HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES_GTAB_09.12.2014Notice of Meeting of the
Georgetown Transportation Adv sonZ Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas
September 1121, 201
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City
at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for
additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Board Members Truman Hunt — Chair, Rachel Jonrowe — Vice Chair, John Hesser — Secretary, Scott Rankin,
Ray Armour, David Johnson, John Pettitt, Steve Johnston
Board Members Absent: Chris H'Luz,
Staff Present: Mike Babin, Jana Kern, Ed Polasek, Wesley Wright, Mark Miller, Bill Dryden, Nat Waggoner,
Curtis Benkendorfer, Lisa Haines, Paul Diaz, Bridget Chapman, Andreina Davila
Others Present: Carl Norris, John Milford, Rex Stuart, Pablo Holguin, - ACC, Ron Bindas — Airport User,
Robert Daigh — Wilco, Mark Allen — Hall Properties, Trae Sutton — KPA, Mark Borenstein — HDR. Becky Bray
— Brown & Gay
A. Call to Order: Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday
September 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM.
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene
an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, The City Manager, Assistant City
Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action
in the Regular Session that follows.
B. Introduction of Visitors
C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: Staff has been working the Congressman Carter Office to
schedule the ground breaking for FM 1460 we are shooting for some time in early February 2015.
CAMPO held a Technical Advisory meeting which is a requirement for the STMPP process. Pleased
to say that we had four citizens attend. The citizens that were there did not talk about our Austin
Ave. projects; they were interested in what CAMPO was doing. CAMPO staff had not heard anything
about the Austin Ave. Bridge project, i.e. public meetings/hearing to date. There should be a draft
report going to the technical advisory committee in September 2014 then will go the CAMPO finance
committee for a recommendation in October. Mayor Ross was in attendance and he will be talking
with Commissioner Long about the Austin Ave. Bridge project, since she is the chair of the finance
committee.
D. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines — Bill Dryden, P. E., Transportation
Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP o Transportation
Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Reports were given by Dryden, Miller & Waggoner.
E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. — Curtis Benkendorfer,
Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Hugh Norris — Statement is at the end of these minutes
John Milford — Statement is at the end of these minutes
Reports were given by Benkendorfer, Haines and Diaz.
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
F. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting
held on August 8, 2014 — Jana Kern
Motion #1 by Hunt second by Hesser to add written/submitted statement from Mr. Norris.
Motion #2 by Jonrowe second by Hesser to approve the minutes as amended.
Approved both motions - Unanimous 8-0 (H'Luz absent)
G. Discussion and possible recommendation to Council for acceptance of the Southeast Inner Loop
Corridor Study Draft Final Report as Final and adoption of a proposed alignment of the Southwest
Bypass to Southeast Inner Loop roadway, inclusive of proposed connectivity with 135. — Bill Dryden,
P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICD, Transportation Services Director.
Polasek reviewed the connectivity with the Board.
Dryden and Trae Sutton of KPA Engineering gave the Board a presentation on the Corridor Study
Report. Bob Daigh of Williamson County informed the Board that this is the east west freeway for
Williamson County. Williamson County has been working with the City and TxDOT for decades.
Williamson County is buying ROW on HWY 29, and has been working with TxDOT to extend the
freeway sections to the east. If the City will incorporated this in your plan now, as it is stated, it will
then be rolled into TxDOT's plan, which is critical so it can get rolled into TxDOTs' funding and their
reconstruction program. Mr. Daigh feels that this is huge to get this in the plan as quickly as possible.
Motion by Johnston, second by Jonrowe to approve the staff recommendation acceptance of the
Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study and schematic design, inclusive of the proposed revised
alignment of Southeast Inner Loop and its connection with Southwest Bypass with the proposed
direct and indirect connections with IH 35. Approved Unanimous 8-0 (H'Luz absent)
Adjournment
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser, to adjourn meeting. Approved Unanimous 8-0 (H'Luz absent)
Meeting adjourned at 11:15 AM
Approved: Attested:
�lary
ruman Hunt - Chair PXn Hesser ecVretary
Jana R. Kern — GTAB Board Liaison
GTAB STATEMENT
SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM "E"
AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT AND TIME LINES
POINT PAPER
PRESENTATION POINTS:
-I. Introduction: Hugh C. Norris, Jr, 4400 Luna Trail, Member ACC
-4- 171h Presentation Appearance related to 8 primary issues - John Milford will describe
Complaint — Item "F" -draft minutes of August 10, 2014 GTAB meeting — ACC comments deleted.
Request GTAB to direct insertion of ACC statement points for official record
Current status of ACC appeal to higher authorities — dispute with TxDOT CE of GTU CIP — See
Attachments to TxDOT AVN 082514 Letter
( 3 sets of latest letters for Chairman and board members)
TxDOT AVN letter dated August 25,2014; ACC response letter dated September 10, 2014
GTAB responsibilities for oversight management of GTU operations and CIP -Need for GTAB
education on federal grant requirements and NEPA — ACC can provide names for FAA instructors
A- Concern for lack of GTAB oversight management of GTU CIP — cite TxDOT AVN ACIP GTU 2015
CIP changes — current increase in project elements and total cost from 9 project elements Jan 2013
at $5,738,000 to 24 project elements July 2014 at $8,131,828. Recall that GT 2014 CIP expanded in
Jan 2013 from $966,154 to $1.4 Million. Current GTU 2014-2015 CIP now in excess of $11.3 Million —
Increase of about $3 Million. Request staff presentation today provide explanation for changes and
cost increases. Not all costs are "Free Money"
.4, Need for open mature discussions between public and GTAB — off agenda workshops
Closing Remarks — Conflict with city and GTAB never an intent of ACC — Request for mutual
discussions - alternatives
�� ��� ��� Transportation
~~�~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ �_ ~~�~��~ �~~~ _~� ~~~
!25 EAST 11~STREET IAUOT|N.TEXAS 7D7O1-24O3 463-8580 1VN",�TXD01'.50V
August 2S.2D14
Mr. Hugh C. Norris, Jr.
44OOLuria Trail
Georgetown, TX7B628
Dear Mr. Norris:
| have received your letter dated August 8, 2014 and will do my best to respond tuyour
questions and concerns,
With respect to your request for environmental documentation I ern enclosing our oabegoriva|
exclusion checklists for the current lighting and taxiway projects atGTU. These documents are
the basis for nnyprevious stahennen1thatthe appropriate level ofenwironnnegta1analysis has been
undertaken for the projects uu,nant|yUnderway.
With respect toYour request vvehold all funds for projects at GTUpending the preparation ofan
Environmental Impact Statement (E|S), it is our position that an BS is not appropriate for these types
of projects, nor would it be for the development of an airport master plan.
Please note, your stcdementthdatour agency participated directly with the City of Georgetown in the
preparation of the 2005 Master plan update is not accurate. That effort was undertaken by the city
without- our participation. Please contact the City of Georgetown for any questions relating to the
2DO5-5nnust�rp|�nupd�te.
In myAugust 8m2Qi4 letter referenced FA/\ advisory circular 150/5070 -6B -Airport Master Plans.
However, | did not refer you to Appendix Q of that document that more fully describes the
environmental process that isepart ofthe planning process, |tisrny hope this section may help
You better appreciate the environmental efforts necessary for master planning.
TxDOTAVN Planning & Programming Director
OUR GOALS
MAINTAIN ASAFE SYSTEM ~ ADDRESS CONGESTION ^ CONNECTTEXA8C0MMUNOOEG ~ BEST !NCLASS STATE AGENCY
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Texas Block Grant Program
Environmental Action Document
Long Form Categorical EXCiUsiOO
This checklist documents consideration of environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders as they
apply to actions under the Texas Block Grant Program. It is based on the guidance in Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Order 5050.48, "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing
Instructions for Airport Actions," FAA Order 1050.1 E, "Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,"
and incorporates the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the NEPA,
federal statutes and laws designed to protect the Nation's resources.
The preporevofthis checklist should have knowledge Vfthe environmental features ofthe airport and
general potential impacts associated with the proposed development. Although some of the responses
may be obtained from the preparer's own knowledge and observations, previous environmental
Airport Narne and I Georaetown Municipal Airport (GTU)
C Project
This envrmnn7enka|revievvincludes design and conetnuo�onofa
| relocated/complete parallel taxiway A.
Environmental Resource Area Review for
Potential Effects and Impacts
Impact
Anticipated?
Yes No
Documentation
Attached
Air quality: Will the project have the potential to increase landside
Williamson
or airside capacity, including an increase of surface vehicles?
County is in
Check all appropriate boxes
EPA database
oJect is not located within or adjacent to USEPA-defined
X
queried Au ust
Non -Attainment area
10, 201
M Project is accounted for in State Implementation Plan
gProject air pollutant emissions do not exceed applicable
minimis levels as defined by General Conformity
2.
Archaeological: Will action have an effect on property included in
Project area
or eligible for Federal, Tribal, State or local historical, archeological,
has been
or cultural significance?
previously
disturbed for
Check all appropriate boxes
X
existing
M Project does not involve any disturbance of previously
taxiway/runway
undisturbed ground.
/apron grading.
Project involves disturbance of previously undisturbed ground,
9PO
coordination completed and "determination of no effect"
r-101ass I survey records search completed and ;;ttArhPd
Environmental Resource Area Review for
Impact
Anticipated?
Documentation
Potential Effects and Impacts
Attached
Yes
No
OSHPO Concurrence "No Effect Determination"
Class III Survey completed and attached
SHPO Concurrence "No Effect Determination"
SHPO Concurrence "No Adverse Effect Determination"
The Airport Sponsor shall ensure that construction specifications
include conditions required by SHPO regarding unknown items
found during construction.
3.
Biotic communities: Will the project impact plant communities
Area of effect is
and/or cause displacement of wildlife?
currently
mowed.
4.
Coastal resources: Will the project occur in, or impact a coastal
x
zone as defined by the State's Coastal Zone Management Plan?
5.
Compatible land use: Will the project be consistent with plans,
goals, policy, zoning or local controls that have been adopted for the
x
area 1 n which the airport is located?
6.
Construction Impacts: Will the project produce construction
The sponsor
impacts, such as reducing local air quality, produce erosion or
will implement
pollutant runoff, or disrupt local traffic patterns?
X
appropriate soil
erosion
controls.
7.
Endangered species: Is there any impact on any Federally listed
Project area
endangered, threatened, and candidate species {flora or fauna) or
field reviewed
designated critical habitat?
by ML
Lamrouex on
Check all appropriate boxes
August 8,
Project will not adversely affect the physical environment {land
2012. Area of
disturbance, vegetation removal, sedimentation, dust, noise/
effect has been
waste/hazardous materials emission into the environment, etc.).
previously
0 Project will have an effect on the physical environment, USFWS
X
greM"Md is
documentation is required:
0 Threatened or endangered species not present - USFWS
mowed object
concurrence attached
free area,
0 Species present- USFWS agrees endangered or threatened
Habitat for
species will not be impacted by the project. Review and
species listed
consultation completed and attached. Project conditions required
in the County is
are listed in comments and shall be included in construction
not present.
specification.
8.
Energy supply and natural resources: Will the project impact
x
energy supply of natural resources?
9.
Environmental justice: Will the project cause any adverse and
x
disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations?
Hage 2 of 6
Environmental Resource Area Review for
Impact
Documentation
Potential Effects and Impacts
Anticipated?
Attached
Yes
No
{Refer to Executive Order 12898.}
10,
Essential fish habitat: Is project located In or cause adverse
effects to a waterway, stream, or water body?
Check all appropriate boxes
fZ1 Project is not within or near a waterway, stream, or other body of
water.
0 Project is within or near a waterway, stream, or other body of
X
water:
0 USFWS Consultation is attached.
+ The Airport Sponsor shall ensure that USFWS conditions/
requirements are 'Included In Construction Specifications.
11 .
Farmland: Will action involve acquisition and conversion of
farmland?
Check all appropriate boxes
X
fZI Project does not mvolve new disturbance of farmland.
0 U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service consultation and
Form AD -1006 attached.
121.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Will the project have the potential to
X
adversely impact birds protected by the migratory bird treaty act?
13.
Floodplains: Will project be located in, encroach upon or otherwise
impact a floodplain?
Check all appropriate boxes
r8'I Project is not located in and does not impact floodplains
X
0 Applicable FEMA Map is attached.
0 Project is located in floodplain and will not negatively impact
floodplains.
14.
Hazardous materials: Does project involve or affect hazardous
materials or involve construction in an area that contains hazardous
X
materials and/or hazardous waste?
15.
Historic: Will action have an effect on property included in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or other property
of Federal, Tribal, State or local significance?
Check all appropriate boxes
fZ1 Project does not involve any "Historic" Structures over 50 years
X
old
OProject involves "Historic" Structures over 50 years old, and
attach State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) coordination
completed and "determination of no effect"
D Project does not involve any property of Federal, Tribal, State or
Page 3 of 6
Environmental Resource Area Review for
Impact
Documentation
Potential Effects and Impacts
Anticipated?
Attached
Yes
No
local significance
0 Project does involve property of Federal, Tribal, State or local
significance
16.
light emissions: Will the project produce significant light emission
X
impacts to residential areas, schools, or hospitals?
17.
Natural resources: Will action have significant impact on natural,
ecological, Cultural or scenic resources of national, state or local
X
Significance?
18.
Noise levels: Will project have a significant 1 mpact (DNL 1,5 dB or
greater) on noise levels over noise sensitive areas (residences,
schools, churches, hospitals) within the 65 DIAL noise contour?
Check all appropriate boxes
0 Project will enable a significant increase in aircraft operations.
X
0 Project will enable a significant change in aircraft fleet mix.
0 Project will cause a change in airfield configuration and/or use:
0 Intermittent
0 Temporary (i.e., less than 180 days)
0 Long-term or permanent
19.
Parks, public lands, refuges and recreational resources: Will
project impact publicly owned land from a public park, recreation
area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state or local
X
significance, or land of a historic site w1th national, state or local
sionificance? (DOT Section 4ffif (49 U,&C, 303 (c')l 'm, a, cts)
20.
Surface transportation: Will project cause a significant increase in
X
surface traffic congestion or cause a degradation of level of
21.
Water quality: Will project have a significant Impact to water quality
to groundwater, Surface water bodies, public water supply systems
or violate Federal, state, or tribal water quality standards?
Check all appropriate boxes
Project will not produce water quality impacts or other
modifications to groundwater, Surface bodies, or public water
X
supply
ostems.
Project will produce water quality impacts or other modifications
to groundwater, surface bodies, or public water supply systems.
+ The Airport Sponsor shall ensure the State National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are obtained as
required for construction projects and airport operation.
22.
Wetlands: Will project impact any wetlands? Wetland
Determinations must meet requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of
X
I Engineers {USCOE) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual.
gage 4 of b
Environmental Resource Area Review for
Impact
Documentation
Potential Effects and Impacts
Anticipated?
Attached
Check all appropriate boxes
(8:1 Project will not involve dredging or disposal of dredged material,
or excavation, bank stabilization, filling or other changes to wetlands
0 Project will involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, or
excavation, bank stabilization, filling or other changes to wetlands
Coordination with agencies attached
0 Consultation with U.S. National Resource Conservation Service
and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps attached with project
drawn on NWL
[J Consultation with US Fish & Wildlife (USFWS) attached
0 Consultation with USCOE attached
0 Other Consultation (EPA/State) attached
0 Wetland Delineation attached
_Z37 Vi d 250 'ceilic Fivers: Does action impact O.S. ationa FarK
Service -designated Wild or Scenic River?
Other required environmental considerations
24.
Connected actions: Are there other closely related actions that
X
should be considered?
-277
Cumulative actions: When viewed with other planned actions, are
X
I
the project impacts significant?
I
2b.
Uumulative impacts: When considered together with other _pasT_
present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects,
X
on or oft the airport, regardless of funding source, would the
proposed project produce a significant cumulative effect?
27.
Environmental laws: is project inconsistent with any other
Federal, state, or local laws relating to environment?
28
Highly controversial: Is the proposed project likely to be hignly
controversial on environmental grounds? A proposed Federal
action is considered highly controversial when an action is opposed
on environmental grounds by a Federal, state, or local government,
X
or by a substantial number of persons affected by such action.
Further information may be referenced in FAA Order 5050.48,
paragraph 9i.
29.
Community disruption: Will project cause disruption of a
community, disrupt planned development or be inconsistent with
X
plans or goals of the community?
30.
Relocation housing: Is the availability of adequate housing a
X
highly controversial issue?
31.
Social impact: Are residents or businesses being relocated?
X
Page 5 of 6
Environmental Resource Area Review for
Impact
Documentation
Potential Effects and Impacts
Anticipated?
Attached
Yes
No
31
Similar actions: Are there other similar Fecmral actions that would
X
cause this project to be significant?
1
1
34.
List additional cornments/consultation to support finding of categorical exclusion. It is important to
explain determinations in the space provided above for situations where "checked boxes" do not
adequately explain the project -specific situation for this Categorical Exclusion
(insert -this cell will automatically expand]
Based onthe foregoing, if|sTxD[/Tsdecision that the proposed project (s)ordevelopment warrants
environmental processing as indicated below:
1 ZI The proposed project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to 1050.1 E (31 O.e).
O The proposed project appearsto Involve conditions that the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment (EA), addressing [insert subject areas].
O The following additional documentation isrequired for FAA tnperform acomplete
environmental evaluation of the proposed project [insert as appropriate]:
| hereby certify that the information | have provided iscomplete and accurate, bothe best Ofnny
knowledge: 1
01.* —cc—
Signature
cc—Sinature August 10, 2012
Uole
Page 6ot 6
Molly Lamrouex, Environmental Specialist
Printed Name and Title
September 10, 2014
Mr. Greg Miller
TxDOT AVN Planning & Prooramnlin-Z--
Director
Texas Department of ransportation
125 E. 11th
Street
Austin. Texas 78701-2483
Re: Your letter dated August 25, 2014 with attachments
TxDO'I' Aviation Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP')
Georgetown Municipal Airport Capital Improvement Plan
(GTU CIP) National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
Airport Concerned
Citizens (ACC) Dear Mr. Miller.
Your letter and attached checklists for Categorical Exclusion (CE) of some of the current
federally funded ACIP G'ru CIP elements from the NEPA review process are appreciated.
Howeven, on behalf
of the ACC and with all due respect, your letter and attachments do not provide sufficient
justifications for CE. The documentation indicates that segmenting of the complete airport
maintenance and expansion program, and beginning with CE determination via the checklists
presuppose that the groups of projects qualify for CE, and as Such VOU have precluded
legitimate NEPA review and evaluation of alternatives. Furthermore, there is no explanation
of how the groups of project elements stand alone, how the projects for maintenance of an
existing problematic airport do not encourage continued
operation of that airport at an environmentally unsuitable location, or how the projects by
themselves or cumulatively are not integral to the larger airport maintenance and expansion
program. Moreover, inaccurate and unsupported assessments of specific types of potential
impacts in the checklists demonstrate that the projects do not qualify for CE determination.
Had the program elements proposed been made available for review and comment to the
affected public and interested agencies., response would have been more than sufficient to
convince the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to undertake a complete NEPA review of
the expansion program of which the Subject project elements are integral parts. We are
prepared to Counter various "no anticipated impact" checklist categories of the
7
"Environmental Resources Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts" completed by YOUr
reviewer and will do so as necessary_
It is our understanding the current ACIP GTU CIP includes combined federal funding for (1) a
12 -acre land acquisition for runway 11/29, 1214 GRGTN. one program element, (2) Garver
Engineering
Design Contract. TxDOT No. 3X I AV 100. one program element., (3) GTU FY 2014 CIP, 1414
GRGTN, six program elements, (4) ACIP GTU 2015 CIP, 24 program elements. and (5) ACIP
GTU 2015 Master Plan Update, one program element. The complete GTU CIP consists of 33
identifiable interrelated projects, or program elements with an estimated cost of about $11.3
Million. Your checklist reviews
for the two CE determinations have segmented -out seven elements of the program, including:
1. Checklist dated March 24, 2014: "This Environmental Review Includes Replace Electrical
Vault. Replace MIRL's & Signage RW 18/36, Replace MIRL's & Signage RW 11/29,
Installation of New Internally Lighted Wind Cone. Upgrade MIRL's to LED's & REIL's. and
Replace ALCM's in ATCT to Show New Lighting C onfiC'U ratio n/Co ntro Is". This project
composed of six program elements is currently under contract to BC Company for a contract
price in excess of $1.1 Million. It is designed to illuminate the airport for 20 mile night
visibility and increase s) beyondding
night aviation operations (number of take offs and landings) Z= Z:1
existing status, therefore entails potentially significant impacts, and does not qualify for CE.
2. Checklist dated ALI()USt 10, 2012. "This Environmental Review Includes Design and
Construction of Relocated/Complete Parallel Taxiway A"- Segmenting -out this single
program element ignores TxDOT ACIP dated July 14, 2014 which describes for GTU 2015
CIP 24 project elements at an estimated cost of $8.1 Million including fuel firm relocation
with increased fuel storage, and a second ACIP 2015 project for a GTU Master Plan Update
of one program element with estimated cost of
$200,000. The two ACIP GTU 2015 CIP's are clearly intended to provide service for all
increased air fleet and aviation operations (takeoffs and landings) which entail potential
adverse direct, indirect, secondary, and cumulative environmental impacts and additional
planning for an added 20 years of new projects for even greater expansion of aviation
operations at an already problematic airport site.
Categorical exclusion of the seven program elements reviewed constitutes segmenting of the
larger urban airport maintenance and expansion program, ignores their relationship with and
cumulative impacts when considered among the other 26 interrelated elements of the total
program, and therefore fails to assess all potential inipacts, direct, indirect,, and cumulative, of
the program and its alternatives. Simply put, the GTU's location in the middle Of Our rapidly
growing and expanding city and its current
640 -acre site Situated on the Edwards Recharge Zone (ERZ) mandate that any and all GTU
projects be
incorporated into a full NEPA review through preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement.
The GTU Program was derived from the GTU 2005 Master Plan and further listed in detail as
included in the GTU 2013 Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Case Analysis. The
master plan identifies new and expanding GTU aviation customer needs for a 20 -year period
for an expanding air fleet with increased all weather, clay and night take offs and landings.
The financial Study recognizes those needs and4ecommended new and additional aviation
expansion operations and fixed base operator land leases for inclusion inthe ACIP 2Ol5 GTO
Master Plan Update. This, the complete program ofprojects. does not qualify for Categorical
Exclusion, in part or as a whole. Federal fundinO of the 0TO Pnogrom, all or in part will
constitute o±edcou| action that will result in significant adverse impacts onthe hunuan and
natural euviznnnocu1. Only uconnp|eLe NEPA review, which we believe must be through
preparation of an Eovin000ncota| Impact Stu1ecncoi, will effectively identify the extent Of Such
icopuoie
of the proposed, project and its alternatives. Alternatives Must be examined with attention to
direct, indirect, pcirnary, secondary, and oucoo\oiive impacts. The hosi alternative with vvc()-
dc5ned mitigating and precautionary nucuouree should be ac|eotrd for federal fhnding;
otherwise, federal funding ooust not be provided.
We request u hold on all federal fLindin� for �b� (�TO (�(P pending completion ofafuUNEPA review of the entire prograrn and all practicable alternatives.
Respectfully, J
Huub C. Norris. Jr.
4400 Luna Trail , Texas 7#620(5|2} 868-2718
co:
Mr. F.Clayton Fousb,e,FA/\ Direotor()AE
Mr. Michael Boots, Acting Diccutor, CT�l
The Honorable Do|o Knso. Mayor. City of Georgetown
TxDOT Organization
M