Trans Texas Corridor-35 (TTC-35) Study Area Identification Report

Transcription

1 Texas Department of Transportation Texas Turnpike Authority Division Trans Texas Corridor-35 (TTC-35) Study Area Identification Report 19 April 2004 updated July 2004 and July 2005 TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report i July 2005 Update

2 Table of Contents TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 1.0 Project Overview Purpose of this Report Initial 99-County Study Area Development Refinement of the 99-County Study Area to a 78-County Study Area Federally Protected Species Edwards Aquifer Topography Summary of Study Area Refinement from 99 to 78 Counties Refinement of the 78-County Study Area to a Tier One Scoping Meetings Study Area Environmental Factors Planning/Engineering Factors Transportation Factors Summary of Study Area Refinement from 78 to 70 Counties Post-Scoping Study Area Modifications Summary References 24 TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report ii July 2005 Update

3 Tables Table 1 Texas Counties Included in the Initial 99-County Study Area 2 Table 2 Table 3 Average Slopes within Two Hypothetical TTC-35 Corridor Segments 8 Estimated Costs Associated with Excavation and Embankment Work at Two Hypothetical TTC-35 Long Rail Facilities 8 Table 4 North to South Origin and Destination Percentages for I-35 9 Table 5 Texas Counties Included in the 78-County Study Area 10 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Non-Attainment and Near Non-Attainment Counties Within or Adjacent to the 78-County Study Area. 11 Counties in the 78-County Study Area that Have a Poverty Rate Greater than that for the State of Texas 12 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the 78-County Study Area 14 Texas Counties Within the 70-County Study Area as Presented at Scoping Meeting 19 Table 10 Revisions to the Tier One Scoping Meetings Study Area Based 20 on Agency and Public Scoping Comments and Additional Technical Information Table 11 Seventy-seven Counties Within the Tier One Refined Study Area 22 TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report iii July 2005 Update

4 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figures Initial 99-County Study Area Threatened and Endangered Species Counties that Contain Golden-Cheeked Warbler and Black- Capped Vireo Habitat Major Aquifers Percent Slope 78-County Study Area Non-Attainment and Near Non-Attainment Areas Counties with Poverty Rates Greater than the State Poverty Rate Oil & Gas Production Natural Regions of Texas Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) Urbanized Area Buffer Zones State and Federal Lands Major River Basins Major Rivers & Existing Lakes and Reservoirs Proposed Lakes and Reservoirs Airports and Intermodal Facilities Travel-Time Analysis Tier One Study Area As Presented at Scoping Meetings Tier One Refined Study Area (Post Scoping) TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report iv July 2005 Update

5 Appendices Table A-1 Table A-2 Table A-3 Table A-4 Table A-5 Table A-6 Table A-7 Table A-8 Table A-9 Federally-Listed Species Potentially Occurring within the 99-County Study Area Cultural Resources Inventory by Counties in the 78-county Study Area Historic Sites/Properties in the 78-county Study Area Acres of Land in Agriculture by County in the 78-county Study Area Mineral Surface Mines Operating in the 78-county Study Area Oil and Gas Production by County in the 78-county Study Area Counties with Active State/Federal Superfund Sites in the 78-county Study Area Active Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities by County in the 78-county Study Area Natural Regions of Texas by County in the 78-county Study Area Table A-10 County Population Projections in the 78-county Study Area for Table A-11 State and Federal Parks and Recreation Lands in the 78-county Study Area Table A-12 Airports by County in the 78-county Study Area TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report v July 2005 Update

6 1.0 Project Overview The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) system is a proposed 4,000-mile network of multimodal transportation corridors that would reach to all corners of the State of Texas. As envisioned, each individual TTC element (hereafter, element ) would be up to 1,200 feet wide and could include: separate lanes for passenger vehicles (three lanes in each direction) and trucks (two lanes in each direction); a total of six rail lines (one line each in both directions for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail); and, a 200-foot wide utility zone. In June 2002, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) published the Crossroads of the Americas: Trans Texas Corridor Plan (the Plan ) (June 2002) which identified the goals and conceptual elements of the TTC and established the planning framework and parameters for subsequent project development activities. As identified in the Plan, the goals of the TTC include: faster and safer transportation of people and freight; relief for congested roadways; reduce transport of hazardous materials in populated areas; improve air quality by reducing emissions; provide a safer, more reliable utility transmission system; and promote economic growth and development through the creation of new markets and jobs. The Plan identified four high-priority TTC elements based on the following factors: 1. congestion relief for metropolitan areas; 2. existing hazardous material routes; 3. corridors most likely to generate toll revenues; and 4. opportunities for economic development. The subject of this report is the Trans-Texas Interstate 35 (I-35) Corridor (TTC-35); which is one of the four high-priority TTC elements (the Oklahoma to Mexico/Gulf Coast element). As described in the Plan, TTC-35 would generally parallel portions of I-35, I-37, and I-69 (proposed) from Denison to the Rio Grande Valley - a distance of approximately 560 miles. TTC-35 is being developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). TxDOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is using a tiered approach to satisfy the environmental and public involvement requirements of NEPA as they pertain to TTC-35. Under this tiered approach, a Tier One Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be developed to study issues at a broad level to determine the general location of a TTC-35 corridor (assuming the no-action alternative is not selected as the preferred alternative). In addition, the Tier One EIS would establish preliminary segments of independent utility (SIU). Following a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Tier One EIS, Tier Two environmental documents, which would include detailed site-specific field investigations and analyses, would be developed for individual TTC-35 facilities. Tier Two documents may include EISs, TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 1 July 2005 Update

7 environmental assessments (EAs), and categorical exclusions (CEs), which would focus on SIUs for development of highway facilities or operating segments for rail facilities. 2.0 Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to document the process used to delineate a study area for the Tier One EIS (hereafter, Tier One study area ) and to explain both how and why the study area was defined. The report provides answers to questions such as: 1. How was the study area initially delineated? 2. How and why did the study area change over time? 3. What public and agency input was received in developing the study area? 4. How were the public and agency comments used to delineate the final study area boundaries? 3.0 Initial 99-County Study Area Development Project planners identified an initial 99-county study area (herein referred to as 99-county study area ) to examine and refine for the TTC-35 Tier One study area based on the Plan, which provided only a general description for the conceptual location (parallel to I-35, I-37, and proposed I-69) of TTC-35 and its termini (Denison and the Rio Grande Valley). This 99-county study area, generally paralleled existing I-35 to both the east and west. The 99 counties included in this initial study area are listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. This 99- county study area included the flexibility for numerous potential southern termini at the United States/Mexico international border or the Texas Gulf Coast. In addition, it allowed for the consideration of potential corridors passing on either the east or the west side of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. Table 1: Texas Counties Included in the Initial 99-County Study Area Aransas Freestone Mason Atascosa Frio McLennan Bandera Gillespie McMullen Bastrop Goliad Medina Bee Gonzales Milam Bell Grayson Mills Bexar Guadalupe Montague Blanco Hamilton Navarro Bosque Hays Nueces Brazos Henderson Palo Pinto Brooks Hidalgo Parker Brown Hill Rains Burleson Hood Refugio TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 2 July 2005 Update

8 Table 1: Texas Counties Included in the Initial 99-County Study Area (Continued) Burnet Hopkins Robertson Caldwell Hunt Rockwall Cameron Jack San Patricio Collin Jim Hogg San Saba Comal Jim Wells Smith Comanche Johnson Somervell Cooke Karnes Starr Coryell Kaufman Stephens Dallas Kendall Tarrant Delta Kenedy Travis Denton Kerr Uvalde DeWitt Kleberg Van Zandt Dimmit Lamar Webb Duval Lampasas Willacy Eastland La Salle Williamson Ellis Lavaca Wilson Erath Lee Wise Falls Limestone Wood Fannin Live Oak Zapata Fayette Llano Zavala 4.0 Refinement of the 99-County Study Area to a 78-County Study Area The 99-county study area was identified prior to a review of environmental factors that could influence the delineation of a Tier One EIS study area. Following the development of the 99- county study area, the project team evaluated it for further refinement based on three key environmental factors. The three environmental factors considered to refine the initial 99-county study area were: 1. federally protected species; 2. Edwards Aquifer; and 3. topography. What three environmental factors were initially considered to refine the 99- county study area? In addition, an origin-destination study was performed, which showed that a transportation corridor east of I-35 had a much higher potential to serve the projected passenger and freight demand than a transportation corridor to the west of I Federally Protected Species Species listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of threatened and endangered species. The ESA defines take as harass, TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 3 July 2005 Update

9 harm, pursue, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct. The USFWS typically considers modification of habitat regularly occupied by threatened or endangered species to constitute harm (or take ) and, therefore, to be a potential violation of the ESA. Furthermore, Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined to be critical. Seventy species listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate species by the USFWS are considered as occurring or potentially occurring in the initial 99-county study area (USFWS, 2003). Table A-1 in the Appendix provides a listing of the species, including the counties they potentially occur within. The likelihood of occurrence of listed species is not constant throughout the study area. Figure 2 depicts the number of listed species in each of the 99 counties in the study area. The USFWS identifies a greater proportion of the total number of listed species as occurring or potentially occurring in Bexar, Comal, Hays, Travis, and Williamson counties, which are in the central portion of the 99-county study area, and San Patricio, Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron counties, which are in the Gulf Coast portion of the 99-county study area. Six listed species (loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), potentially occurring in the coastal counties are marine species which would be unlikely to be directly impacted by the development of TTC-35. Thirty of the 70 listed species potentially occurring in the 99-county study area are endemic to Bell, Bexar, Comal, Hays, Jim Hogg, Travis, and/or Williamson counties. The habitat for these species occurs primarily west of I-35. As shown in Figure 3, a large portion of the initial 99-county study area west of I-35 and north of Zavala and Frio counties contains breeding habitat for two endangered migratory songbirds the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), which breeds only in central Texas, and the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus), which breeds primarily in central and west Texas. The presence of large amounts of regularly occupied threatened and/or endangered species habitat could increase the costs of TTC-35. This is because Section 7 of the ESA would require consultation with the USFWS if TTC-35 would potentially impact a threatened and/or endangered species habitat. During the consultation, project planners would evaluate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for potential impacts to a listed species habitat. Although project design measures may help to avoid or minimize impacts, such design considerations often go beyond what might be done in the absence of a protected species within the project area; therefore, incorporating avoidance and minimization measures into a project s design can substantially increase project costs. If avoidance and minimization of threatened and endangered species impacts cannot be achieved through project design, mitigation may be provided for potential impacts. Mitigation is frequently achieved by providing funds to purchase and maintain habitat for a listed species in an amount greater than the amount of habitat impacted by a project. As such, mitigation also represents a potential project cost that would not be incurred in the absence of protected species and their habitat. Not all land west of I-35 is habitat or potential habitat for federally listed species; however, it appears likely that there is more of such habitat west of I-35 rather than east of I-35. TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 4 July 2005 Update

10 How does the presence or absence of threatened and/or endangered species and/or their habitat affect the placement of TTC-35? The topography west of I-35 is generally much more varied and severe than east of I-35, and it is likely that more earthwork would be required west of I-35 compared to east of I-35 in order to achieve slopes suitable for a TTC-35 facility. This means that in some cases construction of a facility west of I-35 may require more earthwork and clearing than would a facility of equal footprint located east of I-35. In these cases the potential to impact protected species habitat, should such be present in or adjacent to the project area, would be greater west of I-35 compared to east of I-35. Given the abundance of habitat for listed species, the amount of land necessary for TTC-35, and the likelihood that substantial earthwork would be necessary, the potential for impacting habitat for listed species would likely be much greater west of I-35 compared to east of I-35. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, measures and project design considerations adopted to avoid and/or minimize the potential for impacts to listed species often increase project costs. Additional costs may also be incurred when mitigation is necessary. Therefore, project costs related to the occurrence of listed species would most likely be less in areas where there is less habitat for listed species and where project construction and operation would potentially impact a lesser amount of such habitat. In the case of TTC-35, there appears to be less habitat for listed species east of I-35 compared to west of I-35, and construction and operation of a TTC-35 facility east of I-35 would in general have potential to impact a lesser amount of such habitat. During the consultant process, it is likely that project costs related to the occurrence of listed species and/or their habitat would be less for a TTC-35 facility east of I-35 compared to west of I-35. It is not possible to estimate the difference in costs that would be attributable to avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating for potential impacts to listed species such estimates could be calculated only by comparing specific alignments and at this point no alignments have been identified. The preceding discussions focused on the potential for the occurrence of listed species and/or their habitat to increase project costs. In rare cases the occurrence of listed species and/or habitat can substantially reduce the likelihood of a project from being completed. For instance, in a biological opinion issued as part of an ESA Section 7 consultation the USFWS may conclude that the action is "likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of a federally listed species. The USFWS may identify reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) which, if enacted, would avoid jeopardy. However, it is possible that no such RPAs could be identified and the action as proposed could not proceed unless granted an exemption by the Endangered Species Committee. There is no evidence at this time to suggest that such an unlikely outcome would be expected for a TTC-35 facility. However, given that listed species and their habitat are probably more abundant west of I-35 that to the east, and that construction and operation of a TTC-35 west of I-35 has in general more potential to impact listed species and/or their habitat, TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 5 July 2005 Update

11 the chance of obtaining a jeopardy call without RPAs, though unlikely, is somewhat greater for TTC-35 facilities to the west of I-35 compared to those to the east. 4.2 Edwards Aquifer As shown in Figure 4, several major aquifers underlie portions of the 99-county study area. However, of the aquifers located in the 99-county study area, the Edwards Aquifer is generally considered to be the most sensitive to potential impacts associated with surface activities. The Edwards Aquifer occurs within a limestone formation characterized by a system of faults, fractures, open channels, sinkholes and caves through which water recharges the aquifer. Soils over the aquifer are thin to nonexistent. Aquifers of this type are especially susceptible to infiltration of various contaminants and as such are highly vulnerable to contamination from human activities. The Edwards Aquifer has three hydrologically distinct segments: Northern Segment - located in Bell, Williamson, and Travis counties; Barton Springs Segment - located in Travis and Hays counties; and, Southern (or San Antonio) Segment - located in Hays, Comal, Bexar, Medina, Uvalde, and Kinney counties. Each segment has associated recharge, contributing, and transition zones. A recharge zone is an area where the aquifer-bearing geologic layers are exposed at or near the surface and water filters directly into the aquifer through cracks, fissures, caves, and other openings. In this zone, contaminants on the surface may directly enter the aquifer. A contributing zone includes all watersheds that feed runoff into rivers and streams that flow over the recharge zone. A transition zone is an area where limestone overlying the aquifer is faulted and fractured and has caves and sinkholes so it is possible that surface water may be able to enter the Edwards limestone below. Recharge and contributing zones for the three segments of the Edwards Aquifer occupy portions of several study area counties including Uvalde, Medina, Bexar, Bandera, Kerr, Kendall, Blanco, Comal, Hays, Travis, Williamson, and Bell. There are several aquifers underlying the study area. Why is the Edwards Aquifer given special considerations? Because of the Edwards Aquifer s environmental sensitivity, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) administers rules governing development within the aquifer s recharge and contributing zones. The TCEQ s Edwards Aquifer Protection Program (EAPP) (TCEQ 2005) provides information on the Edwards Aquifer Rules, mapping assistance, guidance for developing aquifer protection plans, and technical guidance during construction for enhanced best management practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated two segments, the Southern Segment and the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer as sole source, which affords these segments special considerations and environmental protections. The EPA defines a sole source as the "sole or principal source" of drinking water for a given service area; TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 6 July 2005 Update

12 that is, an aquifer which supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water for that area and, for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources should the aquifer become contaminated. There are no other designated sole sources in Texas. In order to minimize potential impacts to the Edwards Aquifer s recharge and contributing zones that the future construction of TTC-35 facilities could cause, the TTC-35 Tier One study area was reduced west of I Topography A topographical feature such as slope is an environmental consideration since construction on certain slopes may increase erosion and sediment transport to streams. In addition, areas with slopes greater than 1 percent would present challenges to the design and construction of any rail facilities included within the TTC-35 corridor. As presented in Figure 5, slopes equal to or greater than five percent are generally more abundant in the 99-county study area west of I-35 and north of Medina and Uvalde counties. By comparison, the area east of I-35 and south of Medina and Uvalde counties has more locations with slopes of less than one percent and fewer areas with slopes equal to or greater than five percent. Areas with excessive slopes would have to be reduced by cut and fill. Though designing and constructing a rail facility within such an area may be possible, the amount of cut and fill required to reduce the slope would substantially add to the construction costs of a TTC-35 facility. At this stage of the TTC-35 planning process, corridors have not been developed. Therefore, it is not possible to identify the typical topography for potential corridors or alignments on either the west or east side of I-35. In order to illustrate differences in topography west and east of I- 35, two hypothetical segments, are described below and the differences in their average slopes are shown in Table 2. West of I-35 Corridor Segment - Defined as a 135-mile long corridor centered on U.S. Highway (US) 281 west of I-35 and bounded by I-10 to the south and US 84 to the north. East of I-35 Corridor Segment - Defined as a 95-mile long new location corridor east of I-35, which follows a path from approximately State Highway (SH) 142 in Caldwell County, northeastward to a point east of the City of Taylor in Williamson County, and continuing to a point northeast of the City of Temple in Bell County. As shown in Table 2, the West of I-35 Corridor Segment has a greater percentage of slopes that exceed five percent and a lower percentage of slopes less than 1 percent than the East of I-35 Corridor Segment. Only 6 percent of the slopes on the West of I-35 Corridor Segment were less than 1 percent and 38 percent were greater than 5 percent. On the East of I-35 Corridor Segment, 24 percent of the slopes were greater than 1 percent and 12 percent were less than 5 percent. TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 7 July 2005 Update

13 Table 2: Average Slopes within Two Hypothetical TTC-35 Corridor Segments 1 Location of Hypothetical Corridor Less than 1 Percent Slope Percent of Average Slopes 2 (%) Greater than 5 Percent Slope West of I East of I See text for descriptions of the segments. 2 Percent slope is defined as the change in elevation as a percent of linear distance, and average slope was calculated for each 30- meter by 30-meter cell within the corridors. The data in Table 2 are provided only to serve as examples of the slope differences between the areas east and west of I-35. Although segments containing more or less topographical contours could probably be delineated on either side of I-35, because of the range and magnitude of the slopes west of I-35, it is likely that corridors west of I-35 would contain relatively few slopes of less than 1 percent. In order to demonstrate how slopes could affect cut and fill and potential project costs, two hypothetical one-mile long rail alignments were examined. One alignment was west of I-35 in Comal County and one alignment was east of I-35 in Caldwell County. Both alignments were assumed to consist of two tracks requiring maximum grades not exceeding one percent. Table 3 presents estimated costs associated with cut and fill activities at each example alignment. The alignment west of I-35 would require approximately 6,000 cubic-yards of material be excavated (cut), approximately 166,800 cubic-yards of material be placed as fill on the alignment, with an estimated cost of $786,600 in order to achieve an overall slope not exceeding 1 percent along the rail profile grade line. By comparison, the alignment east of I-35 would require approximately 7,700 cubic-yards of excavation, approximately 6,400 cubic-yards placed as fill, with an estimated total cost of $67,300. Greater slopes = more cut and fill = increased project construction costs. Table 3: Estimated Costs Associated with Excavation and Embankment Work at Two Hypothetical TTC-35 Rail Facilities 1 Segment Location Activity Estimated Quantity (cubic-yard) Unit Price 2 ($/cubic-yard) Estimated Cost ($/mile) Excavation (cut) 6, ,000 West of I-35 (Comal Co.) Embankment 166, ,600 (fill) East of I-35 Excavation (cut) 7, ,500 TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 8 July 2005 Update

14 Table 3: Estimated Costs Associated with Excavation and Embankment Work at Two Hypothetical TTC-35 Rail Facilities 1 Segment Location Activity Estimated Quantity (cubic-yard) Unit Price 2 ($/cubic-yard) Estimated Cost ($/mile) (Caldwell Co.) Embankment (fill) 6, ,800 1 See text for descriptions of the facilities. 2 Average low-bid unit price for construction based on a 12-month moving-average calculation for the period ending March 31, 2005 in the TxDOT San Antonio and Austin Districts. 4.4 Origin-Destination Analysis An origin-destination analysis was conducted for the I-35 corridor to examine the desirability of including areas both east and west of the existing I-35 in the Tier One study area. The I-35 corridor analyzed for this study included the area between Mexico and Oklahoma, the area approximately 170 miles east of I-35, and the area approximately 170 miles west of I-35. TxDOT s Statewide Analysis Model (SAM) was used to identify forecasted origin and destinations within the I-35 corridor. The north to south origin-destination pairs for the east side of I-35 and the west side of I-35 were selected and compared to the total origin-destinations within the I-35 corridor. The percentage of trips with north to south origins and destinations were calculated as a percentage of all origin and destination trips within the I-35 corridor. Table 4 summarizes the results of the origin-destination analysis. Table 4: North to South Origin and Destination Percentages for I-35 East of I-35 (%) West of I-35 (%) Passenger Trips Commercial Vehicle Trips 38 4 Source: Statewide Analysis Model. The data show that passenger trips between north-south origin/destinations east of I-35 is approximately 1.7 times the north-south activity which occurs west of I-35. For commercial vehicle trips, the north-south origin/destinations are slightly over nine times the north-south trips occurring west of I-35. Additionally, when population mass was analyzed in the SAM for a 50 mile radius around I-35, approximately 60 percent of the population lie east of I-35. This data show that a corridor which lies east of I-35 would have a higher potential to serve forecasted passenger and freight demand. 4.5 Summary of Study Area Refinement from 99 to 78 Counties Based on the analysis described above, 21 counties were removed from the 99-county study area; reducing the study area to 78 counties. The counties removed include: Bandera, Blanco, Brown, Burnet, Comal, Comanche, Coryell, Eastland, Gillespie, Hamilton, Hays, Kendal, Kerr, Lampasas, Llano, Mason, Medina, Mills, San Saba, Stephens, and Uvalde. The counties remaining in the 78-county study area are listed in Table 5 and shown on Figure 6. TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 9 July 2005 Update

15 Table 5: Texas Counties Included in the 78-County Study Area Aransas Frio McMullen Atascosa Goliad Milam Bastrop Gonzales Montague Bee Grayson Navarro Bell Guadalupe Nueces Bexar Henderson Palo Pinto Bosque Hidalgo Parker Brazos Hill Rains Brooks Hood Refugio Burleson Hopkins Robertson Caldwell Hunt Rockwall Cameron Jack San Patricio Collin Jim Hogg Smith Cooke Jim Wells Somervell Dallas Johnson Starr Delta Karnes Tarrant Denton Kaufman Travis DeWitt Kenedy Van Zandt Dimmit Kleberg Webb Duval Lamar Willacy Ellis La Salle Williamson Erath Lavaca Wilson Falls Lee Wise Fannin Limestone Wood Fayette Live Oak Zapata Freestone McLennan Zavala Although endangered species, aquifers, and higher slopes may exist in these remaining 78 counties, the presence of these factors in the 78 counties are not anticipated to be of such abundance to exclude them from the TTC-35 Tier One study area. 5.0 Refinement of the 78-County Study Area to a Tier One Scoping Meetings Study Area Environmental, planning/engineering, and transportation factors were considered in determining whether the 78-county study area (herein referred to as the 78-county study area ) could be further refined. 5.1 Environmental Factors Environmental factors considered in determining whether the 78-county study area could be further refined include: air quality non-attainment areas; TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 10 July 2005 Update

16 cultural resources; economic conditions; land use; landfills and superfund sites; natural regions; population; public lands; rivers and reservoirs; threatened and endangered species; and wetlands. What environmental factors were considered in refining the study area? Air Quality Non-Attainment Areas Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, an area is designated as non-attainment if it fails to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In April 2004, EPA identified three areas in Texas that failed to meet the 8-hour ozone standard and designated each area as an ozone non-attainment area. Twelve Texas counties within or adjacent to the 78-county study area are included in these non-attainment areas. The TCEQ lists an additional 11 Texas counties within or adjacent to the 78-county study area as near non-attainment areas for ozone. A near non-attainment area is defined by TCEQ as an area that meets the national ambient standard for ozone but only by a slim margin (TCEQ, 2004a). The non-attainment and near-non attainment counties are listed in Table 6 and shown in Figure 7. Table 6: Non-Attainment and Near Non-Attainment Counties Within or Adjacent to the 78- County Study Area 1 Non-Attainment Near Non-Attainment Bexar Guadalupe Bastrop Smith Collin Johnson Caldwell Travis Comal Kaufman Hays Victoria Dallas Parker Henderson Williamson Denton Rockwall Hood Wilson Ellis Tarrant Hunt 1 As listed by the EPA as in non-attainment of national ambient ozone standards, or listed by the TCEQ as near non-attainment for the same standards. None of the non-attainment or near non-attainment areas were considered constraints for the delineation of a Tier One study area. According to the Plan, whenever possible, and, without compromising the ability to achieve the purpose and need for the project, corridor segments would be situated so as to maximize air quality benefits for non-attainment areas. Cultural Resources The 78-county study area is rich in cultural history. Data from the Texas Historical Commission (THC) (THC, 2004a) on known archaeological sites and historic properties were reviewed to determine the presence of cultural resource areas that could affect the delineation of the Tier One study area. TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 11 July 2005 Update

17 Cultural resources data was compiled for counties within the 78-county study area and are presented in the Table A-2 in the Appendix. Based on a review of these data, it was determined that known archaeological sites do not represent constraints for the delineation of a Tier One study area. The presence of archaeological sites is only indicative of areas that have been surveyed and evaluated for their merit. Additional archaeological resources may be found during future studies completed for the TTC-35 project. Table A-3 in the Appendix lists historic sites or districts that have been identified within the 78- county study area (THC, 2004b). Most of these historic sites and districts are in urbanized areas. Exceptions to this include designated historic farmsteads in Bosque and Falls counties and historic ranches in Kenedy, Kleberg, and Zapata counties. Like archaeological resources, the presence of historic sites is only indicative of areas that have been surveyed and evaluated. It was determined that the locations and sizes of these historic sites and properties do not present constraints for the delineation of a Tier One study area. Economic Conditions According to the U.S. Census Bureau (1999), 42 counties in the 78-county study area have poverty rates higher than the state-wide average poverty rate of 15.4 percent. These counties are listed in Table 7 and shown in Figure 8. No areas were eliminated from the study area based on economic conditions. Table 7: Counties in the 78-County Study Area that Have a Poverty Rate Greater Than that for the State of Texas 1 County Poverty Rate (%) County Poverty Rate (%) Aransas 19.9 Karnes 21.9 Atascosa 20.2 Kenedy 16.1 Bee 24.1 Kleberg 24.2 Bexar 15.9 Lamar 16.4 Brazos 26.9 La Salle 33.5 Brooks 35.4 Limestone 17.8 Burleson 17.2 Live Oak 17.7 Cameron 33.2 McLennan 17.6 Delta 17.6 Milam 15.9 DeWitt 20.5 Navarro 18.2 Dimmit 38.5 Nueces 20.1 Duval 29.3 Palo Pinto 15.9 Erath 16.0 Refugio 18.7 Falls 22.6 Robertson 20.6 Frio 29.0 San Patricio 20.9 Goliad 16.5 Starr 43.8 Gonzales 24.1 Webb 30.4 Hidalgo 35.3 Willacy 37.8 Hill 15.7 Zapata 30.2 TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 12 July 2005 Update

18 Table 7: Counties in the 78-County Study Area that Have a Poverty Rate Greater Than that for the State of Texas 1 County Poverty Rate (%) County Poverty Rate (%) Jim Hogg 29.1 Zavala 41.8 Jim Wells 25.6 Source:_Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999.) 1 The state-wide average poverty rate is 15.4 percent. Land Use The dominant land use in rural counties within the 78-county study area is typically agriculturerelated as shown in Table A-4 in the Appendix. Other activities such as oil and gas production and surface mining also contribute to land use in rural counties. Figure 9 shows the distribution of oil and gas production in the 78-county study area. Table A-6 in the Appendix lists recent oil and gas production levels and the historical oil production levels for the 78-county study area. According to the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) records, there are 12 mineral surface mines located within the 78-county study area. The 12 mines and the counties in which they are located are listed in Table A-5 in the Appendix. These mines are located primarily in the eastern portion of the 78-county study area and in many of the same counties that lead in oil and gas production. The amount of oil and gas production in each of the 78 counties is listed in Table A-6 in the Appendix. In addition to these mines, there are numerous sand and gravel mines located throughout the 78-county study area. Transport of mining products is achieved primarily by rail and truck. The land uses discussed above were not determined to be constraints to delineating a Tier One study area and no additional areas were removed from the study area based on land use. Landfills and Superfund Sites Thirty-nine federal and state Superfund sites are located within 18 counties in the 78-county study area (TCEQ, 2004b). Twenty-five of the sites are listed as active and 14 are listed as deleted. An active site is one that is currently under investigation or in the remediation process; active sites within the 78-county study area are listed in Table A-7 of the Appendix. A deleted site is a facility removed from the state Superfund registry because: it no longer poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and safety or the environment; or it is being addressed through another program or agency. A total of 147 municipal solid waste facilities are located within 52 counties in the 78-county study area (TCEQ, 2004c). Of these facilities, 60 are listed as municipal solid waste landfills, and the remaining facilities are typically smaller in scale and include transfer stations, resource recovery/composting facilities, and brush collection. Table A-8 in the Appendix lists the municipal solid waste landfill facilities that occur within the 78-county study area. The presence, locations, sizes, and functions of these superfund sites and municipal solid waste facilities in the 78-county study area do not present constraints for the delineation of a Tier One study area. Therefore, no additional areas were eliminated from the 78-county study area based on the locations of landfills or Superfund sites. TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 13 July 2005 Update

19 Natural Regions Texas is a state that has an abundance of ecological diversity. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) lists 11 natural regions as occurring in the state and eight of these regions occur in the 78-county study area (TPWD, 2004). Natural regions occurring within the 78- county study area include the Blackland Prairies, Coastal Sand Plains, Edwards Plateau, Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes, Oak Woods and Prairies, Piney Woods, Rolling Plains, and South Texas Brush Country. These natural regions are listed in Table A-9 in the Appendix and are shown in Figure 10. The Edwards Plateau natural region occupies the west-central portion of the 78-county study area; specifically, this natural region occurs in the western portions of Bell and Williamson counties, and northwestern Travis and Bexar counties. Certain attributes associated with portions of this natural region make it unattractive for inclusion within a Tier One study area. These attributes are the presence of threatened and endangered species including many endemic species, the presence of the Edwards Aquifer, and the abundance of slopes greater than one percent. These attributes and their relationship to a Tier One study area are discussed in detail in Section 3.0 of this report. The Edwards Plateau is considered a constraint for the delineation of a Tier One study area and most counties within this natural region were not included in the 78-county study area. Even though portions of Bell, Bexar, Travis, and Williamson counties remained in the 78-county study area, the portions of these counties west of I-35 were removed. None of the remaining seven natural regions occurring in the 78-county study area have region-wide attributes that present constraints for the delineation of a Tier One study area. Therefore, no other areas were removed from the 78-county study area based on natural regions. Population According to projections from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), the combined population for the counties of the 78-county study area is expected to be greater than 26.8 million in the year 2060 (TWDB, 2004). This represents a potential increase of over 137 percent from the year 2000 population estimate of approximately 11.3 million. Table A-10 in the Appendix provides population projections for each county in the 78-county study area. The majority of growth in the study area is anticipated to occur around existing areas with high population centers. A Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is a geographic entity defined by the Office of Management and Budget that has a city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or the presence of an Urbanized Area (UA) and a total population of at least 100,000. Table 8 lists the MSAs within the 78-county study area and their locations are shown on Figure 11. Table 8: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) in the 78-County Study Area MSA Counties Sherman-Denison Grayson Dallas-Fort Worth Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Henderson, Hood, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant Tyler Smith Waco McLennan Killeen-Temple Bell, Coryell TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 14 July 2005 Update

20 Table 8: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) in the 78-County Study Area MSA Austin-San Marcos San Antonio Laredo Corpus Christi Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito McAllen-Edinburg-Mission Counties Bastrop, Caldwell, Travis, Williamson Bexar, Guadalupe, Wilson Webb Nueces, San Patricio Cameron Hidalgo The placement of TTC-35 in proximity to MSAs would be inconsistent with the Plan. For this reason, highly populated areas are categorized as a constraint to construction of TTC-35; therefore, a Tier One study area should be selected that would allow hazardous materials to be routed away from urban areas. Some counties within an MSA could be considered as a potential site for TTC-35 if buffers around these areas are incorporated in alternatives. It was determined that such buffers may be useful for identifying a Tier One study area. Figure 12 shows the existing large urban areas with 5, 10, 15, and 20-mile buffers applied to their existing boundaries. Public Lands Most of the federally or state-owned parks and recreational land in Texas is located outside of the 78-county study area. The national forests in East Texas and Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains national parks in west Texas are the largest publicly owned lands in the state, but these do not occur within the 78-county study area. However, there are many smaller areas devoted to public recreation and historical and ecological preservation located in the 78-county study area. Table A-11 in the Appendix lists the federally and state-owned park or recreational lands in the 78-county study area; many of these properties are also identified in Figure 13. The presence, sizes, and locations of public lands within the 78-county study area do not present constraints for the delineation of a Tier One study area. Rivers and Reservoirs Twenty-three river basins drain Texas lands and help define and support vegetation and faunal communities throughout the state and in its estuaries (TWDB, 2002). Additionally, Texas rivers provide water for human consumption, use, and recreation. As shown in Figures 14, 15, and 16, the 78-county study area occupies portions of 16 river basins and includes sites for 103 existing and seven proposed reservoirs. The locations and sizes of rivers, reservoirs, and other surface aquatic resources were determined to not present constraints for the delineation of a Tier One study area. Threatened and Endangered Species As discussed in Section 4.1 of this report, the presence of threatened and endangered species was a factor in the decision to eliminate some counties west of I-35 from consideration for inclusion in a Tier One study area. Federally-listed species are known to occur in counties east of I-35, but in general these counties support fewer endemic species than do counties located west of I-35. The counties east of I-35 do not provide breeding habitat for golden-cheeked warblers and blackcapped vireos to the same extent as many of the counties west of I-35. The potential for occurrence of listed species and/or their habitat is not considered a constraint to the delineation TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 15 July 2005 Update

21 of a Tier One study area outside of those areas eliminated from consideration in Section 4.1 of this report. Wetlands Wetlands are present throughout the 78-county study area; however, their presence was not considered to be so extensive as to represent a constraint for the delineation of a Tier One study area. 5.2 Planning/Engineering Factors The Engineering factors considered in determining whether the 78-county study area could be further refined include: ability to utilize existing I-35; concentrations of utility infrastructure; and connections to airports and intermodal facilities. What engineering factors were considered in refining the study area? Ability to Utilize Existing I-35 Developing a project with the proposed design features of the TTC-35 is not feasible along I-35 for much of its length. The existing I-35 corridor travels through the urbanized and populated municipal areas of Laredo, San Antonio, Austin, Temple, Waco, Dallas, and Fort Worth. Additionally, numerous smaller cities and towns are adjacent to I-35. The existing population centers and associated development and infrastructure make the I-35 corridor a relatively confined area in terms of the potential placement of additional transportation facilities on the scale being considered for TTC-35. The incorporation of I-35 within TTC-35, or the placement of TTC-35 in close proximity to I-35, would result in the displacement of numerous residential and commercial developments, disruption of neighborhoods, reduction in community cohesion, and significant disturbance to established residential and commercial environments. For these reasons, much of existing I-35 is categorized as a constraint to construction of TTC-35. Accordingly, a Tier One study area was identified that would place TTC-35 away from incompatible portions of I-35. Consideration of Utility Infrastructure The utility infrastructure within the 78-county study area includes facilities for generation, distribution, and transmission of electricity, water, oil and gas, and other utility-related service. Based on the size of the study area, the location of these facilities within the study area has not been investigated. The 200-foot wide utility right-of-way (ROW) component of TTC-35, as envisioned in the Plan, is to serve as future potential ROW for utility developers that may want to utilize the ROW without having to locate utilities in new areas on private lands. It was determined that the utility infrastructure was not a constraint to delineating a Tier One study area and no additional areas were eliminated from the study area based on utility infrastructure. Connections to Airports and Intermodal Facilities Three classes of airports have been identified within the 78-county study area: commercial service-primary airports, general aviation airports, and reliever airports (Table A-12) (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2003). The greatest concentration of passenger/commuter and freight services in the 78-county study area are in the major urban areas including Fort Worth, Dallas, TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 16 July 2005 Update

22 Austin, San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley. The airports in each county within the 78- county study area are listed in Table A-12 in the Appendix. Numerous intermodal facilities are also located within the 78-county study; such facilities include port terminals, truck/rail transfer facilities, and truck/pipeline transfer facilities. The general locations of the airports and intermodal facilities are shown on Figure 17. The locations of airports and intermodal facilities do not present constraints for the delineation of a Tier One study area. 5.3 Transportation Factors The transportation factor considered in determining whether the 78-county study area could be further refined included a travel-time sensitivity analysis. Travel-time Sensitivity Analysis Travel time is an important measure of level of service on a facility, and is often used as a measure of mobility and efficiency. One assumption underlying a travel-time sensitivity What transportation planning factor was considered in refining the study area? analyses is that roadway facility users are rational decision makers who would routinely choose to travel on a facility only if it is part of a time-efficient route. In the context of TTC-35, this would mean that a traveler would shift from existing I-35 to a TTC-35 facility only if the latter is more time-efficient than the former. A major factor influencing the time efficiency of shifting from I-35 to a TTC-35 facility would be the distance separating I-35 and the facility. In general, the closer a TTC-35 facility is placed to I-35, the more time-efficient it would be for users to shift from I-35 to the facility. Also, if the distance separating I-35 and a TTC-35 facility is too great it would no longer be time-efficient for I-35 users to shift to the facility; thus, failing to assist with relieving congestion on I-35. A travel-time sensitivity analysis was conducted in order to estimate the maximum distance to the east of I-35 a TTC-35 facility could be placed and still be considered a time-minimizing route compared to I-35. This travel-time sensitivity analysis was used to establish the eastern boundary of the study area, since locating a TTC-35 facility east of that point would not provide a time-efficient alternative for motorists currently using I-35. The general question this analysis intended to answer was: How far east of I-35 could a TTC-35 facility be located and still maintain a travel time advantage over I-35? Estimates for conditions in the year 2030 were used to complete the travel-time sensitivity analysis to allow for a comparison of a future completed TTC-35 facility to estimated future conditions on I-35. The travel-time sensitivity analysis was also conducted based on the following assumptions: 1. I-35 would be the main north-south facility competing with a TTC-35 facility within the study area, especially in terms of long-distance travel; 2. in the year 2030, the average speed on rural segments of I-35 would be 65 miles per hour (mph) and on urban segments would be 35 mph; and 3. the average speed on a TTC-35 facility would be 80 mph. TTC-35 Study Area Identification Report 17 July 2005 Update