followed during site cleanup, the incremental contribution of the build 

alternatives to cumulative effects would likely be minor. 

6.4.14 Recreational Areas and Opportunities 

The following sections discuss areas where cumulative effects on recreational resources may occur 

when considering the growth projections and foreseeable projects in addition to the build 

alternatives. 

6.4.14.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Under the cumulative condition, future highway expansion projects in the Northern Section would 

not affect parks and recreational resources in the neighborhoods the build alternative would travel 

near. The growth projected in the Oklahoma City area, Norman, and Denton communities should 

include adequate open space opportunities. Denser development in the cities of Dallas and Fort 

Worth, required to absorb the projected increase in population, may place added pressures on 

existing park resources. However, Alternative N4A Conventional would not result in property 

acquisition of nearby parks and recreational areas. Additionally, none of the 56 park and 

recreational resources in the EIS Study Area in the Northern Section are dependent on a quiet 

atmosphere for enjoyment of the resource; they are currently located near an active railroad. 

Therefore, it is not anticipated that the build alternative would result in cumulative effects on park 

or recreational resources in the Northern Section. 

6.4.14.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Future expansion of IH-35 East and IH-35 West may affect park resources in urbanized areas of 

Dallas and Fort Worth in locations similar to those where the build alternatives in the Central 

Section are likely to have effects. Combined with projected population growth and associated 

development in the Dallas and Fort Worth urban centers, there is a high probability of cumulative 

effects on park resources. In metropolitan areas, available right-of-way is scarce and therefore 

avoiding park resources is often not prudent and feasible. While federally funded projects would be 

required to provide mitigation, available lands that could replace affected parklands may be in 

short supply in these metropolitan areas. 

The communities of Waco and Temple, where build alternatives share a common EIS Study Area, 

are expected to incrementally add park resources according to their development plans, 

appropriate for the projected rate of growth. However, expansion of IH-35 is planned in the same 

area as the build alternatives near Waco and Temple. A combination of substantial roadway and rail 

projects in the same general area may result in cumulative effects on local neighborhood park 

resources. As part of these projects, prudent and reasonable avoidance alternatives would need to 

be developed. However, if none exists, then mitigation of the effects may be possible to minimize 

cumulative effects. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-29

The build alternatives would not contribute to a cumulative effect on community recreational 

resources in Austin. In San Antonio, the build alternatives would be in the same corridor as a 

planned increase in commuter rail service. If the higher-speed alternatives can remain within 

existing rail right-of-way, then park effects may be limited. If the higher-speed alternatives do not 

follow existing rail right-of way, or if a high-speed service type is selected, there may be a 

cumulative effect on San Antonio park resources. Bexar County, which contains the San Antonio 

metropolitan area, is projected to grow by 21 percent by 2035 (see Section 6.2, Methodology), and 

park resources in downtown areas have high value. If any of the build alternatives were 

constructed, mitigation would be required for any loss of parks. However, the ability to replace 

resources for the same users may be limited, which could result in cumulative effects on 

recreational resources. 

6.4.14.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The build alternatives in the Southern Section would have fewer cumulative effects on park 

resources in San Antonio than those identified for the Central Section because avoidance of park 

resources would be more feasible in the Southern Section EIS Study Area. Foreseeable 

transportation projects would not affect the same community parks as the build alternatives. Park 

resources are likely to increase proportionately to population-driven development, which would 

result in a net increase in park resources. With avoidance of existing park resources, and an 

increase in park resources proportional to development, there is a low likelihood for the build 

alternatives to contribute to a cumulative effect on park and recreational resources. 

6.4.15 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

This section reviews cumulative effects on historic and archaeological resources that are listed, 

eligible, or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

6.4.15.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

6.4.15.1.1 Archaeological Resources 

In the Northern Section, the build alternative is conventional rail service rail that would remain 

within the existing rail corridor. The only exceptions would be locations where additional parking or 

staging areas could disturb archaeological resources, but these areas would adhere to Section 106 

requirements to avoid or mitigate effects (refer to Section 3.19.5). There could be minor 

incremental disturbance of archaeological resources in urbanized areas, such as Oklahoma City, 

where other projects and development have already disturbed archeological resources. Therefore, 

the build alternative in the Northern Section would have a low likelihood of contributing to 

cumulative effects on archeological resources. 

6.4.15.1.2 Historic Properties 

Alternative N4A would primarily use existing railroad infrastructure or would be located adjacent to 

existing railroad facilities and tracks, and minimal new rights-of-way and easements would be 

required. As a result, acquisition effects on historic resources would be minimal. The expansion of 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-30

existing stations and new stations within urban and suburban areas could potentially result in 

moderate effects on historic resources within the EIS Study Area. Because several stations are 

NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible, expansion and reconstruction of historically significant buildings and 

structures may be required to accommodate increased ridership. If this is the case, the build 

alternative could result in cumulative effects on historic resources with the future rail projects 

planned in the Dallas and Fort Worth area. 

6.4.15.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

6.4.15.2.1 Archaeological Resources 

There is a higher probability for disturbance of archaeological resources in the areas where ground 

disturbance has not already occurred. While growth may have incrementally disturbed 

archaeological resources on the fringe of the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan area, the 

cumulative effects of the build alternatives would be greater in combination with expanding 

transportation projects in rural areas, such as where the C4A and C4C alternatives would travel 

south of Dallas in parallel with US-77. In this corridor, expanding commuter rail is planned between 

Dallas and Waxahachie, along with expansion of US-77 south and through Waxahachie. These 

transportation projects could also influence the areas where development is planned to 

accommodate growth along the corridor, thus resulting in a high probability of cumulative effects on 

clusters of archaeological resources. There are only four previously identified archaeological 

resources in this corridor. IH-35 is projected to expand in McLennan County through Waco. 

However, this project is fairly distant from the build alternatives; while both may disturb 

archeological resources, it is unlikely they would affect a similar cluster of resources. 

Cumulative effects could also occur at the Guadalupe River crossing where the build alternatives 

enter San Antonio. There is high probability for archaeological sites to occur near waterways, and at 

this river, a planned commuter rail expansion, a widening of IH-35, and the build alternatives would 

expand or build new crossings, which could lead to cumulative effects on common archaeological 

resources. However, no sites have been identified in this area. 

6.4.15.2.2 Historic Properties 

The build alternatives could contribute to a cumulative effect on historic properties in Dallas and 

Fort Worth because they would enter the city centers, where there are and will continue to be 

growth pressures. In addition, both cities have plans to expand commuter rail and highways (IH-35 

East and IH-35 West, respectively) that would affect the city core areas, where there is a high 

number of historic properties. Route Alternative C4C has the highest potential for cumulative 

effects because it would travel the longest distance in parallel with planned highway improvements, 

and Route Alternative C4B would have the lowest contribution to cumulative effects because it has 

the shortest route. 

The C4A and C4C alternatives would contribute to cumulative effects on historic resources in 

Waxahachie with the expansion of US-77 through the center of town. All Central Section build 

alternatives would similarly contribute to cumulative effects on historic resources in Waco, with the 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-31

expansion of IH-35 parallel to the EIS Study Area. Historic resources in Temple may be able to be 

avoided, thereby preventing cumulative effects with the expansion of IH-35 at this location. Finally, 

all build alternatives, in combination with the planned increase in commuter rail service, would 

result in cumulative effects on the collection of historic resources in downtown San Antonio. 

6.4.15.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

6.4.15.3.1 Archaeological Resources 

There are relatively few previously identified archaeological resources in the Southern Section. 

Moderate to high growth is projected in McAllen and moderate to low growth is projected in 

Brownsville and Corpus Christi. There are no archaeological resources identified in the areas 

around the S6 alternatives and very low potential for growth or other planned improvements; 

therefore, no cumulative effects are expected. Alternative S4 may result in cumulative effects in the 

area north of McAllen where expansion US-281 is planned. In combination with the growth in this 

area, they may be cumulative effects related to clusters of similar archaeological resources. 

However, no archaeological sites have been identified in this area. 

6.4.15.3.2 Historic Properties 

The only area where Alternative S4 may result in cumulative effects on historic resources is in 

McAllen, where moderate growth is projected and the Alternative S4 EIS Study Area would travel 

through NRHP-listed or eligible historic districts. The S6 alternatives would not affect any identified 

historic properties and would not travel in areas with strong growth pressures. The S6 alternatives 

would likely be able to avoid historic properties that might be identified at the project level and are 

not anticipated to have cumulative effects. 

6.4.16 Transportation 

The following sections identify the geographic areas where cumulative transportation effects would 

be most likely to occur with the incremental effects of each build alternative. 

The transportation analysis in Section 3.20 evaluates the alternatives on their ability to meet the 

projected intercity travel demand; and documents the anticipated changes to traffic patterns by 

alternative, including changes in mode share, travel time, travel time reliability (for passenger rail 

and autos), and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A qualitative analysis of potential effects on air 

carriers, intercity transit service providers, and freight operations, has also been conducted. The 

potential cumulative effects of the build alternatives are described below for each of these 

categories. 

6.4.16.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Cumulative traffic effects may occur when more than one project has an overlapping construction 

schedule that generates excessive construction-related traffic. Alternative N4A is proposed to use 

existing infrastructure and stations and is not anticipated to have cumulative transportation effects 

during construction. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-32

During operation, local traffic volumes and parking demand would increase around and at the 

stations due to increases in ridership, which could combine with cumulative traffic generated by 

other local development projects. An estimated 20 percent population growth and accompanying 

development in the Oklahoma City and Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan areas would likely 

contribute to the cumulative local transportation effects. However, as population growth occurs in 

these urban areas of the Northern Section, there will be a greater number of transportation users 

and a potentially greater cumulative shift in mode share as rail becomes an effective alternative 

transportation mode within the corridor. This could result in a cumulative reduction in VMT and 

highway congestion. 

6.4.16.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

In the Central Section, future planned projects and development, such as the planned transit and 

rail lines in the Dallas and Fort Worth area and in San Antonio, which are adjacent to the build 

alternatives, would have the potential to cause cumulative local transportation effects during 

construction if the timing of the projects overlap. Potential increases in vehicle trip generation 

would vary based on the project type, location, schedule, size of workforce, equipment needs, and 

other factors. The distribution of construction trips on the road network will also depend on the 

location of individual projects and the project staging areas. While construction activities for the 

build alternatives would be temporary, they would be cumulatively long term given that construction 

would be ongoing for many years, and could combine with other nearby construction projects. 

During operations, cumulative effects on local traffic conditions and parking could occur in areas 

where new development is proposed, combined with the increases in local traffic and parking 

demand around and at the stations due to increases in rail ridership. However, as population 

growth occurs in the Dallas and Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio metropolitan areas, there will 

also be a greater number of transportation users, and a potentially greater cumulative shift in mode 

share as rail becomes an effective alternative transportation mode within the corridor. Therefore, 

cumulatively, the build alternatives combined with the planned transit and rail lines in the Dallas 

and Fort Worth metropolitan area and in San Antonio would decrease reliance on highway travel, 

thus contributing to a cumulative reduction in VMT and highway congestion. 

6.4.16.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Similar to the Central Section, where future planned transportation projects and development are 

adjacent to the build alternatives, there is potential for cumulative local transportation effects 

during construction if the timing of the projects overlap. For example, cumulative effects could 

occur along the existing US-281 corridor; existing rail corridors in Webb, Jim Wells, and Nueces 

counties; and in Webb, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties where future transportation projects and 

new development would combine with Alternative S4. 

Similar to the Central Section, under the cumulative condition in the Southern Section, population 

growth and accompanying development in San Antonio and in Hidalgo and Cameron counties would 

result in a greater number of transportation users, but also a potentially greater cumulative shift in 
TBG092314012951SCO 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 6-33

mode share as rail becomes an effective alternative transportation mode within the corridor. This 

would result in a cumulative reduction in VMT and highway congestion. 

6.4.17 Public Health 

During construction, all of the build alternatives, but particularly those in the Central and Southern 

sections where construction would be more intensive, have potential to temporarily expose 

sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and those with existing health concerns, to 

increased levels of particulate matter and air toxics. Where future planned transportation projects 

and development are adjacent to the build alternatives, there is potential for cumulative public 

health effects during construction if the timing of the projects overlap. 

During operation of the build alternatives, there is potential for local health effects to occur where 

vehicles and diesel trains (except for the high-speed rail alternatives, which use electric trains) idle 

for long periods of time near high concentrations of sensitive populations. As discussed further in 

Section 3.21, Public Health, for this service-level analysis, there is insufficient information to 

determine potential local health effects. Therefore, there is insufficient information to determine 

the potential for cumulative local public health effects. The detailed analysis necessary to 

determine these potential effects will be conducted at the project level. 

All of the build alternatives, with the exception of Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, would result in 

negligible long-term regional benefits to public health associated with air pollutant emissions during 

operation. These build alternatives, combined with the planned transit and rail lines in the area and 

the potential shift in mode share toward rail as development occurs and rail becomes a more 

effective mode of transportation, may cumulatively result in regional benefits to public health. 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have the potential to cause long-term regional effects on 

public health and may potentially result in cumulative effects. 

The build alternatives are not anticipated to have cumulative public health effects associated with 

hazardous materials or groundwater aquifers that supply drinking water. 

6.0 Permits

 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 7-1 

TBG092314012951SCO 

7.0 Permits 

Transportation projects must comply with federal, state, and local environmental laws and 

regulations, permits, reviews, notifications, consultation, and other approvals. Table 7-1 lists the 

permits, notifications, or concurrences that may be required for construction of the TexasOklahoma Passenger Rail Program. 

Table 7-1: Permits Potentially Required for Construction of the Texas-Oklahoma 

Passenger Rail Program

Agency Permit 

FEDERAL

Bureau of Land Management  Right-of-Way Permit

Department of the Interior –

Bureau of Indian Affairs  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

(Executive Order 11375)

Federal Aviation Administration  Airport Layout Plan Modification Approval

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency

 Conditional Letter of Map Revision or Letter of Map Revision for 

changes in flood elevation 

Federal Highway Administration  Concurrence for Highway Right-of-Way Occupancy and/or 

Disposal

 Access Justification Report or Access Modification Report

 Concurrence on Project Design Elements Related to Highway 

Operations

National Marine Fisheries Service  Section 7 Consultation and Biological Opinion

National Surface Transportation 

Board

 NEPA Consultation 

Surface Transportation Board  Authority to Construct and Operate Railroad

U.S. Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultation, 

administered by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer

and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer
6.0 Permits

7.0 Permits

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 7-2 

TBG092314012951SCO 

Agency Permit 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit for discharge of dredge or 

fill materials into waters of the U.S., including wetlands 

 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification – Water Quality, 

administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit for construction of 

any structure in or over any navigable waters of the U.S.

 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 408 Permit for construction of 

new levee crossings

U.S. Coast Guard  General Bridge Act Section 9 Permit for construction of new 

bridge structures over waterways considered navigable by the 

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Department of

Transportation/Federal Railroad 

Administration

 U.S. Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) evaluation 

and approval

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

 Review of Environmental Justice conclusions

 General Air Quality Conformity Determination

 Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, administered by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  Section 7 Consultation and Biological Opinion

STATE

Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality

 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification – Water Quality 

 Clean Water Act Section 402 NPDES Permit, implemented by 

the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program 

 Notice of Intent to use General Permit TXR150000 for 

Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity 

 Surface Water Use Permit

 Transportation Conformity Determination
6.0 Permits

7.0 Permits

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 7-3 

TBG092314012951SCO 

Agency Permit 

Texas Department of 

Transportation

 Occupancy and Use Permit

 Right-of-Way Permit 

Texas General Land Office  Texas Coastal Management Program Coastal Coordination 

Council Consistency Determination

Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department

 Scientific Collecting Permit for relocation of state-listed 

threatened and endangered species

 Marl, Sand, Gravel, Shell, or Mudshell Permit for disturbance or 

take of streambed materials

Texas State Historic Preservation 

Office

 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation 

Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality

 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification – Water Quality 

 Clean Water Act Section 402 NPDES Permit, implemented by 

the Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program

 Notice of Intent to use General Permit OKR10 for Stormwater 

Discharges from Construction Activities 

Oklahoma Department of 

Transportation

 Occupancy and Use Permit

 Right-of-Way Permit

Oklahoma State Historic 

Preservation Office

 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation 

LOCAL 

Local agencies  Construction Noise Permit (if construction violates city or county 

noise ordinance)

TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 8-1 

 

8.0 Public Involvement 

As part of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (Study), and pursuant to the requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and 

the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have conducted a public and agency involvement 

program in support of the service-level environmental review process. This chapter describes the 

public and agency involvement efforts conducted in preparation of this service-level environmental 

impact statement (EIS). The public and agency involvement program included the following efforts: 

 Agency involvement: Agency pre-scoping and scoping meetings; Cooperating Agency invitation 

letters. 

 Tribal coordination: Invitation letters and meetings.

 Public involvement and outreach: Informational materials, including a Study website; scoping 

and alternatives analysis open house meetings; meetings with individual stakeholders, 

including presentations and briefings.

8.1 Agency Involvement 

As part of the Study, TxDOT and FRA have engaged federal, state, and local agencies, as well as 

Native American Tribes, to obtain initial feedback on the Study and the scope of the environmental 

document, and to determine if the federal agencies would like to be Cooperating Agencies under 

NEPA. The elements developed to facilitate and document agency coordination for the Study are 

outlined in the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Agency and Tribal Coordination Plan (TxDOT

2013a).

To introduce agencies to the Study, TxDOT hosted a pre-scoping agency meeting on February 26, 

2013. The meeting featured a presentation that included the background to the Study and an 

outline of the draft Purpose and Need Statement. In addition, the presentation included preliminary 

information about the Study scope and general corridors under consideration, as well as a draft 

version of the evaluation criteria. The EIS timeline was reviewed, along with next steps. After the 

presentation, agencies were invited to ask questions and to comment on the range of issues to be 

investigated in the environmental document, the adequacy of the draft Purpose and Need 

Statement, and the Study methods and evaluation criteria for resources under the agencies’ 

purview. 

As part of the formal scoping process, agency scoping meetings were held in Oklahoma City (March 

25, 2013), Austin (March 27, 2013), and Dallas (April 3, 2013). These three agency meetings were 

held from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. on the same day as public scoping open house meetings in their

respective locations. Agency interest in the Study during the pre-scoping meeting was documented 

using a form that asked for contact information and a statement of interest. The agencies were 

encouraged to submit comments during the scoping process and were invited to attend the public 

scoping meetings. Agencies were also invited to provide written scoping comments during the 

scoping period. Transit districts, counties, cities, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and state 

and federal regulatory agencies were invited to the agency scoping meetings. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

8.0 Public Involvement

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 8-2 

 

After the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Route Alternatives Analysis (see Appendix C; TxDOT 

2014) was completed, FRA and TxDOT invited federal, state, and local agencies and Native 

American Tribes to a series of public open house meetings that presented the results of the 

analysis. The meetings are described in more detail below in Section 8.2.2, Alternatives Analysis 

Public Meetings. 

8.1.1 Federal Agency Coordination 

The following federal agencies were identified in the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Agency 

and Tribal Coordination Plan (TxDOT 2013a) and received an invitation to the Study’s pre-scoping 

and scoping meetings:

 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

 Bureau of Land Management

 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

 Federal Emergency Management Agency 

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

 Federal Transit Administration

 International Boundary and Water Commission

National Marine Fisheries Service

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

 U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 U.S. Coast Guard

 U.S. Department of Energy 

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

 U.S. Forest Service

Two federal agencies submitted scoping comment letters, EPA and U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. EPA provided recommendations for continued interagency and community coordination, 

information sources, and guidance for analysis in the Study. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(an agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), Laredo Sector, is interested in 

intercity passenger rail service as an alternative mode of transportation for its employees and 

requested additional information on the proposed routes, station locations, hours of operation, and 

fares. A more complete summary of the agencies’ comments, as well as the original comment 

letters, can be found in the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program Scoping Report (see Appendix 

A; TxDOT 2013b).

In September 2014, FRA sent letters to five federal agencies to invite them to take part in the Study 

NEPA process as Cooperating Agencies. The role of a Cooperating Agency is to participate in 

coordination meetings; identify issues, concerns, and studies that the EIS should address; assist in 

determining appropriate service-level mitigation strategies; and provide review and comment on 

environmental documents that reflect the views and concerns of the agency and the adequacy of 

the document. The following agencies were invited to participate in the Study as Cooperating 

Agencies:

 FAA, Southwest Region

 FHWA
TBG092314012951SCO 

8.0 Public Involvement

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 8-3 

 

 Surface Transportation Board, Office of Environmental Analysis 

 USFWS

 USACE

Of the agencies invited, USACE (Fort Worth, Galveston, and Tulsa Districts) replied by letter to 

accept the invitation, and the FAA and the Surface Transportation Board replied by letter to decline 

the invitation, but will consider participating at the project level (USACE, Fort Worth District 2014; 

USACE, Galveston District 2014; USACE, Tulsa District 2014; FAA 2014; STB 2014). 

8.1.2 State Agency Coordination 

The following state agencies identified in the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Agency and 

Tribal Coordination Plan (TxDOT 2013a) received an invitation to the Study’s pre-scoping and 

scoping meetings: 

Texas Oklahoma 

 Coastal Coordination Council

 General Land Office 

 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

 Texas Historical Commission

 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

(TPWD)

 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

 Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT)

 Oklahoma Conservation Commission

 Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

 Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office

 Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

Two state agencies submitted scoping comment letters: TPWD and the Oklahoma Tourism and 

Recreation Department.1 TPWD requested ongoing communication with the Program team during 

the early planning phase of the Study to provide guidance on avoidance and minimization of 

impacts on natural resources, and its letter listed applicable state and federal regulations that 

would pertain to the Program. It also recommended maintaining the proposed rail alignments within 

existing railroad right-of-way whenever possible. 

The Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department expressed concerns regarding current 

passenger service not meeting the needs of travelers between Oklahoma and Texas and 

emphasized improving this service. It also stated that identifying and providing service to major and 

critical destinations for travelers is important. Connectivity and station amenities and services were 

identified as priorities that should be supportive of all passengers. 

A more complete summary of the agencies’ comments, as well as the original comment letters, can 

be found in the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program Scoping Report (see Appendix A; TxDOT 

2013b).

 

1 While it was not among the agencies invited to comment, as identified on the list above, the Oklahoma Tourism and 

Recreation Department submitted a scoping comment letter. Comment was welcomed from all agencies.
TBG092314012951SCO 

8.0 Public Involvement

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 8-4 

 

8.1.3 Tribal Coordination 

FRA worked with TxDOT, ODOT, and FHWA to develop a list of Native American Tribes that could 

potentially have interest in the Study because of current or historic presence or treaty interest in 

the study area. FRA has led all Tribal coordination and outreach activities, in conjunction with 

TxDOT, including the following actions:

 Sending letters inviting the Tribes to participate in scoping.

 Sending letters inviting the Tribes to participate in government-to-government consultation 

pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

 Holding consultation meetings with Tribes that responded to the invitation letters and agreed to 

participate in consultation. 

 Providing additional Study documentation pertaining to potential Tribal interests. 

The list of Tribes to be contacted was reassessed throughout the Study. Tribal groups that are not 

federally recognized were not included in the formal consultation process, but were invited to 

provide input by attending public scoping and stakeholder meetings and through ongoing Study 

coordination. 

Federally recognized tribes with interests in the Texas and Oklahoma counties included in the EIS 

Study Area include the following: 

 Absentee-Shawnee Tribe (Okla., Texas) 

 Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (Texas) 

 Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town (Okla.) 

 Apache Tribe of Oklahoma (Okla., Texas) 

 Caddo Nation of Oklahoma (Texas) 

 Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (Okla.) 

 Chickasaw Nation (Okla.) 

 Choctaw Nation (Texas) 

 Citizen Potawatomi Nation (Okla.) 

 Comanche Nation (Okla., Texas) 

 Delaware Nation (Okla., Texas) 

 Fort Sill Apache Tribe (Okla.) 

 Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma (Okla.)

 Kialegee Tribal Town (Texas) 

 Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma (Okla., Texas) 

 Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas (Texas) 

 Kiowa Tribe (Okla., Texas) 

 Mescalero Apache Tribe (Texas) 

 Muscogee (Creek) Nation (Texas) 

 Osage Nation (Okla.) 

 Poarch Band of Creek Indians (Texas) 

 Quapaw Tribe of Indians (Texas) 

 Seminole Nation (Okla., Texas) 

 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town (Texas) 

 Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma (Texas) 

 Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Okla., Texas) 

On April 11, 2013, FRA mailed invitation letters to the 26 federally recognized Tribes identified in 

Oklahoma and Texas to initiate government-to-government contact, alert them of the Study, and 

invite them to participate in the scoping process. FRA received three responses to the letters. The 

Delaware Nation expressed interest in the Study and the Study area and confirmed they will be a 
TBG092314012951SCO 

8.0 Public Involvement

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 8-5 

 

consulting party. The Chickasaw Nation expressed interest in the Study and accepted the invitation 

to consult. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma requested additional information to more thoroughly 

evaluate their interest in the Study relative to NHPA Section 106 review. 

FRA held meetings with the Delaware Nation on February 12, 2014, and with the Chickasaw Nation 

on March 12, 2014. Each meeting included a presentation by staff to provide Study background, 

work completed to date, and route alternatives being carried forward into the EIS. The meetings 

included discussion of the geographic area of interest for each Tribe, as well as a process for 

communication and working together as the Study moves forward. Additional Study information was 

provided to the Choctaw Nation who subsequently determined that the Study area is outside of 

their area of historic interest, and consultation would not be necessary.

8.1.4 Regional/Local Coordination 

An invitation letter to attend one of the three agency-specific scoping meetings was sent to 

representatives of metropolitan planning organizations, counties, cities, and transit districts. FRA 

and TxDOT also held focused stakeholder meetings at which local resource agencies, elected 

officials, Tribal representatives, transit agencies, railroads, and environmental interest groups could 

provide comments. In addition to these focused meetings, organization representatives were 

encouraged to attend public open house meetings and to invite their constituents and members to 

attend.

FRA and TxDOT assessed local and regional agency interest in the Study by using (1) a form 

requesting the agency’s contact information and indication of interest in the Study; and (2) 

comments submitted by the agency during the scoping process. Post-scoping meeting actions by 

FRA and TxDOT for participating local and regional agencies included the following:

 Interactions and communications with local and regional agencies were documented in a 

tracking log; and agency status and contact information were updated as needed. 

 For local and regional agencies that requested to be kept apprised of the Study, regular Study 

updates were distributed, along with an opportunity for comment at key milestones, such as the 

preliminary analysis of alternatives and identification of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS. 

Periodic informational teleconferences were conducted for local and regional agencies that 

requested to be kept apprised of the Study. Several local agencies, municipalities, and 

organizations submitted scoping comments, including Arlington, Brownsville (and the Brownsville 

Chamber of Commerce), Laredo, South Padre Island, and the Greater Waco Chamber of Commerce. 

These comments indicated their general support for passenger rail and listed the benefits of 

extending passenger rail to their cities.

8.2 Public Coordination and Outreach 

The activities and outreach developed to involve the public in the different stages of the Study is 

described in detail in the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Public Involvement Plan (TxDOT 

2013c), which was developed by TxDOT in coordination with ODOT and FRA. The public involvement 

process has the following goals: 
TBG092314012951SCO 

8.0 Public Involvement

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 8-6 

 

 Deliver a “transparent” environmental review process that provides ongoing, inclusive, and 

meaningful two-way communication between the Study and the public.

 Meet the regulatory requirements and intent associated with NEPA, federal Executive Order 

12898 on Environmental Justice, and Title VI requirements in the following ways: 

− Use a variety of information and outreach activities to solicit public and agency input

− Provide ample notification and access to public and agency involvement opportunities

− Assess public values and preferences then integrate those into Study planning and 

documentation

Section 3.15, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, provides further information on the 

involvement of minority and low-income populations in the public outreach efforts associated 

with the Program.

 Encourage active participation by agencies, interest groups, and individuals with particular 

interest in the outcome of the Study.

8.2.1 Public Scoping Meetings 

To solicit public feedback on the corridors under consideration for Study alternatives, 12 public 

scoping meetings were held throughout Oklahoma and Texas in March and April 2013. Meeting 

locations and dates included: 

 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: March 25, 2013

 Waco, Texas: March 25, 2013

 Ardmore, Oklahoma: March 26, 2013

 Austin, Texas: March 27, 2013

 Fort Worth, Texas: March 28, 2013

 Belton, Texas: April 1, 2013

 San Antonio, Texas: April 1, 2013

 Sherman, Texas: April 1, 2013

 Corpus Christi, Texas: April 2, 2013

 Dallas, Texas: April 3, 2013

 Laredo, Texas: April 3, 2013

 Harlingen, Texas: April 4, 2013

In addition, an “Online Open House,” described in greater detail below, was offered to allow 

individuals an opportunity to provide comments via computer.

A Notice of Intent to prepare a service-level EIS for the Program was issued on March 7, 2013, and 

published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2013. The Notice of Intent included dates and 

times of each public scoping meeting, as well as a link to the Study website. Additional notification 
TBG092314012951SCO 

8.0 Public Involvement

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 8-7 

 

and promotion of scoping activities included distribution of press releases, placement of paid 

newspaper ads, publication of the events using Facebook and Twitter, and release of emails to 

individuals on the Study mailing list. TxDOT and FRA also distributed posters and newsletters to 

metropolitan planning and other local organizations for them to send to their respective 

constituents. The Study received thorough media coverage in local newspapers and on local 

television (TV), including Valley Morning Star, my SanAntonio.com (MySA), The Monitor, Dallas 

Morning News, Tulsa World, News9 (in Oklahoma), NBC (in Dallas and Fort Worth), Killeen Daily 

Herald, Progressive Railroading, San Marcos Mercury, Waco Tribune, KXXV News Channel 25 (in 

Waco), Waco Tribune, and the Hillsboro Reporter. 

Twelve in-person public scoping meetings, listed above, were held along the Study corridor between 

March 25 and April 4, 2013. A total of 340 people attended the meetings and 43 submitted 

comment forms. All meetings included time for participants to review displays and speak with staff, 

as well as a formal presentation with a question and answer period. The same materials and 

information were presented at each meeting. 

The open house included display boards about the purpose and need of the Study, graphics 

illustrating potential route corridors, and information about the decision-making process. Meeting 

attendees received Study newsletters and comment forms that could be returned at the meeting or 

mailed in later. 

A PowerPoint presentation showing all of the display boards translated into Spanish and including a 

Spanish narration of the slides was available to meeting attendees. TxDOT, ODOT, and consultant 

staff answered questions about the Study. 

The team also created an online open house that replicated key elements of the in-person meeting 

format. It allowed community members to review materials online and provide comments until the

scoping period closing date of April 26, 2013. Approximately 4,500 unique visitors viewed the 

online open house during the scoping period. Visitors were mostly driven to the site by media 

coverage (newspaper or TV). TxDOT’s Facebook and Twitter accounts were also directed a large 

numbers of visitors to the online open house. 

A total of approximately 12,000 comments were received during the scoping period, including inperson comments turned in at meetings, comments received through the online open house, and 

comments mailed in. General issues frequently identified as a result of public scoping are listed 

below: 

 Agriculture, including impacts on farmland and productivity/viability of agricultural activities

 Benefits of passenger rail service, including but not limited to air quality, congestion relief, and 

economic development

 Connections to local transit and promotion of mass transit 

 Cost and financing of the passenger rail system 

 Employment opportunities

 Energy consumption and technology used for the trains
TBG092314012951SCO 

8.0 Public Involvement

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 8-8 

 

 Freight and passenger rail compatibility

 General support for the Study

 Health 

 Impacts on plant and animal species, including associated habitats

 Impacts on wildlife corridor movement

 Integration of the system with existing and planned regional and local transportation and transit 

efforts 

 Location of rail corridor

 Location of stations

 Noise impacts

 Open space impacts

 Parks and recreation impacts

 Potential devaluation of property

 Regional and local economic growth 

 Ridership

 Right-of-way

 Safety and hazards

 Water quality and runoff impacts

8.2.2 Alternatives Analysis Public Meetings 

After the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Route Alternatives Analysis (see Appendix C; TxDOT 

2014) for the Study was completed, eight in-person public open house meetings were held 

between January 27 and February 6, 2014, in Oklahoma and Texas to present the results of the 

analysis. Meeting locations and dates included:

 Waco, Texas: January 27, 2014

 Austin, Texas: January 28, 2014

 McAllen, Texas: January 29, 2014

 Laredo, Texas: January 30, 2014

 Oklahoma City, Okla.: February 3, 2014

 Ardmore, Okla.: February 4, 2014

 Arlington, Texas: February 5, 2014

 San Antonio, Texas: February 6, 2014 
TBG092314012951SCO 

8.0 Public Involvement

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 8-9 

 

Open house meetings were promoted through newspaper and TV news advertisements, and 

posters and newsletters listing the meeting times and locations were distributed to local 

metropolitan planning organizations, councils of governments, and the Study mailing list.

The open house format included display boards about the purpose and need of the Study, graphics 

illustrating the alternatives to be carried forward into the EIS, and information about the decisionmaking process. Meeting attendees received Study newsletters and comment forms that could be 

returned at the meeting or mailed in later. 

A PowerPoint presentation showing all of the display boards translated into Spanish and including a 

Spanish narration of the slides was available to meeting attendees. Meeting attendees were also 

informed that the entire presentation, as well as all display boards in both English and Spanish, 

could be found on the Study website. 

TxDOT, ODOT, and consultant staff were available to answer questions about the Study throughout 

the open house. The meetings included time for participants to review the displays and speak with 

staff, as well as a formal presentation with a question and answer period.

8.3 Future Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Activities 

When the Draft EIS is released for comment, TxDOT will accept comments for at least 45 days at 

public hearings, by mail and email, and through the website. TxDOT will host open houses 

immediately prior to the public hearings at which Draft EIS findings can be reviewed. The Draft EIS 

will be available at TxDOT and ODOT district offices, study meetings, municipal buildings, and 

libraries. In addition, the Draft EIS will be available on the Study website hosted by TxDOT and FRA’s 

project website.2 After the public comment period concludes, and after careful consideration of all 

input, TxDOT and FRA will identify a preferred alternative.

After a preferred alternative is identified, a Final EIS will be prepared that responds to public 

comments made about the Draft EIS. The Final EIS will include an appendix containing public and 

agency comments received on the Draft EIS, along with responses from TxDOT and FRA. The body 

of the Final EIS will include corrections and edits based on comments received. Once the Final EIS 

is complete, FRA will issue a Record of Decision selecting an alternative for implementation. 

 

2 Available at http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/texas-oklahoma-rail.html (TxDOT) and 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0716 (FRA). 

TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 9-1 

9.0 List of Preparers 

9.1 Texas Department of Transportation 

Name, Registration Project Role 

Years of Experience, 

Qualifications 

Mark Werner Rail Planning Section Manager 17 years of experience 

B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Texas, 

Austin

Melissa Neeley Rail Project Manager, Environmental 

Affairs Division

35 years of experience 

M.S., Urban Planning, Texas A&M University

B.A., Political Science, Texas A&M University

9.2 List of Consultants 

Name, Registration Project Role 

Years of Experience, 

Qualifications 

Trevor Allen Recreational Resources and Section 

4(f)/6(f) Resources

2 years of experience

B.A., Integrative Biology, University of 

California, Berkeley

Debra Beene Archaeological Resources 27 years of experience 

M.A. Anthropology, minor in Archaeology 

University of Texas, Austin

Rebecca Birtley Geographic Information Systems 16 years of experience 

B.A. Geography, University of California, 

Fullerton

Lyna Black Geographic Information Systems 

Coordination

17 years of experience

M.S., Geosciences, California State 

University, Chico

B.S., Biology (minor in Chemistry), California 

State University, Chico

Courtney Blechle Energy Resources

Construction Effects 

9 years of experience

B.A. Environmental Studies, Southwestern 

University, Georgetown, Texas

Loren Bloomberg Reviewer 20 years of experience

M.E., Civil Engineering, University of 

California, Berkeley

M.S., Civil Engineering, University of 

California, Berkeley

B.S., Systems Engineering, University of 

Virginia

Andrea Burden Archaeological Resources 20 years of experience

M.A. Anthropology; Certificate in Historic 

Preservation, Texas A&M University

Shawn Clayward, CGIS Geographic Information Systems 22 years of experience 

B.F.A., Visual Communications, Indiana 

University
TBG092314012951SCO 

9.0 List of Preparers 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 9-2 

Name, Registration Project Role 

Years of Experience, 

Qualifications 

Jeff Crisafulli Technical Editing 19 years of experience

B.A., English, Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University

Steven Eakin Water Quality 20 years of experience

M.S., Aquatic Ecology, University of Florida, 

Gainesville 

B.S., Environmental Science, Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University

Manomi Fernando Document Publishing 11 years of experience

B.A., Communications Studies, California 

State University, Sacramento

Melissa Fowler Natural Ecosystems and Wildlife 10 years of experience

M.S., Environmental Studies, Emphasis: 

Environmental Science, California State 

University, Fullerton

B.S., Biological Science, California State 

University, Fullerton

Julie Froelich Community Effects: Land Use and 

Agriculture

Construction Effects 

Cumulative Effects 

Elderly and Handicapped

Public Safety and Hazardous 

Materials

14 years of experience

B.S., Physiology and Neurosciences, 

University of California at San Diego

B.A., History, University of California at San 

Diego 

Dave Golles Solid Waste Disposal 23 years of experience

B.S., Environmental Science, California State 

University of San Bernardino, California

Mark Greenig, AICP Aesthetics and Visual Quality 29 years of experience

M.U.P., Urban Planning, Texas A&M 

University

B.S., Landscape Architecture, California 

Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Timothy Griffith Archaeological Resources 20 years of experience

Ph.D. Anthropology. University of Kansas 

(ABD) 

Brian Hausknecht, Tier 1 Project Manager

EIS Manager

30 years of experience

M.S., Environmental Engineering, University 

of Florida

B.A., Biology, Jacksonville University

Kristin Hull Public Involvement 15 years of experience 

Master of Public Affairs, University of Texas 

at Austin 

B.S., Politics, Willamette University 

Kim Johnson Archaeological Resources; Historic, 

Archaeological, Architectural and 

Cultural Resources; and Section 

4(f)/6(f) Resources

23 years of experience

B.A. Zoology, University of Texas at Austin
TBG092314012951SCO 

9.0 List of Preparers

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 9-3 

Name, Registration Project Role 

Years of Experience, 

Qualifications 

Jodi Ketelsen, AICP Senior Reviewer 20 years of experience

M.C.P., Urban and Regional Planning, 

University of California, Berkeley

M.L.A., Landscape Architecture, University of 

California, Berkeley

B.S.L.A., Landscape Architecture, University 

of California, Davis

Estee Lafrenz, P.E. Air Quality 17 years of experience

B.S. Chemical Engineering, Arizona State 

University

Duane McClelland, P.E., Risk 

Assessment Methodology for 

Dams (RAM-D) Certified 

Coastal Zone Management

Flood Hazards and Floodplain 

Management

13 years of experience

M.S., Civil Engineering, Utah State University

B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, 

Washington State University

B.A., Communication, Washington State 

University

Frank Orr, GISP, PMP Geographic Information Systems 18 years of experience

M.S., Geographic Information Systems, 

University of Denver

B.A., Mathematics, Colorado College 

Greg Parrent, P.E. (Texas) Coastal Zone Management 20 years of experience

B.S., Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University 

at College Station

Julie Petersen Utilities 11 years of experience

B.S. Biology, Austin Peay State University, 

Tennessee 

Christopher Powers Natural Ecosystems and Wildlife, 

Threatened and Endangered Species

12 years of experience

M.A., Science Education, Union College, 

Schenectady, New York 

B.S., Biology, Union College, Schenectady, 

New York

Robert Price Natural Ecosystems and Wildlife, 

Threatened and Endangered Species

17 years of experience 

Master of Public Affairs, Aquatic Ecosystems 

Management, Indiana University 

M.S., Environmental Science, Indiana 

University 

B.S., Zoology, History, Miami University, Ohio

Alexis Reynolds Historic, Architectural, and 

Non-archaeological Cultural 

Resources 

8 years of experience

M.S., Historic Preservation, Eastern Michigan 

University

B.A., American Studies, Skidmore College

Jason Reynolds Reviewer 19 years of experience

B.S., City and Regional Planning, Minor, 

Public Administration, California Polytechnic 

State University - San Luis Obispo

Colleen Roberts, AICP Reviewer 13 years of experience

B.A., Art History, Yale University
TBG092314012951SCO 

9.0 List of Preparers 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 9-4 

Name, Registration Project Role 

Years of Experience, 

Qualifications 

Robert Rodland, AICP Community Impacts: Land Use and 

Agriculture

Community Impacts: Socioeconomic 

and Environmental Justice

13 years of experience

B.A., Geography, University of Washington

Maryellen Russo Historic, Architectural, and NonArchaeological Cultural Resources; 

and Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources

14 years of experience 

M.A., Public History, Appalachian State 

University

B.A., History, Appalachian State University

Sheila Rygwelski, P.E. Air Quality 5 years of experience

B.S., Environmental Engineering, Oregon 

State University

Kirstin Skadberg, Ph.D. Alternatives Analysis 8 years of experience

Ph.D., Ecology, San Diego State 

University/University of California, Davis

B.S., Physiology, Michigan State University

Jason Speights Water Quality 7 years of experience

M.S., Forestry: Emphasis Avian Ecology, 

Stephen F. Austin State University 

B.S., Biology, Stephen F. Austin State 

University

Sarah Townsend Reviewer 17 years of experience

B.E.Sc (Hons): Geography, University of 

Wollongong, Australia

MEL: University of Sydney, Australia

Jacob Trahan Wetlands 8 years of experience

B.S., Environmental and Sustainable 

Resource, University of Louisiana, Lafayette

Mark Twede, P.E. (California, 

Oregon, Nevada, Idaho), G.E. 

(California)

Geologic Resources 22 years of experience 

M.S. Civil Engineering (Geotechnical Group), 

University of Texas at Austin

B.S. Civil Engineering, Brigham Young 

University at Provo

Lisa Valdez Transportation 18 years of experience

M.C.R.P, City and Regional Planning, 

California State University, San Luis Obispo

B.A., Environmental Studies, University of 

California, Santa Cruz

Eddie Vasser Recreational Resources and Section 

4(f)/6(f) Resources

29 years of experience

Master of Agriculture, Soil Science, North 

Carolina State University

Sara Vivas Technical Editing 16 years of experience

M.A.L.A.S., Tropical Conservation and 

Development, University of Florida, 

Gainesville

B.A., Spanish Literature, Vanderbilt University
TBG092314012951SCO 

9.0 List of Preparers

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 9-5 

Name, Registration Project Role 

Years of Experience, 

Qualifications 

Mark Walbrun, P.E. (Illinois, 

Texas) 

Tier 1 Project Management 43 years of experience

B.S. Engineering, University of Illinois

Railroad Engineering, Penn State University

Transportation Planning, Virginia Tech

Allison Wallen Technical Editing 30 years of experience

B.A., Communications, University of the 

Pacific, Stockton

Rebecca Wallisch Historic, Architectural, and NonArchaeological Cultural Resources4 years of experience

M.S., Historic Preservation, University of 

Texas, Austin

B.A., European Studies and History, Scripps 

College

Brett Weiland, CFM, TECS Noise and Vibration 15 years of experience

B.S., Environmental Science, Iowa State 

University

Andrea White Air Quality 8 years of experience

B.S., Chemical Engineering, University of 

California, Davis

George Woolley Flood Hazards and Floodplain 

Management

7 years of experience

Master of Applied Science, Environmental 

Policy and Management, University of Denver

B.A., Earth Science, Minor in Geology, 

University of Colorado at Denver

Fatuma Yusuf, Ph.D. Community Effects: Socioeconomic 

and Environmental Justice

14 years of experience

Ph.D., Agricultural Economics, Washington 

State University

M.S., Statistics, Washington State University

M.A., Agricultural Economics, Washington 

State University

B.S., Range Management, University of 

Nairobi

TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-1 

10.0 Distribution List 

The distribution of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study service-level Draft environmental 

impact statement (EIS) emphasizes the use of electronic media to ensure cost-effective, broad 

availability to the public and interested parties. The entire service-level Draft EIS, appendixes, and 

supporting reports are available on the internet on the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study 

Federal Railroad Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation websites 

(http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0716 and http://www.txdot.gov/insidetxdot/projects/studies/statewide/texas-oklahoma-rail.html). The service-level Draft EIS is also 

available at the repositories listed below. 

All persons, agencies, and organizations listed in this chapter have been informed of the availability 

of, and locations to obtain, the service-level Draft EIS, as well as the timing of the 45-day formal 

comment period. Notices of availability of the Draft EIS have been included in the Federal Register. 

Repositories and cooperating federal agencies were sent both hard and electronic copies of the 

Draft EIS and appendixes. Other federal agencies, state agencies, and the selected interested 

parties listed below were sent summary chapters and electronic copies of the Draft EIS. Federal, 

state, and county elected officials, mayors of cities with possible stations, and potentially affected 

local agencies listed below were mailed instructions about how to obtain a copy of the Draft EIS. 

Additional local elected officials and agency representatives, along with others on the mailing list 

(approximately 187 contacts), have been mailed a notification that includes information about how 

to access the Draft EIS, timing for the formal comment period, and public hearing dates, times, and 

locations. 

10.1 Repository Locations 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590

Oklahoma Department of Transportation

200 NE 21st Street 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Texas Department of Transportation

125 E. 11th Street 

Austin, Texas 78701

 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590

10.2 Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Sarah T. Bridges 

Federal Preservation Officer 

P.O. Box 2890

Washington, D.C. 20013-2890

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Director, Southern Plains Regional Office 

Dan Deerinwater 

WCD Office Complex 

 

Bureau of Land Management 

Richard Fields 

Assistant Field Office Manager 

7906 E. 33rd Street, Suite 101 

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145-1352

Bureau of Reclamation 

Regional Director 

Michael Ryan 

P.O. Box 36900

Billings, Montana 59107
TBG092314012951SCO 

10.0 Distribution List

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-2 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Aeronautical Center 

6500 South MacArthur Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73169

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Tony Robinson

Regional Administrator 

FRC 800 North Loop 288

Denton, Texas 76209-3698

Federal Highway Administration 

Al Alonzi 

Division Administrator 

300 E. 8th Street, Suite 826

Austin, Texas 78701

Federal Highway Administration 

Gary Corino 

Division Administrator 

5801 N. Broadway Extension

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118

Federal Transit Administration 

Robert Patrick 

Regional Administrator for Region 6

816 Taylor Street 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 

Health and Human Services Region 6

Marjorie Petty 

Regional Director 

1301 Young Street, Suite 124

Dallas, Texas 75202 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission 

John Merino 

Principal Engineer, US Section 

4171 N. Mesa, Suite C-100

El Paso, Texas 79902-1441

National Marine Fisheries Service 

David Bernhart 

Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected 

Resources 

263 13th Avenue South 

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 

National Resources Conservation Service

James Tillman

Regional Conservationist, Southeast 

1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 5105-A 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

P.O. Box 1229 

Galveston, Texas 77553-1229

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bill Walker 

Regional Director 

South West Regional Office 

1001 Indian School Road, NW

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104

 

U.S. Coast Guard 

David Frank

Commander DPB, Eight Coast Guard District 

500 Poydras Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310

U.S. Department of Energy 

Scott Hine

Director 

Office of National Environmental Policy Act 

1000 Independence Ave. 

Washington, D.C. 20585

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

The Honorable Jeh Johnson 

Secretary of Homeland Security 

Washington, D.C. 20528

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Rhonda Smith 

Chief, Office of Planning and Coordination 

EPA Region 6 Main Office 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, Texas 75202 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Dr. Benjamin Tuggle 

Regional Director 

Southwest Region, P.O. Box 1306 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-1306 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-3 

U.S. Forest Service 

Jeffery Vail 

Director of Lands, Mineral and Special Uses 

Southern Region 

1720 Peachtree Road, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

10.3 State Agencies 

Texas Coastal Coordination Council 

Helen Young 

Deputy Commissioner, Coastal Resources 

P.O. Box 12873

Austin, Texas 78711-2873

Texas General Land Office 

Hal Croft 

Asset Management Deputy Commissioner 

P.O. Box 12873

Austin, Texas 78711-2873

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Zac Covar 

Executive Director 

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Texas Historical Commission 

Mark Wolfe 

Executive Director 

P.O. Box 12276

Austin, Texas 78711

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

Kathy Boydston 

Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program 

4200 Smith School Road 

Austin, Texas 78744

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Steve Thompson 

Executive Director 

2800 North Lincoln Blvd. 

Oklahoma Department of Transportation 

200 NE 21st Street 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-3204

Oklahoma Conservation Commission 

Mike Thralls 

Executive Director 

2800 North Lincoln Blvd., Suite 160

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation 

Department 

900 N. Stiles Ave. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation

Richard Hatcher 

Director 

1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. P.O. Box 53465

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152-8804 

Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office 

800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Oklahoma Water Resources Board

J.D. Strong 

3800 North Classen 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118

Oklahoma Conservation Commission 

Mike Thralls 

Executive Director 

2800 North Lincoln Blvd, Suite 160 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

 
TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS

 Page 10-4 

10.4 Elected Officials 

John Moore 

Mayor, City of Ardmore 

23 S. Washington

City Commission Chambers 

Ardmore, Oklahoma 73402

Cindy Rosenthal 

Mayor, City of Norman 

P.O. Box 370 

Norman, Oklahoma 73070

Charles Lamb 

Mayor, City of Edmond 

24 E. First St. 

P.O. Box 2970 

Edmond, Oklahoma 73083

Mick Cornett 

Mayor, City of Oklahoma City

200 N Walker, 3rd Floor

Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Jim Goldsworthy 

Mayor, City of Gainesville 

200 South Rusk 

Gainesville, Texas 76240 

Mike Rawlings 

Mayor, City of Dallas 

1500 Marilla St. 

Suite 5EN

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Betsey Price 

Mayor, City of Fort Worth 

1000 Throckmorton St. 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 

Edith Turner Omberg 

Mayor, City of Hillsboro 

1048 Park Drive

Hillsboro, TX 76645 

Malcolm Duncan, Jr. 

Mayor, City of Waco 

P.O. Box 2570

300 Austin Ave. 

Waco, Texas 76702

Danny Dunn

Mayor, City of Temple 

2 N. Main Street, Suite 103

Temple, Texas 76501 

Jesse Ancira, Jr. 

Mayor, City of Taylor 

400 Porter Street 

Taylor, Texas 76574 

Steve Adler 

Mayor, City of Austin 

P.O. Box 1088 

Austin, TX 78767

Ivy R. Taylor 

Mayor, City of San Antonio

P.O. Box 839966 San Antonio, TX 78283

Ike Ornelas 

Mayor, City of Alice 

500 E. Main St. 

P.O. Box 3229 

Alice, Texas 78333

Nelda Martinez 

Mayor, City of Corpus Christi

1201 Leopard St. 

P.O. Box 92777

Corpus Christi, Texas 78469

Jim Darling

Mayor, City of McAllen 

1300 Houston Ave. 

McAllen, Texas 78501 

Chris Boswell

Mayor, City of Harlingen 

515 East Harrison, Suite A 

Harlingen, Texas 78550 

Tony Martinez 

Mayor, City of Brownsville 

mayormartinez@cob.us

Pete Saenz 

Mayor, City of Laredo 

1110 Houston Street 

Laredo, Texas 78040 
TBG092314012951SCO 

10.0 Distribution List

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-5 

David Lee 

Mayor, City of Purcell 

230 W. Main Street 

Purcell, Oklahoma 73080

Benjamin Gomez 

Mayor, City of Nuevo Laredo 

Guerrero 1500, Zona Centro 

C.P. 88000

Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas 52*11*27627 

 

10.4.1 Federal Elected Officials 

U.S. Senators 

 

The Honorable Jim Inhofe 

1924 S. Utica Ave #530 

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104

The Honorable Ted Cruz 

300 E. 8th 

Suite 961

Austin, Texas 78701

 

U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable Filemon Vela 

437 Cannon HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ruben Hinojosa 

2262 Rayburn, HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Henry Cuellar 

2209 Rayburn, HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Will Hurd 

317 Cannon HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Lamar Smith 

2409 Rayburn, HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Lloyd Doggett 

2307 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul 

131 Cannon HOB

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable John Carter 

2110 Rayburn HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Roger Williams 

1323 Longworth HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Bill Flores 

1030 Longworth HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Joe Barton 

2107 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Marc Veasey 

414 Cannon HOB 

Washington, DC 20151

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson 

2468 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Michael Burgess 

2336 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Sam Johnson 

2304 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Mac Thornberry 

2208 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515
TBG092314012951SCO 

10.0 Distribution List

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-6 

The Honorable Tom Cole 

2467 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Steve Russel 

128 Cannon HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515

10.4.2 State Elected Officials 

Governor 

The Honorable Greg Abbot 

P.O. Box 308

Austin, Texas 78767

The Honorable Mary Fallin 

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 212

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

State Senate 

 

Texas 

 

The Honorable Eddie Lucio, Jr. 

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

The Honorable Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

The Honorable Judith Zaffirini 

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

The Honorable José Menéndez 

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

The Honorable Donna Campbell

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

The Honorable Kirk Watson 

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711 

The Honorable Brian Birdwell 

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

The Honorable Craig Estes 

State Capitol, Room 3E.18

P.O. Box 12068

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

Oklahoma 

 

The Honorable Anastasia Pittman

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 524 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

The Honorable Ervin Yen 

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 411A 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

The Honorable Kay Floyd 

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 522A

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

The Honorable Kyle Loveless 

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 237

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

The Honorable John Sparks

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 519

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
TBG092314012951SCO 

10.0 Distribution List

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-7 

The Honorable Susan Paddack

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 522B

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

The Honorable Frank Simpson

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 414

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

10.5 Regional/Local Agencies 

Alamo Area of Governments 

Susan Lodge 

8700 Tesoro Drive, Suite 160 

San Antonio, Texas 78217 

Alamo Regional Mobility Authority 

Terry Brechtel 

613 N. W. Loop 410, Suite 100

San Antonio, Texas

 

Arkoma Regional Planning Commission 

John Guthrie 

Executive Director 

P.O. Box 2067

Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901

Bexar County

County Engineer 

Renee Green 

233 N. Pecos, Suite 420 

San Antonio, Texas 78207

Bi State Metropolitan Planning Organization

Study Director 

Ken O’Donnell 

101 W. Nueva, 10th Floor 

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Capital Area Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (CAMPO) 

Executive Director 

Ashby Johnson 

P.O. Box 1088

Austin, Texas 78767

Capital Area Rural Transportation System 

Dave Marsh 

2010 E. 6th Street 

Austin, Texas 78702

Capital Metro 

VP of Rail Operations 

Melvin Clarke 

2910 E. 5th Street 

Austin, Texas 78702

Collin County Area Regional Transit 

Rep Pledger 

600 N. Tennessee Street 

McKinney, Texas 75069 

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning 

Organization 

Tom Niskala 

5151 Flynn Parkway, Suite 404

Corpus Christi, Texas 78411

Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority 

Chief Executive Officer 

Scott Neeley 

5658 Bear Lane 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78405

Dallas Area Regional Transit (DART) 

Senior Vice President, Rail Program 

Development 

Tim McKay 

P.O. Box 660163

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Denton County Transportation Authority 

President 

Jim Cline Jr. 

1660 S. Stemmons, Suite 250

Lewisville, Texas 75607 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Environmental Review Coordinator 

P.O. Box 1677

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101

El Metro/Laredo Transit 
TBG092314012951SCO 

10.0 Distribution List

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-8 

Mark Pritchard 

General Manager 

1301 Farragut 

Laredo, Texas 78040 

Fort Wort Transit Authority 

Curvie Hawkins 

Director of Planning 

1600 E. Lancaster Ave. 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 

Harlingen Express/Valley Metro 

Valley Metro Program Director 

Thomas Logan 

301 W. Railroad 

Weslaco, Texas 78596

Harlingen-San Benito Metropolitan Planning 

Organization 

Rebecca Castillo 

502 E. Typer St. 

Harlingen, Texas 78550 

Heart of Texas Council of Government Rural 

Transit 

Public Transportation Operations Coordinator 

Alisha Edgar

1514 S. New Road 

Waco, Texas 76711

Hidalgo County Metropolitan Planning 

Organization 

Transportation Director 

Andrew Canon 

510 S. Pleasantview Dr. 

Weslaco, Texas 78596

Hill Country Transit 

General Manager 

Carole Warlick 

906 S. High Street 

San Saba, Texas 76877

Lawton Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Pat Henry 

103 SW 4th Street 

Lawton, Oklahoma 73501

North Central Texas Council of Governments 

(NCTCOG)

Program Manager 

Kevin Feldt 

P.O. Box 5888

Arlington, Texas 76005

Port of Brownsville 

Port Director 

Eduardo Campirona 

1000 Foust Road 

Brownsville, Texas 78521 

Port of Corpus Christi 

Port Director 

Frank Brogan 

P.O. Box 1541

Corpus Christi, Texas 78403

San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan 

Planning Organization 

Director 

Sid Martinez 

825 S. Mary’s 

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Sherman-Denison Metropolitan Planning 

Organization 

Robert Wood 

1117 Gallagher Dr., Suite 300 

Sherman, Texas 75090 

San Antonio Airport 

Director 

Frank Miller 

9800 Airport Blvd. 

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Trinity Railroad Express (TRE)

Jeffery Borowiec 

P.O. Box 660163

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Executive Director 

Russell Devorsky 

P.O. Box 2570 

Waco, Texas 76702 
TBG092314012951SCO 

10.0 Distribution List

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-9 

Brownsville Metropolitan Planning 

Organization 

Mark Lund 

P.O. Box 911

Brownsville, Texas 78522 

Dallas-Fort Worth Airport

Senior Airport Planner 

Greg Royster 

P.O. Box 619428

Dallas, Texas 75261 

Fort Hood Military Base 

III Corps Public Affairs Officer 

Col. Benton Danner 

1001 761st Tank Battalion Ave. 

Fort Hood, Texas 76544

McLennan County 

Michael Meadows, P.E. 

347 Howe Hill Road 

Robinson, Texas 76706

Association of Central Oklahoma 

Governments 

Executive Director 

John Johnson 

21 E. Main Street, Suite 100 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104

Association of South Central Oklahoma 

Governments 

Blaine Smith Jr. 

Executive Director 

802 Main Street 

P.O. Box 1647

Duncan, Oklahoma 73534

Bi-State Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Ken O’Donnell 

Study Director 

P.O. Box 2067

Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902

Caldwell County 

Bill Gardner 

County Engineer 

110 S. Main Street 

Lockhart, Texas 78644

City of Austin, Transportation Department 

Rob Spillar 

Director of Transportation 

505 Barton Springs Road 

Austin, Texas 78704

City of Dallas 

Peer Chacko 

Assistant Director, Strategic Planning 

320 E. Jefferson, Rm 101 

Dallas, Texas 75203 

City of Pflugerville 

Trey Fletcher 

Assistant City Manager 

P.O. Box 589

Pflugerville, Texas 78691 

City of San Antonio 

Majed Al-Gahfry 

Director of Public Works 

114 W. Commerce 

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Planning 

Organization 

Annette Shephard 

P.O. Box 729

Belton, Texas 76513 

Lone Star Rail District 

Joe Black 

Rail Director P.O. Box 1618

San Marcos, Texas 78667

Travis County 

Steve Manilla 

Public Works Director 

411 W. 13th Street 

Austin, Texas 78767

City of Brownsville 

Mark Lund 

Brownsville MPO 

P.O. Box 911

Brownsville, Texas 78522
TBG092314012951SCO 

10.0 Distribution List

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-10 

City of Laredo 

Carlos Villarreal 

City Manager 

1110 Houston St. 

P.O. Box 579

Laredo, Texas 78042 

City of South Padre Island 

Marcy Newman 

Public Works 

4601 Padre Blvd. 

South Padre Island, Texas 78597

City of Gainsville 

Barry Sullivan 

City Manager 

200 S. Rusk Street 

Gainesville, Texas 76240 

10.6 Organizations and Businesses 

Amtrak 

Senior Director, Corridor Planning 

Walter Lander 

500 W. Jackson Blvd. 

Chicago, Illinois 60661

Associated General Contractors 

Tom Johnson 

P.O. Box 2185

Austin, Texas 78767

Bee Community Action Agency 

Executive Director 

Anna Simo 

P.O. Box 1540

Beeville, Texas 78104 

BNSF Railway 

Assistant VP Passenger Operations 

DJ Mitchell 

2500 Lou Menk Drive 

Fort Worth, Texas 76131 

Brownsville Economic Development Council 

President and CEO 

Jason Hilts 

P.O. Box 671

Brownsville, Texas 78522 

Central Oklahoma Economic Development 

District 

Executive Director 

Greg Clifton 

400 N. Bell Street 

Shawnee, Oklahoma 74802

Grand Gateway Economic Development 

Association 

Edward Crone 

Executive Director 

333 S. Oak Street 

Big Cabin, Oklahoma 74332

Sierra Club 

Lone Star Chapter 

P.O. Box 1931

Austin, Texas 78767

Citizens for Environmental Justice 

Executive Director 

Suzie Canales 

5757 S. Staples Street, #1901 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78413

Eastern Oklahoma Economic Development 

District 

Acting Director

Ernie Moore 

1012 N. 38th Street 

Muskogee, Oklahoma 74402

KCS Railway 

Assistant VP State and Local Relations 

Kevin McIntosh 

427 W. 12th Street 

Kansas City, Missouri 61405
TBG092314012951SCO 

10.0 Distribution List

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-11 

Rainbow Lines 

Transportation Program Director 

Noelia Ruiz 

609 W. Main St. 

Benavides, Texas 78341

The B/Corpus Christi Transit 

Chief Executive Officer 

Scott Neeley 

5658 Bear Lane 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78405

The Wave – South Padre Island 

General Manager 

Jesse Arriaga 

4601 Padre Blvd. 

South Padre Island, Texas 78597

Union Pacific Railroad 

Vice President Public Affairs 

Mark Bristol 

24125 Aldine Westfield 

Spring, Texas 77373

 

10.7 Native American Contacts 

Texas 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Staci Hesler 

Cultural Preservation Office 

2025 S. Gordon Cooper 

Shawnee, Oklahoma 74801

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

571 State Park Road 56 

Livingston, Texas 77351

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town 

Augustine Asbury 

Historic Preservation Office 

101 E. Broadway

P.O. Box 187

Wetumka, Oklahoma 74883

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 1330

Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma

Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 487 

Binger, Oklahoma 73009

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

Dr. Ian Thompson 

Historic Preservation Department 

P.O. Drawer 1210 

Durant, Oklahoma 74801

Comanche Nation of Oklahoma 

Jimmy Arterberry 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

P.O. Box 908

Lawton, Oklahoma 73502

Kialegee Tribal Town 

Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 332

Wetumka, Oklahoma 74883

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma

Kent Collier 

Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 70

McLoud, Oklahoma 74851

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas 

162 Chick Kazen Street 

Eagle Pass, Texas 78852

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

c/o Kiowa Culture Preservation Authority 

P.O. Box 369

Carnegie, Oklahoma 73015

Mescalero Apache Tribe 

Historical Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 227 

Mescalero, New Mexico 88340 
TBG092314012951SCO 

10.0 Distribution List

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 10-12 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma 

Terry Cole 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 580

Okmulgee, Oklahoma 7447

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

5811 Jack Springs Road 

Atmore, Alabama 36502

Quapaw Tribe of Indians

Jean Ann Lambert 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 765

Quapaw, Oklahoma 74363

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

Natalie Deere 

Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 1498

Wewoka, Oklahoma 74884

Delaware Nation

Kerry Holten 

President 

P.O. Box 825

Anadarko, Oklahoma 74005

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

Charles Coleman 

Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 188

Okemah, Oklahoma 74859-0188

Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 

Donald Patterson

Chairperson 

1 Rush Buffalo Road 

Tonkawa, Oklahoma 74653

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes 

Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 729

Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005

Oklahoma 

Absentee Shawnee Tribe 

Staci Hesler 

Cultural Preservation Office 

2025 S. Gordon Cooper 

Shawnee, Oklahoma 74801

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 1330

Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes 

Margaret Anquoe 

Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

P.O. Box 38

Concho, Oklahoma 73022

Comanche Nation 

Jimmy Aterberry 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

P.O. Box 908

Lawton, Oklahoma 73502

Fort Sill Apache Tribe 

Michael Darrow 

Historic Preservation Office

Route 2, Box 121

Apache, Oklahoma 73006

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

Cultural Preservation Office 

Route 1, Box 721 

Perkins, Oklahoma 74059

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma 

Kent Collier 

Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 70

McLoud, Oklahoma 74851

Kiowa Tribe 

c/o Kiowa Culture Preservation Authority 

P.O. Box 369 

Carnegie, Oklahoma 73015

Osage Nation 

Andrea Hunter 

Historic Preservation Office 

627 Grandview

Pawhuska, Oklahoma 74056
TBG092314012951SCO 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-1 

11.0 References 

Executive Summary 

Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI). 2010. Potential Development of an Intercity Passenger 

Transit System in Texas – Final Project Report. FHWA/TX-10/0-5930-2. May 2010. 

1.0 Purpose and Need 

Amtrak. 2013. Defining Energy Efficiencies. Available at http://www.amtrak.com/whistlestop/energy-efficiency-rail-travel-uses-less-fuel-than-cars-planes. 

Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG). 2011. Intermodal Transportation Hub 

Master Plan for Central Oklahoma. June 30, 2011. 

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2009. Metropolitan Transportation Plan Fiscal 

Year 2010-2035. December 3, 2009. 

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). 2009. 2009 Airport Development Plan Update. 

September 2009. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2014. 2014 Terminal Area Forecast. Available at 

https://aspm.faa.gov/main/taf.asp. 

Goldberg, Bruce. 2013. Intercity Bus Ridership in the TOPRS Corridor: Ridership Estimates and the 

Potential for Diversion of ICB Traffic to Passenger Rail Service. 

Holloway, Stephen. 2003. Straight and Level: Practical Airline Economics. Third Edition. Burlington, 

VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. 

National Association of Railroad Passengers. 2001. Data sheet derived from 10-year average 

Amtrak reported safety data and National Safety Council highway fatality rates. 

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2012. Oklahoma Statewide Freight and 

Passenger Rail Plan. May 2012. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff and Oklahoma Department of Transportation (PB and ODOT). 2010. 2010-

2035 Statewide Oklahoma Long Range Transportation Plan. December 2010. 

Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI). 2010. Potential Development of an Intercity Passenger 

Transit System in Texas – Final Project Report. FHWA/TX-10/0-5930-2. May 2010. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2007. Corpus Christi Eight-Hour Ozone Flex 

Plan Memorandum of Agreement. 2007-008-MIR-NR. Available at 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/cc/cc-latest-ozone. Accessed August 1, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-2 

Texas Department of State Health Services. 2010. Population Data for Texas. Available at 

http://www.dshs.texas.gov/chs/popdat/. Accessed 2013. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2010a. Texas Rail Plan. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2010b. Statewide Texas Long Range Transportation 

Plan 2035. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Population Estimates. Available at 

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html. Accessed 2013. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2012a. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS) T-100 Domestic Segment data for 2012. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2012b. 

2012 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview. Traffic Safety Facts – Research Note. DOT HS 811 

856. November 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. NAAQS Attainment Data. EPA Air Quality 

Greenbook. Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/index.html. 

2.0 Alternatives 

CH2M HILL (CH2M). 2012. Notes from meeting with North Central Texas Council of Governments, 

October 19, 2012. 

CH2M HILL (CH2M). 2013. Initial Development of Alternatives Technical Memorandum. June 2013. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2007. Capacity needs in the national airspace system 2007-

2005. 

San Antonio Airport System. 2010. Vision 2050: A flight plan for San Antonio’s future. December 

2010. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2013a. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program 

Scoping Report. Prepared by CH2M HILL. November 2013. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2013b. Oklahoma City to South Texas Infrastructure 

Analysis. Final Report. Prepared by HNTB, Knudson, and SAM Inc. June 2013. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014a. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Route 

Alternatives Analysis. June 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014b. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study 

Alternatives Analysis Report. August 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-3 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2016a. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study EISPhase Capital Investment Plan. April 2016. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2016b. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study EISPhase Public Benefits Assessment. May 2016. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2016c. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study EISPhase Business and Financial Plan. June 2016. 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Introduction 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 

as set forth in 64 Federal Register 29545. May 26, 1999. 

3.1 Air Quality 

Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG). 2012. Encompass 2035 Plan Report, 

Oklahoma City Area Regional Transportation Study. May 2012. Available at 

http://www.acogok.org/long-range-transportation-planning. 

California Air Resources Board. 2013. Mobile Source Emission Inventory. EMFAC2011, Updated 

January 2013. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm. Accessed August 4, 

2014. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2014. Guidance on Considering Climate Change in NEPA 

Reviews and Conducting Programmatic NEPA Reviews. Available at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nepa_revised_draft_ghg_guidance_s

earchable.pdf. 

National Climatic Data Center. 2014. Texas Climate Descriptions. Available at 

http://web2.airmail.net/danb1/texas_climate_descriptions.htm. Accessed August 2014. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014a. Dallas/Fort Worth Climate 

Overview. National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office. Available at 

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/?n=dnarrative. Accessed August 2014. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014b. Austin Climate Summary. 

National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office, Local South Central Texas Climate 

Information. Available at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/ewx/climate/ausclisum.pdf. 

Accessed August 2014. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014c. San Antonio Climate Summary. 

National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office, Local South Central Texas Climate 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-4 

Information. Available at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/ewx/climate/satclisum.pdf. 

Accessed August 2014. 

Oklahoma Climatological Survey. 2014. Climate of Oklahoma. Available at 

http://climate.ok.gov/index.php/site/page/climate_of_oklahoma. Accessed August 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2013a. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). Updated October 9, 2013. Available at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/monitoring/naaqs.htm. Accessed August 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2013b. Oklahoma Air Quality Rules and 

Planning, Regional Haze Planning. Updated June 19, 2013. Available at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/Regional_Haze/index.htm. 

Accessed August 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014. Oklahoma Air Quality Rules and 

Planning, Oklahoma Infrastructure SIPs. August 12, 2014. Available at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/rulesandplanning/Infrastructure_index.htm. Accessed 

August 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2007. Corpus Christi Eight-Hour Ozone Flex 

Plan Memorandum of Agreement. 2007-008-MIR-NR. Available at 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/cc/cc-latest-ozone. Accessed August 1, 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2013a. Letter to EPA, Region 6 regarding 

recommendation for designation of areas in Texas with regard to the 2012 primary PM2.5

NAAQS. November 26, 2013. Available at 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/pm25/Texas_PM_Desina

tions_Recommendation.pdf. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2013b. Dallas-Fort Worth: Current Attainment 

Status. Updated December 4, 2013. Available at 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/dfw/dfw-status. Accessed August 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014a. Texas State Implementation Plan. 

Available at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip. Accessed August 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014b. Emissions Inventory (EI) SIP Revision 

for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) and 

Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Areas. Updated July 2, 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014c. Five-Year Regional Haze Progress 

Report. Revisions to the State of Texas Air Quality Implementation Plan Concerning Regional 

Haze. Adopted February 26, 2014. Available at 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-5 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/haze/13012SIP_ado. 

pdf. Accessed August 6, 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014d. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

(I/M) Program. Updated February 14, 2014. Available at 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/mobilesource/im.html. Accessed August 8, 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014e. Controlling On-Road Mobile Source 

Vehicle Emissions. Updated February 27, 2014. Available at 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/mobilesource/mobile_source.html. Accessed August 

8, 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation. 2015. Best Practice: Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Impact Statements. September 2015. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. State and County QuickFacts. Available at 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed August 2014. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2010. Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions. Volume 1: Synthesis Report. Report to Congress. April 2010. Available at 

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report_-_April_2010_-

_Volume_1_and_2.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. Texas State Profile and Energy Estimates. Updated 

March 27, 2014. Available at http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=TX. Accessed August 1, 2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. 8 Hour Ozone Flex Program, Austin-Round Rock 

Metropolitan Statistical Area. Available at 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/austin/AustinRoundRock8-HourOzoneFlexFinal.pdf. April 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality: 

Emission Factors for Locomotives (EPA-420-F-09-025). April 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Ozone Advance Program. May 31, 2013. 

https://www.epa.gov/advance. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/. Accessed August 2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016a. NAAQS Table. Available at 

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed June 2016. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-6 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016b. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Transportation Sector Emissions. Available at 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/transportation.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016c. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for 

Criteria Pollutants. Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/. Accessed 

June 2016. 

3.2 Water Quality 

Edwards Aquifer Website. 2014. Hydrogeology of the Edwards Aquifer. Available at 

http://edwardsaquifer.net/geology.html. Accessed August 11, 2014. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2014. Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Program: Oklahoma Segments. 

Available at http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/states/ok.html. Accessed July 24, 

2014. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed July 24, 2014. 

Oklahoma Geologic Society 1983. Maps Showing Principle Groundwater Resources and Recharge 

Areas in Oklahoma. http://www.ogs.ou.edu/MAPS/MISCmap/Groundwater_sheet1.pdf. 

Accessed July 24, 2014. 

Oklahoma Historical Society. 2014. Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture: Aquifers. 

Available at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/A/AQ001.html. Accessed 

July 21, 2014. 

San Antonio Water System. 2014. About the Edwards Aquifer. Available at 

http://www.saws.org/your_Water/aquifer/aboutaquifer.cfm. Accessed August 11, 2014. 

Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). Available at 

http://www.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=a23eb436f6ec4ad6

982000dbaddea5ea. Accessed July 2014. 

Texas Climate Data. 2014. Available at http://web2.airmail.net/danb1/climate.htm. Accessed April 

23, 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014. Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone – 

Chapter 213 Rules. Available at 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/gis/metadata/edw_tsms_met.html. Accessed August, 11, 2104. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2004. Overview of Laws Regarding the Navigation of Texas 

Streams. Available at 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-7 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/water_issues/rivers/navigation/ridd

ell/index.phtml. Accessed April 17, 2014. 

Texas Water Development Board. 2014a. Major Aquifers. Available at 

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/aquifer/major.asp.

Texas Water Development Board. 2014b. Groundwater. Available at 

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/. Accessed July 24, 2014. 

U.S. Climate Data. 2014. Temperature - Precipitation - Sunshine – Snowfall. Available at 

http://usclimatedata.com/. Accessed April 23, 2014. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), original dataset. 

Available at http://nhd.usgs.gov/wbd.html. Accessed July 2014. 

University of Oklahoma. 2014. Oklahoma Climatology Survey: Climate of Oklahoma. Available at 

http://climate.ok.gov/index.php/site/page/climate_of_oklahoma. Accessed April 23, 2014. 

University of Texas. 2004. Aquifers of Texas 2001. Revised 2004. Available at 

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/fieldguides/texasaquifers.html. Accessed July 24, 2014. 

3.3 Noise and Vibration 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2012. High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment. Final report. September 2012. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. 

Available at 

https://www.fta.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. 

Google Earth. 2015. Online Aerial Imagery. Available at http://www.google.com/earth/. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2011. Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of 

Roadway Traffic Noise. March. Available at http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdotinfo/env/toolkit/730-02-gui.pdf. 

3.4. Solid Waste Disposal 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014a. Permitted Solid Waste Facilities in 

Oklahoma. April 4, 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014b. Oklahoma Landfill Facility Permit 

and Total Tonnage reported for 2012. March 28, 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014c. Information provided by Hillary 

Young from the ODEQ regarding landfill capacity information. May 8, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-8 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2013a. Types of Waste That May Be Accepted 

by Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Texas. December 5, 2013. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2013b. Municipal Solid Waste in Texas, A Year 

in Review, FY 2012 Data Summary and Analysis. October. Available at 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/pubs/as/187_13.pdf. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014. Commercial Management Facilities for 

Hazardous and Industrial Solid Wastes. TCEQ publication GI-225. March 2014. 

3.5 Natural Ecological Systems and Wildlife 

Homer, C.G., J.A. Dewitz, L. Yang, S. Jin, P. Danielson, G. Xian, J. Coulston, N.D. Herold, J.D. 

Wickham, and K. Megown (Homer et al.). 2015. Completion of the 2011 National Land 

Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover 

change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 

345-354. 

Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. 2012. 2011 Environmental Occurrences for Federal and State Listed and 

Tracked Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species. Spatial dataset. 

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). 2011. National Land Cover Database.

2011 (NLCD2011) Product Legend. Available at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_leg.php. 

Accessed May 27, 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC). 2014. Oklahoma’s Threatened, 

Endangered and Rare Species. Available at 

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlifemgmt/endangeredspecies.htm. Accessed May 

30, 2014. 

Texas Climate Data. 2014. Available at http://web2.airmail.net/danb1/climate.htm. Accessed April 

23, 2014. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2014. Vegetation. Available at 

http://www.tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/habitats/cross_timbers/vegetation/. Accessed 

August 12, 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2004. Environmental Manual. October 2004. 

U.S. Climate Data. 2014. Temperature - Precipitation - Sunshine – Snowfall. Available at 

http://usclimatedata.com/. Accessed April 23, 2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Regional Ecological Assessment Protocol 

(REAP): Project Report. Region 6. June 2011. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-9 

University of Oklahoma. 2014. Oklahoma Climatology Survey: Climate of Oklahoma. Available at 

http://climate.ok.gov/index.php/site/page/climate_of_oklahoma. Accessed April 23, 2014. 

3.6 Wetlands 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe (Cowardin et al). 1979. Classification of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Biological Services Program. USFWS/OBS-79/31. 103pp. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014. 401/404 State Water Quality 

Review. Available at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/WQDnew/401_404/index.htm. Accessed 

May 2014. 

Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014. 401 Certification Reviews. Available at

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/401certification/401certification_definition.html.

Accessed May 2014. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. 

Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014a. 2012 Nationwide Permit Information. Available at

http://www.usace.army.mil/missions/civilworks/regulatoryprogramandpermits/nationwidep

ermits.aspx. Accessed May 2014. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014b. Individual Permits. Available at

http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Permitting/IndividualPermits.aspx.

Accessed May 2014. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2014. 

Wetlands. Available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-andguidance/environmental-programs/wetlands. Accessed May 2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order No. 

11990. Available at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/eo11990.cfm.

Accessed May 2014. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014a. Clean Water Act Section 404. Available at

https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FWATRPO.HTML. Accessed May 2014. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/State-Downloads.html. Accessed July 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-10 

U.S. Geological Service (USGS). 1997. State Water Summaries. Available at

http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/state_highlights_summary.html. Accessed 

October 2014. 

U.S. Geological Service (USGS). 2000-2013. National Hydrography Dataset. Provided by Texas 

Department of Transportation in 2013. 

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Meshek & Associates. 2013. Oklahoma Department of Transportation, High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail I-35 Corridor, Oklahoma, Data Collection Report. May 2013. 

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 2012. Texas Department of Transportation, High-Speed Intercity Passenger 

Rail I-35 Corridor Constraints Update. April 2012. 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC). 2014a. Oklahoma’s Threatened, 

Endangered and Rare Species. Available at 

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlifemgmt/endangeredspecies.htm. Accessed May 

30, 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC). 2014b. County by County List of 

Endangered and Threatened Species. Available at 

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlifemgmt/endangered/State_Listed_by_County.pdf. 

Accessed May 13, 2014. 

Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research. 2014. Snakes of the American Southwest. 

Available at http://www.southwesternherp.com/snakes/index.html. Accessed May 30, 

2014. 

Texas Natural Science Center. 2014. Herps of Texas. University of Texas at Austin. Available at 

http://www.herpsoftexas.org/. Accessed May 30, 2014. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2014a. Nongame and Rare Species Program: 

Federal and State Listed Species. Available at 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/nongame/listed-species/. 

Accessed May 30, 2014. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2014b. Texas Conservation Action Plan: Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need. Available at 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/tcap/sgcn.phtml. Accessed July 2, 2014. 

3.8 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management 

Association of State Floodplain Managers. 2002. Mitigation Success Stories in the United States. 

Edition 4; January. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-11 

BNSF/UPRR. 2007. Guidelines for Railroad Separation Projects. January. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2014. FEMA-supplied National Flood Hazard 

Layer digital floodplain and floodway data. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 

Federal Register; Vol. 64, No. 101. May 26, 1999. 

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2009. Roadway Design Specifications. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2004. Standard Specifications for Construction and 

Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges. June. 

3.9 Coastal Zone Management 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2002. Storm Water Management Guidelines for 

Construction Activities 

3.10 Use of Energy Resources 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 2015. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 34. Center for 

Transportation Analysis, Energy and Transportation Science Division. August 2015. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2015. Table 4-20: 

Energy Intensity of Passenger Modes (Btu per passenger-mile). Available at

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation

_statistics/html/table_04_20.html. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2015. Energy Units and Calculators Explained Basics. 

Available at http://www.eia.gov/Energyexplained/?page=about_energy_units. July 29, 

2015.

3.11 Utilities 

Google Earth. 2016. Online Aerial Imagery. Available at http://www.google.com/earth/. Accessed 

March and April 2016. 

Platts. 2013. Electrical Transmission and Gas Pipeline GIS Data. Received on April 27, 2012, from 

TxDOT and June 7, 2013, from Meshek. Accessed April 2016. 

Platts. 2016. About S&P Global Platts. Available at http://www.platts.com/about. Accessed April 

2016. 

Public Utility Commission (PUC). 2016. Public Utility Commission of Texas Rules and Laws. Available 

at http://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/rulesnlaws/. Accessed April 2016. 

State of Oklahoma. 2016. Office of Administrative Rules. Available at http://www.oar.state.ok.us/. 

Accessed May 2016. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-12 

3.12 Geologic Resources 

Flanagan & Associates, L.L.C. 2013. Canadian County 2013 Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard 

Mitigation Plan Update.

Heran, W. D., G. Green, and D. B. Stoeser (Heran et al.). 2003. A Digital Geologic Map Database of 

Oklahoma: USGS Open File Report 03-247. Available at 

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=OK. Accessed October 27, 2014. 

Los Angeles Times. November 5, 2011. "Oklahoma quake buckles highway, damages several 

homes." Retrieved April 28, 2016. 

Luza, K.V., and K.S. Johnson. 2005. Geologic Hazards in Oklahoma, Oklahoma Geological Survey. 

Oklahoma Historical Society. 2007a. “Osage Plains.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History & Culture. 

Available at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OS007.html. 

Accessed October 17, 2014. 

Oklahoma Historical Society. 2007b. “Mines and Minerals.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History & 

Culture. Available at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/M/MI041.html. 

Accessed October 17, 2014. 

Oklahoma Mining Commission. 2012. Department of Mines, Annual Report Calendar Year 2012. 

Robinson, M., and A. Kapoor. Editors. 2009. Fatigue in Railway Infrastructure. CRC Press, Boca 

Raton. 

Soil Conservation Service. 1981. “Texas Blackland Prairies.” Land Resource Regions and Major 

Land Resource Areas of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation 

Service Handbook 296. Available at 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053368. 

Accessed September 29, 2014. 

Texas Speleological Survey. 2007. “Karst Regions of Texas.” Available at 

http://www.texasspeleologicalsurvey.org/karst_caving/images/TKR2.jpg. Accessed October 

1, 2014. 

U.S. Army. 1983. Foundations in Expansive Soils. Technical Manual TM 5-818-7. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1994. Ecological Subregions of the United States. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/. Accessed September 29, 2014. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1970. “Physiographic Divisions.” The National Atlas of the United 

States of America. Available at 

https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/national_atlas_1970/ca000046_large.jpg. Accessed 

October 27, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-13 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Earthquakes Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive Search. 

Available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/. Accessed October 1, 2014. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and University of Texas. 2006. “Quaternary Fault and Fold Database 

for the United States.” Bureau of Economic Geology. Available at 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/. Accessed October 1, 2014. 

University of Texas. 1996. “Physiographic Map of Texas.” Bureau of Economic Geology. Available at 

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/pics/txphysio.jpg. Accessed September 29, 2014. 

University of Texas. 2010. “Mineral Resources of Texas.” Bureau of Economic Geology. Available at 

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/minerals/index.php. Accessed August 14, 2014. 

3.13 Aesthetic and Visual Resources 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. 

FHWA Publication HI-88-054. 

3.14 Land Use and Prime Farmland 

None. 

3.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

Oklahoma Department of Commerce. 2014. Economic Data and Research – Demographics, 

Population Projections. Available at http://okcommerce.gov/data/demographics/. 

Texas State Data Center. 2014. Texas State Data Center, Texas Population Projections Program. 

Office of the State Demographer. Available at http://osd.texas.gov/. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2014. State BEARFACTS. Available at 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/bearfacts/. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Available at 

http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. 2010 Census of Population, American Fact Finder - Summary File 1. 

Available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available 

at http://factfinder2.census.gov/. 

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS). 2016. Poverty Guidelines. Available at 

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines.

3.16 Public Safety and Hazardous Materials 

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA). 2014. 2014 Manual 

for Railway Engineering. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-14 

Association of American Railroads. No date. Positive Train Control. Available at

https://www.aar.org/policy/positive-train-control. Accessed October 12, 2014. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2007. Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook. 

Revised Second Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation. August 2007. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2013. Imperial Refining Company 

Superfund Site. July 1. Available at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/SF/Superfund%20Project/SF%20Site%20Summaries/I

mperialRefinery.html. Accessed October 13, 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014a. Land Protection Division 

Superfund. National Priority List sites. Available at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/sfindex.html. Accessed May 20, 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014b. Land Protection Division 

Hazardous Waste. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites. Available at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/LPDnew/hwindex.html. Accessed May 20, 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014c. Land Protection Division Voluntary 

Cleanup Program. Available at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/VCPIndex.htm. Accessed 

May 20, 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014d. Institutional Controls Web Viewer 

for Brownfields, VCP, SCAP, and Superfund. Institutional control sites. Available at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/ICviewer.html. Accessed May 20, 2014. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014e. Permitted Solid Waste Facilities in 

Oklahoma. March 28, 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2013. Municipal Solid Waste in Texas, A Year 

in Review, FY 2012 Data Summary and Analysis. October 2013. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014a. Superfund in Texas. Available at 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/remediation/superfund. Accessed May 23, 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014b. Voluntary Cleanup Program. Available 

at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/remediation/vcp/vcp.html. Accessed May 22, 2014. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014c. Cleanups and Remediation, Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act – Corrective Action (RCRAC) Sites and RCRA Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal (RCRAT) sites. Available at http://www15.tceq.texas.gov/crpub/. 

Accessed May 23, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-15 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2013. National Transportation Atlas Database, 

Highway–Rail Crossings database. June 7, 2013. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Superfund Redevelopment, Region 6 – Sites in 

Reuse in Texas. November. Available at https://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopmentinitiative/find-sites-reuse. Accessed October 13, 2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. Superfund Site Information. Available at 

https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl. Accessed May 22, 

2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014b. CERCLIS Search. Available at l

https://www.epa.gov/enviro/cerclis-search. Accessed May 22, 2014. 

3.17 Recreational Areas and Opportunities 

Arlington Independent School District. School Directory. Available at 

http://www.aisd.net/information/School_Directory.aspx. Accessed June 2014. 

Arlington Parks and Recreation Department. Fish Creek Linear Park. Available at 

http://naturallyfun.org/fish-creek-linear-park. Accessed June 2014. 

Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Independent School District. Schools. Available at 

http://www.bbpbschools.net/. Accessed June 2014. 

Brownsville Independent School District. BISD Schools. Available at 

http://www.bisd.us/html/04_Schools/01_AllDistrictCampus.html. Accessed June 2014. 

Bruceville-Eddy Independent School District. Home Page. Available at 

http://www.beisd.net/pages/Bruceville-Eddy_ISD. Accessed June 2014. 

Bryan McClain Park. Home Page. Available at 

http://www.sanantonio.gov/ParksAndRec/ParksFacilities/AllParksFacilities/ParksFacilitiesD

etails/TabId/3354/ArtMID/14820/ArticleID/2577/McClain-Park.aspx?Park=142&Facility=. 

Accessed May 2014. 

Casa Blanca Golf Club. Home Page. Available at http://golfcasablanca.com/home. Accessed May 

2014. 

City of Dallas Parks and Recreation Department. Dallas Trail Network Plan. Available at 

http://www.dallasparks.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/35. Accessed May 2014. 

City of Oklahoma City. MAPS Projects, Bricktown Canal. Available at 

https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-3/maps-history/original-maps/bricktowncanal.Accessed May 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-16 

Dallas Independent School District. School Directory. Available at 

http://www.dallasisd.org/domain/51. Accessed June 2014. 

Donna Independent School District. Home Page. Available at http://www.donnaisd.net/. Accessed 

June 2014. 

Eagle Mountain-Saginaw Independent School District. Eagle Mountain-Saginaw ISD Schools. 

Available at http://www.emsisd.com/site/Default.aspx?PageID=86. Accessed June 2014. 

Economic and Social Research Institute. 2012. The Texas Strategic Mapping Program. Available at 

http://www.arcgis.com/home/group.html?owner=esri&title=ESRI%20Data%20%26%20Ma

ps&content=all&focus=layers&start=11&q. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing 

Environmental Section 4(f) Documents. Available at 

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/impta6640.asp. Accessed May 2014. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. Environmental Review Toolkit. Available at 

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/index.asp. U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Accessed May 2014. 

Fort Worth Parks and Community Services Department. 2014. Fort Worth Park Location Map. 

Available at http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/PACS/Parks/140415_parkmap.pdf.

Grand Prairie Independent School District. GPISD Campus Listings and Directory. Available at 

http://www.gpisd.org/domain/9233. Accessed June 2014. 

Grand Prairie Parks and Recreation Department. City Parks. Available at 

http://www.grandfungp.com/parks/FullParksList.htm. Accessed June 2014. 

Harlingen Consolidated Independent School District. Secondary Alternative Center 2011-2012 

Student Handbook. Harlingen Consolidated Independent School District, Harlingen, Texas. 

Revised May 5, 2014. 

International Museum of Art and Science, McAllen, Texas. Visitor Information. Available at 

http://www.imasonline.org/dev/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3%3Avisit

or-information&catid=2%3Ageneral-information&Itemid=47&lang=en. Accessed May 2014. 

La Vega Independent School District. Home Page. Available at http://www.lavegaisd.org/. Accessed 

June 2014. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition. 2014. Land and Water Conservation Fund. Available 

at http://www.lwcfcoalition.org/. Accessed June 1, 2014. 

Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District. Schools. Available at 

http://www.lfcisd.net/schools. Accessed June 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-17 

McAllen Independent School District. Find a Campus. Available at http://www.mcallenisd.org/finda-campus/. Accessed June 2014. 

National Parks Service. Land and Water Conservation Fund Project List by County and Summary 

Reports. U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at http://wasolwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm. Accessed May 2014. 

National Parks Service. National Register of Historic Places Download Center. Available at 

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html#spatial. Accessed May 2014. 

National Parks Service. 2013. Land & Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF). Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/. U.S. Department of the Interior. Accessed June 1, 2014. 

Northwest Independent School District. School Directory. Available at 

http://www.nisdtx.org/Domain/3108. Accessed June 2014. 

Nueces County Parks and Recreation Department. John Sablatura Park and Zoo. Available at 

http://robstown.cylex-usa.com/company/nueces-county---parks---recreation-department--

john-sablatura-park-and-zoo-7615357.html. Accessed May 2014. 

Oklahoma City Educare. Contact Us. Available at http://www.okceducare.org/who-we-are/contactinformation/. Accessed May 2014. 

Oklahoma Private Schools. 2014. Google Earth layer. Available at 

http://ogi.state.ok.us/ogi/search.aspx. Accessed June 2014.

Oklahoma Public Schools. 2014. Google Earth layer. Available at 

http://ogi.state.ok.us/ogi/search.aspx. Accessed June 2014.

Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District. Home Page. Available at 

http://www.psjaisd.us/site/default.aspx?PageID=1. Accessed June 2014. 

River Legacy Foundation. About River Legacy. Available at http://riverlegacy.org/about-riverlegacy.html. Accessed May 2014. 

San Antonio Gun Club. Welcome to San Antonio Gun Club. Available at http://sagunclub.com/. 

Accessed May 2014. 

San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department. 2014a. Bexar County Park Locator. Available at 

http://dmv.ephtracking.net/sa2/. Accessed May 2014. 

San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department. Directory. 2014b. Available at 

http://www.sanantonio.gov/parksandrec/directory.aspx. Accessed May 2014. 

South Texas Independent School District. Home Page. Available at http://www.stisd.net/. Accessed 

June 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-18 

Southern Oklahoma Speedway, Ardmore, Oklahoma. Home Page. Available at 

http://southernoklahomaspeedway.com/. Accessed May 2014. 

Southwest Independent School District. SWISD Campuses. Available at 

http://www.swisd.net/schools/. Accessed June 2014. 

St. Mark Catholic Youth Organization, San Antonio, TX. About Us. Available at 

http://www.stmarkcyo.org/about_us.asp. Accessed May 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2013. Oklahoma City to South Texas Infrastructure 

Analysis. Final Report. Prepared by HNTB, Knudson, and SAM Inc. June 2013. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014. Environmental Handbook, Section 6(f) Land 

and Water Conservation Fund Act Compliance. Available at 

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/820-01-gui.pdf. 

Texas Education Agency. School District Locator. Available at 

http://tea.texas.gov/Texas_Schools/General_Information/School_District_Locator/School_

District_Locator/. Accessed May 2014. 

Texas Natural Resources Information System. 2014. Maps & Data. Available at 

http://www.tnris.org/get-data?quicktabs_maps_data=1. Accessed June 2014. 

Travis County Parks. Home Page. Available at https://parks.traviscountytx.gov/. Accessed May 

2014. 

Troy Independent School District. Schools. Available at http://www.troyisd.org/?PN=Schools2. 

Accessed June 2014. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Geospatial Services. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/gis/index.html. Accessed June 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. The National Map Small-Scale Collection. Available at 

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html. Accessed June 2014.

West Independent School District. Home Page. Available at http://www.westisd.net/. Accessed 

June 2014. 

3.18 Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources 

Alcott, E.B. 2010. "Brooks Air Force Base." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qbb05. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-19 

Ashton, J. and E.P. Sneed. 2010. "King Ranch." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/apk01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014. 

Baird, D.W. and D. Goble. 2008. Oklahoma: A History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 

2008. 

Bamburg, M. 2007. “Ardmore.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History. Available at

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/A/AR008.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 19, 2014. 

Beaumont, P., R. Brinkmann, D. Ellis, C. Pourteau, and B.V. Webb (Beaumont et al.). No date. The 

Development of the Interstate Highway System in Texas.

City of Laredo. 2014. “The History of Laredo.” Available at http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/history.html. 

Accessed March 21, 2014. 

Conger, R.N. 1964. A Pictorial History of Waco. Texian Press, Waco, TX. 1964. 

Conger, R.N. 2010. "Waco, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdw01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 27, 2014. 

Crowder, J.L. and S. Hoig. 2008. “Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RR.” Edmond Historical Society & 

Museum. Available at http://www.edmondhistory.org/edmond-history/atchison-topekasanta-fe-rr/. Accessed March 17, 2014. 

Cuéllar, C.E. 2010. "Laredo, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdl02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 10, 2014. 

DaCamara, K. 1949. Laredo on the Rio Grande. San Antonio: The Naylor Company Press, San 

Antonio, TX. 

Elliott, K. No date. “Laredo: Border Boomtown.” Texas Parade. Available at Dolph Briscoe Center, 

Laredo Vertical File. 

Everett, D.E. 2010. "Trinity University." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/kbt32. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2012. High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment. Final report. September 2012. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-20 

Fehrenbach, T.R. 2010. "San Antonio, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hds02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 2, 2014. 

Ficker, M. and M. Barron. 2010. “Reconnaissance Level Historic Resources Survey Report: US 77 

Upgrade Project from IH 37 in Corpus Christi to US 83 in Brownsville.” Texas Department of 

Transportation, Austin, Texas. November 2010. 

Fite, G.C. 2007. “Farming.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/F/FA019.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 12, 2014. 

Fugate, T.D. 2007. “Midwest City Douglas Aircraft Company Plant.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma 

History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/M/MI010.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 18, 2014. 

Garza, A.A. 2010a. "Hidalgo County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hch14. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014. 

Garza, A.A. 2010b. "McAllen, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdm01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 20, 2014. 

Garza, A.A. and C. Long. 2010. "Brownsville, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdb04. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014.

Gilbert, M. 2010. "Harlingen, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdh02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 20, 2014. 

Google Maps. 2014. “Streetview.” Available at https://maps.google.com/. Accessed April and May 

2014. 

GoogleEarth Aerial Imagery. 1950-2014. Available at http://www.google.com/earth/. Accessed 

April and May 2014. 

Hager, N.W. 2008. “Edmond Firsts.” Edmond Historical Society & Museum. Available at 

http://www.edmondhistory.org/edmond-history/edmond-firsts/. Accessed March 12, 2014. 

"Harlingen Air Force Base." 2010. Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qbh01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 20, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-21 

Hazel, M.V. 1997. Dallas: A History of Big D. Texas State Historical Association, Austin, TX. 

Hill, P.E. 1996. Dallas: The Making of a Modern City. Austin: University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. 

Hoig, S. 2007. “Land Run of 1889.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/L/LA014.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 12, 2014. 

Humphrey, D.C. 2010. "Austin, TX (Travis County)." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hda03. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 28, 2014. 

Humphrey, D.C. and W.W. Crawford, Jr. 2001. Austin: An Illustrated History. American Historical 

Press, Sun Valley, CA. 

Kearney, M, editor. 1989. More Studies in Brownsville History. Pan American University at 

Brownsville, Brownsville, TX. 

Knight, L. 2009. A Field Guide to Irrigation in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Available at 

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/public/upload/preserve/survey/survey/Irrigation.pdf. Prepared 

for the Texas Department of Transportation. Accessed March 7, 2014 

Levy, D.W. 2007. “University of Oklahoma.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. 

Available at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/U/UN010.html. 

Published by the Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 18, 2014. 

Long, C. 2010a. “Belton, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/heb06. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 4, 2014. 

Long, C. 2010b. "Bexar County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcb07. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 31, 2014. 

Long, C. 2010c. "Corpus Christi, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdc03. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014. 

Long, C. 2010d. "Nueces County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcn05. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 21, 2014. 

Manguso, J. 2010. "Fort Sam Houston." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qbf43. Modified on February 20, 

2014. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-22 

Maxwell, L.C. 2010. "Dallas County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcd02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 

McElhaney, J. and M.V. Hazel. 2010. "Dallas, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdd01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 1, 2014. 

Moore, D.W., M. Freeman, and M. Russo (Moore et al.). 2013. Agricultural Theme Study for Central 

Texas. Available at https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/420-03-gui.pdf. 

Prepared for Texas Department of Transportation. Accessed April 2, 2014. 

Munz, O.H. 1966. “Corpus Christi.” Texas Industry, October. Available at the UT Dolph Briscoe 

Center for American History, Corpus Christi Vertical File. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1995. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties. Available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_8_2.htm. 

Accessed April 2, 2014. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2014. National Register of Historic Places: Download Center. Available 

at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html#spatial. Accessed April 2, 2014. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2015. National Register of Historic Places: Download Center. Available 

at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html#spatial. Accessed January 6, 

2015. 

NETROnline. “Historic Aerials.” Available at http://www.historicaerials.com/. Accessed May 2014. 

O’Dell, L. 2007. “Norman.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/N/NO006.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 12, 2014. 

Odom, D.E. 2010. "Denton, TX (Denton County)." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hed05. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed May 27, 2014. 

Oklahoma Historical Society. 2014. Oklahoma’s National Register Handbook. Available at 

http://www.okhistory.org/shpo/NRHANDBK.htm. Accessed April 2, 2014. 

Parish, J. 1989. “Webb, Zapata 1-2 in natural gas production.” Laredo Morning Times. Laredo, TX. 

April 30. Available at the UT Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, Laredo Vertical file. 

“Port of Brownsville, Serving Two Nations.” 1955. World Ports. Available at the Dolph Briscoe 

Center for American History, Brownsville Vertical File. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-23 

Richardson, Rupert N., Adrian Anderson, Cary D. Wintz, and Ernest Wallace (Richardson et al.). 

2005. Texas: The Lone Star State, Ninth Edition. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey. 

Sanders, L. and R.C. Tyler. 1973. How Fort Worth Became the Texasmost City. Amon Carter 

Museum of Western Art, Fort Worth, TX. 

Schmelzer, J. 2010. "Fort Worth, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdf01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 4, 2014. 

Selcer, R.F. 2004. Fort Worth. Texas State Historical Association, Austin, TX. 

Texas A&M University. 2014. Irrigation District Engineering Assistance. Available at 

http://idea.tamu.edu/. Accessed April 15, 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014a. “IH 30 Corridor Study – Study Area Map.” 

Available at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/FTW/mis/ih30/history.htm. Accessed May 21, 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014b. “IH 35W Corridor Timeline.” Available at 

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/fort-worth/i-35w/timeline.html. 

Accessed May 21, 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014c. Highway Designation File, U.S. Highway No. 

81. Available at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0081.htm. Accessed April 3, 

2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014d. Highway Designation File, Interstate Highway 

No. 35. Available at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ih/ih0035.htm. Accessed April 3, 

2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014e. “TxDOT Database Survey Properties.” KMZ 

file provided by TxDOT-ENV offices. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014f. Highway Designation File, U.S. Highway No. 

37. Available at https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ih/ih0037.htm. Accessed April 3, 

2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration (TxDOT and FRA). 2014. 

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study. 

Texas Historical Commission. 2014. Texas Historic Sites Atlas. Available at 

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/preserve/texas-historic-sites-atlas. Accessed May 21, 2014. 

Wade, H.E. 2010. "Peter’s Colony." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/uep02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-24 

Weaver, B.D. 2007. “West Edmond Field.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available 

at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/W/WE013.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 17, 2014. 

Wilson, L.D. 2007. “Oklahoma City.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OK025.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 13, 2014. 

Worcester, D.E. 2010. "Chisholm Trail." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ayc02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 

3.19 Archaeological Sites

Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS). 2014. Oklahoma Atlas of Archeological Sites and 

Management Activities. Available at http://www.ou.edu/cas/archsur/Atlas/atlas.htm. 

Accessed May 2014. 

Parker, P.L., and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of 

Historic Places, Washington, D.C. 

Texas Historical Commission (THC). 2014. Texas Archeological Sites Atlas. Available at 

http://nueces.thc.state.tx.us. Accessed May 2014. 

University of Texas. 2014. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory’s site file repository and library 

records. Accessed May 2014. 

3.20 Travel Demand and Transportation 

Amtrak. 2016. Heartland Flyer. Available at http://heartlandflyer.com/. Accessed February 15, 

2016. 

Capital MetroRail. 2016. Available at http://www.capmetro.org/metrorail/. Accessed February 15, 

2016. 

Central Oklahoma Transportation & Parking Authority (COTPA). 2016. Metro Transit. Available at 

http://gometro.publishpath.com/about-us. Accessed February 15, 2016. 

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). 2016. DFW Fast Facts. Available at 

https://www.dfwairport.com/fastfacts/. Accessed February 15, 2016. 

Dallas Love Field. 2016. Available at http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/index.html. Accessed 

February 29, 2016. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

Available at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-25 

Greyhound. 2016. Available at https://www.greyhound.com/. Accessed February 15, 2016. 

Jefferson Lines. 2016. Available at https://www.jeffersonlines.com/maps.asp. Accessed February 

15, 2016. 

Oklahoma City Department of Airports. 2016. Available at http://www.okc.gov/airports/. Accessed 

February 15, 2016. 

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2012. Oklahoma Statewide Freight and 

Passenger Rail Plan. May 2012. 

Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI). 2010. Potential Development of an Intercity Passenger 

Transit System in Texas – Final Project Report. FHWA/TX-10/0-5930-2. May 2010. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2016. Service Development Plan: Initial Service 

Schedule and Operating Assumptions Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study – ServiceLevel EIS Phase. 

Will Rogers World Airport. 2016. Available at http://www.flyokc.com/. Accessed February 15, 2016. 

3.21 Public Health 

Eckhardt, Gregg. No date. The Edwards Aquifer Website. “Hydrogeology of the Edwards Aquifer.” 

Available at http://edwardsaquifer.net/geology.html. Accessed August 11, 2014. 

San Antonio Water System. 2014. About the Edwards Aquifer. Available at 

http://www.saws.org/your_Water/aquifer/aboutaquifer.cfm. Accessed August 11, 2014. 

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 

64 Federal Register 29545. May 26, 1999. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015. Energy Units and Calculators Explained Basics. 

Available at http://www.eia.gov/Energyexplained/?page=about_energy_units. July 29. 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 

Alcott, E.B. 2010. "Brooks Air Force Base." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qbb05. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 

Arlington Independent School District. School Directory. Available at 

http://www.aisd.net/information/School_Directory.aspx. Accessed June 2014. 

Arlington Parks and Recreation Department. Fish Creek Linear Park. Available at 

http://naturallyfun.org/fish-creek-linear-park. Accessed June 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-26 

Ashton, J. and E.P. Sneed. 2010. "King Ranch." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/apk01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014. 

Baird, D.W. and D. Goble. 2008. Oklahoma: A History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 

2008. 

Bamburg, M. 2007. “Ardmore.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History. Available at

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/A/AR008.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 19, 2014. 

Beaumont, P., R. Brinkmann, D. Ellis, C. Pourteau, and B.V. Webb (Beaumont et al.). No date. The 

Development of the Interstate Highway System in Texas.

Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Independent School District. Schools. Available at 

http://www.bbpbschools.net/. Accessed June 2014. 

Brownsville Independent School District. BISD Schools. Available at 

http://www.bisd.us/html/04_Schools/01_AllDistrictCampus.html. Accessed June 2014. 

Bruceville-Eddy Independent School District. Home Page. Available at 

http://www.beisd.net/pages/Bruceville-Eddy_ISD. Accessed June 2014. 

Bryan McClain Park. Home Page. Available at 

http://www.sanantonio.gov/ParksAndRec/ParksFacilities/AllParksFacilities/ParksFacilitiesD

etails/TabId/3354/ArtMID/14820/ArticleID/2577/McClain-Park.aspx?Park=142&Facility=. 

Accessed May 2014. 

Casa Blanca Golf Club. Home Page. Available at http://golfcasablanca.com/home. Accessed May 

2014. 

City of Dallas Parks and Recreation Department. Dallas Trail Network Plan. Available at 

http://www.dallasparks.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/35. Accessed May 2014. 

City of Laredo. 2014. “The History of Laredo.” Available at http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/history.html. 

Accessed March 21, 2014. 

City of Oklahoma City. MAPS Projects, Bricktown Canal. Available at 

https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-3/maps-history/original-maps/bricktown-canal. 

Accessed May 2014. 

Conger, R.N. 1964. A Pictorial History of Waco. Texian Press, Waco, TX. 1964. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-27 

Conger, R.N. 2010. "Waco, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdw01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 27, 2014. 

Crowder, J.L. and S. Hoig. 2008. “Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RR.” Edmond Historical Society & 

Museum. Available at http://www.edmondhistory.org/edmond-history/atchison-topekasanta-fe-rr/. Accessed March 17, 2014. 

Cuéllar, C.E. 2010. "Laredo, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdl02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 10, 2014. 

DaCamara, K. 1949. Laredo on the Rio Grande. San Antonio: The Naylor Company Press, San 

Antonio, TX. 

Dallas Independent School District. School Directory. Available at 

http://www.dallasisd.org/domain/51. Accessed June 2014. 

Donna Independent School District. Home Page. Available at http://www.donnaisd.net/. Accessed 

June 2014. 

Eagle Mountain-Saginaw Independent School District. Eagle Mountain-Saginaw ISD Schools. 

Available at http://www.emsisd.com/site/Default.aspx?PageID=86. Accessed June 2014. 

Elliott, K. No date. “Laredo: Border Boomtown.” Texas Parade. Available at Dolph Briscoe Center, 

Laredo Vertical File. 

Everett, D.E. 2010. "Trinity University." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/kbt32. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing 

Environmental Section 4(f) Documents. Available at 

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/impta6640.asp. Accessed May 2014. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. Environmental Review Toolkit. Available at 

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/index.asp. U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Accessed May 2014. 

Fehrenbach, T.R. 2010. "San Antonio, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hds02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 2, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-28 

Ficker, M. and M. Barron. 2010. “Reconnaissance Level Historic Resources Survey Report: US 77 

Upgrade Project from IH 37 in Corpus Christi to US 83 in Brownsville.” Texas Department of 

Transportation, Austin, Texas. November 2010. 

Fite, G.C. 2007. “Farming.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/F/FA019.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 12, 2014. 

Fort Worth Parks and Community Services Department. 2014. Fort Worth Park Location Map. 

Available at http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/PACS/Parks/140415_parkmap.pdf

Fugate, T.D. 2007. “Midwest City Douglas Aircraft Company Plant.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma 

History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/M/MI010.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 18, 2014. 

Garza, A.A. 2010a. "Hidalgo County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hch14. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014. 

Garza, A.A. 2010b. "McAllen, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdm01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 20, 2014. 

Garza, A.A. and C. Long. 2010. "Brownsville, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdb04. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014.

Gilbert, M. 2010. "Harlingen, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdh02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 20, 2014. 

Google Maps. 2014. “Streetview.” Available at https://maps.google.com/. Accessed April and May 

2014. 

GoogleEarth Aerial Imagery. 1950-2014. Available at http://www.google.com/earth/. Accessed 

April and May 2014. 

Grand Prairie Independent School District. GPISD Campus Listings and Directory. Available at 

http://www.gpisd.org/domain/9233. Accessed June 2014. 

Grand Prairie Parks and Recreation Department. City Parks. Available at 

http://www.grandfungp.com/parks/FullParksList.htm. Accessed June 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-29 

Hager, N.W. 2008. “Edmond Firsts.” Edmond Historical Society & Museum. Available at 

http://www.edmondhistory.org/edmond-history/edmond-firsts/. Accessed March 12, 2014. 

"Harlingen Air Force Base." 2010. Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qbh01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 20, 2014. 

Harlingen Consolidated Independent School District. Secondary Alternative Center 2011-2012 

Student Handbook. Harlingen Consolidated Independent School District, Harlingen, Texas. 

Revised May 5, 2014. 

Hazel, M.V. 1997. Dallas: A History of Big D. Texas State Historical Association, Austin, TX. 

Hill, P.E. 1996. Dallas: The Making of a Modern City. Austin: University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. 

Hoig, S. 2007. “Land Run of 1889.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/L/LA014.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 12, 2014. 

Humphrey, D.C. 2010. "Austin, TX (Travis County)." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hda03. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 28, 2014. 

Humphrey, D.C. and W.W. Crawford, Jr. 2001. Austin: An Illustrated History. American Historical 

Press, Sun Valley, CA. 

International Museum of Art and Science, McAllen, Texas. Visitor Information. Available at 

http://www.imasonline.org/dev/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3%3Avisit

or-information&catid=2%3Ageneral-information&Itemid=47&lang=en. Accessed May 2014. 

Kearney, M, editor. 1989. More Studies in Brownsville History. Pan American University at 

Brownsville, Brownsville, TX. 

Knight, L. 2009. A Field Guide to Irrigation in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Available at 

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/public/upload/preserve/survey/survey/Irrigation.pdf. Prepared 

for the Texas Department of Transportation. Accessed March 7, 2014 

La Vega Independent School District. Home Page. Available at http://www.lavegaisd.org/. Accessed 

June 2014. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition. 2014. Land and Water Conservation Fund. Available 

at http://www.lwcfcoalition.org/. Accessed June 1, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-30 

Levy, D.W. 2007. “University of Oklahoma.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. 

Available at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/U/UN010.html. 

Published by the Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 18, 2014. 

Long, C. 2010a. “Belton, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/heb06. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 4, 2014. 

Long, C. 2010b. "Bexar County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcb07. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 31, 2014. 

Long, C. 2010c. "Corpus Christi, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdc03. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 7, 2014. 

Long, C. 2010d. "Nueces County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcn05. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed March 21, 2014. 

Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District. Schools. Available at 

http://www.lfcisd.net/schools. Accessed June 2014. 

Manguso, J. 2010. "Fort Sam Houston." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qbf43. Modified on February 20, 

2014. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 

Maxwell, L.C. 2010. "Dallas County." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcd02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 

McElhaney, J. and M.V. Hazel. 2010. "Dallas, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdd01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 1, 2014. 

Moore, D.W., M. Freeman, and M. Russo (Moore et al.). 2013. Agricultural Theme Study for Central 

Texas. Available at https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/420-03-gui.pdf. 

Prepared for Texas Department of Transportation. Accessed April 2, 2014. 

Munz, O.H. 1966. “Corpus Christi.” Texas Industry, October. Available at the UT Dolph Briscoe 

Center for American History, Corpus Christi Vertical File. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1995. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties. Available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_8_2.htm. 

Accessed April 2, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-31 

National Park Service (NPS). 2013. Land & Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF). Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/. U.S. Department of the Interior. Accessed June 1, 2014. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2014. National Register of Historic Places: Download Center. Available 

at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html#spatial. Accessed April 2, 2014. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2015. National Register of Historic Places: Download Center. Available 

at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html#spatial. Accessed January 6, 

2015. 

NETROnline. “Historic Aerials.” Available at http://www.historicaerials.com/. Accessed May 2014. 

Northwest Independent School District. School Directory. Available at 

http://www.nisdtx.org/Domain/3108. Accessed June 2014. 

Nueces County Parks and Recreation Department. John Sablatura Park and Zoo. Available at 

http://robstown.cylex-usa.com/company/nueces-county---parks---recreation-department--

john-sablatura-park-and-zoo-7615357.html. Accessed May 2014. 

O’Dell, L. 2007. “Norman.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/N/NO006.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 12, 2014. 

Odom, D.E. 2010. "Denton, TX (Denton County)." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hed05. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed May 27, 2014. 

Oklahoma City Educare. Contact Us. Available at http://www.okceducare.org/who-we-are/contactinformation/. Accessed May 2014. 

Oklahoma Historical Society. 2014. Oklahoma’s National Register Handbook. Available at 

http://www.okhistory.org/shpo/NRHANDBK.htm. Accessed April 2, 2014. 

Parish, J. 1989. “Webb, Zapata 1-2 in natural gas production.” Laredo Morning Times. Laredo, TX. 

April 30. Available at the UT Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, Laredo Vertical file. 

“Port of Brownsville, Serving Two Nations.” 1955. World Ports. Available at the Dolph Briscoe 

Center for American History, Brownsville Vertical File. 

Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District. Home Page. Available at 

http://www.psjaisd.us/site/default.aspx?PageID=1. Accessed June 2014. 

Richardson, Rupert N., Adrian Anderson, Cary D. Wintz, and Ernest Wallace (Richardson et al.). 

2005. Texas: The Lone Star State, Ninth Edition. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-32 

River Legacy Foundation. About River Legacy. Available at http://riverlegacy.org/about-riverlegacy.html. Accessed May 2014. 

San Antonio Gun Club. Welcome to San Antonio Gun Club. Available at http://sagunclub.com/. 

Accessed May 2014. 

San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department. 2014a. Bexar County Park Locator. Available at 

http://dmv.ephtracking.net/sa2/. Accessed May 2014. 

San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department. 2014b. Directory. Available at 

http://www.sanantonio.gov/parksandrec/directory.aspx. Accessed May 2014. 

Sanders, L. and R.C. Tyler. 1973. How Fort Worth Became the Texasmost City. Amon Carter 

Museum of Western Art, Fort Worth, TX. 

Schmelzer, J. 2010. "Fort Worth, TX." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdf01. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 4, 2014. 

Selcer, R.F. 2004. Fort Worth. Texas State Historical Association, Austin, TX. 

South Texas Independent School District. Home Page. Available at http://www.stisd.net/. Accessed 

June 2014. 

Southern Oklahoma Speedway, Ardmore, Oklahoma. Home Page. Available at 

http://southernoklahomaspeedway.com/. Accessed May 2014. 

Southwest Independent School District. SWISD Campuses. Available at 

http://www.swisd.net/schools/. Accessed June 2014. 

St. Mark Catholic Youth Organization, San Antonio, TX. About Us. Available at 

http://www.stmarkcyo.org/about_us.asp. Accessed May 2014. 

Texas A&M University. 2014. Irrigation District Engineering Assistance. Available at 

http://idea.tamu.edu/. Accessed April 15, 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2013. Oklahoma City to South Texas Infrastructure 

Analysis. Final Report. Prepared by HNTB, Knudson, and SAM Inc. June 2013. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2013. Oklahoma City to South Texas Infrastructure 

Analysis. Final Report. Prepared by HNTB, Knudson, and SAM Inc. June 2013. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014a. Environmental Handbook, Section 6(f) Land 

and Water Conservation Fund Act Compliance. Available at 

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/820-01-gui.pdf. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-33 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014b. “TxDOT Database Survey Properties.” KMZ 

file provided by TxDOT-ENV offices. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014c. “IH 30 Corridor Study – Study Area Map.” 

Available at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/FTW/mis/ih30/history.htm. Accessed May 21, 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014d. “IH 35W Corridor Timeline.” Available at 

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/fort-worth/i-35w/timeline.html. 

Accessed May 21, 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014e. Highway Designation File, U.S. Highway No. 

81. Available at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0081.htm. Accessed April 3, 

2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014f. Highway Designation File, Interstate Highway 

No. 35. Available at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ih/ih0035.htm. Accessed April 3, 

2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014g. Highway Designation File, U.S. Highway No. 

37. Available at https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ih/ih0037.htm. Accessed April 3, 

2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration (TxDOT and FRA). 2014. 

Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources Technical Study. 

Texas Education Agency. School District Locator. Available at 

http://tea.texas.gov/Texas_Schools/General_Information/School_District_Locator/School_

District_Locator/. Accessed May 2014. 

Texas Historical Commission. 2014. Texas Historic Sites Atlas. Available at 

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/preserve/texas-historic-sites-atlas. Accessed May 21, 2014. 

Texas Natural Resources Information System. 2014. Maps & Data. Available at 

http://www.tnris.org/get-data?quicktabs_maps_data=1. Accessed June 2014. 

Travis County Parks. Home Page. Available at https://parks.traviscountytx.gov/. Accessed May 

2014. 

Troy Independent School District. Schools. Available at http://www.troyisd.org/?PN=Schools2. 

Accessed June 2014. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Geospatial Services. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/gis/index.html. Accessed June 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. The National Map Small-Scale Collection. Available at 

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html. Accessed June 2014.
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-34 

Wade, H.E. 2010. "Peter’s Colony." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/uep02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 

Weaver, B.D. 2007. “West Edmond Field.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available 

at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/W/WE013.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 17, 2014. 

Wilson, L.D. 2007. “Oklahoma City.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OK025.html. Published by the 

Oklahoma Historical Society. Accessed March 13, 2014. 

Worcester, D.E. 2010. "Chisholm Trail." Handbook of Texas Online. Available at 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ayc02. Published by the Texas State 

Historical Association. Accessed April 3, 2014. 

5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

None. 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). 2014. Metropolitan Transportation Plan 

“Mobility 2035.” October 2014. 

Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG). 2012. Encompass 2035 Plan Report.

Adopted April 28, 2011. Revised May 2012. 

Brownsville Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). 2009. Brownsville Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan 2010-2035. December 2009. 

Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). 2010. CAMPO 2035 Regional 

Transportation Plan. Adopted May 24 2010. 

Central Texas Council of Governments (CTCOG), Killeen-Temple MPO. 2009. Killeen-Temple Urban 

Transportation Plan. Mobility 2035. October 2009. 

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). 2011. Metropolitan Transportation Plan 

(MTP) Fiscal Year 2010-2035. 2009, Amended 2011. March 2011. 

Federal Railroad Administration and Texas Department of Transportation (FRA and TxDOT). No date. 

Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Environmental Impact Statement: Maps and Pictures. 

Available at http://dallashoustonhsr.com/maps-and-pictures/. Accessed December 18, 

2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-35 

Harlingen-San Benito Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). 2009. 2010-2035 Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan. December 2009. 

Hidalgo County Metropolitan Planning Organization (HCMPO). 2009. 2010 – 2035 Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan. December 2009. 

Laredo Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). 2009. Laredo Metropolitan Transportation Plan 

2010-2035 Update. December 2009. 

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). 2011. National Land Cover Database. 

Available at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php. Accessed October 2014. 

North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). 2010. North Texas 2050. 

North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). 2013. Mobility 2035 (2013 Update). June 

2013. 

Oklahoma Department of Commerce. 2012. 2012 Demographic State of the State Report: 

Oklahoma State and County Population Projections through 2075. 

San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). 2009. Mobility 2035 

Metropolitan Transportation Plan. December 2009. 

Texas Data Center. 2014. 2014 Population Projections for the State of Texas and Counties for 

2010-2050. Office of the State Demographer. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American Factfinder: Population and Household Estimates. Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed October 2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Regional Ecological Assessment Protocol 

(REAP): Project Report. Region 6. June 2011. 

U.S. Geological Survey. No date. National Atlas Data. Total Land Area. Available at 

http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/. 

Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). 2010. Connections 2035. The Waco Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan. February 2010. 

7.0 Permits 

None. 

8.0 Public Involvement 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2014. Letter declining Cooperation Agency status. Southwest 

Region October 10, 2014. 
TBG092314012951SCO 

11.0 References 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016 

Service-Level Draft EIS Page 11-36 

STB. 2014. Email declining to be a cooperating agency in the Tier 1 EIS. December 19, 2014. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2013a. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study 

Agency and Tribal Coordination Plan. January 2013. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2013b. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program 

Scoping Report. November 2013. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2013c. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Public 

Involvement Plan. February 2013. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Route 

Alternatives Analysis. June 2014. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Forth Worth District. 2014. Letter accepting Cooperating 

Agency status. October 21, 2014. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Galveston District. 2014. Letter accepting Cooperating 

Agency status. October 2014. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Tulsa District. 2014. Letter accepting Cooperating Agency 

status. October 23, 2014. 

 

This report was written on behalf of the Texas Department of Transportation by 

www.ch2m.com