US. Department 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

ofTransportation Washington, D.C. 20590 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

JAN 18 2017 

In Reply Refer To: HCR-20 

DOT# 2015-0124 

James Bass 

Executive Director 

Texas Department of Transpo11ation 

125 East 111

h Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Subject: Letter of Finding (LOF), DOT# 2015-0124 

Dear Mr. Bass: 

In March and April 2015, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) received two 

complaints alleging that the Texas Department ofTransportation (TxDOT or Respondent) 

violated Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it selected the preferred alignment for the 

Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge Project (Project). As you are aware, FHWA's Office ofCivil 

Rights undertook an investigation regarding these complaints. 

To resolve the issues identified in FHWA's investigation and in lieu of issuing a LOF, FHWA 

and TxDOT entered into a Voluntary Resolution Agreement (VRA) on December 17, 2015, in 

which TxDOT agreed to provide additional mitigation, including a voluntary acquisition and 

relocation program for owners, landlords and tenants in the affected neighborhood. On January 

8, 2016, FHWA issued a Record of Decision for the Project, which referenced and incorporated 

the VRA, thus conditioning approval for the Project on TxDOT's commitment to implement the 

VRA and its voluntary acquisition and relocation program. 

FHW A has previously informed TxDOT of its concerns with TxDOT's interpretation of its 

obligations under and implementation ofthe VRA. Specifically, FHWA has explained that 

TxDOT is mistaken in asserting that the VRA's terms are governed by the Uniform Relocation 

Act and not Title VI. As an agreement entered into to mitigate and address Title Vl issues, the 

VRA's requirements must be interpreted in a manner consistent with Title VI. A critical aspect 

ofthe VRA is to provide a strong incentive to landlords to sell their prope1ties so that their 

tenants are offered relocation assistance and benefits. Thus, the VRA calls for landlords to 

receive the same relocation benefits as owner occupants, more than what landlords would be 

provided under the Uniform Relocation Act. As required by the VRA, FHWA has previously 

informed TxDOT ofits failure to comply with the agreement's requirements in this regard. 

As a result and consistent with the terms ofthe VRA, FHWA is issuing this LOF, which will 

summarize the results ofits investigation, identify how the Project does not comply with Title 

VI, and the steps TxDOT must take to address these issues. 
2 

I. Procedural History 

On March 5, 2015, , two African-American residents ofthe 

Hillcrest neighborhood in Corpus Christi, TX, filed a complaint alleging discrimination on the 

basis ofrace, color, and ethnicity against TxDOT in violation ofTitle VI ofthe Civil Rights Act 

of 1964. The complaint was then joined by letter to FHWA, by the Citizens Alliance for 

Fairness and Progress, comprised ofresidents of both the Hillcrest and Washington-Coles 

neighborhoods and has also been supported independently by 22 resident co-signers from the 

Hillcrest and Washington-Coles neighborhood (Complainants). 

Complainants alleged that the Respondents violated Title VI when they selected the 

recommended alternative for the Project, violated public participation procedures during the 

environmental impact analysis of the Project, and violated competitive bidding processes for 

construction ofthe recommended alternative causing an adverse, disparate impact against 

African-American and Latino residents in the Hillcrest and Washington-Coles neighborhoods of 

Corpus Christi, TX. Additionally, the Complainants alleged acts that constituted intentional 

discrimination on the same prohibited classes. · 

On April 9, 2015, FHWA accepted the Title VI portion ofthe complaint for investigation on 

behalf ofthe USDOT. 1 FHWA HCR reviewed multiple documents, solicited community 

members' statements, conducted site visits, reviewed publicly available documents as well as 

documents provided by TxDOT, the City ofCorpus Christi, Census Bureau data, American 

Community Survey information, the Respondent's statement, and the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS), prepared and adopted by TxDOT in November 2014. In the FEIS, 

TxDOT identified the "Red Alternative" as its Recommended Alternative for the new Harbor 

Bridge, and it is this decision and the process leading up to the making ofthis decision that 

complainants have alleged was discriminatory under Title VI. FHWA's Office ofCivil Rights 

accepted the validity ofthe statistical and scientific measurements ofthe project on residents and 

neighboring communities from the FEIS, therefore, the information contained in the FEIS was 

primarily used, along with information obtained through the investigation, to assess impacts from 

the perspective ofTitle VI. 

II. Factual Background 

a Project History 

Corpus Christi's Harbor Bridge, originally completed in 1959, crosses the Industrial Canal as 

part ofUS181 from the city's Central Business District (CBD) and coming down again into the 

North Beach neighborhood.2 The current Harbor Bridge has a height of243 feet, with 138 feet 

ofclearance below for passing ships. A Feasibility Study completed by TxDOT in 2003 

concluded that US181 and the Harbor Bridge must be improved to maintain a safe and efficient 

1 FHWA did not accept for investigation the allegation regarding the violation ofcompetitive bidding processes as 

no further facts were provided by the complainants as to this claim and nothing in the preliminary phase ofthe 

investigation indicated Title VI implications or contracting issues. 2 TxDOT Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 1-l 
3 

transportation corridor. 3 TxDOT published a Notice of Intent (NOi) to develop an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register in 2005, but in November of 

2007, this NOi was rescinded. The current NOi was published in the summer of201 l, under 

which the Draft EIS (DEIS) and Final EIS (FEIS) proceeded.4 The final Record ofDecision was 

signed by FHWA on January 8, 2016. 

The new Harbor Bridge is to be 538 feet tall, with between 206 and 216 feet ofclearance below 

for passing ships. The significant increase in clearance (138 feet for the current bridge, as much 

as 216 feet for the new bridge) is designed to accommodate larger vessels from the Panama 

Canal and elsewhere into the Port.s 

The environmental impact process evaluated six alternatives for the location ofthe newly aligned 

Harbor Bridge and US 181, plus a no-build alternative as required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). These six alternatives were: Blue, Green, Orange, Red, West, and Tunnel. 

During the DEIS stage, both the Blue and the Tunnel alternatives were removed from 

consideration, as they were deemed to not fit the Purpose and Need ofthe project under NEPA. 

The no-build alternative was also determined to not meet the Purpose and Need for the project.6 

The four remaining alternatives were thus evaluated for the FEIS. These alternatives were: 

Green, Orange, Red, and West.1 

3 2003 Feasibility Study https://ccharborbridgeproject.com/map-and-pictures/ 

'Id 

'FEIS 2-15 

6 FEIS 2-9 

1 FEIS2-10 
4 

Exhibit A 

Flguro 2.3-1 


US 181 Harbor Brldgo Location Map 


Roaaonablo Alternatives Under Consideration 


key lOP'ffture• 

.-.....,._. _, 

~U.. .....,.. , Ccwwtnlf\M 

e._...... 

'--,c.~ 

c:::J~ ,_.......... 


The Green Alternative would follow the existing US 18 l aligrunent to Burleson Street with the 

location ofthe new bridge slightly offset to the west ofthe existing bridge to allow US 181 to 

remain open for traffic during construction. It would be constructed with three 12-foot main 

lanes in each direction with a median barrier and 12-foot inside and 10-foot outside shoulders. It 

would also include a 10-foot bicycle and pedestrian shared use path separated from the main 

lanes by a two-foot concrete barrier.8 The Green Alternative would also correct the "horizontal 

curvature" creating safety problems on the current alignment.9 Because it traces the current 
5 

alignment before diverging slightly over the water, the Green Alternative would be located 

largely in the current footprint of US 181, in downtown Corpus Christi, adjacent to the Central 

Business District (CBD), the Sea, Arts, and Entertainment (SEA) District, and downtown Corpus 

Christi to the east, with the neighborhoods ofthe Northside to the west. The Green Alternative 

would be approximately 5.06 miles long, with right-of-way (ROW) 228-459 feet wide, narrowest 

at the bridge, costing an estimated $558 million, not including ROW, utility relocation, and any 

necessary mitigation. to 

The Orange Alternative would be on a new location alignment west ofthe existing US 181 and 

Harbor Bridge alignment. The new Harbor Bridge itself would be offset approximately 100 feet 

to the west ofthe existing bridge, to allow for the existing bridge to remain open to traffic while 

construction proceeded. The Orange Alternative would include a reconstructed interchange at 1­

37 and the Crosstown Expressway, with the realigned US181 located between the neighborhoods 

ofHillcrest and Washington-Coles before traveling north and traversing the Washington-Coles 

neighborhood to cross the Industrial Canal. It would be constructed with three 12-foot main 

lanes in each direction with a median barrier and 12-foot inside and 10-foot outside shoulders. It 

would also include a I 0-foot bicycle and pedestrian shared use path separated from the main 

lanes by a two-foot concrete barrier. The Orange Alternative would also correct the "horizontal 

curvature" creating safety problems on the current alignment.11 The Orange Alternative would 

be approximately 6.0 miles long, with ROW 200-430 feet wide, narrowest at the bridge, costing 

an estimated $630 million, not including ROW, utility relocation, and any necessary 

mitigation.12 

The Red Alternative would be on a new location alignment approximately 1,000 feet west ofthe 

existing US 181 and Harbor Bridge alignment. The Red Alternative would include a 

reconstructed interchange at 1-37 and the Crosstown Expressway, with the realigned US181 

located between the neighborhoods of Hillcrest and Washington-Coles, adjacent to both. It 

would be constructed with three 12-foot main lanes in each direction with a median barrier and 

12-foot inside and IO-foot outside shoulders. It would also include a 10-foot bicycle and 

pedestrian shared use path separated from the main lanes by a two-foot concrete barrier. The 

Red Alternative would also correct the "horizontal curvature" creating safety problems on the 

current alignment, creating a straighter corridor from the reconstructed interchange at 1-37 north 

over the Industrial Canal and into North Beach. The Red Alternative would be approximately 

5.98 miles long, with ROW 200-430 feet wide, narrowest at the bridge, costing an estimated 

$637 million, not including ROW, utility relocation, and any necessary mitigation.13 The Red 

Alternative was formally endorsed by the City ofCorpus Christi, the Port of Corpus Christi, and 

the Corpus Christi MP0.14 

The West Alternative would be on a new location alignment approximately 6,700 feet west of 

the existing US181 and Harbor Bridge alignment. This alternative would include a new 

interchange at 1-37 near Nueces Bay Boulevard and a reconstructed interchange at 1-37 and the 

°FEIS 2-10 

11 FEIS2-7 

12 FEIS 2-12 

13 FEIS 2-11to2-12 

14 FEIS 2-21 

1
6 

Crosstown Expressway. The realigned US181 would run parallel to and east ofNueces Bay 

Boulevard, through the buffer zone established between the industrial refineries located adjacent 

to the west and the Hillcrest neighborhood located adjacent to the east. North ofthe Industrial 

Canal, US 181 would run northeast across a dredged spoils placement area before realigning with 

the existing alignment at the same location in North Beach as the other alternatives. The West 

Alternative would be constructed with three 12-foot main lanes in each direction with a median 

barrier and 12-foot inside and 10-foot outside shoulders. It would also include a 10-foot bicycle 

and pedestrian shared use path separated from the main lanes by a two-foot concrete barrier, 

correcting the "horizontal curvature" creating safety problems on the current alignment. The 

West Alternative would be approximately 7.59 miles long, with ROW 320-570 feet wide, 

narrowest at the bridge, costing an estimated $679 million, not including ROW, utility 

relocation, and any necessary mitigation. ts 

The FEIS was finalized in November of2014, with TxDOT selecting the Red Alternative as the 

Recommended Alternative. 

b. History ofthe Northside Community 

The Northside community is comprised oftwo neighborhoods, with Hillcrest to the west and 

Washington-Coles to the east. Historically, the neighborhoods ofHillcrest and WashingtonColes were two distinct and racially separate neighborhoods, with African-Americans permitted 

by law to live only on the east side in what is now the Washington-Coles Neighborhood. In 

1944, the Corpus Christi Planning Commission recommended opening the Hillcrest subdivision 

to African-American residents due to overcrowding, and beginning in 1948, African-Americans 

were legally permitted to purchase homes in Hillcrest. 

15 FEIS 2-13 to 2-14 
7 


Over the next two decades, Hillcrest transitioned from predominantly White to predominantly 

African-American and Hispanic or Latino. 16 According to the 2010 Census, the Northside today 

remains predominantly African-American and Hispanic or Latino, with populations identifying 

as 36% and 57.7%, respectively.17 This makes the Northside community unique within the City 

ofCorpus Christi and the project area. Only 4.3% of City residents identify as AfricanAmerican, and the other neighborhoods potentially affected by the realignment of US 181 contain 

African-American populations no higher than 5. 1 %. la 

16 FElS 3-64 

17 FEIS 3-67 

18 FEIS 3-60 
8 

%of Minority Population 

Harbor Bridge Project Title VI Analysis 

tAtt tl ~ 

11.fttitlt.n.

..........,., son•tM~ 

• .I t u

- --
9 

% of Black Population 

Harbor Bridge Project Title VI Analysis 

-· ... 811 CH.Md -&f, 

A omu or'1.tnftln8 

l· 

In the 1940s and 1950s, large public housing units were developed in the Northside for AfricanAmerican residents. 19 In 1961 , construction of I-37 began, and "many homes in both the 

Hillcrest and Washington-Coles neighborhoods were moved and demolished."20 I-37 removed 

the "neighborhood's connection to the commercial corridor to the south."21 In recent years, the 

Northside has been "the focal point of buy-outs by the nearby refineries, which purchased 500 or 

more homes in the area between 1985 and 1998. " 22 Numerous large refineries operate directly 

west and north ofthe Hillcrest neighborhood, with the Port ofCorpus Christi directly north 

against the Industrial Canal. In 1998, approximately 100 houses were cleared along Nueces Bay 

Boulevard and West Broadway in the Hillcrest area as the result of a lawsuit filed by Hillcrest 

residents against the refineries, costing $3. l million, creating an L-shaped buffer zone between 

the industrial refineries and residential Hillcrest. At the center ofthe lawsuit were claims of 

groundwater and air contamination, and the effect that they were having on human health and 

property values. 23 In 1995, an industrial tank farm between Hillcrest and Washington-Coles was 

19 FEIS 3-64 

20 Id. 

21 FETS 3-64 to 3-65. 22 FEIS 3-65 23 id. 
IO 


removed, leaving a large swath ofvacant land between the northern part ofthe two 

communities.24 

Since 1992, the Northside community has been the subject ofseveral planning efforts in 1999, 

2003, and 2009 aimed at the rezoning ofthe Hillcrest Neighborhood as either light industrial or 

as a research and technology park.2s The planning efforts were opposed by the Northside 

communities and the rezoning was never officially adopted by the City Council. Today, the 

neighborhoods still feature a high degree ofcommunity cohesion, with the more residential 

Hillcrest utilizing the more lightly populated Washington-Coles for social services, including 

Solomon Coles High School and the Oveal Williams Senior Center.26 

m. Issues 

Complainants allege that the selection ofthe Red Alternative will continue to have significant 

negative impacts on the Northside Neighborhoods and that those impacts are predominantly 

borne by African-American residents. The issues are: 

1. 	 Whether Respondents violated Title VI and DOT' s Title VI implementing 


regulations when they selected the Red Alternative as the recommended 


alternative for the Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge Project; 


2. 	 Whether Respondents violated Title VI by not following public participation 


procedures during the environmental impact analysis ofthe project; 


IV. LegalBackground 

a. 	 Title VI 

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis ofrace, color, or national origin in programs and 

activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Specifically, Title VI provides: 

[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground ofrace, color, or national 

origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal 

financial assistance.27 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), as the Federal government's coordinating agency for 

Title VI, implemented its Title VI program in 28 C.F.R. Part 42, which provides that the 

responsibility for enforcing Title VI rests with the federal agencies which extend financial 

assistance, such as the FHWA.28 The USDOT issued common Title VI regulations for all 

24 FEIS 3-64 

2

' FEIS 3-65 to 3-66 

26 FEIS 3-68 to 3-69 

27 42 u.s.c. § 2000d. 

28 28 C.F.R. § 42.401. 
11 

USDOT modes at 49 C.F .R. Part 21. When individuals file discrimination complaints under Title 

VI, the FHWA Headquarters Office ofCivil Rights (HCR) will process the complaints. IfHCR 

accepts the complaint, it will investigate and issue a LOF with potentia l findings and 

recommendations. Specific provisions regarding the investigation ofTitle VI complaints are 

found at 49 C.F.R. § 21.11 . The FHWA's complaint investigation procedures are contained in its 

Procedures Manual for Processing External Complaints of Discrimination.

29 

b. Discrimination Prohibited 

Title VI prohibits discrimination under two separate legal theories: disparate treatment and 

disparate impact. Regarding disparate impact, the USDOT's Title VI implementing regulations 

state that a recipient "may not utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect 

ofsubjecting persons to discrimination because oftheir race, color, or national origin,"30 

Recipients also must take "affirmative action to remove or overcome the effects" of 

discrimination where prior discriminatory practice or usage exists.31 FHWA's Title VI 

regulations similarly re'\uire Title VI compliance by recipients receiving Federal financial 

assistance from FHWA. 2 

The Supreme Court has held that such regulations may validly prohibit practices having a 

disparate impact on protected groups, even ifthe actions or practices are not intentionally 

discriminatory.33 The USDOT adopted regulations that prohibit recipients of Federal funds from 

using criteria or methods ofadministering their programs that have the effect ofsubjecting 

individuals to discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. 

Disparate impact involves an allegation that a specific policy or practice, that is neutral on its 

face, nevertheless has a discriminatory effect on the basis ofrace, color, or national origin. The 

elements of a Title VI disparate impact claim derive from the analysis of cases decided under 

Title VU disparate impact law.34 To establish a prima facie case

35 of discrimination, the 

investigating agency must ascertain whether the recipient utilized: 

1. A specific, facially neutral policy or practice; 

2. That had a disproportionate impact on protected group; and 

3. Whether the policy or practice likely caused the disproportionate impact. 

After a prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate the 

existence of a "substantia l legitimate j ustification" for the allegedly discriminatory practice. To 

29 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/finalcomplaintmanual 11041 O.cfm. 
 30 49 C.F.R. § 21.5(b)(2). 
 31 49 C.F.R. § 21.5(b)(7). 
 32 23 C.F.R. Part 200. 
 33 Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Serv. Comm' n, 463 U.S. 582. 582 (1983); Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 292-94 


(1985); see Elston v. Talladega County Bd. of Educ., 997 F.2d 1394, 1406 (I I th Cir.), reh'g denied, 7 F.3d 242 (I Ith 


Cir. 1993). 


34 New York Urban League v. New York, 71 F.3d I 031, I 036 (2d. Cir. 1995). 
 35 Larry P. v. Ri les, 793 F.2d 969, 982 (9th Cir. 1984); Elston, 997 F.2d at 1407). 

12 

prove a "substantial legitimate justification,'' the recipient must be able to show that the 

challenged policy was "necessary to meeting a goal that was legitimate, important, and integral 

to the [recipient's] institutional mission. "

36 The justification must bear a "manifest demonstrable 

relationship" to the challenged policy.37 

Ifthe recipient can make a showing of"substantial legitimate justification," the investigating 

agency must then focus on whether there are "less discriminatory alternatives" that meet the 

recipient's legitimate needs, but that will do so without the same level ofdisparate effect on a 

class protected by Title VI.38 

For allegations involving disparate treatment there must be proof that "a challenged action was 

motivated by an intent to discriminate."39 However, the record does not need to contain evidence 

of"bad faith, ill will or any evil motive on the part ofthe [recipient].''4° Evidence of 

discriminatory intent may be direct or circumstantial and may be found in various sources, 

including statements by decision makers, the historical background ofthe events in issue, the 

sequence ofevents leading to the decision in issue, a departure from standard procedure, 

legislative or administrative history, a past history ofdiscriminatory or segregated conduct, and 

evidence ofa substantial disparate impact on a protected group.41 

Ifthe case file contains sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case ofdiscrimination, the 

investigating agency must then determine if the rec~ient can articulate a legitimate, 

nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action. 2 Ifthe recipient can articulate a 

nondiscriminatory explanation for the alleged discriminatory action, a determination must be 

made whether the case file contains sufficient evidence to establish that the recipient's stated 

reason was a pretext for discrimination.43 

c. Jurisdiction 

Sec. 602 ofTitle VI directs each Federal agency that extends Federal financial assistance to any 

program or activity to issue rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability. The USDOT 

and the FHWA have issued regulations at 49 CFR Part 21and 23 CFR Part 200. These 

regulations apply to any recipient ofFederal financial assistance from USDOT and/or FHWA. A 

recipient may mean any State, territory, possession, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico, or 

any political subdivision thereof, or instrumentality thereof, any public or private agency, 

institution, or organization, or other entity, or any individual, in any State, territory, possession, 

36 Sandoval v. Hagan, 7 F.Supp. 2d 1234, 1278 (M.D. Ala. 1998), aft'd, 197 F.3d 484 (I Ith Cir. 1999), rev'd on 


other grounds, Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 215 (2001) (quoting Elston, 997 F.2d at 1413). 


37 Georgia State Conference of Branches ofNAACP v. Georgia, 775 F.2d. 1403, 1418 (I Ith Cir. 1985); See, e.g., 


Elston, 997 F. 2d at 1413 (In an education context, the practice must be demonstrably necessary to meeting an 


important educational goal, i.e. there must be an "educational necessity" for the practice). 


38 Elston, 997 F.2d at 1407. 


39 Elston, 997 F.2d at 1406. 
 40Elston, 997 F.2d at 1406 (quoting Williams v. City of Dothan, 745 F.2d 1406, 1414 (l lth Cir. 1984)). 


41 See Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan House. Redevelopment Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-68 (1977) (evaluation of 


intentional discrimination claim under the Fourteenth Amendment); Elston, 997 F.2d at 1406. 


42 See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. 


43 Id. 
13 

the District ofColumbia, or Puerto Rico, to whom Federal financial assistance is extended, 

directly or through another recipient. 44 

Any person who believes they, or any specific class ofpersons, have been subjected to 

discrimination prohibited by Title VI may by themselves or by a representative file with a 

written complaint with the FHWA.45 A complaint must be filed not later than 180 days after the 

date ofthe alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by FHWA. Once a 

complaint is accepted, FHWA will make a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, 

report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply with Title VI. 

The investigation will include, where appropriate, a review ofthe pertinent practices and policies 

ofthe recipient, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with this part 

occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination as to whether the recipient has failed to 

comply with Title Vl.46 

d. 	 Texas Department ofTransportation 

Every fiscal year, TxDOT receives its allotted apportionment of funds from FHWA. In FY2015, 

for instance, TxDOT received more than $2.2 billion in total apportionment funding from 

FHWA.47 According to TxDOT, $291 million in federal funding has thus far been earmarked 

forthe project.48 TxDOT does not deny FHWA'sjurisdiction. · 

V. Analysis 

A. 	Did Respondents violate Title VI when they selected the Red Alternative as 

the recommended alternative for the Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge 

Project? 

1) Respondents engaged in facially-neutral policies and practices. 

The specific policy or practice identified from the FEIS was the selection ofthe Red 

Alternative as TxDOT's Recommended Alternative for the new Harbor Bridge project, 

realigning US181 and the new Harbor Bridge from its current location adjacent to the 

Central Business District to a location in the Northside community, between the 

neighborhoods ofHillcrest and Washington-Coles.49 The process that was used to make 

the determination that the Red Alternative was the Preferred Alternative followed the 

standard NEPA process and TxDOT project selection requirements. 

2) 	 The selection of the Red Alternative as the recommended alternative 

for the Project caused a disparate impact to the Hillcrest 

neighborhood. 

44 49 C.F.R. § 21.23(t). 4

.s Id § 21.1 I{b). 46 Id § 21.1 I(c). 

47 https://www .fhwa.dot.gov/map2 l/docs/fy _2015 _ computational_tables.pdf 

48 http://www.chron.com/communityblogs/atmosphere/article/Corpus-Bridge-4514972.php 49 FEIS 2-30 to 2-32 
14 

Under Title VI, the Red Alternative is analyzed to determine effects on the impacted 

community. Impacts should be determined by considering the benefits ofthe project, the 

burdens imposed by the project, as well as any mitigation measures proposed for the 

impacted community. The possible adverse economic, social, and environmental effects 

relating to any proposed project on any Federal-aid system are fully considered in the 

development ofsuch project.50 Impacts to be considered include factors such as (1) air, 

noise, and water pollution (2) destruction or disruption ofman-made and natural 

resources, aesthetic values, community cohesion, and the availability ofpublic facilities 

and services (3) adverse employment effects, and tax and property value losses; injurious 

displacement ofpeople, businesses and farms; and (5) disruption ofdesirable community 

and regional growth. Id 

a Noise 

The FEIS contains a summary offuture (2035) traffic noise impacts for each ofthe four 

alternatives identified in the environmental impact process. The chart contains three 

numbers for each alternative: Number ofsensitive receivers impacted, equal to or above 

the level set by the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC); the number of sensitive receivers 

impacted greater than 10 decibels over existing noise levels; and the total number of 

impacted receivers. 

The noise requirements ofthe Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970 are mandated in 23 USC 

109(h)-(i), and the steps that follow these measures are codified at 23 CFR Part 772. 

TxDOT's Environmental Handbook on Traffic Noise adheres to these authorities. 

The NAC established in 23 CFR Part 772, Table I, identify the decibel level for 

determining the threshold for comfortable noise levels for a particular receptor, and 

identify, based on usage, where the decibel levels should be measured. 

Alternative Sensitive Sensitive Total Number of 

Receivers Receivers Impacted 

>lOdBAOver Receivers* 

Nl\C 

Impacted~ 

Existing Noise 

Levels 

Green Alternative 520 11 522 

Red Alternative 33 538 

Orange Alternative 

533 

480 34 480 

West Alternative 424 6 424 

so See NAACP v. Med. Ctr. Inc., 657 F.2d 1322, 1331-2, 1340 (3d Cir. 1981 ); United States v. Bexar County, 484 F. 

Supp. 855, 859-60 (W.D. Tex. 1980); see also 23 U.S.C. § 109(h). 
15 

Residential receivers are identified as Activity Category B receptors, with a NAC decibel 

level at 67 dBA, measured on the exterior ofthe residence. When it is determined that 

projected noise impacts approach or exceed this level, noise abatement is to be 

considered and adopted if"feasible" and "reasonable." Highway agencies must establish 

an approach level when determining a traffic noise impact, which must be at least 1 dBA 

less than the NAC-level for that Activity Category. 23 CFR Part 772.11 ( e ). TxDOT has 

identified 1 dBA as its approach level in its Environmental Handbook on Traffic Noise. 

Highway agencies are also required to define "substantial noise increase" between 5 dBA 

and 15 dBA over existing noise levels. 23 CFR Part 772.1 l(t). Along with noise levels 

that approach or exceed the NAC listed in Table 1, a substantial noise increase is the 

other type of impact defined as a "traffic noise impact" in 23 CFR Part 772.5. TxDOT, in 

its Environmental Handbook on Traffic Noise, has defined a "substantial noise increase" 

as occurring when the predicted noise level exceeds the existing level by more than 10 

dBA. Every 10 dBA increase doubles the perceived "loudness" ofan activity. 

According to the FEIS, the Red Alternative would impact 533 receivers at or above the 

NAC established for that type ofusage in 23 CFR Part 772, Table 1, representing an 

adverse impact. The Red Alternative would impact 33 receivers by increasing their by 

more than 10 dBA their existing noise levels, identified as a "substantial noise increase" 

by TxDOT, creating an adverse impact on these receivers. The total number ofimpacted 

receivers by the adoption ofthe Red Alternative is 538. Many ofthese impacted 

receivers are only impacted by the new Harbor Bridge project under the Red Alternative, 

because they are located near the re-aligned segment of US 181 and the new interchange 

to be built with existing 1-37, and are not as close to 1-37 as it currently exists or its 

reconstruction as part ofthe new Harbor Bridge project. In total, 204 residential 

receivers in the Northside community would experience traffic noise impacts under the 

Red Alternative. 

For the Northside community, noise abatement measures were considered using 23 CFR 

Part 772.13, but none were determined to be reasonable and feasible. Therefore, should 

the Red Alternative be constructed, "traffic noise impacts" as defined by 23 CFR Part 

772.5 will be experienced by the affected residents close to the realigned US 181 and 

Harbor Bridge. 

b. Isolation and Economic Impacts 

The construction oftransportation facilities in Corpus Christi has historically had 

significant impacts on the Northside communities. Chapter 3 ofthe FEIS, discussing the 

Affected Environment, discusses the 1961 construction ofl-37 and the 1963 construction 

ofthe State Highway 286, known as the Crosstown Expressway. 1-37 is the primary 

hurricane evacuation Alternative for the City, beginning in Corpus Christi and ending in 

San Antonio. The FEIS acknowledges that they did not adhere to existing transportation 

corridors and "were constructed through established residential neighborhoods," leaving 

"isolated pockets ofneighborhood areas to the north ofthe interstate, bounded by oil 

refineries and the Port on the north and west and the highway itself on the south." The 

alignment ofl-37 forced formerly major roads, such as North Staples, Winnebago, and 
16 

North Broadway, to end at the new highway, which "altered the traffic patterns through 

the area." The FEIS states that "many homes in both the Hillcrest and WashingtonColes neighborhoods were moved and demolished." 

The Red Alternative would require the closure of Winnebago Street, identified as ''the 

principal connecting roadway between the Washington-Coles and Hillcrest 

neighborhoods and would introduce a physical barrier between the new neighborhoods." 

TxDOT acknowledges in its FEIS that ''the degree ofseparation ofthe Hillcrest 

neighborhood would be magnified by the implementation ofthe [Red Alternative]." In 

order to mitigate the severance ofWinnebago Street, TxDOT will redevelop Lake Street, 

located to the north, in order to establish it as the new principal thoroughfare between the 

two communities, passing east-west under the realignment ofUS 181. The realignment 

ofUS 181 would remove the existing highway barrier between Washington-Coles and 

downtown, but TxDOT acknowledges that "Hillcrest is a more cohesive neighborhood 

than Washington-Coles," though Washington-Coles contains many ofthe public 

amenities utilized by Hillcrest residents, including the St. Paul United Methodist Church, 

the Oveal Williams Senior Center and the Solomon Coles High School and Education 

Center, the only school still remaining in the Northside community. TxDOT stipulates 

in its FEIS that the Red Alternative's realignment ofUS 181 will isolate the Hillcrest 

neighborhood and "contribute to the further urbanization ofthe community and 

separation between the two neighborhoods, affecting cohesion in the Northside 

community as a whole." 

Chapter 6 ofthe FEIS examines the indirect effects to community cohesion that can be 

anticipated from the selection ofany ofthe four build alternatives, including the Red 

Alternative. The Green Alternative would only re-align the US181 slightly to the west, 

"maintaining the existing barrier created by US 181 between the Northside neighborhoods 

and downtown," but mitigating this barrier beyond the current alignment by constructing 

four additional underpasses to improve connectivity to and from the downtown. The 

Red and Orange Alternatives "would contribute to separation ofthese neighborhoods 

already challenged to maintain community cohesion and interconnectivity with the rest of 

the city, stemming primarily from the barrier presented by 1-37," the existing highway 

forming the southern boundary ofthe Northside community. TxDOT expects the Red 

Alternative to "adversely effect the cohesion ofthe Northside community." The West 

Alternative was projected by TxDOT to "remove the existing barrier between the 

Northside neighborhoods and downtown and create a new barrier between the Hillcrest 

neighborhood and nearby refineries." Such a barrier can be perceived as beneficial, as it 

maintains the connectivity between the traditionally African-American Northside 

communities while also removing one ofthe Northside's existing barriers to downtown 

access. 

On December 16, 2014, HUD's Office ofCommunity Planning and Development sent a 

letter to TxDOT with concerns about the project. Amongst other concerns, HUD was 

concerned with the impact to property owners beyond the purchase of land for rights-ofway, particularly with regards to reduction in property values. TxDOT responded that 

possible reductions in property values were too speculative for consideration as an 

adverse effect under NEPA, and thus would not be considered. 
17 

City ofCorpus Christi additionally drafted the Corpus Christi Comprehensive Plan 2035, 

last updated in July 2015, that has seen a number of drafts published online and that 

"includes a vision for the future and goals and policies [to] provide direction for the city 

as a whole." In it, the City expresses its plan to establish "the Special 1-37 Transition 

District,'' which covers residential uses west ofthe alignment ofthe Red Alternative and 

north of 1-37. This includes the Hillcrest neighborhood. The City acknowledges that the 

Hillcrest neighborhood has been losing population for decades, citing environmental 

pollution and contamination, along with the barrier represented by the construction ofl37 to the south, which "cut them off from the south." By labeling Hillcrest a Transition 

District, the City plans that, over time, "residential uses should leave this area and the 

designated land use should become light industrial or a buffer use ... within a heavy 

industrial district." 

The City's future plan for the Hillcrest Neighborhood to become a Transition District and 

then a light industrial center was further observed during HCR on-site reviews ofthe 

Hillcrest and Washington-Coles neighborhoods during the investigation ofthe claim. It 

was observed on these site visits to the neighborhood that many parks and vacant lots 

were neglected, with the grass growing nearly waist-high in many places. Former public 

buildings and school properties were closed or showed signs offire damage. Many 

buildings which contained community services, such as a day-care center and police 

station were boarded up and the properties were in disrepair. 

Impacts to neighborhood businesses in Hillcrest from the new Harbor Bridge project are 

likely to affect community cohesion. Many small businesses that were observed in the 

neighborhood including rental properties, houses ofworship, a small convenience store, 

an auto dealership, and others rely on the accessibility in the Hillcrest neighborhood that 

would be affected by the Harbor Bridge project. However, the Red Alternative is 

predicted by TxDOT in its FEIS to displace only three businesses (through right-of-way 

acquisition), employing seven to fifteen employees. It is estimated that these businesses 

would be able to reestablish nearby, and that any effects on unemployment would be 

temporary. While all businesses and employees affected by potential alternatives in the 

FEIS are estimated to be capable ofreestablishing nearby, TxDOT estimates the Red 

Alternative will affect the least number of employees ofthe four alternatives. 

The effects ofremoving the community cohesion would have a uniquely adverse impact 

on the African-Americans in the neighborhood due to the historic segregation ofthe 

African-American community in Corpus Christi. Based on interviews and historical data 

reviewed during the investigation, Corpus Christi historically limited African-American 

residence to the neighborhood ofWashington-Coles and then opened up the Hillcrest 

neighborhood to African-Americans when Washington-Coles became too small to hold 

the population. This, in effect, created a uniquely cohesive community of AfricanAmericans within the Washington-Coles and Hillcrest Neighborhoods to the point that 

they are often referred to as one community ofNorthside. 

Relocation ofresidents in the Hillcrest neighborhood, whether through a mitigation 

strategy designed to limit the impacts ofthe Red Alternative or through the gradual 
18 

industrialization described by Plan CC 2035, will likely result in a significant loss of 

business for the 187 rental properties located in the community. The relocation of 

residents will also likely have significant impacts on the ability ofsmall businesses to 

operate in the area, particularly those heavily dependent on local traffic and community 

cohesion. 

c. Proposed Mitigation 

When detennining adversity, the countervailing benefits accruing to impacted communities from 

a proposed project or policy are to be weighed against the harms.51 When recipients take actions 

to mitigate impacts, they must be balanced against the adversity ofthe impacts to detennine if 

the project as a whole is truly adverse. 

The Red Alternative contains a variety ofdifferent methods for attempting to mitigate the 

adversity of the project on residents ofHillcrest and Washington-Coles. The FEIS 

contains various proposals by TxDOT to mitigate impacts to community cohesion in the 

Northside under the Red Alternative. While no mitigation is proposed for residents in 

Hillcrest and Washington-Coles affected by the realignment ofUS181 with regards to 

traffic noise, there will be construction ofa hike and bike trail from Hillcrest to 

Washington-Coles that traverses under the realigned US 181, street lights, the creation of 

a new park to replace the current T.C. Ayers Park in Hillcrest, the neighborhood pool and 

basketball courts will be resurfaced, workforce support for affected businesses, 

incorporating neighborhood input into the aesthetics of the new Harbor Bridge and 

US 181, and the incorporation ofneighborhood history into the trail and redesigned parks. 

The Red Alternative will also fund a small museum on neighborhood history, to be 

located within Solomon Coles High School. 

A Community Sustainability Plan is to be developed within a year ofthe beginning of 

construction, designed to showcase opportunities for the community to apply to federal 

agencies for sustainability grants, ifthe residents themselves choose to apply for them.52 

On October 15, 2014, TxDOT hosted a Livability Summit at the Solomon Ortiz Center in 

Washington-Coles, intended to provide additional mitigation for impacts to community 

cohesion in the Northside.53 The Livability Summit was organized by FHWA, and 

sponsored by the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Input from the Livability 

Summit "will contribute to a Community Sustainability Plan to be developed by TxDOT 

for the Northside neighborhood" by showcasing opportunities for the residents 

themselves to apply for HUD, EPA, and DOT sustainability grants in the future. The 

meeting consisted ofpredominately government officials and few Northside residents. 

The Community Sustainability Plan has not been published as ofthis date, with TxDOT 

promising in its Position Statement that it will be "drafted and finalized within one year 

ofthe start ofconstruction," and will not contain any commitments from TxDOT or any 

51 See, e.g., NAACP v. Med. Ctr., Inc., 657 F.2d at 1340; see also United States v. Bexar County, 484 F. Supp. at 

859. 


Sl FEIS 9-2 to 9-6. See also TxDOT Position Statement pgs. 14-18. 


s

3 TxDOT Position Statement 

19 

other public or private entity for funding. It will largely serve as an educational tool for 

residents interested in opportunities for applying for federal sustainability grants. 

It contains no dedicated funding. 

Mitigation is projected to cost $20.8 million under the Red Alternative, or approximately 3.2% 

ofthe overall project costs, minus costs for ROW and utility relocation.54 

Proposed mitigation such as the hike-and-bike trails, contribute in a small way to lessening 

severe impacts to community cohesion caused the realignment ofUS181, and the inclusion of 

neighborhood history also promotes community cohesion. The creation ofa new park to replace 

T.C. Ayers Park is also useful; however, HCR on-site visits to the neighborhood revealed parks 

in the neighborhood to be in severely dilapidated conditions, unmaintained and practically not 

functional. 

The realignment of US ISI between Hillcrest and Washington-Coles will serve the City's plan to 

transition Hillcrest into an industrial zone, isolating the residential community and serving as a 

barrier between the future expanded industrial zone and the residential communities to the south 

and east. The proposed mitigation involving hike and bike trails, parks, and community history 

projects would do little to reconnect Hillcrest to the rest ofthe community arid would not be 

useful to residents that will be rezoned into an industrial area within the next 15 years. While the 

rezoning ofHillcrest has not happened yet and is not within the purview ofTxDOT, the Red 

Alternative would add to the transition ofHillcrest from a neighborhood community to an 

industrial area. 

d. Impact Analysis 

In a Title VI disparate impact analysis, a causal connection must be shown between the facial1ls 

neutral policy or practice and the disproportionate and adverse impact on the protected group. 5 

To demonstrate causation, evidence that "adequately captures" the impact ofTxDOT's project 

on similarly situated members of protected and non-protected groups must be shown, using an 

"appropriate measure."56 The phrase "similarly situated" requires the analysis to focus on 

persons potentially directly affected by the location ofany ofthe four alternatives considered for 

the project. Residents living in other locations, while they may use the facility once it is 

completed, would not be affected in the same way when it comes to the consideration of its 

location. Impacts on the CBD, Northside, and North Beach were compared since these 

communities would be the most impacted both by the benefits and burdens based on the 

selection ofone ofthe proposed alternatives. It is possible, under the four location alternatives, 

for residents ofNorth Beach, Northside, and the CBD to see the realignment ofUS181 and the 

new Harbor Bridge constructed within the boundaries oftheir neighborhoods; it is not possible 

for residents ofother communities in Corpus Christi to be affected in this way. 57 

$4 TxDOT Position Statement Exhibit F 


55 New York City Envtl. Justice Alliance v. Giuliani, 214 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 2000). 


56 New York Urban League v. New York, 71 F.3d 1031, 1037-38 (2d Cir. 1995). 


51 See, e.g., Chapter 2 ofthe FEIS for the build alternatives and their effects on each neighborhood. For the 


purposes ofthis complaint, only the communities potentially impacted by the site-selection and by the realignment 


ofUS ISI are "similarly situated." 

20 

The impact ofnoise on the protected group, the unique and h~storically African-American 

neighborhoods ofthe Northside, was directly measured by TxDOT in their FEIS. While 

Northside residents currently experience external noise impacts from other sources, such as 1-37, 

the Port, and industrial refineries, TxDOT measured the projected impact ofnoise directly 

caused by the realignment ofUS 181 and the new Harbor Bridge under the Red Alternative. The 

Red Alternative is projected to impact 204 residential receivers in the Northside, some by 

doubling the decibel-level ofexternal noise to be experienced (1 OdBA), and others by raising the 

decibel level to within 1 dBA ofthe Noise Abatement Criteria set for that type ofproperty usage 

by 23 CFR Part 772. TxDOT concedes the impact ofnoise from the project in Chapters 4 and 6 

ofthe FEIS, and therefore, the project has a causal connection to increases in noise in the 

Northside communities. 

The isolation, community cohesion, and economic impacts ofthe Red Alternative on the 

protected group are also causally related to the project. TxDOT acknowledges in Chapter 6 of its 

FEIS that ''the degree of separation ofthe Hillcrest neighborhood would be magnified by the 

implementation ofthe [Red Alternative]," a result that the FEIS plans to mitigate by replacing 

the severed Winnebago Street with the redevelopment of Lake Street as a cross-neighborhood 

Alternative to the north, where the realignment of US 181 will rise high enough to permit traffic 

to pass underneath.58 Chapter 6 further stipulates that the Red Alternative "would contribute to 

separation ofthese neighborhoods already challenged to maintain community cohesion and 

interconnectivity with the rest of the city, stemming primarily from the barrier presented by 1­

37," adversely effecting ''the cohesion ofthe Northside community" and contributing "to the 

further urbanization ofthe community and separation between the two neighborhoods, affecting 

cohesion in the Northside community as a whole. "

59 The Red Alternative is not alone in 

isolating the Northside communities from the rest ofthe city, as the industrial facilities to the 

north and west, the Port to the north, and 1-37 to the south are major contributors. But TxDOT 

acknowledges in its FEIS the causal effect ofthe Red Alternative on further isolating Hillcrest 

from the other historically African-American neighborhood in Washington-Coles, as well as 

from the rest ofthe city, and the impacts that this isolation will have on community cohesion 

between the Hillcrest and Washington-Coles neighborhood. These impacts are not limited to 

those immediately adjacent to the intended facility, but all ofthose within the affected Northside 

communities, particularly residents and businesses ofHillcrest. 

3) Respondents articulated a substantial legitimate justification for the 

replacement of the bridge. 

Under a Title VI analysis, after a disproportionate impact on the affected community is shown, 

the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate the existence of a "substantial legitimate 

justification" for the allegedly discriminatory practice. To prove a "substantial legitimate 

justification," the recipient must show that the challenged policy was "necessary to meetin! a 

goal that was legitimate, important, and integral to the [recipient's] institutional mission. 116 The 

58 FEIS4-84 

59 FEIS 6-40 

60 Sandoval v. Hagan, 7 F.Supp. 2d 1234, 1278 (M.D. Ala. 1998), afl'd, 197 F.3d 484 (11th Cir. 1999), rev'd n other 

grounds Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (quoting Elston, 997 F.2d at 1413). 
21 

justification must bear a "manifest demonstrable relationship" to the challenged policy.61 In a 

transportation context, the practice must be demonstrably necessary to meeting an important 

transportation goal, such that there must be a transportation "necessity" for the practice or 

project. The justification must bear a demonstrable relationship to the challenged project, and the 

justification must be sufficiently critical to the institutional mission ofthe recipient to allow 

implementation ofthe project despite its discriminatory effects. 

a. Structural and Design Deficiencies 

In its Position Statement, TxDOT asserts that replacing the current Harbor Bridge and US 181 is 

necessary because the current bridge and highway have critical structural and transportation 

deficiencies.62 Inspections in 2007 and 2008 revealed seven types ofstructural concerns, 

including missing or broken rivets and bolts, corrosion, sagging bracing, and widespread rusting. 

The current Harbor Bridge carries higher loads than the loads for which it was designed, as 

traffic volumes and vehicle weight have increased since 1959. According to Chapter 1 ofthe 

FEIS, the Harbor Bridge is a fracture-critical structure; if key supports fail, the bridge itself 

would be in danger ofcollapse.63 Inspections in 2012 echoed the structural concerns voiced by 

TxDOT, and the design deficiencies are in conflict with current TxDOT and federal standards.64 

Additionally, maintenance costs since 1980 have exceeded $70 million, and extending the 

service life ofthe current bridge would cost an estimated $279,471,206 in 2012 dollars.65 

Furthermore, according to TxDOT' s Position Statement, US 181 as it is currently aligned, 

including the Harbor Bridge, does not meet current FHWA and TxDOT roadway and bridge 

design standards, posing a safety risk to the travelling public.66 There is a lack ofroadway 

shoulders, increasing the potential for and severity ofcongestion ofwhen traffic accidents and 

breakdowns occur, and ensuring that the clearance between the travel lanes and the railing on the 

Harbor Bridge do not meet current standards. Some of the ramp lengths to gain access to the 

facility within the project limits are also deficient, as they do not provide sufficient acceleration 

or deceleration distances. 67 On-site interviews with residents of Hillcrest, Washington-Coles, and 

members ofother communities who participated in the public outreach process, as well as 

interviews with TxDOT staff, revealed that the current alignment creates dangerous sharp "S" 

curves at high speeds, due in part to a steep vertical grade, which all parties consider dangerous. 

Chapter 1 ofthe FEIS cites these curves as one ofthe "needs" for the new project.68 

In both its Position Statement and its FEIS, TxDOT has repeatedly stated that the current bridge, 

and US181, must be replaced due to structural and design deficiencies.69 The Red Alternative, 

61 Georgia State Conference of Branches ofNAACP v. Georgia, 775 F.2d. 1403, 1418; Elston, 997 F. 2d at 1413. 

62 TxDOT Position Statement pgs. 20-21 

63 Chapter 1 ofthe FEIS discusses the health ofthe current Harbor Bridge in detail. While the bridge itself is not 

currently considered unsafe, inspections have noted middling condition ratings and noted evidence ofdeterioration, 

erosion, and cracking. 

64 FEIS 1-5 

6S FEIS 1-5 66 TxDOT Position Statement pg. 20 67 Chapter I ofthe FEIS details the appropriate ramp lengths by TxDOT design standards. 

68 FEIS 1-6 

69 TxDOT Position Statement pgs. 20-21, FEIS Chapter I 
22 

realigning US 181 and constructing a new Harbor Bridge, would correct these structural and 

design deficiencies. 70 The new Harbor Bridge project is designed to address both safety and 

structural concerns with the current facility. It is also designed to decrease the potential for 

congestion on US181 by adding shoulders, for the purposes ofday-to-day travel and for use as a 

hurricane evacuation route. In the Chapter 2 discussion ofthe four reasonable alternatives, all 

four ofthe alternatives, including the Green Alternative which would realign US181 directly 

adjacent to the current facility, correct the dangerous conditions caused by the "horizontal 

curvature" ofthe current facility. 71 

b. Maior Hurricane Route 

Within the project area, both US181 and 1-37 are designated by TxDOT to be major hurricane 

evacuation routes. US 181 and the Harbor Bridge are the primary evacuation routes for San 

Patricio County, the county north and west ofNueces Bay. In Cowus Christi, US181 is the 

alternate route for hurricane evacuation; 1-37 is the primary route. According to Chapter 1 of 

the FEIS, discussing the need for the project from a NEPA perspective, given the design 

deficiencies in the current Harbor Bridge, there would be a heightened risk ofcongestion on 

US181 during an emergency hurricane evacuation. The purpose ofthe project, according to 

TxDOT's FEIS, is therefore "to maximize the long-term highway operability ofthe US181 

crossing ofthe Corpus Christi Ship Channel; and [to] improve safety for the traveling public, 

including during hurricane evacuations."73 

Chapter 2 of the FEIS states that the Green, Red (Preferred), Orange, and West alternatives 

would each meet TxDOT' s standards for a hurricane evacuation route, providing "adequate 

capacity to facilitate evacuation and, with improved geometry and a non-fracture-critical design, 

would also provide the reliable, long-term solution needed to serve this purpose ofthe proposed 

project."74 

c. Economic Development 

TxDOT also highlights a number ofobjectives for the project, "in addition to the primary 

purpose," in Chapter I ofthe FEIS.75 These are to "provide the transportation infrastructure to 

support the economic opportunities in the area" and to "consider the connectivity ofUS 181 to 

the local roadway system and address its effect on adjacent neighborhoods."76 According to 

TxDOT's Position Statement, the selection ofthe Red Alternative best meets these objectives.77 

Chapter 1 ofthe FEIS describes the current location ofUS181 as "creating a barrier" between 

residential neighborhoods and downtown Corpus Christi, particularly the developing Sports, 

Entertainment, and Arts (SEA) district.78 The selection ofthe Red Alternative will allow Corpus 

7

°FEIS Chapter 1 

71 FEIS2-3 

72 FEIS 1-7 

13 Id 

74 FEIS 2-8 

15 FEIS 1-7 

16 Jd 

77 TxDOT Position Statement pg. 20 

78 FEIS 1-8 
23 

Christi, according to Chapter 2 ofthe FEIS, to redevelop the current span ofUS181 into an atgrade boulevard, with the City plannin~ to develop around the new boulevard mixed-use 

commercial and residential properties. This is consistent with the City ofCorpus Christi's 

desire to redevelop the Central Business District, as portrayed in Plan CC 2035. Chapters 4 and 

7 ofthe FEIS also discuss the potential for economic development in the downtown area and 

SEA district. 

4) 	 Reasonable alternatives to the Red Alternative that would have a less 

discriminatory impact 

Recipients are required under Title VI to implement the "least discriminatory alternative" that is 

feasible and meets its legitimate objectives and eliminates or reduces an unnecessary and 

harmful effect on protected populations. Courts have defined "less discriminatory alternatives" 

to be those that meet the recipient's legitimate needs, but that will do so without the same level 

ofdisparate effect on a class protected by Title VI.80 In a transportation context, courts have 

analyzed site selection alternatives, ~articularly where the recipient had already considered and 

rejected them, establishing a record. 1 In cases involving site selection, courts have considered 

not only whether the construction was necessary to begin with, but also whether the recipient can 

justify selection ofthe particular site over alternatives. 82 

In Chapter 2 of its FEIS, TxDOT asserts that each ofthe four build alternatives (Green, Orange, 

Red, and West) will have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and lowincome populations.83 However, each ofthe four build alternatives considered by TxDOT in the 

FEIS meet the purpose and need for the project, as required by NEPA.84 Therefore, severity of 

impacts, specific demographics, historical impacts, cumulative impacts, Section 4(t), 

connectivity, cohesion, business impact, psychological and physical barriers, access, public 

services, among other factors, must be assessed between the different build alternatives. 

In a document entitled "Memorandum for Federal NEPA Liaisons, Federal, State, and Local 

Officials and Other Persons Involved in the NEPA Process," the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) discussed what constitutes a "reasonable alternative" for the purposes of an EIS.85 

The Memorandum describes "reasonable alternatives" as ''those that are practical or feasible 

79 FEIS 6-28; Plan CC Comprehensive Plan 2035 describes the City's future land use goals in detail, and includes 


the realignment ofUS 181 and the Harbor Bridge onto the Red Alternative through the Northside. Maps for the 


future development ofeach neighborhood are contained towards the end, with the downtown area maps being 


presented on pg. 40. For more information on Plan CC 2035, the most recent drafts are all available at 


http://www.plancc2035.com/. 


so Elston, 997 F.2d at 1407. 


81See, e.g., Coalition ofConcerned Citizens Against 1-670 v. Damian, 608 F. Supp. 110, 119-20 (S.D. Ohio 1984), 


(conducting a thorough review ofalternatives sites for highway or other methods, such as light rail or public 


transportation).


82See, e.g., Damian, 608 F. Supp. at 127; see also Bryan, Jr., et al., v. Edward I. Koch et al., and District Council 37, 


American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union, AFL-CIO, et al., 627 F.2d 612 (1985) at 


617-18. 


83 FEIS 2-20 


84 FEIS 2-9 


85General Counsel, Council on Environmental Equality, "Memorandum for Federal NEPA Liaisons, Federal, State, 


and Local Officials and Other Persons Involved in the NEPA Process" 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (March 23, 1981). 

24 

from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply 

desirable from the standpoint ofthe applicant."86 In Chapter 2 of the FEIS, TxDOT rated all six 

ofthe original preliminary project alternatives (Blue, Green, Red, Orange, Tunnel, West), along 

with the no-build alternative, to determine whether the alternative was reasonable with regards to 

the purpose ofthe project. TxDOT "eliminated from detailed consideration in the Draft EIS" all 

"alternatives that did not meet the need and purpose for the project, or were not feasible and 

prudent Section 4(:t) avoidance alternatives."87 The project purposes, as identified, were to 

maximize the long-term highway operability ofthe US181 crossing ofthe Corpus Christi Ship 

Channel, and to improve safety for the traveling public, including during hurricane 

evacuations.88 Both the Blue and Tunnel alternatives were eliminated under this process, as they 

did not meet the need and purpose for the project. The no-build alternative also did not meet the 

need and purpose for the project.89 

The four alternatives remaining for consideration in the FEIS all met TxDOT's stated need and 

purpose for the project, and are by definition "practical or feasible from the technical and 

economic standpoint and using common sense," qualifying them as "reasonable alternatives."90 

They are therefore "comparably effective."91 These alternatives are: Green, Orange, Red, and 

West. 

TxDOT cites in its Position Statement the Section 4(:t) analysis performed as part ofthe FEIS as 

a substantial legitimate justification for the selection of the Red Alternative over the Green, 

Orange, and West Alternatives.92 A Section 4(:t) analysis, performed pursuant to NEPA and 23 

CFR Part 774.3, is required whenever multiple build alternatives would all require the use of 

Section 4(f) properties. An agency must then evaluate all "feasible and prudent" alternatives 

under this analysis, and determine which causes the "least overall harm." An alternative is not 

considered "prudent" for consideration under a Section 4(f) if, among other reasons, it causes 

severe social, economic, or environmental impacts; severe disruption to established 

communities; or severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income neighborhoods. 93 

According to Chapter 5 ofthe FEIS and FHWA's Record ofDecision (ROD), when it comes to 

impacts to Section 4(f) properties, the Green, Red, and Orange Alternatives all scored a 

"medium" in the analysis, with the West Alternative scoring "high" on both "ability to mitigate 

adverse impacts to 4(f) properties" and "relative significance of4(f) properties."94 The Red 

Alternative differs in this analysis from the other alternatives only in the category entitled 

"degree to which the Alternative meets the purpose and need and objectives," under which the 

Red Alternative is scored "high," Green and Orange are scored "medium," and West is scored 

86 Id Question 2a 

87 FEIS 2-2 

88 FEIS 2-3 

89 See Chapter 2 ofthe FEIS 

90 General Counsel, Council on Environmental Equality, "Memorandum for Federal NEPA Liaisons, Federal, State, 

and Local Officials and Other Persons Involved in the NEPA Process" 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (March 23, 1981). 

Question 2a. 

91 See Georgia State Conf., 775 F.2d at 1417; Elston, 997 F.3d at 1413. 

92 TxDOT Position Statement pg. 23 

93 23 CFR Part 774.17 

94 FEIS 5-57 to 5-58 
25 

"low." Under these criteria, the Red Alternative was considered bl TxDOT to be the alternative 

that causes the "least overall harm" under a Section 4(f) analysis.9 

This scoring is assuming only the 4(f) analysis to be the controlling factor when deciding on the 

preferred alternative. When taking Title VI factors ofhistorical discriminatory impacts, 

community cohesion, the specific demographics ofthe historically African-American community 

members, connectivity and community cohesion, psychological and physical barriers, as well as 

access to public services, into consideration it would appear that these Title VI considerations 

were not factors were weighed as heavily in the selection process since the FEIS does not talk 

about these as in depth as other factors. The FEIS does acknowledge that the selection ofthe Red 

Alternative would contribute to separation of these neighborhoods and would adversely affect 

the cohesion ofthe Northside community.96 However, 4(f) and future planned land use and 

development seemed to take priority over Title VI considerations.97 

The Harbor Bridge Collaborative Judgment Land Use Panel (Land Use Panel), a group of local 

experts compiled by TxDOT with "intimate knowledge ofthe proposed project and study 

area,,,98 provided land use and economic development forecasting based upon the proposed 

alternatives for site selection for the purposes ofthe project. 99 The Land Use Panel identified the 

Port ofCorpus Christi and the Port Industries as the most common catalysts for development 

within the project area. The Land Use Panel was asked to consider, among other forecasts, 

"reasonably foreseeable future development within the area and ifthey considered that 

development to be dependent on the proposed project."10°

Future development identified by the 

Land Use Panel included plans for the revitalization ofdowntown Corpus Christi, redevelopment 

of existing land uses to mixed-use community centers, increased pedestrian access throughout 

the area, and repurposing ofcity parks, along with further development in the industrial sector. 101 

The Land Use Panel indicated that while the new Harbor Bridge project "may play a part in the 

future development ofthe area," the "current and future actions identified would not be 

dependent on the implementation ofthe proposed project and either are or would be taking place 

independently." The Land Use Panel identified Port-related industrial development, the SEA 

District, and the downtown area in general (higher-density infill development) as "areas likely to 

be developed independently ofthe proposed project."102 The panel did recognize, however, that 

"increased accessibility and an improved view ofthe downtown area and the SEA District" 

resulting from the Red Alternative could enhance opportunities for development in these 

locations. 103 

95 Id 

96 FEIS Chapter 6 

97 FEIS Chapter 6 

98 FEIS 6-43 

99 The Land Use Panel was represented by: the City ofCorpus Christi, the Corpus Christi Regional Transportation 

Authority, Nueces County, the Port ofCorpus Christi Authority, the Coastal Bend Bays Foundation, Texas A&M 

University-Corpus Christi, the Coastal Ben Bays and Estuaries Program, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the 

Corpus Christi MPO, local real estate developers, and city planners and engineers. Their role is described in detail 

in Chapter 6.1.4 ofthe FEIS. 

100 FEIS 6-6 

IOI Id 

102 /d 

103 /d 
26 

a. Communities Impacted bv the Red. Orange. Green and West Alternatives 

The project area communities who would assume the majority ofthe benefit or burden 

depending on which alternative was selected are the North Beach area, the South Central 

community, and the Northside community. Other communities discussed in the FEIS are 

burdened or benefitted by the project in similar ways, regardless ofthe chosen alternative. For 

example, the communities ofRefinery Row, considered in the FEIS, are impacted by the 

expansion of 1-37 as part of the project; however, the expansion ofl-37 will occur regardless of 

which ofthe four alternatives were selected. 104 

In the North Beach area, according to the 20 I 0 Census, 59.6% of residents identify themselves as 

White, with 34% of persons describing themselves as Hispanic or Latino, 3.5% identifying 

themselves as Asian, and 1.9% describing themselves as African-American. With a total area of 

436 acres, the Nor1h Beach area is primarily intended to promote tourist oriented development 

with some permanent residential uses.

105 The vast majority of property on North Beach is zoned 

as Resort Commercial District or Resort Multifamily-Apartment Tourist District. 

The South Central area is comprised ofthe Central Business District, the Evans Elementary 

neighborhood, and the Crosstown East neighborhood. 106 The Evans Elementary neighborhood is 

situated southeast ofthe intersection ofthe Crosstown Expressway and 1-37, South of each ofthe 

four alternatives. The Crosstown East neighborhood, further South, is separated from 1-37 by the 

Evans Elementary neighborhood. The Evans Elementary neighborhood and Crosstown East 

neighborhood would be affected similarly regardless of the alternative chosen due to their 

location south ofthe project area. 

See, e.g., FEIS Appendix Eon Land Use Plates. 

ios http://www.cctexas.com/ Asscts/Departments/PlanningEnvironmcnta!Serviccs/Filcs/81712AdoptedNBPlanText.pdf 

106 FEIS Appendix A, Figure 3-5.4 
27 

The Central Business District (CBD), which contains the Sports, Entertainment, and Arts (SEA) 

District, is directly affected by the choice ofalternative. The current alignment ofUS181 forms 

the SEA District's western boundary. The CBD area is largely commercial, with only 37 ofits 

180 Census blocks populated, comprising a total population of 1,030 people. Approximately 

66.1% ofresidents ofthe CBD area identify themselves as White, with 27.2% identifying 

themselves as Hispanic or Latino. African-Americans make up 5.1 % ofthe CBD population, 

and all other ethnic groups comprise less than 1%. 107 

The Northside community is comprised ofthe Hillcrest and Washington-Coles neighborhoods. 

Until 1944, Washington-Coles was the only neighborhood in Corpus Christi where AfricanAmericans were permitted to live. In 1948, the Hillcrest neighborhood was opened to AfricanAmericans, and over the next two decades the racial makeup of Hillcrest transitioned from 

predominantly White to predominantly African-American and Hispanic or Latino. The Hillcrest 

neighborhood now features the largest concentration of African-Americans in the City ofCorpus 

Christi.108 According to the 2010 Census, there are 2,473 residents in the Northside community, 

ofwhich the vast majority live in Hillcrest. In Hillcrest, 55% of persons identify as Hispanic or 

Latino, 38% identify as African-American, and 7% identify as White. In Washington-Coles, 

63% ofpersons identify as Hispanic or Latino, 31% as African-American, and 5.7% identify as 

White. 109 

b. Green Alternative 

In Chapter 2 ofthe FEIS, TxDOT "eliminated from detailed consideration in the Draft EIS" all 

"alternatives that did not meet the need and pug>0se for the project, or were not feasible and 

prudent Section 4(f) avoidance altematives."110 The Green Alternative, as one ofthe remaining 

four alternatives, is therefore practicable and comparably effective in meeting the legitimate and 

substantial needs addressed by the recipient's challenged practice. 111 

The Green Alternative was the alternative most frequently cited by the Complainants and 

members ofthe Citizens Alliance for Fairness and Progress, comprised ofresidents and 

homeowners in Hillcrest and Washington-Coles, as the most desirable ofthe four alternatives, as 

the site selection and mitigation packages accompanying them currently stood.112 The Green 

Alternative would realign US181 and the Harbor Bridge directly to the west and adjacent to the 

current facility, maintaining its current location inside the Central Business District (CBD) to the 

south and North Beach to the north. 113 The Central Business District is mostly commercial, with 

107 FEIS 3-60 

108 FES 3-64 

109 FEIS 3-67 

11°

FEIS 2-2 

111 See Georgia State Conf., 775 F.2d at 1417; Elston, 997 F.3d at 1413. 

112 The on-site interviews were conducted by FHWA on May 27, 2015, and July 8-9, 2015, with the members ofthe 

Alliance, the individual complainants, and their attorneys at Texas Riogrande Legal Aid, Inc.. Interviews were also 

conducted with members ofthe Citizens Advisory Committee from other potentially impacted neighborhoods on 

July 8-9, 2015. 113 FEIS 2-17; FEIS Appendix A 
28 

a total population of 1,030, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. The North Beach neighborhood 

is smaller, with a total population 536 people. 114 

According to Chapters 2 and 6 ofthe FEIS, the Green Alternative would reconstruct US 181 at a 

higher elevation in order to allow for local street connectivity, with four additional underpasses 

constructed underneath to allow for access to the CBD, though it would, according to TxDOT, 

"maintain the barrier" to the CBD, allowing for only minimal improvements in connectivity 

relative to the current facility. 115 The Green Alternative would improve connectivity between 

the Northside community and the CBD, relative to the current facility, by constructing four 

additional underpasses between the community and the CBD, though it would not improve 

connectivity for Washington-Coles to the CBD relative to the Red Alternative. These four 

additional underpasses would "allow for perpendicular streets that currently end at the 

embankment on the east side ofUS 181 to carry under US 181 to connect to Tancahua Street on 

the west side ofUS 181."116 

Under the Green Alternative, the number ofsensitive receivers impacted based on noise from the 

project would be similar to the Red Alternative (522 to 538); however, the number ofreceivers 

being impacted by increases in decibels of 10 or more (a doubling ofthe perceived volume) is 11 

to 33, respectively. 117 Both the Green Alternative and the Red Alternative increase the capacitl 

ofl-37; the receivers impacted by noise from that portion ofthe project are largely the same. 11 

Furthennore, the type ofreceiver impacted by the two alternatives differs substantially. The 

Green Alternative would, in addition to the receivers impacted by the 1-37 portion ofthe project, 

impact a number of receivers in the east side of Washington-Coles, but these are a park, a 

medical facility, and a cemetery. 

According to the FEIS the Green alternative would be one ofthe environmentally preferable 

alternatives since it follows the existing alignment ofUS 181 resulting in fewer adverse impacts 

in minority and low-income areas, and as explained in section 2.0 ofthe FEIS, the Green 

alternative would have less environmental impacts to wetlands, marsh habitat, and fish habitat 

and would be the least visually intrusive. 

The Green Alternative is projected to cost $558 million, not including right-of-way, utility 

relocation, and any mitigation provided. 119 For the Green Alternative, 75-year maintenance 

costs are estimated at $19 .2 million. 120 

c. West Alternative 

In Chapter 2 ofthe FEIS, TxDOT "eliminated from detailed consideration in the Draft EIS" all 

"alternatives that did not meet the need and purpose for the project, or were not feasible and 

114 FEIS 3-67 

115 FEIS 2-17 

116 FEIS 2-17 117 FEIS 4-139; FEIS Appendix I: Traffic Noise Plates 

118 FEIS Appendix I: Traffic Noise Plates 

119 TxDOT Position Statement pg. 9, Exhibit F (for mitigation costs of Red Alternative) 12°FEIS 2-18 
29 

prudent Section 4(t) avoidance alternatives."121 The West Alternative, as one ofthe remaining 

four alternatives, is therefore practicable and comparably effective in meeting the legitimate and 

substantial needs addressed by the recipient's challenged practice. 122 

The West Alternative was the alternative most frequently cited by the Complainants and 

members ofthe Citizens Alliance for Fairness and Progress, comprised ofresidents and 

homeowners in Hillcrest and Washington-Coles, as the second most desirable ofthe four 

alternatives, as the site selection and mitigation packages accompanying them currently stood. 123 

It is projected to cost $679 million, not including right-of-way, utility relocation, and any 

mitigation provided. 124 The West Alternative's 75-year maintenance costs are estimated at $27.6 

million. 125 The West Alternative would result in the fewest residential and business 

displacements ofthe four alternatives, though all of the displacements would affect minorities. 126 

This is because the West Alternative would be built through the buffer zone established in 1998 

along Nueces Bay Boulevard. 127 A site visit on May 27, 2015 revealed a stretch ofseveral 

formerly residential blocks, now mostly open fields, occupied only by the occasional refinery 

office. The West Alternative is located approximately 1.25 miles to the west ofthe existing 

facility, and would cross the Industrial Canal and come down across a dred~e spoils field before 

reconnecting with Alternative 35 north ofthe North Beach neighborhood. 12 

The West Alternative would remove the existing barrier created by the current facility between 

Washington-Coles and the CBD, whereas the Green Alternative would only increase access over 

the existing facility by installing four additional underpasses to promote neighborhood 

connectivity. Unlike the Red Alternative, removing this barrier between Washington-Coles and 

the CBD would not create a new one between Washington-Coles and Hillcrest. A new barrier 

would be created in the Hillcrest buffer zone, between the residential community ofHillcrest and 

the refineries located across Nueces Bay Boulevard. On-site interviews with North Beach 

residents expressed concern about the West Alternative because they believed that the relocation 

ofthe highway that far to the west would discourage travelers accessing the North Beach's 

attractions, which are adjacent to the current facility. Like the other three alternatives, the West 

Alternative would reconnect with the existing alignment with a northbound exit to be provided at 

Beach Avenue. 129 

Unlike the Red Alternative, the West Alternative would, according to Chapter 2 ofthe FEIS, 

"substantially reduce accessibility to US 181 and 1-37 for the Hillcrest neighborhood, affecting 

hurricane evacuation and routine use,"130 although all four ofthe alternatives "meet TxDOT's 

121 FEIS2-2 

122 See Georgia State Cont:, 775 F.2d at 1417; Elston, 997 F.3d at 1413. 

123 The on-site interviews were conducted by FHWA on May 27, 2015, and July 8-9, 2015, with the members ofthe 

Alliance, the individual complainants, and their attorneys at Texas Riogrande Legal Aid, Inc.. Interviews were also 

conducted with members ofthe Citizens Advisory Committee from other potentially impacted neighborhoods on 

July 8-9, 2015. 

124 FEIS 2-18 

12.s Id 

126 FEIS 4-48 to 4-49 

127 FEIS 2-5 

128 FEIS 2-13 

129 /d. 

13°FEIS 2-22 
30 

standards for an appropriate hurricane evacuation Alternative for the Corpus Christi area.''131 

According to Chapter 2 ofthe FEIS, due to geometric design constraints, the West Alternative 

would necessitate the removal ofthe three existing entrances to 1-37 from the Northside 

community (Padre Street, Brownlee Boulevard, and North Port Avenue), requiring Hillcrest 

residents to travel to downtown Corpus Christi to access 1-37, the primary hurricane evacuation 

Alternative for the area. 132 The next available entrance would be located a mile to the west of 

North Port Avenue, past Buddy Lawrence Drive. While the West Alternative still meets TxDOT 

standards for a hurricane evacuation Alternative, it does not meet this need "as well as the other 

build alternatives."133 The Green, Preferred, and Orange would all remove the Brownlee 

Boulevard entrance to 1-37, but would maintain the entrance at North Port Avenue and another 

entrance at North Staples Street. 134 

The West Alternative would also be "aligned in such a way that traffic (and potential business 

patrons) would be diverted away from the downtown area and the SEA District, potentially 

offsetting the opportunities" for optimal economic redevelopment ofthe CBD. 13 As discussed 

in the prior section on Substantial Legitimate Justification, the Land Use Panel indicated that 

while the new Harbor Bridge project "may play a part in the future development ofthe area," the 

"current and future actions identified would not be dependent on the implementation ofthe 

proposed project and either are or would be taking place independently."136 The Land Use Panel 

specifically identified that the downtown area, including the SEA District, as "areas likely to be 

developed independently ofthe proposed project."137 The findings ofthe Land Use Panel can be 

read in greater detail in Chapter 6.1.4 ofthe FEIS. 

Because of its location further away from the residences in Hillcrest, it would have a lesser 

impact on traffic noise levels when compared to the Red Alternative. 138 The entire west side of 

the realigned US 181 would be lined with industrial refineries, and the bridge itself would rise 

above the Port ofCorpus Christi before crossing the Industrial Canal. The east side ofthe 

realigned US 181 would impact nearly all residential properties on the western border of 

Hillcrest, with the overall project impacting 471 sensitive receivers, compared to 522 for the 

Green Alternative and 538 for the Red Alternative. 139 Like the Red Alternative, the realignment 

of US 181 would largely impact residential receivers with traffic noise exposure, though unlike 

the location immediately surrounding the Red Alternative, the West Alternative is less densely 

populated, owing to the buffer zone built in 1998. 

d. Orange Alternative 

In Chapter 2 ofthe FEIS, TxDOT "eliminated from detailed consideration in the Draft EIS" all 

"alternatives that did not meet the need and purpose for the project, or were not feasible and 

131 FEIS2-8 

132 FEIS 2-18 

133 /d 

134 /d 

135 FEIS 2-19 

136 FEIS 6-6 131 Id 

138 See FEIS Chapter 4 noise impact comparisons 139 FEIS 4-139 
31 

prudent Section 4(t) avoidance alternatives."140 The Orange Alternative, as one ofthe remaining 

four alternatives, is therefore practicable and comparably effective in meeting the legitimate and 

substantial needs addressed by the recipient's challenged practice. 141 

The Orange Alternative was not cited by any party, or by anyone interviewed, as the most 

preferable alternative. It is projected to cost $630 million, not including right-of-way, utility 

relocation, and any mitigation ~rovided. The Orange Alternative's 75-year maintenance costs 

are estimated at $22.2 million. 42 To the south, the Orange Alternative would realign US181 

roughly in the same position as the Red Alternative, between Hillcrest and Washington-Coles, 

but would veer east across the Washington-Coles neighborhood, cutting Washington-Coles itself 

into two parts and creating a new barrier between the eastern portion of Washington-Coles and 

Hillcrest. The Orange Alternative would cross the Industrial Canal at the same location as the 

Green Alternative, a quarter-mile east ofthe Red Alternative and adjacent to the current 

facility. 143 

As TxDOT' s Position Statement indicates, the Orange Alternative would turn a large portion of 

residential section of Washington-Coles into a major highway corridor, and would potentially 

have a greater disparate impact upon the Northside than the Red Altemative. 144 WashingtonColes is a historically and disproportionately African-American community, and the Orange 

Alternative would center traffic noise and community cohesion impacts from the project in that 

community. 

e. Red Alternative 

The Red Alternative casts the heaviest burden on the Northside neighborhoods of Hillcrest and 

Washington-Coles, with the realignment ofUS181 running between them through T.C. Ayers 

Park as it continues to rise through the neighborhood and over the Port to the north, crossing the 

Industrial Canal and coming down apain in the North Beach neighborhood, approximately 1,000 

feet west ofthe current alignment. 14 These impacts that will adversely affect the neighborhood 

will be disproportionately borne by the African-American population in the communities due to 

the unique historical segregation ofAfrican-Americans and the current distribution ofthe 

population ofAfrican-Americans in the Corpus Christi area. 

The Northside neighborhood, comprised ofthe Hillcrest and Washington-Coles communities, is 

unique in the project area and in the City ofCorpus Christi as a whole, being heavily populated 

by historic African-American populations. The Northside has a total population of2,473, 

making it more residential than both the CBD and North Beach, with the vast majority of 

residents residing in Hillcrest rather than Washington-Coles (1,564 to 909). TxDOT stipulates in 

its FEIS that the Red Alternative's realignment ofUS181 will isolate the Hillcrest neighborhood 

14°FEIS 2-2 

141 See Georgia State Conf., 775 F.2d at 1417; Elston, 997 F.3d at 1413. 

142 FEIS 2-18 

143 FEIS 2-12 

144 TxDOT Position Statement pg. 24 

143 FEIS 2-11 
32 

and "contribute to the further urbanization ofthe community and separation between the two 

neighborhoods, affecting cohesion in the Northside community as a whole."146 

By realigning US181 between Washington-Coles and Hillcrest, a new "barrier" would be created 

between the two neighborhoods. The Red Alternative would require the closure of Winnebago 

Street, identified as "the principal connecting roadway between the Washington-Coles and 

Hillcrest neighborhoods and would introduce a physical barrier between the new 

neighborhoods." 147 TxDOT acknowledges in its FEIS that "the degree ofseparation ofthe 

Hillcrest neighborhood would be magnified by the implementation ofthe [Red Alternative]."148 

In order to mitigate the severance of Winnebago Street, TxDOT will redevelop Lake Street, 

located to the north, in order to establish it as the new principal thoroughfare between the two 

communities, passing east-west under the realignment ofUS181.149 The realignment ofUS 181 

would remove the existing highway barrier between Washington-Coles and the CBD, but 

TxDOT acknowledges that "Hillcrest is a more cohesive neighborhood than Washington-Coles," 

and is more heavily populated, though Washington-Coles contains many ofthe public amenities 

utilized by Hillcrest residents, including the Oveal Williams Senior Center and the Solomon 

Coles High School and Education Center, the only school still remaining in the Northside 

community. 150 

The Red Alternative would serve as a new barrier between Washington-Coles and Hillcrest. 

Hillcrest would be further isolated from both the rest ofthe Northside community and the rest of 

Corpus Christi by the Red Alternative. 

The Red Alternative would, in addition to the receivers impacted by the I-37 portion ofthe 

project, impact the D.N. Leathers public housing complex in Hillcrest, along with additional 

residences and a church located on the west side of Washington-Coles. A map showcasing the 

impacted receivers under each alternative can be found in Appendix I ofTxDOT's FEIS. 

USDOT' s Title VI regulations state that, "where prior discriminatory practice or usage tends" to 

discriminate against populations protected under Title VI, "the applicant or recipient must take 

affirmative action to remove or overcome the effects ofthe prior discriminatory practice or 

usage."151 In Chapter 6 ofthe FEIS, TxDOT's FEIS stipulates the impact ofpast siting decisions 

on the Northside communities. TxDOT acknowledges that both the Red and Orange 

Alternatives "would contribute to separation ofthese neighborhoods already challenged to 

maintain community cohesion and interconnectivity with the rest ofthe city, stemming primarily 

from the barrier presented by I-37," the existing highway forming the southern boundary ofthe 

Northside community. 152 Chapter 3, discussing the Affected Environment, discusses the 1961 

construction ofl-37 and the 1963 construction ofthe Crosstown Expressway, stating that they 

did not adhere to existing transportation corridors and ''were constructed through established 

residential neighborhoods," leaving "isolated pockets ofneighborhood areas to the north ofthe 

146 Id 

147 FEIS 4-8 l 141 FEIS 4-84 149 Id 

ISO Id 

ISi 49 CFR part 2l.5(b)(7). 152 FEIS 6-40 
33 

interstate, bounded by oil refineries and the Port on the north and west and the highway itself on 

the south."153 The alignment ofl-37 forced formerly major roads, such as North Staples, 

Winnebago, and North Broadway, to end at the new highway, which "altered the traffic patterns 

through the area." 154 The FEIS states that "many homes in both the Hillcrest and WashingtonColes neighborhoods were moved and demolished."155 Washington-Coles and Hillcrest were 

racially segregated by law until 1944, when overcrowding in Washington-Coles forced the City 

ofCorpus Christi to allow African-Americans to move into Hillcrest. In 1948, AfricanAmericans were permitted to buy homes in Hillcrest, and over the next two decades, Hillcrest 

transitioned from predominantly White to predominantly Black and Latino, like WashingtonColes.156 Chapter 3 of the FEIS relays this history in detail. 

The Northside community has also been the site of numerous environmental disasters, stemming 

from the industrial refmeries located largely to the immediate north and west, and the Port of 

Corpus Christi to the immediate north. Since the 1950s, there have been a series ofexplosions 

emanating from tank farms located within Hillcrest and the refineries, along with releases of 

toxic chemicals like hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and benzene.157 In 2007, CITGO was 

found guilty oftwo felony criminal violations ofthe Clean Air Act for operating two large open 

top tanks without installing Psroper emissions controls required by federal law at its Corpus 

Christi East Plant Refinery. 58 According to the EPA, CITGO's failure to follow proper 

emissions control resulted in the emission ofbenzene into the air, which is recognized as a 

known carcinogen and is also emitted by motor vehicles as an MSAT. This facility is located on 

the western edge ofthe Hillcrest neighborhood. Between 1985 and 1998, the adjacent refmeries 

purchased more than 500 homes in the Northside communities. In 1998, approximately 100 

homes in Hillcrest were purchased and cleared for approximately $3.1 million along Nueces Bay 

Boulevard and West Broadway. This buffer zone was shaped as a result ofa lawsuit filed in the 

early 1980s by Hillcrest residents alleging that ground water and air contamination had 

decreased property values and impacted public health. 159 More information on industry buy-outs 

and the buffer zone can be found in Chapter 3.5 ofTxDOT's FEIS. 

Like in Plan CC 2035, the FEIS discusses the City ofCorpus Christi's plans to redevelop the old 

alignment ofUS181 into an at-grade boulevard with mixed-use commercial and residential 

properties.160 The Red Alternative would remove the highway "barrier" to the SEA District, 

allowing for greater mobility downtown and promoting community and economic growth in the 

CBD.16f 

153 FEIS 3-2 

154 FEIS 3-65 

ISS FES 3-64 

1s6 Id 

157 A list ofenvironmental accidents in the neighborhood can be found in the original complaint, located at 

Attachment A. 

158 http://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007 / June/07_enrd_463.html 

159 FEIS 3-65 . 160 FEIS 6-28 

161 See, for e.g., Chapter 6 ofthe FEIS, discussing indirect effects to each community from each alignment. Pages 6­

36 and 6-37 specifically address these benefits. 
34 

The Red Alternative is projected to cost $637 million, not including right-of-way or utility 

relocation, along with an estimated $20.8 million in mitigation costs, according to TxDOT's 

Position Statement.162 The Red Alternative's 75-year maintenance costs are estimated at $27.9 

million. 163 

Based on the FEIS and the Title VI investigation, there were less discriminatory alternatives than 

the Red Alternative that were available and met both the purpose and need of the project from a 

Title VI perspective. 

B. 	 Did Respondents violate Title VI by not following public participation 


procedures during the environmental impact analysis of the project? 


In assessing allegations involving a disparate impact on persons under Title VI, an initial 

determination ofwhether or not a prima facie case ofdiscrimination has been alleged must be 

made. A prima facie allegation ofdiscrimination must identify: specific policy or practice 

(facially neutral}, adverse impacts, disparity in those impacts, and causation by the specific 

policy or practice. Ifa prima facie case ofdiscrimination has not been alleged, then the specific 

policy or practice does not violate Title VI and no further inquiry is required. 

The specific policy or practice is the public involvement process conducted as part ofthe 

environmental imJact assessment by TxDOT, which began with public scoping meetings on 

August 9, 2011.1 There was no evidence obtained that demonstrated a policy that was adverse 

to persons on the basis ofrace, color, or national origin. While there were isolated events that 

could potentially have had an impact on persons on the basis ofrace, these were outliers in a 

much larger and more inclusive process. 

Specifically, the January 29, 2015 Northside Workshop hosted by TxDOT was designed to allow 

Northside residents to discuss and comment on ideas for the Community Sustainability Plan, a 

key aspect ofthe mitigation offered by TxDOT for the adverse impacts associated with the 

selection ofthe Red Alternative. 165 While the Northside Workshop was held after the issuance 

ofthe FEIS, it was not unrelated to the project or the public involvement process surrounding the 

project for the purposes ofTitle VI, because it was designed to further the development ofthe 

Community Sustainability Plan that was a part ofthe FEIS and the package accompanying the 

Red Alternative, according to TxDOT's Position Statement. According to on-site interviews 

conducted with TxDOT and Northside residents involved in the public involvement process for 

the project, while TxDOT did post notice for the Workshop on its website and mailed notice to 

other key stakeholders, including residents of Washington-Coles, it failed to mail notice to 

Hillcrest residents. 166 TxDOT's Position Statement acknowledges the error. 167 The day before 

the Workshop, TxDOT hand-delivered notice door-to-door throughout Hillcrest, and placed a 

162 FEIS 2-18 163 Id 164 FEIS 8-2 to 8-3 

165 TxDOT Position Statement pgs. 8-9 166 On-site interviews with the members ofthe Alliance, the individual complainants, and their attorneys at Texas 

Riogrande Legal Aid, Inc, TxDOT's local engineers in charge ofthe project, and representatives from TxDOT's 

Office ofGeneral Counsel. The on-site interviews were conducted on May 27, 2015, and July 8-9, 2015. 167 TxDOT Position Statement pg. 8 
35 

flashing roadway sign in a neighborhood park to alert residents. In response to the late notice, 

TxDOT hosted a second Northside Workshop on February 21, 2015, with appropriate notice. 168 

According to Chapter 8 ofthe FEIS, TxDOT formed the Harbor Bridge Citizens Advisory 

Committee (CAC) in 2011, with members recruited from neighborhoods adjacent to the 

proposed J'roject and including residents, business owners, service providers, and advocacy 

groups. 16 CAC members met regularly from 2012-2014 to, among other goals, "promote public 

awareness and understanding ofthe project" and to advise TxDOT "on the community's 

preferences regarding the project as well as the best approach for communicating with the 

public."170 Membership in the 29-member CAC included six Hillcrest residents and three from 

Washington-Coles. Membership included environmental justice activists, representatives from 

Northside churches, and residents and businesses from downtown Corpus Christi, North Beach, 

Portland, and other neighborhoods. 171 Meetings were held in the evening at the Oveal Williams 

Senior Center in Washington-Coles to facilitate access for Northside residents. These meetings 

included presentations by TxDOT, round-table discussions, and comments from the round-tables 

following discussions ofthe presentations. Public comments were also permitted and recorded 

towards the end ofthe meetings.172 

TxDOT also hosted dozens ofnon-CAC public involvement meetings as well, including 

neighborhood meetin!fs and open houses, formal public meetings and public hearings, and 

stakeholder meetings. 73 TxDOT hosted numerous "storefront meetings" at the Oveal Williams 

Senior Center every Tuesday and Thursday during the public comment period, hosting them in 

the evenings. The original "storefront meeting'' was held on a Wednesday, but when informed 

that this was a day when many Northside residents attended church, they changed the day ofthe 

week to accommodate more participation. 174 Meetin~s were advertised in English and Spanish, 

and Spanish interpreters were available and present.1 5 Based on input from the public, the 

Tunnel and West Alternatives were added to the Draft EIS, the West Alternative was considered 

as a reasonable build alternative under the FEIS, 176 a shuttle service will be provided between 

Hillcrest and the Oveal Williams Senior Center during the construction ofthe Red Alternative in 

order to facilitate continued access, 177 and neighborhood history will become a part ofthe 

proposed hike and bike pedestrian trail in the Northside, as well as represented in a small 

museum in Solomon Coles High School. 178 

According to on-site interviews with TxDOT's Corpus Christi engineers and project staff, while 

the Red Alternative was known to be the likely choice as the Recommended Alternative since a 

168 /d 

169 FEIS 8-10 

110 Id 

171 TxDOT Document Request Exhibit B 

172 /d 

173 FEIS 8-17 to 8-19 

174 On-site interviews May 27, 2015 and July 8-9, 2015. Northside residents and TxDOT spoke of"storefront 

175 See Chapter 8 ofFEIS. See also Exhibit F ofTxDOT Document Request, which contains samples ofmeeting 

announcements and newspaper advertisements. 

176 FEIS 2-1 and 2-2 

177 TxDOT Position Statement pg. 15 

178 TxDOT Position Statement pg. 17 
36 

2003 Feasibility Study was conducted on the project, there was no clear choice, and the public 

involvement process was utilized to help determine the best alternative. 179 

Because there is no evidence ofadversity created by the facially neutral specific policy or 

practice in question, a prima facie case ofdiscrimination has not been alleged. 

a. Intentional Discrimination in the Public Involvement Process 

Both TxDOT's FEIS and Position Statement discuss the demographic breakdown ofeach 

potentially impacted community, using statistics from the 2010 Census to determine the racial 

makeup ofeach community and describing them in Chapter 3.5.3 ofthe FEIS. 180 TxDOT states 

that the Red Alternative benefits minorities because "not only are the areas immediately 

surrounding the Project site comprised most17 of minority populations, but the overall population 

of Corpus Christi is also mostly minority." 18 

There is no direct evidence that TxDOT operated its public involvement process in the way that 

it did because ofrace, and there is little circumstantial evidence. TxDOT's Northside Workshop 

in January of2015 was a departure from their standard procedures, with Hillcrest residents alone 

failing to receive notice by mail until the day before the meeting. 182 On-site interviews with the 

TxDOT staff responsible for the Workshop on July 8, 2015, indicated that this was a mistake that 

was corrected as well as it could have been at the time, with TxDOT staff going door-to-door and 

employing a flashing traffic sign in a prominent Northside park in order to alert residents about 

the meeting. An additional Workshop was then put together and held in February of2015 in 

order to facilitate greater access for Hillcrest residents. Within the context ofthe rest ofthe 

public involvement process for the project, there is no evidence ofdiscrimination necessary to 

prove that TxDOT acted because ofrace. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

TxDOT's selection ofthe Red Alternative in its FEIS ofNovember of2014 violates Title VI, 

because its location has an adverse and disparate impact on the basis ofrace, and while a 

substantial legitimate justification exists for the replacement ofthe existing Harbor Bridge and 

US181, less discriminatory alternatives are available. Additionally, the mitigation included as 

part of the Red Alternative does not sufficiently balance the significant adverse impacts caused 

by the projecf s location. 

TxDOT' s public involvement process, conducted as part ofthe environmental impact analysis 

for the project, did not have a disparate impact on the basis ofrace, color, or national origin. 

TxDOT' s public involvement process, conducted as part ofthe environmental impact analysis 

for the project, did not intentionally discriminate on the basis ofrace, color, or national origin. 

179 On-site interviews with TxDOT's Rich O'Connell, Chris Amy, and Victor Vourcos were conducted on July 8, 

2015, at TxDOT Corpus Christi District headquarters. 18°FEIS Chapter 3.5.3 181 TxDOT Position Statement pg. 2 182 TxDOT Position Statement pgs. 8-9 
37 

VII. VOLUNTARY RESOLUTION AGREEMENT 

In an effort to resolve the issues identified through the investigation ofthe instant Complaint, 

FHWA and TxDOT entered into the VRA on December 17, 2015, in which TxDOT agreed to 

provide additional mitigation to ensure that the affected minority persons in the affected 

neighborhood do not bear disparate impacts from the project. On January 8, 2016, FHWA issued 

a Record of Decision for the project, which referenced the VRA and required TxDOT to 

undertake the obligations set forth in the VRA. The VRA, among other things, called for TxDOT 

to carry out a Voluntary Acquisition Program for Owners and Businesses in the affected 

neighborhood, as defined in the VRA, as well as a Relocation Benefits Program for the following 

persons: (1) Owners (including owner-occupants and landlords) who participate in the 

Acquisition Program (except for homeowners who elect to retain a life estate and thereby waive 

their rights to relocation benefits); (2) Tenants of an Owner-Occupied Property or Residential 

Rental Property in which the Owners participate in the Acquisition Program; and (3) Businesses 

who participate in the Acquisition Program. 

To implement these Title VI mitigation programs (the Acquisition and Relocation Programs), the 

VRA borrows certain provisions from the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA). As FHWA has explained many 

times to TxDOT, the VRA uses the URA to serve as a tool to guide the manner in which TxDOT 

should provide the required Title VI mitigation benefits, but not as the instrument for 

determining eligibility ofpersons to participate in the programs, which is otherwise set forth in 

the VRA. In a Title VI matter like this one, Title VI, and not the URA controls the eligibility for 

relief. 

VIII. REMEDIAL ACTIONS 

Based upon the facts and conclusions above, TxDOT must take the following action, or another 

equivalent action approved by FHWA, to address the Title VI disparate impacts on the Hillcrest 

neighborhood. TxDOT must comply with the provisions ofand obligations in the VRA in 

accordance with the FHWA's explanation of those requirements its October 13, 2016 and 

December 19, 2016 letters to TxDOT. Specifically, TxDOT must abide by the VRA and 

establish a Relocation Benefits Program for landlords which provide landlords the same 

relocation benefits as owner-occupants. As intended by the VRA, this program will incentivize 

landlords to participate in the voluntary program to maximize relocation benefits available to 

tenants. Compliance with the VRA's mitigation requirements is required to render the current 

Red Alternative alignment the least discriminatory ofthe four alternatives evaluated in the FEIS. 

TxDOT shall take appropriate action to address the disproportionate impact, as described above, 

within 30 days of receipt ofthis LOF. IfTxDOT fails to take appropriate action, FHWA may 

pursue its available legal remedies to address the disproportionate impact, including actions to 

withhold funding for the Project. 
38 

Ifyou have any questions about this LOF, please contact Nichole McWhorter at (202) 366-1396. 

Sincerely, 

cc: 	 Erin Gaines, Attorney at Law, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. 

Al Alonzi, Division Administrator, FHWA's Texas Division Office 

Nicolle Fleury, Deputy Chief Counsel, FHWA's Office ofChief Counsel 

Leslie Prell, Director, Departmental Office ofCivil Rights 

Yvette Rivera, Associate Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Program Division