TEXRail FEIS v8 Ap B-06 Historic Archeological Public Review

Transcription

FORT WORTH TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (THE T)
TEX RAIL
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
APPENDIX B.6: HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MAY 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
B.6 B.6.1 B.6.2 B.6.3 B.6.4 Historic and Archeological Resources ............................... B.6-1 Introduction and Methodology ....................................................................................... B.6-1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... B.6-5 Impact Evaluation .......................................................................................................... B.6-32 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................... B.6-48 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure B.6-1: Archeology Sites and Surveys, Map 1........................................................................... B.6-26 Figure B.6-2: Archeology Sites and Surveys, Map 2........................................................................... B.6-27 Figure B.6-3: Archeology Sites and Surveys, Map 3........................................................................... B.6-28 Figure B.6-4: Archeology Sites and Surveys, Map 4........................................................................... B.6-29 Figure B.6-5: Archeology Sites and Surveys, Map 5........................................................................... B.6-30 Figure B.6-6: Archeology Sites and Surveys, Map 6........................................................................... B.6-31 Figure B.6-7: Historic Resources, Map 1 ............................................................................................ B.6-40 Figure B.6-8: Historic Resources, Map 2 ............................................................................................ B.6-41 Figure B.6-9: Historic Resources, Map 3 ............................................................................................ B.6-42 Figure B.6-10: Historic Resources, Map 4 .......................................................................................... B.6-43 Figure B.6-11: Historic Resources, Map 5 .......................................................................................... B.6-44 Figure B.6-12: Historic Resources, Map 6 .......................................................................................... B.6-45 LIST OF TABLES
Table B.6-1: Known Historic Resources ............................................................................................. B.6-12 Table B.6-2: Known Archeological Sites within 1,000 m of the Proposed Corridor .......................... B.6-22 Table B.6-3: Archeological Surveys within 1,000m of the Proposed Corridor ................................... B.6-23 Table B.6-4: Archeological Sites Discovered During the TEX Rail Project ....................................... B.6-24 Table B.6-5: Known Archeological Sites within 1,000 m of the Proposed Corridor on DFW
Airport Property ........................................................................................................................... B.6-25 Table B.6-6: Archeological Surveys within 1,000m of the Proposed Corridor on DFW Airport
Property........................................................................................................................................ B.6-25 Table B.6-7: Listed and Recommended Eligible Historic-Age Structures – Commuter Rail
Alternative ................................................................................................................................... B.6-34 Table B.6-8 : Recommendations for the Proposed Station Locations of the Commuter Rail
Alternative ................................................................................................................................... B.6-47 Fort Worth Transportation Authority
TEX Rail
B.6-i
FEIS/Section 4(f) Evaluation
Appendix B.6: Historic and Archeological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
Fort Worth Transportation Authority
TEX Rail
B.6-ii
B.6
HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
B.6.1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
This section describes historic and archeological resources within the TEX Rail study area. Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470f), Executive Order
11593 on the Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, and the Texas Administrative
Code (Sections 191.002, 191.051 and 191.09 through 191.094) regulate efforts to assess the potential for
adverse effects to historic and archeological resources. Treatment of these resources is further guided by
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations: Protection of Historic Properties (36
Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800).
The above methodology from southwest Fort Worth to DFW Airport for Historic and Archeological
Resources was also applied to the portion of the study area on DFW Airport property. This methodology
is in accordance with Section 11 of Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E.
Affected Environment Methodology
Section 106 Consultation
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that prior to conducting activities classified
as federal undertakings, the effects of undertakings on historic resources must be taken into account and
comments from the public, consulting parties, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO, locally
known as the Texas Historical Commission [THC]), and the ACHP shall be considered. The steps in the
106 process consists of 1) initiating the 106 process by determining a federal undertaking and identifying
potential consulting parties 2) identifying the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project and historic
properties within the APE; 3) assessing the effects of a federal undertaking on historic resources; and 4)
consultation and commitment to mitigation to resolve any adverse effects. The following sections identify
the consultation efforts for Steps 1 and 2 related to the affected environment of the TEX Rail study area.
Steps 3 and 4 are discussed in the impacts section below. Section 106 Consultation letters referenced in
this section are contained in Appendix C: Agency Coordination and Agreements.
Step 1, initiation of the 106 process and the identification of potential consulting parties, was initiated in a
letter to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Fort Worth T on June 14, 2007 and a letter dated
October 4, 2007 to the THC in which The T, on behalf of the FTA, identified that the TEX Rail project as
a potential federal undertaking and initiated the Section 106 Process. Consulting party requests were sent
on September 4, 2008 to invite individual Native American Tribes (Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Caddo
Nation of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Kialegee
Tribal Town, Kickapoo of Kansas, Kickapoo of Oklahoma, Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, Kiowa
Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Pokagon Band of
Potawatomi Indians of Michigan, The Delaware Nation, Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, and
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes) known to inhabit or formerly inhabit the TEX Rail study area to participate
in the project. The Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma requested further consultation in the event of an
inadvertent discovery of human remains, funerary objects, or other evidence of historical or cultural
significance. After THC concurrence with the historic survey report and more detailed engineering
additional consulting party requests were sent out on July 15, 2012 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. These
requests are also contained in Appendix C: Agency Coordination and Agreements. Step 2, Identification
and evaluation of historic resources consultation consists of first determining the APE and then
identifying the resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NHRP. These consultation steps
occurred for both historic and archeological resources.
TEX Rail
B.6-1
Historic Resources




The initial APE and survey methods were provided to the THC on October 4, 2007. On
November 1, 2007, the THC requested an APE for the project alignment of 1,300 feet on either
side of all new proposed right-of-way (ROW) sections and 500 feet on either side of the
alignment within the existing railroad ROW sections. An additional request to the THC for the
establishment of an APE for historic resources investigations within the station locations was
initiated on March 12, 2008 and the THC concurred on April 14, 2008. At that time, the APE for
historic resources was established by the THC as the existing freight rail ROW plus 250
additional feet on either side of the ROW and a radius of 1,300 additional feet around the stations.
It was determined by the THC to adopt a larger APE in order to determine which rail route and
station locations would have the least impact on cultural resources.
Due to further project definition, project alignment and station location changes that occurred
between the DEIS and the FEIS, consultation with the THC on the historic resources component
of the project was re-coordinated for a new project APE encompassing the project changes. The
coordination was initiated on March 28, 2012 and the THC concurred with the modification to the
APE on May 13, 2012. The APE for historic resources was agreed upon by the parties as 175 feet
on either side of the updated proposed rail ROW and the APE for station locations included the
station footprint and all immediately abutting parcels.
The historic-age reconnaissance survey report was submitted to the THC on April 11, 2013. On
May 30, 2013, SHPO concurred with the determinations of NRHP-eligibility in the report and
considers this draft report to be the final version (Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey of
The Fort Worth Transportation Authority TEX Rail Corridor, Tarrant County, Texas). This report
documented all built resources that are at least 45 years of age from the 2016 construction date of
1971 or older; and each individual historic-age tract house within a neighborhood development
located within the APE. Railroad resources have been identified as contributing or noncontributing to the historic significance of the associated rail line.
The historic-age Determinations of Effects (DOE) report was submitted to the THC on August 5,
2013 and SHPO concurred with the determinations in the report on August 14, 2013. This report
documents the effects to historic-age resources and any proposed mitigation.
Archeological Resources



The initial APE and survey methods were provided to the THC on October 4, 2007. The APE for
archeology was established as the existing freight rail ROW, any newly acquired ROW, and
potential staging areas for construction equipment. The THC also concurred with the
recommendation of no further work within the current freight rail ROW. On November 1, 2007,
the THC concurred with the APE for archeology and the survey methods.
A literature review was conducted for the study area of 1,000 m (3,621 ft.) surrounding APE of
the project area per THC guidelines. This review entails a review of the Texas Historic Sites
Atlas (THSA) and the Texas Archeological Sites Atlas (TASA), databases that are maintained by
the THC.
The archeological resources component of the project was also re-coordinated with the THC in
2012. Modifications to the project design have occurred based on coordination efforts with FTA,
FAA, and other stakeholders including municipalities and the host railroads. The modifications
resulted in re-coordination in April 2012 (with THC comments in May) reducing the number of
station locations to fourteen, with the APE remaining to be limited to the footprint of the station
locations and newly acquired ROW. Additional modifications further reducing the number of
stations resulted in additional coordination, which was documented in a letter submitted by The T
to the THC in July 2012 (with THC concurrence on August 20, 2012). Re-coordination with the
THC was initiated again on December 19, 2012, completed on January 16, 2013, due to
TEX Rail
B.6-2

additional modifications to station footprints, additional ROW included in the design, and the reestablishment of the original fourteen station locations from the April 2012 coordination.
Appendix C: Agency Coordination and Agreements contains correspondence with the THC.
The draft archeological resources intensive survey report was submitted to the THC on June 24,
2013. Comments were received from the THC on September 4, 2013, with the final report
Archaeological Resources Intensive Survey of the Fort Worth Transportation Authority TEX Rail
Corridor, Tarrant County, Texas being submitted on October 25, 2013.
Data Collection
Historic Resources
Archival documentation was reviewed to identify known historic-age resources. These documents
include, but are not limited to:
 Previously published reports, records, maps, survey documents, and historic-age resources files
obtained from the THC’s THSA website, the University of Texas at Austin (UT), and
 The NRHP and the TASA.
In addition, various institutions, libraries, archives, and federal, state, and local agencies have been
consulted. A field survey has been conducted to identify any additional historic-age resources within the
project APE and was completed in July 2008. Fieldwork for the second historic-age resources
coordination was completed in May 2013.
Review of archival documentation was completed to identify known prehistoric and historic sites
resources within the APE. These documents include, but are not limited to:
 Previously published reports, records, maps, survey documents, and the archeological site files
obtained from the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL), and
 The NRHP, State Antiquities Landmark (SAL) files, and the TASA website.
In addition, various institutions, libraries, archives, and federal, state, and local agencies have been
consulted. Archeological field surveys have also been conducted to identify any additional resources
within the project APE. The initial archeological survey was performed in January 2008 in the areas of
the project where right-of-entry (ROE) was obtained. The 2012 fieldwork began in August and completed
in February 2013. Definitions of these methodologies can be found in Chapter 26, Rules of Practice and
Procedure of the Antiquities Code of Texas.
Impact Evaluation Methodology
Impacts were determined for archeological and historic resources within the project APE. In order to
qualify for placement in the NRHP, a site, building, structure or object must meet certain criteria for
historical significance on a national, state, or local level and must retain sufficient historical integrity to
display that significance (National Park Service [NPS], 1997). Standing structures may be significant
under one or more of three criteria:
(1) The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture is present in
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and;
(a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of your history; or
(b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in your past; or
(c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
that represent the work of a master, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction [36 CFR§60.4].
TEX Rail
B.6-3
The seven aspects of integrity defined by the NPS for use assessing in National Register eligibility were
applied to the evaluation of the integrity of historic-age resources. These seven aspects are integrity of
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The level of integrity required for the NRHP eligibility is different for each of the three NRHP Criteria of
Significance. If a resource is being assessed for significance because of its association with an event, then
integrity of setting, feeling, and association are more important. If being assessed for significance as an
example of design, then integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship are more important.
These criteria have been discussed at length in previous documents (See How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation) (NPS, 1997).
Efforts to assess the effects of the alternatives were completed as defined in Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 , as amended (16 U.S.C. 470f), Executive Order 11593 on the
Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, and the Texas Administrative Code (Sections
191.002, 191.051 and 191.09 through 191.094). These regulations identify the requirements for assessing
the potential for adverse effects to historic and archeological resources. Treatment of these resources is
further guided by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations: “Protection of Historic
Properties” (36 CFR§800). If projects are federally permitted, licensed, funded or partially funded,
Section 106 of the 1966 NHPA applies, requiring federal agencies to evaluate the project’s effects on
historic properties. Under Section 106, any property listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP is
considered historic; such properties may be buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts, or archeological
resources.
In order to further comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, any effects of the proposed undertaking on
historic and archeological properties listed in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register
must be analyzed by applying the Criteria of Adverse Effect [36 CFR§800.5(a)],)] as follows:
(2) An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the
characteristics of a historic and archeological property that qualify the property for inclusion in
the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all
qualifying characteristics of a historic and archeological property, including those that may have
been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the NRHP.
Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may
occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.
(3) Examples of adverse effects. Adverse effects on historic and archeological properties include, but
are not limited to:
(d) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; alteration of a property,
including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material
remediation and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s
Standards for the treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR§68) and applicable guidelines;
(e) Removal of the property from its historic location;
(f) Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s
setting that contribute to its historic significance;
(g) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the
property’s significant historic features;
(h) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and
deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an
Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and
(i) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and
legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the
property’s historic significance.
TEX Rail
B.6-4
B.6.2
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Southwest Fort Worth to DFW Airport
Historic Resources
Historic Context
The APE (i.e., study area) for historic-age resources is contained within portions of Tarrant County,
specifically within the Cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, Watauga, North Richland Hills, Hurst,
Colleyville, and Grapevine. Additionally, portions of the FWWR, UPPR, BNSF, and the DART-owned
Cotton Belt Railroad Corridor all operate in the study area. A brief history of each of these cities and the
railroads are presented below.
Fort Worth
In 1849, after initial settlement of the area by several hundred emigrant families, Brevet Major Ripley S.
Arnold chose a site at the confluence of the Clear Fork and West Fork of the Trinity River as the site for a
military post. The post, named Camp Worth, was renamed later that year to Fort Worth after construction
of several large buildings. The post and buildings, abandoned by the military in 1853, were quickly
converted by the settlers into a hotel, a general store, and a doctor’s office (Wade 2012). Fort Worth’s
early developments were John Peter Smith’s school in 1854, Henry Daggett and Archibald Leonard’s
department store (1856), and Julian Field’s general store and flour mill (1856). Farming was the main
economic activity in the area, which drew more settlers after the post closed. By 1860, Tarrant County
had a population of 6,000 with 450 people living in the Fort Worth community. As the western terminus
for the Butterfield Overland Mail and the Southern Pacific Stage Line, the area experienced significant
growth. After being named the county seat in April 1860 construction began on a stone county
courthouse. The Civil War delayed construction, but the courthouse was completed in the early 1870s and
burned in 1876 (Schmeizer 2012).
Although Fort Worth and Tarrant County were prospering, the Civil War had a devastating impact on the
area. The population of Fort Worth dropped below 200 due to money, food, and supply shortages (Wade
2012). The community’s recovery began with the post-Civil War development of the cattle industry. Fort
Worth became known as “Cowtown” and prospered as a stopping point for cowboys on overland cattle
drives to Abilene, Kansas. Cattle buyers from the north established their headquarters in the town and
new businesses thrived. The city was incorporated in 1873 with a mayor-council government and W.P.
Burts became the first mayor. Railways enabled further development of Fort Worth. The Texas and
Pacific Railway (T&P) was extended to Fort Worth on July 19, 1876 creating the eastern terminus of the
route from San Diego, California. The Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad (MKT); the Fort Worth,
Corsicana and Beaumont; the Santa Fe (SFRR); the Fort Worth and New Orleans (FW&NO); the Fort
Worth and Rio Grande; the Fort Worth and Denver City; and the St. Louis & Southwestern (SSW) (now
known as the Cotton Belt Route) railways reached the town by the turn of the twentieth century
(Schmeizer 2012).
By the late 1800s, community leaders campaigned to reap more economic gain from the cattle industry by
entertaining the idea of establishing a meat packing plant in Fort Worth. Unfortunately, this plan was
delayed for a time because the refrigerated train car had not been perfected. By 1902, the idea was
revisited and funds were raised for a facility to entice a major meat packing business to the area. Both
Swift and Armour companies from Chicago responded and built facilities in North Fort Worth. The cattle
and meat packing industries drove the economy of Fort Worth until the late 1910s and early 1920s, when
oil fields were discovered in north and west Texas (Wade 2012).
In 1911, oil was discovered on W.T. Waggoner’s ranch near Wichita Falls. This was followed by
discoveries at the Ranger fields (1917), Desdemona and Breckenridge (1918), and Permian Basin (19211929). Fort Worth was the largest city nearest to the fields and was able to accommodate the demands of
TEX Rail
B.6-5
a new industry. Oil companies, suppliers, and laborers began locating to the area, which led to an increase
to the city’s population to 163,000 by 1930 (Wade 2012).
Concomitant with the flurry of railroad building, meat packing and cattle buying businesses including the
Texas Dressed Beef and Packing Company, the Union Stockyards Company, the Fort Worth Stockyards
Company, Armour and Company, and Swift and Company established themselves around the stockyards.
The location of the Armour and Company and Swift and Company in north Fort Worth helped the city
become a leading packing house center (Schmeizer 2012).
Haltom City
Haltom City is located four miles northeast of Fort Worth on U.S. Highway 377 in central Tarrant
County. Establishment of the city occurred in the mid-1940s. By 1976 Haltom City had a population of
29,400 and 35 factories, which produced goods including sheet metal products, clothing, fiberglass, and
plastics. In 1990 the population increased to 31,856 and 60 manufacturing plants were located within its
city limits. In 2000, the city’s population was 39,018 (Hart 2012a).
Watauga
Watauga is located ten miles northwest of Fort Worth on U.S. Highway 377 in northern Tarrant County.
Cherokee Indians who came to the area searching for game, fields, and water supply named the area
Watauga, meaning “village of many springs.” Early settlers from Tennessee arrived in the area in 1843
and within 20 years, organized the first Church of Watauga, followed by the construction of the Willow
Springs Presbyterian Church in 1867. (Hart 2012b; City of Watauga 2012). The area became a
recognizable community when the T&P railroad extended its tracks into the community in 1877 and
constructed a railroad depot. Watauga was then connected to Fort Worth and the entire United States by
rail. The settlement was organized in 1881. Watauga had a population of 1,012 in the mid-1960s and grew
to 7,050 residents by 1976. In 1990, 20,009 residents occupied the area (Hart 2012a).
Zion (Smithfield)
Smithfield, in north central Tarrant County, was probably established before 1870 and was originally
called Zion. The community of Zion began near a Zion church established about 1858 by William and
Mary Tucker at the junction of Watauga and Smithfield Roads located approximately one-half mile south
of present day Smithfield. In 1875, land was donated for the construction of a new church building by Eli
and Sally Smith and in 1887 the community name was changed to Smithfield. In 1887, the SSW (or the
Cotton Belt Route) completed tracks a quarter-mile south of Zion and the community gradually moved to
the railroad location. The original location of Zion near the church was eventually abandoned. In 1900,
the population of Smithfield grew to 197 and continued growing through the 1940s to approximately 350
residents. The community, as well as portions of the old downtown development and the Smithfield
Cemetery, is located along Main Street, Davis Boulevard, and Smithfield Road and were annexed into
North Richland Hills in 1958 (Hart 2012b; Young 1979:69).
North Richland Hills
North Richland Hills is located eight miles west of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on state
highways 26, 183 and 820 in northeastern Tarrant County. The area remained agricultural until Clarence
Jones developed a residential area on his dairy farm and named it North Richland Hills in 1952 (City of
North Richland Hills 2012). On April 25, 1953, the city was incorporated. The population reached 7,000
by 1958 and rose to 38,959 in 1990 (Dunkelberg 2012).
Hurst
Hurst is located just north of Fort Worth on state highways 121 and 10 in northeast Tarrant County.
Farmers from Tennessee and Indiana began settling the area in the mid-1840s (Green 2012). William L.
Hurst and his family moved to the area in 1870, the typically cited date of establishment for the
community of Hurst (City of Hurst 2012). The community was first named Ormel, but the name was
changed to Hurst in 1909. Population levels were low until the mid-1900s. In 1950, Old State Highway
TEX Rail
B.6-6
183 (now State Highway 10) was paved and in 1951 Bell Aircraft announced plans to build a plant in
Hurst. Hurst was incorporated by a 36 to 24 vote in 1951. By 1980, the population of Hurst reached
31,400 and in 2000 the population was 36,273 (Green 2012).
Colleyville
Dr. H. H. Colley was a physician from Missouri that settled in the area in 1880. In 1914 Walter Couch
bought two acres from Dr. Colley and established a store at the intersection of the present day Bransford
and Smithfield roads. As the only store located between Grapevine and Birdville, the area gradually
became known as Coleysville and later as Colleyville. The St. Louis, Arkansas, and Texas Railway (later
the SSW) extended tracks through the area in the late 1800s (City of Colleyville 2012; Johnson 2012).
Colleyville’s mid-twentieth century development can more directly be attributed to its proximity to the
Fort Worth job market. Colleyville’s earliest reported population figures are from 1936, when 25 people
resided in the area. The town established a post office in 1954 and incorporated on January 10, 1956 (City
of Colleyville 2012). By 2000, the population grew to 19,636 (Johnson 2012). Colleyville currently
encompasses the original settlements of Pleasant Run, Pleasant Glade, Bransford, and Old Union (City of
Colleyville 2012).
Grapevine
Settled in the late 1840s by Archibald Leonard and others from Platte County, Missouri, Grapevine is
located approximately 19 miles from both Fort Worth and Dallas in the northeast corner of Tarrant
County. Leonard operated a store on his land, which was near the location of what would become the
town square. About ten years later, James Tracy Morehead, A.F. Leonard, and Henry Suggs met to lay
out the community and establish a post office. Despite the town being called several different names, the
post office was always known as either Grape Vine or Grapevine. It is believed that the town got its name
from the being located on the edge of the Grape Vine Prairie or for the numerous grapevines found in the
area. In 1858 a new post office was located within the general store, operated by Eli Mathis Jenkins. By
the 1890s, the town of approximately 800 residents had a Masonic Lodge, a school, four churches, three
gristmills and cotton gins, and a newspaper. In 1907, a petition to incorporate the community was filed
and approved by the citizens (National Park Service 1998).
By 1914, the post office officially changed the spelling of the town to “Grapevine.” In 1923, the town of
Grapevine became known as the City of Grapevine as recognized by the Texas civil statues. The
population at that time was 1,200 residents, but by 1925, the population declined to 821. The town
officially incorporated in 1936 (Young 2012).
The arrival of the railroad boosted the local population and allowed Grapevine to become a regional trade
and shipping hub. In 1888, the St. Louis Arkansas and Texas Railway Company (SLA&T) (aka the
Cotton Belt Railroad) reached Grapevine and built the depot and Section House in order to connect Fort
Worth and Texarkana. In 1916, six passenger and twelve freight trains passed through Grapevine. The rail
line decreased in traffic to two trains by 1923. Passenger trains heading to Fort Worth were discontinued
and passenger trains between Addison and Fort Worth provided service, stopping in Grapevine. With the
decline of passenger traffic, the section foreman’s house was sold and moved to Hall-Johnson Road in
1957. In 1959, the depot was moved east of South Main Street in order to accommodate the straightening
of the road. As a result of the move, the depot was shortened in length. The depot officially closed in
1972, since the Cotton Belt Railroad removed all inactive railroad stations on its line, and was relocated
to Heritage Park on Ball Street in order to serve as a museum. Twenty years later the depot was moved to
its original location to serve as the depot for the Tarantula Train (later known as the Grapevine Vintage
Railroad). Although the Section House was moved from its original location in 1957 and used as a
residence unassociated with the railroad, it was relocated to its current location in 1992 restoring its
integrity of association and setting (City of Grapevine 2012).
Texas and Pacific Railroad (T&P)
TEX Rail
B.6-7
The Texas and Pacific Railroad (T&P) was the only railroad in Texas and one of the few in the United
States that operated under a federal charter. The U.S. Congress granted a charter to the Texas Pacific
Railroad Company on March 3, 1871 in order to build a southern transcontinental railroad between
Marshall, Texas and San Diego, California. The Texas Legislature recognized the federal charter and
authorized the company to purchase the Southern Trans-Continental Company and the Southern Pacific
Railroad Company (both originally chartered by the state of Texas). In 1872, Congress changed the name
to the Texas and Pacific Railway Company (Werner 2013a). Construction of various lines totaling 125
miles in length between Longview and Dallas, Texas were completed by 1873. An additional 74 miles
between Marshall and Texarkana were completed by December 1873 (Werner 2013a). The T&P
continued construction, adding an additional 44 miles of line from Dallas (Eagle Ford) to Fort Worth by
July 19, 1876 (Reed 1981:363-364).
Livestock brought up from central and southern Texas and from the western Plains to the cattle markets
of Fort Worth were now driven to the railhead in Dallas, bypassing Abilene and other more northern
shipping points. Before the rail to Fort Worth had been completed, the cattle drive to the Dallas railhead
was difficult as there was no bridge or easy ford across the Trinity River between Dallas and Fort Worth.
Owing to these difficulties, the T&P extension of its tracks into Fort Worth became the first railroad to
enter the city (Reed 1981:363–364).
Fort Worth and Denver City Railway Company (FW&DC)
The FW&DC was first commissioned in 1873 as a new line to extend from Fort Worth to the Texas state
line where it would connect with a future line extending south from Denver, Colorado. The project was
delayed by the Panic of 1873 and did not commence until 1881 by agreement between Jay Gould and
General Dodge, who had just completed the T&P. The FW&DC was initially comprised of seven separate
rail roads:
 Fort Worth and Denver Northern
 Fort Worth and Denver South Plains
 Fort Worth and Denver Terminal
 Wichita Valley
 Abilene and Northern
 Stamford and Northwestern, and
 Wichita Falls & Oklahoma.
The FW&DC was completed as the central link in a railroad from Denver to the Gulf of Mexico. The
three Fort Worth rail roads were leased to the FW&DC. The FW&DC reached Wichita Falls by 1882 and
the Texas state line at Texline in 1888. Although reorganized in 1895 under the same name, controlling
interest in the rail road had been acquired by Union Pacific (UP). The UP was placed into receivership in
1898 and the FW&DC was sold to the Colorado and Southern Railway Company and then later
purchased by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF). In 1925, the road negotiated track usage
between Fort Worth and Dallas with the Rock Island Railway. By 1940, BNSF owned 1,031 miles of
track in Texas and was headquartered in Fort Worth (Reed 1981:393–401).
Chicago Rock Island and Texas Railway Company (CRI&T)
The Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad was originally incorporated in Illinois on February 27,
1847 as the Rock Island and La Salle Railroad. In 1851, the charter was amended to change the name to
the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad (C & RI). Construction of the railroad began at the end of 1851 and
the next year, the first trains between Chicago and Joliet began operating. By 1854, construction of the
line linked Chicago to Rock Island, making this the first railroad to connect Chicago with the Mississippi
River (Rock Island Technical Society [RITS] 2013; Werner 2013b).
TEX Rail
B.6-8
In March 1887, Congress granted a charter for the right to extend the Rock Island through Indian
Territory and through Texas to the port at Galveston. In 1892, the Rock Island completed a line through
Kansas through the Oklahoma Territory to the Red River. To construct a railroad into Texas, the company
needed another charter. This charter was granted on July 15, 1892 to the Chicago, Rock Island and Texas
Railway to build a rail line from the Red River south into Texas through Montague County to
Weatherford in Parker County. This line linked Texas to Chicago through St. Joseph and Kansas City,
Missouri. A year later the charter was amended to extend the line east to Fort Worth and on to Dallas. The
railroad reached Fort Worth on August 1, 1893, giving the Rock Island 91 miles of track in Texas. By
1895, earnings included $89,638 in passenger revenue and $325,378 in freight revenue (Reed 1981; RITS
2013; Werner 2013c).
Fort Worth Stockyards Belt Railway Company
The T&P operated extensive terminal lines in most large cities on its route with the exception of the Fort
Worth Stockyards Belt Railway Company, which was organized in 1895. This line was operated as a
separate terminal from the T&P and was owned by the Fort Worth Stockyards Company. The line
operated as a plant facility and switching company between large meat, provision, grain, and produce
companies and the T&P line. The line operated about three miles of main track and 15 miles of siding and
yard track and principally served the Armour and Swift Packing Companies built in 1902. In 1903 the
railroad was renamed the Fort Worth Belt Railway Company. In a 1931 ruling by the Supreme Court, the
Stockyards were ordered to divest their interest in rail holdings. The Fort Worth Belt was sold the
following year to the T&P, which bought a 60 percent interest, and the Missouri Pacific Railroad bought
the remaining 40 percent interest (Reed 1981:369–370).
Fort Worth & Western Railroad (FWWR)
Seeking to gain trackage in the Fort Worth area from the Burlington Northern Railroad Company, the
Fort Worth and Western Railroad Company was chartered on May 13, 1988. Prior to its merger into the
Burlington Northern, the track was owned by the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad Company. In October
1988 the company began operating over 6.5 miles of track controlled by the Tarantula Corporation. The
Tarantula Train (Grapevine Vintage Railroad) is an excursion passenger train that operates open coaches
on the Fort Worth and Western between Eighth Avenue and the Fort Worth Stockyards, extending to
Grapevine (Cravens 2012).
Union Pacific Railroad (UP)
The Union Pacific Railroad in and around Fort Worth originally operated as the Fort Worth and Denver
City Railway. This line was the first to enter Northwest Texas, and thus contributed significantly to the
area’s growth, specifically in agriculture. The line furnished plant seed for experimental plots of private
lands, urged the introduction of cotton to the plains country, and kept farmers in business during the
1890s drought years by providing them with free seed. Service between Fort Worth and Denver began on
April 1, 1888 and during that year stock control of the rail was acquired by the Denver, Texas and Fort
Worth Railroad. The Denver, Texas and Fort Worth then became part of the Union Pacific, Denver and
Gulf Railway Company. The line serviced Fort Worth and the surrounding area, transporting necessary
goods and contributing to the area’s development (Billingsley 2012).
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF)
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway operated as a portion of the Burlington System, the name
commonly used for the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company. The Chicago, Burlington
and Quincy; the Great Northern; the Northern Pacific; and the Pacific Coast merged on March 2, 1970, to
become Burlington Northern, Incorporated. The following year the name was changed to Burlington
Northern Railroad. In 1995, Burlington Northern Railroad and Santa Fe Pacific Corporation merged to
become one of the largest railroad systems in the United States, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway (Werner 2012).
Saint Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW) [aka as the Cotton Belt Route]
TEX Rail
B.6-9
The Saint Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW) line was begun as the Texas and St. Louis
Railway Company (T&SL) in 1879 and intended to tie East Texas cotton fields with the cotton
compresses and warehouses located in St. Louis, Missouri. It quickly became known as the Cotton Belt
Route, although the origin of the name is unknown. The road was reorganized as the St. Louis Arkansas
and Texas Railway Company (SLA&T) in 1886. The 99-mile line from Commerce in East Texas to Fort
Worth was completed in 1888. The portion of the road in Texas was transferred by foreclosure sale in
1891 to the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas with general headquarters and car shops
in Tyler.
The SSW railway company continued to expand throughout East Texas timber lands over the next 25
years. Rail transportation began to decline and branch lines started to be abandoned in the 1930s due to
competition from other railways and the development of trucking companies, but primarily due to the
depletion of Eastern Texas timber, which was a major rail commodity. In 1980, the St. Louis
Southwestern doubled in size when it began operating the former Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific track
from Tucumcari, New Mexico through Dalhart to Kansas City and St. Louis. By 1984, the Texas branch
merged into the parent company of the St. Louis Southwestern (Reed 1981:412-422).
Previous Investigations
A review of the THSA database shows that numerous architectural surveys have been conducted within
and immediately adjacent to the TEX Rail study area APE. The THSA database and the NRHP database
indicate that five historic districts are listed in the NRHP, and six individual historic properties are
NRHP-listed. The state of Texas classifies historic resources which have state significance and these
include Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHL) and historic subject markers. RTHLs are a
designation awarded by the THC for historically and architecturally significant properties in the state of
Texas. The subject markers describe a certain architectural style, significant person in Texas’ past, or an
historical event that occurred in the general location of the marker. While there are seven RTHLs, five of
these are also individually listed NRHP historic properties, as shown in Table B.6-1. Some state resources
are eligible for the NRHP; however, several do not meet national significance. In addition, there are four
RTHL THC medallion and plate markers located within the APE, none of which are eligible for listing in
the NRHP or are considered as an RTHL. All four markers are located on the Fort Worth Public Market
Building, the Fort Worth Main Post Office Building, the Texas & Pacific Terminal Building, and the
Santa Fe Depot, respectively. A THC subject marker, sponsored by the North Fort Worth Historical
Society in 1984, was originally located approximately one-half block southwest of Northeast 28th Street
and Decatur Avenue. This 18 inch by 28 inch marker has since been stolen. No historic-age 1936
Centennial Markers, erected by the State of Texas, are located within the APE of the TEX Rail project.
Current Investigations
A historic-age resources field survey completed in July 2008, recorded all historic-age resources within
the project APE. The resources documented during the initial investigation were built on or before 1962,
as the letting date for the project at the time of consultation with the THC was scheduled for 2012. The
initial survey documented a total of 4,070 historic-age architectural and engineering resources.
In October 2008, the initial Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey of the Fort Worth Transportation
Authority Rail Corridor was submitted for review by the THC. Of the 4,070 resources evaluated, there
were 31 individual historic-age resources, three historic districts, six historic-age subdivisions, and five
railroad districts recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The THC reviewed the reconnaissance
survey report and provided initial comments in January 2009.
Due to further project delineation, project alignment and station location changes that occurred between
the DEIS and the FEIS, the historic-age resources component of the project was re-coordinated with the
THC for a new project APE. The consultation was initiated on March 28, 2012 and completed on May 13,
2012. Consultation letters with the THC are contained in Appendix C: Agency Coordination and
Agreements. The 2012 APE for historic-age resources was established by the THC as the following:
TEX Rail
B.6-10
 175 feet on either side of the updated proposed freight rail ROW, and
 the station footprint and all immediately adjacent parcels at each proposed station location.
In addition, all historic-age resources within the APE that are at least 45 years of age from the date of
2016 (construction date of 1971 or older) have been recorded, and each individual historic-age residence
within the project APE in a residential development has been recorded. Railroad resources have been
identified as contributing or non-contributing to the historic significance of the associated rail line. The
historic-age survey of the project APE resulting from the change in project alignment and station
locations documented a total of 638 historic-age architectural and engineering resources, a decrease of
3,486 historic-age resources from the 2008 survey. Of the 638 recorded historic-age resources within the
APE, four individual resources, one complex, and two districts are currently listed in the NRHP. Four
historic resources are listed as RTHL. Nine individual historic-age resources are recommended eligible
for inclusion in the NRHP, six neighborhoods are recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and
eighteen individual resources associated with three historic railroad line thematic corridors are
recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as contributing resources to their specific railroad
thematic corridor. The historic-age reconnaissance survey report, that identifies the protected historic
resources, was submitted to the THC on April 11, 2013. The THC has reviewed the Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey of The Fort Worth Transportation Authority TEX Rail Corridor, Tarrant County,
Texas report and provided concurrence on May 30, 2013 (see Appendix C: Agency Coordination and
Agreements).
TEX Rail
B.6-11
Table B.6-1: Known Historic Resources
Location
Old Granbury Road,
Columbus Trail
2500 block, Decatur
Avenue, Fort Worth
Name & Date of
Construction
Dutch Branch Ranch, ca.
1935
Fort Worth Cotton Oil
Company-Seed House, ca.
1900
1001-1616 Elizabeth
Boulevard, Fort Worth
Elizabeth Boulevard
Historic District, 1929
Roughly bounded by
Magnolia, Hemphill,
Eighth and Jessamine,
Fort Worth
Fairmount-Southside
Historic District, 18751899; 1900-1924; 19251949
Lights/Streetlights at 1900
block, Ben Hall Court,
Berkeley Place, ca. 19261928
1900 Block, Ben Hall
Court, Berkeley Place,
Fort Worth
THC
Historic
RTHL
Surveys Markers Designation
Commuter Rail Alternative
NRHP
Designation
THC Neighborhood Survey. Serial #NRS8213872*, adjacent to the TEX Rail ROW.
THC Neighborhood Survey. Serial #NRS8214159*, approximately 665 feet away from
the TEX Rail ROW.
National Register Historic District, Reference
#79003010, approximately 100 feet away
from the TEX Rail ROW.
X
--
--
--
X
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
--
--
--
X
#90000490, approximately 360 feet away
from the TEX Rail ROW.
X
--
--
--
the TEX Rail ROW.
2016 Pembroke Drive,
Fort Worth
Stinson House, 1924
X
--
--
--
Fort Worth
Martin House, 1923
X
--
--
--
Fort Worth
Greer House, 1924
X
--
--
--
1901 Ben Hall Court,
Fort Worth
Llewllyn House, 1922
X
--
--
--
2102-2110 West
Magnolia Avenue, Fort
Worth
Residences at 2102-2110
West Magnolia Avenue,
ca. 1925
X
--
--
--
2100 West Magnolia
Avenue, Fort Worth
Residence at 2100 West
Magnolia Avenue, 1925
X
--
--
--
TEX Rail
Comments
B.6-12
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
Location
2101-2109 Mistletoe
Name & Date of
Construction
Residences at 2101-2109
Mistletoe Boulevard, 1940;
1942
THC
Surveys
Historic
Markers
RTHL
Designation
NRHP
Designation
X
--
--
--
Comments
the TEX Rail ROW.
Recorded Texas Historic Landmark*,
approximately 90 feet away from the TEX
Rail ROW.
Recorded Texas Historic Landmark*,
approximately 110 feet away from the TEX
Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
THC Neighborhood Survey. Serial #NRS7921694*, approximately 90 feet away from the
TEX Rail ROW.
600 South Eighth
Street, Fort Worth
Mitchell-Schoonover
House, 1907
--
--
X
--
1509 Pennsylvania
Avenue, Fort Worth
Thistle Hill, 1903
--
--
X
--
300-400 blocks, South
Summit Avenue, Fort
Worth
Summit Avenue Viaduct,
1932-1933
X
--
--
--
1810-1814 Eighth
Avenue, Fort Worth
Brentmore Apartments,
1928
X
--
--
--
1701 Summit Avenue,
Fort Worth
Mrs. Baird’s Bakery, 19371938
X
--
--
--
300 Lake Street, Fort
Worth
Residence at 300 Lake
Street, 1905
X
--
--
--
1200-1300 blocks,
West Vickery
Blvd/100-200 blocks,
South Ballinger Street
Vickery BoulevardBallinger Street overpass
X
--
--
--
TEX Rail ROW.
1400 Henderson Street,
Fort Worth
Fort Worth Public Market,
1930
X
National Register Historic Property,
Reference #84001981, Recorded Texas
Historic Landmark*, approximately 270 feet
away from the TEX Rail ROW.
--
--
X
Commuter Rail and Commuter Rail MOS Alternatives
Lancaster and
Throckmorton Streets,
Fort Worth
Texas and Pacific Terminal
Complex, 1930
--
--
X
X
Reference #78002983; Recorded Texas
Historic Landmark*, adjacent to the TEX Rail
ROW.
1300-1400 Blocks
North Jennings, Fort
Worth
Jennings Avenue
Underpass, 1930-1931
X
--
--
--
THC Neighborhood Survey. Serial #NRS8222819*, adjacent to the TEX Rail ROW.
TEX Rail
B.6-13
Location
Name & Date of
Construction
THC
Surveys
Historic
Markers
RTHL
Designation
NRHP
Designation
251 West Lancaster,
Fort Worth
U. S. Post Office, 1933
--
--
X
X
221 West Lancaster,
Fort Worth
Texas and Pacific Railroad
Station, Terminal and
Office Building, ca. 19301931
X
--
X
X
1601 Jones Street, Fort
Worth
Gulf, Colorado, Santa Fe
Railroad Passenger
Station/Santa Fe Depot, ca.
1899
X
--
X
X
801 Grove Street, Fort
Worth
Montgomery Ward &
Company Building/ Tindall
Storage Warehouse
--
--
--
X
Worth
Coller Building/
Warehouse, ca. 1895
X
--
--
--
Worth
Commercial Building at
816 Grove Street, ca. 1930
--
--
--
1100 block East Fourth
Street, Fort Worth
Residence at 1100 block
East Fourth Street, 1916
X
--
--
--
1008 East Fourth
Street, Fort Worth
Residence at 1008 East
Fourth Street, 1915
X
--
--
--
1109 East Fourth
Street, Fort Worth
Fourth Street, 1905
X
--
--
--
1501 East Fourth
Street, Fort Worth
Ralston Purina Company
X
--
--
--
TEX Rail
X
B.6-14
Comments
THC Neighborhood Survey. Serial #NRS8223053*, National Register Historic Property,
THC Neighborhood Survey. Serial #NRS7921691*; National Register Historic Property,
Reference # 7010480037, Recorded Texas
Historic Landmark*, adjacent to the TEX Rail
ROW.
Reference #1415, adjacent to the TEX Rail
ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
THC
Surveys
Historic
Markers
RTHL
Designation
NRHP
Designation
Third Street, 1905
X
--
--
--
Residence at 1500 Block
East Bluff and Live Oak,
ca. 1895
X
--
--
--
1515 Peach Street, Fort
Worth
Residence at 1515 Peach
Street, 1900
X
--
--
--
408 Diamond Street,
Fort Worth
Residence at 408 Diamond
Street, 1895
X
--
--
--
410 East Weatherford,
Fort Worth
Roughly bounded by
23rd, Houston, and 28th
Streets, and railroad,
Fort Worth
1400 Block NE 28th
Street (in Old Trail
Driver’s Park), Fort
Worth
NE 28th Street and
Decatur Avenue
6529 Smithfield Road,
Texas State Teachers
Association Building, 1930
--
X
--
--
Fort Worth Stockyards
Historic District, 19001924
--
--
--
X
#76002067, bordering the TEX Rail ROW.
Old Trail Driver’s Park
Shelter, 1935-1937
X
--
--
--
the TEX Rail ROW.
Mitchell Cemetery, 1848
--
X
--
--
--
X
--
--
X
--
--
--
Location
Third Street, Fort
Worth
1500 Block East Bluff
and Live Oak, Fort
Worth
8021 Main Street,
Name & Date of
Construction
Smithfield Church of
Christ, 1888
Smithfield General
Merchandise/Smithfield
Feed and Garden, 1926;
1957-1958
8201 Main Street,
Walker House, ca. 1889,
1930
X
--
--
--
408 Shelton Drive,
Colleyville
John R. Webb House, 1914
X
--
--
--
TEX Rail
B.6-15
Comments
the TEX Rail ROW.
TEX Rail ROW.
TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
Historical Marker # 1956*, approximately
100 feet away from the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
Location
Name & Date of
Construction
THC
Surveys
RTHL
Designation
NRHP
Designation
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Comments
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
7005 Colleyville
Boulevard, Colleyville
James Forbes Farm, ca.
1890
2008 Joan McCain
Road, Colleyville
Harvey Forbes House,
1920-1926
X
627 Church Street,
Grapevine
Residence at Church
Street, 1888
X
Ira E. Woods Avenue,
Grapevine
Farmers and Merchants
Milling Company/B&D
Mills, ca. 1902
X
--
--
--
121 East College Street,
Grapevine
Frank Estill House, ca.
1905
X
--
--
--
Cotton Belt Railroad
Industrial Historic District,
ca. 1908
--
--
--
X
Original Town Residential
Historic District,
ca. 1917
--
--
--
X
Grapevine
Clarence Stewart House,
ca. 1915
X
--
--
--
Grapevine
Robert Morrow House,
1927
X
--
--
--
Grapevine
Dr. Thomas Benton Dorris
House, 1896
X
--
--
--
Grapevine
Dr. O. O. Hollingsworth
House, ca. 1908
X
--
--
--
Along Railroad Tracks,
roughly bounded by
Hudgins, Dooley, and
Dallas Streets,
Grapevine
Roughly bounded by
Texas, Austin, Hudgins,
and Jenkins Streets,
Grapevine
TEX Rail
X
Historic
Markers
B.6-16
--
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
the TEX Rail ROW.
Location
Name & Date of
Construction
THC
Surveys
Historic
Markers
RTHL
Designation
NRHP
Designation
Grapevine
Mary Lipscomb Wiggins
House, ca. 1905
X
--
--
--
Grapevine
Boone Lipscomb House,
1934
X
--
--
--
Grapevine
L. M. Chaffin House, 1893
X
--
--
--
Comments
THC Neighborhood Survey. Serial # NRS7921968*, approximately 600 feet away from
the TEX Rail ROW.
THC Neighborhood survey. Serial #NRS7921970*, approximately 600 feet away from
the TEX Rail ROW.
THC Neighborhood survey. Serial #NRS7921969*, approximately 600 feet away from
the TEX Rail ROW.
X’s indicate the classification of the resource; dashes indicate that there was no identification of the resource for this classification
Source: THSA, 2013.
TEX Rail
B.6-17
Chronological Setting
The proposed TEX Rail project, fully contained within Tarrant County, lies within the northwestern
portion of the Eastern Archeological Planning Region as defined by the THC (Kenmotsu and Perttula
1993). Specifically, Tarrant County is within the Prairie-Savanna Study Region. Researchers in North
Central Texas have divided the area into four primary chronological periods based on knowledge as
interpreted from the Joe Pool Lake investigations (Peter and McGregor 1988). These four periods are
Paleoindian, Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Protohistoric. A fifth period of Historic has been added to
include the European settlement of the area since 1800. Archeological sites representing any of these
periods may potentially occur within the project study area.
Paleoindian
The Paleoindian period in North Central Texas (ca. 11,000–6,500 B.C.) generally includes the materials
indicative of human presence that can be dated to the very late Pleistocene and the early Holocene
(Hofman 1989; Prikryl 1990; and Story 1990). Projectile point types that can be associated with the
Paleoindian period include Clovis, Folsom, Dalton, Plainview, San Patrice, and Scottsbluff. Prikryl
(1990) suggests that the most common types are Dalton and Plainview. While diagnostic projectile points
have been recorded through surface or stratigraphically mixed contexts, undisturbed Paleoindian
components in the Trinity River valley are rare (Meltzer 1987). The Field Ranch site (X41CO10) along
the upper Elm Fork in Cooke County is a prime example of typical site contexts (Jensen 1968). Clovis,
Folsom, Plainview, and Hell Gap point types have been collected from the surface of the site. However,
excavations at Field Ranch have failed to locate undisturbed artifacts in primary context (Jensen 1968).
The generally low density of Paleoindian artifacts and sites and the tendency for projectile points to be
made from non-local lithic materials have led investigators to believe that these populations were highly
mobile (Lynott 1981:100-101). Megafauna fossil finds within the region suggest that the subsistence
practices of Paleoindian peoples were linked to the slaughtering of mammoth and bison. Kill or
butchering sites, similar to those identified for the Southern Plains, however, have yet to be discovered
(Prikryl 1990, 1993).
Two archeological sites with discrete Paleoindian components have been investigated in North Central
Texas. The Lewisville Lake (41DN71) and the Aubrey sites (41DN479) have produced Clovis points that
date to the early part of the Paleoindian period. These sites are situated in Denton County, just east of the
northern part of the Fort Worth District. The Lewisville Lake site contained 27 hearth features, a sparse
lithic scatter in a near-surface context, and one Clovis point (Crook and Harris 1957, 1958; Story
1990:182-184). The somewhat more spectacular Aubrey site contained chipped stone debitage and Clovis
points buried beneath 8 m of alluvium on the Elm Fork floodplain (Ferring 1989). The discovery of this
site may indicate that undisturbed Paleoindian components will only be found by examining deeply
stratified Holocene alluvium in modern floodplain situations.
The faunal materials recovered from Lewisville Lake and Aubrey tends to indicate that the general
subsistence patterns for Paleoindian groups in North Central Texas differ slightly from those in adjacent
areas. While bison and mammoth dominate the assemblage from kill sites in the Southern Plains, deer and
other small game, such as rabbit, squirrel, fish, and abundant turtle (Ferring 1989; Ferring and Yates
1997) recovered from Lewisville Lake and Aubrey could be interpreted as a more generalized pattern of
foraging (Hofman 1989:31-32). Such a divergence in subsistence patterns may reflect an inherent
adaptability of Clovis technology to changing environmental conditions that were encountered as these
populations spread southeastward into Texas (Ferring and Yates 1997). Other recent investigations in
Texas and elsewhere support the notion that early Paleoindian economies may have varied regionally but
were a flexible pan-continental mechanism of adaptation during the late Pleistocene, which was a time of
rapid environmental change (Tankersley 1998).
TEX Rail
B.6-18
Archaic
The Archaic period in North Central Texas is tentatively dated between 6,500 B.C. –A.D. 700 with a
threefold division of the period consisting of the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic subperiods (Prikryl
1990). The Early Archaic has been dated from roughly 6,500 to 4,000 B.C., the Middle Archaic from
4,000 to 1,500 B.C., and the Late Archaic from 1,500 to 700 B.C. (Hofman 1989; Prikryl 1990; and Story
1985, 1990). Diagnostic artifacts for this period are similar to those found in adjacent regions, although
the development of a sound chronological sequence of diagnostic artifacts has proven difficult because
many of the investigations have focused on surface manifestations. The initial treatment of the Archaic
period in North Central Texas (Crook and Harris 1952, 1954) defined the Carrolton and Elam foci based
on materials recovered from mixed terrace contexts. These constructs are no longer recognized as viable
classifications for this area of Texas (Peter and McGregor 1988; Prikryl 1990; Yates and Ferring 1986).
General trends that have been proposed as characterizing the Archaic period suggest increasingly
complex settlement systems, increasing population size and density, gradually decreasing mobility, and
development of distinct group territories (Prikryl 1990; Story 1985:52). These conditions may have led
Archaic populations of the Cross Timbers and prairie areas of North Central Texas to develop a more
diversified hunting and gathering pattern based on bottomland resources of the rivers and major creeks,
while populations out on the plains focused on bison hunting (Hofman 1989). There is evidence that
Archaic populations used mainly local lithic materials, further suggesting less mobile populations than
were present during Paleoindian times. Less mobility also may suggest refinement of resource use within
more restricted areas. Archaic remains are typically found in upland settings and are often mixed with
later material. Archeological investigations along the West Fork of the Trinity River (Peter and McGregor
1988; Yates and Ferring 1986) suggests that primary contexts for Early and Middle Archaic sites will
most likely be found deeply buried within flood plain alluvium.
During the Early Archaic, the occurrence of small and widely distributed sites has been suggested to
reflect high group mobility within large and poorly defined territories, with a generalized hunting-andgathering economy (Meltzer and Smith 1986; Story 1985:35, 39). Early Archaic occupations in North
Central Texas are poorly known, and no sites with isolated Early Archaic components have been located.
Projectile point forms commonly associated with the Early Archaic in North Central Texas include early
split-stemmed varieties and possibly Angostura (Prikryl 1990; Story 1990).
The Middle Archaic period in North Central Texas is even less-known than the Early Archaic, with fewer
sites known with Middle Archaic-age components than for any other period. The few surface collections
that have been studied include basal-notched points (such as Calf Creek, Bell, and Andice), and Wells,
Dawson, Carrolton, and Bulverde (Prikryl 1990; Story 1990). An intact Middle Archaic component was
identified at the Calvert site (41DN103) at Lake Ray Roberts in Denton County that included a burial,
hearths, and an unmixed assemblage of artifacts and fauna (Ferring and Yates 1997:305). The authors
suggest that the faunal remains indicated that the climate may have been drier, and that the homogeneity
of artifact types with adjacent regions might suggest that Middle Archaic groups enjoyed broader cultural
interactions (Ferring and Yates 1997:305).
The Late Archaic is characterized by an apparent increase in the number of sites, the greater distribution
of sites over the landscape, and evidence of decreased mobility (Prikryl 1990). While population densities
may have reached a peak during this period, group mobility may have become more limited as groups
relied on locally available floral and faunal resources. As groups began to specialize in the procurement
of resources immediately available, mobility and cultural interactions with neighboring groups may have
decreased. This may be reflected in the more diverse tool technologies and subsistence strategies. There
seems to be a greater variety in projectile points associated with the Late Archaic: Castroville, Dallas,
Elam, Ellis, Edgewood, Godley, Gary, Marshall, Palmillas, Trinity, and Yarbrough points (Prikryl 1990;
Story 1990).
The documentation of large pits associated with the Late Archaic period in the Richland Creek and
Chambers Creek drainages (Bruseth and Martin 1987) suggest that important sociopolitical changes may
TEX Rail
B.6-19
have been occurring during this period. Unfortunately the significance of these pits remains an enigma,
despite their excellent documentation. Late Archaic period deposits along the Denton Creek drainage
(Anthony and Brown 1994) suggest an increased reliance on freshwater shellfish, possibly indicating the
decreased availability of large mammals, decreasing territory size, or resource specialization.
Late Prehistoric
Societal changes such as group aggregation and large-scale manipulation of subsistence resources become
apparent at the beginning of, and continue throughout, the Late Prehistoric period. Habitation structures in
some areas may indicate increased sedentism, coupled with the introduction of cultigens such as corn.
The appearance of arrow points and ceramics indicate important technological changes and signal the
start of this period. Both Lynott (1977) and Prikryl (1990) have proposed the division of the Late
Prehistoric period into an early and late phase, based on projectile point type and ceramic type data. The
early phase reflects the continuation of the foraging subsistence pattern while the late phase reflects
influences from the Southern Plains. The early phase, which dates between A.D. 700 and 1200, is
characterized by sand and grog-tempered ceramics and Scallorn, Steiner, Catahoula, and Alba arrow
points (Lynott 1977; Prikryl 1990). Evidence for corn and structures has been found at Mountain Creek
Lake near the Red River (Lorrain 1969; Martin 1994; Peter and McGregor 1988).
The late phase, dating from A.D. 1200 to 1600 is associated with the appearance of Nocona Plain
ceramics of the Henrietta focus and various unstemmed triangular points such as Maud, Fresno, Harrell,
and Washita, and the stemmed Perdiz point (Lynott 1977; Prikryl 1990). Evidence of horticulture and
bison procurement also appears in sites for this period (Harris and Harris 1970; Morris and Morris 1970).
It is at this time that influences from the Southern Plains become more pronounced in the Cross Timbers
and prairie areas. Bison herd sizes are thought to have increased at this time, (Baugh 1986; Prewitt 1981;
Suhm 1957; Yates 1982) leading to an increased reliance on bison for subsistence. This is reflected in
terms of technology with a Plains Indian-type tool assemblage becoming common. This is reflected
further in specialized tools, such as the thumbnail snub-nosed scrapers and alternatively beveled or
Harahey knives. Bison scapula hoes, which also are common in Plains Indian sites, have been recovered
from sites in the Lewisville Lake and Lavon Lake areas of North Central Texas (Barber 1969; Harris
1945). Speth and Scott (1989) suggest that the apparent increase in bison exploitation ca. A.D. 1300 may
not reflect an increase in bison population so much as an increase in the need for high-quality protein as a
result of increasing dependence on maize cultivation, coupled with settlement aggregation. However, the
changes seen in the subsistence strategies of the horticultural societies present in the region could be due
to both an increase in the availability of bison and a concomitant need for high-quality protein from bison
meat (Creel 1991).
Protohistoric
Within North Central Texas, the time from A.D. 1600 to 1800 has been designated the Protohistoric
period. Prior to the founding of New Mexico in 1598, the European presence in the southwest and the
Southern Plains had been sporadic at best. While various French and Spanish contact is reported for the
State of Texas, it was not until nearly the seventeenth century that European influence was a constant in
the region, and not until the nineteenth century that the physical presence of Europeans became
commonplace on the Southern Plains.
Unfortunately, since good historical information is very limited for the upper Trinity River basin during
the Protohistoric period, it is not clear which specific aboriginal groups were residing in North Central
Texas at the beginning of this period. What is clear is that the Protohistoric period in the area was a time
of population fluctuation, movement, and amalgamation (Newcomb 1993). Available data suggests that
the aboriginal occupants of North Central Texas were Caddoan-language speakers, likely members of the
Wichita Confederacy; however Caddo and Kichai occupations were certainly possible. The term
“Wichita” has been used to refer to a group of linguistically related tribes, including the Wichita,
Taovayas, Tawakoni, Yscani, Waco, and Kichai, many of whom apparently entered the Southern Plains
in the 17th century to escape the hostilities of the Osage (Webb and Carroll 1952:2:904). Other groups
TEX Rail
B.6-20
intermittently occupying the area would have been Comanche, Kiowa, and possibly Lipan Apache,
although archeological remains of these groups are even less identifiable than the other early Protohistoric
Native American groups.
Groups of the Wichita Confederacy, being more sedentary Plains Villagers, left much more substantial
archeological remains. A number of villages belonging to the historic Wichita groups have been identified
in Oklahoma, North Central Texas, and along a boundary of North Central Texas and Northeast Texas
(Bell 1984; Fox 1983:41-43). While no extensive excavations of Protohistoric Wichita sites have been
conducted in the immediate area, artifactual material recovered from nearby Wichita sites shows a
mixture of artifacts of Native American manufacture and of materials obtained by trade from the French
or the Spanish. Artifacts of Native American manufacture include triangular arrow points such as Fresno,
Harrell, and Washita, thick end scrapers, diamond-beveled knives, T-shaped perforators, bifacial gun
flints, bison scapula hoes, pottery elbow pipes, and Womack Engraved pottery. Trade artifacts found to be
present at Wichita sites include metal knives and knife handles, axes, splitting wedges, kettle fragments,
awls, chisels, scissors, buttons, flintlock gun parts, bullets and shot, bridle parts, metal ornaments such as
bells, finger rings, and bracelets, and numerous trade beads. Wichita sites on both the Brazos and Red
Rivers were situated atop high terraces that overlook the rivers.
Historic
The historic context of the area is discussed at length in the historic resources section above. Historic sites
are those sites dating after 1800 and associated with the European settlement of the area. Historic
archeological site types are extremely diverse and may include early farmsteads, mills, Civil War
battlefields, cattle drive camps, and later nineteenth century homesteads. This period represents the
introduction of mass-produced household goods generally supplied from Eastern manufacturing centers
over an increasingly sophisticated supply network of wagon roads, railroads, and steam ship lines.
Within the North Central Texas archeological region, prehistoric sites generally exhibit surface visibility.
Intact terraces adjacent to the floodplain of the West Fork and its tributaries, as well as the floodplain
bottoms, typically have a higher potential for buried prehistoric archeological sites where disturbance by
development, sand and gravel operations, landfills, and other land disturbing activities has been limited.
Sites in alluvial settings may be deeply buried, while upland sites are generally shallow. Prehistoric sites
in this region are most frequent within river and stream valleys and close to water sources. They are least
frequent in upland settings at some distance from water sources and on steep slopes. Historic sites
generally can be seen on the surface because they are usually either not buried or not buried as deeply as
prehistoric sites.
Historic period archeological sites are principally limited to the terraces above the river floodplains in the
lower parts of the West Fork. Due to the project area being in a highly urbanized setting, they are also
often associated with surface features, such as house remains, rail related structures and buildings, and, as
a rule, contain a much higher density of artifacts. These historic sites often occur along old stagecoach
lines, rail corridors, and old roads.
A review of the TASA database shows that numerous archeological surveys have been conducted within
the current project area and several archeological sites have been recorded within the study area of the
corridor. Fourteen archeological sites (as shown in Table B.6-2) have been previously recorded within
1,000 m of the project area (THC 2013). These sites indicate a potential for previously unrecorded
prehistoric and historic sites in proposed development areas within the APE. Only three sites, however,
have been recorded relatively close to the rail corridor. Site 41TR50 was recorded as an Archaic chipped
stone and burned rock scatter approximately 110 m from the APE. Site 41TR213 was recorded as an
historic farmstead approximately 188 m from the APE. Site 41TR235 was recorded as the Fort Worth &
Denver City Roundhouse, approximately 60 m east of the APE. Each of these sites has been impacted by
modern development of the area.
TEX Rail
B.6-21
Table B.6-2: Known Archeological Sites within 1,000 m of the Proposed Corridor
Site
Number
41TR137
41TR119
41TR235
41TR211
41TR203
41TR202
41TR52
41TR51
41TR50
41TR135
41TR49
41TR101
41TR102
41TR213
Approximate
Distance from
Temporal Period-Site Description
Site Recommendations
APE/ Proposed
Station (meters)
Prehistoric-Surface lithic scatter, 1
Western portion of site has been
dart point with fractured base, 1
1000
destroyed; eastern portion may be in situ
fractured biface
1) Preservation of site by avoidance,
stabilization, or installation of barriers.
Prehistoric-sandstone mano, chert
2) Monitoring of site by an archeologist.
990
projectile points, and bifacial tools
3) Possible test excavation for
clarification of site condition, size, and
significance
Historic (The Fort Worth & Denver
Recommended by rail personnel no
City Roundhouse)- ca. late 1890s to
excavations due to potential
60
early 1900s-misc. historic brick,
contaminated soils; research value
glass, iron artifacts on surface
potential is low; no further work
Historic (TCC Bluff Site)-Historic
occupation since late 1800s; misc.
670
No further work
historic bricks, glass, bone, shell,
ceramics
Prehistoric-surface scatter of burned
380
Unknown
rock and freshwater mussel shell
Prehistoric-surface scatter of burned
700
Unknown
rock and freshwater mussel shell
Archaic-Chert flakes and chips and
825
Unknown
burned rock.
burned gravel (and possible
390
Unknown
sandstone) fragments.
Archaic-scatter of chipped stone and
110
Unknown
burned gravels
Historic-3 historic structures and
235
No further work
associated occupational debris
745
Unknown
burned gravel fragments
Unknown
835
Unknown
Unknown
975
Unknown
Site may still contain research/education
Historic-Farmstead- Cut and wire
188
information, but large portions have
nails, glass, ceramics, plastic, metal
been developed for public use.
Source: TASA, 2013.
Although some archeological investigations have been conducted in this area, the West Fork of the
Trinity River has not been as thoroughly investigated as other portions of the river. Forty cultural surveys
have been conducted within the current project area. These include twenty-three aerial surveys and
seventeen linear surveys presented in Table B.6-3. The surveys suggest that few prehistoric archeological
sites may be identified from pedestrian survey and some sites may be identified from trenching. Historic
sites were primarily identified during pedestrian surveys.
TEX Rail
B.6-22
Table B.6-3: Archeological Surveys within 1,000m of the Proposed Corridor
Type of Survey
Areal
Linear
Areal
Linear
Areal
Areal
Areal
Areal
Linear
Areal
Areal
Linear
Areal
Linear
Linear
Areal
Areal
Areal
Areal
Linear
Linear
Areal
Areal
Areal
Areal
Areal
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Areal
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Areal
Areal
Areal
Areal
Date
01/1994
01/1994
01/2011
08/1981
03/2009
Unknown
04/2010
09/1998
08/1993
03/2010
02/2010
10/2000
06/2009
04/1997
09/1991
03/2005
08/2010
04/2012
03/2008
04/1999
08/1991
07/2011
11/2004
06/1995
03/2004
06/2008
02/1987
08/1991
11/1993
02/1980
03/1976
10/1999
02/1987
08/1994
05/1991
08/1988
05/1999
03/2004
04/2007
10/2004
Agency
FHWA
FHWA
TxDOT
TDHPT
TxDOT
Unknown
City of Fort Worth / EPA
US Army
FHWA
NCTCG/ARRA
TxDOT
FHA
TxDOT
City of Fort Worth
FHWA
COE-FW
TxDOT / City of Fort Worth
City of Fort Worth
TxDOT / FHA
FHA
FHWA
GSA
GSA
TxDOT
TxDOT
City of NRH
FHWA/TxDOT
FHWA
TWDB
EPA
EPA
City of Colleyville
TDHPT
Unknown
FHWA
FGWA
COE/FWD
TxDOT
FAA
TxDOT
Investigating Firm
Unknown
Unknown
GMI, Inc.
Unknown
GMI, Inc.
Unknown
URS Corp.
Unknown
Unknown
GMI, Inc.
GMI, Inc.
Unknown
SWCA
AR Consultants
Unknown
GMI, Inc.
TAAI
HDR
AR Consultants
Unknown
Unknown
GMI, Inc.
GMI, Inc.
Unknown
PAI, Inc.
GMI, Inc.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
PAI, Inc.
AR Consultants
GMI, Inc.
Source: TASA, 2013.
Current Investigations
Over 37.6 miles (58 km) of proposed corridor and station locations was surveyed, encompassing
approximately 575 acres. This includes the 2008 and 2012-13 field efforts. Three historic archeological
sites were identified and documented, as shown in Table B.6-4. Site forms were completed for each
newly identified site, and official state site numbers were obtained from the Texas Archeological
Research Laboratory (TARL) at UT, Austin. There is little likelihood for the burial and preservation of
intact archaeological deposits.
TEX Rail
B.6-23
None of the sites mentioned below meet NRHP eligibility requirements set forth in 36 CFR 60.4 –
Criteria of Eligibility, nor does it merit designation as a SAL, as outlined in 13 TAC 26.8, Criteria for
Evaluating Archeological Sites. They are not associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history; nor are they associated with the lives of significant
persons in our past; nor embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; nor have yielded
or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Additionally, these sites do not
have the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the prehistory and/or history of Texas by the
addition of new and important information; these sites do not display any archaeological deposits that are
preserved and intact thereby supporting the research potential or preservation interests of the sites; the
sites do not possess unique or rare attributes concerning Texas prehistory and/or history; the study of the
sites do not offer the opportunity to test theories and methods of preservation, thereby contributing to new
scientific knowledge; and there is not a high likelihood that vandalism and relic collecting has occurred or
could occur, and official landmark designations are not needed to insure maximum legal protection, or
alternatively further investigations are not needed to mitigate the effects of vandalism and relic collecting
when the site cannot be protected. No further archaeological work is recommended at this site for the
current project.
Table B.6-4: Archeological Sites Discovered During the TEX Rail Project
Site
Number
41TR261
41TR262
41TR260
Approximate Distance
from APE/Proposed
Station (m)
Historic Neighborhood, Frisco Addition bounded
Within the Proposed
by Magnolia, Leslie, Morphy, and a portion of the
Medical District Station
TEX Rail line
Historic Corrugated Box Company location at
Abutting the APE
Windsor and 8th
Historic house location, Smithfield Road just north
Within the Proposed
of Mid-Cities Boulevard
Smithfield Station
Site
Recommendations
No further work
No further work
No further work
DFW Airport Property
Historic Resources
Historic Context
DFW Airport opened in 1973 on a site at the intersection of Irving, Euless, and Grapevine, Texas. The
airport’s property includes portions of the former Greater Southwest International Airport. Greater
Southwest had opened in 1943 as Midway Airport, which served as a military training and test flight field
during World War II. After it was annexed by the city, the airport was renamed Greater Fort Worth
International Airport in 1947; and it became the Fort Worth area’s regional airport. In 1950 it became
known as Carter Field after Fort Worth Mayor Amon G. Carter. Ten years later, the City of Fort Worth
purchased the airport in an attempt to compete with Dallas’s Love Field, which had opened in 1953. With
the City of Fort Worth’s purchase, the airport was renamed the Greater Southwest International Airport.
The next decade brought the near abandonment of the Greater Southwest International Airport, as Love
Field became the principal airport for the Dallas-Fort Worth area. In 1964, the Civil Aeronautics Board
ordered that the cities develop plans for a new airport to serve both regions in order to eliminate
expenditures to both installations. Despite longstanding disagreements between the Cities of Dallas and
Fort Worth, the airport broke ground in 1968. When constructed, DFW Airport covered an area of over 27
square miles, and has become one of the busiest airports in the world (Leatherwood 2012).
TEX Rail
B.6-24
A review of the THSA database shows no previously-recorded resources of historic-age, no NRHPeligible or listed properties, no RTHLs, nor any historic subject markers within the DFW Airport property
TEX Rail APE.
A review of the TASA database shows that numerous archeological sites and surveys have been
conducted within the current project study area surrounding the corridor. Eight archeological sites, shown
in Table B.6-5, have been previously recorded within 1,000 m of the project area within the DFW Airport
property (TASA 2013). These sites are presented as archeological site centroids (triangle site datums) and
site areas (filled polygons indicating general site boundaries) in Figure B.6-1 through Figure B.6-6 at a
1:42,000 scale, allowing for public distribution of this document. Three previous archeological surveys
have also been conducted in the general project area on DFW property as shown in Table B.6-6). These
are also indicated on Figure B.6-1 through Figure B.6-6 as archeological survey areas and linear
corridors.
Table B.6-5: Known Archeological Sites within 1,000 m of the Proposed Corridor
on DFW Airport Property
Site
Number
41TR214
41TR176
41TR177
41TR178
41TR179
41TR180
41TR181
Historic (Hackberry House)-Historic house, well
pad, water tank ca. mid- to late-1950s; glass, brick,
ceramic, asbestos tile, metal fragments
Historic-Farmstead- Window glass, plastic, cut nail,
asbestos siding, linoleum, mortar, brick fragments,
stoneware
Historic- Bead, glass fragments, wire nails, metal
fragments, a pipe fitting, and whiteware.
Historic- Wire nails, ceramics, glass, plastic
Historic- One wire nail
Historic- Glass, brick
Historic- Brown bottle glass, wire nail, asbestos
siding
Approximate
Distance from APE/
Proposed Station (m)
Site
Recommendations
650
No further work
660
Unknown
515
Unknown
435
270
255
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
360
Unknown
Source: TASA, 2013.
Table B.6-6: Archeological Surveys within 1,000m of the Proposed Corridor on DFW
Airport Property
Type of Survey
Areal
Areal
Linear
Date
04/2007
03/2004
05/1991
Agency
FAA
TxDOT
FHWA
Investigating Firm
AR Consultants, Inc.
Prewitt and Associates
Unknown
Source: TASA, 2013
As per THC concurrence, existing railroad ROW and the project area on DFW property has been
previously coordinated as not requiring pedestrian survey, therefore no new archeological sites were
recorded on DFW property during this effort.
TEX Rail
B.6-25
Figure B.6-1: Archeology Sites and Surveys, Map 1
TEX Rail
B.6-26
TEX Rail
B.6-27
TEX Rail
B.6-28
TEX Rail
B.6-29
TEX Rail
B.6-30
TEX Rail
B.6-31
B.6.3
IMPACT EVALUATION
Historic Resources
Section 106 is a four step process. This section continues the discussion of Step 2, resource identification,
and describes the actions to comply with Step 3 that includes assessing effects of a federal undertaking on
historic resources. Step 4 is described in the mitigation section below.
No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative reflects the impacts and benefits associated with only the current provisions and
programs in the NCTCOG Mobility 2035 Plan, as well as programmed projects in the TIP (currently
2013-2016 TIP). The No-Build Alternative includes existing and committed roadway and transit projects
in the study area, as described in detail in Chapter 2. The T has purchased much of the land required to
construct bus Park & Rides at Summer Creek and I-20/Granbury, and a bus Transfer Center at TCU/Berry
and these are included in the No-Build Alternative. In addition, The T would operate express bus service
from the Summer Creek and I-20/Granbury bus Park & Rides to the ITC in downtown Fort Worth. In
general, the capital improvement projects include additional roadway lanes as well as new roadways,
bike/pedestrian trails, interchanges, intersection improvements, traffic signal improvements, and
improvements to existing transit infrastructure.
It is assumed that historic impacts for the projects in the No-Build Alternative would be determined and
mitigated through the environmental analysis processes for each individual project; however, no
significant historic impacts are anticipated as a result of the No-Build Alternative.
A historic-age resources field survey for the project APE was undertaken to record all resources within
the project APE for the Commuter Rail Alternative. Field surveys were completed in July 2008 and May
2013, as noted above. All historic-age resources (defined as 45 years old or older from the project revenue
service date) were assessed for their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. Of the 638 recorded historicage resources within the APE, four individual resources, one complex and two districts are currently
listed in the NRHP. Four historic resources are listed as RTHL. Nine individual historic-age resources are
recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, six neighborhoods are recommended eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP, and eighteen individual resources associated with three historic railroad line
thematic corridors are recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as contributing resources to their
specific railroad thematic corridor. Table B.6-7 and Figure B.6-7 through Figure B.6-12 shows the
eligible and recommended eligible historic-age structures evaluated for the Commuter Rail Alternative
and potential impacts that may result from the alternative.
Commuter rail platforms would be added to three locally funded No-Build Alternative bus facilities
(Summer Creek, I-20/Granbury, and TCU/Berry) that are planned to be constructed prior to the
implementation of TEX Rail. These facilities are being planned and constructed as stand-alone facilities
by The T and will be in place prior to the implementation of TEX Rail; therefore, environmental
documentation of the impacts at these facilities is limited to the impacts associated with adding rail
service to these locations. The only construction associated with the TEX Rail project at these locally
funded bus facilities would be the track, station platforms, pedestrian connections to the bus facilities, and
associated station amenities (lighting, signage, etc.). The potential impacts from the rail alignment and the
station locations are discussed in Table B.6-7.
A historic-age resources field survey for the project area has been undertaken to record all historic-age
resources within the project APE. The historic-age resources surveys were completed during two field
TEX Rail
B.6-32
sessions – July 2008 and June 2012. No historic-age resources were identified on DFW Airport property
within the TEX Rail APE.
Commuter Rail MOS Alternative
Field surveys for the Commuter Rail MOS Alternative were undertaken to record all historic-age
resources located within the APE. The field surveys were completed in July 2008 and May 2013, as noted
above. All historic-age resources (defined as 45 years old or older from the project revenue service date)
were assessed for their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. Of the 429 recorded historic-age resources
within the APE for the Commuter Rail MOS Alternative, three individual resources, one complex and
two districts are currently listed in the NRHP. Seven historic resources are listed as RTHL. Six individual
historic-age resources are recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and 14 individual resources
associated with two historic railroad line thematic corridors are recommended eligible for inclusion in the
NRHP as contributing resources to their specific railroad thematic corridor. Table B.6-7 and Figure B.6-8
through Figure B.6-12 show the eligible and recommended eligible historic-age structures evaluated for
the Commuter Rail MOS Alternative and potential impacts that may result from the segment.
TEX Rail
B.6-33
Table B.6-7: Listed and Recommended Eligible Historic-Age Structures – Commuter Rail Alternative
Name
Wedgwood
Neighborhood
Westcliff
Neighborhood
Location
Roughly bounded by
Woodway Drive, Altamesa
Boulevard, and Granbury
Road, Fort Worth
Roughly bounded by South
Hills Avenue, Granbury
Road, and Trail Lake
Drive, Fort Worth
Current
Type/ NRHP Criterion
Designation
Impact
Commuter rail alignment runs adjacent to the
neighborhood, no direct impacts would occur to resource.
Proposed project would not introduce elements that would
harm the integrity of the resource.
Recommended
Eligible
District
Recommended
Eligible
District
Contributing Property to
Fort Worth and Western
Railroad Thematic
Corridor
Potential direct impact, commuter rail alignment design
requires demolition of bridge and construction of new
bridge in current location, adverse effect to resource.
Trail Lake Drive
Bridge (Santa Fe
Trestle Bridge)
Trail Lake Drive and
Granbury Road, Fort
Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Kellis Park
Neighborhood
Bound by Seminary Drive,
McCart Avenue, Gabrell
Street, Boyce Street, Trail
Lake Drive, Fuller Avenue,
Cherokee Trail, Granbury
Road, and Stadium Drive,
Fort Worth
Recommended
Eligible
District
1948 Double Box
Concrete Culvert
Granbury Road at
University Road, Fort
Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Fort Worth and Western
Railroad Thematic
Corridor
Potential direct impact, commuter rail alignment requires
potential drainage modifications, no adverse effect to
resource.
Bluebonnet Hills
Neighborhood
Roughly bounded by
Benbrook Boulevard,
Granbury Road, West
Butler Street, and Stadium
Drive, Fort Worth
Recommended
Eligible
District
Berkley
Place/Cheltenham
Neighborhood
Roughly bounded by Park
Place Avenue, Stanley
Avenue, Park Hill Drive,
and Forest Park Boulevard,
Fort Worth
District
neighborhood. A sound wall is proposed to be constructed
between the neighborhood and the 8th Avenue Yard. The
sound wall will avoid and minimize the audible impacts
that may occur. Proposed project would not introduce
elements that would harm the integrity of the resource.
TEX Rail
Recommended
Eligible
B.6-34
Name
Location
Current
Designation
Impact
Property
Commuter rail alignment runs adjacent to the building, no
direct impacts would occur to resource. Proposed project
would not introduce elements that would harm the
integrity of the resource.
Recommended
Eligible
District
Vickery Boulevard, Fort
Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Union Pacific Railroad
Thematic Corridor
Historic Wayside
Church
2100 Beckham Place, Fort
Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Property
Dr Pepper
Bottling Company
Fort Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Property
Fort Worth Public
Market
Fort Worth
National
Register and
Recorded
Texas Historic
Landmark
1930 Texas &
Pacific Underpass
Henderson Road, Fort
Worth
Texas & Pacific
Railroad
Warehouse
Building
401 West Lancaster, Fort
Worth
Lily B. Clayton
Elementary
School
2100 Park Place, Fort
Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Mistletoe Heights
Neighborhood
Roughly bounded by
Rosedale Street, Berkeley
Place, Park Place Avenue,
Mistletoe Drive, Fort
Worth
1925 Steel Trestle
Bridge
TEX Rail
Property
requires demolition of existing bridge and construction of
new bridge in current location, adverse effect to resource.
requires that all existing track be replaced and concrete
repaired so some modifications would occur, non-adverse
effect to resource.
National
Register and
Recorded
Property/Complex
Texas Historic
Landmark
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
B.6-35
Name
Location
Current
Designation
National
Register and
Recorded
Texas Historic
Landmark
National
Register and
Recorded
Texas Historic
Landmark
National
Register and
Recorded
Texas Historic
Landmark
United States Post
Office (Fort
Worth Main Post
Office Building)
Lancaster and Jennings
Avenues, Fort Worth
Texas and Pacific
Terminal
Complex and
Freight Buildings
221 West Lancaster
Avenue and Throckmorton
Streets, Fort Worth
Texas and Pacific
Passenger
Building
221 West Lancaster
Avenue and Throckmorton
Streets, Fort Worth
1931 Union
Pacific Underpass
Lancaster and Jennings,
Fort Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
Tower 55
665 East Vickery
Recommended
Eligible
Property
Gulf, Colorado
and Santa Fe
Railroad
Passenger Station
Worth
National
Register and
Recorded
Texas Historic
Landmark
Santa Fe Railroad
Freight Station
Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Property
Montgomery
Ward and
Company
Building
Worth
National
Register
Property
TEX Rail
Impact
Property
Property/Complex
Property/Complex
Property
B.6-36
effect to resource.
Commuter rail alignment runs approximately 750 feet
west of the building, no direct impacts would occur to
resource. Proposed project would not introduce elements
that would harm the integrity of the resource.
Name
Location
Current
Designation
1931 Texas &
Pacific Underpass
Vickery Boulevard and S.
Main Street, Fort Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
1940 Rock Island
Underpass #1
(Union-Pacific)
3rd Street at southbound
railroad, Fort Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
Land O' Lakes
Purina Feed LLC
1501 East 4th Street, Fort
Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Property
Land O’ Lakes
Purina Feed LLC
305 Live Oak Street, Fort
Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Property
1940 Rock Island
Underpass #2
(Union-Pacific)
3rd Street at northbound
railroad, Fort Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
1924 UP Bridge
Over Cold Springs Road
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
Three Sisters
Bridge – Bridge
#1
Over Trinity River
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
Three Sisters
Bridge – Bridge
#2
Over Trinity River
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
Three Sisters
Bridge – Bridge
#3
Over Trinity River
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
TEX Rail
B.6-37
Impact
effect to resource.
effect to resource.
repaired so some modifications would occur to resource,
non-adverse effect to resource.
Commuter rail alignment runs adjacent to the bridge, no
Commuter rail alignment runs adjacent to the eastern most
bridge, no direct impacts nor adverse effects would occur
to resource. Proposed project would not introduce
Commuter rail alignment runs adjacent to the eastern most
bridge, no direct impacts nor adverse effects would occur
to resource. Proposed project would not introduce
Potential visual impact to bridge, commuter rail alignment
design requires construction of new commuter rail bridge
immediately adjacent to existing bridge, no physical
adverse effect to bridge will occur.
Name
Location
Current
Designation
Mitchell
Cemetery
Behind Fort Worth Grain
Exchange (corner of
Decatur and NE 28th
Street), Fort Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Property
1933 BNSF
Underpass
Northeast 28th Street (SH
183), Fort Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
1933 Cotton Belt
Underpass
Northeast 28th Street (SH
183), Fort Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
Southwest
Petroleum
Corporation
3428 Deen Road, Fort
Worth
Recommended
Eligible
Property
1950 Concrete
Single Box
Culvert
1937 Single Box
Culvert
Old Denton Road northeast
of Beach Street, Haltom
City
Amundson Drive northeast
of Davis Boulevard, North
Richland Hills
Recommended
Eligible
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
Thematic Corridor
Thematic Corridor
1951 Double Box
Concrete Culvert
Amundson Drive at Eden,
Recommended
Eligible
1914 John R.
Webb House
408 Shelton Drive,
Colleyville
Recommended
Eligible
Property
1930 Double
Brick Pipe Culvert
Ira E Woods Avenuesouthwest of Mustang,
Grapevine
Recommended
Eligible
Thematic Corridor
TEX Rail
B.6-38
Impact
Commuter rail alignment runs adjacent to resource with a
new alignment for the freight rail parallel to the existing
line. Potential direct impact to unmarked/unknown burials.
Proposed project would have an adverse effect to the
resource. TxDOT completed 4(f) process for resource.
This FEIS/4(f) document is the TEX Rail project 4(f)
process for this resource.
Commuter rail alignment runs adjacent to the underpass,
no direct impacts would occur to resource. TxDOT
completed 4(f) process for resource.
requires demolition of underpass and construction of new
underpass in current location, adverse effect to resource.
TxDOT completed 4(f) process for resource. FTA and The
T on-going 4(f) process for resource.
Commuter rail alignment runs adjacent to building, no
requires potential drainage modifications, no adverse
effect to resource.
effect to resource.
effect to resource.
Commuter rail alignment runs adjacent to property, no
Commuter rail alignment runs above the culvert, no direct
impacts nor adverse effects would occur to resource.
Name
Location
Current
Designation
Ira E. Woods
Pony Trestle
Bridge
Ira E. Woods Avenue,
Grapevine
National
Register
Contributing Resource to
Industrial Historic NRHP
District
Cotton Belt
Railroad
Industrial Historic
District and
Section House
Roughly bounded by
Hudgins, Dooley, and
Dallas, along railroad
ROW, Grapevine
National
Register
District
Original Town
Residential
Historic District
Roughly bounded by
Texas, Austin, Hudgins
and Jenkins Street,
Grapevine
National
Register
District
Impact
requires demolition of existing bridge and construction of
two new commuter rail bridges in current location,
adverse effect to resource and to NRHP District. FTA and
The T on-going 4(f) process for resource.
Relocation and repositioning of the Section House, a
contributing resource to the NRHP District, and
construction of a new commuter rail platform immediately
adjacent to the Section House. No adverse effects to
resource or NRHP District.
Commuter rail runs adjacent to the NRHP District, no
Source: URS, 2013.
TEX Rail
B.6-39
Figure B.6-7: Historic Resources, Map 1
TEX Rail
B.6-40
TEX Rail
B.6-41
TEX Rail
B.6-42
TEX Rail
B.6-43
TEX Rail
B.6-44
TEX Rail
B.6-45
An archeological APE has been coordinated with the THC to include the ROW for all existing rail lines,
any newly acquired ROW, any staging areas for construction equipment, and station location footprints.
A search of the TASA has been conducted in an effort to identify previously recorded archeological sites
and previously recorded surveys. An intensive archeological resources survey has been completed within
the APE.
No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative reflects the impacts and benefits associated with only the current provisions and
programs in the NCTCOG Mobility 2035 Plan, as well as programmed projects in the TIP (currently
2013-2016 TIP). The No-Build Alternative includes existing and committed roadway and transit projects
in the study area, as described in detail in Chapter 2. The T has purchased much of the land required to
construct bus Park & Rides at Summer Creek and I-20/Granbury, and a bus Transfer Center at TCU/Berry
and these are included in the No-Build Alternative. In addition, The T would operate express bus service
from the Summer Creek and I-20/Granbury bus Park & Rides to the ITC in downtown Fort Worth. In
general, the capital improvement projects include additional roadway lanes as well as new roadways,
bike/pedestrian trails, interchanges, intersection improvements, traffic signal improvements, and
improvements to existing transit infrastructure.
It is assumed that archeological impacts for the projects in the No-Build Alternative would be determined
and mitigated through the environmental analysis processes for each individual project; however, no
significant economic impacts are anticipated as a result of the No-Build Alternative.
The APE for archeology was established as the existing freight rail ROW, any newly acquired ROW, and
potential staging areas for construction equipment, with the recommendation of no further archeological
work within the current freight rail ROW as well as the station locations. A recommendation of no further
work means that no survey or other related work will be required prior to construction. Table B.6-8
includes the recommendations for the proposed station locations of the Commuter Rail Alternative.
An archeological resources intensive survey for the Commuter Rail Alternative has been completed for
this proposed alternative. The Commuter Rail Alternative would not have an effect on known
archeological resources that meet the eligibility requirements for inclusion in the NRHP or designation as
a SAL. This recommendation has been made on the basis of an evaluation of landforms, known land use
patterns, intact or disturbed soil horizons, the distribution of known archeological sites, and shovel testing
in areas warranting this level of survey methodology.
TEX Rail
B.6-46
Table B.6-8 : Recommendations for the Proposed Station Locations of the Commuter Rail
Alternative
Station or Facility Name
Recommendation
Reason
Summer Creek
No Further Work
No Survey Required
I-20/Granbury
No Further Work
No Survey Required
TCU/Berry
No Further Work
No Survey Required
Survey Complete – one archeological site identified;
Medical District
No Further Work
recommendation: not eligible
T&P Station
No Further Work
No Survey Required
ITC
No Further Work
No Survey Required
North Side
No Further Work
Survey Complete – no sites found
Beach Street
No Further Work
Haltom City/US 377
No Further Work
North Richland Hills-Iron Horse
No Further Work
Survey Complete – one archeological site identified;
North Richland Hills-Smithfield
No Further Work
recommendation: not eligible
Grapevine-Main Street
No Further Work
DFW Airport-North
No Further Work
No Survey Required
DFW Airport-Terminal A/B
No Further Work
No Survey Required
Source: URS, 2013.
The portion of the project within DFW Airport property would not have an effect on known archeological
resources that meet the eligibility requirements for inclusion in the NRHP or designation as a SAL for the
proposed DFW Airport-Terminal A/B Station. This recommendation has been made on the basis of an
evaluation of landforms, known land use patterns, intact or disturbed soil horizons, and the distribution of
known archeological sites. The project area on airport property (new rail and the proposed DFW AirportNorth Station) is within the “Areas of Impacts,” coordinated with the THC as requiring no further
archeological research and surveyed by AR Consultants (2007) as being disturbed to an extent that there
is an extremely low probability of finding intact archeological remains in the area. There are no
previously recorded sites within the proposed APE on DFW Airport property.
Commuter Rail MOS Alternative
Archeological investigations were conducted along the Commuter Rail MOS Alternative in 2008, 2012,
and 2013. One archeological site was identified within the TEX Rail alignment and station footprints
APE. No previously recorded sites are within the Commuter Rail MOS Alternative APE.
Site 41TR260, located on the extreme southern parcel of the North Richland Hills-Smithfield Station on
the eastern side of Smithfield Road, is the site of a former early 20th century home. The residential
structure no longer remains on the property and is represented by a slight depression in the ground surface
surrounded by mature oak trees. This site does not display any archeological deposits that are preserved
and intact thereby supporting the research potential or preservation interests of the site. No further
archeological or historical investigations are recommended. This site is not recommended as eligible for
the NRHP.
TEX Rail
B.6-47
B.6.4
MITIGATION MEASURES
Downtown Fort Worth to DFW Airport
Historic Properties
Section 106 of the NHRP requires that prior to conducting activities classified as federal undertakings, the
effects of undertakings on historic resources must be taken into account and comments from the public,
consulting parties, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO, locally known as the THC), and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are allowed. The steps in the 106 process consists of 1)
initiating the 106 process by determining a federal undertaking and identifying potential consulting
parties 2) identifying the APE for the project and historic properties within the APE; 3) assessing the
effects of a federal undertaking on historic resources; and 4) consultation and commitment to mitigation
to resolve any adverse effects. Further information on the Section 106 process is discussed in Section
B.6.1.
The final step (Step 4) in the Section 106 process requires that efforts be made to resolve any adverse
effects, which include visual impacts, to historic or archeological resources. Measures to avoid any
adverse effects, including visual impacts to historic resources will include design features compatible with
the existing historic resources. The design will incorporate materials, colors and features that are
compatible with adjacent historic resources and will be applied in a manner consistent to retaining the
resource’s integrity, based on the characteristics which qualify the resource for listing in or eligibility for
the NRHP.
No adverse effects are anticipated for archeological resources within the proposed project area. If the
proposed undertaking should uncover archeological resources, or is altered such that it has the potential to
affect archaeological resources, all construction activities will cease and not proceed with the undertaking
until additional review by a certified archaeologist and clearance by the THC has been completed.
For the resources where an adverse effect to historic-age resources is expected, consultation with the THC
and consulting parties is ongoing to identify additional measures to minimize and mitigate the effects. For
resources that are not able to be avoided, The T will follow the procedures outlined by the THC for
documenting the resource. THC concurrence was received on August 14, 2013 for the Historic Resources
Determination of Effects Report of the Fort Worth Transportation Authority Tex Rail Corridor, Fort
Worth, Tarrant County (FTA/105/THC Tracking #201310743).
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) identifying steps to minimize harm to historic and archeological
resources will be prepared between the THC and the FTA to document these measures. The MOA will
also detail the actions to be taken by The T if an unanticipated discovery of archeological resources is
made during construction. The Draft MOA is included in Appendix C: Agency Coordination and
Agreements.
Due to there being no known historic-age resources located on DFW Airport property within the TEX
Rail APE, no historic properties are affected by the project and; therefore; no mitigation is warranted.
There are also no known archeological resources in the same area; therefore, mitigation is only warranted
if unexpected discoveries are encountered. If unexpected discoveries are encountered work would stop in
the area, a thorough evaluation would be conducted, and consultation between The T, DFW Airport, and
the THC would be initiated. Work on the site would only continue once the THC concurred with the
determination of effects.
TEX Rail
B.6-48

TEXRail FEIS v8 Ap B-06 Historic Archeological Public Review

Transcription

Similar documents

Map Your Life - Karina Cutler-Lake / Resources for Design Students

Bartop Brochure

Mini tours flyer - Dallas Fort Worth Area Tour Guide Association

Online Casino Games Without Downloading

File

Neon Lights Map V7

Thyssen Flow 2 - Only Lifts Ltd

AFTER PARTY at wobbly barn

Hy-rail for backhoe loaders